Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 23:32:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', ' ')I've read elsewhere on this site that that agriculture takes up 10 percent of all fossil fuel used in the United States, including transport to market.


I believe agriculture directly accounts for 17% of all the energy used in this country.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 03 Dec 2007, 23:48:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')ustainable renewable ecologically sound power.
Solar & wind power are sustainable and renewable. No power generation is ecologically sound. It is simply a matter of scale. IE, how much damage is acceptable to you?


No, how much damage is acceptable to nature. Carrying capacity must veto human needs. There are limits. The demand of 6.7 billion, even using renewables, will exceed the limits.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell then what if we took energy out of the system by placing many solar cells, but then we balanced that out by lowering the amount of energy that is reflected back into space? Global dimming from pollution currently decreases the amount of solar radiation, what if we took the opposite approach, lower particulates and increase solar radiation?
Or place the solar panels in space in a high orbit and beam the energy back down to earth via Microwave power transmission(MPT).
We have successfuly increased our energy use, not taken energy out of the system, and the laws of thermodynamics are safe.


That kind of thinking is what got us into this dilemma.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')owever, adherence to that criteria will not support 6.7 billion.
What is sustainable depends on exactly what kind of future you want to live in. It has a moral and ethical component to it, not just raw numbers as you seem to be suggesting. [/quote]

Carrying capacity must veto ethical and moral concerns. 6.7 billion is not sustainable without fossil fuels, and any attempt to try and do so with solar sources will be catastrophic with the scale required. Too many people, no matter how they live.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')aybe 2-3 billion is the number of people this planet could sustain with lots of pretty trees and butterflies and such. But if we took the technocratic path and turned the planet into a giant farm/power plant that did nothing but sustain us, the number of people that could be sustained would be much higher. I am not advocating this path mind you.


LOL! No, not possible. Reminds me of Dezakin.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'I')t means that I feel that its preferable to wipe out all wildlife on earth and construct a vast banal civilization of glass and steel (with whatever actually is biologically necissary to support humanity, crops) in the quest for growth than to stagnate, where it seems many others are rather horrified at the concept of such a world without natural places, if they get beyond believing such an artificial world is impossible.


http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic15090.html
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 00:01:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ') That being said, current organic farming has ~80% of the yield that fossil fuel intensive farming does, in a sustainable fashion. Cutting livestock production could make up the difference in yields while keeping land use constant since so much energy is lost between trophic levels.


What people don't seem to grasp is that continued successful agriculture, of any kind, to try and continue feeding a population in overshoot, is the greatest threat to mankind's future.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 00:17:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'S')orry to backtrack here, but what would that long term population growth chart a few pages back look like if superimposed on a global oil production graph covering a similar period?


Image
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 00:23:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', ' ')
Rapid population growth was not a result extra "energy".

It was a direct result of a lower death rate, as Monte loves to point out so often.

Sanitation improved in the 1800s. Medicine improved. Diseases were cured. Germ Theory was discovered. Vaccinations were invented. Pollution controls were implemented. Hospitals were built.

All of that stuff has very little to do with extra energy and absolutely nothing to do with crude oil (which hadn't even been discovered to be useful until the early 20th Century and wasn't widely available till the 1940s).


Deja vu?

I already debunked this here: http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic34497-0-asc-30.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')Rapid population growth was not a result extra "energy".


Overshoot was, however.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t was a direct result of a lower death rate, as Monte loves to point out so often.

Sanitation improved in the 1800s. Medicine improved. Diseases were cured. Germ Theory was discovered. Vaccinations were invented. Pollution controls were implemented. Hospitals were built.


However, these successes came at an ecological price. As vaccines and improved treatment insured more people survived to adulthood and their child-bearing years, the birth rate increased dramatically. After 10,000 years with no significant sustained population growth, the world population grew from about 1 billion in 1850 to 2 billion by 1930, 3 billion by 1960, 4 billion by 1974, 5 billion by the late 1980's, and 6.7 billion in 2007, changing the ecology of the entire planet in less than 200 years. And without the advent of fossil fuels, these populations could not have been sustained, and would have gone the way of Malthus.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll of that stuff has very little to do with extra energy and absolutely nothing to do with crude oil (which hadn't even been discovered to be useful until the early 20th Century and wasn't widely available till the 1940s).


Growth requires energy. Where would the energy have come from if not for fossil fuels? Wood? Hydro?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')apid population growth was a result of a lower death rate, not a higher birth rate.

Rapid population growth was a result of a lowering of the death rate, which led to a higher birth rate supported and fueled by the advent and exploitation of fossil fuels.

This led to overshoot. Overshoot only becomes possible when a species encounters a rich and previously unexploited stock of resources (a one time windfall) that promotes its reproduction. In our case, fossil fuels; starting with coal.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby LoneSnark » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 00:26:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')urrently, about 40% of all solar energy captured by photosynthesis is used by humans.

That 40% is not of a fixed amount. Human selected plants convert more solar energy through photo-synthesis than the plants we replaced. Somewhere I read what and corn manage a 2% energy conversion rating, compared to 0.1% for most natural breeds of plants. Sugar Cane can manage an 8% energy conversion rating.

So, for every 1 unit of energy we take away from nature, we are collecting perhaps 80 units of energy (if we replaced jungle with sugar cane).
User avatar
LoneSnark
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 00:34:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')urrently, about 40% of all solar energy captured by photosynthesis is used by humans.

That 40% is not of a fixed amount. Human selected plants convert more solar energy through photo-synthesis than the plants we replaced. Somewhere I read what and corn manage a 2% energy conversion rating, compared to 0.1% for most natural breeds of plants. Sugar Cane can manage an 8% energy conversion rating.

So, for every 1 unit of energy we take away from nature, we are collecting perhaps 80 units of energy (if we replaced jungle with sugar cane).


We appropriate 40% of all solar energy captured by all plants, human crops, forests, phytoplankton, the entire plant community of earth.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 00:35:30

Let's try to get back to scalability, the topic of this thread.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby FreakOil » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 00:49:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', 'I') don't think we should assume current plant and livestock production. Industrial agriculture is heavily dependent on petroleum and natural gas. I've read elsewhere on this site that that agriculture takes up 10 percent of all fossil fuel used in the United States, including transport to market. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

If fuel were rationed and the appropriate amount set aside for farmers, we could keep the industrial agriculture machine going for some time to come. But I fear the consequences. Industrial agriculture degrades the soil. If not for natural gas fertilizers, you might end up with a desert in the midwesterm states.


The end of fertilizers with natural gas is a bedtime story parents tell their children when they want them to grow up to be petrochemical engineers. Its utter nonsense. You need hydrogen to make ammonia and ammonia for the fertilizers and thats it. Its produced on industrial levels in south africa today from coal, and you can just as easily make it from solar or nuclear power reactors.


You're right about that. Ammonia fertilizers are also being made from coal in China, I just found out. I'm assuming the amount of coal used in this process is just a smidgen compared the amount of coal burned for electricity, though I couldn't find any stats. I don't know about how much carbon is released into the atmosphere in the process.

You could also make ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen and hydrogen, but it's very energy intensive. In a liquid fuel crisis, it might be difficult to get the ammonia fertilizers - whether produced from natural gas or coal - to the farmers who need it. If we have a stable, reliable power source, that isn't a problem. That sort of brings us back to square one.

Back on topic, are you really willing to cover an area the size of the American Southwest or France with solar panels or windmills, without knowing the environmental consequences of it? That would require massive amounts of base metals, and our ability to replace damaged components would get more difficult as the years passed. That may be centuries in the future, but somebody would have to deal with it. Or are you considering nuclear power?
User avatar
FreakOil
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun 04 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Hong Kong
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 01:01:32

MQ said
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Rapid population growth was a result of a lowering of the death rate, which led to a higher birth rate supported and fueled by the advent and exploitation of fossil fuels.


The data doesn't support that hypothesis.

Image

Image

Fertility rates started dropping before the large scale exploitation of fossil fuels.
Last edited by Tyler_JC on Tue 04 Dec 2007, 13:36:35, edited 1 time in total.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 01:08:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'H')ere is my last post on that thread which refutes your assertion that fossil fuels increased the birth rate.


C'mon Tyler, Repetitive posts and cross-posting is not allowed on PO.com. You know better.

Having said that:

I replied: As more people survived to adulthood and their child-bearing years, the birth rate increased dramatically, not the fertility rate.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 01:45:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'N')o, how much damage is acceptable to nature. Carrying capacity must veto human needs. There are limits. The demand of 6.7 billion, even using renewables, will exceed the limits. Carrying capacity must veto ethical and moral concerns. 6.7 billion is not sustainable without fossil fuels, and any attempt to try and do so with solar sources will be catastrophic with the scale required. Too many people, no matter how they live. LOL! No, not possible. Reminds me of Dezakin.
The idea comes right out of the paper you linked to in your first post: Limits-to-Sustainability. Reminds me of Daly and Huesemann.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')hat kind of thinking is what got us into this dilemma.
I propose lowering the amount of particulates in the atmosphere and you respond like its a bad thing. Its dirty stinking pollution!
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 01:55:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreakOil', '
')Back on topic, are you really willing to cover an area the size of the American Southwest or France with solar panels or windmills, without knowing the environmental consequences of it? That would require massive amounts of base metals, and our ability to replace damaged components would get more difficult as the years passed. That may be centuries in the future, but somebody would have to deal with it. Or are you considering nuclear power?


Do we care how much damage is done to the American Southwest if the positive benefit is shutting down every coal and natural gas plant (or at least never building a new one)?

Destroying some of the environment is not always bad. Especially if the net effect on the global environment is positive.

Monte believes in ecological absolutism. Any damage, according to him, is unacceptable.

I disagree. Humans need space to live and support our civilization. As population growth reverses and population declines, humans will need less space and less stuff...giving nature more room.

As for this discussion being off topic, you cannot discuss scalability or orders of magnitude without certain assumptions about population.

Talking about the problems of scale, 32% of new electrical generating capacity in the United States came from renewable sources in 2006.

In 3 years (2001 to 2004), the % of America's energy that comes from wind doubled from .07% to .14%.

That means in thirty years, 144% of our energy would come from wind. :)

Slowing the growth rate to a 6 year doubling time still gives us 20% of our energy from wind in thirty years.

And that's only wind...

EIA data
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 02:03:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'H')ere is my last post on that thread which refutes your assertion that fossil fuels increased the birth rate.


C'mon Tyler, Repetitive posts and cross-posting is not allowed on PO.com. You know better.



Pot. Kettle. Black.

To illuminate.

Tyler posts information showing that fertility rates are dropping WAY before the onset of modern fossil fuel usage.

Said fossil fuel useage has been used as a causal excuse in population growth ( currently being disproven by Tyler quite effectively ).

Fossil fuel growth appears to be HELPING the human species stop having endless babies, and simply allows more humans to life better and longer lives.

Ergo, fossil fuel use has improved standards of living the world over and will allow through time available ( we'll be pumping lots of oil and mining lots of coal in 2050 folks ) mankinds natural lower fertility rates to balance population against resources, which appears to be approx 8-9 Billion somewhere in 2050.

And in this neck of the woods, we want to pretend its fossils fuels FAULT rather than a blessing allowing more humans to survive to old age because no one wants to acknowledge the chronological facts contained in Tylers interesting graph?
So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby FreakOil » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 02:14:27

We should also consider the increase in the number of children that survive into adulthood, not just the number of children born per woman. The increase in the number of children born per woman who survice into adulthood and the lowering of the death rate are both a result of advances in medicine. Could those advances in medicine have happened without oil? I don't see why not, though deeper analysis may reveal the two being related to a greater degree then I see now.
User avatar
FreakOil
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun 04 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Hong Kong
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 02:15:24

RGR's important note aside...this thread has gone off topic and it's partly my fault.

Should I split out the population discussion (if that's even possible at this point) or should we just start focusing back on scalability?
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 02:19:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', ' ')Destroying some of the environment is not always bad.


Good lord...:( Fools rush in where wise men never go.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')onte believes in ecological absolutism. Any damage, according to him, is unacceptable.


What hubris towards nature.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 02:26:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', ' ')Tyler posts information showing that fertility rates are dropping WAY before the onset of modern fossil fuel usage.


So? I never said fossil fuels caused fertility rates to rise. I said they supported the rise in the birth rate as a result of germ theory.

As more people survived to adulthood and their child-bearing years, the birth rate increased dramatically, not the fertility rate.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ossil fuel growth appears to be HELPING the human species stop having endless babies, and simply allows more humans to life better and longer lives.


Yes, through Demographic Transition, which will end with the inability to grow economies.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby ReserveGrowthRulz » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 02:58:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')onte believes in ecological absolutism. Any damage, according to him, is unacceptable.


What hubris towards nature.


As an unabashed industry guy, I think I am on record as mentioning that I don't mind the melting of Greenland, if only because it'll give me a neat place to visit while running a drilling rig up there for someone. Does that make me an anti-tree hugging prick? Probably. Do I care? Why should I, the collective bahavior of humans in this regard says I'm not much different than anyone else.

It isn't hubris towards nature, its just fact. The world, in the past, has been colder, and warmer. Species have evolved, matured, and been exterminated. All by nature herself without any help from humans.

Maybe this time we're pushing things along? Maybe. Does it matter? Obviously not, otherwise we would do something about it, and to date, we have chosen not to. If Mother Nature can wipe out huge majorities of species during climatic events, I don't see why us humans can't join in the fun.

Would I wipe out most of Monte's beloved desert beetles and cacti covering most of the state of Arizona with solar panels to feed electrical demand in the United States? Of course I would. And when push comes to shove ( when oil EVER gets around to actually declining ) no one else will mind either.
So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri 30 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Unread postby FreakOil » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 03:03:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'R')GR's important note aside...this thread has gone off topic and it's partly my fault.

Should I split out the population discussion (if that's even possible at this point) or should we just start focusing back on scalability?


I don't think that's a good idea. We should consider whether we are talking about scalability of sustainable energy infrastructure for today's world or for a reduced population, powerdownward world. If we're talking about the latter, then the dedicated land area, amount of materials and amount of energy needed to build and maintain the systems are significantly reduced. So, what are we talking about?

I could be wrong, but I think that most of the posters here would agree that dieoff is likely, and even necessary, whether "managed" through lowering the birth rate and increasing the death rate. (Let's not get into that.)

What if we continue the discussion assuming a base population at carrying capacity in terms of food and water, for simplicity's sake, and reduced energy use assuming powerdownward? I'm fully aware that those carrying capacity estimates go all over the place. Could we assume a sustainable population of 2 billion?
User avatar
FreakOil
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Sun 04 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Hong Kong
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests



cron