Skip to main content

View Diary: Destroying the Gulf for what?  Better paths forward ... (274 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It will mean the same thing. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, shaharazade, pgm 01, divineorder

    When the swings in prices become so great that they disrupt the economy it won't matter if there is more oil to get out or if there isn't more oil to get out.

    •  It's not the same thing. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mochajava13, happymisanthropy

      Peak oil means price instability. The end of cheap oil means that prices stabilise at a higher level. That allows for a smooth transition, while unstable prices spur investment in alternatives during highs and destroy it during lows.

      Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

      by Dauphin on Sat May 01, 2010 at 06:01:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't agree. I don't think it will be a smooth (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pletzs, happymisanthropy

        transition and it doesn't matter anyhow since we won't be able to afford much, much higher prices without a complete restructuring of our economy.

        •  Well, (3+ / 0-)

          look at it another way: Right now, oil is at $80/barrel and demand is falling slowly. Even at $150/barrel the economy chugged along, with money flowing into alternatives.

          But much investment was abandoned when oil prices fell to $30/barrel. That's what I'm afraid of, and, while they make us relatively poorer, higher prices do tend to encourage alternatives. It depends on how high the price will go. I'm guessing $150-200.

          Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

          by Dauphin on Sat May 01, 2010 at 06:08:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Cheap wind (8+ / 0-)

        Is a better idea. And with a real accounting, is is cheap, much cheaper than oil.

        Wed April 21 07:49 - a moment of silence for Qinghai Earthquake Victims

        by koNko on Sat May 01, 2010 at 06:34:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course. (5+ / 0-)

          But what I'm concerned about isn't the end result (we all know where we should be going) but the transition proper.

          Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

          by Dauphin on Sat May 01, 2010 at 06:39:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Disruption is unavoidable (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            A Siegel, Dauphin, BobTrips

            Whenever you have a deeply embedded and inflexible system, change does not come easy.

            That's why, sometimes, we need "creatuve distruction" and a case in point is the way renewable energy, which has a high front end capital cost but very low operating cost, disrupts the staus quo of untilites based on the fossil fuel model. They are actually quite dirrerent economic models and a bit incompatable unless there is some policy support for the transition.

            Let me put it this way: the world needs to get off fossil suels as soon as possible. Energy companies have an opportunity to participate and survive or prosper by the cahnge, or they can resist it and become extict. For those how take the latter route, well .... evolution has some losers.

            As always, survival is an option but not a certianty, and if you want to excercise the option you have to make change.

            Ideally, you want to make that painless, sure, but it seldom is.

            Wed April 21 07:49 - a moment of silence for Qinghai Earthquake Victims

            by koNko on Sat May 01, 2010 at 07:57:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We could try to get carbon catpure going (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dauphin

              the burning process is only a problem because of the gas it produces; if we can somehow capture the gas before it's released into the atmosphere (which is possible), then the transition to alternative energy forms (which we need) can be smoother.  

              http://green.autoblog.com/...

              To make this possible, we need government subsides; there won't be profit in alternative energy quickly enough for people to want to invest in it.  Do this by taxing carbon, pulling troops out of the Middle East and using the money we spend on a war for oil resources on new energy development.

              •  Good luck with that idea... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                A Siegel

                Solve it and the fossil fuel industry will make you very rich.

                Just be warned, with all their trillions of dollars and the billions of US taxpayer dollars spent no one has cracked this nut yet.

                We can capture it.  But at a cost that drives the cost of using the fuels through the roof.

                And we have no real solution for storing it once we capture it.  

                That "hopey-changey thing"? Takes a Magic Hawaiian to pull it off...

                by BobTrips on Sat May 01, 2010 at 12:30:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not sure that works. (0+ / 0-)

                Wed April 21 07:49 - a moment of silence for Qinghai Earthquake Victims

                by koNko on Mon May 03, 2010 at 09:11:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site