[medicvet]

Just because something is extremly bad for us doesn't mean we won't utilize it, unfortunately, and that is the bottom line.

[small_steps]

Combined Cycle gas turbines get approximately 55 eff and GE working on a CCGT that is expected to get about 65 eff.
Compare this to your ICE, which will get maybe 30% eff, probably less.
I don't have the reference for the ICE eff number, and don't want to spend the time finding the current CCGT number, and I don't think the next gen GE CCGT number is in the public domain, sorry

[Drakn]

small_steps, the reference I found indicated only 50%. It also suggested it might increase efficiency, but let's stick with what is known.
Ref:DOE

And the ICE is around 30% optimally.
Ref:Page

Additionally, getting it to electrical form is not the only problem, you also have to convert the electricity into your battery. Typically that is done at about 90%. That leaves only 45% efficiency for the electrical system. Pile onto that your costs of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine and a system of electric cars, and the answer is no longer certain. It seems to be so tight that neither system clearly beats the other. And so, humanity will likely just stick with the default - gas cars, processed from coal.

[Ludi]

Though many people here admit peak oil is a real problem and needs a solution, the solutions offered are diametrically opposed - one camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives. When even those of us who see the problem and know a solution is required can't agree on what the solution is, how will we convince the sceptics who don't even recognise a problem? How can we even hope to work toward a solution when we can't agree on what the solution is?

Are we just going to spend our time calling the other side stupid?

[Hegel]

That's why I'm sporting the signature below

[killJOY]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen even those of us who see the problem and know a solution is required can't agree on what the solution is, how will we convince the sceptics who don't even recognise a problem?

[azreal60]

There is no "one sure cure" for peak oil. Therefor, there is going to be alot of arguing about what to do because even the experts can only say, " do this and it might help". No one is sure of the extent of how it will affect us, only that it will be bad for the lifestyle currently being lived for the majority of the planet. Potentially catastrophically bad.
So i would say the fires of our debate helps forge a stronger metal when it comes out. This is the crucible, we aren't going to let things out of here that Can't be presented to the public. And i'm sorry, if we can so easily shoot down some of these ideas, so can the public.
That's why while we encourage strong and vigorous debate, we are very strict and going to keep getting more strict about letting people attack each other directly. This accomplishes nothing and does nothing to improve the quality of our ideas. So i guess i would say, keep on slugging, because sooner or later we all knock one out of the park. And if we hit enough homeruns, our team(humanity) might just win.

[gt1370a]

The market will decide for us. If alternatives are profitable, they will be used; if not, demand destruction will occur. Or, we can just blow each other up over the remaining trillion barrels.

[Paul64]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'A')re we just going to spend our time calling the other side stupid?

[orz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'o')ne camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives

[thuja]

Its not a matter of either/or. Nukes will happen, wind and solar will happen, coal will happen, offshore drilling will happen, and in my opinion, powerdown will happen as well. When faced with the first major gas shortages, any environmental opposition will be brushed aside and we will move full scale into funding anything that gets us energy. But we'll pay for the big guns first and foremost. We'll go for the coal and the nukes because it gets a big payoff.

In my mind it will not nearly be able to offset the escalating deficit in oil and we will move in to a period of demand destruction. We will not be able to just become more efficient or do more with less. We will do less and less as a society. We will power down.

So its both, not because of any lobbying or education we do- but because the citizenry will demand more energy from somewhere when they start to see supplies dwindle, and there won't be enough energy to fill the gap....

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'o')ne camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives

[bobcousins]

Actually I thought the main divide amongst peak oilers is not about what should be done, but whether it will work. AIUI, the Monte view is that there is not enough time, or it won't scale, or if it does scale we will come a cropper due to Peak something else. There are some who oppose nuclear, but I think the Monte view is not that we should not go nuclear, but that we are doomed whatever we do. [I am confident that he will correct me in no certain terms if I have misrepresented this position! ]

As I see it the main dispute is over whether to back nuclear, renewable or both.

[linlithgowoil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')e are doomed whatever we do

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')e are doomed whatever we do

[holmes]

Through irresponsibility a massive genetic underclass has been created and is growing daily. Overbreeding people that should never have bred have bred exponentially. The gene pool is fried. There is no smooth applications now. The overclass will implement what they can however even the overclass is spoiled with cheap energy.
The window is closed for now. smooth applications will only come after this underclass goes away. Not real hard to understand.
Its like the pollution in the eastern gorge. They will "solve" it temporarily with technology. however the pollution created "solving" it gets created and nothing is really solved only postponed until energy and capital get used up. The root of the problems never get addressed. Just keep building the pyramid higher.

[DoctorDoom]

Many of us have been saying we need to both develop technologies such as nukes and use energy more wisely (conservation).

Some people seem to almost want us to power all the way down to an agrarian age and/or suffer through some sort of mass dieoff. I can pretty much guarantee that the 99% of people who aren't POers won't find that a desirable option (and many of us POers don't like it either). So, reducing energy consumption in various ways is all to the good but still leaves the question of where the balance of the energy we need is going to come from. Since POers basically accept that FFs are going to be exhausted sometime in the next 100 years, we are looking to renewables and nukes for that energy.

A lot of the disagreement seems to be not about technical/engineering issues but about social issues, e.g. how society will respond to PO in the realms of war and peace, economics, unrest, etc. There is historical evidence to support both a very negative view (recent events in NO) and a positive view (WW2 action-in-a-crisis). The laws of physics care not for what we think, but on the social side, matters are, theoretically, in our own hands. What I'm saying is that we can at least try to tip the scales towards the WW2/pull-together-in-a-crisis/energy-manhattan-project end of the spectrum and away from "mad max".

[orz]

On a more fundamental level, hardcore doomers think that we will never be able to recover from the effects of peak oil. This is where even the most down to earth technologist draws the line. Economic disaster? No doubt. Collapse of some countries? Quite likely. Collapse of the U.S.? The possibility's definitely there. Die-off? There's plenty of people in the world who are barely clinging on as is, how will they "conserve." Olduvai Stone Age v2.0? Errr I think not.

[donshan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')hough many people here admit peak oil is a real problem and needs a solution, the solutions offered are diametrically opposed - one camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives.

[elroy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'o')ne camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives