I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
PolestaR wrote:
Well cars replaced horses right? So buggy whip manufacturers (of which there would have been a minute amount compared to all the easy trucking jobs that exist now btw) probably went on to make windscreen wipers or whatever. Nothing is going to replace cars. We are talking millions of jobs in the USA alone dependent upon drivers clogging the streets.
I dislike people comparing something from 100 years ago when we only had 1 billion people world wide, and even less as a percentage living the decadent lifestyle we do now. There are no real jobs for these people to go to, and if you know of them, maybe you could lay down what all these millions of people will do when the mechanics, MacDonalds employees, gas attendants, etc, have nothing to do.
The _FACT_ is we have lived a life with so many unnecessary parts to it for so long that the population now relies upon those unnecessary things to survive. Overpopulation.
Its a shame you dont like old examples, the earliest example I could find was in the 1600's.
There are loads of examples this century of technology making a jobs obsolete. The word processor replaced the electric typewriter and gone were the typing pools. Containerisation on the water front actually saved energy and made 5 in six dock workers unemployed. Take a look at any port city and see how big the docks district is. Every port city had tens of thousands of dock workers. They are all doing something else now. Efficiency creates jobs. I know that it is hard to accept because it sounds counter intuitive. Its the same line of thinking that says that communism should work. In theory it should. In reality, the opposite happens.
Aaron wrote:
Here's the evidence you asked for... of course it's from a "wacky peak oil nut-job named Greenspan, or something like that.
This concept you have developed where energy markets have little impact on the general economy is embarrassing,
Be reasonable.
If you read the article you will notice that the only direct contirbution from Greenspan is that he said there is a 1 in 3 chance of a recesion. Further down in the article it attributes the slow down to higher interest rates and a housing bubble. I suspect Greenspan would not use the expresion "double whammy". I think that is the reporter analysis.
I have said I'll change my mind when you show me some evidence. I think that is reasonable. Oil prices trippled, according to the doomers, we should be looting the stores by now but I'm only asking to see a significant jump in inflation (something more than cyclical swings).
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
MonteQuest wrote:
Joe0Bloggs wrote:
Wohoo! I'm featured in Member Quotes! To whom do I owe this honor?
Honor?
You mean embarrassment, don't you?
Sure, if you insist on taking the quote out of context...
It makes perfect sense that that rising oil price does not in itself mean that there are no alternatives to oil. After all, wood prices rose before coal replaced it, so I suppose that means that coal is an inferior fuel?
And corn ethanol prices are set to plunge, does that mean that corn ethanol is a superior fuel to oil?
Quote:
If peak oil is here, we needed to be scaling those alternatives 10 to 20 years ago.
We didn't.
I doubt you'd see that Britain had scaled up its coal usage 10 to 20 years before Peak Wood...
The market never sees that far ahead and a transition like this is always going to be rough. Whether it means the End of Civilization, that's the question...
And why did we need to scale up those alternatives 10 to 20 years ago? Because it takes 10 to 20 years for those alternatives to scale up, and how much time do we have left now? What? One year? Thanks for proving me right.
Quote:
Which lowers the price of the energy you save, which increases consumption.
Jevons' Paradox.
It would lower the price of the energy you save only if the rate of energy savings outstrips both the rate of decline in energy extraction and the rate of increase in demand.
In which case you are talking about an economy that is not only not going to collapse, but is actually going to continue to expand.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
Joe0Bloggs wrote:
I doubt you'd see that Britain had scaled up its coal usage 10 to 20 years before Peak Wood...
Another embarassing quote....
Quote:
It would lower the price of the energy you save only if the rate of energy savings outstrips both the rate of decline in energy extraction and the rate of increase in demand.
In which case you are talking about an economy that is not only not going to collapse, but is actually going to continue to expand.
Oh, I don't think you are going to make the argument that conservation and efficiency can both offset oil decline and provide for economic growth, are you?
Because, if it can, it will increase consumption. and if it cannot, it isn't a solution. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
Joe0Bloggs wrote:
It makes perfect sense that that rising oil price does not in itself mean that there are no alternatives to oil. After all, wood prices rose before coal replaced it, so I suppose that means that coal is an inferior fuel?
Another embarassing quote. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
MonteQuest wrote:
Huh?
Have you not read the recent reports on coal's coming peak?
I have seen you post that if coal replaced everything it peaks in 37 years. I'm suggesting that alternatives take a more prominent role so the number is even bigger. Posibly into the next century.
Quote:
Or that coal is a non-renewable fossil fuel as well?
Whats the relevance?
Quote:
Or the 40% energy loss in the conversion?
Cars waste 70% in the conversion of oil to motion. I guess cars will never be posible then. Its a meaningless figure with no context here.
Quote:
Or the lack of coal transport infrastructure?
Did you just put this in here to make it look like you have a long list of points? My countries rail network is salivating at the prospect of increased coal freight. What are you talking about?
Quote:
Not to mention the scalability of building CTL plants?
Scale? China had to write a law banning further investment in CTL because they are worried they will have too much production.
Quote:
And the accompanying pipeline system to distribute the liquid?
Oh.. you have me here. There is no way we will ever be able to distribute a liquid fuel around the world. I mean we are talking about a billion liquid fuel vehicles spread all around the world. It'll never happen.
Quote:
Or the CO2 sequestering problem?
When a peak oil doomer is losing an economic arguement, they ALWAYS fall back to an environmental one. I have never seen any indication that we will do anything other than burn every bit of carbon into the atmosphere. CTL doesnt change that.
Quote:
This will be as cheap and easy as sticking a straw into a pressurized oil field?
Of course, your car runs on crude oil. Mine runs on a highly refined and treated product. Cost is the primary consideration.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
MonteQuest wrote:
Joe0Bloggs wrote:
I doubt you'd see that Britain had scaled up its coal usage 10 to 20 years before Peak Wood...
Another embarassing quote....
Quote:
It would lower the price of the energy you save only if the rate of energy savings outstrips both the rate of decline in energy extraction and the rate of increase in demand.
In which case you are talking about an economy that is not only not going to collapse, but is actually going to continue to expand.
Oh, I don't think you are going to make the argument that conservation and efficiency can both offset oil decline and provide for economic growth, are you?
Because, if it can, it will increase consumption. and if it cannot, it isn't a solution.
I think he just did make that arguement. You on the other hand have said nothing. Like a lot of you posts in this tread.
Joe0Bloggs "Increased consumption" is this "demand" you speak of. You have just said: "If it doesnt work, it wont work." Thanks for that.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
matt21811 wrote:
I'm suggesting that alternatives take a more prominent role so the number is even bigger. Posibly into the next century.
No, you suggested that CTL was a viable alternative to oil.
It is not.
It's another fossil fool's errand.
And if you think my points are not well researched, you are mistaken. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
MonteQuest wrote:
Joe0Bloggs wrote:
I doubt you'd see that Britain had scaled up its coal usage 10 to 20 years before Peak Wood...
Another embarassing quote....
Care to elaborate?
Quote:
Quote:
It would lower the price of the energy you save only if the rate of energy savings outstrips both the rate of decline in energy extraction and the rate of increase in demand.
In which case you are talking about an economy that is not only not going to collapse, but is actually going to continue to expand.
Oh, I don't think you are going to make the argument that conservation and efficiency can both offset oil decline and provide for economic growth, are you?
It won't by itself--just as neither hydro, wind, solar, nuclear nor biofuels would do all these things by itself.
Quote:
Because, if it can, it will increase consumption. and if it cannot, it isn't a solution.
"If it can, it will increase consumption." If consumption can continue to increase, that totally negates the PO doomer scenario. Of course it could lead to other doomer scenarios such as global warming. But we really should argue about one thing at a time. And you can argue that if consumption grows unchecked humanity will be doomed sometime or other. But then it wouldn't be PO that doomed us.
MonteQuest wrote:
Joe0Bloggs wrote:
It makes perfect sense that that rising oil price does not in itself mean that there are no alternatives to oil. After all, wood prices rose before coal replaced it, so I suppose that means that coal is an inferior fuel?
Another embarassing quote.
Maybe if you actually had an argument against what I am saying, you wouldn't have to resort to meaningless one-liners. BTW note the qualifier 'does not in itself'. Seeing as how PO->doom is such a well-reasoned conclusion, you should be presenting 99 other valid arguments to prove it, rather than trying to defend an argument that is indefensible.
Let's say PO->doom is true. That doesn't mean any old argument for 'proving' that PO->doom is true. Hence, refuting one argument for it doesn't mean refuting the whole idea. And I wouldn't think that just by refuting this flawed argument I've ensured a future of Mr. Fusion for everybody, either.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
matt21811 wrote:
I think he just did make that arguement. You on the other hand have said nothing. Like a lot of you posts in this tread.
Joe0Bloggs "Increased consumption" is this "demand" you speak of. You have just said: "If it doesnt work, it wont work." Thanks for that.
At least I make sense. You lost me here. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
Joe0Bloggs wrote:
Maybe if you actually had an argument against what I am saying, you wouldn't have to resort to meaningless one-liners.
Oh, trust me, to many of us they are far from meaningless.
I think the over 9000 posts of mine have covered this at length ad naseum.
You want to rehash it, find another fool to debate. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Maybe now you and Aaron can release your emotional attachment to these broken arguments and present some real arguments.
Once again:
1. Coal replaced wood only after wood prices rose.
2. Coal is NOT inferior to wood.
3. Alternatives are not yet replacing oil as oil prices rise.
4. That in itself does NOT mean that alternatives are inferior to oil.
5. That does not mean that I am arguing that alternatives are SUPERIOR to oil.
6. All I'm saying is that you have not presented anything here that proves one way or the other.
7. If you want me to go through 9000 posts of yours before talking to you, is there any point in posting to this forum? Why not make this a non-interactive narrative website detailing your well-considered, irrefutable views that are the answer to life, the universe and everything?
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
I doubt you need to rehash 9000 posts to point out why rising oil prices IN AND OF ITSELF means that alternative energy sources are inferior, when there are explicit counterexamples in history.
Actually, since this is the very point that this thread is trying to prove/disprove, if it requires you to rehash 9000 posts, you'd better go ahead and do just that. Otherwise why not provide an index guide to your 9000 wise posts and lock this thread, since you seem unwilling to re-discuss the topic this thread is supposed to address.
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
MonteQuest wrote:
matt21811 wrote:
I'm suggesting that alternatives take a more prominent role so the number is even bigger. Posibly into the next century.
No, you suggested that CTL was a viable alternative to oil.
It is not.
It's another fossil fool's errand.
And if you think my points are not well researched, you are mistaken.
CTL is indeed a viable alternative to oil. More so with alternates along with it.
You are yet to say why it is not.
I've seen the research you have posted on this site. Way to much of it lasts only minutes before it is refuted for me to take you as an authority figure an anything but national parks.
You will have to make an actual arguement.
BTW, the phrase "I'm suggesting" can be interpreted as "I suggest to you"
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject: Re: Oil Alternatives Aren't
Isn't it enough to prove that alternatives are inferior to oil... by proving alternatives are inferior to oil? You know, by directly calculating their EROEI? Why must you and Aaron resort to invalid economic arguments--and defend them to the point of being ridiculous?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
