RobertL wrote:
On 30 May, 21:16, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
RobertL wrote:
On 30 May, 13:01, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
RobertL wrote:
On 29 May, 23:09, Ed Sirett wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2009 07:26:03 +0100, David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2009 18:37:59 +0100 someone who may be "nightjar"
cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote this:-
You only have to read the post that started this thread to see that
some, at least, actively promote that view.
I did read it. I didn't notice anything in that post which said that oil
would run out suddenly.
Quote:
We have 4 years from now,
until there will not be enough energy for travelling, heating and the
most important for food for everybody of us.
Unquote.
Admittedly it does not explicitly state that oil will have run out.
However 'not be enough' does rather imply run out,
Not at all. The supply will not fall to zero. The the price will
rise so that demand is reduced to matc hthe dimishing supply. that
will be very painful.
Eventually the oil price reach a point where it is more economic to
grow oil producing crops instead of food.
Er no..other factors kick in long before that!
Like it being cheaper to synthesise oil from coal, or make it directly
in some other way.
Really? I thought biodiesel was cheaper grow and refine than making
oil by mining coal and making oil from it. But in any case the
relevant question is not whether coal/oil is cheaper than bio/oil.
The question is: is there more profit to be made from growing
biodiesel than growing food.
Only if its subsidised.

How much does a litre of rapeseed cost in the supermarket?

Besides, there aint enough arable land..


Well, that was the point I was making. Once the price of oil reaches
the point that a famer can make more money growing oil than food we
will see the price of food rise to compete for arable land against
oil.
Robert

Happened last year. Food riots.