[John_A]

However, there have been some serious declines in US conventional gas production and I doubt US nat gas prod will ever much surpass it's current levels.

And the same was said after the US natural gas peak in the early 1970's as well. Oops. And then there was the natural gas cliff in America in 2005. Oops. So now someone wants to claim the same thing which hasn't worked out so well for the past half century? Okey Dokey.

The fundamental belief of scarcity running out arguments is that today is always as good as it can get. Until it isn't. And then claim the same thing at the next high point. Continue until substitution clobbers the old idea, and then begin proclaiming the same thing about whatever clobbered it. Rinse and repeat.

Forget not the lessons of the great gasoline scare of 1916, lest your great great grand children say the same thing about this generations portents of Doom!

[JV153]

Ah, but John_A, there hasn't been any good substitution. Expensive shale gas and oil drilling is replacing conventional gas and oil drilling. Shale gas and oil drilling has occurred because of high prices, the technology is over 40 years old.

[Strummer]

The fundamental belief of scarcity running out arguments is that today is always as good as it can get.

Nope. Hubbert (in 1956) predicted the US conventional peak oil for the 70s. Limits To Growth (in 1972) anticipated the first serious problems with scarcity to start in the second decade of the 21st century. Both have correctly assumed further growth beyond "today".

[ROCKMAN]

Never missing the opportunity to irritate some folks I’ll brag on Texas once again: we produce about 3X as much e- from wind than the national average. And this from the largest hydrocarbon producing state in the country…and also the one with the highest energy consumption in the country. And will soon be producing a lot more e- from wind:

First U.S. offshore wind farm will be in Texas - Five miles off the coast of South Padre Island lays the beginning of the Gulf Offshore Wind Project. In three years' time, a team is hoping to have the nation’s first commercial scale wind farm installed and eventually generating enough power for 1.8 million homes – at least when the wind is blowing. “It makes the most sense for Texas to have the first offshore wind farm. It’s already the leader in onshore wind power,” said the chief development officer for Baryonyx, the company leading the project. While offshore wind power has taken off in countries like Denmark and Japan, the United States has yet to get past the starting line. A wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod was supposed to be the nation’s first, but after more than a decade-long fight with the likes of powerful residents like the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy and billionaire William I. Koch, that project remains mired in litigation.

Building a megawatt of offshore wind power is estimated to cost twice as much as its equivalent on land. Even so, that might have made sense five years ago, when electricity prices were rising fast.
“The bottom line is it comes down to the price of electricity, and right now electricity is cheap,” said a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Texas. “Eventually offshore wind will be part of the picture. In the long run, the renewable energy price is going to come down and fossil fuels is going to go up. They’re going to coexist.”

The GOWind project began four years ago when Baryonyx CEO Ian Hatton bought the Gulf of Mexico lease from the Texas General Land Office. Unlike the rest of the country, Gulf states control the water nine miles out, not three. Which is how the NIMBY’s have been able to stall offshore wind development in the northeast.

[John_A]

Ah, but John_A, there hasn't been any good substitution. Expensive shale gas and oil drilling is replacing conventional gas and oil drilling.

But of course. Which is why the resource pyramid matters...the marginal barrel drives the price, and the marginal barrel of oil and gas sits deeper in the resource pyramid, and also deeper in the resource pyramid is MORE.

The good news being, this makes not having it a problem, but the price a problem. Price is easy to cure, as the UPS truck serving my street running on natural gas demonstrates. As do the EVs now available at your local car sales location, or a preferred method of not worrying about the price of something we really should all minimize our use of, these are called "bicycles". Wonder inventions.

Shale gas and oil drilling has occurred because of high prices, the technology is over 40 years old.

High prices do wonderful things, as any economist knows. And as Rock has pointed out, only those who use a price path to project production rates into the future (IEA and EIA being two, ASPO not being included because they fail this test) can do so honestly, taking into account exactly this idea.

[John_A]

The fundamental belief of scarcity running out arguments is that today is always as good as it can get.

Nope. Hubbert (in 1956) predicted the US conventional peak oil for the 70s.

He also did the same for natural gas.

Oops.

Limits To Growth (in 1972) anticipated the first serious problems with scarcity to start in the second decade of the 21st century. Both have correctly assumed further growth beyond "today".

A chimpanzee could have predicted problems with scarcity when the Romans were cutting down all the trees near the Med. And it is just as easy to pick those doing the same "anticipating" centuries ago...the Eiffel Tower was to be the last large structure built because...wait for it...we were running out of iron ore!! OH NOES!

Limits to Growth basically proved that exponential functions in a finite system don't work, thereby proving something already known by anyone with some graph paper and a pencil, but in a really cool and complex way designed to backup the assumptions of the day, as expressed by the likes of Ehrlich. Thank you very much, can we have the next tautology please?

[Strummer]

Limits to Growth basically proved that exponential functions in a finite system don't work, thereby proving something already known by anyone with some graph paper and a pencil

What? No. Did you even read it? The "full exponential growth" graph and tables were just a theoretical exercise and were clearly labeled as such. The other scenarios had realistic inputs and assumptions, which are turning out to be pretty accurate so far:

www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf

[John_A]

Limits to Growth basically proved that exponential functions in a finite system don't work, thereby proving something already known by anyone with some graph paper and a pencil

What? No. Did you even read it? The "full exponential growth" graph and tables were just a theoretical exercise and were clearly labeled as such. The other scenarios had realistic inputs and assumptions, which are turning out to be pretty accurate so far:

http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf

Retrieved a copy from the local library just two years ago, and was stunned by the lack of information contained therein. Primarily it was just the explanation of a model output, which while interesting, doesn't mean it has any more predictive ability than how poorly peak oil folks have been able to predict oil production.

As far as "pretty accurate" can you tell me, name just ONE global non-renewable resource that we have run out of? Of interest to those on this site might be oil...how much LESS oil do we have now than then? And why does the answer to THAT question cause any thinking person to double clutch on the assumptions made by the model, and therefore the conclusions, described in Limits To Growth?

[John_A]

http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf

I should also mention, seeing as how you were kind enough to provide a link, that the source material utilized for whoever decided to rerun the model, thoughtfully captured in Table 1 for easy spotting, is fundamentally different than that used by Meadows back in the 1970's. And every single resource economist (and every peak oiler should know it by heart as well) can take ONE look and know exactly why. Can you?

[Tanada]

A 18 minute interview with Bill McKibben, founder of 350 dot org. He now believes the biggest mistake of the Obama Administration was encouraging the shift from Coal to Natural Gas.

https://youtu.be/8gAka3U2DPs

[Subjectivist]

Even with his efforts failing he has not given up the fight. I can respect him for that.

[kiwichick]

France to phase out coal by mid 2020's; Canada by 2030

https://robertscribbler.com/