NOW can we have funds for renewable energy?

[Wild Cobra]

Who is being closed minded?

You are.

[RandomGuy]

Good. just keep that in mind, little is certain.

I don't have such data [that says we will suddenly find massive amounts of new oil]. I do believe the oil companies know more than they let us know however.

So... we should base our policy decisions on your lack of data? or your conspiracy theory?

The oil companies themselves, if you read their annual statements, talk rather openly about this ongoing depletion, as the graph posted earlier suggests. If there were as much oil as you suggest, it would be VERY VERY hard to hide that fact from independent auditors, investors, and other stakeholders, just as it would be nearly impossible to fake a moon landing and hide the fact that it was faked.

Being "open-minded" in your world means taking your novice's understanding of the subject, with no supporting data and using that to base policy decisions on, over people who literally study it for a living and base multibillion dollar decisions on the reams of available data and readily available analysis of that data.

In the regard that I trust a host of expert analysis backed by solid data over you, yes, I am closed-minded.

You asked for data, you got it, and promptly ignored it. Anybody who reads that can draw their own conclusions. You didn't even bother reading any of it, and we all know it.

We will see a fairly bumpy plateau in production for a few years, followed by inevitable declines in production. We will see some price elasticity due to price rises as we get "demand destruction" from shifts to the alternative, renewable, forms of energy.

That will moderate price increases, but not eliminate them, as energy gets more expensive at a faster rate over time.

At some point, you will realize I was right about coal/gas/oil depletion. I am less certain about the economic effects, but I am absolutely certain about the fact that we face some near-term depletion problems.

I will save this thread, as I have saved others, and if you are still here in 5 to 10 years, we will see what happens.

[Wild Cobra]

So... we should base our policy decisions on your lack of data? or your conspiracy theory?

It's you who wants to base policy on unknown facts.

The oil companies themselves, if you read their annual statements, talk rather openly about this ongoing depletion, as the graph posted earlier suggests. If there were as much oil as you suggest, it would be VERY VERY hard to hide that fact from independent auditors, investors, and other stakeholders, just as it would be nearly impossible to fake a moon landing and hide the fact that it was faked.

I didn't know the mud log data wasn't proprietary any more. When did public disclosure start on them?

Being "open-minded" in your world means taking your novice's understanding of the subject, with no supporting data and using that to base policy decisions on, over people who literally study it for a living and base multibillion dollar decisions on the reams of available data and readily available analysis of that data.

Again, it's you that agree with making policy with data that is not solid.

In the regard that I trust a host of expert analysis backed by solid data over you, yes, I am closed-minded.

Yes, you are.

You asked for data, you got it, and promptly ignored it. Anybody who reads that can draw their own conclusions. You didn't even bother reading any of it, and we all know it.

It was projections. not proof.

We will see a fairly bumpy plateau in production for a few years, followed by inevitable declines in production. We will see some price elasticity due to price rises as we get "demand destruction" from shifts to the alternative, renewable, forms of energy.

Maybe we will, maybe we won't.

At some point, you will realize I was right about coal/gas/oil depletion. I am less certain about the economic effects, but I am absolutely certain about the fact that we face some near-term depletion problems.

Where can I buy a crystal ball like yours?

I will save this thread, as I have saved others, and if you are still here in 5 to 10 years, we will see what happens.

Cool....

Have you done the same with my threads on global warming? love to see you eat crow on them.

[Drachen]

It's you who wants to base policy on unknown facts.

Again, it's you that agree with making policy with data that is not solid.

Actually, he wants to base policy decisions on the best available data. You are wanting to make policy based on a hunch that the status quo will continue.

He admitted that CEOs and leaders never have access to all of the perfectly researched data because it is impossible to ever know all variables which are pertinent to any given situation. They make decisions based on the best available data, THEN fill in the holes with their gut (experience, risk tolerance, whatever you want to call it). Data, not "wanting/hoping to believe" is the basis.

[RandomGuy]

It's you who wants to base policy on unknown facts.

I didn't know the mud log data wasn't proprietary any more. When did public disclosure start on them?

Again, it's you that agree with making policy with data that is not solid.

Yes, you are.

It was projections. not proof.

Maybe we will, maybe we won't.

Where can I buy a crystal ball like yours?

Cool....

Have you done the same with my threads on global warming? love to see you eat crow on them.

Would you bet everything you own on one poker hand?

or alternately:

We can bet on one die throw. Everything you own versus everything I own.
I win if the die shows a one through 5, you win if it shows a six.

Is that a good bet?

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, he wants to base policy decisions on the best available data. You are wanting to make policy based on a hunch that the status quo will continue.

He admitted that CEOs and leaders never have access to all of the perfectly researched data because it is impossible to ever know all variables which are pertinent to any given situation. They make decisions based on the best available data, THEN fill in the holes with their gut (experience, risk tolerance, whatever you want to call it). Data, not "wanting/hoping to believe" is the basis.

What about if the best known data only has a limited certainty? What if the best data only suggests a 10% certainty, but is the best available data? Now I know that the data suggests we are running out. Seriously, I do. It most certainly isn't enough to warrant government mandates that picks winners and losers. Those who hold the information in the energy companies are the best to determine this particular truth. If they saw information suggesting it was time to start building large scale solar or wind, they would. Maybe the suggestion of government subsidies are actually holding up progress, as they hold out for subsidies?

Trust me. When alternate sources look good to the bottom line, the energy companies need no subsidies to take that path.

[Wild Cobra]

Would you bet everything you own on one poker hand?

or alternately:

We can bet on one die throw. Everything you own versus everything I own.
I win if the die shows a one through 5, you win if it shows a six.

Is that a good bet?

I'll place my bet with the free market.

[Drachen]

What about if the best known data only has a limited certainty? What if the best data only suggests a 10% certainty, but is the best available data? Now I know that the data suggests we are running out. Seriously, I do. It most certainly isn't enough to warrant government mandates that picks winners and losers. Those who hold the information in the energy companies are the best to determine this particular truth. If they saw information suggesting it was time to start building large scale solar or wind, they would. Maybe the suggestion of government subsidies are actually holding up progress, as they hold out for subsidies?

Trust me. When alternate sources look good to the bottom line, the energy companies need no subsidies to take that path.

If the best known data is the best known data, then it is the best known data. This is where you start.

The rest of the post seems like advocation only of reactive policy decisions. These are far more costly than proactive decisions. Look at Ford v GM for example. Ford's strategic plan changed in about 2004/5 timeframe. They were going to focus on quality, gas mileage and efficiency. The goal was to get the company to a point where it could not only squeeze a decent profit out of a small/efficient car, but also make profit if the total amount of cars sold in a year dropped to 10.5 million (in the US). GM did not start this process until the market began turning. GM needs bailout/goes bankrupt, costs a lot of money (which was then moved to us). Ford doesn't need bailout, garners consumer goodwill because of this gains market share and is very profitable in a market which is still near a low for annual sales.

Did Ford's way cost money, yes it did. They borrowed a lot of money in 06 to get this plan off of the ground. Fortunately, though, by the time the market was turning, their cars had already won some accolades, and people were starting to get used to the idea of a Ford being a quality automobile. They started selling more, then the bottom fell out, and they prospered because they were proactive.

GM cost a whole lot more in taxpayer money, and collateral damage from their bankrupcy.

I personally prefer proactive policy decisions based on the best available data.

[Wild Cobra]

If the best known data is the best known data, then it is the best known data. This is where you start.

The rest of the post seems like advocation only of reactive policy decisions. These are far more costly than proactive decisions. Look at Ford v GM for example. Ford's strategic plan changed in about 2004/5 timeframe. They were going to focus on quality, gas mileage and efficiency. The goal was to get the company to a point where it could not only squeeze a decent profit out of a small/efficient car, but also make profit if the total amount of cars sold in a year dropped to 10.5 million (in the US). GM did not start this process until the market began turning. GM needs bailout/goes bankrupt, costs a lot of money (which was then moved to us). Ford doesn't need bailout, garners consumer goodwill because of this gains market share and is very profitable in a market which is still near a low for annual sales.

Did Ford's way cost money, yes it did. They borrowed a lot of money in 06 to get this plan off of the ground. Fortunately, though, by the time the market was turning, their cars had already won some accolades, and people were starting to get used to the idea of a Ford being a quality automobile. They started selling more, then the bottom fell out, and they prospered because they were proactive.

GM cost a whole lot more in taxpayer money, and collateral damage from their bankrupcy.

I personally prefer proactive policy decisions based on the best available data.

Don't you think energy companies would be proactive if they thought they needed to be? maybe not all, but at least one?

[RandomGuy]

I'll place my bet with the free market.

Changing the subject does not answer my question.

We can bet on one die throw. Everything you own versus everything I own.
I win if the die shows a one through 5, you win if it shows a six.

Is that a good bet for you?

Simple yes or no.

[RandomGuy]

What about if the best known data only has a limited certainty? What if the best data only suggests a 10% certainty, but is the best available data? Now I know that the data suggests we are running out. Seriously, I do. It most certainly isn't enough to warrant government mandates that picks winners and losers. Those who hold the information in the energy companies are the best to determine this particular truth. If they saw information suggesting it was time to start building large scale solar or wind, they would. Maybe the suggestion of government subsidies are actually holding up progress, as they hold out for subsidies?

Trust me. When alternate sources look good to the bottom line, the energy companies need no subsidies to take that path.

That is indeed what we are getting pretty close to now, and there is a lot of capital starting to flow into these companies.

I simply want some push towards renewables along the lines of general research, some higher taxes for oil/gas/coal to accelerate the process. Nothing drastic mind you, just some modest increases.

I am perfectly happy to let free markets figure out which renewable technologies should be developed, and what efficiency gains are most profitable.

We may need some solid governmental investments in infrastructure, such as transmission lines though. I am ok with that as well.

All of this offers higher costs in the short term, with the long-term benefit of avoiding the worst shocks down the road.

If we fail to do so, we simply cede compe ive advantage to those who do.

[Drachen]

Don't you think energy companies would be proactive if they thought they needed to be? maybe not all, but at least one?

History has proven otherwise. Protect the status quo. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't. It's not their fault, its human nature to find a comfort zone and exploit it as long as possible. If the comfort zone moves, then so moves the human/corp.

[RandomGuy]

What about if the best known data only has a limited certainty? What if the best data only suggests a 10% certainty, but is the best available data?

The best data is the best data.

The problem with the argument that you are attempting to make though, is that the degree of certainty as to oil depletion is much higher than 10% likely.

It is 100% certain that oil will deplete. The only question is how fast.

The best data suggests it is extremely probable that will happen for all practical purposes, within 40 years.

That is good enough for me to want to get started on converting our economy now. Not converted overnight, that would be silly and overly costly, just get started.

[Drachen]

Besides, data with 10% certainty is better than nothing with 0% certainty.

[Wild Cobra]

Besides, data with 10% certainty is better than nothing with 0% certainty.

Is it enough to pick winners and losers with subsidies, or tax breaks?

[RandomGuy]

Is it enough to pick winners and losers with subsidies, or tax breaks?

10% certainty would not be enough for me to want to do that, no.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_fore...herrere505.htm

How good do you think his estimate is?

As noted before we are in a position to have a much greater confidence level for ultimate reserves.

How much certainty would it take for you to want to act?

[Drachen]

Is it enough to pick winners and losers with subsidies, or tax breaks?

First of all Yes, picking renewables over oil is absolutely what I am advocating. Additionally, I would actually call it a leveling of the playing field. Take the subsidies from the winners until now (oil), and shower these on renewables. Oil is mature, needs no subsidies, tax breaks or otherwise. We need renewables it is young, subsidies and tax breaks allow these industries to mature at a faster clip than otherwise possible. Spend the money on research to try to make up for all of the years that oil has been receiving tax breaks and subsidies and allow the field to tip at least toward equality, but better in the favor of renewables.

[Wild Cobra]

First of all Yes, picking renewables over oil is absolutely what I am advocating. Additionally, I would actually call it a leveling of the playing field. Take the subsidies from the winners until now (oil), and shower these on renewables. Oil is mature, needs no subsidies, tax breaks or otherwise. We need renewables it is young, subsidies and tax breaks allow these industries to mature at a faster clip than otherwise possible. Spend the money on research to try to make up for all of the years that oil has been receiving tax breaks and subsidies and allow the field to tip at least toward equality, but better in the favor of renewables.

I agree oil needs no subsidies. If there are any, take them away. however, i will not advocate subsidies for other forms of energy. When they are profitable, they will be used. Why are people so afraid of the free market?

Portland General Electric (PGE) allows you to pay a little more by saying what mix of your power you want as green sourced. Do they do that where you are from? If you want to create an early demand for it, let the market choose, and let people put their money where their mouth is.

[Drachen]

I agree oil needs no subsidies. If there are any, take them away. however, i will not advocate subsidies for other forms of energy. When they are profitable, they will be used. Why are people so afraid of the free market?

Portland General Electric (PGE) allows you to pay a little more by saying what mix of your power you want as green sourced. Do they do that where you are from? If you want to create an early demand for it, let the market choose, and let people put their money where their mouth is.

Windtricity - 30% here. Its killing me right now. LOL.

And if you want to truly level the playing field, cut off the oil subsidies, give renewables a few decades of subsidies then cut them off too. I also don't see a problem, in general, with government funded science. I realize that what I am advocating here is directed science with an immediate purpose, but I am all for funding of basic science as well (science to know more, that doesn't necessarily have an immediately marketable product at its conclusion, like what CERN is doing). I agree with the idea that we could get together an Energy "manhattan project", as well though.

(I know I went a little OT there, and I apologize, hopefully the post wasn't too distracting).


Windtricity is CPS's (our power company) name for paying more to get wind energy. I believe they are coming out with Solaricity soon as well.

[Wild Cobra]

No tax payer subsidies. We cannot afford it, especially with this administrations run-away spending.

If you want to help an energy company develop green energy, then give them some of your money. If you feel you cannot contribute enough to matter, get like minded people together, and you can all donate to the cause you all believe in. just keep tax dollars out of it, and put you money where your mouth is.

[RandomGuy]

No tax payer subsidies. We cannot afford it, especially with this administrations run-away spending.

If you want to help an energy company develop green energy, then give them some of your money. If you feel you cannot contribute enough to matter, get like minded people together, and you can all donate to the cause you all believe in. just keep tax dollars out of it, and put you money where your mouth is.

This switchover will happen whether we do something or not.
The only question is when we incur the costs of switching over.
I am almost certain that energy costs, and therefore conversion costs, will be MUCH higher in the future.


Cost of doing nothing, no government intervention, i.e. total free-market solution
2010-2020
5

2020-2030
20

2030-2040
50

Total cost of switchover
75



Cost of doing something, minor government intervention
2010-2020
15

2020-2030
20

2030-2040
20

Total costs of switchover
55

The first scenario is what I think will likely happen. You will get your way for the most part.

The second scenario is what I think should happen, as I am fairly sure that the costs will be lower simply due to energy cost.

Here are the drivers for energy demand:
US economic growth (likely fairly flat)
European economic growth (likely fairly flat)
Asian economic growth (rapid rise, remember "asia" includes China AND India)
African econoimc growth (rapid rise)

China has rapidly overcome Japan as the worlds second largest consumer of oil. If its oil consumption grows roughly as fast as its economy, as does that of the US, and assuming supply keeps pace, China will surpass the US as the worlds largest consumer of oil by 2023. India will surpass that of the US in 2037.

Given depletion, this will likely be next to impossible to achieve in terms of supply.

BUT

The underlying aggregate demand will remain unchanged. Aggregate demand in China will surpass that of the US shortly, and India not too far behind.

THAT will result in a bidding war, simultaineously with demand destruction, as we convert to renewables and nuclear.

Do you want to wait to convert until the 3 billion people in China and India are competing for the same energy supplies that we are?

[RandomGuy]

Cost of doing nothing, no government intervention, i.e. total free-market solution
2010-2020
5

2020-2030
20

2030-2040
50

Total cost of switchover
75



Cost of doing something, minor government intervention
2010-2020
15

2020-2030
20

2030-2040
20

Total costs of switchover
55

To be clear and honest:

This is meant to be more indicative of what I think the cost structures will be between the alternatives than any attempt to quantify actual costs 10-30 years in the future. It is more meant to illustrate my viewpoint, than to be an actual projection.

As I have said here, and elsewhere: we will get to see either way.

[RandomGuy]

Portland General Electric (PGE) allows you to pay a little more by saying what mix of your power you want as green sourced. Do they do that where you are from? If you want to create an early demand for it, let the market choose, and let people put their money where their mouth is.

Yes, we have similar here in Texas in Austin, although I haven't checked about my local utility. I think I should.

I would be happy to do so and subsidize what I think should happen.

Heh, you and the rest of the "do nothings" can thank me later.

[Wild Cobra]

This switchover will happen whether we do something or not.

blah blah blah...

Maybe, maybe not. I agree that the price will go up as time goes by. It's called inflation. However, technological improvements makes it cheaper, as a percentage of peoples money.

I see you explanation as utter fabricated bull , and having zero merit.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, we have similar here in Texas in Austin, although I haven't checked about my local utility. I think I should.

I would be happy to do so and subsidize what I think should happen.

Heh, you and the rest of the "do nothings" can thank me later.

Hey, I do applaud you if you are one that will, put your own money where your mouth is.