Life after oil

[f the letter]

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/


i've read a lot of gloomy things about peak oil, but i think this tops it.

Can anyone here at DU argue with his conclusions? i can't find much to invalidate anything he says.



Help me get this seen at DU.. recommend if you are as stopped-in-your-tracks-of-complacency-and-inadequate-measures as i am.

[Indiana_Dem]

1. DU is where I found the website in 2004....been preppin' ever since.

I am now 100% debt free as of Feb. '08. It took 4 years. That's my best accomplishment out of all the preps!

[Extend a Hand]

3. congratulations!!!

We started our debt reduction plan in 2005 and will be debt free at the end of this year.

[Indiana_Dem]

6. Thanks! Keep chugging along, you can do it! nt

[Extend a Hand]

2. I first read Matt Savinar's "Dear Reader"

Letter at the end of 2004. I showed it to my (really smart) husband hoping he could tell me why everything would be ok. He just said hmmmm disturbing. We spent several months researching the topic. We believe that available data indicates that we are ata or near world peak oil production. There is more room for discussion on what the consequences of peak oil will be-- but that said we don't believe that any of them will allow "business as usual" to continue in the US. We are trying to prepare best that we can.

[Anywho6]

4. Haven't read the entire article yet, but...

...this appears to confirm what I heard an analyst say quite some time ago when oil started to go up, up and up--he said that no matter how much we beg OPEC to increase oil production, they won't because they can't as the wells are literally running dry.

On to read the article...

[Indiana_Dem]

5. p.s. I was frozen & immobile & sick to my stomach for 6 months after reading that!

Once you understand the full implications of fossil fuel depletion and realize that things in this world are as finite as they are, it moves your whole life and thinking into another direction.

[Juche]

7. My problem with peak oil

What bothers me with these predictions and gets me called names and insulted for bringing it up is the fact that new technologies or lifestyle changes can cut oil consumption:

It takes 7-8 calories of grain and corn to make 1 calorie of meat. So maybe we'll all start seeing meat as a luxury, but I don't think we'll starve.

Scuderi engines can increase gas mileage by 30% or more

Carbon fiber frames instead of steel frames also can give a 30% gas boost

Using diesel instead of gas can increase car mpg

Hydraulic hybrids can increase mpg 50%.

There is enough potential energy in nuclear, geothermal, wind, water and solar to power dozens of earths.

Buying locally grown foods can save oil

Rationing of oil can be done so that semis that transport grains or corn from locally grown farmers are given higher priority than semis that transport living room sets from California to Maine.

There are attempts to make fuel products out of carbon dioxide captured from coal plants or the atmosphere using bacteria or algae.

etc.


A ford Taurus with a hydraulic hybrid got 85 mpg. Imagine combining that with aluminum and carbon fiber parts as well as a scuderi engine. 150+ mpg passenger car. Imagine using that tech on a semi, tractor or delivery truck

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6549294.html



I think that we will mobilize like we did in WW2 to deal with peak oil. When it really hits I hope we will see public & private investments, restructuring of our economy and rationing that will help us deal with the truly bad shocks. I'm sure there will be pain and deprivation but I personally doubt civilization will collapse.

A minor increase in food and oil prices has already caused hundreds of millions of people in the developing world to be unable to afford food.

Is the contemporary american lifestyle sustainable? Not for long. I think there will be a massive shock that causes us to change lifestyle and energy.

But this idea that the only option is to maintain our current lifestyle and current technology throughout the peak oil curve isn't realistic to me. We will adapt. It'll hurt, but I think the truly painful parts can be avoided.



We are spending $500 billion a year in tax cuts for the rich and the war in Iraq. That is $1,700 per year for every man, woman and child. Yet civilization still survives. What if we were eventually forced to spend $500 billion on energy R&D or implementing that tech? What could happen if we direct that $500 billion into giving a family of four $7,000 a year in help shifting to a post oil economy?

For those who say 'the tech cannot be scaled up', what is to stop us from retrofitting cars, semis, combines and tractors with hydraulic hybrid drivetrains or scuderi engines? These don't require (to my knowledge) esoteric parts. If we did that alone we could probably save 40% of our oil consumption.

[Extend a Hand]

8. There are many many

things that could improve life as we make the transition from 'cheap' to expensive energy but these are a question of political will rather than technical know-how. What we can't stop is the continuing production declines and we'll just have to hope that these kind of changes are made fast enough to keep up with declining production numbers and increasing energy use in the developing world or there changes will be forced on us.

[SergeyDovlatov]

9. Let me try arguing against it

A lot of their conclusions are based on the fact that US generates 70% of their electricity from burning fossil fuels. However, it does not have to be this way. France, for example, generates less then 20% from fossil fuels.

Their arguments breaks down if you don't assume that most of the electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels.

For example,

Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is made from natural gas, which is also peaking in the near future.

Ammonia is produced by combining hydrogen and nitrogen. Currently, hydrogen can be cheaply produced from natural gas. However, it can be also be produced by electrolysis of water, assuming you get electricity from not oil bases source

Most farming implements such as tractors and trailers are constructed and powered using oil-derived fuels.

Yeah. But diesel engines are the easier to convert to vegetable based oil

Food storage systems such as refrigerators are manufactured in oil-powered plants, distributed using oil-powered transportation networks and usually run on electricity, which most often comes from natural gas or coal. Like oil and natural gas, coal too is peaking in the near future.

If you don't assume fossil fuel based electricity production, this is not a problem

In the US, the average piece of food is transported almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. Source In Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000 miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

So, we can transport over the railroad via electric powered trains.

[Terry in Austin]

10. Matt's a little shrill

He's a "Defcon 1," but basically right on.

Anybody who "gets it" about Peak Oil understands what a radical, fundamental change it's going to bring about. Then they try to estimate just how radical -- catastrophic-head-for-the-hills radical ("Defcon 1") or just bewildering-sweaty-inconvenient radical ("Defcon 5").

I think this range represents a classic probability curve, with the most likely somewhere in the middle. So the smart thing would be to hedge your bets and apportion your prep efforts according to the probabilities. Matt, on the other hand, has placed all his chips on the left side of the bell curve. He's probably converting his assets to gold and building a cabin somewhere. Not that he'd lose much if things turned out to be milder...

But even a middling Defcon 3 scenario is no stroll in the mall. Literally. And it's a lot more probable than the merely-inconvenient Defcon 5. Note that "Business as usual" is not even on the curve. Nick the Greek, if he's an energy-savvy bookie, will give that about the same odds as cold fusion or UFO power.

And hey, "gloomy" is relative to how cheerful the present setup is, right?