free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 24. NO SOLUTIONS, NO FUTURE

Wednesday, August 17, 2005


Here's the peak oil doomer take on the situation:

1) With a population of 6.4 billion, we've drastically overshot the carrying capacity of the earth. Therefore, most of these people -- optimistically 85%, but more realistically 95% -- will have to perish shortly in the big "die-off". This outcome is completely unavoidable, and there is NO SOLUTION. NOTHING can stop the big die-off from happening.

2) Therefore we must: (insert agenda here).

Step 2 is the problem here. Why should I do anything, or buy into anybody's agenda, if I'm going to die?

Here's one example: Julian Darley says we need to cut our energy consumption by 50 to 90%, immediately. That would be a great idea, Julian, except all your die-off buddies are saying that 95% of us are going to die no matter what we do, because there is NO SOLUTION. So why should we do what you (or anybody) says? We're all going to starve to death anyway.

Kofi Annan goes on TV and says: "Due to peak oil, it is completely certain that 95% of you are going to die shortly. Okay, now here is what I would like you all to do to facilitate this difficult transition." Preaching die-off is totally incompatible with encouraging people to live more sustainably.


At Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 12:58:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great sense of humor (if it wasn't so tragic)

Superb sarcasm, and you're totally right, btw.

The fact that the ultimate potential of renewable energy is more than a hundred times greater than current global energy consumption seems to totally miss those doomers. Apparently, wind and solar can never become great, because they are small now...?

And, oh, renewable energy is, well renewable, thus not subject to peak and subsequent decline.

It has been said that fusion will not be viable until 2050, which supposedly is optimistic. Well, from my extensive research in the subject, money is the biggest obstacle. Fusion has already been achieved in the JET reactor. Internal friction/cooling seems to be the problem due to the size of the reactor (volume/surface area ratio). The same thing held back gas turbines (jet engines) in the beginning.

ITER (the next test reactor) will cost $5bn to build. That's the amount of money we spend on oil in two days on the price increase over two years ago.

Maybe we should start an Apollo program in fusion, with nearly unlimited resources for 2-5 competing teams, with eternal fame and glory to the team that gets it first...

Sorry about the long post. Just be glad I didn't write 1000 pages on this, my favourite topic. (I am an engineer with energy technology as my speciality)



Post a Comment

<< Home