[otter_17]

@ Sixstrings

Yes, the probability that we can power an incredibly wasteful American society as it exists today might not be very high. We may have to scale back, substantially. Nevertheless, I am taking the position that it is possible, and I have some evidence to back up my position. Most all of the renewable energy technologies have an energy payback period where their cumulative energy output exceeds the energy used for manufacture. They can indeed have a substantial net energy input today. I concede that today's solar panels and wind turbines require fossil fuels to create them, but there are efforts underway to create a more sustainable manufacturing stream, from biodiesel-powered material extraction machines to an assembly plant run on solar, wind, etc. When we can use renewable energy to make renewable energy extraction devices, then we have true sustainability. Algae-based biodiesel is likely the only renewable technology that can power ships, planes, and heavy machinery in the near term. I'm not sure if we can develop an alternative to fertilizers or pesticides; today's intensive agriculture may not be sustainable.

Sorry, I don't have a reference for some of the things I have stated above. Many of those statements are based on IEEE Spectrum magazine articles and textbooks that I have read over the past several years. Nevertheless, here is an article out of Stanford from a few guys that have crunched the numbers, and do feel optimistic. I'm not sure if they accounted for a fully-sustainable manufacturing and transportation stream to bring a large amount of renewables online, though.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/octo ... 02009.html

There are three energy sources that we can rely on pretty much forever. Those are solar, geothermal, and tidal. The sun's energy powers the water cycle (hydro power), the wind, biodiesel/biomass, and solar panels. Geothermal heat is trapped from the formation of the planet, and nuclear-based heat is also generated below the ground. Finally, tidal forces from gravitational interactions with the moon move lots of water.

So, bottom line, I am going to maintain my stance that a renewable future is possible, but I'm not banking on a happy-go-lucky future either. I see a lot of gray areas where there may be a breakthrough, or a bust. One thing that we need now is a substantial R&D effort and some dang funding. Wind and solar have made great strides in years past, with only a pittance of attention from the federal and state governments (California and Texas being notable exceptions). Enhanced geothermal is a baseload electric power technology that gets even less attention. Biodiesel research was shelved after the Carter administration. Absolute near-sighted insanity is the only way to describe it.

[otter_17]

@ Pops

Yeah, I figured the Google Docs route would be the way to go.

Thanks.

[otter_17]

World Oil Production Estimator rev1.xls

World Oil Production Estimator rev2.xls

Alrighty, here it is.

The first revision doesn't have any of my production estimates put in. The second revision has my best guess for each country based on the EIA factsheets and other sources.

I'll be sure to start another thread in the peak oil subforum. I want to get the best official estimates and realistic estimates for production. We are likely in for a rough decade if Iraq can't scale up its production due to costs, instability, whatever.

[Ludi]

I don't see the catalyst that will have a disruptive change in the 50-60 yr old's lifestyle (assuming an appropriate nest egg), at least for our lifetimes. Do you?

Possibly someone has already pointed out that most 50-60 year-olds do not have an "appropriate nest egg" and only a few percent of the population make a six figure income or above.

In my opinion, the majority of people as young as 50-60 will likely experience significant hardship in the not too distant future.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri ... ealth.html

[Sixstrings]

Possibly someone has already pointed out that most 50-60 year-olds do not have an "appropriate nest egg" and only a few percent of the population make a six figure income or above.

In my opinion, the majority of people as young as 50-60 will likely experience significant hardship in the not too distant future.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri ... ealth.html

Good point, Ludi. I think he also said he pays most his workers six figure salaries. Is this a law firm we're talking about?

But not to knock him for his personal story, we just have to keep things in perspective on this forum as far as how peak oil / climate change / financial crisis will affect *most* people.

[Plantagenet]

There are three energy sources that we can rely on pretty much forever. Those are solar, geothermal, and tidal.

Technology is advancing so quickly that its presumptuous to insist we must engineer our society now only with the energy sources that our current technology suggests will last "forever."

It will be a major accomplishment just to replace oil over the next few decades with things like natural gas, much less to limit the replacement of oil only to energy sources that last "forever". And, it is possible that Fusion energy or ways to get at gas hydrates or some other new energy technology we can't even imagine now may well be developed over the next few decades.

[Sixstrings]

Technology is advancing so quickly that its presumptuous to insist we must engineer our society now only with the energy sources that our current technology suggests will last "forever."

That's the problem I have with government sponsoring a particular solution too early.. for some things it really is best to leave it to market forces. For example.. in the 80's the French spent a lot of money on the "Minitel," basically little home computers with a modem and people could shop and do email and basic things. So for a while the US was behind by leaving it up to the market.. but when the market did get involved, the internet quickly evolved into something much more than could have ever been planned out by a government committee.

Minitel was often considered as an impediment for a fast deployment of the Internet in France, since it already provided safe and easy online access for many useful services without requiring a personal computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel

Bottom line.. I don't want to see artificially high oil prices via taxation, but if peak oil could start kicking into gear on its own then some high prices would be good for us. It would get the market working on alternatives.

[otter_17]

Technology is advancing so quickly that its presumptuous to insist we must engineer our society now only with the energy sources that our current technology suggests will last "forever."

Sure, no doubt it won't happen overnight. And sure, throw fusion in the mix as well as a future "forever resource". I forgot that one. I wasn't advocating that we need to switch today, but I do not think that it is presumptuous to put our efforts towards resources that we can count on for a long, long time. I do think it is presumptuous to assume that we don't need a plan for our liquid fuel and can just see what our fast-paced technology and markets will come up with, as some hardcore free-market types seem to advocate (I'm not assuming that you believe this). Some folks seem to believe that just because computer tech has made leaps and bounds in short time intervals, that all other technology and infrastructure has the same capability. Certain energy technologies and infrastructures just may not have the ability to turn on a dime to react to a discontinuity such as peak oil (without disruption).

Gas hydrates? Ok. Nuclear fission, thorium cycle, etc? Alright. I'm pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to energy resources in the near-medium term. There are constraints in the coming decades, though, with possibilities for climate change, peak oil, and peak natural gas. In particular, climate change is a well-studied constraint that limits our developments for the next century to low-carbon technologies. I say our leadership needs to keep it real (investigate the timing of upcoming threats), and let's get down to doing what needs to be done to put our development resources on the right set of energy techs and transportation techs.

This is my overall philosophy on the matter. Capitalism is fine and good, but when it comes to energy and technology, there needs to be some long-term foresight to anticipate necessary changes and at least attempt to nudge the market in the right direction with subsidies, research grants, etc. It may not always work, but so is the nature of technology development (corn based ethanol, for example). You try again on another promising technology.

[Plantagenet]

I do think it is presumptuous to assume that we don't need a plan for our liquid fuel....Capitalism is fine and good, but when it comes to energy and technology, there needs to be some long-term foresight to anticipate necessary changes and at least attempt to nudge the market in the right direction with subsidies, research grants, etc. It may not always work, but so is the nature of technology development (corn based ethanol, for example). You try again on another promising technology.

Exactly right.

The problem arises when the "long range foresight" is misdirected or even entirely lacking for political reasons.

You mention "corn based ethanol" as an example of something that doesn't work, but the corn based ethanol program is strongly backed by Obama and his administration and sucks up more and more of the alternative energy budget in subsidies to big agribiz every year. Rather than "trying again on another promising technology", we are being locked into subsidizing corn based ethanol.

Its a classic example of how things go wrong when politics trump science.

[otter_17]

Yeah, unless there are still some avenues to explore in corn-based ethanol, it ought to be abandoned, or reduced in funding substantially. A documentary I had watched not too long ago interviewed a congressman that was certain that ethanol was a corn lobby invention. I'm not sure if that is the case, but then again I'm not sure who was arguing for corn ethanol at the beginning.

Recently, former CEO of Shell, John Hofmeister made the suggestion on CNN's "Parker/Spitzer" show that their ought to be an agency such as the Federal Reserve, except for energy policy. He believes that energy policy is constricted by politicians that live election to election and that there ought to be a governing body that acts in a more long-term manner, better insulated from the politics. Not sure how that would work out, but sounds like a reasonable thing to me at first glance.

I believe the recent subsidy renewal for ethanol included not just corn-based, though. I was under the impression that other forms of ethanols and advanced bio-fuels were included in that pot. I might have to dig up an article to confirm. It would be a shame if the other bio-fuels are left with less because corn ethanol is favored.

[Plantagenet]

By coincidence the House Republicans just voted to defund the Obama administration's corn ethanol program.

Republicans vote to defund corn ethanol subsidies

[Peterp]

That seems to be the problem, they are spending a lot of time and investment and tax payers money in trying to refine these processes. You have to ask yourself, why they arent putting more time into other forms of energy, to me the cost of solar panels cost has been the most exciting news, but we will always need a range of different alternatives, at any time, bio fuels and ethanol, is something that i would be very interested in seeing how it is developed.

[Sixstrings]

By coincidence the House Republicans just voted to defund the Obama administration's corn ethanol program.

Republicans vote to defund corn ethanol subsidies

Plant, that's meaningless and you probably know it. House Republicans are well aware none of these Tea Party items have a chance in the Senate, so passing it in the House is just pandering without even delivering.

EDIT:

Checked your article:

The Senate has signaled that they will not be accepting the House package as is, and there will almost certainly be last minute negotiations as to which spending cuts stay and which go. Hopefully, the Senate can agree that the expansion of ethanol isn’t in the nations best interest, and can be cut.

Mark my words, the corn ethanol crowd in Iowa will keep their subsidies.

[Plantagenet]

By coincidence the House Republicans just voted to defund the Obama administration's corn ethanol program.

Republicans vote to defund corn ethanol subsidies

Plant, that's meaningless and you probably know it. House Republicans are well aware none of these Tea Party items have a chance in the Senate, so passing it in the House is just pandering without even delivering.

Hi Six:

I really like your posts most of the time, but you've missed the boat on this one.

Pandering involves politicians making promises to give groups of people special government benefits, i.e. Obama and the democrats pander to big agribiz by promising to channel ever more money for ethanol subsidies. Voting to cut off subsidies and pork to special interest groups is not pandering----in fact it is the exact opposite of pandering.

[mos6507]

Pandering involves politicians making promises to give groups of people special government benefits,

Tax cuts to the rich are a benefit, to the tune of costing the country hundreds of billions in lost revenue.

I really don't think you can issue a partisan attack without merely opening yourself up to a counter-attack, Planty. The republicans simply do not have a platform that even satisfies your own criteria of fair and prudent.

Your rhetoric is really no more sophisticated than Rush, Hannity, or Beck. It sounds OK when it's a one-sided argument, but completely falls apart under scrutiny.

[arcenneL]

Hi everyone, I'm glad to be a part of this site. I'm a writer of life, love, wishes and mystifications. I'm completely captivated by the human mind, the way it operates and why. I can be the first one to admit that there is still so much to learn, so much to comprehend in this thing we call life. A single mind can't grow without the power of other minds. We are whatever we are today as a result of individuals in our past. Their success, as well as failures, has significantly contributed to our drive and innovative intelligence. This is precisely why I enjoy writing a great deal, as it enables me to share my knowledge and experiences with others in expectations to fill in the gap of uncertainness in some way.

[americandream]

Hi everyone, I'm glad to be a part of this site. I'm a writer of life, love, wishes and mystifications. I'm completely captivated by the human mind, the way it operates and why. I can be the first one to admit that there is still so much to learn, so much to comprehend in this thing we call life. A single mind can't grow without the power of other minds. We are whatever we are today as a result of individuals in our past. Their success, as well as failures, has significantly contributed to our drive and innovative intelligence. This is precisely why I enjoy writing a great deal, as it enables me to share my knowledge and experiences with others in expectations to fill in the gap of uncertainness in some way.

Dialectic materialism.

[Crazy_Dad]

My advice is to get real. Humanity is on a crash course on carrying capacity.
Get a plan, enact it. Th PTB will be taxing your last dollar to save tptb.

It is upsetting, but true. Be kind where you can. Brace for turnabout.

[JohnRM]

New to the forum. I used to frequent LATOC on occasion, but bailed for the same reason that most people did, because most posters there are/were retards. I just found out that it closed for business...whenver...and I accidentally found this board. Anyway, I hope people here are not as irritating as LATOC was. Time will tell.

[timmac]

Welcome, however we also have a few retards as well here and a few communist as well..