Open Question to Powerswitchers From RGR. Input requested.

[madibe]

Ouch!

A good Republican though

[Andy Hunt]

Yep, you can tell by the grimace.

[lurker]

Iv'e read his website but still can't work out amongst all the corporate claptrap what he is actually selling?



Some kind of investment fund probabaly a ponzi?

Our products are designed to stretch existing global resources well beyond the current capacities. We've already invested over one quarter of a million dollars.

What magic koolaid this shister is selling it doesn't say

Of course maybe hes invented some really inovative technology that will revolutuinze the energy sector?!

[madibe]

From Wikipedia:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

Sounds a bit like continual growth to me... i.e. what most governments base their finances on LOL

[RGR]

So what's the point of telling us that we can read your publications?

[RGR]

So what's the point of telling us that we can read your publications?

[RGR]

[quote="lurker"]

[lurker]

We are currently researching and developing a product that can revolutionize the transportation industry. This project reallocates existing technology and applies it in new and innovative ways.

Ah there was some info

Some kind of fuel effiecent transport but doesn't say anything about what it is? Relocating tech sounds like importing rickshaws or something

Or a prototype maybe:



Anyway sounds interesting maybe one day we will all own a RGR mobile. Sorry I just like that picture alot.

Will be dissapointed if its not Johnny cabs or monorail

[syberberg]

No restriction on angle, but at the end of the day I am a geoscientist, and would most likely concentrate on science rather than economic speculation or anything related to politics.

I wasn't really talking economic or political speculation, the fields of science for each, but especially economic science as it pertains to peak oil. Politics is just far too unpredictable to be included in future extrapolation, but it certainly could be used in a historical context.

I think I may, however, be reading what your proposed paper is trying to achieve. For my clarity, are you looking to update the science behind field dynamics and how they peak individually and then extrapolating that onto a national/global scale to project into the future, or look at all the underlying science behind peak oil theory with no or limited future projections/speculations?

While equipped to tackle nearly any conceivable geoscience topic, I'm not sure what you mean by "thought experiment" in relation to peak oil.

The geological side is the most stable, with the fewest variations and unpredictability (from what I understand), while the economic and political uncertainties take it into the realm of "thought experiment" as they are too unpredictable to project into a future scenarios. If that makes sense.

Cocktail party level conversations with amateurs are not the same as peer reviewed science. And intelligence is not the issue, my ability to use the full range of resources to me during this cocktail party level of conversations is. That restriction has been removed for the purposes of doing science.

As long as you keep holding amateurs in a certain level of contempt and lower yourself to their (our?) levels, you don't do yourself any favours and come across as a troll. Not explaining does nothing but make you appear arrogant and it undermines your position as knowledgeable, you just get ignored and dismissed. As you can see by some of the comments within this thread. It's why I have always done my best to be respectful, polite and ask, what I hope, are sensible questions.

Still employed. And the paper isn't a given...prior to writing one, a worthy topic to write it on is necessary. Others have certainly already taken down some of the concepts I would have studied a few years back, so a contribution on those topics is no longer necessary. Plus I would prefer to be unique, anyone can bash the bell shaped curve nowadays considering how poorly it works.

I've never seen the bell-curve, or any bell-curve for that matter, as being an accurate description of reality as it exists from a data-set taken at a certain point in time. When considering oil extraction/depletion, it doesn't take into account other factors like technology, methodology, politics or economics.

[kenneal - lagger]

No restriction on angle, but at the end of the day I am a geoscientist, and would most likely concentrate on science rather than economic speculation or anything related to politics.

The subject is intimately bound up with politics and economics. The rate of exploration is determined by the price of oil. The price of oil is determined by the value of the dollar, the state of the world economy, the rate of exploration and a 101 other things as well.

With a high oil price the amount of exploration rises and with a bit of recession in the world economy the amount of exploration drops. Political instability in a country can decimate production; just look at Iraq and Nigeria.

All these things effect the rate of production of oil. Lower prices, caused by political and economic instability, could delay new oil projects for long enough to cause a decline in new oil production. Higher prices can send the world into recession, reducing the rate of oil extraction, reducing the capital available and delaying new exploration. If that delay is long enough, the rate of depletion of existing oil supplies could mean that it would not be possible to catch up to that depletion rate with new finds, just as has happened in the US, the UK and about 60 other countries.

Geoscience is only one factor in the availability of oil and, at the moment, it is not the most important one. Given unlimited capital and unlimited access to the whole world you could doubtless achieve even the most extreme forecasts for increases in oil supply, for a while. But you don't have those two things and you are unlikely to ever have them. Your paper must include the political and economic constraints or it is not worth the paper it would be printed on.

Given full access to explore and the capital to do it would only ensure the early onset of Peak Oil. The world would go back to the profligate use of the cheap oil that would ensue, just as we did after the oil crises of the 1970s. The solar panels would come off the White House roof again. With the existing situation the world is likely to bumble along dipping in and out of recession for several, or even tens of, years as lack of sufficient exploration keeps oil supply shadowing demand and the oil price on the margins of viability for new extraction.

By the way, I don't think you have identified the right person above. If someone wants anonymity they don't usually use their initials on websites.

[RGR]

I think I may, however, be reading what your proposed paper is trying to achieve. For my clarity, are you looking to update the science behind field dynamics and how they peak individually and then extrapolating that onto a national/global scale to project into the future, or look at all the underlying science behind peak oil theory with no or limited future projections/speculations?

[RGR]

[quote="kenneal"]

[biffvernon]

So what's the point of telling us that we can read your publications?

I would estimate that there is a nearly 100% chance you already have.

That's quite a surprising statement with a nearly 100% chance of being wrong unless you don't just live in the Rocky Mountains but actually work for the Rocky Mountains Institute. As Ken says, we may have the wrong one.

[biffvernon]

Well, this could be tough then. I am supremely well equipped to handle geoscience topics from almost every angle. But the amount of oil in the ground, or available for use at a certain price point, is not politically dependent as I see it. The timing of its use may have a political component, but I can ignore that by not caring about timing, but perhaps only volumes or costs.

That's fine - but it sidesteps the whole peak oil thing, which is all about timing.

[RGR]

[quote="biffvernon"]