Most of your points seem approximately accurate. Some of them are more questionable. 14 is an excellent example. As of right now, adjusting for inflation gasoline prices are not that high compared to historic levels.
Also some technologies are definitely improving. Solar power is becoming much more functional, efficient and reliable. I don’t think that things are heading in that bad a direction, quite the opposite.
nuclear fusion/thorium/cold fusion/zero point energy
Two of these are not like the others. The first two are plausible and have had a lot of research. For the first two we know that the physics works, the issues remaining are essentially engineering. The last two are very different in that regard.
Even uranium prices are rising as demand outstrips supply for just the current set of reactors.
Uranium is really common. U-235, the specific isotope of uranium used in reactors is less common. However, the general market seems to be just for unenriched uranium oxide. Looking at those prices there’s been a spike a few years ago and the price has then been steadily declining since then but still not down to the pre-spike levels. I don’t know what caused that increase. Can someone who knows more about the uranium economics comment?
One other issue related to peak oil that is also worth discussing due to Nick Bostrom which was discussed on another thread today is that the more fossil fuels we consume the more difficult it will be if a largescale catastrophe occurs. To get to our current tech level we consumed a large amount of fossil fuels. It isn’t obvious that one can get to this tech level without such access. So if we consume a lot of fossil fuels it may be that we won’t be able to recover from a societal collapse.
The other good news is that a lot of smart people are thinking very hard about energy issues. I’m not therefore sure that we are likely to do much that is helpful from thinking about them. The diminishing marginal returns may be small.
Now, I’m going to discuss cognitive biases but with a warning that in this particular context it is difficult to do so without touching upon mind-killing issues. In the current situation the existence and severity of peak oil have become wrapped up in a variety of places especially in the United States with certain political groups. In particular, some “conservatives” believe that peak oil either has not happened or is not an issue. In contrast “liberals” or “progressives” are much more likely to believe that peak oil has occurred or is a near event and are more likely to believe that this is a really bad thing. Therefore, if your general politics are progressive, I would be worried if I were in your position that your conclusions about peak oil are due in part to tribal allegiance. I don’t know what to do about that.
Edit: You are from New Zealand yes? I don’t know much about the history of New Zealand politics but my impression is that this is less of a tribal issue there. In that context the obvious cognitive bias should be less of an issue.
Most of your points seem approximately accurate. Some of them are more questionable. 14 is an excellent example. As of right now, adjusting for inflation gasoline prices are not that high compared to historic levels.
Also some technologies are definitely improving. Solar power is becoming much more functional, efficient and reliable. I don’t think that things are heading in that bad a direction, quite the opposite.
Two of these are not like the others. The first two are plausible and have had a lot of research. For the first two we know that the physics works, the issues remaining are essentially engineering. The last two are very different in that regard.
Uranium is really common. U-235, the specific isotope of uranium used in reactors is less common. However, the general market seems to be just for unenriched uranium oxide. Looking at those prices there’s been a spike a few years ago and the price has then been steadily declining since then but still not down to the pre-spike levels. I don’t know what caused that increase. Can someone who knows more about the uranium economics comment?
One other issue related to peak oil that is also worth discussing due to Nick Bostrom which was discussed on another thread today is that the more fossil fuels we consume the more difficult it will be if a largescale catastrophe occurs. To get to our current tech level we consumed a large amount of fossil fuels. It isn’t obvious that one can get to this tech level without such access. So if we consume a lot of fossil fuels it may be that we won’t be able to recover from a societal collapse.
The other good news is that a lot of smart people are thinking very hard about energy issues. I’m not therefore sure that we are likely to do much that is helpful from thinking about them. The diminishing marginal returns may be small.
Now, I’m going to discuss cognitive biases but with a warning that in this particular context it is difficult to do so without touching upon mind-killing issues. In the current situation the existence and severity of peak oil have become wrapped up in a variety of places especially in the United States with certain political groups. In particular, some “conservatives” believe that peak oil either has not happened or is not an issue. In contrast “liberals” or “progressives” are much more likely to believe that peak oil has occurred or is a near event and are more likely to believe that this is a really bad thing. Therefore, if your general politics are progressive, I would be worried if I were in your position that your conclusions about peak oil are due in part to tribal allegiance. I don’t know what to do about that.
Edit: You are from New Zealand yes? I don’t know much about the history of New Zealand politics but my impression is that this is less of a tribal issue there. In that context the obvious cognitive bias should be less of an issue.