Thread: "economic armageddon"

Originally Posted by Supernova

In researching for my term paper, I've come across a phenomenon known most commonly as "peak oil". This is not just another crazy apocalypse theory, this is based in scientific fact.

This requires a little explaining first. For those of you that don't know, here is how the life of an oil well works. When it is first tapped, it's production rate is at a low point. It continues to climb from here at an increasing rate, which then slows, and eventually peaks, when it's supply has been reduced by asbout 50%. From here, it's rate of production begins to decrease. The overall pattern follows a bell curve. The same pattern is followed by the global supply of oil, as shown by this graph:



Of course, everything past a few years ago is an estimate. This graph is obviously slightly early. Previous estimates put the peak of global oil production (peak oil) at, depending on who you asked, somewhere around 2005-2030. At this point production rates begin to decrease, whille demand continues it's current increase. At this point it's anyone's guess. Keep in mind that much more than transportation depends on oil - just about all our resources. It is estimated that the U.S. can only support about 2/3 of it's current population withous industrialized agriculture, and that global carrying capacity may drop as low as 2.6 billion. Economic collapse, resource wars, who knows what may follow. In the time we have, alternate energy sources could not possibly replace the shortages of oil, and they themselves rely on oil.



Here's a few articles on the subject

http://www.oildecline.com/index.htm
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ I reccomend this one

So, what's your thoughts on the subject?

To some degree this assumes a static state of technological development. When resources concerning oil become scarce, the market acknowledges this by a raise in prices and alternative sources are sought. I can give you a lecture by Murray Rothbard concerning conservation and the private market if you are interested. I love the avatar by the way.

Brace for fission.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Brace for fission.

I'm not 'up' on energy development but isn't hydrogen the next big thing?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I'm not 'up' on energy development but isn't hydrogen the next big thing?

It may be. But I'm bracing for fission.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

It may be. But I'm bracing for fission.

Being a capitalist, whatever allows for the greatest amount of use-value.

Nah man fusion is the energy source of the future, except its pretty much cost prohibitive at its present technological state.

I forget the exact statistic, but I believe it's around 1200 or so new nuclear reactors would be needed to satisfy the energy needs of the US alone...a staggering figure considering we currently have only 104.

I too posted about this in ED about a year ago upon discovering the theory.

Back then I was pretty depressed because as far as I could tell it meant the end of civilisation and what I suppose I thought of as 'human progress' and a return to living for the sake of living, without any greater meaning. It's interesting that 'living for the sake of living' seems such a barren concept when in reality it's what we should all be doing. The concept of this 'global human enterprise' is, in a sense, the secular version of God.

My opinions now... I'm really not sure.

I think peak oil could well be very soon (most predictions are for 2010). It could well be a massive shock. It could well cause massive warfare and starvation. I just don't know.

But I think I'm less apocalyptic than I was. Many countries are completely ignorant of the issue, it's true: in fact there's quite a bit of evidence that a few important figures in various institutions do know about it but are going out of their way to keep people quiet about it for fear of causing a total meltdown; and the whole problem about peak oil is the element of surprise, and it being too late to make the changes to infrastructure in time to avoid complete collapse or at least very poor living conditions for a prolonged period, because I think we do have the technology.

That's when you have to look to the places with better governments where actions are taken as preparation for events rather than reactions to them; one of the main problems of governments like those in the UK and US is that the machine that drives them is the self-interest of politicians which only extends as far as the next term, and hence makes them very myopic. Countries like Switzerland and Norway learned their lessons from the 70s oil shocks however, and are fast becoming oil-free economies. We're talking 100% renewable electical power. Electric car technology is improving all the time, with commercial vehicles available by 2011, so transport is also sustainable. After that, what remains? Ammonia for fertilisers is currently produced from fossil fuels, but you can also do it via the electrolysis of water; farm machinery can be made electrical too.

So yeah, what I'm saying is that it's easy to get very depressed indeed about peak oil, and it will probably cause huge problems during our lifetimes... but they won't be unbearable, and there's plenty of hope that civilisation will continue.

Indeed, peak oil could be seen as a necessary evil to finally produce a sustainable technological civilisation.

To some degree this assumes a static state of technological development. When resources concerning oil become scarce, the market acknowledges this by a raise in prices and alternative sources are sought. I can give you a lecture by Murray Rothbard concerning conservation and the private market if you are interested. I love the avatar by the way.

This misses the issue.

We probably already have adequate technology. The problem is that the infrastructure would take about a decade to install. With peak oil, the decline is very fast. A drop of a few percent in the 70s caused a massive crisis; and that was only a regional decline. When the worldwide supply starts to fall, and rapidly; the problems will be dire.

Brace for fission.

We already has that one. :V

Fusion's the future, but it's many decades away.

The reason is that fucking idiot politicians spend about 0.1% of the amount that they give to bankers on nuclear fusion research.

I'm not 'up' on energy development but isn't hydrogen the next big thing?

Hydrogen isn't an energy source, no.

I think that the estimates are overly generous. In my opinion we will have(enough) oil for the better part of this century. But as traditional sources start to dry up, and we and europe start to become more dependent on countries like Russia and Venezuela for oil, then i foresee a geopolitical realignment in this century; a shift of power from West to East.

Even in light of th worst case scenario, it's just how the world works, everything in life comes in highs and lows, I mean EVERYTHING, including nations/regimes (obviously), and society in general, otherwise the Mayans wouls still be around and the dark ages never would have happened.

"You rise, you fall, you're down, then you rise again."

EDIT: F***ing post sniped again.

For the record, Russia and Venesuela have already passed their peak production of oil. Only 14 of the 54 oil producing nations in the world are still increasing their oil production.

Funny, in relation to my above point, I happened to be listening to November Rain (by Guns n' Roses of course), and I noticed this line

So never mind the darkness
We still can find a way
'Cause nothin' lasts forever
Even cold November rain

funny how you pick up on lyrics related to what you're thinking...ok nvm, that could be a whole new thread

Originally Posted by Xei

Back then I was pretty depressed because as far as I could tell it meant the end of civilisation

People can pretty much say the exact same thing of global warming/climate change, yet that subject seems to be relatively popular and there's already plenty of awareness on that, while this subject almost none of the general public knows exists. I don't know why this is. I'm thinking it could be one of two reasons: either this is a big "tin foil hat" type underground scare, or it's so dire that the government doesn't want to inform anybody, for fear of mass panic or worse, less cultural enthusiasm for oil (which an entire war was started on this last decade). If this second option is the case, then how did some movies come out about peak oil?

Last summer, my dad forced my sister and I to watch two Peak Oil movies- The End of Suburbia and A Crude Awakening. "Suburbia" tried to be very optimistic and positive about how to deal with peak oil once it comes (like becoming naturopath hippies living off the land in small, close communities) and had a feel-good inspirational quote at the end, while A Crude Awakening basically ended on an inescapable "end of civilization forever" type thing that nobody would be willing to be prepared for. Very dark and grim, no solutions presented, only moaning and debunking all possible solutions. What's interesting is that one of the experts interviewed who advocated peak oil in that movie was an adviser to Bush, I think, I don't remember his exact job but he worked for George Bush, which makes me wonder about his motives or what that says about the movie.

Soon after seeing both those movies, and also being in a VERY mentally unstable situation with my depression already before I had seen them, needless to say I started crying and very seriously contemplated suicide. My dad assured me that peak oil would be good for everyone in the end, mirroring the sentiments of the first movie. I'm still not convinced that any scenario like that is worth it. It still sounds so unbelievably barren and apocalyptic, something that only the tin foil hat/new world order militia crowd would find an attractive concept. I've read peak oil forums where they gave off that "crazy" vibe.

Also, later on in that year (2008), when the economy was starting to go down, my dad was so sure that we would have a pure economic meltdown by now and we'd have to move into the mountains and hunt for deer, I KID YOU NOT. So given that, I still regard this "peak oil" thing he's obsessed with with a large grain of salt. He bought books about it and everything, and he's always been easily duped into crazy, weird stuff before.

Wow Deery, that's really interesting...

With regards to the whole conspiracy thing, I think as per usual the most mundane hypothesis is the correct one: I think most people are just ignorant about peak oil, including those in government; and those who do know about it keep quiet, either because the magnitude of the whole thing is so far outside of their domains that they just doublethink it away and try to ignore it, or because they don't want to cause a panic. The guy who did the main report on this, Hirsch, said that when the authorities read the report they just had no idea what to do with it or who to give it to, and I think I'm right in saying the government told Hirsch to be quiet in future.

I think the 'end of civilisation' camp are probably overdoing it, but I think the shit will probably hit the fan pretty hard in some countries, the US and UK included. I think it's undeniable that this is an inevitable serious problem, and could well be an immediate problem, so your dad was probably right to do what he did. I think our generation is far to cosy with our situation and don't really even register the fact that things can go extremely wrong and if they did almost everybody would be clueless. In fact your dad could still be right with regards to this recession. Something could go wrong again this year quite easily, and oil prices are rallying back to their sky high prices already.

Interesting what you said about finding it a barren concept; if you analyse that, why do you think that is? It makes me despair too, and as I said above, when you nail it down, I think it's because in modern times we place a lot of value in the 'meaning' of the global human enterprise. But when you actually think about the life you'd live, assuming your living conditions are okay, you're really just in the same situation as most other humans in history. Living without meaning. Maybe that's why we created Gods in absence of civilisation?

funny how you pick up on lyrics related to what you're thinking...ok nvm, that could be a whole new thread

Try 'How to Disappear Completely' by Radiohead if you want something really depressing.

In fact the whole of that album, Kid A, makes me think of peak oil.

Originally Posted by Xei

We probably already have adequate technology. The problem is that the infrastructure would take about a decade to install. With peak oil, the decline is very fast. A drop of a few percent in the 70s caused a massive crisis; and that was only a regional decline. When the worldwide supply starts to fall, and rapidly; the problems will be dire.

We don't have the technology. If we did, someone would be selling it. People are obviously talking about 'peak oil' [ this topic is proof of that ] so it is reasonable that energy companies are researching alternative fuel sources in order to compensate for long term interests. The 70's drop was because of OPEC, not because of an actual shortage of fuel.

Originally Posted by Xei

Hydrogen isn't an energy source, no.

Hydrogen fuel cells?

Originally Posted by Xei

Something could go wrong again this year quite easily, and oil prices are rallying back to their sky high prices already.

Yea, it's called inflation and it is going to happen this year. It could possibly wipe out the dollar.

Originally Posted by Xei

With regards to the whole conspiracy thing, I think as per usual the most mundane hypothesis is the correct one: I think most people are just ignorant about peak oil, including those in government; and those who do know about it keep quiet, either because the magnitude of the whole thing is so far outside of their domains that they just doublethink it away and try to ignore it, or because they don't want to cause a panic. The guy who did the main report on this, Hirsch, said that when the authorities read the report they just had no idea what to do with it or who to give it to, and I think I'm right in saying the government told Hirsch to be quiet in future.

Government officials were interviewed and talking about peak oil openly in A Crude Awakening.

The full movie is on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XayIunqG1bM

I think the 'end of civilisation' camp are probably overdoing it, but I think the shit will probably hit the fan pretty hard in some countries, the US and UK included. I think it's undeniable that this is an inevitable serious problem, and could well be an immediate problem, so your dad was probably right to do what he did. I think our generation is far to cosy with our situation and don't really even register the fact that things can go extremely wrong and if they did almost everybody would be clueless. In fact your dad could still be right with regards to this recession. Something could go wrong again this year quite easily, and oil prices are rallying back to their sky high prices already.

If you're advising me to live life in constant fear and despair and seriously think about gathering up a bunch of guns with my dad and grandpa to live in the middle of nowhere because we "thought" it was going to happen in a matter of years or even months, then I'm going to disregard that. He's already been proven embarrassingly wrong. To keep in this fear tactic of "well, it could still happen" is the exact same mentality as before that never learned a thing from its failure. It's just stupid and wrong, to the point and being mentally and emotionally abusive.

Interesting what you said about finding it a barren concept; if you analyse that, why do you think that is? It makes me despair too, and as I said above, when you nail it down, I think it's because in modern times we place a lot of value in the 'meaning' of the global human enterprise. But when you actually think about the life you'd live, assuming your living conditions are okay, you're really just in the same situation as most other humans in history. Living without meaning. Maybe that's why we created Gods in absence of civilisation?

I don't know why exactly, but I view someone's happy thoughts of living like we used to thousands of years ago, in these modern years, with the same horror and sense of delusion of viewing someone's happy thoughts of talking to an imaginary friend who really died years ago, while they rock back and forth in a dark asylum with a relieved smile on their face. It's just wrong, insane and sad, no matter how happy they feel about it.

I know why, actually: it's because we humans are wired to THRIVE on progress. To go backwards in human progress is just wrong (I'm saying the word wrong a lot, but I don't know what possible other word is more apt. Perhaps another 'backwards' or 'unhealthy')

As a kid, I knew a friend whose family was part of a cult religious group that preached that Jesus was coming to Earth in 2000, wiping out all the wicked and taking their group to heaven. They really tried to believe and imagine it happening to them, for real. It never happened.

My family later lived in a house that had a storage area that used to be a nuclear silo from the 60s, when the nuclear war/annihilation scare was all the rage.

To say that I've grown out of patience for these end of the world delusions that never turn out to happen is an understatement. I'm just not buying it anymore. Even if any part of it is true, there's NOTHING I can do as an individual to change a thing, and I'm not going to prepare my mind for a scary scenario that never happens anyway. It's a waste of life we have now, and that's absolutely the most generous way to put it.

We don't have the technology. If we did, someone would be selling it. People are obviously talking about 'peak oil' [ this topic is proof of that ] so it is reasonable that energy companies are researching alternative fuel sources in order to compensate for long term interests. The 70's drop was because of OPEC, not because of an actual shortage of fuel.

You were the one talking about capitalism...

People don't sell the technology because at the current time it makes no economic sense, not because it doesn't exist.

People crack oil to get hydrogen instead of hydrolysing water because oil is cheap.

Countries don't have renewable electricity generation not because we haven't invented wind turbines or solar panels, but because oil is cheap.

People don't sell electric cars not because we haven't invented electric engines but because oil is cheap.

It's clearly totally irrelevant to my point what caused the lack of oil, my point regarded the effect of the lack of oil...

Hydrogen fuel cells?

And the hydrogen comes from..?

Hydrogen is not a source of energy due to its use in fuel cells any more than electricity is a source of energy due to its use in light bulbs.

The hydrogen either comes from the cracking of oil, which destroys some of the energy in the oil which could otherwise have been put in a combustion engine; or it comes from hydrolysing water, which uses lots of electricity.

In both instances you put the energy in to the hydrogen to separate it from oxygen or carbon, and you later get energy (less of it, no process is 100% efficient) out when you put it in a fuel cell.

Hydrogen is a method of energy transfer, not an energy source. Totally different concepts.

That physics lesson was on me.

If you're advising me to live life in constant fear and despair and seriously think about gathering up a bunch of guns with my dad and grandpa to live in the middle of nowhere because we "thought" it was going to happen in a matter of years or even months, then I'm going to disregard that. He's already been proven embarrassingly wrong. To keep in this fear tactic of "well, it could still happen" is the exact same mentality as before that never learned a thing from its failure. It's just stupid and wrong, to the point and being mentally and emotionally abusive.

Of course I'm not saying that you should live your life in fear; any more than somebody who insures their house for fire damage is living their life in fear.

But I think the plausibility of peak oil is enough to make some basic preparations, when you look at how much we spend on junk items with no real value...

Nobody knows when exactly the peak will be if there even is one, certainly not down to the nearest year... it's really just an observation that at some point it will happen. I'd wager in the next decade, well within our lifetimes.

I just think that if I've learnt anything about human philosophy, it's that 'ignoring it until it goes away' is not a good philosophy to have. It's what could be the main cause of the whole crisis, after all.

I don't know why exactly, but I view someone's happy thoughts of living like we used to thousands of years ago, in these modern years, with the same horror and sense of delusion of viewing someone's happy thoughts of talking to an imaginary friend who really died years ago, while they rock back and forth in a dark asylum with a relieved smile on their face. It's just wrong, insane and sad, no matter how happy they feel about it.

I know why, actually: it's because we humans are wired to THRIVE on progress. To go backwards in human progress is just wrong (I'm saying the word wrong a lot, but I don't know what possible other word is more apt. Perhaps another 'backwards' or 'unhealthy')

Well that's interesting really, because tangible progress within a generation is only really something that has happened in the last two centuries or so. Maybe it's just a modern social thing. Certainly our ancestors weren't despairing because they weren't progressing; they just lived life as they always had, and, presumably, tried to enjoy it for what it was.

And after all, progress can't continue indefinitely. What would we do at the pinnacle of human progress, in a utopia? Surely not despair...

But yeah, it's very deeply ingrained. I've got the same sense of despair at returning to a life without 'progress', even though it's inherently absurd when you think about it.

Originally Posted by Xei

You were the one talking about capitalism...

People don't sell the technology because at the current time it makes no economic sense, not because it doesn't exist.

So it doesn't make sense to sell a new energy source which has the possibility of being something no one else has discovered and would be the only source on the market?

Originally Posted by Xei

People crack oil to get hydrogen instead of hydrolysing water because oil is cheap.

Countries don't have renewable electricity generation not because we haven't invented wind turbines or solar panels, but because oil is cheap.

People don't sell electric cars not because we haven't invented electric engines but because oil is cheap.

Again a technology problems. We don't have the technology to mass produce this energy in a form which is cheaper then oil production.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's clearly totally irrelevant to my point what caused the lack of oil, my point regarded the effect of the lack of oil...
And the hydrogen comes from..?

Oil peaks and OPEC are obviously different. You said an oil peak would be like the 70's only on a massive scale. Clearly that is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Xei

Hydrogen is not a source of energy due to its use in fuel cells any more than electricity is a source of energy due to its use in light bulbs.

The hydrogen either comes from the cracking of oil, which destroys some of the energy in the oil which could otherwise have been put in a combustion engine; or it comes from hydrolysing water, which uses lots of electricity.

In both instances you put the energy in to the hydrogen to separate it from oxygen or carbon, and you later get energy (less of it, no process is 100% efficient) out when you put it in a fuel cell.

Hydrogen is a method of energy transfer, not an energy source. Totally different concepts.

OK but couldn't you potentially have a reoccurring energy source in which hydrogen powers the electric plant which powers the water which formulates hydrogen fuel?

Again a technology problems. We don't have the technology to mass produce this energy in a form which is cheaper then oil production.

As I've said, a few countries are quickly achieving it.

Often you hear statements from the government, certainly in the UK, about how much energy 'can' be generated by renewables; this is bullshit. Renewables can generate as much as you want, you just build more of them.

Oil peaks and OPEC are obviously different. You said an oil peak would be like the 70's only on a massive scale. Clearly that is inaccurate.

Where did I say that?

I said that a small decline in oil availability in the 70s caused mass panic. Peak oil will be a large decline and it will never stop, so it will presumably be very much worse. The cause of the 70s decline has nothing to do with my statement.

OK but couldn't you potentially have a reoccurring energy source in which hydrogen powers the electric plant which powers the water which formulates hydrogen fuel?

Yes indeed but as in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics you'd lose energy each time as unrecoverable waste. Practically the energy you get out as a result of burning the hydrogen is less than equal to the amount you have to put in to hydrolyse the water. It'd be a totally pointless thing to do, you'd just slowly waste the initial amount of energy you have in the hydrogen until nothing was left.

Originally Posted by Xei

As I've said, a few countries are quickly achieving it.

Often you hear statements from the government, certainly in the UK, about how much energy 'can' be generated by renewables; this is bullshit. Renewables can generate as much as you want, you just build more of them.

But like you pointed out, they cannot be built in a manner which is more cost effective then oil. The market simply isn't technologically advanced enough so it isn't a question of will or desire.

Originally Posted by Xei

Where did I say that?

I said that a small decline in oil availability in the 70s caused mass panic. Peak oil will be a large decline and it will never stop, so it will presumably be very much worse. The cause of the 70s decline has nothing to do with my statement.

A decline over an extended period of time. The 70's wasn't like that. It is like sand in an hourglass, it doesn't all fall at once but it trickles away giving the market time to react and adapt.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes indeed but as in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics you'd lose energy each time as unrecoverable waste. Practically the energy you get out as a result of burning the hydrogen is less than equal to the amount you have to put in to hydrolyse the water. It'd be a totally pointless thing to do, you'd just slowly waste the initial amount of energy you have in the hydrogen until nothing was left.

Well don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. This would be a step in lessening the necessity of oil. Take for example cow farms out here in California. They actually run their power on cow manure and they use it to fertilize their crops which they feed to the cows which the cows obviously get rid of through waste and the cycle happens again. It is not a self sufficient system but vast amounts of energy are being saved.

But like you pointed out, they cannot be built in a manner which is more cost effective then oil. The market simply isn't technologically advanced enough so it isn't a question of will or desire.

Quite the contrary... the countries who have implemented the technologies are the ones with enough foresight to realise that oil will fast become expensive and/or unreliable and have the political will to do something about it.

Economic forces are often not the best thing for the population, as the current recession has clearly demonstrated. These forces are based on the present, wheras for the good of the people you need to be considering consequences in the future, which as I've explained, most governments have no reason to do (other than morals, which needless to say are usually rather lacking).

A decline over an extended period of time. The 70's wasn't like that. It is like sand in an hourglass, it doesn't all fall at once but it trickles away giving the market time to react and adapt.

I don't know what point you're making. The only point I was making is that declining oil production causes conflict. That's it.

Well don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. This would be a step in lessening the necessity of oil.

I hope you're not adressing your idea of using hydrogen to hydrolyse water, because I've just explained how that's completely pointless. If you're talking about your following thing about cows, okay;

Take for example cow farms out here in California. They actually run their power on cow manure and they use it to fertilize their crops which they feed to the cows which the cows obviously get rid of through waste and the cycle happens again. It is not a self sufficient system but vast amounts of energy are being saved.

Well sure, you can make systems more efficient. What you're effectively doing here is converting solar energy to bioenergy and then reusing it.

Though I'd point out that cows naturally fertilise their food anyway. People don't normally steal cow poo, you know; it goes back into the ground and makes grass.

Originally Posted by Xei

Quite the contrary... the countries who have implemented the technologies are the ones with enough foresight to realise that oil will fast become expensive and/or unreliable and have the political will to do something about it.

Well firstly, no government has instituted a mandatory usage of certain energies. Secondly, they shouldn't because that disrupts the market process. Third, I'm all for being conscious of the future. As a capitalist, I welcome new inventions and technologies into the market place. The hardest part about what we are discussing is when they technologies should be utilized. I say they should be when people's subjective economic preference voluntarily elect them as a viable source, namely, when the market process recognizes a need for alternative fuels and move towards their discovery and application. If the government were to do this then we could see massive disruptions in technological development and its ability to be properly applied. I remember a story about ethanol fuels in which government lead cheerleading lead to a food shortage due to the excessive use of corn for ethanol. This is the disruption I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Xei

Economic forces are often not the best thing for the population, as the current recession has clearly demonstrated.

The current recession is based upon government mandated loose credit and inflation, not because the 'free-market [ something we don't have by the way ] failed'

Originally Posted by Xei

These forces are based on the present, wheras for the good of the people you need to be considering consequences in the future, which as I've explained, most governments have no reason to do (other than morals, which needless to say are usually rather lacking).

Absolutely wrong. Present prices reflect not only present subjective evaluations but also future considerations on the use-value of goods. Let's suppose I own a cooper mine and the current price of an ounce of cooper is one dollar just to make things simple. Not only do I have to think about present prices of cooper but also future value. If I were to come across the knowledge that in 6 months there will be a development that makes alternative cooper possible which will lower the dollar price of cooper. Naturally I would get rid of all my cooper in the present when it is at its greatest price because the alternative cooper will make my present cooper obsolete. Now reverse that, let us say that in 6 months I know that a major cooper plant will close. I would hold onto my cooper and wait until the prices increase in order to dump it on the market at its highest price and on dumping on the market I then make more available a resource that is scarce. Markets tend towards equilibrium, they never achieve it but they tend toward it because the market is always dynamic and reacting. I have a good audio lecture on this by an economist named "Murray Rothbard" and I would gladly give you the link if you so desire to learn more about this.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't know what point you're making. The only point I was making is that declining oil production causes conflict. That's it.

Well if that is what you are simply saying then I agree but this conflict causes a rise in the seeking of alternative sources of the good meaning that the market reaches to scarcity in a certain way and such a reaction will result in the oil market.

Originally Posted by Xei

I hope you're not adressing your idea of using hydrogen to hydrolyse water, because I've just explained how that's completely pointless. If you're talking about your following thing about cows, okay;
Well sure, you can make systems more efficient. What you're effectively doing here is converting solar energy to bioenergy and then reusing it.

Though I'd point out that cows naturally fertilise their food anyway. People don't normally steal cow poo, you know; it goes back into the ground and makes grass.

My point was that alternative energies exist even though thermodynamics exist. Just because hydrogen needs periodic infusions of outside energy sources doesn't infer that we shouldn't do it. The point is to break into the field of new energies and let it flourish. It is unrealistic to plan out every detail and not allow experimentation until you've covered ever problem that may arise.

We have a lot of other energy sources and there is still a ton of oil around, even if some of its difficult to get. So we won't run out of energy, it will just get expensive. Eventually as the technology gets better, the price should come down. Its just a matter of, how quickly that will happe and how expensive it will get.

What people should do, is stock pile food. Which helps you in any type of economic collapse regardless of the reason. Economies do collapse, you can look around the world and find large industrial nations, that have collapsed and people have to wait in long food lines just to eat.

Even if you are the type of person who says you don't buy into any of this type of stuff. You think nothing could ever happen(obviously you dont live in new orleans). You can't go wrong with stocking up food. Because guess what? Its food, and believe it or not you have to eat no matter how good things go.

Stocking food for the long term doesn't cost you anything at all. In fact, buying in large bulk is normally cheaper. So you actually save money by preparing for the worst.

Yes, we do have a ton of oil around. About 50% of the world's original reserves once we hit peak production. The problem isn't not having it, but the fact that when we hit peak production, supply begins to fall while demand stays the same or increases. As we saw in the 70's, even a small change in supply and demand has a very large impact on the price of oil.

Understand, though, that when we hit peak production and oil prices increase, they will never come back down. Unfortunately this is not a problem oil ytechnology can solve.