Kunstler part 1

[MrEnergyCzar]

One way I prepared for peak oil was converting my home to a net-zero solar powered home that uses no oil or gas..I made a video about it called, "Preparing for Peak Oil"....

[EarthaKit2]

Lovely! "Failure of the American Public" - so now the utter corruption of the Elite, is being blamed on us, "peasants!" When our protests and emails and phone calls to our leaders were ignored before and brushed aside.

We're good for something after all! Ethics and honesty and morality and intergrity are NLY for the American Public!

When things go wrong, like the case of S&L and Enron, pass it on to the American Public.

[thereisnotruth]

Well, the public as a whole is always ultimately responsible for the systematic and predicable failures, successes, and atrocities of their society/government.

I would argue the true solution lays with this realization and embracing anarchist principles of self determination, cooperation, and direct action in order to sculpt a humane society.

[oncelosthorizon]

Yeah, OKAY.

[tgold1968]

Well, we did vote them into office; or voted with our wallets. We suspended due diligence when confronted with complexity. We accepted the unnatural premise of infinite growth; allowed ourselves to believe in something-for-nothing promises from leaders, corporations, peers, etc..

[hitssquad]

@tgold1968 "We accepted the unnatural premise of infinite growth"

What about growth for a long time -- is it a sustainable premise?

google. com/search?q=site:juliansimon. com+growing+7+billion+years

[tgold1968]

@hitssquad It is only a sustainable premise if it is sustainable growth. The premise of growth that I was referring to -- that represents the status quo -- is not sustainable.

[hitssquad]

@tgold1968

How are you defining sustainable growth? What isn't "sustainable" about the status quo?

[tgold1968]

@hitssquad I am defining it the way everyone else does; in terms of economic, ecological and social considerations. Wikipedia has an okay writeup on it.

With few exceptions, the status quo generally assumes increasing supplies of liquid hydrocarbons (a finite resource). Economic growth under the status quo is linked to it's increasing consumption, increasing investment based on promises of increased consumption, and increasing government spending in support of its increased consumption.

[hitssquad]

@tgold "I am defining it the way everyone else does"

Inconsistently?

ejsd. org/public/journal_article/3

"5. What does "sustainable development" actually mean?

Reference has been made above to the meaninglessness of the Brundtland reports definition of sustainable [...] And, of course, it soon became obvious that the "strong" concept of sustainable development [...] was morally indefensible, as well as totally impracticable. So, most advocates of the concept shifted their ground."

[hitssquad]

@tgold "Economic growth under the status quo is linked to it's increasing consumption"

Actually, it isn't. Economic growth is growth in security. It has nothing directly to do with consumption. Consumption is not necessary for positive ROI.

"the status quo generally assumes increasing supplies of liquid hydrocarbons (a finite resource)."

There are different definition of hydrocarbon resource. There could be merely liquid hydrocarbons in-place. There could be *all* hydrocarbons in-place.

[hitssquad]

@tgold

There could be the variously-defined hydrocarbon "reserves" which have been observed to be continuously growing for at least a century and a half.

radford. edu/wkovarik/oil/5oilreservehi­story. html

The oil that society uses is not necessarily oil taken from the ground. Therefore, the oil that society has available to it to use is not strictly a finite resource.

google. com/search?q=oil+not+finite+ju­lian

Can oil be made from uranium?

google. com/search?q=nuclear+gasoline

[hitssquad]

@tgold

If oil *could* be made from uranium, then it wouldn't be strictly finite, would it, as long as any possible finiteness of the uranium were not under immediate consideration.

What about growth for a long time? Is it an "unnatural" premise? Is it improbable? Do we not have enough energy, the Master Resource?

masterresource. org/2009/07/energy-as-the-mast­er-resource-where-left-right-a­nd-center-agree

[hitssquad]

@tgold

We know that other fuels can replace in many cases, and produce, oil. And we know we have billions of years' worth (replacing the entire world's power draw of 16 TW) of fission fuels:

nuclearinfo. net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistr­ibution

Apparently, growth in rate of energy consumption is possible for a long time, starting now -- even without ever developing new fuels.

Is that not true? If it is true, it would seem to contradict Kunstler -- even though he says oil is more important.

[hitssquad]

@tgold

For, if oil *were* valued more, why would society not simply convert other fuels into oil -- as already it does now, only on a larger scale?

[tgold1968]

@hitssquad It'd be as finite as the uranium.

[tgold1968]

@hitssquad I should clarify my previous comment by stating that it is not so much the finite nature of the resource, but the difficulty of its extraction. "peak oil" as it is bandied about is really about "peak cheap oil". The point being: none of the alternate means of getting oil have the same return on energy input as the "easy stuff". It was increasing supplies of cheap and abundant oil that created the developed economies of the world (the status quo).

[hitssquad]

@tgold "none [...] have the same [eroei] as the "easy stuff"."

What makes you think eroei would need to be above even zero in order for a hydrocarbon resource to be nearly as valuable as today? It isn't the energy that's valuable. We know that because we currently pay less than one cent for the uranium equivalent of the energy in a barrel of oil.

uxc. com/review/uxc_Prices. aspx

[hitssquad]

@tgold

"It was increasing supplies of cheap and abundant oil that created the developed economies of the world (the status quo)."

How could that be relevant today, now that we have 32.4 billion years of fission fuel, and the ability to cheaply produce oil from 2.1 quadrillion barrels (70,000 years' worth) of shale oil?

google. com/search?q=duncan+swanson+2.­1+quadrillion+oil

[tgold1968]

@hitssquad Fission and shale are in their nascent stages. Our current economy did not develop around these as energy inputs. Presumably, because they are too costly to bring to market, or to refine into usable product. For example, I've heard it stated that, by volume, shale oil has about the same energy density as a potato. At present, the EROEI for is not enough to justify putting it to use. This is why it continues to sit idle.

[tgold1968]

@hitssquad To get back to your original question: yes, it would... because (as you seem to be suggesting) liquid fuels have "value added" in that they are liquid and portable, and pack tremendous energy density by volume.

Sure, I suppose EROEI could be negative, but it'd seem like an awful waste of perfectly good uranium energy (which, itself, requires energy to extract and process) for a product that is less energy-rich.

But you have a point...energy in and of itself has little value.

[tgold1968]

@hitssquad Not sure what you mean by growth in security. Please elaborate. For clarification, "consumption" is a macroeconomic term. Right, you can have an investment with a positive ROI without consumption. Financial arbitrage is one example. But growth assumptions (increased consumption of goods and services) is rudimentary to securities and derivatives valuation; to securing capital for investment. And investment is one of the three legs of economic growth.

[hitssquad]

@tgold "elaborate"

Security from want and need. Security has been growing for 2 million years, and at 2%/y since 1820.

"Financial arbitrage is one example [of investment with a positive ROI without consumption].

No, it isn't, because there might be consumption-growth underlying it.

"increased consumption [...] is rudimentary to securities and derivatives valuation"

No, it isn't. The opposite is true. People make money by enabling others to reduce their net consumptions of resources.

[tgold1968]

@hitssquad "security from want and need". Not sure I grasp this. Do you mean to say security from want and need is a driver of economic activity? It is possible to have security from want and need under conditions of economic stasis; the link to growth is not absolute.

"consumption-growth" ... Do you mean security-growth?

"People make money"... the original comment was about investment. Income and/or value from cost (or resource) savings are about the consumption.

[hitssquad]

@tgold ""consumption-growth" ... Do you mean security-growth?"

No. Consumption inherently reduces security. If you have food in your house, and you then consume some of it, you are left with less food security. Security is what people trade when they engage in economic transactions.

[tgold1968]

@hitssquad The Brundtland definition was without substance. Since Brundtland, standards and systems have been developed to gauge sustainability. Major consulting firms now offer sustainability accounting services, supplementing conventional financial statements with environmental and social performance reporting. Many NGOs and for-profits look to "triple bottom line" or 3BL accounting to assess their operations.

[hitssquad]

@tgold "Since Brundtland, standards and systems have been developed to gauge sustainability."

So you are admitting there is no single definition. Does sustainability have something to do with lasting forever?

"We accepted the unnatural premise of infinite growth"

What about growth for a long time?

[tgold1968]

@hitssquad "sustainable development" was only coined at Brundltand. Subsequent work was needed to take it from concept to something definable in terms of people, profits, and planet, and usable to all kinds of organizations.

Conceptually and simply, "the capacity to endure" is a popular description of sustainability. But again... that is just the concept. It's sorta like saying the USA is the "land of the free and home of the brave" while ignoring the Constitution and Bill of Rights.