For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Joined: Mar 22, 2005 Posts: 30 Location: Idaho, USA
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:02 am Post subject:
Aren't we comparing apples to oranges?
All of the things mentioned here are political and scientific scenarios that no one was really sure was going to happen or that might have been avoided through diplomacy, etc.
Peak oil isn't like that. It's more like a ticking clock that will, inevitably and certainly, strike midnight.
As far as I know, there is no historical precedent. We can make comparisons and tout theories to try to convince people that this is real, but none are really convincing to those that refuse to see the truth of the matter. Never underestimate the human capacity to ignore hard facts in favor of personal psychological comfort.
I'm part of another forum that is working for sanity in our drug laws, mainly medical marijuana. Now, these people are primed to believe in government conspiracies and are acutely aware of the business practices of big oil and pharmaceutical companies, yet 99% of them fail to see the signifigance of peak oil. They offer the same responses one might expect from a group of PTA moms (no offense to PTA moms) living comfortably in the suburbs, blissful in their ignorance.
All we can do is lay out the facts and let people make up their own minds. Any excess zeal will be seen as unstable behavior, at the least, and maybe even outright lunacy. Then, instead of planning for the future, these people will become preoccupied about your mental state and wonder if you're not losing your marbles. That is, needless to say, counterproctive. _________________ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
1) PONPB: New energy technology is here. But it is being kept secret, whilst money is still to be made out of oil. This ensures MAXIMUM PROFIT is made before our replacement is switched on. Then the future will be “more of the same”.
Does anyone have any more ideas / examples / counter examples?
When my PO conversations hit this point, I've usually convinced the person that we will hit the peak in within a few years (Deffeye's number helps a lot with that one, sidenote-- it's funny to see the inherrent distrust in people of the gov't when you compare that number to the USGS one)
After this, the nex step in the conversation (if it hasn't come up yet) is to convince the person of the importance of oil in the overall economy (from agriculture to the very nature of the petrodollar)
Now, the rebuttal. Essentially, in order to make a transition off oil we'd need to start actually implementing the "secret new science" given the logistics of trying to maintain "business as usual." With oil production falling, there is the need for this "alternative" to be available at rates that match not only new demand, but also the falling production. Because the transition couldn't happen overnight, oil would still be a highly profitable commodity and would be still be sold for many years to come.
My favorite response to this thus far: Suppose that it is a complete substitute for oil and there would be no need to replace the infastructure at all?
This one is easier-- production plants for this miracle substance would still need to be built and they aren't. (this is why it's important to convince them that the peak will be soon-- if the peak isn't for 50 years there is time to implement "the solution")
Another problem I've had is the "Hydrogen Economy." My biggest opponent on this issue is a physics major friend of mine (strangely enough he's failing out school, but refuses to listen to anything I have to say about thermodynamics because I'm "just a computer science major.")
The simplest rebuttal to the Hydrogen argument is along the lines of:
Hydrogen is only a way to store energy.
An energy source is still needed to make hydrogen (with the lack of oil this would have to come from other energy sources that the person and I have already established as insufficient to cover the falling oil supply)
The key to convincing people is to take parts of the issue one at a time and convince them of smaller parts at once. Then when you start talking about more severe issues they don't question your premisis again.
If I out of the blue tell someone "Hey, in about 15 years you'll probably be too broke to buy food, assuming that any is even being shipped to your local grocery store, so you should learn to grow your own food now" they either won't listen, or I'll have to fight them all the way to the bottom and then all the way back to the top of the argument (and possible outcome) again. _________________ When there's no more oil, can I have your speakers?
No?
Alright, what about your baseball cards?
Joined: Feb 01, 2005 Posts: 162 Location: Devon, UK
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:36 am Post subject: Let's keep the ball rolling:
I’ll assign a number to these (and add a wee bit extra):
Answer 1d) LOGISTICS. Think of the logistics involved in DEVELOPING FOR MASS USE / DEPLOYING / USING the next technology. Given only a [few] years [maximum] until high prices [start] kill[ing] our businesses, how do we change everything over IN TIME TO SAVE OUR ECONOMY?
10) Suppose that there is a complete substitute for oil and there would be no need to replace the infrastructure at all?
10a) Production plants for this miracle substance would still need to be built and (so far) they aren't.
10b) There doesn’t appear to be any lined up either, it would be pretty big news in the Scientific / Engineering / Investing community wouldn’t it?
11) PONPB: Hydrogen fuel will solve it.
11a) Hydrogen is only a way to store energy (not a fuel) - an energy source is still needed to make hydrogen.
11b) Imagine the load our cars would place on the electricity grid. Imagine all those extra power plants we would need.
And another myth:
12) PONPB: Higher oil prices mean increased exploration.
12a) High price makes no difference if the oil is not there to be found. World Oil discovery peaked in the 1960's therefore production is peaking now.
12b) an example: 1970's price increases resulted in little extra oil being found.
Joined: Feb 01, 2005 Posts: 162 Location: Devon, UK
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:07 am Post subject:
12c) "The whole world has now been seismically searched and picked over. Geological knowledge has improved enormously in the past 30 years and it is almost inconceivable now that major fields remain to be found." - Colin Campbell.
13) PONPB: Higher Oil Prices will spur development of alternatives. / We have human ingenuity / market forces: We will invent our way out of any problems. We always have done. We always will.
13a)There is nothing quite like oil for ENERGY DENSITY, CHEAPNESS and VERSATILITY. All current alternatives pose problems because they are either not ENERGY DENSE enough, CHEAP enough or as VERSATILE as oil.
Also, the trouble with things that have not been invented yet is - you cannot rely on unproven technology.
14)PONPB: Higher oil prices mean better technology can increase the amount of oil we can extract from existing wells (URR)
14)We have had over 100 years of improving searching / drilling / extracting technology. Further improvements aren't likely to yield much extra extraction. _________________ We have no Plan B. Haven't we?Discuss!
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
