The Forum > Article Comments > Oil no longer the dressing for the '3,000 mile Caesar salad' > Comments
Oil no longer the dressing for the '3,000 mile Caesar salad' : Comments
By Russ Grayson, published 7/11/2005Russ Grayson argues small communities need investment and innovation to avoid the impact of declining oil stocks.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Realist, Monday, 7 November 2005 11:28:40 AM
| |
REALIST (7.11) writes that "The technology has already been created for engines fulled using all sorts of renewable sources... These inventions are quickly snapped up and put to ground".
I have heard this too but have never seen the allegation substantiated and I wonder whether it is true. Perhaps it is in a number of cases, however as a rumour or belief it seems to have persisted down the years. It suggests a conspiracy by economic interests and it would be good to have factual substantiation. Posted by pacific-edge, Monday, 7 November 2005 11:57:08 AM
| |
I agree,
I am not bold enough to make claims without solid evidence. A 'person' invented a water powered engine. That is all he can tell me due to NDA's etc, but he did this in Taiwan and is very, very wealthy now. No crap. No hear say. You can understand though why we are never going to hear about it. He will not discuss it with anyone, and i bet the purchaser is not going to (3 guesses who it would be, but i do not know this either). Google it and see the very limited info, but this has happenned and i am sure he would not be the only one. He went to one trade show, that was it, he was snapped up. That is why we do not need to worry, money being the motivating factor will ensure that products will emerge when profits are down for oil giants and the financial NEED has emerged. Posted by Realist, Monday, 7 November 2005 12:18:07 PM
| |
A localisation trend would be a kind of back swing against globalisation. Apart from reduced energy use in commuting and food distribution, other advantages include water re-use and community care of children and the aged. It also makes smaller targets for terrorists. The problem is whether such communities could generate enough spare cash to buy big ticket items such as new private cars. What is certain is that there won't be enough energy by today's middle class expectations. How big and how fast the change will be is hard to predict.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 7 November 2005 12:24:03 PM
| |
Of course at some point oil production will peak then decline, and that point may be in the next few decades. But the concept of "peak oil" as a critical watershed sounds like more environmental scaremongering than an aid to rational debate. You say that Tim Wintons warns “Decline will follow the peaking of oil extraction.” That's not a warning, by definition anything declines from a peak.
Tim also says that “The economy will not grow if the energy supply does not.” This is nonsense - we live in an increasingly knowledge-intensive economy, where energy is a declining element in production. Look how much growth occurs in electronics and electronic media, with low energy intensity and virtually cost-free distribution in some cases, e.g. via the internet. By all means, promote local community action. But do it through good information on likely trends and the merits of alternative responses, not through scaremongering. And given the uncertainties in predicting such variables as the success in global oil exploration and the uptake of nuclear power, we should focus on increasing our capacity to respond positively to changing circumstances, whatever they are, than planning around a single (and in this case probably not very well thought-out) scenario. Posted by Faustino, Monday, 7 November 2005 1:03:02 PM
| |
When it comes to "grow you own fuel" such as biodiesel, then I might be a little sceptical, as I have seen the considerable amount of damage that agriculture has done to natural bushland.
The energy that can be used from "fuel" crops would also have to be weighed against the energy consumed in actually producing that fuel. Crops that can be used to produce fuels such as biodiesel or ethanol will still require land, irrigation water, suitable climate, freedom from pest and disease, fuel to run farm equipment, and also fertilizers. Nearly all crops require nitrogen fertilizer, but the Harbor process for producing ammonia fetilizer consumes considerable amounts of energy in itself, and it may be more energy efficient to simply run cars on natural gas, rather than biodiesel or ethanol. If more countries begin to "grow their own" fuels, it could also produce something similar to an oil shortage, (with associated monopolies, price hikes etc) , in that there becomes a fertilizer shortage, as apparently most of the world's supply of certain fertilizers such as phosphate are only available from a few countries at present. see http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/statistics/indicators/ind_reserves.asp Posted by Timkins, Monday, 7 November 2005 1:09:00 PM
|
The technology has already been created for engines fulled using all sorts of renewable sources, water was one. These inventions are quickly snapped up and put to ground until there is a real dire need for change, or there is money to be made (but not at the expense of the oil industry).
We have nothing to worry about. The foundation is already there to build on. It will be an extremely efficient changeover process.