[ExI] Whatever happened to peak oil by 2020?

[Tomaz Kristan]

Above every square centimeter f the Earth surface we have about 200 grams
of oxygen. And we have up to 10 (maybe more) grams of hydrocarbonates
beneath every square centimeters of the Earth surface.

We would be stupid, not to use that free enthalpy.


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:57 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 6, 2013  Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
>
>
>> > As of peak oil, it seems we are going to hit the wall one way or
>> another, if nothing in our ways changes.
>
>
> Obviously the amount of oil on this planet is not infinite so sooner or
> later we will run out, but the question is whether it is a existential
> danger that requires drastic action right now or we'll all be dead or
> living in a Mad Max style post apocalyptic hellscape by 2020. And besides,
> 10 years ago environmentalists were saying that if we don't stop our evil
> energy profligate ways within 5 years then we're doomed; well we didn't
> stop so I guess we're as doomed as doomed can be and so now the logical
> thing for environmentalists to do is let us enjoy the short time we have
> left before judgement day and just shut the hell up.
>
>
>> > So, Mr Clark (if I am right) postulated there was increase in
>> production, hence there was no peak.
>
>
> It seems to me that is a very valid postulate and not just for oil. If
> something, anything, keeps going up after point X is reached then point X
> is not a peak.
>
> > I guess, as prices increased so much, there are simply more wells
>> profitable enough to pump.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>>  > it is obvious (to me at least) that any reasonable alternative (nukes,
>> solar) is not going to do the job alone.
>
>
> You can never be certain how a new idea will turn out but it is not
> obvious to me that Thorium reactors couldn't get the job done.
>
>
>> > Unless some new tech emerges
>
>
> But it IS obvious to me that new technology will be absolutely useless if
> environmentalists get their way because they never met a energy source they
> didn't hate. Wind farms are ugly, disrupt wind patterns are noisy and kill
> birdies. Geothermal smells bad and causes earthquakes. Hydroelectric floods
> the land and new dams may also cause earthquakes. Bio-fuel diverts needed
> food production to fuel. Solar energy is so dilute that vast tracks of land
> are needed and that will endanger a desert lizard you never heard of. And
> of course there is the "N" word, the energy source so hated that tree
> huggers dare not speak its name. I however sometimes take the heretical
> view that the environmentalist's preferred solution to this problem,
> freezing to death in the dark, may not be ideal.
>
> > And BTW, I am not afraid neither of nukes nor of solar. I will be happy
>> to have thorium in my basement and solar on the roof, please. And a
>> computing cluster in between, of course. But I don't want coal plant
>> nearby, and I don't want to live under wind turbine
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130507/1b447bc3/attachment.html>