A World Without Oil

Part of what gets lost in these conversations, is that I don't think there's one of us that wouldn't welcome a clean, safe, new source of energy, with open arms. It's not one side against the other.

I dream about having something come up that I can afford, and be able to get me completely off the grid. Same with gasoline. I'd love to be able to say goodbye to the stuff.

As far as the arguments go on here, I think it boils down to one group of people understanding that there's not a quick way off from the fossil fuel merry go round, and another group thinking that there is. But ultimately, I think all of us would like to leave it behind.

I agree wholeheartedly, kramarat.

Excluding me is a bit wishful when you seem to have inverted my meaning.

Growth sequesters CO₂ provided the wood, or whatever, is not burned/eaten. I.e. more growth reduces atmospheric CO₂. More wood in construction reduces atmospheric CO₂.

Growth rates increase (given water) in a high CO₂ atmosphere. High growth also tends to reduce atmospheric water which is a far more powerful green house 'gas' than CO₂. I.e. to an extent it is self correcting.

CO₂ is not 'toxic'. High levels serve to increase respiration rates. Expired breath respiration increases CO₂ without consequences and obvious benefits.

Whatever you have read, or are reading into whatever you read; you have it totally arse about.

Perhaps you are confusing CO₂ with CO, NO, sulphur and/or photochemical smog?

I was excluding you because I though you got it. But I guess you don't. Reality is 2 ppm per year increase CO2 increase in the atmosphere. (and accelerating). So your growing more wood is pie in the sky. It isn't working now and it won't work in the future. Right now a huge swath of BC forest is rotting due to pine beatles eating the lodgepole pines and they are expanding eastwards into Alberta. They love the warm winters (which are not happening of course because global warming is really climate change). Life is so good for them that they have developed a taste for other types of pine trees and there is not much stopping them getting to Quebec not. Just time.

More wood in construction takes potash and phosphorus out of the equation too. CO2 may not be "toxic" (in your view) but according to wikipedia 20% of the population experience discomfort at a level higher than 1000 ppm. Asthmatics will die at those concentrations. "High levels serve to increase respiration rates" (which to them is an asthmatic attack). Have you seen an asthmatic attack? Try telling them that they have it totally arse about. Or that they are just respiring fast.

Now about confusing CO2 with CO, NO sulphur and photochemical smog. Don't forget droplets of water in your equation. The raised levels of CO2 are in there interacting with the other chemicals especially in those droplets. It increases the acidity of those little droplets. Sure isn't making things better.

"...your growing more wood is pie in the sky. It isn't working now and it won't work in the future..."

This is a pretty rash statement, considering the net forest cover throughout the world is decreasing, not increasing. How can you call it "pie in the sky" when it hasn't even been tried? Trees are the most efficient natural consumers of CO2- at least, new-growth trees are. They slow down a bit as they age...You ought to give it a try before you discount it.

"Right now a huge swath of BC forest is rotting due to pine beatles eating the lodgepole pines..."

The fact that one species of trees is being destroyed by a particular pest does not mean you can not replace them with other species. This has been going on since species first began specializing, and will continue long after we stop burning things.

"Climate" is not a static state, nor is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. I would far prefer a warmer planet than one with ice sheets stretching to the equator. If one studies the paleoclimate record, there is strong indication that CO2 peaks at several orders of magnitude higher than what is projected for the next couple of centuries, which is followed by an ice age. This was going on long before we humans were a part of the equation...

Climate is going to change. It is either going to get warmer, or it is going to get colder. There isn't a whole lot any of us can do about that...

"...your growing more wood is pie in the sky. It isn't working now and it won't work in the future..."

"This is a pretty rash statement, considering the net forest cover throughout the world is decreasing, not increasing."

EXACTLY

Everything you said in your statement supports my statement so why do you call mine a "rash statement"?

My is that one can not say that planting trees "isn't working now and won't work in the future..." is rash, because we haven't yet tried it, so how do we know it doesn't work? Obviously, cutting them down doesn't work...

Humans have tried planting trees. Those lodgepole pines in BC? Most of them were planted. Every year billions of trees are planted. As long as humans are taking sequestered carbon out of the earth really really fast, and pumping it up into the air as C02 and Ch4 really fast, planting trees is irrelevant. The vast majority of the trees that you plant will either Burn in wildfires, Die in drought or be Eaten by insects. This does not reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere in any way. The only way to get rid of it before it gives 1/5 of humans breathing difficulties (in about 100 years) is to stop taking sequestered carbon out of the ground and putting it up there and hope that green sea life absorbs it, and other tiny stuff eats it up and poops it into the depths of the ocean where it can become sediment. People are planting lots of trees and yet the CO2 in the atmosphere keeps getting more concentrated faster. What more proof do you need?

You're getting yourself all worked up again gia.

I happen to do lots of things that would be considered environmentally friendly, I just don't have a bumber sticker on my car proclaiming how green I am, or run around trying to shove everybody's face in how great I am, and how dirty they are.

I've replaced my lawn with low and slow growing zoysia. Why? Because I consider cutting grass an utter waste of time and money.

I plant trees, because I like them.

I grow a vegetable garden every year. Why? Because I like to be able to walk out in the back yard and get a fresh salad whenever I want, and it tastes better than anything from the store.

I heat my house with wood that would otherwise go to the dump. I also took the time to learn how to burn wood without putting sooty particulates in the air. Why? Because a smoky fire is an inefficient fire, and I want to convert as much of that wood into heat as possible.....................it saves me work, time and money.

I have a big truck that I use only for transporting ladders, pressure washer, and other equipment. Otherwise I use a minivan to commute back and fourth from my jobs. Why? Because it saves me money.

Just because some of us don't have the rabid, "I'm saving the planet, and you suck" attitude, doesn't mean that we're not doing the same things as the people that do.

"The air we inhale is roughly 78% by volume nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.96% argon and 0.04% carbon dioxide, helium, water, and other gases. In addition to air, underwater divers often breathe oxygen-rich or helium-rich gas mixtures. Oxygen and analgesic gases are sometimes given to patients under medical care. The atmosphere in space suits is pure oxygen. Also our reliance on this relatively small amount of oxygen can cause overactivity or euphoria in pure or oxygen-rich environments.

The permanent gases in gas we exhale are roughly 4% to 5% more carbon dioxide and 4% to 5% less oxygen than was inhaled. Additionally vapors and trace gases are present: 5% water vapor, several parts per million (ppm) of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, 1 part per million (ppm) of ammonia and less than 1 ppm of acetone, methanol, ethanol (unless ethanol has been ingested, in which case much higher concentrations would occur in the breath, cf. Breathalyzer) and other volatile organic compounds. The exact amount of exhaled oxygen and carbon dioxide when breathing and the amount of gases exhaled may vary based on diet, exercise and fitness."

Link

"4 to 5% more" So why aren't all asthmatics dead

_{(I might point out here that the O2 and CO2 have to balance and the inference that a 4-5% rise against 0.04% CO2 inhaled is somewhat misleading, as is not expressing it all in a common base)}

Some are dead, depends on ventilation standards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity (Towards the end is the stuff about indoor CO2 levels and human discomfort). As a human being with healthy lungs, maybe I shouldn't give a shit about asthmatics and people with other lung diseases but unfortunately for me I count some of these weak lunged people among my friends. Silly me, I even get distressed when I see them suffer.

Go ahead and have a good laugh at their expense.

Here is another link to keep you laughing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome#Air_circulation_with_fan_use

But aren't you the one on about less people on the planet?

I think there is a saying that goes something like this, 'If you want to change the world you have to start with yourself'? Then there is the rule of nature which is simply 'Survival of the fittest'.

Relating to organic carbon sequestration there is a whole lot of other green stuff in nature besides trees too.

It always amazes me how those who are screaming the sky is falling the loudest also have the least rational understandings of whats going on around them and are also the least willing to accept change that does not favor them or those like them.

"...there is a whole lot of other green stuff in nature besides trees too."

Not wrong there. I figure a whole lot more CO2 could be sequestered with toxic algal blooms under the right conditions.

Or massive controlled algal blooms that we could harvest biofuel from.

Massive control?!! What if people demand "free range" algal biofuel?

It burns "better" you know.....

1st you would need a strain algae that can be cultivated out doors & produce large quantities of oil [the genetic engineers are hard at work as we speak]

oops algae #9,

plenty of oil, not so many humans

I'll grant you that CO2 is less toxic than many gasses but it is certainly toxic. Why do you think we expel CO2 from our body.

Good link Red

"Adaptation to increased levels of CO₂ occurs in humans. Continuous inhalation of CO₂ can be tolerated at three percent inspired concentrations for at least one month and four percent inspired concentrations for over a week. It was suggested that 2.0 percent inspired concentrations could be used for closed air spaces (e.g. a submarine) since the adaptation is physiological and reversible. Decrement in performance or in normal physical activity does not happen at this level."

So we have 200 years (~8 generations) to adapt to higher than 20,000 ppm.

So, the logical solution is we must all stop driving cars, and stop burning coal for generating electricity...

Oh man!! I just noticed that my thread got the dreaded single star rating.

Well think my original goal has been achieved so far.........................I wanted to get everyone looking at the oil/fossil fuel situation from a perspective that, (I was hoping), wouldn't just melt down into another climate change debate.

I'm sure we would have figured out how to use alcohol as fuel, but the debate over whether crops should be used for fuel or food would probably be huge.

It's nice to imagine that the world would be peaceful, but a quick look at history kind of shows that we are incapable of that. With oil not on our list of natural resources, I'd think that the wars would be particularly nasty and ongoing, since everyone would want to live in areas that had the best growing conditions, fishing, etc. Combat itself would probably be much more up close and personal too, since I'm pretty sure our ability to fly and drop bombs would be nowhere near where it is now................if it existed at all.

I like solar eagle's optimism and faith in humanity, when he says that we would just be using something different, but I don't think it would be that easy, as we're seeing right now in the quest for alternatives.

The thorium nuke plants look really exciting. If we could find a way to deplete nuclear fuel to the point that it is as harmless as dirt, we'd have it made.

crops for fuel, doesn't remove 100% from the food chain [more like 15-20%]

one of the main reasons corn to ethanol is so wide spread is the brewers waste that is generated.

most of the plants have major backing from dairy farmers

the fuel vs food debate is probably more distorted than the climate change one...

crops for fuel, doesn't remove 100% from the food chain [more like 15-20%]

That's true now, but we're looking at a world with no oil. With pure alcohol being one of our primary fuel sources, those numbers would be significanty different.

Darn, I just thought of something else. With our machines running on alcohol, I wonder how we would approach the pesky little matter of lubrication for all the moving parts.

jojoba, castor, hemp & the occasional whale for lubrication

you can't remove natural gas from the discussion

without oil manure to methane, would be in a more advanced state

as would bioPlastic

remove the hidden subsidies to oil & the much of these so called renewable technologies will compete

the premise of the thread is flawed.... or at best incomplete

the premise of the thread is flawed.... or at best incomplete

Maybe. Oil is the biggie though. I had to leave us something to work with.

Yeah, I didn't think about plant oils for lubrication. Those would work.

Large scale hemp oil production, combined with alcohol, would probably have us driving too.

I wasn't trying to create the perfect thread, just something to bounce around over the weekend.

Hemp cannabis really is a wonder plant. Fast growing, and every part of it can be used...................from oil to textiles. We should be utilizing it right now.

Wanna join me on the same side of a government rant?

same ole special interests [pharma, others I can't think of right now] being able to protect their own gigs & keeping the temps in office

I could join you complaining about a symptom, why bother

I lobbed the hemp thing over the plate, just for you

Yes, make Hemp legal for farming. We have a lot of hemp farmers already but the Feds just won't leave them alone and don't dare wander into a hemp farm, you may not leave alive if you're caught.

I reiterate we managed before oil.

Bazzer

I'll be the first to admit that I will take life with oil, rather than without. Life before oil, (okay, fossil fueled electricity), reached out and touched everybody, including most everyone having a car to drive around, was harsh. People probably died in their late 40's because they wanted to.

So a 1% resource is responsible for 100% of innovation? Interesting

We should try to live without oil by using,nuclear,solar,wind,tidal,coal etc for power generation,using electric vehicles on roads,using steam locomotives,for street lighting, heating and pumps solar/wind power and so on. Hybrid could be used for aircrafts and ships. Organic farming will cut down chemical fertiliser.

Evidently you may not want to rely too much on the use of Nuclear based on current political trends.

http://www.powermag.com/nuclear/Siemens-Joins-Trend-to-Quit-Nuclear_4099.html

There may not be anyone left to build the plants besides the Chinese and the Russians. And we already know the Russian track record ain't so good.

By the way what fuel resource are those "steam locomotives" going to utilize to produce the steam? Coal? Wood? Yet undiscovered technology? Fuel cells maybe but what feeds the fuel cells?

Hybrids for ships and airplane, interesting concept but considering the horsepower requirements of ships and required by airplanes for takeoff I really would like to see something more substantive on their power plants and their fueling methods than a simple statement like "Hybrids could be used for aircrafts and ships".

Do you have any idea how much more labor intensive and less efficient a steam locomotive is over a common diesel electric? Steam engines have dismal power to weight ratios, fuel to load capacity ratios and the distance to re watering was very short plus the volumes of clean potable grade water a locomotive engine needs per horsepower mile is incredibly high as well.

Refining crop residue into bio fuels to run diesel electrics is still far less labor intensive and far more efficient.

I suggest reading up on old tech and why it became obsolete before suggesting its reapplication to modern conditions. It can be a real eye and mind opener.

There is a cog railway up Mt. Washington, in New hampshire, USA. The steam locomotive consumes a ton and a half of coal per round trip. the diesel locomotive consumes 16 gallons of oil.

Some good reading here for anyone that likes trains:

http://www.aar.org/~/media/aar/Background-Papers/Freight-RR-Help-Reduce-Emissions.ashx

Yes I do have some idea of what was involved to keep the old steam engines going that was designed and built over a hundred years ago. However I also keep abreast of new developments. After a hiatus of several decades, a group in England revived steam engine R&D. The result is a prototype 100 HP engine with a measured efficiency comparable to a diesel engine. The design is a closed loop thus eliminating the need for frequent watering. The heat source can be any fuel not just diesel.

Methane or propane would be a suitable fuel yet would burn cleaner than existing diesel.

And speaking of diesel and gasoline recent development in EPA compliant engines show a combination of gasoline and diesel will yield efficiencies around 50% compared to the present 37% efficiencies.

I don't remember if it was here or in Gizmag where I saw the news bulletin but the steam engine development was also illustrated in a trade journal for boat builders and designers. A 350 HP engine is being built for a twin engine race boat intended to try for a speed record for steam powered vessels.

The five cylinder radial piston design with a recycling steam /water system makes use of lessons learned from gasoline engine development. There is no comparison with 100 year old designs.

"The thorium nuke plants look really exciting. If we could find a way to deplete nuclear fuel to the point that it is as harmless as dirt, we'd have it made."

This will never happen as the pure fission products have necessary storage times of near 2000 to 5000 years.

So if future thorium reactors - heavy water moderated! - will be able to burn their own transuranium waste (that stuff that needs near 3000,000 years storage) and if reprocessing is used then still there will be the necessity of safe storage for a long time.

But as is shown by the natural reactors that burnt in central Africa near 300 million years ago there is the possibility to enclose the waste in clay that is slowly converted (or not) to stone. Not moving much in such a long time!

RHABE

So it will always be impossible to either use all of the energy from nuclear, or accelerate the rate of decay?

I don't know, so I'm asking.

The first reported oil shortage was in the late '20's or early '30's, just after the Saudi fields were discovered. In 1957, IGY predicted we would be out of oil in less than 20 years. Today there is more oil in the ground than was known about in '57, not to mention what we have consumed in the past 50 years.

What oil shortage?

The Fischer-Tropsch process (or Fischer-Tropsch synthesis) is a set of chemical reactions that convert a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen into liquid hydrocarbons. The process, a key component of gas to liquids technology, produces a petroleum substitute, typically from coal, natural gas, or biomass for use as synthetic lubrication oil and as synthetic fuel.^[1] The F-T process has received intermittent attention as a source of low-sulfur diesel fuel and to address the supply or cost of petroleum-derived hydrocarbons.

Good thread. It would be a very different world. Evey single source of small hydropower would be tapped but perhaps there would not be the biggest dam because concrete production is more energy intensive and the value of food production from the land to lake equation would be very different. We might not all be drinking coffee. More sugar beet would be grown in temperate areas. What would power those big farm tractors? Agriculture would be a lot more labour intensive. And sandy soil would be preferred to clay soils simple because it is easier to worik. Sailing ships might be very advanced. Transport might be totally different. And peoples habitation patterns would be totally different. Imagine barges that were in wind powered canals doing most of the heavy transport. Instead of horses pulling the barges, it might be some system using the wind to lift water and that water directly moving the barges along. (I am thinking flatter areas.) Maybe ethanol for fuel would be advanced but the distillation might be solar. How would a horizontal still work? Like a long cloche, Just counterflow of water in, as it evaporates and goes into the outer channel and counter flows distilled water back towards the entry, the seawater continues in further until highly saline water comes out the other side maybe going back a kilometer into the desert from the sea? Plastic would exist but it would be scarce. Fiber plants like linseed, hemp, etc would be a major component of agriculture. World population might be much lower, maybe about 2 billion. Nitrogen Fertilizer production might only be on high head hydro sites or in desert regions. Is someone writing a book on alternative futures?

I don't know if anyone is writing a book.

Yeah, even if we had alcohol for fuel, I think we would be converting sunlight into food, food into muscle, and human powered everything would be a lot more commonplace. Population would be lower....................probably unemployment too. I would think that anyone with a stong back and a willingness to work would be working.

Econonomies would probably be a lot more localized too. I doubt we would be running to the grocery store and be able to buy produce, fish, etc. from all over the planet.

That's true, produce would be more seasonal. Probably no 'fast-food chains'. Greater local impacts of flood and drought on nutrition.

I think we'd be doing everything a lot smarter.

Living underground, using free dirt for insulation and skylights for light. Everybody would probably have their own rainwater collection system with underground storage.....................free water with minimal processing.

If we keep talking about how things would be without oil, we might just post our way into some real solutions for getting off of it..........................beats the hell out of debating climate change.

"I would think that anyone with a strong back and a willingness to work would be working."

What about those of us with a strong mind and creative abilities? With a reasonable amount of upfront labor and work I could live basically the same as I do now without any direct fuel coming from oil based stock.

I can make my vehicles run on ethanol easily enough and make the farm tractors run on bio diesel and ethanol equally as well, both of which I know how to produce from local materials.

Relating to the thread topic what I see is that much of what we have today will continue to go on just as it has. Due to limited fuel and higher costs there will be less aircraft flights and road based transport but the turn around that I expect would be a rapid increase in transcontinental train and transoceanic ship traffic of which both are more than feasible to be converted over to one form of nuclear electric power or another instead of diesel electric drive.

About 50% of our present power in the US comes from non fossil fuel sources so that means that 50% of things will still have power. I will happily take 12 hours of power a day over none at all until the alternative systems catch up to balance the load demands.

Inconvenienced yes, dead in the water with no hopes of moving no!

If you want to really know what the world would be like without oil, all you have to do is look back about 130 years. The petroleum industry began with Vladimir Shukhov's Russian patent no. 12926, November 27, 1891. The oil industry did not exist prior to this date.

As to getting to the moon, most space-bound rockets use non-petroleum based fuels (except the first stage boosters which use kerosene- but the Chinese were launching rockets centuries before the development of oil refining). So we most likely could have reached the moon without petroleum-based fuels.

The petroleum industry began with Vladimir Shukhov's Russian patent no. 12926, November 27, 1891. The oil industry did not exist prior to this date.

That's kind of what I'm alluding to. At the turn of the century we had alcohol, steam locomotion, and brains.

When you look at human history as a whole, and look at the advances that have come after the discovery and utilization of oil....................well, lets just say that I don't think it's a coincidence. To say that things would be largely the same, just with different fuel sources probably isn't accurate.

A small portion of the things that come from petroleum:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/classroom/wwo/petroleum.pdf

Granted, some things we would be able to make without oil, not as easily though.

How would you transport the large rocket sections to the launch site? Could you manufacture them without oil? Could you make the heat shield without oil? Paint? Space suits? Glass, not plastic helmet faceplates? Oxen to transport the assembled rocket to the pad? Even if you go "all electric", can you generate electricity, including building the power plants and smelting the copper and building the transmission lines, without oil?

Yes it can be done and not with much more inconvenience.

Metal manufacturing can and is largely done with electric arc and induction furnaces which run just fine off of hydro electric and nuclear power. Large mining machines will run just the same as they do off of bio fuels or coal based synthetic fuels too.

Plastics can be made from organic hydrocarbon stocks such as vegetable and seed oils just as effectively as they are now from oil based hydrocarbon stocks.

You seem to be either cluelessly unaware of the working and viable alternative fuels and energy methods/systems we have now that are either presently co exist or are direct drop in replacements for what we use that presently come from oil based sources. You also appear to be grossly ignorant of almost all concepts of technology based AE tech that can and is readily and practically refitted to existing machinery or just incredibly ignorant of the basic sciences and manufacturing methods and processes that we already have in place as is.

I can see why you post anonymously now, I would too if I was showing these levels of general ignorance of such basic modern engineering and manufacturing subjects.

"incredibly ignorant of the basic sciences and manufacturing methods and processes"

I'm relived I am not the only one finding this aspect notable.

I've remarked a number of times engineers should be taught history. If not World, at least of technology. At least they would learn to research.

What was around in the Bronze Age? Why is it called Bronze? When was that?

What is lard? What is in milk? What is wood? What plastic came first? What is polymerization?

These might be handy things to know before commenting.

One thing I feel is very certain is ethanol from corn would have be laughed out of town.

However, I do look forward to seeing how many times you have to repeat:

The massive waste of nutrition in corn grown for 'food additives' would not likely be tolerated. So the tonnage now trying to be patched over into fuel would not exist. It is waste of prime 'food land' at this inefficiently scale that is the erroneous root of "fuel verses fuel" thinking.

or words to that effect.

I thought for a moment that I may be coming off to harshly when I wrote that but then I figured whomever it is (I have a good guess who based on the continualy recurring themes though) is posting as an anonymous poster so it doesn't really matter. By my ratings anonymous posters are not really people or members here anyways just ghosts or trolls so they can get a bit of my wrath if I so well please.

"I'm relived I am not the only one finding this aspect notable.

I've remarked a number of times engineers should be taught history. If not World, at least of technology. At least they would learn to research."

That is one of my greatest reoccurring peeves here as well especially in threads such as this one. I can not rationally imagine how someone can consider themselves even remotely informed or educated enough to comment about these subjects when they show themselves to be so blatantly clueless and uninformed about what is basic knowledge about the technology and operating principals of the world we live in let alone the most basic history of how our every day machines/technologies came to be and why they came to be powered as they are now.

The part I don't get is how anyone can come to the conclusion that if oil disappeared tomorrow everything that has ever been made from it or came to be because of its use would just magically disappear too?

Or at least thats the general impression I keep getting from certian peoples posts.

I think if mankind has a future then, they will consider those who lived in the 20th Century the most wasteful people to have ever lived. Earth has / had sufficient resources to last mankind virtually forever. What did we do with it?

Waste, with wars. Waste, in gluttony. Waste, for wastes sake. Mankind does not have the brains to ration themselves. To take due care of the environment/planet. To maintain their population. (even in China)
We are, as a race, worse than spoilt children, and more like wild animals. (as a group) We fight over territory, resources, and, even if we don't like or agree with one other! Destroying all in our greed.

We waste the planet, the heaven in which we live, and the ground we stand upon.

The sooner we wake up to how destructive we are the better for all. Do without oil? You're joking?
The ONLY thing that stops mankind is having none. (of anything.)

jt.

A barman says to Paddy "You have a empty glass do you want another one?"

Paddy says, "Why would I want 2 empty glasses............?"

I agree.

Not just oil, but in the last century, think about all of the resources we use up, just in the name of pleasure, fun and recreation. Massive cruise ships, massive theme parks, personal watercraft, ATVs, huge amounts of resources used to make the movies we like to watch...........................the list goes on and on.

I think part of the reason that the results from alternative energy sources seem less than stellar, is that we are trying to find replacements, without reducing our consumption in the least. That's an impossibility in my opinion.

At some point we're going to reach a tipping point, in which it will start becoming difficult to satisfy our basic needs, much less focus on entertainment. I'd prefer to scale back consumption now, while it's choice, (which I'm doing), as opposed to later, when it becomes mandatory.

Unfortunately, in the US in particular, but all over the place really, conspicuous consumption is the hallmark of status and prestige. Bigger, better, more.

It would be cool if frugality became the new symbol of status, but I don't see that happening.

Here in NC, and I'm sure all over the US, there are thousands of houses that were built, and still in use, that aren't insulated. Insulation existed, but fuel oil was so cheap for winter heating, that insulation was considered an unnecessary expense, even though it regularly gets down in the 20s (F) here in winter.

I'm confused

You're mad at attempts to regulate CO² which will bring about more awareness of consumption

Nothing confusing. Cap and trade will do nothing to decrease CO2 levels, it will simply be traded between companies like stock, with the people in charge of the trading getting rich for shuffling paper.

Like we said in past threads. You need lots of Ammo and some water.

Don't forget Kramarat you will need a few bullets to kill the hog to lube your chainsaw and steam engine... and don't forget NO asphalt shingles or roads...

Diesel powered derigibles, stanley steamers, and some interesting oxidisers.

On transport in general, having alluded to the limitations myself; I would think a greater emphasis on rail and lesser on air and roads. [the European 'back to' trend]

A significant reason for less roads being the volume of bitumen involved is largely from oil.

Luckily concrete can be made using bio-gas. Not quite as much and as cheaply, though, I'd think.

More mundane is the 'tar paper roofing' may not exist

Travelling by bus or rail should be encouraged. For private travels rent-a car should be used. Coal fired power stations to be closed and coal used for steam locomotives so that diesel usage will be less. Even every company owning trucks should be replaced by rent-a-truck including driver. Now in some families there are more than 2 cars,for how many hrs a day they are in use,may be once in morning and evening to go to workplace and back only,is it worth the money invested?.

Diesel engines of course were designed to run on peanut oil. And I heard that the ic engine was not originally designed to run on gasoline. However, with "cracking" technolgy, it really does not matter what the source for your carbon might be. Whenever we start talking about what will happen if we suddenly don't have any oil, we always seem to devolve to the primitive steam stuff that we used during Edwardian and Victorian times. Why would anybody assume for even an instant that we would stop innovating? Coming up with new stuff? New technologies and new inventions? Innovation would not stay frozen in a steam punk fantasy. (as cool as that might be!)

Oil was a seriously efficient short cut which has driven technology like a spear into the body of undiscovered tech. Like a spear, it is narrow, limited, and does a lot of short term damage. However, it has let us know that there is that huge corpus technologae (a term I just made up) which will make the world of our children's children dramatically different. We need not worry about their judgment on how we utilized our available resources, any more than we judge the ship builders of the eighteenth century for cutting down hectares of mature oak forests. They will have other resources which their peers will be moaning and complaining about "using up our children's legacy" and similar nonsense.

Hmmm...I think I just responded to a different post than yours, but hey, we are all in the same conference room, right?

However, at the risk of sounding Randian, what is this "need" business, and when has it EVER driven humankind's lifestyles? I don't count artificially created famines. Or real ones for that matter. These happen of course, and beyond a nod to the realities, I will save that rant for a better time.

I can not make a case for owning a second car. It is an unconscionable expense to own and operate one...a second is just a needless luxury which hurts the earth and uses up resources. However, it keeps the wife happy and off my back.

I cannot make the case for a second kid, or come to think of it, a first one. But it keeps the wife happy and off my back.

And who needs to live in a house anyway. I can live just fine in a concrete tube. But the house I live in now keeps the wife happy and off my back.

And who actually NEEDS all this food...we are all phat phucks in a world where, get this, obesity is considered a disease and affects millions. And driving in cabs instead of owning my own vehicle, well, we all know it is hard to get a cab these days.

Maybe I should just get the kids their own car....grin! Will it be worth the money invested? Well, millons seem to think so. Keeps the wife off my back.

I notice a trend here. Do YOU notice a trend here?

I think the problem will be a self limiting one. I don't think we will run out of oil as much as some politician will suddenly decide that it is a "war material" and will refuse to allow it to be mined. (A more likely scenario IMHO)

But

If that were to happen

The world will unfold as it always has. The poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer, and the usual zeitgeist will rule the "free" press.

Most of the comments I see here is oil only being used as a source for fuel. Gasoline is just a byproduct of oil. We were using Oil long before we started using it for gasoline. They were using it to grease the wheels on those covered wagons that were crossing the great plains to tame the west. Look at the plastics we use. When they refine oil they burn a stack and the different products are leeched off depending on how heavy the vapor, each used for different purposes. If we didn't have oil, we'd still be living in caves or huts and throwing spears and living as tribes and our only rivals would be that other tribe on the other side of the valley that keeps hunting the deer on our side of the valley.

errr....CR4 is a tribe mate.

No oil? Lots of squeaky wheels. Life like the Incas, without wheeled vehicles or powered ships. Likely no clocks. Clothing knitted by hand. Warfare with swords, spears, and hammers. No street lights or reading lights. Someone would discover whale oil, but the whales would probably go extinct.

Like Yusef1 I agree Anon poster had a good answer. We both live in Canada and looking at that pie chart I can see our mix of energy sources is very different.

Where I live right now its almost 100% hydro-electric. The Canadian nuclear program could have been a greater sucess if it was not for public hysteria fuelled mostly by scare stories coming from the US. A little known fact being CANDU reactors are totally different from the breeder reactors used in the US. This is not a discussion of nuclear power nor about hydro-electric. Petroleum oil does not play a large part in the operation of either.

Someone mentioned air planes. I would like to point out the construction of lighter than air balloons predated the discovery of petroleum oil. This development culminated in the fabrication of the Hindenburg which was a trans oceanic aircraft. As early as the last decade in the 19th century a science fiction writer speculated on the practicality of a round the world trip in a balloon. ( round the world in 80 days by Jules verne) intercontinental telegraph communications was a reality by the beginning of the 20th century followed shortly therafter by wireless communications. All without the benefit of petroleum oil.

I agree that petroleum based lubricants certainly made high speed machinery run smoother and there is a distinct possibility we would have hunted to extinction the whales whose oils were so highly prised. However other animal fats and oils did provide lubricants that remained in use for 100 years after petroleum was discovered. In the shipyard I worked in they still used lard to grease the slipways for launching ships as they had for some 80 years previously. In the absence of petroleum oil further research and development in plant and animal fats and oils would have taken place.

Talking about today's world but without petroleum is a futile discussion. You have to go back to what technology existed in 1865 then extrapolate how the technology of that day might have evolved.

I think we would have been fine. We would probably live relatively comfortable lives, but with a lot less fluff. One of the members here PM'd me a good link that I've been looking at. Who knows where the technology would have led to, without petroleum?

Talking about today's world but without petroleum is a futile discussion.

I don't entirely agree with that one. The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the IPCC, UN and many others, are having just that discussion, as well as looking for ways to implement the changes necessary to bring it about. I don't believe they will succeed, but the discussion is worthwhile. The day will come eventually, that humans will be living in today's world, but without petroleum..................it's just a matter of time.

Oops I should have worded that a bit more carefully. Discussing a world that evolved because of petroleum oil then suddenly removing that oil is not logical. If petroleum oil had not been present the technical world would have evolved differently. This is not a discussion on how to substitute for petroleum oil. While that would also be a worthwhile topic the initial question was ' how would the world have developed if petroleum oil had not been discovered'

We have seen countless examples of how human enginuity has overcome problems.

Sometimes those solutions and tools still escape us. Consider how we still debate how various ancient constructions were built. We have theories but lack concrete proof. Speaking of concrete. Roman engineers learned how to form concrete in seawater. Then the technique was forgotten and was only rediscovered during WW2 during construction of mulberry harbors for D day invasion. Some roman engineering works remain functional to this day. Aquaducts bringing water from the alps. remnants of roman military roads etc.

Babelonean leyden jars are theorized as beng used for electro plating jewlery. This predates regular battery developments by thousands of year. Yes it was crude but in the absence of disruptive wars what might they have developed?

It could be argued that the discovery of petroleum oil served as a disruptive catalyst that accelerated population growth beyond a 'normal' rate and thus caused disruptions. What is 'normal' rate? Let us say it is a rate whereby life is sustainable by nature in terms of food production and other necessities such as shelter from weather, storms and other thing detrimental to ordinary life.

This thread could evolve into something very intersting.

This thread could evolve into something very interesting.

Sometimes they do. Like most of my threads, I'm fine with them going wherever they go.

One of my favorite shows is Ancient Aliens on the History Channel.......................not so much because of the alien angle, but to see what people were capable of thousands of years ago, (and we still can't figure out how), is pretty amazing. Needless to say, there didn't seem to be any oil involved.

Kramat wrote:

"I don't entirely agree with that one. The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the IPCC, UN and many others, are having just that discussion, as well as looking for ways to implement the changes necessary to bring it about"

What these people are talking about is a reactive effort to replace oil in the existing world. That is entirely worth while but it is not what the original question dealt with.

Replacement for petroleum oil is a very complex issue with many political and vested interests to deal with in addition to the purely technical.

Prior to the discovery of petroleum oil we had steam power in both ships and on land. The development of oil fired boilers presaged the demise of steam power. First we built oil fired boilers then later we developed diesel engine power. But lets not forget that Otto Diesel first made an engine intended to run on peanut oil, which is a plant based oil. If the knowledge of jathropa and yellow horn plants had been widely known back then what sort of power engines would be in use today.

After the diesel engine displaced steam in most applications further R&D in steam was abandoned. It should be noted that nuclear powered war ships such as aircraft carriers are in essence the ultumate in steam power ship propulsion. Does anyone recall the last time we had a nuclear power plant accident in US warships. What happened?

Someone finally revived steam power research. They developed a radial engine design with a closed loop for recovering spent steam. Early tests indicate this design has an efficiency comparable to conventional petroleum oil fuelled piston engines. The initial prototype developed 100 HP but they are already building 350 HP engines with plans to install this ina boat. Fuel for heat could be methane or other flammable fuel.

In case anyone thinks this is just PR fluff let me point out the Swedes have a submarine driven by a Stirling engine that uses closed loop combustion cycle for submerged operation.

We have become accustomed to thinking that natural gas is a fossil fuel just like petroleum oil. However we have abundant sources of methane gas from renewable surface sources. We could even develop more. Every land fill site regards methane gas as a nuisance byproduct instead of a valuable resource. They spend a lot of money to prevent gas production instead of encouraqging it.

We face a problem of won't power not will power. Vested interests are not willing to give up the gravy train they are riding and are reluctant to encourage developments that will jeopadize their strangle hold on the economy. Any efforts they do make is a token PR move.

There are plenty of things that will work as an alternative to petroleum...............................the main obstacle, as far as I can tell, is that coming up with something that is close in price, ease to develope, and anywhere near the quantities that would be required, will be a massive undertaking.

I have learned not to say never. Close in price ( read cheap) ease to develop meaning conveniently easy and in abundant quantity is not likely to happen in less time than it took to develop the petroleum oil infrastructure and applications as it is used today

One hopeful sign is a growing interest in 'off-grid' as well as the occupy wall street movement and derivatives thereof. A growing and significant number of people are beginning to reassess the American way of life (style) and rejecting the energy wasteful features.

History is full of excellent ideas and products that somehow failed to gain widespread support and popularity. Some of them are now being re-discovered and even gain in popularity. Others especfially in clothing and fashion fell into obscurity after a brief spell of being in vogue.

My mother dressed me funny and it looked dorky. But now I belatedly discover it was/is warm and help me save on my heating bills. So now I dress myself funny.

I'm not big on frills at all. I'd go off grid if I could afford it.

As far as the "occupy" gang goes, I hope you're not expecting them to be much help in any endeavor but complaining..................................most of them have no idea why they're there.

No I am not expecting much. However it does prove somebody is beginning to think.

We recently moved to an area where off-grid is a normal way of life. Its not a fad or popular thing to do. The town librarian and her husband has lived off grid for 30 years.

My wife was born on an off grid homestead. She never saw electric lights until she was 14.

As for being expensive. Where did you get that idea? I can't afford to live fully on grid.

Maybe if you look at the yuppie magazines it looks expensive. but solar isn't the only way to go. Just the most expensive.

I have no interest in living without modern conveniences.

I have an 1800 sq ft house. Aside from a few months in the summer, (due to AC use), my electric bill runs between $50-$60 a month, a propane tank that gets filled once a year for hot water and cooking, average daily propane use, about $2 worth, and I heat with wood. I can't really justify any major expenses to bring those numbers down...................although I would like to install better windows one of these days.

Where did you ever get the idea I was advocating doing without what you call modern conveniences. I noticed SPINCO stated central heating dikd not exist before oil. Actually it was invented by the Romans but the brits failed to preserve and further the technology after the Romans left Britain.

Air conditioning? It was invented by the Arabs around the 900 AD time line. A co-worker who was a naval architect related to me how he saw first hand how it worked when he was working in The Emirates back in the sixties. He was invited to the home of one of the engineers he worked with and saw how the estate owned by the engineer's family for hundreds of years had a non electric central air conditioning system. It made the interior of the building comfortable even in the desert heat.

My wife's uncle who retained ownership of the family homestead kept the place off grid yet he had a large screen TV, computer, an ensuite jacuzzi in the master bedroom and his wife had a kitchen filled with all sort of nifty appliances. I don't think he ever used air conditioning because his two story home sat on the shore of a lake so cooling breezes coming off the lake cooled things off nicely.

So where does it say you have to live in a dirt floored hovel just because you are off- grid?

My wife was born on an off grid homestead. She never saw electric lights until she was 14.

That line gave me the impression that your idea of off grid, and my idea of off grid, are two different things.

I've known other people that live off grid and feed a diesel generator most of the day. Also something I wouldn't be interested in.

That just goes to prove how broad a range "off-grid" covers. Recent developments have spawned a 'movement' of sorts promoting off-grid as a reaction to economic downturns. When people lose their jobs ( offshore outsourcing ) and their homes ( bank repossessions) they are forced to seek other means of survival. Some individuals influenced by rumor and religeous or philosophical motivation are convinced the world end is at hand. All of these people seek to find a less expensive and less complicated way of life away from what they percieve as evil incarnate. The oil cartels and derivatives thereof.

Less expensive and less complicated involves removal of the extraneous fluff that so many people surround themslves with. By the time you have seen half a dozen sitcoms you can practically write the script yourselves. In some cases you could even anticipate the dialogue scene by scene. Arrgh!

In days of yore people gathered in the great hall for dinner. They warmed themselves by the fire , filled their stomach and then stayed to be entertained by a minstrel or storyteller. In today's world they plop down on the couch in front of the television while stuffing themselves with take-out food. What is the difference? Shelter from the environment, well fed and entertained. Same basic essentials. Only differrence being, today people allow other people to take their money in exchange for providing these basics. Its wonderful that you have 1800 square feet to rattle around in but you can still only sit in one chair at a time.

You do not need to be on grid for that.

Only differrence being, today people allow other people to take their money in exchange for providing these basics.

Interesting choice of words.

Not accurate though. I give people money to provide certain services..............my choice. The only entity that can take my money, and put me in the street if I don't pay, is the government.

As far as 1800 sq ft goes, I wish it was smaller, but I got a great deal. It had been foreclosed on, was in disrepair, and had been sitting abandoned for almost 2 years. I don't care about the square footage. I don't even particularly like being inside. I'm hoping I can make a profit on it when I get real old so I can afford to eat. Social security will likely be history.

Even so, $3-$4 per day of energy useage for 3 of us isn't bad. Little over a dollar a person, and we have everything we need and more.

The Romans may have invented central heating but I'm pretty sure that it was not for the common folk I was referring to who lived in close quartered multi-storied wooden or stone flats. The references in central heating history would indicate that it was only for royalty or at least the very wealthy who owned magnificent palatial homes. In the 30-40's central heating often meant a furnace in the basement with a large 2'x2' grate in the hallway near the stairs so the warm air could travel up the stairways and into the hall. How much got into your room was dependent on its closeness to the stairway. We were more concerned about how much made its way down to the end of the hallway to the bathroom.

I doubt that real central heating for the masses in England became available until the advent of steam boilers, iron piping and radiators. Fireplaces and coal stoves were probably more in line with the Dickensnesque living conditions of the time. As far as the Brits not maintaining the use of Roman opulence remember that slavery was not the norm in England as it was in Roman life.

I would have to say that none of us would be here reading this on one of these right now.

If we want to stop using oil,what are the alternatives for oil based products which we use daily?.

A world without oil would be no different i think, the next thing would be controlled by an other company. Greed will always win over common sense

I'm not sure about that. The rapid advancement of humans, in technology, medicine, transportation...........................about everything, seems to have moved in lockstep with the discovery and use of oil.

coal drove the Industrial Revolution

maybe the question should be

A world without cheap energy

Yeah, coal was a big part of the first one. Petroleum didn't become important until later. All of it was centered around burning stuff for energy. Things really blossomed when we came up with liquid fuel.

How oil has given prosperity to poor farmers?. My native place where my great grandfather used to live is called Barmer. It is small desert town in north west of India. Few years back oil discovered in this town and surroundings. M/s Crain exploited digging oil and latter on some other companies have landed.

This resulted to land prices skyrocketing to $14000/- per Acre. Overnight poor farmers who were normally depended on agricultural income became millionaires. They sold their lands and invested in some other fertile lands, SUVs, Home appliances, insurance etc. Place is now called Dubai of India.

Like this?

Yes exactly like this old moviee.

I wonder if the area, and the lives of the people there would have been so quickly transformed if they were to grow crops that could be made into alcohol. I don't think so.