# 8-Years of Civilization Remaining

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Success_Machine, Jun 7, 2002.

1. ### wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
8,616
On the subject of the oil shortage, there is a relatively new tech that allows us to convert gas from the oil field into gasoline. At present it is being setup to be used in foreign countries where there is no natural gas infrastructure. Instead of venting the gas, as was done in the past, it is now well on it's way to being reclaimed. This is both extra profit for the oil companies and the reducing of green house gases in the same technology.

Here in the states there are many gas reserves that have not been drilled because there is less profit in gas and the piplines remain saturated at higher than normal pressures because production exceeds use. Another area that has been drilled less is the areas where high H2S is present. H2S requires a "sweetening" process before it can be handled. This process is expensive and most companines do not want to pay the price nor take the risks assoicated with a poison gas.

Reduction in the ramping tend of increased use will be the key to how long we have oil for use. There are other possibilities if we can get into space. I think everyone knows I am a space nut and follow tends and discoveries. Hyrdocarbons, very simular to oil exist in aboundance in space and on planetary bodies, such as moons. It could be a source of oil in the future. How far in the future is the question. I doubt that it would be 30 years in developing. I would think that it would take much longer to set up an infrastructure to handle the material from source to end products for the consumer. But as I have mentioned in the astromony forum we have yet to develop a decent propulsion system.

I seemed to wandered from my original topic so I think it is time to stop...

to hide all adverts.

Messages:
365
The news is out !!!! @##$% !!!! Here is an article in Oil News about the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) and their oil supply forecasts. Oil News They say that oil will never run out, but that it will be harder and harder to increase yields until we reach the "Hubbert Peak", after which point no matter how hard we try oil supply will decrease. They present this chart showing similar trends for all oil sources, including natural gas liquids (NGL) from which propane is made for fleet vehicles and such, for example forklifts, ice-resurfacers, motor homes & trailers, barbeques, etc., and butane for cigarette lighters, and campfires. Chart Showing Hubbert Peak and Subsequent Deline Prediction Using online data provided by British Petroleum in my original post, I used a spreadsheet to determine that if current trends continue the world community will consume every last drop of proven oil reserves in about 30 years. However, because oilfields in 50 countries have already demonstrated the Hubbert Peak pattern (similar to a bell-curve), then one would expect that the supply lines will peak and begin to decrease in much less than 30 years. The ASPO network is predicting this will occur around 2010. Since after this time it will be harder and harder to get the next barrel of oil out of the oilfields, the proven reserves will essentially last forever, so the 30-year prediction is meaningless. If by 2050 fuel supplies are half of what they are in 2010, will there be half as many cars on the road? Or will their engines have half the horsepower? Or will speed limits be cut by 30 percent to reduce kinetic energy of cars? What do you think? 4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 5. ### kmguruStaff Member Messages: 11,757 Do you know that researchers are retiring on photovoltaic cell research. I think we are commercially at 12% efficiency for the last 30 years, but saying we will soon have 65% efficiency.... BTW, if oil would disappear in 8 years, all the oil companies would be panic-ing now. So far, not a word....in their annual report... 6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 7. ### Success_MachineImpossible? I can do thatRegistered Senior Member Messages: 365 Irony Even after the Hubbert Peak, and subsequent crash, oil production eventually starts to level off, so even though supply continues to decline forever oil companies will still be reporting reserves of hundreds of billions of barrels! Ironic isn't it? Also, my "straight line" calculations show oil reserves running dry in 2032, or shortly thereafter, which doesn't take into account Hubbert Peak pattern of production, it simply assumes we continue to consume at the same rate until the last drop is pumped out. US Gov't predicts oil supply will peak in 2036, which almost coincides with when I thought it would run out completely. Could there have been a miscommunication between oil experts and politicians on the difference between "peak oil supply" and "oil depletion" ? It would be a hell of a thing if confusion about semantics cause people & gov'ts to be taken by surprise! ASPO predicts that by 2050 (I'll be an old man) cumulative oil production worldwide will drop to just half of peak production expected in 2010. But many oilfields are already past peak, adn the effects on local economies have been devastating. Here are some interesting examples: Top BP official says North Slope gas not competitive North Sea Oilfield peaked 2 years ago and production is decreasing by 11 percent per year =========================================== Quote from article#1: "Alaska is now a mature and much smaller oil province," he said, noting that oil production today is half what it was in 1988. To compensate, London-based BP has cut its Anchorage work force by 20 percent and contractors by 75 percent, he said. Operating costs per barrel of oil in Alaska are 20 percent higher than BP's worldwide average, and pipeline and shipping costs are four times the average, Browne said. That's the effect of moving much less oil that the trans-Alaska pipeline and North Slope production equipment were designed to handle, he said. =========================================== Interesting! Will the cost of fuel worldwide quadruple by 2050 ?!! During the OPEC Oil Embargo, there was a great deal of interest in finding an alternative to gasoline, since in a period of roughly three years, the price of unleaded gasoline rose from$0.69/gal to $1.42/gal. People were feeling like we were being held hostage in our own country because the sharp increases in gas prices also meant increased prices for food and other necessities, due to increasing transportation costs. There was also the inconvenience of gas rationing (odd/even day buying at filling stations), longer waiting lines, and short tempers which in a few cases, led to gunpoint violence at the gas pumps. That's what happens if the price of gas doubles! There isn't even any point in switching to more efficient systems, because they will be considered grossly inefficient long before the end of their service life. You thought Y2K was bad. As soon as someone says "Hubbert Peak", I think I will simply switch over to a renewable homebrew fuel, and perhaps even build my own car to ensure that fuel consumption is low enough that I can manufacture sufficient quantities. Automakers are not yet making a product that is up to the challenge. 8. ### Success_MachineImpossible? I can do thatRegistered Senior Member Messages: 365 Proof that Automakers are uncreative! This isn't even a car. It's a recumbant bike manufactured by Greenspeed in Australia. And it isn't even a one-of-a-kind, they have a whole line of "fully faired" recumbant trikes. Look, it's beautiful !!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now look at this piece of crap made by Honda... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You could add an engine and some perks to the Greenspeed for about the same price as the Honda. Which looks better? 9. ### Success_MachineImpossible? I can do thatRegistered Senior Member Messages: 365 Dost thou doubt I could do it myself ? It is not impossible to build your own car, modify the engine to run on multiple fuel types, and then make your own fuels at home -- although it would be a serious workshop project. I could definitely build a car that not only gets 200 mpg but runs on 4 or 5 different fuels interchangeably, a few of which would be non-renewable (gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane), and a few of which would be homebrewed renewable fuels (hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel). Once you do a modification, you can do it again and again, depending on fuel availability. If zipping from A to B is the only purpose of the car, there is no reason not to go for it, just stay away from high-traffic areas and it should be perfectly safe. Here are some pertinent links: Portable 90 Amp Stick Welder Welding Instructions for different alloys Recumbant trikes you can build at home Collapsable Bicycle Trailers for Extra Cargo or Passenger Carrying Capacity up to 500 pounds Briggs & Stratton 8 horsepower Intek Model 20 Supermileage Engine US Carburetion Engine Tri-Fuel Conversion Kits for Gasoline, Propane & Natural Gas General information on propane fuel Home refuelling appliance for Compressed Natural Gas or Compressed Hydrogen Conversion and Testing of Hydrogen Fueled Vehicle Hazards of compressed gases Safer Liquefication Process for Hydrogen On Demand Fuel Hydrogen production, storage and conversion equipment How to modify your engine to run on ethanol Make your own ethanol fuel Make your own biodiesel fuel I'm already most of the way there! I think I'll call it "Omnivore". Animals that are omnivores tend to be more successful. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Last edited: Jul 1, 2002 10. ### GiftedWorld WandererRegistered Senior Member Messages: 2,113 If you can get a car like that to get 100 miles to the gallon, you'll be rich. And did you know that they've been saying this about he food supply for over a hundred years? 11. ### Success_MachineImpossible? I can do thatRegistered Senior Member Messages: 365 Which one? Which car are you referring to, the recumbant bike, or the cartoon? 12. ### GiftedWorld WandererRegistered Senior Member Messages: 2,113 The cartoon. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! By the way, people have been saying that "food consumption will exceed production in X number of years(generally less than twenty or so)" for over a century. 13. ### Success_MachineImpossible? I can do thatRegistered Senior Member Messages: 365 Food production That's because petroleum-based fertilizers & pesticides have increased crop yields per acre, and petroleum-fueled farm machinery has automated the harvesting & distribution of food products. 14. ### kmguruStaff Member Messages: 11,757 Petrolem is nothing but Hydrogen and Carbon. We have plenty of both. Everytime you burn something organic, you get carbon. So, someone has to find a way to economically combine the two.... 15. ### Success_MachineImpossible? I can do thatRegistered Senior Member Messages: 365 Chemistry, Physics.... This is like the space program, people think that if they work at it long enough, eventually we'll find a way to get further, faster, cheaper. But the chemistry of propellants doesn't change, no matter now inventive we are. Like cars, we have to work within the limits of physics and chemistry. When the petroleum runs out, we must design vehicles to use renewable fuels, in the quantities in which they are available. If homebrew is the most economical, then that might amount to just a few liters of fuel produced per capita per week. Small cars designed in proportion to the load they are carrying would be far more efficient than vehicles vehicles that can travel six, tow a boat, and haul luggage, but most of the time carries only 1 person to-and-from work with a bagged lunch. I know what I am saying makes perfect sense. But it won't happen until there really is an oil shortage, and people forget about the ego and the social status that stops them from buying a tiny car and homebrew setup. 16. ### GiftedWorld WandererRegistered Senior Member Messages: 2,113 And so how will we haul cargo on a few liters per week? 17. ### kmguruStaff Member Messages: 11,757 We have gone through this over and over in this forum: 1. Driving tiny cars or motor cycle is dangerous because of very large trucks and 18 wheelers on the same road. 2. People in US travel a lot farther to go to work than in Europe. 3. There is plenty of Borax available to make a hydrogen fuelcell car. 4. While the chemistry of propellant has not changed, no one has tried to use binary compounds that can be used as fuel safely in a car. 5. Battery or capacitor technology has not changed much for the last 20 years. The lead-acid battery is still the main work horse since WWI. 6. There is no national or international push to produce fusion power or learn to neutralize the radioactive waste except a few crackpots. 7. Technically an electric car should be much cheaper than an IC engine car. No serious effort has been made to produce one by anyone - that the government can buy for their fleets. 8. No serious research has been done to convert nuclear energy to electric energy directly, thus reducing nuclear power plant wet byproducts several order of magnitude. 9. While price of silicon chips keep going down, not so with photovoltaic cells. A single home can support the power need for 6 months on roof mounted systems. 10. Suppose we ban all the gas (petrol) cars and people switch to electric cars. That would not solve anything. Because the power needed to charge those batteries has to come from the utility grid which runs on oil, coal and gas. So, the answer, gentleman, is a fusion reactor or a direct nuclear to electric generator. 18. ### BatMMember At LargeRegistered Senior Member Messages: 408 What is the current status of the following technologies? 1. wind energy (I've heard it's in the$.04 per kw/h range -- isn't it becoming a "crop" for many farmers and ranchers?)
2. methane conversion (again, can be cultivated as a by-product of ranching)
3. ethanol power (again, can be cultivated from farming of corn)
4. geothermal power (anyone have a good volcano for rent?)
5. solar from orbit (cleaner access to sun would make photo-voltaics more effecient and the energy could be microwaved to earth)
[/list=1]

I've seen a number of things mentioned on this forum, but I don't think I've seen these mentioned (but I could be wrong

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). Before you dive into the nuclear solution, there are these options.

19. ### Success_MachineImpossible? I can do thatRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
365
My response to your response

1. Driving tiny cars or motor cycle is dangerous because of very large trucks and 18 wheelers on the same road.

-->> Use concrete dividers, more than we use now. Big trucks are already banned from residential streets. It's mostly just highways and freeways with long straight stretches, easy to divide into truck traffic and small car traffic. Or we could just wait, in 15-20 years the cost of fuel may be so high that traffic will thin out considerably, making it much safer for very small cars.

2. People in US travel a lot farther to go to work than in Europe.

-->> That's a choice. People could easily decide that it is not economical or feasible to live so far from work. When so many people start moving back into the city there will be a huge increase in the cost of rent, and anyone that owns real estate will be rich (probably are already).

3. There is plenty of Borax available to make a hydrogen fuelcell car.

-->> Borax is cool. But I an skeptical of its weight-% hydrogen storage capacity. I emailed the people at http://www.millenniumcell.com and asked them this exact question, but haven't yet received a response. FYI compressed hydrogen storage cylinders can now store up to 11.3 wt-% hydrogen at 5000 psi. It's not that great, and compressed gases are dangerous, but from what I've seen in the publications, compressed gas technology is way ahead of others, such as metal hydrides, glass spheres, etc. Another concert with Borax (rather sodium borohydride) is that it might require alot of energy to produce, even after the hydrogen is produced. Use of hydrogen alone would require smaller cars and immensely greater fuel economy, otherwise we will have to double the number of nuclear power plants just to make fuel. But making Borax will add to this energy consumption. The hydrogen storage capacity of Borax fuel is still unknown to me. To make it affordable we might just use hydrogen alone. In fact, at the scale we could make this fuel for the mass market, it might be easier to make ethanol.

4. While the chemistry of propellant has not changed, no one has tried to use binary compounds that can be used as fuel safely in a car.

-->> Examples?

5. Battery or capacitor technology has not changed much for the last 20 years. The lead-acid battery is still the main work horse since WWI.

-->> Range and recharge time are the problems. Smaller cars aside, people are not willing to give up convenience either.

6. There is no national or international push to produce fusion power or learn to neutralize the radioactive waste except a few crackpots.

-->> Check the ITER website (http://www.iter.org), there actually is a current fusion research effort underway. The timeline is basically another 50 years. I personally don't think it will ever happen because, while fusion produces little radioactive spent fuel, the reactor chamber is activated. So after 20 years of service, you get 30,000 tonnes of radioactive waste, of which 6000 tonnes is long-lived (>100 years) and must be stored in a geological repository. That's the expected waste from a single fusion plant, while the total combined annual waste from all the world's fission plants (230+ powerplants) is just 10,000 tonnes. The scientists at ITER are trying to find materials that are conditioned against long-term activation, but they aren't there yet, and don't expect to be for 30+ years. They should tackle that problem first IMO, but they aren't.

7. Technically an electric car should be much cheaper than an IC engine car. No serious effort has been made to produce one by anyone - that the government can buy for their fleets.

-->> There are lots of EVs. Hybrid cars can be considered EVs. Check the automotive websites. Again the problem with EVs is poor range and inconvenient recharging of batteries. There is also a nasty rumor going around, which I don't know is true, that the batteries will need to be replaced every 4 years at a cost of $5000+. 8. No serious research has been done to convert nuclear energy to electric energy directly, thus reducing nuclear power plant wet byproducts several order of magnitude. -->> Nuclear energy comes from radioactive decay, when an atom's nucleus spits out the extra neutron or a proton that it didn't need. The particle collides with other molecules, losing speed, and giving off heat. If there are enough radioactive atoms close together, then decay neutrons can cause other atoms to decay, giving off more neutrons, causing still more atoms to decay, and causing a runaway chain reaction. The amount of heat created can be enormous, and can vaporize water to drive steam generators. How do you propose we convert this "nuclear energy" directly into electricity? 9. While price of silicon chips keep going down, not so with photovoltaic cells. A single home can support the power need for 6 months on roof mounted systems. -->> Parabolic solar concentrators are the least expensive solar power. Photovoltaics have always been expensive. Often the solar modules are augmented with a wind turbine for low-light days. Solar and wind for residential electricity are usually only economical off-grid, out in the boonies, where it would be more expensive to extend power lines from the utility to the home than to install solar. 10. Suppose we ban all the gas (petrol) cars and people switch to electric cars. That would not solve anything. Because the power needed to charge those batteries has to come from the utility grid which runs on oil, coal and gas. -->> This is why I say that reducing energy consumption is the only way. Unfortunately people will refuse to acknowledge this TRUTH and will be forced to when the oil runs out. Oil reserves are finite. And you can't just start making your own fuel and expect to be driving the same car. Smaller cars, lower speeds, multiple fuels (ethanol, hydrogen, biodiesel). ========================================= ========================================= ========================================= wind energy (I've heard it's in the$.04 per kw/h range -- isn't it becoming a "crop" for many farmers and ranchers?)

-->> Yup. Wind is cheap where you can get it. But usually you have to commit to a 20-year contract, because it takes > 9 years to pay for the tower & nacelle installation on electricity sales alone.

methane conversion (again, can be cultivated as a by-product of ranching)

ethanol power (again, can be cultivated from farming of corn)

-->> Ethanol from homebrew alcohol is probably the best bet, or biodiesel from vegetable oil. But these fuels come from plants, and photosynthesis is much less than 1-percent efficient in converting sunlight to chemical energy. So to use these renewable fuels in cars on a large scale will also require a great reduction in the size and speed of cars.

geothermal power (anyone have a good volcano for rent?)

-->> As it turns out, geothermal isn't renewable. It's environmentally friendly for sure, but eventually the hot magma that is heating steam for the generating plant cools off, and is no longer useful for power generation. This has been shown to be so in several places in the world (I forget where, but it's true).

solar from orbit (cleaner access to sun would make photo-voltaics more effecient and the energy could be microwaved to earth)

-->> Solar Power Satellites would be enormously costly to launch into orbit, far more than they would ever make in revenues. They are still too expensive when you move them closer to the Sun (taking advantage of the inverse square law of radiation), and try to beam energy to Earth all the way from an SPS orbiting Mercury !!

Smaller cars. Lower speed limits. Homebrew alcohol. It'll happen.

20. ### Avatarsmoking revolverValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,083
I have to read this thread all through yet, but as I seem tht this is about worries about lack of oil..

There was so much worries and uncertanty when coals started to run short in Europe in the 19th century (end).

We have all what it needs to create biofuel (spirt) or hydrogen fuel cells. The only thing that is slowing down this is government funded oil companies not allowing and fearing the new technologies.

21. ### kmguruStaff Member

Messages:
11,757
My response to your reponse to my response...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1. Driving tiny cars or motor cycle is dangerous because of very large trucks and 18 wheelers on the same road.

-->> Use concrete dividers, more than we use now. Big trucks are already banned from residential streets. It's mostly just highways and freeways with long straight stretches, easy to divide into truck traffic and small car traffic. Or we could just wait, in 15-20 years the cost of fuel may be so high that traffic will thin out considerably, making it much safer for very small cars.

How much that will cost? who will pay for that? The poor voters whose tax is already too high?

2. People in US travel a lot farther to go to work than in Europe.

-->> That's a choice. People could easily decide that it is not economical or feasible to live so far from work. When so many people start moving back into the city there will be a huge increase in the cost of rent, and anyone that owns real estate will be rich (probably are already).

I talked about this with wet1 in another thread. In California area, people who live in north go south to work and vice versa. The working and living system is not optimal. Only in a Communist planned system like Russia that can be made possible. Anyone wants Communism? ...not happening...

3. There is plenty of Borax available to make a hydrogen fuelcell car.

-->> Borax is cool. But I an skeptical of its weight-% hydrogen storage capacity. I emailed the people at http://www.millenniumcell.com and asked them this exact question, but haven't yet received a response. FYI compressed hydrogen storage cylinders can now store up to 11.3 wt-% hydrogen at 5000 psi. It's not that great, and compressed gases are dangerous, but from what I've seen in the publications, compressed gas technology is way ahead of others, such as metal hydrides, glass spheres, etc. Another concert with Borax (rather sodium borohydride) is that it might require alot of energy to produce, even after the hydrogen is produced. Use of hydrogen alone would require smaller cars and immensely greater fuel economy, otherwise we will have to double the number of nuclear power plants just to make fuel. But making Borax will add to this energy consumption. The hydrogen storage capacity of Borax fuel is still unknown to me. To make it affordable we might just use hydrogen alone. In fact, at the scale we could make this fuel for the mass market, it might be easier to make ethanol.

Chryseler-Merced is developing one. The US Borax is funding other research too. May be we use the 715 nuclear powerplants to convert water into Hydrogen and pipe it to major cities...

4. While the chemistry of propellant has not changed, no one has tried to use binary compounds that can be used as fuel safely in a car.

-->> Examples?

Like any liquid high density fuel and oxidizer separated to keep safe until use.

5. Battery or capacitor technology has not changed much for the last 20 years. The lead-acid battery is still the main work horse since WWI.

-->> Range and recharge time are the problems. Smaller cars aside, people are not willing to give up convenience either.

No push to develop cheap storage technology. Whatever happened to polymer batteries?

6. There is no national or international push to produce fusion power or learn to neutralize the radioactive waste except a few crackpots.

-->> Check the ITER website (http://www.iter.org), there actually is a current fusion research effort underway. The timeline is basically another 50 years. I personally don't think it will ever happen because, while fusion produces little radioactive spent fuel, the reactor chamber is activated. So after 20 years of service, you get 30,000 tonnes of radioactive waste, of which 6000 tonnes is long-lived (>100 years) and must be stored in a geological repository. That's the expected waste from a single fusion plant, while the total combined annual waste from all the world's fission plants (230+ powerplants) is just 10,000 tonnes. The scientists at ITER are trying to find materials that are conditioned against long-term activation, but they aren't there yet, and don't expect to be for 30+ years. They should tackle that problem first IMO, but they aren't.

The date keep moving since 1975. Why is it we keep exchanging heat exchangers in 18 months and not 36 months by making it thicker and modifying the alloy content?

7. Technically an electric car should be much cheaper than an IC engine car. No serious effort has been made to produce one by anyone - that the government can buy for their fleets.

-->> There are lots of EVs. Hybrid cars can be considered EVs. Check the automotive websites. Again the problem with EVs is poor range and inconvenient recharging of batteries. There is also a nasty rumor going around, which I don't know is true, that the batteries will need to be replaced every 4 years at a cost of \$5000+.

No serious effort means, I dont see any mass transit vans, buses, hotel vans, business vans on EV? How many hotel vans that take you to and from airport on EV?

8. No serious research has been done to convert nuclear energy to electric energy directly, thus reducing nuclear power plant wet byproducts several order of magnitude.

-->> Nuclear energy comes from radioactive decay, when an atom's nucleus spits out the extra neutron or a proton that it didn't need. The particle collides with other molecules, losing speed, and giving off heat. If there are enough radioactive atoms close together, then decay neutrons can cause other atoms to decay, giving off more neutrons, causing still more atoms to decay, and causing a runaway chain reaction. The amount of heat created can be enormous, and can vaporize water to drive steam generators. How do you propose we convert this "nuclear energy" directly into electricity?

NASA does it in their deep space probes. Fuel cells convert heat to electricity. Thermo-electric. There may be otherways to produce copious amount of electrons. The key is in Research....

9. While price of silicon chips keep going down, not so with photovoltaic cells. A single home can support the power need for 6 months on roof mounted systems.

-->> Parabolic solar concentrators are the least expensive solar power. Photovoltaics have always been expensive. Often the solar modules are augmented with a wind turbine for low-light days. Solar and wind for residential electricity are usually only economical off-grid, out in the boonies, where it would be more expensive to extend power lines from the utility to the home than to install solar.

The only one I was able to find is the Siemens Cells. They are very very expensive, since there is not much competition. In 1980 time frame, I met a proffessor at Univ of Colorado at the World Solar Conference. He and I worked out the details of how to produce solar cells in a continuous process. If I had the money, it would have been long since done and produced for worldwide consumption.

10. Suppose we ban all the gas (petrol) cars and people switch to electric cars. That would not solve anything. Because the power needed to charge those batteries has to come from the utility grid which runs on oil, coal and gas.

-->> This is why I say that reducing energy consumption is the only way. Unfortunately people will refuse to acknowledge this TRUTH and will be forced to when the oil runs out. Oil reserves are finite. And you can't just start making your own fuel and expect to be driving the same car. Smaller cars, lower speeds, multiple fuels (ethanol, hydrogen, biodiesel).

Reducing energy consumption means reducing population in a declining scale - because everytime one is born, there goes the energy demand. Even then, you will only expand the years a very short time. Tell that to the general public that they have to abort their baby, because we have to reduce the energy consumption. I do not think that is the answer.

22. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
791
Well, Paul Ehrlich prophesized the same thing back in the late 80s. What do you know. They come now for more beating from real world facts. Will they ever learn?

Just for fun (and real world information) take a look at:

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/FossilFuels.html

Then tell me what do you think.

Besides. nuclear power is the way to go. Fission reactors showed to be amazingly safe, especially the new generation of fast breeders. Don't try to tell me I should remember Chernobyl, because the event has been grossly exaggerated. Don't think so? Then read:

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/thisweek/preview/chernobyl/concls17.html

and if you really know something about science then you'll agree with those people in Viena.

What about Three Mile Island? See this and learn the truth:

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/PsychoMeltdown.html

You really are scared of your own shadow, don't you? Come on, man, the world belongs to the brave of heart!

23. ### ZoidbergRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
62
Global Warming isn't a problem at all. If you think about it, during this planets history, this is one of the coldest period of time ever (The Ice Age is probably the coldest). When Dinosaurs were around, temperatures are estimated to be a lot higher than they are today, and the dinosaurs didn't even drive cars!!!