[Ludi]

The "knee deep in horseshit" response.

Not really. Here we have someone who is actively discouraging energy development because he clearly wants to see our society fail, and all of us go back to an era of darkness.

No, it really is the "knee deep in horseshit" response because you're assuming "power down" means "living in the Dark Ages." I've never seen Monte advocate returning to the Dark Ages.

[BigTex]

Here we have someone who is actively discouraging energy development because he clearly wants to see our society fail, and all of us go back to an era of darkness.

In reality sensible investments in nuclear power as well as alternative energy sources for most vehicles (such as electric cars) would go a long way towards solving this issue.

My friend, I would so like that to be true.

If it were we could pack up all the doom tables and take it to the house.

But if you look a little more closely you will find that you are describing part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I have no desire to "go back to an era of darkness." However, if we continue living our lavish and resource intensive lifestyles on a "non-negotiable" basis, a profound era of darkness is the fate we are tempting.

And when I say "darkness", I'm talking about darkness like a lump of coal in a darkroom at midnight. That's DARK.

[MonteQuest]

As said, it's the "official" UN projection, not mine, and I don't consider it likely. The whole discussion has become quite silly.

No it's not. It's one of three. It's the median projection.

[MonteQuest]

Here we have someone who is actively discouraging energy development because he clearly wants to see our society fail, and all of us go back to an era of darkness.

Not. And clearly?

Man. Have you got some reading to do to even have a clue where I'm coming from.

This is rich! LOL!

[outcast]

Ok, so explain it to me then. Why is more energy bad?

[MrBean]

The era of darkness. Yes, bring it on, back to candles and oil lamps - enough of light pollution. Would be nice for us citifolks too to see the stars...

I doubt very much that electricity can be produced sustainably by any means in the long run.

[BigTex]

Ok, so explain it to me then. Why is more energy bad?

Because the resource inputs needed to product MORE energy are non-renewable.

Non-renewable inputs = Unsustainable systems.

Unsustainable systems = Burning the candle at both ends

Think about it like this: if you are broke and can't pay your bills, why would another credit card be bad?

[outcast]

Because the resource inputs needed to product MORE energy are non-renewable.

That depends on where it is coming from. I guess solar isn't exactly renewable since the sun is going to explode in a few billion years.

Thorium would last for thousands of years.

[Homesteader]

Because the resource inputs needed to product MORE energy are non-renewable.

That depends on where it is coming from. I guess solar isn't exactly renewable since the sun is going to explode in a few billion years.

Thorium would last for thousands of years.

Gosh, is that all it takes? I thought building a nuke plant also required cement, steel, fossil fuels, rare earths, rare metals, transmission lines, etc. . . how silly of me.

[ROCKMAN]

Homesteader,

There may be a shortage for nuke plants we aren't even thinking about. For a couple of years I've been hearing about a shortage of engineers causing delays and actual cancellation of major projects around the world. This was a generalized statement but I would guess that a large portion of nuke construction falls into a general category. Of course, folks go where the money is. If building nukes gets to be THE PRIORITY then I guess the salaries would be bumped up enough to pull them in.

I know in my oil patch we are just beginning the start of a major drop in ecperience level. Due to the cyclic nature of the oil biz the experience level curve has some big peaks and troughs. There's a big trough of experience in the 55 and younger bracket. I don't have the data base handy but I'll guess the oil patch will loose at least 50% of the top hands in the next 5 or 6 years. Granted we can't stop PO by drilling but we can slow it up a little with some more holes in the ground. Also, natural gas is becoming a bigger asset as PO approaches. Loosing experienced hands will impact that area also.

[BigTex]

outcast, you either have a lot of homework to do or you are a hopeless cornucopian.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you haven't studied the matter closely.

Read up on carrying capacity and overshoot.

Spend some time thinking about long term tensions arising in a world of limitless human imaginations and finite resource constraints. Think about how that might play out and how population growth might aggravate those tensions.

Think about what the long term purposes and effects are of exponential population and economic growth in a world of physical limits.

Consider that there may be blind spots in your understanding of whether the world is here exclusively for our benefit and use or if we are here as one member of a diverse ecosystem, the long term purpose of which is survival, in the aggregate, of some form of life over very long periods.

Then think about whether human intelligence and our tendency to view success in terms of conquest and control are, on balance, good or bad things from the perspective of long term survival of our species or of life in any form on this planet.

[ROCKMAN]

Tex et al,

Not to interupt the flow (I do follow the conversation with interest) but back to the title of this thread for a moment:

Just a quick poll amongst our happy clan: 1)how many oil and gas fields have been doscovered along the Atlantic Coast 2) How soon might new leases are offered in this trend?

[Snik]

Ok, so explain it to me then. Why is more energy bad?

Poor Outcast.

You've just stepped into the zone of the apocalypse. Do not offer hope. It is a finite resource that must not be used regardless of how much it is needed.

[BigTex]

Ok, so explain it to me then. Why is more energy bad?

Poor Outcast.

You've just stepped into the zone of the apocalypse. Do not offer hope. It is a finite resource that must not be used regardless of how much it is needed.

If hope is your best plan, I think I'll take my chances with reality.

Apocalypse is an interpretation of events by those who have not come to terms with their own fears.

For others, there is just reality. It wasn't my idea to assemble the world in this manner. I'm just describing what I see.

I'm afraid you are describing what you would like to see.

I would like to see world peace, full tummies, happy hearts, and a Disneyland in every city for the kids. But that's not realistic--it's not consistent or compatible with the reality we find ourselves in.

The crack addict hopes for more crack. That doesn't mean that it's a solution to his problem.

[Snik]

Because the resource inputs needed to product MORE energy are non-renewable.

Then stop putting resources into finding more resources? Hmmm....where does that lead you other than to hasten our demise, which, I believe, is exactly what Monte has suggested before. Why fight it when it's going to happen anyway, correct?

Think about it like this: if you are broke and can't pay your bills, why would another credit card be bad?

No, it's more like having mounting debt, but deciding not to go to work since you can't figure out how you'll ever get out of debt even if you do. It's called giving up.

[MonteQuest]

Ok, so explain it to me then. Why is more energy bad?

Because we will use to try and sustain an unsustainable population that is in overshoot.

[MonteQuest]

It's called giving up.

No, it's called not continuing to try and circumvent the laws and limits of nature.

Or accepting that there are limits.

[Snik]

I'm afraid you are describing what you would like to see.

That is what, in other venues, is often called "having a vision". If you achieve that vision through hard work, then it is called reality. Fortunately we have had people of vision in this world that have been able to bring their visions to reality. Without ideas and vision, we would still be hunter/gatherers dying at age 30, and wondering why round things roll.

The crack addict hopes for more crack. That doesn't mean that it's a solution to his problem.

You know, that analogy is just plain worn out, and ridiculous. Energy is no more an addiction than is the need for air, food, and water. In today's world it is a need, not a desire. Those are two different things. Yes, we need to use less, but a crack addict needs to use none. We need to find more right now to sustain us until we can achieve a more renewable system of energy supply. At the same time, we need to find more efficient ways of using the energy we have. But to suggest that the use of non-renewable energy sources is like a substance addiction is just a plain bad comparison.

We cannot simply stop using fossil fuels without completely, and utterly destroying our way of life, not to mention causing billions of untimely deaths by starvation, exposure to the elements, disease, etc. I know that is what you believe is going to happen anyway, but as far as I am concerned I would just as soon put that off for as long as possible, just in case we can find a way out that is not as draconian as intentionally depriving people of medical care when they are ill, or allowing millions at a time starve to death so we can reduce our population to a sustainable level.

I'm just not ready to give up quite yet.

[Homesteader]

I'm afraid you are describing what you would like to see.

That is what, in other venues, is often called "having a vision". If you achieve that vision through hard work, then it is called reality. Fortunately we have had people of vision in this world that have been able to bring their visions to reality. Without ideas and vision, we would still be hunter/gatherers dying at age 30, and wondering why round things roll.

The crack addict hopes for more crack. That doesn't mean that it's a solution to his problem.

You know, that analogy is just plain worn out, and ridiculous. Energy is no more an addiction than is the need for air, food, and water. In today's world it is a need, not a desire. Those are two different things. Yes, we need to use less, but a crack addict needs to use none. We need to find more right now to sustain us until we can achieve a more renewable system of energy supply. At the same time, we need to find more efficient ways of using the energy we have. But to suggest that the use of non-renewable energy sources is like a substance addiction is just a plain bad comparison.

We cannot simply stop using fossil fuels without completely, and utterly destroying our way of life, not to mention causing billions of untimely deaths by starvation, exposure to the elements, disease, etc. I know that is what you believe is going to happen anyway, but as far as I am concerned I would just as soon put that off for as long as possible, just in case we can find a way out that is not as draconian as intentionally depriving people of medical care when they are ill, or allowing millions at a time starve to death so we can reduce our population to a sustainable level.

I'm just not ready to give up quite yet.

This is why we are doomers folks.

[Ludi]

Who is saying we will stop using fossil fuels?

I missed that part....

Who is intentionally depriving anyone of medical care?

Man, I keep missing these thing.....