 | New Cabinet Position-"Energy and the Environment"? | The Oil Drum | A Resilient Suburbia? 2: Cost of Commuting |  |
| UK Industry Taskforce Sounds Alarm on Peak Oil | The Oil Drum: Europe | Countdown to $200 oil (12) - betting on Yergin | |
95 comments on Jeremy Leggett discusses the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
95 comments on Jeremy Leggett discusses the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security
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
Dave I have not heard cjwirth speak in fullness and would like, even if he be running mad in some electrifying manner, see such madness with mine own eyes; that, than staggering on, be blinded by that 'we' of yours.
Please note that the 'we' referred to those who had commented up to that point in time.
To examine his claims for yourself, go here:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
If you open up the report, you will see that most of it is uncontentious stuff - and the grammar has improved since the last time I looked at what he had to say.
Much of it is simple adaptions of what others have said on this site.
However, when you get to the part where he branches off on his own, on the non-fungibility of energy resources, you can see that one of his primary references is to a report from 1980, fer chrissakes:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11771&page=R1
The 'Exhaustive analysis' he talks of is based on entirely outdated information, since, for instance, battery technology has improved in many respects by something like 8% a year for many years.
The foundation on which he builds his absolute claims for the inability to manage without a huge input of fossil fuels is in fact far from exhaustive, but an incredibly skimpy couple of paragraphs, and the referencs so dated that one can perhaps conclude that the data has been cherry-picked to find something or the other which would give some cover to the assertions made.
If you want to give credence to this, fine.
I do not intend to waste any more time on extreme claims with such flimsy backing that in my view they destroy any credibility.
Dave,
Don't much care for censorship which was the point of my comment. I also think that inflammatory remarks are no argument.
On the subject of die-off, which you bring up, maybe it has begun. I won't say why I say that it may have begun, as, following the dictum you have set up, it might compel me to cite chapter and verse, or risk verbal abuse. Besides, I am at heart a very lazy bugger and wouldn't feel like it.
I don't suppose I could say why I think so and have you run your butt off proving me wrong? You know, present a theory and have you knock it down?
While I am at it maybe I could present the theory that the electrical system will fail due to the decrease of net energy in the system, as provided by fossil fuel, over time.
My objection is not to the thesis that the grid may break down, but to the assertion of it's inevitability poorly supported by analysis.
Hi Dave,
The report is a policy analysis of the most reliable and up-to-date scientific and government studies (National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, Energy Watch Group [funded by the German Parliament], U.S. General Accountability Office, Union of Concerned Scientists [the latest battery technology there], Congressional Research Service, World Energy Council, Canadian National Energy Board, Joint Research Centre of the European Union, and many scientific studies that are published on TOD).
The material dealing with the multitude of energy inputs for alternatives and oil production is original, in that no one else has discussed all inputs previously. This explains why oil depletion will occur rapidly and why alternatives will not be able to replace declining oil supplies.
The claims are not extreme, but rather the Energy Watch Group (funded by the German Parliament) comes to the same conclusion in a report, PEAK OIL COULD TRIGGER MELTDOWN OF SOCIETY, that will be released next week:
"By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame."
http://www.globaliamagazine.com/?id=482
I've had dozens of comments about how well the report is written, and only one to the contrary -- yours. I've had numerous positive comments from TOD members, including some from TOD editors.
The report was published by Commodityonline.com and Atlanticfreepress.com
Cheers,
Cliff Wirth
I would agree that the report is well written, as I have said, and in it's early stages uncontentious.
Since I was not given links to it, I fell back upon possibly faulty memory of when the argument had been presented before - you have since explained why the links were absent - if I am not told I don't know.
I agree that society may break down due to peak oil.
What I object to is your assertions as to it's inevitability, supported in the case of the fungibility of energy by grossly out of date references, and a very skimpy covering of the subject rather than the 'exhaustive analysis' you claim.
I feel your analysis is not strong enough to support the degree of certainty with which you declare it's inevitability, and prefer an approach which itemises forces for and against a particular result and looks for factors which may falsify them.
What got my goat though were the claims of 'exhaustive analysis' without references or links, and you have since explained that that was as you were not allowed to by the editors, which is fair enough.
Factually you are wrong about the dates of references, as most are within 2 years, a few go back to 2004, but in any case I use the most up-to-date. The report is exhaustive in reviewing all relevant scientific/credible studies, and reporting on the most recent and credible. In some cases, there are no references, as the findings are original.
As I said, what I really objected to were your statements that you had extensive analyses of the problem, without a link.
You have since explained why that was the case, due to editorial limitations, but I was hardly to know that until informed of this.
On the case in point, the section which seems entirely unsupported is the one of Energy Non-Fungibility pg 38 and on.
This is simply a series of assertions without any foundation at all for the conclusions you seek to draw.
For instance, you mention difficulty in financing projects - however there is wide variability in the availability of funds, with countries like China being able currently to have a near $300 billion a year new infrastructure investment without moving into substantial budget deficit.
You also choose to highlight Bouldings critique of 'Energy in Transition 1985-1010', which is a 1982 report.
It may, of course be the case that a transition may not be possible, but asserting this is not the same as proving it, and your confidence in the absolute certainty of your conclusions is no guarantee of their correctness.
On this critical section what you present can in no sense be considered as the 'exhaustive analysis' which you represent it to be.
It is a couple of pages of assumptions.