Shale Gas - aquifer contamination a consequence?

[zapatos]

There is plenty of evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future.

Excellent! Can you point me to some please?

[iDevonian]

Excellent! Can you point me to some please?

 

Google peak oil. Google, Hubberts peak. You can also read about advancements of alternatives around the world,

 

be them with solar power

 

http://en.wikipedia...._power_in_Spain

 

Wind

 

http://en.wikipedia....ower_in_Denmark

 

Of course, nuclear power is a big one...I dont even really need to defend it because its all over the news on a daily basis. Hydro etc.

 

You can just take a trip to europe anytime and see them driving smaller cars. They dont exactly do this by choice.

 

Also, if you think about it, it takes hundreds of millions of years for the earth to develop fossil fuels. It only takes a decade for mankind to whipe out a mountain with bulldozers and drills. They are a temporary solution. Us having this conversation now is evidence of that.

 

The constant bickering on the news about getting off of foreign oil in the US. Its constantly on the news because it simply needs to be done. The US doesnt have enough oil to run its own population, if it does on this very day, it wont within our lifetimes. Countries like Saudi and China do have big reserves, but they also are pumping it out of the ground so fast, or they have a billion people depending on it. And its not just for oil in our cars, its for everything. We use petroleum for all sorts of products in our everyday lives.

 

As time goes on, fossil fuels will slowly but surely fade out, as they are already. We see development and investments in hybrid vehicles. Investments in "solar and biofuels" as the administration constantly states. And while here in the US, the industries arent miraculously booming, they are being developed. The transition is occurring as we speak.

Edited November 10, 2012 by iDevonian

[Kalopin]

Excellent! Can you point me to some please?

 

 

Here is a couple for ya': http://alternativeen...estionID=001244 , http://www.sustainab...isplay/id/17018 , or you could just put "will renewable energy be able to replace fossil fuels" in a search engine and see what you come up with. Although I would think that 2090 is much too late and that we could do it in a few years if there was enough "concern"?

Edited November 10, 2012 by Kalopin

[zapatos]

Google peak oil. Google, Hubberts peak.

These didn't really offer any data regarding evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future.

 

You can also read about advancements of alternatives around the world,

 

be them with solar power

 

http://en.wikipedia...._power_in_Spain

This one indicates that "one of the most advanced countries in the development of solar energy, and it is one of the European countries with the most hours of sunshine... committed to achieving a target of 12 percent of primary energy from renewable energy by 2010".

 

If one of the 'most advanced' in solar is up to 12% I don't find that this bolsters your argument that "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future".

 

Wind

 

http://en.wikipedia....ower_in_Denmark

Roughly the same capacity as Spain. Again, I don't find that this bolsters your argument that "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future".

 

Of course, nuclear power is a big one...I dont even really need to defend it because its all over the news on a daily basis.

Are you saying that nuclear is a renewable resource? Can you explain that please?

 

Bottom line is that based on how I would define 'near future', I see no evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future. Perhaps if you could give an approximate date when you expect alternatives to replace fossil fuels?

 

Here is a couple for ya': http://alternativeen...estionID=001244 , http://www.sustainab...isplay/id/17018 , or you could just put "will renewable energy be able to replace fossil fuels" in a search engine and see what you come up with. Although I would think that 2090 is much too late and that we could do it in a few years if there was enough "concern"?

Nice. An actual projection from your link:

 

In addition, renewable energy could provide all global energy needs by 2090, according to the 210-page study,

"Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook."

 

Do you think that "could provide all global energy needs by 2090" supports your assertion that "fracking is already obsolete"?

[Kalopin]

These didn't really offer any data regarding evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future.

 

 

Bottom line is that based on how I would define 'near future', I see no evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future. Perhaps if you could give an approximate date when you expect alternatives to replace fossil fuels?

 

 

Nice. An actual projection from your link:

 

 

 

Do you think that "could provide all global energy needs by 2090" supports your assertion that "fracking is already obsolete"?

 

Sure it does. Most already understand that burning so much fossil fuel will add way too much CO2 not to mention what this process "fracking" is doing to the environment. One study says 8 degrees by 2100:

http://www.usatoday....e-rise/1694797/

 

Also a good place to start: http://www.350.org/

 

May want to get my point of view off this thread: http://www.thescienc...nd-nuclear.html

Edited November 10, 2012 by Kalopin

[iDevonian]

These didn't really offer any data regarding evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future.

 

If oil is on the decline in various nations and nations are struggling in their production, or their production comes from reserves of a limited capacity that at present rate would deplete them within a hundred years...and you still believe that they wont be replaced in the near future, then I cannot help you.

 

Also, in this small span of time, you have not really researched what I had mentioned in my above post. If I asked you how long you believe Saudi Arabias oil reserves will last at present depletion rates, what would you say? The answer is within hubberts peak (the book). I imagine based on your response here though that you dont know how much oil they have. It is more limited than most people like talking about.

 

This one indicates that "one of the most advanced countries in the development of solar energy, and it is one of the European countries with the most hours of sunshine... committed to achieving a target of 12 percent of primary energy from renewable energy by 2010".

 

If one of the 'most advanced' in solar is up to 12% I don't find that this bolsters your argument that "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future".

 

 

Roughly the same capacity as Spain. Again, I don't find that this bolsters your argument that "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future".

 

These nations arent developing alternatives just for the fun of it. If you are living in the US, look at the news today. Have you not seen the constant fighting over alternatives, the rising gas prices and insistent struggle over the production of these fuels? The gas industry is our current exception.

 

 

Are you saying that nuclear is a renewable resource? Can you explain that please?

 

Nuclear is an alternative with a lifespan far longer than fossil fuels. I am saying that it too will, undoubtedly overtake fossil fuels in the energy it provides.

 

 

Bottom line is that based on how I would define 'near future', I see no evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future. Perhaps if you could give an approximate date when you expect alternatives to replace fossil fuels?

 

They already are replacing fossil fuels as we speak. Not a day goes by in which investments in their production is not increasing worldwide. When will they be used for greater energy production than fossil fuels? I'd say, at least here in the US, it is likely that we will see alternatives overtake oil based energy simply because the US doesnt have any oil (within our lifetime). Thats a start.

 

I would define "near future" as being within the next 150 years or so.

 

If you think about it, how long has the world truly been using these resources at high capacity? What 50 years? How long has it been since the industrial revolution? And already we can see their limits before us and already the US and the EU are running out.

 

It should be quite obvious to anyone, that they wont be here long. If, within 50 years we are already complaining about how little oil we have. My grandparents are likely to live longer than peak/optimal uses of something like oil, let along 2 or 3 generations worth of people.

Edited November 10, 2012 by iDevonian

[zapatos]

Sure it does. Most already understand that burning so much fossil fuel will add way too much CO2 not to mention what this process "fracking" is doing to the environment. One study says 8 degrees by 2100:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2012/11/09/climate-change-global-warming-temperature-rise/1694797/

 

Also a good place to start: http://www.350.org/

 

May want to get my point of view off this thread: http://www.thescienc...nd-nuclear.html

The dishonest misdirection in your posts is getting old. You cannot support assertions such as:

 

"It is possible to run on hydro-electric alone"

 

with statements such as:

 

"burning so much fossil fuel will add way too much CO2"

 

If you want to argue that pollution is bad, go right ahead, although I don't think many people are going to take the opposite position. But if you are going to make positive assertions, please be prepared to back them up or admit you are wrong. Hand waving is not going to fool too many people into not noticing that you are moving the goalposts.

 

If oil is on the decline in various nations and nations are struggling in their production, or their production comes from reserves of a limited capacity that at present rate would deplete them within a hundred years...and you still believe that they wont be replaced in the near future, then I cannot help you.

Your whole argument can be summarized as "I can prove there is a solution by proving there is a problem". Not all problems have solutions, or at least not complete solutions.

 

Claiming I am too ignorant to understand does not prove your point either. You have provided zero evidence that alternatives energy sources will be able to replace current energy sources, and you have not provided anything other than your opinion regarding a date when alternative energy sources will have replaced current energy sources.

 

Pointing out that funding for alternative energy sources occurs everday, does not bolster your position that "There is plenty of evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Similarly, simply putting money in the bank everday does not allow me to claim I will die a millionaire. I would also need to project how much I am saving each day and how long I expect to live.

[iDevonian]

Your whole argument can be summarized as "I can prove there is a solution by proving there is a problem". Not all problems have solutions, or at least not complete solutions.

 

Claiming I am too ignorant to understand does not prove your point either. You have provided zero evidence that alternatives energy sources will be able to replace current energy sources, and you have not provided anything other than your opinion regarding a date when alternative energy sources will have replaced current energy sources.

 

Pointing out that funding for alternative energy sources occurs everday, does not bolster your position that "There is plenty of evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Similarly, simply putting money in the bank everday does not allow me to claim I will die a millionaire. I would also need to project how much I am saving each day and how long I expect to live.

 

We already know that alternatives are a solution. They are the solution and inevitably have to be (thus is the nature of limited fossil fuels). We are already using alternatives as well, so we know that we can, should we need to. Also, I am not arguing anything, these are not arguments. I am simply telling you what is. They are factual statements. Oil production in the US has been on the decline for some time now. The worlds leading oil producers like Saudi likely will be out of luck in just a generation or two. And realistically, I dont think there is any scientist on earth who believes that with further research and funding, we couldnt make alternative fuel extraction and use, more efficient.

 

I am not saying you are too ignorant to understand. I am just saying, if you dont think that alternatives will inevitably overtake fossil fuels within a couple generations, then realistically, you are the one who should be providing me evidence. Because there is no credible research in the world that points at something like America somehow becoming energy efficient based on oil production from the gulf (only in a dream world). Gas production is currently booming which is great. Coal production for our country in particular also ought to be capable of providing production of electricity for generations to come. However petroleum resources, which we use in just about everything we do, is greatly limited.

 

I never said alternatives would be able to equal up to the greatness of current fossil fuels in efficiency (not that I dont believe they will with time). What I am saying is, fossil fuels are...limited. Not only are they limited but they are...very limited. We have no choice but to accept alternatives, even less efficient ones.

 

If you put money in the bank each day, at that rate you would become a millionaire at some time. If we were to make a proper analogy to petroleum production, with our production and reserves being depleted...you would be increasing your funds at an accelerated rate toward millionairism. You would be getting rich so fast that everyone would be investing in your development. How about that...

 

Also, just because you may be dying in 50 or 100 years, doesnt mean you wont have children or grand children. By ignoring the inevitable, all you are doing is putting more weight on their shoulders, more than is already on your own.

Edited November 10, 2012 by iDevonian

[zapatos]

I am not arguing anything, these are not arguments. I am simply telling you what is. They are factual statements.

Fine. Then let's talk about this factual statement of yours:

 

There is plenty of evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future

 

If this is a factual statement, please provide that evidence. Don't provide evidence that oil is being depleted, everyone already knows that and it is moot. And don't provide evidence that Spain get 12% of their electricity from solar. Neither one supports your statement of fact that "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future".

 

Oil production in the US has been on the decline for some time now.

Is this another one of your facts?

According to index mundi, oil production has been on the rise in the US since 2009, and according to this

...crude oil production in the U.S. and Canada is expected to boom over the next decade...

But that is neither here nor there. This also does not address the role alternatives will fill in the future.

 

The worlds leading oil producers like Saudi likely will be out of luck in just a generation or two. And realistically, I dont think there is any scientist on earth who believes that with further research and funding, we couldnt make alternative fuel extraction and use, more efficient.

Again, not relevant.

 

I am not saying you are too ignorant to understand. I am just saying, if you dont think that alternatives will inevitably overtake fossil fuels within a couple generations,

Moving the goalposts. 'Overtake in a couple of generations' is not the same as "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future".

 

Because there is no credible research in the world that points at something like America somehow becoming energy efficient based on oil production from the gulf (only in a dream world).

Strawman. I never said it would.

 

I never said alternatives would be able to equal up to the greatness of current fossil fuels in efficiency (not that I dont believe they will with time).

I never claimed you did. The idea of efficiency did not come up until this post.

 

 

What I am saying is, fossil fuels are...limited. Not only are they limited but they are...very limited.

Irrelevant. No one is arguing that fossil fuels are not limited.

 

We have no choice but to accept alternatives, even less efficient ones.

Irrelevant. No one is arguing that we don't have to accept alternatives.

 

If you put money in the bank each day, at that rate you would become a millionaire at some time.

That statement is a huge problem and exemplary of this whole discussion. You are drawing conclusions with insufficient data. I even told you what data was missing and you still ignored it.

 

Also, just because you may be dying in 50 or 100 years, doesnt mean you wont have children or grand children.

Irrelevant. Appeal to emotion.

 

By ignoring the inevitable, all you are doing is putting more weight on their shoulders, more than is already on your own.

Strawman. I am not, and never said I was, ignoring the inevitable.

[overtone]

To what extent are large aquifers fouled (or potentially fouled) by fracking?

That depends on how lucky we are. The stuff used in fracking is toxic' date=' as is the gas and oil and other stuff released from its sequestered deposits, as are the various auxiliary substances (gas and oil for the machinery, leachates from waste dumps, etc ) involved in such mining operations on the surface.

 

If none of it gets into the aquifers, then no problem.

Is the potential damage from fracking something that could make an aquifer unusable, or is the issue strictly economical, in that if the water is fouled it will have to be cleaned prior to use?

If you spend enough money, you can clean water of anything. It would probably be cheaper to desalinate sea water from the Atlantic and pipe it to Pennsylvania, though.

 

I find it hard to believe that the alternative energy sources you mention could come anywhere near replacing natural gas anytime soon.

At current conversion efficiencies, using the existing pilot plant tech (in the baby stages of research), thermal solar on a hundred square miles of high southwestern desert would be sufficient to replace the energy the US currently obtains from natural gas.

[zapatos]

At current conversion efficiencies, using the existing pilot plant tech (in the baby stages of research), thermal solar on a hundred square miles of high southwestern desert would be sufficient to replace the energy the US currently obtains from natural gas.

I realize a good estimate would be tough to come by, but are you aware of any projections (that seem reasonable to you) of when the US might obtain that volume of energy from solar?

Edited November 11, 2012 by zapatos

[iDevonian]

If this is a factual statement, please provide that evidence. Don't provide evidence that oil is being depleted, everyone already knows that and it is moot.

 

 

Is this another one of your facts?

According to index mundi, oil production has been on the rise in the US since 2009, and according to this

 

Moving the goalposts. 'Overtake in a couple of generations' is not the same as "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future".

 

 

 

 

Oil being on the decline and near depletion is evidence enough for alternatives taking over in the near future. It is either that, or the extinction of humanity.

 

Also, oil production rising from 2009 is not the same as oil production rising as a whole. That would be like December coming around and people claiming that the planet is cooling.

 

And no, that isnt moving the goal post. A couple of generations is the near future. A couple of generations is in part, within our lifetime. Unless you consider only 5 years to be the near future or something along those lines.

[iNow]

Bottom line is that based on how I would define 'near future', I see no evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future. Perhaps if you could give an approximate date when you expect alternatives to replace fossil fuels?

If we went "all in" and political obstacles were not an issue, it could be done by roughly 2030, but more feasibly by 2050. However, given current approaches and international agreements, we'll still only barely have 11-13% of our power coming from renewables when we get to the year 2035.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/01/110117-100-percent-renewable-energy/

[zapatos]

Oil being on the decline and near depletion is evidence enough for alternatives taking over in the near future.

Ok. So when you said there is plenty of evidence, you meant there is plenty of evidence but you just will not or cannot provide it. Got it.

 

Also, oil production rising from 2009 is not the same as oil production rising as a whole.

Ok. So "oil production going up since 2009" is not at odds with your statement that "Oil production in the US has been on the decline for some time now". Got it.

 

If we went "all in" and political obstacles were not an issue, it could be done by roughly 2030, but more feasibly by 2050. However, given current approaches and international agreements, we'll still only barely have 11-13% of our power coming from renewables when we get to the year 2035.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/01/110117-100-percent-renewable-energy/

Excellent. Thanks. This is just the kind of information I was hoping to see.

[iDevonian]

Ok. So when you said there is plenty of evidence, you meant there is plenty of evidence but you just will not or cannot provide it. Got it.

 

 

Ok. So "oil production going up since 2009" is not at odds with your statement that "Oil production in the US has been on the decline for some time now". Got it.

 

 

If you just google information on oil reserves, just about any source will tell you what I am telling you now. And I have told you to do that. Google peak oil, google hubberts peak. Go pick up a book on petroleum resources.

 

Its not that hard.

 

And no, oil production going up since 2009 doesnt mean anything.

 

Since when has oil production rising within 3 years somehow transformed the amount of available and efficiently acquirable oil?

 

Again, thats like...the winter time coming around in december and someone saying "oh! its colder this month than it was last month! It must mean global cooling!" Better yet, just because you are referring specifically to production rather than production and overall reserves, your analogy is almost like...if you were to cut on the air conditioner in your household, and to then proceed in calling it global cooling.

 

It doesnt make any sense. If you cant understand that, its not my problem.

Edited November 11, 2012 by iDevonian

[zapatos]

Since when has oil production rising within 3 years somehow transformed the amount of available and efficiently acquirable oil?

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[iDevonian]

Were talking about alternatives coming to dominate the market. This is inevitable with the demise of significant fossil fuels like petroleum. By discussing the limitations of oil reserves, I am pointing out the future take over of alternatives.

 

You talked about increased production as if it would alter the demise of oil use. I simply stated that production really has no bearing on reserves. Just because production increases over the span of 3 years, doesnt mean that it will continue to increase over the span of 100 years. This is because the reserves do not magically grow over time with increased production.

 

If anything, increased production due to technological advances, combined with increased production by necessity with population growth, really only decreases the time before it runs out, and decreases the time before alternatives will be pressed harder, and ultimately will take over the market.

 

You said, and I quote

 

"Ok. So "oil production going up since 2009" is not at odds with your statement that "Oil production in the US has been on the decline for some time now". Got it."

 

Now I am saying, if I roll a ball down a 100 foot hill, and while rolling down the 100 foot hill, it hits a pebble and rolls back up the hill about 3 inches...just because it bounced up 3 inches, doesnt mean it will magically fly all the way back up the hill.

 

Just because I turn on the Air conditioner in my house for 5 minutes during the summer...doesnt mean that my house will cool indefinitely. Rather, the cooling will stop, and inevitably with the summer, my house will become warm again.

 

This is why oil production going up for 3 years, really isnt at odds with my statement that production in the US has been on the decline for some time now. Just as if you we were to say, a ball bouncing a couple inches back up the hill, doesnt contradict my statement that the ball is in reality rolling down hill.

 

So, my response is relative to yours.

 

And ultimately, production is still in a sense, independent from reserves. Reserves around the world are very limited in size and usefulness for production.

 

Unless you believe that mankind will simply figure out a way to live without energy, we will make the transition (more than we already are now).

 

Also, for the record, i consider a couple of generations, "the near future". If my grandchildren live to see it, id consider it very near. Maybe you feel that, that is a long ways away. If you do, i suppose that is fine.

Edited November 12, 2012 by iDevonian

[zapatos]

You talked about increased production as if it would alter the demise of oil use.

You continue to equate my questioning how soon alternatives can replace fossil fuels, with denying that fossil fuels are a limited resource. The two are not equivalent.

 

When I ask how soon alternatives can replace oil, telling me how fast oil is being depleted is not a useful answer. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. If oil was being depleted by 2% per year, that would not allow me to conlude that alternatives were growing at a comparable replacement rate. It might turn out to be that way, but it might also be more or less.

Edited November 12, 2012 by zapatos

[iDevonian]

You continue to equate my questioning how soon alternatives can replace fossil fuels, with denying that fossil fuels are a limited resource. The two are not equivalent.

 

When I ask how soon alternatives can replace oil, telling me how fast oil is being depleted is not a useful answer. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. If oil was being depleted by 2% per year, that would not allow me to conlude that alternatives were growing at a comparable replacement rate. It might turn out to be that way, but it might also be more or less.

 

Alternatives will replace fossil fuels within the timephrame in which they run out (or sooner, as they get low).

 

What do you think we will just sit around twiddling our thumbs while we run out of energy? Obviously we will pick up the slack elsewhere.

 

While what youre saying is true, alternatives do not necessarily need to grow as fast as fossil fuels are depleted. By determining the amount of time we have to use something like oil...150-200 years? We can get an idea of when economic stresses are going to turn into alternative investments.

 

Its possible we may jump to alternatives sooner than that. Though, its like...

 

Here is an example...

 

Lets say I drive down a typical street to work every day. Eventually my fuel begins getting more and more expensive, so I slowly transition into alternatives. I look for hybrids for example. I look for alternative quicker routes. Maybe the turnpike.

 

now, I could start taking alternative routes and the turnpike before I get low on fuel. Its possible. But it is not too likely that I would wait until My car is literally on empty before I begin investing time and money into discovering alternative routes.

 

People will and are doing the same thing. As we speak, these are real life events. Hybrids are becoming more popular, people are more mindful of rising gas prices. People are buying smaller or more gas efficient cars. On larger scales, countries are investing more money and time into alternatives.

 

The transitions though not exactly proportional, are strongly relative to eachother.

 

So, if something like oil runs out in...ill give the strongly liberal number of 300 years, we can safely bet that we arent going to sit around for 400 years without discovering something else to take its place.

 

And eventually, gas will hypothetically become so expensive, or so difficult to get (assuming nobody turns to alternatives), that I would, essentially have no choice but to invest in alternatives. Even lower quality or less efficient alternatives, will inevitably become better investments than overpriced oil. Unless we find a way to manufacture our own oil or something.

 

And its clear we arent going to sit around and do nothing because we are already taking action as we speak, ahead of time.

 

So, I understand what youre saying, but you should also understand what I am saying.

 

They will, likely take over the market within the next few generations, if not sooner (with respect to something like an unleaded or diesel fueled car).

Edited November 13, 2012 by iDevonian

[overtone]

I realize a good estimate would be tough to come by' date=' but are you aware of any projections (that seem reasonable to you) of when the US might obtain that volume of energy from solar? [/quote'] That is hardly the question, since we are discussing alternatives to new production - the projection of how quickly we could build solar capture, storage, and the necessary transport means, to replace the projection of how quickly we could tap and deplete the fracking deposits, would be at issue.

 

It also depends on what "reasonable" means. Clearly we could build an arbitrarily large existing tech thermal solar facility and cross country DC transport lines, to replace as many of the new natural gas power plants as we plan to build or retrofit over the next five years, in five years. Whether that would be wise, that kind of rush job, I leave to others.

 

The inconvenience of doing that, and the expense, we would balance against the likelihood of losing major aquifers and the continuing emission of CO2 and the cost of eventually depleting the deposits anyway - having the transition forced on us.

[Ophiolite]

I should be interested to see peer reviewed research that quantifies and demonstrates the damage to aquifers by shale gas development. All I have heard to date are rumours and unsupported assertions. It is a serious issue; would one of those who are opposing such development care to provide the meaningful data by which you arrived at your position. (Hint: I won't be convinced by a declared intrinsic distrust of Big Oil.)

[zapatos]

Alternatives will replace fossil fuels within the timephrame in which they run out...

So you said. I guess I'm old fashioned. I choose not to take the word of some anonymous person on the internet who cannot cite any reputable sources to support his assertions.

 

What do you think we will just sit around twiddling our thumbs while we run out of energy?

Whether I think we will sit twiddling our thumbs or harness fusion energy in 2013, thus solving the world's energy problems, is irrelevant. zapatos, with the Bugs Bunny avatar, is not a reputable source.

 

Its possible we may jump to alternatives sooner than that. Though, its like...

 

Here is an example...

Lovely story. Convenient for you that it has a happy ending. But it is irrelevant.

 

I could tell a story that does not have a happy ending.

 

Here is an example...

 

As supplies of cheap energy dwindle, suppliers of oil, seeing the writing on the wall, begin to hoard their reserves resulting in worldwide recession. Politicians refuse to act in a timely manner, thus driving us over the energy cliff. Countries that did not have the economic ability to build solar and wind infrastructure struggle to meet food demands and hundreds of thousands starve. Local economies are in shambles as northern cities struggle to provide heat for their citizens. Tourist destinations are empty. Millions freeze in Russia. Local conflicts break out all over the world. China and the United States threaten a worlwide conflict as they both covet the oil and natural gas remaining in the Middle East.

 

Thank goodness that people were working on this issue in the year 2012. They were finding more efficienct routes to work, buying hybrid cars, and countries were investing in alternative energy sources.

 

Because of their foresight, the gap between fossil fuel depletion and the rise of sufficient alternative energy sources only lasts about 10 years. Unfortunately millions die in that time, and the world experiences economic stagnation for decades as the transition from fossil fuels to alternatives is completed.

 

iDevonian -- Your optimism is not enough. Until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary, my scenario should be considered as likely as yours.

[iDevonian]

So you said. I guess I'm old fashioned. I choose not to take the word of some anonymous person on the internet who cannot cite any reputable sources to support his assertions.

 

If you are a scientist, asking for a source for how long it will be for alternatives to take over, is like asking for a source on oil in general. Any and every source that talks about peak oil will tell you exactly what I am telling you now.

 

And again, I have referenced hubberts peak. Go google peak oil. You can find hundreds of professional opinions, 99% of which aim toward the same conclusion.

 

As far as I am concerned, I am a fairly reputable source. I am not a petroleum geologist, but I am a geologist. I have been following these things for years now. I know what the consensus is, and I know why it is. What I am saying is reasonable.

 

I could tell a story that does not have a happy ending.

 

Here is an example...

 

As supplies of cheap energy dwindle, suppliers of oil, seeing the writing on the wall, begin to hoard their reserves resulting in worldwide recession. Politicians refuse to act in a timely manner, thus driving us over the energy cliff. Countries that did not have the economic ability to build solar and wind infrastructure struggle to meet food demands and hundreds of thousands starve. Local economies are in shambles as northern cities struggle to provide heat for their citizens. Tourist destinations are empty. Millions freeze in Russia. Local conflicts break out all over the world. China and the United States threaten a worlwide conflict as they both covet the oil and natural gas remaining in the Middle East.

 

Because of their foresight, the gap between fossil fuel depletion and the rise of sufficient alternative energy sources only lasts about 10 years. Unfortunately millions die in that time, and the world experiences economic stagnation for decades as the transition from fossil fuels to alternatives is completed.

 

iDevonian -- Your optimism is not enough. Until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary, my scenario should be considered as likely as yours.

 

Ok, so your scenario marks a 10 year timephrame between the finally of oil use and the transition to alternatives.

 

If these fossil fuels have a time span of hundreds of years, for resources like coal, we are talking about multiple hundreds. You trying to define such an event within a 10 year span, is too specific. Nobody, no reputable source nor expert could ever give you such a specific time frame in which alternatives would take over. So I dont see why you would ask us here and now. Resource use and the depletion of fossil fuels as well as the transition to alternatives is based on all sorts of things. Its very complex and not only is it a difficult question to pin point to an exact decade by geologists, but also to economists, big businesses, the governments behind alternative subsidies. There are a million and one factors that make it near impossible to pinpoint such a date to a specific decade. Especially so soon.

 

Not only that, but because we have multiple kinds of resources aside from oil use, we wouldnt abruptly stop using them all at once (thus resulting in millions dying). We may slow down drastically with one or another, but others would remain.

 

Its like having a car with 18 wheels. If one tire blows out, you dont just stop running. You drive until you get to the shop and you switch wheels. Or you put on your donut temporarily while you get a new wheel.

 

Your scenario is unrealistic. Not only that, it is unreasonable to attempt to find such a specific time in which a full transition would occur.

 

It is far more likely that there will be a gradual transition (as is occurring as we speak and can visibly see) over the next 50-100-150-200 years. Each decade providing newer and more advanced and useful alternatives than the last. Each form of alternative, taking over for the lessening of of fossil fuels while they simultaneously lead to alterations in how we live our day to day lives.

 

Its like global food supply. People arent just going to run out of food and millions instantly die. It is more likely to be gradual. Food is shortened, people starve, but live on with malnutrition, people have less children because they do not have the resources to sustain them...and so, instead of millions dying, what you have are millions simply not being born. In an unnoticeable transition.

 

Ill give you the last word, there really isnt much more to say here.

 

I'd give the transition exactly the time frame i stated earlier. 50-200 years, step by step, small steps, over time. By 200 hundred years from now, fossil fuels should be long gone as the leaders in resource use. While by 50 years, it should be quite clear to everyone that alternatives will be strongly significant providers of their life time. This include you and I now as well. We may be alive in 50 years. When we are old, it will likely be very clear to us that he world is changing. As it always has been.

 

I give these numbers based on peak oil data, coal resource data, the development of alternatives. You can find these reserves and this information on websites like the international energy agency website, or the US energy information administration website. You can also talk to just about any earth scientist. We are all basically on the same page here.

 

These are reputable sources that you seem to be interested in. They seem like common sense sources, but I am providing them anyway.

Edited November 14, 2012 by iDevonian

[zapatos]

Ok, one last question then.

 

Given that you say...

Nobody, no reputable source nor expert could ever give you such a specific time frame in which alternatives would take over.

 

and...

 

Resource use and the depletion of fossil fuels as well as the transition to alternatives is based on all sorts of things. Its very complex and not only is it a difficult question to pin point to an exact decade by geologists, but also to economists, big businesses, the governments behind alternative subsidies. There are a million and one factors that make it near impossible to pinpoint such a date to a specific decade.

 

how do you feel comfortable making the following statement?

 

Alternatives will replace fossil fuels within the timephrame in which they run out.

 

As far as I can tell, you are saying that we don't know when alternatives can take over, we don't know when fossil fuels will run out, but everything is going to work out fine.

 

My take on things is that not knowing when alternatives can take over, and not knowing when fossil fuels will run out, can only justify the statement that we don't know enough to make the claim that everything is going to work out fine.

Edited November 15, 2012 by zapatos

[Kalopin]

I'm sure you have seen the movie "Gasland"? http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

 

Yea, That's "Fracked" up!