http://www.theguardian.com/environme...rash-2015-peak

On 30/03/2014 18:34, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...rash-2015-peak


And what make you think the scare is any more valid this time than it
has been every previous time someone needed to fill a newspaper column?

One major problem we have now is that the prices of oil and oil products
have very little connection with the cost of production.

I remember reading in the 1960s that we only had 3 decades of oil left,
and I was expecting to be either cycling or using a horse and carriage
by now. I read the same in the 1970s, the '80s....

And my dad used to tell me he was reading the same in the 1950s.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 30/03/2014 18:49, John Williamson wrote:
On 30/03/2014 18:34, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...rash-2015-peak



And what make you think the scare is any more valid this time than it
has been every previous time someone needed to fill a newspaper column?

One major problem we have now is that the prices of oil and oil products
have very little connection with the cost of production.

I remember reading in the 1960s that we only had 3 decades of oil left,
and I was expecting to be either cycling or using a horse and carriage
by now. I read the same in the 1970s, the '80s....

And my dad used to tell me he was reading the same in the 1950s.

The figure I remember from the late 60's was that oil would run out in
the 1980s, although the UK had coal for 300 years. One of the main
"facts" that persuaded me into nuclear power generation, on the grounds
that electric cars would be ideal for soaking up night-time capacity,
reducing the need to load follow.

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 18:49:29 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

And what make you think the scare is any more valid this time than it
has been every previous time someone needed to fill a newspaper column?

Because eventually, the ****e will really hit the fan and all the
****wads who are cruising along will wonder what hit them.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 18:49:29 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

And what make you think the scare is any more valid this time than it
has been every previous time someone needed to fill a newspaper column?

Because eventually, the ****e will really hit the fan

Bet it never does and what actually happens is that
coal seam gas gives us plenty more fossil fuel at a
price that is very viable and that the most we ever
see is a gradual move to using more gas than oil
over time and that in a hundred years or more,
after all of us are long gone, the world has enough
of a clue to use nukes to turn what carbon we have
into whatever form we find useful as a transport
fuel and we stop wasting it to heat houses etc
and maybe even move to hydrogen from nukes
as a transport fuel once we work hydrides out.

and all the ****wads who are cruising
along will wonder what hit them.

It never works like that with something as important as that.

On 30/03/14 22:39, newshound wrote:
On 30/03/2014 18:49, John Williamson wrote:
On 30/03/2014 18:34, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...rash-2015-peak




And what make you think the scare is any more valid this time than it
has been every previous time someone needed to fill a newspaper column?

One major problem we have now is that the prices of oil and oil products
have very little connection with the cost of production.

I remember reading in the 1960s that we only had 3 decades of oil left,
and I was expecting to be either cycling or using a horse and carriage
by now. I read the same in the 1970s, the '80s....

And my dad used to tell me he was reading the same in the 1950s.

The figure I remember from the late 60's was that oil would run out in
the 1980s, although the UK had coal for 300 years. One of the main
"facts" that persuaded me into nuclear power generation, on the grounds
that electric cars would be ideal for soaking up night-time capacity,
reducing the need to load follow.

They might be if we had any suitable batteries

Conventional oil did more or less run out in the late 80s, and the price
has sextupled since.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 30 Mar 2014, John Williamson grunted:

On 30/03/2014 18:34, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...4/mar/28/globa
l-market-shock-oil-crash-2015-peak


And what make you think the scare is any more valid this time than it
has been every previous time someone needed to fill a newspaper
column?

One major problem we have now is that the prices of oil and oil
products have very little connection with the cost of production.

I remember reading in the 1960s that we only had 3 decades of oil
left, and I was expecting to be either cycling or using a horse and
carriage by now. I read the same in the 1970s, the '80s....

And my dad used to tell me he was reading the same in the 1950s.

All probably true, if considered in terms of the extraction technology and
economics of the day.

Only yesterday I read about the possibility of accessing massive coal
reserves *under* the North Sea, which 30 years ago would have been regarded
as a joke: http://tinyurl.com/oa6l9nv

--
David

On 30/03/2014 18:34, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...rash-2015-peak


What a surprise. The founder and chairman of the UK's largest
independent solar electric company telling us that we can't rely upon
other forms of energy.

Colin Bignell

On 31/03/2014 08:12, Lobster wrote:
On 30 Mar 2014, John Williamson grunted:

On 30/03/2014 18:34, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...4/mar/28/globa
l-market-shock-oil-crash-2015-peak


And what make you think the scare is any more valid this time than it
has been every previous time someone needed to fill a newspaper
column?

One major problem we have now is that the prices of oil and oil
products have very little connection with the cost of production.

I remember reading in the 1960s that we only had 3 decades of oil
left, and I was expecting to be either cycling or using a horse and
carriage by now. I read the same in the 1970s, the '80s....

And my dad used to tell me he was reading the same in the 1950s.

All probably true, if considered in terms of the extraction technology and
economics of the day.

That is, of course, the basic flaw in the peak oil hypothesis; it was
devised in the 1950s, when oil prices had, in real terms, been declining
for many decades and nobody was looking seriously at new exploration or
extraction techniques. As a result, it assumed that proven reserves
would remain static, whereas we now know that they depend upon what it
is economic to extract.

Only yesterday I read about the possibility of accessing massive coal
reserves *under* the North Sea, which 30 years ago would have been regarded
as a joke: http://tinyurl.com/oa6l9nv

That would appear to be an ideal case for underground gasification.

Colin BIgnell

In message , harryagain
writes
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...mar/28/global-
market-shock-oil-crash-2015-peak


Different day - same sh*t
--
bert