shocking, isn't it? a global oil crisis just means even more money for the oil barons.

I must confess I'm really struggling to square this with Dubya's speech the other day in which he said the US wasn't going to depend on oil imports from the Middle-East anymore. Does this mean that Alaska and Antarctica are going to be dug up, or is there some new technology about to breakthrough? And will this mean increasing restrictions on the use of oil, particularly cars? Considering that the Bush family have been in the oil business for decades and have numerous close links with the Saudi oil families, I'm struggling to see what's behind this sudden volte-face and what it really means.

The global oil industry is a labyrinth of competing interests. Traditional OPEC memebers and esp Saudi Arabia are shoring up their production by pumping water into older fields, a sure sign that the fields are reaching the end of their useful life. China is buying up control of as many Central Asian oil and gas fields as it can. Russia is flexing its muscles by restricting supply as and when it feels like it. There has long been a literal *pipe-dream* to build an oil/gas pipeling from Central Asia across Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. Countries like Venezuala are completely bucking the oil cartels and using their economic leverage to pursue whatever policies they want. Countries like Britain have suddenly realised that the oil and gas are running out and strategically we're now very vulnerable.

So what's going on? Has Dubya realised that the game is up and that an oil-based economy has a strictly finite life? Or is there something else going on? Some pundits have compared his speech to that of recognising an addiction (that the US and by extention the Western world have been addicted to profligate petroleum usage for far too long) which of course he would know about, being an alcoholic. Whether it's him or someone in his administration has finally recognised the seriousness of the situation, which has been evident to many of us for years, I'd really like to know what in practice this shift win policy will entail. You can take it as read that the nuclear industry will get a massive boost, there hasn't been a new US reactor built since 3-Mile Island (iirc) And our own British reactors are getting long in the tooth, AGR and Magnox all date back to the 60s. Not that we have a good record on expenditure and efficiency in our own nuclear industry (long story)

Those of us over 40 will remember the last real oil crisis in the early 70s, when schools and business had to close for part of the week (the famous 3-day weeek) petrol ration books were issued, and the gas and power would go off for days on end, leaving us huddled around paraffin heaters or coal fires with only candles and torches for light. It was fun at the time esp no school! but I wouldn't fancy it now. Not at -6C like what it is today.

still though, FD, you Amurricuns still pay a lot lot less than we do for fuel. £5 a gallon we pay. that's about 8 or 9 US dollars. Now you still don't pay anything like that much, and your cars are cheaper too. Why do you think I moved to diesel? 60mpg average rather than 45mpg (and that was good for a petrol engine) Although again, to be fair, most of our fuel hikes are excise duty and VAT imposed by the Govt.

owever the situation is now so bad and i can't see it improving that I may soon get rid of one of our two cars and use public transport to get to work, or car share with the Mrs. And I'm going to install a solar panel on the roof for water heating.

Edited by - Tawakalna on 2/2/2006 6:16:09 AM

Edited by - Tawakalna on 2/2/2006 8:37:02 AM

I'm typing from class instead of paying attention, so I won't respond to many of Taw's points, except to say, that yes, American are addicted to 1.) their huge cars and 2.) their own cars (i.e. little reliance on public transit).

NPR news had a bit on this morning from a Scandanavian professor (forgot the name...) that has calculated that it actually takes more fossil fuels to produce these much touted ethanol or biodiesel alternative fuels than you get by burning them (someone please find a better way of saying this...). Dubya seemed to, in his speech, try to encourage the development of alternate and more efficient fuels to take (some) of the place of oil. I agree with Taw here, this independance, partial or not, of oil is far off, and it will require a lifestyle change in addition to massive scientific advancements to achieve this goal within a reasonable timeframe. Somehow I think the era of the nuclear powered car is a bit far off yet.

I doubt Antartica will be dug up to be honest after the news the other day from Scientists regarding how the Green House effect is far worse then we first thought. Current predictions now state that the Glaciers over Greenland will be completely gone by 2090, with the Artic ice sheets shrinking rapidly. This effect however won't be just effecting the North Pole, but also the ice sheets over the Antartic over the South Pole, which means over the next 85 years, the ice sheets at both the North and South Pole are going to become incredibly unstable. All the world needs is a further 3 degrees increase in temperature and the damage is irreversiable as far as they can tell, we will have a run away problem with the ice caps vanishing and sea levels increasing upto 7 metres (a far different cry to the 3 metres increase in height that was first thought back in the late 80's, early 90's).

Which is possibly another reason behind this all, this recent news from Scientists is a big wake up call to the governments that not only is the oil reserves running out, but the green house crisis is now right on our doorstep. Three degree's higher thanks to continued pollution emissions (from many sources, not just oil, but oil production facilities are one of the major contributors (ironically, another main contributor, believe it or not, is cows :S)) and we can kiss goodbye to many low lying countries (like Bangladesh) and much of our coast line in those countries that won't completely disappear. A seven metre rise does mean much of America will vanish within 85 years beneath the sea. Never mind Atlantis, places like Florida, California and New York will be the new Atlantis! 85 years is not a long time when you think about it. A child born now could realistically be still alive at that time. My Eldest son would be 90 years old if he is still alive then.

And don't forget, though they say by 2090 it will rise by seven metres, that the effects will occur sooner than that, with water levels rising expodiantially over this period. The Ice Cap IS already melting and vanishing. It is smaller today then it was 20 years ago and the rate at which is shrinking is increasing daily. Those 3 degrees is a critical point, the governments need to bring a virtual halt to all polution emissions immedetely to prevent it being irreversable. The trouble is, all our economies are already built around this oil production facilities. If oil suddenly stops flowing, as illustrated above, there are all sorts of other problems that will need to be faced. I know Unemployment will sky rocket here in my home town of Southampton where a major oil refinary (Fawley) exists and the same would happen everywhere in this country and many other countries.

Indeed, I wonder if the Oil companies are trying to milk the oil trade at the moment for all they can knowing that soon with rapidly depleting resources and scientists giving a message that oil usage needs to stop that they are going to have to shift into new areas. There big money earner is not going to be a money earner for much longer and if they are to survive, they will need to switch to another method of energy supply.

However, the more I look it, the more this recent news seems to have caught the world a bit off guard. In all honesty, we have over the last decade become less relaxed and concerned about our view towards pollution. All ours cars have Cat's, our de-odourants are CFC free, tighter pollution and emission laws were introduced across the world. But was it enough? There have been scientists saying no, it isn't, the entire time, but the general public (and governments) have dropped their guard, seeing these measures (and other measures like Recycling programs like the major one we have going down in the south here) and thinking to ourselves that we are doing the right thing, we are doing something and that is enough. But truth be known, it hasn't been enough yet.

Governments are seriousily going to need to look at Alternatives ASAP now. The oil is running out, the North Sea reserves all but gone for example, and unless it stops, considerable damage will done to our countries by our own pollution. But what are the alternatives?

Nuclear Power (Fision): Good source of non-polluting energy but has the problem of it's radioactive by product with the need to find somewhere safe to store it all. And then there is also the cost which is less about companies robbing people of money, but the necessity of high maintenance costs to keep the reactors going to prevent another Chenobyl occuring.

Nuclear Power (Fusion): Far more efficient and safer then Fision based Nuclear Power, it's by product is non-radioactive (heavy water) and would be far safer in running than a Fision Reactor. Only problem is that we have yet to build a commercially viable one. Fusion Reactors are still the thing of Scientific Experiments and though controlled Fusion has been achieved by various different Science teams across the world, we are still a long way from developing this into a kind of power source that can be used to power national grids with out a lot more funding going into it.

Microwave Power: Is it the stuff of Science Fiction? No, it's not, scientists have successfully managed to beam energy from an emitter to a receptor, but like Fusion, it is a long way from any actual applicable use. Further more, Microwave Power is far more dangerous than Nuclear Fusion. If the beaming Satelite miss aligns, kiss goodbye to anything the beam falls on (which also means it can be used as one hell of a weapon of mass destruction as well and one has to ask do we really need to develop another science that can used in this manner?). If it is developed, we are looking at something that would cost more than Nuclear Fusion in set up, but far less to maintain and operate. But personally I would rule it out.

Derve: Derve is a fuel source made from things like SunFlower seeds and Rape Seed Oil. It makes a good substitue to Diesal and several companies are already experimenting in it's use. The good news it is a renewable resource rather than limited like oil and it makes farmers the world over even more useful, giving them a decent income (something else which has been protested about in Britian in the last years is how Farmers are getting a raw deal). Only trouble is that burning Derve is no better then burning massive swaths of the Rain Forest which ermm.... produces pollution. Renewable, but not pollution free so possibly not the best option.

Green Solution: We should all know them by now. Solar Power, Wind Power, Hydro Power, Tidal Power. Once again, the biggest problem is cost and also consistancy. For example, Wind Turbines produce very little energy if there is no wind to turn them, Solar Power produces less energy when it is cloudy (making it less then a viable option for Britian). But they are non-pollutant mostly (well... people complain about noise pollution from Wind Turbines, but Noise Pollution isn't melting the ice caps).

We have options, but the question is, can we get them installed in time and more importantly, can we get the message across to all countries. A Farmer who is burning tries for his farm in Brazil rarely cares about the effect it has when he is fighting to make sure him and his family have enough food to live on. And off course, Oil Barons are going to try and milk their oil reserves for everything they can before they finally have to give them up.

Freeworlds Mod Developer
Author of Modular Station

'There is no Good nor Evil in the universe, just perceptions and circumstances.'

The US could and should do the wilderness digging, as our population will continue to grow, and outnumber the available uses. We need the other oil and not depend on others for it, then the price can be stabilized. But, those middle east folk could also leave the price alone, rather than increaing thir purse wealth as well, but the subject could get politiical as well.

what about fuel cells?

Okay, a bunch of random points in response to various posts:
The ice sheets in the antarctic have actually been growing year on year.

Whatever derve is, it would severely damage the environment putting most land over to the production of oilseed rape would require a lot of natural habitat loss.

I don't even know where you're going with the microwave power thing, yes, it's possible to transfer energy using it but it's still fairly inefficient with much of the energy liable to be absorbed by various molecules in the air. Most importantly, it's not actually producing energy.

Some countries will become much colder, especially the UK and the coastal regions of western Europe which would lose the warming effect of the Gulf Stream.

One of the major concerns is an area of peat bogs in Siberia, which has been compared to a similar landmass as France and Germany combined. As the permafrost above the bogs thaws, the dark peat underneath is exposed. The peat bogs will release methane into the atmosphere that had previously been stuck underneath the ice and contribute to the greenhouse effect far worse than carbon dioxide does. Also since peat is a dark coloured soil, it will act as a heat sink, more easily trapping heat compared to the white permafrost, thus requiring lower temperatures to freeze over again.

Frankly climatology is still fairly vague. Most scientists will freely admit they're very unsure. It's accepted that human activity affects the climate but to what extent is still the subject of debate. It's possible that we're heading towards the advent of a new climate age that's part of the natural cycle of the planet.

In fairness to the OPEC countries, once their oil is gone, they don't have much else to offer in terms of international trade so it's not surprising if they boost the prices while they can, that's pretty much capitalism at work for you.

As for fuel cells, they rely on a hydrogen-oxygen reaction creating water as a by-product. Sounds nice and eco-friendly and a viable alternative to oil but the main problem is obtaining the hydrogen. It's almost entirely obtained via electrolysis, which requires electricity which is often created using fossil fuels. In a sense, you're just placing the true exhaust a long way away from your vehicle so it seems eco-friendly.

some very good posts here -
i'll tell you, i have been intensely interested in alternative energy since i was 17.
it has been calculated that most homes sitting on an average lot have enough free energy in the form of wind,solar,bio and in special cases hydro and geothermal,to supply all their domestic energy needs without any need for the grid - provided the system uses a bank of deep cycle batteries to supply surge currents and steady power.

burning fossil fuels in powerplants is stupid - but burning biomass is NOT - here's why:
fossil fuels contain carbon from millions of years ago, you know ... the 'carboniferous' era?well, that means you have a one-way release of energy, no return cycle involved
whereas renewable fuels(biomass) thrive on their own pollution(co2) and duh-duh-duh-duh!-solar

nuclear is also a one-way contribution to entropy, no studies have ever addressed what could happen if there was a massive shift of opinion on nuclear energy and suddenly hundreds or even thousands of nuclear powerplants began venting heat into rivers and the atmosphere

hydroelectric: it is AWESOME! just awesome! we pay a very good rate in my city because the town somehow owns an interest in the dam,or gets a discount for granting land *whatever, its really just a matter of distance, we're close and so therefore AC transmission efficiency is great*. somehow, salmon manage to continue getting through the numerous dams, so dam the environment! (so what, no salmon. i don't like their taste anyway)

you hear "other sources" of pollution are contributing to green house warming but do you know what it is? livestock! we take all our solar-c02 grown plants and feed them to these ambulatory methane factories - and methane is a stronger greenhouse gas! it almost seems as if we're terraforming the planet for somebody..... lizard space aliens GW "Scaley" Bush and Dick "ol' forky tongue" Cheney?

*saws off a corner of delicious steak and pops it into his mouth with the knife tip*

P.S. CEO's in the US make an average of 451 times the salary of an entry level employee at their own company - anyone ever seen that old john carpenter flick They Live ?

Well, as soon as they can build that fusion reactor place in France (then have a meltdown and blow the whole country to hell, he he) then they can make all the hydrogen we need, and we could use that for a clean source of energy with no pollution (car's and plane's exhaust would just be a little water vapor) and our oil problems would be solved. (the only thing we would still need oil for was for a lubricant.)

As soon as they get that place built in France we can then overthrow OPEC and destroy all the oil companies.

*whispers to Killa* ..Umm..I don't think fusion reactors give off hydrogen as a by-product, I think they're used in the reaction.

I think Killa was reffering to the Nuclear Fusion reactor being used to perform Electrosis to generate Fuel Cell's for vehicles.

Someone mentioned above that the antartic is growing, however, that information is contary to scientific reports given out by the BBC this week that the antartic is actually doing the opposite and shrinking as well.

And yes, as I mentioned above Microwave Power and Derve fuel, though being studied as alternatives, are really not shaping up to be good options. You have just added more reasons why not compared to my own points on them (which are also negative towards these as possible alternatives).

This is getting an interrest read, keep it coming

Freeworlds Mod Developer
Author of Modular Station

'There is no Good nor Evil in the universe, just perceptions and circumstances.'

In terms of power, thats not what this thread is about. Until cars trucks and so forth go hybrid or electric, gas and oil will be needed. Oil for lubercation, home heating oil are nesesities of this world. Electric, short of nucliaer(sp) is not viable due to dence populations. Also, a lot of electric is generated by coal and natural gas at this point in time. Hydro electric is only viable in certain locations where dams can be build. I use electric heat where I live, however, if the power is out, i have no heat, so it is not the best solution. The alturnative is to use 2 sources for fuel, gas and electric. It is the optimum solution at this time. The only personal alturnative to me, is return to the olden days of single family dwellings, in sparce locations useing wood for stoves and fireplaces. hmmm?

To be honest, I don't know much about this subject, except what I hear, so don't use me as a quote in your next Enviromental Convention speech.

From all I've heard, no one can even agree if the planet is going through this global warming thing. From one end, you have the scientist/wackos that say the sky is falling (or more closely, opening up) and we're all going to die. Then, in the other corner, is the old-man-who-refses-to-move-out-of-the-way-of-the-lava/hurricane scientist, who refuses to believe that anything is really happening and that it is all a mass media trick. And then there are the guys that believe that the world is going through a natural stage, like the opposite of an ice age. I don't know specifically, but wasn't there a tropical age just before the ice age?

The point is, none of us (humans in general) have even been around long enough to make an educated guess. Everything we know about the past is mostly a widely excepted theory. No one has disproven it, but that still doesn't make the theory right. That's science for you. So what we do? Our best. fix the 'problems.' Work toward oil alternatives. We might all live yet. Oh, and by the way, I don't think the enviromentalists (or the rest of the world) would aprove of dumping drums of oil into the harbor.

Confucius say: Man who stand on toilet is high on pot

Ok, as far as global warming is concerned, I think our last poster there summed it up pretty good, so I'll leave that one alone...

The latest report I heard at least for the US is that we import the majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico. We recieve about 10-15 percent of our imports from the middle east. Now the reason they seem to be the powerhouse is that they deliver to alot of other countries and set the overall tone with the rest of the world as the price is set.

As the world continues to modernize (china to name one..lol) they are using more and more oil. Right now the worlds consumption rate is growing larger than the rate of exploration so here soon something is going to give.

Bush's plan is at best considered a long term plan that will have no noticable effect for a good 10 to 15 years down the road. I hate to say it but I think things will come to a head before that and its not going to be pretty. Who knows what will happen then...(hopefully not another world war over oil rights..)

Well, that's enough for now, will have to think things over some more here...

Hunting those above the law.

Protector and cofounder of the Hawk Trading Company found on Hals2003Evoserver.

i disagree on global warming - you have to be blindly optimistic to say the icecaps melting and a globally measurable temperature change is not evidence enough that its a real phenomenom, although its end result can be argued.there are, sadly, hundreds of corporately(privately by ceo's mostly) funded think tanks like the heritage foundation that obfuscate the truth and make the brazen claim that you can't prove its happening - while presenting no counter evidence

the solutions for energy are there, but the affordable replacements for petroleum products that we aren't burning, eg plastics, aren't