Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

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

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby davep » Mon 18 Jun 2007, 18:33:29

MonteQuest wrote:
davep wrote: A two-axis parabolic dish with a tracker can be cobbled together for peanuts.


Oh, I'm sure much will be "cobbled" together. At the local and individual level is where we will see the most gains..but they will not run civilization as we know it today.


I think we're agreed that we neither want nor can we sustain civilisation as we know it today. Basing a system on perpetual growth and consumerism is folly.

I think we differ somewhat in how things could move forward. I think you have come to the conclusion that nothing can be done to avoid die-off therefore embrace it. You now appear to have the cart before the horse in that because you have chosen this position, any deviation from a die-off scenario is wrong. This is obviously untrue as a principle.

It is possible that solar energy can make up a significant portion of our energy needs in a future sustainable civilisation. Of course, I would prefer not to have to use such techno-fixes, but I don't embrace die-off as an inevitability and poo-poo such possibilities as a matter of conviction.

Time will tell to what degree a die-off will occur. We still have options though.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4569
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby davep » Mon 18 Jun 2007, 18:37:47

MonteQuest wrote:Exxon Mobil projects an 11%/yr growth rate for solar/wind, providing 1% of our primary energy in 2030.


Is it in their interests to push such technologies? Of course not. If they can keep oil's monopoly in transportation, they can make ever increasing profits from dwindling supplies. I wouldn't trust their projections on anything.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4569
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 18 Jun 2007, 19:00:39

davep wrote: I think you have come to the conclusion that nothing can be done to avoid die-off therefore embrace it.


Die-off is always the sequel to oveshoot. This isn't a conclusion upon my part, it is a fact of ecology.

Of course, I would prefer not to have to use such techno-fixes, but I don't embrace die-off as an inevitability and poo-poo such possibilities as a matter of conviction.


Then you deny science and biology.

Here's some reading for you:

Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change: by William R. Catton.

Your thinking will change. It is a seminal work.

Time will tell to what degree a die-off will occur. We still have options though.


Yes, powerdown, restrict per capita energy use, and reduce the existing population.

The degrees are: die-back, die-off, and outright extinction.

We might make the "die-back" if there was equity in the world.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16285
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 18 Jun 2007, 19:02:29

davep wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:Exxon Mobil projects an 11%/yr growth rate for solar/wind, providing 1% of our primary energy in 2030.


Is it in their interests to push such technologies? Of course not. If they can keep oil's monopoly in transportation, they can make ever increasing profits from dwindling supplies. I wouldn't trust their projections on anything.


How far off could they be? Don't use an adhominem attack as a debate tactic; refute their projection.

Here's the report:

Link
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16285
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby davep » Mon 18 Jun 2007, 19:09:11

MonteQuest wrote:
davep wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:Exxon Mobil projects an 11%/yr growth rate for solar/wind, providing 1% of our primary energy in 2030.


Is it in their interests to push such technologies? Of course not. If they can keep oil's monopoly in transportation, they can make ever increasing profits from dwindling supplies. I wouldn't trust their projections on anything.


How far off could they be? Don't use an adhominem attack as a debate tactic; refute their projection.


These are the guys who deny peak-oil is imminent. They know they are lying.

It's not an ad hominem attack, I really wouldn't trust any of their projections (actually, I guess it is, but if anyone deserves it, these guys do).

If politically we decide that solar is important, because (shock horror!) we've got less oil than we thought, this figure of 1% in over 20 years will be massively wrong. Such projections, whilst denying imminent peak oil, are worthless.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4569
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 18 Jun 2007, 19:14:15

davep wrote: These are the guys who deny peak-oil is imminent. They know they are lying.

It's not an ad hominem attack, I really wouldn't trust any of their projections.


Sure it is. Discredit the source and ignore the facts. Classic ad hominem. Not allowed on these forums by the way.

If politically we decide that solar is important, because (shock horror!) we've got less oil than we thought, this figure of 1% in over 20 years will be massively wrong. Such projections, whilst denying imminent peak oil, are worthless.


Wrong, because oil will be in decline and by default solar will garner a larger share.

Worthless? How far off can they be? Show me some facts to the contrary.

Did you read my Growth of Renewables thread?

I cover all this.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16285
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby davep » Mon 18 Jun 2007, 19:25:00

MonteQuest wrote:
davep wrote: These are the guys who deny peak-oil is imminent. They know they are lying.

It's not an ad hominem attack, I really wouldn't trust any of their projections.


Sure it is. Discredit the source and ignore the facts. Classic ad hominem. Not allowed on these forums by the way.


It's an offence to mistrust the lies and spin of oil companies on this forum? I guess I've come to the wrong place then.

There were no facts presented. Just a prediction of solar being 1% in over twenty years.

MonteQuest wrote:
If politically we decide that solar is important, because (shock horror!) we've got less oil than we thought, this figure of 1% in over 20 years will be massively wrong. Such projections, whilst denying imminent peak oil, are worthless.


Wrong, because oil will be in decline and by default solar will garner a larger share.


Where does that make what I said wrong? You're actually starting to get my argument. These guys deny peak oil, therefore by default solar will occupy a higher percentage of energy production when one factors in peak oil. Therefore they are wrong. They are wrong both if nothing else changes (purely by the same solar taking a higher percentage) and by the recognition of peak oil by TPTB meaning solar energy uptake may be championed politically.

MonteQuest wrote:Worthless? How far off can they be? Show me some facts to the contrary.

Did you read my Growth of Renewables thread?

I cover all this.


They can be wrong by a massive amount, unlike with, say, biofuels (which compete directly with food). The potential of solar is huge. If these guys ignore the possibility that we may actually tap that potential then why believe them? Such projections take no account whatsoever of potential future policy changes based on recognition of peak oil.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4569
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby Bas » Mon 18 Jun 2007, 19:32:33

[smilie=new_popcornsmiley.gif]

In a declining energy supply and a growth rate higher than 11% for solar (that 11% came from guys who don't acknowledge peak oil) I think solar could be really big but only after at least a couple of decades of all sorts of misery stemming from Peak Oil.
"The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."

- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Bas
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sat 26 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: over here

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 18 Jun 2007, 19:51:53

davep wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
davep wrote: These are the guys who deny peak-oil is imminent. They know they are lying.

It's not an ad hominem attack, I really wouldn't trust any of their projections.


Sure it is. Discredit the source and ignore the facts. Classic ad hominem. Not allowed on these forums by the way.


It's an offence to mistrust the lies and spin of oil companies on this forum?


No, it's an offense to use an attack on the messenger as a debate tactic. Mistrust does not equal a refutation of the facts claimed. It is misdirection from the merits of the debate.

Where does that make what I said wrong?


Didn't say you were wrong. Said the 1% figure would be wrong in 2030 if oil declines as we see it might.

You're actually starting to get my argument. These guys deny peak oil, therefore by default solar will occupy a higher percentage of energy production when one factors in peak oil. Therefore they are wrong. They are wrong both if nothing else changes (purely by the same solar taking a higher percentage) and by the recognition of peak oil by TPTB meaning solar energy uptake may be championed politically.


So? Just because solar will be a larger percentage of our energy mix, doesn't change the shortfall.

They can be wrong by a massive amount, unlike with, say, biofuels (which compete directly with food). The potential of solar is huge. If these guys ignore the possibility that we may actually tap that potential then why believe them? Such projections take no account whatsoever of potential future policy changes based on recognition of peak oil.


10,000%? Tell us how far off they are. Shows us hard numbers, links, data.

And you do realize, that building solar systems will be energy consumers during the entire construction period, as well as, the time in the energy payback phase to produce any net energy?

Who is going to do without while we take decades to ramp up solar technologies?

Where will this energy come from in a declining energy environment?

Your slice of the pie?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16285
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby Omnitir » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 03:42:53

MonteQuest wrote:Exxon Mobil projects an 11%/yr growth rate for solar/wind, providing 1% of our primary energy in 2030.

An interesting projection considering that in reality solar has been growing 33% for the past decade.
Link

If this rate were maintained, solar alone would meet 100% of electricity demand, (yes growth included), 26 years from now. Sure, maintaining 33% growth for 26 years straight is probably impossible (well assuming that solar isn't the next aviation, or micro processing, or automotive industry in terms of explosive growth). But at the very least such projections should make us take the solar growth projections from the worlds largest oil company with a grain of salt.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Down Under

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby davep » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 05:39:45

MonteQuest wrote:
davep wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
davep wrote: These are the guys who deny peak-oil is imminent. They know they are lying.

It's not an ad hominem attack, I really wouldn't trust any of their projections.


Sure it is. Discredit the source and ignore the facts. Classic ad hominem. Not allowed on these forums by the way.


It's an offence to mistrust the lies and spin of oil companies on this forum?


No, it's an offense to use an attack on the messenger as a debate tactic. Mistrust does not equal a refutation of the facts claimed. It is misdirection from the merits of the debate.


You've lost me there. Are you referring to my reflection on your take on die-off? If so, why? You're happy to bang on about it as being inevitable.

MonteQuest wrote:
Where does that make what I said wrong?


Didn't say you were wrong. Said the 1% figure would be wrong in 2030 if oil declines as we see it might.

You're actually starting to get my argument. These guys deny peak oil, therefore by default solar will occupy a higher percentage of energy production when one factors in peak oil. Therefore they are wrong. They are wrong both if nothing else changes (purely by the same solar taking a higher percentage) and by the recognition of peak oil by TPTB meaning solar energy uptake may be championed politically.


So? Just because solar will be a larger percentage of our energy mix, doesn't change the shortfall.


Are you deliberately ignoring what I'm saying? The second element was that if they are modeling the future without taking into account the biggest variable (peak oil) then the model is worthless. Our reaction to peak oil as a society may yet have some impact on the future. The point is we don't know how peak oil will pan out (as our reaction to it is massively variable), so any model trying to integrate this essential element would be wildly speculative anyway. And any model not addressing peak oil is laughable.

MonteQuest wrote:
They can be wrong by a massive amount, unlike with, say, biofuels (which compete directly with food). The potential of solar is huge. If these guys ignore the possibility that we may actually tap that potential then why believe them? Such projections take no account whatsoever of potential future policy changes based on recognition of peak oil.


10,000%? Tell us how far off they are. Shows us hard numbers, links, data.


What is the point of arguing the minutia of data when the model itself is fatally flawed? Get the design right and come back again. If you can't get a model that incorporates peak oil, don't try to tell me that any prediction you drag up in support of your position is worth its salt.

MonteQuest wrote:And you do realize, that building solar systems will be energy consumers during the entire construction period, as well as, the time in the energy payback phase to produce any net energy?

Who is going to do without while we take decades to ramp up solar technologies?

Where will this energy come from in a declining energy environment?

Your slice of the pie?


Of course, that's why it's imperative people act (and don't wait for government to get its act together). However, if there is a plateau, there's still a possibility that things can be mitigated to a worthwhile degree.

My point is that any energy modeling of the future is necessarily risky. If it doesn't incorporate peak oil it is worthless. If it does it is inherently risky because we can't know what the response to peak oil will be. So, any position whereby you state the future will be x due to supporting predictions is laughable. Saying it may be x if y comes to pass is at least more honest. Being absolutist based on flimsy/wrong models defies logic.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4569
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 09:31:49

Omnitir wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:Exxon Mobil projects an 11%/yr growth rate for solar/wind, providing 1% of our primary energy in 2030.

An interesting projection considering that in reality solar has been growing 33% for the past decade.

If this rate were maintained, solar alone would meet 100% of electricity demand, (yes growth included), 26 years from now. Sure, maintaining 33% growth for 26 years straight is probably impossible (well assuming that solar isn't the next aviation, or micro processing, or automotive industry in terms of explosive growth). But at the very least such projections should make us take the solar growth projections from the worlds largest oil company with a grain of salt.


Let's be accurate here. Photovoltaic, according to your link has been growing at 33%, not all solar/wind technologies together.

But I will go you one better:

According to a study done by the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, the fastest growing energy technology has been grid-connected solar PV, with total existing capacity increasing from 0.16 gigawatts (GW) at the start of 2000 to 1.8 GW by the end of 2004; a 60 percent average annual growth rate during the five-year period.

During the same period, they cite other renewable energy technologies grew rapidly as well:
• wind power: 28 percent
• biodiesel: 25 percent
• solar hot water/heating: 17 percent
• off-grid solar PV: 17 percent
• geothermal heat capacity: 13 percent
• ethanol: 11 percent

However, even with these massive growth rates, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geo thermal and biofuels contribute just 2% of our primary energy with wind/solar less than 1%. An almost inconsequential contribution, given the twilight of the oil age on the near horizon.
Peakoil and the Growth of Renewable Energy



And it is not electricity demand that is our near-term concern, it is liquid fuels. Photovoltaic electricity does not help that but marginally.

If this rate were maintained, solar alone would meet 100% of electricity demand, (yes growth included), 26 years from now.


If pigs had wings they could fly. Links to support this rather spurious claim? And I don't mean a exponential growth graph, I mean studies to support it. How credible is it to trash Exxon's projections with one at the opposite extreme?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16285
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 09:52:34

davep wrote: You've lost me there. Are you referring to my reflection on your take on die-off? If so, why? You're happy to bang on about it as being inevitable.


No, I am referring to this:

MonteQuest wrote:Exxon Mobil projects an 11%/yr growth rate for solar/wind, providing 1% of our primary energy in 2030.


Is it in their interests to push such technologies? Of course not. If they can keep oil's monopoly in transportation, they can make ever increasing profits from dwindling supplies. I wouldn't trust their projections on anything.


An ad hominem argument, also known "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.


You attacked Exxon, rather than produce evidence to refute the claim.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16285
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 10:04:27

davep wrote: Are you deliberately ignoring what I'm saying? The second element was that if they are modeling the future without taking into account the biggest variable (peak oil) then the model is worthless.


Doesn't change the shortfall. If they project 1% of our primary energy and oil declines, then it will be a higher percentage of our overall primary energy, but that in of itself does nothing but give solar a bigger share of the pie. It doesn't increase capacity.

What is the point of arguing the minutia of data when the model itself is fatally flawed? Get the design right and come back again. If you can't get a model that incorporates peak oil, don't try to tell me that any prediction you drag up in support of your position is worth its salt.


You said their projections were off massively. I asked you how far. Please provide support for your claims.

Of course, that's why it's imperative people act (and don't wait for government to get its act together). However, if there is a plateau, there's still a possibility that things can be mitigated to a worthwhile degree.


If we start a crash program 10 to 20 years before the peak. You posit that the peak is 10 to 20 years off?

My point is that any energy modeling of the future is necessarily risky. If it doesn't incorporate peak oil it is worthless. If it does it is inherently risky because we can't know what the response to peak oil will be.


The Hirsch Report is directed at mitigating peak oil. It doesn't see renewables in the mix either. Neither does the EIA.

So, you think we can wait until peak oil hits...and then mitigate it?

You sir...are dreaming.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16285
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 10:15:47

Image

You think we can close this gap almost overnight?

And do it with solar that produces electricity and not a liquid fuel?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16285
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 13:06:16

MonteQuest wrote:Image

You think we can close this gap almost overnight?

And do it with solar that produces electricity and not a liquid fuel?


Strawman. No one says the gap needs closed overnight. As evidenced by us being 2 years post peak and we still have enough fuel around, even with China's increased demand, for mindless consumers to continue mindlessly consuming.
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 13:15:51

PraiseDoom wrote: Strawman. No one says the gap needs closed overnight. As evidenced by us being 2 years post peak and we still have enough fuel around, even with China's increased demand, for mindless consumers to continue mindlessly consuming.


Strawman? With wind/solar less than 1% of our primary energy?

We don't know if the gap will need to be closed almost overnight. When the oil crisis hit in the 70's, it changed things overnight, and that was only a 5% shortfall.

Currently, we are drawing down stock inventories and pricing many out of the oil game to meet demand.

If the decline trend of 8% we are seeing continues, half of the oil will be gone in less than 9 years.

I call that almost overnight.

If you like the current existing fields decline rate of 5%, then we have 14 years. Still almost overnight.

Peak oil is tomorrow in planning terms, that is the point I was making.

And even if we are able to scale up solar and ramp up hydrogen for liquids fuel, it won't be as cheap, as portable, as readily available, or as safe as gasoline.

And it must be.

Or the house of cards comes down.

Peak oil is an economics crisis first and foremost.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16285
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 18:30:08

MonteQuest wrote:
PraiseDoom wrote: Strawman. No one says the gap needs closed overnight. As evidenced by us being 2 years post peak and we still have enough fuel around, even with China's increased demand, for mindless consumers to continue mindlessly consuming.


Strawman? With wind/solar less than 1% of our primary energy?


Thats not the strawman, inserting the words "closing the gap almost overnight" is the problem. Who says it needs to happen overnight, as evidenced by my observation that some 2 years post peak, we can still use crude products in frivilous and silly ways, something which it can be assumed will stop when people can't afford to be so frivilous and silly?

And lets not forget the power of exponential growth, one of those tricky little buggers which us Doomers have used so well against the clueless, and now can be used against us!! ( How unfair is THAT! ) For example, 10 years ago, there were no hybrids, and Toyota has sold a million of the silly things already!! And in an energy declining environment no less!! Talk about exponential growth! Another few years and everything will be hybrids!

I am disturbed as you about the unfairness of this observation of course.

MonteQuest wrote:
We don't know if the gap will need to be closed almost overnight. When the oil crisis hit in the 70's, it changed things overnight, and that was only a 5% shortfall.


It sure did change things....how do you think we got hybrids NOW....because someone wished we had some THEN.

And I might mention, when you say "it changed things overnight", you'll forgive me for noticing I still went to school, grandma still fueled the car, went to market, I know people were whining about fuel costs and rationing but it sure wasn't that big of a deal from my point of view.

MonteQuest wrote:
Currently, we are drawing down stock inventories and pricing many out of the oil game to meet demand.


Darn straight. Which is what makes the last 2 years so crazy.
MonteQuest wrote:

If the decline trend of 8% we are seeing continues, half of the oil will be gone in less than 9 years.

I call that almost overnight.


Oh. Well. Theres the problem. I figured "almost overnight" was like maybe a week or two, tops.

And I worry about that 8% as well, it keeps me up nights with the rifle scoping out the street waiting for the zombies to realize whats been going on .
MonteQuest wrote:
If you like the current existing fields decline rate of 5%, then we have 14 years. Still almost overnight.

Peak oil is tomorrow in planning terms, that is the point I was making.


14 years is too long. I've already maxxed out the credit cards buying supplies for this summers Gorge event.
MonteQuest wrote:
And even if we are able to scale up solar and ramp up hydrogen for liquids fuel, it won't be as cheap, as portable, as readily available, or as safe as gasoline.

And it must be.

Or the house of cards comes down.

Peak oil is an economics crisis first and foremost.


Of course. But I need it to come down NOW, this entire thing is taking WAY too long.
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 19:08:12

PraiseDoom wrote: Thats not the strawman, inserting the words "closing the gap almost overnight" is the problem. Who says it needs to happen overnight, as evidenced by my observation that some 2 years post peak, we can still use crude products in frivilous and silly ways, something which it can be assumed will stop when people can't afford to be so frivilous and silly?


Good lord, man. Can you not see a hyperbole when it pops up?

We don't have the time to ramp up solar from 1% to a point where it can offset the oil decline and allow for economic growth...if ever.

It's not about replacing oil with solar; it's about meeting new demand and offsetting the oil decline.

I see it taking 50 to 75 years to put a solar infrastructure in place that can replace oil as our primary energy source.

Peak oil is tomorrow in planning terms, that is the point I was making.

Frivolous and silly ways of using energy drive GDP growth and provide jobs just as much as non-wasteful uses, just like hurricanes and tsunamis.

So I guess a lot of people's jobs will go as well.

And I might mention, when you say "it changed things overnight", you'll forgive me for noticing I still went to school, grandma still fueled the car, went to market, I know people were whining about fuel costs and rationing but it sure wasn't that big of a deal from my point of view.


It was temporary. This time it won't be.

Read my Hoarding Oil thread.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16285
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Oil Apocalypse is a bunch of phooey!

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Tue 19 Jun 2007, 21:51:36

MonteQuest wrote:
PraiseDoom wrote: Thats not the strawman, inserting the words "closing the gap almost overnight" is the problem. Who says it needs to happen overnight, as evidenced by my observation that some 2 years post peak, we can still use crude products in frivilous and silly ways, something which it can be assumed will stop when people can't afford to be so frivilous and silly?


Good lord, man. Can you not see a hyperbole when it pops up?


Well....yes....but I was really HOPING you meant overnight, and you obviously didn't, and I've been waiting around for 2 years for "overnight" to happen, so I'm sensitive to the issue I guess.

MonteQuest wrote:
We don't have the time to ramp up solar from 1% to a point where it can offset the oil decline and allow for economic growth...if ever.


Have you ever considered the concept that the economic growth IS the ramping up into alternatives?

Strikes me as interesting, the idea that building out the power structure of the 21st Century is the driver of economic growth, just as the growth of Standard Oil, public works projects, the interstate highway system and electrification of America once were?

MonteQuest wrote:
I see it taking 50 to 75 years to put a solar infrastructure in place that can replace oil as our primary energy source.

Peak oil is tomorrow in planning terms, that is the point I was making.


So maybe thats 50 to 75 years of economic growth building out the new energy infrastructure?

MonteQuest wrote:
And I might mention, when you say "it changed things overnight", you'll forgive me for noticing I still went to school, grandma still fueled the car, went to market, I know people were whining about fuel costs and rationing but it sure wasn't that big of a deal from my point of view.


It was temporary. This time it won't be.

Read my Hoarding Oil thread.


It WAS temporary. And the after effects were quite amazing, time duration wise. A short little energy shock and POW....years of less crude usage. Too bad the politicians couldn't follow up on a good thing then. It would all be fixed now. I'll go look up the thread.
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests