Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peakoil is not a problem

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

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby mkwin » Wed 11 Jul 2007, 17:57:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clueless', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ouse price growth has been experienced in most developed countries


You are an economist - I can tell by how you speak. A house never grows in "value" it is just a bunch of wood and concrete that keeps the rain off your head.

In regards to "house price growth" what you are talking about is currency appreciation or depreciation which means it takes more or less monetary units to purchase that house.

And that is controlled by how much money the govt. is printing and lending, so in effect there are a few "evil guys" profitting off this deal -Which you so vehemently denied in your earlier post.


The definition of value is the price someone is willing and able to pay for something. Hence the value can go up and down.

House value is driven by many factors, demographics, GDP, zoning laws, income growth, social trends not just credit creation.

Your last points are so far of the mark I can't be bothered to answer them.
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby BigTex » Wed 11 Jul 2007, 17:58:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'O')ne more point. Serious climate change - in excess of 450 ppm co2 - could be impossible, as we might not have enough hydrocarbons to burn. The IPCC has not considered energy constraints in their climate models.


You don't think that there is enough coal in the ground to get us above 450 ppm of co2 if we burned it as fast as we can (which is likely to happen when oil gets REALLY expensive)?

That's an interesting idea, but it's hard to imagine that it's true. On the other hand, if it is true, hooray, I can mark one thing off my list of horribles.
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby clueless » Wed 11 Jul 2007, 18:06:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he definition of value is the price someone is willing and able to pay for something. Hence the value can go up and down.

House value is driven by many factors, demographics, GDP, zoning laws, income growth, social trends not just credit creation.


You just made two contradictory statements - One one hand you say it is based on what someone will pay and then give me a list of what determines house value...Home values as of late have been determined by how much a person can borrow.

House value is driven by what someone will pay...Period.

I don't want to sell my house becasue it is paid off and I am very comfortable in it. So please tell me what my house is worth then.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby clueless » Wed 11 Jul 2007, 18:12:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'm')kwin wrote:
One more point. Serious climate change - in excess of 450 ppm co2 - could be impossible, as we might not have enough hydrocarbons to burn. The IPCC has not considered energy constraints in their climate models.


Are you factoring in Methane Hydrates and stranded gas that may be released due to melting premafrost and sea temperatture change ? If you count those things in there is plenty of C02...
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place
Top

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby bonjaski » Wed 11 Jul 2007, 18:28:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 's')ome facts:

1) the next 60years there is enough energy in form of electrons


What is this energy that you speak ? Conventional electron energy exists when there is a differential in electrons, and it takes energy to create this differential. Hydrogen is similar.


i speak about energy in form of current from sun, coal, wind, biomass, ...

if think at about 10ct/kwh we can get endless energy;


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', '2')) there are enough (1,4trillion) hydrocarbons to sustain at least 70-80mbd for a long time



What is a 'long time'? Also, are you presuming that oil flows at this rate til it is gone ? That would be a bad assumption.

i assume that we will have 70-80mbd of conventional and unconventional oil for the next 50 years;


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', '3')) high oil, gas price doesn't lead to high inflation, since it has a minor impact on industry
(if you don't believe it, just question yourself if the triplicated oil price raised the price of your car, computer, food?, for me it didn't ... )


Food hasn't risen in price?

No i need 125 Euros a month now, i needed 110 5 years ago, thats no high inflation


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 'a')nd as for heating: here in europe, oil is already replaced by sun, geothermal, biomass and electric based solutions so i think this isn't an issue anymore.


You didn't mention NG. Why is it you guys were getting so touchy with the Russians then? Tell em to shove their NG, you are getting warmed by the sun and dead cows. :razz:

you are right,
but also the use of NG is decreasing, NG isn't cheap anymore;
at least here in italy, biomass and sun have a great success



i think the most interesting argument is, that that not 50% of consumers have to shift away from oil to reduce the consumption of oil by 50%:

20% of the most heavy consumers will do the job;

i think with tax incentives we can make this happen very fast

just think again about alls those CNG cars on italian streets ...
in a 5-10years they could be replaced by plugin hybrids;
reducing the dependency from fossil fuels very fast;

its just a question of oil price, but with this oil price
for me a plugin hybrid with a 10kwh battery under 25000Eur(16500+8500battery pack) is already cheaper then my car now, which i paid 16500Eurs; (if battery will survive 240000km)
even cheaper then a CNG car
Last edited by bonjaski on Wed 11 Jul 2007, 18:33:04, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bonjaski
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue 07 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby clueless » Wed 11 Jul 2007, 18:43:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')lueless (although a little too focused on economics which is pretty much a moot point) understand the situation very well, from what I can see.


Economics fascinates me up because people worship it...I find it very intruiging that our whole world obsesses over this, which is nothing other than some group of guys printing money.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place
Top

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby bonjaski » Wed 11 Jul 2007, 18:43:26

yes its interesting that SOME! metal prices are high, oil price is high,
but i don't feel no real inflation ...


clothe prices are just like always,
food is cheap,
cars are getting cheaper,
computers also,
price of public transport is also low


on the other hand profits are also rising, it doesn't seem that high oil or metal prices are really eating profits
(look at VW, mercedes, BMW, renault, fiat ... lufthansa)


i am optimistic, more then ever

lets hope that the oil price remains high
User avatar
bonjaski
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue 07 Feb 2006, 04:00:00

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby Windmills » Thu 12 Jul 2007, 00:40:03

The oil price is low right now, not high, and the variety of effects which you have chosen to ignore, despite them being displayed in various formats by other posters, are still in their infancy. At this point in the supply/demand imbalance, the poorest bidders in the oil market are being eliminated, such as the Africans. We aren't feeling the big effects yet because the price is still something we can afford for the moment.

Imagine this. If you, as a rich person, are in an auction for a painting against a group of poor people, you'll get a steal of a price for that painting. However, once the rich people file into the auction house, you're in for a fight. The price will no longer rise by a few cents here and there. It's going to skyrocket like nothing ever seen before. That's similar to the situation we now have. We're just bidding against poor people, poor countries, that can't afford to drive up the price of oil very much. There's still enough to go around for the rich countries, which is all that matters to those of us who "don't notice anything bad." Once the gulf between supply and demand gets to the point that all of the poor bidders have been driven out of the market and there's not quite enough for the rich to share, wealthy countries will be bidding against each other for the remaining oil. That's when we'll see the first amazing jumps in the price of oil. If you're having trouble seeing the effects of the increasing price of energy on the economy at this point, you'll surely see it then.
Windmills
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue 11 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby return1880s » Thu 12 Jul 2007, 01:06:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'O')ne more point. Serious climate change - in excess of 450 ppm co2 - could be impossible, as we might not have enough hydrocarbons to burn. The IPCC has not considered energy constraints in their climate models.


You don't think that there is enough coal in the ground to get us above 450 ppm of co2 if we burned it as fast as we can (which is likely to happen when oil gets REALLY expensive)?

That's an interesting idea, but it's hard to imagine that it's true. On the other hand, if it is true, hooray, I can mark one thing off my list of horribles.



We would need 5x more coal to supply our current energy needs. Not gonna happen, best it can do is make the peak oil situation a little less severe for a short time. Coal nor any altenate energy sources will be enough to replace peak oil.
User avatar
return1880s
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby return1880s » Thu 12 Jul 2007, 01:10:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Windmills', 'T')he oil price is low right now, not high........................Once the gulf between supply and demand gets to the point that all of the poor bidders have been driven out of the market and there's not quite enough for the rich to share, wealthy countries will be bidding against each other for the remaining oil. That's when we'll see the first amazing jumps in the price of oil. If you're having trouble seeing the effects of the increasing price of energy on the economy at this point, you'll surely see it then.



When will this day happen? sometime in 2010? If the poor countries can't afford oil any longer, they will be the first to experience a die-off as food will be post peak for them. We will also stop donating money to feed the poor starving Africans as we will be needing all our money to feed ourselves.
User avatar
return1880s
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby Judgie » Thu 12 Jul 2007, 04:07:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 's')ome facts:

1) the next 60years there is enough energy in form of electrons


What is this energy that you speak ? Conventional electron energy exists when there is a differential in electrons, and it takes energy to create this differential. Hydrogen is similar.


i speak about energy in form of current from sun, coal, wind, biomass, ...

if think at about 10ct/kwh we can get endless energy;


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', '2')) there are enough (1,4trillion) hydrocarbons to sustain at least 70-80mbd for a long time



What is a 'long time'? Also, are you presuming that oil flows at this rate til it is gone ? That would be a bad assumption.

i assume that we will have 70-80mbd of conventional and unconventional oil for the next 50 years;


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', '3')) high oil, gas price doesn't lead to high inflation, since it has a minor impact on industry
(if you don't believe it, just question yourself if the triplicated oil price raised the price of your car, computer, food?, for me it didn't ... )


Food hasn't risen in price?

No i need 125 Euros a month now, i needed 110 5 years ago, thats no high inflation


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 'a')nd as for heating: here in europe, oil is already replaced by sun, geothermal, biomass and electric based solutions so i think this isn't an issue anymore.


You didn't mention NG. Why is it you guys were getting so touchy with the Russians then? Tell em to shove their NG, you are getting warmed by the sun and dead cows. :razz:

you are right,
but also the use of NG is decreasing, NG isn't cheap anymore;
at least here in italy, biomass and sun have a great success



i think the most interesting argument is, that that not 50% of consumers have to shift away from oil to reduce the consumption of oil by 50%:

20% of the most heavy consumers will do the job;

i think with tax incentives we can make this happen very fast

just think again about alls those CNG cars on italian streets ...
in a 5-10years they could be replaced by plugin hybrids;
reducing the dependency from fossil fuels very fast;

its just a question of oil price, but with this oil price
for me a plugin hybrid with a 10kwh battery under 25000Eur(16500+8500battery pack) is already cheaper then my car now, which i paid 16500Eurs; (if battery will survive 240000km)
even cheaper then a CNG car

If the shift to solar panels, rainwater tanks, and lpg installations is anything to go by here in Australia, then tax incentives and rebates aren't going to do very much. You see, due to this interesting concept known as "corporate greed", as soon as tax incentives or rebates are announced, the price of the goods they will affect appears to almost double. Result = consumers still can't afford the gear.
"That the cream cannot help but always rise up to the top, well I say, <censored by peakoil.com> floats"

Jarvis Cocker - "Running the World"
Judgie
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Mon 07 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Top

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby peripato » Thu 12 Jul 2007, 10:04:16

Bonjaski, you are forgetting about the corrosive effects of exponential growth on your arguments. For example, (assuming all the problems associated with your sweeping claims are cast aside), even if it were possible to replace 50% of the world auto fleet tomorrow with plug-ins which were twice as fuel efficient as today's ICE's, at the current rate of growth the number of cars will have doubled in just 10 years erasing any gains achieved by such a futile undertaking.
User avatar
peripato
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Reality

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 12 Jul 2007, 16:44:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 's')ome facts:

1) the next 60years there is enough energy in form of electrons or even hydrogen from coal, nuclear, sun, wind, biomass ...


2) there are enough (1,4trillion) hydrocarbons to sustain at least 70-80mbd for a long time


3) high oil, gas price doesn't lead to high inflation, since it has a minor impact on industry
(if you don't believe it, just question yourself if the triplicated oil price raised the price of your car, computer, food?, for me it didn't ... )


and now my killer argument:
one doomer argument in this forum is, that we can't shift fast enough to fossil carbon free technologies or rather that the impact of the shift would be too low.

Well this isn't true.


Those are not facts. Those are examples of a lack of understanding of the issues. And the one that says a rising cost of energy is not inflationary is flatly....embarassing. :oops:
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: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby BigTex » Thu 12 Jul 2007, 17:05:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('return1880s', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'O')ne more point. Serious climate change - in excess of 450 ppm co2 - could be impossible, as we might not have enough hydrocarbons to burn. The IPCC has not considered energy constraints in their climate models.


You don't think that there is enough coal in the ground to get us above 450 ppm of co2 if we burned it as fast as we can (which is likely to happen when oil gets REALLY expensive)?

That's an interesting idea, but it's hard to imagine that it's true. On the other hand, if it is true, hooray, I can mark one thing off my list of horribles.


We would need 5x more coal to supply our current energy needs. Not gonna happen, best it can do is make the peak oil situation a little less severe for a short time. Coal nor any altenate energy sources will be enough to replace peak oil.


Read mkwin's comment again. He is suggesting as a contrarian that we may not have enough fossil fuels to do any serious harm to the environment--raising co2 ppm above 450, even if we tried. His point is that climate change may not be a serious issue because we won't be able to burn enough fossil fuels to do serious damage to the atmosphere. I don't think he's right, though.

The thing I was going to mark off my list of horribles if mkwin was right was dramatic climate change, not PO and Peak Coal.
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby NotMyBlood » Thu 12 Jul 2007, 18:05:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'm')kwin gets his popcorn........The carm before the storm.


lol.....


I have some serious doubts about Peak Oil myself. Especially when I first started to read about the theory. There are so many different predictions and statements coming from the "experts". You dont know who to believe?!?!?!? (although did you see the report from the IEA the other day?). So, am I convinced of the impending doom? No I'm not; I do believe that a combination of mandated enery conservation, new discoveries, improved technology and yet to be discovered answers could very well make the transition from oil to ??? easy.

But I got to tell you, it's 50/50. Were going to need a whole lotta "change", "luck", and "innovation" to avoid suffering. And I don't see any "changing" happening. Not much luck either.

The more I read and observe, the more I'm incline to think the next 20-30 years are going to be "rough". To say the least. Okay, say we do avoid an energy crisis(highly unlikely), but how do you fix the problems stated in the paragraph and link below. Peak Oil is just a sympton(the biggest , most severe sympton) of the problem.



The human population of Earth reached 1 billion in 1804, 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1959, 4 billion in 1974 and 5 billion in late 1986. Last year on October 12th 1999, the human population of Earth reached 6 billion. In my lifetime the population has doubled from 3 billion in 1959 to the 6,034,213,000 today. This doubling of population which occured over the last 40 years will never come close to happening again.

http://www.overpopulation.net/


I read this somewhere. maybe Kunstler??? But, in every other "Doomsday, end of the world" prediction, the party claiming that the end is nigh asked you to have "faith" that it would occur.

Science and rational thinking proved otherwise. This time, its the other way around. The party asking you to have faith aren't the Doomers. Its the people claiming that the end of civilization won't happen. They are asking you to have "faith" in technology.....
User avatar
NotMyBlood
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri 29 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby Judgie » Thu 12 Jul 2007, 20:23:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NotMyBlood', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'm')kwin gets his popcorn........The carm before the storm.




Science and rational thinking proved otherwise. This time, its the other way around. The party asking you to have faith aren't the Doomers. Its the people claiming that the end of civilization won't happen. They are asking you to have "faith" in technology.....


Faith in technology is easy. Faith in the supporting bureaucracy, the marketers, and the executives who govern it is not. Unfortunately, engineers get S.F.A. of a say these days in management, unless they've worked their way to the top.

Renewable's likely can support the human race. All we need is to declare open-season on aforementioned, and old Charlton and the N.R.A. will have it all fixed in a jiffy....................
"That the cream cannot help but always rise up to the top, well I say, <censored by peakoil.com> floats"

Jarvis Cocker - "Running the World"
Judgie
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Mon 07 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Top

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby Narz » Thu 12 Jul 2007, 23:11:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clueless', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'p')eakoil is not a problem (my opinion)


[smilie=new_color_.gif]

When I tell them there's no problems...Only solutions.

Well they shake thier heads and they look at me as if I've lost my mind, I tell them theres no worries I'm just sittin here doin time....


We all know what happened to him, right ?

No, what happened to him?
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
Top

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby TonyPrep » Fri 13 Jul 2007, 01:54:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 't')he next 60years there is enough energy in form of electrons or even hydrogen from coal, nuclear, sun, wind, biomass ...
The question is not the physical amount of energy that may be in the earth system or that may enter that system, but the rate at which that energy can be harnessed for humans (and that such harnessing doesn't disrupt other natural systems that may affect us). So this is not a particularly useful "fact"$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 't')here are enough (1,4trillion) hydrocarbons to sustain at least 70-80mbd for a long time
This is simply your belief. Many people who have a lot of knowledge of hydrocarbon production disagree. You're entitled to your opinion but you've presented nothing here that would convince others.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 'h')igh oil, gas price doesn't lead to high inflation, since it has a minor impact on industry
(if you don't believe it, just question yourself if the triplicated oil price raised the price of your car, computer, food?, for me it didn't ... )
Well I've certainly noticed increases. However, you make the mistake of assuming that price increases will remain relatively modest. As just about everything has an energy cost, and an oil cost, continued price increases are bound to have an increasingly obvious effect. For example, if oil is, say 5% of the cost of an item, with oil at $70 per barrel, what will be the cost proportion if oil reaches $200 per barrel, or more? Especially, as that will feed into all sorts of incidental costs that accumulate the effect. Inflation is being fought now in many OECD countries.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 'I')f just the 10-20% of car drivers, which drive most miles, would change to plugin hybrids, regenerative biofuels (biogas, cellulosic EtOH) or hydrogen rom sun or wind.
(bus companies, commuters, police, ...) the oil consumption of cars would drop ~ 25-45%.
This is misguided, because it is wishful thinking. Many people do this. I don't know whether you're right or not (you don't provide detailed figures and calculations) but you have, to your mind, made a determination of how things might be improved and then leapt to the assumption that it will be done, at the required rate and smoothly. So this killer argument amounts to a belief only (which is fine if you want to base your future on beliefs).
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: peakoil is not a problem (my opinion)

Unread postby retiredguy » Fri 13 Jul 2007, 10:22:35

Narz,

I believe Clueless was refering to John Lennon.
User avatar
retiredguy
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: southern Wisconsin

Re: Peakoil is not a problem

Unread postby Mircea » Sun 15 Jul 2007, 20:54:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 's')ome facts:

1) the next 60years there is enough energy in form of electrons or even hydrogen from coal, nuclear, sun, wind, biomass ...


I wouldn't attempt to dispute that.

However, I'd love to see you make asphalt or cosmetics or carpeting out of wind.

I blame the peak pukers for the grievous fallacy you have committed, namely, the fallacy of equivocation.

You see this BS a lot: "Oil....oil....oil....Energy."

If suddenly now there would be no oil, it would have zero effect on the production of electrical energy in the US. The US can produce electricity for the next 500 years. The electrical infrastructure in the US is a different issue (and problem) but it isn't related to oil.

The issue with oil is the products produced from refining oil, like asphalts, tars, bitumens, napthas, lubricants, petroleum distillates, petroleum jellies, polymer bases for plastics, feed stocks for synthetic fibers for capeting and clothing, feed stocks for cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, propane, fertilizer and a slew of other things, including our favorites, gasoline, diesel and kerosene.

Sorry, but wind, sun and nuclear are not going to produce asphalt, or petroleum jellies like Vaseline so you can smear all over yourself and wallow around on a cheap shower curtain (made of polymer bases from oil).

Biomass? You can produce some petroleum distillates, like solvents, but that's about it. Sorry, you ain't going to be building asphalt roads and highways out of sawgrass or corn.

And coal? Forget it. The only thing you can produce from coal is the lighter hydrocarbons for gasoline and diesel. You can't get the mid and lower end hydrocarbons to produce the range of products that oil refining can produce. And it's CO2 intensive, so the Gorebot would not approve and Carmen Diaz would hate you, plus there'd be more useless concerts that no one cares about.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', '2')) there are enough (1,4trillion) hydrocarbons to sustain at least 70-80mbd for a long time


Once again, you're guilty of equivocation.

The issue is not energy, it's the products that are produced from the refining of oil. Some hydrocarbons are more equal than others.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', '3')) high oil, gas price doesn't lead to high inflation, since it has a minor impact on industry
(if you don't believe it, just question yourself if the triplicated oil price raised the price of your car, computer, food?, for me it didn't...)


That's an irrelevant argument, mostly because you don't appear to understand economics.

High gasoline prices could not lead to inflation. High gasoline prices reduce a consumer's disposable income, forcing them to purchase less of everthing else. That decreases demand, which increases supply, which results in a decrease in prices, not an increase.

Conversely, high diesel prices might increase prices, but only marginally, and only in the long term. $1/barrel is only a $0.05 for diesel and gasoline. So its $5 more to transport 10,000 widgets so that's $5 / 10,000 = a whopping $0.0005 increase in costs. Manufacturers would eat that for a long time before there was any increase in price.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bonjaski', 'a')nd now my killer argument:
one doomer argument in this forum is, that we can't shift fast enough to fossil carbon free technologies or rather that the impact of the shift would be too low.

Well this isn't true.

If just the 10-20% of car drivers, which drive most miles, would change to plugin hybrids, regenerative biofuels (biogas, cellulosic EtOH) or hydrogen rom sun or wind.
(bus companies, commuters, police, ...) the oil consumption of cars would drop ~ 25-45%.


Once again, you missed the target by about 30 Million Parsecs. You don't understand the American psyche and your understanding of peak oils is superficial.

You can't give an American more than two choices or they panic and don't know what to do. Think of the "paper or plastic" commercial. The US has no leadership from the Bushbot, none from the Departments of Energy or Commerce, no leadership from Pelosi, none from Congress, and the state legislatures, well, they're morons. Unless and until someone comes out and says, "Bio-diesel is our future" or "Plug-in hybrids are our future" then Americans will remain indecisive and nothing will happen very slowly.

What you've done is reduce peak oils to a gasoline/diesel argument. Yes, the gluttonous US uses 20 Million barrels a day, and yes, 50% or 10 Million barrels a day are devoted solely to the production of gasoline, diesel and kerosene, but that's an aberration. Sure, the US could reduce its oil consumption to 10 Million barrels a day over 5 to 10 years and that would delay the onset of peak oils by 12 to 15 years, but that's it.

The vast majority of countries do not import oil or oil-related products for the purpose of producing gasoline. You need to study the 140-odd countries that use oil/oil-related products and see how they're using them. Instead of gasoline, they want the other dozens of products to use in manufacturing and for infrastructure development (and a few rather stupidly use it for electric power production). And as they grow and their economies develop, they'll need more oil/oil-products. You can't make pharmceuticals, or plastics, or tars and asphalts, or lubricants, or fertilizer out of wind, solar, nuclear power, or bio-fuels, so those things do nothing to alleviate the problem of the supply and demand of oils.
User avatar
Mircea
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri 04 May 2007, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

cron