[MikeinNeb]

I see this as by far the biggest issue of the future. And I see it as an issue my grandchildren will begin to be confronted with in their lifetimes. Just how does anything in today’s world get made without fossil fuels? How does modern society itself function without fossil fuels? All these “alternative energy” systems that are being proposed and/or dabbled with; None of them can be manufactured and implemented without fossil fuels. And wind mills and solar panels will never power cities, or steel mills, or Tesla’s battery manufacturing plant, or anything with a high, concentrated energy demand. I can envision an “alternate modern” society, who’s energy utilization is completely tied to the grid. A grid fed primarily by nuclear power and dedicated to manufacturing, (steel mills and electronics) an electrified rail network for transportation, biodiesel production for grain farming and construction, and lights, water, sanitation, and heat for high occupancy urban areas. But right now, that’s just me writing “science fiction”, no society is thinking about this at all, except possibly China. I don’t see how society in the U.S. doesn’t just disintegrate. It’s obvious from human nature that the U.S. won’t just calmly and orderly take on the lifestyle of the Amish.

[Cog]

Do you have the faintest knowledge of how much coal China uses to fuel its economy? Come back when you can talk about it. Yes we understand you wish to bash the USA for its coal consumption. I get it. But do some basic research on who uses the most coal in the world before you embarrass yourself further.

[dolanbaker]

Given enough time, it is possible to build out an entirely fossil fuel free power generating system.
It is important to remember that 130 years ago there were no electricity generating stations at all (excluding the odd home hobbyist), no mass production, etc etc

The first thing that would need to be done is to eliminate the "consumerism" than encourages extreme levels of waste, this would need to be in tandem with a re-evaluation of the concept of work, as eliminating consumerism will also eliminate all the jobs that depend on it.

Consumerism was created to provide work for the masses as well as controlling the money supply trickle up system( or is that the other way round).

Sort out consumerism and the "work ethic" and then we would need far less energy to live a useful life and all of this would be generated using renewables.

[MikeinNeb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

[MikeinNeb]

Cog; How about if I just stay around and you leave? ..... If you can't handle the discussion, then just stick to watching "The Walking Dead" and leave the thinking to other people...

[MikeinNeb]

http://www.atimes.com/article/china-to- ... s-by-2025/

So now that "Cog's commentary" can be ignored, back to the discussion for everyone else....

[Cog]

Cog; How about if I just stay around and you leave? ..... If you can't handle the discussion, then just stick to watching "The Walking Dead" and leave the thinking to other people...

I can handle facts. Can you? Which country in the world uses the largest amount of coal to power its economy? I will start slow so you can catch up. LOL

You sound like a sock-puppet account. Forget to log out of your other account?

Did you know that China imports more oil per day than the USA?

See Mike, its facts like these which suggest a different narrative than the USA collapse you are so desperately seeking.

China surpassed the United States in annual gross crude oil imports in 2017, importing 8.4 million barrels per day (b/d) compared with 7.9 million b/d for the United States.

At roughly 4 times the population of the USA, and with a lot less domestic oil production and less arable land, I would say if you are looking at collapse you should look at China.

[MikeinNeb]

You Moron, I mean "Dear Cog"... the discussion is about "Post Fossil Fuel Manufacturing". Are we in the "Post Fossil Fuel" era yet? Don't feel rushed.... I'll give you time..... The correct answer is "No". This discussion isn't about how energy is used NOW, except for preparing in how it will be used in the FUTURE. You are 2 for 2 on looking stupid. Maybe get back to watching Power Rangers?

[Cog]

I have already explained that in a post fossil fuel environment, that the USA will fare much better than almost any other country in the world. The reasons should be obvious to the informed. Please switch back to your regular account. Talking to a sock puppet account is so confusing.

I hope shorty is not enlisting you former ETP'ers to spout his usual narrative of doom. If you see him tell him to pay off his wagers. Thanks.

[MikeinNeb]

"Cog", You haven't explained anything, nor in any way whatsoever contributed to a discussion on the subject of the post. All you've done is rant generalities about the here and now, with the typical Ad Hominem attacks by people in over their heads (Google it...), along with some babbling about "wagers"..... Was the shuttle bus not running to the dog track today? And they've blocked you from accessing porn at the home, so what are you left to do??... pity....

So back to the subject. dolanbaker; I agree with you that that would be a solution, if Society/Humanity worked that way. But Society/Humanity doesn't work that way at all, especially the U.S. Wartime (a.k.a. WWII) is the only example I can think of where society truly went along with radical national efforts that were understood to be for the greater good. But the only way I see energy policy changing in the U.S. is when the prices go up. Right now natural gas is cheap and is supposedly going to stay that way for 86+ years. But it was $10+ per MCF just 10 years ago. If it was $10 per MCF now, then all these peaking plants will be to expensive to run, and all the "wind turbine energy" that these peaking plants provide cover for will be shown to have been a waste of money. (Chasing the wind so to speak...) All that time and investment will have been wasted on an energy infrastructure that is unsustainable. Again, how do we run a steel mill and power a city with no fossil fuels?

[Cog]

You do realize that humans have been forging metals and smelting ores, including iron, long before the first drop of oil was produced and the first watt of electricity was generated?

[Ibon]

It's the scale of humanity to be maintained not the availability of technology without fossil fuels. Try feeding 7 billion without fossil fuels. That has always been the fundamental argument around peak oil.

This does not mean by any means however that we collapse following precipitous declines in fossil fuels. Correction does not mean collapse as long as it can be drawn down through generations until some new equilibrium can be reached.

This is just a reminder of what we have been discussing here for a couple of decades.

For me the argument of all out collapse is dead. Correction however is inevitable.

[Newfie]

Cog a point that there are still vast quantities of fossil fuel left to be unearthed. But that would release much more destruction upon the Earth and consequently upon humans. The easy stuff has been got and is going away.

It’s not just manufacturing it’s also agriculture, plastics, and transportation.

Most of the world’s calories are being moved from a growing region to a consumption region. That transport is now unbelievably efficient. It won’t stay that way forever. We could return to coal fired shipping, but again that just amps up climate change.

I think the OPs question is a good one, but one that is very difficult to answer and that is likely different for different regions. AND, when things get really short the shooting will begin. Yet another massive disruptor.

[MikeinNeb]

Obviously the "Village Blacksmith/Amish Society Scenario" is not maintaining modern society. But it is a scenario where you are back to being close to a "Closed Cycle" in your energy usage. And I do get that fossil fuels will never "run out", they will just become more scarce and more expensive to where their usage to support the 1st world's "quality of Life" is first curtailed, then evaporates. (At least if you aren't rich.) There is always going to be fighters and bombers and missiles. But a twilight Nebraska sky with a dozen passenger jets to count at once? Nope. Jet fuel prices actually don't have to increase "that much" to throw all the airlines current business models out the window. Just this year's cost increases are causing some "low cost" airlines to shut down. I see in the future a country's power in the world being tied to how much of their population that they can maintain at a "quasi" 21st century lifestyle utilizing non fossil fuel energy. I see that happening over the same amount of time that we are from WWII. How many jobs, manufacturing, housing, transportation, etc. can be powered by nuclear powerplants and hydroelectric dams? If New York City was plugged into a half dozen nuclear power plants, would they even notice the "Apocalypse" everywhere else? I see that happening over the same amount of time that we are from WWII. That's another thing to add to my original China comment. All these "Ghost Cities" that they've built, that are actually slowly filling up. One major purpose they serve is to relocate their poor rural population to dense urban areas. That is a radical change and I'll add it to the list of ways I believe China is preparing to be in a position to dominate a "fossil fuel poor" world.

[Cog]

You think putting people in cities is a solution to a fossil fuel poor world? You really need to think about that approach. The future, in the peak oil sense, is rural agrarian. The cities will be tombs.

[MikeinNeb]

I think the only post fossil fuel future that will still looks somewhat like the 21st Century will be Cities fed by a non-fossil fuel grid. I think China is thinking that. With their building "Ghost Cities", planning the construction of dozens of nuclear powerplants, and connecting them all with thousands of miles of new electrified rail lines. That vs. a return to the mid 1800's rural agrarian.....

[KaiserJeep]

Ibon is correct, the correction for overshoot is inevitable, the loss of technology is simply not happening.

I understand the "World Made By Hand" meme, but that is not at all realistic. Technology today is not at all dependant upon massive large scale manufacturing. The craftsmen of today use CNC (Computer Numeric Controls), 3D digital printers, and all manner of digital power tools to create small production run items in great variety. I myself created limited production large computers using programmable "smart parts" that once programmed, became ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits).

Each one of you who even owns a smart phone or tablet has more computing power than was required to journey to the moon, and it's not necessary to replace those things with new models very often, either. I hang on to my digital devices for probably three times as long as the average consumer, simply because I understand how digital devices evolve over time, and don't spend money on insignificant advances.

In the future your handheld devices are likely to evolve less rapidly, be more tolerant of abuse, and have easily replaceable batteries. Inevitably, they will cost more when not produced in millions of units - but you need never be without network access, either.

Were we to abandon the network today, half the world would starve, and lots of energy - far more than is consumed by that network - would be consumed moving paper messages around.

Stop for one moment and appreciate how dependant upon the network we are, and what a productivity enhancer it is. It's not going away.

[MikeinNeb]

I agree that manufacturing will continue, but several orders of magnitude lower than what exists now. Countries/"City-States" that can maintain forms of mass-production will be in positions of power. And I personally agree with Robert Gordon on the overstate value of the latest digital technology, such as hand-held devices. His position is that these "technology advances" over the past decade is mostly just entertainment. Example; My wife's I-phone, which can navigate and land a lunar module, is primarily used to play Candy Crush.

[Ibon]

Example; My wife's I-phone, which can navigate and land a lunar module, is primarily used to play Candy Crush.

I can sum up the whole digital age with a simple statement. As the devices get more powerful the users become more stupid.

[Newfie]

I still think it’s all way to complicated to suss out in any detail.

Defining a timeline is helpful, instead of saying “from WWII” can we say “2100”? About the same.

About China, they have 1/4 the aerable land of India. They are playing a very dangerous game with food. Not in a position to look up a lot of stats but China is a good poor nation and anything that disturbs the globa food distribution will effect the greatly.

IPhones May be primarially entertainment but they bring $$$ to China and SE Asia to buy food. When that trade is disrupted, for whatever reason, China will be in desperate shape. What they decide to do about that is a huge question.

Bith an agrian society or mega farming can work in this relative short term. What really matters is how the farmers are treated, do they still have a profit incentive, and does food distribution continue or will food be hoarded? As the world stands today there are few calorie exporting countries of significance, the USA being #1. I’m talking basic food stuffs; grains. Can’t be tracked by dollars, needs to be tracked by calories. (Thanks Tanada). I think Argentina and Brazil are also exporters. That puts us in a good position.

The rest of the world is in a poor position. The UK has far less aerable land per person than China. They are extreamly dependent on a global economy and transportation links. So when you kick out any one leg of the economic supports, for the UK or most countries, it’s likely to have ramifications in other areas. Trumps soy tariffs on China will be interesting to watch. Right now China is buying soy from Argentina and Brazil, but they don’t have enough surplus to fill the USA gap. That makes China even more dependent on manufacturing to prop up food imports.

As the world winds down these factors, along with many others, will come into play. How it all works out is anyone’s guess.