PeakOil is You
Article: "'Peak oil' gloom probably just a load ..."
Re: News: Gwynne Dyer: 'Peak oil' gloom probably just a load
by zeke » Tue 06 Jan 2009, 11:24:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('flatline', '')Gwynne Dyer. He states that technology should be the factor that eliminates the need for oil dependance.
no offense to you, but this pin headed argument is probably the #1 PO "solution" held by most people in a country in love with easy, push-button solutions.
Technology is NOT energy. Technology is a user OF energy.
So, we can translate Dyer's claim this way:
"More things which use energy should be the factor that eliminates the need for dependence on a dwindling energy source."
Another fallacy in this pin head argument is that Fuel = energy.
This is an egregious mistake.
When folks say there is no such thing as an energy shortage, they are 100% correct.
After that, it's all bollocks, because the argument is used to imply that we can go right on squandering energy [fuel] because "there's plenty of it [energy]."
The disconnect is that, while the amount of energy in the universe is constant, there is NOT plenty of fuel in the form of, say, oil, which is the substance which contains energy in a dense, and up until recently, cheap, form which can be easily transported and stored, and readily used for the powering of our consumerist lifestyle.
Dyer and others who peddle this crap are appealing to the yearning for "something for nothing" which people just LOVE to read about.
You see it in a variety of forms...some new car that runs on water or sawdust, gets a thousand miles per gallon at a cost of .04 cents per mile, or some new miracle substance which one day will be on a solar panel the size of a quarter that could power your whole house.
the fact that many (Americans) haven't any grounding in basic physics principles makes it easy for crap like this to get people all whipped up about the prospect that our current ways will continue without interruption, and to ignore the resource depletion which needs serious and immediate attention.
not being a doomer myself, I recognize that science has revealed things which technology can be used to manufacture which could help us to capture energy from wind and sunlight, but so far, our work in this area has been anemic. I suggest to those who say we can keep the party running on solar panels and windmills need to wake the F up and get real about living within the energy we can actually gather, in reality, not in some R&D facility on Rigel 7.
zeke
-
zeke - Lignite
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Fri 07 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Re: News: Gwynne Dyer: 'Peak oil' gloom probably just a load
by outcast » Wed 07 Jan 2009, 01:02:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')echnology is NOT energy. Technology is a user OF energy.
So, we can translate Dyer's claim this way:
"More things which use energy should be the factor that eliminates the need for dependence on a dwindling energy source."
So, we can translate Dyer's claim this way:
"More things which use energy should be the factor that eliminates the need for dependence on a dwindling energy source."
What he meant was we change our technology so it can use a different kind of energy that is longer lasting and less harmful, more specifically getting rid of ICE and replacing them with something like electric or fuel cell engines.
-
outcast - Tar Sands
- Posts: 885
- Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Re: News: Gwynne Dyer: 'Peak oil' gloom probably just a load
by joewp » Wed 07 Jan 2009, 01:29:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')echnology is NOT energy. Technology is a user OF energy.
So, we can translate Dyer's claim this way:
"More things which use energy should be the factor that eliminates the need for dependence on a dwindling energy source."
So, we can translate Dyer's claim this way:
"More things which use energy should be the factor that eliminates the need for dependence on a dwindling energy source."
What he meant was we change our technology so it can use a different kind of energy that is longer lasting and less harmful, more specifically getting rid of ICE and replacing them with something like electric or fuel cell engines.
Of course, you just proved his point, that technology uses energy.
And if you think using more efficient means of exploiting energy will reduce our energy consumption, I'd like you to meet Mr. Jevons and his Paradox
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')In economics, the Jevons Paradox (sometimes called the Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox as it ran counter to popular intuition. However, the situation is well understood in modern economics. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given output, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource – which increases demand.
To quote Robert Newman: "There is no way out".
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
-
joewp - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2054
- Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
