Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.
by eclipse » Sun 26 Feb 2017, 02:44:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')From what I know, sea harvests have been on a downward trend the last four decades.
Of course! Fisheries are in trouble. We're not discussing over-fishing here, but kelp farming to such a vast extend that it also increases the shellfish we can harvest, and stimulates the bottom of the food chain for many fish species as well. (I gather some of the kelp is lost to fish nibbling it for the increase in fisheries and associated habitats).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')ery likely, not will not be able to make up for what's needed to avoid doom, i.e., a global economic collapse.
You have not explained why, just asserted that it is not likely.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ill require extensive cooperation in a world which operates in the opposite direction because most think that there will be no "doom" because technofixes will allow for "business as usual."
This company have open sourced their kelp farming business technologies and business practices.
http://greenwave.org/It just won a prestigious environmental award. It is a system that can be scaled up to utilise the world's 2% of oceans that are nutrient rich, and then there are nutrient recycling systems that can grow it out to the other 7% which will focus less on food production, more on energy production. The kelp is drawn in from 6km around into big biodigester bags that compost the kelp down deep underwater, and when it is ready after about a third of a year, methane and CO2 are siphoned off the top. The methane can be used to backup wind and solar or converted into a liquid fuel to replace oil, and the CO2 can be sequestered in big bladders underground.
It's all here "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation". Just register, and download it for free.
http://www.psep.ichemejournals.com/arti ... 57-5820(12)00120-6/abstract
(OR another option I'm open to, but they don't discuss in the paper above, is all the kelp could get dragged onto a big biochar cooker on a super-tanker, which would then sell both energy and biochar when it returned to shore).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')bsorbing CO2 while using methane is also inevitable, but will not allow for "business as usual," which is what most want (and which explains why they are in denial when it comes to "doom"). For them, a "silver bullet" is what will allow for the equivalent of one more earth.
If we 1/ PROVIDE ALL THE ENERGY WE NEED FROM CLEAN SOURCES and
2/ CLEAN UP ALL CLIMATE DAMAGE BY BRINGING CO2 DOWN TO 350PPM,
then haven't we given them a fresh new planet to live on? This is the one planet living footprint map. See what happens if we just solve our energy and climate crisis in one hit?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')ood to know how "big bladders" work and what bright ideas people will do with them in exchange for profit.
Yup, people can invent all manner of workable technologies when it comes to saving civilisation! So a little carbon tax might be necessary to fund this. So what? Do you want a healthy climate for your children and grandchildren or not?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Which is exactly what I am arguing can happen as we move forward in so many areas. Carbon neutral energy from nukes or a combination of renewables + kelp biogas backup can give us everything we need.
(YES, TO SCALE, YES, I've seen "End of suburbia" and read Heinberg's The Party's Over and Powerdown and seen those guys saying "But there isn't enough land!" They forgot about the ocean, didn't they?)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ronically, even doomers point out that we "can" do this or that, but the question is, Have they taken place? I recall one documentary stating that policies dealing with global warming and peak oil should have been implemented at least two decades ago. Another study argues that a global transition to using other sources of energy may take up to a century:
http://www.businessinsider.com/131-year ... il-2010-11 1. France built 3/4 of their grid out in nuclear power plants in 15 years.
2. The vehicle fleet turns over every 16 years.
3. We can replace gasoline with EV's. If a nation ruled that ALL light trucks and family cars HAD to be electric from now on and put serious money into scaling it up, the fleet would turn over in 16 years!
4. NREL Study in my signature shows that 86% of light trucks and family cars could run on today's grid, with no new power plants! Let that sink in for a minute. You'd only have to build extra grid + power for the last 14% of the gasoline replacement: EV's!
5. That's NOT diesel or jet fuel to replace airline fuels and heavy trucking. Diesel for long haul heavy trucking is a different challenge with a different solution: seawater!Synthetic diesel from seawater - or "Blue Crude" - is now cost effective, including the nuclear powered electricity to run it. That means that the cost to build the nuclear power plants to manufacture "Blue Crude" is already factored into the price of the diesel. As the Blue Crude scales up, the nukes will as well.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/synthetic-diesel/ BTW, that requires NO change to the trucks or jets. NONE! It just works.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think the problem is that you see the world as some computer simulation, where if one pushes a few buttons then whole societies will quickly act in tandem and ensure that policies or technologies are implemented easily. In order to remedy that, you need to see these crises raised in light of the following realities:
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
by ralfy » Mon 27 Feb 2017, 00:14:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', '
')Of course! Fisheries are in trouble. We're not discussing over-fishing here, but kelp farming to such a vast extend that it also increases the shellfish we can harvest, and stimulates the bottom of the food chain for many fish species as well. (I gather some of the kelp is lost to fish nibbling it for the increase in fisheries and associated habitats).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')ery likely, not will not be able to make up for what's needed to avoid doom, i.e., a global economic collapse.
You have not explained why, just asserted that it is not likely.
They were explained very clearly in my previous posts, as seen in references to ecological footprint, control of the global economy by a few, etc. In fact, that same economy uses more than just kelp.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')This company have open sourced their kelp farming business technologies and business practices.
http://greenwave.org/It just won a prestigious environmental award. It is a system that can be scaled up to utilise the world's 2% of oceans that are nutrient rich, and then there are nutrient recycling systems that can grow it out to the other 7% which will focus less on food production, more on energy production. The kelp is drawn in from 6km around into big biodigester bags that compost the kelp down deep underwater, and when it is ready after about a third of a year, methane and CO2 are siphoned off the top. The methane can be used to backup wind and solar or converted into a liquid fuel to replace oil, and the CO2 can be sequestered in big bladders underground.
It's all here "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation". Just register, and download it for free.
http://www.psep.ichemejournals.com/arti ... 57-5820(12)00120-6/abstract
(OR another option I'm open to, but they don't discuss in the paper above, is all the kelp could get dragged onto a big biochar cooker on a super-tanker, which would then sell both energy and biochar when it returned to shore).
The problem isn't whether or not projects are open source. It's who controls the means of production and how returns in investment are achieved through them. Second, the consumers who are expected to purchase these goods and services are expected to purchase more (and more "innovative" goods and services) to ensure more profits, better ROIs, and continuation of business cycles (which means the next "silver bullet" after kelp has to show up, promising even more profits). Ironically, the expect the same as their salaries, benefits, and even investments are dependent on the same. Finally, the world does not operate on kelp alone but on that plus copper, iron, oil, etc. That's because those "super-tankers," among others, will require extensive oil inputs, just as what we saw for many decades that allowed us to prove neo-Malthusians wrong.
Unfortunately, all of these are part of the same biosphere that is limited. With that, no amount of "game changers" can reverse diminishing returns.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')If we 1/ PROVIDE ALL THE ENERGY WE NEED FROM CLEAN SOURCES and
2/ CLEAN UP ALL CLIMATE DAMAGE BY BRINGING CO2 DOWN TO 350PPM,
then haven't we given them a fresh new planet to live on? This is the one planet living footprint map. See what happens if we just solve our energy and climate crisis in one hit?
by AdamB » Mon 27 Feb 2017, 00:26:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'D')oomers do not censor hope but shine a bright light on the most serious problems
.....by making up stories about their impact and timing to....scare people into compliance? How the end of the age of iron, claimed in the late 1800's because...you know...we were running out of iron? Pretty serious problem, amazing the amounts that still exist to put into things like cars, roads, buildings and whatnot....
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
-
AdamB
- Volunteer
-
- Posts: 11018
- Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
-
by eclipse » Mon 27 Feb 2017, 00:57:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') Finally, the world does not operate on kelp alone but on that plus copper, iron, oil, etc.
And copper, iron, other metals etc are all infinitely recyclable, aren’t they?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s I explained earlier, the world population can survive on one to two global hectares per capita.
Hectares of what, land or sea? You know I’m not just talking about eating only kelp, but the seafood and other land-based food that kelp can grow. Fish fingers are nice though: I wouldn’t find eating fish & chips on a regular basis a real chore. Especially if I knew the potatos were fertilised sustainably through seaweed fertilisers and grown with renewable and nuclear energy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever, that will also require a massive and quick transition (not several decades) from the use of oil
I wish! But, for the sake of argument, IF this seaweed scheme can be scaled up to 9% of the world’s oceans it WILL sequester ALL our CO2 emissions and provide ALL our ener
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')“dismantling of large military and police forces”
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
by onlooker » Mon 27 Feb 2017, 07:55:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'D')oomers do not censor hope but shine a bright light on the most serious problems
.....by making up stories about their impact and timing to....scare people into compliance? How the end of the age of iron, claimed in the late 1800's because...you know...we were running out of iron? Pretty serious problem, amazing the amounts that still exist to put into things like cars, roads, buildings and whatnot....
I see your not one of the few
"But, even today, few people see the world as Catton did. Few realize how serious these problems are and how their consequences are unfolding right before us. Few understand what he called "the tragic story of human success," tragic because that success as it is currently defined cannot be maintained and must necessarily unwind into decline owing to the laws of physics and the realities of biology. We can adjust to these realities or they will adjust us to them.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
by Tanada » Mon 27 Feb 2017, 12:26:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'D')oomers do not censor hope but shine a bright light on the most serious problems
I shine a bright light on the problems I see all the time. However I do not then proclaim those problems are so grand we are all gonna die, civilization is about to collapse, the economy is falling apart never to recover, oil will soon be so worthless nobody will bother pumping it out of the ground or any of the half dozen other doomer theme scenarios that get pumped around this place constantly.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
by KaiserJeep » Mon 27 Feb 2017, 16:55:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', ' ')the oil peak and decline is the major problem
Its certainly a big problem but its significance is less then many people feared a decade ago. We're 10 years past peak "conventional oil" and we're doing just fine. The US has brought on 5 million bbls/day of unconventional TOS and we're in a global oil glut, necessatiating oil production cut backs.
Yes, more conventional fields will peak in coming years, but there are huge untapped TOS deposits around the world that haven't been tapped yet either.
IMHO Peak Oil, right now, is maybe a 7 to 8 out of 10 on the scale of "major problems."
CHEERS!
-snip-
Not to put too fine a point on this, but Standard Oil was founded in 1911, and the oil boom began a good 25 years before that.
Accepting for a moment your statement that conventional oil peaked a decade ago (which actually is pretty close to my own date of Q2'08) then the "up side" of the curve was over a century long, meaning that there will be oil for at least another half century - and the inflection point where most US citizens cannot afford it, at least is 20 and probably about 50 years away. The rather large range is because more and more people will figure this out as time passes, and at some point a panic will occur.
That's why I said you need to act within 5-10 years. Because I think a price panic over oil is very unlikely before 2027, probability ~0.1.
I think the probability of an oil panic before 2037 is about 0.5, and the probability of an oil panic before 2057 is about 0.9. This is problem #1 for me, because lack of cheap energy will prevent us from solving all the other problems we have, including every environmental problem, plus overpopulation - the root cause of all our other problems.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001
Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.
Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
