Arithmetic

[winsor 186]

I came across this website that shows that our oil usage is down and known reserves are up.

Great.

My problem is comparing daily use to known reserves.

If you multiply the daily use of ~18 million barrels by 365 you get like 6.9 billion barrels a year consumption.

Our known reserves are ~30.5 billion barrels according to this analysis.

Assuming the decimal point is in the right place, our current rate of consumption - reduced though it may be from its historical peak - is sufficient to burn all the oil we are sure that we have in less than 4 1/2 years.

If this is the case, anyone who thinks that carbon emission is our biggest problem can rest assured that it is a self correcting problem. Finding gasoline for your Hummer, OTOH, might be a problem in the not too distant future.

Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think.


BSBD,

Winsor

[cvfd1399 0]

All estimates I have seen was 50 years till oil(all hydrocarbons) production is cut in half, and 100-150 years till all hydrocarbons are exhausted.

[winsor 186]

cvfd1399

All estimates I have seen was 50 years till oil(all hydrocarbons) production is cut in half, and 100-150 years till all hydrocarbons are exhausted.

Source?

You may be looking at total world production, but that does not count for much if you do not live where the oil is.

If the US of A is to be self-sufficient, it sure as hell will not be on the basis of any large reserves of petroleum of any kind.

The fact that other countries have 'proven oil reserves' does not help us unless they are willing to send it to us indefinitely in return for an endless stream of IOUs. I would not.


BSBD,

Winsor

[cvfd1399 0]

True that was world production

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/07/09/how-many-years-of-oil-do-we-have-left-to-run-our-industrial-civilization-keeping-in-mind-that-oil-is-a-resource-and-has-an-economical-end/

[rushmc 18]

This topic is interesting to me
Why
It was said 20 years ago that we would be out of oil by today (dont ues the exact numbers as I am just trying to set up the point)
and I also just heard a radio interview where the engery expert stated that what we know of for natural gas will last a 100 years even if usage doubles!! and this is just what he says we know of today

My overall point is, these numbers are at best a guess

As new technologies are developed (an example being fracking) once hard to get supplies are being tapped

So, to me, this is just another alarmist attempt at trying to scare people to thier way of thinking
Winsor, my comments are not aimed at you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[winsor 186]

rushmc

This topic is interesting to me
Why
It was said 20 years ago that we would be out of oil by today (dont ues the exact numbers as I am just trying to set up the point)
and I also just heard a radio interview where the engery expert stated that what we know of for natural gas will last a 100 years even if usage doubles!! and this is just what he says we know of today

My overall point is, these numbers are at best a guess

As new technologies are developed (an example being fracking) once hard to get supplies are being tapped

So, to me, this is just another alarmist attempt at trying to scare people to thier way of thinking
Winsor, my comments are not aimed at you

The bottom line is that our reserves of fossil fuels are finite. We have gone through the easy to obtain sources, and are going after the more difficult to extract sources.

The good news is that there are significant amounts of the difficult to extract sources of petroleum type stuff, and we are getting better at getting to it.

The bad news is that there is less of it available than we tend to use.

If people living elsewhere have lots and lots of oil of any type, that does not do us much good. At some point they are sure to realize that we are giving them nothing but worthless paper (electronically speaking) in return for their resources. At that point it will be more difficult than trying to be repaid by a junkie.

We are so far behind the power curve economically that it does not make a hell of a lot of difference when all is said and done. Nevertheless, it would be nice if we made any significant headway towards long term self sufficiency.

It can be done, but the likelihood that we will pull it off is vanishingly small.

I wish I was wrong, but I'm not.


BSBD,

Winsor

[cvfd1399 0]

I vote solar we have at least 4 billion years left of that stuff. I also vote not to mandate, but make it reallllly appealing to recycle everything especially things made out of plastic, and anything with limited resources like specialty metals in electronics.

[billvon 2,400]

>All estimates I have seen was 50 years till oil(all hydrocarbons) production is cut
>in half, and 100-150 years till all hydrocarbons are exhausted.

With the eternal caveat "at current prices."

We could generate all the carbon-based fuel we'd ever need from garbage, water, air and power. (Say lots of nuclear plants, or solar if you prefer.) It would be astronomically expensive but the raw materials are literally inexhaustible, since you'd just return them to the place you got them.

[cvfd1399 0]

Yea I think we are at the point if we take what metals, plastics, glass, etc we have and recycle it properly instead of stashing it in a drawer, or throwing it in a landfill we could do alot of good. We will still require the power to reprocess these goods, but things like induction furnaces to melt recycled metals should be able to be powered by giant solar farms.

[wmw999 2,123]

And wouldn't it have been nicer to have started thirty years ago, like the hippies and ultra liberal weirdos who believed in Earth Day did.

Not specifically directed at you. If you have a seven-year-old, you probably weren't born when Earth Day started in 1970 or so

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[cvfd1399 0]

Ive been to an earthday, does that count

[champu 1]

winsor

If this is the case, anyone who thinks that carbon emission is our biggest problem can rest assured that it is a self correcting problem. Finding gasoline for your Hummer, OTOH, might be a problem in the not too distant future.

I tried to make a similar point earlier this year...

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4617733;#4617733

With the limited quantities, geopolitical implications, and large number of uses of fossil fuels in the economy not just as fuels, why are effects on climate of the CO2 that burning them releases the focus of so much debate?

It's past time to move on to other arguments in favor of reducing fossil fuel consumption.

[jcd11235 0]

champu

With the limited quantities, geopolitical implications, and large number of uses of fossil fuels in the economy not just as fuels, why are effects on climate of the CO2 that burning them releases the focus of so much debate?

Not every oil producing country is blowing through their reserves as quickly as we are. When the US runs out of oil, Americans aren't going to just stop using fossil fuels.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[champu 1]

jcd11235

***With the limited quantities, geopolitical implications, and large number of uses of fossil fuels in the economy not just as fuels, why are effects on climate of the CO2 that burning them releases the focus of so much debate?

Not every oil producing country is blowing through their reserves as quickly as we are. When the US runs out of oil, Americans aren't going to just stop using fossil fuels.

With a response like that I'm really curious as to what you think I meant by that and what you assume my stance on the matter is...

[jcd11235 0]

champu

******With the limited quantities, geopolitical implications, and large number of uses of fossil fuels in the economy not just as fuels, why are effects on climate of the CO2 that burning them releases the focus of so much debate?

Not every oil producing country is blowing through their reserves as quickly as we are. When the US runs out of oil, Americans aren't going to just stop using fossil fuels.

With a response like that I'm really curious as to what you think I meant by that and what you assume my stance on the matter is...

From my original reading of your post, I inferred that you thought we would run out of fossil fuels and the problem would take care of itself. Reading again suggests that may not have been your intended message. Apologies.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[champu 1]

No worries. I'm not perfect at written communications, no one is.

[councilman24 36]

Hey, I have 6 and 8 year old girls and definitely remember earth day in junior high!

Which just means I'll never live long enough to hand grand kids back to parents.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[champu 1]

By the way, since this thread is about fossil fuels...

In a couple other threads recently you've referred to yourself as "car-free" which... I... just...

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm a bicycle commuter myself but on a scale from one to hipster, that's a really douchey thing to say.

[jcd11235 0]

champu

By the way, since this thread is about fossil fuels...

In a couple other threads recently you've referred to yourself as "car-free" which... I... just...

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm a bicycle commuter myself but on a scale from one to hipster, that's a really douchey thing to say.

Car-free is meant to imply that I have no car by choice, not because I'm too poor or because I've lost my license. I just prefer getting around by bike or foot, even in the inclement weather. It's a common term to refer to people like myself. Sorry you feel it's "douchey."

I'm way too old to be a hipster, though. Plus, I don't have a beard, have no star tattoos, refuse to drink PBR, don't ride a fixed gear bike, and, most importantly, don't wear my sister's jeans!

Fastest speed of 50.75 mph? Wow. That's hauling ass, especially considering your average descent is only 20 ft!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[champu 1]

jcd11235

Car-free is meant to imply that I have no car by choice

Oh no, no... that's understood... everybody understands that...

[jcd11235 0]

champu

everybody understands that...

Experience tells me that is far from true.

Except in cities with very high population density, most Americans assume that every adult wants and needs a car, and have trouble understanding how anyone could possibly get by without one.

What if it rains/snows?
How do you buy groceries?
What if you need to get out at night?
What if you have a flat tire?

Then there's the "It's not possible to get by without a car in [name of city]" folks. (It is, inevitably, not only possible, it's not even difficult.)

To a great deal of Americans, bicycle, at least absent a Lycra costume, implies poor, not preferred option.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[champu 1]

jcd11235

***everybody understands that...

Experience tells me that is far from true.

I meant everybody understands the distinction you're trying to make with the term "car-free." You didn't have to explain it further. It's still a douchey term.

jcd11235

To a great deal of Americans, bicycle, at least absent a Lycra costume, implies poor, not preferred option.

Who cares?