8-Years of Civilization Remaining

Global warming will never be a problem because oil is running out. Check the BP energy stats website below, you can download a MS Excel spreadsheet with all the necessary data to do your own calculations (if you want).
http://www.bp.com/centres/energy/world_stat_rev/oil/reserves.asp

Or you can just take my word for it that the so-called Global Warming problem will never be noticeable, since worldwide oil reserves will be completely exhausted in less than 32 years, assuming production trends can be maintained. At least that's what the steady-state theory says, but oilfield yields tend to follow a bell-curve of production over their lifetime, referred to as the Hubbert Peak.

The Hubbert Peak model says oilwell production will reach a peak, and then decline exponentially forever after that. Domestic oil production in the United States has already demonstrated this pattern, reaching a peak in 1970, and declining 31.4% in the last 32 years despite oil exploration efforts. Publications from the Hubbert Center (Colorado School of Mines) predict that worldwide peak oil production will occur ~2009 AD, with a decrease in yields of 3 percent per year after that, no matter how many new oilwells we drill. At that rate world oil production will be:

- down 17% by 2015 AD
- down 30% by 2020 AD
- down 50% by 2032 AD
- down 72% by 2050 AD
- down 90% by 2084 AD

Notice it drops sharply in the near-term, immediately following the peak! Such is the nature of exponential decay. Once oil production reaches a peak and starts declining there will be no question about what is happening. In fact there will only be a year or two at most to react before the economy becomes terminal. There will be no need, or time, to debate the issue, like there is for global warming. The only important questions are:

1. When will peak production occur? and
2. What do we do when it does?

Dick Cheney predicted that world energy consumption will rise by 30-60% by 2020 AD. If that prediction applies to oil consumption specifically then something does not jive. One cannot increase consumption when supply lines are failing, so one of the predictions is incorrect.

Nevertheless prior to peak production there is nothing we can do but assume Dick Cheney is correct. Why? Because we don't know exactly when peak production will occur, AND, there is no sustainable transportation system that can mix with the current one safely. It is too dangerous to use small hydrogen-fueled cars on the road with big 18-wheel diesel trucks, or even big trucks and SUVs. The changeover to the sustainable system will likely be abrupt, involving a separation of large 18-wheelers and personal cars to their own exclusive roadways. The intervening months will bring emergency measures to house and feed people that are put out of work by the fuel shortage. In my opinion the transition period will be a long, long, LONG couple of years. Many people will end up doing manual labor, perhaps living in dormitory-style residences to minimize housing costs.

Recessions have occurred about every 10-12 years, meaning that the next one ~2014 AD could coincide with long-lasting oil shortage. Indeed, the next recession could last 10 years (not six months like the current one) as people constantly try to cope with sharply dropping oil supplies and increasing expenses.

Some countries have set aside certain streets exclusively for public buses, but none have made any accommodations for tiny motorized vehicles and bicycles. Most have the attitude that bicycle lanes are more than cyclists deserve. Besides making certain transit routes exclusive to heavy versus light vehicles, it is unknown how to prevent the economic catastrophe from happening, nor how to deal with it when it happens.

Everyone knows that small, lightweight cars get better fuel economy, and if you want to change the nature of automobiles, you have to start by changing the nature of the transportation infrastructure, the primary enabling technology of the automobile.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You say that oil production will decrease and that it will be a big problem because the needed quantity will increase, no?

I think that human kind don't need to use so much oils, so we could have a longer time ("8-years of civilization remaining") to remain. Technologies are evolving so fast that we will soon don't need so much oil than some could think. Electicity could be made with "sun-panels" (no need of oil for cars or for power plants) and synthetic clothes could be made with other materials (no need of oil for nylon).

Of course, nowaday, I don't think that we can stop all oil consumation, and I don't know if we will be able to stop using it in future, but I know that we can use less oil than we are doing.

Hope that politics will understand it and change or policy as soon as possible...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anyone remember the Hemp Car project from last year? Some guys were going to drive across the continent... did they make it? Did they start?

Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I totaly agree with you ! We should all try to save energy by working at home or using bus. I also agree when you say that USA are the biggest energy user and I don't speak about polution

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

A fusion plant in less than 20 years ? That would be great but I don't think so : at first because of money

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and then because it's a very dangerous techologie (I mean that nuclear power plants were dangerous too and we used it before being able to control it fully, but fusion power is more hard to control : is that not the sun power ?)

That's an idea... but who will decide to begin ?
"I want my son to have a 1m60 body, please. Then he will eat less than he would do if he was 1m80" (only if he is not obese, then he would eat a lot too)

Two children per couple ? Such as in China ? lol
How could you do it ? This kind of law is crazy ! How can someone say to someone else "you will only have too children !" ?
In some countries, population is already getting down or will do it in e few decades. Couples in these country don't have 2 children per couple so if they don't want to have more babies, other couples should have right to do it. Of course earth population should not increase too much, but it should not decrease. And if you think about energy, as there will have lots of it in future (with fusion power, sun panels...) we will be ok. (I hope so...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

 

The Market will provide the solutions if government will let it

Oil depletion - opinions vary as to how long existing reserves will last. Some put it at 30 years, others at 300. Doesn't really matter. When the oil runs out, it will not do so instantly. It will occur over a period of time marked by rising oil prices. The rising prices will motivate people to seek other sources. Fuel from grain and hemp products is one [unlikely] source, although not a grerat one IMO. Another is a remergence of the nuclear industry. Nuclear energy coupled with existing and emerging electric automobile technology will fill in the gaps nicely.

Fussion - don't look for it anytime soon. It's been just 20 years away for the last 50 years and will remain just 20 years away probably for the next 100 years. It really ain't all that great a good deal anyway IMO. The technology required to produce, harness and contain it is not only going to be far more expensive that fission technology, i seriously doubt it's going to represent much gain in the way of safety either, at least over the use of nuclear.

Solar - Possible. yes. but not probable in terms of large scale usage. The technology is going to have to advance quite a bit and the price per kwh is going to have to come down. Not really even needed if we use nuclear.

Wind - same with solar. Not even need if we use nuclear.

 

It isn't a new technology, it's an old con. IOW, a fraud, a fake, a sham. He may harness a few bucks out of it if he can find some suckers.

 

Welcome to sciforums, bobbapink.

I looked at your profile and find that you have been here for quite some time. Longer than I have in fact. However, I do not recall ever welcoming you. So I would take a moment to do so.

 

NASA gets "suckered" into lots of things - this (might) be one example. An anti-gravity "device" is another. As to the "Universities", well, some "universities" are smarter than others - donchathink. To what university do you refer?

But as to specifics - how do you know NASA got suckered into this particular con? Same for the university?

Because the website said so?

 

Thanks for the belayed welcome wet1!

 

This is not a problem with fusion. If a fusion reactor were to melt down, it would destroy the containment vessel, and the subsequent cooling would stop the reaction. A suitable buffer area(if the scaredy-cats really demand it) would probably be one mile, and little or none of the stuff around this area would be affected by a small plant going. Radioactivity is almost nil. The problem with fusion is containing the plasma; we can't do it for more than a few seconds at a time with current technology.

 

You mean this website?

Actually, what you're talking about is the NIAC. National Institute for Advanced Concepts. There motto is

"Don't let your preoccupation with reality stifle your imagination"

And they utter this motto while happily spending your tax dollars. They do not, to my knowledge, invest or support any company or inventer but they will fund the testing of claims from select crackpot/crooked companies or inventers. Blacklight power is but one of the nutty claims they have tested. Another includes about $600,000 studying the gravity shield claims of Russian scientist, Eugene Podkletnov.

Anyway, Blacklights central claim is that there exists a state of the hydrogen atom that is "below the ground state". And i've got some real estate south of the south pole.

 

Regarding Blacklight - yes - it is something in "realm" of perpetural motion in that it is, given the current postulates of physics, a state lower than the ground state is mathmatically impossible. For a good explaination of why this is so, please visit:

http://www.freeenergies.org/bl/bwt/z/hydrino/hydrino.htm


As to cold fusion, I think that is a different situation. While all attempts to reproduce the results claimed by Ponds and Fleischmann have failed, it doesn't mean that cold fusion isn't possible - just that this particular implementation of it is. IOW, it isn't mathmatically impossible (so far as i know) but only technologically impossible...so far. Therefore, we may someday get there, but i'm not holding my breath.