|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: DBDB Date: Jul 20, 2008 23:31
Rob Dekker wrote:
>> Rob Dekker wrote:
>>
>>> Check this out, for the amounts of oil avaiable anywhere. Not just the US
>>> coasts.
>>> http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.p
>>> df
>>>
>>> Then realize that drilling a few billion barrels spread out over a few years
>>> is hardly going to change anything.
>>> It just postpones the inevitable : that the end of large volume of (cheap)
>>> oil is here.
>>> That we need to remove the stuff from our dayly addiction pattern pronto, or
>>> make very costly changes (like wrecking our economy) very soon. >> Gee Rob, when do we start????
>>
>> Do you not get that the masses are whistling through the graveyard????
>
> More reason to stop whining and start working. ...
|
| Show full article (1.95Kb) |
|
| | 65 Comments |
|
|
Author: Rob DekkerRob Dekker Date: Jul 21, 2008 16:50
> Rob Dekker wrote:
>>> Rob Dekker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Check this out, for the amounts of oil avaiable anywhere. Not just the US
>>>> coasts.
>>>> http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.p
>>>> df
>>>>
>>>> Then realize that drilling a few billion barrels spread out over a few years
>>>> is hardly going to change anything.
>>>> It just postpones the inevitable : that the end of large volume of (cheap)
>>>> oil is here.
>>>> That we need to remove the stuff from our dayly addiction pattern pronto, or
>>>> make very costly changes (like wrecking our economy) very soon. >>> Gee Rob, when do we start????
>>>
>>> Do you not get that the masses are whistling through the graveyard????
>> ...
|
| Show full article (2.47Kb) |
|
| | 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: beavithbeavith Date: Jul 21, 2008 21:51
>
>We discussed many numbers in the past, and we seem to agree that finding new supply of liquid fuels in any form (drilling, biofuels
>etc) is not going to help enough.
>But I'd be happy to discuss number about moving liquid fuels (especially ground transportation) to electricity.
>What (numbers) does it take for you to see any solution out of the Peak Oil challenge ?
>
>Rob
>
>
Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes
economical to mine.
The fly in the ointment is how politics gets mixed in to screw
everythingelse up.
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Rob DekkerRob Dekker Date: Jul 21, 2008 23:11
"beavith" netscape.net> wrote in message
news:fnpa84tea05jdmrqbshcmjfcotms0nfplg@4ax.com...
...>>But I'd be happy to discuss number about moving liquid fuels (especially
ground transportation) to electricity.
>>What (numbers) does it take for you to see any solution out of the Peak
Oil challenge ?
>>
>>Rob
>>
>>
> Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes
> economical to mine.
>
That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.
We currently consume 15 billion barrels per year MORE than what we discover
per year.
> The fly in the ointment is how politics gets mixed in to screw
> everythingelse up.
|
| Show full article (0.71Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Jul 21, 2008 23:51
Rob Dekker verific.com> wrote:> "beavith" netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:fnpa84tea05jdmrqbshcmjfcotms0nfplg@4ax.com...
> ...>>> But I'd be happy to discuss number about moving liquid fuels
>>> (especially
> ground transportation) to electricity.
>>> What (numbers) does it take for you to see any solution out of the
>>> Peak Oil challenge ?
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>> Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes
>> economical to mine.
> That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.
Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that can be turned into oil
when the price is high enough to justify that with oil sands, shale oil and even coal.
> We currently consume 15 billion barrels per year MORE than what we discover per year.
|
| Show full article (1.01Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Rob DekkerRob Dekker Date: Jul 22, 2008 01:00
>>> Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes
>>> economical to mine.
>
>> That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.
>
> Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that can be turned
into oil
> when the price is high enough to justify that with oil sands, shale oil
|
| Show full article (1.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Jul 22, 2008 01:36
Rob Dekker verific.com> wrote> Rod Speed gmail.com> wrote>> Rob Dekker verific.com> wrote>>>> Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes economical to mine.
>>> That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.
>> Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that can be
>> turned into oil when the price is high enough to justify that with
>> oil sands, shale oil and even coal.
> I wish you were correct.
> Unfortunately, use of oil shale and tar sands and coal (CTL)
> could only reduce the RATE of decline of available liquid fuels.
Wrong, particularly with coal.
> I am starting to sound like Dan now, but please read the Hirsch report, or the EWG report :
Those dont say anything like that with coal.
> There is no easy way out of this.
Yes there is. Anything can be turned into a liquid fuel when you have energy from nukes
and its completely routine to use hydrogen produced in nukes as a transport fuel.
|
| Show full article (1.60Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jul 22, 2008 05:05
Rod Speed wrote:
> Rob Dekker verific.com> wrote
>> The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.
>
> Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.
Which uses lots and lots of plastics.
/BAH
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Jul 22, 2008 13:16
jmfbahciv wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Rob Dekker verific.com> wrote>>> We need significant help both on supply AND demand side to get through
>>> this period without wrecking our economies and our planet's eco systems.
>> Wrong.
>>> Demand side is the most flexible :
>> Wrong again.
>>> what we do not improve in efficiency we will give have to give up in driving/flying less.
>> Wrong again.
>>> The latter obviously at the cost of economy and life style.
>> Wrong again. Most obviously with telecommuting.
> Which uses lots and lots of plastics.
And there is plenty of coal to make those from if that ever becomes neccessary.
And that uses a lot less plastic than even a single car does anyway.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Rob DekkerRob Dekker Date: Jul 22, 2008 17:27
> Rob Dekker verific.com> wrote>> Rod Speed gmail.com> wrote>>> Rob Dekker verific.com> wrote>
>>>>> Peak Oil is a fallacy. As the price goes up, more supply becomes economical to mine.
>
>>>> That is a rather naive view, considering that oil supplies are limited.
>
>>> Not in any practical sense when you include the stuff that can be
>>> turned into oil when the price is high enough to justify that with
>>> oil sands, shale oil and even coal.
>
>> I wish you were correct.
>> Unfortunately, use of oil shale and tar sands and coal (CTL)
>> could only reduce the RATE of decline of available liquid fuels.
>
> Wrong, particularly with coal.
>
>> I am starting to sound like Dan now, but please read the Hirsch report, or the EWG report : ...
|
| Show full article (3.58Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
