Will The End of Oil Mean The End of America? (Wishful thinking alert!)

CommonNightmares.org ^ | 3/1/2004 | Robert Freeman

[Quix]

They are pondering adding a 3rd big coal electric plant here in the Four Corner's area. We shall see.

[Iberian]

What would those sandal throwing pieces of garbage have when we are gone?. If the seven sisters(oil companies ran dry) the Arab world would be relegated to a "fourth world".

The Pajama wearing crowd would not only be useless but become yet a further liability than they are now.

They are useless now. I cant wait to live the day when the pieces of garbage go away and my grandchildren wont have to hear about them.

[Quix]

Sounds reasonable to me.

Burt Rutan? sp?

[RightWhale]

There are some private sector moon rockets being prepared right now. Keep an eye out for some spare payload space.

[Quix]

Should be interesting.

I guess I've followed the exotic tech stuff enough decades to believe that the rocket technology is VERY archiac.

We shall see.

[Quix]

I don't remember if you're in the UFO ping list or not.

so

PING

[537 Votes]

This discussion is moot. Solar electric cell cost is down to $3 per watt and will reach $1.50 a watt by 2010. It will reach pennies per watt in the next twenty years.

People who chant, "Solar power will never be practical," should wait until the echoes of "Man will never fly" and "Get a horse!" die down in the Hall of Technological Progress.

Within twenty years, the world will have an oil glut, not because reserves have increased but because we won't have much use for the stuff anymore.

[Quix]

I'm a strong believer in solar power.

New Mexico is a great place for it.

However, I expect to see the day sooner than I'd prefer when either from volcanic and/or meteor disasters, the admosphere will seriously limit solar power production.

Life itself will be at risk.

As Scripture says, were the days not shortened, no flesh would survive.

Still, I would encourage all who can afford solar at all, in any good region at all, to invest suitably in it.

[GOPJ]

His suggested "programs" won't work, but if half of the following statements are true, there's a problem.

By 2020, the US Department of Energy forecasts domestic demand will grow to 25 MBD but production will be down to 7 MBD. The daily shortfall of 18 MBD or 72% of needs, will all need to be imported.

Almost all of the increase in world food productivity over the past 50 years is attributable to increases in the use of oil-derived additives: pesticides; herbicides; fungicides; fertilizers; and machinery.

[Joe_October]

Bump for later.

But, after reading his article and if you come to the conclusion that we are running out of oil (which I don't), you must conclude not that we conserve a little bit more but kill the competition. Meaning, kill all the people that currently sit atop it.

Look, if you needed medicine and someone was sitting on it and preventing you from getting it and even using it themselves, you would be compelled to take it from them.

So, idiot liberal has wrong facts and wrong conclusion from wrong facts.

[Nataku X]

That article makes me want go and burn up more oil so that Bush is forced to share this technology to win re-election and then we can all start flying in these things. :o)

[Nataku X]

The best way to invent an alternative to oil is to use all the oil up first. That's the fundamental difference between me and my liberal friend. We have this argument all the time. He thinks the world will literally end and die if we use up our oil, hence, we must ration it as long as possible, ban SUVs, etc. I think that an alternative will manifest itself when the need for it comes, and right now the only reason oil prices are high are because of (1) weak dollars and (2) the Middle East hates us.

We need to start drilling in ANWR, build new refineries, and nationalize & simplify environmental regulations such that we don't have the insane 20-different-mixtures-floating-around-the-country-at-any-given-time stuff going on because environuts in each state all have a different idea of what's a clean burning oil mix.

[Nataku X]

And of course, it'd be nice to crush and conquer those evil Muslim countries, colonize them, and produce oil cheaply for the US & her friends only. But that's just a fantasy :)

[aruanan]

Will The End of Oil Mean The End of America? (Wishful thinking alert!)

The end of oil would mean the beginning of many new breeder nuclear reactors that would supply all the electric power any United States of any size could ever need for the next 10,000 years (as well as be able to provide the electric power needed to generate hydrogen or refine tar sands or oil shale into something to drive cars on).

[Quix]

LOL.

I still think there's decades of oil left, at least. But the pollution problem is getting worse.

[kaktuskid]

Most of that "pollution" drifts over from LA and Vegas!

[Quix]

Certainly plenty of truth to that.

But the local plants did NOT help things a bit on that score!

[techcor]

Here's something I posted on FR awhile back and actually comes up second on a google search of "coal gasification China shockwave"

Actually the solution is coal gasification. The company is an American company called Hydrocarbon Technologies which is a subsidiary of Headwaters Incorporated. They have made a 2 billion dollar deal with Shenhua Group of China to build a plant. I believe the Shockwave Power technology is very similar to thermo-acoustic stirling engine technology that came out a few years ago (search for "Thunder in a bottle" on google). If President Bush announced this technology is being researched and then had the Secretary of Energy make the rounds on the talk shows, the oil producers would probably up their production to try and undermine it. Either way gas prices come down and our economy picks up. I'm sure methane or the solid methonates at the bottom of the ocean could be used.

It will take centuries to use up coal. Actually I mostly promote nuclear energy but this technology is pretty interesting.

[Paleo Conservative]

Actually the solution is coal gasification.

But eventually coal deposits are depleted and the costs of coal and conversion of solid coal to gas and liquids becomes economically nonviable. It all comes down to economics. When the price of hydrocarbon fuels gets high enough substitutes become economically viable. As these substitute technologies get higher than normal rates of return, they receive more investment capital and more research funding. As the researchers and companies follow the learning curve the alternatives become cheaper.

[techcor]

I'll agree with you on what you said and take it a little further. As oil prices increase the economic viability of coal gasification increases. The afore mentioned companies believe that can have gas at about $1.35 per gallon which is less than what it is now. More importantly as companies start coal gasification our supplies of gas increase and the price goes down. Plus as their competition increases the oil companies have to compete to keep their market shares so the price comes down. Plus it's some nifty tech to do the conversion in the first place. (Though the Nazis were the first to really get it going in WWII).