[MonteQuest]

Here is the first phase: Population Reduction

Thanks to everyone who contributed to it's completion.

1. A one-child per woman policy along with incentives, such as paying women not to have children.

2. Free abortion, birth control, and sterilization on demand.

3. Advocate careful legal Euthanasia and assisted suicide/promote as a valid, moral choice.

4. Advocate the elimination of assisted life support and extraneous means to prolong life.

5. Advocate an end to most organ transplants/promote a better lifestyle to reduce the need for them.

6. Promote family planning and education/teach population ecology in the schools at an early age.

7. Ban fertility clinics and artificial insemination/give infertile couples preference to adopt.

8. Food production must be planned in concert with projected population decline and be shared equitably.

9. Address religious and other cultural traditions that oppose birth control.

10. Narrow the inequity amongst the world’s people/ promote rural energy development in poor countries.

11. Establish a long-term goal of population reduction through birth control and euthanasia to 2 billion people on earth.

12. Target areas of high birth rate/energy consumption.

A one-child per woman policy would achieve zero population growth in 25 years. With the other policies we might achieve ZPG sooner, or at the very least, make up for any abuse of the one-child policy. A food production decrease, as the population declines, is an essential factor in achieving these goals and sustaining them.

[MonteQuest]

The Search for Prometheus III

Prometheus was one of the most interesting characters in Greek Mythology. He was the Titan who stole fire from Zeus and the gods and gave it to mortals for the benefit of mankind. As the introducer of fire, he is seen as the patron of human civilization.

Among the countless technologies humans have developed, only two have increased our power over the environment in any significant way. Economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, 1906-1994, called these Promethean technologies.

Prometheus I was fire; exceptional in its nature to convert chemical to heat energy in a sustained chain reaction so long as sufficient fuel is available.

Prometheus II was the heat engine. Like fire, a heat engine achieves a conversion of heat energy into mechanical work, and sustains it in a more complex chain reaction process by supplying surplus energy.

We burn fossil fuels in these heat engines. But fossil fuels are finite and produce major alterations to the earth’s carbon cycle, i.e., global warming. Thus, humanity faces a fundamental challenge: We need to find Prometheus III and replace fossil fuels with solar technologies that have Promethean gift qualities.

In my opinion, the following qualities are critical:

First, the new energy technologies must be renewable and sustainable.

Second, they must provide for a decentralization of energy production and be scalable.

Third, they must eliminate or substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The diffuse nature of incoming solar radiation requires a significant investment of energy and materials to capture, collect, and concentrate sunlight. This means that many solar technologies deliver a lower energy surplus than fossil fuels. Equally important, the huge infrastructure required to collect solar energy is made from fossil fuels. Solar technologies, therefore, currently are “parasites” on fossil fuel systems because they cannot “reproduce” themselves.

So, to make the transition to renewable energies, we must “powerdown” our civilization and learn to live in a world of modest, bio-regionally organized communities living on received solar energy. For the next half-century there will be just enough energy resources left to enable either a horrific and futile contest for the remaining spoils, or a heroic cooperative effort toward radical conservation and transition to a post-fossil-fuel energy regime. Technological change is shaped in part by the physical attributes of the energies available from the environment, so a world based upon renewable solar technologies is going to be different than the one we now live in.

Phase II will be: Renewable Energy (under construction)

[NEOPO]

The fewest will show the few the feasibility of alternatives.
The fewest will and have already set an example for people like myself "the few" to follow.
Nothing new under the sun really just good ole fashioned self reliance.
I will follow and some will follow with me and 100's of other people thinking along similar lines and like that the movement will grow.
We will "pre-emptively" sacrifice our cars and our current lifestyles for the benefit of everyone including ourselves in an effort to diminish the profound effects of the day when humanity realizes the finite limits of this world.
We will realize a new dream collectively if we are to continuing dreaming at all.

In the end I believe that we still have half a chance.
I may not be considerered 100% certified "Normal" yet the definition of that word changes with the weather and I fear it not!!!
I am not that weird either and slap me for thinking this but I believe many more people are exactly where I am at - looking for a way out and damned determined to do something as opposed to doing nothing.

Will this hedge, this effort in the other direction, this "against the grain" and dare I say again "pre-emptive strike" against PO be enough to hold up civilization as we now know it post peak??? shall we pray now or later?
I think we are all in agreeance when we suggest that something must be done.
Lets hope that what we do will help.

It all starts with one and that one is you and me my brothers and sisters.
The time is now.
It has been yelled from the mountain tops and the messenger is tired, badly beaten and weary.
They have heard the message and they now make their own decisions alittle more informed maybe......
There was never much more the messenger could do.
Let the final act in mankinds quest for oil begin!!!

[Jack]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to look at THIS LINK.

And then there's this, from the same source:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he waste rock must be disposed of, rock which is a known carcinogen.

[marek]

The problem is "entropy subsidies." When oil is at $ 30 a barrel, a barrel of shale oil is competitive at $ 40, but when oil is at $ 60, then suddenly shale is competitive at $ 80. This is because of the low EROI for shale.

However, if we just burned shale directly (instead of coal) rather than using it to produce oil, then shale could be competitive (as it is in Estonia).

[go5star]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'P')erhaps it would be worthwhile to look at THIS LINK.
And then there's this, from the same source:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he waste rock must be disposed of, rock which is a known carcinogen.

[chrispi]

I live in Utah, and I must say that, quite frankly, the only way that oil shale production would be profitable would be to use solar collectors to burn the shale directly, for other methods use too much water, another scarce resource in this Cadillac Desert.

If we do use solar collectors, at least we will have a renewable resource to power the West when the oil shale runs out...

[go5star]

I live in Utah,
Is living in Utah what qualifies you to comment on different oil shale methods?
and I must say that, quite frankly, the only way that oil shale production would be profitable would be to use solar collectors to burn the shale directly
Again you make this claim based on what exactly?
, for other methods use too much water,
Older methods yes they do. Newer methods, not necessarily
another scarce resource in this Cadillac Desert.
If we do use solar collectors, at least we will have a renewable resource to power the West when the oil shale runs out...
Perhaps the last statement shows a bias as to your preferred method of future energy supply. I too think that solar needs to be part of the equation but to be too shortsighted as to think that is our only savior of energy.

[go5star]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', ':')!: HELLO ! HELLO! MCFLY !
We're not talking about refining, retorting or any other bullshit, we're going to burn it DIRECTLY and use the electricity to power everything else, just like we now do with coal.
And anyone who thinks that the American public will heistate for a second when faced with the possibility of total collapse, is living in a dream world. Even myself, a low-key environmentalist would say go ahead and strip-mine CO and WY down to bedrock ... after all, that still leaves us another 48 states to live in
What I want to know is what would be the assorted consequences of following this PARTICULAR path. The thread isn't about refining shale oil or any other crap so let's stay on topic here, please.

IF the USA, when faced with dwindling supplies of 'conventional' oil decides to strip mine the shale oil and burn it directly, could the current economic system continue ? Could we continue with the 'Way of Life' we much the same as we have now ? What would change ? What would stay the same ?
Personally, as much as I hate to admit this, it seems a viable approach to avoid collapse. It's dirty, it would increase global warming substantially, it would increase cancer rates, respiratory problems and I think people will jump on it in a heartbeat if given the choice between it, and total collapse.
Things just need to get bad enough, first.
WHY WOULDN'T THIS WORK ?
The EROEI is certainly high enough. There's no technology limit to overcome, since plants in Estonia and elsewhere have been doing this for years. If it's doable, why would it not be done ?
Prove me wrong anyone ?

[Drakn]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')et me state up front, I think oil production from shale/coal is too energy intensive to be done on anything more than a limited basis. It makes far more sense to burn them directly for electricity production ... something we KNOW can be done and has been done for many years.

[Drakn]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')F the USA, when faced with dwindling supplies of 'conventional' oil decides to strip mine the shale oil and burn it directly, could the current economic system continue? Could we continue with the 'Way of Life' we much the same as we have now ? What would change ? What would stay the same ?

[holmes]

there are absolutely NO costs associated with going to an absolute coal dependent society. . Give me freakin break. Stop your bullshit now. Peak oil is about Upgrade. not going back to 17th century mercury death and cancer rates INCREASING to exponential rates. You cornucopian jackasses are disgusting. You care nothing about humans or any thing living. Its all about ME.
Its easy! Its not energy intensive!

Oh wait cancer is close to exponential rates NOW.

[holmes]

heavy metals and lead are already killing off swaths of the environment and People. Each year swaths of the adirondacks are dieing. It never ended. along with acid rain. Fools dont give a rats ass about nothing. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Monte is Right!
This is for the good kids. Kids
the oceans are poision. Oceans
want more? Heavy Metal
want more?

[cornholio]

I dont think that oil shale conversion to liquid fuel should be dismissed so quickly.. Coal is already available in good quantity to produce electricity for at least many transition decades. What will be missed more immediately is liquid fuel, which oil shale may be able to provide. http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002981.html

Shell's in-situ method for producing an extracting oil without mining seems the most promising... It is developing technology and if successful will take many years to apply and then ramp up... However, if feasable it will be attempted. It is estimated to be profitable if oil remains above 30$/ barrel.... Traditional mining and cooking of shale is also feasible, but with the environmental concerns mentioned above.

"On one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil." This process might produce "Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world"

"The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1476603/posts

I am certain that when faced with increasing fuel prices coal/shale will be exploited if possible to allow humans to control their indoor climate and remain mobile... If use of shale isn't feasible then coal will be used for electricity and gassification for as long as supplies last (which will certainly be many decades). Environmentalists may not want to see this happen, but when the nation is faced with a die-off scenario (freezing and starving) or even recession / depression environmental arguements will not carry much weight...

[small_steps]

Note that coal to oil involves more steps that coal to gas.
So the use of coal gas to fire CCGTs (I know - cost) to produce electricity at about 60% would be greatly more eff than to go the extra steps and convert the coal gas to a liquid and burn it in your ICE at 30% eff. Granted, there are costs of distribution etc. but the difference in infrastruture requirements would likely be swamped by the eff of use.

Also note that to replace 1/4 of the oil consumption in the US would require the doubling of domestic production of coal (use of low BTU coals and Rentech conversion factors)

[abelardlindsay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('small_steps', 'N')ote that coal to oil involves more steps that coal to gas.
So the use of coal gas to fire CCGTs (I know - cost) to produce electricity at about 60% would be greatly more eff than to go the extra steps and convert the coal gas to a liquid and burn it in your ICE at 30% eff. Granted, there are costs of distribution etc. but the difference in infrastruture requirements would likely be swamped by the eff of use.
Also note that to replace 1/4 of the oil consumption in the US would require the doubling of domestic production of coal (use of low BTU coals and Rentech conversion factors)

[rogerhb]

I like the idea that tar-sands and oil-shale will be a piece of piss when we are currently choking on high sulpher crude.

[Drakn]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('holmes', ']')there are absolutely NO costs associated with going to an absolute coal dependent society. Rolling Eyes . Give me freakin break. Stop your bullshit now. Peak oil is about Upgrade. not going back to 17th century mercury death and cancer rates INCREASING to exponential rates. You cornucopian jackasses are disgusting. You care nothing about humans or any thing living. Its all about ME.
Its easy! Its not energy intensive! Rolling Eyes Laughing
Oh wait cancer is close to exponential rates NOW.

[Drakn]

holmes wrote;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')eavy metals and lead are already killing off swaths of the environment and People. Each year swaths of the adirondacks are dieing. It never ended. along with acid rain. Fools dont give a rats ass about nothing. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Monte is Right!
This is for the good kids. Kids
the oceans are poision. Oceans
want more? Heavy Metal
want more?

[Drakn]

small_steps wrote;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ote that coal to oil involves more steps that coal to gas.
So the use of coal gas to fire CCGTs (I know - cost) to produce electricity at about 60% would be greatly more eff than to go the extra steps and convert the coal gas to a liquid and burn it in your ICE at 30% eff. Granted, there are costs of distribution etc. but the difference in infrastruture requirements would likely be swamped by the eff of use.