David Suzuki on Peak Oil
Tim Campbell
David Suzuki on Peak Oil
by Stephen Hesse
In a long interview, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki spoke about
Peak Oil:
Question: .. what is the critical tipping point?
David Suzuki: Well, that's what you hope, that there is a tipping
point. But the reality is that this huge juggernaut of a globalized
economy and transnational corporations is hugely powerful -- it's just
got so much momentum that it's going to be very, very hard to begin to
deflect it.
To me, a hope is that we are going to hit peak oil [when oil resources
begin to decline] -- and some geologists say we already hit it last
year. The business community is now starting to take this very
seriously.
The first thing to happen would be the big-box stores, like Home Depot
and Walmart, collapsing because they are dependent on cheap oil to ship
cheap goods. Also, in the suburbs of Canada we have these gigantic
homes with two or three people in them, and the heating and cooling
bills are enormous, and they depend on cars.
But the big thing is food. In Canada, food travels an average of 5,000
miles (8,000 km) from where it's grown to where it's eaten. This can't
go on.
The impact of [fossil fuel depletion] is going to create enormous
suffering, no doubt about it.
Suzuki is one of our planet's most passionate advocates, as well as one
of Canada's most respected citizens: his compatriots recently voted him
the greatest Canadian alive, for his decades of work on behalf of the
environment.
Suzuki, 69 is best known for his ability to articulate scientific and
environmental issues in plain language. He is the author of more than
30 books, and has produced award-winning radio and television shows,
including "The Nature of Things" and "It's a Matter of Survival.''
Born and raised in Canada, Suzuki received a doctorate in genetics from
the University of Chicago and taught from the early 1960s until his
retirement from the University of British Columbia in 2001. He now
heads the David Suzuki Foundation, located in Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada.
Eric Gisin
the enviro-leftie bandwagons of anti-science, anti-corporate, anti-nuke,
anti-GMO, etc. More inline ...
"Tim Campbell" <tim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1118352959.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Published on 21 Apr 2005 by The Japan Times. Archived on 23 Apr 2005.
>
> David Suzuki on Peak Oil by Stephen Hesse
>
> David Suzuki: Well, that's what you hope, that there is a tipping
> point. But the reality is that this huge juggernaut of a globalized
> economy and transnational corporations is hugely powerful -- it's just
> got so much momentum that it's going to be very, very hard to begin to
> deflect it.
>
> To me, a hope is that we are going to hit peak oil [when oil resources
> begin to decline] -- and some geologists say we already hit it last
> year. The business community is now starting to take this very
> seriously.
>
Crackpot. There was 2M bbl growth.
> The first thing to happen would be the big-box stores, like Home Depot
> and Walmart, collapsing because they are dependent on cheap oil to ship
> cheap goods. Also, in the suburbs of Canada we have these gigantic
> homes with two or three people in them, and the heating and cooling
> bills are enormous, and they depend on cars.
>
Fuel doesn't affect the price of manufactured goods. Container ship and rail
both use 5L per 1000 ton-miles.
> But the big thing is food. In Canada, food travels an average of 5,000
> miles (8,000 km) from where it's grown to where it's eaten. This can't
> go on.
>
Sure can. That's well under 100L of fuel.
> The impact of [fossil fuel depletion] is going to create enormous
> suffering, no doubt about it.
>
"oil-crash" hysteria.
> Suzuki is one of our planet's most passionate advocates, as well as one
> of Canada's most respected citizens: his compatriots recently voted him
> the greatest Canadian alive, for his decades of work on behalf of the
> environment.
>
CBC's top-10 canadian contest. Suzuki was 5th, Tommy Douglas was 1st.
> Suzuki, 69 is best known for his ability to articulate scientific and
> environmental issues in plain language. He is the author of more than
> 30 books, and has produced award-winning radio and television shows,
> including "The Nature of Things" and "It's a Matter of Survival.''
Most of it enviro propaganda.
Werner Hetzner
Tim Campbell wrote:
>Published on 21 Apr 2005 by The Japan Times. Archived on 23 Apr 2005.
>
>David Suzuki on Peak Oil
>by Stephen Hesse
>
>In a long interview, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki spoke about
>Peak Oil:
>
>Question: .. what is the critical tipping point?
>
>David Suzuki: Well, that's what you hope, that there is a tipping
>point. But the reality is that this huge juggernaut of a globalized
>economy and transnational corporations is hugely powerful -- it's just
>got so much momentum that it's going to be very, very hard to begin to
>deflect it.
>
>To me, a hope is that we are going to hit peak oil [when oil resources
>begin to decline] -- and some geologists say we already hit it last
>year. The business community is now starting to take this very
>seriously....
>
Read an issue dedicated to this by the Economist magazine. Some think we
will not reach peak oil for quite some time.
also check out
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Environment.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/CleanEnvironmentMoney.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/PorkNotFish.shtml
Dan Bloomquist
Werner Hetzner wrote:
>
> Read an issue dedicated to this by the Economist magazine. Some think we
> will not reach peak oil for quite some time.
> also check out
>
> http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Environment.shtml
> http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/CleanEnvironmentMoney.shtml
> http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/PorkNotFish.shtml
What did you think of the Simmons discussion?
Best, Dan.
Eric Gisin
"Werner Hetzner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:42A8FFCD...@mac.com...
Ian St. John
> David Suzuki is also known as a clueless idiot.
David Suzuki is an accomplished scientists. The clueless idiots would be
you.
> Once a scientist, he
> joined the enviro-leftie bandwagons of anti-science, anti-corporate,
> anti-nuke, anti-GMO, etc. More inline ...
Unlike your post, Suzuki makes sense. Maybe you should read it.
Eric Gisin
you had to snip it because it make you look so stupid.
"Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.usa> wrote in message
news:usgqe.14708$_n2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Dan Bloomquist
Ian St. John wrote:
>
> Unlike your post, Suzuki makes sense. Maybe you should read it.
Start with point 'a', Tim makes yet another alarmist post and once again
doesn't bother to include the url. This looks like the one he used:
http://www.energybulletin.net/5567.html
Now the context:
The first thing to happen would be the big-box stores, like Home Depot
and Walmart, collapsing because they are dependent on cheap oil to ship
cheap goods. Also, in the suburbs of Canada we have these gigantic homes
with two or three people in them, and the heating and cooling bills are
enormous, and they depend on cars.
But the big thing is food. In Canada, food travels an average of 5,000
miles (8,000 km) from where it's grown to where it's eaten. This can't
go on.
The impact of [fossil fuel depletion] is going to create enormous
suffering, no doubt about it.
---
Why are big box stores the _first_ to go? They use fuel most efficiently
by consolidating their goods. The heating of Canadian homes is primarily
from natural gas, not oil. And 'depend on cars'. Well, the whole first
world does.
Transportation of food. I don't know where he gets his '5,000 miles',
but say it is true. 40 tons can be moved that far with 500 gallons of
diesel by road. What, would that be 15 gallons per family per year?
And the last paragraph. Like _we_ will wake up some morning and there is
no fossil fuel left. We have hundreds of years of fossil fuel left.
Well, I can see why Tim posted this. It is purely alarmist. It does not
reflect the reality that alternatives will be implemented over the next
50 years for transportation fuels. It really is a worthless waste of
bandwidth.
Best, Dan.
Tim Campbell
If you are ever needing the missing url of a posted article, simply
google the first dozen words of so of the piece.
Rgds,
Tim
drone one
bleeding heart liberals always garner the support of the ignorant
(clueless idiots*) to justify their dilemma and hysteria. The unlearned
opinion of the masses is the easiest to get as Suzuki has demostrated.
* that would be you.
Dean
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
<SNIP>
> And the last paragraph. Like _we_ will wake up some morning and there is
> no fossil fuel left. We have hundreds of years of fossil fuel left.
> Well, I can see why Tim posted this. It is purely alarmist. It does not
> reflect the reality that alternatives will be implemented over the next
> 50 years for transportation fuels. It really is a worthless waste of
> bandwidth.
>
> Best, Dan.
The fallacy in this argument must have a name, because it is so common.
Not knowing it, I'll call it the Y2K fallacy.
Remember back in the mid-'90s when the spectre of the Y2K bug was
raised? A lot of companies and a lot of governments spent a lot of
money upgrading computer hardware and software systems to avoid the
dreaded Y2K bug. Fears of global information system meltdown fueled
this massive expenditure.
So January 1, 2000 rolls around and nothing much happens. Maybe a
little glitch here and there, but your computer still works, the phone
works, you still get your Visa bill (damn!), the lights stay on. So
now everyone is saying "What's the big deal?" and "What a frickin'
waste of money that was" and are calling the people that warned about
the problem alarmists. Or worse, fear-mongerers out to create a market
for unnecessary products or services.
The point is this: while there were no doubt some profiteers exploiting
the fear, if it weren't for the "alarmists" there would very likely
have been massive problems. It was _because_ of these expenditures and
large scale upgrades that nothing happened. I'll rephrase to make the
point crystal clear: if it weren't for the alarmists we most likely
would have been screwed.
Back to your argument. Sure, there is probably plenty of oil left for
our lifetime. But the reason there _will_ be alternatives to oil is
precisely because there _are_ alarmists among us. Not in spite of, but
because of. If no one bothered to raise the alarm then we would,
simply, just run out of oil one day. Then we'd be truly f*cked.
So thank David Suzuki and people like him. You may not agree with him,
but it is the threat of oil scarcity that is making alternatives
possible. If everyone shared your belief that there are hundreds of
years worth of oil left, who is going to see any value in developing
alternatives?
Dean
Brian Bosley
"Eric Gisin" <eric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8cbm...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Of course, being a troll, you cannot point out one error in my
> post. If fact,
> you had to snip it because it make you look so stupid.
>
>Fuel doesn't affect the price of manufactured goods. Container
>ship and rail
>both use 5L per 1000 ton-miles.
>
Am I reading this correctly?
Are you saying that a railway locomotive or container vessel can
shift 1000 tonnes of freight over one mile with 5 litres of fuel?
And that a 50% rise in the price of diesel does not affect the
delivered price of manufactured goods?
Just so I am clear on this.
Eric Gisin
news:zKoqe.230$Pj7....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> "Eric Gisin" <eric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d8cbm...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > Of course, being a troll, you cannot point out one error in my
> > post. If fact,
> > you had to snip it because it make you look so stupid.
>
> >ship and rail
> >both use 5L per 1000 ton-miles.
> >
> Am I reading this correctly?
> Are you saying that a railway locomotive or container vessel can
> shift 1000 tonnes of freight over one mile with 5 litres of fuel?
> And that a 50% rise in the price of diesel does not affect the
> delivered price of manufactured goods?
>
> Just so I am clear on this.
>
If the fuel costs 33$ today and rises to 50$, that is insigificant. A ton of
cheap TVs is worth 50*160$, or 8,000$. Even export wheat at 200$/ton, the
fuel is a few percent of cost. Only coal and other rocks is really affected
by fuel costs.
Dan Bloomquist
Dean wrote:
<and I'll leave your post in tact>
>
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>And the last paragraph. Like _we_ will wake up some morning and there is
>>no fossil fuel left. We have hundreds of years of fossil fuel left.
>>Well, I can see why Tim posted this. It is purely alarmist. It does not
>>reflect the reality that alternatives will be implemented over the next
>>50 years for transportation fuels. It really is a worthless waste of
>>bandwidth.
>
Yes, I know all about y2k, I'm a geek. It was because of forethought to
divert troubles that we didn't have a melt down. Money was spent
_before_ the trouble and there was no trouble.
Perhaps you would like to go back and read the posts I've been involved
with over the last month or so. I have been raising the banner that we
need to plan for peak oil. That forethought thing.
Maybe a portrayal like David Suzuki's is needed for those that can't
wrap there minds around the problem and the solution. But I'm sorry, I
won't be part of it. Those with simple minds will only run screaming,
'It is the end of the world!' Why feed into that?
We have the ability to get over 'peak oil'. And probably do it very well
if all are 'well informed' and panic is averted. The url in question
only spoke of demise, not solutions.
> Dean
Best, Dan.
Ian St. John
> Ian St. John wrote:
>> Eric Gisin wrote:
>>> David Suzuki is also known as a clueless idiot.
>>
>> David Suzuki is an accomplished scientists. The clueless idiots
>> would be you.
>>
>>> Once a scientist, he
>>> joined the enviro-leftie bandwagons of anti-science, anti-corporate,
>>> anti-nuke, anti-GMO, etc. More inline ...
>>
>> Unlike your post, Suzuki makes sense. Maybe you should read it.
>
> bleeding heart liberals
Sorry but you don't make the case for Dr. Suzuki to be a 'bleeding heart
liberal' so much as an educated man with concern for the environment and
future. Since you oppose this you presumably represent the 'permanently
ignorant' and irresponsible.
> always garner the support of the ignorant
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/General/drsuzukiCV.pdf
BIRTH DATE: March 24, 1936
BIRTH PLACE: Vancouver, B.C.
CITIZENSHIP: Canadian
EDUCATION
Postdoctoral
1961 Summer Fellow, National Institutes of Health Fellowship
Rocky Mountain Biological Lab - Crested Butte, Colorado USA
1961-1962 Research Associate, Biology Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory - Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA
Graduate
1961 Ph.D. Zoology
University of Chicago - Chicago, Ill., USA
Undergraduate
1958 BA Honours in Biology
Amherst College - Amherst, Mass., USA
High School
1954 Graduate London Central Collegiate Institute
London, Ontario, Canada
ACADEMIC CAREER
2001-current Professor Emeritus
University of British Columbia - Vancouver, BC, Canada
1993-2001 Professor, Associate, Sustainable Research Development Institute
University of British Columbia - Vancouver, BC, Canada
1969-1993 Professor, Department of Zoology
University of British Columbia - Vancouver, BC, Canada
1965-1969 Associate Professor, Department of Zoology
University of British Columbia - Vancouver, BC, Canada
1963-1965 Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology
University of British Columbia - Vancouver, BC, Canada
1962-1963 Assistant Professor, Department of Genetics
University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
1978-Fall Visiting Professor, Department of Zoology
University of Toronto - Toronto, Ontario, Canada
1977-Spring Visiting Professor, Molecular Biology
University of California - Berkeley, California, USA
1976-Spring Visiting Professor, Bacteriology & Immunology
University of California - Berkeley, California, USA
1972-Spring Honorary Professor, Department of Biology
University of Utah -Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
1972-Winter Visiting Professor, Department of Biology
University of Puerto Rico - Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
1971-Winter Honorary Professor, Department of Biology
University of Utah - Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
1969-Spring Visiting Professor, Department of Genetics
University of California - Berkeley, California, USA
1966-Summer Visiting Professor, Department of Zoology
University of California - Berkeley, California, USA
1959-1961 Teaching Assistant, Department of Zoology
University of Chicago IL. USA
1958-1959 Research Assistant for Dr. W.K. Baker
University of Chicago - Chicago, Ill., USA
1957-1958 Teaching Assistant, Department of Biology
Amherst College - Amherst, Mass., USA
1958-Summer Fish Biologist, Department of Lands & Forests
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
ACADEMIC HONOURS AND AWARDS
ACADEMIC
2000 - Lifetime Achievement Award University of British Columbia Alumni
1992 - Commemorative Medal 125th Anniversary of Canadian Confederation
1992 - MacLachlan Great Canadian Medal MacLachlan College & Preparatory
School
1990 - Wiegand Award for Canadian Excellence, University of Waterloo
1986 - Gold Medal Award Biological Council of Canada
1981 - Honorary Fellow Ryerson University
1981 - BC Science and Engineering Gold Medal Science Council of BC
1979 - Honorary Diploma Dawson College, Montreal, Quebec
1979 - Award of Distinction Northwest Institute of Ethics and the Life
Sciences
1978 - Honorary Guild Shield Conestoga College, Kitchener, Ontario
1974 - Honorary Life Membership for Teaching Achievements
University of British Columbia Alumni Association
HONOURARY DEGREES
2001 Hon. Doctor of Laws, Simon Fraser University, Canada
2000 Hon. Doctor of Environmental Science, Unity College, U.S.A.
1999 Hon. Doctor of Science, Whitman College, U.S.A.
1998 Hon. Doctor of Laws, Open University, Canada
1997 Hon. DSc, Griffith University, Australia
1988 Hon. DSc, Amherst College, U.S.A.
1987 Hon. DSc, Carleton University, Canada
1987 Hon. LLD, Queen's University, Canada
1987 Hon. DSc, McMaster University, Canada
1986 Hon. DSc, Lakehead University, Canada
1986 Hon. Doctor of Humane Letters, Governors State University, U.S.A.
1986 Hon. LLD, University of Calgary, Canada
1981 Hon. LLD, Trent University, Canada
1979 Hon. Dsc, Acadia University, Canada
1979 Hon. DSC, University of Windsor, Canada
1974 Hon. LLD, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
2003 - Fast Forward Award for Outstanding Contribution to Educational Media
First recipient Langara College, Vancouver BC
2002 - John Drainie Award for excellence in Broadcast Journalism, Banff
1997 - Gemini Award, Best Host, The Nature of Things Food or Famine
1996 - Honoree, Global Dreams A tribute hosted by David Foster and Dan
Aykroyd, House of Blues in Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA.
1995 - Parents Choice Award, Audio Award Amazing Journey,Children Sing to
the Beat of the Earth
1994 - San Francisco Exploratorium, Public Understanding of Science Award
1994 - Gemini Award, Best Host, The Nature of Things, Trading Futures
1992 - Genesis Award for Outstanding Cable Documentary, The Nature of Things
Animals in Research: Breaking the Habit
1992 - Gemini Award, Best Host, The Nature Connection, Tide Pools
1990 - Silver Medal, Council for Advancement of Education Best Audiovisual
Package, UBC Perspectives
1989 - Humanitarian Award, Canadian Health Food Association
1989 - Bronze Medal, Council for the Advancement of Education Best
Audiovisual Package, UBC Perspective
1989 - Award of Excellence, Banff Television Festival
1986 - Grand Award (Silver Medal), Canadian Council for Advancement of
Education Best Audiovisual Package, UBC Perspectives
1986 - Gold Award, Canadian Council for the Advancement of Education Award
Best Audiovisual Package, UBC Perspectives
1986 - Award, Best Television Script, A Planet for the Taking, Episode 6,
Improving on Nature
1986 - Member, Global 500 Roll of Honour, UN Environment Programme
1986 - Genesis Award, Fund for Animals, Los Angeles, Best Documentary
1986 - Gemini Award, Best Host of TV Series, The Nature of Things
1986 - Canadian Council for the Advancement of Education Award Best
Audiovisual Package, UBC Perspectives
1985 - World Environment Festival Award, CBC Science Unit, A Planet for the
Taking
1985 - Governor General's Award for Conservation, A Planet for the Taking
1985 - ACTRA Award, Best Host of TV Series, Futurescan
1983 - Japan Times Prize, The Nature of Things, Japan Shows
1983 - Japan Gold Prize, Best Foreign Film on Japan, The Nature of Things
1983 - Diploma of Honour, XXXVI Congress, Film Video Genetics, Paris, France
The Nature Things, To be or not to be
1983 - Bell Northern Award for The Nature of Things, Japan Shows
1983 - Asahi Evening News Prize, The Nature of Things, Japan Shows
1979 - Prix Anik Award for Best Documentary Film, Tankerbomb, Host and
Narrator
1979 - Bell-Northern Award for Science Communication in the electronic media
1977 - Bell Northern Science Communication in the electronic media
1976 - Bell Northern Award for Science Communication in the electronic media
1976 - BC CTRA Award for radio host of Quirks and Quarks
1976 - Award for the best documentary film The Hottest Show on Earth
1976 - Award as Broadcaster of the Year, Canadian Broadcasters League
PRINT MEDIA
2004 - Canadian Science Writers' Children's Book Salmon Forest
2000 - BC 2000 Book Award, You Are the Earth
1999 - TORGI Talking Book of the Year Award, The Sacred Balance The Canadian
National Institute for the Blind
1999 - Alberta Theatre Projects, Recipient Bob Edwards Award
1996 - Recipient, Science Book of the Year, Secret of Life
1990 - Author of the Year, Canadian Booksellers Association
1988 - Authors Award, 2nd Prize, Foundation for the Advancement of Canadian
Letters Paperback book, nonfiction, David Suzuki Talks about AIDS
1988 - Recipient, Children's Literature Roundtables of Canada Award Looking
at Insects
1985 - Quill Award, National Communication Award (Press)
1975 - Canadian Human Rights Foundation Award for Publication
PROFESSIONAL AWARDS
2004 - Lindbergh Award
2004 - Canadian Society for Training and Development President's Award
2002 - International Scientist of the Year International Biographical Centre
of Cambridge, England
2002 - Recipient, Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal
1999 - Recipient, 1999 Freedom Award International Freedom Festival, Canada
1999 - Member, Global 500 Roll of Honour, UN Environment Programme
1999 - Recipient, Green Cross Millennium Award for Individual Environmental
Leadership U.S.A.
1995 - Recipient, Order of British Columbia
1995 - Recipient, Spirit of Leadership Award BC Government and Service
Employees' Union (BCGEU)
1988 - Recipient, Environmental Achievement Award Environment Canada
1986 - Recipient, Royal Bank Award
1986 - Recipient, UNESCO Kalinga Prize
1985 - United Nations Environment Program Medal
1984 - Medal of Honour, Canadian Medical Association
1981 - Sanford Fleming Medal, Royal Canadian Institute
1980 - 1983 Elected Secretary, Genetics Society of America
1980 Elected Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
1978 - 1984 Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada
1976 - Officer, Order of Canada
1972 - Outstanding Japanese-Canadian of the Year Award
1969 - 1972 E.W.R. Steacie Memorial Fellowship for the Outstanding
Research Scientist in Canada under the age of 35
1969 - 1970 President, Canadian Society of Cell Biology
FIRST NATIONS HONOURS
NUU CHAH NULTH, British Columbia Nuchi (Big Mountain)
KWAGIULTH British Columbia Nan Wa Kawi (Man Who Knows Much)
HAIDA British Columbia Gyaagan (My Own) Adopted by Ada Yovanovitch Eagle)
BLOOD Alberta Nattoo Istuk (Sacred Mountain)
KAURNA Australia Karnumeya (Mountain Man)
CREE Alberta Kehiwawasis (Eagle Child) Honorary Chief
HEILTSUK British Columbia Adopted by Chief George Housti family
CIVIL RIGHTS
1999 Cranes: National Tribute to Japanese-Canadian Life, Honorary Chair
1996 The Body Shop's Social Interventions, Advisory Board Member
1995 John Humphrey Freedom Award - International Centre for Human Rights
and Democratic Development, Patron
1995 Owl Communications/Honorary Owl" Campaign, Honorary Owl
1994 International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development,
Patron
1994 Multicultural Alliance to Promote Literacy Education (MAPLE), Patron
1983 - 1991 Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Member, Board of
Directors 1989 Committee Against Racism, Honorary Member
1986 Amnesty International (Canadian Section) Council Member
1984 World Federalists of Canada, Advisory Board
1979 - 1982 Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Vice-President 1979
Hiroshima-Nagasaki Revisited, Patron
1977 - 1978 Canadian Civil Liberties Union, Director
1975 Canadian Human Rights Foundation, Award for Publication
1973 BC Civil Liberties Union, Honorary Director
1972 Outstanding Japanese-Canadian of the Year Aw
Seems like he gets most of his 'support' from the educated.
> (clueless idiots*) to justify their dilemma and hysteria. The
> unlearned opinion of the masses is the easiest to get as Suzuki has
> demostrated. * that would be you.
Obviously, you are claiming for others what you prove for yourself. P.S. you
don't need to take EVERY opportunity to demonstrate you ignorance and fear
of science.
Pace Sanders
Ian St. John wrote:
> drone one wrote:
> > Ian St. John wrote:
> >> Eric Gisin wrote:
> >>> David Suzuki is also known as a clueless idiot.
> >>
> >> David Suzuki is an accomplished scientists. The clueless idiots
> >> would be you.
It would indeed appear Suzuki would have something of substance to
contribute to the discussion at hand. Thanks Ian for his "vitae" and
Tim for the original post.
Dan Bloomquist
Pace Sanders wrote:
>
> It would indeed appear Suzuki would have something of substance to
> contribute to the discussion at hand...
What in that post did you find as substance? I really want to know.
Best, Dan.
Ian St. John
If you have to ask, yet are still capable of making a post, then the vacuum
in your skull must be sucking up any 'subtance' with no ill effects.
>
> Best, Dan.
Tim K.
> David Suzuki is also known as a clueless idiot. Once a scientist, he
> joined
> the enviro-leftie bandwagons of anti-science, anti-corporate, anti-nuke,
> anti-GMO, etc. More inline ...
Shouldn't you be using webtv?
Tim K.
Your grasp of economics is lacking, junior.
Jim
Haaaaaa!...good one TK...
Dan Bloomquist
Ian St. John wrote:
Gee Ian,
If your sockpuppet can't answer the question, how about you?
Best, Dan.
Pace Sanders
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> Gee Ian,
> If your sockpuppet can't answer the question, how about you?
>
> Best, Dan.
For all your "calcu-asterbating" we will see what substance your ideas
ultimately possess.
Dan Bloomquist
Pace Sanders wrote:
>
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
>>Gee Ian,
>>If your sockpuppet can't answer the question, how about you?
>>
> For all your "calcu-asterbating" we will see what substance your ideas
> ultimately possess.
Golly Pace,
Why don't you answer the question? Oh, you snipped it. How convenient.
Best, Dan.
Joe Zorzin
"Tim Campbell" <tim...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1118352959.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Published on 21 Apr 2005 by The Japan Times. Archived on 23 Apr 2005.
>
> David Suzuki on Peak Oil
> by Stephen Hesse
>
> In a long interview, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki spoke about
> Peak Oil:
>
> Question: .. what is the critical tipping point?
>
> David Suzuki: Well, that's what you hope, that there is a tipping
> point. But the reality is that this huge juggernaut of a globalized
> economy and transnational corporations is hugely powerful -- it's just
> got so much momentum that it's going to be very, very hard to begin to
> deflect it.
>
> To me, a hope is that we are going to hit peak oil [when oil resources
> begin to decline] -- and some geologists say we already hit it last
> year. The business community is now starting to take this very
> seriously.
>
> The first thing to happen would be the big-box stores, like Home Depot
> and Walmart, collapsing because they are dependent on cheap oil to ship
> cheap goods.
With the help of extremely expensive American military- if the oil companies
had to pay for that "protection"- oil would be a lot less competitive
compared to renewable resources.
Dave Simpson
Drone One wrote:
> > Unlike your post, Suzuki makes sense. Maybe you should read it.
>
> bleeding heart liberals always garner the support of the ignorant
> (clueless idiots*) to justify their dilemma and hysteria. The unlearned
> opinion of the masses is the easiest to get as Suzuki has demostrated.
> * that would be you.
Everything that you wrote was correct.
Suzuki discredited himself immediately and made himself a play-pen
leftist with the first thing he stated in the exerpt: That we hope (no,
only losers such as he) that there is a tipping point to oil supply.
He then goes on to engage in additional left-wing stupidity (which only
the clueless idiots you have correctly identified, in this instance,
and other losers support) with his whining about trans-national
corporations and globalism, and then he even descends further with his
typical leftist-loser demonizing of big-box stores, and so on. All
there before everyone, and only worthless people accept it and worse,
defend it.
Dave Simpson
education to China, though even there a realistic global-level value of
his play-pen nonsense would be near if not at zero.
Perhaps Suzuki should be relocated near a coal-burning facility in
China and the equivalent of him in the West -- falling-apart old
state-run industry.
Dave Simpson
"cost" argument always has been overblown when it comes merely to oil
and transportation; in fact, petroleum has many other uses as well.
(It's the consumption of oil for transport instead of the use of this
substance for the other uses, which go "up in smoke," that is
lamentable in the larger picture. The replacement of alternatives for
oil is not feasible at this time. And don't bother hanging yourself by
insisting we must accept less mobility and less performance from
vehicles.)
Jim
Joe Zorzin wrote:
> With the help of extremely expensive American military- if the oil companies
> had to pay for that "protection"- oil would be a lot less competitive
> compared to renewable resources.
Excellent observation Joe...
Jim
drone one
> and Walmart, collapsing because they are dependent on cheap oil to ship
> homes with two or three people in them, and the heating and cooling
>But the big thing is food. In Canada, food travels an average of 5,000
>miles (8,000 km) from where it's grown to where it's eaten. This can't
>go on.
Mr.Suzuki is irresponsible, his hysteria and dilemma is culpable and
done for personnal gain. Your perception of " science "has nothing to
do with it.
Eric Gisin
news:1118530151.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I see Ian or the other enviro-trolls cannot respond to ANY of my criticisms
in my original post.
Eric Gisin
stupid.
"Tim K." <tim...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:w4Nqe.78211$VH2....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Roy Boy
I have read through these posts including yours with amazment. Most
show no appreciation for the issue of global oil production, peak or
otherwise.
Of immediate interest to our country is the question of when will the
North American Continent's oil production peak? Do you know the answer
to this question?
What is the quality of the oil now pumped worldwide compared to the new
oil originally pumped worldwide and if it is lower or higher, please
explain why. If oil quality has decrease overall, what are the
implications of decreased crude oil quality when looking at natural gas
end uses?
When do you, who must be real smart if Dr. Suzuki is a discredited
play-pen lefttist by comparison, (if I have read your post correctly),
think that global oil production will peak and why?
Most of what I have read is the trashing of those concerned with oil
supply; a classic beat-up-the-messenger kind of thing.
Finally, of all the oil producing countries in the world (producing
more than 500 million barrels of oil per year), how many producers have
already experienced peak production compared to how many countiries
have not?
If there are relativly few countries that are not yet at their peak oil
production, what are the implications for impact on oil prices, and can
oil still be considered a "fungible" commodoty?
With my best wishes and hopes for a useful knowlege gain,
Roy Boy
Eric Swanson
>
>Dear Mr. Simpson:
>
>I have read through these posts including yours with amazment. Most
>show no appreciation for the issue of global oil production, peak or
>otherwise.
>
>Of immediate interest to our country is the question of when will the
>North American Continent's oil production peak? Do you know the answer
>to this question?
US lower 48 oil production peaked in 1970. The Prudhoe Bay production
in Alaska has peaked and now produces less than half the peak rate.
US natural gas production peaked as well and is declining steadly.
>What is the quality of the oil now pumped worldwide compared to the new
>oil originally pumped worldwide and if it is lower or higher, please
>explain why. If oil quality has decrease overall, what are the
>implications of decreased crude oil quality when looking at natural gas
>end uses?
World wide oil discoveries peaked about 1964. Production in several
nations has already peaked. The big issue is global peak, which is
distorted by the lack of accurate reserve data from many nations,
especially Saudi Arabia.
>When do you, who must be real smart if Dr. Suzuki is a discredited
>play-pen lefttist by comparison, (if I have read your post correctly),
>think that global oil production will peak and why?
>
>Most of what I have read is the trashing of those concerned with oil
>supply; a classic beat-up-the-messenger kind of thing.
>
>Finally, of all the oil producing countries in the world (producing
>more than 500 million barrels of oil per year), how many producers have
>already experienced peak production compared to how many countiries
>have not?
North Sea production may have peaked, but it is too soon to say, because
one can't know until after the peak is passed. Indonesia may have peaked,
as they didn't meet their OPEC quotas.
>If there are relativly few countries that are not yet at their peak oil
>production, what are the implications for impact on oil prices, and can
>oil still be considered a "fungible" commodoty?
>
>With my best wishes and hopes for a useful knowlege gain,
There are several books available on the subject of Peak Oil.
Ken Deffeyes and Colin Campbell are geologists who have written.
Mathew Simmons has a new book too, which I have ordered from Amazon.
Or, visit:
http://www.dieoff.com/
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
drone one
>production, what are the implications for impact on oil prices, and can
>oil still be considered a "fungible" commodoty?
bottom line: the economy _had to _survive. period.!
fungible commodity? you tell me!
Ian St. John
Exactly how many science awards and degrees do you have that you consider
Davids record so meaningless? I suspect that you have nothing.
Ian St. John
> "Pace Sanders" <paces...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118530151.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> Ian St. John wrote:
>>> drone one wrote:
>>>> Ian St. John wrote:
>>>>> Eric Gisin wrote:
>>>>>> David Suzuki is also known as a clueless idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Suzuki is an accomplished scientists. The clueless idiots
>>>>> would be you.
>>
>>
>> It would indeed appear Suzuki would have something of substance to
>> contribute to the discussion at hand. Thanks Ian for his "vitae" and
>> Tim for the original post.
>>
> Suzuki is still a idiot. There is absolutely NO science in the
> original post.
His point was not on science so much as policy planning.
>
> I see Ian or the other enviro-trolls cannot respond to ANY of my
> criticisms in my original post.
I failed to find anything in your post worth debate. Nuff said.
Ian St. John
> Another idiot troll. Fucking greens should be shot for making the
> world so stupid.
Sure Sure. Eric. Everyone is an idiot troll but you. Must be nice having
such delusions.
Lloyd Parker
"Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Drone One wrote:
>
>> > Unlike your post, Suzuki makes sense. Maybe you should read it.
>>
>> bleeding heart liberals always garner the support of the ignorant
>> (clueless idiots*) to justify their dilemma and hysteria. The unlearned
>> opinion of the masses is the easiest to get as Suzuki has demostrated.
>> * that would be you.
>
> Everything that you wrote was correct.
>
> Suzuki discredited himself immediately and made himself a play-pen
>leftist with the first thing he stated in the exerpt: That we hope (no,
>only losers such as he) that there is a tipping point to oil supply.
>He then goes on to engage in additional left-wing stupidity (which only
>the clueless idiots you have correctly identified, in this instance,
>and other losers support) with his whining about trans-national
>corporations and globalism,
Yes, those kind-hearted multinationals, who put altruism and charity over
profits.
>and then he even descends further with his
>typical leftist-loser demonizing of big-box stores, and so on. All
>there before everyone, and only worthless people accept it and worse,
>defend it.
>
Because neighbors turn out in masses to support Wal-Mart supercenters being
built in their neighborhoods?
Dan Bloomquist
Roy Boy wrote:
> Dear Mr. Simpson:
>
> I have read through these posts including yours with amazment. Most
> show no appreciation for the issue of global oil production, peak or
> otherwise.
Nor does this:
http://www.energybulletin.net/5567.html
Now the context:
The first thing to happen would be the big-box stores, like Home Depot
and Walmart, collapsing because they are dependent on cheap oil to ship
cheap goods. Also, in the suburbs of Canada we have these gigantic homes
with two or three people in them, and the heating and cooling bills are
enormous, and they depend on cars.
But the big thing is food. In Canada, food travels an average of 5,000
miles (8,000 km) from where it's grown to where it's eaten. This can't
go on.
The impact of [fossil fuel depletion] is going to create enormous
suffering, no doubt about it.
---
I've asked the others, now I'll ask you. What is so enlightening about
the above? Do you find it an accurate prediction of our future? If so, how?
> Roy Boy
Best, Dan
Roy Boy
Thank you very much for your informed information. Still being new to
newsgroup posting, I hope I did not by accident address my post to you
instead of Mr. Simpson, who I though I was directing my reply post to.
If I did, my apologies. If I did not, and you stepped up to answer
these questions, my thanks.
Your reply post is among the most level-head and least cranky of any
concerning the subject of oil peak and its implications. And it
actually contains answers without gratuitous insults.
I have found that passionate believers tend to get a bit worked up over
a subject that threatens their world view.
Again, your response is most refreshing.
With respect,
Roy Boy
Roy Boy
drone one wrote the following reply to my question below:
> >If there are relativly few countries that are not yet at their peak oil
> >production, what are the implications for impact on oil prices, and can
> >oil still be considered a "fungible" commodoty?
>[D1 replies]
> consider this ; in the eighties interest rates peaked at 24%
> bottom line: the economy _had to _survive. period.!
> fungible commodity? you tell me!
Dear drone one:
Recorded and archeological history is littered with examples of
societies whose economies_did_not_survive. Period.
So the answer to your question is that a critical non-renewable
resource which has become scarce in relation to its demand is not
fungible.
If you find this difficult to accept, I am sure there were many Easter
Islander's who felt likewise when the last tree on their island was
felled.
with respect
Roy Boy
Dave Simpson
Roy Boy wrote:
> I have read through these posts including yours with amazment. Most
> show no appreciation for the issue of global oil production, peak or
> otherwise.
>
> Of immediate interest to our country is the question of when will the
> North American Continent's oil production peak? Do you know the answer
> to this question?
It peaked already. What remains in North America are sites that are
more costly to develop, less accessible physically or due to political
lockup.
I need not go into details, so if you were playing games with all
your questions, you can cease now.
> When do you, who must be real smart if Dr. Suzuki is a discredited
> play-pen lefttist by comparison, (if I have read your post correctly),
> think that global oil production will peak and why?
Suzuki's intelligence is not the issue; his politics are typical
left-wing childish nonsense. Read his remarks yourself.
> Most of what I have read is the trashing of those concerned with oil
> supply; a classic beat-up-the-messenger kind of thing.
He is not concerned about the supply; in fact he (and he wrongly
claims to speak for us all) wants there to be a "tipping point" and
hopes we have passed it already. (He then goes on to make an idiot of
himself with the usual loser bashing of corporations, big box stores,
and so on).
Dave Simpson
If you want to know more about petroleum, the petroleum industry (with
names such as Earle Halliburton -- yes, that company that is in the
news since the recent Iraq war), and depletion, the following may be of
use to you:
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7121.html
http://www.fsgbooks.com/beyond_oil.htm
I have the first book; I have not yet had the chance to read the
second. His first book was fascinating and I'm planning to read the
second, rather than to have settled earlier for books on the same
subject (there are at least two) by other authors.
Politically here in the USA, all the oil bashers on the Left will
again, as they have before, be the first to complain once oil prices
rise, and demand their government do something about the higher prices,
before somehow magically inventing cheaper, practical alternatives.
If you are aware of trends other than in transport, you will notice
that many new power plants are going to be needed in the USA, and the
trend currently in order to avoid air pollution (or comply with
political faddism in the case of "greenhouse gases") is to reject coal
in favor of natural gas. Yes, natural gas is going to be in greater,
not less, demand in future years. (This is why many participate in
natural gas liquefaction.) Nuclear power is rejected by many Americans
(out of ignorance and emotion and superstition, mainly), hydropower is
not sought or is opposed and can't be had everywhere, and the
alternatives beloved by many, solar power and wind power, are not
feasible everywhere all the time, either. (And where they are
feasible, sometimes they are -- predictably -- opposed by the same
crowd who opposes conventional power production.)
What we'll see in the years to come are higher oil prices as the
commodity becomes more scarce (the higher price making it more feasible
to exploit the more expensive remaining reserves we have here in the
USA) and geopolitically and hopefully not militarily, an even bigger
scramble to exploit the Caspian. Conversion is infeasible for many
uses of oil now and in future decades; conservation by itself never has
been and won't be a solution, though it will be increased naturally as
prices rise.
Cyril
>
>Of immediate interest to our country is the question of when will the
>North American Continent's oil production peak? Do you know the answer
>to this question?
USA preaked in 1971.
Two new exploration-production cycles (Alaska; and Deepwater gom)
followed, but could only slow down the decline - and alaska itself
peaked in 1989.
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/energy/production.gif
in this graph the green curve does not separate shallow and deep
offshore. But deep offshore stated less that 15 years ago. Shallow
offshore is in decline, and deepwater explaines the post-1990 rise in
offshore production.
total crude oil production is down by some 45% compared to 1971
despite the two new major provinces.
us crude oil production can be accuralely medelled with three hubbert
curves : one for lower 48 states (inclunding shallow offshore), one
for alaska, and one for deepwater. Only the last one is still on the
rise.
Canada peaked in 1974 for conventionnal oil, excluding oil sands.
Mexico will very likely peak before 2010, since its main fields,
cantarell, has just started a steep decline. 60% of mexico crude oil
production comes from this field.
Peak oil is not a thery, but a self evedent fact. At least 50
countries has peaked, only a handfull of the smaller of them could
find new reverses big enough for a second, higher peak.
Austria -1954.
Germany -1966.
Bahreim -1968.
Ukrain -1970
Albania -1975.
Romania -1976.
Brunei - 1978
Peru -1980.
Trinidad -1981.
Chile, -1986
Benin -1986
Cameroon -1986.
Russia -1988
France -1989.
Dubai -1991
Syria -1995
Indonesia -1996.
Egypt -1997.
Oman -1997.
Argentina -1998
Colombia -1999.
UK -1999
Norway -2001
Oman -2001
(only including peaks from natural depletion, not those that were
politically decided in opec countries)
--
"We do not consider that aeroplanes will be of any possible use for war purposes"
Richard Haldane, ministre à la guerre brittanique, 1910
Dan Bloomquist
Dave Simpson wrote:
>
> If you are aware of trends other than in transport, you will notice
> that many new power plants are going to be needed in the USA, and the
> trend currently in order to avoid air pollution (or comply with
> political faddism in the case of "greenhouse gases") is to reject coal
> in favor of natural gas. Yes, natural gas is going to be in greater,
> not less, demand in future years. (This is why many participate in
> natural gas liquefaction.)
Hi Dave,
It seems that bubble has burst. We may or may not get a few more years
of extending the peak in North American natural gas by exploiting the
Rockies.
As far as LNG, it doesn't fix anything for at least two or three decades
if ever. Present imports run one percent of demand. Throwing everything
we have at it and it may amount to two percent of present demand in ten
years.
It is likely that production will decline much faster than the increase
in LNG imports. This is an example of not planning.
Best, Dan.
drone one
suspect it means something to you as "David" led you down the garden
path.
Your perception of science is a little flawed.
Roy Boy
Wow. You put a lot of good work into this post.
Norway and UK peaks are especially of interest. I know that both
countries went all out in ramping up production from my talks with
family overseas. It is amazing that North Sea oil is at or near or
beyond peak in such a short span of time.
One implication in this oil peak is that much new drilling technology
was used at the very beginning of the production cycle, with best
available technology used as soon as possible due to the considerable
expense of deep water rigs. So the North Sea production-upward curve
is steep and begs the question of the shape of the declining curve in
this region of production.
The North Sea peak suggests that our advanced production techniques may
be slowing the decline in the countries you mention above.
If so, then we may expect to see the classic bell curve modified after
peak where a point comes because technology advances in production have
exhuasted remaining reserves much faster than would otherwise be the
case.
This would result in a change from shallow decline to steep decline as
all the tech tricks can no longer produce what no longer remains.
So,for a while, it appears that we can now pump better and faster to
prop up declining production in non-OPEC countries.
Thank you for such a fine post; I learned from it.
With respect,
Roy Boy
Dave Simpson
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> It seems that bubble has burst. We may or may not get a few more years
> of extending the peak in North American natural gas by exploiting the
> Rockies.
There is also oil that is sought.
In addition to the Rockies there is exploitation of the deeper parts
of the Gulf of Mexico, and more of the Arctic Slope.
Other than that, here, well...
> As far as LNG, it doesn't fix anything for at least two or three decades
> if ever. Present imports run one percent of demand. Throwing everything
> we have at it and it may amount to two percent of present demand in ten
> years.
>
> It is likely that production will decline much faster than the increase
> in LNG imports. This is an example of not planning.
Hopefully you mean, by "planning," looking ahead, rather than social
engineering!
We can't predict everything.
I give LNG more credit than you do, both in achieving more and in
being more propitious. New power plants are largely natural gas-fired.
We need to import a lot more natural gas. There is plenty in the
world; the problem is getting it here. At least, until the lame-brains
can be made to get real about nuclear power. (And even then, people
may still reject it as too costly up front.)
We are expecting to increase our imports of oil, particularly for
transportation. (If only we had reasonable alternatives for
transportation!)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_82.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_85.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_93.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_94.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_95.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_98.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_99.html
"Most new electricity generation capacity is expected to be fueled by
natural gas, because natural-gas-fired generators are projected to have
advantages over coal-fired generators that include lower capital costs,
higher fuel efficiency, shorter construction lead times, and lower
emissions. Toward the end of the forecast, however, when natural gas
prices rise substantially, coal-fired power plants are expected to be
competitive for new capacity additions."
"Dependence on petroleum imports is projected to reach 68 percent in
2025 in the reference case. The corresponding import shares of total
consumption in 2025 are expected to be 63 percent in the high A oil
price case and 72 percent in the low oil price case."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html
All this, of course, is in the face of long-term decline (gas may
increase first, but not later) and hugely increasing demand outside the
USA (particularly China, but not only China).
Consider this another reason to see the 2020s and 2030s as ugly
years.
Between now and then should prove interesting (ugh; conflict).
drone one
You're comparing the profit margins of the oil companies to the
(presumed) demise of Easter Islander's culture?
I'll bet the alarmist before the industrial revolution thought their
donkeys could not be replaced.
srpr...@gmail.com
Why argue against it? Provide for it in case it's true, because a good
many credible sources believe it to be true.
Bruce Sinclair
round :)
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
Roy Boy
Please show me where I wrote those words you assign to me in the above
statement.
The point that I thought I wrote clearly is that a non-renewable
resource whose demand outstrips supply is not a fungible resource.
from Webster's: fungible - exchangeable or replaceable for another of
like kind -
When a non-renewable resource is all gone, and there is nothing else
like it, then it is not a fungible commodity. Like Easter Island's
non-fungible trees that were all chopped down, like non-fungible oil
that is extracted from a finite store, not produced.
Roy Boy
P.S. There are no Giant-Head builders left on Easter Island. Are you
aware of any cultural renaissance that has taken place on Easter Island
or do you think the majority of the island's population just up and
left one fine sunny afternoon? (Without trees to make boats with.)
drone one
At this point, it's more than obvious that peak oil is a possibility.
Why argue against it? Provide for it in case it's true, because a good
many credible sources believe it to be true.
compounding inefficient support structure, on it's way out . no,
really.We're all going to die. specially us Canadians with freezers
full of elk, deer, moose and beef, a back yard full of vegetables,
peaches nectarines cherries apples plums pears apricots and produce a
mere 500 miles away, wheat barley oats we can't even give away, biomass
by the billion daily tonnage for our fuel needs. Oh wait I probably
don't have an award or science degree so that can't be true. I'll have
to go to wallmart and buy at superficially high prices because some
JACK ASS said it would be so..ya! and keep my job so I can supply the
system with 75% MORE ENERGY THAN I USE!!!! WHAT DO YA THINK!!!
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGG
DRONE ONE.
drone one
societies whose economies_did_not_survive. Period.
So the answer to your question is that a critical non-renewable
resource which has become scarce in relation to its demand is not
fungible.
.
oil can be produced Roy Boy, it a profit margin issue for oil companies
If you run out of oil come see me...
fungible what do you think!
P.S. There are no Giant-Head builders left on Easter Island. Are you
aware of any cultural renaissance that has taken place on Easter Island
or do you think the majority of the island's population just up and
left one fine sunny afternoon? (Without trees to make boats with.)
Show me the bones
drone one
societies whose economies_did_not_survive. Period.
So the answer to your question is that a critical non-renewable
resource which has become scarce in relation to its demand is not
fungible.
.
oil can be produced Roy Boy, it a profit margin issue for oil companies
If you run out of oil come see me...
fungible what do you think!
P.S. There are no Giant-Head builders left on Easter Island. Are you
aware of any cultural renaissance that has taken place on Easter Island
or do you think the majority of the island's population just up and
left one fine sunny afternoon? (Without trees to make boats with.)
Show me the bones
drone one
societies whose economies_did_not_survive. Period.
So the answer to your question is that a critical non-renewable
resource which has become scarce in relation to its demand is not
fungible.
.
oil can be produced Roy Boy, it a profit margin issue for oil companies
If you run out of oil come see me...
fungible what do you think!
P.S. There are no Giant-Head builders left on Easter Island. Are you
aware of any cultural renaissance that has taken place on Easter Island
or do you think the majority of the island's population just up and
left one fine sunny afternoon? (Without trees to make boats with.)
Show me the bones
Roy Boy
in alt.org.sierra-club,sci.energy,sci.environment,alt.politics.greens
RB responds by saying that the above piece of writing is, in my
opinion, first class, well written, well organized, and well thought
through.
I have read the first book you mention, but not the second. Sobering
stuff.
I agree with your post completely, except that I see renewable energy
as a better long-term solution for oil depletion than any of the other
options mentioned.
So, I share your concern, I cannot see any way for oil prices to
decrease, except for relatively short-term dips, and I am concerned
that average Americans will see an energy bill they must pay, that they
cannot pay, with an economy which is built on the back of our logistics
networks, especially cars and trucks.
The logical price oil must eventually reach is that price which is
required to pay for its production from scratch, like the Germans had
to do in WWII, turning coal into aviation gas. This option currently
looks to cost about $100/barrel as a first cut, and of course requires
a massive thermal energy source, either solar or nuclear or both.
Making natural gas from coal and water and thermal energy has the
advantage of mitigating solar's biggest hurdle, which is its
intermittency, and subsequent need for storage.
However, our natural gas system already has a lot of storage built into
it and much more can be added using known methods and technology. This
linkage between solar and natural gas is seriously under-appreciated as
a way to store solar energy.
Since we have a lot of coal, and we also have an impending natural gas
shortage that will be very real very soon, the production of natural
gas using domestic coal seems to me to have a place at the table for
all the currently warring groups; the classic fossil and nuclear
constituencies as well as the renewable community.
While there are still greenhouse gas emissions produced by this
strategy, natural gas is the cleanest fuel we can use, and there may
yet be ways to extract CO2 from the atmosphere in amounts that
eventually get us to a closed carbon cycle.
Put all this together in a real national energy bill with teeth, money,
balance, and commitment. Then all passionate energy groups work
together on a sensible solution that embraces our entire current energy
infrastructure without throwing all that capital out the window.
All constituencies win much and lose little. That is the best way to
compromise and proceed in such a manner that secures the future of our
country and the future of our children's children.
Unfortunately, I do not see any US government action that has any real
teeth in it to address our energy situation, except perhaps the Iraqi
war, which is expensive and has no viable end-game for us that is not
years away.
At least we have a seat at OPEC (right behind the Iraqi Oil
Minister's chair).
With respect,
Roy Boy
Eric Swanson
>
>
>Dave Simpson wrote:
>> RB,
>>
>> If you want to know more about petroleum, the petroleum industry (with
>> names such as Earle Halliburton -- yes, that company that is in the
>> news since the recent Iraq war), and depletion, the following may be of
>> use to you:
>>
>>
>> http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7121.html
>>
>>
>> http://www.fsgbooks.com/beyond_oil.htm
>>
>>
>> I have the first book; I have not yet had the chance to read the
>> second. His first book was fascinating and I'm planning to read the
>> second, rather than to have settled earlier for books on the same
>> subject (there are at least two) by other authors.
There was an earlier book called "Beyond Oil", published in 1986.
It was ignored by the Republicans in the White House at the time.
>> Politically here in the USA, all the oil bashers on the Left will
>> again, as they have before, be the first to complain once oil prices
>> rise, and demand their government do something about the higher prices,
>> before somehow magically inventing cheaper, practical alternatives.
>>
>> If you are aware of trends other than in transport, you will notice
>> that many new power plants are going to be needed in the USA, and the
>> trend currently in order to avoid air pollution (or comply with
>> political faddism in the case of "greenhouse gases") is to reject coal
>> in favor of natural gas. Yes, natural gas is going to be in greater,
>> not less, demand in future years. (This is why many participate in
>> natural gas liquefaction.) Nuclear power is rejected by many Americans
>> (out of ignorance and emotion and superstition, mainly), hydropower is
>> not sought or is opposed and can't be had everywhere, and the
>> alternatives beloved by many, solar power and wind power, are not
>> feasible everywhere all the time, either. (And where they are
>> feasible, sometimes they are -- predictably -- opposed by the same
>> crowd who opposes conventional power production.)
Dave assumes demand for electricity will remain high and continue to grow.
Back in the 1970's, the electricity consumption was increasing at about
7% a year, for a doubling time of 10 years, MOL. When the price of oil
went up, so did the price of electricity and people began to conserve.
The extreme result was seen in the Washington Public Power Co., which
began building several nuclear plants. Those were canceled and the debt
load from the money already spent sank the utility.
>> What we'll see in the years to come are higher oil prices as the
>> commodity becomes more scarce (the higher price making it more feasible
>> to exploit the more expensive remaining reserves we have here in the
>> USA) and geopolitically and hopefully not militarily, an even bigger
>> scramble to exploit the Caspian. Conversion is infeasible for many
>> uses of oil now and in future decades; conservation by itself never has
>> been and won't be a solution, though it will be increased naturally as
>> prices rise.
>
>RB responds by saying that the above piece of writing is, in my
>opinion, first class, well written, well organized, and well thought
>through.
>
>I have read the first book you mention, but not the second. Sobering
>stuff.
>
>I agree with your post completely, except that I see renewable energy
>as a better long-term solution for oil depletion than any of the other
>options mentioned.
I agree, except that there is the problem of EROEI, in that it takes
energy to make energy. Several of the renewable energy choices have
small (or even negative) EROEI, and they don't actually produce any
net energy for some time while they are being constructed. A massive
campaign to switch to renewables, or other energy sources for that matter,
would require a major shift in the flow of energy thru the economy.
As peak production in oil happens, this effect would mean the shortage
to the consumer would be even greater, as there would be even less oil
available to the man on the street.
>So, I share your concern, I cannot see any way for oil prices to
>decrease, except for relatively short-term dips, and I am concerned
>that average Americans will see an energy bill they must pay, that they
>cannot pay, with an economy which is built on the back of our logistics
>networks, especially cars and trucks.
>
>The logical price oil must eventually reach is that price which is
>required to pay for its production from scratch, like the Germans had
>to do in WWII, turning coal into aviation gas. This option currently
>looks to cost about $100/barrel as a first cut, and of course requires
>a massive thermal energy source, either solar or nuclear or both.
The problem of climate change becomes much worse if coal becomes the
next primary energy source as the oil peters out.
>Making natural gas from coal and water and thermal energy has the
>advantage of mitigating solar's biggest hurdle, which is its
>intermittency, and subsequent need for storage.
>
>However, our natural gas system already has a lot of storage built into
>it and much more can be added using known methods and technology. This
>linkage between solar and natural gas is seriously under-appreciated as
>a way to store solar energy.
>
>Since we have a lot of coal, and we also have an impending natural gas
>shortage that will be very real very soon, the production of natural
>gas using domestic coal seems to me to have a place at the table for
>all the currently warring groups; the classic fossil and nuclear
>constituencies as well as the renewable community.
>
>While there are still greenhouse gas emissions produced by this
>strategy, natural gas is the cleanest fuel we can use, and there may
>yet be ways to extract CO2 from the atmosphere in amounts that
>eventually get us to a closed carbon cycle.
It's true that methane is a very clean fuel at the point of use. Your
coal option is not the only way to produce methane, however. Methane
generators using sewage or feed lot waste would be one source that has
been around for decades. We have large problems with feed lot waste now,
so it makes sense to make use of this waste to produce methane and get
rid of the water pollution problem at the same time.
I know, that's too logical.
>Put all this together in a real national energy bill with teeth, money,
>balance, and commitment. Then all passionate energy groups work
>together on a sensible solution that embraces our entire current energy
>infrastructure without throwing all that capital out the window.
Sounds great. Sorry to say, it hasn't worked yet and the current political
ideal of a free market won't let it happen as long as the energy monopolies
run things.
>All constituencies win much and lose little. That is the best way to
>compromise and proceed in such a manner that secures the future of our
>country and the future of our children's children.
Having started working in the Solar/renewable field more than 30 years ago,
I feel I've already given at the bank. As in bankrupt.
>Unfortunately, I do not see any US government action that has any real
>teeth in it to address our energy situation, except perhaps the Iraqi
>war, which is expensive and has no viable end-game for us that is not
>years away.
Our politicians and corporate people decided 30 years ago to drain Saudi
Arabia first, instead of telling the American People that their lifestyle
was unsustainable. OK, we're about done draining the Saudi oil patch,
according to some analysts. Again, the politicians, etc, can't tell the
American People that their lifestyles are unsustainable. Infact, the
economists continue to speak of "sustainable growth", which is also
ultimately impossible. What to do? It is abundently clear that the
new policy is Drain Iraq First. Hope it works...
Ian St. John
> Ian St. John wrote :
>> you have that you consider Davids record so meaningless?
>> I suspect that you have nothing.
>
Nuff said. You are just jealous of his real accomplishments like any other
clueless drone...
Tian
>
>
>>Unfortunately, I do not see any US government action that has any real
>>teeth in it to address our energy situation, except perhaps the Iraqi
>>war, which is expensive and has no viable end-game for us that is not
>>years away.
>
>
> Our politicians and corporate people decided 30 years ago to drain Saudi
> Arabia first, instead of telling the American People that their lifestyle
> was unsustainable. OK, we're about done draining the Saudi oil patch,
> according to some analysts. Again, the politicians, etc, can't tell the
> American People that their lifestyles are unsustainable. Infact, the
> economists continue to speak of "sustainable growth", which is also
> ultimately impossible.
So True.
> What to do? It is abundently clear that the
> new policy is Drain Iraq First. Hope it works...
>
Serial depletion is not the answer. We tried that with fish, and
all that happened was we extinguished a lot of fish species...
Me, I walk to the farmers market every week for a lot of my food.
--
Tian
6/12: I saw Enron - The Smartest Guys in the Room
up in Menlo Park. Of the Californians in the show,
i've met S. David Freeman, Loretta Lynch, Joe Dunn,
Marla Ruzika, and Medea Benjamin. That was ~ 5 of 8.
http://tian.greens.org
Fred McGalliard
"Dean" <dionys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message .
...
> Back to your argument. Sure, there is probably plenty of oil left for
> our lifetime. But the reason there _will_ be alternatives to oil is
> precisely because there _are_ alarmists among us. Not in spite of, but
> because of.
I would like to strongly register an objection. It is one thing to raise a
concern about expected future events, and try to plan for them. Even to
identify a worst case scenario and evaluate the data for/against it, and
methods of amelioration. And for this, you may be called an alarmist. It is,
however, a very different thing, and very unproductive, to shout loud and
hysterical warnings about things that will not and even cannot happen. This
kind of alarmist we do not need.
Dan Bloomquist
Dave Simpson wrote:
>
> In addition to the Rockies there is exploitation of the deeper parts
> of the Gulf of Mexico, and more of the Arctic Slope.
I have heard great stories about expectations and I have read stuff that
says the expectations of the Rockies and the Gulf are over blown. So
just like the real proven reserves of the middle east, I don't know the
truth. As far as the Arctic goes, we still haven't planned a pipeline
much less started.
>
>>As far as LNG, it doesn't fix anything for at least two or three decades
>>if ever. Present imports run one percent of demand. Throwing everything
>>we have at it and it may amount to two percent of present demand in ten
>>years.
>>
>>It is likely that production will decline much faster than the increase
>>in LNG imports. This is an example of not planning.
>
> Hopefully you mean, by "planning," looking ahead, rather than social
> engineering!
Yes.
> We can't predict everything.
But we can come close with reasonable data.
> I give LNG more credit than you do, both in achieving more and in
> being more propitious. New power plants are largely natural gas-fired.
> We need to import a lot more natural gas. There is plenty in the
> world; the problem is getting it here. At least, until the lame-brains
> can be made to get real about nuclear power. (And even then, people
> may still reject it as too costly up front.)
>
> We are expecting to increase our imports of oil, particularly for
> transportation. (If only we had reasonable alternatives for
> transportation!)
>
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_85.html
It looks like the expectation is 6 Tcf/year in twenty years. It is
presently .2 Tcf/year We have tankers ordered in the near future to add
.1Tcf/year. There would have to be a dramatic increases in tanker
production to meet that 6 Tcf/year goal. It still means a shortfall of 5
or 6 Tcf/year for expected growth assuming we can maintain domestic
production at current levels. I don't see it. The rest of the world is
growing demand for lng as well. That's a whole boat load of tankers. (A
138,000 m^3 tanker has a capacity of .05 Tcf/year, not much.)
Oil, now that's an other can of worms...
> Between now and then should prove interesting (ugh; conflict).
World leaders know what is going on. Non of them are speaking out. That
is what I find disturbing.
Best, Dan.
>
Dave Simpson
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> I have heard great stories about expectations and I have read stuff that
> says the expectations of the Rockies and the Gulf are over blown. So
> just like the real proven reserves of the middle east, I don't know the
> truth. As far as the Arctic goes, we still haven't planned a pipeline
> much less started.
I was under the impression we would try if possible to use the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System to ship any additional Arctic Slope
products to Valdez, before the Pipeline's lifetime ends. And,
actually, that is a reason to act now if we believe we should exploit
our own reserves.
There also is talk of doing a pipeline route through Arctic Canada.
As to this and the Gulf and so on, the more expensive deposits need
higher prices to justify them.
> > We can't predict everything.
> But we can come close with reasonable data.
Yes; that surely beats ignorance.
There's no need to surrender to hype, for example, but looking at
reality is responsible. It is true that the oil isn't going to vanish
suddenly. The more scarce it gets, the more it will cost and that will
constrain use. But in the long run we will run out. We can't rush
Chicken Little style to adopt whatever is sold to us as a substitute
but we should be looking to what can be substituted.
Fuel cells, perhaps?
> It looks like the expectation is 6 Tcf/year in twenty years. It is
> presently .2 Tcf/year We have tankers ordered in the near future to add
> .1Tcf/year. There would have to be a dramatic increases in tanker
> production to meet that 6 Tcf/year goal. It still means a shortfall of 5
> or 6 Tcf/year for expected growth assuming we can maintain domestic
> production at current levels. I don't see it. The rest of the world is
> growing demand for lng as well. That's a whole boat load of tankers. (A
> 138,000 m^3 tanker has a capacity of .05 Tcf/year, not much.)
>
> Oil, now that's an other can of worms...
Note the continued upward rise in the graphs.
It's as unsustainable, truly unsustainable (not in the leftist
sense), in the same way Western-world social-spending programs (notably
on the elderly) are unsustainable. It can't continue to grow. There
are finite limits.
Change will happen, slowly at first (just as with our population
aging and what that means in our future). But change will happen.
> World leaders know what is going on. Non of them are speaking out. That
> is what I find disturbing.
In the short term, there will still be plenty of petroleum. The
leaders may prefer not to give voters bad news, and later shift the
problems onto someone else when the current leaders retire. (I realize
you may have meant a scope outside just the developed West and East
Asia. That they aren't saying much is complicated; those who want to
be like the Saudis and get rich off oil sales certainly don't want to
discourage oil consumption.)
Also in the short term the leaders may not want to disclose what
their nations are going to do because obviously there is competition to
come.
(It will be China that challenges others for Caspian petroleum, for
example, the most modern Great Game situation.)
Dave Simpson
Roy Boy wrote:
[Thanks for the compliments.]
> I agree with your post completely, except that I see renewable energy
> as a better long-term solution for oil depletion than any of the other
> options mentioned.
It may happen. The worst of the lefties are predictably fighting it
where it has a chance (they are anti-success, at least
anti-US-and-Western-success), as in Nantucket Sound. On the other
hand, in flyover country there don't seem to be any of these protests
and even in California for years nobody has fought the windmill farms.
(Many might scoff at them or view them as just a tax dodge, but there's
no seeking to get them torn down that I know of.)
> So, I share your concern, I cannot see any way for oil prices to
> decrease, except for relatively short-term dips, and I am concerned
> that average Americans will see an energy bill they must pay, that they
> cannot pay, with an economy which is built on the back of our logistics
> networks, especially cars and trucks.
It's tough. We have extra reserves but they need higher oil prices
to justify going after them; the Saudis and others like them, for whom
I am not sorry, are caught in a squeeze. As someone else explained to
me, they need to ensure a reasonably high flow of Gulf oil so that
prices stay in the range where developing our own additional reserves
isn't economical. But the more they sell now, the sooner their royal
family good times will come to an end.
> The logical price oil must eventually reach is that price which is
> required to pay for its production from scratch, like the Germans had
> to do in WWII, turning coal into aviation gas. This option currently
> looks to cost about $100/barrel as a first cut, and of course requires
> a massive thermal energy source, either solar or nuclear or both.
Well, they were cut off, which isn't quite the same thing, but still,
you have a point. And who has lots of coal? Who feeds power plants
overseas as well as here? We do.
> Making natural gas from coal and water and thermal energy has the
> advantage of mitigating solar's biggest hurdle, which is its
> intermittency, and subsequent need for storage.
>
> However, our natural gas system already has a lot of storage built into
> it and much more can be added using known methods and technology. This
> linkage between solar and natural gas is seriously under-appreciated as
> a way to store solar energy.
>
> Since we have a lot of coal, and we also have an impending natural gas
> shortage that will be very real very soon, the production of natural
> gas using domestic coal seems to me to have a place at the table for
> all the currently warring groups; the classic fossil and nuclear
> constituencies as well as the renewable community.
Coal gasification?
> While there are still greenhouse gas emissions produced by this
> strategy, natural gas is the cleanest fuel we can use, and there may
> yet be ways to extract CO2 from the atmosphere in amounts that
> eventually get us to a closed carbon cycle.
I don't worrry about greenhouse emissions because I consider the
global warming crusade to be anti-development hype. Air pollution is
serious, though (I've lived in the East many years now and have seen
the results of acidic precipitation) and that's why natural gas is the
choice nowadays for new power plants.
And there will need to be more. A lot of people moving to the South
and Southwest will need a lot of power for their air conditioners.
(They can't all be powered at peak afternoon summertime by solar
power.)
> Put all this together in a real national energy bill with teeth, money,
> balance, and commitment. Then all passionate energy groups work
> together on a sensible solution that embraces our entire current energy
> infrastructure without throwing all that capital out the window.
>
> All constituencies win much and lose little. That is the best way to
> compromise and proceed in such a manner that secures the future of our
> country and the future of our children's children.
>
> Unfortunately, I do not see any US government action that has any real
> teeth in it to address our energy situation, except perhaps the Iraqi
> war, which is expensive and has no viable end-game for us that is not
> years away.
Energy is someplace our administration has come up short but in
predictable ways, because they have energy industry ties.
The power vacuum in Iraq is being filled by terrorists and Iran, and
may threaten even more the oil fields. Note also that an excellent use
by Iran and by others someday of ballistic missiles in the region is to
strike the oil fields of their enemies.
> At least we have a seat at OPEC (right behind the Iraqi Oil
> Minister's chair).
The only thing we haven't done yet is form OPIC. And with our
current administration, that's an impossibility or an effort that is
untrustworthy.
Dave Simpson
Eric Swanson wrote:
> Dave assumes demand for electricity will remain high and continue to grow.
You had no way of knowing that from what I wrote and the graphics I
posted of current and future petroleum demand from EIA, but
coincidentally, yes, I assume that. Conservation won't solve the
demand growth problem. Along with additional use of computers and
more-power-hungry chips (only ameliorated somewhat by newer offerings
that are intended to reduce consumption), our population will grow and
it continues to move south and west, and all the retirees in the
Southwest and the South will require a lot more electricity to power
all their air conditioners. (In the Southwest there is the water
supply problem to worry about as well.)
> Back in the 1970's, the electricity consumption was increasing at about
> 7% a year, for a doubling time of 10 years, MOL. When the price of oil
> went up, so did the price of electricity and people began to conserve.
> The extreme result was seen in the Washington Public Power Co., which
> began building several nuclear plants. Those were canceled and the debt
> load from the money already spent sank the utility.
There is no lesson implied from this that expecting future growth
(which we have seen and we will continue to see) is not there.
Shortages have been there and will be in our future as well.
> I agree, except that there is the problem of EROEI, in that it takes
> energy to make energy. Several of the renewable energy choices have
> small (or even negative) EROEI, and they don't actually produce any
> net energy for some time while they are being constructed. A massive
> campaign to switch to renewables, or other energy sources for that matter,
> would require a major shift in the flow of energy thru the economy.
> As peak production in oil happens, this effect would mean the shortage
> to the consumer would be even greater, as there would be even less oil
> available to the man on the street.
This is, of course, unacceptable. It has nothing to do with any kind
of fictitious unrealistic expectations of consumers, but it has
everything to to with unrealistic expectations of those who want to see
change and view life through a vacuum or at the designer's side of
social engineering.
With renewables we already know that they're not ready to substitute
for our conventional ways. With some (solar power and wind power) they
won't be feasible everywhere (which is true of hydropower, a
conventional energy source, too).
> The problem of climate change becomes much worse if coal becomes the
> next primary energy source as the oil peters out.
Climate change is not a real issue. Energy supply is, and with coal,
if you burn it, it is dirty; it causes air pollution.
> It's true that methane is a very clean fuel at the point of use. Your
> coal option is not the only way to produce methane, however. Methane
> generators using sewage or feed lot waste would be one source that has
> been around for decades. We have large problems with feed lot waste now,
> so it makes sense to make use of this waste to produce methane and get
> rid of the water pollution problem at the same time.
>
> I know, that's too logical.
It may not be practical everywhere.
> Sounds great. Sorry to say, it hasn't worked yet and the current political
> ideal of a free market won't let it happen as long as the energy monopolies
> run things.
A fully interventionist and planned economy and society is far worse.
> Our politicians and corporate people decided 30 years ago to drain Saudi
> Arabia first, instead of telling the American People that their lifestyle
> was unsustainable. OK, we're about done draining the Saudi oil patch,
> according to some analysts. Again, the politicians, etc, can't tell the
> American People that their lifestyles are unsustainable. Infact, the
> economists continue to speak of "sustainable growth", which is also
> ultimately impossible. What to do? It is abundently clear that the
> new policy is Drain Iraq First. Hope it works...
Our use of petroleum may be unsustainable (in the real-world sense,
not the emotional environmentalist sense), but our lifestyle continues
to get better, which should be what we seek to continue to do.
If we have to make some at-first-apparent sacrifices, it's worth it
provided the overall result is better. Fools want us to forego normal
performance of motor vehicles for pitiful performance of substitutes
(the earlier electric vehicles). Those wanting to force us to make
such changes are much worse than fools. But if there were alternatives
that gave us vehicles that performed nearly as well or better yet,
better than what we have, and are not only cleaner but cheaper, then
normal people will accept such things wholeheartedly.
The same is true for aviation, to use another example. I'm enamored
of the idea one day of having fuel cells power electric motors that
power propellers. Aircraft so powered could reach speeds similar to
the best turboprops now, and that is a bit slower than what we are used
to and reasonably expect (though the best turboprops are doing well at
attacking the speed problem), and if such flights were much quieter as
well as cleaner and more importantly, were much cheaper, most of us
would accept flying somewhat slower.
If we had common overland supersonic travel from reduced sonic booms,
that would be wonderful (at least to normal people) insofar as the
speed is concerned. But if it cost too much, few would bother wanting
to fly supersonically. High energy demand was a major reason why
supersonic passenger travel cost so much, and it couldn't be escaped.
The trend for a long time now has been to seek better fuel efficiency
of subsonic aircraft.
Eric Swanson
david_l...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>> Dave assumes demand for electricity will remain high and continue to grow.
>
> You had no way of knowing that from what I wrote and the graphics I
>posted of current and future petroleum demand from EIA, but
>coincidentally, yes, I assume that. Conservation won't solve the
>demand growth problem. Along with additional use of computers and
>more-power-hungry chips (only ameliorated somewhat by newer offerings
>that are intended to reduce consumption), our population will grow and
>it continues to move south and west, and all the retirees in the
>Southwest and the South will require a lot more electricity to power
>all their air conditioners. (In the Southwest there is the water
>supply problem to worry about as well.)
Again, I suggest your linear thinking inherently assumes that the future
will be just an extension of the past. Conservatin delivers the same services
with less energy. Using compact florexcent lights or LED lighting drasticly
reduces the energy required for lighting. There is also less heat load dumped
into the living area of a house or office, thus reducing the energy required
for AC. Iincreasing the for a structure insulation beyond the code level also
reduces the need for HVAC energy. Commercial buildings, especially the cheap
metal frame kind, are very poorly insulated. We shouldn't expect that in
future, energy will be consumed at the same rate per capita on the US as now.
Afterall, Europe and Japan do rather well with half as much per capita as do
we. They didn't destroy their cities and move to the suburbs after WW II.
>> Back in the 1970's, the electricity consumption was increasing at about
>> 7% a year, for a doubling time of 10 years, MOL. When the price of oil
>> went up, so did the price of electricity and people began to conserve.
>> The extreme result was seen in the Washington Public Power Co., which
>> began building several nuclear plants. Those were canceled and the debt
>> load from the money already spent sank the utility.
>
> There is no lesson implied from this that expecting future growth
>(which we have seen and we will continue to see) is not there.
>Shortages have been there and will be in our future as well.
There is a lesson, which you ignored. Increasing real price for energy lead
to reduced energy demand as individuals adopted conservation measures.
The electric power producers then were much like the GM and Fords of today,
they assumed that past trends could be used for future projections. They were
wrong then and GM is suffering now with it's lineup of gas guzzlers.
>> I agree, except that there is the problem of EROEI, in that it takes
>> energy to make energy. Several of the renewable energy choices have
>> small (or even negative) EROEI, and they don't actually produce any
>> net energy for some time while they are being constructed. A massive
>> campaign to switch to renewables, or other energy sources for that matter,
>> would require a major shift in the flow of energy thru the economy.
>> As peak production in oil happens, this effect would mean the shortage
>> to the consumer would be even greater, as there would be even less oil
>> available to the man on the street.
>
> This is, of course, unacceptable. It has nothing to do with any kind
>of fictitious unrealistic expectations of consumers, but it has
>everything to to with unrealistic expectations of those who want to see
>change and view life through a vacuum or at the designer's side of
>social engineering.
I'm not sure what you mean. When (not if) peak oil production hits the markets,
what do you expect from our political system except a massive crash program to
"fix" things. There would be lots of disruption and "social engineering",
just like there was during the Depression.
> With renewables we already know that they're not ready to substitute
>for our conventional ways. With some (solar power and wind power) they
>won't be feasible everywhere (which is true of hydropower, a
>conventional energy source, too).
I'm well aware of that, after more than 35 years of study of the subject.
Some regions have more solar, some have more wind and some hydro sites which
may still could developed. Hydropower is not "conventional" any more than
wind. Recall the wind driven mills in Holland. Both energy systems tap
the primary energy flow from the sun.
>> The problem of climate change becomes much worse if coal becomes the
>> next primary energy source as the oil peters out.
>
> Climate change is not a real issue. Energy supply is, and with coal,
>if you burn it, it is dirty; it causes air pollution.
In case you haven't noticed, climate change is a big issue, especially for
those that live near sealevel or in areas where the climate will get worse.
>> It's true that methane is a very clean fuel at the point of use. Your
>> coal option is not the only way to produce methane, however. Methane
>> generators using sewage or feed lot waste would be one source that has
>> been around for decades. We have large problems with feed lot waste now,
>> so it makes sense to make use of this waste to produce methane and get
>> rid of the water pollution problem at the same time.
>>
>> I know, that's too logical.
>
> It may not be practical everywhere.
>
>> Sounds great. Sorry to say, it hasn't worked yet and the current political
>> ideal of a free market won't let it happen as long as the energy monopolies
>> run things.
>
> A fully interventionist and planned economy and society is far worse.
>
>> Our politicians and corporate people decided 30 years ago to drain Saudi
>> Arabia first, instead of telling the American People that their lifestyle
>> was unsustainable. OK, we're about done draining the Saudi oil patch,
>> according to some analysts. Again, the politicians, etc, can't tell the
>> American People that their lifestyles are unsustainable. Infact, the
>> economists continue to speak of "sustainable growth", which is also
>> ultimately impossible. What to do? It is abundently clear that the
>> new policy is Drain Iraq First. Hope it works...
>
> Our use of petroleum may be unsustainable (in the real-world sense,
>not the emotional environmentalist sense), but our lifestyle continues
>to get better, which should be what we seek to continue to do.
In case you don't work in a "middle class" job, you should be aware that
the real income for the bottom 2/3 or so of the working public has declined
for a number of years. Sure, we have nicer toys these days, if you can pay
for them. The average Joe with only a highschool diploma, there aren't a
lot of great choices for jobs, like there were a couple of generations back.
> If we have to make some at-first-apparent sacrifices, it's worth it
>provided the overall result is better. Fools want us to forego normal
>performance of motor vehicles for pitiful performance of substitutes
>(the earlier electric vehicles). Those wanting to force us to make
>such changes are much worse than fools. But if there were alternatives
>that gave us vehicles that performed nearly as well or better yet,
>better than what we have, and are not only cleaner but cheaper, then
>normal people will accept such things wholeheartedly.
I suggest that you have a complete lack of understanding of the workings
of the motor vehicles you consider "normal". I don't know what metric you
are using to define "performance", but miles per gallon (mpg) is the one
which will be of ultimate importance in the world after the oil peaks out.
> The same is true for aviation, to use another example. I'm enamored
>of the idea one day of having fuel cells power electric motors that
>power propellers. Aircraft so powered could reach speeds similar to
>the best turboprops now, and that is a bit slower than what we are used
>to and reasonably expect (though the best turboprops are doing well at
>attacking the speed problem), and if such flights were much quieter as
>well as cleaner and more importantly, were much cheaper, most of us
>would accept flying somewhat slower.
And what fuel would you use? Surely not hydrogen, with it's low energy
density. There wouldn't be any space left over for people or cargo.
And, that dosn't include the overhead for the weight and size of the fuel
cells and electric motors. It takes a lot of horsepower to get an airplane
off the ground and up to cruse altitude. How many hp would be required to
loft a 747 with turboprops instead of high bypass ratio fanjets?
> If we had common overland supersonic travel from reduced sonic booms,
>that would be wonderful (at least to normal people) insofar as the
>speed is concerned. But if it cost too much, few would bother wanting
>to fly supersonically. High energy demand was a major reason why
>supersonic passenger travel cost so much, and it couldn't be escaped.
>The trend for a long time now has been to seek better fuel efficiency
>of subsonic aircraft.
The drag in supersonic flight is what causes the "boom" and the high
fuel consumption. Basic aerodynamics. Can't be changed. Live with it.
An automobile with 2 people in it rolling down the freeway getting 30 mpg
is about twice as efficient as a fully loaded commercial aircraft in terms
of seat miles per gallon. A diesel semi-trailer truck uses much less fuel
per ton-mile as a cargo aircraft. Trains are better still and ships are best.
Conclusion: Slower is better.
Dan Bloomquist
Dave Simpson wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
>>But we can come close with reasonable data.
>
> Yes; that surely beats ignorance.
>
> There's no need to surrender to hype, for example, but looking at
> reality is responsible. It is true that the oil isn't going to vanish
> suddenly. The more scarce it gets, the more it will cost and that will
> constrain use. But in the long run we will run out. We can't rush
> Chicken Little style to adopt whatever is sold to us as a substitute
> but we should be looking to what can be substituted.
If you haven't, see the previous thread, 'The Bush energy plan gives 90
percent of its tax breaks to big oil and gas'.
I've offered a paper on contingency about the 'before' oil peaks. And if
you would, seriously see the discussion by Matthew Simmons.
'Chicken Little' may or may not be the case. We are in deep doodoo if
Chicken Little is right. Ignorance is our biggest threat right now...
> Fuel cells, perhaps?
I don't know what you have in mind as there are two classes of fuel
cells. SOFC with a bottom cycle for transportation would really have an
impact. And if we had some ham...
>>It looks like the expectation is 6 Tcf/year in twenty years. It is
>>presently .2 Tcf/year We have tankers ordered in the near future to add
>>.1Tcf/year. There would have to be a dramatic increases in tanker
>>production to meet that 6 Tcf/year goal. It still means a shortfall of 5
>>or 6 Tcf/year for expected growth assuming we can maintain domestic
>>production at current levels. I don't see it. The rest of the world is
>>growing demand for lng as well. That's a whole boat load of tankers. (A
>>138,000 m^3 tanker has a capacity of .05 Tcf/year, not much.)
>>
>>Oil, now that's an other can of worms...
>
> Note the continued upward rise in the graphs.
Our biggest concern, IMHO. Would you like to light that other thread up???
Best, Dan.
Ian St. John
> In article <1118793137.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> david_l...@yahoo.com says...
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. When (not if) peak oil production hits
> the markets, what do you expect from our political system except a
> massive crash program to "fix" things. There would be lots of
> disruption and "social engineering", just like there was during the
> Depression.
I might point out that we seem to have hit 'peak oil' as OPEC is noted to be
increasing the production limits to slow down the price increases while red
facedly admitting that it is a meaningless gesture since they cannot
acutally increase oil flow.
Eric Swanson
says...
><snip>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean. When (not if) peak oil production hits
>> the markets, what do you expect from our political system except a
>> massive crash program to "fix" things. There would be lots of
>> disruption and "social engineering", just like there was during the
>> Depression.
>
>I might point out that we seem to have hit 'peak oil' as OPEC is noted to be
>increasing the production limits to slow down the price increases while red
>facedly admitting that it is a meaningless gesture since they cannot
>acutally increase oil flow.
Yes, I saw mention of that today. Of course, OPEC's quotas are below what
they are actually producing just now. Saudi Arabia claims to have some spare
capacity, but it is sour crude, ie high sulfur, which many refiners can't or
won't use. The Saudis want us to build refineries for their sour crude. Why
don't they take some of the money from the $55/bbl oil they are selling and
build their own? Or don't they believe their own claims of large reserves?
There is an article on Market Watch this evening about the US Congress and
the Energy Bill. Seems that one Senator proposed reducing oil comsumption by
1 million bbls/day below projected demand for 2015. The demand is projected
to be 24.7 million bbls/day compared to present consumption at roughly 20.9.
So, given that the US production peaked in 1970 or 71 and world production
may be at peak, where would the extra 3.8 million bbls per day come from?
Is the answer, Canadian Tar Sands? But, isn't that also imported oil?
Those politicians really crack me up. Maybe it's time to declare Washington
to be the next Disneyland Super World Enertainment Complex and Mega Casino.
Ian St. John
> In article <BF3se.7126$yU.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> ist...@noemail.usa says...
>>
>> Eric Swanson wrote:
>>> david_l...@yahoo.com says... <snip>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean. When (not if) peak oil production hits
>>> the markets, what do you expect from our political system except a
>>> massive crash program to "fix" things. There would be lots of
>>> disruption and "social engineering", just like there was during the
>>> Depression.
>>
>> I might point out that we seem to have hit 'peak oil' as OPEC is
>> noted to be increasing the production limits to slow down the price
>> increases while red facedly admitting that it is a meaningless
>> gesture since they cannot acutally increase oil flow.
>
> Yes, I saw mention of that today. Of course, OPEC's quotas are below
> what they are actually producing just now. Saudi Arabia claims to
> have some spare capacity, but it is sour crude, ie high sulfur, which
> many refiners can't or won't use. The Saudis want us to build
> refineries for their sour crude. Why don't they take some of the
> money from the $55/bbl oil they are selling and build their own? Or
> don't they believe their own claims of large reserves?
Thicker oil may flow more slowly from the reserves? Harder to pump fast
without leaving pockets behind?
>
> There is an article on Market Watch this evening about the US
> Congress and the Energy Bill. Seems that one Senator proposed
> reducing oil comsumption by 1 million bbls/day below projected demand
> for 2015. The demand is projected to be 24.7 million bbls/day
> compared to present consumption at roughly 20.9. So, given that the
> US production peaked in 1970 or 71 and world production may be at
> peak, where would the extra 3.8 million bbls per day come from?
> Is the answer, Canadian Tar Sands? But, isn't that also imported oil?
The tar sands take billions of dollars of investment for a rather small
trickle of output. No way do you expand it to 3.8 m b/day. The current
$40-80B provides about 800,000 b/day so figure up to $380B and maybe ten to
twenty years development time to get capacity up by 3.8 MB/day and by that
time.... the shortfall will be drastic as PG oil is only projected to last
maybe two to three decades. And that is low grade oil that has to be
desulfured and cracked in order to get it to flow in pipelines at all. Where
would the hydrogen for the process come from? Natural gas supplies in the
area are just not up to the need at that production rate.
>
> Those politicians really crack me up. Maybe it's time to declare
> Washington to be the next Disneyland Super World Enertainment Complex
> and Mega Casino.
It has certainly turned into FantasyLand. It almost gives the political
comedians too much material to work with.
Tim K.
"Eric Gisin" <eric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8j4d...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Another idiot troll. Fucking greens should be shot for making the world so
> stupid.
Because I think Suzuki is smarter than you that makes me a "green", nice.
Dumbass.
drone one
up in the Alberta tar sands at current production levels about 1.2
million b per day it would take 400 years to deplete the reservers.
Canada is the world's ninth largest producer of crude oil with an
estimated 15%of it's reservers. We produce 2.5 million b per day.Canada
produces more than 20% of North Amercia's crude oil and natural gas but
accounts for only 10% of consumption. Americans who think most of their
oil comes from the Middle East should think again. Canada is the
biggest, and most reliable, supplier of crude oil and oil products to
the U.S., at 1.5 million barrels per day"
Roy Boy
Ian St. John
> quote, Lawrence Herzog " aboute 175 billion barrels of oil are locked
> up in the Alberta tar sands at current production levels about 1.2
> million b per day it would take 400 years to deplete the reservers.
Yes. At todays ( about 800 mb/day ) it will indeed take hundreds of years to
get the oil out. This is despite MASSIVE investments in both the heavy
hauler mining equipment, the extraction processor, and the 'upgrading' with
turns it from a thick sticky muck to at least pumpable heavy crude of less
than premium quality. Like the dancing bear. It is not so much that he
dances so well as that he dances at all...
> Canada is the world's ninth largest producer of crude oil with an
> estimated 15%of it's reservers.
Howver, the 1,800 thousand barrels/day that was the peak of the oil is
simply not sustainable from tar sands. The 'oil pool's are being depleted at
a furious pace and are listed as having about 3 years demand left at todays
production figures. Very similar to the depleted fields of the U.S. It is
mostly the Premier of Alberta ( Ralph Klein ) who is pushing production as
fast as he can since it keeps him in tax gravy for at least as long as he is
likely to continue in politics. Never mind the consequences to future
Albertans.
> We produce 2.5 million b per day.
Which is a pittance from the point of view of total needs. Less than 50% and
getting smaller. Reserves/production are listed from 3 to 5 years so the 10%
per year decline is pretty predictable.
> Canada produces more than 20% of North Amercia's crude oil and
> natural gas but accounts for only 10% of consumption.
Making it a major export to the U.S. Of course, the treatment of Canadian
beef sales to bolster U.S. packing companies ( and look who is finding BSE
now.. ) really kind of sucks badly . As long as Klein is premier, he will
probably pump as much Albertan crude as the U.S. will buy, but as soon as he
( or his successor ) has to deal with reality, expect the show to be over
fast.
> Americans who
> think most of their oil comes from the Middle East should think
> again. Canada is the biggest, and most reliable, supplier of crude
> oil and oil products to the U.S., at 1.5 million barrels per day"
One point eight for a while and exceeding Saudi Arabia, but now seriously on
the decline as the oil pools ( no more discoveries in decades ) are tapped
out.
Roy Boy
Roy Boy
Roy Boy
Canada is now tapped out in its ability to supply significant increases
of natural gas to export to the United States, which we also require.
And, the more that Tar Sands are developed, the more that massive
amounts of Canadian natural gas must be diverted from export in order
to sweeten up this tarry sludge.
Canada oh Canada!
Hopefully yours,
Roy Boy
Dave Simpson
Eric Swanson wrote:
> Again, I suggest your linear thinking inherently assumes that the future
> will be just an extension of the past.
I am not engaged in "linear thinking," nor assuming the future is the
past continued indefinitely (including the growth in consumption of
oil). You are the one making (false) assumptions.
> Conservatin delivers the same services with less energy.
Conservation alone doesn't solve the problem.
> There is a lesson, which you ignored.
Nope. You're assuming things again.
> Increasing real price for energy lead to reduced energy demand as individuals
> adopted conservation measures.
That alone doesn't solve our long-term problem.
> I'm not sure what you mean. When (not if) peak oil production hits the markets,
> what do you expect from our political system except a massive crash program to
> "fix" things. There would be lots of disruption and "social engineering",
> just like there was during the Depression.
There will not be suddenness. Promptness, eventually, is likely, but
not something happening literally overnight.
> > With renewables we already know that they're not ready to substitute
> >for our conventional ways. With some (solar power and wind power) they
> >won't be feasible everywhere (which is true of hydropower, a
> >conventional energy source, too).
> I'm well aware of that, after more than 35 years of study of the subject.
> Some regions have more solar, some have more wind and some hydro sites which
> may still could developed. Hydropower is not "conventional" any more than
> wind. Recall the wind driven mills in Holland. Both energy systems tap
> the primary energy flow from the sun.
Hydropower indeed is conventional. Call it another form of solar
energy if you want, but hydropower is conventional; solar (directly)
and wind are not.
> > Climate change is not a real issue. Energy supply is, and with coal,
> >if you burn it, it is dirty; it causes air pollution.
> In case you haven't noticed, climate change is a big issue, especially for
> those that live near sea[ ]level or in areas where the climate will get worse.
You don't know climate will get worse (or if it will get better
instead).
Meanwhile, air pollution is real.
> > Our use of petroleum may be unsustainable (in the real-world sense,
> >not the emotional environmentalist sense), but our lifestyle continues
> >to get better, which should be what we seek to continue to do.
> In case you don't work in a "middle class" job, you should be aware that
> the real income for the bottom 2/3 or so of the working public has declined
> for a number of years. Sure, we have nicer toys these days, if you can pay
> for them. The average Joe with only a high[ ]school diploma, there aren't a
> lot of great choices for jobs, like there were a couple of generations back.
The main solution is not to drop out of the education system
prematurely.
> > If we have to make some at-first-apparent sacrifices, it's worth it
> >provided the overall result is better. Fools want us to forego normal
> >performance of motor vehicles for pitiful performance of substitutes
> >(the earlier electric vehicles). Those wanting to force us to make
> >such changes are much worse than fools. But if there were alternatives
> >that gave us vehicles that performed nearly as well or better yet,
> >better than what we have, and are not only cleaner but cheaper, then
> >normal people will accept such things wholeheartedly.
> I suggest that you have a complete lack of understanding of the workings
> of the motor vehicles you consider "normal". I don't know what metric you
> are using to define "performance", but miles per gallon (mpg) is the one
> which will be of ultimate importance in the world after the oil peaks out.
Your suggestion is wrong and implies you have no idea what you are
writing about. Performance is traditionally and normally defined as
output from an engine; this equates to acceleration (and sometimes top
speed) in a motor vehicle. Miles per gallon, or kilometers per liter,
are not performance measures (you are engaging in silly equivocation
here) but measures of efficiency (just as their inverses are
straightforward measures of a cost -- fuel consumption).
Electric vehicles, a frequent substitute mentioned for conventional
automobiles, have to perform as well as conventional automobiles with
respect to speed, range, and the equivalent of refueling, or they are
not practical substitutes. Those who respond by saying people have to
"readjust our priorities" (as I've heard one naive or worse person say)
are laughably unrealistic. And they are worse if they demand their
wishes be imposed on everyone else.
> > The same is true for aviation, to use another example. I'm enamored
> >of the idea one day of having fuel cells power electric motors that
> >power propellers. Aircraft so powered could reach speeds similar to
> >the best turboprops now, and that is a bit slower than what we are used
> >to and reasonably expect (though the best turboprops are doing well at
> >attacking the speed problem), and if such flights were much quieter as
> >well as cleaner and more importantly, were much cheaper, most of us
> >would accept flying somewhat slower.
> And what fuel would you use? [...]
I don't know. We aren't able to do this yet, any more than routine
"off-grid" power for homes (and for electric vehicles) is possible with
fuel cells currently.
> > If we had common overland supersonic travel from reduced sonic booms,
> >that would be wonderful (at least to normal people) insofar as the
> >speed is concerned. But if it cost too much, few would bother wanting
> >to fly supersonically. High energy demand was a major reason why
> >supersonic passenger travel cost so much, and it couldn't be escaped.
> >The trend for a long time now has been to seek better fuel efficiency
> >of subsonic aircraft.
> The drag in supersonic flight is what causes the "boom" and the high
> fuel consumption. Basic aerodynamics. Can't be changed. Live with it.
> An automobile with 2 people in it rolling down the freeway getting 30 mpg
> is about twice as efficient as a fully loaded commercial aircraft in terms
> of seat miles per gallon. A diesel semi-trailer truck uses much less fuel
> per ton-mile as a cargo aircraft. Trains are better still and ships are best.
>
> Conclusion: Slower is better.
What's your time worth? And that of others?
Dave Simpson
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> If you haven't, see the previous thread, 'The Bush energy plan gives 90
> percent of its tax breaks to big oil and gas'.
>
> I've offered a paper on contingency about the 'before' oil peaks. And if
> you would, seriously see the discussion by Matthew Simmons.
>
> 'Chicken Little' may or may not be the case. We are in deep doodoo if
> Chicken Little is right. Ignorance is our biggest threat right now...
I'm sure the current Bush plan is nearly as loaded (maybe not as
openly) with goodies for energy firms as the earlier plan that had to
be shelved.
We know we're going to run out of economic oil sometime. But, good
luck suggesting an alternative. Trying to pick future winners
(industrial policy) is laughable. Forcing conservation on people
(which won't solve the problem by itself anyway) is not the answer,
either.
You might want to suggest government R&D in addition to leaving it up
to private initiative to come up with a solution, but what else can we
do?
> > Fuel cells, perhaps?
> I don't know what you have in mind as there are two classes of fuel
> cells. SOFC with a bottom cycle for transportation would really have an
> impact. And if we had some ham...
Electrification of transport would make it much cleaner as well as
more efficient. It may well be that fuel cells will progress and
eventually we'll have fuel cells that will be suitable to power homes
as well as vehicles. I'm hopeful that may happen.
> >>Oil, now that's an other can of worms...
> >
> > Note the continued upward rise in the graphs. [consumption]
>
> Our biggest concern, IMHO. Would you like to light that other thread up???
No, thanks. I have no answer other than the easy prediction that
there will be conflict over the remaining oil in the near to medium
term.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>> Again, I suggest your linear thinking inherently assumes that the future
>> will be just an extension of the past.
>
> I am not engaged in "linear thinking," nor assuming the future is the
>past continued indefinitely (including the growth in consumption of
>oil). You are the one making (false) assumptions.
>
>
> Conservation alone doesn't solve the problem.
I was defining conservation the way it will work, not the "no oil, no services"
definition. Do you still use incandescent lights at home? If so, why?
>> There is a lesson, which you ignored.
>
> Nope. You're assuming things again.
>
>> Increasing real price for energy lead to reduced energy demand as individuals
>> adopted conservation measures.
>
> That alone doesn't solve our long-term problem.
Not in itself, but, as prices increase, demand slackens and people look for other
solutions (alternatives) to their energy needs. My parents bought a house built
in 1940, which had no insulation in the walls and very little in the attic. Over
the years, I improved both in response to the increasing cost of oil, which we used
to heat the house. I then switched to a 95% efficient natural gas furnace and
replaced the electric hot water heater with a gas one.
>> I'm not sure what you mean. When (not if) peak oil production hits the markets,
>> what do you expect from our political system except a massive crash program to
>> "fix" things. There would be lots of disruption and "social engineering",
>> just like there was during the Depression.
>
> There will not be suddenness. Promptness, eventually, is likely, but
>not something happening literally overnight.
I guess you weren't around for the OPEC Embargo in 1973, or the Iranian Crisis.
>> > With renewables we already know that they're not ready to substitute
>> >for our conventional ways. With some (solar power and wind power) they
>> >won't be feasible everywhere (which is true of hydropower, a
>> >conventional energy source, too).
>
>> I'm well aware of that, after more than 35 years of study of the subject.
>> Some regions have more solar, some have more wind and some hydro sites which
>> may still could developed. Hydropower is not "conventional" any more than
>> wind. Recall the wind driven mills in Holland. Both energy systems tap
>> the primary energy flow from the sun.
>
> Hydropower indeed is conventional. Call it another form of solar
>energy if you want, but hydropower is conventional; solar (directly)
>and wind are not.
Solar is just as "conventional" as hydropower. Ever heard of those new
fangled gagets called "windows"? It's called "passive solar energy".
>> > Climate change is not a real issue. Energy supply is, and with coal,
>> >if you burn it, it is dirty; it causes air pollution.
>
>> In case you haven't noticed, climate change is a big issue, especially for
>> those that live near sea[ ]level or in areas where the climate will get worse.
>
> You don't know climate will get worse (or if it will get better instead).
>
> Meanwhile, air pollution is real.
I am only too well aware of air pollution, having twice moved out of cities when
the pollution reached levels I found to be intolerable.
>> > Our use of petroleum may be unsustainable (in the real-world sense,
>> >not the emotional environmentalist sense), but our lifestyle continues
>> >to get better, which should be what we seek to continue to do.
>
>> In case you don't work in a "middle class" job, you should be aware that
>> the real income for the bottom 2/3 or so of the working public has declined
>> for a number of years. Sure, we have nicer toys these days, if you can pay
>> for them. The average Joe with only a high[ ]school diploma, there aren't a
>> lot of great choices for jobs, like there were a couple of generations back.
>
> The main solution is not to drop out of the education system
>prematurely.
The average Joe doesn't understand that, which is why he/she dropped out. Roughly
1/3 of the population made it thru college, the rest dropped out somewhere along
the way. You assume that education will work wonders to change human nature. Try
talking to an Evangelical Fundamentalist about Evolution or the Age of the Earth.
>> > If we have to make some at-first-apparent sacrifices, it's worth it
>> >provided the overall result is better. Fools want us to forego normal
>> >performance of motor vehicles for pitiful performance of substitutes
>> >(the earlier electric vehicles). Those wanting to force us to make
>> >such changes are much worse than fools. But if there were alternatives
>> >that gave us vehicles that performed nearly as well or better yet,
>> >better than what we have, and are not only cleaner but cheaper, then
>> >normal people will accept such things wholeheartedly.
>
>> I suggest that you have a complete lack of understanding of the workings
>> of the motor vehicles you consider "normal". I don't know what metric you
>> are using to define "performance", but miles per gallon (mpg) is the one
>> which will be of ultimate importance in the world after the oil peaks out.
>
> Your suggestion is wrong and implies you have no idea what you are
>writing about. Performance is traditionally and normally defined as
>output from an engine; this equates to acceleration (and sometimes top
>speed) in a motor vehicle. Miles per gallon, or kilometers per liter,
>are not performance measures (you are engaging in silly equivocation
>here) but measures of efficiency (just as their inverses are
>straightforward measures of a cost -- fuel consumption).
Maybe your define performance that way. That's the NASCAR or NHRA
definition. It is meaningless when you can't get the fuel for the vehicle.
Your definition is a combination of power to weight ratio (acceleration)
and aerodynamic drag vs. HP definition (top speed). There is also the
maximum lateral G force definition, the ton miles per gallon definition,
in addition to the seat miles per gallon one.
> Electric vehicles, a frequent substitute mentioned for conventional
>automobiles, have to perform as well as conventional automobiles with
>respect to speed, range, and the equivalent of refueling, or they are
>not practical substitutes. Those who respond by saying people have to
>"readjust our priorities" (as I've heard one naive or worse person say)
>are laughably unrealistic. And they are worse if they demand their
>wishes be imposed on everyone else.
When the shit hits the fan, ie, oil production peaks, we may see a need for
massive allocation of fuel, such as gas rationing. Otherwise, what will
happen is "rationing by price" as it is called. There is no natural right
given to any individual to consume oil, especially foreign oil. People
that now have jobs in times of cheap oil may find they don't fit into the
economic scene when oil prices go up.
>> > The same is true for aviation, to use another example. I'm enamored
>> >of the idea one day of having fuel cells power electric motors that
>> >power propellers. Aircraft so powered could reach speeds similar to
>> >the best turboprops now, and that is a bit slower than what we are used
>> >to and reasonably expect (though the best turboprops are doing well at
>> >attacking the speed problem), and if such flights were much quieter as
>> >well as cleaner and more importantly, were much cheaper, most of us
>> >would accept flying somewhat slower.
>
>> And what fuel would you use? [...]
>
> I don't know. We aren't able to do this yet, any more than routine
>"off-grid" power for homes (and for electric vehicles) is possible with
>fuel cells currently.
The issue you raised was aircraft powered by fuel cells. We already know
the problems for aircraft and the fact that hydrogen is a fuel of low energy
density makes it unlikely that it will be used for aircraft.
>> > If we had common overland supersonic travel from reduced sonic booms,
>> >that would be wonderful (at least to normal people) insofar as the
>> >speed is concerned. But if it cost too much, few would bother wanting
>> >to fly supersonically. High energy demand was a major reason why
>> >supersonic passenger travel cost so much, and it couldn't be escaped.
>> >The trend for a long time now has been to seek better fuel efficiency
>> >of subsonic aircraft.
>
>> The drag in supersonic flight is what causes the "boom" and the high
>> fuel consumption. Basic aerodynamics. Can't be changed. Live with it.
>> An automobile with 2 people in it rolling down the freeway getting 30 mpg
>> is about twice as efficient as a fully loaded commercial aircraft in terms
>> of seat miles per gallon. A diesel semi-trailer truck uses much less fuel
>> per ton-mile as a cargo aircraft. Trains are better still and ships are best.
>>
>> Conclusion: Slower is better.
>
> What's your time worth? And that of others?
My time is "worth" what someone else will pay me for it.
In my situation and at my age, that's about zero.
That may be because I chose not to play the happy consumer game.
Dave Simpson
Eric Swanson wrote:
> > Conservation alone doesn't solve the problem.
> I was defining conservation the way it will work, not the "no oil, no services"
> definition.
I was explaining: conservation the way it will work, alone, won't
solve the problem. It will only reduce it.
> Do you still use incandescent lights at home? If so, why?
These are bizarre questions, but: I do sometimes, but often not.
Compact fluorescents cost more up front but save money long term. I
even found dimmable compact flourescents to use in some outdoor
lighting (which otherwise is not used at all).
> > That alone doesn't solve our long-term problem.
> Not in itself,
Which is what I have been saying.
> but, as prices increase, demand slackens and people look for other
> solutions (alternatives) to their energy needs. My parents bought a house built
> in 1940, which had no insulation in the walls and very little in the attic. Over
> the years, I improved both in response to the increasing cost of oil, which we used
> to heat the house. I then switched to a 95% efficient natural gas furnace and
> replaced the electric hot water heater with a gas one.
Often the alternatives are not practical. What then happens in
addition to reduction in consumption is "reorganization" -- for
example, finding money elsewhere in the budget to keep buying fuel so
people can still drive to work and back every day.
> > There will not be suddenness. Promptness, eventually, is likely, but
> >not something happening literally overnight.
> I guess you weren't around for the OPEC Embargo in 1973, or the Iranian Crisis.
I was. Apples and oranges. Running out of oil is not a sudden
cutoff.
> Solar is just as "conventional" as hydropower. Ever heard of those new
> fangled gagets called "windows"? It's called "passive solar energy".
Don't even bother digging your hole deeper here.
Solar power is normally defined as production of electricity from
solar energy.
> I am only too well aware of air pollution, having twice moved out of cities when
> the pollution reached levels I found to be intolerable.
That is real, not the global warming hype.
Because it is real, new power plants currently are usually
natural-gas-fired rather than coal-fired.
> > The main solution is not to drop out of the education system
> >prematurely.
> The average Joe doesn't understand that, which is why he/she dropped out. Roughly
> 1/3 of the population made it thru college, the rest dropped out somewhere along
> the way. You assume that education will work wonders to change human nature. Try
> talking to an Evangelical Fundamentalist about Evolution or the Age of the Earth.
(* sigh *) People are given one chance after another and reminded
time after time not to be especially stupid. If they so choose anyway,
they don't deserve our sympathy.
> > Your suggestion is wrong and implies you have no idea what you are
> >writing about. Performance is traditionally and normally defined as
> >output from an engine; this equates to acceleration (and sometimes top
> >speed) in a motor vehicle. Miles per gallon, or kilometers per liter,
> >are not performance measures (you are engaging in silly equivocation
> >here) but measures of efficiency (just as their inverses are
> >straightforward measures of a cost -- fuel consumption).
>
> Maybe your define performance that way. That's the NASCAR or NHRA
> definition. It is meaningless when you can't get the fuel for the vehicle.
> Your definition is a combination of power to weight ratio (acceleration)
> and aerodynamic drag vs. HP definition (top speed). There is also the
> maximum lateral G force definition, the ton miles per gallon definition,
> in addition to the seat miles per gallon one.
It is the conventional, long-accepted-usage definition. Again, do
not play games.
> When the shit hits the fan, ie, oil production peaks, we may see a need for
> massive allocation of fuel, such as gas rationing. Otherwise, what will
> happen is "rationing by price" as it is called. There is no natural right
> given to any individual to consume oil, especially foreign oil. People
> that now have jobs in times of cheap oil may find they don't fit into the
> economic scene when oil prices go up.
I don't doubt that. Fortunately it's not something normal people
have to be, nor are, terrified of now.
> The issue you raised was aircraft powered by fuel cells. We already know
> the problems for aircraft and the fact that hydrogen is a fuel of low energy
> density makes it unlikely that it will be used for aircraft.
I also raised aircraft powered by fuel cells as a possible distant
future alternative, not something to be attempted today.
> > What's your time worth? And that of others?
> My time is "worth" what someone else will pay me for it.
> In my situation and at my age, that's about zero.
> That may be because I chose not to play the happy consumer game.
You are in a very tiny minority, and unconventional.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>> > Conservation alone doesn't solve the problem.
>
>> I was defining conservation the way it will work, not the "no oil, no services"
>> definition.
>
> I was explaining: conservation the way it will work, alone, won't
>solve the problem. It will only reduce it.
If you mean replace ALL oil consumption immediately, that's true.
Over longer time periods, as the oil demand exceeds the supply, conservation will
be part of the solution.
>> but, as prices increase, demand slackens and people look for other
>> solutions (alternatives) to their energy needs. My parents bought a house built
>> in 1940, which had no insulation in the walls and very little in the attic. Over
>> the years, I improved both in response to the increasing cost of oil, which we used
>> to heat the house. I then switched to a 95% efficient natural gas furnace and
>> replaced the electric hot water heater with a gas one.
>
> Often the alternatives are not practical. What then happens in
>addition to reduction in consumption is "reorganization" -- for
>example, finding money elsewhere in the budget to keep buying fuel so
>people can still drive to work and back every day.
A fine generalization, but, doesn't deal with what people will do in response to
a large increase in the price of oil (and other energy prices along with oil).
One could just as easily say that nuclear electricy is not practical because there
is no place yet available to put the waste products.
>> > There will not be suddenness. Promptness, eventually, is likely, but
>> >not something happening literally overnight.
>
>> I guess you weren't around for the OPEC Embargo in 1973, or the Iranian Crisis.
>
> I was. Apples and oranges. Running out of oil is not a sudden cutoff.
Gee, didn't you see that "docudrama" from the Faux Channel about "Oil Storm"?
>
> Solar is just as "conventional" as hydropower. Ever heard of those new
>> fangled gagets called "windows"? It's called "passive solar energy".
>
> Don't even bother digging your hole deeper here.
>
> Solar power is normally defined as production of electricity from
>solar energy.
As a one time member of the American Solar Energy Society, I disagree.
The folks that use that definition usually want to present solar energy as too
expensive, which it is not when one considers the uses to which energy is put.
>> I am only too well aware of air pollution, having twice moved out of cities when
>> the pollution reached levels I found to be intolerable.
>
> That is real, not the global warming hype.
>
> Because it is real, new power plants currently are usually
>natural-gas-fired rather than coal-fired.
Yes, that has been the case in recent U.S. history. Other nations are installing
other options, such as wind power electric generation. Solar hot water heaters
are un use all over Israel and other warm weather areas.
>> > The main solution is not to drop out of the education system
>> >prematurely.
>
>> The average Joe doesn't understand that, which is why he/she dropped out. Roughly
>> 1/3 of the population made it thru college, the rest dropped out somewhere along
>> the way. You assume that education will work wonders to change human nature. Try
>> talking to an Evangelical Fundamentalist about Evolution or the Age of the Earth.
>
> (* sigh *) People are given one chance after another and reminded
>time after time not to be especially stupid. If they so choose anyway,
>they don't deserve our sympathy.
Haven't you noticed, they are organized and may be in control of the U.S. Government.
>> > Your suggestion is wrong and implies you have no idea what you are
>> >writing about. Performance is traditionally and normally defined as
>> >output from an engine; this equates to acceleration (and sometimes top
>> >speed) in a motor vehicle. Miles per gallon, or kilometers per liter,
>> >are not performance measures (you are engaging in silly equivocation
>> >here) but measures of efficiency (just as their inverses are
>> >straightforward measures of a cost -- fuel consumption).
>>
>> Maybe your define performance that way. That's the NASCAR or NHRA
>> definition. It is meaningless when you can't get the fuel for the vehicle.
>> Your definition is a combination of power to weight ratio (acceleration)
>> and aerodynamic drag vs. HP definition (top speed). There is also the
>> maximum lateral G force definition, the ton miles per gallon definition,
>> in addition to the seat miles per gallon one.
>
> It is the conventional, long-accepted-usage definition. Again, do
>not play games.
Not by those of us with engineering backgrounds. That the public (ie, you)
defines it that way just reminds me of your comment above.
"People are given one chance after another and reminded time after time
not to be especially stupid. If they so choose anyway, they don't deserve
our sympathy."
>> When the shit hits the fan, ie, oil production peaks, we may see a need for
>> massive allocation of fuel, such as gas rationing. Otherwise, what will
>> happen is "rationing by price" as it is called. There is no natural right
>> given to any individual to consume oil, especially foreign oil. People
>> that now have jobs in times of cheap oil may find they don't fit into the
>> economic scene when oil prices go up.
>
> I don't doubt that. Fortunately it's not something normal people
>have to be, nor are, terrified of now.
"Normal" (as in "average") people usually don't know much about the engineering
under the hood, let alone air drag, etc. How many idiots put bug deflectors
on the front of their PUs and cars, which increases air drag and reduces MPG?
Not to mention "spoilers", which also tend to increase drag.
Dan Bloomquist
Dave Simpson wrote:
>
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
>>If you haven't, see the previous thread, 'The Bush energy plan gives 90
>>percent of its tax breaks to big oil and gas'.
>>
>>I've offered a paper on contingency about the 'before' oil peaks. And if
>>you would, seriously see the discussion by Matthew Simmons.
>>
>>'Chicken Little' may or may not be the case. We are in deep doodoo if
>>Chicken Little is right. Ignorance is our biggest threat right now...
>
> I'm sure the current Bush plan is nearly as loaded (maybe not as
> openly) with goodies for energy firms as the earlier plan that had to
> be shelved.
It is just that other stuff happened in that thread. There is no
reasonable plan, just pork barreling and likewise stuff.
> We know we're going to run out of economic oil sometime. But, good
> luck suggesting an alternative.
Alternatives are clearly understood.
> Trying to pick future winners
> (industrial policy) is laughable. Forcing conservation on people
> (which won't solve the problem by itself anyway) is not the answer,
> either.
I'll repeat. It will take leadership. A consensus brought about by
understanding what needs to be done. I've never implied that change
should be enforced.
> You might want to suggest government R&D in addition to leaving it up
> to private initiative to come up with a solution, but what else can we
> do?
Usenet seems to be a very small crowd or there would be more awareness.
Not even the public broadcasting networks have seemed to pick up on this.
>>> Fuel cells, perhaps?
>
>>I don't know what you have in mind as there are two classes of fuel
>>cells. SOFC with a bottom cycle for transportation would really have an
>>impact. And if we had some ham...
>
> Electrification of transport would make it much cleaner as well as
> more efficient. It may well be that fuel cells will progress and
> eventually we'll have fuel cells that will be suitable to power homes
> as well as vehicles. I'm hopeful that may happen.
We have a lot of potentials. But if mainstream awareness remains in the
dark...
Even the experts are in the dark as far as 'when' goes. Did you listen
to the Simmons discussion?
>>>>Oil, now that's an other can of worms...
>>>
>>> Note the continued upward rise in the graphs. [consumption]
>>
>>Our biggest concern, IMHO. Would you like to light that other thread up???
>
> No, thanks. I have no answer other than the easy prediction that
> there will be conflict over the remaining oil in the near to medium
> term.
The only way to avoid this is more human awareness. I'm all for it.
Best, Dan.
--
Add one for email
Dave Simpson
Eric Swanson wrote:
Eric Swanson wrote:
> > I was explaining: conservation the way it will work, alone, won't
> >solve the problem. It will only reduce it.
>
> If you mean replace ALL oil consumption immediately, that's true.
> Over longer time periods, as the oil demand exceeds the supply, conservation will
> be part of the solution.
I (especially) clarified what I wrote: conservation alone won't solve
the problem, only reduce it. Only fools believe conservation is where
salvation lies. (Only fools believe alternatives are readily at hand
and easy substitutes, too.)
> > Often the alternatives are not practical. What then happens in
> >addition to reduction in consumption is "reorganization" -- for
> >example, finding money elsewhere in the budget to keep buying fuel so
> >people can still drive to work and back every day.
> A fine generalization,
An accurate statement of reality, that is.
> but, doesn't deal with what people will do in response to
> a large increase in the price of oil (and other energy prices along with oil).
> One could just as easily say that nuclear electricy is not practical because there
> is no place yet available to put the waste products.
False analogy. It's not the same thing, plus you have a false
premise -- there is a place (in the USA, at least) to put the waste.
As to what people will do, "it depends." For example, higher motor
vehicle fuel prices, some reduce their driving, but many simply
rearrange their finances and make sacrifices elsewhere, and continue to
drive as they have before.
> > Running out of oil is not a sudden cutoff.
> Gee, didn't you see that "docudrama" from the Faux Channel about "Oil Storm"?
No, wherever that was broadcast.
> > Solar power is normally defined as production of electricity from
> >solar energy.
> As a one time member of the American Solar Energy Society, I disagree.
You are incorrect. The term is normally used as I say it is. And,
> The folks that use that definition usually want to present solar energy as too
> expensive, which it is not when one considers the uses to which energy is put.
you are incorrect here, too.
> > Because [air pollution] is real, new power plants currently are usually
> >natural-gas-fired rather than coal-fired.
> Yes, that has been the case in recent U.S. history. Other nations are installing
> other options, such as wind power electric generation. Solar hot water heaters
> are un use all over Israel and other warm weather areas.
Solar and wind aren't feasible everywhere. Wind is being tried in
more places (and is predictably being fought by environmentalists and
other leftists where it has a chance of being successful in the case of
Long Island Sound), and solar energy would be great in the Sunbelt for
peak afternoon power augmentation to run all those air conditioners
(many, many more of which will be needed in future decades as people
continue to move south and west, likely accelerating with retirements).
But these two alternatives are not a magic solution.
> > (* sigh *) People are given one chance after another and reminded
> >time after time not to be especially stupid. If they so choose anyway,
> >they don't deserve our sympathy.
> Haven't you noticed, they are organized and may be in control of the U.S. Government.
Specifically, they are the scummy, obstructionist, as well as
often-dysfunctional Democratic contingent.
[performance of motor vehicles = engine output]
> > It is the conventional, long-accepted-usage definition. Again, do
> >not play games.
> Not by those of us with engineering backgrounds.
Wrong again. You overgeneralize and make a very unusual claim, to
say the least.
> That the public (ie, you) defines it that way just reminds me of your comment above.
>
> "People are given one chance after another and reminded time after time
> not to be especially stupid. If they so choose anyway, they don't deserve
> our sympathy."
You certainly aren't error-free and this is no surprise from you,
though it is sad.
> "Normal" (as in "average") people usually don't know much about the engineering
> under the hood, let alone air drag, etc. How many idiots put bug deflectors
> on the front of their PUs and cars, which increases air drag and reduces MPG?
> Not to mention "spoilers", which also tend to increase drag.
More people than you wrongly assume. Not everyone's a dolt.
Dave Simpson
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> > I'm sure the current Bush plan is nearly as loaded (maybe not as
> > openly) with goodies for energy firms as the earlier plan that had to
> > be shelved.
> It is just that other stuff happened in that thread. There is no
> reasonable plan, just pork barreling and likewise stuff.
I have no faith in any energy plan. (Why there even should be a plan
is another question.)
> > We know we're going to run out of economic oil sometime. But, good
> > luck suggesting an alternative.
> Alternatives are clearly understood.
They are not. Otherwise you wouldn't have fools who insist on what
is not practical or economical.
> > Trying to pick future winners
> > (industrial policy) is laughable. Forcing conservation on people
> > (which won't solve the problem by itself anyway) is not the answer,
> > either.
> I'll repeat. It will take leadership. A consensus brought about by
> understanding what needs to be done. I've never implied that change
> should be enforced.
I doubt a consensus can be reached. Besides, we know far from
everything.
> > You might want to suggest government R&D in addition to leaving it up
> > to private initiative to come up with a solution, but what else can we
> > do?
> Usenet seems to be a very small crowd or there would be more awareness.
> Not even the public broadcasting networks have seemed to pick up on this.
What, running low on oil in the medium-term future? Everyone knows
the oil will effectively run out (become too scarce) or become
uneconomical before then. But what can be be done now, immediately,
instantly? Nothing.
> We have a lot of potentials. But if mainstream awareness remains in the
> dark...
It's pretty much in the light. Most are not in a position to do much
about it, and who can predict what the "right" thing to do is?
> Even the experts are in the dark as far as 'when' goes. Did you listen
> to the Simmons discussion?
No.
> The only way to avoid this is more human awareness. I'm all for it.
Maybe in the sense of following more progress in research. Yes, that
includes wind and solar power progress elsewhere.
Dan Bloomquist
Dave Simpson wrote:
>
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
>>> I'm sure the current Bush plan is nearly as loaded (maybe not as
>>>openly) with goodies for energy firms as the earlier plan that had to
>>>be shelved.
>
>>It is just that other stuff happened in that thread. There is no
>>reasonable plan, just pork barreling and likewise stuff.
>
> I have no faith in any energy plan. (Why there even should be a plan
> is another question.)
You are still missing the point. It isn't about grandstanding. Read the
thread.
>>> We know we're going to run out of economic oil sometime. But, good
>>>luck suggesting an alternative.
>
>>Alternatives are clearly understood.
>
> They are not. Otherwise you wouldn't have fools who insist on what
> is not practical or economical.
Don't be a jerk. Alternatives are clearly understood.
>>> Trying to pick future winners
>>>(industrial policy) is laughable. Forcing conservation on people
>>>(which won't solve the problem by itself anyway) is not the answer,
>>>either.
>
>
>>I'll repeat. It will take leadership. A consensus brought about by
>>understanding what needs to be done. I've never implied that change
>>should be enforced.
>
> I doubt a consensus can be reached. Besides, we know far from
> everything.
We know enough. But if you think it will be war, than your glass is half
empty...
>>> You might want to suggest government R&D in addition to leaving it up
>>>to private initiative to come up with a solution, but what else can we
>>>do?
>
>>Usenet seems to be a very small crowd or there would be more awareness.
>>Not even the public broadcasting networks have seemed to pick up on this.
>
> What, running low on oil in the medium-term future? Everyone knows
> the oil will effectively run out (become too scarce) or become
> uneconomical before then. But what can be be done now, immediately,
> instantly? Nothing.
It can be fixed if we have the time. There is plenty of coal.
>>We have a lot of potentials. But if mainstream awareness remains in the
>>dark...
>
> It's pretty much in the light. Most are not in a position to do much
> about it, and who can predict what the "right" thing to do is?
Don't be an idiot. Read the previous thread and address it. Your
grandstanding is tiresome.
>>Even the experts are in the dark as far as 'when' goes. Did you listen
>>to the Simmons discussion?
>
> No.
So you are ignorant? Just pretending to be educated on the subject?
Ready for my plonk?
>>The only way to avoid this is more human awareness. I'm all for it.
>
> Maybe in the sense of following more progress in research. Yes, that
> includes wind and solar power progress elsewhere.
La la, la la la... Idiot....
Eric Swanson
>
>
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>> > I was explaining: conservation the way it will work, alone, won't
>> >solve the problem. It will only reduce it.
>>
>> If you mean replace ALL oil consumption immediately, that's true.
>> Over longer time periods, as the oil demand exceeds the supply, conservation will
>> be part of the solution.
>
> I (especially) clarified what I wrote: conservation alone won't solve
>the problem, only reduce it. Only fools believe conservation is where
>salvation lies. (Only fools believe alternatives are readily at hand
>and easy substitutes, too.)
You have trouble with reading comprehension?
I wrote: "conservation will be part of the solution."
>> > Often the alternatives are not practical. What then happens in
>> >addition to reduction in consumption is "reorganization" -- for
>> >example, finding money elsewhere in the budget to keep buying fuel so
>> >people can still drive to work and back every day.
>
>> A fine generalization,
>
> An accurate statement of reality, that is.
Maybe short term. A long term problem will need to be approached in a
different manner. In the long term, that "finding money in the budget" will
mean not buying some things, which will put the people making those things out
of work. Those out of work people will heve even less money, thus they will cut
their spending. The result could be an implosion, deflation, or depression.
We've always had enough oil to keep most things going. Once the Peak is past,
that won't be true and there will be less oil each year.
>> but, doesn't deal with what people will do in response to
>> a large increase in the price of oil (and other energy prices along with oil).
>> One could just as easily say that nuclear electricy is not practical because there
>> is no place yet available to put the waste products.
>
> False analogy. It's not the same thing, plus you have a false
>premise -- there is a place (in the USA, at least) to put the waste.
The Yucca Mountain repository is not operational and is still in debate.
> As to what people will do, "it depends." For example, higher motor
>vehicle fuel prices, some reduce their driving, but many simply
>rearrange their finances and make sacrifices elsewhere, and continue to
>drive as they have before.
>
>> > Running out of oil is not a sudden cutoff.
>
>> Gee, didn't you see that "docudrama" from the Faux Channel about "Oil Storm"?
>
> No, wherever that was broadcast.
The FX channel - Fox, like Fox News, or to some, Faux News.
It was pretty good, (good disinformation, that is).
>> > Solar power is normally defined as production of electricity from
>> >solar energy.
>
>> As a one time member of the American Solar Energy Society, I disagree.
>
> You are incorrect. The term is normally used as I say it is. And,
There you go again, using "normal" incorrectly.
The media does not correctly present the idea of solar energy to the public.
That does not make the resulting lack of public understanding correct from an
engineering or scientific point of view.
>> The folks that use that definition usually want to present solar energy as too
>> expensive, which it is not when one considers the uses to which energy is put.
>
> you are incorrect here, too.
Prove it.
>> > Because [air pollution] is real, new power plants currently are usually
>> >natural-gas-fired rather than coal-fired.
>
>> Yes, that has been the case in recent U.S. history. Other nations are installing
>> other options, such as wind power electric generation. Solar hot water heaters
>> are un use all over Israel and other warm weather areas.
>
> Solar and wind aren't feasible everywhere. Wind is being tried in
>more places (and is predictably being fought by environmentalists and
>other leftists where it has a chance of being successful in the case of
>Long Island Sound), and solar energy would be great in the Sunbelt for
>peak afternoon power augmentation to run all those air conditioners
>(many, many more of which will be needed in future decades as people
>continue to move south and west, likely accelerating with retirements).
> But these two alternatives are not a magic solution.
I never said solar or wind was equally useful everywhere. Some regions have
better resources of one renewable resource and other regions are better suited
to another. That idea about using solar for afternoon A/C is one of mine too.
>> > (* sigh *) People are given one chance after another and reminded
>> >time after time not to be especially stupid. If they so choose anyway,
>> >they don't deserve our sympathy.
>
>> Haven't you noticed, they are organized and may be in control of the U.S. Government.
>
> Specifically, they are the scummy, obstructionist, as well as often-dysfunctional
> Democratic contingent.
Ah, now we get the typical Repuglican/ neocon rant.
> [performance of motor vehicles = engine output]
I hope you drive the fastest gas guzzler there is -- between gas stations.
>> > It is the conventional, long-accepted-usage definition. Again, do
>> >not play games.
>
>> Not by those of us with engineering backgrounds.
>
> Wrong again. You overgeneralize and make a very unusual claim, to say the least.
So, you aren't a mechanical engineer, are you?
>> That the public (ie, you) defines it that way just reminds me of your comment above.
>>
>> "People are given one chance after another and reminded time after time
>> not to be especially stupid. If they so choose anyway, they don't deserve
>> our sympathy."
>
> You certainly aren't error-free and this is no surprise from you, though it is sad.
Nobody's perfect.
>> "Normal" (as in "average") people usually don't know much about the engineering
>> under the hood, let alone air drag, etc. How many idiots put bug deflectors
>> on the front of their PUs and cars, which increases air drag and reduces MPG?
>> Not to mention "spoilers", which also tend to increase drag.
>
> More people than you wrongly assume. Not everyone's a dolt.
Hey, guy, I'm posting to a science group. Remember Gaussian statistics?
"Normal" is the average of the data set. Sure, not everybody is a dolt, nor is
everybody a rocket scientist. I worked on space systems design for a while. I've
also rebuilt a few gasoline engines too. I have a solar heated house. So what?
BTW, what's your special claim to complete knowledge?
Dave Simpson
Eric Swanson wrote:
> > I (especially) clarified what I wrote: conservation alone won't solve
> >the problem, only reduce it. Only fools believe conservation is where
> >salvation lies. (Only fools believe alternatives are readily at hand
> >and easy substitutes, too.)
>
> [Do y]ou have trouble with reading comprehension?
No. You do if you suspect it.
> I wrote: "conservation will be part of the solution."
I'm aware of that. (* sigh *)
> > An accurate statement of reality, that is.
> Maybe short term. A long term problem will need to be approached in a
> different manner.
We don't know what the long term solution will be or what approach
will be "needed."
> The Yucca Mountain repository is not operational and is still in debate.
The fools and troublemakers will debate it endlessly and mindlessly.
They don't count.
> >> Gee, didn't you see that "docudrama" from the Faux Channel about "Oil Storm"?
> >
> > No, wherever that was broadcast.
>
> The FX channel - Fox, like Fox News, or to some, Faux News.
> It was pretty good, (good disinformation, that is).
I am aware plenty of losers call Fox "faux" because it's not as
liberal as the rest.
> > You are incorrect. The term is normally used as I say it is. And,
>
> There you go again, using "normal" incorrectly.
You do. I do not. You are wrong, again.
> The media does not correctly present the idea of solar energy to the public.
> That does not make the resulting lack of public understanding correct from an
> engineering or scientific point of view.
Whether the public is correct or not is irrelevent. What the (vast,
almost 100%) majority thinks is what defines "normally used."
> >> The folks that use that definition usually want to present solar energy as too
> >> expensive, which it is not when one considers the uses to which energy is put.
> >
> > you are incorrect here, too.
>
> Prove it.
They don't do as you say (obviously). Anyone who reads or hears the
reasons why they reject solar energy knows this.
> I never said solar or wind was equally useful everywhere. Some regions have
> better resources of one renewable resource and other regions are better suited
> to another. That idea about using solar for afternoon A/C is one of mine too.
Too many proponents believe solar and wind are "the" solutions --
everywhere.
> >> > (* sigh *) People are given one chance after another and reminded
> >> >time after time not to be especially stupid. If they so choose anyway,
> >> >they don't deserve our sympathy.
> >
> >> Haven't you noticed, they are organized and may be in control of the U.S. Government.
> >
> > Specifically, they are the scummy, obstructionist, as well as often-dysfunctional
> > Democratic contingent.
> Ah, now we get the typical Repuglican/ neocon rant.
Wrong again. I'm not a Republican, and the stupid language you use
is that of the losers in our society, stupidly hateful toward anyone to
the right of Joe Stalin.
> > [performance of motor vehicles = engine output]
>
> I hope you drive the fastest gas guzzler there is -- between gas stations.
Illogical, pouty -- oh, well.
> >> > It is the conventional, long-accepted-usage definition. Again, do
> >> >not play games.
> >
> >> Not by those of us with engineering backgrounds.
> >
> > Wrong again. You overgeneralize and make a very unusual claim, to say the least.
>
> So,
Non sequitur.
> you aren't a mechanical engineer, are you?
The answer to your irrelevent question is "no." I am involved in
engineering and know how people in engineering as well as outside it
conceive of "performance" of motor vehicles.
> >> That the public (ie, you) defines it that way just reminds me of your comment above.
> >>
> >> "People are given one chance after another and reminded time after time
> >> not to be especially stupid. If they so choose anyway, they don't deserve
> >> our sympathy."
> >
> > You certainly aren't error-free and this is no surprise from you, though it is sad.
>
> Nobody's perfect.
You certainly have demonstrated that.
> >> "Normal" (as in "average") people usually don't know much about the engineering
> >> under the hood, let alone air drag, etc. How many idiots put bug deflectors
> >> on the front of their PUs and cars, which increases air drag and reduces MPG?
> >> Not to mention "spoilers", which also tend to increase drag.
> >
> > More people than you wrongly assume. Not everyone's a dolt.
>
> Hey, guy, I'm posting to a science group.
alt.org.sierra-club, sci.energy, sci.environment, alt.politics.greens
> Remember Gaussian statistics?
> "Normal" is the average of the data set.
Use the term in its proper context and use here, please. Normal,
average, typical.
> Sure, not everybody is a dolt, nor is
> everybody a rocket scientist.
Plenty of people all along the scale (and distribution) are aware of
air resistance, how engines (typically four-cycle or Otto engines)
operate, and so on.
> I worked on space systems design for a while. I've
> also rebuilt a few gasoline engines too. I have a solar heated house.
OK...
> So what?
How old are you, four to six?
> BTW, what's your special claim to complete knowledge?
I have none, have made none. You have made a number of incorrect,
unusual statements.
Dave Simpson
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> You are still missing the point. It isn't about grandstanding. Read the
> thread.
I'm aware of what the Bush people are up to.
> >>Alternatives are clearly understood.
> >
> > They are not. Otherwise you wouldn't have fools who insist on what
> > is not practical or economical.
>
> Don't be a jerk. Alternatives are clearly understood.
Don't be illogical (and worse). It is as I have said.
> > I doubt a consensus can be reached. Besides, we know far from
> > everything.
> We know enough. But if you think it will be war, than your glass is half
> empty...
Nope. There's no half-empty glass (you are being strange) and there
needn't necessarily be war from conflict over dwindling oil supplies.
> > What, running low on oil in the medium-term future? Everyone knows
> > the oil will effectively run out (become too scarce) or become
> > uneconomical before then. But what can be be done now, immediately,
> > instantly? Nothing.
> It can be fixed if we have the time. There is plenty of coal.
Liquefaction and gasification? Probably not until oil gets more
expensive so it is more economical.
> > It's pretty much in the light. Most are not in a position to do much
> > about it, and who can predict what the "right" thing to do is?
>
> Don't be an idiot.
I'm not. Is this simply mirror talk?
> Read the previous thread and address it. Your
> grandstanding is tiresome.
There is no "grandstanding" [sic].
> >>Even the experts are in the dark as far as 'when' goes. Did you listen
> >>to the Simmons discussion?
> >
> > No.
> So you are ignorant?
No, I answered your question. Why are you rude as well as mistaken?
> Just pretending to be educated on the subject?
> Ready for my plonk?
See above.
> >>The only way to avoid this is more human awareness. I'm all for it.
> >
> > Maybe in the sense of following more progress in research. Yes, that
> > includes wind and solar power progress elsewhere.
>
> La la, la la la... Idiot....
That's your signature, indeed.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>> The Yucca Mountain repository is not operational and is still in debate.
>
> The fools and troublemakers will debate it endlessly and mindlessly.
>They don't count.
The U.S. was still a democracy, last I heard.
The business folks aren't in the majority. Nor are the sci/tech people.
>> > You are incorrect. The term is normally used as I say it is. And,
>>
>> There you go again, using "normal" incorrectly.
>
> You do. I do not. You are wrong, again.
>
>> The media does not correctly present the idea of solar energy to the public.
>> That does not make the resulting lack of public understanding correct from an
>> engineering or scientific point of view.
>
> Whether the public is correct or not is irrelevent. What the (vast,
>almost 100%) majority thinks is what defines "normally used."
That the majority is technically ignorant only makes things more difficult. That the
public has a mistaken impression of the alternatives is the result of considerable
effort to "educate" them thru media, such as that from the FOX channel, etc.
For example, years ago, the local electric utility built a house and put PV cells
on the roof as a "demonstration" for the public. It was very expensive, of course.
The message to all that looked at it was, "Solar is too expensive". After a while,
the utility removed the PC array and sold the house as a conventional one.
For example, it makes no sense to convert from electric powered heating and hot water
to PV powered versions of the same, as the expense would be very large and there
are thermal based alternatives which are less expensive.
>> >> The folks that use that definition usually want to present solar energy as too
>> >> expensive, which it is not when one considers the uses to which energy is put.
>> >
>> > you are incorrect here, too.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> They don't do as you say (obviously). Anyone who reads or hears the
>reasons why they reject solar energy knows this.
Yes they do. See the example cited above.
Exxon used to run "info adds" on the editorial page of the local newspaper, which
often contained incorrect of misleading information about energy.
>> I never said solar or wind was equally useful everywhere. Some regions have
>> better resources of one renewable resource and other regions are better suited
>> to another. That idea about using solar for afternoon A/C is one of mine too.
>
> Too many proponents believe solar and wind are "the" solutions -- everywhere.
Not my problem, although, in my location, I could provide all the energy I require,
if I wanted to go to the trouble.
[cut]
>> > [performance of motor vehicles = engine output]
>>
>> I hope you drive the fastest gas guzzler there is -- between gas stations.
>
> Illogical, pouty -- oh, well.
But that's what you seem to advocate. Your obcession with "performance" over
efficient transportation is what I tried to point out.
>> >> > It is the conventional, long-accepted-usage definition. Again, do
>> >> >not play games.
>> >
>> >> Not by those of us with engineering backgrounds.
>> >
>> > Wrong again. You overgeneralize and make a very unusual claim, to say the least.
>>
>> So,
>
> Non sequitur.
>
>> you aren't a mechanical engineer, are you?
>
> The answer to your irrelevent question is "no." I am involved in
>engineering and know how people in engineering as well as outside it
>conceive of "performance" of motor vehicles.
There are some in the engineering world that do not understand mechanical
systems. Given present engine technology, bigger gasoline engines are less
efficient. If you disagree, please give some technical reasoning to support
your logic.
[cut]
>> >> "Normal" (as in "average") people usually don't know much about the engineering
>> >> under the hood, let alone air drag, etc. How many idiots put bug deflectors
>> >> on the front of their PUs and cars, which increases air drag and reduces MPG?
>> >> Not to mention "spoilers", which also tend to increase drag.
>> >
>> > More people than you wrongly assume. Not everyone's a dolt.
>>
>> Hey, guy, I'm posting to a science group.
>
>alt.org.sierra-club, sci.energy, sci.environment, alt.politics.greens
I usually post thru the one of the SCI groups in that list.
>> Remember Gaussian statistics?
>> "Normal" is the average of the data set.
>
> Use the term in its proper context and use here, please. Normal,
>average, typical.
I thought I was. Simply graduating from an engineering school means that
one is "above normal" by most definitions of "normal", such as, one's scores
on various tests given to the general population of students. What was the
cutoff SAT score at the institution of higher education to which you applied
(assuming you actually did so) and what percentile did that represent?
>> Sure, not everybody is a dolt, nor is
>> everybody a rocket scientist.
>
> Plenty of people all along the scale (and distribution) are aware of
>air resistance, how engines (typically four-cycle or Otto engines)
>operate, and so on.
Then they may also be aware that the faster one goes, the more energy it
takes to get there. Your desired "performance" criteria implies less
efficient transportation, even with hybrid designs. When the shit hits
the fan, those with knowledge of efficiency will place a higher value on
mpg than on your "performance" criteria. Are you aware that there is
an 18 month waiting time to buy a new Toyota Prius? That's even though
they have been reported as not obtaining EPA values for mpg in real life.
Dan Bloomquist
Dave Simpson wrote:
>
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
>>You are still missing the point. It isn't about grandstanding. Read the
>>thread.
>
> I'm aware of what the Bush people are up to.
So you didn't read the thread, it was about peak oil, not Bush.
>>>>Alternatives are clearly understood.
>>>
>>> They are not. Otherwise you wouldn't have fools who insist on what
>>>is not practical or economical.
>>
>>Don't be a jerk. Alternatives are clearly understood.
>
> Don't be illogical (and worse). It is as I have said.
It is well understood, your comment has no relevance.
http://www.oilcrisis.com/us/NETL/OilPeaking.pdf
>>> I doubt a consensus can be reached. Besides, we know far from
>>>everything.
>
>>We know enough. But if you think it will be war, than your glass is half
>>empty...
>
> Nope. There's no half-empty glass (you are being strange) and there
> needn't necessarily be war from conflict over dwindling oil supplies.
Then what the hell do you mean by 'consensus'?
>>> What, running low on oil in the medium-term future? Everyone knows
>>>the oil will effectively run out (become too scarce) or become
>>>uneconomical before then. But what can be be done now, immediately,
>>>instantly? Nothing.
>
>>It can be fixed if we have the time. There is plenty of coal.
>
> Liquefaction and gasification? Probably not until oil gets more
> expensive so it is more economical.
Read the above paper, listen to the Simmons discussion. You don't have a
handle on the challenge.
>>> It's pretty much in the light. Most are not in a position to do much
>>>about it, and who can predict what the "right" thing to do is?
>>
>>Don't be an idiot.
>
> I'm not. Is this simply mirror talk?
The 'right thing' is obvious in spite of your claim, which you haven't
backed.
>>Read the previous thread and address it. Your
>>grandstanding is tiresome.
>
> There is no "grandstanding" [sic].
Sure there is. You are making baseless claims and have yet to address
the issue.
>>>>Even the experts are in the dark as far as 'when' goes. Did you listen
>>>>to the Simmons discussion?
>>>
>>> No.
But you post like you 'know'.
>>So you are ignorant?
>
> No, I answered your question. Why are you rude as well as mistaken?
Because you have put no thought into your post. You are still referring
to the 'Bush Plan' which is not relevant other than to demonstrate a
lack of leadership. That we could fix this is what is relevant.
>>>>The only way to avoid this is more human awareness. I'm all for it.
>>>
>>> Maybe in the sense of following more progress in research. Yes, that
>>>includes wind and solar power progress elsewhere.
>>
>>La la, la la la... Idiot....
>
>
> That's your signature, indeed.
You wrote: 'includes wind and solar power...' Which means you have no
comprehension about the difference between grid and transportation
energy. Clueless la la la as far as I'm concerned. If there were some
leadership, folks that don't get it, like you, would have no relevance
and we could fix this.
Tim K.
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:lbhve.131$9g...@news02.roc.ny...
> ... the 'Bush Plan' which is not relevant other than to demonstrate a lack
> of leadership. That we could fix this is what is relevant.
Bush's lack of action on this obvious problem is an unparalleled dereliction
of duty. Of course Kerry didn't say a whole lot about it either during the
campaign, but the lack of leadership by those in power now is alarming. We
have time to make a fairly painless switch now if they'd just get off their
asses and do something. Meanwhile another idiot in a hummer drives by...
Ian St. John
> In article <1119630963.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> david_l...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>
>> Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>>> The Yucca Mountain repository is not operational and is still in
>>> debate.
>>
>> The fools and troublemakers will debate it endlessly and mindlessly.
>> They don't count.
>
> The U.S. was still a democracy, last I heard.
Someone misinformed you. The U.S. is a republic. It has NEVER been a
democracy. It does not even understand what a democracy IS. Clue. In a
democracy, the government is required to LISTEN to the public as the
ultimate source of 'legitimacy' and policy direction, not run roughshod over
the people as a dictatorship, starting wars and killing both environmental
controls and the economy.
Jefferson rejected democracy as 'mob rule' and the colonial aristocracy have
been running the country ever since with a 'showy but non-binding'
(s)election process confusing the people into thinking their vote really
counts. Given that the rules are that states do NOT have to consider the
voting binding on them and that the 'electoral college' system presents only
a limited selection of the 'elite' as a choice between dumb and dumber, the
system can hardly be termed even a fledgling democracy. Too bad really. It
came closest under Abraham Lincoln(*) but then veered away again. A republic
still has voting ( like a democracy) but restricts who can vote and/or who
you can vote for. See "Platos republic' which illustrates the idea of rule
by a 'natural elite' which has tightened it's grip ever since.
(*) "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise
their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary
right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln.
Also applicable to Iraq which shows just how FAR from the principles of
democracy the U.S. has gone where they decide 'regime change' and subjugate
the population of another country under a puppet regime with little hope of
the people of Iraq overthrowing the occupation.
Ian St. John
<snip>
>> Whether the public is correct or not is irrelevent. What the (vast,
>> almost 100%) majority thinks is what defines "normally used."
>
> That the majority is technically ignorant only makes things more
> difficult.
Keeping the public ignorant and 'out of the loop' is just exactly what shows
that the U.S. is NOT a democracy but is a Republic run by an Oligarcy ( or
Plutocracy if you want to be more precise ). The same people that run the
businesses ( like Enron and Worldcom and Adelphi and .. ) run for public
office, mostly to ensure that the govenrment give them and their busienss
interests special favors and 'corporate welfare'.
Dave Simpson
This is why I dislike wasting time with the incompetent.
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
[one of several blunders and misbehaviors]
> >>> I doubt a consensus can be reached. Besides, we know far from
> >>>everything.
> >
> >>We know enough. But if you think it will be war, than your glass is half
> >>empty...
> >
> > Nope. There's no half-empty glass (you are being strange) and there
> > needn't necessarily be war from conflict over dwindling oil supplies.
>
> Then what the hell do you mean by 'consensus'?
I was doubting a consensus is possible. Can't you read?
> If there were some
> leadership, folks that don't get it, like you, would have no relevance
> and we could fix this.
More mirror talk. If there were not only a true meritocracy and the
suffrage were qualified and weighted, you, the incompetent and worse,
would be reduced greatly when not eliminated.
You illustrate the "baggage" that junks up USENET so often (as well
as the electorate and society).
Dave Simpson
I didn't miss much when I was away.
[emotional, incorrect reference to "democracy," etc., deleted]
> Plenty of people all along the scale (and distribution) are aware of
>air resistance, how engines (typically four-cycle or Otto engines)
>operate, and so on.
> Then they may also be aware that the faster one goes, the more energy it
> takes to get there.
Yes, they do. That doesn't change the central fact, that they use
the word
"performance" in the normal, common manner, which has nothing to do
with
their preference, though you do reveal that you are unhappy it
conflicts with
yours.
> Your desired "performance" criteria
Done. I have not desired anything, though you obviously have.
Enough.
Dan Bloomquist
Dave Simpson wrote:
Whatever......
Dan Bloomquist
Dave Simpson wrote:
>
>>Then they may also be aware that the faster one goes, the more energy it
>>takes to get there.
>
> Yes, they do....
No they don't. You are an idiot.
> Enough.
First smart thing I've seen you post.
Dave Simpson
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >>Then they may also be aware that the faster one goes, the more energy it
> >>takes to get there.
> >
> > Yes, they do....
> No[,] they don't.
Yes, they do. Don't be stupid.
> You are an idiot.
Mirror talk.
> > Enough.
>
> First smart thing I've seen you post.
You may be blind as well as stupid. Once again you show why the
unfit should be excluded from or weighted less in the electorate and in
other important decision making. Congratulations, Net trash. You're
toast, again.