 |
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
What on earth makes you think so? How are we to know when the peak is coming? You seem to not even care at all. Experts are predicing it's coming soon and you just laugh. Who do you think is preparing for this crisis? |
What 'experts'? Crackpots who get off on predicting the demise of the world? Apparently they've already predicted that the peak would be in 1989 and 1995. Now they are saying 2007. Why am I supposed to believe them this time?
How are we to know when the 'peak' is coming? When prices go up because of less supply perhaps? That's the standard people like faded are using to say it's coming. No I don't care at all, because it's loony stuff. As Kuci said, there was a Peak COAL crisis predictions. As already discussed, there are various extraction methods that aren't economically feasible now, but will be if supply is constrained and it makes those methods worthwile.
There is more oil in the ground now that we've pumped out in all of human history. The way to get at it is not feasible at the moment, but with technology and scarcity, it will be. For example, under Siberia there is more oil than the entire Middle East. But it's under permafrost and thus getting to it is very difficult.
quote: originally posted by faded glory
Prices have jumped at the pump 150% in the last 4 years alone. |
Which still puts it under what it should have been under normal inflation from 1960 prices.
quote: originally posted by Spiffor
Yes. But switching away takes time, and it creates a transition phase. Since the oil lobbies are very powerful in the US, I expect the oil companies to be able to postpone the mandatory adjustment for as long as possible (by discouraging research on renewable fuel sources, by encouraging oil power plants to be built, by not promoting technologies and lifestyles that guzzle less gas).
And as a result, the American society will experience a shock instead of a gentle adaptation to a new energetic paradigm. Europe is likely to suffer less, considering that many European countries have attempted to reduce their dependancy to oil. |
Doubtful. Hybrids are popular and with fuel cells, I can imagine those will be even more popular. We've had a gentle increase in price, and while even though it is much lower than it would under regular inflation, it will get people to purchase less guzzling cars in the long run (this is a new equilibrium price, not a spike where we'll go back down next year). The fuel habits will change in the US as well, and whenever we hit the *ahem* peak production of oil (how many hundred years in the future, when we've tapped into Siberia's massive oil supply and massive amount of oil under the oceans), it won't make a difference because there will be a great deal of other energy sources in use at the time.
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 30-07-2005 at 01:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
I was reading the wiki article, and stumbled across:
quote: originally posted by wikipedia
Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri point out that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995, based on oil production data available at that time. He claims that nearly all of the estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is huge and the costs of extraction, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. (A drawback to this position is that heavy oil sources will never be as profitable as current light oil sources, both in production rates and energy gain.) Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue. According to Maugeri, the ratio between proven oil reserves and current production has constantly improved, passing from 20 years in 1948 to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003. Also according to Maugeri, these improvements occurred even with low investment in new exploration and upgrading technology due to the low oil prices during the last 20 years. The current higher oil prices may well cause increased investment (Maugeri, 2004). |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
By default, any year that has the record for most oil pumped out of the ground is the "Peak Oil" year. How you determine when/if it happened prior to five-ten+ years of declining production is beyond me.
However, the amount of mis-information in this thread is amusing: from the poster saying that the average US car gets 18 miles per gallon (actually it is 24.5, including cars, trucks, SUVs) and then implying that everybody else averages 45mpg, to the other posters who claim that energy companies are actively lobbying against future energy markets (for one example 12% of PGE's electrical generation is from renewable resources, and another 16% comes from hydroelectric power which, under CA law, is not considered a renewable resource (page 65)) to the argument that the US doesn't know how to conserve petroleum (actual oil use in the US peaked in 1978 and then dropped, never to reach 1978 levels until 1995. Nowadays the US gets almost twice the economic impact from a gallon of oil than it did in the pre-shock days (IIRC, the numbers went up from $660GDP/bbl to $1100GDP/bbl.)
If you're interested in knowing, as opposed to arguing disjointed "facts" whose only tie is how they support your ideological position, you will definitely want to check out the 2005 International Energy Outlook. I myself will likely print this bad boy out and go over it this weekend. 
One thing I love about energy debates - it's one of the few subjects that has a wealth of data available for free: government, industry, activist sites... tons of it. 
Last edited by JohnT on 30-07-2005 at 02:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Yes. But switching away takes time, and it creates a transition phase. Since the oil lobbies are very powerful in the US, I expect the oil companies to be able to postpone the mandatory adjustment for as long as possible (by discouraging research on renewable fuel sources, by encouraging oil power plants to be built, by not promoting technologies and lifestyles that guzzle less gas).
And as a result, the American society will experience a shock instead of a gentle adaptation to a new energetic paradigm. Europe is likely to suffer less, considering that many European countries have attempted to reduce their dependancy to oil. |
why does you need to make it mandatory? what does the oil lobby have to do with this? people see their wallets hit, they stop demanding oil guzzling vehicles, and start demanding say hybrids, demand for hybrids goes up, car companies p[roduce more and we substitute away from oil and towards hybrids. the 'oil lobby' cant do anything about that.
people are already doing that - i mean they even have a hybrid SUV coming out next year. the oil lobby is dead; lower prices means less profits, and higher prices means higher profits, but more likely people will switch to something else, and we are seeing that already. the oil lobby doesnt even have the ear of the republicans anymore, who hav been hijacked by the neocons and who are now more closely aligned with the greens in terms of oil (less middle east oil, which means less oil consumption in general, because we cannot sustain ourselves from our own supply)
quote:
Browse Apolyton AD-FREE
LoA,
It's called a supply shock. Look it up in your econ book.
Spif,
You might want to only explain it to him once. He never really gets it, unless he gets it the first time. |
no need - supply shock only occurs when the supply is suddently cut off. this is not the case of what is happening now. demand is just slowly increasing, and supply is remaining pretty much constant. since supply isnt going anywhere, there cannot be a supply shock.
Last edited by Lawrence of Arabia on 30-07-2005 at 02:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The sort of spike in prices we're seeing caused by the Iraq war disruption of supplies will however be a fact of life. But these signals are helpful in stimulating the sort of shifts in consumption that need to take place. |
Just out of curiosity, are you talking about the first or the second Iraqui war ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
the second, but any kind of adverse event, like gulf war I or instability in Venezuela will send these price signals. |
Thanks. Will you then please tell me what oil supplies that was disrupted by this war ?
Unless I'm wrong, that war actually opened new oil supplies though they are not stable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
do you know what the word disrupted means? Are you seriously claiming Iraqi oil production has not been disrupted by the embargo and then the war? |
Surely - do you ? - if you had said Iraq war no 1, I might had agreed with you, but the second war has not disrupted anything - actually it has opened a big but unreliable source.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
Actually, it's your own fault - I used standard notations but you used those arcane metrics !!! That makes your claims difficult to understand 
I have a thumbs of rule that says that a gallon is 3 ltres and a mile is 1,8 km - how do you come from km and litres to miles and galls ?
Oh, and no, nobody loves you - belive me, I know the feeling  |
Wait... according to that other test, I'm a sociopath. Nobody loves me? 
www.onlineconversions.com
Anyway, you said that US cars average 8km per liter:
1 gal = 3.78 liters.
8km = 4.97 miles.
4.97*3.78=18.78mpg
So I rounded down. It, you know, makes my argument look better. 
The other half of that sentence implies that everybody else averages 20km per liter:
1 gal = 3.78 liters.
20km=12.42miles
12.42*3.78=46.94mpg
Both of those statements are, you know, wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2005 20:38
|