Re: International Energy Agency accepts Peak Oil (sortof)

From: Tim O'Flaherty (pinwheelsfudge_at_gwi.net)
Date: 11/18/04 

Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:14:23 -0500

"Geoff T" <geofft@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d433f9a7.0411171743.4a3e3353@posting.google.com...
> frisbieinstein@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) wrote in message
news:<9511688f.0411160549.f63f3bc@posting.google.com>...
>
> > But the industrialized nations can find substitute sources of energy.
>
> Hopefully. The trouble is we dont have anything to match the
> energy-density and ease of transport that oil gives us. (I'm ignoring
> hydrogen since it's an energy carrier; we have to produce it first).
>
> Nuclear is not really a long-term solution because it'll just mean
> we'll be facing "Peak Uranium" a little further down the track.

Breeding Pu as fuel solves that but not the security issues that come with
that option nor does it solve the waste problem.

>
> Fusion: Yeah, that'd be great. Apparently that's another 25 years
> away. Like it was 25 years ago.

We can hope.

>
> Wind, solar etc: cant provide enough energy.
>

Not for the way we live today.

> I think we have to face the fact that our current industrialised
> civilisation is un-sustainable.

Bingo!

 Aside from nuclear and geothermal, the
> only energy source our planet has is solar. We already harness this
> through wind, PV cells and hydro. Even if we can substitute all our
> hydrocarbon-based electrical generation capacity for solar-based
> plants, we're still left looking for an energy source for
> transportation if we want to maintain our economies and standard of
> living.
>
> I can see us going down one of three paths (or maybe all, depending on
> local conditions)
>
> 1: Transformation of society from suburban worker to rural
> self-sufficient. With greatly reduced/expensive transportation between
> food production and population centres, communities will have to
> become largely self-sufficient in food. This will only work if there
> is enough arable land in and around the population centre to support
> its citizens. Depending on the method of electricity generation, power
> supply may become intermittent or prices will rise out of the range of
> most people. I'm thinking that the best long-term situation will be to
> go from cities+megafarms back to a village-oriented society.
>

This seems likely. If we as a society accepted that these changes are
inevitable rather than wearing blinders with the latest update/patch from
the media we could be doing a lot to prepare and soften the impact. Birth
control being a big priority.

> 2: Population adjustment through starvation. Death on an unimagined
> scale due to greatly reduced levels of food production, processing and
> transportation. The food that industrialised nations eat takes an
> immense amount of energy to get it onto the table. I read recently
> (cant remember where, could have been the recent Nat. Geo. article on
> peak oil) that it takes approx 10 calories of energy to produce 1
> calorie of food.

This also seems likely, along with disease to which a weakened population
will have less resistance and less (or no) reliable water, sewage and
medical facilities. In this the third world may have advantages over the
industrialised nations since they have been living without modern hygenic
amenities all along.

>
> 3: Population adjustment through war. Global conflict arising from
> superpower competition for energy resources. Trouble is that this time
> the players have nukes. This scenario goes hand-in-hand with No. 2.

Looking at China's growing energy demand and Bush's foolish adventure in a
Iraq it seems clear that if and when China decides it needs that oil bad
enough no army the west could possibly cobble together could withstand them.
Our last bid might be nuclear weapons even though that would be the last
page for everyone.

>
> Peak Oil is pretty depressing, but at least we wont have to worry too
> much abotu global warming :)

El Presidente says "The American way of life is not negotiable." In fact
the American way of life is not sustainable. Accepting that and planning
for a sensible future with downsized expectations seems the logical choice
but also an unlikely one. While I don't subscribe to biblical prophecy it
sure looks like the four horsemen are saddling up for a ride.

Regards,
Tim O

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BLS Release: For Most Americans Inflation Is Getting Worse, Not Better
    ... September as food and energy costs climbed, ... With inflation under control, ... This brings the year-to-date annual rate to ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Undoing Americas Ethanol Mistake
    ... to biofuels, it intended to create energy independence and protect the ... the bill required a huge spike in the biofuel production ... robbing the world of one of its most important sources of food. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Undoing Americas Ethanol Mistake
    ... dependent on foreign sources of energy, ... and rapidly rising food prices has become undeniable. ... the bill required a huge spike in the biofuel production ... biofuels — drought and rising oil costs are contributing factors — the ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • The economics of obesity.
    ... dense food with refined grains, added sugar and fats are comparatively ... The economics of obesity: dietary energy density and energy cost. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Wearing your conscience.
    ... the food only remains cheap for so long as ... expectancy in that life style, ... statistical base, and the numbers only go up a lot in odd countries not ... > The analysis is in terms of energy consumption, ...
    (sci.econ)