Transport

slowburner

So how are folks going to get around when oil becomes too expensive or runs out?
Will an alternative form of power become viable?
Horses?
Bicycles?

Grizzly 45

Homebrew diesel,waste veggie oil,convert cars back to wood gasifier engines,homebrew alcohol and fuel mixes for petrol engines.[learn how to put a still together,one of the more important survival tools to have in your retreat.Everything from pure water for batteries to making moonshine for car engines,or partying:D is made from the stll].

For short distances possibly aquire a few golf cart buggies,or the deep cycle batteries[very valuable yokes those, for homebrew power sources].And rebuild them into an electric car design of a100 years ago.[Modern electric cars still havent improved much on the designs of the last century in terms of battery size,range or power].

Innovative designs have existed for years to convert car engines back to steam engines..Dont think an old steam engine type thing.A modern car steam engine doesnt look much different from a normal petrol engine.
Of course it is alot easier to do this if you have an old carberuetted engine with plugs and points than some modern DOHC fuel injected,blah,blah engine.So keeping an eye out for an old banger [1970] cars is advised.
Be awhile before we have to descend to ass& cart level again:pac:

Hibrion

+1 Grizz. If you have land a horse, and possibly a small, cart is a good alternative. It worked for long enough before there were cars and should work long after.

slowburner

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Homebrew diesel,waste veggie oil,convert cars back to wood gasifier engines,homebrew alcohol and fuel mixes for petrol engines.[learn how to put a still together,one of the more important survival tools to have in your retreat.Everything from pure water for batteries to making moonshine for car engines,or partying:D is made from the stll].

For short distances possibly aquire a few golf cart buggies,or the deep cycle batteries[very valuable yokes those, for homebrew power sources].And rebuild them into an electric car design of a100 years ago.[Modern electric cars still havent improved much on the designs of the last century in terms of battery size,range or power].

Innovative designs have existed for years to convert car engines back to steam engines..Dont think an old steam engine type thing.A modern car steam engine doesnt look much different from a normal petrol engine.
Of course it is alot easier to do this if you have an old carberuetted engine with plugs and points than some modern DOHC fuel injected,blah,blah engine.So keeping an eye out for an old banger [1970] cars is advised.
Be awhile before we have to descend to ass& cart level again:pac:

Woah, there's a lot here to think about - especially the still, but talking about that might not be a runner here. Unless of course we are talking about distilling water

I think we will probably have to think our way around electricity - that's going to get too expensive until there is no longer such a large percentage of it derived from fossil fuel sources.

Tabnabs

We'll all be long in the grave by the time oil runs out. It is finite of course, but it's a long way down the road.

Might be useful to breed whales just in case though...

slowburner

Tabnabs wrote: »

We'll all be long in the grave by the time oil runs out. It is finite of course, but it's a long way down the road.

Might be useful to breed whales just in case though...

We might be in the grave before oil completely runs out but we'll still be around before it becomes completely unaffordable.
Some of the merchants of doom reckon that peak oil was passed some time ago, others reckon 2014 - either way, and given the volatile state of the Middle East, it ain't going to get cheaper.
Some interesting figures here

Tabnabs

What was the fuel of the mighty industrial revolution? Coal. Did we run out of that? Nope.

You have to be sensible about these things. Here's a more measured piece

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf

Hibrion

Tabnabs wrote: »

What was the fuel of the mighty industrial revolution? Coal. Did we run out of that? Nope.

You have to be sensible about these things. Here's a more measured piece

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf

Coal is still used as a fuel to this day to generate electricity.

The so called "mighty" industrial revolution did not last long in the grand scheme of things. But, yes, we are running out of coal. It is a fossil fuel and there is only a finite amount of it left.

We haven't run out of it yet, or oil, but we will, soon. More importantly, the last remaining oil supplies in the world will, relatively soon, become un-economical to reach and extract.

A link to an un-referenced article doesn't change that.

When dealing with fossil fuels you need to be extremely careful what you read. PArticularly in the states there is a huge amount of money to be made for scientists and researchers willing to attempt to disprove radical climate change and fob the world off by saying we won't run out of oil.

It is pure BS. These people are paid by oil companies to do this. Unfortunately no such incentives exist for those whose research proves the opposite.

Grizzly 45

Hibrion wrote: »

Coal is still used as a fuel to this day to generate electricity.

Mostly in China where they havent got much of a shortage of it by the looks of things.

But, yes, we are running out of coal. It is a fossil fuel and there is only a finite amount of it left.

Well, tell that to the USA and states that have or border on the Acondriack range..It is one giant coal belt.So much in fact that were we to go back to burning coal instead of oil the USA would be the Sudai of world coal supply.

We haven't run out of it yet, or oil, but we will, soon. More importantly, the last remaining oil supplies in the world will, relatively soon, become un-economical to reach and extract.

Errr..Nope!! So called "light and sweet" crude is running lowish.Light and sweet is an oilmans term for easily refineable crude.Which is what 90% of the worlds oil is.There is still plenty of the stuff,more than we have to worry about.BUT the trouble is 90% of it is in the most unstable part of the planet..The Middle East!!Which is what I belive is more about "global warming".Simply a way to wean the West off our oil dependancy,until we develop a alt fuel to oil,so the Arabs will be back on their camels again.
Realistically,with modern extraction and drilling methods,oil companies are going back to socalled "disused " wells and are being able to draw oil from them again,especially in Texas. Then there are modern methods of recycling waste plastic and tyres using heat and soundwaves to break them down to refineable oil again.
Not to mind the private patents the Allies stole from Germany after the war:mad:. On things like synthetic fuels,synthetic oil,turning antrachite and coal into bunker,diesel and motor fuels.In fact they stole over twelve railway wagonloads of patents from the Reichpatentamt in 1945,and handed it out willy nilly to oil and pharmechutical companies to use or ignore as they saw fit. :mad:

A link to an un-referenced article doesn't change that.

When dealing with fossil fuels you need to be extremely careful what you read. PArticularly in the states there is a huge amount of money to be made for scientists and researchers willing to attempt to disprove radical climate change and fob the world off by saying we won't run out of oil.

Uh huh!! and on the other side we have Al "robot" Gore and company who have been proven to have admitted totally false information on the Global warming simulation the so called "hockey stick" graph???
The Un has had to rein them in and has said now that the "climate change" [NOTE it used to be "global Warming"] is still not provable.Going by the last three winters I think they might be right.After all a decade ago ol Al was assuring us that the winters were going to be tropical by now!!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It is pure BS

.
ABSOLUTELY correct!!!!:D

[

Unfortunately no such incentives exist for those whose research proves the opposite.

OH PLEEEEEZZZZEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is more than enough people and organisations and foundations pouring in the money into this farsical arguement on either sides to prove or disprove the theory.Its called pork barrel politics.About as common as lying senators on Capitol Hill.

Heres a little fact the planet itself produces over 90 BILLION metric tonnes of C02 and crud annualy,mostly from the oceans and rain forests from decomposition.Us grubby little humans at our most filthiest manage to produce 7 BILLION metric Tonnes PA[UN Stats of mid 1990s..So if it is UN it mUST be true!].So planet Earth hasnt got a carbon sink that can swallow another 7billion tonnes???

Thats not to say that we shouldnt go recklessy using up everything around us and dumping it into our oceans or athmosphere.
But I DO think a little bit of perspective of reality is needed on our role in this.
I mean putting a few hundred 4liter cars in a higher tax bracket in Ireland courtsey of that clown Gormley,isnt really going to cut it against four new coal burning power plants in China is it??

Grizzly 45

slowburner wrote: »

Woah, there's a lot here to think about - especially the still, but talking about that might not be a runner here. Unless of course we are talking about distilling water

Of Course!! Whatever you want to make in it is your affair..;)

I think we will probably have to think our way around electricity - that's going to get too expensive until there is no longer such a large percentage of it derived from fossil fuel sources.

Not too much ,belive it or not.It has now become a mainstaple of life that most of the civillised world cant do without it.
Ok,you proably wont have it on tap 24/7 to power every little gadget.But then we are going to have to make some serious life changes anyway.
Forget the bright lighs instant on heater,and plasma TVs and Xbox.They WILL be a thing of the past.
I doubt it will be beyond a small community to be able to rig up a homebrew power plant from a stream,a homemade windmill or looted solar panels.Just enough to keep a perimiter alarm going,a few lights and the radio,and maybe the ekg monitor in your local county hospital.
Even in the worst seige time of Sarajevo in the 90s people still kept the power running more or less in a major city by improvised homebrew methods.

Grizzly 45

Hibrion wrote: »

+1 Grizz. If you have land a horse, and possibly a small, cart is a good alternative. It worked for long enough before there were cars and should work long after.

Well, you dont need much land is right for keeping a horse here!! A good few in Moyross and Southhill and Ballymun keep them in their city back gardens.With the sulkies ,youd swear somtimes you were back in ancient Rome not 21st century Ireland!!:rolleyes:

Hibrion

Al Gore is far from the ideal example here. However, the scientists behind some of his work are un-bias and brilliant. I have done extensive research on this and met several and I can tell you plain and true there is NOT a lot of money to be had in it.
Sure, an Academic can make a living at it, but there are far easier ways to make a living than this and it certainly wouldn't be worth their while to falsify the data I have seen.

Global Warming and climate change are two different things. Climate change is a natural process that is absolute fact. Our climate has changed throughout history and will continue to do so. The problem is WE are affecting the changes in climate too much. The last few decades show the beginning of alarming rates of change that will spell bad things for us all.

As for Ireland's winters. An overall warming of our Climate will, believe it or not, result in colder weather in general for Ireland. The sciecne is too detailed for me to share here, but it will suffice to say that there are other factors to consider which include de-salinization of oceans and the loss of warming currents that keep Irish waters ice-free during the winter.

Believe me, I hate Gormley and those FF clowns as much as the next guy. We have all bashed them in the shooting forum about the crap they gave us >:(
However, I do think there should be tax incentives for those who contribute less emissions. I drive a bit of a gusler so I am included here.

A few hundred large engined cars won't make a difference on there own. The thing is that the entire world has to work together to prevent the worst. That's where the hard part comes. Trying to tell a third works country that they have to switch to using a different type of cattle or can't have their own "industrial revolution".

Survivalism is something that works on the micro and the macro. We need to think about keeping ourselves alive when the worst comes to the worst but we also need to think about the survival of our kids, and theirs for that matter.

Fossil fuels will run out. Oil will be gone possible by the end of our lifetime, definitely by the end of our kid's.

Your original post on biofuel, diesel and non-fossil alternatives is a great one. The thing is, it would be great if we, as a whole, could adopt that approach instead of fossil fuel now rather than when TSHTF.

Sad situation, but true.

BTW, I have no connection to climate research at all. I have no vested interest in it other than the survival of our planet. I'm a historian and my research, unfortunately, is far less important at this time

Grizzly 45

Hibrion wrote: »

Al Gore is far from the ideal example here. However, the scientists behind some of his work are un-bias and brilliant. I have done extensive research on this and met several and I can tell you plain and true there is NOT a lot of money to be had in it.

Damn right he isnt..Considering the big waste of energy pile he lives in and pontificates out of.Compared to his place GWB's ranch in Crawford Texas is a eco nuts wet dream.:)
Hmmm Guess Ted Turner[CNN],Green peace International,Friends of the Earth,Bono and X many multi millionares and orginisations [like belive it or not EXXON,they have a very good enviromental protection research unit ]are all short a few quid then??

Sure, an Academic can make a living at it, but there are far easier ways to make a living than this and it certainly wouldn't be worth their while to falsify the data I have seen.

Beg to differ...If your "living" was at stake?IE your grants and whatnot??

. The problem is WE are affecting the changes in climate too much. The last few decades show the beginning of alarming rates of change that will spell bad things for us all.

Who is this WE you speak of???As I said 80 Billion tonnes vs 7billion???
[
QUOTE]
As for Ireland's winters. An overall warming of our Climate will, believe it or not, result in colder weather in general for Ireland. The sciecne is too detailed for me to share here, but it will suffice to say that there are other factors to consider which include de-salinization of oceans and the loss of warming currents that keep Irish waters ice-free during the winter.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah the atlantic conveyor belt/gulf stream is slowing down because of melting ice caps ,etc etc etc.Thats the trouble with this Global warming/climate change ,as there is nothing to measure it against[bar Irish bog oak rings ,that show remarkably colder summers in medival times than now:rolleyes:]. S o the arguement can be ... Warmer Summers..Ah !Global warming..Colder Winters Ah! Global warming!
You are doomed like in a witch trial when they tossed you bound in the river.If you drowned...It was Gods will that an innocent drowned.If you rose to the surface..it is Gods will that shows you are a witch!! Recant now and be burnt at the stake!:pac:

Believe me, I hate Gormley and those FF clowns as much as the next guy. We have all bashed them in the shooting forum about the crap they gave us >:(
However, I do think there should be tax incentives for those who contribute less emissions. I drive a bit of a gusler so I am included here

.

So do I,and I point blank refuse to be socially engineered into what somone else thinks is an appropriate lifestyle.If you want to tax,tax it at the pump,and abolish the road tax.But our greedy govt wants it all ways,at the pump on the road and importing it.:mad:
In reality they will enginner their own social breakdown by over taxing the stuff,giving us no viable alts outside Dublin to move about efficently,and cripple themselves by being too greedy.
Only reason this stuff is expensive is speculation,unstability in the production area,and mostly Govt tax on it.

A few hundred large engined cars won't make a difference on there own. The thing is that the entire world has to work together to prevent the worst. That's where the hard part comes. Trying to tell a third works country that they have to switch to using a different type of cattle or can't have their own "industrial revolution".

But of course it is easier to bother the Irish motorist than go after the biggest political figure in Ireland,the farmer and his biggest Co2 producer, the methane producing cow!!:rolleyes:
Look fact is;we are 6million of a agricultural producing island.Whatever we do isnt going to make much of a dint in global warming or whatever you want to call it.also what right do WE in the west have to tell India or China.."Sorry folks but a vauge concept thats in vouge with us about the planet getting abit hot,and making polar bears homeless means you cant have a job or any luxuries we take for granted..Sorry."
Flock you Chollie!!I wanna big clar and TV set too!
Would be a very appropriate and deserved answer to anyone who would be bold enough to suggest this.

Survivalism is something that works on the micro and the macro. We need to think about keeping ourselves alive when the worst comes to the worst but we also need to think about the survival of our kids, and theirs for that matter.

Nope! you deal with whats around you..Not worry whats going on inthe next Continent.Ah yes the children!! Hmmm did your great grandfather worry about you??I doubt mine did very much when he was hoiking spuds in Cavan in 1890.Or on the German side, he was aquiring petrolum spirt for the new horseless carrige made by herr Gottleib Benz from his apotchery that he ran in Konigsberg,Schelisia[Now Kalliningrad Russia]:D
You cant save the world,you save the little bit that affects you.If you can teach your kids to survive,read write and figure a useable tradeable skill ,that will be an immense survival skill in their futures.Whatever comes down the line PTSHTF

Fossil fuels will run out. Oil will be gone possible by the end of our lifetime, definitely by the end of our kid's.

Sorry..RUBBISH!!Total and Utter!:p:pLight and sweet might by 2070.But there are as I said before more modern methods to get the stuff out of what were belived to be dry wells.We havent even turned to shale oil,or refining it out of coal or reclaiming it from plastic again.Only reason why not is it is too expensive now to consider,but in the future who knows.
Either way petrol will be around,bar a nuke war in the middle east for along time in our futures.

Your original post on biofuel, diesel and non-fossil alternatives is a great one. The thing is, it would be great if we, as a whole, could adopt that approach instead of fossil fuel now rather than when TSHTF.

Ah !! Well here you have vested intrests of a multinational the variety at playing GREEN .Namley Renault!!Who are pushing their inefficent laughable toys somthing fierce on a naive Irish Govt and people..Who have a cloud cuckoo idea that all our power will come from windmills by 2020!!!
There is too much MONEY tied up in selling us an approved green technology rather than use a blindingly obvious off the shelf that has been around for60 plus years technology,as [1] it is old and therefore no good and more importantly [2] anyone who can read and understand basic english and maths canmodify their car .So no money to be made.
Remember pork barrel politics??It applies in science too... Come up with somthing new or have your research grants cut...Simples really.

Sad situation, but true.

BTW, I have no connection to climate research at all. I have no vested interest in it other than the survival of our planet. I'm a historian and my research, unfortunately, is far less important at this time [/

Well,if I might suggest,use your historical research skills to find every forgotten formula ,process,method and skill of the 18.19and early 20th century and collate it,[as Kurt Saxon did in his books].So that when this modern too high tech society fails ,we have saved knowledge,that will be useful to springboard us back into the mid 21st century or better the 22nd century.The late 19th century wasnt that bad a time to live in and with the remenants of the 20/21st century technology,it would be qite comfortable too.Somthing on the line of steam punk I think.:pac:

Hibrion

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, Grizzly.

There is far more to the science than tree rings and too much evidence for me to ignore.

I think we should think of future generations. I don't go in for the, "screw it, I won't be alive anyway" theory.

I would not like to live in the 19th century, definitely not.

People like you and I, the non-rich, had absolutely terrible lives. Life expectancy was very, very low. 40 would have been a very good age indeed for a working class man to reach. This varied depending on personal circumstance, but unless you had money, a lot of it, you were not going to live very long.

But, if you were an extremely well to do upper class yuppy, sure you would have had a great life.


But hey, each to their own. I would like to be proven wrong, even if I am long dead by the time we can tell, but I think it's a risk too big to take.

slowburner

Tabnabs wrote: »

What was the fuel of the mighty industrial revolution? Coal. Did we run out of that? Nope.

You have to be sensible about these things. Here's a more measured piece

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf

I am being sensible, I even read this paper which is interesting, a lone voice in the wilderness perhaps? I hope he's right.
It's inevitable that we will move away from oil as a fuel in much the same way as our forebears moved from stone to bronze, bronze to iron etc.
Even if oil isn't going to run out - most people perceive it that way and you have to factor in the additional negatives of oil as a pollutant. Technology is moving away from oil, albeit slowly.

fodda

Industrial revolution coal usage compared to todays needs is only a fraction of what we need today.

As oil and all fuels get more expensive then personal transport will become very rare except for the rich just as it was not so long ago.

Agriculture is a massive use of oil and gas and food especially meat will become hugely expensive. Gas is used to make fertiliser which cannot be replaced by other means.

Probably why there isnt a urgent big switch from cars is because no goverment has worked out how to replace the loss in revenue which is basically unachievable without large society upheaval.

Ireland is lucky (until they give it away:rolleyes:) that there is a lot of land that can be used for short term coppicing to produce timber for fuel and transport fuel but has to be one of the worst countries as regards efficiency as the population is spread throughout the countryside and not locally town/city based which would be more efficient and easier financially for the population to get to work. This will cause big problems soon with homes which arent farms becoming unviable and unwanted due to transport costs.

Growing timber for fuel will still be open to market forces so will never again be free or cheap.

Sticky_Fingers

Tabnabs wrote: »

What was the fuel of the mighty industrial revolution? Coal. Did we run out of that? Nope.

You have to be sensible about these things. Here's a more measured piece

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf

Personally I'd take anything the CATO Institute says with a massive bucket of salt. They are Libertarian think tank and thus anything they produce nearly always supports their idealogical standpoint.

Grizzly 45
Sorry..RUBBISH!!Total and Utter!Light and sweet might by 2070.But there are as I said before more modern methods to get the stuff out of what were belived to be dry wells.We havent even turned to shale oil,or refining it out of coal or reclaiming it from plastic again.Only reason why not is it is too expensive now to consider,but in the future who knows.
Either way petrol will be around,bar a nuke war in the middle east for along time in our futures.

I have to disagree with you here Grizzly, we are IMO nearing peak oil, the Middle East is peaking and there has not been a major oil find in the last few years to offset this. The reason they are going back to abandoned wells and shale oil is a big red flag. If we are still OK why is money (lots and lots of money) being used to try and squeeze a few more barrels out of these wells or shale. Improved technology has made it possible but that doesn't negate the fact that this is a very energy intensive process. This means that oil reserves are being squeezed from three sides, rapidly rising demand (Asia), depleted easy reserves and increased need for oil to get the oil out in the first place.

Interesting times ahead...

slowburner

Hibrion wrote: »

....... I'm a historian and my research, unfortunately, is far less important at this time

I can't agree with you here Hibrion - history is utterly crucial now, there are so, so many skills and technologies we need to recall from the past. Maybe the particular area of research you are involved in now might not have much of a bearing on what we talk about here, but you have the tools and skills to extract useful material from history which will become invaluable in the future.
Historians will become the new shamans of Grizzly's 'steam punk' era as they conjure up forgotten skills from the mists of history.
With all our high tech gadgetry and science we can put men on the moon but we are still not sure how the cap stones were put on dolmens.
By way of example: I am currently researching an early quarry around here - to see the size of boulders they were moving is just mind boggling and to see the efficiency with which they drilled into granite and the skill with which they could split and shape the stone without power is astonishing - could I do it without power? Nope, but eventually (I hope) I will learn from the unknown people who solved all these problems so long ago. :pac::pac:

Hibrion

Haha, thanks Slowburner. I"m a military/ ancient historian so if the SHTF I do have some very useful knowledge I can share.

Grizzly 45

[

I have to disagree with you here Grizzly, we are IMO nearing peak oil, the Middle East is peaking and there has not been a major oil find in the last few years to offset this. The reason they are going back to abandoned wells and shale oil is a big red flag. If we are still OK why is money (lots and lots of money) being used to try and squeeze a few more barrels out of these wells or shale

Simple really,you answerd the question yourself.Middle East!!It is too unstable a region to be relied on 100% as an oil supplier anymore.If you look at what happened with Libya,the prices jumped,courtsey of speculation on the markets.OPEC simply opened their taps abit further and the prices dropped.Not that we see it happening until about 12 weeks later.As for major oil field finds,well there is a load in Alaska and Siberia,only trouble is the Eco nuts wont allow drilling ,and the Russian stuff is miles from nowhere under permafrost.But thats not to say it cant be got at.And you can see how much there is just by the gas that Russia supplies to Europe and the former east bloc.
As for lots of money being pumped into it..Define lots of money in the OIL industry???A standard running bill of a large refinery might be one million USD a WEEK! Thats petty cash in oil terms.

.

Improved technology has made it possible but that doesn't negate the fact that this is a very energy intensive process.

Very true,but it is again quantitive.The technology of producing oil from coal for example hasnt been improved much since the 1940s,as at the time it was still cheaper to get the stuff out of the ground.But now it is becoming "cheaper" to get it by these methods.

This means that oil reserves are being squeezed from three sides, rapidly rising demand (Asia), depleted easy reserves and increased need for oil to get the oil out in the first place.

And thats the most critical point using oil for oil..But unfortunatly thats the worlds achilles heel at the moment.Until somone comes up with somthing as vaible,cost effective,and cheap to produce and sell.Oil is it!

Look,we can argue this around till judgement day.Personally,I think we will have gone back to crude oil ourselves from our rotten corpses,before the Dino oil runs out.I would expect the end of oil to be a massive flare up in the Middle East that goes nuke or blocks the Hormuz straits,then expect major problems!!

Interesting times ahead..

Very much so!:)

Grizzly 45

slowburner wrote: »

.

With all our high tech gadgetry and science we can put men on the moon

When did we last do that?? We should be heading off to Mars by now!!From a lunar base:(
This year was the last flight of the Space shuttle,we still havent a viable replacement for it.:(
The new moon missions[cancelled by Obama for social welfare payments:(]Which is nothing more than a boosted up Apollo programme w is on hold indefinately.So we are retreating from space,where ultimately the very survival of humanity will be out there .
We were travelling on a passenger plane once that could go at supersonic speed,and keep doing it safly on technology from the 1960s.Which NASA admits was more of a feat than the moon landings as it had to do it continously without massive maintenance after each flight.
You can view the Concordes sad remains in a museum these days.:(:(
No replacement for that either!!

I think thats another major problem with society and the human race we are dumbing down somthing fierce,and starting to go into decline as all civilisations eventually did.When they had a useless over pouplation,a incompetant goverment more concerned in staying in power,and amusing the proletariat[Latin for the idle ones] who kept them in power with bread and circuses.Not to mind technology that needed specific artisians to keep it functioning.Ancient Rome springs to mind here...

but we are still not sure how the cap stones were put on dolmens.

Whips and judicious use thereof??:D:D

Tonyandthewhale

I know this is sort of an old thread but I'm curious as to the factual basis of some of the opinions espoused.

Grizzly, you implied at several points throughout this thread that there's plenty of oil in the middle-east, plenty more in Alaska and Russia and then plenty more besides that plenty more in the form of magic-bullet shale sands in Canada et al. You say the only problem with middle eastern oil is political instability, that Alaskan oil potential is undermined by environmental concerns, Russian oil potential by permafrost and logistics and that shale sand will fill the gap in the market once prices rise and it becomes worthwhile to extract.

However, proven (conventional) oil reserves are a mere 1,392,461,050,000 barrels. This estimate is based on some very sketchy figures, it could be a a deliberate under-estimate to keep prices low but there are natural pragmatic checks on the degree of such under-estimation. This is because most countries desire and indeed need economic stabilty and if their economy relies on producing and exporting oil this means assuring everyone that there's plenty of oil to go around. Because, short term juciy oil prices aside an economy relies on more than just sales revenue (of oil) and taxation of such revenue and no one will invest in a market that has no where to go because its major commodity is running out.

Oil companies are in a similar boat. If exxon fails to announce astonishing new oil finds then I'll move my investor dollar to royal shell and exxon will fold. This means oil companies are obliged by the markets to portray optimism.

Despite this, increases in demand are being met largely by opening the taps (as you put it yourself Grizzly) on existing fields in Arabia et al. While new reserves are being discovered on a regular basis they're smaller and smaller or harder and harder to extract. There is no pancea in Alaska or Russia, there are large reserves there, some of which are still un-tapped. However they're not on the same scale as the middle-east in size or ease of extraction. The ease of extraction issue might be solved to a degree by rising prices but that doesn't mean the average joe soap gets an equivelent increase in his wages to cover these higher prices. The only significant recent increases in oil reserve estimations from the middle-east came about in the 1980's following some nationalisations of oil-companies and other political shifts and a subsequent re-appraisal of what constituted a proven oil reserve (a very biased re-appraisal it goes without saying).

Oil consumption on the other hand suffers no such limitations. Every day we go through more than 85 million barrels of oil a day. 85 million into 1,392,461,050,000 means roughly 44 years of oil left at based on current (optimistic) reserves and current consumption levels. Thing is, current consumption levels are irrelevant because while increases in our reserves come about through uncertain and increasingly rare finds (we're sort of running out of places to look) and bureaucratic reshuffling, consumption levels are increasing at an exponential rate. Currently it's only really the west that are using oil at a serious rate with China and a few other developing nations catching up. There are still billions of people using hardly any oil who are dashing head-long into fossil fuel driven industrial revolutions and they're set to have billions of oil loving children. This means that 44 years is completely irrelevant. I mean we might get 42 years and still have a fair bit of oil left, but only because no one will be able to afford it and it will be of no practical value. too precious to use.

Of course that argue is moot isn't it? Maybe a little, I mean it doesn't take into account nuclear power or renewable energy or the importance of increased efficiency. Perhaps most interestinly of all, it doesn't take into account unconventional oil reserves, shale oil etc.

Grizzly's right in saying there's plenty of that, no one's sure quite how much. Certainly enough to plug a gap until we can come up with a new fuel. Thing is though, it's expensive.
Unconventional oil reserves are unconventional because they aren't economically viable in what we would consider conventional conditions. They may become viable, in fact they almost certainly will but that doesn't mean we can carry on as we always have. Unconventional reserves can only be viable provided prices rise signficiantly.

This means they'll be available, but they'll be precious. We'll have oil to keep our modern society ticking over until we can lob up a few nuclear power plants and build some electric cars but we won't have electricity whenever we want it. I mean by and large we can expect there to be electrity there when we want it. But then again, there's caviar there in the supermarket whenever I want it, doesn't mean I can afford to eat the damn stuff everyday three times a day.
Widespread exploitation of unconventional oil reserves may mean a plateauing of oil prices at a certain level, but it will have to be a level significantly higher than today's prices and that's going to hurt all of us. We can't expect inflation or economies of scale to render these high prices irrelevant either because the exponential demand I mentioned earlier is still on-going and any time the un-conventional oil business expands and increases production the market will expand in response and consumption will swallow increases in production.

This is because the potential unconventional oil reserve industry is built on a pre-existing pressure from consumption on production. Unless we have a huge increase in renewable energy or nuclear or a massive global economic crash then consumption is always going to match or exceed production. Relying on unconventional oil reserves just means a second peak oil, slighlty further on.

Oh and don't think just becase we find another trillion or two barrels of unconventional oil we'll have another 150 years of exploitation before peak. Good old exponential growth means another 50 years would be very optimistic unless we're all (oil-nuts included) grossly under-estimating unconventional reserves. Also, let me remind you, that's 50 years of price increases starting at a base higher than we have now, and then prices will really kick off. Doesn't sound like a pancea to me.

Tonyandthewhale

Wow that was long, sorry for that. Anywho, Grizzly if you're going to reply to all that do me a favour and sort something else out first.

Earlier in the thread you stated that natual carbon output was roughly 90 billion tonnes (a cyclic output matched by a similar level of absorbtion from the oceans and trees of the world meaning a realitively statice level of carbon in the atmosphere - although somehow you failed to mention that).

You said that compared to that, the approximately 7 billion tonnes (and growing) human output was unsubstantial and furthermore could easily be absorbed by natural means. I'd like to know how you you decided 7 billion was unsubstantial and how nature is supposed to absorbe this excess. Do you have any actual data on how much excess the oceans and (largely diminishing) forests can absorb. Or are you just guessing because it's convienant to your world view.

Don't forget that we've had natural climate change before when large volcanoes release just a few billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, roughly on a par with what we humans have been doing. How come your much flouted oceans and forests weren't able to handle all that carbon then? What's changed?

eth0

It doesn't matter how much oil is left. Long before it runs out it will get very expensive

and in a SHTF situation you won't be able to afford or import oil or otherwise not be able to get your hands on it. and petrol goes off after a year or two

eth0

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I think thats another major problem with society and the human race we are dumbing down somthing fierce,and starting to go into decline as all civilisations eventually did.When they had a useless over pouplation,a incompetant goverment more concerned in staying in power,and amusing the proletariat[Latin for the idle ones] who kept them in power with bread and circuses.Not to mind technology that needed specific artisians to keep it functioning.

I'd say its pre-made digital entertainment thats making everyone brain dead. Everyone seems to be chasing the afluent (sub)urban lifestyle that involves the home cinema room and the big spotless SUV with automatic gearbox and the latest iProduct to watch more movies and more useless stuff on.

Also if you're not in agreement with chasing that lifestyle people look at you funny and have a go at you for resisting 'change'

fodda

It's also funny as regards peoples attitudes that it seems that they think it is their "right" that they can have and use a car and live the lifestyle of jetting all over the globe, so their eternal optimisum is that there is a new fuel just around the corner so they can continue their lifestyle. Is this an age thing because that is what they were born into and know nothing or cannot accept what life was like before fossil fuel became cheap?

A perfect example i suppose is the west fighting tooth and nail to continue the old ways as power moves to those who have and those who can pay.

Shale oil and gas is too polluting and will destroy Irelands tourism and agricultural industries which employ hundreds of thousands of people already forming part of the established economy. If Ireland was to go down the route of shale oil/gas extraction it would be the end as there would be nothing left.

The future is bleak if you want to continue the existing way of life, but if effort was put into place to build renewables, then the country could prosper although your lives would change regards car usage etc. Trouble is our political celebs have enslaved Ireland to the EU master race and there is no money or ever will be for starting renewable industries.........until we can break free of course.

Grizzly 45

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

Wow that was long, sorry for that. Anywho, Grizzly if you're going to reply to all that do me a favour and sort something else out first.

Earlier in the thread you stated that natual carbon output was roughly 90 billion tonnes (a cyclic output matched by a similar level of absorbtion from the oceans and trees of the world meaning a realitively statice level of carbon in the atmosphere - although somehow you failed to mention that).

You said that compared to that, the approximately 7 billion tonnes (and growing) human output was unsubstantial and furthermore could easily be absorbed by natural means. I'd like to know how you you decided 7 billion was unsubstantial and how nature is supposed to absorbe this excess. Do you have any actual data on how much excess the oceans and (largely diminishing) forests can absorb. Or are you just guessing because it's convienant to your world view.

Gladly start with;
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon/.

The rest Google is your friend!;)

Don't forget that we've had natural climate change before when large volcanoes release just a few billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, roughly on a par with what we humans have been doing. How come your much flouted oceans and forests weren't able to handle all that carbon then? What's changed?

Well they still do every year,and have we died off?Has the planet over heated/cooled?And if you botherd to read a little bit about the Irish Bog oaks ,you would find that the Middle ages were a lot colder in their Summers than we have now.So I guess all the looting and burning of castles must have caused a load of global warming!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Anyways do you want to argue global warming propaganda or discuss survivalism???? I DONT buy into this total BS of peak oil and global warming...If you want to belive it fine..Its irrevelant to me and no doubt anyone can produce thousands of pro and contra arguements on this topic.My final word on the topic.

fodda

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[

Anyways do you want to argue global warming propaganda or discuss survivalism???? I DONT buy into this total BS of peak oil and global warming...If you want to belive it fine..Its irrevelant to me and no doubt anyone can produce thousands of pro and contra arguements on this topic.My final word on the topic.

Grizzly it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, how can any of us say as we aren't experts? But what is clear is that there are billions more looking for the same product that up to say 10-15 years ago we had all to ourselves. Adding to that these extra people have the dosh because and we increasingly haven't because of us losing our jobs and governments relying on the tax take from it to keep the economy ticking over.

Which means the price of it is going only one way and steeply upwards with no way of reducing the price unless accepting tax increases elsewhere which will just mean that we then haven't got the dosh to buy the newly cheaper fuel.

Whether there is a shortage of oil or not....no one is going to reduce the price of it when it is in such demand and the only way of reducing that demand is reduce the amount of people wanting it or find a replacement......and there will never be one.

Grizzly 45

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

I know this is sort of an old thread but I'm curious as to the factual basis of some of the opinions espoused.

Grizzly, you implied at several points throughout this thread that there's plenty of oil in the middle-east, plenty more in Alaska and Russia and then plenty more besides that plenty more in the form of magic-bullet shale sands in Canada et al. You say the only problem with middle eastern oil is political instability, that Alaskan oil potential is undermined by environmental concerns, Russian oil potential by permafrost and logistics and that shale sand will fill the gap in the market once prices rise and it becomes worthwhile to extract.

However, proven (conventional) oil reserves are a mere 1,392,461,050,000 barrels. This estimate is based on some very sketchy figures, it could be a a deliberate under-estimate to keep prices low but there are natural pragmatic checks on the degree of such under-estimation. This is because most countries desire and indeed need economic stabilty and if their economy relies on producing and exporting oil this means assuring everyone that there's plenty of oil to go around. Because, short term juciy oil prices aside an economy relies on more than just sales revenue (of oil) and taxation of such revenue and no one will invest in a market that has no where to go because its major commodity is running out.

Oil companies are in a similar boat. If exxon fails to announce astonishing new oil finds then I'll move my investor dollar to royal shell and exxon will fold. This means oil companies are obliged by the markets to portray optimism.

Despite this, increases in demand are being met largely by opening the taps (as you put it yourself Grizzly) on existing fields in Arabia et al. While new reserves are being discovered on a regular basis they're smaller and smaller or harder and harder to extract. There is no pancea in Alaska or Russia, there are large reserves there, some of which are still un-tapped. However they're not on the same scale as the middle-east in size or ease of extraction. The ease of extraction issue might be solved to a degree by rising prices but that doesn't mean the average joe soap gets an equivelent increase in his wages to cover these higher prices. The only significant recent increases in oil reserve estimations from the middle-east came about in the 1980's following some nationalisations of oil-companies and other political shifts and a subsequent re-appraisal of what constituted a proven oil reserve (a very biased re-appraisal it goes without saying).

Oil consumption on the other hand suffers no such limitations. Every day we go through more than 85 million barrels of oil a day. 85 million into 1,392,461,050,000 means roughly 44 years of oil left at based on current (optimistic) reserves and current consumption levels. Thing is, current consumption levels are irrelevant because while increases in our reserves come about through uncertain and increasingly rare finds (we're sort of running out of places to look) and bureaucratic reshuffling, consumption levels are increasing at an exponential rate. Currently it's only really the west that are using oil at a serious rate with China and a few other developing nations catching up. There are still billions of people using hardly any oil who are dashing head-long into fossil fuel driven industrial revolutions and they're set to have billions of oil loving children. This means that 44 years is completely irrelevant. I mean we might get 42 years and still have a fair bit of oil left, but only because no one will be able to afford it and it will be of no practical value. too precious to use.

Of course that argue is moot isn't it? Maybe a little, I mean it doesn't take into account nuclear power or renewable energy or the importance of increased efficiency. Perhaps most interestinly of all, it doesn't take into account unconventional oil reserves, shale oil etc.

Grizzly's right in saying there's plenty of that, no one's sure quite how much. Certainly enough to plug a gap until we can come up with a new fuel. Thing is though, it's expensive.
Unconventional oil reserves are unconventional because they aren't economically viable in what we would consider conventional conditions. They may become viable, in fact they almost certainly will but that doesn't mean we can carry on as we always have. Unconventional reserves can only be viable provided prices rise signficiantly.

This means they'll be available, but they'll be precious. We'll have oil to keep our modern society ticking over until we can lob up a few nuclear power plants and build some electric cars but we won't have electricity whenever we want it. I mean by and large we can expect there to be electrity there when we want it. But then again, there's caviar there in the supermarket whenever I want it, doesn't mean I can afford to eat the damn stuff everyday three times a day.
Widespread exploitation of unconventional oil reserves may mean a plateauing of oil prices at a certain level, but it will have to be a level significantly higher than today's prices and that's going to hurt all of us. We can't expect inflation or economies of scale to render these high prices irrelevant either because the exponential demand I mentioned earlier is still on-going and any time the un-conventional oil business expands and increases production the market will expand in response and consumption will swallow increases in production.

This is because the potential unconventional oil reserve industry is built on a pre-existing pressure from consumption on production. Unless we have a huge increase in renewable energy or nuclear or a massive global economic crash then consumption is always going to match or exceed production. Relying on unconventional oil reserves just means a second peak oil, slighlty further on.

Oh and don't think just becase we find another trillion or two barrels of unconventional oil we'll have another 150 years of exploitation before peak. Good old exponential growth means another 50 years would be very optimistic unless we're all (oil-nuts included) grossly under-estimating unconventional reserves. Also, let me remind you, that's 50 years of price increases starting at a base higher than we have now, and then prices will really kick off. Doesn't sound like a pancea to me.

So to sum up this lengthy point....You are saying we are all bollixed anyway with oil and the solution is nuke plants and electric cars...
We can argue the joys of the myth of peak oil backwards and forwards all month.It is an unwinnable arguement either which way as simply said neither sides know exactly what is still in the ground.Or wont say...Either which way our main supplies are in a major unstable Geo political region and that is the biggest problem.

I'll agree on the nuke plants,electric cars not a hope.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=fodda;75574779]Grizzly it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, how can any of us say as we aren't experts? But what is clear is that there are billions more looking for the same product that up to say 10-15 years ago we had all to ourselves. Adding to that these extra people have the dosh because and we increasingly haven't because of us losing our jobs and governments relying on the tax take from it to keep the economy ticking over.

Questionable will they have the dosh either..As most of these economies rely now on supplying us with products[that we should be making ourselves anyway].If we arent buying from China or wherever,their export ecnomy starts to fail too.IOW their people wont be buying any cars soon either.Wether home made or imported.We are now all in lockstep in the Global economy.The economy starts to falter the demand for oil starts to drop too.And this depression will be one that will make 1930s era depression look like a bounty.

Whether there is a shortage of oil or not....no one is going to reduce the price of it when it is in such demand and the only way of reducing that demand is reduce the amount of people wanting it or find a replacement......and there will never be one.

Oh I dont know...There are plenty of alternative fuels we could be using that havent been developed since the 1910s...From electric:rolleyes: to hydrogen,alcohol,bio fuel,wood chip,return to steam,and proably fusion power.
Any and either which way,we would be better off figuring,if you are worried about this..Some alt fuel that you or a community could produce locally,and be independant of oil.If that is possible..

eth0

I used to think electric cars were nice until I realised

You can buy petrol for 1.50/l which works at about 10-20c per km depending how inefficient your car is, spend a small bit on maintainence every year and your car should do well over 200,000km

Or you could buy an electric car and spend about 1c per km but another 10-15c per km in eventual battery replacement cost. Buy an electric car now and its likely to have a battery worth about 15,000e inside it. After about 5 years it will have significantly degraded and your range reduced to about 70% or less. Its also a case of 'use it or lose it'. Leave your car standing for 6 months and its maximum range will be a few km less.

Nobody uses the trusty NiMH batteries in electric cars anymore like in the electric RAV4. They are deemed too bulky but I'd rather have something that'd still have decent range in 10 years time.

fodda

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[





Oh I dont know...There are plenty of alternative fuels we could be using that havent been developed since the 1910s...From electric:rolleyes: to hydrogen,alcohol,bio fuel,wood chip,return to steam,and proably fusion power.
Any and either which way,we would be better off figuring,if you are worried about this..Some alt fuel that you or a community could produce locally,and be independant of oil.If that is possible..

Well

Steam totally uneconomical as it uses far too much energy for what it gives back.

Electric cars:D:D:D:D:D:D A politicions party piece for dummies to take in. Give an electric car a few west of ireland hills.....be alright to keep the chucks in i suppose.

Wood gas...possibilities for trucks but not cars and probably what most of the land around here is only suitable for.

eth0

There are some experimental steam engines that are supposed to be more efficient. At least there was talk of this a few years ago it might have gone quiet by now

Grizzly 45

Is steam that unecnomical??Maybe in technology from the previous century...Have a look at the Stanley steamer car,looked pretty good even in the 1970s,and doesnt look like asteam engine.Engines that have about four moving parts,self lubeing,and get better results with greater demand on their power.No gearboxes to worry about either.
As for the electric car,until somone produces a viable electric HGV with the pulling capacity or range of a diesel HGV,we arent going anywhere with it.

eth0

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Is steam that unecnomical??Maybe in technology from the previous century...Have a look at the Stanley steamer car,looked pretty good even in the 1970s,and doesnt look like asteam engine.Engines that have about four moving parts,self lubeing,and get better results with greater demand on their power.No gearboxes to worry about either.
As for the electric car,until somone produces a viable electric HGV with the pulling capacity or range of a diesel HGV,we arent going anywhere with it.

You could have a large rod that comes out from under your electric car to latch on to a Diesel HGV and ride the regenerative brakes to recharge the battery

fodda

Nope in practical terms steam is extremly powerful but requires lots of energy input.

Fossil fuels are good because to us the user the energy is free except for the amounts used to extract it.......then governments tax it:mad:

So leccy is ok if you can produce it efficiently enough but storing it and transporting it incur large losses, then the if you walk uphill you will use lots more energy than flat walking and the same applies to leccy, in fact it will flatten batteries like none other. If anyone reckons they have cracked it, tell em to take their leccy car to that long steep hill coming out of Letterkenny i think it is on the N13? ....that will sort em out:)

A fuel that is produced or harnessed cheaply is wood gas, and will easily power a petrol engine very cheaply converted, but the system and fuel store would only fit in a van or truck but may get more compact hopefully.......thats where i would put my money and it produces zero emissions aswell. Old technology but hard to tax:).....that could be why its not mainstream:)

Tonyandthewhale

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Gladly start with;
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon/.

The rest Google is your friend!;)

Did you actually read that article? On page one it says that each year we humans release 8.8 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere and that roughly 5 billion tonnes are sequestered by the oceans and forests.

It also clearly states "Yet like a finger on a balance, our steady contributions are throwing the natural cycle out of whack." which is directly contrary to what you said. Directly contary in fact to the idea you envoked this article to invoke (that's a quote from page two). You may be happy to leave the global warming/peak oil debate lie but I can't ignore a fail on a scale this epic.

Anywho, the article also states that levels of carbon in the atmosphere have increased 30% since the late 18th century due to effects of the industrial revolution and the oil age.
For the most part the article discusses the limitations of natural absortion of carbon saying that although they may slow global warming for a few decades they won't stop it completely and we still have to make an effort to forestall the negative impact we're having on the planet's environment.

Google's your friend, but the idea of actually reading the articles you base your opinions on is also a concept you might like to get acquainted with.

I also like how you've completely ignored everything I've said about peak oil. Probably because all you've got are conspiracy theories and the lies of oil lobbyists.

As for you're refusal to accept the modifying role volcanoes can have on the environment and your vague argument relating to bog oaks and climate differences in the middle ages. You do know that it's been hypothesised that these climate changes were caused by volcanic ash in the atmosphere (admittedly in this example it was hypothesised that it was ash in the atmosphere causing global cooling rather than carbon causing global warming but I still think it's a pretty good example of the fragility of the atmosphere and global climate systems).

Tonyandthewhale

Returning to the actual transport debate. I like the idea of electric cars (once we don't have to burn oil or coal or gas to produce the electricity). However as it stands now the limitations of electric cars mean they don't appeal to people and it'll take a lot of marketing and technological development to over-come these limitations and get people driving these cars.
Of course, this marketing and R&D can't take place without funding which means either massive government subsidies or people actually buying the damn things (or at least a viable enough promise that people with buy them to get people to invest large amounts on a large scale).
Governant subsidies will also face difficulties if the electorate want those funds directed elsewhere. So basically electric cars face a catch 22 situation and won't be viable without a miracle jump in technology and/or some very persistent and wealthy backers. Both of which are possible but not something I'd like to rely on without a back-up plan.

Personnally I see future transport needs being met by more economical cars, an increase in hybrids and bio-fuel usage. More public transports and more people riding bikes as well as more people living within a reasonable distance of work rather than buying a semi-d in westmeath so they can commute by car to Dublin. Essentially, a mixed bag.

Personnally, in a SHTF situation as in every-day life my vehicle of choice is the bicycle (or rather a range of bicycles suited to different tasks).
In a real SHTF situation where emergency services are comprimised, public transport breaks down and no one's delivering post anymore a relatively rugged 4x4, preferably converted to run on bio-fuel as well as diseal would be handy. However, I'd prefer to own such a vehicle in partnership with a few friends, neighbours or family members and split running costs appropriately as in such a situation exhobitant fuel costs would relegate such a vehicle to emergency use only so it doesn't make sense to own for myself since I wouldn't get use out of it and conserving your financial resources is an important part of surviving any sort of societal or economic collapse.

slowburner

Whatever way you look at it, there are major changes afoot in the way we transport ourselves.
It is unlikely that the development of alternatives is proceeding quickly enough to keep pace with the decline in oil stocks.

I think the future is pretty bleak as regards alternative sources of fuel.
For example, isn't it the case that there is simply not enough land to produce adequate biofuel for today's needs, while also producing sufficient food?

Even this article admits that to produce ethanol we would have to sacrifice amenity areas.

However, one major concern of wide scale biofuel production is the increased need of growing crops to meet the demand. This leads to some arguments, since it might require extensive land that may involve forests, wild habitats and agricultural lands.

Electric vehicles? Don't think they'll be viable either, at least not until the costs of producing electricity come down.

Wood gasification engines - we ain't got enough trees.

Bicycles, sails, feet and horseback - they're the future.
Tally all this glum stuff with the pan-national obesity epidemic and you've got to think that Mother Nature is trying to tell us something.

Grizzly 45

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Gladly start with;
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon/.

The rest Google is your friend!;)

Serious snip of a totally irrevelant arguement as said before we could arguement this point till the methane producing cows come home..You belive what you want I'll belive in what I want .
i still say its a myth and i'm not going to be changed on this point.END OF.

Tonyandthewhale

I was just quoting from the article you linked to. You're the one who's provided a source stating that human emissions exceed nature's ability to absorb them. You're the one who cited the article outlining precisely how much atmospheric carbon dioxides have increased since the dawn of the industrial age. You're the one who's got no valid, independent, non-biased sources.
We could indeed argue all day but that doesn't mean you've got a valid arguement behind you. You'll excuse me if I take several decades worth of research and quantifial evidence behind both peak oil and global warming over your say-so whether or not it's a myth.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Tonyandthewhale;75591150]Returning to the actual transport debate. I like the idea of electric cars (once we don't have to burn oil or coal or gas to produce the electricity).

So how are you going to produce it then ?? Windmills or nukes???
Nuke isnt going to happen in Ireland because of the stupidity and total scare mongering of the anti nuke brigade.Not to mind we proably would have a genuine Homer Simpson in charge of running it,and it would have been built by the cheapest cost cutting contractors available,and owned by a state body who wouldnt be too pushed on thingsgoing wrong.
So on that one I'll go with the anti nuke brigade and say no thanks
Windmills...Possible if the NIMBYists get over their problems and allow them to be put offshore,but they are still unreliable.
Tidal is the one that would work very well here,as the Shannon and Suir rivers have huge tidal drops on a 12 hour clockwork basis.

However as it stands now the limitations of electric cars mean they don't appeal to people and it'll take a lot of marketing and technological development to over-come these limitations and get people driving these cars.

Not to mention an advancement of battery size and capacity,and also endurance and road handling,even looks,which might help the sales.
Electric is fine for pootering around a city or large town,but for distance travel.Not a hope.

Of course, this marketing and R&D can't take place without funding which means either massive government subsidies or people actually buying the damn things (or at least a viable enough promise that people with buy them to get people to invest large amounts on a large scale).
Governant subsidies will also face difficulties if the electorate want those funds directed elsewhere. So basically electric cars face a catch 22 situation and won't be viable without a miracle jump in technology and/or some very persistent and wealthy backers. Both of which are possible but not something I'd like to rely on without a back-up plan.

Indeed ,and then it would be better to invest in electric rail or the like as your movement is of goods and people.BUT that still doesnt get rid of how do you transport your goods from the railway head to your shop without using a diesel truck or van??As until a viable electric HGV isnt around yet.

Personnally I see future transport needs being met by more economical cars, an increase in hybrids and bio-fuel usage. More public transports and more people riding bikes as well as more people living within a reasonable distance of work rather than buying a semi-d in westmeath so they can commute by car to Dublin. Essentially, a mixed bag.

Public transport is not going to happen without massive financial investure or willingness to coerce our unemployed into actually building the canals or railway embankments.Maybe if we get a dictator here on a Stalinesque scale and decides on a few five year plans.

Looks like all the "smart" people who bought their electric and hybrids are going to get it in the next budget too.:P

Neither of whch is going to happen realisticlly.Also,how are you going to get people to move back to the cities when the current economic climate wont allow them to sell their houses in West Meath or wherever??
And even if they could their incomes or job security mightnt be safe either..Not going to happen in the near future I'm afraid.

Bikes...no thanks!Especially on our lousy roads,weather,distance and risk... Motor bikes even less so..Diesel quad bike,possible as it can carry more than a motorbike or pushbike,just there isnt a 99%reliable small diesel motor out there,and the only quad diesel is Polaris and its a biatch for problems.

In a real SHTF situation where emergency services are comprimised, public transport breaks down and no one's delivering post anymore a relatively rugged 4x4, preferably converted to run on bio-fuel as well as diseal would be handy. However, I'd prefer to own such a vehicle in partnership with a few friends, neighbours or family members and split running costs appropriately as in such a situation exhobitant fuel costs would relegate such a vehicle to emergency use only so it doesn't make sense to own for myself since I wouldn't get use out of it and conserving your financial resources is an important part of surviving any sort of societal or economic collapse.

And in this situation why would you want to be travelling??That is going to be sucideail if society breaks down that far.Any diesel BTW[ pre common rail diesel] can be converted to run on waste veggie oil pretty easily,and even to homebrew bio diesel isnt a biggie either.

FWIW common ownership never really works out well,when you need it somone else has it on the other side of the state or there is gyp on the maintence costs ,insurance,tax etc.Then if it is just a total post SHTF wagon.and only to be used as such,you have it sitting there with a lot of money tied up in a machine thas doing nothing just waiting for the day.
Then when that happens everyone will want it there and then.

Hmm,might consider taking up horse riding again.:cool::)

eth0

Horse not a bad idea, there should be plenty of fields for grazing after the SHTF.


I seen a lad who had bought a 750W electric front wheel off ebay. Said he got 27+ miles with a few simple lead acid batteries on the back. Its the only thing you'd realisticly be able to charge using a pair of solar panels. These yokes can do 30+ mph easy enough. The roads aren't brilliant in Ireland but after the SHTF you won't have much cars to worry about

fodda

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

Returning to the actual transport debate. I like the idea of electric cars (once we don't have to burn oil or coal or gas to produce the electricity). However as it stands now the limitations of electric cars mean they don't appeal to people and it'll take a lot of marketing and technological development to over-come these limitations and get people driving these cars.
Of course, this marketing and R&D can't take place without funding which means either massive government subsidies or people actually buying the damn things (or at least a viable enough promise that people with buy them to get people to invest large amounts on a large scale).
Governant subsidies will also face difficulties if the electorate want those funds directed elsewhere. So basically electric cars face a catch 22 situation and won't be viable without a miracle jump in technology and/or some very persistent and wealthy backers. Both of which are possible but not something I'd like to rely on without a back-up plan.

Personnally I see future transport needs being met by more economical cars, an increase in hybrids and bio-fuel usage. More public transports and more people riding bikes as well as more people living within a reasonable distance of work rather than buying a semi-d in westmeath so they can commute by car to Dublin. Essentially, a mixed bag.

Personnally, in a SHTF situation as in every-day life my vehicle of choice is the bicycle (or rather a range of bicycles suited to different tasks).
In a real SHTF situation where emergency services are comprimised, public transport breaks down and no one's delivering post anymore a relatively rugged 4x4, preferably converted to run on bio-fuel as well as diseal would be handy. However, I'd prefer to own such a vehicle in partnership with a few friends, neighbours or family members and split running costs appropriately as in such a situation exhobitant fuel costs would relegate such a vehicle to emergency use only so it doesn't make sense to own for myself since I wouldn't get use out of it and conserving your financial resources is an important part of surviving any sort of societal or economic collapse.

No offence but you are living in a dream world and this relates back to my earlier post of peoples "age". I can only assume that you grew up into an era where every household or even every person had a car? Your are for sure under 35?:)

I can tell you that this is a very recent thing, go back 35 or 40 years and you wouldn't find one car in a street because some other daily living expenses took too much out of the weekly budget so people simply did without regards cars and either used public transport or walked.

4x4's....thats hilarious,........ 30 years ago the only 4x4 was the farmers old battered landrover with a canvas covered back belching black smoke down the road, then the "yuppies" made them fashionable.:)

Technology has never and can never solve the rule of physics which is you cant get more out than what you put in..........this means the only way to use leccy cars in hilly terrain where the energy is needed many times over flat terrain, then you simply need more energy input.

Norwayviking

One of these could be handy

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2007/11/gasoline-car-now-runs-on-solar-power/

Grizzly 45

and this setup enabled the vehicle to run at a top speed of 100km/h with a maximum range of 30km. Conversion will hit your pocket hard though, as the entire process will cost $21,000 :eek::eek::eek:

Good try,not just there...By a long time.Still,if you were to use it for a golf cart style buggy for pootling around a farm or base.It might have potential.

fodda

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

and this setup enabled the vehicle to run at a top speed of 100km/h with a maximum range of 30km. Conversion will hit your pocket hard though, as the entire process will cost $21,000 :eek::eek::eek:

Good try,not just there...By a long time.Still,if you were to use it for a golf cart style buggy for pootling around a farm or base.It might have potential.

30km on the flat:) I think with the hills around here it might just get me to the end of the road:D

Norwayviking

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

and this setup enabled the vehicle to run at a top speed of 100km/h with a maximum range of 30km. Conversion will hit your pocket hard though, as the entire process will cost $21,000 :eek::eek::eek:

Good try,not just there...By a long time.Still,if you were to use it for a golf cart style buggy for pootling around a farm or base.It might have potential.

well if you are a good engineer\mechanic you might get away with half:D
But you will find cheaper alternatives,and solar power can be used for many things,not only transport.:rolleyes:

CamperMan

we have the bicycles ready....

kildare.17hmr

eh am i missing something??

Tonyandthewhale

fodda wrote: »

No offence but you are living in a dream world and this relates back to my earlier post of peoples "age". I can only assume that you grew up into an era where every household or even every person had a car? Your are for sure under 35?:)

I can tell you that this is a very recent thing, go back 35 or 40 years and you wouldn't find one car in a street because some other daily living expenses took too much out of the weekly budget so people simply did without regards cars and either used public transport or walked.

4x4's....thats hilarious,........ 30 years ago the only 4x4 was the farmers old battered landrover with a canvas covered back belching black smoke down the road, then the "yuppies" made them fashionable.:)

Technology has never and can never solve the rule of physics which is you cant get more out than what you put in..........this means the only way to use leccy cars in hilly terrain where the energy is needed many times over flat terrain, then you simply need more energy input.

What's all this about people living in a dream world? I never said anything about everyone or even every household owning a car. I said that less people would own cars in the future, more people would use bikes and public transport and that a larger proportion of the cars on the road in a few years time would be using alternative fuels.
As it stands now, I do not own a car, never have owned a car and don't plan on owning one if I can avoid it.

I did not say electric cars are the answer either. I said that they're a nice idea but the technology has not advanced to a level where they can be competitive with conventional cars and that there are severe obstacles to over-coming the problems of electric cars, arisining from the fact that there's not enough money in the electric car market to make them viable any time soon.

My comment about a 4x4 was just something I'd like to have in a real SHTF scenario, a total economic and social collapse scenario. Not very likely perhaps but this is the survivalism and self-sufficiency forumn. It'd just be a nice back-up to my bicycle for when I want to move big stuff or large groups of people and can't rent a van because the roads have been largely washed away and the van rental place has been engulfed by zombies or whatever. In other words, a self-sufficient commune in a post-apocalyptic world could do with some heavy duty transport.
A 4x4 is not my idea of something everyone should have or everyone needs, it'd just something that'd be useful in a very small and unlikely range of events, which is why I don't have one now.