[raizcapoeira]

Can anyone give me a reason as to why so many people (including a number of former peakniks) have so readily endorsed this idea that peak oil is "dead"? To me, for anyone to so readily reject peak oil on the grounds that somehow what they personally believed would materialize didn't exactly happen is rather ridiculous. A rough analog is people rejecting Malthusian equilibrium out of hand because of a ridiculous superficiality which the actual mechanics of the theory allow for.

The model didn't exactly fail, either:

[SeaGypsy]

Could cut and paste from dozens of threads here to answer that. Primarily the MSM and vested interests across the board have nothing to gain and much to lose by general awareness of the truth. Investment flows are required to prevent catastrophic collapse in supply. These require medium term confidence, years and even decades of return. Although the line 'peak oil is dead' is a big fat lie- it may just be the lie which is preventing rapid descent to Olduvai's gorge. Certainly the tripling of prices in the last few years is helping prevent this, create the current plateau, buying some time- for better or worse.

[Rune]

I came to the conclusion that peak oil would not be a sudden event with a precipitous decline.

If anything, there will be a time to go until peak, and then it will plateau for quite a while and then the decline may not be that steep. I think of the many reports of natural gas supplies lasting for a very long time.

But still, the use of fossil fuels is problematic. It is a problem because it's heavy, global, wide-spread use keeps the price high. It's a problem because of CO2 emissions. It's a problem because of health hazards, It's a re-current geopolitical problem.

And it surely will not last forever. I am glad the price is where it is. I think it'ls very likely that peak oil will be a demand peak.

But I became aware of alternatives that are clearly atractive, to me and a whole lot of other people - not neccessarily most people around here.

My favorite for clean, green, baseload energy would be Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors. If you want to read a great historical overview, read "Superfuel" by Richard Martin. You won't be disappointed.

Or go to http://www.Flibe-Energy.com or EnergyFromThorium.com.

It just makes so much sense and you really could run civilization for millenia on it. Look at some of my posts in "Aternatives To Fossil Fuels" thread. You could even make liquid fuels using them.

Then, I follow other new energy developments such as Joule Unlimited's approach. There is a thread around here on that - BBC Horizon Covers Joule Unlimited. I follow developments in efficiency such as the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell which will be commercialized in a few years and which doubles the efficiency over internal combustion engines.

I have not forgotten about the huge deposits of Heavy Oil that can be found in various places like Venezuela. Do I think that there might be some innovation that allows for cheaper production of heavy oil? Well, I would not bet against it.

If they can frack shale, they can use produce and use heavy oil - not that I would want them to.

In a crisis, human beings innovate rapidly - think Manhattan Project during WWII.

It would only take 5 years and a billion bucks to achieve a design for, say, a 300MW Small Modular, Factory-Produced, Thermal Breeding LFTR. You could use them in isolated areas or you could group them together to function as a larger unit.

Once you have 5 factories up and running, you could build a lot of them. Thorium is very abundant and extremely safe compared to the Uranium fuel Cycle. The Chinese have a well-funded program, hiring top-talent, to originate a design eventually replace their coal industry. They claim they could run their civilzation for 20,000 years on Thorium.

And I have not forgotten about advanced solar and an array of other energy technologies. I just pick on a few that I like and follow their development.I follow developments in Hot Fusion, which looks like it could be a reality by the 2030s.
I am referrin to NIFs efforts with Laser-Inertial Fusion. Look up LIFE Reactor.

I am simply not so unnecessarily pessimistic about science, innovation and the rate of development of new technologies as most of the other posters around here.

But it is clear to me that there will be plenty of time to develop technologies like this because fossil fuels will be with us for a long enough time.

[lowem]

Lost track of the number of times we've flipped/flopped over the idea of whether it will be a fast crash, slow crash or an ongoing undulating plateau. Plateau guys might turn out to have been right. People are going about business-as-usual, stock markets particularly the S&P500 seem to have broken all time highs, and that in itself is a little bit worrying.

[raizcapoeira]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'B')e careful there scrubroot, your charts assume a symmetrical logistic curve (often modeling population growth and decline) that does not necessarily describe oil regions, including earth. Oil production does not necessarily follow such a predictable pattern. But yeah, you are right,some people have no faith.

Others have too much faith in fancy toys. Many such as Rune, simply ignore evidence that our industrial civilization is already rusting away, and can not support $100 oil, 7 billion humans or his techo dreams. He doesn't believe in economics or limits apparently.

[sparky]

.
On Britain building a new power plant
the underlying politic is fascinating , so is the base price estimate
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/2 ... 3X20131020

the French , Japannese , Russian and Chinese are now the big weight in nuclear technology
from the mining to the reprocessing
I doubt if enough competent nuclear engineers could be found in the U.S.
to build a new one

If no nuclear , then the last solution , the power of prayer
Archbishop of Canterbury said suppliers should be "conscious of their social obligations".
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/2 ... 3B20131020

[dolanbaker]

If vehicle fuel economy (mpg) had remained at 1970s levels, peak oil would have come & gone by now.
Chances are we would have seen the introduction of wide spread fuel rationing in most countries around the world, or fuel prices so high that only the top 50% of employees being able to afford to run a car.

[ralfy]

I'd look at oil production per capita.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '
')If no nuclear , then the last solution , the power of prayer
Archbishop of Canterbury said suppliers should be "conscious of their social obligations".
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/2 ... 3B20131020

[dolanbaker]

I should have also added,
Substitution of other fossil fuels is also a major mittigating factor, without which oil consumption over the past 30 years would have been much higher.

[Pops]

I don't recall who said it but, "Depletion never sleeps" - it certainly never dies, for every barrel that is extracted, someone somewhere needs to find and develop another or the flow slows.

Time and scale have always been the question, I like this chart:



Russia (yellow line) kept the wolf away in the oughts, I don't know anything about them, or what is the reason they are plateaued. The US is keeping the wolf away in the teens, personally I think the tight oil miracle can't be replicated elsewhere at the scale seen here and I'm not sure it can be replicated here but that's just an opinion.

MENA still has a kick or two (Iran, Sudan, Iraq) then there is Brazil, the arctic, etc.

The question of course is, and has always been, what will replace the giants. It's the old 80/20 rule; most of our oil comes from just a few giant - and pretty old, oil fields. Without a replacement giant, when one more line on that chart starts looking like the European line, the fix is in. The boosters say we'll replace one giant with thousands of midgets, maybe.

[Rune]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for thorium, it kinda reminds me of methane hydrates. So close but so far away; ultimately unfeasible. At least its proponents aren't as completely and utterly deluded as nuclear fusion dead-enders and aspiring asteroid miners are.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('raizcapoeira', 'C')an anyone give me a reason as to why so many people (including a number of former peakniks) have so readily endorsed this idea that peak oil is "dead"?

[rollin]

Besides the obvious cornucopian blitz of "news" about oil production gains from various new technologies and unconventional non-crude oil production sources, there has been a deliberate inclusion of any liquid fuel by national and international agencies, thus enlarging and confusing the numbers. Add to this the obvious plateau of production due to extensive fracking and deep water drilling, time has marched on.

The length of time, over ten years from the first predictions and the passing of stated dates where oil production would crest and start to fall, produce a wearing effect on the mind. One can only stay in a heightened state for so long before it either causes physical damage to the body and mind or the person must shift his outlook to a calmer state. I think many peak oil people have shifted downward to a more practical and day to day outlook, and are just not thinking about it as much. They will resurface as more dramatic data and effects pile in.

My analysis concludes the 2017 to 2023 period to be the first of the major peak oil step downs into descent for the more developed world. Of course we all know that the effects are current and continuing. It is just that they are not dramatic or de-convoluted enough for the mainstream to see them as peak oil effects. Or they can be spun as individual incidents or economic problems.

So for now the great dream will go forward, at least for some or at least in the minds of many.
For such an adaptable species we certainly don't do well with obvious change.

[dorlomin]

Currently here in the UK, energy is often the first and second lead story on the days news. Over the past few months it is rarely out of the top 3 stories. We have slumped 20% in petrol sales on the past 6 years.

Today the former conservative Prime Minister was calling for a windfall tax on the energy suppliers to pay for heating for the poorest over the winter. Yesterday it was a new nuclear plant with a strike price double current energy prices together with another big company giving a 10% hike in costs.

The bland sloganeering of the 'Peak Oil is Dead' crew holds little water when fear for the fate of our poorest and elderly grips the country over their ability to get through winter.

The fugue that weaves itself in and out of the current news items is a leitmotif of or two headed problem: An approaching upper limit of the CO2 level we can safely sustain and a flattening volume of liquid hydrocarbon.

[ROCKMAN]

dorlomin – “We have slumped 20% in petrol sales on the past 6 years.” And you seem to imply that is a bad thing. Obviously your MSM doesn’t understand the dynamics as well as ours. Decreased consumption is a good thing…ignoring what caused the decrease. If your elderly can’t get enough NG to heat their homes this winter that’s more good news…even less consumption.

Amazing isn’t it: both our countries are faced with the same problems: high prices and potential supply disruptions during peak demand periods. The UK produces about 65% of the oil it consumes while the US according to our DOE, even with increased production, produces only about 45% of the oil we consume. And your MSM is focused on this “problem” and ours is giddy over our “good fortune”.

Whose spin machine do you think is being more honest with their public?

[Rune]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('raizcapoeira', 'C')an anyone give me a reason as to why so many people (including a number of former peakniks) have so readily endorsed this idea that peak oil is "dead"?

[Rune]

If everyone here is lamenting why peak oil has lost much of its resonance with the broader world - even though facts, figures, data, and consequences seem so utterly important you - just examine your own reasons for not being interested in my latest posts on 911 and the new documentary that is out.

"It's for nutcase truthers."
"It makes my head hurt."
"It's irrelevant".
"It's flat wrong".
"Why would I waste my time on something that has been proven false?"

This is exactly how the rest of the world looks at peak oil doomerism and YOU guys are nutcase truthers!

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'd')orlomin – “We have slumped 20% in petrol sales on the past 6 years.” And you seem to imply that is a bad thing.