[Wildwell]

And the other thing, you or I don't know that it might be possible to send machines into other areas of the universe for resources.

So are we going to argue the universe is finite?

I'm not saying this will happen or is practical, but the very nature of this idea renders your theory null.

[MonteQuest]

pdf

The Earth is not a closed system

I rest my case. You didn't even read what I wrote. Your ignorance and bull-headed world paradigm is so obvious. These "theories" you say I have are the way the world works. You and John Denver should start the Space Fantasy Club. I'm done here.

[Wildwell]

pdf

The Earth is not a closed system

I rest my case. You didn't even read what I wrote. Your ignorance and bull-headed world paradigm is so obvious. These "theories" you say I have are the way the world works. You and John Denver should start the Space Fantasy Club. I'm done here.

No, they are yours and a few other people theories on the *application* of certain laws and I happen to disagree the way in which you argue the case, that doesn't make me ignorant.

You are getting confused between the heating of the earth (in which case it is a closed system, unlike the ocean) and the application of use between finite fossil fuels and energy renewable sources.

[MonteQuest]

You are getting confused between the heating of the earth (in which case it is a closed system, unlike the ocean) and the application of use between finite fossil fuels and energy renewable sources.

Confused? Didn't I just state this?

Forget about maintaining thermodynamic equillibrium with space with regard to earth as a closed system. That is not being questioned, as I have pointed out to everybody who tries to refute this fact--which tells me that they do not read my posts or do any research for themselves. They read just far enough to disagree, and not far enough to understand.

[Wildwell]

You are getting confused between the heating of the earth (in which case it is a closed system, unlike the ocean) and the application of use between finite fossil fuels and energy renewable sources.

Confused? Didn't I just state this?

Forget about maintaining thermodynamic equillibrium with space with regard to earth as a closed system. That is not being questioned, as I have pointed out to everybody who tries to refute this fact--which tells me that they do not read my posts or do any research for themselves. They read just far enough to disagree, and not far enough to understand.

"In fact, there's enough power from the sun hitting the Earth every day to supply all the world's needs for energy 10,000 times over,'' Sargent said in a phone interview Sunday from Boston. He is currently a visiting professor of nanotechnology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.'

You are thinking (even though you say you aren't) about the use of finite fuels right here now. There's more than enough energy coming from *outside* these sources - what I mean by an open system. It's figuring out how to capture it. You seem hell bent on explaining that we are doomed through the peaking of finite energy sources in the ground when we haven't even got around the making use of the ones that are continuous and will never peak as long as the sun remains at the same position from earth.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ub=SciTech

[Aaron]

However, economies are also capable of reorganisation and efficiency.

No

These gains are absorbed by the market and redistributed in various ways.

Despite of decades of advances in efficiency, the savings have resulted in growth.

-----------------------------------------------

The Earth does indeed receive it's primary energy from the sun, which is about as renewable as it gets in our universe. We just don't know how to harness it properly yet. In fact, oil is a renewable fuel... it just takes millions of years to produce in quantity.

-------------------------------------------------

Holding up Cuba or Eastern European examples of how there is no meaningful linkage to energy supplies is flawed.

Cuba is an impoverished nightmare supported by vice industries which compose their lucrative black market. Poverty is widespread, and living conditions 3rd world for most of it's population. And I don't have to google for that... I have been there and seen this "oil free" country myself.

Eastern European countries with strong socialist tendencies who subsidize their industries to skew the markets are also a poor example. While this strategy has provided some short term benefits by concealing the real picture, these countries are currently beginning to feel the effects as they are unable to sustain this process. That you can google yourselves.

---------------------------------------------------

This idea that economic health can be maintained absent a cheap plentiful energy supply is counterintuitive.

Just like JD's example above about energy requirements for computer training, oil's hidden subsidy masks the real energy costs. From the energy required for the secretary at XYZ Company to drive to Starbuck's for a latte enema, to the CRT which broadcasts John's course ware, oil's hidden fingerprint is everywhere.

As any 7th grade physics student should be able to tell you.

Energy is the ability to perform activities.

Less energy = less activity possible.

[MonteQuest]

"In fact, there's enough power from the sun hitting the Earth every day to supply all the world's needs for energy 10,000 times over,'' Sargent said in a phone interview Sunday from Boston. He is currently a visiting professor of nanotechnology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.'

You are thinking (even though you say you aren't) about the use of finite fuels right here now. There's more than enough energy coming from *outside* these sources - what I mean by an open system. It's figuring out how to capture it. You see hell bent on explaining that we are doomed through the peaking of finite energy sources in the ground when we haven't even got around the making use of the ones that are continuous and will never peak as long as the sun remains at the same position from earth.

We would never have built this complex civilization and population based upon received solar. There is no basket of renewables that can ever replace fossil fuels in the way we have come to expect from them. Ever read my threads :

The World Before Fossil Fuels
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic4367.html

or

Solar vs Fossil; The Future and the Past
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic2059.html+past


And yes, since we are not even trying to make an effort to build renewables, we are surely doomed to experience resource wars over the remaining dregs.

[Wildwell]

"In fact, there's enough power from the sun hitting the Earth every day to supply all the world's needs for energy 10,000 times over,'' Sargent said in a phone interview Sunday from Boston. He is currently a visiting professor of nanotechnology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.'

You are thinking (even though you say you aren't) about the use of finite fuels right here now. There's more than enough energy coming from *outside* these sources - what I mean by an open system. It's figuring out how to capture it. You see hell bent on explaining that we are doomed through the peaking of finite energy sources in the ground when we haven't even got around the making use of the ones that are continuous and will never peak as long as the sun remains at the same position from earth.

We would never have built this complex civilization and population based upon received solar. There is no basket of renewables that can ever replace fossil fuels in the way we have come to expect from them. Ever read my threads :

The World Before Fossil Fuels
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic4367.html

or

Solar vs Fossil; The Future and the Past
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic2059.html+past


And yes, since we are not even trying to make an effort to build renewables, we are surely doomed to experience resource wars over the remaining dregs.

You clearly do not know your history on how the world was built and both of us do not know the future. While it is true to say that it wasn't built on PV panels it was not built on oil.

[NevadaGhosts]

You clearly do not know your history on how the world was built and both of us do not know the future. While it is true to say that it wasn't built on PV panels it was not built on oil.

Are you joking? The entire industrialized world WAS and IS built upon cheap fossil fuels. Without cheap oil and natural gas, we wouldn't have computers, cars, planes, electricity, or anthing else like that. You can kiss your current lifestyle goodbye in the next 10 years. Perhaps you are from another planet and will travel back there again with John Denver in your spaceship. Or perhaps you are just in total and complete denial. What is it with some of the super idealistic Europeans on this site, anyways? (PB excluded). Sheesh.

Monte, don't even waste your time with such ignorant bafoons.

[Wildwell]

However, economies are also capable of reorganisation and efficiency.

No

These gains are absorbed by the market and redistributed in various ways.

Despite of decades of advances in efficiency, the savings have resulted in growth.

-----------------------------------------------

The Earth does indeed receive it's primary energy from the sun, which is about as renewable as it gets in our universe. We just don't know how to harness it properly yet. In fact, oil is a renewable fuel... it just takes millions of years to produce in quantity.

-------------------------------------------------

Holding up Cuba or Eastern European examples of how there is no meaningful linkage to energy supplies is flawed.

Cuba is an impoverished nightmare supported by vice industries which compose their lucrative black market. Poverty is widespread, and living conditions 3rd world for most of it's population. And I don't have to google for that... I have been there and seen this "oil free" country myself.

Eastern European countries with strong socialist tendencies who subsidize their industries to skew the markets are also a poor example. While this strategy has provided some short term benefits by concealing the real picture, these countries are currently beginning to feel the effects as they are unable to sustain this process. That you can google yourselves.

---------------------------------------------------

This idea that economic health can be maintained absent a cheap plentiful energy supply is counterintuitive.

Just like JD's example above about energy requirements for computer training, oil's hidden subsidy masks the real energy costs. From the energy required for the secretary at XYZ Company to drive to Starbuck's for a latte enema, to the CRT which broadcasts John's course ware, oil's hidden fingerprint is everywhere.

As any 7th grade physics student should be able to tell you.

Energy is the ability to perform activities.

Less energy = less activity possible.

I'll say again for the last time, it depends how you use that energy. By that token, you must therefore assume that all these cars, planes and plastics actually did something useful in terms of the economy, in terms of a specific country and the wider context. What would have been the effect if we hadn't invented them?

[MonteQuest]

You clearly do not know your history on how the world was built and both of us do not know the future. While it is true to say that it wasn't built on PV panels it was not built on oil.

See how quickly he read those threads folks? Wildwell has an epiphany for us: Modern technological civilization was not built upon cheap, readily available fossil fuels, especially oil.

My history is pretty good. I'll start in 1859 in Pennsylvania and the rest is history.

[Wildwell]

You clearly do not know your history on how the world was built and both of us do not know the future. While it is true to say that it wasn't built on PV panels it was not built on oil.

Are you joking? The entire industrialized world WAS and IS built upon cheap fossil fuels. Without cheap oil and natural gas, we wouldn't have computers, cars, planes, or anthing else like that. You can kiss your current lifestyle goodbye in the next 10 years. Perhaps you are from another planet and will travel back there again with John Denver in your spaceship. Or perhaps you are just in total and complete denial. Sheesh.

Monte, don't even waste your time with some of these ignorant bafoons.

No my friend, the entire western world was built on steam and coal, not oil. Oil has only been significant since 1910/1920. Oil added cars, planes and plastics. It remains to be seen whether they did anything very useful we could have done with sail ships, trams and trains.

[Wildwell]

You clearly do not know your history on how the world was built and both of us do not know the future. While it is true to say that it wasn't built on PV panels it was not built on oil.

See how quickly he read those threads folks? Wildwell has an epiphany for us: Modern technological civilization was not built upon cheap, readily available fossil fuels, especially oil.

My history is pretty good. I'll start in 1859 in Pennsylvania and the rest is history.

You know I give up, because you don't know your history, geography and economics and bugger all about transport.

Please leave that god forsaken country of yours and come and visit other places in the world, it might open your eyes.

I've now concluded Peak oil is about selling political ideas, books and films - that seems to be its only purpose.

[NevadaGhosts]

You clearly do not know your history on how the world was built and both of us do not know the future. While it is true to say that it wasn't built on PV panels it was not built on oil.

Are you joking? The entire industrialized world WAS and IS built upon cheap fossil fuels. Without cheap oil and natural gas, we wouldn't have computers, cars, planes, or anthing else like that. You can kiss your current lifestyle goodbye in the next 10 years. Perhaps you are from another planet and will travel back there again with John Denver in your spaceship. Or perhaps you are just in total and complete denial. Sheesh.

Monte, don't even waste your time with some of these ignorant bafoons.

No my friend, the entire western world was built on steam and coal, not oil. Oil has only been significant since 1910/1920. Oil added cars, planes and plastics. It remains to be seen whether they did anything very useful we could have done with sail ships, trams and trains.

Most of our modern day industrialized society (and it's previous growth) is based upon cheap oil and natural gas, NOT cheap coal. Although coal does power about 40% of US electricity. The technology and growth boom really started speeding up in the early 20th century through the late 90's and will start to decline in the early 21st century rapidly due to lack of cheap oil.

[NevadaGhosts]

I've now concluded Peak oil is about selling political ideas, books and films - that seems to be its only purpose.

Then don't waste your time (or ours) here. Go find a cornucopian or space mirror board.

[Aaron]

I'll say again for the last time, it depends how you use that energy.

Please expand on this idea...

I am unsure what you mean.

[MonteQuest]

You know I give up, because you don't know your history, geography and economics and bugger all about transport..

Yeah? Maybe you think so because you don't read.

Until the Industrial Revolution, most of the world's population was rural. However, by mid-nineteenth century, half of the English people lived in cities, and by the end of the century, the same was true of other European countries. Between 1800 and 1950 most large European cities exhibited spectacular growth. At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were scarcely two dozen cities in Europe with a population of 100,000, but by 1900 there were more than 150 cities of this size. Goods that had traditionally been made in the home or in small workshops began to be manufactured in the factories of the cities.

Michael Faraday demonstrated how electricity could be mechanically produced as early as 1831, but it was not until 1873 that a generator capable of prolonged operation was developed—42 years. Throughout the nineteenth century, the use of electric power was limited by small productive capacity, short transmission lines, and high cost. Up to 1900, the only cheap electricity was that produced by hydroelectric power in the mountains of southeastern France and northern Italy.

We know they had developed metallurgy prior to the Industrial Revolution as is evidenced by the development of bronze and iron. Early iron smelting (as the process is called) used charcoal as both the heat source and the reducing agent. Charcoal, derived from the charring of wood in a kiln, was an excellent source of energy to smelt the iron; however, its widespread use caused a serious depletion of England's forests during the 18th century. And while charcoal easily created the heat required to melt tin and copper for bronze, and to smelt pig iron, the production of higher quality iron and steel required much higher temperatures. In the early l8th century, a significant breakthrough came when pig iron was successfully smelted using coke made from coal.

[Wildwell]

Seems you proclaim you know what you’re talking about. Explain from 1750, to 2000. The path of transport, industry and population in the Europe, the US and the rest of the world and how after the war the use of oil, especially in geography and transport. Explain how that transport produced money. Include women's role, disposable income and the role of credit. Then explain the costs of pollution and congestion. You can include wars and the post World War II US influence and the role of the British Empire, France and Germany. The account there is very much incomplete.

[MonteQuest]

Seems you proclaim you know what you’re talking about. Explain from 1750, to 2000. The path of transport, industry and population in the Europe, the US and the rest of the world and how after the war the use of oil, especially in geography and transport. Explain how that transport produced money. Include women's role, disposable income and the role of credit. Then explain the costs of pollution and congestion. You can include wars and the post World War II US influence and the role of the British Empire, France and Germany. The account there is very much incomplete.

Read my book.

[Wildwell]

Seems you proclaim you know what you’re talking about. Explain from 1750, to 2000. The path of transport, industry and population in the Europe, the US and the rest of the world and how after the war the use of oil, especially in geography and transport. Explain how that transport produced money. Include women's role, disposable income and the role of credit. Then explain the costs of pollution and congestion. You can include wars and the post World War II US influence and the role of the British Empire, France and Germany. The account there is very much incomplete.

Read my book.

If it's the one you sent me it was quite good. However it was not referenced with a bibliography and was quite conspiratorial in nature, so I’m taking it with a pinch of salt. Also, it still does not cover the points I raised above with academic appraisal.

I’d like you to explain to me how sending a sail ship to from France to the US with spring water makes far less money than sending a plane to France with guns.