[MrBean]

DMT is an observation of the decline in fertility in industrialized nations. Industrialized by the use of fossil fuels.

Would you define Cuba as stage three mature industrial nation? I doubt you would, but for some reason it's population curve is similar to a mature industrial nation, about to enter stage four (post industrial).

Any good theory needs to cover all observable facts, cherrypicking data and disregarding anomalies is not good science. If DMT takes place in a country that is not a mature industrial nation, but in fact has experienced closest equivalent of PO in history, there must be also other factors explaining the DMT stages three and stage four besides mature industrialization based on high energy consumption per capita.

You claim that PO will mean DMT dynamics (stage three and four) becoming obsolete, without exception. Your claim is contrary to observable facts, so who is in denial?


http://www.marathon.uwc.edu/geography/D ... emtran.htm

[yesplease]

I don't think it matters which happens first or which drives the other. GDP = Oil Consumption. When the economy goes fast we use more oil when the economy goes slow we use less. You want to grow the economy you need more oil.

Course it does. If oil consumption drives GDP then w/o oil we can't have GDP, otoh if GDP drives oil consumption, then w/o oil we can still have GDP.

[Dezakin]

Just when do you suppose its going to stop?

In US, stopped last year. Rest of the world, this year, next year, perhaps even five years from now. That's about it.

Okay so theres a general belief that in 20 years global GDP wont be 50% larger than today?

You can bet that it will be.

[Dezakin]

I wouldn't fall into that trap if I were you.

Which trap, please?

Sure, one windmill, or even a few, isn't sustainable, but once sufficient power from different sustainable methods comes online, it is.

By the time fossil fuels are totally depleted, and in order to meet our then-electrical demand alone, we'll need a dozen wind turbines in every county from coast to coast, plus solar panels, geothermal plants, hydro, etc, etc. I sincerely doubt we can power all the infrastructure to build renewable energy plants on renewable energy and meet budgetary and schedule constraints.

But there is already a technology in place; the index finger. Just turn off that light switch.

Nuclear power works...

[Dezakin]

Do you really believe you and every other American will have access to their acre? When our just-in-time food delivery and inventory system breaks down? When there is little if any storage on site at supermarkets? When a few people have nothing and want your acre?

How is technology going to solve this dilemma?

It starts with markets and the enormous amount of surplus capacity in petroleum simply because we waste so much. Bidding on food servicing will go far higher than bidding on imported shoes. I don't know how you imagine this doomer fantasyland to materialize.

After that there are numerous petroleum alternatives, from CTL to nuclear hydrogen.

[VMarcHart]

So, you are saying it is impossible for 300 million people, living in a country the size of America, with all it's resources, to survive post-peak oil? I don't mean have their lifestyles survive, I mean they can't find the bare minimum amount of food, water, etc. to stay alive?

K, show me a person who farms and ranches without fossil fuel, and I'll show you someone who has never farmed or ranched. My grandpa is 93, and old, old school. He was one of the last ranchers to switch from manual to mechanic milking. Hard work. We laugh at the Amish life-style, but those guys are way more men than I am.

Nope. Hunter/gatherer is not an option for Americans. Besides, the abundance of wild nature is gone. No more buffler' on da range. We don't find food, water, clothing, shelter, etc...we buy it. With money from a job. How are people going to access these needs? Millions can barely find "the bare minimum amount of food, water, etc. to stay alive" right now...in the best of times with the most oil ever.

Nice and polite posting, Monte. More like these please.

Nuclear power works...

I'm sure you see lots of potential there. Your posts are explicit. I do too, but two points; nucular is finite, and, in time, instead of CO2 emission we'll have spent fuel problems. BTW, I'm going to be on a never ending, pointless discussion over this.

[Dezakin]

Nuclear power works...

I'm sure you see lots of potential there. Your posts are explicit. I do too, but two points; nucular is finite, and, in time, instead of CO2 emission we'll have spent fuel problems. BTW, I'm going to be on a never ending, pointless discussion over this.

Sure, but the time scale for such issues to be real problems are very large. Consider we the Rossing mine uses 1/500th the energy that is generated from the uranium it mines, and its ore density is 300ppm... We'll have enough fuel to power all of civilization for centuries at the very least.

Consider fluid fuel thorium reactors use energy 200 times more efficiently than light water reactors, and thorium is three times as plentiful, and these were developed 40 years ago.

The problem with spent fuel is managable. All the spent fuel in the world would fit in a large parking lot. In time you want to recycle it for the fuel and valuable fission products anyways, and if you go with LFTRs, your waste problem becomes 1/1000th as large with a 30 year half life.

I expect sometime in the next several thousand years we will develop cost effective solar or fusion, which is good enough since theres enough thorium to last millions. That ought to be good enough.

[TonyPrep]

I don't think it matters which happens first or which drives the other. GDP = Oil Consumption. When the economy goes fast we use more oil when the economy goes slow we use less. You want to grow the economy you need more oil.

Course it does. If oil consumption drives GDP then w/o oil we can't have GDP, otoh if GDP drives oil consumption, then w/o oil we can still have GDP.

Illogical.

[yesplease]

I don't think it matters which happens first or which drives the other. GDP = Oil Consumption. When the economy goes fast we use more oil when the economy goes slow we use less. You want to grow the economy you need more oil.

Course it does. If oil consumption drives GDP then w/o oil we can't have GDP, otoh if GDP drives oil consumption, then w/o oil we can still have GDP.

Illogical.

How so?

[Dezakin]

Do you really believe you and every other American will have access to their acre? When our just-in-time food delivery and inventory system breaks down? When there is little if any storage on site at supermarkets? When a few people have nothing and want your acre?

How is technology going to solve this dilemma?

It starts with markets and the enormous amount of surplus capacity in petroleum simply because we waste so much. Bidding on food servicing will go far higher than bidding on imported shoes. I don't know how you imagine this doomer fantasyland to materialize.

After that there are numerous petroleum alternatives, from CTL to nuclear hydrogen.

There is no waste, there is no surplus capacity in our food production, either in arable land or food production.

There is no wasted energy. Food is processed (canned, frozen, dried, and preserved) with energy to save more energy from refrigeration. Fresh food is refrigerated with enormous energy.

Without energy the processed food would not be made.
Without energy the fresh food would not make it to your home.

People around the world as short of food because we are exceeding the capacity of the earth to grow more.

Shoes or food? Do you know that folks ate their shoes during the Stalingrad siege?

Oh I forgot. If you didn't have the electricity to post to this forum you would just die.

[VMarcHart]

Consider ... Consider ... sometime in the next several thousand years we will ...

Dezakin, I'm past my half life point. Good luck in the future.

[Dezakin]

Do you really believe you and every other American will have access to their acre? When our just-in-time food delivery and inventory system breaks down? When there is little if any storage on site at supermarkets? When a few people have nothing and want your acre?

How is technology going to solve this dilemma?

It starts with markets and the enormous amount of surplus capacity in petroleum simply because we waste so much. Bidding on food servicing will go far higher than bidding on imported shoes. I don't know how you imagine this doomer fantasyland to materialize.

After that there are numerous petroleum alternatives, from CTL to nuclear hydrogen.

There is no waste, there is no surplus capacity in our food production, either in arable land or food production.

There is no wasted energy. Food is processed (canned, frozen, dried, and preserved) with energy to save more energy from refrigeration. Fresh food is refrigerated with enormous energy.

Without energy the processed food would not be made.
Without energy the fresh food would not make it to your home.

People around the world as short of food because we are exceeding the capacity of the earth to grow more.

Shoes or food? Do you know that folks ate their shoes during the Stalingrad siege?

Oh I forgot. If you didn't have the electricity to post to this forum you would just die.

No, I would surely miss the internet but it wouldn't really impact my life much. I imagine the electricity saved by turning it off would amount to less than a hill of beans. On the other hand, a diesel tractor engine uses 100,000 watts equivalent. That loss would be serious.

And you can make up for that by getting just a few drivers to carpool or trade in their SUVs. We waste an enormous amount, and theres plenty of slack before you run into serious problems.

[VMarcHart]

I would surely miss the internet but it wouldn't really impact my life much. I imagine the electricity saved by turning it off would amount to less than a hill of beans.

Gee, with the millions of computers, monitors, printers, routers, gadgets, dooheekeys, etc, I imagine it's a pretty substantial hill of beans.

[Dezakin]

I would surely miss the internet but it wouldn't really impact my life much. I imagine the electricity saved by turning it off would amount to less than a hill of beans.

Gee, with the millions of computers, monitors, printers, routers, gadgets, dooheekeys, etc, I imagine it's a pretty substantial hill of beans.

Maybe a several thousand tractors, a few combines and an entire Walmart-parking lot full of pickup trucks. What you'd in an average Indiana county.

If 100 million housholds dropped 1 kilowatt of consumption thats a million tractors. I didn't know Indiana counties used that many of them.

[TonyPrep]

I don't think it matters which happens first or which drives the other. GDP = Oil Consumption. When the economy goes fast we use more oil when the economy goes slow we use less. You want to grow the economy you need more oil.

Course it does. If oil consumption drives GDP then w/o oil we can't have GDP, otoh if GDP drives oil consumption, then w/o oil we can still have GDP.

Illogical.

How so?

Because, if GDP drives oil consumption but there is no oil, then GDP will stall, since it won't have any oil to drive.