|
Post by flute on May 25, 2007 17:35:05 GMT -5
I work for one of the big oil companies. For many years the history of energy has fascinated me. From the invention of the steam engine through the industrial revolution to the present day mega machine powered by 30 billion barrels of crude a year. The ingenuity of humans is incredible. The future of energy is an even bigger fascination for me. What will power our future? Hydrogen? Fusion? Nuclear? One things for sure, it can't be oil forever. It's finite and we're not exactly conserving it. I don't mean to nitpick, so please excuse me if that's what it appears I'm doing. However, this most recent post seems to contradict some of things that you've said in previous posts to this thread. For example, you previously said that it is naive to think that technology would see us through our dependency on oil. Yet, you offer in this most recent post that you have been fascinated by human ingenuity and the progress made in the area of energy production over the last century. That sounds quite contradictory in my opinion. You seem to be saying that technology and human ingenuity have gotten us this far, but won't get us any further. You're sounding like the IBM executives who said that there was no need or demand for personal computers. Remember the mega machines (mainframes) that we once depended on so heavily? There's still a considerable market for mainframes. However, many of the things that were once the exclusive domain of mainframes, are now done by personal computers. So the mainframe industry wasn't replaced by personal computers, but complemented by the personal computer. I think this is what we'll see happen with the future of crude oil. Our dependence on crude oil will not abruptly end. We'll just gradually reduce our dependence on oil. We'll do it in a way that will allow crude oil needs to be gradually phased out. This is not a new concept.
|
|
|
Post by richardnoggin on May 26, 2007 13:36:38 GMT -5
I work for one of the big oil companies. For many years the history of energy has fascinated me. From the invention of the steam engine through the industrial revolution to the present day mega machine powered by 30 billion barrels of crude a year. The ingenuity of humans is incredible. The future of energy is an even bigger fascination for me. What will power our future? Hydrogen? Fusion? Nuclear? One things for sure, it can't be oil forever. It's finite and we're not exactly conserving it. I don't mean to nitpick, so please excuse me if that's what it appears I'm doing. However, this most recent post seems to contradict some of things that you've said in previous posts to this thread. For example, you previously said that it is naive to think that technology would see us through our dependency on oil. Yet, you offer in this most recent post that you have been fascinated by human ingenuity and the progress made in the area of energy production over the last century. That sounds quite contradictory in my opinion. You seem to be saying that technology and human ingenuity have gotten us this far, but won't get us any further. You're sounding like the IBM executives who said that there was no need or demand for personal computers. Remember the mega machines (mainframes) that we once depended on so heavily? There's still a considerable market for mainframes. However, many of the things that were once the exclusive domain of mainframes, are now done by personal computers. So the mainframe industry wasn't replaced by personal computers, but complemented by the personal computer. I think this is what we'll see happen with the future of crude oil. Our dependence on crude oil will not abruptly end. We'll just gradually reduce our dependence on oil. We'll do it in a way that will allow crude oil needs to be gradually phased out. This is not a new concept. Well, it remains to be seen if the same ingenuity that got us in this mess is going to be able to save us from it too. Like I said before "energy drives technology not the other way around". That's a hard one to get your head around, I know. Interesting does not mean I believe in it as a savior or anything. The exploitation of cheap energy is an addiction and one day soon we face the prospect of having to wean ourselves off it. So make no mistake, I don't worship technology but simply see it as a manifestation of our addiction to fossil fuels. IMHO there are at present only two candidates that have the potential to keep the machine running without any hiccups and this would be the miracle I was talking about because I think some hiccups are just around the corner. Cold fusion supposedly is a pipe dream of a handful of scientists but if possible would keep us happily machining along. Hydrogen has potential but it has a ways to go. We are still experimenting with this technology so finding an economical design that can be brought to the marketplace is a huge challenge. As I said there is no alternative presently (or combination of) that can replace more than a small fraction of fossil fuel energy. So keep your fingers crossed
|
|
|
Post by flute on May 26, 2007 15:51:29 GMT -5
Well, it remains to be seen if the same ingenuity that got us in this mess is going to be able to save us from it too. Like I said before "energy drives technology not the other way around". That's a hard one to get your head around, I know. Interesting does not mean I believe in it as a savior or anything. When you say that "energy drives technology," I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "energy". To me it sounds as though you are suggesting that all energy is derived from fossil fuels. That isn't the case, however. We satisfy a great deal of our electricity needs with technologies that have no reliance on fossil fuels whatsoever. Hydro-electric turbines and nuclear energy are just two examples of energy produced without fossil fuels. There are others as well. Are you familiar with how freight and passenger trains are powered? They have large diesel engines, but the diesel engines don't directly propel the train. Instead, the diesel engines are used to generate electricity that powers electric motors, which, in turn, spin the wheels and move the train forward. So modern trains are already run on electricity. They'll just need something other than diesel fuel to generate that electricity. Checkout the diesel-electric locomotive for an interesting look at human ingenuity and power.
|
|
|
Post by richardnoggin on May 27, 2007 19:38:56 GMT -5
Well, it remains to be seen if the same ingenuity that got us in this mess is going to be able to save us from it too. Like I said before "energy drives technology not the other way around". That's a hard one to get your head around, I know. Interesting does not mean I believe in it as a savior or anything. To me it sounds as though you are suggesting that all energy is derived from fossil fuels. It might as well be because the vast majority of it is. Power generated from falling water is like whispering at a scream in the big picture. Nuclear has limits that many aren't aware of ie; uranium is not a plentiful resource. If we step up nuclear power generation we just deplete that resource much quicker. The earths carrying capacity has been artificially increased through the exploitation of fossil fuels and like I said earlier we don't have any alternatives at present that can sustain our current situation when petroleum production declines.
|
|
|
Post by flute on May 28, 2007 6:04:22 GMT -5
It might as well be because the vast majority of it is. Power generated from falling water is like whispering at a scream in the big picture. Nuclear has limits that many aren't aware of ie; uranium is not a plentiful resource. If we step up nuclear power generation we just deplete that resource much quicker. The earths carrying capacity has been artificially increased through the exploitation of fossil fuels and like I said earlier we don't have any alternatives at present that can sustain our current situation when petroleum production declines. Several years ago, I developed a small interest in model trains. I say that it was a small interest because I didn't actually acquire any model trains or spend any money on the interest. What I did do however, was decide that I would one day retire and devote all of my time to building a model railroad. Over the years, I've looked into the hobby off and on as I debated whether the time had come to put my retirement plan into action. On several occasions when I was sure that I had had my last dealings with humanity, I looked into different aspects of model railroading. From seeking out people who were using their old Atari 8-bit computers to control their railroads, to just visiting Jerry's TV and Hi-Fi on East Street to look at the little Engines, cars, and miscelaneous doodads. Model railroading has been my half-hearted escape from society for many years now. It was only this last weekend that I found myself thinking of trains again. (And it was this thread that once again piqued my interest.) I spent some time on YouTube looking at videos of train derailments. And I think it's the derailments that hold the most fascination for me. It always struck me how trains were really the most controlled mode of transportation but offered the least control when things went wrong. Anyway, straying off-topic. I guess what I'm saying is that I think I'm ready to eliminate society from my life and devote my time to model trains. I figure retirement is about doing things that will bring joy to your life. And Lord knows, people and joy are about as abstract a concept as is imaginable. Choo-Choo!
|
|
|
Post by richardnoggin on May 28, 2007 9:58:33 GMT -5
It might as well be because the vast majority of it is. Power generated from falling water is like whispering at a scream in the big picture. Nuclear has limits that many aren't aware of ie; uranium is not a plentiful resource. If we step up nuclear power generation we just deplete that resource much quicker. The earths carrying capacity has been artificially increased through the exploitation of fossil fuels and like I said earlier we don't have any alternatives at present that can sustain our current situation when petroleum production declines. Several years ago, I developed a small interest in model trains. I say that it was a small interest because I didn't actually acquire any model trains or spend any money on the interest. What I did do however, was decide that I would one day retire and devote all of my time to building a model railroad. Over the years, I've looked into the hobby off and on as I debated whether the time had come to put my retirement plan into action. On several occasions when I was sure that I had had my last dealings with humanity, I looked into different aspects of model railroading. From seeking out people who were using their old Atari 8-bit computers to control their railroads, to just visiting Jerry's TV and Hi-Fi on East Street to look at the little Engines, cars, and miscelaneous doodads. Model railroading has been my half-hearted escape from society for many years now. It was only this last weekend that I found myself thinking of trains again. (And it was this thread that once again piqued my interest.) I spent some time on YouTube looking at videos of train derailments. And I think it's the derailments that hold the most fascination for me. It always struck me how trains were really the most controlled mode of transportation but offered the least control when things went wrong. Anyway, straying off-topic. I guess what I'm saying is that I think I'm ready to eliminate society from my life and devote my time to model trains. I figure retirement is about doing things that will bring joy to your life. And Lord knows, people and joy are about as abstract a concept as is imaginable. Choo-Choo! Don't wait till you retire. Model railroading is a great hobby. Neil Young is big time into it and has been for years. I think in the future we'll see a rebirth of rail transport. It is by far the most economical way to move goods around the continent.
|
|
|
Post by flute on May 29, 2007 11:18:17 GMT -5
Neil Young? I don't know how Neil Young's interest in model railroads is of any significance, but it is a great hobby. Gary Coleman is a big railroad buff as well.
I read that the railroads have seen a bit of a surge in recent years. Especially for freight shipments. The automotive industry relies heavily on the railways.
One diesel-electric locomotive produces enough electricity to power approximately 1000 houses. That's a small town. What I find interesting is that locomotives produce electricity even while braking. This electricity is directed to a wire mesh, where it is consumed as heat. In other words, it's wasted electricity.
|
|
|
Post by richardnoggin on May 29, 2007 18:20:21 GMT -5
Neil Young? I don't know how Neil Young's interest in model railroads is of any significance, but it is a great hobby. Gary Coleman is a big railroad buff as well. I read that the railroads have seen a bit of a surge in recent years. Especially for freight shipments. The automotive industry relies heavily on the railways. One diesel-electric locomotive produces enough electricity to power approximately 1000 houses. That's a small town. What I find interesting is that locomotives produce electricity even while braking. This electricity is directed to a wire mesh, where it is consumed as heat. In other words, it's wasted electricity. Gary Coleman?? I don't know how Gary Coleman's interest in model railroads is of any significance. What choo talkin bout Willis?
|
|
|
Post by flute on May 29, 2007 19:08:04 GMT -5
My point was that I'm not going to do something just because somebody else does it. I don't buy into the whole "herd" mentality. But I figure you've already guessed that. lol.
As for Gary Coleman, he has about as much significance to this discussion as Neil Young does. I'm not familiar with Neil Young's interest in the hobby, but I do know that it is somewhat of an obsession for Gary Coleman. Of course, their interest in trains has absolutely no effect on my interest in trains. I do not have an interest in trains merely because they do, nor do I discount the hobby on the basis that they have an interest in it. I am neither a follower of those before me, nor am I a trailblazer. I'm simply someone who finds trains to be somewhat interesting.
I suppose people know what they like. That's really kind of the moral of the story here. Whether it be politics and who one chooses to vote for, or a hobby. People know what they enjoy and what is right for them. Isn't that what we in the "real world" call "freedom"?
|
|