Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I used to think so, but construction sand is diferent from beach sand..I believe a trip to the nearest beach might put your mind to rest.
Really….One wonders why electric companies are still using diesel generators, if windmills and solar panels can give them nearly free electricity to sell.
You’re pulling my leg. Diesel generators are mostly for those off a grid…lIke Alaska.,One wonders why electric companies are still using diesel generators, if windmills and solar panels can give them nearly free electricity to sell.
I’m sure a gov grant figures into it, that, and only very successful dealerships which sell nearly everything they have….like Toyota with their hybrid lines.One wonders why electric companies are still using diesel generators, if windmills and solar panels can give them nearly free electricity to sell.
No, and we don't live in the North Sea either.Do we live on Titan?...
Ah so the reason there's supposed to be no oil on Titan is because I'm a bad guy.So, you really like air pollution and fighting all these wars...
?Sand, and we’re running out of construction sand.
And guess what. There is a finite supply of lithium, magnesium, manganese, cobalt, nickel and other metals necessary for the manufacture of EV batteries.
When Fossil Fuels Run Out, What Then? - MAHB
Obviously we continue ‘business as usual’ and are not concerned about using up our resources!mahb.stanford.edu
A worthy read, for anyone truly interested in the AGW issue. They get their facts correct, as near as I can tell without personally verifying each one. I disagree with some of their conclusions, which doesnt' make them wrong, but here I argue that some are wrong.
I'll point out in blue font what is fact and what is opinion/conclusions/predictions, etc, for those not quite sure of the difference.
LIMIT OF FOSSIL FUELS
Fact:
In this article we want to point out categorically the fact that there is a LIMIT to the fossil fuels on earth
Unless the current scientific understanding is way, way off, the existing fossil fuels took millions of years to be created by natural forces acting upon buried remains of living organisms. So, of course, it is finite and will run out if we are consuming it as we use is, which we are.
Creative License:
that we are gobbling up.
"Gobbling up," is supposed to be an emotive phrase, but that goes to show that the best scientists are not necessarily the best creative writers, because it just comes off childish.
Conclusion:
We are oblivious of the fact that there will be a time, measured in decades, when these fuels will run out.
I have no idea why the authors would think that they are the only ones who know that. I've known it since I was a kid during "the Energy Crises." So, it is an incorrect conclusion. But that is only a conclusion on my part.
Fact, but Incomplete
Because of global population rise, there is a growing demand for energy.
Yes, but not just because of the population rise. There is also the fact that developing nations are more and more blessed with industry, which is the only thing that will pull an agricultural-based population out of poverty. More industry = more progress, but also = more fossil fuels being burnt.
Conclusion with which I strongly agree:
Since our society is so dependent on fossil fuels, it therefore is extremely important for us to know when these fuels will run out according to [4]:
Conclusion/Estimates - that make sense to me:
Oil will end by 2052 – 30 years time
Gas will end by 2060 – 40 years time
Coal will last till 2090 – 70 years time
However, according to BP [5], earth has 53 years of oil reserves left at current rate of consumption.
So, let's say 30 to 50 years, give or take an unknown number of decades, depending on the breaks.
As far as I know, nearly everyone knows this. It isn't controversial.
From the standpoint of an AGW alarmist, that should be good news indeed. Finally, the long fossil fuel nightmare that started with the Industrial revolution will end.
Is it good news for energy companies? Think before uncovering the spoiler:
Hell, yes, it is!
Not only are energy companies fully aware of the finite nature of fossil fuels, they feel it in thier profit-motivated bones. First, they will make as much money as they can by harvesting and delivering the shrinking supply of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, they will develop non-fossil fuels - known as "renewables" and start selling that renewable energy as soon as dwindling oil supplies make it more expensive than the renewables.
In that sense, the free market will not eliminate the use of fossil fuels, but will (for profit) efficiently facilitate the transition, as fossil fuels inevitibly run out. As so often, the profiteers will benefit most, but they will benefit by providing benefit to all.
The article goes on . . .
Nuclear energy
Fact:
As fossil fuels begin to disappear, nuclear power is becoming more and more prominent because it is the only alternative base system capable of providing electricity continuously 24 hours a day. It is carbon-free, vital to our clean energy future. It was first developed in the 1950s and since then its safety features have been much improved. Now over 11% of the world’s electricity is produced from nuclear energy. Nuclear grew by 3.3% in 2018 mainly as a result of new capacity in China and the restart of 4 reactors in Japan [17].
Yeah, say . . . anyone old enough to remember who it was that argued, lobbied, and protested to prevent the U.S. from developing nuclear energy, as France, for example, did?
Was it ultra-conservative radio talkers? No . . . no, not them.
Was it the Republican National Committee? Mmm, no.
Ah . . . was it Donald Trump? Well, not him either.
Here is a hint:
Twelve states currently have restrictions on the construction of new nuclear power facilities: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.
So, the only reason the free market has not already sharply reduced the use of fossil fuels is due to regulations, and the threat of regulations due to pressure from groups such as Friends of the Earth, International:
Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) is an international network of grassroots environmental organizations in 73 countries. About half of the member groups call themselves "Friends of the Earth" in their own languages; the others use other names.[2] The organization was founded in 1969 in San Francisco by David Brower, Donald Aitken and Gary Soucie after Brower's split with the Sierra Club[3] because of the latter's positive approach to nuclear energy.
What a surprise, the same people who want to end fossil fuels, also prevented development of the only currently available realistic alternative to fossil fuels. There always was a lot of overlap between people who wanted to stop nuclear power, and people who wanted the U.S. to dismantle its nuclear weapons. I was never sure that such groups actually knew the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
You are confused aren’t you….?
Nah…you’re just a bad guy….Ah so the reason there's supposed to be no oil on Titan is because I'm a bad guy.
Have a nice day.
Oh, but there’s plenty of oil…And guess what. There is a finite supply of lithium, magnesium, manganese, cobalt, nickel and other metals necessary for the manufacture of EV batteries.
The fact is that free market capitalism has always come up with something better as the 'old stuff' has phased out. As it will when fossil fuels run out.
Why do you think hydrocarbons come from dinosaurs? None of the normal people say things that crazy. That nutty belief is yours alone, like so many of your other weirdass religious beleifs.No, and we don't live in the North Sea either.
However the point is that there were no dinosaurs on Titan. Dinosaurs are not necessary for hydrocarbons.
Of course there is. The reasons are "evidence" and "reality", things that now trigger the modern conservative.There's no reason to say that the oil we mine is created by fossils.
So your point is what ? Burning oil whether it be carbon based or not is better than using renewables ? Failing to see your point except to promote pollution.No, and we don't live in the North Sea either.
However the point is that there were no dinosaurs on Titan. Dinosaurs are not necessary for hydrocarbons. There's no reason to say that the oil we mine is created by fossils.
Right now yes there is. And despite all the draconian rules and mandates re using green energy, all the wind farms, all the EVs, all the solar panels, there is zero evidence that the CO2 in the atmosphere has been reduced by a single particle and zero evidence that going ALL electric will reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single particle.Oh, but there’s plenty of oil…
Not as cheap as renewables.Right now yes there is.
And despite all the draconian rules and mandates re using green energy, all the wind farms, all the EVs, all the solar panels, there is zero evidence that the CO2 in the atmosphere has been reduced by a single particle and zero evidence that going ALL electric will reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single particle.
The government should always be studying physical science in all ways that it affects us, yes, but it should primarily be directing its resources and energies to finding ways to productively adapt to inevitable climate change and monitor the resources available.
And when petroleum resources are sufficiently depleted that alternate energy is necessary,
Not without tax payer infrastructure to manage the change…private industry never makes enough profit to pay for infrastructure. How much has the oil companies put into roads and tracks to deliver fossil fuels….nothing. It comes out of everyone’s taxes including theirs.I am sure private industry, innovation, entrepreneurship will have discovered and harnessed more efficient and effective energy sources for us to use.
Private energy has ALWAYS done it without subsidies and research. They do their own research. And the profit motive drives the process. Infrastructure that follows private investment is a good thing. A developer wants to build a new housing development or office part or industrial district and the local government provides the streets, sewer, water, etc. to support the citizens who participate in that. Those utilities granted authority to operate in the area must provide electricity, phone service etc. to all new construction. That meets the standards for productive social contract and is beneficial to all.Not as cheap as renewables.
Totally wrong. Fk the pollution, it’s ( renewables) is effin cheaper.,
Most are uninformed about it….electric Power is just a fungible source of energy we’ve had it for two hundred years. It’s management and efficiency is at least three times THAT of burning fossil fuels for mechanical energy.
Thats why we try to use it.….ITS CHEAPER.
They are and they have….or at least they commision research facilities to do it. You have some idea that the infrastructure package was a waste of time ? Hilarious. It has technologically more advanced power distribution in mind. It’s what has to be done to make electricity more easily available..
They are for their cost of production and distribution. It production is now more expensive than renewables.
wtf would want to ship oil from the gulf, refine it, then burn it 1000 miles away when renewables nearby a user produces EE from a renewable energy that is FREE….ITS HILARIOUS.
Not without tax payer infrastructure to manage the change…private industry never makes enough profit to pay for infrastructure. How much has the oil companies put into roads and tracks to deliver fossil fuels….nothing. It comes out of everyone’s taxes including theirs.
The same with the next generation of renewable sources.
But don’t wait for private industry to do it alone without subsidies and research. They won’t.
You live in a dream world.Private energy has ALWAYS done it without subsidies and research. They do their own research.
An estimated 7,075 oil, gas, and petrochemical companies received PPP funds totaling between approximately $3 billion to $7 billion,And the profit motive drives the process. Infrastructure that follows private investment is a good thing. A developer wants to build a new housing development or office part or industrial district and the local government provides the streets, sewer, water, etc. to support the citizens who participate in that. Those utilities granted authority to operate in the area must provide electricity, phone service etc. to all new construction. That meets the standards for productive social contract and is beneficial to all.
Forcing people to use energy that is not as efficient or economical or buy products they don't want or restricting their options, choices, opportunities in unnecessary ways is never the best way to go about anything. There is no way in hell that all electric homes in our area are more economical than those utilizing natural gas. There is no way in hell that buying an electric car is more economical for my husband and myself than is buying the practical and reliable Subaru that we drive.
The earth is constantly making more oil. The stresses and pressures create oil. In fact active oil fields may decline however they may still create oil. You use eco green equipment. The rest of us will use what is called fossil fuels.When Fossil Fuels Run Out, What Then? - MAHB
Obviously we continue ‘business as usual’ and are not concerned about using up our resources!
A worthy read, for anyone truly interested in the AGW issue. They get their facts correct, as near as I can tell without personally verifying each one. I disagree with some of their conclusions, which doesnt' make them wrong, but here I argue that some are wrong.
I'll point out in blue font what is fact and what is opinion/conclusions/predictions, etc, for those not quite sure of the difference.
LIMIT OF FOSSIL FUELS
Fact:
In this article we want to point out categorically the fact that there is a LIMIT to the fossil fuels on earth
Unless the current scientific understanding is way, way off, the existing fossil fuels took millions of years to be created by natural forces acting upon buried remains of living organisms. So, of course, it is finite and will run out if we are consuming it as we use is, which we are.
Creative License:
that we are gobbling up.
"Gobbling up," is supposed to be an emotive phrase, but that goes to show that the best scientists are not necessarily the best creative writers, because it just comes off childish.
Conclusion:
We are oblivious of the fact that there will be a time, measured in decades, when these fuels will run out.
I have no idea why the authors would think that they are the only ones who know that. I've known it since I was a kid during "the Energy Crises." So, it is an incorrect conclusion. But that is only a conclusion on my part.
Fact, but Incomplete
Because of global population rise, there is a growing demand for energy.
Yes, but not just because of the population rise. There is also the fact that developing nations are more and more blessed with industry, which is the only thing that will pull an agricultural-based population out of poverty. More industry = more progress, but also = more fossil fuels being burnt.
Conclusion with which I strongly agree:
Since our society is so dependent on fossil fuels, it therefore is extremely important for us to know when these fuels will run out according to [4]:
Conclusion/Estimates - that make sense to me:
Oil will end by 2052 – 30 years time
Gas will end by 2060 – 40 years time
Coal will last till 2090 – 70 years time
However, according to BP [5], earth has 53 years of oil reserves left at current rate of consumption.
So, let's say 30 to 50 years, give or take an unknown number of decades, depending on the breaks.
As far as I know, nearly everyone knows this. It isn't controversial.
From the standpoint of an AGW alarmist, that should be good news indeed. Finally, the long fossil fuel nightmare that started with the Industrial revolution will end.
Is it good news for energy companies? Think before uncovering the spoiler:
Hell, yes, it is!
Not only are energy companies fully aware of the finite nature of fossil fuels, they feel it in thier profit-motivated bones. First, they will make as much money as they can by harvesting and delivering the shrinking supply of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, they will develop non-fossil fuels - known as "renewables" and start selling that renewable energy as soon as dwindling oil supplies make it more expensive than the renewables.
In that sense, the free market will not eliminate the use of fossil fuels, but will (for profit) efficiently facilitate the transition, as fossil fuels inevitibly run out. As so often, the profiteers will benefit most, but they will benefit by providing benefit to all.
The article goes on . . .
Nuclear energy
Fact:
As fossil fuels begin to disappear, nuclear power is becoming more and more prominent because it is the only alternative base system capable of providing electricity continuously 24 hours a day. It is carbon-free, vital to our clean energy future. It was first developed in the 1950s and since then its safety features have been much improved. Now over 11% of the world’s electricity is produced from nuclear energy. Nuclear grew by 3.3% in 2018 mainly as a result of new capacity in China and the restart of 4 reactors in Japan [17].
Yeah, say . . . anyone old enough to remember who it was that argued, lobbied, and protested to prevent the U.S. from developing nuclear energy, as France, for example, did?
Was it ultra-conservative radio talkers? No . . . no, not them.
Was it the Republican National Committee? Mmm, no.
Ah . . . was it Donald Trump? Well, not him either.
Here is a hint:
Twelve states currently have restrictions on the construction of new nuclear power facilities: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.
So, the only reason the free market has not already sharply reduced the use of fossil fuels is due to regulations, and the threat of regulations due to pressure from groups such as Friends of the Earth, International:
Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) is an international network of grassroots environmental organizations in 73 countries. About half of the member groups call themselves "Friends of the Earth" in their own languages; the others use other names.[2] The organization was founded in 1969 in San Francisco by David Brower, Donald Aitken and Gary Soucie after Brower's split with the Sierra Club[3] because of the latter's positive approach to nuclear energy.
What a surprise, the same people who want to end fossil fuels, also prevented development of the only currently available realistic alternative to fossil fuels. There always was a lot of overlap between people who wanted to stop nuclear power, and people who wanted the U.S. to dismantle its nuclear weapons. I was never sure that such groups actually knew the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Then why does it cost money to make oil in refineries when Solar, wind and hydro energy is free. You like wars and pollution , fine. Donate money to Exxon.The earth is constantly making more oil. The stresses and pressures create oil. In fact active oil fields may decline however they may still create oil. You use eco green equipment. The rest of us will use what is called fossil fuels.
