dagblog - Comments for "Peak Oil and the Tip of an Iceberg"

I don't have the data handy,

Saladin — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:14:30 +0000

I don't have the data handy, but I would also bet that you are wrong about the drop in coal prices. Coal was still worth alot even with the advent of oil. Its worth having now, even if its the cheapest cheap fuel source (ask the koch bros). I am sure they dropped circa 1873, becuase everything worldwide dropped during the first great depression, but I doubt they were a worse store of value then anything else, which your post seems to suggest.

But regardless of what energy commodity prices were back in the day of expensive transport networks we live in a globalized world now. If we don't buy the oil, someone else will. The "developing world" does not have the luxury of theortical EV fleets but they still have large economies now which are powered by internal combustion engines. And they don't give a shit that we don't factor their demand into our thinking.

Yep, still don't know what it

Saladin — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:59:21 +0000

In reply to Afford means, can we extract

Yep, still don't know what it means. Obviously my inclination is probably yours too--no, but that is a result of my cultural upbringing. At heart I'm a sentimental aesthetist, I don't like risky change that will make the world ugly. But can mankind afford it, and continue on? I don't know. I am not a soothesayer, but I would not bet against technological solutions even with the likelyhood of a few castrophic failures along the way. But then again, I don't think that I would bet for techonlogical solutions either--but i abhore the idea of SO2 scortching the sky.

That said, I would put all of my money on the table that we (collectively) are going to take the gamble whether it offends me or not. Armchair energy strategy posts like this one make me even more certain. I hope (and work towards) I am wrong in that.

You might find this

Donal — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:11:05 +0000

In reply to Donal, you got my curiosity

You might find this interesting, too.

Oil and the Economy by Chris Martenson

When I have the opportunity to present to and interact with people who are one the economic/financial side of the equation, they very rarely understand - truly understand - the energy side of the equation. You know, the not-so-subtle difference between total energy and net energy, and the fact that the first and second laws of thermodynamics have never been broken.

And in reverse, I often find that people in the energy camp do not really appreciate how the economy functions, and that it is really a complex system with multiple nested feedback loops predicated upon growth. In my view, each camp would benefit from spending a little bit more time in the other camp because both are really making some very profound assumptions.

The economic folks are assuming that energy will somehow be found and brought to market and the energy folks are assuming that the economy will be there to support their capital and technology-intensive efforts. Neither of these assumptions are very helpful if they help us overlook the potential disruption that declining net energy could unleash within our economy.

I think this coal to oil

Verified Atheist — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:41:49 +0000

In reply to Rule Brittania was the rule

I think this coal to oil transition is an important point. Holding onto reserves of oil now would be like holding onto reserves of coal in the 1860s or so. If you wait too long to cash in those reserves, their value actually start to drop, in this case as we develop alternative energy sources in earnest (out of necessity, which is why I'm not expecting it to happen quite yet).

Afford means, can we extract

Donal — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:13:14 +0000

In reply to China plans to double coal

Afford means, can we extract oil-like material now and do without water and arable land later.

They didn't convert their

Saladin — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:48:01 +0000

In reply to Rule Brittania was the rule

They didn't convert their fleets to oil until after the turn of the century, mostly circa WW1 and into the 20's, under the then first lord of admiralty Winston Churchill.

China plans to double coal

Saladin — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:35:55 +0000

In reply to But can we afford the

China plans to double coal production by 2030, without anything in the way of CCS. They are replacing dirty plants with clean ones that reduce particulates and other distasteful emmissons (no2, so2, etc.), but who gives a shit about C02. So we are going ot hit 500ppm, and probably much more, no matter what. The environment is going to change

Can we afford it? I don't know what that means. We've been an anthropocene for quite some time (at least since the 1500s). So the game continues with a whole lot less biodiversity and a shit load more risk for castrophic failure of our food systems.

My take, as soon as our elites made their Faustian bargin to baby the CCCP into the WTO to become the workshop of the world again we pretty much gave up controlling it. Even if the US and Europe goes 100% EV powered by renewables the rest of the rapidly developed world will demand the oil and gladly pay the price. As to the Bitomen and Kerogen? Nobodies going to let trillions of dollars sit in the ground (well some moral South Americans might try, but greed and an utterly broke Europeans will bring them around). We gave up control awhile ago, but who cares what I think we can afford.

I wasn't thinking of oil

moat — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 01:40:01 +0000

In reply to I think it is a mistake to

I wasn't thinking of oil fields, more of lots of little stashes of refined products stored here and there.

But your point about the limits of information control is well taken.

I think it is a mistake to

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 01:29:44 +0000

In reply to I get the idea of control of

I think it is a mistake to believe that the U.S. has any significant reserves which are known but the existence of which is being kept secret. Almost every single person who stands to make a buck or two on oil, or a billion of them, wants it now. They know they can't take it with them and they do not think about leaving one potential nickel underground for someone else's future.

Also, standard conspiracy theory problems come into play. Too many people would know of the existance of those oil fields to keep knowledge of them under wraps.

I get the idea of control of

moat — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:23:16 +0000

In reply to Peak Oil and the Tip of an Iceberg

I get the idea of control of energy as a weapon. After all, what else could that secret Cheney meeting (back in the day) have been about about but scarcity as a stick and money as a carrot to support imperial adventures.

But the combat scenario you depict overlooks the availabilty of nuclear weapons to turn resource "seige" warfare into something else pretty darn quick.

I think any resource war model has to accept the "four generations" idea of tactics brought about by developments in technology. The Defense Department is training their leaders in those tactics. The U.S. has got all the shock and awe they need if a fight gets large enough.

I agree about the unadvertised oil reserves.