[thuja]

For those of you who want to know here is my personal list...

1- We believe that the peaking of global oil production is happening now.

2- We believe that global oil depletion in production will have increasingly dire effects on the world economy. We see a likelihood of persistent cascading recessions and oil price lability with lots of spikes and crashes.

3- We believe that human population will likely decrease over the next 100-200 years to perhaps only 1-3 billion people. This will happen through a process of die-offs in some countries due to resource wars/famines/etc., and "die-backs" in other countries due to reduced fertility and reduced average lifespan.

4- We believe that the average lifespan and standard of living that we have become accustomed to will decrease and that poverty will dramatically increase throughout the world due to oil and resource constraints.

5- We believe that mitigation in the form of alternative energy, nuke power, conservation and efficiency as well as new technologies...will only have a small effect in reducing the impact of oil production depletion. They are likely to make more of a difference in wealthier countries than in poorer countries.

6- Even though mitigation may not have as great of an impact as we hope, we believe that personal, local, national and global efforts for dealing with this crisis are essential.

7- We support efforts to become more self and community-reliant and reduce excessive energy consumption via growing food locally, biking, passive solar design, wind and solar power, rainwater catchment, etc etc you get the picture.


What we don't believe:

We don't believe in a fast crash die-off Olduvai cliff scenario. We don't believe that 70-90% of the world's population will suddenly die in the next 10-20 years.

We don't believe that Peak Oil will lead to a complete and sudden collapse of the world's agricultural and transportation systems, leading to wide scale starvation.

We don't believe that the only people to stand a chance in this fast crash are those who live in rural enclaves, preferably in a "doomstead" with plenty of land. We think its way way more complicated than that.

We believe that arming oneself to the teeth in preparation for some mythic attack by the zombies (aka Timmy your hungry twelve year old neighbor) is ridiculous.



I know there are a lot of folks here who fall into the fast crash camp- and they are quite vocal. But I think there are plenty of us moderates- and they don't talk as much. Let's hear from you...

[ian807]

I must be a moderate then.

That said, I expect bumps due to politics and money. One example. When oil starts getting scarce, some countries are going to decide that it's smarter for them to hoard their oil to supply domestic consumption and/or wait for the price to go even higher before selling. I can see a scenario where Iran, Venezuela and Russia all do this in a 2 month period. Oil prices could skyrocket suddenly, to the point where food and goods transportation might be suddenly and severely curtailed.

[mos6507]

I think anyone who is 100% certain of the way this will unfold is a fool. I think it's possible to be a peak oil moderate but not completely close off the possibility of both fast-crash scenarios and something resembling technofix steady-state.

So if you leave open maybe a 10% chance of fast-crash and a 10% chance of technofix, then maybe you will want to hedge your bets rather than putting all your chips on a slow-crash power-of-community scenario.

[thuja]

Yes I would agree- as a moderate- I think there is a high likelihood for localized problems with agricultural transport, riots over the price of food, etc. What I don't see- is that there will be a sudden and irrevocable cessation of globalized agriculture and its transport with the sudden starvation of most of the population. That to me is ludicrous.

[Dr. Ofellati]

For those of you who want to know here is my personal list...

1-6

I agree with 1-6.

7- We support efforts to become more self and community-reliant and reduce excessive energy consumption via growing food locally, biking, passive solar design, wind and solar power, rainwater catchment, etc etc you get the picture.

Not so much on board with "biking" and "passive solar" and that sort of thing.

We don't believe in a fast crash die-off Olduvai cliff scenario. We don't believe that 70-90% of the world's population will suddenly die in the next 10-20 years.

I believe it.

We don't believe that Peak Oil will lead to a complete and sudden collapse of the world's agricultural and transportation systems, leading to wide scale starvation.

It's not the lack of oil that will cause the starvation - it'll be the societal chaos that ensues when it's finally understood that we're falling off the oil production cliff.
Think about it.

A child starves every 3 seconds on earth. Whoops, there goes one.
So, if that's the case when oil is still plentiful, transportation is great, and agricultural has never been better, what will happen when diesel is 20 bucks a gallon and there is fighting in the streets of every major city in the world?

We don't believe that the only people to stand a chance in this fast crash are those who live in rural enclaves, preferably in a "doomstead" with plenty of land. We think its way way more complicated than that.

This is too broad. Nobody believes this, so it doesn't help to distinguish you.

We believe that arming oneself to the teeth in preparation for some mythic attack by the zombies (aka Timmy your hungry twelve year old neighbor) is ridiculous.

This appears to be an anti-gun statement.
If you don't own a shot gun, a rifle, and a handgun, then it's just anti-gun rhetoric. If you do, then I'm not sure what your point is.

I know there are a lot of folks here who fall into the fast crash camp- and they are quite vocal. But I think there are plenty of us moderates- and they don't talk as much. Let's hear from you.

I'd like to hear from everybody - it's always interesting to hear the theories.

Maybe we can get Mos to come in and call you a denier for having a different opinion.

[thuja]

I think anyone who is 100% certain of the way this will unfold is a fool. I think it's possible to be a peak oil moderate but not completely close off the possibility of both fast-crash scenarios and something resembling technofix steady-state.

So if you leave open maybe a 10% chance of fast-crash and a 10% chance of technofix, then maybe you will want to hedge your bets rather than putting all your chips on a slow-crash power-of-community scenario.

Sure- a meteor could hit tomorrow. I give everything a realm of possibility. But I certainly won't spend time prepping for a fast crash. Frankly, if that really happens, all bets are off...

[thuja]

We don't believe in a fast crash die-off Olduvai cliff scenario. We don't believe that 70-90% of the world's population will suddenly die in the next 10-20 years.

I believe it.

Then you- are a fast crasher.

[eastbay]

Like the Boy Scouts say: Be prepared.
And as others say: Prepare for the worst and it shouldn't happen.

Mos is right. We have no idea what's going to occur. But no matter what occurs it ain't going to be very pretty. And it's now underway. So we'll all find out soon enough.

[davep]

Not so much on board with "biking" and "passive solar" and that sort of thing.

Do you actually know anything about passive solar house design? Because if you did, I'm not sure how you can't be 'on-board' with it.

[Dr. Ofellati]

Not so much on board with "biking" and "passive solar" and that sort of thing.

Do you actually know anything about passive solar house design? Because if you did, I'm not sure how you can't be 'on-board' with it.

We've been down this road before.

Windows leach more heat than well-insulated walls by a lot.

Unless you have a system that has a movable insulation barrier, putting more windows in a house will not make it warmer. Most passive solar systems I have seen amount to a house with a lot of window area to "capture" sunlight when it would have been easier, cheaper, and more effective to simply put a wall there with a small window in it.

In the end, we're all just going to be hot in the summer and/or cold in the winter, depending on your climate.

[Dr. Ofellati]

We don't believe in a fast crash die-off Olduvai cliff scenario. We don't believe that 70-90% of the world's population will suddenly die in the next 10-20 years.

I believe it.

Then you- are a fast crasher.

Agreed. But what this means is that the list of 1-7 is non-distinguishing.

The only thing that matters is whether (tips hat to Mos) you are in denial about how bad humans will treat each other when it becomes clear we're running out of oil.

Applying the Mos theorem, there are two positions:

People who understand that there will be a fast crash, and,
Deniers.

[davep]

Not so much on board with "biking" and "passive solar" and that sort of thing.

Do you actually know anything about passive solar house design? Because if you did, I'm not sure how you can't be 'on-board' with it.

We've been down this road before.

Windows leach more heat than well-insulated walls by a lot.

Unless you have a system that has a movable insulation barrier, putting more windows in a house will not make it warmer. Most passive solar systems I have seen amount to a house with a lot of window area to "capture" sunlight when it would have been easier, cheaper, and more effective to simply put a wall there with a small window in it.

In the end, we're all just going to be hot in the summer and/or cold in the winter, depending on your climate.

Decently designed passive solar houses have a kind of south facing buffer zone, with windows, and walls behind them to absorb the heat. This, coupled with decent shutters enables heat capture in winter.

The simple expedient measure of putting a ledge above the south-facing windows avoids direct insolation in summer. You need to read a bit more, methinks.

When you couple this with the likes of straw bale design, using high internal thermal mass (from clay, for example) to de-phase the midday sun, and ventilating the house by opening windows at night, you also have a house which stays cool in summer. And a relatively cheap one at that (straw bale can also build structural walls that support the roof, even in earthquake-prone areas - they have been accepted in California).

[Ludi]

I'm prepared for a semi-fast-crash or a slow crash, so I reckon you can label me whatever. I can't make plans for all contingencies (for instance, I can't live in urban and rural locations simultaneously).

[davep]

I'm prepared for a semi-fast-crash or a slow crash, so I reckon you can label me whatever. I can't make plans for all contingencies (for instance, I can't live in urban and rural locations simultaneously).

I'm just being curious here, but what contingency would require you to live in an urban and rural location simultaneously?

[Dr. Ofellati]

Decently designed passive solar houses have a kind of south facing buffer zone, with windows, and walls behind them to absorb the heat. This, coupled with decent shutters enables heat capture in winter.

The simple expedient measure of putting a ledge above the south-facing windows avoids direct insolation in summer. You need to read a bit more, methinks.

Not unless there's something new to read.

Show me a house in Vermont where passive solar reduces heating bills by more than 10% over a house with no windows where the passive solar is brought in but has 3" of uninterrupted poly U instead, and I'll read.

Until then, it's mostly hokum.

[Ludi]

I'm just being curious here, but what contingency would require you to live in an urban and rural location simultaneously?

To be prepared for all possible outcomes, I'd need to live in an urban area because likely only urban areas will receive aid from the state (due to larger population), and I'd need to live in a rural area to escape the mass rioting and bloodshed of the cities when they run out of supplies.

[davep]

Decently designed passive solar houses have a kind of south facing buffer zone, with windows, and walls behind them to absorb the heat. This, coupled with decent shutters enables heat capture in winter.

The simple expedient measure of putting a ledge above the south-facing windows avoids direct insolation in summer. You need to read a bit more, methinks.

Not unless there's something new to read.

Show me a house in Vermont where passive solar reduces heating bills by more than 10% over a house with no windows where the passive solar is brought in but has 3" of uninterrupted poly U instead, and I'll read.

Until then, it's mostly hokum.

I'm sorry, but what's Poly U? Are you talking about some kind of light tunnel from the roof? Or a passive thermal collector?

And who wants to live in a house with no windows?!

And what would the walls be made from in these houses? How do you propose to dephase the heat, whilst also ventilating the house? A properly designed straw bale house doesn't need mechanical ventilation, as the walls 'breathe' whilst also providing exceptional insulation. The whole lot can be recycled too, at the end of the life of the house (which can be 100 years).

[davep]

I'm just being curious here, but what contingency would require you to live in an urban and rural location simultaneously?

To be prepared for all possible outcomes, I'd need to live in an urban area because likely only urban areas will receive aid from the state (due to larger population), and I'd need to live in a rural area to escape the mass rioting and bloodshed of the cities when they run out of supplies.

Hmmm. I think you're possibly better off just doing what you're doing now, and ignoring the more strident commentators on here.

[Ludi]

Hmmm. I think you're possibly better off just doing what you're doing now, and ignoring the more strident commentators on here.

I don't ignore them - they amuse me!

http://peakoil.com/open/bold-predictions-t48365.html

When the Zombies come to eat my brain, no doubt I'll be saying to myself "I guess I shouldn't have laughed at those paranoid loons after all!"

[Dr. Ofellati]

I'm sorry, but what's Poly U? Are you talking about some kind of light tunnel from the roof? Or a passive thermal collector?

And who wants to live in a house with no windows?!

Jeez dude, polyurethane. It's a standard foam insulation.

I'm not saying no windows.

What I'm saying is this . . . passive solar is usually a euphemism for "lots and lots of windows." Rather than have a "passive solar" system, it's much simpler, cheaper, and easier to just have a lot fewer windows.

A 2x4x8' wall, 20 feet long with a staggered stud design and two inches of polyurethane and a 3x4 or 3x5 window is cheap and easy to build and can be heated with a candle.

Take that same wall and put in 100 square feet of southern facing windows and you jack the price by a huge amount and generate huge heat loss through the glass.

But you've made my point. By saying, "who wants to live in a house with no windows," what you're really doing is acknowledging that passive solar is really a way to continue to have cheap-oil sized windows on houses as oil gets more expensive. Won't work.

If it will work, show me the house in Vermont.

The future of homes is not passive solar. The future of homes is smaller homes with fewer windows.