things to work on if you buy "peak oil"

[jrtom]

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/02/the_agenda_rest.html

I'm not really sure how pressing a problem this is. Like a lot of people, I have a job (and a professional background) that puts me in a rather bad way if it turns out that Life As We Know It is going to become considerably more decentralized and energy-poorer...so I may not think about it as much as I should.

Should this all go badly quickly, I will be able to serve as a particularly good (bad) example of why intelligence and forethought are not a substitute for actual preparation. *wry smile*

I'd certainly like to encourage better public transit and less use of cars. Sadly, while there are a few different light rail projects being proposed for the Seattle area, none of them would come anywhere near where we live.

(Side note: yes, there are a lot of wingnuts responding to the original post. I don't necessarily agree with all of his suggested courses of action, either. Regardless, it's good to think about these sorts of things at least occasionally anyway, and to consider what changes of course would at least bring us more in line with those courses of action, even if I'm not presently willing to drop everything and become a peanut farmer in Pasco or something.)

Comments

[lightning-rose.livejournal.com]

It's odd. He talks about electric railways powered by coal, but forgets to mention solar, wind, tide and nuclear power. Electricity can go a long ways in solving the problems he mentioned.

True, in the last 30 years nuclear has been out of vogue in the USA, but give the sheep the choice between turning off the air conditioning and building nuke plants, it's a safe bet as to what they'll choose.

Thankfully, todays nuke designs would be much safer than what was built in the 50's and 60's.

And Although I'm much more in favor of developing renewable resources (no, ethanol does not count), compared to pollution and global warming, nuclear power is starting to look much more attractive. Not to mention that coal and oil are excellent raw materials for plastics.

I think a much better thought out essay is the 29 year old "Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis".

http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_index.htm

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I haven't personally run the numbers on energy budgets and replacement of our energy infrastructure with other forms of energy. Certainly there's far more energy available in orbit via solar power than we need...if we can get it where it's needed. I think that the contention that the peak oil folks make is generally that alternate sources either (a) will not be ready in time (either in terms of R&D, infrastructure, or both) to cushion the crash, or (b) have insufficient capacity. As I said, though, I'm not in a position to check the numbers.

Personally I'm fine with building more nuclear plants, especially given the new designs (although I should point out that nuclear also involves a nonrenewable resource, albeit one with a longer time horizon). I don't see it happening any time soon, though, and I expect the necessary political will to emerge _after_ a prolonged energy crisis, not before.

I find it ironic that the emerging recognition of global warming might end up addressing this problem (at least sooner than we might have otherwise) in some sense as a side effect. :)