Preparing for Peak Oil

[SCRawl]

The part of the equation that seems to be missing for me, at least, for those who plan to go "off the grid": what happens when the shit really starts hitting the fan, and someone wants to take your place? I mean, are we supposed to plan to build fortresses, to keep out the truly desperate people who inevitably come looking for a way to sustain themselves? Can we really count on law enforcement in a time such as what we're contemplating?

I'm reminded of the first episode of "Connections", wherein James Burke asks the question regarding a situation not unlike this (paraphrasing): "There may come a point where you have to make the decision to give up and die. Or, make somebody else give up and die because they won't accept you in their home voluntarily. And what in your comfortable urban life has ever prepared you to make that decision?"

This question is directed more towards those who would choose a rural, small farm-based self-sufficient survival plan.

[Enforcer Talen]

Im quite willing to set up a bunker, yes. If it comes down to it, Ill grab my family, we'll put up fences, fields of fire, and LPOPs, and be well on our way.

Thats worst case scenario, obviously.

[Darth Raptor]

I've been scrambling to look for a career that 1) will still be in high demand and 2) I will enjoy and be able to perform in. I'm leaning towards biology, as agriculture will have to adapt to the loss of petrochemicals for fertilizer and pesticides. Plus, I've always enjoyed biology. Now it's just a matter of paying for my education. THAT'S where I'm fucked. My current financial situation is so tenuous I'll have a very hard time positioning myself for the fall.

Plus, if The Duchess is right, I'll be sent to the death camps for being an atheist/socialist/queer anyway.

[Enforcer Talen]

Labor camps, dear. We need you to dig canals.

[fusion]

More or less, Germany and France look like they will have a fairly bright future after the Oil Peak. Also the same goes to Japan (who owns a car there anyways). These country have huge amount of nuclear energy and other renewable sources (look at France, currently they are 70% nuclear, and are building more as we speak). Lets cross our fingers that fuel cell will be working within a few years and that all cars become at least 50% lighter within a decade as that would make fuel comsumtion 50% and cars safer.

P.S. One of America's two fuel cell research labs is in my town, so I can steal one if things start looking bad. There are enough refuel stations in Califorina to make it worthwhile.

[Enforcer Talen]

Get a job that will be needed, and get used to living spartan.

[J]

I've been scrambling to look for a career that 1) will still be in high demand and 2) I will enjoy and be able to perform in.

Join the army! Help The Great Satan kill Arabs and plunder their oil!

[Enforcer Talen]

Eh, its a little risky for my taste.

Id rather do government work state side.

[une]

So which countries are best prepared for Peak oil? Someone recently brought up Japan, France and Germany, but what other countries are relatively well prepared for peak oil?

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

So which countries are best prepared for Peak oil? Someone recently brought up Japan, France and Germany, but what other countries are relatively well prepared for peak oil?

Canada is quite dependant on fossil fuels, but if it ever came to it, our agriculture could pretty7 easily support our population, and we have plenty of uranium, and many opportunities where wind/solar/geo-thermal/tide power could provide for all of our energy needs. We'd need to revive our rail system, but we could make it and be almost entirely self-sufficient.

[J]

So which countries are best prepared for Peak oil? Someone recently brought up Japan, France and Germany, but what other countries are relatively well prepared for peak oil?

Assuming the US doesn't strong-arm or outright invade us, Canada likely won't have to worry about peak oil for a long long time. We have the oil sands and enough natural gas to keep our country functional for many years as we gradually make a transition away from fossil fuels. We have CANDU reactor technology and one of the world's largest and richest uranium deposits, and in Quebec there's still huge amounts of hydroelectric power waiting to be tapped. Most of our larger cities already have workable public transit systems, though there's a lot of room for improvement here.

However the US will almost certainly hold a gun to our heads and demand that we give them our oil, or else. If that happens we will likely be just as screwed as they are, or possibly worse depending on their idea of "or else" is.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Plus, if The Duchess is right, I'll be sent to the death camps for being an atheist/socialist/queer anyway.

It won't be that bad. At the worst it would be like Francoist Spain, where the Guardia Civil randomly shows up and beats the crap out of you with batons before tossing you in jail for a night and threatening you with charges if you complain.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This also reminds me of the story of the unrepentent gay SS man who said that he joined the SS because "he liked to be around other men."

[Andrew J.]

Stock guns and beef jerky, definitely. Also, hoarding the remaining fuel and trucks to form a roving gang is a possibility.

[Kwizard]

Just throwing this out there: would it be a bad idea to start heading into the engineering field now? What I specifically want to do is get a degree in mechanical engineering and quickly move on to do graduate study in nanoengineering.

The idea of being on the leading edge of technologies which could turn out some meaningful solutions is something that appeals greatly to me. At the same time though, I'm worried that there wouldn't be much use for skills like that if the moderate to worst-case scenarios play out.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just throwing this out there: would it be a bad idea to start heading into the engineering field now? What I specifically want to do is get a degree in mechanical engineering and quickly move on to do graduate study in nanoengineering.

The idea of being on the leading edge of technologies which could turn out some meaningful solutions is something that appeals greatly to me. At the same time though, I'm worried that there wouldn't be much use for skills like that if the moderate to worst-case scenarios play out.

Nobody will be researching nanotech in this situation. You may, however, find useful employment designing electric tractors.

Welcome to the brave new world.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Railroads in the USA are aggressively expanding, so we have one industry which is preparing for Peak Oil:

Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern to Offer Fastest Service Between
Southern California and Southeast

OMAHA, Neb. and NORFOLK, Va., April 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Union
Pacific Railroad and Norfolk Southern Railway will significantly improve
eastbound domestic transcontinental service from Los Angeles to the
Southeast on May 21. The service improvement in this important
high-volume lane will result from shifting traffic from the Memphis
gateway to the new Shreveport, La., gateway.

This new route, combining Union Pacific's Sunset Route between Los
Angeles and Texas with Norfolk Southern's and Kansas City Southern's
joint venture line between Shreveport and Meridian, Miss., is nearly 150
miles shorter than the current route, making it the shortest, fastest and
most reliable intermodal route between Los Angeles and the Southeast.
This change will result in the following improvements:

-- Standard service to Atlanta will improve by one day ...

-- BlueStreak premium service to Atlanta now will be available ...
providing truck-competitive transit speeds of 600 miles per day. ...

-- There also will be improvements to other Southeast destinations.

Since expanding service and capacity in this lane in February, Union
Pacific and Norfolk Southern BlueStreak has been running 100 percent on
time. Both railroads continue to make major investments to expand
capacity and enhance service performance on this route. Westbound
domestic service is expected to be shifted to the faster Shreveport
gateway during the third quarter of 2007. International shipments will
remain routed via the Memphis gateway, and customers can expect
improvements to this service in the months ahead.

DM&E extension to the Powder River Coal Fields proceeds despite almost criminal rejection of a federal loan for the project.

A similar railroad is approved in the planning stages for the Tongue River coal basin.

Ne w railroad expansion in Alaska is being planned to access raw materials resources and expand shipping interconnections.

Alaska Rail Link plans progressing

Virginia and Tennessee to invest in rail line upgrades to remove trucks from the roads.
Projects to "daylight" tunnels to allow for container double-stacks (doubling the capacity of container trains on those routes) are in progress now. Federal funds are providing assistance in these projects. Up to twenty more such projects could be funded in part by the federal government in coming years.

UP HAD PERMISSION to abandon Tennessee Pass as part of the STB decision to approve the UP-SP merger, subject to leaving the line intact for IIRC 5 yrs until it could be established that former traffic had been successfully absorbed elsewhere. Howver, prior to STB's acceptance of compliance with the original decision terms in 2002, UP withdrew TP from its abandonment list and placed it in "idle" status. They cannot remove the rails now w/o reapplying for abandonment.

Removing the line from the merger abandonment list had nothing to do with "political pressure" and everything to do with increasing coal traffic combined with the traffic jam on the Moffat and in Denver along with delays in reconstructing the KP in 1998-1999, with work to reopen the line planned for the spring of 2000 (local employees reported MOW job bidding was underway in early January). On January 28, 2000, a suspected gob fire was detected in the West Elk Mine, the mine was evacuated and idled, and full production didn't resume until late in the year. With production from the North Fork essentially cut in half, UP canceled the reopening of TP and with summer work on the KP and other areas sufficient to lessen congestion on the Moffat it was deemed unnecessary to restart the project after West Elk was back in operation.

With projected doubling of eastbound coal shipments from Grand Junction within the next 5-10 years, UP faces three options: (1) building a completely-new line from Craig to the Overland Route main line in Wyoming, to get Craig Branch coal off the Moffat; (2) rebuilding the x-D&RGW from Grand Junction to Helper and accepting an additional 1,600 miles per movement (loads and empties) detour via Ogden and Cheyenne in the face of skyrocketing fuel costs; or (3) rebuilding TP and doing what it has do to reestablish routing east of Pueblo.

Seven hundred miles of rail-line to Eureka, California, from the Bay Area, is on-track for reopening.

This interesting thread shows a ballast train on the old closed Homestake Pass line in southern Montana--noteworthy because the line hasn't been used for more than 20 years, but there is talk of reopening it now to relieve congestion on Mullan Pass.

An Orthodontist in Helena, MT, seeks forced sale of BNSF rail line so he can reopen it.

Massive environmental grants provided to Texas railroads to improve efficiency.

BNSF Railway to make 2.75 billion in capital investments in 2007.

BNSF studying coal-to-liquids process for fueling locomotives.

East-West passenger rail service in Washington State will also include massive upgrades to Stampede Pass to improve its efficiency as a freight route

Also, in passenger rail terms:

Lautenberg-Lott Amtrak Bill would nearly triple Amtrak's annual funding budget

And the following commuter rail projects in the USA, in addition to those already in operation, are being planned (Link here) :

Metropolitan Area State(s) Main article Official site Other sites
Anchorage Alaska Alaska Railroad (existing long-distance railroad, proposed commuter service) [29] [30]
Ann Arbor Michigan MDOT (Temporary Commuter Service to Bypass Construction on US_23, which may become permanent) [31], [32]
Atlanta Georgia Georgia Rail Passenger Program,

Georgia Brain Train
[33], [34]
Austin Texas Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority/Capital Metro Commuter Rail [35]
Charlotte North Carolina Charlotte Area Transit System (North Corridor) [36][37]
Cleveland Ohio NEORail [38] [39][40]
Cincinnati Ohio Eastern Corridor Commuter Rail [41]
Cloverdale - Larkspur (San Francisco) California SMART [42]
Dallas Texas Denton County Transportation Authority [43]
Denver Colorado FasTracks [44]
Detroit Michigan SEMCOG Commuter Rail [45] [46] [47]
Greensboro North Carolina TRIAD Commuter Rail [48]
Harrisburg/Lancaster Pennsylvania CorridorOne (Capital Area Transit) [49]
Kansas City Missouri The Jo Commuter Rail [50]
Madison Wisconsin Dane County Commuter Rail,

Transport 2020 Commuter Rail
[51][52]
Milwaukee Wisconsin KRM Commuter Link [53]
Minneapolis Minnesota Northstar Corridor [54]
New York New York Staten Island Railway (existing heavy-rail rapid transit, proposed commuter line) [55] [56]
Oceanside California Sprinter [57]
Ogden - Salt Lake City Utah FrontRunner [58]
Orlando Florida Central Florida Commuter Rail [59]
Scranton, Pennsylvania / New Jersey / New York City Pennsylvania / New Jersey / New York Lackawanna Cutoff [60]
Washington County (suburban Portland) Oregon Washington County Commuter Rail [61]

Also the Sacramento - Eureka Line would have regional passenger rail service over it ultimately when it has been fully reopened, along with commuter rail service not mentioned above or already existing.

The Lackawanna Cutoff would also involve rebuilding a considerable abandoned, torn up route (the selfsame cutoff) which would then be also usable for freight operations.

In short, rail in America is in the midst of a truly massive renaissance, both in efficiency, in cargo moved, and in expansion of actual track mileage.

[PainRack]

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't the problem with Peak Oil more in the terms of economy and major disruptions in industry, agriculture and logistics?

It just seems to me that what will be happening is more along the lines of what been happening in South Africia and other places there.... Civil strife unless a government strong-arms people into submission and problem with our current lifestyle, with costs spiraling so that only the rich can afford a comfortable life.

At least in the next hundred years or so. What happens after that is another thing altogether.

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm just gonna continue to live in Finland. It's quite a free country, only Switzerland comes close. It's sparsely populated and was recently very agrarian, it still is so thats good. We're also building nuclear power plants and are trying to shift away from oil.

[Alferd Packer]

I live in the most densely populated area of the most densely populated state in the United States, so my preparations are to sit tight and not move to the boonies. I'm going to try to actually buy a house in this area, as I imagine the value of such houses (with easy access to multiple avenues of mass transit, that is) will explode as the less densely-packed suburbs shrivel up.

[Arrow]

I live about forty miles from DC, and I commute thirty five miles to work (the other direction to Pax NAS). I'm five miles from the nearest full-up town (which existed before suburbs), not even ten miles from a coal fired power plant (about 1GW output, IIRC), a mile from the railroad, and across the street from a big ass farm field. After thinking about, this isn't too bad of a location for the short term. Longer term, I'm going to have to see what happens. Hopefully being a cog in the military-industrial complex will be an advantage.

[J]

Thinking about it some more, Russia might not be too badly off either, though I do worry about their internal politics. Unlike Canada, I don't think anyone's going to be stupid enough to invade or strong-arm them in making a resource grab, something about being a former superpower and having lots of nukes and the willingness to use them. Russia is currently oil producer #1, and as we move past peak I can see them locking up their former satellite states in the Caspian Sea region and adding their oil to the Motherland.

Basically, I see their living standards & so forth remaining much as they currently are, and maybe even improving a bit depending on how the political side runs things. They're nuclear friendly, have vast reserves of natural gas and a fair amount of oil as well so they should be in decent shape energywise. If they play things well, there's a good chance they will end up being the country which leads us out into the post-oil world.

[K. A. Pital]

Thinking about it some more, Russia might not be too badly off either

Mass nuclear seems to be a good idea. Let's hope they start to realize it before we lose enough energy resources not to be able to accomplish this task. 15% of our energy are already nuclear and I think we will have to rack that up to 30-40% if we want to get through the loss of energy.

Remember, we use up lots of oil to warm ourselves.

[Arrow]

For those in the US, which presidential candidate has the best energy policy, especially when peak oil is factored in. I've looked at Obama, Clinton and Edwards, and while none mention peak oil (I couldn't even find an energy policy on Clinton's site), Edwards seems have the most focus on local, renewable energy, reducing energy usage and alternative fuels (Link).

[Lonestar]

Hopefully being a cog in the military-industrial complex will be an advantage.

That's what I'm pinning my hopes on as well. Plus, it's just a skip and a hop away to the Metro station.

Join the army! Help The Great Satan kill Arabs and plunder their oil!

May end up doing more walking than normal.

Boston Globe
May 1, 2007
Pg. 1

Pentagon Study Says Oil Reliance Strains Military

Urges development of alternative fuels

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil -- the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term."

The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.

Weaning the military from fossil fuels quickly, however, would be a herculean task -- especially because the bulk of the US arsenal, the world's most advanced, is dependent on fossil fuels and many of those military systems have been designed to remain in service for at least several decades.

Moving to alternative energy sources on a large scale would "challenge some of the department's most deeply held assumptions, interests, and processes," the report acknowledges.

But Pentagon advisers believe the military's growing consumption of fossil fuels -- an increasingly expensive and scarce commodity -- leaves Pentagon leaders with little choice but to break with the past as soon as possible. Compared with World War II, according to the report, the military in Iraq and Afghanistan is using 16 times more fuel per soldier.

"We have to wake up," said Milton R. Copulos , National Defense Council Foundation president and an authority on the military's energy needs. "We are at the edge of a precipice and we have one foot over the edge. The only way to avoid going over is to move forward and move forward aggressively with initiatives to develop alternative fuels. Just cutting back won't work."

The Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation and Resources, which is responsible for addressing future security challenges, commissioned LMI, a government - consulting firm, to produce the report. Called "Transforming the Way DoD Looks at Energy," the study is intended as a potential blueprint for a new military energy strategy and includes a detailed survey of potential alternatives to oil -- including synthetic fuels, renewable biofuels, ethanol, and biodiesel fuel as well as solar and wind power, among many others.

The military is considered a technology leader and how it decides to meet future energy needs could influence broader national efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The report adds a powerful voice to the growing chorus warning that, as oil supplies dwindle during the next half-century, US reliance on fossil fuels poses a serious risk to national security.

"The Pentagon's efforts in this area would have a huge impact on the rest of the country," Copulos said.

The Department of Defense is the largest single energy consumer in the country. The Air Force spends about $5 billion a year on fuel, mostly to support flight operations. The Navy and Army are close behind.

Of all the cargo the military transports, more than half consists of fuel. About 80 percent of all material transported on the battlefield is fuel.

The military's energy consumption has steadily grown as its arsenal has become more mechanized and as US forces have had to travel farther distances.

In World War II, the United States consumed about a gallon of fuel per soldier per day, according to the report. In the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, about 4 gallons of fuel per soldier was consumed per day. In 2006, the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan burned about 16 gallons of fuel per soldier on average per day , almost twice as much as the year before.

Higher fuel consumption is a consequence of the US military's changing posture in recent years. During the Cold War, US forces were deployed at numerous bases across the world; since then, the United States has downsized its force and closed many of its former bases in Asia and Europe.

The Pentagon's strategic planning has placed a premium on being able to deploy forces quickly around the world from bases in the United States.

The National Defense Strategy, which lays out the Pentagon's anticipated missions, calls for an increased US military presence around the globe to be able to combat international terrorist groups and respond to humanitarian and security crises. But aviation fuel consumption for example, has increased 6 percent over the last decade. And the report predicts that trend will continue.

"The US military will have to be even more energy intense, locate in more regions of the world, employ new technologies, and manage a more complex logistics system," according to the report. "Simply put, more miles will be traveled, both by combat units and the supply units that sustain them, which will result in increased energy consumption."

The costs of relying on oil to power the military are consuming an increasing share of the military's budget, the report asserts. Energy costs have doubled since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it says, and the cost of conducting operations could become so expensive in the future that the military will not be able to pay for some of its new weapon systems.

Ensuring access to dwindling oil supplies also carries a big price tag. The United States, relying largely on military patrols, spends an average of $44 billion per year safeguarding oil supplies in the Persian Gulf. And the United States is often dependent on some of the same countries that pose the greatest threats to US interests.

Achieving an energy transformation at the Department of Defense "will require the commitment, personal involvement , and leadership of the secretary of defense and his key subordinates," the report says.