Peak Oil

[I Watch The Watchers]

I’d like to hear some different perspectives on Peak Oil. I know that at least one person out there thinks it’s “a joke” and I certainly hope it is. The evidence seems to contradict that, though. So if you can convince me that world oil supplies are not peaking, either now or in the near future, please do. If you believe, as I do, that petroleum will only become rarer until it is eventually depleted (potentially within my lifetime) then I would like to hear alternatives.

[KC]

Here's your relief! (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/davemcgowanstalinandabioticoil05mar05.shtml)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Uh, Lazar?

A well balanced (and sourced!) look at abiogenic petrolium . . . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_oil)

And, socially speaking, until one theory proves itself beyond a shadow of a doubt, would it not make more sense to try and avoid a worst-case scenario?

[KC]

Thanks for the link!



And, socially speaking, until one theory proves itself beyond a shadow of a doubt, would it not make more sense to try and avoid a worst-case scenario?


Of course it would. I'm not saying we shouldn't look for an alternative; it should be our top priority. I just think that the peak oil scare is exaggerated too much.

[Urban Rubble]

Anyone ever heard of Biodiesel? Washington state is currently considering funding a huge plant to produce Biodiesel on a mass scale. The stuff is made from Canola oil and runs in any diesel tank. There are a lot of cars in Seattle running on the stuff as we speak.

[I Watch The Watchers]

Here is another article from educate-yourself.org. I think it speaks to the accuracy of their journalism.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/zetainfoB23sep05.shtml

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 10 2005, 01:19 AM
Uh, Lazar?

A well balanced (and sourced!) look at abiogenic petrolium . . . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_oil)

And, socially speaking, until one theory proves itself beyond a shadow of a doubt, would it not make more sense to try and avoid a worst-case scenario?
That's a Wikipedia article, which I suggest everybody takes with a grain of salt. Anybody can edit it.

The thing is, if the peak oil scenario turns out to be true, we won't know about it until it's actually happened. So our best bet is to attempt to reduce gratuitous oil usage but at the same time search for more oil sources.

[encephalon]

The peak oil predictions for national levels were right on target, as the US reached its peak in the 70s despite finding new deposits. This was either dumb luck or there's actually something to the peak oil prediction.

[Dimentio]

Actually, we will be hit by an economic recession, but it won't spell the end of the economy.

[BANANARAMA]

FUC THA PHAT KATS................

[idealisticcommie]

Peak Oil is a fact. If not now; then eventually. Will we continue to only have the ability to REACT; ( a symptom of capitalist economies), or will we be able to cushion the blow of of an inevitable energy supply disruption? How? Through proactive measures on behalf of all humanity. These measures are only possible with SOCIALISM. ;)

[Dimentio]

Actually, we have already passed Peak Oil, during this month. But the stock-markets would have to take another year to react.

[idealisticcommie]

Thank you Serpent, I stand corrected on the facts. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:10 PM
Thank you Serpent, I stand corrected on the facts. :rolleyes:
There is no need for you to be rude.

[weareyoume]

Originally posted by I Watch The [email protected] 9 2005, 07:17 PM
I’d like to hear some different perspectives on Peak Oil. I know that at least one person out there thinks it’s “a joke” and I certainly hope it is. The evidence seems to contradict that, though. So if you can convince me that world oil supplies are not peaking, either now or in the near future, please do. If you believe, as I do, that petroleum will only become rarer until it is eventually depleted (potentially within my lifetime) then I would like to hear alternatives.
There is no oil crasis the oil companies just want more money. I heard this on the news, the prince of Sudia Arbia(i beleieve this was the country) was on the news and he mentioned that the oil supply is no where near the end.

[redstar2000]

Last Days -- The "End of the World" Scenarios (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083629387&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Peak Oil? Not anywhere close...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...NG46CMUPL60.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNG46CMUPL60.DTL)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Atlas Swallowed]

Maybe it is just a scam by the oil companies to keep prices high, who knows. Oil is finite so it will run out someday.

I read an interesting book about peak oil and it connection to 9-11 titled "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael C. Ruppert. If you are interested in the subject I would recommend it.

[redstar2000]

More fun with "peak oil".

It's me vs. the "peak oil" nutballs...

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/62991.html

Enjoy. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JC1]

The main problem with "Peak oil" theory is it requires that no new oil deposit's be found. Also, there is alot of oil in Alberta's Tarsand's.

I do think the prices will rise, however, becuase the cost to refine the tarsand oil is too great. This will cause an increase in investment into oil alternatives.

[RebelOutcast]

Has anyone considered that the deposits that are left would need more energy to liberate them than would be gained from them? Not that it matters of course, the oil companies will do anything to make money.

[JC1]

Has anyone considered that the deposits that are left would need more energy to liberate them than would be gained from them?

That's what i just said.

[RebelOutcast]

Eh, so you did, wasn't as comprehensible as the way I said it though.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 25 2005, 07:07 PM
Maybe it is just a scam by the oil companies to keep prices high, who knows. Oil is finite so it will run out someday.

I read an interesting book about peak oil and it connection to 9-11 titled "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael C. Ruppert. If you are interested in the subject I would recommend it.
Yes it does seem strange how now we are talking about this shortage of oil when the USA is in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the support for these wars are plumetting; not to mention plenty of stock holders who own the oil companies could benefit from possible war victories.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:16 PM
Has anyone considered that the deposits that are left would need more energy to liberate them than would be gained from them?
How would this be known to be true?

I know the "peak oil" nutballs say this all the time.

So what? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 03:04 AM
How would this be known to be true?

I know the "peak oil" nutballs say this all the time.

So what? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I dunno if this is true, but considering if it is: The oil companies can very well make vegtable-oil power oil extractors. If such a thing is true, they probably will.

[OkaCrisis]

The End of Suburbia
Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream

http://www.endofsuburbia.com/

I just watched this documentary in a lecture yesterday, and it has changed my life. I am no longer a "Socialist who will try to change the world slowly through peaceful political action (that is, if it was even possible, but I was damn well going to try.)", but am now "a raging, fatalist Commie, preparing my mind and body for violent class war. Soon."

According to this doc, Global Peak Oil WILL come in the next 5-15 years. When Hubbert predicted American Peak oil in 1970, he was denounced, and "it was the best year for American oil ever".

-1971, Peak Oil in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

Today, 60% of the world's remaining retractable oil is in the Persian Gulf. They estimate that there are between 40 and 115 billion barrels, and that's it. The decline in availablility of oil will be immediate, and devastating.

This means the end of the Economy.

The end of the Middle Class.

There will be "infinite war".

Let's make it the one that counts.

Prepare for Revolution. :ph34r:

[redstar2000]

Today, 60% of the world's remaining retractable oil is in the Persian Gulf. They estimate that there are between 40 and 115 billion barrels, and that's it.

I would not want to discourage anyone from becoming "a raging, fatalist Commie".

But it's really a lot more important to use your brain.

You've been told something...now, what you should be saying to yourself is: is it true?

For example, there's "huge amounts" of oil in the sands of Alberta (Canada)...perhaps second only to the oil in "Saudi" Arabia.

The U.S. itself has such deposits...though not on that scale.

Most importantly of all, an "estimate" is just a fancy word for GUESS.

No one really knows "how much" oil is still in the ground.

And some people have a real material interest in lying about it, even if they did know. People will tend to accept higher energy prices if they've fallen victim to the perception that there's an "energy crisis".

Just as people will tend to accept an imperialist war if they perceive that an "enemy" poses a "deadly threat". Remember those ghostly "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?

Meanwhile, have a look at the Wikipedia discussion of the "abiogenic" hypothesis on the origin of petroleum...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Note this in particular...


Independent of whether massive hydrocarbon reserves exist deep in the crust, they are unattainable in the short term. Considering the apparent dominance of the biogenic origin theory in the exploration industry, new oil discoveries based on abiogenic theory may be slow in coming.

Why should the oil corporations drill for abiogenic oil when they can make more profits from a deliberately contrived "shortage"?

When real communists approach a contentious issue with social implications, they begin with a deeply-rooted skepticism of all "revealed authority". Because they know that what is publicly said is always constructed to serve someone's material class interests.

Sure, there are plenty of "abstract" questions on the "cutting edge" of science where the most pressing "class interest" is just some guy who wants a grant to "study the matter"...not counting what it might cost and which corporations might get the contracts to build the necessary instruments to investigate the matter.

If an astronomer tells me something s/he's discovered about the population of globular star clusters surrounding the Milky Way galaxy, I assume s/he's telling me what s/he sincerely believes to be the truth. S/he may be wrong, but s/he's not lying.

When it gets serious -- that is, where there are going to be economic "winners" and "losers" on a big scale -- then a communist expects lies to accumulate like flies on horseshit.

"Peak oil" is a marvelous rationale for both increased energy profits and imperial conquest.

Expect to hear more about it...but don't believe almost any of it!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[encephalon]

Although I agree with many of Redstar's premises, I don't agree with his conclusion that this is a "doomsday scenario" of a sort in order to create artificial scarcity. The prediction is based on a formula that has accurately predicted peak production on a non-global scale.

Given the average rate of oil consumption, the average rate of increase in that consumption over the past century, the declining rate of new oil finds and the as-of-yet technologically impractical manner of extracting oil from the Alberta sands (that is, under a system where profit is the first and usually only consideration), the plausability of an oil shortage increasingly becomes greater as time moves forward.

While these statements can indeed be used to artificially manipulate prices, it does not follow that a statement is necessarily untrue. The price of ivory skyrocketed when people began to say that elephants were getting remarkably scarce--and while this may have worked to the capitalist's advantage where profits are concerned, it was also 100% true.

Imagine if the entire infrastructure of the world had run on ivory at the point when elephants became extremely scarce, and you start running into a scenario akin to what would happen when oil runs dry.

The fact of the matter is, it will run dry. The question is when; and so far the formula used for this prediction has already proven itself accurate once on a localized level (despite disbelief, especially by american capitalists, when the prediction was made, who responded with "the market will fix it, we'll find more reserves, etc").

Regardless of the time frame, I expect that it will be the most tumultuous time ever faced capitalism, and quite possibly the peak point of capitalism itself before a sharp decline.

[redstar2000]

Have people been following the newest "energy crisis" in Russia and northern Europe?

Can't say I blame you much if you haven't...the BBC has been remarkably reticent about the crucial detail.

How much extra are people being forced to pay to keep their lights on and their heaters running?

Lots of weather stuff -- the coldest winter since 1927, blah, blah, blah. (Say, what ever happened to global warming, anyway?)

Lots of people freezing to death -- again the BBC neglects to tell us if these are homeless people on the streets (victims of Russia's "wonderful new capitalism") or people in their homes who couldn't pay their bills.

Now the Georgians are complaining that the Russians deliberately blew up the gas lines and electrical transmission lines into Georgia...supposedly to teach them to pay "world market prices" or go freeze in the dark.

Could be...or it could have been done by thugs hired by Georgian utility executives to force a switch away from Russian suppliers.

Ask yourself how is it that the Russian state-owned corporation that dominates the electricity and natural gas production in Russia signed contracts for gas and electricity that they could not deliver to western Europe?

Then, if you're "nasty-minded" (like me! :lol:), you can start asking yourself about how "executive bonuses" work in the energy racket and which "offshore banks" they end up in. :angry:

It's been such a warm winter where I live now that my last month's electricity bill was only $50...but wait! There was a "fuel adjustment" added...$100! This is legally permitted in most if not all American states...and can be any damn amount your local utility pleases.

The modern energy racketeers are going to tell you over and over again that they're "really not" bloodsucking vampires..."it's Mother Nature and, oh well, supply & demand".

If you fall for that, you deserve to freeze in the dark!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Atlas Swallowed]

The more I read about peak oil the more I believe it is a scam. The majority of the information on peak oil happens to written by scientists who work for oil companies. After the California power shortages we all should know by now that shortages of the artficial variety are good for energy companies.

[encephalon]

The modern energy racketeers are going to tell you over and over again that they're "really not" bloodsucking vampires..."it's Mother Nature and, oh well, supply & demand".

If you fall for that, you deserve to freeze in the dark!


I don't think anyone here is denying the fact that companies not only can manipulate the market as such, but do so more often than not. I assume we all take that as a given.

It is a logical fallacy, however, to dismiss it offhand simply because an energy corporation can fabricate similar excuses to increase profits. Marxist theory has been used in much the same manner throughout the last century, but misuse does not invalidate the concept altogether.

The fact is, oil will run dry at our current rate of consumption. Even if it is abiogenic, the fact that we find lesser and lesser amounts of oil deposits that aren't renewing nearly fast enough suggests that we are consuming it far faster than an abiogenic process is producing it.

The question isn't if it will hit peak, but when.



The more I read about peak oil the more I believe it is a scam. The majority of the information on peak oil happens to written by scientists who work for oil companies. After the California power shortages we all should know by now that shortages of the artficial variety are good for energy companies.

So too is the majority of information used against peak oil; most geologists, geophysicists and other related fields are in fact employed by oil companies simply because the companies are one of the few that can extract profit from the labor of those workers. You are going to find few geologists working for anyone that isn't related to their field of expertise.

The fact that most big oil companies rejected Hubbert's theory even after it proved to accurately predict localized production points to the contrary: oil companies don't want a real shortage of oil, as this hampers their ability to continue fabricating fake oil shortages. A real shortage will cut into their profits, because prices would skyrocket without the direct control of the company; big oil will not create an artificial scarcity scheme in which only a handful of people will be able to afford it simply because they make a much larger profit keeping the price just low enough for a great many people to overpay for it. When the price of a gallon of gasoline skyrockets to $10 USD in contrast to normal inflation rates, however, their profits will plummet.

[DEPAVER]

Redstar continually denies the reality of Peak Oil. He is better qualified than scientists at MIT, Cal, hundreds of geologists around the world and noted independent reseach institutes like Earth Policy that all believe Peak Oil is a valid scenario.

The flaws to Redstar's conclusions have been pointed out before on this forum. Search the archives, and consider carefully how Redstar ignores EROEI calculations or net energy analysis. Net energy analysis compares the amount of energy delivered to society by a technology to the total energy required to find, extract, process, deliver and otherwise upgrade that energy to a socially useful form. (It's also necessary to include the costs of clean-up and dispersal of each energy form.) EROEI is therefore the ratio of energy delivered to energy costs. In layman's terms, this means the remaining oil is harder to find, harder to access and therefore more expensive to produce into a usable product

For example, the process liberates tar from sand using steam, which requires considerable energy, estimated to be one third of the energy obtained from the oil the process produceses. In addition tar must be hydrogenated to produce oil. This must be factored into the EROEI equation for the purpose of determing how much energy it takes to turn this energy resource into an energy resource with a positive, not a negative, EROEI.

Check out the Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, and look for an article called "Oil: Caveat Empty" By Alfred J. Cavallo. This is a very serious academic journal, and in this article Exxon clearly states that it believes the tar sands or shale options are simply too expensive. I don't normally trust what a big mult-national says, but on this point, they agree with the people that are the most critical of their practices.

He's mentioned shale oil. Shale oil isn’t oil at all. It’s kerogen, which in the normal course of events only becomes oil and gas after residing for a hundred million years or so in the hot underground rocks of Earth’s pressure cooker. Shale oil has a negative EROEI.

The one thing that Redstar says that I agree with is this....You've been told something by Redstar, now ask yourself "Is this true?"

The problem with oil is we're using the stuff four times faster than we're finding new supplies, and what's left is getting harder and harder to pump out of the ground. That makes oil more expensive, not only in terms of dollars but, more importantly, in terms of the amount of energy needed to change that black gooey stuff into gasoline, electricity and plastic, the very stuff that runs our world today.

Let's say it took a barrel of oil's worth of energy to produce 10 barrels of oil in 1930. That's when we were finding most of the large oil fields around the world, the pickings were easy, all we had to do was lean down and dip it up with a bucket. When those first fields were half full, it took 2 barrels to work at the rest, then 4, the 8. Get the picture?

Along about 1970, two things happened in the United States: 1) domestic oil production began to decline, and 2) the quality of the remaining oil began to decline.

Oil is the most energy dense substance we know of in the universe. Nothing else contains as much energy per kilogram as oil, which has, at best, the equivalent of 40 kilowatt hours per gallon. Everything else has less energy per unit volume: coal, natural gas, tar sands, oil shale, peat, wood, buffalo chips or rolled up newspapers. And the remaining oil now has less energy per unit volume than the oil we already ave burned up creating this massive, go-for-broke, growth at any cost, consumer society we hold up as an example to the panting 5,650,000,000 humans on this planet who have yet to arrive.

It's too late. We will reach peak oil production probably before 2010, maybe 2015, meaning worldwide oil production will decline at a rapidly increasing rate very soon, meaning that we have more energy available right now to support human activity than we will ever have in the future.

Think about that. Then think about billions of people in China who want a new car and gas to burn in it. Think about trillions of new light bulbs lighting the dark side of the planet. Think about trucks, trains, ships and planes filled to the Plimsole line with exotic foods transported half-way around the world to support a global economy. Think about petroleum-based fertilizers growing that food to transport around the world. Think about millions of steam plumes rising from oil and natural gas furnaces in northern and southern latitudes.

This world we think of as normal is in deep shit. Soon. We poked our ears and covered our eyes far too long to do anything about it now. We lulled ourselves to sleep to the murmurs of ignorant politicians with their hands stuffed in oily pockets. Most swallowed the promises of corporate CEOs, stilled their questions with PDAs, ground penetrating sound systems and ubiquitous cell phones.

We created a civilization based on 21st Century technology and a Pleistocene economy.

Gasoline $2.50 a gallon? Fiddling small change. Steak $5 a pound? Add a zero or two. Electricity too cheap to meter? Science fiction wet dreams.

Everything we consider normal today is going to change within the next twenty years, for those who live that long. Some will find the change easier, those of us who live simply now, who are as self-sufficient as possible. Many will die of starvation and disease, at increasing rates around the world.

If we're very, very lucky, the inevitable economic and energy collapse caused by the end of the Age of Oil will arrive soon enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to stave off the worst effects of global climate change, that is, unless we've already kicked off irreversible changes.

My advice is for you to simplify your life now. Don't want to do it for the environment? Well, do it so you aren't padding the pockets of wealthy capitalists.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER
Everything we consider normal today is going to change within the next twenty years, for those who live that long. Some will find the change easier, those of us who live simply now, who are as self-sufficient as possible. Many will die of starvation and disease, at increasing rates around the world.

"Peak Oil" -- A Secular "Rapture" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1137356923&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bunk]

Oil Fields in Decline (http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/1/26/92729/4616)

[DEPAVER]

The problem with redstar2000's premise begins with one of the first statements on his website:

"The perception that oil is "running out" and technological civilization will "collapse" invites visions of pre-capitalist utopias that dazzle the naive."

No reputable scientist or geophysicist t is saying that oil is running out, so the argument is exists entirely on a fantasy premise.

redstar2000 continually brings up "oil sands," yet, he continues to ignore the scientific, geophysical and economic realities of "oil sands."

The oil that might be obtained from these sands is very difficult and highly expensive to extract. Conventional oil has an EROEI of approximately 30 to 1. The oil sands rate of return is approximately 1.5 to 1.

This means that we would have to expend 20 times as much energy to generate the same amount of oil from the oil sands as we do from conventional sources of oil.

The oil sands in Canada are projected to only produce a paltry 2.2 million barrels per day by 2015. Even the most optimistic projections suggest only 4 million barrels. Now, compare that to what's required to keep things running as they are today.

As of today, we use approximately 84 million barrels per day. We are projected to need 120 million barrels per day by 2020, but we will be losing over 1 million barrels per day of production per year, every year, once we hit the backside of the global oil production curve.

[bunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 11:12 PM
The main problem with "Peak oil" theory is it requires that no new oil deposit's be found. Also, there is alot of oil in Alberta's Tarsand's.

Not true, it doesn't require anything. What illustrates it though is that each year less oil deposits are found with less amounts of oil. Or similar amounts of oil but there not as significant because of the global increase in oil consumption.

I don't know of any peak oil theorist who has claimed that no new oil deposits are to be found. And if they did they wouldn't last very long as oil fields are found every year.

[redstar2000]

Shedding some light on "peak oil"...

Psst! Hey, there. You believe that we are facing a crisis, an Imminent Peak of World Oil Production. (http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/64018.html)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:27 PM
Everything we consider normal today is going to change within the next twenty years, for those who live that long. Some will find the change easier, those of us who live simply now, who are as self-sufficient as possible. Many will die of starvation and disease, at increasing rates around the world.

What a truly inspiring view of the future! :lol:

[DEPAVER]

I thought Sheasby was dead?

Sheasby is right about several things, not the least of which is the effect of capitalism on the environment. He was close to Joel Kovel, someone I have great respect for; however, he's not a geologist, and I don't think he's refuted any evidence we have for Peak Oil.

Regardless, he's right about two points. One, the effect of capitalism on the environment, and two, reducing consumption and use of fossil fuels.

Frankly, I don't care if any believes Peak Oil is real or not. I want people to recognize the negative effect that fossil fuel use has on the environment. I'd live in that manner even if there was no problem with production, supply and cost. Furthermore, even if Peak Oil is some massive capitalist plot (which I do not believe there is evidence to support), it doesn't matter. It's still going to hit $70 to $100 per barrel, perhaps more.

Want to stick to 'em? Quit buying the shit. You'll help the environment and hurt the capitalists at the same time.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 11:41 PM
... even if Peak Oil is some massive capitalist plot (which I do not believe there is evidence to support), it doesn't matter. It's still going to hit $70 to $100 per barrel, perhaps more.
Which is a big part of my point: that regardless of whether or not the shortage is real, the majority of the American population lives a completely cheap-energy-dependent lifestyle, everything from the gas in their cars to the gas in their stoves. Suddenly, the costs of living skyrocket; heat, light and fuel become too expensive for most of the middle class. They can't even afford to commute to their poorly-paying jobs from the suburbs where they live. They can't buy the gas to drive to the store to buy the groceries.

The increase in the price of living doesn't end with energy costs though- the food we eat and the goods we buy will be more expensive as the costs of shipping also increase. So even if the people make it to the Big-Box stores on the edge of town in thier SUVs, they won't even be able to afford the goods they need in the first place.

If this doesn't create poverty and destitution, greater polarization of the rich and the poor, the elimination of the middle class...

Then nothing will.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Associated Press
Bush Says Don't Expect Oil Price Breaks

President Bush defended the huge profits of Exxon Mobil Corp. Wednesday, saying they are simply the result of the marketplace and that consumers socked with soaring energy costs should not expect price breaks.

Bush, a former Texas oilman, said of oil costs, "I think that basically the price is determined by the marketplace and that's the way it should be."

Early this week, Exxon reported record profits of $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year — the largest of any U.S. company. While some politicians raised furious objections, Bush had a different reaction.

"There is a marketplace in American society," he said.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n.../w132608S23.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/01/national/w132608S23.DTL)

And a happy "energy crisis 2006" to you all! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red team]

Oh come on! :rolleyes:

Even if "Peak Oil" is a fact what makes you think we can't plant huge forests of sugar cane plants in which we can then process to make ethanol?

Between 1983 to 1988 90% of Brazil's cars sold used ethanol based engines.
You can convert 648 MegaJoules of power from 1 ton of sugar cane comparable to a nuclear power plant! :D

Peak Oil my ass!!! :lol:

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/peakoil.html
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/publicat.htm


Red Team

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by BBC
Shell reports record UK profits

The Anglo-Dutch energy giant generated profits of $22.94bn (£13.12bn) - up nearly a third on last year when it set a UK record with profits of $17.59bn.

Shell also indicated it would buy back shares totalling $5bn during the coming year.

Shell said its reserve-replacement ratio, the capacity to replace pumped oil with new oil, was 70 to 80%. Firms aim for a rate of more than 100% to keep their asset base solid.

In 2004 Shell's reserve-replacement ratio was less than 50%, leading to criticism from investors.

In December, Shell cut its plans for North Sea exploration, blaming Chancellor Gordon Brown's tax hikes for the move.

The company had planned to hire three drilling rigs, but has decided to reduce the number to two.

Shell said it took the decision after a review prompted by the chancellor's decision to increase a charge on profits from 10% to 20%.

Instead Shell is focusing on other parts of the world; in the fourth quarter it said 20 successful exploration wells were drilled in Australia, Brazil, Brunei, Egypt, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, UK and USA.

And in November it started pumping oil from a huge new field off the Nigerian coast.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/4672716.stm

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 2 2006, 02:23 AM
Oh come on! :rolleyes:

Even if "Peak Oil" is a fact what makes you think we can't plant huge forests of sugar cane plants in which we can then process to make ethanol?

Between 1983 to 1988 90% of Brazil's cars sold used ethanol based engines.
You can convert 648 MegaJoules of power from 1 ton of sugar cane comparable to a nuclear power plant! :D

Peak Oil my ass!!! :lol:

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/peakoil.html
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/publicat.htm


Red Team
I think I've explained the folly of ethanol already.

Ethanol is not a replacement for fossil fuels. The only solution to fossil fuel dependence is to quit using so much fossil fuel. To some degree, Bush is correct. The prices are high in response to what the market will bear; therefore, quit buying the stuff, watch the price go down and the environment improve.

[Seong]

Maybe it's a running out maybe it's not. Either way the oil companies are going to try and milk as much profit as they can. That's at least one certainty. By the by does anyone know of any other possible alternatives - apart from ethanol and the vegetable oil or whatever?

[red team]

Originally posted by DEPAVER+Feb 3 2006, 12:22 AM--> (DEPAVER @ Feb 3 2006, 12:22 AM)
red [email protected] 2 2006, 02:23 AM
Oh come on! :rolleyes:

Even if "Peak Oil" is a fact what makes you think we can't plant huge forests of sugar cane plants in which we can then process to make ethanol?

Between 1983 to 1988 90% of Brazil's cars sold used ethanol based engines.
You can convert 648 MegaJoules of power from 1 ton of sugar cane comparable to a nuclear power plant! :D

Peak Oil my ass!!! :lol:

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/peakoil.html
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/publicat.htm


Red Team
I think I've explained the folly of ethanol already.

Ethanol is not a replacement for fossil fuels. The only solution to fossil fuel dependence is to quit using so much fossil fuel. To some degree, Bush is correct. The prices are high in response to what the market will bear; therefore, quit buying the stuff, watch the price go down and the environment improve.[/b]
It isn't a replacement for fossil fuels as a source for derivative materials like plastic, but ethanol along with every other alternative energy generation technology is a replacement for fossil fuels as an energy source which is what really matters. Alternative energy technology is way under utilised now because just like everything else in a profit run economy the infrastructure and resources devoted to these technology aren't built up with financial investments to a point where they could be cost efficient. Why invest in cutting edge technology when you've got a sure thing in using an 18th century energy source? Investors look for one thing when they invest and it isn't the potential to save the planet from ecological collapse.

Energy is energy, it doesn't matter if it comes from burning a gallon of oil or from burning a gallon of ethanol derived from sugar canes. Speaking of which where do you think cocaine and heroin comes from? The narcotic industry is one of the biggest underground industry in the world worth at least a few hundred million dollars. Instead of planting narcotic plants we could kill two birds with one stone and encourage narco farmers to switch over to planting "fuel" plants like sugar canes and corn.

Plastic like everything else is a chemical and like everything else could be broken down into its constituent parts of atoms and molecules by some clever fiddling around with chemical reactions and/or heat and could be put back together to make plastics using the same methods. All it takes is? Energy :lol:

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:28 AM
By the by does anyone know of any other possible alternatives - apart from ethanol and the vegetable oil or whatever?
As DEPAVER correctly points out, ethanol is not a viable replacement for energy needs. I think he posted a link, but here's another that sums it up nicely.

Link. (http://www.dynamiclist.com/?node=cf099fa6-5261-47c6-ad7d-afa2ef5b985a)

Decentralized power creation and storage, where each household (or maybe each community) will be responsible for producing it's own energy via windmills and solar panels, that will direct the energy produced to a personal generator/storage unit for each house/community.

With the end of fossil fuels (hypothetical, in Redstar's case), each household will be much more aware of their personal energy consumption, since they will have to generate and store their own supply. This will automatically lead to vastly reduced energy consumption, since it won't seem to be so infinitely available to people.

This is how I see a "Post Peak Oil" society operating...

However, in places where hydro-electricity is heavily generated, perhaps it can be used as a centralized backup system? Available to all for winter months when there will be less light and more demand for energy due to heating needs? Just a thought.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by OkaCrisis
As DEPAVER correctly points out, ethanol is not a viable replacement for energy needs.

Corn apparently isn't...but if red team is correct, then sugar cane is (or might be).

So all we need to do is genetically engineer a variety of sugar cane that can grow in the northern prairies.

Or perhaps some other plant would be even more efficient or could be modified to be more efficient.

We'll figure it out.

It's what civilized societies do.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DEPAVER]

red team,Feb 3 2006, 01:50 AM

It isn't a replacement for fossil fuels as a source for derivative materials like plastic, but ethanol along with every other alternative energy generation technology is a replacement for fossil fuels as an energy source which is what really matters.

Again, the reason it's not a suitable replacement for "energy generation" is it consumes more energy than it creates. It also provides little reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with regular gasoline. And this last factor is heavily influenced by how it is made.

Once you factor in the byproducts of ethanol production, which include corn oil and animal feed, you gain about 20% more energy in the ethanol than you required in fossil energy to produce it. This is from a very recent report released by five UC Berkeley researchers.



Alternative energy technology is way under utilised now because just like everything else in a profit run economy the infrastructure and resources devoted to these technology aren't built up with financial investments to a point where they could be cost efficient.

When the financiers figure out how to make big profits from alternative energy, they'll finance it. However, fuel cell technology, for example, is a big money loser right now. They can't figure out how to produce an affordable product. It has an absolutely horrible ROI.


Energy is energy, it doesn't matter if it comes from burning a gallon of oil or from burning a gallon of ethanol derived from sugar canes.

This is simply not true, and the reason why it's not true is the gallon of ethanol took more energy to produce than the gallon of fossil fuel.


Plastic like everything else is a chemical and like everything else could be broken down into its constituent parts of atoms and molecules by some clever fiddling around with chemical reactions and/or heat and could be put back together to make plastics using the same methods.

Hmmm. And we all know the byproducts of the plastic industry, don't we! Some "clever fiddling" has given us all sorts of disasters, from cancers in Baton Rouge to thousands of deaths in Bhopal.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Considering that medium to high sulfer content crude can be synthesized from coal, natural gas and many other sources, peak oil "predictions of armageddon" are nothing more than tired old rhetoric.

Medium to high sulfer content crude can be refined to produce an abundant amout of every petroleum product on the market today including diesel; what it can't be refined in vast amounts of is gasoline.

Whoop de fucking do, I reckon we'll have to change the motor in the mystery machine over to diesel.

That's assuming that "peak oil" isn't simply an outright lie to begin with!

[red team]

It isn't a replacement for fossil fuels as a source for derivative materials like plastic, but ethanol along with every other alternative energy generation technology is a replacement for fossil fuels as an energy source which is what really matters.

Again, the reason it's not a suitable replacement for "energy generation" is it consumes more energy than it creates. It also provides little reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with regular gasoline. And this last factor is heavily influenced by how it is made.

Once you factor in the byproducts of ethanol production, which include corn oil and animal feed, you gain about 20% more energy in the ethanol than you required in fossil energy to produce it. This is from a very recent report released by five UC Berkeley researchers.


This is assuming we continuously use the same methods and inputs for farming as it is done now. As you stated: "required in fossil energy to produce it". Once we produce it and switch over to using the energy source that we've produce there would be no "fossil energy" inputs. We'll be running on an entirely different energy economy, so calculations based on fossil fuel energy inputs are meaningless. Also, I'm simply not convinced that ethanol production is a net energy loser. For one thing, what we are really doing is indirectly harnessing the energy of the sun (what could be more natural?). All plants convert energy from the sun using the natural process of photosynthesis. If photosynthesis is a net energy loser the entire planet would be lifeless. For another, the are regions of the Earth more specifically the tropics and subtropics where vegetation grows abundantly and rapidly even without additional agricultural inputs like industrial fertilizer. The tropics are very warm, this is from my own personal experience. This also explains why vegetation there grows so prodigiously. The photosynthesis process of plants directly benefits from the direct vertical sunlight during summertime (this is the actual definition of tropical zone by the way). In the tropics the only fertilizer you need if you need them at all is all natural :lol: if you know what I mean. A prime example of dense vegetation growing without any assistance at all is Vietnam. During the war the American military actually had to use defoliants to destroy the dense vegetation which allowed the Vietnamese troops to carry out guerilla warfare so effectively. Now are you going to tell me again that natural photosynthesis is a net energy loser? :lol:

Furthermore, I never said anything about relying on a single source of energy. Ethanol production is only one energy source among many that we could exploit.



Alternative energy technology is way under utilised now because just like everything else in a profit run economy the infrastructure and resources devoted to these technology aren't built up with financial investments to a point where they could be cost efficient.

When the financiers figure out how to make big profits from alternative energy, they'll finance it. However, fuel cell technology, for example, is a big money loser right now. They can't figure out how to produce an affordable product. It has an absolutely horrible ROI.


Exactly my point. They are a big money loser. Everything in this world especially new technology takes financial investment to support innovation. Research and development in itself is not a money making activity and that's the problem. The most important activity for investors to accomplish in this economy is to gain as much profit as possible in the shortest time possible and with as little risk as possible. This is the basic profit maximization principle that all businesses have to follow if they want to attract investors. If they don't they'll pretty soon find themselves without a business. Do you think a bank or a mutual fund would invest in something that might produce a return on investment in 20 or 30 years? Capitalism is not that farsighted.



Energy is energy, it doesn't matter if it comes from burning a gallon of oil or from burning a gallon of ethanol derived from sugar canes.

This is simply not true, and the reason why it's not true is the gallon of ethanol took more energy to produce than the gallon of fossil fuel.


Under the right conditions it takes less energy to produce (see first paragraph). Also, you're missing the actual point of this sentence. Ethanol fuel was simply used as an example. What my point is that we don't need to rely on fossil fuels to energize our society even if it is a fact that we are running out of it. There's nothing inherently special of fossil fuels and the energy derived from burning it and even if we run out of fossil fuels, it doesn't mean the end of our technological civilization. We could just as well subsititute: solar, geothermal, hydro, biomass, fuel cells, wind, tidal, etc... selecting the appropriate power generation technology for the given setting to maximize efficiency and we could just as well have the same (or greater) level of power available to us.



Plastic like everything else is a chemical and like everything else could be broken down into its constituent parts of atoms and molecules by some clever fiddling around with chemical reactions and/or heat and could be put back together to make plastics using the same methods.

Hmmm. And we all know the byproducts of the plastic industry, don't we! Some "clever fiddling" has given us all sorts of disasters, from cancers in Baton Rouge to thousands of deaths in Bhopal.

More to do with lax safety practices and cut backs in safety features for businesses to save money.

[DEPAVER]

This is assuming we continuously use the same methods and inputs for farming as it is done now.

Please describe an alternate method.


Once we produce it and switch over to using the energy source that we've produce there would be no "fossil energy" inputs

Again, please describe the mass-agricultural method where fossil fuels are no required. Please describe how it will be transported, and the EROEI equation using the alternate agricultural method.


We'll be running on an entirely different energy economy, so calculations based on fossil fuel energy inputs are meaningless
They're quiet meaningful today, because this is all you have TODAY. Until you can produce and describe the metrics of this "alternate method," the fossil fuel metrics are all that you have.


In the tropics the only fertilizer you need if you need them at all is all natural laugh.gif if you know what I mean. A prime example of dense vegetation growing without any assistance at all is Vietnam.

Small scale organic farming is very achievable. Please describe how you will convert the current petro-chemical dependent agricultural industry to a completely organic industry that supports your ethanol dream?

Let's quit talking "theory" and start talking specifics. I'm interested in how you see this being accomplished.


Ethanol production is only one energy source among many that we could exploit.

And there lies the real problem. This idea that man can "exploit" the earth to suit his needs. Do you really think it's necessary to "exploit" the earth?


Under the right conditions it takes less energy to produce (see first paragraph).

I saw the first paragraph (read it three times, actually) and there is no blueprint or any specifics on how ethanol has a positive EROEI.


Also, I'm simply not convinced that ethanol production is a net energy loser.

I appreciate your willingness to question. That's good. However, some pretty respected people in science have real data that supports the position I've mentioned. Please explain why their data is flawed.


There's nothing inherently special of fossil fuels and the energy derived from burning it and even if we run out of fossil fuels

Well, of course there is. Oil is the most energy dense substance we know of in the universe. Nothing else contains as much energy per kilogram as oil, which has, at best, the equivalent of 40 kilowatt hours per gallon. Everything else has less energy per unit volume: coal, natural gas, tar sands, oil shale, peat, wood, buffalo chips or rolled up newspapers. And the remaining oil now has less energy per unit volume than the oil we already have burned up creating this massive, go-for-broke, growth at any cost, consumer society we hold up as an example to the panting 5,650,000,000 humans on this planet who have yet to arrive.


More to do with lax safety practices and cut backs in safety features for businesses to save money.

The cancers in "Cancer Alley" had more to do with safety issues than the actual chemicals being dumped into the evironment and basic chemistry? Have you studied this region?

[DEPAVER]

Considering that medium to high sulfer content crude can be synthesized from coal, natural gas and many other sources, peak oil "predictions of armageddon" are nothing more than tired old rhetoric.

Medium to high sulfer content crude can be refined to produce an abundant amout of every petroleum product on the market today including diesel; what it can't be refined in vast amounts of is gasoline.

It's plainly obvious, to anyone who cares to see, that old Homo sap has
got himself (Yes, him. Who runs this misbegotten world, anyway?) in quite a
pickle when it comes to energy. We've gone and built a civilization, if
that's what this is, which I doubt, based on dead dinosaurs and primitive
plants, something they're not making much of anymore. Even in living form.

That goo that used to bubble up in Pennsylvania is getting scarcer these
days. No, we won't ever run out; that's not the problem.

The problem is we're using the stuff four times faster than we're
finding new supplies, and what's left is getting harder and harder to pump
out of the ground. That makes oil more expensive, not only in terms of
dollars but, more importantly, in terms of the amount of energy needed to
change that black gooey stuff into gasoline, electricity and plastic, the
very stuff that runs our world today.

Let's say it took a barrel of oil's worth of energy to produce 10
barrels of oil in 1930. That's when we were finding most of the large oil
fields around the world, the pickings were easy, all we had to do was lean
down and dip it up with a bucket. When those first fields were half full, it
took 2 barrels to work at the rest, then 4, the 8. Get the picture?

Along about 1970, two things happened in the United States: 1) domestic
oil production began to decline, and 2) the quality of the remaining oil
began to decline.

Oil is the most energy dense substance we know of in the universe.
Nothing else contains as much energy per kilogram as oil, which has, at
best, the equivalent of 40 kilowatt hours per gallon. Everything else has
less energy per unit volume: coal, natural gas, tar sands, oil shale, peat,
wood, buffalo chips or rolled up newspapers. And the remaining oil now has
less energy per unit volume than the oil we already have burned up creating
this massive, go-for-broke, growth at any cost, consumer society we hold up
as an example to the panting 5,650,000,000 humans on this planet who have
yet to arrive.

It's too late. We will reach peak oil production before 2010, meaning
worldwide oil production will decline at a rapidly increasing rate very
soon, meaning that we have more energy available right now to support human
activity than we will ever have in the future.

Think about that. Then think about billions of people in China who want
a new car and gas to burn in it. Think about trillions of new light bulbs
lighting the dark side of the planet. Think about trucks, trains, ships and
planes filled to the Plimsole line with exotic foods transported half-way
around the world to support a global economy. Think about petroleum-based
fertilizers growing that food to transport around the world. Think about
millions of steam plumes rising from oil and natural gas furnaces in
northern and southern latitudes.

This world we think of as normal is in deep shit. Soon. We poked our
ears and covered our eyes far too long to do anything about it now. We
lulled ourselves to sleep to the murmurs of ignorant politicians with their
hands stuffed in oily pockets. We swallowed the promises of corporate CEOs,
stilled our questions with PDAs, ground penetrating sound systems and
ubiquitous cell phones.

We created a civilization based on 21st Century technology and a
Pleistocene economy.

Gasoline $2.50 a gallon? Fiddling small change. Steak $5 a pound? Add a
zero or two. Electricity too cheap to meter? Science fiction wet dreams.

Everything we consider normal today is going to change within the next
twenty years, for those who live that long. Some will find the change
easier, those of us who live simply now, who are self-reliant and
self-sufficient as possible. Many will die of starvation and disease, at
increasing rates around the world.

If we're very, very lucky, the inevitable economic and energy collapse
caused by the end of the Age of Oil will arrive soon enough to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to stave off the worst effects of
global warming, that is, unless we've already kicked off irreversible
changes.

[red team]

This is assuming we continuously use the same methods and inputs for farming as it is done now.

Please describe an alternate method.


Once we produce it and switch over to using the energy source that we've produce there would be no "fossil energy" inputs

Again, please describe the mass-agricultural method where fossil fuels are no required. Please describe how it will be transported, and the EROEI equation using the alternate agricultural method.


We'll be running on an entirely different energy economy, so calculations based on fossil fuel energy inputs are meaningless
They're quiet meaningful today, because this is all you have TODAY. Until you can produce and describe the metrics of this "alternate method," the fossil fuel metrics are all that you have.


From this site: http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/peakoil.html

"Part of the bagasse is currently burned at the mill to provide heat for distillation and electricity to run the machinery. This allows ethanol plants to be energy self-sufficient and even sell surplus electricity to utilities; current production is 600 MW for self-use and 100 MW for sale. "


What does "self-sufficiency" means? It means more energy in output than what is provided in input. Furthermore, 40K Watt * 3600 seconds = 144M Joules converted to metric energy units given your assumption for the energy output of 1 gallon of oil which you state as 40K watt hour.

"With advanced boiler and turbine technology, the electricity yield could be increased to 648 MJ per ton of sugarcane, but current electricity prices do not justify the necessary investment. (According to one report, the World bank would only finance investments in bagasse power generation if the price were at least US$19/GJ.)"


From the above we can assume 1000 Kg (or 1 ton) sugarcane = 648M Joules.

Now given the above ratio of sugarcane mass to energy we can come up with the amount of sugarcanes to produce the equivalent of 1 gallon of oil worth of energy. Which comes out to:

144M Joules = 1 gallon oil = 222 Kg sugarcanes.

Harvesting 222 Kilograms of sugarcanes to substitute 1 gallon of oil is very, very doable even in northern climates.



In the tropics the only fertilizer you need if you need them at all is all natural laugh.gif if you know what I mean. A prime example of dense vegetation growing without any assistance at all is Vietnam.

Small scale organic farming is very achievable. Please describe how you will convert the current petro-chemical dependent agricultural industry to a completely organic industry that supports your ethanol dream?

Let's quit talking "theory" and start talking specifics. I'm interested in how you see this being accomplished.


Ethanol production is only one energy source among many that we could exploit.

And there lies the real problem. This idea that man can "exploit" the earth to suit his needs. Do you really think it's necessary to "exploit" the earth?


Depends on what you mean by exploit. If you mean by simply taking advantage of something out of convenience without coming up with a plan to deal with eventual by-products of using a resource then that's definitely not good for the Earth and for human living conditions in the long term. But, under the present economic system thinking "long term" and coming up with a plan doesn't pay. Therefore, what could have been a rational, planned exploitation and recycling of used up resources never happens and instead we end up with enormous waste. Sometimes those wastes turns out to be toxic. This sort of stuff never have to happen if exploitation of natural resources are approached in a rational, planned out manner with eventual recycling and re-use in mind.

As far as how alternative energy can be used to replace traditional fossil fuel energy sources here's something to think about:

SOLAR POWER

Today, commonly available solar panels are 12% efficient

History of Solar Power, 7th paragraph down.
http://www.solarexpert.com/pvbasics2.html

Every day the sun showers Earth with several thousand times as much energy as we use. Even the small amount that strikes our roof is many times as much as all the energy that comes in through electric wires. With the sun straight overhead, a single acre of land receives some four thousand horsepower, about equivalent to a large railroad locomotive. In less than three days the solar energy reaching Earth more than matches the estimated total of all the fossil fuels on Earth!

History of Solar Power, 2nd paragraph down.
http://www.solarexpert.com/pvbasics2.html

Gobi dessert total land area: 1,300,000 square km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobi

Sahara dessert total land area: 9,000,000 square km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

Libyan dessert total land area: 1,100,000 square km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Desert

Great Basin dessert total land area: 500,000 square km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Basin_Desert

Total combine area of the four largest desserts on Earth where solar panels for electrical generation will be ideal, but human habitation is not: 11,900,000 square km

12% x 11,900,000 square km = 1,428,000 square km
where 100% of the Sun's output is converted into pure, free energy.

So you don't even have to ruin to property values of the rich, pampered urban upper class to do it. Final analysis, its not going to get done. Free abundant energy is not in the interest of the profit system and those who directly benefit from it.

LIGHTNING POWER

General Power

* One strike has enough energy to light 150,000,000 light bulbs. (Discovery.ca (http://www.exn.ca/video/?video=exn20040405-lightning.asx); May 17)

The following data is from an Atlanta Journal article (cited here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/lightning2.html))

* About 95 people die from lightning yearly in the U.S.
* A single thunderstorm can release 125 million gallons of water (that's the volume of 16 Washington Monuments).
* One storm can discharge enough energy to supply the entire U.S. with electricity for 20 minutes
* A large Midwestern cumulonimbus can tower 12-15 miles (Mount Everest is 5.5 miles high.)
* There are approximately 2,000 thunderstorms at any given moment worldwide.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Lightning_Power

FUSION POWER

http://www.iter.org

ROBOTICS

http://www.dominic.lopez.net/cyber.html
http://www.robotbooks.com/
http://cyborgdemocracy.net/

DESIGN SCIENCE

http://www.bfi.org/

quotations by R. Buckminster Fuller:

"Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons."

"Either war is obsolete or men are."

“To expose a 4.2 trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last one-hundred years will be a tall order of business.”

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/...ter_fuller.html

TOTAL WORLD ADVERTISING BUDGET (ESTIMATED)

The World Federation of Advertisers is the voice of advertisers worldwide representing some 90% of global ad spend - some US$ 400 billion ad spend per annum - through a unique, global network: 46 national advertiser associations and numerous multi-national corporate members.

Last paragraph
http://www.iab.net/news/pr_2004_10_28.asp

Final analysis, its not a matter of economics or science or technology most of which has already been developed or could be developed quickly given funding and resources, its a matter of political will and the priorities of the present economic system.



Also, I'm simply not convinced that ethanol production is a net energy loser.

I appreciate your willingness to question. That's good. However, some pretty respected people in science have real data that supports the position I've mentioned. Please explain why their data is flawed.


Simple. They've used energy inputs of our present oil energy economy to find out how much ethanol can be produced as an output. Do you know how ludricous it is to do that? :rolleyes: It's analogous to using the inputs of an animal powered economy, which we actually were in before oil powered our machines, to figure out the cost efficiency of digging for oil.

Example of the ludricous "analysis" performed by using an animal powered economy:
"We figured out that the cost in harvesting oats for the work horses and the amount of crops grown for the workers by diverting food harvested from horse drawn ploughs do not justify building an oil rig to dig for the oil buried in the ground because all that horse power is wasted in harvesting a fuel we can more easily get by cutting down a tree and burning the wood. Oil is simply not cost-efficient in terms of oats fed to horses to run horse drawn ploughs and carriages"

I could really picture "scientists" in the pre-oil era doing this sort of "analysis" after being paid-off by people with a vested interest in a horse drawn economy. :lol:



There's nothing inherently special of fossil fuels and the energy derived from burning it and even if we run out of fossil fuels

Well, of course there is. Oil is the most energy dense substance we know of in the universe. Nothing else contains as much energy per kilogram as oil, which has, at best, the equivalent of 40 kilowatt hours per gallon. Everything else has less energy per unit volume: coal, natural gas, tar sands, oil shale, peat, wood, buffalo chips or rolled up newspapers. And the remaining oil now has less energy per unit volume than the oil we already have burned up creating this massive, go-for-broke, growth at any cost, consumer society we hold up as an example to the panting 5,650,000,000 humans on this planet who have yet to arrive.


Maybe the problem is with consumer society rather than power generation techniques. Consumer society generates huge amounts of wastes in shallow, meaningless marketing and public relation campaigns to convince ordinary people that they are somehow deprived if they don't have the specific product of a company and to drive them to over-consume what is already over-produced. The fact is the present profit-driven economy would collapse if this wasn't the case.



More to do with lax safety practices and cut backs in safety features for businesses to save money.

The cancers in "Cancer Alley" had more to do with safety issues than the actual chemicals being dumped into the evironment and basic chemistry? Have you studied this region?


Dangerous "waste" chemicals could just as easily be converted into harmless or even beneficial products by mixing them with a specific chemical agent. Chlorine was used as a poison gas in World War 1 to kill or maim opponents. Mixing Chlorine with Sodium produces ordinary table salt. Toxic wastes are simply chemicals that businesses never bothered to re-convert into inert substances.

[DEPAVER]

This response is too hard to follow. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to continue this discussion in this detail and in this manner. Especially all of these links.
I'd prefer for you to explain your position in your own words and cite specific studies to support those opinions.

I will, however, attempt to make a few comments. First of all, John Ray is not a geologist or a biologist, so I would question his credentials for academic peer review of a team of qualified Berkely researchers. Secondly, my bullshit detector went on high alert after reading just the first sentence of his site:

The recent big rise in crude oil prices and hence gasoline prices has really sharpened what has long been a concern across the political spectrum -- the fear that oil is running out

Oil is not "running out." No reputable Peak Oil scientist or theorist is making these claims.

Another statement:

Sugarcane is a huge grass that grows like mad in the tropics and somewhat less insanely in the subtropics. It is thus growable on a huge slice of the earth's surface

That's right. It doesn't grow like that on this continent, because it's not native to all parts of the continent. Introducing non-native species is not a sustainable practice, especially when that introduction is to support the mechanization of society. This is a nighmare scenario!

Furthermore, I don't see where he addresses the EROEI problem in his essay.

And producing ethanol from cane is extremely "sustainable". It needs no complex inputs or technology and cane can be grown on the same soil year after year as long as there is a suitable input of nitrates

This man apparently doesn't understand sustainability, but again, he's not a biologist. Sustainable means that the society does not consume more natural resources than can be replenished by natural biological and geophysical cycles, and does not produce waste faster than can be dispersed by natural biological and geophysical cycles. The only way to create a sustainable society is to live within these limits.

This is as far as I got with the article. So, the alternate method is to grow mass amounts of a non-native plant without the use of any petro-chemicals in the production? Correct?


Simple. They've used energy inputs of our present oil energy economy to find out how much ethanol can be produced as an output. Do you know how ludricous it is to do that?

Did you read the report and study the data?


Maybe the problem is with consumer society rather than power generation

Consumerism is definitely a huge problem; however, so are centralized power systems.

Centralized authoritarian social systems require centralized energy systems subject to concentration and commodification so as to remain under the control of the central authority.

Renewable energy sources are dispersed, available to all, most efficiently used at point of need, on small, scale specific use applications. As we spin down from industrial civilization and return, inevitable, to local production for local consumption, we will also, of necessity, return to local dispersed energy sources that are not suitable for concentrated central control.

Anarchy, no state, (consisting of any type of social organization lacking a central state) is the only form of social organization amenable to decentralized power sources.

Anarchy encourages self-reliance and self-responsibility, self-knowledge, democracy, community and mutual aid. An anarchist society is not built on appeal to central authority. Anarchy is built on personal responsibility, first and foremost, democratic, consensus decision-making and community.

As we come down off the peak of energy availability, we will also come down off the peak of coercive, central authority.


Dangerous "waste" chemicals could just as easily be converted into harmless or even beneficial products by mixing them with a specific chemical agent

Again, have you studied the region and the specifics of the problem in and around Baton Rouge? This is a gross overgeneralization, not a specific response to a very specific region with a very big problem.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DEPAVER
As we spin down from industrial civilization and return, inevitable, to local production for local consumption, we will also, of necessity, return to local dispersed energy sources that are not suitable for concentrated central control.

Yes..."dispersed energy sources" otherwise known as serfs and slaves!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

Well I'm out of my depth with regards the science involved, but something stinks about all this....


Originally posted by BBC News+--> (BBC News)Oil giant BP has reported a 25% increase in annual profits on the back of rising crude prices.

Profits for 2005 went up to $19.31bn (£11.04bn), with profits for the last three months of the year increasing by 26% to $4.43bn.[/b]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4688106.stm

From that article....


Originally posted by BBC [email protected]
The company said it had managed to replace all of the fuel it pumped out of the ground with new reserves for the thirteenth year running, leaving BP's proven reserve base at over 128 billion barrels of oil and gas by the end of 2005.

Plus we should also not the repsonse by the Unions....


BBC News
However, Tony Woodley, general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, said: "With BP's multi-billion profits based on rocketing oil prices, there should be no doubt the oil companies have profited whilst our pensioners have suffered.

"If there is any justice in this world, then a part of those excess profits should go towards helping those whose pensions have been robbed."

Idiot!

[DEPAVER]

redstar2000
Yes..."dispersed energy sources" otherwise known as serfs and slaves!

No, it doesn't have to be this way. I think this is pretty simple. Do you want centralized control in the hands of the few, or do you want control in the hands of the people, via smaller, locally controlled democracies?

People can govern themselves locally and did so for thousands of years. We don't agree on this point, and neither of us will be here to finally see who was right.

Let's hope for the best....