Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PEAK OIL - The New Y2K or The Beginning of the Real End? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jurgis Bekepuris who wrote (323)	4/14/2005 1:48:18 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1183

How long do you think it will take to create the infrastructure necessary for alternatives to meet the gap between declining oil and the level of available energy necessary to return to economic growth? It will take a lot of oil to build such an infrastructure. I think 15 years is not out of line.

To: Jurgis Bekepuris who wrote (323)	4/19/2005 4:21:36 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1183

Hi Jurgis, Re: Jurgis, who thinks there are alternatives Recently I've read Ken Deffeyes' "Hubbert's Peak" and Richard Heinberg's "The Party's Over". Both books make the point that petroleum makes up about 40% of the energy mix in the U.S.A. And they point out that exclusive of hydropower, alternative energy sources make up less than 1% of our national energy budget. Not only are they sure that alternative energy cannot possibly make up for a significant shortfall in petroleum production, but that most if not all alternative energy developments face insurmountable hurdles in EROEI, or Energy Returned on Energy Invested. Say we want to drive around in hydrogen powered vehicles. Fine. The only problem is that we probably need to build a trillion dollar infrastructure to make this feasible. And we have no rational plan on how to build this infrastructure with the existing technologies of today. As far as I can tell, wind power makes sense today, as does the renewal of the nuclear power industry. But other schemes, such as biomass to ethanol conversions seem pretty crazy to me, considering the fact that producing ethanol in most instances in the U.S. fails to meet the EROEI hurdle. Brazil is blessed in this regard with its much more abundant sunlight. As to nuclear fusion, I think that we certainly should continue with basic research into this source of harnessable power. However, realistically speaking, we seem no closer to solving the fusion engineering issues than we did in the 1970s. So I do not put much faith in this as a viable solution within the next couple of decades. *** Here's an interesting chart on "Conceivable Harnessable Alternative Energy Sources" fas.org