Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Robert L Hirsch Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Hirsch report is totally bogus on biofuels

Postby TWilliam » Fri 12 May 2006, 20:16:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jeezlouise', 'T')he bottom line is this: Yeah, biofuels sure look good on paper, but... there is one overriding factor that has to be dealt with... the one huge problem that seems to be driving all of mankind's other problems... can you guess? What, ultimately, is driving both Peak Oil and Global Warming? Ok... say it with me now....

O V E R P O P U L A T I O N

Until we can figure out a way to level off the world's population and then safely reduce it to a normal level, none of these other problems can be solved. Biofuels will do nothing to solve this situation and may well exacerbate it. It's like putting a band-aid on a gaping head wound.

Getting six and a half billion people (plus another quarter mil every day) to agree on this is just about impossible. People are gonna fuck when they wanna fuck. This I think is where the Doomer perspective ultimately springs from.

Oh come on. That petri dish thing Bartlett talks about is only true for other creatures, not us. We're God's Special Creationtm. Do you honestly think He would tell us to "go forth; be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it..." if he didn't mean it (literally of course!)? Obviously He wouldn't tell us to do so if He hadn't provided the means... :roll:
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Hirsch report is totally bogus on biofuels

Postby TWilliam » Fri 12 May 2006, 20:27:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'S')imple.


No, spurious.

Six starving Afrikaans have much less environmental impact than one overconsuming Westerner. Cut her birthrate in half by raising her standard of living to even a quarter of a Westerner's and we're still in deep shit.

Population is a significant factor yes, but it is not the only one. At least as important as how many individuals inhabit the planet is how much resource each of them consumes...
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Hirsch report is totally bogus on biofuels

Postby jeezlouise » Fri 12 May 2006, 22:09:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '
')Biofuels is the way to fight overpopulation.

Biofuels = prosperity for dead-poor high-fertility-ratio countries
Economic growth = decline in birthrates

Each African woman with a current fertility rate of 6 (like the average woman in the Congo), and who dedicates one hectare of her land to biofuels, will see her fertility rate drop, as oil prices rise and her income from biofuels rises.

Simple.


SIMPLE?? Ok, sure, as long as we can get the entire world to think like the average woman in the Congo...

I don't live in the Congo. Where I live, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, people don't "dedicate their land" (almost no one really owns usable land in this country) to anything but making their next rent check and finding their next fix of alcohol or drugs. What you're suggesting requires people completely upending their lives for an unintelligible far-off quest for Utopia. Maybe you've never been to America, but as a "born 'n raised" denizen I can guarantee you as soon as the Doritos and grape soda run out, people here will start lighting their own neighborhoods on fire.
User avatar
jeezlouise
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2006, 04:00:00

Hirsch II:Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Options

Postby MonteQuest » Sat 03 Jun 2006, 23:39:30

This study is a sequel to the Hirsch Report which addressed the issue of world oil peaking. This current study deals exclusively with physical mitigation options for the U.S.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his study considered four options that the U.S. could implement for the massive physical mitigation of its dependence on imported oil:

Vehicle fuel efficiency (VFE)
Coal liquefaction (coal to liquids or CTL)
Oil shale
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR)


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is important to note that initiation of all of the options simultaneously does not even satisfy half of the U.S. liquid fuels requirements prior to 2025. If the peaking of world conventional oil production occurs before 2025, the U.S. may not have a choice in terms of a massive national physical mitigation program. Even with the most optimistic assumptions and assuming crash program implementation, physical mitigation will require decades and trillions of dollars of investment to make substantial contributions.

Link to pdf file
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: Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Options

Postby mekrob » Sat 03 Jun 2006, 23:56:09

That's gotta be one of the most optimistic reports ever. In 20 years, they think we'll be producing only about 100 kpd less. And they still think that efficiency won't be eaten up by simply more driving.
mekrob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Hirsch II:Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Opt

Postby Silverharp » Sun 04 Jun 2006, 15:18:29

stopped reading after it said oil might peak in the next decade or two
User avatar
Silverharp
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue 15 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Dublin

Re: Hirsch II:Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Opt

Postby XOVERX » Sun 04 Jun 2006, 15:37:15

Interesting article. Hopefully the Republicans will get these projects going.
User avatar
XOVERX
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Hirsch follow-up: Many trillions needed to mitigate PO

Postby Zardoz » Sun 04 Jun 2006, 20:59:27

He talks about peak in 10 or 20 years, a cost of $2.6 trillion as being on the low side, five new CTL plants per year, oil shale as being a viable option, and the whole effort still being only a partial solution.

Even with all the new jobs he talks about, the tax revenues, and the sales figures, to me this is still a pretty doomerish paper.
Last edited by Zardoz on Sun 04 Jun 2006, 22:40:14, edited 2 times in total.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: Hirsch follow-up: Many trillions needed to mitigate PO

Postby mekrob » Sun 04 Jun 2006, 21:14:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Even with all the new jobs he talks about, the tax revenues, and the sales figures, to me this is still a pretty doomerish paper.


That's why no one in the government (cept for Bartlett) will even acknowledge its existence. Only 2 and a half years left and then Bush is gone so why should he implement any plan that is 'absurd'? Let the next guy deal with it. And then when the next guy gets in, he'll ignore it as long as possible and then blame others for their incompetence.
mekrob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Hirsch II:Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Opt

Postby pup55 » Sun 04 Jun 2006, 21:25:35

Couple of things on this:

a. The authors think that once the decision is made to do the program, it will take three years before the first drop of alternate fuel is produced. If the initiative for this is supposed to come from the government, you know that not squat is going to happen for the next 2.5 years as it is, since the current rulers of the country are going to choose to spend the time debating gay marriage and the flag burning amendment. So, even if there is an electoral revolt and some adults are brought into the system, and even if they could find $2.6 trillion (1/4 of GDP) somewhere, nothing will get started until 2009 at the earliest, which means the first dribble of liquid fuels will show up about 2012.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ortunately, the U.S. is endowed with needed geological
resources, capital, labor, and management to undertake such an effort.


2. There is no question that we have it in us somewhere to do this, but to continue the analogy, without "hitting bottom" we appear at the moment to be so strung out on the gooey black stuff that we will be content to let our house burn down around us to keep getting that one more fix.

The logical people to be doing this, namely the oil companies, have not demonstrated any particular interest in this type of change. They are still into the paradigm of finding oil, drilling into the ground and pumping it out, etc. etc.

3. Interesting that it comes down to plumbers, carpenters, and electricians.

4. I feel sorry for Hirsch, except that he is probably making a career out of this, but you know it must be frustrating to so clearly see the problem, and see what will need to be done, but not be able to get anybody except Roscoe Bartlett on board with him.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Hirsch II:Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Opt

Postby jdumars » Sun 04 Jun 2006, 21:43:13

A lot of junkies die.

A lot of pulmonologists and oncologists smoke.

Many nutritionists and dieticians eat fast food at least once a month, and usually more often than that.

Many people who preach conservatism or piety are the same ones that have affairs, steal, lie and cheat.

The point I am making here is that even the most risk-informed people make decisions they know are blatantly self-destructive and/or hypocritical. With PO we're going to see this a lot. People will preach conservation, replacements, etc. but will continue many wasteful/damaging activities in secret. All of the hand wringing over finding replacements will only amount to so much hot air because the people who are in a position to enact the changes will be the last to feel the direct effects.

To pull off the mitigations that Hirsch and others envision requires a level of self sacrifice and altruism that I don't believe exists in this society. My ultra-left wing, environmental activist lawyer relative built her house in a wetland and shingled it with old growth cedar. She also regularly drives 140 miles to work.

I see the level of systemic retribution eminating from PO in almost spiritual terms. We have been warned, and ultimately salvation lies not in the actions of the whole but the heart and soul of the individual. Actions will speak louder than words.

I wish there was a way of easily describing myself as a doomer in these terms.
User avatar
jdumars
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon

RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Sun 04 Jun 2006, 23:24:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')e must innovate and invent long before we peak in energy, or we will not be able to without a massive socio-economical upheaval. The “father” will be shooting blanks. Our inventions will be stillborn. This is what the Hirsch Report is all about.

Which Hirsch report Monte? You mean the one where we had an early 90's energy crisis which everyone missed, or the one where its supposed to happen later when and if Peak Oil hits? The Hirsch report isn't all bad, but waving it around like a grand dame of EROEI or something doesn't jive with the one I read.

BY DEFINITION the 2003 Hirsch report requires years and years of "study/developement/whatever" to BEGIN mitigating something, and then a symetrically increasing triangle to ramp up whatever the something was. At no point does this reflect an idea like what is happening with ethanol, which is already here, already ramping up its size, already mitigating, and is specifically excluded in the 2003 Hirsch report.

Other things are specifically excluded in the 2003 Hirsch report as well....he mentions them, then says something to the effect that "well gee I don't know how to handle them because I can only retread what I wrote in 1987 so I'm going to ignore their effects". To be objective, the Hirsch report qualifies what it knows and doesn't know and what its model does and doesn't do very well, a sign of intellectual honesty, which is to his credit.

Hirsch also doesn't presuppose DOOM right outta the gate. Supposition: 2003 Hirsch report purposely ignores enough ready to go mitigation of Peak Oil procedures/technologies/current events which, when added into his modeling, completely negate the effect of Peak Oil itself. Any takers?

PS: Only those who have actually READ the silly thing need apply...dilitantes should be excluded for being off topic and uninformed.
This was split from this thread. ~jato
So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby mekrob » Mon 05 Jun 2006, 00:08:56

I've never seen a Hirsch Report from '87. Would you mind helping a PO'er out? Thanks.
mekrob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby TT » Mon 05 Jun 2006, 00:31:21

Pstarr, you seem like a pretty smart guy [ but why are you feeding this troll?
User avatar
TT
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon 12 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Victoria, Australia

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Mon 05 Jun 2006, 01:10:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 't')he troll was kicked of Montequest's thread. They gave him his own bridge to lurk under.


So true. The instant someone quotes the Hirsch report, and someone asks specifics and wants to refute it, BOOM, who cares if the Hirsch report is peak related or not...off you go where hopefully you'll get ignored.

Never let it be said that a dissenting opinion wasn't honestly cast aside so the zealots could get on with planning 80% depopulation or some such.
So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: RGR- The Hirsch Report is silly

Postby NEOPO » Mon 05 Jun 2006, 02:28:43

RGR said $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')upposition: 2003 Hirsch report purposely ignores enough ready to go mitigation of Peak Oil procedures/technologies/current events which, when added into his modeling, completely negate the effect of Peak Oil itself.

Any takers?


RGR - name them please.

I can think of some things that could completely negate peakoil yet they will not be pretty and the doomers will have won in the end as it will still be the "end of the world as you and I know it" never the fucking less!!
It sure as hell is not ethanol.....
I am game - you name them and I will shoot them down or die trying.

Come on ! it could be fun !

One man's troll is another mans treasure ;-)

Heres a timewarp lookback to the early 1970's when americans received their first sign that there could be something amiss.
Disco, whitemen with afro's and we were "bringing the boys back home" only after bringing over 50,000 home in body bags.

I spoke to gentlemen today who turned 16 in 1973 and by 1974 was working at a gas station in california so he saw his share of gas lines and if not for the timing of his birth he might have saw alot of jungle and bullets instead.

".25 or thereabouts a gallon in 1973 then to a .65 average then by 1974 $1 or so at most places and it really never looked back from that point on" he said.
That was a 5% artificial shortage.
Whats 5% right?
1 in 20 school buses.
1 in 20 airplanes etc etc.
No big deal right?
Imagine a conservative 3% yearly decline although with all this new tech and depletion rates associated with it and knowing that some of the largest reserves have used advanced tech as soon as it was available and all that wacko conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo about reserve estimates being nothing but pumped up lies hmmmmmm

I suppose you could add to this all the times certain companies have been caught lying and made to correct their little white paper lies yet have ya noticed they are never caught saying that they have less....and I wonder why.

thus 3% is indeed conservative.

Now imagine a 1.5 - 2.0 % demand increase - doesnt have to be the U.S. who keeps the demand high - we shall pass that baton when we are heavy breathing and tired of paying the price of running so quickly.

Based upon the past it is easy to conceive of another 5% shortage somewhere down this bumpy road and then gas is what? over $10 by my calculation based on one simple historical observation of roughly the same cause and effect - sure demand for gas in the US is not that elastic yet again "the giant has awoken" hmmm actually several thus our favorite customer status will be challenged eclipsed and then expire sometime in the very near PO future.

Now imagine this 4-5% thing could occur each and every year.
Yes!!!

Its ok I am scared also ;-)

No no its ok to cry - get it out yes yes there there ;-)

Yeah man - this is what we have been trying to say.
Although I despise programs with steps you must see this as an addiction.

Through those eyes you can see this for what it is and not be baffled by why everyone is acting so very differently then you are about it.

Some people may decide that now is the time that they should travel, waste money and hydrocarbons while they still can.

I see that as "bingeing".

You my friend are simply in denial unless perhaps the director of disinformation is your job title with the bush administration ;-)

good luck and goodnight.
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests