You're making a huge assumption that we can't move beyond our current resources. Do you think Bill Gates was panicking when PCs were reaching DOS's 1MB RAM limit? When necessity presents itself, man will find other means. Maybe the government will grant $1 bil to research solar power. Sure, the Sun is finite too. What will we do when it burns out?
You're making a huge assumption that we can't move beyond our current resources. Do you think Bill Gates was panicking when PCs were reaching DOS's 1MB RAM limit? When necessity presents itself, man will find other means. Maybe the government will grant $1 bil to research solar power. Sure, the Sun is finite too. What will we do when it burns out?
yes of course the sun is finite, but as far as we are concerned it is infinite. Four billion years is more than beyond our comphrension. And when the sun is gone, it's game over anyways. But again that is just a straw man arguement. For all intents and purposes, homo sapiens does not have to worry about the sun becoming a limiting factor. Four billion years more of sunlight is more time than all of life has been on planet earth. By the time the sun implodes, there won't even be a fraction of a memory of homo sapiens.
10-25 years for oil is not beyond our lifetimes. In fact, they lie right when most of us will be in our primes. Comparing to peak oil to CPU RAM, while analogous, is not a totally valid comparsion. The limiting factor there was technology and foresight. And Moore's law was already working even back then. However, oil depletion can not be solved without fundemental changes in our lifestyles.
Eventually, there must be a crash or a leveling off of growth. Indefinite growth can not continue forever. Even if we invest in solar power, it still only delays the main, fundemental flaw. Indefinite growth can not be sustained. There will be a day where we must make a move to a steady state economy. Think of it this way. Everyday, you must eat 3% more than you did yesterday. Eventually your nutrional need will outstrip your ability to gather the food or the availability of the food will become limiting and you can not fufill your need.
The computer analogy is different as software and hardware are symbiotic. One can not severely outstrip the other for long. However, continual growth is parasitic or even cancerous. Even cancer, the maligant non-stop growth of healthy cells, has a limiting scope. One day, we will again out strip our resource base and a crash will occur even more disasterously.
The fundemental flaw is in a continually growing state of affairs. It simply can not happen in a finite world. In models and theories, this is possible because it is simply talk. But in the real world, something arises to limit growth. This is what happens to bacteria, reindeer, and humans. We are not immune to the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
10-25 years for oil is not beyond our lifetimes. In fact, they lie right when most of us will be in our primes. Comparing to peak oil to CPU RAM, while analogous, is not a totally valid comparsion. The limiting factor there was technology and foresight. And Moore's law was already working even back then. However, oil depletion can not be solved without fundemental changes in our lifestyles.
Eventually, there must be a crash or a leveling off of growth. Indefinite growth can not continue forever. Even if we invest in solar power, it still only delays the main, fundemental flaw. Indefinite growth can not be sustained. There will be a day where we must make a move to a steady state economy. Think of it this way. Everyday, you must eat 3% more than you did yesterday. Eventually your nutrional need will outstrip your ability to gather the food or the availability of the food will become limiting and you can not fufill your need.
The computer analogy is different as software and hardware are symbiotic. One can not severely outstrip the other for long. However, continual growth is parasitic or even cancerous. Even cancer, the maligant non-stop growth of healthy cells, has a limiting scope. One day, we will again out strip our resource base and a crash will occur even more disasterously.
The fundemental flaw is in a continually growing state of affairs. It simply can not happen in a finite world. In models and theories, this is possible because it is simply talk. But in the real world, something arises to limit growth. This is what happens to bacteria, reindeer, and humans. We are not immune to the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
It's funny everytime it's pointed out to cwjerome that Iraq != afghanistan = war on terror he runs for the caves like a terrorist.
Omar, quit pretending you can predict the future with fancy talk. I've never seen a more anti-man attitude. Every year there's hundreds of new innovations, new technologies, and new ideas. Maybe stopping right here and damning billions around the world to live nasty, painfull, short lives suits you, but I believe in people.
Omar 500 years ago: "Holy crap golly gee we're gonna cut down all the trees for fuel, and pretty soon there will be no wood left!!"
Omar 100 years ago: "Omigosh, hoo-boy, this coal is too damn dirty and we're making great big holes in the ground... and we're gonna run out!!!!"
Omar today: <see above>
Omar 500 years ago: "Holy crap golly gee we're gonna cut down all the trees for fuel, and pretty soon there will be no wood left!!"
Omar 100 years ago: "Omigosh, hoo-boy, this coal is too damn dirty and we're making great big holes in the ground... and we're gonna run out!!!!"
Omar today: <see above>
ad hominem. attack the arguement and not the person.
did you even do a little research about peak oil, its implications and the book i posted above?
did you even do a little research about peak oil, its implications and the book i posted above?
It could take as little as 10 years, if the money was there. With current oil prices, the money will be there.
kibbo is partially correct. It is possible to soften the crash. However, it will take decades of investment and smart policy manuevars.
However, with the way our current government is, it doesn't look likely
remember, adaption for millions doesn't equal survival for billions.
However, with the way our current government is, it doesn't look likely
remember, adaption for millions doesn't equal survival for billions.
Yes Omar, I have read the link, and I have even heard of Peak Oil theories before. I still say that it's overstated. With solar advances, wind advances, coal advances, oil advances, new technologies, new advancements into reduction/conservation abilities, new advancements into re-use and recycling abilities, nuclear expansion, and a host of other possibilities, I'm not jumping on the Peak Oil bandwagon (which is justification for a lot of left-wing agendas). We are discovering oil under 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found. Wells pumped dry later replenished. There are things we are still learning.
It's an issue -like many- that we need to be aware of and work towards solving. What we don't need to bring civilization to a halt. Drink a few beers dude.
It's an issue -like many- that we need to be aware of and work towards solving. What we don't need to bring civilization to a halt. Drink a few beers dude.
i hope you are right.
solar advances --> what advances? there are still several, legitatmate hurdles to be made before solar is even viable. and it still doesn't replace the pesticides, fertilizers and un-usable as a transport fuel. logistics of solar power is mind boggling.
wind advances --> see above. also probably our best alternative
coal advances --> we also have a finite stock of coal and all indications that are that it isn't 250 years like everyone touts it to be. it's more around 100 (which is great imo, fusion should kick in by then). however, it is a heavy polluter, and i hope to god the green lobby doesn't stop it. it also doesn't replace pesticides and fertilizers, however, i can see research being done into it to replace oil.
oil advances --> cheap oil is running out
re-using and recycling plastics and other materials will never alleviate our dependance. there is only so many times you can reuse the oil before it becomes unprofitable to do so. also remember that such processing consume oil as well and thermodynamics state you can never get back what you put in. so we will always be on a downwards slope with recycling/reuse.
deep sea oil is not very viable. in the gulf of mexico alone, there have been many wells drilled, but only a couple of them have hit oil. it is also extremely expensive and the quality of oil is not as good. and the whole point of peak oil is that we are going to lose cheap fuel as a resource base.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/oandgart.htm
wells being replenished is more likely due to a deeper source of oil than oil being generated. the processes by which oil is formed take hundreds of millions of years.
and regardless of all the innovation and technology, there _HAS TO BE_ a time when growth can not be sustained. this is the core of the peak-oil debate. growth on a finite world can not be sustained indefinately. bacteria in a petri dish could cover the earth 3 meters deep in 48 hours if their growth is unchecked. fortunately for us, they never get that far, some sort of limiting agent hits upon them. we are not immune to the same laws that bind bacteria. it is simply that the earth is our petri dish and we have covered it. the question is, can we sustain our coverage or will there be a crash.
you must know in some capacity that growth will have to plateau or even decline. i am not advocating stopping civilization. i am pointing out that mother nature will do that for us if we dont take action soon.
solar advances --> what advances? there are still several, legitatmate hurdles to be made before solar is even viable. and it still doesn't replace the pesticides, fertilizers and un-usable as a transport fuel. logistics of solar power is mind boggling.
wind advances --> see above. also probably our best alternative
coal advances --> we also have a finite stock of coal and all indications that are that it isn't 250 years like everyone touts it to be. it's more around 100 (which is great imo, fusion should kick in by then). however, it is a heavy polluter, and i hope to god the green lobby doesn't stop it. it also doesn't replace pesticides and fertilizers, however, i can see research being done into it to replace oil.
oil advances --> cheap oil is running out
re-using and recycling plastics and other materials will never alleviate our dependance. there is only so many times you can reuse the oil before it becomes unprofitable to do so. also remember that such processing consume oil as well and thermodynamics state you can never get back what you put in. so we will always be on a downwards slope with recycling/reuse.
deep sea oil is not very viable. in the gulf of mexico alone, there have been many wells drilled, but only a couple of them have hit oil. it is also extremely expensive and the quality of oil is not as good. and the whole point of peak oil is that we are going to lose cheap fuel as a resource base.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/oandgart.htm
wells being replenished is more likely due to a deeper source of oil than oil being generated. the processes by which oil is formed take hundreds of millions of years.
and regardless of all the innovation and technology, there _HAS TO BE_ a time when growth can not be sustained. this is the core of the peak-oil debate. growth on a finite world can not be sustained indefinately. bacteria in a petri dish could cover the earth 3 meters deep in 48 hours if their growth is unchecked. fortunately for us, they never get that far, some sort of limiting agent hits upon them. we are not immune to the same laws that bind bacteria. it is simply that the earth is our petri dish and we have covered it. the question is, can we sustain our coverage or will there be a crash.
you must know in some capacity that growth will have to plateau or even decline. i am not advocating stopping civilization. i am pointing out that mother nature will do that for us if we dont take action soon.
Everything I mentioned is but one aspect of how our reliance on oil as the #1 cheap energy source can slowly be diminished (and that doesn't even include newer sources/technologies yet to be developed). Why are you responding as if any one is supposed to completely replace cheap oil? Why are you acting like five years or 10 years from now things will be exactly the same? Why are you so negative on every aspect of every suggestion? Why are you as fanatical about peak oil catastrophe when there's plenty of contradicting/dissenting views?
When I mention oil being 30,000 feet, I'm not talking about deep sea, I'm refering to the fact that there's new beliefs that oil isn't solely organic in foundation and there may be much more deeper. And wells being replentished is more evidence of that.
There's so many things going on, on so many levels, and pretending we're gonna wake up one day and suddenly all the wells are dry is absurd. We haven't peaked, we won't until 2015-2020, and by then we will easily be able to replace it as oil production begins it's decline. I know the peak oil issue serves as a good vehicle to advance other spurious agendas, but fortunately it will remain on the fringes of reasonable discourse. Also, I do not think human civilization will plateau for at least hundreds of years, and by then we will use non-earth resources supplement and continue.
When I mention oil being 30,000 feet, I'm not talking about deep sea, I'm refering to the fact that there's new beliefs that oil isn't solely organic in foundation and there may be much more deeper. And wells being replentished is more evidence of that.
There's so many things going on, on so many levels, and pretending we're gonna wake up one day and suddenly all the wells are dry is absurd. We haven't peaked, we won't until 2015-2020, and by then we will easily be able to replace it as oil production begins it's decline. I know the peak oil issue serves as a good vehicle to advance other spurious agendas, but fortunately it will remain on the fringes of reasonable discourse. Also, I do not think human civilization will plateau for at least hundreds of years, and by then we will use non-earth resources supplement and continue.
Are you in the oil industry? Experts say we will peak very soon, within 5 years, if we haven't already.
This has nothing to do with some leftist propaganda, as you claim. I'm pretty much right winged, and omar doesn't seem like a lib. Both Bush and Cheney have acknowledged that something has to be done with the energy industry. The simple fact is something needs to be done, and we don't know what that something is right now.
The worst part about it? Kerry has no idea at all, and Bush's invade the Middle East plan is only short term.
Lord do a search and see what comes up. Some major players from Dow Jones agree with other's assessment that 2020 could be, but other estimates say 2010. I tend to lean to the 2020 because of newer advancements and ideas.
Everyone agrees that something has to be done with energy... of course! Alarmist, apocolyptic doomsayers will do more harm than good though.
Everyone agrees that something has to be done with energy... of course! Alarmist, apocolyptic doomsayers will do more harm than good though.
I've read the peak oil/ oil crash argument, and I admit it has some very valid points. I tend to feel it is a bit paranoid and a bit negative, but I agree with this comment:
I agree here wholeheartedly. I believe in the power of technology. But blind faith that "something will get worked out" is dangerous.
Either way - it translates into, worry later. The Easter Island example is drawn as one of the examples where a society runs itself into non-existence. That's what the "worry about it later" mentality will do.
I understand if you think it isn't as bad as the peak oil folks think. But the evidence, at the current time, under the current technology, does seem to point to the same conclusion. Steps need to be taken now. The life after the oil crash guy maintains that nothing can be done, that it's already too late. I don't think that's necessarily true - massive investment to renewable energy should be done NOW, before it's too late. Perhaps we have more time.
But the longer the problem is ignored with the mentality "it'll get taken care of", the closer to disaster. Without intervention, by the time oil becomes expensive enough to get a movement to something else, it'll be too late. A capitalistic society isn't going to move until it is fiscally justifiable - and if you listen to the peak oil theories, that would probably be MUCH MUCH too late.
I agree here wholeheartedly. I believe in the power of technology. But blind faith that "something will get worked out" is dangerous.
Either way - it translates into, worry later. The Easter Island example is drawn as one of the examples where a society runs itself into non-existence. That's what the "worry about it later" mentality will do.
I understand if you think it isn't as bad as the peak oil folks think. But the evidence, at the current time, under the current technology, does seem to point to the same conclusion. Steps need to be taken now. The life after the oil crash guy maintains that nothing can be done, that it's already too late. I don't think that's necessarily true - massive investment to renewable energy should be done NOW, before it's too late. Perhaps we have more time.
But the longer the problem is ignored with the mentality "it'll get taken care of", the closer to disaster. Without intervention, by the time oil becomes expensive enough to get a movement to something else, it'll be too late. A capitalistic society isn't going to move until it is fiscally justifiable - and if you listen to the peak oil theories, that would probably be MUCH MUCH too late.
GreenMonkey, nobody here is saying "We don't need to worry about it, have some faith and technology will fix the situation one day." There will come a time when we reach the peak of cheap oil, and then its decline... of course! Where I differ (from omar) is WHEN and the RESULT.
Good words charrison. I recently read where there's a solar unit that can supply over 50% of a large family's energy needs that's quite economical. I'll try and find a link.
Good words charrison. I recently read where there's a solar unit that can supply over 50% of a large family's energy needs that's quite economical. I'll try and find a link.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter