General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
by AirlinePilot » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 02:07:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', 'P')rior to the arrival of peak oil, people didn't use the words oil and energy synonymously.
Maybe in your small world they didnt. I can assure you in mine they did and have been for quite some time.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', 'P')eak oil then happened, and when it didn't cause many of the hoped for effects, rather than everyone falling into the revisionist camp, some people doubled down by declaring peak everything, pretending that the production rate of all commodites followed bell shaped curves, and..confusing oil with energy. Understanding the difference isn't my problem, methinks.
What you are failing to grasp..and others here are desperately pointing out..is that the changes ARE occurring. We have had very large changes but they are being masked by time and economics. What are the "hoped for effects" ? I'm surely not hoping for anything other than some way to educate and spur leaders to begin to ACT with some sort of responsibility towards a future with no real replacement for crude oil while we await the coming decline.
We may or may not have had the defined peak, but somehow I doubt that matters. The future is not one which will resemble the past of ever increasing CHEAP crude oil. That paradigm shift is going to be quite obvious to most when you begin to understand that alternatives will not scale to make up the difference.
Oh and yes I did notice the background..windmills....adding some ridiculously small electrical capacity additions and a failed attempt at an electric vehicle which catches fire apparently fairly easily and cant sell in the current economic climate for SEVERAL REASONS. How silly it seems to post such on a peak oil website!
-
AirlinePilot
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South of Atlanta
-
by Joseph22 » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 09:43:38
The burning question is where will we get such a huge increase of oil? In the decade from 1990 to 2000, a total of 42 billion barrels of new oil reserves were discovered worldwide. In the same period, the world consumed 250 billion barrels. In the past two decades only three giant fields with more than one billion barrels each have been discovered. One in Norway, in Columbia and Brazil. None of these produce more than 200,000 barrels a day. This is far from 50 million barrels a day which the world will need.
Is the era of cheap, abundant oil to fuel the world economy about to end? One most important issue in the entire debate over why Washington went to war in Iraq is the question of how much oil remains to be found in the world at today's prices. The debate has been remarkably little over an economic issue of enormous consequences.
According to the estimates of Colin Campbell and K. Aleklett of Uppsala University, five countries hold the overwhelming bulk of the world's remaining oil and could potentially make up the difference as other areas pass their peak. 'The five major producers of the Middle East, namely Abu Dhabi, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (including the Neutral Zone), with about half the world's remaining oil, are treated as swing producers making up the difference between world demand and what other countries can produce...'2.
These five countries - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE - through circumstances of geology, contain the oil and gas reserves vital to the future economic growth of the world. In an article in the January 7, 2002 issue of Oil and Gas Journal by A. S. Bakhtiari of the National Iranian Oil Company, noted, 'The Middle East (is) simultaneously the most geostrategic area on the globe and the ultimate energy prize: Two-thirds of global crude oil reserves are concentrated in five countries bordering the Persian Gulf.'3
In a paper published in November 2001, eminent Princeton geologist, Kenneth Deffeyes wrote, 'The biggest single question is the year when world oil production reaches a Hubbert peak and then declines forever. Both the graphical and the computer fits identify 2004 as the probable year. The largest single uncertainty is the enormous reserves of Saudi Arabia.'4
If the peak oil analysis is accurate, it suggests why Washington may be willing to risk so much to control Iraq and through its bases there, the five oil-rich countries. It suggests Washington is acting from a fundamental strategic weakness, not from absolute strength as is often thought. A full and open debate on the problem of peak energy is urgently needed.
-
Joseph22
- Wood
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed 07 Dec 2011, 06:53:53
-
by Pops » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 10:06:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')I agree that we aren’t necessarily there yet – although like everyone I’m merely speculating. That hardly matters of course, whether supply continues to increase or not, as long as it limits demand the price will remain high.
Note what even Pops was thinking was a "high" price 6 years ago. We are talking about not quite $60 oil here. Our perspective of "high" changes, and then BAU keeps on going. Now BAU is rumbling down the road on $100/bbl oil. Couple more years, maybe it'll be $200...but does it matter if we, individually, have mitigated against it by not driving monster trucks any more? Prior to peak oil being claimed, people argued that peak oil itself would stop the ability of the economy to create substitutes. They were wrong, and you don't see that angle used much anymore except among the diehards who confuse the stock market dropping 50 points with a fast crash.
Revisionist perspective needs to be stamped out in the name of critical thinking (something often claimed but rarely used, IMHO).
Thanks for digging that up, looks like a pretty good forecast, huh? Look at all those first posts:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think we are probably entering the recession cycle (or will be very soon)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o you're thinking of the "bumpy plateau" scenario? Hit the wall, bounce back, hit the wall again ...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is possible that global oil production might reach a slightly higher level later in the decade, after a recession.
On the topic, it looks like the OP was right, KSA still hasn't exceeded 10mbd.
Back then supply had been growing more or less steadily at 2-3% forever and it wasn't clear yet that conventional had plateaued - but of course it had as Leanan guessed.
The 300% increase in oil price in 3 years was starting to affect the economy, it wasn't long after that it started softening, commuter real estate markets first then everywhere else and finally spending overall, which crashed the ponzi banking game.
Here almost 7 years later, supply is only growing in the low return products, price has doubled and still climbing, demand is dying in the wasteful countries and the economy is improving only if you include huge printing by the government, banks profiting from that free $.Gov and corps cutting overhead.
I'm not sure what the revisionist part is, looks like a bunch of pretty good guesses at what was going on and about to happen.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', 'N')ow BAU is rumbling down the road on $100/bbl oil.
This on the other hand, not sure what to call this. 75% of the American people understand this isn't business as usual and we're going in the wrong direction. We're in the worst recession since the depression and still oil prices are increasing, if Iranian's piddly 1% of oil exports is embargoed the price could spike and kill what adjustments the economy has made.
I understand the moderate position, I don't understand willful denial.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-
Pops
- Elite
-
- Posts: 19746
- Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
-
by Bruce_S » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 10:43:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', 'P')rior to the arrival of peak oil, people didn't use the words oil and energy synonymously.
Maybe in your small world they didnt. I can assure you in mine they did and have been for quite some time.
Well, one mans mountain is another mans molehill. Have you or your family been going hungry? Have you lost your job as a massive consumer of crude based fuels? Have there been no fuels around for you to massively consume? Has your favorite sporting event stopped for lack of fuels? Do school buses no longer take children to school in your area? Do tractors no longer plow the fields in your state?
Certainly things have gotten more expensive, but that has been going on prior to your birth. Hardly seems worth get excited about, noticing it only now.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') What you are failing to grasp..and others here are desperately pointing out..is that the changes ARE occurring. We have had very large changes but they are being masked by time and economics. What are the "hoped for effects" ? I'm surely not hoping for anything other than some way to educate and spur leaders to begin to ACT with some sort of responsibility towards a future with no real replacement for crude oil while we await the coming decline.
Of course changes are occurring, peak oil happening a few years back didn't stop that from happening because it predates peak oil. Social changes (like the 60's), economic changes (like the 30's, 70's and 80's), oil fears (like the 1916's, 1940's, 1970's, 1980's and 2000's), sure things change. I just dispute the idea that oil is causing them, or that they haven't happened before.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', ' ')
We may or may not have had the defined peak, but somehow I doubt that matters. The future is not one which will resemble the past of ever increasing CHEAP crude oil. That paradigm shift is going to be quite obvious to most when you begin to understand that alternatives will not scale to make up the difference.
The real price of crude has been trending upwards since 1970. Your entire career of massive crude consumption has happened within the context of ever increasing real crude prices. Thought of this way, your entire career has been WITHIN the paradigm shift of increasing crude prices. I'm sure you could educate us about all the changes which have taken place since 1970 in the airline business reaching for better efficiencies and such. And I would bet all those changes span your entire career, not just the last few years since peak oil happened.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') Oh and yes I did notice the background..windmills....adding some ridiculously small electrical capacity additions and a failed attempt at an electric vehicle which catches fire apparently fairly easily and cant sell in the current economic climate for SEVERAL REASONS. How silly it seems to post such on a peak oil website!
Ridiculously small? "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." Albert Bartlett, 1998. Once upon a time people undoubtedly said the same thing about crude oil, according to Albert, this is exactly how such small things become...less small things.
-
Bruce_S
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40
-
by Bruce_S » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 11:16:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')On the topic, it looks like the OP was right, KSA still hasn't exceeded 10mbd.
Seems like KSA peaked back when Carter was President. Certainly it would be seem to be one more nail in the bell shaped curve profile if it inconveniently peaked again.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')The 300% increase in oil price in 3 years was starting to affect the economy, it wasn't long after that it started softening, commuter real estate markets first then everywhere else and finally spending overall, which crashed the ponzi banking game.
Nominal price. And correlation is not causation, although I'll give Hamilton a hat tip for trying his darndest to change that, in part by redefining what a recession is.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')Here almost 7 years later, supply is only growing in the low return products, price has doubled and still climbing, demand is dying in the wasteful countries and the economy is improving only if you include huge printing by the government, banks profiting from that free $.Gov and corps cutting overhead.
Real crude prices are lower than they were during the late 70's, demand destruction of ALL sorts has been discovered to be a more powerful force than field declines, and this isn't the first, nor the last, recessionary period for the US, or the world. Not everything is peak-centric.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')I'm not sure what the revisionist part is, looks like a bunch of pretty good guesses at what was going on and about to happen.
Really? So people getting all worked up over $60/bbl was a good guess? How worked up are any of us over $100? $100/barrel hasn't been able to stop TRAFFIC jams Pops, let alone things which matter.
The US military has decided that fuel is worth $400/gallon, and is paying it every day. And you think people should be getting all worked up over $3/gal? How is this for a good guess...if the average consumer stops using gasoline, they won't care near as much how expensive it is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 03928.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', 'N')ow BAU is rumbling down the road on $100/bbl oil.
This on the other hand, not sure what to call this. 75% of the American people understand this isn't business as usual and we're going in the wrong direction. We're in the worst recession since the depression and still oil prices are increasing, if Iranian's piddly 1% of oil exports is embargoed the price could spike and kill what adjustments the economy has made.
I understand the moderate position, I don't understand willful denial.
And I don't understand cherry picking time frames, recessions, specific examples assuming correlation is causation, or even people denying that their own lifestyle has changed for the worse because of peak oil. You changed your life, would you say it is terrible, awful, somehow damaged compared to how you used to live? You make less money now, live on a farm, are you unhappy? Do you cry every day for how you used to live, versus how you do now? All of the effects you want to portray as earth shattering are negated by simple changes in behavior. Changes like yours, and changes like mine (bicycles and location/location/location in comparison to work).
For the record, Iranians were the ones who caused those higher real prices I am happy to reference every time someone claims that "cheap" oil was something which happened in the past decade, versus when oil really was cheap except they pretend not to notice. And guess how crude prices spiking to a new high will effect those of us who already understand that crude is valuable? Me? Hardly at all. Other people? More so...but guess what? They'll learn, just like some of us did during the recessions, stagflations, inflations, rationing and shortages and all time highs of the 70's and early 80's. And that is a good thing. Peak oil as a good thing, how about that as a moderate position?
-
Bruce_S
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40
-
by Lore » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 12:11:41
The very fact that we're showing pictures of electric autos in front of wind turbines indicates that Peak Oil is having an effect on economies and our way of life.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
-
Lore
- Fission
-
- Posts: 9021
- Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet
-
by Pops » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 13:22:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce', 'N')ominal price. ...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce', 'R')eal crude prices are lower than they were during the late 70's...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') was having a little email discussion with Kevin Drum and Jim Hamilton about sources for monthly oil prices, and that led me to make the above graph. It shows WTI (from Fred) and Brent prices (from the EIA), corrected for inflation using the CPI-less-energy (from the BLS).
The point that struck me was that the Arab Spring/Libya price spike this year actually hit a higher level in real terms than the 1980 (Iranian revolution) price spike. There's perhaps a tendency to see it as a minor affair since prices didn't reach the level of 2008 (particularly in WTI terms, which we should probably ignore recently), but it really is up there in the pantheon of big oil shocks.
Early Warning
I'm not sure why I go to the trouble of posting this stuff over and over in response to you. You ignore every fact presented and move to another discredited argument.
I say KSA hasn't made 10mbd as forecast in the OP and you go back to your multiple peaks strawman as if that is somehow relevant?
I say the price is historically high and aside from the fact that you assert it isn't, which is blatantly false and has been pointed out to you before, you go on to say the recessions of the '70s & '80s had nothing to do with oil prices spikes (and something about Iranians) although every history of the time ties the recessions directly to oil price spikes.
I say this is not BAU that only massive money printing is keeping the world from really tanking and the American people know it - you say that's good, let 'em bike...
It seems your newest dissembling employs some serious mental jujitsu, you deny peak oil is the reality, yet say now that peak oil is causing dislocation and pain, somehow in your mind that negates the concern people have about peak oil causing dislocation and pain...
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-
Pops
- Elite
-
- Posts: 19746
- Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
-
by The Practician » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 13:57:44
I agree with Bruce that "peak oil is a good thing", as the longer the world is able to go on increasing the footprint of industrial civilization, the worse off the world is in the long run. I also agree that on a personal level there are many ways to mitigate against the effects of energy prices, like making lifestyle adjustments that have no negative affect on happiness, in fact quite the opposite. None of this means the Elites and their stooges aren't going to try to drag us all to hell with them because they don't want to face reality. They're screwing around, getting more desperate and grasping every day. People are going to get hurt. You can say it has nothing to do with PO if you want(it certainly isn't the only issue), but I think it does.
-
The Practician
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2011, 22:08:02
-
by Bruce_S » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 15:21:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce', 'N')ominal price. ...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce', 'R')eal crude prices are lower than they were during the late 70's...
I'm not sure why I go to the trouble of posting this stuff over and over in response to you. You ignore every fact presented and move to another discredited argument.
Thank you for showing that I made a perfectly valid point by noting that your use of nominal prices, in order to say "cheap crude is over!" was completely valid. Thank you for showing that an apples to apples comparison between crude now, and crude then, shows that we are in a time of CHEAPER crude as we speak. Cheap crude globally speaking ended at the end of the 60's, and while different interpretations are acceptable, you don't get to create your own facts. Colin Campbell himself would have done everyone a favor by examining that figure prior to his late 1990's Scientific America work.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')I say KSA hasn't made 10mbd as forecast in the OP and you go back to your multiple peaks strawman as if that is somehow relevant?
Relevant? It is critical. How many MORE times can Saudi Arabia come back to the 10 mbpd mark in the ensuing century? Can it do it again in another 30 years, like it did this time? 60 years? 90 years?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')I say this is not BAU that only massive money printing is keeping the world from really tanking and the American people know it - you say that's good, let 'em bike...
While mixing financial shenanigans with oil supply is an interesting exercise, I am no more required to mix them in the same way as you do as I do tracking the real price of crude versus nominal prices. The topic is "Peak oil is here", not "The government is printing money..again". I have no objection to mixing the two, but I make no assumptions about what certain combinations of financial hooliganism will do to the overall economy. Certainly the housing bust was the perfect example of creating a financial mess which doesn't require an oil-centric perspective.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')It seems your newest dissembling employs some serious mental jujitsu, you deny peak oil is the reality, yet say now that peak oil is causing dislocation and pain, somehow in your mind that negates the concern people have about peak oil causing dislocation and pain...
I admit peak oil up front, it is a given. That is obvious, declaring otherwise is just a strawman. And if I admit anything related to oil prices (which isn't the same as peak oil, as you have shown) it is obvious that higher is worse (unless you work in industry of course). The problem is, when behavior is all that requires modification to make it "better", it isn't near the problem peak oilers have claimed (even excluding the looney tunes of the fast crashers).
-
Bruce_S
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40
-
by AirlinePilot » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 15:23:08
I'll simply echo Pops post...there are definitely changes which are affecting a large group of Americans and to some greater extent the rest of the world.
As to my personal circumstances in the last 6 years I have lost almost one half of my yearly pay, ALL of my pension save for the pittance which I likely will not receive from the PBGC, and I have moved little in what would normally be a steady upward progression in the airline industry. Do I still eat? Do I still have a job? Sure, but the restrictions and reductions in my lifestyle have been SIGNIFICANT. That is in a higher wage scale than more than 90% of all Americans.
High oil/energy prices are directly responsible for that paradigm.
You CHOOSE to ignore it at your will, I however do not and am not afraid or ignorant of why it is happening.
Below is the 2010 data for Alternative/renewable electrical generation in the US. Of about 3% renewable generation capacity only 14% of that is wind.
Thats about .5 of Total nameplate capacity EVEN AFTER YEARS OF HUGE ADDITIONS!! I acknowledge the giant increases in the actual AMOUNT of wind generation to be sure. But as usual the scope and scale of the issues gets lost in the typical cornie furor. It s a VERY SMALL amount of our generation capacity. We all need to grasp and understand why the decline in cheap energy (namely crude) makes it nearly impossible to put much more of a dent in our ability to do this.
Anyone who thinks wind power or other renewables helps us to some sort of soft landing in the face of a coming oil production decline is not seeing the macro picture with regard to our energy usage, the price of that usage, and how it affects the greater economy.
Posting pictures of failed electrical cars driving in front of windmills is about as disingenious as you could get. Either that or you really just dont understand the scope and scale of how fossil fuel usage and its high costs is impairing the economy and results in
less of your science projects happening.
-
AirlinePilot
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South of Atlanta
-
by AirlinePilot » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 15:31:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', 'T')he problem is, when behavior is all that requires modification to make it "better", it isn't near the problem peak oilers have claimed (even excluding the looney tunes of the fast crashers).
It may not be the problem doomers think, but I can assure you that you are living through it as we speak. Globally growth has happened because of cheap energy, without it you get what we are seeing today. The beginnings of the realization that growth is going to be impossible without more oil and more importantly CHEAP oil.
Your problem is that you cant see that the behavior modification is
because oil is becoming more expensive, maybe not in adjusted dollars but it is becoming a much bigger slice of the ones you have.
-
AirlinePilot
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South of Atlanta
-
by Pops » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 15:42:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', 'T')hank you for showing that I made a perfectly valid point by noting that your use of nominal prices,
Let's just stop with these first few words, bruce and clear up your confusion. The chart I posted is oil price adjusted to 2011 US dollars - the term is "real price" or price adjusted for inflation. "Nominal" means money of the day, in other words not adjusted. "nominal oil price in '79 was $38 but the inflation adjusted price was $111 Here is a comparison showing WTI:
See how that works? The inflation adjusted oil price was $20/bbl for decades, politics and the US peak caused havoc for 15 years or so then the price settled back to around $30, and even dipped below the old "cheap" price for a while before taking off around 2000.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-
Pops
- Elite
-
- Posts: 19746
- Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
-
by Bruce_S » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 18:13:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'T')he inflation adjusted oil price was $20/bbl for decades, politics and the US peak caused havoc for 15 years or so then the price settled back to around $30, and even dipped below the old "cheap" price for a while before taking off around 2000.
The $20 price for decades was the period of cheap oil (it started in the early 30's, with the discovery of East Texas, as a point of information).Take the end of that cheap oil, in 1973 or so, and draw a line between it and all other points after 1970. In perhaps 2 or three of those data points (it appears to be monthly or quarterly data) the slope of that line would be slightly less than zero. In all others, it would be positive. In other words, 3 times our of 444 (37 years X 12 ) the trend is an ever increasing real price of crude. You can cast those 3 chances in 444 (0.67%) as establishing a regime of "cheap" crude, but you cannot do it the other 99.33% of the time.
It should be noted that this chart is also an artifact of the variability chosen by the authors use of a particular time scale. I would refer you to the Hirsch DOE report, Figure A2, p.72 for a yearly summary which clearly shows that the same exercise would reveal ZERO yearly data points in the vicinity of 1999 below the end of cheap crude oil in 1970.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses ... g_NETL.pdf So, do you think it is reasonable to cast "cheap oil" as starting in 1999 because of a less than 1% occurrence rate since 1973 (or 0% occurrence if we use Hirsch's dat) or is it perhaps not quite as the "end of cheap oil!" peakers claim?
-
Bruce_S
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40
-
by Bruce_S » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 18:33:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', ' ')Do I still eat? Do I still have a job? Sure, but the restrictions and reductions in my lifestyle have been SIGNIFICANT. That is in a higher wage scale than more than 90% of all Americans.
High oil/energy prices are directly responsible for that paradigm.
Also, airlines choosing to fly less, but with higher efficiency, reduce the pay of their pilots to stay competitive, or people just choosing to send fewer overnight packages might also be directly responsible for that paradigm. As far as your retirement, that is dependent on an entirely different set of criteria. I made an absolute killing by jumping out of the market prior to its 2008 crash, and then dumping that safe money back in at the bottom. We all saw it coming, it was all over this website and others, did you not actually believe the crash was coming? Hell, I am considered a cornie and I saw it coming a mile away...perhaps the difference is, I also waited for the bottom and then just jumped back in as well. Depending on which peaker someone might have listened to, you might still be hiding in a bunker somewhere, waiting to be thrown into a fed ghetto.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') Anyone who thinks wind power or other renewables helps us to some sort of soft landing in the face of a coming oil production decline is not seeing the macro picture with regard to our energy usage, the price of that usage, and how it affects the greater economy.
I do not dispute your information. But you also didn't say a word about the power of the exponential function, a point which Albert has been pounding home for decades now. Are you suggesting that he is incorrect in making the statement that we ignore the exponential function at our own peril? That from such small beginnings we can't remake the world, as we did with crude oil? Certainly some industries will do worse than others Think...buggy whip manufacturers.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') Posting pictures of failed electrical cars driving in front of windmills is about as disingenious as you could get. Either that or you really just dont understand the scope and scale of how fossil fuel usage and its high costs is impairing the economy and results in
less of your science projects happening.
Failed electric cars? Don't you mean, "Amazingly, even years after peak oil GM was able to design, manufacture and distribute the very type of solution to crude fuel usage that this country, and the rest pf the world need to overcome our crude oil dependency!"? Have you driven one? Certainly the one I drove didn't constitute a "fail" at all. Now if I could just convince the wife to let me get it, I would post pictures...there goes Bruce...not using crude to work...there goes Bruce...commuting off in the snow without using crude...there goes Bruce...off to grandma's house without using crude...and so on and so forth. Hardly a fail my dear AirlinePilot, an epic success more like it. Crude is obsolete, and not only does it not know it yet, but apparently peakers themselves are having difficulty with the concept.
-
Bruce_S
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40
-
by AirlinePilot » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 20:28:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', 'I') do not dispute your information. But you also didn't say a word about the power of the exponential function, a point which Albert has been pounding home for decades now. Are you suggesting that he is incorrect in making the statement that we ignore the exponential function at our own peril? That from such small beginnings we can't remake the world, as we did with crude oil? Certainly some industries will do worse than others Think...buggy whip manufacturers.
I most assuredly understand the exponential function. I also understand the reality of how markets/capital and energy constraints work which you seem unable to grasp. There may be a day when the land is filled from sea to shining sea with windmills as far as the eye can see, but somehow I doubt the capital AND the cheap energy to do it with will exist. It cannot and will not without some from of "miracle" energy stepping in quite soon to salvage the ability to grow wind power. Once again your living in some fairy tale land where capital is not tied to energy and it also appears to be almost unlimited!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', 'F')ailed electric cars? Don't you mean, "Amazingly, even years after peak oil GM was able to design, manufacture and distribute the very type of solution to crude fuel usage that this country, and the rest pf the world need to overcome our crude oil dependency!"? Have you driven one?
GM should be off the face of the earth presently save for the stupid actions of government and its wasteful spending habits. If we had actually let them go you would not be driving that self igniting piece of junk science project.
I havent driven one and dont plan on it anytime soon. Frankly I cant see the economics at its price point, but you go ahead and make yourself feel like your doing something important. Failed? By all marketing and sales measures I'd completely classify the Volt as a failure. Your in a very tiny minority if you consider it anything more. I see it as a flawed strategy backed by INEPT government wasting huge sums of taxpayer money. Reality would dictate something a bit more plausible and less costly to implement FIRST.
Oh and by the way..I completely protected my 401K from the crash in 08-09. I currently plan on taking full advantage of the next wave of market turmoil which appears nearly underway with the imminent collapse of the Euro zone.
-
AirlinePilot
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South of Atlanta
-
by Bruce_S » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 22:55:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'T')he very fact that we're showing pictures of electric autos in front of wind turbines indicates that Peak Oil is having an effect on economies and our way of life.
Maybe. Once upon a time, EVs ruled the roads. Then the price of gasoline came down far enough that the ICE took over. If peak oil ever does mean shortages, rationing and intelligent prioritization of use, then maybe the EV can make a comeback. Certainly an EV like the Volt is already standing tall when compared to an ICE for daily commuting of a majority of Americans and if it took peak oil, or the fear of it, to get that technology on the roads, then I say three cheers for peak oil.
-
Bruce_S
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40
-
by Bruce_S » Fri 09 Dec 2011, 23:30:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') I most assuredly understand the exponential function. I also understand the reality of how markets/capital and energy constraints work which you seem unable to grasp.
Says who? Just because I don't fall for the switcheroo of peak oil/financial hijinks doesn't mean anything. This is a peak oil website, if I wanted to endlessly debate capital costs, financing and currency manipulation or whatnot, I would find a website for that. This place...ain't that place.
And if you understand the exponential function, why don't you apply one to that little graph I provided, and calculate how many years do you think it will require for all energy use on the planet to come from wind energy? Certainly if Albert can play that type of game with oil, should work just fine for windmills.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
')GM should be off the face of the earth presently save for the stupid actions of government and its wasteful spending habits. If we had actually let them go you would not be driving that self igniting piece of junk science project.
We didn't let them go. Lamenting their survival makes as much sense as lamenting the lack of effect peak oil had when it happened. It is now history, so let us deal with it as men and move on.
And that science project drives as nice, and quieter, than many other autos I am familiar with. Disparage it all you'd like, but what you can't deny is that the engineers that put it together did a good job, it can handle commutes for 75% of Americans, and it doesn't need crude based fuels to do it. Day. After day. After day. While not a stake through the heart of peak oil, it certainly is a very large splinter. The radio in it is excellent by the way.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') I havent driven one and dont plan on it anytime soon.
Good for you, drawing conclusions based on a complete lack of information. Myself, I was skeptical without information as well, knowing full well what GM has done in the past to convince me to not buy their products, but the drive made a believer out of me. The lack of it using crude based fuels for commuting to and fro is just icing on the cake.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') Oh and by the way..I completely protected my 401K from the crash in 08-09. I currently plan on taking full advantage of the next wave of market turmoil which appears nearly underway with the imminent collapse of the Euro zone.
Then what was all the claim about loss of pension? You made a killing only with your own money in the market, but didn't make the same moves in your pension? Goodness, you don't have one of those defined benefit pensions like the 1% and older auto workers or government employees have do you? I didn't even know any of those things existed anymore, the way the OWS gang talks. They took those away from even federal bureacrats like decades ago and gave them some lowlife system where you have to invest your own money. So just having one of those kinds of pensions certainly puts you pretty high up the food chain compared to us regular working peons. Good for you Mr Pilot. Job well done. Makes me wish I had followed my dreams as a lab and became a pilot...I am so jealous.
-
Bruce_S
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 21:45:40
-
by Pretorian » Sat 10 Dec 2011, 00:57:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', ' ') $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', 'T')he "TRUTH' is, Bruce, that an absolute majority of people have less money to play with, regardless of their job situation and raises.
And the TRUTH is, it has happened before. Why people have to drag oil into it, that I haven't figured out yet.
The difference now is that
I
I
I
I
V
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '
') And they will be poorer and poorer every year from now on. REGARDLESS of their employment situation and raises. Try to wrap your critically thinking brain around that.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', ' ')I agree only insofar as it has already been happening (living standards decrease being hidden by the rise of 2 earners per household trend over the past 2 decades), but I would disagree with the assumption that it is a requirement of the world from this point in time forward, or that it is related to oil rather than the change in the American economy from a manufacturing base to more of a manufacturing/service base.
What makes you think that I was talking specifically about USA? This is a world-wide pattern.
-
Pretorian
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 4685
- Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Somewhere there
-
by Keith_McClary » Sat 10 Dec 2011, 02:36:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bruce_S', 'A')nd if you understand the exponential function, why don't you apply one to that little graph I provided, and calculate how many years do you think it will require for all energy use on the planet to come from wind energy?
I could cherry-pick a historical graph of whale oil production and challange you to "calculate how many years do you think it will require for all energy use on the planet to come from" whale oil.
There is a windmill industry near here - the best sites (low hanging fruit) on ridges in the lee of a mountain pass are already taken.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
-
Keith_McClary
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 7344
- Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Suburban tar sands
-
Return to Peak Oil Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests
