Fossil Fuels 100 years from now?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Locked
Topic Author
RJR00
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:06 am

Fossil Fuels 100 years from now?

Post by RJR00 »

The "in" thing now, as it was in 2008, and the early 80's, and the mid 70's, is to say that we have to conserve oil. But the USA has 200 years+ of fossil fuels it can use and not be dependent on foreign entities. I maintain that in 100 years, we won't need fossil fuels. Just think, 100 years ago, 1911, there was about 500 miles at most of paved roads, a Model A was a luxury, and most people got around by horse and carriage or feet. What will the world be like in 100 years from now? I envision Nuclear or Hydrogen powered vehicles that hover instead of roll. GPS, or its' future evolution, will require no driving and built in guidence will avoid any accidents. It just seems silly to me to be dependent on others when we have the resources to be self dependent now. Being self dependent now will sure make the USA a better place.
Buster
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:29 am

Post by Buster »

Progress may well continue in the steep curve as it has in the...say...last 150 years. I do wonder if the "curve" will flatten and so many of the things we imagine will ever happen and be useful in a practical/everyday sense.

With the humongous supplies of natural gas, I often wonder why there seems to be so little interest for now - not 100 years from now.

It'll be interesting; too bad I won't be around to see it. OR, maybe not....
User avatar
wshang
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:40 am

Post by wshang »

You may be interested in this podcast interview with:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/nobel_prize_winners/
Robert Laughlin of Stanford University and the 1998 co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about energy use and the future of the earth's climate. Drawing on his forthcoming book on energy, Laughlin predicts that we will continue to use cars and planes and electricity long after coal and petroleum are exhausted and speculates as to how that might play out in the future. The conversation concludes with discussions of other concerns of Laughlin's--the outlawing via legislation and taboo of certain forms of knowledge, and the practice of reductionism rather than emergence in the physical sciences.
He makes the point that the Iron Age did not end because of an iron deficit. His insight into ramifications of rapid technological innovation and our limited horizon greatly influenced my view of this subject. My once media induced pessimistic view has once again been dispelled.

That said, I am not sure what RJR00 means by the last sentence. It seems rather nationalistic. (I don't want to get this thread locked by saying what I feel is the real threat to world peace and harmony.) Any future technology able to be disruptive will have global ramifications. Already technology exists to convert biomass into petroleum.
Topic Author
RJR00
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:06 am

I am just saying

Post by RJR00 »

in 100 years fossil fuels will be no longer needed. What kind of computer did you have 20 years ago in 1991? What kind of cell phone? Just let the mind open up and see what the next 20-100 years might possibly bring? Technology is great
chaz
Posts: 13604
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:44 pm

Post by chaz »

A vanishing commodity - alternative sources will be developed.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52105
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Post by nisiprius »

There are limits to natural resources, even if it is difficult to predict, or to set policy in the presence of strong commercial interests that would be affected by restrictions.
Herman Melville, in 'Moby-Dick' wrote:Comparing the humped herds of whales with the humped herds of buffalo... would seem furnished, to show that the hunted whale cannot now escape speedy extinction.

But ... though so short a period ago—not a good lifetime—the census of the buffalo in Illinois exceeded the census of men now in London, and though at the present day not one horn or hoof of them remains in all that region; and though the cause of this wondrous extermination was the spear of man; yet the far different nature of the whale-hunt peremptorily forbids so inglorious an end to the Leviathan.

Nor, considered aright, does it seem any argument in favour of the gradual extinction of the Sperm Whale, for example, that in former years (the latter part of the last century, say) these Leviathans, in small pods, were encountered much oftener than at present, and, in consequence, the voyages were not so prolonged, and were also much more remunerative. Because, as has been elsewhere noticed, those whales, influenced by some views to safety, now swim the seas in immense caravans, so that to a large degree the scattered solitaries, yokes, and pods, and schools of other days are now aggregated into vast but widely separated, unfrequent armies. That is all. And equally fallacious seems the conceit, that because the so-called whale-bone whales no longer haunt many grounds in former years abounding with them, hence that species also is declining. For they are only being driven from promontory to cape; and if one coast is no longer enlivened with their jets, then, be sure, some other and remoter strand has been very recently startled by the unfamiliar spectacle.
The whales outlasted Melville's time, but they were not inexhaustible.

The leather trust logged off almost every hemlock in the East--leaving the logs where they fell and stripping off only the bark. When the hemlock ran out, they switched--to chestnut!

We have found substitutes for all of these things, but the United States Leather Company, one of the original Dow Jones Industrial companies, is no more.

Oil will last a while, but it will be interesting to see what happens when the helium runs out, probably in less than two decades.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
bpp
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:35 am
Location: Japan

Post by bpp »

nisiprius wrote:it will be interesting to see what happens when the helium runs out, probably in less than two decades.
It will spell the end of the mighty airship era. Mark my words.
User avatar
Imperabo
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:00 am

Post by Imperabo »

I don't know what the point is of talking about this without considering global warming ramifications.
xerty24
Posts: 4827
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 3:43 pm

Post by xerty24 »

Hopefully we'll finally get fusion to work in the next 50 years, which will solve both our power and helium shortages. Sure we have 200+ years of coal reserves but I can assure that a visit to Beijing will cure you of the desire to live in such a coal-powered world. Estimates are that Chinese crop production is down by 30% due to air pollution blocking out the sun...
SP-diceman
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:17 am

Post by SP-diceman »

After they clone dinosaurs, the problem will be solved.

You cant throw a motor home on a horse, but you can strap one to a brontosaurus.
(of course the young sporty types will drive a T-Rex convertible)



Thanks
SP-diceman
TheEternalVortex
Posts: 2576
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:17 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by TheEternalVortex »

nisiprius wrote:The whales outlasted Melville's time, but they were not inexhaustible.

The leather trust logged off almost every hemlock in the East--leaving the logs where they fell and stripping off only the bark. When the hemlock ran out, they switched--to chestnut!

We have found substitutes for all of these things, but the United States Leather Company, one of the original Dow Jones Industrial companies, is no more.

Oil will last a while, but it will be interesting to see what happens when the helium runs out, probably in less than two decades.
The only resources we've ever run out have been the "renewable" (i.e., living) resources. Kind of ironic given all the worries about oil et al.
xerty24
Posts: 4827
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 3:43 pm

Post by xerty24 »

TheEternalVortex wrote:The only resources we've ever run out have been the "renewable" (i.e., living) resources. Kind of ironic given all the worries about oil et al.
That's only because human society hasn't had the means to scour the world for ever last whale, sea bass, or oil reserve until relatively recently. There are plenty of examples of smaller societies short-sightedly using up an entire vital resource and either dying or reverting to primitivism. The Easter Islanders for example cut down every tree on the island, thereby losing the ability to make wooden canoes necessary for fishing (their primary food source). This didn't end well, as on a small island there are few alternatives. In the end, they were eating rats and each other. Something to keep in mind lest you blindly think that problems "somehow always get solved," as they may not get solved in a way you'd like.
User avatar
graveday
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: Upstate Calif. near Sacramento

Post by graveday »

Somewhere in the Mideast a Magus said, "My father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son flies a jet, his son will ride a camel."

Is there a link to info about crop reduction in China due to air pollution?
User avatar
jidina80
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:05 pm
Location: Fiji

Post by jidina80 »

Imperabo wrote:I don't know what the point is of talking about this without considering global warming ramifications.
More violent storms, be they tropical cyclones or snow blizzards, result from the fact that warmer air holds more moisture.

Apparently we can't discuss 'global warming' as a possible cause on this forum per previous censored topics/posts, but we hear you.

Just.
xerty24
Posts: 4827
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 3:43 pm

Post by xerty24 »

graveday wrote:Is there a link to info about crop reduction in China due to air pollution?
Sorry I can't seem to find the exact article for you, as it was from the Economist a few years back. Here are a few relevant parts (not sure if you'll be able to read the article for free) on China's pollution problem:
Economist wrote:Heavy industry requires huge amounts of power. Steelmaking, for example, uses 16% of China's power, compared with 10% for all the country's households combined. By far the most common fuel for power generation is coal. So more steel mills and chemical plants mean more acid rain and smog, not to mention global warming.

These are not just inconveniences, but also an enormous drag on society. Each year, they make millions sick, cause hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, sap agricultural yields and so on. Pan Yue, a deputy minister at the government's environmental watchdog, believes that the costs inflicted by pollution each year amount to some 10% of GDP.
From another Economist article,
Economist wrote:The OECD cites a finding that air pollution alone reduces the country's output by between 3% and 7% a year, mainly because of respiratory ailments that keep workers at home.
This is a lower figure, but appears to be expressed as a % of the whole country's output, rather than looking at the higher local impact of the pollution.

Here's a different article on Asian pollution impacts:
...air pollution in Delhi decreased crop yields by 30%... Air pollution, in the form of acid rain, can be transported hundreds of miles by wind before being deposited through fog, rain or snow. The acidic deposition damages buildings, degrades the environment and reduces crop yields. In India, wheat growing near a power plant suffered a 49% reduction in yield compared with that grown 22 kilometers away.
User avatar
graveday
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: Upstate Calif. near Sacramento

Post by graveday »

Thanks, Xerty, a yeoman effort. These are not surprising numbers, but they are sobering. I wonder how much the San Joaquin Valley of California suffers by comparison from similar problems.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52105
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Post by nisiprius »

bpp wrote:
nisiprius wrote:it will be interesting to see what happens when the helium runs out, probably in less than two decades.
It will spell the end of the mighty airship era. Mark my words.
How about the mighty MRI era?
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
Allocationist
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:32 pm

Post by Allocationist »

Another example of the enlightened American view while those foolish Chinese are buying up energy assets throughout the world.
User avatar
Imperabo
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:00 am

Post by Imperabo »

Allocationist wrote:Another example of the enlightened American view while those foolish Chinese are buying up energy assets throughout the world.
We get accused of economic imperialism when we do that.
User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 6906
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Fossil Fuels 100 years from now?

Post by bottlecap »

RJR00 wrote:It just seems silly to me to be dependent on others when we have the resources to be self dependent now. Being self dependent now will sure make the USA a better place.
This is the nut. We would not be better off if we were self dependent. Fossil fuels purchased from other countries is less expensive than being self sufficient, therefore we benefit greatly. It is politically fashionable to say we should be self sufficient, but it would be economically inefficient and we would be worse off in the sense that we would be poorer.

If self sufficiency was so great, we would all grow our on food, make our own clothes and there would be no trade within a country, no less outside its borders.

JT
Locked