when the worlds oil runs out
 

[quote]Today, the extrasomatic energy used by people around the world is equal to the work of some 280 billion men. It is as if every man, woman, and child in the world had 50 slaves. In a technological society such as the United States, every person has more than 200 such "ghost slaves." [/quote]

when the oil runs out, who is going to pick up the slack of these 200 'Ghost Slaves' for Americans ?? Obviously the extrasomatic energy may be picked up in some part by beasts of labour and other hydro sources but there will be a massive shortfall, which by industrial design and consumption habits will crush the American population like a gnat

Nuclear.

gas
coal
solar

by the time it does happen there will be plenty of alternatives and by then solar tech should have advanced quite a bit.
The real prob is plastics we can get the energy from plenty of other sources.

One of the things that has made capitalism a success (in terms of survival) is it's ability to be driven by new technology. I don't doubt that something will take the place of oil.

My bet is on hydroelectric for electric infrastructure and biodiesel for automobiles.

You do realize that we get relatively little electricity from oil, right?

[QUOTE=Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]You do realize that we get relatively little electricity from oil, right?[/QUOTE]
Affirmative. What I was expressing was an opinion that humans would come to rely on hydroelectricity for power infrastructure. This is a generally energy-related thread, so it's not extremely out of place to mention such a thing.

[QUOTE=Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]You do realize that we get relatively little electricity from oil, right?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, as a percentage of the energy thats in oil, we get nothing, but oil is so energy rich it doesnt matter.

[QUOTE=fenwood]when the oil runs out, who is going to pick up the slack of these 200 'Ghost Slaves' for Americans ?? Obviously the extrasomatic energy may be picked up in some part by beasts of labour and other hydro sources but there will be a massive shortfall, which by industrial design and consumption habits will crush the American population like a gnat[/QUOTE]
Do you have a source for your information?
And what's with the hating on America?

When the world's oil runs out, we're going to run on Gak.

[QUOTE=EinzingerIsGod]One of the things that has made capitalism a success (in terms of survival) is it's ability to be driven by new technology. I don't doubt that something will take the place of oil.[/QUOTE]
the problem of capitalism is that the economic technology will succeed and not the ecological one which causes more problems than it solved in the long run.
nuclear power, for example. where should all the waste go?
put it in a rocket and shoot it into space?

[QUOTE=Aw3someman]Do you have a source for your information?
And what's with the hating on America?[/QUOTE]
He rarely does.
And he's fenwood, what do you expect?

[QUOTE=Timm]the problem of capitalism is that the economic technology will succeed and not the ecological one which causes more problems than it solved in the long run.
nuclear power, for example. where should all the waste go?
put it in a rocket and shoot it into space?[/QUOTE]

Which is why I said in terms of survival. Whether it is doing harm or not, it is in fact surviving at some level.

The end of oil will undoubtably change it in a marked way, though.

That LPG gas stuff

[QUOTE=Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]You do realize that we get relatively little electricity from oil, right?[/QUOTE]

Everything we use is related to oil in some way. Food, medicine, gasoline, uranium, everything. Besides, after peak oil we're going to have to run cars on something, but what? Not ethanol because it takes more energy to produce the ethanol than you get from burning it. Hydrogen is only an energy storage mechanism. Biodiesel is the same. Electric cars need to charge up somehow, and where will that energy come from?

A lot of the electricity we produce now is produced in natural gas plants. The problem is that natural gas reserves have already peaked. The price of nat gas has gone up 300% in 5 years. Hydroelectricity requires a specific set of circumstances and has environmental impacts of its own. Nuclear energy is not only hugely expensive, but nuclear waste is the most toxic substance on earth and we can't even store it properly, not to mention that uranium is non-renewable and has its own peak. It also requires fossil fuels to mine uranium.

[QUOTE=fenwood]when the oil runs out, who is going to pick up the slack of these 200 'Ghost Slaves' for Americans ??[/QUOTE]

The Mexicans. You gringos are shooting yourself in the foot by not letting them in.

Nuclear power plants are going to be the power provider when oil runs out. That's probably one of the reasons why Iran also wants it as they know oil won't be there forever.

Hopefully countries will get into solar power more.

[QUOTE=dei]When the world's oil runs out, we're going to run on Gak.[/QUOTE]

That was the coolest thing ever back in my day :)

What is Gak?

[QUOTE=PepsiMetal]Nuclear power plants are going to be the power provider when oil runs out. That's probably one of the reasons why Iran also wants it as they know oil won't be there forever.

Hopefully countries will get into solar power more.[/QUOTE]

Nuclear power isn't a solution. It's expensive, dangerous, and creates far-worse biproducts than carbon emissions. Besides, it isn't a sustainable solution. Uranium is non-renewable and requires oil to mine. It also poses huge problems with nuclear proliferation.

From [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power"]here:[/URL]

Uranium is a common element, occurring almost everywhere on land and in the oceans. It is about as common as tin, and 500 times more common than gold.

Generally, a nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than an equivalent coal-fuelled or gas-fuelled plant. However, coal is significantly more expensive than nuclear fuel, and natural gas significantly more expensive than coal - thus, capital costs aside, [B]natural gas-generated power is the most expensive.[/B]

So if it's the most common element, it doesn't matter if it's not renewable. By the time people use up all of it, they're bound to invent newer technologies.

It is dangerous, but that's a risk people take anyday anyways.

What about meltdowns, terrorist risks and waste?

Whatever they're doing about those things now works I guess.

"As of May, 2006, 30 countries worldwide were operating 441 nuclear plants for electricity generation."

I mean nuclear power plants are pretty common even today.

Another good fact about nuclear power:

"The average capacity factor for U.S. nuclear plants was 89.6 percent in 2005, compared to coal at 72.6 percent, natural gas at a range of 15.6 to 37.7 percent (depending on the kind of plant), heavy oil steam turbine at 29.8 percent, hydro at 29.3 percent, wind at 26.8 percent, solar at 18.8 percent, and geothermal at 75.5 percent."

That statistic is bit dodgy. It's not like governments are investing equally in solar, wind, water and atomic.

I used to live in Leiston, about two miles from nuclear power station Sizewell B. According to research, the surrounding towns and countryside had a higher-than-average background radiation.

[QUOTE=coheneran]What about meltdowns, terrorist risks and waste?[/QUOTE]

We've reached a very reliable level of engineering to ignore the risks of meltdowns and even most terrorist attacks.

The effects of the waste are cummulatively much less harmful than the largescale emissions we create with other fuels.

I don't see the problem in just cutting down our energy usage and fuel usage and changing to more natural and sustainable energy-production. There's no going back on global warming, but we should at least try and cut back on any more damage.

Well, I personally support that motive, but unfortunately most Americans wouldn't unless they had absolutely no choice.

They do now, but their grandchildren won't.

[QUOTE=PepsiMetal]From [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power"]here:[/URL]

Uranium is a common element, occurring almost everywhere on land and in the oceans. It is about as common as tin, and 500 times more common than gold.

Generally, a nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than an equivalent coal-fuelled or gas-fuelled plant. However, coal is significantly more expensive than nuclear fuel, and natural gas significantly more expensive than coal - thus, capital costs aside, [B]natural gas-generated power is the most expensive.[/B]

So if it's the most common element, it doesn't matter if it's not renewable. By the time people use up all of it, they're bound to invent newer technologies.

It is dangerous, but that's a risk people take anyday anyways.[/QUOTE]


Are uranium isotopes as common as tin? Because those are what's fissed, not standard uranium. Also, you need a LOT of uranium to run a reactor, not just the trace elements that can be found in the environment. And even if uranium is cheap in raw form, it has to go through an extensive refinement process before use in a reactor. And imagine if we converted all natural gas, coal, and oil-fired plant to nuclear. Do you know how much more quickly we'd burn through the uranium we have? And once it's used, where do we put the waste? There is no responsible way to deal with it. And we'd still be reliant on oil to mine the uranium.

And I'm pretty sure nitrogen is the most common element on earth, or perhaps carbon. Don't quote me on that, though.

And is it a risk people would take if they knew the realities of it? I doubt it, especially if the number of nuclear reactors were doubled or tripled. Besides, don't you think people should get to decide whether they want a nuclear power plant in their neighbourhood?

The only solutions to the world's energy problems are renewable sources, conservation, and totally rethinking the way society is organized.