On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:29:48 -0500, Gary Coffman
brought forth from the murky depths:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:52:28 GMT, Larry Jaques wrote:
Aren't you going to tell us which?
I really don't feel up to addressing all of the points raised on that
site today. But I will try to hit a few high points.
Okie doke. Thanks.
While Peak Oil is a real issue, it isn't clear that it is as near or as
dire as the website states. The 2000 dip wasn't unusual, there
have been a number of production dips throughout the 20th century
(and cries that we were immanently running out of oil as far back as
the 1920s Standard Oil scandals).
Don't you agree that we should be pursuing alternative fuels
much, much more than we are now? If nothing else, reliance on
fossil fuels makes us too dependent upon the external sources.
Add smog and toxic wastes to that and it's pretty clear.
With reprocessing and breeder technology, we can use plentiful
U238 and Thorium as our raw materials. Using technologies we
have on the shelf today, we can confidently predict that nuclear
fission could economically supply all of our energy needs for the
next 100,000+ years. The issues surrounding nuclear power are
not primarily technical or economic, they are political and emotional
(ie nuclear hysteria).
Nuclear waste disposal is a high-level ongoing problem.
The big disadvantage of hydrogen is that it is a low density energy
transport medium. That means bulky tanks, large pipelines, and
high pumping costs. Those issues aren't intolerable for most uses,
but they do mean that hydrogen isn't likely to be a viable mobile
energy transport medium until oil hits about $40 a barrel (in constant
year 2000 dollars) and stays there. That should occur sometime
after 2040 barring unforseen political events.
They also didn't mention that most vehicular hydrogen for use
today is produced with considerable amount of electricity being
passed through yet another fossil fuel source: natural gas.
There's a definite net loss of energy the way it's done now.
Some of what the site says about coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc
is right on target. Some of it ignores newer technologies. There
is a huge readily available supply (several thousand years worth
if we consumed it for energy generation), but there are heavy
environmental costs associated with it. IMHO the best use of
this resource is as feedstocks for the chemical and agricultural
industries. This BTW negates most of the concerns expressed
about running out of cheap oil for such uses.
I'm thinking we might be better off without many of the
chemicals and fertilizers being used nowadays, so downgrade
the need for oil in that use, too.
What the site says about biomass and other renewables is
mostly on target. With current practices, they are net energy
sinks rather than sources. With foreseeable technical advances
and practices, they're still uneconomic on the scale required
to meet our primary energy needs.
The sticky issue with renewables is that we have to replace
the nutrients we take from the soil when we harvest and burn
biomass. Otherwise it isn't renewable. The primary way we do
that today is with oil based fertilizers. That won't be an option
after Peak Oil.
Yes, BIG issue. Perhaps Soylent Green will become a reality.
The social, political, and economic issues surrounding running
out of cheap oil are so potentially complex that the simplistic
doomsday scenario painted by the website, while possible, is
not incredibly likely.
Perhaps it's not an accurate assessment of the risks, but it
does provide food for thought. Now to get more people thinking...
What society will look like in 100 years when the cheap oil is
mostly gone is sheer guesswork at this time. The large die offs,
and the collapse of industrial civilization is *one* possibility, but
it is far from the only one. There is at least one known viable
alternative to oil (nuclear power and the hydrogen economy),
there are very probably several others.
I'm a pessim^H^H^H^H^H^Hrealist and think TEOTWAWKI will take
far fewer than 100 years to happen. How does one more Shrub
term grab ya?
The only scarey thing is that we might wait too long to start
utilizing alternatives to oil. But I'm not as pessimistic as the
author of the website that will be the case. There are already
clear and viable economic and environmental reasons to be
starting down the road to implementing alternatives to oil.
Absolutely. I can't believe all these new car commercials
showing the new, improved 450hp Toyonkacedes SUV. Isn't
our gov't allowing the fuel efficiency requirements to be
nudged back year by year again? The commercials alone seem
to suggest that they're not seriously trying to make fuel
efficient cars yet. I like the little gas/elec hybrids
they've been introducing. The daily rush hour drones all
need them.
The USGS and other credible sources also say that the
decline following Peak Oil won't be so rapid that there won't
be time or resources available to accommodate the decline
The Big Q: How much do you trust govvy theoreticians?
with crash programs. It isn't the best or most efficient way
to deal with the issue, but such crash programs are a viable
method of avoiding the die off and collapse of industrial
civilization.
"Civilization" is highly overrated anyway.
Sign me: The Hermit
--
If it weren't for jumping to conclusions some of us wouldn't get any exercise.
www.diversify.com - Jump-free website programming