patrick.net

Bap33,

Harm already covered most of what I would say. Some quick points:

1. Abiogenic oil -- I don't believe in it, but you can have your guess, as you said.

2. Smog reduction technology (catalytic converters) reduces energy efficiency. Yes, and in more ways than one. It let's people drive big terrible V8 cars that otherwise would have polluted something awful and would have been banned altogether. Another example of a good technology being perverted by the wrong usage model.

3. Coal: Dirty as hell. I wish we could use less of it.

4. China should reduce their consumption first: That's unreasonable. We consume (dissipate) more energy per capita than any other country in the world. Why should we not reduce first? I hope the answer isn't "because we are god's own country".

5. Ethanol. I agree, growing corn for ethanol is not a good solution. I'm not supporting it. Hydrogen is going to be even worse of a solution. Biodiesel is probably better.

6. Illegal aliens. I really don't think lead-footed illegal aliens is the real problem here. They're not helping, but they are not the problem.

ex-sunnyvale-renter,

>American mail-order bride

That will be the day!

Btw, I thought it was DinOR that sounded like a limey with the "good rogering" epxression.

SP,

>Stepford Deluxe with an open-source Linux kernel.

Uh, it might be better if the source isn't *too* open.
Or else you may not own the product.

-product
+end product

New thread: Schwarzenegger announces deal to FREEZE adjustable rates for state’s “highest-risk borrowers”

Bankster:

I am not sure what is going to happen, but I have a gut feeling that I cannot ignore. I think we are heading for a recession worst than the Great Depression.

I live between Detroit and Cleveland, 2 great crime cities. In the last 4 months I have purchased several "arms" with loads of ammo for each. If peak oil does hit along with the economic turmoil of the credit crunch, the police will not beable to "protect" anyone. Gas will be expensive and tax revenue will be low. Do you think those people in the cities are going to stay put while gas/food/ and other essentials sky rocket in price?

I hate to say it, but I am not worried about another country as much as I am worried about my fellow citizens. If someone decides they "deserve" my scarce resources more than me/my family, there will be some serious disagreements in the streets.

Bap33 said:
I tend to have a gut feeling that oil is created through some natural function

Truthiness - it's the wørd

justme Says:
Uh, it might be better if the source isn’t *too* open. Or else you may not own the end product.

The physical processor, peripherals and apps are not open source - I was only referring to the kernel.

EBGuy Says:
Who will save more gallons of fuel per year: the guy who trades in his monster Tahoe for the hybrid Tahoe or Dilbert driving his Civic hybrid instead of the regular version?

Yes, comparing an idiot in a 1 Tahoe vs. a dilbert in 1 Civic, driving the same distance over one year, the volume of gas saved by the Tahoe Hybrid may be greater than the volume of gas saved by the Civic Hybrid. Assuming it is largely stop-and-go commuting. However, this is a flawed argument. Of course you’ll save more fuel moving to a Tahoe hybrid because the Tahoe is MUCH thirstier than a Civic in the first place.

If that’s the main argument for buying a Tahoe hybrid, then it’s not much of an argument at all. In fact it would be interesting to see how much _real_ demand there is if the tax loophole favoring 6000lb+ vehicles is plugged, or if the government actually starts to apply smog and CAFE rules to these cretin-mobiles.

The point was not that putting a Hybrid in a Tahoe was a bad idea - but that calling it the "Green Car of the Year" is ridiculous. Purchasing a ladder after you have fallen into a hole is not nearly as praiseworthy as not falling into the hole in the first place.

HARM you said “Once again, Zephyr Von Knowitall charges in to Make His Point and… gets his facts completely wrong.”

You are certainly quick with the hostility.

First of all I cited no facts to get wrong, nor did I express any opinion about the peak oil theory. You criticize me for things I did not say. You then set the record straight for everyone by giving the real truth, which happens to fit perfectly with the point I was trying to make - that a sudden oil doomsday is not realistic. So I thank you for that. I lament that you did not get my point from what I wrote.

What I pointed out is that for almost 100 years now there have been some people who believe the oil doomsday is about to happen. Their deadlines for running out of oil have come and passed, and we still have oil. In fact, today we are extracting more oil than ever before. This may not be sustainable, but oil production is still rising.

However, I do agree with your comments about peak oil theory, and I do expect that oil will get progressively more difficult to find and extract. But that is very old news.

Technology will bring more efficient use of energy, and improved alternatives to oil. I see no energy doomsday. We have plenty of fuel. The real problem is the environmental consequences of using it.