As I said before this is a policy debate not a math debate. I appreciate you questioning my math skills but thats not what the OP was discussing. 

I was not only talking about wind energy there are other options out there. 

Yet you say 

Do you suppose we not invest money in our energy future? 

P.S. the link I had in the previous post had a link to a bunch of tax incentives from energy.gov

Oh and here is an interesting link  about another potential source for renewable energy. 

After all the point of a forum is to exchange ideas not rant and swear like a child

Whoa... I thought there was another spill and high tide....."It's upon us".... 

I'd be the first to admit that psychoak is a rhetorical thug, but you're wrong here. People new to an argument and people vexed by severe indecision can easily 'live on both sides.' As a lapsed philosophical anarchist, I feel that way about my commitment to democracy. I'm no Tory, but Winston Churchill and I agree on the basic notion that although democracy is an awful mess, all the alternatives seem worse.

Also, I suspect psychoak is indeed still thinking about things and not simply joining a popular crowd of bullies. Tawdry romances with liberty are what the fringes of both 'the right' and 'the left' share much more than the 'center' of either side do. If nothing else is clear about psychoak's politics, it's obvious he's an outlier no matter what sort of policy-preference/party-membership map you might like to apply. Just think of a Venn diagram with 2-5 circles that all share a zone of common overlap--the dot for psychoak would be away from that common center no matter how you cared to define your 2-5 sets. Unless perhaps one of them was devoted to artful rudeness or something odd like that...

I agree. Editied

psychoak - once again, you are wrong, oil has been heavily subsidized for years:

Like the percentage depletion allowance just described, the oil depletion allowance lets certain companies deduct 15% of the gross income they derive from oil and gas wells from their taxable incomes, and continue to do that for as long as those wells are still producing. Some smaller companies get to increase the deduction by 1% for every dollar the price of oil falls below $20 a barrel.

This tax break, on which we lose about $1 billion a year, can add up to many times the cost of the original exploration and drilling. In fact, it formerly could amount to 100% of the company's profits-in which case the company paid no taxes, no matter how much money it made. Presently this is capped at 65% of profits.

Read here, for example:

 

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Oil_Tax_Breaks.html

 

Just to clarify.  I am not the same person as psycloak is, so don't please don't attribute my statements to his, or vice versa.  It's just confusing

Peak Oil is interesting. I love watching documentaries and Peak Oil has come up once.

It all looks quite scary but I'm trying to look forward to it. In the western world, we have become comfortable and weak, kinda like the Halfling king in Overlord. After Peak Oil, it will be a darwinistic world where the strong rule and the weak will be culled. And I intend to be one of the strong.

 

But I try not to worry as things will probably work themselves out. We'll find other energysources. Just take all those inventions that the oilbosses locked away. An act of congress or President and we'll have them back and be back on track

In some ways you are right. Things will more than likely work themselves out in the long run. Yet, this process will not take place overnight. In fact, this process will take a long period of time and could result in global political destabilization. Most Americans are fairly cavalier when it comes to the prospect of our future, yet few consider the significant tolls facing America when the transportation networks begin slowing to a halt. More than 58% of the American population lived in heavily populated urban areas (200,000+ population) as of 2000 census. These areas can not sustain human life for even a relatively short period of time without the vast transportation networks currently in place. Even some incredible acts of congress which openned the doors to currently withheld inventions would not allow us to retrofit even a small fraction of our transportation network in a reasonable amount of time. In fact, such problems do not even require an overall lack of oil. Since most transportation relies on low paid employees in the form of truckers and warehouse workers, increases in the price of oil will have drastic results on these individuals, and thus, having a drastic impact on the overall network.

I suspect peak oil is 'upon us.' However, some debate the issue of when. However, it will happen as oil is neither a renewable resource (in our lifetimes) nor is it an inexhaustible supply. One thing is clear, however. The West's dependence on cheap oil has a high political and human price. And that political price is paid, often times, with the lives of soldiers and 'civilian' causalities. In addition, this dependence on oil from dictatorships (kingdoms) also hampers the willingness of the West to stand up globally for human rights more fully. Further, whenever the oil peaks, and then dwindles is a moot point. It will peak, and it will dwindle. 'When,' not 'if' is the operative word here. Folks discuss and debate the 'when.' Oil will, eventually, be used up. So, as wise and caring people we should, right now, use some of the cheap energy (and materials) that come from this cheap oil to make an infrastructure that get its energy more directly from the sun, and not indirectly, via the foreign oil fields. Look at what Denmark and Germany have done with wind power. Perhaps, if the 'renewable' energy industries were given the same percentage of tax breaks that big oil gets (like an effective tax rate of zero / AND extra subsidies that actually make some oil companies cash cows at Tax dollar expense), then wind and other solar powered infrastructures would emerge and thrive. And the centralized power held my these oil giants would weaken. As solar thrives we can kiss the foreign oil blackmail good bye. And than say hello to the possibility of a more just and equitable world.

 

I don't understand. If the oilprice rise then every link in the chain that uses oil and the endconsumer has to pay more, but how does that affect the warehouse worker?   The owner of the warehouse will simply charege the next guy in the chain (retail) more.

You are right to look at it as a chain, but you are forgetting something very important. The warehouse owner is now paying more and passes the cost along to the retailers who in turn increase their prices to the end customer. Neither the retailer nor the warehouse owner have netted a substantial gain as the price increase has gone to cover this increased cost of oil. However, the end customer is now passed along the bulk of this cost in the form of higher prices. Thus, at the retail level, the retail workers who have not been given a pay increase must pay more for the goods as an end customer, and at the warehouse level, these warehouse workers too must now pay a higher price for their goods as end customer. In most general economic models, the end customer is a faceless consumer, while the supply chains are represented by businesses. This makes for an understandable model, yet ignores the recursive nature of the system itself. Thus, the warehouse owner who increases the cost to the retailer who increases the cost to the consumer must eventual increase his workforce's base pay as they are now the ones who have their overall cost of living increase. This in turn causes the process to worsen as this new cost of the increased pay is passed along. However, looking at recent history, we can actually see that this second part, the increase in wages, has actually not been happening to a significant degree and instead these individuals are simply becoming poorer and poorer.

I believe the impact will be much bigger, worse, and most importantly, faster.

First of all, the cost of oil projects into many areas of our lives - it increases cost of transport, food (since fertilizers and machinery is fossil fuel dependent, plus biofuels compete for arable land), healthcare (plastics and medicines), and it also increased costs of globalized networks - distance costs more and more money.

That said, the impact is far greater on poorer people - after paying for their necessities, they are left with less extra money that would serve as a buffer for further price increases. That means the social tension will increase even more - the results can be already seen in Africa, but it will arrive to US, Europe and India soon enough. That means rise of political extremism, strikes, revolts, clashes with police, and of course, revolutions. 

All eyes are now on Saudi Arabia - if their production of 10 millions of bbl/day is disrupted, the developed world will collapse, simple as that.

Eventually, the demand will outstrip so much supply that the liberalized energy market will cease to exist, replaced by bilateral deals between producers and those consumers, who have something to offer (water, food, protection, etc) - this is mentioned in the risk report of German and US army compiled some 2 years ago. 

All that is expected within the following decade.

 

The effect translated into the economy as "stagflation". The economic activity plunges, because people have less purchasing power due to the higher living costs, and yet the prices of energy and basic commodities do not decline as well as in normal recession, because it's more difficult to produce them and they are less plentiful. It's a combination of stagnation and inflation. 

 

Perhaps the greatest impact on the western world would be the terminal destruction of the "perpetual growth" paradigm. All financial institutions work on the premise of future profits - banks loan money, because the enterprises are expected to make profits to pay interest and still thrive. That requires growth potential - new land, resources and cheap, impoverished labor, preferably somewhere far, where they cannot endanger your political stability (China).

 

But all that is in short supply now - and once net energy supply starts to decline, the financial system will collapse. You can imagine what that means, when most today's enterprises are loan based. 

Hmm I didn't see this thread until just now. Yes, we're burning through fossil fuels irresponsibly and it will eventually run out. Many of you will be happy to know that we already have tons of alternatives for energy when it comes to automobiles. Just recently, a synthetic oil was made by a professor in oxford that has zero emissions and won't cost more than $2 per gallon when produced.

 

The only real problem we face is the ability to change. Like I said before, we have the technology, we just need to take the right steps to advance.

The real problem overarching all is that fact that the elites that run this circus don't seem to suffer for the welfare of the masses. Our infrastructure is crumbling and we are at war everywhere for the remaining resources of the planet. We now have billionaires and billions of terminally poor. The main factor in all this seems to be that in this game of planetary chess some seem to be able to play blindfolded while the rest are merely blind.

There are too many humans now to feed and water. For how many millenia has this been so? The "miracles" of technology from the age of Science have left a poisoned and dying battleground. I am not a doomsayer. Mankind will survive but not all men are kind. Stick around, we are cursed to live and then die in interesting times.

(At least we have Fallen Enchantress to look forward to!) :karma:

Many opponents of the current socioeconomic conditions have brought up the impossibility of the infinite growth paradigm, yet perpetual growth is not simply some concept concerning financial markets and business development processes. It is a fundamental point about our reality and something that we will have to face eventually. All life requires perpetual growth to be sustainable, and humanity is no exception to this. As one resource is consumed or transformed, those species which required that resource must either adapt to a new resource or die. In terms of humanity, the advances of our species in the last 200 years have become so rapid that we are coming to a point that we are outgoing every social and political system that we have ever created. Markets based on labor exchange begin to become meaningless when advances in technology render 50% of the labor force unnecessary, while political systems built during times when travel and communication were significant undertakings become almost silly in times when humans can communicate instantly across the global.

avec la fonte en antarctique vont puiser les ressources pétrolière a nouveau...

When someone knows for sure that oil has peaked, please let me know.  I would like to short crude futures.

http://www.liveoilprices.co.uk/oil/oil_prices/04/2011/wti-oil-trading-over-111-imf-joins-the-peak-oilers-party.html

 

According to recent IMF report, they admit that oil has peaked globally. Since major oilfields (including those in Saudi Arabia) are in decline, no one can see these lossed replaced in any way short-time. Short-time, we are talking another depression/recession, demand destruction, and worse.

 

Where are those alternatives people keep talking all the time? The price of crude is rising, yet nobody has come up with anything viable - yes, we have pipe dreams like thorium reactors, algae oil, shale gas, tar sands, oil from plastic, and god knows what, but all of them have one major flaws - much lower energy return on investment.

Fuel is everywhere, right? You can use wood, old blankets, tires, excrements even - but can you run global industrial economy on it? I think not! 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7767

 

We took for granted that Middle Eastern countries ship their oil for a colored paper notes without asking much questions.

 

But what if they decide to keep it and build their own economies? 

kenata's onto a very important point in reply 66. It isn't really peak oil that's the greatest problem. The more important 'graph' is the intersection of spiking population and spiking automation in a world where the mega-corp market/culture still pretends to respect consumers as citizens when it in fact treats them as something much closer to the commodities they consume than as fellow human beings. 

I strongly disagree with two parts of kenata's reply:

1) All species must grow - that is simply not true. There are cultures that existed for thousands of years without any growth (like Amazonian indians). There are species in nature with steady populations. You might want to read this article:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3845

On the contrary, our current economic paradigm of growth resembles cancer so much it's frightening. Like cancer, our expanding, all-consuming globalized economy managed to do significant damage in just 200 years on an unprecedented scale. 

2) I disagree that technologies made human labor obsolete. Technologies just made the huge cache of stored fossil fuel accessible (and we wasted most of it already on trinkets). Technology itself cannot power any machine, nor can it produce anything - you need resources and energy for that. Fossil fuel energy just substituted human labor, because it was more readily available in larger quantities. When fossil fuels become scarce again, human labor will once again increase in importance - so much, in fact, that I expect slavery to be reestablished in not so distant future.

Even today, we are happy to exploit slave labor in China (because it IS slave labor - people working for 1 UDS/day in huge manufacturing complexes they never even leave). If this labor was done by better paid European and American workers, could you buy all those gadgets so cheaply? I don't think so. 

Tell me, if technology has made labor obsolete, why do we need so many slaves in Asia? And why do we need to steal oil and other resources from Africa and Middle East?

We don't need it. In fact we were fine without it for decades. Only recently have people rushed to run off to poor labor markets in order to save money. The irony here is that this is impossible without low prices of oil/transportation. Also in developing there are huge growing markets of buyers that can grow exponentially. Companies rush there to sell not only to produce.

I won't argue that third worlders don't have it tough but they choose to take jobs they aren't forced to. They gain advantage from it, and eventually wages rise as the countries develop, ie China. The problem with third world countries is that they are third world countries, not that companies are abusing them. They were poor way before the companies arrived, and no matter how little they are paid companies are actually helping them, even if by nature companies help as little as possible.

We don't steal oil. We pay for it, usually from OPEC who are the real thieves, and would be illegal in any country on earth. Who is we anyway? I am Canadian.

Yes because the amazonian Indians are a widely regarded as a role model in anything, oh wait no they are not. Feel free to live the amazing enlightened life of a amazonian Indian. Nature is competitive by nature, it's always looking to screw you. You have to continue growing or eventually someone tougher will show up, or nature will hit you with a plague or natural disaster and that will be the end of poor little static you. Attempting to stay static  means you are actually regressing, it may just not be noticeable until it's too late.

As for the OT I would say that while peak oil may indeed upon us, what is almost as bad is demand. Demand for oil is at record highs because third world countries are becoming rich because of their nasty slave owners the big bad companies. This is causing crude prices to rise dramatically. I predict lean economic times ahead as high oil prices start to really hurt the economy for all the reasons people have listed above.

 

I'm not sure it's possible to ever have %50 of the labor force unnecessary in the long run. While unskilled manufacturing labor may become less common, economies can always expand in other areas. Economics aren't magic, it's just people doing work for money. As long as you have food and money to buy stuff your good. Look at the settling of America. We show up and cut down forests, grow crops, then specialize into say blacksmiths, trappers etc. Voila an Economy! As long as there are resources available and people with an entrepreneurial spirit people will stay employed. Sudden shifts in skills required or lack of resources(high oil prices) can temporarily harm labor markets but in the long run they should adjust. It's human error that's the problem not the system. This is not to say that I don't think all those things you listed won't be huge problems, just ones that will be temporary instead of permanent.

Democracy works better with better communication so I don't see your point. What  social and political systems are we out growing exactly?

 

 

500-600 euro for an iPhone is NOT cheap