I don't have belief, per se, in peak oil, only an acknowledgement that it seems a plausible scenario given current and projected world energy consumption.
geo,
The word being used is superfluous to me, the goal is to accurately communicate, if I use the word “belief” or I use the word “assumption”, the meaning either conveys or it doesn’t convey accurately. Which word works best to communicate a perception leading to a conclusion that is based upon assumptions?
If someone began a fear mongering campaign concerning the PeaK Horse Food phenomenon back when the major fuel for transportation was horse food (grain I suppose, alfalfa, hay, grass, whatever), then where would the power flow as a result of such a fear mongering campaign? Where would the paper trail lead? Where does the “news” come from? Where would the funds go to, as a result of the fear mongering campaign? What would be the reality – looking back with 20-20 hindsight?
Ocean waves, and tidal forces can make power, cheap now. Sewage can be made into fuel cheap. Water can be made into fuel (or energy storage) cheap. I’ve woken up, you may want to also, or, of course, my view may be wrong; but I look, and have found only support for my view since I’ve started. The oil company criminals have seen it coming, of course they have, and their goose is cooked, they know it.
How much does it cost per barrel to get the barrel on the shelf for sale to the buyer? If you can’t answer that question then you won’t understand the reality of the situation.
Once you have that question there is yet another question that begs for an accurate answer, if the idea is to know the facts concerning this topic. How much will the buyers pay (what is the maximum selling price) of one barrel of oil?
Once you have that known, then know why oil has dominated in political economy and use math. X amount of cost was expended to produce a wild guess (realistic or educated guess) on the number of barrels of oil produced since 1860, and sold. The total number to find is the amount of power flowing from "customers" to oil business people. What is that measure of power - in dollars? Then it can be looked into as to what all that power has purchased once the oil business people gained control of all that power. How much power is invovled in this scenario?
How much power in dollars (oil has been sold mostly on a U.S. dollar standard) has moved from the buyers of oil to the producers of oil?
Get a good idea of what is being discussed here, rather than base less, or even false, assumptions.
I really need to get back to the book to see what is offered by the author on this topic. The “official” Peak Oil fear mongering campaign is false, as false as the “official” fear mongering Global Warming campaign, and as false as either the official “911” (inside job) campaign, or the official “Waco” campaign where "they are killing themselves" as tanks drive through a church (I talked personally with a survivor of that torturing mass murder campaign).
If someone’s knee is now suddenly jerking with an irresistible urge to shout out “conspiracy theorist”; then please, please, please, if that is you, stop for a few minutes, while you are so inclined and get in front of a mirror first, just to see yourself shouting such absurdities. Get real.
I don't think it's reasonable to preach doom and death, nor do I think it's reasonable to conclude that technology will rescue us.
If “technology” had arms and legs, and a white horse, the horse would still need hay. I had a link to a device that used simple mechanical things like bearings, axles, pulleys, cables, and an electric generator attached to anchors and a floatation device. The assembled device makes electricity as long as the ocean makes waves. What is the concern here, really; what is the bottom line? Where is the fear coming from? What is the purpose of fear?
Who needs “technology” to grow a brain, and hands? People have brains, and hands, companies don’t, the state doesn’t, law has no brain, no hands, people think, and people act, or they don’t think and they go on and act anyway. Why?
This is highly speculative, but even if it's true, it would only mean we have another 200 years at best.
Your version is to employ the word “highly” in front of “speculative” in reference to the data offered by Lindsay Williams, I prefer to allow Lindsay Williams to speak for himself, which he is fully capable of doing – he even wrote a book.
The point isn’t merely to point out that the Peak Oil fear mongering campaign is not without challenge, certainly not, rather that the Peal Oil fear mongering campaign is not only challenged by insiders in the oil business, the Peak Oil fear mongering campaign is also challenged on another front; which is the competitive supplies of more economical sources of power (call it energy if you prefer).
A. The Peak Oil (fear mongering campaign) is not a certainty according to people in the oil business (such as the author of the book being discussed and Lindsay Williams) - not even true.
B. The Peak Oil tm ("official" fear mongering campaign) may be irrelevant considering the rapid exponential increase in more economical forms of power
Why hold onto the fear mongering so dearly in the face of all the contrary evidence? A rhetorical question. What is so attractive about fear? In either case, Peak Oil doom day scenario, or not, the fact that more and more power producers are exponentially being made available each new day – and I can begin listing the one’s I now about, here, but that would take up a whole lot of space, in either case the progressive move of our species remains the same; which is to gain more productive power over and above the power consumed - just like every other living organism. To fail is to become extinct. Fear isn't very productive as far as powers go, unless, perhaps you are projecting fear unto your victims, then fear can incapacitate your victims and render them power-less. One man's treasure is another mans (or womans) fear?
Peak oil may very well be the least of our problems, but the concept illustrates that our planet's resources are limited.
The Sun is a limited resource of power; sure, what is the life expectancy of the sun? Gravity is a limited resource too, how long before gravity is no longer available? Why is fear so dear to the heart?
It cannot support growth indefinitely and unfortunately when you hit that ceiling of what the earth can support it's already too late.
Is that an example of fear mongering? I’m asking, for lack of comprehension concerning that well constructed sentence in English. It is good English, don’t get me wrong. I can read it. I have read it. I’m not getting the point – not exactly. I’m guessing that the point is to warn other people. Do you know something and having that knowledge you are now communicating that knowledge as a warning to other people?
Is that a reference to “overpopulation”? Am I to picture in my mind something like a future cannibalistic social future dooms day, after reading that sentence? To me this “overpopulation” scare is absurd. I live in the Mojave Desert, having moved here in the 70s from New Jersey. The state of New Jersey can hide in the Mojave Desert for ever, it seems to me, who would ever stumble upon it, some prospector, a bike rider, who, who would wander into that vast and empty Desert?
A plane trip, big jet plane, small plane, doesn’t matter, from Los Angeles to Las Vegas opens my eyes to this “overpopulation” scare. Then flying onward to New Jersey, trying to imagine people feeding off each other for lack of earth space, or earth resources, is a patented absurdity.
I’ve studied this topic, consider reading Eric Fromm – please.
Here is a link:
amazon.co.uk/Anatomy-Human-Destructiven ... 0712674896
If you do not read it, you won’t know where my thinking has been, you will not have my background in this discussion. That is fine.
I’m not saying that concern for economy is absurd, that would be a mistake if that is what you get from my words.
How about finding the top 10 most destructive human beings on the planet and then avoiding the real possibility of becoming one of their next victims? Is that an example of reasonable economy?
Is it better to focus attention on an inevitable pending doom day?
It's far from clear that we will make it that long if we face what has been described as the "perfect storm" of falling energy sources and food shortages which could lead to calamitous loss of life on a huge scale.
I call that misplaced economy or malinvestment of scarce resources for someone, anyone to place “falling energy sources” above political wars for profit where the people in command of those forces have access to dooms day weapons, or placing that “falling energy sources” scenario above the certainty concerning the planet earth contacting a large or fast or large and fast meteor. All these concerns can be prioritized, economized, placed in some reasonable order as with triage.
“Food shortages” keeps rearing its ugly head. Why is there a food shortage? Some sea weeds are nutritious and plentiful, easy to grow, taste good (at least according to some people) and so that food source could easily be grown in abundance, at least while the supply of sea water and CO2 holds out. Have you adjusted your focus at all towards the Modular Green House farming business currently growing on this planet? Do you see the implications of such a move from central power control toward individual or “sovereign” control (or power) over food supplies?
Why is food scarce?
During the thing that became known as “The Great Depression”, I’ve been told by a survivor of it, the so called “government” ordered crops and livestock destroyed. Those so called “mistakes” (brain trust wisdom from another angle of view) continue; and for supposedly “good” reasons.
Why is fear mongering so attractive? I’m curious; I’d like to know the accurate answer.
So, I think these scenarios are frightening without "believing" they will definitely happen. I do think that the world is changing at an incredibly fast rate and that we really can't imagine what things will be like in 30 or 40 years.
Why are these scenarios produced, if not to cause fright? If someone does claim that they will definitely happen, does it matter much compared to someone saying that these frightening scenarios are likely to happen? What brings anyone to this viewpoint? Where is the data that supports this frightening scenario viewpoint? What is the cause of this frightening scenario viewpoint, or what is the cause of the possible, if not certain, frightening scenario? If it is true, get over the fear, and address the facts, yes or no? If it is "ambiguous", could it be ambiguos on purpose for some reason, for some self-interest, some profit, some leverage, some power?
1. Nuclear conflict beginning in Iran, soon, because the criminal Zionist leadership will attack and destroy people and property in Iran, as they have repeatedly declared to be there imminent intent.
2. Mass starvation resulting from depleted sources of power, food, water, etc.
Which targets are typically on the list of targets when legal criminals (Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney, to name but 4) target people in places they target for destruction?
1. Power stations
2. Hospitals
3. Bridges
4. Water processing plants
5. Baby food (milk) plants
“Oh, Joe, but the milk plant was “collateral damage”, and you are now obviously an anti-Semite and a conspiracy theorist so anything you say is meaningless.”
Why point people in a direction to fear “overpopulation” if such a wildly improbable scenario is hundreds of years away, if even a concern, and currently the most obvious threat to human survival, as a species, happens to be the same people offering the fear mongering campaigns?
“Global Warming is to be feared, and yes, we are still bombing the crap out of mid eastern civilizations, wiping them off the face of the earth, turning their rag head civilizations into parking lots, but they need democracy don’t you know, don’t mind such trivial matters – at all."
"Obey or be punished." Did I write that?
Let’s focus attention on things that really matter.
If oil is scarce, not abundant, then the political criminals are "over there" securing “national interests” which really means “oil” power.
This isn't NEWS, by the way.
If oil is abundant, and not scarce, then the political criminals are over there securing “national interests” which really mans “oil” power.
A. The scarce scenario requires that the monopoly power gains control of the remaining supplies of valuable resources
B. The abundant scenario requires the monopoly power to gain control of the abundant resources (or they will lose market share and no longer be a monopoly power).
Do you understand what constitutes a monopoly power? A power that can raise or lower production without significant loss of market share, and thereby control the price of the supply: is a monopoly power; or a consortium, or a cabal.
By any other name, it works the same way. It is power, not “energy”.
Joe