As all u know that crude oil reserves are going to be vanished in the next 50 or 100
years, that scenario really scares me what will happen to our cars truks and other
automobiles? without petrolium our daily life will become a hell.
I was wondering whether we could make artificial petrolium in large quantities
we all know that petrolium originated by the pre jurassic era jungles that were
buried by global geological activities they were subjested to immense pressure
and temperature can't we jast apply same conditions to woods to produce crude oil
in very large quantities?please give your suggessions and opinion and please tell what resarch is going on to tackle this problem?
:confused: :(

Other sources of energy. Fusion power, for example.

Our life without petroleum won't become a hell, it will become a heaven. Petroleum is a very dirty source of energy. It is time for us to try to find another source. Fusion power is an idea. It takes just a little bit of water to make A LOT of energy, enought to sustain even the US for years.

E=mc²... the magic equation... :rolleyes: :D

Grow up people. Stop using petroleum. Fusion power will be a very cheap source of energy. It will solve all our environmental and economic problems. We will be able to automate everything and we won't need to work so much anymore. It will be sweeeeeet... :cool:

We still don't have fusion, but here are some sites...
http://www.fusion.org.uk/
http://www.fusion.org.uk/links/

How it is done:
http://www.iter.org/ITERPublic/ITER/fr_text.html


Fusion is clean, roughthly limitless and safe. A heaven of energy, that is... :D

Of course all the people that profit with petroleum don't want fusion power to exist, because it would be a very cheap source of energy.... :rolleyes:

Other sources of energy. Fusion power, for example.

Our life without petroleum won't become a hell, it will become a heaven. Petroleum is a very dirty source of energy. It is time for us to try to find another source. Fusion power is an idea. It takes just a little bit of water to make A LOT of energy, enought to sustain even the US for years.

E=mc²... the magic equation... :rolleyes: :D

Grow up people. Stop using petroleum. Fusion power will be a very cheap source of energy. It will solve all our environmental and economic problems. We will be able to automate everything and we won't need to work so much anymore. It will be sweeeeeet... :cool:
Nice buddy but tell me how are r u going to run cars from this magic equation
u will say that we will we will produce electric energy from fusion/fission
but will u be able speed your electric car at 90 mph or will it be as convinient
as todays automobiles?

Hydrogen would be a great way to stop pollution, and have a better running car.

http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/2002/02-316.html

http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/06/06052002/ap_47447.asp

http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/features/story/0,24330,3425829,00.html

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.hydrogen.com&sa=l&ai=AOwUc5S0YAtt4BMIhhEImkG-D8_IsFU9wFuAhQj4BCIAkOBA0GOQACIAmWAAAAAAA&num=2

Nice buddy but tell me how are r u going to run cars from this magic equation
u will say that we will we will produce electric energy from fusion/fission
but will u be able speed your electric car at 90 mph or will it be as convinient
as todays automobiles?

Hydrogen powered cars have nothing to do with fusion of molecules... Hydrogen is only an energy carrier, it takes more energy to use then it makes. A fusion powered car would be ridiculously advanced, seeing as we cannot even come close to applying the technique in giant sized factories.

Maharajah........

So my photovoltaic solar cells aren't producing my hydrogen from the sun for free are they. Egads, you are really not thinking when you say things like that about hydrogen. Hydrogen can be made with similar systems for home use to make enough hydrogen to use for a car and cooking needs. True , it won't supply ALL of your ebergy needs but it will at least be a start to help.

By the way to make fusion you use hydrogen.

Thanks for asnwerign cosmic... ;)

I was trying to post an answer a few hours ago, but for some reason I would always get fired back to my logon... :/

Maharajah........

So my photovoltaic solar cells aren't producing my hydrogen from the sun for free are they. Egads, you are really not thinking when you say things like that about hydrogen. Hydrogen can be made with similar systems for home use to make enough hydrogen to use for a car and cooking needs. True , it won't supply ALL of your ebergy needs but it will at least be a start to help.

By the way to make fusion you use hydrogen.

Solar != Hydrogen, btw. And yes, I realize that in many hypothetical fusion reactions Hydrogen is an element that is used, my point was that using Hydrogen as a fuel is not nearly the same thing as using fusion. Don't be so defensive, I'm trying to show you that there are new ideas yet to be discovered with this technology, we have no time to be complacent with all theories and no action.

Maharajah.......
Hydrogen can be made today, right in your own home using your own power supply if you cannot use solar photovoltaic cells, this is not a hypothetical idea it is being done right now.

Please read this about fusion reactors and hydrogen then perhaps you'll understand better about hydrogen and how it is involved:

The dream of harvesting energy from the same reaction that powers our sun has been around since 1920, when Arthur Eddington suggested that the energy of the sun and stars was a product of the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium. Since the 1950's, great progress has been made in nuclear fusion research. However, the only practical application of fusion technology to date has been the "hydrogen" or thermonuclear bomb.

Researchers stress that nuclear fusion has an almost unlimited potential to supply electricity. The hydrogen isotopes in one gallon of water have the fusion energy equivalent of 300 gallons of gasoline. A nuclear fusion power plant would also have no greenhouse gas emissions, and would generate none of the long lived, high level radioactive waste associated with conventional nuclear fission power plants.

Despite its theoretical potential, leading experts predict that the world is still at least 50 years and billions of research dollars away from having electricity generated from nuclear fusion. This is largely due to the enormous size and complexity of a reactor that would be capable of sustaining nuclear fusion.

Try reading about photovoltaic systems here

http://www.homepower.com/files/HP99_22.pdf

As all u know that crude oil reserves are going to be vanished in the next 50 or 100
years, that scenario really scares me what will happen to our cars truks and other
automobiles? :(
we could make electric cars,put some PV panels on the roof of our houses and charge up your cars bateries for free,
www.acpropulsion.com
or we could put hydrogen on demand generator in the car and fill the tank with water instead of gasoline
www.xogen.ca/
www.mileniumcell.com/
or we could simply improve burning eficiency of internal combustion engine
average ICE is about 25% diesel maybe 35% efficient
simply by bolting on CRSV rotary valve heads you can have 44% eficient engine,more HP,and less emisions and best of all no need for oil changes( imagine how many billions of barrels of oil could we save every year if all cars had this engine)
see
www.coatesengine.com its been around for about 10 years now,why dont big car mfgs use such advanced technology is a good question,maybe big oil corporations control them all!?

energy costs would likely go up no matter what. and that would require us to cut energy expenditure. but that is mostly doable. take subway instead of drive to work. have thicker windows for better thermal insulation etc ...

and in general build shit that works for a long time instead of something that needs to be thrown away every week and made over and over again.

Hydrogen powered cars and nuclear power as the main power grid source would be the most realisitc and cleanest power possbile imho.

Imagine the energy crisis that India might face if the prediction goes right. GeoAnalysists have predicted that given the current melting rate of 4 most prominent glaciers in Himalayas, they are all set to go dry by 2040 unless something is done to protect them. They are the main source of water in all the plains of central india. Lots of power production projects are also based on them.

Navjot Singh

When the oil reserves start running down, the prices will soar, prompting people to do some BIG research into alternative fuels. I remember that there is an experimental car that uses cabbage as a fuel. Not sure how, but it does

Also, if we use all the oil left, what would the pollution be like? Would there be a Environmental disaster, or just a relatively small increase in the greenhouse gas levels?

Two points:

1. Virtually all petroleum-burning engines and appliances can be redesigned to run on biofuel at a trivial cost. Existing units can be converted at modest cost.

For example, it is no engineering miracle to redesign a gasoline engine to run on alcohol, and existing engines can be easily converted to run on a gasoline-alcohol mixture. Diesels are even easier. My 1978 Mercedes 240D would probably run happily on corn oil as currently configured, with just a touch of additives.

Biofuel is a renewable energy source since it is simply a product of farming. The only problem with this scenario is that it would be difficult to dedicate enough farmland to crops with high alcohol or oil yields, in order to fuel all of the world's motor vehicles. Therefore on to Point Number Two...

2. In the post-industrial era, there is no rational excuse for the amount of driving done by Americans and citizens of other prosperous industrial nations.

As I have said on several other threads, the vast majority of Americans perform "knowledge work," which can be performed from their homes with only an internet-connected computer, a telephone, and a webcam. The only occupations that require on-site work for precise handling of materials are construction and repair: hard-hats, carpenters, plumbers, computer technicians, etc.

Farming and manufacturing are already heavily automated and do not require huge on-site labor forces. Most of the rest of us already work at jobs which require us to spend almost the entire day looking at a computer screen. There's no reason that computer screen has to be in an office building instead of our home. The occasional live meeting can be handled just as well with webcam teleconferencing. Perhaps we'd need two workstations at home, one for documents and one for faces -- a trivial expense compared to providing office space for each worker.

The "developing nations" are unfortunately not able to completely skip the industrial phase in their development. However, their city layouts have not yet been distorted by the ubiquitous automobile, so getting people to and from their workplaces isn't as petroleum-intensive there as it is here. By the time they grow prosperous enough for private automobiles to become common, they've progressed into "knowledge work," and they could work at home as easily as we could.

In other words, Chinese athletic shoe assemblers can get to work just fine by bicycle or bus. Indian software developers don't actually need to leave their homes and fill the air with auto exhaust in order to perform their job duties in stifling cubicles any more than we do.

I reach the same conclusion that I always do. There is no scientific, technical, or social reason for the Western nations to consume more motor fuel than could be readily provided by rendering alcohol or oil out of renewable farmed crops. The only reason that we spend so much of our time on the road is that the automotive, energy, and advertising industries have more power over the development of our economy than we do.

These are the villains in this drama. These are the people who are doing everything they can to exhaust the world's petroleum reserves instead of helping us slowly and steadily convert to renewable biofuels. What do we do about them?

Put an infeasably large tax on petrol:)

We still don't have fusion, but here are some sites...
http://www.fusion.org.uk/
http://www.fusion.org.uk/links/

How it is done:
http://www.iter.org/ITERPublic/ITER/fr_text.html


Fusion is clean, roughthly limitless and safe. A heaven of energy, that is... :D

Of course all the people that profit with petroleum don't want fusion power to exist, because it would be a very cheap source of energy.... :rolleyes:


I dont know if you guys have already seen this sight - I dont know how credible it is either, sounds kind of like inflamatory propoganda, but it left me shaken for a while after I read it -

www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net)

I dont know if you guys have already seen this sight - I dont know how credible it is either, sounds kind of like inflamatory propoganda, but it left me shaken for a while after I read it -

www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net)
I wouldn't put one iota of faith in their predictions. According to some, we've had 10 years of oil left for the last 50 years. Then we discover more deposits, and more efficient ways of using it, and more alternatives to using it.

By the time an "oil crash", or whatever, is even a concern we'll be on to greener pastures.

Fusion is clean, roughhly limitless and safe.Whooooah there!

ITER's brief and dismissive discussion of the waste products of a fission plant is hardly reassuring. It cites the current regulatory bodies as authorities -- the same ones that the populace already has no faith in. Its single sentence defining the risk to future generations as "negligible" is stated without any supporting data and is downright insulting to the reader.

People have suggested fusion powerplants on SciForums several times before, and each time the discussion is stymied by their inability to deal with the waste products satisfactorily. The problem boils down to the fact that these waste products will remain deadly and, therefore, need to be maintained in locations where they will be shielded from contact with the biosphere, for as long as 100,000 years.

The oldest civilization on earth with the continuity of administration necessary to avoid losing track of something this perilous is China, at 6,000 years.

Are we willing to bet the future of this planet on the ability of Homo sapiens to maintain continuity of administration of a nuclear waste dump -- no matter how small -- for sixteen times as long as the duration of China, for ten times the duration of human civilization as a whole, for perhaps longer than we have had language?

It wouldn't take much of a war, by today's standards, to unearth a nuclear waste dump and crack open the dustbin. Or nature could do it with a ten-point earthquake or a pesky asteroid like the one that formed the Gulf of Mexico, and the ensuing social chaos would magnify the problem.

If you're merely saying that nuclear power is safer than petroleum because it will avert a nuclear war in the Mideast, I can't argue with that. But I will not settle for that. I believe that by curbing our enthusiasm for totally unnecessary vehicular travel (and unnecessarily large vehicles), we can reduce our need for conventional motor fuel to the point that it can be provided by agricultural rather than fossil sources.

I repeat: by using existing technology, more than 90 percent of the American workforce can do their jobs from home. I don't know about you, but that will reduce the annual total mileage on my odometer by a factor of ten. At that rate I could run my diesel car on Wesson oil and not give a damn about what happens to the Mideast's precious oil fields.

And I won't have to figure out how to write "Danger: Radioactive" in symbols that people can decipher 50,000 years from now.

Your goals are honorable but I believe that your risk horizon is unrealistic.

Relax, Fraggle, we'll flick dem hot boogers into space, or put 'em way down in the ground (whatever's necessary) as easily as we've thrown bones away after lunch for a quite a few years now, as I understand.

OG! Bones BAD! You'll impale somebody's TOE! Get away from Fire! Oogabooga! RUN! :eek:

People have suggested fusion powerplants on SciForums several times before, and each time the discussion is stymied by their inability to deal with the waste products satisfactorily. The problem boils down to the fact that these waste products will remain deadly and, therefore, need to be maintained in locations where they will be shielded from contact with the biosphere, for as long as 100,000 years.
Nuclear fusion doesn't produce hazardous waste.

And as far as fission goes, it's the best thing we've got going for now. Not perfect, but damn good in comparison to most other means of power generation.

ITER's brief and dismissive discussion of the waste products of a fission plant is hardly reassuring. It cites the current regulatory bodies as authorities -- the same ones that the populace already has no faith in. Its single sentence defining the risk to future generations as "negligible" is stated without any supporting data and is downright insulting to the reader.
I'm talking about fusion, not fission...


People have suggested fusion powerplants on SciForums several times before, and each time the discussion is stymied by their inability to deal with the waste products satisfactorily. The problem boils down to the fact that these waste products will remain deadly and, therefore, need to be maintained in locations where they will be shielded from contact with the biosphere, for as long as 100,000 years.
I though there was no waste from fusion. Or at least that is what I heard... :rolleyes:


The oldest civilization on earth with the continuity of administration necessary to avoid losing track of something this perilous is China, at 6,000 years.
:confused:


If you're merely saying that nuclear power is safer than petroleum because it will avert a nuclear war in the Mideast, I can't argue with that. But I will not settle for that. I believe that by curbing our enthusiasm for totally unnecessary vehicular travel (and unnecessarily large vehicles), we can reduce our need for conventional motor fuel to the point that it can be provided by agricultural rather than fossil sources.
Americans love BIG. Convince them...


I repeat: by using existing technology, more than 90 percent of the American workforce can do their jobs from home. I don't know about you, but that will reduce the annual total mileage on my odometer by a factor of ten. At that rate I could run my diesel car on Wesson oil and not give a damn about what happens to the Mideast's precious oil fields.
What about the rest of the world? We would still work as slaves, eh?
Anyhow... yeah I believe that.


Your goals are honorable but I believe that your risk horizon is unrealistic.
I don't know from where you got that fusion produces radiactive waste. The worst thing that fusion can possibly produce is gamma rays, but that is exactly what we use for energy in the first place!

A little bit of lesson for you...
While fission creates radiation by spliting up atoms, fusion only creates two things: a Helium atom and gamma rays. As far as I know, Helium is not dangerous for us. Eventhough gamma rays are dangerous, they are the very source of energy. And as far as I know, they are not hard to control.

I'm not an especialist, but... :o

Nuclear fusion doesn't produce hazardous waste.
Do you know how it doesn't produce waste?

Uhh.. the only "waste" fusion power would create is steam :P

Oh! I guess that proves my point. :D