posted
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.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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....
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter telecommutes. Sure cuts down on the gas bills. More people should be allowed to do the same, IMO.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
posted
Porter and I were talking about space elevators over dinner. That would make jettisoning waste soooo much easier, not to mention being freakin' cool.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> 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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
<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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Karl Ed
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
