by Outcast_Searcher » Sun 30 Jun 2019, 03:25:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gollum', 'I')'m still a hard core peaker. We've gotten very lucky the past few years with a lot of the extraction advances but no more oil exists than did before, we simply became better at emptying the barrel. In the end the peak and decline are probably pushed back a decade or two. Were we able to see past the end of our noses we'd be taking this gift and running with it by coming up with viable plans of what we'll do after oil peaks, we clearly aren't. Fortunately for me I most likely have another decade to pay off my last debts and do what I can to make my lifestyle as sustainable as possible.
Well, the transportation network is getting more efficient. Vehicle electrification is progressing. Green energy is progressing.
Technology is doing its usual thing re helping mitigate the effects of incessant global human population growth over time, and the desire by people to consume all they can.
So, yeah, the story would certainly be better if we would smarten up re population growth and consumption growth, but OTOH, the moderate cases by BP, the IEA, the EIA, etc. show plenty of affordable energy and other fossil fuels out to 2050 or so. (They don't really forecast beyond that).
And there's Carbon Engineering, which sucks CO2 directly out of the air, and converts it into synfuels. Or the CO2 can be stored underground.
Just a few years ago this was thought to cost $600 per ton, but now the estimate is about $90 to $250 per ton. Not free, but looking far more viable.
Bill Gates is investing in this, and so are Chevron, BP, and Occidental. (The greens are whining about working with the oil companies, but I say we need to fix the problem and quit worrying about precise ideologies).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHX9pmQ6m_s
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.