Oil and its future implications

[Princess Luna]

This is a 12 page research paper I did recently on oil. I find oil to be one of my favorite topics to talk about, and int he paper I was able to address everything I really wanted to say minus a few things.

 

If you take the time to read it let me know what you think, because it took me 8 hours to write this lol

 

The pictures I refer to are just Peak oil pictures, and if your reading this you should know what a bell curve is anyway.

 

The Future We Have Inherited

Energy has, and always will be, the most important part of any human society. Without energy we do not function. It is what every form of life on earth has in common, their need for energy. From the smallest bacteria to the largest land animal, without a form of energy to sustain them, they would not exist. Without energy, we would not exist. That is why this topic is very important. So I ask the question. Do we have an energy problem?

 

Yes, the human race has an energy problem. Humans are consumers, and as consumers humans use a very large amount of energy yearly. Whether it be for transportation, manufacturing, travel, or recreation, we humans use energy for just about everything. Energy comes in all kinds of forms, but the two main categories are renewable and non-renewable forms of energy. Renewable forms of energy are those that we are able to use without them ever running out. Such forms include: solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, and wind. Non-renewable resources are those forms of energy that we are unable to use forever, as they will eventually be depleted. These include: petroleum (oil), coal, and natural gas. (For future reference, when the word oil is used, it is referring to oil and/or its derivatives, such as gasoline.) There is one form of energy that does not fit in either category, and that is electricity. Electricity is a form of energy we get from renewable and non-renewable resources. It must be produced; we cannot just mine it for example. A power plant must produce the electricity, using one of the aforementioned resources, whether they be renewable or non-renewable, which is eventually transported via wires to its destination ("How Electricity is Produced").

 

Now, one may ask why the human race has a problem, as mentioned in the previous paragraph .The problem that humanity has is one that we have failed to understand for the last hundred years, and probably will struggle with for years to come. The problem humanity faces is the fact that the world is finite. Meaning that we have only so much cheap, affordable energy we can get from the earth. Regardless of the innovations in energy production, the human race will eventually reach a point where it cannot sustain itself any longer under the current energy conditions, and will inevitably collapse. So what might have been some major causes that have lead us into a world where cheap, affordable energy is a thing of the past? (We will discuss each of the reasons more in-depth later due to the amount of information involved in each). The first and foremost reason behind this bleak future is cheap, affordable oil. Secondly, is our false assumption that we can fall back onto other fossil fuels, such as coal, when oil eventually runs out. Thirdly, is the lack of investments into alternative fuels and the idea that alternative fuels are the answer, and lastly, population increase; more people, more energy required.

 

Oil is the reason behind our future predicament, because it was an available cheap resource. Why it's the main reason is because even though it was cheap and plentiful at the time, it's longevity was underestimated. The first oil well drilled with the sole purpose of finding oil was the Drake well in Pennsylvania in 1859 (Breger). This discovery led to a nationwide search for petroleum, because as a fuel, oil was originally used as kerosene for lighting, replacing animal, vegetable and coal oils (Wojick). When automobiles came into common use, oil found its purpose. Almost every form of transportation known today, runs on gasoline, which is derived from oil. It has also been used to produce electricity through burning, but that has primarily been the responsibility of coal (Wojick). Oil is also found in almost every man made product produced. These products include, but are not limited to: Gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, all forms of plastics excluding bio-plastics, synthetic rubbers and fibers, fertilizers, medicine, paint, and candles ("Uses of Oil."). Also, if oil is not directly involved in the manufacturing process, it is involved in the transportation or cultivation of the product. For example, corn needs to be harvested by heavy gasoline powered machinery due to its large scale cultivation nationwide. Also the fertilizer used to grow the corn contains chemicals derived from oil. It also needs to be transported throughout the entire country to thousands of distribution centers using various forms of transportation. When it reaches the distribution center, it must then be transported again to various stores. People must drive to these stores in order to buy the corn. We can see how a plant such as corn, which contains no oil itself, relies on oil for its production, transportation, and ultimately its consumption. So, as we can see, oil is not only used in almost everything, but is also required in the distribution of almost everything.

 

In the previous paragraph we examined how oil plays a huge role, not only in manufacturing, but in the transportation of goods. Since we have looked at this aspect, we can see how anything effecting oil, will trickle down and effect everything that it is used for. This is a logical observation to make. If oil prices go up, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, and all forms of plastics, for example, will also go up in price. However, the effect on the price is dependent on the amount of oil used in the product. Obviously candles are not as dependent on oil, as gasoline or jet fuel would be. Given this information, we come to another logical observation; oil not only effects everything that contains it but it also effects you personally. The things you specifically buy and use are in one way or another effected by oil. Your life style is based off the current price per barrel of oil. For example, your ability to drive to work every day depends on whether or not you can afford the gas to do so. The groceries you buy at the store have prices also based on oil, due to the transportation costs. Also, depending on where you live, oil may be the fuel burned to provide electricity to your home. So, as we can see, oil itself effects many aspects of your daily life whether or not you are aware of it.

 

Since we now know what oil is used for and how it effects you personally, we can start to look at how much is actually being consumed. The United States uses about 17 million barrels of oil every day ("Fossil Fuels."), with one barrel of oil equating to 42 gallons (Etzel). That is approximately 6 billion barrels of oil annually. So, if we take what we learned from the previous paragraphs, we can logically assume that those barrels of oil are going into transportation, manufacturing, travel, and recreational needs. That is just for the United States alone. The total daily oil consumption for the world is 84 million barrels per day("Oil: Crude and Petroleum Products Explained."). That means, that in one year the world consumes approximately 30.5 billion barrels of oil or 1.2 trillion gallons. (It is from this knowledge of our consumption rates, that it can be understood that if oil were to be depleted, it would lead to almost everything being affected). To give you an idea of how much a trillion gallons is, if we assume that a car on average gets 25 miles to the gallon, every year we could drive around 30 trillion miles or 6 light years. This is an extremely large amount of energy being put out by just oil annually.

 

We can now look at how much energy is actually being produced by oil. Petroleum accounts for nearly 40% of the United States energy, whereas coal is roughly 22%, natural gas is 22%, and all other forms of energy account for only 15% ("Fossil Fuels."). By way of comparison to other fossil fuels, at their smallest unit of measure, a barrel of oil produces 5,800,000 Btus, a short ton of coal produces 19,953,000 Btus, and 1 cubic foot of natural gas produces 1,027 Btus ("Oil: Crude and Petroleum Products Explained."). A BTU, short for British Thermal Unit, is a basic measure of thermal (heat) energy (Hayden). This may look like coal has a larger output per unit, but a short ton of coal is 2000 pounds, whereas a barrel of oil weighs about 306 pounds. So, per pound of oil you get 18,000 Btus, whereas per pound of coal you get 10,000 Btus. Therefore, oil is the dominating fossil fuel when it comes to energy production. To better demonstrate the extremely large amounts of energy we get from oil, its approximated that in one gallon (not barrel), of gasoline, there is an equivalent of 500 human work hours (Pimentel). To put this in perspective, if you drove a car on one gallon of gasoline 25 miles, the human equivalent would take 500 hours to not only walk the distance, but push the car as well. For an even better comparison, the car ride would take about 50 minutes at the relatively slow driving speed of 30 miles an hour, compared to the 20 days it would take a human to walk and push the car. The amount of energy we get from oil is extremely high, when compared to other available forms of energy.

 

This explains why oil is the main cause of our current and future hardships. Oil is finite. Regardless of everything that has been said about the benefits, the ways it can be utilized, and the effects it has had on society in general, such as increased population, technology advancements, and increased food procurement. If it's gone, we can no longer use its benefits. It is not a matter of if it runs out, but when.

 

To fully understand how finite oil is, we must first look at the oil production curve (See Fig1 pg 13). As we can see from the graph, the United States peaked in oil production, in the 1970's at 3.5 billion barrels annually, and has decreased in production ever since ("ANWR and Offshore Drilling."). To peak, in this sense, is the point at which you are at the maximum production permitted. Peaking is also an inevitable step for all consumable resources; eventually you will have consumed half of the whole. The red dots on the graph indicate real historical data per year on U.S. annual production. The solid line shows what could be new fields being discovered and accounts for that with a slight bump on the graph. The dotted line is the base curve, or the theoretical path the production would follow. This shows that if one country's oil can peak, then world oil production must eventually peak as well.

 

So how much oil is left? That is a tough question. Based on the latest oil reserve information, it is estimated that the world has about 1.3 trillion barrels of oil left ("Oil reserves."). So are we close to peaking? Another tough question, but it can be reasonably answered; yes. The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC) in London provided a total figure of almost 1 trillion barrels of crude oil (944 billion barrels) since commercial drilling began ("How Much Oil Have We Used?."). Now, if we were to take what we learned about what it means to peak, we can logically say that we are within a few 100 billion barrels of peak world production. So what would be your best guess at when? Well if we take the estimated amount of oil we have left, and divide that by our current consumption rates, we have about 35 years of oil left. This isn't time to celebrate. This length of time is based off of the complete consumption of oil, meaning, we would have 35 years left if we went to the last drop. This of course is not possible. Countries now and have, fought wars to preserve their way of life. If the U.S. wants to continue its society, it must invade and try to control nations in which oil is produced, because of how much the U.S. alone consumes on a daily basis. At a certain point after peaking countries will no longer be able to consume the amounts of oil they do today, and with no viable alternatives to oil, it is a logical future in which we can describe today. To answer the main question, on why oil has caused such a bleak future, is that we have used oil for far too long as our primary form of energy, other resources do not even come close to taking on the load oil will hand down, and the fact that it will eventually run out anyway.

 

Before we look at why alternative renewable sources of energy are not going to work, we should first look at why an alternate fossil fuel is also not the answer to our looming problems. Our future does not entirely rest on the shoulders of oil. Coal and natural gas, are other forms of fossil fuels, and like oil, will run out eventually. There are three reasons why coal and natural gas will never truly replace oil: Uses in production of manufactured goods and transportation are extremely limited compared to oil, pollution is considerably higher with coal, and of course they will both eventually peak.

 

Coal is an extremely affordable energy source. The United States has about a 245-year supply of coal, if it continues using coal at the same rate at which it uses coal today ("All About Coal."). In fact, there is more energy in the U.S. coal deposits then all the world's oil reserves ("All About Coal."). So why is coal not a viable alternative to oil? First, coal is not as widely used in actual products, but usually fuels the plants where they make them. What it is used in, however, is concrete and paper companies which burn coal, and the steel industry uses coke and coal by-products to make steel for bridges, buildings, and automobiles ("All About Coal."). Coals primary and traditional use is for energy. It does not compare with oil's manufacturing capabilities, nor does it provide energy to transportation vehicles. Another reason coal is not a truly viable alternative is the pollution it produces:

Air pollution: Burning coal causes smog, soot, acid rain, global warming, and toxic air emissions. Wastes generated: Ash, sludge, toxic chemicals, and waste heat create more environmental problems. Fuel supply: Mining, transporting, and storing coal levels mountains and pollutes the land, water, and air. Water use: Coal plants need billions of gallons of cooling water and harm wildlife. ("Coal Pollution.")

 

When coal is used for fuel it is extremely hazardous to the environment. When it comes down to specifics, coal surpasses oil and natural gas, in total amounts of pollutants. For example, for every billion Btus of energy, natural gas produces 117,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, and oil produces 164,000 pounds ("Natural Gas and the Environment."). Coal produces an enormous 208,000 pounds of carbon dioxide ("Natural Gas and the Environment."). It also exceeds oil and natural gas in the amounts of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, produced. Lastly, coal follows the same bell shaped curve that oil does. It is a finite resource just like oil. It may take longer for it to peak and run out, but it will eventually.

 

Natural gas has been used traditionally for heating and electricity production. Natural gas is used as an input to manufacture pulp and paper, metals, chemicals, stone, clay, glass, and to process certain foods ("Uses of Natural Gas."). Its limited use in manufacturing, makes it less of a viable alternative to oil. Pollution caused by natural gas is significantly lower than both coal and oil. But, this reason alone does not make it an alternative to oil, only that the use of it does not have as severe of consequences. Natural gas, like all non-renewable resources is also finite. It will eventually run out. However, it is estimated that there is anywhere from 60-65 years of natural gas left in the world based on current rates of consumption (Chapo).

 

So, as we have now looked at coal and natural gas, it can reasonably be concluded that they are not viable alternatives to oil. Coal for the reasons of pollution, but not so much natural gas, including limited manufacturing uses, and the fact that both are limited resources, show that they are not viable alternative options to oil.

 

If non-renewable forms of energy are not the answer, then renewable forms of energy must be. However true this statement is, renewable forms of energy barely register on the scale when compared to non-renewable resources. Currently, the world gets about 7% of its energy from renewable resources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal (McLamb). The main problem with these types of energy resources, given our current society, is that none of them actually produce anything but energy. We still need physical materials to be produced by the energy these sources provide. Regardless of their manufacturing incapability's, they still will not be able to meet our growing demand for energy. Oil is a large part of this problem. With the average person unaware that there is a limited amount of fossil fuels, legislation based on alternate energy sources is hard to come by, simply because the people do not want it. That is to say, they are unaware of how it could help prolong the inevitable energy crisis. Which in turn explains why renewable energy makes up for only 7% of total world energy.

 

Solar energy is not the answer. Solar panels require sunlight to work, where there is no sun, there is no energy. Also, solar cells require rare-earth minerals to be mined out in order to be produced. Rare-earth minerals are not easily mined either. For example Thomas Graedel says, "we don't mine indium. We mine zinc and hope that we can recover the indium as a low concentration by-product" (Cherry). We spoke very early on about how oil effects corn getting to your home. We can now apply that same thinking to solar cells in this situation. Due to heavy machinery not running on solar power, we can assume that we will still be using oil powered machines to extract the minerals necessary for solar panels. Also, the trucks transporting the materials to the specific plants to be assembled also use fossil fuels. Adding to why solar is not the answer, is the fact that it would take an area of 496,905 square kilometers, or roughly the size of Spain to meet the total world energy demands by 2030 (Diaz). The same problems occur with wind, as with solar. Wind turbines require wind to produce energy; no wind, no energy. Also, wind turbines are large and bulky, and usually have to be shipped in from out of country using gas guzzling super tankers (Schirber), not to mention lubricants for the gears. Also, an extremely large area of land would need to be turned into wind farms to have any chance at meeting world energy demands.

 

From the paragraphs above, we can logically assume that due to our inability to act early on by investing in alternative forms of energy, we may have unintentionally ruined our chance at creating new viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Much more research must be done before alternate forms of energy account for a larger percent of world energy providers.

 

Lastly, the final cause of what might be a energy less future, is population growth. Population and energy are what you could call a double edged sword. Where on one side, if you create more energy, technology advances and people can live longer and thrive, and on the other side, you have the increased demand for energy from an ever increasing population.

 

Without oil, we would not have the population size that we have today. Looking at Figure 2 on page 13, the graph indicates that early humanities population was extremely less than our current population (Shapiro). Looking at the area shaded in orange, it is illustrated that the population increase is connected to the "energy revolution", or era of cheap energy. More energy allows people to have more free time, due to advances in technology. More free time means larger families and a higher birth to death ratio, meaning a larger population. The reason we have such a large population, is because our current producers of energy produce enough to sustain 7 billion people. This was not the case 100 years ago.

 

Energy needs are not the only problems a large populace faces. Food shortages, overcrowding of cities, increased spread of disease. All are factors that come about when a civilization, such as humanity, reaches a very large population. But most importantly, a large population means larger amounts of energy. Eventually, when energy output needs to increase to sustain the population, it won't. At a certain point the world will not be able to support the population, but it's not just an energy crisis that a population of enormous size faces.

 

One large energy issue that has been talked about for many years, is the hydrogen economy. The hydrogen economy is the idea that hydrogen fueled cars and trucks will grace the roads of tomorrow. In fact if you asked the average person what our country will use for cars after oil is gone, and they will probably say hydrogen or electric cars are the way of the future. This is absolutely not true. Hydrogen and electricity are energy carriers; mediums for energy to move through (Pfeiffer). Most of our hydrogen today comes from, you guessed it, a fossil fuel. Hydrogen is derived from natural gas, and a significant energy loss, 60%, happens during the process (Pfeiffer). This means we will still have an attachment to at least one fossil fuel. Electric cars are an even worse response to the question and here's why: If we move to electric cars, it will only reduce the oil consumed by cars directly, but at the same time, more fossil fuels will be needed to produce the energy needed to charge an electric car. So basically, a move to electric cars would be nothing more than a substitute for going to the gas station, your electric bill will just be higher. Also the sheer size of today's gas market took decades to create, if we were to move to hydrogen cars we would have to phase out not only 62 million cars, but thousands of gas stations would have to be refitted with hydrogen tanks, and that alone would take decades, not to mention billions of taxpayers dollars(Pfeiffer).

 

The fact is, hydrogen and electric cars are nothing more than a pipe dream. Our infrastructure is built to heavily on gasoline to even support a shift to another fuel. Electric cars do not get rid of fossil fuel using cars, they would just be indirectly using them. So, if people tell you the future is hydrogen or electric, you will know better.

 

Overall, we have learned how oil effects our daily life, how it has affected our future, and how we will probably not discover an new efficient viable alternative to fossil fuels. It was shown how we cannot let other fossil fuels pick up the slack of oil, and how alternative energy sources do not produce any significant amount of energy. Also, we have learned that with cheap energy, we also get population growth, and that it can be a deadly mix. And finally we learned that two of the leading new economies predicted for the future, will never pan out in the long run. Our only hope for the future is either propose large amounts of funding to alternate fuels, or a little more conservation, or perhaps we should all prepare for the worst. We only have one world, and we may have already reached the point of no return. Only time will tell.

 

CITATIONs-

"How Electricity is Produced." ThinkQuest. ThinkQuest, 1 June 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Breger, Dee, and John Harper. "History of Oil." Petroleum Education. The Paleontological Research Institution, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Wojick, David. "History of Oil Use." Fossil Fuels. N.p., 19 Feb. 2004. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

"Uses of Oil." End Oil. N.p., 1 Jan. 2004. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

"Fossil Fuels." Fast Facts About Fossil Fuels. N.p., 7 Apr. 1998. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

"Oil: Crude and Petroleum Products Explained." Energy Explained. Energy Information Administration, 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Etzel, Judith O. "The 42 Gallon Barrel." Oil 150. N.p., 2007. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Pimentel, David. "One Barrel of Oil." Human Energy. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Hayden, Howard. "The BTU." The Energy Advocate. N.p., 1999. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

"ANWR and Offshore Drilling." Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. N.p., 2011. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

"Oil reserves." CIA World Factbook. N.p., 28 July 2005. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

"How Much Oil Have We Used?." Green Car Congress. N.p., 10 May 2009. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

"All About Coal." The American Coal Foundation. N.p., 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

"Coal Pollution." Union of Concernd Scientists. N.p., 2009. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

"Natural Gas and the Environment." Natural Gas. N.p., 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

"Uses of Natural Gas." Natural Gas. Energy Information Administration, 9 Nov. 11. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Chapo, Richard. "How Much Natural Gas is Left?." Ezine Articles. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

McLamb, Eric. "Fossil vs Renewable." Ecology. N.p., 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Cherry, Steven. "The Upside and Downside to Rare Earth Metals Shortages." ieee Spectrum. N.p., 7 Mar. 2011. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Diaz, Jesus. "Solar Panels." Gizmondo. N.p., 1 Sept. 2009. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Schirber, Michael. "5 Myths About Wind Energy." N.p., 24 Sept. 2008. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Shapiro, Mark H. "Population Growth." The Irascible Professor. N.p., 2011. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Pfeiffer, Dale A. "The Myth of the Hydrogen Economy." Energy Bulletin. N.p., 3 Jan. 2006. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Guest (see edit history)

[Ross Scott]

Looks like a pretty solid paper, I'll go ahead and sticky it. I can't really find fault with anything in here. I have heard a lot of different stories on natural gas however since there have been some HUGE discoveries since about 2009, so it's hard to say how that will play out. If you don't get an A then something is wrong with your professor.

[Koach]

agreed. i couldnt read all of it, but what i read was almost perfect. i think it's between 9-10. if you are an IB student, then it would be a perfect extended essay, and if i choose that topic, this will surely be in my bibliography.

[Princess Luna]

Well I got a B on it because it was supposed to be an informal paper but I kept using "we" so I got marked down. I could care less about the grade though because I was finally given a chance to say in writing what Ive been saying to people I know for so long

 

And thanks Ross, I was hoping you would read it so I'm really glad you liked it haha

[ProHypster]

Well I got a B on it because it was supposed to be an informal paper but I kept using "we" so I got marked down. I could care less about the grade though because I was finally given a chance to say in writing what Ive been saying to people I know for so long

 

And thanks Ross, I was hoping you would read it so I'm really glad you liked it haha

Oh yeah, I know that feeling, I got the same mark after being praised very much for the content and idea of my "On the subject of human races" paper...

 

What the hell does it matter if I didn't put the citations in proper format!

 

Good job though for putting that here!

[RoMaNo]

I agree: Congratulations, very good essay!!

 

On this kind of topic is difficult to put ideas in order, but you explained your view very well... But, I have my own comments

 

Certainly, we are facing a difficult situation about energy, but we also need to understand the mechanisms of why it is so difficult to solve. Humanity works under market model (like it or not) and "alternative" energies are able to use and in some cases, they are already well developed. Geothermal, hydraulic and eolic energy are well developed technologies, not with prototypes but with well proved industrial projects with years of operation. Indeed, in Europe there are some countries with a big part of its energy generated by wind.

 

The problem is economical: oil is cheap and renewable energies are not so cheap, but we are not willing to invest in making them really competitive because there is a risk, like any new business. And until we are not forced to change the technology, big companies won't invest in more efficient energies seriously.

 

You gave several reasons of why renewable energies are not an option and used ceteris paribus principle. That is correct for transient analysis, where we have not yet changed our main technologies, but in long term we will have oil alternatives (by the force). So, environmental concerns may not be as valid about pollution, and the fact is that we are willing to destroy nature in order to get energy. Personally I think that wind farms, hydroelectric or solar plants, with its local effect in nature are less nocive than fossil fuels, which change weather in the whole planet with golbal warming, destroying ozone layer, making sun exposure very dangerous for humans and life in general.

 

So, if we want to successfully solve this problem, we need to be brave as civilization and be smart to make decisions. We cannot wait until market solves the problem alone, because social costs will be huge and I'm not talking about not to have gas to drive to the supermarket, but about wars, hungry and death of many people.

 

Investors won't take a risky challange with the chance of assured income on a proved business, no matter if that business damages earth or lead us to a big crisis. Governments should pick this responsability instead of only support companies interests (but not abandom them, that is the mechanism of how things works) with its inmediate economical benefit and as long as we live in democracy, that is a social task that should start from people.

 

Note: Sorry if i have many mistakes in language, I'm not enough fluent in english yet.

[BTGBullseye]

global warming, destroying ozone layer, making sun exposure very dangerous

Reducing the ozone coverage reduces the planetary temperature, not increases...

 

Ozone coverage is caused by solar rays impacting atmosphere and changing the atomic structure of said atmosphere...

 

Global warming (as the "environmentalists" portray it) is a myth.

 

Global warming (as the intelligent statisticians portray it) is a trend that will pass and drop regardless of our pollution rates.

[RoMaNo]

global warming, destroying ozone layer, making sun exposure very dangerous

Reducing the ozone coverage reduces the planetary temperature, not increases...

 

Ozone coverage is caused by solar rays impacting atmosphere and changing the atomic structure of said atmosphere...

 

Global warming (as the "environmentalists" portray it) is a myth.

 

Global warming (as the intelligent statisticians portray it) is a trend that will pass and drop regardless of our pollution rates.

 

Reducing ozone coverage increases UV radiation in the surface. Maybe you do not notice that, but I live in Chile, near the ozone hole and you cannot be more than 30 minutes exposed to the sun without having skin burns (and less minutes if your skin is white). That is very real and is directly caused by pollution.

 

As far as I know, there is no unified opinion about what causes global warming. Many scientists think that the rapid increase of global temperature is directly related with CO2 emissions, and that does not change the fact that global warming and cooling are cyclic natural process, but maybe not so fast. Things are not absolute and in this topic are powerful economic reasons to keep using our dirty and cheap sources of energy... And as every polemic topic, people usually put themselves in one absolute side.

[BTGBullseye]

Reducing ozone coverage increases UV radiation in the surface. Maybe you do not notice that, but I live in Chile, near the ozone hole and you cannot be more than 30 minutes exposed to the sun without having skin burns (and less minutes if your skin is white). That is very real and is directly caused by pollution.

What is the UV index there on a bad day?

[Dan-95]

Global warming is in relationship to heat being trapped by 'greenhouse' gasses, the extent of relationship betweens man and global warming itslef is debatable.

 

Ozone destruction is related to certain chemical acting as a catalyst breaking down O3.

 

Question: Would ozone reduction increase effects of global warming or just radiation?

[BTGBullseye]

Question: Would ozone reduction increase effects of global warming or just radiation?

The only studies that I have been able to find that actually study that specifically say essentially that radiation increases slightly, and temperature decreases significantly. (the studies have been heavily suppressed by several environmentalist groups, and groups sponsored by said environmentalist groups)

 

The only real "greenhouse gas" in effect on Earth is ozone.

[Xykon]

I don't believe global warming was the main focus of the paper

[RoMaNo]

Reducing ozone coverage increases UV radiation in the surface. Maybe you do not notice that, but I live in Chile, near the ozone hole and you cannot be more than 30 minutes exposed to the sun without having skin burns (and less minutes if your skin is white). That is very real and is directly caused by pollution.

What is the UV index there on a bad day?

 

On a bad day, in summer, UV index may be between 12 and 14 in Santiago, but in the desert, it can reach 20.

[BTGBullseye]

On a bad day, in summer, UV index may be between 12 and 14 in Santiago, but in the desert, it can reach 20.

That's identical to Arizona, except Arizona isn't under an Ozone hole.

[Ross Scott]

BTGbullseye: If you want to talk about global warming, do it in another thread, the focus of this one is impact of oil. Also you're only making generalizations here. As far as I know, global warming is generally accepted by the scientific community. If it's not, present evidence on it. Don't make generalizations on a controversial viewpoint, provide evidence, and not in this thread.

[BTGBullseye]

BTGbullseye: If you want to talk about global warming, do it in another thread, the focus of this one is impact of oil. Also you're only making generalizations here. As far as I know, global warming is generally accepted by the scientific community. If it's not, present evidence on it. Don't make generalizations on a controversial viewpoint, provide evidence, and not in this thread.

Sorry, and I'll make a thread about it elsewhere since I have evidence.

[david210]

Marvelous , found it so much interesting while reading. I myself have done electrical engineering and thats why all the information the whole research paper interested me so much as everything was related to engineering and the daily life routine. Marvelous it was Marvelous I must say

[philipsteele]

wow....this is really pretty solid paper...good job you have done...keep it up... ...it has many important factors we need to understand...i want to make an Essay on Argentina..so can you explain what elements need to make a better research papers or essay.....

[Vapymid]

 

Overall, we have learned how oil effects our daily life, how it has affected our future, and how we will probably not discover an new efficient viable alternative to fossil fuels. It was shown how we cannot let other fossil fuels pick up the slack of oil, and how alternative energy sources do not produce any significant amount of energy. Also, we have learned that with cheap energy, we also get population growth, and that it can be a deadly mix. And finally we learned that two of the leading new economies predicted for the future, will never pan out in the long run. Our only hope for the future is either propose large amounts of funding to alternate fuels, or a little more conservation, or perhaps we should all prepare for the worst. We only have one world, and we may have already reached the point of no return. Only time will tell.

 

This is a valid observation but incomplete.

 

Valid in its admission of importance of hydrocarbons as the source of energy, their finite nature and the non-viability of most "renewable" alternatives for energy generation.

 

However, I've found no mention of nuclear (neither fission nor fusion) which is a viable option.

 

Also, the statement that "We only have one world" is not true. We have at the very least the whole of the Solar system to explore (with several huge tanks of hydrocarbons parked in orbit around the Sun).

 

The conclusion must be that, yes, we have a limited window within which we can find and employ alternatives to locally produced and stored hydrocarbon reserves and the best way to do that is to concentrate on viable alternatives (extraterrestrial and/or non-chemical) and to avoid the wild goose chase for "green" options, which are temptingly available but are in fact useless.

 

Regards

 

[twipley]

Well I got a B on it because it was supposed to be an informal paper but I kept using "we" so I got marked down. I could care less about the grade though because I was finally given a chance to say in writing what Ive been saying to people I know for so long

Yes, such a "we" usage being dropped would drive the article towards more maturity, at least in tone. Otherwise, a well-informed paper. Personal pronouns are sometimes more associated with opinions than with objective information. Or perhaps just "feels" more professional using impersonal ones. Just a matter of convention, though. The content is there anyway; whatever the form used.

 

Well done.