News The Long Emergency : What do you think?

[Chi Meson]

"The Long Emergency": What do you think?

Has anyone read The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler? Or is anyone familiar with the dour predictions of this guy?

The gist of the situation: population up up up. Oil reserves down down down. Future: very little oil. Therefore calamity since everything we do today depends on large amounts of cheap fuel.

This on its own is not new, and the basic premise is straightforward fact. The arguable part is how quickly the catastrophe will come about. Kunstler predicts that we are a decade or two away from global socioeconomical collapse.

Personally, I think that he dismisses nuclear energy (as a stopgap) a little too quickly. But even then, if we use nuclear to it's fulfillment that puts things off no more than another 100 years.

Nyway, what are the opinions out there of the "post oil" world, and of Kunstler himself? (He may be a crank, but let's not dismiss him entirely; at least let's not dismiss the premise: we are either at the peak or past the peak of oil production just as demand is escalating at a rate higher than ever.)

 

[Rach3]

Oil from coal. 'nough said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process

 

[Chi Meson]

Oil from coal. 'nough said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process

That too is a good source of energy, but it will be much more expensive than our current petrolium-based oil supply. I think we will certainly go that route, and the environmental destruction it will require will be disgusting.

I'd prefer nuclear power for 70% of electric needs. Save petrolium for transport. Prices will probably double again in two to five years. We'll be saying things like "remember when gas was $3.00 a gallon and we thought it was 'expensive'?"

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I haven't read the book, sounds depressingly realistic?

Nuclear power is a good stop gap but that's it, Uranium is not an inexhaustable material, I've heard estimates that put the length of time we could rely on Uranium to make up the shortfall of coal/oil/gas is about 50 years rather than 100.

The only real solution is an inexhaustable power supply; wind/solar/hydroelectric are too expensive, and it would be impossible in most countries to use them alone, so that leaves future technologies such as fusion(if it can be made to work) As the only really plausible alternative in the long term, if not then we're in trouble, something has to give and it may ot be pleasant for there to be countries struggling to find energy resources. This sort of thing causes wars, or should that be, did still does and will cause wars.

Necessity being the mother of invention may mean we stumble on something big, but I wouldn't bank on it.

 

[Yonoz]

That too is a good source of energy, but it will be much more expensive than our current petrolium-based oil supply. I think we will certainly go that route, and the environmental destruction it will require will be disgusting.

I'd prefer nuclear power for 70% of electric needs. Save petrolium for transport. Prices will probably double again in two to five years. We'll be saying things like "remember when gas was $3.00 a gallon and we thought it was 'expensive'?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor" . China's planning to build 30 of those by 2020. They're also planning to use the excess heat to produce hydrogen.

 

[Skyhunter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor" . China's planning to build 30 of those by 2020. They're also planning to use the excess heat to produce hydrogen.

Gee whiz. I remember the days when the US was the world leader in new and innovative solutions.

 

[russ_watters]

This on its own is not new, and the basic premise is straightforward fact. The arguable part is how quickly the catastrophe will come about. Kunstler predicts that we are a decade or two away from global socioeconomical collapse.

Probably just a wording issue, but while the premises may be straightforward facts, the conclusion that there will be a catastrophe is still a drawn conclusion and one I don't share.

Basically, I think doom-and-gloom predictions like this fail to take into account the combined power of economics and technological advancement.

Also, it is quite possible the world popultion will stabilize in the next 50 years or so.

 

[russ_watters]

Nuclear power is a good stop gap but that's it, Uranium is not an inexhaustable material, I've heard estimates that put the length of time we could rely on Uranium to make up the shortfall of coal/oil/gas is about 50 years rather than 100.

It is tough getting good numbers for that, but I'm skeptical of many of the lower-end numbers because they often reflect environmentalist biases and as such don't include things like reprocessing.

 

[Chi Meson]

I haven't read the book, sounds depressingly realistic?

Nuclear power is a good stop gap but that's it, Uranium is not an inexhaustable material, I've heard estimates that put the length of time we could rely on Uranium to make up the shortfall of coal/oil/gas is about 50 years rather than 100.

The only real solution is an inexhaustable power supply; wind/solar/hydroelectric are too expensive, and it would be impossible in most countries to use them alone, so that leaves future technologies such as fusion(if it can be made to work) As the only really plausible alternative in the long term, if not then we're in trouble, something has to give and it may ot be pleasant for there to be countries struggling to find energy resources. This sort of thing causes wars, or should that be, did still does and will cause wars.

Necessity being the mother of invention may mean we stumble on something big, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Apparently you don't need to read the book because what you said is his position in a nutshell.

I have hope that fusion will "save" us eventually since it is more of a matter of the technology than that of theory (it does work, it's just too damn hot!). And like Russ, I think fission has a longer lifespan than 50 years as our major resource (a naval nuclear engineer I know very well assures me that the gov't has much more stockpile than it says it does).

Anyone familiar with "thermal depolymerization"?

 

[ptabor]

I think market forces will protect oil supplies. The more scarce it becomes, the higher the price will go and the more economic sense it will make to shell out the high ticket price for a hybrid. In addition, leisure driving will drop to nil, car pooling will become required and public transporation will see a renaissance.

Has the author mentioned plug in electric cars? These should be a viable option in the next 5 - 10 years.

Off topic per se, but related:

I think a freshwater shortage would be a much more likely catalyst for global catastrophe. People can live without oil (capitalism in its modern form cannot, however) but they cannot live without water.

 

[Chi Meson]

Probably just a wording issue, but while the premises may be straightforward facts, the conclusion that there will be a catastrophe is still a drawn conclusion and one I don't share.

Yes, I was precise in my word choice. And I don't share his opinion either. He seems to be concluding based on "wish-fulfillment power." He clearly hates modern culture (or lack of culture) and he despises suburban architecture and sprawl. (I admit agreement on that issue). His conclusions are drawn from a lot of detailed data which is up front and verifiable, yet his logical process is apparently more emotional than mathematical. I think he underestimates human ingenuity and perserverence.

Also, it is quite possible the world popultion will stabilize in the next 50 years or so.

Oh, it will stabilize, there is no doubt. The only way it will stabilize is to have the astronomical birth rate be matched by the death rate. Yowzah.

 

[ptabor]

Oh, it will stabilize, there is no doubt. The only way it will stabilize is to have the astronomical birth rate be matched by the death rate. Yowzah.

I think your logic on this particular point is flawed. You assume that the birth rate will remain astronomical in the future - however I don't think this will be the case.

As nations become more and more affluent, they tend to have fewer children. E.G. China and India will be producing fewer and fewer children and the "natural" death rate will soon balance out their populations.

In addition, as resources become more scarce it will make less and less sense to have a small tribe of a family (ie 8 or 9 kids).

I'm not expert on the issue by any means, but i'd be willing to bet the population will peak out relatively soon and plateau.

 

[Chi Meson]

I think market forces will protect oil supplies. The more scarce it becomes, the higher the price will go and the more economic sense it will make to shell out the high ticket price for a hybrid. In addition, leisure driving will drop to nil, car pooling will become required and public transporation will see a renaissance.

this is another area that Kunstler is overly pessimistic. As gas prices continue to double, the gas use will drop dramatically. Yet that is only postponing the inevitable exhaustion of the oil supply. So instead of "gonein 20 years" it will be "gone in 50 years."

Has the author mentioned plug in electric cars? These should be a viable option in the next 5 - 10 years.

Viable for some uses but still, from where do we get the electricity? This is where I'm rooting for nukes, but he does make the point: can't fly planes on electricity or nuclear power.

Time to buy stock in Amtrak?

Off topic per se, but related:

I think a freshwater shortage would be a much more likely catalyst for global catastrophe. People can live without oil (capitalism in its modern form cannot, however) but they cannot live without water.

All that is addressed too, along with emerging diseases, invasive species, global warming, rising waters, enviromental instability. Real nasty stuff.

 

[Azael]

I haven't read the book, sounds depressingly realistic?

Nuclear power is a good stop gap but that's it, Uranium is not an inexhaustable material, I've heard estimates that put the length of time we could rely on Uranium to make up the shortfall of coal/oil/gas is about 50 years rather than 100.

Dont forget thorium that is more abundant than uranium, India is working on thorium reactors.
If uranium deposits starts to run low it might(atleast I have seen some claims suggesting that) become economical to extract uranium from seawater and I don't think we would ever deplete the uranium in seawater .

I think the figures placing the remaining uranium deposit as depleted in 50 years is based on the uranium that is economical to mine with todays prices. Might be wrong there though.

 

[Chi Meson]

I think your logic on this particular point is flawed. You assume that the birth rate will remain astronomical in the future - however I don't think this will be the case.

The natural birth rate is proportional to the current population. This is the case in all populations until an outside factor rearranges the equation. This is a well-studied issue.

As nations become more and more affluent, they tend to have fewer children. E.G. China and India will be producing fewer and fewer children and the "natural" death rate will soon balance out their populations.

I hope so too. Is there any precedent to such social behavior modification? China has had a law that prohibits more than one child per family. This has not worked at controlling its own overpoulation problem. Will India do this voluntarily do you think? Germany and France seem to be controlling their own populations without coersion, so I am not without hope.

In addition, as resources become more scarce it will make less and less sense to have a small tribe of a family (ie 8 or 9 kids).

I'm not expert on the issue by any means, but i'd be willing to bet the population will peak out relatively soon and plateau.

Again I agree that it will only because it will not be possible for the Earth to feed more than 20 billion (and that's a high estimate).

IT IS the case that the poorer societies tend to have larger numbers of children per family. Most nations are not becoming more affluent. Your logic is logical, but societies do not operate so logically on their own.

 

[Yonoz]

Gee whiz. I remember the days when the US was the world leader in new and innovative solutions.

You don't have to be innovative. Why hasn't the American automotive industry decided on a fuel strategy? The Europeans have realized the efficiency of the diesel engine which can run on vegetable oils, the Japanese are betting on hybrid and electric motors. US manufacturers are still making big petrol engines. If that's the way the American flagship industry behaves, I wonder how the US will react to an energy crisis. You can look at not so distant precedents: The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis" :

...Hence, long lines appeared at gas stations, as they had six years earlier during the 1973 oil crisis. As the average vehicle of the time consumed between 2-3 liters of gas (petrol) an hour while idling, it was estimated that Americans wasted up to 150,000 barrels of oil per day idling their engines in the lines at gas stations.

 

[ptabor]

You don't have to be innovative. Why hasn't the American automotive industry decided on a fuel strategy? The Europeans have realized the efficiency of the diesel engine which can run on vegetable oils, the Japanese are betting on hybrid and electric motors. US manufacturers are still making big petrol engines. If that's the way the American flagship industry behaves, I wonder how the US will react to an energy crisis. You can look at not so distant precedents: The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis" :

I think one thing we can all agree upon is that oil is here to stay. This is to say, oil won't be replaced as a fuel until it is all gone. It drives our economy, as well as the economies of the other industrialized nations. There is simply too much money in petrol to abandon it.

The solution, in the near term, to mitigating the effects of an arab oil embargo is to tap our own resources, ala ANWR and other sites. Here in the USA the left won't allow such a move, instead they prefer to demagogue on high gas prices at the pump. I agree that more pollution is not needed, but that is not the topic of discussion - merely how to deal with dwindling resources.

Or, another possible solution, is to radically change our way of life. I'll be the first to admit the American way of life is unsustainable. The very way our cities are designed exacerbates the pollution (ie people having to commute an hour to work each way).

As far as our automotive industry goes, I wouldn't worry about that too much. The american car companies are reeling, and their dominance of the market is at an end. They will be forced to adapt by market forces - or face extinction.

 

[Chi Meson]

I think one thing we can all agree upon is that oil is here to stay. This is to say, oil won't be replaced as a fuel until it is all gone. It drives our economy, as well as the economies of the other industrialized nations. There is simply too much money in petrol to abandon it.

The solution, in the near term, to mitigating the effects of an arab oil embargo is to tap our own resources, ala ANWR and other sites. Here in the USA the left won't allow such a move, instead they prefer to demagogue on high gas prices at the pump. I agree that more pollution is not needed, but that is not the topic of discussion - merely how to deal with dwindling resources.

Or, another possible solution, is to radically change our way of life. I'll be the first to admit the American way of life is unsustainable. The very way our cities are designed exacerbates the pollution (ie people having to commute an hour to work each way).

As far as our automotive industry goes, I wouldn't worry about that too much. The american car companies are reeling, and their dominance of the market is at an end. They will be forced to adapt by market forces - or face extinction.

I can't agree with your first assertion. Oil is definitely NOT here to stay. And as the supply dwindles, the escalating price will cause a tapering away from its use. I think oil will fade rather than snap off. The ultra rich will be the last to continue to burn gas according to their whim long after the rest of us are forced into austerity.

Drilling ANWR is going to happen whether the Greens like it or not (I'm a light shade of green myself) but it will only last for a few years.

 

[Yonoz]

I think one thing we can all agree upon is that oil is here to stay. This is to say, oil won't be replaced as a fuel until it is all gone. It drives our economy, as well as the economies of the other industrialized nations. There is simply too much money in petrol to abandon it.

That's one of the advantages of diesel fuel - unlike gasoline you can distil it from petroleum as well as synthesize it from biomass of many common types. The transition from fossil fuels to biofuels is almost transparent to the consumer. The Germans know their investment in Diesel technology will benefit them in the post-fossil-fuel age.

The solution, in the near term, to mitigating the effects of an arab oil embargo is to tap our own resources, ala ANWR and other sites. Here in the USA the left won't allow such a move, instead they prefer to demagogue on high gas prices at the pump. I agree that more pollution is not needed, but that is not the topic of discussion - merely how to deal with dwindling resources.

This is not about pollution. In fact, until recently diesel engines produced more pollution per Joule than gasoline engines. The US still uses high-sulfur diesel fuel, abandoned for a while by most western countries. Thanks to stringent European emission standards we're seeing modern diesel engines that have improved their exhaust and noise pollution levels.

Or, another possible solution, is to radically change our way of life. I'll be the first to admit the American way of life is unsustainable. The very way our cities are designed exacerbates the pollution (ie people having to commute an hour to work each way).

I don't think the changes will be so terrible. Less cars on the road? Better public transport? More efficient engines? I don't understand why the American automotive industry has such cold feet.

As far as our automotive industry goes, I wouldn't worry about that too much. The american car companies are reeling, and their dominance of the market is at an end. They will be forced to adapt by market forces - or face extinction.

Extinction meaning the loss of an industry that was once the backbone of American finance. Had I been an American, I would worry.

 

[Yonoz]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4989146.stm" .
I just love BBC documentaries.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, it will stabilize, there is no doubt. The only way it will stabilize is to have the astronomical birth rate be matched by the death rate. Yowzah. [separate post]

The natural birth rate is proportional to the current population. This is the case in all populations until an outside factor rearranges the equation. This is a well-studied issue.

... Is there any precedent to such social behavior modification?

Yes, it is a well-studied issue, and the study shows that that "outside factor" is economic prosperity and the correlation is quite strong, as the data shows: http://www.globalgeografia.com/world/birth_rate.htm

No, a high death rate is not how population will stabilize (is stabilizing).

China has had a law that prohibits more than one child per family. This has not worked at controlling its own overpoulation problem.

Actually, the data says it has worked - China's growth rate is less than 1% per year.

Most nations are not becoming more affluent. Your logic is logical, but societies do not operate so logically on their own.

As the data shows, Africa is the biggest problem, but India and China are the largest contributors to the total issue and their societies have become significantly more affluent recently and their growth rates (and thus the growth rate of the world population) have decreased substantially.

Africa is going to take care of itself one way or another: either it'll become more affluent or AIDS will kill off the entire continent.

 

[jimmie]

Africa is going to take care of itself one way or another: either it'll become more affluent or AIDS will kill off the entire continent.

Such vision.

 

[russ_watters]

It's called realism. I have ideas for how to stop it that would work, but ideas in my head are not reality. Too many people forget that about politics.

 

[kyleb]

So, on the current course, around when do you 'realisticly' expect AIDS to kill off the entire continent?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It is tough getting good numbers for that, but I'm skeptical of many of the lower-end numbers because they often reflect environmentalist biases and as such don't include things like reprocessing.

I agree thinking about it it's impossible to judge just exactly how long oil will last, predicting something that is based on another prediction is likely to be even more innacurate. Perhaps 100 years +/- 50 would be accurate

Probably just a wording issue, but while the premises may be straightforward facts, the conclusion that there will be a catastrophe is still a drawn conclusion and one I don't share.

Basically, I think doom-and-gloom predictions like this fail to take into account the combined power of economics and technological advancement.

Also, it is quite possible the world popultion will stabilize in the next 50 years or so.

I don't think the world will end, but I do worry that their could be some major global upsets before we solve the energy situations rapidly enough to keep up with demand, However I have not built a nuclear fall out shelter yet.

Dont forget thorium that is more abundant than uranium, India is working on thorium reactors.
If uranium deposits starts to run low it might(atleast I have seen some claims suggesting that) become economical to extract uranium from seawater and I don't think we would ever deplete the uranium in seawater .

I think the figures placing the remaining uranium deposit as depleted in 50 years is based on the uranium that is economical to mine with todays prices. Might be wrong there though.

I hadn't even heard about Thorium that's interesting. Good info here, I'll have to do some digging later I think.

 

[Chi Meson]

I am trying to be more optimistic. I have to pull myself out of this pit that Kunstler's book has got me in (that's part of the reason for starting this thread).

I agree that prosperity is linked to "lower" population increases. As oil runs out (according to dire predicitons), prosperity will run out with it.
Even still, just as a small acceleration still means you will increase your speed, a small increase in population still means population increases. A 1% increase in the poulation of China means, what is it, 10,000,000 more people each year right? That is not a "plateau" by any definition.

P.S. Russ,

Thanks for that link.

 

[Chi Meson]

"Long Emergency is Postponed"

After a little research, I found a glitch in Mr. Kunstler's vision. He has completely and utterly neglected to mention the Alberta oil sands. Evidently the world's largest deposit of petrolium is in the form of bitumenous dirt covering something like 20% of the province of Alberta. It requires total environmental destruction, but the Canadian govenment requires reforestation of the mines (we'll see about that).

It's dirty, it's expensive, but it's petrolium. The best thing that can happen to us is $100 per barrel oil that will force us to "retrench" while permitting us to continue our energy intense research into the "next thing."

I'm feeling a lot better now. I'm OK with $8.00 per gallon gas.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm feeling a lot better now. I'm OK with $8.00 per gallon gas.

Well, oil and gas are feedstocks for many things - like medicines and pharmaceuticals, and many other commercial products. Not only will gasoline increase in cost, but so will food, medicine, electricity, . . .

What happens as fewer and fewer people can maintain a certain standard of living?

Of course, renewables, conservation, and greater efficiency can offset the loss of cheap petroleum, which isn't so inexpensive anymore.

There is also - advanced nuclear fuel cycles - Advanced LWR Fuel Cycles, Including High Burnup, Thorium and Transmutation - including thorium, which to require some initial enrichment.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/printable_information_papers/inf53print.htm

http://web.mit.edu/canes/publications/programs/nes.html

There is still the waste issue to be resolved in the US.

 

[russ_watters]

So, on the current course, around when do you 'realisticly' expect AIDS to kill off the entire continent?

In some places, it'll be only about 20-30 years before it kills off enough that society will cease to function.

 

[kyleb]

But what are you extimating for the entire continent?

 

[russ_watters]

"extimating"?

 

[Chi Meson]

"extimating"?

Perhaps a conflation of "estimation" and "extermination."

If I may, Russ is acknowledging a situation as it is. Sub-saharan Africa is in a very bad position re AIDS. From any angle you check, nearly 20% of the population is carrying HIV. For more detail see the following link.

http://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm

In it it says:

HIV prevalence rates vary greatly between African countries. In Somalia and Senegal the prevalence is under 1% of the adult population, whereas in South Africa and Zambia around 15-20% of adults are infected.

In four southern African countries, the national adult HIV prevalence rate has risen higher than was thought possible and now exceeds 20%. These countries are Botswana (24.1%), Lesotho (23.2%), Swaziland (33.4%) and Zimbabwe (20.1%).

West Africa has been less affected by HIV, but the prevalence rates in some countries are creeping up. Prevalence is estimated to exceed 5% in Cameroon (5.4%), Côte d'Ivoire (7.1%) and Gabon (7.9%).

Until recently the national prevalence rate has remained relatively low in Nigeria, the most populous country in Sub-Saharan Africa. The rate has grown slowly from below 2% in 1993 to 3.9% in 2005. But some states in Nigeria are already experiencing HIV infection rates as high as those now found in Cameroon. Already around 2.9 million Nigerians are estimated to be living with HIV.

These are statistics through 2005. It's grim.

 

[kyleb]

Not a conflation, just sloping typing leaving me one key low on the keyboard. And yes, I'm aware of the gravity of the situation there, I'm just wondering approximately when Russ suspects Africa's lack of what he deems 'affluency' will take to "kill off the entire continent."

 

[russ_watters]

I'm really not sure what you are asking, kyleb - I thought I answered you with post 29.

 

[kyleb]

You answered in regard to 'some places', I'm asking in regard to the entire continent.

 

[Chi Meson]

One of the hardships expected by Mr. K is the collapse of technical research due to the loss of the cheap energy to power all of our labs. Again, I think his prediction is a bit early and sudden. I would expect a long taper from oil. But nonetheless without petrolium-powered electricity, we cannot power (all of) our huge accelerators and fusion labs. This suggests a bit of a race to find the "fusion solution" before petrolium completely dries up.

And in my days of pessimism, I do enjoy being told that I am wrong, so have at it all.

 

[russ_watters]

You answered in regard to 'some places', I'm asking in regard to the entire continent.

Different things are going to happen to different countries. Some countries, like Egypt, will probably never be so overrun with AIDS that they will collapse. Are you looking for me to write a hundred page report on how AIDS will affect Africa? Sorry, it ain't going to happen.

 

[kyleb]

No, I'm just asking you your exstimate of a date in regard to this:

Africa is going to take care of itself one way or another: either it'll become more affluent or AIDS will kill off the entire continent.