Anyone still believe peak oil will not happen?

[corra]

About 200 days ago i made a thread on this forum about peak oil
the thread was called hubbert peak.

in that post i asked if you realized that peak oil was coming and got by and large a negative response. things like "no peak oil is myth" and "we will find other energy sources"

i personally believe peak oil has been reached and the oil prices causing poor countries to have power outages due to not being able to buy oil to fuel their powerplants due to high prices.
further more the rapid growing chinese and indian economies are straining oil suply aswell.


the question i ask is this.
after 150 more days of evidence.. anyone still believe peak oil will not happen?

 

[glondor]

From what I understand, the only country to increase production last year was Canada.
Here is some info you might find usefull http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/contents.html

 

[DaveC426913]

Could you perhaps expound on this term 'peak oil'? I've never even heard of it. Is it ... an event?

 

[hypatia]

It was term first coined in the mid-1970's, a guy said we would reach the peak of good grade oil by 1990's. Which is true to some extent, many oil wells half to use water to pressuer pump the oil up now.And we can all saftly assume, that nothing lasts forever.
There are several dooms day predictions floating around, some of which have already expired, but mostly claim the end of the world as we know it. Global wars, mass starvation ect.

 

[russ_watters]

i personally believe peak oil has been reached and the oil prices causing poor countries to have power outages due to not being able to buy oil to fuel their powerplants due to high prices.

Do poor companies use oil to make power? China, for example, is almost completely coal, as I understand it.

after 150 more days of evidence.. anyone still believe peak oil will not happen?

What new evidence do you have? Peak oil is a very specific predicition. Do you have evidence that directly addresses that prediction?

 

[corra]

Peak oil is a definition.
in 1956 M. king hubbard a geologist working for shell analyzed the rate of exploration/development/production peaks of oil wells in the united states.

he predicted that the United States would reach peak oil in 1970 and was laughed at by the media and geologists alike. 14 years later in the year 1970 the US peaked.

he also predicted that the world as a whole would peak around the turn of the millenia. (2000) but political events such as the oil embargo in the 70's and some development in technology has pushed back the peak a few years. Most geologists invested in the peak oil theory think the world peaked in 2005. we have not been able to produce more then we did that year.

basically peak oil means that if you analyze the rate of discovery against the rate of development of new fields. then do math about how big the field is and how fast it's producing you get an idea of how long the field will last.

most of the oil fields in existence today are old and as such they have already peaked and are in decline. to produce more oil tomorrow then we are today we have to get new fields and develop them and have them produce enough oil to make total oil production in the world grow and take up the slack from old oil wells that loose production every day.
we cant.

once oil demand outgrows supply the world is in serious trouble.

we rely on everything for oil.
food, roads, fuel, heating, electricity, plastics, cosmetics, cars, industry etc etc.
the list goes on forever.

with the rise of huge economies like china and India we simply cannot produce enough oil to satisfy demand.
china alone grows by 7% each year.. that means the economy will double in 10 years. realistically that means double oil consumption.

china has been aggressive in getting new oil supplies to fuel their growing economy for years and that in turn has pushed prices up aswell.
they have secured oil rights in Canada, venezuela, iran and some african nations.

look up peak oil on the internet and you get over 2 million hits. last year it was down to 600k. for current info on peak oil check out this site
http://www.energybulletin.net/ it updates every day with info about all aspects of peak oil and the coming worldwide energy crisis.

the page that first got my attention about peak oil was this "www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.com"
this page has been mentioned by a senator speaking to congress about peak oil and if you manage to read the entire thing and not be worried then you have a mindset i can't imagine.

www.theoildrum.com is also a good site for oil info and energy news.

 

[Evo]

MYTH: The World Is Running Out of Oil
We Might Have to Dig Deeper, but Researchers Say There's Plenty Left

"The tar sands of Alberta alone contain enough hydrocarbon to fuel the entire planet for over 100 years," according to Peter Huber, co-author of "The Bottomless Well."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1954572&page=1

 

[G01]

We gave you an overall negative response because you seem to forget there are other alternatives to oil. When the time comes its more probably that they will be implemented because doing that is easier than waging a global war for the last drops of oil. That war would just not be worth it. You tell us about peak oil. We point out possible solutions, and you say they won't work without offering any good evidence of that point. You do not offer an methods to solve the problem, you only tell us about the fire and brimstone that's on the horizon. Seriously, corra, what's the point of this? Do you just want to scare people into a state hopelessness and despair? Even if peak oil is true, your method of action isn't going to help fix anything at all. What's the point?

 

[scpg02]

we have not been able to produce more then we did that year.

That is mainly because of environmental politics not actual oil production. At least in the US.

 

[corra]

"The tar sands of Alberta alone contain enough hydrocarbon to fuel the entire planet for over 100 years," according to Peter Huber, co-author of "The Bottomless Well."

well that's just super.
too bad it takes a lot of water to get the oil out.
and the energy gain is virtually none. the amount of energy put into getting the oil out of the tar is almost as big as the energy you get from the oil.

and no go1 the purpose is not to shock and awe people into a state of fear.
the purpose is to get people mentally prepared for what's coming.
there is a lot the man on the street can do to prepare for what is coming.
buy dried food, plant some nut and fruit tree's, get some solar panels, inform neighbors and friends and try to build a community that can be sustained after the peak.

towns and cities in the United States have started this.
towns like maiden head and many others. check link for info
http://transitionculture.org/2007/09/06/transition-town-maidenhead-in-the-news/

and by the way. oil does not stand for 50% of the total energy use in the world. it is closer to 80%

 

[corra]

EVO
found two articles you should read about the tar sands before you reply.
http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/2915
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007166.html

its a total of max 3 pages and if you can't be arsed to read that much then i really do not need a reply.

 

[billiards]

Depends who you ask. Statoil think we've already hit peak - but they work in the North Sea, duh!

It's interesting, as the inventiveness increases more and more reserves are opening up. The actual knowledge is evolving. Although there have been plenty of studies in the mining industry that show that reserves are somewhat fractal in distribution (few bigguns, lots of little-uns). I'll get on to how it's evolving...(bear with me)..

Did you know that well over half the worlds oil reserves were found in salt traps? That was true, but it was primarily cos that was where they'd all been found in salt traps cos that's where we knew to look (and more importantly, how to look!). It's a bit like saying: did you know that a meteorite has never hit the sea, there's no known impact site on the ocean floor, so it's never been hit (in fact, Finland has been hit the most according to this train of logic!). Anyway, recently people have been working on techniques to discover oil reserves in the deep ocean, and also beneath basalts, which were previously impenetrable to conventional exploration techniques. So now more options are opening up.

The propblem is this EIEO thing, energy-in/energy-out ratio - once that gets top heavy you've lost, and it seems that it is getting there.

 

[Evo]

The way to cope with change is not to isolate yourself from the rest of the world. The world is not on the brink of collapse due to a shortage of fuel.

"Today Alaska contains 18 billion bbl. of off-limits crude. We've embargoed at least an additional 30 billion bbl. beneath our coastal waters. And we could fuel many of our heavy trucks and delivery vehicles for a decade with the 20 billion bbl. worth of natural gas we've placed off limits in federal Rocky Mountain lands."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1122019-2,00.html

There are huge oil resources that have been found in and around the Antartic, which luckily have a 50 year moratorium on drilling there. I'm confident we will have sufficient alternatives before then.

Cora, if you want to do something with your time, lobby to get cruise ships banned, I heard about how much fuel they use on cruises and it's an outrageous waste.

 

[NeoDevin]

Demand is increasing gradually, and supply is relatively constant. IF supply is decreasing, production will drop off gradually as well. This means that prices will NOT skyrocket, as some would have you believe, but that they will gradually increase. As the market price of oil goes up, there is more incentive for the oil companies to go after the harder to get oil (like the stuff in the sands here in Alberta, which is already $billion+ industry here). As these supplies decline as well, the price will continue to increase.

As the price goes up, and people notice corresponding prices at the gas pump/purchasing oil for the car/cost of plastics/etc. people will use less and less oil products, and competing non-oil based products will become relatively more viable alternatives. At the same time, companies are spending tons of money on these same alternative products (already happening) and they are becoming cheaper and cheaper. When it becomes cheaper to use the alternatives to oil, demand for oil will drop off, and probably much faster than supply will drop.

 

[corra]

its not enough to know that there might be oil somewhere you still need to develop it and there are problems there aswell.

currently there are virtually no new refineries being built. and drilling rigs are book for years in the future.. why is this?

well.. why would anyone spend billion building an oil refinery when it will not have supplies to refine in a few years? the entire u.s refinery capacity is years past its "best before" date and should have been dismatled according to the originial designs... why has this not happened and why are they not building new refineries?.

 

[corra]

sept 14 cnn published an article about peak oil. its a good read.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/14/news/economy/peak_oil/?postversion=2007091414

 

[Evo]

Yes, it is

Indeed, Web sites devoted to peak oil sell numerous survival-style books seemingly geared toward a society in which, at the very least, the basic economic infrastructure has broken down - if there's not total anarchy.

From the Web site lifeaftertheoilcrash.net, titles include "Gardening When it Counts: Growing Food in Hard Times" and "Crisis Preparedness Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Home Storage and Physical Survival."

"It's fear mongering, sensationalist crap," said Fadel Gheit, a senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer.

Gheit says there's plenty of oil out there, it just needs to get to a price where it's profitable to extract.

"We have so far consumed one trillion barrels" in all of history, he said, pointing to a 2000 study from the U.S. Geological Survey that made predictions based on rising prices, technology advances and assumed new discoveries based on past finds. "There are three trillion more to go."

 

[billiards]

its not enough to know that there might be oil somewhere you still need to develop it and there are problems there aswell.

currently there are virtually no new refineries being built. and drilling rigs are book for years in the future.. why is this?

well.. why would anyone spend billion building an oil refinery when it will not have supplies to refine in a few years? the entire u.s refinery capacity is years past its "best before" date and should have been dismatled according to the originial designs... why has this not happened and why are they not building new refineries?.

The 'fact' (according to your sources) that "virtually no new refineries (are) being built" could simply mean that the demand is "virtually" not increasing, i.e. it is relatively still/flat/level (if we assume that any wear and tear set backs to refineries are perfectly balanced by repairs/advances in efficiency). Is it not possible that old refineries could be maintained and even improved, why build new ones, surely this would spend energy?

 

[Chi Meson]

Annoying note from the middle again:

It is every bit a myth to suggest that there is "plenty of oil" remaining. Even the rosy, most optimistic views from CERA (and their objectivity is dubious) put the peak of conventional oil around 2040. http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444
Fossil fuel demand is not increasing gradually, it is shooting skyward, thanks to China's Industrial growth spurt.

We are at the end of North Sea oil, BP is desperately trying to redefine itself (you must have noticed that BP now stands for "Beyond Petrolium," It's in their own ads). We are either right now, or will soon be at "peak."

It cannot be dismissed. Check out the home page for the upcoming wrold oil conference in Houston. http://www.aspo-usa.com/aspousa3/index.cfm

Peak Oil experts don't claim that we will "run out of oil," but that we'll run out of cheap oil, as production decreases and demand increases. They note that below-ground limitations and above-ground disruptions could create a perfect storm of constraint, as rapid depletion of major oil fields continues to fuel resource nationalism, geopolitical turmoil, and rising oil & gas prices.

The deniers of Peak Oil say that technology, new discoveries, "reserves growth" and unconventional oil will come to the rescue. If their optimistic predictions are wrong, we are in deep trouble; if the Peak Oil experts are wrong, we will have conserved and mitigated ahead of schedule. ASPO-USA says the latter prudent and conservative approach is the path we must take as a nation.

The second half is dirtier, harder to get, and more destructive than the first; but it is still there, and there will be time to adapt to the new situation, whatever it is. I think I'm repeating myself

 

[Evo]

Annoying note from the middle again:

It is every bit a myth to suggest that there is "plenty of oil" remaining. Even the rosy, most optimistic views from CERA (and their objectivity is dubious) put the peak of conventional oil around 2040. http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444
Fossil fuel demand is not increasing gradually, it is shooting skyward, thanks to China's Industrial growth spurt.

We are at the end of North Sea oil, BP is desperately trying to redefine itself (you must have noticed that BP now stands for "Beyond Petrolium," It's in their own ads). We are either right now, or will soon be at "peak."

It cannot be dismissed. Check out the home page for the upcoming wrold oil conference in Houston. http://www.aspo-usa.com/aspousa3/index.cfm





The second half is dirtier, harder to get, and more destructive than the first; but it is still there, and there will be time to adapt to the new situation, whatever it is. I think I'm repeating myself

You don't think that we will have viable alternatives by that time? Sure, people have to continue to change their ways, price of oil will force a lot of that change The crisis isn't immediate so that we should start retreating into survivalist camps.

 

[Integral]

MYTH: The World Is Running Out of Oil
We Might Have to Dig Deeper, but Researchers Say There's Plenty Left

"The tar sands of Alberta alone contain enough hydrocarbon to fuel the entire planet for over 100 years," according to Peter Huber, co-author of "The Bottomless Well."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1954572&page=1

Biggest myth of all:
Oil will last forever.

Really this is a completely foolish attitude; it is hard to believe that so many seemingly intelligent people seem to believe that.

There will be a time of peak oil, was it last year, or will it be next decade. I really don't know. What is most foolish is to take Evo's route, close your eyes and believe with all your heart that it will never happen.

When it does happen there will be no noticeable effects, all will be normal for perhaps several decades after Peak oil, so we should not see any major effects at least in my life time. If we wait until we start seeing the effects of peak oil, it will be too late, most likely our civilization will be doomed.

We cannot afford to waste anymore time, we need to find a way to free our economy from our dependence on fossil fuels.

Poo Poo the doom sayers if you will, but if we do nothing but continue on our current path, I am afraid that one day the doom sayers will be seen as prophets.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the biggest concern right now is the vulnerability of the supply chain. With demand/supply so high, prices could take dramatic leaps due to transients like storms, wars, fires, sabotage, etc, which if bad enough could cause serious difficulties for everyone. Also, at times, demand might simply outpace supply. I understand that lately we have been at 100% capacity - barely getting by.

IMO, the energy wars are coming; and probably soon.

 

[Gokul43201]

Just want to point out a little problem I see with a quote from above:

"We have so far consumed one trillion barrels" in all of history,he said, pointing to a 2000 study from the U.S. Geological Survey that made predictions based on rising pric es, technology advances and assumed new discoveries based on past finds. "There are three trillion more to go."

Talking about "all of history" is a nice trick to pull on someone to give the impression that there's still millennia worth of oil left. As it turns out, over most of history, the oil consumption rate has been increasing exponentially with a doubling time of about a couple decades. And the sum of a geometric series with a common ratio of 2 is simply twice the last term in the series. That means we've consumed about half of those trillion barrels in the last 2 or 3 decades. And we'll consume a whole trillion in the next 2 or 3 if we keep going this way. So, if this trend doesn't slow down, we'll run through another 3 trillion in about 50 years. Heck, even if the consumption rate turned flat tomorrow and never increased, we'd still run through 3 trillion barrels by the end of this century.

Of course, production will (and is) slowing down, and will follow a roughly Gaussian evolution with allowances for possibly large perturbations due to advances in technology and changes in world economics.

 

[Evo]

What is most foolish is to take Evo's route, close your eyes and believe with all your heart that it will never happen.

What exactly is my route Integral? To realize that we are not currently in a situation where we need to form survivalist communities?

My "route" is to take a rational approach to the gradual decline and find alternatives as well as lifestyle changes. You are opposed to this?

And don't put words into my mouth.

 

[Evo]

If we keep going at the current trend, we'll run through another 3 trillion in about 50 years.

I agree at the current upward trend we will. China is the second largest in oil consumption next to the US and is having to import oil now and is no longer able to produce enough to meet it's needs, which makes it more dependent on coal.

The US has the potential to turn our vast coal reserves into oil, but it's not a process that is environmentally friendly.

I believe that we most likely have another 100 years if we use everything at our disposal, I'm banking on energy conservation and new fuels. I'm not ready to go into survival mode as some people are panicking people into as pointed out by Cora.

 

[Chi Meson]

You don't think that we will have viable alternatives by that time? Sure, people have to continue to change their ways, price of oil will force a lot of that change The crisis isn't immediate so that we should start retreating into survivalist camps.

I am not saying we will be. I don't see that the there are only two outcomes, either "hunky-dory" or "doomsday." It is my partially educated opinion that we are in for some "interesting" times. We will never find a viable alternative that can replace the volume of fossil fuels we currently use, but (and this is what keeps me optimistic) we don't need to use this volume. We are just accustomed to cheap oil.

NASCAR fans are out of luck. Bicycle fans are in for a treat!

 

[Evo]

I am not saying we will be. I don't see that the there are only two outcomes, either "hunky-dory" or "doomsday." It is my partially educated opinion that we are in for some "interesting" times. We will never find a viable alternative that can replace the volume of fossil fuels we currently use, but (and this is what keeps me optimistic) we don't need to use this volume. We are just accustomed to cheap oil.

NASCAR fans are out of luck. Bicycle fans are in for a treat!

I absolutely agree, Nascar, any auto racing, cruise ships. Flying planes for pleasure.

Do you know how many jobs could be done by workers "telecommuting" and working at home instead of driving to an office to sit in a cube? Unless you have a job that requires your physical presence, you don't need to be in an office. I can share CAD files, network designs, do anything I need for my job from my home. I did for over 20 years. Millions of people could be taken off the roads every day. And it could be done quickly.

I just don't see people giving up their lifestyles unfortunately. People go to movies, to concerts, to sports events. This is a frivolous waste of gas. I am not one of the offenders, I do almost no driving.

 

[Gokul43201]

Demand is increasing gradually, and supply is relatively constant. IF supply is decreasing, production will drop off gradually as well. This means that prices will NOT skyrocket, as some would have you believe, but that they will gradually increase.

The supply curve for oil (barring crises like 1973 when the supply curve bent "backwards") is roughly quadratic. That means that a 10% increase in demand will result in a roughly 20% increase in price, at constant supply. The demand curve is usually hyperbolic, and dP/dQ depends strongly on where the supply and demand schedules intersect, but is always negative, so that any decrease in supply causes an increase in price. So, even with constant supply, the price would increase (short term) at least twice as fast as the demand.

 

[scpg02]

The 'fact' (according to your sources) that "virtually no new refineries (are) being built" could simply mean that the demand is "virtually" not increasing, i.e. it is relatively still/flat/level

Or it could mean that environmentalists won't let you build them just like you can't drill for oil any more. You can't build pipelines, you can't cut trees.

 

[scpg02]

I think the biggest concern right now is the vulnerability of the supply chain. With demand/supply so high, prices could take dramatic leaps due to transients like storms, wars, fires, sabotage, etc, which if bad enough could cause serious difficulties for everyone. Also, at times, demand might simply outpace supply. I understand that lately we have been at 100% capacity - barely getting by.

IMO, the energy wars are coming; and probably soon.

I think we are closer to water wars. Guns have already been drawn on that one.

 

[Chi Meson]

Or it could mean that environmentalists won't let you build them just like you can't drill for oil any more. You can't build pipelines, you can't cut trees.

Sounds like someone's listening to Fox News. I assure you, people are drilling, building and cutting. Environmentalists are in a perpetual losing battle for their cause. It seems that the need for cheap energy trumps the need for unspoiled wilderness.

Unchecked energy exploitation has been seen before and no one likes it. Big business does not act magnanimously on it's own accord. They say they do, but that is always after the lawsuit or settlement.

 

[qspeechc]

china has been aggressive in getting new oil supplies to fuel their growing economy for years and that in turn has pushed prices up aswell.
they have secured oil rights in Canada, venezuela, iran and some african nations.

Oooh, I just love how all African countries are the same and we do not need to distinguish between them

 

[Chi Meson]

Oooh, I just love how all African countries are the same and we do not need to distinguish between them

Nigeria (speaking of unchecked energy exploitation...)
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/Nigeria.asp
(warning: information presented and "flavored" with obvious bias, but most facts are generally supportable through many outlets. I doubt that it is the corporate policy of Shell Oil to crack down on protests, but the pressure from above to force local managers to maximize profits will cause individuals to do crazy things).

 

[corra]

the reason i said "some african nations" is because i could not remember them from the top of my head, also they are small contributors put next to venezuela for instace.

just want to give you folks from the United States another aspect to consider.
*Americans drive bigger cars that consume more gas then any other nation.
*They produce a lot less oil then they consume. relying mostly on the middle east for influx of oil.
*Mexico has peak and in a statement they said that they will no longer have excess capacity to sell the u.s any oil in as short a time as 8 years.
*Americans commute long distances to get to work due to the suburbia projects. (also known as the biggest miss managment of rescources in modern history.)
*americans don't have a developed railway system to take over when gasoline becomes too expensive for the common man to use for commuting.
*americans face a recession that is already brewing with the flatlining of the greenback and the housing bubble crash that is happening and will unfold over the course of the next few years.

The U.S is in big trouble.

 

[Evo]

the reason i said "some african nations" is because i could not remember them from the top of my head, also they are small contributors put next to venezuela for instace.

just want to give you folks from the United States another aspect to consider.
*Americans drive bigger cars that consume more gas then any other nation.
*They produce a lot less oil then they consume. relying mostly on the middle east for influx of oil.
*Mexico has peak and in a statement they said that they will no longer have excess capacity to sell the u.s any oil in as short a time as 8 years.
*Americans commute long distances to get to work due to the suburbia projects. (also known as the biggest miss managment of rescources in modern history.)
*americans don't have a developed railway system to take over when gasoline becomes too expensive for the common man to use for commuting.
*americans face a recession that is already brewing with the flatlining of the greenback and the housing bubble crash that is happening and will unfold over the course of the next few years.

The U.S is in big trouble.

I agree with you on the fact that eventually we're going to be at a point where we can no longer depend on fossil fuels. Even at the optimistic time frame of 100 years, the fact that the US has been building out during the past 70+ years based on cars, there is no easy fix and knowing how people are, I don't see how we can change enough on this large of a scale by that time. Suggesting that people break off into small isolated communities isn't very realistic. I'm all for limiting all unnecessary travel, but you know people aren't going to accept that. People aren't going to stop going out to movies, restaurants, parties, visiting shopping malls, entertainment, sports, etc. I know what we can do to stop wasting fuel and I also know people (except for a very small percent) won't make those changes unless they're cut off. It's just a sad fact, people are selfish and wasteful and won't change until they're forced to.

 

[Chi Meson]

... People aren't going to stop going out to movies, restaurants, parties, visiting shopping malls, entertainment, sports, etc. I know what we can do to stop wasting fuel and I also know people (except for a very small percent) won't make those changes unless they're cut off. It's just a sad fact, people are selfish and wasteful and won't change until they're forced to.

I emphasized the key point that I think will make the difference. Oil will not "cut off." Prices will rise, dramatically but not catastrophically, as oil availability slows to a trickle. People will indeed stop going out to movies in favor of on-demand downloading. It's going that way anyway, high gas prices will seal the coffin on theaters. Air travel will be the domain of the ultra rich. The "upper middles" will probably return to sailboats and horses. Low-wage manual labor will return as soon as it is no longer feasible to have huge backhoes digging small holes, etc.

We are looking at at least a half century of steadily rising costs (rising even when adjusted for inflation). Economy is what propels human desires, it seems.

 

[corra]

life is what you get out of friends and family.
a man from ny guinea chopping down tree's at day and going home to his family and friends for community dinners and trade some sugar they have acquired for some meat another family has can be just as happy as a N.Y lawyer earning 600k a year driving a fancy car and goes home to his home and eats in fancy resturants.

i don't really need a car, i can take the buss.
i don't really need a tv. i can read a book or have fun with friends.
i don't really need a trip to a fancy resturant. i can visit my mom for some good cooking.
i don't really need a vacation to some tropical island. i can go somewhere else in my own country to meet new people and see new things.
i don't really need the latest fashion clothing, my jeans are comfortable.
i don't really need the latest cell phone, ipod, disc man, mp3 player, playstation that is just expensive toys for the wealth fixated thing that man has become.

what does man need?
food, sleep, clothes, friends and love.
do we really need to use 80 million barrels of oil each day to get those things?

 

[Andre]

If this thread is how to reduce the oil consumption by changing habits then the first and singlemost important thing to do is getting rid of electrical heating.

An American friend complained about the electricity bill, we analyzed it and it turned out that the monthly bills were a very close proxy to the monthly temperature. Electrical heating is probably the singlemost largest waste of fuel.

The engineers here can tell how much energy is lost between burning fuel in the power plant, transferring that to electricity, transporting that electricity to the consumer etc. If you'd burn the fuel at home yourself you only need a fraction of the fuel that the powerplant requires to heat your home.

Alternately, there are also heat exchange system that cool in summertime, storing the heat in the ground to use it for warming in winter time.

 

[scpg02]

Sounds like someone's listening to Fox News. I assure you, people are drilling, building and cutting. Environmentalists are in a perpetual losing battle for their cause. It seems that the need for cheap energy trumps the need for unspoiled wilderness.

Unchecked energy exploitation has been seen before and no one likes it. Big business does not act magnanimously on it's own accord. They say they do, but that is always after the lawsuit or settlement.

Not here in California or the US. Our large, multi national foundations have seen to that so they can exploit third world resources. And NO I don't listen to fox news. I actively fight enviros. They don't care about the environment and their solutions are worse than the problems.

 

[turbo]

IThe engineers here can tell how much energy is lost between burning fuel in the power plant, transferring that to electricity, transporting that electricity to the consumer etc. If you'd burn the fuel at home yourself you only need a fraction of the fuel that the powerplant requires to heat your home.

It's not just electrical heat, though that is an expensive way to heat your house. Oil heat requires that crude be drilled for, pumped, transported (often thousands of miles by ship), refined, transported again (often by ship again), stored in a tank farm until local dealers send their tanker trucks so that it can be transported again to local holding tanks, from which it is pumped into smaller delivery tankers for transport to your home. In each step of transport, oil is consumed by the engines of the transports, and soot and chemicals are pumped into the air.

I have a chain saw, a truck, and a wood splitter and almost 10 acres of trees. My wood stove is modern and very efficient, and almost all the heat energy goes into heating my small log house. The amount of gasoline and oil my machines consume is dwarfed by the energy that I get back by burning the wood. I know that burning wood is not an option for many people, but when it's done right, it has far less impact on our environment than relying on oil heat or electrical heat. Plus, the trees grow back, so I could never run out.

 

[turbo]

I actively fight enviros. They don't care about the environment and their solutions are worse than the problems.

Please do not lump all people with environmental concerns together. It's childish, short-sighted, and wrong. Sounds like something that Bill Oreilly or Rush Limbaugh would spout for ratings.

There are some very rational reasonable people who believe that we can and should clean up our dirtiest industries, like coal-fired power plants, while creating jobs and wealth in the process. The biggest roadblock is the money and political connections of the people heading these industries, and the willingness of our elected officials to let these companies continue to pollute the air and water that belongs to all of us without having to pay the costs of cleanup and prevention.

 

[russ_watters]

Peak oil is a definition...

We know all that. Your opening post implied you had some new information about it from the past 6 months. Do you?

 

[corra]

We know all that. Your opening post implied you had some new information about it from the past 6 months. Do you?

i did put up a link that has new info every day about peak oil.
all you have to do is click it.

would be a bit of a waste for me to cut and paste the thousands of pages of information contained there to this forum. would most likely get me banned aswell.
here is the link again if you missed it the first time.

http://www.energybulletin.net/

it has daily updated news about the energy sectors all easy to access.
there are headlines that you click once u see a topic that catches your interest.

 

[Chi Meson]

Not here in California or the US. Our large, multi national foundations have seen to that so they can exploit third world resources. And NO I don't listen to fox news. I actively fight enviros. They don't care about the environment and their solutions are worse than the problems.

Well, I know I do not need to listen to anything you say for a while. To say that "enviros" don't care about the environment is the epitome of not knowing what you are talking about.

 

[scpg02]

Well, I know I do not need to listen to anything you say for a while. To say that "enviros" don't care about the environment is the epitome of not knowing what you are talking about.

I see, dismiss instead of engage. That works, then you don't have to argue the point.

 

[scpg02]

Please do not lump all people with environmental concerns together. It's childish, short-sighted, and wrong. Sounds like something that Bill Oreilly or Rush Limbaugh would spout for ratings.

Bad habit from debating on political forums. When I say enviros I'm talking about the environmental industry not the average Joe concerned about the environment. I find that the environmental industry is more concerned with pushing a leftist agenda, more government, regulation and control than actual concern about the environment itself. It's politics not conservation.

I advocate conservation through real science with real results. That has been lacking in the environmental movement. Most of the environmental law suits are funded by large foundations. They are effectively shutting down domestic competition to their over seas investments. Follow the money and you find their ulterior motives.

There are some very rational reasonable people who believe that we can and should clean up our dirtiest industries, like coal-fired power plants, while creating jobs and wealth in the process. The biggest roadblock is the money and political connections of the people heading these industries, and the willingness of our elected officials to let these companies continue to pollute the air and water that belongs to all of us without having to pay the costs of cleanup and prevention.

Yes there are rational people but part of the problem is they are listening to the wrong voices and buying into the rhetoric without seeing what is really going on. The air in the US is getting cleaner all the time. Why then do you think that it is the polluters that have the political clout? Take California for instance. Our Republican governor's environmental policy was written by the Natural Resource Defense Council. The same people who pushed MTBE that is now polluting out water supply in the name of cleaner air. He pushed and signed AB32, it was a pollution reducing bill that has driven industry from our state. Wonder Bread is leaving because they can't meet the new air standards. We passed two Water Conservation bond issues. Both are spending billions on protecting our water. They were really nothing but government land grabs. Arnold put one fifth of our state into a conservancy containing over 60% of our water shed.

The Sierra Nevada Mountain range historically had 20 trees/acre now we have over 300 trees/acre. Consequently the forests are unhealthy and subject to major fires that sterilize the soil. The spotted owl was used to shut down our timber industry. Science showed that the decline of the owl was do to the barred owl encroaching on it territory. The barred owl was able to increase it's habitat because of the trees we have planted in our cities.

The Washington Post, hardly a right wing paper, did a wonderful series on the Nature Conservancy and how they were scamming the public. It was quite an eye opener.

 

[Chi Meson]

I see, dismiss instead of engage. That works, then you don't have to argue the point.

But you are not arguing. You just made a grand sweeping, over-generalized statement that effectively said that you knew my intent better than I know myself.

You are insulting. There's no argument.

Edit: well now I read your "qualification" in your response to Turbo. Still disagree with you.

 

[scpg02]

Still disagree with you.

Explain.

 

[Chi Meson]

If there are situations where corporate greed has infiltrated environmental groups such that they act as covers for land grabs, then we are talking about a wolf in sheep's clothing. The Nature Conservancy has in the past been very successful in activley preserving greenspace around the country. The Washington Post reports (four years old now) found several situations of what were either "best intentions gone awry" or underhandedness from greedy bastards who got inside the system.

Environmentalism in general has had mostly success since the 70s, but success of environmentalism is (almost by definition) unnoticeable. The conservation and repair of wetlands, despite abuses that have occurred and unfortunate losses suffered by some property owners, produce the lack of blight in protected areas. These successes are much like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. IF you can swim at a beach anywhere near a major river, or especially at a beach on a river or lake, we have those acts to thank for. The environmental check on vehicle emissions and corporate emissions has curtailed particulate pollution and acid rain to the point that few complain about it. This was not the move of industry, but of people who simply did not want industry to continue with such devastating practices.

Where I live on the Connecticut coast, the shellfish are still poisonous. For half a century, gold dredges (the perfect pollution machine) scoured the Yukon and Alaska ripping up square miles of land and leaving lifeless rubble laced with mercury and arsenic. Right now in Alberta Canada, there is strip mining on a scale never seen before. To say that somehow environmentalists are making the environment worse...?

I disagree.

As you said, our air is quite clean now. If taking care of effluence bit into coprorate profits, and the corporations moved their practices elsewhere, and now their effluence is worse, do not blame the "enviros."

When you said that you "actively fight the enviros," I comically envisioned someone burning tires in their back yard, throwing plastic shopping bags into the sea, dumping used motor oil down the sewer. But the enviros of whom you speak are obviously not really environmentalists. How does one "actively fight enviros"?

 

[Chi Meson]

This thread belongs in the political sub-forum, doesn't it?