[asdar]

This site is scary. I always believed in Peak Oil in some small way, but never took it to the next step to envision how it would affect our society.

I was of the belief, like most I think, that even if we run out of oil we could always develop alternatives, even if they took more resources.

Now I can see how nearly every industry would be crippled, and how just the delivery of cement would hamper recovery.

I was thinking of paths out of this mess, and here's my plan. It goes without saying that we need to conserver hard core. That means rations and true change. At some point all oil should go toward securing our energy future, and defense if necessary.

There are three industries that need to jump to the front of the priority list, Coal, Nuclear, and Ethanol/biodiesel.

Coal is our main source of electricity, we need to make it self-sufficient. We need to make new tools for the extraction of coal that run on some form of fuel derived from coal. Coal to liquid, or electric or some new form, maybe more steam to go to a throw back, but it needs to be able to run itself.

Nuclear is scary, but I think it's the only form that could be successful, if we can get it up and running. I've used electricity from nuclear my whole adult life, so I know that it works. Supply might run short, but we can take care of a large percentage of our needs, if we can conserve. It's more than just building the plants, it's all the railways and transmission lines. The coal and Nuclear have to have a network independent of public transportation that so that it remains clear even in crisis.

Ethenol/biodiesel, is important because it gives farmers self sufficiency. Even if it's highly inefficient we need for farmers to be able to run their machines. We're lucky compared to many countries in that we have the land to raise enough food. I think many people take it for granted that will continue. If things get ugly farmers are going to take the first economic hit. They're marginal right now in the U.S. All of the machinery they use is based on oil and we'll have to re-make it in a form that doesn't rely on anyone else. Fertilizer is key to how productive we are. We're going to need a lot more farmers, just to meet our needs.

I think the key is to secure our energy and food, first, and then expand into redeveloping our society. Every vital industry should be self-sustaining, meaning able to run like an island with no outside fuel or supplies for long periods.

[peasea]

hello asdar,

bio/ethanol will only work if we can get good returns without using oil base fertiliser and most important don't use food crops! current plans will use more oil than it will save.

Also we will need more solar , hydro and other eco sources

unfortunatly the outputs or ERIO on these does not match oil nor can they replace the other things oil gives us ( I will not list them here ) , so although we can probalbly make just enough electricity to match current demands there will be massive decline in transport and therefore the way we live now is "screwed"

Although peak oil does not have to mean we have end of civilisation , certainly the one we have now is toast.

P.

[asdar]

Fertilizer certainly doubles our food production, or more, but we'll have production without using as much. We have the arable land to grow our own.

I'm not talking about replacing gas with ethanol, which is what studies are looking at and finding lacking. I'm talking about the farming industry fueling itself, which is definitely possible.

The energy to run tractors and planters and harvesters is less than the energy out of the crops. I don't think that the rest of the crop should be turned into fuel for other industries. The return is so marginal that it's not worth the investment, which could be used to develop much more efficient technologies.

We need those farmers to be independent of oil prices, so that we have food. Without food the whole pile collapses.

[HEADER_RACK]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('asdar', 'T')his site is scary. I always believed in Peak Oil in some small way, but never took it to the next step to envision how it would affect our society.

I was of the belief, like most I think, that even if we run out of oil we could always develop alternatives, even if they took more resources.

Now I can see how nearly every industry would be crippled, and how just the delivery of cement would hamper recovery.

I was thinking of paths out of this mess, and here's my plan. It goes without saying that we need to conserver hard core. That means rations and true change. At some point all oil should go toward securing our energy future, and defense if necessary.

There are three industries that need to jump to the front of the priority list, Coal, Nuclear, and Ethanol/biodiesel.

Coal is our main source of electricity, we need to make it self-sufficient. We need to make new tools for the extraction of coal that run on some form of fuel derived from coal. Coal to liquid, or electric or some new form, maybe more steam to go to a throw back, but it needs to be able to run itself.

Nuclear is scary, but I think it's the only form that could be successful, if we can get it up and running. I've used electricity from nuclear my whole adult life, so I know that it works. Supply might run short, but we can take care of a large percentage of our needs, if we can conserve. It's more than just building the plants, it's all the railways and transmission lines. The coal and Nuclear have to have a network independent of public transportation that so that it remains clear even in crisis.

Ethenol/biodiesel, is important because it gives farmers self sufficiency. Even if it's highly inefficient we need for farmers to be able to run their machines. We're lucky compared to many countries in that we have the land to raise enough food. I think many people take it for granted that will continue. If things get ugly farmers are going to take the first economic hit. They're marginal right now in the U.S. All of the machinery they use is based on oil and we'll have to re-make it in a form that doesn't rely on anyone else. Fertilizer is key to how productive we are. We're going to need a lot more farmers, just to meet our needs.

I think the key is to secure our energy and food, first, and then expand into redeveloping our society. Every vital industry should be self-sustaining, meaning able to run like an island with no outside fuel or supplies for long periods.

[asdar]

I have a little bit of experience in Coal, and in turbines, they could hook up electric in short order. My great grandfather owned a coal mining operation in Pennsylvania and all my great great uncles worked there.

I know enough to know that replacing all of the gas powered equipment would take a few years, let's say 10 years of actual development. Coal to Liquid, I'm not sure would ever work. They still have some steam equipment, fed by coal, so it might be a step in the past will be necessary. I don't think it would ever be shut off completely even if the gas ran dry.

The government released that they're expecting 27 applications for nuclear plants in the next 2 years, those will take 10 years, once they get approval, so 15 years. Less if there's a crisis, people forget that if we're collapsing, beuracratic paperwork will be the first casualty.

There are already farmlands and ethanol programs are big in the U.S. To spread that technology, and make equipment that will run won't happen until there's a crisis, but I think it could be created in 10 years. I only think that because there's a good chance the farming industry will look nearly like it does now. A lot of their equipment is diesel, and if there's a system, they won't have as large a base structure change.

I'm not saying this will be implemented, just speculating what could be done, and where my order of importance is.

I don't think it's alternatives, just because it would take too long for any real payback. With my path, I think we could maintain enough of our everyday activities to possibly get through with only a serious depression, instead of a collapse.

If they don't do these three things, I don't think we have a chance.

[Twilight]

The existing distribution system may not guarantee adequate supplies of diesel in the US. The more production is given over to meeting summer gasoline demand, the worse the position is going into autumn.

[setag]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('asdar', 'I') think the key is to secure our energy and food, first, and then expand into redeveloping our society. Every vital industry should be self-sustaining, meaning able to run like an island with no outside fuel or supplies for long periods.

[asdar]

(meant this reply to Twilights post)

You're saying the problem is now, and that we don't have time? I understand the problem might be starting, and that it's soon, but production is not going to drop from 40 billion barrels to zero overnight.

My goals would be to make criticial industries independent of diesel, or gasoline. Those industries would keep us at above caveman level so that through extreme conservation and rationing we could build up additional sources.

I know that the problem is on our door step, but the gloomiest peaker has to know that we'll have available fuel for 10+ years, and even after that we'll be able to get fuel for a while. It might cost more, but the availability for the U.S. will be there because we're rich.

[Ayame]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('asdar', 'M')y goals would be to make criticial industries independent of diesel, or gasoline. Those industries would keep us at above caveman level so that through extreme conservation and rationing we could build up additional sources.

[asdar]

The more local the better, but ignoring central manufacturing and industrial transportation would be a mistake in my opinion.

If we go to pure local, then we'll have our own civil war based on regional need.

I'm thinking more along the lines of saving the system, rather than surviving individually. Besides, we've had railways before, we can build them back up easier than before and create a grid of some kind if we get leadership.

Diesel engines are nice, but we can use coal, if it becomes economical. That makes it more self sustaining anyway.

The U.S. is the most indebted nation I think, but we have the resources even so. I'm pretty sure we still have the highest GDP. If we're talking global economic meltdown due to oil, then debt can be conveniently ignored if you have a big military like we do.

I'm not saying it's right, just that if push comes to shove we can shove pretty hard. Most importantly I think is that we'll have food. When it comes down to it, that's more valuable than oil.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('asdar', 'T')here are three industries that need to jump to the front of the priority list, Coal, Nuclear, and Ethanol/biodiesel.

[HEADER_RACK]

The fabric of our society, the base of our modern civilization is built on a core foundation of oil.
The entire system runs on oil. You can not pin point where oil can and cannot be used. If one part of the system is not supplied with oil then it will cause a ripple effect shutting it all down.

You say use oil for energy security and defence. Ok who gets the oil then? Army,Navy,Air Force,Marines? Thats defence. Well they need guns. So need to give the people that make the guns oil. They need steel to make the guns. So need to give the steel makers oil to get the steel to the gunmakers. Need iron ore to make the steel so need to give them oil. Everyone wants to get paid. Need to give the bankers oil to go to work to process the money. Everyones working no time to grow food. They have to get it from somewhere then. Grocery stores worked in the past. So need to give them oil to go to work to sell the people the food. Have to ship the food, more oil for the truckers. Now let's not take into account. The uniforms they need. The spare parts for all the machinery, the food to sustain the army, the kevlar vest manufactures and so on and so forth. All the way down to the basic natural resources from with the finished product comes from.

Energy security. Building those Nuclear plants. Well lets see lots of dots to connect hear. Need cement so once again truckers get oil. they need spare parts sometimes and tires so need to give those guys oil to. Lots of wood is involved in construction so need to give oil to the loggers and saw mills and distibution centers. Copper wiring. Need to give the miners and the smelters oil. Need Gauges, lights,plastics,steel and the list goes on and on and on. All the way down to the basic natural resources again.

You just can't pin point something and say they will get oil.

So you have to keep the current system in place. So in the process of changing over to get away from oil, you have actualy increased consumption of oil. Oil to run everything plus all these new mega projects. 10 years is a mighty optimistic time frame to convert an entire infrastucture of a country's energy foundation. I've known city highways that have taken longer to complete.

You cannot ration or conserve the problem away. The system has to have a certain amount of oil to function. You go below that amount and parts of the system start breaking down and the break down just ripples through the entire system.

You don't have to take all the oxygen out of the air to kill someone. Just take out enough to kill him.

[aldente]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('asdar', '
')Ethenol/biodiesel, is important because it gives farmers self sufficiency. Even if it's highly inefficient we need for farmers to be able to run their machines.

[HEADER_RACK]

Goodness,
I figured by now someone would have a rebuttal to my above post or is it so off it's not worth a reply?

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Header_Rack', 'G')oodness,
I figured by now someone would have a rebuttal to my above post or is it so off it's not worth a reply?

[evilgenius]

The biggest problem America will have, after everything stops, is the distribution of people. Too many people live where it gets cold enough to kill them in the winter. There is maybe enough wood to heat a small percentage of the houses sustainably. Within three years most of the forests of the north would be denuded. Add food shortage to that and right there is a die off. At least it will take a few months for the bodies to start smelling.

I think the Bushies are way ahead of us on this one. Most of the military bases that got shut down where in the north. The southern bases remain. They expect mass migration and problems over a longer timeframe in the south.

[asdar]

I lost track of this thread when they moved it, my apologies.

Our society isn't based on Oil, we've become dependent on it, but there are still people alive that lived without using oil for everything.

As far as giving oil to defense, that's not new. In WWII they had fuel rationing and it worked.

You even broke it out the way they had it. The military gets a large share, military contractors also get first dibs, medical, abulance and police get oil.

Rationing has been done in this country, we'd get through that.

[TonyPrep]

I sometimes wonder if people grasp just how different current society (in the developed world) is from that of 60 years ago. Whilst the societies of those days may have been able to adjust to many of the things suggested here, such adjustment will be very much harder now. There are far more people, the economies are globally intertied, communities are less close-knit, public transport is poorer, expectations are higher, dependency on oil is even more complete.

Don't be lulled by the argument, "we've done it before, we can do it again."

[Judgie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('asdar', '(')meant this reply to Twilights post)

You're saying the problem is now, and that we don't have time? I understand the problem might be starting, and that it's soon, but production is not going to drop from 40 billion barrels to zero overnight.

My goals would be to make criticial industries independent of diesel, or gasoline. Those industries would keep us at above caveman level so that through extreme conservation and rationing we could build up additional sources.

I know that the problem is on our door step, but the gloomiest peaker has to know that we'll have available fuel for 10+ years, and even after that we'll be able to get fuel for a while. It might cost more, but the availability for the U.S. will be there because we're rich.

[HorneyGeekBoi]

I have a solution that wont require conserrvation, infact, it will allow more resource consumption. The idea is, lets allow only 10% of the population procreate, and they can only have at most 3 children. To decide who can procrerate, we will basically have beauty contests to find the most beautiful and fertile females, and the most healthy males, prefably ones who are dominant and desirable in the society. In order to make it fair, there can be racial and religious quotas also, so that we dont remove any groups of people unwittingly, and maintain the society as it is now, only scaled down.... Also, exceptions can be made for males or females with exceptional abilities or intellegence, chess champions, scientists, great academics, religious thinkers, businessmen, etc, as well as anyone who is a billionaire or owns a bank, due to their importance in the economy... The rest of the people can be made sterile and banned from procreating... The population should crash within a generation or three... and more oil to go around...