Electric cars are a pipe dream

[adoucette]

So the fossil fuels we have today are all that there will ever be. When we use them up, they will be gone forever. The question is, therefore, which generation is going to have to deal with this reality? What a legacy to leave to our great-grandchildren, aren't we nice!

Yes, we are very nice, because at the same time we have been extrodinarily productive and inventive and thus have used the technology that the industrial revolution gave us to perfect the means of renewably harnessing the sun's energy and developing nuclear energy and eventually harnessing fusion energy as well as perfecting how to store and transmit that energy and the net of all those efforts will far surpass the use of relatively dirty fossil fuels as a means of sustaining our civilization far far into the future.

Quit beating yourself up about it, it's not only pointless, scientifically it's pretty silly.

Arthur

[ElectricFetus]

Nope.

The definition of proven reserves takes into account only that which you can recover at current market conditions.

and at what price? More so tar sands are "proven reserves" by that definition as they are already being tapped.

If you were to double the price people were willing to pay for a barrel of oil you would greatly increase the proven reserves.

No shit, but your still paying twice as much, which is the whole point of peak oil, cheap oil is over.

As far as "time we may not have", not likely. We use a great deal of oil that we don't absolutely have to use, if the price was to go up considerably people would change their usage patterns and the demand would drop.

Of course, people would have to move back into the cities, maybe just lay around waiting for a job or stand in line waiting for soap, certainly not spending much Oil then.

[adoucette]

and at what price? More so tar sands are "proven reserves" by that definition as they are already being tapped.

What's your friggin point?

44% of Canadian oil production in 2007 was from oil sands, with an additional 18% being heavy crude oil, while light oil and condensate had declined to 38% of the total. Because growth of oil sands production has exceeded declines in conventional crude oil production, Canada has become the largest supplier of oil and refined products to the United States, ahead of Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

Between them, the Canadian and Venezuelan deposits contain about 3.6 trillion barrels (570×10^9 m3) of oil in place, compared to 1.75 trillion barrels (280×10^9 m3) of conventional oil worldwide, most of it in Saudi Arabia and other Middle-Eastern countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

That's the whole point of "proven reserves" we have a LOT of oil, and at current prices we have far more proven reserves than we ever had.

Double the price of oil and we would much more than double the amount of our current proven reserves.

Yet our economy would do just fine even with gasoline at $5.00 per gallon.

No shit, but your still paying twice as much, which is the whole point of peak oil, cheap oil is over.

No, that's NOT the point of peak oil, peak oil is the point where production peaks.
Which hasn't happened yet.

Of course, people would have to move back into the cities, maybe just lay around waiting for a job or stand in line waiting for soap, certainly not spending much Oil then.

You are SUCH a pessimist, there is FAR FAR more energy available to us then from fossil fuels. The world will do just fine even as oil production peaks and starts to decline.

The sky is NOT falling.

Arthur

[ElectricFetus]

What's your friggin point?

My point is the amount of oil is not the problem its the price, its the energy return value. Those Canadian oil sands are doing a pitiful 1:2 energy return, it will cost a lot more to fuel the world on that! Consider existing oil fields, to mine more oil out of these depleted fields requires many more wells, requires pumping in water, the oil quality goes down and needs to be filters and cracked into lighter crude, all this requires a lot more energy and infrastructure, price goes up, time to extract goes up, which means matching demand will become much harder even at high prices.

Yet our economy would do just fine even with gasoline at $5.00 per gallon.

That is a claim which you have presented no evidence, I would like to believe I really would, but you must back up your argument.

No, that's NOT the point of peak oil, peak oil is the point where production peaks.
Which hasn't happened yet.

Even your EIA has stated conventional production has gone down! Increase reserve capacity at higher prices does not mean oil magically appears in the barrels, a lot more infrastructure must be built to access that reserve and more so the amount of energy spent getting at that oil goes up and the energy return goes down.

You are SUCH a pessimist, there is FAR FAR more energy available to us then from fossil fuels. The world will do just fine even as oil production peaks and starts to decline.

The sky is NOT falling.

Never said it was, yes there is plenty of energy out there and yes eventually we should have clean and plentiful access to it, I would not be getting my present graduate degree if I did not believe so, but the infrastructure required to access it requires decades of construction, and yet we need to keep demand growing and economies moving at the same time, its not unreasonable to think that things are and will be tight and there is bound to be problems, it is unreasonable to blow it all off and think everything going to be sunshine and daisies.

[adoucette]

Again, you only see the problems but much of the world pays more than $5 per gallon and they are doing just fine.

The issue of Energy return on Canadian oil sands for instance is included in the price of the oil they sell us, but they are still our largest supplier of oil.

As a percent of my take home pay the monthly cost of gasoline is a TINY part of it.

I suspect it it that way for most people.

I might not be happy spending twice as much to fill the tank but it wouldn't cause ANY changes in my lifestyle.

Sure, there are some people who use a lot of gasoline each month and are stretched so thin that they would have to make changes but most people don't live that close to the edge.

So those people will be incented to make changes, to buy a Volt, to move closer in etc

Maybe a different way to look at it is why all the concern about Global Warming if fossil fuels were about to run out?

The reason there is such a concern is nobody who understands the oil/coal/gas supply issue believes that the amount of fossil fuel we burn for the rest of this century is going to go down UNLESS we artificially raise the price of burning fossil fuels.

Or do you think they are worried for nothing, that fossil fuel use will go down on its own?

Arthur

[ElectricFetus]

Again, you only see the problems but much of the world pays more than $5 per gallon and they are doing just fine.

because of taxation and weaker bargaining power, at $5 gallon US they will be paying what, $10, $15 a gallon?

The issue of Energy return on Canadian oil sands for instance is included in the price of the oil they sell us, but they are still our largest supplier of oil.

The price is still reduce because of needing to keep in line with other producers, if all our oil came from unconventional sources the price would be much higher. And again getting all that capacity online is another issue altogether.

As a percent of my take home pay the monthly cost of gasoline is a TINY part of it.

How about the cost for heating your home, for electricity, for the materials an food you purchase? Oil is used for nearly everything so don't think the cost of fueling just your car is all high oil prices will affect!

I might not be happy spending twice as much to fill the tank but it wouldn't cause ANY changes in my lifestyle.

A statement based on pure ignorance of all the things oil provides! For your information only half of oil goes into fueling cars, heats homes, powers power plants, makes plastics, pharmaceuticals, and then of course the rest moves 98% of all the freight in the world: you can get coal moved or even mined without oil, you can run a business without oil to move your products!

The reason there is such a concern is nobody who understands the oil/coal/gas supply issue believes that the amount of fossil fuel we burn for the rest of this century is going to go down UNLESS we artificially raise the price of burning fossil fuels.

Do elaborate, at high fuel prices alternatives become competitive, many of the alternatives the "greens" want, then again, some they don't, for example coal liquification becomes profitable in the USA beyond ~$4. The worry about global warming is a slow boiling issue, its one of adaptation, sure millions will be displaced and even die over the next few centuries as whole nations very slowly disappear under the waves or desert sands, but then again Antarctica might become a global superpower in 2300. Peak oil is a bashing over the head issue, its one that has and can cause economic crisis in the short term and that can't be rapidly adapted against.

[adoucette]

because of taxation and weaker bargaining power, at $5 gallon US they will be paying what, $10, $15 a gallon?

Uh, NO, they don't have to keep the taxes as a fixed ratio, if the price goes up the tax can stay at whatever level they want it to be.

The price is still reduce because of needing to keep in line with other producers, if all our oil came from unconventional sources the price would be much higher. And again getting all that capacity online is another issue altogether.

Uh, NO, they make good money on selling us the oil recovered from Tar sands, so like I said, the issue of Energy returns is imbedded in the current price of the oil.

How about the cost for heating your home, for electricity, for the materials an food you purchase? Oil is used for nearly everything so don't think the cost of fueling just your car is all high oil prices will affect!

Actually in the US, less than 1% of our oil goes to produce electricity and over 70% goes to transportation. The cost in industrial uses is actually, on a per product basis usually a fairly nominal cost.

A statement based on pure ignorance of all the things oil provides! For your information only half of oil goes into fueling cars, heats homes, powers power plants, makes plastics, pharmaceuticals, and then of course the rest moves 98% of all the freight in the world: you can get coal moved or even mined without oil, you can run a business without oil to move your products!

Actually Natural gas can replace much of that, and there is no shortage of natural gas. Oil only provides 40% of our Industrial use and that's going down. As far as Residential and Commercial, natural gas represents 76% of their use, and oil is going down.

Do elaborate, at high fuel prices alternatives become competitive, many of the alternatives the "greens" want, then again, some they don't, for example coal liquification becomes profitable in the USA beyond ~$4. The worry about global warming is a slow boiling issue, its one of adaptation, sure millions will be displaced and even die over the next few centuries as whole nations very slowly disappear under the waves or desert sands, but then again Antarctica might become a global superpower in 2300. Peak oil is a bashing over the head issue, its one that has and can cause economic crisis in the short term and that can't be rapidly adapted against.

Except it can, because again, the US, the largest user of oil uses over 70% for transportation. Other countries are similar, we can move our transportation system off of Oil, as Brazil has done, and also make it significantly more efficient.

Oh, and BS about nations disappearing under the waves and Antarctica being a superpower in 2300 makes me think you don't have a clue about global warming

Arthur

[ElectricFetus]

Uh, NO, they don't have to keep the taxes as a fixed ratio, if the price goes up the tax can stay at whatever level they want it to be.

But they can't increase their bargaining power.

Uh, NO, they make good money on selling us the oil recovered from Tar sands, so like I said, the issue of Energy returns is imbedded in the current price of the oil.

and they won't keep making it at that price if others were not selling for that price, to increase oil sands production they will need higher prices, in fact during the drop in prices from 2008-2010 they had to close down production, production capacity that came online because of the pricing between 2006-2008. So to get all those oil sand or biofuels or what ever online in mass will require dollars per barrel of beyond $100. You can "Uh, No" all you want your logic and reasoning is simplistic and ignorant.

Actually in the US, less than 1% of our oil goes to produce electricity and over 70% goes to transportation.

I never said what percentage want into electricity or heating, more so over the world oil powers virtually all transport, from bunker oil burning frighter ships, to diesel trains to kerosene for airplanes, we only got a handful of old coal burning trains and ships left, and a fuel LNG tankers and a tiny fleet of cars and trucks that run on natural gas, that it! More so to bring coal for coal power plants from the ground to the power plant requires oil.

The cost in industrial uses is actually, on a per product basis usually a fairly nominal cost.

nominal cost, now.

Actually Natural gas can replace much of that, and there is no shortage of natural gas. Oil only provides 40% of our Industrial use and that's going down. As far as Residential and Commercial, natural gas represents 76% of their use, and oil is going down.

Natural gas is another source that will peak and not to long after oil, as most natural gas production is a by-product of oil production. More so natural gas in harder to transport and store then oil, as your self how much will is cost to convert everything to natural gas, could it be done in a year, a decade? That exactly the problem of infrastructure change required I've been talking about!

Except it can, because again, the US, the largest user of oil uses over 70% for transportation.

over 90% actually.

Other countries are similar, we can move our transportation system off of Oil, as Brazil has done, and also make it significantly more efficient.

It took Brazil three decades to move form 0% to mere 17.6% of is transport industry energy coming from ethanol today. And they have tropical lands with sugarcane, we got far less productive corn and cellulose feedstocks! Its taken the USA 10 years to go from 0.4% to 4% of our transport energy coming from ethanol, and this on excess corn production, to ramp it up to 40% by 2020 would require shifting to cellulosic ethanol, a field that has refused to grow as fast as we have desired.

Oh, and BS about nations disappearing under the waves and Antarctica being a superpower in 2300 makes me think you don't have a clue about global warming

Oh do tell! Please explain how low level nations and cities won't lose there territories to the sea? How desertification is not a present and growing problem? And why once ice sheets have melting why at least some sections of Antartica would not be habitable?

[adoucette]

No, it's NOT 90% for transportation, it's a bit over 70% like I said

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pecss_diagram.html

No, my reasoning isn't simple or ignorant, Canada is our largest supplier of imported oil and has been for years, at current prices and a lot of that comes from their tar sands.

Wiki claims that ~50% of their fuel supply comes from Ethanol using 1% of their arable land, and they still export nearly 1 billion gallons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

As to desertification:

a comprehensive analysis of the impact of global climatic changes on vegetation productivity has never been expressed in the context of variable limiting factors to plant growth. We present a global investigation of vegetation responses to climatic changes by analyzing 18 years (1982-1999) of both climatic data and satellite observations of vegetation activity. Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased many climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production (NPP) increased 6% (3.4 Pg C/18 yr) globally, with the largest increase in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rainforests accounted for 42% of the global NPP increase

http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/ecocast/...tions/npp.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...en-sahara.html

As to Antarctica, Shirley you jest?

Mean Temps:
Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C)
Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)
Antarctica is a continent surrounded by an ocean which means that interior areas do not benefit from the moderating influence of water.
With 98% of its area covered with snow and ice, the Antarctic continent reflects most of the sun's light rather than absorbing it.
The extreme dryness of the air causes any heat that is radiated back into the atmosphere to be lost instead of being absorbed by the water vapor in the atmosphere.
During the winter, the size of Antarctica doubles as the surrounding sea water freezes, effectively blocking heat transfer from the warmer surrounding ocean.
Antarctica has a higher average elevation than any other continent on Earth which results in even colder temperatures.

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/a...er/index.shtml

As to ocean's rising.

The most reasonable scenario used by the IPCC, the A1B scenario projects a most likely rise in sea levels of ~.3 meters by the end of the century.

IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10
10.6.5 Projections of Global Average Sea Level Change for the 21st Century

That's about 1 foot which means NO nations will, as you say will " very slowly disappear under the waves", and even in low lying countries, dealing with two feet of ocean rising (which is about 1 ft more than it would have without AGW), is NOT a big problem when you have a century to work with.

Arthur

[ElectricFetus]

No, it's NOT 90% for transportation, it's a bit over 70% like I said

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pecss_diagram.html

No its 94% of transportation energy comes from petroleum, learn how to read diagrams!

No, my reasoning isn't simple or ignorant, Canada is our largest supplier of imported oil and has been for years, at current prices and a lot of that comes from their tar sands.

A lot of that NOW comes from Tar sands.

Wiki claims that ~50% of their fuel supply comes from Ethanol using 1% of their arable land, and they still export nearly 1 billion gallons.

And it also says:

"In terms of energy equivalent, sugarcane ethanol represented 17.6% of the country's total energy consumption by the transport sector in 2008."

Which is what I was quoting earlier. You need take into account that cars aren't the only things sucking oil, so are trucks and trains and planes and ships.

As to desertification:
http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/ecocast/...tions/npp.html

Which says nothing about desertification. Here some that do:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2&searchtype=a

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...5&searchtype=a

http://www.catie.ac.cr/BancoMedios/D...ja.pdf#page=24

Now if your arguing that some areas will benefit from global warming, of course but others will not, thus adaptation and migration will be required.

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/a...er/index.shtml

Which says nothing about antarctic weather in 2300. Certainly area in like the Graham Lands like South Shetland Islands could become habitable in this century alone with the rate of ice lose there.

As to ocean's rising.

The most reasonable scenario used by the IPCC, the A1B scenario projects a most likely rise in sea levels of ~.3 meters by the end of the century.

Good try but I was talking about centuries from now, and even so .3 meters (1ft) will mean the loss of hundreds thousand square miles of coastline, the loss of 17-43 percent of our wetlands, several pacific nations would shrink or disappear altogether. Just .4m for example will reduce the country of Bangladesh by 11% and produce 7 to 10 million climate refugees Also many have projected sea levels higher rises, as much as 2 meters. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5894/1340

That's about 1 foot which means NO nations will, as you say will " very slowly disappear under the waves"

Again said more then one century, and even 0.3m means doom for nations like Tuvalu, as just 0.2-0.4m will make them uninhabitable. Heck sea level rise has already taken more then half of Bhola Island of Bangladesh.

and even in low lying countries, dealing with two feet of ocean rising (which is about 1 ft more than it would have without AGW), is NOT a big problem when you have a century to work with.

Thank you for confirming my argument.

Lets go over what I said again to enhance your reading comperhension:

The worry about global warming is a slow boiling issue, its one of adaptation, sure millions will be displaced and even die over the next few centuries as whole nations very slowly disappear under the waves or desert sands, but then again Antarctica might become a global superpower in 2300. Peak oil is a bashing over the head issue, its one that has and can cause economic crisis in the short term and that can't be rapidly adapted against.

Note how I express climate change as adaptation over centuries, and that this is no problem compared to peak oil which is happening now and vary rapidly?

[adoucette]

No its 94% of transportation energy comes from petroleum, learn how to read diagrams!

Oh horsepucky.

I said:

Except it can, because again, the US, the largest user of oil uses over 70% for transportation. ”

You said: over 90% actually.

But we don't use over 90% of our oil for transportation, we use a bit over 70% like I said.

Arthur

[adoucette]

Which says nothing about antarctic weather in 2300. Certainly area in like the Graham Lands like South Shetland Islands could become habitable in this century alone with the rate of ice lose there.

Again, You said: then again Antarctica might become a global superpower in 2300

Now you are saying a tiny part of it MIGHT become habitable.

Can't you see the frigging difference in those statements?

The fact is, with the MASSIVE amount of ice that surrounds the continent for roughly half the year, it in no way will become habitable in 2300.

Give this BS up.

GW is of the order of a few degrees, Antarctica will be no more habitable in the worst case GW scenarios than it is today.

Arthur

[adoucette]

Good try but I was talking about centuries from now, and even so .3 meters (1ft) will mean the loss of hundreds thousand square miles of coastline, the loss of 17-43 percent of our wetlands, several pacific nations would shrink or disappear altogether. Just .4m for example will reduce the country of Bangladesh by 11% and produce 7 to 10 million climate refugees Also many have projected sea levels higher rises, as much as 2 meters. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5894/1340
Again said more then one century, and even 0.3m means doom for nations like Tuvalu, as just 0.2-0.4m will make them uninhabitable. Heck sea level rise has already taken more then half of Bhola Island of Bangladesh.

Total BS.

You act like people won't do anything to mitigate this SLOW change.
They will.

This "sky is falling" BS from you is patently ridiculous.
Discussing what will happen CENTURIES from now is even more so.

Arthur

[adoucette]

Which says nothing about desertification. Here some that do:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2&searchtype=a

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...5&searchtype=a

http://www.catie.ac.cr/BancoMedios/D...ja.pdf#page=24

Now if your arguing that some areas will benefit from global warming, of course but others will not, thus adaptation and migration will be required.

Nope, none of those discussed anything we have actually seen.
One of them was a real howler.

The three models show warming in the A2 scenario stronger in the tropical region, both in summer and especially in winter, reaching up to 6 oC-8 oC warmer than in the present scenario.

NOBODY believes that the world is headed for a 6-8 degree C increase in temp.

NOBODY.

Give it a rest.

What we HAVE seen via NASA's satellite measurments is that the global climatic conditions have been towards INCREASED plant growth almost throughout the entire biosphere, as MEASURED.

Not modeled.

What part of this do you NOT understand?

A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.

The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.

There is no particular reason to believe this won't continue since plants essentially like warmer wetter conditions, and a warm world will be a wetter world.

Arthur

[gmilam]

No its 94% of transportation energy comes from petroleum, learn how to read diagrams!

Uh, you do realize that 70% of petroleum going to transportation is not the same as 94% of transportation energy coming from petroleum don't you? Not to mention that it is possible for both of those statements to be true.

[ElectricFetus]

Uh, you do realize that 70% of petroleum going to transportation is not the same as 94% of transportation energy coming from petroleum don't you? Not to mention that it is possible for both of those statements to be true.

I was talking about amount of energy used for transportation alone that came from petroleum, he was utilizing an unrelated figure.

Nope, none of those discussed anything we have actually seen.

what have we "seen?"

NOBODY believes that the world is headed for a 6-8 degree C increase in temp.

Clearly someone did to write that.

Give it a rest.

I was not arguing for such things, never was.

What we HAVE seen via NASA's satellite measurments is that the global climatic conditions have been towards INCREASED plant growth almost throughout the entire biosphere, as MEASURED.

and that has to do with rising sea levels and desertification how??? Sure we could gain say Siberia and the Canadian tundra, but millions of people from deluged and desolate states will need to be moved there.

What part of this do you NOT understand?

Well I don't understand how this fits into a valid argument I was never arguing that plant growth would decrease or that temperatures would go up 6-8C, I was arguing merely that climate change is a very long term and/or adaptable problem and that peak oil is far more serious for the here and now, why you taken us on this strawman fallacy I don't know.

There is no particular reason to believe this won't continue since plants essentially like warmer wetter conditions, and a warm world will be a wetter world.

Sure wetter on average, but where will the water fall? Some areas will actually end up drier.

[Saquist]

I wish to educate the dreamers, that electric vehicles (EVs from now on) can replace combustion engine cars for mass transportation in the future. Just to make sure, we are NOT talking about hybrids, but fully battery powered cars.
EVs have limited usage, mostly because of range and difficulty to charge. Their range hasn't really improved in 100 years! Oh yes, there is the price issue too, they are not cheap!!

Sure, they can be used for small range city dwelling, but if green people are dreaming that in the future millions will be buzzing around in EVs, well, they have a rude awakenings coming.
Not to mention that battery power will not drive heavy trucks or machinery. I will also mention that since the electricity does come from coal burning power stations, the enviromental footprint is also very high for EVs, so there is no overall saving for Mother Earth.

One can dream that one drives into an eelectric charging station and charges in 5 minutes, then be able to drive 300+ miles, but it is just not happening...

Maybe we should go to Mars instead... Don't get me wrong, I would love to speed down the highway by 100 MPH quietly in my cool electric car, but I also live in reality, and a reality check is long time due for dreamers....

Any takers????

Yeah I know you're right simply based on the carbon foot print problem. They are not solving that issue they're making it worse.

[Search & Destroy]

ElectricFetus, I think you argued better than your counterparts if that helps.

As to electric vehicles, of course they are coming.

1. Small personal vehicles like in the city of Masdar in Abu Dhabi, or the number of electric bikes in Asia are solutions to an increased # of participants.

2. Less waste, and more efficiency will continue to treat our coal problem, like energy-efficient air-conditioners or light-bulbs that last longer.

3. The final end of the coal disease will come from the power source that started it all - the sun. There is more than enough energy, high momentum in the rate of information increase, numerous breakthroughs - all the signs of a healthy prediction coming true.

For me, it's easy to believe 1,2,3 because saying we won't make mass-produced electric vehicles is like nay-saying about the fax machine many years ago. No time-frame though, the market timing is difficult for such a long-term project.

[adoucette]

I was talking about amount of energy used for transportation alone that came from petroleum, he was utilizing an unrelated figure.

NO, Your post was in reference to this:

Peak oil is a bashing over the head issue, its one that has and can cause economic crisis in the short term and that can't be rapidly adapted against

Except it can, because again, the US, the largest user of oil uses over 70% for transportation. ”

over 90% actually.

Arthur

[adoucette]

what have we "seen?"

Had you followed the link you would have read of NASA's global satellite study on the impact of recent climate on the planet's Net Primary Productivity.

we analyze nearly two decades of recent global climatic data and satellite observations of vegetative activity and show that climatic changes have eased multiple climatic constraints to plant growth, increasing NPP over large regions of Earth.

And NO, it doesn't mean people have to move to Siberia or Canadian Tundra, again had you taken the time you would have seen that "The largest increase (in NPP) was in tropical ecosystems".

http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/ecocast/...nce-june06.pdf

Everything we know about weather points to the fact that a slightly warmer world with slightly warmer oceans will be a slightly wetter world.

The link to the greening of the Sahara is also evidence to support this basic observation.

In any case, I'm no longer going to derail this thread and turn it into a discussion about global warming.

The point of my posts though is quite clear. We use a huge amount of our oil for transportation and we have already started the process of making our transportation far more efficient and reducing the amount of oil used by our transportation needs. This will take 20 years or more, but our production of oil over the next 20 years will still be sufficient to prevent any major economic issues and thus it's clear to me that we can adapt to the impact of peak oil production being reached in this same time frame.

Arthur