Slashdot Mirror

that's why we're unionized. (flips the bird to the man. and to all the deluded libertarians on /. as well.)

The short future is projects managed in US but implemented abroad - the far future is too scary to think about at all - they're gonna take all our jobs :(.

don't worry about it. by then, the Peak Oil crisis will obsolete all your fancy technological skills. skills in natural farming of local crops, and working with hand tools, will be far more valuable.

So that by the time you're 65 and have made wise investment choices with your money

"Wise investment choices"? In 1929, what investment choice was "wise"? And if you think the end of oil won't cause a depression, think again.

There will be none of these grand plans. Civilisation will crash first. Sad but true. http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

The Clinton administration signed the Kyoto treaty, which the Bush administration withdrew from. The Clinton administration set up the "million solar roofs" program. Those are just two things I know off the top of my head.

That said, I don't think any American administration has taken energy seriously. Oddly, I think the Bush administration does, but only because the oil peak is something the oil-industry connected administration understands well.

Make no mistake. I like much of what is in the Bush energy bill (although I don't think it goes nearly far enough and my personal repulsion for the man and his politics is boundless). Before you assume too much about me from these statements, one of the things I wholeheartedly endorse is streamlining licensure of nuclear power plants (despite the fact that he [Bush] continues to call them "nucular" plants).

The oil supply is going start shrinking soon folks. When it does, the price is going to shoot up and the oil companies will make even more money than they do today, but not for too much longer. We have very few alternatives to oil. Yes, solar and wind can supplement. And we'll build that. But they aren't there all the time. Yes, coal is there. But it is just as exhaustible as oil and we'll face the problem again in the future.

Splitting those atoms is the only sure way we have to keep our economy alive and to do so without destroying our climate. Yes, the waste is a problem, but nothing compared to inaction when the oil supply begins to shrink.

The other big thing to do is go after EFFICIENCY. The good news is that the price of energy will force it (again, this left-leaning liberal might suprise you by saying "markets work."), but the bad news is that we might not be able to make the needed changes quickly enough.

I'm genuinely worried about the next 25 years and energy. I'm far more worried about this than the "terrorist threat." Why? Because when gasoline rises to $10+ USD per gallon it will affect many more people than any suicidal maniac possibly could, even with NBC weapons.

A world without oil (or oil prohibitively expensive) is a world where everything you have must be made and moved with your own hands. Take a look around you and ask yourself how much of what you have now you could have in such a world?

Obviously human ingenuity and engineering skills won't disappear. We'll come up with things. The new computer controlled phase driven electric motors being developed might very well give us a way to do our transport and civil engineering with electricity instead of oil. Other developments will come. But how soon?

I can imagine a return of regional food production. The return of railroads for the bulk of freight and interstate travel. Etc.

Our present just-in-time economy is based on cheap oil. It won't be with us much longer.

Well put. The scary part to me is that the day of reckoning isn't when we start to run out of oil. Instead, it is the time when we start declining in our production of oil after reaching a peak. That's going to be the end of what future historians will one day look back and term the 'age of oil'. Sound crazy? Read here and here.

As far as oil supplies go, we are totally, royally and majorly fscked.

Look here (EVERY SLASHDOTTER SHOULD READ THIS):

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Section called "Won't the Market and the Laws of
Supply and Demand Address This?"

The answer is "No". Basically, to retrofit all the systems to use other sources of energy will take a lot more years than we'll have by the time the market forces factor into it.

The market is also not perfectly rational, nor slow to react... if the problem is perceived to be serious, the market will explode overnight.
The oil companies are even faster than the market.
(for example, they are currently swimming in record profits because they upped the prices at the first sign of crude oil's price jump, despite the fact that they were still selling gas they produced at much lower prices of crude oil).

I love the textbook answer, but I think we're placing too much faith in the almighty market.

Don't be planning too far ahead.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://www.peakoil.net/
http://www.peakoil.org/
http://www.peakoil.com/
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/20 05/04/08/BUGA4C50P61.DTL/

Do a lot of reading, make up your own mind.

...this is good if it pans out. Considering how Global Peak Oil might have been already reached, or if not, we're close to it, we're going to be needing a replacement for petroleum and soon.

Yes.

Well, guess what...it WILL touch you if gas keeps going up.

That's exactly why it might be a good idea to start re-thinking the existence of jobs that require a person to drive 60 miles a day. Or tomatoes that are imported from god knows where when they are perfectly capable of being grown locally.

No, your economy is based upon limitless cheap fuel, which is why, although we in Europe are fucked too, we're marginally less fucked than you. See for example http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I don't attempt to justify or explain my decision, because that would indicate some sort of responsibility to that person.

Unfortunately, this is the prevailing selfish mindset in the USA and will prove the biggest hurdle when attempting to wean the country off oil. I just hope an alternative fuel source is adapted soon, because this country will suffer most when the oil dries up.

Read about it.

It's not just the government who needs to do something, it's not just those other people... it's ME and YOU!

Peak oil, perhaps?

Not if we run out of juice to power our tansistors.

Don't worry. Computers aren't going to be much of an issue for us in 2038.

The war is part of a longer-term need to ensure access to the only oil fields that will be producing in the (suprisingly near) future. It's not about oil prices this summer, but in the decade or two to come.

If that isn't depresing enough, this guy has the full doomsday scenario worked out.

After reading this page about a worst case scenario of what could happen after we run out of oil, I've come to wonder if its claims that we don't have enough platinum on earth to make fuel cells feasible for cars is true. Does anyone know either way?

One thing is a confirmed fact though, they cost a lot to make 1 million US$, and they may come down to $100,000 in 10 years. What a bargain!

I sure hope they can make fuel cells work, but everything I've read seems to indicate that best case, it's not a done deal quite yet.

The upcoming energy crisis will help reduce some of our harmful emissions.

Peak discovery did occur sometimes in the seventies, this is a known fact, unfortunately.

Now peak oil *production* hasn't been reached yet. This is when things supposedly start going bad.

You can read more about the various hypothesis regarding the origin of oil at the refered link.

Well, with the oilcrisis just around the corner. I think it would be a place where there's no technology but alot of coconuts and bananas.

Isn't the oilcrisis going to be a reality before this? I think we got worse things to worry about.

Because economics are on the side of conventional energy sources. They're cheap because they're plentiful - at one point in America's oil history, it took one barrel of oil energy to extract one hundred barrels of oil energy from Louisiana soil. Typical returns on oil energy are 30 to 1. That is, you get thirty barrels of oil out for putting one in. Why bother asking? This is changing with oil, of course, as we're exhausting very quickly a supply that has been built up over millions and millions of years.

Source: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Glad you find me funny, I like making people laugh. No, seriously. Dry and sarcastic humour is a common denominator in my circle of friends, even among the people I know over in the US. The choise of 'merkin' is deliberate. I was wondering how long it would take before you picked up on it and started complaining. I admire your restraint, it took quite a while.

As for me being what I think merkins are like. Hmm.. I asked some friends about that, and they disagree. Perhaps because they know me, perhaps because they have visited the US, perhaps because they have worked in the US or perhaps for other reasons. But I should not bore you with pesky details like that since it won't really make any matter to you. You've already made your mind up (and quite likely set it in stone as well), haven't you. So, enlighten me, tell me what you think you know about me, what kind of a person you think I am.

As for ingesting news, TV etc which one does not agree with. Yes, it is a good idea. I've practiced it for a long time as well. However, when things get to the point that they are not news anymore, only propaganda, there is little reason to waste time on them past that point. So that rules Fox out. CNN is halfly usable still, much like ITAR-TASS is. Some propaganda, some news. Fairly easy to filter out the cruft.

Toeing the party line... *laugh* Yeah, tell that to my Captain.. *lol* I am sure he'd agree with you.. *giggle* See, I am fairly flexible on doctrine, and I don't mind taking a few years mulling over some of the deeper ideas to work out which doctrine, or part of one, that would be better. There are things usable in all doctrines. In general, most of it is crap and only really there to ensure the people in power stay in power and to prevent the people not in power from getting interested in grabbing power themselves.

What I find interesting is that merkins seem to not want to think about the concept of Peak Oil at all. It is almost as if you are on asub-concious level encouraged to steer any thoughts away from such a dangerous subject. http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ was very interesting. Oil was the sole purpose behind invading Iraq. If there had been any genuine concern about WMD, you'd be camped out in Israel now, not Iraq. Invading Afganistan I will admit had some connection with 9/11 and Bin Laden, but you guys gave up far to easily. Bin Laden is still at large, still taunting you with messages now and then. But it figures, as the US doesn't work well without an evil enemy threatening the country. It is what keeps things going in the US, without an external enemy, you'd have to deal with poverty, unemployment, and all sorts of problems at home. But because of war, and an incredibly elusive dangerous enemy at large somewhere in the world, the inhouse problems can be swept under the carpet for the time being. No-one will miss a few million poor people starving to death right?

There are some places I'd not mind visiting in the US, but I'll make do with Canada instead. The friends I have in the US already know why and, although it surprised me a little, they respect and agree with my decission. In time, your government will either improve or collapse - and when that happens, there is a chance of replacing it with something more modern, true and just. I hope that for the sake of the have-nots in the US, that day is not too far away.

... One day, we'll be able to do something else than driving our cars through traffic jams
yeah, we'll be doing something else: pedalling. Way too many predictions [if you ignore Bush administration] that we won't have gas to run these intelligent cars within 10 to 15 years.
oilcrash
Scheide
Hubbert
END OF CHEAP OIL
a Reading List
It is getting so hard to care about all this happy-hype car talk about how cool the future cars are going to be. Detroit and Washington may be in denial...let'em rot; just plan to take care of you and yours!

and slightly OT...[to the tune of the "Rawhide" theme:]
Roland, Roland, Roland,
Keep them stories Roland.
All our gas is stolen. Bush Lied!..."

Oh, see what you started! Now I'm gonna get modded down.

A friend of mine sent me this link that talks about the near-term problem (read the next 3-4 years away) of the world reaching Peak Oil. Peak Oil is where we have reached the peak of all oil in the world, soon after the amount of oil being pulled out of the ground will begin to diminish.

You may say "So what, we're moving away from gas as a transportation mechanism". But the problem with that is that most of the alternatives rely on Natural resources like Natural Gas, Coal, etc. that are also very finite. We don't have anything in place that can easily replace gas or finite-resource based fuel easily, inexpensively, or quickly.

For more on this I recommend you check out this site: http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ . Once I started thinking about the problem it truly is frightening, everything we do relies on oil in some way or another (transportation, plastics, food delivery, electricity, etc.).

Even if we do convert to a nuclear based power structure, it's only a matter of time before we run out of uranium. As long as we're dependant upon some non-renewable energy source it's just a matter of time before energy production peaks and we're no longer able to obtain the fuel we need for all of our everyday things, not the least of them being the production and transportation of food.

The only solution really is to either develop an energy infrastructure which does not rely on oil, or some other non-renewable energy source. Any thing else is just delaying the inevitible collapse, when resources are no longer relatively cheap and freely available.

I advise everyone to read over this website if they get a free moment, it'll be well worth your time http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

you can read "The Oil Age is Over: What to Expect as the World Runs Out of Cheap Oil, 2005-2050" available in PDF format for free, here
it's 184 pages, and may help you for your vote.

or, as a PDF: OilAgeIsOver.pdf

Good read.

I went to a speech last night about Peak Oil saying that oil production was going to start falling at 10% a year every year starting in two to three years because of a well known oil geology phenomenon known as Hubbert's Peak. So which is going to be the end of humanity? Global Warming or Peak Oil?

Inefficient in terms of what?

Peak Oil is defined as the point at which oil demand continues to go up but supply turns down. It will cause massive price rises.

It makes sense to do the stuff that cab be done without jet aircraft... without jet aircraft.

I guess this is the opposite :-)

No, that would be more of the same "Peak Oil" crap, which relies upon the assumption that oil exists only down to a certain depth beneath the earth's surface in order to calculate "undiscovered reserves". The Russians are finding oil more than 40,000 feet deep. This, plus the fact that the theory that oil is a finite, depletable resource was formed in the mid-1700's and hasn't really changed since. Lot's of information to discredit Hubbert out there. Just depends on which side you choose to believe: the doomsday scenario, or one that doesn't conveniently ignore contradictory evidence.

• "in 1978 we were told that we had less than 10 years worth of oil still in the ground? Since then we have learned quite the opposite."

Certainly not if there if there is a substantial risk of fuel cost rises for current preferred energy generation methods in a timeframe less than or on the close order of the lead time for putting a currently-nonexistant wind plant on the grid (both for construction and dealing with NIMBY locational issues that may arise).

Large supply shocks are MINDBOGGLINGLY bad for the economy especially for something as fundamental these days as the cost of electricity, and are far worse for consumers than for corporations or corporate stockholders-- especially for the corporations producing the shocked supply. You don't remember the economy of the early 1970's very well, do you? It royally sucked. "Those who do not study their history...."

It takes time to develop the engineering expertise to make wind plants economical, efficient, and integrated into a fairly regular cyclical demand grid (nontrivial given the intermittency of wind supply). Subsidies make it look at least marginally economical to build plants now. Once you have people building plants, greed will drive them to try to figure out how to improve them to make more money... which will start pushing the calendar on developing the aforementioned expertise, so that we will (hopefully) have it before the need for it is critical. Yeah, it's a "carrot for the jackass" approach, but given the number of stupid jackasses in the US, and given the traditions of this country, we really can't use a stick exclusively.

Oh, and also, if it goes out of control and creates a small black hole that slowly starts consuming everything

We've already got that. It's called the Hubbert Peak

Those of us who haven't seen Farenheit 911 might wonder who would benefit most from $7/gallon gas prices...and who they have on thier payroll. Cancelling projects like these is one way to keep them happy.

We are not running out of oil.

Are you sure ?

There's loads of potential oil in them there tar sands but it's not going to help. It's too expensive (in energy terms) to get it out. It's only just positive and the maximum rate of extraction is low.

It's not going to be much to help this imminent problem:
This article is a good introduction.
A statement on Peak Oil.
Home of the association for the study of peak oil and gas (ex senior geologists and academics). The monthly newsletters are very good.
Some coverage from their recent conference.
A rather extreme America's take on it.
Peak Oil news portal with a good forum.

for those who haven't heard it yet:
tabloid style

overview

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

Now which American with their head in the sand will be the first to push it all aside and lunacy from evil anti-capitalist swine?

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Ignore the book advertisements. Just read the front page.

http://peakoil.net/

And remember, this is NOT JUST ABOUT "GAS" FOR TRANSPORTATION.

This isn't about someone buying a Hummer or a Suburban instead of a Civic Hybrid or riding their bike.

Almost EVERYTHING modern industrial society needs is based on petroleum-based products and cheap energy. Plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, food processing, medicine, water purification...everything comes back to cheap energy and/or petroleum/oil-based products.

I don't mean to attract flamebaiting or troll mod points - just take a look at these with a fairly open mind.
An aggressively liberal and unfortunately, anti-Bush viewpoint It still manages to raise interesting points.

Basic Education about the concept of Hubbert's Peak

A Dim View of what this change will mean

There is little doubt that life just two generations removed from ours will bear scant resemblance to the rich lifestyle we currently enjoy. Sobering but as true as tomorrow's sunrise, IMHO.

Oh I can answer that. We probably have 20 to 50 years left of civilization before it completely tears itself apart at the seams. If the end of cheap oil doesn't kill us, then our overly aggressive, competitive, and consumptive habits will finish the trick. These patent based "attacks" by Microsoft serve as a warning about a much deeper malady of the human condition. If human greed continues unchecked, we have no chance at all.

Good Luck

crulx

This site reminds me of a similar doomsday scenario I've read about. Buy the book now!

The sad part is there is just enough truth to these things to make it seem fully plausable. If A and B are correct, C and D must be as well. Regardless of a bit of genuine concern for society or science, I think these people are just looking for some funding.

It's all coming down anyway.

1. Humans kill off the ability for this planet to support larger forms of life. (Believe me, the bacteria have nothing to worry about.)
2. Humans change the way they live and restart to compete fairly with other forms of life. (If you need a definition of "compete fairly" think of a sport such as Baseball or Football. Then think of someone going in with a gun, injuring all the other players, and declaring themselves "Ultimate Victor". True in a sense, but not fair.)

However, we have bigger worries ahead on a civilization level. As the latest rounds of wars have shown, people "up there" have begun to get very touch about their oil. And for good reason too. For the last 4 years, global oil production has fallen. It seems more and more evident that we have reached Peak Oil. And as you will find out shortly, it isn't something that solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear power can help us out with in the timeframe of the downslide of oil production.

This problem has many facets and thus can take a long time to wrap your brain around. I'll run down a quick summary here, but I would do more research to come up with your own opinion.

1. The world's economies run on oil. Duh.
2. The world agriculture runs on oil. We can only sustain our 150 tons per acre of food production with the plethora of cheap oil that we now have available. Without that oil, our yields will drop at least 50% if not 70% or more.
3. The worlds transportation runs on oil. 90% of it in fact. That 150 tons of food needs to get to your grocery store somehow.
4. Given that our demand for oil has increased and looks to continue to do so due to population pressures and that we cannot get more oil out of the ground, oil prices will rise indefinitely.
5. Given that the production of food and resources has such a strong tie to oil. As the oil prices rise, prices for food must rise with it. Thus the price of food will rise indefinitely. This will get exacerbated by the decline in food output given the scarcity of oil.
6. No amount of research and development can save us from this. We don't have the time to implement any of the readily apparent solutions (gas, coal, nuclear, solar.. etc) unless we devise a way of generating infinite energy, and even still we would be without many of the chemicals that we need to maintain our food supply. And given even that much free energy, we would have trouble manufacturing and distributing the necessary devices to stem these problems, especially in poorer nations. (Though limitless energy would alleviate many of the harder aspects of our coming population slide).
7. And even with that infinite energy, as long as we continue to destroy our ecosystem with that energy, the result will look the same, just 50 to 100 years later.

So in short, if you don't have a free energy device up your sleeve that you haven't sold to

Don't worry, there will be a huge die-back after the end of the availability of cheap oil. I've just noticed that the second site has removed its Articles section temporarily. It still has a good selection of links however.

Heres something way more important, Life after the Oil Crash

I'm not disagreeing with you, there is a vast difference between the USA and China.
I find some of the differences interesting.

From the CIA World Fact Book:

USA:
Area: 9,629,091 sq km
Oil consumption: 19.65 million bbl/day (2001 est.)
Population: 290,342,554 (July 2003 est.)

China:
Area: 9,596,960 sq km
Comparative Area: slightly smaller than the US
Oil consumption: 4.975 million bbl/day (2001 est.)
Population: 1,286,975,468 (July 2003 est.)

So their population is 1 billion higher, but in roughly the same total area as the US.
They consume 1/4 of the oil the US does, but this is increasing rapidly.

The average daily oil consumption in the US is 0.06767 bbl/day.
If we apply that number to the Chinese population, their consumption becomes a staggering 87,100,797 bbl/day!

We know there isn't enough oil available, as world production is around 75 million bbl/day, and there aren't any significantly large new fields being discovered (fig 4 on the page).

Read http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Because there is no alternative. ;)

..."the first Moore's law is endangered, not because the semiconductor industry cannot build new generation of chips, but because we will not be able to provide them with enough power."

Hell, the way we're burning through oil, powering computers should be the last of our problems.

Why? Because we won't be here. When out Oil reserves run out in ten years time we'll either die in WWIII or starve to death.