Peak oil: Mayberry, not Mad Max
Monday August 18, 2008
Categories: Decline and fall, Peak oil
Everybody go over to The American Conservative's site and read their new issue, all of which is available for free in PDF form. I want to draw attention to two articles of special note, neither of which is linkable, but...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
That's a good explanation of why I lean towards the "do nothing" end of the spectrum, in terms of government. If we are do for a shock, the cost of preparing for it will almost equal the shock itself, thus creating a disaster should the actual shock come later, or worse, not at all. On the other hand, individuals are already taking action. If they are wrong, they can easily reverse their lifestyle, or perhaps they will find they enjoy it regardless. Others who do not adjust now can learn from those who do as the costs rise.
I know many distrust "free-market capitalism", but it is the freedom of trial and error. Since we can't even be sure how the problem will manifest itself, getting government out of the way is of the utmost importance.
The 50's was the beginning of the national highway system. In the 50's, the US population was about 155 million. It is almost 3 times that now.
Europe and the US were about the ONLY places using oil to any degree. Wemight use less if we went back to the 1950's, but we'd not only have to get rid of our advanced electronics, we'd also have to get those pesky Asian, African, Middle Eastern.. heck, just about everyone but us to stop using cars and electricity.
This could be tricky.
Not to say that using a less consuming lifestyle isn't a good idea. But we often have a rather oddly rosy view of the Mayberry idea. Even in the 50's, not too many people lived like that. Mad Men probably comes closer.
Peak Oil is a catastrophe that will change the world radically within a few years.
According to energy investment banker Matthew Simmons, global oil production is now declining, from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time demand will increase 14%.
This is equivalent to a 33% drop in 7 years. No one can reverse this trend, nor can we conserve our way out of this catastrophe. Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always be higher than production; thus the depletion rate will continue until all recoverable oil is extracted.
Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.
We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.
This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
I used to live in NH, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? Email: clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207.
Cliff: "During the same time demand will increase 14%."
Huh? Demand won't increase _at all_ if there's a greater than 12% drop in supply! That 14% figure is probably a projection based on _recent_ growth in demand, and projections are not forecasts.
They anticipate that population trends, climate change, and other problems will compound the crisis
The population will peak in 2050, so population "trends" will help lessen the crisis, not compound it.
Karen Brown: The current U.S. population is only 304 million.
Yeah, closer to twice. But still, that amount represented mostly only Europe and the US.
Considering that, and the increase in the population, the individual usage of gasoline was really not all that low.
And, mdavid, what's going to make the population 'peak'? And why in 2050? Humans are suddenly going to start, en masse, to have less kids? Or is it where we reach the population 'tipping point', and won't be able to support the kids we have, and the death rate will raise to keep the population at that level or lower?
In other words.. it isn't ONLY that there are more people. It isn't only that people are using more oil. It is also that a greater percentage OF the population (a much greater one) are USING oil.
And getting all those people on the same page, conservation wise.. especially when a good number of them have just started making those technological strides, and think it isn't fair to cut back when they just opted in.. depending solely on the idea that humans will cut back on usage isn't really sufficient.
Oil is still limited. It is still eventually going to run out. And when it does, we really need to have something (or things.. doesn't have to be a one size fits all solution) in place when it does.
The thing about peak oil that worries me isn't people's behavior, or the removal of cheap transportation...it's the collapse of the food transportation system.
Honestly, I think we should focus less on worrying about people's habits, which will change themselves magically as prices rise, and start building more railroads in preparation for a future where shipping via truck is prohibitively expensive.
It's not only the price of gas...roads will start getting repaired less, as we use this huge interstate system we built much less and less, and thus have less gas taxes to cover it. At some point it's going to start snowballing where no one cares about the roads at all, because they don't use them, and no one can pay to fix them except out of general revenue or absurd gas taxes, which will just make food prices even higher...it could be a total mess.
We need to look back at the rail infrastructure we've mostly been ignoring. We need to make sure that each and every major city, and each and every small town, can be fed with the rail lines going into it, and if not, lay more.
Yeah, yeah, over time this will happen naturally with high gas prices..but transportation has always had major lags, and rail is possibly the most annoying mix of public and private ever, which makes it even more laggy to build.
And before anyone points out that rails use diesel...actually, they use electricity, which right now is generated by diesel, but as battery tech advances, I'm suspecting at some point it's going to be worthwhile to rip out the diesel generators and put in batteries. And possibly run some overhead lines, and set up recharging/engine switching stations.
There was significant government regulation in the 1950's. That is one reason why the 1950's was a period of stability and general prosperity (not the only reason, of course). In spite of the magnitude of the problems facing us, I believe that there are many things we could do as a nation which would mitigate the problems we face. To me, our biggest weakness is that we are a house divided. And, as Lincoln said, a house divided cannot stand.
DavidTC: That sounds so logical to me. Even if they don't have operational rails, every small town has a place where they can point and say "The railroad used to be there." Put it back. Yes, very high cost, short term. But if peak oil is real, we need to be talking long-term solutions.
I also don't understand why, if all governments are in such a tizzy about peak oil they (meaning our government) don't take the simple steps of declaring no more plastic packaging, plastic store bags, etc. It seems to me that if there can be laws passed about what type of TV the individual watches, analog or digital, there can be laws passed about what type of garbage corporations are allowed to push on consumers.
before anyone points out that rails use diesel...actually, they use electricity, which right now is generated by diesel, but as battery tech advances, I'm suspecting at some point it's going to be worthwhile to rip out the diesel generators and put in batteries. And possibly run some overhead lines, and set up recharging/engine switching stations.
I haven't run the numbers, but given batteries' low energy densities vis-a-vis liquid fuels, I suspect that battery-powered freight trains wouldn't be practical without some major technological breakthroughs.
OTOH, overhead lines are old technology; Europe uses them all the time (at least according to Wikipedia). Whenever I propose electrifying the rail system, this is the tech I'm usually thinking of. Not cheap, but it beats starvation.
Electric railroads were recently discussed on The Oil Drum:
theoildrum.com/node/4301
At a recent appointment with his fund manager, my husband was disconcerted that after the business of the day was conducted promptly, the decade-younger man was more interested in spending time asking his client questions about what our generation's parents did wrong to let this happen --- now that's what I'm talking about! Our kids today are paying a heavy price as the chickens come home to roost -- (Passiontide 'missa de gallo' and all that. And not in fuel consumption habits, that's easy to remedy, as we can see from the post-WWII industrial decay in the heartland, folks just pull up and move somewhere new, that's the American pioneer spirit. No what makes Peak Oil a moral crisis is central banking's abandonment of money supply tied to deposits of 'real' assets of the fungible kind. Instead of fingible gold bullion, the dollar was loosely tied to fungible oil, but as the price of that commodity was not controlled by the issuers of the currency, they gave up pegging and the Fed persuades the Treasury to print money ex nihilo.
The Scandinavians at Saxo Bank had it right months ago: we need Ron Paul to shake some sense into the blockheads running for President, otherwise its at least 4 more years of the same fathers-of-daughters proudly infantilizing us by feminizing us... changing the core of the American Way while they profit on the margins with Sex-in-the-City style profligacy. Stop the rot!
What I find interesting are the similarities between the end results of the "Mayberry" scenario and Kunstler's "doom-and-gloom" one. Optimism vs. pessimism notwithstanding, in either case you still end up with relocalization of farming, business, etc. I suppose the difference is in the number of casualties incurred?
I note (once again) that optimism WRT peak oil doesn't necessarily imply relocalization; e.g., see here:
peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/329-solution-electrification.html
...for an alternative take.
the dollar was loosely tied to fungible oil, but as the price of that commodity was not controlled by the issuers of the currency, they gave up pegging and the Fed persuades the Treasury to print money ex nihilo.
Between 2/27/02 (when the Fed's "Trade Weighted Exchange Index: Broad" peaked at 130.074) and 7/14/08 (when West Texas Intermediate peaked at $145.16), the dollar fell by 27%, while oil rose by 578%. Since 7/14, the dollar has risen by 3.7%, while oil has fallen by 23%. This must be a _really_ loose tie we're talking about.
See also here:
econbrowser.com/archives/2008/08/oil_and_the_dol_1.html
...for more regarding the relationship between the dollar & oil prices.
As for pegging...AFAIK, the Gulf States still do peg to the dollar (as does China), and are suffering roaring inflation as a result.
It's not just about oil. Natural gas is a fuel for power plants, home heating, and in Pickens' vision a vehicle fuel. Demand for gas will grow when oil production flattens/declines. Few people also know that natural gas is the feedstock for nitrogen fertilizers responsible for a major gain in per-acre ag productivity since the 1950s. Given a finite amount of natural gas and growing claims on the resource, prices will rise and not all wants will be met. The result will be at least more expensive food, at most food shortages. Sure, oil demand is not fully explained by population growth, but oil decline will not go unnoticed by a world of 7 billion eaters.
DavidTC, I'm in total agreement about re-uniting the country once more with a network of rails.
The railbed is already there in many cases. In the Midwest, at least, many of the stations and spurs are still there; they've just fallen into disrepair. But they can be renovated.
Also, diesel fuel can be made from coal - of which we have an abundant supply in this country. We are the virtual "Saudi Arabia of coal." It is far more economical *in the long run* to make diesel from coal, and put that diesel into freight engines and passenger transport, than to put it into trucks and passenger cars.
Natural gas is a fuel for power plants, home heating, and in Pickens' vision a vehicle fuel. [...] Few people also know that natural gas is the feedstock for nitrogen fertilizers responsible for a major gain in per-acre ag productivity since the 1950s.
1. NG in power plants can be replaced by other sources, e.g., wind, nuclear, coal.
2. NG in home heating can also be replaced by other sources, e.g., heat pumps (*), electric heating (**). There's also conservation & cogeneration to consider.
3. AFAIK, NG is not indispensable for fertilizer production; it's merely used now for convenience. All you need is air & water, and energy to hydrolyze the latter and Haber-Bosch the former (***). The energy needn't come from natural gas; nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, coal, etc., would also suffice.
(*) theoildrum.com/node/3661
(**) ergosphere.blogspot.com/2005/03/forty-two.html
(***) peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/314-peak-oil-and-fertilizer-no-problem.html
DavidTC- Diesel from Coal in the long run? Granted this is BELIEFnet.com but greater reliance on coal certainly is no silver bullet; consider the diminishing EROEI (energy return on energy invested) and the IPCC 2008 scientific consensus. My vote is for localization, conservation and electrified light rail.
simple steps of declaring no more plastic packaging, plastic store bags
Oil consumption per 100e6 bags: 430k gal. (*)
Annual US consumption of plastic bags: 380E9 (**)
Annual US oil consumption: 20.7E6 bbl/day, or 7.6e9 bbl/yr (***)
Ergo: a complete nationwide ban on plastic bags would reduce annual oil consumption by ~0.5% per year. Note that 380E9 bags may be high; the Economist gives 100E9.
Note also that "nonfuel" purposes (e.g., raw material for plastics) consumed only 3.7E6 bbl/day (****), out of total 2007 US oil consumption of 20.7E6 bbl/day, as compared with the 14.3E6 bbl/day for transportation (***).
Every little bit helps, of course, but the big savings aren't going to come from banning plastic bags; we need to cut oil consumption from transportation.
(*) sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/28/MNGDROT5QN1.DTL
(**) boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/11/10/sack_the_plastic_shopping_bag/
(***) See EIA's Annual Energy Review 2008, Diagram 2, p. 123
(****) AER 2008, Table 5.13b. I subtracted out coke, fuel oil, kerosene, & gasoline.
"Few people also know that natural gas is the feedstock for nitrogen fertilizers responsible for a major gain in per-acre ag productivity since the 1950s. Given a finite amount of natural gas and growing claims on the resource, prices will rise and not all wants will be met."
The natural gas used for N-fertilizer is far away from potential markets and can't be shipped without building an expensive pipeline or LNG facillity. It is 'stranded', and it gets fed into the haber-bosch process to make ammonia, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, urea and other derivatives that fetch a far higher price and are far easier to transport than natural gas. N-fertilizer production and other consumers of natural gas don't compete all that much against each other.
You don't need natural gas for the haber-bosch process, you only need hydrogen. Instead of steam-reforming and water-gas shifting natural gas you can do the same thing with coal or gasified biomass; you can produce hydrogen gas from surplus electricity or in a thermochemical reaction in a high temperature nuclear reactor.
"Those are the statistics of the 1950s--"
How many times do we have go through this childishly naive, superficial nonsensical scenario? How about exploring this stupidity a little deeper...
In the 1950s, what was the US population ? The world population?
In the 1950s, how much competition did the West have for oil, gas, metals, food etc, from China, India and the rest of the developing world in the 1950s?
In the 1950s, how much of our oil, gas and other resources came from WITHIN the US borders?
In the 1950s, the US still had a strong, gold-based currency - we were the Lender of Last resort. Now we are the Borrower of Last Resort - and our currency is Fiat Paper going into it's hyperinflationary death spiral.
Faith is nice, but only if it rests on well considered realities.
MI
I haven't run the numbers, but given batteries' low energy densities vis-a-vis liquid fuels, I suspect that battery-powered freight trains wouldn't be practical without some major technological breakthroughs.
OTOH, overhead lines are old technology; Europe uses them all the time (at least according to Wikipedia). Whenever I propose electrifying the rail system, this is the tech I'm usually thinking of. Not cheap, but it beats starvation.
I'm usually thinking of a combination, because I suspect it would be cheaper to electrify only 80% of the rails and let batteries carry us over the last 20%. I.e, if we can get just 2-5 miles out of a battery, we can skip electrifying all the sidings. If we can get 10-15 miles, we can skip electrifying most spur lines. (As long as we can charge them where they are parked at the end.) But I honestly don't know what would be best.
What I do know is that existing diesel engines, which are 95% of the engines in use, can be switched over, first with sucking power off sporadic overhead lines and shutting their generator down during that time, as the network is built, and eventually with the removal of their generators and fuel storage. They'll be slightly less efficient than if we'd built them from scratch, but much cheaper.
Electric railroads were recently discussed on The Oil Drum:
theoildrum.com/node/4301
And that link pretty much covers everything and actually makes it sound like a much more reasonable proposal than when I talk about it.
stefanie
Also, diesel fuel can be made from coal - of which we have an abundant supply in this country. We are the virtual "Saudi Arabia of coal." It is far more economical *in the long run* to make diesel from coal, and put that diesel into freight engines and passenger transport, than to put it into trucks and passenger cars.
I'm not entirely sure that's a good idea. Honestly, if we have to use coal, I'd rather we use it in the already existing coal power plants, and switch the rail network over to electric as soon as possible.
A point:
We need NOT ship as many things as we do, as far as we do. Potatoes, cabbage, apples, and many other vegetables and several kinds of fruit, to say nothing of hogs and sheep and chickens, will grow in most of our climactic zones. If we had these smaller patchworked plots, we could alter crop rotations to the point we did not need as many fertilizers - indeed it becomes entirely possible on a smaller scale to use more manure as fertilizer. And without vast monoculture crops reaching for miles in any given direction, we may well use less petroleum to fuel massive combines while we are at it.
We need to rethink our entire agricultural system. If we can't get cheap abundant oil, then we need more hands on more and smaller farms. (Hell, I've been tempted to try my hand at a little sheep ranch. Did you know they have MINIATURE sheep now?) If growing food more locally become necessary/viable, it will also produce a better income than it does now. So we return to smaller family-sized farms, and we also no longer have to worry about ONE Salmonella outbreak affecting 18 different states. This would be good for our security in any number of ways.
Sure we will still need to ship a lot of things, unless we go completely agrarian. And rail makes a lot of sense. It does need maintenance, but it is more efficient, and rail tracks are less likely to get the equivalent of potholes. A lot of our military gear already moves by rail. Why not a lot of other goods as well?
Regarding Coal to Liquids (aka Fischer Tropsch):
1. EROEI on this must necessarily be less than 1, owing to thermodynamics.
2. As with oil, I'd prefer we saved coal for raw material usage (e.g., as a source of carbon for synthesizing petrochemicals). Note that coal is mostly used for electricity generation - a task that (say) nuclear power is quite capable of filling.
3. If we do utilize coal-derived liquids as fuel, it ought to be for situations when other sources wouldn't suffice - e.g., operating certain types of farm equipment, or fueling aircraft. Not for railroads, which can be easily electrified.
Regarding farm energy use, see:
earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2ch2_ss3.htm
earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update48_data.htm
Well, it looks like my fears about natural gas and food were misplace. The answer is simple as 1-2-3:
1. Transition electricity off natural gas (despite natural gas power plants representing 90% of recent additions to the grid and almost all the peaking power, but no worries...)
2. Install heat pumps and electric heat sources to homes and businesses (you can do it in your spare time, and there's ample electricity!)
3. Switch over the present day nitrogen-based fertizer production system to one based on hydrogen (because, apparently, there's a lot of cheap hydrogen floating around or we're going to have a surplus of remote solar and wind systems that have excess electricity to make hydrogen to make fertilizer to help feed 1 billion more people than are on the planet today).
Of course if these don't pan out, the worst that will happen is starvation. Perhaps some of the readers and posters on this site will volunteer to read bedtime stories of our renewable future to hungry kids.
MI at 10:29: Thanks for all the statistics, even if they do just make my head ache :) I agree that a total redo in transportation is what ia necessary, but as far as I can see, nobody is getting on the stick because I am willing to bet that every politian in the US owns stock in the oil companies (with the possible exception of Nancy Pelosi. She owns stock, it is rumoured, in T. Boone Pickens wind power scheme, which is supposedly why she is against off -shore drilling)
Does any one know where you'd go to find out what politician owns what stocks?
Anyway, you're right, every little bit does help, and until the full effects of banning all plastic packaging, not just plastic bags, was truly felt(i.e. little Timmy breaking the glass shampoo bottle in the shower and cutting himself or having to remember to take re-usable containers to the store to pack our bulk food in) I just can't figure out why none of the politicians as has seen banning non reusable plastic packaging as a way to score green brownie points. I don't believe it will help any more than buying carbon offsets but it would
signal that peak oil is a serious crisis. Unless, of course, it isn't. Darn, there goes my conspiracy theory alarm.
Clare Krishan: I do hope I've spelled your name right, horrid monitor on my PC. Saving for a new one. Any how, I have just finished reading Ron Paul's Revolution: a Manifesto. I reallly wish somebody could tell me where this man is wrong. Outside of the "Well,you just can't do that." crowd. I need a better answer than that. Although I confess to serious doubts that he can just have this little chat that he wants with the Irani leader. If he goes there for tea some day, he'll need a really good exit sratedgy of his own, I'm afraid.
But his economic views make sense to me. We are where we are because too many people have been fooling with the so-called free market for their own personal gain. See above re: politians and their stock options.
AB: Miniature sheep, ya say. I've been threatening the city fathers with chickens and miniature goats, now I could add miniature sheep and really drive them nuts. I really have to get out of the city.
Who Knew,
They are damned cute and eat a bit less than their larger cousins. They come in several different breeds - some are miniature versions of what you're used to (if you are at all accustomed to sheep) and others are fairly unique.
I could get wool off these things, wash it and card it, maybe even spin it if I got truly advanced, and sell it. Knitters eat locally spun undyed wool up. Well not literally, but you see my point. Lamb is also good eating. Being the inveterate multiculturalist that I am I could also offer to let Muslims and and other religious/ethnic groups purchase them individually for slaughter according to their religious/cultural precepts. For a small fee, of course, and they're welcome to hang around and roast the thing on a spit and have a big old party, again for a fee. I'll get a couple of those nice gazebo tents, they can provide the rest.
Did I mention the things are cute? I'm leaning towards the Jacob Sheep, because they're so biblical. Google search, as long as you have the filter on, you should be safe. ;)
I've got my eye on some land well within horse cart transport limits of Little Rock, in case of the more Mad Max scenarios, though I'm also of the opinion it won't come to that. But it might be prudent to get land and a couple of crops or livestock, if you wouldn't mind doing this in general.
AB: Awww! Ain't they cute. With miniature sheep, miniature goats, banty hens and a shetland sheep dog, this short little farmgirl wannabe would be in good shape. If I could just talk my family into getting out of NooYawk...
But with the Jacob sheep...What are you going to do with all those horns? "May have four to seven horns". My goodness.
Oh, and a tip for the Mad Max scenario... My sister heard the heir to the Lear jet fortunes (at least I think that's who it was, it was some rich guy's kid) on, where else, Coast-to-Coast, and he said you need to head to the mountains and have a ready supply of clean water. You might want to take his advice if you're hunting for a homestead.
Re. Peaking power w/o NG:
1. Couple additional baseline power with grid energy storage, e.g., pumped-storage hydro, sodium-sulfur batteries, vanadium-redox flow batteries, V2G.
2. Demand-side management to utilize off-peak electricity (e.g., ice cooling, load-shifting, PHEV charging).
As for fertilizer & NG...I don't recall saying non-NG fertilizer production would be cheap, only that it'd be preferable to starvation. Whether the electricity for such production came from coal, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, or what have you, would depend on a number of circumstances.
As for "feed[ing] 1 billion more people than are on the planet today"...I'm only concerned about feeding the United States. I note that the US consumed 14.7E6 tons of nitrogen in 2007 (*); assuming hydrogen production at 20% thermodynamic efficiency, production of a corresponding amount of ammonia would require 1.9 quads of energy. By way of comparison, coal & nuclear accounted for 20.9 & 8.5 quads of 2007 US energy consumption, respectively (**).
(*) USGS, Mineral Commodities Summaries 2008, p. 118, "Nitrogen".
(**) AER 2008, Table 8.4a.
MI: Good point. At the risk of sounding ethno-centrist, if there is this huge crisis, let's pass the laws and take the steps necesarry to fix America first. That way there isn't such a burden as we adjust to new technology. If our leaders are not willing to do this, perhaps things are not as bad as they want us to believe.
People just seem to have the opinion that there just "has" to be alternatives that we can switch to replace oil. Research all your alternatives and you will find that not a single one of them can replace oil in any quantity. Every single one of them will cost heaps more per kw of energy then will conventional oil. Even the electric car thing, yes electric motors convert alot more of the electric power into moving your car and waste less on heat etc, but......the electricity comes largely from burning fossil fuels, losses down the lines to your house, further loses in the transformers and charges that charge your batteries, losses in the storage process, eg 100 watts in, result in approx 65 watts storage. So when you take all that into account, electric cars are really just burning another fossil fuel and no more efficiently then petrol cars, unless you use solar or wind to charge them, they are not renewable. Nuclear is not renewable, if we all switched to nuclear energy now......peak uranium would be next year, and the decline would be far steeper then peak oil decline.
The universe does not take into account human beings energy needs, there does not "have" to be alternatives to replace oil. The only viable alternative is to use renewables to the largest possible extent that we can, and be prepared to do away with most of our recreational wasteful energy consumption. Yes we can continue to survive as a civilisation, if we massively reduce our personal energy consumption, but will we.........no........we will fight over the resources.......and continue to try and live as wastefully as possible, on a personal level, state level, international level. This will cause the mad max society to materialize.
Lets face it, we are toast
Dear Bloggers:
THE ANSWER TO OPEC AND PEAK OIL AGE IS AT http://www.energynews.gr
WHAT WE NEED IS AN International Public Prosecutor Intervention.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Basil Dimitropoulos
Electrical Engineer
104 - 106 Kremou Street, Kallithea, Athens 176-76 GREECE
TEL: +30-210-9590530
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.