Utility Cycling - "More Evidence We've Entered the End of Oil"

I wonder if over time the human population chart will follow something resembling Hubbert's curve?

I had that thought too: peak oil -> peak population.

I had that thought too: peak oil -> peak population.

VERY true!! Allow me to repeat myself from an earlier post.......
"in a brief 150 yr period humans have found ways to force the
earth to yields that are not sustainable without petro products. Humans also replaced slave
labor with fossil fueled machines that are REQUIRED to plant, harvest ahd process the crops."

Add this to the fact that everthing from transporting crops and goods to the vast population
as well as all the other petrol based products/medicines that make our global poulation
possible.

It all comes down to less oil will support fewer humans. NO oil and earth will support fewer still.

The Earth's "carrying capapcity" for humans is approx 2 billion with just natural resouces and no
oil to supplement. Sadly, that leaves a huge number of "extra" humans. :(:(

Just out of curiosity, what statistic are you quoting from, that the earth can only sustain 2 billion?

The Earth's "carrying capapcity" for humans is approx 2 billion with just natural resouces and no
oil to supplement. Sadly, that leaves a huge number of "extra" humans. :(:(

Luckily those are mostly in China, and India.

In the future farm land will be the natural resource of value. Yeah Canada! Yeah USA!

[edit] Nevermind. Not worth it.

Luckily those are mostly in China, and India.

In the future farm land will be the natural resource of value. Yeah Canada! Yeah USA!
Yay? When we've paved over so much of it in North America? I'd also not write off populations with modern military. It seems so farfetched to go to war over arable land, but that's exactly what humans of the past have done.

Donna,
Paving can be reversed. I heard one Urban planner, that actually thinks cars are a PITA quip that they had over 250 acres "landbanked" in the local mall parking lot:D

Aaron:)

Donna,
Paving can be reversed. I heard one Urban planner, that actually thinks cars are a PITA quip that they had over 250 acres "landbanked" in the local mall parking lot:D

Aaron:)

Landbanked?? What the hell??????:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

That's a new "buzz" word to cover the truth with! Oh, brother.......:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I've heard the sentiment before.. Essentially the idea is that people who build oceans of surface parking lots are neanderthals supporting rampant sprawl, and in time, cars are going to be brought to their knees by peak oil etc. and suddenly people will want to move closer to the center of town so they can access transit and such - and lo and behold there will be all this vacant land that was used for parking lots.

:rolleyes: I sincerely hope you are joking. On the off chance you are not... the goods and services we ALL depend on are dependent on gas/oil. Unless you are growing 100% of the food you eat and making your own clothing by shearing sheep you keep penned up in your back yard, an oil shortage WILL affect you. Personally, I like buying T.P. with the little quilting that doesn't irritate my bum, corn husks (the oil-free alternative) can be so abrasive on the delicate parts. :p

you could just **** in the water and wash your anus without killing a tree...

I've heard the sentiment before.. Essentially the idea is that people who build oceans of surface parking lots are neanderthals supporting rampant sprawl, and in time, cars are going to be brought to their knees by peak oil etc. and suddenly people will want to move closer to the center of town so they can access transit and such - and lo and behold there will be all this vacant land that was used for parking lots.

Ridden thru the outlying fringes of any city recently? There are acres of parking lots, abandoned strip malls, empty Wal-Mart (http://walmartwatch.com/battlemart/go/cat/community_impact) buildings, and closed up factories. In the Detroit/Highland Park area there are hundreds of city blocks of abandoned buildings. As a single example I use Wal-mart; in 1999 they had over 333 empty stores. The average empty store is around 1.5 acres, that is right at 500 acres not including the parking lots. To me 500 acres is a helluva decent sized chunk of property, that is sitting unused ie; "landbanked" because it sure isn't producing anything. Quite often the entire center will be empty or partially empty because WM has moved on. Local Imact of Big Box Stores (http://www.newsobserver.com/672/story/487765.html).

As far as your "neanderthals" comment, I believe that is an insult to the Neanderthals;) I think where most of us have the problem is the constant building of new sprawl and the abandoning of the old. FWIW in a 25 mile radius of my house there are 4 empty Walmarts and in all cases there is a brand new one less than a mile away. The newest is built on what was an operating 100+ acre dairy farm up until about 5 years ago when the man retired and no one wanted to continue the operation.

As the economy starts to soften/head south we will be seeing more and more empty retail space and IMHO wasted land. I think the big box stores will hold on for quite a while, then when people quit buying stuff because they need the money to buy basics like food, we will see a resurgence of the smaller corner stores. Currently the big box stores operate on a pretty thin margin, they depend on a certain volume, as that shrinks so will their profits and their ability to operate.

Aaron:)

Oh wait, I don't even have a car so what do I care? ;)


Please post a photo and description of your "100% vegan" bicycle.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece

Not to worry. There are many alternatives to fossil fuels. Human power is of course one of the best being one with nature. Renewable energy resource research is in it's infancy and will probably become fruitful in 10-15 years with viable applications in 25-20 years. In the meantime, nuclear generated electrical power can be used to replace fossil fuel usage, especially for personal and mass transit. Electric vehicles are already hitting the market and they will only get better. We have to ability to build nuclear power plants very quickly and could probably meet 70% of our transportation requirements in 5-7 years. The one danger is that we become satisfied with the nuclear/electric solution and fail to follow-up on the renewable research and development. This can be avoided using a comprehensive long-term plan and good strong, dedicated leadership. On another note, a restructuring of society and work habits can also provide conservation enough to lower our requirements by 10-15%.

The biggest roadblocks to our success are probably politics and greed. Many will balk at the use of nuclear power in the short term especially the NIMBY crowd. Many businesses that depend on fossil fuel for their income will defy change.

All in all, there may be some discomfort and inconvenience for a while but, if we're smart, we don't have to give up exotic produce and other goodies. We don't have to wring our hands in worry. If we get over the emotions, use our minds and work together, we can solve almost any problem can be solved with technololgy.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece

Did you happen to check into the background of the CEO...not exactly an impartial source...Peak Oil is happening, when is open to discussion, it WILL NOT be a sudden stop more like a leaking off if you will.

Aaron:)

Not to worry. There are many alternatives to fossil fuels. Human power is of course one of the best being one with nature. Renewable energy resource research is in it's infancy and will probably become fruitful in 10-15 years with viable applications in 25-20 years. In the meantime, nuclear generated electrical power can be used to replace fossil fuel usage, especially for personal and mass transit. Electric vehicles are already hitting the market and they will only get better. We have to ability to build nuclear power plants very quickly and could probably meet 70% of our transportation requirements in 5-7 years. The one danger is that we become satisfied with the nuclear/electric solution and fail to follow-up on the renewable research and development. This can be avoided using a comprehensive long-term plan and good strong, dedicated leadership. On another note, a restructuring of society and work habits can also provide conservation enough to lower our requirements by 10-15%.

The biggest roadblocks to our success are probably politics and greed. Many will balk at the use of nuclear power in the short term especially the NIMBY crowd. Many businesses that depend on fossil fuel for their income will defy change.

All in all, there may be some discomfort and inconvenience for a while but, if we're smart, we don't have to give up exotic produce and other goodies. We don't have to wring our hands in worry. If we get over the emotions, use our minds and work together, we can solve almost any problem can be solved with technololgy.

Do we HAVE 5-7 years and how do you overcome the NIMBY and the NRC? Currently IIRC the estimated time for a nuke plant to come on line is over 15 years from conception to completion. And IIRC none of them are running at full capacity...the NRC won't let them. Right now the NIMBY crowd seem to be controlling the power industry for the most part. I work in SC and they are fighting long and hard to keep a coal fired plant out of the low country. Only problem I see is with the current growth, if they don't build some sort of plant ASAP they are going to lose all of their heavy industry to offshore interests and there go the jobs.

Aaron:)

Do we HAVE 5-7 years and how do you overcome the NIMBY and the NRC? Currently IIRC the estimated time for a nuke plant to come on line is over 15 years from conception to completion. ...
Aaron:)

Good questions Aaron. The timeframe constraints can only be overcome with a "mission to the moon" mentality. As I said, to get there, we need a clear plan and strong leadership. A good plan will clearly state how safety concerns will be addressed as well as how (and hopefully when) the nuke plants will be taken off line as renewable and safer alternatives are implemented. That would be the larger long-term plan for post-fossil fuel America. Strong and articulate leadership will be needed to communicate the plan to the American people. The choice will be ours: live in energy deficient misery or use our intelligence to create a better future.

I for one am looking forward to fewer gas-burning cars on the streets.


I am decidedly not looking forward to it. The end of cheap oil is going to wreak havoc on the US economy, and even those of us without cars are going to suffer. Hell, we're seeing the effects already. The price of eggs, among other things, is a direct result of the search for other fuels. (Don't even get me started on the idiocy of corn-based ethanol...)

I am decidedly not looking forward to it. The end of cheap oil is going to wreak havoc on the US economy, and even those of us without cars are going to suffer. Hell, we're seeing the effects already. The price of eggs, among other things, is a direct result of the search for other fuels. (Don't even get me started on the idiocy of corn-based ethanol...)

Here's another facet to this debate. Have any of you spoken to 'mainstream' people about peak oil? By mainstream I mean someone who is representative of the typical majority of consumers. The ones I've had a chance to talk to either have never heard of peak oil or they've heard of it an don't really understand it or simply refuse to beleive that it could possibly be true.

A typical cross-section of responses I get range from "That's just another crackpot conspiracy theory" to "but we have thousands of years woth of oil in the middle east". The most worrysome are the people that truly beleive that it's "our oil" that just happens to be under the middle east at the moment, and because our economy relies on it so much we are somehow entitled to it, even by force.

Yes, it's the twilight years of the age of oil, to many (most) of us that's so obvious but I suspect that the vast majority of the western world is either completely oblivious to it, or simply don't understand what it means. That wholesale ignorance has to be the biggest obstacle to change right now. The majority simply don't know. Of the few that do, many simply don't beleive it or have chosen to stick their heads in the sand while beleiving that 'they' will come up with a solution.

What has your experience been when talking with people (beyond these forums) about peak oil and its implications?

(Don't even get me started on the idiocy of corn-based ethanol...)

Burning food as fuel, inside out production efficiency, and limited produceability aside... I was just reading something a few weeks ago, about how the subsidies for ethanol crops have convinced many farmers to replace barley and hops crop; one of the several events which has lead to the current crisis only just beginning to hit the beer industry. Especially microbrewers, notably their IPA's.

And that's how I've converted a total of four diehards away from the ethanol fuel bandwagon. :D This is madness, they cried. Sheer madness.

Every bushel of feedcorn sold for ethanol production drives the price of beef, milk, and almost every other foodstock up. Sheer madness.

Every bushel of feedcorn sold for ethanol production drives the price of beef, milk, and almost every other foodstock up. Sheer madness.

This really seems to be the case, but the USDA is always arguing...

Side-by-side Comparison of (Adjusted) Published Estimates of Corn Ethanol's Energy Efficiency from MathPro

Energy (BTU/gal ethanol) USDA 2002 USDA 2004 Pimentel/Patzek

Energy input to ethanol production 57,043 45,802 92,482

Ethanol energy content 76,330 76,330 76,330

Ratio of (energy input to ethanol production) to (ethanol energy content) 0.75 0.60 1.21

Please note: Pimentel and Patzek published a ratio of 1.29 instead of 1.21. Likewise, the USDA in 2004 published a 0.75 ratio instead of the table's of 0.60. The table reflects adjustments in energy units (BTU/gallon of ethanol) and energy content (expressed as lower heating values) to enable comparisons on a consistent basis.


Thus, the table shows:

• P&P say it takes 21% more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you get burning it.

• The USDA claims the opposite: 25% to 40% less energy.

Alternative Fuels Blog (http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-ethanol-e85-fuel-solution.html)

USA Today Article on Ethanol (http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Contentious+ethanol+debate%2C+Toxic+beetles%2C+Sleeping+seeing+fish+-+USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=19016280&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Ftech%2Fcolumnist%2Faprilholladay%2F2006-07-31-ethanol-frogs-reader_x.htm&partnerID=1665)

IMHO Ethanol is not the way to go; for those that absolutely must drive in any urban center, I would like to see V2G programs like that in Austin deployed:

http://www.edn.com/blog/1470000147/post/1170007917.html

Good questions Aaron. The timeframe constraints can only be overcome with a "mission to the moon" mentality. As I said, to get there, we need a clear plan and strong leadership. A good plan will clearly state how safety concerns will be addressed as well as how (and hopefully when) the nuke plants will be taken off line as renewable and safer alternatives are implemented. That would be the larger long-term plan for post-fossil fuel America. Strong and articulate leadership will be needed to communicate the plan to the American people. The choice will be ours: live in energy deficient misery or use our intelligence to create a better future.

Another interesting problem cropped up with nuclear power around here yesterday....drought! NC is in a severe to extreme drought, they are looking at having to shut down 3 or 4 reactors due to insufficient water levels in the cooling ponds. It has the potential to affect around 3 million people and those people we see "substantial" increases in the power bills because the utilities will have to purchase power on the open market.

Aaron:)

I am a little late reading this blog but here is my two cents..

#1 living in SE Kansas I see first hand the effects of the ethanol craze. It used to be that driving down the highway you saw nothing but wheat. Nowadays it is nothing but corn.

#2 the cost of food and goods have skyrocketted. I saw a gallon of milk going for $5 the other day. Maybe I should pull out of the stock market and invest in a milk cow.

#3 We have our heads burried in the sand and do not want to recognize what is staring us in the face. Our political leaders are telling us "it is going to be ok" yet I have to pay $70 to fill up my wifes van to commute 75 miles one way because all of the good jobs here are gone.

Welfare is looking to be a better career choice every day...less impact on the environment and plenty of time to tinker with bikes..

I am a little late reading this blog but here is my two cents..

#1 living in SE Kansas I see first hand the effects of the ethanol craze. It used to be that driving down the highway you saw nothing but wheat. Nowadays it is nothing but corn.

#2 the cost of food and goods have skyrocketted. I saw a gallon of milk going for $5 the other day. Maybe I should pull out of the stock market and invest in a milk cow.

#3 We have our heads burried in the sand and do not want to recognize what is staring us in the face. Our political leaders are telling us "it is going to be ok" yet I have to pay $70 to fill up my wifes van to commute 75 miles one way because all of the good jobs here are gone.

Welfare is looking to be a better career choice every day...less impact on the environment and plenty of time to tinker with bikes..

Problem with that choice; if the government goes bankrupt (which I consider a likely option) they won't be paying out crap for benefits.

Aaron:)

I'm done trying to reason with you... it's like talking to a rock, or an SUV driver, instead go educate yourself.
http://www.biodieselamerica.org/
I'm out.

Enjoy the view down there under the sand.

Do you think that we can just start hitching cows up to ploughs again and get anywhere NEAR the production needed to sustain our food supply let alone the plant matter required to create bio fuels?

Let me put some concepts in an easily digestible list form for you:

1. Much of the best land in the continent has been paved over, developed or rendered unfarmable by heritage standards:
- The best land was settled first, and has developed into cities and towns, pushing the farmland ever outward and onto land that is by nature not quite as good as what was paved over.
- The good land that is still farmed is done so in such an absurdly damaging way that we'll never be able to continue farming it without oil. We plant huge swaths of single species which require constant herbicide, pesticide and fertilizer inputs -- all 3 of which are derived mostly from petroleum. Most farmland now is not much more than a sponge onto which we dump petroleum and seeds in order to grow food. Take away the petroleum fertilizer and nothing is going to grow there. Take away the pesticides and all the crops will be eaten as they grow because monoculture allows for huge pest infestations because huge patches of similar plants support huge populations of bugs that eat them
- Farming at north american scale requires huge inputs of water which needs to be pumped and treated usually from faraway sources. Without petroleum we will not have the energy to treat and more the water to the fields.

In other words, the scale of plant production we are used to will absolutely be reduced upon an oil shortage. There is no way around it. And when we are having a ***** of a time growing enough food to EAT we are not going to be solving any problems through bio fuel. FORGET BIO FUEL! It only makes sense in an energy rich world.

2. It takes petroleum input to process plant matter into bio fuel. where will this petroleum come from? don't say "bio fuel" because you can't make energy out of nothing. You cannot have bio fuel without external energy input.

3, 4, 5, 6 . . .

Sorry I can't go on, it's too depressing. In the end, die off is going to be THE solution. And it will be imposed upon us whether we like it or not. It may not be all at once, but starvation will kill some off, it will also slow down the birth rate. Disease will become more problematic as it becomes more difficult to acquire large volumes of clean water, and processing sewage at the levels we do now will be impossible with reduced energy inputs, not to mention heating the water (hot water, clean hands, washed dishes -- all of these simple things keep us healthier than our ancestors could ever dream).

The global population WILL decrease. As individuals we can only hope that the only way it affects us is by limiting our number of offspring rather than killing us directly.

Good weekly reading here:
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/cluster****_nation/2008/02/still-pretendin.html

Also"
------------
Joseph Glauber, the USDA’s chief economist, said in an interview that until now some companies had absorbed the rise in commodities prices, but that trend was about to change.

He said that wheat prices had previously moved from $3 to $5 a bushel without significant pain for consumers. “But now the wheat price has jumped to nearly $20 a bushel. These large increases will show up [in consumer prices].”
------------
(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/405e4028-e31e-11dc-803f-0000779fd2ac.html)