|
Natural gas though, there's a lot of that and you can buy a truck today that runs on it. Our car fleet is absolutely moving to electric because the only thing that actually NEEDS the energy density are airplanes, for "last mile" ground fleet and non-commercial it's a convenience, nothing more.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
You didn't really answer my questions. You just spat out more information. Of course at some point the world is going to run out of oil. The issue is the calamity that you predict in the next decade. Logically as the oil sources run out the price will go up and consumption will reduce. Partly by necessity, those that can't afford it, or by choice, those that find cheaper options. Additionally as prices rise, previously unviable sources will become potentially profitable. This effect alone will drag out your supposed calamity way longer than a decade. Stuff like this is important to consider but blowing it out of proportion makes you sound like a blathering lunatic raving about the end of the world. Which incidentally means you fit right in with this thread. Welcome home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
With respect to global warming, the problem is that we're not running out of oil fast enough. Peak oil in the near future would be great news. edit: Global warming in a nutshell is someone irresponsibly left a bunch of fossil fuels lying around for the monkeys to get their hands on. Of course we're going to burn it all up, how could we not? It would have been objectively better for everyone on this planet if there had just been less easily accessible oil and coal. The holy grail of climate change advocacy would be a massive international carbon tax to incentivize moving rapidly away from fossil fuels. Ideally it would be revenue neutral but it's not happening either way so that's irrelevant. But then people in this thread complain peak oil is going to make it more expensive in future? I don't understand it. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:You didn't really answer my questions. You just spat out more information. Again, we're back to the assumption that everything will be fine because of faith in economic rationalism, but it's incredibly dumb because it's just a layer of abstraction that masks the actual problem. Yes, prices can rise, but prices can rapidly rise to the point that people are unable to sustain themselves. Oil consumption can decrease, but the cause of the decrease is massive human suffering. The issue here is that you're seeing things as simply being an issue of teaching lazy Americans to bike to work or buying a Prius. It's more complex then that. All of our infrastructure is heavily dependant on oil. I guarantee almost everything in the room you're in was only able to get there with oil being involved. The entire global economy is deeply addicted to it, and in fact needs a surplus of cheap oil in order to function. The West is deeply entangled with an army of slave labour it's developed overseas, and it can't just magic up the manufacturing base it offshored over 4 decades on a whim, and that means severe shortages in goods and resources that are extracted from overseas. Without cheap oil, the entire thing goes into meltdown, which means mass unemployment, sharp increases in the prices of commodities and civil unrest. That's really bad. How do you fix this? A universal basic income? Rationing? With what resources? And this is all assuming a best case scenario where oil exporting countries still continue to ship their oil reserves to Western countries instead of keeping it for themselves and making the crisis even worse. Complicating this even further is the concept of Energy Return on Energy Investment. You still need to burn oil to get that exploration equipment there, to run the oil tankers and the refineries and the distribution network, etc. While increased oil prices may make poor quality oil more profitable, you start to run into diminishing returns because you're getting far less EROEI than sweet crude. Once you're EROEI hits 1, it won't matter how much oil costs, the act of extracting it becomes pointless. There are stopgap solutions, you can run a car on lithium ion batteries, or woodgas or concentrated natural gas or liquified coal, but this is just mitigation. The issue is that none of these can be implemented on a scale that would even come close to replacing oil, the resources don't exist. Nocturtle posted:With respect to global warming, the problem is that we're not running out of oil fast enough. Peak oil in the near future would be great news. Well it would be great in the sense that it would limit emissions, but the true tragedy of Peak Oil is that we've already emitted enough to cause runaway climate change. Humanity was given juuust enough rope to hang itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:Well it would be great in the sense that it would limit emissions, but the true tragedy of Peak Oil is that we've already emitted enough to cause runaway climate change. Humanity was given juuust enough rope to hang itself. This, more than anything else, should be sufficient to show everyone you're full of poo poo, because no we loving haven't
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Keep that head firmly up your rear end Thug Lessons, it's not going to make the problems disappear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:Keep that head firmly up your rear end Thug Lessons, it's not going to make the problems disappear. Shut the gently caress up you hokum-spewing idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This, more than anything else, should be sufficient to show everyone you're full of poo poo, because no we loving haven't Really? When is it going to stop so I can mark it on my calendar?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This, more than anything else, should be sufficient to show everyone you're full of poo poo, because no we loving haven't The permafrost in Alaska is melting and releasing greenhouses gases at a a rate equivalent to that put out by the entire US economy. Feedback loops are already kicking in, we're screwed even if we were to stop putting out carbon today. Or even yesterday, or a decade before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Don't worry, we'll all be saved when we go Carbon Negative© with Beccs™
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
call to action posted:What's funny is Alaska is now emitting an amount equivalent to a THIRD of ANNUAL commercial domestic carbon emissions... and it's not at ALL accounted for in the IPCC models.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:stuff I'm with you Digiwizzard, but as we have found out several times in this thread, the concept of EROEI seems to activate some kind of internal "NOPE"-button in many people, preventing further engagement with it. I expect us to follow the updated Business As Usual-scenario from the latest version of "Limits of Growth", but I'm hoping to make the best of it. Gonna start a permaculture design certificate course next year and contribute at least a bit to improve the chances of my local region making it through the next decades in one piece.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:The permafrost in Alaska is melting and releasing greenhouses gases at a a rate equivalent to that put out by the entire US economy. No, the permafrost is releasing about as much CH4 as the US. Each make up about 5% of global CH4 emissions, or about 0.5% of all GHG emissions. The total Arctic GHG emissions are dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions, and are likely to stay that way. quote:Feedback loops are already kicking in, we're screwed even if we were to stop putting out carbon today. Or even yesterday, or a decade before. Despite what you may have been told, mainstream climate scientists account for feedbacks in their climate models, and are not predicting runaway climate change.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Lol, ok. Not that it matters what any of us individual slobs do. Still, when everything collapses, you're not welcome at my self sufficient hideaway until you apologize 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No, the permafrost is releasing about as much CH4 as the US. Each make up about 5% of global CH4 emissions, or about 0.5% of all GHG emissions. The total Arctic GHG emissions are dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions, and are likely to stay that way. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...climate-change/ quote:The study, based on aircraft measurements of carbon dioxide and methane and tower measurements from Barrow, Alaska, found that from 2012 through 2014, the state emitted the equivalent of 220 million tons of carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere from biological sources (the figure excludes fossil fuel burning and wildfires). That’s an amount comparable to all the emissions from the U.S. commercial sector in a single year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, what a sleazy article. While the US commercial sector (whatever that means) may release only 220 gt of CO2 equivalent annually, the US as a whole emits more like 6600 gt annually. So that means, over three years, Alaska emitted about 3% as the US, or 1% annually. They make it sound like it's emitting a huge amount of GHG, but really it's a fairly small amount.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Jesus Christ, what a sleazy article. The while the US commercial sector (whatever that means) may release only 220 gt of CO2 equivalent annually, the US as a whole emits more like 6600 gt annually. So that means, over three years, Alaska emitted about 3% as the US, or 1% annually. They make it sound like it's emitting a huge amount of GHG, but really it's a fairly small amount. It actually is a fairly large amount when you take into account the fact that Alaska was considered to be a net carbon sink. As usual it's kind of hard to talk about this sort of thing because people see something like this and immediately assume it means the apocalypse is nigh, but it's also not like this is a non-story. It's a big deal that permafrost is farting out methane given the short timetable and tight carbon budgets we have to work with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Yes, I agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
I still think the takeaway from declining oil discovery is to invest in lithium mines. The oil infrastructure didn't used to exist either. Cargo ships don't need to run on oil, in fact they can run on coal or even use sails. Trains don't need to run on oil, in fact diesel locomotives have peak power outputs comparable to steam locomotives. Cars and trucks don't need to run on oil. Would it be a huge pain to convert cargo rail to electric, cargo ships to hybrid drive systems, and the trucking system to electric? Yes. It would be a huge pain in the rear end. It's also a huge pain in the rear end to build an oil infrastructure from scratch. I swear to god modern America exists in this weird state of paralysis where nobody believes that anyone can do anything anymore. People recognize the status quo is unsustainable but can't even imagine what change would look like. The zombie apocalypse seems more believable to people than major policy changes. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Brazil has abolished protections on 46,000 sqkm of the Amazon and opened it to mining.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
All I have to say about peak oil is that fracking got some major breakthroughs, because gently caress the planet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
I feel like I should thank Reagan for this blessing. Or Hitler. But Brazil is not the Spanish-speaking bit of South America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I still think the takeaway from declining oil discovery is to invest in lithium mines. The oil infrastructure didn't used to exist either. Cargo ships don't need to run on oil, in fact they can run on coal or even use sails. Trains don't need to run on oil, in fact diesel locomotives have peak power outputs comparable to steam locomotives. Cars and trucks don't need to run on oil. Nuclear is probably the best option for cargo shipping. Despite the challenges (which are numerous) it's probably the only viable zero-carbon option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No, the permafrost is releasing about as much CH4 as the US. Each make up about 5% of global CH4 emissions, or about 0.5% of all GHG emissions. The total Arctic GHG emissions are dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions, and are likely to stay that way. I have some bad news for you: Evil_Greven posted:Here's more on how we're totally hosed Please pay attention to the underlined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Jesus Christ, what a sleazy article. While the US commercial sector (whatever that means) may release only 220 gt of CO2 equivalent annually, the US as a whole emits more like 6600 gt annually. So that means, over three years, Alaska emitted about 3% as the US, or 1% annually. They make it sound like it's emitting a huge amount of GHG, but really it's a fairly small amount.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:I have some bad news for you: While I am sure it will do no good, I have to point out that actual scientists, as opposed to goons writing on the back of an envelope, aren't estimating Arctic releases anywhere near those levels. NFS posted a UN overview of the literature which showed a range of cumulative 40-150 Gt of CO2 equivalent between 2000-2100, or about 0.4-1.5 Gt annually, compared to about 37 Gt annually in human emissions. Significant to the carbon budget, but nowhere near what you're talking about. Evil_Greven posted:Million = mega, billion = giga. 6.6 gigatonnes not 6600; there's not that much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in total. Yes this is correct, I used the wrong unit. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/900396554325860352
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
 that's gonna be bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:While I am sure it will do no good, I have to point out that actual scientists, as opposed to goons writing on the back of an envelope, aren't estimating Arctic releases anywhere near those levels. NFS posted a UN overview of the literature which showed a range of cumulative 40-150 Gt of CO2 equivalent between 2000-2100, or about 0.4-1.5 Gt annually, compared to about 37 Gt annually in human emissions. Significant to the carbon budget, but nowhere near what you're talking about. I based the math there on extrapolating from that article in addition to well-known estimates and measurements. If you feel the math is wrong, correct it. Nobody else has debated it. You realize I am linking an article from April 2017 in Nature for the permafrost sensitivity part, no? Also, I'm not talking annual rates. The amount of carbon locked away in permafrost significantly exceeds total atmospheric carbon, and warming is already enough such that 20% of that permafrost will thaw. It's only a matter of time. (E: There are estimates of up to 1.7 trillion tonnes of carbon locked in permafrost - 70% higher than what I put there as a conservative estimate, which is 195% the amount of atmospheric carbon). Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:While I am sure it will do no good, I have to point out that actual scientists, as opposed to goons writing on the back of an envelope, aren't estimating Arctic releases anywhere near those levels. NFS posted a UN overview of the literature which showed a range of cumulative 40-150 Gt of CO2 equivalent between 2000-2100, or about 0.4-1.5 Gt annually, compared to about 37 Gt annually in human emissions. Significant to the carbon budget, but nowhere near what you're talking about. That article pre-dated the 5th IPCC report (published 2012 I believe, maybe 2014?) and was simply meant to illustrate that the IPCC report itself left out feedbacks we knew about before it was even published. I would be very wary of using it as some sort of way to place bounds on the upper limit of how bad things can get. The long and short of it is "we don't know", but there's plenty of carbon/methane there that I think it's fair to say 1.5 Gt/yr is not the worst case scenario in 2100. This is all pretty new stuff and is far from settled.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:What's with the "I'm sure it will do no good" bit? I am not disputing your math. However, a) not all of that carbon will enter the atmosphere and b) the emissions that do occur will take place over a geological time scale, not a human one. Again, I will refer you to the report posted earlier ITT by NewForumSoftware.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:That article pre-dated the 5th IPCC report (published 2012 I believe, maybe 2014?) and was simply meant to illustrate that the IPCC report itself left out feedbacks we knew about before it was even published. I would be very wary of using it as some sort of way to place bounds on the upper limit of how bad things can get. The long and short of it is "we don't know", but there's plenty of carbon/methane there that I think it's fair to say 1.5 Gt/yr is not the worst case scenario in 2100. This is all pretty new stuff and is far from settled. Sure, but I'm not going to start panicking about 1 trillion tons of carbon entering the atmosphere until there's some sort of evidence to support the assertion that it's going to happen. For the time being I'm sufficiently convinced by the apparent consensus that humans emissions will dwarf Arctic emissions, rather than the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
hot take: global warming is good, world is overpopulated, we're overdue for a cull
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
We are, everything else living on this planet is not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Mozi posted:We are, everything else living on this planet is not. Who cares? There's been five mass extinctions already. At least 99.9% of the species ever to exist are now extinct, and what little is left would probably be extinct in a few million years anyway. Even if ACG was so catastrophic that it destroyed 85% of genera like P-T, life would bounce back better than ever in the blink of a geologic eye just like every other time. Ironically, this sort of misanthropy only makes sense from an anthropocentric perspective, because we are sentimentally attached to the 0.1% of species that are left.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
I appreciate your efforts Digiwizzard. The symmetry between peak oil and agw is so spot on it almost makes you feel like there's an order to the universe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
reforesting the melting permfrost will keep the carbon locked up and in fifty years the trees in that belt will be sequestering enough carbon to make up for most of asia. pine trees are magical things, they are also the best flora tested so far for absorbing atmospheric methane (google it yourselves, i'm a prophet i don't have to give receipts). that land is going to be impossible to build on, still mostly uninhabitable, and useless for mining, but it will be hugely fertile, and proper forest management as the thaw happens could turn this negative into a positive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm not disputing that oil is a limited resource, but peak-oilers have consistently failed to make accurate predictions about production levels. The skeptics, on the other hand, have been consistently right. Leonardo Maugeri accurately predicted the oil supply surge of 2012 and is currently predicting another may be on the way. I know this seems "bafflingly stupid" to peak-oilers but a more accurate description would "counter-intuitive". Peak oil is about extraction costs rising as we use up easily accessed oil, not about simple amounts used/not used
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
No but capitalism will save us, you see
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
Every 'Peak Oil' poster I ever saw was based on misrepresenting 'reserves we can profitably pump' as 'all the oil that's left.' There's a colossal volume of expensive-to-extract and expensive-to-process oil still in the ground. Oil as an industrial feedstock? We have enough to last for generations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:00
|
|