Hi all,
I'm new to the site and as I was reading I was surprised by the extremely negative views many posters have reading the situation post-peak. It seems like a lot of people are gearing up for Mad-Max style anarchy.
I know there are huge challenges to maintain and increasing our current energy supply and in the long-term (unless we master Nuclear Fusion and develop exceptional renewable sources) we will have to moderate demand irrespective of the third world.
However, it seems, despite the long-term challenges, the short-medium term outlook don’t appear to be bad.
Here is how I see it; we can meet out short-term demand with a mix of the following sources:
1) Nuclear - Currently supplying 20% in the UK (80% in France). A provision of 20% would be realistic in many countries.
2) Gas - Europe has enough direct supply to last for 50-150 years. The US has a significant problem regarding supply, as it has no gas so it would need to build a LNG infrastructure. However, this could be accomplished in 5 years or so with government funding.
3) Wind/PV - A national government lead drive to put a wind turbine and PV unit of each house where appropriate. Both technologies are almost commercially viable. Some industry experts claim the next generation of PV units (circa 2010 onwards) will be able to compete with fossil fuel generation from a commercial point of view.
4) Coal - Coal/gas hybrid plants could play a significant role in a bridge energy economy.
Many of these sources currently provide a significant portion of our energy needs and could be extended rather quickly with a government lead initiative. The problem will be transport. The solution will be simple. Walk to work. Petrol supplies will priories the government will first take what it needs to implement its energy strategy, then major transport requirements will be met and finally what ever is left will go to consumers.
Over the first decade post peak there will be contant transport cost inflation that will lead to shift to hybrid and electric cars for those who still use them. Mass transit will be massively increased and will utilise hydrogen cells like the bus fleet in London. Most people will simply have to bike or work to in the morning.
Then there is conservation, by increasing fuel and energy efficiency many experts claim we could reduce our energy demand by as much as 30% without significantly changing our activities.
Is this scenario completly implausible, if so why?
PeakOil is You
Overly pessimistic on Peak Oil?
100 posts
• Page 1 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Overly pessimistic on Peak Oil?
by mkwin » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 11:51:29
-
mkwin - Tar Sands
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Re: Overly pessimistic on Peak Oil?
by Pixie » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 12:09:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'H')i all,
I'm new to the site and as I was reading I was surprised by the extremely negative views
However, it seems, despite the long-term challenges, the short-medium term outlook don’t appear to be bad.
Is this scenario completly implausible, if so why?
I'm new to the site and as I was reading I was surprised by the extremely negative views
However, it seems, despite the long-term challenges, the short-medium term outlook don’t appear to be bad.
Is this scenario completly implausible, if so why?
Hello new kid,
All the responses to your questions are already posted in the forum by people more knowledgeable than me, so I won't rehash it all. Just keep your brain open to the information, and your perspective will go steadily downhill regarding the viability of all the energy sources you mentioned.
The main thing that you are not taking into consideration, however, is food. Our food supply depends on both oil and natural gas--oil to run the machinery and natural gas to make the fertilizer.
As light sweet crude oil gets harder and harder to get, we will switch to all sorts of other things, including sour crude, synthetics, tar sands, etc ad infinitum. All of these things need a lot of energy to pull out of the ground, and will never be produced at the speed that we produce light sweet crude.
Regarding natural gas, your statement that there is 100 years of NG supply in Europe is suspect to me, but it falls apart completely if the USA starts importing LNG to make fertilizer.
Therefore, the idea that we will all get along by carpooling and bike riding will last only about 10 years at the outside. It will be a very nice ten years. I look forward to it. After that is when food production will begin to collapse due to fuel shortages and fertilizer shortages. This will happen in the Third World first. All of us here in the Industrialized World will read about it in the paper and tsk about how bad things have gotten over there. Eventually, the shortages will hit all of us.
There is a thread on this forum that looks at what the death rate will have to be to get us back to a population that can be fed with pre-industrial farming methods. It's hell on earth--literally unimaginable and unprecedented, and it will take 50 years of that death rate. Most of us can be glad that we won't see much of it. And if you care about your children, don't have any.
Just another tofu-munching bike-riding Rambo(/Rambette)
-
Pixie - Lignite
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Oregon
Re: Overly pessimistic on Peak Oil?
by pup55 » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 12:28:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')s this scenario completly implausible
Welcome, mkwin....
I have an opinion on this, not necessarily shared by the doomers....
From a technical standpoint, all of what you say is within the realm of possibility except for transportation, which is an ongoing problem. Others may argue the fine points....
But even if some combination of technical solutions can be found, you still have the problem of implementation, which is getting us obese suburbanites to accept a big change in lifestyle. How are you going to do it? At gunpoint? How are you going to manage it? By the same government that gave us Katrina and Iraq?
This is the hard part. 99% of the public has no idea about the ramifications of the change that awaits us at some point. The ramifications of the problem on the food supply is already being felt.
But there's no one driving the ship as we head toward the iceberg.
-
pup55 - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Overly pessimistic on Peak Oil?
by Nike62 » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 12:45:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'I')s this scenario completly implausible, if so why?
Very simple answer: your solutions would be great, 30 years ago.
Today they are a bit late... nowadays, we are lacking in time and in cheap resources...
-
Nike62 - Peat
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue 04 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Rome, Italy
Re: Overly pessimistic on Peak Oil?
by Twilight » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 13:19:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '1')) Nuclear - Currently supplying 20% in the UK (80% in France). A provision of 20% would be realistic in many countries.
Within 15 years, nuclear will be supplying less than 5% in the UK, unless we build replacement capacity. Resources and finances aside, our skillbase is unlikely to be sufficient. The same applies elsewhere. No-one has given much thought to making the intellectual investment, and that must come well in advance of construction.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '2')) Gas - Europe has enough direct supply to last for 50-150 years. The US has a significant problem regarding supply, as it has no gas so it would need to build a LNG infrastructure. However, this could be accomplished in 5 years or so with government funding.
I doubt anyone could move that fast, firstly as a result of planning constraints and public sentiment, secondly because an import terminal is useless without an export terminal and a long-term contract. According to some reports even Russia is going to be hard-pressed to meet future European demand, and it is #1 in the gas business. No amount of state subsidy is going to address the willingness (and ability) of producers to invest in their infrastructure. If Russia and the ME Gulf are not up to the task, what then? I wouldn't be too quick to stake the future on a third party's herculean efforts.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '3')) Wind/PV - A national government lead drive to put a wind turbine and PV unit of each house where appropriate. Both technologies are almost commercially viable. Some industry experts claim the next generation of PV units (circa 2010 onwards) will be able to compete with fossil fuel generation from a commercial point of view.
Mass production of cheap PV would require whole new factories. Someone would have to make the investment, and a clear enough signal is not so far being offered. It may not come in time, if at all.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '4')) Coal - Coal/gas hybrid plants could play a significant role in a bridge energy economy.
On this I would agree, although environmentally it would be a disaster. Not necessarily on the climate change side of things, but acid rain and pollution of the water table are other potential issues. We can see in China what happens when this is desperately pursued.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'M')any of these sources currently provide a significant portion of our energy needs and could be extended rather quickly with a government lead initiative. The problem will be transport. The solution will be simple. Walk to work. Petrol supplies will priories the government will first take what it needs to implement its energy strategy, then major transport requirements will be met and finally what ever is left will go to consumers.
Over the first decade post peak there will be contant transport cost inflation that will lead to shift to hybrid and electric cars for those who still use them. Mass transit will be massively increased and will utilise hydrogen cells like the bus fleet in London. Most people will simply have to bike or work to in the morning.
