Talk:Hubbert peak theory/Archive 3

message: *Roadrunner suggested splitting the article into "Peak oil" and "Hubbert Peak", as "Hubbert peak...refers to a particular model of peak oil". 19:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On splitting the article into '''Peak Oil''' and '''Hubbert Theory''' 

message: *Amadeust and an unnamed user discussed whether the alternatives to oil section should be moved to other articles.  Amadeust argued that those alternatives mentioned were being "singled out," but to make the list comprehensive would force "very speculative" alternatives to be included.  The other user felt that the alternatives section should stay if the article was going to "present all points of view." 22:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On moving alternatives to oil to a different article 

message: *Tom proposed an Energy Development project.
 -Sustainability
  |
  |-Water development
  |
  \-Energy development
    |
    |-Oil energy development
    |  |
    |  |-Hubbert's Peak Theory
    |  |
    |  \-Alternatives to oil (see Future energy development)
    |    \-Future energy development
19:35, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
:Not a bad idea, except "Future energy" does not depend on this theory.  It depends on climate change and combustion being replaced by digestion etc.
*Zen master disagreed with Tom's proposal, saying "Hubbert peak is absolutely not in an related or a daughter article of energy development or sustainability." 19:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't, but, it can still be part of a project on that
*Aquamarine supported the proposal, commenting that "the article was bloated and much discussion was not related to the peak."
*Ctrl_build said that a "energy development wikipedia project" was "needed...because  this is a larger issue, one which will grow, and is relevant."  He proposed this outline:
[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk
*Zen master said "There is no need to go to that level of organizational detail...most of the articles in question are simply not that related." 04:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On building a project around the article 

message: Sorry The Anome, it was actually 219.164.51.29 that did it.  When the edit doesn't match the check in comment I get suspicious.  zen master    T  13:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorry, was really [[User:219.164.51.29]] that added clandestine opposite POV 

message: I think the time has come for a sub section to move all modern day criticis and supporters opinions, the intro section is becoming unwieldy, what do people think?  Either way, including Lynch and Mauregi (both critics) in the intro section is rather unbalanced in my opinion.  zen master    T  05:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Will attempt to move both. Ultramarine 05:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a Criticisms sub section? 

message: We currently have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations that seems to be going nowhere.  Please answer in poll format (Support or Oppose) the following proposals: Tom Haws
Move Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sustainability.
* Support.  This seems to be the biggest umbrella and the most acceptable term.  Tom Haws 22:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
* Oppose. The sustainability project seems to be limited only to topics acceptable to some environmentalists. One cannot claim to discuss energy development in general when excluding nuclear energy, coal or natural gas. Ultramarine 10:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very insighful.  I agree. Tom Haws 17:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)  
Move Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations to Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development.
* Oppose.  See above. Tom Haws 22:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
* Support. See above. But there might be few people interested so an alternative might be to have no project at all for the moment. Ultramarine 10:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, that could be.  In any case, it should definitely start very low key.
Simplify the Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations page to initially include just Participants, Guestbook, Polls, and List of categories and articles.
* Support with conditions.  Only if the name is changed or the project is moved to Sustainability.  The current name is not attractive.  Tom Haws 22:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
* Oppose. Why have a project with no activity? Ultramarine 10:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sustainability project poll

message: I still wonder why this sort of vote always takes place in the Hubbert peak article?  Though I disagree with Ultramarine's comments above, the name of the project is "Sustainability", so nuclear, coal etc can go to Energy development or they can start their own wikiproject.  Sustainable energy development is a perfectly acceptable wiki project all by itself.  Relatedly, perhaps we need to start mentioning the impact pollution relating to oil etc have on the environment (carbon dioxide) and the implications post peak?  These may become increasingly noteworthy after the peak as people will likely turn to other sources such as coal which have a much greater environmental impact.  So we will have less and less energy and we will be polluting more and more, not a good scenario.  I wonder if there is an article already created on "clean" coal technology. zen master    T  13:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: See the discussion above. Zen master has started a vote so another one here seems indicated. 
The Alternative to oil section in this article is shorter and inferior to Future energy development. It should be merged with Future energy development and then deleted. Please also vote here. Ultramarine 00:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about these votes.  I think what we have here is two people who are trying very hard, but who have too much history between them and too few varying POVs to come to a consensus.  I suggest trying to get at least three other kind souls to brush up on this dialogue and give their opinions.  That is why I am repeatedly trying to find out where is the hub of activity (if any) for the area of the Wikipedia that deals with Sustainability.  We need more minds!  Tom Haws 04:21, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Everyone please take a look at the future energy development article and you will see that it is profoundly inferior to this article.  The alternatives to oil section there hasn't been significantly updated in weeks.   That article's name is wrong, the scope is wrong, the content is poor, and sustainability is de-emphasized so why is moving even an option?  zen master    T  04:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge then Delete section

message: *Merge then Delete Ultramarine 00:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: ===ASPO===
From Peak prediction: "The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas...argues that...the world faces the start of oil depletion around 2007"
:All I can find on www.peakoil.net is a 2008 prediction. Does anyone have a source on this?--Jwanders 22:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most recent prediction is on the 2nd page of their February 2005 newsletter here.  zen master    T  01:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: <looks around meekly>... um... does anyone know what "LNG technology" is? --Jwanders 22:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LNG = Liquified Natural Gas, natural gas has to be liquified before it can be transported long distances.  On a side note I've read that this liquification process wastes 30% of the energy in the natural gas. zen master    T  01:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Comments

message: From Peak prediction: "The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas...argues that...the world faces the start of oil depletion around 2007"
:All I can find on www.peakoil.net is a 2008 prediction. Does anyone have a source on this?--Jwanders 22:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most recent prediction is on the 2nd page of their February 2005 newsletter here.  zen master    T  01:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ASPO

message: From Fischer-Tropsch: "exploit with conventional gas pipelines and LNG technology."
:<looks around meekly>... um... does anyone know what "LNG technology" is? --Jwanders 22:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LNG = Liquified Natural Gas, natural gas has to be liquified before it can be transported long distances.  On a side note I've read that this liquification process wastes 30% of the energy in the natural gas. zen master    T  01:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LNG Technology

message: However, critics argue that market solution proponents mistakingly phrase everything in terms of money, e.g., they only consider the price of oil when in reality, the important metric is energy efficiency (the ratio of extracted energy over energy used by the extraction and refining processes).
:A market solution will naturally rule out energy inefficient methods of energy, since cost is not independent of, but correlates with energy efficiency--Confuzion 23:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the solution actually solves the problem, yes.  Money can't invent energy is the point.  zen master    T  04:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This argument doesn't make sense

message: :Once the rate of oil extraction can no longer increase with demand, in other words the oil peak has been reached, Jevons paradox instantly ceases to apply.
Can the anon explain this?  The semi-paradox of local efficiency effectively not making a dent in global efficiency would still apply?  A related point is that after the peak is reached it becomes increasingly harder to improve efficiency because there is less and less ability to do work?  zen master    T  09:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jevon's paradox ceases to apply? 

message: I removed the following paragraph because it is misleading. The practical engine efficiency is typically 30-50%. The automobiles are inefficent becuase a lot of energy is spent on accelerating the car itself (and not just the persons inside) and due to the aerodynamic drag and not due to the inefficient engines. (see Fuel efficiency)
"Even the idea of a fuel efficient automobile is an oxymoron.   The theoretical maximum thermodynamic efficiency for an automobile is roughly 25 percent, while the true efficiency of gasoline engines is much lower, perhaps as low as 7 percent in some cases.  This means that every time you fill your gas tank, only about 1 Gallon of gas actually gets converted into the energy that moves the car along, the rest of the fuel gets converted into heat."
Poszwa 02:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine efficiency