Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Technology versus Doomology

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
Post a reply

What about humans?

Unread postby BLove » Sat 25 Jun 2005, 18:30:11

While thinking about this whole turkey thing, I realized that instead of turkeys we could just use humans, which currently exist in overabundance and are a renewable resource (provided that we could feed them will a low investment of energy). In fact, a human body, through flash pyrolysis or some similar technological method, can easily produce 15 pounds of oil, and occasionally over 50 (depending upon the size and body fat percentage of the particular human, of course). What would be left would be water and minerals, which could be used to grow more vegetarian food to feed more humans...)

I think I see an answer to this Peak Oil problem.

P.S. The original diesel engines were designed to run on peanut oil, not petroleum; therefore, the biodiesel revolution was not necessary contigent upon the latter, and may in fact have occurred sooner if petroleum diesel hadn't been so readily available in recent history. In fact, rumor has it that Henry Ford was a strong advocate of agriculturally-derived fuels (alcohol and veg. oil), claiming that petroleum was far too special and valuable to be simply burned in an engine.
User avatar
BLove
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Sun 26 Jun 2005, 00:13:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n fact, rumor has it that Henry Ford was a strong advocate of agriculturally-derived fuels (alcohol and veg. oil), claiming that petroleum was far too special and valuable to be simply burned in an engine.


Actually, that's not rumor. He even advocated 'growing' our cars, ie. manufacturing their chassis and body panels from industrial hemp. Then Ansligner was promoted to the position of asshole(commissioner of DEA), and ever since WWII, the U.S. government has refused to allow farmers to grow industrial hemp by not granting them permits, despite industrial hemp not having an intoxicating level of THC.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Vexed » Sun 26 Jun 2005, 17:38:25

Spot5050 wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he doomers are overly pessimistic and the head-in-the-clouds brigade are hopelessly optimistic.


Too true.

I know there is a middle ground. Its called realism.

I am glad there are others who feel the same way.
User avatar
Vexed
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby DoctorDoom » Fri 01 Jul 2005, 19:26:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'W')e've illustrated quite clearly that human society wont run out of energy in any reasonable time period (thousands of years) because of workable technology and economics with nuclear power.


Can you point me at that analysis, please? My back-of-the-envelope calcuations on once-through fission suggest that we'll run out of known Uranium reserves in a very short time if we tried to run our entire civilization on it. There is more energy in the remaining coal reserves than in Uranium. Using breeder technology you could stretch things to maybe 250 years - unfortunately we seem dead set on building a new generation of reactors that are one-through because they are perceived as safer, and will therefore likely burn up the available Uranium until it's too late to get a breeder program going. Once the fissionable Uranium's gone, we won't have any way to convert the remaining depleted Uranium or Thorium to reactor fuel.
DoctorDoom
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: California
Top

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 01 Jul 2005, 20:33:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')an you point me at that analysis, please? My back-of-the-envelope calcuations on once-through fission suggest that we'll run out of known Uranium reserves in a very short time if we tried to run our entire civilization on it.


Once a week I have to dispel this long standing myth...

Here it goes again.

Nuclear energy in the once through cycle is very insensitive to fuel costs. Most of the cost of nuclear energy is in capital, and as such can withstand huge fuel price increases with little effect on the price paid by the end consumer. Second, the reserves of uranium are highly dependant on the price, often quoted as a doubling in price corrolates often to a 5-10 fold multiplier in avaliable reserves:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pa ... resst.html

And cost for uranium comes down year on year with technological advancesments. Indeed, with uranium being cheap as it is, there is little incentive to do any exploration for rich ore bodies.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is more energy in the remaining coal reserves than in Uranium.


Don't confuse reserves with resources. Reserves change with the spot price and coal for power production is highly sensitive to the fuel price. As noted below, uranium resources are far far vaster than coal.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')sing breeder technology you could stretch things to maybe 250 years - unfortunately we seem dead set on building a new generation of reactors that are one-through because they are perceived as safer, and will therefore likely burn up the available Uranium until it's too late to get a breeder program going. Once the fissionable Uranium's gone, we won't have any way to convert the remaining depleted Uranium or Thorium to reactor fuel.


No thats just ridiculous. Advancing fuel costs would very well accellerate breeder reactor development, and even if magically we used up all fissile material in the crust, you can still create nuclear chain reactions with proton spallation to breed fissile material from uranium and thorium. Not that we'll do that, just illustrating why the argument is fallacious for more than one reason.

Here's the analysys:

For fun I'll assume we build 20,000 one gigawatt nuke plants. Lets actually use my number in another thread which is 5 times as big to give everyone on the planet an american style life, 100000 reactors.

Now you can run a 1 GW reactor on about 1 ton of nuclear fuel per year. So you need about 20,000 tons per year of nuclear fuel.

Lets look at the average uranium and thorium in the crust: estimates of uranium I've seen are about 2.5 ppm for the earths crust, and for thorium its about 10 ppm.

If we are only focusing on the continental crust thats .374% of the earths mass, so .00374 * 5.9742 * 10^24, gives you about 2.79 *10^14 metric tons of nuclear fuel.

This gives you 10^9 years of nuclear fuel. We regularly mine gold at far lower concentrations that 1ppm at a profit so its not unreasonable to assume that we can do the same with uranium and thorium.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby NEOPO » Fri 01 Jul 2005, 21:50:28

Thats alot of fucking turkeys/nuclear power plants (insert your favorite techno messiah here) etc etc.............

so this is kind of mentality is what makes up the space in between doomer and optomist??? yeah right....

IMHO - This is just more Rationalization from people addicted to a modern lifestyle who cannot conceive that the "system" could fail.

You/we/I are the problem - mass conservation and alternative lifestyles are the solution and the sooner we all realize it the better.

Who am I kidding??? we wont realize SHIT until we smell it which is usually AFTER it has hit the fan!!!

gobble gobble
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX
Top

Unread postby anomaly » Fri 01 Jul 2005, 22:25:27

You can read more on this technology here:

(initial article)
http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

(followup)
http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-04/f ... -into-oil/

I find it pretty interesting. You have to hand it to these guys for trying, even if it might not solve our problems. Constructively looking for a solution is a lot better than criticisizing and complaining...
User avatar
anomaly
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby NEOPO » Fri 01 Jul 2005, 22:44:15

Telecomm and fiber optics in the USA.

Having worked in telecom (it runs in the family) on various working levels I can assure you that fiber optics has not been the messiah thebig Bells had hoped it would be.

Many companies such as Verizon are still very optomistic and plan to "attempt" to bring "fiber-to-the-curb" on a massive scale.
I retained many friends when I ceased working in telecom and these friends tell me that there is now a huge push for fiber to the curb and that at least one mega-huge company is betting alot of marbles on it.

Fiber school is being given to copper technicians en mass.

One problem I have with this is that they plan to bring limited TV/VIDEO and other nice $ options to the consumer to offset the massive amount of investment required to re-bury millions of subscriber lines.

Talk about risky business.

Until 2000-2001 most fiber fed large loops throughout the US which served switching stations/switches.

A basic comparison of scale would be: in a garage/shop of 50 telecom vehicles - 1 or 2 might be fiber capable.
so 2-4% capable of fixing/repairing the small percentage of fiber in a medium to large area growing very rapidly...

In my last area the fiber was handled by 1 contractor and 1 company technician - my shop covered several counties in northern va.

Literally billions of miles of copper wire versus a few hundred thousand feet of fiber.

If fiber was/is the way to go - please tell me why so much aerial/buried copper is still being placed and maintained.

Most of the fiber I saw being placed was:
1. being done by cheap labor which = many mexicans.
2. alot of it said fiber but was actually just conduit being placed for "planned" "future use" to hold fiber when/if needed.
3. was being connected to telecom switches not consumers.

Lets look at yer basic cul de sac and the installation of the fiber messiah :o

I am now out of telecom after a sudden illness made work very difficult.
As I "faded" my bosses did alot to help me stay in as long as possible.
I didnt have to drive but I did work on a crew that installed and repaired buried lines down ALL the cul de sacs in a huge area bursting with suburbia.

It takes 2-3 men 1 entire day to bore/drill 3-4 driveways and bury a residential line.
Burying a line 50' isnt that bad but correctly boring several $5000 driveways is real pain in the ass.
This timeframe is considering that the employees were safe per company standards and barring any minor/major complications such as cutting other lines like - gas - power - cable and OH NO!! other phone lines 8)

So IMHO from actual experience in telecom I must say that fiber constitutes little more then 2-3% of telecommunications in the USA today and there is a very good chance that it will remain at these levels for a very long time.

I bet if I worked on a turkey farm I would have more negatives then positives to say about OIL from TURKEY GUTS!!!

Again and again - People will be fed all the positives from company representatives who havent a fucking clue - smile and read the godamn cue card!!!!

gobble gobble
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX
Top

Unread postby NEOPO » Fri 01 Jul 2005, 22:46:15

IMO - constructively looking for a solution to maintain an UNSUSTAINABLE lifestyle is folly.

Sorry - I am not totally against turkey guts etc etc and yes in scale most alternatives are viable.

From my observations I simply believe that mankind will make the right choices at the wrong time which = alittle too little alittle too late.

I think the fulcrum has been reached and we are now on the down side.

I see the markets wavering then falling over and then 90-100% of the people are going to be seeking 90-100% of their money from banks that hold 10-15% on hand = fiat money system and the disintegration of the PETROL DOLLAR.

I see our food chain breaking down with 90-100% of the people running to the grocery stores to buy 90-100% of the food they intake while the stores hold 10-15% of the food needed at any one time.

I see toilet seats breaking and 90-100% of the people running to wally world to get 90-100% of the toilet seats that traveled 12,000 miles to get here yet wally world only holding 10-15% of the seats needed!! :shock:

I wish I had a few million special sunglasses that I could loan out to help everyone see 8)

At first I would have applauded the efforts of turkey gut to oil manufacturers.

Now that I am aware that I am the problem - that my lifestyle is the problem - that change is neccessary - I dont need to believe in anything but my ability to farm/garden and shoot straight :-D

Dont you see?
We are the problem and we are the solution all at once.
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX
Top

Unread postby Dezakin » Sat 02 Jul 2005, 16:28:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hats alot of fucking turkeys/nuclear power plants (insert your favorite techno messiah here) etc etc.............

so this is kind of mentality is what makes up the space in between doomer and optomist??? yeah right....

IMHO - This is just more Rationalization from people addicted to a modern lifestyle who cannot conceive that the "system" could fail.


You have yet to illustrate why such a system will fail or why our lifestyle is unsustainable. Its clearly not going to be lack of energy.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Optimist » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 19:13:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')ont you see?
We are the problem and we are the solution all at once.

Exactly! So if we all quit the whining and start working on solutions, perhaps we can be less of a problem and more of a solution. Acknowledging PO is one thing. Whining about the end of civilization is something else. Looking forward to the end of civilization is criminal.

Expensive oil (the first indication that PO is happening) creates many opportunities. You can either chew your nails and watch as somebody else tries to solve the problems, or roll up your sleeves and be part of the solution.

Predicting the end of civilization as we know it is not helpful. That is just being part of the problem. Discussing the facts and strategies for dealing with future challenges is not only helpful, but makes the whole issue of PO more palatable for mass consumption.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 04:04:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')xactly! So if we all quit the whining and start working on solutions, perhaps we can be less of a problem and more of a solution.


It's going to take more than a few people working on a solution. It's going to require cooperation on a scale that has yet to be seen. Think of all the resources America put into WWII. To adress the PO crisis, that has to be duplicated in much less time. It can happen, but the question that must be asked is whether it will. Especially in the current political climate, in which the power elite is eyeing the short term profits a peak oil scenario will provide them. The first half of all the oil sold was sold for much less than the second half will be.

The solution is within our economic system itself, by altering it, by fixing it to where endless growth is no longer a part of its core requirements and no longer attempted. Reducing consumption and reducing waste, without drastically cutting living standards. We don't act immediately and we're probably screwed; peak oil's going to start to do it for us.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')cknowledging PO is one thing. Whining about the end of civilization is something else.


'Whining' about it, as you put it so eloquently, gets people to at least think about the problem. Acknowledgement is worthless if apathy comes with it. To discount this so-called 'whining' is to ignore the very real problems peak oil poses to modern day society.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ooking forward to the end of civilization is criminal.


How so? It could be the break our environment needs to recooperate. We are near the point of no return on global warming. Maybe a societal collapse can be a good thing in that regard considering this civilization is not getting its act together and maknig use of the environmentally-benign technology it has developed.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')xpensive oil (the first indication that PO is happening) creates many opportunities. You can either chew your nails and watch as somebody else tries to solve the problems, or roll up your sleeves and be part of the solution.


We don't need to wait around for 'opportunities' to come. We have the technology today and it is viable. It all goes back to our economic system that seeks to maximize consumption and profits.

You don't need to mine, extract, process, and ship wind energy or solar energy. Wind is cost-competitive with coal and solar with 60s and 70s era nuclear. But it isn't as profitable as coal, even is cost per kWh of wind is as cheap or cheaper. Therefore its supressed. Same thing with the electric car, same thing with hemp-based biodiesel and plastics.

PO, if anything, will just make those alternatives we have today more expensive to implement due to resulting hyperinflation.

The good news is we have the technology. The bad news is that the current political climate is set against it and is waiting for peak oil to come and make a few rich assholes that much more wealthier at the expense of everyone else.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')redicting the end of civilization as we know it is not helpful. That is just being part of the problem.

Hardly. To assert this is to fall into the groupthink mentality that plagues our current political system today. You have got to fully understand and always be aware of the risks involved with this crisis, and what type of landing we will have, soft in steady, or crashing and burning. Even the optimistic scenario can't be discounted, unlikely it may be. Being part of the problem is to outright ignore your options and the consequences they will entail. The doomsday scenarios are not at all out of the question and certainly not relegated to science fiction. One only needs to look at war-torn places like Iraq or Somalia to see what can happen in an infrastructure collapse, of which PO could end up bringing about on a larger scale.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')iscussing the facts and strategies for dealing with future challenges is not only helpful, but makes the whole issue of PO more palatable for mass consumption.

Yet those same strategies, reducing consumption, increasing efficiency, decreasing profit margins, are all ridiculed in the mainsteam media and the public buys it. They believe solar and wind electricity can't happen today, that better insulation is a waste of money, that florescent lightbulbs cost too much up front. Too bad the industries that are vested in maintaining the status quo are precisely against solving this crisis because the solutions threaten much needed decentralisation.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Caoimhan » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 12:38:28

I like how Toecutter has very well researched posts on his favorite technology, Battery-Electric Vehicles.

He's nearly convinced me that BEVs are truly viable. I still think putting a small clean diesel motor into one to help charge the battery pack would be helpful in extending range, but he's got me thinking...
User avatar
Caoimhan
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue 10 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Optimist » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 14:24:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou have got to fully understand and always be aware of the risks involved with this crisis, and what type of landing we will have, soft in steady, or crashing and burning. Even the optimistic scenario can't be discounted, unlikely it may be.

Why "unlikely it may be"? Do you believe PO will cause a hard landing? If so, why? The way I understand it there will be a GRADUAL decline in oil production. According to the capitalist economic model this causes an increase in price. The increase in price eventually reigns in demand, until supply = demand. Of course, higher oil prices are painful to everybody (excluding a few well-connected Texans), but it does not mean the immediate end of civilization. Higher oil prices will achieve what Kyoto is so far struggling to get.

I guess you see an urgency that I don't. You seem to believe we are "out of time". Please elaborate. I see higher oil prices creating opportunities for alternative technologies to work their way into the market. You seem to think the market will collapse before the alternatives get produced. Why would it?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's going to take more than a few people working on a solution. It's going to require cooperation on a scale that has yet to be seen. Think of all the resources America put into WWII.

I submit that you underestimate what a few individuals can do. Don't forget, flying was invented by two brothers with no corporate or government sponsor.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ooking forward to the end of civilization is criminal.

How so? It could be the break our environment needs to recooperate. We are near the point of no return on global warming. Maybe a societal collapse can be a good thing in that regard considering this civilization is not getting its act together and maknig use of the environmentally-benign technology it has developed.

You make it sound so innocent. Perhaps you meant it that way. Others, look forward to die-off. That is evil. Period.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e have the technology today and it is viable.
Have to differ from you there. If the world is ruled by a "power elite" who "is eyeing the short term profits", why would they not invest in these technologies and make even more money? Don't you think it would be in their interest to keep energy cheap so that we buy more?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou don't need to mine, extract, process, and ship wind energy or solar energy. Wind is cost-competitive with coal and solar with 60s and 70s era nuclear. But it isn't as profitable as coal, even is cost per kWh of wind is as cheap or cheaper. Therefore its supressed. Same thing with the electric car, same thing with hemp-based biodiesel and plastics.
Sorry, I don't buy conspiracy, convenient as it may be. Wind only recently started to get cost competitive. The obvious problem is that it cannot be ramped up on demand. Electric car? In spite of California's best efforts the technology could not be forced ripe. Weight of the battery is still a big problem, is it not? Hemp-based biodiesel? You have been inhaling, haven't you?

I believe your views are inconsistent. The "power elite" you talk of would surely invest in a new, viable technologies and maximize their profits.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he bad news is that the current political climate is set against it and is waiting for peak oil to come and make a few rich assholes that much more wealthier at the expense of everyone else.
I have to concede that one. The current political climate is downright depressing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')et those same strategies, reducing consumption, increasing efficiency, decreasing profit margins, are all ridiculed in the mainsteam media and the public buys it.
Likewise, I have to concede the media is almost as bad as the politicians. The one allowed the other to go off. Sad state of affairs.

That said, nothing like $3/gal gasoline and electricity at $0.20/kWh to encourage conservation, no matter what the media says.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') just love it when The-ToeCutter posts such a patient exercise is reason. Why do I have the feeling that is the precise moment when optomist and the rest of the cornucopians head for another thread? Or back to the Hudson Institute for instructions
RIGHT!!! Thanks for your contribution, Pete. Now back to the sandbox.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 16:09:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy "unlikely it may be"? Do you believe PO will cause a hard landing? If so, why?


I don't think PO will cause an extremely hard landing or an extremely soft landing, but somewhere in between. That doesn't mean that's how things will be, but I try to look at the factors that surround the crisis. It can go either way and I'm not betting with any modicum of certainty on one or the other.

I am of the opinhion that the landing will be sufficiently hard enough as to lead us to another great depression or worse. Some areas of the U.S. in specific could become very discontent with the economy at $100+/barrel oil. Everything we do is linked to oil, food, plastics, transportation, medicine, roads, police, hospitals, electricity(even though oil isn't normally burned for electricity, it extracts the coal/natural gas, transports it, ect.), everything. Cost of oil goes up and inflation jumps up accordingly. It happened in the 70s, it happened to Germany during WWII, and it will happen to us again in the scenario prices see such a large and sustained jump. Food prices adjusted for inflation have practically doubled in the U.S. over the past decade, and fuel has almost doubled in the span of 2 years. Cost of living itself has been going up for 3 decades, while real wages have declined over that same period. The rate cost of living is going up and the rate that wages decline is related to both the economic system in place and the cost of oil itself due to the functions it serves.

In the 70s and early 80s, adjusted for inflation, oil's highest price was about $80/barrel. This was due to a politically induced supply shortage. We are rapidly approaching that price today due to a shortage that is not politically induced(Even if the crisis itself might be due to the alternatives that have been developed and supressed). In the case peak oil is reached, there will constantly be more demand than supply until alternatives are adopted. But until then, there will be a chronic economic crisis with prices sustained at that level, and alternatives which have been viable for years still won't see adoption due to the asset inertia associated with our current power elite and increasing cost to adopt these alternatives due to the resulting inflation.

Already, we are fighting wars for oil without any concern to the success rate in an effort to gain hold of reserves, the central government is stripping away our civil liberties under the false guise of security, and our economy is already showing signs of tanking without any need for an energy crisis to occur with unecessary deficet spending rearing up to bite this nation in the ass as soon as its debtors demand their money be returned.

PO? Sustained oil prices above $100/barrel? That's going to cause hyperinflation by the likes of what Germany has seen 70 years ago. Germany serves as an example; civil unrest would be immentent. Iraq and other nations can also serve as examples as to what can occur when unemployment reaches over 75% and martial law is imposed. Peak oil brings with it the exact possibility that America too could fall into similar civil conflicts. Even fascism, which is occuring already without a publiscized and acknowledged PO crisis, is growing in this country already(Corporate power protected, labor power supressed, obsession with crime and punishment, continuing and fervent nationalism, erosion of constitutional rights, you know the rest).

Americans are already having trouble affording food and paying the bills. they are in debt tens of thousands of dollars. The government has removed from them an outlet to declare bankruptcy. A recession even as soft as the one that occured in the 70s would be extremely devastating today to the middle class. The middle class would be history. If they can't get fuel, pay the utilities, or put food on the table, or even if large numbers of people lose their nest eggs as the housing bubble bursts, there are going to be major civil problems if the recession remains chronic for over a year. Even a soft recession which peak oil would have no problem causing could wreak this sort of havoc.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he way I understand it there will be a GRADUAL decline in oil production. According to the capitalist economic model this causes an increase in price. The increase in price eventually reigns in demand, until supply = demand. Of course, higher oil prices are painful to everybody (excluding a few well-connected Texans), but it does not mean the immediate end of civilization.


There is a major caveat to this argument. Unlike luxury commodities, oil is a necessity to sustain any economy that has few alternatives to its use in place. Those that do not have oil will lose more than 30% of their energy supply, over 95% of their transport fuel, their military development will grind to a halt, they will have a significant reduction in the amount of food that can be grown, and they will experience higher inflation than everyone else due to the lack of oil, and not just more expensive oil. No matter the price, as long as supply is less than demand, someone is going to do without. Meanwhile, those wealthy enough to purchase that oil? The third worlders see them burning what is necessary for their food in luxury commodities like automobiles to keep the first world economic system afloat? It's not that hard to obtain a nuke these days. Not that will be the case, but those governments and their angry people certainly are not going to let things continue as they are when it means starvation for millions, instead of thousands, of their people. 911 squared, more or less.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')igher oil prices will achieve what Kyoto is so far struggling to get.


Not when coal begins to replace the portion of oil no longer available as an energy source. Even though wind is cheaper than coal, the current economic system which relies on infinite growth will not let it take hold due to the fact that it doesn't bring in as much profit as coal. Coal can also be used to produce liquid fuels for our transport, which is not needed since we can produce electric cars and biofuel trucks, but again the current economic system won't let that happen now, didn't let that happen a decade ago when the technology became viable, and won't let that happen in the future. The auto industry doesn't want to lose revenue from parts and servicing, the oil industry doesn't want to lose revenue from drastically decreased oil usage and through abating the need for the commodity, and the defense industry wants more wars of which oil shortages provide a convenient means. Endless growth is what these companies have in mind, and competition from alternatives that are viable today would crush its prospects.

Change the economic system, and peak oil's crushing blow can be partially blocked depending on how much time we have before peak's after-effects will start affecting this economy. Given we have an oil man in the white house, oil men in congress, and the oil, auto, and defense industry writing the laws, it's not looking very likely that we will see this needed change in time. It can happen, but the real question is whether or not it will. If we start today, we are starting on the 11th hour.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 17:06:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') guess you see an urgency that I don't. You seem to believe we are "out of time". Please elaborate. I see higher oil prices creating opportunities for alternative technologies to work their way into the market. You seem to think the market will collapse before the alternatives get produced. Why would it?


Why would it? Considering our economy is directly reliant on crude oil and the infinite growth it provides, switching to alternatives like electric vehicles, wind and solar energy, hemp-based biodiesel, hemp-plastics, ect. would reduce consumption by being cheaper for the user bringing in less revenue. But as inflation sets in, these alternatives become more expensive to implement. Already, prices on food, fuel, clothing, plastics, ect. are going up due to oil prices. These alternatives mentioned are not in place and are not present to ease the situation.

These opportunities for alternative technologies to work have been here for a long time. In 2003, wind reached a point that per kWh, it was cheaper to produce than coal electricity. The later 1990s, the Nickel Metal Hydride battery was developed for electric vehicle applications that in mass production would have been $150/kWh storage and a 30 kWh pack to give an electric car 200 miles range would have cost $4,500 and lasted 250,000, beating out an internal combustion engine by far. Before the government refused to grant permits for its growth, even hemp pre WWII had oil beat for plastics, textiles, ect. and was widely in use. Yes we aren't using these alternatives, even when they are cheaper today. We certainly aren't going to be using them when they become more expensive tomorrow with our current economic system.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') submit that you underestimate what a few individuals can do. Don't forget, flying was invented by two brothers with no corporate or government sponsor.


Of course, to be fair, technology wasn't developed to a point here making new advancements cost anywhere enar what they do today. Regulations weren't so strict and weren't constructed to kill competition with smaller industries like today. On top of that, there was no specific crisis that required air travel.

A worldwide economic crisis such as this cannot be fixed by one or two people. This is an effort that has to be solved by everyone who is a participant in our current economic system. We need to consume less, develop the necessary infrastucture for competitive alternatives to take hold, and actually make use of these alternatives. That means cutting heavily gasoline consumption in our automobiles or in some cases eliminating it altogether, relying on power sources not so heavily reliant on having raw materials transported to their source of electricity generation, relying on agriculture that is much less based on petrochemicals, cutting electricity consumption in our home appliances, cutting consumption of luxury goods like televisions and computers and instead opting for these appliances to be built to last instead of built to be thrown out and replaced, using less plastics, ect.

These problems are endemic to an economic system that relies on continuing growth, and continuing consumption of limited resources cannot be sustained at the level we see it today. Given how this crisis is adressed, we can either keep most of our living standard but consume much less to do so, or lose it in its entirity.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 17:07:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou make it sound so innocent. Perhaps you meant it that way. Others, look forward to die-off. That is evil. Period.


I must admit, the dieoff is one means from which to rid yourself of control from a tyrannical government because that government wouldn't have very many to rule over or very many to carry out its orders, rid yourself of debt, rid yourself of constant surveillance in our cities via cameras and recorders, even allow breakdown of the current laws so that you can do whatever the hell you want on your own damn property.

But that's only if such a disaster would occur and you'd live through it. It has its merits, evil it may sound.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ave to differ from you there. If the world is ruled by a "power elite" who "is eyeing the short term profits", why would they not invest in these technologies and make even more money? Don't you think it would be in their interest to keep energy cheap so that we buy more?


Keeping energy cheap doesn't always mean we would buy more, especially if the economy is in a recession. Cheaper resources without increased consumption means less revenue.

Take the electric car for instance. Would that be adopted, people still might drive their usual 12,000 miles a year because they simply don't need or want to drive anymore than that. But per mile of operation, an electric car costs about 1/2 as much as a gas one, or even less. Money saved in no gasoline used, no tune ups, no need to replace expensive engine parts, no oil changes, no maintenance on an electric drive system. Cars are the big cash cow for the power elite, along with oil. They go hand in hand.

I'm currently building an electric sports car for my own personal use. It will be able to top 140 mph, accelerate from 0-60 mph in 6 seconds, go 100 miles per charge at highway speeds on lead acid batteries. It will be cheaper to operate per mile including batteries than a gasoline-powered Honda Civic economy car that does 0-60 in 12 and wouldn't have anywhere near the performance. I have a topic on this car in this forum, and a parts list. It will cost me less than $13k to build in parts alone. Hand made, I'm looking at about 500 hours of labor for both restoration and assembly. Over 150,000 miles, this high performance sports car would save me about $5k over using a gas-powered Civic that's slow as molasses.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8975.html

Something like this mass produced with a NiMH battery pack and custom chassis? 200+ miles range, 30 minute charge capability(with quick charger infrastructure), and labor would barely be a factor. I'd be willing to bet an electric sports car with a fiberglass body and 200 horsepower could be made and sold at a profit for $25k in high production volume. A larger car powered by batteries could easily be produced to seat a family of five, as Solectria has demonstrated with their 200 mile range Force Sedan. No major automaker touched it, so it stayed an $80,000 hand-made Geo Metro, instead of the $15,000 economy car that it should have been.

Yet you cannot go to a dealership lot and buy a working electric car that is highway capable in this country.

Check the following topic for more, everything is referenced:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8972.html

Supression of advancements does go on and is very common.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')orry, I don't buy conspiracy, convenient as it may be. Wind only recently started to get cost competitive.


Recently? We'd have at least 3 years to shut down a good portion of the coal plants and replace them. Once wind hit 6 cents per kWh in 2002, the opportunity has been there. Wind development may be increasing, but it's no where near the capacity it could be. The coal industry is hardly touching it, and it's usually small startup companies that bring it to the consumers, who don't have the funds to scale the development up. Meanwhyile, the coal and natural gas industries lobby congress for more subsidies, when wind without subsidy has coal's and natural gas's cost beat with those two having subsidies.

Here we are, still burning coal as 50% of our electricity supply. Wind could be providing over 20% of it today with the advancements it has made and had there been an effort to get itm installed.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 17:08:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he obvious problem is that it cannot be ramped up on demand.


Why not? We ramped up our military infrastructure on demand in WWII. According to the American Lung Association, air pollution accounts for the premature deaths of more than 50,000 people a year. Coal power plants are one of the largest sources of this air pollution. Why can't we ramp it up? The social costs associated with this pollution are devastating, yet you don't see the power companies having to pay for the damage their pollution causes. They continue to get more subsidies courtesy of Joe taxpayer.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')lectric car? In spite of California's best efforts the technology could not be forced ripe.


Yet it still did ripen. Lithium ion and nickel metal hydride batteries allow ranges competitive with an internal combustion engine vehicle, and in a mass production scenario, they are cost competitive with a similar ICE. Study after study, whether from MIT, or University Berekely California, confirms this. As do small enterprises hand-making electric sports cars that have similar performance to higher volume sports cars of similar price. The technology is here. It's the political clout that isn't cooperating.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')eight of the battery is still a big problem, is it not?


No more of a problem than the weight of the interiors in cars today. Often, cars are loaded with over 400 pounds of trim and sound deadener, the same weight as a Lithium Ion battery pack to give 200 miles range, or half the weight of a NiMH battery pack to give 200 miles range.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')emp-based biodiesel? You have been inhaling, haven't you?


Nice cheap insult.

For your information, hemp based biodiesel works quite well. It doesn't need fertilizers or pesticides, and can be grown in the most arid of land. Its ytields may be only 1/5 per acre of palm oil, but its EROI is the highest of any plant which can be used to make biodiesel. A plot of desert land the size of Nevada, after intial energy is placed in, will not only yield enough energy to recoup that, but will also yield enough to run every last car in this country off of it.

http://www.hempcar.org/indexOLD.html

Hemp growing is even legal, but the government refuses to grant permits for it. You see, industrial hemp is not the same as marijuana. You cannot get stoned off of it. But, it was lobbying by William Randolph Hearst of the wood paper industry who didn't want hemp to take hold, as per acre hemp could yield 4 times more paper and do it cheaper. DuPont wanted to make petrochemicals more mainstream, and they lobbied the government to make hemp unavailable because hemp could do things like plastics and fibers for cheaper than oil.

Henry Ford in fact demonstrated a fully-hemp bodies car that is much lighter than the cars of today, with panels 10 times more dent resistant than steel. But the steel industry just wouldn't have that. They got their way too.

http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/09/ECH09_15.HTM
http://www.crrh.org/hemptv/misc_ford.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') believe your views are inconsistent. The "power elite" you talk of would surely invest in a new, viable technologies and maximize their profits.

There is something you're not understanding. These alternatives, despite being cheaper to produce, bring in less profits. You have less processes to pass onto the consumer. That 4 cent kWh coal is often passed onto the consumer for 8 or 9 cents. Coal needs to be mined, extracted, transported, stored, transported again, refined again, and finally burned to produce electricity. In order to generate power from coal efficiently costs millions of dollars in start up capital to build the coal plant. Wind? Would it be mass produced for the application of replacing much of the coal and oil used today, the price for the generators goes down significantly. Now your average American can afford to buy the generator and significantly reduce their consumption of electricity from the coal industry.

Less money flows to industry and the consumer keeps more of it. The industry doesn't like the idea and wants to stay entrenched and centralized, and does not want people generating their own electricity or for thousands of smaller enterprises to take their place. Solar poses a similar threat.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Optimist » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 21:57:44

WHOA! That was a mouthful! Remind me to never pick an argument with you again...

That said, you sound pretty optimistic yourself, as far as the technology is concerned. I would have to research EVs much more to respond to all the issues you raise. As an instinctive response, I find it hard to believe that the EV would be as workable as you put it - just sounds amazing. But I am NOT going to argue about it right now. If you are right, it is great news! The EV is viable!

I wholeheartedly agree with your characterization of the $ billions being wasted on the "hydrogen economy". "Fool-cell"! Beautiful. I am going to quote you on that one.

You mention the Germans during WWII, as an example how PO would affect the economy. You may be aware that the Germans developed coal liquification as a response. I see that as one way to offset hard landing after PO. Thanks to SASOL, www.sasol.com , coal liquification has developed a long way since WWII. There is another case study to consider: South Africa under apartheid and its strategies for coping with a potential oil embargo.

I believe that sustainable energy would be based on using the solar energy photosynthesis conveniently collects as we speak. I don't mean corn ethanol. Food -> fuel does not make sense to me. Cellulosic ethanol (inedible plant matter -> fuel) is promising. Biodiesel has potential. TDP, http://changingworldtech.com/ , gets me excited. Hard to know if it works as they claim, but good to see academics doing much the same thing at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/headlines/2005/Jun02.html .

In principle then, we agree that technology is not the problem. Leadership is. You think conspiracy, I am not so sure. Even if you are right about the conspiracy and the "power elite", eventually, I believe, people will reject the leadership and do what needs to be done. (The German response during WWII is not encouraging, but the global response to Germany at the time is.)

And you may benefit handsomely from you timely investment in electrical cars.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron