Peak Oil

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Lampang » Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:01 pm

Poto: Your thinking seems to be "It's bad to think that this is a problem and I'm not going to allow myself to think this is a problem so let's think up reasons why this isn't a problem." Case in point: "Gas was at $5/gallon not too long ago. $20/gallon would be a quadrupling in price from that level. If we survived a quadrupling once, we can again." That's a wildly illogical claim. There are a ton of reasons to think that the American economy would be crucified at $20/gallon (not least that a peak in prices at 25% of that helped to trigger an extremely severe recession) and none to think that the economy would survive it, let alone be in a position to invest in the capital requirements necessary to replace one its primary energy sources. I agree that dwelling excessively on problems tends to obscure solutions but your Panglossian approach to ecological problems is considerably worse because it obscures the problems themselves and for a great many people in the world - not, it's true, the people who post on this board or anyone they're likely to have contact with - these problems have the very real potential to kill them. For example, as Blackbird says, rises in oil prices on the scale you talk about guarantee huge increases in the cost of food and that means mass starvation. Of course, this won't happen in Idaho but it will, nevertheless, happen and the fact that it will happen in far-off lands doesn't make it any less real or any less terrible. As is probably clear, I find it shocking - really shocking - to hear people propose the type of actions you propose seemingly without any concern or consideration of the consequences. Instead, perhaps consider why 30,000 children a day die of poverty and how resource allocation and use fits into that fact. If you're upset by that daily holocaust, it's worth considering how proposing the continuation of the wildly skewed allocation of resources which is implicit in your posts might affect those deaths. You say, "I don't want to see others suffer the same way I did." The truth is, we - none of us who are likely to read this board - suffer in the same way the world's poor do.
User avatar
Lampang
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:26 pm
Location: Thailand

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Kim OHara » Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:26 am

Lampang:
:goodpost:

Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 2990
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak Oil

Postby pink_trike » Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:27 am

Lampang wrote:Poto: Your thinking seems to be "It's bad to think that this is a problem and I'm not going to allow myself to think this is a problem so let's think up reasons why this isn't a problem." Case in point: "Gas was at $5/gallon not too long ago. $20/gallon would be a quadrupling in price from that level. If we survived a quadrupling once, we can again." That's a wildly illogical claim. There are a ton of reasons to think that the American economy would be crucified at $20/gallon (not least that a peak in prices at 25% of that helped to trigger an extremely severe recession) and none to think that the economy would survive it, let alone be in a position to invest in the capital requirements necessary to replace one its primary energy sources. I agree that dwelling excessively on problems tends to obscure solutions but your Panglossian approach to ecological problems is considerably worse because it obscures the problems themselves and for a great many people in the world - not, it's true, the people who post on this board or anyone they're likely to have contact with - these problems have the very real potential to kill them. For example, as Blackbird says, rises in oil prices on the scale you talk about guarantee huge increases in the cost of food and that means mass starvation. Of course, this won't happen in Idaho but it will, nevertheless, happen and the fact that it will happen in far-off lands doesn't make it any less real or any less terrible. As is probably clear, I find it shocking - really shocking - to hear people propose the type of actions you propose seemingly without any concern or consideration of the consequences. Instead, perhaps consider why 30,000 children a day die of poverty and how resource allocation and use fits into that fact. If you're upset by that daily holocaust, it's worth considering how proposing the continuation of the wildly skewed allocation of resources which is implicit in your posts might affect those deaths. You say, "I don't want to see others suffer the same way I did." The truth is, we - none of us who are likely to read this board - suffer in the same way the world's poor do.

:goodpost:
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
pink_trike
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby pink_trike » Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:10 am

I find it interesting that peak oil is no longer the hot media issue that it was a while back, having been replaced by climate change. In typical modern fashion, we only seem to be able to bring our collective attention to one crisis at a time - which is a problem because climate change, peak oil, water shortages, burgeoning prisons, toxic soil/water/air, skyrocketing cancer rates, perpetual war, political corruption, failing economies, etc... all stem from one central source - the huge rampaging elephant in the room that everyone studiously ignores.
Last edited by pink_trike on Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
pink_trike
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:11 am

Lampang:
You do a pretty good job of misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. Painting me as an oblivious Panglossian was a nice touch. Saying my statements were wildly illogical was rather amusing though, since I was using the words that you yourself used...

Ya know what, screw it, I give up. You win. We're all doomed.

Image
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Kim OHara » Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:38 am

poto wrote:Lampang:
...I give up. You win. We're all doomed.

Hi, poto,
We're not concerned about winning or losing the argument here, just with discovering and sharing the truth.
Realistically, any extreme position is likely to be wrong.
In this particular debate, Panglossian optimism leads to inertia and eventual disaster, but so does the other extreme: if we really believe we're all doomed, why bother making futile attempts to avert it? The skillful response is to learn the truth of the situation and apply ourselves to avoiding the worst outcomes.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 2990
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak Oil

Postby BlackBird » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:22 am

I don't think it's personal Poto.

I think it comes back to the way we look at things. Indeed I think that it's very easy to see Dhammawheel through a prism of self-view, where we come to see our posts, avatar and signature as a manafestation of ourself. Thus we can slip into the habitual pattern of posting through a desire for praise and validation of the writing we assume as 'mine' or 'myself'.

Indeed the worldly winds of praise and blame blow here too. When the winds of praise blow through from the South, that's nice and we become attached. When the winds of praise stop blowing, we can feel as though we're being ignored, and that tenuous self worth starts to erode. When the winds of blame blow through from the North then we feel distraught, even angry.

The winds will always arise, endure for a period and then collapse, no matter what direction they blow from. To get caught up in them is a vicious cycle of pain, but without a lot of effort and mindfulness, not all that easy to avoid.

That's not to say it doesn't affect me also, when I am praised now I tend to shy away from it, it may even come across as ingratitude or arrogance (which it is not) but if so - To those who have given me praise and recieved no response - I apologise. When I am blamed, I am still liable feel bad and spiteful, and when I am ignored I still feel worthless. The point is to catch it all before it manafests itself in our thoughts, speech and body, and to see it for what it is - Just another passing cloud in the sky.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:34 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
poto wrote:Lampang:
...I give up. You win. We're all doomed.

Hi, poto,
We're not concerned about winning or losing the argument here, just with discovering and sharing the truth.
Realistically, any extreme position is likely to be wrong.
In this particular debate, Panglossian optimism leads to inertia and eventual disaster, but so does the other extreme: if we really believe we're all doomed, why bother making futile attempts to avert it? The skillful response is to learn the truth of the situation and apply ourselves to avoiding the worst outcomes.

:namaste:
Kim


I'm not a Panglossian. I just like talking about solutions. I don't much like dwelling on the negative things and only criticizing without offering any solutions.

I've tried to present the truth, but I don't seem to be doing a very good job of it. Anyways, I don't think it matters much, as I don't see great doom resulting from oil running out.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:52 am

BlackBird wrote:I don't think it's personal Poto.

I think it comes back to the way we look at things. Indeed I think that it's very easy to see Dhammawheel through a prism of self-view, where we come to see our posts, avatar and signature as a manafestation of ourself. Thus we can slip into the habitual pattern of posting through a desire for praise and validation of the writing we assume as 'mine' or 'myself'.

Indeed the worldly winds of praise and blame blow here too. When the winds of praise blow through from the South, that's nice and we become attached. When the winds of praise stop blowing, we can feel as though we're being ignored, and that tenuous self worth starts to erode. When the winds of blame blow through from the North then we feel distraught, even angry.

The winds will always arise, endure for a period and then collapse, no matter what direction they blow from. To get caught up in them is a vicious cycle of pain, but without a lot of effort and mindfulness, not all that easy to avoid.

That's not to say it doesn't affect me also, when I am praised now I tend to shy away from it, it may even come across as ingratitude or arrogance (which it is not) but if so - To those who have given me praise and recieved no response - I apologise. When I am blamed, I am still liable feel bad and spiteful, and when I am ignored I still feel worthless. The point is to catch it all before it manafests itself in our thoughts, speech and body, and to see it for what it is - Just another passing cloud in the sky.

metta
Jack


Huh? I'm not looking for praise. If I was diggin' praise I'd be posting somewhere else where my awesomeness is appreciated, lol. ;)

I was just attempting to present my views, and was met with static. Pretty much the same as what happens in the global warming threads. I get tired of it sometimes, because it's the same deal on a lot of different forums. Just different handles posting the same things. Some things aren't personal, yes I know, but the insults can get a bit taxing. No worries though. I've always been a bit of a freak and an outcast, so I'm used to it by now.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:36 pm

If any of you have a few minutes to indulge a bit of my 'Panglossian' optimism, I'd urge you to watch the Thorium remix video:


And check out the Wired article on Thorium:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... ukes/all/1

Image
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:15 am

Hi, poto,
Good to see you're still thinking about the problem. :smile:

The article you recommended was interesting but did you note the way they skated around the issue of just when the technology could be operational?
Thorium has been looked at and yes, it may become useful eventually. Here's what the IPCC had to say http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter4.pdf, though the emphasis is mine:
Generation IV nuclear-energy technologies that may become
operational after about 2030
employ advanced closed-fuel
cycle systems with more efficient use of uranium and thorium
resources. ...
These initiatives
focus on the development of reactors and fuel cycles that
provide economically competitive, safe and environmentally
sound energy services based on technology designs that exclude
severe accidents, involve proliferation-resistant fuel cycles
decoupled from any fuel-resource constraints, and minimize
HLW. Much additional technology development would be
needed to meet these long-term goals so strategic public RD&D
funding is required, since there is limited industrial/commercial
interest at this early stage.

....
Thorium-based fast-spectrum reactors appear capable of at least
doubling the effective resource base, but the technology remains
to be developed to ascertain its commercial feasibility
(IAEA,
2005a).


In short, it is down the track, alongside fusion: not currently operational, still with technical issues to solve.
2030 is simply too late. Peak Oil is due anytime between last year and 2025, and global warming is already at critical levels.
We need real action now. Wind and solar are much better options than either of your nuclear technologies. Cutting our consumption is better still.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 2990
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:45 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:Here's what the IPCC had to say


As I've stated before, the IPCC is a political organization, not a science organization. Having found many biased opinions and wrong information produced by them I take anything they put out with less than a grain of salt.

Also, the funding and national interest is starting to roll in for Thorium, thus the point of my posting. Without national funding or support it would likely be a dead duck or might take decades more to develop Thorium reactors, but things are rapidly changing.

Overseas, the nuclear power establishment is getting the message. In France, which already generates more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, the Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie has been building models of variations of Weinberg’s design for molten salt reactors to see if they can be made to work efficiently. The real action, though, is in India and China, both of which need to satisfy an immense and growing demand for electricity. The world’s largest source of thorium, India, doesn’t have any commercial thorium reactors yet. But it has announced plans to increase its nuclear power capacity: Nuclear energy now accounts for 9 percent of India’s total energy; the government expects that by 2050 it will be 25 percent, with thorium generating a large part of that. China plans to build dozens of nuclear reactors in the coming decade, and it hosted a major thorium conference last October. The People’s Republic recently ordered mineral refiners to reserve the thorium they produce so it can be used to generate nuclear power.


Image
from: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:52 am

Hello again, poto
poto wrote:As I've stated before, the IPCC is a political organization, not a science organization. Having found many biased opinions and wrong information produced by them I take anything they put out with less than a grain of salt.

So you are still choosing to ignore the largest peer-reviewed scientific study ever undertaken, i.e. the largest single source of expert advice available to you.
I seem to remember that you objected strenuously last time I said something similar about you. Never mind.
Also, the funding and national interest is starting to roll in for Thorium, thus the point of my posting. Without national funding or support it would likely be a dead duck or might take decades more to develop Thorium reactors, but things are rapidly changing.
Overseas, ...

(image)
from: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

So you repeat your assertion, quote from the Wired article you directed us to in your previous post, add a graph of 'possible' nuclear energy production on a time scale which makes it completely useless in the present context, and don't respond at all to my argument about timing? Have you added anything to the discussion?

To be really really obvious about my position: I am sure new nuclear technologies will arrive on the scene too late to be useful.
The latest (as I write, anyway) xkcd is relevant here:
http://xkcd.com/678/ (Make sure you read the tool tip, too.)
I will happily change my position if, but only if, you can direct us to good solid evidence that a pilot commercial-scale reactor is already operational. To get from one pilot plant to a useful number of commercial plants must take at least ten years for planning and construction and ten years is all we've got.

[/soap]

Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 2990
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:47 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:So you are still choosing to ignore the largest peer-reviewed scientific study ever undertaken, i.e. the largest single source of expert advice available to you.
I seem to remember that you objected strenuously last time I said something similar about you. Never mind.


The IPCC's bias is well known. There is not a uniform consensus even on climate, and as the ClimateGate evidence documents, there were attempts to hijack the peer review process to stifle dissenting views. That IMHO is very unscientific. The single largest source of expert advice is of no use if the experts are biased and the advice they offer is tainted by politics.

The head of the IPCC is as corrupt as they come:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227 ... hauri.html

Interfering with the peer review process:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... iracy.html

Why do you blindly accept everything offered by the IPCC as gospel?

Kim O'Hara wrote:So you repeat your assertion, quote from the Wired article you directed us to in your previous post, add a graph of 'possible' nuclear energy production on a time scale which makes it completely useless in the present context, and don't respond at all to my argument about timing?


OK, the timing is not set in stone. The IPCC is wrong more often than they are right. And even if we were to run out of oil completely in 2030, we have enough natural gas, coal and other energy sources to last a long time past then. Just one technology like Thorium completely negates peak oil doom, and we have enough nuclear energy sources to last for at least thousands of years if not longer, which was the point of the graph that you found useless in the present context.

Kim O'Hara wrote:Have you added anything to the discussion?


Sorry, guess I'm just a useless old bump on a log.

Kim O'Hara wrote:To be really really obvious about my position: I am sure new nuclear technologies will arrive on the scene too late to be useful.


Have you fully developed the siddhis? Can you see the future with perfect insight and clarity? What makes you so sure of these things?

Kim O'Hara wrote:The latest (as I write, anyway) xkcd is relevant here:
http://xkcd.com/678/ (Make sure you read the tool tip, too.)


Cartoons, while amusing, are not relevant.

Kim O'Hara wrote:I will happily change my position if, but only if, you can direct us to good solid evidence that a pilot commercial-scale reactor is already operational. To get from one pilot plant to a useful number of commercial plants must take at least ten years for planning and construction and ten years is all we've got.


10 years might be needed for conventional nuclear technology. However, Thorium is different. Thorium reactors are much smaller, cheaper and will be faster to build. A 2,000-3,000sq ft. facility goes up a lot faster than a 200,000-300,000 sq ft facility that a conventional nuclear facility requires. Think of it as the difference between building a house and building a sports stadium.

India's Kakrapar-1 was the first reactor in the world to use thorium rather than depleted uranium to achieve power flattening across the reactor core. Both Kakrapar-1 and -2 units are loaded with 500kg of thorium fuel to improve their operation at start-up.

In 1995, Kakrapar-1 achieved about 300 days of full power operation and Kakrapar-2 about 100 days using thorium fuel. A 30kW mini-reactor has successfully operated at India's Kamini reactor at Kalpakkam. And the use of thorium-based fuel is planned in Kaiga-1 and -2 and Rajasthan-3 and -4 (Rawatbhata) reactors.

source: http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature1141/

"We can rebuild it — we have the technology."
*insert cheesy 6 million dollar man soundtrack
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby BlackBird » Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:28 am

The issue with the looming Oil crisis is that it's not going to be a gradual process, let me reiterate:

1. The global economy is completely dependent upon fossil fuels
2. As soon as you have more demand than supply there will be a shortage, prices will sky rocket, and everyone will rush to the pump to fill up on gas while they still can.
3. Gas stations can't take bank holidays!
4. As soon as there are long lines, then the trucks won't be able to go where they need to go, there will be traffic jams and infrastructure will not be able to cope.
5. When the trucks can't get to where they need to go on time, there will be food shortages, further petrol shortages and people will panic because in the end, you can't eat money.
6. Goodbye economy.

So we need to act now. It's no good to start thinking about Thorium and Fusion reactors 20 years from now, because the problem might start next year. You can't start building new power plants when the people who build them are more concerned about where they're going to get their next meal from.

The tragedy is that international politics is a bureaucracy gone mad, incapable of effecting any meaningful change, even when their lives depend upon it.

Case in point is Climate change, which scientists have been warning us about for over 30 years now, and which international Governments have left to the very last minute (Copenhagen) to start taking serious action on.

Now I'm sure you're well aware of what's gone down at Copenhagen, not exactly encouraging news.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Peak Oil

Postby BlackBird » Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:36 am

BlackBird wrote:2. As soon as you have more demand than supply there will be a shortage, prices will sky rocket, and everyone will rush to the pump to fill up on gas while they still can.


Before you get started on this point Poto, I've spent a few years studying economics at both high school and just this year at University, and of course one of the main things we we're always talking about was oil, and how changes in demand/supply for oil work. To cut a long story short, the oil market doesn't respond in the typical fashion of shortage -> rise in price - > fall in demand -> new equilibrium. One of the main reasons for this is that demand for oil is only elastic to a point, after that it becomes almost perfectly inelastic, meaning that no matter what the change in price, the demand will remain the same.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:05 am

BlackBird wrote:The issue with the looming Oil crisis is that it's not going to be a gradual process, let me reiterate:

1. The global economy is completely dependent upon fossil fuels
2. As soon as you have more demand than supply there will be a shortage, prices will sky rocket, and everyone will rush to the pump to fill up on gas while they still can.
3. Gas stations can't take bank holidays!
4. As soon as there are long lines, then the trucks won't be able to go where they need to go, there will be traffic jams and infrastructure will not be able to cope.
5. When the trucks can't get to where they need to go on time, there will be food shortages, further petrol shortages and people will panic because in the end, you can't eat money.
6. Goodbye economy.

So we need to act now. It's no good to start thinking about Thorium and Fusion reactors 20 years from now, because the problem might start next year. You can't start building new power plants when the people who build them are more concerned about where they're going to get their next meal from.

The tragedy is that international politics is a bureaucracy gone mad, incapable of effecting any meaningful change, even when their lives depend upon it.


With all due respect, this is just your opinion of what you think will happen. I disagree with you.

Also, international politics and bureaucracy are by their nature mad. I'm not sure I've ever witnessed a time when those things were sane.

BlackBird wrote:Case in point is Climate change, which scientists have been warning us about for over 30 years now, and which international Governments have left to the very last minute (Copenhagen) to start taking serious action on.

Now I'm sure you're well aware of what's gone down at Copenhagen, not exactly encouraging news.


I am pleased that COP15 ended in failure. :)

BlackBird wrote:Before you get started on this point Poto, I've spent a few years studying economics at both high school and just this year at University, and of course one of the main things we we're always talking about was oil, and how changes in demand/supply for oil work. To cut a long story short, the oil market doesn't respond in the typical fashion of shortage -> rise in price - > fall in demand -> new equilibrium. One of the main reasons for this is that demand for oil is only elastic to a point, after that it becomes almost perfectly inelastic, meaning that no matter what the change in price, the demand will remain the same.


I worked at a university for a few years. I saw a lot of teachers indoctrinate their students with political beliefs rather than actually teach them. I hope you are getting a better education than most here in the states.

You are correct that there is a demand floor, but even that floor is not totally inflexible. These are not permanent things. New technologies and switching to other fuel sources can impact the demand floor drastically. For example, if here in the US we were to require houses heated with oil to switch to electric or gas, demand for home heating oil could be reduced to zero. In some areas it would be possible to do this with existing infrastructure, but in other areas I'm sure additional infrastructure would be required. Similarly, switching cars to natural gas would reduce the demand floor considerably, but require more infrastructure.

The industrial revolution was built on steam. Our ships, trains, factories and most of our infrastructure was run on steam. Even our nuclear power plants today are basically huge steam engines. I have worked at numerous factories over the years, sometimes for only a few days, sometimes for months. I've seen the heart of industrial production here in Ohio and none of it runs exclusively on oil.

One large factory I worked at was Formica. They produce laminated flooring and counter tops. They use huge rolls of paper that are glued together with resins and run through a high temperature press. That factory as a whole was powered with a combination of grid power and steam. They had their own coal-burning steam plant at the factory. Some of the individual machines that make the products are several times larger than my house.

I know there are some industries that require oil, but my point is that none of the factories I worked at are going to shut down or stop making anything even if oil runs out. It's not the end of the world.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby BlackBird » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:12 am

Do you seriously think that it's just my opinion that the global economy is completely dependent upon oil? Because the other 5 are just a logical conclusion of point 1.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:22 am

BlackBird wrote:Do you seriously think that it's just my opinion that the global economy is completely dependent upon oil?


I said:
poto wrote:With all due respect, this is just your opinion of what you think will happen.


It was said in response to your numbered list. Especially your final number:
6. Goodbye economy.

Ahh, seen you did an edit before I could respond...
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby BlackBird » Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:39 am

Well, I'll try and come to some sort of conclusion again on where I stand.

What we have:
- A global economy completely dependent upon oil.
- A financial system run on debt, that requires perpetual economic growth
- A food production, and distribution system completely dependent upon oil. (plowing machines, planting machines, irrigation pumps, fertilizers [all commercial fertilizers are made from ammonium (feedstock: nat gas)], fertilizing machines, crop dusters [which spray pesticides, which are all made from petroleum] and harvesting machines. Then you transport it using oil powered trucks to a refinery or processing plant then it's wrapped in plastic [oil] and shipped in another oil powered machine to the supermarket)
- An international political edifice incapable of reaching definite decisions, or enacting global change.

What we need:
- An alternative source of fuel to power:
  • Personal transportation (or else nobody will be able to get to work --> economic collapse)
  • Food production (or else we'll starve to death)
  • Food transportation (see above)
  • All other essential goods transportation
  • Everything else that requires a machine to work...
- An alternative source of power (bearing in mind that to build one new nuclear plant in the USA will take a minimum of 10 years, and that nuclear power is our best solution on the table)
- An international financial system which will finance this change without drowning in it's ocean of debt, which is thus far only supported by projections of perpetual economic growth.

What we don't have:
- An amazing level of economic and political cooperation and an efficient political edifice.
- The staggering amount of resources needed to retrofit all the machines, cars and trucks with technology we do not currently possess

The very last point is the crunch. Who's pocket is this coming out of? I'll say it once more: The only thing keeping this global economy afloat is the idea that there will be perpetual economic growth, an implication of this is that there isn't a single country in the world today that has a Government that doesn't owe something to somebody.

This global civilization we have on Earth, is built and run on oil and debt, both of which are unsustainable.
It's plain and simple, everything arises - endures for a period - and then decays, and this civilization will be no different.
Whether it really happens in a year, or 20 years is of no long term distinction, it's going to happen though, you can bet your bottom dollar.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mikenz66 and 12 guests