New, clean energy

But they would not have Iranian oil-money. Maybe they will abandon millitary agression to de-legitimation sooner? That proved itself in recent years (I think companies should learn the way Hamas marketed themself. That is simply genious).
In nearly all the Arab-Israeli wars, the Iranians were supporters of the Israelis. Only fairly recently have Iranians backed militias like Hezbullah become an important factor. Beleive me, oil becoming unimportant isn't going to have too much of an impact on the Arab-Israeli wars. The bigger impacts in the middle east are going to be in the Gulf Arab states, Lybia, Iran, and Iraq.
 
In nearly all the Arab-Israeli wars, the Iranians were supporters of the Israelis. Only fairly recently have Iranians backed militias like Hezbullah become an important factor. Beleive me, oil becoming unimportant isn't going to have too much of an impact on the Arab-Israeli wars. The bigger impacts in the middle east are going to be in the Gulf Arab states, Lybia, Iran, and Iraq.

Well, of course all the big Arab-Israeli wars would happen as they did OTL, but in Israel we are dead-fearing from Iran and its nuclear project. There are talkings about bombing, but that won't happen becasue of american prussure.
What do you think will be the effects on the gulf states? One big civil war of Shias, Sunnahs, Kurds, Arabs and Persians. I think the US will try to intervent just like it did in Iraq or Somelia. More "Ordered" goveroments of the middle east (Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan) will recieve much more reputation and will be tempted by the US to help it in the big wars in the east. Maybe stronger peace movements?
 
Last edited:
Are you talking nuke, or wind generators? Both are scalable down to nearly zero, though economic make those rare. In OTL individual windmills are used to run water pumps and RTG's are used for satellites and deep-space probes. I can't see wind taking up more (heck, as much) market share as in OTL without major government incentives, however.

The original post wasn't clear, so my response wasn't either. For all I know it is a matter conversion engine that can take in iron and output heat and electricity in whatever fraction the user wants, and fits in a wristwatch.
 
Well, of course all the big Arab-Israeli wars would happen as they did OTL, but in Israel we are dead-fearing from Iran and its nuclear project. There are talkings about bombing, but that won't happen becasue of american prussure.
What do you think will be the effects on the gulf states? One big civil war of Shias, Sunnahs, Kurds, Arabs and Persians. I think the US will try to intervent just like it did in Iraq or Somelia. More "Ordered" goveroments of the middle east (Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan) will recieve much more reputation and will be tempted by the US to help it in the big wars in the east. Maybe stronger peace movements?
Well, a POD in the 60's removing oil as a big factor in politics may actually butterfly the Islamic regime, leaving a more pro-Israeli Iran.

And I don't see a huge war happening in the gulf. The loss of oil would greatly change the face of the gulf. One, there will be almost nothing to base the economy on. Countries such as Bahrain had pearl diving before oil as a commercial activity, but with artificial pearls, its not likely that this can be made a big source of revenue again. The demographics of the countries are also likely to be affected. Firstly, much less foreign workers in all of the gulf states. Second, a more dangerous (for the Saudis) Shia minority in Al-Hasa, as well as a more influencial Shia majority in Bahrain. Thirdly, the populations of the countries are likely to be different. With less foreign currency available from oil exports, it will be more difficult to import food (which is vital for maintaining the populations of the over-populated Gulf states). All this being said, there are likely to be some positive effects from the lack of oil too.
 
The thing with oil is that it's portable, so you can use it to fuel your own massively powerful, totally mobile, generating plant ie; internal combustion engine. There are plenty of other sources of energy out there, and plenty of ways to use them which extracts maximum benefit for each unit burnt, and plenty of ways to harness these outputs which to reduce our reliance on oil products for transports and heating, but in our commercail and regulatory environment we don't use them.

That's certainly part of it, but the main reason we use petroleum fuels is more fundamental. Petrol-fuels simply put have several major advantages for use in an vehicle:

1 - liquid (as you noted), and therefore very portable...and dispensable by simply pouring without any need to screw on/make airtight
2 - high energy density: a few gallons will run a vehicle for hours/hundreds of miles
3 - CHEAP!! Seriously, except for the top of the fuel cost spike it was cheaper than water per gallon. No other energy source can be diseminated so cheaply or easily...at least until peak oil; changes this

Biofuels, even efficient sugar-based processes, still require all the associated overhead of crop growth, harvest, and conversion, and even then the shear demand makes you have to chose between growing food and growing fuel. Hydrogen/nat. gas/etc. are gasses, therefore requiring presurized airtight storage in special containers, and would need rather a lot of space, limiting range, at least until better ways to store them are found. Coal-to-liquid also requires expensive conversion processes. Until batteries get much better than OTL today, electric is out for anything much beyond a 100 mi radius.

So while it burns inefficiently and filthy, petroleum will probably remain the main fuel for vehicles until peak oil forces prices so high that other fuels become competative. Strangely, oil shale will also be competative then, making Canada an Oil Giant! :eek:

Ironically, the OP probably extends petroleum's use longer than OTL.
 
I was thinking simple things like combined cycle and co-generation power plants to squeeze double or more work from each ton of fuel burnt. Similarly tapping into the waste heat from industry to generate electricity. The using this extra electricity to power expanded electric rail networks, this alone will reduce the need for oil and make the low quality biofuels more useful because of reduced demand and higher yeild from the process due to reduced cost processing.
 
I was thinking simple things like combined cycle and co-generation power plants to squeeze double or more work from each ton of fuel burnt. Similarly tapping into the waste heat from industry to generate electricity. The using this extra electricity to power expanded electric rail networks, this alone will reduce the need for oil and make the low quality biofuels more useful because of reduced demand and higher yeild from the process due to reduced cost processing.

The cogeneration idea is straight forward enough to implement once thought up. The main factor is cost: with fossil fuels so freakin' cheap no one was willing to invest the capital to put them in to new power plants or retrofit old ones.

Still, assuming an early enough PoD such that someone gets the idea in their head early and starts implementing it very early in power use, you're saving on fuel over the long run. Teamed with high-heat systems like nuclear it's really efficient.

It won't eliminate fossil fuel use, but it will lower demand and have long-term cost rewards.
 
Top