Why such fears for the future?

Rasmus2 · Tar Sands Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 50

Sure, we do not have everything in place yet, but as Licho have mention, then both progress in technology is here, and once oil gets more expensive, then the "market" and "goverments" will find other alternatives. Also do not underestimate the power of people in large groups, such as countries... if a country needs something bad enough, then it will get it! (including power)

There is also alot being done already, major companies are working on alternative energy - ex. Hydro one of the world's largest offshore oil companies are setting up a small community to be independent of fossil fuel. Read more about it here:

http://www.hydro.com/en/our_business/oil_energy/new_energy/hydrogen/winds_change.html

Sure this is small scale, but testing is needed before making something large scale.

Licho · Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 10:05 am Post subject:

Rasmus2 · Tar Sands Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 50

Also the energy balance to produce a wind turbine today is that it would pay back the energy used from the extraction of the raw materials to final disposal in 7.7 - 9.0 months!

http://www.vestas.com/miljoe_ny/uk/vindmoeller_uk/energibalance_uk.htm

Licho · Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 10:18 am Post subject:

9 months energy investment return is awesome!! Just imagine it, wind turbine has livespan of 2 decades and it pays itself up after 9 months, everything produced after this period is net gain..
Todays nuclear plants pay themself after many many years of operation, usually before decomissioning..

dmtu · Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 10:36 am Post subject:

Here's a link from the James Baker Institute in regard to the current situation which contains a somewhat positive message. Problem being they are counting on the USGS numbers. To sum it up, the current "crisis" is based on aged infrastructure due to deregulation and weak US energy policies. http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/studies/bipp_study_15/index.html

I'll reiterate my belief that a return to an 1860s to 1900s standard of living is possible but not with out nature taking the weak as was seen with 15,000 dying during the power outage in Europe last year. Or was the American media incorrect with the report of 15,000? I'll be looking into other "think tanks" shortly as it seems a good alternative to mass media or even the internet alone.

kineticutan · Coal Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 1

Licho, You'd make an excellent American! You have been reassured that the apparent crisis is not a crisis at all, and you happily embrace the comforting message.

I'm afraid that's exactly what most Americans do, too: We're all busy "exercising our freedom" and "enjoying our opportunities" while the world (we're part of the world, though at times you'd never know it) lurches toward the abyss. Repeat after me: "Lalalalalalala!"

When will we reach cliffside? Unfortunately, we won't see the edge until, like the cartoon character Wile E. Coyote, we've already run off into thin air. Unlike him, though, we won't have a few seconds to look down and "recognize"--we'll be in mid-plummet. (Then again, would it do us any good to wake up BEFORE it's too late? Perhaps not.)

Rasmus2 · Tar Sands Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 50

hymalaia · Tar Sands Joined: May 13, 2004 Posts: 78

I just wanted to add a quick point about "Suburbia" for those who have never been to America. You may have a hard time comprehending what it means without having seen it/lived in it. You CANNOT walk in suburbia. Most of it is about as hostile to pedestrians as imaginable. You can have buses, but from many homes it could take up to 40 minutes simply to walk to the nearest bus station. In Boston, it is routine for commuters to buy a house in New Hampshire and commute in. That's over 50 miles each way (80 km I think). In San Francisco, where housing prices are even higher near the city, 2-3 hr commutes by car are not uncommon. Of course look at who is forced to live in these outer suburbs...the lower-middle class, because it is the only place they can afford a home and (now) the gas prices to do the commute. They have a saying in real estate when buying a house, go downtown of your city and "drive till you qualify"...

smiley · Fission Joined: Apr 16, 2004 Posts: 2146 Location: Europe

Well where I live people want to move to the suburbs because its nice, white and rich. Living in a suburbs having two cars and 2.3 kids is the average people's wet dream.

Actually it is easier and cheaper to buy an existing house in the city but people don't want to let their kids to grow up in a working class environment so if you can avoid it you don't move there. Ironically this is the very reason why these neighbourhoods are turning into ghetto's.

I could afford a house there but I made the decision to move into into what most would call a 'bad' neighbourhood. The advantage is that I can walk to my work, I have the shops around the corner and a bus station within 100 meters. And although the people are poor they are very social, something which I can't say of the average suburbian.

There is also a reason why public transport is so bad in the suburbs here. You can run a bus there but no one would use it. I guess it mainly has to do with the status associated with a car.

If you take the public transport it either means that you can't afford a car or that you're some tree huggin' hippy (and most of them drive beetles).

I guess Licho is richt, we can do without a lot of oil. But I think people will defend their right to drive till the very last drop of oil. A study recently showed that 80% of the people were more inclined to economise on food than on their car, which in my opinion, is a very bad sign for things to come.

Rasmus2 · Tar Sands Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 50

MattSavinar · Elite Joined: May 09, 2004 Posts: 2000

Licho, Rasmus,

With all due respect, you estimations of how rough things are going to be (or not be) are borderline delusional - particularly for those of us in the United States.

We're talking a 3 percent (or more) decline per year. After 15 years - that's 45 percent less. After 25 years, it's 75 percent less.

This means we have to cut our consumption by 3 percent per year, but we can't do that because our capitalist economy requires constant increase in consumption.

Your example about Hitler/Germany prospering during the Great Depressionis very telling. I have news for you. This time around, it won't be Germany invading other countries to ensure her prosperity.

It is the US.

I hope you don't live in a country with/near significant oil deposits - because if you do, you will soon learn what the people in Fallujah, Baghdad, etc are learning:

When the US wants oil - hiding in a bunker is probably a good idea.

It's as if I've walked up to you said,

"Hey, Licho and Rasmus - I've been diagnosed with Cancer, Hepatitis, and HIV. I also just broke my leg in a car accident. Not only that, but I lost my job and have no health insurance."

And you reply,

"Don't cry - there are solutions. Sure, it is tough, bu here is some aspirin and vitamin C - it won't be so bad."

Matt
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

MrPC · Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 5:57 pm Post subject:

Pops · Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 6:03 pm Post subject:

Matt, you have influenced quite a few posters here. Many have included their "assessments and plans" on the thread of the same name.

Perhaps you might, in light of your somewhat pessimistic viewpoint and obvious stature, give us a snip of your future plans on that thread. I recall you said you would be staying in the northern bay – and IIRC, that had something to do with draft dodgers? Sorry if that isn’t correct.

Your insights have influenced me as well. I live about 80 miles inland from you and have spent my holiday trying to get my house ready to sell. If you prefer to keep your plans to yourself I understand.
_________________
Make a plan and work it:

Licho · Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:17 am Post subject:

MrPC, you seem to have completely unrealistic and dark "vision" of future. Why the hell should be ITER ready at 2008, why should some country make 100% energy from wind by 2008??

2008 is not biblical end of the world, it's peak oil (maybe), and we won't realize it perhaps until years after peak. You don't need to replace ALL oil at 2008, you need to replace 1-2% initially. You can replace like 60% of oil used by USA by just saving, simply not using it .. You can easilly consserve, if prices are unrealisticly high, they will eventually come down. You still have 3 times smaller prices than Europe always had, because of eco-taxes!

Traders can perhaps disrupt supplies in US, but not in rest of world...
I see it here, we have only 1 huge refinnery, and this cannot store any excess oil, because it's already containing part of strategic reserves. Individual people cannot store much, and if they do, and prices go too high, and demand then falls (because many people have supplies also willing to give to their friends) and forces traders to reduce price. Petrol/oil is not a gold here, most individuals not really need it, only industry and infrastructure needs it, and if supplies are too restricted it will be simply rationed.

Also supplies and prices in many countries won't be disrupted, for example we have long-term contracts with FSU, Germany is supplied in big part by Russia too. These prices are very different from prices of OPEC freely traded oil, of course they raise too, but not so much. You also cannot buy much of FSU oil (enough to raise prices), because infrastructure to deliver big amounts oversea is not in place yet..

You also seem to underestimate willingness of people to organize and cope with crisis. You are perhaps the most individualistic nation in the wordl, but even americans facing such crisis will do what is neccesary. Again, how many people died during oil crisis with 5% sudden drop, that was more sudden than future peak oil??
Nations handled more severe crisis, WW2 was much worse, many coutnries had supplies of various resources cut off, but of course by adding more tight security and rationing + having industry to do what is needed at regulated prices and not just follow free market, no country actually turned to complete destructive anarchy. Some nations already handled crisis much worse than peak oil, they handled almost complete oil embargo - Cuba and North Korea, their societies still exists.

And to your statement about fertilizer production. There are many ways to get hydrogen, industrially used is conversion of water gas.. It's cathalytic reaction.
CO + H2O --Fe2O3(Cr2O3)--› H2 + CO2
But even if you need to use electrolysis, you can, it has fair 75% efficiency.. you don't need to get electricity using fossil fuels..

MrPC · Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:06 am Post subject: