Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
Most of the predictions around PO are pretty obviously proving true, 6 year plateau of conventional production so far, highest average price ever in 2011, substitution of inferior products at higher price (ethanol, condensates, etc), decline in available exports, demand destruction in mature economies, arguably destructive effects on the global economy, etc., etc.
Again, every "mainstream" estimate of low price and higher production by agencies like the EIA, IEA, CERA, in the first years of this site have proven wrong.
There are almost a million posts on the site, I've no doubt you can pick out some doozies to jeer at. What that tells me is that your interest here is not in discussing or debating peak oil, but merely to deride and denigrate and gin up an argument. Commonly that's called trolling.
So if the EIA posts data that says nuclear is more expensive than natural gas, coal, hydro, etc, do you believe that data is lies? It is all a part of a massive conspiracy to suppress cheap energy technologies?meemoe_uk wrote:I like the 'we will never reach peak option'
Not that it alluded only to abiotic or regenerating oil, but the possibility that oil will become obselete when a better power source is discovered, before geological peak oil happens. Well it already happened back in the 1950s with the advent of nuclear power. But then, the PTB didn't want to gift such easy energy to the world, which would have allowed a world population of 100billion or so.
meemoe_uk wrote:And if the peak_oil_is_now gang insist in trying to ring the global panic alarm, and to keep doing it for hundreds of years, don't be too put out if sometimes someone points out that your previous alarms were unfounded. Who is the troll? The boy who falsely cries wolf for a hundred years? Or the villagers who point to previous false wolf alarms? Most of us would say its the boy. Would you?
Sorry ming. Perhaps in your studying on peak oil, if you'd been a bit more suspicious of the US led invasion into the middle east in 2001, you might have seen 'bringing democracy to the middle east' was actually a cover story for a project to bump up world oil production to about 100mpbd by 2020
In our private exchange, you kept going on and on about how your are a scientist and an engineering. You look at the data, reality, and the peak_oil_is_now crowd are the ones in denial. Yet when I confronted you with facts and data that shoots holes in your theories, the only thing you come back with is conspiracy theories. I like how you completely ignored the point from the union of concerned scientists that nuclear is NOT over-engineered. They feel more safety systems are needed to prevent another Fukushima. Which would further drive up the cost of nuclear past today's already expensive levels. Since this fact is inconvenient to you, you simply ignore it? I hope you realize this is not a very scientific attitude.meemoe_uk wrote:So if the EIA posts data that says nuclear is more expensive than natural gas, coal, hydro, etc, do you believe that data is lies? It is all a part of a massive conspiracy to suppress cheap energy technologies?
Yup, that's it. Looks like our private exchange wasn't totally in vain.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests