[ralfy]

Wind and solar have low energy returns.

[AdamB]

Wind and solar have low energy returns.

Thank goodness that doesn't seem to matter in the least.

[REAL Green]

“Crude Oil Production”
“US”
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_CRD_CR ... BLPD_M.htm
“Monthly-Thousand Barrels per Day”
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20
12,755 12,746 12,737 12,010 10,016 10,430

[ROCKMAN]

I haven't seen the answer so Capt. Obvious to the rescue: PO does not mean ZERO OIL PRODUCTION. Neither in the US or in the oil exporting nations. And no: I'm not going to post the meaning of "peak oil". If anyone does not know it then they have no business on this sight IMHO.

[AdamB]

I haven't seen the answer so Capt. Obvious to the rescue: PO does not mean ZERO OIL PRODUCTION.

Did someone even claim that? Sure, peak oilers are generally pretty geologically and economically uninformed, but even they object when someone characterizes "peak" as 0.

Neither in the US or in the oil exporting nations. And no: I'm not going to post the meaning of "peak oil". If anyone does not know it then they have no business on this sight IMHO.

Nor do those who confuse it with 0!!!

Name this villain, that they might be hunted down and soundly abused for their ignorance!!

[mustang19]

Dumb thread.

It's like asking, if people ran out of food, why are there so many tractors?

Oil produces oil, so lack of ways to produce oil will result in a surplus- until that runs down and by that point oil will be competing with wood and other cheap energy.

[AdamB]

Dumb thread.

Could be. This is a peak oil themed website, so it was once about religious belief. Then folks built websites to do random curve fitting to predict when the MZBs would arrive. Then peak came and went a couple times. Then peakers crawled under rocks in the hopes that their indiscretion would go unnoticed. And the natural born doomers jumped on the climate change bandwagon.

So pipelines being empty is a bit on the silly side, in our era of abundance.

Oil produces oil, so lack of ways to produce oil will result in a surplus- until that runs down and by that point oil will be competing with wood and other cheap energy.

or nukes, windmills, hydro, green hydrogen, PVs and so on and so forth.

Good thing we are in the midst of peak oil demand before we ever got to that peak oil scarcity, huh?

[Outcast_Searcher]

Wind and solar have low energy returns.

Thank goodness that doesn't seem to matter in the least.

OTOH, wind turbines and solar cells can produce more and more of them EVERY week. (Unlike fossil fuels, which once gone, aren't replaced for thousands to millions of years). But let's not talk about THAT.

[mustang19]

Wind and solar have low energy returns.

Thank goodness that doesn't seem to matter in the least.

OTOH, wind turbines and solar cells can produce more and more of them EVERY week. (Unlike fossil fuels, which once gone, aren't replaced for thousands to millions of years). But let's not talk about THAT.

Already talked about all those things... manufacturers lied, wind turbines do not last.

[OutcastPhilosopher]

Wind and solar have low energy returns.

Thank goodness that doesn't seem to matter in the least.

OTOH, wind turbines and solar cells can produce more and more of them EVERY week. (Unlike fossil fuels, which once gone, aren't replaced for thousands to millions of years). But let's not talk about THAT.

Hey moron....guess what you need to make wind turbines and solar cells?....fossil fuels!!!

[AdamB]

Already talked about all those things... manufacturers lied, wind turbines do not last.

Perhaps you forget the part where your claim of turbine blades lasting 2 years was rapidly debunked by someone..you know...doing the math?

[ralfy]

That's why I use the ignore function, as there's no point to discuss such matters even on the basic level to ignoramuses. But there's no need to ban such users, as they're still useful for comic relief.

[AdamB]

Hey moron....guess what you need to make wind turbines and solar cells?....fossil fuels!!!

No. You need the ability to do work. Humans do that with plenty of things that aren't fossil fuels. It's just, man, we LIKE THOSE FOSSIL FUELS!

So, we know you have no experience with economists, or the fiscal/financial world, or math and statistics, and your logic has been REAL sketchy as demonstrated by a propensity to fall for every nutter conspiracy that catches your eye, and you claim to be quite young (and therefore expectedly uninformed about the world at large) so I am forced to ask, do you know the difference between raw material inputs and the systems and processes that use them to crank out consumer products?

The beauty of fossil fuels is that we aren't running out anytime soon, and they allow us to do LOADS of work rather cheaply. And, as you can see by examining the use of coal in the US, growth in their continued use is not a requirement for continuing to build out the next generation of electrical generation. Can you enunciate any idea you have as to why this trend won't continue, one fossil fuel at a time, until fossil fuels are a minority input into the ability of humans to do work, rather than a majority?

[AdamB]

That's why I use the ignore function, as there's no point to discuss such matters even on the basic level to ignoramuses.

See, and here I must disagree. One of the most valuable perspectives anyone can have, IMHO, is to understand both sides of the issues prior to making a then, hopefully, informed decision.

Most people, such as yourself undoubtedly, convince themselves they do just that. In your case for example you join LATOC, TinFoil Palace, Silent Country, LATOC II, and various other nutter forums between LATOC and now, and get your information about the same way Trumpers get theirs, sticking to a small eco-system of information.

Remember that peak oil link list you once maintained Ralfy? Go back and read them, and then ask, did you really know CRAP about this topic from focusing on those, or did you just cherry pick all the things that supported your preconceived notion of things?

How many of them mentioned looming peak oil demand? How many of them pushed off peak oil dates past 2020? How many of them predicted the US becoming the world's largest producer of oil? Again? How many of them included ANY geology related to US shale formations, so common that folks right here in this forum were producing oil and gas from them back in the 1980's. If Rockman wasn't doing it earlier than I was, as he is older than I.

So yes...by all means, make sure you never hear a dissenting word. Me? I listen to all sides, I seek out the contrary opinion to mine to make DAMN sure I haven't missed something, including wacky nonsense from nutters in some small corner of the internet. How do you think I ended up here?

But there's no need to ban such users, as they're still useful for comic relief.

Indeed, you LATOC refugee, revealed by your prophet as a father figure seeking pseudo religious self esteem lacking toadie. But you are always useful for not just comic relief but demonstrating that belief is far more powerful than facts and science. Keep up the good work Ralfy!

[mousepad]

Me? I listen to all sides

Now that is simply not true. You're shouting the other sides out of the room with your must-be-right-at-all-cost attitude.
If you were listening we wouldn't even know you're here, because, you'd be LISTENING, not talking.

[OutcastPhilosopher]

Hey moron....guess what you need to make wind turbines and solar cells?....fossil fuels!!!

No. You need the ability to do work. Humans do that with plenty of things that aren't fossil fuels. It's just, man, we LIKE THOSE FOSSIL FUELS!

So, we know you have no experience with economists, or the fiscal/financial world, or math and statistics, and your logic has been REAL sketchy as demonstrated by a propensity to fall for every nutter conspiracy that catches your eye, and you claim to be quite young (and therefore expectedly uninformed about the world at large) so I am forced to ask, do you know the difference between raw material inputs and the systems and processes that use them to crank out consumer products?

The beauty of fossil fuels is that we aren't running out anytime soon, and they allow us to do LOADS of work rather cheaply. And, as you can see by examining the use of coal in the US, growth in their continued use is not a requirement for continuing to build out the next generation of electrical generation. Can you enunciate any idea you have as to why this trend won't continue, one fossil fuel at a time, until fossil fuels are a minority input into the ability of humans to do work, rather than a majority?

Hey retard....if you want solar and wind you need fossil fuels. Try making solar panels and wind turbines without it. See how many you can make. See if you can transport them cross country or across nations without fossil fuels. Guess what you can't.

Of course humans can do work without fossil fuels, but without them, we return to an existence akin to 1850 or prior and at that time there were no solar panels and wind turbines. See the chart below regarding oil production and human population. Therefore, your statement regarding that is highly misinformed. To continue industrial civilization fossil fuels are essential, especially oil, and without them the system breaks down and the ability to do work by humans will decrease. One barrel of oil has the energy equivalent of 23,000 man hours.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ETz6cztVndE/ ... %2Boil.png

Just because I am younger than the boomer crowd means nothing. Age is no metric in determining knowledge or experience.

[JuanP]

Just because I am younger than the boomer crowd means nothing. Age is no metric in determining knowledge or experience.

Age is a metric for intelligence, though, with human intelligence peaking around the age of 23 to 25 years old. So, you are closer to your intelligence peak than most of the rest of us here. I am smart and honest enough to have absolutely no problem admitting that I was smarter 25 years ago than I am today. I was also more intellectually capable back then in almost every way, but I do consider myself more experienced today. Experience and old age do not necessarily make a person better in any way, though, they just mean you are older. Thinking old age makes you better in any way is just plain stupid! Unfortunately, human stupidity may be the only infinite thing in this universe.
Carpe diem!

[AdamB]

Me? I listen to all sides

Now that is simply not true. You're shouting the other sides out of the room with your must-be-right-at-all-cost attitude.

I will admit to being insistent in my opinion, but a natural consequence of having been right about peak oil being a joke in real time back in the day is that sure, I get to carry a chip on my shoulder when discussing stuff related to it nowadays.

[OutcastPhilosopher]

Just because I am younger than the boomer crowd means nothing. Age is no metric in determining knowledge or experience.

Age is a metric for intelligence, though, with human intelligence peaking around the age of 23 to 25 years old. So, you are closer to your intelligence peak than most of the rest of us here. I am smart and honest enough to have absolutely no problem admitting that I was smarter 25 years ago than I am today. I was also more intellectually capable back then in almost every way, but I do consider myself more experienced today. Experience and old age do not necessarily make a person better in any way, though, they just mean you are older. Thinking old age makes you better in any way is just plain stupid! Unfortunately, human stupidity may be the only infinite thing in this universe.
Carpe diem!

Juan I don't think people should go around claiming one is more intelligent than the other or vice-versa. It leads to a circle-jerk and dick measuring contest that ends up nowhere. In a way, it becomes a distraction. Good day

[AdamB]

Hey moron....guess what you need to make wind turbines and solar cells?....fossil fuels!!!

Can you enunciate any idea you have as to why this trend won't continue, one fossil fuel at a time, until fossil fuels are a minority input into the ability of humans to do work, rather than a majority?

Hey retard....if you want solar and wind you need fossil fuels. Try making solar panels and wind turbines without it. See how many you can make. See if you can transport them cross country or across nations without fossil fuels. Guess what you can't.

I asked quite a deeper question than you suspect. Repeating your original claim doesn't answer the question.

Of course humans can do work without fossil fuels, but without them, we return to an existence akin to 1850 or prior and at that time there were no solar panels and wind turbines. See the chart below regarding oil production and human population. Therefore, your statement regarding that is highly misinformed. To continue industrial civilization fossil fuels are essential, especially oil, and without them the system breaks down and the ability to do work by humans will decrease. One barrel of oil has the energy equivalent of 23,000 man hours.

So...in your opinion, a nuclear power plant isn't capable of generating electricity to do work, said work then being used to process material inputs and use them to build...whatever?

Just because I am younger than the boomer crowd means nothing. Age is no metric in determining knowledge or experience.

I'll grant you that age is not much of a metric for intelligence. The math and science geniuses of the 20th century demonstrated that. But to get the more decades of experience on this topic than you have years of life most certainly is related to age. I was chewing on this problem before you were in diapers most likely, and not as a hobby.