Must see video....

[IRememberDBoon]

isnt the super collider or whatever supposed to create energy from nothing?

 

i truly believe we will be off of fossil fuels for the most part within 20 years.

[bjorn_skurj]

The Large Hadron Collider MAY provide insight into the nature of things so we might one day have the Star Trek universe, but that's not really what it's designed for.

IRDB - won't happen in 20 years, except maybe for some very forward-looking European countries. U.S.? MAYBE in 50 years; with China and India a couple decades later, unless peak oil happens very soon.

GON - I wish humanity was forward-looking enough to plan for this kind of thing, but history would seem to indicate otherwise. Like with many things, fucking would seem to be the root of the problem.

[Guest Speed Racer]

people will buy more bikes

 

I had a hell of a time getting my 52" flat screen home from Best Buy on my Bianchi - and don't even get me started about that damned sofa.

 

It's easy to say we'll become more relient on bikes and transit, but the bottom line is that shipping - on the national, statewide, near-local and local levels - are still vastly dependent on fuel that can actually propel semis. That doesn't just include crap like sofa, but food - to say that more people will "buy local" as a result is downright laughable, considering that local still means a good truck ride between the farm and the store, not to mention how difficult it is to transport anything in much less population dense areas.

[Winston Legthigh]

Our entire civilization, everything we do, rests upon access to affordable energy – primarily, fossil fuels. Civilization’s entire infrastructure is built and predicated upon the continued availability of cheap oil – and as the gas prices of the last few years have reflected, gas as low as $4 a gallon can throw our economy into turmoil. At some point, gas will price itself out of the market, possibly within 10 to 20 years. And as gas prices itself out of the market, food will soon follow.

 

Presently, there are 6 billion people living on this planet – it has been estimated that the carrying capacity of the earth prior to the industrial age stood at roughly 1 billion. Our entire agricultural system is also reliant on access to cheap oil – our agricultural system, and the subsequent population explosion, resulted from the discovery and manipulation of nonrenewable energy.

 

Do you see where I’m going with this?

ok - so the problem will be heavier than people switching to a bike-based economy. People will starve. Maybe this will be a catastrophe. Maybe it won't. Either way I'm not worried about it.

 

A better way to deal with the problem is to tell people not to have so many fucking kids. 2 is too many!

[Winston Legthigh]

I had a hell of a time getting my 52" flat screen home from Best Buy on my Bianchi - and don't even get me started about that damned sofa.

[Good Old Neon]

The report's conclusion (I apologize for the length):

 

XI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

Our analysis leads to the following conclusions and final thoughts.

 

1. World Oil Peaking is Going to Happen

 

World production of conventional oil will reach a maximum and decline

thereafter. That maximum is called the peak. A number of competent

forecasters project peaking within a decade; others contend it will occur

later. Prediction of the peaking is extremely difficult because of geological

complexities, measurement problems, pricing variations, demand elasticity,

and political influences. Peaking will happen, but the timing is uncertain.

 

2. Oil Peaking Could Cost the U.S. Economy Dearly

 

Over the past century the development of the U.S. economy and lifestyle

has been fundamentally shaped by the availability of abundant, low-cost oil.

Oil scarcity and several-fold oil price increases due to world oil production

peaking could have dramatic impacts. The decade after the onset of world

oil peaking may resemble the period after the 1973-74 oil embargo, and the

economic loss to the United States could be measured on a trillion-dollar

scale. Aggressive, appropriately timed fuel efficiency and substitute fuel

production could provide substantial mitigation.

 

3. Oil Peaking Presents a Unique Challenge

 

The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation

more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will

not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil)

were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.

 

4. The Problem is Liquid Fuels

 

Under business-as-usual conditions, world oil demand will continue

to grow, increasing approximately two percent per year for the next few

decades. This growth will be driven primarily by the transportation sector.

The economic and physical lifetimes of existing transportation equipment

are measured on decade time-scales. Since turnover rates are low, rapid

changeover in transportation end-use equipment is inherently impossible.

Oil peaking represents a liquid fuels problem, not an “energy crisis” in the

sense that term has been used. Motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, and ships

simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels. Non-hydrocarbon-based

energy sources, such as solar, wind, photovoltaics, nuclear power,

geothermal, fusion, etc. produce electricity, not liquid fuels, so their

widespread use in transportation is at best decades away. Accordingly,

mitigation of declining world oil production must be narrowly focused.

 

5. Mitigation Efforts Will Require Substantial Time

 

Mitigation will require an intense effort over decades. This inescapable

conclusion is based on the time required to replace vast numbers of liquid

fuel consuming vehicles and the time required to build a substantial number

of substitute fuel production facilities. Our scenarios analysis shows:

 

• Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program

action would leave the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more

than two decades.

 

• Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking

helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade

after the time that oil would have peaked.

 

• Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to

offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast

period.

 

The obvious conclusion from this analysis is that with adequate, timely

mitigation, the economic costs to the world can be minimized. If mitigation

were to be too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will be achieved

through massive demand destruction (shortages), which would translate to

significant economic hardship.

 

There will be no quick fixes. Even crash programs will require more than a

decade to yield substantial relief.

 

6. Both Supply and Demand Will Require Attention

 

Sustained high oil prices will stimulate some level of forced demand

reduction. Stricter end-use efficiency requirements can further reduce

embedded demand, but substantial, world-scale change will require a

decade or more. Production of large amounts of substitute liquid fuels can

and must be provided. A number of commercial or near-commercial

substitute fuel production technologies are currently available, so the

production of large amounts of substitute liquid fuels is technically and

economically feasible, albeit time-consuming and expensive.

 

7. It Is a Matter of Risk Management

 

The peaking of world conventional oil production presents a classic risk

management problem:

 

• Mitigation efforts initiated earlier than required may turn out

to be premature, if peaking is long delayed.

 

• On the other hand, if peaking is imminent, failure to initiate

timely mitigation could be extremely damaging.

 

Prudent risk management requires the planning and implementation of

mitigation well before peaking. Early mitigation will almost certainly be less

expensive and less damaging to the world’s economies than delayed

mitigation.

 

8. Government Intervention Will be Required

 

Intervention by governments will be required, because the economic and

social implications of oil peaking would otherwise be chaotic. The

experiences of the 1970s and 1980s offer important lessons and guidance

as to government actions that might be more or less desirable. But the

process will not be easy. Expediency may require major changes to

existing administrative and regulatory procedures such as lengthy

environmental reviews and lengthy public involvement.

 

9. Economic Upheaval is Not Inevitable

 

Without mitigation, the peaking of world oil production will almost certainly

cause major economic upheaval. However, given enough lead-time, the

problems are soluble with existing technologies. New technologies are

certain to help but on a longer time scale. Appropriately executed risk

management could dramatically minimize the damages that might otherwise

occur.

 

10. More Information is Needed

 

The most effective action to combat the peaking of world oil production

requires better understanding of a number of issues. Is it possible to have

relatively clear signals as to when peaking might occur? It would be

desirable to have potential mitigation actions better defined with respect to

cost, potential capacity, timing, etc. Various risks and possible benefits of

possible mitigation actions need to be examined. (See Appendix V for a list

of possible follow-on studies).

 

The purpose of this analysis was to identify the critical issues surrounding the

occurrence and mitigation of world oil production peaking. We simplified many of

the complexities in an effort to provide a transparent analysis. Nevertheless, our

study is neither simple nor brief. We recognize that when oil prices escalate

dramatically, there will be demand and economic impacts that will alter our

simplified analysis. Consideration of those feedbacks will be a daunting task but

one that should be undertaken.

 

Our study required that we make a number of assumptions and estimates. We

well recognize that in-depth analyses may yield different numbers. Nevertheless,

this analysis clearly demonstrates that the key to mitigation of world oil

production peaking will be the construction a large number of substitute fuel

production facilities, coupled to significant increases in transportation fuel

efficiency. The time required to mitigate world oil production peaking is measured

on a decade time-scale, and related production facility size is large and capital

intensive. How and when governments decide to address these challenges is

yet to be determined.

 

Our focus on existing commercial and near-commercial mitigation technologies

illustrates that a number of technologies are currently ready for immediate and

extensive implementation. Our analysis was not meant to be limiting. We believe

that future research will provide additional mitigation options, some possibly

superior to those we considered. Indeed, it would be appropriate to greatly

accelerate public and private oil peaking mitigation research. However, the

reader must recognize that doing the research required to bring new

technologies to commercial readiness takes time under the best of

circumstances. Thereafter, more than a decade of intense implementation will

be required for world scale impact, because of the inherently large scale of world

oil consumption.

[Guest Speed Racer]

 

Two serious replies to your smart-ass reply:

 

* Those things STILL aren't big enough to carry sofas; and

* Obviously you've never tried to bike in areas where most larger retailers are located. 'Unfriendly toward bikes' doesn't begin to describe the kind of traffic situations big-box retailers present.

 

I'm not necessarily worried about the situation insofar as there's not really anything I can do, outside of my own personal choices (which I'm pretty satisfied with at present). That being said, people who think nothing will happen are clearly have a profound knowledge deficit and/or reason deficit.

[bleedorange]

I think God will save us. He has a plan, you know.

[Winston Legthigh]

Two serious replies to your smart-ass reply:

 

* Those things STILL aren't big enough to carry sofas; and

* Obviously you've never tried to bike in areas where most larger retailers are located. 'Unfriendly toward bikes' doesn't begin to describe the kind of traffic situations big-box retailers present.

 

I'm not necessarily worried about the situation insofar as there's not really anything I can do, outside of my own personal choices (which I'm pretty satisfied with at present). That being said, people who think nothing will happen are clearly have a profound knowledge deficit and/or reason deficit.

* Multiple trips to IKEA, or pay them to deliver, or barter some other kind of delivery system, or hitch a trailer to your bike. If you can't afford a sofa or its delivery to your house, you have bigger problems than not having a sofa. You can live without a sofa. It's been done. I've read about it.

* I'll see your "obviously you've never tried to bike..." bluff and raise you a "oh yes I have, so there"

 

My carbon footprint is smallish. I do what I can. My goal is to have my house off the grid and trade my gas-car to an e-car within 5 years. If we're fucked, we're fucked.

[Guest Speed Racer]

* Multiple trips to IKEA, or pay them to deliver, or barter some other kind of delivery system, or hitch a trailer to your bike. If you can't afford a sofa or its delivery to your house, you have bigger problems than not having a sofa. You can live without a sofa. It's been done. I've read about it.

 

This was in my "world with major fossil fuel crisis" analogy, during which big box retailers either won't deliver or will charge about $500,000 per item for home delivery. Sofa, carrot, it doesn't matter. Bottom line is that people can buy all the bikes they like, but if a crisis develops over the course of two weeks to a month, where gas prices skyrocket, there will be a very real transportation crisis that impacts all sectors of life.

 

My carbon footprint is smallish. I do what I can. My goal is to have my house off the grid and trade my gas-car to an e-car within 5 years. If we're fucked, we're fucked.

 

Very true, but if more people had your kind of attitude, we likely wouldn't be fucked. The "we'll adapt" argument is so baseless and ignorant though, it really drives me nuts. One-hundred years ago we didn't have the same kind of infrastructure, and we didn't establish it over night. Likely, we also didn't keep any blueprints around for how to transition backward. If we were going to stop, think about it, and prepare ourselves to adapt to this new situation, that would have happened about two decades ago. And here we are.

[u2roolz]

Where else would you see General Zod and Charlie Brown having a back and forth on the Energy Crisis?!

[Winston Legthigh]

The "we'll adapt" argument is so baseless and ignorant though, it really drives me nuts.

It's not an argument. It's a fact. Adapt or die is the way things work on this planet.

[Guest Speed Racer]

It's not an argument. It's a fact. Adapt or die is the way things work on this planet.

 

No, that's the fact. Our future survival is not a fact by any stretch of the imagination, and declaring it such is stating an argument.

[u2roolz]

Where else would you see General Zod and Charlie Brown having a back and forth on the Energy Crisis?!

 

Hey! He just changed his avatar! Shit!

 

I honestly like your arguments better while associating them with General Zod. I mean the poor guy wasn't even there for the destruction of his home planet. Instead he was floating around space in a creepy mirror with a dumb mute and a kind of sexy goth chick. Although, it's debatable whether he was adapting by trying to conquer "Planet Houston". He could have found work in Greenwich Village.

[Winston Legthigh]

No, that's the fact. Our future survival is not a fact by any stretch of the imagination, and declaring it such is stating an argument.

OK, so I'm ignorant and baseless for thinking that humanity is going to survive the next energy crisis, and that drives you nuts?

[Guest Speed Racer]

OK, so I'm ignorant and baseless for thinking that humanity is going to survive the next energy crisis, and that drives you nuts?

 

The argument as stated, ("we survived without cars 100 years ago and we'll do it again") is pretty darned ignorant. That isn't to say YOU are (as of course you are not), but even you can see the giant craters in that argument, can you not? Obviously, the chance that the energy crisis would completely wipe out mankind is slim, but the chance that we could survive the crisis without a massive human death toll is slim to none.

 

I should rephrase: flippant statements by people who know better drive me nuts.

[caliber66]

OK, so I'm ignorant and baseless for thinking that humanity is going to survive the next energy crisis, and that drives you nuts?

No. Your argument is baseless. You're ignorant.

 

edit: I'm going to leave this here, but I'm going to take the coward's way out and state unequivocally that I'm kidding.

[u2roolz]

No, that's the fact. Our future survival is not a fact by any stretch of the imagination, and declaring it such is stating an argument.

 

 

OK, so I'm ignorant and baseless for thinking that humanity is going to survive the next energy crisis, and that drives you nuts?

 

I could understand feeling hopeless over such things as oil running out. But I'd have to put my faith into people in much higher positions than me/us to provide us with alternatives.

That being said if money is behind it (obviously) along with our sustainment as a species, then I can see it happening...(edit) alternative energy that is.

 

On the other hand, I can easily see us facing extinction in another fashion from either a comet or disease or whatever else we can't control.

[Guest Speed Racer]

The argument as stated is pretty darned ignorant. That isn't to say YOU are (as of course you are not)

 

No. Your argument is baseless. You're ignorant.

 

Six of one...

[Winston Legthigh]

The argument as stated, ("we survived without cars 100 years ago and we'll do it again") is pretty darned ignorant. That isn't to say YOU are (as of course you are not), but even you can see the giant craters in that argument, can you not? Obviously, the chance that the energy crisis would completely wipe out mankind is slim, but the chance that we could survive the crisis without a massive human death toll is slim to none.

 

I should rephrase: flippant statements by people who know better drive me nuts.

Sad to say, but I think a massive human death toll is going to be a necessary evil. There's gonna be a culling. Not sure it will happen in our lifetime, but the root of the problem isn't the consumption of fossil fuels, it's the birth rate of fossil fuel consumers. Overpopulation will be, if it's not already, the world's biggest problem of the next few hundred years. The only way we will be able to accomodate more and more people on this planet is by harvesting solar energy, and then also mastering hydroponic technology to be able to feed everyone. We're overworking the prime soil, so we have to learn how to turn places like Bolivia into places that are capable of sustaining their own population on locally grown food. Or we'll come to the realization of "ya know what? There really shouldn't be a place like Las Vegas where Las Vegas is."

 

I guess I'm not sure why my statement you quoted above is ignorant. Or why you would think that "of course" I am not ignorant. Humans are capable of surviving in extraordinary conditions, even conditions without sofas or cars.

 

Edit: Hey! I didn't even write what you quoted me on! At least give me THAT!

[Guest Speed Racer]

We got by on not using shitloads of fossil fuels 100 years ago. We adapt. It's what we do.

[Winston Legthigh]

Right - so get on with the explaining of why that statement is ignorant.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Right - so get on with the explaining of why that statement is ignorant.

 

I should rephrase: flippant statements by people who know better drive me nuts.

 

The statement is flippant (or ignorant, or short-sighted) because it doesn't at all address the fact that we CAN do things now to curb a death toll, to curb the long-term impact on humanity, but we aren't doing them. Everyone who writes "we'll adapt; it's what we do" don't seem to take into account (or don't convey that they take into account) the idea that even if YOU, even if I, do everything we, personally, can do to avert or lessen the impact of an impending energy crisis, that we or our families will be safe. This isn't the kind of situation where each individual can change their behaviors and that will save us all - the truth is that this IS one of the situations where institutional changes are required in order to ensure that we all have as much of a chance as possible. And the people who know better (that would be YOU, oh un-ignorant one, or me, or anyone in this thread) who simply say, "We'll adapt, it's what we do," are the people who are in the best position to campaign for, root for, lobby for these institutional changes.

 

So the laissez-faire attitude just kind of pisses me off. If the smart people sit back and say "It'll work itself out?" then who the hell will work it out?

 

At this point, it's not a rant directed at you so much as people in general. I know it's hard/uninteresting to state your whole case on a message board, but it's sad to see people on both sides of the argument going, "Eh." Not that I can stand my former college buddy who now lobbies for environmental groups, but that's another story entirely.

[Winston Legthigh]

At this point, it's not a rant directed at you so much as people in general. I know it's hard/uninteresting to state your whole case on a message board, but it's sad to see people on both sides of the argument going, "Eh." Not that I can stand my former college buddy who now lobbies for environmental groups, but that's another story entirely.

Don't worry - I'm not taking it personally. I was geniunely interested in reading your explanation, because I wasn't understanding where you were coming from.

 

I'm not advocating a "meh - why bother, we can handle it" argument. I think everyone should lessen their carbon footprint. I think everyone should ride their bike to work (if you live 10 miles or less from work).

 

I think the one thing that is actually GOOD about being close to peak production of oil is that we'll be forced to work it out sooner than later. And by having unprecedented levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, it looks as though the time is right for wholesale changes. I do think we ARE close (close being within 100 years) of switching to renewable energy sources, whether it be wind, tides, or sun. But, if we were nowhere near the peak of oil production, our world would get really fucking nasty before we'd switch to renewable.

 

One of my best friends is a physicist who at one point held several patents on solarcell technology (outdated by 10 years or so), and if he tells me we're close, then I'm taking his word for it. That certainly doesn't mean that I'm out there in a GTO burning rubber.

[jenbobblehead]

The idea isn't to change everything right now, but to make changes when and where you can. I used to live in a community where one of us had a truck, the other had a garage, the other a snow blower, the other a print shop, etc. We all shared. We won't be able to get rid of trucks tomorrow, but we can try to reduce the number of them on the road running on diesel. We can use rail frieght, we can buy local. There are a lot of little things that people can do, and it will add up. But the idea that we don't need to do anything because some magazine or news story said that global warming/climate change isn't real is pure crap. Pollution is happening and it is effecting people's health, livelihood, even the rate that things like buildings deteriorate.

 

We all have choices to make, and the key is to make better choices about energy types and usage, to drive more fuel efficient cars, to turn off the lights when we leave a room, to put the recycle bin out on the curb, to compost your yard waste, etc. none of these things are going to take food out of your baby's mouth, or keep your kid from going to college, or raise your taxes or any of those fears that people have about change. So why all the blowback? If you're gonna read a paper newspaper, as some people (self included) do, then just recycle it. If you go to starbucks or dunkin donuts every morning for your extra extra, use a reusable coffee mug that you wash out yourself. Invest five bucks in recycled and reusable grocery bags and use them instead of plastic. Is it really that hard to make those changes to your lifestyle?