Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Oil Solved

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Peak Oil Solved

Unread postby Booger » Mon 15 Nov 2004, 12:44:37

Actually the more I think about it, which is more likely? A Muslim terrorist nuking a US city in revenge for the slaughter of his brethren around the globe by America, or Peak Oil? Surely a nuking of NYC will ruin our economy, reduce our oil consumption significantly, and make us a second rate power for time eternal. Perfect solution to the consumption crisis, and perfect revenge for the pain and suffering we have caused and continue to cause. Revenge of the third world for all the puppet dictatorships who we propped up, whose sole purpose was to award us their nation's mineral resources.
User avatar
Booger
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun 14 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby trespam » Mon 15 Nov 2004, 13:15:42

You know what? I'm the first to admit the US is not blamefree. But a nuke on NYC? At least pick a Red state my good man. Man oh man.

Tell you what: Let's take a longer time frame. Over the next 20 years, the US economy--with unsustainable debt and increasing energy prices--is going to be hit with the equivalent of a nuclear warhead. So patience my good friend. We'll get our payback. And the rest of the world will go along for the ride.
User avatar
trespam
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue 10 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Re: Peak Oil Solved

Unread postby Jack » Mon 15 Nov 2004, 15:20:42

Booger wrote:Actually the more I think about it, which is more likely? A Muslim terrorist nuking a US city in revenge for the slaughter of his brethren around the globe by America, or Peak Oil? Surely a nuking of NYC will ruin our economy, reduce our oil consumption significantly, and make us a second rate power for time eternal. Perfect solution to the consumption crisis, and perfect revenge for the pain and suffering we have caused and continue to cause. Revenge of the third world for all the puppet dictatorships who we propped up, whose sole purpose was to award us their nation's mineral resources.


My, my. Osama bin Laden would be delighted with those sentiments.

Nonetheless, the results may not be as expected. The U.S. had plans in place to deal with a full nuclear exchange during the Soviet era - and survive intact as a first rate power. Perhaps such an attack would focus our national will and encourage us to deal more proactively with the existing threats.
Jack
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby nero » Mon 15 Nov 2004, 16:10:09

The response to a terrorist nuclear bomb on the US would be terrifying. I think the draft and suspension of the constitution are not out of the question in that event.

One atomic bomb, however, would not wreck the American economy. It would have to be one of those monster hydrogen bombs to directly effect the overall economy. Yes a smaller fission bomb would indirectly damage the economy through knock on effects, costs of the cleanup, cost of increased security and change in consumer priorities but we already have a sense of those indirect costs because of the experience of 911.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Re: Peak Oil Solved

Unread postby trespam » Mon 15 Nov 2004, 16:26:27

Jack wrote:Nonetheless, the results may not be as expected. The U.S. had plans in place to deal with a full nuclear exchange during the Soviet era - and survive intact as a first rate power. Perhaps such an attack would focus our national will and encourage us to deal more proactively with the existing threats.


Unfortunately, most of those plans are just that: plans. Collecting dust along with many of the other bright ideas that the pentagon funds. If there had been a full-fledged exchange with the soviets, forget it. Our only plan was to ensure we could launch ours. Hence ballistic missile submarines. That was the plan--payback. Meanwhile, back in the smouldering US, there were few if any plans.

WTC was difficult to deal with. Just the act of blowing off a nuclear weapon in NYC would likely put the US into a deep recession. With a boom in the survivalist industry.
User avatar
trespam
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue 10 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Unread postby Concerned » Mon 15 Nov 2004, 17:21:02

The U.S. had plans in place to deal with a full nuclear exchange during the Soviet era


The plan was called Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD for short :P

I think the result was a nuclear winter with the roaches surviving.
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
User avatar
Concerned
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby BastardSquad » Mon 15 Nov 2004, 20:44:50

Concerned wrote:
The U.S. had plans in place to deal with a full nuclear exchange during the Soviet era


The plan was called Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD for short :P

I think the result was a nuclear winter with the roaches surviving.


Actually most scientists agree that the whole "nuclear winter" scenario is a crock,it's physically impossible.We'd need many,many times the nukes we have now and they'd have to be spread out perfectly evenly across the entire plante and all detonated simultaneously in order to slightly affect the weather on that kind of scale.Carl Sagan and a handful of other scientists got together and cooked up the whole NW idea in an attempt to scare everyone into disarming.

That being said,unless you had your own personal fallout/blast shelter outside the city and had it stocked with at least a months(I'm thinkin several years) worth of food and water and could actually get to it before the nukes started falling (very,very unlikely),then I think it's safe to say you would have been toast :) .


I don't know how true this is,but I've heard several people say that if the bad guys had half a brain and really wanted to f**k the economy up they'd have hit the new york stock exchange. Anyone know if there's any truth to that?If it is true then a nuke in NYC would be very,very,very bad.
"Switzerland is small and neutral.We need to be more like Germany,ambitious and misunderstood!" Futurama


"As for the dieoff of 5E+09 people - not a problem, so long as I'm not one of them." Jack
User avatar
BastardSquad
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun 24 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Marco » Mon 15 Nov 2004, 21:13:54

Actually,

some of the crazies at the Pentagon think they can 'win' a limited nuclear war. Straightjacket time gentlemen. By placing American nukes in Europe in the eighties they thought they could launch from there and hit Russian targets. The Ruskies would then only retaliate by turning Europe into an ashtray and leave the US alone. Suuure.

The US planners still think they can fight a 'limited nuclear war', and 'win'.

9-11 was an inside job for sure- so the likely 'terrorists' would be American ones. I think NYC is a target- but lets not leave out the 'twin cities' scenario. Any strike like this would bring down the US economy.

regards Marco
User avatar
Marco
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby Jack » Mon 15 Nov 2004, 22:39:16

BastardSquad wrote:
I don't know how true this is,but I've heard several people say that if the bad guys had half a brain and really wanted to f**k the economy up they'd have hit the new york stock exchange. Anyone know if there's any truth to that?If it is true then a nuke in NYC would be very,very,very bad.


The NYSE, along with the other exchanges, banks, and brokerage firms have records, backup sites, and secure facilities that would permit the markets to continue functioning.

And thanks for making the point about nuclear winter - it was a flawed model from inception!
Jack
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Specop_007 » Mon 15 Nov 2004, 22:52:19

Lets not forget about that big ass Ruskie ship-bomb. They said it was so big it would have cracked the core of the Earth. Yay for big bombs!! 8)

I htink it was more rumor then anything though. Who knows?
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby 0mar » Tue 16 Nov 2004, 01:13:20

I don't think you could crack the crust unless it was at a very weak spot.

The largest bomb ever made was the Tsar bomb (ironic considering what the Blosheviks overthrew). I think it made for 50 megatons and a few 100 megaton bombs were made as well.

That would vape a good mile radius though.
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Unread postby Booger » Tue 16 Nov 2004, 02:34:38

The bomb would most likely be an atomic, not hydrogen bomb. Smaller in size, and less complex. The reason NYC would be chosen would be that it has high population density, it is an important financial center, and it is home to the largest Jewish population on earth. Prevailing winds would carry radioactive material into the lungs of millions of other souls living up and down the eastern seaboard.

DC would be another bet, and Moscow yet another. But none are as juicy as NYC, and the Muslims seem to keep attacking there, and only there.

It's only a matter of time with our current foreign policy. Thanks Bush!
User avatar
Booger
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun 14 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby trespam » Tue 16 Nov 2004, 02:39:44

Booger wrote:The bomb would most likely be an atomic, not hydrogen bomb. Smaller in size, and less complex. The reason NYC would be chosen would be that it has high population density, it is an important financial center, and it is home to the largest Jewish population on earth. Prevailing winds would carry radioactive material into the lungs of millions of other souls living up and down the eastern seaboard.

DC would be another bet, and Moscow yet another. But none are as juicy as NYC, and the Muslims seem to keep attacking there, and only there.

It's only a matter of time with our current foreign policy. Thanks Bush!


Early in the Bush administration, I was appalled when they started cutting funds to buy up decommissioned nuclear material from the soviets. I could never understand what the hell they were thinking. It was almost as if on ideological grounds they didn't want to be giving money to the Russians, even if the end-result would be less fissionable material in the world.

Yet another sign of the shoot-the-US-in-the-foot mentality of this administration. They think they're tough. Yet they're just creating more problems.
User avatar
trespam
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue 10 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Unread postby rerere » Tue 16 Nov 2004, 03:54:12

Booger wrote: But none are as juicy as NYC, and the Muslims seem to keep attacking there, and only there.


*coff*
Pentagon
*coff*

Oh, and the Muslims attacking other Muslims/Christians/whoever in other places would like to point out that Murder by People Who Claim to Follow Religion is not just a Muslim thing, thank you very much!

(To single out Muslims is not a correct representation of man's inhumanity to man. Sometimes the inhumanity is done in the name of religion, other times it is done by people who claim to follow a religion. Sometime the idol it simple hard cash.)

Booger wrote:Thanks Bush!


George says "You are Welcome!" And now goes back to spending the political capitol, cuz that spending is off budget.
User avatar
rerere
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Revisiting Peak Oil; entering the era of abundant oil

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 30 Jan 2018, 16:01:05


Rather than witnessing peak oil supply or oil scarcity, we are now seeing a flood of new oil supplies across the world. Rather than worrying about where all the oil we will need in the future is going to come from, we are now talking about when global oil demand will peak. The timing of this is impossible to predict but what is clear is that we are entering the era of abundant oil and that is a paradigm shift for the whole energy industry as well as global geopolitics. Peak oil used to be seen as the point in time when the production of oil would reach a maximum before starting to decline. This would happen because new oil supplies were impossible or too expensive to be extracted and the general view was that, once the point of .


Revisiting Peak Oil; entering the era of abundant oil
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Revisiting Peak Oil; entering the era of abundant oil

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 30 Jan 2018, 22:12:24

AdamB wrote:entering the era of abundant oil...


If this is the era of abundant oil, then why has the price of oil gone up over 50% in the last two years? :P :lol: :)

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Peak Oil Solved

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 03 Feb 2018, 20:27:13

haha :lol:
Era of Abundant Oil. Right. And Santa Claus delivers presents every Christmas.
When, we are trying to attain Oil from ever more inaccessible and remote locations and when the Shale Fracking is a money loser whereby talk is of certain "sweet spots" and of rapidly depleting wells and reserves. Just because technology is allowing more formerly inaccessible oil to come online is necessarily a plus when ever more energy is needed to access energy.
Because then the point is reached when it takes more energy to access a given amount of energy than is derived from it. Game over. But tell yourselves your nightly feel good stories all you want if that is to your liking.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA


Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests