Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride...
(http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~blawrence/oil-future.jpg)
Awesome, bring it. I can't wait. No more work. HOORAY
It seems like a huge hike in oil prices is the only thing that will push alternative fuels and transportation. Until we're in the middle of a crisis, we're not fixing anything.
Quote from: runlolaQuote from: StookieIt seems like a huge hike in oil prices is the only thing that will push alternative fuels and transportation. Until we're in the middle of a crisis, we're not fixing anything.
that's what I think too...bring on the corn oil
Methanol is better (http://images.google.com/images?q=%22top+methanol%22&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=0&sa=N) :lol: :wink:
The big boys are not going to surrender their choke-hold easily. I wouldn't look for practical alternative fuel until the oil companies figure a way to get a monopoly on it.
Americans should designate at least one lane on all major roads for bicycles, and then everyone start riding bicycles for most of their around town trips. We would kill two birds with one stone, our oil and obesity problem.
Quote from: fallnangel77We would kill two birds with one stone, our oil and obesity problem.
And pollution too. :wink:
:lol: Whenever I see people complaining about these type of things or the conspiracy threads, I now laugh and just think of the laws of attraction.
Keep on complaining and you shall bring it into existence.... Hey, that means it's y'all fault. :laugh7:
...
i dont think we will run out of the oil. Maybe the cheap one. The Abiogenic petroleum origin theory makes more sense to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Even though we dont run out of the oil, the world doesnt have enough refineries (the construction of them almost ceased in 70's) to refine crude oil to because of increased comsuption in the west and even more in China and India.
I hope we will soon find some usable clean alternative source of energy. A lot of wars would be unnecessary.
if anyone is interested in geopolitics, mostly in regard to oil, here is a good site. http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/index.html
QuoteLaughing Whenever I see people complaining about these type of things or the conspiracy threads, I now laugh and just think of the laws of attraction.
Keep on complaining and you shall bring it into existence.... Hey, that means it's y'all fault. laugh7
I dont focus much on the politics anymore, let alone conspiracies (had enough of them) because now i usually get a feeling of powerlessness. It ws exciting back then. A year ago :lol: Something i dont like. On the other hand it it helped me to break of the news propaganda and some social conditioning from media.
I eventually got to LOA and OBE because my sense of reality (politics, history, society, science, etc.) was shaken by the conspiracies and I realised the reality could be something very different than I previously thought. Before that there would be no way I could really beleive in all that. I did heard about NDE, thought it was interesting but I was indifferent to it. So I see these conspiracies (mostly David Icke) as a catalyst for me. Everything just fell right. In these last two years i changed my mind numerous times. I was naive many times but whenever i would find sth. that made more sense i replaced my older beliefs. I dont know when will this stop :grin:
Forgive me for not posting any referencing links, but there have been theories put out recently by geophysicists that there is not and never will be an oil shortage. This is because it is believed to be a continuously produced by-product of mantle / crust interaction.
The evidence for this is where pockets of oil have been depleted, the oil drills have gone deeper into new pockets, and found more oil of exactly the same grade. If the old "prehistoric plant/animal matter" theories were true, as the layers or pockets of oil got deeper, the grades would change.
I tend to believe these prices are artificially increased because of the desires of oil company shareholders to recieve larger dividends. This may be because their big cars and private jets are costing them more to run!
Oh well, regardless of whether oil reserves are running out or not, it would be nice to think that world governments might actually get serious about allowing alternative energy sources to become not just a reality, but a practicality. I don't think the environments we live in can take much more of the poisoning that oil product emissions are guilty of.
Blessings,
James.
If oil is a product of rock instead of organic materials, the question still remains as to how long it takes oil to form and how easy it is to get. If we have to drill deeper to get to more oil, that is going to cost more and still increase the price at the pump, and for other oil products. Then how far can we keep drilling down?
Considering how long we have been using oil and how dirty it is, it seems it is time for some more innovation to improve things all around.
Well, I am not huge on C theories, but this is a recognized issue. Our current knowledge does favor a peak oil crisis, even if some of the particulars are incorrect. Aboitic synthesis is vaguely plausible, but as mentioned, even those proposing it accede that we use more oil than they believe this process could ever create. Then there are the loyalty arguements; whereas there does not seem any profit incentive to proclaim disaster in this case, there is a big one to delay thoughts of such in the oil industry (fight the establishment, man! :eek: ); we cannot rightly say who is funding which research body, or to what end. As for the US oil reserves, I suppose these may hold a while (not a geophysicist or economist here), but there are far bigger reserves outside the the M. East in Russia, Venuzuala, and others than the US possesses. My own world esteemed opinion ( :wink: ) is that this will become trouble before corrective measures take effect.
Looks like I'm the only peak-oiler on these forums. :redface:
Whilst there is a majority consensus among oil geologists that the peak will occur between now and 2010, this is why I believe peak oil to be happening right at this moment:
http://www.theoildrum.com/storyonly/2006/3/1/3402/63420
I also recommend that every person reading this thread should take a look at these video's.
I spend way too much time studying this issue, but these are some of the best peak oil introductions I have found:
An awesome introduction by UK comedian Robert Newman:
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/history_of_oil.ram
A short, but excellent introduction by Richard Heinberg
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2003/05/planetarium_01_rh.2003-05-05.ram
Michael Klare on peak oil and national security
http://www.eande.tv/main/?date=050906
Quote from: Nay:lol: Whenever I see people complaining about these type of things or the conspiracy threads, I now laugh and just think of the laws of attraction.
Keep on complaining and you shall bring it into existence.... Hey, that means it's y'all fault. :laugh7:
I'm not complaining. I'm trying to inform people, because most people are clueless to peak oil and the effect it will have on their lives.
This chart shows the history of US production.
(http://www.ab3energy.com/USOilPeak.jpg)
For those suggesting the abiotic theory, how do you explain this graph? You can't, because it almost certainly a load of nonsense; If oil keeps on reforming in the ground, then why has the US continued in this downside trend?
Quote from: runlolathat's an interesting thought.
I often get emails from environmental organizations
that stop the government from drilling in national parks.
I also read that Canada has tons of oil available.
The US will most likely go ahead and trash it's last remnants of pristine environment. All for what will essentially equate to a drop in the bucket. It's quite sad really
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
Unfortunately alot of people are grossly misinformed about the Canadian tar sands.
This is a good article explaining why the Canadian tar sands will not prevent peak oil:
http://www.energybulletin.net/16949.html
QuoteLooks like I'm the only peak-oiler on these forums.
Don't think you could say that, Doch.
I am still in favor of a peak of around 2007
+ 2 years, so I think that makes me a "peak-oiler" as well :wink:
According to the (US) Energy Information Administration, the peak is set allllllllll the way to 2037- I wonder what data they base this on, and why it disagrees with the maverick sites which increasingly cite data for an earlier peak? A lot of information, namely on unknown reserves, alternative fuel bolstering (mainly ethanol to date), future conservation efforts, legislative sanctioning (stricter quotas, rather than the nullification of such), and greater future efficiency, which is largely unavailibe anyhwere, must be provided to support a peak so late in the game.
QuoteI'm not complaining. I'm trying to inform people, because most people are clueless to peak oil and the effect it will have on their lives.
You missed my point. Stop worrying about it, and you will not bring it to reality. I'm not worried about it. :grin:
EDIT: Dang it.. there it is again.. that is twice today.. what the heck is up with that? :ninjahide:
Quote from: NayQuoteI'm not complaining. I'm trying to inform people, because most people are clueless to peak oil and the effect it will have on their lives.
You missed my point. Stop worrying about it, and you will not bring it to reality. I'm not worried about it. :grin:
EDIT: Dang it.. there it is again.. that is twice today.. what the heck is up with that? :ninjahide:
But this is valuable information for people to have. Peak oil represents a turning point for humanity; Less net energy year by year to run our societies on and the consequences are going to be massive. It's already shaping up in the US ( as well as here in Australia) with the fed raising interest rates in order to stave of inflation. I think the US economy is like a house of cards ready to come crashing down and I think it could easily happen within the next 12 months.
Quote from: StillwaterQuoteLooks like I'm the only peak-oiler on these forums.
Don't think you could say that, Doch.
I am still in favor of a peak of around 2007 + 2 years, so I think that makes me a "peak-oiler" as well :wink:
According to the (US) Energy Information Administration, the peak is set allllllllll the way to 2037- I wonder what data they base this on, and why it disagrees with the maverick sites which increasingly cite data for an earlier peak? A lot of information, namely on unknown reserves, alternative fuel bolstering (mainly ethanol to date), future conservation efforts, legislative sanctioning (stricter quotas, rather than the nullification of such), and greater future efficiency, which is largely unavailibe anyhwere, must be provided to support a peak so late in the game.
I think OPEC cooking their books in the 80's has much to do with the exaggerated figures. Not sure how closely you follow this, but the current prices are having more to do with a lack of world wide refining capacity more than anything else. World production is hovering around 84.5 to 85 million barrels per day, with worldwide demand being just as much. It's looking more and more like the world peak is actually a peak of light sweet crude, as Saudi Arabia has all of this excess sour crude circling the world but with no buyers.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/4008346.html
Considering that the average refinery takes quite a few years to build and millions of dollars, I think we have definitely hit a plateau of sorts. The fact that the bulk of oil companies are failing to invest in such refineries speaks volumes for the dire situation that we are about to enter.
Well, ok Doch. A year for me is nothing... then you can say, I told you so.. or someone can. :wink:
I've noticed over the last few years that many people like to park their vehicles and leave the engine running. Like it's a fad or cool thing to do?
What's with that? I don't get it.
I still remember the 70s when there were actually fuel shortages, and you had to wait in line to get gas. NO one would even think of leaving their engines running unnecessarily during the shortages. Actually, this seems to be a recent behavioral phenomena.
The problem is that we have a constant supply, so that certain blessed people will never think of conserving, then reducing the demand, and lowering the prices, instead they just want to use more then they need to, then complain when the natural economy of supply and demand comes into effect.
Because some people are spoiled and out of touch with reality?
Because you can put gas on credit?
Quote from: StookieBecause you can put gas on credit?
Oh yes, and where would we be without that?
QuoteQuote from: Stookie
QuoteBecause you can put gas on credit?
Oh yes, and where would we be without that?
At the gas station next to an empty hummer, unable to ride into battle! :mrgreen:
An update: The price of crude is setting new records regarding the strife in the mid-East, over $ 80 a barrel at one stage. Fuel prices around the world will most likely be REALLY high next week.
(http://www.321energy.com/charts/tmp/chart.jpg)
QuoteAn update: The price of crude is setting new records regarding the strife in the mid-East, over $ 80 a barrel at one stage. Fuel prices around the world will most likely be REALLY high next week.
Eh, I think you have to take these things quarter to quarter at best. Temporary drops or crests that are the result of changing world conditions generally don't really affect the average price over any given interval, so I think if you look at short-term lows, you are just scaring yourself. But I could be wrong! :-P
One thing I've heard (which I can't confirm), is that electric cars would put a huge strain on the power grid. If everyone who owns a car now had to charge it, there wouldn't be enough electricity unless there were more power plants, which still means more fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
Maybe hydrogen is the way to go.
Hi Infinate bliss.
Those are some good ideas, but I think we fundamentally have to undertake a massive powerdown to avoid a future of pain. There is no avoiding the fact that Industrialized nations are totally dependent on fossil fuels and no combination of alternatives are going to get us out of this mess, although they are certainly going to play a part. Look how world population figures corrospond the discovery and production of fossil fuels:
(http://www.uwsp.edu/business/economicswisconsin/e_lecture/pop_images/pop_growth.jpg)
We are in a massive population overshoot
Peak Oil is gaining much more focus here in Australia recently.
Our most respected current affairs program ( Four Corners) recently aired a special on Peak Oil, it can be watched if you have broadband connection here:
http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/
Respect to hydrogen, even those advocating it just don't seem to think that there will be enough time, once the complete flow on effect from Peak Oil arrives. This is addressed in this video:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13112.htm
Quote from: Stillwater on July 14, 2006, 06:24:38
Eh, I think you have to take these things quarter to quarter at best. Temporary drops or crests that are the result of changing world conditions generally don't really affect the average price over any given interval, so I think if you look at short-term lows, you are just scaring yourself. But I could be wrong! :-P
Yes, you are right of course. This will most likely just be a temorary blip, but it is pretty clear that the era of cheap oil is over.
Do you keep pace with the 'Oil Drum' Stillwater? Some of their graphs are pretty scary, do you think that we have hitHubbert's curve yet? We are on a plateau of some sort. Alot of people think that this represents the peak, and I think they are right.OPEC seems unable to raise production in the face of rising demand. If this is peak in 2006, then the whole world is in for some serious trouble.
(http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/plateau_ma_may06.jpg)
I drop by that site every now and then, but I think many actually may actually watch the issue too closely; what I mean is that speculations from short term trends generally do not have significance in world economics. Economics is a frustrating area of study, as as it deals with a subject that can never be divorced from its place in the real world-there are so many variables, and it is difficult to say which have exactly what effect, as the variables cannot be isolated. And the economy is so dynamic, manifesting new tendancies all the time which old knowledge may or may not explain in any given case- studying the economy is like studying a jellyfish while you are in the water being attacked by it.
Another aspect to keep in mind is the "bias" of a given graph. A person can say that the data does not lie, as it is what it is, but you must keep in mind the inherent implications that displaying the data in one form or another must carry. Fot instance, one of the last graphs you offer shows a distinct plateau, but you have to interpret it too: the graph only starts in 2002, so you cannot compare this current peak to past ones; furhtermore the graph's vertical axis is tapered to start at 75 mill Bar/day, so the peak is also out proportion. Also, the fit-curve graph is smooth, unlike the plotting under it, not reflecting the minor fluctuations that would illustrate that this is a trend, rather than a directly manifested phenomenon. I also like how the page gets darker as you go from left to right, into 2006 lol- spooky!
That said, from what I have read to date, I still think of 2007 as the median date, but think it could be just a little sooner or later. Hubbert's peak would probably not be something that occurred Jan 24 of whatever year; economic changes are protean and dynamic, happening as a process, rather than an event. I think it is more like there will be a two year period which may correspond to a peak transition time, with authorities interpreting it mainly as a temporary slowdown in production and corresponding demand as prices rise, and attempts to fight it may temporarily sway production up, and other counterbalencing effects, like market flooding, would bring production down for a short time again.
For this reason, I think the peak would mainly be obscured on "accurate" graphs, and it would be pretty difficult to pin down exactly when it happened- it would steal in like a thief in the night, siphoning off grain: no one really knows when he comes, but that he was there is apparent. What is so important is not when it is happening, will happen, or has happened, but that the peak exists, and must be addressed.
QuoteFor this reason, I think the peak would mainly be obscured on "accurate" graphs, and it would be pretty difficult to pin down exactly when it happened- it would steal in like a thief in the night, siphoning off grain: no one really knows when he comes, but that he was there is apparent. What is so important is not when it is happening, will happen, or has happened, but that the peak exists, and must be addressed.
Thanks for that reply Stillwater. I pretty much agree with everything you have said, just one question: do you mean that you actually believe that there will be a definitive peak occurring in 2007 (followed by a decline) or, do you see the peak as an observable prolonged plateau. If you see a long plateau, then the data shaping up in that graph fits in with a 2007 date very nicely ( you couldn't possibly expect production to rise much more if you think peak production occurs in 2007, could you?) I am aware that trends such as the one in the graph have happened before, but this has usually been resolved by a swing producer (Saudi Arabia). However, Saudi Arabia seem unable to raise production to a significant degree this time (at least for conventional light sweet crude). Also, Have you read the Hirsch report? If so what did you think of it?
http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/the_hirsch_report.pdf
Hirsch says that we need a twenty year crash program to mitigate the worst effects of Peak Oil, to avoid a severe economic crisis. Governments clearly are not planning for this. If Peak Oil is next year, how do you see it being played out on the world economic stage?
Thanks for posting this study- I had heard of it as a reference, but hitherto had not read it. In my estimation, This report is fairly conservative with respect to the economic impact of peak-related shortfalls in supply relative to demand, but otherwise the data offered, the scenarios of attempts at mitigation dependant on peak date, and evaluation of methods of reading the leading economic indices and output data appear fairly reliable.
As for what the peak will "look" like on a production curve of sweet crude equivalent, if it is visible at all I think it will manifest as a best-fit plateau; it may not be clearly visible in the face of current world events blurring its form, and possibly only definitively "readable" in the past tense, regretably allowing us to place a window of a couple years on when it happened a decade after the fact, but not allowing us to "proclaim this is it!" as the peak itself unfolds. For these reasons, there are still those who hold that the peak came and went two whole years ago, and that we are only begining to feel the short term effects.
I posit 2007 + 2 years with about 60% personal surity- I think I can say I am around 80% sure it will happen by 2015, and about 90% by 2020. I make this interpetation by looking at a spread of when particular experts position the peak, the percentages who take each individual view, and the credibility of each group of sources, given econimic and political loyalties. For instance, that Exon and Shell place the peak within a 15 year timeline from now is very telling, so this is one factor in allowing a loose upperbracket of 2020 as a conservative estimate date. I do not find those who posit a peak beyond 2020 as being exceedingly credible, as they rely very heavily on future technological developement, grossly overestimate how much energy resources like the tar sands in Canada can yield, and fail to interpret the accuracy of data provided by OPEC regarding current reserves and predicted future potentials. We must also see that some of the earlier estimates of a peak come from those sources with exceedingly liberal political ties, who may be perhaps a little too prone to attacking the oil industry, however corrupt said body may be.
I certainly agree with Hirsch that we need a 20-year plan in order to offset a colossal depression, and don't believe the current timeline of events will allow us so much time, and that political authorities do not seem to be taking the peak seriously enough to allow even a decade of dedicated countermeasures.
My personal vision of the economic and social effects can probably be summarized as "Gloom&DoomLite tm":
I think we will have 2-8 years of serious preparations at best, and the first salient symptom will be $5/gallon gas prices in the US, a little more in Europe. This however, will be felt in industry before the consumer sector, and prices of food and consumer goods may increase by up to 50% at first, with shortages in some areas like Hawaii, with prices becoming increasingly severe. We will see a reworking of the consumer market, with providers becoming increasingly closer to to the points of dispensal- ie.: you can get an orange in Florida, but in Arkansas they are a luxury good. This scenario will likely worsen with time, with potential starvation in lower-developed regions of the Industrialized countries. We will likely see $8/gallon prices, and corresponding industry suffering before countermeasures put in place post-peak symptoms begin to take effect- and this the short term- the 5 year period after the peak. The long term will likely see a parallel struggle in dealing with the long term reality that we will never have as much crude oil availible ever again, and will necessitate the most intensive energy R&D since the industrial revolution.
That is my story, and I am sticking too it until proven wrong, lol.
Hello everyone,
Keep in mind that fuel is not the onlt commodity produced from oil.
Oil is the basis for almost everything; synthetic materials such as plastics, medicines, chemicals etc..
Also electricity is often produced from diesel oil driven turbines.
If that graph is correct; and I personally believe it is quite possible, the cost of living will increase dramatically as will inflation and therefore interest rates, and therefore loans and mortgages etc..
This however is only one element of what is happening right now; but an observable one nevertheless.
Best regards,
Adrian.
I work in an industry where we use a lot of plastic to make our products, and the cost of plastic goes up with oil costs, and unfortunately, we have to pass that on to the customer. They don't always understand though...
Stillwater, If you are not too bored with this subject yet you mind find this article interesting also. Keep in mind that it was written a decade ago :-o but it is one of the best pieces of authorship I've yet seen on PO.
http://fcn.state.fl.us/fdi/edesign/news/9612/joyride.htm
Thanks Doch- this article mainly outlies the premises and principles that those of us who follow the issue at least leisurely are aware of, but it is a great introduction to the field of ideas for those who haven't a clue (I love inclusionist-exclusionist speak- 8-) us and them 8-) ), which is around 98% of the pop., in my guess.
Or check this electric car http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=0 :-o
I would enjoy having one.
They claim the Tesla Car costs about 1 cent a mile to run- that is over 26 times as cost efficient as gasoline is today. There has to be a catch someplace: it could be in expense of the fuel cell, or the fact that if everyone ran one, it would overload the powergrid, drastically raising electricity costs as energy experts tell us now.
It really is beautifully formed too- it is just too bad that automobiles are so dangerous and destructive.
http://www.greenmtn.edu/faculty/publications/V2G-PUF-LetendKemp2002.PDF (ftp://http://www.greenmtn.edu/faculty/publications/V2G-PUF-LetendKemp2002.PDF)
Here is a link to a PDF explaining the mechanics of V2G.
I must say I was not previously aware of this information, and that it is a potentially useful technology.
Your ideas are charming, and may come to fruition one day, but something that runs far deeper than many realize is the hate, fear and darkness in men's hearts. We are paradoxically both one of the most well-developed, caring creatures in our awareness, and the most grotesquely repulsive.
Albert Camus, French existentialist:
QuoteWe used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives... inside ourselves.
I think we can both agree, as you point out, that in order for our technology to properly progress, we must progress as beings and individuals first. We continue to develop increasingly dangerous and destructive technology, as man seemingly slumps into a depression of the spirit. This trend cannot continue for long. I would that there was a way that masses of people could come to spiritual truth, rather than through dogmantic institutions, as has been tried in the past.
I wish you well, and thanks for keeping us posted :wink: :wink: :wink:
Quote from: InfiniteBliss on July 23, 2006, 16:10:38
The news today confirm my prediction that we will have non-oil based cars become popular soon:
Horizon Fuel Cell Technologies: http://www.horizonfuelcell.com
Thank you. I just ordered a set. I've wanted to convert my '73 Ford Galaxy (sits in drive-way covered up) to hydrogen power. Now I can start learning. :-D
Do you really think it is best to replace forests with hemp? Part of what maintains the soil in a forest is biodiversity- the soil nutrients are cycled and replaced by different plants- if you have one plant only, then it will use up the soil in a decade or so running out of nitrates and trace minerals, and the land will become barren sand. Furthermore, oxygen is not the only thing a forest is good for- it is the home of a diverse group of animals, and to artificially have only one staple plant, millions of animals lose their home. It is also dangerous to limit plant life, as diversity lends itself to natural adaptivity after an extinction. And also, I believe algae is among the most oxygenating organisms around anyhow. Most of the oxygen in the world comes from algae in the ocean, and what we do on land has only a very minor effect I am afraid.
But your heart is in the right place. World problems will not be solved overnight, and the solutions are rarely simple. Keep at it :wink: :wink: :wink:
Hi Bliss :wink:
I'm glad I merely misunderstood you about the hemp plan- as long as it is not intended as replacement to natural forests, and the plan itself is extensively researched for its effects, it does not sound like a bad deal at all.
And I can back up the information about ten vegans being able to live off the products of the land required to sustain one human omnivore, that has been demonstrated and is biologically supported by trophic-level interactions- about ten percent of the level of energy on any trophic plateau passes to the next in the "food chain". So Herbivores get ten percent of the energy of the plants they ingest, and carnivores ten percent of the herbivores they eat, on up to the top. Bringing people to the herbivore level would have this effect of multiplying the availible food in the world by about ten. I support this lifestyle, but unfortunately not everyone agrees, and that is almost an insurmountable hurdle at this point.
If the Telsa car is powered by Lithium batteries, that is a potential problem, as the trace metals necessary in a lithium battery are very expensive, and are definitely not availible at the levels needed to produce 7,000 for every automobile. I think there must be a push for developing more efficient batteries with less need of trace metals if a plan like this is to be marketable. But perhaps answers may be found to these issues in the near future.
Thanks again :wink:
Quote from: RunLola on July 19, 2006, 18:52:28
check out this video from week 1 :
http://www.dhlovelife.com/archive/index1.html
see I knew it was corn oil! :-P
I liked this video, thanks runlola. Darryl Hannah sure drives a strange car, being such a huge celebrity.
Infinite Bliss, regarding any hydrogen economy I just don't think it will happen on a larger enough scale to really make a difference to the coming energy crisis. There are, approximately, something like 600 million gasoline powered combustion engines in the world ( I could be wrong there) and these fuel cells just seem so expensive. Bearing in mind that the peak is on our doorstep, turning over the world's current vehicles to alt energy is going to cost trillions of dollars. If such advances we more purposefully pursued 20 years ago, then we might have had a chance...
The last article I linked to offers some good insight into the problems we are running into:
QuoteNow pay attention economists. Here are three dicta that may sound heretical. First is Minter's Little Observation: Neither capital nor labor can create energy. Growing out of this observation is Minter's Little Law of Energy Subsidy: The shortage of a more efficient energy source in an economy will always make the remaining sources of less efficient energy more expensive and even less efficient. Will humanity belatedly begin to use all energy more efficiently when we finally hear those sucking sounds in the petroleum barrel? Of course. We will have to. But such efficiencies will not make us more prosperous (as they do today). By that time they will only slow the rate at which we get poorer. Why? Heed Minter's Little Maxim: A society's transition from a more efficient energy source to a less efficient energy source will always and invariably decrease the wealth, flexibility and options available to that society.
In other words, just when we most need the wealth and flexibility of cheap petroleum energy to make the transition to a less energy-intensive infrastructure, everything is going to cost much, much more. We will be poorer.
QuoteInfinite Bliss, regarding any hydrogen economy I just don't think it will happen on a larger enough scale to really make a difference to the coming energy crisis. There are, approximately, something like 600 million gasoline powered combustion engines in the world ( I could be wrong there) and these fuel cells just seem so expensive. Bearing in mind that the peak is on our doorstep, turning over the world's current vehicles to alt energy is going to cost trillions of dollars. If such advances we more purposefully pursued 20 years ago, then we might have had a chance...
Yeah, unfortunately I must agree; right now our efforts are like trying to hack away a mountain with push-pins- it is too little, too late. We can try to assuage some of the coming problems with an electrical-based fleet (hydrogen has too many drawbacks- fuel cells; third-hand energy step which wastes power at other levels, as it is converted from electricity, which is converted from something else), but the problems of cost and distribution will likely prevent it from being a pre-solution. Electrical cars will probably prolifferate
after the economic recessions, and even then, will likely be almost a luxury.
Many economists predict that our energy output as a society (similar to GDP as a measure of net ecomomic output) will be around 1/3 of its present state ten years after peak, and so personalized transportation and unecessary area-heating might almost cease.
Hi Bliss, thanks for posting these links.
Link 1: Free energy has always been a mixed bag- there are many promising leads, but none have been proven yet in the mainstream. One of the more promising, the Depalmo machine, was actually proven to have been based on supposedly erroneous data. There are others, though, which actually may be what they purport themselves to be. Only time will tell, but I would not bet the farm on this yet. The oil peak predictions are based on the "all things being equal" format, which bars extraordinary new solutions. We very well may be "saved" as a culture by the disclosure of free energy systems, but this is unfortunately still an area of mass uncertainty.
Link 3: I was not previously aware of this community, and I am amazed that they claim they can run their power grid off this "thesatika". It may well be what they claim it to be (it is far from impossible), but I would need more information, which they decline to give, for understandable reasons.
Link 2: This set of links is actually quite interesting. It corresponds with what others have claimed of the "shadow government" very oddly. The provided link to Steve Greer's disclosure project is also noteworthy:
http://netmar.com/~maat/announce/drgreer.htm#rn2 (http://netmar.com/~maat/announce/drgreer.htm#rn2)
I do not know what to think of it, but it seems quite professional.
Again, Bliss, I do not doubt the existence of Free Energy; I am simply unsure that it may be offered as a solution in time to avert crisis, and if what Steve Greer claims is true, there are those who would keep knowledge like this out of public domain, most pitiably.
Thanks for sharing this- I will post that link elsewhere for others to see- maybe other posters have information on its potential validity.
back to the side topic of alternatives to harvesting the rainforest.
a local surfboard maker introduced me to the use of bamboo veneer with epoxy resin lamination as a very strong composite material.
I did web searches and found some interesting stuff.
Several references state that bamboo is the fastest growing harwood.
5 to 7 years of bamboo growth produces as much hardwood as 40-60 years of rainforest hardwood tree growth.
I bought a small roll of bamboo veneer and it's excellent to work with.
Hi Bliss :wink:
I do not have disputes with the other sources, but the information from Marko Rodin seems rather sketchy, and possible not authentic. I am not a math major, but I have taken a few calculus classes like most folks with degrees, and I must say that his formulations appear entirely arbitrary and based on coincidences of the base-ten number system.
Rodin on his webpage:
QuoteFollow along as the amazing properties of this symbol unveil themselves to you. Put your pencil on number 1 and without picking up your pencil, move your pencil in a straight line to number 2, then 4, then across the center to 8. Notice that you are doubling. So next should be 16 and it is, but 1+6=7. So move your pencil to 7. Then 16 doubled is 32, but 3+2=5. So move your pencil to 5. Then 32 doubled is 64 and 6+4=10 and 1+0=1. And you're back to 1. So move the pencil across the center and back up to 1. The significance of the Mayan calender is that 64 is one complete cycle of infinity. Then it begins again with 64 doubled is 128 and 1+2+8=11
let us try these results in a base 4 number system (where you count as 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20)
2x10 (2x4) = 20 ( 8 ),
1+12 (1+6) = 13 (7),
but 16 is 100 in base 4: 1 + 0 + 0 = 1 (which does not give the result of seven found in base ten)
so you can see that "God's mathematics" only work in base 10. We use the base ten system because we have 10 fingers, and learned to count by them. An alien race with 8 fingers might just as easily learn to count in a base 8 system. But the mathematical correlations only work in base 10, which shows that they are probably contrived to work that way. I do not think the Source of creation would arbitrarily force the world to work in base 10 when it could work any number of other ways too.
I am not saying that this guy is a fraud, but rather that some of his math does not check out, which casts a doubt on it all. Furthermore, he would have you buy a video with him explaining his reasoning on charts he made himself with markers and cardboard, which is not how a world-renowned theorist with tons of funding would go about things in my opinion.
I think more information is needed to proove he is not lying. That is just my take at the moment- I could change my mind if proof is offered, but it does not look good on this level.
Thanks ;)
Hi Bliss :wink:
I do not doubt cars have been devised that can convert water its components via electrolysis on the go, but why you would want to do that is puzzling, as you would seemingly be able to go farther on the original electricity, becuase the reaction that the hydrogen undergoes with O2 in the air is basically the reverse of the electrolysis! Why would you want to do the same reaction twice, in reverse? You lose energy both ways, per the second law of thermodynamics! Plus electrical equipment is far more efficient than most internal combustion engines, so I would guess that you could go 4 or 5 times farther never converting the electrical energy to hydrogen, as there are three main places you lose energy in the hydrogen way, in opposed to the one smaller way in the electrical engine.
On Rodin:
It is very possible that the system he has devised is both fully correct and restricted to the base 10 system, but it seems very odd that there is no real information availible on the guy. If his findings are so revolutionary, why does no one (not even Wikipedia, which knows football coaches, Atari games, movie characters, congresspeople, and little-known scientists) know of him? All the information I can find on him seems to be produced by himself or his affiliates.
If you have more information on him, most preferably the reports of others, it would be easier to evaluate just who he is and what he has to offer. Perhaps he really can help revolutionize the world, but I don't see how he can if he remains some sort of shadow.
Thanks :wink: