[Guest]

probably even scarier to me than peak oil was reading richard duncan's theoryof declining electricity production per capita and the "olduvai cliff" where we will be launched back to 1930s technology by 2030. but then i got to thinking

he claims that while gross energy production continued to grow after 1979 (his "peak") the GLOBAL PER CAPITA rate of energy production declined due to population growth. i would be interested to see what the statistics are on population growth globally. between 1.6 and 2 billion people on earth have no access to electricity whatsoever, mostly in sub-saharan africa and poorer parts of asia, which are the same places where the better majority of the proportional population growth has occurred n the last few decades. so while his thesis hinges on global population growth, it compares it to electricity which is not actually available globally. i wonder how much per-capita energy production has declined if one takes into account where that energy is used: ie mostly in the first world (china has apparently also had widespread access to electricity), with more-limited access in developing nations and none in many others.

additionally, in another paper, he links the slide/cliff to deregulation and to the increasing dependence on natural gas burning power plants, which will lead to "worldwide" blackouts. i'm from canada, and we're heavily reliant on hydro power-- specifically, at least manitoba and quebec get nearly all their power from hydro dams. curiously, or maybe not so curiously, while ontario was hit in the 2003 blackout (we recently deregulated and are increasingly reliant on imports form the US) quebec and manitoba, which are to my knowledge independent electrical entitites under provincial (vs open-market) control and tapping semi-renewable energy, weren't. parts of new york that bought power from quebec were also spared. i'm wondering exactly how he makes claims that worldwide blackouts will hit many nations will little or no reliance on natural gas or oil or massive interlinked power grids.

thoughts?
answers?

[Viper]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'i')'m wondering exactly how he makes claims that worldwide blackouts will hit many nations will little or no reliance on natural gas or oil or massive interlinked power grids.

[Aaron]

It's due to the interconnectivity of globalism & the world economy.

You don't need to be an energy user, to be affected by energy shortage; as weird as that sounds.

Take a look at what Dr. Smalley has to say on the subject.

http://smalley.rice.edu/

[Electrocmatic me]

My wife and I talk a lot about peak oil, or about dieoff; maybe that is better said that I talk to my wife about peak oil and dieoff, and she sometimes listens and sometime ignores me. Recently I said something about exponential growth curves being unsustainable because eventually they approach infinity which is impossible in the here and now in the real world of humans. In her brilliance she said something to the effect that, "Yea, human population growth is approaching infinity, while the earth itself is finite."

If I could transfer the contents of my brain effectively to your, then you would see the picture I have seen many times. This picture is of exponential growth curves collapsing. The stock market crash of 1929; the gold market crash of 1980; the recent NASDAQ crash. All have one thing in common and that is the data series gets too far above the longer term trend line to be sustainable and suddenly there is a massive move back toward the trend line.

It is possible to describe the future in mathematical terms. It is possible, if one had a sufficiently long data series to determine the trend in human population. It would be possible also to extract from the residuals from the trend the cyclical component. Randoms are meaningless since they have a tendancy to cancell out one another, so it is indeed possible mathematically to give an approximation of the future.

I do not have reliable data on the human population, nor do I have data on the oil production. What I can tell you absent the numbers to crunch is that over the very long term human population has run up the left side of an exponential growth curve. This is unsustainable. It will unwind in the right side of the exponential curve. Population must snap back to the long term trend and it will in all probability overshoot that trend before it stabilizes. I could be put in a vaccum of knowledge of human activity and just look at the long term trend in human population and the current population and I could conclude that a snapback in due.. The long term trend by just an "eyeballing" of the long term numbers at dieoff.com is barely above 300 million. It may by a stretch of the imagination be 1 billion.

As for Richard Duncan, he has seen spikes in electricity. He knows that they grow in an exponential fashion; he knows how they unwind. He understands how many systems are similar to one another, i.e, electrical spikes, stock market manias, and human population growth. I do not understand electricity, but I do understand market movements, and I tell you that Richard Duncan's ideas are not to be dismissed.

One of my good friends who happens to be "shrink" pointed out to me that denial is the first defense. I propose that those who deny should examine this possibility that they cannot accept the horror of a collapse of the human growth curve.

[Guest]

In the abstract of the Olduvai theory on oilcrash.com, Richard Duncan writes:
I offer it, however, as an inductive theory based on world energy and population data and on what I’ve seen during the past 30 years in some 50 nations on all continents except Antarctica

The theory says that energy production per capita is declining and therefore industrial civilization is coming to an end, but which nations has he surveyed exaclty? Many of the nations in Africa and Latin America, and even Asia are early stage developing countires. Population worldwide has doubled in the past thirty years, so if these countries are experiencing declining energy production per capita, perhaps it is because of rapid population growth (especially of poor people ie low-energy producers), not necessarily declining energy avaliability or production. Shouldn't his analysis should have only included nations which were newly industrialising and industrialised at least thirty years ago, as industrial civilization is mostly confined to these countries? The use of per-capita energy production may be inappropriate for similar reasons as to why using GDP per capita is inapporpriate for assessing an economy eg inequality of GDP or energy production.
Another thing: why is it that industrial civilization ends when energy production per capita meets 33% of output level? This figure seems arbitrary, but perhaps there is a significance to it. Does anyone know what that significance is?

[Licho]

Well this theory certainly is a weird one.. In my country, energy production (including that per capita) halved during ninetees, while life conditions, agriculture and industry efficiency and environment improved a lot..

[BabyHuey]

A couple months ago, Richard Duncan announced that he was revising the timeline for the Olduvai cliff, bringing it closer, but he didn't release any specifics because the exact timing would depend on who got elected president. He said he would release it "after November 2nd" or words to that effect.

Well, it is now November 8th, but I don't see any mention of this updated timeline anywhere on the web. Maybe he needs someone to give him a gentle nudge, and remind him that the world is waiting to hear what he has to say.

I don't have email right now. Would someone please email him, or email Jay Hanson (I think Dr. D. forwarded his announcement through Jay), and help get this information out? Thanks.

[Guest]

Persistent, aren't you? Does this help?

http://www.mnforsustain.org/duncan_r_ol ... isited.htm

[johnmarkos]

Blackouts permanent by 2007? I'm skeptical. Barring a nuclear war between now and then, I think the lights will still be on in '07, at least most of the time.

[khebab]

Pfff! this guy is way too pessimistic! He should take some Prozac!

[holmes]

50+ year olds are having multiple kids, etc..

by 2018 the population at current pace will be 450,000,000. by 2020 its going to be a [gratuitous expletive deleted -please don't waste moderators' time] hellhole.

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'B')lackouts permanent by 2007? I'm skeptical. Barring a nuclear war between now and then, I think the lights will still be on in '07, at least most of the time.

[Marco]

Who exactly has this accumulated wisdom? Ok apart from the few survivalists, hunter-gatherers and Boy Scouts. I sure as hell dont. I dont know anyone who does. If you put me and ten of my friends on a farm with no references and said- Ok guys- start farming- it would all end in tears I fear.

Most people who live in urban areas have not the faintest idea on how to survive PO. If the decline was slow enough then we could learn some stuff. The skills of our ancestors took generations of wisdom and learning to acquire. You think we can read a book on PO survival 101 and succeed?

Not me.

Marco

[tmazanec1]

Marco:
This is another reason why I think we will either go through an ordeal that strains our Civilization worse than 1929-1945, or breaks it completely and sends us into the Millennial Chasm.

[johnmarkos]

So part of the Olduvai idea is that electrical power networks fail in 2007 or 2012, never to return. Are electrical power grids so fragile that this could actually happen, all around the world?

[guest]

Would a registered user here please forward the guts of this message (or copy/paste, or paraphrase, or whatever) to one or two of the high-ranking forums, the ones where registration is required. I can't register because I don't have email right now. I already tried to ask this question solely in this forum, but it got no significant response. It needs exposure to a more serious breed of activists.
---- BEGIN GUTS OF MESSAGE ----Would someone with email access to Jay Hanson and/or Richard Duncan please inquire about the status of this report: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_dieof ... ssage/1706

I'm worried that it might never see the light of day because Jay says he's getting too old to continue his activities, and Richard is (correct me if I'm wrong) even older and possibly forgetful and, well, bless them both, they've earned the right to do whatever they want, but us youngsters can't help being impatient sometimes.---- END GUTS OF MESSAGE ----

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('guest', ' ')I can't register because I don't have email right now.

[johnmarkos]

Duncan predicts an energy "slide" of 0.67%/year from 2000 to 2011. Although we're almost five years into that period, energy *consumption* per capita appears to have risen in that time. Couldn't find per capita stats for production but they should be parallel, right?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/total.html

Duncan writes, 'The Olduvai 'slide' from 2001 to 2011 (Figure 4) may resemble the "Great Depression" of 1929 to 1939: unemployment, breadlines, and homelessness.' I don't think we're quite there yet.

I have heard that Duncan plans to revise his dates, making the date of "permanent blackouts" 2007 instead of 2012. What is his rationale for this? What is meant by, "permanent blackouts?"

If someone more familiar with Duncan's writing can point me to an explanation of why he believes blackouts will be global in scale, rapid, and permanent, I would appreciate it.

[Guest]

Licho:

Well this theory certainly is a weird one.. In my country, energy production (including that per capita) halved during ninetees, while life conditions, agriculture and industry efficiency and environment improved a lot

--

My answer:

The standard of living for Czechland didn't fall too much because there were somebody else who was willing to sell energy to that country.

If you don't produce, you buy it from somebody else (like Czechland's case) or you go without.

Duncan's theory basically tells that by that year there would be nobody who would be willing or able to sell energy in a significant quantity to prevent a general debacle.

Understand now?

[jato]

I would think there would be a threshold. Energy per capita declines can be managed to a certain point. In other words, excessive energy per capita nations can slide by becoming more efficient before crossing the threshold. Once the threshold is crossed, the negative effects of energy depletion start to take their toll.

What is the threshold? I don’t know.

How much energy does it take to feed 6.5 billion? I don’t know.

Of course, the energy per capita would be a barometer of sorts…an indicator but not an absolute measurement of our current march towards a die off.

Take 10 fat Americans. Put them in a room. Give them their usual diet. Reduce the diet by %5 each day. For a few days they will remain healthy. Eventually, they will all starve to death. I am not suggesting the entire world will starve to death. However, I think the majority of people will.

Of course, all countries will not want to share their food & recourses. Hording (for lack of a better term) by countries will lead to pockets of die offs and pockets of survival.