An apology to all future generations: Sorry we used up your oil...

[Zardoz]

...Our excesses?...

We owe future generations everything. We owe them a planet...

In the year 2050, what will young people be saying about these? :

This is a ship of "residences". For six million bucks you can buy a 3200-square foot condo on this ship, which continuously sails on, circling the globe:

http://www.residensea.com/

"We have created a world that suits us. The World is a ship that carries our luxury vacation residences to the four corners of the earth. Our ocean residences are as comfortable as we can make it with an excellent crew, caring staff and extremely comforting security. The ship cruises on, stopping for a night or two at ports around the world. We enjoy our life-style. We enjoy each other’s company and we also enjoy our own private apartments - our luxury residences at sea.

http://www.aboardtheworld.com/

Its the ultimate in fuel-intensive living. Your "house" is constantly burning fuel for its engines and electrical generators, even if you're not on board. Its the only one of its kind so far, but not for long:

The Four Seasons

"This is your chance to live like no one else. To own a luxurious home at sea. For a select few, The Four Seasons—a 42,500-ton ship—will become a fully equipped residence in some of the world’s most alluring ports. Offered as whole ownership or shared ownership, both on a 50-year leasehold basis, Four Seasons Ocean Residences will give you the comforts of home. Along with the amenities and service for which Four Seasons is renowned. This is an opportunity to redefine home and travel as you know it. This is life aboard The Four Seasons—a life as exceptional as those who choose to live it."


The Magellan

The Orphalese

Orphalese Mall

http://residentialvessels.com/entry.htm - Seven proposed "residential ships", although this smells like a scam to me, or at least wishful thinking. Ya gotta love those names, though. My favorite is the "Extravagance".


You'd think something like this would be enough for anybody, wouldn't you? :

Wrong! :

Whaddya mean, I can't land there!?

Nope, a little ol' Gulfstream isn't enough for a guy like Ron Tutor. He's just gotta have a Boeing 737 for his personal private plane, and little airports simply have to make their runways strong enough and long enough for him to land it. That's right, Boeing makes a luxurious private version of the 737 for "discriminating" customers like Tutor. They've sold a lot of them.


Here's a nice boat:

Greg Norman has a good golf swing. He parlayed it into that thing. Check the specs:

She sports a 59,439-gallon fuel tank

Best of all, check the title of the article: "The Courage of His Convictions". I wonder what future generations will have to say about his "courage"? And BTW, he also has a private 737. Nothing's too much of a fuel-swiller for The Shark.

Sure, serious fuel-burners like the above are relatively rare, thank God, but these aren't :

The poster child for the Oil Age. Perfect for single-driver daily commuting to work. The freeways of Southern California are packed with these 6400-pound armored personnel carriers, and they're all carrying nothing but their drivers. They inspire web sites like these:

H2 fan site...

H2 fan photos...

How it really happened

But, of course, nothing beats the Viper-engined Ram for sheer silliness:

Worst mileage champs

Your mileage may vary, indeed.

What will future generations say about us? Nothing good, that's for sure. I'm glad I won't be here to find out...

 

[THE ED3]

bigger ships these days are nuclear powered arent they? like aircraft carriers and subs...

and honda has a nice bussiness jet now... more economic.

 

[VIPFREAK]

I love that hummer pic... and this vid (couldn't find a better link).

 

[Zardoz]

bigger ships these days are nuclear powered arent they?

No, they're not! What are you talking about? Every commercial vessel in the world burns fuel oil!

Do you really think those condo ships are going to be nukes?

 

[Danoff]

Population Growth:

Population growth has already stalled or reversed itself in most first-world countries. There are a lot of countries on the open market for labor and immigration because of this. Certain European countries have lowered barriers recently for immigrants because of declining birth rates. Japan is making it easier now for immigrant labor.

Third World Countries, however, do not seem to be slowing down. What global economists or ecologists see as population control, families below the poverty line see as wasted potential. To a blue-collar western worker, more kids= more expenses. To a poor rural family in the third world, more kids= more farm workers. To a poor urban family, more kids= more breadwinners, more scrap collectors or beggars. Suffice to say, population growth is not going to level off any time soon.

If food becomes hard to come by (afford), even third world countries will have to control their populations.

Oil Demand - Automotive:
Thankfully, after an initial bull run, sales are slowing down, as economic realities sink in, and the actual size of the consumer market stabilizes.

Price sends loud clear signals.

Oil Demand - Industrial Use:

Sadly, Third World Countries need oil. Lots of it. Now. Rapid industrial development in China has also increased the demand for oil. While oil prices may be going up, as long as cheap industry in developing countries can undercut prices from first-world concerns, oil demand will keep going up.

As long as the price remains the same, but it will go up if oil becomes scarce.

Other Alternatives:

Ion thrusters - no. Not practical for anything but space exploration. But they're a very cheap form of space propulsion.

Not as cheap as one might hope.

Nuclear Energy - it costs a lot of money to build a nuclear plant, and it takes a lot of energy to dig up nuclear fuel. Fissionables are like fossil fuels, you have to dig them up, purify and process them and transport them. And they're in limited supply. Nuclear Fusion was thought to be the future, but even with the amount of money spent on fusion research in the past 30 years, we are no closer to creating a self-sustaining Fusion Reactor.

Nuclear Energy doesn't have to cost as much as it does in the US, and we can sustain ourselves for a long long time with nuclear power. It's the best alternative we have.

What is possible and doable right now:

Nuclear is doable right now.

 

[niky]

Those boats are just crazy. It would be nice if we had more nuclear powered ships, but even with the relatively small number of nuclear powered craft operating (mostly military), we've already had a number of incidents.

I thought sails were coming back in vogue?

Private 737s? Nothing new for rockstars. Still, that's conspicuous consumption at its worst.

Private jets will guzzle fuel, period. They can minimize this with slower craft, higher cruising altitudes and lighter airframes. Of course, the features that drive sales are comfort and speed, so development of fuel-efficient private jets on the consumer market is slow.

I have nothing to say on H2s. Anything and everything that can be said about them has been said elsewhere already.

@danoff: Yes, food scarcity should encourage population retreat, BUT LOOK at Africa, India and Asia. Poverty gives greater opportunities for copulation and food scarcity only encourages couples to produce more kids to help raise money for food or grow crops. Not even AIDS discourages procreation. The only countries which have controlled or stable populations are those in which the standard of living is acceptable to the population. The only people who really consider the problem of over-population are those who have something to lose, economically.

Developing countries will still be able to provide products at a lower price, despite the lack of industrial oil for production because of lower labor costs. OF course, if transportation costs go through the roof, the point will be moot.

Yes, Nuclear is doable, but it's only a medium term solution. Nuclear fuels are also a non-renewable resource.

 

[THE ED3]

if they use it on subs and aircraft carriers i see no reason they cant use it on large passenger ships. sure there have been a few subs lost due to problems with the nuclear power plant but you have to realize they were mostly russian and they have worse build quality then chevy.

 

[niky]

It's not really unrealiable per se, but when nuclear powered craft DO crash, the radiation hazard is a big worry. It's a very politically charged issue, and with eco-extremists like Greenpeace actively attacking vessels which merely transport nuclear materials, it's not something we can do soon.

There's another issue right there... As DeLoreanBrown mentioned, the eco-extremists, the "pseudogreens" are really hampering our ability to logically cope with this crisis. (look up issues involving genetic modification, nuclear power, etc...) With extremists on both sides of the issue painting in shades of black and white, it's really hard for the world to take a united stance on the oil crisis.

 

[THE ED3]

thats one thing i cant stand... those green extreamists. i lean to the left but geeze...

 

[Zardoz]

...Our excesses?...

America's 100 Largest Yachts

"In 1985 there were only five yachts measuring more than 150 feet on our list. Ten years later there were 18. Today the entire list is in that range—larger, actually, as the “smallest” yacht measures 151 feet and a handful of inches."

Considering what appears to be coming, you have to wonder when the time will arrive that fuel for these beasts will not only be astronomically expensive, but simply not available for them at any price...

 

[Danoff]

America's 100 Largest Yachts

"In 1985 there were only five yachts measuring more than 150 feet on our list. Ten years later there were 18. Today the entire list is in that range—larger, actually, as the “smallest” yacht measures 151 feet and a handful of inches."

Considering what appears to be coming, you have to wonder when the time will arrive that fuel for these beasts will not only be astronomically expensive, but simply not available for them at any price...

Who cares? We're not exactly talking about a major portion of the demand for oil here. A few extravagant yachts? Let the multi-billionaire people who own those things worry about the cost for fuel. I'm sure they can afford it.

 

[Zardoz]

...We're not exactly talking about a major portion of the demand for oil here...

Very true, of course, but you mentioned "excesses", so...

 

[Danoff]

Very true, of course, but you mentioned "excesses", so...

Actually you mentioned excesses.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Who cares? We're not exactly talking about a major portion of the demand for oil here. A few extravagant yachts? Let the multi-billionaire people who own those things worry about the cost for fuel. I'm sure they can afford it.

That's the thing -- because "they" can afford it, "they" don't care [usually, can't speak for everyone] about social costs of "excessive" fuel usage... unless they're priced out of the market. Or there's a revolution.

 

[Danoff]

That's the thing -- because "they" can afford it, "they" don't care [usually, can't speak for everyone] about social costs of "excessive" fuel usage... unless they're priced out of the market. Or there's a revolution.

They get to make the judgement call, about how much oil is worth to them, and what they consider excessive. They're not the ones we're worried about though. The vast majority of pollution is not created by the rich or elite, it's created by the masses and by companies.

We both know that the masses and companies care an awful lot about the price of fuel.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

They're not the ones we're worried about though. The vast majority of pollution is not created by the rich or elite, it's created by the masses and by companies. We both know that the masses and companies care an awful lot about the price of fuel.

One simple solution: Change the propag... err... marketing strategy. Doing this will make demand more elastic, reduce public and corporate use of oil, and still allow energy companies to profit off of alternative fuels.

 

[Danoff]

One simple solution: Change the propag... err... marketing strategy. Doing this will make demand more elastic, reduce public and corporate use of oil, and still allow energy companies to profit off of alternative fuels.

They've already done this don't you think? Gasoline companies are advertising the amounts of money that they're pouring into alternative technology and environmental saving strategies. Vehicles are posting MPG ratings as large as possible when they're good numbers. Obviously the public has already started to care a lot more about this as a result of the recent gas price spikes.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

They've already done this don't you think?

I'm not saying they haven't done anything yet. The fact of the matter is, the advertising is not nearly as effective as it could be. If the advertising was effective, demand for oil (at least in the US) would be more elastic.

Gasoline companies are advertising the amounts of money that they're pouring into alternative technology and environmental saving strategies. Vehicles are posting MPG ratings as large as possible when they're good numbers. Obviously the public has already started to care a lot more about this as a result of the recent gas price spikes.

It hasn't addressed the issue of elasticity.

 

[Zardoz]

If you're looking for some "food for thought" on this subject, here's way more than you can devour at one sitting:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic6619-0-asc-0.html

This is is a supermarket-sized supply of "food for thought". Its a locked thread full of previous posts by "MonteQuest", one of the moderators of this site's forum. He's done just a wee bit of thinking on the subject, as you'll see.

I like his sig:

A Saudi saying: "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet plane. His son will ride a camel."

I guarantee that you'll learn many important things from his posts, whether or not you agree with his overall views and conclusions.

(CAUTION: This guy is basically a "doomer", although he talks frequently of solutions. If you're looking for reassuring descriptions of how we're going make a smooth transition, you won't find them by clicking on the above link.)

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Thanx to Aaron Dunlap.

 

[VIPFREAK]

thanks for the update dood...

 

[Danoff]

Thanx to Aaron Dunlap.

Solar isn't a good place for BP to be investing. There are other feilds that invest heavily in solar technology (like space), let them do the solar work. BP should be investing in alternatives to gasoline (which solar will not be).

I'm surprised that blue column isn't zero.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Don't Read this it could be biased etc etc

 

[Danoff]

Don't Read this it could be biased etc etc

Funny coming from the guy who screams BIAS!! every time anyone else posts something.

 

[Zardoz]

Impressive poster:

http://www.oilposter.org/

http://www.oilposter.org/posterlarge.html

I may actually order it...

 

[Zardoz]

The slumbering giant is beginning to wake up:

Peak Oil resolution in U.S. House of Representatives

They have, in fact, formed a "Peak Oil Caucus". This is very good news.

 

[Zardoz]

OPEC to Consumers: Get Used to High Energy Costs

A few quotes from the article:

"At a meeting in Kuwait, members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries hinted at possible production cuts next year -- a move that would boost oil prices."

"Leeb said OPEC was telling the world that it probably would cut production if the group's collection of target oil prices fell to the equivalent of about $57 or $58 a barrel for the U.S. benchmark crude."

"You can enjoy paying $2.25 to $2.40 a gallon for gasoline for awhile," he said, "but sometime in the next 18 months, you'll be paying $3 again."


What combination of psychedelic drugs are those goofballs at the Energy Information Administration taking? :

"Officials at the federal Energy Information Administration issued their own a bleak projection Monday, forecasting that heavy demand would cause the average cost of oil imported by U.S. refiners to rise until 2014. Then, new supplies from Saudi Arabia and other countries were expected to ease the supply crunch and cause a dip in crude costs, the Energy Department's statistical arm said in its latest long-term energy outlook report.

"The respite won't last, however. Oil prices will resume their upward climb, hitting $54.08 per barrel in 2025, up 34 percent from 2004 levels. The agency's multi-year projection, issued annually, was more optimistic last year, pegging oil at about $33 a barrel in 2025."


Drugs! Hard drugs! How else can you explain such silliness!?

"New supplies"??? Are they nuts? What the hell are they talking about?

$54 per barrel in 2025? Yeah, right! Try $254!

 

[niky]

New oil? I'd seriously like to know how true that is... Are they looking at the same demand forecasts as everyone else, or do they have a killer hybrid app up their sleeves?

Maybe in 2025, they figure we'll all be driving electrics. Wishful thinking, but it'd be nice.

 

[OGLE B]

Man, as I read this thread, I am amazed at the "doom and gloom" attitudes, and hatred of people who can afford large cars/boats/etc. Must be the product of public school indoctrination.

I don't know where to begin to comment, as almost every post deserves a page and a half of rebuttal. So I’ll keep it short.

The earth makes oil. Oil is not “fossil fuel” made from decomposed plants and animals. There is plenty of oil to last 100 years. However, there will be other better energy sources utilized before that.

Nuclear power can be safe and economical. Every nation in the world wants to build these – except in America they can’t, mainly because of false fears of the uninformed (who watched and believed Jane Fonda in China Syndrome).

Be skeptical of reports by those who have an agenda to harm and handicap our nation. There is allot of bad research out there, though expertly expressed and “documented”.

 

[VeilsideR33sub]

The earth makes oil. Oil is not “fossil fuel” made from decomposed plants and animals. There is plenty of oil to last 100 years. However, there will be other better energy sources utilized before that.
Nuclear power can be safe and economical. Every nation in the world wants to build these – except in America they can’t, mainly because of false fears of the uninformed (who watched and believed Jane Fonda in China Syndrome).

Ogle , baby , you like scimitars? , robins ?
Anyways Oil is not decomposed anything , what it is though is cooked animals , microscopic mostly animal fossils . So what you say is pure **** sunshine . 100 years ? Let's hope , in the meantime , let's strap in to what we can , yay .
On the nuke note though , yes , jane fonda is responsible for callisthenics and coal belt technolgies for the brights , yay .