Peak Oil will be good for men.

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3726]

narwhal wrote:

The electricity is produced in a power plant, which may not be good for the environment.

Because electricity comes from MAGIC!

I’ve heard it said that when you add up all the energy necessary to produce an electric car -rare earth minerals mined and refined, batteries manufactured, etc etc – that it’s far more than the gasoline burned by a regular car in it’s entire useful lifespan.

I’m not totally sure if it’s true, but if anyone has a link with hard data on that, it would be appreciated.

"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,

[ShinyParticipant 2307]

Ahhh, but what if the energy came from solar panels or wind farms? That would still be a net benefit, I think.

[FrankOneParticipant 1442]

Stargazer wrote:

Is “Peak Oil” still a thing? I thought that whole idea was tossed out already.

It’s a ‘thing’ amongst Progressives. I’ve worked in the Chemical industry my entire life. I believe discussing it in the context it is typically talked about, makes about as much sense as talking about ‘peak vacuum tubes’ or ‘peak horses and buggies’ or ‘peak kerosene lanterns’. Implicit in these discussions is the assumption of static technology; it’s the mistake of Malthus. Will there be a maximum production of total crude oil at some future date. YES. But this should be regarded as an opportunity. And predicting even the peak precisely, e.g. saying we’ll have ‘peak oil’ in 2036, is not possible, because what is ‘economically recoverable’ varies with the price per barrel and with unknown, competing equivalents. High prices made fracking profitable. It is unprofitable at low prices.

In Roman Times, mills were powered by water wheels. You could say, our energy was limited by the total amount of flowing water, and by power derived from animals. But obviously, we made technological progress.

You can economically liqeufy coal at prices above about $65/barrel. But it’s a huge infrastructure cost to build plants to do it, and nobody is going to do that if they think prices will drop to today’s levels. Liqeufaction can be coupled to a fission reactor to supply the heat, so that coal need not even be burned in the process for heat. You can argue that it’s $70/barrel. But, if prices were to stay at $100 per barrel for a sustained period, this established technology, would also be built out.

chir: Yes, sweet crude is more valuable per barrel because it requires less intensive refining. As there is less of it, we engage in more complicated and energy-intensive processes to remove sulfur and other impurities from sour crude.

I actually work in used motor oil re-refining (recycling). It is an industry that is very capital intensive.

[Tiga KParticipant 1693]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

narwhal wrote:

The electricity is produced in a power plant, which may not be good for the environment.

Because electricity comes from MAGIC!

I’ve heard it said that when you add up all the energy necessary to produce an electric car -rare earth minerals mined and refined, batteries manufactured, etc etc – that it’s far more than the gasoline burned by a regular car in it’s entire useful lifespan.

I’m not totally sure if it’s true, but if anyone has a link with hard data on that, it would be appreciated.

The book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein discusses that. I don’t have the book anymore but I remember him mentioning the rare earth stuff and how it isn’t really saving the environment anymore than fossil fuel use is.

[Oz-BlokeParticipant 3233]

I found these documentaries on the subject of Peak Oil very informative –

Crude Awakening –

Pump –

Blind Spot

I personally believe mankind will see a collision of multiple consequences in my lifetime – energy, population, food, water, environment. I thought biofuels would be the answer to the energy puzzle until I saw ‘Pump’.

This, combined with our exploding world population, does not bode well for men and women alike. However, by avoiding the anchor of a female partner and children, MGTOW only have one mouth to feed when the s~~~-hits-the-fan and will be better positioned to adapt and provide (for himself) in a post-fossil-fuel-fiesta world.

#ManOut

[hollowtipsParticipant 681]

I’ve always speculated that our population needs a thining and we need to revert back to the stone age. The issue is it’s extremely unethical to try to decide which 2/3rds of people should be “thinned”.

If we were set back technologically we wouldn’t need to thin the population it would happen naturally. It would be survival of the smartest and fittest. We’d breed out a considerable amount of stupidity, obesity/overweight rates would vanish. Breed out diseases that were genetically reoccurring like cancer.

We’d have a healthier smarter race of humans and they’d hopefully be more moral about the planets well being and we’d be hellbent on colonizing our solar system and immortality.

No to mention woman would be pushed back into their huts where they belong. Their would be no more whores just woman with lots of children without birth control. A woman who doesn’t have children would have no value and would be outcast in society. Morals would come back to us and being a gentleman would be desirable and praised.

The reality is we do have enough technology to survive peak oil so this scenario is highly unlikely.

[Author]

Posts