PeakOil is You
China dealing with peak oil and peak energy?
Re: China dealing with peak oil and peak energy?
by Anvil » Sat 25 Jun 2011, 01:51:46
China is close to three areas of major energy production Russia, Central Asia and the middle east. This is a big strategical advantage to China being close to these critical areas makes it easier for china to develop these areas using a no strings attached policy and in the short term when oil production starts to decline dramatically in the next 10 years. Chinas desperate investment strategy of energy development will pay big dividends. Allowing china to keep of soom of the lights on to paving the way for a even more desperate bid to switch to alternative energy.
- Anvil
- Peat
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2011, 18:01:16
Re: China dealing with peak oil and peak energy?
by stephankrasner » Sat 25 Jun 2011, 05:02:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', '
')LOL, why do I feel like I'm talking with a Jehovah's Witness? Ever since the disappointment of 1975, they've been desperately claiming the world is still ending in just a year or two and I need to drop what I'm doing and give my life to Jehovah to have a small chance of being saved. Only here, the disappointment happened in 2008. You don't really have anything rational to offer for folks to worry about anymore. We've seen how the US responds to high gas prices; lower birth rates. The pre-2008 analysis was fatally flawed in that we assumed people would keep cranking out kids and desperately trying to own SUVs getting mad to the point of violence at folks who would try to stop them. Instead, energy use in the US has decreased 10% since 2005 and birth rates are down, too. If us idiot Americans can do it, surely everyone else can, too.
The bottom line here is that Malthus was right, but we're looking at an S-curve- or more likely, an S-curve with only a very modest jump over capacity. Not exactly a die-off, more like an attrition-off as fewer people have kids.
')LOL, why do I feel like I'm talking with a Jehovah's Witness? Ever since the disappointment of 1975, they've been desperately claiming the world is still ending in just a year or two and I need to drop what I'm doing and give my life to Jehovah to have a small chance of being saved. Only here, the disappointment happened in 2008. You don't really have anything rational to offer for folks to worry about anymore. We've seen how the US responds to high gas prices; lower birth rates. The pre-2008 analysis was fatally flawed in that we assumed people would keep cranking out kids and desperately trying to own SUVs getting mad to the point of violence at folks who would try to stop them. Instead, energy use in the US has decreased 10% since 2005 and birth rates are down, too. If us idiot Americans can do it, surely everyone else can, too.
The bottom line here is that Malthus was right, but we're looking at an S-curve- or more likely, an S-curve with only a very modest jump over capacity. Not exactly a die-off, more like an attrition-off as fewer people have kids.
If they can get it, they will get it. Many people want children, so much so that they are willing to force it on others (as we can see in state legislation being pushed in 6 states). You said earlier that if we could just get fusion going we would be okay, what do you think would happen if we got back to "the good times" and cheap energy was the norm? When times are good, the babies are plentiful. Politicians and companies like babies. They use more resources than at any other point in a human's life. So you can be sure that cheap energy and resources means a larger population land less resources.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'G')ood discussion. Just a couple of factoids FWIW,
All grain crops are grasses and self-pollinated, also soy and cotton.
Half of the bees in the US are used in california almond production
This page says dryland corn rotated with beans is 75% as productive as irrigated and 85% as profitable with half the energy inputs
Energy inputs to the irrigated crop is 12% of input costs using last years costs, twice that of dryland.
40% of all grain grown worldwide is fed to livestock.
True! almond and fruit production contribute a great deal to "bee farming" But I don't think it would be very enjoyable to live without the food they make possible. 50% doesn't seem like much as a percentage, but imagine losing or having a heavy decline in 50% of our rotatable crops? If Golini's argument is that there will be no die off and people will decrease naturally over time that would make producing more food very difficult.
Dryland is where many of the crops in California are. It's artificially green there.
-
stephankrasner - Peat
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sun 15 May 2011, 14:09:40
Re: China dealing with peak oil and peak energy?
by stephankrasner » Sat 25 Jun 2011, 05:03:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', '
')LOL, why do I feel like I'm talking with a Jehovah's Witness? Ever since the disappointment of 1975, they've been desperately claiming the world is still ending in just a year or two and I need to drop what I'm doing and give my life to Jehovah to have a small chance of being saved. Only here, the disappointment happened in 2008. You don't really have anything rational to offer for folks to worry about anymore. We've seen how the US responds to high gas prices; lower birth rates. The pre-2008 analysis was fatally flawed in that we assumed people would keep cranking out kids and desperately trying to own SUVs getting mad to the point of violence at folks who would try to stop them. Instead, energy use in the US has decreased 10% since 2005 and birth rates are down, too. If us idiot Americans can do it, surely everyone else can, too.
The bottom line here is that Malthus was right, but we're looking at an S-curve- or more likely, an S-curve with only a very modest jump over capacity. Not exactly a die-off, more like an attrition-off as fewer people have kids.
')LOL, why do I feel like I'm talking with a Jehovah's Witness? Ever since the disappointment of 1975, they've been desperately claiming the world is still ending in just a year or two and I need to drop what I'm doing and give my life to Jehovah to have a small chance of being saved. Only here, the disappointment happened in 2008. You don't really have anything rational to offer for folks to worry about anymore. We've seen how the US responds to high gas prices; lower birth rates. The pre-2008 analysis was fatally flawed in that we assumed people would keep cranking out kids and desperately trying to own SUVs getting mad to the point of violence at folks who would try to stop them. Instead, energy use in the US has decreased 10% since 2005 and birth rates are down, too. If us idiot Americans can do it, surely everyone else can, too.
The bottom line here is that Malthus was right, but we're looking at an S-curve- or more likely, an S-curve with only a very modest jump over capacity. Not exactly a die-off, more like an attrition-off as fewer people have kids.
If they can get it, they will get it. Many people want children, so much so that they are willing to force it on others (as we can see in state legislation being pushed in 6 states). You said earlier that if we could just get fusion going we would be okay, what do you think would happen if we got back to "the good times" and cheap energy was the norm? When times are good, the babies are plentiful. Politicians and companies like babies. They use more resources than at any other point in a human's life. So you can be sure that cheap energy and resources means a larger population land less resources.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'G')ood discussion. Just a couple of factoids FWIW,
All grain crops are grasses and self-pollinated, also soy and cotton.
Half of the bees in the US are used in california almond production
This page says dryland corn rotated with beans is 75% as productive as irrigated and 85% as profitable with half the energy inputs
Energy inputs to the irrigated crop is 12% of input costs using last years costs, twice that of dryland.
40% of all grain grown worldwide is fed to livestock.
True! almond and fruit production contribute a great deal to "bee farming" But I don't think it would be very enjoyable to live without the food they make possible. 50% doesn't seem like much as a percentage, but imagine losing or having a heavy decline in 50% of our rotatable crops? If Golini's argument is that there will be no die off and people will decrease naturally over time that would make producing more food very difficult.
Dryland is where many of the crops in California are. It's artificially green there.
-
stephankrasner - Peat
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sun 15 May 2011, 14:09:40
