Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

A few questions from a newbie

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: A few questions from a newbie

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 11 Apr 2005, 23:18:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Such', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nairb', '#')7 Before oil, the population was over 1 billion. Why is there the suggestion that it will drop to only 1/2 of a billion?

Read the following paper for an outline of the argument:
Youngquist, Walter, “The Post-Petroleum Paradigm – and Population.” Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 20.4 (1999), 304.
He calculates about 2 billion, but other estimates vary.


That last phrase is a serious understatement. There have been more than 65 scientific estimates of the human carrying capacity of the earth over the last 4 centuries. Virtually all of these estimates exceed 1 billion, and most, in fact, exceed 10 billion. Pretending there is some kind of scientific consensus about the figure 1 or 2 billion is a gross distortion of the facts.


John nevers learns. Here's a breakdown of those "high-end" estimates he submitted from another thread. This is not the mean or low end estimates. John likes to avoid the "details."

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic6312-0-asc-30.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')almer (1999): 9 billion
Standard of living lower than US current (1 hectare per person) and improvements in energy efficiency, food production, pollution control and preservation of biodiversity.


There's that ugly biodiversity you hate, John. 8)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')mil (1994): 11 billion
Eliminate disparity in energy consumption and food production technology between developed and un-developed world. A shift in the Western consumptive mindset toward a sustainable diet and pattern of life would be necessary.


A power down, John likes powerdowns. 8)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')rown&Kane (1994): 10 billion
Estimate depends on level of consumption. The lower estimate corresponds to US level of consumption and the highest estimate to the level of people in India. Based on an estimated world grain harvest of 2.1 billion tons in 2030.


Another powerdown and optimistic grain harvest post-peak oil. 8)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ellig (1993): 14 billion
Based on NPP for biophysical capacity, accounting for increased technology and "with ecological care and in the framework of an economically sound and socially-just development policy"


Embraces the ecological paradigm. 8)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hittaker & Likens (1975): 7 billion
2-3 billion could be supported at a "more frugal European standard" if "steady-state systems of resource use and cycling were established". 5-7 billion with most human beings living as peasants.


The third world existence powerdown I speak of. 8)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')eadows et. al. (1992): 7.7 billion
Systems model results for supporting global population sustainably with enough food, consumer goods and services. Includes increased technology, pollution reduction and efficient use of nonrenewable resources.

One needs to read Limits to Growth to see what this model is which is an ecological powerdown.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso, we can cross off Paul Ehrlich's estimate, because he's patently full of shit.

Ad hominem attack. 8) I'll give you that one, but insist we use the overall average high and low estimates which is 2.1 to 5 billion. Still in overshoot.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o 6/14=43% of scientists say we're not in overshoot.

No, they don't, based upon these caveats which do not exist. In less than 53 years we will have somewhere betweeen 9 and 13 billion. Even by these rosy assumed projections we will shortly be there.

Here are the studies: http://www.ilea.org/leaf/richard2002.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

Unread postby jato » Mon 11 Apr 2005, 23:27:06

Monte, do those numbers take into account fossil fuel depletion? Or current do they use current energy consumption?

By year 2100 or perhaps 2200 fossil fuels will, for all intents and purposes, be depleted.
jato
 
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 11 Apr 2005, 23:34:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', 'M')onte, do those numbers take into account fossil fuel depletion? Or current do they use current energy consumption?

By year 2100 or perhaps 2200 fossil fuels will, for all intents and purposes, be depleted.


No, I am pretty sure they do not. Club of Rome Limits to Growth in 1972 did in some computer models which came up with 2 billion, assuming that the 40% loss of grain each year to rot and rodents was eliminated and there was a universal sharing of food--total equity.
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

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 11 Apr 2005, 23:49:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', 'I') would like to see an estimate that exceeds 10 billion without the use of fossil fuels or "Star Trek" type energy. <Link please>


I don't see why we have to rule out fossil fuels or new forms of energy. Fossil fuels (or biofuels) adequate to support agriculture will be available throughout this century. Farm equipment can be driven by nuclear/solar generated electricity if necessary.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 11 Apr 2005, 23:53:10

A bit of a correction to my last post on the Limits to Growth computer model.

The total amount of grain produced in the world could keep 8 billion people alive at subsistence level, if it were evenly distributed, not fed to any animals, and not lost to pests or allowed to rot between harvest and consumption. If you added fruits, vegetables, fish, and animal products raised from grazing, you could support 6 billion with a varied diet.

Now, come the setbacks. 10-40% post-harvest is currently lost. Food is not distributed equally, and much of this grain goes to feed animals, not people. This abundant production comes as a result of fixed nitrogen from natural gas via the Haber Borsch process. Pesticides and herbicides are derivatives of petroleum. 50% of all food in middle-class America is thrown in the garbage uneaten. 200 million are chronically hungry in India, more than 200 million in Africa, 40 million in Bangladesh, 15 million in Afghanistan. 10 million die each year from hunger alone. So, right smack in the midst of theoretical adequacy, people are starving to death. And this is with a cheap, low-entropy, highly concentrated form of energy; oil. I think the 2 billion number is more realistic.
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

Unread postby Andy » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 00:11:05

John,

Have you studied the physics of entropy? Entropy dictates that a limited environment like planet earth will always have a fixed carrying capacity, even with high quality energy. If we go nuclear for instance, the energy to clean up environmental deterioration is not made up by the energy produced by the system. Ditto for coal, etc. Hence, even if unlimited energy from terrestrial sources were available, the carrying capacity of poor finite mother earth is fixed. (Maybe at a higher level with more energy but fixed nonetheless)

John, we MUST!!! either stop growing; leave earth behind if at all possible or we eventually exterminate ourselves like the yeast in the rum vat. Those are our three choices, with one choice being highly speculative.
User avatar
Andy
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 00:20:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', 'J')ohn,

Have you studied the physics of entropy? Entropy dictates that a limited environment like planet earth will always have a fixed carrying capacity, even with high quality energy. If we go nuclear for instance, the energy to clean up environmental deterioration is not made up by the energy produced by the system. Ditto for coal, etc. Hence, even if unlimited energy from terrestrial sources were available, the carrying capacity of poor finite mother earth is fixed. (Maybe at a higher level with more energy but fixed nonetheless)

John, we MUST!!! either stop growing; leave earth behind if at all possible or we eventually exterminate ourselves like the yeast in the rum vat. Those are our three choices, with one choice being highly speculative.


Andy, you beat me to it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')Prove it! If energy is plentiful enough, everything can be 100% recycled, and every bit of pollution can be 100% cleaned up. If we can tap the big energy flows, all our problems are solved.


The laws of thermodynamics tells you this is impossible. You can't recycle the rubber particles from tire road wear, nor can you ever clean up one mess without creating an even bigger mess somewhere else. Law of Entropy. Only way to get out of the game is to not make the mess in the first place.

We "tapped" the big energy flows once upon a time and created the mess we are in. We didn't "solve" anything. And even if we could, you are against a powerdown to achieve it!
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

Unread postby pea-jay » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 01:32:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot necessarily. There are plenty of off-earth resources in the solar system. There is no iron law that confines us to the earth.


Agreed, actually. The only problem none of those off planet resources are available, now, when we need them. It's fine and dandy that leaving earth to terraform distant worlds would in theory increase our species's carrying capacity. I just don't see it coming to the rescue soon enough.

Really super long-term, the human species, whatever we have evolved into or whatever has suceeded us will have to leave this rock when the sun transitions into a red giant.

I don't think I will worry about that one.
UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
User avatar
pea-jay
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 17 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: NorCal
Top

Unread postby Nairb » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 06:12:00

This is good! I go to sleep and when I wake up look what happened! Thanks guys. I really enjoy it when my questions are answered so completly.
User avatar
Nairb
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri 08 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Western MA
Top

Re: A few questions from a newbie

Unread postby Doly » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 06:29:43

Other people have already answered the questions, but I think some points haven't been completely addressed and others I don't agree completely with. To give you another alternative opinion:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nairb', '
')#1 Why do you not incorperate coal into the time before the crash, sure 2010-2020 is shocking, but isn't it misleading to suggest that such a enviroment ignoring country such as ourselves wont use coal? Wont that add about 40 years before the crash? That makes my age from 25, to 65 untill this crash occurs.


Because coal is hard to convert into a liquid fuel that can be used for cars and road transport. It's possible, but quite expensive, so it doesn't save you from the economic consequences of peak oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nairb', '
')#2 The power outages in california were brought on by companies trying to get rich, not shortages. right? If so then why is it constantly linked to what will happen in the futer in regards to PO.


It's put as an example of the sort of stuff that might happen. The seventies are probably a better example, though the reason for high prices again wasn't PO.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nairb', '
')#3 Oil supplies 40% of our power, why dont we make that up with nuclear, or others?


Again, nuclear and others aren't liquid fuels usable for road transport.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nairb', '
')#4 With the extension of coal, how can you be sure that zero of our alternative energies will work? What about fusion? What about Free energy? When people see that we only have coal and natural gas left wont people really start to put their rear in gear in regards to these power sources?


No doubt there will be an increased interest in every possible form of alternative energy. All the ones you mentioned and some others. But the question is: is any of the options likely to be able to substitute oil in the near future? The short answer is "no". The long answer can be found in the Energy forum.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nairb', '
')#5 I hear "net energy loss" alot and people say solar panels require more energy to create and maintain then they provide in their lifetimes. A "lifetime suggests that solar panels die. How? What if we upgrade our technology to make them easier to make? I heard about people making them from silicone.

Solar panels, like any piece of electronics, can break down in a number of ways. I believe that it is possible to make better solar panels, and that they are probably one of the best alternative energies for the future. But it's unrealistic to assume that we can convert to solar in a short period. And they still can't power cars.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nairb', '
')#6 Really how important is petrolium fertilizer?

In my opinion, you shouldn't worry about lack of fertilizer. Of all the usages of oil, those related to essential things, like food, are the ones that are going to be kept, until an alternative is found.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nairb', '
')#7 Before oil, the population was over 1 billion. Why is there the suggestion that it will drop to only 1/2 of a billion?

I completely disagree with this one. I expect some increase in mortality, due to wars and loss of a good part of high-tech medicine, but a catastrophic dieoff like some people suggest is out of the picture for me. If Third World countries manage with a fraction of the oil that we use, so can we.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nairb', '
')#8 If this were true, more people would know! No one besides my friend's dad and that kid at the U.U. knows!

It's just a matter of time that the knowledge becomes widespread. Wait and see...
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron