Peter JH and Michael in Adelaide give slightly different definitions of peak.
In fact if demand is still increasing their definitions are to
all intents and purpose the same.

To deny that peak production occurs and that there are alternatives that
will mean the party time continues, is simply wishful thinking.
The whole problem is caused by the energy density of oil and next coal.
The next energy density available requires so much material and energy
input to make practical that if we don't use the presently available
energy to build it, we simply won't make it.

Even if we get moving now the resulting civilisation will be markedly
different to what we have now.

To suggest that oil shale or oil sands will bail us all out is just
plain silly. It indicates that those suggesting that have not even
understood the magnitude of the problem with those processes.
For goodness sake go and read about it. There is not the gas or water
available to do it presuming that enviromental problems can be overcome.
Even the building of moveable nuclear power plants to process
the oil sands turns out not to be practical.

god stopped making coal and oil a long time ago. there's a fixed amount in the ground. humans are using both at an ever increasing rate. both will be gone at some point in the future.

the question is: when, not if.

it seems obvious to me that the transfer to renewable resources must happen. also obvious that the sooner we begin, the less painful the transition will be. it also seems obvious that we have a duty to succeeding generations not to continue fouling the air with fossil fuel consumption gases.

arguing against the immediate transition to renewable energy makes sense if you work for a coal company, have no children, and don't give a damn for the human race in general. otherwise, arguing against renewables is merely psychotic.

Awwwww, Percy Percy is sulky sulky, and doesn't like certain facts being broadcast from our ABC. Interesting, rather than watch the show closely and deal with and debate the data, Persy calls the ABC names (just in case they made one scientific mistake on one case,... ever.)
Listen Precious Percy, can I suggest that you limit yourself to posting when you have one or 2 facts to contribute and debate? You are lowering the quality of posts on this forum, and I can almost hear the knuckles dragging along the ground in true internet-troll fashion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_trolls

Demos is right. The sooner we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, the better. We need to change to the "Electron" economy as quickly as possible, and electrify trans-continental rail and city tram transport systems immediately. (And bye bye airlines after peak oil). Tim Flannery's desert city "Geothermia" was an inspirational idea.

The GOOD news is that we are running out of oil, gas, and coal and this will force us to change our way of life. As Kjell Aleklett says,
"Global warming exaggerated, insufficient oil, natural gas and coal"

"In the present climate debate, however, the amount of available fossil fuels does not appear to be an issue. The problem, as usually perceived, is that we will use excessive amounts in the years ahead. It is not even on the map that the amount of fossil fuels required in order to bring about the feared climate changes may in fact not be available."

http://www.energybulletin.net/29845.html

The BAD news is that energy infrastructure takes decades, and we are utterly dependent on oil for transport and coal for electricity with all renewables amounting to diddly-squat of our current energy supply. It's time to lift our heads out of the sand and take a long, hard look at the energy landscape... with the rose-coloured glasses removed. We need an international energy cop with some real authority to just go in and audit reserves of everything. Otherwise, we'll just keep sleepwalking into the future.

Good to see you keeping the standards of debate so high Eclipse "Awwwww, Percy Percy is sulky sulky". We all aspire to this sort of eloquence.

I see the Austalian Alarmist of the Year, Tim "Chicken Little" Flannery is in the paper again today. This time flip flopping from supporting nuclear energy to being dead against it. Wish he'd make up his mind. He's more of a science fiction write than a "multi discipline scientist".

"Tim Flannery's desert city "Geothermia" was an inspirational idea."
So I can put your name down to go and live in the desert with Tim? Maybe Liam could join you and you could all get "really excited" together.

Good to hear we can stop worrying about global warming though. Please tell the media. Especially Robin Williams of the ABC's Science Show, who seems to believe in 100m sea level rises by the end of the century. Him and Flappin' Flannery make a great double act.

Somebody tell Demos that God didn't make oil or coal. Unless he is citing the bible as a reference??

yes, alzo, it's right there- day two , i think.

genesis doesn't insist fossil fuels are in exhaustible, at least. how about you? if the earth were flat and without limits, you'd have an argument. your insistence on being rude to people you disagree with, in the face of basic science, suggests you don't have much education, or enjoy being rude, possibly both.

fortunately, you can be heard in spite of your lack of manners. we all can, and we all can evaluate the worth of what is said. keep trying, whatever your goal is.

The Energy Watch Group paper has coal production peaking between 2020-2030, plateauing till 2050, and declining till 2080. The amount of coal likely to be produced between now and 2100 (the area under the curve) looks like it is at least 3 times larger than the coal used so far. We have already increased CO2 concentrations by about 100pm. This suggests that business as usual would result in greenhouse gasses stabilising at somewhere around 700 ppm CO2, which corresponds to something like 800-1100 ppm CO2-equivalent. This would lead to eventual temperature increases of 4-8 degrees - the sort of climate change that will wipe out agriculture in southern australia and cause massive extinctions.