In the 1970's America reached peak oil. America is now importing 2/3 of its oil from other countries. If the world doens't develop a new directly renewable energy with 20-25 years, complete economic, political, and cultural collapse will be imminent and on a global scale. Discuss.

File: 15 KB, 600x600, dogshit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 01:55:01 2011 No.3319549 [Reply] [Original]

In the 1970's America reached peak oil. America is now importing 2/3 of its oil from other countries. If the world doens't develop a new directly renewable energy with 20-25 years, complete economic, political, and cultural collapse will be imminent and on a global scale.

Discuss.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 01:57:01 2011 No.3319563 [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 01:58:01 2011 No.3319566 What is your evidence to support this assertion?

>>	sage sage Sat Jul 2 01:59:01 2011 No.3319572 but all our oil comes from canada, the 51st state. no need to worry

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:01:50 2011 No.3319580 >yfw the usa is sitting on trillions of gallons of oil but refuse to cap it due to 1) green idiots, 2) belief we need a reserve (protip: we dont), 3) certain black presidents would get their panties in a bunch Cap it. Pump it. Create jobs. Live well.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:04:01 2011 No.3319590

Nopers.

Oil will never exceed $120/bbl. At that cost, it becomes more economically effective to extract it from tar sands. Not to mention the other up-and-coming technologies like producing oil precursors from bacteria and/or agricultural waste.

Yes, peak oil, but no, not collapse. Sorry - petrochemicals will be around for a long, long time. One day we will produce them directly using other sources of energy, as our infrastructure is conveniently geared to use them.

What I want to know is: where the fuck is my photovoltaic paint?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:04:01 2011 No.3319595 >>3319572 Not if we choose not to sell it to you. But yes, we will happily bend over as we've been contining to do while your money is still worth something. Think about that.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:05:01 2011 No.3319599

>>3319580
But at what cost to the environment we live in? Sooner or later down the path we've prepared, we're going to dry up precious resources.
By the way OP, there are many other energy resources out there. When the pressure is on and an effort is made, there will be advances made.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:08:01 2011 No.3319611 I think the point of this was to show that oil isn't a sustainable resource. What what is the next best viable resource? What are the implications of failing to find replacement for oil, coal, and natural gas?

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:09:01 2011 No.3319616

>>3319599

You're apparently #1 from that list.

Also,

>implying we don't already have alternative means created for the day fossil fuels run dry
>implying they're not capping them to make life easier on a dire economy to keep its citizens in line; that we haven't already become a totalist, communist government.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:11:01 2011 No.3319627

>>3319611
Agreed wholeheartedly.

Sunlight, probably. Anything further up in the energy chain yields less.

In just six hours, more energy from the sun reaches the Earth's deserts than is consumed by all of humanity in an entire year. Consequently, it would take a relatively small area of desert land to produce all the electric power the world consumes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:12:01 2011 No.3319631 I'll be manly enough by that time and be at my top A game. Worst case scenario I would have lived out the best part of my life already.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:12:01 2011 No.3319633 File: 94 KB, 849x526, CSP_map.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3319627 forgot to post image the surface area needed to power the EU and the whole world, for a year

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:17:01 2011 No.3319645

>>3319627
Yea but the problem is getting the energy to move such a large distance without electrical resistance, and other problems. With super conductivity it might probably work, but you knew that. Personally I'm a fan of nuclear and have been since my father told me about his naval nuke sub days and how safe the Navy is with theirs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:17:01 2011 No.3319646 >>3319633 So 64,000 square miles of solar panels? You are implying this is easily achievable?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:18:01 2011 No.3319647 >>3319572 50 states

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:18:01 2011 No.3319648

>>3319633
Good, now compute the cost of covering that area in photovoltaic panels.

I also hope you are aware that the best efficiency we get is lower than 25%, so you actually need 4 times that area. I also hope you are aware that having long power lines brings about incredibly high dissipation.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:21:01 2011 No.3319658

>>3319616

Do we really have a same to better alternative to oil? Is it really as easy to obtain? Is it any better? Coal and natural gas doesn't come close. Ethanol requires all the available land in the U.S. to manufacture it. Can't stick a nuclear reactor inside your car. Solar isn't even 50% efficient.

The only natural resource that rivals oil in quantity is Thorium, and we still don't have a cost-effective way to convert it into energy.

Any other ideas?

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:21:01 2011 No.3319659
File: 52 KB, 1005x513, IEA 2010 Report.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Evidence to support OP's post is at IEA World Energy Outlook report for 2010 which you will find here:
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/WEO2009_es_english.pdf

pic related

Note that future energy resources are supposed to come from oil "not yet discovered"

Yeah, sure.

Google can show you a picture of a lawn chair in your backyard from space but we can't find that oil

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:21:01 2011 No.3319657

>>3319646
>>3319648
>>3319645
This. Practical application & distribution.

Still, an interesting thing, no? Our primary energy source is the sun, we should find a way to use it.

Reflective solar sails in geosynchronous orbit could focus and concentrate energy on several places on the Earth. Be a lot cheaper than photovoltaics, and distribution is nicely handled by being in space.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:26:01 2011 No.3319675 >>3319657 lol reminds my of the kind of stuff the g.i.joes had.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:32:01 2011 No.3319691 >>3319658 Who knows, maybe the electromagnetic energy in radio waves could be converted into a source of energy if concentrated and in some kind of intense burst. I call it " radio to electrical energy burst" or REEB for short.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:37:01 2011 No.3319706

Lets hear some implications of not finding an alternative to oil? Are we just going to fill our deserts with solar panels? Cover the U.S. in corn to produce ethanol? Build a nuclear plant next to every major water source?

Cultural implications?
Political?
Economic changes?
Doomsday scenarios?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:37:01 2011 No.3319709 thorium reactors. electric motors. this will be the only option. solar, hydroelectric, wind, sure. but only supplemental. and we already have the technology.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:47:01 2011 No.3319728

>>3319706
Well if you go with nuclear remember that the water doesn't automatically become radioactive and that when a reactor is shut down they are relatively safe to go into. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to change a light bulb, check for any kind of leaks etc. Nuke plants use special heat exchangers and all sorts or safely devices. Everything is fine with nuclear, and the better part is that in America we have plenty of yellow cake to go around!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:50:01 2011 No.3319736 >>3319706 I dunno, man. I don't believe the situation would be that dire. Safe nuclear is easy, we've just been lazy and bureaucratic.

>>	sage Sat Jul 2 02:51:01 2011 No.3319737 >>3319595 but if the american dollar went down, the canadian economy would be nuked, seeing as the usa is canada's single largest trading partner, accounting for more than half of canada's economy. think about that

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:53:01 2011 No.3319745 >>3319737 True, but we have: * oil * fresh water * lots of land * weed * beer Sure, our economy would collapse but we wouldn't descend into barbarism with all that. How's your fresh water, oil, weed & beer down there? Oh wait - it comes from Canada.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 02:59:01 2011 No.3319759 >>3319745 The northeast is fine for fresh water, out west no, and the mid west is riding on an old aquifer. The south is OK for water too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:06:01 2011 No.3319786 >>3319745 I don't think canadian tar sands are a viable substitute for anything. It requires more energy to obtain oil from tar sands than it produces. Not to mention the massive strip-mining operations. Can't wait till oil reaches $12/gallon

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:07:01 2011 No.3319790 File: 56 KB, 500x325, Lemongraph.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:09:01 2011 No.3319798 america has enough oil on its own land to support itself for well more than 20years. use your own resources you fucking amerifags.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:13:01 2011 No.3319814 >>3319798 use your first, then ours.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:19:01 2011 No.3319831

>>3319706
As oil becomes more scarce, the rising cost of fuel will make existing alternatives more attractive. Whether there is massive upheaval or a slow shift to other energy sources depends on the situation we actually experience, and it is likely to be different in each region. If all else fails, we can always produce synthetic hydrocarbons, but this is neither cost-effective nor energy-efficient.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:23:01 2011 No.3319845

>>3319814
im from aus,
> a TINY section of our desert (100km x 100km) used for solar power plant would power the world.

> we have more natural gas than you can poke a stick at

> and enough land to use any type of wind generated power.
period.

but then again once nuclear fission is a viable option a body of water the size of a football field and about 50meters deep would also power the world for a year.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:25:01 2011 No.3319851 meant fusion not fission* >>3319845

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:28:01 2011 No.3319859

>>3319745

States

>Plenty of land in already used for produce/food (30% of which is wasted due to excess every year).

>Plenty of fresh water from rockies and northeastern U.S. (make no mistake, any bordering water with Canada would be ours.

>Marijuana is already grown in abundance in the Midwest

>We have enough oil stockpiled to produce medical supplies and plastics (as well as energy) for decades.

>We have enough coal to keep our electricity grid complacent for 100 years.

I know Canadians like to have this whole "we're so unique and independent, makes us better than you". Shit don't work like that. The U.S. would win any war of attrition because of how many necessities we sit on, thanks to our geopolitics.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:30:01 2011 No.3319861

>>3319845

A 100x100 km solar array is quite the undertaking. Have you considered that solar cells are less than 50% efficient? Even deserts have cloudy days? The ecological disaster it would be to cover a 100x100 km square of desert (yes, even deserts are ecological habitats)?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:32:01 2011 No.3319864 we have all the tools we need to power the world. all we need is smart people to use them and politicians to get the fuck out of the way

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:37:01 2011 No.3319874

You guys do realise oil is used to produce:
1) plastics
2) fertilizers and pesticides (for farms)
3) most of your pharmaceuticals
4) a lot of everything else...

Just because you have other sources of energy doesn't mean you've solved the oil problem... and as >>3319786 mentioned, you want to find oil sources where energy extracted exceeds energy invested (why would you dig less oil that you burn to extract it?).

Also, in terms of PORTABLE energy, nothing comes close. Solar doesn't produce enough POWER (ever see a solar car race that involves a hill?), batteries take too long to recharge and who nuclear steam engines are too big for small vehicles...

When EXTRACTABLE oil (very different from TOTAL oil) runs out, everyone is fucked

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:40:01 2011 No.3319880 >>3319861 and solar cells degrade over time, resources needed per energy produced ratio is laughable, and they need energy storage because sun does not shine at night.. advanced nuclear is the best option.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:44:01 2011 No.3319886

>>3319874

>1) plastics

Don't give a fuck

>2) fertilizers and pesticides (for farms)

oooohhh noooo monsanto will lose a tiny bit of its profit still dont give a fuck

>3) most of your pharmaceuticals

implying im a fat as fatass amricunt and need "pharmaceuticals"

>4) a lot of everything else...

like?

when the oil runs out, i will laugh

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:45:01 2011 No.3319888

Would everyone agree that the population increase in the 20th century was/is caused by the increased production use of oil (and its other byproducts)?

If so, wouldn't the disappearance of oil lead to a global decrease in population. China and India are the most populous countries. They are also mass consumers of oil.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:46:01 2011 No.3319889 I heard something about there being shit at the bottom of the gulf of mexico that we can use. They said theres enough to supply the world for a long ass time. Anyone know what im talking about?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:48:01 2011 No.3319893 File: 15 KB, 400x320, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3319888 >> China and India are the most populous countries. >>mass consumers of oil. Gee, I wonder why...

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:51:01 2011 No.3319900

>>3319888
Oil was not the cause of the population increase, but it was a contributing factor to various blah blah blah.

Whether the end of cheap oil will lead to mass death depends on a lot of things we don't yet know, and on the area you're talking about.

Things will probably be much worse in non-first-world nations, as usual.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:52:01 2011 No.3319907 >>3319900 >>contributing factor Maybe people wanted to hump each other? /sci/ is full of fail tonight.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:52:01 2011 No.3319908 >>3319893 Anon makes a point. Without oil, these countries would still be third world dumps. They're both moving up. Could be attributable to a higher consumption of oil and byproducts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:53:01 2011 No.3319909 >>3319889 is it shale oil?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:54:01 2011 No.3319917 >>3319874 Plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers. Most of us wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for most of this shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:54:50 2011 No.3319915 >complete economic, political, and cultural collapse will be imminent and on a global scale Orrrrr you could elect someone who isn't a nigger and doesn't stall and goof around, delaying the approval of the Keystone pipeline.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:56:01 2011 No.3319921 >>3319907 You can't support a larger population than you can feed. Oil is useful both as a fuel and in the production of fertilizer. It can help you feed more people. So, yeah, contributing factor.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 03:56:01 2011 No.3319922 >>3319874 its called making a gain. Gas is 4 bucks a gallon. Fusion power is significantly cheaper by comparison, and by that I mean fucking ridiculous. But we can still sell it at the price we pay for gas,

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 04:01:01 2011 No.3319932

>>3319921
did you ever figure that as our demands grew, our supply grew? what spoonfed shit have they fed you?

if i have more oil, etc than my population consumes, i have a surplus. a surplus can be good, namely lowering prices of these things. or it can be bad, as in no one is buying shit.

a demand(and similar) is created when the population rises. when the surplus starts to lower, I have to A. raise prices as a way to ration it B. find and afford a way to fuel my population.

Basically, the population increase led to oil production, not the other way around.

I mean, unless we're playing ages of empires or some shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 04:01:01 2011 No.3319934 OP doesn't realize that higher prizes will force people to move to alternatives and everything will be fine, the problems will arise only when the government will try to subsidize the cost of oil.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 04:03:01 2011 No.3319940 >>3319874 Fuel can be made from algae Plastics can be made from algae Fertilizers can be made from Nitrogen fixing cyano bacteria Pharmaceuticals can also probably made from algae

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 04:06:01 2011 No.3319949

>>3319932
That's really the point. Population increase leads to an increased demand for oil. Without oil the population cannot increase further. So more oil is required. Oil does not directly cause population growth. It just happens to be a resource that is sometimes necessary for it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 04:10:01 2011 No.3319962 we have lots of oil, but we have even more natural gas. And it's right in my backyard. It's cheaper to extract as well...they just need to start making natural gas powered cars.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 04:11:01 2011 No.3319964

>>3319932

As our demand grew our production increased. The amount of oil on earth is finite. Fertilizers and pharmaceuticals are responsible decreasing mortality rates within the last 100 years. There is no doubt the world population is growing because of increased oil use.

>>3319934

yes. people will be forced to move to alternatives. right now we have none comparable to oil.

what else would you suggest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 04:11:01 2011 No.3319966 >>3319940 At what rate will your algae produce your oil alternative? And at what cost of land and water? i.e. Will it ever meet the CURRENT demand? (It'll meet the future demands when most of the world population dies off...)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 2 04:15:01 2011 No.3319978 I don't see any algae, hydrogen, or natural gas infrastructure to power my car, nor do i see it anytime soon

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 04:15:01 2011 No.3319982

>>3319966
It can be grown off shore or with salt water so it doesn't compete with fresh water sources

>The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km2) which is only 0.42% of the U.S. map

I think that's a bit optimistic but it is many 1,000 of times better than corn as a fuel source also the waste can be made into animal feed to increase omega 3 fatty acid levels in meat.

>>	The chemo that's curing /sci/ Sat Jul 2 04:15:01 2011 No.3319983 NOT FUCKING SCIENCE, WE'RE ENJOYING A TREAT, DERRIK.

Anonymous Sat Jul 2 04:18:01 2011 No.3319994
File: 63 KB, 450x312, 027083e1_algae+vertical[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3319978
You won't see algae because it will just be called diesel, you don't need infrastructure to implement biodiesel, only to grow it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTkotMNXupc

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math