Advertisements

Peak Oil Theory’s No Good Terrible Very Bad Week

Just when you thought continued belief in any of the various brands of “Peak Oil” theory could hardly become less sustainable, you get a week like this one. No matter whether you come at Peak Oil from the supply side or the demand side, several events this week would have had to put you in a definitively sour mood.

Starting off this “No Good Terrible Very Bad” week for the Peak Oilers, UN International Energy Agency (IEA) Executive Director Fatih Birol debunked a popular piece of the demand side of the theory.  Speaking to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 22, Birol told the delegates that “To say that the electric car is the end of oil is definitely misleading.” Oh.

Birol expanded on that theme by adding emphatically that “Cars are not the driver of oil demand growth. Full stop.” Birol made things even more problematic for those who wish to dramatically accelerate the displacement of internal combustion cars with EVs via massive subsidies for environmental reasons by pointing to the fact that EVs in fact do little to reduce emissions, pointing to the fact that most of the electricity globally is still generated using coal and other fossil fuels. “Where does the electricity come from, to say that electric cars are a solution to our climate change problem? It is not,” he said.

Read the Rest Here

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Peak Oil Theory’s No Good Terrible Very Bad Week

  1. Jimmy MacAfee - January 27, 2019

    When will people realize that “sustainable energy” (i.e. solar, wind) don’t work? Solyndra? Follow the money. Harry Reid’s son had a deal with the Chinese, and we had a fellow citizen murdered byan FBI goon (LaVoy Finicum was shot in the back.) Bureau of Land Management’s land-grab was to profit Harry’s son; Reid doesn’t mind that his son would profit at the death of a rancher, as long as he gets his deal with the Chinese. Follow the money. Algore – (or is it el Gore) – made a deal with Qatar to be their hoaxperson (i.e. sale of his “network.”) Follow the money. Then there’s the sale of carbon credits – for the moneyed class, not for us Deplorables. We need to drill even more holes in Alaska, and keep on frackin’!

    1. alonzo1956 - January 27, 2019

      Renewable power works just fine. The cost of the power, its reliability factor and maximum dependable capability are issues that are far different than fossil fuel power generation. Solyndra was simply a boondoggle/scam pulled on the American people. We need to keep an eye on global warming issues in case it proves to be correct. Sooner or later we will have consumed all fossil fuels and will need a replacement for our power supply. Nuclear fission is riddled with problems due to the radioactive half life of spent fuel. The French have a good record handling the material and their reactors are of standardized design. It will still add heat to the environment. Nuclear fusion is still not viable and the waste heat issue is the same. We need to find a heat neutral source of power generation. Solar, wind and tidal sources of generation are heat neutral.

      1. Jimmy MacAfee - January 27, 2019

        Lockheed Martin is, along with others, pretty far along in the race for fusion; gas-type nuclear reactors (that don’t produce weaponizable materials) are viable. As far as wind? Well, that’s not efficient at all,
        and it harms wildlife. Solar? Once batteries are capable of holding energy inexpensively will give solar a greater potential – Musk’s outfit is doing some pretty good work on this, last I heard, but needs a couple of new generations to really maximize. Antimatter may not be as sci-fi as people think. Skunkworks and Musk’s operations and others will be immensely helpful. The three Holy Grails that may or may not ever be found are grav-energy, cold fusion and a hot superconductive material (to prevent energy loss in transmission.) Maybe advances in AC/DC technology – again, transmission and storage – are needed, if they’re possible.

        1. alonzo1956 - January 28, 2019

          Wind is efficient. Your post is a bit out of touch. As far as I know, the bird killing issue isn’t as big of a problem as environmentalists portray it to be. Bugs on the blades causing imbalance issues appear to be an issue. Your advances in AC/DC technology statement is confounding. DC Transmission lines already exist, however they have absolutely nothing to do with storage. The line losses during transmission of bulk power are much less using direct current. A 1200 KV line currently runs from The Dalles Oregon to LA. Texas also has DC interties with the rest of America, and the East/West grid has a DC intertie. America is essentially two separate grids (East & West) due to problems installing high voltage transmission lines across the Mississippi River. Texas could be called a third grid due to their DC interties. Mr. Blackman knows that they do things differently in Texas. Fusion power production is still far off in the future, And it causes an extra heat loading of the atmosphere that science currently ignores. Moving existing energy from one place to another is the only neutral solution regarding man made heating or cooling of the atmosphere.

          1. David Blackmon - January 28, 2019

            Wind turbines are the 2nd largest bird-killing industry on the face of the earth, behind power lines. It is a huge problem, one that the wind industry seems totally unwilling to adequately address.

          2. Jimmy MacAfee - January 28, 2019

            Alonzo,
            You didn’t get my point: AC is more efficiently transmitted without energy loss than DC. That was my point, plus the notion that we need to figure out a way that is superior to AC/DC. As far as wind goes, the production/installation/replacement costs make wind not viable. You fail to factor in those costs. A better solution would be to use tidal forces (which contain their own set of problems) but that are being considered in places like the Bay of Fundi. My ideas involve coastlines, not tidal rivers. Efficient use of hydrogen power is also something that needs upgrading, because it costs too much energy to separate H from O. As far as LM goes, I suspect that fusion is closer than you admit, but no one is going to bring it out as long as fossil fuels are inexpensive. Unfortunately, making energy expensive was a tragic error tried by Energy Sec. Cho in the Obumbler administration, and did nothing to solve anything – other than to harm the economy.

          3. Jimmy MacAfee - January 28, 2019

            Oh. Got it backward: DC is more efficient. Right. Duh.

  2. Pilot Dave - January 27, 2019

    “settled science” is political, not science – They only cite the supply side, not the demand side of CO2 (Plant food), They only talk about the affects on temperature from CO2 raise, never the affects on agriculture (Every greenhouse operator knows increased CO2 = increased crop yield.)

    There are two very simple facts the Liberals will not acknowledge:

    #1 This Earth can only sustain 2 billion people without burning fossil fuel – John Deere does not run on batteries… so, what to do with 5 billion dead bodies?

    #2 The “deal” Trump wisely backed us out of would have taxed USA and sent this money to the #1 and #4 producers of CO2 – Chairman Mao’s China, and India…

    Most importantly, the Earth can only sustain 2 billion people without burning fossil fuel, so what are they going to do with the 5 – 6 billion corpse ? John Deer doesn’t run on batteries, nor can airliners… how will those fat cats in Congress jet home every weekend without jet fuel ?

    1. Jimmy MacAfee - January 27, 2019

      Excellent points! CO2 is beneficial, not harmful – and if we reduce CO2, there will be massive deforestation, and the Amazon will burn itself out (which will happen in the next 10-20,000 years anyway, without help, same as the Euphrates region.) The Amazon basin, by the way, wasn’t always jungle: the nut trees were cultivated, and pyramids are common (and being discovered all the time.) Beside the point, I know. But the salient point that you made, most of all, is that carbon taxes are just taxes, and it’s a good sign that the French are beginning to figure this out. Low income workers are being taxed to pay for Islamist layabouts with large families and multiple “wives.” Yellow Vests are, in part, a legitimate response to this transfer of wealth to the Jihadists.
      (If I were in Europe or Canada, I would be arrested for writing that.)

  3. Mark - January 28, 2019

    Lithium is a rare earth metal (it reacts with water). They are not allowed in cargo holds of aircraft. Why do these eco-minded folks never talk about the environmental harm of batteries? Google Earth covers up mines so you can’t see.

    1. Jimmy MacAfee - January 28, 2019

      Good points! You might also be aware that lithium powers RFID chips, and these implantable devices eventually break down and cause sores (as in Revelation 16:2.) The environuts also made us use lightbulbs which contained mercury, meaning that when you broke one, you need to have a HAZMAT team come clean up your property! Fortunately, a new generation of LED technology has arrived, and these environmental disasters they forced upon us are no longer worth buying! Everything environmentalists touch these days turns to crap, and the Market works to fix things in spite of environmentalist efforts to Communize us and put us all in little cages.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: