by Dreams End » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:12 pm
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'm LMAO at the "alternative thinking" folks who believe that the concept of Peak Oil is a scam put out by big oil to push up energy prices.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>We've done peak oil on this site and done it again and again. But JD brings up an interesting situation. Actually, several interesting situations.<br><br>First, unless I miss my guess, our buddy JD here is the guy who runs the "peak oil debunked" website. Here it is: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/">peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Now, that's kind of interesting on its own, isn't it. A guy who runs "Peak Oil Debunked" is here showing how people who don't believe in Peak Oil are laughably ignorant. (If you are NOT the same JD, then obviously much of this is irrelevant.)<br><br>Specifically, JD is "Peak Oil light", which simply says that we are running out of oil but there's time enough and ways enough to conserve and develop alternatives. He spends a lot of time debunking not peak oil, but the peak oil of the gloom and doom scenarios. Overall, I didn't really have a lot of problem with that. But I am starting to get a bit concerned, as to why JD would come in here, a haven (well, it used to be) for doom and gloom peak oilers and absolutely ridicule those who don't buy peak oil?<br><br>Another thing that's important is the logic here. He disputes the idea that oil companies might be manipulating peak oil themes in order to drive up prices by showing that Exxon is officially against peak oil concepts. I don't think ANYONE has ever argued that the oil companies are OFFICIALLY promoting peak oil. right or wrong, we've always suggested it was more covert. Obviously, all the stock reports and other papers put out by these companies say the same thing.<br><br>But on the other hand we have Chevron, who has turned Peak Oil, or at least the idea of dwindling supplies into a whole PR campaign. <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.willyoujoinus.com/discussion/">www.willyoujoinus.com/discussion/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>So, I guess we can't believe that we have plenty and we can't believe that oil is getting low, as both positions are advocated by the big oil companies. <br><br>Chevron and JD have something in common though. They are both pimping nuclear.<br><br>Chevron: <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Nuclear power has its proponents and skeptics, but it may reemerge as a significant source of energy.18 It has been developed extensively in several European countries, and currently provides 75% of France’s electricity.19 While concerns over operating safety and waste disposal linger, some environmentalists and governments find nuclear power appealing because it is relatively clean and emits no greenhouse gases.20<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.willyoujoinus.com/issues/alternatives/">www.willyoujoinus.com/iss...ernatives/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>JD:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>In the long run, the solution to peak oil works like this:<br><br>1) Conservation to reduce demand for energy (liquid fuels in particular) to the lowest possible level. This will involve retrofitting first world cities to eliminate the need for cars in ordinary life.<br>2) Using replacements (tar sands, natural gas, GTL, ethanol, coal liquefaction etc.) to substitute for liquid fuel demand which cannot be eliminated.<br>3) Shifting as much of the electrical grid as possible to nuclear (supplemented with wind/solar) to free up natural gas and coal for transport and feedstock applications (see #42).<br>4) Managing with nuclear and the remaining fossil fuels until plentiful, clean space energy (see #5, #33, #51, #104) can be brought on line.<br><br>Nuclear energy is a critical part of the solution, and the doomers often criticize it for it being unscalable.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005_09_25_peakoildebunked_archive.html">peakoildebunked.blogspot....chive.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Hmm...well, JD, I'm just gonna put you in my yellow flag column. JD is doing a good job of ousting the gloom and doomers, so I recommend his site for that reason. However, I really question this whole "nuclear is the answer" scenario, and your little tighwalk of being "anti peak oil" while coming over here and posting as you just did. And I have to say, it's not even the thoughtful sort of thing you usually post. I'm sure you are well aware of the Chevron ad campaign, so obviously SOME oil companies are promoting this idea, though in their official pronouncements they are not nearly as dire as many Peak Oilers. <br><br>I'm not accusing JD of being duplicitous, really. Here is the first paragraph of his very first post on peakoildebunked:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Peak oil is an inconvenience. If you want to get scared about something, try "Peak Energy". That's the point where all energy sources, totaled together, reach their peak and begin a grim decline. Obviously, we're not at that point now, and we never will be, as I will explain in a moment.<br>The fact is, the solution is staring everybody right in the face: coal and nuclear.<br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>From the getgo, he made his stance pretty clear.<br><br>I don't know anything about JD. It looks like he may be a good "trekkie". That is, he ultimately looks to space as our energy frontier and is optimistic (well, I USED to be more optimistic) about humanity and our ability to harness technology for a promising future. And hey, I like Star Trek too.<br><br>But I really have to question the whole nuclear or die scenario. <p></p><i></i>