How well placed is your area for Peak Oil?

electric_future

Hey a Brit! The rail system over there is good but hideously expensive since being privatised. Cost me far more to go by rail within the UK than fly, but flying sucks.

IMHO it's a timeframe dependent thing- if there is a slow 2% decline then we will be able to adjust; there is so much waste in the system. For instance there was a report on NZers oil use, which found 1/2 or more of distance travelled were recreational/discretionary. See http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____13698.aspx
page 47.

So we could theoretically cut oil use by 50% before people wouldn't be able to get to work!

As for food and food exports, well the NZ eceonomy has relied on food exports since before oil was even discovered- the "freezing works" would freeze meat and dairy products for export to Britain- in the mid 19th century. Long distance freight will still continue post peak because it is such an efficient (read: cheap) way of moving valuable goods, even if oil prices go up tenfold.

You are also conflating the ultimate fate of the environment into this- that's in the too hard basket, and should be worried about independently! Most of our exports are renewable anyway- forests, agricultural products, aluminium (hydroelectricity in solid form). As for imports, we can do without a lot of the cheap crap and be happier for it IMHO.

As for getting your own bit of land, as a society we have been moving away from this since hunter-gatherer times, and I for one don't want to go back. Economic specialization means that you get a far better result overall if everyone does what they are good at, rather than be forced to farm a single acre or whatever. The price of land is also in a mega bubble now and will crash mightily...

yeahbut · Heavy Crude Joined: Oct 30, 2007 Posts: 286

Nope, gotta say I'm with s0cks on this one-I really don't know what you think all those IT workers of yours are going to be doing, electric_future, but I reckon it might be growing spuds...I know you don't want to go back to those times, and quite frankly neither do I but I really don't see how it's gonna be any other way. We did indeed have lamb exports before the oil economy(although both the supply and demand existed because of coal, another non-sustainable, one-off bonanza), but at that time the vast majority of NZers lived rurally and worked there, as the majority must if you don't have invisible 'oil workers'. The current system-the global movement of produce and manufactured goods-can provide employment for enormous numbers of people in the modern world who produce nothing calorie-wise. That system only works because we have a temporary supply of extremely cheap calories that lots of plankton made for us 100 million years ago. That has made energy cheap, for a one-off, never to be repeated period. When that energy starts getting expensive, more and more people will once more have to be involved in the actual creation of calories, and goods-the invisible workers will be less and less in number as time goes by. Of course we will use every form of technology that we can to generate energy and provide transport, etc, but the simple fact is that sustainably created energy requires workers-visible ones. I feel sure that the suburbs won't survive the end of the cheap oil era, and a whole lot of 'knowledge economy' workers will be getting their first calluses too...

alokin · Intermediate Crude Joined: Aug 24, 2007 Posts: 690

yeahbut · Heavy Crude Joined: Oct 30, 2007 Posts: 286

I don't believe that a process of de-urbanisation is necessarily synonomous with societal break-down, but I do believe it's inevitable, and I'm in good company there, Richard Heinberg said as much when I saw him speak a while ago. Urbanisation was a process that really got going with fossil fuels-coal first, then oil. Oil provides the energy that allows lots of people to not be involved in the production of food-some estimates suggest a gallon of petrol is worth the labour of a man for two months. Of course peak oil doesn't mean the end of oil, but it certainly does mean the end of CHEAP oil, and consequently the end of cheap everything else. Oil is involved in everything we eat, every product we buy, every system of production, so when it gets expensive so will everything else-and that includes the plain, unpackaged flour you mentioned. Coal is no substitute for this, it won't run our cars, make our plastics and fertilizers, power our tractors and planes etc. The terrifying prospect of countries trying to solve their oil problems with coal is certainly coming, but it won't work, and anyway it's a finite resource too(not to mention that Australians of all people should be moving away from coal at speed given their continent's unique vulnerability to climate change). I really do think you haven't done enough research into the role of oil in all our lives if you truly believe that it won't change anyone's lives or be any hardship.

s0cks

yeahbut, well, actually, no but. he's right!

I take a look around my room now. Computer, plastics - oil based, metals - oil based mining/factories, empty wrappers of chocolate, nuts, ice cream - all delivered and manufactured in oil devouring ways, etc etc... Pretty much everything. Wood is felled by large oil driven chainsaws. I think the scariest thing is agriculture, 10 calories of oil per 1 calorie of food.

I know oil isn't just gonna run out. But even at a decline of 2% per year that means we have to !!!half!!! our oil consumption in the next 35 years. If the predicted 7% slope happens we have to half oil usage every 10 years!!! Can you imagine?!? In an ever more declining energy world how can you build and build more, grow and grow more? You can't. That means economic collapse. The amount of energy to build a huge windfarm takes decades just to break even. And that's even if you can build it. There have been shortages of steel, concrete and copper recently (mainly due to China hording supplies). Richard Heinburg has noted that some of the essential metals for solar panels are already in decline. Lead and other metals for batteries are in decline.

I'm sorry, electric_future, but while the world may me able to "battle" on for a couple of decades in a world of ever decreasing foodstocks and resources, it eventually has to give. All everyone ever suggests is going back to old technologies, which is the complete reverse of being more efficient. Coal for oil, sodium for batteries, this for that, etc... its all less efficient and requires a much much less energy intensive world. Like you say, we can cut recreational driving and save 50% of fuel. But then who's gonna visit al lthe shopping centres? Stay at hotels? Dine out at restaurants? It all has a ripple effect. Everything is so closely entwined with oil and cheap energy.

I cans see it now. People walking down littered streets. Passed broken shop windows, on a cold dark night, where the street lights have been turned off to save power. There is no such thing as a green city. Sorry.

electric_future

You have a negative mindset. You need a silver lining to go with that cloud!

In my opinion, we will go back to a lifestyle more like the 1920s, maybe the 1930s. While this may mean austerity, this may be a *good* thing for our mental and physical health.

Many of the ailments that destroy people mentally and physically are a direct effect of our hypercapitalist society. Look at the hospitals, overflowing with people suffering "affluenza" diseases, look at the intense saturation of marketing; creating and nurturing greed, overconsumption and debt. The food's rubbish and most people caught in "the race" are deeply miserable even as they get richer.

Some of the happiest people in NZ were the early settlers, even though by today's standards their lives were totally primitive!

As long as we have some oil imports, we can do agriculture and forestry, that's a single digit percentage of oil use and could probably be powered on biofuel if it came to that. Transport can be rail, bicycle, and trams; just as we did up until the 1960s. It's all do-able, just requires the necessary economic incentives.

Oh and google for "central limit theorem". This is why declines will only be 1-2% at max.

electric_future

yeahbut · Heavy Crude Joined: Oct 30, 2007 Posts: 286

I agree with the negative mindset comment, and it's all a bit silly anyway-if you're really that convinced total collapse is coming, what are you doing wasting time at your keyboard? Shouldn't you be stockpiling seeds and building your compound? electric_future,I can't really see how our positions are that different-you see our country returning to an agricultural era similar to the 1920s, I think that's very likely too. And if it does roll out like that, the balance of population of city to country will have to change too-rural areas will be where most of the work is, that's how agricultural societies without cheap energy work. That's why I say I don't know what all those IT workers will be doing. I also agree that it may well be a good thing for some of the modern ailments of society-urbanisation has involved the loss of community and employment that gave many people a sense of belonging and worth(not to mention a fit and strong body). It's true that farming will continue, no matter how expensive oil becomes, but certain stupid trends like the rush to dirty, energy and water intensive dairying will have to be reversed(it's such a gold rush right now that some are even chopping down immature pine forests to get the cows in). I'm sure we'll find ourselves producing mostly for domestic sale and a lot less for export, long term, and farming-wise that means less monoculture and more diversity-our oranges won't be from california and our tomatoes from spain, maybe even a lot of flour won't be from aussie. I agree also that we'll be using bio-fuel, of course we will, but it''s important to remember that currently bio-fuel is manufactured using cheap oil.When it has to be grown, harvested, processed and transported using bio-fuel or expensive oil, then we'll start to get an idea of the true cost of energy.

Cornelian

s0cks

yeahbut · Heavy Crude Joined: Oct 30, 2007 Posts: 286

s0cks

yeahbut · Heavy Crude Joined: Oct 30, 2007 Posts: 286

Temperedoil

I live in Auckland.

Anybody who lives in Auckland will be aware that we don't exactly have a world class public transport system. However, living as I do near the CBD, I am close to all the shops and services I would normally use and do not own or drive a car. I also have no intention of buying a car, given the Peak Oil situation. However, my job relies upon people having money spare to spend on leisure (specifically the hiring of DVD's), so I would not expect my employment to be so secure in a post Peak Oil environment.

Personally, I think that New Zealand as a whole is likely to be the best developed country to live in when the consequences of Peak Oil strike. Our farmers are less reliant upon oil and gas for food production compared to many other countries. We have a relatively small population, but our climate, fertile soils, and topographical variety allows us to produce far more food than we need, and a good variety of foods as well. Although some parts of the country often suffer droughts, the majority of the population live in areas with good rainfall - making private rainwater collection feasible as a reliable source of water. Though it is often mentioned that we have a housing shortage in New Zealand at the moment, we do have sufficient timber resources with which to build more houses (particularly so in the years ahead when international trade is reduced through economic problems overseas combined with increased costs of transport, thereby leaving more of our resources available for our own use). From sixty to seventy percent of our electricity supplies are from renewable sources. Still not enough, but better than most countries. Also, there remain opportunities for improving that share if we work on it, and much of the country has a suitable climate for homeowners to generate their own electricity with sufficient motivation and assistance.

With all that said, this does not mean that we will get through the Peak Oil crisis unscathed. Our economy is very heavily dependent upon international tourism and trade, and both of these will slip (perhaps even fall away altogether eventually). This will lead to great hardship, until we adapt. Which, we shall.

The biggest issue, is psychology. How will the average shopper in Queen Street or cafe patron in Wellington feel when they see that their lifestyles are no longer affordable, are no longer possible, due to the various consequences of Peak Oil? We are heavily reliant upon the international financial markets for funding for mortgages, hire purchase and other debts, which is bound to lead to big problems in the years ahead as economies everywhere grind to a halt and slip into recession then depression.

I do think that Peak Oil is likely to lead to global economic depression, wars, and other disruptions as people are not able to get what they need and want. I think that New Zealand should be putting more effort into building a credible defence force or system. We may not be in the thick of it as Northern Hemisphere countries are likely to be, but we may still be at risk of attack from others eyeing our excess of food and water, and the other resources we have. However, although the current government does seem to be finally waking up to the urgency of the oil situation (rather belatedly), I think that the proposals amount to too little, too late.

As to what I might do in preparation for the consequences of Peak Oil. I have no money with which to buy a house and land, and neither do either of my parents. All I can do is try to save what very little I can (no hope of even paying off my Student Loan in time), purchase whatever canned and dried foods will fit in the cupboards (I have no access to any gardening opportunities here) and prepare myself psychologically for what lies ahead.

rostov

I moved here 2 years ago from Singapore. PT at $1.50 then for a 40km ride with a maximum waiting time of 4 minutes and carrying capacity of 1200 per load (8 trains). Buses of max wait time 3 mins peak 10 mins off peak with carrying caps of 80+ people, $2.00 for a 3 legged journey of 40kms. Think Japan.

Infrastructure : free wireless LAN for free surfing at about 512kbps per person at every fastfood outlet (there were about 5 per 200metre^2) and coffee joints. Medical facilities as clinically efficient as those seen in Serenity inner core planets. Import/export for commodities cheap to the point of involving food and hence its derivatives allowing me to have a meal of NZ$4 per person 24 hours a day.

Royally screwed in a PO scenario, if not for Singapore having a crude oil refinary hub business (some of it comes to NZ)

Now in Wellington, we have no political parties that have any commercial backing for PO-preperation. Toll NZ had to be delisted by Toll OZ so that all financial operations (upgrade the Wellington network at Westpac stadium, coal rail net in West Coast, etc) with the NZ government is not open and therefore shielded AWAY from commercial entities that vie for the same funding for trucking trains. 2 years here, and none of their 17th September 2005 governmental (labour) PO acknowledgement were carried out. Except Mataka Windfarm, and the possible Pauatahanui Windfarms.

It's got the best PT in NZ alright (electrified trains on both sides -- Upper Hutt to city, city to Pram), it's got buses all over as well (so does Christchurch -- much much better!), but that's it. The best only in NZ. Compared to UK, JP, SG, we're using stuff that has been around since the 70s. In the past train rides to the city from 7:30am from the Hutt guaranteed seats. Right now you'd may not get a seat or even miss it on certain days or hiccups (another story). But overally you're talking about $4 (? sorry long time no ride) for a measly 15km ride to the city, and worse if you take bus (service 92?)

The fresh water underground within the Hutt-to-Petone aquafiers are fine so far, but I wonder how much is being pumped (electric pumps?) up to the western and eastern hills? What about the Gorge to Porirua? As RogerHB in the past pointed out quite clearly -- is food a problem? I still ask myself, to this day, where food comes from in Wellington, and can so far conclude that most of it comes from the North (Paraparamau upwards) or from the south shipping. I doubt the Pauatahanui areas support crops (all lifestyle, and they face droughts, hardly any spring pressures), nor Kaitoke, nor the Plateau.

No. I believe Wellington is royally screwed in a PO scenario. You have one of the worst setups : the government WILL stay here in order to guarantee the flow of both the net surplus energy and food from the south. But you'll be living in a leftist jurisdiction, and we're talking liberal setup here folks. Cannons Creek to Tahiti bay, and Stokes to Tremtham will be a natural street nightmare. At least there will be jobs in the city. Already the number of commercial buildings converted or torn down to apartments (really small space!) have started, and thus the great city migration begins. Oh what a sight for food dependencies.

Let's just assume that we take a hard crash scenario, and turn to the basic 3 elements (Water, food, shelter) for survival, be it alone or with a government. It will be easy to see that food is a major problem. At current rates of $1.68 (for octane 92) and not yet having the refined prices after a WTI USD$95+++/barrel priced in, I wonder how food located outside the electrified train zone will fare getting into Wellington for distribution? One just has to drive around the Hutt or Porirua regions to note that the amount of land per person just won't cut it either.

The only silver lining I get right now is the lesser occurances of noisy Boy Racers in the middle of the night. Rush the gas, and the next trip is to the gas station. I love my sleeps nowadays.
_________________
regards,
Rostov
"Some {} are more equal than others"