Once we figure out how to store energy effectively, I'd imagine ocean currents could be a large source of energy. The size of these currents and consistent movement could be heavily exploited in the future.

I actually haven't read him (but googled him and have heard of his book.) I have read similar books by Chris Martenson and John Micheal Greer and am about to read Richard Heinberg's book End of Growth.

So you think we can buy a new earth?

About tree fiddy.

After hearing that, I am against fracking. Anything that inspires people to make music that bad is better off being shut down before there are more aholes making music like it.

FourFins did not say that our world will be fine if we don't use up every last bit, though. So your response does not really counter what he said, Ikes.

In other words, our world could still look really bad in 200 years even if we stop using fossil fuels before they're prohibitively expensive. Not so simple science.

Yeah zippy, too bad for your mind reading abilities fourfins seems to think otherwise.

Indeed; well, I thought he had a decent point initially.

What I said does still stand, however. Resources do not need to run out for damage to be terrible; it's of course tough/impossible to predict how much we can get away with. But economics will not necessarily prevent critical amounts of damage being done.

Yes it will. Price sensitivities exist for all energy sources, and the human race simply won't allow itself to be completely dependent on one energy source that will get more and more expensive. If that type of thing were to actually become possible, speculators would buy the resource and up the price prematurely, which would push us to other resources.

This really isn't complicated stuff.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

Put another way: imagine that burning just 10 gallons of oil ruined our environment. The fact that oil will one day get too expensive to buy doesn't change the fact that the world would be ruined long before it got to that level.

The economics of resources do not dictate their impact on the world.

I agree our world can look really bad even if we stop using them before they are prohibitively expensive. I think our world may already be at that tipping point of GHG concentration.

It's refreshing to read this since I agree with you 100%.

From a poker perspective, assuming that economics will balance everything out in terms of our use of oil vs. the amount of oil left in the world is like being in a live poker hand and relying simply on an EV calculation while ignoring all other factors.

There's way more to it than just economics.

In the future, methods like fracking (and probably even more dangerous methods than that) will be much more commonplace (likely necessary) once all of the "easy oil" is tapped out.

It's somewhat depressing to think about future generations regressing because of a few hundred years of us going all pyromaniac with the black blood of the earth.

You could build large turbines in the Florida Current which moves vast amounts of water at 4-5 mph 24/7, but the Greens would bitch at that because you might vegomatic Flipper in the turbine blades every once in a while.....

I know one thing, he has no idea:
lol malthus.

But yeah, the idea the world will be 'ruined', whatever that exactly means, by burning oil isn't really based on science. There are actual cost estimates out there, made by 'green' groups that take into account the price of the resource and the cost of cleaning it up factored into a per energy unit amount. Natural Gas wins, ainec.

The Greens would bitch at the cost of that power. I've never seen a Green get off the fossil fuel grid and pay the increased priced "green energy" for 100% of power needs.