ehaase

The Permanent Energy Crisis

25 posts in this topic

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174904/mic...risis_hits_home

The Bad News at the Pump

The $100-plus Barrel of Oil and What It Means

By Michael T. Klare

On Monday March 3, the price of crude oil reached $103.95 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, surpassing the record set nearly 30 years ago during another moment of chaos in the Middle East. Will that new mark prove distinctive in the annals of world history or will it be forgotten as energy prices drop, just as they did following their April 1980 peak?

When oil costs are plotted over time, the 1980 oil crisis -- prompted by Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian revolution -- stands out as a sharp spike on that price curve. Both before and after that moment, however, oil supplies proved largely sufficient to meet rising global demand, in part because the Saudis and other major producers were capable of compensating for declining Iranian production. They simply increased their output substantially, dumping a surplus of oil onto the global market. Aided by the development of new fields in Alaska and the North Sea, prices dropped precipitously and stayed low through the 1990s (except for a brief spike following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990).

Nothing similar is likely to happen now. For the present surge in prices -- crude oil costs have risen by 74% over the past year -- no such easy solution is in sight. To begin with, we face not a sudden spike, but the results of a steady, relentless climb that began in 2002 and shows no signs of abating; nor can this rise be attributed to a single, chaos-causing factor in the energy business or in global politics. It is instead the product of multiple factors endemic to energy production and characteristic of the current era. There is no prospect of their vanishing any time soon.

Three factors, in particular, are responsible for the current surge: intensifying competition for oil between the older industrial powers and rising economic dynamos like China and India; the inability of the global energy industry to expand supplies to keep pace with growing demand; and intensifying instability in the major oil-producing areas.

A Tsunami of Energy Needs

The crucial role of the developing economic dynamos in Asia on the global energy market was already evident as this century dawned. With their phenomenal rates of growth, these countries must have more oil (and other forms of energy) to power their expanding industries, fuel their new cars and trucks, and satisfy the aspirations of their burgeoning middle classes. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), combined oil demand from China and India, already at 8.9 million barrels per day in 2004, is expected to hit 12.1 million barrels by 2010 and 15.5 million barrels by 2020. These are staggering rises. If you include anticipated consumption by Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and other rapidly industrializing nations, demand from the developing world is truly expected to soar.

To this tsunami of new energy needs must be added an already high level of consumption by the mature industrial powers led by the United States, the European Union, and Japan. This shows little sign of lessening, which means we face an unprecedented surge in the total demand for oil. According to the DoE, combined world oil consumption, which reached 83.7 million barrels per day in 2006, is projected to hit 90.7 million barrels in 2010 and 103.7 million in 2020. We're talking about an increase of 20 million barrels per day in just 15 years. To achieve this would require a mammoth, unbelievably costly effort on the part of the world's giant oil companies (and their lenders and government backers), and even then it might not be possible.

American consumers, facing gas-pump hell, are, at the moment, being further punished by the fact that most global oil transactions are denominated in dollars. Given the declining value of the dollar relative to other currencies, we wind up paying more per barrel than competitors who can convert their euros, yen, or other strong currencies into dollars before bidding against us on the international energy market. Global investors, sensing the trend, are dumping the dollar for these other currencies or buying oil futures, only adding to the slide of the U.S. currency and the rising price of crude.

A Tough Oil World

Lurking behind soaring demand is another crisis entirely -- a crisis of production. The energy industry is now in the difficult process of transitioning from a world of easily tapped oil supplies to one in which mainly tough-oil options prevail. Those "easy-oil" supplies are the ones we've long been familiar with: the giant petroleum reservoirs in friendly, stable countries that provided most of the world's oil during the formative years of the Petroleum Age, stretching from the late nineteenth century until the Arab oil embargo of 1973.

These mammoth reservoirs include Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, Burgan in Kuwait, and Cantarell in Mexico -- monster fields that produce hundreds of thousands or even millions of barrels of crude per day. In the last quarter-century, however, discoveries of "elephant" fields like these have been almost nonexistent. The world is, as a result, becoming increasingly dependent on smaller fields, often in remote, unwelcoming locations that require far more expense to develop and bring online. This, too, is adding to the price of oil.

As an illustration of this trend, take Kashagan, a giant oil field discovered in 2000 in Kazakhstan's sector of the Caspian Sea. It represents the single largest discovery worldwide in the past 40 years. Although it does harbor significant reserves of oil and gas, the field poses staggering challenges to the international consortium of energy companies attempting to develop it. It contains, for example, high concentrations of poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas, which makes its development using conventional (and so cheaper) production technology impossible. Development costs to bring the field online have already soared from an estimated $57 billion to $135 billion with no end in sight. In the meantime, the projected date for the start-up of production at Kashagan has been continually pushed back. Once expected to come online in 2005, it's now slated for 2011 -- at the earliest. This, in turn, has led a frustrated Kazakh government to demand that the state-owned KazMunaiGaz energy company be given a larger stake in the field's operating consortium.

Most of the other big discoveries of recent years -- the "Jack" field in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Doba field in Chad, fields off Russia's Sakhalin Island, and the Tupi field in the deep Atlantic off Brazil -- exhibit similar characteristics. They are either far offshore and difficult to develop or entail problematic relationships with unreliable governments -- or, worse yet, some combination of the two. You can essentially do the math yourself when it comes to the future cost of oil produced at such sites.

So here's the bad news at the pump: The inability of the global energy industry to keep pace with rising demand is only likely to become more pronounced as, in the years ahead, the world reaches maximum sustainable daily petroleum output and commences what just about all energy experts now agree will be an irreversible decline. No one can be sure when exactly this will occur, but a growing chorus of specialists believes that we are moving ever closer to that moment of "peak" oil output -- with some specialists placing it as soon as 2010-12.

Oil as a Conflict-producer

Finally, let's not forget that the equivalent of the Iranian Revolution of 1980 remains with us. The oil heartlands of the planet are increasingly in crisis and the price of oil is regularly driven up by that as well. Iraq, with the world's second largest reserves of petroleum, is convulsed by war. Nigeria, a major supplier to the United States and Europe, has experienced a significant reduction in output recently due to ethnic violence in the oil-rich Niger Delta region. Venezuela's production has fallen because many anti-Chávez oil technocrats have been purged from the state-owned oil monopoly PdVSA. Iran's output has suffered as a result of the economic sanctions imposed by the United States. Political violence, corruption, and state interference in the energy sector have also led to depressed output in Chad, Mexico, Russia, and Sudan.

At one time, the world's major oil producers could compensate for a downturn in output in any area by ramping up production from the "spare" (or reserve) capacity at their disposal. This was critical in 1990, following the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, and again in 2001, following the attacks of 9/11. Both times, Saudi Arabia simply upped production, adding hundreds of thousands of barrels per day in spare capacity, thereby averting a catastrophic energy crisis in the United States. But the Saudis and the other members of OPEC no longer possess significant spare capacity. They're pumping oil for all they're worth in order to benefit from the current surge in prices. Hence, any sudden loss of production in conflict-torn areas translates quickly into rising prices.

Can we expect the levels of conflict in oil-producing regions to subside sooner or later, bringing prices down? Unfortunately, this is a wholly unrealistic prospect because oil production itself increasingly acts as a goad to conflict. While extracting petroleum generates enormous wealth for privileged elites, it leaves others in many countries, usually of a different ethnic or religious identity, with few benefits from the resource in their midst. Take the Niger Delta area, where ethnic minorities continue to fight to obtain a larger share of oil revenues that historically have been monopolized by elites in the distant national capital, Abuja. The Kurds in Iraq have similarly been struggling to take control over the oil revenues generated by the giant fields in portions of that war-ravaged country they claim. This threatens to turn the oil-producing city of Kirkuk, in particular, into a future battleground.

While no one can predict just where the next conflicts will break out over the allocation of oil revenues or the control of valuable oil fields, it is safe to predict that such conflicts will remain an abiding, price-hiking feature of the global political landscape. Instability is now not only the norm, but spreading in these areas, and high oil prices are an inevitable corollary.

An Energy "Black Monday"

The bottom line: Oil prices are high today not, as in 1980, due to a temporary disruption in the global flow of petroleum but for systemic reasons that are, if anything, becoming more pronounced. This means news headlines with the phrase "record oil price" are likely to be commonplace for a long time to come. The only good news may lie in just how bad the news really is. Sooner or later, ever rising energy costs are likely to push the United States and other oil-consuming nations into deep recession, thus depressing demand and possibly beginning to bring energy prices down. But this is hardly a recipe for lower prices that anyone would voluntarily choose.

What, then, will be the lasting consequences of higher energy costs? For the ordinary American consumer the answer is simple, if grim: A diminished quality of life, as discretionary expenses disappear in the face of higher costs for transportation, home heating, and electricity, not to speak of basics like food (for which, from fertilizers to packaging, oil is a necessity). For the poor and elderly, the implications are dire: In some cases, it will undoubtedly mean choosing among heat in winter, adequate nutrition, and medicine.

Finally, there are the implications for the United States as a whole. Because the U.S. relies on petroleum for approximately 40% of its total energy supply, and because nearly two-thirds of its crude oil must be imported, this country will be forced to devote an ever-increasing share of its national wealth to energy imports. If oil remains at or above the $100 per barrel mark in 2008, and, as expected, the United States imports some 4.75 billion barrels of the stuff, the net outflow of dollars is likely to be in the range of $475 billion. This will constitute the largest single contribution to America's balance-of-payments deficit and will surely prove a major factor in the continuing erosion of the dollar.

The principal recipients of petro-dollars -- the major oil-producing states of the Persian Gulf, the former Soviet Union, and Latin America -- will undoubtedly use their accumulating wealth to purchase big chunks of prime American assets or, as in the case of Hugo Chávez of Venezuela or the Saudi princes, pursue political aims inconsistent with American foreign policy objectives. America's vaunted status as the world's "sole superpower" will prove increasingly ephemeral as new "petro-superpowers" -- a term coined by Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana -- come to dominate the geopolitical landscape.

So, while March 3 may have only briefly made the headlines here, it may well be remembered as the true "black Monday" of our new century, the moment when energy costs became the decisive factor in the balance of global economic power.

Michael T. Klare, the author of Resource Wars (2001) and Blood and Oil (2004), is a professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass. His latest book, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy, will be published on April 15th by Metropolitan Books.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there is an awful lot of cushion in the way we consume energy. Anyone who has spent any time in Europe or South America will attest to that. Home energy consumption can drop as much as 50% by better construction and conservation. After the 'energy shocks of the late '70s, world oil consumption actually went into decline for several years as the developed world implemented new energy conservation standards.

Although unpopular on this board, simply making the Aveo and Fit the #1 selling vehicles in North America would probably arrest demand for gasoline here for at least a decade.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although unpopular on this board, simply making the Aveo and Fit the #1 selling vehicles in North America would probably arrest demand for gasoline here for at least a decade.

There was a time when cars like the Ford Escort and Chevrolet Cavalier were the biggest sellers, and I think we are going to have to go back to that in the near future.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, there is an awful lot of cushion in the way we consume energy. Anyone who has spent any time in Europe or South America will attest to that. Home energy consumption can drop as much as 50% by better construction and conservation. After the 'energy shocks of the late '70s, world oil consumption actually went into decline for several years as the developed world implemented new energy conservation standards.

Although unpopular on this board, simply making the Aveo and Fit the #1 selling vehicles in North America would probably arrest demand for gasoline here for at least a decade.

I agree... reducing consumption and changing our behavior is arguably the most effective near-term solution for our energy problems. I like alternative energy, but it will take quite a while to have a noticeable effect on our oil dependency.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a time when cars like the Ford Escort and Chevrolet Cavalier were the biggest sellers, and I think we are going to have to go back to that in the near future.

Thankfully with technology, the Escorts and Cavaliers of today are far better to look at and much nicer to drive, and we even have midsize sedans and small SUVs that get better fuel economy than compacts.

Edited by empowah
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Anyone who lived through the vehicles or the early and mid-80s will attest that they were nearly universally awful, but technology has come along way in the past 25 years. How did vehicles like the Tahoe and pickups become best sellers?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. Anyone who lived through the vehicles or the early and mid-80s will attest that they were nearly universally awful, but technology has come along way in the past 25 years. How did vehicles like the Tahoe and pickups become best sellers?

Even if you look back ten years ago, there's a world of difference...

1998 Chevrolet Malibu - 150 hp, 17/27 MPG

2008 Chevrolet Malibu - 169 hp, 22/30 MPG

It's the change in vehicle type, not the lack of technology, that explains why average fuel economy has barely gone up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if you look back ten years ago, there's a world of difference...

1998 Chevrolet Malibu - 150 hp, 17/27 MPG

2008 Chevrolet Malibu - 169 hp, 22/30 MPG

It's the change in vehicle type, not the lack of technology, that explains why average fuel economy has barely gone up.

but the 98 ' bu is prolly the V6. 3.1L , that can show that large of the difference. are those numbers 08 equivalents or the originals? cause my 99 MC was 160hp rated for 20/29.

i think every aveo/'balt owner would love a 1.4L turbo / BAS over the 2.2 or 2.4 engines.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. Anyone who lived through the vehicles or the early and mid-80s will attest that they were nearly universally awful, but technology has come along way in the past 25 years. How did vehicles like the Tahoe and pickups become best sellers?

I think the rise of the SUV over the last 20 years is directly tied to the demise of the station wagon...fullsize, midsize, compact. Manufacturers realized it was cheaper to build their wagons on truck platforms and far more profitable...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to sound grim, but I think we going to lose some major ground these nest few years.

How are people going to buy a new Aveo when they can barely afford to pay their mortage?

The difference between now and then is that there is going to be a greater cost to the quality of life.

It is going to be a very interesting time....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This country is going to go into a major recession unless something is done to end our dependence on oil and soon. I think Hydrogen is the key, as it's the most abundant element in the universe, doesn't pollute, and it's possible to convert ICE's to run on it. HICE Silverado

However if something isn't done soon, the increased fuel prices combined with increasing food prices and decreasing housing market values and job cuts are going to make for a rather grim looking feature.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the rise of the SUV over the last 20 years is directly tied to the demise of the station wagon...fullsize, midsize, compact. Manufacturers realized it was cheaper to build their wagons on truck platforms and far more profitable...

Yes. Also, trucks were not part of the original CAFE numbers, so Detroit found a way around them. Not to sound cynical here, but the 'truck bubble' was artificially induced, I suspect. Now that trucks are to be folded into the equation, Detroit (and others) will be forced to get back to making small, economical vehicles fun to drive and own. If the leaps and bounds Detroit made in the '80s with respect to fuel economy numbers had continued (instead of being sidetracked into a rejuvenation of the currrent horsepower wars), we could have fun cars that would be getting 40 mpg, instead of 242 hp minivans and 6,000 lb. SUVs.

Has I have harped about for 3 years on this board, oil consumption is a matter of national security for you guys. Canada could turn off the taps tomorrow and be energy sufficient for a thousand years, but our cultures and histories are inexorably entwined, so it matters to most Canadians what you guys do down there. I, for one, hate seeing the billions the Saudis get from you guys. Let Europe fund their religious schools that harbor terrorism.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Michael T. Klare, the author of Resource Wars (2001) and Blood and Oil (2004), is a professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass. His latest book, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy, will be published on April 15th by Metropolitan Books."

While I agree with some of what was written, Michael Klare is selling his book. Those that can do, while those that can't publish.

We all need to look at our lives and change them to make ourselves more energy efficient. It's truely stupid for us to blame Detroit, when they only reflect what most of us want and how most of us live our lives. Most of the car magazines and car fan internet sites focus on the high performance 400hp cars and trucks, not the Ma & Pa cars we need to drive to get to work.

A large quantity of the fuel the US imports is from Canada. Should the US become energy independent and stop all oil imports or just those from the middle east? Would that force Canada to sell their excess oil to dictatorships around the world?

How much are willing to reduce your energy consumption? Will you reduce your online hours by 50%? Will you go back to 1 bath or shower a week? Will you give up airconditioning, both in your home and in your car?

Take a look at the size and weight of all the foreign vehicles imported into the US and Canada. Are they the same as they were twenty or thirty years ago? Of corse not. They are bigger, heavier and less efficient. It's not just Detroit.

There are no easy answers. If we want to live in a democracy where people are more important than government and it's regulations, we all need to contribute and we all need to respect other opinions. There isn't one solution to energy independence, but lots of little solutions that all add up.

End of Rant!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Also, trucks were not part of the original CAFE numbers, so Detroit found a way around them. Not to sound cynical here, but the 'truck bubble' was artificially induced, I suspect. Now that trucks are to be folded into the equation, Detroit (and others) will be forced to get back to making small, economical vehicles fun to drive and own. If the leaps and bounds Detroit made in the '80s with respect to fuel economy numbers had continued (instead of being sidetracked into a rejuvenation of the currrent horsepower wars), we could have fun cars that would be getting 40 mpg, instead of 242 hp minivans and 6,000 lb. SUVs.

Has I have harped about for 3 years on this board, oil consumption is a matter of national security for you guys. Canada could turn off the taps tomorrow and be energy sufficient for a thousand years, but our cultures and histories are inexorably entwined, so it matters to most Canadians what you guys do down there. I, for one, hate seeing the billions the Saudis get from you guys. Let Europe fund their religious schools that harbor terrorism.

:yes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Michael T. Klare, the author of Resource Wars (2001) and Blood and Oil (2004), is a professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass. His latest book, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy, will be published on April 15th by Metropolitan Books."

While I agree with some of what was written, Michael Klare is selling his book. Those that can do, while those that can't publish.

We all need to look at our lives and change them to make ourselves more energy efficient. It's truely stupid for us to blame Detroit, when they only reflect what most of us want and how most of us live our lives. Most of the car magazines and car fan internet sites focus on the high performance 400hp cars and trucks, not the Ma & Pa cars we need to drive to get to work.

A large quantity of the fuel the US imports is from Canada. Should the US become energy independent and stop all oil imports or just those from the middle east? Would that force Canada to sell their excess oil to dictatorships around the world?

How much are willing to reduce your energy consumption? Will you reduce your online hours by 50%? Will you go back to 1 bath or shower a week? Will you give up airconditioning, both in your home and in your car?

Take a look at the size and weight of all the foreign vehicles imported into the US and Canada. Are they the same as they were twenty or thirty years ago? Of corse not. They are bigger, heavier and less efficient. It's not just Detroit.

There are no easy answers. If we want to live in a democracy where people are more important than government and it's regulations, we all need to contribute and we all need to respect other opinions. There isn't one solution to energy independence, but lots of little solutions that all add up.

End of Rant!

:yes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Michael T. Klare, the author of Resource Wars (2001) and Blood and Oil (2004), is a professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass. His latest book, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy, will be published on April 15th by Metropolitan Books."

While I agree with some of what was written, Michael Klare is selling his book. Those that can do, while those that can't publish.

We all need to look at our lives and change them to make ourselves more energy efficient. It's truely stupid for us to blame Detroit, when they only reflect what most of us want and how most of us live our lives. Most of the car magazines and car fan internet sites focus on the high performance 400hp cars and trucks, not the Ma & Pa cars we need to drive to get to work.

A large quantity of the fuel the US imports is from Canada. Should the US become energy independent and stop all oil imports or just those from the middle east? Would that force Canada to sell their excess oil to dictatorships around the world?

How much are willing to reduce your energy consumption? Will you reduce your online hours by 50%? Will you go back to 1 bath or shower a week? Will you give up airconditioning, both in your home and in your car?

Take a look at the size and weight of all the foreign vehicles imported into the US and Canada. Are they the same as they were twenty or thirty years ago? Of corse not. They are bigger, heavier and less efficient. It's not just Detroit.

There are no easy answers. If we want to live in a democracy where people are more important than government and it's regulations, we all need to contribute and we all need to respect other opinions. There isn't one solution to energy independence, but lots of little solutions that all add up.

End of Rant!

professors and journalists are some of the most out of touch people out there. While they often try to pass themselves off as experts, they more often are out of touch, lack real world knowledge on the subjects they profess about, and worst, have no idea how the process actually works to provide solutions and solve problems.

they get paid to spout off and write. which explains why they do it so much.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, there is an awful lot of cushion in the way we consume energy. Anyone who has spent any time in Europe or South America will attest to that. Home energy consumption can drop as much as 50% by better construction and conservation. After the 'energy shocks of the late '70s, world oil consumption actually went into decline for several years as the developed world implemented new energy conservation standards.

Although unpopular on this board, simply making the Aveo and Fit the #1 selling vehicles in North America would probably arrest demand for gasoline here for at least a decade.

Quoted for truth...but GM needs to refresh the Aveo badly to keep up with the Fit.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Also, trucks were not part of the original CAFE numbers, so Detroit found a way around them. Not to sound cynical here, but the 'truck bubble' was artificially induced, I suspect. Now that trucks are to be folded into the equation, Detroit (and others) will be forced to get back to making small, economical vehicles fun to drive and own. If the leaps and bounds Detroit made in the '80s with respect to fuel economy numbers had continued (instead of being sidetracked into a rejuvenation of the currrent horsepower wars), we could have fun cars that would be getting 40 mpg, instead of 242 hp minivans and 6,000 lb. SUVs.

Has I have harped about for 3 years on this board, oil consumption is a matter of national security for you guys. Canada could turn off the taps tomorrow and be energy sufficient for a thousand years, but our cultures and histories are inexorably entwined, so it matters to most Canadians what you guys do down there. I, for one, hate seeing the billions the Saudis get from you guys. Let Europe fund their religious schools that harbor terrorism.

It just sucks that buying gas supplies cash to Whabbi Saudi groups that want to undermine our culture and nation.

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a time when cars like the Ford Escort and Chevrolet Cavalier were the biggest sellers, and I think we are going to have to go back to that in the near future.

Which is why we need to have GM working on new/refreshed small cars now. They need to be a leader, not a follower.

Please, Please, Please GM let some of the goodness of your other product drop down to the compacts.

One can only wonder what GM might have done had it not had its private parts slammed in the door back in the 60's with the Corvair. They might have found small cars profitable and continued to build great/creative small cars.

BTW, (off topic altogether) the Yenko Stinger (Yenko Corvair) would outrun a shelby GT350 on a road racing track...

End of rant

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number one imperative of western culture right now is alternative fuels leading to energy independence. There is no greater need nor beneficial change than making this happen as fast as humanly possible constitutes. All the stops must be pulled out and the prioroties shifted to this one end until the job is complete. We can either define and produce the energy advances the world requires, or settle into a new paradigm of has been nations cowering like junkies before the blackmail of oil producing nations.

Time's up!

Decide.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the easy to get at crude has been gotten, now only the relatively harder to get at crude is left, maybe 40 years of that left, then all you have is the really hard to get at crude. Think of crude as toothpaste, it's easy to get out of the tube at 1st, then it becomes more difficult as the tube flattens out, until finally you throw whats left in the tube, out, because it's just not worth the effort, even though there might be more toothpaste to get at, had you tried. :twocents:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The number one imperative of western culture right now is alternative fuels leading to energy independence. There is no greater need nor beneficial change than making this happen as fast as humanly possible constitutes. All the stops must be pulled out and the prioroties shifted to this one end until the job is complete. We can either define and produce the energy advances the world requires, or settle into a new paradigm of has been nations cowering like junkies before the blackmail of oil producing nations.

Time's up!

Decide.

+1

Chris

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many of you feel about it, but youtube or G video "the energy non-crisis" it's kinda old, and i haven't watched all of it... but i bet what i've watched (part 2 or 3 of 8 ) is at least 90% true

edit: killed a smily

Edited by loki
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All the easy to get at crude has been gotten, now only the relatively harder to get at crude is left, maybe 40 years of that left, then all you have is the really hard to get at crude. Think of crude as toothpaste, it's easy to get out of the tube at 1st, then it becomes more difficult as the tube flattens out, until finally you throw whats left in the tube, out, because it's just not worth the effort, even though there might be more toothpaste to get at, had you tried. :twocents:

Exactly. So, even if we are lazy and continue to waste liquified dinosaurs for fuel, what will happen, say, in 40 years when all the easy to get at oil is gone? We can probably find good alternative fuels in the next 40 years, but what about the plastics industry? Our entire economy is based on plastics. What will they use for an alternative?

I don't have kids, but I have 5 nephews and I worry for them................

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. So, even if we are lazy and continue to waste liquified dinosaurs for fuel, what will happen, say, in 40 years when all the easy to get at oil is gone? We can probably find good alternative fuels in the next 40 years, but what about the plastics industry? Our entire economy is based on plastics. What will they use for an alternative?

I don't have kids, but I have 5 nephews and I worry for them................

can't forget about rubber and steel, or does steel need coal...?....i think recycling things in new ways will become even bigger

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...