End of Fossil Fuels: Dark ages or next stage

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I'm intrigued by the ongoing debate regarding the upcoming postulated end of the era of fossil fuels. I'm intrigued by the ongoing debate regarding the postulated end of the era of fossil fuels that may be a few years or decades from now. The argument may to be valid as prices have started to rise, new production has leveled off or fallen, and demand continues to rise as the world economy grows.

Lets assume that the supply of fossil fuels is dwindling and will cease to be a viable and economical energy source in the next 20-30 years. Either our society transitions to new energy sources or our current lifestyles will come to an end.

Now, there are a lot of scientist and government officials whom have to realize that our fossil fuel supplies are falling. A lot of people complain about the government but there are a lot of brilliant people and scientists working in it. Our government (USA) is the single, largest force on the planet for generating and controlling new technology, power, and wealth. If the end of fossil fuels was near and we were stuck with today?s ?public or known? technologies, then the government would be very busy building as many nuclear power plants as possible. Nuclear energy the only ?public? technology now available, which can meet our energy needs. The people in power would do everything they could to remain in power, and if our society and lifestyles collapsed, they would lose their power.

Since the government is not busy building nuclear plants we have two solutions. One, there is no upcoming energy crisis or two, there is another source of energy that we, the public, are not aware of.

What are you thoughts?




posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   
i've read on ATS from some people that think that the oil crisis is just so the government to boost prices and get more money. i doubt that is true at all... even though they are getting more money.

as for alternate source of power? i have no idea... something will *hopefully* come up before it's too late. otherwise we're all back to whale-blubber lanterns and *actual* horse-power.

EDIT: i don't think that would be so bad though... as long as hospitals, radio, police/fire, and other installations were running people would be fine. people need to go back to the simpler things if you ask me.

[Edited on 2/19/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Word up: Hydrogen.



regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Well, you beat me to it Seekerof.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
hydrogen fuel cells cold fusion is the next big thing we already have cars and buses running on them. Also the advent of producing or replication of petroleum seeing how plastic is in our every day lives. Synthetic materials made at the atomic level .



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Word up: Hydrogen.



regards
seekerof


Hydrogen sounds good, but doesn't exist in geological reservoirs, which means it is usually extracted from hydrocarbons--and per unit of heat generated, more CO2 is produced by making hydrogen from fossil fuel than by burning the fossil fuel directly.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   
They would extract hydrogen from water, which is a whole lot more available than fossile fuels.

They wouldn't build nuclear reactors. They banned the production of those once they figured out we had a problem on storing the waste (at least for public use, military still uses it). We still dont know what to do with it.

We'll come up with something alot better than hydrogen power and nuclear power by the time we run out of fossil fuels. I'll bet we already have the technology to do it, it is just being restricted. They want to "ride the oil horse as long as possible".

Did you know that the world's tungsten supply has another thirty good years left? Thats why you see alot more l.e.d flashlights nowadays.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrJingles
They would extract hydrogen from water, which is a whole lot more available than fossile fuels.


There are two possible sources for the hydrogen:

Electrolysis of water - Using electricity, it is easy to split water molecules to create pure hydrogen and oxygen. One big advantage of this process is that you can do it anywhere. For example, you could have a box in your garage producing hydrogen from tap water, and you could fuel your car with that hydrogen.

Reforming fossil fuels - Oil and natural gas contain hydrocarbons -- molecules consisting of hydrogen and carbon. Using a device called a fuel processor or a reformer, you can split the hydrogen off the carbon in a hydrocarbon relatively easily and then use the hydrogen. You discard the leftover carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

I think the problem with producing hydrogen from water is that you need enormous amounts of electricity. So you need to burn coal, oil or a nuclear power plant to get the energy that it requires.



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   
depends how we do it. if we're responsible and get a start on things, seriously, jsut the next step into a better world.
if we resist and continue our dependance on oil, well, things are gonna be dealt badly for us



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
by the time we run out of fossile fules we'll probally have the tech to make it our selves. all gasoline is carbon and hydrogen. so how hard could it be?



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Here are a few more examples of what I was implying:

"U unveils method to turn ethanol into hydrogen"
www.twincities.com...

"Scientists Develop New Hydrogen Reactor"
www.ohio.com...

"Scientists Find New Way To Store Hydrogen Fuel"
www.sciencedaily.com...

"Researchers find new metal combination for cheaper production of hydrogen as fuel"
www.post-gazette.com...


Personally, an cost effective alternative must be found. Oil is bad mojo.



regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I still maintain that biodiesel or soydiesel and ethanol are pretty good alternatives to fossil fuels. I guess this comes from being in an agricultural area and being exposed to soydiesel and ethanol my whole life. The big problem is that some good pesticides are petroleum based, and in order to grow large quantities of corn and soybeans, pesticides are essential.

Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen also sounds like a good solution, assuming that you can either plug your machine into a wall outlet, or have it connected to a series of rechargable batteries. However, in most places, it's a pain to use alternative sources for electricity, as not everyone has an area to build a hydroelectric dam, or a large installation of solar panels, or enough wind to crank enough windmills for energy production.

It's going to be interesting when the oil disappears, to say the least.



posted on Feb, 20 2004 @ 07:14 AM
link   
lol, i guess. coming from a/the city, of those sources is limited to say the least. i do think hydrogen cud work, especially with these new crystals



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
The beginning???

Article



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I think the move away from hydrogen will be the next step... for bigger things.. fusion, when the technology is economical..



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   
hemp oil, biodiesel will take over. no way we are gonna get rid of the internal combustion engine.



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   
my son read in a time for kids magazine they get every week that they are planning a hydrogen based car in the next decade all you have to do is add water and vroom vroom....and i saw at disney or sumthin that the fossi fuel supply has a good 50 years to go before running out....but arent there more places that has fuel that we havent discovered...and wouldnt the fuel reproduce over a period of time since the fuel is created from organic material leftover and such....



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
We should learn how to harvest the sun's energy better. But with global dimming, I don't see that happening anytime soon



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   
global dimming is gay lets just blow up all the polluting things in the world and then it would stop....maybe harvesting power on the moon and then beam it down to earth in microwave form might work just as well....i mean the rays might miss but make the ground in a 10 mile radius all glass so in case the ray misses itll be reflected....

dont think there is global dimming on the moon now eh?

[Edited on 26-2-2004 by CookieMonster000]



posted on Feb, 26 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
If the Airline Jet Streams can influence weather, then why can't the mass release of mousture into a very cold area act like a lake effect?

Millions of cars emmiting water, could help to terraform a cold region into a seasonal ICE age. With normal accidents creating small atomic-like explosions around people, the insurance industry would make their premiums equal your car payments. Things will become unnafordable quickly.

We will not run out of fuel for a long time. There is tons of offshore drilling, and OPEC 2 is obtaining massive amount of fuel from the waters. If we ever run into a shortage we may have to changle to a lower petrol grade, with bolt on adaption rather then power plant re-design.

We will live in a smellier darker world but at least we can cruise up the street to go get some eggs. Industry does not want hydrogen, but our 4th generation grandchildren will wish we had made the change.

[Edited on 26-2-2004 by cranialhunch]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join