And now for something that actually matters

EndOfTheOilAge

Long story short at best our current way of living is screwed. Worst case scenario is end of industrial civilisation. Sweet dreams (this is not a hoax or joke.)

www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

http://www.dieoff.org/


From sunday times magazine
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1813695,00.html

aidan_walsh

Boy are you going to feel pretty stupid with that username in a few months time...

Either that, or spam.

Daelus

Somebody save the oil! :eek:


:rolleyes:

Jimi-Spandex

I'm a troll man.................

Go to Humanities or Politics son, the After Hours board is strictly for things that don't matter.

Niall123

And now for something that actually matters?

Riiiight! :rolleyes:

EndOfTheOilAge

Read the websites. On them you will find input from Nobel prizw winning scientists, Geologists chemists, investment bankers (eg Warren Buffett0 about why there will soon be an energy crisis.
We are not ever going to run out of oil, what we are going to run out of is the ability to produce cheap oil to fuel growing demand from growing economies.This is because global oil production is about to peak and once it peaks it will begin to decline yet demand will keep growing. Surely you can see a problem here? The websites explain it far more eloquently than I can. Suffice to say, these are not crackpot ramblings.

Niall123

Too much reading. Aaaagggghhhh!!

Daelus

Ah, I'll deal with it when it happens.

EndOfTheOilAge

This is not a troll. use your brains.
Oil is a finite resource.
We will run out at some stage. This is fact
However we do not need to run out to cause problems given the huge demand for oil and its significance in our lives.

It is not just fuel for our cars or a source of electricity
It is used to manufacture thousands of goods
It upholds the entire global food industry Used to produce fertilisers,powers agri-machinery, delivers food to market.
In todays globalised highly interdependant economy even a temporary breakdown in supply of oil can have grave consequences.
The growth of all economies ,stock markets,pension funds etc is based on the assumption of continued access to oil.

What happens when increasing demand is not matched by increasing supply?

This is the next big debate looming in the scientific community. It has far worse and more immediate consequences than Global warming and there is far more evidence to back it up.

BTW technology will not help us out. None of the so called alternative energy sources is anywhere near being at a stage where it could replace our oil energy needs .

Dont shoot the messenger

Jimi-Spandex

Which do I choose?


A) OMFG! TEH WERLD IS TEH FU><0rD


Thank you for this enlightening post, it has really sparked my interest in this topic.


C) Go away. I don't care.

hullaballoo

Daelus wrote:

Ah, I'll deal with it when it happens.

Agreed, motion carried.

(The username makes it look awful spam-like to me--I mean I'm no highly paid 'scientician' or anything, but I'd say we're being taken on the short walk to banville, for EndOfBoards.ieAge)

EndOfTheOilAge

Denial is pretty much the standard reaction when confronted with these facts. Real world events will soon wake you up.

.

Endurance Man

We dont care, take it to a part of the forums that do for heavens sake.

PS: You sig looks a little big, change it or the mods will change it for you.

EndOfTheOilAge

From last weekends sunday times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1813695,00.html

nesf

Right...

Moved to Green Issues.

regi

I plan to smoke myself to death long before then

Kernel

EndOfTheOilAge wrote:

We are not ever going to run out of oil

And then later....

EndOfTheOilAge wrote:

Oil is a finite resource.
We will run out at some stage. This is fact

:rolleyes:



Anyway, I'd ask how you know that there is not already a more abundant, cheaper and efficient fuel source than oil? Oh, that's right, you don't know!

WhiteWashMan

kids, if you have something smart to say about the articles, then i suggest you make it smart and witty, but most of all useful.

otherwise, all of these posts are just shít.
pointless unopinionated crap.
either post something decent or píss off back to AH.

Ajnag

^^^
Ahhhhh.
And me with my witty comment ready and all

Ok, so first up Oil cost's are going to be market related. While new discoverys will decline in relation to demand, thing's will not happen as drasticly as claimed. This an issue worth serious consideration as to what our solution is going to be, however chicken little wont be saving the world on this one.

Ok, a main concern would be to increase production of renewable now, while the costs of manufacture and energy are still relatively cheap, as oil go's up renewable will become more expensive. Second of all the recent oil peak post katrina and it's decline from a reduction in demand show's how much can be saved if people reduced there oil usage and served as a timely reminder how the markets can self regulate to an extent. This make's two thing's key, Increasing our effencicy as much as possible so that we require less energy, and secondly increasing our non oil based energy production. Renewable's can account for 40% approx(heard that somewhere), this in itself would be a major reduction, working towards the other 60 % is where things become slightly more complex.

Afaik, fusion should be viable within 30 years and we should work towards reducing that period, as Oil price's increase this should become more of a priority. However we should also consider nuclear energy in the interm. We shouldnt loose our skepticism about fission based power however we shouldnt shun it out of hand either. There are reactor designs that are pretty much meltdown proof, and that leaves us with the waste issue. Put it this way, If we dont have the ability to take nuclear waste off planet within 50-100 years that probably means we've fecked it up or are fecked. Id bet we will.

There is no reason for an oil crash to happen other then complacency, and Im slightly optimistic on that front, hybrids are a good example of how we are begining to get to grips with higher oil prices. However, I wont be surprised if we have an oil price related recession or slow down tho.

Im thinking this will probably be an issue very much in the publics mind for the next 20 years. Another incentive to take measures now is so we can avoid resource wars as well.

rooferPete

Hi,

I haven't read the articles posted in the links because End ofTheOilAge has been fairly eloquent defending his thread.

To try and make the subject a little easier, we (occupants of planet earth) have been using a product that formed millions of years ago as if it would never expire.

Now we have what were third world countries like China and India evolving and demanding their share of that same rescource, meanwhile the big oil producing nations have bee pumping at very near if not at maximum to feed demand.

So we need a new source of energy ? some will say say there is loads of oil in Canada and Alaska it's just a matter of by-passing the green brigade and getting it out of the ground.

What many do not understand is it takes the use of oil to get to that oil reserve, the simple explanation is imagine you have a half tank of fuel and driving along a motorway the next services are two hundred miles away but you only have enough fuel to get you one hundred miles.

You are not going to make it to the services to fill up, now you could try to buy fuel from other motorists but they are in the same position as you are.

My point being it costs energy to get the energy and it appears that many years of complacancy had us using vast amounts of a finite product, so much in fact that we may not be able to afford the cost of drawing down (or up) what little is left.

Hobbes

rooferPete wrote:

You are not going to make it to the services to fill up, now you could try to buy fuel from other motorists but they are in the same position as you are.

Screw buying, run them off the road and syphon it from thier tank! Then loot the corpses for profit.

Dades

Ajnag wrote:

Afaik, fusion should be viable within 30 years and we should work towards reducing that period, as Oil price's increase this should become more of a priority.

Fusion? As in cold fusion? Not sure where you get that idea. I don't think they're much closer than they were when someone came up with the concept.

Ajnag wrote:

However we should also consider nuclear energy in the interm.

Let's not forget plutonium is also pretty hard to com by.

Ajnag wrote:

There is no reason for an oil crash to happen other then complacency, and Im slightly optimistic on that front, hybrids are a good example of how we are begining to get to grips with higher oil prices.

Hybrids and insulation are things that will work in Ireland and Western countries - but 1 billion Indians and 1.2 billion Chinese ain't gonna start driving Prius' to work. These are the countries 'fueling' demand for oil, and the only thing that's going to curb this demand is when the price starts soaring.

EndOfTheOilAge - why bother posting a dire warning supported by someone else's websites, without even suggesting what can be done. It reeks of a loon with a placard proclaimnig the "End of the World is Nigh".

EndOfTheOilAge

Ajnag wrote:

^^^




Afaik, fusion should be viable within 30 years and we should work towards reducing that period, as Oil price's increase this should become more of a priority. However we should also consider nuclear energy in the interm. We shouldnt loose our skepticism about fission based power however we shouldnt shun it out of hand either. There are reactor designs that are pretty much meltdown proof, and that leaves us with the waste issue. Put it this way, If we dont have the ability to take nuclear waste off planet within 50-100 years that probably means we've fecked it up or are fecked. Id bet we will.

.

Nuclear fusion has been 30 years away since the 70's. Its no nearer to happening now than it was then. Also hideously expensive.

In relation to fission, uranium is also a finite resource.

Most renewable energies are derivatives of oil not replacements. EG solar panels require oil based products to manufacture.
Biodiesel is another myth. If you wanted to run all cars in the U.K solely on Biodiesel you would have to plant all arable land in the U.K with Biodiesel crops.

Hydrogen- not going to happen. The energy required to liberate bound Hydrogen is more than the energy that can be obtained from its use. Net energy loss = useless

bonkey

The Atheist wrote:

Fusion? As in cold fusion?

No fusion as in fusion. The traditional 'hot type'. The type they've started work on building a prototype on in France.

EndOf... wrote:

Nuclear fusion has been 30 years away since the 70's. Its no nearer to happening now than it was then. Also hideously expensive.

1) Its a hell of a lot nearer to happening now. Again, I point you at the prototype to be build in France. 2) It is indeed incredibly expensive...to build. Its running costs are theoretically not that high. In a lot of ways, this makes it comparable with solar, wind, hydro etc. Slightly more on topic... I get the impression that the argument about oil running out isn't fully understood. The biggest problem is not that it will run out eventually, nor even that the cheaply available stuff will run out sooner, but rather that we have - quite literally - no clue as to when this will happen other than a ball-park type of figure. Put it like this.... Imagine if smoking showed that your 10,000th cigarette of strength X was the one which gave you cancer. How would people manage that? Now consider that instead of such an accurate answer, you knew it was somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 smokes of strength X that did it. Now consider that you're an active smoker and a passive smoker, that you've smoked various strengths, and so on. Your best guess says that sometime soonish, you'll catch cancer. There is promising research which says that in 20-30 years, a cure for this particular cancer should be available. What is the smart thing to do? Keep smoking away, and just hope blindly that it all works out in your favour? Choose which reports you'll put your faith in, deciding the ones which tell you there's no problem and its all just media hype are the ones for you? Or start looking to minimise your risk - in the smoking case by giving up active smoking, and minimising yoru exposure to passive smoking, so that you've got the best chances of not getting cancer (although you'll be a grumpy aul' git for some time, most proabably)??? There is no reason to have faith that an alternative energy will come along in the nick of time. None. Yes, there are alternatives being investigated, but its almost certain that no single one will be the next oil, but rather that we will have a more diverse energy-production system, where we have a much larger mix-n-match than at present. There's no guarantee that these will be available before increasing demand for oil outstrips availability. There's even no guarantee that any of them will turn out as viable as we think they might be. And thats even before we consider what the potential of actually learning more about global warming might force us into. So whats the smart thing to do? Well, sure, you can point at the Prius and say "see...efficiency is where its at, and we're already doing that". Of course, when you do, I'll point at the Hummer, the VW Toerag, and all the other monstrous vehicles that modern urbanites seem to feel are de rigeur for the arduous and lethally dangerous task of bringing baby to school. (Aside...WTF is it with people complaining about a nanny state, and driving a civilian tank because it gives them a feeling of safety for themselves and/or their kids. ) Anyway...net effect...SFA at best. Look at average MPG figures for the US - they're terrifying. Notice that in all these zero-emission regulations and the like, the civilian tanks are excluded because they're classed as trucks. Sure, when Katrina hit and stocks were short, people cut back. And the US opened its reserves. And we've yet to see the knock-on of that action, which will be dependant on how long and harsh a winter we have. But the point is the same. Modern society seems to increasingly look for the McSolution - the kneejerk reactionist "deal with it when it happens" approach, cause that way we're never spending against a "might", only against an "already has". What the end-of-oil types are ultimately saying is that when the real crunch comes, the cost of kneejerkism will be unsustainable. There is trillions invested in the hydrocarbon energy framework. When hydrocarbons no longer rule, how do we replace/upgrade that to work with the alternative? How long will it take? Do we have time? And thats what it boils back down to. How long it will it take, and do we have that long. The end-of-oilers generally aren't saying No to the latter, but rather "Almost definitely not, if we keep ignoring it". Its all well and good to tell me new tech is coming. But telling me that I could maybe run my car on electricity in X years time is all well and good, except I want to know how you're going to build or convert all those petrol stations in that timeframe, and who's gonna pay for it.....and thats after I get over the issues I have with the "unproven alternative technology will save us all" argument in the first place. jc

bonkey

EndOfTheOilAge wrote:

In relation to fission, uranium is also a finite resource.

In relation to fission, uranium is far from the only source which can be used in reactors, unless you limit yourself to 1950s technology. There is no real shortage of fissile material. Thats not the problem with fission.

Hydrogen- not going to happen. The energy required to liberate bound Hydrogen is more than the energy that can be obtained from its use. Net energy loss = useless

Its no use having terawatts of generated-by-whatever electricity, and no means of using it in systems which cannot be connected to a suitable generator / distrubution grid. What you need is the ability to render the energy portable. This step in the equation is where Hydrogen comes into play, as we have nothing at the moment which matches the potential of the HFC for efficiency/portability. The mistake is to look at hydrogen as a solution in and of itself, rather than as a potentially important cog in a complex system. jc

EndOfTheOilAge

The Atheist wrote:

EndOfTheOilAge - why bother posting a dire warning supported by someone else's websites, without even suggesting what can be done. It reeks of a loon with a placard proclaimnig the "End of the World is Nigh".

The reason I posted it is to provoke discussion, and see what the general awareness of this topic is like. TBH I was kinda hoping for someone to come along and completely destroy my points/the points on those websites as I find this issue quite depressing. When I first found out about peak oil I wrote it off as the latest in a long line of ludicrous doomsday scenarios. But something about it stuck with me and all the evidence I have seen and research I've done into it leads me to conclude it is a real threat that needs to be addressed immediately.
The way we are living in this country and especially in the U.S(whose consumption habits we increasingly ape) is not sustainable. Economists seem to have duped us into believing that our current economy is some kind of pepetual motion machine , hence the frenzied obsession with growth. They seem to think oil is just another commodity to buy and sell, and that when it runs out the all powerful "market" will step in with a solution to allow us continue our current lifestyle without so much as a blip.
They are seriously deluded

Ajnag

They seem to think oil is just another commodity to buy and sell, and that when it runs out the all powerful "market" will step in with a solution to allow us continue our current lifestyle without so much as a blip.

Eh... No they dont. If anything economists are more weary of the impact of oil prices then the average consumer. They know that key factors such as inflation, cost of production and rate of growth are tied in to oil.

Also re fusion this graph give's us an illustration as to the progress made:

Iter says 50 years for comercial use, But I think that way too conservative, considering how much of a priority new energy sources will become. My estimate would be 30 or less.

The end of the oil age is comming, however I dont find the hype to of the oil doomsayers to be constructive in any way. In fact they may discredit valid concerns to our detriment by overhying their belifes.

But if you do belive, then just buy oil stocks, you'll be rolling in the cash come the end

Dades

Ajnag wrote:

But if you do belive, then just buy oil stocks, you'll be rolling in the cash come the end

Eh how so?! I can't profit margins increasing in line with prices. The reason prices will rise is due to the increase in cost of retrieving oil from the ground, paid for by the oil companies.

Anyways - there are two "options" open as I see it.

1. Cut down consumption. This as I mentioned already is a possibility in the western world but this is not going much difference unless the emerging Asian and Indian subcontinent markets follow suit. And given that they are only emerging, it is unlikely they are going to take heed just when they are finally getting a piece of the pie. Not for a few decades anyway.

2. Find a viable alternative source of energy. Is there some reason to believe that there is not billions spent on this already? I don't believe the notion is new to the scientific community or that they need a kick in the ass to invent a magic device. They've been at it for years already - solar power, hydrogen fuel cells, bio fuel etc. Obviously these are all flawed in some way. So we can only hope that necessity is indeed the mother of invention.

Ajnag

The reason prices will rise is due to the increase in cost of retrieving oil from the ground, paid for by the oil companies.

No, the reason cost will increase will be because of demand out stripping supply. The cost of extraction will be justifyed by the increased revenue from the increase in the cost of oil. The oil companys are already sitting on a commodity of increasing value. One of the already visible effects of the increase in oil prices is the upsurge of small oil companys gaining value on the markets such as tullow oil, dragon oil and cairn energy. Oil stocks are a good investment.

Suck's that I dont want to invest in irresponsible companys or practice's. But if your really worried by peak oil then its there if you want it. Alternativly theres gold, It will match inflation at the least and will increase if there's a crisis. Dont forget moneys only paper at the end of the day.

Eddiethehill

Ajnag wrote:

No, the reason cost will increase will be because of demand out stripping supply. The cost of extraction will be justifyed by the increased revenue from the increase in the cost of oil...

Folks,
I've been lurking here for a while watching this thread and I feel I must say a couple of things...

Oil in the ground becomes unusable when the energy cost of recovery outstrips the energy obtained. This is nothing to do with money. If it costs a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil then we have run out.

Ireland, I can assure you, will starve in the short term if we have no oil for agriculture. I live in the country(well a town in the country anyway) and I do not know of a single farmer who could feed his own family without oil for his machenary.

The global economy (financial system) is based on the idea that economies keep growing for ever. This makes no sense when looked at holistically, but makes perfect sense when viewed from the boardroom of a company with shareholders to pay.

Most of the things we buy that are not life-sustaining can be considered luxuries by an individual or a family household. This does not hold true for a capitalist economy like ours(I mean Ireland). If we all stop driving our cars, going to the cinema, eating takwaways, shopping for clothes, and all the other elective things we do then our economy will collapse. Where do all the hairdressers go, aroma-therapists, wedding planners, in fact everyone in the service industries.

I do not pretend to have the answers but I do know that when oil gets scarse and expensive people feel the pain. We need to position ourselves as a country to face this future. Individuals can do their bit but we really must confront this as a socieity.

Rant over... (apologies to the aroma-therapists)

democrates

I reject the doomsday scenario. OUTRIGHT!

Supply and demand will price oil out of reach of those who don't really need it - read urban private motorists.

Also governments will eventually prioritise agriculture, industry, and public transport by creating tax penalties and quotas for non-essential consumers.

The spectacle of millions of cars sitting in gridlock each day in cities around the world just burning the last of it off while this risks global famine and depression has to prompt action, even the investor elite don't want that.

The once-off free ride we've been getting will end no doubt, but we simply adjust to the new reality. We can still survive and be content. Excess consumption and pollution was never sustainable, the environment could do with a break.

We'll see manual labour coming back to the farm, so what. We'll see horse and cart bringing produce to the market, so what.

Frankly I look forward to exercise on a bike and my sister always wanted a pony.

We need to go all-out nuclear right now, and conserve the oil to send rockets full of nuclear waste into the sun. You do realise the sun is running out and on the brink of going super-nova in 4.5 Billion years don't you?

We need a migration plan immediately, and I want to know if Fianna Fail have a policy to get us decentralised within 4 Billion years, or are they going to dither as usual so that we end up in a last 500 Million year rush?

Ajnag

Oil in the ground becomes unusable when the energy cost of recovery outstrips the energy obtained. This is nothing to do with money. If it costs a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil then we have run out.

We are quite a long way from that however, at present its something like one to a hundred or so(cant say for sure tho). Also as the price of oil increase's it becomes more viable to start extracting oil from sources that were not as viable in the past. Total were recently talking of using a nuclear power plant to provide energy for removing oil from tar sands in canada. The exact outcome is in no way cut and dried.

Capt'n Midnight

bonkey wrote:

In relation to fission, uranium is far from the only source which can be used in reactors, unless you limit yourself to 1950s technology. There is no real shortage of fissile material.

Interesting
The only other naturally occuring element that is fssile is Thorium. India are moving to Thorium since it is more abundant than Uranium http://www.uic.com.au/nip67.htm

As for oil - If the US cut back on big cars or we stopped using RyanAir..

atilladehun

This is a bit off topic....

Suppose, as humans, we had to choose a new fuel, knowning what we do now about all the different types. Its obvious were going to have to do this soon, for a number of reasons, environment, economics and stocks of oil. Lets pretend that the oil isn't at the stage its at now though and we have a clean slate with the environment. Demand however remains high and we as educated balanced people have to decide which fuels to use.

There are disadvantages to everysingle energy source so what will we choose. eg oil pollution, greed. biofuel huge amounts of land needed etc. Hydrogen (not available yet, may never be, but if it was would we use it?). Wind, wind farms? wind on every house. Is it practicle just to get everyone to do this at once? etc etc. Nuclear?????????

We'd probably end up choosing a mix, right? what mix, and what would be powering what?

I'm Fairly interested in the whole green issues and plan to change my house and life accordingly but theres nothing wrong with a little hypothetical debate every now and then.

Keyzer

Why can't we just develop engines like the DeLorean in Back to the Future 2 that run on coca cola and banana skins etc.

Added bonus would be when I tell my boss that I was late for work because the flux capacitor in my car was broken, I could actually be telling the truth...

On a serious note, Biogas is the way forward....
All we need is lots of dead cows poo, make ethanol out of it and bobs your uncle. Sure Temple Bar is full of cows on a sat night ....

Capt'n Midnight

atilladehun wrote:

There are disadvantages to everysingle energy source so what will we choose. eg oil pollution, greed. biofuel huge amounts of land needed etc. Hydrogen (not available yet, may never be, but if it was would we use it?). Wind, wind farms? wind on every house. Is it practicle just to get everyone to do this at once? etc etc. Nuclear?????????

Where to start ??

Hydrogen is not a primary fuel, it is a delivery / storage system. Think of it like electricty except it's a little easier to store.

Changing over fuels - petrol land vehicles will run on hydrogen , methane ( methane hydrates on ocean floor) , methanol , alcohol, esters , and hydrolysed chickens. Diesel engines will run on rape seed oil and coal dust emulsified in water (once they are up to temperature)

Private windfarms - will a home wind generator save the energy it took to make it (similar argument on solar panels)

China are by the worlds largest users of cement - this uses a lot energy and a lot of CO2 maybe we should ask them to stop.

http://disarm.igc.org/vonhippel.htm - material containing more than 12% U233 could be used to make a simple bomb. U233 can be made from Thorium, more common than natural Uranium and India are starting to look at this material.

samb

yes, this is a very interesting and important issue. There is plenty of oil left but it is too expensive to extract, it is not always in big pools metres underground as in Iraq. In Canada much of it is within rock. if you drill down you will only get oil very near the hole seeping in, the rock is not porous enough. You need to blow the cr*p out of it to get at it.

I think we need to look at nuclear again in this country. It is feared by the general public but there have been great improvements in safety.

turbine?

I dont think nuclear is the way to go. Nuclear waste is the major problem with Nuclear electricity generation. What do you do with it and where do you put it?
Apart from that Nuclear is a relaible and high capacity electricity generation system.
Engineering costs may be high compared with other technologies, but the power output is greater. I don't know if they balance out?

xonencentral

How about we build one massive nuclear plant on the moon and run an umbilical cord to earth with the power. (actually, wasn't this the theme in one of the Highlander movies ?)

We could blast all the nuclear waste into the sun to get rid of it and we could all go on holidays to costa del moon at the same time.

Or we could leave the waste on the moon and it might even glow brighter so we could have daylight at night as well and the FF/PD governemnt could make us work around the clock and grow the economy/foreign companies even bigger so we could waste even more money on infrastructure, and the nuclear plant on the moon would probably be a monopoly owned by ESB and AAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHH.

turbine?

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha:) you would need a universal joint on the umbilical cord so the whole lot doesn't go into a big tangle:eek:

simu

democrates wrote:

We'll see manual labour coming back to the farm, so what. We'll see horse and cart bringing produce to the market, so what.

Frankly I look forward to exercise on a bike and my sister always wanted a pony.

Hmmm... this could be so. In a few generations' time, people might look back at this age as an era of mad, unbridled decadence. However, a life of manual labour is not as much fun as it might sound.

Energy questions aside, the problem of finding substitutes for oil in the manufacture of all the stuff we need is prickly to say the least. I read a newspaper feature a few months back where a person tried to go without using any oil-based products for a week - a lot harder than it might seem at first thought.

o_O

a5y

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

China are by the worlds largest users of cement - this uses a lot energy and a lot of CO2 maybe we should ask them to stop.

I somehow doubt that will happen.

Ultimatly it's a bit rich for any industrialised nation (nation, continent, hemisphere whichever :rolleyes: ) to ask China to discontinue, and in any case, they aren't going to.

I think the best thing we can do right now is place levies on energy inefficent product and use the raised br€ad to subsidize stuff like energy effecient lightbulbs. Imagine the difference it would make if suddenly overnight the cheapest products we could buy were the most energy effecient ones?!

I'm not saying this will solve the problem, but reducing the amount of energy we use will surely help, right?

(Sorry if my grammar & spelling is appalling, I've had insomnia all week )

turbine?

In relation to cement being CO2 intensive there is a good article on www.localplanet.ie about it. It appears that cement has an undeserved reputation for being environmentally unsound. The article states that, through 8 independent life cycle analysis studies, cement came out as at least the equal to timber framing and in some cases, especially in an Irish context, better than the alternatives of timber or steel.

BrianD3

I only just found this interesting thread. I was just thinking about this topic when looking at news coverage of people panic buying fuel in response to the fire in England today. Personally I agree with the doomsday scenario - obviously every aspect of modern western civilisation is hugely dependent on energy. Everything from food production, health, transport, sanitation, law and order and everything else. Huge question marks and issues with every one of the alternative energy sources proposed and I cannot see any of them (or a combination of all of them) coming close to replacing oil.

So what's going to happen? I envisage a complete breakdon of society, with people reverting to "caveman mentality" and "survival of the fittest" A chaotic dog eat dog world where individuals fight for survival and nations are at war with each other. The sort of thing that makes bird flu pandemics, foot and mouth, global warming, Asian Tsunamis, Hurricane Katrinas etc. seem completely insignificant.

democrates

BrianD3 wrote:

I only just found this interesting thread. I was just thinking about this topic when looking at news coverage of people panic buying fuel in response to the fire in England today. Personally I agree with the doomsday scenario - obviously every aspect of modern western civilisation is hugely dependent on energy. Everything from food production, health, transport, sanitation, law and order and everything else. Huge question marks and issues with every one of the alternative energy sources proposed and I cannot see any of them (or a combination of all of them) coming close to replacing oil.

So what's going to happen? I envisage a complete breakdon of society, with people reverting to "caveman mentality" and "survival of the fittest" A chaotic dog eat dog world where individuals fight for survival and nations are at war with each other. The sort of thing that makes bird flu pandemics, foot and mouth, global warming, Asian Tsunamis, Hurricane Katrinas etc. seem completely insignificant.

I disagree.

Oil is pervasive because it's been there in cheap abundance, that doesn't equal long term dependance. It's not going to be switched off worldwide overnight.

There are alternatives and as oil dwindles you'll see gas and coal (vast reserves left that can also generate hydrogen for fuel cells) electricity generation on the rise again along with eco-energy. Even if that supply tightens the ordinary motorist would be priced/legislated off the road (better for the environment and more efficient for society) leaving plenty for agriculture, security etc., with manual labour (6.4 Billion of us and rising, and don't forget horses and oxen) making a comeback. And if that's still not enough nuclear power will sadly proliferate.

We'll do whatever is necessary to survive, yea thrive. Yes we'll learn lessons the hard way and millions more will die needlessly, but we will survive. I don't think we need to organise ourselves into local militia to police our communities just yet.

Besides, aspects of your scenario are already here. Capitalism is survival of the fittest, and it is driving nations into war, economic war, we fight each other ever more intensely for the crumbs of employment from the capitalist table.

BrianD3

There are alternatives and as oil dwindles you'll see gas and coal (vast reserves left that can also generate hydrogen for fuel cells) electricity generation on the rise again along with eco-energy. Even if that supply tightens the ordinary motorist would be priced/legislated off the road (better for the environment and more efficient for society) leaving plenty for agriculture, security etc., with manual labour (6.4 Billion of us and rising, and don't forget horses and oxen) making a comeback. And if that's still not enough nuclear power will sadly proliferate.

That's all very well in theory, but in reality what's described above is a mammoth task. Do you see the Irish government (or any other government for that matter) being competent or organised enough to cope with it. I would say not a chance - even with years of advance warning. As for manual labour, are people going to be willing able to do this to survive or are they just going to panic, fight, steal, loot instead. It is true to say that the present capitalist world is "dog eat dog" to a certain extent but what will it be like if an energy crisis starts to affect the absolute basics eg supply of clean water. It sounds bizarre to be talking about a lack of water esp in a country like Ireland and TBH it probably wouldn't affect us too badly. But still, I guarantee that there would be an effect given that all sewerage and water treatment plants are heavy users of electricity.

Zillah

Someone smarter than me will fix it. They always do.

Capt'n Midnight

BrianD3 wrote:

all sewerage [ and water treatment ] plants are heavy users of electricity.

sewage plants produce methane. This can be used in CHP (combined heat and power) to supply their needs. Also methane can be used in fuel cells giving greater efficiency. http://www.jenbacher.com/www_english/prod/gasa_bio.html

http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/printablearticle.asp?sp=332126698628342536322&v=4&UAN=532

The Korean Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE) has targeted more than 20% of the country’s power generation to come from fuel cells.
...
The fuel cell for Chosun University Hospital, an institution with 24 medical departments staffed by 800 personnel, will provide power to meet the significant energy demands of a healthcare facility. Waste heat from the fuel cell will also be used to heat hot water for the hospital.

At the Tancheon plant, which processes 19% of the Seoul’s daily sewage output, the DFC unit will operate on methane gas generated by the facility’s anaerobic gas digestion process.

http://www.lei.lt/Opet/Projekts/biogas_pr_in_k.htm - selling sewage biogas

saibhne

BrianD3 wrote:

It sounds bizarre to be talking about a lack of water esp in a country like Ireland and TBH it probably wouldn't affect us too badly. But still, I guarantee that there would be an effect given that all sewerage and water treatment plants are heavy users of electricity.

Also need to remember that Climate change and the use of fossil fuels goes hand in hand - at the recent climate change civic forum a presenter (prof john Sweeney from Maynooth I think) said that at the current rate of global warming rainfall in Ireland will begin to fall significantly. Forgive the lack of numbers here but the consequence of this fall would be that by mid/late century there would not be enough water to supply the population of the East coast of Ireland.

One speaker had an interesting analogy to do with oil and labour - he produced a litre of milk and said the equivalent one litre of oil is equal in energy terms to 40 man hours - one weeks manual labour. He predicted peak oil to occur within 10 years (if it hasn't already occurred.)