PDA

View Full Version : Peak Oil discussion on CSpan1 now!




Sandra
02-28-2008, 12:02 PM
They are showing how devestating consequences.

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 01:58 PM
Yes, - VERY interesting presentation!

C-SPAN already has it online (it's about an hour)

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77530&pid=27026

Congressman Bartlett also has the GAO report on crude oil as well as his notes and at least some of the charts online:

http://bartlett.house.gov/
More reports and charts here:
http://bartlett.house.gov/EnergyUpdates/

A few things he DID NOT get into that are important - just notes...

objections about wind generation due to aesthetics
sugar and cannabis best source for ethanol
(he did mention there is only a 2% gain in energy, due to having to input energy into the system to produce ethanol but it's causing prices of corn, soy and wheat to double).
corporate farming practices using up the soil / high energy cost to produce modern fertilizers.
Corporate monopoly on ethanol production due to regulations + taxes
ocean energy - AU and NZ get 25% of energy via tidal generation. (he said it's possible but difficult due to distributed nature of production - first congress critter I've seen ever mentioning that it exists!).
(thermal gradients of sea water mentioned as potential EN source)
Flawed assumption that energy must be produced and distributed from a central facility.
(ARPA-E mentioned as potential solution - space race type program.)
Conservation - refrigerators are available that run on 12V, but not common or readily available. Also expensive due to low production. Super insulation, thermal chimneys, etc.

Sandia Sunshine to Petrol Project:

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/sunshine.html

VERY WORTHWHILE to watch/read!

-n

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 02:37 PM
Few notes / highlights of what was discussed:

each barrel of oil has EN equivalence of 12 men working for 1 year.

hubards peak - google

the world according to oil - chart (WOW!)

US has 2% of oil, uses 25%

8% of production
5% of population
import 2/3 of oil

98% of oil reserves are in the middle east - (it's about WMD/terrorism... RIGHT!)

will run out within 300 years

(btw: China is reconsidering their 1 child per couple law - as in getting rid of it. world population will double by 2050)

SAIC Hersh report '05 - ignored by administration

wind generation growing at 40% a year - still very minor part of EN

cost of corn, wheat and soy doubled in price because of ethanol - only 2% EN return

coal reserves are 100 - 250 years (less with increased use - 5-50 years realistic

alternatives:

geothermal
tar sands
oil shale

nuke:
light water - eats uranium - limited supply
breeder reactors - good and bad news
fusion - not there yet

ocean energy: (infinite renewability, like wind and geothermal)
hard to capture
tidal
thermal gradients

liquid fuels are the problem
wearing out soil - corporate farming practices
rain forests - trashing
sustainability
ARPA-E

post oil world:
conservation
find alternatives
local production
kind to environment
one more - have to watch / read it again to catch.

well worth the hour to watch!

-n

jkm1864
02-28-2008, 02:58 PM
You know if there was no gay progressive income tax the middle class could afford solar energy which would drive the manufacturing price down making it more affordable to the poor. I wonder if the stupid fucks in congress every thought of that. I know I would do it if I had about 15,000 more of my own money coming into my house every year.

Give me liberty
02-28-2008, 03:09 PM
I see great doom coming this summer -.-

d991
02-28-2008, 03:55 PM
I see great doom coming this summer -.-

Maybe, but not from Peak Oil. I mean, we've peaked, but the effects probably will really be felt around 2012.

This summer I see a few things on the horizon:
1) Economic recession
2) Israeli war with Palestinians & Hezbollah in Lebanon
3) Anything could happen with Iran. I thought Israel would strike them this year but I think their hands are tied right now. Their PM, Olmert said recently that they don't think Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon so imminent action is not required, but that's always on the back-burner. In the meantime they'll try to pressure the U.S. to push for harsher sanctions.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 04:02 PM
People have been predicting peak oil

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 04:04 PM
Peak oil has been predicted for over a century now. Unknown reserves are just thaty-unknown.

We will move out of the oil age not when we run out of oil, but when we find something better. We didn't move out of the stone age because we ran out of stones.

Sandra
02-28-2008, 04:06 PM
They're hoping to stimulate our economy with war with anyone. My family is working on ways to cut back drastically on energy use by using outdoor cooking and gardening. I'm trying to get my hands on those larger hand crank washing machines. There's one that you wind up for a minute and it spin washes for 20 minutes. I see a lot of small crank appliances and tiny charging devices, I wonder how many appliances could go to this form of power?

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 04:07 PM
Fusion, we are there.
The tech is there.
The helium-3 is the majority of the moons surface.
It just about getting it back here cheaply.
We have trace amounts of helium-3 on earth.

We also have the ability now to convert any carbon based waste into crude.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 04:16 PM
Fusion, we are there.
The tech is there.
The helium-3 is the majority of the moons surface.
It just about getting it back here cheaply.
We have trace amounts of helium-3 on earth.

We also have the ability now to convert any carbon based waste into crude.

OK, this is one of the rare instances where I can claim authority. I have a degree in nuclear technology. Fusion has not reached a break-even point yet, that means that it takes more energy to produce fusion than is gained by it. At current rates of efficiency gain, Tokamac reactors will not break even for approximately 35 years at the earliest (factoring in energy harvesting efficiencies) and possibly never. Other fusion technologies look even less promising. Sorry. Don't shoot the messenger.

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 04:21 PM
OK, this is one of the rare instances where I can claim authority. I have a degree in nuclear technology. Fusion has not reached a break-even point yet, that means that it takes more energy to produce fusion than is gained by it. At current rates of efficiency gain, Tokamac reactors will not break even for approximately 35 years at the earliest (factoring in energy harvesting efficiencies) and possibly never. Other fusion technologies look even less promising. Sorry. Don't shoot the messenger.

is the energy efficiency ratio factoring in the process of making/producing helium-3?
that is a cost/ratio that could change easily with a few key breakthroughs which are basically already here... just not enough incentive yet to do it.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 04:31 PM
is the energy efficiency ratio factoring in the process of making/producing helium-3?
that is a cost/ratio that could change easily with a few key breakthroughs which are basically already here... just not enough incentive yet to do it.

You are referring to the article from Popular Science about a year ago, I imagine. The short answer is yes, the efficiency problem still exists even if we had unlimited He3 because the bottleneck is containment-the electromagnetic field neccesary to contain the plasma-not the Helium 3 that dramatically increases the yield. He3 would make more energy and require more containment.

But to bring the discussion back to peak oil, any energy technology should be viable without subsidies, because energy production is all about efficiency and the most efficient way to allocate any scarce resoure is through the markets. Subsidies undermine markets by disguising true prices, prices neccessary for proper market function.

humanic
02-28-2008, 04:45 PM
WOW-- I have to admit, I'm even more surprised to see Peak Oil being discussed on RPF than I am to see it on C-Span! :D

I'm anxious to watch this. tangent4ronpaul, thanks for the notes.

If you are unfamiliar with this topic, I recommend:

These sites:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://www.fromthewilderness.com

These videos:
The CIA Connection (http://video.google.com/url?docid=-7726031384917866364&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=8257&q=cia%2Bconnection&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3 Fdocid%3D-7726031384917866364&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-7726031384917866364%26q%3Dcia%2Bconnection%26total %3D263%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dse arch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H20Jt_d9KrYp6YH7E6E0ik2tm6qx_g)
Oil Smoke and Mirrors (http://video.google.com/url?docid=8677389869548020370&esrc=sr2&ev=v&len=2982&q=oil%2Bsmoke%2Band%2Bmirrors%2Bduration%3Along&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3 Fdocid%3D8677389869548020370&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D8677389869548020370% 26q%3Doil%2Bsmoke%2Band%2Bmirrors%2Bduration%253Al ong%26total%3D12%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%2 6type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D1&usg=AL29H23_w9ka2UXoYriXCPWP2IyUc5PpBg)
Crude Impact
How Cuba Survived Peak Oil
The End of Suburbia
Life at the End of Empire

This book: Crossing The Rubicon (http://nw0.info/files/eBooks%20and%20Audio%20Books/Michael%20Ruppert%20-%20Crossing%20the%20Rubicon%20-%20Decline%20of%20the%20American%20Empire%20at%20t he%20end%20of%20the%20Age%20of%20Oil%20(2004).pdf) [right click link and "Save As"]

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 04:53 PM
Peak oil is a canard. Dr. Paul himself said that oil supply relative to gold supply is flat, meaning the price of oil in real money is constant. Oil discovery and recovery technology is improving all the time, compensating for depletion.

In a free market oil is the cheapest energy source for a simple reason: it is the most plentiful.
If that ever changes, prices will change with it if government stays out of the market.

UziSprayTF
02-28-2008, 05:05 PM
Peak oil is a major myth guys. Whenever you see someone graph supply and demand as someone would 2 separate stocks you know you are being lied to. Oil is not about to "peak"

Take a look at the following two images. I created the second one to show someone how insane the idea of running out of oil is.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/7215/usenflow02quadsjk5.gif
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/8840/worldoilusageavisualizahy8.jpg

The first image shows how energy is used in the States, the second image shows the volume of oil consumed in the WORLD per year. I know know 29 billion barrels of oil a year SOUNDS like a lot of energy, but it is not. it is a tiny dot on the world. The main barrier to oil supply is governments and technology. Alaska has a TON of oil that the US government does not want touched, canada has a TON of mackenzie oil that the native tribes will not allow to be extracted because they don't want their tribe's sons to have money from the employment and pipeline and "lose their culture." Alberta has oil tar-sands that require a fairly large amount of energy to extract. Colorado has the worlds largest oil reserve, only 1 problem, its through miles of rock. Iraq has enough oil to feed us all for the next 20 years or more all on its own, but political and local strife prevent economical construction and maintenance of their wells.

As supply moves from civilized countries to non-civilized countries extraction rates will be more volatile and the price will go up, but it will not all of a sudden peak to 1000 dollars a barrel or anything crazy like that. There is just too much of a financial incentive.

Also, the maximum amount gas at the pump can be (in inflation adjusted dollars) is 18 dollars a gallon. At that point it would be more economical to buy a solar panel from you local hardware store and buy a Tesla roadster car ($90 000) and drive it around. But to get to this point would require a massive contraction of supply, which is not likely. Short term energy trends due to increased globalization will push the cost of every type of energy higher, but globalization is releasing more scientists out into the world. Future generations will have more energy than they know what to do with.

Bossobass
02-28-2008, 05:12 PM
Here is the problem. From a 2001 article:


Cindy Bond, 43, and her husband, Stan, 55, have owned SUVs since the early '90s. Last month they traded in their '98 Ford Expedition for the 2001 model; it gets 14 miles per gallon in city driving. Bond is furious that "the government has allowed us to become dependent on other nations" for oil, and calls gas guzzling a myth. Stephanie Dexter of Wilmington, Dela., opted last month for a GMC Yukon XL (12 mpg, city). She believes Americans have a right "to do what we want and buy what we want. Isn't that why we're fighting?"

Makes me puke to hear that sort of drivel. They should draft that woman for 3 tours in Iraq.

Some facts:


Due to the increasing number of gas-guzzling vehicles, America is more dependent on foreign oil now than we were at the height of the 1973 energy crisis.


Raising fuel economy standards for new cars, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other light trucks to an average of 40 miles per gallon over the next decade would save 3 million barrels of oil per day.


If new cars and light trucks averaged 40 miles per gallon, we would save 1,507 gallons of gasoline per second.

We don't have to raise standards. My wife's turbo diesel (8 years old) averages right at 52 mpg. Mine (3 years old and bigger and faster) averages 48.6 mpg.

Our vehicles are not listed in any 'best mileage cars in America' lists because 'diesel vehicles are not included in the compilation'.

VW told me they were 'test marketing' their 3 cylinder version turbo diesel with EPA estimated 83 mpg 'to see if Americans would be interested in such a vehicle'. BS. I tried to buy two a couple of years ago. I offered to waive the warranty and import them. No can do was the reply.

It's no mystery to me why the same people who own controlling interest in GM also own controlling interest in Exxon.

But then again, Americans are the only people in the world stupid enough to want to buy a 15 mpg SUV. (Read first quoted paragraph. I rest my case.)

In the 70s the CFR pukes were telling Congressmen and Senators that "we will be pumping the last barrel of oil any day now".

Hey, but let's shred those pesky electric cars because nobody wants to buy one.

Bosso

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 05:22 PM
We also have the ability now to convert any carbon based waste into crude.

I don't know about that - gotta ref?

-n

Sandra
02-28-2008, 05:25 PM
All resources are finite. They WILL end. I think it's just a matter of retraining ourselves to get off our cushy butts and work with our hands again. You'd be surprised how little fuel you use when you're just running a tiller.

UziSprayTF
02-28-2008, 05:27 PM
I don't know about that - gotta ref?

-n

You need energy in the carbon waste to convert it. For example:

You drive your car

Oil => Gas => Motion => Heat => Exhaust (CO2) => Plants => Sun => BioFuel

You can't just get energy for free :P

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 05:33 PM
Peak oil is a canard. Dr. Paul himself said that oil supply relative to gold supply is flat, meaning the price of oil in real money is constant. Oil discovery and recovery technology is improving all the time, compensating for depletion.

"depletion" is the operative word. As Rep Barnett emphasized, it's not about tomorrow - it's about the day after tomorrow.

Something else he didn't talk about - he mentioned a world without oil from an energy standpoint. Imagine a world without solvents of plastics.




In a free market oil is the cheapest energy source for a simple reason: it is the most plentiful.
If that ever changes, prices will change with it if government stays out of the market.

Most plentiful, yes - but you left out half of the equation: It has the highest energy return of any source out there. We get something like 98% of the energy from it after processing. With ethanol we get 2%.

-n

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 05:35 PM
You need energy in the carbon waste to convert it. For example:

You drive your car

Oil => Gas => Motion => Heat => Exhaust (CO2) => Plants => Sun => BioFuel

You can't just get energy for free :P

OK - see the link for Sandia in the second post in this thread.

-n

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 05:37 PM
I don't know about that - gotta ref?

-n
Convert carbon based garbage into crude oil.
Here you go national geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html

I really want to have one of these plants at every waste disposal center.

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 05:38 PM
You need energy in the carbon waste to convert it. For example:

You drive your car

Oil => Gas => Motion => Heat => Exhaust (CO2) => Plants => Sun => BioFuel

You can't just get energy for free :P

he said convert it into crude - not bio-fuel.

-n

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 05:39 PM
Convert carbon based garbage into crude oil.
Here you go national geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html

I really want to have one of these plants at every waste disposal center.

there are tons of links on it: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/13218/

Imagine recycling our carbon waste products into fuel.

Sandra
02-28-2008, 05:43 PM
All this talk about how much oil is left does nothing when the powers that be choose to charge5.00 a gallon. The here and now tells us we're not going to be able to afford it, or what is does to the everyday items we need to survive. Food is going sky high, that's a given.

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 05:47 PM
Convert carbon based garbage into crude oil.
Here you go national geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html

I really want to have one of these plants at every waste disposal center.

VERY COOL! - thanks!

however the article was from 2003 and there was a big question make as to if it could be ramped up to large scale production. If it worked, I'm suprised we aren't hearing about this instead of ethanol.

-n

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 05:50 PM
there are tons of links on it: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/13218/

Imagine recycling our carbon waste products into fuel.

link was also from 2003. Of the 2 links in the article, one went to best buy ads, the second went to Intel CPU ads.

no other links found.

-n

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 05:54 PM
link was also from 2003. Of the 2 links in the article, one went to best buy ads, the second went to Intel CPU ads.

no other links found.

-n

geotimes 2006: http://www.geotimes.org/feb06/feature_trashenergy.html
also includes turning manure into energy, which isn't totally new.

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 05:55 PM
USA Today 2004: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-01-22-kantor_x.htm

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 05:56 PM
British article on it: http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/zwaste2.html

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 05:56 PM
and wiki on the process it uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 05:59 PM
another recent 2006 article on it and the two factories that are now proving the principles in practice: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555781/posts

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 05:59 PM
Transforming Waste to Fuel A Feasability Study
2007
http://www.thermaldepolymerization.org/news.php

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 06:01 PM
You guys are talking about TDP and as of today it is a commercially NONviable technology.

Thermal depolymerization is NOT cost effective. A production sized plant was built in Arkansas to turn turkey offal (guts) into oil, but it lost money because they business model was faulty. The owners thought they could charge a disposal fee for aquiring the guts instead of purchasing it.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 06:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

related- more efficient engines often result in MORE total oil consumption, not less. The reason is because useful work from oil becomes cheaper.

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 06:09 PM
2007 UA students turning trash into energy: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/local/50643.php

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 06:12 PM
with the ability to turn carbon waste into crude, there is no cap on our oil supply.

We will always be able to develop crude even when we have none naturally left.
at that point, it would probably be too expensive for vehicle use, but would be used for plastics and such. unless they really enhance TDP efficiency over time... which could happen with many people working many different methods in competition for market share.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 06:20 PM
Energy technology has to be commercially viable. That is the whole ballgame. We can't power the grid with piezoelecticty or hand cranks. We have to think about baseload. Baseload doesn't mean wind turbines or solar- it means Nuclear, hydro or coal. no known alternative energy source can compete with the big three yet.

As for cars and other transportation, the issue in't the fuel, it's energy storage. Electric and hydrogen cars are limited only by battery technology. Hybrids are stupid because of the Jevon Paradox. They don't result in less greenhouse gasses, less oil burned or less money wasted. A regular gas-burning econobox is a cheaper and more environmentally sound alternative.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 06:23 PM
with the ability to turn carbon waste into crude, there is no cap on our oil supply.

We will always be able to develop crude even when we have none naturally left.
at that point, it would probably be too expensive for vehicle use, but would be used for plastics and such. unless they really enhance TDP efficiency over time... which could happen with many people working many different methods in competition for market share.

Accounting for subsidies, fuel made from TDP costs over $10/gallon with current technology. I was taken in by this fad/fraud myself until I did more research. It is not commercially viable without subsidies which means it is not commercially viable.

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 06:31 PM
Accounting for subsidies, fuel made from TDP costs over $10/gallon with current technology. I was taken in by this fad/fraud myself until I did more research. It is not commercially viable without subsidies which means it is not commercially viable.

you got some sources on where it fails? the links i've provided says it can work.

torchbearer
02-28-2008, 06:33 PM
Accounting for subsidies, fuel made from TDP costs over $10/gallon with current technology. I was taken in by this fad/fraud myself until I did more research. It is not commercially viable without subsidies which means it is not commercially viable.

they are making crude, not just unleaded gasoline.
there are many products derived from crude... so i'd have to see how your studies differ from the 2007 feasibility study i found.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 06:43 PM
they are making crude, not just unleaded gasoline.
there are many products derived from crude... so i'd have to see how your studies differ from the 2007 feasibility study i found.

Crude costs about $100/barrel. Crude from TDP costs more. It is largely irrelevant what the final products are.

(West Texas intermediate is different than the thick goo from Venezuelaas well as oil made from TDP, and produces differing amounts of gasoline, deisel, kerosene, etc. It also is priced differently, but I am accounting for this.)

The claims that oil created from TDP can be made cheaper are not factoring in the artificial tax savings from the alternative fuel subsidies.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 06:45 PM
http://www.energybulletin.net/1666.html

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 06:45 PM
http://peakoiloptimist.blogspot.com/2006/01/missouri-shuts-down-carthage-thermal.html

RonPaulVolunteer
02-28-2008, 06:49 PM
Peak oil is BS.

Scientists are about 1 year away from releasing their proof that oil is not what we think it is, and BP has already been reaping the rewards, opening up old dry wells and wow, they're full again. Fancy that... WHEN are we going to lose our Sheeple badges??

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 06:49 PM
http://www.biodieselnow.com/forums/t/17959.aspx

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 06:54 PM
they are making crude, not just unleaded gasoline.
there are many products derived from crude... so i'd have to see how your studies differ from the 2007 feasibility study i found.

OK - you've convinced me it's viable, though perhaps not economically viable right now.

thanks!

-n

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 07:02 PM
There is no oil shortage and we are nowhere near peak oil.

High prices are the result of monetary inflation. Canada has known oil sands reserves twice as large as Saudi Arabia. The western slopes of the Rockies has oil shale. we have enough coal in the U.S. alone for 200 years.

It is likely that we will NEVER run out of oil, but we will find a better technology to replace it.
We exited the stone age and entered the bronze age because bronze was better than stones, not because we ran out of stones.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 07:20 PM
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2006/07/is_trashdiesel_.html?entry_id=1529346

kyleAF
02-28-2008, 07:27 PM
Peak oil is BS.

Scientists are about 1 year away from releasing their proof that oil is not what we think it is, and BP has already been reaping the rewards, opening up old dry wells and wow, they're full again. Fancy that... WHEN are we going to lose our Sheeple badges??

Source?? The abiogenesis argument is an old one... discredited by most. It'd be nice though! (aside from the environmental impacts)

Highstreet
02-28-2008, 07:28 PM
Yes, - VERY interesting presentation!

C-SPAN already has it online (it's about an hour)

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77530&pid=27026

Congressman Bartlett also has the GAO report on crude oil as well as his notes and at least some of the charts online:

http://bartlett.house.gov/
More reports and charts here:
http://bartlett.house.gov/EnergyUpdates/

A few things he DID NOT get into that are important - just notes...

objections about wind generation due to aesthetics
sugar and cannabis best source for ethanol
(he did mention there is only a 2% gain in energy, due to having to input energy into the system to produce ethanol but it's causing prices of corn, soy and wheat to double).
corporate farming practices using up the soil / high energy cost to produce modern fertilizers.
Corporate monopoly on ethanol production due to regulations + taxes
ocean energy - AU and NZ get 25% of energy via tidal generation. (he said it's possible but difficult due to distributed nature of production - first congress critter I've seen ever mentioning that it exists!).
(thermal gradients of sea water mentioned as potential EN source)
Flawed assumption that energy must be produced and distributed from a central facility.
(ARPA-E mentioned as potential solution - space race type program.)
Conservation - refrigerators are available that run on 12V, but not common or readily available. Also expensive due to low production. Super insulation, thermal chimneys, etc.

Sandia Sunshine to Petrol Project:

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/sunshine.html

VERY WORTHWHILE to watch/read!

-n

Anyone have a video or know where it is on Cspan. That link goes to a script.

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 07:31 PM
Anyone have a video or know where it is on Cspan. That link goes to a script.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8374404
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8374402

works fine for me!

-n

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 07:31 PM
It required Real Player for the video - do you have it?

-n

eok321
02-28-2008, 07:43 PM
Peak oil has been predicted for over a century now. Unknown reserves are just thaty-unknown.

We will move out of the oil age not when we run out of oil, but when we find something better. We didn't move out of the stone age because we ran out of stones.


Are you havin a laff???

If part 1 of your statement you believe to be correct i advise you to read up on Marion King Hubbert (Hubberts Peak)



As for your 2nd statement...im just speechless and would like to share your optimism.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 07:56 PM
Are you havin a laff???

If part 1 of your statement you believe to be correct i advise you to read up on Marion King Hubbert (Hubberts Peak)



As for your 2nd statement...im just speechless and would like to share your optimism.


Yes, Hubbert predicted peak oil in 1956 as occurring between 1965 and 1970. Didn't happen. This is just a small example of extrapolations that ignore future technology, just like the world-wide famines and mass starvation predicted by Malthus in the previous century.

I am not an optimist. The economic future looks extremely dim, but not because the world is running out of oil. It is because we (the U.S.) are simply consuming and spending more than we are producing and the global credit cards are almost maxed out.

eok321
02-28-2008, 08:03 PM
He predicted US peak then(early 70's) and was pretty much bang on..he also predicted world peak for around the late 90's but obviously couldnt factor in the late 70's oil crisis and the lag that obviously impacted on his prediction.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 08:13 PM
He predicted US peak then(early 70's) and was pretty much bang on..he also predicted world peak for around the late 90's but obviously couldnt factor in the late 70's oil crisis and the lag that obviously impacted on his prediction.

Known oil reserves are larger now than in the 90s. We find reserves faster than we can exploit them. The reason that has slowed down recently is artificial. The dems passed a windfall profits tax on the oil companies last year, eliminating the incentive thay had to find and exploit new fields.

Obviously there has to be an oil production peak someday, but that won't neccessarily mean an economic catastrophy. Alternative fuels and technology will come on line gradually as prices rise and oil production will fall gradually as well. The transition will quite possibly be smooth and gradual. Any dramatic change will more likely be the result of a new and dramatically superior technology that a dramatic decrease in supply.

Highstreet
02-28-2008, 08:18 PM
It required Real Player for the video - do you have it?

-n

Yes, but it doesn't pop up on the page.

Is there a direct link I can put in Realplayer or WMP.

Highstreet
02-28-2008, 08:25 PM
Known oil reserves are larger now than in the 90s. We find reserves faster than we can exploit them. The reason that has slowed down recently is artificial. The dems passed a windfall profits tax on the oil companies last year, eliminating the incentive thay had to find and exploit new fields.

Obviously there has to be an oil production peak someday, but that won't neccessarily mean an economic catastrophy. Alternative fuels and technology will come on line gradually as prices rise and oil production will fall gradually as well. The transition will quite possibly be smooth and gradual. Any dramatic change will more likely be the result of a new and dramatically superior technology that a dramatic decrease in supply.

Known Reserves "increased" every year until we peaked in 1971 here also. The same will happen with the world. The problem with world reserve numbers is they are not reliable, since most of the nations in the world will not allow an audit.

It won't necessarily mean an economic catastrophe, but it will add to the current problems. It will and has caused shortages. The only reason gas hasn't increased in price more here already, is because the price is already eliminating 3rd world countries that cannot afford $100 oil.

Highstreet
02-28-2008, 08:29 PM
Yes, Hubbert predicted peak oil in 1956 as occurring between 1965 and 1970. Didn't happen. This is just a small example of extrapolations that ignore future technology, just like the world-wide famines and mass starvation predicted by Malthus in the previous century.

I am not an optimist. The economic future looks extremely dim, but not because the world is running out of oil. It is because we (the U.S.) are simply consuming and spending more than we are producing and the global credit cards are almost maxed out.

It did happen in 1971, here in the States, just as he said.

It has already happened in the World. It doesn't mean we are running out, it means we have to live with a little bit less each year. This will just keep driving prices higher and eventually affect demand by creating recessions. We are already in a Recession, so that may slacken our demand for a while. We shall see.

Alternatives like Coal, wind and solar will become more and more competitive, but will never be able to fill the shoes for Transportation.

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 08:43 PM
It did happen in 1971, here in the States, just as he said.

It has already happened in the World. It doesn't mean we are running out, it means we have to live with a little bit less each year. This will just keep driving prices higher and eventually affect demand by creating recessions. We are already in a Recession, so that may slacken our demand for a while. We shall see.

Alternatives like Coal, wind and solar will become more and more competitive, but will never be able to fill the shoes for Transportation.

That's largely artificial. We are prevented by law from tapping known reserves in ANWR and off the California coast and anyway he said between 1965 and 1970 NOT 1971.

1971 not coincidentally was the beginning of Nixon's gasoline price controls which removed any incentive to increase production.

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 08:58 PM
Yes, but it doesn't pop up on the page.

Is there a direct link I can put in Realplayer or WMP.

it should come up with a page where the transcript is on the left side and a bunch of real player segments are on the right. You might have to make your page full screen to see the right side or scroll over.

-n

Highstreet
02-28-2008, 08:59 PM
That's largely artificial. We are prevented by law from tapping known reserves in ANWR and off the California coast and anyway he said between 1965 and 1970 NOT 1971.

1971 not coincidentally was the beginning of Nixon's gasoline price controls which removed any incentive to increase production.

I have been researching this since 2003. And it wasn't because of any price controls. There are no price controls today, nor have there been for some 30+ years.

Nor does ANWR or California or the Florida coastline have enough oil to help the situation.

Prudhoe Bay was 3 times the size of ANWR and it maxed out at 2 Million barrels per day, and has since peaked, and is back to less than half it's peak production. And it did not bring production above our peak production in 1971.

Please understand that I am not against producing ANWR, and in fact I think we will do it out of necessity here in the near future. But it nor any deep water sources will stave off the already apparent World Peak.

You know when they are Mining the Athabasca Tar Sands to turn into Oil that we are desperate for the liquid fuel. They operate that Canadian field at a NET Energy LOSS, meaning they pump more energy in Natural Gas to liquify the stuff than they receive from the result.

Oil is now as valuable as Gold, a true limited resource, and will have resultant price increases.

Highstreet
02-28-2008, 09:02 PM
it should come up with a page where the transcript is on the left side and a bunch of real player segments are on the right. You might have to make your page full screen to see the right side or scroll over.

-n

For some reason all I see is 3 "images", not video links.

can you copy the links and post them. It seems weird that they are not showing up for me.

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 09:05 PM
hmmm... OK, it looks like they just have stills up right now. I guess the video hasn't been processed into the server yet - you might try tomorrow, but the text is up there now.

looks like it has not made it to youtube either

-n

tangent4ronpaul
02-28-2008, 09:08 PM
it does really work - check out this earlier one by him on the same topic from last year - this one does come up as a video.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=7572478

I'm guessing it will be processed and up tomorrow.

-n

billyjoeallen
02-28-2008, 09:11 PM
Oil is now as valuable as Gold, a true limited resource, and will have resultant price increases.

In what possible way can this statement be true? in terms of volume? in weight? You are being ridiculous.

billyjoeallen
02-29-2008, 02:54 AM
also: have you noticed how the chicken little doomsday scenarios conflict with each other?

scenario one: we are running out of oil
scenario two: burning oil is causing global warming.

So if we use up all the oil, the earth will stop warming. What's the problem?

Fox McCloud
02-29-2008, 03:24 AM
also: have you noticed how the chicken little doomsday scenarios conflict with each other?

scenario one: we are running out of oil
scenario two: burning oil is causing global warming.

So if we use up all the oil, the earth will stop warming. What's the problem?

This is just like me bringing up the "alternative energies" to a socialist friend of mine (who wants to manage the resources). I told him that if we continued using the oil at the current rate, it'd increase prices drastically, and FORCE the market to go with alternative energies.

His excuse was
I don't think thats justification to using it all up. And no matter what happens in the next 10 years, we should always assume there will be people to blame us for it in 100 years, so we should at least try to conserve..

*Shrug*

Razmear
02-29-2008, 04:15 AM
I'm hoping that Solar powered Stirling Engines will start to take off.
This article is from 2004

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2004/renew-energy-batt/Stirling.html

eb

billyjoeallen
02-29-2008, 06:28 PM
Nobody knows what technologies will replace or displace the current ones. That is why top-down central planning policies always fail. We don't have enough information. That is why we need unfettered market action without subsidies, tarrifs or regulation.