-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oil Dependance?
- Thread starter te_lanus
- Start date
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Disasters like the BP one became inevitable when the lack of oil resourced fell to the point when deep sea drilling became the only realistic option.
Government will do little until transport, the chemical industry and home heating comes to a standstill.
People will die of starvation, and the cold.
It will probably be too late for large industrial conurbations.
Government will do little until transport, the chemical industry and home heating comes to a standstill.
People will die of starvation, and the cold.
It will probably be too late for large industrial conurbations.
Cypress
Dragon Mom
:yes: definitely.
infamousjovian
Member
Green energy, in my view, isn't just a practical choice. It is a moral choice. If there is a God, then she is certainly pushing us to turn our backs to oil once and for all....
Oneatatime
Huh?
Our dependence on oil goes beyond using it as a source of fuel
Philos
Member
Oneatatime,
Oil is so deep into our systems. Agriculture is a good example. Without oil based fertilizers and oil powered machinery we are back in the 14c.
Alex.
Last edited:
+1
Even if fuel thing went bye bye, people would still realize, oh wait, we need oil around, I forgot about the 1800 other products in my residence that are an oil based product.
ScottySatan
Well-Known Member
I saw a documentary. Was it Michael Moore? That Cuba lost access to oil when the USSR split up and other countries santioned trade. They were forced to go back to donkey carts. It was a total disaster at first. They just got on with their lives and adapted the best they could. They were doing surprisingly well.
I can't think of many things that absolutely have to be made of plastic. The things that must be made of plastic I imagine could come from plastic-like polymers form a non-fossil source like plant resins. You might be able to make synthetic plastics in GMO bacteria.
I can't think of many things that absolutely have to be made of plastic. The things that must be made of plastic I imagine could come from plastic-like polymers form a non-fossil source like plant resins. You might be able to make synthetic plastics in GMO bacteria.
Yep. It's worthwhile to call the elected leaders from your area and voice your opinion.
As far as the US is concerned, in addition to causing environmental damage, it's adding to the US trade deficit. Since the US imports more goods than the US exports, America is sending money outside of the country every year. And somewhere around a third of this trade deficit is due to oil imports (it varies each year depending on pricing).
If the US had energy independence, then that part of the trade deficit is basically eliminated (hundreds of billions of dollars worth) and is replaced by money that stays in the country (unless the US fails at technology and imports most of the clean energy goods), and likely creates or sustains some jobs with algae biofuel, or cars that get more energy from the grid which could be powered by cleaner energy, etc.
Except that the quantities of oil needed purely for energy are extremely high. Cutting oil doesn't mean cutting every conceivable use of oil. And if oil is reduced for energy, the processing of oil for other purposes can decrease which would probably make it more expensive, leading to possible alternatives. People can drastically, drastically reduce their oil use.
In terms of energy, the US currently uses over 7,000 kilograms of oil-equivalent per capita annually (which includes all forms of energy expressed in these common units), and about 88% of this comes from fossil fuels. Imagine if a person had to stand next to a huge pile of all of the energy sources they use in a year, plus all of the plastic or other stuff they use from oil; it would be rather striking how much "stuff" is used by one little person.
Last edited:
work in progress
Well-Known Member
As long as the U.S., or any major capitalist nation has an economic system that can only be considered healthy if its energy use is growing at a steady rate of increase of 3% per year, energy independence will be impossible, no matter how deep under the ocean floor they drill, or pipe toxic tar sands from Alberta to fill the thirst for oil. Sustainable energy sources are not going to fill those needs! An energy diet and a new economic system after this one completely crashes, will be the only permanent fixes possible.
Oneatatime
Huh?
Two problems
1) Oils is needed for more than just a source of fuel
2) **** load of money to be made from it
That doesn't mean there isn't reason to invest in cleaner energy because eventually the oil will run out or be too uneconomical to extract for mass usage.
What sources and figures can you provide to support your claims?
I don't support any domestic oil drilling. In the meantime we have coal and natural gas to help fill the gap, but in the long run, energy efficiency can be increased, wind turbines can be drastically increased (there is the potential to power 20 million homes with offshore windmills on the Atlantic seaboard alone), solar panels can be put on every commercial building and many homes, new forms of hydro power that don't utilize dams can be developed, promising algae biofuels can be researched, and more money can be put to making nuclear fusion economically viable.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
Mostly from a group of oil industry analysts who fall under the category of Peak Oil theorists. At Post Carbon they have lots of charts and data showing how the U.S. never really recovered from hitting the point of diminishing returns (Hubbert's Peak) on domestic oil production; so U.S. foreign policy has been dedicated to the extraction of more and more oil from other nations; and now that cheap, easy to recover oil is running out, they're going after the expensive, risky garbage like deep sea drilling and the Alberta tar sands. At some point, I don't know when...the point will come when this crap from the tar sands is just realized to be doing too much environmental damage and cost too much to make it worth keeping the oil energy economy. Some people have mentioned previously that oil is a necessity for other things besides oil, like making plastics and fertilizers - now, I would think that would be a strong argument for trying to preserve the oil that's still around, instead of burning it all up in the coming decades!
Last year, former CIBC chief economist - Jeff Rubin gave a talk (transcript included here) explaining a lot of the essentials about why the decline of cheap oil and the corresponding increased reliance on expensive dirty oil sources, will keep putting the brakes on future hopes and desires for economic growth. And so far this year, the pattern is clear: oil has recently fallen below 85$ per barrel, which may fuel a modest economic recovery, which will drive us back into recession again! Repeat cycle until the collapse of civilization I suppose.
According to the coal industry analysts - which I haven't looked at as closely, the optimistic scenarios of 3 or 4 more centuries of coal are also rubbish. Apparently we are using more coal now than we were at the turn of the 20th century when the oil economy was just starting. Coal consumption is increasing rapidly worldwide, and although there are still vast reserves of coal underground, we know the limits....there are no options for going underwater as with oil. Coal is a dirty, carbon-intensive fuel anyway, so the smart thing to do would be to stop using it for fuel before we all end up at the North Pole struggling for survival.
Renewable energy systems are quickly improving and lowering in cost, and would have been developing faster and in wider use if it wasn't for the psychopaths who run the multinational oil and coal companies! They have financed an expensive disinformation campaign against global warming awareness, and even attempt to stop or delay offshore wind projects - Koch Brothers Fund Bogus Study Bashing Offshore Wind In New Jersey
If the human race survives the next century, it will have to be in spite of the suicidal efforts of the greediest hogs thinking only of their own riches.
You have to admit that oil's a finite commodity and that harvest of remaining stocks is becoming increasingly difficult, expensive and hazardous.
We're going to have to green up eventually, but we're just so invested in our current infrastructure. The corporate movers and shakers are interested only in the next financial quarter and the politicians are in their pockets.
As usual, we'll probably react only when a crisis causes a public outcry.
We're going to have to green up eventually, but we're just so invested in our current infrastructure. The corporate movers and shakers are interested only in the next financial quarter and the politicians are in their pockets.
As usual, we'll probably react only when a crisis causes a public outcry.
Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. I figured the second paragraph in my post would show which part I was asking sources for, but that wasn't as direct.
I'm not contesting the peak oil stuff. The part I was particularly interested in sources for was this part of your post:
"Sustainable energy sources are not going to fill those needs!"
work in progress
Well-Known Member
I'm not questioning the feasibilty of solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources. The costs are falling and efficiencies are steadily improving with solar and wind systems. What I was questioning is whether any energy system can meet the demands of consumer-driven capitalist economies for exponential growth in energy supplies. Even hydrogen fusion power would eventually reach a limit.
The biggest problem for getting off oil is how do we run a society that's centered around the automobile? Forget the lithium batteries and hydrogen power, the best solution would be to start making it feasible for more and more people to live without needing their own cars. Is This The End Of The Automobile?
In America's corporate-conceived love affair with the automobile, our first spouse---mass transit---was murdered. Now the unsustainable obsolescence of the private passenger car is collapsing a global financial system built on the illusion of its constant growth.
Mother Earth cant sustain the old four-wheeled carry-one-person-around-the-block paradigm, be it hybrid, electric or otherwise.
If the automobile and its attendant freeways continue to metastasize in India, China and Africa as they did in the 20th Century United States, we are doomed.
Mother Earth cant sustain the old four-wheeled carry-one-person-around-the-block paradigm, be it hybrid, electric or otherwise.
If the automobile and its attendant freeways continue to metastasize in India, China and Africa as they did in the 20th Century United States, we are doomed.
It's a good thing it's not exponential, then.
If per capita energy is fairly static in developed countries, and population growth is roughly inversely proportional with level of development of a country, then it doesn't seem that the rate of energy growth is the problem. The problem is what kinds of fuel we use. Efficiencies can slightly drive energy usage down, and cleaner sources of energy can replace oil and other fossil fuels.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
World energy consumption is not static, especially when all of the outsourcing of production to third world countries is factored in.
The outsourcing of manufacturing to China is the reason for a spike in coal consumption that is larger than the rise in oil consumption. The latest numbers I came across indicate that China is using over three times as much coal as the United States, and in spite of large domestic coal reserves, it now has to import large quantities of coal from Australia and Indonesia to meet the energy demand for all of the new manufacturing going on there.
Yes, but the thread topic was about pressuring our governments to reduce dependence on foreign oil. I can't pressure Chinese officials, but I can pressure American officials, and America has a fairly static or decreasing energy usage per capita.
I've described in numerous threads now my emphasis on wanting America to reduce the trade deficit (which includes oil imports and Chinese imports).
But the point is, I think that stating that other energy sources cannot power our needs is unfounded. I certainly think other sources can do it, since the energy growth itself in developed nations is roughly that of population growth, and the energy growth in developing countries would likely also level out once it reaches this level of developed demand. Solar power on buildings, wind farms onshore and offshore, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear power can meet a ton of energy demand. If the government focused on it, bio fuels could replace gasoline, and newer generation approaches to it, such as using algae, don't compete with the food supply. And more difficult but rewarding approaches, like nuclear fusion, are options as well.
This isn't some impossible problem. People just have to do it.
Yep, my investment in Australian coal export terminal infrastructure has been my best one. Originally, it was a diversified infrastructure investment that included transmission lines, lumber, shipping ports, gas terminals, rail roads, and renewable energy, but the coal export terminal has grown considerably.