Oil spill continues to grow

Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, but that, in turn, would cause a global economic collapse that, even if you think environmental damage is bad, you probably want to avoid.

An abrupt end to the oil which powers the economies and societies of all of the integrated and globalized nations, ie the world, would be akin to us jumping, technologically, back to before the age of rail. Every aspect of our economy and society would fail, and the necessary local infrastructure that could support a non-globalized economy is non-existant. It would almost certainly be another dark age, but with no Baghdad to send all of our books to this time.

I think they just have the word "oil" as the definition for "necessary evil" in Webster's now.

It will be bitter tasting medicine indeed, but when all is said and done, we will be off oil. Sometimes cold turkey is the only answer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It will be bitter tasting medicine indeed, but when all is said and done, we will be off oil. Sometimes cold turkey is the only answer.

damn, you are hardcore

edit: hardcore like this:

YouTube video

Originally posted by inimalist
damn, you are hardcore

😆 I swear, it sometimes look like that is what is going on in some people's minds.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😆 I swear, it sometimes look like that is what is going on in some people's minds.

yes, we call these people "bad asses"

because, you know, they don't give a ****

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, we call these people "bad asses"

because, you know, they don't give a ****

Well, at least we have finally filled the hole, and we have canceled all future drilling. See the progress you can make from just one disaster? Imagine if we had two or three. We could get ride of all oil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, at least we have finally filled the hole, and we have canceled all future drilling. See the progress you can make from just one disaster? Imagine if we had two or three. We could get ride of all oil.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
That's just for now, same with the high security at airports after 9/11. Everything will turn back to "normal" in a few days/weeks/months. As sad as it is...

as sad as what is?

ok, here, your perfect world: All oil has been removed from the planet. What do we do now?

Its a 30 min walk to the nearest grocer, where the fresh food is rotten and not arriving anytime soon since there are few, if any, real local farms, the closest being probably a couple of days by horse. I might have water, I certainly have no ability to communicate to the police or family if Im in trouble, the police are back to horseback and foot patrol, and their is an ever decreasing supply of bullets to control population densities unheard of in a time before the modern one.

like, convince me here (forgetting the fact that oil funds my nations economy) that no oil on the planet is good for me and my life?

Originally posted by Parmaniac
That's just for now, same with the high security at airports after 9/11. Everything will turn back to "normal" in a few days/weeks/months. As sad as it is...

Then someone has to do something before its too late.

Originally posted by inimalist
as sad as what is?

ok, here, your perfect world: All oil has been removed from the planet. What do we do now?

Its a 30 min walk to the nearest grocer, where the fresh food is rotten and not arriving anytime soon since there are few, if any, real local farms, the closest being probably a couple of days by horse. I might have water, I certainly have no ability to communicate to the police or family if Im in trouble, the police are back to horseback and foot patrol, and their is an ever decreasing supply of bullets to control population densities unheard of in a time before the modern one.

like, convince me here (forgetting the fact that oil funds my nations economy) that no oil on the planet is good for me and my life?

We need to reduce the worlds population anyway.

not in canada

Originally posted by inimalist
as sad as what is?

ok, here, your perfect world: All oil has been removed from the planet. What do we do now?

Its a 30 min walk to the nearest grocer, where the fresh food is rotten and not arriving anytime soon since there are few, if any, real local farms, the closest being probably a couple of days by horse. I might have water, I certainly have no ability to communicate to the police or family if Im in trouble, the police are back to horseback and foot patrol, and their is an ever decreasing supply of bullets to control population densities unheard of in a time before the modern one.

like, convince me here (forgetting the fact that oil funds my nations economy) that no oil on the planet is good for me and my life?

Hopefully ITER will be a succes in the next years for the energy of countries that would be a big step forward.

Originally posted by inimalist
not in canada

Is that the Canadian motto?

Originally posted by Parmaniac
It was more meant that the industrial world is not investing enough in new tech imo and maybe sees this event as a wake-up-call. And oil WILL run out sooner or later, of course some stuff will still requiere oil even in the future but we should start reducing the need of oil as much as possible. You seem to keep on wanking on oil like it's the holy grail and an infinity energy source. Of course our current world completely relies on it, does that mean we should be that wasteful till it completely ran out and there's nothing left? No.

Hopefully ITER will be a succes in the next years for the energy of countries that would be a big step forward.

but, with populations polorized against nuclear and nothing else at maturity, what do you want?

environmental tests are already underway for wind and solar, but as I said before, there are no new technologies that have zero downsides.

ITER is nice, but the downside of that is that we have to start building fusion stations where gas stations are. It is awesome to have that power in a single place (though it still costs far too much to run the machine), but how does that fix the problem of cars? or of lawn mowers? sure, these are insignificant compared to industry costs, but is every building that requires power going to build their own fusion plant?

ok, so then we need some sort of high tech batteries that hold a charge from these fusion generators. At this point, batteries are way more harmful to the environment, in construction and disposal, than is gas. Also, how many compeating battery companies do you think there will be? Fusion is not going to open up free energy, because it is almost certainly going to be controlled by a small cabal of energy companies, I'd imagine many of them the same ones who control energy today.

So, in a fusion world, we have born the brunt of a transition to a much more expensive power source that requires us to buy polluting and expensive batteries (likely controlled by a select group of corporations), and might require the installation of high energy fusion reactors as ubiquetous as gas stations are today. This ignores the fact that most of the hydrogen on earth is stuck in water, meaning, with fusion, we are essentially saying that our oceans are our new fuel supply, unless we now have to add an aditional infrasctucture of people who synthesize hydrogen from evaporation or whatever, either way, we disrupt the balance of the water cycle.

see the problem here is that some ppl here as simply being dismissing ppl'ss post and in a condescending attitude.... is it a fact that oil is a finite source? yes. are we looking to replace it in our foreseeable future? yes.

is anyone saying we will stop using oil right away? no.. no one is saying we need to go to the dark ages if we stop using oil.. that is just being disingenuous and dismissinve of ppl's arguments.. and it needs to stop.

ppl are simply saying we havent invested enough in alternative fuels.. do we have small companies and research working on it? yes.. can we increase funding? most definitely.

the problem with oil that it will be gone in the next couple 100 yrs if not sooner. it is destructive to our environment..

their are plenty of alternative fuel source if things came to worse it may not be as efficient but we sure are not going back to the dark ages over night if we stop using oil... water, hydro electricity, geo thermo, algae, corn, vegetable oil can all be used as fuel .. some ppl here need to grow up and stop straw mannings ppl's arguments and opinions..

overall jobs will always be lost due to progress and if today or tomorrow some one invented cold fusion or cheap and possibly even free energy alternative then ppl's jobs should be lost and it shouldnt be used as an excuse to keep progress from happening ppl can always find new work it may not be what they want but if they have to go back to farming and picking fruit then suck up the pride and get to it.. b/c sooner or later things will once again stabilize look at the industrial age how many jobs open and failed overnight.. how many companies now remain b/c of it.. transition isnt always smooth but ppl shouldnt fear it or try to stop it..

the problem isn't that there are no other energy sources

it is that they are ineffective and not mature enough to meet the needs of modern nations

EDIT: or in the case of nuclear, it scares the shit out of people

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is that the Canadian motto?

I'll see if I can make it stick

Originally posted by inimalist
is every building that requires power going to build their own fusion plant?

The answer to that is a very firm maybe.

At the moment there is a company working on designs for 100+ MW nuclear fission generators about the size of standard door and a less than a meter deep. They plan to sell bundles by 2012 and single units by 2015, I think. Someone could come up with a way to do fusion on the same scale (hopefully it won't take 50+ years).

Originally posted by inimalist
So, in a fusion world, we have born the brunt of a transition to a much more expensive power source that requires us to buy polluting and expensive batteries (likely controlled by a select group of corporations)

But why would we need more batteries than before?

Originally posted by inimalist
ITER is nice, but the downside of that is that we have to start building fusion stations where gas stations are. It is awesome to have that power in a single place (though it still costs far too much to run the machine), but how does that fix the problem of cars? or of lawn mowers? sure, these are insignificant compared to industry costs, but is every building that requires power going to build their own fusion plant?

ok, so then we need some sort of high tech batteries that hold a charge from these fusion generators. At this point, batteries are way more harmful to the environment, in construction and disposal, than is gas. Also, how many compeating battery companies do you think there will be? Fusion is not going to open up free energy, because it is almost certainly going to be controlled by a small cabal of energy companies, I'd imagine many of them the same ones who control energy today.

Well I only would use ITER (or it's cncept) as an alternative for houses (stationary stuff) etc. of course not cars, planes & ships. But this alone would already be a big leap into the right direction.

I disagree with the point who controls these reactors, a country could build them from taxes and run them on their own, that would in fact save money for a lot of working people. Instead of paying their electricity bill they pay a bit more taxes to finance the reactor/s.

Well I agree with you that we can't just go and say "Hey from now on we don't use oil anymore, cause it sucks"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The answer to that is a very firm maybe.

At the moment there is a company working on designs for 100+ MW nuclear fission generators about the size of standard door and a less than a meter deep. They plan to sell bundles by 2012 and single units by 2015, I think. Someone could come up with a way to do fusion on the same scale (hopefully it won't take 50+ years).

interesting...

What do they plan to do with the waste though?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But why would we need more batteries than before?

because they would now be the primary source of power in vehicles than a secondary source. They would have to hold a much bigger charge.

Its like why electric battery cars aren't really an ecological replacement to gas powered ones.

Then there is the highly relevant issue that, as your fuel empties, gas powered cars run more efficently (less weight), whereas there is an exponential loss in function as a battery loses charge. Obviously this can be accounted for if need be, but I'd say we should probably be looking for a better alternative than "battery car". Even an exhaustive gas powered public transportation system...

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Well I only would use ITER (or it's cncept) as an alternative for houses (stationary stuff) etc. of course not cars, planes & ships. But this alone would already be a big leap into the right direction.

I disagree with the point who controls these reactors, a country could build them from taxes and run them on their own, that would in fact save money for a lot of working people. Instead of paying their electricity bill they pay a bit more taxes to finance the reactor/s.

Well I agree with you that we can't just go and say "Hey from now on we don't use oil anymore, cause it sucks"

actually, as it stands now, fusion power is so expensive that any nation which built a generator would run at a huge loss unless they increased the cost of power relative to the cost of the technology, driving up the price of fusion fuel to a point where most people would probably choose to go back to gas.

for as much as people ***** about it, gas is awesome.