What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[viper37]

A hard shortage like that is, essentially, "running out" of something.  That hard shortage has been predicted dozens of times over the past century, but they have all been laughably wrong because the proponents of peak oil consistently and significantly underestimate: how much oil is available; how much current production and proven reserves depend on the economics of extraction; how quickly extraction and refining technology moves.

One of the other fundamental problems with the theory, alluded to by your second paragraph, is that it doesn't properly account for the emergence of alternatives to petroleum products.  One of the consequences of tightening supply is rising prices, and a consequence of rising prices is making alternatives more attractive.  Peak oil seems to be based partly on a semi-magical idea that there is no alternative to oil and that demand can reach a point where we are literally pumping oil from the earth as fast as we can and it isn't enough.  The actions in your second paragraph happened because the economics of oil changed and climate change became an acknowledged issue, not because anybody believed peak oil is a real thing.

And consistantly, we have reduced our oil consumption at critical times.

First and second oil shock of the 70s, we found ways to reduce the size of our motor vehicles and make them more efficient.  Planes, boats, heavy trucks, trains, etc, everything became much more energy efficient.

Then the danger of climate warming became a real concern for the population, and the wars in the middle east, so companies shifted to electric engines for many vehicles.

Peak oil is about "what if", "what if we do nothing?".  What will happen if we do nothing, if we keep the course.  "What if the Titanic cruised slower and saw the iceberge well in advance?".  That kind of thing.

It's about not tempting faith, not about the inevability.

[Valmy]

Feels alarmingly possible a Trump presidency looks successful:


All starting to open in January, no doubt with President Trump willing to cut every ribbon and claim credit

That was pretty much what happened in 2017.

[Barrister]

A hard shortage like that is, essentially, "running out" of something.  That hard shortage has been predicted dozens of times over the past century, but they have all been laughably wrong because the proponents of peak oil consistently and significantly underestimate: how much oil is available; how much current production and proven reserves depend on the economics of extraction; how quickly extraction and refining technology moves.

One of the other fundamental problems with the theory, alluded to by your second paragraph, is that it doesn't properly account for the emergence of alternatives to petroleum products.  One of the consequences of tightening supply is rising prices, and a consequence of rising prices is making alternatives more attractive.  Peak oil seems to be based partly on a semi-magical idea that there is no alternative to oil and that demand can reach a point where we are literally pumping oil from the earth as fast as we can and it isn't enough.  The actions in your second paragraph happened because the economics of oil changed and climate change became an acknowledged issue, not because anybody believed peak oil is a real thing.

And consistantly, we have reduced our oil consumption at critical times.

First and second oil shock of the 70s, we found ways to reduce the size of our motor vehicles and make them more efficient.  Planes, boats, heavy trucks, trains, etc, everything became much more energy efficient.

Then the danger of climate warming became a real concern for the population, and the wars in the middle east, so companies shifted to electric engines for many vehicles.

Peak oil is about "what if", "what if we do nothing?".  What will happen if we do nothing, if we keep the course.  "What if the Titanic cruised slower and saw the iceberge well in advance?".  That kind of thing.

It's about not tempting faith, not about the inevability.

Remember the oil shock of the 1970s wasn't just some random thing - it was caused by an arab oil embargo of the US.

Peak oil has nothing to do with "what if".  We will inevitably hit some kind of "peak oil".  But it won't necessarily be because we run out of oil - it will be because at certain costs other alternatives just become much more palatable.

Man - "peak oil" hasn't been a debate I've had for years.

I used to say - we did hit "peak whale oil" at one point, but it's not because we ran out of whales.  Rather it was because the price of whale oil increased, and petroleum oil became a replacement.

[viper37]

A hard shortage like that is, essentially, "running out" of something.  That hard shortage has been predicted dozens of times over the past century, but they have all been laughably wrong because the proponents of peak oil consistently and significantly underestimate: how much oil is available; how much current production and proven reserves depend on the economics of extraction; how quickly extraction and refining technology moves.

One of the other fundamental problems with the theory, alluded to by your second paragraph, is that it doesn't properly account for the emergence of alternatives to petroleum products.  One of the consequences of tightening supply is rising prices, and a consequence of rising prices is making alternatives more attractive.  Peak oil seems to be based partly on a semi-magical idea that there is no alternative to oil and that demand can reach a point where we are literally pumping oil from the earth as fast as we can and it isn't enough.  The actions in your second paragraph happened because the economics of oil changed and climate change became an acknowledged issue, not because anybody believed peak oil is a real thing.

And consistantly, we have reduced our oil consumption at critical times.

First and second oil shock of the 70s, we found ways to reduce the size of our motor vehicles and make them more efficient.  Planes, boats, heavy trucks, trains, etc, everything became much more energy efficient.

Then the danger of climate warming became a real concern for the population, and the wars in the middle east, so companies shifted to electric engines for many vehicles.

Peak oil is about "what if", "what if we do nothing?".  What will happen if we do nothing, if we keep the course.  "What if the Titanic cruised slower and saw the iceberge well in advance?".  That kind of thing.

It's about not tempting faith, not about the inevability.

Remember the oil shock of the 1970s wasn't just some random thing - it was caused by an arab oil embargo of the US.

Peak oil has nothing to do with "what if".  We will inevitably hit some kind of "peak oil".  But it won't necessarily be because we run out of oil - it will be because at certain costs other alternatives just become much more palatable.

Man - "peak oil" hasn't been a debate I've had for years.

I used to say - we did hit "peak whale oil" at one point, but it's not because we ran out of whales.  Rather it was because the price of whale oil increased, and petroleum oil became a replacement.

Let's say we have a science fiction scenario:
Aliens come to Earth, give us a source a cheap, clean and renewable energy that is unlimited.
We can use it to power the entire Earth energy grid and adapt it to personal propulsion.

Obviously, there will be resistance from oil producing regions.

But let's put that aside for the moment.

We have an alternative to oil and we don't need it anymore, we can gradually phase it at low cost.

We would never reach peak oil then.

It's only real if we don't do anything.  We don't have to stay idle and watch the iceberg coming, we can steer the boat.

[Sheilbh]

Although I think the IEA are expecting us to hit peak oil demand in the next few years on current trends. Certainly before 2030 - demand growth is slowing quite rapidly (and recently there's been a surge in supply, especially from the Americas).

[Barrister]

Let's say we have a science fiction scenario:
Aliens come to Earth, give us a source a cheap, clean and renewable energy that is unlimited.
We can use it to power the entire Earth energy grid and adapt it to personal propulsion.

Obviously, there will be resistance from oil producing regions.

But let's put that aside for the moment.

We have an alternative to oil and we don't need it anymore, we can gradually phase it at low cost.

We would never reach peak oil then.

It's only real if we don't do anything.  We don't have to stay idle and watch the iceberg coming, we can steer the boat.

If aliens give us a cheap, unlimited source of power tomorrow, then of course we'll reach peak oil.

Peak oil would be today.

We may have already reached "peak coal".  Coal use has declined substantially in the west, but has been increasing in the East.  But it's not because we "ran out of coal".

[Crazy_Ivan80]

We have an alternative to oil and we don't need it anymore, we can gradually phase it at low cost.

Oil is used in much more than just fuel or energy though. The Chemical industry will still require it. Useage will just continue at a significantly lower level.
(edit: not really disagreeing, but the use of oil in chemical industries needs to be taken into account. It's something the 'stop oil' nuts seem to forget while they prance about with their oil-based products.)

[mongers]

We have an alternative to oil and we don't need it anymore, we can gradually phase it at low cost.

Oil is used in much more than just fuel or energy though. The Chemical industry will still require it. Useage will just continue at a significantly lower level.
(edit: not really disagreeing, but the use of oil in chemical industries needs to be taken into account. It's something the 'stop oil' nuts seem to forget while they prance about with their oil-based products.)

There's a plant not a million miles from here (well 30km) that produces around 300,000 of plastic and other precursors from oil a year.

[Norgy]

The mantra of the environmental movement in Norway (which I am a part of) has been "anything that can be made of oil, can be made of wood derivates as well".

It is going, not that well.
The reason this was the mantra is an unshakeable belief in that technology will get us there. But technology is more about letting teenage girls show how they make pasta carbonara and whatnot and young lads having fight clubs. Instantly shared.

There is a huge issue with NIMBY here. We had a huge chance to create a solar plant. Here. In the middle of nowhere. But, noooooo. That is too big an ask for the three people living within a mile of it.
Windmills? Kills birds. Causes cancer. Too woke.
One might be tempted to remind people that the collapse of the off-shore oil rig "Alexander Kielland" cost close to 100 lives. But who cares, right?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

There is a huge issue with NIMBY here. We had a huge chance to create a solar plant.

Isn't Norway a bit too northern to make solar worthwhile? The sun doesn't shine at night and you've got a lot of night up there

[Barrister]

There is a huge issue with NIMBY here. We had a huge chance to create a solar plant.

Isn't Norway a bit too northern to make solar worthwhile? The sun doesn't shine at night and you've got a lot of night up there

(speaking as a former Yukoner, which is of a similar latitude)

Norway gets exactly as much day and night as anywhere else - 50% of each.

Norway's northerly location means it gets a lot of sunlight in the summer, and not much in winter, to be sure.  But as long as you plan for not much solar power in the winter you'll still get lots in summer.

[Sheilbh]

Also weirdness of plastics when you look at the wider environmental impact (even taking account of recycling).

So replacing plastic with paper - generally better. Everything else a bit unclear. The heat you need to generate to make cans and especially glass is huge. Both are better if you look purely at recyclable - if you include energy required to manufacture and recycle far, far worse.

I think it's part of the wider vibes problem - the things we need to do to get to net zero do not match the vibes of "environmentalism"/"green" stuff generally. And people, being very well meaning and trying to help, are far better at the vibes based stuff (air miles, recyclable glass) than what's actually likely to help (eg tomatoes from somewhere many thousands of miles away with the right climate consume less energy than tomatoes from the Netherlands, plastic is sometimes better).

[Norgy]

There is a huge issue with NIMBY here. We had a huge chance to create a solar plant.

Isn't Norway a bit too northern to make solar worthwhile? The sun doesn't shine at night and you've got a lot of night up there

The calculations made show it would produce 60 gigawatts a year. Which pretty much eclipses (pun not intended) the local hydroplants.

It would cover about 4 acres of land that is now not in use.

As some may know, the Nammo (a supplier of the M-72 and grenades) is near where I live. And they need energy. Lots.

[Barrister]

Canada in general has been on a big campaign against single-use plastics.

So you can no longer get plastic shopping bags, plastic straws are banned, as are plastic utensils.

But the replacements are - less than perfect.  Plastic bags are replaced either with plastic re-usable bags, or paper bags.  Plastic straws with paper straws, plastic utensils with wooden utensils.

Lets just start with paper straws - they are terrible!  They can just start dissolving as you use them.

Paper bags or wooden utensils - are both more energy-intensive to create - but yes they can be recycled.  Re-usable bags are much more energy intensive to create, and while they can be re-used it's not without limit, so there's legitimate debate if they're actually any better.

Plus there's been some reporting that retailers, after initially being hesitant about re-usable bags, now actually prefer them.  Customers are frequently forgetting to bring bags, so now instead of selling a $0.05 plastic bag they enjoy much healthier profit margins on selling a $2 re-usable bag.

[HVC]

Glads happy too as garbage sales are up since people (ie me ) used grocery bags as waste bags. So, I don't even know if plastic usage went down.