NewScientist Article - Oil Crash

[Plymtom]

Stranraer eh my Father in law's home town I like it there, it's a bit like the Scottish Devon and Cornwall, long trip from here though.

[PreppingPingu]

Completely agree - use less. And with another thread about climate change - adapt to survive. The problem is once Pandora's box has been opened, its hard to turn back. You can't stuff knowledge back into it just as you can't take away what people are used to an expect them to be accepting about it. The general population don't want to go back a few steps - we get cosy with what we have and find it hard to go without. It's where the "western greed culture" is a problem. Its the same problem as with the payday lending economy - we get used to "having". A simpler way of living will mean that when disaster hits, personal or global, we can cope better.

[Quercus-robur]

I agree that our railways are vitally important and will be even more so with the end of cheap oil. I find my self thinking, though, that we do not need this new HS2 line, especially at a cost of £50bn+. I think the money would be better spent in two key areas. The first would be to invest in the improvement of the rail network nationwide. Someone said something about rebuilding the line between Glasgow and maybe eventually Carlisle. Rebuilding and improving the network nationwide would stand us in better stead for when we have to rely more on trains in the future.

The second is in energy. I'm not sure how I feel about Nuclear power but the renewable energies we have at the moment aren't anywhere near sufficient to supplant our reliance on oil. I read recently that they will be more Nuclear power plants built in the UK (can't remember if it was just one or a couple) but if we are to build more surely it would be better to use some of the HS2 money for that?

Qr

[Plymtom]

Nuclear power didn't turn out to be the saviour we thought it was going to be, at one point we were installing heating elements in our motorways because we thought we going to have so much power and so cheap that we could keep them ice free with the cheap juice fusion could make that possible In suppose yet there will be far more pressing needs first, I wouldn't close the door on nuclear and know the dangers, as for HS2 I have to say something smells funny about that, many more smaller scale infrastructure improvements would have been my favourite, and yes energy investment too.

[latrocinium]

Agreed, clean technology wont save us IMO. We need to power down/use less.....

I agree totally with you Hobo, there are so many benefits from "powering down", but in this day and age there are millions who could not cope or don't know how to

you forgot those that simply don't want to power down and consider their consumption some sort of God given right.
It does make me laugh when I hear or see people saying we need to invest in this technology or that technology to "solve" the energy crisis when actually using less is a far more cost effective and simpler to implement .

I don't know about a "God given right", but it's definitely a right! It's paid for. How on earth do you expect to "power down"?? In a fantasy world, perhaps. It will never happen...

[Plymtom]

I don't know about a "God given right", but it's definitely a right! It's paid for. How on earth do you expect to "power down"?? In a fantasy world, perhaps. It will never happen...

I don't think anyone is saying we're going to have to switch everything off but as you said it's paid for, and you have to be able to afford to pay for it don't you, so it's not free and not getting any cheaper, the cheapness of oil has driven the consumerism and even the way we produce our food as cheaply as we do (by comparison to how we would have to do without oil and that day will come be in no doubt) so we may shout it's our right like a petulant child who wants more sweeties than mummy got pennies in her purse for, you're right we're never going to have to power down, not all of us, just all going to have to pay more for what we power up, and remember when demand exceeds supply then less or bugger all is what we'll get, our "paid for right" will be rationed one way or another before too long and there's no fantasy about that, in fact by price for many it already is

[latrocinium]

I don't know about a "God given right", but it's definitely a right! It's paid for. How on earth do you expect to "power down"?? In a fantasy world, perhaps. It will never happen...

I don't think anyone is saying we're going to have to switch everything off but as you said it's paid for, and you have to be able to afford to pay for it don't you, so it's not free and not getting any cheaper, the cheapness of oil has driven the consumerism and even the way we produce our food as cheaply as we do (by comparison to how we would have to do without oil and that day will come be in no doubt) so we may shout it's our right like a petulant child who wants more sweeties than mummy got pennies in her purse for, you're right we're never going to have to power down, not all of us, just all going to have to pay more for what we power up, and remember when demand exceeds supply then less or bugger all is what we'll get, our "paid for right" will be rationed one way or another before too long and there's no fantasy about that, in fact by price for many it already is

Well, it's just as well oil won't run out anytime soon. There is plenty of oil left, albeit expensive to produce right now. However, it won't be as expensive in the future. If it does become too expensive to produce, then that makes an open in the market for alternative energy suppliers to move right in. I personally think it'll be nuclear energy. I'm not saying it's the correct way forward but I can see it happening.

[metatron]

Nuclear power didn't turn out to be the saviour we thought it was going to be, at one point we were installing heating elements in our motorways because we thought we going to have so much power and so cheap that we could keep them ice free with the cheap juice fusion could make that possible In suppose yet there will be far more pressing needs first, I wouldn't close the door on nuclear and know the dangers, as for HS2 I have to say something smells funny about that, many more smaller scale infrastructure improvements would have been my favourite, and yes energy investment too.

Nuclear was new. If we gave up on electricity as it wasn't as efficient as oil for lighting a house back in the day, we would be in a very different place. Technologies take time to mature, molten salt reactors show a massive amount of promise over the aging reactor designs, but even the aging designs have improved from the ideas of the 60's and 70's.

What we need to do is remove the shackles of the scientists and engineers and let them do whatever they want, as dangerous as they want, just build a research facility in one of the locations we tested nuclear bombs in Australia.

[latrocinium]

Nuclear power didn't turn out to be the saviour we thought it was going to be, at one point we were installing heating elements in our motorways because we thought we going to have so much power and so cheap that we could keep them ice free with the cheap juice fusion could make that possible In suppose yet there will be far more pressing needs first, I wouldn't close the door on nuclear and know the dangers, as for HS2 I have to say something smells funny about that, many more smaller scale infrastructure improvements would have been my favourite, and yes energy investment too.

Nuclear was new. If we gave up on electricity as it wasn't as efficient as oil for lighting a house back in the day, we would be in a very different place. Technologies take time to mature, molten salt reactors show a massive amount of promise over the aging reactor designs, but even the aging designs have improved from the ideas of the 60's and 70's.

What we need to do is remove the shackles of the scientists and engineers and let them do whatever they want, as dangerous as they want, just build a research facility in one of the locations we tested nuclear bombs in Australia.

I really don't know what you're talking about. I'm a petroleum/electronic/nuclear {most experienced in electronic/electrical} engineer to trade (I know... weird combination. Long story). It really has nothing to do with removing shackles. There are amazing ideas out there. All of which require approval and funding; mostly approval... To be fair, even with all the funding in the world, most of the wacko designs wouldn't 'cut it' in reality.

[grenfell]

I don't know about a "God given right", but it's definitely a right! It's paid for. How on earth do you expect to "power down"?? In a fantasy world, perhaps. It will never happen...

With that sort of attitude then we're probably stuffed. In the west we are all very rich in comparison to the mean average of the seven billion on the planet and also consume more than what could be called our fair share of resources and yet how many decry the idea of using a little less because it might impact on our lifestyles or commerce?
You are right in your other post when you say oil isn't going to run out. What will run out is cheap oil. Unless the economy contracts even more I can't see the oil price coming down , indeed a lower oil price would have the effect of putting an end to shale and tar sand production which are only viable with a high oil price.
I've said in another post that there's no real answer that doesn't involve the use of TEQs , a fancy rationing system as simply relying on rationing by price is a crude and unfair method even if it does fill government coffers.
You're probably right that we will see more nuclear. As plymtom has said it was supposed to be virtually free energy but has turned out to be hugely expensive but if we are to continue in our profligate ways then there probably isn't any other outcome.