Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Oil is Contrived!

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

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby perplexd » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 11:14:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', 'Y')eah but Monte has this monastic intonation of "All toooooooo laaaaate",
"forget it, nothing will work". It's unclear if he's referring to
the existing energy society, a soft landing, a mere recession,
1929 here we come, head for the hills or zombies are my diet.


It really is too late to save the U.S. economy. We're way more leveraged and complex than we were in 1929, and that was a financial only crisis, whereas this will be a bigger financial crisis on top of an actual resource crisis, too. People have forgotten how to do basic things and let the knowledge die with their parents. We saw some of the results of that knowledge loss in the extreme dependency in New Orleans. People just couldn't deal with it.

Now, you say the surrvivalist is just about "me, myself and I" -- but guess what you might call that? Taking personal responsibility. Independence. You're minimizing the whole perspective of a doomer because you understand the problem and see easy answers. Those answers look damn tough to me, and completely intractable with a ton of widespread denial on top.

After $70 oil are we talking conservation? No, we're talking windfall profits tax and oil exec conspiracies. Doom, I tell you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'A') 1% increase in alternative energy availability seems reasonable to postulate also.


It's all so easy when you package a round number with a concept. But put a practical spin on it and it gets less attractive. 1% of what? Of what alt-E we have now? That's still peanuts.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KingM', '2')0% demand destruction could be achieved very easily with rationing and high gas taxes.


Think that would pop the housing bubble? I think it would make 1929 look like good times. The reason people talk about sharecropping is because 20% demand destruction gives us the economic nightmare of debt slavery for everyone who speculated on home prices, along with people who are credit card addicts.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KingM', 'w')e'll come out the other side looking somewhat ruffled


Would you describe 1936 as an America "somewhat ruffled"? Just curious. I suppose a good 'ol war could come along and save our economy again. But the resource problem. Hmm, might not work out as well as it did in the 1940's.
Last edited by perplexd on Sun 13 Nov 2005, 11:22:07, edited 2 times in total.
The passing of abundant oil is not shaping up to be a soft landing for those with the fattest asses. - Jan Lundberg
User avatar
perplexd
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon 17 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Shoreline, Washington
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 11:20:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orz', 'B')ut seriously, I really doubt that even 80% of the energy we use in the US is completely necessary to maintain our standard of living.


Care to think that through? That 80% is produced and delivered for free?

Wasted energy is not bought and paid for? Doesn't employ anyone?

Don't you think an 80% loss in sales wouldn't result in the loss of someone's job, someone's business?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 11:26:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'M')aybe you should be debating the survivalists, then, instead of people who aren't survivalists. Monte is not a survivalist, neither am I.


Yes, this forum is for the discussion of "hydrocarbon depletion," not personal attacks and flaming of ideologies you disagree with.

We have a Hall of Flames for that.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby azreal60 » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 11:28:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')eah but Monte has this monastic intonation of "All toooooooo laaaaate",
"forget it, nothing will work". It's unclear if he's referring to
the existing energy society, a soft landing, a mere recession,
1929 here we come, head for the hills or zombies are my diet.


Did you read the title of monte quests view of what he thinks is going to happen? I can't find it right now for some weird reason, but i believe it was called softlanding: The monte quest senario.

And again i say, you say people will change when presented with massive evidence. Why? Is there not enough evidence already? Make no mistake about what your talking about guys. Your not talking about people looking at facts and saying "well duh". Your talking about looking at evidence people can argue either way, trying to show people a conclusion that goes against their entire culture from the womb. I'm serious as to the degree of how much people will resist believing that They have to change. They'll say it's someone else. The human ability to blame something that has nothing to do with their problem is so huge i can't believe it sometimes.

I, and most everyone else on this board would say yes, something can be done. But then i look at the things people are Doing, and say to myself, well, yes, things can be done. Are things going to Get done? That's not something you can say and know it. You daryl and you doufus, are speaking in absolute suretys. You speak as though you know for Sure that people will adjust. It is that kind of attitude that will make sure they do Not. Because if people can adjust that easily, they will say, of course there is no problem because if there was, the choice wouldn't be that easy. Their smart, they would have taken it.

The reason it's so easy from our view point is you all already believe in this, you already believe that our oil supply is going to decline in the manner we are describing. What the difference seems to be is your view of peoples reaction to it. And that, i am sorry, you can say for sure how your going to react(maybe), but you Can not know how the rest of the world is going to react. I am sure your confident in your own inginuity, but i'm equally confident there are just as many people out there that minus oil, are almost completely helpless. Those are the people we are saying in a worst case senario, where they have to provide their basic living nessesitys out of their own inginuity, are going to bite the dust. It's not something to be hoped for, its not the best thing that could happen. But if we keep ignoring this problem like it's No big deal, it sure as heck becomes more and more likely.

That is why i bristle when ever someone says $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople survived
WWII and it's massive restructuring of the economy, jobs, separation
and loss. That was the end of life as they knew it and they came out
the other side. Many things changed for the better. Different is not always worse


This makes the problem worse. Your equating a situation that people have survived and saying peak oil is just like this. In pre WW 2 times, there where still farms within walking distance of almost everyone, billions of people did not drive to work and everything else, basically, it's a hugely different situation. The reason people bounced back after WW2 is they could, because the structure of america at the time allowed them to. (and europe and the rest of the world was kinda unconcerned about massive death and destruction, it was already visiting them in the form of war)
My point is we are No longer like this. America pre WW2 was still a land of farms and rural life. We spent almost every year since the war ended completely changing our way of life to what it is today. When you say it will take 10 to 15 years to change and we will be fine at the end of it, you overlook the fact it took us 50 years to get the car dominated culture we have today. Do you seriously think that your going to rebuild 50 years of dedicated changing of a society in 15? I wish you where right. My intellect tells me your not. That is the point everyone from monte on down has been trying to make. His "it's too late" mantra is entirely true, it is too late for any kind of Truely soft landing, where your life wasn't very very harshly changed. If i had to make a guess, i would say we are about 5 to 10 years past the truely soft landing. Pretty soon even a hard landing, as hard as it will be, won't be possible. Pretty soon we will be talking in terms of a crash landing. In a crash landing, well, people die.

That's why i don't like people cavalierly talking about peak oil. We are talking in terms of life and death, and when you say no big deal, it annoys me because it means one of two things. Either you haven't done enough research and don't see the extent of the problem, or you show a basic uncaring about human life. Either one makes me annoyed with you.

But i'm not going to be annoyed to the point i won't debate you. I just hope that you daryl and you doufus realize that it's kind of like saying all i have to do is go to the gym. And yet, how many fat people are there?
Azreal60
azreal60
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 11:38:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', ' ')Yeah but Monte has this monastic intonation of "All toooooooo laaaaate","forget it, nothing will work". It's unclear if he's referring to the existing energy society, a soft landing, a mere recession,
1929 here we come, head for the hills or zombies are my diet.



Being unclear is something I am afraid I am not guilty of practising.

Many things will work and will help, but it won't be enough in time due to EROEI, energy density, scalability, and no Plan B.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'E')nergy investment banker Matthew Simmons put it quite succinctly: "The problem is that the world has no Plan B." After all, no one of any power significance (primarily the USA) is addressing the threat which most scientists/ecologists see to the future of the planet with regard to energy use, global warming, and their interrelationships with a growth-based economy. There is no grand scale movement to power-down or institute energy efficiency or conservation. There is no grand scale movement to develop alternative energies. We can debate this until the cows come home, but on a global scale, it is not happening. Locally, it can mean everything.


There are many things that the individual can do to "cope and adapt" to the changes that are coming. Pops has done a great job in the Planning Forum of putting this together.

A "techno-fix" nor a "powerdown" will not be forthcoming anytime soon.

The default position is a powerdown, though.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 11:54:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', ' ') A 1% increase in alternative energy availability seems reasonable to postulate also.


Hmm...since alternatives currently provide 1000th of 1% (.001)of our energy needs, then this 1% increase will give us .00101.

We are saved!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')onte has already posted that it costs only $1.6 trillion to substantially upgrade the entire infrastructure, roads, bridges, the grid, mass transit, everything.


No, I posted that it would take 1.6 trillion dollars to move us from a D to a C over the next 5 years, just to "fix" needed repairs.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 12:21:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('azreal60', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')eah but Monte has this monastic intonation of "All toooooooo laaaaate",
"forget it, nothing will work". It's unclear if he's referring to
the existing energy society, a soft landing, a mere recession,
1929 here we come, head for the hills or zombies are my diet.


Did you read the title of monte quests view of what he thinks is going to happen? I can't find it right now for some weird reason, but i believe it was called softlanding: The monte quest senario.


Post Peak Oil: The Slow Decline?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat is why i bristle when ever someone says $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople survived
WWII and it's massive restructuring of the economy, jobs, separation
and loss. That was the end of life as they knew it and they came out
the other side. Many things changed for the better. Different is not always worse


This makes the problem worse. Your equating a situation that people have survived and saying peak oil is just like this. In pre WW 2 times, there where still farms within walking distance of almost everyone, billions of people did not drive to work and everything else, basically, it's a hugely different situation.


Precisely. In 1932, oil discovery peaked in the US. We were awash in oil. We were the largest producer and exporter of world energy, especially oil.

The US was the world's largest creditor nation.

We produced almost everything that we consumed in-country.

Suburbia, designed and built around cheap oil had not yet been built to any great extent.

What has changed?

We peaked oil production 35 years ago.

We are now the world's largest importer of energy, primarily oil.

We are the world's largest debtor nation.

We import most of our commodities and goods and outsource our services.

We borrow from the Chinese in order to sell our houses to each other at inflated prices as the sole engine to drive our economy. 8O

Suburbia has grown beyond comprehension.

Connect the dots.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby Flow » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 13:27:46

The bottom line with any peak oil debate over when Peak Oil will happen is NOBODY KNOWS. Until proven reserves are required to be accurate, it is all just speculation. Oil companies over estimate their reserves to meet quotas, Oil Producing companies keep their proven reserves low to keep oil prices up. The truth is NOT OUT THERE, no matter how hard you look.

Hubbert's theory has only worked once - the United States. There are other contries that are in decline now that did not follow the curve (not even close) - Egypt for example, looks like a pair of boobs with a two peaks and a low in the middle (yes my mind in generally in the gutter - sorry).

MonteQuest wrote;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')mm...since alternatives currently provide 1000th of 1% (.001)of our energy needs, then this 1% increase will give us .00101.

We are saved!


Ask yourself why it only provides .001% of our energy needs? The answer is simply, because it doesn't have to provide more. Does that mean in the future it cannot possibliy provide more - absolutely not. Will there be a price increase because of it? Probably, but who knows how much. Prices have homes have gone from $50,000 in the 80s to $500,000 today yet the price of gas has only gone from $0.80 to around $2. We should be paying $8 a gallon if all things are constant, but we are not. So how can anybody predict how much fuel will cost in the future.

I love how people are always throwing EROEI in the eqation too, like it matters when you get down to it. The biggest misquote of EROEI is that oil has a EROEI of 100:1. Guess what, it hasn't had that since the 70s. Today, it is closer to 30:1 with new discoveries getting a 10:1 or worse. Tar sands get about 13:1 so this is better than new oil is now and Oil Shale is about the same as new Oil. There are about a billion recoverable barrels of oil from shale and sands in the world that can be extracted with a larger EROEI return than new oil discoveries.

Take a look at BioDiesel, soybeen derived BioDiesel has an EROEI of 3.2:1 which is typically the EROEI quoted by the Peak Oil/Die Off experts when they tell us that it will never work. Well guess what, BioDiesel derived from Algae can produce 10,000 times more BioDiesel than the Soy stuff given the same area. Algae BioDiesel has a EROEI well above that of new discoveries and guess what - it is renewable.

Again, this is because it does not have to do any better, but BioDiesel will replace 1/60th of our Diesel consumption by 2010 - 1 billion gallons a year. And it has then theorized that Algae farms could become widespread enough to produce enough BioDiesel to meet all of our needs indefinately.

Take a look at Coal Liquefacation. There is about 1 trillion tons of recoverable coal in the world today. Based on WW2 technology, that can be converted to about 4 trillion barrels of oil - enough to last us another 100 years. And I have to believe the technology has improved since WW2 so we can probably get even more.

How about CO2 injections into wells. Currently, wells are concidered tapped when 35% of the oil is extracted (up from 22% in 1984). With CO2 injections, we can now get closer to 50% of the oil out of a well. With proven reserves at 1.278 trillion barrels, this technology just increased that number by about 550 billion barrels - without drilling one more well.

Peak Oil in 5 years my ass!
User avatar
Flow
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat 05 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 14:45:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', '[')b]MonteQuest wrote;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')mm...since alternatives currently provide 1000th of 1% (.001)of our energy needs, then this 1% increase will give us .00101.

We are saved!


Ask yourself why it only provides .001% of our energy needs? The answer is simply, because it doesn't have to provide more. Does that mean in the future it cannot possibliy provide more - absolutely not.


Ok, let's assume it increases.

What is realistic? 100%/year?

.001 x 100%=.002 or 2000th of 1%

Get the idea of scalability here?

It's like expecting condensation on a cold coke bottle to provide the world's drinking water.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') love how people are always throwing EROEI in the eqation too, like it matters when you get down to it. The biggest misquote of EROEI is that oil has a EROEI of 100:1. Guess what, it hasn't had that since the 70s. Today, it is closer to 30:1 with new discoveries getting a 10:1 or worse. Tar sands get about 13:1 so this is better than new oil is now and Oil Shale is about the same as new Oil. There are about a billion recoverable barrels of oil from shale and sands in the world that can be extracted with a larger EROEI return than new oil discoveries.


This seems to be an area of no definitive numbers as yet. We see 1.5 to 7.1 published as EROEI's and optimistic "hopes" of upgrading that to around 12.4 from articles I have read.

Even if you get those high EROEI's, you have scalability to deal with.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ake a look at BioDiesel, soybeen derived BioDiesel has an EROEI of 3.2:1 which is typically the EROEI quoted by the Peak Oil/Die Off experts when they tell us that it will never work. Well guess what, BioDiesel derived from Algae can produce 10,000 times more BioDiesel than the Soy stuff given the same area. Algae BioDiesel has a EROEI well above that of new discoveries and guess what - it is renewable.


Debunked here:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic9003.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ake a look at Coal Liquefacation. There is about 1 trillion tons of recoverable coal in the world today. Based on WW2 technology, that can be converted to about 4 trillion barrels of oil - enough to last us another 100 years. And I have to believe the technology has improved since WW2 so we can probably get even more.

Coal with "current use" peaks in 60 years, with coal to liquids, 35 or less.

Current use means no increase in consumption. You think coal use is not going to increase to meet electrical demand? There are 100 new coal plants under construction or on the drawing boards in the US alone for power generation, not to mention China and India. Where will this extra coal come from to make gas? Coal transport in the US is becoming maxed out right now. Where will this new transport infrastructure come from? Where will the money? Borrow it from the Chinese??

Who pays for carbon sequestration? How long and how much money to build that infrastructure, while reducing exisiting C02 emissions 60-to 70% to halt global warming?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby lakeweb » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 14:50:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'T')he bottom line with any peak oil debate over when Peak Oil will happen is NOBODY KNOWS. Until proven reserves are required to be accurate, it is all just speculation. Oil companies over estimate their reserves to meet quotas, Oil Producing companies keep their proven reserves low to keep oil prices up. The truth is NOT OUT THERE, no matter how hard you look.


As Simmons said, 'I hope I am wrong...'

There is enough data available to know that the problem is now and we should have stayed the course set out by Carter.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'H')ubbert's theory has only worked once... - the United States. There are other contries that are in decline now that did not follow the curve (not even close) - Egypt for example…


See: Egypt – A Typical Life Cycle for an Oil Producing Country

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/conf/pdf/rodgers.pdf

If that ain't hubbert to a tee.

MonteQuest wrote;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')mm...since alternatives currently provide 1000th of 1% (.001)of our energy needs, then this 1% increase will give us .00101.

We are saved!


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'A')sk yourself why it only provides .001% of our energy needs? The answer is simply, because it doesn't have to provide more. Does that mean in the future it cannot possibliy provide more - absolutely not. Will there be a price increase because of it? Probably, but who knows how much. Prices have homes have gone from $50,000 in the 80s to $500,000 today yet the price of gas has only gone from $0.80 to around $2. We should be paying $8 a gallon if all things are constant, but we are not. So how can anybody predict how much fuel will cost in the future.


Your example of gasoline prices is baseless. We can predict how much alternatives cost very well. There is no mystery to it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'I') love how people are always throwing EROEI in the eqation too, like it matters when you get down to it. The biggest misquote of EROEI is that oil has a EROEI of 100:1. Guess what, it hasn't had that since the 70s. Today, it is closer to 30:1 with new discoveries getting a 10:1 or worse. Tar sands get about 13:1 so this is better than new oil is now and Oil Shale is about the same as new Oil. There are about a billion recoverable barrels of oil from shale and sands in the world that can be extracted with a larger EROEI return than new oil discoveries.

Where do you get this EROEI for sand and shale? Last I read they don't know if they can even get shale to break even. Canadian sand requires large inputs of methane. Have you heard about our natural gas condition in North America? How many tens of billions of dollars for infrastructure per mb/d?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'T')ake a look at BioDiesel…

I have. There isn' enough land to have a meaningful impact. No one is doing anything with algae yet. When do we start?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'T')ake a look at Coal Liquefacation...

I have. $500 billion per mb/d. That is in China with cheap labor. When do we start?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'H')ow about CO2 injections into wells...

Injection has been around for a long time. Metahne injection in Iran isn't bailing them out. Kuwait is facing decline even if they have plenty of methane to inject.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'P')eak Oil in 5 years my ass!

Mine too as it is probably happening now.

Best, Dan.
User avatar
lakeweb
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Arizona
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby Daryl » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 15:47:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', ' ') A 1% increase in alternative energy availability seems reasonable to postulate also.


Hmm...since alternatives currently provide 1000th of 1% (.001)of our energy needs, then this 1% increase will give us .00101.

We are saved!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')onte has already posted that it costs only $1.6 trillion to substantially upgrade the entire infrastructure, roads, bridges, the grid, mass transit, everything.


No, I posted that it would take 1.6 trillion dollars to move us from a D to a C over the next 5 years, just to "fix" needed repairs.


I think taking all thost things up one full grade constitutes a substantial upgrade.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby Daryl » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 15:54:20

Also Monte. I'm sure you have addressed this before, but what is the argument that consumption can decrease 2% per year in lockstep with supply decrease of 2% per year? Thanks.
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby perplexd » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 16:07:29

Even if you get a positive EREOI from shale oil, the natural gas used in the process defines a big chunk of that return. As the EREOI of the nat gas inputs go down, so goes the EREOI of the shale oil.

Oops.

(that's not even addressing the precious fresh water wasted or the environmental impact)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'A')lso Monte. I'm sure you have addressed this before, but what is the argument that consumption can decrease 2% per year in lockstep with supply decrease of 2% per year? Thanks.


The argument is not that it can, it is that it will have to. Savinar's slogan "deal with reality or it will deal with you" is the only argument required.
The passing of abundant oil is not shaping up to be a soft landing for those with the fattest asses. - Jan Lundberg
User avatar
perplexd
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon 17 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Shoreline, Washington
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby perplexd » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 16:13:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'A')sk yourself why it only provides .001% of our energy needs? The answer is simply, because it doesn't have to provide more.


The simpler answer is because those fuels are not even nearly as close in power as oil. They might be worth developing when the real costs of oil drive the prices up supernaturally high, but that's not the problem. The problem is that we've built our society while planning on $60 or less oil for the forseeable future, and so it is not going to work out.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'I') love how people are always throwing EROEI in the eqation too, like it matters


I can almost hear Colin Campbell saying "Flat-Earth Economist" when I read that sentence.
The passing of abundant oil is not shaping up to be a soft landing for those with the fattest asses. - Jan Lundberg
User avatar
perplexd
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon 17 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Shoreline, Washington
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 13 Nov 2005, 16:16:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'A')lso Monte. I'm sure you have addressed this before, but what is the argument that consumption can decrease 2% per year in lockstep with supply decrease of 2% per year? Thanks.


Maybe in the first year, but decline grows exponentially.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby npcsolar » Mon 14 Nov 2005, 16:23:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')here you going to get the electricity from? Natural gas is already peaking here in NA and can't readily be transported across oceans, at least not at the scale we need.

At best, you have a coal powered car.


Matt, I'm surprised at you.
One of the first things we have to do is use energy more efficiently.
Electric vehicles are some of the most efficient vehicles on the road.
Our Solectria Force uses less than 200Wh/mile from the wall.
For comparison, a Prius is using around 700Wh/mile and that is one of
the most efficient gas cars (with significant energy efficiency gains from
using electric components in the drivetrain). In contrast, a
fleet-average gas car is using about 1700Wh/mile.
So simply switching to electric drive can vastly reduce our energy usage.
Also, oil refining is a huge electricity consumer, certainly here in CA.
Remove the need for, or availability of, all that oil and we have a huge
number of miles available for EV driving. On top of that, PG&E and
other utilities have surplus capacity at night which is when EVs are
typically recharged. That's why we pay half-price after midnight for
our kWhs. Of course switching to an EV also opens up the possibility
of "fuelling" your car from renewable sources. Many EV'ers that I know
already power their EVs (and their homes) via PV on their house roof.
It's being done now. OK, so we need to scale up but this is happening all
around you, locally, with today's technology and regular people who think
it makes economic sense right now.
User avatar
npcsolar
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby Daryl » Mon 14 Nov 2005, 22:39:29

Yes, coal and nuclear will definitely be necessary as a bridge power source, but it is not hard to imagine some day in say 50 years peolple driving electric cars powered from home solar collectors. That can hardly be laughed off as a naive fantasy, the technology is practically there already. The car technology exists and solar not too ridiculously far back. Awfully green too, isn't it?
User avatar
Daryl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: As far as crazy goes, this takes the cake

Postby Bandage » Tue 15 Nov 2005, 00:07:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('untothislast', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'I')n other words, when you get down to it, isn’t peak oil really about cars?


Cars are certainly one of the means by which we waste a lot of available fuel. And the availabilty of relatively cheap fuel, aided and abetted the growth of the vast suburban sprawl - which is one of the key reasons why people have to drive so much in the first place.

And why did the suburban sprawl occur?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('untothislast', 'A')s fuel costs increase over time, the case for living at a distance from the workplace will become less bearable financially, meaning thatpeople will have to gravitate nearer to those areas where they actually work.

That's the first thing that will happen. But it won't continue that way. At some point, people will run smack into the unpleasant realities that urban life has become, for valid reasons not considered polite to mention.

(I swear: after history turns the corner on this political correctness nonsense, it's going to be the wonder of the next thousand years we could be so obsequious to its falsehoods for so long.)

Once these realities are recognized, the paradigm that will dominate is people finding new ways to live - without gathering in urban clusters - and new ways to work in support of the small agricultural village, horse and wagon, lifestyle.
User avatar
Bandage
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri 11 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby azreal60 » Tue 15 Nov 2005, 00:58:55

I have a horrible headache because i'm sick as a dog, so i'm not going to be long winded for once. I will try to be brief.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')ut it is not hard to imagine some day in say 50 years peolple driving electric cars powered from home solar collectors. That can hardly be laughed off as a naive fantasy, the technology is practically there already. The car technology exists and solar not too ridiculously far back


Again, while this sounds great and your correct, is totally doable. Unfortunately, where on a large scale is this even proposed? In 50 years at a 2 percent depletion rate oil would be, hmm.. 100 percent gone? :shock: So if we didn't have an all electric fleet by then, well i guess your not driving.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')K, so we need to scale up but this is happening all
around you, locally, with today's technology and regular people who think
it makes economic sense right now


I can't say this enough i guess, yes, it is happening all around, but by one or two people. I see all sorts of concept cars. America is not populated by kit car drivers. Not one major manufacturer is proposing an electric vehicle current. Not one. I know we Can, the important things are Are we and how Fast are we? Kind of like peak oil really. It wouldn't really be a huge deal if it wasn't seeming to happen, well, Now. 8O

Guys, I guess while i love the ideas your posting, unless your going to be starting a new electric car company, you really aren't changing the way things go. An idea is one thing, but someone has to come out and actually do it. Will someone? Of course, there are alot of smart people out there. But will it be too late? The longer we wait, the greater a chance that is.

P.S. If you do start an electric car company, i am available to hire. :-D
Azreal60
azreal60
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Top

Re: Peak Oil is Contrived!

Postby MonteQuest » Tue 15 Nov 2005, 01:21:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('azreal60', 'I') can't say this enough i guess, yes, it is happening all around, but by one or two people. I see all sorts of concept cars. America is not populated by kit car drivers. Not one major manufacturer is proposing an electric vehicle current. Not one. I know we Can, the important things are Are we and how Fast are we? Kind of like peak oil really. It wouldn't really be a huge deal if it wasn't seeming to happen, well, Now. 8O


Last night on FOX's special on global warming (yes, Fox) Ford trotted out their hydrogen fuel cell prototype. Price? A cool 1 million dollars per car at the moment.

"Fleets" of EV's or hydrogen cars are decades away at best. Go to Detroit sometime and look at the recent high-tech automation geared towards ICE's and the same assembly line.

Asset inertia. Money invested doing it this way.

Turning the titanic.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron