I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Sometime during the last half of this production life cycle, however, when one-half or a little less than one-half of the coal reserves (economically producible coal) have been exploited and the remaining, less desirable coal beds are being mined, U.S. coal production will begin a long, irreversible decline. A national decline in coal production, is not anticipated for many years, and perhaps will not begin until sometime late in the next century.
I tried to do some more research, but all I come up with are studies on coal quality - i.e. sulfer/ash content. When these professional studies calculate when production will peak, they use more advanced techniques than taking the amount of coal we have (in tons) and divide it by our current consumption. They take into account a variable amount of growth rates in demand. For example, consider Figure 3 in the following .pdf file (on page 5):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/pdf/itwos04.pdf
This figure shows how the peak production for oil varies depending on how demand for oil grows, and how much oil we are actually able to squeeze out of the Earth.
Anyways, according to the commercial site (which means it can't be used in my research paper than I'm writing about the need to research alternatives to fossil fuels) which was cited: "If we look at figure 6, it might seem that the Hubbert curve does not closely match the historic data but that is because of the variable nature of historic growth." This site actually admits that the Hubbert curve, their method for determining the peak production of coal, does not match historic coal production figures.
Well, anyways - in conclusion - I hold the opinion that we can rely on coal for electric power for quite some time. Hopefully enough time to develop new and better technologies that are cleaner, renewable, AND more efficient.
Hardly more pessimistic than many of the scenarios discussed and defended here, and his extrapolations, while perhaps extreme in your view, are based on sound information. It's interesting that Duncan has grown increasingly more pessimistic in recent years in his discussions of post-Peak Oil developments.
Certainly the depletion numbers he cites in my original post are beyond question, since they're based on historical fact rather than his or anyone else's predictions. Duncan and Walter Youngquist, with Colin Campbell and Jean LaHerrere (sp?), have done some of the leading work in oil depletion analysis.
As you suggest, I do not doubt Duncan's depletion data but I do doubt his extrapolations.
The "cliff" is the final interval in the Olduvai schema. It begins with the 7th event in 2012 (Note 7) when an epidemic of permanent blackouts spreads worldwide, i.e. first there are waves of brownouts and temporary blackouts, then finally the electric power networks themselves expire. The 8th event in 2030 (Note 8) marks the fall of world energy production (use) per capita to the 1930 level (Figure 4). This is the lagging 30% point when Industrial Civilization has become history. The average rate of decline of ę is 5.44%/year from 2012 to 2030.
Duncan treats the decline he describes above as a foregone conclusion. I would argue that although the possibility of catastrophe should not be ignored, there are many possible ways to forestall and even avoid collapse. The Limits to Growth: 30 Year Update, which I am currently reading, exemplifies this less deterministic view. Rather than illustrating a single, ostensibly unavoidable future, this book presents many possible futures and explains in detail how they might occur.
It seems to me that Duncan does not provide enough supporting evidence for the Olduvai prediction as an unavoidable scenario. If he has written supporting arguments or posted supporting data for the Olduvai theory that I am unaware of, I would be interested in reading it.
John, I think you meant your post above to go on the "Swimming" thread, since it quotes my post there. I essentially agree with your opinion of Duncan's predictions. I occasionally wonder if he takes such a radical position more as an impetus for discussion than out of a firm belief in the predictions. I'm unaware of any supporting data or additional details he might have offered.
Joined: May 19, 2004 Posts: 892 Location: San Francisco, California
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:07 pm Post subject:
Cash wrote:
John, I think you meant your post above to go on the "Swimming" thread, since it quotes my post there. I essentially agree with your opinion of Duncan's predictions. I occasionally wonder if he takes such a radical position more as an impetus for discussion than out of a firm belief in the predictions. I'm unaware of any supporting data or additional details he might have offered.
No, I posted here intentionally because I didn't want to divert the "Swimming" discussion from its opening question about efficiency. I linked to the other discussion in the "quote" tag -- that's a fun feature of this site.
I have believed the Olduvai Theory to be valid under the condition that no countermeasures are taken. Which is why it's on my signature.
However, the grid operators in at least the UK are able to "shed load"; ration electricity demand. On this basis a total collapse is unlikely, since there will be at the very least a trickle from renewables, pumped storage and whatever is left from nuclear and coal (combined with woodchip to keep the CO2 down) feeding through to critical services. The UK is in a better position than the US since there is still a single point of control (from the old CEGB days).
TWilliam wrote:
Oh yea... and wasn't there something about 60 million people or so being without power in the eastern US last year? Oh right... that was just a tree branch hitting a wire... NOT. It was a result of the demand hitting and surpassing capacity, triggering a cascade shutdown.
Nope. This was fundamentally a case of people taking the supply of electricity for granted. A landowner used the courts to prevent the grid company from getting access to his land to cut down trees (NG Transco calls this "tree management"). As a result of heavy load, the lines sagged, and flashed-over the trees. The grid controllers, unwilling to shed load, as well as having IT problems, didn't take corrective action. The additional load on the rest of the network caused more sagging of other lines - another flashed over, and beyond the double failure the domino effect kicked in. _________________ The Olduvai Theory is thinkable http://www.dieoff.com/page224.pdf
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://www.dieoff.org/page145.htm
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
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
