Archaeologica.org

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 095322.htm

That, I suggest, requires an accurate assessment of available supplies, also as oil becomes scarcer its price would rise and thus be used less on things of lesser importance.
Doom mongering must be a profitable employment I feel.

Roy.

Digit wrote:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 095322.htm

That, I suggest, requires an accurate assessment of available supplies, also as oil becomes scarcer its price would rise and thus be used less on things of lesser importance.
Doom mongering must be a profitable employment I feel.

...currently inconveniently complicated by the 'discovery' of scores of vast oil and gas reserves – in Siberia, Sea of Ochotsk, Barentsz Sea, Kara Sea, South China Sea, Kamchatka, Maracaïbo, offshore Brasil, around the Falklands, around New Zealand, etc. etc. etc., and the rapid development of deep sea drilling technologies (with some hiccups here and there), and the knowledge that 99% of the ocean floor is still totally unexplored!

So it looks to me we'll still have plenty fossil fuels for the remainder of this century at least. Energy supply is not the problem. Although fossil fuels are un-renewable resources and will run out one day of course!
But the real problem is that burning fossil fuels heats up the atmosphere, twice: by direct radiation when burning, and indirectly by building up greenhouse gases that lock in heat, changes climates, and makes sea levels rise, flooding low-lying coastal plains (where 80% of the world's populations live).

No, I don't think we'll run out of fossil fuels very soon. But we really need to replace them a.s.a.p. anyway! For entirely different reasons than scarcity. Real or imagined.

by direct radiation when burning,

A point that a chap on another forum that I visit flatly refused to accept! I also made the point that that part would continue what ever the prime mover.

Roy.

Digit wrote:

by direct radiation when burning,

A point that a chap on another forum that I visit flatly refused to accept! I also made the point that that part would continue what ever the prime mover.

No, if we have an energy source that does not require burning, that part wouldn't continue. And we do have energy sources that don't involve burning: solar, wind, water, tidal, heat exchangers, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion.

A point that a chap on another forum that I visit flatly refused to accept!

You hang out on evangelical christian forums?

Minimalist wrote:

A point that a chap on another forum that I visit flatly refused to accept!

You hang out on evangelical christian forums?

After Arch/David, the paedophile EFL teacher, Marduk, and a couple other dickheads like that I try to avoid fundie boards like the plague. Besides, all those boards usually ban me within the hour anyway.

Not a chance Min.
I hoped this wouldn't happen RS, I've had debates in the past with posters, students etc and lack of knowledge/understanding causes a suspension of belief. Some people's logic refuses to accept that a sail boat can sail faster than the wind, that a rocket in space can exceed the speed of its jet exhaust. They are all wrong, as I'm afraid are you.
Generate your electricity, for example, how you wish, 100% of the power in use equals the heat out!
A motor vehicle radiates heat from its exhaust, radiates, convects and conducts more from the engine itself and the radiator, the tyres get hot, heat is transferred to the road and to the atmosphere from the road and from friction with the vehicle.
Energy in equals energy out!

Roy.

Digit wrote:A motor vehicle radiates heat from its exhaust

An electrical motor doesn't have an exhaust...

radiates, convects and conducts more from the engine itself and the radiator

Not if it's an electrical motor: no radiator!

the tyres get hot, heat is transferred to the road and to the atmosphere from the road and from friction with the vehicle.

Frictional heat generation. Needs to be reduced. How: remove the friction! No wheels, no axles, no mechanics, no combustion, no pneumatics, and no hydraulics! Force fields, magnetics, or some such.

So you do not understand. Are you familiar with the principle that energy cannot be created nor destroyed?

Roy.

Digit wrote:So you do not understand. Are you familiar with the principle that energy cannot be created nor destroyed?

Of course. As I am familiar with the principle that energy can take the form of heat and/or power. Currently 80% of energy created by combustion engines escapes in the form of heat. 20% (the power) drives the car, and overrides air and frictional resistance as well. So combustion engines are very inefficient. Lose the combustion engine and you lose that energy waste as well as the excess heat generation.

So if it can not be destroyed what happens to the energy from the fuel in your car?

Roy.

Read my previous post.

I have, you demonstrated that you didn't understand, thus repeating it serves no purpose.
But I'll repeat, energy in equals energy out, the form may change, nothing else.
If you convert the chemical energy of the fuel into motion, kinetic energy, what happens to it then?
I'll give you another to puzzle over, water is an insulator.

Roy.

Not a chance Min.

Whew!