Latest peak oil news

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=Arraya]BOO!, it’s here.[/quote]

Whew. You scared me there for a minute. I ran out to see if I could still get gas for $3 a gallon and I can. Guess it isn’t here yet. Production may be near peak, but like I said earlier, price dynamics, replacements, and demand-side changes could have a major impact on availability.

[/quote]

We hit a ceiling from 2005-2008. It was observable. Oil price spiked with no increased production and then demand fell and price subsided. There is no reason elevated prices should maintain elevated if demand falls, obviously. This has no bearing on the state of geological affairs and timing of peak because price is a short term indicator. It has no idea on how much is in the tank. Obviously, we have less oil than we did in 2008, so why the lower price? Because the price point mechanism has no foresight. It is a very crude(no pun intended), blind, one dimensional and shortsighted tool. Kind of like using a chain saw for surgery.

[quote]
In my last post, I mention Jay Forrester. He has been looking at this problem since 1969. Not really going to sneak up on him. World governments know it is going to happen and have for years. I’m loath to put my faith in them over entrepreneurs.
[/quote]

The governments and big industry are one in the same and have known about it since the 50s. Jay Forrester drew from M. King hubberts work. It came out last year that the IEA was pressured by the Bush Admin to downplay there findings. Which was peak was closer than advertised. The Bush admin was a who’s who of the oil industry. Reason the whistle blower gave: They did not want to panic the markets. Basically it was the industry hiding information. But hey they were drawing a usg paycheck so we will chalk it up to government intervention.

[quote]
You said that to the wrong person. I speak both thermodynamics and economics – with a BS in Elec. Eng and MS in Engineering Economic Systems, not many people in the world are better suited to understand the relationship between science, technology, economics and business.
[/quote]

Market theory and economics is not rooted in any science. It’s just a man made theory that has little relevance on the natural state of the world. It’s a belief system with math. A belief system with endless contradictions and tragic assumptions, at that.

[quote]
It is virutally impossible for me to separate technological solutions and economic solutions. They are one and the same. ‘Cept it is economics that drives solutions into existence, and those economics are not yet upon us. Peak Oil may or may not be here, but the economic drivers are not. We’ll still be having this same discussion in 2020 and possibly 2030.
[/quote]

Correlation does not imply causation. you don’t need governments, economics or money to innovate. Just human creativity.

[quote]
The thing is, no matter how economists view the world, people make economics happen no matter what. People collectively make millions of decisions made every day. Even now, thousands of crackpots are trying to invent solutions to the problem. I have faith in them.
[/quote]

And if economic “theory” fails will you lose the faith or claim heresy. It’s not a technological problem. It’s an economic one. Meaning economics will fail to bring a solution. I have plenty of faith in human ingenuity but none in economic theory because it has no physical foundations.

axiom: It impossible to maintain infinite growth on a finite planet. Until that is understood in economics we are running into Forrestors limits of growth. It’s a choice.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Arraya]you don’t need governments, economics or money to innovate. Just human creativity.[/quote]

Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?

Necessity, of course.

Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.

“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.

While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.

Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.

I think we agree that someday, it will be.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Arraya]you don’t need governments, economics or money to innovate. Just human creativity.[/quote]

Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?

Necessity, of course.

Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.

“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.

While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.

Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.

I think we agree that someday, it will be.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Arraya]you don’t need governments, economics or money to innovate. Just human creativity.[/quote]

Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?

Necessity, of course.

Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.

“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.

While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.

Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.

I think we agree that someday, it will be.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Arraya]you don’t need governments, economics or money to innovate. Just human creativity.[/quote]

Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?

Necessity, of course.

Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.

“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.

While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.

Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.

I think we agree that someday, it will be.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Arraya]you don’t need governments, economics or money to innovate. Just human creativity.[/quote]

Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?

Necessity, of course.

Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.

“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.

While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.

Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.

I think we agree that someday, it will be.

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?

Necessity, of course.

Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.
[/quote]

I agree that necessity is the mother of creativity. I also believe that a total change in infrastructure takes decades. Actually a .gov funded think tank already did a study on risk mitigation for PO. They concluded that it would take 2 decades to avoid serious economic fallout. So here we are at the zero hour and what happened to the market solutions? Its pretty obvious what the market solution will be, less employment. Typical industry-gov coverup hiding data. Lets just say it’s really far off and maybe nobody will notice.

[quote]
“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.

While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.

Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.

.[/quote]

Says who, the price point? Or mountains of scientific data indicating otherwise.

Ironically it is science telling us, collectively, that economics can’t fix many things. So it may be necessary to create new economics. After all, it is a man made construct.

The one thing we can be sure of. There will be no recovery. If we did start to increase consumption oil would spike and knock us down.

If we fall deeper into “depression” less of a need for new energy. In a very real way the downturn is PO mitigation because we saw what happened in spring of 08. Fuel protests in europe, food riots in the 3rd world. Airlines and trucking starts to go bust at about $110 and globalization shuts down because of energy prices acting as big tariffs.

I guess some market solutions may not be want we want.

For there to be a recovery, in the sense that we are used ie more jobs more consumption, we will need sufficient alternatives in place to avoid price spikes. So follow that and see what gets deployed. Conversely we are in an economic period were less and less will get invested in such things. So I doubt we will try and stand up again for a while anyway.

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?

Necessity, of course.

Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.
[/quote]

I agree that necessity is the mother of creativity. I also believe that a total change in infrastructure takes decades. Actually a .gov funded think tank already did a study on risk mitigation for PO. They concluded that it would take 2 decades to avoid serious economic fallout. So here we are at the zero hour and what happened to the market solutions? Its pretty obvious what the market solution will be, less employment. Typical industry-gov coverup hiding data. Lets just say it’s really far off and maybe nobody will notice.

[quote]
“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.

While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.

Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.

.[/quote]

Says who, the price point? Or mountains of scientific data indicating otherwise.

Ironically it is science telling us, collectively, that economics can’t fix many things. So it may be necessary to create new economics. After all, it is a man made construct.

The one thing we can be sure of. There will be no recovery. If we did start to increase consumption oil would spike and knock us down.

If we fall deeper into “depression” less of a need for new energy. In a very real way the downturn is PO mitigation because we saw what happened in spring of 08. Fuel protests in europe, food riots in the 3rd world. Airlines and trucking starts to go bust at about $110 and globalization shuts down because of energy prices acting as big tariffs.

I guess some market solutions may not be want we want.

For there to be a recovery, in the sense that we are used ie more jobs more consumption, we will need sufficient alternatives in place to avoid price spikes. So follow that and see what gets deployed. Conversely we are in an economic period were less and less will get invested in such things. So I doubt we will try and stand up again for a while anyway.

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?

Necessity, of course.

Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.
[/quote]

I agree that necessity is the mother of creativity. I also believe that a total change in infrastructure takes decades. Actually a .gov funded think tank already did a study on risk mitigation for PO. They concluded that it would take 2 decades to avoid serious economic fallout. So here we are at the zero hour and what happened to the market solutions? Its pretty obvious what the market solution will be, less employment. Typical industry-gov coverup hiding data. Lets just say it’s really far off and maybe nobody will notice.

[quote]
“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.

While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.

Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.

.[/quote]

Says who, the price point? Or mountains of scientific data indicating otherwise.

Ironically it is science telling us, collectively, that economics can’t fix many things. So it may be necessary to create new economics. After all, it is a man made construct.

The one thing we can be sure of. There will be no recovery. If we did start to increase consumption oil would spike and knock us down.

If we fall deeper into “depression” less of a need for new energy. In a very real way the downturn is PO mitigation because we saw what happened in spring of 08. Fuel protests in europe, food riots in the 3rd world. Airlines and trucking starts to go bust at about $110 and globalization shuts down because of energy prices acting as big tariffs.

I guess some market solutions may not be want we want.

For there to be a recovery, in the sense that we are used ie more jobs more consumption, we will need sufficient alternatives in place to avoid price spikes. So follow that and see what gets deployed. Conversely we are in an economic period were less and less will get invested in such things. So I doubt we will try and stand up again for a while anyway.

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?

Necessity, of course.

Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.
[/quote]

I agree that necessity is the mother of creativity. I also believe that a total change in infrastructure takes decades. Actually a .gov funded think tank already did a study on risk mitigation for PO. They concluded that it would take 2 decades to avoid serious economic fallout. So here we are at the zero hour and what happened to the market solutions? Its pretty obvious what the market solution will be, less employment. Typical industry-gov coverup hiding data. Lets just say it’s really far off and maybe nobody will notice.

[quote]
“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.

While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.

Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.

.[/quote]

Says who, the price point? Or mountains of scientific data indicating otherwise.

Ironically it is science telling us, collectively, that economics can’t fix many things. So it may be necessary to create new economics. After all, it is a man made construct.

The one thing we can be sure of. There will be no recovery. If we did start to increase consumption oil would spike and knock us down.

If we fall deeper into “depression” less of a need for new energy. In a very real way the downturn is PO mitigation because we saw what happened in spring of 08. Fuel protests in europe, food riots in the 3rd world. Airlines and trucking starts to go bust at about $110 and globalization shuts down because of energy prices acting as big tariffs.

I guess some market solutions may not be want we want.

For there to be a recovery, in the sense that we are used ie more jobs more consumption, we will need sufficient alternatives in place to avoid price spikes. So follow that and see what gets deployed. Conversely we are in an economic period were less and less will get invested in such things. So I doubt we will try and stand up again for a while anyway.

[Arraya]

[quote=sdduuuude]

Yes, but what is the mother of creativity ?

Necessity, of course.

Whether you look at the necessity in terms of economics or socio-economics or a lack of energy density, or just plain survival, the need simply isn’t pressing enough yet (i.e. the price of oil not high enough, the supply not limited enough, the demand not high enough relative to supply, people aren’t cold enough, etc.) to force the solutions.
[/quote]

I agree that necessity is the mother of creativity. I also believe that a total change in infrastructure takes decades. Actually a .gov funded think tank already did a study on risk mitigation for PO. They concluded that it would take 2 decades to avoid serious economic fallout. So here we are at the zero hour and what happened to the market solutions? Its pretty obvious what the market solution will be, less employment. Typical industry-gov coverup hiding data. Lets just say it’s really far off and maybe nobody will notice.

[quote]
“Technology looking for a problem” is a waste. Solutions emerge because there is a need, not the other way around. Yes, you have to characterize the problem scientifically, but people don’t feel the need scientifically. They feel it economically. Economics drives them to define and solve the problem with science.

While economics is a dismal science, I find it useful for qualitative descriptions, not quantitative. One conclusion I can draw from studying econ is this – when there is a problem such that people can profit from solving it, many people will try like hell to solve it. If nobody can profit from solving it, then much fewer people will try to solve it, or worse – the government tries to solve it and spends lots of money on non-issues.

Right now, the need isn’t compelling enough.

.[/quote]

Says who, the price point? Or mountains of scientific data indicating otherwise.

Ironically it is science telling us, collectively, that economics can’t fix many things. So it may be necessary to create new economics. After all, it is a man made construct.

The one thing we can be sure of. There will be no recovery. If we did start to increase consumption oil would spike and knock us down.

If we fall deeper into “depression” less of a need for new energy. In a very real way the downturn is PO mitigation because we saw what happened in spring of 08. Fuel protests in europe, food riots in the 3rd world. Airlines and trucking starts to go bust at about $110 and globalization shuts down because of energy prices acting as big tariffs.

I guess some market solutions may not be want we want.

For there to be a recovery, in the sense that we are used ie more jobs more consumption, we will need sufficient alternatives in place to avoid price spikes. So follow that and see what gets deployed. Conversely we are in an economic period were less and less will get invested in such things. So I doubt we will try and stand up again for a while anyway.

[sdduuuude]

I agree with you – economics can’t fix things. It is really only there to describe things.

I’m just saying – mountains of scientific data don’t push people to action. Economic pain does, and the economic pain of PO isn’t upon us yet, even if PO is.

I agree we’ve had a hint of what it might look like, though I don’t think we’ll see the real deal for another 20 yrs.

Like you said – lower demand due to current economic conditions will help mitigate the effects of PO, but it isn’t really a “designed” solution. It’s just happening. Again – here economics describes the situation, but isn’t really a solution.

There is a different between market solutions, such as new technology, new power infrastructure, etc., and market events, like recession, or de-leveraging, which just happen to mitigate the effects of PO.

[sdduuuude]

I agree with you – economics can’t fix things. It is really only there to describe things.

I’m just saying – mountains of scientific data don’t push people to action. Economic pain does, and the economic pain of PO isn’t upon us yet, even if PO is.

I agree we’ve had a hint of what it might look like, though I don’t think we’ll see the real deal for another 20 yrs.

Like you said – lower demand due to current economic conditions will help mitigate the effects of PO, but it isn’t really a “designed” solution. It’s just happening. Again – here economics describes the situation, but isn’t really a solution.

There is a different between market solutions, such as new technology, new power infrastructure, etc., and market events, like recession, or de-leveraging, which just happen to mitigate the effects of PO.

[sdduuuude]

I agree with you – economics can’t fix things. It is really only there to describe things.

I’m just saying – mountains of scientific data don’t push people to action. Economic pain does, and the economic pain of PO isn’t upon us yet, even if PO is.

I agree we’ve had a hint of what it might look like, though I don’t think we’ll see the real deal for another 20 yrs.

Like you said – lower demand due to current economic conditions will help mitigate the effects of PO, but it isn’t really a “designed” solution. It’s just happening. Again – here economics describes the situation, but isn’t really a solution.

There is a different between market solutions, such as new technology, new power infrastructure, etc., and market events, like recession, or de-leveraging, which just happen to mitigate the effects of PO.

[sdduuuude]

I agree with you – economics can’t fix things. It is really only there to describe things.

I’m just saying – mountains of scientific data don’t push people to action. Economic pain does, and the economic pain of PO isn’t upon us yet, even if PO is.

I agree we’ve had a hint of what it might look like, though I don’t think we’ll see the real deal for another 20 yrs.

Like you said – lower demand due to current economic conditions will help mitigate the effects of PO, but it isn’t really a “designed” solution. It’s just happening. Again – here economics describes the situation, but isn’t really a solution.

There is a different between market solutions, such as new technology, new power infrastructure, etc., and market events, like recession, or de-leveraging, which just happen to mitigate the effects of PO.

[Author]

Posts