On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 17 Jan 2011, 10:47

Can we please get back onto the subject of positive ideas of sustainability and what WE can do about it in our own houses?

JoePlec · Post by **JoePlec** » 17 Jan 2011, 10:59

I personally think the subject belongs on another forum. But it is placed in the right section so knock yourself out.

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 17 Jan 2011, 13:28

Industrial wrote:I am 18 now, and I think that when I am an old rambling fish keeper, we will not be nearly as reliant on oil. I just hope we find a sustainable alternative.

This thread is imo a success even just because of this post.

crkinney · Post by **crkinney** » 17 Jan 2011, 16:28

You hit it right on the head Groke.I am too old to give a crap cause I'll be fish food or motor oil before it happens but to get one young persons attention is great!

Have a happy day!

JoePlec · Post by **JoePlec** » 17 Jan 2011, 17:57

grokefish wrote:
Industrial wrote:I am 18 now, and I think that when I am an old rambling fish keeper, we will not be nearly as reliant on oil. I just hope we find a sustainable alternative.
This thread is imo a success even just because of this post.

For every one of them theres a thousand others who dont give a .....!

macvsog23 · Post by **macvsog23** » 17 Jan 2011, 18:35

Starfish

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 17 Jan 2011, 21:26

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 19 Feb 2011, 10:14

Mats- On your point about Motorsports.

I have thought about it quite a bit over the last few weeks and the conclusion I have come to is I think there is a place for them in a world where people do not own their personal cars/energy deficiency.
Mass Entertainment is a far more sensible use for the oil that is left.
Think of how energy efficient it actually is, If you have a million people watching it both at the circuit and on tv
they are clearly not driving around 'pointlessly' in their personal oil munching machines.

I think entertainment is going to be a place that suffers first in all this but will end up much better in the long run.

anyone that is still doubting my prediction of an energy led (read oil) destabilisation/crisis being being close at hand, how about you take note of the mass uprisings in the middle east, now I wonder who is stoking those fires.............

RickE · Post by **RickE** » 19 Feb 2011, 11:23

The only sensible way out of this is to go noocular. Trouble is every time I'm near completing my personal plant and need some plutonium I get a visit and the whole thing is taken away. Maybe we should form a noocular co-op.

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 20 Feb 2011, 22:58

dbosman · Post by **dbosman** » 22 Feb 2011, 01:20

Innovations are coming along.
We may have to start actively growing algae instead of fighting it.

http://www.swiftenterprises.com/Swift%20Fuel.html

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 13 Mar 2011, 20:37

Sorry to wake this thread, but I found this blog quite interesting [warning, it's long!]
http://www.cpeterson.org/2011/03/10/why ... not-libya/

--
Mats

Proteus · Post by **Proteus** » 14 Mar 2011, 02:18

dbosman wrote:Innovations are coming along.
We may have to start actively growing algae instead of fighting it.

http://www.swiftenterprises.com/Swift%20Fuel.html

wasn't there an article in the TFM this month or last month on duckweed being a possible source? alage and duckweed seems to be plausible.

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 14 Mar 2011, 08:52

Well quite rightly nuclear has had a kick in the nuts.

Bas Pels · Post by **Bas Pels** » 14 Mar 2011, 12:19

It certainly did receive the kick - and in all honesty I don't think the kick was nessesary

What happened was that the emergency system (setting the chain reaction to stop, and continuing the cooling for 48 hrs, if I was informed correctly) did nor funtion properly because the emergency system was not Tsunamiproof

This was not wise, as tunamis normally originate from earthquakes

So, basically, the technology itself did not deserve the kick it got

The local engineers however, they are another matter

RickE · Post by **RickE** » 14 Mar 2011, 15:06

http://www.swiftenterprises.com/Swift%20Fuel.html

But how much energy is required to convert it into usable fuel?

One of the problems with many of the new technologies is that they are nett consumers of energy, not producers. One of the benefits of Nuclear power is that it generates massively more energy than it consumes.

I'm actually in favour of nuclear power and think that if more resources were used to find answers to the problems it has (such as waste reprocessing), it's the most likely source of 'limitless' power for the future.

Of course, we're just talking power plants here really, but nuclear energy could provide the power for the production of fuel cells for cars etc.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 15 Mar 2011, 14:29

Here's an interesting article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... gy-by-2030

--
Mats

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 27 Apr 2011, 21:00

I don't remember if anyone remembers me mooting the idea of an energy plant that uses osmosis to drive turbines. it was not in this thread but another I could not find.
Anyway I just saw a tv show on BBC where a dude has done such a thing! How cool is that!
I have great hopes for this dudes idea.

joefish72b · Post by **joefish72b** » 28 Apr 2011, 22:48

I don't know how I missed this thread until now.

I'm not reading the replies, just commenting to the original post. There is plenty of oil, production has not peaked.

The only problem is in the United States due to EPA regulations "NO NEW REFINERIES" which means we just build them in Mexico. Why do you think they pushed so hard for Noth American Free Trade? Trust me it wasn't so they could give the Mexicans better paying jobs.

If we run out of oil I'll use wind or solar to power my house. Now I'm done with my rant.

P.S. The front of my 12 mile per gallon truck says "I CAN AFFORD THE GAS".

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 28 Apr 2011, 22:57

LOLz what is the basis your above comment?

joefish72b · Post by **joefish72b** » 30 Apr 2011, 22:44

grokefish wrote:LOLz what is the basis your above comment?

Which comment the refineries? One of the Bush family friends tried to build a refinery back in 2008 in South Dakota but I don't remember it getting built though. The company was Hyperion and the refinery was to be finished in 2013 (you know right after the world ends in 2012). They said it had been more than 30 years since the last one had been built and we need new refineries.
Mexico? Money talks and pollution walks, down there, bribe the right people and you can do just about anything.
NAFTA? That one is self explanitory.
or powering my house with wind and solar? Ok, you got me, I don't have the $50K it would cost to go off the grid and based on my annual electric bill of $2400 it would take over 20 years to break even, provided there are zero maintenance costs. Crazy thing here in Florida one power company charges people a higher rate for the electric they use if they also have solar.

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 30 Apr 2011, 22:57

Nah, that all made sense, the bit about there being plenty of oil.

That sucks about the solar power, over here you can sell the excess energy to the grid.

crkinney · Post by **crkinney** » 01 May 2011, 16:34

Oil shortage, Bull
Five years ago the largest oil reserve in the world was found in the states of North Dakota ,South Dakota and Montana.The enviromentalist pitched such a big fit that the Gov. will not allow drilling [untill the price is right]
I am sure you folks in other countrys pay more for gas that we do in the U.S. but 3.89 per gal is high enough for me.
As for elect energy I work in the Nuclear industry and deel with overbearing saftey issues on every job.My personal feeling is that it is as safe as any mode of creating power using a fuel.

joefish72b · Post by **joefish72b** » 02 May 2011, 01:44

grokefish wrote:Nah, that all made sense, the bit about there being plenty of oil.

Just my luck, the one thing I didn't answer was what you wanted to know. We have plenty of oil in the western states, as mentioned above. In addition there are huge deposits off the west coast of Florida, where I live. The locals and the governor have said no to offshore drilling here and the BP disaster didn't help the cause. There is also a load of oil in sand deposits (I forget the tech name for it) but they say it's currently too expensive to extract the oil so it's ignored.

My honest opinion is our government is making a play. We use up the oil from the middle east and South America first, then when it runs out we have all we will need for lets say 50 more years.

crkinney · Post by **crkinney** » 02 May 2011, 14:32

I tend to agree with you joefish. But I think the envrio movement has a lot more involvment than we know.

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 02 May 2011, 14:57

joefish72b wrote:
grokefish wrote:Nah, that all made sense, the bit about there being plenty of oil.

Just my luck, the one thing I didn't answer was what you wanted to know. We have plenty of oil in the western states, as mentioned above. In addition there are huge deposits off the west coast of Florida, where I live. The locals and the governor have said no to offshore drilling here and the BP disaster didn't help the cause. There is also a load of oil in sand deposits (I forget the tech name for it) but they say it's currently too expensive to extract the oil so it's ignored.

My honest opinion is our government is making a play. We use up the oil from the middle east and South America first, then when it runs out we have all we will need for lets say 50 more years.

This I also suspect is the case.

grokefish · Post by **grokefish** » 12 May 2011, 19:34

Very worrying..................

http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetterALL_1Q11.pdf

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 12 May 2011, 19:44

grokefish wrote:Very worrying..................

http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetterALL_1Q11.pdf

And of course, it's entirely unbiased and no self-interest in that newsletter....
GMO is an investment company, and they would certainly benefit from people believing what is written in that document - and certainly some parts are undeniably true. But that doesn't mean ALL of it is true.

--
Mats

joefish72b · Post by **joefish72b** » 17 May 2011, 14:55

grokefish wrote:Very worrying..................

http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetterALL_1Q11.pdf

You are correct, very worring that this guy is even used as a source since he admits here "The purpose of this, my second (and much longer) piece on resource limitations, is to persuade investors with an interest in the long term to change their whole frame of reference". This guy has an agenda and is trying to pass it off as qualty research.

Grokefish, nothing negative meant towards you.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 17 May 2011, 15:42

No one said that Grokefish was doing anything wrong by posting it. Just pointing out that there is a certain amount of self-interest in this article (openly expressed, as Joe says).

The whole idea with sharing documents/links with people is to get their opinion and thoughts, I would say.

--
Mats

On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

Re: On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.