Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

We are forgetting something HUGE!

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

We are forgetting something HUGE!

Postby Tyler_JC » Tue 26 Oct 2004, 22:13:43

More than Peak Oil or Peak Energy, what about Peak Raw Materials?

Copper, iron, silver, gold, and all of the other "useful" metals are beginning to run out. We can't recycle our way out of a copper shortage. The Market can't magically produce silver from thin air. Lots of energy is required to produce nearly every raw material. We may have already hit peak silver. There is very little left to find and the stuff that’s left is energy-expensive to extract. When the energy shortages come, we might have to close down all of those nice little coal mines that were supposed to save us. If extracting the remaining coal is too energy-expensive, it won’t be extracted.

Remember, the Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones. We couldn’t maintain a Roman Empire style of living after PO because there isn’t enough easy to find metal to continue the Iron Age. Recycling steel will cost energy. We may have a lot of rusting SUVs and no way recycle them into something useful. We used up all of the cheap stuff first. We did it with copper, we did it with iron, we did it with coal, and we are doing it with oil. We may end up in a Middle Ages type environment with no way out.

It gets worse. If Europe hadn’t found coal, Europeans would have been screwed. They were cutting down trees faster than the trees could re-grow. Africa is currently doing this right now. At this rate, Africa will be treeless by 2050. When humans try to heat their homes with the forests, things get ugly. If global warming wasn’t bad enough, we will add to it by cutting down every damn tree in a desperate attempt to survive.

Most of the survivalists talk about wood as a plentiful source of renewable energy. They are right up to a point. If we cut the trees down faster than they are capable of being grown, trees cease to be a renewable resource. We would eventually hit peak wood and then be completely hopeless. By that point, I hope to be long dead.
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Postby gnm » Tue 26 Oct 2004, 22:26:25

Well, speaking as someone who heats with wood - a typical 3-5 acre lot of forest can provide enough wood to heat a home indefinitely. Now scaling that up to tens of millions might become a problem. But seriously, there is enough leftover steel in cars to run an iron age forever. I doubt very much it would even come to that...

-G
gnm
 

Re: We are forgetting something HUGE!

Postby trespam » Tue 26 Oct 2004, 22:30:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'M')ore than Peak Oil or Peak Energy, what about Peak Raw Materials?


I just finished a book called Geodestinies that is all about the geological destiny of societies based upon what resources they have access to. I think that, in general, our main problem is going to be energy. Once the energy becomes more dearly priced, we won't be using as much steel or anything else. Some rare metals will become even more dear, e.g. those that are used for energy systems.

The US, for example, had quite a nice ride on the oil and other minerals that we found here. But we've worked through a lot of it. In Geodestinies thinking, that implies we're over the peak, the good times are largely behind us, and we have to look forward to a reduced standard of living.
User avatar
trespam
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue 10 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Re: We are forgetting something HUGE!

Postby rerere » Tue 26 Oct 2004, 23:01:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'M')ore than Peak Oil or Peak Energy, what about Peak Raw Materials?

Copper, iron, silver, gold, and all of the other "useful" metals are beginning to run out.


Not at all. You can harvest gold, silver, whatever from seawater via electrolysis. Humans can go back and 'mine' the trash dumps. (Waste Management has plans for that) The Wind nay-sayers whine about how 'Wind isn't regular, need regular power'. Fine. Build 10, 20, 50 times the wind machines that are needed and shunt extra power into seawater mineral extraction. OR building coral reefs via electrial help. Or making Hydrogen. Such a view would require leadership and pricing energy from non-renewables like they were, say not renewable.

The real issue about materials and their processing is tied DIRECTLY to 'peak energy'. To get resource X from place Y takes energy Z. Processes that require platinum may be constrained by the overall amount of platinum, or processes that need Uranium are constrained by the amount of Uranium. But 'common' things like copper, iron, silicon are constrained by the energy needed for extraction, not the 'amount' of raw materials given today's environment. Copper is at 1.2 or so US Cents a LBS. And the price seems to be collapsing at this point - some claim because of a 'global economic cool-down'.


You also are not examining the equation in total.

Number of People X Standard of living these people want = Need for resource called O(il).

Modifying the number of people is *NOT* a popular topic, yet that would drop the 'Need' without lowering 'standard of living' for the ones who remain. Technology CAN and HAS modified the Standard of living factor. But that is a small number VS the number of people - and how cheap is a human life VS *YOUR* comfort? Many posters here will give you an answer of 'not much'.
User avatar
rerere
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Postby Tyler_JC » Wed 27 Oct 2004, 18:56:59

Energy is tied into material extraction. I was trying to show that when energy use crashes, so will the amount of available raw materials.

To answer the last part, depends on where the person lives. I generally put the value of an American a lot higher than the value of say, someone living in Zaire. If we must nuke that country to save a town here, it's a worthy trade as far as I'm concerned. Another thing, when resources get tight, I'm inclined to take what I need at the expense of others. I want to, but if I have to, I will. So I put the life of someone else lower on the Value Scale than I put my own life...duh. I can't understand the people who think differently.
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Postby TrueKaiser » Wed 27 Oct 2004, 19:08:37

person a: hey mate where did you get that suit of armor?

person b: made it from a thing called a hummer, just one of them was enough to make two suits for me and one for my horse.
TrueKaiser
 

Postby backstop » Wed 27 Oct 2004, 20:42:43

Rerere & Tyler - I don't think you realize that what you're talking of, in terms of approving murder, even genocide, for the sake of your material indulgence, is simply the continuation of the American Fascist Party's politics.

Personally I'm not remotely squeamish about killing - I breed and train hunting dogs as a pastime, slaughter farm stock for the table and am very far from being a pacifist.

Yet what you're calmly discussing seems to me abhorrent.

In 1940 the US fascist party had 800,000 members, and, since America was actually founded on the genocide of its native peoples, I suppose it's not surprising that some of its people have yet to grow out of such barbaric views.

What you don't yet comprehend is that those views are the core of the problem of peak oil -

If, rather than heading into various scales of warlordism, we pull together internationally to allocate resources equitably, then a soft landing and eventually a sustainable society are eminently achievable. If not, then America, and many other countries, are as you say, TOAST.


Backstop
backstop
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Varies

Postby BastardSquad » Wed 27 Oct 2004, 21:26:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 'I')f, rather than heading into various scales of warlordism, we pull together internationally to allocate resources equitably, then a soft landing and eventually a sustainable society are eminently achievable. If not, then America, and many other countries, are as you say, TOAST.


Backstop


What a LOAD OF CRAP!!!!

Screw the international community!People say we invaded iraq for oil....maybe.People say we did it to get rid of an evil tyrant.....perhaps.People say we did it for our own personal safety and security......could be.But most importantly we did it because WE COULD!!!!!......WE COULD,WE CAN,WE WILL,and WE DID!!!And there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it!Things may not be going according to plan right now,but if/when we finaly take the gloves off iraq we be reduced to a smoldering hole in the ground!
User avatar
BastardSquad
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun 24 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Postby Guest » Wed 27 Oct 2004, 22:42:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') What a LOAD OF CRAP!!!!

Screw the international community!People say we invaded iraq for oil....maybe.People say we did it to get rid of an evil tyrant.....perhaps.People say we did it for our own personal safety and security......could be.But most importantly we did it because WE COULD!!!!!......WE COULD,WE CAN,WE WILL,and WE DID!!!And there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it!Things may not be going according to plan right now,but if/when we finaly take the gloves off iraq we be reduced to a smoldering hole in the ground!


Absolutely. Which is why the MDI is such a priority for the neocon admins. With countries like Brazil now developing space flight read missiles that can reach the US and the future looking like nuclear power will be a required option.

This means more and more countries will have access to missiles and nukes. Not pretty.

When you figure that 1/2 a percent of the worlds population namely America uses 20-30% of the worlds resources and 70-80% of the world is industralising i.e. wanting access to resources. If you want to go down the fighting road be prepared for some unwelcome consequences.

Wars are easy to get into, surviving them and increasing your prosperity as a result are the challenge. Especially if the people you fight can somehow hurt you back. Invading esentially defenceless nations is one thing, starting a fight with someone that can hurt you back is something else altogether. NOTE: The news report the other day and Colin Powels One China statement. *snicker* democracy and human rights my ass. :lol:
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed 27 Oct 2004, 22:50:53

Not half a percent make that five percent :oops:
Guest
 

Postby nero » Wed 27 Oct 2004, 22:53:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat a LOAD OF CRAP!!!!

Screw the international community!People say we invaded iraq for oil....maybe.People say we did it to get rid of an evil tyrant.....perhaps.People say we did it for our own personal safety and security......could be.But most importantly we did it because WE COULD!!!!!......WE COULD,WE CAN,WE WILL,and WE DID!!!And there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it!Things may not be going according to plan right now,but if/when we finaly take the gloves off iraq we be reduced to a smoldering hole in the ground!


This is the sentiment that makes me think Canada should seriously arm themselves with nuclear weapons. The war in Iraq shows that even supposed democracies can go off and have a war just for the hell of it. In the event of peak oil, if Canada can't defend their energy resources we can kiss sovereignty good-bye.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Postby BastardSquad » Wed 27 Oct 2004, 23:45:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat a LOAD OF CRAP!!!!

Screw the international community!People say we invaded iraq for oil....maybe.People say we did it to get rid of an evil tyrant.....perhaps.People say we did it for our own personal safety and security......could be.But most importantly we did it because WE COULD!!!!!......WE COULD,WE CAN,WE WILL,and WE DID!!!And there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it!Things may not be going according to plan right now,but if/when we finaly take the gloves off iraq we be reduced to a smoldering hole in the ground!


This is the sentiment that makes me think Canada should seriously arm themselves with nuclear weapons. The war in Iraq shows that even supposed democracies can go off and have a war just for the hell of it. In the event of peak oil, if Canada can't defend their energy resources we can kiss sovereignty good-bye.


If our attack on Montreal during the American Revolution had been successful then guess what? You'd be part of the U.S. right now!

Just remember everyone,the only weapons that the U.S. has that everyone(including it's own citizes) knows about are the ones that are already obsolete!There is no doubt in my mind that we have $hit hidden away in bunkers and research facilities that are beyond imagination!
User avatar
BastardSquad
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun 24 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Postby backstop » Wed 27 Oct 2004, 23:47:51

Nero - it may well be prudent for Canada to arm itself if the US heads still further from its senses, but not for God's sake with nukes (which are anyway wildly overrated as weapons of war, and which can themselves be used as justification for war).

The rational strategy is surely to prepare the minimum effective force that is able to Discourage (not Deter) invasion. Marshall Tito in Yugoslavia faced down Stalin's Russia with this strategy in the 1950s, and its a very very long time since anyone invaded Switzerland, for the same reason. Hence the strategy has provenance.

In Canada's case I'd suggest territorial forces along Swisse lines with dispersed caches of materiel. The storage of ample portable SAMs would be particularly effective for deflating Pentagon assumptions of air-sufficiency.

Also the training of special forces to counter invade for sabotage (not, of course, counter-productive terrorism) would face US planners with the prospect of war on US soil, with losses of media, transport, energy and production capacities.

Perhaps the strongest defence is that the US is made to see that it would be ejected from NATO, while Canada would remain Europe's trusted ally.

For the US to come to its senses a combination of peak oil, intensifying climate destabilization, and the discrediting of the Neo-Cons look like an appropriate recipe. Its just a matter of timing . . .

regards,

Backstop
backstop
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Varies

Postby BastardSquad » Wed 27 Oct 2004, 23:52:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 'N')ero - it may well be prudent for Canada to arm itself if the US heads still further from its senses, but not for God's sake with nukes (which are anyway wildly overrated as weapons of war, and which can themselves be used as justification for war).

The rational strategy is surely to prepare the minimum effective force that is able to Discourage (not Deter) invasion. Marshall Tito in Yugoslavia faced down Stalin's Russia with this strategy in the 1950s, and its a very very long time since anyone invaded Switzerland, for the same reason. Hence the strategy has provenance.

In Canada's case I'd suggest territorial forces along Swisse lines with dispersed caches of materiel. The storage of ample portable SAMs would be particularly effective for deflating Pentagon assumptions of air-sufficiency.

Also the training of special forces to counter invade for sabotage (not, of course, counter-productive terrorism) would face US planners with the prospect of war on US soil, with losses of media, transport, energy and production capacities.

Perhaps the strongest defence is that the US is made to see that it would be ejected from NATO, while Canada would remain Europe's trusted ally.

For the US to come to its senses a combination of peak oil, intensifying climate destabilization, and the discrediting of the Neo-Cons look like an appropriate recipe. Its just a matter of timing . . .

regards,

Backstop



HEHEHEH...........Canada Sucks........Canadians are pussies!
User avatar
BastardSquad
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun 24 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Postby nero » Thu 28 Oct 2004, 00:42:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')EHEHEH...........Canada Sucks........Canadians are pussies!


Yah? well..... America doesn't play well with the other children!
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Postby Guest » Thu 28 Oct 2004, 01:04:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'E')nergy is tied into material extraction. I was trying to show that when energy use crashes, so will the amount of available raw materials.

To answer the last part, depends on where the person lives. I generally put the value of an American a lot higher than the value of say, someone living in Zaire. If we must nuke that country to save a town here, it's a worthy trade as far as I'm concerned. Another thing, when resources get tight, I'm inclined to take what I need at the expense of others. I want to, but if I have to, I will. So I put the life of someone else lower on the Value Scale than I put my own life...duh. I can't understand the people who think differently.


What's funny is our leaders think that about you, dear peasent. The American royal families (Bush, Kerry, etc) you the same way the Saudi Royal family see its citizens. Expandable . . .
Guest
 
Top

Postby Jenab » Thu 28 Oct 2004, 08:44:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'W')ell, speaking as someone who heats with wood - a typical 3-5 acre lot of forest can provide enough wood to heat a home indefinitely. Now scaling that up to tens of millions might become a problem. But seriously, there is enough leftover steel in cars to run an iron age forever. I doubt very much it would even come to that...

You must have old trees. I usually find six acres needed to supply my 3.5 cords per winter. This year I was lucky in that my rich-landowner neighbor decided to take some quick profit from his land through logging, and his hirlings of course left all these treetops from oaks, birches and hickories just lying arond on the ground to rot. So I was able to get about two years' worth of prime firewood by scavenging after the loggers were gone.

But if everybody turns to wood for heat in the winter, there will be a general deforestation. And that's just another one of those overcrowded lifeboat situations that we're going to encounter with the decline of fossil fuels. I hope that massive starvation happens so that significant deforestation won't happen.

If you think that "we" can scavenge the steel in cars to make things, try an experiment. Go to a junkyard with whatever hand tools you might have in your house and bet the junkyard owner that you can, with just those hand tools, turn one of his junky cars into knives, machetes, axes, mauls, hammers, nails. Be a miracle man! Put Engineer Scotty to shame! Take pictures of yourself at various stages of your work so that we'll know you weren't faking. :razz:

Jerry Abbott
User avatar
Jenab
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Top

Postby Jenab » Thu 28 Oct 2004, 09:19:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', 'W')hat's funny is our leaders think that about you, dear peasent. The American royal families (Bush, Kerry, etc) you the same way the Saudi Royal family see its citizens. Expandable . . .

You may be mistaken about where the moral error is. Tyler's judgment that almost everybody values his own life higher than he values other lives, his own family more than other families, and (normally) his own race above other races - are all correct. It's normal for living things to be selfish, and for tribally evolved creatures to be concerned first and foremost for the well being of their own tribes, not those of foreigners.

The reason these attitudes are normal is that they are survival adaptations that for millions of years has helped individuals, races, and species to survive.

The natural purpose of moral codes is to aid a group of related people in surviving and in being more effective at what they do. A good moral code does not insist that all men are brothers whom we should love and regard as equally valuable. Rather, it insists that the individual should be prepared to sacrifice for those specific others...

1. To whom he either owes his existence (direct ancestors)
2. Whose existence proceeds from him (direct descendants)
3. Who can be depended on to aid in the survival of persons in (1) or (2), including, persons who are also direct ancestors or descendants of at least one of his own direct ancestors or descendants, such as
3a. spouses: direct ancestor of his children
3b. aunts & uncles: direct descendants of his grandparents
3c. brothers & sisters, nieces & nephews: direct descendants of his parents

In other words: his kinfolk.

The genes that made their carriers create dual-code moralities of this sort (amity within group, enmity toward outsiders) gained an advantage in the struggle for mastery. And, once tribal dual-code moralities appeared, a new strategy of warfare became imperative for certain tribes who by some deficiency were unable to stand in the world unsupported. That new strategy involves the undermining of the dual-code tribal morality of a foreign group, which the parasitic group wants to victimize.

Jerry Abbott
User avatar
Jenab
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Top

Postby Jenab » Thu 28 Oct 2004, 09:33:54

I accidentally hit the post button before I was finished editing! :x

We really should be able to edit our posts in these forums.

Anyway, the moral error that Tyler noticed, about which the guest was mistaken, is not its dual nature. Those are natural.

The moral error is, rather, the fact that Americans permitted their own tribal morality to be undermined and circumvented by a clever group of oursiders who made its exercise impolitic through years of psychological conditioning conveyed by the mass media, especially television. That's what let them sneak up on us.

That's why we not only can't trust our government now, we can pretty much assume that it will betray us, tax us without compensation, and attack us whenever it serves their purpose. The US government will increasingly often treat Americans as enemies because the US government has been increasingly taken over by the enemies of Americans.

The enemy did not err. They calculated accurately, planned brilliantly, and carried off a well-coordinated attack on us that involved misdirection, inducements to vice, redistributions of wealth, mass-brainwashing, a money system designed to enslave us, and many other tricks.

We erred in letting this happen.

Jerry Abbott
User avatar
Jenab
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia

Postby BastardSquad » Thu 28 Oct 2004, 10:07:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'W')ell, speaking as someone who heats with wood - a typical 3-5 acre lot of forest can provide enough wood to heat a home indefinitely. Now scaling that up to tens of millions might become a problem. But seriously, there is enough leftover steel in cars to run an iron age forever. I doubt very much it would even come to that...

You must have old trees. I usually find six acres needed to supply my 3.5 cords per winter. This year I was lucky in that my rich-landowner neighbor decided to take some quick profit from his land through logging, and his hirlings of course left all these treetops from oaks, birches and hickories just lying arond on the ground to rot. So I was able to get about two years' worth of prime firewood by scavenging after the loggers were gone.


Modern woodframe houses are very energy inefficient,the best style of house you can build to minimize the amount of energy needed to heat it is a dugout.In the event of a catastrophy this is what I would probably build in my backyard to live in.I am not above tearing my neighbors' houses down to have wood to heat it!!! :twisted:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab', 'B')ut if everybody turns to wood for heat in the winter, there will be a general deforestation. And that's just another one of those overcrowded lifeboat situations that we're going to encounter with the decline of fossil fuels. I hope that massive starvation happens so that significant deforestation won't happen.Jerry Abbott


I have often thought about this.In the absolute worst case scenerio,I can power my truck on woodgas,I can take my family into the wilderness and live off the land.Problem is ,most likely everyone else will do the same thing at the same time :x .

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jenab', 'I')f you think that "we" can scavenge the steel in cars to make things, try an experiment. Go to a junkyard with whatever hand tools you might have in your house and bet the junkyard owner that you can, with just those hand tools, turn one of his junky cars into knives, machetes, axes, mauls, hammers, nails. Be a miracle man! Put Engineer Scotty to shame! Take pictures of yourself at various stages of your work so that we'll know you weren't faking. :razz:

Jerry Abbott


If there is a sudden die off raw materials shouldn't be a problem,salvaging stuff from the cities should provide enough materials for ten lifetimes.As for scavenging steel for cars goes,it's funny that you mention that,I actually tried it a few years ago just to see if I could do it :) .I didn't use the whole car mind you,just some leaf springs.Starting with a primitive forge,a stone anvil and a stone hammer I was able to make a crude chisle which I then used to make several crude knives and a very crude axehead :P It can be done!
User avatar
BastardSquad
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun 24 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Next

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron