Comments on: “Peak Oil” Less A Concern As Alternatives Reduce Demand

By: ralfyman

ralfyman — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:35:00 +0000

The problem isn’t price competition but energy returns. That is, we need high energy returns to maintain economic growth and meet resource needs of a growing global middle class.

There are also problems involving energy traps (oil needed to produce components, etc., needed for other sources of energy) and lag time.

By: jburt56

jburt56 — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:46:00 +0000

Sure, it might spike again but with each run up EVs and PHEVs will surge in sales.

By: ttman

ttman — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 01:28:00 +0000

To me, that is the wishful thinking of economists. At first all we heard was that technology would stave off Peak Oil by finding new ways to get oil that was too hard to get under previous methods. Now with the price rising and that idea looking shaky the optimists appear to be shifting to an idea of economists – that anytime something gets expensive or scarce, something else will substitute for it and take it’s place. All I can say is that I don’t see how we are gonna convert from 90 something percent transportation based on oil to 90 something electricity-based, without a lot of economic pain.

By: ttman

ttman — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 01:24:00 +0000

Oil is over $100 a barrel. That doesn’t show reduced demand or a surplus. It shows the opposite – a shortage.

By: ttman

ttman — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 01:24:00 +0000

If solar has ended the energy crisis why is oil over $100 a barrel?

By: jburt56

jburt56 — Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:55:00 +0000

In fact the emergence of solar has already effectively ended the energy crisis from a policy standpoint.

By: Dimitar Mirchev

Dimitar Mirchev — Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:51:00 +0000

Goodbye, Peak Oil!

Hello, Carbon Bubble!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_bubble

Guess its time for divestment!

By: wadosy

wadosy — Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:25:00 +0000

exxon bought stanford in 2002... exxon is allied with the neocons of the AEI, who spun off PNAC, which said in 2000 that it needed a new pearl harbor... was peak oil the reason the neocons and their exxon allies needed a new pearl harbor? are neocon, exxon and stanford denials of peak oil understandable in the afterrmath of 0/11?