So you seem to think that the lack of urgency is bad. Isn’t the fact that there is a lack of urgency a sign that the doom and gloom crowd have it all wrong? This kind of reminds me of the The Onion where the fat rich guy really, really wishes he was hungry.
Nah. We have enough conventional Uranium to last us about 10, 000 years at our current usage rates. If we had to switch to a purely nuclear energy base, with no fossil fuels, renewables etc. we have enough Uranium to last us about 400 years with conventional sources. And about 10, 000 years if we mine seawater. ( http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=327833).
The 500 years figure is just a very conservative estimate to highlight how futile it is to worry about energy sources. 500 years is an infinite time period for all practical purposes.
Actually, I’m under the impression an alternate form of fuel (alcohol) was invented for vehicles a long time ago. It’s more potent and burns clean. The gas companies bought it, locked it up, and threw away the key.
We shouldn’t even be using oil anymore, that’s so early 1900’s. We’re more advanced than that. But companies who profit from it are going to milk it (and our plantet) until it’s dry.
You know what? The longer I’m in school the more I’m realizing how much bullshit flies around this country. The FDA, the president, funding for genetic research (where it goes, more specifically), corporations like Wal-Mart, etc. Makes me feel all warm and hateful inside.
Oh yes, one more note on the fuel thing.
There’s an abundance of Methane Hydrate frozen in blobs on the sea floor all over the earth. These blobs have been around since prehistoric times, and are thought to have been the ending of one period of life (can’t remember which period it was, will look it up if anyone cares) when most of them exploded and replaced most of the earth’s oxygen with carbon dioxide. Nearly everything probably suffocated to death. Cool, huh?
Now companies want to find a way to harness this explosive chemical and use it for fuel. Just what we need, more explosions. Hurray for humanity.
Huh? 
Right now many people can go down to the local gas station and buy E85 (which is 85% alcohol) to fuel their automobile, assuming it is designed for it.
Of course, you get less mileage, as ethanoll contains less energy per gallon than gasoline, and most of recent studies show that producing ethanol from corn, as done in the US, is not energy economic to do; ethanol in fuel only exist because of large government subsidies.
Habanero, I do hope you’ll stick around, but you should know that your information concerning methane hydrates is seriously garbled and incorrect in most details. I’m speaking here not as an expert specifically in hydrates or peleogeology, but I do have a broad general knowlege of geology and petroleum.
Firstly, the ‘explosive chemical’ you are referring to is nothing more than a frozen compound of methane and water. Methane (CH4) is the main constituent of natural gas, which, last I checked, is safely handled as a fuel all over the world with, granted, the occasional explosion when mishandled. The point is, once the methane is separated from the water, it is neither more nor less difficult to handle than any other natural gas resource.
Secondly, if you are referring to one possible cause put forward recently for a Jurassic extinction event, methane hydrates did not “explode”; what may have happened is that some of it effectively melted (due to increased ocean temperatures related to greenhouse gas effects). The methane released in this way did not ignite, but apparently did scavenge much of the oxygen from ocean waters, resulting in the loss of most sea life.
An interesting question might be whether current warming effects might trigger another such event, and of course the current practice of burning of methane as fuel has some effect on this warming trend, but it seems highly unlikely indeed that extraction of hydrates in a few locations through some kind of mining or drilling process would directly result in such a catastrophic global release of raw methane.
As for your other post:
Yup, we’ve got it locked away in the same drawer as the plans for the 80 MPG carburetor. We’ll release it when we’re good and ready.
Have ‘the gas companies’ also bought the rights in all the other countries of the world, preventing them from using alcohol as an alternative? Those are some damn powerful companies that can prevent nations like China (an myriad other nations that could profit a hell of a lot if they didn’t need to import oil) from switching over then. 
This is because you are obviously young and THINK you know what you are talking about. When you get older you’ll figure out how much you don’t know. 
Sounds like a great business opportuntity for you then. Go into business and cut the big oils throat by bringing a better, cleaner and cheaper product to market! Of course, when you actually try you will rapidly find out why oil ISN’T ‘so early 1900’s’ and why its still in predominant use…and that really it has to do more with economics than with big oil out to milk us dry. But, at least you will have learned something.
-XT
p.s. ‘profit’ isn’t a bad word.
The fact is this: we cannot grow enough grain to produce the alcholol needed to run our cars. It is, at best a supplement.
No, we use it because it is the cheapest stuff available. Alchohol fuels are subsidized, and an effective, storable alternative has yet to be developed.
My, such generic anti-corporate hatefullness! Its like an assembly line product, at the end you get a Che t-shirt.
No you won’t, you know darn well the Ark of the Covenant fell on it and crushed it last year.
Yes, lets use up all the oil, and find an alternative.
One problem with that.
Look around the room you are in. Imagine that everything made from plastics is gone. What is left?
Oil is good for more than just fuel.
What about airplanes? Are we anywhere close to being able to make an (commercial) airplane that doesn’t run on petrol?
Honest question.
Agreed, more or less. However, a net loss of energy is not the whole story. A hundred and some-odd years ago, we could either use coal straight from the ground as (excellent but dirty) fuel, or we could roast it to extract coke for both smokeless fuel and a valuable industrial raw material for iron and steel manufacture and the production of water gas and producer gas; plus coal gas itself; plus coal tar which had another wide range of applications. A net loss of energy, pure and simple, necessarily, since all the “cracked” coal products could not have a greater energy potential more than the original coal, and that’s before you count the energy used to “crack” the coal; but a significant overall economic benefit (otherwise we wouldn’t have bothered).
So, not necessarily a sign of desperation, especially if coal “gas” manufacture results in as many valuable by-products as coal-gas manufacture. 
There’s at least one propellor-driven airplane I’m aware of that runs on pure ethanol (read about it recently, it’s in a magazine around here somewhere…)
It’s mentioned in a prior post, however, that ethanol does not contain as much energy per unit of fuel as petrochemicals, which is true. You’d burn a greater volume/weight of fuel for the same speed/distance/weight. Not so troubling in a small plane over a short distance - big problems when crossing the Pacific in the upcoming A380.
As far as I know there is no jet engine that runs on anything but fancy petrochemicals, and it’s the jet engines we use for major transportation of people and cargo. I haven’t a clue whether it’s possible to use an alternative for those or not.
You mean I’ve been lied to by a text book? I’m severely disappointed in my education. 
And I do hope to stick around too, because it’s nice to find people to talk to about these issues who don’t give me a blank stare…
Are you sure about that? I’ve read from multiple sources that the methane hydrate itself is hard to reproduce, and scientists haven’t had any luck harvesting it in the form of methane hydrate, given that it needs to be a specific temperature.
No, not Jurassic. If you care I can go get the text book that apparently gave me garbled information and quote it for you. I can’t remember the name of that specific period off the top of my head, though. It figures. I thought it was the neatest thing I’d learned so far and it’s probably incorrect.
One of my first questions upon reading about it.
?? I wish I would have known about that, I haven’t seen it offered here. Just the same old fossil fuel.
Do you say that because you are a frequent shopper of walmart or because you simply don’t agree with my point of view? It’s not that I’m anti-corporate, on the contrary some can be good. But then there’s those who just make me angry, like WalMart.
I stand by my point that we should be more advanced than fossil fuel cars. We’ve started to move away from it with hybrid cars and apparently E85, and while this is satisfying to know, I’m left wondering what took so long. We’ve had the power to do this for a while now, haven’t we?
It’s not just a matter of having the ability… we need to have a motivation to make such a change. Higher prices on our current fuel or shortages would certainly qualify as a motiviation.