Thread 514968276

Venezuela will be put under America's thumb, or we will try at least.
The peak oil theorists were right about conventional crude peaking globally in the 2000s, and they are now being proved right about the fracking boom being just a 20 year band aid against peak oil. Now, fracking is winding down.
The US tried, from 2001, to dominate the Middle East, but we couldn't do it.
Now we're on to Venezuela. And Canada will be dominated too, of course, as always, since Canada has some of the world's biggest oil reserves.
The reason renewables have been so hyped is not because "muh global warming." Rather, global warming has been the contrived rationale for finding new energy sources as hydrocarbon sources deplete.
Within a century or two, the whole world will be back to medieval European living standards, unless new and long-term, energy-dense sources of power can be found and they are scalable and cheap enough to run an industrial civilization.

>>514968276 (OP)
> long-term, energy-dense sources of power can be found and they are scalable and cheap enough to run an industrial civilization.
like nuclear. weve had 80 years of extra oil. no big deal, we are ready to switch to synthetic at any point.

it will just end globalism and urbanization
you can't ship tonnes of food on batteries
that doesn't mean you can't have local industries powered on renewables, just that they won't be able to profit off from far away markets

>>514968276 (OP)
The fuck would the US need some 3rd world shithole, for anything? The US produces more oil and Alberta just told the fags in ottowa to fuck off - they're building their own pipeline straight into fucking Idaho.

>>514968579
>like nuclear. weve had 80 years of extra oil. no big deal, we are ready to switch to synthetic at any point.
The best peak oil minds have gone over the prospects of nuclear. It's probably doable at some scale, but it won't give us the level of modern civilization we have now. The US alone would need 2000 nuclear plants to run all our energy needs on nuclear, and the world, just at current rates of energy consumption, 10,000 nuclear plants, and of course people want higher living standards, which means more energy, especially in poorer countries.
Also, nuclear cannot solve the liquid fuels problem, so no airplanes anymore in a strictly nuclear powered world with no more petroleum.
Nuclear can get us far, but not to where we are now, and it also requires tremendous competence not to fuck things up in a big way.
We'd also do well to use more coal, which is vastly more abundant than petroleum or natural gas and which can be converted into liquid fuels equivalent to all petrols: gasoline, kerosene, diesel etc.

>>514968731
The fracking boom in the US is peaking right now, drill rigs are declining in number, and oil and gas companies aren't replacing them because they know supplies are running down now.
The fracking boom was a 20 year band aid on peak oil. It's ending now. And US conventional oil supply peaked in the early 1970s.

They said this in the 70's. They also said the world was going into an ice age.

Since most decent people are not breeding and future is full of Africans and Indians-- it would be best if it did happen. Yet, nothing ever happens.

>>514969142
And they were right about the US peaking in the 70s, when conventional, light, land-based crude resources peaked and began to decline. The US made up for this by importing more foreign oil, leading to oil crises in 1973 and 1979 that led to rationing, and by offshore drilling.
But global conventional oil production reached its geological peak in the 2000s. Fracking led to a renewal, but it was always going to be short lived. Now we're seeing fracking drill rig numbers declining and oil companies don't care to build more because they know new rigs won't be worth the cost in terms of the value of the energy they bring up from underground.
So, we're once again nearing peak oil, unless a new way to access more difficult crude sources is found.
There are lots of tar sands and shale, but they offer much lower EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) than previous petroleum sources. At the height of industrial civilization, like in the 1950s and 60s, when times were best, one unit of energy invested got us around 100 units of energy returned. Shales and sands and heavy crudes offer us a less than 1:10 ratio, so will only be able to support a much less complex and prosperous civilization.
Just read Richard Heinberg's "The Party's Over" and you'll understand all the basics of how the energy metabolism of societies works.

>>514968973
of course nuclear solves the fuels problem..weve been making synthetic fuels since before the atom bombs. 10,000 plants or even 10,000,000 plants is trivial to acheive. when you say the 3rd world will want higher living standards what you mean is nuclear is cheaper energy anyway. in fact, nuclear is more than enough of a solution to power our civilizational growth for 10s of thousands of years at least, and sustain population in the trillions or even possibly quadrillions of humans. meanwhile, oil and coal only lasted 200 years.

remember, even solar power is ultimately nuclear. in this universe, e=mc2, burning chemical bonds between matter is bullshit compared to burning the matter itself directly. the answer is, was, and always will be nuclear. the only reason we burn oil is because plants aready evolved solar power and stored that nuclear shit from the sun underground for millions of years just to get us human animals to this point right here.

>>514969880
>of course nuclear solves the fuels problem..weve been making synthetic fuels since before the atom bombs. 10,000 plants or even 10,000,000 plants is trivial to acheive. when you say the 3rd world will want higher living standards what you mean is nuclear is cheaper energy anyway. in fact, nuclear is more than enough of a solution to power our civilizational growth for 10s of thousands of years at least, and sustain population in the trillions or even possibly quadrillions of humans. meanwhile, oil and coal only lasted 200 years.
You sound like a utopian zealot.
Okay, go make ten thousand nuclear plants.
Report back when you have finished this obviously very simple and easy task.

>>514970123
go make ten million oil wells. just because digging a hole in the ground Nd having energy pour out is easy doesnt mean the only way to power civilization is digging holes. petro industry employs millions of people internationally and makes up like 40% of trade. yes, digging a hole and having money pour out is incredibly easy technology--that doesnt mean we run out of technogy though just because ae run out of new places for hole digging.

>>514970527
You're a strawmanning fanatic.
I am just saying that hydrocarbon energy sources are peaking and their production will start to decline, and other sources of energy will not be able to do all the things we expect a modern, industrial civilization to do. I am not advocating for more drilling, neither for less. That's a decision for oil executives and engineers to make based on their knowledge of the situation.
Clearly, your nuclear utopia is not as easily achieved as you first implied, or you'd be busy making it right now.

>>514970675
it is your own strawmans and ad homs in fact.

>>514968276 (OP)
This fear is straight out of 2000. Turns out we improved renewables and nuclear enough that we don't need oil, and demand is falling faster than supply is increasing. Massive new finds like Guyana show that there is a lot more oil out there, more than we'll ever use actually.

>>514970527
>yes, digging a hole and having money pour out is incredibly easy technology--that doesnt mean we run out of technogy though just because ae run out of new places for hole digging.
Also, fracking and offshore drilling are not so easy. And yes, technology itself is dependent upon energy supplies. Take the Romans as an example. They had feats of engineering to rival 1800s industrial Britain. But none of that was still possible after Rome collapsed, not until the 1800s, because with the loss of social cooperation enabled by a giant empire, which in turn was enabled by abundant energy (cheap slaves in giant quantities), old Roman technologies could no longer be deployed.
A lot of "technology" is just capital and organization. The knowledge is just the first step, and it cannot be applied without sufficient social organization and wealth to do so.

>>514970805
No it isn't.
You claimed it's easy to build millions of nuclear plants and support quadrillions of people. So, go do it.
You wouldn't be the first to try, not the first ever nuclear utopian.

>>514969503
>Now we're seeing fracking drill rig numbers declining and oil companies don't care to build more because they know new rigs won't be worth the cost in terms of the value of the energy they bring up from underground.
Retard kek. Fracking is dwindling because oil is so cheap it's not even worth it. If oil prices raise by $20 per barrel fracking is back on the board. Oil prices dropped because production is so high and demand is falling. We have new fields like Guyana which are massive. You're literally repeating 30 year old fear mongering, long disproven. Retard!

>>514968276 (OP)
None of this matters. Even if you are correct, it does not matter because the human species is becoming extinct. When fertility rates are below 2.1, the population shrinks... and it shrinks in a very peculiar manner. One in which it does not appear to shrink at all, at first. The world piles up with old people who cannot have children, until they are in their 70s, then when they start dying off, it happens all at once. The resulting economic chaos makes it even more difficult for young people to raise families, and around and around we go. If you're still worried about having enough gasoline for your 6mpg 1960s Thunderbird, then you lost the plot a long time ago.

they have opened wells that were capped a long time ago and now they are completely fresh again
the oil seems to replenish and its a secret

>>514970930
i dont have to go do it because we can dig a hole and have money (oil) pour out. that is how the world works. need energy? get some energy.

we are also already doing it (nuclear) politically. the idea that i personally have to go build 10k powerplants is no different than the idea you have to go dig 10k oil wells to have a valid argument--it is your strawman, and you are a strawman yourself, unless you fix peak oil by hand yourself apparently. yeah right. nuclear is so completely obviously the future of energy youd have to be limited to hole digging to believe otherwise.

the most abundent resource in the entire universe can be squeezed together enough to make unlimited free energy and matter... then on the other side of the equation the least abundant resource in the entire universe can be split apart to make unlimited free energy and more matter.

energy and matter are the same thing. we can build simple machines with no moving parts that make power from energy to matter conversion. digging holes isnt necessary. peak oil is just digging a hole in the ground and expecting free power for the effort. not a special technology even, barely distinguishable from farming until the invention of fracking (just add water to your hole this time like the farms).