http://www.matthewbooks.com/mm/anmviewer.asp?a=44&z=2
I'm not sure whether to laugh or to feel sorry for the woman. I suppose the death of her son traumatized her to such a point that her subconscious came up with this as a way to deal with it and to make some money.
Anyways, the good news is peak oil is contrived and Patrick Fiztgerald is protected by aliens.
Best,
Matt
PeakOil is You
Peak Oil is Contrived!
Peak Oil is Contrived!
by MattSavinar » Thu 10 Nov 2005, 01:52:21
-
MattSavinar - Elite
- Posts: 1918
- Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Re: As far as crazy goes, this takes the cake
by Daryl » Thu 10 Nov 2005, 02:35:12
Hi Matt. I was curious. What is your response to the electric car argument? If I'm not mistaken, personal transportation accounts for a very large percentage of oil consumption. Electric cars are a big issue, since the technology is current (no pun intended) and affordable. Theoretically they could eliminate oil consumption by this sector. I was reading your website lifeaftertheoilcrash and you didn't mention them. You addressed super-hybrids, but your arguments on that subject seemed weak to me. I don't think Jevon's paradox applies and I don't buy the argument that we can't afford to turn the automobile fleet over. Have you developed your ideas further, or have I misunderstood the arguments on your site?
-
Daryl - Tar Sands
- Posts: 927
- Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Re: As far as crazy goes, this takes the cake
by MattSavinar » Thu 10 Nov 2005, 03:07:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'H')i Matt. I was curious. What is your response to the electric car argument? If I'm not mistaken, personal transportation accounts for a very large percentage of oil consumption. Electric cars are a big issue, since the technology is current (no pun intended) and affordable. Theoretically they could eliminate oil consumption by this sector. I was reading your website lifeaftertheoilcrash and you didn't mention them. You addressed super-hybrids, but your arguments on that subject seemed weak to me. I don't think Jevon's paradox applies and I don't buy the argument that we can't afford to turn the automobile fleet over. Have you developed your ideas further, or have I misunderstood the arguments on your site?
Where 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. Problem is the 250 year supply of coal at CURRENT rates will peak in 25 or so if we were to use large amounts for either liquid coal or mass amounts of electricity generation to power electric cars.
Solar, wind, nuclear etc. . . all the same problem: a matter of scale and a matter of time and money.
And then you need an entire fleet of electric automoblies. It doesn't matter whether you buy the argument or not. The facts matter and the facts are it takes 8-15 years to replace the automotive fleet, depending on whose stats you believe.
So even if every car rolling off the floor today was electric, it would still be 8-15 years before you had replaced the fleet. But how many cars are electric? Even hybrids are only projected to be less than 3% of the market by 2010. Electric only isn't even on the radar yet.
And you need this done inside of 5-10 years, 15 if optimists lilke Yergin are correct and yet nothing other than stuff on the fringes is being done.
You use the word theoretically. That is the key word. There is a big difference between theoretically back of the envelope calculations and what is possible in the real world physical economy.
Put it this way: right now the world use 85 mbd. If, inside of the next five years, we have reduced our consumption by a measly 1 mbd due to the introduction and proliferation of electric cars powered by renewable generated electricity, I will take my concerns about a societal collapse down a few notches. That's all I'm asking: 1 mbd less out of a supply that is currently 85 mbd and projected to be 90 mbd in the next 5 years (assumming supply can even grow to that).
It's not a matter of what YOU or I think can or can't be done. It's a matter of what IS happneing or not happening in the real world as we write this.
This is not unlike the response I give to most who have ideas about techno fixes:
if said new techno fix, such as this "hydrino" stuff, is supplying 1 percent of our energy inside of the next 5 years or before gas hits $5.00 a gallon, I will give it some credit and maybe take my doomersity down a notch. But untill then, it's just another fantasy for the average person, even if it is technically viable in a lab, in a demonstration, or on a small scale.
If it's something we're already using, like biodiesel or nuclear, I want to see it repalce 5% of petroleum consumption inside of the next 5 years before I hang up my "doomer dukes. " I don't care whether it is theoretically possible or not. Nor do I care to read anybody's calculations about why their idea would fix this problem. I care about one thing: if it happens in the real world or not.
Theoretically, the Easter Islanders could have found a substitute for timber, and Rome could have found a substitute for the silver mines they depleted, the Vikings could have fished instead of grazed livestock. But they didn't because they were human societies and human socieites don't make massive changes preemptively and quickly and humans aren't rational beings.
Have you read up on Tainter's complexity stuff?
Best,
Matt
-
MattSavinar - Elite
- Posts: 1918
- Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Re: As far as crazy goes, this takes the cake
by Battle_Scarred_Galactico » Thu 10 Nov 2005, 05:29:54
"It's not a matter of what YOU or I think can or can't be done. It's a matter of what IS happneing or not happening in the real world."
This is the main point that is glossed over by so many people, we know change needs to be started early, yet we don't see ANYTHING. When this is pointed out, there's no response.
On the electric car issue, these would have to be made in fossil fuel powered factories, and that's not even taking into account the economics of it all. I can't believe anyone thinks this is a solution.
IMO we are wasting time trying to find ways to keep this system powered, because it's obvious it's not going to happen, we need to be changing the whole system itself.
This is the main point that is glossed over by so many people, we know change needs to be started early, yet we don't see ANYTHING. When this is pointed out, there's no response.
On the electric car issue, these would have to be made in fossil fuel powered factories, and that's not even taking into account the economics of it all. I can't believe anyone thinks this is a solution.
IMO we are wasting time trying to find ways to keep this system powered, because it's obvious it's not going to happen, we need to be changing the whole system itself.
---
- Battle_Scarred_Galactico
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Thu 07 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Re: As far as crazy goes, this takes the cake
by untothislast » Thu 10 Nov 2005, 07:40:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Battle_Scarred_Galactico', 'I')MO we are wasting time trying to find ways to keep this system powered, because it's obvious it's not going to happen, we need to be changing the whole system itself.
I was involved in a similar discussion recently within the Economics forum. The problem seems to be, we are dependent upon a system which can only exist - in its present 'no-limits to growth' form, by stimulating over-consumption. Several correspondents cited their belief in the intrinsic value of pandering to 'greed' within human nature - but you can see where that's got us.
The Peak Oil problem, is the first instance where industrialised nations have had to contend with an issue of this magnitude. Unfortunately, even if we find an alterrnative energy supply to keep the whole show on the road, our consumerist behaviour will just bring up similar problems in other areas.
And it's not as if we have the luxury of being able to deal with this one in isolation. Currently crowding in at the fringes, are the effects of climate change, ozone layer depletion, desertification, and diminishing drinking water supply.
Humanity needs to take time out for a re-think. As usual, it will be in response to an eventual calamity, rather than by calm and considered action beforehand. To take the recent events in New Orleans as an example: all the warnings were there in advance, but the Government preferred to play a high risk game rather than simply pay for the maintenance of the levees. With peak oil, all the warnings have similarly been noted, and the expected results anticipated - yet we're still being encouraged to carry on as normal, in the hope that human ingenuity will turn up like the cavalry and rescue the situation.
Whatever the 'levees' are in this case, we need to be putting them in place NOW.
-
untothislast - Tar Sands
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat 22 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Re: As far as crazy goes, this takes the cake
by Omnitir » Thu 10 Nov 2005, 08:06:17
I apologise for contributing in turning this into another “question time with MattSavinar” thread, but re-reading the life after the oil crash site, something occurred to me:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lifeaftertheoilcrash', '
')"Big deal. If gas prices get high, I’ll just drive less. Why should I give a damn?"
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lifeaftertheoilcrash', '
')"Big deal. If gas prices get high, I’ll just drive less. Why should I give a damn?"
We can all see the folly with this line of thinking, but what would happen if this were the actual response post peak? I mean to say, what if after a couple of days or weeks of mayhem with massive lines at gasoline stations and skyrocketing gasoline prices, and with no electric cars or other alternatives widely available, what would happen if people realise that they have no choice but to give up their cars? If the vast majority of people suddenly did whatever they have to do to live without their cars, would we have a soft landing? Wouldn’t the reduction in demand caused by almost no cars on the road enable the rest of the system to keep afloat?
In other words, when you get down to it, isn’t peak oil really about cars?
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
-
Omnitir - Tar Sands
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Down Under
Re: As far as crazy goes, this takes the cake
by Ludi » Thu 10 Nov 2005, 08:13:44
But Omnitir, wouldn't the economy collapse if people were unable to go to work, the store, etc? 
Or does "economic collapse" fall into the "soft landing" category?
Or does "economic collapse" fall into the "soft landing" category?
- Ludi
Re: As far as crazy goes, this takes the cake
by untothislast » Thu 10 Nov 2005, 08:40:02
$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.
As 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.
Even if you take (internal combustion engined) cars out of the equation altogether, you still need energy from somewhere to produce whatever takes their place, even if the fuel source of the car itself is not actually oil.
My other concern, is what we find and utilise to replace oil as the major component in plastics, paints, fertilisers etc. Although some correspondents to the forums have already suggested that vegetable deivatives could play a part in any solution. I don't have any technical expertise in that area, so can't really comment. All I can say, is that I can't see how the vast acreages we currently set aside for food production, could share a space with crops grown to make material goods.
Is it possible?
-
untothislast - Tar Sands
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat 22 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
