It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So what if we're not going to run out of oil?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I see many people making the argument that we should maintain the petroleum status quo that we currently enjoy based on the 'other' one sided scientists views that we are nowhere close to running out of oil.

Why make this argument?

Do you actually desire to continue to pump noxious fumes into the air at alarming rates? Do you intend that we continue risking dumping this crude (in a literal sense) oil into the ocean by transporting it in an aging transport fleet?

I understand that there are still instances where fuel oil is necessary, such as the trucking industry. Attempting to convert tractor trailers, which are an integral part of our logistics and commerce system, to alternative energy locomotion is futile, because we can't generate the horsepower needed. But what about the people who simply commute to and from work every day? Why can't these people begin using the hybrids for an intended purpose, and only use petroleum where it's absolutely necessary, even if we do still have all the oil in the world?

If we love our cars so much, I think it's just the convenience factor. I really don't think that most people consider how fast they can get from stoplight to stoplight, and the horsepower needed to do so.

So what if we're not going to run out of oil? If we continue to burn it, we're still going to make a fine mess. Why continue when it's not necessary to such a degree as we do.

No, we're not going to convert completely any time soon, but there's no reason to continue burning oil just for the sake of burning oil because we have it.




posted on May, 7 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Perfect. In a can, a perfect argument.

You have voted DeltaChaos for the Way Above Top Secret award.

DE



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Thanks DE.

I don't think I've ever been voted for. That's cool.

I really don't mind if some people have to drive their trucks all the time. I don't mind that the soccer mom feels like she has to be in a 2 1/2 ton behemoth because she's scared of her or her kids getting hurt in an accident.

What I do mind is when people say we should just burn all the oil we want because they think we're not running out like some say. We might be running out, we might not be. But why just be dirty for the sake of being dirty?

We can watch DVDs in our car, we have GPS navigation systems, and radios that recieve sattelite. Why do we still run these things with stuff we have to suck up out of the ground, paraphrasing Maher?



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I can't remember the name of the converter thingy in the car from 'Back to the future' where Doc was putting trash in it to run the car........

That seems so ideal to me........but I am no engineer.
Pollution sucks big time seriously and if we at LEAST care about that, then possibly the oil usage would go down.

Be MORE minfull per say.
We should all learn to levitatie, disapate and reconfigur ones body at will.......who REALLY needs cars, planes and trains? Ah the dreams of a utopian society leak out.......
Vespas rock!
(and I voted for ya to just cuz
)



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Delta, you're absolutely correct about oil usage and why we need to get away from it. I would add two things, though:

First, even if we were not running out of oil and facing Peak Oil within the next couple of years, continued burning would end up killing a bunch of us off due to increased pollution-related diseases, and possible sea level rises caused by global warming, of which hydrocarbon burning has to be a contributor.

But outside of a very few fringe believers, just about everyone with any geological background believes that we are running out of oil, and although abiotic oil formation may be theoretically possible, it is at best a miniscule portion of oil, and the increased growth in the industry and transportation of places like PRC and India will drain the oil wells far more rapidly that the "First World" would by itself.

Second, If we can use an alternative energy source (like nuclear fission) to crack water into its components, we could produce enough hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles, and they could be scaled up to run a Peterbilt as well as they could for a Toyota.

We could even use those same hydrogen fuel cell engines to operate lighter-that-air craft, using superstrong and superlight carbon fiber skin and support strtuctures, which would allow delivery of just about any cargo to within a mile or so of every market, including the corner store, at a cost-competitive rate.

But the bottom line is that we need to get cracking on it now, and most people are either wasting their time by postulating waiting for nonexistent magic energy sources to be suddenly "discovered" (Tesla, zpg, etc.) -- or pretending that Everything Is Just Peachy and not doing anything at all.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
"Nobody will care about pollution until it starts interfering with TV signals"
Or so the saying goes

I find this video to be particularly true
www.big-boys.com...
It explains the psychology behind the oil situation for the majority of people very well. The peak oil/global warming/pollution problems happen very slowly. Most simply would not notice until it's too late.

[edit on 10-5-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Thanks for the replies. Good points are made.

Understand that I don't think a total changeover to alternative energy sources should take place immediately, that would be impossible. What needs to happen, and actually is, is a market shift. That takes time, and it is starting. Hybrids are on the market now, and people are starting to snatch them up.

The trouble I see is a burgeoning Chinese and Indian middle class buying up old inventory and used cars, all which burn oil. The more weathier nations people couldn't buy hybrids fast enough to make up for the huge numbers of gas burning engines these second world countries are going to start running soon.

I am a little pessimistic when it comes to capitalism. It seems that the corporations who have a lot to lose in profits by a switch to these alternative energy sources just wouldn't do it. Their bottom lines are just too important. Unless the PEOPLE begin to want those products, they will just keep on selling what the people do want.

Unfortunately, this means that only catastrophe, cataclysm, armageddon, apocalypse, rapture, or some other euphemism for bad things happening will stop the machine right now, which may just be what is needed to stop the eventual bad thing that global warming represents. Ironic.


OYG

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
If we were to step out of "reality" and envision the earth as an organism and each piece of life a cell... well it's hard to imagine what kinda medical facility would house a planet with terminal cancer... I totally agree with what you guys state towards the use of oil... maybe oil should be used by humans... too much oil may even be bad for the planet (who knows? )... but at the pace we are growing (population wise) and consuming the earth's fluids, the planet can't replenish it, meaning someday we will run out like you guys said... and I can only see bad things coming from that... it's dry logic, but it's known to work... at the same time the reality of the situation is the US has to know about it... therefore it will do anything in it's power to sustain itself no matter the circumstances... if they can kill native americans they can kill anybody... Why else would you be the most well equipped military in the world? And have an Oil man as the appointed commander in chief?
Elections?! What Elections?!

I hope those scientists come through on some nanotech revolution which enables fusion and stuff of the sort... if not I am jumping ship the moment they start the draft...

Greed will someday charr the planet or sufficate it one or the other.... and why even make an H3? don't people buy those hummers because they're gas guzzling behemoths? Or is patriotism the only thing that's going to sell ameican cars anymore?

P.S... My Scion xB gets better mileage than a Ford Explorer hybrid...



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
I thought there already were a few alternative energy sources for cars, that were also very efficient and weren't even that poluting. Or am I wrong?


(I am new here, so please don't flame me if my reply was retarded
)

[edit on 29-5-2005 by MooseT]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Yeah, I've heard this argument arising lateley - a book "The Endless Well" has been written by "respected researchers" to counter the idea that the world will run out of oil in 30 years or so. They say why we'll never run out of "energy", and why this is such a wonderful revelation - we should just go right back to making a certaing group of people very wealthy.

It's important to note that the wealthiest people in the world have their money because of oil.

Your argument is that "who cares if we aren't going to run out of oil, because it's bi-product is killing our environment."

Well, there is also a belief that is creeping into the mainstream which suggests that the pollution from cars doesn't effect the environment as much as a lightbulb does; there is a new commercial from the EPA which propagates this.

And then there are the theorists who say the theorists on global warming are wrong; the oceans havn't raised much and neither has it gotten any "warmer". Whenever a scientific explaination is given to why we should be aware of pollution, there is another scientific explanation that says otherwise.

Which brings me to say that scientists can be influenced by politics or money just as easily as anybody else. Let's think of the stereotypical scientist... he might be a "pushover" when it comes to being bullied, he has glasses which make him look "smart", and let's not forget that almost every scientist has learned the same laws and rules which were established in the past, and if any scientist has a new theory, they are immediately ridiculed by their fellows.

So there is obviously this new theory being pushed which says "we're not going to run out of oil, nor will we be destroying the environment in the process."

I think that it's all just propaganda to save the domestic auto industry, which has been overly subsidised by the US Government for 100 years - from roads to wars - the goal of Detroit was to make themselves so big and so important to the US economy, that the US taxdollar would always be their insurance in times of trouble.

The domestic auto industry and all of their dealerships make me sick to my stomach. I hate them, I hate them, I hate them.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
DeltaChaos, the problem is that as long as corporations can make money from selling oil then they will never quit doing it, because it's profitable.

Sad but true.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Part of the problem in the past with trying to use other energy sources other than oil is that when Saudi Arabia saw alternative energy companies popping up and starting to make progress towards a better solution than oil the Saudi's would flood the market with cheap oil wiping out the alternative energy companies.

Everyone is going to use the cheapest fuel source that they can. Are you going to buy a hybrid car that costs $15,000 more in order to save $1000 per year on fuel costs? Some will but most will not. If we are to make the transition then it will happen when the Saudi oil business is not able to bring the price of oil back down into the 20 - 30 dollar range per barrel. This may be happeing right now. At that time more money will go into research and development of alternatives to oil because it will then be profitable and able to compete with oil based energy.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join