Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby kublikhan » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 04:14:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'A')ctually Hubbert later in life was a champion of solar power, not nuclear, not to mention vehemently insistent that our rampant materialism must come to an end: Hubbert's Prescription for Survival, A Steady State Economy.
Nice read. Did you read Hubbert's idea for a replacement of money? Basically, everyone gets food/goods vouchers from birth to death, regardless of how much or how little work you do. I don't see how we would motivate people to do any work in that scenario. If every job has equal "pay", how do you get people to want to do the tougher or less desirable jobs?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 04:24:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'H')ow much more difficult is it to transport globally? What are your figures on that? How much is transported globally now?
Well, according to the Coal Portal 830.62 Mt of coal were exported in 2006, from a rather small group of exporters. Of the exporters listed there, the following appeared to be either in a plateau or declining:

    South Africa
    Poland
    Czech Republic
    UK (V Small exports)
    USA
    Canada
    China
    Venezuela
The following appeared to be former exporters, but no longer:
    Germany
    Belgium
    France
    Netherlands
The following were still growing their exports, in 2005:
    Indonesia
    Vietnam
    Colombia
    New Zealand
    Australia
    Mongolia
    Russia

Now, from a couple of sources, one can determine rough equivalents for coal and oil (though both vary). It looks like oil has roughly 1.52% the energy of the same weight of coal and is about 1.1% more physically dense than coal.

About 60 mbpd of oil was exported in 2006, according to the BP analysis, making, if exports declined by the same percentage (though some think it will decline more rapidly), about 95.25 Mt of oil will need to be replaced in export (more in total, but this was about transportation), which is the energy equivalent of 138.7 Mt of coal, or a 16% increase in coal exports in the first year. The average export growth, since 1998, was 6%. Because of the energy and physical density differences, the volume of that extra oil is the equivalent of 152 Mt of oil. So the space taken up by 5% of exported oil will be needed to transport extra coal. If we add in the average growth for coal, 6%, coal exports would have to increase by 22%, to cover the energy lost by oil.

Coal also can't be transported through oil pipes. So, yes, it would be more difficult to transport, even if it could be increased by that much.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')nd production, both in energy content and quantity may have already peaked in the US (according to the latest EIA figures, which show energy from coal as an undulating plateau for the last decade or more, and volume production down last year).

That doesn't constitute proof that coal in the US *cannot* grow in terms of energy produced per year. It likely "peaked" due to lack of demand (because coal is foul stuff, and NG is preferred for environmental reasons). You're going to have to go into a lot more detail to show that growth of coal in the US is impossible.
And yet you assume that a decade of figures proves nothing. You're right, of course. However, what they do show is that there is no room for complacency about how the current possible alternatives to oil can expand to cover oil decines, even in the early years of decline. If decline doesn't set in for some years, it may be even harder, as the physical resources of the alternatives will be that much less.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')As of 2004, the U.S. had about 271 years of measured, proven coal, economically exploitable with current prices and technology.
You forgot, perhaps conveniently, to say "at current rates of consumption", which makes such figures unhelpful. How reliable are such figures? The Energy Watch Group thinks coal energy may already have peaked in the US, and the actual figures would appear to back that up, even if it isn't proof.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')No "peak" there. It's widely accepted, even among the direst doomers, that peak coal is decades away. "Coal may have peaked" -- LOL. What in the world are you talking about Tony? You're in denial.
Well, laugh away. The direst doomers do not accept that coal figures are reliable or that they show 250 years of coal reserves in the US. Note skymoor's post below and look at the Energy Watch Group report.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 04:36:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') always look for the proportion that is wishful thinking (along the lines of Hirsch's report, which ignored yet to be proven technologies), in terms of efficacy, scale, timeliness and likelihood. So far, I've read nothing that doesn't contain a large dollop of that. I wish it were otherwise.
Are you saying the Hirsch report is wishful thinking?
For a long term solution, yes. And since peak is likely not 20 years way, we're already too late for his temporary solution.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '
')Also, have you looked at the IEA's alternate energy scenarios?
They list your criteria of efficiency, scale, timeliness, etc.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2006 ... tsheet.pdf
Not yet, I'm afraid; will do so when I get time. Thanks for the link; I have downloaded it.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 04:42:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'A') transition could be accomplished in 10 years, though it would require extraordinary efforts on the part of industry, government, and the citizenry, all of which are currently lacking, with little hope of rapid or far-reaching change.
Do you honestly think 10 years? Transition to what? Remember that it takes about 15 years to replace the car fleet, under normal conditions (which includes one's car having resale value). I'm not sure what transition you're talking about. Would the result be sustainability or would we have to undertake another transition later?

Good points on JD's lifestyle changes, though.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 04:46:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Hubbert's projection is based on knowledge at the time. Currently, we only know of economically accessible uranium reserves that will only last 40-70 years, current consumption rates (don't know about the peak).


That phrase is extremely dangerous.

What do the economically recoverable reserves look like if electricity prices return to the 1960s levels? 1950s levels? 1940s levels?
In my opinion, it is also dangerous to assume that increasing prices will increase supply at the appropriate rate, whatever it may be.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 04:52:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'S')ince nuclear is an alternative, your claim is that humans *can't* scale up nuclear to compensate for fossil fuels. It's all there in black and white. So you better get crackin' and show us the proof. Or, alternatively, take the path of honesty and admit that you have no proof.
So, it's OK for you to imagine that all these alternatives can scale up, in a timely fashion, but I have to prove that they can't otherwise your case is proven? That's nonsense. For nuclear, there are only proven supplies for 40-75 years, at current rates of consumption and assuming no peak. Of course, others believe that much more supply will come online at whatever rate required, to cover existing plants that may be still operating and to cover new plants that will take up the slack. But beliefs don't constitute proof either.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby JohnDenver » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 04:54:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'A')ctually Hubbert later in life was a champion of solar power, not nuclear, not to mention vehemently insistent that our rampant materialism must come to an end:

Yes, I was aware of that. I still love the nuclear graph, though, and that's why I posted it.

The issue of this thread is whether it is *possible* to scale up alternatives. One very important aspect of that issue is whether it is *possible* to scale up nuclear power to compensate for declining fossil fuels. Clearly Hubbert felt it was possible; he just changed his mind later and decided it wasn't *desirable*.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou still haven't addressed the issue of the ELM, JD. UK and Indonesia went to net imports in seven years. You are semi-correct in pointing out that oil is a fungible resource, but what do we do when the whole world is going through the same transition?

If you are asking what the world will do when liquid fuel becomes very scarce, the answer is obvious: People will stop using vehicles powered with liquid fuel, or use vehicles which are hyperefficient. The point you chronically fail to understand is that passenger cars aren't necessary for a first world lifestyle. Yes, the people in the U.S. are going to go through lifestyle armageddon. And when they come out the other end (many decades from now), they'll be living like I do in Japan right now -- no car, traveling by foot/bike/scooter/bus/train, existing on carefully measured amounts of LNG and nuclear/coal electricity. Cry me a river. It's all just namby-pamby spoiled-brat fluff. I got rid of my car, and it was STEP UP.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')t any rate there's no talking to you, it seems.

Right back at ya, "Dude". You guys are dodging the questions I ask too. Where's Tony's proof that US coal peaked? That one went down the memory hole. Where's anybody's proof that nuclear cannot be massively expanded? Nothing but wind blowing in response to that question. The core problem here is that you guys want to fraudulently pretend that your position (that alternatives won't scale) is proven, and that I have to do all the work. That's a trolling tactic, not a foundation for honest debate. The reality is that your position (that alternatives won't scale) has not been proven, as demonstrated by the complete inability of anyone here to provide proof that nuclear cannot be scaled up.

You'd be amazed at how cooperative my tone would get if you folks would simply acknowledge that you have no solid proof that alternatives (especially nuclear) cannot be scaled up. I'm extending an olive branch. And I fully expect you to snip it, and forget it, because you folks would rather troll.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby SolarDave » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 05:04:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'a')cknowledge that you have no solid proof that alternatives (especially nuclear) cannot be scaled up


I think some pretty simple math shows there is not enough coastline or freshwater available for cooling to scale nuclear up to replace equivalent energy use of liquid fuels in the US.

It's just so boring to play the schoolyard "prove it!" game.

France called out the fire brigades to hose down the nukes during the last heat wave. Seems the rivers got too hot to cool them. More nukes would have made the problem worse. There are limits you are ignoring. JD - prove there is enough cooling. I'm going to bed.
100% of the electricity needed for this post was generated by ME.
http://www.los-gatos.ca.us/davidbu/pedgen/green_virtual_gym.html
Posted from a Pedal Powered Computer
User avatar
SolarDave
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 05:08:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'W')here's Tony's proof that US coal peaked? That one went down the memory hole.
Not at all; you just choose to ignore the official figures and the EWG report. That's fine, but don't say you weren't given evidence (I use that word instead of proof as I acknowledge that 100 proof is going to be very difficult in the world of natural resources - the only certainty is that if we're stuck to resources on this planet, we will hit limits and if we don't get off this planet before we hit limits, the chances of us finding all of those limited resources out in space is slim indeed).

By the way, here's a handy link to my response to you about coal exports.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby JohnDenver » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 05:11:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'S')ince nuclear is an alternative, your claim is that humans *can't* scale up nuclear to compensate for fossil fuels. It's all there in black and white. So you better get crackin' and show us the proof. Or, alternatively, take the path of honesty and admit that you have no proof.
So, it's OK for you to imagine that all these alternatives can scale up, in a timely fashion, but I have to prove that they can't otherwise your case is proven? That's nonsense.

Yah, it is nonsense. That's why I'm not letting you pull the very same trick on me, in reverse, like you've been trying to the whole time. You're *assuming* that the alternatives won't scale up, and that's cheating. You have to prove it.

If you cannot prove your claim (that alternatives cannot be scaled up), that does not mean that I'm right, and alternatives can be scaled up. In that case, the status of the question simply remains unresolved.

The fact is: I haven't proven that alternatives can be scaled, and you haven't proven that they can't be scaled. If you would simply acknowledge that point, the atmosphere in here would improve dramatically.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby JohnDenver » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 05:21:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SolarDave', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'a')cknowledge that you have no solid proof that alternatives (especially nuclear) cannot be scaled up


I think some pretty simple math shows there is not enough coastline or freshwater available for cooling to scale nuclear up to replace equivalent energy use of liquid fuels in the US.

Well, let's see the math then. If it's so simple, bust it out.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's just so boring to play the schoolyard "prove it!" game.

I think it only started getting boring when the burden of proof shifted your way. It was a barrel of monkeys when you were saying "prove it!" to me.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')D - prove there is enough cooling. I'm going to bed.

Hmm... Another artful dodger. What happened to the math Dave? And the contempt for "prove it!" games? :roll:
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 05:31:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')he fact is: I haven't proven that alternatives can be scaled, and you haven't proven that they can't be scaled. If you would simply acknowledge that point, the atmosphere in here would improve dramatically.
Other than proofs like bio-ethanol could take up the entire corn crop and hardly make a dent in declines (and I know you don't like biofuels, it was just an example) I don't think I could give you the proof you seek. I've shown, for example, that optimism about coal growth may be misplaced, but that isn't proof, and you choose to ignore it anyway.

As you acknowledge that you also haven't given proof, how do you think your supporters should approach your arguments for alternatives? Should they just blithely assume that they will all pan out, relatively smoothly, as oil, then other fossil fuels decline, and ignore the coming of those peaks? Would that be a sensible thing to do, do you think?

JD, what I try to look for in alternatives is wishful thinking. It may involve some detailed research but if it makes assumptions about resource endowment, about extraction rates, about implementation rates, about new technologies, about land use, about no ill-effects, and so on, then I treat such alternatives very warily. I think we've built out civilisation on assumptions. Those assumptions have so far worked (or been made irrelevant) but there is absolutely no guarantee that those assumptions will stand forever. After all, we do, currently, have to get all of our resources from what is on this planet or what lands on this planet. That is the only truth, right at this moment.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby kublikhan » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 05:32:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') always look for the proportion that is wishful thinking (along the lines of Hirsch's report, which ignored yet to be proven technologies), in terms of efficacy, scale, timeliness and likelihood. So far, I've read nothing that doesn't contain a large dollop of that. I wish it were otherwise.
Are you saying the Hirsch report is wishful thinking?
For a long term solution, yes. And since peak is likely not 20 years way, we're already too late for his temporary solution.
I would hardly call that wishful thinking. Now if you had said: "The Hirsch report fails to provide a solution to dismantle our entire fossil fuel economy" then I would agree with you. However that was not the goal of the report, and I don't think you should fault the report for failing to live up to that expectation.
Also, you use the case of the Hirsch report ignoring yet to be proven technologies to bolster your claim it was wishful thinking? That makes zero sense to me. Adding in unproven technology would have undoubtedly made the report less pessimistic and more wishful thinking as a result. Would you not agree?
Also, 20 years too late mitigations are better then doing nothing at all.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 06:04:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') always look for the proportion that is wishful thinking (along the lines of Hirsch's report, which ignored yet to be proven technologies), in terms of efficacy, scale, timeliness and likelihood. So far, I've read nothing that doesn't contain a large dollop of that. I wish it were otherwise.
Are you saying the Hirsch report is wishful thinking?
For a long term solution, yes. And since peak is likely not 20 years way, we're already too late for his temporary solution.
I would hardly call that wishful thinking. Now if you had said: "The Hirsch report fails to provide a solution to dismantle our entire fossil fuel economy" then I would agree with you. However that was not the goal of the report, and I don't think you should fault the report for failing to live up to that expectation.
Also, you use the case of the Hirsch report ignoring yet to be proven technologies to bolster your claim it was wishful thinking? That makes zero sense to me. Adding in unproven technology would have undoubtedly made the report less pessimistic and more wishful thinking as a result. Would you not agree?
Also, 20 years too late mitigations are better then doing nothing at all.
Fair enough, but the term "mitigation" implies a solution. Hirsch thought that it would take 20 years to be assured of mitigation. You're right that he only looked at technologies that were ready for prime time, and that is certainly to be applauded. But in suggesting mitigation was possible, he was making the implicit assumption that energy shortage (in particular, liquid fuels) was the only problem society faced and that the problem could be solved in isolation, given enough time. However, even if one perhaps shouldn't be too hard in that the report was focused on that one problem, anyway, I think it is still wishful thinking to assume that the mitigation strategy would actually mitigate the problem, rather than simply reducing the problem, or to assume that further actions would not be needed to mitigate ongoing energy problems thereafter.

Since I first read that report, which is focused on the US, it's become possible that the US has peaked in coal energy content and that US coal, in quantity, may peak within decades, especially if use is increased through mitigation strategies. So if it couldn't be considered wishful thinking, at the time, there is more reason to think so now, at least in hindsight.

In terms of this discussion, it would seem that the optimists here have chosen to take a different line to Hirsch, in considering technologies that aren't available for prime time, as being mitigating solutions (or that Hirsch was utterly wrong in his calculations concerning the time needed for existing technologies to take over). That seems even more wishful thinking to me. They are the same in one regard, though; they both focus on energy as the only problem or think that none of the other problems we face have anything to do with increasing energy use.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TheDude » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 06:58:16

So what's Step One of the Denver report? You've got 243 million vehicles in the US, about 135 million commuters, of whom 75% were driving alone in 2000: Journey to Work:2000. I've shown how marginal sales of scooters in the US are, how tiny the AFV fleet is. Only about 5% of the country avails themselves of public transportation. For myself, the question is moot - my town of 20K has nothing but a Senior Mobile. The nearest connection to Portland's TriMet system is 8 miles away in Sherwood, including a steep grade out of the Willamette Valley that will stop almost all bicyclists. Your scooters would be great, except that Sherwood has no Park and Ride service, or even anything to chain bikes to en maase. Extend the system out here? It's been batted around for years but Newberg isn't in one of the Tri Counties that make up TriMet - nor is it deemed worthy of inclusion like Clark County in Washington. A tiny amount of GDP is spent on developing mass transit:

Image

From Why We Drive. Also of interest, its followup: A few more transit stats.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o, in summary, during this pre-peak run-up in energy prices, we invested more and more heavily in transit. The effect of that was to increase capacity, but lower utilization. Operating expenses increased, and thus the overall financial performance of transit systems degraded significantly, requiring much larger subsidies per passenger (and the number of passengers increased). Overall, we got diminishing returns from this strategy suggesting that the best transit opportunities are already in use, and newer ones are more marginal. Light rail seemed to degrade the worst of any of the modes.

Under the assumption that the post peak-oil period involves still further rises in energy prices, if we invest even more heavily in transit, it would appear to me that we are likely to get even more diminishing returns.


I'm not going to break down numbers for you on the scalability of any of your solutions - I'm simply drawing attention to the massive scale of the problem as it stands. For scooters/bikes/EVs/MT to make any kind of impact on mitigating the situation of my city you'd need massive investments over years or decades, and when fuel begins to run short people will need help overnight - and there are thousands of cities worldwide that are in the same boat, or worse. Your solutions of carpooling and sleeping at work are the closest to instant remedies far as I can see.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd when they come out the other end (many decades from now), they'll be living like I do in Japan right now -- no car, traveling by foot/bike/scooter/bus/train, existing on carefully measured amounts of LNG and nuclear/coal electricity.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TheDude » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 07:19:41

Image

Most of Us Still Drive to Work – Alone

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')espite rising fuel costs, commuters continued to drive their cars in 2005, according to a new U.S. Census Bureau analysis of data from the American Community Survey. The survey, gathered over the course of the year, found that driving to work was the favored means of commute of nearly nine out of 10 workers (87.7 percent), with most people (77 percent) driving alone.

In contrast, 4.7 percent of commuters used public transportation to travel to work in 2005, an increase of about 0.1 percent over 2000 levels.

About half of the nation’s public transportation commuters can be found in 10 of the nation’s 50 cities with the most workers age 16 or over: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C. These cities account for 2.9 million of the nation’s 6.2 million users of public transportation (see detailed tables).
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TheDude » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 08:49:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JD', 'Y')ou still haven't refuted the fact that Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrere and S. Staniford are all calling for post-peak decline rates of <2% for 20 years.


Here's what else they have to say:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Colin Campbell', '')The peaking of world oil production presents the US and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.”


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat's quite an authoritative consensus if you ask me. I believe the burden is on you to explain why those people are wrong.


Do you really think they dismiss Brown/Foucher's work?
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby TheDude » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 10:58:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SolarDave', 'I') think some pretty simple math shows there is not enough coastline or freshwater available for cooling to scale nuclear up to replace equivalent energy use of liquid fuels in the US.


Here's a paper on nukes/H20: [http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/got-water-nuclear-power.html]Got Water? Nuclear power plant cooling water needs (PDF)[/url]

Chris Vernon has a new TOD article on Nuclear Britain. Curiously he had New Nuclear Reactors For The UK: Is This Really A Good Idea? just a few days ago, with Dezakin and AdvancedNano jumping down his throat.

New article mentions the obvious risk of building nukes along the sea, in the face of rising sea levels. UK is strictly By the Shore for these plants. US spread 'em out a bit more:

Image
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby JohnDenver » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 11:06:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'S')o what's Step One of the Denver report?


For the US:
Step 1) Prepare to boost coal and nuclear. Build LNG import facilities.
Step 2) Conservation = Walking + Bikes + Mopeds + Scooters + Motorcycles + Electric bicycles + Carpooling + Telecommuting + Riding the bus + Riding the tram/train/subway + Moving nearer to work + Sleeping at/near work + NGVs + Small EVs + Full-size EVs + New electric trains + Electrifying existing diesel rail + Electric trucks + PHEVs + Hybrids + Ultralight/Ultraefficient conventional vehicles + Buying a used compact car as a second vehicle + Converting oil-fired generation to coal/nuclear + Jacking up CAFE standards + Increasing downtown parking rates + Lowering speed limits + Compressed work week

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'D')o you really think they dismiss Brown/Foucher's work?

Probably not. So what's Brown/Foucher's solution?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n simplest terms, we are concerned that the very lifeblood of the world industrial economy—net oil export capacity—is draining away in front of our very eyes, and we believe that it is imperative that major oil importing countries like the United States launch an emergency Electrification of Transportation program--electric light rail and streetcars--combined with a crash wind power program.

As Alan Drake has pointed out, the United States--with roughly 1/3rd its current population, 1/25th of its current inflation adjusted GDP and with primitive Technology --built subways in its largest cities and streetcars in 500 cities, towns and villages in just 20 years (1897-1916), which does not even take into account numerous interurban systems.

If we could do it in 1908 with mules, manual labor and with minimal fossil fuel input, why can't we do it 2008?

Sounds almost exactly like my solution (only a lot less flexible, practical and comprehensive). So why don't you go give them an earful about how it won't scale? You know, who's going to make all these trains? As if there we're any train manufacturers in the U.S. Do you know how long it takes to build a train factory? Or retool an existing factory? Get real you fools. This isn't typing numbers into a computer.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Postby JohnDenver » Fri 11 Jan 2008, 11:33:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I')'m not going to break down numbers for you on the scalability of any of your solutions - I'm simply drawing attention to the massive scale of the problem as it stands. For scooters/bikes/EVs/MT to make any kind of impact on mitigating the situation of my city you'd need massive investments over years or decades,

I'm not sure why that's the case. What exactly are the massive investments you need for scooters, bikes and EVs? And you're still not being comprehensive. What are the massive years/decades-long investments needed for the following:

Motorcycles
Electric bicycles
Carpooling
Telecommuting
Riding the bus
Moving nearer to work
Sleeping at/near work
Small EVs
Full-size EVs
Electric trucks
PHEVs
Hybrids
Ultralight/Ultraefficient conventional vehicles
Buying a used compact car as a second vehicle
Jacking up CAFE standards
Increasing downtown parking rates
Lowering speed limits
Compressed work week

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')nd when fuel begins to run short people will need help overnight - and there are thousands of cities worldwide that are in the same boat, or worse.

What do you mean, "when the fuel begins to run short"? Are you expecting some kind of discontinuous drop-off? Or interruption? If so, why? IMO, peak oil will involve high, volatile prices which apply pressure over decades, but also don't get too high due to conservation and demand destruction.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our solutions of carpooling and sleeping at work are the closest to instant remedies far as I can see.

Okay, let's go with those then. If they work for your area, what's the hitch? Clearly there's no problem with scaling them up. Functionality is maintained, people muddle through, and things get better as alternative means of transport like EVs come on line.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron