Oil Crash?
Moderator: ericjon262
-
- Posts: 1062
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:28 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Oil Crash?
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
If it's even remotely close to true, that's some very scary shit. We'll (probably) all be alive long enough to watch it all come apart unless the oil holds out for a lot, lot longer.
If it's even remotely close to true, that's some very scary shit. We'll (probably) all be alive long enough to watch it all come apart unless the oil holds out for a lot, lot longer.
boyscouts will rule the nations as th eonly ones aware of how to service without plastics, air conditioning, and cars.
indian reservations will be places that people go to learn how to live off the land.
farmers will be the wealthiest people alive.
luckily i live near some amish people. i can get them to help.
indian reservations will be places that people go to learn how to live off the land.
farmers will be the wealthiest people alive.
luckily i live near some amish people. i can get them to help.
-
- Peer Mediator
- Posts: 15631
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:13 pm
- Location: In the darkness, where fear and knowing are one
- Contact:
Or go help them.
While that site's guesses of what will initially happen are probably not far off, demand is not going to keep increasing in the face of complete lack of availability. IE, automobile transportation demand isn't going to continue to go up once gasoline stops flowing.
I've been thinking about our complete and total dependence on oil for a while. I have heard the phrase "peak oil" before, but this is the first time I've looked at it seriously.
One thing to consider about energy supplies: the higher the density of an energy source, the higher the density energy that is required to start it. This holds from steam engines to rocket engines to nuclear energy.
IE, if we don't develop high density "alternative" sources while we still HAVE high density energy available, developing them once we no longer have high density energy available will be virtually impossible.
Can we develop fusion power while we still have the energy resources to put into fusion experiments?
Can we develop a process to refine nuclear fuel using only the output of an existing reactor?
Is the world overpopulated compared to the capability of low density energy sources? Dense urban centers almost certainly are.
Bottom line, it will be rough, but the human race will continue.
Welcome to Cybertron
While that site's guesses of what will initially happen are probably not far off, demand is not going to keep increasing in the face of complete lack of availability. IE, automobile transportation demand isn't going to continue to go up once gasoline stops flowing.
I've been thinking about our complete and total dependence on oil for a while. I have heard the phrase "peak oil" before, but this is the first time I've looked at it seriously.
One thing to consider about energy supplies: the higher the density of an energy source, the higher the density energy that is required to start it. This holds from steam engines to rocket engines to nuclear energy.
IE, if we don't develop high density "alternative" sources while we still HAVE high density energy available, developing them once we no longer have high density energy available will be virtually impossible.
Can we develop fusion power while we still have the energy resources to put into fusion experiments?
Can we develop a process to refine nuclear fuel using only the output of an existing reactor?
Is the world overpopulated compared to the capability of low density energy sources? Dense urban centers almost certainly are.
Bottom line, it will be rough, but the human race will continue.
Welcome to Cybertron
-
- Peer Mediator
- Posts: 15631
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:13 pm
- Location: In the darkness, where fear and knowing are one
- Contact:
-
- Peer Mediator
- Posts: 15631
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:13 pm
- Location: In the darkness, where fear and knowing are one
- Contact:
Dammit, now I've been thinking about this all day...
The MAXIMUM amount of power that we could use as a civilization is the solar flux times the planet's disk area.
Wikipedia puts the Earth's mean radius at 6371 km. Assuming 1000 W/m^2 solar flux at the surface, the total energy incident on the planet is: 127.5 BILLION MW or 1.275 E17 W.
1 BTU = 1055 J.
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_%28energy%29
1 quad (1 quadrillion BTU) = 1.055 E18 J
Total world energy production in 2004 was 446 Quad or 471 E18 J.
Since a W = 1 J/s, 471 E18 J / 1.275 E17 W = 3694 s.
The sun dumps about enough energy on the planet that one HOUR of collecting the ENTIRE incident solar flux would supply us for a YEAR at more or less current consumption.
However, we can't absorb and store the entire solar input incident on the planet.
Since there are 31,536,000 seconds in a year, to satisfy the world's energy needs, we would have to achieve 100% efficiency at capturing solar energy on .012% of the earth's disk area continuously in order to satisfy our current energy needs.
This is 15,000 square kilometres, or a square of 100% efficient solar energy plants 122 km (75 miles) on a side.
You can multiply by whatever solar efficiency you want to figure out how much area it would actually take, but the problem is huge.
The MAXIMUM amount of power that we could use as a civilization is the solar flux times the planet's disk area.
Wikipedia puts the Earth's mean radius at 6371 km. Assuming 1000 W/m^2 solar flux at the surface, the total energy incident on the planet is: 127.5 BILLION MW or 1.275 E17 W.
1 BTU = 1055 J.
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_%28energy%29
1 quad (1 quadrillion BTU) = 1.055 E18 J
Total world energy production in 2004 was 446 Quad or 471 E18 J.
Since a W = 1 J/s, 471 E18 J / 1.275 E17 W = 3694 s.
The sun dumps about enough energy on the planet that one HOUR of collecting the ENTIRE incident solar flux would supply us for a YEAR at more or less current consumption.
However, we can't absorb and store the entire solar input incident on the planet.
Since there are 31,536,000 seconds in a year, to satisfy the world's energy needs, we would have to achieve 100% efficiency at capturing solar energy on .012% of the earth's disk area continuously in order to satisfy our current energy needs.
This is 15,000 square kilometres, or a square of 100% efficient solar energy plants 122 km (75 miles) on a side.
You can multiply by whatever solar efficiency you want to figure out how much area it would actually take, but the problem is huge.
- Series8217
- 1988 Fiero Track Car
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:47 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
-
- Peer Mediator
- Posts: 15631
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:13 pm
- Location: In the darkness, where fear and knowing are one
- Contact:
- crzyone
- JDM Power FTW
- Posts: 4654
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:40 am
- Location: Whitecourt, Alberta, Canada
I'm glad I work in the oil industry.
As the price of fossil fuels go up, technology and demand will dictate more efficient ways of doing things.
1000lb cars limited to 50mph that get 80+mpg. Imagine every family owning one, and the fuel savings as a whole.
Trucks and high power cars will go the way of the Dinosaur, just like they did in the 70s.
And finally, maybe solutions like cold fusion will finally get the funding they need to truly replace fossil fuels.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... rAPE84W7DA
As the price of fossil fuels go up, technology and demand will dictate more efficient ways of doing things.
1000lb cars limited to 50mph that get 80+mpg. Imagine every family owning one, and the fuel savings as a whole.
Trucks and high power cars will go the way of the Dinosaur, just like they did in the 70s.
And finally, maybe solutions like cold fusion will finally get the funding they need to truly replace fossil fuels.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... rAPE84W7DA
I think this is a dangerous path of thought...Technology and demand WILL mandate it, but this mandate doesn't HAVE to be met. This problem will not solve itself. The recent generations have seen no great plague or disaster, like black death, which reduced the population by probably more than 100 million people.crzyone wrote: As the price of fossil fuels go up, technology and demand will dictate more efficient ways of doing things.
There may not be an easy way out of this.
It's a good thing I'm an Eagle scout lol
- crzyone
- JDM Power FTW
- Posts: 4654
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:40 am
- Location: Whitecourt, Alberta, Canada
The United States is the largest consumer of fossil fuels. I have to believe that the consumer would demand a more efficient form of transportation rather than trying to blame the government and oil companies for rising oil prices.... I know that is giving the average consumer a lot of credit.
If half the population smartened up and drove smaller, more fuel efficient cars and turned down the air conditioners the demand for fossil fuels might follow peak oil. Maybe peak oil could be extended out 10 or 20 years.
When people get tired of spending $100+ to fill their cars and trucks they will probably opt for a cheaper mode of transportation.
If half the population smartened up and drove smaller, more fuel efficient cars and turned down the air conditioners the demand for fossil fuels might follow peak oil. Maybe peak oil could be extended out 10 or 20 years.
When people get tired of spending $100+ to fill their cars and trucks they will probably opt for a cheaper mode of transportation.
-
- Peer Mediator
- Posts: 15631
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:13 pm
- Location: In the darkness, where fear and knowing are one
- Contact:
http://www.ministryoftech.com/2007/11/1 ... owersheet/
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/ ... em_59.html
http://www.nanosolar.com/
Here's a decent breakthrough...
It doesn't change the SIZE of the problem, but helps the cause of solar immensely.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/ ... em_59.html
http://www.nanosolar.com/
Here's a decent breakthrough...
It doesn't change the SIZE of the problem, but helps the cause of solar immensely.