or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Peak Oil...Scary stuff
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Peak Oil...Scary stuff - Page 2

post #41 of 168
Quote:
originally posted by SDW2020
You people. Etc.

everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok everything's going to be ok

phew i feel much better now really i do and if i don't pay the rent then nick won't throw me out he'll understand
post #42 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
OK folks. Let me offer a different perspective.

That article is total bullshit! We are NOWHERE NEAR "running out of oil" on this planet. There are vast untapped and undiscovered reserves. ANWAR alone could satisfy the US demand for oil for 40 years. 2020 for peak production? I don't think so. We haven't begun to explore the potential of reserves in places like the Gulf of Mexico and such. Even the Middle East, while experiencing production limits (some artificial) has ABUNDANT oil for years to come.

Look at the "sources, graphs and charts" linked to on the website. They're absurd. It is amazing that people here and elswhere can actually believe a website called "dieoff.orf". Really...the hilarity is beyond all measure. The "World Resources Institute"? HAHAHAHAHA. Oh my god.

i sure hope so. in fact, we should ignore the "problem"
post #43 of 168
Quote:
"The Stupidity is Amazing"
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #44 of 168
SDW2001: "US demand"

Enough said. It is a good thing those reserves are all on US territory because we would be ****ed if they weren't.
post #45 of 168
Thread Starter 
Even so SDW, the article isn't total bullshit regardless, this *is* a problem, and even if it doesn't start affecting our daily lives for another 20 years(oh wait, how much is gas these days? ) it *will* affect our lives and the lives of our children. To just cast it off like you have done as a nonissue, that's foolish. Again, I think that the article is deliberately being overtly pessimistic to drive the point home. I wouldn't be surprised if we have far more oil than the article leads us to believe, but, think of it this way, to implement workable alternative fuel systems would take a good portion of that oil, as well as a good portion of time, so even if time isn't running as close to the mark as that article would have us believe, the point still stands that now is as good a time(if not our last time) to get things right.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #46 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Even so SDW, the article isn't total bullshit regardless, this *is* a problem, and even if it doesn't start affecting our daily lives for another 20 years(oh wait, how much is gas these days? ) it *will* affect our lives and the lives of our children. To just cast it off like you have done as a nonissue, that's foolish. Again, I think that the article is deliberately being overtly pessimistic to drive the point home. I wouldn't be surprised if we have far more oil than the article leads us to believe, but, think of it this way, to implement workable alternative fuel systems would take a good portion of that oil, as well as a good portion of time, so even if time isn't running as close to the mark as that article would have us believe, the point still stands that now is as good a time(if not our last time) to get things right.


I'm dismissing the report....not the problem. Oil is finite and I know that. We need to develop a plan to "get off" oil. But, such a plan will not be executed/completed for perhaps 50 years. We're totally addicted to oil...no matter who the President happens to be at the moment. What we need to do is secure our "short term" oil future until we can remove ourselves from it by developing alternative fuels.

As for you, Hassan, you need to explain to me why I should be alarmed. I'm not about to become so after reading that absurd websites that are the basis for this thread. I am of course concerned about "the oil problem", but I'm not alarmed or "scared" because I know we are not even close to running out of oil. If you disagree, then I suggest you link to some real, unbiased sources showing that to be the case. Further, while you accuse me of covering my ears and saying "la, la la" with regards to this issue, the real irony is found in the fact that you are the one who accepts things like this at face value. Being the extreme leftist you are, you'll believe any "report" that seems to confirm your beliefs that we are one step away from total environmental/economic disaster at any given moment. And of course, the Evil Bush Administration (TM) is responsible.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #47 of 168
Thread Starter 
I never said the evil bush administration was responsible, the article never said it, I don't think any one in this thread said it. Please don't try and make this thread something it isn't, politics are a moot point to this, the point is, we are dependent on oil and it's running out.

SDW, again, even if we have a good 50 years before we have to start worrying, why procrastinate? the article stresses how alternative energy sources are too little, too late based on a model where the peak oil was reached in 2000.

Is it really too much to ask from your life that you think about cutting back your energy consumption, or do your part to reuse what you can, and not create excessive waste? are you that lazy?

I don't mean to start any fires here, but it seems to me, that laziness is what will do us in, be it laziness to actually do anything to help, or laziness to act.

This isn't a stupid political squabble, this is far bigger than that.

Also, I would like to read any reports you can give me of how much oil we have.

And, do you plan on having kids? even if you aren't worried, aren't you worried for your kids' sake?
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #48 of 168
SDW: no one says "we're running out of oil"; running out isn't the immediate issue. A declining supply (and the costs of finding, drilling and transporting oil from new locations) will drive the price up very quickly, once the existing reserves don't produce the amounts we are accustomed to.

Are we to believe it's a good idea to just "keep looking for the next ANWR" every time the supply starts to dip? Yes, it's going to dip soon. That's not an imagined fact, just look at what this Exxon guy and others are saying. Chenney for Christ's sake. BTW, we *have* explored a lot of the Gulf of Mexico, as evidenced by the oil platforms all over the place. Either way do we really want to turn the rest of the Gulf into a giant oil field that will only last another "another 40 years"?

Be a little forward-thinking here and realize some bad shit is going to go down in a hurry if we don't miraculously curb our appetite for oil in the Western world. Again, you don't have to take this guy's word for it, just do a little digging and you'll find plenty of respectable scientists and politicians who are deeply concerned.

We don't have to "run out" in order for bad things to happen... far from it.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #49 of 168
Wow. You guys are amazing. I have stated that we must look for alternative sources of energy. Until such sources become viable, we must continue oil exploration to sustain our economy. Further, weening ourselves from oil will take a very, very long time.

The point of contention I have is with the claim that by 2020 we will be at "peak" oil production. Our current oil fields will not even be nearing anything close to depletion by that point. I dispute that extracting oil will become enourmously difficult and expensive by that point, even IF we don't explore for more oil sources. I think there is far more oil out there than the oil cartel would like any of us to believe.

As far as being worried, I'm honestly not. I'm certainly not going to become so due to an article that includes a link to "dieoff.org". Show me some real sources on this topic and I might take another look.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #50 of 168
Thread Starter 
yeah, I thought the dieoff.org one was a little much, fear mongering et al. \

Either way, I'm going to be doing my part, I've wanted to build an earth-ship for a while now.

Personally, I don't care to go out and find sources that you'll buy, because I don't know you, I don't know what you'll believe, but, as has been stated, a google search will yield more than ample results.
And for the sake of whatever: here's a handful of articles and resources about peak oil, I know you probably won't read them all(I don't blame you, I probably wouldn't either) but maybe you'll at least admit that there is a wealth of information about this, and while some you may not buy, you may very well related better to others.

Peak Oil a reality: http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil.htm
http://www.countercurrents.org/en-monbiot021203.htm <-Check this one out specifically, I feel it's the most sensible I've seen so far.

hubbert peak oil production: http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil.htm
A 2003 projected graph(shows oil peak at around 2010..2020) www.peakoil.org
ASPO: http://www.peakoil.net/

but, would you care linking at least one source to your claim?(that peak oil won't be reached till 2020)

2020 really isn't that long though man, I do think that we really should start weening today, sooner than later. You don't need to be 'the sky is falling! the sky if falling!" to make a difference(in your life if nothing else)
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #51 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
]Wow. You guys are amazing. ...

The point of contention I have is with the claim that by 2020 we will be at "peak" oil production. Our current oil fields will not even be nearing anything close to depletion by that point.

OK. Stop taking it personally for a second (because I certainly don't intend my comments that way) and comprehend. You still aren't getting it. There is a difference between "reaching a point of depletion (i.e. gone)" for any given reserve, and "reaching the point beyond which, it becomes harder and harder to extract x barrels a day from said reserve". The latter is all it takes to drive prices way up, and all anyone is talking about.

Also, Peak Oil has possibly *already* been hit (by liberal estimates), and will be hit no later than 2010 or so by conservative estimates. 2020 is the time-frame when we start talking "great depression act II", not "a dip in production".


Quote:
I dispute that extracting oil will become enourmously difficult and expensive by that point, even IF we don't explore for more oil sources. I think there is far more oil out there than the oil cartel would like any of us to believe.


OK. Fine. Because? Have you information regarding the latest geological surveys or something similar that leads you to feel all right about this?
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #52 of 168
I have a plan to shuttle huge hydrogen tankers from Jupiter to Earth every couple of months. Who wants in?
post #53 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
There is a difference between "reaching a point of depletion (i.e. gone)" for any given reserve, and "reaching the point beyond which, it becomes harder and harder to extract x barrels a day from said reserve". The latter is all it takes to drive prices way up, and all anyone is talking about.

also, and this was mentioned in the article probably, our demand for oil isn't constant...it is increasing, mostly as a result of a population that is growing because our oilley culture encourages it. of course, to maintain current oil prices, the marginal cost of increasing supply must remain constant. otherwise, the supply line (economically speaking) moves left and because oil demand is mostly inelastic, prices will increase disproportinately to consumption, and this will continue in parallel with the supply line shifting farther and farther left as a result of increasing drilling and mining expenses (higher marginal costs)...the eventual result will not necessarily be running out of oil, but rather the economics of oil will ravage the economy to the point where people and firms cannot afford the oil they need and oil companies cannot profitably extract more oil.

this was basically a restatement of what moogs said with a little more economics seasoning. point: peak oil isn't about running out of oil, it is about economics (and, arguably, the failure of the market)
post #54 of 168
How about shipping huge methane tankers in from Uranus? (C'mon, that's an obligatory joke whenever a planet is brought into a discussion)

My 2nd facetious remark to offer is to look on the brightside- there is indeed a vast source of new oil we haven't even accounted for, yet! It will come from all the humans and plant life that exist now after life is extinguished from the earth in some great holocaust. Oh wait...well, I guess it will at least benefit whatever intelligent life that develops and inherits the earth after we are gone.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #55 of 168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
Oh wait...well, I guess it will at least benefit whatever intelligent life that develops and inherits the earth after we are gone.

Won't it be ironic when they end up using our fossils for their fuel \
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #56 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
OK. Stop taking it personally for a second (because I certainly don't intend my comments that way) and comprehend. You still aren't getting it.

it doesn't seem wise to encourage someone to avoid taking it personally and then insult them (or at least belittle them).

but, i agree with the rest of your thoughts (i elaborated a few posts prior)
post #57 of 168
Thread Starter 
He's not really belittling him, just pointing out some perceived ignorance. Nothing wrong with missing the point, we all do it.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #58 of 168
SDW I think you need to do a bit of Googling before posting.

The most optimistic estimates of ANWAR oil equal not much more than a year of US consumption, not 40.

Here is a quote from Forbes magazine:

Quote:
We're talking high stakes. Washington's own assessment of the Arctic refuge's 1.5 million acre coastal plain put mean estimates of recoverable oil at 3 billion to 4 billion bbl. A study sponsored by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists puts it at 7 billion bbl. By way of context, the U.S. consumes about 6.7 billion bbl. of oil a year. Of that, 52% was imported last year, at a cost of $68 billion.

Suggesting that the Gulf of Mexico hasn't begun to be exploited is also absurd. It is one of the most thorougly explored and exploited areas on the planet by both the US and Mexico.

As for worldwide oil reserves a recent report by geologist at the University of Uppsala in Sweden suggests that they have been overestimated by around 20%

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...?id=ns99994216

Another article I read recently suggested that Saudi Arabia, with the world largest oil reserves, would be running out much sooner than expected because of overly optimistic estimates of its reserves.

While I am a zoologist, my second love is geology so I read quite a bit on this subject. The consensus among most petroleum geologists is that most of the worlds major reserves have been found and we shouldn't expect big finds in the future to bail us out. Billions are spent yearly on finding more oil and there just isn't anywhere on earth that geologists haven't been over with a fine tooth comb. No report I have every read has even suggested that the US could find enough oil within its borders to meet present rates of consumption let alone future needs.

On this sort of subject you can argue the details until the cows come home, but in the end it will always come down to one thing: over population. This year China is expected to become the worlds second largest consumer of oil and already can not meet their own demands so we are now competing with them for the worlds oil supply. With 1.2 billion people and the fastest growing economy in the world they are going to be sucking the earth dry. Very few estimates of world oil consumption in the coming decades have taken into account this growth because it was rather unexpected.

Here is my take on ANWAR. While I think the oil can be removed without to much distribution to the environment if care is taken I think we should just leave it in the ground. Oil is not a perishable commodity...it is not use it or loose it. As long as the rest of the world is willing to sell us oil at a cheap price we should be using theirs and leaving ours in the ground for later when we will really need it and the technology for extracting it is more environmentally friendly.

I am more optimistic that the doom and gloom site linked here, but it is pretty obvious to me that no matter how much we wring our hands nothing will really change until the price of oil rises significantly. Many people suggest the US should raise taxes to spur people to conserve and find alternative energy sources. While this is a good idea you shouldn't expect miracles because much of the rest of the world already pays 3 or 4 times what we pay for gas and it hasn't led to the Europeans or the Japanese inventing some magic technological fix. The best they have come up with is a much greater use of nuclear energy which has led to more problems than it has solved. The Japanese are the biggest importer of energy in the world and after spending hundreds of billions on nuclear research and having many serious accidents they aren't really that much better off.

What will happen? Who knows. Enjoy it while it lasts
post #59 of 168
Quote:
iginally posted by craiger77
SDW I think you need to do a bit of Googling before posting.

i disagree. the last thing we need is a forum where people are discouraged from posting their thoughts. i think the last few posts have had a lot of very meaningful discussion
post #60 of 168
One problem we face is that we are not going to be to be able to ween ourselves off oil until we have an other plentiful energy supply, and we are probably not going to start really looking for alternative energy sources until the difficulty of producing oil starts to wreck our economy.

In a democracy like ours the government is encouraged to ignore any planing that goes beyond the next election cycle.

One thing that does not help is that the people who are cognizant of the oil problem have a tendency to lobby for reduced consumption instead of lobbying the government to work out the engineering problems of space based solar power collectors (or an other plausible alternative).

People don't seem to realize that reduced consumption is not a solution to the problem, it is like using a bucket to bail water on the Titanic, it will not make much of a difference in the end.

We really need to choose a practical alternative energy source now and start working our way to it with a "Manhattan Project" like zeal. If we wait until things start going down hill, we might not have the industrial strength left to do it.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #61 of 168
Thread Starter 
I think that, while I don't want to draw politics into this too much, they will ultimately be our downfall. Unless it's nader(the only person who actually seems to care about the environment) our president(whoever that may be) is not going to establish any motivated plans to help with the weening process. More than likely we'll just continue snatching up what oil we can, until it becomes a greedy, tense group of nations sitting on top their mounds staring at eachother with contempt.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #62 of 168
I was not suggesting that SDW or anyone else should not give their thoughts, but that his opinions should be based on facts (easily checked using Google) not exaggerations.

This forum would be about as interesting as reading the dictionary without people expressing their opinions. On most threads I don't post at all because most of the writings of others shows a knowledge way behind mine on the subject at hand so I just learn.
post #63 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
OK. Stop taking it personally for a second (because I certainly don't intend my comments that way) and comprehend. You still aren't getting it. There is a difference between "reaching a point of depletion (i.e. gone)" for any given reserve, and "reaching the point beyond which, it becomes harder and harder to extract x barrels a day from said reserve". The latter is all it takes to drive prices way up, and all anyone is talking about.

Also, Peak Oil has possibly *already* been hit (by liberal estimates), and will be hit no later than 2010 or so by conservative estimates. 2020 is the time-frame when we start talking "great depression act II", not "a dip in production".





OK. Fine. Because? Have you information regarding the latest geological surveys or something similar that leads you to feel all right about this?


I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that I haven't seen many credible sources proving the peak oil claim. I'm seen SOME, including what was linked to above...but nothing that convinces me.

As far as facts, I do check them. On this topic, a reliable source is hard to find. Though, here's one map for you on remaining oil:

http://www.spe.org/specma/binary/ima...l_reserves.gif



Res:

Quote:
One problem we face is that we are not going to be to be able to ween ourselves off oil until we have an other plentiful energy supply, and we are probably not going to start really looking for alternative energy sources until the difficulty of producing oil starts to wreck our economy.

In a democracy like ours the government is encouraged to ignore any planing that goes beyond the next election cycle.

One thing that does not help is that the people who are cognizant of the oil problem have a tendency to lobby for reduced consumption instead of lobbying the government to work out the engineering problems of space based solar power collectors (or an other plausible alternative).

People don't seem to realize that reduced consumption is not a solution to the problem, it is like using a bucket to bail water on the Titanic, it will not make much of a difference in the end.

We really need to choose a practical alternative energy source now and start working our way to it with a "Manhattan Project" like zeal. If we wait until things start going down hill, we might not have the industrial strength left to do it.

Res, I couldn't agree more. Well said.

I say again, we DO need to find alternative sources. And yes, I do understand the fact that it will become more costly to extract remaining oil as time goes on. But, the prediction of global hysteria is far too alarmist for me.
I'm not saying we should ignore the problem, but it's not exactly time to break out the radiation suits and iodine tablets either.

Oh, wait....\
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #64 of 168
Very conservatively, there's at least 400 years worth of oil under the earth, minimum.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #65 of 168
sort of seems to be a self correcting problem IMO.

as oil is harder to extract, the price goes up. as the price for oil goes up, alternatives will come to market.

OPEC plays games with the prices now, raising them up, then cutting them low when other options start to make headway. as supplies run down, they won't be able to just increase production again to cut the legs off of alternative fuels.

as far as i'm concerned, the sooner we run out of oil the better. it's not just going to stop one day, it will take years and years for the reserves to peter out, which gives plenty of time for alternatives to come to light.
post #66 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
Very conservatively, there's at least 400 years worth of oil under the earth, minimum.


Yes, but that does not mean there is anywhere near 400 years worth left that is within "easy reach" of existing technologies. Not to mention, I doubt that estimate -- wherever it came from -- considers a population of 8 Billion people (or more).

The human population is going to come crashing back to a more sustainable level at some point in the relatively near future; it's unavoidable.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #67 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Thoth2
I feel excellent about myself, as I rode my bike to work today (as I usually do.) However, where is the rubber going to come from for my tires (trees?) and the grease for my chain when the oil goes away? Whales?
\
Thoth

Shale oil, if nothing else.
post #68 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by finagain
Shale oil, if nothing else.

Then of course you are planning on the discovery of a magic bullet to make shale oil extraction an order of magnitude more economically feasible - or are you OK with $15 to $20 for a gallon of gas?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #69 of 168
Well obviously we would teleport it out...
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #70 of 168
There's a neat little shareware populations simulator called Creatures that I've played with off and on for a while. I'm sure you'll find it easily on Versiontracker if you're interested.

Set up an arena, put some food about the place, add a few animals to start eating the food, and off you go. Pretty much the same thing happens every time: the population soars exponentially while there's plenty of food about, and suddenly crashes to subsistence levels when the main food sources run out.

Of course, I wouldn't want to suggest that these creatures are in any way analogous to the denizens of first world industrial societies. After all, they don't even know what an SUV is, let alone drive one....
post #71 of 168
Just in case you thought this story was old: February 2004:
New York Times. Uh ****in' Oh.

Edit: here's something from Fox News. Today.

Everything's going to be alright. Everything's going to be alright. Everything's going to be alright.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #72 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by boy_analog
There's a neat little shareware populations simulator called Creatures that I've played with off and on for a while. I'm sure you'll find it easily on Versiontracker if you're interested.

Set up an arena, put some food about the place, add a few animals to start eating the food, and off you go. Pretty much the same thing happens every time: the population soars exponentially while there's plenty of food about, and suddenly crashes to subsistence levels when the main food sources run out.

Of course, I wouldn't want to suggest that these creatures are in any way analogous to the denizens of first world industrial societies. After all, they don't even know what an SUV is, let alone drive one....

Ooooo, that's a fun program. Thanks for pointing that out.
post #73 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
as far as i'm concerned, the sooner we run out of oil the better. it's not just going to stop one day, it will take years and years for the reserves to peter out, which gives plenty of time for alternatives to come to light.

You're missing a big, big point of the article. The problems will start well before "reserves... peter out", they will start soon after we hit peak oil production, because the costs of extracting the remaining oil in our reserves will start to rise while demand will be rising at the same time, quickly resulting in massive economic disruptions of the type that lead to war and famine.

That said, I think there's a touch of crackpot-ness to this Mr. Savinar. A lot of good information to consider as well, but suggestions like "Investigate alternative forms of health care such as bioenergetic healing, self hypnosis etc. . ." Bioenergetic healing? Puh-lease. And some of the "evidence" he cites for having already hit Peak Oil in 2000...
Quote:
As further evidence of the production peak, Deffeyes noted that since 2000, there has been a 30% drop in stock values, interest rate cuts have not helped, 2.5 million have become unemployed and the employed have been unable to retire, budget surpluses have vanished, the middle class has vanished, and the World Trade Center has vanished.

...well, it's stretching more than a bit to call the above "evidence", or even much of a reasonable source of suspicion for having hit The Peak. There are plenty of other more viable and obvious explanations for any of this without suspecting any involvement of Peak Oil problems. I think Mohammed Atta is much more likely to have had hatred of Americans and a lust for his 70-virgin reward from God in his heart when he slammed into the WTC, than, say, some burning rage about world oil distribution. 9/11 was likely bin Laden's second strike at the WTC, the first being in 1993, well before this Peak could have been a direct or indirect motivating factor.

But even with these touches of nuttiness creeping in here and there, the man's got some good points. It would be a mistake to be too dismissive just because he strays a little here and there -- it probably takes someone who a bit more on the edge about these issues to have sufficient motivation to get really worked up and research and write about and promote awareness of something like Peak Oil, something that most of us would probably rather put out of mind and ignore.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #74 of 168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline

But even with these touches of nuttiness creeping in here and there, the man's got some good points. It would be a mistake to be too dismissive just because he strays a little here and there -- it probably takes someone who a bit more on the edge about these issues to have sufficient motivation to get really worked up and research and write about and promote awareness of something like Peak Oil, something that most of us would probably rather put out of mind and ignore.

exactly!
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #75 of 168
I'd like to rewind the hands of time to the turn of the century--1900's style. A time where men could vote but women couldn't, where the meat packing idustry of Chicage was mixing rats and fingers in with the ground beef, and a time where the auto industry was just being born while big steel was stoking the fires of of the urban migration.

Now, all of the above was made possible by one mystery fuel. That fuel wasn't oil, wood, or natural gas--that fuel was coal. Mmmm coal fires.

Coal powered just about everyting from industry to travel to heating homes. Coal was the resource and it was "running out." The same arguments presented here where presented 100+ years ago except pluck the word oil and insert coal into this thread.

What happend then? Technology. The Internal Combustion Engine hit the scene like wild fire. Everywhere you turned coal fired water boilers driving steam engines were being replaced with more efficient ICE's. Guess what happend. The coal market died overnight. The depleating sources of reserves suddenly became a hugly abundant unused, unwanted surpluses. Go figure.

Now, fast forward to today and you'll see technology is catching up as it did in the early 1900's. We are developing new sources of fuel completly removed from oil. Hybrid cars are a stepping stone to our oil independence day. Fuel cells may or may not replace my beloved 351 Windsor powered Mustang, but the idea is the same as it was in 1887. Build a better more efficient engine where the fuel cost less than conventional fuel (read gas was cheaper to produce than coal in the 1900's) and our mounting woes will suddenly become a surplus.

This has happend in many industries throughout time in that better technology replaced older technology.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #76 of 168
Except both coal and oil are primary fuels. Hydrogen is not. It takes energy to make a fuel cell. In this house we obey the rules of thermodynamics; you are never going to have an energy-positive economy where you're relying on hydrogen fuel cells to make fuel cells; it's known as 'pepetual motion.'

So, you need oil. Same problem.

Only wind / wave / sun can do it. Maybe. But not at this rate, not no way no how.

That's the problem. The tech thing ain't helping us here.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #77 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
That's the problem. The tech thing ain't helping us here.

"Mommy, what were cars like?"

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #78 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Except both coal and oil are primary fuels. Hydrogen is not. It takes energy to make a fuel cell. In this house we obey the rules of thermodynamics; you are never going to have an energy-positive economy where you're relying on hydrogen fuel cells to make fuel cells; it's known as 'pepetual motion.'

So, you need oil. Same problem.

Only wind / wave / sun can do it. Maybe. But not at this rate, not no way no how.

That's the problem. The tech thing ain't helping us here.

No, you don't need oil. In this house, my stove is powerd by Fermi II nuclear power plane, My heat runs on green power from consumers, and all the rest is suppliment by "The Oil Coal Fire" Detroit Edison Plant. There are many ways to make a hydrogen that don't include oil, and there are ways around the corner we haven't seen yet.

Also, I said may, or maynot about the H2 cells. More likely than not we'll switch to hybrids as a filler until Fusion in a Jar becomes reality, or until solar cells acheive high effeciences at low costs.

I mean 10 years ago if I said to you "Man, I just unrolled my TV and is that picture sharp!" Your jaw would have dropped. Today, Plastic TV screens are aroud the courner. You can't look at todays technologies through todays magnifying glass and say "This is what tomorrows has in store for us". Look back at the old world fair future exhibits and see where reality diverged. We need oil for a few more years, but this unnecessary panic is not required. It is a political tool (Former MI Goon Spence Abraham is a part of an administration trying to open ANWAR for drilling after all).

edit: argh spelling will be the daeth of my (hehehe).
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #79 of 168
Also, we have 100 years of technology floating around that may be useful. After all, this form of communication before our very eyes is based on technology developed at a summer retreat almost 40 years ago.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #80 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Also, we have 100 years of technology floating around that may be useful. After all, this form of communication before our very eyes is based on technology developed at a summer retreat almost 40 years ago.

The problem with this kind of technological optimism is that you can only hope, you can't expect, that new technologies and new fuels will come along just in time to save our collective ass. The analogy between the earlier coal-to-oil transition is at best a rough one, with no guaranteed level of applicability to the oil-to-as-yet-unknown-energy-solution that we'll have to go through in the possibly near future.

About the best you can say is that maybe things aren't as grim as the Peak Oil web site at the start of this thread would have you think. Maybe our oil supply will last us a little longer, maybe better technology will bring down the cost of extracting our diminishing oil reserves, maybe we'll get another 10, 20, or even 30 years to get in gear and really implement new energy sources. Maybe.

Of course, even if we do have a bit more time to spare, I suspect the likeliest scenario is that we'll simply squander the extra time and only delay, not avert, disaster.

Our best hope -- and it's only hope, not inevitability -- is that we do have a few more years to spare, and during that time some great new, cheap-and-easy-to-implement energy source comes along, one so attractive that even oil at today's prices would face stiff competition from this new source.

Even in the above scenario, we might go through some rough transition phases. There would be a lot of economic displacement in the oil and transportion industries. If you think the Arab world hates the Western world now, and Americans in particular, think about how they'd be feeling if the price of oil, along with many oil-dependent Arab economies, came crashing down around them.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Peak Oil...Scary stuff