[azreal60]

Neither are they in ours. But I believe that tactics debate would be lost by you bob. I've seen montes tactics, and I've seen yours, and yours by far deal far more in ignoring the actual talking about of the debate and trying to get people to ignore what is being said. Your even rather successful at it, i'll give you that. But it doesn't make you right....

And i'm not sure you have learned that lesson yet.

Unless your doing what i think your doing, which is just be as frustratingly resistant to actually learning something that a teacher like Monte get's stuck in this trying to talk to you reasonably place that he doesn't get alot of work done and wants to pull his hair out. Seriously, Monte, if someone doesn't get something after your 40th time saying it, just stop talking to the guy. I think your on try 4000 with bob here.

Now, back onto the topic again. Crap, you might want to try posting something similar in the nuc threads if you haven't already. Very comprehensive.

I would say that a tipping point can't nessesarily be measured, as they are so different for everyone. Like i said in my earlier post, the point at which there is no return depends entirely on what your willing to accept afterwards. The point of no return happened about 1 year ago for alot of my friends. Where as my point of no return i don't think has happened yet. That may just be the optimist in me, but I really don't think i have gotten past the point where society would be something i didn't want to be in post peak. I think i might actually enjoy it more. But that isn't something i can be sure of till afterwards. And really, it will depend on the type of peak we experence. If it's a hard crash, no one is going to enjoy it except the suicidal. If it's a long decline, I think it will be alot more tolerable.

[bobcousins]

Neither are they in ours. But I believe that tactics debate would be lost by you bob. I've seen montes tactics, and I've seen yours, and yours by far deal far more in ignoring the actual talking about of the debate and trying to get people to ignore what is being said. Your even rather successful at it, i'll give you that. But it doesn't make you right....

And i'm not sure you have learned that lesson yet.

I have learned the lesson that Monte is excellent at denying there is any other way to consider an issue other than the way he has framed it, and that it is futile to attempt to argue with that. I have learnt that, but that does mean I have to like it or agree with it. While it is allowed, I challenge the assumptions anyone makes in their argument, whether in favor of nuclear or not. You may not remember, but I have frequently challenged the nuclear boosters about their assumptions.

Unless your doing what i think your doing, which is just be as frustratingly resistant to actually learning something that a teacher like Monte get's stuck in this trying to talk to you reasonably place that he doesn't get alot of work done and wants to pull his hair out. Seriously, Monte, if someone doesn't get something after your 40th time saying it, just stop talking to the guy.

You have attacked my debating skill, my motives and are questioning my intelligence because I don't 'get' the lesson the teacher is telling me. I believe these are ad hominems.

I am not attempting to waste Monte's time or divert debate. I think it is legitimate to challenge the assumptions of the "teacher", to determine whether what is being "taught" is fair and accurate. I have never been one to accept without question what people tell me. I am persuaded by facts and figures, not rhetoric and hyperbole.

I still believe the assumptions in the original question are moot:
1. That a 'single technology' solution is the only one proposed. What about a mix including conservation?
2. That there is a discrete doomed/not doomed state. Surely it is a continuum between some adverse affects and a lot of adverse effects?

It just seems to me, that building one windmill or installing one solar power panel or one new power plant is better than none. (Better, in the sense that it provides some mitigation). And building 10 is better than 1. We may not able to build the 1000s we need to prevent any adverse effect whatsover. Does that mean we just don't try at all?

Perhaps we can't prevent a severe recession. But perhaps we can prevent mass starvation. To that end, we should do what we can. Of course, it is out of our hands - governments will step in and do what they can. As for cost, if the situation is truly severe governments will simply commandeer people and resources.

In Hirsch's report, he says if we don't act until the peak happens, there will be a severe recession. That's bad, but he's not talking about billions starving.

[bobcousins]

If anyone doesn't think that the phrase "literally overnight" in Monte's initial post is setting up a giant strawman, then [ad hominen deleted]. Monte is a smart man, so knows that literally overnight means a period of 12 hours, which is preposterous. If he meant figuratively overnight, I'm sure he would have written that, but that is a rhetorical measure of time that means whatever you want.

And everyone knows that you don't build anything overnight, so it is obvious that this was a hyperbole--an exaggeration for effect. To attack me, rather than the merits is an ad hominem. You are attacking my motive or agenda which has nothing to do with the issue. Setting up strawmen is not on my agenda.

Your accusation of a strawman by me is a strawman. You seem to wish to attack my credibility. Why not debate the issue?

Ok, let me see if I understand how the rules work:

I can use hyperbole in an argument - it's legitimate debate

I can use a strawman in an argument (if it does not attack someone) - it may be faulty, but does not violate CoC.

I cannot be attacked for using hyperbole or exaggerating - that is questioning my motives, and thereore an ad hominen

I cannot be attacked for using a strawman - that also questions my motives and credibility, and is also an ad hominen

Is that right?

[BO]

Great points about nuclear, crapattack. I think a common misunderstanding about the feasibility of alternatives, is that most proponents don't really see the total cost of implementation, everything from the direct costs, to the electricity grid. Without electricity, we cannot produce anything, and the investment required to maintain what we have today, is staggering, consider this, from Richard Duncan's update to the "Olduvai Theory":

http://www.oilcrisis.com/duncan/Olduvai ... ntract.pdf

3)Permanent Blackouts are Coming
The third catch, according to the Olduvai Theory, is that sooner or later the power grids will go down and never come back up. The reasons are many,
The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2004) estimates that the cumulative worldwide energy investment funds required from 2003 to 2030 would be about $15.32 trillion (T, US 2000 $) allocated as follows:

1. Coal: $0.29T )1.9% of the total),
2. Oil: $2.69T (17.6%)
3. Gas: $2.69T (17.6%)
4. Electricity: $9.66T (63.1%).
Thus the IEA projects that the worldwide investment funds essential for electricity will be 3.7 times the amount needed for oil alone, and much greater than all of that required for oil, gas, and coal combined.
The OT says that the already debt-ridden nations, cities, and corporations will not be able to raise the $15.32 trillion in investment funds required by 2030 for world energy. (Not to mention the vastly greater investment funds required for agriculture, roads, streets, schools, railroads, water resources, sewer systems, and so forth.)

[Ibon]

Add to that the fact that reactors and enrichment plants require highly specialized skills and highly trained people to run them properly - nuclear physists and engineers, not like some bloke who took a night course the local community college. You seem to think we could get some of these trained up in no time in the low energy world. Do you or any pro-nukes have a plan for this?

You brought up many good points. But maybe there is a plan... Have you been following the recent nuclear treaty agreement between the US and India? Wonder why the US is interested in this close relationship in nuclear developments with Inida? India may very well be the source for the future nuclear physisists and engineers. We will import them our outsource it just like we already do with information technology.

[azreal60]

See Bob, that's the problem. You do good and then you do bad. I can understand a bit of frustration if you feel your beating your head against the wall, but it's showing thru a bit too well. Enough it's against the rules. My case in point.

Your first post, my god I can't find a single line i disagree with. Your view of how this peak oil is going to work is almost exactly similar to mine. I never said we are doomed. Indeed, Montequest has never said we as people are automatically doomed. I suppose if you mistake yourself for your culture you might get that idea, cause i'm pretty sure i agree with him on cultural death. But you yourself? If you take some steps there is a good chance that unless we have full out nuclear war your going to survive. And honestly, nuc or not, it's not about the form of getting saved, its about the actuality of any combination of somethings completely mitigating peak oil. And his posts about the time factor are I believe spot on.

It's the second post that starts to get into it. I think I can agree with all of those as well. But that's not really something you need to post publicly. If you had that question really, you would have just sent a PM. It's kinda offtopic, but really, no, I have no problem with anything you said there either.


I think you need to take a step back from the constant combative stuff and realize that trying to beat Monte over the head with a stick every time you argue really isn't going to resolve anything. Maybe you two might agree on a few things. And while Monte is much more of a pessamist than you think, that doesn't mean he is unreasonable. He's just a stickler for debate rules, which i have noo problem with. Anything less and it just devolves into useless arguements.
If all your posts where like that, I would not only not disagree with you, I would be your ally and take your side in debates. But the majority of the posts seem to find Montequest an affront to you in some way. I think perhaps you have had a giant misunderstanding. In when Monte and others are talking about doom, they are talking about doom of our culture. Not nessesarily of the actual people In the culture. It's a very distinct reference, but if your thinking he's preaching gloom and doom for you personally, I would like to think the answer to that is no. Your fate is your own largely. But our cultures fate is pretty easily predictable, and monte is hardly the first person to observe that.

[holmes]

Note "to sky is falling" denialists, technocrats and materialists.

I see no "sky falling".
this is what you see.
ever increasing prices and taxes. Eacha nd every year.
populations increasing. resources decreasing.
costs increasing.
Inflation skyrocketing.
IT will never go down ever.
understand?
wages decreasing as ALL prices of goods increase.
better keep getting raises and better jobs.
you aint seen the REAL rat race yet.
at the end of it all where ya gonna be?
were talking reality here.
gonna create more programs and grade A natural resources?
got a machine for that?
your full of pure shit to say that prices and inflation are going to go down.
your credibility is nil.
and nuclear gonna cease this procces. LOL. please.

[MyOtherID]

Hey, Holmes, you make a good point. I've lived all over the world and I can tell you that my standard of living has declined in step with the population levels of the country I'm in. IOW, you can live better in Africa than you can in the USA, if you have a decent level of education. The same thing applies to New Zealand and Australia -- a person with x level of education has a better lifestyle and more personal space in those countries than in the USA, Europe or Japan, generally speaking. This is due to competition for resources. The more rats there are in the rat race, the shittier your lifestyle feels.



However, my earlier point about the Lynchian view still standing is true. Lynch puts PO way off, with lots of time for us to make adaptations. He could well be wrong, but I'm not going to panic until someone resoundingly defeats his thesis.

[MonteQuest]

You have attacked my debating skill, my motives and are questioning my intelligence because I don't 'get' the lesson the teacher is telling me. I believe these are ad hominems.

Not when the issue of debate is you, they are not. They are criticisms of your debate tactics. Do you think he is saying these things to divert the issue from the thread topic?

An ad hominem attack is when you attack the man, not the message, to try and win a debate. That's what ad hominem means--against the man.

[TonyPrep]

However, my earlier point about the Lynchian view still standing is true. Lynch puts PO way off, with lots of time for us to make adaptations. He could well be wrong, but I'm not going to panic until someone resoundingly defeats his thesis.

Mike Lynch isn't sure of his thesis. In this post he says:

I would emphasize that I am not "sure" of much of anything nor do I claim to be.

By all means, don't panic but perhaps being a little worried is appropriate.

[MonteQuest]

Get real! You think I write threads based upon a strawman so I can win an easy debate victory?

That's how it appears.

To you. That's your problem. I also write a blog by request for the movie production company that produced Syriana. They see no strawmen.

http://www.participate.net/oilchange

[grabby]

Peak oil willl happen anyway.
No matter what anyone will say.
The issue is here to stay,
Don't rap the messenger or we can't say
and post our thoughts here every day,
If monte dies froms stress and strain.
We'll have no Monte 'ere again.

And peak oil willl still come anyway.

[Doly]

Yes, and it will come in whatever shape it comes, whatever Monte or anybody else says.

The question is: who will have the big I TOLD YOU SO? Monte is convinced he will. But then, others are as convinced as he is.

[Jake_old]

Yes, and it will come in whatever shape it comes, whatever Monte or anybody else says.

The question is: who will have the big I TOLD YOU SO? Monte is convinced he will. But then, others are as convinced as he is.

And the funny thing is, even the people who are correct will not get to say I TOLD YOU SO, because everyone will say that they knew it all along.

That used to bother me, now it is funny.

[Ibon]

Hey Hey There aint no time to mitigate
Sit back baby and accept your fate

If it cant be fixed it will fix you
What you want or wish doesn't matter one doo doo

[Backtosteam]

When peak oil comes
it won't be fun
is it too late
to mitigate
I say yes
but I don't care
cause I sold GM short
for 25 a share

[bobcousins]

tut...tut

OK...so you want on-topic.

A nuclear plant is characterised by high capital cost (around US$ 1500 per kilowatt) and low marginal operating costs (including fuel). http://www.uic.com.au/nip44.htm

Oil & Gas generates about 724 Billion KWh, as of the year 2000, in the U.S.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pa ... power.html

If we assume a 7.2% decline in availability of oil and gas, then we must replace half the generating capacity of oil and gas with nuclear.

Therefore, if we assume that we need to cover half the generation capacity of Oil and Gas over the next decade, we must replace 724E+9 kWh/2 or 363E+9kWh at a cost of $1,500 each. The cost would be:

544.5E+12 dollars, or 544.5 trillion dollars.

Spread out over 10 years, that equates the entire cost of all deficits, including the future cost of all entitlements, every year for a decade. In my opinion, that is not possible even in principle.

If we assume a 3.6% decline, the numbers require that we accomplish the same amount of construction in 19 years. So we would only have to spend 28 Trillion dollars each year for 19 years.

That's just the U.S., and it ignores decommissioning of any existing plants.

From the perspective of money alone, it doesn't seem possible. But perhaps someone could run a check on my numbers and see if I slipped a few decimals?

Jack, I think you have confused capacity with generation. You quote 1500/ per kW, then mix that with kWh, which is a different unit. To get annual kWh you need to multiply by the yearly operating time, say around 8,000* hours. That puts the total cost nearer $69 billion, according to my calculation. Suddenly it looks a lot more feasible!

Remember also that you can offset the cost of building plant against the cost of buying oil and gas, which is significant.

Edit: *According to the EIA link the capacity factor of nuclear is about 90%.

[crapattack]

Ibon wrote:

crapattack wrote:

Add to that the fact that reactors and enrichment plants require highly specialized skills and highly trained people to run them properly - nuclear physists and engineers, not like some bloke who took a night course the local community college. You seem to think we could get some of these trained up in no time in the low energy world. Do you or any pro-nukes have a plan for this?

You brought up many good points. But maybe there is a plan... Have you been following the recent nuclear treaty agreement between the US and India? Wonder why the US is interested in this close relationship in nuclear developments with Inida? India may very well be the source for the future nuclear physisists and engineers. We will import them our outsource it just like we already do with information technology.

Are you seriously suggesting that in a post crash low energy scenario we'll keep importing all these trained East Indians to work in NA nuke plants and everything will carry on as normal?

[Ibon]

Are you seriously suggesting that in a post crash low energy scenario we'll keep importing all these trained East Indians to work in NA nuke plants and everything will carry on as normal?

I was being somewhat sarcastic and taking a poke at the ongoing trend of America importing everything from products from China, money to finance it's debt and know how that our universities can no longer provide. Along with the outsourcing. So no I don't seriously see this as viable however if the nuclear industry would end up going through some global revival then you will see synergies like this addressing some of the problems you addressed in your previous quote. In a post crash low energy scenario it wouldn't work but as a bridge in a decades transition to alternatives it very well might. A hard crash is a possibility but not an inevitable outcome.

[crapattack]

Ibon wrote:

...however if the nuclear industry would end up going through some global revival then you will see synergies like this addressing some of the problems you addressed in your previous quote. In a post crash low energy scenario it wouldn't work but as a bridge in a decades transition to alternatives it very well might. A hard crash is a possibility but not an inevitable outcome.

I think either a fast or slow crash is a strong possibility in the upcomming PO crisis. As part of the plan to build all these nuke plants the boosters want to build, if they want public support for this plan, I think they should have a plan for how to run them if there is a crash. If they don't think they can run them post-crash (and I don't see how they can) what is the plan for decommissioning.

Nuke plants require constant maintenance and I don't think its such a great idea to adovcate building hundreds of them if there is a strong possibility you'll have no way to service or shut them down properly in the future. I would also say that if there is no way to run them and no way to decomission them I would argue that building all these hundreds of plants is completely irresponsible and it is us, the people, who will not only pay large subsidies for these plants through our taxes, but also we and our generations of children would have to live with the effects should they be left to go critical. In this case renewables make much more sense as a powerdown transitional technology.