Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[PixyMisa]

Right. Might as well call for the abandonment of the lever, the inclined plane, and the wheel, because they lead to freeway accidents.

Or fire. People have been killed by fire! Clearly we'd be better off without it.

 

[JihadJane]

Yes, it takes decades for an energy transition.

However, none of the fossil fuels are going to run out in the next few decades. We have time.

The first thing that will run out is the conventional oil reserves. But tar sands and shale oil each provide further recoverable oil reserves equivalent to - possibly significantly greater than - all known conventional oil reserves combined.

Are you talking an equivalent amount of oil or an equivalent amount of energy gained?

Additionally, **** climate change and pollution! We gotta burn it all as fast as possible!

 

[excaza]

If you want to cry about climate change and pollution, you're welcome to start another thread.

 

[TFian]

Are you talking an equivalent amount of oil or an equivalent amount of energy gained?

Additionally, **** climate change and pollution! We gotta burn it all as fast as possible!

I don't think PixyMisa is factoring in the massive negative externalities that result from tar sand/shale oil extraction. But then again, it's there, and usable hydrocarbons...

 

[TFian]

Got it. And, of course we have.

Derrick Jensen has written some interesting literature on the development (and negative aspects) of cities.

Do you cycle?

Yes, I cycle to school and work almost everyday. Though sometimes I take public transportation. I try to avoid using a car, though sometimes unavoidable given where I live.

Think about how you would build and maintain a bicycle without using any petroleum products. There are probably already answers to these questions.

Well, I do have to oil it at times to maintain it, and how would we make the steel without petroleum.

That's what confuses me. I thought that's what you said McPherson was claiming.

I'm not really sure what's he's claiming, I can't find the 2013 prediction, I'm thinking he actually removed it. I don't think he claimed it would run out, just another oil shock would "kill the US economy".

 

[W.D.Clinger]

and how would we make the steel without petroleum.

We might eventually figure out how to make steel without petroleum. After all, the Romans, Chinese, and Africans figured that out some two millenia ago.

 

[excaza]

We might eventually figure out how to make steel without petroleum. After all, the Romans, Chinese, and Africans figured that out some two millenia ago.

Don't be silly, running out of oil will kill off anyone capable of independent thought.

 

[TFian]

We might eventually figure out how to make steel without petroleum. After all, the Romans, Chinese, and Africans figured that out some two millenia ago.

Not as efficiently or as abundantly though

 

[TFian]

Right. Might as well call for the abandonment of the lever, the inclined plane, and the wheel, because they lead to freeway accidents.

Or fire. People have been killed by fire! Clearly we'd be better off without it.

How do you mean?

 

[Roboramma]

How do you mean?

Any technology has negative consequences: fire may have helped us to hunt more efficiently, to sanitize food and water, and to keep warm in cold climates, but people get burned. Whole cities have gone up in flames.
Regardless, I know that the risks of fire use are far outweighed by the rewards.

The same is true of modern technology, yes there are downsides and negative consequences. Climate change is one of those, for instance. The introduction of invasive species to pristine ecosystems due to human travel and trade is another. But the rewards of technology vastly outweigh the negatives.

To put it differently: what is true of modern technology is true of ancient technology, and vise versa.

 

[PixyMisa]

Are you talking an equivalent amount of oil or an equivalent amount of energy gained?

Either. Even if we burn the bitumen from the tar sands to get the energy to extract the oil, the return is still around 70-85% of the total recoverable energy.

Additionally, **** climate change and pollution! We gotta burn it all as fast as possible!

Why would you want to do that?

 

[TFian]

Got it. And, of course we have.

To further expand. (Wo)Man has lived 100,000 years before that without cities and had no problem living sustainably.

 

[TFian]

Your claim that "we are no smarter than many different animal species" suggests you have little experience with other animal species.

It's a proven fact there are many animal species with our same intelligent. Most apes, and dolphins for examples. Along with elephants.

And yet, on a typical working day in New York City, roughly 1.5 million people commute by rail.

Actually, roughly 4.3 million people ride the subway into Manhattan each day. I didn't say it was not viable, I said that It couldn't support the added load of drivers. But my point is moot really in the first place, because transportation is one of the least problems in the city (unless you are talking LA or comparable cities).

 

[PixyMisa]

To further expand. (Wo)Man has lived 100,000 years before that without cities and had no problem living sustainably.

No so much:

Outside of Eurasia, these megafaunal extinctions followed a distinctive landmass-by-landmass pattern that closely parallels the spread of humans into previously uninhabited regions of the world, and which shows no correlation with climate. Australia was struck first around 50,000 years ago, followed by the Solomon Islands 30,000 years ago, the Americas 13,000 years ago, Cyprus 9000 years ago, the Antilles 6000 years ago, New Caledonia 3000 years ago, Madagascar 2000 years ago, New Zealand 800 years ago, the Mascarenes 400 years ago, and the Commander Islands 250 years ago. Actually, nearly all of the world's isolated islands could furnish examples of extinctions occurring shortly after the arrival of Homo sapiens. (Most of these islands, such as the Hawaiian Islands, never had terrestrial megafauna, so their extinct fauna were smaller.)

You're worried about endangered species now? Things were a whole lot worse before we started living in cities and raising our own food.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's a proven fact there are many animal species with our same intelligent.

Nope.

Most apes, and dolphins for examples. Along with elephants.

Some apes, plus dolphins and elephants, can recognise themselves in a mirror. That is not the same level of intelligence.

Actually, roughly 4.3 million people ride the subway into Manhattan each day. I didn't say it was not viable, I said that It couldn't support the added load of drivers.

Evidence?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Actually, roughly 4.3 million people ride the subway into Manhattan each day.

Interesting. I wonder how they get home at night. (The MTA reports a little over 5 million subway rides per day, including intra-city rides.)

I didn't say it was not viable, I said that It couldn't support the added load of drivers.

Interesting. Here's what I thought you had said:

Btw, I have a question for you. Many here say electric rail is a substitute for petroleum based transportation. Yet, electric rail couldn't support the enormous masses that flood into the business districts of cities every day. Business districts which require SUBURBS so that people can commute there to work, because the city itself REQUIRES the INCOME to sustain itself economically!

Somehow I missed your reference to drivers. Now that I'm taking a second and more careful look, I still don't see it.

But my point is moot really in the first place, because transportation is one of the least problems in the city (unless you are talking LA or comparable cities).

Interesting. I must have misunderstood you. Somehow I got the impression you were saying electric rail couldn't support the enormous masses that flood into the business districts of cities every day.

 

[GreyArea]

Yes, I cycle to school and work almost everyday. Though sometimes I take public transportation. I try to avoid using a car, though sometimes unavoidable given where I live.

You're doing it right. Good to hear.

And you are not alone: "Fewer and fewer young people are driving—but why?" The author thinks the rising price of oil is one factor (among several).

Well, I do have to oil it at times to maintain it, and how would we make the steel without petroleum.

I remember bikes being made of bamboo for the larger structural beams, not the smaller mechanical parts. That could economize. Here's one of several links I found: How to build a bamboo bicycle

And here's a random link to a cyclist discussion site showing that there are non-petroleum machine lubricants already available. I expect that as the price of oil rises, more people will research better options.

I don't think he claimed it would run out, just another oil shock would "kill the US economy".

Well, that's a different kind of problem than the physical resource limit problem of Peak Oil. It would be more about reaction and psychology than hard limits. And even then, some people would still be able to afford gasoline.

 

[Dancing David]

Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects by Vaclav Smil makes a good case why it takes decades for an energy transition.

50 years is five decades, I think you are a Turing bot.

Captcha!

 

[TFian]

50 years is five decades, I think you are a Turing bot.

Captcha!

Decades can be "five" decades, as the author thinks it would be even more.

I assure you, I'm mostly organic!

 

[TFian]

You're doing it right. Good to hear.

And you are not alone: "Fewer and fewer young people are driving—but why?" The author thinks the rising price of oil is one factor (among several).

Yeah, pretty much everyone under 30 in my city does at least some cycling to replace driving. Seems to be the general trend...

remember bikes being made of bamboo for the larger structural beams, not the smaller mechanical parts. That could economize. Here's one of several links I found: How to build a bamboo bicycle

And here's a random link to a cyclist discussion site showing that there are non-petroleum machine lubricants already available. I expect that as the price of oil rises, more people will research better options.

Oh wow, I didn't know, I'll have to check that out.

Well, that's a different kind of problem than the physical resource limit problem of Peak Oil. It would be more about reaction and psychology than hard limits. And even then, some people would still be able to afford gasoline.

Well, as the Grand Archdruid says, the problems are cultural, rather than technical, really.