|
| Thread: Is the American dream over? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
posted January 26, 2005 09:24 PM |
|
|
Is the American dream over?
Hi all.
As a subject of the united kingdom i have heard the term "Energy crisis" being bandied about a lot
over the last decade as i am sure a lot of people in the US and western Europe also have.
The thing is that until just recently i never really paid much attention and did not understand what
the term really meant. I have been doing some research into this and what i am finding is a nightmare
of the worst order, and it is a global nightmare. At least for a large consumer society it is.
The world is currently consuming 80 million barrels of oil per day which could rise to 120m with
countries like China and the growing number of eastern European countries becoming high consumer
societies.
The USA (particularly suburban US) is currently the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world today.
Millions of Americans who live in these suburbs and whose daily lives depend on being able to jump into
their cars and do 100/200 mile round trips either to get to work or do their shopping are neccessarily
dependent on an abundant supply of cheap oil, but the suburban way of life is a phenomema which
has an enormous pull an the worlds oil reserves.
I am not posting ths to place blame on the US but to point out who is going to be hit the hardest when these reserves run low.
The optimistic Economists will tell us all that current oil reserves will last for another 43 years maybe longer,
but they are not giving us the full picture. Their appraisals make 3 critical errors.
1. Their optimism relies on distorted estimates of reserves. The US government has no idea as yet how much of the oil in the middle east is surplus (what we know as cheap) oil.
2. This optimism also relies on the erroneous assumption that production will remain constant.
3. Most importantly of all, conventional wisdom assumes that the last bucket of oil can be pumped from the ground just as quickly as the barrels of oil gushing from wells today. In fact the rate at which any well or country can produce oil always rises to a maximum and then, when about half the oil is gone, bigins to fall gradually back to zero.
From an economic perspective, when the world runs completely out of oil is not directly relevant: What matters is when production begins to taper off. Beyond that prices will rise continuously unless demand
declines which is not going to happen if we keep on believing that economic growth is sustainable and continue to consume like there is no tommorrow.
The economist model does not account for this difference between surplus and post peak oil.
If indead the persian gulf which contains 60% of the world recoverable oil is at its peak. Then the American dream is on the verde of collapse. And of course the whole western world will have to come to terms with dramtic lifestyle changes.
The time scale for this peak in the bellcurve is estimated to happen by no later than the year 2010 with some even saying that it will be a reality within the next 2 years.
The world as it stands now with everyone being kept in the dark is not prepared for the masive changes in lifestyle that this will bring.
most people do not realise how dependent their lives are on fossil fuels. When the worlds SURPLUS oil runs out then transatlantic trucking networks start to become reduntant.
Our food supply is also in danger due to the fact that oil is needed to produce pesticides and the list is endless. As a civilisation we are not going to realise just how great our dependency is until that on which we depend is taken from us.
Added to this is the fact that there is no combination of alterate resources that will allow us to continue consuming at our current rate.
We hear talk of things like hydrogen and that we can all have cars running on this stuff and become a hydrogen cosuming society.
Let me tell you right now that the hydrogen idea is a joke. Hydrogen is not so much a form of energy as a form of energy storage and costs more in energy to produce than the amount of energy it itself produces.
Scientist simply do not have a plan B, and imo this is why we are not hearing much about it.
Anyways here are some links for anyone wanting to know more.
www.peakoil.net
www.postcarbon.org
www.kunstier.com
www.calthorpe.com
www.fromthewilderness.com
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted January 26, 2005 09:41 PM |
|
|
Is now the moment to panic?
I've got one question though.
What happens once there isn't enough oil to support the world's needs? Do we all die out? Do we go back to the stoneage?
I find it rather hard to panic if I don't know what I'm facing here. Please help me panic.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 26, 2005 09:54 PM |
|
|
Well this American's dream is the one where he goes to school in nothing but his underwear, so speaking personally, I hope the dream is over soon.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
|
posted January 26, 2005 10:02 PM |
|
|
Isn't the american dream, when you sue someone with a lot of cash, and get rich of it by doing so?
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted January 26, 2005 10:06 PM |
|
|
well i only mention America because as the worlds largest dependent on oil to sustain its current way of life, i believe it will be the hardest hit nation.
Of course we are all going to be affected.
Lord Woock. nobody is asking us to panic but to be mindfull of the consequnces of the oil peak.
To prepare ourselves for changes which are inevitable.
Bort. please ellaborate, i dont understand your statement. It sounded like an insult directed at me but i dont want jump to any conclusions.
Actually i do not mind an insult if it is enlightening
but this one if that is what it is, wasnt.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 26, 2005 10:23 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 26 Jan 2005
|
DoddtheSlayer,
Don't mind bort or his comments. I believe the British term for his sense of humor is called "cheeky". He's otherwise a very intelligent and humanitarian person(when he wants to be).
As for the energy crisis; I don't believe it is a problem at all. I believe it to be more of a changing toward new methods. The problem with an oil shortage is that people, on a global scale, will be forced to change the way they make their livings. The science for alternative methods such as solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, and methane are already in place. But despite this truth, they have little or no wide-spread support from the people or the government. When the world finally comes to grips with its ever-shrinking oil supply, people will be force into changing careers on a massive scale. Many will lose their jobs while others find new employment that didn't exist before.
I suppose the question is; to whichever country a person lives in:
? Can your local government and economy survive such drastic change ? Or is it too fragile ?
I suggest/submit that the future is now. All a person would need to do is to make sure their respective country has sound and reasonable policies, programs, and social strength that would enable it to make a smooth transition from an old oil-driven economy to a new innovative technological competitor for the futuristic world market. If your country can't make the transition smoothly then the consequences may be high unemployment and possibly even a steep drop in the global value of its national currency(most extreme).
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 26, 2005 10:27 PM |
|
|
Far be it from me to deny anyone the right to find insult in any statement, but I am more than a bit mystified as to how you could construe my post as an insult directed at you.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted January 26, 2005 10:38 PM |
|
|
Thanks consis. It is good to see that people are aware but not panicking. Lol i nearly wrote picnicking.
It is difficult for world leaders, there are so many things coming to a head.
There is the oil crisis, the environmental and geological issues. Then their is family stability and education, so where do they put the focus.
without good education for example where is the insight and drive going to come from for future generations to address the problems that arise.
It had not occured to me before that education could be high on the priority list in the scale of things, but i am now starting to think otherwise.
The thing is. Is mankind able to educate its young to this end, and will we ever learn to leave behind our most destructive tendency to ignore or at best not sufficiently prepare ourselves for coming crisis until it is too late.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted January 26, 2005 10:53 PM |
|
|
sorry Bort iam a bit slow and not too bright.
Consis did put me straight though.
I thought you were making some cryptic statement about my use of the term American dream.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 26, 2005 10:53 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 26 Jan 2005
|
What's Important
I think the importnat thing to remember is that we can all take a more active role in helping our own communities to better survive a transition from an oil-driven economy.
I personally think of the relative term, "Family", as a key social institution that can create a good strong economic base with which to support the local government. Good strong social values are very important. Education is important but how would a person implement his/her knowledge without having the common sense to uphold the law, show compassion, and help define an acceptable philosophy that could ease the domestic tensions inherent with the nature of a sudden wide-spread change?
This is where the children come to be the world's future. Change is inevitable; how will you decide to affect the people around you when it arrives? Do you choose to sit and watch life pass you by or will you rise to meet the newest challenges of the world with an open mind and results that will ultimately define your character?
Tis a simple matter of choice.....I suppose
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Paladin
Adventuring Hero
Huh?
|
|
posted January 27, 2005 01:40 PM |
|
|
We don't have that dream. We're awake! LOL 
____________
Questions are a burden - and answers a prison for oneself.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2005 01:53 PM |
|
|
I think that someday oil will run out. Probably in the next 20-30 years. When it does, a lot of major problems will erupt. Probably, the first oil to run out will be the Saudi oil, because they are drilling it the most. Therefore, Russia and America will share the oil monopoly. One of them will want the other's oil, as its own is running out. A war will erupt.
There is a way to avoid the war: lower dependance on oil. While biomass, solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear energy is all well and good, they each have their problems. Biomass and solar energy is inefficient, and, therefore, expensive. Hydroelectric energy is also inefiicient, and harms the environment. Nuclear power plants can melt down.
What is the answer? Nuclear fusion. It is efficient. It can't melt down. It is numerous. Deiterium (Hydrogen-2) could be used for it. While there is 1 deiterium atom for every 6000 regular hydrogen atoms, there are enough deiterium atoms in a bucket of water for this to be viable. A bucket of water potentially has more energy than several barrels of crude oil.
The only down side of nuclear fusion is: No one has figured out how to make it work well. For it, extreme heat is needed, and the container cools it. However, if, instead of pouring in billions of dollars into the war in Iraq, George W. Bush could pour in billions of dollars into nuclear fusion research.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted January 27, 2005 02:54 PM |
|
|
As i said in my original post. It is not when oil runs out that is the problem. It is when we reach the point that half the worlds supply of oil has been taken from the ground that the problems start, because once that happens then the oil cannot be taken from the ground at a rate fast enough to meet current demands.
When you start drilling a fresh oil field the pressure allows a steady fast flow of cheap oil.
After you get half way it does not matter how much effort is put in your extraction speed rate will continue to fall over time.
added to this is the fact that the oil lower down is richer and more expensive to refine.
The documentary "The end of Suburbia" written and directed by Gregory Green highlights this aspect of the problem and the fact that most people are unaware of it.
Which was my main reason for posting this.
The worlds oil may well last another 40 or more years, but the time frame for peak oil to run out is between 2 and 5 years which gives us a lot less time to prepare ourselves for alternatives.
Dick cheney has said that we can expect to see conflict for the remainder of our lives. Why?
But this war could be for nothing less than scraps.
If persian Gulf oil has peaked then this means that the world has peaked and we are allready at the point of decline. In terms of world economy this is the only
question left to be answered about oil.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 27, 2005 07:01 PM |
|
|
Well, and extremely interesting topic.
There is just one flaw in your argument Dodd. And thats about how it becomes more and more difficult to get the oil when the natural pressure is subsiding.
It is not that difficult to keep the pressure up in a oilfield. The basic principle is that you pump water into it, when you drill the oil, that way you keep the pressure up. So the question is not so much, when half the worlds oil reserves are drilled, but rather, for how long we have oil in the quantities we have today. The last calculations I saw on that question is in range of 30 years, at the rate we use oil today. At that point it will be impossible to keep up production.
There are 2 major premises for these calculations to hold. One is that there is no new major oil fields discovered, and the second is that the demand for oil doesnt rise.
Both of these are strenous to say the least. But they work in opposite direction.
This objection is far from invalidating your initial argument. There is an energycrisis in the brewing, the question is just, when it will manifest itself.
One way to postpone the real serious issue of demand being much higher than oil producing capacity, is to conserve the oil we have. The most obvious point here is to use the technology we allready have in place instead of hoping for a miracle like cold fusion.
Most cars sold in Denmark today have a mileage ranging from 17-25 km/ltr petrol, compared to a SUV which have a mileage of 4-5 km/ltr petrol. Its fairly easy to give the common car owner an economic incentive to buy a car with better mileage. Put a tax on refined oil, this way it would be alot more costly to drive a car with low mileage, thereby conserving oil. Incidently it would also mean a huge strategic bonus for the worlds sole super power, the US.
Another fairly easy way to reduce oil consumption is insulation. Incidently this is an extremely cheap form of oil preservation. Prior to the first oil-crisis in 1972, allmost no homes in Denmark where insulated. My parents bought their first home at that point, the first thing my father did was to insulate the house, he brought the oil bill down from 1000 $ pr. year to 500 $ pr. year at a time where the oil price quadrupled.
Offcourse some people will say that Denmark is a very cold place, so you cant extrapolate this example to the world, and say that insulation will bring down oil consumption in any major way.
Well it is actually more energy demanding to cool down a house than it is to warm it up, so the real trick is to insulate houses with airconditions. Just look at the recent episode taking place in California. Californias energy demand is peaking in the summermonths when all the airconditions are turned on.
All in all we stand in a fairly good position to keep the economic growth up, at the same time with keeping oil consumption down. All it takes is political will, and a concerted effort from 1. world countries to do something about their own consumption and at the same time teach the NICs (Newly industrialised countries) our technology for energy preservations.
But this still just gives us around 50-60 years to really make a miracle such as cold fusion to save our energy consuming way of life.
PS: One said that hydro electric power was inefficient and environmentally bad, this is simply not true. If you doubt me, look at Sweden and Norway, they seem to be doing just fine.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted January 27, 2005 07:10 PM |
|
|
Khayman, The Eternal Self-Serving Optimist
Problem: America's dependency on oil will eventually lead to exhaustion of reserves and depletion of natural resources.
Solution A: Invade foreign oil-producing countries, set-up a U.S. backed democratic government, and re-negotiate oil contracts in their favor.
Solution B: Provide aid and resources to developing countries in oil producing regions, give them the technology to locate & drill for undiscovered oil, then repeat Solution A.
Solution C: Keep consuming natural resources at an all-time high level and don't worry. Chances are good that over the next 60 years or so that you are alive, the resilient Earth will support your needs.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted January 27, 2005 08:16 PM |
|
|
Defreni.
Dont be so sure about pumping water or other fillers into these into these wells to increase the pressure as being a solution because this has been tried and as well as being costly does not yield the turnout that peak oil does. If you do not believe me then consider this. American oil production peaked in 1970, hence the oil
crisis of 1972 that you mentioned. From this point on the US needed to start looking elsewhere for the necessary oil supplies to meet the demands of its people.
If as you say pumping water into the ground to increase the pressure could yield the same extraction rate as peak oil then why would there be an oil crisis in 1972. Are you saying that the last drop of oil was pulled from every well in the states 2 years after the peak, because if this is not the case then my original argument is still a valid one.
I am convinced from my research that this 30 year window is misleading and that we have no more than 5 years to prepare ourselves for whats coming or we are going te be faced with a calamity that we are unprepared for. It all boils down to who you believe. the economists have nothing to gain and everything to lose by admitting to the 2-5 year model. The only people who would stand to gain are those few who are manufacturing solar panels and windmills etc. In other words reality is bad for buisness.
The geologists on the other hand are more interested in scientific data than in how reality affects the economy and do not have their judgement clouded by dollar signs. They still have much to lose if they are right just as all of us do and yet 2-5 years is what they are saying. Make your own judgement but i know who i would rather believe. I agree with what you say about alternatives i just think we have to start now and on a huge scale.
One more point to consider. There are geological reasons why some parts of the world contain more oil than others. If we keep on plugging away at these sources then the negative implications are no longer just economic, but we could see an increase in earthquakes and landslides.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2005 07:43 AM |
|
|
I always thought that the American dream is having a lovely house in the suburbs, with a lovely wife, two lovely kids, lovely dog and two lovely cars.
When the oil runs out people will just have to switch to Flinstone version of the dream.
____________
Truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 28, 2005 02:40 PM |
|
|
Why is there this seeming acceptance that the elimination of the suburbs and the suburban lifestyle is a bad thing?
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted January 28, 2005 05:57 PM |
|
|
I Am Not from the States and have never been there so i dont have first hand knowledge of whether or not its demise is a bad or good thing.
I have heard one expert say that the creation of this way of life is "the greatest miss-allocation of resources in the history of the world".
This suggests that its end is a good thing. The point is that millions of Americans live in them and in order to properly prepare themselves they need an accurate estimte of when the trouble is going to hit. If action must be taken now and not 25 years from now they need to know.
Assuming of course that this way of life is not so wonderful for the people that live it, that the blinkers will be firmly stapled to their eyes, and they just won't want to hear about it.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted January 28, 2005 06:19 PM |
|
|
Since the oil crisis, The National Government has been buying up oil reserves.
We still have hundreds and hundreds of shale mines that provide oil, just not at the alarmingly low amount that it is now.
As for the oil crisis of 1972. That happened because the middle east shut off their oil supply from us.
Also there have been estimates that Alaska has more oil than all of the Middle East combined.
I'm not worried for another 50 years.
Now considering the way technology has been advancing exponentially since the industrial evolution, I'd say we can come up with new ways to get energy before any crisis hits.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
|
|
