[cube]

It is a fact of life that there's always going to be somebody out there making money. For example if a great fire were to burn down a city (Great Fire of Meireki) leaving many people homeless you can be certain somebody will buy up all the available lumber for rebuilding and resell for what the "free market" will dictate.

Don't worry folks whether it's PO or an asteroid on a collision course to Earth there's always profit to be made.

Cube's investment advice 101.

[JustWatch]

I'm still having problems getting this quoting thing sorted out.
Every time I preview I get garbage

[JustWatch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'A')ny questions? HAHA!

[JustWatch]

Jesters do oft prove prophets.
King Lear

[RonMN]

MrBill? I may be wrong...but it would seem you've butted your head up against a stumbeling block:

MrBill Wrote:

However, I have to ask myself whether we, collectively, would be so indulgent of these youths against real economic contraction stemming from post peak oil resource depletion.

Answer: NO! We would NOT be so indulgent.

OK...so you're finally starting to view others as walking corpses...I understand. And yes, it's disturbing...none the less, it's the way it is

If I could think of another way, I would let all PO.com members know about it...unfortunately, I think you're starting to see what's in front of us

Best of luck to you...and to us all.

Ron...

[RonMN]

Re-reading my last post, I've come to the conclusion that I have to stop posting after a few cocktails

DOH!

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'R')e-reading my last post, I've come to the conclusion that I have to stop posting after a few cocktails

DOH!

[Newsseeker]

This is a methodical step-by-step progression into recent events with peak oil and the path towards economic collapse. Reasons to be optimistic? Naaah! I think GreenMan nailed it!

----------
This morning I took a few minutes to record my Peak Oil thoughts. I did so in a series of "I Believe" statements. I think this is generally a good exercise, if only to explicitly formulate the assumptions I filter new information through.
http://www.energybulletin.net/27711.html

[TorrKing]

I agree on all points actually, though I am perhaps a little more negative towards the implications of the depletion and long term effects.

Of particular interest I find point 9, 11, 12 and 15.

On 15 I am not really sure what he thinks, but I believe that wealth in the future will be smaller and oil consumption more localized. Sort of a mild mad-max scenario. He seems to believe things will recover and doesn't mention the die-off at all. Personally I believe that 80%+ of the human population will die, before there will be any significant recovery.

[Newsseeker]

Yeah, I think he probably didn't include the die-off because it was a little bit too far into the future. However, he did mention economic collapse and that is one way station on the way to the die-off. Overall I feel this is probably the best synopsis of our situation I have read in quite a while. I personally see a Neolithic age of hunter-gatherers and small scale farming communities once all is said and done.

[killJOY]

19. I believe the United States will be better off than most after they detonate nuclear weapons in the middle east and divert the remaining supply of oil to their fat asses.

[Newsseeker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', '1')9. I believe the United States will be better off than most after they detonate nuclear weapons in the middle east and divert the remaining supply of oil to their fat asses.

[MrBill]

I did not know where exactly to post this, so I thought it may as well be here? Printed in its entirety because I did not know which parts to stress. They are all important and relevant about any discussion about post peak oil depletion economics. An inconvenient truth to be sure.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Robert Samuelson: The inconvenient truth is that the future is coal

"My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue. It's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."Al Gore, accepting an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth"

Global warming has gone Hollywood, literally and figuratively.

The script is plain. As Gore says, solutions are at hand.

We can switch to renewable fuels and embrace energy-saving technologies once the dark forces of doubt are defeated. It's smart and caring people against the stupid and selfish.

Sooner or later, Americans will discover that this Hollywood version of global warming (largely mirrored in the media) is mostly make-believe.

Most of the many reports on global warming have a different plot.

Despite variations, these studies reach similar conclusions. Regardless of how serious the threat, the available technologies promise at best a holding action against greenhouse gas emissions.

Even massive gains in renewables (solar, wind, biomass) and more efficient vehicles and appliances would merely stabilize annual emissions near present levels by 2050.

The reason: Economic growth, especially in poor countries, will sharply increase energy use and emissions.

The latest report came last week from 12 scientists, engineers and social scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Called "The Future of Coal,'' the report was mostly ignored by the media. The report makes some admittedly optimistic assumptions: "carbon capture and storage'' technologies prove commercially feasible; governments around the world adopt a sizable charge (aka, tax) on carbon fuel emissions.

Still, annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 are roughly at today's levels. Without action, they'd be more than twice as high.

Coal, as the report notes, is essential.

It provides about 40 percent of global electricity. It's cheap (about a third the cost of oil) and abundant. It poses no security threats.

Especially in poor countries, coal use is expanding dramatically. The United States has the equivalent of more than 500 coal-fired power plants with a capacity of 500 megawatts each. China is building two such plants a week.

By 2030, coal use in poor countries is projected to double and would be about twice that of rich countries (mainly the United States, Europe and Japan).

Unfortunately, coal also generates almost 40 percent of man-made carbon dioxide, a prime greenhouse gas.

Unless we can replace coal or neutralize its CO2 emissions, curbing greenhouse gases is probably impossible. Substitution seems unlikely simply because coal use is so massive.

Consider a separate study by Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm. It simulated a fivefold increase in U.S. electricity from renewables by 2026. Despite that, more coal generating capacity would be needed to satisfy growth in demand.

Carbon capture and storage is a bright spot: catch the CO2 and put it underground.

On this, the MIT study is mildly optimistic. The technologies exist, it says. Similarly, geologic formations -- depleted oil fields, unusable coal seams -- provide adequate storage space, at least in the United States.

But two problems loom: First, carbon capture and storage adds to power costs; and second, its practicality remains suspect until it is demonstrated on a large scale.

No amount of political will can erase these problems. If we want poorer countries to adopt such mechanisms, then the economics will have to be attractive.

Right now, they're not. Capturing CO2 and transporting it to storage spaces uses energy and requires costlier plants. Based on present studies, the MIT report says that the most attractive plants with carbon capture and storage would produce almost 20 percent less electricity than conventional plants and could cost almost 40 percent more.

Pay more, get less -- that's not a compelling argument.

Moreover, older plants can't easily be retrofitted. Some lack space for additions; for others costs would be prohibitive.

To find cheaper technologies, the MIT study proposes more government research and development. The study's proposal of a stiff charge on carbon fuel -- to be increased 4 percent annually -- is intended to promote energy efficiency and create a price umbrella to make carbon capture more economically viable.

But there are no instant solutions, and a political dilemma dogs most possibilities.

What's most popular and acceptable (say, more solar) may be the least consequential in its effects; and what's most consequential in its effects (a hefty energy tax) may be the least popular and acceptable.

The actual politics of global warming defy Hollywood's stereotypes.

It's not saints versus sinners. The lifestyles that produce greenhouse gases are deeply ingrained in modern economies and societies.

Without major changes in technology, the consequences may be unalterable.

Those who believe that addressing global warming is a moral imperative face an equivalent moral imperative to be candid about the costs, difficulties and uncertainties.

[MrBill]

Merrill Lynch's own ideas on the future of coal in emerging markets, which of course are growing faster than developing ones and contributing as much or more greenhouse gases.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')PI-2 coal prices could continue to climb higher this year
The strong fundamentals underlying API-2 coal prices are unlikely to fade away near-term. Infrastructure bottlenecks in thermal coal exporting countries are curtailing supply growth while freight rates are high on the back of a tight shipping market. At the same time, Asian demand for coal is booming. Combined, the massive port delays in Australia and China's switch to a net coal importer have tightened the Asian coal market, and this is now passing through to Europe. The reduced availability of coal has pushed API-2 index prices to a 2-year high of $74.33/mt or $2.86/mmBTU. While the European coal burn is likely to be lower than last year, the collapse in European CO2 prices could encourage a rebound in demand in 2H07. Net, we expect API-2 coal prices to strengthen further in 2007.

But coal prices could moderate in 2008
Going into 2008, we are more concerned about a price correction. Australia is currently adding some port capacity and improving procedures, suggesting that supply availability in the Asian region will increase in 2008. Rail and port bottlenecks in other producing regions could also ease. Indonesia was adversely hit by its rain season, and exports are likely to return to more normal levels this time next year. Moreover, higher European CO2 prices for 2008 could marginally contribute to a shift out of coal-fired generation into cleaner power next year.

Long-term, a thirst for EM power will keep coal prices high
Strong demand growth should support coal prices to the end of the decade. Coal reserves are very high relative to consumption and widely distributed across countries. Moreover, coal will likely remain the cheapest thermal fuel on the planet, supporting demand. Despite its environmental drawbacks, coal will likely remain the industrial fuel of choice in emerging markets. In addition, we see significant potential for pent-up power demand in the Asian residential sector.

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]The reason: Economic growth, especially in poor countries, will sharply increase energy use and emissions.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]The reason: Economic growth, especially in poor countries, will sharply increase energy use and emissions.

[roccman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat happens when peak oil collides with our economic system? It seems to me that there is a high probability of a major discontinuity of some type. What exactly happens after the discontinuity is likely to vary from country to country. It seems to me that the United States is especially vulnerable to a drastic drop in the amount of oil available for import because of the large amount of oil we import and the relatively small amount of goods we export.

Many people when analyzing the world oil situation focus on the relatively small drop in overall world supply in the first few years. From this, they conclude that peak oil will primarily raise the price of oil and some related goods, but not have a huge effect otherwise. If the decrease in oil products is severe, some rationing may be required. I think this analysis misses the big part of the problem – the impact of peak oil on the overall economic system, particularly in the United States.

The world is very different now than it was before the industrial revolution, which began about 1800 when fossil fuels were first used extensively. It seems to me that there is a significant chance that over the long term there will be just as big a change as we leave the age of fossil fuels. To start the discussion, let's start with where we are, and then take a look back.

[MD]

Dude!

The economic impacts of peak oil are driving peak oil.

See my thread. That's just what I'm talkin' about!

Listen to the machine. The engine's making very bad sounds right now. She's about to blow cap'n I can'na give a bit more sir!

[roccman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', 'D')ude!

The economic impacts of peak oil are driving peak oil.

See my thread. That's just what I'm talkin' about!

Listen to the machine. The engine's making very bad sounds right now. She's about to blow cap'n I can'na give a bit more sir!

[MD]

Yeah, that's the long version. Me I like the short and sweet version: we're about done.

Thanks for the link though I'll have to read through it.