You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #48: I disagree with the analysis [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
Maurkov Donating Member (126 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-04 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. I disagree with the analysis
Hubbert curves are real, however, looking at their behavior in the US and in Venezuela does not help us predict their behavior in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Why? Because when the US and Venezuela reached their peaks, there was still an ocean of oil over there. Our depleted reserves didn't affect the global price of oil. When SA and Iraq reach their peak, the price of oil will rise.

The definition of "reserves" is hinged on the market price. As the price goes up, the amount in reserves goes up. Oil that could not be extracted at a profit now can be. To be flippant, we will never run out of oil; we just won't be able to afford it anymore. What that means is that applications that require oil will be able to get it. Applications where there is a cheaper substitute will use the cheaper substitute.

One problem is net energy. At some point, it requires more energy to extract the oil than can be reclaimed from it. Oil becomes an energy sink. Again, applications that require oil are going to be able to get it, but only by injecting more energy from other sources into the system.

That segues into the next problem: Where will this other energy come from? This is where environmentalists (and I count myself as one of them) need to make some hard choices. Which alternative energy sources have the least downsides? Cases can be made for and against all of them, but when we're talking about an alternative to shedding 90% of the human population, I think we can make some sacrifices. Nuclear power will probably fill in everywhere that wind, hydro, and solar can't meet the need. Biodiesel will be used where energy density is important (like transportation).

This will not be painless. There will be environmental degredation as we exploit every available energy source. Energy is an input into everything, so increasing energy prices will trigger widespread inflation. But then high energy prices will encourage conservation better than a month of Earthdays. It's regressive, but it will work where nothing else has. Most people will suffer a loss in their standard of living. Most people will not die off.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC