Depletion of Resources

[The Last Conformist]

In Sweden, we plant forests on formerly agricultural land.

 

[Stapel]

In Sweden, we plant forests on formerly agricultural land.

For what reason?
Creating recreation areas?

 

[The Last Conformist]

For what reason?
Creating recreation areas?

Recreation areas?

In Sweden, you can't charge anyone money to stroll in your woods, so no-one would do that. It's simply so that on the less fertile soils, it makes more money to grow trees than grain. Blame capitalism, I guess.

 

[Stapel]

Recreation areas?

In Sweden, you can't charge anyone money to stroll in your woods, so no-one would do that. It's simply so that on the less fertile soils, it makes more money to grow trees than grain. Blame capitalism, I guess.

I will burn my IKEA closet tonight !

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yeah, that will really decrease the demand for Swedish wood ...

 

[crystal]

I advise more countries (not all, like Bangladesh should not, but Brasil would be ok) to chop their woods and make agricultural lands instead.

Or do some people still believe woods provide oxygen ?

Dude, you got some serious attitude problems. Enough said.

 

[betazed]

Or do some people still believe woods provide oxygen ?

Don't understand what you are laughing about?

Woods do provide oxygen. I am not sure whether trees are the primary producers of oxygen (they may not be, photosynthetic algae maybe the primary producer). But woods provide more than oxygen. Following are just some of those things

• They protect the top soil from becoming eroded.
• they provide the channel to replenish ground water
• they provide the background over which a lot of biota survives
• woods + forests generate the necessary conditions for rain to some extent which not only provides groundwater but also regulates the climate to some extent

be careful when you ask to cut down those woods.

Looks like you have inhaled too much exhaust from that fiat you own.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Last I heard, the coniferous woods of the Taiga belt (Canada, Russia, Scandinavia) were net consumers of oxygen.

 

[betazed]

Last I heard, the coniferous woods of the Taiga belt (Canada, Russia, Scandinavia) were net consumers of oxygen.

Could be. But that does not make them useless. Producing oxygen is not the most important benefit of woods/forests.

 

[The Last Conformist]

See previous discussion of why we're planting more of them in Sweden in this thread.

 

[luiz]

It's rarely people in their right mind who cause the problems ...

True, but the possibility of a demented general as the leader of a major power seems remote for now and the near future.

Your fellow right-wingers are gonna hate you for this one.

The HDI is a very competent measure, even if not a perfect one. Certainly better then that ISEW thing, whatever the hell that is.

 

[luiz]

Surely scale does matter. Had the Easter Islands been larger the catastrophe would have come probably 100 years later.

And they would have developed furtrher away from a wood-dependent society.

It's expensive because it requires energy which is essentially again oil.

Brazil may still prosper for a while and may even survive on its own but many other countries are already depending on the importation of ressources.

Can India sustain 4 billion people? Within 60 years India's population will be like that if there won't be any break. People from Bangla Desh which is growing even at a faster pace will invade India to help growth.

Energy is not essentially oil. In Brazil 90% of the electricity comes from hydro-plants. The US is particularly dependant on oil, but I´m sure that it could be reverted to more reliance on hydro-plants, nuclear plants and natural gas plants. The only reasonm why oil is so widely used is because it´s so abundant and so cheap.

As for India, I´m sure that two things are very likely to happen:
1-As the cost of living increases, a natural consequence of urbanization, people will have less kids and the growth rate thus will decrease.
2-The food production will increase and they will produce more food then consume, or at the very least reach an equilibrium.

 

[Little Raven]

That sounds right. It will probably buy us a few more years, but by then believe that new energy sources will already be avaiable.

Ah, the magical new energy sources again. I certainly hope so. But they'd better come soon. Even if we aren't at peak oil yet, time is quickly running out. It's going to take some time to retool our infrastructure even if we develop ZPE tomorrow. We've been falling for a long time…if we're going to start flying, it better be soon.

There will probably be no single energy source that will perform all the functions of oil.

Heh. Ya think?

Oil currently makes up just less than 50% of our global energy supply. Care to enlighten me about which other sources you see expanding to fill that void?

Everything seems to point at a future with severall important energy sources sharing the world. Car can run on alcohol, or hydrogen, or natural gas. Electricity could be generated through hidro-plants, or nuclear-plants, or any other.

It doesn't matter what cars run on. It matters where we get the energy to run them. It doesn't matter how we generate the electricity, as long as we can. But cut out that 41% from the graph above, and I'm not sure we can get enough energy anymore.

No, not at all. I was merely pointing out to a spine of the world that was replaced.

Yes, but you neglected the big difference between replacing coal with oil and replacing oil with something else. Oil is more efficient than coal. It's always easier to replace something that's less efficient with something that's more efficient. What's hard is replacing something that's more efficient with something that's less efficient. And guess what? Everything we know about is less efficient than oil.

Before it reaches 150 dollars other energy source will already look more attractive.

Only if we find another energy source that can adequately replace oil. Care to offer a suggestion? I'll gladly analyze solution you put forward.

If the US occupied Venezuela the brazilian government would vehemently protest, but presently what else could we do? Commit suicide and attack the american troops? I think not. Furthermore the government of my country knows very well that we are safe and nobody in their rights mind would ever invade us.

We won't invade you. We'll just seize your offshore oil rigs and divert the oil to the US. It won't be anything personal, mind you, it's just that we will need the oil and be in a position to take it. Most of the history of humanity has been a series of wars for resources. Only the incredible abundance offered by oil allowed that to abate for a time. If that abundance ends, the resource wars will return.

It also means that we won'y vanquish suddenly. We shall not be like the mayans.

I don't think you realize what I'm talking about. The Mayans didn't vanish. Neither did the Anasazi or the people of Easter Island. They're still around today. Their civilization collapsed. Peak oil doesn't mean the end of humanity. Humanity lived for hundred of thousands of years without oil. It just means the end of the civilization we know.

As I said I believe that the days of a dominant energy source are over. There will be probably severall "magic bullets" sharing their role.

Give me some examples, and I'll run the numbers. We'll see what we find.

It's still inefficient, but is already much cheaper then when it was done at first. The energy can be provided by numerous alternative sources(nuclear, hidr-electricity, etc)

I thought we were going to use those energy sources to replace oil? Now we're going to use them to make water too? How much hydro-electricity does Brazil have?

As for the ammount of salt, one could just make piles somewhere. I don't really know. Fact is we deal properly with toxic waste, salt should be no problem.

*chuckle* I can tell you've given this a lot of thought. Ok, let's assume we just make piles somewhere. Of course, we need to keep in mind that a pile of salt will poison the land for miles around. There's a reason for the expression "Salt the earth." It will also turn water into an unusable brine. But hey, the piles won't be very big, right?

Let's say we desalinate a million acre-feet of ocean water a year. That sounds like a lot, but it isn't. Texas alone uses almost 20 times that. How much salt do you think we have?

There are a million gallons in 3.01 acre-feet of water. There is about .25 pounds of salt per gallon of sea water. Do the math.

And in case you're lazy..it comes out to just over 10 million tons of salt. Every year.

Do you mind if we put the piles by your house?

 

[luiz]

Ah, the magical new energy sources again. I certainly hope so. But they'd better come soon. Even if we aren't at peak oil yet, time is quickly running out. It's going to take some time to retool our infrastructure even if we develop ZPE tomorrow. We've been falling for a long time…if we're going to start flying, it better be soon.

New energy sources.

Heh. Ya think?

Oil currently makes up just less than 50% of our global energy supply. Care to enlighten me about which other sources you see expanding to fill that void?

Ok...
We could build more nuclear-plants...we easily have the resources to double the current ammount. So say we make nuclear plants enough to provide 12% of the total.

And there is ou friend natural gas. Bolivia, with the biggest reserves in the world, exploits less then 1/5 of the total reserves. Brazil has just discovered a new reserve, in Santos, that is bigger then all our other reserves combined. And they are big. So we could make natural gas responsible for 40% the total energy generation.

Coal can remain with it´s 24% for some time.

Now the renewables. They are expensive, with the exception of hydro-electricity. But nevertheless the rich countries are building a considerable ammount of them. So lets say they double their percentage too, gowing to 14% of the total.

This means that oil has gown down to 10% of the total, with the same ammount of energy beign generated. This would make oil last for many many decades.

It doesn't matter what cars run on. It matters where we get the energy to run them. It doesn't matter how we generate the electricity, as long as we can. But cut out that 41% from the graph above, and I'm not sure we can get enough energy anymore.

My calculations, albeit far from perfect, at least give the impression that replacing oil i s not that hard.

Yes, but you neglected the big difference between replacing coal with oil and replacing oil with something else. Oil is more efficient than coal. It's always easier to replace something that's less efficient with something that's more efficient. What's hard is replacing something that's more efficient with something that's less efficient. And guess what? Everything we know about is less efficient than oil.Only if we find another energy source that can adequately replace oil. Care to offer a suggestion? I'll gladly analyze solution you put forward.

All alternatives will be more efficient then oil when the need to replacement comes.

We won't invade you. We'll just seize your offshore oil rigs and divert the oil to the US. It won't be anything personal, mind you, it's just that we will need the oil and be in a position to take it. Most of the history of humanity has been a series of wars for resources. Only the incredible abundance offered by oil allowed that to abate for a time. If that abundance ends, the resource wars will return.

Seize our offshore oil rings? And how will you stop us from sinking your platforms? It´s so easy it can´t be avoided.

I don't think you realize what I'm talking about. The Mayans didn't vanish. Neither did the Anasazi or the people of Easter Island. They're still around today. Their civilization collapsed. Peak oil doesn't mean the end of humanity. Humanity lived for hundred of thousands of years without oil. It just means the end of the civilization we know.

I know they didn´t vanish, but they lost their power. One thing is to a isolated and small civilization lose it´s power, and entirely different matter is our global one.

Furthermore if indeed we were marching to the end of our civilization I think there would be 100 times more concern then there is presently. Governments and the scientifical stablishment are not stupid, they have access to accurate numbers and they can make predictions better then you or me. Even if the predictions are not necessarily always optimistic they never mention the collapse of world economy, endless wars or the end of our civilization.

Give me some examples, and I'll run the numbers. We'll see what we find.

See a very rough stimate above.

I thought we were going to use those energy sources to replace oil? Now we're going to use them to make water too? How much hydro-electricity does Brazil have?

We´re going to use them for everything we might need.

*chuckle* I can tell you've given this a lot of thought. Ok, let's assume we just make piles somewhere. Of course, we need to keep in mind that a pile of salt will poison the land for miles around. There's a reason for the expression "Salt the earth." It will also turn water into an unusable brine. But hey, the piles won't be very big, right?

Let's say we desalinate a million acre-feet of ocean water a year. That sounds like a lot, but it isn't. Texas alone uses almost 20 times that. How much salt do you think we have?

There are a million gallons in 3.01 acre-feet of water. There is about .25 pounds of salt per gallon of sea water. Do the math.

And in case you're lazy..it comes out to just over 10 million tons of salt. Every year.

Do you mind if we put the piles by your house?

Firstly I´d like to dispute the notion that one pile of salt poisons the land miles away. It makes some local damage, but nothing on the scale you suggested. I´ve seen huge piles of salt next to fertile areas. The only areas completely ruined are the ones directly below the salt.

Secondly, as I said in my first post we deal with much worse materials just fine. Do you think salt is any more dangerous then toxic waste.

Now for your numbers. 10 million tons is not that much. Any short mountain weights more then that.
Of course I have not given this much thought, but what would be the massive damage if you just made some mountains of salt in the middle of the Mojave desert? It´s not like there is much agriculture there anyway. My point is salt is not nearly hazzardous enough to make desalinization inviable.

 

[crystal]

Yes, but you neglected the big difference between replacing coal with oil and replacing oil with something else. Oil is more efficient than coal. It's always easier to replace something that's less efficient with something that's more efficient. What's hard is replacing something that's more efficient with something that's less efficient. And guess what? Everything we know about is less efficient than oil.

Are you sure you're not confusing terms here? I mean, burning oil isn't very effective, for example the efficiency of combustion engines is only about 30%. Oil just contains a lot more energy per volume/weight unit compared to coal or wood.

 

[betazed]

Ah, the magical new energy sources again. I certainly hope so. But they'd better come soon. Even if we aren't at peak oil yet, time is quickly running out. It's going to take some time to retool our infrastructure even if we develop ZPE tomorrow. We've been falling for a long time…if we're going to start flying, it better be soon.Heh. Ya think?

Imagine....

A stairway to space that can lift a kilogram of material to geosynchronous orbit at less than $10.
A factory on the moon that can use the billions of tons of silicates present there to make mirrors/solar cells.
A stairway on the moon to lift stuff to moon's geosynchronous orbit at less than a dollar.
Millions of these mirrors/solar cells put together at the earth moon Lagrange point (another could be made after that at the earth/sun lagrange point which is better since it is always in full view of the sun).
A galaxy of microwave power beaming sattelites around the earth receiving power from this gigantic mirror.

It's not too hard if you try.

I know this is not going to happen soon and does not allay any of LR's (justifiable) concerns. But I just wanted to put this forward to show that present science is capable of solving all of earth's energy problems if only we can muster the capabilty to do gargantuan projects. The problems are not technological but social. A capitalistic framework may not ever be able to pull off such projects.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Seize our offshore oil rings? And how will you stop us from sinking your platforms? It´s so easy it can´t be avoided.

Violent resistance is not necessarily a sensible reaction to being robbed at gun-point ...

 

[crystal]

I just found an article called Ten Capitalist Myths. Our stubborn, idealistic die-hard capitalists here should read it. It debunks many common myths in a very convincing way.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I would appreciate if no-one brought up Capitalism in this thread again unless someone first explains to me why it is pertinent to the subject at hand, viz, depletion of resources and the ecological sustainability of current world civilization.

 

[Mapache]

As for India, I´m sure that two things are very likely to happen:
1-As the cost of living increases, a natural consequence of urbanization, people will have less kids and the growth rate thus will decrease.

That didn't happen in Bangla Desh until now. Density is already at 1000 people/km². My numbers were too high, though. India grows with 1,5% p.a..

2-The food production will increase and they will produce more food then consume, or at the very least reach an equilibrium.

I think they produce enough food at the moment. I'm worried more because of the oil they will need. India has a significant economic growth.