the concept of "peak Oil " is blarney

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The thing is, conservation doesn't bring innovation.

I 100% disagree.

The way I see it , conservation has been the primary motivator or cause for the vast majority of innovations in human history ... we want to work less for the same output ( thus conserving our time and our energies ).

• The wheel was a conservation of energy device.
• home insulation was a conservation of energy device.
• agriculture was a conservation of energy device
• Roads were a conservation of energy device

etc .... etc...

Although we do value different sources differently , putting human time and energy output as a premium above other sources ... but any effort to conserve human time or energy output is still , conservation as the primary goal.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by IamIan

I 100% disagree.

The way I see it , conservation has been the primary motivator or cause for the vast majority of innovations in human history ... we want to work less for the same output ( thus conserving our time and our energies ).

• The wheel was a conservation of energy device.
• home insulation was a conservation of energy device.
• agriculture was a conservation of energy device
• Roads were a conservation of energy device

etc .... etc...

Although we do value different sources differently , putting human time and energy output as a premium above other sources ... but any effort to conserve human time or energy output is still , conservation as the primary goal.

Agreed. I'm among the greatest champions of efficiency and conservation, but I don't see it as necessary. It is the scarcity of a resource that necessitates innovation, not conservation in and of itself. The more scarce and desirable a resource, the more innovation to conserve it.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Agreed. I'm among the greatest champions of efficiency and conservation, but I don't see it as necessary.

I don't see anything as necessary in and of itself ... Thing A is only necessary to get or avoid Thing B , under Conditions C.

For example: Breathing
It is not necessary in and of itself ... it is thing B ( staying alive ) under the conditions C ( of needing to breath to stay alive ) ... that produce the necessity of A from the combination of B & C ... but it is not A by itself that is necessary on its own... if someone can alter either B or C , thing A might not be necessary anymore.

As such I would agree conservation itself is not necessary on it's own ... nothing is.

My point was that ... it is the drive to conserve and for conservation that have resulted in many many innovation in human history.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It is the scarcity of a resource that necessitates innovation

The scarcity of a resource likewise to the above does not create a necessity in and of itself... it is only one part.

Scarcity does not have to lead to innovation ... If the mental step to desire conservation of that thing is never made ... it doesn't matter how scarce it is ... scarcity can only be one of many reasons for conservation efforts ... it is not the only reason for conservation.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The more scarce and desirable a resource, the more innovation to conserve it.

Bold added.

Exactly my point ... it is the efforts to converse thing A that many times in human history result in innovation ... without the desire to converse thing A , it makes no difference how scarce it is.

My original point was and still is to disagree with the concept proposed of ... "conservation doesn't bring innovation" ... because efforts for conservation have brought innovation many many times in human history ... some of the biggest innovations in human history.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by IamIan

... efforts for conservation have brought innovation many many times in human history ... some of the biggest innovations in human history.

Looks like we are in agreement

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by redyaris

Which begs the question. Are we an intelligent species or not? because this pattern of exploitation to the point of exhaustion is very frequent in our history.

Man has only been around for a very short while.
We like to see ourselves as brilliant geniuses, but we are ever further removed from nature.

The crocs show you have to adapt to changing environments in order to survive - they were already there when the dino's turned into oil .
We humans try to adapt ... our environment instead of ourselves.

[NeilBlanchard]

Does the fact that we are mining the tar sands bitumen in Alberta prove that we have passed peak oil?

Does the fact we are shipping coal to China and India prove that we have passed peak coal?

Does the fact that we have to frack for natural gas and oil also prove that we have passed peak gas and peak oil?

[niky]

We have to look at the peaks of each set of reserves separately. We are undobutedly past the production peak of Saudi Oil. Iraqi Oil, maybe not yet, due to the disruptions. We are nowhere near peak Tar Sands, but due to the lack of pipeline and weak pricing due to low demand, the cost of extracting is prohibitive. While the current high prices are due mostly to speculation (bullish investment) and political maneuvering by some OPEC members, tar sands become uneconomical for development below $80 per barrel (some say 85) and current traditional crude at below $100 or so.

Still, at current demand, we can use up all economically extractable oil within the next fifty to one hundred years... And we can expect future price shocks long before that. Maybe even by the end of this year.

[NeilBlanchard]

Tars sand bitumen is not even really oil, and it is a whole 'nuther monster. We have already had two pipelines burst because of the stuff, and the main refinery that is being purpose made to refine it has been shut down after exploding and killing 5 people.

Look up the 2010 pipeline failure that is still mostly sitting on the bottom of the Kalamazoo River.

Tar sands bitumen is so thick you can roll it into a ball, and it has to be mixed with a solvent even to think about it flowing through a pipeline. It is also very caustic, and this is why it needs it's own special refinery, and why it makes far less fuel per barrel than even heavy sour crude.

Tar sands bitumen is proof we have passed peak oil.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Tars sand bitumen is not even really oil, and it is a whole 'nuther monster. We have already had two pipelines burst because of the stuff, and the main refinery that is being purpose made to refine it has been shut down after exploding and killing 5 people.

Look up the 2010 pipeline failure that is still mostly sitting on the bottom of the Kalamazoo River.

Tar sands bitumen is so thick you can roll it into a ball, and it has to be mixed with a solvent even to think about it flowing through a pipeline. It is also very caustic, and this is why it needs it's own special refinery, and why it makes far less fuel per barrel than even heavy sour crude.

Tar sands bitumen is proof we have passed peak oil.

...and, you have to ask, from *what* is that hydrocarbon-solvent made?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Almost nobody will voluntarily live at a lower standard of living.

What defines "lower standard of living", though? From my point of view, most of the population of this country has freely and voluntarily chosen to live at a much lower standard of living than they could easily obtain.

Just for instance, which person has the better quality of life, the one who lives one paycheck from disaster, or the one whose savings has made him financially independent? How about the physically fit versus the morbidly obese?