ROCKMAN wrote: The good news is that most folks here and at TOD have abandoned that simplistic metric for the most part and are picking away at all the various components of the POD.
Rockman wrote:But the other 99.99% of the population hasn't.
Rockman wrote:And given the MSM hype about the "death of PO" I doubt we have much chance to change the national conversation. Eventually crisis will get folks focused properly on the situation. But probably won't make much of a difference then.
dorlomin wrote:...cornucopians and ShortOnSense needed new definitions of oil to fudge the issue.SamInNebraska wrote:C8 wrote:So what is a definition of PO?
Now THAT is the question. Once upon a time it was simple. And then...
ralfy wrote:SamInNebraska wrote:Excellent. And as the world postpones it time and time again, and the price drives people to manufacture their products out of other items, the oil component of it becomes less and less relevant. And this is good I believe.
Well, at least you're now agreeing with me. With that, the next thing you will have to deal with is meeting increasing demand.
<snip everything under the son which has nothing to do with the topic at hand>
C8 wrote:So PO is about production- not the amount underground. I can understand this, as flow is important. But it also occurs to me that if people move to mass transit or EV's, or for other reasons oil demand falls then the PO year really no longer becomes important at all- in fact PO itself loses any relevance in a demand destruction world.
C8 wrote:PO seems to be an idea locked into "oil". How do we talk about all the various forms of energy that are growing in size?
C8 wrote:I guess what I am asking is this: is the idea of PO becoming obsolete due to its narrowness? What words or phrases do we come up with to quickly describe the new energy production, depletion, distribution, etc. issues? Will even using the word "PO" mean anything in 20 years if other energy sources take the center stage? What are the words of the future? Any catchy name for the energy issues facing the world in 2050 if oil is only 20% or less of the mix?
SamInNebraska wrote:
Fortunately America becoming Saudi America doesn't have anything to do with the stuff I snipped, or meeting increasing demand because if demand (i.e. call it consumption for now) no one in the States would be able to run down to their corner gasoline dispensary and get some. There would be some form of ration card or shortage to deal with, should they desire to start a bonfire with a tanker truck of fuel.
That not being the case, there is no case for demand not being met, i.e. consumed, for anyone who can show up with what the market requires in terms of price.
America producing oil into a global market can produce all it likes, and the price will be set by the supply/demand/price relationship for the world, not just the local improvements Americans have made to their consumptive habits for years now.
SamInNebraska wrote:That not being the case, there is no case for demand not being met, i.e. consumed, for anyone who can show up with what the market requires in terms of price.
Pops wrote:SamInNebraska wrote:That not being the case, there is no case for demand not being met, i.e. consumed, for anyone who can show up with what the market requires in terms of price.
So is that your new argument, there is no supply problem because anyone who can afford the price can buy all they want?
lol, let them eat on cake
ralfy wrote:SamInNebraska wrote:
Fortunately America becoming Saudi America doesn't have anything to do with the stuff I snipped, or meeting increasing demand because if demand (i.e. call it consumption for now) no one in the States would be able to run down to their corner gasoline dispensary and get some. There would be some form of ration card or shortage to deal with, should they desire to start a bonfire with a tanker truck of fuel.
You mean "unfortunately," as demand doesn't simply mean "[running] down to their corner gasoline dispensary and get some." If only the issue were as simple as that.
Pops wrote:One of the oft repeated statements poo-pooing PO is "the stoneage didn't end for lack of stones." The problem is we aren't transitioning away from FFs for something better, as for example switching from stones to iron. If we had something better we would be doing it instead of trying to shoehorn our non-negotiable FF based lifestyle into a "renewable" slipper. But we aren't, because there isn't a better alternative, we are switching because we are running out of stones and that's the difference.
Wind turbine installations will probably drop to 2,800 megawatts from a record 13,000 megawatts installed before the tax credit expired last year, according to New Energy Finance.
Pops wrote:Yeah, if the modern world didn't rely on fossil fuels for just about everything and if an easy replacement were handy, there wouldn't be a problem. lol
One of the oft repeated statements poo-pooing PO is "the stoneage didn't end for lack of stones." The problem is we aren't transitioning away from FFs for something better, as for example switching from stones to iron. If we had something better we would be doing it instead of trying to shoehorn our non-negotiable FF based lifestyle into a "renewable" slipper. But we aren't, because there isn't a better alternative, we are switching because we are running out of stones and that's the difference.
Most of the discussion here the last 9 year has been about transitioning away from FFs. The reason the date is important is if decline begins soon we won't have time to transition easily as a society. Everything runs on FFs and the strings are connected everywhere.
.
Your comment reminded me of the time a journalist was hitting up all of the major peakoil websites for background on an article he was writing. I was curious how the article turned out so I tried to find it. I couldn't find the article, but based on some comments of the author in another article I am not sure I want to anymore!Oily Stuff wrote:I agree too that for the most part we talk among ourselves on forums like this and TOD; we preach to each other. It's a time filler for most people. It is important to get off the beaten path whenever we can and take the peak production message to the streets. Where it would do the most good.
Counter-Jihad Takes to the “Information Battle-space”The SION event reminded me, more than anything else, of a Peak Oil meeting I attended last year. Both hotel conference rooms were full of people who believed that they were the only ones who could see apocalypse just over the horizon; at both, attendees lamented the blindness of the media and munched snacks while discussing the end of civilization.
Of course, Peak Oil does not have human enemies, and counter-jihadists do. One can debate their designation as a hate group (they don’t preach violence), but the harsh language is impossible to miss; the harsh language often seems to be the point.
"Resource depletion" might be a better term as it encompasses more than just energy but also depletion of rare earths and mineral ores, scarcity of fresh water, topsoil depletion, peak phosphorus, etc.C8 wrote:I cannot see anything but checkmate and eventual obsolescence for PO as it is linked to oil only. I think a broader concept is necessary (maybe energy scarcity- ES or Peak Energy PE)
Have you seen Hubbert's 1976 interview? There is a graph at the end of the clip where he shows human fossil fuel use through recorded history.C8 wrote:The way I see it, there are two more likely outcomes:
1. New oil is constantly discovered- the price stays low- no PO
2. oil production slips, prices rise higher than the many other energy sources coming online- they take over- oil percentage of the energy mix declines so rising prices don't have as much of an impact- no PO
It's the most disturbing thing that's ever happened to the human species. It's responsible for our technological society. And in terms of human history, it's a very brief epoch.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests