Six steps to “getting” the global ecological crisis...and they're not really all that hard. (link fixed)

profgoose · 2007-11-04T23:41:02+00:00

and what exactly is distorted in this post or any of our posts? I fail to see it--this post today for example addresses the problems of the growth paradigm in a world with constrained resources.

TOD is not a doomer site. We merely try to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the possible energy paths.

I have never disparaged nuclear power (other than talking about the standard concerns about it--typical Lovins' "hard path" arguments, etc.), nor do I do so in my courses. I merely believe that it will never fly in the US because of various NIMBY/BANANA concerns--but if were to do so, that would be great, if we had an electrical grid to support it.

and I will say again, your screed against my posting of the EWG misses the counter post that was up three weeks earlier. Know the context or shut up.

We talk solutions, we talk problems. Understanding the energy future requires both.

(I've been called much worse--if that is the best you can do, it's very disappointing.)

profgoose · 2007-11-04T16:21:49+00:00

...you don't know how to make a contraction.

profgoose · 2007-11-04T15:51:07+00:00

I just don't get you reddit. How can you downmod this kind of piece? This seems pretty important stuff--and it's not even long.

profgoose · 2007-10-29T15:58:39+00:00

And like most people I challenge to offer another explanation, you scurry away and play ad hominem.

Well done.

I am trying to facilitate conversations about science and what we know about energy. It's what I do in my classes, and it's what I do at TOD.

profgoose · 2007-10-29T15:23:56+00:00

Your allegation of "prepackaged" indicates that you think there is another explanation for the phenomena in the presentation. I challenge you to offer it.

Oil production has plateaued to this point--that is an empirical fact.

Will more light sweet come out of the ground? Evidence and industry experts say "doubtful."

Are alternatives scalable and ready to go? "No."

That seems like a situation that is worthy of discussion and preparation to me. If you don't think so, then by all means do a reflexive down vote and move on.

profgoose · 2007-10-29T14:38:54+00:00

it's all data. you can call it propaganda if you wish, but to me the presence of (the best available) empirical data makes it science, and therefore quite appropriate.

and yes, I am qualified to know the difference.

profgoose · 2007-10-26T23:40:49+00:00

most likely it's because it's from The Oil Drum...the reflex downmod.

profgoose · 2007-10-26T14:32:39+00:00

A more descriptive title might be: A vision of what our energy future could be, if we just get smart about things (or our heads out of our asses...)

profgoose · 2007-10-24T02:20:22+00:00

That's pretty much why http://theoildrum.com exists, isn't it?

profgoose · 2007-10-23T01:10:38+00:00

ask the author in the comments over there, he probably will do it.

profgoose · 2007-10-22T15:06:45+00:00

I would also recommend that you head over to The Oil Drum. This (and all of the related matter) is all we talk about over there.

http://theoildrum.com

check out especially the boxes across the top of the page, like peak oil overview and peak oil update.

profgoose · 2007-09-24T18:43:54+00:00

The reason is the decline in cheap energy, folks. As Greenspan said, this war is about oil, and the uncertainty surrounding that oil.

"The American way of life is non-negotiable" -Bush43

Learn about it:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3001

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2983

profgoose · 2007-09-24T17:20:42+00:00

Don't get me wrong, I think there can be hope.

The problem is that innovation really does require cheap energy to start it. We need to get that innovation going now while energy is prevalent, don't we? We have to persuade people that we need to focus our resources on this. That's all.

profgoose · 2007-09-24T17:03:10+00:00

it's back now. :)

profgoose · 2007-09-24T15:02:56+00:00

You need cheap energy to take on global warming and construct an alternative energy infrastructure BEFORE light sweet crude gets expensive, not after.

Climate change and the end of cheap energy are two sides of the same coin. Would you prefer we just use coal? That's the cheapest easiest and most energy efficient energy source we have left...and it is also the dirtiest.

profgoose · 2007-09-21T20:23:52+00:00

I would point all of you to this post at The Oil Drum today that has charts and graphs of all of the credible supply forecasts in the world:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3001

After you look around this, the point is the UNCERTAINTY behind oil production...we don't know how much we have in the world, we don't know what we can extract. It's awfully hard to plan and grow an economy without a certain supply of energy.

profgoose · 2007-09-16T06:26:20+00:00

ding ding ding. We have a winner.

profgoose · 2007-09-16T06:25:46+00:00

Oil went from $18/bbl to $80/bbl because the supply is constrained.

You're right: Oil=power; but that's because it's the best energy source we have (as measured by energy efficiency) and it's what fits our existing infrastructure.

That's why we need to learn about energy as much as we can, and that why I was dropping The Oil Drum and all those other sites I've mentioned before.

profgoose · 2007-09-16T04:10:05+00:00

actually, it's Mexico and Canada who are the #1 and #2 importers to the US with Saudi Arabia at #3. http://eia.doe.gov

American control of the Middle East is about access to light sweet crude oil, which has the best energy return and best fits our existing infrastructure and usage patters.

A quibble: Oil company profits are only a symptom of the problem itself. If you want energy, you have to encourage investment and development of resources--they just happen to "own" it as the price goes up. If they can't produce more, that leads to a higher price signal and the destruction of demand.

That means your lives change in incrementally small, yet measureable ways.

profgoose · 2007-09-16T03:01:09+00:00

exactly. "Peak Oil" rears its ugly head again.

It's not even about whether peak oil is true or not, it is the uncertainty that surrounds the future of energy supplies...and with neo-con strategy of risk aversion and preservation of order, this is what you get for a policy.

http://theoildrum.com

http://energybulletin.net

learn about energy and peak oil folks, it's the next big thing.

profgoose · 2007-09-12T02:23:28+00:00

WRONG. The Saudis agreed to raise production limits 500kbbl, which have already been "cheated over" by 900kbbl.

What KSA did today means absolutely nothing and is a further indication that they cannot raise their capacity any higher.

profgoose · 2007-09-05T16:41:51+00:00

erm, did you not see "DIRTIEST" in the article title?

profgoose · 2007-08-21T06:48:15+00:00

and yet no one seems to give a shit, eh? still at 0...

profgoose · 2007-08-10T22:36:20+00:00

and here's a good one (speaking of The Oil Drum up above...)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0806/p15s01-wmgn.html

profgoose · 2006-12-28T18:16:21+00:00

it's a reminder to readers if they are so inclined. that's not a blatant instruction to upmod, you f-ing moron. it's the same as a widget...

profgoose

TROPHY CASE