Hijexx wrote:
] That stems from the fact that the process of hydrogen production
] uses more energy than the hydrogen will yield.
]
] And on ethanol:

You're comparing the cost associated with fossil fuels TODAY with the cost associated with ethanol or hydrogen TODAY, claiming that the equation is weighted toward oil, and concluding that we should just forget about those other energy sources.

That doesn't make any sense.

If hydrogen or ethonal were more effecient TODAY then oil, we wouldn't be using oil.

Furthermore, if you made the exact same comparison in 1985 that you just made, you'd find that ethanol and hydrogen were far more expensive then oil and be even more convinced of your opinion.

If you compared the answer from 1985 and 2004 (there are newer studies, btw, then the ones you cite) what would you see?

The fact is that predictions about the end of the availability of oil have been consistently wrong for decades. The reason is that these predictions are made by considering the supply of oil that we are aware of today, and the techniques we have to extract and refine it today, and extrapolating that out into the future assuming that no technological advances occur.

Of course, technological advances DO occur. In the last few decades techniques for locating new oil reserves have vastly increased the amount of oil we're aware of, improvements in extraction technology have increase then oil reserves that we can access, and improvements in refining technology have stretched that oil further.

None of this should allow the reader to conclude that we don't need to worry about the scarcity of this particular resource.

However, relying on the same "if technology doesn't improve" method of extrapolating from the present tense is also non-sentical when it comes to discussing the efficiency of alternative energy sources. The questions are:

1. Are we devoting significant effort to improving alternative energy technologies.
2. Are those efforts resulting in improvements in efficiency, safety, and practicality?
3. Have we hit any clear theoretical roadblocks?

On the other hand:

] Will we continue to build what are really unnecessarily
] large homes, which we heat in the winter and then cool
] down in the summer? Is it necessary to keep building these
] large new big box retail outlets with high ceilings and
] extensive lighting?
]
] Both these activities must stop!

Is this the most reasonable, rational solution to the problem?

This is exactly what will happen when gas gets so expensive that people can't afford to use it as much, assuming that there are no technological advances, or changes in fuel sources. This IS the economic collapse that these guys are warning about. They want to prematurely increase the price of gas in hopes of cause the economic collapse they claim to fear early on. They advocate this because they LIKE the idea of an economic collapse based on overconsumption of scarce resources because it fits with their political ideology.

It is presently cheaper to heat my water with gas then with electricity, but if the price of gas went up, it would be cheaper to heat it electically, and that power may come from coal, but it might also be nuclear. In fact, for the short period of time that energy was actually deregulated in California it was possible to buy solar and wind based power for only a couple dollars more a month then the coal power PG&E was hawking.

With all these options available to me it seems clear that the economy is prepared to adapt. I can buy an electric water heater at any Sears in the country. Why? Because people are preparing.

RE: Observations and the State of Affairs - Peak Oil