Peak Oil - Adapting for Big Changes Ahead

[jason1973tl]

People also need to remember that it is possible to derive oil from shale, coal to oil, algae farms and other sources. So while it will get more expensive the bell curve on the downward slope will be stretched out much more than how fast it went up.

[peakmoment]

@jason1973tl, shale and coal-to-oil are terribly dirty because they're low-grade. That means a whole lot more carbon emissions in the atmosphere. And of course expensive, as you say, because these are harder to exploit.

[jason1973tl]

@peakmoment We can only hope to find better alternatives before they insist on stripping the land for it.

[keeelane]

hello,

i'm a grad student from finland majoring on musicology

i'm amazed how little people here are - well, at least SEEM to be - aware of this happening

it's hard to find information on how this will affect places like scandinavia and finland (neighbor to scandinavia, but not scandinavia per se)

i know it probably won't have the same impact in terms of i.e. water, because we have a very efficient water system and there's plenty of clean water around anyway

any info will be appreciated

[yourmajezty]

whats dude wearing?

[suziohug]

When oil is no longer priced in the US dollar our economy will collapse.Its called the petrodollar and its short lived.China and Russia have just singed an agreement to trade w/each other without useing the dollar.....If you live in a city you need to stock up on some nonperisable food,now.

[DancingSpiderman]

I have one car, runs on WATER.

I have another car, runs on HEMP.

Guess which Alternative Car I likes to drive most of the time?

[jason1973tl]

@DancingSpiderman One word.....Velomobile.

[DancingSpiderman]

@jason1973tl I Googled Velomobile.

It's a Bicycle. Sometimes a Tricycle. No thanks. I need a vehicle that "does the pedaling for me". I enjoy the concept of the motorized bicycles, like this one:

watch?v=sXhhWXw9V7A&feature=ch­annel_video_title

Or this one even better;

watch?v=B_Whbb_hlPs&feature=re­lated

[MrEnergyCzar]

Learning to live an enriched life as if you are a poor graduate student is the best advice ever to prepare for PO...

[iodyn]

Nice pants

[yellowdotz]

China had steam engine technology before the west but used it sparingly for public works projects like steam powered water pumps for irrigation. They chose not to use it in vehicles and factories to keep harmony and balance hoping the west would get the picture. Now it's survival of the fittest mode for China. The west was deaf to the Chinese for the past 150 years. You think China will listen to the West's cries now? They know full well we're going to hell in a hand basket...on their terms now

[Axbent]

Is that a Dawes Galaxy?

[Meowbay]

Those pants, come on. This is not a ballet-stage, sir.

[Axbent]

@Meowbay hes a cyclist, they are practical and very sporty! Get used to them soon all will wear them!

[thufer50]

Nuclear is essentially a way of boiling water to drive a turbine to produce electricity. It is just an update on very old technology. You and me ain't gonna drive downtown and pop out to see our friends in some sort of nuclear powered battery car. It is not going to happen... When the shtf the amount of energy consumed by the internet will be turned off and you will not even see this. My father had to take a battery to the post office to be charged to listen to the radio in the fifties.

[freemind4ever]

peak oil, look at tesla's free energy also the stern engine, science says there is no such thing as free energy, right? well if 30 years a go, if i said u can run ur electrical equipment with a breeze u would say thats impossible,right? science is best guess, if u believe science today is solid and not fluid, ur a closed mind,magnetic s and layline power generation is possible,look into it, do ur own thinking, dont rely on no one, govt,lol what a laugh,u cant starve if u rely on no one

[walter0bz]

there is possibly electromagnetic energy via earths core rotation or incoming from solar wind..

But i'm highly skeptical that any real practical useable energy knowledge is supressed. Whoever mastered it would acheive greater power or control.

also FREE means unlimited, but encountering "unlimited" energy humans would just multiply until its scarce again.

[freemind4ever]

look into tesler's free energy, idea or the stern engine, the one that they (scientists) say it cannot be going by itself as that would defy science, lol science = best guess, look into it, im a scientist and engineer, i look into stuff, for example, think about gas, if u could get free energy would u buy gas? if u dont who will be out of a job, who will loose money, taxes will not be paid, so the govt would not be to hapi, think about it.... keep thinking...

[Axbent]

@freemind4ever If there were free power the military would have it; it would mean world domination of all recources too who ever had it first.

[kylekelly123]

@Axbent nah the military is havin to much fun wastin 32 million dollars a day in gas joy ridin around dodgin IEDs all day long

[MrEnergyCzar]

Learning to live an enriched live as a poor college student is the best explanation on how to prepare for peak oil...great interview..

[walter0bz]

16:00

agree: Carrying Capacity should be revised downward until there's enough land for a solar-powered internet to continue (solar-powered chip-factories, servers...)

the 'global intelligence' of people connected over the web (man-machine Hivemind) exceeds the 'global intelligence' of simply maxing out the number of humans with lesser tech.

[walter0bz]

>>"opportunity for more quality in our lives.."

haha. hard manual labour to replace the oil-powered gadgets, and struggling to secure our survival against declining carrying capacity

[walter0bz]

renewables = false hope,

the choice is population reduction or nuclear everything

[walter0bz]

thorium ftw

[peakmoment]

@walter0bz, reply from David Fridley, one of my advisors on alt. energy sources, is that thorium reactors are theoretically better than uranium-based, but are only at R&D and demonstration level, not commercial. Problems with fuel recycling, and proliferation and waste disposal. If they're not commercial now, it'll take 20 years or so to see if they make a difference.

In the context of peak oil, won't make a difference. Don't provide liquid fuels.

[itisaduck]

Our kids are dying overseas for the free flow of foreig oil because the leftists will not drill USA oil and they throw giant obstacles into building refineries. in california we talk alternative but the socialist state will not force the power companies to buy back power from our wind mills and solar setups. This social BS is in fact trying to put us into a weak position so their foreign allies can take us down. Wake Up fellow Americans, Hippies and others. We're headed for Social dictatorship.

[itisaduck]

Yes we all should have guns and food stored, also heirloom seeds palnted and stored, edible plants in the ground. But we have oil in the ground. It is the international neo-communist party that drives our well meaning but wrong headed progressives into pushing us too erly. As prices rise we will be forced into alternatives just like the price of whale oil drove us into gas and oil, electricity, etc. What burns me is the rejection of oil reserve drilling and building of refineries.

[joel1923]

Is that guy wearing gray tights?

[peakmoment]

sweats for biking

[lotwyo]

I think technology will ultimate provide the answers. Still, this guy has a less extremist than those suggesting we live like aboriginals.

[peakmoment]

Our culture has especially strong beliefs in the power of technology to save us. But technology is not energy. Technologies have improved production of many energy forms. But nothing has come forward to match oil's energy density, portability, and net energy return for the energy invested (EROI).

[lawr66]

Rubbish. Did you not look at all at nuclear energy? Did you ever even pick up the phone to ask Glenn Rambach, who you interviewed in Peak Moment 98, about this? He's a physicist! Are you? I think you display that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you undermine your whole message of any kind of hope for the future if you will not be realistic about what energy sources are available.

[peakmoment]

Read Richard Heinberg's Peak Everything. Nuclear energy does not provide anything near the Energy Return on Energy Invested that petroleum does. Nuclear also requires a lot of fossil fuels for the construction (embedded energy) and operation of the plant. Its lack of cost effectiveness is evident by the need for governments to subsidize them. And their toxic radioactive wastes are still not being adequately handled.

[lawr66]

I specifically asked you if you had consulted Glenn Rambach. I did not ask you to repeat what you had already said - that is not new information.

The government subsidizes a lot of things - and I cannot easily say what, because Youtube forbids posting urls.

Wrt to nuclear power if you are referring to loan guarantees, these are not subsidies because they are not loans. Infact they are insurance policies which the government earns money from - look it up.

[lawr66]

If Richard Heinberg's Peak Everything actually says that nuclear energy does not provide anything near the Energy Return on Energy Invested that petroleum does then it is in very substantial error. Have you ever asked Richard if that is what he said? I would guess he woud tell you that you have misunderstood.

It is true that nuclear power does not directly provide an energy carrier like petroleum, but it could. That is the point of Tom Blees book. I would ask you to check this with Richard.

[peakmoment]

see "Searching for a Miracle" by Richard Heinberg, Nov 12 2009, on postcarbon(dot)org

[lawr66]

Nuclear is not nearing a limit of supply. Bernard Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Pittsburgh, has estimated that 32000 tons of uranium flows in to the sea every year, and the IAEA/NEA 2003 Red Book estimates it can be extracted from seawater at a cost of $USD300/kg. At that price a 1GW breeder reactor which requires 1 ton per year of uranium could be supplied with raw fuel for $300,000 per year. A 1GW CANDU could be supplied for $40 milion a year, a fraction of it's revenue.

[lawr66]

The total world consumption of energy is about 15TW. Breeder reactors need 1 ton of uranium per year to produce 1GW. All the worlds energy could be produced from uranium from seawater and the amount of uranium in the sea would keep increasing. This means we can supply all the worlds energy for the next 5 billion years at current consumption levels.

Nuclear power has an energy density 1 million times that of fossil fuels. The EROEI for nuclear is the highest of all forms available.

[lawr66]

Without resorting to seawater, there is enough uranium in existing stockpiles of spent fuel ("nuclear waste") for breeder reactors to power the planet for several centuries before we need to dig any more out of existing mines.

You can buy a breeder reactor today - China just bought two BN-800s from Russia.

The western world is about to be left behind by the rest of the world, because we are not recognizing reality. Richard Heinberg is incorrect if he actually believes nuclear power cannot work.

[peakmoment]

I think it wisest to ask Richard directly through Post Carbon Institute. I find him to be a credible researcher without an agenda.

[lawr66]

The difference between your statement "I find him to be a credible researcher" and my comments, is that I back up my assertions with specific references. Whereas "Searching for a Miracle" contains statements like:

"Clean nuclear offers similar anomalies—no currently contemplated solution for waste disposal is anywhere near practical—even if uranium supplies were not running out nearly as quickly as oil."

I have given you impeccable references to show that uranium is not running out.

[lawr66]

Richard gives nothing more than an unsupported assertion.

To say that "no currently contemplated solution for waste disposal is anywhere near practical" is clearly wrong - breeders like the BN-800 which is in commercial production consume spent fuel completely. The radioactive fission products decay to background radiation levels within 500 years.

Richard's report is not credible.

My concern is that you are misleading your viewers because you are not finding out what is truly possible.

[peakmoment]

lawr66, I want to take the conversation to a broader view. Even if nuclear were the silver bullet solving all our electricity needs, other Limits to Growth are fast approaching: Limits to fresh water, topsoil, many minerals, earth's ability to absorb and convert toxic wastes, including greenhouse gases, etc.

It would simply extend our ability to extract, produce, consume, and waste -- to more quickly use up the planet. Better to change course and perhaps the crash will be less catastrophic.

[lawr66]

No it won't. Look anywhere in the world people are poor and they trash the environment worse than we do. Poverty and population increase go hand in hand, wealth and population stability go hand in hand. Wealth comes primarily from energy availability. The Gapminder website shows this very well.

The first thing we need is energy security. Nuclear power offers total energy security. We will then have in hand the capability to implement real environmental stewardship, starting from the people up.

[snakecharmer133]

lawr66 is full of shit, there is not enough fuel for more then ~20 years of nuclear energy according to the calculations made today. Unless there is some form of unknown energy source there will be no more microwave food. Manual labour will become more intense at the same time as taxation will get higher. This will cause an economic collapse with consequences we cannot foresee. The only thing anyone should be focused on is to survive the first chock, after that no one know what will happen.

[tommcreynoldscom]

@peakmoment Mr. Heinberg has an agenda alright. Watch his youtube series "peak oil-the party's over. At the beginning of clip 5 , he is talking of scenarios. He thinks big government should take over. If that is not an agenda , I dont know what is. Gov is what got us here. They need to get out of the way.

[peakmoment]

@tommcreynoldscom we videotaped two of Heinberg's presentations. What I heard is there are several possible scenarios -- and one is that big governments will fight over resources -- "last man standing." He doesn't want this but he sees it as what's going on now. Richard advocates for energy reduction, relocalizing communities, decentralizing energy.

[econdemocracy]

"We are living at a peak of...human health"

Are we really? With levels of stress, over-work, irradiated and genetically engineered and chemicalized processed food, lack of access to health insurance, or (for those who have it) insurance which denies your claims when you need it, diabetes, cancer, and obesity Epidemics, mental health in hyper-isolated consumer society..need I go on?We're Not living at a peak of human health. The other claims also questionable. Change the infro. Have much2gain

[peakmoment]

I agree with you. Medical science might claim we're at the peak of health, but looks like that's in decline too. Now that it looks likely that global oil production has peaked, we may need to change our intro altogether -- "we're past the Peak and"....what do you suggest?

[lawr66]

I'd advise viewers skip to 25:50 where Brad gives his 9-point plan.

The first two points reveal he is a Derrick Jensen type green - essentially anti industrial society.

His 1st point is "Energy decline is inevitable. You gotta get used to that idea. Just accept it.".

His 2nd point at 26:15 is that "Big Energy is not the way out ... there's no magic bullet and especially not Big Energy which always has Big drawbacks".

I think we can be pretty sure this guy is against nuclear power.

[lawr66]

When I first heard about peak oil I went through a two step process

1. Verify the validity of the problem;

2. Look for solutions.

If you take the Derrick Jensen approach being advocated here, you are looking at mass starvation, as even George Monbiot would agree.

But it is not necessary. Nuclear power implemented as fission breeders like the LFTR or IFR will provide more energy than we have now. GRL Cowan's idea to use recyclable boron to run cars is perfectly feasible.

Ignore doomers!

[peakmoment]

Did your research validate the situation of peak oil? Is it solvable? Thoughtful researchers like Richard Heinberg have studied all of the energy sources and find that none can come online quickly enough, with sufficient return on energy invested, without adding dirty coal pollution to replace the energy density of oil in a timely fashion to not cause severe dislocations. See Peak Everything.

[lawr66]

On the website The Oil Drum, commenter westexas (Jeffrey Brown) has presented the Export Land Model for example in the post 'Net Oil Exports and the "Iron Triangle"'. The model states that oil exporting countries will export increasingly less than all their production as domestic pressure requires them to keep oil for their own economies. I find this model convincing.

I believe the energy solution is nuclear power since nuclear power has an energy density one million times that of fossil fuels.

[lawr66]

Richard Heinberg's analysis that there is insufficient uranium is incorrect. The EROEI for obtaining uranium from seawater is sufficient that there are very large stocks of uranium in the world. Stocks of thorium are 3-4 times those of uranium.

The technology to convert fertile uranium-238 and thorium-232 to fissile fuel is well known and almost completely developed (Argonne Labs and ORNL). Only bureaucracy and public ignorance prevents the implementation of these technologies.

[lawr66]

An economy based on nuclear power can be implemented quite quickly once their is the public will. Look around the world at how many new nuclear plants are planned and being built. In the UAE they are building 4 new APR-1400 nuclear power plants at a cost of 20 million. The first will come online in 2017. Note that the UAE which has very high solar insolation is not building solar power plants. They know that nuclear is cheaper and more reliable.

[lawr66]

I am not sure how much liquid fuel can be created using nuclear power, but I am sure that although we face a future with less use of liquid fuels than today nevertheless we can create enough.

See for example these posts on The Oil Drum by user Engineer-Poet:

"Energetics of cultivation: draft animals vs. combustion engines and the Haber process"

using biochar to run farms from the biofuel

and

"Sustainability, Energy Independence and Agricultural Policy"

biochar to electricity.

[lawr66]

My comment including:

In the UAE they are building 4 new APR-1400 nuclear power plants at a cost of 20 million.

should of course read

... 20 billion.

[lawr66]

I would also refer you to one of your own shows where you interviewed Glenn Rambach (Peak Moment 98). At one point he said something quite telling I thought. Quoting from memory (I don't have the bandwidth to check now) the DOE spends 2 billion on nuclear research but DOD 50 billion on defending the Straits of Hormuz. The implication is that more should be spent on research to create domestically based energy independence i.e. nuclear power and less on unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels.

[anglitoestebancito]

Could someone explain greenhouse gases ?

Also, It will be the end of oil, but no the end of the human being.

Not to underestimate peak oil though, the world is heading to a drastic change.

Mother Nature is taking its course, less oil, less engine emissions and less population.

[VolcanicPenguin]

@anglitoestebancito

Basically, alot of the rays from the sun bounce off the earth and go back into space, but the so called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prevents these sunrays from leaving the Earth's atmosphere, thus raising the temperature.

I'm sure you can find videos on here explaining it better tho. :P

[hguyw]

Or will it be too little too late?

[peakmoment]

With half of it still in the ground, and tremendous amount of (ugh) dirtier coal that could be gasified...the amounts might get reduced some, but there is a lag time until the carbon gets broken down. Worse, global warming is melting permafrost, where once-frozen methane clathtrates (sp?) are being exposed--and methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

I fear human reponse may be too little too late...Google scientist James Lovelock.

[hguyw]

You know, it's occurred to me that it may turn out that climate change may be mitigated naturally as we start to run out of oil. Less oil available, so won't CO2 emissions start to drop?

[MrEddievanhalo]

I'm trying not to be a doomsayer when it comes to Oil, but I just don't believe that the Technology Messiah is going to save us. Their are so many people living in ways where they don't even have yards because homes are built so close, so what are these people going to do for food, or how are they going to grow food if they can't afford to get it from a store? This economy has no sustainability at all!!!!

[ghjjfsbf]

I can't see why he'd need 6 hours to explain anything when he can't even fill up 28 minutes without going over the same few points repeatedly.

[dhymers]

scary how this video has less than 700 views, yet "charlie bit my finger" went viral in less than a week.

Doesn't living in a world that unaware scare the beejebus out of you ? *shudder*

[peakmoment]

That's what Derrick Jensen also reminds us of -- the truly serious predicament that industrial civilization is killing the planet -- and people just don't get it. Scares me alot.

[Axbent]

@dhymers depopulation is what we need...Darwin awards will be very inflated soon

[johnTconover]

Also, without cheap energy to fuel economic growth, debts dont get paid, banks fail and fiat currency becomes useless overnight. It is THE danger that cannot be underestimated by Americans. Most people are completely unaware how close the world came to complete economic collapse. Banking bailouts are only buying time. The rest of the worlds economies are using this time to diversify from the U.S. dollar which will collapse if oil rises significantly above $100 for any extended time. Good luck;-)

[johnTconover]

The oil bulls on wall street are bighting at the bit and will run loose once oil breaks $90. The talking heads and the Joe 6-pack economists will not be able to blame the speculators like they did two years ago (although they will try). Peak oil will replace climate change as the "hip new topic" before 2012 and every hollywood movie star will be jostling for their chance to go on Letterman and tell us all how they bought a new Huffy to save the world. Thats when know peak oils gone legit...

[shox007]

Changes WILL be big. How will thegulf countries function without global trade? They have no resources except oil and sand. How will the emerging economies adapt when the foreign investments which have fertilized them come to a stop? What will happen to poor countries when oil reaches $300+ a barrel?

I think that "learning to live like a poor graduate student" and retreating into an off-grid hideout is not nearly as important as trying to come up with solutions for the whole world.

[jfrogto]

Thanks for introducing this wise man!

[florgat91]

aren't the new natural gas discoveries/technologies going to make peak oil much less dramatic if not insignificant ?

[DoblyTufnell]

Problem is, that the machines that get the gas and make the technologies, all run and are created on oil. Even if they ran on air, how would you make these things without oil?

Besides, natural gas is just another 'finite' resource. It will run out and has already peaked in a whole lot of places.. Look it up.

[jojo808]

Dobly; oil is just the comfortable status quo . its high time to seek and make examples away from that poison nipple . Look at Brazil with alcohol fuel, Europe with Diesel or Cuba's ordeal with no oil ..and these don't take any new inventions.

As power packed as oil is ,i can't wait for it to be the 'alternative' .

[DoblyTufnell]

@jojo808 : There is just not enough 'alternaitve' anything to replace oil.

And Brazil? People hold up what happened to Brazil with like some hippy guide book of how it worked out well. But the road to where they are now was tough. There was chaos. Food shortages when their oil base agriculture systems failed. Don't wish that on anyone.

But prepare yourself for it.

And can you imagine what would happen to food supplies if we tried to grow enough plant based ethanol to replace oil?

[jojo808]

dobly: "There (is) just not enough 'alternaitve' anything to replace oil" . So we are doomed,eh? No solutions to bring to the table?

Again ,'IS' is the comfortable status quo. I think you meant Cuba and I agree, theirs is a plight i'd hate to repeat but its a recent example for better or worse from a technical stand point ,not a "hippy" ,overly optimistic one.

[DoblyTufnell]

@jojo808 We use over 87 million barrels of oil a day. You have yet to suggest a viable 'alternative' technological or otherwise to replace that.

Fact is, there is no replacement.

I suggest you watch..

watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

followed by

watch?v=XnXZzx9pAmQ&feature=Pl­ayList&p=7E8A774DA8435EEB&inde­x=0&playnext=1

Then come back here and tell me about this 'alternative'

The world will not stop, people will not cease to exist but the world is going to be a vastly different place.

[jojo808]

Good stuff Dob: My Dad and I discussed that exact talk by Dr . Bartlett a few years ago . We are certainly not in disagreement about upcoming vast change tech-wise and population wise. After all ,every one you and I know are a literal product of oil . The eventual waning of "us" is inevitable with or without our consent . Yes.

[jojo808]

so no ,i have no delusions of a 'plan B' for staying on this path of consumption . I hope thats not how you interpreted my message. . As bad as Cuba sounds to you , is that the path you feel we are on as a culture? I mean people are talking about colonizing other planets . .. There has to be a better right here 1st . Eh?

[Tikmondo]

Thanks for the great links Dobly...

[wildcatbungalo]

Ah, the trap of the narrow minded. There may not be enough alternative anything to replace oil but there is enough alternative everything to replace oil.

Although anyone who doesn't think oil should - no NEEDS TO - be replaced is crazy enough to be laughed out of the room.

[DoblyTufnell]

@wildcatbungalo Ah, the trap of the ill informed.

You have clearly no idea just how much oil is in every part of everything we create and how many of these 'alternatives' require oil to be produced. Try making solar panels, wind turbines or a geo-thermal plant without oil. Most all of your food is a product of oil.

Even pots for your herb garden are made with oil.

Whether oil 'should' or' needs' to be replaced is a moot point.

Fact is, oil cannot be replace. Not fully anyway.

[wildcatbungalo]

Wow, you know what oil is used for! Congratulations.

What you don't know and don't understand is this...

Oil is finite.

Oil is not sustainable.

It's not that it should be replaced, not that it needs to be - and thank you for helping refine my point - it WILL be replaced. The fact remains, the sooner we replace oil the better it will be for every person of the world. Though for some, their limited view of the world will not allow them to see the benefit.

[DoblyTufnell]

Astounding. You just don't get it.

Of course I know oil is finite and non sustainable.

Your problem is that you believe oil 'WILL be replaced'.

I'm just saying it will NOT be replaced as there NO replacement for it.

You have made no suggestions for these replacements you speak of. If your next reply does not list these don't bother replying.

The glow from your ignorance is blinding.

Oil is finite, it is running out, it has 'peaked' and nothing can replace it.

[wildcatbungalo]

You want answers about the future, try Nostradamus.

What I can tell you is this. There are MANY alternatives and the future is broad. 150 years ago, no one could have predicted that man would fly, land on the moon or communicate wirelessly nevermind many of the countless modern contrivances that we utilize today.

The solutions will come and some already have though I doubt it will do much to illuminate the darkness of your dim mind.

[thetwentyteens]

@wildcatbungalo.

All of those accomplishments that you are naming came because of oil. Once the oil peaks in 5 years, kiss your way of life goodbye.

Which, by the way, isn't the worse thing that can happen. There's more to life that SUV's and iPods. We'll be just fine, but kiss your gizmos and gadgets goodbye.

[wildcatbungalo]

I hope the world will change.

I hope for people to live more benign and wise lives that are suitable to a sustainable existence.

But I'm too well-informed and intelligent to believe that that time is now.

It's been fun hurling insults back and forth with you for no good reason whatsoever!

[DoblyTufnell]

>>>fun hurling insults back and forth with you for no good reason whatsoever!

Agreed. If a tad juvenile. :)

>>There are MANY alternatives and the future is broad.

And you can't mention one.

Can't eh? Didn't think so. It's real easy for some to find comfort in just believing that technology will work it out, just because it has too. Technological development depends on abundant cheap oil.

Rising oil prices = rising cost of manufacturing.

Even my 'dim mind' can see that. :)

[wildcatbungalo]

It is not worth mentioning all of the various options that could be used to fill individual niches.

There are applications where plant based oils could be used or an entirely different substitute could be used like coconut husk fiber plant pots, hydroponics - the options for individual product replacements are too numerous and varied to count without even accounting for alteration to lifestyle.

Most technological advancement has been in the face of necessity for change or a lack of material.

[DoblyTufnell]

@wildcatbungalo

>>Most technological advancement has been in the face of necessity for change or a lack of material.

And possible thanks to cheap oil. I sure hope you are right, but when oil is over $500 a barrel and rising, lets see what technological advancement can be made.

This last 150 years or so and the technical advancments made would not have happened if not for oil.

Your computer keyboard is made of oil. Need I go over this? There is no replacement.

Localize and grow food

[kylekelly123]

@DoblyTufnell hemp is the replacement u can fabricate plastics and use the fibers to create like a carbon fiber material only much stronger and much more resistent to wear, henry fords fist model t had side panels made from hemp composite and it was 10x strpnger than steel

[jason1973tl]

@DoblyTufnell That is not entirely true. There are replacements for oil when you talk about making stuff. Hemp for example and many other plants not readily used today can be used to make replacements for materials making.

[DoblyTufnell]

@jason1973tl How on earth are you going to (for just one example) use 'hemp' to:

1. Create the equivalent of petrochemical fertilizers (or any fertilizers for that matter). These are of paramount importance to the way that most of our food is created in 'modern agriculture' that currently feeds the masses.

2. Create the heavy machinery that plough the fields, move and process the produce, move that produce all over the country etc etc...

There is no replacement for oil. Nothing.

[jason1973tl]

@DoblyTufnell Petrochemical fertilizers can be replaced. This channel has a few episodes on permaculture. Fertilizers are not needed. Also people are working on huge factor type hydroponic systems that also do not need fertilizers. Do not think that nothing can be replaced. If man uses his ingenuity and brains anything is possible.

Besides, for anything you can't replace oil with, I have seen work on algae farms that produce oil that is so clean the scientists where shot drinking it.

[DoblyTufnell]

@jason1973tl I have studied and practiced Permaculture for almost 6 years. So I know what can be done to grow food for those who have the skill, time, land and whatever else to make it. Most food does not come from Permaculture system.

We use 80 million barrels of oil a day. Every day. How many acres of algae farms would we need to keep things going the way they are? I'd suggest a few planets worth.

Seems we are on the same page but you have a more optimistic view on how this will pan out.

[ConocimientoEsPoder1]

Reduce population?? how?

[renemartien]

1. Education - better educated people (especially women) tend to have less children.

2. Medicine - people have more children if child mortality is high, once they are confident that their children make it into adulthood, they will have less children.

These are just a few.

[ConocimientoEsPoder1]

Education I thinkso too. ConocimintoEsPoder = Knowledge Is Power.

[neven01]

Furthermore the manufacture of Plastics can and have been proven that Soy and Weat can replace polyurithane (agian) slight modifications to existing equipment to accept the new mediums and of corse a new perspective on our value system, could prove to be far more lucrative then fossil fuels.

Research any number of alternatives for yourself, the truth is we do not NEED fossil fuels we can use free and renewable energy sources.

EP Odum "small is beautiful

big is powerful"

United we are POWA!

[Bernd1964]

In an energy deficient world, the stars and the moon will appear to shine much brighter at night than today. Not only astronomers will enjoy that a lot.

[neven01]

@3:25 he says Oil is magic and energy efficient nothing comes close to it?

While I do not know where he is getting his facts, ideal circumstances would be solar and wind powered electric cars with no burning of any fuels fossil or otherwise.

However there are many alternatives for the average Joe, One is Browns Gas allowing any ICE (internal combustion engine) to run on browns gas EFI or Carb all will burn Browns gas with slight adjustments to the timing and air flow sensors allows cleaner fuel.

[duckman4you]

I think what he means is that when there is an abundance and large supply of oil and we can extract it out of the ground very easily we can use it as fast Instantaneous energy. In oils hay day when it was dirt cheap and easy to get, it was magic and instant energy. but those days are over now and yes we need to focus on renewable energy but will never have anything as simple quick and easy as oil was.

[trach83]

To develop the topic more - oil isn`t just the matter of transportation (as i used to think about it). Take a closer look at agriculture industry - all the stuff to manage the soil are processed petro chemicals...To mention one.

[duckman4you]

Ya man exactly Oil is every where! isn't plastic made from a by product of refining crude oil? Any ways i think once we run out a lot of people will be running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Hopefully i won't be one of them.

[Gunnarsguns]

So maybee the great malthusian stoopid die off is coming.....in light of the coming dollar collapse oil is going to be very expensive in america irregardless of peak oil.Systems dependent people who have no clue at how the natural world works will be in trouble.

[sklunt]

thx

[edyersh]

* * * * *

[yogiudo]

When food becomes short I doubt very much that things are going to be smooth sailing.

[ubuibiok]

*****