Slashdot Mirror

No it's not. There is for all piratical purposes unlimited amounts of oil in the planet. We're getting to the lower ores, the tars and sluge, basically. Once we're below that, we've got air and water. That's why many, many people are looking to that unlimited oil resource (sky and water and sun), so that won't happen. There has never been a non-localized shortage on earth in history.

Here's some of the best links in this regard:
1. The synthesis of gasoline and diesel with nuclear energy (PDF).
2. The Sandia CR-5 thermochemical engine (PDF).
3. Windfuels.

Oil will never run dry, ever. Right now, we throw out waste biomass equivalent to 20% of our oil consumption, and about 50% of our oil consumption. Cut oil use by 50% (even lead-acid plug-in hybrids can achieve this), and we don't need any of the above technologies. We just need the same stuff the South Africans currently use to turn coal into diesel.

Oh, and I should mention that natural gas, not oil, (really hydrogen) is the primary component of the "oil-based" fertilizers. A lot more of that than oil. In fact, ammonia was originally produced by using hydrogen form water and electricity from hydroelectric powerplants.

1. get clean energy to people in the developing world.
2. getting rid of people who oppose nuclear power in the developed world.
2. build nuclear plants.
3. synthesising gasoline and diesel fuel with nuclear power.
4. no more CO2!!! profit!

Notice: no ?????? mark step.

Solving that distribution problem wouldn't take more resources now, would it? Moving all "that food we can produce" would happen with magic fairy dust, right, not fossil fuels. Distributing all that food would happen with magic neo-awesome materials, not vessels made of iron.

Actually it would. The earth contains a hell of a lot of solar energy. 175 petawatts worth. Just 1 day of solar = all the oil in the world. The earth also contains, in the oceans, enough uranium for 1000 years of current energy use, in the most inefficient case. We could solve all our problems right now if we went nuclear. However, the environmentalists prevented this. All those ships and trucks and V8 cars could be powered by synthetic gas and diesel made from CO2 in those powerplants. So, as a result of the suppression of these advanced technologies, we're going to have to go solar. This will be more expensive, but that's life.

You don't have to believe we are running low on many key components to modern life. In 30 years from now you will live it.

I predict that 30 years from now, we will be living comfortably. I also predict that many people will think the world is on the verge of collapse. Just like it was in 1980, when we'd starve in 2000. But, it did not happen, because the principles of finite resources, while seemingly logical, are wrong. Just like it is logical that heavy things fall faster, but this is in fact false. Humans, and so-called "mythical unicorn tears" will always find a way around it. The best example is the whales. It was not the advocacy of Greenpeace that saved the whales, but the capitalism of Standard Oil. Just in time for the whale species and depletion of whale stocks, the "mythical unicorn tears" of ground oil. Now, the same must happen again. It will not be the advocates, but the capitalists who save the glaciers. Julian Simon is a great author about these issues.

And if China and India come anywhere close to a fully developed economy that allows the majority of its residents to live "modern" lives you'll be lucky to get 15 years of your comfortable life before the serious difficulties begin.

They're going nuclear, and we should be too. The fact that they are using more resources is good, because affluence == less population growth. More nukes, less protests.

What's easier to accept, "This is a load of crap! Pass me the bucket o' wings, I gotta watch this in high-def" or... "Damn it, I'm a part of the problem, too!?"

Depends on what kind of a person you are. If you are a rational person, then you just want to sit down and eat food and watch TV/do what ever. Meanwhile, if you have a system of moral values about consuming less, then you go out an criticize, and attempt to tax people for their personal choices.

You're a member of what Jullian Simon calls the flat-earth society?

Anyway, I thought this link might be of interest (PDF).

You can make gasoline in a nuclear plant. The problem is that we aren't allowed to build nuclear powerplants.

Efficiency doesn't matter. What matters is the sustainability of the energy you are using. What if you ecodrive a gas prius to work and I drive a cold fusion powered hummer around the world the long way to work. Guess what. The prius used probably 100 times less energy. Who cares though, because the hummer did not emit any CO2. Nuclear to liquids is going to be a lot less energy efficient than straight electric vehicles. But it's gonna be cheaper and have less infrastructure requirements.

You and all alike will be dragged into the atomic age, kicking and screaming. Forget the horses and buy a hummer. And if not, the sun shall reverse the process. And even then, there is renewable petroleum at your local restaurant.

Just so you understand, nuclear has insanely high EROEI. Solar has 20X EROEI. We currently have the technology to do electricity to liquids at %63 percent. I would do this in my house, but I could not get the required catalysts, nor would anyone want to have 50+ atm in their house. Solar PV can provide real gasoline and oil at $9 a gallon currently (actually a few years ago). Wind turbines could potentially do it at less than $3 a gallon. Solar thermal is cheaper. Possibly less if you use the thermochemical engines linked.

Here's the process. Electricity is used to make hydrogen by dipping some stainless steel plates in baking soda. This can be up to %70 efficient. Then, baking soda would be heated to release CO2. The CO2 and the hydrogen would be heated by concentrated sunlight. Once they are heated, the same process the Nazi's and New Zealanders (what a combo) and the same process used to make methanol industrially today will kick in (%80-90). And you will have petroleum. Next time I can do my own project in a real lab, this will be it. Also, since it is %63 efficient, solar will have a real 12.6 EROEI. You and the likes of you can go back to horses, but I'm not going to stop the Chinese guys from taking your land while they drive their nuclear powered hummers.

I wonder if that's true, though. I don't think many green protesters have a vested interest in keeping the world hungry.

Sure they do. Why do you think they banned DDT use worldwide? DDT can effectively eliminate spread of malaria. But the environmentalists (and leftists) advocated for its ban so that they can keep a diseased population in Africa, which now they can use to guilt-trip Americans and citizens of other developed nations into providing funds to their pet projects.

It doesn't take a conspiracy nut to see all this.

How about a NUhydro Power Plant. These generate electrickery to power a desalination plant (and potentially surplus power too), and have a by-product of Hydrogen (which can be used to power vehicles. - or the Hydrogen is the product and the desalination is the by-product ... er ... it generates electric and as a by-product you get desalinated water and hydrogen ... well, you get the idea anyway).