Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Montequest: 9.1% decline?

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

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 09 Feb 2009, 14:31:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeke', 'w')hether we've peaked or not, isn't it resoundingly clear that continuing a way of life powered by oil is about the stupidest thing we could possibly do?
Yes, along with our dream of infinite economic growth.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby Revi » Mon 09 Feb 2009, 18:58:12

We are headed into a time where the average person won't have a car.

I think it could happen pretty quickly.

The insurance, gas and repairs will make it impossible for most people to afford a car soon.

That will be the least of our worries.
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby zeke » Mon 09 Feb 2009, 22:13:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'W')e are headed into a time where the average person won't have a car.
I think it could happen pretty quickly.
The insurance, gas and repairs will make it impossible for most people to afford a car soon.
That will be the least of our worries.


If we can handle it right, the average person won't need or want a car.
One of the biggest leaps for us to make in our entire history would be to give up the car-based life.


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

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 02:43:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeke', 'w')hether we've peaked or not, isn't it resoundingly clear that continuing a way of life powered by oil is about the stupidest thing we could possibly do?
Yes, along with our dream of infinite economic growth.
Our dream? Cornucopian fantasy isn't something I'd say we all share.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 02:53:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'I')f Congress would tax energy in the US and raise gas prices to levels like those in Europe, Americans would suddenly drive small cars
Yeah, except that there is no way it will be sudden. It would take 10 to 15 years to change the fleet, and a lot longer to change it to small very efficient cars. By then, it wouldn't be enough, if oil production has entered geological decline by then, which is quite likely, I think.
The first portion of demand destruction tends to be associated with a reduction in use, mostly frivolous use. Fewer trips to the beach and so on. Running errands in clumps as opposed to one a day. Driving a bit slower on the highway and not doing as much in the way of a gas/brake routine. From personal experience driving habits on either end of the spectrum double/half fuel consumption depending on how we're looking at it. For most people, a good 10-20% reduction can be seen just by a change in driving habits. Toss in a reduction in superfluous trips are we're O.K. for a decade or so given Campbell's projected decline rate. This is of course ignoring EVs and the like that can effectively reduce oil consumption to next to nothing.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 02:55:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeke', 'w')hether we've peaked or not, isn't it resoundingly clear that continuing a way of life powered by oil is about the stupidest thing we could possibly do?
Yes, along with our dream of infinite economic growth.
Our dream? Cornucopian fantasy isn't something I'd say we all share.
Not everyone needs to share it for it to be a problem.

Sheesh!
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 02:57:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')oss in a reduction in superfluous trips are we're O.K. for a decade or so given Campbell's projected decline rate. This is of course ignoring EVs and the like that can effectively reduce oil consumption to next to nothing.
And keeping one's fingers tightly crossed.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby JohnDenver » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 11:45:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'H')ey JD,

Here's an article for ya! I cant wait until our first rate auto industry starts building all those highly efficient /Electric powered vehicles. ;)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home


"Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC may have to be forced into
bankruptcy by the U.S. government to assure repayment of $17.4 billion in federal bailout
loans, a course of action the automakers claim would destroy them. "


AP, you need to expand your mind. "high-efficiency and electric vehicles" means much more than just standard issue electric cars. The next big thing at the moment is electric bikes and scooters.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 2008 Motorcycle Industry Council Retail Sales Report, released this month, showed that overall motorcycle sales were down 7.2% compare to 2007, but scooter sales in the U.S. were up a whopping 41%. According to MIC President Tim Buche, “We’ll look at 2008 as a big year for scooters, dual-purpose bikes and small-displacement motorcycles. If it was smart-sized, offered great value and high fuel mileage, then chances are it was a sales success. Link


Check out this article/video. ebike sales are growing by 50 percent a year. And $3000 Veken hybrid scooters are available in the US right now which get 180 miles to the gallon Link.

Here's another interesting wrinkle from today's news:

Novel motor propels Vietnam’s electric scooters to 80km/h in 10s

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')ietnam’s largest motorcycle manufacturer, Sufat, is about to start production of a range of electric scooters powered by a novel motor said to deliver a similar performance to petrol-engine scooters. Sufat says that the electric scooters will reach 80km/h (50mph) in less than ten seconds, and will hit top speeds of 80-88km/h – twice as fast as most existing electric scooters.

The scooters will be powered by transmission-less wheel-hub motors developed by a US company, KLD Energy Technologies. The high-frequency, low-rpm motors use a nano-crystalline material said to conduct heat much more efficiently than conventional iron cores, thus reducing the motor’s operating temperature.


And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Everyone knows what the score is after last year's price run-up, and there is a tremendous ferment of activity. To get an accurate picture, you need to read the news outside the doom-centric headlines you see here.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby JohnDenver » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 11:50:39

Tony, just curious, but are you personally opposed to efficiency/conservation? If not, then why do you disagree with such bile when I suggest that efficiency/conservation is the best way forward?
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 13:52:36

JD,

Your living in a dream world. The US in particular is not going to go towards any real gains in transport efficiency because no one will be able to afford to. On top of that no one wants to. It will be driven by pain. Economic and social dislocation are the only ways you will get any real momentum behind large gains in efficiency.

I bought and regularly use a 150 CC scooter now for all my local transport needs. Its sometimes a small hassle to carry stuff etc, but right now I'm still getting laughed at. Personally I think its cool, but here in the south you aren't going to pry any of these trucks out of all these rednecks hands by a few dollar/gallon increase in gas. Its going to take a lot more than that. It's literally cultural.

The entire automobile manufacturing industry is in dire straights and they still cant figure it out. You wont change any pardigms during the next few years with mom and pop garage technology either.

I believe you are the one who needs to wake from the slumber of cornucopia.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby zeke » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 14:22:21

yeah...

anyone who doubts that need only look at the Carter Administration... Carter said a lot of things which were reality-based, good, sound advice and recommendations.

throw away the credit cards
conserve energy
invest in alternative energy technology
lower the speed limit.

basically, he was villified and hung out to dry. Americans as a whole thought he was some crazy jerk, asking Americans to tighten up and stop acting like overindulged children.

and back in 1976, we were demonstrably a bit smarter and more well-grounded than we are now.

So, here we are, 33 years later, hurtling down exactly the kind of deep dark whole he warned us about, and people are STILL throwing temper tantrums about keeping their car-based consumer lifestyle.

This is NOT a population which will put on the grown-up pants and act responsibly.

this is a population which is on the floor, pounding its fists, kickin its heels, red faced with tears and snot and the whole drama bit at the mere suggestion that they "do without."


throw in the financial caper and the last 8 years of bushco, and there's plenty of excuse to be found in why the people can not change their own direction.

if this were a runaway merry go round, at least you'd be able to jump off and take your chances...instead, we're strapped down good n tight with the spoiledniks and fascists...it's their game, really..


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

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 14:26:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')ony, just curious, but are you personally opposed to efficiency/conservation? If not, then why do you disagree with such bile when I suggest that efficiency/conservation is the best way forward?
No bile, JD, just setting your suggestion in a wider context. I'm for conservation and efficiency. Indeed, I'm for sustainability, not consuming resources beyond their renewal rates and not damaging our habitat, but that, inevitably, will mean great hardship for many, as we slowly shift to very different societies than we have now. Our economies don't want efficiency and conservation.

Your kind of, shall we say, optimism, is an inhibitor to real change, though I can well understand why you want to cling on to those beliefs.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 17:49:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')es, along with our dream of infinite economic growth.
Our dream? Cornucopian fantasy isn't something I'd say we all share.
Not everyone needs to share it for it to be a problem.

Sheesh!
Keeping in mind that short term growth and screw ups aren't the same as infinite growth, and proposing they are is a Cornucopian fantasy, no one shares it AFAIK.

Sheesh! ;)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 19:45:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'K')eeping in mind that short term growth and screw ups aren't the same as infinite growth, and proposing they are is a Cornucopian fantasy, no one shares it AFAIK.
True. But what actions do we see today, from governments around the world? Growth is what people want. Have you seen any signs that governments are only trying to return to growth short term, with a plan to move to zero growth economies in future?

Whether people belief in infinite growth or not, the default position appears to assume that there are no limits to growth. The default position is a cornucopian fantasy.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby zeke » Tue 10 Feb 2009, 19:50:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'K')eeping in mind that short term growth and screw ups aren't the same as infinite growth, and proposing they are is a Cornucopian fantasy, no one shares it AFAIK.
True. But what actions do we see today, from governments around the world? Growth is what people want. Have you seen any signs that governments are only trying to return to growth short term, with a plan to move to zero growth economies in future?

Whether people belief in infinite growth or not, the default position appears to assume that there are no limits to growth. The default position is a cornucopian fantasy.



very nicely stated!

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

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 11 Feb 2009, 00:15:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'K')eeping in mind that short term growth and screw ups aren't the same as infinite growth, and proposing they are is a Cornucopian fantasy, no one shares it AFAIK.
True. But what actions do we see today, from governments around the world? Growth is what people want. Have you seen any signs that governments are only trying to return to growth short term, with a plan to move to zero growth economies in future?

Whether people belief in infinite growth or not, the default position appears to assume that there are no limits to growth. The default position is a cornucopian fantasy.
There is no default position about anything in general, much less limits to growth. Lack of a position regarding something is not evidence of a stance as a whole on that position either for or against, or anything in between.

I would agree if you were to say that we should plan for the future more, but just because we don't do so enough does not mean that the default position is that there are no limits to growth, that purple is everyone's favorite color, or that up is down. ;)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Wed 11 Feb 2009, 05:25:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')here is no default position about anything in general, much less limits to growth. Lack of a position regarding something is not evidence of a stance as a whole on that position either for or against, or anything in between.
Of course it's a default position. As you well know, I have never said that it is a conscious position, only that there is little to distinguish between a belief in no limits and what we see governments, societies and economies do. I do not believe that many people have thought about limits or that many have taken a definite position on the issue. I don't know why you read my comments as such when I have explained it many times to you.

Infinite growth is the default position, for all intents and purposes, unless you can show significant moves in major economies to a recognition of limits.

[Uh, oh, I've fallen into that, let me see if I can guess your response, YP]
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby rangerone314 » Wed 11 Feb 2009, 12:46:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')ony, just curious, but are you personally opposed to efficiency/conservation? If not, then why do you disagree with such bile when I suggest that efficiency/conservation is the best way forward?


Jevon's paradox may or may not apply with regards to efficiency/conservation as it pertains to oil. Depends on elasticity of demand, etc Also I think maturity of resource/usage has something to do with it as well.

I'm hoping to get the house paid off before TSHTF, and have my own fresh water storage & filtration system, composting toilets, solar panels, and grown all my own food, soap, sponges, etc. I will lie as low as I can and have as much capability to defend & hide what I have as possible. Won't really matter, either way my family will survive.

I'm fairly sure things will get nasty enough in the future to warrant my preparations.
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland
Top

Re: Montequest: 9.1% decline?

Unread postby yesplease » Sun 15 Feb 2009, 06:29:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')here is no default position about anything in general, much less limits to growth. Lack of a position regarding something is not evidence of a stance as a whole on that position either for or against, or anything in between.
Of course it's a default position. As you well know, I have never said that it is a conscious position, only that there is little to distinguish between a belief in no limits and what we see governments, societies and economies do.
Not being able to distinguish between two (or more) choices does not automatically make one of those a default position. We don't know whether people do or don't believe in some sort of deity just by their name, but just because we can't distinguish between the belief or disbelief in a deity from a name doesn't mean that one of those positions is the default. The only way to actually know that something we can't distinguish is a default position is that we can actually distinguish between it and something else, in which case the statement that we can't distinguish between it and whatever is false in the first place.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') do not believe that many people have thought about limits or that many have taken a definite position on the issue. I don't know why you read my comments as such when I have explained it many times to you.
You may believe whatever you want about people, but that does not mean that infinite growth is the default outside of your belief. For one, it's impossible on a finite world, which kinda makes it a moot point, and in that case at best like you stated we could have people who haven't though about limits.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')nfinite growth is the default position, for all intents and purposes, unless you can show significant moves in major economies to a recognition of limits.
Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. That's a logical contradiction. If you want to believe that a logical contradiction is the default position then that's your choice, but just because you believe in the impossible does not make it possible. In a reasonable case at the very least you could believe that people have put in minimal planning, which is at least a possibility and not a logical contradiction, although even in that case it's something more of a value judgment as opposed to a concrete statement given the volume of knowledge needed to know that a statement like that is very probably.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '[')Uh, oh, I've fallen into that, let me see if I can guess your response, YP]Maybe...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

cron