So I've spent the last week and half studying Peak Oil and its ramifications for our society. It took me a long time to take it as seriously as Matt Savinor does, but after a while I woke up to our Matrix: we ARE plugged into the oil infrastructure. Almost everything we do requires oil. Very soon that infrastructure will be unsustainable, a "growth" economy will likely never again exist, our system will probably collapse and billions of people will die.
[ May 25, 2004, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
No really. Billions. In the very near future.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
This has been on my mind alot recently. What can we do? Please, will someone say something to make myself (and my spouse) feel better?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
To make you feel better.... hummmm....
"Que sera, sera..... whatever will be, will be.... the future's not ours to see.... que sera, sera...."
It may not make you feel better, but it sure is catchy!!
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
The best advice anyone can give you on the impending crash of the world economy is to do everything you can to prepare for a self-sufficient lifestyle.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Means I should get LASIK now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So the survivors will include the Amish and the survivalists.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
MACK-- no kidding, I've been thinking about Lasik for the last week and a half. The health care system will not survive without cheap oil.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Dag, I suspect the survivors will be mostly found in places where the populations are best suited to community-living. When you are forced to abandon the growth model it becomes imperative to work together.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Crud. How will I pull $2000 out of my ass?!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's the big question: Assume for a minute we can produce unlimited electricity. How much oil would we need at that point?
Unlimited electricity would fix at least one of the problems with hydrogen powered cars - even if creating hydrogen from electrolysis inefficient, it's a better power carrier than current battery technologies.
Unlimited electricity would also allow high-speed rail systems to be made for carrying goods and people. The highway system could be replaced with a magnetic rail system with personal cars available.
But the petroleum in products and fuel for boats and planes cannot be solved by unlimited electricity. What to do?
Dagonee
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
More than that, you cannot produce high-speed rail systems--or the goods which you intend to deliver with them--without an abundance of cheap oil. Where does the energy to feed 220 million people come from if you can't buy 75 million barrels of oil every single day?
The US daily diet consumes 10 times more energy than it produces.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's been said before, but I'll say it again. We need to use more nuclear power.
[ May 25, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Yes, we do need to and we will. This will have consequences for the environment.
But nuclear power will not allow us to continue living in the kind of world we live in today. It's just not possible. And the immediate economic repercussions of losing the abudance and cheapness of energy (the capacity to do work--you can't add more jobs to the economy without more oil; hence the jobless recovery) from oil will catapult us to economic anarchy within a few short years.
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
Alexa-
at the time of my posting this, you have 666 posts... there's nothing anyone can say to make you feel better, you're doomed.
[ May 25, 2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Crap, and Damien of all people/beings had to bring this to my attention! Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe we can learn to make biodiesel out of liposuctioned fat.
Speaking of fat, I'm not so sure the status quo is so worth keeping. Also, temporal self reliance brought to you by the LDS church. Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
EDIT: The hippies down the street from me have a Suburban running on biodiesel...
[ May 25, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Damien ]
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
It's probably good it's happening now. There are societies all over the world that don't rely on oil for basic survival needs, yet. Anyway with the imbalance created by our crazy oil consumption things were just bound to get worse one way or the other. It will be interesting to see how things go. I thought I was a pretty tough chick, but now I'm trying to picture being a survivalist without a thermarest and Gore-tex materials. It won't be very fun.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Pooka:
You're forgetting about plant-based fuels. Can't we just grow our fuel?
To a certain degree we can, but biomass, ethanol, and biodiesel will never be able to replace fossil fuels for the following reasons:
1. Depending on who you consult, ethanol has an EPR ranging from .7 (making it an energy loser) to 1.7. Methanol, made from wood, clocks in at 2.6, better than ethanol, but still far short of oil.
2. By 2050, the US will only have enough arable land to feed half of its population, not accounting for the effects of oil depletion. In the years to come, there won't be enough land for food, let alone fuel.
3. While a handful of folks have adapted their vehicles to run on biodiesel, this is not a realistic option on a large scale. There is simply not enough biodiesel available in the world to replace even a fraction of the energy we get from oil.
4. Current infrastructure, particularly manufacturing and large-scale transportation is adaptable to plant-based fuels in theory only. In reality, retrofitting our industrial and transportation systems to run on plant fuels would be enormously expensive and comically impractical.
Finally, when evaluating claims about plant-based fuels, be aware of who is providing the data. As Dr. Walter Younquist points out:
Ethanol production survives only by the grace of a subsidy by the US government from taxpayer dollars. Continuing the production of ethanol is purely a device for buying the Midwest US farm vote. [Not surprisingly] the fact that the company which makes 60% of US ethanol is also one of the largest contributors of campaign money to the Congress – a distressing example of politics overriding logic.
quote:When examining alternatives to oil, it is of critical importance that you ask certain questions:
1. Is the alternative easily transportable like oil?
2. Is the alternative energy dense like oil?
3. Is the alternative capable of being adapted for transportation, heating, and the production of fertilizers, plastics, and pesticides?
4. Does the alternative have an Energy Profit Ratio (EPR) comparable to oil? Oil used to have an EPR of 100 to 1. It only took one barrel of oil to extract 100 barrels of oil. This was such a fantastic ratio that oil was practically free energy. In fact, at one point in Texas, water cost more than oil!
Oil's EPR is now down to 10 to 1, which is still pretty good. If a proposed alternative energy source doesn't have an EPR comparable to oil, the amount of good it does us is very limited.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Supposedly CNN is airing a program tonight with Paula Zahn called "Crude Awakening". I don't know what it's about, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is another Peak Oil story. You may want to watch it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Please don't flame me, but I have a *hard* time convincing myself it's actually going to happen. Part of it might be because there was supposed to be no oil left on earth by the year 2000. But that's probably not all of it. Maybe it's because deep down, I'm just like a little kid that refuses to belive that things are ever going to change.
Of course, if it's true, then billions of people will die because of people like me.
*starts thinking*
Posted by edgardu (Member # 242) on :
Makes me wonder. Is globalization such a good thing after all? Bringing the American way of life to the world's population is just not possible. If the entire world consumes oil at the rate the US does, the supply will be gone in less than 10 years, not 40.
Developing countries are being encourage to adopt the US model. But I think this model is too wasteful with resources. Instead of striving for an ever increasing standard of living, developing countries should just focus on providing adequate food, shelter and healthcare for their populations.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Developing will not forget about their standard of living any more than America will.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
John I read the article you linked to on the other thread. I strongly disagree with their population/food analysis, and the U.S. being unable to feed its own population by 2050 but I don't have the time to rebut it right now. The problem that I see with most of that data is that it has all been deliberately selected to make a point. In other words none of the stuff I read is balanced. They don't even try to present alternative arguments. They have an agenda before they begin, which isn't good science.
That said I think that there is a place for the "wake-up" call. The problem is that it is alarmist, and not balanced, so that a lot of normal logical people are going to discount it for that reason as another left-wing alarmist wacko.
AJ
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
It took me several days to accept our destiny, so don't expect me to flame you for going through the same process that I did.
Our Way of Life must and WILL change. The growth model will die a violent death. All work that is done requires energy. An amazing amount of work is done to keep us all alive. The energy to do that work will become, within the next ten years (if not sooner) prohibitively expensive to use, so much so that our infrastructure will collapse--but only to the extent to which we are unprepared to live in post-carbon humanity.
We were not "supposed" to run out of oil in 2000. We should not run out of drillable oil for another 40 years. But the problem here is not the lack of oil, it's the lack of CHEAP and ABUNDANT and HIGH QUALITY oil. We are going through the peak in oil production right now, meaning that every passing year we will only be able to produce less oil of less quality than the year before--even as demand raises exponentially along with our population.
EVEN IF WE HAVE 25 YEARS left of oil, it is a finite resource that is keeping us all on life support. The computer you are on right now cost ten times its own weight in fossil fuels just to be constructed. How many gallons of oil did it ultimately cost to get those cheerios in your cereal bowl this morning? Our oil infrastructure is just like the fictional world of the Matrix, with energy roles reversed. We are all inextricably plugged into the oil system, but very few of us actively realize the extent to which civilization itself is a mirror image of our ability to harvest and use energy.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Well Banna, you'll have to provide me with one of those "alternative arguments" before I agree that these conclusions are biased-beyond-accuracy or inappropriately alarmist.
It is a biological inevitability that humanity must revert to sustainable numbers or be completely wiped out.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ever done much reading on self sustaining high yield per square foot gardening? A lot of them are run in conjunction with fish farms for fertilizer and don't require massive amounts of petroleum based products...
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
In fact many of those projects are conducted by people who WANT to live off the grid.
I'm also extremely pro-composting toilets, which can also be used as a fertilizer tea safely...
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
A 5'x5' high yield static hydroponics system requires nothing more than a 5 gallon bucket and a growing bed with drainage back to the bucket, and a nutrient tea easily provided by compost. Extremely low energy, other than the person has to actually pick the bucket up and sit it on a table two or three times a day, and occasionally add a bit of extra water and nutrient tea.
(It is being used highly sucessfully in 3rd world countries...)
AJ
[ May 25, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
We still have plenty of time. We'll find or build other energy sources. But we should realy start now.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
You'd be surprised at the numbers of people in power who live "off the grid". This problem is not new.
Re: self sustaining high yield per square foot gardening...
But where's the energy come from to work those fields? The imbalance is nearly insurmountable. The agriculture industry used up three billion, five-hundred fifty-eight million, seven-hundred and fifty thousand barrels of oil last year. The work cannot be done without energy.
And if you are talking about each of us running their own little garden project, that's nice but... can you really wait six months for an adequate food supply? Especially in America, where everyone has guns?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Yes, about energy I am not alarmist. I believe things will happen gradually, and that as the oil prices rise, alternatives which are now too expensive to compete will begin to look better.
I too have heard this same thing (the world's petroleum is in imminent danger of running out) since the late 60s at least.
I believe there are big changes in store, and the exponential growth spurt in standard of living to which we are all accustomed is not a given. It comes from advancing technology, and responsible use of resources. There are many zigs and zags in the road ahead, and we need to be looking out for them and doing the smart thing at each juncture, even if it means controlling ourselves (which we seem very bad at managing to do).
But there is no reason to panic just yet and go into survivalist mode. But the more people we have realistically looking at the actual underpinnings of our society, and figuring out how to keep things going, the better. A democracy only works if people are educated. The model where 99% of the people look on technology as magic and the other 1% keep it going isn't a good one.
So I applaud your concern, John Keats, and hope people will vote for wise public policy decisions in the light of this information.
(But we've got to do the asteroid defense thing too, of course. No use in having a perfectly running economy the day the big one hits.)
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Telperion, my father had the same reaction:
"Necessity is the mother of invention".
But you're both missing something:
If necessity is the mother of invention, OIL is the Father of invention. No product or invention has ever been or likely will be mass-produced without the use oil.
What we need to understand is that our society is structured on unending and unlimited growth, which is simply unsustainable without an unlimited power supply. The way we live has to change, and it will. Whether we go down kicking and screaming or helping each other transition to a post-carbon society is, in my opinion, largely dependant on our acceptance of the gravity of the problem today and our committment to contingencies tomorrow. Neither seem very promising, to be honest.
Why, imagine the uproar if I suggested that it was vitally imperative that we start to impose enderverse-style population laws? It wouldn't and couldn't fly. And yet this is the most basic and effective thing we could do to protect the integrity of our species.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't think it would take six months and I don't think everyone is going to starve all at once anyway.
As I said before I think you are seriously underestimating the potential for human ingenuity. I think it would be possible to be sustainable in most suburbs in the U.S. though city dwellers without a backyard would feel more of a pinch with what they could grow on an apartment patio.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
anne kate!
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
another reason to continue to fund a space program (besides asteroid detection and prevention), is because they are actually solving the sustanibility problems first. These problems have to be solved for a trip to Mars. There have been extensive studies on growing wheat in space and how much wheat needs to be grown. Most of the energy required would be from solar energy as well...
AJ
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
You've been hearing about Peak Oil since the 60's because that's when Peak Oil theory was created. Dr. Hubbert accurately predicted that US oil production would peak in the 70's and decline everafter. No one believed him.
Then it happened.
Peak Oil is a fact of life. Demand is starting to exceed supply. Conservatively, we expect demand for oil to raise 3-5% per year while our capicity to produce it falls 3-5% per year--and these are conservative estimates. The Oil Party is over and the ramifications really ARE this bad. Alternative energy sources will work for an alternative economic structure--one which is not dependent upon non-stop growth, and one which is not capable of sustaining 6 billion people--but a magic bullet energy alternative does not exist as of yet, or we would already be using it.
[ May 25, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
The LDS church for years has counseled its members to have a year's supply (or two year's supply) of all essentials, and to practice self sufficiency in food growing and storage, home production of clothes and so on. This is extremely wise counsel, for a number of reasons.
They're not being alarmist or encouraging panic or lack of participation in greater society. But since I've started doing this 3 years ago I've realized there are many contingencies in which one is very grateful to have things stored.
Your food storage is like an alternative savings account, in fact. If you get laid off or need to take time off from your job for any reason, you can get by on what you've stored. If you are sick or disabled, you will also be extremely glad to have done this. Even something so simple as running out of some vital commodity is made less worrisome because I can borrow from storage then replace it when I make it to the store. I LOVE the food storage program. It's so very smart. My church is so great! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: can you really wait six months for an adequate food supply?
Actually, I think my family could. So could a lot of Mormons. We are advised to have a year's supply of food storage.
How much lange would a family theoretically need to survive off of? I don't think that our little 1/4 acre lot would be enough. It would help, but wouldn't we eventually starve?
edit: Doh! ak beat me to it!
[ May 25, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Jon, are you saying that we use less oil now than 20 years ago? The goes against my intuition. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
JohnKeats... just wanted to say thanks for bringing this topic up for our attention! Mmmmm.. 10 or 20 years till disaster...
But we need to be scared... only by our being scared will anything get done.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Well the Mormon's are likely to have an advantage anyway because of their storage practices, but probably moreso because of their tightly-knit communities.
On the contrary I believe human ingenuity is about all we have to go on. But energy cannot ever be "created". Oil prices will go up, and demand for alternatives will also go up, but the demand in and of itself cannot create the energy we need. What I'm sensing here is a general ignorance of exaclty how MUCH of our infrastructure is dependent entirely upon fossil fuel energy.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
JK, I don't say your concern is misplaced at ALL. We definitely need to be spending money on research into alternatives, on fusion research, for instance. We also should never have let our nuclear power program languish to the degree that it did. We need a healthy up-to-date thriving industry in coal, natural gas, methane, ethanol, fission, fusion, and hydrogen fuel cells too, as well as good development of wind, solar, and hydroelectric (though I believe these last three will be useful only for niche applications. They just don't provide enough energy otherwise.)
Yes, space is very important for a lot of different reasons, not the least of which is the fact that in order to keep the earth healthy, we will need to learn a whole lot more about ecosystems. Things we will by necessity have to learn in order to colonize space.
I'm so glad you guys are starting to wake up to the difficulties we have facing us. I don't think there is cause for panic, but the more people we have who understand the realities of the situation, the better. We may be forced to do some things which are unpopular along the way, in order to be smart about it. And in a democracy we need lots of intelligent, educated adults who understand what is at stake in order to make the right decisions.
[ May 25, 2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:Jon, are you saying that we use less oil now than 20 years ago?
No, we use TONS more oil than we did 20 years ago. But we PRODUCE probably about 85% less oil in the US than we did 20 years ago because US oil production peaked in the 70's. Today we import almost all of our oil, and the largest source is Saudi Arabia.
My grandfather rode a horse. My father drove a car. I fly around the world in jets. My son will ride a horse.
[ May 25, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OK, that makes a lot more sense.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
JK, I don't disagree that we need to get off our dependence on petroleum. I don't even disagree that we need to do this ASAP. What I don't like about the arguement you are presenting and why I don't trust it is that it all seems so structured to convince us of DOOM but doesn't seem to be offering any light at the end of the tunnel. And that is why I think it will go largely unheeded.
Another reason why I distrust this arguement is that it assumes we will continue the status quo until the day before we all starve to death. I think this is patently absurd. Economic forces will dictate quite a number of changes before we all starve. As the price of things rise, people will change their habits. This gas price rise this year is really just a blip. We're just now getting to prices (adjusted for inflation) that we were paying in the 70s for gasoline, but already manufacturers are worried that the SUV boom is over. They are all over the radio talking about surpluses and shortage of sales for trucks and SUVs. Why? Because people, not wanting to pay $50 every time they have to fill their tank, are realizing that the SUV is not a necessity.
The main article you linked talks about food production and how our consumption will outstrip it in the near future. Well, that assumes our current consumption extrapolated into future population growth. While that might seem logical, I don't think it is likely. We are an extremely, embarassingly wasteful society here in America. Why? Well, in part because everything is so cheap. So many of us eat at McDs 3 or more times a week because even though we know it isn't healthy, it is (to some) tasty, fast, and cheaper than cooking at home in some cases. (If you doubt this last, buy all the ingredients to make a "quarter pounder with cheese" at home and tell me how much you spend. I know that if you make a lot, the per-unit cost will go down, but try it for a family of 2 or 3 shoppping as they normally do.) My point is, if oil causes the cost of that burger to triple or quadruple or more, people will eat a McDs less and less. And even if it is still more expensive to make a burger at home, people will change their habits to eat what they can afford.
My basic point is we probably waste more than the entire 3rd world consumes. If we cut the waste, all the figures you've cited become skewed beyond meaning. Personally, I think it's good for the environment that oil prices are going up right now. We've had an easy ride too long. Europe has been paying twice what we have for gasoline for decades, yet they survive.
The one point I do agree with is that our society will not survive unchanged. But where I disagree is that I don't think that is a cause for alarm, or even mourning.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
JK, your son will not have to ride a horse if we are smart! I am glad you realize what is happening, though, because there's no guarantee that we won't all be riding horses again. We have to make the right decisions before that point.
About population, the population growth in the U.S and western industrialized nations is negative except for immigration. I believe that if we get the whole world up to first world standard of living, of education and medical care, then they will choose to have fewer children. When people don't have to worry about the children they have dying of childhood diseases, and when they don't need more hands for manual labor on the farm, (and also when women are empowered equal to men), then they will naturally choose to have fewer kids and invest more in each child. I think that is the key to population growth. We need accomplish this as soon as possible, though, so that earth's peak population will not get so high that very ugly disasterous things like famines and plagues happen.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Karl Ed
You and anne kate are saying the things I would like to say but so much better!
AJ
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
See, all of this is about intelligence and restraint. The human species is intelligent enough to see dangers ahead. Can we restrain ourselves enough to avoid them? That's the big question.
Overfishing is almost the model for many things like this in my mind. Everyone knows that if you take too many fish, the population declines, then there are fewer fish for everyone, and the ones that are there are much harder to catch. But people who make their living fishing only want OTHER PEOPLE to fish less. They still poach. They take more than they should. They make treaties which are inadequate to protect the fish populations, and then they don't even live up to those. Because of this, they will be left with nothing.
Yet if they are scrupulous in making good agreements, and in upholding them, they always are tempted to fear that others will grab all that's left first and leave them with nothing. It's the prisoner's paradox. We also have to learn to trust and have faith. We have to have an expectation of fundamental goodness and lawfulness which is not really widely seen in the world today.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
WOO for public transportation
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: No, we use TONS more oil than we did 20 years ago. But we PRODUCE probably about 85% less oil in the US than we did 20 years ago because US oil production peaked in the 70's. Today we import almost all of our oil, and the largest source is Saudi Arabia.
This is another reason why I distrust the alarmist attitude. While this is true at face value it is being presented as an indication of scarcity and it isn't one. The reason us production of oil is less is because it is CHEAPER to get it from the middle east. The wells in Texas haven't run dry. They are stopped because Texas can't compete with OPEC.
Now again, I don't have a problem with what you say about everyone needing to look good and hard at our status quo and be smart about changing it. But it is the disengenuity of many of the statistic presented that hurt the cause. Unfortunately, there will be those who will look at what I've written and say "See, it's not so bad, everything will be fine" and do nothing. That is sad because while I believe it will be fine, I believe it will be because of people who make it fine. But being disengenuous about the problem (whether purposely deceptive or inadvertently) hurts the cause because every plausible rebuttal lulls the sheep back to sleep. It would be far better to present a more even-handed arguement.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
one of the most fatal flaws with the U.S. food and land statistics too, is also that they aren't counting in how much land the farmers are paid by the U.S. government NOT to grow food, so that the bottom doens't fall out of the grain market because of over supply. We could produce far more grain than we do right now, with little more resources.
AJ
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:Today we import almost all of our oil, and the largest source is Saudi Arabia.
Oil Consumption (2003E): 20.0 million bbl/d Net Oil Imports (2003E): 11.2 million bbl/d (56.0% of total consumption) Top Sources of U.S. Crude Oil Imports (2003E): Saudi Arabia (1.72 million bbl/d); Mexico (1.59 million bbl/d); Canada (1.55 million bbl/d); Venezuela (1.19 million bbl/d)
That's Saudi Arabia at 8.6%, for those keeping score. I'm not going to troll your links for other marginal "facts" but one piece of misleading research usually begets another.
I don't doubt that we're near or at our point of peak production; that demand will continue to increase dramatically; that said demand is highly tied to our present standard of living. However, there are very good reasons to avoid alarmism. First, we have the technology and resources to weather this challenge. If we had reached our present state of worldwide industrialization without ever funding a Manhattan Project, things would look much, much worse. Similarly if we were unable to manufacture plastics from coal reserves (which are 500yr+, if you didn't know, though they suck from a broader environmental standpoint). Furthermore, the politics of activism are greatly disserviced by FUD in the long run. Scare tactics will work up a nice vocal minority, but the majority will be even more skeptical than usual if you've already cried wolf before factual certainty was on your side -- and for better or worse, majority rules.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:Another reason why I distrust this arguement is that it assumes we will continue the status quo until the day before we all starve to death. I think this is patently absurd.
We started running out of oil from the very first barrel we pulled back in the 1800's. Since that time the human population has exploded from over 1 billion to 6.5 billion, in about 150 years. Find me a biological example in nature that can survive a population explosion similar to ours. This incredible rate of expansion was made possible by industrialization and all the wonderful technological advances that it made possible. The petrodollar is King.
Again, the problem is not that we will run out of oil. The 'Peak' in Peak Oil is generally where you've reached a half-way point. Where all the remaining oil is more expensive to get at than the economy can withstand.
No, Texas can't compete with OPEC. I have no doubt that when oil prices go high enough, we will finish off the Texas reserves in short order. But what you have to understand about the remaining half of the world's oil supply is that, not only will it not meet the world's constantly rising energy demands (upon which ALL growth is based), the energy returned to energy invested ratio becomes smaller and smaller, and therefore less profitable. Where once it took 1 barrel of oil to extract 100 barrels of oil it will soon take 1 barrel of oil to extract just 10 barrels of the same oil, which will undoubtedly be of lesser quality anyway.
The reason why I accept that the status quo will go ahead and rush into this crisis (energy wars included) is because I see that we are MOSTLY beyond the point of no return. In order for us to even attempt avoiding worldwide depression and a mass die off, we would immediately have to abandon the economic model that is the underlying cause of our resource depletion problems: a system that's based upon growth that exists in a system that's based upon balance and equilibrium.
And yet here in this very discussion those that admit we have a real problem on our hands are applying the same growth-based economic principles as possible solutions:
quote:Economic forces will dictate quite a number of changes before we all starve. As the price of things rise, people will change their habits.
Changing habits cannot and will not create an energy supply. Being wiser with our waste (Status Quo?? Ever used a trash bag? We even use OIL to throw away our trash!) is a good thing and will help us in many ways. For instance most Diesel engines only use about half of the available energy in a gallon of deisel fuel. But the energy difficiency really is insurmountable unless you categorically shut down the growth-based infrastructure, and since I'm a cynic about THAT I don't think the courageous intentions of the few will be able to protect us from the extravagances of the many (which are, in retrospect, actually extravagances of relatively few).
The level of catastrophe that befalls us, I agree, is up for debate. That we are heading for a cliff, I hope, is not.
I know that Matt Savinar's website is designed to scare you into realizing the immensity of the problem, but when our first thoughts of solutions are "the economy will eventually fix it" when in fact the economy is what is creating the problem, then yeah, I think it's about time we all get pretty scared about this because we're about to get a "crash" course in the meaning of "sustainability".
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
*waves wildly and points to Antarctica"
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
The Spice must flow...
ps- I'm glad Rich Berg brought up the plastics point. Cheers.
[ May 25, 2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:I'm not going to troll your links for other marginal "facts" but one piece of misleading research usually begets another.
[disgust]You know, this attitude is exactly why we are going to be dying by the millions. My statement on Saudi Arabia was pulled right out my head from information that is stored there from previous readings. It is open to correction, but I didn't even indicate that I pulled that number from the sources I linked earlier so the fact that you won't TROLL through the links is just... well let's just use the word "reassuring". As far as I know the United States DOES import more oil than it produces and our largest supplier is Saudi Arabia. The number I'm used to seeing is 25% of overall consumption originates in SA. I'll try to find a hard link for that, but really it doesn't make any difference. The oil crash is simply a matter of time. Humanity will have to learn to live without this KIND of energy, this KIND of energy waste, and this KIND of energy usage. That is a fact. A certainty. The only question is how much time is left and whether we can act fast enough to provide for a population whose demands are increasingly impossible to provide.[/disgust]
Edit: for that matter, Richard, the facts you supplied didn't even disagree with my assertion. If 56% counts as almost all (majority) and Saudi Arabia is the largest source, then my statement was absolutely correct and not misleading in any way.
[ May 25, 2004, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
JK, in elementary school we saw several films that talked about oil running out in the next 15 years (this is 1980 or so). I don't doubt that the oil will run out, and that paradigm shifts will occur. I'm not pro consumerist or expansionist. I really liked that Interesting Interview we had a while back of ways we could contribute to the biosphere instead of always taking from it.
I like the story in the Bible where Ezekiel is given this recipe for bread he can live off of for a year, and as a side benefit he will be able to use his own dung as fuel for fire.
Oh, and about the food supply I hope we can use the 40% of our grain that is currently converted into alcoholic beverages and eat that. Also all the high fructose corn syrup. I'm looking forward to a lot of these changes.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:The rolling blackouts experienced in California during fall of 2000, the massive East Coast blackout of August 2003 and the various other massive blackouts that occurred throughout the world during late summer of 2003 are simply a sign of things to come.
This is pulled from one of the linked articles. Again this is disengenuous to the point of outright dishonesty. The East Coast blackout of August 2003 had absolutley NOTHING to do with any kind of shortage or over-consuption or problem with sustainable growth. It had to do with a poorly integrated powergrid with improperly implemented safeguards that backfired when a storm blew a tree into a Canadian power station. It was a technology vs. "act of god" issue that means nothing to this discussion.
As for the California power issues, those had more to do with stupid politics and financial shenanigans than anything else. Certainly not because we didn't have enough oil to run the power stations.
[/rant about questionable intellectual honesty]
JK, I have to ask you what is your point? Are you proposing something besides dispair and panic? Some of us think there is a way to fix the problems we face. Several have pointed out some ideas of how things can/will/might change to help fix the problem. You seem to take the slightest hint of optimism as an indication of ignoring the problem. If you believe that the problem is so bad that there is no way at all to fix it, and that starvation and societal collapse are inevitable, then isn't the logical response to crank up the music and party till the power goes out?
I think it is fair to say economic forces will help ameliorate the mess, even if it's economic forces that have gotten us into the mess. Our over-consumption stems from cheap oil. The lack of cheap oil with help curb the over-consumption, and I believe it will do so before starvation is the only possibility.
We have the technology to create vehicles that run on fuel other than gas. Pointing out that such fuels are in small supply and/or the vehicles themselves are expensive doesn't take into account that as the use/need of these alternative becomes more widespread, the prices will drop and supply increase. Sure we can't all switch to electric cars tomorrow. Most of us can't afford them. But if it comes down to "produce electric cars people can afford or go out of business" you can bet Toyota and Ford will find a way to drop the prices. And when/if it comes down to "buy the electric car or pay $75 per tank of gas" people will opt for the electric car. No, just because I'm optimistic about humanity it doesn't mean I'm burying my head in the sand.
Thermal depolymerization and bio-diesel fuel are a promising alternative, especially when the biggest objection to them are that they are in small supply. Since they are manufactured, and since they (bio-diesel, at least) can produce greater energy output than is required to manufacture them (not counting the "free" energy input from the sun), it's only a matter of conversion to be able to economically justify increasing the supply.
Nuclear power is a very viable possible solution. Once the need outstrips irrational fears of even researching the technology, we can put more resources into making it cleaner and safer.
So, that's why I'm not panicing. I don't think things will fix themselves, or that the problem isn't dire. I just don't believe that there are no alternatives or that we're all going to ignore this until we starve.
[ May 25, 2004, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Plus how many power plants are actually run on petroleum products? Suprisingly few. Coal isn't a petroleum product and Natural Gas isn't either though it can be found in conjunction with petroleum. Nuclear of course isn't petroleum either.
AJ
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
For my entire life, I have been concerned about the end of the world. I've been extremely interested in learning about how to Survive. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to survive other people. I can grow my own food, find potable water, and figure out how to stay warm. I can gather my own resources. But how do you protect those resources from others, who don't plan ahead but are turning vicious from lack of resources? They would probably find it much easier to steal and take my resources, although they wouldn't know how to maintain them.
How do I make myself invaluable so people won't kill me?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How do I make myself invaluable so people won't kill me?
The best way is to administer a poison to which only you have the antidote.
Or get them hooked on a highly addictive drug only you know how to make.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Right. *adds Dagonee to list of people who are NEVER allowed near anything I plan to eat*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I always figured that a shotgun was an essential part of food storage. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Now we know the real reason for those sealed meals, rivka.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Absolutely. A little paranoia is a healthy thing. *shifty eyes*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm pretty sure we've got the talent on this board to create a succesful post-apocolyptic secluded society.
Dibs on membership in the council of elders...er middle-ageders.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Just a sidenote: At one point during WWII about 40% of food eaten in the United States was grown in "Victory Gardens."
The way I see it, the biggest change that will come from increased energy cost will be that people move closer to work, and we may actually build decent mass transit. There was a time when living within "walking distance" was a plus, now our oil-soaked egos require us all to have 5 acres in the country.
Reverse the urban sprawl and we'll have more acreage for farming too.
The real problem, as was mentioned in another thread, is overpopulation. For those who claim the world can support more people, we can't even support the people we have now without mortgaging our future in terms of energy consumption and environmental damage.
Personally, I'd kind of like to get back to close communities and horse and buggy days. It's how we get there that bothers me. Our current "you can't become energy independent through conservation" leadership seems to see war as the only means to change. I don't think it needs to come to that.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Reverse the urban sprawl and we'll have more acreage for farming too.
"Reversing the urban sprawl" alone will not result in increased acreage for farming. What would actually happen would just be a redistribution of population from high density areas, smoothing out the gradient. Given the high population, this would likely result in less area for farmland. The only way that your statement becomes true is in the event that lots and lots of people die off. Which sort of defeats the need for more farmland.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:
quote: Reverse the urban sprawl and we'll have more acreage for farming too.
"Reversing the urban sprawl" alone will not result in increased acreage for farming. What would actually happen would just be a redistribution of population from high density areas, smoothing out the gradient. Given the high population, this would likely result in less area for farmland. The only way that your statement becomes true is in the event that lots and lots of people die off. Which sort of defeats the need for more farmland.
Was that supposed to be "suburban sprawl" maybe? Because that seems to be what Glenn is talking about, while saxy seems to be talking about people moving out of urban areas and spreading across the land evenly.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I guess I don't see the intellectual dishonesty, Karl. He says those blackouts are a hint of things to come, he did not say they were caused by the oil peak. Of course I'm not sure which site you pulled that from, but most of the sources I've been working with in researching this problem expect the true peak to occur sometime between 2005 and 2008, so yeah it'd be disingenuous to suggest that, not only was the sky falling, but parts of the sky had already fallen all over the place... but I don't see your example as being particularly misleading. It says this is what we have to look forward to in the near future if we don't do something right now, and frankly it's right.
quote:JK, I have to ask you what is your point? Are you proposing something besides dispair and panic?
Well I've already hinted at what I would do. You have to do away with the growth-based economic model because we don't live in a growth-based ecological model. Things must be brought back into equilibrium or they will be brought there for us.
My purpose in bringing it up HERE is, partially, to get somebody to convince me that we're not all that close to the end of industrialized civilization. Haven't quite got that yet. But mostly it's because we need bright minds to be taking the impending energy crisis seriously, for I honestly believe that the transition to a post-carbon society will be man's greatest challenge.
quote:I think it is fair to say economic forces will help ameliorate the mess, even if it's economic forces that have gotten us into the mess. Our over-consumption stems from cheap oil. The lack of cheap oil with help curb the over-consumption, and I believe it will do so before starvation is the only possibility.
But it's really not fair to say that. What's fair to say is that [i]economic forces will likely guide our decisions[i], just as they always have. Our energy demand is not going to go down unless we drastically alter our way of life *right now*. In fact it raises every year across the globe. Economic forces will drive us to the cheapest available energy (which is why we're addicted to oil, after all) but economic forces are not above ENTROPY. There are only two things that require constant growth: our economy and cancer. Without growth, they both die. Without an increasing supply of cheap oil our economy cannot grow, as its infrastructure is wholly and entirely dependent upon the use of fossil fuels to accomplish work.
Bio-diesel and Thermal Depolymerization are intriguing but they do not even have the potential to generate the amount of energy currently being used with oil, to say nothing of the vast amounts of energy that would need to be used in their implementation alone.
You see, it's not about we're all gonna die vs. we're all gonna be okay. The real problem is that there's a fundamental need to CHANGE the way humans live in their world. We need to be part of the circle of life, not the circus ringleader. We need to abandon materialism and make every effort to make sure the population at large is able to have decent drinking water.
The alarmist tone is warranted because of the implications of this crisis. It's not just a way to get your message out. In fact, my biggest reason for posting this here--knowing that many won't be able to accept it--is that I want all the people I care about to start thinking about what's really important to them and perhaps maybe start thinking of how we can work together to get through this mess.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Sorry to drag some stuff up from the last page, but:
quote: JohnKeats No product or invention has ever been or likely will be mass-produced without the use oil.
Um. No. The industrial revolution in Britain was largely petroleum-less. Early industrial revolution America was petroleum-less. Pre-industrial revolution saw the mass-production of firearms, cannons, farming implements, wood stoves, etc... without oil. Not on a global level, mind you, but innovation isn't dependent on oil at all.
quote: KarlEd My basic point is we probably waste more than the entire 3rd world consumes.
This is absolutely true. The United States alone consumes approximately a third of the world's resources, while the third world consumes a quarter. I learned that in a class a few years ago, and I'm not sure how it's measured. I'm inclined to believe it, though.
quote: BannaOj one of the most fatal flaws with the U.S. food and land statistics too, is also that they aren't counting in how much land the farmers are paid by the U.S. government NOT to grow food, so that the bottom doens't fall out of the grain market because of over supply. We could produce far more grain than we do right now, with little more resources.
This is absolutely correct. Also, the United States (and other western nations) feed food-quality grains to their livestock to produce better meats. The return on food-energy from feeding livestock grain is about 10%, so we'd have a bit less than 10 times as much food stuffs if we ended that practice and used that grain to feed people.
I think it's mostly-alarmist to be declaring the end of the modern age. As others have pointed out, other alternatives to oil when producing energy do exist, even though they are more expensive. I'm a big proponent of nuclear, despite its dangers. Wind and solar can't be discounted, either. In Vermont there's a fight for wind farms along ridgelines. It's projected that a wind turbine returns somewhere close to 400 times the original investment back in electricity, and that's in fairly-placid Vermont.
As for oil in plastic, we should be moving back to glass bottles. Yes, they're more dangerous, but there's also an unlimited supply of sand on our planet. Also, a glass bottle can be recycled into similar-quality glass, whereas plastic bottles can only be recycled into lesser-quality plastic. Similarly, if glass cannot be used or is inappropriate, aluminum serves just as well.
And, if things really do start collapsing, I'm moving to Africa or Mexico. In both places, there are plenty of areas that are already self-sufficient and petrol-free.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Thank you, Richard Berg, for linking to the best source of publically available numbers regarding the American crude and refined products markets. I spent last summer studying the 8-year history of precisely those numbers while working for a Canadian oil company. They're a gold mine.
Edit:
>> As for oil in plastic, we should be moving back to glass bottles. <<
Switching to glass for bottles would barely make a dent in plastic use. Or did you think that cars were still mostly metal?
[ May 25, 2004, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
EDIT: Sorry, I was unclear. I meant moving to glass as a substitute for plastics in general. Mainly as a non-conductive and transparent material. Also, many plastics in cars are for unneeded parts (dashboard molding and the like) and needed parts could easily be replaced by slightly more expensive alternatives (aluminum, glass, and wood).
Oh, right. I totally forgot about single-home biomass power plants:
I don't know if this is a growing trend across the country, but there are an increasing number of farms in Vermont that are building biomass power plants that run on methane. Apparently a regular-sized family farm here can produce enough biological material to power a similarly-sized farm. I have no idea how efficient it is, but it's implemented primarily by Vermont farmers becuase Vermont farms aren't economically solvent and many farmers need to get off the power grid to save costs. That would indicate that a biomass power plant costs less than electricity.
quote: From page linked in JK's first post: 1. Nuclear power is extremely expensive. A single reactor costs between 3 and 5 billion dollars, not counting the costs associated with decommissioning, increased costs for scarcer nuclear fuels; increased costs to safeguard nuclear facilities and materials from sabotage, terrorism, and diversion; increased likelihood of major, multi-billion-dollar accidents and their disrupting economic effects
3 to 5 billion a reactor? That's expensive? The United States has spent more on a single fighter jet than that! It may sound a lot to regular folks, but the U.S. has a 10-trillion dollar-a-year economy. If nuclear were needed, the US could construct them easily.
[ May 25, 2004, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:The United States has spent more on a single fighter jet than that!
I'd be interested to know what fighter jet costs more than $10,000,000,000 per unit.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
The B-2 Bomber (last time I checked) comes in at about 3.5 billion a unit.
Oh, yeah, that doesn't include 20 years of R+D, prototypes, and the many, many billions of dollars invested into stealth aircraft projects over the last 40 years.
[ May 25, 2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
[ May 25, 2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
The two newest fighters developed by the US are the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. These being the newest and most technologically advanced, the production costs should be the highest. They come in at $92.4 million and $38 million, respectively.
Edit: Nope, the F-117A Nighthawk comes in at $122 million.
[ May 25, 2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
This reminds me of the grasshopper and the ants. We are living in the summertime of humanity and there may likely be a long winter ahead. Now is the time to be thinking and planning. I would love to see advances in alternate forms of energy--now, while we still have the oil left to advance technology.
I have a question. Nuclear energy. Using too much of it harms our environment because of the waste. How possible would it be to eject our nuclear waste into space? Send it out of the earth's gravitational field. Space is pretty big, and it is filled with giant nuclear reactors (stars). I realize this would probably be expensive, but would the ease of nuclear energy make it worth it? We could reserve oil for things we really need it for until we can figure out a way to use something else.
What we really need is "Mr. Fusion" from "Back to the Future". How great would that be?
Edit: Or Star Trek matter/energy converters. So silly....
[ May 25, 2004, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Think of the Challenger explosion, but with nuclear waste.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It seems to me that the only reasonable way to deal with the nuclear waste is to sacrifice a certain area and dump it all there. Yeah, the Yucca Mountain people will cry and whine, but it sure seems like the best plan to me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oooo, that would be bad.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Spreading it out everywhere would be worse.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I guess wide-spread use of nuclear power would mean it would be that much easier for many people to make "dirty bombs". The waste makes a nasty weapon.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
How about if we abolish fast food? Seriously... Think of the resources it costs to produce Mc Donald's hamburgers- Corn that goes to cows instead of to people. Fertilizer used to grow tomatoes. The pesticides used on potatoes. Not to mention the resources used to transport all of this. Fast food is fattening, clogs the arteries, leads to unhealthy obesity and has a lot of negative effects on the environment.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hatrack fastfood boycott!
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Syn, wouldn't the cows, tomatoes, and potatoes just go to somewhere else to be eaten then?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Probably. But one thing that has to change is the way food is produced in the country with a ton of chemical fertilizers. It is a waste. Small things like cutting down on packaging for products, having more people carpool or WALK every once in a while. Perhaps that could help in a small way. Perhaps not.
Though I am serious about the fast food thing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Porter telecommutes. Sure cuts down on the gas bills. More people should be allowed to do the same, IMO.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
the best thing to do with nuclear waste is start launching it on rockets in a collision trajectory with the sun. Won't even phase the sun, and it wouldn't be radioactiving up the earth.
(I spaced last night... didn't mean to be redundant. And I think single use rockets would be reliable. We could launch from the moon or a space station if we were really worried about explosions) AJ
[ May 26, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Porter and I were talking about space elevators over dinner. That would make jettisoning waste soooo much easier, not to mention being freakin' cool.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Right around the time you registered, beverly, we had a fun discussion about space elevators.
It brings up some...disturbing possibilities.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> It seems to me that the only reasonable way to deal with the nuclear waste is to sacrifice a certain area and dump it all there. Yeah, the Yucca Mountain people will cry and whine, but it sure seems like the best plan to me. <<
A couple of years ago, there was a magnitude 4.1 earthquake near Mount Yucca. It strikes me as a very bad place to be dumping nuclear waste.
Deep seabed disposal is the best option for that, IMO. Cheap, as clean as it gets, occupies no valuable land space, and uses existing drilling technology.
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
I say we give it all to France, in a statue. Suckas.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Urban/Suburban sprawl is sprawl. High density population speading out over a larger area, using up more land.
Glass actually uses more energy to produce and transport that plastic. That's why plastic is cheaper. We still need to reuse and recycle.
Cars are only one consumer of oil. The lifespan of a car is something like 7 years, which means that we can replace the current crop of gas guzzling SUV's with reasonable sized hybrids in a relatively short time, compared to how long it will take to replace or retrofit our existing houses for better fuel efficiency. Housing used at least as much oil as cars did, last I checked.
My furnace is almost 50 years old, but I'm replacing it this year. I also added insulation to my house, and bought a Prius. Am I doing my part?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
<grin> I bought a mini van instead of an SUV or pickup. My next car in 7 years will probably be a hybrid minivan if they have them by then. We just replaced our furnace and A/C with extremely efficient Tranes, and we plan to do a house wrap insulation when we reside in the next couple of years.
The question is I guess whether the plastic in the wrap insulation actually uses more energy to produce than it saves over time. I'm guessing it does. I'm also planning on building a hydroponics system soon to grow my own veggies.
I'd install a composting toilet if my significant other would let me get away with it.
AJ
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think I'm in love with AJ. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You'll have to fight it out with your erstwhile roomie Bob the Lawyer.
Dagnabbit, it is true, all of the nice guys come out of the woodwork after you are already taken! Why didn't I find Hatrack sooner, when the guys were running away in droves, while I was in college?
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It was amusing watching the salesguy discuss energy efficiencies while buying the air conditioner and heater. He was trying to do the pitch more to Steve. I was pretty quiet let him ramble for a while, while he explained the options available and Steve asked the questions, then I cut him off, saying we want this, this and this. And NO we don't want anything less efficient than 13 SEER.
All of a sudden his eyes got wide and he realized I knew what he was talking about more than Steve did. 3 years of Mech E classes actually did do me some good in real life even if I didn't get the extra degree Don't have it memorized anymore but I used to actually know the equation to calculate the SEER!
AJ
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
How far along is the fusion reactor project coming? We have it up and running but it currently takes more power to run it than it puts out. As soon as we get it advanced enough to actually produce energy we'll be home free.
And we have the option of sending up big solar collecting stations in orbit, and have them beam the energy down to us via mircrowave radiation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
See, now that has to cause global warming, doesn't it?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Actually any form of energy usage causes global warming, unless there is so little that it all radiates away instead of having some of it caught by the atmosphere. All uses of energy produce waste heat.
I remember reading about the unexpected disaster in the "Age of Unlimited Energy" in 3001...
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Well, fossil fuels release energy that originally came from the sun, as do hydro-power, wind power, and solar power. So none of these raise the total amount of energy on the earth.
But beaming down the energy from space definitely increases the total energy on the earth. Come to think of it, fission and fusion should, too. Won't that lead to higher latent tempatures than changing energy that originally came from the sun to a new form?
Of course, this ignores secondary effects such as the release of greenhouse gasses.
Dagonee Edit: Tokamak is a cool word. "Tokamak."
[ May 26, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Noemon, I checked out the thread. *shudder* Those are some disturbing possibilities! Of course, I have always thought the reality of a space elevator sounded like science fiction. Porter got all excited about the idea when he was reading the Red Mars series, and he was telling me about it. I would love it if something like that could work though. That would be so cool!!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But we should realy start now.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
anne kate!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)