Peak Oil and Global Warming

[christo930]

Peak oil is likely to have a very big contribution to the global warming problem. It is very likely that we have already peaked in traditional oil sources. The Saudi's put out more oil in 2005 than in 2006 or 2007. Most of the major oil fields are in decline while China is demanding incredable increases in oil imports, thus raising the demand higher than production capacity. Oil is now at nearly $100 a barrel and likely to go up. The more expensive oil is, the less we will use and since we really aren't saving any money, the money saved won't go into growing the economy and thus using more oil That's the main problem with conservation... You save money. Any any time you save money (unless you put it in mattress) you cause the economy to grow and oil use grows with it (there is a name for this, but I forget what it is). High prices are going to force people to carpool, work at home, buy local food and products, fly less, insulate more, invest in alternative energy etc. Since they will essentially be paying the same amount for less energy, there will be no energy growth created from saved money.

Chris

[Tempest Stormwind]

You're generally preaching to the choir here. ;)

Economics are not my strong suit, so I'm not as qualified as others to speak on this, but the trick is to work toward the alternatives being economically competitive. They won't ever be as physically efficient or as convenient as carbon-based fuel (there's a physical reason it's so popular), but we can make them competitive -- and rising prices will lead to that. So the question to ask others is: Given how we will inevitably shift, would it be better for you and for the economy to start shifting now (giving you the time to develop this technology into something powerful, *and* giving you the early-investor advantage), or to wait until we run short of oil and are forced to do it in a panic? If not now, when?

I would, however, be interested in hearing your take on this (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51). It's been making the rounds on Manpollo discussions for a while now.

[christo930]

You're generally preaching to the choir here. ;)

Economics are not my strong suit, so I'm not as qualified as others to speak on this, but the trick is to work toward the alternatives being economically competitive. They won't ever be as physically efficient or as convenient as carbon-based fuel (there's a physical reason it's so popular), but we can make them competitive -- and rising prices will lead to that. So the question to ask others is: Given how we will inevitably shift, would it be better for you and for the economy to start shifting now (giving you the time to develop this technology into something powerful, *and* giving you the early-investor advantage), or to wait until we run short of oil and are forced to do it in a panic? If not now, when?

I would, however, be interested in hearing your take on this (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51). It's been making the rounds on Manpollo discussions for a while now.

There is a google tech video done by Robbert Bussard who has a very long and impressive resume in the nuclear energy industry, his Company is E=MC2 or EMC2 one or the other. He and his company have claimed to succeed in nuclear Fusion from Boron with NO RADIATION and NO WASTE to dispose of. With this kind of energy we could make hydrogen fuel cells a reality, because it doesn't really matter how much electricity we waste making the hydrogen. Robert passed away in late 2007 but his firm has all the information and theory (he didn't die with "the secret"). They claim they need only 200 million to make a full scale production fusion reactor. You can view the video here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU

This aside, the economic reality is major conservation is coming no matter what because the world will need more oil then it can produce (unless of course the above is realized). At this time there is simply nothing out there to replace fossil fuels. Hydrogen is not an energy source (when you get it from electrolysis), this is something most Americans (and I would imagine, people in general) just don't understand. They really think they can run their car on water or salt water. It takes more energy in the form of electricity than you get when you burn the stuff. It's energy negative. So, at some point, gas is simply going to be too expensive to drive. People will turn their thermostats down as heating fuel goes up. People will learn to turn the lights off when they are not using them.

It also seems to make perfect sense to work on the solution to the problem while you can comfortably do so. The longer we wait, the more expensive it gets. Unfortunately, most people don't seem to realize how little time there may be and how we won't know we are in trouble until we are already there. Peak oil can't be seen until you are passed it. Climate change isn't noticed until it happens. And just imagine that once we hit peak, we will have less energy every year to find new solutions. New solutions are going to take intensive work and energy to implement. Climate disasters will be harder to deal with when there is also an energy shortage. We have less energy to move materials around to drought or flood areas for example. We have less energy to do water de-salting. Saudia Arabia is having that trouble right now. They have announced that they wll begin importing all of their food because they have used their irreplaceable water reserves already and can't invest the energy in using salt water.
We also need to remember that oil has more uses than energy. Simply burning it is a waste. The more we can save for petrochemicals the better.

From my point of view, the earlier we get started the cheaper it will be and the less painful it will be. But people don't want to be motivated until it is effecting them and by then, it's too late.

Chris