Peak Oil Article on foxnews.com

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, how am I making money off of spreading fears?


[/ QUOTE ]

I was not calling you a fearmonger. Try to lighten up.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Massive asteroid on collision course with earth.

Natedog advises that the Govt not meddle with the market and let private enterprise find a solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an asinine comparison that bears no relation to the issues of our national energy policy. Hint: what is the current market for asteroid collision avoidance today and what are the odds of a lethal asteroid collision compared to the odds that our oil reserves will decline in the near future? The whole comparison is stupid.

That said, given the current structure of the world, it is quite likely that the best route to solving an asteroid collision catastrophe would indeed be the marshalling of government action. This is not a reflection on how great and effective government action is, but rather a reflection on the poor state of affairs here on earth caused by governmental regulation, intervention, protectionism, cronyism, etc. etc.

However, it need not be that way.

Consider for a moment if the world were composed of nations that were all bound by a constitution that, for some reason, specifically prohibited government action in the event of an impending asteroid collision.

Do you think that the world could somehow solve the crisis with govt's hands tied? I not only think it's possible, I"m sure it would happen.

With regard to our energy policy, all am I saying is that ideally our government would not have a policy. This includes REMOVING all the ridiculous policies we have now, as well as not forming any new ones with regard to energy. The problem is that with the current horrible mess we have created, it is difficult for people to imagine that government shouldn't manipulate and subsidize energy markets.

This is because they currently *do* manipulate and subsidize energy markets, which calls for further manipulationg and subsidizing of green tech in the face of oil's advantages.

My stance is that more central planning from our incompetent congress is not going to be a good thing. But... if you are going to have central planning of energy markets, it should include green tech so I too would like to see the current energy bill address alt. energy, which is doesn't really do. The current energy bill is little more than a mishmash of subsidies and incentives for special interests.

Preferably, I'd like to see the energy bill remove ALL energy subsidies and tax incentives that currently exist and create an unfettered market for energy. This would be far reaching including removing corn ethanol subsidies, and use of our military to "stabilize" vital oil regions.

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

Sorry to bug you, but you used fearmongers. What other fearmongers do you see?
Why expend so much energy on attacks of Kunstler? I have not read much by him, but what little I have read has been reasonably well reasoned while definately belongning in the pessimistic camp.

And on what do you base your idea that he, and other pessimists, do not want anyone to see the new techs. that will come? He, and others, just don't belive they will come soon enough, or have a large enough impact to stop the world being slowly turned back to a (much) lower energy lifestyle.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]

Preferably, I'd like to see the energy bill remove ALL energy subsidies and tax incentives that currently exist and create an unfettered market for energy. This would be far reaching including removing corn ethanol subsidies, and use of our military to "stabilize" vital oil regions.

[/ QUOTE ]
In an ideal world I'd more or less agree with you, although environmental and other constraints would still need to be imposed. The market is not good at taking care of long-range problems.
The problem of course is doing this now, at this point in time. The idea that the US will quietly remove it's military prescense in ME and drop any form of subsidies is just not very realistic, do you think? I would say that's not really an option, maybe in the very long run, but not in the short.
So, we need to work within the limits of what is actually possible. Then what should we do?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to bug you, but you used fearmongers. What other fearmongers do you see?
Why expend so much energy on attacks of Kunstler? I have not read much by him, but what little I have read has been reasonably well reasoned while definately belongning in the pessimistic camp.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mostro: I have not read much by him, but what little I have read has been reasonably well reasoned

Let's just say I disagree.

Here's an excerpt from his essay "The Long Emergency":

I'm not optimistic about the Southeast, either, for different reasons. I think it will be subject to substantial levels of violence as the grievances of the formerly middle class boil over and collide with the delusions of Pentecostal Christian extremism. The latent encoded behavior of Southern culture includes an outsized notion of individualism and the belief that firearms ought to be used in the defense of it.

This is an excercise in armchair pop psychology with no basis in fact other than his own pretensions. His urbanite disdain for rural white people is palpable. Well reasoned? Not in my book. With phrases like "latent encoded behaviour of Southern culture" I find it hard to take him seriously on anything.

He appears to be armed with two facts.

1. oil is running out.
2. alternative energy is not mature *today*

As I've said before, the arguments of Kuntzler and other peak oil alarmists are nothing more than "If nothing changes.... we are doomed". Well, duh. That's always been true.

Kuntzler gives away his political agenda with this closing statement: If there is any positive side to stark changes coming our way, it may be in the benefits of close communal relations, of having to really work intimately (and physically) with our neighbors, to be part of an enterprise that really matters and to be fully engaged in meaningful social enactments instead of being merely entertained to avoid boredom.

His self-righteous disdain for modernity is again, palpable. You can practically feel the glee as he contemplates the burning of surburbia. We are not engaged in anything that "really matters". We don't have "meaningful social enactments". Our lives are spent being merely "entertained to avoid boredom". It'll be a positive thing when we all have to physically labor together to grow food. What drivel. And trite and derivatively unoriginal to boot. But, he's an idiot, and suburbia won't burn.

There are others like him that are promulgating the same Mad Max vision of 2040, but he is getting the most press right now, so I mention him as the poster child of peak oil fearmongers.

It's good that the average person is now thinking about peak oil. A firm grasp of reality is important, which is something Kuntzler lacks. But it's important to note that the world is not going to end.

From the original article that started this thread:
"The world has never seen anything like this before and so we just really don't know," said Robert L. Hirsch,

and

"My honest view is that anybody who tells you that they have a clear picture probably doesn't understand the problem."

natedogg

[natedogg]

http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2005/...antum_dot.html

May increase PV panel efficiency by 100%

Just another in a long series of *daily* announcements about innovations and improvements in energy tech. All you have to do is scan the news wire. You'll find that there is a frenzy of innovation occurring all over the world.

Again, peak oil catastrophe predictions depend on the premise that nothing will change from today forward. That is clearly absurd, and so is the notion that our global society will crumble in the face of declining oil reserves. If oil suddenly disappeared today, yeah, we'd have a catastrophe, but that's not going to happen, and neither is the stasis that the alarmists rely on

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

I'm not going into a discussion about Kunstler, as I said I havn't read much by him and can't really discuss what he belive and not.
But
[ QUOTE ]

1. oil is running out.
2. alternative energy is not mature *today*

[/ QUOTE ]

I would venture the guess that you are slightly wrong on nbr 2. there. I belive he, and many others, would say that alternative energy is not mature today, and even when it is it will not be able to produce the vast amounts of energy we today get from fossil fuels.

For an interesting view, listen to the interview with Deffeyes I linked to in an earlier post in this thread. He is a geologist and seems to have a reasonably firm grip of reality. He is not as pessimistic as Kunstler.

There was a Peak Oil seminar in Uppsala, Sweden, a few weeks ago, featuring Matthew Simmons, Kjell Aleklett and Robert Hirsch. I didn't attend (I would have wanted to, but didn't find out until it was too late, bugger).
Anyway, on the "doomer" issue, they said
[ QUOTE ]
Doomer issue: They meant Heinberg was to pessimistic on technology and uh, society. They didn't believe that the end of the world was near, but that we would, and I quote, "muddle through". They said we might have a few rough decades but that the world will not end. For example, Aleklett was asked if he belived airborne mass tourism would continue in the future. He answered that sailing boats are very nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fears of the Kunstlers of the world is that this "muddle through" will mean rioting and wars because people have a sense of entitlement that will get a beating in the decades to come.

Myself, I'm worried that "muddle through" will mean decades of recession/depression. Only on my most pessimistic days do I belive this civilization is actually about to go down, and even on those days I don't envision a collapse in the matter of years, things lika that take time to happen.
But I also belive that life in the future will be less energy intense than life is today for the western world.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the C02 buildup in the atmosphere is a far greater problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct.

I'm not to concerned about peak oil. As the price of oil increases other technologies become economically viable(i.e. biodiesel, clean coal, etc). Where the article is wrong is in saying these technologies are decades away. While it true when oil is $35 a barrel its false when oil is $65 a barrel.

Stu

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2005/...antum_dot.html

May increase PV panel efficiency by 100%

Just another in a long series of *daily* announcements about innovations and improvements in energy tech. All you have to do is scan the news wire. You'll find that there is a frenzy of innovation occurring all over the world.
....

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there is innovation.


I would just like to point to the first line of that article:

Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

hmmm... lets see what other buzzwords we can find.

Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, D.C.
Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
DOE


Now lets count the private organizations....

ok... I'm done.

It's so hard to resist giving you [censored]. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

GOOD JOB ON THE LINK THOUGH!!!!

[Il_Mostro]

Well. This is a very simplified view.

Listen to the Deffeyes interview, he say that when he was young the oil-price was 3$ a barrel. At that point it was said that when oil reached 5$ the colorado shale would just clean out everything, because then it would be economical. But of course, when oil was at 5$ it was at 8$ it would be economical. And so on, oil shale has so far been considered to be economical as soon as oil gets to slightly more than at market price at any given point. And so far it has not yet become economical on large scale.

I see the same thing happening with biodiesel and clean coal. Less so with coal, as it's being used right now in South Africa for example. But there are other problems with that.

And part of the peak oil problem is expensive fuel, and how that could be solved by using... expensive fuel, I don't know.