<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] more on The Long Emergency





Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom Sobczynski <tsobczynski@xxxxxxx>
Date: July 17, 2005 11:12:41 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on The Long Emergency


I'm glad you acknowledge that there is some kind of problem, but even "bleak" is actually putting it very mildly. Your faith in technology is what James Howard Kunstler calls "Jiminy Cricket Syndrome":

"These days, even people in our culture who ought to know better are wishing ardently that a smooth, seamless transition from fossil fuels to their putative replacements--hydrogen, solar power, whatever--lies just a few years ahead. I will try to demonstrate that this is a dangerous fantasy."

It is highly doubtful that we will be able to feed >6 billion people by mid-century, much less whisk them about the country on a sleek new rail network along with oodles of consumer products from 12,000 miles away.

Your statement about Suburbia does not go nearly far enough. Again, from the man himself:

"America finds itself nearing the end of the cheap-oil age having invested its national wealth in a living arrangement--suburban sprawl--that has no future."
...
"I do not believe that the general ignorance about the coming catastrophic end of the cheap-oil era is the product of a conspiracy, either on the part of business or government or news media. Mostly it is a matter of cultural inertia, aggravated by collective delusion, nursed in the growth medium of comfort and complacency. Author Erik Davis has referred to this as the 'consensus trance.' "
...
"During the Clinton presidency, baby-boomer hippies had matured into yuppies who enjoyed the benefits of cheap oil so much (and were so spoiled by it) that they fell easily into a consensus trance regarding America's energy future: party on. The Alaskan and North Sea oil bonanzas had erased their memories of the brief 1970s oil crises. During most of the 1980s and 1990s, gas prices at the pump were lower in constant dollars than at any other time in history. It was the former-hippie boomer yuppies, after all, who started the SUV craze and bought the McMansions way off in the outermost suburbs. At the same time, stunning advances in computer development (boomer- led), and the rapid growth of the huge new industry that went with it, had induced among the boomer cultural elite a mentality of extreme techno-hubris, leading many to the conviction that our fantastic innovative skills guaranteed a smooth transition into the alternative fuels future--which, of course, squared with the wishful views of conventional economists. It all amounted to an unfortunate self-reinforcing feedback loop of delusion."

Within decades, there will scarcely be enough oil and natural gas available to power modern agriculture. The distribution system that brings that food to your local big-box supermarket will be falling apart by then, and also requires huge amounts of fuel. With no fossil fuel left over for you at any price, how do you plan to bring food home, refrigerate it and cook it? This is of course a contrived example with one facet of the problem taken to its mid-century extreme.

All of the mystical "technology" that people tout as the means we will keep our world running requires energy input. All of the proposed alternative sources of energy don't add up to a hill of beans.

"Based on everything we know right now, no combination of so-called alternative fuels or energy procedures will allow us to maintain daily life in the United States the way we have been accustomed to running it under the regime of oil. No combination of alternative fuels will even permit us to operate a substantial fraction of the systems we currently run--in everything from food production and manufacturing to electric power generation, to skyscraper cities, to the ordinary business of running a household by making multiple car trips per day, to the operation of giant centralized schools with their fleets of yellow buses. We are in trouble."

Kunstler goes on to enumerate the proposed alternatives to oil and shoot them all down in detail. This is the thumbnail sketch:


Natural Gas - The North American continent is in decline. The U.S. is declining by a few percent per year despite manic drilling, and that depletion curve is about to get a lot more steep. Canada is reaching the limits of its ability to bridge the gap. For a number of reasons, importing liquefied natural gas from overseas is not a workable solution.

Hydrogen - This is not a source of energy, just a decent (but not great) storage medium.

Coal - We'll undoubtedly be using more of this awful stuff soon, but "it isn't going to be cheap, the quality might not be so good, it isn't going to last that long, and it's not going to work nearly as well as gas and oil did."

Hydroelectric - We're already using most of the good sites for hydro generation for 10% of our power. The dams are silting up rapidly. It is doubtful that we can operate hydro plants without a base of cheap fossil fuels and even more unlikely that we will maintain our incredibly decrepit power distribution grid without them.

Solar and Wind - "It takes a lot of energy, many barrels of oil, to manufacture deep-cycle batteries and solar panels, and it takes a platform of advanced systems--everything from metallurgy to plastics manufacturing--to mass-produce all the components and standardize their performance. I'm not convinced that active solar power may be anything but an interim stopgap in the Long Emergency that will follow the end of the fossil fuel age. ... There is a set of erroneous popular notions to the effect that renewable energy systems such as solar power, wind power and the like are available as freestanding replacements for our fossil-fuel-based system, that they are pollution-free and problem free... The batteries, the panels, the electronics, the wires and the plastics all require mining operations and factories using fossil fuels." Kunstler describes his personal experiences with his own solar electric system to illustrate the points he makes.

Synthetic Oil - You can make it from filthy coal, but it doesn't scale. The declining energy profit ratio of coal won't support this for long.

Thermal Depolymerization - Thermodynamics make this recycling program an energy sink, not a source.

Biomass - "Forget biomass. It's only a cruder variation of thermal depolymerization."

Methane Hydrates - Another net energy sink, not a source.

Zero-Point Energy - If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Development of such a thing probably couldn't proceed without an underlying fossil fuel technology platform.

Nuclear - Good for generating electricity for now, but only about a quarter of the fossil fuels we use go toward electric generation. A lot of the other uses, such as agriculture, cannot be replaced by electricity. Furthermore, Uranium has its own Hubbert curve of production whose peak is within sight.


Now add in population growth and environmental degradation. We have seriously overshot our resource base and the foreclosure of suburbia is really a foregone conclusion. At best, we must downscale and localize life very quickly. At worst, billions will die of some combination of starvation, war and disease.

Remember that the oil price has exceeded $60/bbl at a time when we are collectively pumping more oil per year than at any time in history. The production decline hasn't even started!

--Tom Sobczynski


On Jul 16, 2005, at 6:50 PM, David Farber wrote:





Begin forwarded message:

From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger@xxxxxxx>
Date: July 16, 2005 5:31:14 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Udhay Shankar N <udhay@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] The Long Emergency


The article is interesting and does bring up many good points. I agree that its pretty darn sure that we are going to hit lots of problems due to increasing costs of Oil and Natural Gas.

But I don't think its quite as bleak as he says (unless the Un- reality based Neocons stay in power).

For instance, Trains could make a major comeback to handle the transportation load at dramatically lower energy costs than todays air and truck transport. We aren't going to run out of energy overnight and rebuilding a train network wouldn't be all that hard if we don't wait too long.

Then there could also be other technologies that can do major transportation of goods at much lower costs such as airships. These could be built at very low cost (comparatively) and could take advantage of hydrogen production as a lift gas. (I know every one will instantly think of the Hindenburg, but the German Zeppelins were not designed for using hydrogen. There are ways of doing this pretty safely).

A lot of what needs to happen to make our lives more energy efficient will happen through market forces as the price of gas goes up. This could even include the eventual devolution of Suburbia.

The worse thing we could do is to artificially hold back the price of oil. The most that should happen is to try to smooth out spikes, but let it be known far and wide that Oil and its related products will just keep getting more expensive.

We need to make is so that ex-Oil executives (particularly incompetent and previously unsuccessful oil executives) are not running the country.

Rob

On Jul 16, 2005, at 5:00 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:







Begin forwarded message:

From: Udhay Shankar N <udhay@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: July 16, 2005 4:51:56 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: The Long Emergency


Dave,

A long and thought-provoking article in the Rolling Stone on the "long emergency" - based on the thesis that world oil production has peaked, and what the consequences will be.

Sure to generate lots of debate. ;-)

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7203633

Udhay





---
Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC.
Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868
PGP Key: http://www.ibd.com/html/rbergerPublic.gpgkey
http://www.ibd.com



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as tcs@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/







-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/