Wikipedia

Talk:Mitigation of peak oil

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (February 2018)
Learn more about this page

NPOV / Propaganda / Balance

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article seems to be shifted pro-nuke and pro-coal development. I question the balance and viewpoint of this article. It must state both sides fairly.

"Newer, generation IV reactors can produce hydrogen directly for vehicles or other chemical processes."

The weasel word here is can. Gen IV reactors don't exist yet. They are completely theoretical. According to the Gen IV page, they won't come on line until 2030. No mention is being made as to their cost competitiveness against current oil prices or costs to the environment. I altered this statement and am leaving it to be properly sourced.

"no commercial nuclear reactor in North America or Western Europe has ever experienced a loss of containment or even a significant leak of radiation."

This is a very narrowly defined propaganda statement that specifically excludes other countries throughout the world, and research reactors. Part of it is an outright lie. We all know about Chernobyl. But no one talks about the Nuclear meltdown at Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station, Michigan, USA. England, a part of Western Europe suffered a serious nuclear accident and fire at Windscale. Three Mile Island and Browns Ferry certainly had releases (but not significant since they don't define significant). Three Mile Island did have a release of radioactive gas. At Brown's Ferry, both the NRC and TVA state unequivocally that no significant radiation release occurred. So the key words here are "significant". This statement is weasel-written to exclude the accident at SL-1 since it was a research reactor (but you need research reactors to build and license Gen IV). The sentence also avoids all of the re-processing plant and transportation disasters world wide.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. I would like this piece of propaganda removed permanently because it is incorrect.

"In the long term concerns about nuclear power may be largely overcome if fusion power can be developed commercially."

This statement is blatantly wrong. Fusion reactions yield neutrons. Neutrons make things radioactive and as a result, fusion reactors do end up with radioactive waste. I changed the related statement.

"... and many have not yet been able to achieve the economies of scale that would make them commercially competitive against current oil prices or other current energy sources."

This statement lumps all alternatives together with the weasel word "many". There are many deployments of wind, solar and biomass that are cost competitive, in their current scale - Now, at current oil prices. This statement still needs to be crafted correctly. 71.35.170.207 16:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply


Recovery Factor

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An extremly important factor has been ignored in mitigating peak oil and that is the role of the recovery factor from oil reservoirs. There was a very good article in the SPE's JPT last year where the head of Saudi Armco's reserves group discussed this and pointed out that if we are able to increase the recovery factor by 5-10% this would add substantial number of years to peak oil. I'll try and dig the article out next week when i'm back in the office but it hink it would be unwise to ignore the importance of what a few extra percent would mean to recoverable reserves. Cheers Philbentley 11:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mitigation affected by curve

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone clarify, "Conversely the shape of the curve also affects mitigation efforts," in the second paragraph? Having read through the cited article, it seems this could mean several things. Plinkit (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jan Lundberg/Implications of an unmitigated world peak

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This "source" is a link to an advertisement for a conference.76.168.64.243 (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do we need to talk about "the most effective method" of mitigation?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this text is problematic:

The most effective method of mitigating peak oil is to use renewable or alternative energy sources in place of petroleum. The usefulness of many renewable energy sources is also highly contested.[citation needed][clarify]

Either somebody needs to come up with a citation to support it or it should be reworked IMO TMLutas (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did U.S. congress block mitigation efforts?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The article is silent about just why renewable energy is SO FAR behind where it should have and could have been long ago. Let's put all the cards on the table.

The facts. The REAL reason we are at the mercy of foreign (and hostile) oil producing countries and greedy domestic energy barons, the REAL reason why we're in this dire predicament? The Republicans. It has been their unswerving (paid) alligence to Big Oil and Coal and conspiracy to back-burner and trivialize clean and renewable energies like solar and wind every step of the way.

We need never have been in this predicament. If they had decided to do the right thing way back when we might have been free of oil by now. It's a scandal of the first order. People have been calling for clean alternatives for decades now but the Republicans in Washington, in bed with Fat Cat CEOs, have done all they could to favor Oil and Coal by giving them huge subsidies and tax breaks while simultaneously roadblocking R&D into renewables. Why? Because de-centralized alternatives would mean no longer being dependent on a large central corporation to provide one's energy needs. A population with their own solar panels or wind turbines etc. would OWN their energy and not have to continually pay for it and they simply could not have that. With all stationary buildings "off-the-grid" we could have greatly reduced oil use (drastically cutting greenhouse gas emmissions in the bargain) and made a dwindling supply last longer, perhaps long enough for us to come up with a better solution for transportation. But no. Frankly, it's just insane.

One would think that with the sudden spiking of gas prices recently, though, these politicians would remember their supposed role of looking out for the American people and would realize that we should be investing in renewables - but you’d be wrong.

“Separately, Democrats also failed to get Republican support for a proposal to extend tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. The tax breaks have either expired or are scheduled to end this year…. The oil companies could have avoided the tax if they invested the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion. It also would have rescinded oil company tax breaks — worth $17 billion over the next 10 years — with the revenue to be used for tax incentives to producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/republicans-block-extra-t_n_106282.html

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2002/2002-07-19-09.asp#anchor2

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_4_85/ai_63127627

When Bill Clinton tried to make it fairer again the Republicans put the breaks on anything that could lead to a switch away from dirty energy (oil, coal, nuclear).

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_130025_2000.html

Maybe no one want's to touch it but it's the 500 lb gorilla in the living room, and we all know it. Isn't it time to tell the truth? 4.246.202.238 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

How come Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and others import MORE oil than us. They are all governed by the "progressive" policies of the Democrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.206.168 (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure who told you that, but it's not true. The U.S. imports 12 million barrels of oil each day, and produces 5 million (for a total petroleum product consumption of around 20 million... trust me, if you want to know the details you have to do your homework). Vietnam is a net exporter of oil (gross importing less than 300,000 barrels last numbers I saw), and you'll have to do your own homework on the other two (but I'll tell you none of the three you mention are in the top 15 list of oil importers or consumers). Start here: Petroleum#Petroleum_by_country if you want to see the sources. It all comes from the CIA, not some commie plot machine. Now, please refer to wp:talk to see the policy telling us that article talk pages are for discussing ideas that can be incorporated into the article, rather than general forums. NJGW (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
The U.S???!!! I'm sorry, with these two talking about 'we' and 'us' and being 'at the mercy of foreign (and hostile) oil producing countries', I thought they were a couple of Iraqis arguing about some stuff here. Sorry. But you're right, they should shut up or clear off as they aren't helping with the article's development. --Nigelj (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Haha, I actually did a double check myself after 68.224... spouted off. He/she's from Georgia (U.S.) and the other is from Colorado. But there could be a useful section here though. One article accuses the U.S. congress of blocking mitigation efforts in the past, and this is backed by some statements of the Clinton administration in 2000. If worded correctly this could be a legitimate addition. NJGW (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The image Image:Masdar City.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Done Image removed. NJGW (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mitigation of peak oil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mitigation of peak oil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mitigation of peak oil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitigation_of_peak_oil&oldid=1204030790"