# We were forewarned in 1963, weren't we?



## Waterboy (Sep 20, 2011)

In 1963, a German scientific institute compiled an encyclopedia of technology, “Wie funktioniert das?” (How Does it Work?). Perhaps we should have paid more attention.

The book, revised in 1967 to the English edition, “The Way Things Work,” is a layman’s guide to how a multitude of then-new contrivances worked – everything from sonar and radar to typewriters and television tubes. In its 581 pages, the book dedicates a page of text and a two-tone (red and black) facing page of diagrams for each topic.

I picked up my volume some years ago for 50 cents in a used-book store. It’s the sort of book I’d have loved as a child and figured I’d find useful, or just plain entertaining, as an adult.

Flipping through it last night, I came across a topic that disturbed me. Unlike, say, the two-page spread on pumps that takes up every line of its text limit, this particular topic – petroleum – used just half the page. I couldn’t understand why a matter of such grave importance earned only two paragraphs.

Then it occurred to me. Nearly every invention illustrated throughout the book relied on fossil fuels in some way for its manufacture, use or both.

The authors begin by relating how 300 million years ago, the conditions were right for forming petroleum in shallow coastal waters by the teeming tiny creatures and plants that lived and died there in vast numbers. 

Following climatic changes, the coastal areas became buried under earth, and the organic remains were subjected to high pressures and temperatures over millions of years. The fats, carbohydrates and proteins decomposed and underwent extensive chemical changes, eventually forming mineral oil.

OK, simple enough. But, here’s the disturbing part. Buried in the middle of the page is this paragraph:

“The world’s petroleum reserves are estimates at upward of 40 milliard (billion) tons, and production is running at well over 1 milliard tons per year. Unless extensive new deposits are found (under the seas, in desert regions), it seems likely that the world’s recoverable reserves of petroleum will be exhausted in something like half a century from now.”

The book goes on to list the vast variety of wonderful products made from petroleum: gasoline, fuel oil, rubber, pesticides, fibers, solvents and drugs.

Oddly, the final sentence reads: “Large-scale exploitation of the world’s petroleum reserves started about a hundred years ago and is now a major factor in the power resources available to modern man.”

Anyone else find this troubling?


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm sure peak oil has been discussed here before. Based on what I've read and seen, we are living in peak oil right now. This is the beginning of the long decline. Time will tell.


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

FatTire said:


> I'm sure peak oil has been discussed here before. Based on what I've read and seen, we are living in peak oil right now. This is the beginning of the long decline. Time will tell.


I have been watching this issue for awhile. The experts are all over the place on predictions a peak oil. It could be now, however some experts say we have another 20 years. Just last week I heard that a large discovery of oil had been found in a place where no one thought that it could be. So I would guess that the last of the oil has yet to be discovered.


----------



## TopTop (Nov 11, 2011)

Sorry, wrong forum.


----------



## Waterboy (Sep 20, 2011)

What surprised me about the book entry from 1963 is that no one cared about the oil limit. We just went on making and using things that require oil. We built our lives around them with no thought that someday the plug would be pulled. It makes no sense to me.


----------



## ONEOLDCHIEF (Jan 5, 2012)

I do not trust the "they say oil is running low crowd". We all watched the BP well GUSH oil for 100 days under pressure. They capped it and walked away, WHY?


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

FatTire said:


> I'm sure peak oil has been discussed here before. Based on what I've read and seen, we are living in peak oil right now. This is the beginning of the long decline. Time will tell.


If in fact we have reached a plateau, we are in for a short decline down.



Tweto said:


> I have been watching this issue for awhile. The experts are all over the place on predictions a peak oil. It could be now, however some experts say we have another 20 years. Just last week I heard that a large discovery of oil had been found in a place where no one thought that it could be. So I would guess that the last of the oil has yet to be discovered.


The world discovers new oil all the time... but, the peak discoveries occured almost 50 years ago. The oil we are discovering today, is the much much more difficult to get to and process oil.


----------



## Elinor0987 (May 28, 2010)

*It's only a matter of time.*

Sooner or later we will run out of oil since it isn't a renewable source of energy. The city I live in has a lot of similarities with other cities across the country. The downtown and surrounding areas are full of houses and buildings that are about a hundred years old and some of them are older. When this city was first being built, most of the people didn't own cars. Some of the houses don't even have driveways and a lot of the houses around here have to share a driveway with their neighbors because they didn't plan for that when these neighborhoods were being built.

Back then you could walk out your front door and literally only walk a few blocks to a school, church, store, bank, hospital, and probably to your place of work. We used to have a shoe factory, soap factory, and many other commercial buildings here that employed a lot of people in the community. All of your basic necessities were within walking distance.

The infrastructure of the city was originally designed to accommodate life mostly with the absence of automobiles. Over the years that has all changed and now there's not much you can do anywhere without a vehicle to get you there. If we ever have a severe oil shortage, we will eventually have to go back to that plan but the adjustment will be difficult.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

Peak oil is a lie.there is a growing community of scientists who say it takes decades, not millions of years to make oil.some university was able to render down bio waste in the 70's into a useable hydrocarbon equivalent that could be turned into fuel just as easy.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Magus said:


> Peak oil is a lie.there is a growing community of scientists who say it takes decades, not millions of years to make oil.some university was able to render down bio waste in the 70's into a useable hydrocarbon equivalent that could be turned into fuel just as easy.


As a degreed chemist i can tell you there there is "no growing community" that says that.
I never heard of anyone say that, not even the fringe clowns the oil companies hire to obfuscate the issues.

Its possible to make Oil like stuff out of coal and that will be our workaround that but that expensive polluting greenhouse gas intensive.

yes it's possible to turn "bio waste" into something that may be useful for fueling but there is no "just" about it.

A more efficent version of this, is, ethanol production from corn and there are MANY inefficiency problems with that as well... at best you break even in energy oil equivalent.

Sometimes I think these discussions would be so much easier if everyone had a physical science background ...


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

Supposing it's true that it takes only decades, even at current rates of consumption, which increase every year, (and that rate of increase will only go up as china becomes increasingly westernized), it takes days or weeks to use what it takes decades to make. All this means even if your experts are right and mine are wrong, world oil production must eventually decline.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

What I cite in my post is things I've read and heard from main stream scientific sources.there's plenty of oil.what do you do when you want to sell something? tell everyone that's the last there is of it!even limit its consumption like crowder peas at Kroger, limit two per customer etc.know anybody who eats those things?I don't but when the sign goes up they sell out of them.


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

I will respectfully disagree, sir.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

BlueZ said:


> As a degreed chemist i can tell you there there is "no growing community" that says that.
> I never heard of anyone say that, not even the fringe clowns the oil companies hire to obfuscate the issues.


A friend of mine in the oil industry is a believer in adiabatic oil. BUT, he says we are still using substantially more then the earth is capable of producing.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

The GAO's head of natural resources said that the U.S. has recoverable oil shale "about equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves." It wasn't front-page news, however, because it doesn't fit the liberal narrative and favorite talking point that the U.S. only has "2 percent" of proven global oil reserves.

Maybe we should start calling such people "hydrocarbon deniers," since only a puritanical fixation prevents the *sensible exploitation* of our own energy resources. (Maybe we should call them "Energy Prohibitionists" as well as "hydrocarbon deniers," since China and everyone else is going to make use of their hydrocarbon energy.) And anyone who persists in using the "2 percent" talking point again (that would include President Obama) deserves to be labeled an anti-science flat-earther.  :nuts:


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Oil shale is certainly an important reserve tho only a fraction of that number cna be extracted with current tech and no new tech is on the horizon.

But is also EXPENSIVE to get out. not just in pure dollars but also in that remaining land will not in our lifetimes ever be usable for anything else such as agriculture..and will reamin a moonscape.

We do have a lot of coal though.
Coal liquefication is a well proven technology , that even though it produces extra green house gas ( frankly my sense is we are past the tipping point on warming anyway), it may be able to stabilize gas prices in the 6 dollar range if we invest in it in time on a large scale.

6 dollars is more than what we pay now but still chepa enough to not dramatically alter our society.

Europe has been dealing with 6-8 dollars for decades and people still drive.
( Tho teenager and retiree driving is unheard unusual due to cost)

What I am worried about is lack of investment in these kind of course and the suddenly we ahve lots more money chasing very little oil in 5-10 years and we see 200,300 dollars a barrel.
Some countrys will then completely check out of being bale to feed their people as food coasts will multiply with such high oil cost.

All over the world billions of PPL spend 90% of thier income on food.
Imagine the triple wammy, of oil at 3 tiems the price, droguth everywhere and the wars for the reaminng resources...

A LOT of people will die this century due to famine and not just in the 3rd world.


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

Wierd, first you cut a government source, the you go on to imply that the current government is unreliable. Color me confused.

This thread is quickly degenerating.

Problem with shale is diminishing return on investment. Next problem is, if you take into account the exponential growth of demand, your talking about a few years worth of oil, and not cheap oil at that. 

Best case is, we have a bunch of oil, and china doesn't. That seems like a problem to me.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

Blob,

The shale oil reserves are only partially recoverable with today's technology. How partially is in huge dispute. There's also the question if the current technology is environmentally safe. I'm tending towards there's significant environmental issues with pumping dangerous chemicals and massive amounts of fresh water into the fields.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

I think this is just what the greedy corporate overlords want, confusion and dissension.

Anyone realize that the diesel engine was originally designed to run on coal dust?or that grain dust at one time was considered a viable substitute? as dedicated survivors its our duty to know such forgotten trivia.hell,why don't we just make our own fuel?it's hydrocarbon based after all,it can't be that hard!the Germans in WW2 were close.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Magus said:


> IHell,why don't we just make our own fuel? It's hydrocarbon based after all,it can't be that hard!


Please go take a semester of college level organic chemistry, and complete it with an "A" average class grade. (I have)

Once that is complete, we will be able to discuss hydrocarbon molecules and how to rearrange them to create different ones.

It just isn't *that easy*


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

Magus said:


> I think this is just what the greedy corporate overlords want, confusion and dissension.
> 
> Anyone realize that the diesel engine was originally designed to run on coal dust?or that grain dust at one time was considered a viable substitute? as dedicated survivors its our duty to know such forgotten trivia.hell,why don't we just make our own fuel?it's hydrocarbon based after all,it can't be that hard!the Germans in WW2 were close.


WHY bother? :dunno: ... we already have one KNOWN organism that creates 'fuel' of which the only 'refining' that needs to be done is mechanical extraction (pressing): *Sapium sebiferum*, a.k.a. the Chinese tallow tree or candleberry tree! It is a tremendous candidate for the production of biodiesel because it is the third most productive vegetable oil producing crop *in the world*, after certain algae and oil palms. I personally consider it #1 for the multiple reasons of ease of cultivation, areas it can grow in, and ease of oil extraction. The sad thing is that it is considered to be an invasive species in the U.S. 



LincTex said:


> Please go take a semester of college level organic chemistry, and complete it with an "A" average class grade. (I have)
> 
> Once that is complete, we will be able to discuss hydrocarbon molecules and how to rearrange them to create different ones.
> 
> It just isn't *that easy*


I *had* a retort, but decided I didn't need to prove how big my D!CK was to some anonymous random on teh interwebz.

But I'll summarize:

"Brag after you've SUCCESSFULLY defended more than THREE theses before you turn 25" 

Oh, wait, I forgot to add the phrase: MAGNA MAGNA SUMMA


----------



## efbjr (Oct 20, 2008)

*A solution?*

Check out this website:

http://www.hypersolar.com/

They are working on processes to make alcohol, biodiesel and hydrogen using salt ponds, sunlight and algae. You can subscribe to their free newsletter.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

The_Blob said:


> I *had* a retort, but decided I didn't need to prove how big my D!CK was to some anonymous random on teh interwebz.
> but I'll summarize:
> "brag after you've SUCCESFULLY defended more than THREE theses before you turn 25"


Dude, who cares?? Brag away. It won't ruin my day.

HOWEVER - - No one believes a bragger that doesn't provide *proof*.

Without solid evidence, we will just add the unproven braggers to the pile with the rest of the "200 MPG carburetors" that don't function. None of this is directed towards you, by the way; just anyone who makes such grandiose claims but never backs them up with evidence.

And by the way, you spelled " SUCCESFULLY " incorrectly. You also started a sentence with a conjunction... and did not capitalize the first letter. That hurts your credibility.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

LincTex said:


> And by the way, you spelled " SUCCESFULLY " incorrectly. You also started a sentence with a conjunction... and did not capitalize the first letter. That hurts your credibility.


"You must not start a sentence with a conjunction" has been the mantra of many an exasperated English teacher, especially since the masses started receiving state education. Any pupil brave, daft or naive enough to raise a hand and ask "Why?" would probably receive some Kafkaesque explanation along the lines of *"Because it is said".*

So now we're all grown up, I'll ask again - why? The honest answer is that there is NO REASON! It's just an arbitrary rule that's been passed through the ages. But all language is arbitrary, isn't it? Words and letters are but abstract concepts, the understanding of which can only come through the education of rules.

As usual with these issues, the argument is between the way English is used and the way it is "supposed to be". Sometimes a full stop is required to drive home a sentence or give a meaningful pause. And an afterthought like this one gets more impact when it's a sentence rather than a conjoined clause. So when someone tells you not to start a sentence with a conjunction, say:* "But I've already done it".*

I also would like to thank you for showing that I am the first person to miss a typographical error in a post, for allowing such a thing to pollute the forum is almost unforgivable. 

P.S.
Please note the (droll) joke in *bold italics*, AND my lack of proper capitalization throughout (as in most of my posts), also proper when using 'conversational' speech/text. My overuse of elipses is a particularly bad choice.

P.P.S. 
Asking someone to compromise their OPSEC (even more than I have)...  :lolsmash:

P.S.P.S. This entire post is accompanied by an  icon.


----------



## mojo4 (Feb 19, 2012)

Hey blob and linc, I can't keep up. You guys fightin or something? Once again you nerds have an argument and nobody knows if the insults were any good or not. Stick to your ugly and your mom is fat insults cause we don't know what you mean and I think magus is gonna hit you with his klingon war hammer!!


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

LOL!!! Yeah, ya know... I never give anyone any crap about spelling or grammar on message boards, but I figured what the hey... we're cool.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

mojo4 said:


> Hey blob and linc, I can't keep up. You guys fightin or something? Once again you nerds have an argument and nobody knows if the insults were any good or not. Stick to your ugly and your mom is fat insults cause we don't know what you mean and I think magus is gonna hit you with his klingon war hammer!!


If we ARE fighting then I :surrender:

I do NOT wish a Bat'leth colonoscopy! 

Actually, we're just being tongue-in-cheek 'cantankerous'.

It's also GREAT practice for 'troll bashing'.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

The_Blob said:


> I do NOT wish a Bat'leth colonoscopy!


Ewww..... that was not a good mental picture....


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

The_Blob said:


> I do NOT wish a Bat'leth colonoscopy!





LincTex said:


> Ewww..... that was not a good mental picture....


"I taste *metal*!!?!??!?!"  :lolsmash:


----------



## machinist (Jul 4, 2012)

My thinking on any issue that impacts my well being goes immediately to "what should I be doing"? 

I don't think there is much debate on the long term upward price trend of petroleum products and other forms of energy, WHATEVER the reasons behind it. So, if we can safely assume that our cost for a given product will be more dear in the future, it makes sense to me to deal with that now to the best of my ability. 

As to the topic at hand, whatever our individual opinions, the truth will come out eventually and those who were right about it will come out the best in the long term if they USED that knowledge to better themselves. 

Since our livestyles depend so heavily on fossil fuels, I would think that we need to be searching for truth in this matter. Presently, my bet is we have reached peak PRODUCTION RATES of petroleum, and demand is no better than stable, probably increasing somewhat. Price is not a good indicator of the supply/demand situation, with all the speculation and politics that impact prices. Those factors I expect to get worse instead of better, so the price issue will continue to be confusing. 

I think the crucial issue we face is going to be the cost of food production since we use far more calories of oil than we produce in food, so fuel costs have a huge effect on food costs. We cannot feed the present population without fuel inputs, whatever they may be. We have a narrow margin of excess food, if any this year, so we need to take a look at food production relative to energy.

My takeaway from discussions on oil supply since the early 1970's has been that I should arrange my life to get along with less of it. It is one more reason for me to produce our own food, provide what energy I can for ouselves, and reduce our energy needs where it is a paying proposition to do so.


----------

