[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aflurry', '
')i get your point, but "running out" is a fine term to use in a situation where the eroei for getting it out of the ground is 1:1.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I') think the critical point is peak oil, not EROEI 1:1

[Free]

Once again let's not forget that it might have been a member of this forum, namely "orz", who is responsible that Jon has seen the light!

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic14819.html

[Novus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Falconoffury', 'I') still don't like how people use the term "running out". When we run out of oil, then all the oil fields in all the world will be producing nothing. The length of time between the world starting it's oil decline and the oil running out is several decades at least.

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

Agreed Novus, it is the ERoEI that is important. The oil companies are already starting to give up.


Doly wrote : By the time it gets to that, we will be using alternatives. If we still use oil, it won't be as a fuel.


I agree, but only after a collapse. I can't see anyway to get to renewable energy society, especially without the will to do so.


PS. That graph is excellent, very clear.

[peaker_2005]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I') think the critical point is peak oil, not EROEI 1:1

[NEOPO]

Gotta love John Stewart

Yes I believe that "peak oil realization" will be a huge turning point for the economy and as a matter of fact one of our group goals is to be in place well before this realization occurs.

We believe this will occur in 2007 or 2008.

We believe declines will be subtle at first (hidden as long as possible) but later will reach double digits offically as they will no longer be able to hide the facts.

I also concur that we should expect to hear many variations of peakoil like when people say "peak production" which is essentially the same thing.

I think Clinton had it like "peak oil production" or something like that.
Oil depletion is another.
No doubt in my mind that most of these people are refering to the same thing yet unaware of the differences in terminology.

[dub_scratch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Falconoffury', 'I') still don't like how people use the term "running out". When we run out of oil, then all the oil fields in all the world will be producing nothing. The length of time between the world starting it's oil decline and the oil running out is several decades at least.

[ohanian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dub_scratch', '
')"Running out" is an ambiguous term that causes confusion because it means different things to different people. To a Peaker, we started running out of oil with the first barrel. To the average person on the street who has never given oil depletion a second thought, "running out" is a long, far away day when the last barrel is spent.

[grabby]

Great point
can't argue with that.
Peak is here then.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ohanian', '
')That's why I prefer the phrase

Running out of CHEAP oil

Let's see the politicians try and weasel their way out of this one.

[aflurry]

how about the phrase "fucked six ways from sunday?"

its strength is in its unambiguousness.

seriously, Novus, thanks for that chart. quite elegant.

however, as i think about it, there is nothing to say that the actual cost energy cost of energy produced (Y) follows the linear and steadily increasing path. in fact, becasue of technology, discoveries, etc, it obviousy will get wider and narrower (perhaps even suddenly narrower) over time, though this chart could perhaps represent some smoothed out moving average, but averaged over how much time...?

my question is, would it be possible to continue past Z for some time, on borrowed energy as it were, in the anticipation of some advancement that would suddenly drop energy cost of production and send us backward on the chart? is forward movement along the x-axis of this chart inexorable or not?

is the point of eroei 1:1 as unambiguously decisive as we believe or not?

[Dreamtwister]

Stewart/Colbert '08! Just kidding.

[evilmonkeyspanker]

I would honestly vote for them in a heart beat. I am positive that if john steward ran, he would win!

[pedalling_faster]

... not via a third party. via the Democratic Party.

i think if they chose to run together, against Obama & Hillary, the debate would be a lot more real - they have the honesty to discuss Peak Oil/ Energy Transition.

barring any major bloopers, they would Turn Out the Vote - getting a lot of people who had given up on voting to the polls.

granted, the next President will be inheriting a huge mess from Bush 43.

but, next to Bush 43, Stewart & Olbermann do look Presidential.

[jboogy]

pretty funny piece on the daily show



http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Pla ... 30608.mov/

[mekrob]

The show's website There are two videos for it. Good stuff.

[Roccland]

link

[Denny]

It seems that the archive of videos will ultimately be the demise of politics as we know it. Every flip flop recorded for posterity.

I have to say, John's team did a great job in sifting through the clips. It was a masterpiece.

[Tanada]

I am old enough to remember the good old days, you know when comedians on TV would lampoon BOTH candidates for office and whoever won the Presidency would get Lampooned for the next four years?

Am I just blind or does it seem to anyone else that 'modern' comedians are all lampooning just one side?