Simon Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 And when added to ANWR? According to the 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study, the mean estimate of economically recoverable oil from the Arctic refuge is 3.2 - 5.2 billion barrels. Yeah, that ought to get us another month...... As for your other comments re: nuclear, hydrogen, solar, teh Adirondacks, etc. none of those has anything to do with teh validity of Hubbert's Peak Theories. Your insistence on steering the discussion in that off-topic direction only serves to paint you as a rabid anti-environmentalist whose conclusions re: the scientific value of peak oil theories are tainted by your political posturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 If the enviros had their heads on straight, they'd support nuclear power. But no. That's "too dangerous". It's just not idealistic enough. It's too practical for a leftist movement. 844749[/snapback] That's changing in a lot of ways. A lot of voices in the environmental movement in California and in Germany are moving toward a pro-nuclear approach. But then, you could read the news for that but it would get in the way of the opportunity to demonize another side because they're "bad for the economy." I want there to be an economy, and a world for that economy to exist in, in my grandkids' time. We are so short-sighted it's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 According to the 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study, the mean estimate of economically recoverable oil from the Arctic refuge is 3.2 - 5.2 billion barrels.Yeah, that ought to get us another month...... As for your other comments re: nuclear, hydrogen, solar, teh Adirondacks, etc. none of those has anything to do with teh validity of Hubbert's Peak Theories. Your insistence on steering the discussion in that off-topic direction only serves to paint you as a rabid anti-environmentalist whose conclusions re: the scientific value of peak oil theories are tainted by your political posturing. 844763[/snapback] Noooo, it points to the fact that more often than not, artificial environmental "panics" are just that...manufactured to support a point of view that is sketchy at best. Tell me, Simon. What's YOUR solution to the so-called peak-oil "crisis"? I'm just DYING to hear this one. Let me guess...Hydrogen economy founded on a backbone of solar and wind power? Come on, say it, you know you want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 That's changing in a lot of ways. A lot of voices in the environmental movement in California and in Germany are moving toward a pro-nuclear approach. But then, you could read the news for that but it would get in the way of the opportunity to demonize another side because they're "bad for the economy." I want there to be an economy, and a world for that economy to exist in, in my grandkids' time. We are so short-sighted it's ridiculous. 844766[/snapback] If I had my druthers, we'd do the one thing the French do right: We'd generate the lion's share of our electricity with nukes. That would be more than sufficient to cut down our CO2 emissions and extend the life of current oil reserves. Not to mention, that Generation IV nuke plants are capable of producing hydrogen AND electricity at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Noooo, it points to the fact that more often than not, artificial environmental "panics" are just that...manufactured to support a point of view that is sketchy at best. So Hubbert's 50 year old theory which has been repeatedly shown to be accurate is nothing more than an enviro panic? Yeah, OK. Tell me, Simon. What's YOUR solution to the so-called peak-oil "crisis"? I have no freaking idea. I'm not smart enough to solve the energy "crisis" but my initial reaction is to somehow cut use as opposed to increasing output. And I as long as I have some rural properties and know how to hunt and fish and turn soil, I'm not all that worried about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Only if it ruptures 844754[/snapback] Know anything about the ecological disaster that is the High Aswan Dam? Lake Nasser behind the dam is a public health nightmare; disrupting the flood cycle of the lower Nile ruined Egypt's most fertile farmland; reduced river flow devastated the Nile Delta (allowing salt water from the Med to back-flow into it), and the fisheries in the eastern Med are all !@#$ed up from lack of nutrients the Nile used to provide. And Three Gorges is how much bigger than the High Aswan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 And I as long as I have some properties and know how to hunt and fish and turn soil, I'm not all that worried about it. 844784[/snapback] Well, now that we've established your solution to the issue as a return to 1875... The big problem I have with these kind of projections is that they do not take into account fundamental technological and economic efficiency changes. They ASSUME that efficiency will stay the same. It just flat-out does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 Know anything about the ecological disaster that is the High Aswan Dam? Lake Nasser behind the dam is a public health nightmare; disrupting the flood cycle of the lower Nile ruined Egypt's most fertile farmland; reduced river flow devastated the Nile Delta (allowing salt water from the Med to back-flow into it), and the fisheries in the eastern Med are all !@#$ed up from lack of nutrients the Nile used to provide. And Three Gorges is how much bigger than the High Aswan? 844786[/snapback] Much bigger. There's no doubt Three Gorges is both a colossal boon AND bane. The sheer generation capacity of that plant is ridiculous. That being said, I'm not so sure the risk/reward ratio is favorable when it comes to Three Gorges, especially given the potential risks of THAT dam's failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 The big problem I have with these kind of projections is that they do not take into account fundamental technological and economic efficiency changes. They ASSUME that efficiency will stay the same. 844787[/snapback] The problem I have is that our automotive manufacturers are not making more efficient vehicles. Again, because of economics the status quo seems to be the way to go. You need the "leftist enviro-whackos" to enforce better standards of efficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 The problem I have is that our automotive manufacturers are not making more efficient vehicles. Again, because of economics the status quo seems to be the way to go. You need the "leftist enviro-whackos" to enforce better standards of efficiency. 844799[/snapback] It's because the market doesn't WANT more efficient vehicles by and large. The American market, especially, wants large and luxurious vehicles, not small and spartan ones. Do you propose we FORCE people to drive Euro-style mini-cars? I for one drive a small, 4-cylinder vehicle because my personal economy best supports that. It's a hell of a lot cheaper for me to fill up at $25 than $50 a tank. Market innovations, not government regulations, are the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 It's because the market doesn't WANT more efficient vehicles by and large. The American market, especially, wants large and luxurious vehicles, not small and spartan ones. Do you propose we FORCE people to drive Euro-style mini-cars? I for one drive a small, 4-cylinder vehicle because my personal economy best supports that. It's a hell of a lot cheaper for me to fill up at $25 than $50 a tank. Market innovations, not government regulations, are the answer. 844804[/snapback] Well, this is just personal bias but I think people who drive those things think they own the goddamned road so I wouldn't mind seeing them outlawed one bit. And I usually see one tiny woman chatting on her cell phone driving these vehicles built for seven. You can't outlaw stupidity, but at least you could outlaw airbags in these things to speed the process a long a bit. The American people getting everything they want could very well be our downfall, is all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Well, now that we've established your solution to the issue as a return to 1875... I don't posit it as a solution. It's just how I would deal with a worst-case scenario and certainly isn't appropriate for everybody (particularly those hwo would try to hunt or fish on my land ). I really don't have a viable solution at this point and like I said just think it would be more sensible to effect changes in use moreso than production. The big problem I have with these kind of projections is that they do not take into account fundamental technological and economic efficiency changes. They ASSUME that efficiency will stay the same. Don't quote me on this but I think Hubbert's does incorporate variables for new discoveries and technological advancements soemtime during this decade(2004?). The environment is one of teh places where I seem to fall on the traditionally left side of most debates, but I'm no lover of rabid environmentalists who I think do more to hurt the cause rather than help it. Hubbert's theory seems to be to be grounded in sound scientific and mathematic principles so I tend to give it more credence than most of the "world is about to end" stuff that is out there. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 Well, this is just personal bias but I think people who drive those things think they own the goddamned road so I wouldn't mind seeing them outlawed one bit. And I usually see one tiny woman chatting on her cell phone driving these vehicles built for seven. You can't outlaw stupidity, but at least you could outlaw airbags in these things to speed the process a long a bit. The American people getting everything they want could very well be our downfall, is all I'm saying. 844810[/snapback] No doubt. And I'm OK with that view, believe it or not. I think anybody that drives one of those damn things is out of their mind. I owned a mid-size SUV at one point and hated it. That being said, government mandates would probably harm the economy today to the point of being more expensive than any potential future ecological disruptions. Let's take a look at just the last 40 years in America. 40 years ago, cars used predominantly leaded gasoline. It was shown lead caused a problem, and the industry phased it out in an economically feasible way. Then there's the emissions thing...introducing the catalytic converter. MTBE? Gone in favor of Ethanol. Each one of these issues has been touted as a reason to abandon the gasoline-burning ICE, and yet it's still the most viable form of light-duty transportation. Why? Because each hurdle has been overcome by a new innovation. Much to Simon's surprise, I think he'd be shocked to know that I favor using hybrid plug-in engines in cars that draw power from a nearly completely-nuclear power grid. If you did that, you'd RADICALLY alter the carbon footprint of the economy, and probably do it a lot cheaper than trying to follow a solar/wind/hydrogen model. If that kind of plan was followed, "peak oil" would be a virtually moot issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Much to Simon's surprise, I think he'd be shocked to know that I favor using hybrid plug-in engines in cars that draw power from a nearly completely-nuclear power grid. If you did that, you'd RADICALLY alter the carbon footprint of the economy, and probably do it a lot cheaper than trying to follow a solar/wind/hydrogen model. If that kind of plan was followed, "peak oil" would be a virtually moot issue. 844824[/snapback] Why then did the car companies go with an explicitly anti "plug-in" campaign? You can outfit a current-model hybrid to go plug-in and get upwards of 100MPG. Silly, I think. But I'm with you on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 Why then did the car companies go with an explicitly anti "plug-in" campaign? You can outfit a current-model hybrid to go plug-in and get upwards of 100MPG. Silly, I think. But I'm with you on that one. 844830[/snapback] They've got a vested interest in NOT going to plug-ins because they're receiving so much money from the government in the way of subsidies and tax breaks to produce stand-alones. Also, if the American people really NEEDED and WANTED 100MPG, they'd get it from the car companies. The fault is at the feet of the average driver, not big oil or the auto firms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Much to Simon's surprise, I think he'd be shocked to know that I favor using hybrid plug-in engines in cars that draw power from a nearly completely-nuclear power grid. Not really shocked but I'd be wary of basing too much of our power grid on a single source of energy. As a rule of thumb, I think diversity would be less prone to trouble in the long run. Also, if the American people really NEEDED and WANTED 100MPG, they'd get it from the car companies. And how would they go about that with our hopelessly corrupted political parties in the pockets of special interests as you mentioned re: "They've got a vested interest in NOT going to plug-ins because they're receiving so much money from the government in the way of subsidies and tax breaks to produce stand-alones" And don't tell me to vote them out because they'll just be replaced with the latest over-ambitious, self-interested whore of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 Not really shocked but I'd be wary of basing too much of our power grid on a single source of energy. As a rule of thumb, I think diversity would be less prone to trouble in the long run. 844838[/snapback] It might well, but I don't think active solar and wind will ever account for more than 5% of US power generation. They're simply too vulnerable to fluctuation and geographically-dependent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 The peak of US oil production was as much POLITICAL as it was caused by any natural shortage. For instance, people don't want oil platforms out to sea near their homes. They don't want ANWR drilled. They don't want public lands drilled. So, In many cases, PEAK OIL problems are caused by the very people who are bitching about it in the first place: environmentalists. 844726[/snapback] Pure bunk! Tourist industry types, private citizens who didn't want oil slicks on their beaches along with Conservationists didn't want that oil drilled. And remember, 40 years ago the technology was not available to drill in many places. Fact is, a lot of oil reserves in the United States just became to hard to pump by 1970 because they were running low. Drive through Western PA and look around if you need proof of that. And its happening around the globe, in Mexico's largest reserve for instance. We don't know how much Saudi Arabia even has because they will not tell, or tell honestly at least. With the demand for oil rising so quickly we are fools not to be pushing conservation and alternative energy more. Hitler had sythetic diesel fuel 60 years ago. Think how much technology has advanced in that time and how much better we could do now. Hell, a little hand held calulator of today would be a room sized computer for the 1940's. We just need the political will to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Are you saying we will never run out of oil? Peak oil shouldn't really be considered a theory when you think about it. It's a fact waiting to happen. Unless we learn how to make oil. 844703[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Came across this interesting article, while not about peak oil, it's certainly related to the situation the US has created for itself by our oil-centric energy policies and dependence on foreign sources. While it doesn't state this, it highlights the fact that our dependence on foriegn oil is a more serious issue than peak oil. changing oil markets "Russia has found the Achilles' heel of the US colossus. In concert with its oil-producing partners and the rising powerhouse economies of the East, Russia is altering the foundations of the current US-led liberal global oil-market order, insidiously working to undermine its US-centric nature and slanting it toward serving first and foremost the energy-security needs and the geopolitical aspirations of the rising East. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts