Latest peak oil news

[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.

[Arraya]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Actually, I don’t think high oil induced economic mayhem will hit for a long time either, if ever. I think what it indicated is that the market did not deliver solutions. Though, the bubble just muddied the waters.

I also think what it means at this point is our economy is done “growing” and no recovery is coming. The massive debt overhang is going to crush us over the next 2-5 years and after that is anybodies guess. however, a depression is not an environment that induces clear thought. Last time we had one we wound up in a world war. Actually if high oil was going to be a problem it could easily be rectified by contracting credit. Which is a good way to regulate consumption. The invisible and behind the fed could mitigate.

[Arraya]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Actually, I don’t think high oil induced economic mayhem will hit for a long time either, if ever. I think what it indicated is that the market did not deliver solutions. Though, the bubble just muddied the waters.

I also think what it means at this point is our economy is done “growing” and no recovery is coming. The massive debt overhang is going to crush us over the next 2-5 years and after that is anybodies guess. however, a depression is not an environment that induces clear thought. Last time we had one we wound up in a world war. Actually if high oil was going to be a problem it could easily be rectified by contracting credit. Which is a good way to regulate consumption. The invisible and behind the fed could mitigate.

[Arraya]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Actually, I don’t think high oil induced economic mayhem will hit for a long time either, if ever. I think what it indicated is that the market did not deliver solutions. Though, the bubble just muddied the waters.

I also think what it means at this point is our economy is done “growing” and no recovery is coming. The massive debt overhang is going to crush us over the next 2-5 years and after that is anybodies guess. however, a depression is not an environment that induces clear thought. Last time we had one we wound up in a world war. Actually if high oil was going to be a problem it could easily be rectified by contracting credit. Which is a good way to regulate consumption. The invisible and behind the fed could mitigate.

[Arraya]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Actually, I don’t think high oil induced economic mayhem will hit for a long time either, if ever. I think what it indicated is that the market did not deliver solutions. Though, the bubble just muddied the waters.

I also think what it means at this point is our economy is done “growing” and no recovery is coming. The massive debt overhang is going to crush us over the next 2-5 years and after that is anybodies guess. however, a depression is not an environment that induces clear thought. Last time we had one we wound up in a world war. Actually if high oil was going to be a problem it could easily be rectified by contracting credit. Which is a good way to regulate consumption. The invisible and behind the fed could mitigate.

[Arraya]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Actually, I don’t think high oil induced economic mayhem will hit for a long time either, if ever. I think what it indicated is that the market did not deliver solutions. Though, the bubble just muddied the waters.

I also think what it means at this point is our economy is done “growing” and no recovery is coming. The massive debt overhang is going to crush us over the next 2-5 years and after that is anybodies guess. however, a depression is not an environment that induces clear thought. Last time we had one we wound up in a world war. Actually if high oil was going to be a problem it could easily be rectified by contracting credit. Which is a good way to regulate consumption. The invisible and behind the fed could mitigate.

[Arraya]

[quote=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]

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.[/quote]

I don’t think we will ever run out of oil Personally, I go back and fourth on nuclear. I rather see solar, tidal and wind because they are not finite and don’t produce a bunch of waste. All you have to do is maintain and update the machinery. Nuclear is not long term thinking.

With wind, solar and tidal we could power the world today.

But u hit the nail on the head. We need to budget non-renewable resources like we would money and we don’t because we are insane. Instead we are in a race to get rid of them on useless consumption.

For an interesting read. here is Admiral Rickover’s speech on oil depletion, he is the father of the nuclear navy. Interesting read and an extremely forward thinking man. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151

[Arraya]

[quote=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]

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.[/quote]

I don’t think we will ever run out of oil Personally, I go back and fourth on nuclear. I rather see solar, tidal and wind because they are not finite and don’t produce a bunch of waste. All you have to do is maintain and update the machinery. Nuclear is not long term thinking.

With wind, solar and tidal we could power the world today.

But u hit the nail on the head. We need to budget non-renewable resources like we would money and we don’t because we are insane. Instead we are in a race to get rid of them on useless consumption.

For an interesting read. here is Admiral Rickover’s speech on oil depletion, he is the father of the nuclear navy. Interesting read and an extremely forward thinking man. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151

[Arraya]

[quote=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]

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.[/quote]

I don’t think we will ever run out of oil Personally, I go back and fourth on nuclear. I rather see solar, tidal and wind because they are not finite and don’t produce a bunch of waste. All you have to do is maintain and update the machinery. Nuclear is not long term thinking.

With wind, solar and tidal we could power the world today.

But u hit the nail on the head. We need to budget non-renewable resources like we would money and we don’t because we are insane. Instead we are in a race to get rid of them on useless consumption.

For an interesting read. here is Admiral Rickover’s speech on oil depletion, he is the father of the nuclear navy. Interesting read and an extremely forward thinking man. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151

[Arraya]

[quote=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]

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.[/quote]

I don’t think we will ever run out of oil Personally, I go back and fourth on nuclear. I rather see solar, tidal and wind because they are not finite and don’t produce a bunch of waste. All you have to do is maintain and update the machinery. Nuclear is not long term thinking.

With wind, solar and tidal we could power the world today.

But u hit the nail on the head. We need to budget non-renewable resources like we would money and we don’t because we are insane. Instead we are in a race to get rid of them on useless consumption.

For an interesting read. here is Admiral Rickover’s speech on oil depletion, he is the father of the nuclear navy. Interesting read and an extremely forward thinking man. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151

[Arraya]

[quote=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]

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.[/quote]

I don’t think we will ever run out of oil Personally, I go back and fourth on nuclear. I rather see solar, tidal and wind because they are not finite and don’t produce a bunch of waste. All you have to do is maintain and update the machinery. Nuclear is not long term thinking.

With wind, solar and tidal we could power the world today.

But u hit the nail on the head. We need to budget non-renewable resources like we would money and we don’t because we are insane. Instead we are in a race to get rid of them on useless consumption.

For an interesting read. here is Admiral Rickover’s speech on oil depletion, he is the father of the nuclear navy. Interesting read and an extremely forward thinking man. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151

[KSMountain]

Haven’t read your link yet, but yes Rickover was a stud. Period.

[KSMountain]

Haven’t read your link yet, but yes Rickover was a stud. Period.

[KSMountain]

Haven’t read your link yet, but yes Rickover was a stud. Period.

[KSMountain]

Haven’t read your link yet, but yes Rickover was a stud. Period.

[Author]

Posts