[earthman]

In looking at the Peak Oil situation and the looming economic crash, I could not see any solution to such a massive and complicated problem, short of collective acceptance of conservation and reducing demand, and I did not see much chance of that happening.

I did not see my view as negative or pessimistic, but rather realistic.

Further thought, however, and some simple math, has given me hope.

I am basing these ideas on the idea that oil production will follow a bell curve, and that we have peaked, and will begin to see a reduction in oil production.

This reduction in oil production will be gradual, and therein lies the hope. For argument and math sake, let’s say that oil production will decrease by 5% per year (I don’t know the actual figure, this is for demonstrating the math). And I know it won't take much more than that to collapse our economy, read on with an open mind.

So if there could be a matching bell curve of our demand for oil, that also peaked and decreased, a solution is presented where we decrease our demand for oil at a similar rate of the decrease of production.

So taking the first year of post-peak production we would have to decrease demand by 5%. Could we do that? Could you reduce your energy consumption by 5%? How much could you decrease your energy consumption, realistically? Here is how it can happen:

100% of the population decreases demand by 5%, or
50% of the population decreases demand by 10%, or
25% of the population decreases demand by 20%, or
10% of the population decreases demand by 50%…etc.

The math is that demand decreases by an overall of 5% to match the decreased production, however it happens.

This also makes the big assumption that those who do not decrease demand, also do not increase demand…for every increase in demand will require a corresponding decrease in demand, for the math to work.

We all consume energy and to what extent is our consumption luxury vs. necessity? How much could we practically reduce demand through a variety of conservation strategies? How much of our demand actually translates into waste, and is not necessary at all for our survival?

The point is that the solution lies in the power of each individual to reduce energy consumption. We cannot expect 100% participation but I think it is mathematically possible to match production decrease with demand decrease through individual commitment to reduce consumption. The reduction of consumption will also be encouraged and even demanded by increasing prices. Furthermore, consumption can be reduced by die-off. Theoretically, a 5% decrease in population could translate to a 5% decrease of demand, assuming you spread the demand out over everyone.

These individual conservation efforts can be supplemented by government incentives and new technologies…but the good news is the bell curve…production will decrease gradually so we need to decrease demand accordingly and wean ourselves off oil over a period of years.

100% is overwhelming but is 5% doable? If not, then we deserve what we get.

I welcome you guys to tear up these ideas, and improve on them; that's how we move forward.

George

[johnmarkos]

You might be interested in this discussion here.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic6467.html

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('earthman', 'W')e all consume energy and to what extent is our consumption luxury vs. necessity? [...] How much of our demand actually translates into waste, and is not necessary at all for our survival?

[earthman]

Thanks Johnmarkos,

I read it. Seems like the main argument is the paradox that if we become more efficent, energy price goes down resulting in more energy consumption and then the price going up.

I do not see energy prices going down...worldwide demand (China, India, etc.) will increase demand, so prices will rise.

I am wondering if we can decrease our demand (US), by both conservation, efficency, and reducing waste and unnecessary use of energy.

For example, if you drive your car 100 miles per week, could you drive 95 miles instead?

It won't cause the price to go down and make cheaper energy available for more consumption. If the US decreased its oil consumtion by 5% through the collective effort of individuals, the price of oil would not necessarily go down because the price per barrel could still increase due to demand worldwide, but we could begin to decrease our dependence on it, perhaps in ten years by 50% (5% per year) through a combination of conservation and technology.

There is no question that we must switch from oil to other energy technology. The bell curve suggests that we can do this gradually, as the oil production decreases. But we must do it now and it can happen through individual commitment building to a collective force.

Can we peak our demand for oil and gradually reduce it?

George

[RonMN]

Reduce our demand by 5%...so all the new houses built dont have any heat or electric? well, that would leave us at 0%...then we also need to use 5% less heat & electric (and 5% less driving) while the newbies go 100% without...without heat or a car or electric...

OR we could all go with 15% less so the newbies can have some...

Sound like a plan?

[aahala]

I don't believe the 5% reduction is doable, in the sense of voluntary action.

Of course the 5% reduction will take place one way or another, as the
world can't consume more oil than is produced. The reduction will take place by either price or by government action or both.

All solutions will be painful and undesirable, the best of the bad options is the one that can spread out the pain evenly over a longer time period.

[pup55]

There is no doubt that a 5% reduction is do-able technologically.

But the 5% reduction may not be possible politically. In fact, in the US, people expect to be able to grow every year, not shrink, economically and energy-wise. To tell them otherwise will be politically unpalateable for whoever tries it. Monte has written extensively on this issue.

There will be a 5% reduction globally, all right, but it won't be evenly distributed.

[Raxozanne]

What about the second year?
Won't consumption have to be reducted again to stay in line with depletion rates? When people have to cross the electricity threshold they won't go easy.

Also population die-off won't just happen peacefully where 5% die off, not here in any case. There are alot of people who would riot, kill and loot given the chance rather than just sit and die quietly.

I see what you are getting at but I'm not too sure it could happen as you hope because most people won't want to give up energy to the greater good even if it means avoiding civil unrest. They would probably be of the mindset 'why me, why should I?' unless they are coerced by the government.

[JohnDenver]

You guys are all fucking nuts![smilie=bduh.gif]
It's like watching a bunch of morbidly obese people who eat 10,000 calories a day fretting about how they're all going to die when their calories get restricted by 5% a year. Can we do it? "I don't know man... It's gonna be ugly, damn near impossible."
Let me say this one more time, in a loud voice:
PASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
That is why (in global terms) only rich people have them.
Most of the people on the earth are surviving just fine without cars.
Food and shelter are necessities.
PASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
A continual 5% decline in LUXURY is not going to kill anyone. Snap out of it, you junkies! You're still in deep denial. You need cars because you're addicted to them, not because cars are necessary to live!

[Mercani]

I think this is perfectly possible. 5% is nothing compared to excessive waste we are consuming.

70% of oil consumption is due to transport. Nobody really needs to reduce heating their house. I am pretty sure everybody can find a way to drive 90 miles a week instead of 100 miles a week. Actually with government incentives for efficient cars, some people can reduce their consumption 50% just by switching their gaz-guzzling SUV with an efficient car. That would take most of the burden off the shoulders of the ones who cannot conserve.

Price will force people to conserve one way or another. It is not really meaningful to say "People will continue with their lifestyle whatever the price". It is impossible. You cannot spend more than you earn in the long-term. If you are paying more for your gas, then you have to cut back on something else. (which you don't want to do because "that" thing is also a part of your lifestyle.)

Most americans are already drowning in debt, so even in the short term they will have to cut back on some things. Most meaningful will be gas, since that will be the one whose price is increasing the most, and easier to conserve.

Demand for oil is going to have to follow supply. New energy sources(nuclear, wind, solar, coal) will reduce the burden somewhat. Worlwide die-off will not occur due to oil shortage. Some people here argue that people will not reduce their driving but somehow they will die due to starvation. This is absurd.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mercani', 'I')t is not really meaningful to say "People will continue with their lifestyle whatever the price".

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')ASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
That is why (in global terms) only rich people have them.
Most of the people on the earth are surviving just fine without cars.
Food and shelter are necessities.
PASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
A continual 5% decline in LUXURY is not going to kill anyone. Snap out of it, you junkies! You're still in deep denial. You need cars because you're addicted to them, not because cars are necessary to live!

[earthman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', '
')Also population die-off won't just happen peacefully where 5% die off, not here in any case. There are alot of people who would riot, kill and loot given the chance rather than just sit and die quietly.

[Raxozanne]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'Y')ou guys are all fucking nuts![smilie=bduh.gif]
It's like watching a bunch of morbidly obese people who eat 10,000 calories a day fretting about how they're all going to die when their calories get restricted by 5% a year. Can we do it? "I don't know man... It's gonna be ugly, damn near impossible."
Let me say this one more time, in a loud voice:
PASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
That is why (in global terms) only rich people have them.
Most of the people on the earth are surviving just fine without cars.
Food and shelter are necessities.
PASSENGER CARS ARE A LUXURY, NOT A NECESSITY
A continual 5% decline in LUXURY is not going to kill anyone. Snap out of it, you junkies! You're still in deep denial. You need cars because you're addicted to them, not because cars are necessary to live!

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', 'O')k then, 90% of workers in the UK commute to work as they work 20mins or more from their workplace. What will happen when they can no longer drive to work?

[Raxozanne]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')So you move into the flop house. You've got food, you've got your job. You're not dying. You can still pay your mortgage. In fact you've got a lot more money every month because you're not paying into a car. Life's good. You're getting more exercise. You're overcoming your addiction, and getting well! It's a great feeling. Next thing you know, somebody opens a bar by the flop house so you can have a beer. Why not just relax and go with the flow, instead of demanding that society support your destructive habit.

[Omnitir]

It seems all that is being argued here is a slow crash or a hard crash, not if a crash is avoidable.

I like this concept; the soft crash or slow crash. It seems logical and scientific. However it does not alter the problems of PO, merely delay them. Sure, when there is 5% less oil then the previous year (PO year), we will be forced to become 5% more efficient. People may not like it, but it won’t kill them. But then in the following year, lets say there is 8% less oil then PO year. People are forced to become even more energy efficient. The next year lets say there is 11% less oil then PO year. Now people are really struggling, only three years post Peak. Keep following this trend, and say ten years on there might be about 20% less oil then PO year. Millions of people are dieing. Keep following the trend, and eventually the doom and gloom scenarios that we are all so familiar with are real.

Losing the luxuries will certainly enable us to continue on for a while, but only for a while. Once all the luxuries are gone, and every one is striving to be ultra efficient and conserve energy as much as possible, there will still continue to be less and less energy available each year. No amount of conservation will avoid the die off.

Personally I think a slow crash is probable, and it will be a good 15 to 20 years before TEOTWAWKI. I don’t think we can conserve our way out of this. We need to make radical changes, and we need to make them now, while we are still capable of such changes.

[DavidProvost]

If we need to cut back, but each year we keep going up then cutting back 5% wouldnt be enough because if we need to cut back %5 every year, but every year we are going up lets say 3%, then we would actually have to cut back 8% to make up for what we increased by...and most people arn't going to make a huge effort to cut back expecially now considering not very many people take it into consideration, so instead of
100% of the population decreases demand by 5%, or
50% of the population decreases demand by 10%, or
25% of the population decreases demand by 20%, or
10% of the population decreases demand by 50%…etc.
it would have to be
100% of the population decreased demand by 8%, or
50% of the population decreased demand by 16%, or
25% of the population decreased demand by 32%, or
10% of the population decreased demand by 96%, etc.
And the growth increases every year so those numbers would be changing every year, considering how many people conserved or not. But either way, those numbers would most likely go up.

[Crusty_Ass]

Want to conserve energy? A few pointers:

-Tell GM and Ford to build hybrids that do 55 MPG like the Toyota Prius instead of a Jeep Grand Cherokee that only does 21 MPG
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

-Population growth must stop completely. Totally. Nobody knows exactly how much people this planet can sustain indefinitely, but it sure as hell isn't 7 Billion, and most certainly not in a US-style way-of-life.

Really, cutting back 5% on current demand is peanuts. Electricity can come from a variety of renewables like wind, solar (thermal mostly), biomass, hydro and geothermal, and fuel efficiency of the national car park can be doubled today using current and proven technology, and perhaps even tripled in the future with more efficient hybrid engines.

Lighting, which is one of the biggest power consuming products in households, can be improved upon by at least 50% just by moving away from lightbulbs. People can save up to 60% in heating bills by placing a small thermal solar panel on top of their roof.
TV's, computers and monitors can be made much, much more energy efficient than current hardware. The same goes for nearly every household appliance one can think of. Dishwashers, washing machines, ventilators, pumps, everything. Especially electric motors are known to be inefficiently designed.

Just by improving on the efficiency of consumer products net energy consumption by households can be cut by a multiple of 5%.
Unfortunately, because of low electricity prices there is no incentive to produce efficient household appliances. Only higher electricity prices will create such a demand.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')till you haven't solved the problem about the truck food transportation issue.

[0mar]

Peak oil isn't a problem. It is a solution. Homo Sapiens is the problem. Or rather, our current system of economics and infrastructure is the problem.