peripato wrote:No I don't hold an opinion one way or the other about whether oil has already peaked, but supply appears to have plateaued - sustained high prices have not done anything to bring on higher production, and only super-cornucopians think that oil won't peak for another 50 years.
High prices *did* bring on additional production - eventually. It does take some time for it to come online. Note the rise beginning the middle of last year:
Please, a few hundred thousand additional barrels over the course of 4 years is hardly a stellar result given the huge price incentive to bring on more production. More like squeezing blood from a stone. But I grant that it is not conclusive whether we've peaked yet. But I'm sure its close.
peripato wrote:Super-cornucopian, oil is our biggest source of primary energy. When it declines, ergo there will be less energy available. You can't possibly compare natural gas, with all its constraints, to the supreme fungibility and versatility of oil.
Illogical. At one time our biggest source of energy was coal. Does the decline of coal as our primary energy source mean that total energy declined? No. Therefore, it does not follow that if oil declined that total energy would also decline.
Coal was supplanted by oil because it was a superior fuel source. What is the primary source of energy which can substitute for oil for all its net power, versatility and cheapness?
Furthermore, your statement concerning natural gas was also randomly pulled out of thin air with no factual backing. It so happens that
natural gas makes a perfectly good transportation fuel.
You simply threw in the word "constraints" without having the slightest clue whether NG had such constraints or not. NG is as fungible and versatile as oil, and as
discussed in this thread, it is abundant.
You don't know what you're talking about. NG suffers from a much greater logistical burden to bring it to market. More so, those markets are for the most part regional, unlike oil which is much cheaper to produce, deliver and store - this makes it a fuel ideal for the purposes of international trade.
peripato wrote:As for uranium, please let's leave idle speculation about resource size where it belongs. It's still about how much electricity you can reasonably hope to produce at any given time (flows). There are limits. You know, limits?
Ah yes, standard doomer response - throw in the word "limits" without even reading the information provided in the article. But yes, you are correct: There could be "limits" to the amount of electricity provided by nuclear power - a "limit" which is likely hundreds or thousands of years away. Not much of a "limit" if you ask me.
No even non-doomers recognise that some things are either not worth the effort, or physically impossible to exploit. Shit, even economists know this.
I suppose there is also a "limit" on the amount of energy we can ultimately expect to be provided by the sun: Another billion years or so 'till we hit the "limit."
The sun will last another 5 billion years, and there are always other limits besides energy, but that's the doozy.
peripato wrote:Also isn't it true that the last time this sort of shakeout occurred the oil industry was in decline for nearly 20 years, coinciding with sluggish economic growth.
The last time the price of oil crashed in 1985-86 was in the midst of a long economic boom which lasted from 1983-1990, which was interrupted by a brief recession in 1990-91, and which was then followed by an even longer economic boom from 1991-2000.
Umm you're talking about the stock market boom? The one built on debt and derivatives? Oh yeah the economy was really swell for the mega rich, but try telling that to the middle class whose wealth position actually stagnated during all this time, and is now set to fall off a cliff.
Sources: CensusBureau.gov
MeasuringWorth.com
An utterly off-topic, strawman reply. The last time "this sort of shakeout occurred " in the early 80's (deep recession, oil price rise then crash) was followed by 17 years of economic expansion and only 1 year of contraction. So much for the "sluggish economic growth" you complained about. And last time I looked the oil companies are still around and doing fine, thank you, rather than being "in decline" as you claimed. Having shown you these facts, you are left to reply with some nonsense about class struggle, evil greedy rich people and other such leftist tripe.
You are utterly clueless. Most of this wealth was accumulated using debt, which is yet to be be paid back. Many people have been forced to borrow, or required their partners also bring home an income, to maintain their lifestyles. This chart shows the decline in household equity over the decades as Americans' have been transferring the ownership of their homes to the banks, in an effort to keep up appearances..
Yep the economy was real swell for the average American...
During the decades of the 80's and 90's western oil companies made little new investment in refineries, personnel (with many lay-offs) or exploration. Low oil prices saw to that.
Oh - but wait! Since you seem to guage the health of an economy on how well the middle class does, the economic collapse and decline in energy availability you advocate will make their plight even worse! Beware of what you ask for, you just might get it!
What I want or say is immaterial, same goes for you - our power to influence reality is limited. The trajectory of human events makes it virtually certain that substantial doom awaits us, and probably not before too long. The cracks are already appearing, with the bust
up of the economy, the appearance of resource constraints, massive ecological destruction and accelerating climate change.
peripato wrote:I can't believe I'm explaining recent history to someone.
I assume you're not very old.
I can't believe how deluded and in denial you are. You must be in a lot of pain puppy. All cherished assumptions of the future about to go up in smoke...
Such an effective debating tactic!
If the shoe fits.
peripato wrote:Most of this capital is speculative bullshit, it is being utterly destroyed in the biggest deflationary contraction in modern history. It will take years for this to work through the system and by then there will be a lot fewer companies, a lot fewer employees, and a lot less investment for everything - including renewables.
The deflation you speak of will lower the costs for the needed energy projects, thus lowering the investment needs. You can read about it in
JD's blog for starters. I can also show you declining prices for steel, polysilicon for solar panels, and a whole host of other cost inputs to energy projects. It all evens out.
Yep, you hit it home there Curly, trillions of dollars lost in home equity is just no match for the few millions saved by making more efficient solar panels. What could I have been thinking?
peripato wrote:All this activity takes money and energy, both of which we will soon have much less of.
In your dreams!
Wait and see super-cornucopian. Wat and see. The earth is no magic pudding, and we are not exempt from the laws of nature. Burning stuff to produce energy is not that clever. Producing your own energy from scratch, well that's something different. Oh, but then again - in your dreams.