[medicvet]

Just because something is extremly bad for us doesn't mean we won't utilize it, unfortunately, and that is the bottom line.

[small_steps]

Combined Cycle gas turbines get approximately 55 eff and GE working on a CCGT that is expected to get about 65 eff.
Compare this to your ICE, which will get maybe 30% eff, probably less.
I don't have the reference for the ICE eff number, and don't want to spend the time finding the current CCGT number, and I don't think the next gen GE CCGT number is in the public domain, sorry

[Drakn]

small_steps, the reference I found indicated only 50%. It also suggested it might increase efficiency, but let's stick with what is known.
Ref:DOE

And the ICE is around 30% optimally.
Ref:Page

Additionally, getting it to electrical form is not the only problem, you also have to convert the electricity into your battery. Typically that is done at about 90%. That leaves only 45% efficiency for the electrical system. Pile onto that your costs of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine and a system of electric cars, and the answer is no longer certain. It seems to be so tight that neither system clearly beats the other. And so, humanity will likely just stick with the default - gas cars, processed from coal.

[Ludi]

Though many people here admit peak oil is a real problem and needs a solution, the solutions offered are diametrically opposed - one camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives. When even those of us who see the problem and know a solution is required can't agree on what the solution is, how will we convince the sceptics who don't even recognise a problem? How can we even hope to work toward a solution when we can't agree on what the solution is?

Are we just going to spend our time calling the other side stupid?

[Hegel]

That's why I'm sporting the signature below

[killJOY]

When even those of us who see the problem and know a solution is required can't agree on what the solution is, how will we convince the sceptics who don't even recognise a problem?

Sadly, you don't.
I've written several articles (for no pay) to our local newspaper.
I've given a couple of presentations.
I've informed those friends who are willing to listen.
That's it. I've done my job.

You can advise people to adjust their personal lives in order to meet the coming unknown "adjustment" of uncertain magnitude.
It's not my job to save the world.
I am now as prepared as any human being can be. That's it.

[azreal60]

There is no "one sure cure" for peak oil. Therefor, there is going to be alot of arguing about what to do because even the experts can only say, " do this and it might help". No one is sure of the extent of how it will affect us, only that it will be bad for the lifestyle currently being lived for the majority of the planet. Potentially catastrophically bad.
So i would say the fires of our debate helps forge a stronger metal when it comes out. This is the crucible, we aren't going to let things out of here that Can't be presented to the public. And i'm sorry, if we can so easily shoot down some of these ideas, so can the public.
That's why while we encourage strong and vigorous debate, we are very strict and going to keep getting more strict about letting people attack each other directly. This accomplishes nothing and does nothing to improve the quality of our ideas. So i guess i would say, keep on slugging, because sooner or later we all knock one out of the park. And if we hit enough homeruns, our team(humanity) might just win.

[gt1370a]

The market will decide for us. If alternatives are profitable, they will be used; if not, demand destruction will occur. Or, we can just blow each other up over the remaining trillion barrels.

[Paul64]

Are we just going to spend our time calling the other side stupid?

Actually, among the major peak oilers, I don't see a whole lot of antagonism, say, Simmons vs. Heinberg. Even on the more radical powerdown end, say Lundberg, one may think he is a bit out there (I say this even as I personally have developed some affinity for the radical view). But even someone like him is really not a real threat to the more mainstream PO movement. Incidentally Heinberg, although opposed to nuclear, seems resigned to its re-emergence.
Even on the pro-energy/pro-tech end there is a recognition that whatever is done or not done, energy will need to be conserved, through more localization and less wasteful and unnecessary transportation. Obviously, energy use will be less, whether we plan for it or not.

I think part of the real problem is people are so caught up in the complexity and stress of modern life, trying to get by, and general information overload (much of it big media propaganda), that they just don't want to think about the whole thing, even if they read a 'doomerish' article or hear something from a friend on the issue. When they do, like the recent Time articles, the message, muddied as it is by the opposing 'optimist, can-do' view, is soon forgotten. BTW, the latest issue of Time is all about a big promo for various high-tech breakthroughs and gadgets that are suppposed to make our life +so much+ better
Anyway, until real pain and dislocation start to become reality, I can't see any significant progress happening. I am not a soft-lander, but my positive view of things is that certain individuals who have a wide set of various practical and interpersonal skills, and take care of their health (eating well, exercising intensively and intelligently, and avoiding addictions) can (with some luck, granted) do just fine amid general scarcity and hardship. Most of the modern amenities we have in the 1st world to me are of questionable value as far as helping people to actually be happy and healthy.

[orz]

one camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives

Even the nuke/tech people say we need to powerdown. Just not permanently.

[thuja]

Its not a matter of either/or. Nukes will happen, wind and solar will happen, coal will happen, offshore drilling will happen, and in my opinion, powerdown will happen as well. When faced with the first major gas shortages, any environmental opposition will be brushed aside and we will move full scale into funding anything that gets us energy. But we'll pay for the big guns first and foremost. We'll go for the coal and the nukes because it gets a big payoff.

In my mind it will not nearly be able to offset the escalating deficit in oil and we will move in to a period of demand destruction. We will not be able to just become more efficient or do more with less. We will do less and less as a society. We will power down.

So its both, not because of any lobbying or education we do- but because the citizenry will demand more energy from somewhere when they start to see supplies dwindle, and there won't be enough energy to fill the gap....

[EnergySpin]

one camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives

Even the nuke/tech people say we need to powerdown. Just not permanently.

Exactly, this is the point that most luddites don't get about the tech people position. No one is saying that is going to be easy but individuals will have to reduce their demands on the system, so that the system can provide more for the future. This is why I prefer the term "powerswitch" ... energy is not an issue. Harnessing it is is an issue because the infrastructure is not there YET. The technology is here though .... Even the arguments about oil energy density are somewhat irrelevant. Nuclear power stations have a EROEI of about 40-50 ... and modern wind turbines in the 30-50s. This is actually high-quality energy i.e. electricity the one that can be converted to any service with the exception of the personal automobile. This has to wait technological breakthroughs in battery materials (do-able), or fuel-cells / H2 storage (probably not do-able).
The important point is that we have to power down as individuals ... and divert the majority of our energy to infrastructure activities. The degree of our success is also going to depend on how we handle it as a society/international community. Rationing powerswitch by the market mechanism is going to hurt us. And I had the "privilege" to reside in Cinci during the 2001 riots ... and watch the French riots over the TV. In both cases , the root cause is the isolation and marginalization of large groups. If we repeat this mistake then the situation is going to turn into a clusterf**k.
My 2c

[bobcousins]

Actually I thought the main divide amongst peak oilers is not about what should be done, but whether it will work. AIUI, the Monte view is that there is not enough time, or it won't scale, or if it does scale we will come a cropper due to Peak something else. There are some who oppose nuclear, but I think the Monte view is not that we should not go nuclear, but that we are doomed whatever we do. [I am confident that he will correct me in no certain terms if I have misrepresented this position! ]

As I see it the main dispute is over whether to back nuclear, renewable or both.

[linlithgowoil]

we are doomed whatever we do

yes, this is true. in a few short billion years, we'll be engulfed by the sun.
monte says we are doomed whatever we do, and he is right. but who cares? you are doomed from the day you are born - so is it better not to be born?
the universe will eventually just be a black dark place that is ever expanding. that is our ultimate fate - so what?

[EnergySpin]

we are doomed whatever we do

yes, this is true. in a few short billion years, we'll be engulfed by the sun.
monte says we are doomed whatever we do, and he is right. but who cares? you are doomed from the day you are born - so is it better not to be born?
the universe will eventually just be a black dark place that is ever expanding. that is our ultimate fate - so what?

This is not the right way of viewing the world. The moment we are born, we receive our death sentence ... so what? Nihilism will get us no where ...
Irrespective of the purpose (or actually lack thereof) in the universe, we create purpose with our actions and we can shape a small part of the universe according to our views. To deny that we can/should do so because the universe is going to die a thermal death can be due to laziness, or stupidity.
I presume you were being ironic though ....

[holmes]

Through irresponsibility a massive genetic underclass has been created and is growing daily. Overbreeding people that should never have bred have bred exponentially. The gene pool is fried. There is no smooth applications now. The overclass will implement what they can however even the overclass is spoiled with cheap energy.
The window is closed for now. smooth applications will only come after this underclass goes away. Not real hard to understand.
Its like the pollution in the eastern gorge. They will "solve" it temporarily with technology. however the pollution created "solving" it gets created and nothing is really solved only postponed until energy and capital get used up. The root of the problems never get addressed. Just keep building the pyramid higher.

[DoctorDoom]

Many of us have been saying we need to both develop technologies such as nukes and use energy more wisely (conservation).

Some people seem to almost want us to power all the way down to an agrarian age and/or suffer through some sort of mass dieoff. I can pretty much guarantee that the 99% of people who aren't POers won't find that a desirable option (and many of us POers don't like it either). So, reducing energy consumption in various ways is all to the good but still leaves the question of where the balance of the energy we need is going to come from. Since POers basically accept that FFs are going to be exhausted sometime in the next 100 years, we are looking to renewables and nukes for that energy.

A lot of the disagreement seems to be not about technical/engineering issues but about social issues, e.g. how society will respond to PO in the realms of war and peace, economics, unrest, etc. There is historical evidence to support both a very negative view (recent events in NO) and a positive view (WW2 action-in-a-crisis). The laws of physics care not for what we think, but on the social side, matters are, theoretically, in our own hands. What I'm saying is that we can at least try to tip the scales towards the WW2/pull-together-in-a-crisis/energy-manhattan-project end of the spectrum and away from "mad max".

[orz]

On a more fundamental level, hardcore doomers think that we will never be able to recover from the effects of peak oil. This is where even the most down to earth technologist draws the line. Economic disaster? No doubt. Collapse of some countries? Quite likely. Collapse of the U.S.? The possibility's definitely there. Die-off? There's plenty of people in the world who are barely clinging on as is, how will they "conserve." Olduvai Stone Age v2.0? Errr I think not.

[donshan]

Though many people here admit peak oil is a real problem and needs a solution, the solutions offered are diametrically opposed - one camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives.

Problem? What problem most of America would say/ The only problem was gas prices were too high because of Katrina, and thank goodness "that is over now!"
"The big holiday shopping sales are on at the mall and we have got to make plans for the big bowl game parties" That is the important problem. Denial of any energy problem is rampant!

I started a thread in the Psychology section on "Peak Oil and Cognitive Dissonance" which I won't repeat here, except in brief.
Stated simply the more anyone invests their money, efforts, and reputation into something the more resistant they become to ANY information that would indicate they have made a mistake; rather they will choose their own propaganda and friends to reinforce their view they they made right choices. They are more comfortable with their heads in the sand.
Given the enormous investment in Suburbia et. al. those people will not even listen to the arguments for or against Peak Oil. When they hear just one news item, like I heard on talk radio "There are a Trillion barrels of oil left to be pumped, so there is no problem", they will seize on that opinion and stick with it.
I just received an e-mail from a friend who said his friends say:

Bush will get us through this, and the Oil Tar Sands in Canada will be an easy substitute!

I would suggest both sides here on the Forum share common ground, because they both agree there is a problem with our energy future. Perhaps less bickering between the two sides,and cooperation to educate the majority who don't have a clue about Peak Oil is job one for both sides.

[elroy]

one camp says we need to boost nuke production and other high tech alternatives; the other side says, no, we must reduce the need for energy in our lives

They both serve the same end, less dependency on oil.