The US Department of Energy estimates that a new photovoltaic power plant entering service in 2017 will runs about $157/MWh in total levelized system costs (in 2010 dollar terms). It figures natural gas at $65
So if they're right, that's about twice as expensive, not 4 times as expensive.
That doesn't even make sense. At any point in time, what we think is 50% is, uhm, you know, base on what we think is 100%.
That's because you're thinking about it ass backwards. Peak oil theory predicts the bell curve. From that you can extrapolate 50% and 100%. It's not that we know where 100% and 50% is therefore we can draw the curve.
It's not a theory until he demonstrates the hypothesis predicts something. He didn't. I know, I know. Hubbert predicted peak oil in the U.S. putting the date of peak oil as 1972 and lo! U.S. oil output peaked in 1972. Of course Hubbert didn't predict any such thing. He got lucky.
He also got lucky more than 50 more times as subsequent countries also passed peak oil.
Feel free to reveal the means by which you've nailed down the quantity of oil that amounts to 100%.
I already did. Question asked and answered elsewhere on the thread.
Without counting the electrons in an AA battery, how can you know how many are left without destroying the battery? "It's simply impossible - mathematically and logically."
And yet we can tell by examining the profile of the power it's giving out over time.
Peak oil is a theory, not a law. Theories can and do base themselves on things that are not yet known for sure. If as time goes on, we make more observations that were predicted by the theory, we become more confident that the theory was right.
Peak Oil Theory has been right since 1956. It's now predicted peak oil in more than 50 countries. So we can be pretty confident in it.
Peak Oil Theory is based on the idea that the extraction curve of oil approximates a normal bell curve. It's a secondary observation that in a normal bell curve, the peak is at 50%. But it is only an approximation, which is why I said "when around half the oil has been extracted"
Gravity is also not God, and it also does not require worship. But the fact that you are bound by it
Economics does not bind us in the same way gravity does. Economists don't even agree on the causes or cures of the current global crisis, so don't even try to compare it with a concrete physical force.
Money is a human fabrication. An agreement to collaborate in a certain way. Sometimes. It doesn't and shouldn't control every thing we do. If we allowed ourselves to be run by economics, we wouldn't have children, and we wouldn't spend money on entertainment for example. So why would you imagine that we should allow the oil companies to do the wrong thing purely because it suits their bottom line?
Soylent Green may not have been right (yet) about making processed food from humans. But prediction of a place where you could go that would give you a easy and dignified death if you chose to die?
We first thought we were hitting peak oil in the 1920s IIRC
You don't recall correctly. Peak Theory was proposed in 1956, so it would have needed a time machine for your proposal to be true.
Since then the theory has been born out by the USA and over 50 other countries that are already past their peak oil production. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5576
For a good read, I suggest The Age of Oil
If it's the source of your earlier recollection, I'll give it a miss. I've read plenty more accurate books such as Twilight in the Desert.
Renewable energy is already feasible. It's already widely used. Just not widely enough yet.
The rest of your post is basically an assumption that we should allow the oil companies to dictate energy policy according to what's profitable for them. Well, it probably will go like that. But it shouldn't and it doesn't have to.
Economics is not God. It doesn't need your worship.
Except that it wasn't. We keep finding more and more, and that 50% keeps going down and down...
Hubbert came up with peak oil theory, and he based it on the finite oil in the ground, not the vaguaries of oil that we happen to know about at any one point in time.
Hubbert was a geologist working for an oil company. The fact that new discoveries come along, but at an ever slowing pace, was hardly something he wasn't aware of, and isn't a flaw in the theory.
The 50% is "50% of oil in the ground", not "50% of oil that we've discovered". The 100% doesn't move, other than at the pace of geological time frames.
and quadrupling the price of electricity and fuel (or something)
Or something? You're making an argument when you don't even know? Check out green energy tariffs. They are a bit more expensive than ordinary ones. But not 4 times, that would be ridiculous.
But that's by the by. Fossil fuels are not a repeatable bargain. The human race can extract them once every several million years. What makes you think that you saving a bit of money is justification for using up all of a particular resource, and polluting the place in the process? Why do you deserve it more than your grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on.
Remember, oil isn't just for energy. It's a raw material for manufacturing most products too. Do you really think it's wise to burn it off in the next generation, leaving nothing left for the thousands of generations to come?
Environmentalists are not saying we're running out of oil. "Peak Oil" does not mean the end of oil. Indeed it's believed to happen when around half the oil has been extracted, and half is still in the ground. The reason production goes down is because the remaining oil gets more and more difficult to extract. Costly both financially and in terms of energy. And if it cost > 1 joule of energy to extract oil that gives 1 joule, it's not worth it.
Note that the first 50% of oil was mostly consumed in a century. Because of increased consumption, even if the second 50% were easy to extract, it wouldn't last a century.
Environmentalists ARE saying that oil is polluting, both in terms of traditional pollutants, and releasing green house gasses. And if we have to switch to renewables anyway, why not do it as soon as possible.
I suspect his argument is about physical keyboards rather than size. Maybe they have a plan to replace their Playbook with something that has a keyboard.
And many organisations are still stuck on Windows XP with apparently no plan or ability to switch in the near future despite EOL gone flying by and EOS approaching rapidly.
But this is like an organisation that decided to transition to WinXP when it was new, and are still in the process.
So what's your point other than that a massive infrastructure change is hard?
There needs to be a point besides that very important one? People paint switching to Linux as if it's an easy option. It's not, it's and incredibly long and frustrating process. And most people will would wish they never started.
Slashdot Mirror
You can claim to have used a percentage of something if you don't know what the total amount is.
Asked several times already, already answered more than once.
As long as we continue to find new sources of oil that percentage used by a particular time will go down.
No. The theory was not made based on the idea that there would be no future oil discoveries. So why would predicted oil discoveries change the theory?
Except those conclusions assume we knew how much oil there was. What if the first 50% was really the first 5%?
At least 3 other people have already made that point. I've already answered it twice.
The US Department of Energy estimates that a new photovoltaic power plant entering service in 2017 will runs about $157/MWh in total levelized system costs (in 2010 dollar terms). It figures natural gas at $65
So if they're right, that's about twice as expensive, not 4 times as expensive.
That doesn't even make sense. At any point in time, what we think is 50% is, uhm, you know, base on what we think is 100%.
That's because you're thinking about it ass backwards. Peak oil theory predicts the bell curve. From that you can extrapolate 50% and 100%. It's not that we know where 100% and 50% is therefore we can draw the curve.
Hubbert came up with the peak oil hypothesis.
You are incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
It's not a theory until he demonstrates the hypothesis predicts something. He didn't. I know, I know. Hubbert predicted peak oil in the U.S. putting the date of peak oil as 1972 and lo! U.S. oil output peaked in 1972. Of course Hubbert didn't predict any such thing. He got lucky.
He also got lucky more than 50 more times as subsequent countries also passed peak oil.
Feel free to reveal the means by which you've nailed down the quantity of oil that amounts to 100%.
I already did. Question asked and answered elsewhere on the thread.
Without counting the electrons in an AA battery, how can you know how many are left without destroying the battery? "It's simply impossible - mathematically and logically."
And yet we can tell by examining the profile of the power it's giving out over time.
Peak oil is a theory, not a law. Theories can and do base themselves on things that are not yet known for sure. If as time goes on, we make more observations that were predicted by the theory, we become more confident that the theory was right.
Peak Oil Theory has been right since 1956. It's now predicted peak oil in more than 50 countries. So we can be pretty confident in it.
Peak Oil Theory is based on the idea that the extraction curve of oil approximates a normal bell curve. It's a secondary observation that in a normal bell curve, the peak is at 50%. But it is only an approximation, which is why I said "when around half the oil has been extracted"
It's also an early example of data compression, with more common letters generally having shorter forms than uncommon ones.
I tried posting this IN morse, but Slashdot thought it was lame. I think they're right!
Gravity is also not God, and it also does not require worship. But the fact that you are bound by it
Economics does not bind us in the same way gravity does. Economists don't even agree on the causes or cures of the current global crisis, so don't even try to compare it with a concrete physical force.
Money is a human fabrication. An agreement to collaborate in a certain way. Sometimes. It doesn't and shouldn't control every thing we do. If we allowed ourselves to be run by economics, we wouldn't have children, and we wouldn't spend money on entertainment for example. So why would you imagine that we should allow the oil companies to do the wrong thing purely because it suits their bottom line?
Soylent Green may not have been right (yet) about making processed food from humans. But prediction of a place where you could go that would give you a easy and dignified death if you chose to die?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitas_(assisted_dying_organisation)
And in Europe this year, there's been a big scandal that many supposedly beef based products are actually horse-meat.
Soylent Green may not have come 100% true yet. But as science fiction, it certainly got the direction right.
We first thought we were hitting peak oil in the 1920s IIRC
You don't recall correctly. Peak Theory was proposed in 1956, so it would have needed a time machine for your proposal to be true.
Since then the theory has been born out by the USA and over 50 other countries that are already past their peak oil production.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5576
For a good read, I suggest The Age of Oil
If it's the source of your earlier recollection, I'll give it a miss. I've read plenty more accurate books such as Twilight in the Desert.
Correct. So what a waste it is to burn the major raw material for future products.
Oil makes a tremendously good battery.
I don't know about you, but I buy rechargeable batteries, not one time use batteries. One time use batteries are not "tremendously good batteries".
Renewable energy is already feasible. It's already widely used. Just not widely enough yet.
The rest of your post is basically an assumption that we should allow the oil companies to dictate energy policy according to what's profitable for them. Well, it probably will go like that. But it shouldn't and it doesn't have to.
Economics is not God. It doesn't need your worship.
"Note that the first 50% of oil was mostly consumed in a century."
You need to correct that statement.
No I don't. It's correct.
Note that the first 50% of easy and cheap to get at oil was mostly consumed in a century.
No. The 50% of total oil we've extracted was the easy and cheap oil. The remaining 50% is hard to get oil.
Except that it wasn't. We keep finding more and more, and that 50% keeps going down and down...
Hubbert came up with peak oil theory, and he based it on the finite oil in the ground, not the vaguaries of oil that we happen to know about at any one point in time.
Hubbert was a geologist working for an oil company. The fact that new discoveries come along, but at an ever slowing pace, was hardly something he wasn't aware of, and isn't a flaw in the theory.
The 50% is "50% of oil in the ground", not "50% of oil that we've discovered". The 100% doesn't move, other than at the pace of geological time frames.
and quadrupling the price of electricity and fuel (or something)
Or something? You're making an argument when you don't even know? Check out green energy tariffs. They are a bit more expensive than ordinary ones. But not 4 times, that would be ridiculous.
But that's by the by. Fossil fuels are not a repeatable bargain. The human race can extract them once every several million years. What makes you think that you saving a bit of money is justification for using up all of a particular resource, and polluting the place in the process? Why do you deserve it more than your grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on.
Remember, oil isn't just for energy. It's a raw material for manufacturing most products too. Do you really think it's wise to burn it off in the next generation, leaving nothing left for the thousands of generations to come?
Environmentalists are not saying we're running out of oil. "Peak Oil" does not mean the end of oil. Indeed it's believed to happen when around half the oil has been extracted, and half is still in the ground. The reason production goes down is because the remaining oil gets more and more difficult to extract. Costly both financially and in terms of energy. And if it cost > 1 joule of energy to extract oil that gives 1 joule, it's not worth it.
Note that the first 50% of oil was mostly consumed in a century. Because of increased consumption, even if the second 50% were easy to extract, it wouldn't last a century.
Environmentalists ARE saying that oil is polluting, both in terms of traditional pollutants, and releasing green house gasses. And if we have to switch to renewables anyway, why not do it as soon as possible.
Oil is a finite resource, it will inevitably run out eventually.
Indeed. A better headline for this story would be "Neocon Owned Magazine Presents Cornucopian Myth."
Yes, the constant drawback with everything in the open source/free software world. No decent apps.
But Waze is better.
So is Red Hat.
I suspect his argument is about physical keyboards rather than size. Maybe they have a plan to replace their Playbook with something that has a keyboard.
After all, you can't pay your taxes with it.
But you can buy tulip bulbs and Beanie Babies!
A bitcoin may cost more in electricity than the bitcoin is worth, but hell we can make up for it with volume!
And many organisations are still stuck on Windows XP with apparently no plan or ability to switch in the near future despite EOL gone flying by and EOS approaching rapidly.
But this is like an organisation that decided to transition to WinXP when it was new, and are still in the process.
So what's your point other than that a massive infrastructure change is hard?
There needs to be a point besides that very important one? People paint switching to Linux as if it's an easy option. It's not, it's and incredibly long and frustrating process. And most people will would wish they never started.