Ya know what's a little twisted? Whilst reading it I found myself almost relishing the challenge. The talk about strip malls, suburbia and chain stores being fundamentally flawed in the context of our ever decreasing oil reserves was strangely satisfying. And yes, I'm aware that I take part in all of the above on a daily basis. Comfortable though modern life is for the most part in countries like the US, it's an arguably somewhat unfulfilling existence. I like the last couple of lines about the long emergency having potential to bring about being part of an enterprise that really matters. I've often felt a twang of guilt about that when it comes to my own living as a video game developer.
My family have allready decided that we'd all move to Jura where my brother in law is from, a tiny island off the west coast of Scotland, If the shit truly starts to hit the proverbial in this world. Still, I guess other people will have similiar ideas!
Is this article about "peak oil," a theory involving the production of crude oil following a bell-curve (and the implications once that bell-curve dips down below a certain point)? I don't have the time to read the article right now, but if that's what it's about, I read about this a year or so ago.
My friends and I have had a number of drunken conversations on the subject (if that is indeed what the article is about, otherwise disregard what I'm rambling on about). It would be a disastrous situation, but maybe not the worst thing that could happen to humanity.
As much as I love running water, indoor plumbing, electric heating, etc, I've always felt that I was born about a century and a half too late. I know how to ferment alcohol, I know how to distill alcohol, and I know enough about construction with lumber to be able to build a rudimentary shanty; as long as I could gather the proper resources to take care of all of that, I'd be set.
Very interesting indeed. Quite interesting that he uses phrases like "saved the West ass", wich I find quite frankly a stupid thing to write when you are writing about a serious issue as such.
Also something like "Imagine Phoenix without cheap air conditioning" sounds dumb. That comment would only make sense if you are one of these people that live this wastefull lifestyle.
"Oh my god, imagene the winter in the alps without central heating - we are all going to die"
He also forgets that the concept for hydrogen energie ranges back to 1900 and has been in use since the 1950's by organisations like NASA. This technologie may have never hit the mass market due to the fear of oilcompanys but it is the biggest option. Due to the fact that this scenario is nothing new, companys like shell have and are slowly preparing this recource to be oilindependant.
Other than that I found it quite shocking yet a tad bit to simple to read. The explainations are to far fetched, and many of the outcomes he predicts are just assumptions based on a small amount of facts.
He kinda forgets that the US has been storing oil since the oilcrisis to compensate a situation like that on a short term.
He also forgets that there is an army that in a situation like that would forcefully inforce law and order.
Still some interesting thoughts he throughs at us.
But I love reading scenarios like that. It's just like the fact that Apache pilots in the 80's where trained to fight on european battlegrounds due to the scenario of russia falling into europe.
Another quite funny scenario is to enforce the european borders to the south, as some militarys propagate, to fight off a possible "invasion" from africa due to the africans beeing so poor (I wonder why ,_o) and suddenly deciding to gang up all over africa and attack europe.
... all bullshit, just have to decide for yourself
all i know it that i'd be screwed if society 'collapsed' in any way..
I'm dependent on the economy to drive companies to produce the insulin i need to live.
..
and to make matters worse, all us hot-rodders would be screwed out of a good time.
Ah yes, 'that' article. This was posted at work a month or so ago and generated a collection of mostly unhelpful opinions. As depressing as it is, I think it is partly alarmist be default of it not offering any solutions.
I'm a great admirer of those willing and able to go beyond defining a problem to the stage where they define some solutions. My point being that its an easier thing to point to a problem than it is to point to a solution.
It was pointed out by Lennon that there are no problems only solutions, but then again he also said, when part of the collective, that all you need is love, and that has been rebutted by the retort of ' have you tried paying the rent with it', which I always liked
I car pool with my wife, we drive very little, but in a culture that has drive through banking under the obviously false pretense that 'americans are more busy' ( well thats an explanation ive been given more than once! ), I doubt my wife and I are signficantly counterbalancing the scales.
With other countries such as China catching up with America's gross overconsumption of fuel, this is clearly becoming more of a problem when taken in hand with the sheer level of intimidation endorsed by the fossil fuel industries representatives in regards to those that come up with alternatives ( SHUT THAT GUY UP QUICK!).
Perhaps it is naive of me, but I can't picture the world being unalterably screwed in the method this article supposes as I've lived through too many media scares that amounted to nothing.
Regardless of my gut feelings, the situation worries me; hell people as a whole scare me shitless in regards to their simpleminded willingness to simply beleive what they are told and unwillingness to take responsbility for their actions so I likewise find it easy to beleive in the possibility of massively climactic changes being possible due to our societies backward attidues.
I just can't find any instance in history where our attitudes as a whole have been anything other than utterly moronic and due to that I beleive in our ability to find a way to continue our stupidity despite this article pointing towards the opposite being true.
Don't worry, we'll never run out of energy, we'll keep finding ways to make more of it (hydrogen fuel, Fusion, etc) We could even learn to use the power that makes the earth's core hot. We'll run out of Food and space first. Just because you can go to McDonald's and get 2 double cheese burgers, fries and a drink for 5.99 doesn't mean we aren't going to starve to death. If anything, to shows how much we are consuming needlessly. We are going to have way more people then we can feed, and within a dozen generations we'll just run out of space to keep them.
David Suzuki explained it this way:
Lets say there is a vial, and a cell in it. The vial is completely filled with space and every minute, the cells divid.
At 1 minute you'd have 2 cells, At 2 minutes 4 cells, then at 3 minutes 8 cells. Etc.
This keeps going on till about the vial is 25% filled. Lets say at around 58 minutes. If a cell in vial said, we're going to run out of space! With a whooping 75% of the vial still empty they'd think he's crazy. Absolutely nuts. Then the next minute rolls around and all the cells divid, and you get 50% of the vial filled. Thats half of the maxium amount of space in the vial at 59 minutes. Now that's alot of breathing room, 50% is pretty impressive and alot of space and food for everyone. Again all the cells divid and at 60 minutes, the whole vial is filled. No one saw it coming. All the space is being used. There are no more untapped resources. All the cells die.
Now lets say at the 60th minute, a hole new vial was introduced. The same about as the first vial. At the 61th minute both the first vial and the second vial are completely filled. It would take another 2 vials to support the 62th population. Etc.
Now think of each minute as afew generations. With people living longer, consuming more then others, having large familes it pretty much plays like that in the world right now. We'll run out of space and food Long before we'll ever have to worry about using all our planet's energy. And the worst part is, we wont even realize it until the 59th minute and by then it's too late.
This isn't make believe, this proven natural fact, animal populations function similar to this. When they hit 59 minutes they enter a mass death and then return to the first 5 minutes of the process. We'd like to pretend we are above nature, but everything about us comes from nature and we are natural. The ironic thing is are the hippies complaing about saving the whales and saving the planet. The planet will be here a long after we go extinct. When we kill all the cows in the world it's natural selection, when we die because we don't have any cows to eat it is population control. We are mostlikely well into the 59th minute within the coming generations and maybe in our life times the prospect of mass famine and over population will be real.
you do make a point sort of, but you're forgetting about the cells in your example dying and being removed from the vial, which happens here. generally, two people seem to have 2 kids on average i think. some families have 1, some families adopt, some families have 8, whatever. the population of your "vial" may double, but then the original cells would then die and make room for more cells.
I imagine a world not unlike that of MadMax...box of shotgun shells and a doublebarrel = my full tank of gas.
Frankly all life as we know it isnt going to just implode the day oil reaches 0. I for one am glad the oil is running out soon. Change can be good. I look forward to it.
*runs out and buys said shotgun+ shells, along with some hockey pads and a crossbow.
[ QUOTE ]
you do make a point sort of, but you're forgetting about the cells in your example dying and being removed from the vial, which happens here. generally, two people seem to have 2 kids on average i think. some families have 1, some families adopt, some families have 8, whatever. the population of your "vial" may double, but then the original cells would then die and make room for more cells.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's why the world's population isn't going to double next week. You forget that things that are instant in a natural sense take life times.
I think this chart clearly describles what I am talking about. In 45 years we could reach 9 billion people on this planet. Thats another 2.5 billion people. Can you even imagine how many people that is? Comparing today's population to 1900 C.E. That's incredible. From the people that are over 100 years old the world's population has Quadrupled! We might not have to worry about it now, but our grandchildren will.
Moz: what makes that graph is the font choice and treatment
scott: probably the most fun science fiction i've read since the Y2K hysteria, if not i suppose slightly more believable.
i think a lot of it is not alarmist, but a interestingly disguised set of romantic yearnings for a more authentic way of life. or something like that.
i also agree that he has a dim view of non-oil based fuel technologies. i think it's not so ridiculous to think that we could all be driving fuel cell cars now if there weren't so many deep pockets involved in the production and distribution of oil. under duress i think that fuel cell and other oil alternatives will become viable, he's a little too dismissive on that point.
what i can very much agree with though is the bit about railroads. in the early/mid 20th century we could have kept up our rails, but we've all but scrapped them in favor of a comparatively massively inefficient and costly trucking system. as the author rightly points out, railroads are far more cost effective and fuel efficient... and while he also makes a good point about the highway systems, our roads would last so, so much longer without maintenance if the big trucks weren't driving on them. that's what degrades them so quickly. it's something that my father has been very passionate about, how the decline of our rail system has been a serious problem.
anyway, yeah... whatever. bring it on. and keep building the gun collection!
Sure, ther are alternate energy sources. The mayor problem though is that we have to have those fully implemented and in place by the time the oil 'runs out' (or to be more precise, by the time it's too expensive to get the last dregs of oil out of the ground). That problem is compounded by the fact not only is the demand for oil ever increasing, but to change over, we need to pump a lot of that oil into the change-over process, too.
And not to mention the different things (like certain plastics and medication) which we can't make without oil.
Personally I wouldn't be worried, if it weren't for the fact that (appart from a token concept car here or there) we're doing jack shit to change our primary energy source infrastructure.
Ah, yes, the hydrogen myth. Saying we could use hydrogen instead of gas is like saying we could use batteries instead of power plants. There's only one way to get positive energy out of hydrogen and it involves hot fusion. I'm not fond of putting a thermonuclear reactor into my car, a car crash would wipe out half the country.
The main problem is the cars. Cutting down on the amount of gas used by cars (e.g. let americans pay as much for their gas as the rest of the world, perhaps double the price everywhere) would immediately increase the time we have left until production falls below consumption significantly.
Overall the US consumes too much oil, think about it: The USA with its 280M people consumes more than the PRC with over 1G people! *lookup* Okay, so the US also has three times the per person consumption of the UK (Canada isn't much less guilty, twice UK levels). Imagine cutting the US's consumption to UK levels (per person of course, I don't expect a country of 280M to consume as much as one of 50M), suddently you have loads of additional oil and time to develop more oil-efficient systems until we can completely remove the oil from our economy.
All we can do is prolong the time we have and use it to reduce our usage more and more, there is no magical plan the hero can pull off that will save the world.
The article is a bit too US-centric for my tastes, though. Where I live public transport and especially the railroad system work pretty well. We're using moderate amounts of nuclear power (I heard France is using nuke plants almost exclusively...). Farmland production far outstrips consumption (apparently a common problem within the EU). Well, if you're starving, try buying some of those huge overstocks the EU has.
KDR makes a good point about the per-person consumption of resources, especially comparing Europe to the USA, and especially on the automobile front. I'm not quite sure what the statistics are, but I'm very sure that the USA could drastically cut fuel consumption by driving vehicles with more efficient engines.
Interesting article, much depends on the time scale, the world is driven by economics and as the scarcity of oil increases so will its price, this will force substitution of oil products with other materials. If this happens over a long enough timescale I think it would possible for humans to adapt. If the timescale is short then the problems would be pronounced (much as the author is describing it). I dont think we will run out of oil that quickly. The oil price has been on an upward trend for quite a while now, the focus on the source of oil has shifted to the middle east but as these stocks dwindle it will shift again, There are still large deposits in the former USSR region, and will be a major source of oil in years to come.
I dont agree with gauss about the authors dim view on replacement sources of energy, I think it has alot of merit. If you look at the current state of replacement for fossil fuel energy, there is hyrdroelectic wind solar and (a much lesser extent geothermal), the main problem with them is the amount of investment required (very high) with the return in energy (very low in comparison to fossil fuel). As the author mentioned the only viable source of energy apart from fossil is nuclear. Then there is a problem with sustainability of uranium supply compounded by the cost of a nuclear power plant compared to a oil or gas power plant, not to mention any of the environmental concerns that go along with nuclear energy. The only time renewable energy research will ever get any serious thought is when the price of oil is too high and who will decide when its too expensive and will it be too late?
What will be interesting is how we will adapt. As the oil shortage increases oil producing nations will export less, governments would have to enforce this, if they didnt thier local economies would collapse. This alone would cause a big shift in the balance of econmic power, countries that are large manufacturers but are net oil importers will find thier economies disappear.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so whats gonna happen to the entertainment industry?
[/ QUOTE ]
If things go bad, it'll be one of the first to go (or shrink alot) i think.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the entertainment industry has done well historically when the economy is really poor. People use entertainment as an escape to forget about how bad shit really is.
While a bit fatalistic, the article sure sums up a lot of not so distant problems we are going to face. The only solution is (in my opinion) nuclear power (for energy) and biotech (for carbonhydroxy based chemestry).
"Renewable" energy sources (like wind power and solar energy) are are actually a completely wrong concept (and I find it frightening how enviromentalists can actually support it unquestioned), since you are "stealing" the energy from the enviroment. Noone knows what happens if you cut off the incoming energy of the sunlight that hits the ground, and convert it into electric energy and transfer it to a completely different part of the world (!on a large scale!) and the same is true for wind energy. It could actually very well lead to a enviromental desaster.
Nuclear Fission would be nice of course, but who knows if it will ever work on a production scale.
Last but not least, nuclear power and biotech are the two industries that are constantly blockaded by enviromentalists and politics here in Germany, but they are actually the most enviroment friendly inventions and basicly our only hope for a high living standart in the future The amount of stupidity in that regard (here in Germany) would be almost funny if it wasn't so sad... but hey, as soon as I am done with my studies, I will leave this sinking ship anyways...
[ QUOTE ]
All we can do is prolong the time we have and use it to reduce our usage more and more, there is no magical plan the hero can pull off that will save the world.
The article is a bit too US-centric for my tastes, though. Where I live public transport and especially the railroad system work pretty well. We're using moderate amounts of nuclear power (I heard France is using nuke plants almost exclusively...). Farmland production far outstrips consumption (apparently a common problem within the EU). Well, if you're starving, try buying some of those huge overstocks the EU has.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just prolonging the time isn't going to solve the problem at all, it might actually make it even worse since people will not notice the need to change that much until it is maybe too late (lost knowlegde and power to produce alternatives).
Oh and about the over production of food in the EU: as the article already states this is mostly based on 'oil energy' input like artificial fertilizers and other means of modern agriculture... this will almost instantly be done with as soon as oil becomes more expensive (already now most of the european farmers can hardly sustain a living, and with out gouvernment help it would look even worse).
You are right about the German railroad system though (right now), but if you read the article on SpiegelOnline yesterday, then you wouldn't be so optimistic. The German Railroad company is systematicly reducing and not repairing their railroad network in preparation for thier plans to enter stockmarket (to maximise profits in short term).
The article claims that biomass is equivalent to burining the oil instead of making fertilizers. In a closed system that would be true (laws of thermodynamics) but the plants get most of their energy from photosynthesis, the fertilizer is only a minor factor (energy wise) in the whole deal.
Cutting down on the amount of oil used for burning frees up ressources for other uses. Too short a time limit could destroy your "migration" plans, what if you need fifteen years to switch to a new power source but only have ten until oil demand outstrips supply on a large scale?
You are right about the German railroad system though (right now), but if you read the article on SpiegelOnline yesterday, then you wouldn't be so optimistic. The German Railroad company is systematicly reducing and not repairing their railroad network in preparation for thier plans to enter stockmarket (to maximise profits in short term).
Another reason I want the stock market outlawed or at least heavily crippled.
[ QUOTE ]
The article claims that biomass is equivalent to burining the oil instead of making fertilizers. In a closed system that would be true (laws of thermodynamics) but the plants get most of their energy from photosynthesis, the fertilizer is only a minor factor (energy wise) in the whole deal.
[/ QUOTE ]
In theory you are right about the plants and where the energy comes from, but there is the "hole in the barrel" problem (you cant fill a barrel higher than the lowest hole in it). Plants need nitrogen to grow, which is a limiting factor in nature (since it is really hard to use atmospheric N2, only a few symbiotic bacteria can do it).
Today Nitrate or other plant-usable nitrogen sources are produced on an industrial level as fertilizers, but it takes alot of energy to 'capture' the atmospheric N2. If that energy is not available than your food production will drop significiantly.
Other than that... todays modern agriculture is also dependant on large amounts of herbizides (as questionable as this is), which are often produced from oil, or at least somehow dependant on it... loose that, and you can't mass produce food either.
[ QUOTE ]
Cutting down on the amount of oil used for burning frees up ressources for other uses. Too short a time limit could destroy your "migration" plans, what if you need fifteen years to switch to a new power source but only have ten until oil demand outstrips supply on a large scale?
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you mean my migration plans out of Germany?
Of course you are right, and actually I am all for saving energy... the USA could very well cut back its energy use to european levels, and should do so. But if you start cutting back on energy use to a level where you artificially create a small but 'not so bad' energy shortage, then you might get the results mentioned above.
Someone, I think it was Glenn Beck had a great idea that Indians in the southwest site the smaller nuclear reactors on Tribal land, and generate revenue and income there (becase Uranium is also on Navajo and Hopi lands), and solve their economic problems becoming power producers. other tribes could set up similar situations. The reason for the tribal lands is that they can use their treaty powers to nullify a lot of regulation, and "studies", and get the plants up and running quick.
God is the world ending again? For as long as I could remember the world has been ending. It's like a bloody Mozart song, ya think it's over but it just keeps on ending.
The solution is simple -stop making more humans. ZPG! or better NPG.
Or even much better- http://www.vhemt.org/
Well, new crises sells papers and magazines. And books, which this article was condensed from.
My proposed solution to that problem requires two things: One, a US President who doesn't have familial ties to the American oil industry. Second (at least three years from now), said Prez needs to make the equivalent of Kennedy's 'Space Race' speech, and get everyone on board The Energy Race. Then we can have one of those they-said-it-was-impossible technology drives which would, I think, reach a plausible solution within ten years. Such things have been done before.
Only thing standing in the way now is a bunch of Bushes.
Gotta agree with jzero, to a certain extent. Thing is, the next gen of nuclear reactors (pebble beds etc...google it) are for all intents and purposes foolproof. Yeah, I know you heard it before, right before three mile island etc, but pebble beds and other designs are so constructed that the very laws of nature are used to stop a reaction if cooling is malfunctioning...think of it as a bike you stop pedaling...it's gonna run down: and the latest reactors will cool down before meltdown.
Then there's fusion. People are really down on this, ever since the rediculous claim of table top, room temperature nuclear fusion got fucked up. But the fact is that fusion with a positive efficiency is right around the corner. Problem is that it will take quite a bit of experimenting to do so. And by that I mean we need a large scale reactor built, to prove what has been observed in the labs.
But that reactor will take at least two decades to design and build...and add to that the same timespan to build a fusion reactor which actually works and provides enough power to be called a power station...and you're forty years on. 40 years on: past the point of no return: even the most positive (realistic) estimates put the point of peak oil at around 2040...which means that at the current investment in fussion, we'll be too late to have a viable energy source in fussion to negate the lack of oil. Plus these plants will not be portable (or car-bourne) in the least. Which means we'll have to rely on innefficient solar or wind power, to which a previous poster already replied that thne impact of using those is nknown.
So we have nuclear which isn't trusted, fussion which needs a grand investment, and even then won't be finished on time, or solar/wind whose effects (even with their horrendous efficiency) are unknown and pretty much not properly moddeled scientifically.
The most awfull thing abou this? The experts at meteriological institutes say we're probably too late to prevent the worst as it is (yeah, yeah...just wait until you're a third years applied physicist who understands enough of the math and physics to be unable to contradict the people who have spent most of their lives on such issues) and the physicists who show you that certain energy production methods just won't cut it (like wind [needs too many windmills and doesn't satisfy our energy needs in that the wind doesn't blow when we need energy] or solar [at the moment we getr 30% max efficiency, which translates to way too many solar pannels needed]) by quite simple mathematical and physical methods...you get to understand that if we do not start at this full scale RIGHT FUCKING NOW, it really will be too late to do anything about it.
I swear: when you get just the slightest clue as to how the physics work, you really wannna kill Bush. That C-student doens't even have a clue how badly he's screwing his kids overe [BTW: yup, kids. Shit, we'll see the effects...our grandkids better evolve gills].
Well, I'm gonna keep cycling to work, and I'm not going to have any kids. Hang on... isn't oil used in the production of latex... That might bugger up the second pledge.
Sadly I think most of us are more ready for this change and more apt to see it coming sooner than other nations in the world. China & India seem to be growing without any care to world resources. Who knows what China will do when it can't aquire what it needs thru peaceful means. Will it start to take things by force?
I agree and feel the same way that Daz did in his first post. Communities will become communities again, builders will no longer be able to build 100,000,000 houses in a row without thinking about other needs. Communities will need to be planned to be just that, a commmunity, not just a row of tightly packed houses. I think we will see older suburbs being flattened into newer more well planned communities. And as time goes on these new closer/tighter communities will become "the places" to live. Hopefully city planners will get a clue and stop selling lots of land to anyone with 5 bucks and McDonalds Francise coupon from a Big Mac.
I also found this site while looking around for info on the subject. http://www.endofsuburbia.com/
Both the article and site paint a picture that is pretty bleak, but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. As I read and find more, the paranoia is kicking in and find myself day dreaming about digging a bomb shelter. Before too long I might start wearing a snadwich board ringing a bell saying things like "THE END IS NEIGH!" I think its best if I stop reading...
You thought I was joking about the sailboat? Notice the pirate flag.
<----
Seriously, my gf and I always drive together. She has a Neon which is great on gas, her work commute is 5 minutes. I have a Chevy truck which I hardly ever drive. I think I purchased gas three days ago for the first time in 3 months. I really have no idea what the price of gas is, and I don't care. I'm planning to sell the truck and buy a motorcycle. I could probably spend $100 on gas a year if I try. And we're using 3 times more resources than we should according to a survey we took on Earth Day.
This is what gets me. The world is falling apart, and there's nothing I can do about it. When I pull up to an intersection, I watch SUV after SUV drive by all in a row. Each one of them only containing one person. That one person always on a cell phone, possibly eating McDonalds. And for each one, there are possibly three kids at home. Three! This sickens me. Are we so blind to think our "perfect" life holds no consequence for our future?
yes your right Elysium, it is kinda discouraging that you can´t really do anything about it but I try to at least live in a way that I can say it is not adding to the problem.
Or we could all just resign and start going insane
Sounds a bit "hip-hop" like the next sentence but I think it actually fits and sums it up in a short and fast way.
"Just stay real"
Motorcycles are great if you are gas conscious. I have a vehicle that can smoke any sports car on the road, 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, and I still get 40 mpg. Higher on the highways. It costs me seven USD to fill up on premium unleaded.
I was just told on Fri. by a local peace officer here that I was no longer allowed to ride my goped (www.goped.com) in town. I'll be mtn. biking it but the motorcycle option is looking pretty good.
You can't do the same sweet, sweet tricks on a motorcycle though
Great read Scott. I remember a global sciences teacher I had in high school who went on at length about pretty much exactly what was speculated about in the article.
People are generally pretty quick to dismiss it but our whole way of life is pretty much based on dwindling oil reserves and alternative means of energy seems like it's still at the talking stage. I'm off to go buy a hoe and a shotgun.
Sledgy? Why can't you ride your woman scooter, those things are great in the cities, though you look like a jackass on one of them when you're on the road next to 6 or 7 SUV's.
I'm working towards getting a motorcycle myself, though money is tight these days.
I wouldn't call it a "woman" scooter after I modded it to 5HP buddy! I like to think of it as a unisex vehicle - tough to pick up chicks on it though (unless they don't mind piggyback) Seriously though, it consumes about 2 cups of gasoline to get to work on where my truck requires about .25 - .5 gallons.
The funniest part is that when I'm on it around motorcyclists, they feel compelled to really wind up their engines and prove that they can be louder and faster. So I just rev it up right back - it's got this buzzsaw quality to the sound that will make the biggest burliest biker grimace.
This doesnt show BMWs new car (which is beyond cool by the way) and it seems to be slightly outdated but it should dispel some unfortunate misconceptions about hydrogen fuel
Its also an interesting watch if you were sleeping through 3rd grade science
They mention hydrogen fueling stations and last I heard places like Germany and California plan to have such stations every 10 or 100km (although the new stations are self-serve from what I saw) by 2010 and Im sure most countries/states will be close to follow once car manufactures and customers have these vehicles on the road.
Personally the next car I buy will be one using this technology.
If I can find the newer video Ill be sure to post it, but my point is that there is always someone painting a bleak picture and they are often the most outspoken, but the reality is often less sensational and because of that its also rarely heard.
Unfortunately the power usage of switching all cars to hydrogen will be enormous, I'm not sure they can fulfill those while switching off oil-based powerplants. OTOH powerplants have better (and costier) filters so at least they pollute the air less.
I think its important to understand that even though this article tries to make it sound like a crisis is around the corner that is simply not the case.
It was my understanding that with out current usage - which is extremely high - we would have another 50 years before things would have to change. I actually seem to recall it being 100 years (with current usage) before we physically ran out of the stuff, but regardless
This is also an interesting read if you want to find out more energy information about the worlds biggest oil consumer. I find it interesting that a mere 100 nuclear power plants provides the US with 20 percent of its electric power (and its important to note: none run at capacity).
Those 100 nuclear power plants were built sometimes between 1945 and 1970 (when they stopped building them). Thats just 25 years (probably more realistically between 1955/65 and 1970 - I dont know when nuclear power came into play).
So its not unreasonable to assume that in the next 25 years the US could build another 100 nuclear power plants accounting for 40 percent of its electric needs, and thats without any of them running at capacity.
Now thats electric power which is used in the production of hydrogen
Replies
Parable of the Sower.
Parable of the Talents.
Ya know what's a little twisted? Whilst reading it I found myself almost relishing the challenge. The talk about strip malls, suburbia and chain stores being fundamentally flawed in the context of our ever decreasing oil reserves was strangely satisfying. And yes, I'm aware that I take part in all of the above on a daily basis. Comfortable though modern life is for the most part in countries like the US, it's an arguably somewhat unfulfilling existence. I like the last couple of lines about the long emergency having potential to bring about being part of an enterprise that really matters. I've often felt a twang of guilt about that when it comes to my own living as a video game developer.
My family have allready decided that we'd all move to Jura where my brother in law is from, a tiny island off the west coast of Scotland, If the shit truly starts to hit the proverbial in this world. Still, I guess other people will have similiar ideas!
My friends and I have had a number of drunken conversations on the subject (if that is indeed what the article is about, otherwise disregard what I'm rambling on about). It would be a disastrous situation, but maybe not the worst thing that could happen to humanity.
As much as I love running water, indoor plumbing, electric heating, etc, I've always felt that I was born about a century and a half too late. I know how to ferment alcohol, I know how to distill alcohol, and I know enough about construction with lumber to be able to build a rudimentary shanty; as long as I could gather the proper resources to take care of all of that, I'd be set.
Also something like "Imagine Phoenix without cheap air conditioning" sounds dumb. That comment would only make sense if you are one of these people that live this wastefull lifestyle.
"Oh my god, imagene the winter in the alps without central heating - we are all going to die"
He also forgets that the concept for hydrogen energie ranges back to 1900 and has been in use since the 1950's by organisations like NASA. This technologie may have never hit the mass market due to the fear of oilcompanys but it is the biggest option. Due to the fact that this scenario is nothing new, companys like shell have and are slowly preparing this recource to be oilindependant.
Other than that I found it quite shocking yet a tad bit to simple to read. The explainations are to far fetched, and many of the outcomes he predicts are just assumptions based on a small amount of facts.
He kinda forgets that the US has been storing oil since the oilcrisis to compensate a situation like that on a short term.
He also forgets that there is an army that in a situation like that would forcefully inforce law and order.
Still some interesting thoughts he throughs at us.
But I love reading scenarios like that. It's just like the fact that Apache pilots in the 80's where trained to fight on european battlegrounds due to the scenario of russia falling into europe.
Another quite funny scenario is to enforce the european borders to the south, as some militarys propagate, to fight off a possible "invasion" from africa due to the africans beeing so poor (I wonder why ,_o) and suddenly deciding to gang up all over africa and attack europe.
... all bullshit, just have to decide for yourself
and maybe a hat. a really big one.
I'm dependent on the economy to drive companies to produce the insulin i need to live.
..
and to make matters worse, all us hot-rodders would be screwed out of a good time.
I'm a great admirer of those willing and able to go beyond defining a problem to the stage where they define some solutions. My point being that its an easier thing to point to a problem than it is to point to a solution.
It was pointed out by Lennon that there are no problems only solutions, but then again he also said, when part of the collective, that all you need is love, and that has been rebutted by the retort of ' have you tried paying the rent with it', which I always liked
I car pool with my wife, we drive very little, but in a culture that has drive through banking under the obviously false pretense that 'americans are more busy' ( well thats an explanation ive been given more than once! ), I doubt my wife and I are signficantly counterbalancing the scales.
With other countries such as China catching up with America's gross overconsumption of fuel, this is clearly becoming more of a problem when taken in hand with the sheer level of intimidation endorsed by the fossil fuel industries representatives in regards to those that come up with alternatives ( SHUT THAT GUY UP QUICK!).
Perhaps it is naive of me, but I can't picture the world being unalterably screwed in the method this article supposes as I've lived through too many media scares that amounted to nothing.
Regardless of my gut feelings, the situation worries me; hell people as a whole scare me shitless in regards to their simpleminded willingness to simply beleive what they are told and unwillingness to take responsbility for their actions so I likewise find it easy to beleive in the possibility of massively climactic changes being possible due to our societies backward attidues.
I just can't find any instance in history where our attitudes as a whole have been anything other than utterly moronic and due to that I beleive in our ability to find a way to continue our stupidity despite this article pointing towards the opposite being true.
Twisted yes, but it's my POV.
David Suzuki explained it this way:
Lets say there is a vial, and a cell in it. The vial is completely filled with space and every minute, the cells divid.
At 1 minute you'd have 2 cells, At 2 minutes 4 cells, then at 3 minutes 8 cells. Etc.
This keeps going on till about the vial is 25% filled. Lets say at around 58 minutes. If a cell in vial said, we're going to run out of space! With a whooping 75% of the vial still empty they'd think he's crazy. Absolutely nuts. Then the next minute rolls around and all the cells divid, and you get 50% of the vial filled. Thats half of the maxium amount of space in the vial at 59 minutes. Now that's alot of breathing room, 50% is pretty impressive and alot of space and food for everyone. Again all the cells divid and at 60 minutes, the whole vial is filled. No one saw it coming. All the space is being used. There are no more untapped resources. All the cells die.
Now lets say at the 60th minute, a hole new vial was introduced. The same about as the first vial. At the 61th minute both the first vial and the second vial are completely filled. It would take another 2 vials to support the 62th population. Etc.
Now think of each minute as afew generations. With people living longer, consuming more then others, having large familes it pretty much plays like that in the world right now. We'll run out of space and food Long before we'll ever have to worry about using all our planet's energy. And the worst part is, we wont even realize it until the 59th minute and by then it's too late.
This isn't make believe, this proven natural fact, animal populations function similar to this. When they hit 59 minutes they enter a mass death and then return to the first 5 minutes of the process. We'd like to pretend we are above nature, but everything about us comes from nature and we are natural. The ironic thing is are the hippies complaing about saving the whales and saving the planet. The planet will be here a long after we go extinct. When we kill all the cows in the world it's natural selection, when we die because we don't have any cows to eat it is population control. We are mostlikely well into the 59th minute within the coming generations and maybe in our life times the prospect of mass famine and over population will be real.
Simple.
Frankly all life as we know it isnt going to just implode the day oil reaches 0. I for one am glad the oil is running out soon. Change can be good. I look forward to it.
*runs out and buys said shotgun+ shells, along with some hockey pads and a crossbow.
Who rules barter town?
you do make a point sort of, but you're forgetting about the cells in your example dying and being removed from the vial, which happens here. generally, two people seem to have 2 kids on average i think. some families have 1, some families adopt, some families have 8, whatever. the population of your "vial" may double, but then the original cells would then die and make room for more cells.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's why the world's population isn't going to double next week. You forget that things that are instant in a natural sense take life times.
I think this chart clearly describles what I am talking about. In 45 years we could reach 9 billion people on this planet. Thats another 2.5 billion people. Can you even imagine how many people that is? Comparing today's population to 1900 C.E. That's incredible. From the people that are over 100 years old the world's population has Quadrupled! We might not have to worry about it now, but our grandchildren will.
so whats gonna happen to the entertainment industry?
[/ QUOTE ]
If things go bad, it'll be one of the first to go (or shrink alot) i think.
I'm with ElysiumGX on this.... Arrrrrrrg matey!
What is it? Denial?
-R
scott: probably the most fun science fiction i've read since the Y2K hysteria, if not i suppose slightly more believable.
i think a lot of it is not alarmist, but a interestingly disguised set of romantic yearnings for a more authentic way of life. or something like that.
i also agree that he has a dim view of non-oil based fuel technologies. i think it's not so ridiculous to think that we could all be driving fuel cell cars now if there weren't so many deep pockets involved in the production and distribution of oil. under duress i think that fuel cell and other oil alternatives will become viable, he's a little too dismissive on that point.
what i can very much agree with though is the bit about railroads. in the early/mid 20th century we could have kept up our rails, but we've all but scrapped them in favor of a comparatively massively inefficient and costly trucking system. as the author rightly points out, railroads are far more cost effective and fuel efficient... and while he also makes a good point about the highway systems, our roads would last so, so much longer without maintenance if the big trucks weren't driving on them. that's what degrades them so quickly. it's something that my father has been very passionate about, how the decline of our rail system has been a serious problem.
anyway, yeah... whatever. bring it on. and keep building the gun collection!
And not to mention the different things (like certain plastics and medication) which we can't make without oil.
Personally I wouldn't be worried, if it weren't for the fact that (appart from a token concept car here or there) we're doing jack shit to change our primary energy source infrastructure.
The main problem is the cars. Cutting down on the amount of gas used by cars (e.g. let americans pay as much for their gas as the rest of the world, perhaps double the price everywhere) would immediately increase the time we have left until production falls below consumption significantly.
Overall the US consumes too much oil, think about it: The USA with its 280M people consumes more than the PRC with over 1G people! *lookup* Okay, so the US also has three times the per person consumption of the UK (Canada isn't much less guilty, twice UK levels). Imagine cutting the US's consumption to UK levels (per person of course, I don't expect a country of 280M to consume as much as one of 50M), suddently you have loads of additional oil and time to develop more oil-efficient systems until we can completely remove the oil from our economy.
All we can do is prolong the time we have and use it to reduce our usage more and more, there is no magical plan the hero can pull off that will save the world.
The article is a bit too US-centric for my tastes, though. Where I live public transport and especially the railroad system work pretty well. We're using moderate amounts of nuclear power (I heard France is using nuke plants almost exclusively...). Farmland production far outstrips consumption (apparently a common problem within the EU). Well, if you're starving, try buying some of those huge overstocks the EU has.
I dont agree with gauss about the authors dim view on replacement sources of energy, I think it has alot of merit. If you look at the current state of replacement for fossil fuel energy, there is hyrdroelectic wind solar and (a much lesser extent geothermal), the main problem with them is the amount of investment required (very high) with the return in energy (very low in comparison to fossil fuel). As the author mentioned the only viable source of energy apart from fossil is nuclear. Then there is a problem with sustainability of uranium supply compounded by the cost of a nuclear power plant compared to a oil or gas power plant, not to mention any of the environmental concerns that go along with nuclear energy. The only time renewable energy research will ever get any serious thought is when the price of oil is too high and who will decide when its too expensive and will it be too late?
What will be interesting is how we will adapt. As the oil shortage increases oil producing nations will export less, governments would have to enforce this, if they didnt thier local economies would collapse. This alone would cause a big shift in the balance of econmic power, countries that are large manufacturers but are net oil importers will find thier economies disappear.
Obviously, there is no hope and the only solution is to kill ourselves now.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's really depressing to have to keep telling people this. And verm, I'm ashamed of you for not realizing it.
You don't kill yourself, you kill other people.
Frank the Avenger
[ QUOTE ]
so whats gonna happen to the entertainment industry?
[/ QUOTE ]
If things go bad, it'll be one of the first to go (or shrink alot) i think.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the entertainment industry has done well historically when the economy is really poor. People use entertainment as an escape to forget about how bad shit really is.
"Renewable" energy sources (like wind power and solar energy) are are actually a completely wrong concept (and I find it frightening how enviromentalists can actually support it unquestioned), since you are "stealing" the energy from the enviroment. Noone knows what happens if you cut off the incoming energy of the sunlight that hits the ground, and convert it into electric energy and transfer it to a completely different part of the world (!on a large scale!) and the same is true for wind energy. It could actually very well lead to a enviromental desaster.
Nuclear Fission would be nice of course, but who knows if it will ever work on a production scale.
Last but not least, nuclear power and biotech are the two industries that are constantly blockaded by enviromentalists and politics here in Germany, but they are actually the most enviroment friendly inventions and basicly our only hope for a high living standart in the future
All we can do is prolong the time we have and use it to reduce our usage more and more, there is no magical plan the hero can pull off that will save the world.
The article is a bit too US-centric for my tastes, though. Where I live public transport and especially the railroad system work pretty well. We're using moderate amounts of nuclear power (I heard France is using nuke plants almost exclusively...). Farmland production far outstrips consumption (apparently a common problem within the EU). Well, if you're starving, try buying some of those huge overstocks the EU has.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just prolonging the time isn't going to solve the problem at all, it might actually make it even worse since people will not notice the need to change that much until it is maybe too late (lost knowlegde and power to produce alternatives).
Oh and about the over production of food in the EU: as the article already states this is mostly based on 'oil energy' input like artificial fertilizers and other means of modern agriculture... this will almost instantly be done with as soon as oil becomes more expensive (already now most of the european farmers can hardly sustain a living, and with out gouvernment help it would look even worse).
You are right about the German railroad system though (right now), but if you read the article on SpiegelOnline yesterday, then you wouldn't be so optimistic. The German Railroad company is systematicly reducing and not repairing their railroad network in preparation for thier plans to enter stockmarket (to maximise profits in short term).
Cutting down on the amount of oil used for burning frees up ressources for other uses. Too short a time limit could destroy your "migration" plans, what if you need fifteen years to switch to a new power source but only have ten until oil demand outstrips supply on a large scale?
You are right about the German railroad system though (right now), but if you read the article on SpiegelOnline yesterday, then you wouldn't be so optimistic. The German Railroad company is systematicly reducing and not repairing their railroad network in preparation for thier plans to enter stockmarket (to maximise profits in short term).
Another reason I want the stock market outlawed or at least heavily crippled.
The article claims that biomass is equivalent to burining the oil instead of making fertilizers. In a closed system that would be true (laws of thermodynamics) but the plants get most of their energy from photosynthesis, the fertilizer is only a minor factor (energy wise) in the whole deal.
[/ QUOTE ]
In theory you are right about the plants and where the energy comes from, but there is the "hole in the barrel" problem (you cant fill a barrel higher than the lowest hole in it). Plants need nitrogen to grow, which is a limiting factor in nature (since it is really hard to use atmospheric N2, only a few symbiotic bacteria can do it).
Today Nitrate or other plant-usable nitrogen sources are produced on an industrial level as fertilizers, but it takes alot of energy to 'capture' the atmospheric N2. If that energy is not available than your food production will drop significiantly.
Other than that... todays modern agriculture is also dependant on large amounts of herbizides (as questionable as this is), which are often produced from oil, or at least somehow dependant on it... loose that, and you can't mass produce food either.
[ QUOTE ]
Cutting down on the amount of oil used for burning frees up ressources for other uses. Too short a time limit could destroy your "migration" plans, what if you need fifteen years to switch to a new power source but only have ten until oil demand outstrips supply on a large scale?
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you mean my migration plans out of Germany?
Of course you are right, and actually I am all for saving energy... the USA could very well cut back its energy use to european levels, and should do so. But if you start cutting back on energy use to a level where you artificially create a small but 'not so bad' energy shortage, then you might get the results mentioned above.
Scott
The solution is simple -stop making more humans. ZPG! or better NPG.
Or even much better-
http://www.vhemt.org/
My proposed solution to that problem requires two things: One, a US President who doesn't have familial ties to the American oil industry. Second (at least three years from now), said Prez needs to make the equivalent of Kennedy's 'Space Race' speech, and get everyone on board The Energy Race. Then we can have one of those they-said-it-was-impossible technology drives which would, I think, reach a plausible solution within ten years. Such things have been done before.
Only thing standing in the way now is a bunch of Bushes.
/jzero
Then there's fusion. People are really down on this, ever since the rediculous claim of table top, room temperature nuclear fusion got fucked up. But the fact is that fusion with a positive efficiency is right around the corner. Problem is that it will take quite a bit of experimenting to do so. And by that I mean we need a large scale reactor built, to prove what has been observed in the labs.
But that reactor will take at least two decades to design and build...and add to that the same timespan to build a fusion reactor which actually works and provides enough power to be called a power station...and you're forty years on. 40 years on: past the point of no return: even the most positive (realistic) estimates put the point of peak oil at around 2040...which means that at the current investment in fussion, we'll be too late to have a viable energy source in fussion to negate the lack of oil. Plus these plants will not be portable (or car-bourne) in the least. Which means we'll have to rely on innefficient solar or wind power, to which a previous poster already replied that thne impact of using those is nknown.
So we have nuclear which isn't trusted, fussion which needs a grand investment, and even then won't be finished on time, or solar/wind whose effects (even with their horrendous efficiency) are unknown and pretty much not properly moddeled scientifically.
The most awfull thing abou this? The experts at meteriological institutes say we're probably too late to prevent the worst as it is (yeah, yeah...just wait until you're a third years applied physicist who understands enough of the math and physics to be unable to contradict the people who have spent most of their lives on such issues) and the physicists who show you that certain energy production methods just won't cut it (like wind [needs too many windmills and doesn't satisfy our energy needs in that the wind doesn't blow when we need energy] or solar [at the moment we getr 30% max efficiency, which translates to way too many solar pannels needed]) by quite simple mathematical and physical methods...you get to understand that if we do not start at this full scale RIGHT FUCKING NOW, it really will be too late to do anything about it.
I swear: when you get just the slightest clue as to how the physics work, you really wannna kill Bush. That C-student doens't even have a clue how badly he's screwing his kids overe [BTW: yup, kids. Shit, we'll see the effects...our grandkids better evolve gills].
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P115791.asp
Well, I'm gonna keep cycling to work, and I'm not going to have any kids. Hang on... isn't oil used in the production of latex... That might bugger up the second pledge.
I agree and feel the same way that Daz did in his first post. Communities will become communities again, builders will no longer be able to build 100,000,000 houses in a row without thinking about other needs. Communities will need to be planned to be just that, a commmunity, not just a row of tightly packed houses. I think we will see older suburbs being flattened into newer more well planned communities. And as time goes on these new closer/tighter communities will become "the places" to live. Hopefully city planners will get a clue and stop selling lots of land to anyone with 5 bucks and McDonalds Francise coupon from a Big Mac.
I also found this site while looking around for info on the subject. http://www.endofsuburbia.com/
Both the article and site paint a picture that is pretty bleak, but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. As I read and find more, the paranoia is kicking in and find myself day dreaming about digging a bomb shelter. Before too long I might start wearing a snadwich board ringing a bell saying things like "THE END IS NEIGH!" I think its best if I stop reading...
<----
Seriously, my gf and I always drive together. She has a Neon which is great on gas, her work commute is 5 minutes. I have a Chevy truck which I hardly ever drive. I think I purchased gas three days ago for the first time in 3 months. I really have no idea what the price of gas is, and I don't care. I'm planning to sell the truck and buy a motorcycle. I could probably spend $100 on gas a year if I try. And we're using 3 times more resources than we should according to a survey we took on Earth Day.
This is what gets me. The world is falling apart, and there's nothing I can do about it. When I pull up to an intersection, I watch SUV after SUV drive by all in a row. Each one of them only containing one person. That one person always on a cell phone, possibly eating McDonalds. And for each one, there are possibly three kids at home. Three! This sickens me. Are we so blind to think our "perfect" life holds no consequence for our future?
Baaaaaah!
I don't wanna read about this stuff anymore.
Or we could all just resign and start going insane
Sounds a bit "hip-hop" like the next sentence but I think it actually fits and sums it up in a short and fast way.
"Just stay real"
You can't do the same sweet, sweet tricks on a motorcycle though
Great read Scott. I remember a global sciences teacher I had in high school who went on at length about pretty much exactly what was speculated about in the article.
People are generally pretty quick to dismiss it but our whole way of life is pretty much based on dwindling oil reserves and alternative means of energy seems like it's still at the talking stage. I'm off to go buy a hoe and a shotgun.
I'm working towards getting a motorcycle myself, though money is tight these days.
The funniest part is that when I'm on it around motorcyclists, they feel compelled to really wind up their engines and prove that they can be louder and faster. So I just rev it up right back - it's got this buzzsaw quality to the sound that will make the biggest burliest biker grimace.
http://www.bmwzentrum.com/common/video/flash.asp?v=Hydrogen_Car/Hydrogen_Car-Large
Its also an interesting watch if you were sleeping through 3rd grade science
They mention hydrogen fueling stations and last I heard places like Germany and California plan to have such stations every 10 or 100km (although the new stations are self-serve from what I saw) by 2010 and Im sure most countries/states will be close to follow once car manufactures and customers have these vehicles on the road.
Personally the next car I buy will be one using this technology.
If I can find the newer video Ill be sure to post it, but my point is that there is always someone painting a bleak picture and they are often the most outspoken, but the reality is often less sensational and because of that its also rarely heard.
Frank the Avenger
It was my understanding that with out current usage - which is extremely high - we would have another 50 years before things would have to change. I actually seem to recall it being 100 years (with current usage) before we physically ran out of the stuff, but regardless
This is also an interesting read if you want to find out more energy information about the worlds biggest oil consumer. I find it interesting that a mere 100 nuclear power plants provides the US with 20 percent of its electric power (and its important to note: none run at capacity).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7646880/
Those 100 nuclear power plants were built sometimes between 1945 and 1970 (when they stopped building them). Thats just 25 years (probably more realistically between 1955/65 and 1970 - I dont know when nuclear power came into play).
So its not unreasonable to assume that in the next 25 years the US could build another 100 nuclear power plants accounting for 40 percent of its electric needs, and thats without any of them running at capacity.
Now thats electric power which is used in the production of hydrogen
And in the near future Fusion Power is to replace Nuclear
http://www.fusion.org.uk/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4328597.stm