Subject: CryoNet #29439 - #29442

From: CryoNet <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Apr 2007 09:00:03 -0000

CryoNet - Wed 18 Apr 2007

    #29439: Re: Small musing about global oil reserves [David Stodolsky]
    #29440: Re: Small musing about global oil reserves [Kennita Watson]
    #29441: autopsy [John de Rivaz]
    #29442: Re: Small musing about global oil reserves [Francois]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29439%2D29442

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email-masked]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #29439
References: <[email-masked]>
From: David Stodolsky <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Small musing about global oil reserves
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:49:01 +0200

On 17 Apr 2007, at 03:15, Francois wrote:

> Quoting David Stodolsky, "Proven Reserves of oil have been rising  
> thru out
> history and continue to do so."
>
> Well, maybe, maybe not, I have no expertise in this domain to  
> decide either
> way. However, I would like to point out something rather obvious.  
> Earth is
> finite in size. Therefore, Earth's oil reserves are also finite in  
> size.
> Therefore, if we keep consuming them at the ever increasing rate we  
> are,
> sooner or later we will deplete them all. Then what?

The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stone, the Bronze Age  
didn't end because we ran out of bronze, and the Oil Age will not end  
because we run out of oil. Energy production will switch to solar and  
fusion to minimize pollution and green house gasses. Plastic  
production etc. will switch to biological sources like starch.

dss

David Stodolsky  [email-masked]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29439

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #29440
References: <[email-masked]>
From: Kennita Watson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Small musing about global oil reserves
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:10:56 -0700

Francois wrote:

> Earth is
> finite in size. Therefore, Earth's oil reserves are also finite in  
> size.
> Therefore, if we keep consuming them at the ever increasing rate we  
> are,
> sooner or later we will deplete them all. Then what?

Worst case, lots of people die and the rest go back to living
like cavemen.  I think we can do better.  Assuming oil really
starts to run out, I'm guessing we'll get a clue when the flow
slows to a trickle, and start making sensible use of solar and
nuclear power, etc.  There'll be financial incentive to do that
because before the oil is all gone, it'll get hecka expensive
so there will be money to be made with alternatives.

Not that *some* people won't die or live like cavemen, but I
don't think it's anything anyone with the wherewithal to be
reading this would need to worry about.  IMHO, we'll solve the
problem much better and sooner than that, in ways that have
been discussed here and elsewhere and in ways that haven't
been imagined yet.  Humans can be incredibly dumb, but they
can also be incredibly smart.  We're not at the top of the
food chain for no reason.

Live long and prosper,
Kennita

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29440

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #29441
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email-masked]>
Subject: autopsy
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:49:31 +0100

A letter has appeared in New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19425990.100-the-white-plague.html
in which it is suggested

The other blunder that we have made is that the public and clinicians alike
have developed a distaste for autopsies, so many who die with TB must go to
their graves undiagnosed, possibly having infected their relatives and
carers.

All patients dying with a lung shadow that has not been positively
identified should be subjected to post-mortem examination, not for curiosity
but for reasons of public health.
<<<

I feel that cryonicists need to oppose calls for more compulsory dissections
of dead people. I don't think any reply should mention cryonics itself, as
this suggests a vested interest. Public revulsion, freedom of belief, the
impossibility of science disproving beliefs with absolute certainty, freedom
of choice with individual's own bodies are all angles that can be taken, and
no doubt many more.

You can write by sending email to
[email-masked]

The more people that send letters the better, but please do not mention
cryonics. Cryonics people are few, but those that oppose dissection or other
violation of dead people are many.

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29441

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #29442
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:17:16 -0400
From: Francois <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Small musing about global oil reserves

David's and Kennita's comments are indeed quite true. The problem is not in 
the availability of alternate energy technology, the problem is in the time 
we need to switch from oil to its replacement. Lets shine a few numbers on 
the problem. To begin with, how much oil do we need to replace? This little 
website provides data about this. http://www.solcomhouse.com/Energy.htm

>From its many graphs, it appears that we consume about 160 quadrillion BTUs 
worth of oil every year worldwide. In metric, that converts to 1.688x10E20 
joules. That's the minimum quantity of energy we must find to completely 
replace oil as an energy source.

Solar energy is usually considered the best long term candidate for the 
source of that energy. According to this webside 
http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/solarkonstante-e.html the Earth gets 1.37 
kw per square meter from the Sun. That's above our atmosphere. We get 
somewhat less energy on the ground because of clouds, dust and other 
factors. Lets choose favorable locations and say that we can get 1.1 kw per 
square meter as indicated on the website. This number does not take into 
account the day-night cycle, which cuts the available energy further, down 
to about 500 watts per square meter. Lets further assume a very good 
conversion rate of about 50%, which means we have 250 wats per square meter 
to work with.

1.688x10E20 joules per year turns out to be about 5.35 trillion watts, so to 
completely replace oil with solar, according to these numbers, would take 
21400 square kilometers of solar gathering surface. That's a lot, and that's 
only to replace oil. Triple that for the entire energy consumption of the 
world. Increase it even more to take into account the rising energy needs of 
China, India, Africa, and other nations who are in the process of catching 
up with American and European energy needs. That's at least another tenfold 
increase. And I did not take into account the need to replace the existing 
energy distribution infrastructure with the new solar based one. After all 
that, we easily need 700000 square kilometers of solar gathering surface. 
That's really a lot.

It is not, however, impossible to achieve. After all, this is a square of 
about 836 x 836 kilometers, and our deserts are much larger than that, so we 
have plenty of room to build it. But, assuming we still have a century's 
worth of usable fossil fuel reserves, it means we would have to bring online 
7000 square kilometers of solar gathering area per year, starting right now, 
in order to make the transition. And lets not forget all the energy 
distribution infrastructure that goes with it. I'm not sure we can 
realistically expect this to happen. Our prehistoric ancestors did not run 
out of stone before bronze was ready to take its place, but we may very well 
run out of oil before its replacement is ready to come online.

Francois

Good health is merely the slowest
possible rate at which one can die. 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29442

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************