[dolanbaker]

I posted this in Oilfinders fantasy thread, but I think it deserves its own.

Take heart, before 1850, or 1750 if you prefer, humans lived and laughed and loved. They had lives filled with joys and sorrows, triumphs and defeats, all without the 'benefit' of fossil fuels impacting their lives in any measurable way. 300 years from now the same thing will be true.

True, but the decline may take a lot longer than many here expect as it is becoming clearer that the strategy to mitigate the oil supply predicament is to: -
a, continue to improve efficiency in oil consuming machinery (transportation)
b, Improving Insulation of buildings
c, substitution of oil for other fuels wherever possible, in other words only use oil when high energy density is needed
These things are being done now and in the future, social pressure will begin to be exerted to encourage people to live such that they do not need to make unnecessary car journeys.

I suspect that substitution will allow a car-centric economy to continue as it is for another decade or so while other uses of oil (home heating for example) will disappear completely.
One thing is certain though, fuel of all types will remain expensive or will never be cheaper than it is now ever again.

The real fun will begin when there are insufficient substitute fuel to replace the dwindling oil supply, then the real collapse will begin.

[Pops]

There's substitution and there's replacement.
Substitution being putting one thing in another things' place
Replacement being changing the "place" altogether.

So off the top of my head, you send in a substitute for a classroom teacher who is ill - but you replace the classroom altogether with Khan Academy.

Or, you don't improve MPG or even carpool or mass transit in order to keep going, you stop going.

I think we will replace FFs but not by finding substitutes. Not next week of course but eventually. That is the big difference between the technotopian and the doomer, the TT expects things to stay the same - just with a different nameplate, the doomer thinks they won't.

[AgentR11]

A collapse event may or may not happen, Pops periodically references a sort of ceiling to what people will pay, and at a certain point, the consumption falls much more rapidly than the decline in supply, causing a follow on crash in price.

Really hard to predict past such points, does the price crash bankrupt producers of expensive alternatives? Do government mandates prop up alt demand even in face of briefly cheaper oil?

I'm honestly quite reassured by the market response from 2009-today. Its a harsh type of powerdown, but it is real, and effective. Each step function like "crash", resets people's concepts about value vs cost. Is it really necessary to drive to your mechanics job 4 miles down the road? Do I need a car to get a cheeseburger? In 1980, you couldn't even conceive of saying "no" to those. Today... the story is changing, though still moving with substantial inertia in old patterns. I still don't see anyone other than myself biking to the gym, but I routinely see biking to work by people with blue color jobs generally.

The real concern though is in those brief intervals that the step function.. steps. Maybe the economy resets well each time with few jobs/capita and more efficiency, or maybe it finally breaks?? I dunno. It seems like a lot of our fate hangs in the balance of the Fed not making an error at a fast moving point. That's a lot of power and responsibility for a few mostly nameless suits...

[dolanbaker]

There's substitution and there's replacement.
Substitution being putting one thing in another things' place
Replacement being changing the "place" altogether.

Yes, that appears to be the way things are going, currently we are going through the substitution phase and when that is unable to "keep the show on the road" we will move into the "jettisoning surplus load" phase.

Realistically, only the more prosperous western nations have such loads that can be dropped without harming basic quality of life. But having said that, for many people it will just mean less freedom to drive for that 100 mile dress or whatever.

[peterjames]

People may have lived, laughed and loved in the 1850's, but a large percentage of the worlds population at the time, would have been able to walk a few hundred metres to see land that would support crops or animals that would supply them food. Or be within a few hundred metres of an animal that would assist them in transport or food production. I live in a city of 1.5 million people, dont own a cow or a horse, and yet cant think of any land within 40 kilometres of my house that would be able to support me and my family. I just have to hope that the other 1,499,996 people who live in my city dont want to fight for life, for I might have walk 80 kilometres each way each day to attend my crops (will have to learn to laugh whilst I walk, and hope the missus likes it on top as I will be too buggered for the loving bit).

Cant imagine how far cities with 10 to 15 million people will have to spread out to be able to survive.

[dashster]

Take heart, before 1850, or 1750 if you prefer, humans lived and laughed and loved.

In 1750 the world population is estimated to have been 700 million to 824 million people.
In 1850 the world population is estimated to have been from 1.2 to 1.265 billion people.
In 2014 the world population is estimated to be 7.153 billion people.
In 2050 the world population is projected to be 9.149 to 9.352 billion people.

In 1750 the US population is estimated to have been 1,170,760.
In 1850 the US population is estimated to have been 23,191,876.
In 2013 the US population is estimated to be 317,774,000.
In 2060 the US population is projected to be 420,268,000.

[Loki]

There's substitution and there's replacement.
Substitution being putting one thing in another things' place
Replacement being changing the "place" altogether.

Yes, that appears to be the way things are going, currently we are going through the substitution phase and when that is unable to "keep the show on the road" we will move into the "jettisoning surplus load" phase.

We've already entered the latter phase. Vehicle miles traveled per capita in the US:


I believe this trend is primarily a result of demand destruction.

Only significant "substitution" I'm aware of is NG for coal in electricity production in the US due to (temporary) low price of NG.

Whatever growth in renewables we've seen here has not substituted for any existing electricity generation (i.e., no coal/NG plants have gone offline because of wind/solar).

Liquid fuel substitution has been marginal/irrelevant depending on what EROEI one assigns to corn ethanol (probably a wash).

In short, I'm not seeing any significant "substitution," just demand destruction in the first world. That's probably how it's going to go from here on out.

[dolanbaker]

The principal substitution that appears to be happening is the replacement of home heating oil with gas or electricity and in Germany they replaced nuclear with brown coal in some places.

[Pops]

Good.

So do we classify energy efficiency improvements for example as substitutions or replacements?

On the one hand we are not substituting one fuel for another but we are substituting one technology for another: furnace | insulation.

[Tanada]

Good.

So do we classify energy efficiency improvements for example as substitutions or replacements?

On the one hand we are not substituting one fuel for another but we are substituting one technology for another: furnace | insulation.

After thinking about it for a few minutes I would say to me efficiency improvements are substituting use with non-use. You are taking something that was easy and convenient and replacing it with something that is difficult and inconvenient, which is the same thing that happens when you substitute walking to the market 10 blocks away or driving your car those 10 blocks and back. You still accomplish the same task, but not as you would have in the past.

For replacement I think of it as still doing exactly the same things as before, but using a different energy source to do it. Installing solar panels and using electric baseboard heat instead natural gas in the spring and fall is using a replacement. Turning the heat down and hyper insulating is a substitution.

Not saying which is better, I think we need to use every option at our disposal.

[Paulo1]

This 'substitution' aspect is pervasive.

We have stopped almost all frivilous driving in our house, and when we do use a vehicle because we want to it is noticed that we are doing so. I always use a bike for scooting around. For example, I needed some oyster shells for my chickens. The neighbour has some piles of them dumped in the bush about 1/2 mile away. In years past I would have taken the truck or tractor down to get some. Yesterday, I grabbed a 5 gallon bucket and got them with my bike. It was faster, anyway. I could simply scoot around a gate rather than the hassle of of opening, etc. I filled some gas cans the other day from some jerry cans we filled in town. Now, I pour the fuel in like it was gold and didn't spill a drop. Years ago I use to spray aircraft engines with gas filled fruit sprayers to get the oil off and would mix gas and detergent with hot water to have them washed. It wouldn't even cross my mind to do so these days.I couldn't believe this was common practice but we did it because we didn't know any better.

Paulo

[Ibon]

Take heart, before 1850, or 1750 if you prefer, humans lived and laughed and loved.

In 1750 the world population is estimated to have been 700 million to 824 million people.
In 1850 the world population is estimated to have been from 1.2 to 1.265 billion people.
In 2014 the world population is estimated to be 7.153 billion people.
In 2050 the world population is projected to be 9.149 to 9.352 billion people.

In 1750 the US population is estimated to have been 1,170,760.
In 1850 the US population is estimated to have been 23,191,876.
In 2013 the US population is estimated to be 317,774,000.
In 2060 the US population is projected to be 420,268,000.

See Peterjames comments above and now look at these numbers. There are roughly 5 billion humans in the same predicament as Peterjames, living in urban areas with neither skills nor access to the environments that previously supported a dignified life in the 18th century.

This is our problem numero uno. How do we ethically and as painlessly as possible manage the population contraction as we reconfigure our global population to a greatly reduced energy usage.

For what we do not manage ethically will be managed by the Overshoot Predator, a great friend of vultures and carrion flies.

[dashster]

This is our problem numero uno. How do we ethically and as painlessly as possible manage the population contraction as we reconfigure our global population to a greatly reduced energy usage.

I wonder how long before people actually see population growth as a negative. In the United States, a supposedly intelligent country, population growth is still seen as a positive - as part of the solution. With our birth rate at 2.1% or less since 1976 (save one year), immigration is the driver of our population growth. And yet, every CEO champions increasing the immigration of skilled college graduates and none call for any corresponding lowering of regular immigrants to make up for their favored increase. Almost every politician is on board with providing another amnesty for illegals (although they sneakily don't call it another amnesty). If Las Vegas were to have a way of wagering on when the United States would outlaw immigration, I couldn't place a bet because I won't live as long as I would expect it to last. United States Immigration is more than seen as part of the solution, it is a sacred cow, having been lionized for years to prevent those that suffer from its effects from complaining.

Although, population growth is seen as a positive while the elite and mainstream believe in the Peak Oil Denial Theory. Once that belief comes to an end from the inevitable production decline, things may change quickly. While promoting conservation and efficiency people may realize that limiting the total number of people involved also matters. But I think it is more likely it takes decades to change opinions.

[ennui2]

Some time back I actually saw the numbers on how much it costs for big ag to feed the world vs. more relocalized efforts and it was rather depressing. BAU exists because it's the cheapest, not because it's the most efficient. You'd think the two go hand in hand, but it doesn't, because EROEI is still firmly in fossil-fuel's favor. And fossil fuels would need to cost an immense amount more for the math to add up in favor of relocalization. There is just an economy of scale with those huge machines that can only be made up at the small-scale in human labor. But labor costs money. It's far better for a white-collar worker (like me) to make my white-collar salary in 40 hours a week of work and convert that into big-ag monoculture than it is to take myself out of the workforce and tend a small subsistence farm. The math doesn't work and therefore society grinds on where people pursue careers in "the system" which supplies them with the best standard of living as expressed in the supermarket checkout lane.