Preparing for Peak Oil

[Colonel Olrik]

Even keeping present levels of population, the per capita usage of energy in Chindia is causing a great strain which is likely why the peak is now and not thirty years in the future. Someone is going to have to tell that two billion people that they can't have our lifestyles.

But can they afford it? Our Countries are strong enough and rich enough to buy oil now and at higher prices (I think that having the EU is and will be of great importance in this crisis). Can people in Chinindia afford to buy gas for private use, even now, when Europeans and Americans have ten times as much money?

[Admiral Valdemar]

So is the major issue transportation, at least in the long term?

Yes, that is the primary use of oil. It's also, cleverly, what we based our whole industrial world around.

But can they afford it? Our Countries are strong enough and rich enough to buy oil now and at higher prices (I think that having the EU is and will be of great importance in this crisis). Can people in Chinindia afford to buy gas for private use, even now, when Europeans and Americans have ten times as much money?

That would depend. The Chinese, for one, are building a truly gargantuan SPR. The US has one that was extended from 730 Mbbl. to 1 Gbbl. since 2001, but has never been over 700. The US DoE just put off, for the second time in a row, buying more stock for the SPR. They are either trying to save face by waiting for cheaper oil as the EIA and CERA predicted (which, by the way, they've been predicting since 2004), or waiting for those holding America to ransom to crack first from lack of orders from the US (not that they care, because China will simply buy what the US doesn't use anyway).

So the US is starving itself for the future out of some sort of posturing grounds.

[SCRawl]

There's enough industrial resources to support 12 million if they were used in a socialized manner right now.

For this, and most other references to millions in your post, I assume that you meant "billion".

[K. A. Pital]

For this, and most other references to millions in your post, I assume that you meant "billion".

Yeah, stupid me. It's 0:00 in Omsk and my brains are messy.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

About the question of electricity storage, could the invention of room temperature superconductors help there? I was thinking you'd have electricity run around in a superconducting ring and it wouldn't loose energy to resistance that way, then you could tap that energy somehow.

Yes. Superconductor loops and super-capacitors would solve a lot of our energy transportation needs. If you fed them with clean sources of energy, like nuclear, nuclear fusion, or space-based solar arrays, you could concievably drive the transportation and resource extraction and processing infrastructure needed to support both high quality of life, and individual mobility.

The kicker is that these are long time-horizon R&D efforts. We're not even to the point where we'd incur the greatest costs developing and deploying these things. And the infrastructure pieces are also not yet there. We'd have to vastly expand our nuclear capability, finally get fusion off the perpetual "It'll happen in fifty years." loop, and/or construct the rectenna farms and vast solar collectors in space needed for space-based solar power to work. These are things that are far enough out that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will be the ones who might see such things start to come about, if they're lucky.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Anyone hoping on fusion is really doing the same as hoping one's financial worries will be fixed by winning the lottery. It'd be great if it happened, but it most likely won't happen, even with the money pumped into such projects like JET and ITER.

By the way, one can draw parallels between the US of the '70s and the EU of today. Right now, the US is reeling from excess demand unaffected by high prices for gasoline, and lower refinery rates with dropping exports from the EU (the UK is converting mostly to diesel in refineries, and we supply the US with 25% of their finished petroleum products). Gasoline is down to the lowest number of days supply in history and while demand has gone down to some extent, we've not entered the summer driving season yet. The EU will deal with refinement much better than the US right now who are going to be looking at severe shortages before the year is out without some good demand destruction, though Europe will not be that far behind. When finished petroleum products are used up, then the SPR is eaten into which has been untouched for two years in the US.

[brianeyci]

Reading these comments, I think some people are jumping the gun accusing China and India of wanting to have a Canadian or American lifestyle with the implication they are contributing to the world's energy crisis. Of course they want our lifestyle, they're human beings so they're as deserving of it. The only question is whether China or India should continue to pursue their policies. Frankly, if they choose to do so, it's their business, and America has built itself up on oil so if other nations try to as well "telling them they can't have a Canadian lifestyle" isn't going to work. As if you have a right to tell them what they can or can't do, or more accurately can or can't try.

In short it sounds pretty stupid to tell them, give the rest of the oil to America because America already has the infrastructure and it's a waste for your guys to try it. If anything, they deserve the rest of the world's oil and America absolutely nothing, as the first world has gobbled the lion's share. It's even the right policy for America as suggested in the other thread, let the developing nations fight over the remaining oil since America fighting over the rest is pointless.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm sure the First World people will appreciate your telling them they have to live a much (much) more frugal life because it's unfair on a couple billion otherwise poverty stricken folks half a world away.

When you somehow get the American public to accept this isn't Big Oil price gouging, but their own bloody fault, then you can try and tell them to cut back and give everyone else a chance. Methinks you'd have more chance of getting Dubya to embrace socialism.

[TithonusSyndrome]

There's enough industrial resources to support 12 million if they were used in a socialized manner right now. When the industrial production starts rapidly declining in a heavy economic crisis which will lead to deaths of millions if not billions of people, it's only inevitable that the government will have to take industrial production of energy and possibly mechanized agriculture under it's complete control to prevent a yet greater disaster in those spheres by conserving at least some capital there.

Kind of makes me wonder if PO could've been averted if the world had gone Red in the first half of the 20th century.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Great article on the UK being "four meals away from anarchy" and just as complacent as the US. And I can certainly vouch for the fact that the UK, as with the US, is just as ignorant. I'd say most of the world is that isn't already lining up for fuel, like most of Africa. Frankly, this calm before the storm despite previous warnings, always reminds me of the total lack of anything happening after the Martians land in The War of the Worlds. As the great Richard Burton said:

It seems totally incredible to me now that everyone spent that evening as though it were just like any other. From the railway station came the sound of shunting trains, ringing and rumbling, softened almost into melody by the distance. It all seemed so safe and tranquil.

Funny how I could see that happening. Right now, the idea of aliens destroying our civilisation is no different to a global energy crisis, yet we're blindly going about our lives, oblivious to what has happened in the past.

The chances of oil peaking in our lives, is a million to one he said...

[brianeyci]

You're right about the consumer attitude AV.

But here's my beef (a small one I guess.) There's two ways to look at it, ethically or practically. Ethically, they're human beings and they should have the same lifestyle as us. Obviously that isn't in question. Practically, the first world should not go around fighting for the last bits of oil, because it's not sustainable. Even if we fight over the last scraps of oil, it will not be as beneficial as dumping all resources into developing alternative energy. Which will not save us, but is a hell of a lot better than shedding blood and treasure on foreign soil.

Either way there is no reason to "tell the developing world they can't have a British lifestyle." They will simply go as far as they can, and win. How can America compete with China's million man army. Even with all its toys, if America can't subjugate a country like Iraq, they'll stand no chance in some kind of global war for oil. If modern consumers can't stand "price gouging" then they won't stand for conscription.

[Lord Zentei]

There's enough industrial resources to support 12 million if they were used in a socialized manner right now. When the industrial production starts rapidly declining in a heavy economic crisis which will lead to deaths of millions if not billions of people, it's only inevitable that the government will have to take industrial production of energy and possibly mechanized agriculture under it's complete control to prevent a yet greater disaster in those spheres by conserving at least some capital there.

Kind of makes me wonder if PO could've been averted if the world had gone Red in the first half of the 20th century.

Given that 75% of the world's oil reserves are state owned already, I find that unlikely.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You're right about the consumer attitude AV.

But here's my beef (a small one I guess.) There's two ways to look at it, ethically or practically. Ethically, they're human beings and they should have the same lifestyle as us. Obviously that isn't in question. Practically, the first world should not go around fighting for the last bits of oil, because it's not sustainable. Even if we fight over the last scraps of oil, it will not be as beneficial as dumping all resources into developing alternative energy. Which will not save us, but is a hell of a lot better than shedding blood and treasure on foreign soil.

Either way there is no reason to "tell the developing world they can't have a British lifestyle." They will simply go as far as they can, and win. How can America compete with China's million man army. Even with all its toys, if America can't subjugate a country like Iraq, they'll stand no chance in some kind of global war for oil. If modern consumers can't stand "price gouging" then they won't stand for conscription.

America, for all its bluster and military might, can't do a thing about it. Washington often condemns Beijing for playing their own game on the world stage. What they really mean is, they're pissed the Chinese aren't playing their game anymore, at least not fully. The Chinese are going around making deals with just about every major producer on the planet. They have contracts with people who will gladly stop shipping oil to the US, such as Chavez or Ahmadinejad. They have a near $7 billion dollar trade surplus. The US has that in the red. They not only have the upper hand in economic clout, they needn't worry about anyone but Russia when it comes to any resource grabbing too. The US cannot access the vast reserves of NG and oil in the Middle-East and Asia without securing some sort of beach head there (Iraq, which is less than successful). China, meanwhile, has easy access to such areas, allowing pipelines and rail delivery where the US' isolationist advantage of being beyond invasion from anywhere else means it can only get its resources from abroad by ship. India, don't forget, are around 15 years behind China, so they're likely going to be zooming into the growth spurt China has enjoyed over the last near two decades.

You can certainly try and tell Chindia to stop gobbling up resources under the pretence of climate change prevention or conservation. But they won't listen, at least not without everyone else in the developed world cutting back drastically now. It's clear the American cosumer is not fazed by high prices of gasoline right now, since demand has gone up despite higher, record breaking prices. So someone has to give out somewhere along the line, many are hoping that'll be China and India. Why should they be the first to slit their throats?

[J]

You're right about the consumer attitude AV.

But here's my beef (a small one I guess.) There's two ways to look at it, ethically or practically. Ethically, they're human beings and they should have the same lifestyle as us. Obviously that isn't in question. Practically, the first world should not go around fighting for the last bits of oil, because it's not sustainable. Even if we fight over the last scraps of oil, it will not be as beneficial as dumping all resources into developing alternative energy. Which will not save us, but is a hell of a lot better than shedding blood and treasure on foreign soil.

You might as well wish for Martians to grant us the key to limitless energy, enlightenment, and world peace. There is no way, I repeat, no way for everyone on this Earth to live a first world lifestyle. Even if nuclear power and alternatives were started 50 years ago, even if we all strove to limit energy consumption, it's not possible with any current or near future technology. A first world lifestyle, even a very efficient one, requires a lot of energy, water, and food. On our planet, with our technology, there simply isn't enough of any of the above to go around for everyone. There's enough for a couple billion humans to live a first world life, but for 6-7 billion, forget it. Physically impossible.

Either way there is no reason to "tell the developing world they can't have a British lifestyle." They will simply go as far as they can, and win.

They will go as far as they can, which is not far enough, and they will die. They will not have the technology and industry base in place to deal with the sudden lack of oil, nor will they have the means to secure a supply of oil. They will be forced to revert to being 3rd world countries, again.

How can America compete with China's million man army. Even with all its toys, if America can't subjugate a country like Iraq, they'll stand no chance in some kind of global war for oil. If modern consumers can't stand "price gouging" then they won't stand for conscription.

The fight for resources goes nuclear. Billions of people cease to exist.

[Enforcer Talen]

Which, ironically, solves a lot of the problems.

[J]

Shockingly, the Shep Solution (tm) also works for peak oil!

[Admiral Valdemar]

Offers incentive to make more nuke reactors to replace that spent uranium and plutonium.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Going back to small-scale things...

My biggest piece of advice? Invest in a bike. I can't remember the source, but allegedly bikes are the most energy-efficient vehicles ever made. And considering you can easily maintain 20-25 mph on decent roads, they will go a long way towards covering the void left by a lack of an automobile.

I don't know how, but somehow I've spent the last several years preparing myself for this type of scenario without even realizing it. Basically I've had the urge to go 'nomadic' for quite a while now, and within a very short period of time, will actually start doing so.

For the past several years, I've been steadily weening myself off of that which isn't necessary for survival. Being an american, living in america, surrounded by other americans...this has been one hell of a journey and quite the eye-opener.

What I've been attempting to do is maximize my own physical and mental assets while trying to eliminate my reliance on material goods. Within about two weeks, I plan on being able to survive with nothing more than a job, my bike, and what I can carry on my back.

Going nomadic will probably work for those who can tolerate it. My own plan, from what I've seen, differs a bit from most other posters here. My technical skills are for the most part nonexistent. I only attended two years of college before bills forced me to drop out, and I never graduated. But a few of the things mentioned in the thread give me quite a bit of hope.

What I lack in college degrees, I have in other areas. I'm in peak physical condition, have been learning and practicing survival techniques for the past two years from several friends who have spent a good part of their lives going nomadic, and am easily one of the most entertaining people I know.

Entertainment was brought up several times in this thread already. And as was already mentioned, electronic entertainment will probably be taking a severe hit. Video games, and possibly even TV will be hitting a nasty decline, and that will leave a void that needs to be filled. Which is where I come in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I predict that the decline of electronic entertainment will likely see a corresponding rise in live entertainment. And I have a rapidly growing resume of theatrical/musical training and performance.

And as Talen already mentioned: For everyone who is pissed that their favourite gaming systems will probably be leaving them shortly, start investing in role-playing. It's ultimately far cheaper, infinitely more interactive, and has by far the best replay value.

Anyways, in two weeks, I'll be moving to Chicago with nothing more than a bike and, at most, two suitcases representing all of my possessions. I'll be living there for the summer with a few friends, probably doing social-work, but also devoting most of my time to a theatre job I got for the summer. From there, I plan on getting a tent and basically following the theatre around from city to city.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Cars could still become far more inconvenient and expensive to operate even if nuclear power and other non-carbon sources of energy became more plentiful. The fact is that batteries suck, fuel cells suck, everything we currently use to store loads of electrical energy sucks. They all require nasty chemicals, cost too much, store too little, wear out too fast.

From what I understand, Ni-MH batteries can give an electric car a range of 100 miles and be fully recharged in one hour, while Li-Ion batteries can give one a range of 200 miles. And electric cars may be inherently more expensive than gas cars, but I think a lot of the reason this has been historically so is that they've been produced in such limited quantities.

As some say, this is a liquid fuels crisis, not so much a "Peak Energy" crisis. If we had an alternative to oil that didn't have the problems ethanol and liquid coal have, then we'd have only a few issues that could be ironed out and no major global problem. Right now, there is nothing remotely like oil out there for us to run our cars on, so you either pay the money (until the energy costs are the overriding factor) or you learn to love public transport. Simple as.

What you're missing, Arthur_Tuxedo, is that nothing you propose exists. The fastest you're going to get reactors up for nuclear is going to be painfully slow when we need thousands, not hundreds (there exist only 400 reactors in the whole world). Uranium will peak production long before then, which means price rises and fighting over it. Nuclear is very often overhyped. Yes, it is a viable energy source. No, it is not going to change anything in the meantime. Nuclear also doesn't replace the various other things oil makes, which isn't just your car move.

Uranium can be extracted from the oceans at a cost of about $220 / kg, which would raise the total cost of nuclear power by less than 10% over the ~$50 / kg now (cost of uranium fuel is relatively insignificant compared to the other costs involved). At our present consumption, the uranium would last roughly 7 million years when taken this way. So no, there's no "peak uranium" in any sense approaching a "peak oil" sense.

Full conversion to nuclear should be doable in a 20-30 year time frame. Depending on how steep the backside of the peak oil mountain is, you're looking at 10 or so years of critical energy shortages. Enough to ruin the economy and cause temporary changes of behavior, without a doubt. But not enough to make first worlders act like responsible citizens of the planet once crunch time is over.

In any case, even solar is a viable replacement. It would take a metric giga-fuckton of panels, but not so many that it's actually impossible to equal the current world power output with solar. You'd need panels covering roughly half the size of California, which would be an investment of a large portion of GDP over many years to build, but if that were the only alternative, it would still be worth it.

The things that are manufactured using oil, such as plastics, will certainly get very expensive for an indeterminate amount of time. I don't believe I ever argued otherwise, or brought them up at all.

And like I've stated before, even if the energy issue wasn't there, if you think we're going to not only return to present levels, but then exceed them, you're obviously not well versed in thermodynamics. There's simply no way the whole world's populace is going to keep on growing indefinitely.

After the initial investment, energy can be produced even cheaper with nuclear than with coal and oil. For this reason alone, total energy consumption is guaranteed to eventually exceed peak oil consumption. As for global population, I don't buy the "billions will starve to death" argument, as first world farming can easily meet its current output even with drastic energy cutbacks by simply having more farms and more resources devoted to them. As the price of food goes up, this will happen naturally. In past centuries, a large majority of the population was involved with agriculture. Now it's about 2%. What will probably happen is that the poorest nations will experience even worse problems with hunger than they already do, and millions will starve to death, food will be a larger portion of the budget for first worlders.

Global population should taper off around 9 billion, according to predictions.

[Admiral Valdemar]

From what I understand, Ni-MH batteries can give an electric car a range of 100 miles and be fully recharged in one hour, while Li-Ion batteries can give one a range of 200 miles. And electric cars may be inherently more expensive than gas cars, but I think a lot of the reason this has been historically so is that they've been produced in such limited quantities.

The issue is investment as well as technology. We could have had EVs in the '90s. Ask yourself why we didn't get them.

Uranium can be extracted from the oceans at a cost of about $220 / kg, which would raise the total cost of nuclear power by less than 10% over the ~$50 / kg now (cost of uranium fuel is relatively insignificant compared to the other costs involved). At our present consumption, the uranium would last roughly 7 million years when taken this way. So no, there's no "peak uranium" in any sense approaching a "peak oil" sense.

Too bad, then, that the seawater technology is still in the early experimental stage and not even considered an industrial method yet. You can get gold from seawater too, but we don't because it's just not economical and technically a bitch.

The "peak" I refer to is in extraction rates. There's no "peak" to gasoline either, yet it's happening. Reserves = useless. What you can produce is all that matters and we have plenty of oil around the US and yet gasoline is going to be in shortage this summer. The same applies with the underfunded uranium mining and exploration industry.

Full conversion to nuclear should be doable in a 20-30 year time frame. Depending on how steep the backside of the peak oil mountain is, you're looking at 10 or so years of critical energy shortages. Enough to ruin the economy and cause temporary changes of behavior, without a doubt. But not enough to make first worlders act like responsible citizens of the planet once crunch time is over.

Sorry, what? You're going to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear in a couple of decades during receding energy availability and increasing costs? I'll believe that when I see it.

In any case, even solar is a viable replacement. It would take a metric giga-fuckton of panels, but not so many that it's actually impossible to equal the current world power output with solar. You'd need panels covering roughly half the size of California, which would be an investment of a large portion of GDP over many years to build, but if that were the only alternative, it would still be worth it.

And solar along with wind would need around 30% growth for near 20 years to reach the over 600 GW some claim will fill the gap. While initial growth will be quick, sustaining that is simply not going to happen.

After the initial investment, energy can be produced even cheaper with nuclear than with coal and oil. For this reason alone, total energy consumption is guaranteed to eventually exceed peak oil consumption. As for global population, I don't buy the "billions will starve to death" argument, as first world farming can easily meet its current output even with drastic energy cutbacks by simply having more farms and more resources devoted to them.

So you missed the massive amount of mechanisation in modern agriculture, the lack of expertise in the area, the worsening droughts, the lowering amount of topsoil for industrial scale development, the global grain declines, climatic effects from AGW and the US' retarded ethanol buzz which is already making food prices rise and cause shortages in Mexico. If you don't see die-off happening, I frankly doubt you grasp the big picture here. Because it's happening now in Africa as it is: Darfur. It will spread to nations of the developed world when prices start seriously affecting energy expenditure and people cut back to the bare essentials. If you think nuclear is going to fill that gap before then, think again.

As the price of food goes up, this will happen naturally. In past centuries, a large majority of the population was involved with agriculture. Now it's about 2%. What will probably happen is that the poorest nations will experience even worse problems with hunger than they already do, and millions will starve to death, food will be a larger portion of the budget for first worlders.

Global population should taper off around 9 billion, according to predictions.

According to predictions? Based on what? Did they factor in the fact that NO growth will happen in a world seeing energy shrink in abundance? Do they think these extra three billion warm bodies will just not use energy for a while until we produce the several thousand nukes needed to replace just fossil fuels alone? I doubt they did, because you're going to have fun dealing with a stable population encountering declining energy. Factor in increasing population size and per capita energy use and you've just doubled or trebled the slope decline rate.

There isn't a programme in the world that will make up even the modest 1.5% shortfall in fossil fuel energy in the coming years, which will accelerate greatly when export land and then mercantilism kicks in along with panic. If nuclear really did offer electricity too cheap to meter, why the hell didn't this happen with the atomic age boom? Could it be down to the cost overruns such as at Tennessee Valley or the many technical hiccups leading to delays? What stopped that dream happening? Renewables are not going to provide even a fraction of what we need. The only people that believe they will in any reasonable timescale are those pushing the ideas with, frankly, totally incredible investment proposals. Sure, if we dumped what we have dumped into Iraq into something like solar, then we'd be on our way there. But no one is even bothering with this on anything like a major scale and the boondoggle that is ethanol is going to butcher the US when they finally figure out what a dead end it is.

To implement any of this, you're going to be using a lot of fossil fuel energy. Energy that is now becoming a premium commodity. Prices for steel and labour are already so high that refineries are being cancelled left, right and centre globally, even in the KSA, a nation that ain't exactly poor. Nuclear powerplants cost far more, require far more technical expertise and take longer to build on average (or we can ignore the red tape, I'm sure people won't mind that despite the many historical incidents that nearly led to catastrophe as it is). All that, and you're going to be doing it on a smaller and smaller energy budget year-on-year. Whilst competing with the rest of the world.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

From what I understand, Ni-MH batteries can give an electric car a range of 100 miles and be fully recharged in one hour, while Li-Ion batteries can give one a range of 200 miles. And electric cars may be inherently more expensive than gas cars, but I think a lot of the reason this has been historically so is that they've been produced in such limited quantities.

The issue is investment as well as technology. We could have had EVs in the '90s. Ask yourself why we didn't get them.

The answer to this one is simple. The auto industries took back all their EV's when the leases expired and crushed them down in the middle of the night as soon as it looked like California's Zero Emission Mandate would get shot down. It had nothing whatsoever to do with any flaws of electric vehicles.

Uranium can be extracted from the oceans at a cost of about $220 / kg, which would raise the total cost of nuclear power by less than 10% over the ~$50 / kg now (cost of uranium fuel is relatively insignificant compared to the other costs involved). At our present consumption, the uranium would last roughly 7 million years when taken this way. So no, there's no "peak uranium" in any sense approaching a "peak oil" sense.

Too bad, then, that the seawater technology is still in the early experimental stage and not even considered an industrial method yet. You can get gold from seawater too, but we don't because it's just not economical and technically a bitch.

The "peak" I refer to is in extraction rates. There's no "peak" to gasoline either, yet it's happening. Reserves = useless. What you can produce is all that matters and we have plenty of oil around the US and yet gasoline is going to be in shortage this summer. The same applies with the underfunded uranium mining and exploration industry.

The "easy" uranium will last a century with modern breeder reactors, more than long enough for any kinks with the seawater method to sort itself out, and unlike shale oil, it actually is still economical to get uranium that way.

Full conversion to nuclear should be doable in a 20-30 year time frame. Depending on how steep the backside of the peak oil mountain is, you're looking at 10 or so years of critical energy shortages. Enough to ruin the economy and cause temporary changes of behavior, without a doubt. But not enough to make first worlders act like responsible citizens of the planet once crunch time is over.

Sorry, what? You're going to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear in a couple of decades during receding energy availability and increasing costs? I'll believe that when I see it.

Large public works projects are a staple of depressions. It does, of course, depend on how steep the back side of the slope is, like I said.

In any case, even solar is a viable replacement. It would take a metric giga-fuckton of panels, but not so many that it's actually impossible to equal the current world power output with solar. You'd need panels covering roughly half the size of California, which would be an investment of a large portion of GDP over many years to build, but if that were the only alternative, it would still be worth it.

And solar along with wind would need around 30% growth for near 20 years to reach the over 600 GW some claim will fill the gap. While initial growth will be quick, sustaining that is simply not going to happen.

It happens if it's made to happen. If it's not made to happen, then it doesn't happen. There's no magic law of economics that says an industry can't grow 30, 300, or 3 thousand % per year if there's a desperate need for it.

After the initial investment, energy can be produced even cheaper with nuclear than with coal and oil. For this reason alone, total energy consumption is guaranteed to eventually exceed peak oil consumption. As for global population, I don't buy the "billions will starve to death" argument, as first world farming can easily meet its current output even with drastic energy cutbacks by simply having more farms and more resources devoted to them.

So you missed the massive amount of mechanisation in modern agriculture, the lack of expertise in the area, the worsening droughts, the lowering amount of topsoil for industrial scale development, the global grain declines, climatic effects from AGW and the US' retarded ethanol buzz which is already making food prices rise and cause shortages in Mexico. If you don't see die-off happening, I frankly doubt you grasp the big picture here. Because it's happening now in Africa as it is: Darfur. It will spread to nations of the developed world when prices start seriously affecting energy expenditure and people cut back to the bare essentials. If you think nuclear is going to fill that gap before then, think again.

All the mechanization is not going to disappear, it will just be cut back as oil gets more expensive. It will dip during the crunch time and come back as nuclear replaces oil. Global warming in conjuction with peak oil will be a bitch, but it doesn't look like the worst of peak oil is set to coincide with the worst of global warming. Instead, it seems they'll hit about 10-20 years apart from each other.

In any case, it is likely that millions will die as a direct result of peak oil, perhaps tens of millions, and many more will be hungry and malnourished. But agriculture will not be hit so hard as to cause a loss of large fractions of the globe's population. All the oil would have to practically vanish overnight for that to happen, and no respected expert predicts the backside of the slope will be that steep.

As the price of food goes up, this will happen naturally. In past centuries, a large majority of the population was involved with agriculture. Now it's about 2%. What will probably happen is that the poorest nations will experience even worse problems with hunger than they already do, and millions will starve to death, food will be a larger portion of the budget for first worlders.

Global population should taper off around 9 billion, according to predictions.

According to predictions? Based on what? Did they factor in the fact that NO growth will happen in a world seeing energy shrink in abundance? Do they think these extra three billion warm bodies will just not use energy for a while until we produce the several thousand nukes needed to replace just fossil fuels alone? I doubt they did, because you're going to have fun dealing with a stable population encountering declining energy. Factor in increasing population size and per capita energy use and you've just doubled or trebled the slope decline rate.

The first world agriculture industries could lose half their production rate and still be able to feed the world. As food prices go up, production increases to match. The idea that first world nations would need to hoard the food or there wouldn't be enough to go around is simply ridiculous.

There isn't a programme in the world that will make up even the modest 1.5% shortfall in fossil fuel energy in the coming years, which will accelerate greatly when export land and then mercantilism kicks in along with panic. If nuclear really did offer electricity too cheap to meter, why the hell didn't this happen with the atomic age boom? Could it be down to the cost overruns such as at Tennessee Valley or the many technical hiccups leading to delays? What stopped that dream happening? Renewables are not going to provide even a fraction of what we need. The only people that believe they will in any reasonable timescale are those pushing the ideas with, frankly, totally incredible investment proposals. Sure, if we dumped what we have dumped into Iraq into something like solar, then we'd be on our way there. But no one is even bothering with this on anything like a major scale and the boondoggle that is ethanol is going to butcher the US when they finally figure out what a dead end it is.

The primary reason why nuclear never took off is because of the shennanigans of the Department of Energy, and also because old nuclear technology was nowhere near as safe or as good as what we have today.

To implement any of this, you're going to be using a lot of fossil fuel energy. Energy that is now becoming a premium commodity. Prices for steel and labour are already so high that refineries are being cancelled left, right and centre globally, even in the KSA, a nation that ain't exactly poor. Nuclear powerplants cost far more, require far more technical expertise and take longer to build on average (or we can ignore the red tape, I'm sure people won't mind that despite the many historical incidents that nearly led to catastrophe as it is). All that, and you're going to be doing it on a smaller and smaller energy budget year-on-year. Whilst competing with the rest of the world.

There is no shortage to the number of areas that would be cut back before projects to restore energy production would be cut. Same goes for food production, for that matter.

[Enforcer Talen]

Remember its not a matter of food production - but distribution.

Its no good if acres of food is a hundred miles away. *You* still dont have any.

[Erik von Nein]

Remember its not a matter of food production - but distribution.

Its no good if acres of food is a hundred miles away. *You* still dont have any.

That's why I'm incredibly fortunante to live not only near some of the biggest agriculture land in California but also along the major freight line from the northwest coast to the southwest coast. I still have to prepare personally to make sure I'm not caught as badly as everyone else, but food won't be a problem in my area.

[Enforcer Talen]

Anticipate attackers. Both of those are valuable, if it comes down to it.

[Erik von Nein]

Anticipate attackers. Both of those are valuable, if it comes down to it.

There are actually better cities to live in for being closer to ag land and are also just generally cheaper to live in in my county. Another bonus is that the city I live in is home to one of the biggest ag/polytechnic colleges in the state.

Attackers are to be expected and, quite frankly, I would be surprised if there wasn't an increase in violence from the poorer elements of society. There's already a big problem with the homeless/transient population in this county attacking each other. And the majority of the homeless are families. When this gets even worse I expect a lot of them will turn their agression toward anyone remotely affluent.

I also hope to supplement my trading (when the dollar goes to Hell that's going to be greatest means of acquiring stuff) with herbs, actually. When you get to the point where lots of people will have cheap, bland foods (or, at least, will become bland due to the fact that they're constantly eating the same things) herbs will become hugely valuable. I've already got a minor herb garden going as it is. Hopefully it'll work out. It's not my only plan, though.