Latest peak oil news

[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]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy] I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.
[/quote]

Roughly true. I got 5,000 sq. ft lots.

Did that scientist calculate the square footage of fertile farmland needed ? Where would that go if the population doubles ? How many gallons of clean water are needed for drinking, irrigation, feeding animals. How much oil is needed to build and run the machinery to manage the crops, heat the homes (OK Not much – it is Texas), equip the hospitals, etc ?

Suffice to say, the limiting factor is not land for housing. It is clean air, clean water, disease-free food and quality medical care. All difficult to quanitfy and model properly.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy] I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.
[/quote]

Roughly true. I got 5,000 sq. ft lots.

Did that scientist calculate the square footage of fertile farmland needed ? Where would that go if the population doubles ? How many gallons of clean water are needed for drinking, irrigation, feeding animals. How much oil is needed to build and run the machinery to manage the crops, heat the homes (OK Not much – it is Texas), equip the hospitals, etc ?

Suffice to say, the limiting factor is not land for housing. It is clean air, clean water, disease-free food and quality medical care. All difficult to quanitfy and model properly.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy] I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.
[/quote]

Roughly true. I got 5,000 sq. ft lots.

Did that scientist calculate the square footage of fertile farmland needed ? Where would that go if the population doubles ? How many gallons of clean water are needed for drinking, irrigation, feeding animals. How much oil is needed to build and run the machinery to manage the crops, heat the homes (OK Not much – it is Texas), equip the hospitals, etc ?

Suffice to say, the limiting factor is not land for housing. It is clean air, clean water, disease-free food and quality medical care. All difficult to quanitfy and model properly.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy] I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.
[/quote]

Roughly true. I got 5,000 sq. ft lots.

Did that scientist calculate the square footage of fertile farmland needed ? Where would that go if the population doubles ? How many gallons of clean water are needed for drinking, irrigation, feeding animals. How much oil is needed to build and run the machinery to manage the crops, heat the homes (OK Not much – it is Texas), equip the hospitals, etc ?

Suffice to say, the limiting factor is not land for housing. It is clean air, clean water, disease-free food and quality medical care. All difficult to quanitfy and model properly.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy] I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.
[/quote]

Roughly true. I got 5,000 sq. ft lots.

Did that scientist calculate the square footage of fertile farmland needed ? Where would that go if the population doubles ? How many gallons of clean water are needed for drinking, irrigation, feeding animals. How much oil is needed to build and run the machinery to manage the crops, heat the homes (OK Not much – it is Texas), equip the hospitals, etc ?

Suffice to say, the limiting factor is not land for housing. It is clean air, clean water, disease-free food and quality medical care. All difficult to quanitfy and model properly.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy] I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.
[/quote]

Roughly true. I got 5,000 sq. ft lots.

Did that scientist calculate the square footage of fertile farmland needed ? Where would that go if the population doubles ? How many gallons of clean water are needed for drinking, irrigation, feeding animals. How much oil is needed to build and run the machinery to manage the crops, heat the homes (OK Not much – it is Texas), equip the hospitals, etc ?

Suffice to say, the limiting factor is not land for housing. It is clean air, clean water, disease-free food and quality medical care. All difficult to quanitfy and model properly.[/quote]

Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,

Also as more and more of the worlds population migrates to cities, the fertility rates are dropping fast so there is a little hope, but yea someday there will come a crush point, I just think it’s still quite a ways off yet.

And the U.S.A. is still quite empty even compared to Africa and South America.

I think we got 5% of the worlds population or something like that.

It just seems crowded because everyone seems to be trying to fit into LA/OC/SD
JJ

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy] I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.
[/quote]

Roughly true. I got 5,000 sq. ft lots.

Did that scientist calculate the square footage of fertile farmland needed ? Where would that go if the population doubles ? How many gallons of clean water are needed for drinking, irrigation, feeding animals. How much oil is needed to build and run the machinery to manage the crops, heat the homes (OK Not much – it is Texas), equip the hospitals, etc ?

Suffice to say, the limiting factor is not land for housing. It is clean air, clean water, disease-free food and quality medical care. All difficult to quanitfy and model properly.[/quote]

Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,

Also as more and more of the worlds population migrates to cities, the fertility rates are dropping fast so there is a little hope, but yea someday there will come a crush point, I just think it’s still quite a ways off yet.

And the U.S.A. is still quite empty even compared to Africa and South America.

I think we got 5% of the worlds population or something like that.

It just seems crowded because everyone seems to be trying to fit into LA/OC/SD
JJ

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy] I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.
[/quote]

Roughly true. I got 5,000 sq. ft lots.

Did that scientist calculate the square footage of fertile farmland needed ? Where would that go if the population doubles ? How many gallons of clean water are needed for drinking, irrigation, feeding animals. How much oil is needed to build and run the machinery to manage the crops, heat the homes (OK Not much – it is Texas), equip the hospitals, etc ?

Suffice to say, the limiting factor is not land for housing. It is clean air, clean water, disease-free food and quality medical care. All difficult to quanitfy and model properly.[/quote]

Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,

Also as more and more of the worlds population migrates to cities, the fertility rates are dropping fast so there is a little hope, but yea someday there will come a crush point, I just think it’s still quite a ways off yet.

And the U.S.A. is still quite empty even compared to Africa and South America.

I think we got 5% of the worlds population or something like that.

It just seems crowded because everyone seems to be trying to fit into LA/OC/SD
JJ

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy] I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.
[/quote]

Roughly true. I got 5,000 sq. ft lots.

Did that scientist calculate the square footage of fertile farmland needed ? Where would that go if the population doubles ? How many gallons of clean water are needed for drinking, irrigation, feeding animals. How much oil is needed to build and run the machinery to manage the crops, heat the homes (OK Not much – it is Texas), equip the hospitals, etc ?

Suffice to say, the limiting factor is not land for housing. It is clean air, clean water, disease-free food and quality medical care. All difficult to quanitfy and model properly.[/quote]

Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,

Also as more and more of the worlds population migrates to cities, the fertility rates are dropping fast so there is a little hope, but yea someday there will come a crush point, I just think it’s still quite a ways off yet.

And the U.S.A. is still quite empty even compared to Africa and South America.

I think we got 5% of the worlds population or something like that.

It just seems crowded because everyone seems to be trying to fit into LA/OC/SD
JJ

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy] I think I heard one scientist say that you could house every single family currently on earth in 3000 sqf homes setting on ¼ acre lots and the roads they would need all in the state of Texas and still have room to spare.
[/quote]

Roughly true. I got 5,000 sq. ft lots.

Did that scientist calculate the square footage of fertile farmland needed ? Where would that go if the population doubles ? How many gallons of clean water are needed for drinking, irrigation, feeding animals. How much oil is needed to build and run the machinery to manage the crops, heat the homes (OK Not much – it is Texas), equip the hospitals, etc ?

Suffice to say, the limiting factor is not land for housing. It is clean air, clean water, disease-free food and quality medical care. All difficult to quanitfy and model properly.[/quote]

Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,

Also as more and more of the worlds population migrates to cities, the fertility rates are dropping fast so there is a little hope, but yea someday there will come a crush point, I just think it’s still quite a ways off yet.

And the U.S.A. is still quite empty even compared to Africa and South America.

I think we got 5% of the worlds population or something like that.

It just seems crowded because everyone seems to be trying to fit into LA/OC/SD
JJ

[KSMountain]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]
Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,
[/quote]

Actually our doubling time has been shrinking and I believe it’s currently something on the order of 35 years… Scary.

OTOH, the UN population projections don’t currently predict population to continue increasing exponentionally – they actually project a leveling off and a slow decline starting around 2060, as I recall.

I’m actually currently reading the pulitzer-winnning book “The Prize” mentioned earlier. Great book. One thing you see again and again there is that “peak oil” scares have been occurring regularly since the 1800’s – no kidding.

Even in the 1930’s, with threat from Germany looming, England was reluctant to go to an oil-powered Navy. There was concern – “Gee, maybe the oil will run out and we’ll be stuck with useless ships. Perhaps we should just stay on coal.” Churchill overcame that resistance with great difficulty.

It seems to me, if oil went to say $300 a barrel, we’d forget our concerns about nuclear so fast it would make your head spin. France is what – 70% nuclear for their electricity?

So the question Arraya, might be, will we run out of oil before we can successfully build the needed nuclear plants?

“Oops, crap, we only needed 10MM more barrels to finish the last nuke plant but we just burned the last of it! How stupid of us!”.

I personally do not think that is a likely scenario.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]
Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,
[/quote]

Actually our doubling time has been shrinking and I believe it’s currently something on the order of 35 years… Scary.

OTOH, the UN population projections don’t currently predict population to continue increasing exponentionally – they actually project a leveling off and a slow decline starting around 2060, as I recall.

I’m actually currently reading the pulitzer-winnning book “The Prize” mentioned earlier. Great book. One thing you see again and again there is that “peak oil” scares have been occurring regularly since the 1800’s – no kidding.

Even in the 1930’s, with threat from Germany looming, England was reluctant to go to an oil-powered Navy. There was concern – “Gee, maybe the oil will run out and we’ll be stuck with useless ships. Perhaps we should just stay on coal.” Churchill overcame that resistance with great difficulty.

It seems to me, if oil went to say $300 a barrel, we’d forget our concerns about nuclear so fast it would make your head spin. France is what – 70% nuclear for their electricity?

So the question Arraya, might be, will we run out of oil before we can successfully build the needed nuclear plants?

“Oops, crap, we only needed 10MM more barrels to finish the last nuke plant but we just burned the last of it! How stupid of us!”.

I personally do not think that is a likely scenario.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]
Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,
[/quote]

Actually our doubling time has been shrinking and I believe it’s currently something on the order of 35 years… Scary.

OTOH, the UN population projections don’t currently predict population to continue increasing exponentionally – they actually project a leveling off and a slow decline starting around 2060, as I recall.

I’m actually currently reading the pulitzer-winnning book “The Prize” mentioned earlier. Great book. One thing you see again and again there is that “peak oil” scares have been occurring regularly since the 1800’s – no kidding.

Even in the 1930’s, with threat from Germany looming, England was reluctant to go to an oil-powered Navy. There was concern – “Gee, maybe the oil will run out and we’ll be stuck with useless ships. Perhaps we should just stay on coal.” Churchill overcame that resistance with great difficulty.

It seems to me, if oil went to say $300 a barrel, we’d forget our concerns about nuclear so fast it would make your head spin. France is what – 70% nuclear for their electricity?

So the question Arraya, might be, will we run out of oil before we can successfully build the needed nuclear plants?

“Oops, crap, we only needed 10MM more barrels to finish the last nuke plant but we just burned the last of it! How stupid of us!”.

I personally do not think that is a likely scenario.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]
Well I think it would still take a few hundred years for the population to double from here,
[/quote]

Actually our doubling time has been shrinking and I believe it’s currently something on the order of 35 years… Scary.

OTOH, the UN population projections don’t currently predict population to continue increasing exponentionally – they actually project a leveling off and a slow decline starting around 2060, as I recall.

I’m actually currently reading the pulitzer-winnning book “The Prize” mentioned earlier. Great book. One thing you see again and again there is that “peak oil” scares have been occurring regularly since the 1800’s – no kidding.

Even in the 1930’s, with threat from Germany looming, England was reluctant to go to an oil-powered Navy. There was concern – “Gee, maybe the oil will run out and we’ll be stuck with useless ships. Perhaps we should just stay on coal.” Churchill overcame that resistance with great difficulty.

It seems to me, if oil went to say $300 a barrel, we’d forget our concerns about nuclear so fast it would make your head spin. France is what – 70% nuclear for their electricity?

So the question Arraya, might be, will we run out of oil before we can successfully build the needed nuclear plants?

“Oops, crap, we only needed 10MM more barrels to finish the last nuke plant but we just burned the last of it! How stupid of us!”.

I personally do not think that is a likely scenario.

[Author]

Posts