Did U watch "CRUDE"

[SPIRIT]

If that was Catalyst late last year, they used put more energy into the reactor then they got out. The next step was to build a bigger reactor for around US$6 billion. They are still a long way off from actually producing usable energy.

That reactor will self feed the power needed to run (so they say)the hard part is they don,t know how to stop the reaction

[dazzler]

Assumption!


Assumption!
The diagrams are true assuming we take the IPCC estimate of remaining nuclear fuel. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates are more than a hundred times higher.
Oh, and while I am not keen on nuclear power at all, there is no need for nuclear powered cars.


Assumption!
OPEC production policy has always been limiting production to maintain high prices.
Hindsight is a powerful tool. In 1985 oil production has been 10% lower than the up to then peak production. Evidence was more than mounting then. Why will that not repeat?

You see, the main problem with 'peak oil doom theories' is that peak oil production is an effect. Not a cause. Peak oil production will occur exactly at the time that demand will diminish. That's basic economy. US oil production peaked not because it could not produce more oil. It peaked because it was cheaper to produce oil elsewhere. World peak production will be reached when it becomes cheaper to use other energy sources.

Doom theories are always based on a very strong FUD factor. The fear of not having enough fuel to take the children to school, combined with the uncertainty as to the amount of energy reserves we have and the doubts about alternative energy sources is an excellent basis for a doom theory. Doom theories are also based on the assumption that things will be radically different in the future. This is where they break. God does not rain great hailstones fire and brimstone, computers do not stop working just because the date changes, and pigs do not fly. Oil prices will not soar overnight, alternative energy will become available when it becomes commercially exploitable, peak oil production will be reached and oil will gradually be replaced as the major source of energy. There is no reason to lose sleep over any of these.

But,

Getting back to Crude, from what they were saying, and it was very matter of fact and stuck to simple formulas, we dont have much time at all.

Any ideas on rebutting what was said in Crude, in particular the carbon saturation stuff

[Gingermick]

There is talk of global dimming, not as a result of dubbya, but the increase in pollutants in the air reflecting solar energy away.

[dazzler]

Hot dark and smelly....sounds like a nite club

[Grunt]

There is talk of global dimming, not as a result of dubbya, but the increase in pollutants in the air reflecting solar energy away.

That's the answer, let's put more crap in the air. Pity we have to breathe. It would work though. Link New Scientist

Any ideas on rebutting what was said in Crude, in particular the carbon saturation stuff

I think it's fairly simple. The earth sequestered lots of CO2 over the course of 100 or million years and we release it over the 150 years.

[quote=Andy Mac]Agriculture, especially broad acre farming, will suffer greatly without diesel, and I can't imagine electric tractors in the near future! /QUOTE]

Modern agriculture is completely dependant on fossil fuels in every step. For every calorie of food we eat, it took 10 calories of energy to produce it. Diesel, fertilisers, pesticides, transport and production all use and require oil.

Add oil crop production onto increased demand for food cropping....[

Look on the bright side, we'll grow fuel instead of food and mum will still be able to pick kids from school. It's a pity about those in the 3rd world as they'll starve but that's ok because funny looking.

Can the base chemicals needed for these be extracted from coal, a closely allied substance?

Yes there is Coal to Liquid technologies. However there is a few significant problems with this. Firstly is that coal is very dirty in regards to global warming. Processing releases the embedded CO2. Secondly, it takes more energy to process the coal to liquid than you get from the resulting liquid.

They are, however technological advance is also exponential.

The real problem is the time that we have available. Even if they got fusion right in the next few years, we'd need to build 1000s of reactors, a 3 fold increase the capacity of all electrical grids, replacing most of the internal combustion cars with electric ones. It would cost trillions and trillions dollars and take decades. We simply don't have the time.

[outback]

Electricity and vehicle fuel will be easy. We do that now, almost economically.
The BIG one is the reliance on chemicals and other stuff. Not just agriculture, everything we use and touch seems to have some form of oil industry product in it, it gets scary when you really think about it.

[SPIRIT]

everybody has a goal not always the same as ours there maybe people that everything is going to plan ,they do spend a lot of money ,time and energy looking out at space
some are at the stage where they think they can jump ship

l havent gotten my ticket yet

[javali]

Explain why we went for nearly two decades at between $10 and $20 a barrel till 2000.

The beauty of having enough data is that you can prove anything with it. Now let us apply the same reasoning to other resources.
Copper: copper price has quadrupled itself in the past 5 years. Production in the US, Peru and Kazakhastan, three of the largest producers of copper (about 20% of the total production), has dropped in 2005. (I do not have more recent data.) Are we facing "Peak copper" crisis?
Zinc: zinc price has quadrupled in the past 5 years. Production in Peru (over 13% of the total world roduction in 2003) has dropped in 2004 and again in 2005. Are we facing "Peak Zinc"?
Was our world designed in such a way that all of the resources are deplated at exactly the same time?

Yes, I'm assuming that we have a depletion rate of 5%. This is a reasonable estimate based on historical depletion rates. See graph below.

Saw the graph below. The interesting thing is that the drop of 5% starts tomorrow. Why? Why not 20% or 2% or maybe production will increase?

Actually, if we base world forecasts on US past data, and assume the 40 years interval you mentioned, I noted that for the past 30 years US production has dropped by less that a half. I would have assumed that this would be the deplation rate you would use.

The drop in production was completely due to a drop in demand. The oil shock of 1979 was caused by political events around Iran and Saudi Arabia. There was a short period where we actually tried to conserve oil.

I would have assumed that political events around Iran and Saudi Arabia would affect current oil prices. Don't they?

As you know, oil price in 1979 has reached $100 in today's dollars. Oil price can still grow by 40% before reaching the circumstances that triggered our attempts to conserve oil. Why would it not work this time?



I do not suggest that we would have oil forever. Alternative energy sources should be developed and deployed, and the sooner the better. There is, however, no need for the panic. It is actually counterproductive. If we are in the after peak oil times, and tehre are no alternative sources at hand, and, as you claim, there is no time, than there is no need to develop alternative energy sources. Focus your efforts on survival in the post-judement-day world.

BTW, what's wrong with the explanation that currect resources (including oil) prices are high due to a combination of unexpected high demand and the weakness of the US dollar? The drop in the world's production and in Saudi Arabia's production is a simple fluctuation (similar to those in previous years - see your graph), and everything will be OK?

[Dr. No]

Did you watch the show "CRUDE" about oil industry and the environment on the ABC the other night.

No.

[SPIRIT]

Javali and grunt
yes we will have a oil crisis but it will not be the end of the world ,,,please come on now people went though the back death had a better out look
Things will change YES be ready for the change is the answer the change isn't going to come with big bang more like eat away at the sysem we live in
worse it gets more people will change ,gee some farmer still cut down all their trees ,more and more are planting them

l have my idea how best to get along in the new world much like Grunts

[silentC]

The problem is twofold. Firstly we have come to rely on oil so heavily that just about everything we do requires it. There are no real alternatives at present. Secondly, people don't truly believe it is ever going to come to an end (it will) and have largely forgotten how to get by without it. So if something does not come along to replace it, there will be a fairly dramatic change to life as we know it.

Personally, I'm OK with that. But I will miss electricity

[Daddles]

But I will miss electricity

I won't because me computer won't work so I won't have to listen to you lot badgering on about the world oil crisis and by the time I've worn out me collection of pushbikes ... I'll have starved to death because we've lost the ability to produce enough food not that it'll take that long because some git of a government will unleash a nuclear holocaust (oh hang on, that was the sixties and seventies ) but ...

No, not trivialising it. We're heading for shocking trouble and I'm hoping the human animal can manage yet another breathtaking survival trick

Richard

[Grunt]

Are we facing "Peak copper" crisis?
Are we facing "Peak Zinc"?

Simply yes. The way we are consuming resources it's only a matter of time before supplies dwindle and demand exceeds supply. Peak Copper
The worlds resources are finite. We use them like there is a limitless supply.
Copper is damned useful. While there are some alternatives like silver and aluminium but they are more expensive or less effective. In a short space of time we would reach peak with any alternative.

The worlds resources are NOT limited.

I noted that for the past 30 years US production has dropped by less that a half. I would have assumed that this would be the deplation rate you would use.

The production depletion in the US is about 2% per annum. Which over 35 years is gives you half the production rate. In addition, the US made significant oil discoveries in Alaska which reduced the depletion rates. Check out some of the other countries like Norway and the UK. Their depletion rates are approaching 10%.
5% is a reasonable assumption. Of course it could be less but equally it could be more.

I would have assumed that political events around Iran and Saudi Arabia would affect current oil prices. Don't they?

To a point but at that time Iran cut off oil exports entirely as part of the whole US embassy hostage crisis. Interestingly, that reduced the oil supply to the US by around 5%. It had devastating effect on economies around the would.

The drop in the world's production and in Saudi Arabia's production is a simple fluctuation (similar to those in previous years - see your graph), and everything will be OK?

The evidence for reaching Peak about now is very strong. It is not a case of IF it is a case of WHEN.

I do not suggest that we would have oil forever. Alternative energy sources should be developed and deployed, and the sooner the better. There is, however, no need for the panic. It is actually counterproductive. If we are in the after peak oil times, and tehre are no alternative sources at hand, and, as you claim, there is no time, than there is no need to develop alternative energy sources. Focus your efforts on survival in the post-judement-day world.

Peak Oil gets very little coverage. I don't see how it's counter productive to inform people that it the sheet will hit the fan and we're going to be in for some very tough times. Everyone should learn to grow some veggies and maybe get some chickens. It'll be good for the environment to boot.

[dazzler]

No.

Probably a good thing

[javali]

Simply yes. The way we are consuming resources it's only a matter of time before supplies dwindle and demand exceeds supply.

Isn't it strange that for some strange reason the supply of all major resources ends up exactly at the same time? Resources are limited. We agree on that. But why would all resources peak at the same time? Our use rate does not necessarily match the existing quantity of a resource, so I would have expected each resource to peak at its own time. Take the price graph of any resource you like, wipe the numbers, and noone could tell what resource it is. They are just the same. How did that happen? Peak oil/copper/whatever does not explain this. Awakening China markets explain increasing demand.

5% is a reasonable assumption. Of course it could be less but equally it could be more.

As reasonable as 5% increase.

The evidence for reaching Peak about now is very strong. It is not a case of IF it is a case of WHEN.

It is a major question of if. I do question it. I do not believe in it. The evidence I have seen of the presumed peak is also evidence for peak in any other resource, which simply does not make sense.

Peak Oil gets very little coverage. I don't see how it's counter productive to inform people that it the sheet will hit the fan and we're going to be in for some very tough times. Everyone should learn to grow some veggies and maybe get some chickens. It'll be good for the environment to boot.

The presumed peak is a worst case scenario that will happen unless we do something about it. If we do nothing for preventing this scenario than we will have 500,000 people dying every day for 30 years. That's what you said. As soon as we start treating this as certainty instead of a worst case possibility than nothing can be done to prevent it. Instead of working on prevension we will be erecting crap-shields to shield us from flying sheet, and peak-oil becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy. That's counter productive.

I have already lived three doom prophecies I am aware of, and probably hundreds I have not heard about. History is full of prophecies. Some are religion based, some are based on science. Some are vague others are detailed. Some are reasonable, others are just whacky. They all have one thing in common. They are all wrong. Strangely enough, most disasters and crises were not predicted by any of these prophecies. Evidence is that the divining power of humanity is close to nil.

Have you asked yourself why peak oil gets so little coverage?