Vintij
Senior Member
<img src="http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Pictures/EnergyCurveHistory3_op_800x203.jpg">
This is a graph of the energy blip known as the industrial revolution. A tiny second of energy obsession, specifically with oil as no other energy is manufactured at a fraction of the rate oil is.
Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.
The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. oil-based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to shatter an oil-dependent economy
shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple in the 70s. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.
Many experts and scientists, and even Dick Cheney (who is an expert in this field) believe that an 8% yearly decline in oil production after "Peak oil" is not an unreasonable figure. "Peak oil" as you know is expected within 5 years if not happening already.
So lets do the math
An 8% yearly decline would cut global oil production by 50% in under nine years after "peak oil". If a 5% cut in production caused prices to triple in the 1970s, what do you think a 50% cut is going to do?
Most people call this the "post industrial stone age" which I think a little dramatic but its not hard to figure out the major blackouts will occur the second oil production has dropped by 50%. Blackouts are expected around 2012 I believe, thats just an estimate but its not an outragous one. Thats just the US we are talking about. The world figure of half production will occur in about 40 years. The entire WORLDS production is what I just said. Not the US.
Dont think that its just the gas in your car that will be effected. Approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US. Ofcourse that is relative to where you live in the US.
Im not trying to bring anyone down, Im just advocating what hubbert did in the 50's. He rightly predicted a decline in the 70s, and a peak production in the 90s-00s. Its going to happen people, I think its time to get someone in office who will fund research on alternative energy sources. Thats much more important than anything we have going on right now, from climate change, to war, to gay marriage, to immigration. None of that will matter if we cant manufacture renewable sources of energy, or at least another form of fossile fuel.
Nuclear fission is what we use now and its used in china alot, but FUSION is the key to our long term survival. Research must go into FUSION on a federal level. I think its about 50-70 years in our technological future before we come close to that type of mass fusion, but why not start now? Its basically the holy grail of natural renewable energy.
This is a graph of the energy blip known as the industrial revolution. A tiny second of energy obsession, specifically with oil as no other energy is manufactured at a fraction of the rate oil is.
Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.
The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. oil-based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to shatter an oil-dependent economy
shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple in the 70s. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.
Many experts and scientists, and even Dick Cheney (who is an expert in this field) believe that an 8% yearly decline in oil production after "Peak oil" is not an unreasonable figure. "Peak oil" as you know is expected within 5 years if not happening already.
So lets do the math
An 8% yearly decline would cut global oil production by 50% in under nine years after "peak oil". If a 5% cut in production caused prices to triple in the 1970s, what do you think a 50% cut is going to do?
Most people call this the "post industrial stone age" which I think a little dramatic but its not hard to figure out the major blackouts will occur the second oil production has dropped by 50%. Blackouts are expected around 2012 I believe, thats just an estimate but its not an outragous one. Thats just the US we are talking about. The world figure of half production will occur in about 40 years. The entire WORLDS production is what I just said. Not the US.
Dont think that its just the gas in your car that will be effected. Approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US. Ofcourse that is relative to where you live in the US.
Im not trying to bring anyone down, Im just advocating what hubbert did in the 50's. He rightly predicted a decline in the 70s, and a peak production in the 90s-00s. Its going to happen people, I think its time to get someone in office who will fund research on alternative energy sources. Thats much more important than anything we have going on right now, from climate change, to war, to gay marriage, to immigration. None of that will matter if we cant manufacture renewable sources of energy, or at least another form of fossile fuel.
Nuclear fission is what we use now and its used in china alot, but FUSION is the key to our long term survival. Research must go into FUSION on a federal level. I think its about 50-70 years in our technological future before we come close to that type of mass fusion, but why not start now? Its basically the holy grail of natural renewable energy.
-
