2012: Will it be the end of the world as we know it?

[emordnilap]

Also:

And that was back in '86? Quite interesting!

I'll check to see if there's a reference in the back of the book.

Nope, there ain't. There's no references in the book but I think Mr D wouldn't be so lax as to not have that information somewhere. I'll quote his writing on the point, though:

It might at first seem that the supply of sunlight is infinite, so one might reason that the Earth's capacity to grow crops and wild plants is also infinite. Within the last 20 years, it has been appreciated that that is not the case, and that's not only because plants grow poorly in the world's Arctic regions and deserts unless one goes to the expense of supplying heat or water. More generally, the amount of solar energy fixed per acre by plant photosynthesis, hence plant growth per acre, depends on temperature and rainfall. At any given temperature and rainfall the plant growth that can be supported by the sunlight falling on an acre is limited by the geometry and biochemistry of plants, even if they take up the sunlight so efficiently that not a single photon of light passes through the plants unabsorbed to reach the ground. The first calculation of this photosynthetic ceiling, carried out in 1986, estimated that humans then already used (eg, for crops, tree plantations and golf courses) or diverted or wasted (eg light falling on concrete roads and buildings) about half of the Earth's photosynthetic capacity. Given the rate of increase of human population, and especially of population impact, since 1986, we are projected to be utilizing most of the world's terrestrial photosynthetic capacity by the middle of this century. That is, most energy fixed from sunlight will be used for human purposes, and little will be left over to support the growth of natural plant communities, such as natural forests.

The prediction makes sense, though it's only a prediction and may not come true, but humans have this voracious greed to appropriate every last square (cubic!) centimetre of space for their own selfish ends.

Apparently the original article is in Nature and (?) Science.

[Halfbreed]

Rarely in the spectrum of global consequences of human and natures interaction can you pick out two of them in advance with any level of certainty.

The consequences involved in using the available fossil fuels is such that, even if the certainty is low, the fact of using them should not be an option. See video

That is a choice every human can make for themselves, should they so desire. YOUR worldview says it is a fact we should not use them, yet there is the very question of whether or not the lifestyle you have right now, and the ability to use a global communication system as easily as we are, means you sure don't appear to have given them up yourself, and want to inflict this philosophical choice on others from a position of one who has already chosen otherwise.

Hall posits that society requires a net energy of about 5 to continue functioning. The lower the net energy in a fuel the higher its cost and the more of that fuel required for society to function. So with the production of shale oil and gas we need to produce more of it than conventional oil for society to continue as is.

I am happily extracting all this low net energy because apparently society does not agree with A) leaving it in the ground because we shouldn't use it and B) it is profitable to do so. And society seems to just keep chugging right along. Do you know if Hall has any experience with oil and gas development or is just another of the ivory tower academic who really should have worked in the industry they wish to pretend to be expert on? Nothing chaps my lips worse than supposed "experts". Have him come on down to the newer oil fields in Ohio, I'll give him a tour on bad net energy production, and he can explain to the companymen and tool pushers doing the work that they should stop immediately

The costs of solar collection are comparatively high compared to oil and the costs of using it as a replacement for oil are extremely high.

PV isn't the only result of having a nearby nuclear furnace. And you are now arguing costs at the same time as others argue that peak oil is only about CHEAP oil, not actual oil amounts. Oil prices go up, solar costs keep coming down, windmills spring up everywhere, and suddenly...we are there. Surely I can't be the first to have noticed this?

It involves a complete change of technology and equipment and the distribution system would need extensive improvements to take the extra current required for charging cars.

To hell with cars, Americans need to get off their asses and bicycle already. But dumping electricity into a large grid doesn't require a complete change of technology, it just requires the ability to dump electricity into the grid, and this isn't an oil debate at all anymore. Charging cars? There is no right for humans to own cars, pollute the air by driving them, or wasting the resources necessary to make them in any constitution, document of incorporation or any other creation of governance that I have ever seen. The things should be banned within 5 miles of all city centers everywhere on the globe.

Hirsch in his report stated that it would take the US 30 years to fully transition from oil. With the world in recession and money tight in the west we have a problem without the huge dead weight of the American Auto industry campaigning for the status quo.

Campaign away. I imagine the buggy whip manufacturing union was pretty hot and heavy into campaigning against the future same as every other Luddite group. Probably doesn't stop the grand scale of change by more than a week, all told.

In the case of Global Warming and Peak Oil we are doing nothing. Hence problems in the future.

Nothing? We are drilling all the low net energy resources for starters (of course, we aren't required to ask permission from academics who tell us it can't be done because of net energy), and apparently some widely respected bodies are noticing. I can't wait to see how the academics who have no experience in the fields in question react to the other academics (who also probably have no experience in the field in question).

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publi ... d.en.26099

[clv101]

Nothing? We are drilling all the low net energy resources for starters (of course, we aren't required to ask permission from academics who tell us it can't be done because of net energy), and apparently some widely respected bodies are noticing. I can't wait to see how the academics who have no experience in the fields in question react to the other academics (who also probably have no experience in the field in question).

No academic is saying it can't be done. Of course we can extract low net energy source - hell, we even manufacture Duracell batteries, what's the EROI there?

The argument is that we can't run society, as it's structured now, on an average well head/mine month EROI below around 5:1. That is certainly not the same as saying (say) 20% of our gross energy can't come from 2:1 sources - it can, as long as there's a whole load of conventional 30:1+ energy chugging along in the background.

[kenneal - lagger]

I'm not going to answer most of "RGR Mk11" here. I haven't got the time to waste at the moment. Below, I should have made myself absolutely clear, as we have an industry troll again, and said that we are doing nothing sensible or constructive as a society to mitigate the future problems of GW and PO.

In the case of Global Warming and Peak Oil we are doing nothing. Hence problems in the future.

Nothing? We are drilling all the low net energy resources for starters (of course, we aren't required to ask permission from academics who tell us it can't be done because of net energy), and apparently some widely respected bodies are noticing. I can't wait to see how the academics who have no experience in the fields in question react to the other academics (who also probably have no experience in the field in question).

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publi ... d.en.26099

[Pepperman]

Nasa held a google hangout with a bunch of their scientists about the 2012 rumours which is quite an interesting listen:

https://plus.google.com/events/ci7ak9p6 ... 19vadrm8jg

[Halfbreed]

Nothing? We are drilling all the low net energy resources for starters (of course, we aren't required to ask permission from academics who tell us it can't be done because of net energy), and apparently some widely respected bodies are noticing. I can't wait to see how the academics who have no experience in the fields in question react to the other academics (who also probably have no experience in the field in question).

No academic is saying it can't be done.

Well, either net energy works to stop development, or it does not. How is it they claim net energy matters in a way of signicance but can't stop development?

The argument is that we can't run society, as it's structured now, on an average well head/mine month EROI below around 5:1. That is certainly not the same as saying (say) 20% of our gross energy can't come from 2:1 sources - it can, as long as there's a whole load of conventional 30:1+ energy chugging along in the background.

So we currently ARE running society, so obviously the current combination works. Is there any definitive reference detailing that at 5:1 the wheels come off?

[Halfbreed]

I'm not going to answer most of "RGR Mk11" here.

That is the second time someone has used that reference. I assume it is not by accident. If some of this has been covered previously, could you provide a reference or link that I may avail myself of the history you are familiar with, but I am not?

Below, I should have made myself absolutely clear, as we have an industry troll again, and said that we are doing nothing sensible or constructive as a society to mitigate the future problems of GW and PO.

I am certainly in the industry, and I am not trolling in the least. It is unfortunate I suppose that someone's work is automatically used against them when discussing these topics, but I should have known better I suppose.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

There was a poster called RGR who lately has become scarce.
Reading your posts is exactly like reading his posts.

His basic line of reasoning was, 'I work in the oil industry and I still have a job so therefore PO is bunkum'.

It all got quite tiring.

[Halfbreed]

There was a poster called RGR who lately has become scarce.
Reading your posts is exactly like reading his posts.

His basic line of reasoning was, 'I work in the oil industry and I still have a job so therefore PO is bunkum'.

It all got quite tiring.

So he used a position in industry to claim that because he had a job in industry it gave special knowledge on the price of oil in the future? Or when cheap oil would return? Industry wishes it could do that, guessing at future prices is something I've always considered complicated enough to not even waste any time on. Certainly drilling projects today are not dependent upon tomorrows information.

[kenneal - lagger]

We asked RGR to restrict his contributions to industry matters, where some of us valued his inside knowledge, because he was becoming disruptive and abusive on the general board. When he started deleting his older contributions we banned him completely. Some thought he was a troll and his contributions came from a variety of industry sources but one member identified him from papers that he had given to various industry seminars. That member is still the only one who knows the true identity of RGR (Reserve Growth Rules, I think).

He never claimed to be able to predict future prices though.

[Halfbreed]

We asked RGR to restrict his contributions to industry matters, where some of us valued his inside knowledge, because he was becoming disruptive and abusive on the general board. When he started deleting his older contributions we banned him completely. Some thought he was a troll and his contributions came from a variety of industry sources but one member identified him from papers that he had given to various industry seminars. That member is still the only one who knows the true identity of RGR (Reserve Growth Rules, I think).

He never claimed to be able to predict future prices though.

On the grounds of peak oil being about peak cheap oil, I figured when I was accused of being like him it meant he was predicting those prices or something. But someone identified from papers at industry seminars isn't your run of the mill field hand like me (well, maybe I'm not all that run of the mill, but indutry seminars is pretty egg-headed for industry types to fool around with).

[JavaScriptDonkey]

He was an oil industry professional engineer rather than a tradesman that happened to be working in the oil industry.

Fruitloopery not withstanding some of his posts had merit.

[Halfbreed]

He was an oil industry professional engineer rather than a tradesman that happened to be working in the oil industry.

Fruitloopery not withstanding some of his posts had merit.

On the balance of it, that doesn't sound like it mattered, if I am reading between the lines correctly. Professional engineers usually run the joint, and while arrogant and whatnot, it strikes me that it comes with what it takes to run multi-hundred million dollar projects. Surprised they would even invest the time to participate, to be honest.

[ceti331]

There was a poster called RGR who lately has become scarce.
Reading your posts is exactly like reading his posts.

His basic line of reasoning was, 'I work in the oil industry and I still have a job so therefore PO is bunkum'.

It all got quite tiring.

heh.
as oilruns out doesn't the oil industry become increasingly profitable (in relative terms)?
and of course someone who's job depends on oil continuing to flow is hardly going to say you need to switch to alternatives.

[Halfbreed]

heh.
as oilruns out doesn't the oil industry become increasingly profitable (in relative terms)?

If peak oil is about price rather than amounts, as it has been relayed to me, and I look around at how I make a living, I would say HELL YES!

and of course someone who's job depends on oil continuing to flow is hardly going to say you need to switch to alternatives.

Need? If there is enough to be had at a price people continue to pay, there is a need at that price. Artificially change the price to change the need? Or mandate a "non-need" by tax or gunpoint to force others to follow a particular behavior?