@1981busch, please say more about what you mean. From wikipedia: "Drake suggested that a large number of extraterrestrial civilizations would form [in the Milky Way Galaxy], but that the lack of evidence of such civilizations (the Fermi paradox) suggests that technological civilizations tend to disappear rather quickly....This theory stimulates an interest in identifying ways in which humanity could destroy itself, and then counters with hopes of avoiding such destruction..."
@peakmoment Ok, the drake equation is something like, the number of stars capable of having planets/the number of stars that have planets that can sustain life/ the number of planets that develop intelligent life... ect, I purpose the addition of the factor, The number of planets that develop fossil fuels/the number of planets that develop enough fossil fuels to enable advancement to surpass there dependency... this seems to explain a lot of the drake equations paradox, unfortunately.
Sadly, this era's politicians lack the spine to ask citizens to make the sacrifices that will be needed to get off fossil fuels, and, by and large, most people don't have the willingness to make sacrifices for future generations. The kind of will to make collective changes that made the generation that fought World War II the greatest generation would seem to be sadly lacking in today's citizenry. At least here in the states.
Im from Australia, and we have, a similar problem to the USA, Suburbain sprawl. The problem with suburban sprawl, is that it promotes motor vehicle dependency. City design is something that can encourage people to use more efficient and less oil using transport, such as riding a bicycle, or catching an ellectric train. I watched a show called the end of suburbia, and it confirmed what I always thought (suburbia as an idea is stupid.
Im not sure why no one seems to talk much of an old friend, the common bicycle, and how it is one solution, particularly for short distances, and has the added benefit of reducing obesity, and improving health.
@KrunchyJD, so right! Peak Moment's episode 17 is "The Joy of Biking". For those with health or terrain challenges, we also have episode 40, "Go Electric: Bike Commuting Made Easy." It's not the solution for everybody (e.g., we live on mountainous gravel roads, lots of up and down, so it's not really biking terrain) -- but it is for many more people than now bike.
we are living in the dark ages. watch the BBC documentary 'a farm for the future' to understand why.
pay particular attention to when they mention crop yields of permaculture farming (hint, they are high, especially when in the light of it's energy input which is close to 0). there is a possible future for humankind but it will require a massive cultural shift. the documentary is on google video in full. good luck
Part 3: You se garbage as garbage. For us it's a recourse and energy. Also instead of burning up old furniture and wood it's quite easy to grind them down to small pieces and use i as bioenergy, heating up houses or use it to make paper. Also there are like 400 million people who are pooping every day. On top of that there are millions of pigs pooping aswell. there is a giant energy source litterally flushed down the drain.
Part 4: All of this poop can easily be made in to biogas, to fule up cars. Putting extra insulation and insulation windows is quite expensive, BUT it does wonders on your energy bill and is saved up within a couple of years. Recykling is one of the things that saves themost, both energy and nature. scandinavians recycles up to 96% of their beercans, and we love our beer. If anyone is curious how to live a sustainable life look for "hammarby sjostad" on youtube. It's about a suburb of stockholm.
Part 5: And for the love of God, bye a more energy efficiant car. It saves a ton of energy and a ton of the enviroment. I would prefer a electric car cos it makes such a cool sound. I know ther aren't that many yet. But until then you can drive less. There is no need to drive if the destination takes a 15 minute walk. Stop bitching about peakoil, (from evil saudis i might ad), when you have abundance of energy right in your country, that you're just waisting. there is not just one way of NRG,
Thats the catch 22. Cars take a lot fossiel fuel to manufacture. It takes over a decade to save more than what was spent on manufacture (its why a big 'peak oil' speaker drives a old cadilac!)
Also the personal car in itself is a broken concept. The payload on a journey is only 85kg in a 1 tonne car. That is appalling about of weight your paying to move around for no reason. Hence public transport is the way. If you have to go personal it gonna have to be a scooter or a sleek 1 seater.
Yes, cars take alot of energy to manufacture. That is why it's important to look at country of origin. Swedish cars are produced with electricity from 50% hydro an 50% nuclear sources. American cars almost 100% oil and coal. Chinese and korean cars are probably the worst. I would prefer cars from iceland. 100% hydro and geothermal. zero pollution.
I agree with public transportation part. But it's easy for us europeans to talk with excellent public transp. In USA and AUS it's almost nonexistent. also, i have a 1,5 hour busride to my job. It takes 1 hour to walk, 25 min to ride a bike and 10 min to drive. what would you prefer 6 am one rainy cold wintermorning? The car is going to be needed in the near future by many people. Specially families, Until the public/personal transportation is developed.
Yes true, but I believe those factories could build trains and track quicker than they can replace the worlds 625m and growing fleet of cars. If even a fraction of the resources used to replace this fleet every 20 or so years was used to public transport there could be a train every 5mins that moves at 200mph.
The car is still a nice idea, but in the future it should become a weekend tool. Much lighter much more efficient traffic problems in all cities will force that if oil does not.
I totally agree with you, but not all of us live in britain. I live in Sweden. 4 times larger than britain 9 million people. we are wery spread out. 100% public transp does not work. the largest majority really needs their car as public trans. would never work here. Unless the population grew 10 times( witch would be devestatinng for the world) Unfortunatly we are to many people in the world. The only way to survive is to stop feeding the 3d world. Talk about catch 22... (i'm going to hell ...)
yes, but goods distribution could be more dependent on rail rather than lorry etc.. cars are not bad when you have more than 1 person in them too. In sweeden you have the advantage that land can be purchased too for direct links. In the uk a big problem is its cramped and we have awful railways that bend through the country. trains don't go past 70mph and you have to change trains when going only 40miles or so. In some ways being sparser is better in the implementation stage.
goods should defenetly be distributed more on rail. I think we have had an increase of goods on rail the past few years. The government has been investing alot in the railwaysystem these past few years. We have the largest tunnelproject for rail in europe currently. Hallandsåstunnel. It´s really a interesting project, that i can recommend looking up, it' s even on the discoverychannel. Allthough being sparser is expensive for a small population, so it will take time to build out infrastruct
@gabbe81 Yes, and NO, We need to design our cities and housing, so that people can live close to work. When you dont design a city around the car, distances are shorter, and you just let car traffic get into gridlock. Then people discover, that getting to work is quicker on a bike.
PART 1:. wow, you guys are way to addicted to gas and coal, that it's blinding your common sences. I mean you are WASTING your energy as if it would be ok. There are tons of easy things you can do without cutting back on your lazy lifes. to begin with the easiest: if every american would replace1 lightbulb with the energy efficiant saving bulb, 1 nuclearreactor could be shut down. Imagen what would happen if everyone would have replaced every lightbulb,
PART 2: Secondly, imagen what would happen if every californian would have preheated their hotwater with the help of the sun, before it goes in to the waterheater. This could be done really ceasy with the help of some black gardenhozes. Imagen the gas you would save, and the amount of MONEY! Also scandinavians have heated their houses and hotwater with garbage for ages. The garbage is firstr ecycled and then burnt in a incinerator, then endless miles of pipes connects the houses and heats them.
does everyone know how fucked we really are? Black shiny coal (which contains the most energy) is becoming rare. It is costing more energy to dig up the lower energy coal - which will cause electricity energy prices to continue to rise.
Type in google search - Chris Martenson - The Crash Course.
His free video talks all about energy, the economy, environment and the converging crisis that lies less than 20 years out.
Heinberg says we have decades of coal -- but the highest quality coal is indeed getting more expensive to mine. And burning coal is an environmental disaster -- its carbon emissions are among the highest.
@mycatisromeo That is why the coal companies are using mountain top removal in w. Virginia. All the easy low hanging fruit has been picked be it oil, nat gas, coal, et al. Forget Peak Oil it is peak everything. This is why we are drilling deeper in the Gulf of Mexico, why we are in Iraq, why we are threatening Iran, why Palin wants to drill in ANWR, etc. When the pieces of the puzzle come together you see a scary picture.
Yes, gasoline prices keep going down, along with costs for many other assets. That's what a recession does -- we're seeing deflating prices both as there's less demand and also as big investors sell off their shares to get cash.
you know what is confusing? We entered the recession Dec. 2007, yet gas skyrocketed all the way into mid 2008. What if the recession never "set in"? Where would gas prices be now? What happens if we turn around the recession soon (doubtful) how quickly could gas prices return to $4.00+? If the economy continues to grow and speculators keep buying oil, we could see $5.00+ gas easily in the next 5 years.
yes, that is confusing, but I think there are different forces at work. Last summer I think we saw demand exceeding supply, so prices rose. Then, with the credit crunch, a lot of big investers had to raise cash in a hurry to stay solvent, and they sold oil (among other things), causing the price to plummet. Now, with the recession/depression and less economic activity, demand is down, so prices are down. Gas prices will go up whenever supply can't meet demand.
Everybody has an answer to everything from oil peak to alternative energy solution, but in reality they are just a bunch of parrots who have nothing but their empty words.
Bullshit. New oil fields are coming online every day. Tar sands in Alberta. Shale in South Dakota. Billions of barrels of recoverable oil. Everyone will be JUST fine!
The new oil fields do not have the capacity to make up for declines in the existing fields. The tar sands and shale are far more costly to process. Non-industry observers, and now even the International Energy Agency--who've insisted for years we have plenty of oil--are saying supply cannot keep up with demand. We WILL be just fine -- but have to use much less.
A big problem we will be facing this year is the fact that OIL sands become cold during the winter, which makes them difficult to work with. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
America uses far more fossil fuels per person than these countries (at 5% of world population we use 25% of the petroleum). If we nuke them, are we prepared to be nuked back by others who see us as greedy fossil-fuel users? Are we prepared to blanket the planet in nuclear fallout, which will harm all of life, including ourselves? How would this make life better?
It seems like people in these forums manage to find the best solutions on every single issue! Usually following the pattern of envoirmental rape, racism, and nuclear attack :) Is this representative of your country?
@peakmoment War is natural check on population. The problem with a prolonged period of increasing living standards among human is that population starts to rise dramatically. Exponential population growth is a disaster waiting to happen for humans AND the enviornment. Humans consume too much for the planet to support 10 billion of us. Humans will continue consuming to the point that there will be nothing left for humans in the future or there will be war among humans.
The chinese, russians, europeans and indians are aready looking at the USA as the biggest problem and not as a solution. USA's credibility is gone. And that's all you've got. The dollar is worth shit and 60% of your industrial production is owned by saudis, chinese, mexicans, indians, indonesians. This is a result of your own greed. Yow you've got to pay the bill.
Listening to Jim Paplova on FinancialSense: in January he predicted $125/barrel oil by December. He's had to revise it in May--and thinks $140/barrell by December. He says we're in a paradigm shift, and after a "crisis window" between 2009-2013, the world will look very different.
Far from it. Richard Heinberg is an educator, formerly with New College of California, and author of a wide number of books on science and culture.
The oil companies are not investing much in new refineries: they're apparently quite aware there are far fewer new oil wells being found, and thus no one wants to invest in a declining resource.
Peak oil, diminishing energy supplies, can be scary to imagine. They are already changing our lives.
Pissing in the wind. Drop in the bucket. Social control and fear are the order of the day. This is how the ruling class and there servants will get by Peak Oil.......... The rest of us get the bird flue.........
As Richard notes, we won't run out of oil or coal--it'll simply get more and more expensive to extract and refine the harder-to-use materials: it will take more energy than they give back. The tar sands require huge amounts of natural gas and water, and are hugely polluting the environment. See Richard's Peak Everything for data on coal, too.
The largest tax we pay for gasoline and oil is hidden. It is our subsidies of military and security operations in many countries from whom we get oil, or need access to oil. See Peak Moment episode 98, "Energy Independence - America's Road Not Taken".
if Finland makes all its fields to produce bio fuels (not eco) it isnt enought for trucks and buses, its just 5 times too short.. heh, quess what, we get starvation problem here in western world as well, in BIG amounts ;)
Same is true in America: it would take 4 times our farmland to produce fuel needed for our vehicles. And that leaves no room for food! Biofuels are too energy-inefficient except for very limited usage.
Yes, I understand they're working on developing this source. However, even biodiesel from algae can't replace all the petroleum...without jeopardizing ecosystems and other uses for land and water. We still need to hugely reduce our consumption.
Er...... They DONT jeaopardize ecosystems. There's no way. If they have algae ponds in the desert, then its not going to affect any ecosystem. Moreover it does exceed easily the consumption of fuel by U.S. If you dont agree, it would be interesting for me to know why.
Algae ponds in the desert, in any great measure, disrupt the desert ecosystems--deserts are not throwaway places. Burning biofuels will still emit carbon, exacerbating global climate chaos. At this time, diesel is only about 2% of our transportation usage...but biodiesel cannot replace ALL of our liquid fuels with huge land re-allocation.
Desert ecosystem is only snakes and scorpions. Nothing else lives there and if they do, then we're more important than those animals. Algae need a lot of carbon dioxide to grow well, so they take carbon dioxide from the air and when we use the biofuel we give out carbon dioxide, so it doesnt do any damage to the environment.
Eventhough diesel is only 2 percent, which i dont believe is true, but anyway taking that its 2 percent the cars should be changed to diesel vehicles. So there wont be any petrol vehicles. Isnt very hard to do that for a normal person. I dont know what u mean by re-allocation. No re-allocation is needed unless there are people living in the desert, which i doubt there are.
Your right. Im persuaded that biofuels will starve even more people off. Ovbisouly not in Western countries. Americans and co, will still get their gallons of oil.. to live their fast paced lives
It's not Americans which suddenly would need more oil. It's about the economical growth of China and India which places such a huge demand on oil, that in about 5 years the demand of oil is more then the supply. Society as we know it will change. Better enjoy it while we still can.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Peak oil theory is untrue, oil is abiotic and comes from deep inside the Earth, not a 'fossil fuel' made from decayed organic matter. Technological advancements in drilling technology means we can drill deeper than we ever thought possible before and tap an essentially unlimited oil reserve. "Peak" population and peak oil etc. is a Malthusian notion.
Are you willing to gamble away your childrens' and grandchildrens' quality of life on that? Don't you think the petroleum geologists know what they are talking about?
Prove it.
Drill as deep as you want, you can make up pretty stories all you want, but...
Things are the way they are. Not the way we want them to be.
The only problem with your argumnet warchild81 is that 99.999% of all the oil and gas accumulations found up to now on earth have a biologic (not abiotic) origin. See the article 'Petroleum: To Be Or Not To Be Abiogenic', authored by M. R. Mello and J.M. Moldowan.
Drilling deeper will only reveal a very limited number such biological reserves since they all derive from buried decayed matter.
No bustermk2, don't forget the world is only 6012 years old so God put the oil in the persian gulf not pixies. This is why George Bush likes the Saudi Arabian Government. He sees the House of Saud as part of a divine plan.
But you would have to change all the reactors to use Thorium or the reprocessing-technologies. This is costy and takes time. Before that, Uranium-prices will go up (they already rose tenfold in the last three years) and this is not a good choice either.
Not that easy I´m afraid. It could take 40 years to get Thorium power online. I hear someone say 15-20 years, but I don´t think that is very realistic. Even though Thorium solves some of the typical nuclear power problems, there will still be a lot of nuclear waste that must be handled. It will definately not solve the peak oil problem.
Peak oil, well lets put it this way. Peak Oil adds another large factor to the Drake Equation, one that earth, coincidentally, does not likely meet.
1981busch 10 months ago
@1981busch, please say more about what you mean. From wikipedia: "Drake suggested that a large number of extraterrestrial civilizations would form [in the Milky Way Galaxy], but that the lack of evidence of such civilizations (the Fermi paradox) suggests that technological civilizations tend to disappear rather quickly....This theory stimulates an interest in identifying ways in which humanity could destroy itself, and then counters with hopes of avoiding such destruction..."
peakmoment 10 months ago
@peakmoment Ok, the drake equation is something like, the number of stars capable of having planets/the number of stars that have planets that can sustain life/ the number of planets that develop intelligent life... ect, I purpose the addition of the factor, The number of planets that develop fossil fuels/the number of planets that develop enough fossil fuels to enable advancement to surpass there dependency... this seems to explain a lot of the drake equations paradox, unfortunately.
1981busch 10 months ago
Sadly, this era's politicians lack the spine to ask citizens to make the sacrifices that will be needed to get off fossil fuels, and, by and large, most people don't have the willingness to make sacrifices for future generations. The kind of will to make collective changes that made the generation that fought World War II the greatest generation would seem to be sadly lacking in today's citizenry. At least here in the states.
absentmindedprof 1 year ago
Im from Australia, and we have, a similar problem to the USA, Suburbain sprawl. The problem with suburban sprawl, is that it promotes motor vehicle dependency. City design is something that can encourage people to use more efficient and less oil using transport, such as riding a bicycle, or catching an ellectric train. I watched a show called the end of suburbia, and it confirmed what I always thought (suburbia as an idea is stupid.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
Im not sure why no one seems to talk much of an old friend, the common bicycle, and how it is one solution, particularly for short distances, and has the added benefit of reducing obesity, and improving health.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago 5
@KrunchyJD, so right! Peak Moment's episode 17 is "The Joy of Biking". For those with health or terrain challenges, we also have episode 40, "Go Electric: Bike Commuting Made Easy." It's not the solution for everybody (e.g., we live on mountainous gravel roads, lots of up and down, so it's not really biking terrain) -- but it is for many more people than now bike.
peakmoment 1 year ago
we are living in the dark ages. watch the BBC documentary 'a farm for the future' to understand why.
pay particular attention to when they mention crop yields of permaculture farming (hint, they are high, especially when in the light of it's energy input which is close to 0). there is a possible future for humankind but it will require a massive cultural shift. the documentary is on google video in full. good luck
polyzygote 2 years ago
Part 3: You se garbage as garbage. For us it's a recourse and energy. Also instead of burning up old furniture and wood it's quite easy to grind them down to small pieces and use i as bioenergy, heating up houses or use it to make paper. Also there are like 400 million people who are pooping every day. On top of that there are millions of pigs pooping aswell. there is a giant energy source litterally flushed down the drain.
gabbe81 3 years ago
Part 4: All of this poop can easily be made in to biogas, to fule up cars. Putting extra insulation and insulation windows is quite expensive, BUT it does wonders on your energy bill and is saved up within a couple of years. Recykling is one of the things that saves themost, both energy and nature. scandinavians recycles up to 96% of their beercans, and we love our beer. If anyone is curious how to live a sustainable life look for "hammarby sjostad" on youtube. It's about a suburb of stockholm.
gabbe81 3 years ago
Part 5: And for the love of God, bye a more energy efficiant car. It saves a ton of energy and a ton of the enviroment. I would prefer a electric car cos it makes such a cool sound. I know ther aren't that many yet. But until then you can drive less. There is no need to drive if the destination takes a 15 minute walk. Stop bitching about peakoil, (from evil saudis i might ad), when you have abundance of energy right in your country, that you're just waisting. there is not just one way of NRG,
gabbe81 3 years ago
Thats the catch 22. Cars take a lot fossiel fuel to manufacture. It takes over a decade to save more than what was spent on manufacture (its why a big 'peak oil' speaker drives a old cadilac!)
Also the personal car in itself is a broken concept. The payload on a journey is only 85kg in a 1 tonne car. That is appalling about of weight your paying to move around for no reason. Hence public transport is the way. If you have to go personal it gonna have to be a scooter or a sleek 1 seater.
CmdrTobs 2 years ago 2
Yes, cars take alot of energy to manufacture. That is why it's important to look at country of origin. Swedish cars are produced with electricity from 50% hydro an 50% nuclear sources. American cars almost 100% oil and coal. Chinese and korean cars are probably the worst. I would prefer cars from iceland. 100% hydro and geothermal. zero pollution.
gabbe81 2 years ago
I agree with public transportation part. But it's easy for us europeans to talk with excellent public transp. In USA and AUS it's almost nonexistent. also, i have a 1,5 hour busride to my job. It takes 1 hour to walk, 25 min to ride a bike and 10 min to drive. what would you prefer 6 am one rainy cold wintermorning? The car is going to be needed in the near future by many people. Specially families, Until the public/personal transportation is developed.
gabbe81 2 years ago
Yes true, but I believe those factories could build trains and track quicker than they can replace the worlds 625m and growing fleet of cars. If even a fraction of the resources used to replace this fleet every 20 or so years was used to public transport there could be a train every 5mins that moves at 200mph.
The car is still a nice idea, but in the future it should become a weekend tool. Much lighter much more efficient traffic problems in all cities will force that if oil does not.
CmdrTobs 2 years ago
I totally agree with you, but not all of us live in britain. I live in Sweden. 4 times larger than britain 9 million people. we are wery spread out. 100% public transp does not work. the largest majority really needs their car as public trans. would never work here. Unless the population grew 10 times( witch would be devestatinng for the world) Unfortunatly we are to many people in the world. The only way to survive is to stop feeding the 3d world. Talk about catch 22... (i'm going to hell ...)
gabbe81 2 years ago
yes, but goods distribution could be more dependent on rail rather than lorry etc.. cars are not bad when you have more than 1 person in them too. In sweeden you have the advantage that land can be purchased too for direct links. In the uk a big problem is its cramped and we have awful railways that bend through the country. trains don't go past 70mph and you have to change trains when going only 40miles or so. In some ways being sparser is better in the implementation stage.
CmdrTobs 2 years ago
goods should defenetly be distributed more on rail. I think we have had an increase of goods on rail the past few years. The government has been investing alot in the railwaysystem these past few years. We have the largest tunnelproject for rail in europe currently. Hallandsåstunnel. It´s really a interesting project, that i can recommend looking up, it' s even on the discoverychannel. Allthough being sparser is expensive for a small population, so it will take time to build out infrastruct
gabbe81 2 years ago
@gabbe81 Yes, and NO, We need to design our cities and housing, so that people can live close to work. When you dont design a city around the car, distances are shorter, and you just let car traffic get into gridlock. Then people discover, that getting to work is quicker on a bike.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
PART 1:. wow, you guys are way to addicted to gas and coal, that it's blinding your common sences. I mean you are WASTING your energy as if it would be ok. There are tons of easy things you can do without cutting back on your lazy lifes. to begin with the easiest: if every american would replace1 lightbulb with the energy efficiant saving bulb, 1 nuclearreactor could be shut down. Imagen what would happen if everyone would have replaced every lightbulb,
gabbe81 3 years ago
PART 2: Secondly, imagen what would happen if every californian would have preheated their hotwater with the help of the sun, before it goes in to the waterheater. This could be done really ceasy with the help of some black gardenhozes. Imagen the gas you would save, and the amount of MONEY! Also scandinavians have heated their houses and hotwater with garbage for ages. The garbage is firstr ecycled and then burnt in a incinerator, then endless miles of pipes connects the houses and heats them.
gabbe81 3 years ago
does everyone know how fucked we really are? Black shiny coal (which contains the most energy) is becoming rare. It is costing more energy to dig up the lower energy coal - which will cause electricity energy prices to continue to rise.
Type in google search - Chris Martenson - The Crash Course.
His free video talks all about energy, the economy, environment and the converging crisis that lies less than 20 years out.
Real scary stuff.
mycatisromeo 3 years ago
Heinberg says we have decades of coal -- but the highest quality coal is indeed getting more expensive to mine. And burning coal is an environmental disaster -- its carbon emissions are among the highest.
Chris's Crash Course is excellent.
peakmoment 3 years ago
@mycatisromeo That is why the coal companies are using mountain top removal in w. Virginia. All the easy low hanging fruit has been picked be it oil, nat gas, coal, et al. Forget Peak Oil it is peak everything. This is why we are drilling deeper in the Gulf of Mexico, why we are in Iraq, why we are threatening Iran, why Palin wants to drill in ANWR, etc. When the pieces of the puzzle come together you see a scary picture.
rdsanchez1966 1 year ago
Allah o akbar! Fear the might of the oil producing legions of Islam!
AbtinX 3 years ago
You claimed it would never be $2.00 again.
hollisbishop 3 years ago
I filled up for $1.25 this week.12/25/2008 THATS A BIT LESS THAN $2.00 A GALLON.
hollisbishop 3 years ago
Yes, gasoline prices keep going down, along with costs for many other assets. That's what a recession does -- we're seeing deflating prices both as there's less demand and also as big investors sell off their shares to get cash.
peakmoment 3 years ago
you know what is confusing? We entered the recession Dec. 2007, yet gas skyrocketed all the way into mid 2008. What if the recession never "set in"? Where would gas prices be now? What happens if we turn around the recession soon (doubtful) how quickly could gas prices return to $4.00+? If the economy continues to grow and speculators keep buying oil, we could see $5.00+ gas easily in the next 5 years.
mycatisromeo 3 years ago
yes, that is confusing, but I think there are different forces at work. Last summer I think we saw demand exceeding supply, so prices rose. Then, with the credit crunch, a lot of big investers had to raise cash in a hurry to stay solvent, and they sold oil (among other things), causing the price to plummet. Now, with the recession/depression and less economic activity, demand is down, so prices are down. Gas prices will go up whenever supply can't meet demand.
peakmoment 3 years ago
Everybody has an answer to everything from oil peak to alternative energy solution, but in reality they are just a bunch of parrots who have nothing but their empty words.
moniequa 3 years ago
Is Iraq defeated?
Oh yeah that's right, W said "Mission Accomplished!"
postpeakman 3 years ago
Bullshit. New oil fields are coming online every day. Tar sands in Alberta. Shale in South Dakota. Billions of barrels of recoverable oil. Everyone will be JUST fine!
manco82 3 years ago
The new oil fields do not have the capacity to make up for declines in the existing fields. The tar sands and shale are far more costly to process. Non-industry observers, and now even the International Energy Agency--who've insisted for years we have plenty of oil--are saying supply cannot keep up with demand. We WILL be just fine -- but have to use much less.
peakmoment 3 years ago
A brief and specific response to your assertion is on globalpublicmedia (.) com/want_cheap_oil_reduce_demand
peakmoment 3 years ago
A big problem we will be facing this year is the fact that OIL sands become cold during the winter, which makes them difficult to work with. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
yogiudo 3 years ago
hahahahaha ... wow
AbtinX 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the problem is China,& India, nuke them NOW!
rmhm73 3 years ago
America uses far more fossil fuels per person than these countries (at 5% of world population we use 25% of the petroleum). If we nuke them, are we prepared to be nuked back by others who see us as greedy fossil-fuel users? Are we prepared to blanket the planet in nuclear fallout, which will harm all of life, including ourselves? How would this make life better?
peakmoment 3 years ago
It seems like people in these forums manage to find the best solutions on every single issue! Usually following the pattern of envoirmental rape, racism, and nuclear attack :) Is this representative of your country?
AbtinX 3 years ago
@peakmoment War is natural check on population. The problem with a prolonged period of increasing living standards among human is that population starts to rise dramatically. Exponential population growth is a disaster waiting to happen for humans AND the enviornment. Humans consume too much for the planet to support 10 billion of us. Humans will continue consuming to the point that there will be nothing left for humans in the future or there will be war among humans.
DaFuckyouat 1 year ago
No, the problem is the USA.
The chinese, russians, europeans and indians are aready looking at the USA as the biggest problem and not as a solution. USA's credibility is gone. And that's all you've got. The dollar is worth shit and 60% of your industrial production is owned by saudis, chinese, mexicans, indians, indonesians. This is a result of your own greed. Yow you've got to pay the bill.
WolYou 3 years ago
is not the solution...
sardhouse76 3 years ago
In 6 months oil price will be $250\barrel.
Chromegrillz 3 years ago
This was posted in June 2007.
Now almost a year later the price of West Texas Intermediate Crude has doubled.
CobblyWorlds 3 years ago
Listening to Jim Paplova on FinancialSense: in January he predicted $125/barrel oil by December. He's had to revise it in May--and thinks $140/barrell by December. He says we're in a paradigm shift, and after a "crisis window" between 2009-2013, the world will look very different.
peakmoment 3 years ago
Why don't they build more "refinery's"? This guy is full of it and works for the gas companies.
duinay2 3 years ago
Far from it. Richard Heinberg is an educator, formerly with New College of California, and author of a wide number of books on science and culture.
The oil companies are not investing much in new refineries: they're apparently quite aware there are far fewer new oil wells being found, and thus no one wants to invest in a declining resource.
Peak oil, diminishing energy supplies, can be scary to imagine. They are already changing our lives.
peakmoment 3 years ago
Pissing in the wind. Drop in the bucket. Social control and fear are the order of the day. This is how the ruling class and there servants will get by Peak Oil.......... The rest of us get the bird flue.........
OrignalLignator 3 years ago
stop driving those freighttrucks you call
cars, why do they have to be so big anyway ?
are you people so fat you can't in a normal car ?
dieper2dieper 3 years ago 3
People are all ways trying to scare people,the sky is falling.
The oil sands of Alberta,the reserve is huge,the gasafaction of coal.America has a 400 year supply of coal..
Some company like Dupont will develop synthetic gasoline in 5 to 15 years,there is so much money to be made..
ClarksonsinUSA 3 years ago
As Richard notes, we won't run out of oil or coal--it'll simply get more and more expensive to extract and refine the harder-to-use materials: it will take more energy than they give back. The tar sands require huge amounts of natural gas and water, and are hugely polluting the environment. See Richard's Peak Everything for data on coal, too.
peakmoment 3 years ago
Cut the floorboards out of all the cars and make like the Flintstones.
Problem solved.
Next?
dstad 4 years ago
in the UK ITS NEARL $10 a gallon!
WTF! its 84% tax ovr here so..... you are lucky in the US
were taxed up to the Nuts!
stevebenross 4 years ago
The U.S. pays hidden taxes -- paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are for control of the Middle East, including the oil.
peakmoment 4 years ago
Its time for the people to vote in a new goverment,on a low gasoline tax pledge..
ClarksonsinUSA 3 years ago
The largest tax we pay for gasoline and oil is hidden. It is our subsidies of military and security operations in many countries from whom we get oil, or need access to oil. See Peak Moment episode 98, "Energy Independence - America's Road Not Taken".
peakmoment 3 years ago
if Finland makes all its fields to produce bio fuels (not eco) it isnt enought for trucks and buses, its just 5 times too short.. heh, quess what, we get starvation problem here in western world as well, in BIG amounts ;)
Stafroty 4 years ago
Same is true in America: it would take 4 times our farmland to produce fuel needed for our vehicles. And that leaves no room for food! Biofuels are too energy-inefficient except for very limited usage.
peakmoment 4 years ago
Heard of oil from algae? Biodiesel from it is the future and its not far.
geoffreyphilip 4 years ago
Yes, I understand they're working on developing this source. However, even biodiesel from algae can't replace all the petroleum...without jeopardizing ecosystems and other uses for land and water. We still need to hugely reduce our consumption.
peakmoment 4 years ago
Er...... They DONT jeaopardize ecosystems. There's no way. If they have algae ponds in the desert, then its not going to affect any ecosystem. Moreover it does exceed easily the consumption of fuel by U.S. If you dont agree, it would be interesting for me to know why.
geoffreyphilip 4 years ago
Algae ponds in the desert, in any great measure, disrupt the desert ecosystems--deserts are not throwaway places. Burning biofuels will still emit carbon, exacerbating global climate chaos. At this time, diesel is only about 2% of our transportation usage...but biodiesel cannot replace ALL of our liquid fuels with huge land re-allocation.
peakmoment 4 years ago
Desert ecosystem is only snakes and scorpions. Nothing else lives there and if they do, then we're more important than those animals. Algae need a lot of carbon dioxide to grow well, so they take carbon dioxide from the air and when we use the biofuel we give out carbon dioxide, so it doesnt do any damage to the environment.
geoffreyphilip 4 years ago
Eventhough diesel is only 2 percent, which i dont believe is true, but anyway taking that its 2 percent the cars should be changed to diesel vehicles. So there wont be any petrol vehicles. Isnt very hard to do that for a normal person. I dont know what u mean by re-allocation. No re-allocation is needed unless there are people living in the desert, which i doubt there are.
geoffreyphilip 4 years ago
"If they have algae ponds in the desert, then its not going to affect any ecosystem. Moreover it does exceed easily the consumption of fuel by U.S."
the problem is, you started with "if".
when there are algae ponds producing 85 Mil barrels per day let me know.
postpeakman 3 years ago
Your right. Im persuaded that biofuels will starve even more people off. Ovbisouly not in Western countries. Americans and co, will still get their gallons of oil.. to live their fast paced lives
dinosaurtattoo 4 years ago
It's not Americans which suddenly would need more oil. It's about the economical growth of China and India which places such a huge demand on oil, that in about 5 years the demand of oil is more then the supply. Society as we know it will change. Better enjoy it while we still can.
smerlinbabylon 4 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Peak oil theory is untrue, oil is abiotic and comes from deep inside the Earth, not a 'fossil fuel' made from decayed organic matter. Technological advancements in drilling technology means we can drill deeper than we ever thought possible before and tap an essentially unlimited oil reserve. "Peak" population and peak oil etc. is a Malthusian notion.
warchild81 4 years ago
Warchild -
Are you willing to gamble away your childrens' and grandchildrens' quality of life on that? Don't you think the petroleum geologists know what they are talking about?
Prove it.
Drill as deep as you want, you can make up pretty stories all you want, but...
Things are the way they are. Not the way we want them to be.
postpeakman 4 years ago
The only problem with your argumnet warchild81 is that 99.999% of all the oil and gas accumulations found up to now on earth have a biologic (not abiotic) origin. See the article 'Petroleum: To Be Or Not To Be Abiogenic', authored by M. R. Mello and J.M. Moldowan.
Drilling deeper will only reveal a very limited number such biological reserves since they all derive from buried decayed matter.
calmyourselfnow 4 years ago 3
True ... oil is put into the earth by the abiotic oil pixie and will last forever.
bustermk2 4 years ago
No bustermk2, don't forget the world is only 6012 years old so God put the oil in the persian gulf not pixies. This is why George Bush likes the Saudi Arabian Government. He sees the House of Saud as part of a divine plan.
doctormodesto 4 years ago
yes, that's right, but don't forget the magical phosphorus-replenishing leprechauns and the coal fairy.
postpeakman 3 years ago
Its all about making your own economic footprint smaller. Energy needs cannot be supported from renewables at the current rate of consumption.
bio diesel
fossil fuel
its all finite.
the question is how finite...
the sooner consumers realize that each and every one of us ARE the problem the better.
lextalionis2001 4 years ago 3
Lower American Dollar value + higher energy prices = WAR
DKW2088 4 years ago 2
Good video.
But running out of Uranium isn't a real arguement.
Since they could always switch to Thorium, which is 3x more availible than Uranium.
(And then there the whole issue of reprocessing)
Anyways, I'm no fan of nuclear, but a strawman arguement does no help on that front.
greyflcn 4 years ago
But you would have to change all the reactors to use Thorium or the reprocessing-technologies. This is costy and takes time. Before that, Uranium-prices will go up (they already rose tenfold in the last three years) and this is not a good choice either.
Toji85 4 years ago 2
Not that easy I´m afraid. It could take 40 years to get Thorium power online. I hear someone say 15-20 years, but I don´t think that is very realistic. Even though Thorium solves some of the typical nuclear power problems, there will still be a lot of nuclear waste that must be handled. It will definately not solve the peak oil problem.
Einherjarnet 4 years ago 2
in australia, we already pay around $4.00 a gallon and its really starting to hurt the budget
alger71 4 years ago