User talk:Americanus

Welcome
Hello, Americanus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you want to post an image but don't know how - check out the Image tutorial
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or on my user talk page
 * You might want to check some open tasks on Community portal
 * Explore, be bold, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Renata3 18:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

KateFan0
Hi Americanus, I hope you won't take offense at this, but I have nominated this article for deletion. I wish that you would have continued discussing the matter with me on the main article's talk page so that we could reach a consensus on how to handle our disagreement. My last suggestion was answered with you creating this page, unfortunately. I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia, so I have nominated it for deletion. You can see my nomination and vote on it yourself if you wish here Votes for deletion/Energy Policy Act of 2005 Vote. Again, I don't mean to be antagonistic, and hope you won't take offense. Best &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 23:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Renata3
As for welcome message, you are welcome :) If you'll need more help or assistance, don't be afraid to ask.

As for the deletion, I will vote to keep, since you kinda promised to develop it further. I hope to see a full develop article with all the votes and analysis. Otherwise I might change my vote.

A side note: be aware that many people send new underdeveloped articles either directly to Speedy deletion or to Votes for deletion (because they monitor Special:Recentchanges page). So when creating article try to make it as developed as possible especially on some questionable subjects.

A side note #2: don't get discouraged. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia where many users have many different opinions about many different things. But that's exactly why it is great! Keep posting :) Renata3 03:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Badganani
That's nice of you. It's a pleasure to work with you on this interesting and important story. We'll see how it develops. I agree that through the collaboration of (almost!) everyone working on it, it's turning out quite well. Badagnani 15:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Opponents
As an individual who has worked in the energy industry, in one form or another, for several years now, I have always though that peak oil proponents are a bit hysterical. I would direct you to research more on the topics of oil shale, sand oil and methyl hydrates in conjunction economic production models, in order to get a better grip on a subject you seem to have so much interest in. I would also be happy to answer any question you have on these topics. TDC 19:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * A lot has changed in the nearly three years since you wrote the above comment. What you called "hysterical" is starting to look more like "prescient." The basic predictions of peakniks are coming true right on schedule. See: Oil price increases since 2003 and 2007–2008 world food price crisis. My main criticism of peakniks is not their general doom-and-gloom outlook, but their general ignorance of Moore's law and its prospects for replacing wasteful physical travel with virtual travel. Instead of using technology only to amplify our muscles, we can also use technology to extend our nerves, allowing our brains to interact with other brains and environments without having to cart so many people around. Wikipedia itself is an outstanding model for the future of work. Not too many people are doing anything more complex that what we do on Wikipedia, and we don't have to leave our homes to do it. Moore's law steadily reduces the energy requirements of telecommunication. Hubbert's curve means the prices of energy and materials continue to rise, while the prices of information and telecommunication continue to fall. Obviously, then, anyone who is smart enough to detect and respond to market signals will try to substitute information for energy and materials everywhere they can. The scope for doing this is enormous, and we can start right now, without having to wait for Big Government, Big Oil, or Big Anything Else to help us. --Teratornis (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Proponents
Thanks for offering to help with my understanding of peak oil.


 * "I would direct you to research more on the topics of oil shale, sand oil and methyl hydrates in conjunction economic production models, in order to get a better grip on a subject you seem to have so much interest in."

The research I've done thus far into these non-renewables is that the ratio of energy expended to energy provided is fairly low, like 2:1 or 1.5:1 or something like that. I have no doubt that these areas will be looked at closely, but they certainly do not address the reality that global energy use will peak, after which we will have to use less energy.

Something I am very curious about it the maximum amount of energy that we can produce when all the fossil-fuels are gone. Is it 10% of current energy production? Higher? Lower?


 * "I have always though that peak oil proponents are a bit hysterical."

Well, it did come to a bit of a shock when I was driving home one night a couple of weeks ago and began to work out the implications for gasoline that was $2.79 in my area. There are a lot of working class families here in Michigan, and some are my family and friends. When gasoline (regular) exceeds $3/gallon, I think people are going to start to realize that something is up. When it hits $4/gal, even more so. I am going to do some analysis later today on the rate of increase of the oil prices so that I can give a best prediction for upcoming prices in the Fall, assuming the USA doesn't do anything militarily or politically that could accelerate the increase. 

If we have an annual 65% increase in oil prices, then we'll be above $100/barrel by the end of April. That doesn't even take into account the current cycle that oil prices are in.

It looks like last year oil prices climbed steadily from Labor Day until Halloween, after which they leveled until after the New Year, followed by another climb for a couple of months.

Here's some interesting data on gasoline prices:  Looks like the price doubled in two years, which means $5/gallon sometime in late 2006.

Michigan has also suffered a huge amount from the oil prices being low so long. Most of the corporations have globalized, and many people are unable to find jobs. In fact, Michigan is something like the 2nd highest for unemployment in the nation; and this is only the official figure, not the actual number for those who are no longer receiving benefits.

I am concerned about the possiblity that we will jump above the 5% over use line in the winter. If so, then 1973 and 1979 are the only models we have to work with in the USA as to how to respond.

I'll look forward to your thoughts! 216.120.141.3 20:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I'm trying to flesh out The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies, which is probably one the better introductions to the subject of peak oil. You may want to link it on your people page. Also, regarding the opponent above, he is right, there are many emerging technologies which could help us such as in situ conversion process, but oil/fossil fuels are still more or less finite and we need to be proactive. keep up the good work! (Rajah 21:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

Oil Price Graph
I've updated the short-term oil price graph at Image:Oil_Prices_Short_Term.png, as you requested. I normally keep these updated, along with the gasoline price graphs, in the first couple weeks of each month. - Jpo 00:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Gas price in other countries
Hi, just a little comparison; in Sweden the gasoline price is currently on an all time high of $6.53 per gallon, with the Environmental party proposing higher gas taxes, a shocking $5.44 per gallon in just taxes... Talk about impact on less fortunate people...

2005 Energy Crisis
Did you mean to make the article Americanus:2005 Energy Crisis a subpage of your user page? If so, you can move it to User:Americanus/2005 Energy Crisis and ask for the original article to be deleted. - dcljr (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you already have an article there (User:Americanus/2005 Energy Crisis). Okay, so you can get the other speedily deleted. - dcljr (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Categories for Deletion notice
Hi,

I wanted to let you know that the Category:User:Americanus page has been nominated for deletion, and that you might want to vote to retain it at Categories for deletion. I wasn't involved in nominating this page; the arguments of most of the other participants seem to be that this "isn't what categories are traditionally for" and that there are other possible ways to organize this information. I've been trying to argue that there's no reason to delete it, but another voice would be helpful, particularly if you can argue that you use the page. Feel free to leave me a talk page message if you have any questions about the process. -- Creidieki 16:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on 25x'25, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RJASE1 Talk  03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Peak oil people
I like your User:Americanus/Peak Oil People subpage. Comments: --Teratornis (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to put a Peak oil navigation template at the bottom. Feel free to add exemplary links to that template if you know of any. The idea is not to crowd the template with every single person, book, film, etc. about peak oil, but only enough to enable convenient browsing to the major topics. I.e., the template should provide a broad, comprehensive introduction to peak oil and surrounding issues, if a person reads all the articles it links to.
 * I also started Bioenergy and Wind power.
 * See WP:TITLE, specifically the section: Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles. According to that guideline, your subpage title should be: Peak oil people, that is if it were going to comply with the guidelines for titles of articles.
 * It might be interesting to take the page to article space, as a list. See: WP:EIW.
 * You might want to add a section for investors/traders, to include people such as Richard Rainwater.
 * You have some unlinked titles, such as Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash and Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil. Perhaps other people started these articles after you wrote your subpage.
 * You could link the various sections to relevant categories, such as Category:People associated with peak oil.
 * How about sorting the people in each section alphabetically by last name, first name?
 * I could help you edit the page if you like, to add in the missing links and so on.