http://healthandenergy.com/oil_crisis.htm
http://dieoff.org/page131.htm
http://money.msn.co.uk/investing/Insight/SpecialFeatures/ActiveInvestor/Runningonempty/default.asp



http://readinglitho.co.uk/pt/oilCrisis/figuresIntro.html



Conservative estimates are closer to 200 years, but I don't beleive it.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Thats exactly the problem, conservitive people and scientists are making this number way to big, and therefore arent putting the funding into the alternative energy services. While Bush has stated he wants hydrogen fueled cars in 2015, the scientists making those cars have stated that under current funding, it won't be until 2040. By then, it may be to late.

------------------
Happy "Diseased" dud: You said I'd be like this guy. Boycotting everything..
Happy "Diseased" dud: ted kazcnisky. That's who it was.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wait, That's the unibomer.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wrong guy.

At the same time, Bush said he wanted Congress to increase the research money put into hydrogen fueled cars, so it is in the hands of Congress now.


------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

humanity has spent most of its existance without oil.... it aint a big deal, unless you're THAT dependent on technology.

------------------
Drugs & Stupidity, Tons of it.

This isn't the first time I've heard of the potential results of the Oil Crisis... I've known about it for about 8 years now...

YES, some of the problems ARE exaggerated... but merely to get people to pay attention. If a problem is present, where the only viable solution means a serious change, just about EVERYBODY will downplay how serious the consequences are.

Currently, Oil is by far the greatest source of energy in the US, and is required for the production of the ubiquitous material plastic. As for the other fuel sources, coal, natural gas, and nuclear fission are somewhat major sources. However, each has its own problem:

Although an affordable supply of coal, were the world to repalce oil with it, would last for at least several hundred years longer. However, it's black smoke dramatically decreases the air quality, and is likely to be the current number one source of acid rain.

Natural gas's supply may last longer than oil's, but the stuff is already more expensive than oil, and will also likely run out...

Nuclear power is perhaps the most wasteful. Currently, the average full-production plant uses up about one full reactor within two years. As a result, another reactor becomes waste every few days, and requires extreme isolation, as direct, close exposure to one would quickly kill any known life. Integral Fast Reactors promised to fix that problem, but that project seems to have been shelved.

As for everything else, the energy amount produced is VERY little. Fuel cells may work, but they've still got a longway to go, especially when many people incorrectly fear Hydrogen for its explosiveness (yet they have no qualms about driving a car powered by highly explosive gasoline).

Solar power isn't quite strong enough, especially with such weak collecters.

Wind power is pretty much the same; it's too weak for how much land it needs.

Hydro power MIGHT have been an option, but not for the whole population. Even the Three Gorges Dam, currently under construction (and scheduled to be completed in 2008), will not be sufficient to provide for even the majority of the current energy needs of those it will provide for.

Personally, I think that the Oil problem isn't just something that can be waved off with a satement such as "well find other sources". I don't think they'll come quick enough...

Also, I DO see a potential for a die-off caused by oil shortages... It makes sense. Russia's economy collapsed at the beggining of the 90's, and now their population shrinks by around 2/3 a million a year. An oil shortage would easily cause most economies to collapse, as they can't figure out what to do, which will also hurt development of other sources of energy. And when ALL of the countries have a lack of resources, people are going to fight over them.

However, I believe that 500 million is what the LOWEST posibility of what the total population might reach... I think the ammount of people dead from such a crisis might be less like 6.5 billion (at around 2017, the world population will reach 7 billion), and more like 200 million to 2 billion.

I think the proposed figure of roughly 90% of all humans dying come from the assumption that nuclear war might break out... This could be especially possible for nations like India and Pakistan, which together have over 20% of the world population...

[edit]Oh, and in case anybody wonders where MY information is coming from, It's from the World Bank (www.worldbank.org/data)
[/edit]

------------------
Nes digs around in the trash can.
Nes finds a hamburger!
Nes puts the hamburger in his backpack.

[This message has been edited by nottheking (edited February 11, 2004).]

invent fusion power?

------------------
Drugs & Stupidity, Tons of it.

Solar and wind power are viable options. There have been great steps forward with the technology. Like I said before, one of the biggest hang-ups with solar and wind power plants is that they are eye-sores in the eyes on many people.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.