Where is the best place to go to once oil peaks?

funzone36 · November 25, 2005

Ever heard of ITER? We're on the verge of commercial plasma fusion... ITER is likely to be the last experimental fusion reactor before it is ramped into commercial production.[/Quote]

"US to halt nuclear fusion project"

http://www.energybulletin.net/1281.html

"It is possible to shift a modern economy off hydrocarbon dependency, though a combination of conservation technologies, renewables, changes in patterns of logistics, and other measures. However it has been calculated that a change of this magnitude requires long-term planning and incremental application over a period of some half century."

http://www.oildepletion.org/roger/Solutions/solutions.htm

Half a century is what we don't have. Even worse, the ITER is expected to be finished during the year 2016. By that time, Oil production has already peaked and it's going to be too late. Plus, don't think nuclear fusion doesn't use fossil fuels. The energy required to sustain and harness the heat of 15 to 18 million degrees will be from fossil fuels.

If you don't believe in experts, then who do you believe?

Lastly, scientific experts (also known as scientists) invented ITER. Why do you believe in ITER if you don't believe in experts?

navynuke · November 26, 2005

New guy here.

Move to a climate you like, one that is in a stable area geologically speaking, has few hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc.

Then build a sturdy house with a solid basement and stock it with several years worth of food and other essentials, like the Mormons do.

But, make sure that your neighbors don't know you have the stuff or they will come and take it when they get hungry enough.

That might mean living in a Mormon community is best, so most of your neighbors will have their own supplies.

bascule · November 26, 2005

"US to halt nuclear fusion project"

http://www.energybulletin.net/1281.html

Hey look' date=' a dated article saying ITER is stalled because they can't pick a site. Well guess what, they did.

"It is possible to shift a modern economy off hydrocarbon dependency, though a combination of conservation technologies, renewables, changes in patterns of logistics, and other measures. However it has been calculated that a change of this magnitude requires long-term planning and incremental application over a period of some half century."

http://www.oildepletion.org/roger/Solutions/solutions.htm

Here's what you're not understanding: right now oil isn't scarce enough for market forces to warrant intense research into moving away from the oil infrastructure. As the price of oil gradually increases, it will exert more pressure on oil consumers to research alternatives. And thus thanks to market forces the system evolves.

You and the other peak oil lunatics around here (all possibly the same person) are trying to tell me that the system can't evolve fast enough, an idea I personally find ludicrous, especially as we approach the Singularity and the system begins to evolve at an ever increasing rate.

Half a century is what we don't have. Even worse, the ITER is expected to be finished during the year 2016. By that time, Oil production has already peaked and it's going to be too late.

Why is it "too late"? You seem to be making the assumption that the system can't evolve, when in reality the system is evolving at an ever increasing rate.

I mean seriously, what you're describing is going to cause a shift in market forces. That hasn't happened yet and that's why the reaction to the problem has been so minimal. There are multiple solutions to this problem. Not all of them need work! Some, such as fusion, will play a more important solution in the future as humanity's insatiable appetite for energy continues to increase. In the meantime there are all sorts of practical replacements for oil which will be bolstered into mainstream production when market forces so dictate. While it may appear the requisite research has not been conducted at this point in time, and while I'm sure you can point to some peak oil nutjob who's written a paper saying that such and such technology won't be "ready in time" (in time for what? We're looking at a continuum here), all of these technologies are going to be used in conjunction to fight a single overall problem. Hey, how about we step up a continual mandate for more and more fuel efficient vehicles each year? These steps will be taken when necessary, I'm certain, and they will be consciously tuned until the problem is resolved.

It's pointless to speculate about it now. Making sure we're handling the problem effectively is going to be a heuristic process in which policy and market forces dictate the evolution of our energy infrastructure, and the only way we can realistically see if we're solving the problem is by trying it, by marshalling all the disconnected information related to the problem, something all of your doom and gloom papers simply aren't taking into account. If you're saying "it's already too late" for a combined attempt by governments and industry around the world to solve the problem, then all I have to say to you is:

If you're really concerned about the future of humanity, why don't you identify and attempt to raise awareness about existential risks; those things which pose a threat of wiping out all of humanity? Perhaps the biggest example of this right now is the North Korean and Iranian (and all other clandestine) nuclear programs.

Plus, don't think nuclear fusion doesn't use fossil fuels.

That ridiculous point aside, are we running out of "fossil fuels" or "oil" here? I don't hear any nutjob raving about "peak coal" yet...

If you don't believe in experts, then who do you believe?

Someone peer reviewed, with a name, and credentials, not "experts" as an ambiguous, undefined source.

Seriously, this is like Y2K histeria all over again... oh no humanity f***ed up and now we're all doomed! Fear fear fear!

funzone36 · November 26, 2005

As the price of oil gradually increases, it will exert more pressure on oil consumers to research alternatives. And thus thanks to market forces the system evolves.[/Quote]

First, researching is different than developing. Consumers can't develop alternative energies. That's up to the government and scientists. Consumers do need to educate themselves about alternative energies. Consumers don't seem to understand that alternative energies don't work. Second, that's like solving a calculus question while you're starved to death. Oil provides fuel for farm machinery. Oil provides artificial fertilizers. Oil provides pesticides. Without oil, there is no food. Without food, you can't develop alternative energies. You can't solve a calculus question if you're starved to death. That's why I say it's going to be too late if we wait for the day when oil peaks. Third, oil companies will be pressured to pump up more oil. Why? Oil is cheaper than alternative energies. If they're losing money, they'll obviously go for the cheaper way to gain money.

I don't understand "Singularity". What is that?

The reaction is minimum because the media haven't published enough to educate the average consumer. Why haven't the media published anything about peak oil? If the average consumer knows about peak oil, everyone will stop consuming and the whole economy will come down. A similar scenerio is possible with oil. If oil prices are too high then consumers will stop paying for gasoline. In the end, oil companies will lose money. The government will lose money. Without money, there will be no developments in alternative energies.

Hey, how about we step up a continual mandate for more and more fuel efficient vehicles each year?[/Quote]

"What About Large-Scale Efforts at Conserving Energy or Becoming More Energy Efficient?"

Amazingly, such efforts will actually make our situation worse. This probably makes absolutely no sense unless you understand how the modern day banking and monetary system works. To illustrate, let's revisit Jevon's Paradox, explained above, with an example:

Pretend you own a computer store and that your monthly energy bill, as of December 2004, is $1,000. You then learn about the coming energy famine and decide to do your part by conserving as much as possible. You install energy efficient lighting, high quality insulation, and ask your employees to wear sweaters so as to minimize the use of your store's heating system.

After implementing these conservation measures, you manage to lower your energy bill by 50% - down to $500 per month.

While you certainly deserve a pat-on-the-back and while your business will certainly become more profitable as a result of your conservation efforts, you have in no way helped reduce our overall energy appetite. In fact, you have actually increased it.

At this point, you may be asking yourself, "How could I have possibly increased our total energy consumption when I just cut my own consumption by $500/month? That doesn't seem to make common sense . . .?"

Well think about what you're going to do with that extra $500 per month you saved. If you're like most people, you're going to do one of two things:

1. You will reinvest the $500 in your business. For instance,

you might spend the $500 on more advertising. This will

bring in more customers, which will result in more

computers being sold. Since, as mentioned previously, the

average desktop computer consumes 10X it's weight in

fossil-fuels just during its construction, your individual

effort at conserving energy has resulted in the

consumption of more energy.

2. You will simply deposit the $500 in your bank account

where it will accumulate interest. Since you're not using

the money to buy or sell anything, it can't possibly be

used to facilitate an increase in energy consumption,

right?

Wrong. For every dollar a bank holds in deposits, it will loan out

between six and twelve dollars. These loans are then used by the bank's customers to do everything from starting businesses to making down payments on vehicles to purchasing computers.

Thus, your $500 deposit will allow the bank to make between $3,000 and $6,000 in loans - most of which will be used to buy, build,or transport things using fossil fuel energy.

Typically, Jevon's Paradox is one of the aspects of our situation that people find difficult to get their minds around. Perhaps one additional example will help clarify it:

Think of our economy as a giant petroleum powered machine that turns raw materials into consumer goods which are later turned into garbage:f you remove the machine's internal inefficiencies, the extra energy is simply reinvested into the petroleum supply side of the machine. The machine then consumes petroleum and spits out garbage at an even faster rate.

The only way to get the machine to consume less petroleum is for whoever owns/operates the machine to press the button that says "slow-down." However, since we are all dependent on the machine for jobs, food, affordable health care, subsidies for alternative forms of energy, etc., nobody is going to lobby the owners/operators of the machine to press the "slow-down" button until it's too late.

Eventually (sooner than later) the petroleum plug will get pulled and the machine's production will sputter before grinding to a halt. At that point, those of us dependent on the machine (which means all of us) will have to fight for whatever scraps it manages to spit out.

To be clear: conservation will benefit you as an individual. If, for instance, you save $100/month on your energy bills, you can roll that money into acquiring skills or resources that will benefit you as we slide down the petroleum-production downslope. But since your $100 savings will result in a net increase in the energy consumed by society as a whole, it will actually cause us to slide down the downslope faster.[/Quote]

There you go on why more efficient vehicles won't work.

all of these technologies are going to be used in conjunction to fight a single overall problem.[/Quote]
"Can't We Use a Combination of
the Alternatives to Replace Oil?"

Absolutely. Despite their individual shortcomings, it is still possible for the world economy to run on a basket of alternative sources of energy - so long as we immediately get all of the following:

1.A few dozen technological breakthroughs;

2.Unprecedented political will and bipartisan cooperation;

3.Tremendous international collaboration;

4.Massive amounts of investment capital;

5.Fundamental reforms to the banking system;

6.No interference from the oil-and-gas industries;

7.About 25-50 years of general peace and prosperity to

retrofit the world's $45 trillion dollar per year economy,

including transportation and telecommunication

networks, manufacturing industries, agricultural

systems, universities, hospitals, etc. , to run on these

new sources of energy.

8.A generation of engineers, scientists, and economists

trained to run a global economy powered by new

sources of energy.

If we get all of the above, we might be able to get the energy equivalent of 3-5 billion barrels of oil per year from alternative sources.

That's a tremendous amount of oil - about as much as the entire world used per year during the 1950s, but it's nowhere near enough to keep our currently mammoth-sized yet highly volatile global economic system going. The world currently requires over 30 billion barrels/1.2 trillion gallons of oil per year to support economic growth. That requirement will only increase as time goes on due to population growth, debt servicing, and the industrialization of nations such as China and India.

So even if the delusionally optimistic 8-step scenario described above is somehow miraculously manifested, we're still facing a 70-90% reduction in the amount of energy available to us. A 70-90% reduction would be extremely painful, but not the "end of the world" if it wasn't for the fact that, as explained above, the monetary system will collapse in the absence of a constantly increasing energy supply. If a shortfall between demand and supply of 5% is enough to send prices up by 400%, what to you think a shortfall of 70-90% is going to do?

To make matters worse, even if the all of the above obstacles are assumed away, we are still faced with the problem of "economic doubling time." If the economy grows at a healthy clip of 3.5% per year, it doubles in size every 20 years. That growth must be fueled by an energy supply that doubles just as quickly. Thus, our total "energy debt" will have compounded itself by the time we have made any major strides in switching to alternative sources of energy. [/Quote]

There you go on why a combination of alternative energies won't work.

Original source for both quotes: http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

The link have additional reasons why alternative energies don't work.

For nuclear fusion, there can be a tritium leak. A tritium leak is very dangerous.

http://www.ccnr.org/tritium_1.html

France will get to host the project to build a 10bn-euro (£6.6bn) nuclear fusion reactor, in the face of strong competition from Japan.[/Quote]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm

10bn-euro (£6.6bn) to build one nuclear fusion reactor is too expensive. For large-scale production, you will need to build thousands of nuclear reactor. Do the math and you'll know how much it costs. The coming recession will obviously be a big challenge to accomplish large-scale production of nuclear fusion energy.

Also, the products of nuclear fusion is only electricity. Oil provides more than electricity. It provides plastics, rubber, fertilizers, pesticides, etc......

Also, nations can develop a fusion bomb if nuclear fusion works.

More technology will only make us more dependent on technology.

Fifteen gallons of gasoline in a car's tank are the energy equal of 15 tons of storage batteries. Even if much improved storage batteries were devised, they cannot compete with gasoline or diesel fuel in energy density. Also, storage batteries become almost useless in very cold weather, storage capacity is limited, and batteries need to be replaced after a few years use at large cost. There is no battery pack which can effectively move heavy farm machinery over miles of farm fields, and no electric battery system seems even remotely able to propel a Boeing 747 14 hours nonstop at 600 miles an hour from New York to Cape Town (now the longest scheduled plane flight). Also, the considerable additional weight to any vehicle using batteries is a severe handicap in itself. In transport machines, electricity is not a good replacement for oil (Jensen and Sorensen, 1984). This is a limitation in the use of alternative sources have where electricity is the end product.[/Quote]
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm

That is another limitation of using electricity for transportation.

Even if electric cars were possible, they will still require roads and highways. Well, asphalt is made from oil. Without oil, there is no asphalt. No oil, no roads.

THE COMING COPPER CRUNCH[/Quote]
http://www.energybulletin.net/556.html

Copper is running out. Silver is already out. In the end, modern society will need to use other conductors for electricity. Other conductors that are inefficient. Also, copper is used in the construction of water pipes. When copper gets exhausted, copper will never be used again for water pipes.

At one time, lead pipes were used for water supply distribution. Then, the standard became galvanized steel piping and then, copper piping. Today, many domestic water systems use either CPVC (chlorinated polyvinyl chloride) polyethylene or copper.[/Quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_water_system

Lead, copper, plastics and steel are all running out. Say goodbye to your water pipes.

A significant global lead market deficit is forecast for 2004.[/Quote]

http://www.kitcometals.com/commentaries/Roberts/may312004.html

Without lead, there is no batteries for electrical storage since most batteries need lead.

greater quantities of helium are used in the liquid form to cool the superconducting wires needed to generate high magnetic fields[/Quote]
Unfortunately, helium is in short supply on earth. We only have a few more years until it is exhausted.

http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cinnov/31/i06/html/06chem.html

The moon does have helium as China wants to go on the moon during year 2017. That is after the oil crash. Also, plastics are used as a heat-resistant material for the space shuttle. No plastics, no space shuttle. Plastics are also used for airplanes, modern medicine, etc...

Nuclear fusion currently makes up 0% of total global energy production.

Why is it "too late"?[/Quote]
Because the development of nuclear fusion will take another half a century.

Many technical problems remain to be solved however, and a working commercial nuclear fusion reactor is about 35 to 50 years away.[/Quote]

http://www.powerfrontiers.com/nuclear.html

the current estimate is that R&D will need further promotion totalling around € 60-80 billion over a period of 50 years or so[/Quote]

http://www.tab.fzk.de/en/projekt/zusammenfassung/ab75.htm

Even if fusion technology is developed faster, nobody will buy it, because it will be too expensive.[/Quote]

http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/More_HTML/Artsimovich/PKKawPaper.html

As far as Fusion itself goes:

We achieved fusion temps in 78.

82 started construction of TFTR reactor

83 achieved break even

85 started construction on Sperical Torus

87 NOVA Laser Fusion

91 Begin planning for ITER reactor (goal is to produce 500 MW for 5 min)

94 TFTR produces 10 MW of power

00 Complete prototype for ITER

02 Medium Symetric Torus

05 Agree on French siting of ITER

future

06 Begin US prod of Super Cond wire for ITER

08 Self generate plasma current

10 National Ignition Facility (alternate approach to Fusion)

12 Confirm stability of high temp plasma

16 ITER first Plasma

25 Achieve high power fusion power for extended periods

25 Design first generation of Fusion power plants

~50 First generation Fusion Power plants become operational[/Quote]

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/problems-with-nuclear-fusion_3363.html

Note that it takes 25 years to build one nuclear fusion reactor. For large-scale production, we need to build thousands.

Even if you ignore all the other disadvantages of nuclear fusion, it will take another 50 years to convert all 70 million internal combustion engines in the world excluding aircraft engines to electric engines. Plus, electric engines isn't powerful enough to power aircraft anyways.

In conclusion, nuclear fusion is just as bad as other alternative energies.

his is like Y2K histeria all over again[/Quote]
Y2K was "if". Peak oil is NOT "if" but "when".

are trying to tell me that the system can't evolve fast enough[/Quote]
The system will evolve back into the stone age.

http://dieoff.org/page125.htm

Did I mention that biodiversity, forests and arable land is also getting exhausted? Well, I will talk about that if you want me to.

I got all my knowledge from everywhere on the net. There are even books about peak oil. And you to say the issue of peak oil doesn't exist. Even President Bush's energy advisor believes in peak oil. The war on the middle east was because of oil. Anymore objections? I'm ready for more since peak oil is clearly inevitable.

For people who believe in peak oil, check this list of links to learn more about peak oil:

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Links.html

I gathered all information from those list of links.

Now, you know why we must go back to the stone age. It's not just oil. Everything is getting depleted. The evidence is all over the net. The only thing that is not getting exhausted is the human population. Well, that is about to change. World War 3 will start. Starvation will start. Recessions will start. A dark age is just waiting around the corner. Enjoy your high standard of living. It will be gone soon...............

bascule · November 28, 2005

There you go on why a combination of alternative energies won't work.

Original source for both quotes: http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

The link have additional reasons why alternative energies don't work.

Okay' date=' let's check this guy's credentials:

Matt Savinar was born and raised in California. He received his undergraduate degree in Political Science from the University of California at Davis. He received his law degree from the University of California at Hastings College of the Law, is a California licensed attorney.

So why should I bother listening to his predictions?

"Can't We Use a Combination of
the Alternatives to Replace Oil?"

Absolutely. Despite their individual shortcomings, it is still possible for the world economy to run on a basket of alternative sources of energy - so long as we immediately get all of the following:

1.A few dozen technological breakthroughs;

2.Unprecedented political will and bipartisan cooperation;

3.Tremendous international collaboration;

4.Massive amounts of investment capital;

5.Fundamental reforms to the banking system;

6.No interference from the oil-and-gas industries;

7.About 25-50 years of general peace and prosperity to

retrofit the world's $45 trillion dollar per year economy,

including transportation and telecommunication

networks, manufacturing industries, agricultural

systems, universities, hospitals, etc. , to run on these

new sources of energy.

8.A generation of engineers, scientists, and economists

trained to run a global economy powered by new

sources of energy.

If we get all of the above, we might be able to get the energy equivalent of 3-5 billion barrels of oil per year from alternative sources.

Where did he get these figures? His ass? It just seems like he's coming up with unsubstantiated answers to questions asked about his unsubstantiated premise.

This is why the peer review process is so important. It gives other specialists in the same field (of course, as a lawyer and polysci major I don't believe he's remotely qualified to be making as specific predictions as he does above, nor do I believe his predictions are remotely on target) the chance to chime in with their thoughts on the matter being addressed.

I certainly admit I'm not qualified to provide a point by point deconstruction of this guy's material, but I know a pathological meme when I see it. Anyone screaming "Society is going to collapse!" without some sound methodology behind their thinking is just trying to get attention. It doesn't mean society is going to collapse.

As for me, I expect to see the Von Neumann Universal Constructor within my lifetime, at which point all material shortages are irrelevant.

Oh, here's another gem of unmitigated stupidity:

Fifteen gallons of gasoline in a car's tank are the energy equal of 15 tons of storage batteries. Even if much improved storage batteries were devised, they cannot compete with gasoline or diesel fuel in energy density. Also, storage batteries become almost useless in very cold weather, storage capacity is limited, and batteries need to be replaced after a few years use at large cost. There is no battery pack which can effectively move heavy farm machinery over miles of farm fields, and no electric battery system seems even remotely able to propel a Boeing 747 14 hours nonstop at 600 miles an hour from New York to Cape Town (now the longest scheduled plane flight). Also, the considerable additional weight to any vehicle using batteries is a severe handicap in itself. In transport machines, electricity is not a good replacement for oil (Jensen and Sorensen, 1984). This is a limitation in the use of alternative sources have where electricity is the end product.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm

That is another limitation of using electricity for transportation.

Psst. Ever heard of hydrogen fuel cells?

Even if electric cars were possible, they will still require roads and highways. Well, asphalt is made from oil. Without oil, there is no asphalt. No oil, no roads.

Ever heard of coal tar?

See, you're just looking at the grid all wrong. It's not built out of a bunch of little, irreplacable parts to the point where if you remove one the whole thing comes crashing down. The grid self-assembles itself out of whatever is the most convenient materials available (economically). Run out of one and there are a dozen others that can be used in its stead. Run out of all of those? We'll just invent more...

Certainly components can become infrastructural, but the infrastructure can develop in parallel to the point that the older infrastructure is phased out when the advantages of a newer infrastructure give it an economic advantage.

None of this is going to change your mind, but you really need to be more critical about your sources.

Look for peer reviewed studies, then see what their peers have to say.

The reaction is minimum because the media haven't published enough to educate the average consumer. Why haven't the media published anything about peak oil?

Because there's no substantiated scientific study which claims that humanity is incapible of transitioning to non-petroleum based energy infrastructures? Because there's nothing to indicate that we won't simply be filling our cars up with ethanol, kerosene, hydrogen, or one of a hundred other potential fuels around which our energy infrastructure can transition to?

If the average consumer knows about peak oil, everyone will stop consuming and the whole economy will come down.

Of course, it's all a big conspiracy.

**ecoli** · November 28, 2005

To answer the original question, I would consider joining the Amish people. They don't appear to be all that dependent on crude oil supplies.

Try the Mennonites instead, they're less crazy, use petroleum energy, though a lot less then the average person. So there life style isn't too alien from most.

navynuke · November 28, 2005

I think what will happen first is for us to start making the best use decisions about each fuel source. Certainly Nuclear's best use is to make base load electricity, displacing all our coal fired plants, thus leaving coal for conversion to less dirty forms of fuel. Natural gas can be used for cars, home heating, and combined cycle gas turbine peaking plants, but which is the best use?

Probably for peaking plants and home heating? Home heating can be done with electricity using earth coupled heat pumps cheaper than most any fossil fuel, but that won't work where the soil is too dry for good thermal transfer.

Better built homes will be a must and Congress needs to mandate stricter building codes accordingly. We don't have the land for biofuels, unless we start collecting all the waste green stuff, even tree trimmings and lawn clippings. Every acre of land devoted to biofuels means an acre lost to food production. Oil's best use now, and likely for the next 50 years, is for gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and other fuels derived from the refining process.

And, dare I say it, we might have to learn to live more like the Amish, Mennonites, etc. Lifestyle changes are in our future, like it or not.

There won't be any place for most of us to go that isn't already occupied by somebody else, so it is best to adapt right where we are.

funzone36 · November 28, 2005

Ever heard of hydrogen fuel cells?[/Quote]

Fuel cells requires platinum. There isn't a lot of platinum left on Earth. Plus, hydrogen will leak out in any container since it's the lightest of all gases. Once it's leaked out, who knows what happens. It might bond with the ozone layer and deplete it. Also, hydrogen is highly explosive and it produces an invisible flame. Hydrogen is not a fuel but a energy carrier. And think about how heavy it is to transport hydrogen. You need to condense it at more than -500 degrees celcius. Plus, it's expensive and requires lots of time to convert every internal combustion engine (70 million) to work with fuel cells. You also need lots of FRESH water to build one car. Do you know how much fresh water is left for us? Do you know what metals are needed to manufacture a car when so much metals are in short supply? Do you know how long it takes to design a car? 10 years.

Ever heard of coal tar?[/Quote]

Coal releases more carbon dioxide than oil. Ever heard of global warming?

As for me, I expect to see the Von Neumann Universal Constructor within my lifetime, at which point all material shortages are irrelevant.[/Quote]
We'll just invent more...[/Quote]

Really? Well, take a look at this article from NewScientist Magazine (#1 Science and Technology news service):

"Entering a dark age of innovation"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7616

Looks like we're not gonna invent anything much in the future. Plus, all technology requires energy. The energy to mine, extract, and refine raw materials. The energy to transport raw materials. The energy to use that raw material and contruct the technology. There is a limited amount of raw materials on Earth. We haven't discovered any new elements in the last few decades. All new elements are man-made. Your Von Neumann Universal Constructor won't likely become a reality since we are entering a dark age of innovation.

"Peak Oil – Peak Technology"

by Pat Murphy

http://www.energybulletin.net/3735.html

So why should I bother listening to his predictions?[/Quote]

Because you don't know why those words are untrue. There's nothing there that I think is false. It's not him that is making those predictions. He got all his facts from somewhere else. Want his references? Read the full version of his book using acrobat reader and scroll all the way to the bottom:

http://www.uploading.com/?get=A53SO47I

Ever heard that ethanol is highly unefficient? Keresene is also one of oil's various refined derivative forms. All fuels other than fossil fuels do not have the potential to replace oil.

Because there's no substantiated scientific study[/Quote]

Did you know that scientific studies that are published publicly are part of the media? You want a scientist to prove to you that peak oil is real? Here:

"A prominent physicist warns in a new book that the world is running out of oil and we’re not doing anything to stave off the coming crisis"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/

Will this physicist change your mind? I don't know.

Expect more scientific articles publishing peak oil as we get nearer and nearer to the day of peak oil.

Look for peer reviewed studies, then see what their peers have to say.[/Quote]

Now, you read what people say about his work:

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Letters.html

Do you see anything like "Oh, this is completely untrue"? NO. Maybe you can try sending a letter to him if you so think his work is untrue.

You should trust someone in political science since the government knows the most about peak oil. The government controls everything including the media. They control what the public should know or what the public should not know.

Why do you think President Bush spends 150 billions dollars on the war on middle east? Why do you think President Bush sends 150000 troops to the Middle East? There no better explaination than oil. President Bush would have spend its money on alternative energies if they had so much potential. But in reality, they don't.

The media also put a lot of emphasis on alternative energies. It's a curse that lets you believe that they work. Don't get trapped in that curse. If you've studied physics or the laws of thermodynamics, then you would have known why alternative energies are so inefficient.

Metal supplies are also very expensive:

http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA436066.html

http://www.tdctrade.com/report/mkt/mkt_041102.htm

http://www.nealloys.com/pdfs/InsiderOct0405.pdf

If the energy used to extract these metals (fossil fuels/charcoal) is exhausted, then we will have no more metals. Charcoal is produced from wood ashes. You know deforestation and how it destroys habitats for species? Know that one species are getting extincted every 20 minutes? Know how much oxygen is left if we cut down all trees?

Also, many renewable energies use metals as their raw materials. Did I mention batteries needs metals too?

None of this is going to change your mind[/Quote]

So far, you haven't shown me anything that will change my mind. I shown you lots of information to change your mind. Not sure if you need more or not. Also, you fail to realize the disadvantages of alternative energies. There's no such thing as perfect. Even oil is not perfect with its greenhouse emissions.

padren · November 28, 2005

Fuel cells requires platinum. There isn't a lot of platinum left on Earth. Plus' date=' hydrogen will leak out in any container since it's the lightest of all gases. Also, hydrogen is highly explosive and it produces an invisible flame. Hydrogen is not a fuel but a energy carrier.
[/quote']

Just FYI, unless the friend that told me is mistaken, platinum is just the most effecient material for utilizing hydrogen -> electricity. There are cheaper alternatives that are simply less effecient. Also, hydrogen can be burned, which only produces water as a byproduct.

Coal releases more carbon dioxide than oil. Ever heard of global warming?

If I recall you can burn coal very effeciently at the right temperature and with additional processes.

Really? Well' date=' take a look at this article from NewScientist Magazine (#1 Science and Technology news service):

"Entering a dark age of innovation"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7616

Looks like we're not gonna invent anything much in the future. Plus, all technology requires energy. The energy to mine, extract, and refine raw materials. The energy to transport raw materials. The energy to use that raw material and contruct the technology. There is a limited amount of raw materials on Earth. We haven't discovered any new elements in the last few decades. All new elements are man-made. Your Von Neumann Universal Constructor won't likely become a reality since we are entering a dark age of innovation.

[/quote']

I am sorry but did you even look at his graph?

He says we are at half now, where we were in 1855. Do you think that the incredible decline he points out means we've experienced a dark age lacking in innovation since then?

He is tallying the number of innovations without regard at all for how much they impact life in general.

Why do we need new elements when we are constantly finding new and exciting things we can do with existing ones? The reason the periodic table has not grown with more natural elements is because they are plentiful enough they were all discovered a while ago.

And please don't confuse a decline in the rate of increasing innovation with the stagnation of innovation. These are very different, and even if the former were true in what we've been experiencing since 1855 it sure hasn't treated us badly as far as improvements of standards of living goes.

Look, I'll be the first to admit that crashes occur. Easter Island nearly exhausted all of their resources when European ships discovered them, and if I recall there was a major fish stocks collapse in Eastern Canada a while back.

Tons of people went on welfare and I am sure lots of wealthy people who were active in politics lost a lot of money with their fisheries. Since they knew the collapse was coming, you'd think they'd have done something but it happened anyway.

I won't say that humans are immune to the potential of ecological or economic collapse.

I will say, that the energy crisis doesn't worry me too much, because in this case, we really do have a lot of other potential sources of energy.

If there is a partial collapse, wealthy nations will maintain access to remaining oil supplies by force or weath, while other nations suffer partial collapse, but in that case, there will be very significant market forces within the functioning states to supply new solutions to the struggling ones for a good profit. There will not be an "ohnoes!" moment of starvation and collapse as you say.

Also, may I remind you that even rockets use hydrogen and oxygen - not jet fuel, so we know the chemical energy released per the mass of those elements combining is more than compact enough for airplanes.

Geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, solar, energy sources can all produce electricity, which can be converted into hydrogen very effeciently (just add water, even sea water).

Hydrogen can be burned as a combustable fuel source as it is in rockets, or it can be used to generate electrical power - even without platinum.

You say you have no reason to say those experts are wrong, but the stuff you've quoted from them have blatantly weak logic. I am not saying it can't happen, or even that it won't, but when you quote an expert who became an expert because they decided to "research" how right their foregone conclusions are...you are asking for bad results.

They say "we need batteries in farm equipment" - no we don't. They say "we need more platinum than is available" when that is also false. They say we'll have a universal spontainious collapse when there is no basis for such a comment.

When you decide to present an argument, try your best to disprove yourself before you argue it. The result is you'll propose much more rigoriously tested arguments that are harder to refute. Always try to debate both sides of an issue especially when you are sure you are right in your personal stance.

But regarding the opening post, if it gets bad afterall, I'd consider the Amish thing but I really like buttons....so I'd research what imports Iceland has, and consider going there. If that doesn't work out, I'd hit the beach somewhere tropical and setup a homemade distillery.

Then there is always Australlia, get a cool car and a bunch of guns, and duke it out with people in the thunderdome.

funzone36 · November 29, 2005

They say "we need more platinum than is available" when that is also false.[/Quote]

http://static.highbeam.com/f/fuelcelltechnologynews/february012000/platinumshortage/

Please do some research first.

They say "we need batteries in farm equipment"[/Quote]
Apparently, I can't find where it says that. Also, when oil peaks, I guarantee farm equipment (tractors) might have batteries or else, what will power them? Fuel cells (fool cells) are already explained why they're useless.

Geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, solar, energy sources can all produce electricity, which can be converted into hydrogen very effeciently (just add water, even sea water).[/Quote]

Yeah right. Give me a study about that. And do you have any idea how much more expensive they are? And do you have any idea how much percentage alternative energies have in terms of global energy production?

Then there is always Australlia[/Quote]
Australia will soon turn into a total deserted continent.

They say we'll have a universal spontainious collapse when there is no basis for such a comment. [/Quote]
The evidence is all over the 2 pages if you read them thoroughly.

but the stuff you've quoted from them have blatantly weak logic[/Quote]
Unfortunately, you don't know why it has weak logic. If you do, please explain.

or it can be used to generate electrical power -even without platinum.[/Quote]
Do you have a study for that.

Also, may I remind you that even rockets use hydrogen and oxygen[/Quote]
Do you know the ratio of rockets to aircraft? For every rocket, there are thousands of aircraft. Fuel cells cannot be used for large-scale production.

I will say, that the energy crisis doesn't worry me too much, because in this case, we really do have a lot of other potential sources of energy.[/Quote]

Because all you know are the advantages but not the disadvantages of alternative energies.

unless the friend that told me is mistaken[/Quote]
I need a professional, not a friend's evidence.

If I recall you can burn coal very effeciently at the right temperature and with additional processes.[/Quote]
Where did you recall that?

bascule · November 29, 2005

Okay, I'm getting really tired of responding to this peak oil alarmism, but I'll touch upon the most egregious of inaccuracies in this post.

Fuel cells requires platinum. There isn't a lot of platinum left on Earth.

Not a lot of platinum left on earth? Why? Are we launching it all into space?

Who says there isn't? Do you have a study, or are you just going to say that any technological solution to the peak oil problem is infeasible because it relies on raw materials, and if we're running out of oil than by fallacious logic we must be running out of everything.

Plus, hydrogen will leak out in any container since it's the lightest of all gases.

You heard it here first folks: Humans have no way of storing hydrogen.

Once it's leaked out, who knows what happens. It might bond with the ozone layer and deplete it.

FEAR! Wait, does that even make a lick of sense?

Also, hydrogen is highly explosive and it produces an invisible flame.

When I built my own Huffman apparatus, collected approximately 2L of hydrogen and combusted it, it made a bright white flash.

Hydrogen is not a fuel but a energy carrier.

According to WordNet:

fuel

n : a substance that can be consumed to produce energy

So what is the purpose of the semantic distinction between "fuel" and "energy carrier" that you're attempting to make?

And think about how heavy it is to transport hydrogen.

And it's not "heavy..to transport" gasoline?

You need to condense it at more than -500 degrees celcius.

And gee, all this time I thought absolute zero was -273.15 C.

Plus, it's expensive and requires lots of time to convert every internal combustion engine (70 million) to work with fuel cells.

Clearly an interim solution, perhaps kerosene, ethanol, biodiesel, or hundreds of other fuels which can work with existing vehicles is required.

You also need lots of FRESH water to build one car. Do you know how much fresh water is left for us?

Fresh water is a renewable resource...

Coal releases more carbon dioxide than oil. Ever heard of global warming?

I happen to work in climate science. Our research group studies global warming. Our hypothesis happens to be that CO₂ is not a first order climate forcing.

Really? Well, take a look at this article from NewScientist Magazine (#1 Science and Technology news service):

"Entering a dark age of innovation"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7616

Looks like we're not gonna invent anything much in the future.

So, let me get this straight: The rate at which patents are filed is increasing, but because the number of patents per capita is decreasing "we're not gonna invent anything much in the future"?

Plus, all technology requires energy. The energy to mine, extract, and refine raw materials. The energy to transport raw materials. The energy to use that raw material and contruct the technology.

Okay, your point?

There is a limited amount of raw materials on Earth.

So you weren't going anywhere with that schpiel about energy.

Yes, Earth has finite mass with a particular statistical breakdown of given elements and their presence in the crust. Your point?

We haven't discovered any new elements in the last few decades. All new elements are man-made.

Considering all of these "new elements" are extremely unstable, I don't see them being particularly useful to humanity. What's your point?

Well, that's the end of that schpiel of yours. Guess you never ended up getting to the point...

Your Von Neumann Universal Constructor won't likely become a reality since we are entering a dark age of innovation.

I already covered why that interpretation isn't particularly intelligent.

Ever heard that ethanol is highly unefficient?

Efficient in what terms?

Volumetrically ethanol is 25% less efficient than gasoline. However ethanol is up to 50% cheaper by volume. So economically ethanol is more efficient: you simply require a larger gas tank.

As to how much ethanol's energy outputs exceed the energy inputs of the production process, that's a matter of serious debate. An analysis conducted in 1988 concluded that at that time energy generated by the ethanol exceeded energy inputs by 16%. According to a more recent USDA study that figure is closer to 34%.

Keresene is also one of oil's various refined derivative forms. All fuels other than fossil fuels do not have the potential to replace oil.

Apparently you aren't aware that kerosene was originally known as "coal oil"

Ugh, I can't take it anymore... make it stop.

funzone36 · November 29, 2005

Ugh, I can't take it anymore... make it stop.[/Quote]
Okay, I'm getting really tired of responding to this peak oil alarmism[/Quote]

Ok. Look. I'm not forcing you to respond to this peak oil thread. You can decide to ignore this thread if it bothers you so much.

Not a lot of platinum left on earth? Why? Are we launching it all into space?[/Quote]

No. It's because of the manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells.

are you just going to say that any technological solution to the peak oil problem is infeasible because it relies on raw materials, and if we're running out of oil than by fallacious logic we must be running out of everything.[/Quote]

You got it! That is my point in all this. That is my point.

Who says there isn't? Do you have a study[/Quote]
Yes! Here it is:

The world has 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum reserves. There are approximately 700 million internal combustion engines on the road. Ten grams of platinum per fuel cell x 700 million fuel cells = 7 billion grams of platinum, or practically every gram of platinum in the earth.[/Quote]
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Platinum.html

When I built my own Huffman apparatus, collected approximately 2L of hydrogen and combusted it, it made a bright white flash.[/Quote]
So, what's your point?

fuel
n : a substance that can be consumed to produce energy[/Quote]

LOL. You know what it means but you still don't get it. You can't consume hydrogen. You only get energy when hydrogen bonds with oxygen.

And it's not "heavy..to transport" gasoline?[/Quote]

But it's way heavier. It's like placing 10 gallons on gasoline into a car.

"it is not a convenient replacement for pouring 10 gallons of gasoline into an automobile fuel tank."

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm

And gee, all this time I thought absolute zero was -273.15 C.[/Quote]

Whoops. I accidently typed it wrong. It's actually minus 2530C.

Clearly an interim solution, perhaps kerosene, ethanol, biodiesel, or hundreds of other fuels which can work with existing vehicles is required.[/Quote]

I already explained why that won't work.

Fresh water is a renewable resource...[/Quote]
But because of industrial and irrigation systems, fresh water has been decreased. That's why citizens living in the middle east fights for water.

I happen to work in climate science. Our research group studies global warming. Our hypothesis happens to be that CO2 is not a first order climate forcing.[/Quote]

But CO2 still plays a role in global warming.

So, let me get this straight: The rate at which patents are filed is increasing, but because the number of patents per capita is decreasing "we're not gonna invent anything much in the future"?[/Quote]
Yes.

Okay, your point?[/Quote]
I already explained what my point is.

Yes, Earth has finite mass with a particular statistical breakdown of given elements and their presence in the crust. Your point?[/Quote]

Because it's finite, materials will eventually run out.

Efficient in what terms?[/Quote]

"Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One"

http://www.energybulletin.net/5062.html

One can only wonder why I can always counter your writing. One can also only wonder why they still don't believe peak oil when all the evidence is right in front of their eyes.

**ecoli** · November 29, 2005

But because of industrial and irrigation systems, fresh water has been decreased. That's why citizens living in the middle east fights for water.

In the southwest united States too. The columbia river no longer empties into the gulf of California.

**ecoli** · November 29, 2005

good, thourough post, as usual, peakoilman

Martin · November 29, 2005

Oil will peak during the next decade. I must prepare now to be able to survive. I'm currently looking for a new location to live and learning to make my own food, shelter, water and clothes.

FUNZONE, that is a reasonable question. but try to answer gradually before talking about food clothing self-sufficiency

one thing at a time

Maybe you want to consider if these are good suggestions? Or think of other criteria?

1. move somewhere you dont have huge AIRCONDITIONING energy requ. just to be comfortable in summer

2. dont live in the suburbs of a huge urban sprwl where you have a huge COMMUTE energy req. just to get to work. If you go urban then move somwehere there is well entrenched light rail or other efficient mass transit.

3. unless you are planning to own woodland where you can harvest wood energy move somewhere is MILD WINTERS where you dont have a huge heating bill just to be comfortable

==================

you can probably find somewhere in the USA where you can live comfortably even with high energy prices-----as long as the economy survives and we dont have a major recession.

so consider staying in the USA, but suppose you decide on moving to some more stable society where their economy is on a solider footing to survive high energy prices. I am not saying to do this, but suppose.

===================

if you are considering outside USA then what ecoli said is suggestive

4. pick some small well-managed country where they have reasonable energy self-sufficiency

A. iceland heats buildings and generates power with geo steam, and they have a lot of fish. they probly be all right

B. norway has heaps of hydropower and forest IIRC

C. denmark has a bunch of windpower, they already get a substantial fraction of their electricity from wind

Being among rational educated people who know how to cooperate for common welfare and security is probly safer than being alone trying a one-family self-sufficiency stunt.

=============

those are just some ideas. Do you have different ideas?

bascule · November 29, 2005

Yes! Here it is:

The world has 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum reserves. There are approximately 700 million internal combustion engines on the road. Ten grams of platinum per fuel cell x 700 million fuel cells = 7 billion grams of platinum' date=' or practically every gram of platinum in the earth.[/quote']

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Platinum.html

Sure Hydrogen is a great fuel if you have enough initial energy to generate it in the first place' date=' if you have stacks of ultra-light expensive carbon nano-fibre tanks to store it in, if you have extra energy to transport the hydrogen, and if you have enough platinum worldwide to replace all our car engines (maybe once?).[/quote']

http://www.platinuminfo.net/press_releases/platinum_availability_pr_030303.pdf

International Platinum Association Corrects Erroneous Reports on the Availability of Platinum for Fuel Cells
Platinum Is the Only Viable Catalyst for Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells; World Reserves are More Than Adequate for Expected Uses

FRANKFURT, GERMANY – The belief that clean efficient fuel cell technology has the potential to replace the internal combustion engine in the future is becoming more widely held. The Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell is the technology which is being considered for this purpose. It uses platinum as the electrocatalyst. The significance of this fact raises the issue of the availability of platinum.

On the eve of the National Hydrogen Association’s 14th Annual U.S. Hydrogen Conference in Washington, D.C. this week, the International Platinum Associaton (IPA), which comprises the world’s leading platinum group metals, producers and fabricators, confirms that enough platinum resource is available worldwide to meet any foreseeable future demand spurred by the

commercialization of fuel cells.

“The platinum resource industry wants to set the record straight: there is more than enough platinum to satisfy the widespread introduction of fuel cells, for automotive propulsion, stationary power generation or other uses,” said Marcus Nurdin, Managing Director of the International Platinum Association. Several erroneous media reports have recently suggested

otherwise, potentially causing needless uncertainty among legislators, regulators, and the general public. “Not only are the platinum miners, producers and fabricators convinced that enough platinum resource is available to meet all foreseeable demand, but increasingly, industry-leading automobile and fuel cell manufacturers agree that platinum availability is not a cause for concern.”

According to a peer-reviewed South African study published in November 1999, the estimated reserves of platinum worldwide are on the order of 1.5 billion troy ounces (to a mining depth of 2 km). The conclusions of this study, “The Platinum and Palladium resources of the Bushveld Complex,” by Prof. R. Grant Cawthorn of South Africa’s Witwatersrand University’s Department of Geology, are broadly in line with statistics released by the U.S. Geological

Survey published in January 2000.

Platinum is used in the electrocatalyst layer of a fuel cell. Applied to both the anode and the cathode, it facilitates electrode reactions. To date, no other material has been shown to be as effective as platinum in this application

For the record, 1.5 billion troy ounces is 46.7 billion grams.

Compare to the 7.7 billion grams that lifeaftertheoilcrash.net alleges. I don't think lifeaftertheoilcrash.net is going to pan out as a particularly reliable source.

Martin · November 29, 2005

Oil will peak during the next decade. I must prepare now to be able to survive. I'm currently looking for a new location to live.

This is the Original Post of this thread. I think this is an intelligent question. It might be instructive to think about what places are apt to be lightly hit.

There are other places for chatting about post-petroleum technology. in some other thread right?

But funzone has asked a simple question. Let's (at least a few of us) simply consider it.

Basically the question is what kind of human society is likely to be able to cope well with energy price-shock? There should be lessons in that.

Anybody want to try answering? Maybe I'll offer some suggestions and you can find reasons to reject them or counter with your own.

1. A place where the rule of law won't break down when society is stressed.

2. A place that keeps out of war and can effectively close its borders to a massive influx of refugees if it chooses.

3. A place with a well-educated population. I really think that rising energy prices do not need to be a big threat to people who are educated, able to cooperate, and able to secure their borders.

I think the USA is politically dysfunctional---no longer able to undertake rational policies---which may have something to do with the population being poorly educated. But there are countries which are small and cohesive enough, and well enough managed, so that I expect they will be able to cope.

I think politically functional human societies can adapt so as to be much more efficient in the use of energy. Physically the USA could have done this starting back in the SEVENTIES. Adequate technology options were available. There were government studies that laid out what needed to be done, like the National Academy CONAES study, and several major private foundation studies. It is not all that mysterious what needs to be done. Some people obsess about the technology alternatives but I think the technology is the LEAST interesting part of the challenge.

Instead, I think the question is, what SOCIETIES will be able to act rationally so as to minimize the adverse impact on their citizens?

BTW which are the best educated societies today and which have the highest percapita GDP?

I think IIRC it is Finland that has the greatest number of PhD per 1000 people and also the highest GDP per cap and among the highest number of PATENTS per cap. Also Switzerland IIRC has always been pretty high in number of patents per cap. I am not saying these are infallible measures of ABILITY TO COPE and they may be skewed or unfair or biased. But they do point to something.

Finland does have a considerably higher living standard than the USA and it does have a lot more PhD per capita----i.e. better educated. And my guess is that the Finns will probably be able to figure out a plan to cope with whatever oil price shock, and will have the brains and ability to cooperate to implement the plan and maintain a decent society.

The Swiss too, is my guess, and probably they will be able to stay out of war. They stayed out of WW2, which was somewhat of an achievement.

Here is what WIRED MAGAZINE says about education levels in various places

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.12/start.html?pg=22

According to WIRED, the ranking, in PhD per 1000 people goes

Finland

Iceland

Japan

Sweden

Denmark

Norway

Singapore

United States

Luxembourg

Australia

Canada

Switzerland

etc

I don't know if this is correct. Do you trust Wired Magazine?

Do you have some other source you think is better?

Anyway, a good many of these places have a higher living standard

in terms of money, better health, lower infant mortality etc.

These are signs that they HAVE COPED with problems in the past and a lot of them are modest-size stable well-run democracies that you can expect WILL COPE with problems in the future.

Well hope someone is interested enough in this angle to argue back.

I wonder if funzone has been thinking about the SOCIAL angle. When you ask the best "location" you should be to ride out the energy price rise, to me the most important thing is WHAT KIND OF SOCIETY should you locate yourself in? well it's a thought.

padren · November 29, 2005

http://static.highbeam.com/f/fuelcelltechnologynews/february012000/platinumshortage/

Please do some research first.

Bascule did' date=' citing 46.7 billion grams compared to the 7.7 billion grams on lifeaftertheoilcrash.net.

Apparently, I can't find where it says that. Also, when oil peaks, I guarantee farm equipment (tractors) might have batteries or else, what will power them? Fuel cells (fool cells) are already explained why they're useless.

Please read the items you post, and search page 2 for:

There is no battery pack which can effectively move heavy farm machinery over miles of farm fields, and no electric battery system seems even remotely able to propel a Boeing 747 14 hours nonstop at 600 miles an hour from New York to Cape Town (now the longest scheduled plane flight).

You did post that right?

Yeah right. Give me a study about that. And do you have any idea how much more expensive they are? And do you have any idea how much percentage alternative energies have in terms of global energy production?

They are currently rather low in production and higher in cost' date=' as they are not the most economical means by which we can produce energy.

Australia will soon turn into a total deserted continent.

I was making a Mad Max reference. The total desert thing was part of the point.

The evidence is all over the 2 pages if you read them thoroughly.

You cited yourself that the US is already grabbing oil from oil rich countries yes? So why do you think that all countries will spontaniously run out of oil at the same time?

My point is' date=' as low oil levels begin to stress some areas, it will not yet be a stress in other areas of the world. There will be functioning oil based infrastructure working on market solutions even when it gets rather bad in other areas.

Unfortunately, you don't know why it has weak logic. If you do, please explain.

I already explained serveral, which you cut out as you had no response to. Take your study that we are in an innovative dark age - one that is claimed to have started in 1855!!! Seriously, look at the progress over the last 150 years and tell me if you REALLY think times have been so dark?

Do you have a study for that.

My mistake' date=' graphite replaced a different expensive component and platinum was [b']reduced[/b] significantly.

The amount of platinum needed for a fuel cell large enough to power an auto has been dramatically reduced from $30,000 to $500

http://iris.nyit.edu/~drose01/techwriting/research_project_report.htm

And as far as replacing platinum entirely - got iron?:

http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage2030.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/10/nbact10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/10/ixhome.html

Do you know the ratio of rockets to aircraft? For every rocket' date=' there are thousands of aircraft. Fuel cells cannot be used for large-scale production.

[/quote']

I am not talking about flying around in rockets. I am talking about mass to stored energy ratios. You cited a source that spoke as if our most compact energy source was double A batteries, and they were unsuitable for aircraft, when we have proven the mass to energy ratio of burning hydrogen is more than enough for long range flight.

Because all you know are the advantages but not the disadvantages of alternative energies.

Actually because I got rather worried a while back and looked into it.

I need a professional' date=' not a friend's evidence.

[/quote']

I was making the point that the specific comment I was making was not from an industry professional, hence the disclaimer. I subsequently posted a link to a news article regarding that point.

Where did you recall that?

Here is one source referring to some methods:

http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/content/default.asp?PageId=87

There was also a great show on 60 minutes a while back, about someone that developed a waste processing system that burned city waste at high pressure at high temperatures, and was able to generate a decent amount of power as well as burn it hot enough to produce almost no waste.

I doubt we'll run out of garbage.

Lets see your claims:

1) Not enough platinum for fuel cells.

- That was demonstrated as false, and also that platinum is not the only source for fuel cells.

Does this change your point of view?

2) Innovation is in decline, harolding a dark age without invention

- The only source citing that claim also claimed this dark age started in 1855, leaving us at 50% where we were then. If there is such a dark age, we discovered flight, space travel, everything digital, the telephone, radio - shoot, what the heck did we even have in 1855?

Does this change your point of view on the decline of innovation?

3) There will be a universal drop in oil, leading to a simutanious global crash.

- Oil is no more evenly distributed in the world than wealth is...there is no basis for this claim.

Please defend this notion or exclude it.

4) There are no power systems for flying planes as batteries are too bulky.

- Again, this is based on both the misconceptions about fuel cells, as well as ignores the use of hydrogen as a burned fuel source, which very effectively powers rockets, therefore demonstrating a power to mass ratio needed for flight. Again, this is not saying lets use rockets, but we can develop jet engines that can burn hydrogen as long as (as it is demonstrated) the chemical capacity for storing energy is high enough.

Can we drop the "only gas is light and effecient" argument now?

5) We are running out of other resources too.

- This is a whole other alarmist issue, which IMO holds more water than the oil peak debate, but does not in any way contribute to the issue of the oil peak itself.

Can we stay on topic?

6) Production is too expensive.

- It is rather expensive, although it is hard to know what the final costs will be. Right now, most alternative energy sources are the equivelent of custom paintings, whereas gasoline and petrolium systems are cheap poster prints.

We are yet to see production levels required to reduce costs in alternative energy production. When the market justifies the costs to mass produce alternative energy systems in larger numbers, the costs will go down.

I admit that the net costs will likely be higher, but not cripplingly so.

7) Hydrogen is not a fuel.

- This claim basically is a matter of terms. Gas is a natural resource and a fuel, hydrogen is a fuel but not a natural resource. The energy to extract oil can be aquired by burning a small portion of the oil extracted, whereas hydrogen requires a completely independant energy source.

There are however, other energy sources than oil. I personally think this production is the hardest part of meeting demand, but that does not mean it will be catastrophic. If anything, its the only part of the debate that holds any water at all.

PS: you may want to change your catch phrase from "hydrogen is not a fuel" to "hydrogen is not a natural resource" which is more accurate.

Out of those 7 claims, 6 are very easily refuted and one is debatable but in no way uncontended.

Would you mind sharing your thoughts on the first 6 points?

funzone36 · November 29, 2005

1) Not enough platinum for fuel cells.
- That was demonstrated as false, and also that platinum is not the only source for fuel cells.

Does this change your point of view?[/Quote]

No, it does not change my point of view. Here is why:

46.7 billion grams of platinum (known reserves) divided by 7 billions grams of platinum (amount fuel cells need) equals 6.67 (rounded). But, before I say anything further, read this:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/52194

A fuel cell has a life time of 200 hours. Assuming that you drive a lot, you'll have to replace the fuel cell every year. After 6.67 years, all 46.7 billion grams of platinum would be exhausted.

2) Innovation is in decline, harolding a dark age without invention
- The only source citing that claim also claimed this dark age started in 1855, leaving us at 50% where we were then. If there is such a dark age, we discovered flight, space travel, everything digital, the telephone, radio - shoot, what the heck did we even have in 1855?

Does this change your point of view on the decline of innovation?[/Quote]

Yes, it changes my point of view.

3) There will be a universal drop in oil, leading to a simutanious global crash.

- Oil is no more evenly distributed in the world than wealth is...there is no basis for this claim.

Please defend this notion or exclude it.[/Quote]

It's true that oil is not evenly distributed but every economy in the world needs energy of some sort (most likely oil) to grow their own food. That energy comes from fertilizers/pesticides which comes from oil. Look at how many people are starved to death in africa. Once oil peaks, imagine the effects on their population. Since every single human needs food, everyone will be affected. You can argue that some country use organic farming. But they still use irrigation systems. What do they use to obtain fresh water? They use energy to pump water from the ground. That energy is most likely oil or some sort of fossil fuel. What if they don't use irrigation systems? That does not seem likely since we don't have a lot of arable land left. But I agree that some countries don't use irrigation because it's too expensive. In that case, they won't get affected. Whoever depends on oil the least will be affected the least.

7) Hydrogen is not a fuel.
- This claim basically is a matter of terms. Gas is a natural resource and a fuel, hydrogen is a fuel but not a natural resource. The energy to extract oil can be aquired by burning a small portion of the oil extracted, whereas hydrogen requires a completely independant energy source.

There are however, other energy sources than oil. I personally think this production is the hardest part of meeting demand, but that does not mean it will be catastrophic. If anything, its the only part of the debate that holds any water at all.

PS: you may want to change your catch phrase from "hydrogen is not a fuel" to "hydrogen is not a natural resource" which is more accurate.[/Quote]

"Hydrogen isn’t an energy source – it’s an energy carrier, like a battery."

http://www.energybulletin.net/4541.html

^ Hydrogen isn't an energy source which means that it isn't a fuel. Argue against whoever wrote that article. I just got my info from the article.

5) We are running out of other resources too.
- This is a whole other alarmist issue, which IMO holds more water than the oil peak debate, but does not in any way contribute to the issue of the oil peak itself.

Can we stay on topic?[/Quote]

What do you must have in other to implement alternative energies? Raw materials. The resources needed to create them. To understand why alternative energies don't work, you must first understand how much resources are left on Earth.

6) Production is too expensive.
- It is rather expensive, although it is hard to know what the final costs will be. Right now, most alternative energy sources are the equivelent of custom paintings, whereas gasoline and petrolium systems are cheap poster prints.

We are yet to see production levels required to reduce costs in alternative energy production. When the market justifies the costs to mass produce alternative energy systems in larger numbers, the costs will go down.

I admit that the net costs will likely be higher, but not cripplingly so. [/Quote]

"He said: 'Even with an expected rapid growth rate for wind and solar energy - driven in large measure by public subsidies, I might add - their contribution to global energy will still be in the 1% range in 2030.'"

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/business/articles/timid398113?source=

You think the price will go down when their contribution to global energy will be in the 1% range by 2030?

4) There are no power systems for flying planes as batteries are too bulky.

- Again, this is based on both the misconceptions about fuel cells, as well as ignores the use of hydrogen as a burned fuel source, which very effectively powers rockets, therefore demonstrating a power to mass ratio needed for flight. Again, this is not saying lets use rockets, but we can develop jet engines that can burn hydrogen as long as (as it is demonstrated) the chemical capacity for storing energy is high enough.

Can we drop the "only gas is light and effecient" argument now?[/Quote]

Flying planes still won't last long with fuel cells since I explained why platinum is in short supply.

And as far as replacing platinum entirely - got iron?:

http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage2030.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...10/ixhome.html

[/Quote]

"Iron Ore Reserves Run Short "

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200010/21/eng20001021_53236.html

About the bacteria:

"could help scientists to replace the expensive platinum catalysts that break up molecules of hydrogen gas"

Neat idea but I don't understand something. When the engine stops running, all the bacteria would die because the flow of hydrogen gas stopped. You can't easily replace that bacteria because not all bacteria use hydrogen gas as their energy source. So how are you going to replace the bacteria that died?

The bacteria idea would work for factories but it wouldn't work for transportation.

There was also a great show on 60 minutes a while back, about someone that developed a waste processing system that burned city waste at high pressure at high temperatures, and was able to generate a decent amount of power as well as burn it hot enough to produce almost no waste.[/Quote]
Those wastes come from oil. Of course, at the rate of us dumping our garbage, we won't run out. But, once oil peaks, we will fail to deliver our products. The amount of garbage being dumped will decrease. As a result, the amount of garbage will decrease if we ever used this kind of energy infrastucture.

bascule · November 29, 2005

46.7 billion grams of platinum (known reserves) divided by 7 billions grams of platinum (amount fuel cells need) equals 6.67 (rounded). But' date=' before I say anything further, read this:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy.../message/52194

A fuel cell has a life time of 200 hours. Assuming that you drive a lot, you'll have to replace the fuel cell every year. After 6.67 years, all 46.7 billion grams of platinum would be exhausted.[/quote']

200 hours? I'm sorry, but according to every source I can find that number is wholly inaccurate (but with Yahoo Groups as your source, I really wasn't expecting accurate information). The lowest figure I was able to find for the operating lifetime of an automotive fuel cell was 3,000 hours. (and even that seems more like a reference to the expected operating life of the car rather than the fuel cell itself)

From the Institution of Electrical Engineers FactFile on Fuel Cells, the current goal of automotive fuel cell research is:

http://www.iee.org/Policy/Areas/EnvEnergy/FUELCELLS.pdf

To design, construct and evaluate a compact, responsive, liquid fuelled fuel processor, suitable for passenger cars, that achieves a power density >1kW/l, performance degradation <0.5% in 1000h, <10ppm CO output, and an operating life of 10,000h.

http://www.rsc.org/ej/GC/2005/b415317k.pdf

For very large quantities, the manufacturing procedure for steel plates, being stamping, could be cheaper than the moulding procedure. It could very well be that the power density requested by automotive applications, combined with it’s relatively short operating lifetime of typically 3000–5000 hours for passenger cars, leads to the use of metal plates in automotive fuel cells.

http://www.salemsbdc.org/FMAs/Industry-analyses/Fuel-cells_market-analysis.htm

Ballard Power Systems has developed a proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell available for both stationary and vehicular applications. Ballard's fuel cells convert natural gas, methanol, and hydrogen into zero-emissions power. Ballard has teamed with Ford and Daimler-Benz to develop a clean vehicle engine comparable in size, speed, and operating life to conventional ones. Having produced an engine with a viable size/power ratio, the company is now working to reduce its cost and develop volume production capability.

http://www.proformance.com/portal_mojo/pcg/CUSTOM/UBC_FILES/NEWS_BALLARD_97AR_ALLIANCE_STRUCTURES.PDF

Stationary electric power and transportation applications impose very different requirements on the fuel cell. High fuel efficiency and a long operating life (up to 40,000 hours) are needed for a stationary power plant, with the power plant cost in the range of US$1,000 to $2,000 per kilowatt for mass markets. High power density, for lower volume and weight, is the key for transportation engines, which have a shorter operating life (5,000 to 20,000 hours)

At the very least, I don't think we'll see < 3,000 hour lifetimes on any fuel cells after they have been ramped into volume production.

So are you still worried about platinum supply issues, or the feasibility of a hydrogen infrastructure as a successor to our present gasoline driven one?

**ecoli** · November 29, 2005

Cheers ecoli' date='
I still remember that your namesake micro-friends could be making some of our future plastics from sorgum (although probably not at the same quantities as we enjoy today, which is probably a good thing hey?)[/quote']

I'll tell them you said thanks.

funzone36 · November 29, 2005

So are you still worried about platinum supply issues, or the feasibility of a hydrogen infrastructure as a successor to our present gasoline driven one?[/Quote]
Yes. Hydrogen consumes more energy than it produces.

"Converting water to hydrogen is done through electrolysis. Scientist David Pimentel has established that it takes 1.3 billion kWh (Kilowatt hours) of electricity to produce the equivalent of 1 billion kWh of hydrogen. (BioScience, Vol. 44, No. 8, September 1994.)"

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052703_9_questions.html

"Another alternative is pipelines. The average cost of a natural gas pipeline is one million dollars per mile, and we have 200,000 miles of natural gas pipeline, which we can’t re-use because they are composed of metal that would become brittle and leak, as well as the incorrect diameter to maximize hydrogen throughput. If we were to build a similar infrastructure to deliver hydrogen it would cost $200 trillion."

http://www.energybulletin.net/4541.html

Where are you going to get $200 trillion from?

"Manufacturing one automobile requires approximately 118,877 gallons of fresh water. This water comes in clean and goes out polluted. With peak oil putting our entire energy paradigm in question, if we consider what it means to create a new generation of alternative-fuel cars - to build 700 million new vehicles would require 83,213,900,000,000 gallons of fresh water"

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/091704_beyond_peak.shtml

And where are you going to get 83,213,900,000,000 gallons of fresh water? Consider the cost of desalination.

But I'll have to start agreeing by the fact that some information of "lifeaftertheoilcrash.net" is not accurate.

Also, i'm not worried about the platinum supply anymore. What I'm worried is, demand might outstrip supply. Production will have to increase to meet demand. Also, most platinum are located in South Africa and Russia. I'm afraid we won't be able to import platinum from Russia since Russia has always been considered the enemy of U.S.A. since the beginning of the Cold War.

mercurious · November 30, 2005

peak oil scares me so much. everything in the world depends on oil. when we run out all that technology will be useless. think of all the landfills that will fill with gasoline powered cars. gasoline powered chainsaws, lawnmowers, weed whackers, gasoline powered electric generators. after peak oil all that equipment will be useless.

like the mercury/vacceine issue the government is not doing enough to protect us.

ctc7752 · November 30, 2005

Nuclear will replace oil in the next generation. The flying vehicles you see in science fiction movies will become a reality.

navynuke · November 30, 2005

Nuclear will replace oil in the next generation. The flying vehicles you see in science fiction movies will become a reality.

nuclear can replace those fuels that are used to make electricity, but annot replace oil. You won't have a nuclear powered car, and flying vehicles are not likely either. It isn't that we can't do it, it is mostly that only a very few among us are ambitious enough to get the training and the pilots license that will be required....and Can you imagine flying cars with the types of drivers we have today?

Sign In

Where is the best place to go to once oil peaks?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information