Absolute must read.

[0marTheZealot]

conservation and energy efficency only leads to people using more energy as it is.

paint me a better picture please, i would wish to see it in light of all the evidence i have. ill crank out the ammo after you are done painting.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
conservation and energy efficency only leads to people using more energy as it is.

paint me a better picture please, i would wish to see it in light of all the evidence i have. ill crank out the ammo after you are done painting.

Well you only want to see the bad, so I will not be able to prove anything to you as you would only reject the evidence. But here is a couple examples.

1. I am using CF lightbulbs in about 1/2 my light fixtures. This does not cause me to use more electricity, it causes me to use less.

2. Right now i have 23 year old heat pump for my hvac system. Installing a new one would cut my electric bill in 1/2. It will probably get replaced in the next year or so(replace before it dies hopefully). Right now, electricity is too cheap to justify replacing the unit. If electricity doubled in price, it would be an easy decisiion. Once a new unit is in place this will save electricity and not cause me to expend more energy.

3. Get a car that gets better mpg, you can drive more at the same cost but does not require you do so.

Conservation does work and will work.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Do it then. What is stopping you? The problem is that you are still using energy. Conservation doesn't solve the problem it only delays it.

The problem here is compounding growth. As stated in M.S.'s book, doubling the entire reserves in the ME only buys us another 25 years. So even if that happened, we'd still see an oil peak in our lifetime.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Do it then. What is stopping you? The problem is that you are still using energy. Conservation doesn't solve the problem it only delays it.

The problem here is compounding growth. As stated in M.S.'s book, doubling the entire reserves in the ME only buys us another 25 years. So even if that happened, we'd still see an oil peak in our lifetime.

25 years is a long time in the technology world.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: chess9
I agree with Charrison. OUCHEEE!

Anyway, if we keep eating ourselves into obesity this generation is going to die at record rates and traffic and air pollution will decrease significantly. Populations will drop and we will all be able to own a house on 5 acres for $100K. Or, something like that.

On a more serious note, you cannot even PRETEND to predict what technology will bring at this stage in our highly advanced technology based culture. For all we know we could all have transporters in 5 years.

Don't forget, this is America. We do the impossible.

-Robert

let me guess...you wrote all of that without doing a shred of reading right?

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
conservation and energy efficency only leads to people using more energy as it is.

paint me a better picture please, i would wish to see it in light of all the evidence i have. ill crank out the ammo after you are done painting.

Well you only want to see the bad, so I will not be able to prove anything to you as you would only reject the evidence. But here is a couple examples.

1. I am using CF lightbulbs in about 1/2 my light fixtures. This does not cause me to use more electricity, it causes me to use less.

2. Right now i have 23 year old heat pump for my hvac system. Installing a new one would cut my electric bill in 1/2. It will probably get replaced in the next year or so(replace before it dies hopefully). Right now, electricity is too cheap to justify replacing the unit. If electricity doubled in price, it would be an easy decisiion. Once a new unit is in place this will save electricity and not cause me to expend more energy.

3. Get a car that gets better mpg, you can drive more at the same cost but does not require you do so.

Conservation does work and will work.

if we were to replace 700,000 million vehicles with ones that get "better mph" -- how much fvcking oil will that alone waste????


oil = energy
energy is needed for mass production of vehicles...not to mention water (120,000 gallons of water gets polluted just to create ONE car) btw.. with the impeding oil crisis...look for a shortage of fresh water, genius.

we currently have no other source of energy as efficient as oil. So unless your farts produce enough energy...where do you suppose we get the resources to create all these resource conserving cars??


and with all that coal that you speak of...how will that contribute to the creation of fertilizers, and plastic creating petrochemicals?


face it...capitalism bit you in the a$$.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Do it then. What is stopping you? The problem is that you are still using energy. Conservation doesn't solve the problem it only delays it.

The problem here is compounding growth. As stated in M.S.'s book, doubling the entire reserves in the ME only buys us another 25 years. So even if that happened, we'd still see an oil peak in our lifetime.

25 years is a long time in the technology world.

Two of the most common answers to the evidence of Peak Oil is

1) Don't worry, God will save us.
2) Don't worry, our technology will save us.

Either way you're exercising faith, because there is no technology in development anywhere in the world that has the ability to curtail the far reaching effects of high priced energy.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Do it then. What is stopping you? The problem is that you are still using energy. Conservation doesn't solve the problem it only delays it.

The problem here is compounding growth. As stated in M.S.'s book, doubling the entire reserves in the ME only buys us another 25 years. So even if that happened, we'd still see an oil peak in our lifetime.

25 years is a long time in the technology world.

Two of the most common answers to the evidence of Peak Oil is

1) Don't worry, God will save us.
2) Don't worry, our technology will save us.

Either way you're exercising faith, because there is no technology in development anywhere in the world that has the ability to curtail the far reaching effects of high priced energy.

not to mention the fact that technology is driven by energy.... meaning that energy creates technology...technology doesn't create energy (that goes against the rule of thermodynamics). So even if we miraculously create technology that is able to efficiently use source X (an alternative to oil)....someday we will experience Peak Source X.


and if 25 years is a lot to you....you're a lot stupider than i originally thought.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: dahunan
knowing what we now know about Peak Oil ... would you support the war in Iraq if it was to secure oil for the future of America?

How can you not? We have known about Peak Oil for years now, well before Iraq started. The people who criticize a war for oil are unaware of reality.

Two of the most common answers to the evidence of Peak Oil is

1) Don't worry, God will save us.
2) Don't worry, our technology will save us.

Either way you're exercising faith, because there is no technology in development anywhere in the world that has the ability to curtail the far reaching effects of high priced energy.

Nuclear fusion will save us. Every other energy source besides oil is extremely limited and expensive.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Nuclear fusion is 50 years away and always will be unfortunately.

Fusion would basically solve nearly every energy problem. With a plethora of energy, there would be no real talk about subsidizing this or that. With such abundant and plentiful energy, it won't matter. We will synthesize our chemicals from carbon sources without regard to energy.

But as I said, NF is 50 years away and always will be.

 

[Pers]

Nuclear fusion will save us. Every other energy source besides oil is extremely limited and expensive.

interesting...cause we have yet to build a nuclear fusion reactor in the past 40 years.

more interesting is....the thousands of reactors we'd need once we developed the technology to create a single nuclear fusion reactor in order to replace oil.

and finally...considering the oil peak is within 5-10 years away.... the situation doesn't look much brighter.


oh and finally ...the use of a nuclear fusion reactor will rely on helium 3...guess how much of that we currently have? not a whole bunch. so replace Peak Oil with Peak Helium 3 (although it could be found on the moon -- how practical is it to strip mine large surfaces of the moon??)

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Do it then. What is stopping you? The problem is that you are still using energy. Conservation doesn't solve the problem it only delays it.

The problem here is compounding growth. As stated in M.S.'s book, doubling the entire reserves in the ME only buys us another 25 years. So even if that happened, we'd still see an oil peak in our lifetime.

What? A delay is a good start IMO. It certainly doesn't solve the issue, but it's better than doing nothing.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Do it then. What is stopping you? The problem is that you are still using energy. Conservation doesn't solve the problem it only delays it.

The problem here is compounding growth. As stated in M.S.'s book, doubling the entire reserves in the ME only buys us another 25 years. So even if that happened, we'd still see an oil peak in our lifetime.

What? A delay is a good start IMO. It certainly doesn't solve the issue, but it's better than doing nothing.

i agree. but the thing is, people will start conserving and think, "oh im helping the cause"...when in reality they wont be. they will just be delaying the fact.

this issue has scared me for a while. what scares me even more is that most people are ignorant to this fact. even if they know of this. they just believe in faith. faith is not worth crap if we dont have a way to solve this

 

[0marTheZealot]

hate to do this but bump

 

[Pers]

It's amazing how one of the MOST serious discussions on this forum doesn't get the attention it deserves...yet stupid sh!t that wont make a difference in the longrun (presidential election) has gotten 800+ views.


Like Savinar says, If americans liked facts and the blunt truth, Fox News wouldn't be America's top-rated news network.

 

[lordtyranus]

Nuclear fusion is 50 years away and always will be unfortunately.

Fusion would basically solve nearly every energy problem. With a plethora of energy, there would be no real talk about subsidizing this or that. With such abundant and plentiful energy, it won't matter. We will synthesize our chemicals from carbon sources without regard to energy.

But as I said, NF is 50 years away and always will be.

Well, it can't always be 50 years away.

interesting...cause we have yet to build a nuclear fusion reactor in the past 40 years.

Understandable.

more interesting is....the thousands of reactors we'd need once we developed the technology to create a single nuclear fusion reactor in order to replace oil.

and finally...considering the oil peak is within 5-10 years away.... the situation doesn't look much brighter.

I think once nuclear fusion is possible building the reactors will be the easiest part of the equation. From what I understand about peak oil, it will stop being pumped once the EROEI is 1:1. Oil will still be there if we need it, just not for energy purposes.

oh and finally ...the use of a nuclear fusion reactor will rely on helium 3...guess how much of that we currently have? not a whole bunch. so replace Peak Oil with Peak Helium 3 (although it could be found on the moon -- how practical is it to strip mine large surfaces of the moon??)

From what I understand, Fusion requires Hydrogen, not Helium (Deuterium to be more precise). Helium is an end product.


While we have yet to discover any way of making it possible, fusion is likely the only thing that can save our planet. Hopefully world leaders will realize that and act accordingly. I may be too optimistic in my thinking, but I don't see anything else possible.

Text

 

[Pers]

From what I understand, Fusion requires Hydrogen, not Helium (Deuterium to be more precise). Helium is an end product.

sorry

 

[0marTheZealot]

There are many types of fusion and I believe D + He3 to make Li is a much more easier process than D + T -> He2.

I know that fusion is possible for every element until Fe because it then takes more energy than fusion gives. Plus all of our heavier atoms past N/O were made by supernovae, which is simply a large-scale ultra fusion event (of course an oversimplification).

BTW, my comment on NF being 50 years and always will be is a little inside joke that's tossed around in the industry Of course fusion will have to come some day.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
There are many types of fusion and I believe D + He3 to make Li is a much more easier process than D + T -> He2.

I know that fusion is possible for every element until Fe because it then takes more energy than fusion gives. Plus all of our heavier atoms past N/O were made by supernovae, which is simply a large-scale ultra fusion event (of course an oversimplification).

BTW, my comment on NF being 50 years and always will be is a little inside joke that's tossed around in the industry Of course fusion will have to come some day.

a little too late tho...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
conservation and energy efficency only leads to people using more energy as it is.

paint me a better picture please, i would wish to see it in light of all the evidence i have. ill crank out the ammo after you are done painting.

Well you only want to see the bad, so I will not be able to prove anything to you as you would only reject the evidence. But here is a couple examples.

1. I am using CF lightbulbs in about 1/2 my light fixtures. This does not cause me to use more electricity, it causes me to use less.

2. Right now i have 23 year old heat pump for my hvac system. Installing a new one would cut my electric bill in 1/2. It will probably get replaced in the next year or so(replace before it dies hopefully). Right now, electricity is too cheap to justify replacing the unit. If electricity doubled in price, it would be an easy decisiion. Once a new unit is in place this will save electricity and not cause me to expend more energy.

3. Get a car that gets better mpg, you can drive more at the same cost but does not require you do so.

Conservation does work and will work.

if we were to replace 700,000 million vehicles with ones that get "better mph" -- how much fvcking oil will that alone waste????

While it takes energy to produce car, I doubt much of that energy is actually oil. Production of still is usually done with coal and very little electricity in the US is produced via oil.
Vehicles will be replaced, and as the price of gas rises, vehicles will become more fuel effecient.



oil = energy
energy is needed for mass production of vehicles...not to mention water (120,000 gallons of water gets polluted just to create ONE car) btw.. with the impeding oil crisis...look for a shortage of fresh water, genius.


I somehow doubt 120k gallons of water are polluted to produce one car. Yes there are water issues in many places.


we currently have no other source of energy as efficient as oil. So unless your farts produce enough energy...where do you suppose we get the resources to create all these resource conserving cars??

Oil is no doubt a cheap source of energy, but it can and will be replaced.


and with all that coal that you speak of...how will that contribute to the creation of fertilizers, and plastic creating petrochemicals?

I am by no means a chemical engineer so i cant answer these questions. I know coal can be turned into gas. I dont know about the other options. Plastics can be recycled however and I have little doubt we would find a way to make fertilizer.


face it...capitalism bit you in the a$$.

Capitilism will solve the oil problem.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: charrison
Capitilism will solve the oil problem.

unlikely, seeing as capitalism caused the problem.

 

[Pers]

Plastics can be recycled however and I have little doubt we would find a way to make fertilizer.

ok first of all...in order to recycle you need energy. so sh!t -- back to square one - WE HAVE NONE. woo hoo..



had you half the faith in your Christian God, that you do on capitalism, you'd realize that Christianity condemns interest...and capitalism thrives off of it.

 

[cwjerome]

This reminds me of the "population crisis" started in the late sixties and popular into the seventies. Loads of people scientifically convinced that at the current birth rates, mass starvation, famine, and depression would rock the world into chaos and destruction.

It's always armagedon, either from the apocalyptic religious nuts or the anti-capitalist environmental freaks. The sky is falling !! Woo-Hooo

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
This reminds me of the "population crisis" started in the late sixties and popular into the seventies. Loads of people scientifically convinced that at the current birth rates, mass starvation, famine, and depression would rock the world into chaos and destruction.

It's always armagedon, either from the apocalyptic religious nuts or the anti-capitalist environmental freaks. The sky is falling !! Woo-Hooo

fortunately...we had amonia based fertilizers to provide for the agriculture industry. When oil-based fertilizers cease to exist...i'll bet my life so will the abundance of food.

A world without oil is not a world that can feed 10 billion+ people. This isn't the sixties and this isn't hype created by crazy anti-capitalistic environmentalists.

you can read about peak oil here:


http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/archives/000912.html - Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT

http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/ - Professor Kenneth S. Deffeyes - Princeton University

http://transportation.northwes...t_gasPrices_051304.pdf

anyway....there are about a billion more links with similar professors expressing their concern. This isn't conspiracy...this is fact. When oil ends...we don't have an alternative. Our only HOPE....and that's all we have right now...is that technology creates an efficient method at utilizing some other sort of abundant resource on this planet, or potentially the moon.

Think what you like...but in the last 4 years...we've been in 2 oil wars. that's enough to make you wonder wtf we're so anxious about.

 

[Pers]

Capitalism is driven by the so-called ?Profit Motive?
Profitability = Value of product or service ? Cost of labor and resources In other words, the better you are at exploiting people and the planet, the more profit you make, the higher you rank in a capitalist society (i.e. Standard of living, power, freedom?) All of us campesinos have developed Stockholm Syndrome for our bosses (Slave owners) They feed us table scraps while we build their pyramids.

I don?t care how hard you?ve worked to ?pull yourself up by your bootstraps?
Profit is a myth
Your net gain is achieved by everybody else?s net loss

Argue if you like, but if we were in West Africa we wouldn?t be having a discussion about the nature of property. The people there can?t afford the luxury of philosophical discussion. Their local elites are using the ?profits? from the sale of the countries natural resources (read oil), not to educate them, or provide basic necessities, but rather to oppress them and keep them from violently rebelling against the destruction of their land and water by Western companies. Their ability to survive is being compromised so that I can have cheap transportation and a plastic toothbrush.

Let me lay it all down
There is no rich and poor
No first world and third world
Only exploiter and exploited
Colonizer and colonized


The final outlook is this:
So that I could have a cheap (fill in the blank here) someone in some other country is robbed, raped, has her child maimed, and is forced into slavery for basic subsistence.
Still think capitalism is the best economic model we?ve come up with?
Just because you?re insulated from the actual crime doesn?t make you any less of a culprit
Complacency = Complicity
Consumer = Coconspirator