Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby JohnDenver » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 11:38:41

Another data point:
Image
Source
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 12:32:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SolarDave', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'a')cknowledge that you have no solid proof that alternatives (especially nuclear) cannot be scaled up


I think some pretty simple math shows there is not enough coastline or freshwater available for cooling to scale nuclear up to replace equivalent energy use of liquid fuels in the US.

It's just so boring to play the schoolyard "prove it!" game.
Energy use or energy consumption of liquid fuels in the states? They are two entirely different things after all. We have a vehicle fleet that averages about twice what newer hybrid buses get. There isn't much that comes close to the inefficiency of use that's seen in private autos, so stating we would need the same amount of energy we use for powering private autos in order to power a significant EV fleet is a bit silly IMO. Yes, technically if we were to all have EV Fjord Exploders with a 100+ mile range, we would need a lot grid power to charge the 100kWh pack in our $100k+ SUVs for our 100 mile commute. But, due to economic constraints, EVs won't sell in significant numbers at $100-200k, more like ~$25-30k for 100+ miles. Practically speaking, we would only need to generate a tenth or twentieth of the energy we use to power current personal transportation in order to power a reasonable fleet of EVs, or a hundredth/thousandth if we go super spartan ala velomobiles. Yes, sure, if we all had a few hundred thousand lying around we could go buy six passenger EV SUVs with the drag coefficient of bricks for our solo 100 mile commute and we would have trouble generating that much electricity, but I doubt that will happen.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby skyemoor » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 13:05:22

(Updated again)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'I') agree that GTL is not "the solution". ...I am opposed to CTL because it's an idiotic waste of energy. The solution is EVs and conservation.


Ok, more below.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')1. It will still take some time to change over the fleet production to plug-in hybrids and EVs; indeed, there is no current production for the former and tiny percentages for the latter. Retooling assembly lines can take several years, especially if one is attempting to retool ALL of them.

2. The grid isn't intended to suddenly start servicing 100s of millions of electric vehicles. Massive changes would be required. The generation could likely be met, as a recent study showed that spare capacity could be used, though these are in the form of the dirtiest, most inefficient coal plants, so we would begin to blacken the skies, so to speak.


We don't need to worry about both of the above. If 2 is the problem, then you're granting that an EV scale-up is possible


No, I am not or would not have mentioned it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')ll of the growing alternatives (gas, coal, nuclear, hydro and renewables) produce EV fuel (i.e. electricity), and none of them will peak in the pre-peak-gas period (with the possible exception of hydro).


Let's focus on North America for a moment. Natural Gas has been in overall decline (yearly fluctuations notwithstanding), and all of the production is taken up with space heating, current electrical generation, and industrial processes, with the latter two demands having had some curtailment when supplies have been tight over the last few years. I have no confidence in anyone's claims that N.A. natural gas will increase overall in the coming years; just the opposite, in fact. N.A. does not have sufficient LNG transfer facilities at this time to ramp up import (which would further reduce energy independence) even if there were suppliers that could drastically ramp up their delivery. Note that Qatar has to move their shipments through the Persian Gulf, making any conflict with Iran a point at which those supplies become highly unreliable.

New nuclear plants in the US coming on line anytime soon? I'd like to hear about them and their target dates for being fully operational.

Additional hydro facilities? I'd like to hear about those as well, and their expected capacity.

Renewables: you must mean wind, primarily (if not, provide projects, their completion dates, and expected annual kWH output). Wind certainly is growing at a brisk rate, though is still far down the scale when it comes to percentage of US electricity production, probably still less than 1%, certainly less than 2%.

This leaves coal to shoulder the ramp-up in the next decade. Even if the majority of autos produced in the next 10 years where EV or plug-in hybrid, the use of coal to power them would blacken the skies in N.A., the way it is in many parts of China at present, only worse. Who would want or accept that? The push to shutdown attempts to start up new coal plants has a tremendous head of steam in the US.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut expecting people to suddenly change what they are doing to ride scooters and buy only EVs is extremely optimistic (and I consider my self an optimist).

Who said anything about "suddenly" and "only"? The transition doesn't need to happen suddenly, and it won't. These are statistical changes which are driven by prices. It's like popcorn popping as you raise the temperature. Some people just like scooters, and drive them no matter how cheap gas is. Some people switch to a scooter at $2.00 gas, more at $3.00, more at $3.50 and on. Here's a data point:
High Gas Prices Quadruple Scooter Sales in Australia
Calculating from the article, the annual growth rate of scooters in Aus. is about 50%. I would call that explosive. Wouldn't you?

We have to look at the entire picture of the national fleet. 1,000,000 cars were sold in Australia last year. 15,000 scooters represents 1.5% of the vehicles sold, so even if they were to see 50% growth every year for the next five years, scooters would only account for 114,000 vehicles, or still less than 12% of the vehicles sold, far too few to mitigate PO. And note that expanded manufacturing capacity is not simple or straightforward as typing a few numbers on a keyboard.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')re scooters "the solution". No. The "solution" is the entire scope of responses, i.e.:

Conservation = Walking + Bikes + Mopeds + Scooters + Motorcycles + Electric bicycles + Carpooling + Telecommuting + Riding the bus + Moving nearer to work + Sleeping at/near work + Small EVs + Full-size EVs + PHEVs + Hybrids + Light/High-efficiency conventional vehicles etc.

You are now proposing a solution that closely resembles a Heinberg Powerdown. That shows significant movement from your earlier positions; your ability to have an open mind and re-analyze complex situations is admirable.

I'm a big believer in moving towards this type of transportation restructuring; I was on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan committee for my rapidly growing County. Let's look at each of these one by one;

Walking: People should do more of this, though few American do, and suburbanites are in land use hell when it comes to doing much walking at all, especially suburbs that have been developed in the last 40 years (highly auto-dependent). So while city-dwellers can more easily walk and take mass transit (when available), suburbanites and exurbanites are highly discouraged from doing so.

Biking: There are several big drawbacks to biking in the US, many of which I discovered during my bike commuting days;
- Safety: Too many cars/SUVs means the streets are perceived as unsafe. Catch-22.
- Rain/Snow/Sleet is an issue in and around many US population centers. Even Southern California is having to deal with this now.
- Darkness in winter is another problem; people often leave for work or return when it's dark. Longer commute times with bikes only exacerbate this safety issue.
- Distance: With the majority of commutes over 10 miles, biking is perceived as too much work or leaves people too sweaty (with very few offices having showers, much less a large number of showers to support a significant shift to biking).

Mopeds + Scooters + Motorcycles + Electric bicycles: The same issues exist for bikes, for the most part. City and inner suburbs can benefit from these vehicles, assuming pollution levels do not go up, though rain/snow/sleet, safety perceptions, and distance put the chill on these for outer suburbs and exurbs.

Carpooling + Riding the bus: I've done both of these, though the typical American psyche seems highly resistant, especially riding the bus, as that is perceived as something only poor people do.

Telecommuting: I see this trend as being somewhat promising, though the Internet would have to ramp up to cover the massive amount of bandwidth required for virtual meetings (i.e., video and VOIP teleconferencing, electronic whiteboarding, application sharing, and so forth). One has to wonder how many people can truly work from a distance at their jobs, and then what percentage of their companies would not only allow that, but support them with the requisite tools and vastly expanded IT infrastructure?

Moving nearer to work + Sleeping at/near work: How much real estate is sitting vacant near large population centers? What is the cost of renting a room, if there is enough real estate available to build these corporate apartments? This might work for a small percentage of people, but the expense will impact family budgets (and time spent with the family).

Small EVs + Full-size EVs + PHEVs + Hybrids + Light/High-efficiency conventional vehicles: How many of these are available right now? Hybrids are the only ones, and they are stuck at 3% of the market, even with high oil prices. The others are mostly on the drawing board, and will require a minimum of 5 years to get to the market (Volt notwithstanding, though its first years production runs will be low). We won't see appreciable levels of production from these for many years to come, for the reasons of cultural inertia (e.g., "I'm a guy, I need a truck to maintain a guy image", soccer-mom, etc), industry resistance (how will that change the near term profit margin where light trucks are the only thing making money?), political hesitance (it took 30 years to raise CAFE standards). Again, even if the whole industry changed their roadmap overnight, it would still take at least 5 years of retooling (likely much longer, as tooling manufacturers would have backorders of several years), and only then would the fleet begin the 18 year replacement cycle. Do we see signs of such a turnaround? Just yesterday, GM CEO Troy Clarke declared, "Malibu is the most important launch in the history of General Motors." India auto manufacturer Tara Motors will unveil their $2500 car for the Indian population tomorrow. So you can talk about what the world could be doing, but what is it doing in actuality?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')he real-world question is: How many people can that cover, and how fast can that scale?

Precisely. Technology is not the problem. We have the technology to produce high-mpg cars relatively easily. The issues again are;
- Cultural inertia
- Industry resistance
- Political cowardice (at least in one party)
- Time to accomplish a transition; we have little time remaining and so much change required.

A transition could be accomplished in 10 years, though it would require extraordinary efforts on the part of industry, government, and the citizenry, all of which are currently lacking, with little hope of rapid or far-reaching change. You seem to want to dismiss the projections of Robert Hirsch, though I would suggest you compare your resume to his.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'I')'m still waiting for you to read the Oil Drum link on human behaviors, especially those of an addictive nature. Those who live as I do are easily less than 1% of the population. Even if that somehow tripled, that would still be a drop in the bucket.
I did read that link, but I'm not sure why it's relevant. Every junky can/does quit when the stuff runs out. Liquid fuels will get scarce. Ergo, people will stop using liquid fuel vehicles, no matter how addicted they are to them.

If it were only that simple. What is the best selling vehicle in the US right now? Ans: the Ford F-150. Even with prices hovering around $3, the addicts will not back down. So it is not a matter of what can we do right this instant and over the next few years, but what change can be realized by a inculcated population bombarded with SUV advertising and false hopes from bought energy analysts (i.e, Lynch, Yergin, et al). The population doesn't have to be convinced that there is a lot of energy left for them to consume, the just have to have a little bit of doubt that there is a possibility of PO in the near future so that they can stay cozy and warm in the soft cushions of denial. That's the point that you have yet to ken.

Image

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'I') foresee too many people clinging to their old ways just because they think it's 'normal' and because they can.
If they *can* still cling to their old ways, then there's no problem, so what's there to worry about?

Because they will slowly stop buying other products from other areas of the economy ("Hey, but I'm still driving!"), which will drag the economy into a deep recession, on top of what will already be happening from subprime abuses. Personal savings will reach all time lows, and the ability of the US consumer to 'buy' their way out of a recession or depression will be non-existent.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'I')f they *can't* still cling to their old ways, then they will change, and your worries about their inability to change are groundless.

So in a recession, or after they've gone farther into debt to maintain their lifestyle addiction, they'll simply be able to go out and replace their 3 year old F-150 Super Duty Cab with a $25,000 plug-in hybrid? I just had a neighbor buy such a vehicle last fall because he "got such a great deal on dealer markdown." No, you are still being overly optimistic, and they won't get much for their SUV if they try to sell it. Then there's Jeavon's paradox; if some people transition, then prices will drop a little, and the rest of the addicts will be falsely encouraged to stay on the habit. Those who live outside of the inner suburbs will see their house values plummet far further, making them even more financially insecure and unable to purchase an EV/Hybrid/Plug-in/etc.

The following graphic illustrates a broad look at the probability of different scenarios unfolding. It is strictly my opinion (subject to change as events unfold and new information becomes available), as no one can provide a mathematical proof of any of the outcomes. JD's scenario, as I understand it, is the one on the far right.

Image


In short, I see little chance for an outcome that will avoid a serious financial crisis, with collapse a distinct possibility.




--
Last edited by skyemoor on Fri 11 Jan 2008, 15:25:15, edited 2 times in total.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby skyemoor » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 13:30:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'W')hat are the massive years/decades-long investments needed for the following:

This is becoming quite tedious; I would suggest you befriend an industrial engineer, spend a weekend at a cabin somewhere discussing your ideas, and then ask him to spell things out for you.

One of the first things you need to address in your scenario are the assumptions;
- When peak will take place
- What will be the overall petroleum product decline rate
- What will be the investment required to realize your scenario

In the meantime, I'll mention the obvious;

Motorcycles - 1 million sold now; How many do you propose per year as part of your solution? What level of investment would be required to realize this change in manufacturing?

Electric bicycles - How many are sold now? How many do you propose per year as part of your solution? What level of investment would be required to realize this change in manufacturing?

Carpooling - Only change required is IT investment for coordination.

Telecommuting - What do you understand about virtual office software, usage profiles, server bandwidth requirements, network bandwidth requirements? What infrastructure changes do you propose to meet your solution? What will be the costs required for these investments?

Riding the bus - How many people riding buses? How many more buses would be required? What is the current production rate of buses? What investment would be required to realize your scenario?

Moving nearer to work - How many people moving closer to work? What changes to real estate costs near work centers would price out all but the first (or wealthiest) commuters? How many new buildings would be required to be built? How can you expect someone to virtually abandon a mortgaged home in the outer suburbs and buy/rent a new place, especially when a significant percentage of others are attempting to compete for the same homes near work centers?

Sleeping at/near work - (basically) Same questions as above

Small EVs - How many are sold now? How many do you propose per year as part of your solution? What level of investment would be required to realize this change in manufacturing? What level of resources for the batteries are available to meet the volume required for your scenario? What price spikes would occur as the resources suddenly become in high demand?

Full-size EVs - same questions as above.

Electric trucks - same questions as above.

PHEVs - same questions as above.

Hybrids - same questions as above.

Ultralight/Ultraefficient conventional vehicles - same questions as above.

Buying a used compact car as a second vehicle - As gas prices increase, how many will actually be available? What number are you proposing?

Jacking up CAFE standards - Senate filibuster likely of rates higher than the current (until post-peak, when it becomes meaningless).

Increasing downtown parking rates - No issue here, though businesses create political pushback.

Lowering speed limits - Driver pushback

Compressed work week - Already in use in many places, though would everyplace shut down on Fridays?

So, if you want us to seriously consider your approach, you need to put numbers behind them. I realize much of what I've asked for is beyond your domain knowledge (no insult intended), but this information is still required in order to evaluate your scenario at even the most basic level.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'W')hat do you mean, "when the fuel begins to run short"? Are you expecting some kind of discontinuous drop-off? Or interruption?


Are you denying that demand destruction is already taking place? And that fuel shortages have even been reported in the US?


--
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 13:43:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'B')uying a used compact car as a second vehicle - As gas prices increase, how many will actually be available? What number are you proposing?
Supposedly there are ~135 million registered cars on the road. Since CAFE has been at ~25mpg for the last couple decades and includes light trucks/minivans/light SUVs, the current car fleet on the road probably averages ~30+mpg, but a conservative estimate would put at least ~80 million cars capable of ~30+mpg on the road today. This naturally doesn't include any cars that aren't registered, and I would say that a realistic estimate is somewhere around 100-120million cars, both registered and not, capable of getting 30+mpg.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 13:50:17

Re: Campbell and decline rates, see Presentation at the Technical University of Clausthal from Dec 2000.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '4')4 Peak dates
In short
· Conventional oil peaks around 2005
· All hydrocarbons around 2010
· Gas around 2020
· Gas liquids peak a little after gas, as extraction rates increase
· The decline after peak is about 3% a year


Not sure what Campbell figures for a DR nowadays.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby skyemoor » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 14:03:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'B')uying a used compact car as a second vehicle - As gas prices increase, how many will actually be available? What number are you proposing?
Supposedly there are ~135 million registered cars on the road. Since CAFE has been at ~25mpg for the last couple decades and includes light trucks/minivans/light SUVs, the current car fleet on the road probably averages ~30+mpg, but a conservative estimate would put at least ~80 million cars capable of ~30+mpg on the road today. This naturally doesn't include any cars that aren't registered, and I would say that a realistic estimate is somewhere around 100-120million cars, both registered and not, capable of getting 30+mpg.


First, the CAFE requirement for cars has been 27.5 mpg for decades. That means roughly half get worse, half get better. As there is a significant percentage sold in the 25-30 mpg range, conservative estimate for those getting 30+ mpg might be 55 million. Out of those, 10 million are probably on their last legs. Those that are not registered, if they are already recycled, are likely rusting up on blocks.

From a personal perspective, buying a used fuel efficient car can make sense if you truly need a car. Of course, there are other lifestyle changes one could take instead, or in addition to.

However, the change to the overall US fleet mpg does not change, as the same number of efficient used cars is in use. So this is one mitigation at a personal level, it does not count as a mitigation at a national (or global) level.
Last edited by skyemoor on Fri 11 Jan 2008, 14:09:09, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby SolarDave » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 14:04:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SolarDave', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'a')cknowledge that you have no solid proof that alternatives (especially nuclear) cannot be scaled up


I think some pretty simple math shows there is not enough coastline or freshwater available for cooling to scale nuclear up to replace equivalent energy use of liquid fuels in the US.

It's just so boring to play the schoolyard "prove it!" game.
Energy use or energy consumption of liquid fuels in the states? They are two entirely different things after all. We have a vehicle fleet that averages about twice what newer hybrid buses get. There isn't much that comes close to the inefficiency of use that's seen in private autos, so stating we would need the same amount of energy we use for powering private autos in order to power a significant EV fleet is a bit silly IMO. Yes, technically if we were to all have EV Fjord Exploders with a 100+ mile range, we would need a lot grid power to charge the 100kWh pack in our $100k+ SUVs for our 100 mile commute. But, due to economic constraints, EVs won't sell in significant numbers at $100-200k, more like ~$25-30k for 100+ miles. Practically speaking, we would only need to generate a tenth or twentieth of the energy we use to power current personal transportation in order to power a reasonable fleet of EVs, or a hundredth/thousandth if we go super spartan ala velomobiles. Yes, sure, if we all had a few hundred thousand lying around we could go buy six passenger EV SUVs with the drag coefficient of bricks for our solo 100 mile commute and we would have trouble generating that much electricity, but I doubt that will happen.


Good points. You have essentially built the case that we only need one tenth or twentieth of the RENEWABLE energy that would be needed to power our transportation as well.

Part of the slipperiness of this debate is that one side argues what is happening and the other counters with what could happen. In other words, the debate is meaningless.
100% of the electricity needed for this post was generated by ME.
http://www.los-gatos.ca.us/davidbu/pedgen/green_virtual_gym.html
Posted from a Pedal Powered Computer
User avatar
SolarDave
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 14:08:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '[')url=http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html]Supposedly[/url] there are ~135 million registered cars on the road.


You have doubts about statistics from the BTS?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'E')lectric bicycles - How many are sold now?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd as oil and gas prices rise, the Segway's energy efficiency--equivalent to 450 miles per gallon--could make the vehicle more attractive. The same factors might boost popularity of electric bicycles, whose U.S. sales have climbed from about 35,000 in 2002 to 45,000 in 2003. And 2004 sales are expected to reach 65,000, says electric bicycle expert Ed Benjamin, whose website tracks world sales.

Still, the U.S. market lags far behind that in China, for instance. The Chinese, Benjamin notes, will buy seven million electric bikes in 2004, up from four million in 2003. What accounts for the slower U.S. start? "Most major bicycle companies experimented with low-power electric bikes in the late 1990s," says Benjamin. But, he says, most of the bikes were too expensive, not powerful enough and sometimes not reliable. Service on electric bikes has been hard to obtain. Consumers ended up disappointed with the product, and companies were disappointed with sales.


From Plugged in: E-Bikes and Segways are slow to catch on—but rebates help.

Check out that Google Answers page I linked to earlier - the total scoop on bikes/scooters.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby SolarDave » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 14:08:39

Wow, this intellectual point and counterpoint is really hard to follow!

I'll help the readers by deleting all the parts of your reply that were not relevant to my point:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SolarDave', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'a')cknowledge that you have no solid proof that alternatives (especially nuclear) cannot be scaled up


I think some pretty simple math shows there is not enough coastline or freshwater available for cooling to scale nuclear up to replace equivalent energy use of liquid fuels in the US.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SolarDave', 'I')t's just so boring to play the schoolyard "prove it!" game.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SolarDave', 'J')D - prove there is enough cooling. I'm going to bed.

100% of the electricity needed for this post was generated by ME.
http://www.los-gatos.ca.us/davidbu/pedgen/green_virtual_gym.html
Posted from a Pedal Powered Computer
User avatar
SolarDave
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 14:22:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '[')url=http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html]Supposedly[/url] there are ~135 million registered cars on the road.


You have doubts about statistics from the BTS?
The only thing I don't have my doubts about is math by virtue of it's construction. Everything else gets some quantitative and/or qualitative degree of probability. :-D
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby skyemoor » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 15:14:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'A') transition could be accomplished in 10 years, though it would require extraordinary efforts on the part of industry, government, and the citizenry, all of which are currently lacking, with little hope of rapid or far-reaching change.
Do you honestly think 10 years? Transition to what? Remember that it takes about 15 years to replace the car fleet, under normal conditions (which includes one's car having resale value). I'm not sure what transition you're talking about. Would the result be sustainability or would we have to undertake another transition later?


I was taking Robert Hirsch's scenarios at face value, and the one mentioned here is his 10 year scenario. I believe it to be daunting, as getting Government, industry, and the general public fully behind a massive push 10 years before peak would be a very difficult task, given the Yergin's, Lynch's, IEAs, etc. A looming (or past) peak notwithstanding...
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 15:15:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'F')irst, the CAFE requirement for cars has been 27.5 mpg for decades. That means roughly half get worse, half get better.
Not exactly... It's not like we have a bell curve of cars the make up CAFE. Outliers, such as muscle cars on one end, or hybrids on the other, can significantly impact the overall figures. I need more info, but considering light trucks/minivans/inefficient cars are dragging down CAFE, I think there are more than 55 million registered cars getting better than 30mpg, but I need to find production numbers on different models before I can say so concretely.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'H')owever, the change to the overall US fleet mpg does not change, as the same number of efficient used cars is in use. So this is one mitigation at a personal level, it does not count as a mitigation at a national (or global) level.
Of course it can. Even if the number/proportion of registered vehicles stays the same it doesn't mean we can't cut fuel use. That depends on the proportion of use. Lets say I have a truck and car registered and use the truck most of the time. If I start using the car most of the time all things being equal I will cut my fuel use drastically w/o changing the vehicles I have registered. The same applies on a national scale. Even if the number of vehicles that get about Xmpg doesn't change, their use could increase while the use of other vehicles that gets worse mileage decreases, in order to reduce consumption, w/o any change in the overall US fleet mpg.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SolarDave', 'G')ood points. You have essentially built the case that we only need one tenth or twentieth of the RENEWABLE energy that would be needed to power our transportation as well.
What do you mean by renewable and over what time frame? Given some nonrenewable resource we can expect to power some activity for some time. That being said, in the past couple centuries we have leaped forward technologically and can exploit many different resources for many different things. This puts those who control certain resources in a precarious position because if they don't take measures to insure enough use, they'll be outa business w/o much to show for it. Oil isn't used because we need an energy dense substance for it's applications, it's applications were brought about because oil's energy density necessitated considerable consumption in order to maximize revenue. :)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SolarDave', 'P')art of the slipperiness of this debate is that one side argues what is happening and the other counters with what could happen. In other words, the debate is meaningless.
Well shoot. If we ain't gonna think about what could happen then I suppose any debate is meaningless. And here I was, gonna ramble on about electric velomobiles with someone I considered of like mind, but since they aren't being produced right now I guess we shouldn't even bother because any discussion about things that aren't happening right now is meaningless to you.

P.S. I suppose then that talking about whether we have peaked or not is meaningless too? It could happen, but why talk about things that could happen... :lol:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby skyemoor » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 16:25:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'F')irst, the CAFE requirement for cars has been 27.5 mpg for decades. That means roughly half get worse, half get better.
Not exactly... It's not like we have a bell curve of cars the make up CAFE. Outliers, such as muscle cars on one end, or hybrids on the other, can significantly impact the overall figures. I need more info, but considering light trucks/minivans/inefficient cars are dragging down CAFE, I think there are more than 55 million registered cars getting better than 30mpg, but I need to find production numbers on different models before I can say so concretely.


Pickups, SUVs, and minivans fell under the light truck CAFE requirement, which was for years pegged at 20.5 mpg. Bush 'changed' the requirement in 2006 by a modest amount to appear green, but this was overturned by the Ninth District Court last November. http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/rel ... -11-15.asp


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'H')owever, the change to the overall US fleet mpg does not change, as the same number of efficient used cars is in use. So this is one mitigation at a personal level, it does not count as a mitigation at a national (or global) level.
Of course it can. Even if the number/proportion of registered vehicles stays the same it doesn't mean we can't cut fuel use. That depends on the proportion of use. Lets say I have a truck and car registered and use the truck most of the time. If I start using the car most of the time all things being equal I will cut my fuel use drastically w/o changing the vehicles I have registered. The same applies on a national scale. Even if the number of vehicles that get about Xmpg doesn't change, their use could increase while the use of other vehicles that gets worse mileage decreases, in order to reduce consumption, w/o any change in the overall US fleet mpg.


This assumes that the vehicles weren't used much by the previous owner. Or that most new car buyers will by cars that average far higher than CAFE, which becomes difficult to realize when the auto companies start giving huge discounts on their gas guzzlers. When gas hits $4/gallon, enough impetus may reach the masses, but to-date we are seeing incremental change, i.e., not enough is taking place to count as a mitigation.

2007 Automaker MPG average up less than 1 mpg
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 17:18:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'P')ickups, SUVs, and minivans fell under the light truck CAFE requirement, which was for years pegged at 20.5 mpg. Bush 'changed' the requirement in 2006 by a modest amount to appear green, but this was overturned by the Ninth District Court last November. http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/rel ... -11-15.asp
Well I'll be. But aren't there some that don't fall under even the light truck CAFE? Supposedly the US fleet average is 17.1mpg, so there must be some horribly inefficient vehicles out there. If I can find some more info on vehicle production numbers I can make a fair estimate of how large a vehicle fleet could see a combined 30mpg. Yes I changed the criteria. :)


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'H')owever, the change to the overall US fleet mpg does not change, as the same number of efficient used cars is in use. So this is one mitigation at a personal level, it does not count as a mitigation at a national (or global) level.
Of course it can. Even if the number/proportion of registered vehicles stays the same it doesn't mean we can't cut fuel use. That depends on the proportion of use. Lets say I have a truck and car registered and use the truck most of the time. If I start using the car most of the time all things being equal I will cut my fuel use drastically w/o changing the vehicles I have registered. The same applies on a national scale. Even if the number of vehicles that get about Xmpg doesn't change, their use could increase while the use of other vehicles that gets worse mileage decreases, in order to reduce consumption, w/o any change in the overall US fleet mpg.
This assumes that the vehicles weren't used much by the previous owner. Or that most new car buyers will by cars that average far higher than CAFE, which becomes difficult to realize when the auto companies start giving huge discounts on their gas guzzlers.
I think you may want to reread it. The only thing it assumes is that use of more efficient vehicles can go up while use of relatively inefficient vehicles goes down in order to illustrate that mitigation can happen without a change in US fleet mpg. I made no mention of more efficient new cars or relatively efficient cars changing hands, although those are both possible.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'W')hen gas hits $4/gallon, enough impetus may reach the masses, but to-date we are seeing incremental change, i.e., not enough is taking place to count as a mitigation.I doubt it. What seemed to spur the increases in the 70s/80s were rapid/large price swings as well as fewer relatively efficient vehicles, and we haven't. seen anything near those. All I have to say is that a watched frog never boils. :wink:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby Drake » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 18:30:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'W')hen gas hits $4/gallon, enough impetus may reach the masses, but to-date we are seeing incremental change, i.e., not enough is taking place to count as a mitigation.


The average price here in germany today is some $7,30/gallon (1,4€/litre) and the common reaction is complaining and that's about it, so I wouldn't put to much hope into the "enough impetus" part.
People are on average pretty inert and the fact that the price increments in small doses and people get used to it pretty fast doesn't help either.
User avatar
Drake
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri 04 Jan 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 21:03:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Drake', 'T')he average price here in germany today is some $7,30/gallon (1,4€/litre) and the common reaction is complaining and that's about it, so I wouldn't put to much hope into the "enough impetus" part.
People are on average pretty inert and the fact that the price increments in small doses and people get used to it pretty fast doesn't help either.
Keep in mind us Americans are much more wasteful than you Europeans. We use twice as much gas per person as you do(and twice as much energy, paper, water, waste, etc.) If we could get done to German levels that would be a huge improvement right there.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby JohnDenver » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 22:12:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')he real-world question is: How many people can that cover, and how fast can that scale?


Precisely. Technology is not the problem. We have the technology to produce high-mpg cars relatively easily.

You're conceding much of my point -- i.e. that there are no technological barriers to scaling up alternatives. As you recall, in this thread we are evaluating the claim that "alternatives *cannot* be scaled up".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'T')he issues again are;
- Cultural inertia
- Industry resistance
- Political cowardice (at least in one party)
- Time to accomplish a transition; we have little time remaining and so much change required.

You have yet to demonstrate that little time remains. You're simply expressing your opinion. Please prove that we have little time remaining.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'A') transition could be accomplished in 10 years

Here you have totally conceded my point. You admit that a transition is possible, and therefore, the statement that "alternatives cannot be scaled" is false.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'I')'m still waiting for you to read the Oil Drum link on human behaviors, especially those of an addictive nature. Those who live as I do are easily less than 1% of the population. Even if that somehow tripled, that would still be a drop in the bucket.
I did read that link, but I'm not sure why it's relevant. Every junky can/does quit when the stuff runs out. Liquid fuels will get scarce. Ergo, people will stop using liquid fuel vehicles, no matter how addicted they are to them.

If it were only that simple.
It is that simple. You're blowing a lot of smoke below, but the fact remains. "Liquid fuels will get scarce, therefore people will stop using liquid fuel vehicles" is a stone-cold irrefutable fact.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemore', 'W')hat is the best selling vehicle in the US right now? Ans: the Ford F-150. Even with prices hovering around $3, the addicts will not back down. So it is not a matter of what can we do right this instant and over the next few years, but what change can be realized by a inculcated population bombarded with SUV advertising and false hopes from bought energy analysts (i.e, Lynch, Yergin, et al). The population doesn't have to be convinced that there is a lot of energy left for them to consume, the just have to have a little bit of doubt that there is a possibility of PO in the near future so that they can stay cozy and warm in the soft cushions of denial. That's the point that you have yet to ken.

Image

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'I') foresee too many people clinging to their old ways just because they think it's 'normal' and because they can.
If they *can* still cling to their old ways, then there's no problem, so what's there to worry about?
Because they will slowly stop buying other products from other areas of the economy ("Hey, but I'm still driving!"), which will drag the economy into a deep recession,
From the standpoint of the global economy, the discretionary income lost by driving fools in the US is gained as discretionary income by the oil vendors in oil exporting nations. The money that the US used to spend on junk from China at Walmart will shift to buying oil from the UAE, whose newly flush consumers will be buying junk from China at Arab Mart etc. As long as money keeps being spent, the world economy will not fall into recession. Precisely where the money goes isn't that important.
The issue in this thread is human beings (i.e. the world economy), not Americans.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'I')f they *can't* still cling to their old ways, then they will change, and your worries about their inability to change are groundless.

So in a recession, or after they've gone farther into debt to maintain their lifestyle addiction, they'll simply be able to go out and replace their 3 year old F-150 Super Duty Cab with a $25,000 plug-in hybrid?
Maybe. All economic activity does not cease in a recession. Japanese cars made huge inroads into the the US market during the oil shocks and recessions of the 1970s-80s.

Anyway, your reasoning is far too simplistic. The economy cannot be accurately modeled as one stubborn guy with an F-150, whose only option is a $25,000 plug-in.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'I') just had a neighbor buy such a vehicle last fall because he "got such a great deal on dealer markdown." No, you are still being overly optimistic, and they won't get much for their SUV if they try to sell it. Then there's Jeavon's paradox; if some people transition, then prices will drop a little, and the rest of the addicts will be falsely encouraged to stay on the habit. Those who live outside of the inner suburbs will see their house values plummet far further, making them even more financially insecure and unable to purchase an EV/Hybrid/Plug-in/etc.

The following graphic illustrates a broad look at the probability of different scenarios unfolding. It is strictly my opinion (subject to change as events unfold and new information becomes available), as no one can provide a mathematical proof of any of the outcomes. JD's scenario, as I understand it, is the one on the far right.

Image


In short, I see little chance for an outcome that will avoid a serious financial crisis, with collapse a distinct possibility.
Your opinions don't prove anything. Also, your image link isn't working. Can you post it again so I can see what my scenario looks like?
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby JohnDenver » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 23:01:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'O')ne of the first things you need to address in your scenario are the assumptions;
- When peak will take place

There will be a long plateau, not a sharp peak. Decline will begin later, rather than sooner.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-') What will be the overall petroleum product decline rate

On the average, less than 2% for 20 years. I'm on the record with the following prediction:
"World C&C production will decline at an average annual rate of 1% for 15 years after the world C&C peak (whether that be May 2005, or some future date)."
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-') What will be the investment required to realize your scenario


See below

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'I')n the meantime, I'll mention the obvious;

Motorcycles - 1 million sold now; How many do you propose per year as part of your solution? What level of investment would be required to realize this change in manufacturing?

Electric bicycles - How many are sold now? How many do you propose per year as part of your solution? What level of investment would be required to realize this change in manufacturing?

Carpooling - Only change required is IT investment for coordination.

Telecommuting - What do you understand about virtual office software, usage profiles, server bandwidth requirements, network bandwidth requirements? What infrastructure changes do you propose to meet your solution? What will be the costs required for these investments?

Riding the bus - How many people riding buses? How many more buses would be required? What is the current production rate of buses? What investment would be required to realize your scenario?

Moving nearer to work - How many people moving closer to work? What changes to real estate costs near work centers would price out all but the first (or wealthiest) commuters? How many new buildings would be required to be built? How can you expect someone to virtually abandon a mortgaged home in the outer suburbs and buy/rent a new place, especially when a significant percentage of others are attempting to compete for the same homes near work centers?

Sleeping at/near work - (basically) Same questions as above

Small EVs - How many are sold now? How many do you propose per year as part of your solution? What level of investment would be required to realize this change in manufacturing? What level of resources for the batteries are available to meet the volume required for your scenario? What price spikes would occur as the resources suddenly become in high demand?

Full-size EVs - same questions as above.

Electric trucks - same questions as above.

PHEVs - same questions as above.

Hybrids - same questions as above.

Ultralight/Ultraefficient conventional vehicles - same questions as above.

Buying a used compact car as a second vehicle - As gas prices increase, how many will actually be available? What number are you proposing?

Jacking up CAFE standards - Senate filibuster likely of rates higher than the current (until post-peak, when it becomes meaningless).

Increasing downtown parking rates - No issue here, though businesses create political pushback.

Lowering speed limits - Driver pushback

Compressed work week - Already in use in many places, though would everyplace shut down on Fridays?

So, if you want us to seriously consider your approach, you need to put numbers behind them. I realize much of what I've asked for is beyond your domain knowledge (no insult intended), but this information is still required in order to evaluate your scenario at even the most basic level.


Skyemoor, I'm not going to develop the approach for you, because:
a) I don't live in the U.S., and really don't care what happens there. (In fact, I'm dying to watch Americans glumly shuffling into the bus on the TV news. It's really taking a long time to get to that point though :cry:) Anyway, the solution for the U.S. is *your* problem, not mine, so I'll let you handle the details. You're the one worried about collapse. Best get busy. :twisted:
b) I'm not a central planner in the soviet government. The market will determine the necessary levels of investment in scooters, motorcycles, EVs, buses etc.
c) It's obvious that the U.S. has the money to implement the solution. The DOD budget is $400 billion a year. $130 billion is already being spent every year on transport. If necessary, you can borrow from the Chinese, Russians or the Saudis etc. They're all flush with your money anyway.
d) It's also obvious that my solution is the solution, and it's going to get implemented, hell or high water, because the Americans don't have a choice. It's either solve the problem, or go down the toilet while all your enemies laugh and razz you.
e) Your neurotic negativity about solutions is really grating and tedious.
f) I think I'd rather go have coffee and a donut.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'W')hat do you mean, "when the fuel begins to run short"? Are you expecting some kind of discontinuous drop-off? Or interruption?

Are you denying that demand destruction is already taking place? And that fuel shortages have even been reported in the US?
Sorry, a question isn't an answer to a question. Your pathetic "diesel shortage" in Dakota was a one-off logistical glitch.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Flops on the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby skyemoor » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 23:08:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')Precisely. Technology is not the problem. We have the technology to produce high-mpg cars relatively easily.

You're conceding much of my point -- i.e. that there are no technological barriers to scaling up alternatives.


You can't add your own spin to my statement into your strawman; I believe the chances of us scaling up alternatives fast enough are very remote.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'T')he issues again are;
- Cultural inertia
- Industry resistance
- Political cowardice (at least in one party)
- Time to accomplish a transition; we have little time remaining and so much change required.

You have yet to demonstrate that little time remains. You're simply expressing your opinion. Please prove that we have little time remaining.


You are aware of the information available concerning peak oil, so you are also aware that there is neither proof either way. I am going under the assumption that the peak will likely occur on or before 2012, if it hasn't already.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'A') transition could be accomplished in 10 years
Here you have totally conceded my point. You admit that a transition is possible, and therefore, the statement that "alternatives cannot be scaled" is false.

You have deceitfully removed the qualifying portion of the statement, "though it would require extraordinary efforts on the part of industry, government, and the citizenry, all of which are currently lacking, with little hope of rapid or far-reaching change". Such a removal changed the entire meaning, and I see you did that in other places further in your response. It can only mean that you have not the fortitude to justly defend your ideas, but are left to flail at strawmen.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'Y')our opinions don't prove anything.

Spoken by the person who has yet to prove one thing on this forum or provide any support for his starry-eyed Pollyanna scenario beyond "because I say so!". It was certainly too much to expect to reason with someone who has utterly and entirely staked his reputation on refuting Peak Oil.

You may continue to stand on your soapbox and hoarsely admonish the passersby, but don't expect them to give you the time of day. And I'll be there if you collar an unsuspecting newbie.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron