Will The End Of Oil See The End Of My Town?

[Darth Wong]

You assume that these experts will provide for the fools at home w/o negative feedback because...?

I don't. However, for the SECOND goddamned time, in a situation where long-term goals are directly at odds with short-term consumer desires, they are FAR MORE LIKELY to successfully do so. You are literally saying that you would prefer the agent who is guaranteed to fail against the agent who is not guaranteed to succeed.

Soviets tried that already. How are these experts recognized and selected? How do you guarantee their benevolance? And how do they gain the information to micromanage?

You become elitist, and you take the chance because it is better than zero. Zero would be the chance of the public recognizing this problem and agreeing to work together to solve it out of their common rationality and spirit of co-operation.

Yes, I do indeed refuse to recognize such nonsense, at least as it pertains to private goods. However, if you are talking about public goods and externalities, that's another issue entirely.

Public good is "another issue entirely?" What the fuck do you think the subject of this thread is, you goddamned retard? Do you think we're talking about who can best provide us with fucking Hummers and Nike shoes? Either discuss the subject of this thread, which IS in fact about public good, or shut the fuck up.

[Admiral Valdemar]

To add to the good Duchess' words. Not only will that mean crisis management for decades, afterwards, you'll have to make sure controls are kept to maintain efficiency, population levels and curb any overly elaborate use of energy. One area that will feel the pinch in the near future is sport. A whole area of society that serves no immediate, life important purpose such as global commercialised sport will have to be cut back to nearly nothing, the main culprits being the likes of motor sport. The money and energy for leisure activities we take for granted cannot be wasted, just as food was rationed in WWII, so too will energy expenditure.

[CaptHawkeye]

Like I said, i'm not much of a car man. I am however, an airplane man. THAT could potentially fuck me over.

Give up aviation and go to work for the railroad. You will be out of a job in ten years if you go into aviation.

Damnet, fucking lord of christ and hell. Ever since I was a child I built my life around aviation. Star Wars inspired me to be a pilot for christ sake! And now this.

[Darth Wong]

I have to admit that it will be nice to see the more useless elements of society being reduced to a stature commensurate with their social worth.

[Starglider]

Valdemar doesn't seriously expect the majority of the human race to die, especially not in the first world countries (I could easily see half the population of places like Africa and India dying, though).

I know, I was just making a cheap 'ha ha only serious' shot at tying this pan-social problem/existential risk to the one I'm working on.

We're going to have to transition like this:
Oil - Coal (emergency basis) - Renewable Final Solution.

I agree, with some amount of 'additional fission (slightly longer emergency basis)' in there as well. While I'm all for well-designed nuclear power, a severe energy crisis could lead to substandard rush construction and Chernobyl-like accidents (at least in some countries). Frankly though it'd still be worth it, the number of actual deaths from even Chernobyl was relatively limited compared to what we're going to see when coal mining and coal power ramps up enormously.

Genetically engineered products will have to compensate for the lack of oil in farming

I'll be happy to see the more clueless anti-genetic-engineering protesters getting trampled by the mob (maybe literally if they continue such idiocies as destroying fields of perfectly edible crops). Again though there will probably be some additional environmental damage from rushed projects and lax safety standards. But again, frankly it's worth the risk.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Aviation is going to go down faster than a Doodlebug over London. It should be curtailed today for being a massive polluter as it is, but don't tell the politicians that, because they love expanding airports and subsidising airlines. Tourism is the world's biggest industry and to deny a country cheap, fast, easy access is to strangle money out of it.

Fuel costs for aerospace have been going up lately, which is harming some smaller carriers and will soon hit the larger ones who've only just crawled out of the crater 9/11 put them in. While you can run your car on electricity, you won't get a 747 or A380 flying fully laden without avgas. We have it easy now because of the lack of tax on fuel for airlines. When that changes to match what we have with every other mode of transport, you will see very few people fly. In fact, it's quite disorienting to consider your children may never fly on an aeroplane like we have.

Shipping is another story. Ships prospered long before flight and shall do so again. If I can entertain a personal dream, I'd even like to see airships come back. Yeah, the minor niggle of us running out of helium does hamper that somewhat. I can dream/

[Lord Zentei]

You assume that these experts will provide for the fools at home w/o negative feedback because...?

I don't. However, for the SECOND goddamned time, in a situation where long-term goals are directly at odds with short-term consumer desires, they are FAR MORE LIKELY to successfully do so. You are literally saying that you would prefer the agent who is guaranteed to fail against the agent who is not guaranteed to succeed.

No, I am not. Given the failure of states running oil companies (and cartel of same) to do anything about the situation, I doubt that the choice is so clear cut as you claim.

Soviets tried that already. How are these experts recognized and selected? How do you guarantee their benevolance? And how do they gain the information to micromanage?

You become elitist, and you take the chance because it is better than zero. Zero would be the chance of the public recognizing this problem and agreeing to work together to solve it out of their common rationality and spirit of co-operation.

As above. And I'm not willing to take the chance to change to a system that has definately failed instead of one you claim will definately fail.

Yes, I do indeed refuse to recognize such nonsense, at least as it pertains to private goods. However, if you are talking about public goods and externalities, that's another issue entirely.

Public good is "another issue entirely?" What the fuck do you think the subject of this thread is, you goddamned retard? Do you think we're talking about who can best provide us with fucking Hummers and Nike shoes? Either discuss the subject of this thread, which IS in fact about public good, or shut the fuck up.

Provision of energy for general consumption is not a pure public good.

[Darth Wong]

Rail is still a very civilized way to tour the country.

[CaptHawkeye]

Shipping is another story. Ships prospered long before flight and shall do so again. If I can entertain a personal dream, I'd even like to see airships come back. Yeah, the minor niggle of us running out of helium does hamper that somewhat. I can dream/

While i've spent my life dreaming over the idea of a career as a pilot--and i'm still going to pursue it-- as any smart person would, I have kept "career contingencies" in my college planning. Computer science and maritime work have been in place as fall back positions for some time.

[Starglider]

Aviation is going to go down faster than a Doodlebug over London... Fuel costs for aerospace have been going up lately, which is harming some smaller carriers and will soon hit the larger ones who've only just crawled out of the crater 9/11 put them in. While you can run your car on electricity, you won't get a 747 or A380 flying fully laden without avgas.

This is incorrect. There are already projects to build fuel-cell and battery powered light aircraft ahd 'hybrid' airliners underway, and cryogenic hydrogen is a relatively practical long-term alternative for large aircraft. Military aviation will certainly continue with coal-produced kerosene if necessary. The changeover will be enormously expensive though and operating costs will rise considerably, so expect the industry to contract to something like 1970s levels.

[Darth Wong]

No, I am not. Given the failure of states running oil companies (and cartel of same) to do anything about the situation, I doubt that the choice is so clear cut as you claim.

And you think that the even more ignorant population of those states would have done better with decentralized decision-making? From which region of your ass do you pull this assumption?

As above. And I'm not willing to take the chance to change to a system that has definately failed instead of one you claim will definately fail.

You're an idiot. It's not a false dichotomy of capitalism vs communism as you so obviously want to pretend it is. The fact is that a certain amount of "command economy" thinking and central planning exists in every country, including America. It's not a question of saying you have two completely divorced systems in competition. It's a question of showing how you dismiss an obviously necessary policy change because you associate it with eeeeevil communism. Rather than seeing "command economy" and "free market" as a spectrum, you see it as two different, separate systems, one of which must be proven superior. This is the same kind of idiotic black/white false dichotomy thinking that has gotten American neo-cons into so much fucking trouble already, and you're parroting it like a broken record.

Communism is a bad system. So is the free market. They are extremes on a spectrum of socio-economic policy, not a policy equivalent of the eternal battle of good and evil.

Public good is "another issue entirely?" What the fuck do you think the subject of this thread is, you goddamned retard? Do you think we're talking about who can best provide us with fucking Hummers and Nike shoes? Either discuss the subject of this thread, which IS in fact about public good, or shut the fuck up.

Provision of energy for general consumption is not a pure public good.

Oh, so now it has to be a pure public good. Way to move those goalposts, asshole. It looks like we're heading into No True Scotsman territory.

[Admiral Valdemar]

This is incorrect. There are already projects to build fuel-cell and battery powered light aircraft ahd 'hybrid' airliners underway, and cryogenic hydrogen is a relatively practical long-term alternative for large aircraft. Military aviation will certainly continue with coal-produced kerosene if necessary. The changeover will be enormously expensive though and operating costs will rise considerably, so expect the industry to contract to something like 1970s levels.

These are like ideas I've seen before. The biggest such plane using a fuel-cell stack, for instance, is the size of a Cessna 150. If you want to call that a step-up from even a 737 or A320, be my guest. Truth be told, there's no way you're powering an airliner as big and with the velocity of modern aeroplanes, without a fuel source like kerosene, which means the vastly reduced reserves will remain the property of VIP flights and the military.

Most alternatives don't have the energy density, even if you switch to advanced contra-rotating prop-fan designs as opposed to gas turbines. Liquid methane or H2 carry their own technical difficulties (the storage requiring supercooled liquids that are a bitch to have onboard) and there's no design, as the article states, coming out with such, literally, space-age technology anytime soon. I don't see this change happening with the gradual change one would see towards the 1970s era of air travel. Air travel is a luxury, just as car travel is. Only much, much more expensive. Look at how many major airlines nearly went bankrupt after the WTC attacks. Now extrapolate that to a scenario where they have to replace every airliner they own with ones using a whole new fuel source that isn't just a question of tweaking the aspiration ratios a bit as with butanol.

[Andrew J.]

I don't think consumer society will go away, regardless of what happens with energy and technology in the future. The "haves" of society like it too much, and they will maintain it even if they have to genocide the "have-nots" to do so.

[Starglider]

Liquid methane or H2 carry their own technical difficulties (the storage requiring supercooled liquids that are a bitch to have onboard) and there's no design, as the article states, coming out with such, literally, space-age technology anytime soon.

I'd note that the space age is now 50 years old. It'll be a hard transition period, but I think fuel costs will rise slowly enough that hydrogen powered airliners will get built in time to save the industry from complete destruction (though obviously I don't know for sure - Howedar might have a better idea). Ultimately fusion produced hydrogen should allow it to be completely restored, but that's probably a century away unless something utterly disruptive happens.

Most alternatives don't have the energy density, even if you switch to advanced contra-rotating prop-fan designs as opposed to gas turbines.

Maybe the US Air Force will bring back their nuclear-powered bomber concept. Gotta retain the ability to rain bombs on 'failed states', whatever the cost...

[Admiral Valdemar]

Starglider: The transition will be the hardest part. It doesn't mean such technologies won't, excuse the pun, take-off. It just means, until they do, we won't have anything like the airline industry we have now. Best get used to rail and ship.

And I'd rather the USAF put that fission reactor turbojet design to good use in an airship, which was actually their next project before it got cancelled.

I don't think consumer society will go away, regardless of what happens with energy and technology in the future. The "haves" of society like it too much, and they will maintain it even if they have to genocide the "have-nots" to do so.

If by "consumer society" you mean people who use stuff, then sure. We all need that. If you think today's society will survive in an era of no cheap energy, I suggest looking at what makes consumerism today viable. One does not go on spending sprees at the shopping mall when the economy is slightly fucked six ways from Sunday and the people who would be making your designer goods and retailing them are standing in line at the soup kitchen. An awful lot of very rich lawyers and bankers and doctors and other cream of the crop people didn't go about their usual business in '29. To some, the idea of that life ending was less pleasurable than, well, ending their life literally.

[Ender]

A rather key point I think most people are missing here:

We build nuke plants, even the existing ones, out in the middle of nowhere for saftey. If there are no cars, how am I and the other reactor operators going to get there?

That said, I forsee the lead time on nuke plants dropping sharply as we discard most of the restrictions when the shit hits the fan. I'll have a job at least, too bad about you schmucks.

[Lord Zentei]

No, I am not. Given the failure of states running oil companies (and cartel of same) to do anything about the situation, I doubt that the choice is so clear cut as you claim.

And you think that the even more ignorant population of those states would have done better with decentralized decision-making? From which region of your ass do you pull this assumption?

Where do I claim such? Market economics requires the individual consumer to be rational enough to be able to manage his personal affairs, not to have oversight over the entire economy.

As above. And I'm not willing to take the chance to change to a system that has definately failed instead of one you claim will definately fail.

You're an idiot. It's not a false dichotomy of capitalism vs communism as you so obviously want to pretend it is. The fact is that a certain amount of "command economy" thinking and central planning exists in every country, including America. It's not a question of saying you have two completely divorced systems in competition.

The dichotomy, or rather the perception thereof, is not my fault alone. The exchange:


LORD ZENTEI: and less incentive to do right by the public in the absence of negative feedback.
__________________________________

Note the underlining, which was my qualification for not trusting "experts".
__________________________________

DARTH WONG: Your entire "negative feedback" argument is merely different terminology slapped on top of the same basic (and totally unsupportable) premise that the public's wishes are necessarily coincident with its long-term needs.

The phrase "the people don't necessarily know what's best for them" is usually dismissed with the label "paternalism". But label-rebuttals are a poor substitute for genuine logic. What if that statement happens to be true?

Democracy is good for one thing: making sure the government at least pays attention to the wishes of the populace. It breaks down when the wishes of the populace are totally at odds with their needs, and they're too ignorant to realize it.

LORD ZENTEI: Under such circumstances, who do you trust to define the public's "needs"?

DARTH WONG: Highly educated experts. Your opposing premise (that millions of undereducated fools who are glued to American Idol every week actually have a better grasp of the situation) is simply absurd.
__________________________________

And here, you reject the notion that "millions of uneducated fools" will be able to provide such feedback. And incidentally, you are strawmanning me in saying that I claim they "will have a better grasp of the situation" rather than simple negative feedback preventing abuses.

Though I see now that perhaps you were also inserting a qualification of your own, correct?
__________________________________

LORD ZENTEI: Soviets tried that already. How are these experts recognized and selected? How do you guarantee their benevolance? And how do they gain the information to micromanage?
__________________________________

I mention the Soviets...
__________________________________

DARTH WONG: You become elitist, and you take the chance because it is better than zero. Zero would be the chance of the public recognizing this problem and agreeing to work together to solve it out of their common rationality and spirit of co-operation.
__________________________________

And you do not object. At least not initially. Why did you not adress this here?
__________________________________

LORD ZENTEI: As above. And I'm not willing to take the chance to change to a system that has definately failed instead of one you claim will definately fail.

DARTH WONG: You're an idiot. It's not a false dichotomy of capitalism vs communism as you so obviously want to pretend it is. <snip>
__________________________________

Which was never my position.
__________________________________

Rather than seeing "command economy" and "free market" as a spectrum, you see it as two different, separate systems, one of which must be proven superior. This is the same kind of idiotic black/white false dichotomy thinking that has gotten American neo-cons into so much fucking trouble already, and you're parroting it like a broken record.

Communism is a bad system. So is the free market. They are extremes on a spectrum of socio-economic policy, not a policy equivalent of the eternal battle of good and evil.

Complete fucking bullshit. That was not my position at all.

It's a question of showing how you dismiss an obviously necessary policy change because you associate it with eeeeevil communism.

Oh, please.

As I pointed out, I mentioned that "Soviets tried that already" to which you responded "You become elitist, and you take the chance because it is better than zero." That does seem to me that you already implicitly accepted the association in your counter-post earlier. Hence the association I made now.

Provision of energy for general consumption is not a pure public good.

Oh, so now it has to be a pure public good. Way to move those goalposts, asshole. It looks like we're heading into No True Scotsman territory.

No, it's an example of an "understatement".

[Admiral Valdemar]

A rather key point I think most people are missing here:

We build nuke plants, even the existing ones, out in the middle of nowhere for saftey. If there are no cars, how am I and the other reactor operators going to get there?

That said, I forsee the lead time on nuke plants dropping sharply as we discard most of the restrictions when the shit hits the fan. I'll have a job at least, too bad about you schmucks.

Skipping restrictions means less red tape which means it's a reactor I'm going to compare to the one that made a good impression of a mushroom cloud in '86. The fastest we've ever pushed a civilian plant is around 5 years, which was a Japanese plant from memory. If you want to cut back on these restrictions as you build the hundreds to thousands of plants needed to keep the world ticking over, I hope you also have a good load of iodine tablets and hazmat suits.

Besides, to build a reactor requires funding. The reason we're not building them like there's no tomorrow right now is because no one wants to sink cash into something that takes so long to pay back for itself and has so much opposition in public. It's really a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with nukes as I see it, though I don't expect us to ignore them. That'd just be the height of stupidity.

As for how you get there, perhaps you can consider living next to it. You USN guys do that anyway, so it's not a big change, just now you're on dry land (unless we start building those funky Russian floating reactors).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A rather key point I think most people are missing here:

We build nuke plants, even the existing ones, out in the middle of nowhere for saftey. If there are no cars, how am I and the other reactor operators going to get there?

That said, I forsee the lead time on nuke plants dropping sharply as we discard most of the restrictions when the shit hits the fan. I'll have a job at least, too bad about you schmucks.

The McDonalds employees will be drafted into labour battalions to build electric railroad lines to take you to and from work.

You'll really be snickering at the poor bastards then.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I don't trust them to fry me a burger without nearly killing me somehow. Laying railways would be like brain surgery to them. This I know for fact; I did two weeks work experience at a McD's drive-thru during high-school. Worst fortnight of my school life.

On the other hand, obesity will suddenly plummet off the radar of social issues most demanding of sorting out.

[Andrew J.]

If by "consumer society" you mean people who use stuff, then sure. We all need that. If you think today's society will survive in an era of no cheap energy, I suggest looking at what makes consumerism today viable.

Oh, there'll be plenty of cheap energy. Price is only a function of supply and demand, after all; you've been thinking supply-side, but the fall in supply will pale in comparison to the fall in demand after the Third World countries get nuked off the map and everyone adopts the Vlad the Impaler method of unemployment reduction.

[Mr. T]

Shipping is another story. Ships prospered long before flight and shall do so again. If I can entertain a personal dream, I'd even like to see airships come back. Yeah, the minor niggle of us running out of helium does hamper that somewhat. I can dream/

While i've spent my life dreaming over the idea of a career as a pilot--and i'm still going to pursue it-- as any smart person would, I have kept "career contingencies" in my college planning. Computer science and maritime work have been in place as fall back positions for some time.

You can try the air-force if the situation gets really bad. I'm sure the U.S will have a need for alot of bomber pilots to secure whatever oil fields are left.

Blimps are an interesting possibility. Are we actually running out of helium though, or will it just be more expensive since we won't be able to get it from natural gas forever and instead will have to get it from a more expenisve source?

It seems odd to me that we could run out of an element...the second most abundant element in the universe at that.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Oh, there'll be plenty of cheap energy. Price is only a function of supply and demand, after all; you've been thinking supply-side, but the fall in supply will pale in comparison to the fall in demand after the Third World countries get nuked off the map and everyone adopts the Vlad the Impaler method of unemployment reduction.

Heh, sorry, but no. The Third World is already nuked off the map. The likes of Ghana and Nigeria cannot afford fuel anymore as it is (the former has a huge hydroelectric dam and the latter has one of the largest oil fields found in recent times). The simple fact is, prices went down recently because the Third World simply fell out of the competition. It'll be a little longer before we're squeezed and we feel it.

As for supply and demand, it is not a matter of economics as humans arbitrarily dictate. There will be less physical energy and it will give you less energy than what you invested in it. When your EROEI value goes below 1:1 ratio, you're committing suicide. In the early years of oil within the US, you could get 50 barrels of oil for every 1 you used in the process of extracting it. That's now down to about 5:1.

That's why oil won't run out. It likely never will. We'll simply reach a point where what's left is energetically infeasible to extract from the land and refine, because it doesn't give back any energy, it just uses more in the process.

I can't stress enough how this has nothing to do with economics at the most fundamental scale and everything to do with physics. Supposing you had the people to blindly pump cash into such ventures, it would still end the same way when all you're doing is wasting that cash and your scarce energy in what is essentially a sinkhole for both.

You can try the air-force if the situation gets really bad. I'm sure the U.S will have a need for alot of bomber pilots to secure whatever oil fields are left.

Blimps are an interesting possibility. Are we actually running out of helium though, or will it just be more expensive since we won't be able to get it from natural gas forever and instead will have to get it from a more expenisve source?

It seems odd to me that we could run out of an element...the second most abundant element in the universe at that.

Helium as an element on Earth is shrinking in supply year-on-year. The large reserves in the US are now so low that industry is rationing off the gas for more important uses, such as scientific research rather than party balloons. The price of filling up my R/C dirigible is far higher than it was when I got the thing around 1998.

[Andrew J.]

As for supply and demand, it is not a matter of economics as humans arbitrarily dictate. There will be less physical energy and it will give you less energy than what you invested in it. When your EROEI value goes below 1:1 ratio, you're committing suicide. In the early years of oil within the US, you could get 50 barrels of oil for every 1 you used in the process of extracting it. That's now down to about 5:1.

That's why oil won't run out. It likely never will. We'll simply reach a point where what's left is energetically infeasible to extract from the land and refine, because it doesn't give back any energy, it just uses more in the process.

First of all, even energy sources with a lower ratio than 1:1 can be usefully exploited if the energy source used for extraction is plentiful enough.

Secondly, I'm already talking about a situation where oil is no longer being used; solar, wind, nuclear, what-have-you couldn't possibly maintain modern society for the population as of today, but it should be sufficient for everyone to live fairly comfortably when there's only a few hundred million people left alive on Earth.

[Admiral Valdemar]

First of all, even energy sources with a lower ratio than 1:1 can be usefully exploited if the energy source used for extraction is plentiful enough.

Secondly, I'm already talking about a situation where oil is no longer being used; solar, wind, nuclear, what-have-you couldn't possibly maintain modern society for the population as of today, but it should be sufficient for everyone to live fairly comfortably when there's only a few hundred million people left alive on Earth.

Then that's no help at all. This post actually reminds me of one I read on another board, since it simply talks about what happens at rock bottom. By that point, no one will care simply because the only way things can get worse is for the world to flood from melting icecaps. Of course energy won't be as much of an issue with a fraction of the modern populace, because you've just side-stepped the crisis rather than deal with it. Nuclear war isn't so bad, because afterwards, all the evil people are vapour and the world is free again. You can spin even Armageddon to sound less horrific if you've got the gift of a silver tongue.

I may not be a raving optimist, but I'm not about to consign myself to the fate of there only being a light at the end of the tunnel after all the badness has already passed.

I've not read these yet, though what I've briefly gone over sounds interesting. One "eye witness" to the collapse of the USSR has got two articles that may be of interest here.

Linkski 1.

Linkski 2.