What does everyone think about this article. This will affect most of us in our lifetime and will for sure affect our kids. Can we handle the change that a decline in the production of oil will bring?
Alternate energy exsists, but the companies are smart. They’ll wait till the last second to reveal it. Can’t make money off free energy 
Nathan
do a search for blacklightpower they already have virtually free energy, they are just biding their time. Bastards!
I don’t know about that blacklight thing. There’s a LOT of skeptisism surronding it and it’s founder, Mills.
But I hope to God the oil reserve issue comes to the forefront soon. There are many who are saying there’s plenty left and not to worry about it, and then there are plenty of doomsayers who think this will literally wipe out half the world’s population within the next 25 years (starvation).
Any way you look at it, it’s scary stuff. We depend on oil for everything. And to come up with or implement a new fuel source on the level of that of oil would take years, if not decades.
One should expect wide and severe skeptecism of a breakthrough of that kind. The same skeptecism was shown to nearly every great scientific discovery at the time. Hopefully they get a prototype out fill the bastard with water and run it, thus proving it works in real life. The proof might be there in the research papers but that level of math and science is far beyond my level of understanding.
Oh I love all the “we are going to run out of oil” crap. The first time I know of them mentioning that we are running out of oil was the 1800’s.
“Not enough oil to keep lighting our lamps. Will run dry before 1900.”
There have been repeated articles that said we were running out of oil. We were supposed to run out in the 30’s, then the 50’s, the 70’s, and be practically out by the 90’s. Now the peak will be 2010.
If we start to actually run out, suddenly things will change. The price will climb, and 100 mpg, or better, cars will be the norm. Soybean diesel will become more popular, as will alcohol running cars, and other “alternative” forms of energy.
The biggest reason that other forms of fuel are not replacing oil (gas) is because of the cost. The cost for the amount of energy is cheaper then other forms at this time. Anything cheaper is not practical. Solar is not good enough for a real car.
Ethanol, I believe, produces about 66% of the energy of gasoline, so it should cost a third less to make it practical. But it only costs less if subsidized.
Now I really like the idea of hydrogen powered cars. Once they get it to work ok that is. People have the idea of hydrogen available at gas stations, but I believe everyone could have a little hydrogen plant in their back yard, run by solar power. If you want to make hydrogen, just put electricity into water. It separates out the hydrogen and oxygen. (And makes a cool experiment too.)
Two things can cause a change from the major use of oil as an energy source. A real drop in supply, and a consumer demand. Right now the reserves are being manipulated to keep the supply low. And interestingly the oil companies in America are secretly supporting the environmentalists because they are slowing the flow of gas, and causing an increase in prices.
I have an entire website on this issue:http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
Regarding Hydrogen - yes you can get it from water, but it is a net energy loss. The process requires 1.3 units of energy to get 1 unit of energy.
Oil (as it is stored energy) requires 1 unit of energy to get 10 units of energy.
You must learn about Energy Profit Ratio to understand why the so called, “alternatives” aren’t really alternatives at all.
Matt
That is a pretty interesting site, Matt.
There is a real shortage (relative to demand) of commodities in general not just oil.
Along the lines of what Matt mentioned, there is a good article in this month’s “Scientific American” (May 2004) about the difficulty in manufacturing hydrogen for use in fuel cells. While it sounds great on paper (zero emission vehicles), it in fact does result in a net energy loss.
On the issue of that website he listed, I choose not believe in such things. While there certainly may be hardships ahead with regards to oil and the U.S. in genenal, I do not think that our government chooses to tell us everything is fine when it is actually dire and that we’re all going to starve to death. However, I also don’t think all of this “new technology” is ready to go at a moments notice and there will be no problems.
Overall, I get enough of the doom-and-gloom stuff with Y2K, terrorists, and all of the other beautiful things we’re bombarded with each day. You gotta pick your battles, and I’m not about to move to the mountains and start stockpiling food and guns.
Net energy loss? Yeah, I believe they say that the technology is still about 20 years away. But that is why I mentioned using solar to produce the hydrogen.
I have heard of different forms of hydrogen being used also. I believe the cars can only get about 6 miles to the gallon of hydrogen right now.
A little more then 10 years ago I read about an experimental car produced by GM that got 98 mpg, and with the power of a Mustang. I believe the engine was ceramic, and the body was carbon fiber.
Other articles have mentioned technology improving the efficiency of engines, but that efficiency has been applied to power, not to fuel economy. Only because this is what the consumer wants.
What people don’t seem to take into account is how people will react to any change in the supply/demand issues. The economy cars will become more popular, as will motorcycles. Also technology cannot be taken into account very well, because it is always advancing, and at any time there could be a jump in technology, minor or major.
I definitely see a connection between the price of oil, and the economy. But there are always adaptations. Just like in the 70’s when foreign cars started becoming popular because of the price of gas back then.
Also I remember reading about huge deposits of oil under the oceans that are not affordable to drill, and the technology makes it prohibitive. But again as the price of oil increases, and technology advances, it becomes feasible.
What this means is that the price of oil will repeatedly increase in price, and then drop in price. Once it seems to be on a permanent increase, technology will advance, and people will change their habits, and the oil supply will be extended, then the prices will fall again.
Then eventually somebody will come up with a way to use the hydrogen directly from water. Come on, everybody has heard of the car that runs on water.
Thanks for that reply Mage – you just saved me at least 20 minutes!
Hybrid technology will make absolutely no difference.
On average, it takes as much oil to construct a car as that car consumes during its lifetime.
Furthermore, for every car you introduce into the economy, you have to add about an additional mile of road - which is made from fossil fuels.
Hybrid and related technology would have to allow us to cut our oil consumption a whopping 75% just to buy us an extra 25-30 years before the peak.
Oil consumption increases at an exponential rate - thus even if we had a magical 75 percent reduction tomorrow, we’d be right back in the same spot in 25 years.
Of course, a 75 percent reduction is beyond ludicrous - especially since over 50 percent of all oil consumption is military and industrial in nature.
In fact, even a small reduction is unlikely as we have a growth based economy. A growth based economy requires a constantly increasig consumption of oil.
Matt
Regarding technology in general: technology uses energy, it does not create it. None of the technology we have today would have been created without an abundance of cheap energy.
No cheap energy = no advances in technology and no ability to implement adavnces on a wide scale.
I cover this in depth on page three of the “book excerpts” part of the site. I encourage you to read through it.
The possibility of a technological miracle is about the same as the chance of the rapture saving us.
(No disrespect meant to Christains reading this. In fact, if anybody wants to know, I can explain how what the Bible says about not charging interest could have prevented this whole mess if we had followed the advice.)
Note: I am not trying to attract extra attention to the site - I already get 5,000 visits a day and am number one on google for Peak Oil.
Matt
Regarding other sources becoming more profitable:
Remember, profitable for the oil companies does not mean affordable for you and me!
The energy companies will make out great while many people starve.
(Which is already happening anyhow)
Matt
Regarding solar hydrogen:
Again, the issue is cost. This alternative works, but it is far, far more expensive than oil.
Read up on “Energy Profit Ratio”.
To illustrate:
Let’s say you have 10 kids and you feed them through the salary you get at your 200,000/year job as a manager at a software engineering company.
Then your job gets outsourced. You replace it with a 15,000/year job at McDonalds.
The McD’s job works - it does put money in the bank and food on the table, but its not going to come close to replacing the IT management job. And it’s not going to feed 10 kids.
When you look into Energy Profit Ratio of oil versus solar derived hydrogen, you will see that the above hypothetical is a pretty good analogy.
Getting hydrogen from water is very simple - anybody can go out to their car battery and get hydrogen from it.
But simplicity does not mean it delivers net energy.
That particular process - getting hydrogen from water,is a energy loser -it takes 1.3 units of energy to get 1 unit.
It’s physically simple to get, but not economically viable to use.
Ethanol too, is an energy loser. And it requries lots of fossil fuel inputs to grow the corn you get the ethanol from.
Unfortunately, there are no true alternatives to oil. The idea of a society based on renewable energy is a fantasy.
You can’t feed 6.4 billion people on anything but oil!
Matt
Hmmm must buy oil futures!
Just to put things in perspective, here is one of Matt’s postings from another site discussing this issue
http://www.strangechord.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1049
"Brett,
Go back and read through the main page on my site. Hyrdogen is not a fuel source - it is a fuel carrier. It uses up more energy than it produces.
It is not a suitable replacement for fossil fuels.
World War I and II were about profit.
In WWI, the U.S. gave loans to France for arms. France told the U.S. that it would not be able to repay the loans. The U.S. entered the war so that it would ensure that France would be able to repay their loans.
World War II: essentially the same story.
Go back and look through the articles, I have on www.warisaracket.net
4-9 out of every 10 calories of the average american diet is a result of petroleum based fertilizer. Without an abundance of oil, we cannot continue to produce enough food to supply our population.
9-11 was a CIA operation. Yes, and that is not a conspiracy theory.
Why did we engineer our own attack? Well in Jaunary 2001, the Taliban outlawed poppy (heroin) production. The U.S. stock market is propped up by 500 billion dollars in drug money.
With the supply of heroin diminshed, the stock market started to crash.
Then, 9-11 happened, we invaded Afghanistan, and poppy (heroin) proudction has gone back to double what it was before the Taliban outlawed it. Stock Market back up!
Go to freedomfiles.org and watch Michael Ruppert’s video “Truth and Lies of 9-11”.
Mr. Ruppert will give you FACTS, not theories, that prove 9-11 was a U.S. engineered operation.
He has a $1,000 dollar open offer to anyone who can disprove any of the facts on the video.
I encourage you to go watch it. But you probably won’t. That is really too bad.
If your curious, Ruppert is not your everday “conspiracy theorist”. The man had a carrer in the LAPD. He quit when the CIA tried to recruit him to run drugs.
The war on terror is complete poppy cock. Every year 30,000 people kill themsleves and 50,000 die in car accidents in the U.S.
This means that even in 2001, you had a 10 times better chance of committing suicide than you did of being killed by a suicide bomber.
And you don’t see a “war on traffic” being declared.
Brett, if you sincerely believe what you have written, I encourage you to enlist in the armed services. But before you do, go watch that Ruppert video.
Like Emily, I"m not trying to insult you. I mean that in complete sincerity.
Good luck.
Sincerely,
Matt Savinar
Posted by Matt Savinar at January 21, 2004 01:01 AM"
That’s some funny shit. He left out the ILLUMINATI!!!
The argument that there is more oil than some think is moot. Who cares if its 50 years or 200 years? It will still run out eventually, and it is still destroying our atmosphere in the mean time.
I had a feeling this would degenerate.
Regarding 9-11, read up on “Operation Northwoods.”
A 9-11 style attack was planned by our government as early as 1962. The evidence is irrefutable and has been reported by ABC News and the Baltimore Sun. You can download the now declassified Operation Northwoods document from reputable, mainstream places like the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
(I don’t have the links handy, but if you do a google search or two, these will all pop up very easily.)
Conspiracy theory? Maybe, but so was the idea that the Third Reich engineered the destruction of the Reichstag (German Parliment) in 1933. Was blamed on Jewish terrorits and used to launch a “war on terror” and a “department of security for the homeland.” You know what happened after that.
I think this will be my last post on this thread as I can see where it is going to go.
Matt