[pkofsocal]

Denying Peak Oil and Grasping at Straws are futile in the end.

A lot of alternative energy sources are being discussed. But the proponents ignore one fundamental factor: "How will we replace it once it wears out?" We need oil to produce and transport virtually any machine worth its weight. If the alternative energy source is non-reproducible, it's like breeding a mule.

A mule is hardy, tough and very useful. However it can't reproduce, so you can only use it until it dies. Same thing. You use that alternative energy thing until it wears out. After that it simply falls apart, due to lack of replacements. Game set.
A lot of 'renewables' need sofiscated plants. To build these plants, you need -- the three letter word. Hydroelectric dams? Eventually they will also age and 'die'. How will we replace them? You need to ship a lot of materiel from afar to rebuild the dams, and to ship them you need --- that three letter word.

All these solutions floating around will only postpone the end for a fraction of current population who are fortunate enough to live around these facilities for about a generation or so. Assuming the powerful 'neighbors' don't invade these areas first to seize the energy sources.

[jato]

PK, good post. This site has shown me just how much people are in denial about the coming crisis of declining energy. Here is a site devoted to the crisis and people come up with these historical vacuum type models of marginal success. Ie Cuba did it and so can we! We have never faced this problem! We are/will be in uncharted territory.

I would be interested to get your take on this: link

[pkofsocal]

Jato. If Venezuela stops supplying oil to Cuba, Castro will have to find a place who might accept him very quickly.

[bart]

You are right to be skeptical of techno-fixes, pkofsocal. The kind of fixes whereby we just bolt a new process onto the social machinery, and voila, problem solved!

You point to the fact that alternative energy sources currently require oil to manufacture and transport, and I agree with you. However, you are unduly pessimistic about what human beings can accomplish. Our thinking and technology is based on cheap oil, so that it is hard for us to see alternatives. But such alternatives exist.

People built civilizations for 10,000 years before petroleum came into widespread use. They did it -- why can't we? They had massive public works like dams, they had machinery. We can too.

It's just that we can't be as wasteful in the future as we've been in the past hundred years. We can't build suburbs that rely on cheap oil for transportation. We can't have globalization, in which goods are regularly shipped halfway across the world. We can't design our buildings so they require massive inputs of energy to heat and cool. We can't grow our food in ways that damage our soils and require 10 calories of energy input for each 1 calorie of food value. We can't expect to travel by airplane for a weekend shopping trip in Paris. We can't spend billions of dollars financing foreign wars. In short, we can't act like spoiled children any more.

Oil will become more expensive. We need to save it for critical applications. Our technology is currently based on oil and cheap energy. We need to re-design it now, while we still have the gift of fossil fuels. You are right that mules cannot reproduce. If we are smart, we will raise horses and donkeys. If we do so, we will have mules for generations to come.

[clv101]

If we manage to replace the vast amount of oil use with renewable technology the remaining oil can be used only to maintain the renewable infrastructure

EG if all the oil currently used in cars is replaced by wind generated electricity then all the remaining oil has to do is facility the operation, maintenance and replacement of wind turbines.

I'm not saying this specific example is feasible... but one needs to remember that peak oil is only reducing supply. If our demand for oil shifts from being the primary energy source to being a minor facilitator to an alternative energy source it could last 100 years.

[pkofsocal]

People built civilizations for 10,000 years before petroleum came into widespread use. They did it -- why can't we?

We will. And the population will also contract to the level 10,000 years ago.

They had massive public works like dams, they had machinery. We can too.

Except there were less environmental damage at that time.

Our technology is currently based on oil and cheap energy. We need to re-design it now, while we still have the gift of fossil fuels.

The need is there. But who's doing it? Even if somebody does, where does the resources and money needed to implement them will come from?

If we manage to replace the vast amount of oil use with renewable technology the remaining oil can be used only to maintain the renewable infrastructure

That's a BIG 'IF'. And 'maintaining' the remaining infrastructure is an uphill battle, too.
Many of the materiel needed to 'maintain' it come from very far distances from areas which are likely to be affected by massive unrests. To guarrantee these materiel flow in time, you need armies to station in that area, and you need to ship things for the army. Same circle.

EG if all the oil currently used in cars is replaced by wind generated electricity then all the remaining oil has to do is facility the operation, maintenance and replacement of wind turbines.

Nice theory. But can it be done? Unless it's actually been done, it's just pencil-pushing.
[quote]I'm not saying this specific example is feasible... but one needs to remember that peak oil is only reducing supply. If our demand for oil shifts from being the primary energy source to being a minor facilitator to an alternative energy source it could last 100 years.]/quote]
And after the 100 years are gone? Boom! Just what I said at the beginning, these measures will only delay things by a generation or a bit more.

[Permanently_Baffled]

If we manage to replace the vast amount of oil use with renewable technology the remaining oil can be used only to maintain the renewable infrastructure

EG if all the oil currently used in cars is replaced by wind generated electricity then all the remaining oil has to do is facility the operation, maintenance and replacement of wind turbines.

I'm not saying this specific example is feasible... but one needs to remember that peak oil is only reducing supply. If our demand for oil shifts from being the primary energy source to being a minor facilitator to an alternative energy source it could last 100 years.

Also this is where the Heavy oils/shales/sands will have some use. We cannot in anyway produce enough to maintain the status quo but the vast reserves could give a steady supply over centuries which can be prioritised for the renewable energies we are using.

Add this to synthetic fuels from coal , bio diesal , ethanol etc etc , there are ways to maintain a renewable energy structure.(acknowledged there will be a lot loss energy being created than today).

I agree that the population will head downwards , but what I cannot accept is that this will be by mass murdering anarchic starving societies killing each other scraps. It is more likely that over the next say, 5 decades , PO will hit, economies will be screwed and then the birth rate will collapse everywhere(already way below 2 in Russia, Western Europe , Eastern Europe and US). The death rate will increase in the elderly will increase(particularly in winter).

I guess what I am saying is, that I believe in a more natural/steady population reduction(to around say 3-4 billion) rather than a worldwide anarchic slaughter, with armies of starving zombies eating others semi decaying flesh etc

Wow thats cheered me up...

PB

[pkofsocal]

Also this is where the Heavy oils/shales/sands will have some use. We cannot in anyway produce enough to maintain the status quo but the vast reserves could give a steady supply over centuries which can be prioritised for the renewable energies we are using.

Except most of them are located in remote areas. To extract them you need electricity and o-i-l. Back to square one.

I agree that the population will head downwards , but what I cannot accept is that this will be by mass murdering anarchic starving societies killing each other scraps.

It will happen whether you can accept it or not. They will not ask for your opinion, or mine, whether they can take their neighbor country's oil/biodiesel/hydro/whatever.

It is more likely that over the next say, 5 decades , PO will hit, economies will be screwed and then the birth rate will collapse everywhere(already way below 2 in Russia, Western Europe , Eastern Europe and US). The death rate will increase in the elderly will increase(particularly in winter).

Sorry. the birth rate decrease will not do any good for those who are already born.

I guess what I am saying is, that I believe in a more natural/steady population reduction(to around say 3-4 billion) rather than a worldwide anarchic slaughter, with armies of starving zombies eating others semi-decaying flesh etc

Again, whether you choose to believe or not, all these anarchy will hit us. It's OK to deny it as long as one can, but that doesn't change the situation by an iota.

[Andy]

I agree that we will have significantly less total energy available in the future. I disagree that the renewables cannot be maintained without using oil. Think wind turbines, they use what: steel, copper, plastics, carbon fibre etc. All these things can still be produced from stuff like tar sands, biomass etc. A lot of the stuff is recyclable with the main input being heat, suppliable by solar, biomass etc. Hydroelectric dams are very long term structures that might possibly last 100's of years. Remember, some pyramids in Egypt still stand. I acknowledge that hydroelectric reservoirs will eventually have to operate run of river after siltation but that doesn't mean they are useless. As long as we realize that our population will have to go down and our energy use will have to go down, the renwables are sustainable over the long term.

[bart]

No die-off

People built civilizations for 10,000 years before petroleum came into widespread use. They did it -- why can't we?]/quote]We will. And the population will also contract to the level 10,000 years ago.

1. Even with the increased cost of energy, we will be able to support much greater populations than in the remote past thanks to science and technology. We understand physical and natural processes, and can design technology that is much more efficient than in the past. I agree, though, that current population levels are unsustainable even with energy-efficient technology

2. Population probably will decrease, but there is no justification for assuming it will be a die-off. in nature and in history, populations more often decline slowly.For example, the populations of many European countries, Russia and Japan have been decreasing for years. China has reduced its population increase with its one-child policies.

How it will happen

Our technology is currently based on oil and cheap energy. We need to re-design it now, while we still have the gift of fossil fuels.

The need is there. But who's doing it? Even if somebody does, where does the resources and money needed to implement them will come from? [/quote]
1. Visionaries, idealists and eccentrics are leading the way. Organic farming, once a hippie dream, is now the fastest growing sector of agriculture. Permaculture shows how to meet our needs in a sustainable ways by careful design and studying nature. Many other ideas and inventions are out there; they just haven't hit the mainstream. (Wait until the price of oil doubles!)

2. Savvy small business people will find a way to make money from the new innovations, particularly as the price of energy goes up. Technology that minimizes energy use will be at a premium; wasteful practices will be discarded. Following the oil shocks of the early 70s, businesses became much more energy efficient. They will again.

3. Governments will regulate and intervene to encourage energy conservation and get away from dependence on oil. Outside the US, many countries are making progress -- for example, Europe consumes half the energy per capita as North America, thanks in part to the high taxes on gasoline. Wise governments will fund research into the basic science of sustainability and energy

4. Societies that are able to make the transition to a low-energy future will prosper. Those that are stuck in the past will decline.

Designing a maintainable infrastructure

Many of the materiel needed to 'maintain' it [the current infrastructure] come from very far distances from areas which are likely to be affected by massive unrests.To guarrantee these materiel flow in time, you need armies to station in that area, and you need to ship things for the army. Same circle.

Exactly. It is dumb to design your infrastructure so it is dependent on resources in unstable, far away countries. It is much easier to ensure supplies of small amounts of oil (for maintenance) than large amounts (as an energy source). Armies and foreign wars are very expensive, both in terms of money and energy.

Wind-electric cars

EG if all the oil currently used in cars is replaced by wind generated electricity then all the remaining oil has to do is facility the operation, maintenance and replacement of wind turbines. Nice theory. But can it be done? Unless it's actually been done, it's just pencil-pushing.

The technology is there. Wind power, electric cars -- known technology which is improving. Although this solution is practical on a small scale, I don't think there's any way we can afford to have the vast fleet of personal vehicles we currently have. For one thing, the cars would have to be manufactured, which would be expensive in energy terms.

We need time

...If our demand for oil shifts from being the primary energy source to being a minor facilitator to an alternative energy source it could last 100 years. And after the 100 years are gone? Boom! Just what I said at the beginning, these measures will only delay things by a generation or a bit more.

Having 100 years ( = 5 generations) to evolve a sustainable society would be a godsend. More than anything else, we need time -- time to get used to the idea and time to develop the tools and processes.

[Permanently_Baffled]

Except most of them are located in remote areas. To extract them you need electricity and o-i-l. Back to square one.

This is not correct. Heavy oil production already exists and is being expanded in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Venezuela. The UK also has plans(although only 30 billion barrel potnetial): link
Oil sands are also energy positive, although I acknowledge it is not close to conventional oil

It will happen whether you can accept it or not. They will not ask for your opinion, or mine, whether they can take their neighbor country's oil/biodiesel/hydro/whatever.

Who exactly are 'they'? Are you refering to the US and invasions like Iraq? Unfortunately invasions for oil have proved to be futile since production stops during the war, and halves post war for years to follow. I do acknowledge that it all depends what mad bastard you guys elect
How exactly do you exploit a hydro plant/bio diesal via invading a country? Do you move it brick by brick back to your own country or nick the rape seeds?

Sorry. the birth rate decrease will not do any good for those who are already born.

Acknowledged I fucked up here. I meant to say I dont believe there will be anarchic sociatal killing in certain parts of the world. I do not for example think the EC will experience mass anarchy. This is because I have read plans/consultaion paper on bio diesal , biogas, ethanol, solar, bio mass, wind etc that will mean between 20%-33% of current fuel use can be provided from the first two items with an additional(but limited contribution) from renewable electric produced Hydrogen. Bio gas is being exploted to the tune of 1.5mtoe already and to put that in perspective all of the fertilizer produced for current EC agriculture is 3mtoe. So there is a renewable source of fertilizer(plus there are other ways to fix nitrogen , ie green manure etc). Renewable electricty is targeted to have 20% of current consumption by renewables by 2020. Back the latter up with nuclear power and chuck in a shit load of conservation then we can avoid mass sarvation (which is I presume what you think will cause the chaos) Also if you chuck in fuels from liquid coal (sasol in south africa are already doing this) you have a further contribution. Also if you use rail from electricity or bio diesal/gas you can make enormous savings compared to current levels.

The european population levels are also already falling. This would be substantially more if immigration was stopped(presumably this becomes more limited as the amount of trucks and boats to stowaway on are reduced). Also policy on immigration will be more hard line as the SHTF.
If you took the birth rate of the EC and stopped immigration the population would drop by 25% by 2050 (birth rate is circa 1.5-1.6. Italy it is 1.2!!) So in short, challenging and tough = yes , but mass starvation and anarchy? No (IMO).

I can understand the doomsday scenario, but I truely believe it doesn't have to be like that in certain parts of the world. This of course depends on a zillion different variables over the next few decades.

[pkofsocal]

>Heavy oil production already exists and is being expanded in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Venezuela

And how will you ship it back to England? By - guess what - oil tankers. Boom, back to square one.

>I meant to say I dont believe there will be anarchic sociatal killing in certain parts of the world.

Some parts might escape with just about 20%-30% haircut. I do acknowledge that. other areas won't be that fortunate.

>Renewable electricty is targeted to have 20% of current consumption by renewables by 2020.

Very nice. That does mean that if po hits by 2020 we can kiss about 80% of europe goodbye, right?

>The european population levels are also already falling.

Except Europe's resource bases have been exhausted long ago.

==@Bart:

1. Even with the increased cost of energy, we will be able to support much greater populations than in the remote past thanks to science and technology. We understand physical and natural processes, and can design technology that is much more efficient than in the past.

-- except a lot of nature has been damaged beyond salvage, and survivors will destroy what few may remain.

>2. Population probably will decrease, but there is no justification for assuming it will be a die-off. in nature and in history, populations more often decline slowly.

PO has been NEVER experienced in human history. In other words, it's an entirely different ball game with no precedents

(other than what happened to the Natives after the buffallos ran out or what happened to the people of Rapa Nui(Easter Isl) after they cut all their wood).

> Visionaries, idealists and eccentrics are leading the way.

Lucky for them. Until the army knocks their door for badly 'needed' resources.

>Many other ideas and inventions are out there; they just haven't hit the mainstream. (Wait until the price of oil doubles!)

They look great on paper and in labs. But large scale?

>2. Savvy small business people will find a way to make money from the new innovations, particularly as the price of energy goes up.

Except most small business in the rural areas are dead. The remaining ones simply don't have the capital to invest on the new things.

> Technology that minimizes energy use will be at a premium; wasteful practices will be discarded. Following the oil shocks of the early 70s, businesses became much more energy efficient. They will again.

You can fasten your belts only by so much.

>Societies that are able to make the transition to a low-energy future will prosper. Those that are stuck in the past will decline.

But not before flexing their muscles.

>The technology is there. Wind power, electric cars -- known technology which is improving. Although this solution is practical on a small scale, I don't think there's any way we can afford to have the vast fleet of personal vehicles we currently have. For one thing, the cars would have to be manufactured, which would be expensive in energy terms.

That's right. And where will the materiel for the new wind car come from? By trucks (read: O-i-l).

It will not warrant large scale manufacturing.

>Having 100 years ( = 5 generations) to evolve a sustainable society would be a godsend. More than anything else, we need time -- time to get used to the idea and time to develop the tools and processes.

After 100 years, SOME locales which were lucky enough to be located in an easily defensible area to escape most damages might rise again.

But I would bet that they would be riding horses (assuming the survivors don't eat them all) to get to the next town 30 miles away.

[Permanently_Baffled]

And how will you ship it back to England? By - guess what - oil tankers. Boom, back to square one.

Blimey your arguments are getting pretty desperate!

Heavy oil and conventional oil is already transported by ship to Europe and is still energy positive , so what is your point?

Very nice. That does mean that if po hits by 2020 we can kiss about 80% of europe goodbye, right?

So you chose to ignore the part of my post saying back it up with nuclear power and coal which there is plenty of. France is already 75% nuclear for example.

Except Europe's resource bases have been exhausted long ago.

Apart from hundreds of years of coal(Germany/Poland/Eastern Europe), and access to oil/gas/uranium resources from ME, North Africa and Russia , which geographically are not too far away. Then there is the renewables like bio gas, bio diesal, thanol,hydrogen,solar,wind,solar,tidal etc.

Care to try again?

PB

[ohanian]

PO has been NEVER experienced in human history. In other words, it's an entirely different ball game with no precedents

(other than what happened to the Natives after the buffallos ran out or what happened to the people of Rapa Nui(Easter Isl) after they cut all their wood).

Bullshit! Just substitute oil for grain.

=======================

To predict the shape of things to come, we need to look in history for a product which everybody wants but is in decline. Thus there is not enough to go around. Predictably the price of that product will shoot sky high. But is there ever such a product in the history of humanity. There is one such product, it's called grain.


Oil == grain/cereal
Minerals == cattle

--------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ucc.ie/famine/About/abfamine.htm


What is Famine

Extract from "The Challenge of Famine", John Osgood Field; Kumarian Press Conneticut, 1993
The Nature of the Beast

Famine may be seen as "the regional failure of food production or distribution systems, leading to sharply increased mortality due to starvation and associated disease" (Cox 1981, 5). While other definitions exist as well, this one usefully emphasizes regional, not family failure; points to the importance of markets and, by implication, of shifting market demand for different foods in addition to their aggregate supply; identifies "excess deaths" - deaths that otherwise would not have occurred- as the core feature of famine; and attributes those deaths to morbidity as well as to seriously reduced consumption. Indeed, most famine-induced mortality tends to occur after the worst of the food crisis is over but while the crisis of infectious disease persists (Bongaarts and Cain 1982; Greenough 1976 and 1982; see also the studies cited by Dreze and Sen 1989, 44).

What this definition does not adequately convey is that famine is the endpoint of a lengthy process in which people in increasing numbers lose their access to food. Most famines have long gestation periods, typically covering two or more crop seasons. Because the descent into famine is slow, early detection is possible. Because it is also typically shrouded in ambiguity, early detection is rarely definitive and seldom produces early response. Herein lies a dilemma that continues to plague famine early warning systems.

Moreover, famine entails more than a severe shortage of food and grotesque distortions of normal food prices. Famine features a deepening recession in the entire rural economy, one affecting production and exchange, employment, and income of farm and nonfarm households alike (Sen 1981; Greenough 1982; Ravallion 1987; Desai 1988; Dreze 1990a).

Landless laborers, artisans, and traders are among those most vulnerable to famine because of shrinking demand for their labor, goods, and services. Pastoralists and fishermen are also vulnerable because they rely on the exchange of meat and marine products to obtain the cheaper grain calories they require and because, in the dynamic leading to famine, the terms of trade turn sharply against what they sell relative to the grain they seek to buy.

In the Bengal famine of 1943-44, for example, the price of cloth, fish, milk, haircuts, and bamboo umbrellas deteriorated 70-80 percent versus grain (Emailer and Gavian 1987). In Ethiopia, animal calories normally cost about twice as much as grain calories, with herdsmen meeting half of their caloric requirements through consumption of grain; during the famine of 1972-74, the calorie exchange rate declined as much as 84-92 percent against animal products in some areas (Sen 1981, drawing on calculations by Seaman, Holt, and Rivers 1978 and Rivers, Holt, Seaman, and Bowden 1976). In Swaziland, cattle lost six to eight times their value relative to maize in the little-known famine of 1932, placing herders in acute distress (Packard 1984).

As a rule of thumb, when grain supplies and animal stocks both decline, the exchange rate worsens for animals. This double jeopardy underlies Sen's observation that the Ethiopian pastoralist, "hit by drought, was decimated by the market mechanism" (Sen 1981, 112; see also Wolde Mariam 1984). By contrast, large producers of grain and grain merchants can usually ride out a famine far more successfully than others in the afflicted environment.

Similarly, the definition of famine offered above fails to capture the extent of social disintegration that usually accompanies the downward slide into famine conditions. Social reciprocities and supports crumble under increasing stress. Hoarding and related pathologies (smuggling, black market profiteering, crime) become commonplace. The distress sale of assets (jewelry, animals, land) accelerates. Families divide in search of work or succor; wives may even be cast adrift and children sold (Greenough 1982; Vaughan 1987). Out-migration increases as ever more people abandon their lands, homes, and communities in desperation. Abnormally high mortality may be the hallmark of famine, but societal breakdown is its essence.

Finally, so far as these initial observations are concerned, it is important to note that famine occurs not only because a chain of events disposes to a famine outcome but also because nothing, or at least nothing effective, is done to break the process. It has been rare for the governments of famine-prone countries to possess the means with which to intervene to prevent famine. India over the last century and Botswana more recently are exceptions in this regard (McAlpin 1983; Dreze 1990a and 1990b; Holm and Morgan 1985; Hay 1988; Moremi 1988; Morgan 1988). Elsewhere the record has been quite dismal for the most part, while international assistance typically arrives after the worst has already happened. The usual way in which famine-prone areas become less famine prone is via economic development. In the long run, that remains the best solution even today (see Eicher 1987; Dreze and Sen 1989). However, we now know that intervention is possible and that it can work. Preparing for famine so as to prevent it, although not a new idea, is one that we should be thinking about and working to realize. The reasons are humanitarian, social, economic, and political. We can both protect development and promote it by preparedness planning to "deny famine a future" (Glantz 1987).

[pkofsocal]

>So you chose to ignore the part of my post saying back it up with nuclear power and coal which there is plenty of. France is already 75% nuclear for example.

And the nuclear fuel comes from where? France doesn't produce uranium. It's shipped from great distances. Boom, back to square one. Wars and other turmoils will slow down the uranium transport, and France would join other countries in deep mud.


>Heavy oil and conventional oil is already transported by ship to Europe and is still energy positive , so what is your point?

It is now, but it won't be sooner or later (and probably sooner).

>Apart from hundreds of years of coal(Germany/Poland/Eastern Europe),

Hundreds of years of coal? Most of the easily mined coals are already gone. You have to go very deep, using oil-powered drills, and process it with - guess what - oil.

>and access to oil/gas/uranium resources from ME, North Africa and Russia , which geographically are not too far away.

Reread the history books. From ME, you have to pass through a nice waterway called the Suez Canal, which is located near to a very violent and volatile country (which actually occupied it once before).

Russia not far away? Sorry. Again the places where all these good stuff come from are located in remote areas, and without oil they are tough to move.

>Then there is the renewables like bio gas, bio diesal, thanol,hydrogen,solar,wind,solar,tidal etc.

Which would benefit the regions lucky enough to use them, but not much more.

>Care to try again?

There will be 'some' kind of civilization after PO. But it will be pretty local and isolated.

[pkofsocal]

>Bullshit! Just substitute oil for grain.

Sorry. There are some fundamental differences between famine and PO.

1. During famines, it was possible to ship food from other locations. But PO, by definition, means world supply is going down. In other words there are no places to remedy the shortage.

2. Famines only last a year or at worst a few years and then recover. PO is a permanent event, not a recoverable one. In other words no hope.

[Permanently_Baffled]

>Bullshit! Just substitute oil for grain.

Sorry. There are some fundamental differences between famine and PO.

1. During famines, it was possible to ship food from other locations. But PO, by definition, means world supply is going down. In other words there are no places to remedy the shortage.

2. Famines only last a year or at worst a few years and then recover. PO is a permanent event, not a recoverable one. In other words no hope.

Oh ffs if you think like that why dont you f*ck off and kill yourself now. Its miserable doomers like yourself which will prevent any potential softening of the crisis.

Sheeeesh.....

PB

[Permanently_Baffled]

Apologies my team just drew with Crystal palace at home and I just paid £26 for the privelage!

Feeling a bit angry

PB

[pkofsocal]

Whenever people run out of arguments..they end up calling insults.


>Oh ffs if you think like that why dont you f*ck off and kill yourself now. Its miserable doomers like yourself which will prevent any potential softening of the crisis

There is no softening. It's like trying to jump out from a racing car running 200 mph (or 320 kph) and about to hit a fortified wall.

Granted, jumping out of the car will increase the survival rate, but improving the rate from 1/10000 to say 5/10000 isn't gonna help too much.

[Permanently_Baffled]

And the nuclear fuel comes from where? France doesn't produce uranium. It's shipped from great distances. Boom, back to square one. Wars and other turmoils will slow down the uranium transport, and France would join other countries in deep mud.

Canada and Australia are the big players here, I don't see these countries being involved in any major wars ! More likely to be US and the ME or the chinese, if it happens at all. The anticipated wars you quote are a real possibility but not anyway guaranteed. After all any invasion for resources actually worsens the invaders energy supply not improve it.
There is some hope that even our inadequate leaders will realise this.(Iraq is just one example)

It is now, but it won't be sooner or later (and probably sooner).

Even ASPO admit that heavy oil production will increase over the next 5 decades and this area is the only one they do not give a peak date because of the vastness of the reserves. They also do not assume any great efforts to increase production given that the major players are in denial about the peak of conventional oil

http://www.peakoil.net/Newsletter/NL47/newsletter47.pdf

Hundreds of years of coal? Most of the easily mined coals are already gone. You have to go very deep, using oil-powered drills, and process it with - guess what - oil.

You have got to be kidding me , the reserves in Eastern Europe and Germany are enormous. A lot of these reserves are not exploited because of better/cheaper/cleaner energy resources. Also previous economic challeneges in the past have meant that they have barely even started. The R/P ratios quoted on the BP stats review for 2003 are in three figures.
Mining equipment can electrified, indeed a lot of mining equipment is electric, cheap oil has just meant that diesal is cheaper in the use of some equipment. Granted costs will go up, but there is no reason to suspect coal is finished without oil.

Reread the history books. From ME, you have to pass through a nice waterway called the Suez Canal, which is located near to a very violent and volatile country (which actually occupied it once before).

You are correct, this is a bottleneck. But then this is what Navy's are for.(if there is oil to move there will be oil for the means to ensure supply). Also I have read plans for pipelines via Turkey.

Russia not far away? Sorry. Again the places where all these good stuff come from are located in remote areas, and without oil they are tough to move.

Oil and gas = pipelines. Western Europe is already linked to Russia via pipeline, and northern european pipeline is being built to connect the Netherlands and the UK(gas) for example.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cne32895.htm

Also in countries which have coal can have potential for clean CBM gas:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic2582.html+bed+methane

Which would benefit the regions lucky enough to use them, but not much more.

Each country in the EC can/is producing/participating in renewable programs, indeed each country is tasked with the aforementioned targets. There is also a target of 20% of all fuels to come from bio sources by 2020(germany ,Italy and France are already using 12% of there diesal from renewable resource). This would at least have the potential to make farming self sufficient and have enough fuel left for other essential utilities like the water system.This could be a source of employment for depressed farming areas of Eastern Europe and for the vast areas of set aside land.

Here is the consultation paper for the UK on bio fuels. They quote one third of year 2000 consumption levels could come from bio fuels.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... #TopOfPage

Whenever people run out of arguments..they end up calling insults.

You could say the same about cliches like this one *sigh*.

Anyway lets agree to diagree..... I think there are too many variables to say with any certainty that there will be a anarchic situation like you describe all over the world.

PB