Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 12, 2016
The Peak Oil Dilemma
We live in a finite world. Fossil fuels–oil, coal, and natural gas–are our number one energy source. Oil, being the biggest, drives almost everything we do. And we’re rapidly reaching the limits of how much of it the world can supply.
The concept of peak oil is simple. Geologists have determined that any finite mineral substance on earth is produced in a bell curve. When you’ve reached the peak of that curve, it means you’ve used half of this resource. Based on this model, most of the resources we depend on will, eventually peak, with the exact timing of those peaks depending on our consumption.
With our current levels of population growth, the finite world is in play. We used to believe that we lived in an infinite world because our demand was much lower. But now we’re exceeding our carrying capacity, depleting these one-time resources. They’re not replaceable, they don’t self-generate, and once they’re gone, we can never get them back.
Peak oil, as a theory, has been downplayed, because models predicted that we’d hit peak oil production between 2000 and 2010, and we didn’t–instead, we plateaued. The reason is that in that time, the process of fracking became an economically and technologically viable method of extracting oil and gas from shale deposits. As a result, we’ve seen a huge increase in oil production, with U.S. oil extraction essentially doubling over the last decade. This short-term phenomenon helped create a temporary oil glut, with the U.S. going from roughly 5 million barrels a day of conventional oil production to roughly 10 million, positioning us as one of the biggest producers of oil in the world, a position we last held in the 1970s. Oil prices have dropped dramatically because of this oversupply. It’s selling for less than bottled water, which is just incredible. It’s 10-100x cheaper than it should be if we truly valued this one-time resource.
Some people believe that we can keep fracking forever, and that oil production won’t peak because we can just continue to frack more shale, but that’s just not possible. Consider the facts: in the last year, fracked oil production has actually decreased. A typical fracked well is abandoned after just five years. Instead of decades of slow production, peaking, and declining, such as in traditional oil extraction, more than half the oil it will ever produce is released in the first year, with supply depleting year over year until the well must be shut down. Fracking’s like a treadmill–you have to drill more and more each year just to stay afloat, and you can only drill so fast. And drilling costs money. Now, with oil prices being so low, they’re not turning as much of a profit and the amount of drilling is slowing down considerably. It’s a temporary fix to a much larger problem.
We’re on the backside of the bell curve, and once you start coming down, there’s no going back ever again. Fracking was a trick that most people didn’t see coming, one that gave us artificial time, but it’s not a long-term solution. And other “solutions,” like oil production from tar sands, are just as limited in their effectiveness. Tar sands oil production accounts for a fraction of our world’s supply and is both very energy intensive and very expensive, not to mention extremely destructive to the environment. The reality is that we’re going to end up with less oil each year going forward, and by 2100 we’ll have most likely used about 80-90% of the world’s available oil. We’re missing the peak predicted by geologists by about 10-20 years, but that doesn’t mean it’s not coming–it’s just been put off.
We’re living in an oil-based world and we have a huge crisis coming because of this dependence. We haven’t stopped the growth of CO2 emissions, and we’re going to see some major changes to our environment because of that. Even if we reduced all emissions to zero today, we’ll still see a couple degrees of global warming. Climate change is going to happen, it’s just a question of how bad it will be. And it’s a shame that peak oil has been delayed by a decade, because it may have forced action on this issue sooner.
The other significant issue we’re facing is that oil drives the world’s economy, and our modern economy is driven by a concept of an infinite world, infinite growth forever. In a finite world, we’re going to crash against that mindset. Society doesn’t tend to react until we have an actual, immediate crisis on our hands. We’ll have an oil supply crisis soon–it could be in two years, it could be in ten, but it’s coming.
Renewables are clearly a part of the solution, but it’s going to be hard to replace all of the oil we use with renewable energy. We’ve gotten so energy intensive in what we do, everything from transportation to food production, and it’s too much to support. Some people believe that renewables can sustain the world as we know it, but we simply use too much to be able to replace fossil fuels completely with renewable energy. We also don’t have enough resources in the world to be able to build all of the solar panels and wind turbines–we would deplete many other resources such as iron ore, aluminum, and copper trying to make this renewable energy system, trying to replace fossil fuels that took millions of years to make. We’re overpromising, making people believe that they won’t have to change their lifestyles. Oil is what allowed our population to expand so rapidly, but how do we continue to support more and more people with less and less oil? Something has to change.
We’re going to see some major lifestyle changes in our lifetime. We can’t keep driving the way we do–we have 1.2 billion cars in the world, which is crazy. Even if every single car was electric, there’s so much embedded energy in building the cars, the road systems, the infrastructure–more energy embedded in those things than you’d use in the life of a car. The system we’ve created, the one we continue to build upon and need to maintain, eats up a significant amount of oil. We can’t keep going in this direction.
So what’s the solution? Relocalization will be a big piece of it. We’ll need to live closer together, with mass transit and other ways of moving around, living much closer to where we work or go to school. With the rise of suburbia, we got used to the idea of spreading out, of using the car to go everywhere, but we’ll need to condense things significantly. The U.S. is in a tough position because we’re one of the most energy-intensive countries in the world, consuming a quarter of the world’s resources and energy, so we’re the ones who will need to decrease our usage most dramatically.
The problem is, we believe it’s our right to use it. We don’t want to change. Our society can handle about a 10% voluntary energy reduction across the board, doing things like walking more and carpooling. To get to the necessary level (which, by some estimations, will be about a 60-80% decrease in energy usage), will be impossible unless we change the way we think about things. We’re not going to get to where we need to be by picking paper bags instead of plastic at the grocery store–it’s about mass consumption, about the way our society operates as a whole. And this can be a positive thing, a change for the better: a more community-oriented lifestyle, being closer to people, sharing more. We just need to change our frame of mind, adjust our expectations, and embrace this change.
Our energy issues are dilemmas, not problems. Problems, you can solve; dilemmas, you will never solve completely. So this issue of how we’re going to live in the future will never have a clear, defined answer. It’s necessary to switch to a completely renewable-driven world and enact tremendous lifestyle changes to survive. And it is about survival, because we won’t survive the way we’re doing things today. Things have to change dramatically. At this point, it’s clear that we will be forced by nature to do something. Peak oil is the most likely driver of change–while C02 emissions and climate change are a much bigger issue we will need to contend with, their effects appear more slowly, over time. They don’t affect everyone of us every day. Peak oil, when it happens, is going to be visible and dramatic and, perhaps most importantly, will hit us in our wallets, which is one of the surest ways to get people to react.
And it’s just a matter of time. Scientists guessed that it would come in the mid-2000s, and we were off ten years, which bought us some time. And what did we do with that time? We consumed even more, and produced even more carbon emissions. We didn’t use the foresight and knowledge available to us to begin to make those changes. We should be building the new infrastructure before we hit peak resources, using fossil fuels to create the next generation of energy supplies, which are renewables. We have to invest tremendous amounts of this oil-based energy in renewables, because if we’re coming down the backside of the peak oil curve, we will have fewer and fewer resources each year to build the new energy sources we need, and it will cost more and more. We’re at the best time in our society to build the necessary next steps. We need to take them, and do it quickly.
113 Comments on "The Peak Oil Dilemma"
rockman on Thu, 12th May 2016 7:19 am
“When you’ve reached the peak of that curve, it means you’ve used half of this resource.” And once again statements from an “armchair” expert. LOL. The volume produced pre and post peak is not determined by the date of that peak. It determined by the area under the curve. Very easy to illustrate: look at the production curve of the US.
https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/142880/us-field-production-of-crude-oil_large.png
And forget about the recent increase: focus on 1920 through 2006. Remember this curves is showing the RATE of oil production…not the volume. From 1920 thru 1971 (date of US PO) the cum production was 94 BILLION bbls of oil over a 50 year period. From 1971 to 2005 (only 34 years) the US cum was 101 BILLION bbls of oil. So even without the recent surge in US production the post-peak production will be much greater than the pre-peak production. Just eye-balling it even without the recent increase the post-peak production will would be about 2X the pre-peak production. IOW not f*cking close to “half of the resource”. LOL.
And there’s no reason to believe the global curve would look much difference. This is just one more example of a fool assuming they understand the dynamics instead of actually looking at the data. The great harm: almost everyone believes this bullsh*t because they don’t bother to proof check.
Fortunately the Rockman is here. LOL.
rockman on Thu, 12th May 2016 7:24 am
And in particular what mis-representation is this post offering? Look at the chart: it shows much less fossil fuel production during the time of their alt expansion then there will actually be. Which essentially means the alts will continue competing with fossil fuels for much longer then they are trying to spin.
Yes: fossil fuels will inevitably fade away. But not as they are trying to represent it in this article.
Davy on Thu, 12th May 2016 7:25 am
It is good to see a green list of solutions getting more realistic but it is still unrealistic. It is still a list of activities that are conflicting. It is still about a process that doesn’t add up. He is right that these changes are deeper than just physical transformation it is really about the very way we live. This is why I feel there is no hope because there is no way you are going to change the underlying way people think and live and in time. It is like saying “why can’t we all get along”. It is because humans do not belong in the arrangements of a global civilization and expect to get along.
No species belongs in the present niche we occupy and call that a time of ecological growth. We are destroying the world and ourselves that should clearly indicate that what we call human is wrong at every level and must end and end necessarily in regards to life process of growing. We are serving a life process of death and decay. Don’t take that thought in the wrong way because species evolution and devolution is a longer term biological cycle. If we look at it on the level of the here and now and maybe a decade ahead we still need to live. The only way to live going forward is to recognize the reality of decline and decay not growth and progress.
This article touches on it and it is a good effort by a green optimist but it is still misplaced optimism. The better way to face this existential threat is understand there is nothing we can do. The system will transform us not the other way around. We need to get in touch with how the system is going to transform us instead of preaching how “WE” are going to do things. The way the system is going to transform us is how it has always transformed ecosystems and species and that is by a natural process.
We are clearly in an extinction process. Anyone who argues that needs to be discredited. We are clearly in a climate destabilization process how can you argue that? We are in our won little species process of destructiveness with economy and living arrangements. With this as our guide how do we tap into what nature has in store for us and look out 10 year? That is easy we start planning on excess deaths over births. We start planning on the randomness of destructive economic processes. We will have economic abandonment and dysfunctional support networks. We will have random and often irrational changes. That needs to be our fundamental social narrative.
Since we know society is not capable of this then you have to realize this and make your own personal arrangements. It is possible small communities can come together with this realization and form common goals and take steps for their own adaptation to a change that will destroy the status quo as we know it. This article is trying to preach to those who will not listen. We can’t all get along but we can get along at some levels.
Acknowledge in your heart all is lost at the top of our civilization in regards to where civilization is planning on going. This is acceptance and it will have profound transformative results. Agree nature is in change and aline yourself to natures will. If you do you will have natures support if you don’t she will destroy you. This does not mean you will survive like you would like this only means looking out over the coming decade what may work and what won’t. The status quo thinking and acting is not going to be the best use of your time and resources.
This of course depends on orientation. You can live for the moment and get drunk on life now or you can chose sobriety. This is an either or proposition because we are out of time. There is no second chances. Open the door and walk through and when it closes it is behind you. Don’t look back and start your journey. You can’t have your cake and eat it. To orientate to nature requires sacrificing your future now to a difficult transition. Doing so may give you an increased chance of survival but without any guarantees. So in the end this is a game of chance but hasn’t life always been just a game of chance for the individual? Society is a different story but not much because we have seen societies come and go so why would our modern one be any different.
Davy on Thu, 12th May 2016 7:32 am
So much for the anti-American criticism of gmo food. Looks like Europe at the highest level is going to embrace GMO and roundup. What does that tell you!
“Bayer Said to Explore Bid for $40 Billion Seed Company Monsanto”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-12/bayer-said-to-explore-bid-for-40-billion-seed-company-monsanto
“Bayer AG is exploring a potential bid for U.S. competitor Monsanto Co. in a deal that would create the world’s largest supplier of seeds and farm chemicals, according to people familiar with the matter. The German firm has held preliminary discussions internally and with advisers about buying Monsanto, which has a market value of almost $40 billion, said the people, who asked not to be named because the deliberations are private.”
onlooker on Thu, 12th May 2016 7:40 am
This hints at the orientation of hope in individuals. Most still “hope” that somehow civilization will find an answer or answers. Yes, no answers are coming except adapting to collapse scenarios. So we still have a world full of people with misplaced hope. Thus world population is ripe for die-off. With little answers available even if people came to grips with reality. Everyone either decides to confront fully reality or not. Any provisions you make for tomorrow will amount to nothing if your view of tomorrow is warped by biased subjective thinking. My advice for others reading is pass the most difficult test and that is confront reality fully then and only then can you prepare for said reality
GregT on Thu, 12th May 2016 8:29 am
“So what’s the solution? Relocalization will be a big piece of it. We’ll need to live closer together, with mass transit and other ways of moving around, living much closer to where we work or go to school.”
Batter start mass producing shovels and pickaxes now then. There’s going to be a lot of employment available for people in the cities, digging up all of the concrete and asphalt in order to grow food.
PracticalMaina on Thu, 12th May 2016 8:31 am
Davy, I am hopeful that deal will not go threw, anti-monopoly laws have never been more important than in a case such as this one where peoples food is on the line. Especially when you already have one of the partys playing dirty pool all the time as monsanto does, screwing over farmers.
denial on Thu, 12th May 2016 8:34 am
But….I have a smart phone! look how fast that tech ramped up!!!Lol…..
JuanP on Thu, 12th May 2016 8:50 am
I couldn’t read the article after seeing that graph. That is the worst and most inaccurate graph I’ve seen in a while. All the plotted lines in the past do not correspond with historical production for any of the sources plotted. They left out the “Biomass” description label at the bottom right corresponding to the green color. The future section of the graph is by far the worst. Raise your hand if you think solar, wind, hydro, and biomass energy use by humans will increase without a break until the year 2100. The oil plot issues were addressed very well by Rockman. The whole graph is BS. Why should I waste my time reading that? Won’t do it.
makati1 on Thu, 12th May 2016 9:08 am
JuanP, the ‘alternates’ are already breaking down. The solar companies are going broke and the governments of the world are backing away from new projects because they are proving to not be profitable or even able to pay their own way.
Today’s news: http://ricefarmer.blogspot.fr/
SolarCity plunges 15% on big loss, guidance
Five Reasons Why The Pain For SolarCity Is Just Starting
After hot rally, solar shares turn ice cold.
Creditors Stumble into New Black Hole at Energy Giant Abengoa
Riding the ‘Solarcoaster’ as Shares Plunge Even More Than Coal
Elon Musk—-King Of Crony Capitalist Pretenders Has Ripped-Off Taxpayers For $4.9 Billion
Etc.
Nope, I think renewables and alternates are at their peak also.
Sanctuary Farm on Thu, 12th May 2016 9:19 am
It’s a good time to be old!!
makati1 on Thu, 12th May 2016 9:26 am
Sanctuary, I agree. Being closer to the end of the story makes it easier to accept what is happening and to put it into the perspective of a long life of experiences. I may have another 20+ years and will get to see the end of the whole story, not just mine. We shall see.
GregT on Thu, 12th May 2016 9:33 am
Alternates require economies of scale, economies require growth, and growth requires more energy inputs, not less.
If the above graphic is to be believed, by around 2030 energy available to society will be reduced by about 25%, and by 2075 about 50%. With the world’s population growing at around 80 million people per year, it shouldn’t be all that difficult to spot the 5 ton elephant in the room. The good news; In less than 14 years time we’re in for a heap of trouble.
If the above graphic is not to be believed, which it shouldn’t be for obvious reasons, the not so good news; We should be facing extremely troubling circumstances in about a decade or less.
Martin on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:18 am
It may be finite, but peak oil is way way down the line. This is simpleton “reasoning” based on NOTHING. Was told “peak oil” was in the 1970s, now its today. Sorry, but this is more political science, not real science!
PracticalMaina on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:19 am
Makati 4.9 billion sounds like chump change to me, when one considers the importance of the work. I also have a feeling you are referencing the money he has gotten for multiple ventures. That is less than subsidies for coal, IMHO, assuming the coal sold off federal land for a buck a ton can be counted as a subsidy. Renewables are not at their peak, we have scene negative rates in Cali Texas and now Germany, time to update the grid. I can see us using 25% less power by 2030 if the third world is given a better standard of living, somehow, without increasing fuel consumption. A new split unit ac is more than 2 times as efficient as window unit often almost 3 times, leds offer huge savings.
PracticalMaina on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:21 am
Peak oil is here which is going to force a transition. renewables are already beating out fossil fuels on cost for electrical production. Now we just need a better battery.
GregT on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:35 am
“Now we just need a better battery.”
Yes, one that does not require even more finite resources. Once we come up with a solution to that, then all we need to do is find is a source of energy to charge them with. One that does not require fossil fuels in resource extraction, refinement, manufacturing, distribution, maintenance, and replacement. Easy peasy!
makati1 on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:37 am
The deniers are out tonight in force. LOL. Oh, that’s right. It’s Thursday morning in America. It’s Thursday evening here in the Ps.
What don’t you guys get about economy of scale and total systems? Your dreams count on both of them continuing in some form of BAU. NOT going to happen. Both are crumbling as you type. Contraction, not growth, is the present and future. Adjust to reality.
makati1 on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:40 am
Practical, the man is a fake.
A charlatan.
A ponzi schemer.
A consummate liar.
A huckster.
A Snake oil salesman.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
onlooker on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:42 am
Yeah guys the deniers live in a dreamland of a Transition happening by magic. Of this transition affording anything like the abundant cheap diverse energy source we have had. Of course the ultimate denial is that somehow this can be done without fossil fuels and fossil fuels will just magically go away. They should go away but alas they will not because we NEED them.
Flash Brasbo on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:43 am
a few quick notes….
peak oil is a theory that has come and gone multiple times. The problem is, as with the advances in hydraulic fracking, nobody can reliably predict what the next piece of technology is, and how it will impact the future. Additionally, nobody can accurately predict how many more sources of oil exist in the world. How can you predict that which you cannot comprehend?
the graph is laughable at best. It represents what? Hydro increasing? we have environmentalists destroying dams and protesting at every dam…. where is nuclear in the graph?
Tar sands can’t impact the future? The Athabasca tar sands (in Canada) is one of the largest known oil deposits in the world….. the environmental impact is too great? as compared to what? compare it to the environmental impact of batteries…strip mining, transportation, manufacturing, transportation, installation, more transportation, and then what about the disposal?
we need to live closer together? that’s your answer…. like India? yeah that’s an environmental paradise.
the U.S.’s CO2 emissions today are less than those of 2007, for a couple of reasons. Fracking and natural gas are number 1. the piss poor economy and the lack of U.S. heavy industry (which moved to dirtier and more polluted countries) is not far behind
GregT on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:43 am
There is a solution to the energy problem Mak. One that’s hiding in plain sight. More commonly known as photosynthesis.
makati1 on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:44 am
GregT. He doesn’t even consider that roads to transport his techie toys require oil in huge amounts to exist and maintain. Nothing will move without roads. A cubic yard of concrete requires a barrel of oil to exist. Some states are already allowing their roads to go to gravel because they cannot afford to repair them. But real facts don’t matter when you are dreaming.
rockman on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:45 am
Martin – I gather you still haven’t come to understand that the date of global PO is rather insignificant compared to all the aspects of our energy dynamics. And has always been insignificant.
Might be time to give up on an idea (the date of global PO) that was incorrect in the first place and begin understanding the Peak Oil Dynamic. But feel free to keep bashing all those incorrect PO dates many have put out there. A pig is still a pig no matter how much lipstick you put on it. LOL.
makati1 on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:48 am
GregT, yep. Plants are the only truly ‘renewable’ energy source. Problem is, they cannot sustain even .001% of our current society. And at the rate we are poisoning our soil and killing off the bees, even those are in danger of extinction. But seeing the total picture is too difficult for some here.
rockman on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:50 am
Juan – Did you like my numbers? Was a bit of an effort to add them all up from the data set since I could find a single source that had done it. No wonder almost no one appreciates how technology improvements in the last 40 years has greatly increased out ability to produce our remaining reserves. And to also understand that those reserves will last much longer into the future then many appreciate. The end will still eventually come but there is no “cliff” we’ll run off just down the road.
Rather it’s going to be a rather prolonged lingering death. LOL.
Apneaman on Thu, 12th May 2016 10:50 am
“So much for the anti-American criticism of gmo food. Looks like Europe at the highest level is going to embrace GMO and roundup. What does that tell you!”
It tells me you are a fucking retard.
…….again.
Could you be any more paranoid and delusional?
Is there anything you cannot link to anti americanism?
What a piece of shit, fascist, nationalist, flag waving asshole!
Nagan Srinivasan on Thu, 12th May 2016 11:03 am
The Peak Oil Dilemma vs. Renewable Energy
Deepwater Structures Inc. Houston Texas had started with the technology feasibility and highlights with several international and USA patents on the Ultra Deepwater Drilling and Production, Storage and Offloading. We developed Arctic Drilling Solutions with FPSO vessel of round safe. Now we realized that we are hurting the mother earth and supporting the production of the greenhouse gas emission.
We opened a new company OTECPOWER to produce clean energy and clean water from the temperature gradients of the deep ocean near equators. We transferred the oil and the gas deepwater technology into the OTECPOWER to make this cost effective. We achieved this with the reduced cost of 1.5 million USD per each mega Watt of clean electricity production.
The technology is technically feasible but we did not get the support of the USA government and the from the founding investors. This is one of the best technology to tap the universally large energy source that is stored in the ocean basin for about millions of years by the Sun as the heat energy to the earth.
After that Deepwater Structures Inc developed offshore wind energy and underwater energy storage system in the deep water. Both these technologies are very useful to the world. Offshore wind farm costs 3 million USD for 1 mega Watt electric power production. Hence that is not cost effective. Deep-water Structures Inc. came up with the new technology (patent Pending) that the wind energy could be developed for 1.5 million per mega Watt Power production in the offshore east and the west coast.
Hence this is cheap to go ahead with that. However the system in USA is complicated that the investors are not feasible and the government support is least.
Oil and gas is like the fast food. LNG is going good. Now that the people and the government realized that the clean energy and the clean water is the must for the world.
In reality neither the investors and or the government supports the new technology. The hurdles are large.
However it would take another 15 years to show that the clean energy revolution would happen for sure.
Thanks
Nagan Srinivasan
naganus@yahoo.com
JuanP on Thu, 12th May 2016 11:44 am
Rock, I liked your numbers and I wondered a little about the source. Those numbers agree with what I’ve learned through the years, but like you pointed out this is knowledge acquired through time from many different sources and sorted in my mind, I couldn’t think of a single source that would provide it.
I see no cliff ahead, just more of the same POD playing out. This will most likely be a long, drawn out affair that will play over many decades with things getting slowly worse over time.
Davy on Thu, 12th May 2016 11:45 am
I love bitch slapping assholes. You can always tell when they lose their temper. LOL, even better when it is a dumbass Canadian who thinks he is a rockstar when the reality is he is a dud.
PracticalMaina on Thu, 12th May 2016 12:09 pm
Makati, so hes a businessman, I think that is a given… If he is a ponzi schemer the truth will come forward quickly because he has made huge commitments within 2 years. 500,000 vehicles annually and a integral part of the grid is what he has been saying lately, by 2018. I think he understands that a majority of the world will be forced to acknowledge climate disruption in the near future and we may see a serious push to carbon credits, hence his doubling down lately. From a business sense it may make more sense to grow things at a slower fiscally less intense rate, but I feel he knows a transition needs to happen immediately if it going to happen. He is building everything scale-able which is brilliant, instead of old school large infrastructure with a decade of construction cost before use like a nuclear power plant, the Gigafactory has already been producing product, even though it is only something like 14% completed.
Boat on Thu, 12th May 2016 12:20 pm
onlooker,
” Of course the ultimate denial is that somehow this can be done without fossil fuels and fossil fuels will just magically go away”
Who has said FF are going away except doomers. Ya’ll are so weird to invent arguments of doom that facts don’t support.
rockman on Thu, 12th May 2016 12:24 pm
Juan – The EIA was my sourse. Can’t always trust them for predictions and models but typically the best/only sourse for historical production. Had to copy over yearly production to Excel and manually add. Might try to put a curve up of cum production up: much easier to see the trend.
PracticalMaina on Thu, 12th May 2016 12:37 pm
So they are not producing cells at the Gigafactory yet but assembling cells from Panasonic into grid sized batterys. Which are sold out for 2016. Bank of America got 1.9 billion from the IRS last year, after making a profit, taking a bailout and not paying taxes. That’s probably not even the worst offender, GE or Exxon-Mobil may have them beat, because they profited off the feds and also caused environmental calamity, I am putting the shitty design of Fukashima on GE.
http://front.moveon.org/d-which-corporations-are-the-biggest-freeloaders/
Now look at the companys under Musk, adding a ton of tech jobs, compared to these other companies that are laying people off while robbing the national coffers.
Humanitarian Realist on Thu, 12th May 2016 1:02 pm
I will preface this comment with an apology for my poor grammar and vocabulary limitations.
I am impressed and feel some relief with the depth many of the comments have demonstrated. As all of you have experienced, the VAST majority of the world lacks analytical/deductive reasoning skills. In my opinion our largest problem is the lack of self awareness THE population possesses or more importantly the lack of emotional composure to adjust ones attitude.If we were to demand the implementation of a progressive psychology curriculum in our school systems (our only captivated audience) that teaches our children how to understand the perspective and nature of humanity plus how their own actions feelings are generated, how much better emotionally would we improve our population? With a stronger emotional intelligence how much better would the majority become at the other teachings of our school curriculum, reading, writing, arithmetic, and science? I believe their would be less bullying, less racial issues, more cooperation, less destructive competition. Respectful cooperation should yield positive progress.
One of the results of competition is the desire for superiority, in my opinion an enormous detriment to society. Desire for superiority generates selfish AGENDAS. I believe it is important to understand a person’s (any living creature’s) agenda to best be able to understand their perspective. For instance, the original article is from “AllEarth Solar Power blog”, via deductive reasoning, this leads me to believe perhaps their agenda is possibly for profit. I bring this up to demonstrate the serious nature of psychological health. Another example, in my opinion, of an unhealthy psychological health issue is the comment by a seemingly intelligent person, Davy, being proud and using derogatory verbiage to pat himself on the back for feeling superior. @Davy, I expect you will be offended bu my comment but again it is my opinion and I am sure you have your own. My agenda is to use you as an example of my point.
The world powers use trillions of dollars to protect their civilizations/perspectives from other civilizations/perspectives, I believe we can, (not easily but can) delay many of, or perhaps solve, our extinction destiny by correcting the GLUT of profit the defense contractors receive and use the savings to fund improved education.
I expect the majority have heard of “The Giving Pledge” which many billionaires have subscribed, one of their contributions could be to develop and fund a group of our most intelligent people of the world to cooperate towards possible solutions to extend or eliminate or extinction destiny and with the credentials of being the most intelligent present their solutions to the governments of the world. With the populous being more emotionally stable/capable and the governments being more educated and less competitively agenda-ed, in a decade, our world could be better suited towards progressive cooperation.
Apneaman on Thu, 12th May 2016 1:10 pm
Boat, might not need all that oil in the brave new economy – cept maybe for our killing machines.
They’re Parking the Trains. And the Ships and Planes and Trucks…
“It’s a picture that’s worth a thousand choruses of “Don’t Worry, Be Happy.” Here in the Seventh Straight Successful Year of the Recovery from the Great Recession, tucked into a corner of the Arizona Desert, is a line of parked Union Pacific locomotives. It was discovered on Google Earth, so it is, as they say, visible from space. There are 292 of them, baking in the sun like so many dinosaur skeletons, in a line stretching almost five miles. They, and the people who used to run them, are now “excess capacity” for one of the country’s largest freight haulers. In this, the Seventh Straight Successful Year of the Great Recovery.
No one should be surprised. But even when you know that trade — the buying and selling of stuff — has been slowing down all over the world for years, it is startling to see such stark, graphic evidence that we are all in deep trouble.”
http://www.dailyimpact.net/2016/05/10/theyre-parking-the-trains-and-the-ships-and-planes-and-trucks/
onlooker on Thu, 12th May 2016 1:23 pm
Yep, they will keep just enough for exert their control and power. The elites are like that you know. Love power and control
Apneaman on Thu, 12th May 2016 1:24 pm
Humanitarian Realist, “our most intelligent people of the world” are the ones who dreamed up all the shit that got us into this mess. Steam engine, ICE, atom splitters, etc, etc. Their inventors are among the most intelligent people in history. Many of the cleverest monkeys today work for DARPA, NSA, oil industry, etc etc. More of them?
James Tipper on Thu, 12th May 2016 1:53 pm
Quite the opposite of what people think, peak fossil fuels is also about the same time peak renewables will hit. Let’s not kid ourselves, what is needed to produce, maintain, and create renewable energy is dependent on a massive and unseen fossil fuel infrastructure.
I don’t expect much from people living entirely in the industrialized world, as to see what a world would be like without it would be like asking a fish what they think it’s like to be out of water. But the roads, the creation of solar panels and wind turbines, transportation (truck, boats, rail lines), all the materials required for maintenance (and their transport), and a system to organize it all. Yup, that’s just so easy to maintain with negative fossil fuel energy.
It’s noble I guess but it’s far too late, maybe in the 1970’s or earlier a transition could have been made but it’s not going to happen now.
@Humanitarian Realist
“The world powers use trillions of dollars to protect their civilizations/perspectives from other civilizations/perspectives, I believe we can, (not easily but can) delay many of, or perhaps solve, our extinction destiny by correcting the GLUT of profit the defense contractors receive and use the savings to fund improved education.”
I also shit ice cream, just take a look in my toilet bowl and stick your hand in.
Humanitarian Realist on Thu, 12th May 2016 2:05 pm
@Apneaman… Thanks for your reply.
I hear you. My expectation is that the most intelligent in the world and evaluated/chosen for their emotional health as well, presented with the facts and the cooperative agenda (funded in hope to eliminate self serving agendas) of improving the world would provide several concepts/plans to consider, plus I hope the credentials of intelligence would generate a more open audience.
As the world population grows so does the diverse perspectives generally fueled by selfishness (in my opinion/experience) (human nature? perhaps), hence my belief an agenda towards a more stable emotional populous has the possibility of creating an appreciation for cooperation and thus opening more channels for cooperation.
PracticalMaina on Thu, 12th May 2016 2:24 pm
James Tipper, electronic infrastructure run on a rail system, would require a fraction of the resources currently used to maintain 300million ICE cars and millions of miles of roadways in this country.
Apneaman on Thu, 12th May 2016 2:26 pm
Highly empathetic people with true sapience. That should be the new breeding stock. Still might not work since humans are reward driven dopamine seekers and they are, for the most part, never satisfied (except me). All living things are biologically programmed to degrade as much energy as they can to help increase their reproductive chances. Thus hyper intelligence is deadly. Abstract monkey people have no limits and are creative and relentless rationalizers (except me). Haven’t you been listening to them come up with a nearly infinite number of reasons for not slowing down? Could fill a set of encyclopedias with all the reason. Too late now anyway me thinks.
Stabilizer on Thu, 12th May 2016 2:32 pm
Oil will never peak at $2,000 per BBL. Oil is way past peak at $2 a BBL. The peak depends on the price, with a finite limit of actual oil on the planet, but we have centuries of oil if the price is high enough
Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Thu, 12th May 2016 2:47 pm
Davy could bitch slap a new born infant. Keyboard warrior is so fat and lazy he hasn’t seen his own dick in over a decade.
Apneaman on Thu, 12th May 2016 3:05 pm
I’ve heard the “bitch slap” claim a hundred times. Always made by Davy and no one else. No one has ever commented:
“Davy you done bitch slapped him again”
“Davy, you da man”
“Davy you sure is one bitch slapping champion”
No, nothing like that at all.
It’s technically referred to as the Dunning Kruger effect.
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Boat on Thu, 12th May 2016 3:06 pm
ape,
Our own efficiency just requires less btu’s than in the past. What would growth look like in developed countries without immigration. Bring it on and pass the popcorn.
Davy on Thu, 12th May 2016 3:08 pm
Actually Montreal dumbass I am 6’2″ 185lbs. I am sure you can do the conversions because dumbass Canadians live next to a giant so they have to for survival. I work out Twice a week for 1 1/2 hours. Part is cardio with a bike ride and the rest is weight training. I am not doing this to look shinny. I do this to stay fit so I can do all the other work farming requires. I also fast twice a week eating nothing for a full day. I work out on fast days. It is part of my doomer training. Try not eating and working a 12 hr day farming then working out for 1 1/2 hours. Your dumbass would melt. It is funny you talk about fat because your dumbass Canadian brother on the other side of your dumbass country has an addiction to ice cream. He doesn’t believe in physical activity unless there is money to be made repairing vacuums cleaners. I picture him so fat he can’t see his dick. I picture you as a frail whitish pale kind of guy into stupid things because you are bored from your day trading so you couch set and JO.
Apneaman on Thu, 12th May 2016 3:11 pm
less btu’s? Got a graph showing were using less BTU’s?
I know couple of things it would not look like. The Houston mega water park a few weeks ago and the worlds biggest Bar-B-Que up in Ft Mac.
Hooray for the cancer, boat. Three cheers for the cancer, boat.
Davy on Thu, 12th May 2016 3:15 pm
Ape hole anyone can be a amateurs shrink and Google brat. Good for you. Are you off your bipolar meds? You are exhibiting pressured speech and grandiose behavior today by hogging the board as usual and saying the same redundant thing over and over. How many times can you say cancer and ape in the same sentence.
Apneaman on Thu, 12th May 2016 3:21 pm
I do cardio three times a day.
With friends.
https://beeg.com/