30 replies to this topic

[polopbob]

This is a problem which we are going to hear a lot more the following years. With our current way of comsuming, the fossil fuels are running short soon, nevertheless may it be early or late, eventually we have to face the facts that it is going to run out one day. When that day comes will we be ready for it?We have so adapted to this modern, industrial way of living that we can hardly imagine a life without it anymore, however we must not forget that just a century ago such way of living was left to the ones who can actually afford it.But our current society doesn't know how it is to live that way, and while we are finding new sources to serve as fuel, the process isn't picking up real pace, and if it would happen now, it won't be enough to support our way of living.Will we be able to withstand to consequence of such an event?

[Klokinator]

IMO Nuclear and Wind and Solar energy will be the energies we start relying on after 2040. California has a massive (MASSIVE) desert which has yet to be tapped into, and solar energy could be the key to supporting the western part of the US.Wind energy? Can you say east and west coast?Nuclear? That would be for all those places in the middle.Though I must be honest, I don't know a lot about nuclear, other than people irrationally distrust it because of the two meltdowns plants have had worldwide. While they were bad, I feel they were just reminders that we have to be very careful.There's also hydroelectric energy, and we have TONS of rivers to exploit use for our own selfish advantage.How about tidal energy? Using the natural motion of the waves beating on the beach to supply electricity? Might also work too.And if we made better use of these energies, then the remaining fossil fuels could be diverted to places where none of the above were available.

Edited by Klokinator, 26 January 2011 - 07:49 AM.

[polopbob]

IMO Nuclear and Wind and Solar energy will be the energies we start relying on after 2040. California has a massive (MASSIVE) desert which has yet to be tapped into, and solar energy could be the key to supporting the western part of the US.Wind energy? Can you say east and west coast?Nuclear? That would be for all those places in the middle.Though I must be honest, I don't know a lot about nuclear, other than people irrationally distrust it because of the two meltdowns plants have had worldwide. While they were bad, I feel they were just reminders that we have to be very careful.There's also hydroelectric energy, and we have TONS of rivers to exploit use for our own selfish advantage.How about tidal energy? Using the natural motion of the waves beating on the beach to supply electricity? Might also work too.And if we made better use of these energies, then the remaining fossil fuels could be diverted to places where none of the above were available.

What you say is true, however are we really capable of harvesting all that energy. It is true that we can harvest the energy that we gain from wind, sun and water. We even have nuclear power plants, which, by no offence, does has it's risks and all. I myself don't really know much about nuclear energy myself, put I do know the princip, and the procedures. And all the safety measures takes time, and not to forget it costs a lot.But the fact is that most of those idea's are, well, still idea's. And otherwise prototypes, or by other means not fully opperational at the moment, and who knows when they will be. Beside that, most aren't really that efficient at harvesting energy at all.

[Auzzie Wingman]

Fossil Fuels are the primary source of energy at the moment. There are alternative types of energy as well, such as solar, wind, hydro, nuclear as well as plant fuel and more.The problem with alternate energy is that it wouldn't be able to sustain life as we know it, there is just too much going on.What the governments need to get out there is we need to combine fossil fuel usage with alternate energy. Basically, get both types going so we can still sustain what we have going now, but also to give the dwindling amount of fossil fuel a little bit more longevity.In the instance that fossil fuels were to "die",. we couldn't possibly live the way we do know, but we'd still be able to get electricity, so its not necessarily back to the stone age.

[Klokinator]

People (Yes I mean me as well) hog way too much electricity as it is. Right now in the house I'm in, there's 2 TV's one PC (this one) 4 lights and a load of laundry going. I, personally, could easily turn everything off except for one light and my PC.But as long as people hog resources, they'll continue to go at the same speed. So the problem also lies with us, as individuals. We need to use less energy! *Turns off mentioned lights*

[polopbob]

Fossil Fuels are the primary source of energy at the moment. There are alternative types of energy as well, such as solar, wind, hydro, nuclear as well as plant fuel and more.The problem with alternate energy is that it wouldn't be able to sustain life as we know it, there is just too much going on.What the governments need to get out there is we need to combine fossil fuel usage with alternate energy. Basically, get both types going so we can still sustain what we have going now, but also to give the dwindling amount of fossil fuel a little bit more longevity.In the instance that fossil fuels were to "die",. we couldn't possibly live the way we do know, but we'd still be able to get electricity, so its not necessarily back to the stone age.

Well, it's just as you say. Even if we did find way's to combine fossil fuel with alternate energy, the fact that it will eventually run out remains, and not to forget the pollution, but that is a different topic.As for what you'd say about if it runs out, There is no way that our current non fossil fuel energy production can reach the amount that fossil fuel energy can produce. I'd recall having read once that our current "clean"energy production is only capable of supporting 2% of the world's demand for energy.It's like Klokinator says, people consume way to much energy. And that's a harder to deal problem. Some people just don't care about it, they just do as they like. So what to do about that?We could make energy consumption more expensive, but that wouldn´t neccesarly result in a shortage, beside if it would be to expensive then people would go mad and starts rioting. Which doesn´t help either.

[rocky19]

While I　ｄｏ　ａｇｒｅｅ　ｔｈａｔ　ｆｏｓｓｉｌ　ｆｕｅｌ　ｉｓ　ｒｕｎｎｉｎｇ　ｌｏｗ　ａｎｄ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｉｓ　ｃｏｕｌｄ　ｂｅ　ａｔｔｒｉｂｕｔｅｄ　ｔｏ　ｐｅｏｐｌｅ　ｎｏｔ　ｃａｒｉｎｇ　ｏｎ　ｈｏｗ　ｍｕｃｈ　ｅｎｅｒｇｙ　ｔｈｅｙ　ｕｓｅｄ，　Ｉ　ｂｅｌｉｅｖｅ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍ　ｃｏｍｅｓ　ｆｒｏｍ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｙｓｔｅｍ．　Ｆｉｒｓｔ　ｏｆｆ，　ｔｈｅｒｅ　ａｒｅ　ｈｅａｖｙ　ｓｕｂｓｉｄｉｅｓ　ｔｏ　ｔｈｏｓｅ　ｏｆ　ｏｉｌ　ｃｏｍｐａｎｉｅｓ，　ｗｈｉｌｅ　ｔｈｏｓｅ　ｏｆ　ａｌｔｅｒｎａｔｅ　ｅｎｅｒｇｙ　ｇｅｔｓ　ｂａｒｅｌｙ　ａｎｙ，　ｔｈｕｓ　ａｌｔｅｒｎａｔｅ　ｅｎｅｒｇｙ　ｈａｓ　ｎｏ　ｗａｙ　ｏｆ　ｅｘｐａｎｄｉｎｇ．　Ｓｅｃｏｎｄ, energy companies want us to consume more energy, if we consume less energy, than the energy companies will have quite a lot of problems regarding unemployment and the likes. Third, if you are to watch the average car commercial, info on how much energy is saved or new energy sources is next to null, thus convincing consumers to neglect outside costs. In my humble opinion, to solve the fossil fuel crisis, it is best to first start with changing the way on how the system operates and the way people thinks. Not an easy task.As a sidenote, you could say that it doesn't matter if we are ready to face the consequence, because i believe we are already facing the consequences.

Edited by rocky19, 30 January 2011 - 07:36 AM.

[Ragamuffin]

The whole "when we run out of fossil fuels" topic never really evoked much of a response from me. I mean, back in 1950 people were saying that we'd run out by 2000. Half the time people mention it they're coupling it with doomsday scenarios and say something like "the world's oceans will boil over in five years". I'm not saying it won't run out, because it will, but I also think there are some people who blow it out of proportion. Although, BlueNinjaTiger makes a good point with plastic, a point that I sometimes forget. However, solar power is nearly doubling in efficiency every year, so I see it becoming more effective sooner than 2040 like Klokinator said, maybe 2025. Then of course there's ITER, and who knows what that will lead to later on in the decade. There are a few windmill generators where I live, but honestly they do next to nothing, most of New England is nuclear powered anyhow.Also, Auzzie says that we're so reliant on fossil fuels because no other source could sustain our current and ever growing demands. I find that odd considering that his country holds more than half the world's supply of Uranium. But no, keep selling that Uranium to anyone who'll buy it.

[dffhkhksg]

I can't say for sure, but if it weren't for the oil companies pressuring car manufacturers, we would not need oil. We only need it because most cars need oil and electric cars are overly expensive and more costly on the environment (batteries are toxic, transportation costs are higher etc.)Hydrogen cars are very viable, however we haven't spent enough in R&D to produce hydrogen from water with minimal energy costs. In fact, I believe if we spent the money from our oil consumption on R&D, we might have free, self-sustained hydrogen vehicles with 0 emissions.Also, i don't know if this counts as oil, but cooking oil can be used to run cars with NO modifications to the engine, so really, we are free of the oil companies as soon as we can get a hold of enough cooking oil (but then they would just replace the oil companies, not really fix the problem)Changes are coming, we just are being slowed down by greed.With what people have said in regards to renewable energy: The biggest issues are deployment and storage. Deployment will come with demand, but storage is something else. We can't just make the wind blow or the sun shine. We can burn fossil fuels whenever we want. The solution are high-temperature (or even room temp) super conductors. For anyone that doesn't know,t hey are special metals that can contain a charge infinitely(or for a ridiculously long time). This would produce very powerful magnets (to be used in power generation) or storing the spotty energy produced by windfields solar and dams. This energy could then be used whenever, in theory. I'm not sure how they could get out the right amount of energy from the super conductor or how they will get it into the superconductor, but if they figure it out, renewable energy would severely overshadow fossil fuels.

Edited by dffhkhksg, 26 February 2011 - 08:43 PM.

[rocky19]

There is no way we will ever be able to live without fossil fuels until we can find a viable replacement. I don't need to tell all of you that pretty much every alternative right now has multiple drawbacks. Personally I think when it comes down to it the government is going to choose nuclear, because a time will come when we are running really low on fossil fuels and to survive we are going to need immediate relief which can satisfactorily be attained from nuclear energy.

While it is true that every alternative energy resource has its drawbacks, one must also include the benefit of what an alternative energy could bring. Furthermore, going nuclear is not going to be the wisest decision that the government could come up with. With the US basically making up of at least 1/3rd of the North America continent. There would definitely be a lot of different climate zones, such as deserts, Mediterranean, and others (curse my memory for forgetting such a topic in biology). Just promoting nuclear throughout the country is basically turning a blind eye to all the natural resources that is available with each different climatic zone, for instance solar power in Los Angeles. Right now, the most important thing to do is to change the attitude that the populace, the society, and how the government view this energy crisis.

[polopbob]

When we talk about nuclear energy we all know that the most notable side-effect is the radiation that comes from it, but aren't we forgetting that nuclear energy isn't infinite either... I mean, it runs on uranium, which to my believe, the governments wants to keep in use of military... but uranium isn't infinite either, so it will also run out one day. Considering that, nuclear energy is by far one of the least useable alternatives, replacing source for fossile fuels. You can only "stretch" our current way of living, rather that live of it.It does depend a lot onto our way of living. I mean, years before the industrial revolution, people weren't using much of the fossile fuels either, and they just lived their lives. The same goes for plastic. Humans can live without those luxeries, just look in a history book. But do we really want to? I think that's the reason that we don't change our way of consuming, which is a serious problem...

[wolfdemonrobbie_02]

I really think we can live off of the addiction of fossil fuels. However, there is a few things standing in the way. Firstly, big energy corporations really want the money from fossil fuels. Secondly, the government is also standing in the way, because they say they want cleaner energy. In the case of the USA, West Virginia and Louisiana will block all legislation. Thirdly, consumer demand. There's not that much consumer demand for the alternatives.

[Ragamuffin]

energy crisis.

ugh, here we go :(People have been labeling this a "crisis" since the 1950s, and yet here we are in 2011. A crisis is an immediate threat, not merely something we should keep in the back of our mind. Even the worst case (realistic) scenarios spun by notable drama queens say that we got until 2050, and given our exponential rate of technological growth, I believe we'll either streamline an existing plausible solution to make it cost effective (solar energy, either collected on Earth or from space comes to mind), or come up with something completely new. It's impossible to predict what we'll have access to ten years from now, nevermind forty. Cold fusion may be perfected by then, or solar power will have become Hell, in that time we've gone from the transistor radio to thumb-sized devices that can hold 20,000 songs, so I wouldn't rule out human ingenuity just yet.As an aside, and not directed at anyone in particular, I can't even begin to say how tired I am of people acting like the world is going to end. If it does, it'll be because people got so wrapped up in their own little paranoid fantasies that they locked themselves in DIY bomb shelters and refused to reproduce because they "couldn't raise a child in this horrible, overpopulated world".

Humans can live without those luxeries, just look in a history book. But do we really want to? I think that's the reason that we don't change our way of consuming, which is a serious problem...

If you call progress a problem, then yeah, I suppose it is.Generally speaking, the quality of life, as well as average lifespans across the globe have increased dramatically since the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure you're aware of that, but I say it because even back then, people were bickering that their "high tech" machines were going to ruin society/humanity as they knew it in their lifetimes. Fifty years from now we'll probably be arguing whether China's army of sentient robots pose a threat to the people on the newly constructed Lunar colony.Point is, no matter how advanced we get, we're always going to be facing some sort of "crisis", some sort of problem to solve, because that's part of what drives us as a species. I'm not saying it isn't a genuine concern, but I think it gets blown out of proportion.

[rocky19]

ugh, here we go XDPeople have been labeling this a "crisis" since the 1950s, and yet here we are in 2011. A crisis is an immediate threat, not merely something we should keep in the back of our mind. Even the worst case (realistic) scenarios spun by notable drama queens say that we got until 2050, and given our exponential rate of technological growth, I believe we'll either streamline an existing plausible solution to make it cost effective (solar energy, either collected on Earth or from space comes to mind), or come up with something completely new. It's impossible to predict what we'll have access to ten years from now, nevermind forty. Cold fusion may be perfected by then, or solar power will have become Hell, in that time we've gone from the transistor radio to thumb-sized devices that can hold 20,000 songs, so I wouldn't rule out human ingenuity just yet.As an aside, and not directed at anyone in particular, I can't even begin to say how tired I am of people acting like the world is going to end. If it does, it'll be because people got so wrapped up in their own little paranoid fantasies that they locked themselves in DIY bomb shelters and refused to reproduce because they "couldn't raise a child in this horrible, overpopulated world".

Call me a cynic or whatever, but I am only looking at it from the worst-case scenario. When you say that we are not currently in a crisis, then maybe you should pay more attention to what is happening around your daily lives. Oil prices are rising. We have multiple wars going on for the U.S in the last 10 years. The economical recession that caused some major headway in the world, etc. Before you tell me that this is unrelated to energy, I will say this. War and your everyday economic recession don't just suddenly appear out of nowhere. Sure, there is greed and stuff involved. But from the most basic standpoint, it is fought over limited resources, in this case energy. As for addressing the development of technology, I won't rule out that human ingenuity could help in the future, but please note that human ingenuity has also provoked negative responses. For instance, the cotton shear actually compounded the problem of slavery in America instead of alleviating the problem. Also, CFC, once dubbed the miracle compound for heat transfer, is now viewed as dangerous for ozone depletion. Sure, technology is all handy and dandy, but let's not forget the dangers involved as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm just throwing caution to the wind. Technology is not a panacea.As an aside, I like the part about the people acting like the world is going to end part with their own paranoid fantasies. Those people need to go into the sunlight more often and see the world more. After all, the world is full of possibilities.

Edited by rocky19, 11 March 2011 - 04:14 AM.