|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
--------------------
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
|
Seriously, this is the very begining of the end if the American people remain quiet.
A quote attributed to Alexander Tyler (identified as a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) speaking of the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior may be in order here:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. [Bread and circuses]. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
Please take note of a chart of the US dollar index for a bellweather:
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
Where in the cycle above do you think we are today?
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
DieSpectra
Stranger

Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 109
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
|
Re: ~29%~... [Re: zorbman]
#5626469 - 05/13/06 09:39 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Fuck the privatly run for profit Federal Reserve! 
I'd say most of the population is in the complacency to apathy stage, with some in the dependence stage
|
grimR
hippiousmaximous


Registered: 03/29/06
Posts: 1,235
Loc: North America
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
|
are you telling me you don't find comfort in this man leading your country into armagedon?



some people say not to judge people by their looks, well I find this an exception
-------------------- - grimR -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- http://egolost.com "I am already given to the power that rules my fate. And I cling to nothing, so I will have nothing to defend. I have no thoughts, so I will see. I fear nothing, so I will remember myself." - Don Juan teachings
Edited by grimR (05/13/06 10:51 PM)
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
|
I'd say most of the population is in the complacency to apathy stage, with some in the dependence stage
How I wish that were true, my friend.
In my opinion we are well underway between dependence and bondage.
The best example of that is that as a nation we are utterly dependent upon foreign nations to service our debt. If they pull the rug out, our economy and thus military dominance will follow. If that doesn't represent dependency I don't know what does.
Also, as an oil importer we are at the mercy of nations who don't like us with our armies already stretched thin due to current commitments. Oil will be used more and more as a weapon in the future, and that has already begun now that the gap between supply and demand has continued to narrow.
I must confess, I don't like what this portends. But it doesn't stop me from confronting the sad truth: America's days are numbered.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
newuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
|
Re: ~29%~... [Re: zorbman]
#5630214 - 05/14/06 09:19 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Fortunately their are alternatives to crude oil such as liquified petroleum and coal. Both may polute more and be less affordable but they are at least temporary solutions to a problem.
|
downforpot
Stranger

Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
|
|
Quote:
cb9fl said: Fortunately their are alternatives to crude oil such as liquified petroleum and coal. Both may polute more and be less affordable but they are at least temporary solutions to a problem.
If you think that way then OIL IS ALSO A TEMPORARY SOLUTION to a our energy problem. The fact still remains that Brazil will energy independent in a year and the price of oil will have less effect on its economy, inflation, etc.
--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/4th25 "And I don't care if he was handcuffed Then shot in his head All I know is dead bodies Can't fuck with me again"
|
guri
Master of theimprobablitydrive

Registered: 01/10/04
Posts: 576
Loc: PNWish.
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
one positive of the constant posting of low polls is it shows some die hard republicans that thier president can do the wrong thing (i know a friend until recently would stand by bush in every decision). also ive noticed latley more republican senators are not as afraid of not supporting the president blindly as they used to be. do you think two years ago they would oppose him on issues as some of them do today?
-------------------- "If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? The Beatles were so fucking high, they let Ringo sing a few songs." --Bill Hicks
|
Catalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: ~29%~... [Re: zorbman]
#5635176 - 05/15/06 09:38 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
Exactly, and that began a long time ago with the "New Deal". Once it starts, it is impossible to reverse.
|
TheDude
is waiting forthe peak

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 2,876
|
|
Quote:
cb9fl said: Fortunately their are alternatives to crude oil such as liquified petroleum and coal. Both may polute more and be less affordable but they are at least temporary solutions to a problem.
Coal is no solution to the problem posed by the dwindling supply of fossil fuels. We use oil to mine coal so its inevitable scarcity will affect the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of coal. If we change the infrastructure to utilize energy derived entirely from coal then increased pollution and damage to the environment is inevitable.
Not to mention the fact that only a small percentage of the world's coal resources lie relatively close to the surface. As these easily accessible reserves are depleted the process of recovering coal will become more intensive and will require more energy to sustain. Estimates state that by 2040 the EROEI for coal will slide to .5 which means twice as much energy would be expanded in coal production than would be yielded to do useful work.
Coal is not the answer. Shale oil is not the answer. Nuclear and all the other alternatives combined are not feasible to sustain our current way of life. The infrastructure is not there and it takes years to develop and implement new sources of energy. The explosion in population that has occurred during the last 200 years is closely linked to the benefits provided by fossil fuels. When the fuel runs out it will no longer be possible to sustain the current population's demand for even the most basic agricultural commodities which are highly dependent on oil for global transport and fertilizer/pesticide production. All aspects of industrial society are dependent on a finite resource that may have already passed its peak supply.
Unchecked population grow has been modern civilization's greatest pitfall. It is about to bite us in the ass big time.
-------------------- "this lebowski he called himself 'the dude'. now, 'dude', that's a name no one would self-apply where i come from but there was a lot about the dude that didn't make sense to me...."--the Stranger
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: ~29%~... [Re: TheDude]
#5662517 - 05/23/06 12:05 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Can you say "crash"?
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: ~29%~... [Re: TheDude]
#5665169 - 05/23/06 03:41 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TheDude said:
Quote:
cb9fl said: Fortunately their are alternatives to crude oil such as liquified petroleum and coal. Both may polute more and be less affordable but they are at least temporary solutions to a problem.
Coal is no solution to the problem posed by the dwindling supply of fossil fuels. We use oil to mine coal so its inevitable scarcity will affect the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of coal. If we change the infrastructure to utilize energy derived entirely from coal then increased pollution and damage to the environment is inevitable.
Not to mention the fact that only a small percentage of the world's coal resources lie relatively close to the surface. As these easily accessible reserves are depleted the process of recovering coal will become more intensive and will require more energy to sustain. Estimates state that by 2040 the EROEI for coal will slide to .5 which means twice as much energy would be expanded in coal production than would be yielded to do useful work.
Coal is not the answer. Shale oil is not the answer. Nuclear and all the other alternatives combined are not feasible to sustain our current way of life. The infrastructure is not there and it takes years to develop and implement new sources of energy. The explosion in population that has occurred during the last 200 years is closely linked to the benefits provided by fossil fuels. When the fuel runs out it will no longer be possible to sustain the current population's demand for even the most basic agricultural commodities which are highly dependent on oil for global transport and fertilizer/pesticide production. All aspects of industrial society are dependent on a finite resource that may have already passed its peak supply.
Unchecked population grow has been modern civilization's greatest pitfall. It is about to bite us in the ass big time.
Coal is a fossil fuel. It can also be turned into petroleum although that is not yet cost effective. Oil shale is not mined because it is not yet cost effective. There is a whole hell of a lot of both of them
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/nationalsecurity.html
"The USA has an abundance of natural resources that can replace imported crude oil:
The United States has an estimated 270 billion tons of recoverable coal in existing mines, equivalent to three or four times as much energy in coal as Saudi Arabia has in oil. That's only the coal in existing mines. If you consider total recoverable reserves, the U.S. has nearly 500 billion tons of coal. And, if anyone thinks the USA may run out of coal soon, consider the North American oil shale deposits are far greater than American coal deposits. American oil shale is estimated to hold over 1 trillion barrels of oil."
Where do you get this nonsense? And just what does this mean? "Estimates state that by 2040 the EROEI for coal will slide to .5 which means twice as much energy would be expanded in coal production than would be yielded to do useful work."
What does it mean "useful work"?
Blah blah blah, the sky is falling. "Mommy, I'm scared."
--------------------
|
vintage_gonzo
Stranger

Registered: 04/08/06
Posts: 457
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
|
|
i have read otherwise zappa. i dont know who is right but this site says differently. http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net "What About Synthetic Oil From Coal?"
Coal can be used to make synthetic oil via a process known as gasification. Unfortunately, synthetic oil will be unable to do all that much to soften the coming energy crash for the following reasons:
I. Insufficiency of Supply/"Peak Coal":
The coal supply is not as great as many assume. According to a July 2004 article published by the American Institute of Physics:
If demand remains frozen at the current rate of
consumption, the coal reserve will indeed last roughly 250
years. That prediction assumes equal use of all grades of
coal, from anthracite to lignite. Population growth alone
reduces the calculated lifetime to some 90−120 years. Any
new uses of coal would further reduce the supply. . . .The
use of coal for conversion to other fuels would quickly
reduce the lifetime of the US coal base to less than a human
lifespan.
Even a 50-75 year supply of coal is not as much as it sounds because coal production, like oil production, will peak long before the total supply is exhausted. Were we to liquefy a large portion of our coal endowment in order to produce synthetic oil, coal production would likely peak within 2 decades.
|
TheDude
is waiting forthe peak

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 2,876
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Coal is a fossil fuel. It can also be turned into petroleum although that is not yet cost effective. Oil shale is not mined because it is not yet cost effective. There is a whole hell of a lot of both of them
I've already covered why coal is not feasible, and shale oil does not come close as an energy source. The process involves mining ore, transporting it, heating it, adding hydrogen and disposing the waste which is a ground-water pollution hazard and is of much greater volume than the ore used at the beginning of the process. Not to mention the need for fresh water (an even more precious resource) in the processing facilities.
Tar sands won't help either. In order to replace oil and supply the global demand (lets say 70 million b/d) we would need about 700 more plants due to the low net-energy figures of oil sands. The amount of waste produced by these plants would have a detrimental effect to the environment. It is foolish to think these would make up for the decline in the global production of oil.
Quote:
"The USA has an abundance of natural resources that can replace imported crude oil:
The United States has an estimated 270 billion tons of recoverable coal in existing mines, equivalent to three or four times as much energy in coal as Saudi Arabia has in oil. That's only the coal in existing mines. If you consider total recoverable reserves, the U.S. has nearly 500 billion tons of coal. And, if anyone thinks the USA may run out of coal soon, consider the North American oil shale deposits are far greater than American coal deposits. American oil shale is estimated to hold over 1 trillion barrels of oil."
All this blurb points out is that we have a lot of coal in the ground. That's great, guess what? We also have a lot of oil still left in the ground but the problem is the EROEI is too low to make accessing the supply a worthwhile venture. We use oil in the process of mining and transporting coal so as the price of oil goes up it will inevitably affect coal as well. I'm done repeating myself though.
Quote:
Where do you get this nonsense?
This "nonsense" comes from two books "Beyond Oil" by John Gever and "The Party's Over" by Richard Heinberg. I appreciate you taking a condescending tone from the get-go, very conducive to conversation.
Quote:
And just what does this mean? "Estimates state that by 2040 the EROEI for coal will slide to .5 which means twice as much energy would be expanded in coal production than would be yielded to do useful work."
What does it mean "useful work"?
"Useful work" refers to all the work we currently need energy to do (namely electricity since the majority of coal is used to generate electricity in the US). This basically states that by 2040, 1 unit of energy acquired from coal will require an expenditure of 2 units of energy to harness. That is a net-energy loss! That will not sustain the increasing energy demands required to support modern industrial societies.
Quote:
Blah blah blah, the sky is falling. "Mommy, I'm scared."
More mockery, how nice...
-------------------- "this lebowski he called himself 'the dude'. now, 'dude', that's a name no one would self-apply where i come from but there was a lot about the dude that didn't make sense to me...."--the Stranger
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: ~29%~... [Re: TheDude]
#5669241 - 05/24/06 03:52 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I call bullshit on basicly everything in your post. The idea that it will take twice as much energy to extract coal as it will produce in 2040 is absurd.
"Beyond Oil"..... "Between the years 1995 and 2005 the US will reach the point of being unable to search for domestic oil economically, although we may still persist in doing so for the agricultural sector, making it even more heavily subsidized than it is now. This type of "uneconomic" oil production by richly endowed, low-cost foreign producers and exporters is expected to begin around 2040. As a result, the US GNP per capita is predicted to slide starting in the 1990s, coinciding with the passing of the era of inexpensive oil." There's some world class bullshit from a 20 year old book. Unlike you I will post a link. http://dieoff.org/page20.htm The other one, "The Party's Over", doesn't seem quite as ludicrous, although I have not read it. No wait, from the synopsis he seems to be positing that discovery peaked in the '50s. To which I reply, big fucking deal, we had just figured out how to look for it and found a lot. Decades worth. We keep finding more. As to your ridiculous assertions vis a vis coal and oil shale I look forward to your immensely informative and specific links. It should be excellent reading.
I've listened to chicken little nitwits all my life and they are never right. Ever. Most of your bullshit seems to come from the Beyond Oil book which is 20 years old and already shown to be nonsense
--------------------
|
vintage_gonzo
Stranger

Registered: 04/08/06
Posts: 457
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
|
|
what about my quote with my link?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
More Chicken Little bullshit, in my opinion. We need to figure out fusion. That has always been the case. But we are not going to implode any time soon.
--------------------
|
TheDude
is waiting forthe peak

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 2,876
|
|
Quote:
I call bullshit on basicly everything in your post. The idea that it will take twice as much energy to extract coal as it will produce in 2040 is absurd.
And your source to back that up is...
Quote:
"Beyond Oil"..... "Between the years 1995 and 2005 the US will reach the point of being unable to search for domestic oil economically, although we may still persist in doing so for the agricultural sector, making it even more heavily subsidized than it is now. This type of "uneconomic" oil production by richly endowed, low-cost foreign producers and exporters is expected to begin around 2040. As a result, the US GNP per capita is predicted to slide starting in the 1990s, coinciding with the passing of the era of inexpensive oil." There's some world class bullshit from a 20 year old book. The other one, "The Party's Over", doesn't seem quite as ludicrous, although I have not read it. No wait, from the synopsis he seems to be positing that discovery peaked in the '50s. To which I reply, big fucking deal, we had just figured out how to look for it and found a lot. Decades worth. We keep finding more.
So now we're on to discussing domestic oil production in the US? The discovery of new domestic oil reserves peaked in the 1930's and has been in steady decline since. Domestic oil production peaked in the 1970's and likewise has been in a steady decline. Worldwide discoveries peaked in the 1960's. These are facts. We simply aren't discovering new oil to keep up with demand and it has been this way for a while. This has nothing to do with flaws in our discovery methods, it stems from the fact there are no more supergiant oil reserves left to be found. No amount of new discovery projects or methods will change the fact that there is a finite amount of oil in the ground and nearly all of it has already been recovered.
"Of greater immediate consequence is that the major petroleum exporting nations have little additional reserve production capacity.16 Figure 4 shows the difference in the year of maximum discovery and annual discovery compared with production. The world’s peak year of discovery was 1964 and 1980 the final year discovery paced consumption. The subsequent discovery falloff was, at least in part, from the resulting oil surplus. The trendline marked with dark diamonds shows the number of new drilling rigs each year. The trendline demonstrates that the spirited attempts to locate new oil fields peaked in 1980 and subsequently succumbed to geologic realties. The chart also illustrates that despite periods with price spikes over decades, little or no lessening of the consumption gap is evident. In the year 2002 total world discoveries was only approximately 15% of consumption, 3 – 6 Gbl.17 The failure to close the gap in recent years using sophisticated discovery and drilling technologies is clear as well." *link
If domestic oil depletion is any indicator for a global production peak, then it should occur 40 years after the peak in discoveries (Hubbert predicted between 1990-2000). However, political events affect the supply and demand for fossil fuels and one of the reasons global oil production did not peak in the 90's like Hubbert predicted is due to the reduced supply made available during the oil embargo in the 1970's. Many events have occurred since 'Beyond Oil' was published in '91 and these have greatly affected the supply of and demand for oil. For example, Iraq's current export rates are no where near the levels they were before the war so they may not peak until 2015.
The main point is peak oil is rapidly approaching and it is foolish to waste time debating over the exact year/month/day it occurs. We will only truly know the peak after it has already passed, which will be far to late to react accordingly. Peak oil is on its way and there is little we can do to mitigate its effects.
Quote:
As to your ridiculous assertions vis a vis coal and oil shale I look forward to your immensely informative and specific links. It should be excellent reading Unlike you I will post a link. http://dieoff.org/page20.htm
Unlike you, I don't believe all the answers are located on one convenient webpage. I mentioned the books that I'm largely using as references. Aside from scanning the pages and their footnotes ( ) I can't help you. Time to do some work on your own.
-------------------- "this lebowski he called himself 'the dude'. now, 'dude', that's a name no one would self-apply where i come from but there was a lot about the dude that didn't make sense to me...."--the Stranger
Edited by TheDude (05/24/06 09:47 PM)
|
zorbman
blarrr


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
|
Quote:
More Chicken Little
Me thinks we're encountering a fowl of a different flavor:
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: ~29%~... [Re: zorbman]
#5670527 - 05/24/06 10:07 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
We seem to have strayed pretty far from the topic of this thread. From poll numbers to net neutrality to peak oil.
I'm going to lock this thread. If anyone wishes to continue arguing about peak oil, I suggest they bump one of the about four dozen threads about peak oil which have appeared here in the past few years, AND tie in some political or activist angle to it... i.e. what should GOVERNMENT do about the supposed "peak oil crisis" (thus tying in to politics) or what should ACTIVISTS persuade government or business or consumers to do about the supposed "peak oil crisis" (thus tying in to activism) or what LAWS should be changed by the government in order to deal with the supposed "peak oil crisis".
Phred
--------------------
|
|