US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the fossil fuel industry

Started by Solar, November 20, 2019, 03:51:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TheFlemishDuck

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 09:37:57 AM
And Conservatives have always been against them as well

fair enough

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 09:37:57 AM
Difference being, oil connected business does not rely on govt subsidies to survive. Green on the other hand wouldn't even exist without the govt teat. As an expert in the field, I know of what I speak.

I guess it likely wouldn't have easily developed technoligy wise withought subsidies, however at the point in evolved technoligy that green energy is now i'd think it can exist withought the goverments teat. But that would be speculation, youre saying youre an expert in this field so ill hold you to actually proving youre claim.
"It is always sound business to take any obtainable net gain, at any cost and at any risk to the rest of the community"
--Thorstein Veblen

Solar

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on November 22, 2019, 09:51:03 AM
fair enough

I guess it likely wouldn't have easily developed technoligy wise withought subsidies, however at the point in evolved technoligy that green energy is now i'd think it can exist withought the goverments teat. But that would be speculation, youre saying youre an expert in this field so ill hold you to actually proving youre claim.
Pacific Bell created the first photovoltaic cell over 100 years ago, but energy was so cheap there was no reason to develop it further, so the tech remained essentially unchanged to date, with subtle changes, be it minerals etc.
I started in the industry, one of a few in the field, business was steady, that is until the left started their AGW lies, then went about the process of creating subsidies to push solar/wind at the same time restricting oil expansion.
Starting to see a process yet? Then, with the help of leftist states public utility commissions forcing utility companies to buy so called alternative energy.
This started in Ca where the utility was forced to buy back energy from homeowners that bought into the solar scam. They started losing money, so the PUC allowed the utilities to produce their own alternative energy.
Point being, without govt intrusion, none of this nonsense would have taken place. Fast forward to Obozo pushing "Green" using Taxpayer dollars to pay for Alternatives, think failed Solyndra, and all the other companies that collapsed after receiving billions in subsidies.
All of this shit will soon come to an end when Trump starts cutting these leeches off at the teat.
Alternatives are fine, but need to stand on their own and they do have a small place in the mkt. But that doesn't matter to Marxists Hell bent on destroying Americans ability to produce.

If it was really about the environment, why aren't they advocating nuclear, why did they create the carbon tax scheme, a scheme that does nothing whatsoever to curb Co2, another scam.

Oil based energy is cheaper than ever before and more abundant for he next 10 thousand years, yet we're all supposed to suffer, why? Because Marxists want to cripple the one nation in the world which represents the beacon of freedom.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

ConservativeInCT

Quote
Nuclear is good and a very usefull form of energy for transition. A few things to take i mind though:
-The costs of investment are huge and even more notably getting the permits is rather challenging
-Uranium is somewhat limited too, though we certaintly could go a while on it likely its cost would rise after time. Furthermore the costs of nuclear plants would rise fast if we started building lots of them at once as the company's that supply the equipment wouldn't keep up.
-Technological evolution in Nuclear is sadly not going at a speed that was hoped for. Nuclear would be such a better option if we managed to improve on fusion. In the meantime Wind and especially solar evolves fast in technology.

Where is the funding then? My point on Nuclear energy is that it is a possible step forward towards a more clean state of energy here in the united states. Regulations have made it very hard and costly to run these sites. The dems can not have it both ways. Either lift some of the bogus regulations and red tape around the process or stop complaining. By your own admission we there is plenty of space to build these plants, and there are many that are already functional, but do not output to their full capacity. If there is to be a move away from fossil fuels, there needs to be more research put into not only the fusion, but the safety regulations and protection on all fronts.

Quote
However, to argue that a high tech civilization might not get its energy 100% from renewables is likely going to get more incorrect as the technology evolves and especially if better energy grids can be build that can transport high volumes of energy over long distances. To look for example far into the future then you have you're typical Kardashev Type II civilization which would have build it's own dyson sphere to capture 100% of the suns energy, a volume of energy so vast that it makes us look like amateurs with our oil.

I don't speak in fantasy terms, more so real life applications now (despite my interest in fantasy novels) Of course as technology advances we will be able to develop more sustainable sources of energy. However, I still hold by my statement that it is delusional to believe that these methods such as solar, wind, tidal, hydroelectric, will be able to fuel the entire us economy, especially at an affordable price. The sot of maintenance, installation, and technicians to this would automatically drive up the price to astronomical rates. Similar to Nuclear energy, more research should be conducted on these, as I am an advocate for it. Personal use, I see it work daily, but on an industrial level, the scale of these projects would be massive, and very costly.


Possum

Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 22, 2019, 11:34:23 AM
Where is the funding then? My point on Nuclear energy is that it is a possible step forward towards a more clean state of energy here in the united states. Regulations have made it very hard and costly to run these sites. The dems can not have it both ways. Either lift some of the bogus regulations and red tape around the process or stop complaining. By your own admission we there is plenty of space to build these plants, and there are many that are already functional, but do not output to their full capacity. If there is to be a move away from fossil fuels, there needs to be more research put into not only the fusion, but the safety regulations and protection on all fronts.

I don't speak in fantasy terms, more so real life applications now (despite my interest in fantasy novels) Of course as technology advances we will be able to develop more sustainable sources of energy. However, I still hold by my statement that it is delusional to believe that these methods such as solar, wind, tidal, hydroelectric, will be able to fuel the entire us economy, especially at an affordable price. The sot of maintenance, installation, and technicians to this would automatically drive up the price to astronomical rates. Similar to Nuclear energy, more research should be conducted on these, as I am an advocate for it. Personal use, I see it work daily, but on an industrial level, the scale of these projects would be massive, and very costly.
Excellent point, obama's administration passed regulations to drive up the costs of nuclear and fossil fuel energy while pumping $ in "green" energy.

Solar

Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 22, 2019, 11:34:23 AM
Where is the funding then? My point on Nuclear energy is that it is a possible step forward towards a more clean state of energy here in the united states. Regulations have made it very hard and costly to run these sites. The dems can not have it both ways. Either lift some of the bogus regulations and red tape around the process or stop complaining. By your own admission we there is plenty of space to build these plants, and there are many that are already functional, but do not output to their full capacity. If there is to be a move away from fossil fuels, there needs to be more research put into not only the fusion, but the safety regulations and protection on all fronts.

I don't speak in fantasy terms, more so real life applications now (despite my interest in fantasy novels) Of course as technology advances we will be able to develop more sustainable sources of energy. However, I still hold by my statement that it is delusional to believe that these methods such as solar, wind, tidal, hydroelectric, will be able to fuel the entire us economy, especially at an affordable price. The sot of maintenance, installation, and technicians to this would automatically drive up the price to astronomical rates. Similar to Nuclear energy, more research should be conducted on these, as I am an advocate for it. Personal use, I see it work daily, but on an industrial level, the scale of these projects would be massive, and very costly.
What or who were you quoting?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

TheFlemishDuck

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 10:49:15 AM
Pacific Bell created the first photovoltaic cell over 100 years ago, but energy was so cheap there was no reason to develop it further, so the tech remained essentially unchanged to date, with subtle changes, be it minerals etc.
I started in the industry, one of a few in the field, business was steady, that is until the left started their AGW lies, then went about the process of creating subsidies to push solar/wind at the same time restricting oil expansion.
Starting to see a process yet? Then, with the help of leftist states public utility commissions forcing utility companies to buy so called alternative energy.
This started in Ca where the utility was forced to buy back energy from homeowners that bought into the solar scam. They started losing money, so the PUC allowed the utilities to produce their own alternative energy.
Point being, without govt intrusion, none of this nonsense would have taken place. Fast forward to Obozo pushing "Green" using Taxpayer dollars to pay for Alternatives, think failed Solyndra, and all the other companies that collapsed after receiving billions in subsidies.
All of this shit will soon come to an end when Trump starts cutting these leeches off at the teat.
Alternatives are fine, but need to stand on their own and they do have a small place in the mkt. But that doesn't matter to Marxists Hell bent on destroying Americans ability to produce.

I have nothing in principle against the liberalist oppinion that bussiness should fend for itself. But surely you must have seen the sheer evolution having gone on in PV and Wind to know that all that technological evolution has logicly made it more competitive especially in "oportune area's".

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 10:49:15 AM
If it was really about the environment, why aren't they advocating nuclear,

Here it's a matter of who you choose "they are". I'm concerned about the eviroment hence i promote green energy and i do count nuclear among it so not all of those that are concerned about the enviroment are against nuclear. In fact i can give you the stupid examples on this side of the pond, in some European country's like Germany afaik the premature ending of nuclear plants has actually stimulated the doestic growth and consumption of coal again and its making those greens who pushed to disband nuclear look naive indeed.

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 10:49:15 AM
why did they create the carbon tax scheme, a scheme that does nothing whatsoever to curb Co2, another scam.

Neither a fan of it.

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 10:49:15 AM
Oil based energy is cheaper than ever before and more abundant for he next 10 thousand years, yet we're all supposed to suffer, why? Because Marxists want to cripple the one nation in the world which represents the beacon of freedom.

Abundant for 10.000 years??? at a rate of 90 million barrels a day? Youre joking right? And cheaper than ever before????

WTI crude at 57$, thats quite a lot more than a price around 20$ which it was was about 20 years ago, like about 3x more!

Proven world oil reserves are somewhere around 1.500.000 million barrels? So at 90 million barrels a day youre consuming 32.850 million barrels a year, that gives you about 46 years left. That is assuming:
-consumption doesn't rise, which it would have even more/faster withought the additional sources of green energy we have now.
-all these reserves can be exploited at current technoligy, afaik though such would not be the case
-these sources can be profitably exploited: typicly the cheapes/easiest sources get exploited first like those near the surface and on land, major part of the reason why oil became a lot more expensive is because many of the easier to exploit sources have run dry and they have been forced to look for oil in more difficult places where costs are higher.




"It is always sound business to take any obtainable net gain, at any cost and at any risk to the rest of the community"
--Thorstein Veblen

TheFlemishDuck

Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 22, 2019, 11:34:23 AM
Where is the funding then? My point on Nuclear energy is that it is a possible step forward towards a more clean state of energy here in the united states. Regulations have made it very hard and costly to run these sites. The dems can not have it both ways. Either lift some of the bogus regulations and red tape around the process or stop complaining. By your own admission we there is plenty of space to build these plants, and there are many that are already functional, but do not output to their full capacity. If there is to be a move away from fossil fuels, there needs to be more research put into not only the fusion, but the safety regulations and protection on all fronts.

I can't speak for the US. Belgiums policy on nuclear is silly. The French are the better student in Europe and get roughtly 75% of their electricity from Nuclear and so they also invest quite a lot in nuclear technoligy themselves. So where is fusion for France then? Afaik they are putting plenty of money in it, but things are going slowly afaik everybody is waiting for a breaktrough and while it could happen every day it could also take another 20 years just the same.

Still, i presume the US could use more nuclear, 20% of it's electricity comes from nuclear?

I do not know all the regulations nuclear is subject too in the US, but even in Europe the regulations on nuclear are logicly extensive and simmilarly drive up the cost.

Sites: The USA has plenty of space but nuclear plants typicly are placed near water sources as they consume about 400 gallons of water afaik per Mwh. The USA has a lot of area's that are rather dry and lack the big streams to support a Nuclear power plant? I'm sure there are quite a few of large rivers in the US, but then those are also lined with towns and city's? Granted they don't mind plopping down nuclear power plants right near to big city's in France and i presume they have even more good sites because of flat land with plenty of rivers.

Eitherway, it's hard to judge the case of the US withought knowing more the details and i don't nessecarily disagree with you in that the US could likely have done more of a (subsidised?) effort towards nuclear and/or fusion technoligy. As to how that relates to the choice of installing a lot of renewables say in the form of windmills well i don't think those have been a bad investment though.


Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 22, 2019, 11:34:23 AM
I don't speak in fantasy terms, more so real life applications now (despite my interest in fantasy novels) Of course as technology advances we will be able to develop more sustainable sources of energy. However, I still hold by my statement that it is delusional to believe that these methods such as solar, wind, tidal, hydroelectric, will be able to fuel the entire us economy, especially at an affordable price.

Why "especially at an affordable price"? Wind energy and many other sources are mainly about the mechanical engineering with fairly moderate advancements going whereas solar though is very tech driven and has a very fast advancement going afaik. I think solar will have more that trend that weve seen with electronics say between the 90's and naughts. The problem with many conventional sources is that "the more you use it, the more you tap into a finite source at such an oportune cost, aka most energy sources would go up in prce as they get harder to get. Solar otoh, well atleast as long as that it can be manufactured with relative abundant resources in relation to what it needs would likely always get cheaper and that trend would likely accelerate. There is likely going to get a point where solar panels will be cheap enough and yield enough tht it would be silly for homeowners to plop them on their house and then suddently everyone starts to get em. Afcourse, another matter is energy storage and there is some work to be done there still however with cheap enough solar energy one could choose rather simply and less effecient sollutions and get the job done i gater.

Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 22, 2019, 11:34:23 AM
The sot of maintenance, installation, and technicians to this would automatically drive up the price to astronomical rates.

Although, much of the installation and maintaince is about building and maintaining a large energy transportation network, should homeowners start to switch to solar more it would reduce the need for more expansion or maintainance of that network.

[/quote]
Similar to Nuclear energy, more research should be conducted on these, as I am an advocate for it. Personal use, I see it work daily, but on an industrial level, the scale of these projects would be massive, and very costly.
[/quote]

Fair enough, i respect youre oppinion if i don't nessecarily share the same "gut feeling".
"It is always sound business to take any obtainable net gain, at any cost and at any risk to the rest of the community"
--Thorstein Veblen

Possum

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on November 22, 2019, 12:14:14 PM
I have nothing in principle against the liberalist oppinion that bussiness should fend for itself. But surely you must have seen the sheer evolution having gone on in PV and Wind to know that all that technological evolution has logicly made it more competitive especially in "oportune area's".

Here it's a matter of who you choose "they are". I'm concerned about the eviroment hence i promote green energy and i do count nuclear among it so not all of those that are concerned about the enviroment are against nuclear. In fact i can give you the stupid examples on this side of the pond, in some European country's like Germany afaik the premature ending of nuclear plants has actually stimulated the doestic growth and consumption of coal again and its making those greens who pushed to disband nuclear look naive indeed.

Neither a fan of it.

Abundant for 10.000 years??? at a rate of 90 million barrels a day? Youre joking right? And cheaper than ever before????

WTI crude at 57$, thats quite a lot more than a price around 20$ which it was was about 20 years ago, like about 3x more!

Proven world oil reserves are somewhere around 1.500.000 million barrels? So at 90 million barrels a day youre consuming 32.850 million barrels a year, that gives you about 46 years left. That is assuming:
-consumption doesn't rise, which it would have even more/faster withought the additional sources of green energy we have now.
-all these reserves can be exploited at current technoligy, afaik though such would not be the case
-these sources can be profitably exploited: typicly the cheapes/easiest sources get exploited first like those near the surface and on land, major part of the reason why oil became a lot more expensive is because many of the easier to exploit sources have run dry and they have been forced to look for oil in more difficult places where costs are higher.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/06/25/how-much-oil-does-the-world-have-left/#214d35775b1f

Solar

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on November 22, 2019, 12:14:14 PM
I have nothing in principle against the liberalist oppinion that bussiness should fend for itself. But surely you must have seen the sheer evolution having gone on in PV and Wind to know that all that technological evolution has logicly made it more competitive especially in "oportune area's".
Yet it was not driven by mkt forces. Using tax dollars to promote a false agenda under the guise of saving the planet is criminal in the least.

QuoteHere it's a matter of who you choose "they are". I'm concerned about the eviroment hence i promote green energy and i do count nuclear among it so not all of those that are concerned about the enviroment are against nuclear. In fact i can give you the stupid examples on this side of the pond, in some European country's like Germany afaik the premature ending of nuclear plants has actually stimulated the doestic growth and consumption of coal again and its making those greens who pushed to disband nuclear look naive indeed.


Then you bought the big Commie Green lie.

QuoteNeither a fan of it.

Abundant for 10.000 years??? at a rate of 90 million barrels a day? Youre joking right? And cheaper than ever before????

WTI crude at 57$, thats quite a lot more than a price around 20$ which it was was about 20 years ago, like about 3x more!

Proven world oil reserves are somewhere around 1.500.000 million barrels? So at 90 million barrels a day youre consuming 32.850 million barrels a year, that gives you about 46 years left. That is assuming:
-consumption doesn't rise, which it would have even more/faster withought the additional sources of green energy we have now.
-all these reserves can be exploited at current technoligy, afaik though such would not be the case
-these sources can be profitably exploited: typicly the cheapes/easiest sources get exploited first like those near the surface and on land, major part of the reason why oil became a lot more expensive is because many of the easier to exploit sources have run dry and they have been forced to look for oil in more difficult places where costs are higher.

What part of "Oil based energy" did you not get? This includes shale and natural gas, of which the US is a leading exporter.
You're still stuck in believing the "Peak Oil" lie. As time progresses man will find more sources and even more advanced methods of creating oil, history has proved this out in the last 100 years.
Again, you need to look at the big picture and quit listening to the emotional lies by the left, there is no energy crisis and Co2 is a necessary component of our planets survival, some even say we're in a Co2 drought, which I agree with.

Look back when the left stated the claim we were headed for an ice age and it was somehow mans fault, they had looked at historic records and deduced we would be cooling, but they had made an error.
So they looked to earth cycles again and saw we were headed into a warming period that would last between 20 and 30 years.
So what did they do? They made the claim that the use of fossil fuels were producing abnormal amounts of Co2, and that too much would cause an irreversible amount of warming. The latter was a lie, Co2 increases normally follow warming periods, but they hid the science and focused myopically on Co2 and the planet, all the while ignoring the sun.

Problem is, the warming cycle they tried to take advantage of to push their corrupt agenda ended, and now, Right on schedule, we're heading into a min ice age like that of the Maunder minimum of the 1700s.

Do you see the big picture yet?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

Quote from: s3779m on November 22, 2019, 12:48:21 PM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/06/25/how-much-oil-does-the-world-have-left/#214d35775b1f
Interesting article. :thumbup:

One other point about nuclear. Both party's did the work of oil corps in helping make it costly to even consider the red tape process.
It's akin to GM and the oil companies killing the Red Car transit in La. Follow the money.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

TheFlemishDuck

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 01:12:46 PM

Then you bought the big Commie Green lie.

"Commie green"? What weird combination is that, sounds as much of an oxymoron as that Mcbain episode in the Simpsons with the CommieNazi's. Socialism has few if practicly nothing in common with enviromentalism.


Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 01:12:46 PMWhat part of "Oil based energy" did you not get? This includes shale and natural gas,

You mean "carbon based energy". Gas is not oil. Oil is a fluid with a fair amount of viscosity where gas is a completly different "aggregate condition" than a fluid.

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 01:12:46 PM
You're still stuck in believing the "Peak Oil" lie.

I made my own calclations, nevertheless what arguably already happened is "peak cheap oil". Youre wrong when you said oil was cheaper than ever right? It's significantly more expensive now and likely will be even more so towards the future.

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 01:12:46 PM
As time progresses man will find more sources and even more advanced methods of creating oil, history has proved this out in the last 100 years.

You made a claim of 10.000 years of oil. You simply made up that number right? You have nothing to support youre argument that we would have oil for that long. You can speculate, i doubt that we will find the additional 320.000.000 million barrels of oil above the current 1.500.000 proven reserves we currently have to go another 10.000 years at even the current rate of consumption but surely energy consumption even in a few hundred years should be a vast multiple of what it is now. Shows how silly youre claim was in turn. I wouldn't be surprised if yes we found "some" more untapped reserves, neither would i be surprised that energy consumption continues to rise so much that it hardly extends the time we have left with oil.
"It is always sound business to take any obtainable net gain, at any cost and at any risk to the rest of the community"
--Thorstein Veblen

Solar

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on November 22, 2019, 02:01:54 PM
"Commie green"? What weird combination is that, sounds as much of an oxymoron as that Mcbain episode in the Simpsons with the CommieNazi's. Socialism has few if practicly nothing in common with enviromentalism.
So you're admitting socialism and communism are essentially one in the same?


QuoteYou mean "carbon based energy". Gas is not oil. Oil is a fluid with a fair amount of viscosity where gas is a completly different "aggregate condition" than a fluid.
Semantics. You know that gas is a by product of oil, right?


QuoteI made my own calclations, nevertheless what arguably already happened is "peak cheap oil". Youre wrong when you said oil was cheaper than ever right? It's significantly more expensive now and likely will be even more so towards the future.

Prove we've hit peal oil. And no, oil is more plentiful today than 10 years ago, and based on inflation, it is cheaper.

QuoteYou made a claim of 10.000 years of oil. You simply made up that number right? You have nothing to support youre argument that we would have oil for that long. You can speculate, i doubt that we will find the additional 320.000.000 million barrels of oil above the current 1.500.000 proven reserves we currently have to go another 10.000 years at even the current rate of consumption but surely energy consumption even in a few hundred years should be a vast multiple of what it is now. Shows how silly youre claim was in turn. I wouldn't be surprised if yes we found "some" more untapped reserves, neither would i be surprised that energy consumption continues to rise so much that it hardly extends the time we have left with oil.

Therein lies the problem, you're assuming we'll continue to use oil at the same rate in 100 years. I use synthetic oil in all my equipment, it last longer and handles temperature extremes better.
All synthetic oils use natural gas as their main starting component, Group III lubricants are the best, some even use recycled oil as their root stock, so it's a win/win all around.
The use of oil in cars will continue to drop while other industries will make up for the drop, but there is no evidence that says we'll continue to use oil at the same rate in 100 years, only speculation.

As to untapped reserves, Ca alone has a deposit of untapped shale oil that could support the US alone for 10 thousand years. But the Left won't let us tap into it because ....they don't have a valid reason.
The other problem at this point is technology to reach even deeper reserves, but we know it's only a matter of time before we breach that hurdle.




I love how you move the goal posts when you've got nothing. So, back to my original point, the left is using the Green Commie movement to kill Americas ability for production. Don't believe me? Look at the Paris Accord.
Where does the money come from, and where is it supposed to go, and why? Always follow the money!
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

ConservativeInCT


Solar

Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 22, 2019, 05:26:06 PM
In regards to which part?
Both quotes, I didn't see them anywhere and I know one wasn't from the article.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

TheFlemishDuck

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 04:12:25 PM
So you're admitting socialism and communism are essentially one in the same?

Lol what nonsense is this? After you making an unwarrented connecection between socialism and enviromentalism which was easily scrutinised, you know ask me a question that comes from absolutly nowhere. this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, just you who want to stigmatise youre most hated ism's?

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 04:12:25 PM
Semantics. You know that gas is a by product of oil, right?

Lol its not really a byproduct of oil. I guess you can think that because you extract gas from oil i you heat it high enough. That doesn't make it a by product.  Rather it's (mostly) carbon which you can have in various "aggregated conditions". Pretty much all elements on earth can exist in all 3 aggregate conditions (solid, fluid and gas) and the difference simply is temperature. If the earths surface had been several hundred degrees higher then what exists as oil reserves today would actually be gas reserves and we would need to cool the gas to make some sort of oil of it. Yes turning around the process works too though you'd need to add what otherwise get secreted, that wouldn't nessecarily make oil a by product of gas in that case right?

You might call that semantics but in technical terms it's called" knowing what youre talking about". It would be similar to a argument that "water is a product of ice", and "vapor a product of water", it's all water but depending on the temperature it's either solid, a fluid or a gas.

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 04:12:25 PM
Prove we've hit peal oil. And no, oil is more plentiful today than 10 years ago, and based on inflation, it is cheaper.

I said that "arguably we already hit peak cheap oil"


Also, typicly the charts for oil price are inflation adjusted aswell.



Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 04:12:25 PM
Therein lies the problem, you're assuming we'll continue to use oil at the same rate in 100 years.

Nope, i mentioned that consumption would logicly increase over time, but i had to use numbers to make a calculation and for the context of proving that it wouldnt last "10000 years" it was perfectly functional enough to take a consumption rate which was lower than the actual current one and likely lower than the future one as it would only strenghten my point if the argument would have been made that consumption would be higher.

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 04:12:25 PMI use synthetic oil in all my equipment, it last longer and handles temperature extremes better.
All synthetic oils use natural gas as their main starting component, Group III lubricants are the best, some even use recycled oil as their root stock, so it's a win/win all around.

Thats lubrication oil, tottaly irrelevant for this discussion. Were talking about the oil that gets combusted and thereby expended.

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 04:12:25 PM
The use of oil in cars will continue to drop while other industries will make up for the drop, but there is no evidence that says we'll continue to use oil at the same rate in 100 years, only speculation.

But you argued we'd never need energy alternatives, just oil as there was more than enough to last millenia as you'd claim. In that case consumption would likely be higher now and increase faster, past trends would support that prediction as the logical one by Occam's razor.

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 04:12:25 PM
As to untapped reserves, Ca alone has a deposit of untapped shale oil that could support the US alone for 10 thousand years. But the Left won't let us tap into it because ....they don't have a valid reason.

Prove it. Well you cant. Youre numbers are nonsense and you have provided nothing to back it up. You made the claim that oil is cheaper than ever which it clearly isn't, and you made the claim that it would last for 10000 years which is just rediculous. ANd yet you just can't admit that this were some pretty stupid claim.

"It is always sound business to take any obtainable net gain, at any cost and at any risk to the rest of the community"
--Thorstein Veblen