I will believe the Saudis don't see any upcoming problems with Ghawar when they cancel one of their projects due to low oil prices. If they continue to be full steam ahead with increasing their capacity then I think they are aware that Ghawar may not be as robust in 5 years time as they would like us to believe.
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:37 pm Post subject: SOLUTION!?! Really is this doable?
In looking at the Peak Oil situation and the looming economic crash, I could not see any solution to such a massive and complicated problem, short of collective acceptance of conservation and reducing demand, and I did not see much chance of that happening.
I did not see my view as negative or pessimistic, but rather realistic.
Further thought, however, and some simple math, has given me hope.
I am basing these ideas on the idea that oil production will follow a bell curve, and that we have peaked, and will begin to see a reduction in oil production.
This reduction in oil production will be gradual, and therein lies the hope. For argument and math sake, let’s say that oil production will decrease by 5% per year (I don’t know the actual figure, this is for demonstrating the math). And I know it won't take much more than that to collapse our economy, read on with an open mind.
So if there could be a matching bell curve of our demand for oil, that also peaked and decreased, a solution is presented where we decrease our demand for oil at a similar rate of the decrease of production.
So taking the first year of post-peak production we would have to decrease demand by 5%. Could we do that? Could you reduce your energy consumption by 5%? How much could you decrease your energy consumption, realistically? Here is how it can happen:
100% of the population decreases demand by 5%, or
50% of the population decreases demand by 10%, or
25% of the population decreases demand by 20%, or
10% of the population decreases demand by 50%…etc.
The math is that demand decreases by an overall of 5% to match the decreased production, however it happens.
This also makes the big assumption that those who do not decrease demand, also do not increase demand…for every increase in demand will require a corresponding decrease in demand, for the math to work.
We all consume energy and to what extent is our consumption luxury vs. necessity? How much could we practically reduce demand through a variety of conservation strategies? How much of our demand actually translates into waste, and is not necessary at all for our survival?
The point is that the solution lies in the power of each individual to reduce energy consumption. We cannot expect 100% participation but I think it is mathematically possible to match production decrease with demand decrease through individual commitment to reduce consumption. The reduction of consumption will also be encouraged and even demanded by increasing prices. Furthermore, consumption can be reduced by die-off. Theoretically, a 5% decrease in population could translate to a 5% decrease of demand, assuming you spread the demand out over everyone.
These individual conservation efforts can be supplemented by government incentives and new technologies…but the good news is the bell curve…production will decrease gradually so we need to decrease demand accordingly and wean ourselves off oil over a period of years.
100% is overwhelming but is 5% doable? If not, then we deserve what we get.
I welcome you guys to tear up these ideas, and improve on them; that's how we move forward.
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:27 pm Post subject: Re: SOLUTION!?! Really is this doable?
earthman wrote:
We all consume energy and to what extent is our consumption luxury vs. necessity? [...] How much of our demand actually translates into waste, and is not necessary at all for our survival?
I would argue that 100% of the energy used to construct and fuel private motor vehicles and their infrastructure is all luxury and waste which can be eliminated over the long-term (or even the short term, in an emergency). This can be achieved by devising living arrangements which assume that cars are not available.
I read it. Seems like the main argument is the paradox that if we become more efficent, energy price goes down resulting in more energy consumption and then the price going up.
I do not see energy prices going down...worldwide demand (China, India, etc.) will increase demand, so prices will rise.
I am wondering if we can decrease our demand (US), by both conservation, efficency, and reducing waste and unnecessary use of energy.
For example, if you drive your car 100 miles per week, could you drive 95 miles instead?
It won't cause the price to go down and make cheaper energy available for more consumption. If the US decreased its oil consumtion by 5% through the collective effort of individuals, the price of oil would not necessarily go down because the price per barrel could still increase due to demand worldwide, but we could begin to decrease our dependence on it, perhaps in ten years by 50% (5% per year) through a combination of conservation and technology.
There is no question that we must switch from oil to other energy technology. The bell curve suggests that we can do this gradually, as the oil production decreases. But we must do it now and it can happen through individual commitment building to a collective force.
Can we peak our demand for oil and gradually reduce it?
Joined: Mar 18, 2005 Posts: 2690 Location: Minnesota
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:10 pm Post subject:
Reduce our demand by 5%...so all the new houses built dont have any heat or electric? well, that would leave us at 0%...then we also need to use 5% less heat & electric (and 5% less driving) while the newbies go 100% without...without heat or a car or electric...
OR we could all go with 15% less so the newbies can have some...
I don't believe the 5% reduction is doable, in the sense of voluntary action.
Of course the 5% reduction will take place one way or another, as the
world can't consume more oil than is produced. The reduction will take place by either price or by government action or both.
All solutions will be painful and undesirable, the best of the bad options is the one that can spread out the pain evenly over a longer time period.
There is no doubt that a 5% reduction is do-able technologically.
But the 5% reduction may not be possible politically. In fact, in the US, people expect to be able to grow every year, not shrink, economically and energy-wise. To tell them otherwise will be politically unpalateable for whoever tries it. Monte has written extensively on this issue.
There will be a 5% reduction globally, all right, but it won't be evenly distributed.
What about the second year?
Won't consumption have to be reducted again to stay in line with depletion rates? When people have to cross the electricity threshold they won't go easy.
Also population die-off won't just happen peacefully where 5% die off, not here in any case. There are alot of people who would riot, kill and loot given the chance rather than just sit and die quietly.
I see what you are getting at but I'm not too sure it could happen as you hope because most people won't want to give up energy to the greater good even if it means avoiding civil unrest. They would probably be of the mindset 'why me, why should I?' unless they are coerced by the government.
You guys are all farking nuts!
It's like watching a bunch of morbidly obese people who eat 10,000 calories a day fretting about how they're all going to die when their calories get restricted by 5% a year. Can we do it? "I don't know man... It's gonna be ugly, damn near impossible."
Let me say this one more time, in a loud voice:
PASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
That is why (in global terms) only rich people have them.
Most of the people on the earth are surviving just fine without cars.
Food and shelter are necessities.
PASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
A continual 5% decline in LUXURY is not going to kill anyone. Snap out of it, you junkies! You're still in deep denial. You need cars because you're addicted to them, not because cars are necessary to live!
I think this is perfectly possible. 5% is nothing compared to excessive waste we are consuming.
70% of oil consumption is due to transport. Nobody really needs to reduce heating their house. I am pretty sure everybody can find a way to drive 90 miles a week instead of 100 miles a week. Actually with government incentives for efficient cars, some people can reduce their consumption 50% just by switching their gaz-guzzling SUV with an efficient car. That would take most of the burden off the shoulders of the ones who cannot conserve.
Price will force people to conserve one way or another. It is not really meaningful to say "People will continue with their lifestyle whatever the price". It is impossible. You cannot spend more than you earn in the long-term. If you are paying more for your gas, then you have to cut back on something else. (which you don't want to do because "that" thing is also a part of your lifestyle.)
Most americans are already drowning in debt, so even in the short term they will have to cut back on some things. Most meaningful will be gas, since that will be the one whose price is increasing the most, and easier to conserve.
Demand for oil is going to have to follow supply. New energy sources(nuclear, wind, solar, coal) will reduce the burden somewhat. Worlwide die-off will not occur due to oil shortage. Some people here argue that people will not reduce their driving but somehow they will die due to starvation. This is absurd.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2068 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:27 am Post subject:
Quote:
PASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
That is why (in global terms) only rich people have them.
Most of the people on the earth are surviving just fine without cars.
Food and shelter are necessities.
PASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
A continual 5% decline in LUXURY is not going to kill anyone. Snap out of it, you junkies! You're still in deep denial. You need cars because you're addicted to them, not because cars are necessary to live!
I agree with your statement JD. However, it is not the lack of personal automobile freedom that concerns me. _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Also population die-off won't just happen peacefully where 5% die off, not here in any case. There are alot of people who would riot, kill and loot given the chance rather than just sit and die quietly.
Those riots would be part of the die off.
Raxozanne wrote:
I see what you are getting at but I'm not too sure it could happen as you hope because most people won't want to give up energy to the greater good even if it means avoiding civil unrest. They would probably be of the mindset 'why me, why should I?' unless they are coerced by the government.
Well I think that is the problem; can we evolve past egocentric and ethnocentric to worldcentric? I don't understand the view that insists on keeping unnecessary and wasteful luxuries, when continuing on that path means the end of the world as we know it. Where is the sense in that?
The idea is to reduce our demand by 5% and the 5% can come from a wide variety of changes, not just driving cars. Anthing we do that involves consumption is an opportunity conserve and end waste.
I have to agree with jato about our addiction to luxury. Some of the best times in my life were spent backpacking, everything I needed in a backback. We have traded quality of life for quantity of luxury, waste, and possessions that are completely unnecesssary.
I go into a WalMart store and I see row after row of basically junk that no one needs at all, mostly made in China, with shipping both ways. Why would anyone even want to buy it? I don't know.
Why use a leaf blower rather than rake the leaves? Why are millions of people commuting to work each day with only one person in the car? Is it too much a pain to carpool? If each car had had four people in it instead of one that would reduce demand significantly more than 5%. Look at all the commercials on TV designed to get you to consume more, and how much of it is really necessary?
What I am trying to say is that the means are available to us to reduce our demand. The solution is available to us; but that sad fact is that we are collectively unwilling. And so it goes. Better luck next time.
You guys are all farking nuts!
It's like watching a bunch of morbidly obese people who eat 10,000 calories a day fretting about how they're all going to die when their calories get restricted by 5% a year. Can we do it? "I don't know man... It's gonna be ugly, damn near impossible."
Let me say this one more time, in a loud voice:
PASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
That is why (in global terms) only rich people have them.
Most of the people on the earth are surviving just fine without cars.
Food and shelter are necessities.
PASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
A continual 5% decline in LUXURY is not going to kill anyone. Snap out of it, you junkies! You're still in deep denial. You need cars because you're addicted to them, not because cars are necessary to live!
Ok then, 90% of workers in the UK commute to work as they work 20mins or more from their workplace. What will happen when they can no longer drive to work? They will have no money to buy food with or continue their mortgages. Now then does this fall into luxury or necessity. Think on it. Also what will happen to the trucks that deliver food to the supermarkets. We can't just switch to no transportation, will the railways be able to cope? who knows.
Ok then, 90% of workers in the UK commute to work as they work 20mins or more from their workplace. What will happen when they can no longer drive to work?
They will:
a) Work out a telecommuting arrangement, or
b) Move into a flop house near their workplace and shopping, or
c) Buy a scooter
Quote:
They will have no money to buy food with or continue their mortgages.
Not if they sit on their asses, waiting for someone to come save them.
Solutions a, b) and c) above are simple, easy things to do. Any of them could be totally implemented in a week or less.
So you move into the flop house. You've got food, you've got your job. You're not dying. You can still pay your mortgage. In fact you've got a lot more money every month because you're not paying into a car. Life's good. You're getting more exercise. You're overcoming your addiction, and getting well! It's a great feeling. Next thing you know, somebody opens a bar by the flop house so you can have a beer. Why not just relax and go with the flow, instead of demanding that society support your destructive habit.
Quote:
Now then does this fall into luxury or necessity.
Luxury. Anyone can get up the nerve to move, or demand a telecommuting contract at work. If they can't handle it, they'll just have to starve to death. I don't want my tax dollars being used to bail out stick-in-the-mud petroleum wasters. They make everything more expensive for everyone.
Quote:
Also what will happen to the trucks that deliver food to the supermarkets.
I chose my words carefully. I said "passenger cars". Trucks are not a luxury. They're a necessity.
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
because most people won't want to give up energy to the greater good even if it means avoiding civil unrest. They would probably be of the mindset 'why me, why should I?' unless they are coerced by the government.
