Peak Oil News and Message Boards

joewp wrote:Can you blame us sheep if they're training us to consume endless crap?

Absolutely.
You can choose to watch popular entertainment, or you can watch CSPAN.

People are responsible for the choices they make, and the ramifications of those choices.

Well I cant really tell what gg3 is talking about, but he sounds quite knowledgeable, and so I'd say a telephone system a la 1930's should be doable. In fact it may be said many things from the 19th century and early 20th will be eminently doable post peak.

But this isnt that time period. Now we are really used to high speed wired connections, but thats bound to become obsolete as energy prices rise. How about a bare backbone of big fiber trunks coupled with blanket wifi coverage. I remember reading about how radio was about to become smarter, with receivers/transmitters switching frequencies on the fly and using multiple frequencies. Seems to me that a fiber trunk with wifi things with smart radio tacked onto the cell phone towers could theoretically replace all that copper and expensive to maintain wire. I dont really think I'd want to entrust my life with a 911 call through such a system, but we'd have to see how future improvements bear out.

zoidberg wrote:...I'd say a telephone system a la 1930's should be doable. ...

Does anyone know how many phones we had in the 30s? How many do we operate today? Would it possible to run our infrastructure in 30s technology?

Hmm, looking over my last posting, the line about "when I drop dead" grabs me because a week or two later I very nearly did. But I'm better now:-)

Zoidberg, you do not want wireless to replace wired. Aside from the 911 issues, aside from speech quality back to literally 1925 standards, you have what we call "local battery." Every one of those transceivers on the towers needs a power supply with a battery backup. Every handset needs a battery. Those batteries are expensive, unreliable, and become toxic waste when disposed of.

Local battery telephony was obsolete as of about 1915 to 1922, when "central battery switchboards" became common. Before then, each (large wooden wall-mounted) phone had a couple of large batteries in the box, that had to be replaced twice a year. Bigtime hassle and expense for the telcos. After that, with central battery, power came from the switchboard downtown: no more batteries in the telephones, much better reliability and much lower costs.

And last but not least those cellular and wireless handsets cannot be repaired. They are manufactured by robots and when they break they are disposed of. You can't repair them if you tried. Not possible. Case closed. The stuff my folks & I intend to build will last a century.

Lighthouse, I could go dig up the data on telephones over time, but generally a good basis for estimating is that the US in the 30s had one telephone per approximately 8 households, so if you get some census data you could estimate.

---

Meanwhile, since I last wrote, I've been in touch with a friend who's a telephone systems engineer back East, an oldschool telco guy who can do holes & poles one day and central office engineering the next, and knows more about building a working telco end-to-end than most people alive today.

He, it turns out, has literally warehouses full of Strowger step-by-step equipment, all removed from service with care, and all capable of being put back into service. And he also has a source for the old rotary dial 500 sets, in quantities of literally thousands. And best of all he's interested in building infrastructure for our communities (plural: at this point, more than one rural site is planned). That Strowger switchgear, plus those rotary dial phones, can be maintained to last a century or longer, and the underground cables will last 125 years as I mentioned earlier. So as far as communications are concerned, we are set.

What I see evolving for us (our rural sustainable communities up and down the coast) is the following:

Your day-to-day phone service will run on a modern digital PBX, with your choice of analog service (standard touchtone phone) or digital service (office type phone with lights & buttons).

There will also be a fiber network for highspeed data and audio/video broadcast (radio & TV). This may be used to provide Internet Protocol telephone service as well for those who want it.

Backing up all of that will be our "antique" infrastructure: the Strowger switching systems and rotary dial phones. This equipment will be installed, ready, and available for immediate use in the event that we run out of stockpiled parts for the digital switches. Since there is no voicemail for a Strowger switch, message handling will be dealt with by operators at an oldschool cord-board.

In the event of either a serious energy shortage or unrepairable damage to the Strowger system, the cord switchboard can be used in stand-alone mode. You'll pick up your receiver and the operator will ask for the number and connect your call. The power supply requirement for this is two car batteries or a bicycle-powered generator or equivalent. The repair parts can be manufactured in any decent blacksmith/machinist shop. Thus we can keep the cord switchboards in operation forever if we chose.

For connectivity between community sites, we intend to rely on microwave relay, which is oldschool Bell System technology from up to about the mid 80s and is still viable with new equipment. If that fails, data terminals connected via slow-speed modem operating over various radio frequencies will provide "telegraph" service for text-only messages. The equipment needed for these purposes can be salvaged from scrap as needed. Another of my colleagues is the transmission systems expert and he is handling this aspect of the project.

So in short, whatever happens to the outside world, our string of communities up the coast will have reliable communications infratructure. It may not be as convenient as what we have today, but neither are horses & wagons or much else that we all may have to come to rely upon after oil goes south and the climate goes weird.

Oh yeah one more thing. We'll also do complete installations for anyone else who is building sustainable community anywhere else in the continental US. Your choice of modern digital, oldschool rotary, older-oldschool cordboards, or any combination thereof. Though, keep in mind, doing it right is not cheap, but over the lifetime of the system, doing it right is more economical than doing it cheap.

Eighteen months later I am still firmly convinced that the world will unify against US energy consumption levels. There will come a day when depletion pressures will overwhelm the risks associated with a unified action against the US.

Eighteen months later I am still firmly convinced that the world will unify against US energy consumption levels. There will come a day when depletion pressures will overwhelm the risks associated with a unified action against the US.

It doesn't need to be an overt, coordinated action to have the same effect. Once producer nations start to keep more of the stuff for their own internal use or just keep it in the ground for a rainy day in the future, (or just run out of the stuff) the US will be forced to reduce consumption levels. The situation brings to mind a quote attributed to Winston Churchill regarding the US. He said something like: 'You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing... After they have exhausted all other possibilities'.

There will be no 'voluntary' reduction of consumption in the US. There will be a reduction and some 'adjustments', but these will be due to necessity. A little 'tough love' might be a good thing in this situation, but it is not going to happen.

lateStarter wrote:..... A little 'tough love' might be a good thing in this situation, but it is not going to happen.

OK, why won't it happen?

Such a demand would be a bit ridiculous. US or no US we'd peak & pollute anyway.

As long as humans are unable to get along and come up with a SENSIBLE AND REASONABLE plan for resources usage, we're bound to get into big energy trouble.

MD wrote:

lateStarter wrote:..... A little 'tough love' might be a good thing in this situation, but it is not going to happen.

OK, why won't it happen?

I am somewhat doubtful about the expression - ' the world will unify' that you used... I'm sure there will be some coalitions in this regards, but in the end, it will just be: everyman (nation) for himself. I have no doubt that the US will be finding out the hard way that their way of life is after all negotiable.

It also appears that the US is heading for a major economic 'correction' that will have a significant effect on demand. Nobody will need to do anything. Still, it would be a good idea if the country made some meaningful steps toward conservation.

In a post peak world I wonder how they will dole out the shrinking global oil production.

Will there be rationing, with a guarantee that everybody will get a share of the leftovers?

Or will the rich nations just plunder what is left and leave the poorer nations out in the cold?

If the former case is to be true then the US will have to cooperate and drastically reduce its energy consumption.

I wonder what would be the biggest motivating factor for the average US citizen. Millions starving to death in a third world nation ... or having to give up their SUVs

People already accept millions starving to death - why should they change in the future?

I wonder what would be the biggest motivating factor for the average US citizen. Millions starving to death in a third world nation ... or having to give up their SUVs?

Good question. As Ludi alluded to though, the average American citizen could care less what is happening in some 3rd world back-water, as long as they can still have pizza delivered on Friday night. They might be more motivated in the future when they don't have a job and the kids are hungry and all the credit-cards are maxed-out.

Even if the US collapses economically in the near future, it will only delay the inevitable. Someone else will pick up the slack to their advantage. The question is: who will be the next King-of-the-Hill?

A ham operator with a phone patch can connect any number of remote communities to a telephone. They just have to have a radio in the remote community. All that is necessary is a small solar panel and a low wattage radio and antenna.

DK

I think we are already in a situation where the average person has to give up their SUV, but they just don't know it yet. I saw a SAAB dealership with about 20 SUV's sitting in front, probably traded for a car that gets better gas mileage and confers status. SUV's are albatrosses around the necks of the hapless fools who still have them. They can't afford to drive them, and can't afford to trade them either. They will be the car of the poor soon. Like the Cadillac, a status symbol in the 60's, was the car of the poor by the 70's. At least an SUV with 10 people in it will finally be getting some decent passenger miles per gallon. And you can tow a trailer behind and pick up some firewood on the way!

The way we would use that is, community switchboards would connect via RF links. So from the user's perspective it's still a telephone, though the sound quality may be compromised depending on the transmission frequencies used.

Ham per se is not legal for business communications, and cannot be encrypted. Each of these limits makes it unsuitable as a means of carrying routine telephone traffic, and so therefore we would use other frequencies & methods that don't have these issues.

It is intriguing to see that so many oil producing countries subsidize their domestic petroleum consumption. Venezuela and most of the Arab countries and Iran come to mind. Very cheap prices at the pump in these countries.

This is becoming a larger liability as oil increases in price.

I cannot understand the logic of it. It would seem that the department or finance in these countries would see the foolishness of it. It could even lead to government budget deficits as the price of oil increases. Though it may keep the population happy to to avoid $1 a litre prices at the pump, it would seem smarter for these governments to go with the world price, and offset other taxes instead of the subsidy. And avoid a deficit, which would be likely very unpopular wit the electors. By reducing domestic consumption, they would have more oil to export and improve their carbon footprint as well..

So the population doesn't go WTF HS JFC highway FKING robbery .
REGIME change

thats why they subsidize

It would definitely maximize revenue to sell the oil at the world market price and use the proceeds for poverty abatement. However, the poor know that the money would be skimmed off by the powers that be and they would never see a centavo of it. Subsidized, they can at least see that they are getting some benefit.

Simple, income inequality in oil producing countries is generally astronomical.

Gini Index (a generally accepted measure of income inequality) by country:

European Union Average: 31
Turkmenistan: 41
Russia: 41
Ecuador: 43
Iran: 44
United States: 45
Venezuela: 49
Nigeria: 51
Mexico: 55

Note: Higher number means more inequality.

So in Nigeria, the country with the world's highest number of people living on $1/day, do you subsidize oil or do you attempt to enrich your oil producers as much as possible?

Unfortunately, the second option is rather difficult when your pipelines get attacked on a daily basis.

Look at what happened in Iran when they tried to reduce subsidies. There were massive riots.

Look at Burma (Myanmar). Increasing prices for fuel led to civil unrest.

The oil producing countries are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they must reinvest in their oil industry to pacify their population.

If their economies never diversify beyond oil, the country is basically doomed.

Oil production will crash do to massive underinvestment, government revenue and the economy will crash, the population will be poor again, and everyone dies off horribly when they can't afford to import food.

Wow...life is depressing...

Well, one other way things cold be made more logical is to have a form of the GST (or whatever its called in these places) rebate paid to lower income people, not tied to oil consumption.

It would even be smarter for these coutnries to subsidize food. But, not oil.

I did hear of the Iranian riots, but perhaps the government there did not build the case well in their budget before parliament first.

Regardless of the issues, I cannot see any minister of finance going along with a crazy scheme of using government money to buy oil products, when it cannot even control their use, and when it could upset the budget balance. Like any other outfit, the government wants to make a profit, see the cash flows in equaling those out at least, and I'd think that would apply to all countries.

Man other large oil producers, such as the U.S., Norway and Canada don't subsidize oil consumption, except perhaps indirectly by highway spending.