What will really happen during Peak Oil?

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-10-04 03:10am

If you've been watching SLAM, you'll have noticed two threads about the rather rosy prospects concerning a little concept called Peak Oil. So I thought I'd outline the most obvious positions regarding the phenomena and get a vote on how people think it will all pan out . . . since the potential aftermath of such an event will depend on people's reactions going into it. So without further ado:

Option A: Everything's fine! Peak Oil is a myth and the world will continue merrily on into the future and we'll have ample time to seamlessly transition into nuclear/fusion/solar power beamed from orbital collectors.

Option B: Peak Oil exists, but we'll have the alternatives ready to go in time, so nobody will be undully inconvenienced by it.

Option C: Peak Oil exists, and we may not quite be ready for it yet, but we will be and we'll experience only a decade or two of discomfort. Nothing too bad, though.

Option D: Peak Oil exists, and we're not ready for it. It will take decades before workable solutions will exist, and in that time people will be extremely miserable. The good old days will be a distant memory.

Option E: Peak Oil exists, and we're all so far behind the curve that many of us are well and truly screwed. Ideally situated countries might only get off with one of the other options, though.

Option F: Peak Oil exists and we're so far behind the curve that it'll result in the immediate collapse of civilization into World War III, IV, and/or even V as people fight over the last of the resources. Then the last nations standing might have a shot at pulling through.

Option G: Peak Oil exists and will not only trigger all sorts of nasty shit, but civilization will desperately burn through the rest of its consumables, consequences be damned. And then, with nothing left, civilization completely and irrevocably collapses everywhere we'll never advance beyond the 17th Century ever again.

Option H: Peak Oil causes the Shep Solution. End result, OMFG, we're all gonna DIE!!!!1111

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2006-10-04 03:16am

I voted for option D. It exists, we're not prepared for it, so we're screwed. I don't see it being an apocalyptic end though, and I find it hard to believe nuclear war is on the horizon (though you never know... I may not want to believe a nuclear war is on the horizon).

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-10-04 03:26am

B, tending towards B-.

Quite possibly C for some of the developing world.

FaxModem1 · Post by **FaxModem1** » 2006-10-04 03:52am

Going with C here. It'll be worse than this, but it won't be hell.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-10-04 04:25am

C for us Russkies. I hope that the government will use the oil revenues to shift over to nuclear as soon as our raw resources of oil and gas start falling.

Cincinnatus · Post by **Cincinnatus** » 2006-10-04 04:31am

I went with Option C because even though the negative effects won't last decades, we will have at the least a recession. Option B was phrased poorly, because "unduly inconvenienced" is way too vague.

Alerik the Fortunate · Post by **Alerik the Fortunate** » 2006-10-04 04:32am

I go with e. It's not so much just the loss of oil related products and processes that will have to be adjusted for, but all the idiotic instability in the world now, politically, culturally, economically, etc., which could lead to flare ups of all sorts of fun when the panic begins (even if the panic is largely unfounded in an otherwise option b or c world). Conveniently, the major oil exchange is between two opposed blocs believing in the imminent return of their respective messiahs following the requisite bloodbath purging/near destruction of the world and universal triumph of their God/culture/political system.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-10-04 05:17am

A mix of B and C for us finns I think. Option H for Sweden

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-10-04 05:43am

I've gone for D. Too many fucking people refuse to accept ANY alternatives.

"Hydroelectricity needs dams which ruin the ecosystem."
"Wind power threatens bird migration."
"Nuclear power is evil."
blah blah fucking blah.

Its going to be a pain in the arse.

LaCroix · Post by **LaCroix** » 2006-10-04 05:46am

Option C-D for most high industrialized countries... Prices will raise fast, transportation(people and goods) will get very expensive, so an big inflation sets in, crushing most economies.

Shitholes like most africa and south america won't even notice it...

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2006-10-04 05:54am

His Divine Shadow wrote:Option H for Sweden

Screw you man! Actually no, it's probably true. When the Polish oil and shit is gone we're going to have to rely on Danish coal power, and since all that smoke blows in over us and fucks up our air, we're going to have to blow up Barsebäck to get back at them.

Oh, and I'll vote for C or D. I hope it will be C or better so I vote for that.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2006-10-04 06:18am

LaCroix wrote:Option C-D for most high industrialized countries... Prices will raise fast, transportation(people and goods) will get very expensive, so an big inflation sets in, crushing most economies.

Shitholes like most africa and south america won't even notice it...

Those of us in countries between "shithole" and "industrial paradise" are royally screwed then.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-10-04 07:17am

Which is why it is even more important to be prepared and why I support keeping our (Croatia) mix of hydro/nuclear/coal plants for electricity to minimise the problems (its roughly one third each), with shifting the mix more towards nuclear (hydro is already at maximum potential exploitation). Which is also why I'm currently hating all the NIMBY idiots railing about "Oh noes, the 3 preceeding ecological studies which all stated a minimal ecological impact are flawed!" at the three potential sites for a replacement nuclear plant to replace NE Krsko when it (must) goes offline in 2015-2020.

I'm still somewhat optimistic about it all, so I voted C.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2006-10-04 09:13am

Option E with a strong possibility of Option F. I've kept pretty up to date on new advances in industry & technology and there are no miracles waiting to save us, not even on some researcher's labtop. There's nothing waiting to be scaled up to the huge trillion dollar industries required to supplant oil and allow a modern lifestyle. Basically, build your lifeboats, cause we are fucked. Picking up some tips from the Amish would be a good thing to do since a lot of us, assuming we survive, will be living a lot more like them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-04 09:27am

If North America goes heavily nuclear and quickly, we can stave off a lot of these problems, albeit not without some period of severe economic hardship. International warfare might take place over dwindling resources but that kind of warfare itself requires considerable fossil-fuel resources, and nobody really has the ability to invade North America from overseas. The only real invasion faced by North America would be from its southern border.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-10-04 09:29am

If North America goes heavily nuclear and quickly, we can stave off a lot of these problems.

Did they lift their nuclear ban already? You have to take action to actually get to nuclear.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-04 09:32am

Stas Bush wrote:
If North America goes heavily nuclear and quickly, we can stave off a lot of these problems.
Did they lift their nuclear ban already? You have to take action to actually get to nuclear.

I don't think there was ever a real ban on nuclear power plant construction, was there? It was more of an impromptu thing.

Turin · Post by **Turin** » 2006-10-04 11:03am

I voted for Option F, as I'm not terribly optimistic about how the policies of various nations will go once things get bad. Too many countries (like the US) are run by folks with hard-ons for apocalypse. Getting sustainable energy policy in place will require political will that won't happen until it's already too late.

There will be a few pockets where nations have seen the writing on the wall ahead of time (probably in Europe), but the US and most of the developing industrial nations like China will be screwed and erupt in an orgy of violence. Third World shitholes will either continue as they are or get worse and descend into total anarchy; countries who have started to modernized will probably be the worst effected.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-10-04 11:03am

There was never a ban on nuclear power plants; construction simply tapered off because I think at one point it was slightly cheaper to build gas/oil/coal-fired plants in economic terms, and definitely easier to build in public relations terms. America is still jittery over Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

I personally think what's going to happen is that there's going to be a flurry of coal power plants constructed, followed by a bunch of nuclear power plants. There have been quiet movements towards laying the legislative/regulatory groundwork for the construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants for the past couple of years.

Areas with relatively abundant hydroelectric energy will probably be the most prosperous during the transition, since they're the least dependent on fuel for electricity, as long as they can keep the turbines spinning.

aerius wrote:Basically, build your lifeboats, cause we are fucked.

What "lifeboats"? If civilization utterly collapses, a billion dollars won't do any more good than a thousand, and if/when big agriculture collapses, natural farming won't be able to sustain us all.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-10-04 11:09am

Cincinnatus wrote:I went with Option C because even though the negative effects won't last decades, we will have at the least a recession. Option B was phrased poorly, because "unduly inconvenienced" is way too vague.

I was trying to convey a future that, while not quite as rosy as A, will result in a lower overall drop in quality of life, compared to option C. As in, there will be people on the fringes of the bell-curve who stand to suffer from the bumps in transition, but for the bulk of people sitting smack-dab in the center of the bell-curve, life might go on as usual, with only a few minor hiccups. As opposed to a couple of decades of discomfort. (Which, means the fringes of the bell-curve suffer even more, and so on.)

Grasscutter · Post by **Grasscutter** » 2006-10-04 11:14am

C leaning heavily toward D. I see countries with the capability to go nuclear do so very quickly to stave off the power crisis. But I haven't seen anything that makes me think we'll be able to produce cheap alternatives to oil-based products.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-04 11:34am

Grasscutter wrote:C leaning heavily toward D. I see countries with the capability to go nuclear do so very quickly to stave off the power crisis. But I haven't seen anything that makes me think we'll be able to produce cheap alternatives to oil-based products.

The thing that's annoying is that we could continue to produce cheap oil-based products for a long time if we weaned ourselves off the use of this substance as fuel earlier than we have to. But the entire planet would have to do this at once, and that's never going to happen. It wouldn't even happen in any given country; for example, Americans don't even have the foresight to see what's wrong with running up huge credit-card debts.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-10-04 11:48am

So really, enjoy it while you can.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2006-10-04 11:53am

Uraniun235 wrote:
aerius wrote:Basically, build your lifeboats, cause we are fucked.
What "lifeboats"? If civilization utterly collapses, a billion dollars won't do any more good than a thousand, and if/when big agriculture collapses, natural farming won't be able to sustain us all.

Basically, get together with some people in your area to build a small-scale sustainable community which won't be affected too much by the coming collapse. For example, find some local farmers in your area so you all have food, setup small windmills, & solar panel arrays so you can live off the grid or better yet a stream or river that can be used for hydroelectric power. Find mechanics & fix-it guys who can make tools and keep the farmer's machinery running or learn the skills yourself. Work to build a small sustainable community which will survive and preserve most of our high-tech base when the rest of the country goes down the crapper. You & the small community gets a good chance to survive & maintain a reasonable standard of living while everyone else gets fucked over.

Large scale modern society which we grew up & live in will not be possible after the crash, but small pockets of modern society are survivable. Those little pockets are the "lifeboats", and it's entirely within our means to build them.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-10-04 11:53am

Public transport here is being converted to run on plant oil and eventually hydrogen (there was a big ceremony the other day when a city's fleet of garbage trucks was refitted to run on the corn or something) and with the Greens gone the planned decommissioning of the nuclear reactors has been reversed, so I'm cautiously optimistic for my little corner of the world.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What will really happen during Peak Oil?

ZOMG a poll!

What will really happen during Peak Oil?