The energy crisis and you

[nub]

Oil supply is finite because we get it from the earth. The earth is a finite volume, q.e.d. the supply of oil has to be finite as well.
Whether or not it is remade faster than we use it is another story, however...

That's probably putting it in better terms than what I posted.

[DonPunch]

The earths volume is not finite. Space particles enter it every second. Some not so big, and some very big:



Hell, they even have proven the moon was once a part of earth that was knocked off billions of years ago from a huge collison.

[zombie@computer]

The earths volume is not finite. Space particles enter it every second. Some not so big, and some very big:



Hell, they even have proven the moon was once a part of earth that was knocked off billions of years ago from a huge collison.

That's just nitpicking. Lets take the upper estimates found on google that averages to 20k tonnes each year. The USA alone uses 2.6 million tons of oil each year. So even if pure oil rained down it still wouldn't matter significantly.

[DonPunch]

Im not sure what your argument is there. My point was only that there is not a finite amount of resources on this planet. Photosynthesis alone proves that.

[Jordash]

The sun is also a finite source of energy, photosynthesis is not proof of anything regarding infinite energy, sure there is a lot of energy in the sun, but suggesting that it's infinite is ludicrous.

I don't think you understand the term finite, if you can't accurately measure the size of the earth at any given time, it doesn't become inifite. I suggest you read up on infinity if you still don't understand.

[DonPunch]

You must have misread what I posted. I didnt say anything about the sun or earth having infinate anything, only that this planet is not limited to its current mass.

∵ Earth gains mass from the cosmos and loses mass from its atmosphere bleeding off ∴ Earth's volume is not finite.

[Jordash]

I've just gone back a page and saw Jeeves said he didn't mean finite in the mathematical sense so that could be the cause of your confusion and since I didn't read it I wasn't aware you were using the pseudo definition, but as far as I know there is only one definition of finite, that being the opposite of infinite, a definable amount. It doesn't mean something is limited to specific amount. Not finite = infinite.

[amckern]

You know there are bits of earths mass (ie silicon, and bauxite) sitting in and PAST the kuiper belt thanks to NASA.

We also have rubber, and other bits of earths mass on the Moon, Mars, and crushed under massive g forces in the clouds of Jupiter.

Don't forget about all that mass sitting in Geostationary & Geosynchronous orbit

[Stormy]

Wait, are we discussing the amount of mass transferred to the earth by asteroids and the like as an exploitable resource capable of replenishing our oil supply? Do you all realize how idiotic that is? It's a drop in the ocean, and it's not even exploitable as energy, so it's like a drop of water in an ocean of fire, it's not making any difference. I can't decide whether amckern is mocking or participating here.

[Major Banter]

@DonPunch, that's an overly precise definition of finite in the current context. We have semi-finite resources, finite resources and renewable resources. There's no point in getting into things like photosynthesis meaning resources are infinite because humans could quite easily wipe out the entirety of plant life within a century or so. However, more importantly, any mass changing processes are nothing more than energy transfers - the same amount of energy is still present. In this definition of finite, the Earth's volume is constrained and cannot be altered easily. Merely changed.

Furthermore, these changes in mass are truly miniscule - you'd have to eject mass at something like 11.2k/s to escape the atmosphere alone, and that doesn't happen often or easily. But this is an argument that could go on forever and technically you could work with many definitions and be correct either way.

@Stormy, actually, asteroids do hold a massive amount of resources - they're partly responsible for things like silicon, gold, rubidium deposits and so on[1][2][3]. The problem with resource capturing asteroid projects is that they cost far, far more than what you'd get out of them. That applies to things on Earth as well - we don't go for the materials in the mantle because getting there just wouldn't be worth it at the current time.

To quote Wikipedia, which sums up the figures quite well because I can't be arsed to double check everything it says:

In 1997 it was speculated that a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than $ 20 trillion USD worth of industrial and precious metals. A comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron–nickel ore, or two to three times the annual production of 2004. The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of nickel–iron, which could supply the world production requirement for several million years. A small portion of the extracted material would also be precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining

[DonPunch]

Considering all life as we know it came from mass transfered to the earth from space dust and what not, I would consider that a fairly large contribution to our resoures.

Man Stormy sure knows how to start a good thread! We are totally derailed and still some what on topic.

[MrDetergent]

What I see happening first to the video game industry as this energy crisis becomes more reality then fiction, is that the video game consoles are pretty much doomed. Its just doesn't seem like a wise business move to out now and "order 100 million barrels of oil" to make 300 tonnes of plastic for new consoles when you might need that oil later on for something more important.

[amckern]

What I see happening first to the video game industry as this energy crisis becomes more reality then fiction, is that the video game consoles are pretty much doomed. Its just doesn't seem like a wise business move to out now and "order 100 million barrels of oil" to make 300 tonnes of plastic for new consoles when you might need that oil later on for something more important.

Sure, if peak oil ends up costing more then you pay now, then reclamation plastics is going to be a major factor of the consoles - or you could go back to Bakelite, and MDF / particleboard cases like tv's from the 1960's

[Stormy]

There are some viable sustainable alternatives to plastic, but I doubt the infrastructure exists to mass produce them in the quantities required for retail sale. Imagine a console built around sustainability though? What a great concept, unfortunately the majority of the part of the human race capable of purchasing consoles wouldn't care a jot about the sustainability of its design, as long as it could play cod seventeen.

I hate the concept people have of "they" will think of something. It's still happening to this day. We have gone from paying 85 cents per liter of unleaded petrol to paying $1.50 and people haven't eased up. Instead of thinking more carefully about their commuting methods, they blame the big corporations and demand appeasement from the government. In the end the main reason people will stop filling up their cars will be because the price of petrol is too high. Sometimes I think it would be better sooner rather than later, and maybe the governments should tax oil more heavily. The Australian government is a bunch of back bending apologetic spineless handout queens anyway and wouldn't stand up for something even if you set their seat on fire.

I have recently entered some negotiations with a mining company and I may be selling a program to them. The fact that a mining company is still investing in new technology proves to me that people are still blindly marching alongside progress. There's only 15 maybe 20 years left in mining unless we lose the dependance on diesel as a primary fuel source. I don't see anyone making any effort to change it though, since we are so heavily immersed in our generational mindset.

And now I'm rambling. 2029 people. Gotta get that house in a fertile defensible valley by 2029.

[zombie@computer]

There are some viable sustainable alternatives to plastic, but I doubt the infrastructure exists to mass produce them in the quantities required for retail sale. Imagine a console built around sustainability though? What a great concept, unfortunately the majority of the part of the human race capable of purchasing consoles wouldn't care a jot about the sustainability of its design, as long as it could play cod seventeen.

I hate the concept people have of "they" will think of something. It's still happening to this day. We have gone from paying 85 cents per liter of unleaded petrol to paying $1.50 and people haven't eased up. Instead of thinking more carefully about their commuting methods, they blame the big corporations and demand appeasement from the government. In the end the main reason people will stop filling up their cars will be because the price of petrol is too high. Sometimes I think it would be better sooner rather than later, and maybe the governments should tax oil more heavily. The Australian government is a bunch of back bending apologetic spineless handout queens anyway and wouldn't stand up for something even if you set their seat on fire.

I have recently entered some negotiations with a mining company and I may be selling a program to them. The fact that a mining company is still investing in new technology proves to me that people are still blindly marching alongside progress. There's only 15 maybe 20 years left in mining unless we lose the dependance on diesel as a primary fuel source. I don't see anyone making any effort to change it though, since we are so heavily immersed in our generational mindset.

And now I'm rambling. 2029 people. Gotta get that house in a fertile defensible valley by 2029.

$1.50 per liter is a lot over there? lawl.