OT: Peak Oil and the Road Warrior

[Crushing Fist]

So I was watching the end of "The Road Warrior" again this weekend and got to thinking about all the "peak oil" theories and such with oil up around $75 a barrel.


Whats everyone think on this topic?


As for me, I think things are going to be getting interesting rather soon.


lets put on our tinfoil hats and have a real conspiracy theory hoedown!


I'll start...

The real reason for the war in Iraq was that Saddam had started selling oil in Euros, a big no-no. When the euro went up and he started making a killing we had to step in as a warning to other oil producing nations,"you keep using US dollars as fiat currency... or else this happens to you". We certainly didn't do anything when the horrible atrocities he committed were actually happening.

IMO this is all just a big trade war between US and EU. Remember how France and Germany were so opposed to the invasion? remmeber the oil contracts they had? UK went in with us... they don't use the euro.


ok.... FLAME ON! :D

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

the aztec calander starts a new cycle in 2012 ... it doesnt end. it's like saying our calander ends on december 31st.

[Radhnoti]

In my opinion, and a lot of economists, whenever there's financial incentive enough people get creative. When there's BIG money to be made with a gas/oil alternative that's when it'll happen. It won't happen now, because it's individual producers and current events driving oil prices up. If anyone tried to put together a REAL nationwide gas-alternative plan right now all the oil producers would have to do is bring prices down to where they should be.

Your conspiracy theory works better for me than, "The U.S. went in to steal oil!"

[Ben Gash]

Yeah, as oil becomes more scarce then the vested interest groups will have less money to influence government with and then real progress can be made towards switching over to alternatives WHICH ARE AVAILIBLE NOW.
Then we won't be forced to tolerate the appalling human rights violations in the middle east and Russia, the huge inequalities that exist in these countries will change and the breeding conditions for terrorism will diminish.
See, we didn't need to invade Iraq to make the world safer, we just needed to go green :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

Peak Oil is a theory. It's not a reality.
Abiotic oil is another theory. It completely contradicts peak oil theory but goes unheard in the west because it's a russian theory.

I don't have a lot of faith in studies that come from the industries themselves.

will it run out? likely, everything runs out when you use it up.
but will it run out before we find another energy source that isn't hydrocarbons?
Probably not.

The infrastructure and wealth of teh oil producing companies and nations exists and is being profitted from. Not many people would make a business move that diverts this profit into researching ways to put themselves out of business and to render obsolete the infrastructure they have.

such is the way of capatilism in whatever political model it oiperates under.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

isn't the problem of alternate sources of energy that when you take everything into consideration ... production, transportation, and such ... it takes just as much oil to create it as you tried to save? the entire infrastructure is based on oil and i just dont see how we could "switch" to something else any time soon.

if oil gets as scarce as some say as quickly as some say we'll be back to horse drawn buggies and steam engines if we are lucky. it could be the best or worst thing to happen to us as a whole.

personally i dont think well see any of it in our life time.

[Crushing Fist]

Yeah, as oil becomes more scarce then the vested interest groups will have less money to influence government with and then real progress can be made towards switching over to alternatives WHICH ARE AVAILIBLE NOW.



I'll bite...

what are the alternatives which are available now?

[David Jamieson]

Alternatives that are available now are indeed quite good, but again, it's about funding and so long as big oil has more money, you're not going to see anything but token gestures of greeness.

As soon as big oil can strnglehold the alternative, they'll put more money in.

Ethanol is an alternative and is a renewable resource. Just keep growingh corn and you can continue to have cheap clean burning fuel.

Hydrogen fuel technology has been available for a while, the problem has been the mass production of the cells. This has been overcome. There is a proposition on teh table inCanada to have the first piece of INfrastructure for Hytdrogen fuel celll technology in place by 2015 with a corridor of refuel stations from Windsor Ontario to Montreal along the 401 highway the busiest transporatation corridor in North America.

Wind technolgy has been around for centuries and is now at a point where it has a real viability. Look for more wind power mills in the very near future.

Hydro electric power, well, need i say more.

Solar power technology is totally viable and can contribute to the reduction of the use of hydrocarbons in teh production of consumer electricity needs.

Hydro electric wave energy collectors use the energy from tides to gather and store electricity. this technology is fairly new, but is pretty remarkable.

antimatter. hard to produce, even harder to contain safely and so far, in teh process of moving from theory into reality as particles are smashed into each other to and fro to figure out the baby steps of how to make this a reality.

Cold fusion- still not available, but apparently this is a theoretical possibility that has made great stride since the 70's.

Nuclear energy- despite all the alarmism and negative image, this is a real solution. Probably the best choice for combination with current hydroelectric plants and a good alternative to getting rid of all teh coal and oil burning plants that make up some 75% of the electricity generated in North America.

Hemp Oil and Fuel- yes, the potheads love the sound of this one lol, but in all seriousness this is another highly diverse use of that simple plant that has been demonized because people prefer to smoke it.

Natural Gas- pretty abundant, not used to full potential.

Organic fuels are completely viable. It has been shown time and again that organic fuels can run combustion engines dsuch as a diesel with only a small modification to the fuel systems.

The problem with organic fuels is the amount of space required to grow the matter that the fuel is produced from. If super oily organics can be grown in smaller areas, it will become a reality and is already in the process of doing so.

electro magnetics is still being played with for all sort of things but the energy return in output vs input is pretty amazing.

The steps won't be taken until profit and greed are taken out of the equation.

those listed above are only a short sampling of alternative energies that in many cases are less harmful to us and our environment. with a little digging one can be amazed at what's out there and available right now but goes undeveloped because of no commitment to their production.

[David Jamieson]

FWIW-

It is corporations and big business that use most of the energy. So calls to turn off air conditioners at home in teh summer are just a tad bit silly.

Look at your skylines at night. You see all those building s all lit up and nobody in em? That's waste, pure and simple waste.

Inefficient systems in production lines at manufacturing plants, waste waste waste.

people in their homes are more concious of energy conservation than big business is. That's the general problem. If businesses made it part of their mission to conserve, they save themselves money, they save the environemnet the extra grief it has to bear at their expense and it will pervade further into our own conciousness.

[Crushing Fist]

Ethanol is an alternative and is a renewable resource. Just keep growingh corn and you can continue to have cheap clean burning fuel.

how much corn would we need to grow in order to replace the 80 million barrels of oil consumed in the world every day? I read somewhere that 95% or more of all land mass would have to used to grow corn for this to be possible.

seems a little far-fetched to me.



Hydrogen fuel technology has been available for a while, the problem has been the mass production of the cells. This has been overcome. There is a proposition on teh table inCanada to have the first piece of INfrastructure for Hytdrogen fuel celll technology in place by 2015 with a corridor of refuel stations from Windsor Ontario to Montreal along the 401 highway the busiest transporatation corridor in North America.


unfortunately hydrogen fuel cells are an energy carrier, not an energy source

currently most hydrogen is made from natural gas. it could be made from water with eletricity, but there is not currently any system to do this on a massive industrial scale, and where do we get the eletricity to do it? lets keep reading...



Wind technolgy has been around for centuries and is now at a point where it has a real viability. Look for more wind power mills in the very near future.



windmills are nifty, but I don't see them powering the current global economy...

how many Kilowatt hours does a typical windmill produce?



Hydro electric power, well, need i say more.


not bad but still in the same category as windmills... just a drop in the bucket compared to the energy currently being consumed.



Solar power technology is totally viable and can contribute to the reduction of the use of hydrocarbons in teh production of consumer electricity needs.


another nice idea, just very energy intensive to produce...

perhaps solar farms in space could work, if we have time and resources to develop them



Hydro electric wave energy collectors use the energy from tides to gather and store electricity. this technology is fairly new, but is pretty remarkable.


I like this one, it something I've always wondered about.

but again it won't sustain the current industrial economy.



antimatter. hard to produce, even harder to contain safely and so far, in teh process of moving from theory into reality as particles are smashed into each other to and fro to figure out the baby steps of how to make this a reality.


someone has been watching to much star trek again... :rolleyes:

know how much antimatter we have created and stored so far?

anyway we're talking about currently available alternatives to fossils



Cold fusion- still not available, but apparently this is a theoretical possibility that has made great stride since the 70's.


now we're talking! this is the tinfoil hat stuff I've been waiting for!



Nuclear energy- despite all the alarmism and negative image, this is a real solution. Probably the best choice for combination with current hydroelectric plants and a good alternative to getting rid of all teh coal and oil burning plants that make up some 75% of the electricity generated in North America.


same problem as fossils, only more acute. Limited fuel supply

never mind the chernobyls



Hemp Oil and Fuel- yes, the potheads love the sound of this one lol, but in all seriousness this is another highly diverse use of that simple plant that has been demonized because people prefer to smoke it.


I love it! Jello Biafra did a great spoken word on this one!

unfortunately same problem as the corn solution (see above)



Natural Gas- pretty abundant, not used to full potential.


not as good as oil, and destined to run out not long after... next



Organic fuels are completely viable. It has been shown time and again that organic fuels can run combustion engines dsuch as a diesel with only a small modification to the fuel systems.


one more time... its a matter of production. we already can't feed everyone, now we're going to use food sources to fuel cars?



The problem with organic fuels is the amount of space required to grow the matter that the fuel is produced from. If super oily organics can be grown in smaller areas, it will become a reality and is already in the process of doing so.


I see your point... producing enough is not currently realistic



electro magnetics is still being played with for all sort of things but the energy return in output vs input is pretty amazing.


the "electro" part has to come from somewhere...



The steps won't be taken until profit and greed are taken out of the equation.


so the steps won't be taken until humans no longer exist? again I see your point.

but seriously, if the steps aren't taken until oil is no longer profitable, then what will we use to change our massive infrastructure over to the "new way"?



those listed above are only a short sampling of alternative energies that in many cases are less harmful to us and our environment. with a little digging one can be amazed at what's out there and available right now but goes undeveloped because of no commitment to their production.

I for one, am not amazed...

one small detail

oil is used for more than energy

its used to grow our food in modern industrial farming... bit of a catch 22 on the organic fuels bit eh?

check this out...

[Crushing Fist]

Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer points out in his article entitled, "Eating Fossil Fuels," approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.



The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step of modern food production is fossil fuel and petrochemical powered:



1. Pesticides are made from oil;



2. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is

made from natural gas, which will peak about 10 years

after oil peaks;



3. With the exception of a few experimental prototypes, all

farming implements such as tractors and trailers are

constructed and powered using oil;



4. Food storage systems such as refrigerators are

manufactured in oil-powered plants, distributed across

oil-powered transportation networks and usually run on

electricity, which most often comes from natural gas or

coal;



5. In the US, the average piece of food is transported

almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In

Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000

miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed.



In short, people gobble oil like two-legged SUVs.



It's not just transportation and agriculture that are entirely dependent on abundant, cheap oil. Modern medicine, water distribution, and national defense are each entirely powered by oil and petroleum derived chemicals.



In addition to transportation, food, water, and modern medicine, mass quantities of oil are required for all plastics, all computers and all high-tech devices.



Some specific examples may help illustrate the degree to which our technological base is dependent on fossil fuels:



1. The construction of an average car consumes the energy

equivalent of approximately 20 barrels of oil , which

equates to 840 gallons, of oil. Ultimately, the

construction of a car will consume an amount of fossil

fuels equivalent to twice the car’s final weight.



2. The production of one gram of microchips consumes 630

grams of fossil fuels. According to the American Chemical

Society, the construction of single 32 megabyte DRAM

chip requires 3.5 pounds of fossil fuels in addition to 70.5

pounds of water.



3. The construction of the average desktop computer

consumes ten times its weight in fossil fuels.



4. The Environmental Literacy Council tells us that due to

the "purity and sophistication of materials (needed for) a

microchip, . . . the energy used in producing nine or ten

computers is enough to produce an automobile."



When considering the role of oil in the production of modern technology, remember that most alternative systems of energy — including solar panels/solar-nanotechnology, windmills, hydrogen fuel cells, biodiesel production facilities, nuclear power plants, etc. — rely on sophisticated technology.





you see the biggest problem coming out of an oil shortage would not be "where do we get our energy?" its "how do we feed ourselves?"


there is an answer





that answer is not utopian smiles and bunnies


the current amount of consumption will go down...

the current lifestyle of industrialized nations will change.

and the population...



who really thinks the population can be sustained at current levels or increase?


and why do you think so?


because it makes you feel good or do you have something concrete?



the Amazing Kreskin predicts.....




Massive Famine!



;)

enjoy

[Crushing Fist]

anymore ideas on what "Realistic and Currently Available Alternatives" will be able to replace the (approximately) 3.5 billion gallons of oil consumed in the world every day?



how much pot would we have to grow to get 3.5 billion gallons of hemp oil?


can we grow that much every day?






but really, I like the optimism... its cute

:)

[5Animals1Path]

Here's hoping for a Zombie outbreak. Put a little bit of perspective on everything.






Plus, I'll hoard gas so I can put my supersoaker flamethrower project to the front of the line.

[Crushing Fist]

Now we're getting somewhere!



Zombies! That's what I'm talkin' about...


who hasn't ever secretly wished for a zombie outbreak?






be honest now...


I mean, thats the only reason I train in Martial Arts

to be ready for the Road Warrior Zombie outbreak :D


[zombie groan] braaiiiiins..... fuuueeeel... braaaiiiiinnssss...[/zombie groan]


I'll have to quote Humongous on this one:




Walk away...



Just walk away

[Crushing Fist]

Remember one thing: That is more than just a tanker of gas.
That is our lifeline to a place beyond that vermin on machines.

















But the first step:
Defend the fuel.

[5Animals1Path]

We could also grind up the zombies and use them for fuel to fight the zombies.....then start to rely on the zombie fuel.......then have to create more people to make more zombies to make more fuel to kill more zombies from the people we created....










Ouch. Nevermind. Let's go back to the hemp idea.

[Ben Gash]

We're more than capable of feeding everyone. People go hungry for politico-financial reasons, in large part because we spend enough on arms in a week to feed and clothe the world for a year. In Europe we've capped production of foodstuffs because we were growing too much (leading to the infamous food mountains and milk lakes of the 80's. Were these given to starving East africans? No they weren't) . The world is capable of supporting around 33 billion people. It is projected that world population will peek at around 11 billion (remember, as a country becomes more developed it's birth rate drops). Therefore food should never be a problem.
As for the other points, this is why we need an intedragted energy strategy. Much of the usages for oil described don't actually need to be done with oil or an oil substitute at all. Solar, wind and wave, hydro and geothermal could replace much of the current industrial oil usage. Commercial transportation needs to be looked at hard. Why does a product grown in the UK have to be shipped to Poland to be packaged for sale in the UK? It's sheer stupidity. We will still need oil for some things, but most things we really don't.

[Crushing Fist]

I have to wonder where the 33 billion people number comes from...


haven't heard that one.


What method is used to come to this conclusion?


The rotting food isn't given to the poor and starving for one very simple reason...



it isn't profitable to do so.


corporations would gladly feed the hungry if it was profitable... but when their bottom line looks better for letting them starve...


this is the real problem.


The grain used to raise one beef steer would feed many many people for a long time, thats one of the "save the world" vegetarian slogans. So everytime I eat a steak I cause the deaths of thousands of children...



people are inherently greedy and profit driven... thats nature

all life is greedy and profit driven, it isn't going to change.

[Crushing Fist]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70238-0.html?tw=wn_index_29





Earth's population is expected to reach 7 billion in 2012, according to the Census Bureau.



there is that date again... :p



Some turn to mathematical models for estimating maximum sustainable population levels.

One metric modeled on the Census Bureau's population clock compares world population to the finite supply of arable land.

For his part, Cohen estimates that if we want to support individuals indefinitely -- allotting each person 3,500 calories per day from wheat and 247,000 gallons per year of fresh water -- the planet has room for only about 5 billion people.

But such formulas are subject to tinkering. Changes in agricultural practices, more efficient water-desalination technologies and a host of other factors can increase the number of people the planet can support. Shifts in behavior -- such as acceptance of new food sources that are cheap to produce -- can have a similar effect, noted Cohen.

"What most of this commentary neglects is the role of culture in defining wheat as food but not, let's say, cultured single-cell algae," he said.




5 billion with room for tinkering...


seems like a lot of tinkering to make up the other 28 billion


I'll look around a bit more, but it would help if you posted your source


seems way out of line with what I've seen everywhere else.

[Crushing Fist]

Carrying capacity today. Given current technologies, levels of consumption, and socioeconomic organization, has ingenuity made today's population sustainable? The answer to this question is clearly no, by a simple standard. The current population of 5.5 billion is being maintained only through the exhaustion and dispersion of a one-time inheritance of natural capital (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1990), including topsoil, groundwater, and biodiversity. The rapid depletion of these essential resources, coupled with a worldwide degradation of land (Jacobs 1991, Myers 1984, Postel 1989) and atmospheric quality (Jones and Wigley 1989, Schneider 1990), indicate that the human enterprise has not only exceeded its current social carrying capacity, but it is actually reducing future potential biophysical carrying capacities by depleting essential nautral capital stocks. [1]

The usual consequence for an animal population that exceeds its local biophysical carrying capacity is a population decline, brought about by a combination of increased mortality, reduced fecundity, and emigration where possible (Klein 1968, Mech 1966, Scheffer 1951). A classic example is that of 29 reindeer introduced to St. Matthew Island, which propagated to 6000, destroyed their resource base, and declined to fewer than 50 individuals (Klein 1968). Can human beings lower their per-capita impact at a rate sufficiently high to counterbalance their explosive increases in population?

Carrying capacity for saints. Two general assertions could support a claim that today's overshoot of social carrying capacity is temporary. The first is that people will alter their lifestyles (lower consumption, A in the I = PAT equation) and thereby reduce their impact. Although we strongly encourage such changes in lifestyle, we believe the development of policies to bring the population to (or below) social carrying capacity requires defining human beings as the animals now in existence. Planning a world for highly cooperative, antimaterialistic, ecologically sensitive vegetarians would be of little value in correcting today's situation. Indeed, a statement by demographer Nathan Keyfitz (1991) puts into perspective the view that behavioral changes will keep H. sapiens below social carrying capacity:

"If we have one point of empirically backed knowledge, it is that bad policies are widespread and persistent. Social science has to take account of them/" [our emphasis]

In short, it seems prudent to evaluate the problem of sustainability for selfish, myopic people who are poorly organized politically, socially, and economically.


still looking... 33 billion you say?


hmmmmmmmm

[Crushing Fist]

Technological optimism. The second assertion is that technological advances will sufficiently lower per capita impacts through reductions in T that no major changes in lifestyle will be necessary. This assertion rep resents a level of optimism held primarily by nonscientists. (A 1992 joint statement by the US National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society expresses a distinct lack of such optimism). Technical progress will undoubtedly lead to efficiency improvements, resource substitutions, and other innovations that are currently unimaginable. Different estimates of future rates of technical progress are the crux of much of the disagreement between ecologists and economists regarding the state of the world. Nonetheless, the costs of planning development under incorrect assumptions are much higher with overestimates of such rates than with underestimates (Costanza 1989).

A few simple calculations show why we believe it imprudent to count on technological innovation to reduce the scale of future human activities to remain within carrying capacity. Employing energy use as an imperfect surrogate for per-capita impact, in 1990 1.2 billion rich people were using an average of 7.5 kilowatts (kW) per person, for a total energy use of 9.0 terawatts (TOO; 10 12 watts). In contrast, 4.1 billion poor people were using 1 kW per person, and 4.1 TW in aggregate (Holdren 1991a). The total environmental impact was thus 13.1 TW.

Suppose that human population growth were eventually halted at 12 billion people and that development succeeded in raising global per capita energy use to 7.5 kW (approximately 4 kW below current US use). Then, total impact would be 90 TW. Because there is mounting evidence that 13.1 TW usage is too large for Earth to sustain, one needs little imagination to picture the environmental results of energy expenditures some sevenfold greater. Neither physicists nor ecologists are sanguine about improving technological performance sevenfold in the time available.

There is, indeed, little justification for counting on technological miracles to accomodate the billions more people soon to crowd the planet when the vast majority of the current population subsists under conditions that no one reading this article would voluntarily accept.













it doesn't look good for the home team :D

[Ben Gash]

read it a long time ago.

[Kymus]

Peak Oil is a theory. It's not a reality.

The Myth of Peak Oil (http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm)

[David Jamieson]

prison planet is not exactly the best sourcing on stuff.

if it can be drilled through to the source that's a bit different.


If you can drill through to 3, 1st degree connected sources, well you got a high level of probability going on there.

[SanHeChuan]

Well, there's really only one way to know for sure...Lets just us up all the OIL right now! Leave your light's on tonight and tommorrow we'll see the future of Global energy. ;) :D

[PlumDragon]

Double Post

[PlumDragon]

Peak oil is just a theory; advocates against it are always quick to jump at it claiming the following:

Oil is produced in the ground so how can we run out?

Theres no question oil is produced in the ground as time passes...But like children who dont have a clue about things like "analysis" and logical reasoning, they forget to ask themselves these important detail oriented follow-up questions:

What is the RATE at which oil is produced in the Earth? How much pre-oil mass is below the surface and how many years (centuries, milennia) does it take to turn that mass into oil? This is not Tuck Everlasting...There IS a finite supply of oil-producing material below our feet...

Does the rate of oil consumption OUTWEIGHT the rate of oil produced in the earth?

If we use oil more quickly than the Earth creates it then the total existing supply of oil will diminish over time...Call it what you will, that is the simple plain fact.


To take a step back...
Would it really be so bad if we had to go back to riding bikes and horses and the hectic 40+ hour week slowed down to a more relaxing pace? I could deal...

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

plum ... i could deal as well. in fact i would love it. i really need to learn to farm, but i'd adapt.

but if the lifestyle we've become accustomed to were suddenly threatened and infrastructures started collapsing do you think the majority of people would be like "ah well, i better get a hoe and learn to plant some vegetables before winter?"

two words ... hurricane katrina.

im not one for conspiracy or end of the world theories, but if we do run out of oil any time soon i think we'll have to decide if we can deal with a complete break down in society and not a slower paced lifestyle.

[PlumDragon]

GDA, Im with ya man, I love to get out and work in my yard.

As for your question: No, people would not take up that mindset you mentioned. People would be upset. Its MUCH easier to deal with a less...."luxurious" life when you never knew it--but for those that DO know it, you would have to pry much of the stuff most people take for granted, from their cold dead fingers before they would give it up.

But this is all really in jest for the following reason...Bear with me here:

Until someone can scientifically measure, on a planetary scale, that the Earth is creating oil faster than we are using it, then we must assume that we are using it up. This has one important implication as a response to your above post:

One day reserves and production will be of the same magnitude of the yearly use of these products worldwide. WHEN that occurs, we will not simply run out of oil. It will not simply dissapear. No, not even close...
Just like the slow half-life decay of atomic particles, the oil supply will experience an exponentially decreasing death. That is, for those not familiar with such a graph, oil usage will drop off more slowly as time passes, converging on 0 (zero oil) at...well for all intensive purposes hundreds and hundreds of years from now...

So you ask, why will this trend take place? As oil continues to diminish (unless of course someone jumps out of the shadow and shows scientifically that the Earth creates oil faster than we use it, which is somewhat ludicrous), the prices will continue to rise. As prices continue to rise, some people will have to do without their car, or buy a cheaper one that gets better mileage. Big corporations and wealthy businessmen will continue to use oil but perhaps at a slowed rate. As the price continues to rise yet further, sales will further continue to go down. This will happen until oil becomes a wealthy "luxury"....like the diamonds on Paris Hilton's finger; it will just become as "unavailable" for most people as a day of shopping on Rodeo Drive. So see oil will probably never really disappear completely, but in the process of its decreased availability and monetary feasibility, the world will have many years to transition over into this new type of society, a post-modern lifestlye wherein the children of tomorrow will not be aware that these luxuries existed the way they do today. OR...people will have enough time toward the end of the "Oil Era" to find a way to overcome these problems as oil becomes less feasible, and in many, many years, machines that consume oil are simply a thing of the past...

So while I agree with what you say, I dont believe that it will actually come to pass in that way...

Hurricane Katrina is most certainly less pervasive as the oil issue, but not near as subtle and far more instant...

I do hope I havent put anyone to sleep... ;)

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

wow you're right.

i just hear all these ohe noes we'z fuxor3d without teh oilz!!!!!!! posts and i never gave thought to the fact that it probably wouldnt happen overnight.

if given enough time to accept that we may have to regress technologically (or at least sacrafice a bit to make the transition to other forms of energy) then i think we could do it.

[Kymus]

prison planet is not exactly the best sourcing on stuff.

How do you figure? The editorials that they post are filled with mainstream, national, and international news sources.



if it can be drilled through to the source that's a bit different.

Considering that it's a lengthy article, I can see your point. But really, this one is a collaboration of dozens of articles. To be honest, I don't feel like refomatting each one to BBS code and repasting it.



If you can drill through to 3, 1st degree connected sources, well you got a high level of probability going on there.

I'll count them (as I go down the list):
Consumer Watchdog
Wall St. Journal
USA Today
NY Times
Bellville News
Arab News
Power Politics (Blog; dunno anything about it)
BBC
Vialls.com (page won't load; I think it's a blog)
Rolling Stones Magazine
Dr. Nick Begich
The Center for an Informed America (know nothing about them)
Political Physics.com
World Net Daily
Science Frontiers
Gas Resources.net
Energy Information Administration
Free Energy News
Gas Resources.net
The Col. L Fletcher Prouty Reference Site
Popular Science
Educate-yourself.org
Online Journal.com
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Philly.com
Scotsman.com

..is that good enough?

[Crushing Fist]

wow you're right.

i just hear all these ohe noes we'z fuxor3d without teh oilz!!!!!!! posts and i never gave thought to the fact that it probably wouldnt happen overnight.

if given enough time to accept that we may have to regress technologically (or at least sacrafice a bit to make the transition to other forms of energy) then i think we could do it.


its one thing if gas becomes a luxury item...


its entirely another if food becomes a luxury item.

its a fact that modern agricultural practices are impossible without petrochemicals.



keep up the gardening
;)

[neilhytholt]

The thing is, this has been predicted as happening for a long, long time now. But they do absolutely nothing about it, and still are doing absolutely nothing about it. Bush's administration's attitude still is basically, "This is okay. Let the market decide." ??? WTF ???

I guess Bush must have been stoned during the mid '70s gas crisis, and the recessions around 1980 and around 1990 and never had to deal with any economic shocks on a first-person basis.

That and the fact that no new refineries are coming online in the U.S. and they're all operating at peak capacity. It's like planning went right out the window on this one.

Just wait for oil over $100 a barrel and gas to go up to $6 a gallon within a few years.

[Crushing Fist]

years...



if we're lucky



or unlucky if you like road warrior zombies :(





oil could hit $100/barrel a lot quicker than that, the way things have been going



especially if they go all mideval on Iran like they keep not threatening

[SimonM]

I'll bite...

what are the alternatives which are available now?

Ethanol is a biggie.

Also BMW has produced a prototype car that uses a hydrogen fuel cell. Problem is that it's expensive.

[PlumDragon]

its a fact that modern agricultural practices are impossible without petrochemicals.
Crushing Fist, I say the following in the kindest most respectful way I can muster:

In large part, my job as an engineer is "innovation". Over the years, I feel Ive become rather excellent at applying varying solutions to a variety of general and unique problems, and so should any good engineer in R&D. Some very high-profile pieces of this countrys defense depend in part on my solutions. But I hear engineers talk as you do above, engineers who have the same impact that I do, and nothing ****es me off more. Now granted youre probably not an engineer so you probably dont see where Im coming from, so Ill explain as briefly as possible:

TODAY, it is a fact that modern agricultural practices are impossible without petrochemicals...TODAY, its an impossibility...not tomorrow (where "tomorrow" is defined as some point in the future when there is a differentiable difference in the processes and technology used in agricultural practices).
Today, it is impossible to process information in a computer as fast and as parrallel of a fashion as the human brain.
Today, it is impossible to travel to nearby stars in an expedient manner.
Today, it is impossible to .... etc etc etc

Its this sort of uninsightful thinking that seeks to halt the progress of what we do, what we make...what we overcome! Do you think breaking the sound barrier was seen in our eyes as "possible" before we set out to do it?? What about walking on the moon?

The sooner you stop saying "its impossible" and the sooner you start getting invovled in the innovation of a new solution, the better off everyone will be (By you I mean everybody, not you specifically). If you want to keep saying its impossible, then stay out of the god**** way and let the rest of us come up with a viable solution.

Sorry to banter so...I know that I addressed perhaps a part of yoru post which you didnt put much weight on...But this sort of attitude that I see in those who come up with the solutions is a big problem in our country, especially in the Defense industry...

[WanderingMonk]

oh, yes, the corn to ethanol, green technology.

I was listening to a radio show couple weeks ago, and the guest made a very important point.

corn is a industrial corp. you can plant a bunch, put in the fertilizer, and harvest a bunch at the end. however, the fertilizer are made using gas and petroleum. you can't get all those nitrogen without putting in energy in the first place. which means, you use gas and petroleum to make fertilizer to grow corn to produce ethanol. yeah, very efficient. you going to use more oil to grow corn than the oil you replace with ethanol.

there are a group of people doing bio-diesel. they use a particular enzyme found in Guam to break down plant fibers (hence it can use paper, grass clippings, etc. as raw material) Hence, you get rid of some unwanted waste and covnert it to ethanol through enzyme chemistry. that is a better alternative than the corn -> ethanol route.

[neilhytholt]

Yes, the thing about agriculture relying on petrochemicals now is because they use petroleum for fertillizer and for running the tractors.

But if you study agriculture, there's no reason you can't use better methods of agriculture. The Amish till with horses, and their soil gets better every year. They produce a profit without government subsidies or any of that.

But the problem is that right now THEY ARE DOING NOTHING. That's the problem. It's as if they want a big crisis and with Bush's oil background, it's no wonder they don't want to limit prices because his friends are raking in the $$$.

But just hydrogen fuel cells or something isn't going to solve it, because you still need a cheap source of electricity. They've talked about using geothermal, but they haven't gotten even to that, yet.

Right now with our existing technology the best bets are probably a) hybrids b) solar cells c) ethanol d) hydrogen fuel cells + (either nuclear or geothermal). But there isn't a lot of movement on any of those fronts. Hybrids are a very small percentage of cars on the road right now.

For some reason our governments and industry seem to never want to do anything until it's a crisis. Well it's pretty much at that point now.

These oil shocks + an inverted yield curve will in all probability lead to a big recession.

If the oil prices lead to too much inflation, they'll have to raise interest rates more to counteract that, and with all the ARMs out there that could mean a big problem for the real estate market as well.

Add that to our current deficits, trade deficits and budget deficits, and it starts looking like the perfect economic storm is brewing.

[neilhytholt]

The other solution is tapping cow's butts. Literally. The average cow produces 120 liters of methane gas.

Anyways, there's enough energy out there. The U.S. has an estimated 3 trillion barrels of oil shale that becomes economically producible at around $50 per barrel (we're past that now).

Plus, they had a huge find in some middle eastern country (can't remember, it's on the coast), with something like an estimated 10 trillion litres of natural gas reserves or something like that.

So the bottom line is there is fuel out there, and enough, but they need to start getting it out of the ground now.

[Blacktiger]

I wondered what you were all talking about "Road Warrior" - in Australia the film was released as Mad Max.

[SimonM]

The road warrior is mad max 2.

[joedoe]

One point that seems to be overlooked is the grade of oil being pumped out of the ground. Not all oil is of the correct quality to be refined into fuels, hence some of it is only good for use as lubricants or as ingredients in other substances e.g. rubber, plastics etc.

I also find it interesting that there seems to be a perception that oil/petrol should be cheap.

[Crushing Fist]

Crushing Fist, I say the following in the kindest most respectful way I can muster:

In large part, my job as an engineer is "innovation". Over the years, I feel Ive become rather excellent at applying varying solutions to a variety of general and unique problems, and so should any good engineer in R&D. Some very high-profile pieces of this countrys defense depend in part on my solutions. But I hear engineers talk as you do above, engineers who have the same impact that I do, and nothing ****es me off more. Now granted youre probably not an engineer so you probably dont see where Im coming from, so Ill explain as briefly as possible:

TODAY, it is a fact that modern agricultural practices are impossible without petrochemicals...TODAY, its an impossibility...not tomorrow (where "tomorrow" is defined as some point in the future when there is a differentiable difference in the processes and technology used in agricultural practices).
Today, it is impossible to process information in a computer as fast and as parrallel of a fashion as the human brain.
Today, it is impossible to travel to nearby stars in an expedient manner.
Today, it is impossible to .... etc etc etc

Its this sort of uninsightful thinking that seeks to halt the progress of what we do, what we make...what we overcome! Do you think breaking the sound barrier was seen in our eyes as "possible" before we set out to do it?? What about walking on the moon?

The sooner you stop saying "its impossible" and the sooner you start getting invovled in the innovation of a new solution, the better off everyone will be (By you I mean everybody, not you specifically). If you want to keep saying its impossible, then stay out of the god**** way and let the rest of us come up with a viable solution.

Sorry to banter so...I know that I addressed perhaps a part of yoru post which you didnt put much weight on...But this sort of attitude that I see in those who come up with the solutions is a big problem in our country, especially in the Defense industry...


I'll say this as politely as I can


first... I'm no engineer


second, I'm not seeking to halt anything but the mad rush towards suicide that our society seems bent on.

progress can be good... but what about progress towards walking off a cliff. I'm all for solutions, good realistic innovative solutions.

Going back to using horses to plow fields won't feed 7 billion people. There will have to be a sharp "population adjustment" soon unless you engineers come up with some serious engineering voodoo pretty quick...


like TODAY


not some fanciful future where everything will be perfect.


and while I'm on the subject, Mr Engineer...




where's my flying car?


:p



now stop taking everything so seriously and save the world!

[PlumDragon]

I'll say this as politely as I can

first... I'm no engineer

second, I'm not seeking to halt anything but the mad rush towards suicide that our society seems bent on.

progress can be good... but what about progress towards walking off a cliff. I'm all for solutions, good realistic innovative solutions.

Going back to using horses to plow fields won't feed 7 billion people. There will have to be a sharp "population adjustment" soon unless you engineers come up with some serious engineering voodoo pretty quick...

like TODAY

not some fanciful future where everything will be perfect.

and while I'm on the subject, Mr Engineer...where's my flying car?

now stop taking everything so seriously and save the world!
Good post, CF, good post. =)

I agree going back to horses to plow fields wont be the answer. It might be a *fraction* of the answer but the rest will come from some other type of post-modern evolutionary path. There are some good non-petro based methods of relaxing frictional dependencies and that might be a start--or perhaps a whole new way of looking at the problem. Well see what happens.

Fortunately, while the problem is hovering near our doorstep, we do still have some time to get all our ducks in a row--the only other alternative is that people die and the Earth, as it always seems to do, brings us back to its own natural equlibrium...

Oh BTW...Im still working on the flying car, dont lose faith in me! =)

[Crushing Fist]

Oh BTW...Im still working on the flying car, dont lose faith in me! =)


I have faith in you



but I'm losing faith in this guy (http://www.moller.com/)

I mean how long does it take???


then there was that solotrek... it looked cool but then it was just an artist's rendering.




but on the topic of massive depopulation...


I think it would help if people weren't so opposed to eating sea algae


I mean everytime I drink a supergreen with a little chlorella and some norwegian dulce everyone is all like :eek:

[PlumDragon]

I think it would help if people weren't so opposed to eating sea algae

I mean everytime I drink a supergreen with a little chlorella and some norwegian dulce everyone is all like :eek:
lol....Ive always lvoed that green "syrup" that comes from compressing wheat grass. Peopel are equally disguste3d when I order seaweed salad at the weekly Friday night sushi binge.

Most people think Im nuts. maybe its because there are too many Krispy Kreme donut stores and around today... :(

[Radhnoti]

Here's a good article on the thread topic, Peak Oil:

http://www.reason.com/0605/fe.rb.peak.shtml

From the article, since I know not everyone will read it: :)

"...Predictions of imminent catastrophic depletion are almost as old as the oil industry...One petroleum engineer— Michael Economides of the University of Houston—calls peak oil predictions “the figments of the imaginations of born-again pessimist geologists.”... Fortunately, it looks like humanity is at least a generation away from peak oil production...The USGS calculates that humanity has already consumed about 1 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, which means 82 percent of the world’s endowment of oil and gas resources remains to be used...In November 2005, the International Energy Agency, an organization created in 1974 by 26 industrialized countries to assess global energy issues, released its annual World Energy Outlook report, which accepted the USGS numbers and concluded that “the world’s energy resources are adequate to meet projected growth in energy demand” until at least 2030...At the Montreal Climate Change Conference in December, Claude Mandil, head of the International Energy Agency, declared: “We don’t share the tenets of the peak oil theory. We feel that they underestimate technological developments. For many decades to come there is no geological problem.” Fortunately, it looks like humanity is at least a generation away from peak oil production. Unfortunately, there could be another “oil crisis” any day now...The problem is that the vast majority of the world’s remaining oil reserves are not possessed by private enterprises. Seventy-seven percent of known reserves belong to government-owned companies. That means oil will be produced with all the efficiency associated with central planning. If ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, or other private companies actually owned the reserves, the world would be in a much more secure position with regard to oil production. Instead, we are subject to the whims of figures like Chavez, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and must worry about the doubtful stability of their personalities and regimes...the best policy is to let markets have free rein. Even if, say, the Iranians make the political decision to disrupt the flow of oil to world markets, those markets left to themselves will eventually discipline them. The temporarily higher prices will encourage more exploration and technological advances, which will bring energy prices back down. On the day of his inauguration in 1981, President Ronald Reagan lifted oil price controls. Five years later oil prices fell below $10 a barrel. “Trusting markets is the only way we can assure energy abundance in the future,” notes the University of Houston’s Economides. “It’s also the only way that we will ever transition to something other than oil and gas.”

[SimonM]

lol....Ive always lvoed that green "syrup" that comes from compressing wheat grass. Peopel are equally disguste3d when I order seaweed salad at the weekly Friday night sushi binge.

Most people think Im nuts. maybe its because there are too many Krispy Kreme donut stores and around today... :(

I hear you Plum Dragon.

Personally I'd rather eat a salad made up of peanuts, seaweed and three types of tofu covered in vinegar than eat even one sample of someone's Krispy Kreme. ;) :D :p

[PlumDragon]

I hear you Plum Dragon.

Personally I'd rather eat a salad made up of peanuts, seaweed and three types of tofu covered in vinegar than eat even one sample of someone's Krispy Kreme. ;) :D :p
heh, yep...

The one time it gives me problems is when I walk into a meeting in the morning and there are free donuts on the table... =\

[FuXnDajenariht]

i didn't think running out of the **** stuff was a problem. i thought the pollution it helped create was?

[Crushing Fist]

pollution... yeahthat's a whole different thread.


It seems that there are (and have been for 30 or so years) two wildly different estimates on the world oil situation.

one detail that many estimates of the "amount" of oil there is fails to take into account is recoverability.

another is quality

as the oil gets deeper and/or harder to recover it takes more energy to do so.

the point at which it takes as much energy to recover the oil as it will produce is termed "break-even"

any recovery beyond this point is considered an "energy-sink"

now we're taking a loss

the energy it takes to refine the crude into a usable product also must be factored into this equation.

obviously as technology improves so does the recoverability and refining efficiency.

the question is how much... and how soon?

if 85% of the world's oil is left, but only 50% is recoverable... then we should still be looking fairly good.

but lets be honest here, the most anyone can do is guess. maybe they are well informed and scientific guesses... but it is all still guessing.


now... as has been mentioned above in this thread we will not be able to ever use up all the oil because of market pressure. it will simply get too expensive as it becomes more rare.

so a good economic question is what ppb (price per barrel) will cause a real problem, like a major depression?

$100?


$200?


keep in mind that virtually everything in the modern world is made from or with petrochemicals.


are you wearing synthetic fibers?

use disposable diapers?

crayola crayons?

tires?










to me right now it seems more that there is a refining bottleneck than an actual supply deficit.


the thing is all the excess supply is sour.



thoughts anyone?

[dwid]

Well, I think the real question we should all be asking ourselves is what is our preferred apocalypse.

I mean, I think we can all agree that it is inevitable that mankind will ultimately face a major trial that will come in the form of either (A) A zombie apocalypse, (B) A nuclear/collapse of civilization/global economy apocalypse, or (C) a robot apocalypse.

Now, a robot apocalypse is dependent upon civilization thriving well into the future and is arguably the least survivable of the three apocalypse types. A zombie apocalypse is likely not much better a case scenario than the robot one and is inherently unpredictable and can therefore be anticipated as an inevitability on a long enough timeline.

Therefore, the collapse of civilization type apocalypse, being the most survivable of the three should be sought after. Meaning, we should continue to be as dependent as possible on oil, with all its incumbent vulnerability and political intrigue, and hasten this apocalypse in order to avoid the other two.

It's really very simple if you think about it.

[Royal Dragon]

The oil is there, it's just refining it, and getting it to market that is the problem. Supply is not keeping up with demand.

Taking this inot account, I bought some July Curde Oil futures, the next day Bush said he was going to do somehting to ease gass prices, and I lost most of my $$ (although, it appears to be comming back today).

Basically the market is out of balance, as soon as prices get high enough to where demand drops off, they will come down and continue to do so untill lower prices force demand to increase. At that point you will see rising oil prices once again, until we end up right back where we are right now.

I of course will continue to trade whatever side of the market is going in the right direction at the moment (Righ now I'm a bull).

I am predicting that oil prices will rise enough to make me enough $$$ to fuel my car for the next year....I predict it will happen in the next 3 weeks.

[Royal Dragon]

The oil is there, it's just refining it, and getting it to market that is the problem. Supply is not keeping up with demand.

Taking this into account, I bought some July Crude Oil futures, the next day Bush said he was going to do something to ease gass prices, and I lost most of my $$ (although, it appears to be comming back today). I now have to wait untill everyone forgot he said it, and things go back to market conditions.

Basically the market is out of balance, as soon as prices get high enough to where demand drops off, they will come down and continue to do so untill lower prices force demand to increase. At that point you will see rising oil prices once again, until we end up right back where we are right now.

I of course will continue to trade whatever side of the market is going in the right direction at the moment (Righ now I'm a bull).

I am predicting that oil prices will rise enough to make me enough $$$ to fuel my car for the next year....I predict it will happen in the next 3 weeks. One July unleaded gass call cost me $210.00 last week.....

[Royal Dragon]

http://www.futuresource.com/charts/charts.jsp?s=CLN06&o=&a=D&z=610x300&d=LOW&b=bar&st=MA%284%2C9%2C18%29%3B

Personally, I am hopeing light sweet crude oil goes to $85.00 a barrel.

At that point, I would love to see the market turn and drop down to around $60.00 in a nice solid trend that i can sell on before it turns and goes back up.

Over all, I really don't care what direction oil goes, so long as it is a predictable moving trend. The last thing i want if for it to meander sideways in a randome haphazard manor.

[Royal Dragon]

http://www.futuresource.com/charts/charts.jsp?s=GCM06&o=&a=D&z=610x300&d=LOW&b=bar&st=MA%284%2C9%2C18%29%3B

We also just had a nice break out of a congested pattern in Gold...watch the economy tank as this market shuffles up to $850.00 an ounce

[Radhnoti]

I hate that the EPA and conservationists keep applying pressure NOT to build new refineries. I hate that they also won't let private companies drill anywhere on U.S. soil...or in the Gulf of Mexico. It's not even stopping enviornmental damage...Mexico and Cuba have BOTH launched huge government backed initiatives to drill the Gulf.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/discover/dix61478.htm

[Radhnoti]

Just ran across another article talking about how "green" (Repub and Dem) types are hurting U.S. energy policy:

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05291.cfm

From the article:

Bowing to environmentalist demands since the 1970s, Congress has blocked oil and gas drilling from areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (10.4 billion barrels of oil, according to the U.S. Geological Service) and the Outer Continental Shelf (86 billion barrels of oil, according to the Minerals Management Service).

As Cuba works out deals with Canadian, Spanish and Chinese companies to explore for oil as close as 50 miles to Key West, Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., – apparently trying to appease the League of Conservation Voters which has given him a 10 percent rating – dubbed a proposal by Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., to allow drilling 20 miles off the Florida coast as “crazy.”

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla., also oppose OCS drilling thanks to oil spill hysteria whipped up by the Sierra Club.

Environmentalists helped pressure Congress in 1990 to require “reformulated” gasoline (RFG) supposedly to reduce the formation of ground-level ozone or smog. The RFG process requires use of additives such as ethanol or MTBE.

The RFG requirement raised the price of gasoline not only because of the cost of the additives but because different areas of the country require different blends of fuel to address different air quality circumstances. The 17 so-called “boutique” fuels used around the country make the national gasoline supply less fungible, which causes supply bottlenecks.

And for all this pain, there appears to be little gain from RFG. A 1999 report from the National Research Council reported that, “the net impact of RFG on ambient ozone concentrations...is a few percent. For this reason, it is difficult to quantify the specific contribution of the RFG program to the apparent downward trend in ozone.”

Also:

"In the 1990s, the environmentalist-friendly Clinton Administration made Environmental Protection Agency air quality standards much more stringent. Because states that fail to meet these standards stand to lose federal highway money, state governments now require gasoline refineries to install expensive air emissions equipment. The equipment is so expensive that it makes the expansion of existing refineries economically unattractive to investors – and you can forget about the construction and permitting of new refineries...Not only are the alleged health and environmental benefits of these EPA regulations in doubt, but the EPA is getting ready to make the air quality standards even more stringent – virtually guaranteeing that expanding refinery capacity will proceed very slowly, if at all."

[Crushing Fist]

Well, I think the real question we should all be asking ourselves is what is our preferred apocalypse.

I mean, I think we can all agree that it is inevitable that mankind will ultimately face a major trial that will come in the form of either (A) A zombie apocalypse, (B) A nuclear/collapse of civilization/global economy apocalypse, or (C) a robot apocalypse.

Now, a robot apocalypse is dependent upon civilization thriving well into the future and is arguably the least survivable of the three apocalypse types. A zombie apocalypse is likely not much better a case scenario than the robot one and is inherently unpredictable and can therefore be anticipated as an inevitability on a long enough timeline.

Therefore, the collapse of civilization type apocalypse, being the most survivable of the three should be sought after. Meaning, we should continue to be as dependent as possible on oil, with all its incumbent vulnerability and political intrigue, and hasten this apocalypse in order to avoid the other two.

It's really very simple if you think about it.



NOW we're getting somewhere!

This is exactly the kind of post I'm talking about.



robot apocalypse:

not a good thing. I mean really this just won't be fun at all. kung fu won't work on robots at all. :mad:

on the other hand it has been speculated that the inevitable next step in our evolution will be to give birth to machine life... if we fail in this step perhaps we fail as a species. :(

after all it is unlikely that anything but machine life could survive in interstellar space.


zombie apocalypse:

unproductive... but it just doesn't get more fun than this!

evolving into a species of unthinking undead shambling horrors won't, in the long run, amount to much of anything. but remember that chinese broadsword you sharpened to a razor edge that's just sitting in the basement doing nothing? wouldn't that be great for lopping off zombie heads? combined with your pistol grip combat shotgun (also collecting dust in the basement) you are talking about some serious resident evil style dawn of the dead action!


collapse of society apocalypse:

most plausible... probably most boring.

now lopping off heads carries a certain moral questionability. :rolleyes:

so do the 12 gauge hydrashock slugs

after all these are still humans... desperate, but still human.
on the other hand, humans stay dead. that's a plus.

of course the collapse of society scenario would have to proceeded by the police state scenario for a few years... and thats always a drag.



really the survivability rate for any of these (assuming humans survive at all) would probably be in the 1-5% range.




not great odds in vegas.











of course a random asteroid could always come along and go all jurassic on our a s s...

[dwid]

robot apocalypse:

not a good thing. I mean really this just won't be fun at all. kung fu won't work on robots at all. :mad:

on the other hand it has been speculated that the inevitable next step in our evolution will be to give birth to machine life... if we fail in this step perhaps we fail as a species. :(

after all it is unlikely that anything but machine life could survive in interstellar space.


Well, I for one do not plan to go gently into that good night...
F the robots and their innately superior processing power and speed, it's a sucker's bet for sure to just go along with them being the next step in human evolution. Still, I think I'm going to have to invest in some higher caliber weaponry to have a chance against those shiny-skinned b@stards.

[dwid]

So, I just finished paying off my Ruger Super Redhawk .454 Casull yesterday and mounted a 2x Leupold Optic on it. I'm ready for some serious Mad Max action now. Let's see them get their gas truck past me now.

Just walk away :D

[Crushing Fist]

So, I just finished paying off my Ruger Super Redhawk .454 Casull yesterday and mounted a 2x Leupold Optic on it. I'm ready for some serious Mad Max action now. Let's see them get their gas truck past me now.

Just walk away :D


:cool: shweeeet...


a little AP ammo in that sucka and look out!

the guy at the store said the .454 has the stopping power at 100 yards that the .44 magnum has at point blank! ouch


my pistol grip 12 gauge has the "sidewinder" (http://www.knoxx.com/NewStyleKnoxx/Products/SideWinder.htm) attachment giving it 10 round drum and 6 round box magazines :D like a streetsweeper without the full auto... hey I like pump action :p


I like 12 gauge because of the variety (http://www.hi-vel.com/Catalog__18/Specialized_Shotshell_Ammuniti/specialized_shotshell_ammuniti.html)


for zombies the fireball or terminators would be cool


robots... maybe the mini-missile or the payload slug with some nasty high-explosive packed in there.


general use, saboted flechette (http://www.antipersonnel.net/sdllc/006.html)


its the 21st century alternative to buckshot :)

[dwid]

Wow. I had no idea that kind of ammo was available to the general public. And here I thought my #4 tactical shot was good.

[Liokault]

The only way forward:

http://edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/renew/bermuda.htm


The US geological Survey has estimated that just two small areas off the coasts of North and South Carolina, which are a part of the Bermuda Triangle, contain about 70 times the quantity of gas consumed annually in USA. The sea bed and the areas of permafrost are therefore storehouses of a great energy source. It has been estimated that just 1% of gas hydrate is equivalent to half the present conventional gas reserves. But the bad news is that methane is a greenhouse gas and it is vulnerable to blowouts when drillings go wrong. It is only stable under narrow temperature and pressure conditions and would decay due to global warming. We will have to wait and see whether it gives us energy to burn or it burns us up instead!

[Radhnoti]

Crushing Fist, those links were pretty amazing. I've got a 12 gauge Mossberg 590 Mariner loaded for home defense...first shot a slug, all following are 00. You just showed me how boring that is. :D
dwid, I may go looking for that #4 tactial shot too...

[Crushing Fist]

hehehe yeah they have some good ones

and you can always load your own...

how about the payload slug packed with thermite :D

eat that you robot b@stards!


or how about liquid mercury sealed in with plastic... that could work with any hollowpoint and is guaranteed lethal... if you're into that sort of thing

I thought of one I call "hellfire"

jellied petroleum with little shards of magnesium


don't try this at home kids!


when I bought the mossberg with the sidewinder the guy threw in some ammo I hadn't seen before...

tactical rifled 12 gauge hydra-shok hollow point slugs! (that happen to say law enforcement only :p )

I can't even imagine what these would do to flesh :eek:



bring on the zombies!!!