| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Absolutely. Quite a cunning plan this, to make the Muslims a scapegoat for peak oil. Strange that the biggest reserves of oil and gas are in Muslim countries.
I imagine that when oil depeletion does become significant, it'll be blamed on Muslim terrorists abroad preventing supply reaching the West. Any excuse will do other than admit to the people that the politicians failed to manage the oil problem in a mature way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
You boys back again with your peak oil propaganda.
Why dont you post up alternatives to Crude Oil?
How oil is last century's fuel.
I dont want to use oil, it is the same old story.
Look Americans drive the same type of cars, were the same type of cloths, listen to the same music, eat the same food for the last 30 years or more. They are living in a brain washed society. Dont fall into the same trap you have to adapt, making oil using bacteria was invented 30 years ago. Making plastic from organic matter. Making fuel from sugar and vegetable oil, animal fat, etc.
Hydrogen fuel cells.
So why still be beating the drum for this peak oil myth?
Oil will NEVER run out the same way that coal will never finish.
Buy the time 200 years from now oil starts to run out we we will probably only use oil to make vaseline and nothing else.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | You boys back again with your peak oil propaganda.
Why dont you post up alternatives to Crude Oil?
How oil is last century's fuel.
I dont want to use oil, it is the same old story.
Look Americans drive the same type of cars, were the same type of cloths, listen to the same music, eat the same food for the last 30 years or more. They are living in a brain washed society. Dont fall into the same trap you have to adapt, making oil using bacteria was invented 30 years ago. Making plastic from organic matter. Making fuel from sugar and vegetable oil, animal fat, etc.
Hydrogen fuel cells.
So why still be beating the drum for this peak oil myth?
Oil will NEVER run out the same way that coal will never finish.
Buy the time 200 years from now oil starts to run out we we will probably only use oil to make vaseline and nothing else. |
Stelios, you live in a fantasy world. It's good to see that you still have your head in the sand despite all the evidence posted to you. Just keep taking the happy pills. Ignorance is bliss and all that.
Without oil, you'd be poor, hungry and unemployed and no amount of alternative energy options will change that. You fail to appreciate the simple issue of scale and how despite alternatives to oil being available, none can be produced on the scale that oil is consumed. NONE. So wake up you idiot and get a grip. This NWO stuff is *. The madness we are witnessing is down to oil and gas concerns by the US and UK. The CIA produced a report about concerns over peak oil back in the mid 70's, making the claim that we will hit peak at the turn of the millenium. (sadly, Watergate trod all over that story)
Only the abiotic crowd and Alex Jones dismiss peak oil. Everyone, including all oil company execs accept that it will happen. Up until now, some groups like the IEA have stated peak oil will not be a concern for another 20 years, a view shared by the oil industry (do you believe the oil industry?). But oh dear, even the IEA made a recent statement that things are no longer that rosey. See here. Looks like things are going to get bad within the decade. You might want to take note of the criticism levied on bio-fuels in this article- "not based on any kind of economic rationality".
And please stop bleating on about hydrogen fuel cells. It really does show up your complete lack of knowledge on the subject. Hydrogen is an energy carrier not an energy in itself. But to make hydrogen you need energy. So where does that energy come from in 20 years time? How do you manufacture the hydrogen infrastructure and new hydrogen cars if oil is running out? How do you do all of that on a scale to meet demand and prevent the economy from crumbling? Go answer that one before posting anymore lies. And while you're at it you might like to research the role of platinum in fuel cells and how we only have enough platinum in the world to manufacture cells for the next few years if everyone were to change to hydrogen cars.
Economic growth requires energy growth. Period. Energy reduction means economic contraction and that means poverty for us all. Surely even you can understand that. I suggest you go and read about how the Western economy works. But just in case you missed my point I'll repeat; no amount of energy alterantives can compensate for the oil and gas we currently consume, in fact by less than one half. So where does the energy shortfall come from to stave us from poverty? Tell me smart boy? You seem to know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: |
Without oil, you'd be poor, hungry and unemployed and no amount of alternative energy options will change that. |
What a load of crud.
How on earth does oil stop me or anyone else being poor, hungry or unemployed. Dont you think there is a world before oil? Or a world without oil? You are a misguided individual. Please tell me how the IBO's of Nigeria who export oil are not poor/hungry and unemployed.
If this dirty, vile black slime is such a precious commodity, why then does a litre of refined petrol cost less than a litre of the cheapest mineral water, before petrol duty and before VAT.
So oil is UNDERPRICED.
The people of the arab desert countries would eb better off hitting a water well than they are hitting an oil well.
| James C wrote: |
You fail to appreciate the simple issue of scale and how despite alternatives to oil being available, none can be produced on the scale that oil is consumed. NONE. So wake up you idiot and get a grip. This NWO stuff is *.
|
Listen you twat only one of us is talking * and that is you. If you have not accepted the alternatives which exist and are in daily use in many countries. How come Germany does not invade countries these days? They use alot of Bio-Diesel and have a highly devoloped alternative energy industry.
But the model is Brazil. Cars run on ethanol and electricity is made by a giant hydroelectric dam shared by paraguay.
| James C wrote: |
Only the abiotic crowd and Alex Jones dismiss peak oil. Everyone, including all oil company execs accept that it will happen. |
EVERYONE?
It is the oil companies who are making this propaganda.
And you like a fool who are lapping it up and then spewing your puke all over the internet.
| James C wrote: |
And please stop bleating on about hydrogen fuel cells. It really does show up your complete lack of knowledge on the subject. Hydrogen is an energy carrier not an energy in itself. But to make hydrogen you need energy. Go answer that one before posting anymore lies.
|
Ok, hydrogen is produced by passing a small electric current through water and using any electrodes not necessarily platinum.
So as a car is driving along it is generating it's own electric, and this can be recycled to produce hydrogen. So today using today's technology you can have a car like a toyota prius producing 150 miles per gallon. So do not give your readers the impression that fuel use ie either one or the other. You can use many fuels at the same time. I dont want to give you the name of the manufacturer because i want to buy shares in the company and have not had the spare cash.
| James C wrote: |
Economic growth requires energy growth. Period. Energy reduction means economic contraction and that means poverty for us all. Surely even you can understand that. I suggest you go and read about how the Western economy works. But just in case you missed my point I'll repeat; no amount of energy alterantives can compensate for the oil and gas we currently consume, in fact by less than one half. So where does the energy shortfall come from to stave us from poverty? Tell me smart boy? You seem to know. |
Why dont you read some proper books. Economies do not keep growing, they go through phases of growth and phases of recession. These have absolute jack to do with oil. Let me teach you infant school economics.
Wealth is neither created or destroyed it merely moves from one persons pocket to another persons pocket.
If my business is booming, my competitors business is contracting. If my country is exporting alot another country's economy will be importing those goods. EG: Remeber photocopiers well there was a time when the photocopier industry was booming. Now you cant give a photocopier away.
There was a time the video recorder VCR was booming and was a must have product, today they are on sale for £14.97 brand new in tesco's and nobody wants one. Oil will go the same way.
But i will humour you and respond, are you telling me that chinese factories churning out solar panels are not experiencing economic growth?
Are you saying a farmer in Brazil growing sugar cane to make ethanol is not experiencing economic growth?
Are you telling me the American company manufacturing hydrogen GENERATORS not hydrogen FUEL CELLS is not experiencing economic growth?
Are you telling me the British company manufacturing BIO-Diesel is not experiencing economic growth?
The free market always survives and market forces shift economy towards new products, directions and fuels. There is a world after oil, as there is a world after caol and gas and wood. Dont tell me you have forgotten that people once used coal and before that burnt wood.
People will make money from the post oil economy and jobs will be created. Pollution free. But your problem is that the post oil economy will not be controlled by the Bush family and their zionist freinds. That is what you are scared of.
Oil is politics it has nothing to do with economic reality. People like you are too naive to understand that and you have been brainwashed.
Wake up James.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mediadisbeliever
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 128
Location: North Humberside
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are huge oil reserves in Alaska, so why not use those first? Is this too easy for them or is it just not part of the plan for the New American Century?
I wonder...question everything!
Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pegasus wrote: | There are huge oil reserves in Alaska, so why not use those first? Is this too easy for them or is it just not part of the plan for the New American Century?
I wonder...question everything!
Ian |
Peak oil is not about reserves, it is about output. The US had the biggest reserves of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia yet its output has been dropping since 1970. The US now imports 25% of the world's oil everyday. At best, Alaska will supply roughly 1/80th to 1/90th of the world's daily supply if it is tapped. But if the majority of the world's oilfields are in decline by 8% per year (expected) then Alaska won't make a jot of difference. Neither will the tar sands of Canada and elsewhere where output will equally be fractionally small compared with the major oilfields.
Indeed, question everything but don't ignore the obvious issues and plump instead for the NWO option.
Last edited by James C on Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:21 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | | Economies do not keep growing, they go through phases of growth and phases of recession. |
Tell me, what happens when there is a recession? Could it be that many people lose their jobs and homes and cars and lifestyles. So yes, you are right, economies change over time and matters improve and this has been witnessed throughout history. But that is it in a nutshell. For the system to work properly and to prevent people from losing their jobs and homes and cars and lifestyles, the economy must aim to be in a period of growth at all times, regardless of whether it is.
Now, if the very ingredient which allows the economy to grow is suddenly taken away, then it's back to recession. And if no other alternative is available to replace it like for like then that recession will grow deeper. There will be no bright horizon ahead, not at least for a great many years as the people, economy and world (sorry, the West) adjust to a low energy lifestyle. Only then will things get better. But we'll never see our lifestyles return to how they are now which is damn f*cking cushy compared with how it will be in a few years to come.
So feel free to believe that somehow you are not governed by oil when actually you absolutely, fundamentally are and please feel free to imagine a world without oil where other technologies and energies will be utilised, but don't try and pretend that it will be business as usual because it won't. Bio-fuels, wind power, ethanol, solar panels and so on will generate only a fraction of the energy which oil currently gives us. Please feel free to prove me wrong. Go on, do it. Then have a think how you will make a solar panel cheaply if you don't have cheap oil and gas with which to make it. Now try and make make solar panels for all the 20+ million homes in this country by using plastic made from corn and electricty derived from wind power and ethanol. What space will be left to grow the food that we all need to live on?
Humans have done without oil for a very long time, then again the population was less than a half of what it is now, the death rate from disease and poverty was significantly higher, the majority of people worked the land for employment and food, and life expectancy was in the 40's. Only in the past 150 years has oil made a difference to us and boy, what a difference. So how do you think people wil react when they have to revert to the lifestyle of 150 years ago? Most people can't even cook these days, never mind cope with the concept of growing their own food. In fact, the majority of people will not be in a position to grow their own food as they live in gardenless properties such as flats. And how do you cook if you don't have gas, and electricity is restricted when there is no wind to drive the wind turbines?
And please don't think I am in any way supporting the oil industry. I'd love to see it disappear along with the Bush family. But the reality is that we in the West are totally addicted to oil only we just don't realise it. In the UK, we've had it real good since the North Sea yielded its oily crop. But NS oil and gas is dwindling fast and will be all but gone within 10-15 years. That leaves us reliant on Russia which ain't the best country to trust for our future energy needs. No wonder the US has missiles ready and waiting in and around the Baltic States. Besides, Reuters has reported today that Russia's oil output has been in decline since February of this year. Yesterday it reported that Iran is suffering a 5% decline year on year.
Denial is a wonderful thing. It exonerates you from having to change your attitudes and lifestyle. It also means you can blame someone else. I know, let's pick on the Zionists or anyone else in power that we don't like. All quite silly of course. Look at Israel for instance. Their current situation and all their propoganda is classic of a country running scared. Israel has no oil and gas reserves of its own. Is as dependent as the US on the Middle East for oil and gas and yet is bordered by enemies. The politicians there must be sh*tting themselves at the prospect of losing military aid from the US when oil and gas do run out and they appear desperate to resolve matters now rather than wait.
Of course, you'd rather remain in denial and go down the blame route. Mostly because you don't understand how it all works. Sad but true, as Metallica sing every now and again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's avoid calling each other fools. Thanks
My main problem with the theory that we face imminent peak oil is that it rests on the accuracy or honesty of the reserves figures produced predominently by western oil majors and the oil ministries of western friendly oil states.
Now call me a cynic, but I can't help noticing that these groups have a major vested interest in talking up oil scarcity and are hand in glove with the elites in the military/industrial/banking complex and that many of the most vocal proponents of peak oil are not independent.
I also believe that the alternatives to oil (such as a major programme of energy conservation/efficiency and renewables/'new' energy technologies) has never been seriously tried largely due to the insideous influence of the oil lobby so I take assertions that there is no alternative to oil with a huge pinch of salt.
I also don't accept the more shrill peak oil voices who say we face economic melt down and drastic population reduction and it is all inevitable and too late, etc.
I don't doubt that 'peak oil' will continue to be pushed and increasingly be accepted by media pundits and 'experts' but my strong hunch is that another major psyop from the death-cult globalists
The green/progressive movement should take care before taking the oil industry experts at their word.
Stellios, whilst it is undeniable that there is poverty and unemployment in many oil producing regions (eg Niger Delta) it is also undeniable that the economies of 'developed' nations is based on cheap oil and if cheap oil ends the economic impacts would be huge
But in a world where economics is largely governed by dark forces and where economic meltdowns often serve the interests of these dark forces, it is very difficult to discern what is true and is gloablist psyops/spin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | Let's avoid calling each other fools. Thanks
My main problem with the theory that we face imminent peak oil is that it rests on the accuracy or honesty of the reserves figures produced predominently by western oil majors and the oil ministries of western friendly oil states.
Now call me a cynic, but I can't help noticing that these groups have a major vested interest in talking up oil scarcity and are hand in glove with the elites in the military/industrial/banking complex and that many of the most vocal proponents of peak oil are not independent.
I also believe that the alternatives to oil (such as a major programme of energy conservation/efficiency and renewables/'new' energy technologies) has never been seriously tried largely due to the insideous influence of the oil lobby so I take assertions that there is no alternative to oil with a huge pinch of salt.
I also don't accept the more shrill peak oil voices who say we face economic melt down and drastic population reduction and it is all inevitable and too late, etc.
I don't doubt that 'peak oil' will continue to be pushed and increasingly be accepted by media pundits and 'experts' but my strong hunch is that another major psyop from the death-cult globalists
The green/progressive movement should take care before taking the oil industry experts at their word.
Stellios, whilst it is undeniable that there is poverty and unemployment in many oil producing regions (eg Niger Delta) it is also undeniable that the economies of 'developed' nations is based on cheap oil and if cheap oil ends the economic impacts would be huge
But in a world where economics is largely governed by dark forces and where economic meltdowns often serve the interests of these dark forces, it is very difficult to discern what is true and is gloablist psyops/spin |
Ian,
How can you base your theory of peak oil on a hunch then plead tolerance over the climate change issue because you believe what the government scientists are telling us about AGW is the truth. You cannot have it both ways. According to government scientists, if left untouched, climate change will cause a 20% drop in economic standards in this country. This could easily be taken to be perfect propaganda for the government don't you think? Yet you appear to believe this without question.
I understand what you say about the oil industry having a vested interest in trumping up scarcity but let's face it, the oil industry has been trumping up reserves for years. The reality is, the reserves are likely to be significantly smaller than we've been told. In other words, the lie is the other way around. It wasn't long ago that you were touting the words of the IEA about how peak oil is not imminent. How do you square that now that their latest outlook suggests they were wrong, as I posted above?
I would be interested to see your evidence that alternative energy supplies could easily replace oil and gas. It is impossible without some (probably a lot of) economic hardship.
Peak oil is so obvious as to be unquestionable. Blaming some sort of psy-ops is incredibly naive. Perhaps you could explain why the US produces half the oil it did 40 years ago? If that's not proof that peak oil theory is correct then I don't know what is. In case you don't know, the oil industry laughed at peak oil theory when it was first proposed by Hubbert only for him to be proved right a decade or so later.
Please don't forget, peak oil theory is not mainstream news. The government has never mentioned it nor has the oil industry. Apart from the odd article in most newspapers about oil scarcity, only The Independent and The Guardian have spoken directly about Peak Oil and that's only been in recent weeks. So where does this concept that it's being pushed by the media come from? You've been listening to too much of Ian Crane (and I'm still waiting for him to answer my questions which he conveniently chooses to ignore). Now the same cannot be said about climate change can it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi James
Whilst I believe GW is real, I don't accept that it is largely caused by humans. The jury is still out for me although the precautionary principle requires that in the face of this possibility and many other reasons (including the possibility of imminent peak oil) we should move away from carbon based fuels asap.
I'm afraid I'm probably v frustrating opponent since my argument against peak oil rests largely on the premis that big oil cannot be trusted and ASPO can not be trusted and that no one else is really in a position to build up a truly informed and independent picture on the extent of global oil reserves. Peak oil relies on us trusting the science and scientists of big oil. I don't
Similarly the debate on the alternatives to oil is dominated by big energy voices. When the govt's energy task force review says have to go nuclear and renewables are but a small part of the solution, I say that is more big business propaganda. Not very reasoned or evidence based I'm afraid, but I suspect if I did gather my evidence more scientifically it would leave you unmoved.
It is worth remembering that broadly we are in agreement. We both believe that we should move away from oil asap. The justifications for this are multiple. Big oil is at the heart of power and the MI complex. I hope that in the fallout of 911 truth, a great many other truths will also be revealed including the truth about peak oil, GW, hidden energy technologies, UFOs and so on. In the absence of such a wider disclosure of the states/miltary industrial secrets, we only have a partial picture
Cheers Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | Hi James
Whilst I believe GW is real, I don't accept that it is largely caused by humans. The jury is still out for me although the precautionary principle requires that in the face of this possibility and many other reasons (including the possibility of imminent peak oil) we should move away from carbon based fuels asap.
I'm afraid I'm probably v frustrating opponent since my argument against peak oil rests largely on the premis that big oil cannot be trusted and ASPO can not be trusted and that no one else is really in a position to build up a truly informed and independent picture on the extent of global oil reserves. Peak oil relies on us trusting the science and scientists of big oil. I don't
Similarly the debate on the alternatives to oil is dominated by big energy voices. When the govt's energy task force review says have to go nuclear and renewables are but a small part of the solution, I say that is more big business propaganda. Not very reasoned or evidence based I'm afraid, but I suspect if I did gather my evidence more scientifically it would leave you unmoved.
It is worth remembering that broadly we are in agreement. We both believe that we should move away from oil asap. The justifications for this are multiple. Big oil is at the heart of power and the MI complex. I hope that in the fallout of 911 truth, a great many other truths will also be revealed including the truth about peak oil, GW, hidden energy technologies, UFOs and so on. In the absence of such a wider disclosure of the states/miltary industrial secrets, we only have a partial picture
Cheers Ian |
Hi Ian,
The maturity of your reply is expected (unlike my highly charged rants) amd therefore applauded.
We do indeed need to move away from oil and I genuinely believe that peak oilers are attempting to pursuade people to do just that. The whole Transistion Towns idea, with its concept of reducing fossil fuel usage within communities, has been developed by peak oil activists. Peak oil theory also forms the basis for the permaculture movement in its modern form.
Sure, the oil companies will work in collusion with governments to create propaganda but there are just too many independent and knowledgeable voices out there discussing this subject for it to be a scam. Besides, the data speaks for itself. Which is pretty much like climate change, being a very complicated subject also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mediadisbeliever
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 128
Location: North Humberside
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been reading the posts on this topic intently for the past 45 mins and following James's Oil Drum Link regarding the IEA and reading what he has to say has given me great food for thought. However, I would be very interested to read more sources on the subject if you would kindly post them James.
We need to balance this argument more fairly by considering all the current energy sources available and as such we have not considered the Nuclear energy issue. According to John McCarthy of formal.stanford.edu http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html the Nuclear option is a safe and reliable source which is likely to meet the needs of the Western World's demands. However, as I have not read enough about Nuclear energy alternatives myself I could not say whether it would be suffice enough to replace that of oil.
Now let's restart this intellectual argument again gentleman please.
Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mediadisbeliever
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 128
Location: North Humberside
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Posted my last before I had the chance to read Ian Neal's mention of the Nuclear option | Quote: | | When the govt's energy task force review says have to go nuclear and renewables |
.
I'm now of the opinion that as we've got such a massive amount of internet information to hand supporting one theory and ridiculing another that we're all getting bogged-down with time consuming articles that we're left only with the ability to argue between ourselves.
Whether oil is at Peak or not there is no excuse to invade, rape and pillage a nation for its resources and it seems there are far too many people benefiting from the whole mess of war...namely the arms industry, the military industrial complex, and of course the media. Let's not forget also that this wholely unjust war was not only a result of 9/11 but that of op Desert Storm (First Gulf War)and the Bush senior administration. But, we ask who was pulling his strings?
James, you cannot take the NWO out of the equation in the energy issue because you cannot prove to me that they are not in on it. Until you can prove us wrong on this they will always be a serious option.
Consider this...is the energy option another means of divide and rule, just like religion?
Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pegasus wrote: | I've been reading the posts on this topic intently for the past 45 mins and following James's Oil Drum Link regarding the IEA and reading what he has to say has given me great food for thought. However, I would be very interested to read more sources on the subject if you would kindly post them James.
We need to balance this argument more fairly by considering all the current energy sources available and as such we have not considered the Nuclear energy issue. According to John McCarthy of formal.stanford.edu http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html the Nuclear option is a safe and reliable source which is likely to meet the needs of the Western World's demands. However, as I have not read enough about Nuclear energy alternatives myself I could not say whether it would be suffice enough to replace that of oil.
Now let's restart this intellectual argument again gentleman please.
Ian |
Hi Ian,
Not sure where to start and I have limited time right now but you could look at energybulletin.net. They have a primer to peak oil theory at the top and a whole host of articles relating to each energy alternative down the side.
I think you'll find the general consensus is that oil far exceeds anything in terms of calorific value, cheapness of supply, availability and diversity in use. Nuclear can only be used for electricity for instance. You can't make cars out of uranium and hope to enjoy the ride I don't think. Ethanol and bio-fuels require vast amounts of land to be grown and the yield is only a fraction of the oil we can extract everyday. These fuels will also likely be grown in poorer countries under the guidance of big agro-chemical companies which means the strangle hold of rich over poor will remain despite the oil companies ultimate demise. I have a feeling that the oil companies will take over this sector anyway. Look at BP. It runs the biggest solar PV company in the world with BP Solar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pegasus wrote: | Posted my last before I had the chance to read Ian Neal's mention of the Nuclear option | Quote: | | When the govt's energy task force review says have to go nuclear and renewables |
.
I'm now of the opinion that as we've got such a massive amount of internet information to hand supporting one theory and ridiculing another that we're all getting bogged-down with time consuming articles that we're left only with the ability to argue between ourselves.
Whether oil is at Peak or not there is no excuse to invade, rape and pillage a nation for its resources and it seems there are far too many people benefiting from the whole mess of war...namely the arms industry, the military industrial complex, and of course the media. Let's not forget also that this wholely unjust war was not only a result of 9/11 but that of op Desert Storm (First Gulf War)and the Bush senior administration. But, we ask who was pulling his strings?
James, you cannot take the NWO out of the equation in the energy issue because you cannot prove to me that they are not in on it. Until you can prove us wrong on this they will always be a serious option.
Consider this...is the energy option another means of divide and rule, just like religion?
Ian |
I don't believe in NWO. Where's the proof? What has Afghanistan got that we need so badly other than being a convenient route for the new TAP gas pipeline which will run between the Caspian region and Pakistan. Take away that pipeline and Afghanistan is nothing but a pain in the neck. Hardly what the NWO would want now is it?
Oil is energy is power. Hitler knew that and so does the Bush family. Of course there will be propaganda and a rush to seize power but if the reason is to make prisoners of us all and limit our lifestyles then I don't buy it for one second. No, the Bush family needs us to carry on just as we are, making money for them by keeping the economy strong, and so they need to control what oil there is left. If we all decided to live in the forests in yurts and live off the land, throwing off the chains of consumerism, then the Bush family and oil companies would be broke. That's why it is not in their interest to bleat about any possible problems with oil because more of us might just start doing that. Besides, their shareholders might begin to worry. In fact, peak oil is rarely mentioned by the oil companies. They certainly don't promote it as fact which any NWO could have organised quite easily by now if they really wanted to raise the oil price sky high. But they haven't.
One can say the same about climate change. Would the PTB, hell bent on NWO, promote something like climate change? No, because the central message of CC is to get us to reduce our fossil fuel energy consumption, which isn't good for the energy companies. More likely, the CC argument is a cover up for peak oil to mitigate the problems we will face as energy shortages become more common. That and the use of the current terror propaganda (which started with 9/11), which not only helps maintain our presence in the Middle East but allows future scenarios to be created whereby oil and gas constraints are blamed on Muslim terrorists without raising too many questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe all that is happening today needs to be seen on many different levels and with many different overlapping and complementary and occasionally competing agendas
Just to take Afghanistan as one example I can think of multiple motives
Afghanistan was an easy first target in the war on terror and cemented bin laden's responsibility for 911 in the public's mind
Attack on A provided pretext for US air bases in region
Chaos in Afghanistan is perfect for destabalising neighbours (Iran, Pakistan) and strengthens 'extreme' voices both within Pakistan military / ISI and religious parties
Chaos in A promotes resurgence of heroin production, CIA control of trade
Cheap heroin provides illicit revenue (anyone say iran-contra), undermines communities and promotes a 'law and order' agenda.
War is good for the war business (arms manufacturers, mercenaries, banks)
the destiny of a trans-afghan pipeline in the hands of the west: on-going chaos prevents caspian oil/gas passing through A, stability allows US contractors to control the oil/gas flow
There is a method to their madness and it is not ALL about oil and energy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi guys,
There are a lot of good points raised in the above posts. I have to say from my professional viewpoint that Oil is a finite resource and will (sooner or later) run dry. I have to raise a specific point with Ian here though. Ian states in a couple of places above about the size of reserves of oil left, which really misses the point. Infact, it doesn't really matter how much is left. simply that some day it will inevitably run out. The evidence that this 'peak' will happen in the next 10 to 20 years lies with the scale of new discoveries. We are currently only making new discoveries equating to a quarter of what we currently consume. Also, since this gap is widening from increasing consumption (mainly due to China's incredibly rapid expansion) and fairly stagnant to slightly falling discovery rates, it is difficult to see how this scenario can be sustainable.
I appreciate Ian's concern over the secrecy of big oil corporations and government resulting in your average dude not being party to all the evidence and facts. However, I sway towards the reason for this being that they actually are in a process of widening the gap between the have's and have not's. This will ensure that when economic collapse comes, the have's will survive any following population reduction, with the have not's being the ones who do not survive. The NWO is the single most important mechanism in the attainment of this goal, as Peak Oil is a global event which requires a unified global solution (If one can call this evil a solution!).
Put it this way, here in the UK we have oil and are just a micro version of the globe. Our oil is now past peak as we now import from the continent, where-as previously we used to export the stuff. It has happened here, infact, it has happened in something nearing 60 countries so far. This single fact should point to this very same thing happening in every country with oil reserves around the globe. I fail to see how this would not be the case?
Like I said before, it is not so much a point when it happens, simply that it will.
Ps. Global oil stocks are currently estimated at 1046.8 Billion Barrels, if we consume at current levels, which is around 78.6 Million barrels per day, taking into cosideration new discoveries of around 20 Million barrels / day....
Then: Time till we run out of oil = 10468000 / (78.6 - 20) = 178,634 Days... or (/365) = 489 years.
However, this may seem a lot, but it does not consider that 75% of the countries in the world are just embarking on their industrial revolutions and will dramatically increase their oil use. Nor does it consider the expected 50% increase in global population growth from 6 Billion to around 9 Billion by the year 2050'ish.
When these factors are taken into consideration (arithmentic too complicated to type here and by assuming best estimates of developing countries economic expansions), estimates range from 100 to 150 years left of readily available oil reserves. *Please note that during this time, as the oil becomes more scarce and greater demand is created for it, the price will rocket, investors will stop investing, confidence will drop and economies (ie people) will suffer.
I honestly believe that we are absolutely either, so close to global peak or right at global peak, that the first signs (9/11, oil wars etc) are already writing themselves into the history pages of humanity.
As for global warming... I believe that mankind will contribute a little more to the current warming cycle, but inevitably it will be a very temporary glitch before the oil runs out, population contraction takes place and good old mother nature reverts back to her former beauty.
The stone age, the iron age, the oil age... where next?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why was "Cold Fusion" so quickly ridiculed and dropped? That alone (I am sure there are others) tells you all you need to know about the oil industry and how it controls all energy issues. There is no need to be dependent upon oil if only we could stop the oil giants from suppressing any alternative.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue73/coldfusiondebatereig nited.html
| Quote: | Issue 73, May/June 2007
Infinite Energy Magazine
Cold Fusion Debate Reignited During March Meeting Madness
Scott Chubb
In my IE #72 editorial, “March Madness and March Meeting Madness,” I suggested that history would be made on March 5, 2007. It was. The setting was the 2007 March Meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) in Denver, Colorado, during the largest gathering of physicists in the world. Although the actual session appeared to be low-key, later I found out it wasn’t; truly great excitement occurred because during two consecutive sessions (Cold Fusion I and Cold Fusion II), held in Room 401 of the Colorado Convention Center, there were four talks that show the two big bugaboos no longer exist that have supposedly kept physicists from believing in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS): 1) Not being able to reproduce the excess heat effect on demand (which is now possible), and 2) The lack of high energy particles and radiation (both phenomena can be created, now, on demand). |
Rest of article at link above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks
It goes without saying that unless oil is abiotic (and I don't have the expertise to know one way or the other) then of course it will peak, the only argument that remains is when. The timing is important, since certain peak oil voices say it is imminent or already passed. In which case we would truly be in deep *. But again I can only say I smell an agenda here and I can't help notice the connections between ASPO and big oil / big money (the Astors).
Anecdotal I know, but I have spoken to several knowledgeable senior executives off the record about peak oil in a non-leading manner (people from BP, Schlumberger, people who should have an informed position) and they believe peak oil is being 'talked up' and the peak is ATLEAST 30 years away. Perhaps that is just business people not wishing to sound alarmist or despite their seniority them not knowing what they are talking about (wouldn't be the first time).
30 years would still make peak oil a pressing issue but not the pending armageddon ASPO say it is. I believe in 30 years you can turn the juggernaut around and find alternatives and this search for alternatives would be all the quicker and easier if our politics (both in the UK and US) were not so obviously in the clutches of big oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | Thanks
It goes without saying that unless oil is abiotic (and I don't have the expertise to know one way or the other) then of course it will peak, the only argument that remains is when. The timing is important, since certain peak oil voices say it is imminent or already passed. In which case we would truly be in deep *. But again I can only say I smell an agenda here and I can't help notice the connections between ASPO and big oil / big money (the Astors).
Anecdotal I know, but I have spoken to several knowledgeable senior executives off the record about peak oil in a non-leading manner (people from BP, Schlumberger, people who should have an informed position) and they believe peak oil is being 'talked up' and the peak is ATLEAST 30 years away. Perhaps that is just business people not wishing to sound alarmist or despite their seniority them not knowing what they are talking about (wouldn't be the first time).
30 years would still make peak oil a pressing issue but not the pending armageddon ASPO say it is. I believe in 30 years you can turn the juggernaut around and find alternatives and this search for alternatives would be all the quicker and easier if our politics (both in the UK and US) were not so obviously in the clutches of big oil. |
Why do you distrust ASPO? Just because the guys who run it were once part of big oil doesn't mean that they are in on some scam. Would you believe them more if they had never worked for an oil company? Then again, why would you seek the professional opinion of someone who had never worked in the profession they are criticising?
Similarly, why do you trust those who do currently work in big oil to tell you the truth. 30 years is by far the biggest estimation I've heard of by anyone other than a debunker. Even so, 30 years isn't enough time when you consider that the population will have doubled by then!
I'm sorry to say it again Ian, but you can't have it both ways and you are basing your argument on your own faith and not on the figures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo wrote: | | Then: Time till we run out of oil = 10468000 / (78.6 - 20) = 178,634 Days... or (/365) = 489 years |
Nice post Bongo but can I just pull you up on your maths here. I believe that in your desire to reduce the number of zeros you have one nought too many on the reserves figure above. It should be 1046800 which would give.
1046800 / 58.6 = 17863 days or 49 years
In fact, official reserves vary between 1016,000,000,000 barrels and 1650,000,000,000 with a daily consumption rate, less discoveries, of about 60,000,000 barrels. This gives a figure for total reserve depletion, assuming today's rate of consumtion remains (which it won't of course), of between 75 years and 46 years. Which means the concept that peak oil will happen in 30 years is absolute nonsense - sorry Ian. Of course, if discoveries suddenly jump then these figures will increase but if they drop off in line with the current trend as experienced since the 1960's then the figures will reduce. Basically this means instead of reaching a peak in 30 years as Ian says, it could be that we will reach absolute depletion in 30 years. or even less as consumption rates rise. I'm glad I'm not paying into a pension, the stock market will have crashed when I retire in 25 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the world today there are three huge manufacturing and exporting superpowers
Japan
China
Germany
None of them has much energy resources whether oil, gas or coal.
Yet this has not prevented them from becomeing the 3 most wealthy and creditworthy nations on earth. So oil does not mean wealth or even food.
lood at the major oil nations, people are walking around barefoot and hungry.
Wealth is controlled by a few elites who do not share with their people.
So i suggest oil is a bad thing, a dirty thing and is not necessary for wealth or growth.
It is a blatant propaganda lie.
America is the world s biggest debtor nation so much so they are planning to scrap the dollar soon 2009 and call it the amero with mexico and canada.
But more importantly the western elites do not control china/japan/germany to the extent that they control the UK. So they cant stop china developing new technology. Japans magnetic bullet trains. German roduction of alternative fuels. Dont forget India is coming up the rails fast too.
A crooked american senator bought and paid for by the oil lobby controlled by the rockefellers cannot tell China CNOOC not to go round buying up half of africa. They dont take orders from him like we do.
Energy consumption is falling NOT rising. Cars, planes, power stations all are working more efficiently and other improvements such as condensing boilers/LED lights/kinetic energy recycling mean energy use will continue to fall. Dont think JAPAN, CHINA, GERMANY, INDIA, want to use more fuel - they dont because they dont have any. India they burn cow dung as a fuel. Most energy saving equipment is made in china and exported here. They are leading the way.
James this next statistic completely blows your arguments away:
Todays news CHINA trade surplus $26.9 Billion for the month of JUNE
So why do you keep peddling the lie that oil means prosperity.
CHINA, JAPAN, GERMANY have no oil and yet they are raking it in and are growing on the back of new energy technology.
You made a comment about land for food?
Most of the planet is desert, if that land is reclaimed for solar panels or winds farms or energy crop production?
But you forget, An ear of corn after the oil is squeezed is used to make CORN FLAKES. So increased land planted with corn means MORE food not less. The same is true with every crop.
The oil can be used for fuel.
the husk can be used for fibre - cloth/plastics etc
and the edible food pulp can be eaten by animals as feed or by humans.
The most efficient crop is actually HEMP
But corn makes oil/sugar/fibre/food and it is not even a hard crop to culivate.
I would say James your theory is debunked.
Britain in Victorian/Edwardian times was the world's leading economy. Not a drop of oil in sight. The future without oil is equally bright.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think I need to repeat the meat of my earlier post.
| Quote: | | The setting was the 2007 March Meeting of the American Physical Society (APS) in Denver, Colorado, during the largest gathering of physicists in the world. |
| Quote: | truly great excitement occurred because during two consecutive sessions there were four talks that show the two big bugaboos no longer exist :-
1) ...the excess heat effect on demand ... is now possible), and
2) The lack of high energy particles and radiation (both phenomena can be created, now, on demand). |
Why is this fantastic development NOT all over the mainstream media???? We are being told, clearly, that Cold Fusion WORKS!!!!! There is a solution to the energy crisis and it is not being reported widely. Why not?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | In the world today there are three huge manufacturing and exporting superpowers
Japan
China
Germany
None of them has much energy resources whether oil, gas or coal.
Yet this has not prevented them from becomeing the 3 most wealthy and creditworthy nations on earth. So oil does not mean wealth or even food.
lood at the major oil nations, people are walking around barefoot and hungry.
Wealth is controlled by a few elites who do not share with their people.
So i suggest oil is a bad thing, a dirty thing and is not necessary for wealth or growth.
It is a blatant propaganda lie.
America is the world s biggest debtor nation so much so they are planning to scrap the dollar soon 2009 and call it the amero with mexico and canada.
But more importantly the western elites do not control china/japan/germany to the extent that they control the UK. So they cant stop china developing new technology. Japans magnetic bullet trains. German roduction of alternative fuels. Dont forget India is coming up the rails fast too.
A crooked american senator bought and paid for by the oil lobby controlled by the rockefellers cannot tell China CNOOC not to go round buying up half of africa. They dont take orders from him like we do.
Energy consumption is falling NOT rising. Cars, planes, power stations all are working more efficiently and other improvements such as condensing boilers/LED lights/kinetic energy recycling mean energy use will continue to fall. Dont think JAPAN, CHINA, GERMANY, INDIA, want to use more fuel - they dont because they dont have any. India they burn cow dung as a fuel. Most energy saving equipment is made in china and exported here. They are leading the way.
James this next statistic completely blows your arguments away:
Todays news CHINA trade surplus $26.9 Billion for the month of JUNE
So why do you keep peddling the lie that oil means prosperity.
CHINA, JAPAN, GERMANY have no oil and yet they are raking it in and are growing on the back of new energy technology.
You made a comment about land for food?
Most of the planet is desert, if that land is reclaimed for solar panels or winds farms or energy crop production?
But you forget, An ear of corn after the oil is squeezed is used to make CORN FLAKES. So increased land planted with corn means MORE food not less. The same is true with every crop.
The oil can be used for fuel.
the husk can be used for fibre - cloth/plastics etc
and the edible food pulp can be eaten by animals as feed or by humans.
The most efficient crop is actually HEMP
But corn makes oil/sugar/fibre/food and it is not even a hard crop to culivate.
I would say James your theory is debunked.
Britain in Victorian/Edwardian times was the world's leading economy. Not a drop of oil in sight. The future without oil is equally bright. |
Stelios,
Sure there's hemp, and corn etc etc but you cannot cultivate these on a scale which can compete with the availability oil. Why do you find this so hard to accept?
As for China, it makes its money from exports driven by Western imports. As a result, its thirst for oil has made China the biggest consumer of oil after the US although this is set to change in the next year or so when it will become the largest consumer. Its oil usage is growing at 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the US. You might want to read here. So is oil important to their economy do you think? I think so.
But you're right, oil is a bad thing. It has created an elite group and caused much poverty and suffering. I have never stated otherwise. It's only you who keeps suggesting that I am a supporter of the oil industry. Obviously, it helps your argument to accuse me of being 'one of them'. But the argument isn't about whether oil is good or bad, it's about what happens when oil supplies start to dwindle. Again, why do you choose to wander off this subject? This is what peak oil is all about, the decline in availability and what it will mean to us humans who need oil to fuel our economies and are totally unprepared, as of today, to make the switch to other fuels. Will it cause global war or will we all work together? Sadly, it looks like the US just wants to fight for it rather than negotiate.
And who do you think will be hit first when oil does start to run out? Of course, it'll be all those countries which have no oil reserves. Places like Germany, Japan and China. Maybe that's why China has been doing big deals with the Russians. In fact it'll also be us who have no reserves as we'll have consumed and exported our own oil and gas within 10 years. Why do you think we are building this?
As for Britain being a world leader in pre-oil times, sure it was. But it also had a much bigger class system, greater poverty, much lower life expectancy for the lower classes and a bigger divide between rich and poor. The Brits also went around the world invading other countries; raping, pillaging, and making slaves of millions of people. Now that sounds exactly like the kind of society you are rallying against, yet somehow you support it now to fit in with your argument. Strange. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If there are 'free' energy technologies, do you think we would be allowed them in 1m years?
Anyone ever seen an episode of Equinox called 'it runs on water'?
It covers 3 machines which apparently produce energy out of water. One of these ran the heating of a firestation for a whole year.
There is also a book called 'Free energy secrets of cold electricity'. A guy in the 50's invented this thing where a small battery controlls some magnets driving a motor. Charge comes back into the batteries and apparently the batteries will wear out before they are discharged.
Ammusingly, in this book there a news paper article about this invention at the time. The article starts out: 'With dwindling oil supplies....' and this is in the 50's.
Greg Palast also uncovered documentation exposing peak oil as a scam but i've never looked them up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the idea of free energy is deemed impossible by the laws of thermodynamics and therefor also relativity and quantum mechanics. if the laws of conservation of energy the impact on science would be catastrophic and we would lose almost 2 hundred years of research.
that and i don't see some shed engineer coming up with a solution to one of the biggest scientific impossibilities.
and if it was done and could have been proved it would be patented and sold at a massive price. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lockerbie wrote: | the idea of free energy is deemed impossible by the laws of thermodynamics and therefor also relativity and quantum mechanics.
|
yer, I know.
| lockerbie wrote: |
and if it was done and could have been proved it would be patented and sold at a massive price. |
Yes. Who do you think might hae the means and motive to buy it?
There was also a design of carburetta in the 60's which allowed 100+ miles to the gallon and less emmissions as a result. I wonder who has the patents to that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
