After oil's gone, what then?

[Skep B]

water doesn't burn particularly well in my experiences

[questionmark]

water doesn't burn particularly well in my experiences

Just need to make it hot enough and it will... with a bang!

[Space Commander Travis]

water doesn't burn particularly well in my experiences

Hydrogen does, though. And oxygen, in fact.

[Skep B]

Crazy how that chemistry thing works

[+DieChecker]

I've always thought hydrogen as a fuel source was a ignorant idea. We have cars and machines that function fine on electricity alone. Why make electricity and convert it into hydrogen (With losses) and then use it. With a vehicle all you are doing is adding losses by using hydrogen. So if it takes 10 solar panels to charge a car for one day of use, it would take 11 or 12 to create one day's use of hydrogen. The energy it takes to move the vehicle does not change. True, hydrogen can give more acceleration, but except for teens and guys having a midlife crises, who need fast acceleration?

IMHO hydrogen fuel is just the way that Big Energy is going to try to maintain their grip on power, since it has to be created, stored and distributed. Electricity already comes to your house and can provide the same transportation function.

[+DieChecker]

http://physics.ucsd....he-energy-trap/

That energy trap is there, but fortunately for the US, we're the ones sitting on the future's reserves. If shale oils aren't cost effective till prices increase, guess what the energy trap will do? Raise prices, right. And then the US will be pulling in money and exporting oil for 100 years. The US is going to be just fine, unless there is a World War, where all the Have-Not-Nations attempt to attack and take the oil. But, I just don't see that happening, since we still have global military supremecy.

Sure, everyone else is going to get technologically and economically crunched, but should those nations that still have resources have to be crunched too? Does everyone need to suffer because it is "not fair"?

I do agree that we should not rely on those fossil fuels however and should work on those alternative energy sources. It is just the smart thing to do.

Edited August 10, 2013 by DieChecker

[Zaphod222]

Hydrogen does, though. And oxygen, in fact.

Oxygen "burns"?????

[Zaphod222]

I do agree that we should not rely on those fossil fuels however and should work on those alternative energy sources. It is just the smart thing to do.

"Working on" is a good thing, but the fact is there are no realistic alternatives to fossil fuel on the horizon, except nuclear, which comes with its own set of problems.

Of course, if the "cold fusion" crowd can finally pull their rabbit out of the hat, that would be great. But I wouldn´t hold my breath.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Zaphod222

[+DieChecker]

"Working on" is a good thing, but the fact is there are no realistic alternatives to fossil fuel on the horizon, except nuclear, which comes with its own set of problems.

Of course, if the "cold fusion" crowd can finally pull their rabbit out of the hat, that would be great. But I wouldn´t hold my breath.

What about electric? As far as vehicles go, it is not too bad. A little more expensive at present, but well within the horizon of what could be moved toward.

As far as other uses we use petroleum for, I think we'll have to learn to live without plastic nik-nacks and those horrible grocerystore plastic bags.

As far as where the electric comes from... We're eventually going to have to go off coal and natural gas, and nuclear looks like where that is going to go. But that is also 100 years down the road, resource wise. I'd like to see solar be much more greatly used myself.

Edited August 10, 2013 by DieChecker

[lightly]

That's great, but can you make tires out of it?

according to this link... Henry Ford's Hemp Mobile's tires ... "were made from goldenrods bred by Ford’s close friend Thomas Edison."

http://www.hiddenmys...s/fordhemp.html

.. and BIODEGRADABLE plastic- like materials can be made from plants .. no problem.

Edited August 10, 2013 by lightly

[Bavarian Raven]

Oxygen "burns"?????

It oxidizes if I remember my chemistry correctly...

[Space Commander Travis]

Oxygen "burns"?????

oh, pedantry.

!!!!!

[Swede]

Hydrogen does, though. And oxygen, in fact.

Error.

Pure hydrogen is highly volatile. However, O₂, in a pure state, does not "burn".

A poor conductor of heat and electricity, oxygen supports combustion but does not burn (Emphasis added).

http://www.infopleas...-compounds.html

Pure oxygen does not burn (Emphasis added).

http://chemistry.sta...ygen-combustion

.

[Hawken]

If alternatives replace oil and those alternatives come from food sources such as corn, sugar cane and oranges,

How is a growing population to be fed? 50 years ago the world population was half of what it is now.

Hate to sound like a doom gloomer but something is going to have to give.

[Zaphod222]

The very simple summary of the situation is:

1. Our modern economies are overwhelmingly dependent energy supplied by fossil fuels plus nuclear.

2. Fossil fuels are mainly oil, gas, and coal.

3. Oil and gas will last for another 30 years or so.

4. Coal will last for at least another 600 years.

5. Nuclear is a separate and highly political issue. Assuming we use it full bore, it would buy us another 50 years or so.

6. All other currently known energy sources are merely blips on the radar screen, and will remain so.

So. What will logically happen is that we continue to blast our way through oil and gas until they become too expensive. Then, it is back to coal. There is enough coal to fuel our lifestyle for a long time, but technology will have to change. Coal-to-petrol conversion is possible (Hitlers tanks ran on this), but it is very expensive. So say sayonara to the extravagant waste of petrol that we have now (cheap intercontinental air travel, ridiculously large private cars, exotic foods in every supermarket, etc.).

Societies will muddle on, but lifestyle will change.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Zaphod222

[+DieChecker]

The very simple summary of the situation is:

1. Our modern economies are overwhelmingly dependent energy supplied by fossil fuels plus nuclear.

2. Fossil fuels are mainly oil, gas, and coal.

3. Oil and gas will last for another 30 years or so.

4. Coal will last for at least another 600 years.

5. Nuclear is a separate and highly political issue. Assuming we use it full bore, it would buy us another 50 years or so.

6. All other currently known energy sources are merely blips on the radar screen, and will remain so.

So. What will logically happen is that we continue to blast our way through oil and gas until they become too expensive. Then, it is back to coal. There is enough coal to fuel our lifestyle for a long time, but technology will have to change. Coal-to-petrol conversion is possible (Hitlers tanks ran on this), but it is very expensive. So say sayonara to the extravagant waste of petrol that we have now (cheap intercontinental air travel, ridiculously large private cars, exotic foods in every supermarket, etc.).

Societies will muddle on, but lifestyle will change.

Not to be too much of a nationalist, but the US and Russia hold almost all the coal reserves also.

Coal to petroleum could be important if it could be figured out how to do the transform cheaply.

[Zaphod222]

Coal to petroleum could be important if it could be figured out how to do the transform cheaply.

It is simply logic to expect that this will be important. But cheaply? No. You have to turn a mixture of carbon and minerals into hydrocarbons, which by definition is an intensive process. Same applies for those Canadian tar sands and shale oil.

There simply is no replacement for the high-quality crude oil that gushes out of Saudi Arabias Gawar oil fields (as long as it does, which won´t be forever).

Edited August 12, 2013 by Zaphod222

[Hugh]

Is it possible that we could use some sort of artificially created muscle mass as a power source in the future?

I'm thinking of the ability of a human to ride several hundreds of miles on a bike after eating a couple of sandwiches for fuel...

Or the ability of a weightlifter to lift hundreds of pounds over their head with the caloric expenditure of a cookie.

What if we could genetically create and grow the most efficient muscle mass, and apply it to move our machines?

Maybe house the muscle in some sort of cylinder, immersed in the necessary bio-fluids to keep it operating properly, and repairing itself too...

Attaching the electrodes needed for contraction and work... and wouldn't the amount of electricity needs be small? The human brain can produce enough to lift hundreds of pounds.. Imagine what a large battery connected to a huge artificial muscle could lift... possibly tons...

One person has the muscle power to ride a bike hundreds of miles... Imagine the power of 20 or so equivalent artificial muscle cylinders powering a car to do the same...

[Render]

What an easy question. With an obvious answer that will please most on this forum. Those who love doom and gloom that is, and endlessly keep asking these pointless questions and debate about like they have the answer: Which is the end of all humanity.

So that's the answer. Suddenly, out of the blue, there wont be a drop of oil. And then ppl are gonna look at each other instantaneously and say : We're doomed.

And then they'll just give up. They'll be like "well, oil was the only thing keeping things going so lets just find ourselves a cave and await our deaths.

And that will be it. Because that is what humanity is all about, giving up and not progressing.

[Zaphod222]

So that's the answer. Suddenly, out of the blue, there wont be a drop of oil. And then ppl are gonna look at each other instantaneously and say : We're doomed.

That is of course not how these things work, and nobody said that so either, except you.

Strawman!

[Rlyeh]

earth people depends too much on non-renewable resources, natural gasses and oil reservoir depletes in the near future, so why wont we utilize the use of water? there is much water than land in our planet.

What do non-earth people use?

[Zaphod222]

Is it possible that we could use some sort of artificially created muscle mass as a power source in the future?

Humanity used animal and human muscles before the industrial revolution.

I suppose you don´t realize the magnitute of what you are talking about. Try to calculate the energy content of the roughly 30 billion barrels of oil that we are burning every year. I don´t have the figures on my desk, but I remember last time I saw an actual calculation like that, it worked out to having something like 23 billion slaves slaving for us around the clock... anyway some totally bizarre number.

Sorry, but going back in time is no solution.

[Guest]

The very simple summary of the situation is:

1. Our modern economies are overwhelmingly dependent energy supplied by fossil fuels plus nuclear.

2. Fossil fuels are mainly oil, gas, and coal.

3. Oil and gas will last for another 30 years or so.

4. Coal will last for at least another 600 years.

5. Nuclear is a separate and highly political issue. Assuming we use it full bore, it would buy us another 50 years or so.

6. All other currently known energy sources are merely blips on the radar screen, and will remain so.

So. What will logically happen is that we continue to blast our way through oil and gas until they become too expensive. Then, it is back to coal. There is enough coal to fuel our lifestyle for a long time, but technology will have to change. Coal-to-petrol conversion is possible (Hitlers tanks ran on this), but it is very expensive. So say sayonara to the extravagant waste of petrol that we have now (cheap intercontinental air travel, ridiculously large private cars, exotic foods in every supermarket, etc.).

Societies will muddle on, but lifestyle will change.

The highlighted part shows a ludicrously ill informed opinion;

• Power generation. Renewable energy provides 19% of electricity generation worldwide. Renewable power generators are spread across many countries, and wind power alone already provides a significant share of electricity in some areas: for example, 14% in the U.S. state of Iowa, 40% in the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, and 49% in Denmark. Some countries get most of their power from renewables, including Iceland (100%), Norway (98%), Brazil (86%), Austria (62%), New Zealand (65%), and Sweden (54%).^[17]
  

That is just so far, the real ramp up in renewables is only just beginning.

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

Br Cornelius

[Zaphod222]

I was asking for proof not your opinion. I

The burden of proof that the outlandish scheme works is on you.

Don´t try the 9-11 troother tactic here, that we have to prove that the phantastic conspiracy does not exist.

Or the tactic of the religionists that we have to proove that the flying spaghetti monster is not for real...

[Zaphod222]

The highlighted part shows a ludicrously ill informed opinion;

Your fancy, multi-colored graph does not show the extent to which the "green" energy is based on subsidies.

Fail. No banana.