[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')ne electric car uses 20,000 watts of electricity.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'P')lease quit changing the subject and address the issue. Provide detailed proof of the statement in bold.

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')ne electric car uses 20,000 watts of electricity.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'P')lease quit changing the subject and address the issue. Provide detailed proof of the statement in bold.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou never address the issue of scale.

[JohnDenver]

While we're waiting for this irritating standoff between me and Tony to resolve, maybe one of the other readers could give me a hand.

Tony seems to think that some peak oiler, somewhere, in some unnamed/nebulous book or video or something, has actually conclusively proven the following to be true:

Humans cannot replace fossil fuels for all of their uses, on scales that maintain functionality, on a timescale that mitigates the impact of fossil fuel declines, while providing the low-level of environmental protection actually demanded by the electorate.

I'd hate to spend a lot of time trying to disprove a known fact, and Tony seems to be too incompetent/lazy to provide any cites or references. Any help would be appreciated. Who proved the statement in bold? I am very curious to know the name of "the man or woman who addressed scale".

[skyemoor]

While you are spending time answering the two major responses to you I have posted (the last one was simply an observation), I'll comment on this one.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')Humans cannot replace fossil fuels for all of their uses, on scales that maintain functionality, on a timescale that mitigates the impact of fossil fuel declines, while providing the low-level of environmental protection actually demanded by the electorate.

I'd hate to spend a lot of time trying to disprove a known fact

[Drake]

Hmm, I guess it all boils down to what you define as maintaining functionality and the actual available timescale. Does it f.e. mean maintaining the current standard of living in europe or north america (including the big cars etc.) and an average world gdp growth of some 2 percent, some 10 percent in india and china and a world population growth of 1.X percent?
This would obviously make the overall scale much larger than it would be if we defined some other criteria for functionality, including f.e. drops in the living standards (and scooters would fall into that category f.e.).
The world consumes roughly the energy equivalent of 107 million GWh a year at present rates. Let's say 1/3 of it is based on oil, that makes ~35 million GWh a year. Should that oil part start dropping by 3% this would roughly equate to about 1 million GWh which would have to be "replaced" each year (during the first decade). This burden will not be shared equally, I assume the surplus oil producers won't carry any of it (which will hopefully haunt them later). 1 Million GWh equals 114 1 Gigawatt powerplants to be built each year worldwide. That's pretty much. Let's say the US uses about 20 %, so they'd have to make up for some 23 1 Gigawatt plants each year. There will be significant losses in efficiency depending on the actual application but the actual "size" of the problem can imho be evaluated by this calculation.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')ne electric car uses 20,000 watts of electricity.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'W')hile you are spending time answering the two major responses to you I have posted (the last one was simply an observation), I'll comment on this one.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')Humans cannot replace fossil fuels for all of their uses, on scales that maintain functionality, on a timescale that mitigates the impact of fossil fuel declines, while providing the low-level of environmental protection actually demanded by the electorate.

I'd hate to spend a lot of time trying to disprove a known fact

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Drake', 'H')mm, I guess it all boils down to what you define as maintaining functionality and the actual available timescale. Does it f.e. mean maintaining the current standard of living in europe or north america (including the big cars etc.) and an average world gdp growth of some 2 percent, some 10 percent in india and china and a world population growth of 1.X percent?
This would obviously make the overall scale much larger than it would be if we defined some other criteria for functionality, including f.e. drops in the living standards (and scooters would fall into that category f.e.).
The world consumes roughly the energy equivalent of 107 million GWh a year at present rates. Let's say 1/3 of it is based on oil, that makes ~35 million GWh a year. Should that oil part start dropping by 3% this would roughly equate to about 1 million GWh which would have to be "replaced" each year (during the first decade). This burden will not be shared equally, I assume the surplus oil producers won't carry any of it (which will hopefully haunt them later). 1 Million GWh equals 114 1 Gigawatt powerplants to be built each year worldwide. That's pretty much. Let's say the US uses about 20 %, so they'd have to make up for some 23 1 Gigawatt plants each year. There will be significant losses in efficiency depending on the actual application but the actual "size" of the problem can imho be evaluated by this calculation.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Drake', 'S')hould that oil part start dropping by 3% this would roughly equate to about 1 million GWh which would have to be "replaced" each year (during the first decade).

[skyemoor]

(Updates added)

$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.

[skyemoor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')You are looking at things in a U.S./Euro-centric fashion. Yes, the US/Europe can NIMBY nuclear, refuse Russian gas, block LNG, and not use coal because it's icky and dangerous. Forthwith, their power grids and economies will begin to collapse, and it will be OPEN SEASON on NIMBY's and environmentalists.

[skyemoor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', 'S')D_Scott posted a link to a fairly recent Simmons paper called "Another Nail in the Coffin" within the past few days. It had lots of graphs in it, including one at the very end which does show a long plateau.

[Tyler_JC]

The idea that growth in manufactoring is based on some kind of % factor is misleading.

Building a new manufactoring plant is neither expensive nor time-consuming.

I mean, look at China for God's sake. They are building massive factories in a matter of months.

So what happens when the Chinese start building wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars in response to western demand?

[skyemoor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he idea that growth in manufactoring is based on some kind of % factor is misleading.

Building a new manufactoring plant is neither expensive nor time-consuming.

I mean, look at China for God's sake. They are building massive factories in a matter of months.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'T')oy factories are one thing; completely retooling an auto assembly line alone can take a year or more. GM was planning on spending over $2 billion for retooling two auto plants in Oshawa that would take 10-12 months each.
$2.5 billion retooling

[JohnDenver]

Pressed for time this morning, but I want to take care of this part:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')No one offered a real counterargument to 2%. Even Colin Campbell predicts that liquids will decline by 1.8% per year for 20 years after peak. Read the ASPO newsletter and run the numbers. If you've got a genuine argument to refute Stuart Staniford and Colin Campbell, please present it. Show me why a steep decline is probable.