Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

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

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby Micki » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 00:23:33

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

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby perdition79 » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 02:01:31

$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".


Thankfully, enough time has passed since "Twin Peaks" was around that the term "Peakers" is free to be used.
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/

"We are building a religion; we are building it bigger. We are widening the corridors and adding more lanes."
Cake - Comfort Eagle
User avatar
perdition79
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri 21 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Babylon
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby Dezakin » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 03:06:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alcassin', '')$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.


Well, if you had Chernobyl not far away you might be quite aware of the possible outcomes. It's not so far away from here, and really, assuring me that this is safe is calling 'Titanic' unsinkable.

Anyway, I think it can be used as a minor energy source but we have to powerdown. So I disagree, and moreover - keep consumption of uranium growing and your grandkids will face the same problem we have with oil today.

It's not a solution, it's merely transition.


Okay, 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.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby simontay78 » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 03:39:57

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
simontay78
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon 01 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: SG
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby wisconsin_cur » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 04:14:09

Scientists?

rationalists?

iconoclasts?
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
User avatar
wisconsin_cur
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4576
Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby TonyPrep » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 05:46:14

$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.
Peak oil is an indicator of the limits imposed by nature. It is not just energy that we need to sort out. Even if uranium could theoretically last for millions of years at any meaningful level of production, some other needed resource would become scare millions of years before that.

On your last point, oil resources in the Canadian tar sands are vast (as cornucopians are keen on repeating), it is just that they will never be produced at more than a modest rate.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby steam_cannon » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 06:55:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', 'H')ow about debating society?
I really think you hit the nail on the head Concerned. This is absolutely a debating society and that's really the way to present it.

Example:

Interviewer: Tell me about yourself, are you involved in any clubs or groups?

Interviewee: Yes, I'm part of a debating society that discusses breaking news relating to energy and scientific studies.

Interviewer: Is there a name for people with that interest?

[s]Interviewee: Yes, DOOOOMERS! [/s]

:lol: On second thought, maybe doomers isn't the best name. So what to call people here? Energy analyst? Peak oilers? Peakers? There are a lot of good ideas. Also for press purposes, we really need a name less subject to interpretation.

Energy analysts
Global energy analysts
Global energy respondents
energy respondents

A respondent is someone who responds to a survey. Also...
"respondent n. 1) the party who is required to answer a petition for a court order or writ requiring the respondent to take some action,"
The court is life and we study serious issues that require our action. We are respondents to reality. It also sounds right, we think about personal responses to energy depletion. So maybe Energy Respondents would work...

Continuing with example:

Interviewer: Is there a name for people with that interest?

Interviewee: Yes, we're a group of Energy Respondents, this means we are interested in energy and outcomes relating to the energy needs of civilization.

Interviewer: Gee, sounds like heavy stuff.

Interviewee: Yes it is.
Last edited by steam_cannon on Mon 03 Dec 2007, 07:08:34, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby steam_cannon » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 06:58:00

$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
Yeah, that is a big problem. Resource depletion conflicts with the reality most people want, so talking about it no matter how reasonably tends to make most people flip out. Telling people fuel will get used up is akin to telling someone their god doesn't exist. There's just no way around that until they realize it themselves.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'a')nd I live in a fantasy world. :)
What women don't... (suddenly my wife smacks me...)
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby Dezakin » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 07:50:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$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.
Peak oil is an indicator of the limits imposed by nature. It is not just energy that we need to sort out. Even if uranium could theoretically last for millions of years at any meaningful level of production, some other needed resource would become scare millions of years before that.


See, the whole topic of peak oil has been hijacked by a bunch of death cult lunatics that see the end of the world behind every corner.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n your last point, oil resources in the Canadian tar sands are vast (as cornucopians are keen on repeating), it is just that they will never be produced at more than a modest rate.


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.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby dinopello » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 08:24:00

$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


You have two #6. This is the second time I have seen this so maybe I'm totally wrong, but wasn't the blue pill the one that the people took that didn't want to wake up ? Wouldn't we be Red Pillers ?

What ever happened to Peaknik ?

I don't really like the cutsey name idea though.

I think we just observe accurately. How about observationists?
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby KrellEnergySource » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 08:42:29

$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.


So this guy is absolutely wrong?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ith proven reserves of some three million tons of natural uranium, and a consumption of some 200 tons per year per 1-GWe reactor, this resource would last for only about 15,000 reactor years-- 50 years at a consumption of 300 reactors equivalent, and a mere two years if reactors are to supply half of the world's future total energy needs.


http://www.fas.org/rlg/010409-nci.htm

Personally, I think that it's a mistake not to consider the finite supply of the other elements that would be required to build and maintain electrical generation plants and control systems and electrical infrastructure. And 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.

Unless mankind, or at least societies individually, are going to come together and work as a team for the good of each other under some kind of wildly popular new breed of communal economic systems, where are the capital and skilled labor going to come from under our current soulless capitalist systems as institutions and investors struggle through the economic chaos peak oil may cause?

Brian
User avatar
KrellEnergySource
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon 31 Oct 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby Dezakin » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 18:44:10

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.


What declines in production? Other than oil, which has a number of replacements that take several years to come online with a steady price signal of over $40/bbl, what do you see entering decline? And why would you suspect that such things dont have replacements?

Things like mecury production went into decline, but thats because the market moved on to cheaper replacements and overall demand for mercury declined.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nless mankind, or at least societies individually, are going to come together and work as a team for the good of each other under some kind of wildly popular new breed of communal economic systems, where are the capital and skilled labor going to come from under our current soulless capitalist systems as institutions and investors struggle through the economic chaos peak oil may cause?


You dont see this particular diatribe as the least bit cultish? Its like the sort of thing some college student with a giant Che poster would say.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby TheDude » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 21:31:21

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?
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby Dezakin » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 23:20:22

$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?


Coal liquefaction and tar sands for now work fine for hydrocarbon fuel needs in the short run, and in the long run infrastructure restructuring can arrange society along more rail and electric transport.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby cube » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 02:15:57

Nostra-doomers 8)
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby Jenab6 » Fri 07 Dec 2007, 08:11:32

The Prepared Ones
Hoarders
Hiders
User avatar
Jenab6
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby lowem » Fri 07 Dec 2007, 08:45:28

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.
Live quotes - oil/gold/silver
User avatar
lowem
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Mon 19 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Singapore
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby zeke » Fri 07 Dec 2007, 10:13:37

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
User avatar
zeke
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri 07 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby bl00k » Fri 07 Dec 2007, 10:31:56

Survivalists?

I believe many, if not all, people on this forum are more 'survivalist' than your average person.
User avatar
bl00k
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat 17 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Netherlands
Top

Re: What should Peak Oil believers call themselves?

Postby whatpeak » Fri 07 Dec 2007, 12:14:38

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.
whatpeak
 
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron