ralfy wrote:From what I remember, the IEA forecasts a 9-pct increase for total oil and gas production worldwide for the next two decades, but only as long as crude oil production remains flat indefinitely.
Meanwhile, oil demand will have to go up by 1-2 pct a year to ensure economic growth, or something like a Saudi Arabia in new oil every seven years. And if the new oil has lower returns, and if demand accelerates, then even more will be needed.
Has anybody done the numbers on that? When will it become apparent that the world already has enough ICE vehicles to burn the remaining fuel?JV153 wrote:There are 800-900 million vehicles out there, not including the real heavy diesel users like ships, means that already today many vehicles don't have enough fuel for originally planned demand.
JV153 wrote:
Oh, the IEA.. but what does Birol say unofficially ? Anyway a simple calculation shows that at 30 Gb/yr oil use 300 Gb of oil are used per decade and with proven reserves (2012) at 1350 Gb that isn't a long time. A simpler calculation shows that 10,000 heavy trucks (400 L diesel a day) use about 1 Gb in 25 years if operating continuously 365 days a year. (250 Mb diesel, at a 25% from each barrel of oil).
There are 800-900 million vehicles out there, not including the real heavy diesel users like ships, means that already today many vehicles don't have enough fuel for originally planned demand.
Dybbuk wrote:Seems like all the anti-peak-oil arguments follow the same templates:
1. Straw man: "Peak oilers say that we're running out of oil! Here's some evidence that we have a lot of oil left!". Conclusion: peak oilers are kooks that should be ignored. Fact ignored: (most) peak oilers don't say that "we're running out of oil".
Dybbuk wrote:2. Guilt by association/false dichotomy: 1) Person A said X 10 years ago, and was proven spectacularly wrong. 2) Person B is saying something vaguely similar to X now. 3) Conclusion: since Person A was so wrong, Person B should be branded a kook and ignored.
Outsailing wrote:Dybbuk wrote:2. Guilt by association/false dichotomy: 1) Person A said X 10 years ago, and was proven spectacularly wrong. 2) Person B is saying something vaguely similar to X now. 3) Conclusion: since Person A was so wrong, Person B should be branded a kook and ignored.
So that then begs the question....how many times is someone allowed to be wrong...the same way, about the same thing? Before it IS okay to brand them a kook and ignore them?
You appear to indicate twice is okay. I can buy that. Seems like twice isn't even as many strikes as they give you in baseball...how about 10 bad calls before anyone is allowed to question anything about any spectacularly wrong thing? I mean, even a broken clock is right twice a day...so maybe 2 rights out of 24 guesses is laugh country? But 3 rights out of 24 guessess still leaves hope that maybe you've got something?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 157 guests