I think hydrocarbon depletion will be good for the earth and human beings in the end, that is by 2100. Being a minimalist at heart, I yearn for a simplier and quietier world, but a world filled with educated, well-norished, non-obese people. (Peak Oil will solve America's obesity epidemic). I sold my car 3 weeks ago, and so far I find my life more interesting and fulfilling. I'd figure I would get ahead of the curve before the rollover, and maybe teach by example to my children, parents and friends.
Joined: Jul 07, 2004 Posts: 434 Location: Berkeley CA
Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:56 pm Post subject:
If we get past peak oil, then what else is going to be next? We're going to have to deal with peak water, or peak soil, or what about peak minerals? other peaks are on the way if we manage to get past hydrocarbons. _________________ my page:
www.myspace.com/peakoil
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3428 Location: California, USA
Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:48 am Post subject:
This was discussed extensively in the R&D organization I was involved in a few years ago.
One perspective was that cheap sources of renewable energy would enable humanity to get a head-start on fixing its other sustainability crises (this was the opinion of the founder). Another perspective was that cheap sources of energy would merely enable us to keep up with "business as usual" until some other resource or ecological limit knocked us on our collective ass (this was the opinion of one of the other engineers).
Biology & ecology tell us that other species from bacteria to higher mammals, breed right up to the point where they crash. And, it's almost an iron law.
However humans are supposed to have the capabilities of reason and foresight, and free will in the sense of being able to make conscious choices. If this is true, we should be able to use these capabilities to get ourselves out of this mess with minimal harm.
So, what one believes about the future is entangled with what one believes about whether humans will be able to act with reason or be bound by the same instincts for reproduction and consumption that chain other species to their doom in overshoot/collapse mode.
In other words, it's a matter of opinion until we see what actually happens.
If we get past peak oil, then what else is going to be next? We're going to have to deal with peak water, or peak soil, or what about peak minerals? other peaks are on the way if we manage to get past hydrocarbons.
When we get past peak oil, we would have to deal with other issues for sure. However, there is no peak water or anything else. The reason is that water moves in a cycle. One city's wastewater (after treatment) is the next city's drinking water. The city of Windhoek, Namibia has been supplementing their drinking water needs with treated wastewater for 40+ years. So, if you run short on water, you need to follow Windhoek's example and run the water through the cycle faster. Hardly rocket science.
Same goes for minerals and anything else. There are challenges, for sure. Recycling minerals would need to develop the ability to eliminate toxics, etc. It is an ongoing challenge that will keep many future generations of scientists and engineers gainfully employed.
gg3 - Your post above neatly highlights the dilemma peak oil poses over whether the development of alternative energy technologies will:
a/. : allow us time to steer clear of other more insuperable limits, including climate destabilization and the depletion of soils and potable water;
or b/. : merely allow the continuation of business-as-usual in the lemmings' strategy of heading full tilt towards the next nearest cliff.
While Leibig's Law governs the population dynamics of our species like any other, in nature population boom-&-bust is relatively rare as numbers tend to fluctuate around a norm, being governed by the constraints of other inhabitants of the ecosystem, including factors such as predator numbers, parasite burden, prey species numbers, etc. I guess we'd agree that our present predicament stems from the failure to date to replace those natural constraints with intentional ones.
Whether we will succeed in achieving the required global consensus to adopt such constraints within the present window of opportunity is, as you say, a matter of opinion.
Where I think we differ is in the stringency of our approaches to the dilemma posed above.
At one point you asked, with charming courtesy, whether I might be part of the NIMBY tendency. After careful reflection, I have to agree that I am, since for strategic planning purposes my 'Back Yard' must include the planet as a whole; nothing less is a viable holding in terms of the global sustainability we seek. This is not to reject Wind Power per se, but to recognize the absurdity of Mr Blair telling us that
"We must learn to respect Nature"
while the government tries to impose massive industrial products that utterly fragment peoples' view of the natural landscapes.
From this perspective the dilemma above is resolved by asking just what can the individual energy technologies do to assist the general change of course needed to avoid hitting the other critical limits to growth, and to put an end to the business-as-usual lemmings' strategy ?
In optimizing the selection of new energy technologies for funding for R & D and for deployment to address peak oil, I'd therefore suggest the following four primary factors as forming
"The Grandchildrens' Criteria":
Oil replacement : the ease and efficiency (£ & CO2) with which a technology provides an alternative to fossil transport fuels;
Legitimacy : the extent to which it directly raises net local energy self-reliance and prosperity (reducing poverty's ecological footprint) without injuring local amenity.
Relevance : the extent to which it can be replicated globally to meet the massively rising demand in developing countries.
Sustainability : the extent to which it helps to integrate society within the natural ecology's cycles, avoiding both soil and water depletion and the production of toxic wastes.
Under these criteria the global energy industry, with its massive influence on society's direction, could begin to make a positive contribution to sustainability; in their absence, with the conventional funding of whichever technology is most profitable politically and financially to the status quo, I guess we can both foresee the lemmings' achieving a still worse crash than that which peak oil now threatens.
with unlimited power I think the nanotech revolution will be a fait accompli. Within a couple of decades industrial society will be remade... the trouble most futurists have is working out "...into what?" This problem is defined by the term "the singularity".
The scariest part of the article...
Quote:
Based in Vancouver, Canada, D-Wave is building a quantum computer using aluminum-based circuits. The company projects that by 2008 it will be building thumbnail-sized chips with more computing power than the aggregate total of all computers on the planet today and ever built in history, when applied to simulating the behavior and predicting the properties of nano-scale systems—highlighting the vast difference in capabilities of quantum and conventional computers. This would be of great value to the development of the nanotechnology industry. And it's a jaw-dropping claim. Professor David Deutsch of Oxford summarized: “Quantum computers have the potential to solve problems that would take a classical computer longer than the age of the universe.”
He fails to mention that if achieved will render all cryptography useless! I thinks this would have a radical impact on the business community and stability of our globalised information system. _________________ Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. - Aldous Huxley
There are people that worry about WMD well building stuff at the molecular level could prove a disaster.
Lets say some nanobot designed to convert one element into another does not properly terminate it's operation it's possible that for example it could wipe out timber, strip away the atmosphere or say a nanobot was truning water into hydrogen it merrily converted the worlds oceans into hydrogen.
One would hope there are safeguards in place even so accidents do happen and with this sort of technology a major catastrophe is potentially only one accident away. _________________ "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
The real danger of peak oil is not peak oil itself, but actually the invention of some new energy source. Over the years, due to us pumping trillions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a lot of plants, algae, plankton, and stuff like that have grown. Now say we all stop using oil tomorrow. This means that we will stop producing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now, this is probably not a good idea. All those plants and stuff will suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere. This will kickstart a new Ice Age, since there's nothing to keep heat from escaping.
mortified: what you wrote was simple, but that logic is hard to strike down. as CO2 is a natural fertilizer. to be honest, no one knows what that CO2 does in the atmosphere. there is no proof of what CO2 in the atmosphere does, other than fertilize plants.
want to hear some real stuff about the CO2 greenhouse gas. tired of those assumptions.
asking again: Ever wonder why Greenland is called Greenland?
The funny thing is, nobody on this page has ever answered to that. _________________ It just gets better every day....
Joined: Oct 10, 2004 Posts: 470 Location: Chicago, IL
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:36 pm Post subject:
I read in a recent National Geographic that we would have to reduce CO2 emissions to zero, just to stabilize the excess we currently have now.
All that extra CO2 provides more fertilizer for plants, but mostly weeds. Therefore, due to to rising CO2 emissions, weeds will become more competitive and take over crops. _________________ "Abortion doctors aren't baby killers. They are life un-ruiners"
we will not reduce CO2 emissions to zero, as you and I are living examples of it. every time you and I take in and out some air, we make CO2. not a surprise, is there?
the problem as I see it is that there is so much destruction of the biosphere, there is hardly anything left to absorb that CO2. and the stuff that is left we convert to CO2 again. as in us eating it or burning it. _________________ It just gets better every day....
Joined: Oct 10, 2004 Posts: 470 Location: Chicago, IL
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:42 pm Post subject:
Quote:
we will not reduce CO2 emissions to zero, as you and I are living examples of it. every time you and I take in and out some air, we make CO2. not a surprise, is there?
I know we won't will never reduce it to zero. CO2 is a biproduct of the Krebs Cycle. I was stating that just to accentuate the severity of emissions.
Based on my last to posts, guess what mid-term I am studying for?
Did you know that C3 plants use 40% of their energy to correct the problem of photrespiration? C4 plants have evolved to become more efficient. Their leaves contain bundle sheath cells, which have no affinity for oxygen. Don't get me started on those CAM plants. Them and their nocturnal stomates. _________________ "Abortion doctors aren't baby killers. They are life un-ruiners"
jrob, have fun with that exam. and yes those midnight dwellers sure put a damper on those grades. at least the corm we can eat, I was just wondering about potatoes, don't they do the midnight thing as well? it has been so long that I studied this for exams.... _________________ It just gets better every day....
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
