[Typhoon]

I have some simple questions for doomers. Refute my claims without resorting to saying something like, "Peak oil is a symptom of a greater disease." If that's all you can say, these should be the global warming forums or the overpopulation forums, not the peak oil forums.

1. Do you deny that we can greatly expand the use of nuclear power and renewable energy?

2. Do you deny that these solutions are cheap enough to replace the use of oil?

3. Do you deny that the resource for these forms of energy is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited?

4. Do you deny that electric automobiles are viable (not to mention fuel cells)?

5. If you answered "no" to all of the above, do you deny that the issue of peak oil can easily be resolved?

Basically, I'm just contending that a transition to alternatives is viable. The main issue would be making the transition quickly enough. I think that peak oil is still at least five years away, which makes the transition easier. Let's say, however, that we're peaking now. It might get painful, but society needn't collapse. As long as we can maintain our way of life with alternatives, the doomers' point of view has been dealt with.

[turmoil]

2% decline (optimistic, average annual loss of 1.212 mbpd, 84 mbpd start)
12.12 mbpd loss in 10 years
24.24 mbpd loss in 20 years

5% decline (more realistic, average annual loss of 3.03 mbpd, 84 mbpd start)
30.3 mbpd loss in 10 years
60.6 mbpd loss in 20 years

Do you deny the validity of the Hirsch report, in that unless we quickly ("crash") implement the proposed solutions a number of years in advance of Peak Oil proportional to the decline thereafter, we will have production shortfalls and severe economic hardship for many years?

edit: added a bit.

[backstop]

Typhoon-

If, as you claim, the issue of Peak Oil could easily be resolved, then this website would not exist.

Your proposal that "We can maintain Our way of life with alternatives" merely demonstrates a wholesale lack of understanding of the politics of energy supply and society's dependence on climatic stability, among other issues.

First, consider the implications of the demise of the petrodollar with the rise of alternatives.

Second, consider the impact on "our share" of finite energy resources of rising demand among 3 billion people in developing countries.

Third, consider the economic impacts of exponentially intensifying climate destabilization.

Of course, if it makes you feel better to ignore reality, then that's your choice.

regards,

Backstop

[TorrKing]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Typhoon', 'I') have some simple questions for doomers. Refute my claims without resorting to saying something like, "Peak oil is a symptom of a greater disease." If that's all you can say, these should be the global warming forums or the overpopulation forums, not the peak oil forums.

1. Do you deny that we can greatly expand the use of nuclear power and renewable energy?

2. Do you deny that these solutions are cheap enough to replace the use of oil?

3. Do you deny that the resource for these forms of energy is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited?

4. Do you deny that electric automobiles are viable (not to mention fuel cells)?

5. If you answered "no" to all of the above, do you deny that the issue of peak oil can easily be resolved?

Basically, I'm just contending that a transition to alternatives is viable. The main issue would be making the transition quickly enough. I think that peak oil is still at least five years away, which makes the transition easier. Let's say, however, that we're peaking now. It might get painful, but society needn't collapse. As long as we can maintain our way of life with alternatives, the doomers' point of view has been dealt with.

[Andy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Typhoon', ' ')have some simple questions for doomers. Refute my claims without resorting to saying something like, "Peak oil is a symptom of a greater disease." If that's all you can say, these should be the global warming forums or the overpopulation forums, not the peak oil forums.

1. Do you deny that we can greatly expand the use of nuclear power and renewable energy?

2. Do you deny that these solutions are cheap enough to replace the use of oil?

3. Do you deny that the resource for these forms of energy is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited?

4. Do you deny that electric automobiles are viable (not to mention fuel cells)?

5. If you answered "no" to all of the above, do you deny that the issue of peak oil can easily be resolved?

Basically, I'm just contending that a transition to alternatives is viable. The main issue would be making the transition quickly enough. I think that peak oil is still at least five years away, which makes the transition easier. Let's say, however, that we're peaking now. It might get painful, but society needn't collapse. As long as we can maintain our way of life with alternatives, the doomers' point of view has been dealt with.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Typhoon', '1'). Do you deny that we can greatly expand the use of nuclear power and renewable energy?

[Wahoo]

1. Do you deny that we can greatly expand the use of nuclear power and renewable energy?

Answer: No, I don't deny that. At the current time, we can "greatly" expand most enterprises if we choose to commit resources.

2. Do you deny that these solutions are cheap enough to replace the use of oil?

Answer: Yes, I deny that nuclear and renewable energy can replace the use of oil. Why do you limit the question to cost? The question should be "can these solutions replace oil?". The answer to that is NO. Even if nuclear and renewable energy is cheap, are you going to make Vaseline, Tupperware, and PVC pipe out of it? No. To address your question specifically, no the nuclear and renewable option is not cheap enough to replace oil. It takes energy (increasingly expensive energy) to fabricate and maintain the necessary facilities. Is renewable energy "cheaper than oil"? Maybe. Is it "cheap enough to replace the use of oil"? No.

3. Do you deny that the resource for these forms of energy is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited?

Answer: Yes, I deny that the resource to fuel nuclear energy is limited. No, I don't deny that some renewable resources are practically unlimited. So what? Unlimited supply doesn't mean unlimited scalability.

4. Do you deny that electric automobiles are viable (not to mention fuel cells)?

Answer: Are they "viable"? Sure, if you mean that electric vehicles have been created and have functioned properly. If you are using "viable" to suggest that they are an affordable and scalable replacement for the current transportation system? No.

5. If you answered "no" to all of the above, do you deny that the issue of peak oil can easily be resolved?

Answer: N/A.

Basically, I'm just contending that a transition to alternatives is viable. The main issue would be making the transition quickly enough. I think that peak oil is still at least five years away, which makes the transition easier. Let's say, however, that we're peaking now. It might get painful, but society needn't collapse. As long as we can maintain our way of life with alternatives, the doomers' point of view has been dealt with.

Given the right timeline and resources, a transition to alternatives may be viable. Given the understanding that we would be transitioning to a society that consumed much less power. In your final paragraph, you say "As long as we can maintain our way of life with alternatives, the doomers' point of view has been dealt with." There is no way that alternative sources can maintain our current way of life. If we exponentially increased our spending and development of those resources on a global scale, we still wouldn't be able to maintain the cheap energy way of life that we currently have.

Your problem is that you're making a leap in logic. Yes, nuke and renewable energy can replace some of our demand for energy. Sure, if you ramp it up, it will provide more energy. Then, magically, you jump into some fairy tale land where we ramp it up so much that it replaces all use for petroleum products. Assumably, you then mount a unicorn and gallop through fields of daisies while children dance and share candy with each other.

I'm not a doomer. I'm a pragmatist. There is no way the thing you think is gonna happen is actually gonna happen. Bad juju looms on the horizon.

[Karl]

I read recently that to convert the entire UK vehicle fleet to hydrogen cells would require 100 nuclear power plants to be built for the hydrogen conversion.

I dont know if that figure is correct but its one of many that circulate the PO boards. It is the energy that is contained within this liquid that we would have to replace. Again figures from studies recently discussed 'we burn in one year the equivalent of 4 centuries pent up solar enery in the fossil fuels we use.

No I dont believe we can just continue as we are and transfer to alternatives. This age may very well prove to be a 'blip' in the history of humanity and what we consider as 'normal' today is beyond the limitations that nature has placed us in.

We must accept change to lifestyles and accept less materially but doubtless become richer in other ways. The problem is how many will accept this path, therein lies the 'doom'

[Mesuge]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Typhoon', '
')2. Do you deny that these solutions are cheap enough to replace the use of oil?

[dub_scratch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Typhoon', '
')
4. Do you deny that electric automobiles are viable (not to mention fuel cells)?

[aahala]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Typhoon', '
')
3. Do you deny that the resource for these forms of energy is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited?

[Daryl]

Nuclear (+renewables) and electric can replace oil. Electric transportation, both personal and mass, can replace their oil based equivalents. Since 70% of oil use is for transportation, theoretically there should be plenty of oil left over for other purposes. If you read the extended commentary in these forums by nuclear engineers, you will discover that nukes can provide virtually unlimited energy for centuries.

However, the doomer argument has merit. Depletion rates might be too fast for the transition to be physically accomplished, which might disrupt the economy to the extent that the solutions are not affordable. However, that is alot of "mights". Too many to start storing ammo in a bunker, especially since we don't know when peak will occur. Still, given the fact that it is pretty clear that nothing substantial will start to happen on the nuke/EVmass transit front until the emergency is clearly upon us, it is safe to assume that the economy and people's lifestyles are not going to sail through the transition without substantial challenges/degradation. There are too many variables to predict what they will be and how severe they will be.

What to do? Well, it would seem responsible and mature to get involved with groups promoting "energy security" (the new scare buzzword in Washington, a sure sign the message is getting through to politicians), get involved in defeating envrionmental opposition to nukes, get involved in promoting EV's, new urban planning, mass transit, renewable energy. No need to lock yourself up in your mother's basement with curtains drawn and a bottle of gin......just yet anyway

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Typhoon', '.')..Do you deny that we can greatly expand the use of nuclear power...

[miniTAX]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '
')We're not even planning nuke plants at the moment, and considering that they are far and away the most complex machines we have ever devised, do you think we'll suddenly start throwing them up like apartment buildings when we finally realize how badly we need them?

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miniTAX', '.')..Well, it takes 5 years to be built...

[turmoil]

And the Hirsch Report looked at 2% decline, but Hirsch himself says that 2% is optimistic.

Hirsch Report:

http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf

[miniTAX]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')a) this is a liquid fuel problem,
b) time to create gas-to-liquid, coal-to-liquid, hydrogen liquid infrastucture is 20 years

[miniTAX]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miniTAX', '.')..Well, it takes 5 years to be built...

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Typhoon', '.')..Do you deny that we can greatly expand the use of nuclear power...