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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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:
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....
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.
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.
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.
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?
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....
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!
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.
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.
Originally posted by Harald
That's the problem. The tech thing ain't helping us here.
"Mommy, what were cars like?"
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).
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.
reminds me of the panic over what the entire would do with all the horse shit from the horse and buggy "problem".
when someone can make a buck selling me and you another fuel source they will. never underestimate the power of greed.