[Lerkfish]

it appears so...

interesting timing: we are moving bases out of SA and attempting to plant them in Iraq, which has huge UNTAPPED oil reserves....


hmmmmm.....interesting, no?

[macvillage.net]

While highly debated, there some experts who think that the last of the worth while oil will be gone in 35 years at the rate of (increasing) consumption (that was a few years ago).

But there are also some who say we have hundreds of years left.

An interesting article from a little while ago here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...lobal.warming/


I'm personally of the opinion we don't have to much left.

What's interesting is despite how most want to drill in alaska, thinking there's so much oil there that could save us:
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.html#section2

There's apparantly not.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
it appears so...

Yeah, unless you read the entire article. Paragraph 8 is the key:

Saudi Arabia, the leading exporter for three decades, is not running out of oil. Industry officials are finding, however, that it is becoming more difficult or expensive to extract it.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yeah, unless you read the entire article. Paragraph 8 is the key:

Acutally, that's the entire point.

It's running out of oil worth while.

The US in general sits on a fair amount of oil. But most deposits are so tiny, it would cost more to drill than the oil is worth.

So it is running out, because they won't be able to to sell that.. unless your willing to pay hundreds of dollars/gallon?

[OldManMac]

America is going to see gas prices similar to what Europeans have been paying for decades. We're not going to run out of oil, but we are going to start paying much more for it. Prices will drop again, but, in the long run, we're in for much higher costs of driving. We Americans are also going to see a drastic change in the heirarchy of automobile manufacturers. The "Big Three" (in which Daimler-Chrysler actually no longer belongs), make most of their profits on trucks and large vehicles. GM actually loses around $1000 on every Cavalier it sells, and it's one of their best selling models. Toyota is nipping at the heels of Ford, and, according to some auto analysts, actually produced more vehicles in 2003 than Ford did. Within a couple of years, Toyota will be nipping at GM's heels. They know how to make small cars at a profit, and that's what's going to kill domestic manufacturers.

[djohnson]

What will kill them is that they are trying to produce cars on old technology. If they replaced their factories with modern completely computerized machinery, they could increase their productivty and profits. Of course there are the labor unions...but that is another topic!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by djohnson:
What will kill them is that they are trying to produce cars on old technology. If they replaced their factories with modern completely computerized machinery, they could increase their productivty and profits. Of course there are the labor unions...but that is another topic!

I think the car companies should concentrate on making hydrogen power work more efficiently in cars.

[Developer]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I think the car companies should concentrate on making hydrogen power work more efficiently in cars.

That doesn't solve the problem where the energy comes from. All nucular?

[el chupacabra]

I think hes talking about the hydrogen fuel cell. Which though it comes from oil is far more efficient to use in a car. You would get way more miles per gallon.

[eklipse]

The world runs on a fuel that is known to be both finite and toxic.

Do we seriously look to find an alternative, renewable, reliable, efficient, clean energy source? No.

Do we make serious plans to transition our energy infrastructure to an alternative, renewable,......energy source? No.

Why? Money.

So, people have their money; no one knows how they are going to power the things their money has bought them; everyone must endure the side-effects of a far-from-perfect fuel source; future generations inherit a serious problem - and humans are the most intelligent species on the planet.

[djohnson]

Also, remember tha auto makers own large parts of oil companies and vice versa. Taking away the oil, which would mean oil companies go down, would mean that the auto companies would loss money... Cant have that

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Acutally, that's the entire point.

It's running out of oil worth while.

Really?

Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company said it could quench the world's thirst for oil easily beyond the middle of the century because it has many more fields to be discovered and its production costs are low.

Saudi Aramco officials said that by 2025, they expect to add at least 150 billion barrels to the company's current proven oil reserves of 260 billion barrels. The extra barrels will come from fields it expects to discover in northern Saudi Arabia along the Iraqi border and in areas south of current oilfields.

Proven oil reserves are crude oil that can be recovered using current technology.

'We have plenty of oil. We have the potential to add more oil than anyone else,' said Mahmoud Abdul Baqi, vice-president of exploration at Saudi Aramco.

'We are going to continue to deliver for another 70 years at least,' he added. 'We have a lot of acreage to explore and the potential to find a lot more oil.'

Officials laid out the company's potential oil production capability at a conference sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Saudi Aramco now has crude production capacity of 10 million bpd.

Company officials said Saudi Arabia could easily ramp up its production to 15 million barrels per day (bpd) by around 2014 and maintain it for a half-century.

They cited the cheap cost of developing oil deposits in the kingdom, the low depletion rate of fields and advanced drilling technology.

The world's major oil companies are hoping Saudi Arabia will open its oil sector to exploration and production opportunities.

[zigzag]

I think the problem is not so much running out of oil as the fact that we will continue to depend on the Saudis indefinitely, or at least until alternative fuels are devised. No amount of drilling in Alaska or Iraq or Russia or anywhere else will change this. The political ramifications are potentially greater than the problem of finding the oil.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by eklipse:
The world runs on a fuel that is known to be both finite and toxic.

Do we seriously look to find an alternative, renewable, reliable, efficient, clean energy source? No.

Do we make serious plans to transition our energy infrastructure to an alternative, renewable,......energy source? No.

Why? Money.

The sad fact of modern civilization is that things have to get really bad before they get better.

The only reason we've made strides in alternative fuels in the last two decades is the direct impetus from the Oil Embargo in the late 70's. The rush only waned because gas prices went down. People won't stand for that kind of intrusion for long.

When gas hits $3 a gallon the 'untouchables' will be opened up for drilling. That's the coastal fields and places like ANWAR. As gas prices climb the pressure to find alternatives will increase.

That's why I've even heard environmentalists say we should raise gas prices NOW to expedite the process to cleaner energy.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by eklipse:
The world runs on a fuel that is known to be both finite and toxic.

Do we seriously look to find an alternative, renewable, reliable, efficient, clean energy source? No.

Do we make serious plans to transition our energy infrastructure to an alternative, renewable,......energy source? No.

Can you back up your first statement with any kind of fact that the government, fuel companies and car companies are not "seriously" looking for alternatives to fossil fuels?

Until the first question is resolved, they can't very well move ahead with resolving your second now can they? How do you transition out when you're still working on what to transition to?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Developer:
That doesn't solve the problem where the energy comes from. All nucular?

Sun. All our energy comes from the Sun, except the nucular one. Fusion is something to look into.

Also cut down on private driving..

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Can you back up your first statement with any kind of fact that the government, fuel companies and car companies are not "seriously" looking for alternatives to fossil fuels?

Until the first question is resolved, they can't very well move ahead with resolving your second now can they? How do you transition out when you're still working on what to transition to?

Just look at what governments are budgeting for research towards alternative energy sources. It's a tiny amount compared to last energy crunch (when you adjust for inflation).

Considering how many good leads scientists have, there's little money available to persue them. Scientists have been complaining about this for years.

Meanwhile, if you want to drill for oil... there's quite a bit of money for improved equipment, finding oil, etc. And those oil contracts for vice-president linked companies are also quite good.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Can you back up your first statement with any kind of fact that the government, fuel companies and car companies are not "seriously" looking for alternatives to fossil fuels?

Until the first question is resolved, they can't very well move ahead with resolving your second now can they? How do you transition out when you're still working on what to transition to?

What macvillage said.

[Mister Elf]

Most natural resources that are being tapped are "depleting". What's your point?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Just look at what governments are budgeting for research towards alternative energy sources. It's a tiny amount compared to last energy crunch (when you adjust for inflation).

Considering how many good leads scientists have, there's little money available to persue them. Scientists have been complaining about this for years.

Meanwhile, if you want to drill for oil... there's quite a bit of money for improved equipment, finding oil, etc. And those oil contracts for vice-president linked companies are also quite good.

All energy research is not publicly funded. Much more energy and technology research is funded by private companies than by the government.

Toyota Motor Corp has invested billions of dollars (over many years) into their R & D on hybrid automobiles. The fruit of this investment is just now emerging, and we'll be seeing quite a few hybrid models coming out over the next few years.

The most qualified and determined scientists are the ones making huge amounts of money working for companies like Toyota. They're the ones actually taking technology forward, unlike other scientists who sit around and complain that they can't reinvent the world because the US government won't give them a billion dollars.

The private sector has always been the one driving technological advancement. The will to profit encourages investment and hard work.

[DBursey]

Most Americans, and many Canadians, are unaware that Canada is the largest supplier of petroleum to the United States. Saudi Arabia is third, behind Venezuela in exports to the U.S.

Canada's oil reserves are also far larger than that of the Arabian penninsula. Support toques, not terror! Buy Canadian!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The private sector has always been the one driving technological advancement.

This is simplistic. Many if not most technological advancements in the U.S. have been related to government funding and come out of government and/or publicly-funded institutions, universities in particular. This isn't to say that private investment isn't important or that government funding is always worthwhile, only that we would probably not be anywhere nearly as technologically advanced as we are without government support. The very network that you're posting on was to a large degree made possible by government backing and initiative.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
All energy research is not publicly funded. Much more energy and technology research is funded by private companies than by the government.

Toyota Motor Corp has invested billions of dollars (over many years) into their R & D on hybrid automobiles. The fruit of this investment is just now emerging, and we'll be seeing quite a few hybrid models coming out over the next few years.

The most qualified and determined scientists are the ones making huge amounts of money working for companies like Toyota. They're the ones actually taking technology forward, unlike other scientists who sit around and complain that they can't reinvent the world because the US government won't give them a billion dollars.

The private sector has always been the one driving technological advancement. The will to profit encourages investment and hard work.

These investments, when you compensate for inflation over the years are just fractions of a cent compared to what we should be spending.

And Hybrid cars SHOULD have been available way before California's deadline. In fact, if it was allowed to stay on track, most experts believe it could have been late 80's or early 90's. Not 2010 at the earliest.

And cars are the least of our problems.

The US has unofficially comitted several years ago to shutting down all nuclear power plants over the next 30 years. No more construction.

Wind Power, and hydroelectric, are also not being very researched.

Most research is going into coal, and oil. Despite the fact that of all carbon burning fuel sources, natural gas is actually the most efficient... but slightly more costly.


There is NO effort to remove dependancy on fossil fuels. Private industry isn't even capable of attacking 1%.


It's like the famous example of lighthouses. They have to be done by goverments. Sailors aren't going to put them up themselves. How do you charge a fee for them? What if a boat won't pay to use the lighthouse? do you go back in time and not shine for it?


Ultimately. The US suffers. We will run out, we are increasing usage at an exponential rate. Our technology is evolving slower, and slower.

Eventually... we hit that point.

You can hide your head in the sand, but that doesn't mean you can't get kicked in the @ss by your own ignorance.