Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby johnmarkos » Mon 21 Nov 2005, 12:57:38

Ironically, POD actually does quite a bit to raise awareness of peak oil and other energy issues. If someone (previously unaware of PO) stumbles upon POD, that surfer will probably go to peakoil.com next, just to see what all the fuss is about.
User avatar
johnmarkos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, California
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby Wildwell » Mon 21 Nov 2005, 14:24:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('some_guy282', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'F')unny, I thought the alternative the driving cars over short distances (most car journeys are less than 5 miles) was walking - that's scalable.


It certainly is. But is it realistic to expect that to happen peacefully and orderly in a rapid transition where oil prices spiral out of control quickly? That would be the kind of simple and workable solution we need to help alleviate this problem if we addressed it in a rational and orderly way. If the public was educated and informed about Peak Oil, they would see the stakes, and how their individual actions affect consumption. I think the average person would be all too happy to walk distances of 5 miles (or ride a bike) instead of walking. But we're not addressing the problem rationally right now. We're not addressing it at all really. Peak Oil has only recently become a minor blip on the radar of the mainstream media, and Joe Sixpack still has no clue.

Peak Oil wont become a major issue until a major oil shock hits home and affects everyone. How is the average person likely to respond then? Will we collectively recognize the problem and address it correctly? Possibly, but I'm not optimistic. I think it's much more likely that the average person will be very, very angry. They will think they have been cheated by someone (like the oil companies), and if our politician's behavior stays the same, the politicians will be all too happy to try and provide any scape goat they can other than themselves. How many politicians are going to be willing to give the public the bad news that life as they knew it is over for good? How many will advocate taking those five mile walks? The way things are looking now, I'd say not enough.

Our present culture is another important thing to consider. What is required to solve this crisis is a complete 180 degree turn around from what we are doing now. Conservation instead of consumption. But consumption is considered great now. Cars are the end all and be all of transportation here in the US. Riding a bike or walking to places is considered laughable. How many individuals are going to be willing to give up that SUV for a bicycle? With a lot of time and a huge public education effort, probably quite a few. But all of a sudden when prices are sky rocketing? People will turn to bicycles for sure when they're forced to due to prices. But that doesn't mean they'll like it. They'll still hold the old values they've internalized during the age of consumption we're living in, and they'll be livid. They'll want the scape goats, and they'll find them. They'll probably listen to any insane scheme to bring things back to the way they were in the good old days, like space mirrors, or a solution that can't be scaled up enough like biodiesal.


Nobody expects people to get out of cars to the be a peaceful and easy transition, but you’ll be amazed at what alternatives people come up with..why? Because they have to! Either way the prospect of maintaining the current way of life using exactly the same model appears to be nil. Spoilt westerners haven’t got the stomach for war, mark my words, they’d sooner sue the car/oil companies and blame the government. And it just so happens that the people that do get sent to war (the poorer/younger population) don’t happen to own the damn things - so if such a war was officially ‘an oil war’ would probably turn the guns on the richer car owning population (see France). Governments are quickly running out of excuses for oil wars to..

In short if replacements can’t be found, cars are finished and replacements will be found, even if it’s more efficient vehicles for a start. Don’t mix these up with anti-car views, read them as identifying the root of the problem. Read then as we will find solutions to some of the problems without some of the more gloomy options.
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby Flow » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 01:45:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'J')ohnDenver got kicked off these forums because he is haughty and angry. He thinks he knows more than anyone and refuses to hear opinions that do not parrot his own. He goes off easily into rages and belittles his opponents. He has attacked people unrelentingly. He has got to be the angriest vegetarian bike rider I have even at the displeasure of meeting. Actually I don't think he is a vegetarian or a bikerider, rather I believe he likes to parade these attributes to win arguments. I understand that he really drives a Hummer. Bye JD :P


If he got kicked off these forums how is he still able to post in this thread? More likely, he grew tired of constantly defending his position again personal attacks against him (i.e. your an idiot, etc) rather than posts consisting of hard numbers and proven facts to dispute what he was saying at the time.

I understand this completely. I have on numerous times given very logical and supported data that suggests we have anywhere from 25-100 years until peak oil happens and the most common reply is "you are clearly a moron that truly doesn't understand the severity of the problem." That kind of reply doesn't do much to refute the data presented.
User avatar
Flow
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat 05 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 01:56:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'I')f he got kicked off these forums how is he still able to post in this thread? More likely, he grew tired of constantly defending his position again personal attacks against him (i.e. your an idiot, etc) rather than posts consisting of hard numbers and proven facts to dispute what he was saying at the time.


He didn't get kicked off, he exited stage left before he was banned for repeated violations of the Code of Conduct.

He fabricated lies, distorted people's views and cried foul when there was no foul.

JD is the king of personal attacks and was a constant troublemaker.

Here is his goodbye :

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic11305.html
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: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby Flow » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 02:29:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Falconoffury', 'T')his is the Cheney quote you mentioned.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day.


I don't see how this could be out of context to me. He is saying that we will have two percent growth, three percent decline. Do the math. It comes out to be an overall decline.


I can very easily see how it could be taken out of context. That statement was made in 1999. Since 1999 we have not peaked in worldwide production so does that statement mean anything. Matt does not mention this fact anywhere so to the untrained person reading this statement with all the other things on the website, one could very easily assume that "Dick Cheney believes we are running out of oil so by God we have to be."

Most importantly, what was the entire speech? Could it not be that the thing that Cheney said before this was "lets through out a hypothetical statement." Right afer the above quoted statement could it not be that Cheney said "again, this is just a hyptothetical situation but one that we will definatly have to face in the next 30-50 years." Again, this was a CEO of a major energy company speaking to other energy people so again I will say, I kind of doubt the overall theme of this speech was
"we are at Peak Oil now and 4 billion people are going to die." Unfortunately, the PEAK OIL ARTICLE that Matt references as the source of this quote does not include the entire speech. If somebody has it, I would love to read it.

Secondly, finding a member of the Bush/Cheney cabinet that is not from oil/energy is a lot harder than finding one that is. They have access to documents about oil that NOBODY that has anything to do with Peak Oil has access to. I have to assume they have an understanding of Peak Oil as has been suggested but I also think if the problem was as sever as Matt suggests (Peak in 2.5 to 3 years) they would be doing a lot more than they have been doing. I am no Bush/Cheney fan, but I will give them this. The recent energy bill that Bush signed could have done a lot more to prepare us - A LOT MORE - yet it was signed without hesitation.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')aybe technology has improved. Can you prove that Matt is intentionally using old data to better support his claims? If you provide him with facts and sources with more up to date EROEIs, he will probably update his site accordingly.


Yes, he references those figures on his website even though he has been told time and time again the numbers are out of date (I have told him on another forum this very thing and he responded to it) yet he doesn't remove them. I believe I remember reading on JDs website similiar stories yet the LATOC.net website remains unchanged. So yes, Matt is intentionally using outdated EROEI numbers to make it seem worse than it is, especially when talking about the negative EROEI of BioDiesel which now stands at 3.2:1 for soybean BioDiesel and even higher for Algae B.D.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you are trying to prove that Matt is cherry picking sources that only support his claims, then I think you are doing a poor job.


Again, I could go on and on about problems/misquotes/exagerations made on LATOC.net but I just don't have the time. I have a wife, kids, dog and full time job that keeps me busy enough. In my spare time, I have started a document that goes into depth about errors on the site but it is a long way from being done. Let me assure you, there is more fiction on LATOC.net than there are hard core support factual statements.

For example, there is a section on Coal to Oil Liquefaction where Matt dwindles a 250 year supply of coal down to about 20-30 years supply of oil from coal. To do this, he assumes that Peak Oil happens "today" and tomorrow we are completely out of oil.

In the real world, once Peak Oil happens, new growth + decline will be anywhere from 4-8% each year. That is what we need to make up. We do not go from Peak to zero overnight so coal to oil will last us for a much longer time than what Matt suggests. Yet there is not mention of this point anywhere in that debate. Adding in a greater reliance of unconventional oil (heavy oil, tar sands, oil shale) to greater conservation (plug-in electric-hybrid vehilces that get 100+ MPG) to Coal Liquefaction.

That is the problem with most of Matt's arguments. He fails to point out that we do not go from Peak to Zero overnight yet most of the arguments presented rely on this very large assumption to make it seem much worse than it is. If he does realize this point, then he intentionally leaves such logic out of most of his arguements.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne more thing, saying that one does not know the future is not an argument for someone who is making his own set of predictions. It sounds to me like just another desperate tactic of someone who knows deep down that he is losing the argument.

True, but how a person sees the future depends a lot on the type of person you are. There is ample data on Peak Oil that can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Statements like "technology will not save us" or "unconventional fuels are not able to sustain us because they are rarely used today so how can they work" just don't hold water. There are reasons why we only typically use conventional oil but that does not mean we cannot use other types of oil in the future. They answer to all of these type questions is: we will do it WHEN WE NEED TO.

I have said this before but I think it fits. Referring a newbie who is interested in learning about Peak Oil to LATOC.net is like having somebody who doesn't understand the US political system listen to Rush Limbaugh to get an unbiased and complete understanding of the Democratic Party.
User avatar
Flow
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat 05 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby Falconoffury » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 05:17:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') can very easily see how it could be taken out of context. That statement was made in 1999. Since 1999 we have not peaked in worldwide production so does that statement mean anything. Matt does not mention this fact anywhere so to the untrained person reading this statement with all the other things on the website, one could very easily assume that "Dick Cheney believes we are running out of oil so by God we have to be."


I don't see how making the statement before peak oil has anything to do with its validity. Hubbert accurately predicted peak oil of North America 15 years before it happened. People can assume whatever they want from the quote, but all it is saying is that Cheney has studied the subject of oil depletion and has respect for some of the estimates.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ost importantly, what was the entire speech? Could it not be that the thing that Cheney said before this was "lets through out a hypothetical statement." Right afer the above quoted statement could it not be that Cheney said "again, this is just a hyptothetical situation but one that we will definatly have to face in the next 30-50 years." Again, this was a CEO of a major energy company speaking to other energy people so again I will say, I kind of doubt the overall theme of this speech was
"we are at Peak Oil now and 4 billion people are going to die."


This is yet another attempt to twist things to your own devices. All you are saying is that it is possible that the quote is out of context. So far you haven't shown any proof that it actually is out of context. Not very convincing so far.

The theme of the speech doesn't even matter. The quote shows that Cheney is aware of oil depletion. Not that he thinks billions will die or any of the other assumptions you keep making.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') have to assume they have an understanding of Peak Oil as has been suggested but I also think if the problem was as sever as Matt suggests (Peak in 2.5 to 3 years) they would be doing a lot more than they have been doing.


I understand what you are saying, but you can't say that peak oil is 25+ years away on this basis alone. You can't just ignore all the research from so many sources.

I think the Bush administration has abandoned the future, and you can call me a doomer for that. All you have to do is put together the findings of ASPO and the track record of the Bush administration. I don't want to be a doomer. I wish things looked better for the future, but I'm not going to put my own piece of mind above such a well presented case for peak oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, he references those figures on his website even though he has been told time and time again the numbers are out of date (I have told him on another forum this very thing and he responded to it) yet he doesn't remove them.


I suggested you provide him with sources of newer EROEIs. I never said you should remove the ones he has. I think the 1984 EROEIs still provide a good estimation. Even if the EROEIs change by around .5, it doesn't change the overall thrust of Matt's argument.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or example, there is a section on Coal to Oil Liquefaction where Matt dwindles a 250 year supply of coal down to about 20-30 years supply of oil from coal. To do this, he assumes that Peak Oil happens "today" and tomorrow we are completely out of oil.

Matt isn't making the assumption that we will be completely out of oil in one day. He is calculating the exponential curve of coal use. As the global economy grows, the requirement of coal will grow exponentially. Albert A. Bartlett came up with 40 years of coal considering the exponential curve. You should watch his video. It is a great primer on the problem of exponential growth.

http://peakoil.com/fortopic3609.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat is what we need to make up. We do not go from Peak to zero overnight so coal to oil will last us for a much longer time than what Matt suggests. Yet there is not mention of this point anywhere in that debate.

You know what else isn't mentioned anywhere? Nothing is mentioned about any grand plan to make up for your 4%-8% per year oil decline. Why haven't I seen a even a research article on even a hypothetical plan to create wide scale coal liquification? Show me an article with all the details, such as costs, raw materials, manpower, and all the other stuff I already said in a previous post of mine. Coal liquification shows some promise, but I am not convinced that we can build the infrastructure needed in time to do any more than just soften the oil decline. The longer we wait, the more expensive oil will be, and the more difficult it will be to build new industry.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')tatements like "technology will not save us" or "unconventional fuels are not able to sustain us because they are rarely used today so how can they work" just don't hold water.

Unconventional fuels can't sustain us because we will be unable to scale them up to a point that they will be needed fast enough. At least get the opposing viewpoints straight before you argue against them.
"If humans don't control their numbers, nature will." -Pimentel
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"Bush, Bush, listen well: Two shoes on your head," the protesters chant
User avatar
Falconoffury
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Tue 25 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby JohnDenver » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 05:56:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wilburke', 'A')ny discussion of the agricultural practices of this civilization includes many more levels than idiotic, reductionist nonsense such as "NG and coal won't be peaking for quite some time, so fertilizer is a non-issue, for at least the next 50 years."


Well, it's a solution. What's yours Wilburke? Do you have a better way? How do you suggest that we feed the masses?


Hmmm... Wilburke doesn't seem to have a solution... LOL
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 08:05:28

I'd like to see more discussion of solutions or cultural changes here at PO.com, and how to implement them immediately.

Talking about solutions is great, but I'd like to see more evidence of implementation.

I think there's a tendency for anti-doomers to encourage complacency, as pointed out above, because "we can do such and such" is always in the future, never today. Never "today we have to do such and such."
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby killJOY » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 08:17:54

why, lookie here. 'nuther five pages o' flapdoodle.

I got one question:

are you prepared, or not?
Peak oil = comet Kohoutek.
User avatar
killJOY
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Mon 21 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: ^NNE^
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby jato » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 08:26:28

JohnDenver uses the classic "shoot the messenger" approach. He must mention Montequest by name 50 billion times on his website.
jato
 
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby wilburke » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 09:51:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wilburke', 'J')D, who the hell is Richard Manning? This is not a noted Peak Oil author, sorry.....you need to read more carefully.

The Harper's article, "The Oil We Eat," by Richard Manning, is featured prominently in the sidebar of ASPO's site.


Thanks for the link, johnmarkos. I think, more to the point, when this article appeared, did all the various Peak Oil sites therefore suddenly alter their message? Did Richard Heinberg quote Manning and say "Hey, I was wrong, fertilizer does come from oil, and here's a quote to prove it"? Did others follow suit? Did The Oil Drum and Energy Bulletin change their position based on this one errant quote? Kunstler, Simmons, Savinar, McKillop, Campbell, etc.? Even better, did anyone on this site start a thread such as "Fertlizer does come from oil", with Manning listed as the main source? Sorry, I haven't seen it. Had such things occured, then it might be coherent to point out Manning's article and therefore conclude that the Peak Oil "movement" as a whole is spreading this piece of misinformation.

The big trouble I have with this kind of approach is that it tries to lump everyone into a false consensus, and turn the whole gamut of Peak Oil writing into some sort of scriptural authority that can be attacked upon the weakness of any of its consituent parts (even such fringe "parts" as the Manning article). I don't have to agree 100% with any particular writer in order to grasp the basic issue involved. Such a consensus would be impossible, if one reads with the proper skepticism. For instance, a few weeks ago Kunstler made the claim that the European nations will be ending the flow of petrol from their strategic reserves, thus possibly plunging the US into another shortfall. I haven't seen anything to corroborate this claim, plausible as it may be. Do I therefore disregard everything Kunstler says because of this one opinion? (Or how about Kunstler's earlier opinions about Iraq and WMDs?) I think not. You take ideas as they come, and you don't demand infallibility from anyone, and you certainly don't pounce on any such lapses with absolute glee and then claim you've "debunked" them.
User avatar
wilburke
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby wilburke » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 10:03:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wilburke', 'A')ny discussion of the agricultural practices of this civilization includes many more levels than idiotic, reductionist nonsense such as "NG and coal won't be peaking for quite some time, so fertilizer is a non-issue, for at least the next 50 years."


Well, it's a solution. What's yours Wilburke? Do you have a better way? How do you suggest that we feed the masses?


Hmmm... Wilburke doesn't seem to have a solution... LOL


Gee, sorry I didn't get back to this thread sooner, but I hadn't taken JDs above quote to be some sort of "solution". Actually, it is the problem. Of course, the reclamation of the world's topsoil would be where I would start, but I'm not sure we as a culture have the will to face the problems of soil erosion (and the pollution that it causes when the chemical run off). Certainly, the "solution" of sitting on our butts and continuing our current destructive practices for another "50 years" while the population of the world keeps on growing is a hideous one. I realize that JD doesn't believe that our current agricultural processes are a problem. He, and anyone who agrees with him, are welcome to the future they propose. As for me, all I can say is that complacency is not an option.
User avatar
wilburke
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby Wildwell » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 10:07:49

I’m prepared, here’s what I’ve done or am preparing to do, it up to others what they plan to do. These are just the adjustments I’ve made to prepare/help the situation in general. Not much more can be done really.

1. Gone vegetarian. Only eat organic milk and egg produce. Kinder to animals and needs less energy to produce food. Buy organic vegetables where possible.
2. If I do buy another car it will be a small/medium sized diesel car, possibly fuelled in the longer term by biodiesel. Buy a battery electric car when they become viable, powered in the main from own wind turbine (see below).
3. I aim to buy another bike and walk more. I don’t own a car atm and walk most places or take the bus/train anyway. Take up long distance walking/cycling.
4. Use the train more/car less/fly only when absolutely necessary – that excludes flying in all of Europe where I can take the train.
5. Buy power from renewable sources. In the longer term I plan to buy a small wind turbine and solar system.
6. Possibly get my own house built on a plot of land with room to grow vegetables – if I can afford it.
7. Get the house insulated as best as possible and buy energy efficient appliances/light bulbs.
8. Pay off all debts. I have none ATM.
9. Aim to eventually work 100% from home and become as self sufficient as possible.
10. Learn to grow own food. Keep with interests or take up interests that help with the oil situation EG IT etc
11. Inform friends/family/appropriate officials or interest groups. I sponsor things that help and don’t get involved with things that don’t help
The really ‘big stuff’ like energy/transport policy is out of my hands, so there’s nothing I can do on that.
12. Learn self defence. Big lad anyway, but just in case.

Since coming to the peak oil subject I have to say an awful lot has been learnt and research done. I’m glad I looked into it, because I do feel prepared and take much more interest in business/environmental affairs, which is good. I’ll take me halo off now.

Who else is prepared?
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 10:09:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Here is his goodbye :

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic11305.html



:lol: When someone posts a "Good-bye, Cruel World" message, you can be pretty sure they are going to be back. The ones who really are leaving just leave, they don't post histrionic farewells.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby killJOY » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 10:37:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ho else is prepared?


Me.

1. Drive 1990 VW Fox, 35 mpg

2. Dusted off & got running 1980 Honda 650

3. Have solid fuel fired (wood & coal) heating, hot water and cooking system.

4. Back up plumbing including a handpump in kitchen well.

5. Restored outhouse.

6. Instead of "power from renewable sources" scam (which can't be scaled, which is more expensive, which has little if anything to do with oil depletion), we've cut back significantly on electricity use through:

a. compact fluorescents in all fixtures

b. no clothes drier (line and rack dry only)

c. no electric water heater (see 3 above)

d. minimal appliances/ gadgets

7. Prepared to go non-electric: Have restored and cleaned kerosene lamps. Have solar and wind-up flashlights. Hand pump for water pump backup (4 above). Also have kero-fired refrigerator and a propane fridge (that needs repair). Weak spots: freezer, washer, workshop.

8. Don't use refrigerator from October through April. Just put foodstuffs in pantry and keep the door closed.

9. Grow, harvest, preserve, cook a good portion of our own food, including: cider, grape juice, and tomato juice; canned vegetables; dry beans; all relishes, jams and jellies; sauerkraut; pickles (of all sorts); onions, leeks, and garlic; potatoes; squash. I'm sure I'm leaving something out. It varies from season to season.

10. Raise and freeze or preserve own pork, turkey and chicken. Buy ONLY locally-grown grass-fed beef. Render own leaf lard; preserve salt pork for beans; make head cheese (not my favorite).

11. Hens for eggs, poop for compost, plus they double as tiny rototillers in the fall garden.

12. Have milk cow and little heifer. Hand milk. Learning buttermaking. Make own soft cheeses and yogurt.

13. Cut, split, haul own firewood from woodlot.

I could go on. I won't.


Oh, and another thing:

14. Have two horses, a standardbred and a small draft. Have carriages and have learned how to "drive." It's more fun than I can express. We have two gas-hog tractors, but we've accumulated enough equipment and experience that we could probably hay using horsepower, if it comes right down to it. (we don't bale; the fields are close enough that we can store loose hay).
Peak oil = comet Kohoutek.
User avatar
killJOY
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Mon 21 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: ^NNE^
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby Flow » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 12:20:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Falconoffury', 'Y')ou know what else isn't mentioned anywhere? Nothing is mentioned about any grand plan to make up for your 4%-8% per year oil decline. Why haven't I seen a even a research article on even a hypothetical plan to create wide scale coal liquification? Show me an article with all the details, such as costs, raw materials, manpower, and all the other stuff I already said in a previous post of mine. Coal liquification shows some promise, but I am not convinced that we can build the infrastructure needed in time to do any more than just soften the oil decline. The longer we wait, the more expensive oil will be, and the more difficult it will be to build new industry.


Could it not be that you haven't heard anything about this because we dont' need to hear anything about this? That the real experts in the industry actually understand just how much oil there is left, how much we can get and have a pretty good idea when Peak Oil will happen.

With regards to Coal to Oil production, there are at least 4 states currently looking into this technology. If you haven't seen the data on this, then you haven't been looking. Take China for example, their plants are near completion (the 2 super-plants that will eliminate their need for 60% of their oil imports). Those plants took a whooping two years to complete. Two plants to replace 60% of their oil imports is pretty impressive if you ask me. They are projected to import 130 million tons of crude oil in 2005 so when these plants come online, they will only need about 52 million tons. Also, their growth in demand is slowing.

If peak oil happened today, we could have coal to oil production plants up in a few years. I can hear the president now "to address this oil crisis, we are diverting oil and money orginally slated for a few low priority road construction projects (football stadiums, golf courses, etc) this year and instead, we are going to spend it on building a few coal liquefaction plants to sustain our future." My point is to find the oil to produce alternatives is as easy as that. The money is still being spent so the economy is still growing but it is just being spent in a different way.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nconventional fuels can't sustain us because we will be unable to scale them up to a point that they will be needed fast enough. At least get the opposing viewpoints straight before you argue against them.


Who has it wrong? There was just an article posted yesterday about how almost nobody is buying the Heavy crude oil that Saudi Arabia is selling at a deep discount right now. Venesuala and Russia have huge reserves of heavy oil too. Alberta is pumping out a lot of oil now too from their tar sands (I forget the number but it was a lot more than I thought it was) and that number is projected to triple in the next 5 years.

Refining capacity cannot be the problem as 75% of the refineries in the USA can process heavy crude oil. Based on these two facts along please explain to me how we won't be able to scale them up fast enough?

Also, it is not like there won't be investors lining up one after another to fund these projects. I would imagine somebody could get pretty rich (or richer as the case probably will be) if they invested enough money in something that has the potential to completely eliminate our need for foriegn oil.

I have said it time and time again so I will say it again.

Coal to oil is capable of providing us with 2-4 trillion barrels of oil

CO2 injections will give us another 500-950 billion barrels oil of oil from existing wells.

New discoveries over the next 40 years will produce anywhere from 120-700 billion barrels of oil (depend which prediction you choose to listen to).

If all the cars purchased in the USA were converted to hybrids, we could eliminate imported oil all of of our foreign oil imports when completed (15-20 years down the road). Assuming we consume 25% of the oil produced in the world (30 billion barrels) and we import 60% of the oil we need, that would reduce worldwide need by 4.5 billion barrels of oil (without concidering growth of course). If those hybrids were the plug in variety that get over 100 MPG, our dependance on oil would go down that much further considering about 2/3 of our oil usage goes to cars and trucks on the road (with the majorit going to the cars part).

Add this to our current proven reserve of 1.278 trillion barrels and we won't see true "Peak Oil" until roughly 2090 or 2100 (and I am not talking about conventional Peak Oil, I am talking about all oil Peaking) and I will be dead by then and my kids will be dead by then too. During that time, I am fairly confidant that something will be developed that will eliminate our need for oil all together. If we can take a super computer that use to fill up an entire room 20 years ago and put it into a computer that fits inside a desk drawer, I am pretty sure we can do just about anything. I won't speculate on what this technology may be because honestly, I don't think anybody could predict it much like I don't think anybody could have predicted 80% of the technological advances that have been made today 30 years ago.
User avatar
Flow
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat 05 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby Doly » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 12:53:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', 'C')ould it not be that you haven't heard anything about this because we dont' need to hear anything about this? That the real experts in the industry actually understand just how much oil there is left, how much we can get and have a pretty good idea when Peak Oil will happen.


It's funny how one sees articles about things one doesn't really need to know about, like how the Universe will end, but nothing clear about this. Maybe one doesn't see those articles because "they" don't actually have a clear idea of how to solve the problem.

And anyway, peak oil is not so much about running out of oil as running out of cheap oil. Sure, we can liquify coal. But it isn't as cheap, not by far.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby SarahC1975 » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 15:31:37

Wow, you make handling this crisis seem as easy as rearranging legos. Also good to see you are capable of predicting the future:

If peak oil happened today, we could have coal to oil production plants up in a few years. I can hear the president now "to address this oil crisis, we are diverting oil and money orginally slated for a few low priority road construction projects (football stadiums, golf courses, etc) this year and instead, we are going to spend it on building a few coal liquefaction plants to sustain our future." My point is to find the oil to produce alternatives is as easy as that. The money is still being spent so the economy is still growing but it is just being spent in a different way.
User avatar
SarahC1975
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu 10 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby SarahC1975 » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 15:33:32

Like cure the common cold?


If we can take a super computer that use to fill up an entire room 20 years ago and put it into a computer that fits inside a desk drawer, I am pretty sure we can do just about anything.
User avatar
SarahC1975
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu 10 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peakoildebunked.com - your comments and ideas?

Unread postby SarahC1975 » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 15:36:12

Note the consistent use of "if . . ." and "assuming . . ."

If all the cars purchased in the USA were converted to hybrids, we could eliminate imported oil all of of our foreign oil imports when completed (15-20 years down the road). Assuming we consume 25% of the oil produced in the world (30 billion barrels) and we import 60% of the oil we need, that would reduce worldwide need by 4.5 billion barrels of oil (without concidering growth of course). If those hybrids were the plug in variety that get over 100 MPG, our dependance on oil would go down that much further considering about 2/3 of our oil usage goes to cars and trucks on the road (with the majorit going to the cars part).
User avatar
SarahC1975
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu 10 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests