2422 Shares

Why is nobody talking about peak oil?

Why is nobody talking about peak oil? Topic: Why is nobody talking about peak oil?
June 20, 2019 / By Alysia
Question: People seem oblivious to this problem and think that oil will last forever and we can continue this 'wonderful' way of life we have forever. Peak oil will occur within the next few years and after that it will become very costly to extract, and soon will be worthless to extract. That process will happen in less than 40 years, and there are NO alternative sources to replace oil. Nothing can meet the energy demands we have today with 6.5 billion people in the world. Energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric will never meet demands. Nuclear will never meet demands, as we would need 10,000 more plants in less than 40 years. Coal won't work because of the energy required to liquify it. Hydrogen is a joke. Biofuels are a joke. And don't give me that crap about Oil Sands in Canada or Oil Shale in the American West. These fuels are extremely financially and energetically intensive to extract, and there's not nearly enough to supply the world's demand for very long.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Why is nobody talking about peak oil?

Victor Victor | 9 days ago
You're right, but it's actually much much worse than you say--the real problem with running out of oil isn't energy, it's plastic. Synthetic, oil-based compounds are absoutely critical for countless industries, from automotive to bio-technology. Some of these are completely irreplaceable--especially in the bio-tech field, you can't just use rubber or metal for a plastic part that is designed to go inside a person's body.
👍 266 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? Why is nobody talking about peak oil? Share with your friends
Victor Originally Answered: Why is nobody talking about peak oil?
You're right, but it's actually much much worse than you say--the real problem with running out of oil isn't energy, it's plastic. Synthetic, oil-based compounds are absoutely critical for countless industries, from automotive to bio-technology. Some of these are completely irreplaceable--especially in the bio-tech field, you can't just use rubber or metal for a plastic part that is designed to go inside a person's body.

Rowland Rowland
Well i think there are 2 answers to this question. The first is that some people are trying to talk about it. All of the alternatives you offer are out there mostly because at one point someone thought it might be a possibility to replace oil. The number of people talking is growing all the time with (now) even some college courses dedicated to addressing this problem. As an example Miami of Ohio offers a course dedicated almost solely to energy problems such as these. The second and more unfortunate answer is an economic one. No one is dealing with peak oil yet because as yet it isn't cost efficient to do so. The processes you mention could all potentially be solutions with MUCH improved technology, but the major energy corporations are unwilling to invest in this technology because oil is just so profitable. The only hope (at least as far as this logic is concerned) is that once we hit peak oil, then oil prices rise and it becomes less cost efficient to avoid investing in alternative energy sources. Once it becomes cost competitive to invest in non oil energy sources the same economic logic which has led to our oil glut could also become the solution.
👍 110 | 👎 2

Mordecai Mordecai
U are 100% wrong.U don't understand where our original fossil fuels came from do u . That bad CO2 is the start of the Recycle of our air and the removal of CO2 from our air. The plant absorbs the CO2 and it keeps the C and give us back the O2 . Now look at the other side of the cycle on the C side. The C accelerates the plants growth and the plants get large and then winter comes along . The leafs fall off and wash down the rivers to the delta where they will decompose to form Gas ,Oil ,and Coal . The only problem is where Mother nature hid it this time. We will never run out of fossil fuels . Mother has a built in recycle system .
👍 102 | 👎 -5

Keaton Keaton
I guess it's not WELL known, 'cause they have been saying those things for so long. And if your're saying 40 years into the future, I think in that time we will have alternative sources, like water for fuel. Answer me this, riddler. How is it that I have found the most amazing technology probably in human history and people just come on my site to look around? It takes just a wee bit of effort, nothing special. Maybe if I made it into a video game. I mean when does adolescence end in America anyway? http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Emotionalintell/ I am available to help anyone get it, even if I have to knock it into their little heads. It's real simple you just have to do it. It takes a while to notice the difference, but it is like a seed, it grows and grows. I just want to dump the tech so I can do something else. How would you feel if you invented a way for cars to run on pollution in the air and no one paid you any attention. Mucho baddo. Pedophiles get more attention for heaven sakes. What a crazy world. Hey, that makes me think, one thing people could actually do too is just reverse their thinking. Everything you think, think the opposite. See how that would work? We could think ourselves out of this mess we are so proud of. One guy, an aquaintance of a very good friend did that to think his way out of a mental hospital. See any comparison. Where do you think I think I am when I go on chat rooms. I could think of another word for them. I went on the other night and I was so depressed, I felt like I wanted to give up on the whole human race, if the US is the best minds in the world. I would say that we are losing the war for men's minds. They're losing theirs before we get started. To seriously ask why we don't do anything is funny. It's called impotence. Haven't you seen all the ads? Ideological war. No one has lifted a weapon. Too busy "getting to know you.'' Don't you need an idea in an idealogical war? Does any citizen have one, don't even mention the leaders, they are way out of the race. A side benefit from this technology is actually having more fun as an adult than as a child. Used to be there were some rewards for growing up. Oh, well. It's strictly voluntary.
👍 94 | 👎 -12

Heber Heber
Many fundamentalists don't plan on being here much longer, that's the scary thing. They are not concerned because they believe Jesus is going to come and take them to paradise. Our neighbors who voted the fundamentalists into power because they are scared of "terror" can not think long term anyway so the two go hand in hand. This is why the media is not going on about it. People care about the environment and natural resources but they don't like to hear about it because the only solution is to change their own behavior. Someone will have to take action on those that keep polluting the atmosphere. Can you imagine if Canada just kept dumping trash over the border into the US? I agree with an earlier write that petroleum needs to be reserved for plastics, but then think about how we waste that. People actually by 1L of water in a permanent and usually recycled package made from oil. This is a travesty worse than SUVs. Evolution has a plan (even for those who do not believe in evolution) that will solve the problem and that is a world-wide pandemic. We have been lucky so far that these have been relatively benign forms of things we've already seen but I think the world's population will see a drastic reduction before we have to resort to squeezing oil out of shale.
👍 86 | 👎 -19

Eliot Eliot
"Coal won't work because of the energy required to liquify it." wrong. Fisher-Tropsche refining has worked since German war machine was powered on it in the 40's, China and S Africa make enourmous amonts of oil from FT processing. "Energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric will never meet demands." wrong. There is enough wind on the US plains to completely power the electrical grid of the USA if fully exploited with current technology. "Nuclear will never meet demands, as we would need 10,000 more plants in less than 40 years" Wrong. Nuclear power presently provides the US with about 20% of our electrical needs with just over 100 stations. So 400 more nuclear stations would be enough to replace all other sources of electrical energy. "And don't give me that crap about oil sands in Canada or Oil Shale in the American West." Canada has more oil than Saudi Arabia and the American Rockies have about 4 times the Saudi oil fields in the form of shale. FT processes can harvest these, but if you wish to just wave your hands and give up, I guess you can continue to be wrong.
👍 78 | 👎 -26

Chauncey Chauncey
Actually, there is a lot of oil left and it will not run out anytime soon. The problem is global warming that comes from the CO2 produced by the combustion of oil. There is consensus among scientists on both these points. We must find alternatives to burning oil such as efficient solar and other technologies. Even then, we will still need oil, but not for fuel. We are very dependent on oil for plastics which are used in manufacturing almost everything today.
👍 70 | 👎 -33

Alvred Alvred
2 part answer. 1 People have been predicting peak oil any year now for 20 years. Don't hold your breath. 2 Some combination of all the alternate sources you dismissed, plus conservation and new sources we have not discovered yet, will take off when oil gets expensive enough.
👍 62 | 👎 -40

Alvred Originally Answered: Should we be talking to the enemy as the Brits are proposing?
Talking to the enemy? You mean the American people? The Brits aren't proposing that, are they? The US is no good at diplomacy. Nobody wants our capitalism, our lack of civil liberty we call 'freedom'. The dark world of the Realists, that they used to scare the population into weapons funding, has worked all too well. It is within this world that neither political party disagrees. Neither poses any principled opposition to a rogue Executive; both support the ends, and don't mention the obvious, the fait accompli, the withdrawal of the weapons inspectors (Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, etc) and the invasion of the oil fields of the former British oil colony they named Iraq. The US doesn't ahve the knack for diplomacy. Fact is, after the US gets ahold of liberty and democracy and rule of law, nobody else in the rest of the world wants much to do with it. Not one other nation in our 225 year history has any other nation willingly adopted our style of government. Most choose the far more democratic republicanism of proportional representation, rule closer to consensus. Such failure by the ruling class to broaden civil liberties, and in their unwavering pattern of opting for order over justice (ably assisted by their 'liberal press' lap-dogs) is not a coincidence or by accident. A Police State is much more to the liking of American business elites, The billions of tax money supporting over 750 (many quite lavish by US standards) military bases in practically all of the countries on the planet, is a colonial military empire. When anyone is a potential dissident, everyone is suspect. The huge sums poured through the Pentagon and supporting all of those bases have NOTHING to do with the the defense of the US. But if you're a Realist, you live in a world that assumes anarchy, and the worst nature of man. Certainly, man is capable of great evil, but that does not exhaust man's abilities or drives. But as a capitaist, all resources must have price tags, and available for sale to the highest bidder. Everything becomes as a commodity. Everything will have its price, even Justice. The US maintains, at tremendous expense, a military Keynes-ian system, which socializes the cost of weapons research, and earns income through the fomenting and arming of allies and officail enemies alike. After all for the Realist, it's win-win-win. War is good for business; Surplus people are dying, making fewer people after the scarce resources; The ruling class keeps the important spending decisions of the Republic secret, under the cloak of 'executive privalege' or 'national security'. Let's not forget that the CIA is a branch of the Executive and serves at the direction of the President. We are mistakenly given the impression by the liberal media that the CIA is some kind of rogue organization, when it is not. It makes no decisions, only supplying information and formulating 'plans' as the President may direct. When the American people are successfully convince that there are dangerous drug lords and tyrants (spontaneously generating in that tropical climate, it would seem) in the aftermath of the Monroe Doctrine, where no other foreign power can be blamed, that inconvenient fact is quickly forgetten. How quick the US intelligencia was to point the finger at the former USSR for the state of their former Republics. No criticism can be found in the liberal media for even worse conditions in the US's vassal banana republics with US-trained and financed death squads, torture instructors from Georgia's School of the Americas to indoctinate and train foreign quislings to act as another nations' prison guards for the Masters in the North. The colonels must be wined and dined, and be at the ready in case the officer corps are needed to effect a military coup in case the puppet leader gets too big for his britches, and shows signs of independence. The US master's CIA and State Dept., the mailed fist of the Pentagon, will have none of it, always at the ready. Ways less obvious, ways more subtle against the real enemy, the domestic population, are used to keep us distracted from such things. We argue Republican or Democrat, and meanwhile the theives have already left the building. The ruling class just sends in the clowns. Forget that the money that could be going to provide everyone a decent life in the so-called greatest country on earth. Forget that the reason your roads are awful and you have no healthcare or pay the world's highest prices for medicine. Forget that our cities falling apart, that our poor are poorer, our rich are richer, and comprise a smaller percentage than corrected for by population. Forget that we spent millions and billions on things whose sole purpose is to kill or threaten to kill. Other than that, it is pure wasted money. Getting atop the oil in Iraq to shut off the supply makes good strategic and economic sense. It allows the US to disregard the old contracts with Germany and France, and control the strategic resource. Notice how the US has turned off the spigot to raise oil prices. The fact is, there has been an oil glut for a very long time now, but since the 1970s, the oil corps have 'wisely' not built any refineries, so the 'scarcity' results in higher prices. Why should the US want higher oil prices? Because the value of the US dollar is based on petroleum, and when the price of oil rises, the value of the dollar rises. Any capitalist empire must control strategic resources, that's the key to state military capitalism, the socialized kind we have in the US, at any rate. The State Dept.'s job is to forestall negotiations, and accuse the enemy du jour of being 'unrealistic', when I'd bet the opposite is really the case. The US is surrounding China with bases, and Iran is next. It also will allow for a shorter pipeline for UnoCal. Win-win. The US is reaching the limits of its support for the military. Social needs have gone unmet for decades, sacrificed first on the altar of anti-communism, now on the altar of anti-terrorism. Both parties administrations, when faced with the necessity of budget cuts, cut the social programs, and maintain or increase Pentagon spending. This has had a significant eroding effect over time, which again, is no accident. So, final answer, no the US should not talk to its enemies. It's a charade, and everyone knows it. The US is going to do what the US wants to do, and will manufacture and believe all the evidence it can.

If you have your own answer to the question Why is nobody talking about peak oil?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.