I heard NASA is getting shut down. Will HM be next to go?

[CCS]

I heard Bush is helping shut down NASA. I don't know whose idea it was first, though it is in the Obama plan too, to be completed once he is office. It is because of the economy being so bad, and NASA costing so much money. They are selling the space shuttle for about $100,000,000, and extra rocket boosters are in the ten's of thousands of dollars. If you got the money, you can go buy it and fly it. Might need some FAA flight clearances though.

Do you think Britain will do something similar with HM funding?

 

[ali777]

I heard something about NASA privatising some of the technology, but I haven't read about it yet.... I think the plan involves transferring the shuttle technology to private research institutes and hiring the rockets from them in the future. Most of the military technology in the US is already in private hands, eg, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc, so I don't know how this is going to affect the future of space exploration.

UK is actually in a very bad shape right now, but most of the research in the UK is either tied to EU funding or to private funds. I expect the EU funding to continue, but I can't make the same judgement about private research funds.

 

[squeegee]

I heard Bush is helping shut down NASA. I don't know whose idea it was first, though it is in the Obama plan too, to be completed once he is office. It is because of the economy being so bad, and NASA costing so much money. They are selling the space shuttle for about $100,000,000, and extra rocket boosters are in the ten's of thousands of dollars. If you got the money, you can go buy it and fly it. Might need some FAA flight clearances though.

Do you think Britain will do something similar with HM funding?

This is just a big example of and because some retarded nations living on this very Planet dragging us all in their sh*t hole. Our future is space. period. They should never stop their space program for sh*t. This doesn't make any senses at all to me in my head. Where the f*** are we going like that as a civilization? I am a Canadian not American BTW and support NASA 110% and everything that goes with it. I have no idea why the f*** are we losing our time and money on wars example in the middle east when nuke or napalm is the cheapest answer. I probably sound really mean by saying that but totally sick of this sh*t. Some people on this Planet still live in the former century and are not doing any good but killing each other because they don't know any better. Oh yeah,, there is oil out there...LOL. Something has to happen anyways.. If NASA shut down, that will be a disaster.

 

[Bryan]

Our future is space. period. They should never stop their space program for sh*t....If NASA shut down, that will be a disaster.

I can appreciate your thoughts on all this, but times they are a-changing. We just don't have the resources anymore for manned space exploration, or the energy (oil, etc.). We're headed back to a basic agrarian society. It's inevitable. We have to get used to the idea.

 

[seekinghair]

Our future is space. period. They should never stop their space program for sh*t....If NASA shut down, that will be a disaster.

I can appreciate your thoughts on all this, but times they are a-changing. We just don't have the resources anymore for manned space exploration, or the energy (oil, etc.). We're headed back to a basic agrarian society. It's inevitable. We have to get used to the idea.

Sorry Bryan, I don't quite understand your pesimism :dunno: . Take a look at this page fo instance:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03907.html

Even if this energy source is not competitive with folsil fuels right now there seems to be a significant net efficency in its production. You have to consider that we are just at the beginning of its developement -more efficency could easily come in the future. Futhermore This sort of technologies will give us even more time to develope "cold" nuclear fusion as a final replace for hydrocarbon sources of energy.

Of course that doesn't mean that we shoudn't be more efficient using energy. We should save some fuels (just in case).

 

[CCS]

If no one invests in other fuel (but they will if prices go up), we will go back to horse and cart (if you can afford one) in 70 years tops. We have oil in the US, but are not touching it because we are protecting endangered species and saving it for later.

As long as we get ourselves some what independent within the next 5 years before India and China buy more oil than we do, the Saudi's won't be able to boycot us in time to hurt us.

People keep saying alternative energy is not competitive because it is more expensive than oil. If they could get a gallon of gas for $1.50, and the equivalent alternative energy for $1.60, they'd still be saying that. The truth is as long as the cost is less than $3.00 per gallon our economy can handle it just fine. And it will keep getting cheaper too.

 

[Cassin]

Since when is Nasa shutting down? They are just retiring the current space shuttle and refocusing on the moon instead of spending billions to observe snails humping in zero gravity.

 

[Bryan]

Sorry Bryan, I don't quite understand your pesimism :dunno: . Take a look at this page fo instance:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03907.html

Even if this energy source is not competitive with folsil fuels right now there seems to be a significant net efficency in its production.

I'm glad people are looking at these alternative sources of energy, but I really think it's too little, too late. Experts like Matt Savinar (of "Peak Oil" fame) have looked at all these issues, and still think that we are headed back to an agrarian society. I fear that they are probably correct.

Futhermore This sort of technologies will give us even more time to develope "cold" nuclear fusion as a final replace for hydrocarbon sources of energy.

"Cold" nuclear fusion is the thing I'm most pessimistic about, of all. I don't think it will ever exist as a serious energy source.

 

[Bryan]

We have oil in the US, but are not touching it because we are protecting endangered species and saving it for later.

Oil reserves in the US are insignificant.

 

[Cassin]

We have oil in the US, but are not touching it because we are protecting endangered species and saving it for later.

Oil reserves in the US are insignificant.

Bryan I think he is talking about untapped resources which depending on who you want to believe is massive.

 

[tembo]

Actually, oil sands reserves in Canada and Venezuela equal over two Saudi Arabias. Extraction is costlier, but technology is improving every year and making it cheaper and less environmentally damaging.

Heading back to an agrarian society with no cars is a foolish and incorrect projection.

 

[Bryan]

Bryan I think he is talking about untapped resources which depending on who you want to believe is massive.

I believe the accepted figure is that the US has less than 3% of the world's oil reserves (not even taking into consideration that that oil is difficult and costly to obtain). Would you consider that to be "massive"?

 

[tembo]

US has far more offshore (search for Jack Two).

Anyway, as I said, Canada + Venezuela oil sands = over twice Saudi Arabia.

 

[Cassin]

Bryan I think he is talking about untapped resources which depending on who you want to believe is massive.

I believe the accepted figure is that the US has less than 3% of the world's oil reserves (not even taking into consideration that that oil is difficult and costly to obtain). Would you consider that to be "massive"?

I'm not debating anything...I am merely trying to decode CCS who is hard to read at times.

When you consider Canada (who I think CCS was including), off shore and everywhere else that is in the US zone its massive "depending on who you want to believe." Also...untapped resource is a different subject than "reserves."

 

[ali777]

Extraction is costlier, but technology is improving every year and making it cheaper and less environmentally damaging.

Heading back to an agrarian society with no cars is a foolish and incorrect projection.

Despite your comments about certain people, in this particular subject I'm gonna agree with you.

My understanding is that there is oil in lots of places but the cost of extraction is prohibitive. The advantage with the "existing" or let's call it "known" oil fields is that the oil is close to the surface and relatively cheap(er) to tap into.

There is actually gas underneath my parents house (I live in Europe, there is gas in thousands of places in Europe). There was a test drill about 100 yards away from the residential areas. The verdict is that there is enough gas to supply the city for more than 10 years, but in industrial scale the reserve is too small to be tapped into, ie, it doesn't make financial sense to use it. At least that's what they say.

On the second subject. Even if we assume that we are going to run out of fossil fuel, I don't think we are heading back to an agrarian society.

Our source of energy is The Sun. Through various chemical reactions, etc, the solar energy got captured and stored in fossil fuel. We, the mankind, initially produced energy by burning trees, then moved to coal, and then to oil. Now we are more aware of our consumption and we think we shouldn't rely on readily stored energy (fossil fuel), so we need to figure out a way of harvesting solar energy into a usable format (eg, an energy cell). I predict that in our life time we will see an energy evolution (not a revolution), we'll use more and more renewable resources and nuclear power for generating electricity. I also think there will be an energy revolution, where a certain invention or a novel processes will enable us to harvest the solar energy and store it for future use. I don't think the revolution will take place in our life time. (maybe an extremely efficient way of producing hydrogen cells?)

 

[The Gardener]

I agree with Bryan... his projection is correct, but I think its a bit further down the pike time wise before the end of the oil age is upon us. Maybe a few generations away.

Those of you who are in opposition to this inevitability are looking at the issue from a very narrow perspective. You need to realize that we rely on hydrocarbons for a LOT more than just a fuel with which to burn in power plants, or in car engines. ALL of our manufacturing on this planet, ALL of it, is COMPLETELY reliant on hydrocarbons not just as a source of energy, but as a source of chemicals, lubricants, plastics, and other petroleum byproducts absolutely CRITICAL in the process of steel and metalworking.

EVEN if you had a 100% solar or other non-hydrocarbon power source, you can't run a factory without hydrocarbons. Why not? Because no hydrocarbons means no lubricants. No hydrocarbons means that you can't mill steel, because the temperatures required to do so can only be achieved through burning of hydrocarbons, and, hydrocarbon chemical byproducts are needed in order to MAKE steel.

Try making solar panels in any sort of scale of quantity with no factory, no lubricants, and no plastics.

Try making a car with no plastics, no lubricants, and no chemical byproducts with which to mill and press aluminum.

And even if those hurdles were overcome, where would you put the factory? You can't build a factory building without hydrocarbons! Hydrocarbons are used as insulation on every wire and pipe that runs through the building! Look around your room, or wherever you are seated right now... look at all the plastic, look at the paint on your walls (hydrocarbons), look at the metal framing of your windows... look at the plastic insulation on each and every wire coming in and out of your computer, look at your computer screen... all plastics. Try building a LCD display, or, even a simple old fashioned "tube" style electronic display screen with no hydrocarbons. Imagine the labor needed to create a simple strand of copper wire with no hydrocarbon-using machine that assists in creating it.

Solar power might create energy, but it doesn't provide an alternative to all of the other byproducts of hydrocarbons that we absolutely rely on in our current industrial/economic configuration.

Man has tapped into all of the economically feasible carbon sinks, and if you google up a table, oil production has leveled off, and most all of the major oilfields are now in decline. How much petroleum might be "in reserve" or untapped is irrelevant, the relevant issue is that the RATE OF EXTRACTION is in decline. It makes no difference if we have ten barrels in reserve or ten million... the problem is that we have a rate of demand that is exceeding our rate of extraction. Trying to increase extraction rates, either through accelerated drilling in known reserves, or increased exploration, is becoming increasingly uneconomic. Some say, "well, this uneconomic pricing makes the more expensive sources of hydrocarbons increasingly more economically feasible". Not true, because there is a point where unit consumption of hydrocarbons reaches a point where humans can no longer afford it.

The TRUE solution to this problem is some way to take the carbon that humans have released into the air, and recycle it back into hydrocarbons. We need to get that carbon back, and find a way to convert it into a storable form for reuse. Carbon is the problem... we have a carbon-reliant economic infrastructure, and we are taking tons of this precious carbon and just spewing it into the air wastefully. And there is NO source of carbon as concentrated with energy as petroleum... plants, bio fuel, etc.. all myths, with not enough yield. We need the concentrated carbon from burned hydrocarbons out of the air, and back in our hands for reuse.

I've heard of the green algae stuff, genetically engineered to inhale carbon dioxide, and then harvested as petroleum. Perhaps if we can find a way to genetically manipulate the metabolism of these organisms to make this process a LOT faster, we might be taking a step in the right direction... ?

Bryan... out of curiosity, have you/do you read any Kunstler?

 

[ali777]

Those of you who are in opposition to this inevitability are looking at the issue from a very narrow perspective. You need to realize that we rely on hydrocarbons for a LOT more than just a fuel with which to burn in power plants, or in car engines. ALL of our manufacturing on this planet, ALL of it, is COMPLETELY reliant on hydrocarbons not just as a source of energy, but as a source of chemicals, lubricants, plastics, and other petroleum byproducts absolutely CRITICAL in the process of steel and metalworking.

No body has ever claimed that we can build a brand new society where we can be completely hydrocarbon independent. However, I do think there is enough hydrocarbon out there to last a long time with a bit of careful management.

I don't know about the chemical composition of the materials we use today, but you've given a few examples of how it could be possible to produce hydrocarbons from plants, etc. So, you are saying that we rely on fossil fuel but you are also acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that an alternative way of producing hydrocarbons may be discovered/developed?

Given enough advancement in science and technology, we could have a fossil fuel independent society. I don't think this will happen in our life time. It might even take a few generations.

 

[The Gardener]

I don't know about the chemical composition of the materials we use today, but you've given a few examples of how it could be possible to produce hydrocarbons from plants, etc. So, you are saying that we rely on fossil fuel but you are also acknowledging the fact that there is a possibility that an alternative way of producing hydrocarbons may be discovered/developed?

Exactly. Frankly, it's our only hope.

Given enough advancement in science and technology, we could have a fossil fuel independent society. I don't think this will happen in our life time. It might even take a few generations.

I disagree.

Exchange the term "fossil fuel" with the term "highly distilled and concentrated hydrocarbon". "Organic chemistry" refers to chemical substances on the planet that are carbon based. All life on earth is carbon based. Carbon is the backbone of all that lives, moves, and breathes on this planet, it is the base currency of energy. To say that humanity will one day be free of "fossil fuels" is to simultaneously claim that humanity will one day be free of organic chemistry. You might be able to generate heat or light using inorganic means, but you will never be able to apply this energy on this planet until it is transferred into some sort of organic energy medium.

Take solar cells, for example... you can collect light and heat, but this energy is wasted until it either hits a plant's leaf, or some other sort of man-made collector that will inevitably be based on organic, carbon-based, parts and components in order to transmit it.

Let me phrase it another way... this is going to sound strange, but withhold judgment a bit and think about it a minute before you reply to this claim: Hydrocarbons are the most concentrated medium that we know of to store and transport solar energy. The sun might have flooded this planet with radiation and heat for centuries, but what good would it have been if there were no carbon based life forms on this planet to absorb it and store it?

 

[ali777]

Given enough advancement in science and technology, we could have a fossil fuel independent society. I don't think this will happen in our life time. It might even take a few generations.

I disagree.

Exchange the term "fossil fuel" with the term "highly distilled and concentrated hydrocarbon". "Organic chemistry" refers to chemical substances on the planet that are carbon based. All life on earth is carbon based. Carbon is the backbone of all that lives, moves, and breathes on this planet, it is the base currency of energy. To say that humanity will one day be free of "fossil fuels" is to simultaneously claim that humanity will one day be free of organic chemistry. You might be able to generate heat or light using inorganic means, but you will never be able to apply this energy on this planet until it is transferred into some sort of organic energy medium.

Let me phrase it another way... this is going to sound strange, but withhold judgment a bit and think about it a minute before you reply to this claim: Hydrocarbons are the most concentrated medium that we know of to store and transport solar energy. The sun might have flooded this planet with radiation and heat for centuries, but what good would it have been if there were no carbon based life forms on this planet to absorb it and store it?

Fossil fuel refers to the carbons buried underground. I have a basic understanding of organic chemistry, and I tried very carefully not to imply that the humanity can be free of carbon. Maybe the way I put things shows that I'm not a native English speaker.

We don't have to agree. I believe some sort of artificial photosynthesis process can be developed to mass produce hydrocarbons that are not widely present in plant form. I'm not saying we are ready to implement such processes at grand scale, but it's possible.

 

[Bryan]

I'm not debating anything...I am merely trying to decode CCS who is hard to read at times.

When you consider Canada (who I think CCS was including), off shore and everywhere else that is in the US zone its massive "depending on who you want to believe."

I can't make suppositions about what CCS intended to say or what he meant by what he said, all I can do is go by what he actually DID say, which is the following:

"We have oil in the US, but are not touching it because we are protecting endangered species and saving it for later."

And I repeat what I said before: the US has insignificant amounts of oil. It's a few drops in the oil bucket, compared to our current and future needs. And BTW, that part he said about how "we are protecting endangered species" seems to be a dead give-away that he was NOT includng Canada in the "US zone". Nobody would say such a thing, after seeing the way the Canadians are raping their land for that oil-shale!