[JayHMorrison]

When I first strated reading about Peak Oil a few months ago, I was initially very worried. I thought I would be packing up and running for the hills with a 5 year old son. (He is 2 yrs old now)

Then after reading all of the websites about the problem, I decided to read the websites about the solutions.

Oil and and Natural Gas provide the basis of just about everything we do for transportation and fertilizer, affecting our ability to move, produce food, and transport goods. We all know that and are worried about it.

After doing a lot of research, I am not nearly as worried as I used to be.

Life may slow down a bit with oil becoming non-economical. We may not fly much on jets. We may not have a driving summer vacation (I don't do that anyway, so I dont care). There will be fewer imports and less trade in the world (I think that is good for employment in the US).

When finding a replacement for oil, people operate under the assumption that it must be a 100% replacement for the amount of energy missing from oil. That is not the case. I think we could cut our energy consumption by 50%. Japan and many European countries produce almost the same GDP per capita as the US on 1/2 the energy.

That tells me that we are wasteful and that there is a diminishing return for GDP versus the amount of energy inputs. For example, if we double our energy use tomorrow, will that double GDP? Nope. The reverse is also true. The economy will likely hit a severe recession during the initial phases of the transition away from oil.

Oil represents about 40% of our energy right now. That is going to start on a glide path downwards. It doesn't disappear on day 1 of the crisis. As I see it, the initial crisis will be most evident in the price of gasoline. Inflation for other goods will lag the initial price spike for gasoline.

We are amazingly wasteful. My family has two cars. It used to be 2 SUVs. A Lexus SUV (17 mpg) and a Jeep Liberty (20 mpg). I got rid of the Lexus about 3 months ago and got a used VW Jetta (29 mpg). Going from 17 mpg to 29 mpg for myself improved my fuel efficiency by 70%. Now when my family goes anywhere, we use the Jetta. The only reason I still have the Jeep is because it in on lease for another 18 months. I plan on getting the best hybrid possible (60+ mpg???) in January 2006. Then that will likely be our main car, thus improving our fuel efficiency by another 100%.

In the space of 2 years, my family will go from 20 mpg to 60 mpg. There might even be diesel hybrids that get 70+ mpg by then.

We will also be thinking seriously about extra driving that we dont need to make. We used to think nothing about taking 2 cars and meeting somewhere. We don't do that anymore. I am fairly well off with a family income over $100,000 per year. I dont need to be doing these things. But I do them now because I know.

The point I am trying to make is that relatively quick energy efficencies can be made with relatively low impact. We are HUGELY wasteful and that can change quickly. There are a lot of used cars on the market that get 30+ mpg. A buddy of mine with a Suburban (12 mpg???) went out and got a used Mitusbishi Mirage (35 mpg) when he first paid $80 to fill his tank.

That tells me that the first few years of post peak oil are survivable. That wakes up the United States and the world.

If we can manage for 5 to 10 years in a decline (and I think we can based on my observations above) then you will see massive capital investment in the infrastructure of non-oil energy systems. The technology exists. We simply don't have an incentive to build it yet.

I do not know what the eventual energy winner will be. Electric vehicles, bio-diesel, super hybrids that are 90% grid charge and 10% gasoline, hydrogen fuel cells, whatever. All of these things are possible. It remains to be seen what wins out in the end.

Will it be more expensive than cheap oil? YES. Will transportation disappear? NO. It will change dramatically over the decade of transition.

The average car weight in the US is 4000 pounds. Some SUVs are over 6000 pounds. If efficency is the goal, they will keep the weight down and do amazing things. (100 km per liter / about 230 mpg)
http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/newsartic ... vwg0204221

We don't need to power ourselves purely with gasoline. Imagine that VW with a hybrid rechargable battery based on the following concept.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4952048

Imagine this... A super low weight diesel hybrid with battery system that is charged each night on the power grid in your garage. The diesel fuel is only used when the battery reaches 20% of charge remaining. For the average person on a daily commute, you never even use the diesel fuel. You lose more fuel due to evaporation from it just sitting in your tank.

All of those technologies exist right now, but they have not been put together in the same package. There has been no need to do so. How much would it cost to develop? $10 billion? I read that the average new car model costs $2 billion from scratch to develope. I am not sure. That is a drop in the bucket compared to what is at stake.

Most people who are looking at the darkest side to Peak Oil are viewing it as an unreplaceable resource. I think it is replaceable. It doesnt have to be 100% replaceable. We dont need to produce the same amount of energy of 40% on day one. It will be a gradual process of boosting the power grid via wind farms, nuclear, etc. Beyond just energy output, there is a lot of room for improvement in the efficiency of transmission lines in the power grid. How many power plants do we not have to build if transmission efficency improve by 20%?

We have spent $120 billion on Iraq so far. The govt perceived (right or wrong) Iraq as a threat and spent the money. When oil itself is widely recognized as a threat, there will be amazing amounts of investment thrown at the issue.

This post is getting too long so I will stop now. I have thoughts on food production and fertilizer/energy inputs. There are solutions there also that lead me to believe that a "Die off" is not likely.

[MrPC]

These are the sort of infrastructure and fleet based solutions that would have worked had they been implemented in the late 70s or early 80s, as they are the kind of things that would take around two decades to have an impact on oil demand.

You can't just produce a hundred million efficient cars as soon as peak becomes widespread. If anything, the poor will probably end up driving SUVs as demand for anything efficient will probably hit the roof, and supply just won't be able to cope.

Oil consumption won't be the first thing to go. In a crunch, people will stop buying stuff long before they start seriously conserving oil, and that will cripple the economy. Also, the constant growth in population will offset any possible efficiency gains on a whole-of-vehicle-fleet basis.

Assuming peak is less than a decade away, perhaps just a few years away, it's too late for these solutions now. Sorry.

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrPC', 'T')hese are the sort of infrastructure and fleet based solutions that would have worked had they been implemented in the late 70s or early 80s, as they are the kind of things that would take around two decades to have an impact on oil demand.

[Chicagoan]

Unfortunately, MrPC is right. On the optimistic side, I believe we face economic depression for the rest of our lives once peak oil hits. On the pessemistic side, we face a global die-off. My opinion is that it really will depend on where you live as to what will happen.

Forget driving. Buying any kind of car is probably a bad investment I think. If you value electricity, provide it yourself. In the future, you will be on your own. The best thing to do would be to move into an isolated, well-hidden area, and become self-sufficient. That would give you the best chance for survival if the worst-case-scenario happens.

I am taking my chances by remaining in the city. I have given up driving for the most part, which is easy when you have two bus routes right down the street. I am saving to get off the grid (avoid credit. Save and then buy) I am also experementing with gardening, although am having limited success.

I have posted my plan to make Chicago viable in the future in the open forum.

[MattSavinar]

I was reading through the first post and about a quarter of the way through it, I thought to myself, "I bet this guy has a family income of over $100,000"

And of course, he did.

Here is the thing: those of us in the "educated" upper-middle classes aren't feeling the impact of this crisis . . . yet.

For us, we can take simple steps like Jay did. Reducing our trips, inflating our tires, shopping around to get the best deals etc. . . and pretty soon were thinking to ourselves, "Hey, what is everybody so nervous about?"

I think the picture begins to change dramatically as you get lower on the economic ladder.

Die-off's begin at the bottom.

Matt

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Chicagoan', 'U')nfortunately, MrPC is right.

[Chicagoan]

I meant the power grid. ^^ I am buying one solar panel and one wind turbine per year. In a shrinking economy, you will not have a line of credit. Credit is possible because people assume you will be wealthier in the future so they can charge interest.

If you don't have survival skills, there are classes you can take.

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '
')For us, we can take simple steps like Jay did. Reducing our trips, inflating our tires, shopping around to get the best deals etc. . . and pretty soon were thinking to ourselves, "Hey, what is everybody so nervous about?"

I think the picture begins to change dramatically as you get lower on the economic ladder.

Die-off's begin at the bottom.

Matt

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Chicagoan', ' ')In a shrinking economy, you will not have a line of credit. Credit is possible because people assume you will be wealthier in the future so they can charge interest.

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '
')For us, we can take simple steps like Jay did. Reducing our trips, inflating our tires, shopping around to get the best deals etc. . . and pretty soon were thinking to ourselves, "Hey, what is everybody so nervous about?"

I think the picture begins to change dramatically as you get lower on the economic ladder.

[Aaron]

Graph (large)

This graph is an over-simplification of course, but illustrates an important point. It's not really the individual net energy return that's important, it's how any source compares with other sources (like oil). Measuring net energy depends on many factors, not just the pure physics.

Let's look at it from an economic view: If SA can produce a barrel of oil for 5$, then sell it for $20, they realize a 400% net return. At $40 per barrel, they receive an amazing 800% return. Even if the above chart was wrong on an order of magnitude, oil would still be the biggest net energy winner.

The other critical question is timing:
http://www.peakoil.com/postt144.html
http://www.peakoil.com/postx50-0-0.html
http://www.peakoil.com/postlite333-tightening.html+belt

[The_Virginian]

Jay,

Your plan for some acrage (though I'd up it a bit, Got extended family? Want Horses? You need more than 10 A.) and fruit trees is not too bad. Just be sure you can defend yourself, no Rambo BS, just basic SD.

Trees take time to mature, take that into account. they will not likely privide all your fat/protien needs unless you include a large amount of nut trees ( pecans, almonds, walnuts etc. as you say "what works").

Chickens are an economical thing to do small scale for some meat, if you desire it. Goats are good for milk and meat. (get the milk kind-like Nubian- and sell most of the milk, slaughter most of the young males for meat...yum!)

Going "back to the land" should not be a money loosing proposition, not in good times, not in bad.

Overall, if you take away one thing form my message remember this :YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL. There will be many, many folk who "wake up" one day and say "let's move to the country."

Then it will be harder to accomplish your goals for many reasons. (Inflation in good land prices, your own monitary situation etc. etc.)

[Falconoffury]

One failing that some people have when they talk about technologies that replace oil, is that they can't explain how it will affect the economy, and why any government or private company would want to invest in those technologies. The problem is magnitude. We don't have enough biodesiel, wind power, and nuclear energy to be prepared to avoid a crisis after peak oil. The problem with economy is that it doesn't prepare for future changes well enough. It reacts to current prices. The economy will wait until oil is at least $80 a barrel before seriously considering developing alternative sources. By that time, it will be too late. The next great depression will already be here, and there will be no swing producers to save us as they have in the past. People will be focusing on getting food and medicine rather than building new energy sources. I don't think the country will be thinking about building new wind farms or nuclear power plants when everyone is waiting 3 hours for gas, and has to spend most of their money on food.

The economy is unsustainable. That means our civilization cannot continue going down the road it is on. Rising oil demand and rising population is unsustainable.

Look at Japan. They are having economic problems because their population is going down. That means that there are not enough hard working young people to support the large number of older people. The same thing is happening in the USA. We are allowing millions of immigrants per year to support the low paying jobs to support all of our pensions. And economic system that requires an influx of growth in the lower class jobs to support everyone else is completely unsustainable. It is clear that this economic system cannot adapt itself to energy, and earth's carrying capacity, so it must crash, and hard. No other civilization in human history has crashed softly. There is no evidence that the current modern industrial civilization will be any different.

Perhaps one day the survivors will create an advanced civilization radically different from the one we have today. I can envision a world without money, with free energy for everyone, and people being responsible enough to not overpopulate their resource base, and consume as if there was no tomorrow BY CHOICE. I can imagine a society that can adapt to changes centuries before they come to pass. Such a thing may never come to pass. If it did, it would not just be a technological revolution, it will be an evolution of the very nature of the human psyche.

[MattSavinar]

What Falcon Furry said.

[Chicagoan]

We are already building a renewable energy infrastructure. Chicago gets some 13 percent of its electricity from renewable energy. In an emergency, this could be used to sustain the water grid. I heard some towns in rural Iowa get some 60 percent of their power from wind.

I have a whole crop of tomatoes coming up in my yard. I thought they had died, but I was wrong. And this is just from a tiny plot of land. I have also planted 5 fruit trees (3 apple trees, 1 peach tree, and one pear tree). When my Grandma was alive, she got enough fruit from one tree to last the whole summer. For fertilizer I used old newspapers. I got a lot of information from these guys http://www.urbanpermacultureguild.org/.

Capitalism is doomed, but we are not. During the Great Depression, people turned to each other for support. The best thing to do is probably be on good terms with your neighbors (that I am working on). One thing that people who were alive at that time say is don't trust the government to help you. You got to help yourself.

[Falconoffury]

Did you just call me furry? I know there is only one "r" in there, making the word "fury", like anger, general unhappiness.

Capitalism is doomed, that much we agree. We can also agree that the rural areas will be in better shape than urban areas. Unfortunately, one major US city being able to barely support its water grid in an emergency does not give me any reason to think we are prepared.

[Chicagoan]

There is always hope.

[WaterBearer]

There is always change.

[Driz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', 'A')fter doing a lot of research, I am not nearly as worried as I used to be.

[new_user]

Most people here seem to agree that governments aren't going to do anything about the impending peak simply because there is no economic benefit.

Some people here seem to think that a "cooldown" is possible- marked by economic hardships, power outages, changes in way of life, gradually declining populations- but not necessarily the worst case "die-off" scenario imagined by others.

What will make the difference between a "cooldown" and a "die-off?" Some people have mentioned that fuel-efficient vehicles are one of the first stages- the more fuel-efficient your transportation system, the more feasible a switchover to ethanol and biodiesel would be.

The other critical problem, as I see it, is agriculture's dependancy on petroleum for pesticides and fertilizers. An article discussed the possibility of crops that were less dependant on pesticides and fertilizers- and mentioned the lack of government interest (and yes, by "interest," I really do mean "funding") in such endeavours.

The major barriers in both areas seem to be economic, rather than physical. Not that the economy is "imaginary," but sometimes is it not possible to circumvent economic barriers through physical means?

It was previous mentioned in this thread that "high" petrol prices in the United States (above $2) were causing increased interest in hybrids and were dropping SUV sales. Petrol (and oil) prices have since dropped somewhat, but this spike gives us an indication of what would happen after oil peaked- interest (too late) in the kinds of technology that might turn a die-off into a cooldown.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the factors influencing higher fuel prices was the increase in terrorist-like resistance in Iraq. While America was struck at the heart by the beheading of one of her citizens, she was struck at the pump by sabotage of Iraqi oil infrastructure. And moves in the right direction in terms of vehicle fuel economy were the result.

What if prices hit $3? $5? Barring some sort of magic deflation, this will happen eventually, but it appears that the sooner it happens, (provided we're still on the uphill/plateu of the Hubbert bell curve) the better. These "high" (Europe is already paying them) prices could be attained through government control, i.e. taxing, or they could be the result of actions on the part of individuals with neither political nor economic clout.

The United States is an idea case for this idea, not only because it is the biggest consumer, but because it is separated by water from all of the major exporters aside from Venezuela. Oil, which the United States must import to sustain current usage levels, must come from a ship, then be processed at a refinery before it's useful- two "bottlenecks."

Disruption of refineries or port facilities, would, theoretically, reduce supply and raise petrol prices. A refinery takes years to build. Refining capability lost to could not be quickly made up. Price rises would be long-term- almost the same effect as the beginning "slide" after the peak, except only fuel would be affected.

The desired effect would be not only to promote the use of hybrid (diesel-electric, ideally) vehicles, but to bring the oil issue into the spotlight...


I think I'll stop before I start to scare myself. Maybe some more later.

Yes, I'm new, and yes, I'm crazy. Thanks for listening.

Peace