beavith
netscape.net> wrote> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>> 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.
> i'm not familiar with nukes anywhere in the world that are used to produce hydrogen.
Your problem.
> any kind of REAL hydrogen roduction volume is made from natural gas.
Just because its currently done like that is completely irrelevant to what makes sense in the future.
> not to say that they couldn't, but i'l take it on good advice
> that the value of the electricity exceeds the value of the H2.
It isnt either/or, a nuke can produce both.
> its an economic
You can get pills for premature ejaculations apparently.
>>> 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.
> look guys. as the price of fuel goes up demand will drop to
> find some kind of equilibrium between the fuel use and its cost.
Whats much more likely to happen is that as the price increases, that
makes liquid fuel from shale oil and oil sands and coal more economically
viable and we see a continuing increase in the use of fuel.
Certainly the countrys that still use oil to produce electricity
will find it makes sense to use nukes instead eventually, but
thats not a very big percentage of the use of oil anymore.
> it will be higher, but it'll allow for other economic sources of fuel to come on-line.
> it will be disruptive.
I doubt it.
> it will make cheap energy economies and the poorer ends of those economies suffer the most.
I doubt that too. Few use oil as a source of the bulk of the energy they use anymore.
