isn't it going to suck when we run out of oil in ~40 years

Home  \  Off Topic  \  isn't it going to suck when we run out of oil in ~40 years

we'll be buying 70 chevelle ss's for like 50 bucks. damn.

posted by  carls47807

Run out of oil? I'm more worried about the social security system and college. Shouldn't drilling in alaska fetch us somethng like another 30 years?

posted by  Godlaus

i heard rumors alaska was more of a political reserve. that it would actually take more oil to extract the resources than would be gained.

not to mention the horrible environmental effects of drilling there.

yea, social security, isn't that funny?

posted by  carls47807

the burden's going to fall on my generation one way or the other. kinda sucks.

posted by  Godlaus

Everyone's doing research into new ways of making electricity now, i reckon it'll get sorted. Everything does.

posted by  hajamie

No more oil would be a killer.. I love my car, and the deep throated roar it makes when I plant the accelarator more than anything. Electricity just wouldn't be the same :doh:

posted by  Osiris

Yeah, on Discovery Channel they did a special on life in the year 2025, and they said something like by that time, all cars will run on hydrogen and electricity, and that gas/diesel powered cars would be illegal. But a friend said that by 500 million years, Earth would look like Mars from lack of CO2, making all the plants die out. So either way we're screwed.

posted by  chris_knows

Let's just say that... this running out of oil business... if it ever happens, well, it's far more than not being able to drive your current car. World-Wide chaos doesn't even do that subject matter justice.

posted by  DodgeRida67

indeed, we will be back to planting our own food and reading by candlelight.

pretty sure we WILL run out of oil some time in the near future. Especially with everyone commuting their lincoln navigators to work every day.

posted by  carls47807

Well... It's alot deeper than that. Oil is everything to alot of countries, and not for the simple uses of it. It's about $$$. If we lose oil... well, we're screwed.

posted by  DodgeRida67

transportation accounts for only 45% of the petroleum useage in teh US, and private cars only about half of that. The majority is in manufacturing (plastics and rubber are made from petroleum products, as are asphalt shingles, etc) and in home heating oil.

We could stop using cars entirely tomorrow and barely change the outcome.

posted by  ChrisV

Bush is pushing for flexible fuel cell cars. They use a combination of a smalll amount of petrolium and distilled alcohol and can acheive a hundred miles per gallon or so.

posted by  abless

The Bush administration is pushing for it, bush himself couldn't give 2 shits about the environment.

Ethanol is still costly to produce, but i'm sure in 5 or 10 years we will start seeing these vehicles being used on the road.

posted by  carls47807

i know this going to sound very dimwitted...but here goes anyways..

sure, we will use all the natural oil drilled out of the ground, but what about other sources of oil? Sunflower, canola, vegetable....

what about synthetic oil?


why fear that we may lose out in natural oils from underground, when there are other sources for oil?

im sure if they can figure out how to make hydrogen powered cars, they can sure as hell figure out how to use sunflower oil to use instead of regular oil as we know it.

posted by  dodgerforlife

And y9ou know this for a fact? he's told you?

How about a new $2 billion dollar fund to push the introduction of hydrogen cars that Bush was a big proponent of...

posted by  ChrisV

i don't think you have to be a genius to understand his procedures of bush-whacking the environment. this isn't a political forum and i don't have the time to retort myself for the next week.

in the meantime read up...
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/bush-vs-greenpeace
there is also a great forum there.

of course this is only my opinion and you will probably post your own sites on the various unsubstantial bill's he's passed

posted by  carls47807

and that whole alaska oil reserve is complete and utter BS, if anyone has ever been in that area you would rather ride pedal bikes to work than destroy that area, and if they did decide to build it i would stake out the pipeline and shoot whoever came through, and this coming from someone who's career in life depends on that oil, i would quit and be a hippy if it turns into that. alberta on the otherhand, aint nuthing up there but newfies and prairies so mine the crap out of it i could care less.

posted by  BanffAutoSpa_ap

From:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0%2C1249%2C600125803%2C00.html



Vast 'oil' reserves in Utah may tempt feds to help out
By Jerry Spangler
Deseret Morning News

WASHINGTON — Utah, Colorado and Wyoming sit on a massive fortune in untapped oil — maybe more oil than in the Middle East — if they could just figure out a way to harvest it.

And with crude oil hovering above $50 a barrel, Congress is now showing signs it may be willing to help.

On Tuesday, the Senate Energy Committee held hearings on the vast reserves of oil found in tar sands and oil shale located in eastern Utah, western Colorado and southern Wyoming. The amounts of oil, said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, "are mind boggling. Who would have guessed that in just Colorado and Utah, there is more recoverable oil than in the Middle East, except we don't count it among our nation's oil reserves because it is not yet being developed commercially."

And therein lies the rub. The technology to recover oil from tar sands and oil shale is costly, and it just wasn't justified when oil was $30 or even $40 a barrel. But with oil prices expected to remain above $50 a barrel for the foreseeable future, a lot of people in the oil industry want to revisit what could become a huge financial windfall for Utah and its neighbors to the east.
"If we can get it out, it will be a huge resource for the United States and a significant industry for the two states," said Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah. "But getting it out at an economic level is a problem."

On one hand it will cost billions to develop and implement the technology. And there also is a problem in that the oil shale and tar sands are located in a portion of eastern Utah coveted by conservationists for its wilderness qualities. "The wilderness advocates will say, 'Over my dead body.' But it looks like oil prices are going to stay above $50 a barrel, and I could see people moving into this business in a big way," Bennett said.

Congress could be the wild card when it comes to defraying the cost of jump-starting oil shale and tar sands oil production. If Congress were to infuse massive amounts of research capital into production through the Department of Energy, the United States could conceivably generate enough oil to wean itself from foreign oil.

"If there is a federal role, it is in the investment into research to make it happen," said Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, who sits on the House Science Subcommittee that would need to approve research and development funding. "Right now, the technology is not there."

Hatch, who testified at Tuesday's hearing, pointed out that Canada has invested heavily in tar sands technology to reap oil from Alberta. And it has paid off. "I find it disturbing that Utah imports oil from Canada tar sands, even though we have a larger tar sands resource within our own boundaries that remains undeveloped," Hatch said. "Why has Canada moved forward in leaps and bounds, while the United States has yet to take even a baby step in this direction?"

Experts testified that Canada now produces 1 million barrels of oil per day from tar sands, and that is expected to reach 2 million barrels a day.
According to Mark Maddox, a deputy assistant secretary for fossil energy, the Green River Formation — located where the three states come together — contains an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. It also constitutes more than 50 percent of the world's oil shale reserves, of which 80 percent are owned by the federal government.

Maddox said studies of the reserves indicate that more than 400 billion barrels of oil will be found in oil shale with concentrations greater than 30 gallons per ton. And, he added, the technology to refine it exists. "The failure of the government's efforts in the 1980s was not due to the failure of the resource, the technology or environmental problems," he said. "Economically it was simply too expensive."

Until now.

But the rosy future for eastern Utah is tempered by the reality that the federal government and industry invested in oil shale and tar sands in the 1970s only to abandon the project in 1982 because it wasn't economically feasible. "We are aware of its potential to help provide for the nation's energy needs, but we are also aware of its potential to engender false hopes, exaggerated claims and unfulfilled promises," said Steve Smith, assistant regional director for the Wilderness Society.

Smith encouraged senators to consider entering a cooperative agreement with Colorado and Utah to examine the environmental impacts of all issues surrounding oil shale development, and to do it before federal monies are committed to the project.

Such a study, Smith said, affords residents of the impacted areas and Americans in general "an opportunity to become informed about the status, promise, risks, opportunities and impacts" of developing the resource. "I hope that this time around, we will be more careful than we were the last time," he said.

posted by  ChrisV

interesting article,

but correct me if i'm wrong, doesn't this really put us back at square one in the whole scheme of things?

what is more cost effective, putting billions of dollars to research harvesting this oil and making the central US an oil pit, or using that money to fund research on better means of generating power and transportation.

meh, what do you guys think?

posted by  carls47807

if george bush cared for the environment he would have signed up to the kyoto protocol and get industries and cars to cut emissions, america is one of the largest producers of greenhouse gas after all...

posted by  fudge

and boy do we love it!

posted by  carls47807

Kyoto was a joke. It required us to foot the bill for lean up of Mexico, China and all the third world countries around the world that are currently spewing more pollutants than we ever have, while not requiring them to actually clean anything up themselves.

posted by  ChrisV

And I'm sure he's doing it with the environment in mind....

posted by  abless

one of bush's tax cuts was a deduction on gas guzzling SUV's.


back when clinton was president, and we had a surplus, we could reduce income taxes by increasing the taxes on gas. of course republicans were for the complete opposite. by increasing gas prices you encourage conservation, which leads to accelerated fuel efficiency, reduced pollution, and cuts traffic. it also means we more avidly persue alternate enery sources, which relieves our reliancy on other countries. you know we pay about 20-ish censts tax per gallon, and in sweden they pay 4$-ish tax. thats because they use the gas taxes as a deterrent. gas prices may seem real high, but when you factor in inflation they are pretty damn cheap. if anything, too cheap.

Hopefully we will have weened ouselves off of oil BEOFRE we completely run out. car exhaust is the leading cause of air pollution. but apparently bush doesnt beleive in global warming, or maybe he's just optimisitic and tries to find the good in it like longer harvesting seasons of some crops.

posted by  shev

a lot of other industrialized nations agreed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an average 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. we provide 1/3 of the worlds co2 emissions. and no... the third world countries are not anywhere close to producing as much air pollution as we are. mexico and china arent third world countries.

it wasnt to clean up mexico, it was for reducing global warming and the rising ocean. i think something about flooding the cook islands. we signed it.... but never ratified it, nor do we intend to. it didnt include china and india. 127 countries signed and raitified it. bush said it would hurt the economy, well I guess that means the economy is the second least important thing on bush's list, with the environment just below it. 80% of the world is exempt from the protocol, but thats just because 80% of the world isnt industrialized enough to matter. saudi arabia ratifed it, so did russia.

we should be reducing our c02 emissions regardless of china or india not doing it.

bush is further weakening the clean air act. bush's clear skies initiative will cut 70 percent of the air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years, but, that would result in more air pollution than if they just enforced the clean air act. it weakens the clean air act. his intiative is a load of bull. it allows more mercury, s02, and nox outoput by hundreds of percent.

posted by  shev

Yes, we consume something like 30% of the world's resources, blah, blah, blah. But, you fail to take other factors into effect, such as, we are damn good at what we do. We produce insane amounts and have some of the smartest brains in the world. We're a high maintenance, highly controversial, expensive machine that puts out more than it takes in.

Besides, it's not really america that I'm worried about, it's China and India, seeing as how they're going to start getting industrialized. Hopefully, we'll have a new power source by then.

posted by  Godlaus

really, who made that car on your signature.

americans are fu3king lazy.

posted by  carls47807

They are already getting industrialised. I bet there's something in your home that's made from china or india :hi:

posted by  fudge

Who made the saleen s7 and the now TT s7? Who made the C6 Z06? Who made the cadillac STS-V? Who made the Dodge Viper? Who made the dodge Charger? Hell, who made the world's first car? Americans are NOT lazy. Who created the best-selling software to this day? What country defeated japan and helped enormously in europe in WWII? Ever wonder why we won world war 2? It was because it was a war of economics, and america just barely edged out Hitler.

Americans are far from lazy.


nope...shirt was made in taiwan :laughing:

They're a cheap labor force, right now, but what worries me is when they become as productive as america. Imagine America with 3 billion people instead of 600 million. 5X the productivity. China and India are going to take over as the world power sooner or later.

posted by  Godlaus

To be fair, the first gasoline powered car was built and driven by Etienne Lenoir, a Belgian living in Paris.

But the rest of your points are valid.

Of course, Americans are so lazy that we had to bail the rest of the world out of two world wars with the most productive induustry and fighting forces... of course all of Europe and australia really wanted to be communist, too, so I don't know why we bothered fighting against that for decades... And it's to bad those poor women in Afghanistan and Iraq get to vote now.

But I'm sure the little children here know more about world affars than anyone else.

posted by  ChrisV

Ergh, my bad, thought the Model T was the first production car


But of course, we're all hormone charged teenagers who just got their first car. I mean, we're obviously invincible and all-knowing. :laughing:

posted by  Godlaus

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum. Its another economic hinderance by other non-powerful countries to curb the US' economic growth, while allowing their own to flourish under much more loose constraints, if any at all. Its the same reason why the EU exists. No single European country can compete economically with the US, so they band together to try to make a dent.

One thing I'll say about pollution is that the US must have the friendliest pollution in the world. That's one thing I hate about travelling to other countries, your eyes burn, your throat gets scratchy and your snot will turn black in less then a day. That does not even happen to me in NYC.

And guess what, countries where that is common don't have to change under Kyoto. YAY for Kyoto!!!!

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200412\CUL200 41202a.html

posted by  ChrisV

Oh, great. greenpeace.

Ok, in rebuttal, read this, from Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace and full-time environmental activist:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332163/posts

A significant quote:

"By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism... The environmental movement has lost its way, favoring political correctness over factual accuracy, stooping to scare tactics to garner support."

posted by  ChrisV

well, the kyoto protocol says developed nations need to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, relative to the levels emitted in 1990. china and india are quickly industrializing, they cant keep their emissions below that of pre-industrialized times, or while they are industrializing. no way can a 3rd world country prosper while keeping their emissions at the same level.

its all a conspiracy to hurt the US economy? the european union barley make a dent? the euro is now 30% stronger than the american dollar.

i agree the US is one of the, if not the best country. a little nationalism if fine, dont let it turn to imperialism.

"By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism... The environmental movement has lost its way, favoring political correctness over factual accuracy, stooping to scare tactics to garner support."

so the ever depleting rain forests is just propoganda? not true? the average ignorant american really does look the other way when it comes to ecological problems.

when a country has an industrial revolution, they go through some of the same problems we did, like over crowding of cities causing disease. when we went through ours, it was real capitalism! there werent any restrictions whatsoever that would impede the economy in any way, even if that meant poor conditions for workers, or the destruction of the environment.

china has a population 1.2 billion. their oil usage is increasing 7 times faster than the US's. its already the 3rd largest oil consumer, just below us and japan. currently we are cooperating with china, but it wont be long before a conflict of interests. they know of us dominating the persian gulf for oil. and you all remember what happened to japan after being cut off fom oil.

but china and india are destroying their environment, especially rivers.

posted by  shev

i have soooo many problems with this statement. please please please go back to your history books and actually ****ing read them, otherwise come to canada and i'll dig my granpa outa his grave so he can personally choke slam you into the goddamn ground. in other words SHUT THE **** UP! :fu:

posted by  BanffAutoSpa_ap

Australia, Canada, Great Britain, France, Soviet Union, United States, and New Zealand all had their parts in wwII. sure without america we may not have won, but that goes for all the countries.

posted by  shev

oh, and about WWII being a war of economics, sure we supplied them with our lend-lease aid, canada had its own aid called mutual aid. in fact canada was britains main supplier.

canadians (i think) were also the first to be on the ground in hong kong.


most americans were isolationists, until pearl harbor.

posted by  shev

and im sure it woulda happened sooner or later but NO you didn't win the war, they just lost the war

posted by  BanffAutoSpa_ap

well... we did kinda single handedly take out japan. well, almost. it was our nuclulear bomb that made them surrender, even though they were already beat, we had to test it out.

and youre right, we may not have won if it wasnt for a fault on the enemies side. hitler made a bad mistake, he made a 2 front war by over extending to russia. bad idea.

posted by  shev

That's one of the good things to happen but it doesn't change the fact that Bush lied to the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which was the main reason they went to war. The war itself costs billions and is still on going with all the insurgence still around. In fact Iraq has become more dangerous with all the suicide bombing attacks ever since.

And it's too bad that Muslim detainees are still being held by Americans despite no proof that they had done anything wrong. It's no wonder that George Bush is the most hated man in the world right now.

And as for Kyoto, the fact that it's in effect now hasn't changed the economy of europe at all. The America dollar is at an all time low due to the war which is much more damaging to the economy than the Kyoto protocol.
From the response of Patrick Moore's article:

Does this guy even know why DDT was banned in the first place?? I'm sure DDT will kill more people than malaria would.

posted by  fudge

yes your exactly right! your fire bombing proved to be very effective in killing over 100,000 people in one day, and annihalating 60-90% of about 65 other cities, and on top of that 2 very large bombs just to test em out, it sounds bad but i truly hope that karma will come back on the people responsible for this kind of mass murdering, im not a hater i just believe in whats fair and you have not gotten yours

posted by  BanffAutoSpa_ap

No he's exactly wrong.


We already had them beaten???????? Wrong, we had them cornered, but the japanese had something like, a 30 million homeland defense army made up of everyone with weapons ranging from machine guns to sharpened bamboo sticks. The japanese had too much honor to go down without a fight. You think that america is just full of sick Fvcks who wanted to 'test' the two bombs? Wrong. Dropping those bombs was a measure used to 'save' lives. We would've lost more american and japanese lives by invading their country.


Lez see.....that probably was Hitler's biggest mistake, not taking into effect russia's winter. Otherwise, he probably would've won. Hell, had the war dragged on for another 2-3 years, Hitler's economic machine would've taken over, and he would own europe. Was it a bad idea? Probably not. Hitler could take russia had it not been for the winter.
Also, Russia would have turned on Hitler, anyways. Russian wanted to use Hitler as a scalpel, ride on his back to europe and asian domination. They would've clashed sooner or later.



I'd be more than glad to prove you wrong, but you don't give me anything other than opinions to argue against. And I'm sorry, but I need some facts.


Hmmm....I'm Japanese and I agree with the bombings. What gives you the right to speak for me?

posted by  Godlaus

just please stop, don't even reply to this you have proved your ignorance, how bout a nice hot steaming cup of STFU.

posted by  BanffAutoSpa_ap

.....

posted by  Godlaus

you remember good ol mccarthur. we not only had them cornered we had them cut off. that was the cause of pearl harbor. they were desperate. we would have won with or without the nukes. russia had declared war on them too, and invaded right before the second nuke was dropped.




Hitler should have stayed and finished britain. russia and germany had a Russo-German Pact. but he attacked russia. hitler did understand Russia possessed an inhospitable climate, a vast area, and tremendous manpower reserves. but hitler had the element of surprise on his side, even though the russians knew what was going to happen. youre right russia probably would have turned on hitler, but not until after britain was defeated, meaning it wouldnt have been a 2 front war. during the general winter it affected the russians too, the russians outnumbered the germans, but werent nearly as trained or as well equipped. the germans almost made it to moscow. hitler made a gamble and lost.

posted by  shev

We had them cornered? eeeehhhhh...arguable. They owned the pacific and knew that the USA would confront japan sooner or later and clash, and I belive that because of this, the japanese struck first and tried to take out the pacific fleet. Too bad the carriers were out to sea, or else Japan would've completely succeeded. yes, we would have won with or without the nukes, but it was the number of lives that was an issue. Russia had to invade, even if it was half-hearted, they had a pact with USA, and simply saying they were on the US's side would've done nothing, they needed to contribute to the war.





true, true....If hitler did do that, it would be interesting to see what the world would be like now...........

posted by  Godlaus

youre probably right, there may have been less deaths. but a lot fo people died of cancers from the nukes afterwards. I think russia was pissed and was getting revenge for the russo-japanese war.

dont mind BanffAutoSpa_ap, he's just gelous the US is obviously so much better than canada at everything.


hey, damn funny video for the canadians.
http://clips.mediamatters.org/video/cc-200412010011.wmv


"they are lucky we allow them to exist on our continent" is probably the best quote.

also shows the ignorance of conservatives.

posted by  shev

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH that was the craziest shiot ive seen in a long time, are these common opinions? do most of the americans actually think like these people. please respond cuz if thats the general view, all i can say is "WOW" i really cannot respond to this :ohcrap:

posted by  BanffAutoSpa_ap

this sure has gotten off topic.

posted by  shev

lol, and no, I dont agree with her, I just thought it was pretty funny.


hahahah dog sleds. :laughing:

posted by  shev

Your Message