Conservation - in reverse
-
@Arctic_Panda said:
lern2economics? Now you're resorting to personal insults on my intelligence rather than forming actual arguments. You're a God damn troll hoping to turn what would be a losing debate into a heated argument.
lern2read you arrogant condescending fool. You're only wasting space gloating your supposed superior intellect rather than adding to the debate. What you managed to spend an entire paragraph articulating was easily compressed into three words: "That model's wrong." I then explained what would really happen. All of the numbers I computed were based on the idea that we'd always need petroleum, and the point was that we'd need to find a different energy source because keeping up with the numbers is impossible. To that end I was agreeing with you, yet you still managed to hack together a couple of sentences to form what you believed was a witty rebuttal that only a person of your intellect could articulate. To that end I'm also agreeing with you, because you were the only person here dumb enough to effectively shout "I'm both arrogant and mentally impaired" to anyone following this thread.
You don't need a major in economics to understand the problem here, just a basic understanding of supply and demand and a grasp on basic mathematics. Everyone else understood what I was saying. You're the only one who felt special enough to write two full paragraphs proving you understood it.
My point was not that we're all going to fall under nuclear holocaust and the Sun will swallow the Earth because we run out of petroleum. If you read carefully you'll see I never reference any major calamities. The point was that, even with bstorer's generous predictions, we can't just sit around and do nothing 'cept let oil solve all our problems. Okay? Now take your Aristotle greater-than-thou mentality to someone you actually disagree with.
Wow, you are touchy.
I'm still not sure why you think my arguments were agreeing with you. Of course the natural supply of oil won't last forever, I never said that. You seem to think that there's some need to move away from using oil and I say that things will work themselves out. Technologies compete, the efficient ones find a place and they stick. I like oil and hope that it continues to be a viable option until something even more awesome than oil comes along.
My real disagreement was with your assertion that oil demand will continue to rise and supply will top out. Demand will adapt to whatever supply is available so predictions of exponential growth are often flawed because they do not take this into account. This pretty much destroys your entire premise and invalidates anything else you base off of that claim. Demand will grow in step with supply and new technologies will allow for the expansion of supply. Competing technologies will allow the demand for petroleum to lessen. If we ever end up at a point where the vast majority of the world's oil supply is not being controlled by national governments, we will see the pricing even out instead of having the ups and downs it does now.
-
@bjolling said:
The laws of thermodynamics will still be the same. If you want to create a fuel that can deliver a certain amount of joules, you will need to invest a lot more energy in the production process. Instead of using wind energy to power a "synthetic oil" plant, I advise everybode to put a sail on the roof of your car
Yes, I know that. Did you read the part where I said that gasoline is just such a wonderful energy storage mechanism that creating synthetic petroleum would be beneficial, assuming no amazing other energy storage technology came along.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Then obviously you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
Morbius is very good at only targeting ignorant assholes who run their ignorant mouths.
Agreed. Like n00bs who read whatever posts they can muddle through in @adrianX said:
uhm, I think now it's 24 hours since my registration
and then decide they should post their nonsensical opinions of respected forum veterans.adrianX: Learn to read.
-
@bstorer said:
Oh, great, and use up all the wind...
Yeah! And that'll mean we need to use more air conditioning 'cause there won't be any breeze. Next they'll want to use all the sun for that solar-power stuff to make up for the A/C load.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Did you read the part where I said that gasoline ...
This thread has become quite long now with numerous elaborate posts - I must have missed it
Eventually the supply of oil will decline, prices will go up and demand will drop as only the happy few (or the ones to late to convert to something else) will be able to afford it. Oil will be pushed out of the market by one of the now emerging technologies. Just don't know which one yet - if I did, I would certainly know where to invest my money now
-
@KenW said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Then obviously you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
Morbius is very good at only targeting ignorant assholes who run their ignorant mouths.
Agreed. Like n00bs who read whatever posts they can muddle through in @adrianX said:
uhm, I think now it's 24 hours since my registration
and then decide they should post their nonsensical opinions of respected forum veterans.adrianX: Learn to read.
So it's better to have many posts with 95% bullshit than being a newbie - oh, I meant n00b. Sounds pretty logical to me.
-
@adrianX said:
So it's better to have many posts with 95% bullshit than being a newbie - oh, I meant n00b. Sounds pretty logical to me.
Welcome to the forums.
-
@Arctic_Panda said:
One is called "renewable" because your grandchildren will enjoy it and it's lifespan is eight orders of magnitude greater than something comparatively "non-renewable."
@morbiuswilters said:
@Arctic_Panda said:
lern2economics? Now you're resorting to personal insults on my intelligence rather than forming actual arguments. You're a God damn troll hoping to turn what would be a losing debate into a heated argument.
lern2read you arrogant condescending fool. You're only wasting space gloating your supposed superior intellect rather than adding to the debate. What you managed to spend an entire paragraph articulating was easily compressed into three words: "That model's wrong." I then explained what would really happen. All of the numbers I computed were based on the idea that we'd always need petroleum, and the point was that we'd need to find a different energy source because keeping up with the numbers is impossible. To that end I was agreeing with you, yet you still managed to hack together a couple of sentences to form what you believed was a witty rebuttal that only a person of your intellect could articulate. To that end I'm also agreeing with you, because you were the only person here dumb enough to effectively shout "I'm both arrogant and mentally impaired" to anyone following this thread.
You don't need a major in economics to understand the problem here, just a basic understanding of supply and demand and a grasp on basic mathematics. Everyone else understood what I was saying. You're the only one who felt special enough to write two full paragraphs proving you understood it.
My point was not that we're all going to fall under nuclear holocaust and the Sun will swallow the Earth because we run out of petroleum. If you read carefully you'll see I never reference any major calamities. The point was that, even with bstorer's generous predictions, we can't just sit around and do nothing 'cept let oil solve all our problems. Okay? Now take your Aristotle greater-than-thou mentality to someone you actually disagree with.
Wow, you are touchy.
I'm still not sure why you think my arguments were agreeing with you. Of course the natural supply of oil won't last forever, I never said that. You seem to think that there's some need to move away from using oil and I say that things will work themselves out. Technologies compete, the efficient ones find a place and they stick. I like oil and hope that it continues to be a viable option until something even more awesome than oil comes along.
My real disagreement was with your assertion that oil demand will continue to rise and supply will top out [I thought that model was inaccurate, too! -Arctic_Panda]. Demand will adapt to whatever supply is available so predictions of exponential growth are often flawed because they do not take this into account. This pretty much destroys your entire premise and invalidates anything else you base off of that claim. Demand will grow in step with supply and new technologies will allow for the expansion of supply. Competing technologies will allow the demand for petroleum to lessen. If we ever end up at a point where the vast majority of the world's oil supply is not being controlled by national governments, we will see the pricing even out instead of having the ups and downs it does now.
In other words, oil won't last 5 billion years and our grandchildren will enjoy other energy sources instead. I'm glad we really are on the same page, Captain Obvious.
-
@Arctic_Panda said:
In other words, oil won't last 5 billion years and our grandchildren will enjoy other energy sources instead. I'm glad we really are on the same page, Captain Obvious.
Five billion years? Obviously not. That still doesn't mean petroleum isn't a renewable resource. Or more precisely, that the whole distinction between renewable and non-renewable is nonsense. Renewable does not mean "lasting for a period of 5 billion years or greater" no matter how hard you close your eyes and repeat it over and over at the top of your breath. Also, if you had read what I wrote I consider it quite feasible that people will still be using petroleum in 200 years. Likely? Perhaps not. However it is certainly within the realm of reasonable possibility.
Honestly, I'm not really sure what your argument even is at this point. You keep alternating between acting like you are contradicting me and then telling me that I'm just re-iterating what you said.
