 | Peak Oil and "The Limits to Growth": two parallel stories | The Oil Drum: Europe | Energy For a Changing World: A Credible European Energy Strategy for the 21st Century |  |
114 comments on Oilwatch Monthly - February 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
114 comments on Oilwatch Monthly - February 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
90% of the energy for transportation comes from oil.
Best wishes for an economy without transportation.
"90% of the energy for transportation comes from oil."
we waste tons of oil getting to work with one driver in one huge car remember? tons of efficiency to be gained is the flip side of waste.
besides, that we won't run out of oil tomorrow. you also ignore using electricity for powering cars.
328. PEAK LIQUIDS ≠ PEAK ENERGY
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/328-peak-liquids-peak-energy...
thanks JD!
So you don't see any side effect of market-driven, forced carpooling on the average American citizen? Sure it will save a ton of fuel if everyone is carpooling, but if we have gotten to the point where carpooling is seen as a necessity, do you really think people will still be in the mood for that viente latte and that plasma screen and that granite kitchen and that expensive gym membership, etc.? By then they will have effectively stopped consuming as before and there's no denying that our entire economy is built on perpetual growth. As in never-ending.
What I'm saying is that you have the think of the psychological effects of this 'deprivation' on a society that for the most part has never been deprived. I just can't see a future where people are effectively forced to carpool - a huge lifestyle adjustment for 2 income families by the way - while at the same time continue to not just maintain but increase their level of consumer spending to infinity. If our economy isn't growing, it is dying.
our economy is built on boom and bust cycles. recessions are a part of that which is what you described. the world isn't going to end if we have to car pool.
when we car pool we create communities and friendships, that's what you guys want, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions
Boom and bust, yes. But the overall trend has to be growth. And have the majority of us ever endured a bust so strong where free market dictated - because gas become so expensive - that the only cost-effective way to get to work was to carpool? To me, something on that level would be far outside of what we normally consider a bust cycle.
I'm just focusing on what was said in the above post, that we waste a lot of oil by driving around individually. No doubt about that statement. My argument is that 'driving around individually' is pretty much integral for a normal functioning economy the way we've set it up. If the economics of 'driving around individually' have changed dramatically enough for 'everyone' to carpool, to me that means huge adjustments to our collective psyche and our economy. And perpetual growth isn't in the cards in that case.
JD's work is biased and sloppy. For example, putting natural gas in as an alternative to skew his numbers. We all know natural gas decline will likely closely follow PO.
Another is the 2% decline rate for oil. That's a joke that nobody thinks is funny. The most conservative PO resisters (big oil and CERA) don't even try to claim that. This is an obvious agenda being supported with misleading "facts." In other words, useless.
Yet another is his ignoring that all fuels are not created equal. Even if total energy grows, you will still have problems with interchangeability. E.g., you can't lube an ICE with coal, natural gas, or electricity. You parrot that here by dismissing the point about petroleum being such a high percentage of transportation energy. Like a parrot, you're making a lot of noise but actually communicating anything.
People with agendas... chrissakes... Intelligent points raised by inquiring minds are so much more interesting and so much more useful.
Cheers
You use the initials "JD" as if everyone knows which poster he is. I can't work it out from your post, and without knowing which poster he/she the main thrust of your comment doesn't make any sense to me since I don't have the context to interpret it, I'm afraid. Maybe many who read your post will know who JD is, but not everyone.
http://www.theoildrum.com/user/JD
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
It's both ironic and funny that you launch straight into a fallacy to "prove" JD's work is biased and sloppy.
Ironic, funny, and rather telling.
Refute his argument, then. It's here.
It comes fairly directly from analyses by SS, Campbell, and Laherrere, though, so it's not clear that it's as much of a joke as you seem to be assuming.
As he says in the story:
"To those doomers who remain unconvinced: I hereby issue a challenge. Post in the comments. Show me the argument that proves Stuart Staniford, Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere have got it all wrong about peak oil."
You obviously don't understand what they're saying, then.
They're not saying supply is going to decline at 4.5% per year; they're saying that supply would decline at 4.5% per year if no new fields were ever added.
New fields are being added, so the decline rate is less than 4.5% (and, in fact, is less than zero right now, meaning supply is growing).
Coal and NG can both be turned into liquid fuel via well-known technologies like fischer-tropsch. That you don't know about these technologies doesn't change that.
And, oddly enough, a US lab just came out with a method to generate gasoline from electricity, atmospheric CO2, and water, with - apparently - about 30% efficiency. Not industrial yet, of course, but neither is there a liquid fuels crisis yet.
So don't assume that something can't be done just because you don't know how to do it. Remember: that you believe something does not make it true.
Pit the Elder, You seem to have a forthright stance on much of this analysis. Do you have any numerical analysis on-line somewhere? Something that you have done on your own?
For example, the whole discussion around decline rates certainly could use a good chart. What is the decline rate doing over time? You say it is below zero, meaning the reserve is increasing. But is the decline rate below zero and accelerating upward? In other words, what is the slope of the decline rate at this point in time?
That would be depletion rate, I believe. Decline rate just refers to production; as production has been at record levels for the last few months, the recent decline rate must have been below zero, since production needed to increase to those record levels.
In my opinion? Far too noisy to meaningfully calculate.