Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

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

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby mgibbons19 » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 16:04:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')It goes well beyond anti PO and it concerns many more things besides oil.
I completely understand why our board sociologist Mgibbons is having so much fun here ;-)


Thanks man! It's true.
mgibbons19
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby nth » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 16:39:26

First, what I wrote in that post is NOT what I believe in. It is what I perceived anti-PO believed in.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('azreal60', '1'). Who is King M Hubbert, and other than that, the major peak predictions are Now.


Hubbert is the first POer after WW2.
Peak Oil predictions goes back to the first oil boom in Pennsylvania.
Last peak prediction before Campbell's 1990's was during the 1970's.
I did not do a very detail review, yet, I came across ones in the late 1800's, Hubbert, 1970's, and 1990's which can be lumped with today's advocates.

1800's were predicting eminent.
Hubbert was predicting 1980's or 90's depending on how you want to define it.
1970's were predicting 1990's.
1990's are predicting now to next 10-15 years.

Anti-POers will point out that not only are we seeing oil production increases, but the rate of oil production is a lot higher than anyone's prediction from the past.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')2.Peak coal people aren't exactly a comparible thing. We knew alot less then about science than we do now, and the world was alot less explored. If you compare then to what we know now, and then compare the parameters, it's quite clear that the alternatives we have to go to are not nearly as scaleable as oil was.


Oil was not scalable back then. US was like the only place in the world who had a baby industry in oil. The number of employees, amount of capital, number of equipments were all nowhere near what coal industry had. Not to even point out that all the factories and ships need to be retroffited or build a new to take advantage of oil. It is not an easy swap and not much research for oil was being invested, either.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Just because there was one bad prediction made doesn't mean every prediction in the same vein is wrong, especially when on a somewhat smaller scale we have already seen it happen.


To me PO is like the boy who cried wolf.
One day PO will come and because we were wrong in the past, people will not listen to us.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')And for others, what's the difference from peakoil peaking and peak oil peaking eminently and the economy not adapting? I'm not sure on your vocabulary usage there, as in what you mean.


It took me awhile to realize the difference as I talked/argued/read anti PO. Many of them believed that we will run out of oil, yet, they adamantly refused to be linked with PO. The difference is that PO does NOT mean peak oil production to these people.

So when we post here, we must be clear that the term Peak Oil used by us means very different things to anti POers.

The bottom line is that to me, PO just means you believed it is a finite resource. To them, it does not mean it is finite resource. The only people who believed oil is not finite resource are abiotic folks and no expert wants to be linked with them, either.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby nth » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 16:50:37

pstarr,

you been here long enough to know what the anti po arguments are. no need for me to rehatch them here again.


i just want to make one comment. geologists tend to over estimated URR for a given area, especially, when they do not state the statistical probability. lookup the Dakotas, the previous head geologist over there used to tell media that there are billions of barrels of oil under their state. with that in mind, i think all the mapping in the world is useless if we don't drill to find out.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby nth » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 16:55:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'W')hile Fisher-Tropsch is theoretically possible there is not the coal, the time, the energy, the political will, nor the infrastructure to utilize it. Hirsch explaines that it would take 30 years to develope the manufacturing. Look around. It is not happening now and it won't happen ever.


Sadly, US has started the great CTL race.
I believe there are 3 or 4 in the works and a couple more planned.
Looking at available coal in US, they will need to use the low energy/high water content coal that is available. That means lots of CO2 and ashe going into the air and landfill.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 17:26:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'A')nd he also predicted nuclear power will be the replacement for the indefinite future.
Once again you change the subject at your own whim. This is about peak oil not about a science-fiction future that is not going to happen any time soon. How many nukes would we have to build every week to mitigate oil depletion?

Give me a depletion rate and I'll tell you.

We can certainly build 1-3GW capacity a week and we'll be fine.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nyway this is not an electric infrastructure. We do not have the electric grid or electric auto fleet to use the power. Peak oil is about petroleum.

Sure. Petroleum has replacements, and nuclear power can provide them. From heating energy for in-situ recovery techniques of oil shales and tar sands to hydrogenation of coal for synthetic fuel plants. Eventually when carbon runs low, we can crack carbon out of limestone for synthetic fuel.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'Y')es we know more about oil today than the brits knew about coal then, but it says very little about possible replacements.
Read the Hirsch report. Because we did not start mitigation 10-20 years ago we will see serious economic, social, and political disruptions--because we are not prepared now.Sure, I've read it. I think its overly pessimistic, but has some good points.

One of these points is we should seriously ramp up synthetic fuel infrastructure and nuclear power, because these facilities can take years to come on line. I dont think its any end of civilization crisis to worry about however, as seem to be espoused by many of those who contribute here.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'S')uch vitriol for daring to disagree, with an amusing dash of ironic hypocricy. Is this necissary in every post you make?stop insulting me ('doomer') and I'll stop slapping you. okay?What do I do to hurt your feelings?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'W')e can start by making more nuclear power plants and investing in synthetic fuel production.Oil depletion is about a liquid fuel transport problem that nuclear can not solve. While Fisher-Tropsch is theoretically possible there is not the coal, the time, the energy, the political will, nor the infrastructure to utilize it. Hirsch explaines that it would take 30 years to develope the manufacturing. Look around. It is not happening now and it won't happen ever.
It is happening. China is buying large coal liquefaction facilities with advice from sasol, and the US is beginning to invest as well. The problem is its not happening fast enough. Likewise we aren't investing in the infrastructure needed for shale recovery now. This means we'll have potential supply disruptions when heavy oils start to peak.

Why do you disparage efforts to do so? If you really cared one might guess you would attempt to drive them.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby rwwff » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 17:55:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'c')tl did not save the germans or south americans and I'm hoping it will not save us.


The germans and south americans did not have 7mbpd of domestic oil production to power an economy that could create successful CTL.

We can do, what they could not; the only question is can the price of oil be run up stong enough before peak to make these facilities economically productive before shrinking oil production puts a crimp on economic and industrial activity.

Site a nuke and a ctl in a coal producing region, and that region instantly becomes a petroleum producer. If you didn't care about CO2, you could just burn some of the coal in the electrical generation facility to power the CTL process.
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby NEOPO » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 17:55:13

Pstarr - Thats right.

I just wish I could always pinpoint the level of danger, discuss and link to it proficiently like someone I know ;-)

I am trying to think of all the work that would have to be done in the next 30 years in order to transition from oil to hydrogen and mixed bag of low EROEI alternatives and then my head explodes.
Let us hope that we do not run out of energy slaves before this work is universally agreed and seen as neccessary.
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby NEOPO » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 18:06:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'c')tl did not save the germans or south americans and I'm hoping it will not save us.


The germans and south americans did not have 7mbpd of domestic oil production to power an economy that could create successful CTL.

We can do, what they could not; the only question is can the price of oil be run up stong enough before peak to make these facilities economically productive before shrinking oil production puts a crimp on economic and industrial activity.

Site a nuke and a ctl in a coal producing region, and that region instantly becomes a petroleum producer. If you didn't care about CO2, you could just burn some of the coal in the electrical generation facility to power the CTL process.


Yeah "if you didnt care about co2"....good one.

Your second paragraph I like!
So if there is a crimp in economic and industrial activity then we suddenly cannot do it??....... or what??

edit: WANTED TO ADD: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he germans and south americans did not have 7mbpd of domestic oil production to power an economy that could create successful CTL.


A very ragged looking strawman you attempted to erect.
I almost feel sorry for you.
Heres my easy yet still flaming counter "yeah and they did not use 21 mbpd either" yet that hardly tells the whole tale.
_________________________________

We know the media is full of it yet sometimes they reveal more about the situation then they ever imagined.
This applies to posters on this forum as well ;-)
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 18:36:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'y')ou are basing your optimism (real?) on an entire series of unfounded assumptions, assertions, and reductions. I will repeat my self. Peak oil is a liquid fuel problem not electric.

We can not build 1 nuke per week. There are not enough sites, cooling water, available uranian, domestic political will, and probably steel, pipe, concrete, etc.

Sites: anywhere.
Uranium, 10^12 tons at positive energy return from shales/phosphates on up:
Domestic political will: A highly fluid commodity. You're part of the problem. Help be part of the solution.
Steel: Oh come on. You know this planet is made of iron?
Pipe: Huh?
Concrete: Rocks and cement, and the raw materials for that are everywhere.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow would we use the electricity. I repeat this is a gasoline transport world.

We'd start by doing enhanced oil recovery more efficiently.
Then we'd enhance tar sands recovery as the natural gas gets more expensive.
Then we'd use in-situ process heat of oil shales for shale recovery.
Then we'd synthesize hydrogen for hydrogenation of coal.
Then we'd break apart the limestone into quicklime and CO for the old synthetic fuel plants after the coal is gone, and we'll be using the quicklime for all the cement we'll need anyways.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou mention oil shale and the conversation probably should end. It's not an energy source--it's an energy carrier because the eroei is barely positive.

No kidding. Nuclear is the energy source.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')esides, we don't have the water or excess energy to turn colorado kerogen into fuel. And the Canadians don't have the NG or water to convert a lot more of their bitumen to petroleum. Now it is subsidized with a cheap petroleum infrastructure.


The water requirements are vastly overestimated. Consider how much water we divert for agricultural interests. The energy is easily supplied by a nuclear reactor. The canadian tar sands would likewise see a big jump in fuel production just by using nuclear power for the process heat for in-situ recover methods at the least, and then it comes down to the political will issue you raised. The synfuel companies have considered nuclear process heat, but its politically dangerous right now.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... /National/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')r. Swartout said Energy Alberta knows the pace of selling nuclear power in Alberta will have to be slow.

"We have to be very cautious in how we approach people," he said. "The knowledge of atomic energy in Western Canada is at a very low level."

Help solve that issue rather than spreading hopelessness will do a lot.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou dismiss the Hirsh study. On what grounds? Neither I nor Rober Hirsch ever predicted the "end of civilization." Just a lot of trouble.
Please dont construct strawmen. Where did I say I dismiss the Hirsh study outright. I only believe his predictions are slightly more pessimistic than mine.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is happening. China is buying large coal liquefaction facilities with advice from sasol, and the US is beginning to invest as well. The problem is its not happening fast enough. Likewise we aren't investing in the infrastructure needed for shale recovery now. This means we'll have potential supply disruptions when heavy oils start to peak.

Why do you disparage efforts to do so? If you really cared one might guess you would attempt to drive them.No. It is happening to fast. I disparage these 'solutions' because shale oil and coal tar are dangerous diversions from the real and immediate need. We need to powerdown into a high-tech non-destructive post-petroleum world and not rip the planet's skin and bake the surface.
Earth isn't that fragile. If you want high-tech and non-destructive, we need to transition the economy slowly, or we risk massive social instability and that risks war.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')mericans like you believe that this mad suburban rush is the only way to be. You are wrong. Billions of other people--Europeans, Asians, South Americans all manage to live on a fraction of the petroleum we burn and waste. Until I see plans to electrifiy our way of life and committ to solar energies I will fight all the dangerous 'solutions.'
Now its about 'americans like me'?

Every future solution will require fuel; We wont have electric airliners, but fortunately we can manufacture fuel from rocks and water... but it starts with coal and oil. I dont think you really want to solve anything, but I could be surprised.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby rwwff » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 18:45:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he germans and south americans did not have 7mbpd of domestic oil production to power an economy that could create successful CTL.


A very ragged looking strawman you attempted to erect.
I almost feel sorry for you.
Heres my easy yet still flaming counter "yeah and they did not use 21 mbpd either" yet that hardly tells the whole tale.


I know yall love to dismiss the incredibly massive amount of energy repersented by that 7mbpd; falling back on that "unnegotiable" comment, or some such nonsense.

When gas is $15 / gallon, the US is not going to consume 21 mbpd.

We waste a huge portion of that 21 mbpd only because it is so incredibly cheap cheap cheap.
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 18:50:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'c')tl did not save the germans or south americans and I'm hoping it will not save us.


The germans and south americans did not have 7mbpd of domestic oil production to power an economy that could create successful CTL.

We can do, what they could not; the only question is can the price of oil be run up stong enough before peak to make these facilities economically productive before shrinking oil production puts a crimp on economic and industrial activity.

Site a nuke and a ctl in a coal producing region, and that region instantly becomes a petroleum producer. If you didn't care about CO2, you could just burn some of the coal in the electrical generation facility to power the CTL process.


Yeah "if you didnt care about co2"....good one.

Well, read the IPCC predictions and look for doomsday; It isnt there. But if you work hard you can invent it. Just decide which is more important, dealing with climate changes or having your economy implode.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our second paragraph I like!
So if there is a crimp in economic and industrial activity then we suddenly cannot do it??....... or what??


Does not parse.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'e')dit: WANTED TO ADD: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he germans and south americans did not have 7mbpd of domestic oil production to power an economy that could create successful CTL.

A very ragged looking strawman you attempted to erect.
I almost feel sorry for you.

Thats a strawman? The problem with your strawman argument is that you consistantly posit that Richard Nixon was a space alien, when he was merely a jerk.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')eres my easy yet still flaming counter "yeah and they did not use 21 mbpd either" yet that hardly tells the whole tale.

Well the Germans did have 3 of the worlds largest powers trying to crush them while they diverted economic resources to exterminating the most productive ethnic minorities.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e know the media is full of it yet sometimes they reveal more about the situation then they ever imagined.
This applies to posters on this forum as well ;-)
This statement strikes me as delusionally paranoid.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby SolarDave » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 19:40:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '
')
1800's were predicting eminent.
Hubbert was predicting 1980's or 90's depending on how you want to define it.
1970's were predicting 1990's.
1990's are predicting now to next 10-15 years.



I read this and imagined:

The Earth has been around maybe 4 Billion years - to pick a nice round number. That's a long time. Suppose we equate a year to a meter to help visualize how long. OK, in meters, that's 10 times the distance between the Earth and the Moon.

So - given that distance, we may peak out with me standing here, or maybe on the other side of my front lawn.

Hardly worth discussing whether it's here or there. Out of that vast distance - we will have all the oil we need for about two or three times the length of a rugby field. Then poof. Gone.
100% of the electricity needed for this post was generated by ME.
http://www.los-gatos.ca.us/davidbu/pedgen/green_virtual_gym.html
Posted from a Pedal Powered Computer
User avatar
SolarDave
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby Nano » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 19:58:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '.').. and once they get my version of the answer they tend to have no more questions.
Its too scary for some.


Perhaps you should include a disclaimer in your version of the answer, namely the fact that you nor I know what the 'best' course of action for any individual is in the face of PO. I'vs stopped warning folks about PO, because I honestly wouldn't know what to say.

It's like explaining to a kid that he will eventually die and rot. Why do that? What's the purpose of informing someone about inevitable doom? Since when was doom not inevitable in the first place? Isn't the purpose of life to reach spiritual enlightenment? So why drone on about the different horrors of material life, of which PO will just be a new incarnation?

Better to just be happy and engage in spiritual advancement while you have a human body.
User avatar
Nano
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun 16 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Delft, Netherlands
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby Omnitir » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 22:06:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RelfF2', '
')How long exactly does it take to change the very basis of our financial, economic, and social world?

Not very long at all. This perhaps is the greatest cause of difference of opinion. Optimists understand the law of accelerating returns, pessimists believe that nothing is changing.

For an example of our accelerating adaptability, consider telecommunications. Now I know some people will dismiss this example because it’s not based on natural resources etc. (“we’re talking about life itself and you’re talking about trivial gadgets”), but communication is a very important part of civilization, and more importantly, the example demonstrates the law of accelerating returns, that is, our increasingly rapid adaptability.

So telecommunications: the invention of the original telephone to mass adoption by society took around 50 years. Another half century later, the invention of the cell phone to mass adoption of the public took around 15 years. Around a decade later, the development of the web and mass adoption by the public took around 5 years.

The time it takes for civilizations to adapt and to change to new paradigms decreases exponentially. It may have taken 100 years to establish an early energy infrastructure, but the next stage takes only a fraction of the time.

If someone calculates a requirement of 20 years to adjust to post oil based on a linear view of historic models, their calculations are flawed. Our adaptability increases exponentially and the rate of increase itself is also increasing. It may indeed take us 20 years to adapt to post oil. But that is 20 years based on the previous 20 years of change. At our current rate of change, we will experience that same measure of change over a much shorter period – likely about 8 years. At current rates of innovation, we will experience the same level of innovation that occurred over the entire 20th century within the next two decades. At current rates of innovation, the 21st century will experience about 200 centuries of progress.

So yes, it will take a long time to adapt - but a long time by historic rates of progress, not a very long time at current and future rates of progress.

It’s usually difficult to witness change occurring from a single point in time (i.e. – right now). But in 20 years, we will look back and marvel at how rapidly we changed.
"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.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby Omnitir » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 22:27:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')Oil depletion is about a liquid fuel transport problem
…
How would we use the electricity. I repeat this is a gasoline transport world.


Yes, PO is a liquid fuels crisis, which can be solved by eliminating the need for liquid fuels.

Yes, this is a gasoline transport world. And the future will be an electric transport world.
"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.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under
Top

Re: 1st post -- my problem with the anti-PO argument ...

Unread postby Last_Laff » Fri 22 Sep 2006, 22:34:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', 'Y')es, this is a gasoline transport world. And the future will be an electric transport world.


In the future will be an electric transport world? Are you sure that you're dreaming as you're writting this?
User avatar
Last_Laff
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat 16 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron