[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yamaha_R6', 'I') like your style dave, that was a fun read even though it had nothing to do with what we are talking about. The amount of homework I have done is irrelevant. You people are supposed to be the ex lot more stuff out before you go calling the end of the world.

[Mower]

Other than basic tips like on foodstuffs etc, is there any good and free links or info on just how best to prepare? I'm thinking I should start stockpiling all kinds of things that will notbe available agin, like boots, tooth brushes, sun glasses, even nail clipper, scissors, tools etc.

[Falconoffury]

I did some extra research and it turns out that I was wrong about using platinum for storage. A friend told me that, but I never got around to looking it up. I'm sorry, and I won't post further facts without getting them from reputable sources in the future. Everything else I said should be true.

[azreal60]

Falcon, you where both right and wrong. Platinum is not the only metal that can contain hydrogen in its gasous form, but it is one of them yes. You could never use hydrogen in gas form in an automobile though, it simply is not energy dense enough. The conversions out there now involve very complex refrigeration systems that cool the hydrogen till it is in liquid form. That is why it is so freaking expensive. Ever seen the rockets that carried poeple to the moon? They used liquid hydrogen and oxygen, and they where a b#$^ to maintain.

Your anology about leaks was dead on though. Thats why people have to cool it, because uncooled it can get out of just about anything. Cooled, its ok, but its very hard to keep something way way below 0 without prohibitively expensive cooling systems. Theoretically there is some promise in nano tech, but nothing has solidified yet even in the lab.

Mower, think in terms of things that are going to last a very long time and will need to be shipped AND is not something you can make yourself. You can make your own toothpaste with basic herbs, you can make your own toenail clipper with semi decent metalworking skills and the right tools. Solar panels are beyond most people though. So think things that are pretty high tech and will last u a damn long time. Honestly, I would say get batteries. Solar and wind because of the fact they really don t rely on the gov for customers i think will be in demand and as such in production long after the peak hits. There are solar producers in the continental US, and u can get most of the stuff you need for under 1000 US to start with. A full home system can get a bit more expensive, but there are currently government grants you can operate under. ( I don t know canada s laws, suppose i should learn them). Batteries if properly maintained last a very very long time. Honestly, other than that, dry goods and winter clothing is a very good good idea. Most people do not have proper winter clothing for their whole family. And dry goods can last years, protein powder properly stored is a very useful additive. Damn, gotta get back to work.

[Pops]

Just an off topic note, if you can be off topic on this type of thread.

I would encourage everyone to start new threads when a subject comes up that is worth exploring, platinum or preparations as 2 recent examples.

Those things will just get lost here and deserve a thread of their own and would provide a good resource if they could be found by title.

BTW topics with a narrow focus usually do get split when they go off track.

Ramble on.

[Yamaha_R6]

It is going to take some time for me to put this together, you might have to wait a while. Dont know how long, it could be 3 hours, or 3 days, we'll see.

[Dvanharn]

but it will take a while.

I promise to post some answers before gas hits $13/gallon!!

Dave

[Mower]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('azreal60', 'M')ower, think in terms of things that are going to last a very long time and will need to be shipped AND is not something you can make yourself.

[Mower]

BTW I think you aare all being waaay too optimistic to assume that government will continue to function "after". With no means of effective control, it will not. Anarchy will ensue.

[Soft_Landing]

One think I am loathe to underestimate is human resourcefulness.

Some of the older members who frequent this forum, and particularly Europeans, are of the opinion that fascism rears it's head in tough times.

A perspective exists that this fascism is not necessarily something to fear, but rather, is something of a coping mechansim for society when times are tough and resources were low.

Societies didn't just fall into anarchy during the great depression. But fascist movements did spring up everywhere.

I really don't know, as I wasn't alive through the great depression, and Australia has had it pretty good ever since.

I find these ideas very interesting. I am not keen to jump to conclusions about the implosion of governments.

[drew]

Thank god I live in Canada. I am following Deffeyes advice and am researching oil companies who own large proven reserves. What else makes sense? Money will definitely help out in the next 20 years or so.
I must say I have been greatly amused by the continual goings on of yamaboy (love the r6 by the way; I am a former roadracer), who is stuck in the whole mode of 'sustainable' development, and thus is a good representation of 'everyman'.
Why do people still think we can continue on forever reproducing like flies, while consuming ever greater amounts of the world's resources. Do people not read the business section of the news paper. It is all about growth and profit, done by entering new and emerging markets, and by the creation of 'need'.
China and India have over 2 billion people between them, and their economies are red hot! Guess why? The want televisions and cars and material luxury just like the west. What does Yamaboy think will happen to demand when these two countries approach a standard of living even a 5th of what we have.
I may be mistaken but doesn't America have something like 300 million cars (and guns, and people too). The US gobbles up 25% of the world's oil production, and 70% of that 25% is used for transportation. China and India have 2000+ million people, and let's assume that the capitalist machine kicks in good, and by 2015 one out of ten Chinese and Indians has a car; gee whiz that's 200 million cars? Where is this extra oil going to come from?
Yamaboy, you really should visit some oil company websites; you may be surprised to find all kinds of references to dwindling conventional supplies. I can tell you this, if the oil companies are saying that the party is over, it's over.
Drew (who still wants to be able to drive around when I am old and can't walk)

[Aaron]

http://peakoil.com/contentid-15.html

[drew]

Thanks Aaron, I looked at that one earlier. Quite a few of the Canadian oil companies echo those comments on the 'significant challenges' the industry faces.
I must say that I am not so pessimistic as some of the other members of this forum; anarchy, revolution, etc.. I just believe that our mostly comfortable existence in the west will take a good shot below the belt. My kids often worry about the state of the world, with good reason, and I find it constantly necessary to reassure them that the end is not in sight.
I do believe that the world will become an increasingly unfriendly and unhealthy place to live. Competition for resources due to population growth and industrialization will only increase in the future. We will scramble like mad for alternatives when oil becomes sufficiently scarce.
I see a future fuelled by unsafe and dirty sources such as coal and fission, as these are 'cheap', 'proven' resources from an economic standpoint.
There are interesting energy alternatives such as Iogen's recent development of cellulose ethanol, which could power a fuel cell or conventional gas engine, but many of these sources have low energy density or are years away from commercial viability. The big one, George Dubya's hydrogen economy is pure bunkum too, as anyone with even minimal engineering knowledge will tell you (see May or June's Scientific American).
I can tell my kids in all seriousness that we are not doomed, but will continue plodding along from calamity to calamity, with shortened lifespans as a result. The folks with money will do fine, they will live like the super rich do in latin america. It is the rest of the world I am worried about.
Drew

[kenbathrhume]

Yamaha should give himself credit for having alot of common sense.

The basic idea is that oil prices will be so high they will ruin the economy and no one will be able to buy oil of course. So if there's still 80% of the oil there was before (say 5 years after peak say) and no one is buying it....doesn't that mean the price would come down?

As for substitution; of course there is substitution. Auto lines can't be switched from making SUVs into other lines? Really? An SUV made must be driven 15,000 miles per year or whatever even if it's sitting in a lot somewhere? If gas prices are high enough then no one will drive an SUV. No one will buy. They'll be melted down for scrap steel. It would be cheaper than running them. People can't carpool? Of couse they can and no that wouldn't "ruin" the economy. The US survived the Great Depression intact didn't it?

How about substitutes for oil? There are NONE?? Really? Nuclear and wind can make hydrogen. Carbon is obtained from the air (CO2 which is in short supply of course) or coal.

The problems I have with Matt's notes from his book on his site is there is no mention made of numbers.

IE how much does it cost to convert coal into oil? (China does it for $20 a barrel). How much coal does the US use per year and how much oil would it generate if 1/2 were converted over? The US uses 1 billion tons of coal per year (of its resources of 250 billion tons)...1/2 a billion tons a year with added hydrogen would make 3.5 billion barrels, or 1/2 of what the US uses.

How much oil does the US produce now? About 7 million barrels per day or 35% of what we use. How far has this fallen? In the early 1970s we made something like 12 million barrels per day. So it's fallen 50% in 35 years.

There won't be any way to build factories to make coal to oil because there WON'T BE ANY OIL!! Again nonsense. The oil won't fall 50% overnight. It won't even fall 50% in 20 years most likely. Since you can use oil made from coal and hydrogen (or just from coal if you want) to create a factory to make more oil from coal...

As for all the Chinese and Indians wanting to buy oil, who cares? That is an arguement for why prices and product for existing oil won't stay where it is. IF prices are $40 then demand will expand. However if prices are $80 then the demand may not go up at all. Maybe their economies won't "grow" or maybe they'll grow without using as much oil. And at $80 substitues come into play.

You can't have it both ways...saying oil will go up so high in price because everyone is buying it which will ruin the economy so that no one is buying it.

No oil for fertilizer!! Fertilizer is made mostly with natural gas which is used for its hydrogen content. Hydrogen made directly from wind could substitute for this. At the price natural gas is now, hydrogen from wind is almost competitive.

No oil for trucking!!! Again there will always be "some" oil whether produced from the ground, from coal...the price may go up but so what? Oil prices went up 10 fold from the early 1960s to the mid 1970s. Did the economy collapse? How many people starved?

[kenbathrhume]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('drew', 'T')hanks Aaron, I looked at that one earlier. Quite a few of the Canadian oil companies echo those comments on the 'significant challenges' the industry faces.
I . The big one, George Dubya's hydrogen economy is pure bunkum too, as anyone with even minimal engineering knowledge will tell you (see May or June's Scientific American).
Drew

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he basic idea is that oil prices will be so high they will ruin the economy and no one will be able to buy oil of course. So if there's still 80% of the oil there was before (say 5 years after peak say) and no one is buying it....doesn't that mean the price would come down?

[kenbathrhume]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('drew', 'T')hanks Aaron, I looked at that one earlier. Quite a few of the Canadian oil companies echo those comments on the 'significant challenges' the industry faces.
I . The big one, George Dubya's hydrogen economy is pure bunkum too, as anyone with even minimal engineering knowledge will tell you (see May or June's Scientific American).
Drew

[kenbathrhume]

Yamaha should give himself credit for having alot of common sense.

The basic idea is that oil prices will be so high they will ruin the economy and no one will be able to buy oil of course. So if there's still 80% of the oil there was before (say 5 years after peak say) and no one is buying it....doesn't that mean the price would come down?

As for substitution; of course there is substitution. Auto lines can't be switched from making SUVs into other lines? Really? An SUV made must be driven 15,000 miles per year or whatever even if it's sitting in a lot somewhere? If gas prices are high enough then no one will drive an SUV. No one will buy. They'll be melted down for scrap steel. It would be cheaper than running them. People can't carpool? Of couse they can and no that wouldn't "ruin" the economy. The US survived the Great Depression intact didn't it?

How about substitutes for oil? There are NONE?? Really? Nuclear and wind can make hydrogen. Carbon is obtained from the air (CO2 which is in short supply of course) or coal.

The problems I have with Matt's notes from his book on his site is there is no mention made of numbers.

IE how much does it cost to convert coal into oil? (China does it for $20 a barrel). How much coal does the US use per year and how much oil would it generate if 1/2 were converted over? The US uses 1 billion tons of coal per year (of its resources of 250 billion tons)...1/2 a billion tons a year with added hydrogen would make 3.5 billion barrels, or 1/2 of what the US uses.

How much oil does the US produce now? About 7 million barrels per day or 35% of what we use. How far has this fallen? In the early 1970s we made something like 12 million barrels per day. So it's fallen 50% in 35 years.

There won't be any way to build factories to make coal to oil because there WON'T BE ANY OIL!! Again nonsense. The oil won't fall 50% overnight. It won't even fall 50% in 20 years most likely. Since you can use oil made from coal and hydrogen (or just from coal if you want) to create a factory to make more oil from coal...

As for all the Chinese and Indians wanting to buy oil, who cares? That is an arguement for why prices and product for existing oil won't stay where it is. IF prices are $40 then demand will expand. However if prices are $80 then the demand may not go up at all. Maybe their economies won't "grow" or maybe they'll grow without using as much oil. And at $80 substitues come into play.

You can't have it both ways...saying oil will go up so high in price because everyone is buying it which will ruin the economy so that no one is buying it.

No oil for fertilizer!! Fertilizer is made mostly with natural gas which is used for its hydrogen content. Hydrogen made directly from wind could substitute for this. At the price natural gas is now, hydrogen from wind is almost competitive.

No oil for trucking!!! Again there will always be "some" oil whether produced from the ground, from coal...the price may go up but so what? Oil prices went up 10 fold from the early 1960s to the mid 1970s. Did the economy collapse? How many people starved?

[drew]

Ken, you should read the article in Scientific American before commenting. The authors go to great lengths explaining energy densities and production costs of a variety of fuels. In using hydrogen as a motor fuel between 70 and 90% of the energy is lost, depending on feedstock, ie: methane, electrolysis, steam reforming from coal. The storage and transportation hurdles are far greater than you claim. Liquid propane-room temperature storage under pressure; liquid hydrogen-320 deg below zero storage. As a gas in a high pressure pipeline hydrogen has one seventh the energy of natural gas at the same pressure. Fuel cells are old news, the problem is the fuel supply chain.
You are talking about non existent fanciful chemical processes as well, such as taking hydrogen and coal to make oil. Chemistry is complex, it requires energy and ideal conditions to break and form chemical bonds and thus substances. Creating hydrogen gas is horribly inefficient, and wasteful in its own right, and the further reactions you claim would only add your 'synthetic' oil's cost.
I am not trying to be mean, but you really should read some technical literature. Much of the discussion here is of an economic and political nature, which, unfortunately, is based on science such as geology, chemistry, and engineering. I have one year of chemistry which went towards a BA in Classics, so, while being well rounded, I am certainly not a chemist.
At present there are 'no alternatives' to our present consumption levels of crude oil. Sure you can steal or buy used french fry oil for your vw but that only takes one so far!
Drew(who likes cars cause it's too cold to cycle in the winter)

[Chichis]

A side note on hydrogen fuel cells. I took a class on the ethics of nanotechnology earlier this year. It was a really great class, had tons of distinguished guest speakers. Anyway one of them said that one of the great challenges right now in nanotechnology is to make an efficient container for hydrogen. Right now there is no efficient container for hydrogen, because it is so difficult to prevent it from leaking. Forget all the problems with creating hydrogen, storing it is what's really keeping it from going mainstream. Many in the nanotechnology field are racing to develop a container for hydrogen, as this breakthrough will make the inventors extremely rich.