Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

Calliban · 2025-08-17 14:08:06

This is a picture of a wind powered sawmill that I visited on my holiday in Holland.

It uses no copper at all, no aluminium, no rare earths and only small amounts of iron for high stress components. It is mostly made from wood. There is no energy storage, aside from the kinetic energy stored within the sails and other rotating components. There is no backup power. The whole thing is really very simple. It is hundreds of years old and has been sawing wood for all of that time.

I think there is a lesson here in how we can sustainably use renewable energy. If we need tonnes of copper and other rare elements per MW of power, then we are clearly overcomplicating things. When you use wind and other renewables for electricity production and then add things like transmission, storage, frequency control and backup power, the costs and resource comittments rapidly become untenable. But in previous times, people relied upon renewable energy without doing anything as crazy as what we are trying to do today. They used the power at its source. They avoided unnecessary energy transitions. And they varied work rate with the weather. It wouldn't have occured to them to even try and store wind energy and it wouldn't have possible even if it had occured to them.

I think this raises serious questions and deserves serious thought. We have built a civilisation on the principle of converting chemical energy into rotary motion. How much of what we need as a society could we adapt to make use of the rotary motion provided by direct mechanical wind power?

Last edited by Calliban (2025-08-17 14:25:40)

offtherock · 2025-08-17 14:21:24

Or do both.
Go for massive pv but also simpler solutions like this and solar thermal and then fission as well.

Calliban · 2025-08-17 14:48:22

I have great doubts about the sustainability of PV as a bulk energy source. A lot of people are emotionally attached to it because it seems to them to be an elegant solution - harnessing the power of the sun with no moving parts. But the materials requirements are huge, as is the embodied energy needed to produce all of the equipment required. On top of this, it is a technologically difficult product to produce and relies on long supply chains for all of the material inputs and equipment. PV modules are relatively cheap at present, only because the Chinese are producing them at massive scale, using stranded coal and forced labour. How long can all of the things that make it possible hold together? There are just too many things that can go wrong with PV supply chain for it to make any sense pinning our future on it. It is extremely precarious and resource intensive. People advocate it more for emotional than practical reasons. That is about as stupid as it is possible to be when dealing with something as vital to life as energy supply. We need systems that we can sustain using limited resources that are as close to home as possible.

Last edited by Calliban (2025-08-17 14:51:16)

offtherock · 2025-08-18 04:46:17

Short overview of how renewables are doing these days:
https://youtu.be/fwSkQa1tNmE?si=cfcHZ4gRqEKxDqDw

I asked chatgpt it said pv production and installation is increasing fast, even excluding china.

###
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a2ff63-20dc … 86a794fdc9

In short: Your skepticism is well-grounded. PV is not a “free lunch”—it’s a highly industrial, globalized, resource-intensive technology whose current low cost rests on conditions that may not last. Betting our energy security and civilization’s stability on it alone is precarious. The real question is whether PV can be part of a diversified, localized mix rather than the single centerpiece.
###

Then theres the ww3 coming up..
Where will the pv be then..

A few things i would like to add.
The key thing is pv is moving forward.
And the more we focus on it, invest in it, the more it moves forward again.

Its gotten a lot more efficient in the past 25 years.
Why shouldnt we expect that development to continue.
Same with batteries and transmission.

This feedback loop, in the short run its always ignored, in all calculations and investment proposals and all.
But in the long run, there is nothing but this feedback loop.

But off course society needs to focus on it for that to happen.
Without investment the pv progress will stop.

Its also a very war tolerant technology.
With its production spread out all over the place its much more difficult to destroy than some plant.
They've been feeling that in Ukraine lately.

I think having solar at home and some device that can use the electricity to extract water from the air.
Could be an immensely beneficial combo one day.

But yes, when we can use the moving part directly its almost like cheating.

There were hundreds of watermills in ancient Rome.

It kinda reminds me of the way i view problems.
The most important variable in a problem, is,
wether its going away
or
if this is some permanent reality.

And problems that are fading away, for whatever reason.
They are massively overrated in the present.
And vice versa.

Guess I think the same way about pv.

Its about the future.
Eventually it will become much better.
But only if we actually make it so.

And yes, Earths copper reserves are limited.
But I also think humanity is about to leave the Earth.
Once they have automated the process of going into space.
It will just be like pressing a button and 15 mins later ur in orbit.

Humanity will not be the same after that.
It has, absolutely insane implications for humanity.

Including copper access.

And it only costs to go up.
It doesn't cost anything to stay in the space world.

And in space pv becomes massively better again for no darkness, clouds or atmosphere plus we can start nudging them towards the sun.

Last edited by offtherock (2025-08-18 11:11:28)

Void · 2025-08-18 09:17:56

offtherock, those were good materials. Even though the video is 7 years old, that has value also so that you can see how correct the projections have been.

Something interesting is "Relative-Money-Power over Time Accumulations".

The Petro-world was more or less Opec Petroleum, to keep the west going and out of "Enemy" hands. That lead to a vast accumulation of disposable wealth, in the Middle East and places like Venezuela. And some of that money became "Mischief Money", and the causing of social disruptions with it, in places where some of us did not like.

The Country Iran was unwise to do this for instance, as various players have endeavored to reduce their "Mischief Money". The Saudi, somehow appear to be more responsible, which is a pleasant surprise.

But if other energy displaces the Opec energy, then "Relative-Money-Power over Time Accumulations" will begin to appear in other locations on the globe. The USA has lately accomplished this somewhat with Fracking but in a lesser way now also with wind and solar. We can be more resistant to annoyances from other places it seems.

I am looking forward to a world where Wind, Solar, Natural Hydrogen, Geothermal Expanded, and the old sources, cause a reality where "Relative-Money-Power over Time Accumulations" have more options.

This may play into the hands of blue-collar workers, rather than ruling classes with limited talent. I am not talking about a Communist turmoil, that is actually what the ruling classes adore. Rather with the exception of the expansion of robots, blue collar skills will have greater value.

I think you can see the difference between the Tump Administration and Biden Administration, are that the Biden, wanted to resume the guns for oil game by killing USA energy and benefiting those who profited by moving Oil from Opec to the West. That of course creates more geopolitical Mischief Money.

So, for that reason I am very pleased with where things are going now.

Ending Pending

Peter Zeihan has criticized Germany for going for solar power, but it appears that it works well with wind in Germany, and I don't if it matters if Germany gets a fraction of the energy from solar power relative to Saudi Arabia. Germany has many other assets that Saudi has to use energy to get. Cooling, water, food.

So for Germany the "Relative-Money-Power over Time Accumulations" is valuable in itself, as it does not contribute as much money to entities that may turn that money into Mischief. And local energy is more to be trusted in times of trouble which might come in the future.

And if tandem solar panels eventually reach 37% efficiency, then at some point it does not matter if the sun resources are 1/2 as good as the best places.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-08-18 09:38:36)

kbd512 · 2025-08-18 23:17:47

offtherock,

Its gotten a lot more efficient in the past 25 years.
Why shouldnt we expect that development to continue.
Same with batteries and transmission.

Development has been ongoing since the 1950s. If photovoltaics are not a mature technology by now, then by when might that happen? This sounds like, "hope for the best and keep spending money on something that presently cannot scale to the degree required in any practical sense". That's a classical "sunk cost" fallacy. The largest incremental improvements are almost always front-loaded within the development cycle. After 75 years of development, is it more probable that only small incremental improvements can be expected in the future, or game-changing improvements? I think we both know the answer. Lead-acid batteries of today are indeed better than Lead-acid batteries from WWII, but there are no night-and-day improvements to be had, nor should any be expected in the near-future. Could I be wrong about that? Sure. Someone might concoct a seemingly miraculous new Lead-acid battery design tomorrow. The probability of that happening is exceptionally low, so it's not something to "bet the farm on".

Its also a very war tolerant technology.

Power transformers are not "war tolerant". A team "armed" with wire cutters can disable the plant during the night without drawing a lot of attention to the operation by making a lot of noise with explosives. You can have as many photovoltaic panels as you want to. No wiring and/or no functional power transformer means the power is not going anywhere. A hasty re-wiring job will be even more effective than physically removing bits of wiring. Military engineers are already aware of this. If you devote a sufficiently large contingent of armed men to protect the plant, then they're not available for other operations. Any competently-led military already knows this.

Eventually it will become much better.
But only if we actually make it so.

More sunk cost fallacy?

That doesn't help build-out a new power plant using "right here / right now" technology, which is the only kind of tech that real power plants get built with. All the constructive argumentation I've seen revolves around future potential, rather than existing capability, which is woefully lacking.

Solve all the fundamental problems Calliban and I have outlined first, rather than treating them as "we'll figure it out as we go". The people we've been throwing money at have had decades to "figure it out". I'm not impressed with their rate of progress.

It will just be like pressing a button and 15 mins later ur in orbit.

This is already true. Armies of techs monitor consoles, but only one guy or gal presses the big red button, and then the rocket takes care of guiding itself into the intended orbital insertion after that. Nothing about space flight has radically changed since then. It's still expensive, still time consuming, and still requires a standing army. It's cheaper today than it has been in the past, but the logistics of making it happen are not much more efficient because all the same infrastructure pieces are still required.

It has, absolutely insane implications for humanity.

Finding a pure Copper or Platinum Group Metals asteroid and having the tech to mine the metal and then take it anywhere in the inner solar system relatively cheaply has insane implications, but we're looking at least another generation or two of space tech (25 to 50 years) before that happens. Nobody has mined an asteroid to date. Could that change? Sure. Quickly / easily / cheaply? Not likely. The Space Shuttle was the first reusable space flight vehicle, with initial development to end of operations spanning some 40 years (early 1970s to mid 2010s). Nothing about it was quick / easy / cheap. Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy did significantly better in terms of total tonnage delivered and launch cadence, per dollar spent. Hopefully, Starship does better still, because it should be the baseline for a truly affordable space program capable of more than "flags and footprints".

Gen I "Renewable Energy" should have been solar thermal driving steam turbines, with comparatively low temperature thermal energy storage. That was realistically doable 50 years ago.
Gen II is solar thermal driving supercritical CO2 turbines, with high temperature storage. No fundamental materials availability, new materials technology, or recycling technology limitations are known to exist. This is doable now.
Gen III is photovoltaics and fast storage with all the materials sourcing and recycling issues solved. We don't know when this might be doable at the scale demanded.

If it were up to me, I would mass deploy Gen II technology since that's ready now, wait however long it takes for Gen III to mature (asking for substantially more money and time is a sign that it's not ready), and only deploy Gen III at scale once there are no major materials availability, recycling, or other technological readiness limitations, such as grid stability.

The bottom line is that we have quite a bit more work to do before making sensible prognostications about what may or may not be attainable in the mid (5-10 years) to far (10+ years) future. We don't know. Betting the farm on "I don't know" is not a winning strategy.

Calliban · Yesterday 06:57:27

An introduction to EROI.
https://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

The reason complex societies cannot survive on low EROI energy sources is that large amounts of energy are needed to operate systems and build / repair / replace infrastructure. We can divide human energy consumption into three categories.

(1) Essentials. These are the things that keep society running. They include energy for transportation, food, water, minimal heating, industry, etc.
(2) Luxuries. These include travel for leisure, luxury goods, abundant heat, relaxation, etc.
(3) Investment. This includes energy invested to repair or replace infrastructure. It also includes energy invested into new equipment and new technology investment.
(4) War.

Society must meet the demands of (1) to survive even in the short term. Some of what is left over will need to be reinvested to sustain the energy sources that society depends upon (3). Also included in (3) is the energy that must be invested to sustain infrastructure. When these deductions are accounted for, anything remaining will be used for a combination of luxuries, technology development, investment in new equipment and war.

If EROI falls too low and investments in new energy supply consumes too high a proportion of harvested energy, all other categories of energy use are squeezed. It becomes difficult to simultaneous meet essential energy needs whilst also having enough left over for luxuries and investment. Economic growth will tend to decline, because growth requires energy investment in new infrastructure or technological development. In the past, civilisations have fallen due to maintenance crisis. This occurs when surplus energy is insufficient to maintain the infrastructure on which the functioning of society depends.

Some general conclusions can be drawn from this. Firstly, there is a minimum EROI for which any society is sustainable, given the burdens of essential energy use and maintenance of infrastructure. Secondly, the wealth of a society and its ability to grow and develop technologically depend upon EROI being greater than a certain threshold value. The 20th century was marked by very rapid technological advancement, industrialisation, urbanisation, population growth and infrastructure development. This was made possible through the use of high EROI fossil fuels and the surplus energy they provided. It allowed huge levels of investment above and beyond those required for basic human survival.

Last edited by Calliban (Yesterday 07:01:18)

offtherock · Yesterday 07:35:40

In 2025 it takes solar ~1 year to make the energy to make that very solar.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a47d8f-eb7c … 5acb129f48

Last edited by offtherock (Yesterday 07:56:49)

kbd512 · Yesterday 11:41:26

Why are there no photovoltaics factories powered by the very product coming out the loading docks of the factory?

If photovoltaics truly are the cheapest means of generating electricity and achieve energy payback so quickly, and fabrication / assembly of electronics requires lots of electricity, doesn't that seem like an absurdly obvious place to re-invest the supposedly cheapest energy that they create?

Why is 90%+ of the world's photovoltaic cell production capacity powered by coal and assembled using the equivalent of indentured servants?

Why not re-power those giant wide-open rock pits where the input materials to make photovoltaics are mined?

Doesn't that seem like an equally obvious place to put them?

Is it not the least bit curious to people advocating for more photovoltaics to generate grid energy that the bulk of the energy used to create photovoltaics doesn't come from the supposedly cheapest form of energy?

The Unpopular Truth - Coal's importance for solar panel manufacturing, by Dr. Lars Schernikau

If people advocating for more of this nonsense cannot answer such questions with honesty, then maybe it's because they either don't have good answers or are being dishonest with themselves and others.

offtherock · Yesterday 13:16:00

Most of the worlds energy production isnt solar.
Solar is the cheapest form of prodcution, and cleanest and fastest growing.
But its just a few percentages points of the whole.. still.

Therefore, to point out that something isnt powered by solar yet, isn't an argument for anything.

We come from a dirty past.
But a dirty past is not an argument for a dirty future.

Here's the chatgpt take on that love-for-coal link.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a4cec8-7260 … b66f371b52

The author of that book doesn't have connections to the coal industry, he is the coal industry.
A man with huge interests in coal remaining big.
Who also happens to have attitudes aligning with that.
Shocking.
https://chatgpt.com/c/68a4d159-d0e8-832 … 3f15542b29

Last edited by offtherock (Yesterday 13:46:34)

Calliban · Yesterday 14:13:00

offtherock wrote:

Most of the worlds energy production isnt solar.
Solar is the cheapest form of prodcution, and cleanest and fastest growing.
But its just a few percentages points of the whole.. still.

Offtherock, Solar PV is not the cheapest form of energy production. It is one of the most expensive. To deliver a reliable kW of power to the grid using PV, means having a PV powerplant, battery storage for frequency control, extra transmission lines and above all, a gas turbine powerplant that can pick up the load when the sun isn't sufficient. You need all those things together. It is this combination of costs that account for high electricity prices in European countries. A nuclear reactor or coal burning plant doesn't need this extra stuff.

offtherock wrote:

Therefore, to point out that something isnt powered by solar yet, isn't an argument for anything.
We come from a dirty past.
But a dirty past is not an argument for a dirty future.

Not sure what this argument is getting at. We don't use much solar PV at the moment because it has not been very useful. It also isn't particularly clean when you add up all the CO2 emissions involved in build a PV powerplant. It compares badly to wind and nuclear power. This is a direct result of its poor underlying energy economics.

offtherock wrote:

Here's the chatgpt take on that love-for-coal link.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a4cec8-7260 … b66f371b52
The author of that book doesn't have connections to the coal industry, he is the coal industry.
A man with huge interests in coal remaining big.
Who also happens to have attitudes aligning with that.
Shocking.
https://chatgpt.com/c/68a4d159-d0e8-832 … 3f15542b29

I don't care where the guy works or where he gets his money from. What matters is whether what he is saying is true or not. Are the facts that he puts forward varifiable?

offtherock · Yesterday 14:27:46

"Offtherock, Solar PV is not the cheapest form of energy production. It is one of the most expensive. To deliver a reliable kW of power to the grid using PV, means having a PV powerplant, battery storage for frequency control, extra transmission lines and above all, a gas turbine powerplant that can pick up the load when the sun isn't sufficient. You need all those things together. It is this combination of costs that account for high electricity prices in European countries. A nuclear reactor or coal burning plant doesn't need this extra stuff."

We already discussed this.
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 10#p233410

"Not sure what this argument is getting at. We don't use much solar PV at the moment because it has not been very useful. It also isn't particularly clean when you add up all the CO2 emissions involved in build a PV powerplant. It compares badly to wind and nuclear power. This is a direct result of its poor underlying energy economics."

https://chatgpt.com/share/68a4dda9-5b24 … e6c9a72a4d

"I don't care where the guy works or where he gets his money from. What matters is whether what he is saying is true or not. Are the facts that he puts forward varifiable?"

I could see in 10 seconds flat that its propaganda.
I don't like wasting my life wading through some propaganda snippet.

And I have already answered this guys claim.

Last edited by offtherock (Yesterday 14:38:35)

Calliban · Yesterday 15:13:56

Offtherock, the man is talking about the need for carbon as a reducing agent for silicon dioxide. Carbon means anthracite or charcoal. There then needs to be a vapour deposition process to convert metallurgical silicon into semiconductor grade. That means turning the silicon into silane, which is made by reacting silicon with hydrogen. In the west, hydrogen is produced by steam reforming methane. In China, they use coal to produce carburetted water gas, because coal is the resource they have in abundance. Coal also provides the majority of electricity, especially in western China which is where PV manufacture is concentrated. China absolutely dominates global polysilicon production. So coal is what is used to make these panels and everything that goes into them.

Regarding your point about the expense of a composite energy system that includes solar.
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 10#p233410

Your point seems to be that better storage technology and smart grids will be more available and cheaper in the future. I will talk some more about that tomorrow.

kbd512 · Today 01:10:45

Humanity's 24/7/365 energy consumption is about 20TW, so 70% is 14TW. Existing photovoltaics will require 311.808Mt of polysilicon to deliver a constant 14TW. Photovoltaics are currently produced using High Purity Quartz (HPQ) sand. Global annual production is about 1.6Mt, excluding the highest purity quartz used in microchips. Kerf, which is primarily generated by sawing polysilicon ingots into wafers, results in a loss of about 40% to 55% of all the polysilicon produced, even though it's recyclable and is mostly recycled. Global annual net production of polysilicon for photovoltaics is therefore around 0.96Mt (960,000t), best-case scenario. In reality, kerf consumes 50% of total polysilicon production for 0.5mm thick wafers, so 0.8Mt/year is available. A 1m^2 photovoltaic panel made from 0.5mm thick wafers contains about 1.16kg of polysilicon. That means it would take almost 390 years, using 2024's polysilicon production rates, to create enough usable polysilicon to deliver that constant 14TW. Unfortunately for us, photovoltaics only last for 25 to 30 years before significant capacity (defined as 20% or more) is lost.

If average photovoltaic panel efficiency is 25%, then 1m^2 of photovoltaics generates about 1.25kWh/day (1,000W/m^2 * 0.25 * 5hrs per day). Humanity's daily Total Primary Energy Consumption is about 336TWh (14TW * 24hrs), which means we need 268,800,000,000m^2 (336,000,000,000,000W / 1,250W/m^2) of photovoltaics to deliver equivalent constant power using 5 peak generating hours per day. Any extra power generated during off-peak hours will likely be devoted to polysilicon production since we don't have enough HPQ. At 1.16kg of polysilicon per square meter of photovoltaic array, we will need 311,808,000t ((268,800,000,000m^2 * 1.16kg/m^2)/1,000) of polysilicon. Any theoretical efficiency gains over combustion will be immediately offset by vast additional production demands using lower purity materials or sub-optimal materials.

311,808,000t / 800,000t per year (2024 polysilicon production rate, minus 50% kerf) = 389.76 years of polysilicon production at 2024 production rates, presuming 0.5mm thick wafers

What is high purity silica quartz sand, its main mine and manufacturers

According to the statistics of the United States Geological Survey, as of the end of 2019, the global high-purity quartz raw material mineral resources are about 73 million tons, of which Brazil is the country with the largest resource volume in the world, with a resource volume of 21.11 million tons, and the ore type is mainly natural crystal. The United States is the country with the second largest resource volume, with a resource volume of 18.22 million tons, and the ore type is mainly granite pegmatite quartz. Canada ranks third in the world, with resources of 10 million tons, and the ore type is mainly vein quartz.

We do recover and re-cast almost all of the kerf generated by sawn ingots of polysilicon, so that's good news, but both production capacity and proven HPQ reserves are sorely lacking. However, we don't have enough Copper for the fast storage batteries, nor do we have enough HPQ to come within a country mile of supplying most of humanity's Total Primary Energy Consumption, by primarily using polysilicon-based photovoltaics and Lithium-ion batteries- the only technologies in mass production at the present time.

Can we use lower grade Silicon-bearing ores?

If you don't care about the energy input, anything is possible. We'll be forced to do that fairly soon if we significantly ramp-up production rates. There will be an exponential rise in energy consumption to refine lower grade quartz sand to the degree required, but it could theoretically be done with considerable effort and energy expenditure.

The lack of materials abundance, as it relates to current photovoltaics, wind turbines, and batteries technologies, doesn't bode well for them becoming the dominant energy source in the foreseeable future. We need 390 years of 2024 polysilicon production, which requires more HPQ than exists in known reserves, plus more Copper than exists in known reserves to provide 28 days of fast storage, in order to deliver the first batch of Gen III solar and battery tech at sufficient scale to mostly displace hydrocarbon fuels. Certain rare earth metals used in electric wind turbines require thousands of years of production at current rates, making them even less practical in some ways, though much better in others.

Existing PWRs like the AP-1000 design, Gen II solar thermal, and Gen I mechanical wind turbines, are looking like the only near term realistic solutions for displacing most hydrocarbon fuel consumption. All Gen III tech is severely materials limited at the present time. CO2 emissions keep going up every year because current Gen III tech cannot offer sufficient capacity for significant displacement of hydrocarbon fuels.

Calliban · Today 03:37:20

Kbd512, that is a good analysis. Polysilicon production consumes a lot of coal already. According to your reference, carbon is needed to reduce the silicon dioxide into metallurgical silicon, and hydrogen is needed to make the silane for purification into semiconductor grade. These processes are very difficult to divorce from fossil fuel inputs, unless we source the carbon and hydrogen from biomass. This means that attempting to substitute PV for other energy sources will only serve to shift fossil fuel consumption from electricity production into PV manufacturing. The alternative (biomass) places another unsustainable burden on the Earth's forests.

In areas with plenty of direct sunlight, trough solar thermal collectors can be used to raise steam at 300°C. This is beneath superheat temperatures, but it should be possible to generate power with 30% efficiency. When heat losses from the collectors is factored in, it turns out that a solar thermal powerplant has about the same power density as a PV plant. So the obvious question is why are we trying to generate power using slabs of semiconductor grade silicon instead of simple, curved alloy steel reflectors? The embodied energy in a curved steel mirror is at least an order of magnitude lower than a PV panel. And the technology is really simple. Mirrors, coolant pipes, boilers and steam generator sets. This is close to Victorian levels of technological sophistication. We can add energy storage using stainless steel tanks containing molten nitrate salts. We could even co-fire solar thermal plants with biomass or coal. This means that long duration backup power doesn't need a whole other power station. Just a seperate boiler, but using the same steam generator set.

I can see areas where PV is useful. In offgrid small power situations, you want an energy source that requires no attention once installed, uses no fuel and has no moving parts. In those small power situations, cost and embodied energy are less important because the systems involved are generating only small amounts of energy for important functions. You wouldn't build a solar thermal plant to power a wrist watch, a traffic light or a calculator. But given the resource requirements, building a PV plant to power a city looks like the wrong technology choice as well. All technologies have their specific niches where they make sense. For some reason, the people in charge have lost sight of that. They are making decisions based upon what is trendy.

Last edited by Calliban (Today 03:45:29)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2025-08-17 14:08:06

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#102 2025-08-17 14:21:24

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#103 2025-08-17 14:48:22

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#104 2025-08-18 04:46:17

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#105 2025-08-18 09:17:56

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#106 2025-08-18 23:17:47

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#107 Yesterday 06:57:27

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#108 Yesterday 07:35:40

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#109 Yesterday 11:41:26

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#110 Yesterday 13:16:00

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#111 Yesterday 14:13:00

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#112 Yesterday 14:27:46

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#113 Yesterday 15:13:56

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#114 Today 01:10:45

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

#115 Today 03:37:20

Re: Oil, Peak Oil, etc.

Board footer