Slashdot Mirror
The End of the Oil Age
geekstreak quotes "'The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.' Ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming into view. Governments need to promote them."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
And what can you make oil out of? Pretty much anything. Sewage, yard waste, paper, plastic, road-kill...
Recycling at its best. And this isn't theoretically-possible technology. This is currently-profitable-and-expanding technology.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
So yes, oil dependance for the world is a problem. It's allowed a single section of the world to weild incredible economic power over others, and has allowed a group of religious extremists more money than they really deserve. Saudi Arabians (not the entire country, mind you - just folks with way too much money on their hands) exporting schools to Afganistan with a branch of extreme Islam that pretty much hates, well, everybody, Iran putting a gigantic bounty of Salman Rushdie's head because he wrote a book he didn't like:
So here's what I see happening:
Now:
50 years from now:
It's a simplistic view, I admit - but I figure nothing will be done on a US national scale, let alone a global one, until there is A Problem With Oil Supplies.
Which, I'm guessing at around 50 years. Perhaps by then we'll have fusion systems or some other cool way of gathering energy. Until then, nobody really wants to do anything because it will cost too much money.
And in the end, that's what it's all about, isn't it?
Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
This technology had a couple false starts and inital designs sucked in terms of ROI for energy spent, but company called "Changing World Technolgies" built a demonstration plant that worked and then built a plant next to a turkey processing plant that digests the left overs from the turkey plant into 40 weight oil and gas (which it uses as fuel in the first stage of the digester).
*puts down the pom-poms* I think this technology is great. It's not perfect because it still keeps us dependant on oil (just not oil from foreign contributors) however, I think it's a step in the right direction.
I went looking for the link I read in the Discover magazine and it seems dead, so I've put in the google cache link instead.
Anything into oil
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
20, 50 or 100 years from now. Whenever this oil depedency has hit rock bottom. Countries in the middle east will simply blame america for their lack of revenue (assuming they don't move on to some other form of business, they must adapt, or perish). In 20-50 years the world will be much more tightly connected and it will only become easier for a country to sue another country. For example. all the damage Saudi Arabia has done to their people and environment by drilling for oil would be blamed on the US's massive consumption.
Not only is the US gouged on prices, when the money runs out, these countries will turn around and litigate for more.
I say the sooner we throw off the shackles of depedency on a tiny region of the world, the less damage they can do to us. America has always been fiecely indepedent, to the point of being pig-headed. I think we're due for some pig-headedness now. Cut ourselves now, to avoid worse wounding in the future.
Of course I doubt anything will happen until the last possible second. Politicians don't seem to react unless it's an "oh shit" situation. Doing nothing substantial pisses off fewer people, and limiting the number of people you piss off is what it takes to survive in politics.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Myself, I already drive a car that gets over 40 mpg, and the government *did* give me a tax break for it. Not as good a deal as they give rich people for buying Humvees, but every time I see the price of gas go up a notch... I get a little chuckle.
I didn't buy mine for the fuel economy, exactly; I bought it to cut Saudi funding for terrorism, to undermine support for ill-considered US military adventuring, and because the Prius puts out 90% less pollution than the typical gas-hogging Detroit POS.
Yeah, what tripe...from the /. lead in:
Everyone knows that the oil age won't end when the oil runs out...it will end when the oxygen runs out. We will always find a way to make more carbon based fuels. Too much of the economic infrastructure is depedent on oil consumption. So we are likely to burn up the other end of the combustion equation first. Oxygen is a public commodity. It is the commons that is ripe for trashing. So I would expect to run out of it first.
You might want to desalinate it first. Electrolysis of salt water results in hydrogen and clorine. Where does the Oxygen go? SO2? Nasty.
But I don't see why it has to be international waters. I'd just as soon not have a reactor in stormy waters -- a simple lake would do fine.
And Nuclear -- It is pitiful, but the best we have. There are so many safeguards built in that it isn't likely to cause another Chernobyl, but we are told repeatedly "The first sign of the possibility of it happening again is the belief that it can't happen."
I work in a nuke plant, I feel confident in the design and the operation, but it is burdened by safety concerns. 90% of the cost of construction and operation is all based on the premise that something major will go wrong.
Correct. But there are other instantaneous advantages also. While converting oil and coal to hydrogen may not be a clean process, it will at least be contained to isolated places (the conversion facilities). We get hydrogen out, which runs our fuel cells with no pollution.
Contrast this against the current system, where we all get gasoline, and burn it to produce energy. This goes on in every gas-burning automobile (and lawnmower and leafblower and generator and...) to the point that the pollution, while partially controlled, still emits from every one of these devices, spread over the face of the planet.
BRAVO!
I find the biggest problem with vehicle longevity is the lack of proper care by the owner. Second problem, owners buying vehicles that they can not possibly maintain unless they are a professional mechanic.
One moment while I give the gratuitous link to my web-famous Hydrogen Powered Hacker Jeep. Seriously, it has 279,000+ miles, 1996 Cherokee, 2 Door, 4.0L I6, 5 speed manual trans, Command-Trac four wheel drive. Check journal for other posts about maintaining and modifying.
The success that I have with my vehicles (previous vehicle was a 1986 Dodge Dakota, V6, 220,000+ miles) is just changing the oil and using synthetic lubricants wherever/whenever conceivable. This is NOT a secret, but you would think that it is by talking to most vehicle owners.
Wal-Mart does synthetic oil changes for around $30, close to the retail price of the oil itself. I am pretty bad about flushing the radiator, and did have to replace one recently, probably due to my own neglect. I use Moble 1 gear oil in the trans and differentials, Moble 1 synthetic ATF fluid in transfer case.
I also use plastic-safe silicone spray on all exposed seals/rubber. Pretty bad about waxing and washing the paint, but the engine is always clean. Try to find a brushless carwash with an under-body sprayer to remove corrosives picked up from the road.
Under-coating promotes rust, so don't add any. Whenever a trim screw is removed, use silicone sealer on it before putting it back. Whenever a structural fastener is removed spray with penetrating oil a few days in advance, get the rust off, use anti-sieze on the threads, replace and paint over with Rustoleum if possible.
Anyway, if you start with a vehicle built on the "heavy duty" side of the range and you can turn a screwdriver, use a rag, and/or drive to Wal-Mart, you can take care of your own vehicle indefinately.
Now about this quip in the article: Ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming into view. Governments need to promote them. Replacing pseudo-tyranny with real tyranny is not much of a solution.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
here's the fun part. -- I fixed the link
I submitted this 2 days ago but was rejected...
water car
It's a link to a page that has "plans" to convert your car to run on hydrogen generated in a reaction chamber from water.
I looked them over and think they are a bunch of hooey, but I have seen many claims to this regard recently one that was a water/gasoline hybrid running on 20% gas and 80% hydrogen+oxygen generated from water on the vehicle.
maybe someone from slashdot that has the knowlege to look them over and either explain the possible merits or show where the whole thing is a ball of crap, making a gaseous mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is asking for a large explosion..
anyways, it's interesting to read over.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
7 1/2 weeks worth of reserve is alot? a hair under 2 months?
As far as domestic production goes
from : US Dept of Energy
There's plenty of oil out there. Sure you would think so....again from our friends at Dept of Energy,(same link as above)
Sounds like in the near future the Mideast "influence" on worldwide oil will increase. At least based on what or agencies have to say about it.
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
No. It isn't. That's why we have oil. It is in large part the stored solar energy (with a dash of geothermal) of millions of years.
That's why it will be the surest and cheapest source of hydrogen for many, many years to come. That's why the so called "hydrogen economy" will be an oil economy.
When the oil runs out it's back to the wood pile and other forms of solar energy. Or nuclear.
Now as it happens I can live on solar energy just fine. I already raise much of my own food. I ride a bicycle. I produce electricity with my bicycle and my food. My family has a 20 acre wood lot. I live this way because I enjoy living this way. Most look on my "lifestyle" with distaste.
NYC is going to be fucked though. Nevermind Las Vegas.
Can you produce enough solar energy to supply downstate NY with enough hydrogen to meet its current energy needs, and without starving them to death? 'Cause we already "sucked Niagra dry."
Doing it without striping the Catskills bare would be a plus. We tried that once. It wasn't pretty.
The world can live on solar power just fine. It did so for billions of years. It did so, however, without electric lights, automobiles, PCes and hydrogen fuel for them.
And without so damned many people.
Hydrogen fuels will not solve our oil crisis. It will only accelerate it. Once the oil is so far gone that it's too expensive the surest source of hydrogen is water, to which you must add energy.
Back to the wood pile.
KFG