Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AFTER 'PEAK OIL', 'PEAK GAS' TOO

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
4dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:28 AM
Original message
AFTER 'PEAK OIL', 'PEAK GAS' TOO
To access the article on Bakhtiari web page, go to the bottom of the page (for the latest article) and click on it.

http://www.sfu.ca/~asamsamb/sb.htm

The concept of 'Peak Oil' has finally found its way to the receptive minds of educated public opinion. On the March 18/19 weekend, it even did erupt on TV screens worldwide as CNN aired its documentary "We Were Warned: Tomorrow's Oil Crisis".

However, some energy analysts have found a way to belittle 'Peak Oil' by advancing that in case of an oil production peak, natural gas would simply take over --- in other words, gas would timely fill the energy gap between an oil-driven world and the for-ever supply of bountiful hydrogen...
Both the gas take-over and the hydrogen utopia are fallacies brought forward to try cushion the inevitable 'Peak Oil' shock. Not only are massive hydrogen supplies decades away (if ever!), but worldwide natural gas supplies are about to peak too !!

According to my model simulations 'Peak Oil' should now be occurring (within the 2006-2007 time frame <1>) and 'Peak Gas' will promptly follow suit in either 2008 or 2009 <2>.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, but we are really past all this.
We have done pissed off Gaea, and she is going to stomp us like bugs if we don't figure out how to calm her down again. Having enough fuel is completely beside the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Not completely beside the point. We will need energy to survive it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I knew someone would point that out.
OTOH, it's hard to see how burning more fuel can be good for the greenhouse problem, you would at least need to be taking a lot more CO2 out than you are putting in that way, which may not be impossible, but it's at least going to be tricky to pull off, given the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

My own opinion is biologic sequestration is the best bet, it scales really well in the right circumstances, but that's just a wild guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yeah, I would want it to be carbon-neutral energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusEarl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. This country has sit around with it's thumb in it's butt!
President Carter tried to do something about this back in the 70's, i remember he installed solar panels on the WH. It was a symbolic jester at most, but he tried to bring it to the publics awareness.

And as soon as Reagan took office, down came the solar panels. Then it was forgotten, even the big dog let it lie and that surprised me because Bill new this was coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. yes, you are right


solar panel your water heater at least. even in apts. the panel can go out the sunny window or balcony if you don't have a roof.

save some money.

save the planet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Carter tried to lead.
He got shot down for trying, true, but he tried.
Bill - whatever his merits, and they were many - was all about Bill.
Neither one had the nerve to go direct to the people and make their case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC