What you are saying is only true for stable elements. Obviously this is nowhere true for isotopes of Uranium 235 or the like in chain reactions.
2008 will be remembered as the year we reached Peak Oil Demand. Notions of 'peak oil' is just flat earth thinking, simple linear and nieve...the earth, the population growth, and needed energy are sustainable...its debt, and the explosion of green morons that isn't sustainable.
Peak oil is true and alive. But peak oil does not mean oil will go thru the roof cuz people start using alternatives at a certain level where people can not afford to pay for it. Peak oil is true and alive
The US peaked in oil production in 1970. Since then, imports have increased to over 70%. By the way, there is a correlation between US peak oil production and the end of Bretton Woods. But that's another topic. The vast majority of nations that produce oil have peaked in production. Indonesia is no longer part of OPEC. This is not a green issue. 2008 may be the year that the West reached peak oil demand... but the largest auto market is in China now. About 3 billion people between India and China alone trying to have a Western life. You say debt isn't sustainable. I agree. But is debt possible without cheap and price stable oil? Oil and money are one.
Yes, you are right. I was referring to chemical reactions (obviously), not nuclear ones. Carbon and oxygen can be fused, but the reaction is impractical and useless (see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg ). For the thermonuclear reaction to be useful for energy purposes, it has to satisfy several criteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermo...eria_and_candidates_for_terrestrial_reactions
I'm not sure you appreciate the scale of the problem. To generate enough electricity to run just the cars west of the Mississippi, you would have to create a hydro electric reservoir roughly the size of Oregon. You could blanket fly-over with wind towers and it wouldn't be enough. Nuclear would work, but it takes decades to build one, and we'd need 100+. There is no reasonable alternative, not on meaningful timescales. And that's just keeping it fueled. No "alternative sources" will replace your worn tires, each of which requires roughly 4 barrels of oil to make.
Hard to argue against. We need to find the equivalent of $15/bbl oil right now, and in mass quantities, or living standards across the globe will, with certainty, start noticeably declining. And that most certainly includes us privileged folks living in the developed world.
Since 1869, US crude oil prices adjusted for inflation have averaged $22.52 per barrel in 2008 dollars compared to $23.42 for world oil prices. Fifty percent of the time prices U.S. and world prices were below the median oil price of $16.71 per barrel. If long-term history is a guide, those in the upstream segment of the crude oil industry should structure their business to be able to operate with a profit, below $17.65 per barrel half of the time. The very long-term data and the post World War II data suggest a "normal" price far below the current price. http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
Misthos, U.S. production increased by 460,000 BPD last year, the biggest gain in 40 years. Proven World Oil Reserves increased by 700M Barrels...gains in Brazil, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Indonesia offset declines in Mexico, Russia, Norway and Vietnam. World refining capacity grew by 2.2%, mostly in China and India. At the same time, world oil demand declined by 2M barrels per day. (See BP 2009 Statistical Review). Technology and cost is driving efficiency gains dramatically in the Developed world. Technology is also driving access to more natural gas which will increasing compete and replace oil in both transportation and non trasportation uses...expecially if the oil price rises. Consider the efficiencies that were created by technological advancement in the history of agriculture and do not assume with enough incentive for profit that the same is not possible with oil use. It is also a mistake to assume that the growth of China, India and the rest of the emergin world will follow the same historical path of oil use that was followed by the Developed world...don't you think they will use the new technologies too? All in, through fossil feul subsitution (NOt the fantasies of Wind or Solar) and maybe some increased nuclear development (capital cost is too high), combined with rapidly advancing technological driven efficiency in use...world demand will continue to drop...and 2008 will likely mark the peak in annual world oil consumption.