[Micki]

Heard the term Peaknik some time ago and have used it a few times since then.

[perdition79]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andrew_S', 'I') am a peak oiler. Aaron sometimes says "peakers" which sounds good as a vocative in a thread title: "Attention Peakers".

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alcassin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')Right, so you'll readily agree with me we have enough nuclear fuel to last industrial civilization millions of years.

[simontay78]

I vote...

Ranking No.

1. Peak Oiler
2. Energy Depletion Analyst
3. EROEI Experts
4. Renewable Activist
5. Freedom Energy Researcher
6. Blue Piller
6. Free Energy Seeker
7. Disillusion
8. Reporter
9. Alarmist
10. Doomer Porn Writer

[wisconsin_cur]

Scientists?

rationalists?

iconoclasts?

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'O')kay, so you went from one obviously true statement, that earths resources are finite, to a cultish statement of subjective nonsense like we need to powerdown in the span of several generations. The whole 'peak oil debate' is a giant strawman. No one questions that oil production will peak, its the effects of such events that we disagree about.

As for consumption of uranium growth leading to uranium depletion within several generations, its simply not possible when you're aware of how vast uranium (and thorium) resources are.

[steam_cannon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', 'H')ow about debating society?

[steam_cannon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'B')ut! What I can tell you is what non-believers call us.
assholes
wackos
lefties
full of BS

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'O')kay, so you went from one obviously true statement, that earths resources are finite, to a cultish statement of subjective nonsense like we need to powerdown in the span of several generations. The whole 'peak oil debate' is a giant strawman. No one questions that oil production will peak, its the effects of such events that we disagree about.

As for consumption of uranium growth leading to uranium depletion within several generations, its simply not possible when you're aware of how vast uranium (and thorium) resources are.

[dinopello]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('simontay78', 'I') vote...

Ranking No.

1. Peak Oiler
2. Energy Depletion Analyst
3. EROEI Experts
4. Renewable Activist
5. Freedom Energy Researcher
6. Blue Piller
6. Free Energy Seeker
7. Disillusion
8. Reporter
9. Alarmist
10. Doomer Porn Writer

[KrellEnergySource]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')200 tons per year of uranium for light water reactors is easy to sustain for millinea, and 1 ton per year of uranium or thorium for breeder reactors is trivial.

[Dezakin]

The guy is wrong. He misquotes figures from the IAEA redbook on uranium resources which accounts for uranium extractable from mines open today at less than $130/kg. Its a bit because the spot price is nearly double that today, exploration for high grade uranium ores hasn't been done since the 50's, and every time you drop the ore grade by two, you find ten times the resources.

The energy return on mining in light water reactors today is well over 500 from measured energy inputs versus fuel output in ore grades of 300ppm. Extrapolating with the simple assumption that energy cost is proportional to ore grade (and we have good reason based on low ore grades in gold mining that that this is overly pessimistic) that places the resource base of fuels extractable with an energy return of 15-30 in the range of 1 trillion tons (from phosphate and shale ores)

This is before you even consider breeder reactors, which utilize fuel some 200 times as efficiently.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd I believe the arguments that even if these other resource constraints were resolved, we're not seeing any worldwide response to the upcoming real declines in oil production, other than perhaps military preparations.

[TheDude]

Dezakin is definitely a Nuker.

Which oil substitutes do you think we should be implementing starting now, Dez?

Better Peaknik than Peaker, which rhymes with Tweaker. We're such an obscure crowd though. Who cares about labels?

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'D')ezakin is definitely a Nuker.

Which oil substitutes do you think we should be implementing starting now, Dez?

[cube]

Nostra-doomers

[Jenab6]

The Prepared Ones
Hoarders
Hiders

[lowem]

So far, I've been using the term peakoiler.
I refer to the community as the peakoiler community.

Taking into consideration that people are at various points on the doomerosity scale out here, "doomer" obviously represents only one faction and not everybody.

And, IMHO, "peakist" sounds a bit casual as it kind of rhymes with "hobbyist". Well, maybe it is a hobby to some, but we've got serious folks out here too.

[zeke]

I vote for "realist."

not simply because I believe that the ideas behind Peak Oil Theory are reality-based.

To me, the larger reason is that I think we realize that the prevailing business model of "never-ending growth" is a physical impossibility.

"Modern Economics" seems to be predicated on the concept of growth. Only constant growth can create what's called a good economy. This is pinhead reasoning, but everybody seems to have jumped on board, bcs it sounds so good.

Who wants to embrace the reality of non-prosperity?

Yet, things DO end, or come to an end or are exhausted, and that is the way things are in reality. The lessons of history are quite clear on this idea.

One thing the Oil Age has facilitated (for the time being) is a suspension of the collective acknowledgement of reality. In other words, this free ride of cheap energy which has given us so many goodies and fun things has enabled us to believe that we can have any reality of our choosing. Just apply the right amount of elbow grease and yankee ingenuity, and you can have ANYthing, no matter the laws of physics or entropy.

So, I consider myself a Realist.

Not a gloom-n-doomer, not a chicken little, not a nihilist.

Just a plain ol' ordinary guy who comprehends that there is an end to "more."

gphaze

[bl00k]

Survivalists?

I believe many, if not all, people on this forum are more 'survivalist' than your average person.

[whatpeak]

I found it interesting that the WSJ used the term theorist in a recent article. Theorist is a convenient handle for them because it connotes a lack of credibility in some minds. The reader may associate Peak Oil with other theorists that they have trouble with like global warming theorists.