Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
stickdog99 wrote:seems I have upset the cool kids who realize that our precious way of life is completely dependent on cheap oil and that no other energy source in the heavens or on earth can possibly save us
shame on me
wintler2 wrote:Stephen Morgan wrote:What the fuck is so damn wrong with rooftop, backyard and community gardens and rooftop, backyard and community solar power panels and windmills? Why have you let propagandists convince you that our existing evil systems are the only possible systems?Stephen Morgan wrote:..
You might not want to advocate for the oil companies, but by pushing the line that they are the only thing standing between us and the oilmageddon which will kill us all slowly and painfully and wipe out our civilisation that's exactly what you're doing.
More bullshit from a bulk supplier. Note that SM doesn't quote Rory saying what he is pretends Rory is saying, he just wheels in the very same strawman eyeno & stickdog have been fondling.
Is just me, or are SM, stickdog99 & eyeno all behaving exactly the same way: keep ranting about strawmen, ignore all questions, and provide zero evidence?
Since i can't tell them apart, think i'll call all of them stickdogmorganooknows from now on.
Yo, Mods, any way to stop the kids coming in here and leaving rubbish all around?
wintler2 wrote:lupercal wrote:wintler2 wrote:Is just me, or are SM, stickdog99 & eyeno all behaving exactly the same way: keep ranting about strawmen, ignore all questions, and provide zero evidence?
It's just you.
Sorry for forgetting you lupercal, you never came back with any evidence for your smears of ASPO & Theoildrum. Still searching thru Engdahls opinions for a new one of your own? Feel free to change them at random, Stephen Morgan does.
ps. Palin is a peak oil denier too - you keep such illustrious company.
wintler2 wrote:wintler2 wrote:..Cornucopians, inside the oil industry and outside, are responsible for the BP-GoM-2010 oil 'spill'.
..and the obscenity that is tar sands, and food-to-fuel that is worsening hunger, and oil wars.
They are business as usual, they are ultimately what the cornucopian/'what problem?'/peak oil deniers are endorsing. Gross and immoral.
Saurian Tail wrote:stickdog99 wrote:seems I have upset the cool kids who realize that our precious way of life is completely dependent on cheap oil and that no other energy source in the heavens or on earth can possibly save us
shame on me
The title of the article says "Solar PV could replace fossil fuels in 10 years - I.E.E.E".
But what the article actually says is that Solar PV could be competitive with fossil fuels in 10 years ... assuming certain increases in efficiency yet to be realized.
So here is the bottom line of the article: In the most optimistic scenario that assumes current growth rates (40% per year) and achieving the maximum hoped for improvements in efficiency --- Solar PV will deliver a whopping 11% of current (2011) global electricity production by 2050. That is 39 years down the road. Again, this is the most optimistic view that assumes everything goes according to the rosy picture.
JackRiddler wrote:The main hoax on this thread is the uninformed and baseless insistence by several of you that the oil companies are the ones claiming a current or imminent decline in the annual maximum output of conventionally extracted hydrocarbon energy stores, and thus an inability to meet growing demand and a significant decline in hydrocarbon EROEI (a set of concepts that are commonly given in abbreviated form as “peak oil”).
They are not. If you say so, show it. Otherwise you are full of it.
They are acting as though it already happened, however. There is no other reasonable explanation for Saudi offshore drilling, BP ocean drilling at a mile's depth, fracking, tar sands extraction, mountain-top bombing and the other observable indicators that do not require statistics to understand. Most of the hydrocarbon fat has been sucked out and burned up, and now they’re tapping the bone marrow.
Then there's the bizzaroland assertion that those who acknowledge depletion must necessarily favor continued dependence on oil,
even though depletion will eventually make that impossible; whereas those who claim without evidence that enough oil to meet demand will keep flowing at a viable EROIE (which is what the oil companies actually promote with their drill-baby-drill ideology) are the ones who want to free humanity from oil dependence! This part of it is why I shall most likely withdraw. What’s the point in arguing with an insistent, consciously adopted illogic?
Several of you don’t want to believe the “Western” estimates of reserves, but you do believe the alleged Russian claims.
Or are these really the Russian claims? Starman, I’d like a citation on your claim of 310 Russian wells drilling from below the crust, and, assuming that number is right, on what their output is (with EROEI, if possible). Please show the work behind your assertion that sub-crust wells are responsible for a significant part of current total Russian output. If you can make this credible, I’ll have to admit your point.
Obviously, if it's true that relatively infinite abiotic oil is available from the mantle at a viable EROEI, then this means a few more centuries of oil consumption and the attendant environmental catastrophes. Conveniently for most of you in denial about hydrocarbon depletion, you are also in denial about the effects of emissions on the climate and of extraction and burning on the land, air and water.
Again, some of you even manage to be in denial about what the obvious political consequences of your infinite oil dreams are: that oil dependence continues unchallenged! In best Republican style, you project your implicitly pro-hydrocarbon stance on to those who are anti-hydrocarbon!
The debate over abiotic vs. biotic origins of oil is of questionable relevance. Does it mean more stores that are accessible at a viable EROEI? Do these abiotic stores not deplete? Is anyone claiming that the abiotic process produces the stuff faster than we can burn it? It doesn’t matter what the origins of oil are, unless it means there is more of the stuff to actually tap and bring into a consumable form at a viable EROIE. Otherwise it’s academic.
Saurian Tail, on the other hand, projections of how solar will develop as an alternative under the conditions of the current "free market" controlled by hydrocarbon companies and their bankster mates need mean nothing. These conditions would change in a hurry if the resources devoted to, for example, the fatal nonsense of the Pentagon were instead to be invested in the necessary conversion. Then a lot more could be accomplished in 30 years. Not that it becomes easy but there is a difference between drifting along and waiting for the "market" and actually treating the problem as a crisis a lot more pressing than whatever the next war is on the agenda. The primary decision (or lack thereof) is political, not "economic" in the conventional, capitalist sense.
Not that I’m very optimistic about the necessary mass awakening happening soon enough. Look at the quality of this thread, in a place where people are actually supposed to be aware of the issues.
StarmanSkye wrote:As far as 'other' renewable, alternative energy resources -- The biggest prize, perhaps even bigger and more truly revolutionary and practically inexhaustable, relatively cheap and extremely abundant than deep abiotic oil reserves is liquid high-temp sodium nuclear power, or more specifically Liquid Flouride-Thorium Reactors. It is a monstrous travesty amounting to sabotage, betrayal and a crime against civilization that the Pentagon/MIC/nuclear Uranium-Plutonium cartel decided to develop the uranium-plutonium solid-fuel reactor business model as THE dominant Nuclear Energy paradigm since it hit all the major MIC/energy-monopoly key interests. This decision was made in the early 50s, ratified in the 60s, and formalized in the 70s -- even though LFTR technology has all the major benefits nuclear power once boldly promised with almost NONE of the hazards, shortfalls and problems nuclear energy plants have since demonstrated.
Thorium is so abundant it is practically FREE (since it is mined for the rare and strategic minerals/elements it is mixed with -- an average mine say in Idaho mines enough Thorium to drive the WORLD'S electric energy needs).
Nordic wrote:This notion that somehow Big Oil is perpetuating some "myth" of Peak Oil? Since the fuck when?
Big Oil wants more Big Oil and they sure as shit do not want ANY competition for it. If they really wanted to push the idea of Peak Oil, they'd be already monopolizing solar, wind, all kinds of alternative energies and shoving them down our throats.
They're not. They don't want us to do any of that crap, they want us to be a slave to the oil/coal teat for ever and ever, so we'll just keep paying whatever price it ends up being.
Rory wrote:Stephen, you'll kindly note that I have not at any stage ('ever' - to provide a distinct and measurable timeframe) engaged with or addressed anything you have said before now.
This be the first and last.
From your post I have only one point I would like to address. You cite biofuels. Interesting.
If a definition of modern agriculture is: "Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."
Then, a definition of bio fuels is: "Biofuels are the use of land to convert petroleum into petroleum. With a net energy loss."
I don't think they're perpetuating peak oil, rather oil scarcity in general, so as to raise prices. Although, on the Peak Oil front, since the fuck they hired Hubbert to invent the whole fucking idea of Peak Oil would probably be the when-ness of it.
wintler2 wrote:eyeno wrote:..Small groups of very powerful people, a cabal perhaps, do not own F16's and they are not dropping bombs on half the middle east to control oil. I believe it, the government and the NGO's told me so.
What a laugh.....
More everything-is-a-conspiracy cliche's, how dull. You could help me differentiate you from stickdog99 by posting a coherent original thought or some evidence.
I've known about Peak Oil since 1979 for God's sake. Hell, everybody's known about it for fucking EVER. It ain't gonna last, nobody with half a brain expected it to!
Nordic wrote:I don't think they're perpetuating peak oil, rather oil scarcity in general, so as to raise prices. Although, on the Peak Oil front, since the fuck they hired Hubbert to invent the whole fucking idea of Peak Oil would probably be the when-ness of it.
I know I said I was checking out but oh my god ...
That's about the STUPIDEST FUCKING THING I'VE EVER READ.
I've known about Peak Oil since 1979 for God's sake. Hell, everybody's known about it for fucking EVER. It ain't gonna last, nobody with half a brain expected it to!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 157 guests