How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:54 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
JohnDenver wrote:
What facts? Fertilizer is a total non-problem. First of all, it's not made from oil, so peak oil is irrelevant. Even when peak natural gas occurs (whenever that might be), we have the easy, obvious solution of substituting human urine as the ammonia source. Potassium and phosphorus are derived from potash and phosphate rock, and reserves of those mineral are plentiful. Saskatchewan alone could supply world demand for potash for several hundred years. And even when those reserves run down, we can turn to recycling those nutrients from organic wastes.
This is one of the "holes" in the swiss cheese. You can explain it a hundred times, and it still won't penetrate the thick skulls in this forum. Give it 5 minutes, and another bonehead will be posting about the impending mass die-off due to a shortage of "petroleum fertilizer".
What facts? Remember the question, John? Without hydrocarbon based fertilizers, and petroleum, the "Green Revolution" which created a four-fold increase in food yields, would not have been possible, thus the 6.5 billion people the earth supports is predicated upon a phantom carrying capacity that will soon end. Not to mention, the increased costs for fuel, pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation will soon be beyond the reach of many third-world countries.
So human urine is our new source of ammonia for fertilizers? Talk about holes in the Swiss cheese! And look at all the studies and data John supplied! Will we ever read through it all? See what feeding the trolls gets you? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
Nairb wrote:
#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?
Mixed opinions on this. Such an energy source WOULD likely SOLVE the current problems BUT not the underlying problem: our species relentless need to grow. As long as we pursue a philosophy of growth, which most political ideologies, economic systems and religious doxologies promote, we will inevitable hit a limit of some sort. If not energy, then some other resource. Unlimited growth in a limited system will always run out of something. So free energy without limitations would not make things better in the long run, even if that meant you and your immediate decendents lived the energetic high life. Personally I would love to continue in my energetic narcosis. But it is an unsustainable high so we might as well make a change while this planet is still hospitable for other species as well as us. If that means the end of industrial civilization, so be it.
Or as they say: "if you are trapped in a hole, stop digging". Free energy simply is a better shovel. _________________ UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
Such wrote:
Nairb wrote:
#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.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2063 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:11 pm Post subject:
I would like to see an estimate that exceeds 10 billion without the use of fossil fuels or "Star Trek" type energy. <Link please> _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
pea-jay wrote:
Mixed opinions on this. Such an energy source WOULD likely SOLVE the current problems BUT not the underlying problem: our species relentless need to grow. As long as we pursue a philosophy of growth, which most political ideologies, economic systems and religious doxologies promote, we will inevitable hit a limit of some sort.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of off-earth resources in the solar system. There is no iron law that confines us to the earth.
Quote:
If not energy, then some other resource.
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.
Quote:
Unlimited growth in a limited system will always run out of something.
The system isn't limited. We will grow beyond the earth.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:18 pm Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
JohnDenver wrote:
Such wrote:
Nairb wrote:
#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."
Palmer (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.
Quote:
Smil (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.
Quote:
Brown&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.
Quote:
Hellig (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.
Quote:
Whittaker & 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.
Quote:
Meadows 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.
Quote:
Also, we can cross off Paul Ehrlich's estimate, because he's patently full of crap.
Ad hominem attack. 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.
Quote:
So 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.
Joined: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 2063 Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:27 pm Post subject:
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. _________________ "Peak oil isn't more than an interesting industry factoid and doesn't have anything to do with the hysterics speculated on ad nauseum around here!" ReserveGrowthRulz
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.
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."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
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.
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."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
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.
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.
JohnDenver wrote:
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."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Not 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.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:29 am Post subject: Re: A few questions from a newbie
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:
Nairb wrote:
#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.
Nairb wrote:
#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.
Nairb wrote:
#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.
Nairb wrote:
#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.
Nairb wrote:
#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.
Nairb wrote:
#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.
Nairb wrote:
#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.
Nairb wrote:
#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...
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
