CommieDad (!) makes some very serious and faulty assumptions on the way to advocating government control of energy. I'll note my joy that he finally read the article in the original post which, btw, I wouldn't have linked had I not read it. I doubt it will be little noted by those who frequently accuse me of only presenting on side of an argument. In any event...
If you've been following these matters as long as I have, the 70's, you'll have long ago noted that the world's oil reserves, proven reserves, have annually been increasing. New technology, that allows for recovery of oil previous unrecoverable or too expensive to try, has been partially responsible for this. Whether or not the concept of peak oil has validity or not will not be known for at least twenty years; a veritable eon in the energy search business. Horizontal drilling is probably the most commonly cited form of technology that has caused increases in recovery.
There is a fundamental fallacy, that I have not yet addressed, in the very notion of self-sufficiency. As stated previously, it has made little sense in the past to drill for more American oil when we have had foreign nations so willing to sell to us at such a reasonable rate. You're more familiar with this idea when you purchase tennis shoes. We buy foreign made tennis shoes because they can be made cheaper, including shipping, than they can be in the US. We also do this with products and resources not common in the US. For instance, there are no rubber trees in the US so we must import natural gum rubber. We don't think twice about this as we need the rubber and Indonesia needs to sell it. For those in Texas (g) that's called capitalism and the free market is it's mechanism of opertion. More on that later.
Were there no trade between the US and other countries life in the US would be immeasurably poorer, as it would be world-wide. The populist notion that the US is this big self-sufficient country without need for foreign trade is a pervasive and completely incorrect myth. For instance, the Caterpillar company would probably be about half the size it is if they only sold heavy equipment to companies within the US. Likewise Boeing and most other manufacturers. US agriculture would be substantially smaller werem it not for exports. You say so what? Well. What are all of those employees going to do for work if we don't need so many of them to produce only the goods we consume? Most Americans rightly do not understand the sheer size of our foreign trade. Rightfully because the volume of it boggles the mind be it in tonnage or number of transactions. The entire world is the rest of the way; without trade they would perish of be consigned to an early twentieth century existence.
It is hardly necessary that trading partners even get along or like each other. The market does not ackowledge these factors. At the truest heights of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was buying Caterpillar dozers even though there was a US economic embargo in place against the Soviet Union over the invasion of Afghanistan. Caterpillar is a world-wide corporation and it merely shipped it's dozers from the American midwest to Canada where they became Canadian dozers and, amazingly, were loaded on an American ship in Montreal and shipped to Leningrad. Of course the Soviet's weren't embargoeing us so we brought back birch plywood and Russian tobacco. The market ignores politics, even geopolitics.
This is relevant to oil because we do not have to actually buy Iranian oil for our money to end up in Iranian hands, admittedly via a convoluted process. If the Netherlands is buying Iranian oil there is nothing to stop them from selling it to us as "Dutch" oil later. Oil is fungible. That means that it does not care who buys it or where it goes, it only matters that it is bought. so while we may feel good about embargoing Iranian oil, our "allies" in Europe and elsewhere are quite willing to buy it. Embargoes only work when you can get world compliance. Instead of buying Iranian oil we buy Canadian oil and we pay the same price the Dutch are paying for that Iranian oil. In essense, we are buying Iranian oil because the Dutch are not buying Canadian oil. And, not so amazingly, if we can buy that oil at $5 a barrel cheaper than we can produce it for in the US (even though the US oil is "our" oil) we're not going to buy even our own oil. The market will not allow it. And anyone who says that we should only buy "our" oil will soon be out of business because he is paying $5 per barrel more than what his competitors are paying. And that's also why, when Iran has a production problem, the price of oil goes up in the US even though we do not buy Iranian oil. It has to as the world market sets the price.
That's also why North American reserves are so important as well. With 200 billion barrels in proven reserves, which will surely be revised upwards not downwards, we have more than enough oil for the three economies involved; Canada, the US, and Mexico. We enjoy not only good economic relations with both of those countries but good political ones as well.
I should add that it matters not a wit whether we buy Venezualan oil or whether Mr. Chavez wants to sell it to us or not. All that is important is that Mr. Chavez does sell his oil and, believe me, Mr. Chavez must sell his oil. He has no economic alternative, nor do the countries of the middle east.
So the idea of self sufficiency is really a canard. All that is important is that there is plenty of oil and that markets remain open for it's trade. Which, btw, is why we fought the Persian Gulf war. We fought to keep markets open. Kuwaiti oil in and of itself was immaterial to us as we buy so little of it. but it was important to us and the rest of the world because somebody needed that Kuwaiti oil, and it's absence is felt throughout the world market resulting in substantially higher oil prices and eventually potential shortages. And shortages mean economic decline, for the whole world.
Enough basic economics. Our Texan claims that the middle east is less stable than it was during the oil embargo. I'm not sure what he means by that or what anyone means by middle eastern stability. If the history of the middle east, since the mid-seventies, is what you call stable I say enough of stability. What is different today is that the US is personally involved within the middle east and the likely result of that involvement will be a stability much more to our liking than the past quasi-stability. Already we are on a much better footing with Libya, from whom we are now starting to import massive quantities of natural gas. The entire US-flag LNG shipping industry went belly up in the early eighties over Libyan instability. (read terrorism) that has now been rectified to an extent by Colonel Khaddafi's desire to not assume room temperature like his former pal Hussein. btw, when is Khaddafi ever going to make field grade status, ie...General? (g) In spite of war and terror or maybe because of them, the middle east is going to look much different over the next ten to twenty years, probably much better looking if the will of the West is up to the task. That can only be good for markets.
The Trotskyite Texan appears to think it unworth drilling for US oil. I'd remind him that, had President Clinton not vetoed congressional approval to drill in ANWR, we'd be pumping and refining that oil today. It's time to get on with doing the same offshore of California, Florida, and Michigan. The Gulf coast is littered with oil rigs pumping offshore oil but the rest of the US ignores that because it's off the coasts of La., Miss., and Texas and we know what kind of people live there, right? It's condescending in the extreme to think that those citizens are any less environmentally conscious as the good residents of those other coastal states. We start drilling today for oil for ten years from now, and for twenty years from now because we really don't know what's down there or how recoverable it may be, until we drill.
Alternative energy, the darling of the Solar Daddy. What's up with that? What's up is that it doesn't work and it's too damn expensive. I'll finesse the doesn't work part of the argument by merly mentioning that wind and solar really only work effectively in a handfull of states, and we've got about 44 other states to supply as well. (And while we're briefly on solar-why doesn't CD use a Fresnel lens to do his bb-q with instead of, guess what, hydrocarbons?) The expense problem is touted as fixable through economies of scale, which is true, but still poppycock. What causes economies of scale? Lots of mass production is what. What causes demand for more mass production? Demand. Why is there not more demand? For the same reason that you'd be foolish to buy an ethanol burning car. Currently, ethanol costs far more to produce than gasoline. The government finesses that point by subsidizing it. Last I heard it was to the tune of 6 cents per gallon just for the regular blend we've had sine the 70's. The new higher ethanol content blend is going to need more of a subsidy to make it cost competetive with gasoline. And you pay for that whether you buy ethanol or not. Then we get to the point that the absolutely best estimates of it's energy efficiency is 85% of gasoline. I've heard anecdotal reports that some vehilces are getting almost half the gas mileage as they do on straight gasoline. So now we need more subsidized ethanol than we would have needed straight gasoline.
How does our experience with ethanol relate to solar and wind energy? Solar and wind energy cost more to produce than does the fossil fuels they replace and let's not even imagine how much more than nuclear produced energy. so who's going to buy higher priced energy if a cheaper alternative is available? Why would you spend $30,000 on solar panels, assuming they'll work in your geographic location, if you can buy cheaper electricity generated from coal, oil, or nuclear powered stations? Well, you're not going to unless you've just got money to burn. And if you're not buying, the demand will not go up. Lack of increase in demand results in lower production (and higher costs) and so that mass production and economies of scale never take place. And that's why alternative energy remains largely unviable.
How can it be made viable? There are only two ways. And this is the part where I say that CommieDad's thinking is dangerous. The first and most effective way is that oil and other fossil fuels rise in price to where alternative enrgy becomes a bargain by comparison. That's how things always change in a market based economy. In fact, that's why you drive a car today. Cars and gasoline became cheaper, in terms of miles traversed, than horses. If horses were cheaper we'd all be talking about riding horses to work right now. But you have not heard that because even though horses are a renewable, and therefore a good alternativer energy source, and they are refueled by a renewable resource, they are still more expensive to own and maintain, per mile traversed, than a car. They also don't come with air-conditioning, or heat for that matter.
When fossil fuel prices rise, the impetous to do more research on alternatives rises due to the profit potential. Every garage inventor, remember Bill Gate's garage, goes to work with the dream that if people will pay 'X' dollars per btu or kilowatt-hour for energy and he can produce it and sell it for just 5% less, the world will beat a path to his door. And he's right. You could ask Bill Gates or, if you're a psychic, Henry Ford. Fossil fuel prices are not nearly there yet. But it's not like oil will have to hit $200/bbl or $300/bbl for the process of research and development to begin. Entreprenuers are smarter than that. It's also why the enrgy companies and the car companies are investing money in the field now. They don't want to get left behind even if it's twenty or thrity years from now. And so they take some losses, modest losses, in pursuing alternative energy today. The heirs of John D. Rockefeller do not want to miss out on the next "oil". So the market will produce alternative energy if the reward is there. And we won't be out of energy while we're waiting on them-they're already on the case and unless oil drops precipitously in price, they're going to stay on the case along with all those guys in their garages.
The second way that alternative energy can become common or mass produced is by government fiat. The government can mandate that you use solar or mandate something else. Subsidies themselves, and government funded research, will be insufficient to produce a switch to alternative energy alone. The government will run out of money, and the political will to spend it, long before alternative energy makes economic sense. And the average citizen is too smart to buy uneconomical energy even if he's in favor of it as a whole. Example, Al Gore! Which leaves only one other way that alternative energy can reach mass production and, hopefully, economies of scale; government mandate. You will be forced to use it. Now you, patient reader, will see why I called CD, CommieDad. Government mandate, including production quotas and everything else is what the eastern bloc tried doing under communism. It didn't and doesn't work, though they had a great PR campaign that convinced many people who should have know better that it was working. These are the people that produced the Trabant. While just across the border their brothers were building and driving Mercedes-Benz's.
What CD is calling for is socialized energy. And what's really going to disappoint him in when government says, as it inevitably will, that he can't haul horses with his big 'ol one ton Ford pick 'em up across the far stretches of Texas. He'll be using up more than his quota of his energy allotment, becuase rationing always accompanies socialized anything. People is the USSR had such a purported quality of life because only one spouse worked. The part that got left out was that only one spouse worked because the other spouse was spending the whole day standing in various lines to buy the basic necessities of life, like food.
Now contrary to CD's fevered imaginings, and I didn't mean that CommieDad part other than as a joke, the US doesn't really need a government energy policy. We have one, it's free, and it's much more effective than any one the government can come up with. It's the free market. and government is doing it's level best to screw it up which will virtually ensure that there will be energy shortages. Would oil be at the price it is is we'd started drilling in ANWR ten years ago? Prices might be high but not as high. When oil was cheap it made sense to buy it from other people. Remember those tennis shoes? If tennis shoes from offshore production hit, on average, two hundred dollars the pair you will almost overnight see the revitalization of the American tennis shoe manufacturing industry. Oil is now at a price where we can not only afford to drill but we can afford to drill with extremely stringent environmental requirements. And we will drill. We'll drill because, with our current government policy, we'll have no choice. Nobody is going to invest massive resources into alternative energy because they know that all that oil is just sitting off the coasts of California, Florida, and Michigan. and they can never be certain that, should oil skyrocket, that the government will not suddenly change it's mine and allow drilling instantly wiping out their investment potential. For example, would you build a multi-trillion dollar mass transit system in your town if there was the slightest potential that oil was going to drop precipitously in price and nobody would ride it? If you answer yes to that question you are either a fool or you own stock in the Long Island Railroad, which has never turned a profit since it's inception is around 1914 or so. So just the potential of pumpable oil makes alternative energy a bad investment. Oil is till too cheap and there's too much of it.
What are the current solutions? Oil from coal shows great potential and coal is our most, world-wide, abundant hydrocarbon resource. Conveniently, the US sits on some of the largest coal deposits in the world. Assuming that oil from coal is viable economically we could free up a lot of coal for that use by building nuclear power plants for electricity production. Electricity production we're going to sorely need if battery technology advances making electric cars viable. And CD's concerns about private industry running fusion plants is hilarious. Who does he think designed and run our current nuclear plants? The oil situation alone would be a lot worse than it is if government ran those tankers bringing it in. Imagine the post office in charge of oil transportation!
In conclusion, your government is responsible for not only high oil prices by refusing to allow drilling for oil but will also be responsible for delays in electric car usage due to not enough juice available for recharge. They're also going to be responsible for the pollution of the planet by leaving coal as the only viable electricity production material as coal is the dirtiest burning energy source around-even "clean coal". So your government got you in this mess, shows no sign of being able to get you out of the mess, and my friend CD wants yet more government action. Haven't they really done enough?
__________________ “I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
Last edited by sailaway21 : 05-08-2008 at 11:04 PM.
Just in my lifetime, I've heard the same rap over and over. Alternative energy. What a load of crap. Politicians talk it up, all the crap about "new" hydrogen-fueled cars, etc. What's new about it? Hydrogen fuel cells have been in use since the 60's in the space program. They provide power and water for the shuttle crews. This is a proven technology, but all we hear is how they're working on it. Fact is, it won't happen til it's cheaper than oil. Til then, they just pull our strings and lie about it.
Wow .... It will take days to read all that, the cliff note version:
Oil issues in the 70's were resolved and the world did not end, instead tennis shoes were outsourced overseas because they were cheaper to make and demand was high resulting in affordable shoes for the oil driller folks.
New technology has advanced where we can get our oil state side, but environmentalists are perceived to only be living in or working on vacation in FL, CA, and AK and there is now way that the Gulf Coast states enjoy the same tourism as such states and therefore it is easier to dot the landscape 24 miles offshore with oil rigs than say solar panels, wind turbines and the likes. Besides since Texas provides most of the historically influential soldiers in most of our wars such as the War For Oil in Iraq - not a time to be a pansy wearing solar suite with a windmill attached to a hat (the propeller caps - maybe they were not as dumb idea as we once thought)...
Additionally, historically while 44 states are unable to get sunshine or the wind is too strong for windmills (tornadoes have yet to be successfully harvested) we are reminded that Cuban Cigars can be had because there is a supply and demand and all one has to do to get them or any other product such as a Caterpillar Bulldozer (Embargo is a fancy term the law says you can't because some politicians said so - but you can get it if your economically aware) - is hop the border and load the beast up and bring it back or ship it out.
Lastly, CD uses to much propane for his grills instead of using solar fryers. As a result him and his harem of grill hanging off the stern afficiando's are increasing the demand for oil, and for what - burnt steaks? So in short CD is responsible for both the oil pricing crisis and the bad eats crisis from those whom do not properly use their 4 dozen grills on the stern.... IN effect supply and demand - even if no one was to BBQ all summer, CD would still have to. But even with less demand - the price will be higher because all the propane would have to made for just one individual and now it is a luxury item...
__________________ “I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
For the record, I don't care if we drill in anwar or not. It won't save us from our selfs or destoy the enviornment beyond repair. I don't see it drasticlly lowering my fuel bill. Further more, If the market starts paying for alternatives, then more Ideas and investments will flow.
Consider where cell phones were in the eighties, nighties and today. Look how far computers have come in that same time. Now check out biotech, or agriculture.
As to the federal government, it funds plenty of research through grants and scolarships. States do as well. I wouldn't be oppsed to raising the gas taxes and indexing them to inflation, but sulutions are useless if no one is willing to give up what they don't feel is a problem. There in fact has been a whole lot of new ideas tried and produced in the last ten years. It didn't all stop when the eighties ended. The oval piston was produced by honda for a number of years. It was discarded because it was to expensive. They also played with a 2 stroke that was great on fuel.
There are races that focus on fuel consumption. They are each given the same amount of fuel and the winner is the one who completes the most laps. When you talk about cars not getting better fuel milage since the boost after the opec crisis. You've got to remember that car makers, make what sales. The consumer has wanted the extra power created though out the nighties and zeros to go into extra horse power rather then extra miles.
This is why our fuel consumption is going up. When you consider that America probably uses more power running personal fish Aquiriums then brazil uses to produce its fresh water supplies. Then you start to see where the real lack of energy independence comes from. Trying to achieve independence would do more to damage our economy then just making sure we can cover our butts in the event of a major crisis.
The senarios that have the middle east blowing up into a huge war don't bother to mention that whether we're energy independent or not, we're going to get sucked in and things are going to change. In fact no matter what, things are going to change. I just don't think there is much reason to get worked up about the rising prices.
Don't forget that in the event of a real shortage of energy. Every watt of power you don't use is three saved. There is a lot of power consumed in the generation and delivery of electric. Same is true of gas. A lot of fuel goes into getting the oil from under ground to in your fuel tank.
That's my main point, we are for all purposes energy independant for the basic essitials as well as a few luxeries such as ice, air conditioning and a few hours of TV even if all hell breaks loose. Beyond that, Trying for independence gets expensive really fast, and won't last long anyway.
__________________ !! WARNING !! The above information is to be used by intelligent people only. If you are Stupid, could be considered a moron, or otherwise. You are instructed to disregard this information and seek the help of a licensed and bonded professional.
Not quite Jody. It's CD's and the government's fault. Otherwise good. (g)
__________________ “I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
THis has been a good thread and I have enjoyed it. I am certainly of the opinion that we will not agree, nor that I can in any way influence anyone to change their opinions. That is fine and I have no issue with that. But you are missing one of the very underlying issues with some of your assumptions.
So, let's have an interesting excercise. I want you to answer the questions honestly and factually based upon the information that has been presented.
1) How long does it take to empty a reserve?
2) What is a realistic, even slightly unrealistic, percentage of recovery for the US, Candian, and Mexican reserves?
3) What is the current burn-rate in billions of barrells/year for the US?
4) How long does it take from deciding to drill to gas pump?
5) How long will it take for any meaningful change to other energy sources (even using coal, as your example... what the heck, let's just stay on the unreplenishable, dirty energy sources)?
My answers:
1) 10-20 Years. It is not immediate. 10 years assumes a great reserve with very porous rock, etc. That is very unlikely on domestic reserves. 20 years is probable.
2) 2%-10%. For most N American reserves, it is actually smaller than that. I will provide you quotes, but I think you agree with the figure.
3) 7.6 billions of barrells/year. Again, publically available information.
4) Years, if the drill is even successful at all.
5) A minimum 10-20 years.
Now, before we go through our excercise, let's take an entertaining (albeit VERY unrealistic) look at a hypothetical example. Let's pretend that we can drop a well this afternoon, and in one millisecond completely drain the entire N American reserves of 200 billion barrells. Let's pretend that Canda and Mexico decide to never use any oil products (especially their own). Let's also pretend that they sell us this oil, just us. Now, let's also pretend that the recoverable out of this is 100%. Every drop out of the ground - not the 1-2% that most of theses reserves have given.
SO, at 7.6 billion burn rate, we are great. 200 billion, divided by 7.6 billion, is: 26.3 years. God Bless America. We are saved for the next 26.3 years. But what then? You flip a switch and go to solar? Nope. Sorry. You have not invested in it. Nuclear? Forget it. You did not build any. Start making coal in gas? At 7.6 billion barrells/year? WHat is the process and cost for that? You now will buy all the rest of your oil overseas. You have no choice. You now have nothing. You cannot make a fly swatter (petroleum product) without a ship arriving and unloading her oil.
Now let's talk reality.
Even on the high and unrealitic side, you are likely not to get anywhere close to 10% recovery and more likely under 5%. I will quote specifics if you want them. 200 billion, even if all recoverable, will take at least 10-20 years if we start today. Mexico and Canada burn about 5 billion barrels of oil/year. That makes the entire N American (current) burn rate 12.6 billion bls. 200/12.6=15.8 years of use, for a SOLID 20 years recovery. It is HIGHLY unlikely that Canada, the US, or Mexico will ever drain the entire reserves completely. So, assuming just a 80% drain, you have 12.7 years of use.
ANWR, the largest US reserve, has between: 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion barrells that is recoverable. Let's use the 11.8 billion barrel example which no one agrees with, but whatever. If you could drain it dry, tomorrow, overnight, etc, and have it ready for use in a millisecond, that would only be a little over a years worth of oil for the US. A YEAR!!!!!! If, using the 95% probability, it is 4.3 billion barrels, you are looking at about a half of a year. A HALF A YEAR USE TO SUCK IT DRY!!! Now the reality: You will get, at best, a half of a years use for 20 years of investment and drilling. DOesn't sound quite so great now, does it. THat is reality.
You need to look into drilling ANWR/BAKKEN. When you hear the oil companies about supplying the United States for years, they are right. BUT HERE IS WHAT YOU ARE NOT READING... THAT IS SUPPLYING THE US AT 5% OF ITS USE FOR YEARS.... NOT SUPPLYING ANY MORE. IT CANNOT. AND THAT 5% TAKES YEARS TO GET TO AND DECADES TO DRAIN.
You guys talk like drilling locally will suddenly change the dynamics of our price at the pump. It won't. It cannot supply us. I am giving you facts, not theories. Would we have more jobs? Sure. Would oil companies make a lot of money? Certainly. WOuld we put that money back into the hands of the US? Somewhat (assuming we do not use immigrants to pump it for us). But the hard reality is that if you sucked both of our total reserves dry (Bakken and ANWR), you would get one years use of oil for 20 years worth of work. ONE YEAR for 20 YEARS! And guess what. After that... ya got nothin'. THink you are dependent now... wait till you really do have nothing.
Let's summarize these facts:
1) If we completely drain our (US) reserves of ANWR and the entire Bakken Basin (which Canda owns a LARGE part of too, incidentally), you will have enough oil to run the US for about one (1) year at current use and assuming no more growth.
2) Draining those reserves will require 10-20 years. THat means you will get one year of use for 10-20 years of production.
3) If we drain the entire N American (including Canadian and Mexican) reserves, with unrealisitic recovery, we have about 200 billion/7.6 billion=26 years for us consuption. However, when removing the realistic recovery, Mexican and Canadian use of their own product, it is considerably less than that. That process also will take 10-20 years at the best of estimates. Canda and Mexico together use 5 billion barrels/year which VASTLY decreases what is actually surplus for potential US use. In fact, it almost cuts it in half. I have shown a number of a bit over 12 years of use, which is way to generous, to drain all N American reserves.
4) The United States does not have any platform in place to replace oil.
5) Any potential oil replacements will take decades to put in place.
6) The United States is, and will continue to be for the foreseable future, dependent on foreign oil.
The oil Utopia you seem to infer will come with domestic drilling will not happen. It is not true. There simply is not sufficient oil doemistically to supply us. Even if we had all of our reserves tapped and a well on every corner (including offshore FL, CA, etc)... we would only be able to make a percentage of what we use. Even if somehow we could manage to make enough for domestic use (impossible), we would run out in a matter of a a few years at best. A few years is not sufficient time to get off of oil. It is doubtful 10-20 years is sufficient time to get off of oil. If we are anywhere near peak production (very possible) it may already be too late for us to get out and find some alternatives.
I am not opposed to drilling domestically. I have said that repeatedly. But that is NOT where our emphasis must be. It must be on GETTING OFF. I just cannot see how you can possibly feel otherwise. To drill locally for the purpose of hoping it will decrease what you are paying at the pump is very short sighted. Even at its best, it provides very little (a very small percentage) of our use and is actually a very small reserve.
Here is a nice example of what you can expect by draining ANWR: ANWR is our largest reserve. The estimate is to add 5% to the total US use. THat could be considered a 5% decrease in oil, assuming there is no cost in taking our own oil (not likely). That 5% equals, at todays price of $3.50/gallon, 17.5 cents savings. That means that instead of paying $3.50/gallon, you will be paying $3.325/gallon. Wow. What a difference, eh?? Let's pretend we can drain the Bakken dry and Canada lets us have it for free and we drill it for free. Let's pretend it supplies what ANWR can supply... so let's take 10% off the price at the pump. That means instead of paying $3.50/gallon, you pay $3.15. Watch out Hummer, here I come.
Get real, folks. WE HAVE TO GET OFF! There is NOT a domestic answer.
- CD
__________________
BEST LOOKING AND SMARTEST MODERATOR, after all, I do own a Catalina
Did you notice he quotes the very article I presented? Yep.
Unfortunately there is an information shortage about Peak Oil. There is too-little good research (Hirsch and his peers are grossly underfunded), and even less reliable information for the public. Neither is a good indicator of our readiness for peak oil.
The faster we prepare, the easier the transition will be to peak oil. Other nations already have strong programs in motion to prepare for peak oil. We are among the world’s laggards. Civilization will continue even if America falters as a result of peak oil, just as it survived the fall of the Spanish Empire. We have the ability to adapt, but so far lack the will and awareness of the need. Over-dramatizations like “life after the crash” are part of the problem, in my opinion, not part of the solution. They are too easily dismissed, and unfortunately the awareness of peak oil often gets dismissed with them. Equally unfortunate, their facile certainty about the future discourages the need for research and modeling about our energy resources and consumption — necessary to efficiently marshal and apply resources for rapid mitigation programs.
I agree with his assesment and totally dissagree that even if we ran out of oil tomorrow, the world would come to an end. We would find a word around, even if it were horses. The question is how bad the effects would be? We can only assume.
But first of all, he is contradicting a book I have not read where I assume the author feels the effects of running out of oil will be akin to nuclear war. He is NOT contradicting my article, in fact, mentions the author. Without reading the book he refers to, I cannot comment with certainty on his opinions. I will say that his stance is that Oil-Peak is a very real problem and the US is not serious about it. He does feel that running out of oil/disruptions will have serious economic effects. He also (and I really loved this) thinks we should be looking hard at other solutions that may not be hydrocarbon based.
Thank you. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Please talk to Sailaway.
But who is this guy and what is his motive and background? Is he educated in the manner? Is he supplied by Green Peace or Exxon? I take third party assesments with a grain of salt until I know who pays their gas bill.
That is why I have focused on US Gov based information or funding as I feel it is the closest we can come to a truly unbiased opinion. The exception is the article Sway presented that started this topic.
- CD
__________________
BEST LOOKING AND SMARTEST MODERATOR, after all, I do own a Catalina
