"deekster_caddy" (deekster_caddy)
07/09/2014 at 13:13 • Filed to: oil
0
7|
"deekster_caddy" (deekster_caddy)
07/09/2014 at 13:13 • Filed to: oil | 0
| 7 |
Just rambling, didn't want to have FP commenters all over it... Based on
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
I have trouble imagining that they will continue to "always magically find an infinite field of oil somewhere else". At some point that magic is going to run out. Oil is a finite resource!
Next up will be natural gas. CNG will slowly replace oil. Perhaps battery tech will move along too, people will find some way to store electricity so that plug-in CNG/battery style vehicles will become a thing in a few decades. But NG is also a finite resource, even though it's massive.
Like everything else, make it plentiful and people will use/abuse it until it's mostly gone. I totally envision a mad-max style future when it happens, except for our denser populations. That will add some complication to the full-on mad max future, but if things get heated enough (get enough angry people together and it may) a nuke or several may quickly diminish the population to mad-max levels. Who knows, maybe today's highways will be replaced by ultra-efficient public transportation and we will all be saved!
Someday we will run out of oil. Our generation? The next? Or the one after that?
After we run out of [oil, NG, fill in whatever is next], and only then, will people return to local farming, local production, local support. Communications will improve, global communication will only get better. But transportation will get worse.
I'm not trying to be pessimistic, it takes a crisis to make things change. But I would love to see what the world's transportation and energy infrastructure is like in 100 years.
yamahog
> deekster_caddy
07/09/2014 at 13:17 |
|
Maybe I'm just a selfish jerk in this respect, but I'll probably be dead by then and I don't have kids, so I don't really care too much.
|
deekster_caddy
> yamahog
07/09/2014 at 13:20 |
|
From one perspective I completely understand that. But I was raised a boy scout, leave things in nicer condition than you found them, etc. And this topic is definitely on my mind.
Don't get me wrong, I love the power of burning oil. I am working on a supercharger for our 455 - just need to get the brackets and pullies figured out. Pushing my '73 Buick around with that should be a lot of fun. But I want to do it as clean as possible. I'll be sure the system uses an EGR!
Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast.
> deekster_caddy
07/09/2014 at 14:01 |
|
Well, I have kids, so I am more concerned than yamahog....I think we are going to have to accept that nuclear is the the only real way we can keep up with power demands, but I do also believe that we will need to seriously start investing in a greener power infrastructure. Wind and solar may not replace anything, but on a large enough scale it will certainly be able to supplement and hopefully replace a great deal of what oil does today.
Since I live in a place that gets about 300 sunny days a year, i'm all for slapping solar collectors on every surface in sight. Some day, I think most forms of transportation will be electric, and when that time comes, I hope that my kids or grandkids will have figured out a way to hoon them! (Grandpa Ontop! Look what happens when you rig up an ultracapacitor to this flux unit!)
Slow4o
> deekster_caddy
07/09/2014 at 14:21 |
|
As a geologist in the oil industry, I can tell you that we won't be running out of oil in our lifetimes, and probably not the next generations either. And when we do start getting short, places that we have been forbidden to drill will open up for us to exploit as well. But I do think that all the moves to become oil independent are great for us long term, because you are right, eventually it is going to run out here on Earth, because the process to create new petroleum is a long one. Also, the more oil independent we are, the longer we can extend our reserves, which is great for everyone.
|
deekster_caddy
> Slow4o
07/09/2014 at 15:47 |
|
Candid question, since you are here... what is the "real impact" to wildlife and such? I'm assuming by 'forbidden' you are talking about parts of Alaska? I'm not looking for a full breakdown of species expectancies, etc. but just a realistic voice of "yeah, it would be bad" or "it's really not that big of a deal" kind of thing. (I mean, the more detail you want to put behind it the better, but if you don't have time for all that it's all good)
I agree, within our lifetime and probably the next generation, they will figure it out and get by. And there will be some kind of alternative by then, probably NG, but that's finite too. So in three hundred years I'll be long since dead, but for a planet that has been around for many thousands, that's just a blink of an eye.
|
Slow4o
> deekster_caddy
07/09/2014 at 15:56 |
|
Well I work offshore so I don't really know too much about Alaska, but in broad terms as it relates to offshore, the rules and regulations are in place to prevent what we are doing from affecting the environment. From water bottles blowing into the ocean, to prevention of harmful chemicals being released, there are rules and punishments for breaking those rules in place. Literally every single move made on an offshore rig has to have a written procedure for the job, and if there is a change in the situation, they are supposed to stop the job and discuss what they are going to do now. The problem comes when people are assholes and cut corners. That is when you have shit get messed up, and either people or the environment are hurt. I believe that people messing up will cause more damage to the environment onshore as well, rather than the drilling process itself. But the problem with that is, I can tell you land rigs aren't nearly as regulated as offshore rigs, so I believe the potential for a big fuck up on land is much higher. Granted, they might be stricter in Alaska than they are in west Texas and New Mexico and other places where most of the drilling isn't on protected land, but I'm not sure. I_DRIVE_A_PICKUP would be a great person to ask about that, because he works land rigs.
GhostZ
> deekster_caddy
07/09/2014 at 16:01 |
|
The biggest, long term effect that running out of oil has is that long-term technological development will hit a speedbump because of all of the labor, time, an energy necessary to change the system. But in the grand scheme of things, oil has done humanity some great good, even as a temporary measure on our way to sustainability. In terms of future development, it's like hitting the booster pad in an arcade racer.
There will likely never be a denser, more usuable, portable, variable, and more plentiful resource as oil ever again in human history, until we manage to capture massive energy from the sun, get fusion figured out, or figure out how to utilize the magnetic fields (lightning) to our advantage. This means that, theoretically, the last 150 years have had the greatest potential economy-boosting effect ever seen in mankind (and all evidence points to yes). It certainly says something when we live in a day and age where the population grows larger, but the quality of life rapidly increases.
Replacing oil with any of the existing forms of energy will incur an economic tax, in that more labor, more time, and more infrastructure will have to be applied to doing the same amount of work with any other form of energy (most likely electricity). This means that, world-wide, quality of life growth should see some tiny hit, even if some areas get hit more than others. The countries that can replace it with a similarly-usable infrastructure will incur the lowest economic hit, and countries that cannot, will incur the largest. In other words, the lack of oil will really slow economic growth in third world and developing countries, enough to cause major problems, and be a minor inconvenience to first world countries.