1) Oil will run out in 60? years. Do you think it will suddenly all just stop one day? Or do you think it will gradually peter out over a few decades, becoming more and more expensive to exploit?
2) Do you trust the scientists, engineers, geophysicists and executives who have set a date on when the decline will start, based on almost one hundred years of experiential data, modelled in part on the US oil production curve?
3) Do you understand that economic growth is based on the belief -- BELIEF -- that money invested today will be worth more tomorrow? And that when something fractures this belief, the result can be as bad as the Depression?
4) Do you understand that our economy is predicated on the fact that oil is the most efficient energy source known to man, where the (current) cost of exploitation is massively outweighed by the economic benefit of its consumption?
Pause for a second: what happens when it becomes clear that this will not always be the case, in the light of points 1-3 above?
I've made it very simple for you, because your seeming inability to actually engage with the intellectual basis of this issue suggests you may have difficulty understanding it. All we get is sarcasm and flippancy.
For energy sources we find a way to make the alternative sources economically viable.
For the everyday plastics, replace them with treated cellulose materials that is developed from a genetically engineered sea kelp.
Seriously though, a possible oil crisis is worrisome. However, don't lose faith that our society won't be able to find replacements to oil. If not then I guess those that survive the apocalyptic fall of civilization will have to scrape dirt with our credit cards to survive until the second coming.
For energy sources we find a way to make the alternative sources economically viable.
For the everyday plastics, replace them with treated cellulose materials that is developed from a genetically engineered sea kelp.
Seriously though, a possible oil crisis is worrisome. However, don't lose faith that our society won't be able to find replacements to oil. If not then I guess those that survive the apocalyptic fall of civilization will have to scrape dirt with our credit cards to survive until the second coming.
Could you list these sources and how it is proposed to make them viable?
Could you provide a list of these genetically-engineered kelp factories, or plans for them?
For energy sources we find a way to make the alternative sources economically viable.
For the everyday plastics, replace them with treated cellulose materials that is developed from a genetically engineered sea kelp.
Seriously though, a possible oil crisis is worrisome. However, don't lose faith that our society won't be able to find replacements to oil. If not then I guess those that survive the apocalyptic fall of civilization will have to scrape dirt with our credit cards to survive until the second coming.
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Could you list these sources and how it is proposed to make them viable?
Could you provide a list of these genetically-engineered kelp factories, or plans for them?
See, this is exactly where the problem lies. We do have a lot of good IDEAS on how to solve the eventual problems, but they are just that, ideas. Few of the alternatives are viable or even doable at this point. What I think will happen is that we will rise to the challenge and we will construct a new economic and energy reality based on a mixed palette of energy sources and technologies. The trouble comes in the time lag. As oil rises in price and we do nothing but fight about it and scream at our politicians to lower the price (which is already happening) we will enter a period of, how shall I put this:
substantial inconvenience.
There, that term won't scare anybody, will it?
This period will last for some time while we get our act together. Bush is starting to talk about energy issues, but he is saying all the wrong things. He actually mentioned biodiesel and ethanol as energy sources we should develope. Blatantly obvious pandering to agricultural interests since both of those fuels represent a net loss in energy to produce. When oil is $200 a barrel how much is your petro based fertilizer for the overly hybridized corn gonna cost? And then how much is that gonna raise the cost of ethanol?
Well, I don't know how much faith you have in the Free Market model of reality. I think that there will be a few corporations that will see the impending problems and start the R&D to develop alternate solutions. The ones that don't won't survive. Why will they do that, b/c if they are wise, they'll see that they would not survive the collapse of civiliztion any better than Joe Average. As oil prices rise, in order to afford their third yacht they'll look into cheaper more readily available resources.
As for our electronics, I do believe we could make it economically feasible to replace the plastics with some sort of cellulose based material. It would have to be lab grown and genetically modified to meet the material standards needed of course. Just picture large vats of sea water containing special genetically modified sea kelp. It is then processed to to form the materials in which the casing and circuit boards for our consumer electronic goods.
I think the real question about non-renewable resources and computing will arise when we've stripped the planet bare of copper. I don't think we'll have the recycling capacity to meet demand.
When will you people realize that the sky is falling. Just like last time!
Hassan Yassin, former head of the Saudi Information Office in Washington, wrote in the Arab News article that Bush and Abdullah should launch a major study into the availability of world energy resources because if current growth persists in China and India, additional production will not be enough to meet global energy needs.
The problem with so many of the suggestions for alternate energy is that energy is not easily fixed with technological approaches. When we manufacture a product doing more work adds value to a that product. The more we bend the metal, add paint, add software, add cleverness to the shape and so on we (potentially) raise the utility and value of that product. Energy is the opposite. The more you have to massage the raw product to get useful energy the less useful energy you get.
This is why oil is so unbelievably fantastic. Oil has very high energy density. You can store it in a barrel. You can easily transport it. To get some you just stick a pipe in the ground and pump it out.
All the solutions proposed to replace oil as an energy source are worse. There is no good technical fix on the horizon. Life will change radically in ways we can't even imagine.
The problem with so many of the suggestions for alternate energy is that energy is not easily fixed with technological approaches. When we manufacture a product doing more work adds value to a that product. The more we bend the metal, add paint, add software, add cleverness to the shape and so on we (potentially) raise the utility and value of that product. Energy is the opposite. The more you have to massage the raw product to get useful energy the less useful energy you get.
This is why oil is so unbelievably fantastic. Oil has very high energy density. You can store it in a barrel. You can easily transport it. To get some you just stick a pipe in the ground and pump it out.
All very true and nicely stated. Oil is unique and nothing can replace it. My favorite fallacy is Hydrogen. People don't seem to understand that we don't have hydrogen wells or hydrogen trees or hydrogen fairies. Hydrogen (at least as auto fuel) is a means to transport energy from one place to another. We have to MAKE hydrogen from other energy sources. We put energy into it, it stores that energy until we are ready to use it (burn it in a fuel cell). It is not a panacea, but simple one more tool we will use in the future to "handle" energy.
The biggest trouble spot will be transportation. Not just you and me in our cars, but everything - particularly trucks. What will happen to Wal Mart's low prices when their shipping costs quadruple? Those kinds of businesses will have trouble surviving and the price of pretty much eveything will go up. Especially food.
Quote:
All the solutions proposed to replace oil as an energy source are worse. There is no good technical fix on the horizon. Life will change radically in ways we can't even imagine.
This is the key. This is why dramatic change is inevitable. It will be hard.
Those kinds of businesses will have trouble surviving and the price of pretty much eveything will go up. Especially food.
This is the key. This is why dramatic change is inevitable. It will be hard.
No, it's much, much worse then that.
An 'economy' is based on the fact that you BELIEVE things will grow. When you know they won't ... nothing will work but a command economy. If a society can get there past the fact that everyone in the business of growing, moving and selling food is closed for business. We're talking famine.
Hydrogen can be made using huge solar plants and water ... but we're not building the plants.
An 'economy' is based on the fact that you BELIEVE things will grow. When you know they won't ... nothing will work but a command economy. If a society can get there past the fact that everyone in the business of growing, moving and selling food is closed for business. We're talking famine.
I use the term "cancer economics" to describe our current system. In biology a cell that grows without limits, consuming all resources and that spreads throughout the host is called a cancer. I find the similarity of that to our current economic model quite interesting.
One of the worst case scenarios predicts a global dieoff of at least 2 billion people.
Quote:
Hydrogen can be made using huge solar plants and water ... but we're not building the plants.
Yes of course, but as you stated we aren't building them. Plus, once the economic system begins to fail we won't be ABLE to build them. At least not without your "command economy" which I take to mean a dictatorship or some ofther form of state intervention.
Oil is unique and nothing can replace it. My favorite fallacy is Hydrogen. People don't seem to understand that we don't have hydrogen wells or hydrogen trees or hydrogen fairies. Hydrogen (at least as auto fuel) is a means to transport energy from one place to another. We have to MAKE hydrogen from other energy sources. We put energy into it, it stores that energy until we are ready to use it (burn it in a fuel cell). It is not a panacea, but simple one more tool we will use in the future to "handle" energy.
You should probably go back and take a look at the life cycles of the two fuel sources. The benefit in Hydrogen fuel cells is their efficiency compared to a gas or petrol driven engine. The total energy expended gathering hydrogen and then utilising it is much less than in refining crude oil and then burning it in a car engine. It is the same basis as using an electrically powered car. Power plants are far more efficient that car engines.
I think you underestimate just how much energy it takes to even refine 1L of petrol/gas. The entire system is systems of distillation columns with a couple big reactors. Then you need to deal with the emissions. Crude oil extraction and refining and then car operation is not terribly environmentally friendly.
Oil is not unique it has just been awfully convenient until now.
Convenient yes, some would disagree with your assertions re hydrogen:
Hydrogen, touted by many as a seamless solution, is actually an energy carrier, but not an energy source - it must be produced using an energy source such as natural gas or nuclear. So while it may or may not be a convenient store of energy, its Net Energy will be negative. Some alternatives such as wind and hydro have better ERoEI, however their potential expansion may be limited by physical factors
This is not my field of study, but it seems there are a lot a questions to be answered and it appears at this point that hydrogen has a place in the future, but it isn't a net energy producer. It makes sense if we want to protect the environment (assuming it is made from solar), but the FIRST thing to be thrown out when the oil economy starts to unravel will be environmental protections. Humans will utterly devastate the entire planet trying to capture every last little bit of energy containing material.
Drilling in ANWR is just the beginning and we couldn't stop the buttheads from doing that. If this is how it plays out (the environment being cast aside), hyrdrogen will be little more than an expensive experiment. Bush's speech today reveals a plan to find more and more oil to refine into gasoline and incentives to build more gasoline refineries. Imagine what would happen if instead he stood up and asked people to stop driving SUVs and pickups as commuter vehicles. Imagine what would happen if he criticized car makers for making gas guzzlers. Image what would happen if he stood up and became a leader in the area of conservation. He could do it and would not really have to spend much politcal capital. He could end up with a nice legacy if he started pushing conservation right now. Pushing hard.
But hey back on topic, a hydrogen PowerBook would be beyond cool.
We have so many blind spots about our culture that we can't imagine how this will change our lives. It won't be the same as just turning back the clock 200 years. We have totally different education and infrastructure. We will tackle this differently.
I'm sure people would want to drain every last bit of oil, I just wonder if we'll have the abilities to do so. Once things start to unravel we may not be able to marshall enough resources to drill in harsh places like deep water or arctic regions.
It is not a matter of running out of oil. Once it sinks in that the good times are over, once we turn that corner there will be a stampede for the exits. There will be massive hoarding. The military will hoard the most as they have the biggest guns.
It is really sad too. We seem to be just at the edge of making fantastic strides in science and engineering.
Yeah the darkest predictions are pretty depressing. I am normally pretty pessimistic about . . well . . everything, but I have hopes that we can move quickly once we pull our heads out and will be able soften and deflect much of the hard stuff that is going to be flying right at us. I think the back end of the bell curve will be very elongated rather than steep. The world reacted pretty quickly to the 70s oil "crisis" and we became more efficient in how we used energy. Since then we have fallen completely off the wagon. I think we can do it again and at least dull some of the pain as the future hurtles at us like the "hot kiss at the end of a wet fist!"
So what are good investments in this kind of dangerous environment? I don't want to turn into one of those gold and ammo hoarding survivalists...
That is a great question. One I haven't found a good answer for.
If we can find some kind of "soft landing" then some sort of conservative investments (government bonds, gold bullion stocked in a vault, probably other resources such as oil, silver, etc.) would be fine. If we experience a harder landing, one where entire currencies collapse and become valueless, where the dollar undergoes hyper-inflation, where many of the worlds social institutions (including international banking) break down then maybe the guns and gold are not a bad idea. Actually, according to a site I read it is better to buy bags of silver US coins (older dimes and such) as they easier to spend, more durable and more value for the dollar (currently).
An interesting exercise is to try to figure out what parts of our society will be gone. If oil goes well over $200 / barrel then I can't imagine airlines surviving. Without air freight there goes FedEX, other exotic items air freighted from over seas. Without frequent air travel won't we become much more isolated? More focused on our local communities? How will the ripples spread?
Don't forget that a large part of the US economy is based on the fact that oil is sold in dollars: all oil underground is a dollar not yet pumped up yet.
The US can therefore have a MASSIVE debt at home and abroad; its debts are secured against this unexploited oil. If it runs out of cash it prints more inflation free dollars.
If oil starts to run out (or if oil begins to be charged in euros like Saddam did before the invasion) ... buh bye.
Hyperinflation; debts get called in; total collapse of the US economy.
That's INDEPENDENT of what reduction in oil supply would do to the US (and rest of the world).
Oil won't last forever, the peak oil hoax isn't about oil lasting or not. It is a cultist armageddon tool. There is no legitimate science there and ALL the original projections are proven bogus. Just our being here has proven that. Redefining the terms on the fly to keep it fresh hardly constitutes science either.
If you want to discuss energy policy, you need to start with something that wasn't originated by the Club of Rome.
There isn't an infinite supply of oil in the earth, especially at our consumption rate. Common sense dictates that.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Why should I debunk guessonomics?
Why is it guessonomics?
Let's talk this through.
1) Oil will run out in 60? years. Do you think it will suddenly all just stop one day? Or do you think it will gradually peter out over a few decades, becoming more and more expensive to exploit?
2) Do you trust the scientists, engineers, geophysicists and executives who have set a date on when the decline will start, based on almost one hundred years of experiential data, modelled in part on the US oil production curve?
3) Do you understand that economic growth is based on the belief -- BELIEF -- that money invested today will be worth more tomorrow? And that when something fractures this belief, the result can be as bad as the Depression?
4) Do you understand that our economy is predicated on the fact that oil is the most efficient energy source known to man, where the (current) cost of exploitation is massively outweighed by the economic benefit of its consumption?
Pause for a second: what happens when it becomes clear that this will not always be the case, in the light of points 1-3 above?
I've made it very simple for you, because your seeming inability to actually engage with the intellectual basis of this issue suggests you may have difficulty understanding it. All we get is sarcasm and flippancy.
For the everyday plastics, replace them with treated cellulose materials that is developed from a genetically engineered sea kelp.
Seriously though, a possible oil crisis is worrisome. However, don't lose faith that our society won't be able to find replacements to oil. If not then I guess those that survive the apocalyptic fall of civilization will have to scrape dirt with our credit cards to survive until the second coming.
Originally posted by LiquidR
For energy sources we find a way to make the alternative sources economically viable.
For the everyday plastics, replace them with treated cellulose materials that is developed from a genetically engineered sea kelp.
Seriously though, a possible oil crisis is worrisome. However, don't lose faith that our society won't be able to find replacements to oil. If not then I guess those that survive the apocalyptic fall of civilization will have to scrape dirt with our credit cards to survive until the second coming.
Could you list these sources and how it is proposed to make them viable?
Could you provide a list of these genetically-engineered kelp factories, or plans for them?
Originally posted by LiquidR
For energy sources we find a way to make the alternative sources economically viable.
For the everyday plastics, replace them with treated cellulose materials that is developed from a genetically engineered sea kelp.
Seriously though, a possible oil crisis is worrisome. However, don't lose faith that our society won't be able to find replacements to oil. If not then I guess those that survive the apocalyptic fall of civilization will have to scrape dirt with our credit cards to survive until the second coming.
Originally posted by Harald
Could you list these sources and how it is proposed to make them viable?
Could you provide a list of these genetically-engineered kelp factories, or plans for them?
See, this is exactly where the problem lies. We do have a lot of good IDEAS on how to solve the eventual problems, but they are just that, ideas. Few of the alternatives are viable or even doable at this point. What I think will happen is that we will rise to the challenge and we will construct a new economic and energy reality based on a mixed palette of energy sources and technologies. The trouble comes in the time lag. As oil rises in price and we do nothing but fight about it and scream at our politicians to lower the price (which is already happening) we will enter a period of, how shall I put this:
substantial inconvenience.
There, that term won't scare anybody, will it?
This period will last for some time while we get our act together. Bush is starting to talk about energy issues, but he is saying all the wrong things. He actually mentioned biodiesel and ethanol as energy sources we should develope. Blatantly obvious pandering to agricultural interests since both of those fuels represent a net loss in energy to produce. When oil is $200 a barrel how much is your petro based fertilizer for the overly hybridized corn gonna cost? And then how much is that gonna raise the cost of ethanol?
Solutions will be complex.
As for our electronics, I do believe we could make it economically feasible to replace the plastics with some sort of cellulose based material. It would have to be lab grown and genetically modified to meet the material standards needed of course. Just picture large vats of sea water containing special genetically modified sea kelp. It is then processed to to form the materials in which the casing and circuit boards for our consumer electronic goods.
I think the real question about non-renewable resources and computing will arise when we've stripped the planet bare of copper. I don't think we'll have the recycling capacity to meet demand.
Originally posted by Scott
When will you people realize that the sky is falling. Just like last time!
Hassan Yassin, former head of the Saudi Information Office in Washington, wrote in the Arab News article that Bush and Abdullah should launch a major study into the availability of world energy resources because if current growth persists in China and India, additional production will not be enough to meet global energy needs.
Link
Fellows
Now scott what part of that don't you understand?
This is why oil is so unbelievably fantastic. Oil has very high energy density. You can store it in a barrel. You can easily transport it. To get some you just stick a pipe in the ground and pump it out.
All the solutions proposed to replace oil as an energy source are worse. There is no good technical fix on the horizon. Life will change radically in ways we can't even imagine.
Originally posted by neutrino23
The problem with so many of the suggestions for alternate energy is that energy is not easily fixed with technological approaches. When we manufacture a product doing more work adds value to a that product. The more we bend the metal, add paint, add software, add cleverness to the shape and so on we (potentially) raise the utility and value of that product. Energy is the opposite. The more you have to massage the raw product to get useful energy the less useful energy you get.
This is why oil is so unbelievably fantastic. Oil has very high energy density. You can store it in a barrel. You can easily transport it. To get some you just stick a pipe in the ground and pump it out.
All very true and nicely stated. Oil is unique and nothing can replace it. My favorite fallacy is Hydrogen. People don't seem to understand that we don't have hydrogen wells or hydrogen trees or hydrogen fairies. Hydrogen (at least as auto fuel) is a means to transport energy from one place to another. We have to MAKE hydrogen from other energy sources. We put energy into it, it stores that energy until we are ready to use it (burn it in a fuel cell). It is not a panacea, but simple one more tool we will use in the future to "handle" energy.
The biggest trouble spot will be transportation. Not just you and me in our cars, but everything - particularly trucks. What will happen to Wal Mart's low prices when their shipping costs quadruple? Those kinds of businesses will have trouble surviving and the price of pretty much eveything will go up. Especially food.
All the solutions proposed to replace oil as an energy source are worse. There is no good technical fix on the horizon. Life will change radically in ways we can't even imagine.
This is the key. This is why dramatic change is inevitable. It will be hard.
Originally posted by WelshDog
Those kinds of businesses will have trouble surviving and the price of pretty much eveything will go up. Especially food.
This is the key. This is why dramatic change is inevitable. It will be hard.
No, it's much, much worse then that.
An 'economy' is based on the fact that you BELIEVE things will grow. When you know they won't ... nothing will work but a command economy. If a society can get there past the fact that everyone in the business of growing, moving and selling food is closed for business. We're talking famine.
Hydrogen can be made using huge solar plants and water ... but we're not building the plants.
Originally posted by Harald
No, it's much, much worse then that.
An 'economy' is based on the fact that you BELIEVE things will grow. When you know they won't ... nothing will work but a command economy. If a society can get there past the fact that everyone in the business of growing, moving and selling food is closed for business. We're talking famine.
I use the term "cancer economics" to describe our current system. In biology a cell that grows without limits, consuming all resources and that spreads throughout the host is called a cancer. I find the similarity of that to our current economic model quite interesting.
One of the worst case scenarios predicts a global dieoff of at least 2 billion people.
Hydrogen can be made using huge solar plants and water ... but we're not building the plants.
Yes of course, but as you stated we aren't building them. Plus, once the economic system begins to fail we won't be ABLE to build them. At least not without your "command economy" which I take to mean a dictatorship or some ofther form of state intervention.
Originally posted by WelshDog
Oil is unique and nothing can replace it. My favorite fallacy is Hydrogen. People don't seem to understand that we don't have hydrogen wells or hydrogen trees or hydrogen fairies. Hydrogen (at least as auto fuel) is a means to transport energy from one place to another. We have to MAKE hydrogen from other energy sources. We put energy into it, it stores that energy until we are ready to use it (burn it in a fuel cell). It is not a panacea, but simple one more tool we will use in the future to "handle" energy.
You should probably go back and take a look at the life cycles of the two fuel sources. The benefit in Hydrogen fuel cells is their efficiency compared to a gas or petrol driven engine. The total energy expended gathering hydrogen and then utilising it is much less than in refining crude oil and then burning it in a car engine. It is the same basis as using an electrically powered car. Power plants are far more efficient that car engines.
I think you underestimate just how much energy it takes to even refine 1L of petrol/gas. The entire system is systems of distillation columns with a couple big reactors. Then you need to deal with the emissions. Crude oil extraction and refining and then car operation is not terribly environmentally friendly.
Oil is not unique it has just been awfully convenient until now.
Hydrogen, touted by many as a seamless solution, is actually an energy carrier, but not an energy source - it must be produced using an energy source such as natural gas or nuclear. So while it may or may not be a convenient store of energy, its Net Energy will be negative. Some alternatives such as wind and hydro have better ERoEI, however their potential expansion may be limited by physical factors
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
http://www.culturechange.org/hydrogen.htm
http://www.eclipsenow.org/Facts/alternateenergy.html
This is not my field of study, but it seems there are a lot a questions to be answered and it appears at this point that hydrogen has a place in the future, but it isn't a net energy producer. It makes sense if we want to protect the environment (assuming it is made from solar), but the FIRST thing to be thrown out when the oil economy starts to unravel will be environmental protections. Humans will utterly devastate the entire planet trying to capture every last little bit of energy containing material.
Drilling in ANWR is just the beginning and we couldn't stop the buttheads from doing that. If this is how it plays out (the environment being cast aside), hyrdrogen will be little more than an expensive experiment. Bush's speech today reveals a plan to find more and more oil to refine into gasoline and incentives to build more gasoline refineries. Imagine what would happen if instead he stood up and asked people to stop driving SUVs and pickups as commuter vehicles. Imagine what would happen if he criticized car makers for making gas guzzlers. Image what would happen if he stood up and became a leader in the area of conservation. He could do it and would not really have to spend much politcal capital. He could end up with a nice legacy if he started pushing conservation right now. Pushing hard.
But hey back on topic, a hydrogen PowerBook would be beyond cool.
I'm sure people would want to drain every last bit of oil, I just wonder if we'll have the abilities to do so. Once things start to unravel we may not be able to marshall enough resources to drill in harsh places like deep water or arctic regions.
It is not a matter of running out of oil. Once it sinks in that the good times are over, once we turn that corner there will be a stampede for the exits. There will be massive hoarding. The military will hoard the most as they have the biggest guns.
It is really sad too. We seem to be just at the edge of making fantastic strides in science and engineering.
Originally posted by e1618978
So what are good investments in this kind of dangerous environment? I don't want to turn into one of those gold and ammo hoarding survivalists...
That is a great question. One I haven't found a good answer for.
If we can find some kind of "soft landing" then some sort of conservative investments (government bonds, gold bullion stocked in a vault, probably other resources such as oil, silver, etc.) would be fine. If we experience a harder landing, one where entire currencies collapse and become valueless, where the dollar undergoes hyper-inflation, where many of the worlds social institutions (including international banking) break down then maybe the guns and gold are not a bad idea. Actually, according to a site I read it is better to buy bags of silver US coins (older dimes and such) as they easier to spend, more durable and more value for the dollar (currently).
An interesting exercise is to try to figure out what parts of our society will be gone. If oil goes well over $200 / barrel then I can't imagine airlines surviving. Without air freight there goes FedEX, other exotic items air freighted from over seas. Without frequent air travel won't we become much more isolated? More focused on our local communities? How will the ripples spread?
The US can therefore have a MASSIVE debt at home and abroad; its debts are secured against this unexploited oil. If it runs out of cash it prints more inflation free dollars.
If oil starts to run out (or if oil begins to be charged in euros like Saddam did before the invasion) ... buh bye.
Hyperinflation; debts get called in; total collapse of the US economy.
That's INDEPENDENT of what reduction in oil supply would do to the US (and rest of the world).
Originally posted by Hiro
Oil won't last forever, the peak oil hoax isn't about oil lasting or not. It is a cultist armageddon tool. There is no legitimate science there and ALL the original projections are proven bogus. Just our being here has proven that. Redefining the terms on the fly to keep it fresh hardly constitutes science either.
If you want to discuss energy policy, you need to start with something that wasn't originated by the Club of Rome.
There isn't an infinite supply of oil in the earth, especially at our consumption rate. Common sense dictates that.
BTW, the solar tower is a really cool concept.