please post a list of countries that you all
know have peaked and a list of countires that
are in the 'maybe' category and a list of
countries that oil is actually growing. (like
the super project post)
Oklahoma peaked in 1927 at about 700,000 BOPD; now it is 167,000 BOPD.
The US peaked in 1970 at 9.66 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 5.43 million BOPD.
Libya peaked in 1970 at 3.32 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 1.54 million BOPD.
Kuwait peaked in 1972 at 3.28 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 2.34 million BOPD.
Iran peaked in 1974 at 6.03 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 3.93 million BOPD.
Saudi Arabia peaked in 1981 at 9.64 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 8.86 million BOPD.
Russia peaked in 1983 at about 11.5 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 8.88 million BOPD.
Alaska peaked in 1988 at 2.14 million BOPD; now it is 968,000 BOPD.
The following countries' oil production was at an all-time high in 2004:
China (3.49 million BOPD)
Mexico (3.38 million BOPD)
Canada (2.42 million BOPD)
United Arab Emirates (2.36 million BOPD)
Nigeria (2.34 million BOPD)
Kazakhstan (999,000 BOPD)
Angola (985,000 BOPD)
Malaysia (859,000 BOPD)
Qatar (783,000 BOPD
How will the rising Cold War Politics between BCR, Putin, and the Chinese leadership affect the upcoming G8 Energy Security Conference in July: Will they consider ASPO's Energy Depletion Protocols as a way to defuse the political storm, or will it just be a pointless shouting match leading to ever more militarism?
''Will they consider ASPO's Energy Depletion Protocols as a way to defuse the political storm, or will it just be a pointless shouting match leading to ever more militarism?''
Well... lets take a wild guess.
You are looking into the future and these are alternative scenarios. In order to codify some kind of short hand for future scenarios, may I respectfully suggest we harden our options. I welcome any other handles or alternatives or other possible scenarios.
THE JETSONS - A cornucopean, hi-tech vision of our future based a new , unlimited source of energy and personalised transport.
HOBBITON - A heavenly vision of rustic charm, real ale and copious amounts of food with relatively little back breaking work in the fields. This scenario is basically 1) but low tech and with hairy feet.
MAD MAX - A disorganised, chaotic dystopia of brigandage along Hobbesian lines.
1984 - An organised, regimented dystopia with extreme social control, propaganda, torture and chemical coshes.
THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR - Just get it for us. Now.
SHOGUN - Pretty self sufficient. Excellent news for those allowed to wear Katana, Not too hot if you are one of the night soil collectors.
Seems to me number three (Mad Max) is the most accurate model of US foreign policy: a large, rude warlord rides around the desert shooting people and stealing their oil.
Just substitute Dick Cheney for Lord Humongous and there you have it.
To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time. When the world was powered by the black fuel. And the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel they were nothing. They built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men.
"I am gravely disappointed. Again, you have made me unleash my dogs of war."
7. Soylent Green. I think that it is spot on (with the possible exception of Soylent itself). No energy, destroyed ecosystem, masses of people, global warming, and a very few wealthy people living in luxury.
attn Duncank
yes , that is where i got this name ....
was using it long before i gound out about PO . but it does seem to fit the situation in a way . im a country boy , in a fairly survivable spot . small town with less than 10k people , 60 plus acres thats a had a garden for 130 years nonstop in my family , pretty much raised in the field and stream ....congrats to you , your the first one here to catch that ..
Chronologically, several of the following could occur, in sequence:
#6) Three Days of the Condor - Some could argue that we have already entered this period. Puts off the inevitable.
#7) Soylent Green - The decline begins in earnest, government unable to cope, corporations step in. War, famine, and pestilence stalk the land. 10 years from now.
#5) Shogun - Modern civilization starts to crumble, stabilizing in a neo-feudal system, similar to that seen in third world countries today. Somalia or Zimbabwe seem apt models. 25 years from now.
#3) Mad Max - Effectively, the end game. Only vestiges of modernity remain, fossil fuel energy sources mostly exhausted. 50 years from now.
Modern civ destroyed itself, those who survived found different ways to make a living:
some making it by living as 200 years ago, farming, fishing, community
some making by maintaining some modern era tech, hydroelectric, computers
some find themselves subject to warlords, raping, pilaging, burning, taking
I might be moving to San Jose / San Francisco in a few months (still completely up in the air). If I wanted to buy 10 acres of land where I can grow food, is there anyplace in particular I should be looking within 100 miles of the area? Or is all the arable land out there a million bucks an acre?
Millman
A place to live and place to grow food need not be in same location. You could get a small place in town and rent/lease a tract within bicycle range or easy drive.
With small pieces of ag land stranded by zoning you may wind up with a much shorter commute - good idea in these times. Up here in Western Wash ag land leases for about $350/acre/year.
A 5 acre plot in Pescadero (a charming peak oil ready village about 1 mile from the beach and surrounded by farmland and redwoods) on Pescadero Creek in rural San Mateo county is about US$300,000. I was going to relocate my home from San Jose to Pescadero last year. Then I realized that it would be more prudent to leave the US entirely.
PS: Strongly advise not living in San Francisco itself. The SF Bay military bases were gradually closed over the past several years. Then Jeb Bush was heard to joke at a Florida GOP meeting that San Franciscans were an endangered species. Make of that what you will. But Livermore Lab has taken delivery of vehicles with gatling guns, and Camp Parks has been refurbished as an emergency detention centre, presumably for unruly San Franciscans.
MillMan - you're off by an order of magnitude, man! $10 million an acre should set you up nicely. Don't forget to budget for watch towers and snipers and ammo for when things get bad and ppl are willing to die trying to get your cucumbers, or anything, to eat. .........
and is there any chance you could have a voting
and flagging system like craig's list where us
users could rank posts and get some posts in
a hall of fame type page?
There's no question that there has been greater volatility in commodity prices lately, especially energy and metals. A significant component of energy futures trading is speculation, which is very news-driven. Momentum traders will enter or exit positions at the drop of the hat. They will invest in anything that is moving up and sell their positions when it becomes temporarily over-bought and the momentum wanes. When the price drops back, they start all over again. The net result is the large swings in prices that we are observing.
Does anybody here have the goods on a Bill Leighty, who is a director of the Leighty Foundation? He is proposing that Iowa lead the nation in producing hydrogen from wind power.
One of his interests is the possible use of hydrogen as a replacement for global-warming-causing fossil fuels. His particular expertise is in the economics of producing hydrogen and transporting it through pipelines.
He has presented papers on the topic at conferences all over the world.
One method of producing hydrogen is to pass an electric current through water, which breaks it into its component parts, hydrogen and oxygen. This becomes a renewable source of hydrogen if the electricity comes from wind turbines.
I thought you couldn't transport hydrogen through pipelines..
Depends on the level of carbon in the steel. Older pipelines generally have higher levels of carbon as that was the low-tech method of having a strong pipeline. Unfortunately that also means that the steel can be susceptible to embrittlement from hydrogen. Newer pipelines with low carbon levels don't have this problem.
I thought you all might get a kick out of this. I have said before that rarely do I encounter an ethanol advocate who backs up their arguments with actual literature references. Most of them seem to fall into one of 3 (not necessarily mutually exclusive categories): 1). The naïve idealist; 2). The investor; or 3). The person whose livelihood depends on continuing the ethanol boondoggle. One thing that seems to be very common is that their style of argumentation consists of ad homs, bombast, rhetoric, and made up facts. Their arguments are conspicuously light on references and verifiable facts.
So, I give you one of our TOD ethanol proponents, "fuelaholic". We have had an increasingly nasty exchange going back to Monday's open thread. I don't think there is any place for "over the top" arguments like this, and I think they need to be exposed to discourage them from taking place. I think the problem is that he is taking this personally, which is a shame.
It goes back to some claims that were posted of David Blume's, which I briefly addressed (to fuelaholic's dissatisfaction). I have challenged him time and time again to debate this issue, but he has only responded with insults. I want to highlight some of his claims, to show you exactly the kind of thing I get too often from the advocates. Note that all of the following are either 1). False; 2). Misrepresentations; 3). Ad hominems.
Lest you think I am making this stuff up you can see the exchange starting here.
Fuelaholic: I think the Oil Drum folks need to research who you really are and who your allegiance is really to. Your paycheck, perhaps?
Isn't it ironic that an anonymous poster would say that I need to be investigated to find out who I really am? You would be what we call a "hypocrite", fuelaholic.
Fuelaholic: Like Pimentel, who refused to apply his numbers to organic farming methods, you focus on what is, not what can be.
I have written before that I think Pimentel's numbers are outdated, and that he should include co-product credits. But otherwise his methodology is far more accurate than that of the USDA, and he hasn't played around with the numbers as the USDA has. He also included necessary inputs that the USDA just completely omitted.
Incidentally, fuelaholic frequently calls Pimentel an "oil company shill". Speaking of which:
Fuelaholic: First of all, I've read plenty of biofuels comments here. They are not as clearly slanted, and poorly thought out as yours. And I haven't agreed with a lot of them. But I know they aren't oil company shills.
If you can't support your arguments with facts, insult your opponent or cast aspersions on their motives.
Fuelaholic: I repeat, you are the one with the made up facts, poor understanding of basics (energy input vs energy output) and you are simply parroting oil company complaints and then covering your butt to disguise it whenever you can.
This from someone who hasn't once addressed any of my arguments. I invite the reader to check that out by clicking the link above.
Fuelaholic: You're an insulting smug wannabe know it all.
Sticks and stones.... Again, the reader can see who is doing the insulting. Also, my work with ethanol is in the public record, and can be easily verified. What would make me a "wannabe" is if I hid behind a pseudonym and naively presented the case for ethanol without actually having done the proper research into the issues.
Regarding my debate challenge:
Fuelaholic: I think a challenge should only come from someone who is qualified to make it. Engineer Poet comes to mind. He doesn't appear to have allegiances to his employer that cloud his vision, prompting numerous ad hominem attacks against me and Blume and Stryker.
Nice dodge. If I am not qualified, you should have an easy time of it. Ironically, EP was my inspiration for starting my blog. I have read 90% of the essays on his blog, and I bet we agree on 95% of the issues. Besides that, he has debated the issue and has it archived on his blog. He probably wouldn't mind debating the issue, but I can't speak for him. I can tell that I am willing, able, and if I am not qualified you shouldn't have a problem with me.
Second thing, I think you better look up the definition of ad hominem in a dictionary. If I say Blume isn't credible, and then dissect some of his claims to show why he isn't credible, that isn't an ad hom. When you call me a shill and then don't address my arguments, that is a classic ad hom.
Fuelaholic: I think frankly instead of saying something like, this beet EROEI is bullshit, you should be saying, oh, really, I'd like to see that study. But you didn't.
The funny was that I had asked him for the reference. You can see at the link above. This is the kind of sloppy argumentation that is par for the course from him.
Fuelaholic: Because it's your nature to be dismissive and not consider anything that doesn't inflame people to capitalize on TOD's tendency to doubt any energy alternative that comes along.
He knows my nature. So, not only an Internet ethanol expert, but apparently a psychologist.
Fuelaholic: It's clear you have no children, no concern for hope, no concern for anything other than your paycheck.
Wrong on all counts. These are the same sorts of "facts" he has used to support his ethanol arguments.
Fuelaholic: And you spend too much g-d time blogging. You have to be paid for it! End of story.
That's it. End of story. Another "fact" from fuelaholic. Sadly, the advocates often can't tell the difference between making a claim, and making a factual claim.
Nice guy, eh? Maybe he should be investigated. :^)
I think what we're contending with here is a desperate attempt by some people to latch onto anything that will give them hope about the future of energy in the US; and you are viewed as the guy who dropped a turd in the punch bowl. A certain faction desperately wants ethanol from corn to be a viable option and has upmost scorn for those who logically demonstrate its serious shortcomings.
You are a spoil sport; you have taken away their hope; and they hate you for it.
You are the crazy person, the only one who can't see the emperor's new clothes.
Exactly, and whats worse that punch bowl had been spiked with some 12% ethanol cheap white wine, rendering it unfit for use just blew fuelaholics eroei numbers all to hell ;-)
Keep on bloggin in the free world RR, great stuff!
Keep on bloggin in the free world RR, great stuff!
Maybe I'd better wait until the investigation is complete. :^) I just hope they don't discover that I am a hopeless, childless shill, and that my real name is "Ethanol Hater".
You may be correct (I certainly agree with what you say) but I wouldn't reply with non-scientific arguments because that is the same thing the person taking a swipe at Robert did. You don't know with certainty the motivations of the ethanol supporter.
Communities like the oildrum.com can succumb to group think as much as the broader culture can. While I think this place has orders of magnitude less misinformation as, say, the MSM does, but I sure as hell do not rely on this place exclusively for my daily does of news and "reality."
Your travails with the ethanol contingent echo the frustrations I am sure most of us suffer when trying to educate people about peak oil in general. Just today I caught myself getting upset and wrapped up in the bad logic of the person I was discussing things with.
Your best bet is to engage only those who will put forth and defend their ideas, and ignore those who merely sit back and snipe, and you cannot gain anything by dealing with this type anyway. If all people want is an argument, and not an exchange and balance of ideas, then don't let them take on peak oil, or whatever valuable concept you know of, as an enemy.
Sadly, most people you will meet assert their "intelligence" by trying to tear others and their ideas down.
If not, here some (I dont have time to back them) fact :
Sugarcane is grown using mainly manual manpower and somes are dying from thirst up there.
Corn is fun to eat once or twice a year. After that, cream corn is the only product that is good enough. Do you know that 40 000 americain food product contain corn?
Corn is a cash crop because it is subsidized by your government. No farmer can grow corn and make money if it is not subsidized.
When you put a full corn plant in front of a cow, it will eat all the plant except the corn.
Corn is just about the worst thing you can grow and the worst sugar content for alcool production.
That makes a lot of sense to me... I think that eventually people will stop associating ethanol with corn. Based on our current crop-to-ethanol understanding most ethanol will be produced in tropical countries from other crops. Definitely comparative advantage.
Maybe areas like the Caribbean, Phillipines,Malaysia, Africa, etc.. can actually catch up a little. We send them corn they send us ethanol. I like that.
Reasoned arguments aside, it certainly
seems that TPTB have placed the ethanol
bet for at least a 10% blend with gasoline
or ~13 billion gallons anually .. That's the
size of the market just to displace MTBE ..
Has anyone seen any data on per acre ethanol
yield if the entire corn plant is processed,
rather than just the grain ?? Like it or not
we're going down the ethanol path .. might as
well be as efficient about extracting it as
we can be ..
Sorry about that, RR. Our anonymity on TOD means we can say things without professional repurcussions, but it also opens up the possibility of being really nasty. Hiding under cloak of darkness doesn't bring out the best in human nature. KKK members don't usually reveal their activities, and any academic on TOD can tell you how nasty anonymous journal reviewers can be.
Invective, tirades, diatribes, or <unacknowledged> rants don't us help much. [Self-aware rants can be cathartic and fun.] Personally, I'd suggest not engaging once it's obvious there is no point. I understand that the ad hominem is a classic fallacy, but I'm not convinced the underlying logic is always wrong. Sometimes the problem is the messenger more than the argument. If you read a post, and the word "bozo" comes to mind, there's probably not much point in reacting.
Sorry about that, RR. Our anonymity on TOD means we can say things without professional repurcussions, but it also opens up the possibility of being really nasty.
Just to be clear, I do not begrudge anyone their anonymity. I posted anonymously for years on Creationists boards after a particularly unpleasant Creationist starting posting my personal information (address, phone number, wife's name) on the Internet.
I just couldn't get over the irony of someone who goes by the name "fuelaholic" suggesting I should be investigated to find out "who I really am". LOL!
Why would you post on Creationist boards? Would you post on my (hypothetical) Hogwarts board complaining that you doubted dragons exist because you had never seen one and that my slash fiction Draco/Harry love affair was not canonical? Why pee in their sandbox? It's rude!
I am in fact a Creationist. Granted, I'm a Tiplerian Omega Point we are living in a video game Creationist, but still, I am a Creationist.
And yes, I'm going to kill the GM!
The first one is an account of an incident in which a rogue Creationist took over a debate board and started moderating his own debates anonymously. The second is a discussion of Haldane's Dilemma, with Creationist Walter Remine.
please post a list of countries that you all
know have peaked and a list of countires that
are in the 'maybe' category and a list of
countries that oil is actually growing. (like
the super project post)
this site rules
A brief history of oil production peaks
Oklahoma peaked in 1927 at about 700,000 BOPD; now it is 167,000 BOPD.
The US peaked in 1970 at 9.66 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 5.43 million BOPD.
Libya peaked in 1970 at 3.32 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 1.54 million BOPD.
Kuwait peaked in 1972 at 3.28 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 2.34 million BOPD.
Iran peaked in 1974 at 6.03 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 3.93 million BOPD.
Saudi Arabia peaked in 1981 at 9.64 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 8.86 million BOPD.
Russia peaked in 1983 at about 11.5 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 8.88 million BOPD.
Alaska peaked in 1988 at 2.14 million BOPD; now it is 968,000 BOPD.
The following countries' oil production was at an all-time high in 2004:
China (3.49 million BOPD)
Mexico (3.38 million BOPD)
Canada (2.42 million BOPD)
United Arab Emirates (2.36 million BOPD)
Nigeria (2.34 million BOPD)
Kazakhstan (999,000 BOPD)
Angola (985,000 BOPD)
Malaysia (859,000 BOPD)
Qatar (783,000 BOPD
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13523559,00.html
How will the rising Cold War Politics between BCR, Putin, and the Chinese leadership affect the upcoming G8 Energy Security Conference in July: Will they consider ASPO's Energy Depletion Protocols as a way to defuse the political storm, or will it just be a pointless shouting match leading to ever more militarism?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Well... lets take a wild guess.
You are looking into the future and these are alternative scenarios. In order to codify some kind of short hand for future scenarios, may I respectfully suggest we harden our options. I welcome any other handles or alternatives or other possible scenarios.
- THE JETSONS - A cornucopean, hi-tech vision of our future based a new , unlimited source of energy and personalised transport.
- HOBBITON - A heavenly vision of rustic charm, real ale and copious amounts of food with relatively little back breaking work in the fields. This scenario is basically 1) but low tech and with hairy feet.
- MAD MAX - A disorganised, chaotic dystopia of brigandage along Hobbesian lines.
- 1984 - An organised, regimented dystopia with extreme social control, propaganda, torture and chemical coshes.
- THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR - Just get it for us. Now.
- SHOGUN - Pretty self sufficient. Excellent news for those allowed to wear Katana, Not too hot if you are one of the night soil collectors.
Right now, 4) and 5) seem to me to be on the up.Just substitute Dick Cheney for Lord Humongous and there you have it.
Best,
Matt
"I am gravely disappointed. Again, you have made me unleash my dogs of war."
Yep, sounds about right Matt...
7. Soylent Green. I think that it is spot on (with the possible exception of Soylent itself). No energy, destroyed ecosystem, masses of people, global warming, and a very few wealthy people living in luxury.
yes , that is where i got this name ....
was using it long before i gound out about PO . but it does seem to fit the situation in a way . im a country boy , in a fairly survivable spot . small town with less than 10k people , 60 plus acres thats a had a garden for 130 years nonstop in my family , pretty much raised in the field and stream ....congrats to you , your the first one here to catch that ..
Number Eight?
8) THE HANDMAIDS TALE: Theocratic , fascist, dystopia with complete subjugation of Women.
Just need anothe two and we have the top ten hits for 2020.
#6) Three Days of the Condor - Some could argue that we have already entered this period. Puts off the inevitable.
#7) Soylent Green - The decline begins in earnest, government unable to cope, corporations step in. War, famine, and pestilence stalk the land. 10 years from now.
#5) Shogun - Modern civilization starts to crumble, stabilizing in a neo-feudal system, similar to that seen in third world countries today. Somalia or Zimbabwe seem apt models. 25 years from now.
#3) Mad Max - Effectively, the end game. Only vestiges of modernity remain, fossil fuel energy sources mostly exhausted. 50 years from now.
Modern civ destroyed itself, those who survived found different ways to make a living:
some making it by living as 200 years ago, farming, fishing, community
some making by maintaining some modern era tech, hydroelectric, computers
some find themselves subject to warlords, raping, pilaging, burning, taking
Tony
A place to live and place to grow food need not be in same location. You could get a small place in town and rent/lease a tract within bicycle range or easy drive.
With small pieces of ag land stranded by zoning you may wind up with a much shorter commute - good idea in these times. Up here in Western Wash ag land leases for about $350/acre/year.
Be sure to inquire about water rights.
A 5 acre plot in Pescadero (a charming peak oil ready village about 1 mile from the beach and surrounded by farmland and redwoods) on Pescadero Creek in rural San Mateo county is about US$300,000. I was going to relocate my home from San Jose to Pescadero last year. Then I realized that it would be more prudent to leave the US entirely.
PS: Strongly advise not living in San Francisco itself. The SF Bay military bases were gradually closed over the past several years. Then Jeb Bush was heard to joke at a Florida GOP meeting that San Franciscans were an endangered species. Make of that what you will. But Livermore Lab has taken delivery of vehicles with gatling guns, and Camp Parks has been refurbished as an emergency detention centre, presumably for unruly San Franciscans.
Right now I rent, I am probably a few years away from owning anything. I am unwilling to buy anything in this surreal real estate market anyway.
could you all have user polls like free market news?
http://www.freemarketnews.com/news-poll.asp
and is there any chance you could have a voting
and flagging system like craig's list where us
users could rank posts and get some posts in
a hall of fame type page?
http://www.craigslist.org/about/help/flags.html
this site rules
Does anyone think that this kind of volatility is normal or just a result of too many contradictory headlines and day events?
Seems like it goes up for a headline telling that "someone" likes "someone else" and goes down because a "guy" dont like an other "guy".
Ok replace "guy" by some country name and you got it.
I thought you couldn't transport hydrogen through pipelines..
So, I give you one of our TOD ethanol proponents, "fuelaholic". We have had an increasingly nasty exchange going back to Monday's open thread. I don't think there is any place for "over the top" arguments like this, and I think they need to be exposed to discourage them from taking place. I think the problem is that he is taking this personally, which is a shame.
It goes back to some claims that were posted of David Blume's, which I briefly addressed (to fuelaholic's dissatisfaction). I have challenged him time and time again to debate this issue, but he has only responded with insults. I want to highlight some of his claims, to show you exactly the kind of thing I get too often from the advocates. Note that all of the following are either 1). False; 2). Misrepresentations; 3). Ad hominems.
Lest you think I am making this stuff up you can see the exchange starting here.
Fuelaholic: I think the Oil Drum folks need to research who you really are and who your allegiance is really to. Your paycheck, perhaps?
Isn't it ironic that an anonymous poster would say that I need to be investigated to find out who I really am? You would be what we call a "hypocrite", fuelaholic.
Fuelaholic: Like Pimentel, who refused to apply his numbers to organic farming methods, you focus on what is, not what can be.
I have written before that I think Pimentel's numbers are outdated, and that he should include co-product credits. But otherwise his methodology is far more accurate than that of the USDA, and he hasn't played around with the numbers as the USDA has. He also included necessary inputs that the USDA just completely omitted.
Incidentally, fuelaholic frequently calls Pimentel an "oil company shill". Speaking of which:
Fuelaholic: First of all, I've read plenty of biofuels comments here. They are not as clearly slanted, and poorly thought out as yours. And I haven't agreed with a lot of them. But I know they aren't oil company shills.
If you can't support your arguments with facts, insult your opponent or cast aspersions on their motives.
Fuelaholic: I repeat, you are the one with the made up facts, poor understanding of basics (energy input vs energy output) and you are simply parroting oil company complaints and then covering your butt to disguise it whenever you can.
This from someone who hasn't once addressed any of my arguments. I invite the reader to check that out by clicking the link above.
Fuelaholic: You're an insulting smug wannabe know it all.
Sticks and stones.... Again, the reader can see who is doing the insulting. Also, my work with ethanol is in the public record, and can be easily verified. What would make me a "wannabe" is if I hid behind a pseudonym and naively presented the case for ethanol without actually having done the proper research into the issues.
Regarding my debate challenge:
Fuelaholic: I think a challenge should only come from someone who is qualified to make it. Engineer Poet comes to mind. He doesn't appear to have allegiances to his employer that cloud his vision, prompting numerous ad hominem attacks against me and Blume and Stryker.
Nice dodge. If I am not qualified, you should have an easy time of it. Ironically, EP was my inspiration for starting my blog. I have read 90% of the essays on his blog, and I bet we agree on 95% of the issues. Besides that, he has debated the issue and has it archived on his blog. He probably wouldn't mind debating the issue, but I can't speak for him. I can tell that I am willing, able, and if I am not qualified you shouldn't have a problem with me.
Second thing, I think you better look up the definition of ad hominem in a dictionary. If I say Blume isn't credible, and then dissect some of his claims to show why he isn't credible, that isn't an ad hom. When you call me a shill and then don't address my arguments, that is a classic ad hom.
Fuelaholic: I think frankly instead of saying something like, this beet EROEI is bullshit, you should be saying, oh, really, I'd like to see that study. But you didn't.
The funny was that I had asked him for the reference. You can see at the link above. This is the kind of sloppy argumentation that is par for the course from him.
Fuelaholic: Because it's your nature to be dismissive and not consider anything that doesn't inflame people to capitalize on TOD's tendency to doubt any energy alternative that comes along.
He knows my nature. So, not only an Internet ethanol expert, but apparently a psychologist.
Fuelaholic: It's clear you have no children, no concern for hope, no concern for anything other than your paycheck.
Wrong on all counts. These are the same sorts of "facts" he has used to support his ethanol arguments.
Fuelaholic: And you spend too much g-d time blogging. You have to be paid for it! End of story.
That's it. End of story. Another "fact" from fuelaholic. Sadly, the advocates often can't tell the difference between making a claim, and making a factual claim.
Nice guy, eh? Maybe he should be investigated. :^)
RR
Don't take such comments too much to heart.
I think what we're contending with here is a desperate attempt by some people to latch onto anything that will give them hope about the future of energy in the US; and you are viewed as the guy who dropped a turd in the punch bowl. A certain faction desperately wants ethanol from corn to be a viable option and has upmost scorn for those who logically demonstrate its serious shortcomings.
You are a spoil sport; you have taken away their hope; and they hate you for it.
You are the crazy person, the only one who can't see the emperor's new clothes.
For shame on you!
Keep on bloggin in the free world RR, great stuff!
Maybe I'd better wait until the investigation is complete. :^) I just hope they don't discover that I am a hopeless, childless shill, and that my real name is "Ethanol Hater".
RR
Communities like the oildrum.com can succumb to group think as much as the broader culture can. While I think this place has orders of magnitude less misinformation as, say, the MSM does, but I sure as hell do not rely on this place exclusively for my daily does of news and "reality."
Your best bet is to engage only those who will put forth and defend their ideas, and ignore those who merely sit back and snipe, and you cannot gain anything by dealing with this type anyway. If all people want is an argument, and not an exchange and balance of ideas, then don't let them take on peak oil, or whatever valuable concept you know of, as an enemy.
Sadly, most people you will meet assert their "intelligence" by trying to tear others and their ideas down.
Didn't I read something somewhere about comparative advantage?
If not, here some (I dont have time to back them) fact :
Sugarcane is grown using mainly manual manpower and somes are dying from thirst up there.
Corn is fun to eat once or twice a year. After that, cream corn is the only product that is good enough. Do you know that 40 000 americain food product contain corn?
Corn is a cash crop because it is subsidized by your government. No farmer can grow corn and make money if it is not subsidized.
When you put a full corn plant in front of a cow, it will eat all the plant except the corn.
Corn is just about the worst thing you can grow and the worst sugar content for alcool production.
If it was a sarcarm, I wrote it for the others :)
That makes a lot of sense to me... I think that eventually people will stop associating ethanol with corn. Based on our current crop-to-ethanol understanding most ethanol will be produced in tropical countries from other crops. Definitely comparative advantage.
Maybe areas like the Caribbean, Phillipines,Malaysia, Africa, etc.. can actually catch up a little. We send them corn they send us ethanol. I like that.
seems that TPTB have placed the ethanol
bet for at least a 10% blend with gasoline
or ~13 billion gallons anually .. That's the
size of the market just to displace MTBE ..
Has anyone seen any data on per acre ethanol
yield if the entire corn plant is processed,
rather than just the grain ?? Like it or not
we're going down the ethanol path .. might as
well be as efficient about extracting it as
we can be ..
Triff
Invective, tirades, diatribes, or <unacknowledged> rants don't us help much. [Self-aware rants can be cathartic and fun.] Personally, I'd suggest not engaging once it's obvious there is no point. I understand that the ad hominem is a classic fallacy, but I'm not convinced the underlying logic is always wrong. Sometimes the problem is the messenger more than the argument. If you read a post, and the word "bozo" comes to mind, there's probably not much point in reacting.
Just to be clear, I do not begrudge anyone their anonymity. I posted anonymously for years on Creationists boards after a particularly unpleasant Creationist starting posting my personal information (address, phone number, wife's name) on the Internet.
I just couldn't get over the irony of someone who goes by the name "fuelaholic" suggesting I should be investigated to find out "who I really am". LOL!
RR
I am in fact a Creationist. Granted, I'm a Tiplerian Omega Point we are living in a video game Creationist, but still, I am a Creationist.
And yes, I'm going to kill the GM!
A Lesson in Creationist Ethics
An Encounter with Walter ReMine
The first one is an account of an incident in which a rogue Creationist took over a debate board and started moderating his own debates anonymously. The second is a discussion of Haldane's Dilemma, with Creationist Walter Remine.
RR
Let's face facts. You're not only a shill for the oil companies, you are Dick Cheney's personal bitch, correct?
Tell us, what does the inside of his underground lair look like?
Best,
Matt
RR