Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
Ender wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Ender wrote:
But yes, your point is one of the reasons I'm in favour of Australia developing its (civil) nuclear industry. It's untenable for a country of 20 million people with a land area the size of the European Union or the continental United States to sit on a third of the world's uranium and piously proclaim 'It's not our policy to develop this resource'.
Developing an unsustainable source of power is madness, unless it is done purely to help transition to a sustainable society.
I'm in two minds about nuclear. On the assumption that the uranium and thorium fuel cycles mean nuclear fuel is plentiful (for the time being, at least), and that we're going to be paying more for energy no matter what we do, it makes a certain amount of sense.
I take it you're not familiar with "breeder reactors." Yes, you can generate power and produce fuel for other reactors at the same time. All you need is enough uranium ore to produce enough enriched uranium to start the process.
That would, of course, require extraordinary monitoring since plutonium is involved and could be diverted to nuclear weapons.
I don't have a problem with nuclear power, I have a problem with the people, processes and procedures involved, especially where the "profit motive" is concerned.
There's an over-reliance on technology, in part because it reduces labor costs so they can make more profit, but that also means that every process is highly automated and there are no manual redundant systems or there aren't sufficient people on-site to manually shut down the reactor in time if a problem arises where there are manual redundant systems.
Ender wrote:
But there's no way it's happening on the sort of time horizon necessary to help with peak oil and climate change. So in that sense it's a distraction. Renewables are cheaper and quicker.
You lost me there. I know of no power plants in the US, Canada or Mexico that operate on oil, so if oil runs out, it doesn't affect power generation.
The US has a handful of power plants that run on LNG that is distilled from oil, but their loss isn't going to shut down the US.
There are also a couple of experimental plants, I think in Florida in the Bradenton area that use a coal-tar slurry as fuel.
On the other hand, Iran does have lots of power plants that use LNG distilled from oil, which they divert from the world market. Maybe if Iran had nuclear power they wouldn't need to do that.
Ender wrote:
"In launching this sort of attack, the "enemy" would be playing to Australia's strengths. It would be taking on, head to head, Australia's large (for the region) and powerful airforce (FA-18s fighter bombers plus F-111 deep strike bombers)
Oh, yeah, F-111 Aardvarks, like the ones backwards Libya blasted out of the sky.
Ender wrote:
it would open its supply lines to attack by our surface fleet (FFG-7 and ANZAC class frigates)
Fast frigates and Silkworm missiles don't mix well togther.
Ender wrote:
our hunter/killer submarines (Collins class) and our maritime anti shipping strike aircraft (F-111 and P-3 Orions).
Okay, submarines are always a threat, regardless of their type.
Ender wrote:
It confronts our Armour (Leopard 1), Artillery and Infantry forces.
The Leopard I? That's like ancient. Don't get me wrong, it was a great tank for the 1960s and 1970s. A lot of countries still have them in their inventories. The Germans transferred them to their reserves after the Leopard II was introduced and then transferred them to selected units that were absorbed during the reunification.
It was back-fitted with a laser-range finder and I think they also put a laser sensor in front of the evacuator to measure "barrel droop" (the gun tubes sag after a high volume of firing). But there were few modifications to the fire controls which makes it slower than other tanks in acquiring targets and firing.
Ender wrote:
It takes on a military that is small, but highly professional and skilled, acting in the role that they have been designed around and practiced for."
Galliopoli exemplifies the tenacity and fierceness of Australian fighters, but that was far away in a different time. At the Battle of the Bulge in WWII, American troops fought valiantly, too, but that was also far away in a different time. That generation of Americans had different beliefs, values and ethics than today's troops. Could the US repeat its feats at the Battle of the Bulge in modern times? I don't think so.
Anyway, China doesn't even have enough landing craft to invade Taiwan, so you don't have to worry about 92 Chinese divisions invading Australia.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1989 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
Mircea wrote:
Yes, you can generate power and produce fuel for other reactors at the same time. All you need is enough uranium ore to produce enough enriched uranium to start the process.
I'm not totally convinced about perpetual motion.
Mircea wrote:
I don't have a problem with nuclear power, I have a problem with the people, processes and procedures involved, especially where the "profit motive" is concerned.
Technologies don't use themselves. I have a problem with nuclear power primarily because it is unsustainable. That it has associated problems of waste and nuclear proliferation just add to my concerns.
Mircea wrote:
I know of no power plants in the US, Canada or Mexico that operate on oil, so if oil runs out, it doesn't affect power generation.
According to the EIA, 122,522,000 Megawatt hours was generated from petroleum, about 3% of electricity generation, in the US, in 2005.
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
TonyPrep wrote:
Mircea wrote:
Yes, you can generate power and produce fuel for other reactors at the same time. All you need is enough uranium ore to produce enough enriched uranium to start the process.
I'm not totally convinced about perpetual motion.
Mircea wrote:
I don't have a problem with nuclear power, I have a problem with the people, processes and procedures involved, especially where the "profit motive" is concerned.
Technologies don't use themselves. I have a problem with nuclear power primarily because it is unsustainable. That it has associated problems of waste and nuclear proliferation just add to my concerns.
It isn't a perpetual motion device. The "waste" product of a breeder reactor is fuel for breeder reactors. Once a breeder reactor starts running it produces more fuel than it consumes. It does produce a small amount of waste material, but it's significantly less than your standard uranium reactors and is more manageable. France uses them for that reason and the waste generated over the last 30 years is stored in a standard ABREST.
Nuclear proliferation is a concern with or without nuclear power, and the US doesn't have the money to bomb every country back to the stone-age that wants to produce nuclear power.
Concerns about nuclear proliferation are nonsensical when a president like Clinton is giving nuclear reactors to countries, like North Korea, without any conditions for monitoring.
You'll notice the media makes no mention of Jordan's nuclear energy program, but then Jordan doesn't have oil.
More countries will be turning to nuclear power, especially the Gulf States, since nuclear power is the only option on the horizon over the next 50 years that will provide cheap energy to develop those countries and build desalinization plants.
TonyPrep wrote:
Mircea wrote:
I know of no power plants in the US, Canada or Mexico that operate on oil, so if oil runs out, it doesn't affect power generation.
According to the EIA, 122,522,000 Megawatt hours was generated from petroleum, about 3% of electricity generation, in the US, in 2005.
3% wouldn't be missed, especially given the amount of electric energy that's wasted, and it's nothing that couldn't be made up by coal or nuclear power.
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
chris-h wrote:
Third world : It has already started shutting down.Very soon it will be back to medieval times.Media age to live there approx 25 years
The lucky countries will be ones that have no resources to be stolen with extreme violence.
The 3rd and 4th World countries are still and have always been in "medieval times." The vast majority have no electricity, no running water, and no telecommunications. They live in clan/tribal societies and engage in subsistence agriculture. You would know that if you lived or travelled extensively in 3rd world countries.
They would be unaffected.
What little energy they use is in the principal cities, of which there is maybe one to three large cities, and the only thing that would happen is people would abandon the cities and move back to the country-side to their villages.
The villages are self-sufficient, growing their own food, and raising animals to produce meat, milk and clothes. They spin their own wool and make their own dyes. Villages engage in trade with other villages for things they need.
chris-h wrote:
USA. Citizens categorized in 4 classes.
A The very rich
B People that have health care now
C People that do not have health care now but have a place to stay.
D The homeless
That's amusing and vey myopic.
chris-h wrote:
The A : No problem .All gonna move in gated communities with more private cops than ever.
I have friends that are better armed and trained than any private cops ever will be. Of course, we'd have to beat the gangs there first.
The flaw in your argument is that rich people require a good economy humming along. If the dollar collaspes and/or there's a long term recession/depression and/or millions are unemployed, they ain't got any money. They'll be standing in line at the soup-kitchens with you, just like they were standing in line at the soup-kitchens during the Great Depression.
chris-h wrote:
The B: No health care or driving for them . But they are going to do just fine otherwise .Constant fear of being unlucky and dropping to the "C" class.
Why would I want health-care? I can't eat health care, it doesn't heat my home, I can't wear health-care, and I can't trade it for anything of value.
That makes it uselss.
If the "health insurance" companies collapsed, then everyone would have health care. It would be just like the late 1970s and early 1980s before health insurance companies existed.
You choose any hospital you want and any doctor you want. More importantly, you pay your doctor and hospital directly, instead of an "health insurance" company or a 3rd party billing agency.
The last time I visited a doctor in the "pre-health insurance" days was 1979. I paid the $15 office visit up front, then paid $20 a month until the cost of the $85 physical was paid off. You can't do that with "health insurance" companies or 3rd party billing agencies (who ruin your credit rating with collection activity).
If group "health insurance" is such a great thing, how come employers don't offer group auto insurance, group home-owner's insurace, group renters insurance and other group insurance?
You might want think about that one for a while.
chris-h wrote:
The C : The new homeless
The D: Living hell in earth.
Most C and D are going to "live" in suburbia.
B will live in the cities
No, C and D will move back into the cities. Granted, they aren't too intelligent, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say their IQs are at least above 80.
Everyone would benefit from re-populating the cities. It's a better use of goods, services and resources.
chris-h wrote:
Overall a much much poorer country.
Not really. A pos-PO would result in higher employment, not less employment, since it would be more labor intensive.
chris-h wrote:
EU.
States will state together for protection. There is a huge cultural difference in USA versus EU . IN USA war means success. IN EU it means death and suffering.
Small states will be afraid of Russia of going alone and being pray of another state and the rich states will take advantage of this.
I see a major turn in the left and or fascism for most EU states and much less driving but otherwise everything will be fine.Everyone including the ultra rich will be poorer.
I wouldn't call Korea or Vietnam smashing success stories. They US can beat up on small 3rd World countries but can't go head-to-head with 1st and 2nd World countries without getting its ass kicked.
A comment like "much less driving" would only be made by someone who had never been in Europe. People in Europe rule their cars, unlike in the US where people are ruled by cars.
In Europe, cars are nice to have, but not necessary and certainly not essential.
chris-h wrote:
UK. A much much poorer country but they will survive unless the gulf stream shuts down.If in does then mad max.
That would be a great thing. Brits could grow lots of grapes and make wine, just like the Romans did when global warming affected temperatures when they were there.
And let us not forget the builders of the first phase of Stone Henge 2,000 years before the Romans arrived. They happily munched on grapes while building it.
chris-h wrote:
Russia : The new superpower much more important than USA in the future.
Nukes + oil + gas + people used to difficulties huge advantage
That requires an assumption that the US failed in its global and strategic plan of destroying Russia and gaining control of the resource rich eastern republics. Remember, the oil, gas and minerals are not in Russia Proper, they're way out in the eastern republics.
chris-h wrote:
China They will just retool their exports for internal consumption.They have some oil and lots of coal big hydro and with most of the remaining manufacturing capacity in the world the only country able to mass produce renewables with ease after peak oil.
The huge population is extremely young and even children work. They have a huge surplus able to outbid everyone else for oil.They are a dictatorship can control their people and any excess baby girls can basically disappear a big advantage after peak oil.
A new superpower.
I think a little more study of China is in order. China can always export to South America and Africa.
There's no law that says that Venezuela or Nigeria must sell their oil on the world market. They can pull it and keep it for themselves and trade it among a handful of countries in South America and Africa, and China.
chris-h wrote:
India Just a big third world country . It is going to collapse suffer mass death.Nuclear war with Pakistan is possible.
India gains no advantage by going to war with Pakistan, and Pakistan gains no advantage either.
You seem to ignore the fact that India did quite well without any energy up through the 1940s. They'll manage just fine.
chris-h wrote:
Japan . They will do poorly but they will survive.
Their society is totally controllable they have no sprawl the ceo gets no more than 10 times than the cleaner in a corp they have the best infrastucture nobody will invade they can have a nuke built in 60 days .They will do alright even though they have no energy resources.
It will take longer than 60 days a single nuke isn't going to do much.
chris-h wrote:
SA. They will do great .They have lots of oil they are going to sell it in a high price. No invasion will happen at their territory.
Maybe, or maybe they'll just get tired of being slaves for the US and cut the US off to trade their oil with China.
chris-h wrote:
Overall . Big more powerful states are going to do much better.
Richer countries will do much better than poor ones.
The ultra rich no problems.
No, richer countries have more to lose. There standards of living will decline to pre-WWII days, but there's nothing wrong with that. Life was beautiful then, and in many ways, better than it is now.
Wealth will be redistributed by natural economic processes on the way to PO. About 2024 or so there should be a shift as resources are re-allocated as parts of the economy shut down and new ones (actually old ones) get started up.
chris-h wrote:
History will continue.
That's an extraordinarily astute observation.
chris-h wrote:
Mad max will happen but only in Africa.
Max will be black and will have aids.
Thanks to European colonialism and US/UK neo-colonialism, Africa has been in a "mad max" state since the late 1870s. PO would actually provide them a reprieve, not pose a hardship.
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6604 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
Derick wrote:
I think that prior to the USA & China commencing fighting over remaining global reserves, China will dump all its US debt onto the market (forcing other US debt holders such as Japan to do the same) and bankrupt the USA.
The US military and I suppose all militaries are constantly preparing for the last war – and are always surprised by the manner of the next - pretty silly actually because you don’t hit someone where they are strongest but where they are weakest.
How do you attack a superpower? Just like we did in the Revolutionary war; blend with the general population and shoot from concealment instead of the Field of Honor.
Just like the Vietnamese.
Just like al-qaeda.
Just like the Iraqis.
It makes sense that the next war won’t be like the last.
An Economic Pearl Harbor kind of makes sense – Scorched Earth for the Chinese but an abrupt end to our Non-Negotiable Lifestyle… _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1989 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
Mircea wrote:
It isn't a perpetual motion device.
I kind of realised that . It's an unsustainable sourse of power. As I've asked, have we learned nothing about becoming dependent on unsustainable energy sources?
Mircea wrote:
Nuclear proliferation is a concern with or without nuclear power
Indeed, but more of a concern when more and more countries have nuclear generation plans.
Mircea wrote:
Concerns about nuclear proliferation are nonsensical when a president like Clinton is giving nuclear reactors to countries, like North Korea, without any conditions for monitoring.
I have no idea why that makes the concern nonsensical. It merely increases the concern.
Mircea wrote:
More countries will be turning to nuclear power, especially the Gulf States, since nuclear power is the only option on the horizon over the next 50 years that will provide cheap energy to develop those countries and build desalinization plants.
I've no doubt about that. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Mircea wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Mircea wrote:
I know of no power plants in the US, Canada or Mexico that operate on oil, so if oil runs out, it doesn't affect power generation.
According to the EIA, 122,522,000 Megawatt hours was generated from petroleum, about 3% of electricity generation, in the US, in 2005.
3% wouldn't be missed
I doubt that. But at least you now know of electricity generated from oil, which was my point.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 2:41 am Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
A comment like "much less driving" would only be made by someone who had never been in Europe. People in Europe rule their cars, unlike in the US where people are ruled by cars.
In Europe, cars are nice to have, but not necessary and certainly not essential.
It is not a question of whether people have fuel to run their cars but whether there is fuel oil and diesel for shipping and road transport. A city of a million people requiring an absolute minimun of 1kg of supplies a day would require a thousnad tonnes of su;pplies every single day. An essential commodity like wheat requires oil every step of the way to put bread on our tables.
Plowing, fertilising,harvesting,transporting,storing,transporting,milling,transporting,baking,transporting and finally the supermarket. All this talk of nuclear power will not get that wheat grown,stored , milled and to the table. And people worry about whether they can drive their cars????
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1989 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:53 am Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
pukeko wrote:
A comment like "much less driving" would only be made by someone who had never been in Europe. People in Europe rule their cars, unlike in the US where people are ruled by cars.
In Europe, cars are nice to have, but not necessary and certainly not essential.
I'm not sure what part of Europe you're referring to. I lived in Europe for 50 years. Cars are certainly regarded as essential. That's from a UK perspective but I've travelled to 4 other European countries, on business, and public transport is not as great as some make out. But much better than in New Zealand!
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
It will be like the old saying "The bigger they are the harder they fall".
America's military might won't save them ... they haven't won a war since WW2 ... and the next one they will have to fight without fuel.
Countries with oil reserves will prosper.
For third world nations it will be business as usual ... albiet a bit more miserable than usual.
Western Europe might be more affected by climate change than fuel shortages. If the the gulf stream shuts down they turn into Alaska.
China relies on fuel imports to survive, as do Japan, Taiwan and Korea. Japan went to war to secure fuel and access to natural resources 60 years ago. I don't think that this will be a fun part of the world to live Post Peak.
I think South America will do fine. They don't over rely on fossil fuels and have relatively low population density.
India I am not so sure about. It has a huge population but hasn't become as energy reliant as China. It might get through it reasonably well by going back to their traditional lifestyle.
The Middle East will still have plenty of oil for their own use ... Israel is screwed.
South East Asia have plenty of resources to survive ... although population pressures could cause issues.
Australia is a big hunk of near empty land. Not much oil or water but plenty of everything else. It should be OK.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
Mircea wrote:
Galliopoli exemplifies the tenacity and fierceness of Australian fighters, but that was far away in a different time. At the Battle of the Bulge in WWII, American troops fought valiantly, too, but that was also far away in a different time. That generation of Americans had different beliefs, values and ethics than today's troops. Could the US repeat its feats at the Battle of the Bulge in modern times? I don't think so.
I think we Americans have a very small remnent of soldiers with the guts and pluck to replicate the veteran WWII GI's. Or for that matter, even Vietnam vets.
After that, the quality nosedives exponentially. That's probably another unspoken reason why we're so into high- tech.
Going mano-mano vs any hardened opponents with anything but our very best leaves us as toast.
What's even scarier is the thought of the quality of drafties currently available with the return of the draft.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Kokoda,
For you future appear bright with possible exception of some struggle between China and Japan.
I think, you are failing to notice, that we are in significant overshoot.
So where die-off will come?
On the Moon?
There will be some dieoff ... but not as extreme as some people think. The worlds biggest population growth in fact comes from areas that aren't as reliant on fossil fuels. People in third world countries tend to use scarce resources far more efficiently then the west. They don't waste near as much fuel as we do.
If the dieoffs come it may well happen in the more affluent nations which already have low birthrates. Places like Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy etc are already seeing their populations shrinking.
How are they going to cope with the problem of aging populations and falling birthrates in a fossil fuel starved future?
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
kokoda wrote:
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Kokoda,
For you future appear bright with possible exception of some struggle between China and Japan.
I think, you are failing to notice, that we are in significant overshoot.
So where die-off will come?
On the Moon?
There will be some dieoff ... but not as extreme as some people think. The worlds biggest population growth in fact comes from areas that aren't as reliant on fossil fuels. People in third world countries tend to use scarce resources far more efficiently then the west. They don't waste near as much fuel as we do.
If the dieoffs come it may well happen in the more affluent nations which already have low birthrates. Places like Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy etc are already seeing their populations shrinking.
How are they going to cope with the problem of aging populations and falling birthrates in a fossil fuel starved future?
It is worth to note, that Third World is heavily relying on FF based fertiliser to keep party going. India is perhaps most prominent example.
Third World is also relying on food aid from first world. It is also relying on our medical supplies.
Try imagine what will happen, once all those are gone...
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
I agree that there will not be any major changes . The rich are always ok . The poor are and will remain as they are . Drastic changes have happened
at many different times of earths history . Why are we all so concerned with post oil . We have the technology for po already -it has not been released or has and is not being used . We should never be dependend on one resourse . Learn how to do without. Be in prision mode -as if you had no choice . I love the idea that there will be many new chalenges . For me I have been learning to survive . In my younger days I taught survival in extreme climates . Live as people did pre oil dependent days . My motto has always been never put all of your eggs in one basket .-that is dangerous ! Have a very challenging future . The future looks rossy . It's all in how you intreprete it . Ed
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:38 am Post subject: Re: Peak oil : Possible Fate of nations.
Quote:
I wouldn't call Korea or Vietnam smashing success stories. They US can beat up on small 3rd World countries but can't go head-to-head with 1st and 2nd World countries without getting its ass kicked.
I've been lurking here for quite some time, but this quote has forced me into replying. I simply must know where you're from that you don't know the difference between a war with the US and a US occupation action.
Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq are all occupation actions. There is *NO* first world power on the planet that can win these, particularly if you want to keep the political high ground. I remember a certain USSR getting royally rocked by idiot Islamic extremists armed with bolt action rifles, the occasional RPG, and Stinger missiles, and they were far more ruthless than the US forces who invaded the exact same territory. There are stories from Afghanistan where a bolt action rifle was found in a town, and because these weapons could strike an incapacitating blow to their troops well beyond the range of the AK74, the ENTIRE TOWN would be levelled to make sure they got the person that had the rifle!
Now if the US actually decided to go to war, instead of screw around, (like the last couple wars) and nobody resorted to atomic weaponry, there really is no other country that could hope to stand up to the US military. The US military would pound any other country without even breaking a sweat. In the event that someone resorted to atomics, then everyone would lose as then the US would fire ours off, and so would everyone else too.
If tomorrow the US decided to completely obliterate China, what would China do, aside from watch in horror as US warplanes rained destruction down on them. A 100,000,000 man army? Nothing when I've got my jets pounding China unopposed day and night, non stop.
I regularly laugh at the thought of another world power attempting to invade the US. Even if you could get past the US military (Completely impossible), you'd have to then deal with several million wery well armed, very pissed American gunowners who know their home turf. In Iraq the American military is having a hell of a time with what? 10,000 hangers on? Imagine trying to occupy any part of a country where you've got to deal with more than ten million armed people where most can hit your troops from nearly quarter a mile away.
Before you go and say something nasty about the US military, and the US in general, you need to understand that you're comparing apples and automobiles in regards to the US's wars.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. It's an unsustainable sourse of power. As I've asked, have we learned nothing about becoming dependent on unsustainable energy sources?