Topic: Governments will want their TAX ??? The solution is obvious but scary. - page 2. (Read 16234 times)
April 07, 2011, 10:14:20 PM
April 06, 2011, 05:08:57 PM
Oil is renewable you're just not patient enough.
April 06, 2011, 03:31:24 PM
Consumption Rate is part of the equation but once on the downside, you can never reach the peak again.
I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.
But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.
I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.
But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.
We are not past the peak in copper. The prices for copper are more volatile than simply the cost of production, and very little of it is consumed in industry. Most of it still exists in a refined form within electrical conduits everywhere. The big cost driver for copper over the last decade is the increases in the construction demands of China and India.
Actually, we are, but unlike Oil, Copper is re-cycled and can sustain a market much longer. When it becomes a little bit more expensive, it will be like gold and be 80% recycled.
If the price keeps going the way it does, all people with forclosure proceedings could just strip the Electrical Wire out of their house, sell it and pay off the Bank.
Here is some interesting reading: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
It covers peaks on many materials.
I'm aware of the science, and I'm telling you that we have not hit that peak. Hubbert's Peak has limited applications to resources that have a significant recycle use anyway, because it relates only to the economics of resource extraction.
And if it even apraaches the spot price in silver many of the major uses of copper (electrically related mostly) can be easily repalced by other materials.
April 06, 2011, 03:10:40 PM
current consumption rate
The human obsession with growth renders any argument taking into account current consumption rates invalid.it's 11:59 on plant earth
proven coal reserves
I am sure that the real reserves are much larger.
Actually we do not have thousands of years.
50-70 years probably enough for completely switch to electric power in most areas.
So we a see more nuclear/gas/coal plants in the near 20 years (this already planed in most countries, no mater what 'greens' think and want).
But I hope ITER project will be successful in the same 20 years period.
April 06, 2011, 09:13:29 AM
Consumption Rate is part of the equation but once on the downside, you can never reach the peak again.
I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.
But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.
I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.
But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.
We are not past the peak in copper. The prices for copper are more volatile than simply the cost of production, and very little of it is consumed in industry. Most of it still exists in a refined form within electrical conduits everywhere. The big cost driver for copper over the last decade is the increases in the construction demands of China and India.
Actually, we are, but unlike Oil, Copper is re-cycled and can sustain a market much longer. When it becomes a little bit more expensive, it will be like gold and be 80% recycled.
If the price keeps going the way it does, all people with forclosure proceedings could just strip the Electrical Wire out of their house, sell it and pay off the Bank.
Here is some interesting reading: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
It covers peaks on many materials.
April 06, 2011, 09:05:05 AM
Consumption Rate is part of the equation but once on the downside, you can never reach the peak again.
I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.
But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.
I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.
But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.
We are not past the peak in copper. The prices for copper are more volatile than simply the cost of production, and very little of it is consumed in industry. Most of it still exists in a refined form within electrical conduits everywhere. The big cost driver for copper over the last decade is the increases in the construction demands of China and India.
April 06, 2011, 08:58:00 AM
Consumption Rate is part of the equation but once on the downside, you can never reach the peak again.
I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.
But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.
I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.
But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.
April 06, 2011, 08:14:56 AM
current consumption rate
The human obsession with growth renders any argument taking into account current consumption rates invalid.it's 11:59 on plant earth
proven coal reserves
I am sure that the real reserves are much larger.
April 06, 2011, 08:07:45 AM
current consumption rate
The human obsession with growth renders any argument taking into account current consumption rates invalid.it's 11:59 on plant earth
proven coal reserves
I am sure that the real reserves are much larger.
April 06, 2011, 06:24:56 AM
current consumption rate
The human obsession with growth renders any argument taking into account current consumption rates invalid.it's 11:59 on plant earth
April 06, 2011, 06:10:33 AM
Why all think only about oil? Too much noise from media maybe?
There are large reserves of natural gas and coal.
Coal can be very effective and environmentally friendly to convert to natural gas, using new technology.
Coal even cheaper than oil (at current market price) and more environmentally friendly.
Of proven coal reserves at current consumption rate will be enough for at least 120 years.
There is only one problem for some western countries: the Middle East countries do not have coal, and there is not so much coal in Africa.
There are large reserves of natural gas and coal.
Coal can be very effective and environmentally friendly to convert to natural gas, using new technology.
Coal even cheaper than oil (at current market price) and more environmentally friendly.
Of proven coal reserves at current consumption rate will be enough for at least 120 years.
There is only one problem for some western countries: the Middle East countries do not have coal, and there is not so much coal in Africa.
April 06, 2011, 03:25:36 AM
Quote
Governments will want their TAX 
The solution is obvious but scary.
The solution is obvious but scary.Oh Dear. I hope the solution doesn't involve forking the bitcoin client into one that automatically sends a portion of every transaction to your friendly neighborhood gang, cause that's the only obvious solution I can think of.
April 04, 2011, 10:57:12 AM
Quote
Nuclear cannot substitute fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are easily transported, hence we use them to transport stuff. Until someone developes a battery with the same energy density, ease of recharge, and low cost of a conventional fuel tank, no other energy source will substitute for oil, upon which all developed nations are critically dependent.
Nuclear could produce hydrogen which would allow all conventional means of transportation to still exist. Just stick two electrodes into water. If we would run out of nuclear fuel well before we run out of hydrogen from water.(preferably sea water, cause we need the fresh water)
A from scratch nuclear hydrogen generator could make massive amounts of hydrogen because it could use heat from the nuclear reactor directly plus electricity generated and modern metallic catalysts. While I think battery electric vehicles will advance enough to be usable in the next few years (mostly range issues currently), hydrogen fueled cars using internal combustion engines or fuel cells could replace gasoline in many applications.
If we put the effort into it, nuclear could displace a substantial amount of fossil fuels. That effort is not insurmountable, but would take five to ten years with a Manhattan Project level effort.
I'm with you, it's just too bad this Japan crisis has got everyone so scared about nuclear power. Don't get me wrong it's got the worst potential damage but things like the BP oil spill are way more common and horrible in a slightly less scary / no zombies type of way.
April 03, 2011, 05:18:35 PM
Quote
Nuclear cannot substitute fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are easily transported, hence we use them to transport stuff. Until someone developes a battery with the same energy density, ease of recharge, and low cost of a conventional fuel tank, no other energy source will substitute for oil, upon which all developed nations are critically dependent.
Nuclear could produce hydrogen which would allow all conventional means of transportation to still exist. Just stick two electrodes into water. If we would run out of nuclear fuel well before we run out of hydrogen from water.(preferably sea water, cause we need the fresh water)
A from scratch nuclear hydrogen generator could make massive amounts of hydrogen because it could use heat from the nuclear reactor directly plus electricity generated and modern metallic catalysts. While I think battery electric vehicles will advance enough to be usable in the next few years (mostly range issues currently), hydrogen fueled cars using internal combustion engines or fuel cells could replace gasoline in many applications.
If we put the effort into it, nuclear could displace a substantial amount of fossil fuels. That effort is not insurmountable, but would take five to ten years with a Manhattan Project level effort.
April 03, 2011, 02:09:14 PM
Quote
Nuclear cannot substitute fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are easily transported, hence we use them to transport stuff. Until someone developes a battery with the same energy density, ease of recharge, and low cost of a conventional fuel tank, no other energy source will substitute for oil, upon which all developed nations are critically dependent.
Nuclear could produce hydrogen which would allow all conventional means of transportation to still exist. Just stick two electrodes into water. If we would run out of nuclear fuel well before we run out of hydrogen from water.(preferably sea water, cause we need the fresh water)
April 03, 2011, 01:55:49 PM
How does nuclear energy figure in to the Hirsch report?
If we built more nuclear reactors could we extend that a few hundred years and get rid of the bulk of the fossil fuels?
If we built more nuclear reactors could we extend that a few hundred years and get rid of the bulk of the fossil fuels?
Nuclear cannot substitute fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are easily transported, hence we use them to transport stuff. Until someone developes a battery with the same energy density, ease of recharge, and low cost of a conventional fuel tank, no other energy source will substitute for oil, upon which all developed nations are critically dependent.
At about 2:25, the guy in the video seems to negate peak U.S. domestic oil production. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Oil_Production_and_Imports_1920_to_2005.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil:
Expensive fossil fuel procures windmills and and solar panels and rations resources until energy become cheap. Fossil fuels technologies are not required for the existence of new energy sources. Rather cheap energy decrease pressure for development of new energy technologies.
The problem is that right now, 2011, NOTHING will substitute oil, not even all the alternatives put together. So first some new technology needs to be invented. Then it needs to be mass produced and distributed BEFORE the last easily obtainable fossil energy starts to be spent on wars defending the last easily obtainable fossil energy.
Exactly, we had power before we had coal plants.
It's just why bother if it's not worth it (economically) at this point.
I'm talking about the business point of view, not individuals that care.
Yeah, we had power before coal, alright, slavery. Wasn't that fun for all involved. [/sarcasm] It's just why bother if it's not worth it (economically) at this point.
I'm talking about the business point of view, not individuals that care.
April 02, 2011, 06:23:23 PM
Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and lock him in a cell with nothing but 10 gallons of water and a party sub. As his food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before he starves he'll discover new sources of nourishment* he didn't know existed before and he'll be better off than ever.
Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and isolate a bunch of people on a planet with nothing but the resources on it. As their food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before they starve they'll discover new sources of nourishment they didn't know existed before and they'll be better off than ever.
A bucket of water and a sandwich are insufficient to sustain one human. you're argument does not follow. Give one man a plot of land and some seeds and we might have a valid analogy.
March 29, 2011, 03:30:36 PM
Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and lock him in a cell with nothing but 10 gallons of water and a party sub. As his food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before he starves he'll discover new sources of nourishment* he didn't know existed before and he'll be better off than ever.
*eat shit dude
*eat shit dude
If this someone keeps suppressing his freedoms by keeping him in captivity he'll probably starve, of course. But if s/he stops being such an asshole criminal and let him interact with decent human beings and nature, he'll probably find a way to improve his life, you bet.
About the video, it proves the point that it's silly to panic about "we only have 60 years left of nuclear fuel! OMG! How will my grandchildren do?!".
Prices will push for better uses of scarce resources, if you just let people free.
March 29, 2011, 02:33:52 PM
Rats and cockroaches tend to be the wild game available in prison.
March 29, 2011, 02:10:27 PM
"We aren't running out of resources we're just finding substitutes for the resources we're running out of."
"Now watch as I pretend that oil at $150/bbl is as economically beneficial as oil at $2/bbl."
Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and lock him in a cell with nothing but 10 gallons of water and a party sub. As his food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before he starves he'll discover new sources of nourishment* he didn't know existed before and he'll be better off than ever.
*eat shit dude
Jump to: