Most have now heard that Al Gore was a 'co-winner' of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Here's the opinion of another co-winner
John R. Christy
that is well worth a read:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com...r-christy.html

I have carefully read everything that appears in serious & fact checked publications
about Climate Change, Energy Policy and CO2
and my present opinion is much closer to John Christy than to Al Gore,
but then again
John Christy has spent his life at modest pay getting his hands dirty actually measuring things....and Al Gore has made a fortune in the last 8 years speaking about 'crisis' and making films.

I also have personal experience with Al Gore's father
Albert Gore Sr.
who was known as
'The Senator from TVA'
who shook down all the coal sellers to the TVA power plants
for large political donations.
For decades it was
'No Pay, No Play'
if you wanted to sell fuel, parts, or services to the TVA
and no major contract was ever ok'ed unless Senator Al Gore Sr's Washington DC office gave it their blessing.

 

AMEN!!!!

 

[sm=confused06.gif]Ahhhh, cause of dead dinosaurs and plants?

 

Very true. I heard on the news that it also requires as much energy to make the bio fuel (ethanol or Bio Diesel) as it outputs, thus nothing is really gained since we get more than 50% of our power from coal.

 

I'm totally on the same page with you. I would highly—HIGHLY—recommend you all go read The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler. He's a raging liberal, which I am not, and there are admittedly portions of this book with which I do not agree (namely the human-induced climate change garbage, but that's another topic). But set aside those few paragraphs, and in my opinion he is spot on, even far beyond the oil situation. Just the overall state our country is in, the material culture, the utter nonsense of it all when you stop think.

How is it possible that it is economically feasible to have eggs shipped from a farm in Minnesota to me here in Tennessee, or milk from a dairy in California? How can toasters be manufactured so cheaply on the other side of the globe, and transported here with room still left for profit? What have we given up in terms of jobs and local economies for the sake of being able to get a cheap hairdryer at Wal-Mart? Modern civilization, everything you see as you drive to work each day, it's all made possible by the cheap oil age. And that age, like it or not, will not last forever. In fact, it's rapidly coming to a close, and while no one can predict what is to come or exactly when, the fact remains that life as we know it will change, drastically, and sooner than we all would like to think.

We best be making plans to live alternatively, and by that I mean far more comprehensive changes than just what cars or trucks we drive based on the current price of oil.

As EnginerBuzzy said... believe it or not, but you have been warned. Read the book.

 

Joel, without trying to be sarcastic or "flame" you (I'm really not), your first comment above shows a lack of understanding of reality and common sense. Most Americans have this trance-like mindset where we seem to think our present lifestyle is some God-given entitlement, and anything that threatens it (real or not, backed up by facts or not) is treated as utter nonsense, rejected completely. You may or may not fall into this category, and I don't want to blanket you if it doesn't apply, though I hear echoes of it in your statements above.

We simply can't imagine our present lifestyle and culture and basis of civilization changing drastically, because we've never known anything otherwise. But that's not a defense, just as closing our eyes and ears and repeating "lalalala I can't hear you" will not affectively keep something unpleasant at bay. It's a strange form of denial, and I speak as one who was once strongly affected by it. I know better now, and I suggest we all awaken ourselves and start paying closer attention.

Economic principles will not always be the driving force. It's not like Tickle Me Elmo, where somebody will always be willing to pay some stupid price to buy it from someone else willing to sell. At some point, the energy expended to get the oil out of the ground will surpass the energy gained. In other words, it will take more than a barrel's worth of oil to get a barrel out of the ground. Up to and including that point, yes—it's economics. However, if nobody drills for it any more, since there are no massive profits to be made due to the difficulty in retrieving and processing the last remnants, or if we run all the known fields bone dry, then there will be no more supply... period. And as I alluded to above, everything we've come to count on as "modern civilization" will change in some way or another.

To be more specific, here's a quote from The Long Emergency (pg 67): "The ratio of energy expended in getting the oil out of the ground to the energy produced by that oil in the U.S. oil industry has fallen from 28:1 in 1916 to 2:1 in 2004 and will continue falling." What happens when it hits 1:1, or worse? No company in their right mind will continue to pump oil out of the ground and lose money on every stroke. That's economics, and it will directly affect availability from that point on, period.

One other thing Kunstler talks about in the book is the myth of all these alternative energy systems. Think about it... at present, they're having trouble making a Prius that will haul two people and a suitcase up a hill at speed. How does that magically scale into a fully operational fleet of "hybrid" semi trucks capable of hauling goods across the country in any reasonably foreseeable decade? (It doesn't.)

The oil companies want us to believe there is a lot of undiscovered oil, because it's good for inflating their stock prices based on future "profitability." The facts prove otherwise. Based on real scientific data (which Kunstler references in detail), we've pretty much found all the oil there is to be found, at least all that is even remotely accessible. No new fields of any significance have been found in recent decades.

Please, friends... read the book.

Of course, for now... let the coal roll! I'm just saying we need to be aware of where things are headed and plan accordingly, each as he sees fit. Disagree if you like, but you better be damn sure of yourself if you choose not to prepare.

 

One last thing... regarding the mention of Al Gore and others. Folks, they're all asshats. I don't care what side of the aisle they say they're on, most all of them are simply tools used to sway the mass population (aka "sheeple") whichever way this fascist system wants them to go. You have to look outside all the mainstream crap. Trust neither side. The truth is often in between, or sometimes farther left, sometimes farther right. But rest assured the truth is never with these media/political/celebrity darlings.

</rant>

 

All the oil apparently has not been discovered. On the news about 2 weeks ago they mentioned the discovery of an oil field off the coast ofSouth Americathat is estimated to be larger than all the rest of the oil fields around South America combined.

As for running out of oil. Personally, I've read a lot about this and I am not confident all the scientists have any better idea about the limits of oil than anyone else. I've been hearing for a lot of years that we're on the verge of running out of oil and guess what? It hasn't happened yet. Demandhas increased exponentially and we are pumping oil out of the ground today at rates we never dreamed of just 15 or 20 years ago.

I wonder if anyone has ever considered that oil is still being "made" in the earth's innards? It's not like all those plants (oil comes from dead plants, not dinosaurs as is often believed) all died at the same time, made one batch of oil and that's it.

It is possible our use of it might exceed the ability of the earth to provide it, but does anyone really know? I don't think so. A lot of the estimation is nothing more than hyped up guessing based ona lot of extrapolated data gathered with instruments that are often lacking in accuracy due to the state of the technology.

If that doesn't convince you, then consider this as well, the scientific communitycan't even agree on this "global warming" thing. One side is crying the death knell for the environment, the other is simply saying "calm down, this is normal"...the question is, which side is correct? Both sides have "overwhelming" evidence for their case. So, what makes anyone think the keepers of the oil secrets are anymore correct?

It's also no big secret that this country worships money and big business in America thrives on "crisis" situations. Create a crisis and business is good. And in fear of insulting or angering certain politically positioned folks out there, the left wingers are often the culprits for this fear based control. Play on the social fears and gain power. Hillary is right now playing that card with her socialized health care plans, the baby bonds, etc.Scared peopleare far more willing to do what you want them to do if they think you have their welfare in mind.I've heard the term "sheeple" many times and I'm afraid it applies to the averge American more and more every day.

So, bottom line for me, I'm not convinced we are on the verge of running out of oil at all. I'm not convinced global warming is a real issue. They say necessity is the mother of all invention, so I plan to drive my beast as long as I can. Use the damn oil, use it up!If it runs out, we'll all be amazed at how quicklyreplacement technologies find their way onto the market. Of that, I have utter confidence.

 

I don't think oil comes from dead plants or animals I think it's just a substance in abundance throughout the universe. What was that moon out near Jupiter where NASA sent a probe and it was practically a sea of hydrocarbons? And what about all the shale oil reserves the United States and Canada have out west?Aren't those the largest reserves of their kind in the world? Isn't it economically feasible to extract that stuff? Or what if private enterprise gets into the space thing and actually starts exploiting other moons and planets in our solar system? The sky is not falling.When push comes to shove a way will be found.

 

Just saw a deal the other night talking about fusion and the fuels we use to do it. The issue with fusion reactors and providing power from it has more to do with the durability of the reactor interior than the ability to actually start and control the fusion process. The fuels currently used (radioactive isotopes that are waste materials from our current nuclear facilities) produces huge amounts of neutronsand they erode the interior of the reactor quickly. The show said a fusion reactor, using the current fuels, would onlylast around 3-5 years and have to be replaced. In other words, the cost savingsand environmental issues of fusion would eat themselves up due to reactor rebuilds that would be required.

On the upside, they know of another fuel that produces far less neutron emissions during the fusion process...helium 3...the problem is, helium 3 does not naturally occur on earth in sufficient quantities and is only obtainable, again as a by-product of current nuclear processes. However....a company has been set up by Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17 astronaut and the only scientist-astronaught to fly on all the Apollo missions...he was a geologist) and another fellow, I forget the name. Anyway, their company is exploring the possibility of mining helium 3 from the moon. Schmitt discovered, over 40 years after the Apollo program ended, that the moon rocks and indeed the moon, holds vast quantities of helium 3.

A scientist in Sweden, or was it Norway? I forget, anyway, this scientist has done helium 3 fusion and has shown that it is definitely a viable fuel for the fusion process and for long term reactor durability. The only problem is, getting enough helium 3.

The difference in fission and fusion processes for producing power is amazing. Fusion processes would require miniscule amounts of fuel material compared tothe fission processes we use today. An immediate offshoot of that process would literally be nano-scale reactors (a proven technology) to be used to power everything we have. Imagine a "battery" for lack of better terms that is nano in scale, yet lasts years without ever having to be replaced.

Anyway....none of that has anything to do with oil, soooo....

Technologies exist and have existed for a long time as viable alternatives to oil, the problem is always money. Large corporations are too heavily invested inoil for a short term paradigm shift. Alternative power sources will make their way to the market and will ingrain themselves into our society slowly over time as the big companies slowly shift over. They are going to suck every last penny from their current tech before they make a move. The cost to switch to new fuel or power sources would be huge. The corps have to manage that carefully to avoid going out of business since the margins these days are razor thin. It's the standard corporate business model of the information age.....