o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

flashgordon · 2005-04-04 15:57:25

I've posted about Peak Oil in another forum; no replies! Is this a sign that there is no holes in the arguement? Because, I'm about to send a cleaned up version of the below right up I just made to the President! If you have anything constructive to say, I'd definitelly appreciate it.

"A year or so ago, I wrote about how if we just establish a foothold out in space where gravity is significantly lower such as the moon or mars, then the rest of the solar systems resources are well within reach. I mentioned how those resources are so large and easily extractible once we are even a little bit established out in space.

I forgot to mention another reason why we should go to space in the first place - the second law of thermodynamics. This law of thermodynamics says once a fuel is used in a closed mechanical system, the fuel is converted into a form that cannot be used again as an energy source. The classic example is a pool of water divided in half where one side is one color and another side is another color; remove the divider, and the two colors mix evenly; the force and energy is then spent; no more energy is able to be extracted. The reason the earth's life is to keep going is the left over energy heat from radioactives in the earths core from its formation in the case of life that isn't dependent on the sun's energy, and the life that is dependent on the sun's energy, well, they get the free energy from the sun's fusion activities.

A major point here is that our civilization does not work on sunlight; it works on fossil fuels which are not replenishable except on a geologic timescale. Sure, there is plenty left, but the rest is going to be much harder to extract one way or another. I know that you have been briefed on the "Peak Oil" situation; it looks like that 'Peak Oil' has been attained with the raising of oil prices. From now on, civilization is on a downward spiral. In fact, chances are, we could witness the degradation of civilization within a decade.

Nanotechnologies are likely to be to primitive to expect them to save us within a decade especially with all the civil disruption likely to intensify up to the last years of decade we have to do something.

We've made it to the moon in a decade with less technology; in fact, we had to develop most of that technology within that same decade. The moon/mars debate is one of whether we need the more readily available mars oil than the much harder to make oil from raw moon materials; we need the oil! Robert Zubrin has shown how to get to mars permanently under fifty billion dollars of the first mars landing(subsequent mars flights would be less). I've just read an article about Bigelow's inflatable space stations which would slash space station costs from the billions to the millions. Part of that cost savings is the technology which is a weight savings to get the space station modules up into space. The other cost savings has to do with how the aerospace companies charge fifty times profits on every little piece that goes into an aerospace component! I suspect this was done probably back in the sixties or seventies to keep foreign competition from getting the high ground back on the U.S. 'So be it', as they say. But, the fact is the U.S. has the capability right now of settling and tapping the resources of mars right now! I would like to bring up an idea of making a batch of rockets for Mr Zubrin's "Mars Direct" at two times profit costs for the space industries; they can keep their fifty times profits for normal aerospace activities.

The simple fact is that if human civilization goes back to pre-oil based economy within a decade without finding a way of living off the resources of space, then humanity is probable 99% chance of never getting a chance of expanding out ever again which means humanity has almost no chance of survival for long. We have six billion people economically dependent on this fossil-fuel economy, and if it goes down in a decade, most of them and all their knowledge will die. If food, medical shortages do not kill them, civil unrest will take out the majority of the rest.

This is it! No more dragging our feet into the future; it is time to go one hundred percent full bore peddle to the metal onto mars.

The reference link to Mr Bigelow's work and about that fifty times profit margin is below.

http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2004....l]http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2004/MERC-Jul-08-Thu-2004/24250261.html"]http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2004....l"

flashgordon · 2005-04-04 16:00:55

I'd say you have till tomorrow for the most part to make criticisms as I'll go to school tomorrow to maybe expand certain sections on nanotechnology and get rid of grammar and spelling problems.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-04 16:05:06

It makes you think: The last century has been the most productive in history, yet what have we achieved?

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-04 16:09:10

It makes you think: The last century has been the most productive in history, yet what have we achieved?

Well, now theres a pretty ignorant statement... I guess you don't exactly leave your cave that often.

And this talk of the end of civilization and crap because of the oil supply... nonsense. You are right up there with the zero-sum Communist economists. You don't give humanity near enough credit when it needs to do something to save itself.

Bigelow is out of his mind with a "fifty times" profit margin, patently absurd! Does no one anymore think that space travel is hard? And if its hard, it doesn't come cheap.

Edit: Oh yeah, and as it turns out, oil may NOT be all from Dinos, but rather from the high temperature/pressure polymerization of inorganic-sourced natural gas in the deep Earth and its subsequent condensation in cooler strata.

flashgordon · 2005-04-04 17:18:16

and your proofs and denials beyond the mere statements?

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-04 17:24:11

Nah, I don't think they're nessesarry. The whole premise of the above is pretty absurd.

"mars oil than the much harder to make oil from raw moon materials"

I mean, come on, what else could possibly be concluded?

Edit: Oh, and this... "Robert Zubrin has shown how to get to mars permanently under fifty billion dollars"

Except that he hasn't, MarsDirect is an underpowerd fraud, and Bob is a documented liar in his zealousness to get to Mars NOW NOW NOW.

flashgordon · 2005-04-04 17:31:29

. . and god exists I suppose?

Dook · 2005-04-04 17:53:56

Civilization in a downward spiral? Degradation within a decade? OMG dude lay off that stuff, it's illegal! The high price of oil is an opportunity for the US to finally break away from our dependance on foreign oil. American's will buy fuel cell and bio-diesel vehicles when they become cheaper to operate than their gas guzzling SUV's.

Mars oil? Moon oil? You're not serious are you? The oil isn't going to run out for 40-50 years and even so we still have 200 years worth of coal, nuclear, vegetable sources of bio-diesel, solar, wind, geo-thermal, water (dams).

Maybe try listening more when you are in school?

Two times profit for space industries? Why would we do that? It's political suicide and completely unnecessary.

I would recommend that you keep it to the point and don't try and sound like a nobel prize winning geologist until you actually become a nobel prize winning geologist.

If you send that letter you make us all out to be quacks. You're not helping the cause.

Dook · 2005-04-04 17:58:18

. . and god exists I suppose?

Yes God exists.

dicktice · 2005-04-04 18:00:59

GCNR, regarding your: "Oh yeah, and as it turns out, oil may NOT be all from Dinos, but rather from the high temperature/pressure polymerization of inorganic-sourced natural gas in the deep Earth and its subsequent condensation in cooler strata."
I read that some time ago, originally a Russian hypothesis I think (correct me if I'm wrong) and don't I wish it were true! What's the latest, do you know?

Re. the time is running out theme: I try to ignore it, but late at night I sometimes wake up scared we might not make it in time to be overwhelmed by the have-nots, who couldn't care less about space.

dicktice · 2005-04-04 19:01:29

I got curious, and looked up "abiogenic petroleum" on my own. This stuff is more current than I thought. GCNR is a convert, it seems, but Flashgordon doesn't appear to know about it, so here goes:

Abiogenic petroleum origin
WikipediaAbiogenic petroleum origin
The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin states that petroleum is produced by non-biological processes deep in the Earth. This stands in contrast to the more widely held view that it is created from the fossilization of ancient organic matter. According to this theory, petroleum is formed by non-biological reactions deep in the Earth's crust. The constituent precursors of petroleum (mainly methane) are commonplace and it is possible that appropriate conditions exist for oil to be formed deep within the Earth.
Although this theory has support by a large minority of geologists in Russia, where it was intensively developed in the 1950s and 1960s, it has only recently begun to receive attention in the West, where the biogenic theory is still believed by the vast majority of petroleum geologists. Although it was originally denied that abiogenic hydrocarbons exist at all on earth, this is now admitted by Western geologists. The orthodox position now is that while abiogenic hydrocarbons exist, they are not produced in commercially significant quantities, so that essentially all hydrocarbons that are extracted for use as fuel or raw materials are biogenic.
A variation of the abiogenic theory includes alteration by microbes similar to those which form the basis of the ecology around deep hydrothermal vents.
One prediction of this theory is that other planets of the Solar system or their moons have large petroleum oceans, either from hydrocarbons present at the formation of the Solar system, or subsequent chemical reactions.
That this theory is receiving increasing attention from Western geologists is indicated by the fact that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists scheduled a conference (http://www.mail-archive.com/fogri@iagi. … 00802.html) to meet in Vienna in July 2004 entitled "Origin of Petroleum—Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production". The conference had to be canceled, however, due to financial considerations. Instead, AAPG will be holding a one-day session on the topic at the June 2005 annual meeting in Calgary, Alberta. If the theory is correct, then it could greatly change future energy development.
Comparison of theories
There are two theories on the origin of carbon fuels: the biogenic theory and the abiogenic theory. The two theories have been intensely debated since the 1860s, shortly after the discovery of widespread petroleum. There are several differences between the biogenic and abiogenic theories.
Raw material
Biogenic: remnants of buried plant and animal life.
Abiogenic: deep carbon deposits from when the planet formed or subducted material.
Events before conversion
Biogenic: Large quantities of plant and animal life were buried. Sediments accumulating over the material slowly compressed it and covered it. At a depth of several hundred meters, catagenesis converts it to bitumens and kerogens.
Abiogenic: At depths of hundreds of kilometers, carbon deposits are a mixture of hydrocarbon molecules which leak upward through the crust. Much of the material becomes methane.
Conversion to petroleum and methane
Biogenic: Catagenesis occurs as the depth of burial increases and the heat and pressure breaks down kerogens to form petroleum.
Significant advances in the understanding of chemical processes and organic reactions and improved knowledge about the effects of heating and pressure during burial and diagenesis of organic sediments support biogenic processes.
Abiogenic: When the material passes through temperatures at which extremophile microbes can survive some of it will be consumed and converted to heavier hydrocarbons.
Formation of coal
Biogenic: Coal is organic material which was buried and compressed but did not undergo catagenesis into kerogens.
Abiogenic: Coal is organic material which was filled with hydrocarbons which seeped into the deposit. This can happen on the surface, such as in a swamp with methane and petroleum seeps.
Evidence supporting abiogenic theory
Cold planetary formation
In the late 19th century it was believed that the Earth was extremely hot, possibly completely molten, during its formation. One reason for this was that a cooling, shrinking, planet was necessary in order to explain geologic changes such as mountain formation. A hot planet would have caused methane and other hydrocarbons to be outgassed and oxidized into carbon dioxide and water, thus there would be no carbon remaining under the surface. Planetary science now recognizes that formation was a relatively cool process until radioactive materials accumulate together deep in the planet.
Known hydrocarbon sources
Carbonaceous chondrite meteorites contain kerogen-like carbon and hydrocarbons. Heated under pressure, this material would release hydrocarbon fluids in addition to creating solid carbon deposits. Further, at least ten bodies in our solar system are known to contain at least traces of hydrocarbons.
Meteorite ALH84001, believed to be from Mars, contains carbonate minerals which were formed about 3.9 billion years ago. The deposits are in igneous rock. On Earth, microorganisms often create carbonates. However, the material could also have been formed by water carrying carbon dioxide, or by hot carbon-dioxide-bearing fluids.
Kerogen-like material has also been detected in interstellar clouds and dust particles around stars.
Methane not on Earth
Methane has been detected or is believed to exist in several locations of the solar system. It is believed to have been created by abiotic processes, except possibly on Mars.
Jupiter
Mars
Saturn
Iapetus
Titan
Neptune
Triton
Uranus
Ariel
Miranda
Oberon
Titania
Umbriel
Comet Halley
Comet Hyakutake
In 2004, the Cassini spacecraft confirmed methane clouds and hydrocarbons on Titan, a moon of Saturn.
Traces of methane gas also are in the thin atmosphere of the Earth's Moon.
Methane has also been detected in interstellar clouds.

Unusual deposits
Hydrocarbon deposits have been found in places which are poorly explained by biogenic theory. Some oil fields are being refilled from deep sources, although this does not rule out a deep biogenic source rock. In the White Tiger field in Vietnam and many wells in Russia, oil and natural gas are being produced from granite basement rock. As this rock is believed to have no oil-producing sediments under it, the biogenic theory requires the oil to have leaked in from source rock dozens of kilometers away.
Deep microbes
Microbial life has been discovered 4.2 kilometers deep in Alaska and 5.2 kilometers deep in Sweden. Methanophile organisms have been known for some time, and recently it was found that microbial life in Yellowstone National Park is based on hydrogen metabolism. Other deep and hot extremophile organisms continue to be discovered.
Ambiguous results
Ongoing research has changed the status of some information. For example, some biomarkers which were interpreted as evidence supporting the biogenic theory have been undermined by finding similar materials in thermophilic situations which are part of abiogenic theories.
Biomarkers
Chemicals of biological origin have been found in many geologic hydrocarbon deposits. These biomarkers were believed to be from known surface sources. Due to the difficulty in culturing and sampling deep heat-loving bacteria, thermophiles, little was known of their chemistry. As more is learned of bacterial chemistry, more biomarkers seem likely to be due to bacterial action. Hopanoids, called the 'most abundant natural products on Earth', were believed to be indicators of oil derived from ferns and lichens but are now known to be created by many bacteria, including archaea. Sterane was thought to have come from processes involving surface deposits but is now known to be produced by several prokaryotes including methanotrophic proteobacteria.
Deep hot carbon sources
Carbonate lava
Carbonatites are intrusive carbonate-mineral-rich igneous rocks. Although they are deposits of carbon from an igneous source, the geology behind their creation is not understood.
Hydrothermal vents
Hydrothermal vents expel mineral-rich geothermally heated water.
Carbon dioxide abiogenically produced from magma: As magma outgasses helium and carbon dioxide at depths less than 60 km, there should be deep carbon fluids present in areas such as oceanic ridges where the magma is able to heat surface waters.
Microbes can create methane: Extremophile methanogens such as Methanopyrus can convert CO2 to methane.
Methane can also be created chemically: Iron in rock can release hydrogen from water, then carbon dioxide can combine with the hydrogen to produce methane and water. University of Minnesota researchers discovered that rocks rich in chromium minerals can encourage chemical methane production, while also producing the more complex hydrocarbons ethane and propane.
Methane and carbon dioxide may be dissolved in water which enters hydrothermal vent systems.
Hydrothermal vents might release methane and carbon from deposits of biological origin, although this is less likely in vents at spreading oceanic ridges.
Evidence supporting biogenic theory
Biomarkers
It was once argued that the abiogenic theory does not explain the detection of various biomarkers in petroleum. Microbial consumption does not yet explain some trace chemicals found in deposits. Materials which suggest certain biological processes include tetracyclic diterpane and oleanane. Although extremophile microorganisms exist deep underground and some metabolize carbon, some of these biomarkers are only known so far to be created in surface plants. This shows that some petroleum deposits may have been in contact with ancient plant residues, though it does not show that the latter are the origin of the former. There also is evidence that low-temperature relatives of hyperthermophiles are widespread, so it is also possible for biological deposits to have been altered by low-temperature bacteria which are similar to deeper heat-loving relatives.
See also
Fossil fuel
External links
Fuel's Paradise (Wired) (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html)
The Mystery of Eugene Island 330 (Science Frontiers) (http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm)
The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth (Thomas Gold) (http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html)
Gas Resources Corporation collection of documents (http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm)
Abiotic oil debate (http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html)
Gas Origin Theories to be Studied (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) (http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm)
Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs (Nature) (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage. … 2a_fs.html)
Geobiology @ MIT about biomarkers (http://eaps.mit.edu/geobiology/biomarkers.html)

Let me know if I should delete this, say, in a week.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-04 19:48:52

I wouldn't say I am a convert, but I think that the evidence is aproaching the threshold of "solid" that at least some of our oil is nonbiological, which could basically throw off all the "we're running out!!!" estimates.

And last I checked, wasn't our population going to top out at 7-9Bn?

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-04 21:02:59

We're still consuming it at a rate greater than it is produced (whether by biological or geological processes), so the abiogenic theory doesn't really help much, which is perhaps why the theory hasn't been given proper attention in the past. It does change one thing though: Might life have originated from these same abiogenic/geologic processes? Now that would have real implications!

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-04 21:19:50

"We're still consuming it at a rate greater than it is produced (whether by biological or geological processes)... doesn't really help much"

Really? How do you know that? Oil wells are refilling in the Gulf of Mexico in decidedly faster rate then geologic time...

More complex organic molecules probobly aren't produced underground because of the high temperatures involved would probobly decompose them, and high heat is something of a "randomizing" process.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-04 21:46:35

I don't know, do you? The thing is, oil wells do dry up (yes, unfortunately they are finite), there's plenty of evidence for that. So, if geological processes are still producing it at a rate greater than our consumption, where do you think it goes?

SpaceNut · 2005-04-05 05:24:27

American's will buy fuel cell and bio-diesel vehicles when they become cheaper to operate than their gas guzzling SUV's.

Well that will not be happening any time soon due to high hydrogen fuel costs.

Automakers Rush To Develop Hydrogen Cars

Hydrogen is currently three to four times more expensive to produce than gasoline.

side benefits of fuel cell use.

However, the light and plentiful gas produces zero emissions and can be produced domestically, potentially reducing U.S. dependency on foreign oil.

Last I checked there had been other work and research on alternative fuels for cell use as well in methane, propane ...

Now capturing the waste water from a lox, hydrogen vehicle could be of some benefit for very arid places but the high fuel cost would still be prohibitive.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-05 06:04:52

I don't know, do you? The thing is, oil wells do dry up (yes, unfortunately they are finite), there's plenty of evidence for that. So, if geological processes are still producing it at a rate greater than our consumption, where do you think it goes?

Well, you might want to tell that to the oil wells in the Gulf, they sure don't seem to be limited. They are producing more oil then they did years ago.

Dook · 2005-04-05 06:22:11

Well that will not be happening any time soon due to high hydrogen fuel costs.

Hydrogen is currently three to four times more expensive to produce than gasoline.

Anytime soon? Maybe not. The worlds infrastructure is designed to get oil from the ground, transport, refine, and use it in our vehicles. But the amount we produce cannot rise to meet the demand so the cost to buy it can only continue to rise.

In California the governor is promoting fuel cell vehicles, there may be tax breaks for those owners. And as the hydrogen and bio-diesel infrastructure grows the costs will come down.

I personnally wish that we would take a more rapid pace switching from oil to fuel cell/bio-diesel vehicles. They are better for the environment and we would no longer have to pay foreigners for our fuel.

Grypd · 2005-04-05 13:50:34

I don't know, do you? The thing is, oil wells do dry up (yes, unfortunately they are finite), there's plenty of evidence for that. So, if geological processes are still producing it at a rate greater than our consumption, where do you think it goes?
Well, you might want to tell that to the oil wells in the Gulf, they sure don't seem to be limited. They are producing more oil then they did years ago.

We have had this arquement and it is still that we have a lower geologic strata of Oil and that with the pumping of the upper source pressure and heat will simply force some of the lower strata to go up. But it is still a limited source and will peter out. This will happen to all the other fields of Oil and our rate of discovery of new ones has been slowing since the 1940s.

We have found Oil to be one of the greatest discoveries and it allowed civilisation to expand. It gave personal freedom and wealth to millions of the planets population. It has nasty side effects of course but it is now time we started to use a safer fuel that our technology now allows us to develop.

flashgordon · 2005-04-05 21:11:29

Even if we tap some of this new oil, we will use it up very fast; this new oil may keep good old classical industrialism from totally fading away, but once "Peak Oil" hits, good old classical industrialism will quickly scale back to a much lower limit of activity than we've been 'enjoying(if that is the correct word)' for awhile now.

Besides that, there will be severe wars for the few areas that have new oil slowly(on human time scales) seeping out of the ground; rough times are indeed ahead.

dicktice · 2005-04-06 14:40:28

If hydrogen currently costs thre to four times as much to produce as gasoline, it's because the hydrogen fuel infrastructure hasn't been put into place. It's just not the time for that yet. Meanwhile, hybrid gasoline/electric railway locomotives, trucks and cars are capable of eliminating smog from the World's cities without any change in infrastructure. I never thought I'd endorse high gasoline prices but if that's what it takes for get rid of smog in the short run, I'm all for it. All it needs is Govenment encouragement by way of reduced taxes for hybrid purchases, and less "hydrogen economy" pie-in-the-sky propaganda, which only encourages delaying the hybrid gas/electric transportation changeover. I give it ten years, and with that breather (how cute) the Hydrogen Age can be planned rationally, without the horrible consequences of not taking that vital, intermediate hybrid step.

Dook · 2005-04-06 15:16:01

Even if we tap some of this new oil, we will use it up very fast; this new oil may keep good old classical industrialism from totally fading away, but once "Peak Oil" hits, good old classical industrialism will quickly scale back to a much lower limit of activity than we've been 'enjoying(if that is the correct word)' for awhile now.
Besides that, there will be severe wars for the few areas that have new oil slowly(on human time scales) seeping out of the ground; rough times are indeed ahead.

100% wrong!

Current oil reserves will last 40-50 years, new oil sources are likely tougher to get but they will still produce oil, just at a higher cost. Industry will NOT scale back because of high oil costs. It will adapt. Some businesses will fail but that is evolution at work. The more adaptive, more efficient ones will prosper.

Oil prices, like any product, are a factor of supply/demand. OPEC has been nice enough, with a little threat now and then, to keep the price of oil at a reasonable level.

Fighting a war over oil is nonsense because the war costs more than the oil does. When oil becomes too costly we just switch to bio-diesel, solar, and hydrogen.

Grypd · 2005-04-06 15:41:50

Even if we tap some of this new oil, we will use it up very fast; this new oil may keep good old classical industrialism from totally fading away, but once "Peak Oil" hits, good old classical industrialism will quickly scale back to a much lower limit of activity than we've been 'enjoying(if that is the correct word)' for awhile now.
Besides that, there will be severe wars for the few areas that have new oil slowly(on human time scales) seeping out of the ground; rough times are indeed ahead.
100% wrong!
Current oil reserves will last 40-50 years, new oil sources are likely tougher to get but they will still produce oil, just at a higher cost. Industry will NOT scale back because of high oil costs. It will adapt. Some businesses will fail but that is evolution at work. The more adaptive, more efficient ones will prosper.
Oil prices, like any product, are a factor of supply/demand. OPEC has been nice enough, with a little threat now and then, to keep the price of oil at a reasonable level.
Fighting a war over oil is nonsense because the war costs more than the oil does. When oil becomes too costly we just switch to bio-diesel, solar, and hydrogen.

Im sorry to say you are.

Wrong that is.

Just take the Oil price rises in the last two years. These are the result of an industry in maximum production still getting more demand than the supply can produce.

This will only get worse when as far as the oil Industry is concerned the peak production of oil will if not happened happen very soon. And if you know the Oil industry and Oil production at all then you will know that once a field has peaked its production reduces at a predigous rate. This is due to the way we produce Oil and that we actually cannot get all the oil out of a field, actually we cannot get the majority out. Also the methods used to get Oil out begin to become prohibitively expensive and it is only a matter of time before cost outweighs returns.

And fighting over resources has occured so many times in History that it is counted as a standard. Why do you think the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour? But as resources become more and more scarce then pressures on countries become greater and we rely on Oil for so much and so do the developing nations and countries like China and India would be in real trouble if the flow ever faulted. And they do have places they can scrap over like the spratly islands, Antartica etc. Add that the countries that seem to be the main sources of Oil are often politically fragile if not in outright civil war. Or are becoming closer to countries willing to support them like China.

ftlwright · 2005-04-06 19:08:01

This argument is getting silly, I'm having a difficult time seeing how it even relates to space flight. Anyway, let's see if we can group this discussion back to Earth, shall we..

While it is true that the rate of global consumption is on the rise, most reports indicate that the current sources will be able to *meet* global demand for around 40-50 years AFTER WHICH the currently reserves will no longer be able to meet global demand. Petroleum will most likely not run dry for at least 100 years, coal probably not for 250 years if we continue our current trends unperturbed. The fact being OPEC has no desire/need/want/whatever for cheap mid 90's gas prices, in fact they have been extremely accommodating all things considered. The only thing they need to do is weather the "dependence on [Arab] Oil" neo-patriotism and ensure non of their markets adopt widespread nuclear alternatives.

Much of the "boom" we see in energy prices are due to the industrial miracle in China, which is already showing signs of cooling down. Consumption rates for that region will become more "predicable" and the energy sector will be better able to deal with these ballooning supply/cost issues. Honestly, the energy issue is no more serious an issue than it was a couple of years ago, it just that American consumers are finally being bit in the ass by the issue and the markets are acting like the adolescent uninformed pricks they are (but that's just my opinion ) There is a much large issue w.r.t. to the US energy and transportation infrastructure being in desperately need of rehabilitation (or being blown to hell); this is a important and serious matter, not dire.

Fuel cells. Better batteries. That's just about it. The hydrogen economy is a bunch of hot air when taken outside the issue of the infrastructure rehabilitation here in the states. Fuel cells on their own are utterly worthless considering there are no vast oceans of liquid hydrogen from which we can extract this miracle fuel. We certainly have water, but the exercise of extracting hydrogen from water is so utterly inefficient its not worth the bother. As an aside: if consumers are overly concerned with purchasing the latest hybrid SUV (though I did drive one two years ago and it was pretty slick) I don't think they really "get it."

The "wars over resources" argument is something of a farce considering:
a) the global nature of the economy. Energy needs are tied to
the respective countries involvement in the global markets. If
your not engaging in commerce with your neighbors, you
probably don't need too much energy;

b) There are many alternatives to oil. Consider China. sure they
are going to need massive amounts of energy in the coming
decades, but who is to say they can't get a large amount of
their power from nuclear sources. If China has anything it
large expanses of useless, barren land; perfect locals for
nuclear waste :-D

The easiest way to put the brakes on the Chinese economy would be to simply stop buying their crap, but wars are much more fun to talk about, right?!?

dicktice · 2005-04-06 19:25:38

I happen to like their crap, the well made stuff anyway. It's affordable enough for me to buy on a fixed income. My 19-inch flat LCD (BENQ) is a beaut, and I swear my eyesight is better because of it. And I'm pretty well convinced, at least in the near term, that their obsessive commercialism is delaying, if not preventing, intercontinental warfare.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-04-04 15:57:25

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#2 2005-04-04 16:00:55

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#3 2005-04-04 16:05:06

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#4 2005-04-04 16:09:10

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#5 2005-04-04 17:18:16

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#6 2005-04-04 17:24:11

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#7 2005-04-04 17:31:29

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#8 2005-04-04 17:53:56

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#9 2005-04-04 17:58:18

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#10 2005-04-04 18:00:59

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#11 2005-04-04 19:01:29

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#12 2005-04-04 19:48:52

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#13 2005-04-04 21:02:59

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#14 2005-04-04 21:19:50

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#15 2005-04-04 21:46:35

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#16 2005-04-05 05:24:27

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#17 2005-04-05 06:04:52

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#18 2005-04-05 06:22:11

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#19 2005-04-05 13:50:34

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#20 2005-04-05 21:11:29

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#21 2005-04-06 14:40:28

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#22 2005-04-06 15:16:01

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#23 2005-04-06 15:41:50

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#24 2005-04-06 19:08:01

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

#25 2005-04-06 19:25:38

Re: o.k. what's the deal? - shocked?

Board footer