[BiGG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dmtu', 't')he numbers are pretty weak. http://www.iogen.ca/HTML/2600.html


How many tons of refuse can a tractor trailer pack around? I'm sure a farmer can answer that, I'm guessing 20 if the feedstock is highly compressed

What is the scale of a commercial facility?
The size of a commercial facility is dependent on local conditions, but Iogen envisions plants will process more than 2000 tonnes per day of feedstock and produce more than 220 million litres per year (58.2 million gallons)

Drop in the bucket. I calculate and, please correct me if I'm wrong that Americans consume over 300 million gallons a day.

You would need more than 365 of these plants in the complete absence of oil. Even as a supplement to gas lets say of 100 plants you still need 730,000 tones of feedstock for each plant per year. Simple mathematics says this isn't a sustainable plan.

Feedstock isn't free it still has to be harvested and transported.

Hell; I'm a fence sitter and not horribly impressed with this.

Also, the cost page was 404.

Edit: did the math in a rush, 365 plants would generate about 58 million gallons a day, if we need 300 million gallons a day of course 365 would have to multiplied by by five, 1825 plants, 36.5 plants per state.

[Ranglepung]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Listentome', 'G')oing back to our example, now that the center of the earth supply is running out and getting expensive, people say. "Wow, I can't afford this right now, so we better look at the alternatives." As the alternatives come into demand, so will their funding, thus increasing the technology and efficiency.

[bobeau]

Um guys, this thread is a year old.

[Jdelagado]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Listentome', 'S')orry guys, but I too was once taken in by the "Peak oil" fad. No more. You can all sleep easy at night after reading this post.

1) The global economy works on supply and demand, and there's plenty of alternative energy sources out there that will take the place of oil once the supply starts falling. All it will take is a certain cost level to be reached, then voilla, in comes the substitute. If you're sitting there saying "but you can't use the substitute if you don't have oil" then I feel sorry for you, you've really been taken in by this cult. Read #2 to put that notion to death.

2) There's hundreds of alternatives out there that do not require "oil" to be transitioned to. I.e. ethanol, which is made from the waste products of farming. We're throwing it out or burning the damn waste products, but now they'll have a use. For the thermodynamics freaks saying "you can't farm the wheat because you have no fuel". Baloney!! You can use ethanol to farm the damn wheat you fools. Why? Because none of these geniuses have taken into account that the energy stored in the farming by-products came from the damn sun!! Or how about thermodepolymerization?? Same damn thing, they can use farming by-products because the energy used to create them came from the sun. In fact there's already evidence that just by using the farming by-products produced by the US in one year alone, thermo depolymerization can completely replace the US's dependence on foreign oil. There's thousands of articles out there which say one field of potatoes can fuel a tractor to farm 100 fields. I can go on and on.

The peak oilests are a cult of babies, they use buzzwords and charts to try and scare you into not thinking with common sense. Want the first clue that it's all BS, they offer ZERO alternatives to this so called "crisis". If that was the case, don't you think the "experts" would've started multi billion dollar companies planning alternatives to this long ago? Hell they'd be trillionaires if the world was on the brink of such chaos and they had the solution. But no, the peak oilests will have you believe there are no solutions and people saw it coming for decades.

So why didn't all these experts that saw this coming try to find solutions and capitalize on it? BECAUSE ITS NOT REALLY A PROBLEM! Amen to this crap.

[DamienJasper]

Now, the compelling factors for me that keep me as a fence sitter at this moment are two things:

Colin Campbell has been wrong like, half a dozen times at least. For some reason, no one but Michael Lynch figures it's necessary to call him to the carpet for this. Consider that Campbell founded ASPO, and the longer Peak Oil has a following, the longer he's got a reputation and a job. Now, I dont' know that he's a person who's as sinister as that, BUT, he's been wrong...well a lot.

2nd

He and few others say "Don't trust the USGS. They just take OPEC at their word for numbers". Well, their study (in the EIA Slideshow) took 5 years to do. If all they did was attain those numbers OPEC gave them (which I can do if properly motivated) and run it in their Growth rate/Reserves/Current Consumption and then run scenarios based on several different estimates versus several different growth rates (which can be calculated on your wristwatch or on the back of a receipt for anyone who graduated 8th grade), I highly DOUBT this study would have taken 5 years. I myself could have put that paper together in a week or so if that's all that was required. I'm thinking the Govt knows not to take OPEC at face value and used their own methods to deny or confirm what OPEC's numbers were. No way a relatively simple math equation like in the EIA/USGS presentation took five years to complete. A couple of months TOPS. What good does USGS to for themselves through self delusion anyway?

[DamienJasper]

Not that we'll ever switch to a nuclear economy, BUT...

I don't have any idea where people are getting their conclusions about how limited Nuclear power is. I interviewed several nuclear scientists and nuclear science professors in my region last semester. You can get uranium from ocean water. That in iteself is enough for 100,000 years. PLUS, as we speak, (or as we spoke) rivers and streams currently strip uranium from rocks and minerals and carry them out to the ocean at a rate 25 times greater than our current energy consumption. If we every switched over, it would be an energy gravy train. But that's not gonna happen, so just pass this post by.

Here are my sources BTW:

Bodansky, David. Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects. Woodbury:
American Institute of Physics, 1996


Cohen, Bernard L. Before It’s Too Late. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation,
1983


Everest, Larry. Oil, Power, and Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda. Monroe: Common Courage Press, 2004


Bacher, John. Petrotryranny. Toronto: Science For Peace, 2000


Hackworth, Martin. Interview. Personal Interview 14 Sept. 2004.
(Martin Hackworth is a 3 time PhD in Astronomy, Physics and Geology, respecitvely)

But of course, my favorite source in that whole paper came from a simple Biblical quote that really should just ring loud in this forum:

Isaiah, 51:6; "THe Earth will wear out like a garment"

[TrueKaiser]

*sighs* the topic maker has one solid point that none of you have disproven with more then a knee jerk reaction.
he is correct in that the oil extration technology is pretty efficent now, while other forms of energy are still realitvly inefficent. not because they are new, solar is around 50+ years old and wind power is centurys old. it is because there was not a demand to make it more effcient. oil has that demand now and because of that it's a very effecient process to a point where we get a net energy gain from it. the other's might become just as efficent if there was just as much focus on them as oil has had for the past century.
the key word here though is might, it's not a 100% certain but neither is it completly unlikly like most people here want to think.

[bobeau]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')m guys, this thread is a year old.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '
')If you take the time and energy you've put into this thread and put up a "Peak Oil Debunked" site, I would gladly link to it.

[doufus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '
')If you take the time and energy you've put into this thread and put up a "Peak Oil Debunked" site, I would gladly link to it.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', '
')Interesting site. The history of cities surviving better than remote areas
in famine was very interesting.

[deconstructionist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/

[doufus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', '
')Interesting site. The history of cities surviving better than remote areas
in famine was very interesting.

[holmes]

you see most here are secure in our understanding of earths processes and syncopations, Geology. no matter how brutal and "boring" they are. Most of us have no desire to invade the peak oil debunked site and troll. nor invade others searching for utopia. The problem is I just hope they dont take me, family, friends, fellow ecology minded individuals, etc.. down the road of DEATH.

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deconstructionist', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/

[JudoCow09]

I would love to read all these posts, but I don't read fast and you guys write a lot. So if you already proved this wrong, I'm sorry I wasted your time.

Isn't he right though in the respect that as oil production falls and becomes more pricey, won't people naturally, if they can, find something cheaper like alternate fuel? And companies would in theory realize the public's demand for a new fuel and attempt to satisfy that need. I mean, if they can make money through it, why wouldn't they? It would just be like the HD-DVD and Blu-ray; they'll have different fuels fighting over the market, and whoever wins gets the consumers. Though it's not good for us in that period of time.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JudoCow09', 'I') would love to read all these posts, but I don't read fast and you guys write a lot. So if you already proved this wrong, I'm sorry I wasted your time.

Isn't he right though in the respect that as oil production falls and becomes more pricey, won't people naturally, if they can, find something cheaper like alternate fuel? And companies would in theory realize the public's demand for a new fuel and attempt to satisfy that need. I mean, if they can make money through it, why wouldn't they? It would just be like the HD-DVD and Blu-ray; they'll have different fuels fighting over the market, and whoever wins gets the consumers. Though it's not good for us in that period of time.

[JudoCow09]

Uhh...Yeah I think that's what I meant

So if gas prices get up to something like that, then people will look towards the cheaper alternative.

Although technically it won't be cheaper...Yeah...

[JudoCow09]

Let me put it this way. DVDs cost more when they intially came out than VHS, yet their advantages made people give up VHS almost completely. That's what I think could happen with Oil. We come out with something that has more advantages and switch to it. Over time, it will become cheaper.