oil rise again : $140 a barrel now and expected to hit $170 within 2 months

[tris-]

i dont think most could live viking style now.
majority of our (uk) population is probably older already than the vikings lived. so if suddenly they all went back in time, the medication and medical support would not be available. theyd all be dead pretty quickly.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well it wouldn't happen overnight really.

we wouldn't go from "ooh oil oil!" to "moving to a tent" in even, say, two generations.

Adaptation and survival is probably the humanities best quality.

We've done it before, we'd do it again, and with current tech, we couldn't even fall that far back.

 

[Bugz]

I don't know how you can make such a prediction Seel as man has little evidence of something like this ever happening before.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't know how you can make such a prediction Seel as man has little evidence of something like this ever happening before.

Only logical.

We wouldn't need tents for one, we have housing.

Those houses could easily be converted into wood heated.

Finland for example could be self suficient in heating with wood.

Just one example of how we are far superior in ttechnology and status, then the "tent dwelling vikings"(not even gonna comment that btw).

 

[Bugz]

You can't assign logical thinking to something as dramatic as MOVING BACK in the technological development of man when for the past thousands of years man has only moved forward.

That's just clutching as straws!

The fact of the matter is - no-one could even begin to investigate the impact without oil and assuming no suitable substitutes.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You can't assign logical thinking to something as dramatic as MOVING BACK in the technological development of man when for the past thousands of years man has only moved forward.

That's just clutching as straws!

The fact of the matter is - no-one could even begin to investigate the impact without oil and assuming no suitable substitutes.

You just can, without clutching.

Do e have medical storages. Yes.
Do we have housing instead of "just tents". Yes.
Do we have the smarts and brains of current day people. Yes.

And so on.

No matter what happens, unless all housing(etc) and technological knowledge goes poof in an eyeblink, we're always better off, starting wise, then in the past i that aspect.

EDIT: No, i'm not talking about "impacts of oil loss", only thing regarding that "strict pole up a**" theory is that we'll adapt.

 

[Helme]

Or we could just stop the scare of Nuclear power and outphase all the fucking oilplants, where the fuel is predicted to last around 5000years with the CURRENT known reserves.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well that's one.

Hell, stop this "oil warming housing etc etc" for one...

 

[Helme]

I can't honestly believe how people are so scared of Nuclear power, the worst catastrophe in Nuclear history, Chernobyl didn't actually bring that many deaths - and looking at the area now around 20 years later, it's just an abandoned town with pockets of 'dangerous' radiation, not to speak about the fact that they were using the Soviet idea of thinking - "as long as it works, don't improve it until something really bad happens", there is really 0 chance of something like this happening in a Western Nuclear plant, hell they even tried to DRIVE AIRPLANES INTO THE CONCRETE THE NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE MADE OF AND ALL IT DID WAS MAKE A 10CM HOLE.

Then we have Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where actually there was only a few hundred people who died from radiation - most died from being crushed or burned alive from the explosion, and yet again - the population of these towns are now more than 10 times what they were in the 40s....

What's hilarious is how scientists are trying to find viable alternative sources, like wave power(rofl) and wind, when both are totally unrealistic unless we go back to I don't know, the 50s where the entire familys gathered around the TV once a day for 1 hour, while we have had the alternative source for 50 odd years already.

 

[Helme]

You can't assign logical thinking to something as dramatic as MOVING BACK in the technological development of man when for the past thousands of years man has only moved forward.

False.

Want to know why it's generally called "The Dark Ages"? Because the living quality plummeted from the standards of Ancient Greece and most importantly Rome.

 

[Bugz]

For some reason the transition we have experienced now seems to somewhat outweigh the dark ages - in my opinion at least.

 

[Septima]

I can't honestly believe how people are so scared of Nuclear power, the worst catastrophe in Nuclear history, Chernobyl didn't actually bring that many deaths - and looking at the area now around 20 years later, it's just an abandoned town with pockets of 'dangerous' radiation, not to speak about the fact that they were using the Soviet idea of thinking - "as long as it works, don't improve it until something really bad happens", there is really 0 chance of something like this happening in a Western Nuclear plant, hell they even tried to DRIVE AIRPLANES INTO THE CONCRETE THE NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE MADE OF AND ALL IT DID WAS MAKE A 10CM HOLE.

Then we have Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where actually there was only a few hundred people who died from radiation - most died from being crushed or burned alive from the explosion, and yet again - the population of these towns are now more than 10 times what they were in the 40s....

What's hilarious is how scientists are trying to find viable alternative sources, like wave power(rofl) and wind, when both are totally unrealistic unless we go back to I don't know, the 50s where the entire familys gathered around the TV once a day for 1 hour, while we have had the alternative source for 50 odd years already.

Hundred of thousands people exposed to the radiation had cancers, deadborn children or children with high rates of malformations. It's not because "only" a few died after the explosion that it wasn't one of the biggest catastrophes of the twentiest century. And people all over Ukrania still suffer, almost 30 years after, the effects of Chernobyl.
Nuclear energy can be a good thing, but you better be fucking rdy if there is a problem in a nuclear plant.

 

[Helme]

We would atleast go back to basic sewage and not 'crap piled in the streets'.

Did you know that for example 40-50% of Stockholms dock quarters are built upon garbage from this time?


Actually, newer studies have shown that it was remarkably few that actually died from radiation, and currently you can take UNPROTECTED TURIST TOURS in Chernobyl if you want. That's not even speaking about the whole Soviet versus Western Nuclear powerplants. As I said, Soviet always had the mentality "If it's not broke, don't fix it" - and then "If it breaks, so what if 100 people die - fix it or abandon it". There is actually a bigger risk that an oilplant will catch on flame than a single nuclear reactor gets out of its cooling range(if they do, they instantly stop the reaction and cool the reactor down).

 

[Gorbachioo]

I can't honestly believe how people are so scared of Nuclear power, the worst catastrophe in Nuclear history, Chernobyl didn't actually bring that many deaths - and looking at the area now around 20 years later, it's just an abandoned town with pockets of 'dangerous' radiation, not to speak about the fact that they were using the Soviet idea of thinking - "as long as it works, don't improve it until something really bad happens", there is really 0 chance of something like this happening in a Western Nuclear plant, hell they even tried to DRIVE AIRPLANES INTO THE CONCRETE THE NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE MADE OF AND ALL IT DID WAS MAKE A 10CM HOLE.

Then we have Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where actually there was only a few hundred people who died from radiation - most died from being crushed or burned alive from the explosion, and yet again - the population of these towns are now more than 10 times what they were in the 40s....

What's hilarious is how scientists are trying to find viable alternative sources, like wave power(rofl) and wind, when both are totally unrealistic unless we go back to I don't know, the 50s where the entire familys gathered around the TV once a day for 1 hour, while we have had the alternative source for 50 odd years already.

Replacing all fossil fuels with nucleare power is totally unrealistic. You also have to remember that uranium is a limited resource too.

The only real choice we have is renewable energy. Wind/solar/biomass etc. Its not economically viable right now but its the only real option we have. Everything else will run out some day.


edit: Nuclear reactors these days are much safer than what Chernobyl was. The Chernobyl disaster is not a good argument against nuclear energy in my opinion. We should get everything we can out of it but it wont solve the problem.

 

[Helme]

As I said, current known deposits will last us around 5000 years, and theres remarkably few known deposits mainly because - we don't look for it, as it's not actually needed - not to speak about advances in the field lets us use the current fuel more efficiently.

edit to answer edit: I agree, it would only solve the warming of houses etc. part - which would save ALOT of oil, but we still have the problems of cars - and nuclear reactors on cars isn't viable(they are actually weaker than an AA battery at these small levels). That said, it would give us some extra time to actually find a better solution for cars. I can see that Water and Nuclear really are our only answers to stationary power(and boats, subs, and maybe even big commercial airplanes) but the other part of oil consumption is something else entirely, solar power might work for cars(it's fucking useless on grand scale).

 

[cHodAX]

Great little vid from a game here guys, makes me think this is pretty much what could happen over the next 30 years...

YouTube - Frontlines: Fuel of War - The Road To War
[youtubevid]Ppt_kTilbgs[/youtubevid]

 

[old.Tohtori]

By the by:

Estimates of the total amount of oil resources in the world grew throughout the 20th century [see Figure III].

* In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world’s total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels.17
* In 1950, geologists estimated the world’s total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
* From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.
* In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.

By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced.
18 Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels.
19 If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world’s oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.

 

[Gorbachioo]

As I said, current known deposits will last us around 5000 years, and theres remarkably few known deposits mainly because - we don't look for it, as it's not actually needed - not to speak about advances in the field lets us use the current fuel more efficiently.

I dont have any numbers atm but i find that very hard to believe. Do you mind linking the source? ;O

 

[Helme]

I dont have any numbers atm but i find that very hard to believe. Do you mind linking the source? ;O

Trying to dig up a recent german study that went through alot of data to try convince the german population to convert to Nuclear, they basically went through data from an old soviet nuclear weapon camp where the people actually made the stuff without any protection - to Chernobyl, to Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc aswell as looking at the amount of fuel left with current use/reserves.

The thing with Nuclear fuel is that, after it's been used "once" - you pass it along to newer reactors to break them in, first then it becomes 'unusable' - with our current knowledge, iirc we don't even use 10% of the fuel - that and the fact that we rarely change it at all.

edit: Nuclear Exaggeration: Is Atomic Radiation as Dangerous as We Thought? - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

The fuel wasn't mentioned there, must have read it somewhere else(I'll try find it), but nevertheless - that's an very interesting read.

 

[Gorbachioo]

By the by:

Estimates of the total amount of oil resources in the world grew throughout the 20th century [see Figure III].

* In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world’s total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels.17
* In 1950, geologists estimated the world’s total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
* From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.
* In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.

By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced.
18 Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels.
19 If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world’s oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.

No one really knows how much oil there is on the ground because oil producers have been exaggerating their oil reserves for decades. Those numbers are estimates by people who only know what the arabs tell us.

Second of all, the amount of oil in the ground is irrelevant. The amount we cant extract from the ground with a positive EROEI is what matters. If it takes more energy to pump the oil up than what you get from the oil then its useless.

Third of all, the fact that people have been predicting this for almost a hundred years doesnt mean that it cant happen now.

edit: Chodax: Loved it, thanks ;>

 

[old.Tohtori]

So...let's disregard all data give and just SAY we're running out right now?

 

[Helme]

Another interesting thing with Nuclear power, atleast in Finland and Sweden is that our goverments force the plants to put away a large amount of their total income to construction and decommissioning, so our plants will always be 'up to date' and never drop in quality.

It's really quite sad how scared the majority of people are of these catastrophes, especially in areas next to the plants themselves who enjoy relatively cheap electricity(I live 20minutes from Forsmark, I think it's Sweden's biggest plant - not sure, the one in the south which I forget the name of might be bigger ) and everyone - when asked is apparently, "living in fear" of the according to them - inevitable reactor meltdown.

Another important part is that Nuclear power would severely hinder Global Warming - and even if you don't believe in it(im sceptical myself) less pollution is always good.

A life cycle analysis centered around the Swedish Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant estimated carbon dioxide emissions at 3.10 g/kWh[4] and 5.05 g/kWh in 2002 for the Torness Nuclear Power Station.[5] This compares to 11 g/kWh for hydroelectric power, 950 g/kWh for installed coal, 900 g/kWh for oil and 600 g/kWh for natural gas generation in the United States in 1999.

The Vattenfall study found Nuclear, Hydro, and Wind to have far less greenhouse emissions than other sources represented.The Swedish utility Vattenfall did a study of full life cycle emissions of Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind which the utility uses to produce electricity. The net result of the study was that nuclear power produced 3.3 grams of carbon dioxide per KW-Hr of produced power. This compares to 400 for natural gas and 700 for coal (according to this study). The study also concluded that nuclear power produced the smallest amount of CO2 of any of their electricity sources.

 

[Helme]

Argh, another post damn edit timer:

Couldn't find the exact source - but this is as close as I could get: Exploration drives uranium resources up 17%

Reprocessing is becoming more and more 'popular'.

 

[Gorbachioo]

So...let's disregard all data give and just SAY we're running out right now?

Nothing is certain in the oil industry. Peak oil just is the best explanation for the recent events. Maybe the saudis do have oil for a hundred years more but until they start pumping it i'll stick to the most likely explanation.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Nothing is certain in the oil industry. Peak oil just is the best explanation for the recent events. Maybe the saudis do have oil for a hundred years more but until they start pumping it i'll stick to the most likely explanation.

But then, if we take your counter-argument up there, neither of the scenarios( the one i posted with numbers or yours which has backup too) is right by certain and it could go either way?

 

[Gorbachioo]

But then, if we take your counter-argument up there, neither of the scenarios( the one i posted with numbers or yours which has backup too) is right by certain and it could go either way?

It could. However, if you look at the list of oil producers that have already peaked along with the fact that oil is at 140d/b for no apparent reason that 2056 seems pretty optimistic. And again, its not about oil running out, its about not being able to produce as much.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Argh, another post damn edit timer:

Couldn't find the exact source - but this is as close as I could get: Exploration drives uranium resources up 17%

Reprocessing is becoming more and more 'popular'.

I have an early wake up tomorrow so i'll go to bed now but i'll debate you on this tomorrow. ;>

 

[Gorbachioo]

So Nuclear energy: Even though it has alot of potential (more than i thought) in the long term it wont be the answer in the short term because building nuclear reactors takes a long time and we dont have the construction capacity to build alot of them at the same time.

The second problem is that peak oil is not an energy crisis, its a liquid fuel crisis. Even if we would get all the energy we need from nuclear energy all of our machinery would still be running on oil.

My prediction for the future is (as ive said before) a complete global economic meltdown and alot of wars (With that i dont mean ww3 with china and russia vs the west or anything like that, but rather the invasion of iran and alot of darfur like massacres in places like Africa, ALTHOUGH i have to say i cant completely rule that out either.) Nuclear energy wont help in that, but it will save us (as in rich people) from the mad max scenarios. That is, if we understand the problem early enough and act on it. If we keep burying our heads in the sand then we'll all be killing eachother for scraps of food -,-)


The thing about peak oil though is that its not just about oil. We're going to hit peak natural gas soon too. All of this is a part of a larger picture which is telling us that we're running out of natural resources. The price of phosphorus for example has risen 700% in just 14 months (Scientists warn of lack of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise demand - Times Online "Peak phosphorus"). As the article says we cant produce food without it.

The kind of life we know is not going to last.

 

[Helme]

I agree we are in for really hard times, but Nuclear power will prevent that, atleast for some time - it's the only power option that is actually somewhat realistic - wind requires more space than what it actually powers, solar is very inefficient and water is too limited to geology - I guess we are quite lucky here in Sweden with our quite big water power supply.

What really pisses me off however is that people won't be happy with any option, infact the majority actually wants to(atleast in Sweden) REMOVE NUCLEAR POWER ALLTOGETHER, and when asked about what alternatives they see - they can't reply.

 

[Golena]

What will happen is we will adapt.

The problem really is your average people thinking that they can actually do something about it, and that switching off a lightbulb will help.

Someone at the place I work was working out how much energy could be saved if we managed to reduce the output of what we produced by X amount. It ended up in the end coming out that we'd save about 4 houses worth of power every year if we did it.
Now given over 4 houses got built while I was typing this sentance, never mind trying to implement the power saving... erm, yeah!

The ONLY thing that's going to stop us burning through oil is running out. Yeah, some people will be killed in wars and we'll have to give up some luxuries. My advice really is to at least enjoy the time before it occurs, because since it's inevitable, you might as well get killed for that last scrap of food after enjoying your life.