The Long Emergency

Remove all ads!

Take a look at this. A friend sent this to me, and it makes an interesting argument.

The Long Emergency

 

A very interesting read. Time to turn to solar power, perhaps?

 

Sir Bel, I am amazed by the comments that this sort of thing is not well publicised in the USA.

Over here, we get this sort of doom and gloom on the front pages every time there is a hike in oil prices. In New Zealand, there are people (admittedly, not very many) who have left the cities to go and live in sustainable homes in the country so that they can be all prepared for the inevitable changes wrought by the end of oil.

We also have a political party in New Zealand called the Greens, who thanks to our proportional representation government, who have a fairly vocal presence in parliament. They seem to be working hard to ensure that government policies are directed to consider the implications of the decrease in oil supply.

On a personal level, I have been thinking about this for years and wonder what I should be doing. The only thing I can think of so far is that when faced with the choice between buying a product that has been transported halfway across the world (using jet fuel) versus one that has been made locally, I choose the locally made product. The other thing I guess we should be doing is teaching our kids to be adaptable so they can deal with whatever challenges the future holds (rather then, say, training specifically and exclusively to be a car mechanic, or a jet pilot, if such careers will be radically different in the future).

I find this to be a fascinating and scary topic and I am glad you have raised it.

 

Sir Bel, this was very interesting. Here is another link I found to read a bit more about the state of the planet, not just the sustainability of our oil-based economies (and this is a few years older, as well):

One of the things I'm most concerned about in my life is what kind of life my descendents will have. I don't doubt that our way of life is currently unsustainable; the wastefulness of modern society is commensurate with its level of quality and our reluctance to let it go. But because times are good now, people are reluctant to ask what else is happening. The people with the power to create debate and effect change seldom have an interest in doing so; we do not look beyond the immediate. I'm reminded of an American Indian proverb about this: "we do not inherit the land from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children". The way things are going, it's going to be handed back in a sorry condition.

Sadly, unlike New Zealand, our Green Party is a bit too radical to be popular enough. It's a shame that we're so blinkered, since the destruction of our ecosystems and the support mechanisms for life on this planet have been well-documented and commented upon, yet for some reason we are placing money, economic growth and other "constructed" issues above the most primal concern of all.

It's all too easy to blame capitalism, our predecessors, industrialisation or politics for what is happening. The point is to change it. Sure, our way of life will suffer, and it will have to if our species is to continue. If that means going back to a rural way of life, with far fewer human beings on the planet, then I say fine - there's too damn many of us already and we're destroying the things we depend upon to survive in the name of profits and economics. It won't be getting any easier after China and India become fully industrialised - and we can't afford to wait that long.

I, too, am glad that this topic has been raised; I have no doubt that I will be one of the people affected by the legacy of our current economies and that scares the bejesus out of me. Rather than play the blame game, though, it is imperative that we look at how humankind is going to survive this crisis of its own manufacturing.

 

Probably nature's way of maintaining the balance. Every species does its time, and then goes.

 

The issue comes up, just not publicly in the US that often. The author is right, I think we Americans are still groggy from 9/11, still refusing to believe what's happened and where the world is headed.

I've said this a lot in conversations to my friends: I refuse to believe the internal combustion engine, developed in 1901 was a virtually perfect design. Sure, there's fuel injection, computerized monitoring of the engine, etc...But the basic design has remained virtually unchanged in over a hundred years.

We've been battling over scraps for the 50 years when we should have been working toward better, more effective, and evironmentally sound energy sources. I mean, solar and magnetic power technology has barely been tapped!

I rarely venture into the Alleys as any argument tends to degrade into an "America is the Devil" rant. But I thought this one was worth posting and discussing.

 

Agreed, Sir Bel; we should have been working towards better, more sustainable and cleaner solutions for a long bloody time. Of course, as soon as a new technology emerges (or is developed), more often than not an interested corporation will buy the rights to it and hide it away. Why push an innovation when it will cost money and reduce your profits? This is, as I see it, the most threatening aspect of this "long emergency". Profits mean nothing compared to survival of the species; this attitude needs to change, both in business and in everyday life. Sacrifices will be needed.

I don't think this is necessarily a 9/11-related issue; people tend not to ask questions when life is good. It's not a US thing, it's a people thing. I'm sure that, if they wanted to, people could have found these things out for themselves. It's just easier not to, especially with everything else going on in everyday life. It's not evil, just (for want of a better term) busied or blissful ignorance.

 

Exactly, people don't ask questions when life is good.

But if we all do want to be selfish about the whole thing, why not start to ask yourself: how can I profit from everyone else's inactivity? how can I be the ant to everyone else's grasshopper?

 

The quicker we can decrese the use of fossil fuels the better. Especially burning is very wasteful since they have a lot more useful uses.

Although the author didn't belive in 'the hydrogen economy' I still think it's a viable option. Hydrogen is one of the few renewable environmentally friendly sources for fuel (2 H2O -elecrolysis-> 2 H2 + O2 , 2 H2 + O2-> 2 H2O). Although you need elecricity for electrolysis, nuclear being the only practical option, which means you wont solve the problem, but it might buy us more time.

 

I haven't had time to read the article yet, but having grown up during the 1970's energy crisis I've always had sustainability as a hot-button issue. Unfortunately, people can be selfish, lazy, and grossly short-sighted:
* Why should I recycle this newspaper? I'd have to walk 6 ft. out of my way to get to the bin, and there's a trash can right here!
* We can't retrofit our factory to use cleaner fuel or scrub the emissions, that would cut into the profit margin too deeply.
* Why should we try to use recycled materials? There's enough raw resources to last for another 20 years, and I'll be retired by that time.

It's very hard to make people look beyond their own self-interests and do the right things for those anonymous "future generations". By the time that anonymity has been replaced by the face of one's own children and grandchildren, there's too much inertia to overcome.

A groundswell of consumer demand for more energy efficiency and better energy options will go only so far. Something has to be done to give corporations real financial incentive to pursue these actions.

 

Its been proven that solar power is useful even in overcast days so why not move on to that? One of our most rainy and gloomiest cities(Craigavon) is now expeimenting with solar power for council tenants and small businesses. So far its been a great success.

 

Solar power is great on a small scale or local level; the article points out however that it is incapable of sustaining a modern lifestyle dependent on the concentrated energy sources of oil/gas/coal.
This doesn't mean solar power should not be encouraged but even if implemented on a wide scale substantial changes in lifestyle will still occur. Only a switch to nuclear power could produce enough energy to maintain the trend; yet this is an unpopular choice for other reasons and also depends at present on a finite resource.
The rediculous thing is that these lifestyle changes are pretty much beneficial to everyone and everything but for some reason (money) they are still generally ignored. Of course when people realise they can't eat money things will be more clear, to reach that drastic stage of course things will have already gone to far for a calm transition to occur. The time to act is now; soon it will be too late: However the more serious the situation becomes the less likely leaders are to tackle the issues. Just look at the British Government party: "New Labour" of 2005, it is now to the authoritarian and economic right of the British Conservative party of the 1970's.
Instead of tackling environmental issues, governments become
increasingly paranoid, reactionary and obsessed with details and to pandering to the populist whims of the tabloid press!
(P.S. I must end here as I have to go out in a minute, ... in my car.)

 

I must admit, I always find doomsayers just too funny. They continually go to extremes to make a point. The educated see through the ruse and dismiss the arguements while the ignorant could care less.

Hydrogen as fuel has serious problems -- hydrogen explosions are quite dramatic. Any problems with hydrogen buildup and ... oh my. A small hydrogen explosion in WWII (during a submarine battery recharge) destroyed the submarine (very little was left) the dock it was sitting at, another dock a hundred yards away and a few ships sitting at those docks.

Solar energy is potentially a great resource but is not quite efficient enough to be a viable source of power (yet). Harvesting wind works fairly well even though the cost analysis is poor -- it cost more to build and maintain a wind generator than the value of the output. Unfortunately, it takes government mandates to get even sub-standard research done on new sources of power.

One humorous note -- the same green freaks lamenting 'The Long Emergency' and problems with oil in general are trying to shut down the hydroelectric plants in the US. Go figure. And don't even discuss nuclear power to these people (especially as they stand around their Hummers during interviews with the press).

One aspect that is rarely brought up -- no oil, no plastics. All plastics -- computer cases, auto body parts, drink containers, medical implants -- are made from crude oil. Paint prices are going up because crude oil is going up.

 

I live in Poland, but I often work in Germany. While travelling through countryside I feel like Don Quichote (spelling...?). Huge windmills are everywhere. One costs c.a. 1 mln of euros, but provides enough electricity for a small village. Then imagine a large factory, surrounded by few dozens of those...with relatively cheap maintenance, it's a perfect solution for a windy terrain.

 

Hahaha. I am definately moving to New Zealand now. Most of the gun owners, here anyway, are middle class Christian extremist conservatives. And we do hear about it, but again right wingers shoot it down as an impossibility. Just the other day I saw something on tv about this and some conservative type was screaming about it never happening and we'll always be able to find oil because the world loves us so much. He completely drowned out the other guy, who was saying a lot like this article.

 

Hmm... well maybe if Tokyo covered the entire planet.

I hope the car companys (especially the big 3) and governments start taking these hydrogen and hybrid cars more seriosly. Ban all Hummers and SUV's and double gastaxes . Also, humanity seems to suffer from some Hindenburg(sp?) trauma, gasoline is flamable and explosive too. In fact gasoline burnes hotter and has more explosive power, compared to H2.

Edit: One more for the plus side Fuel cells can convert up to 55% of the fuel into work output, ~30% for internal combustion engine. The main drawbacks are fuelstorage space and infrastructure (hydrogen stations). I had to dig up last months Scientific American, had a nice article on fuel-cell cars.

[ April 07, 2005, 18:16: Message edited by: Sticker ]

 

Indeed the finiteness of gasoline supply is going to haunt us one day. That day's going to sooner than we like.

To gain independence from oil prices the French for instance have focused on electrifying a good part of their energy, by building nuclear power plants - but they still need cars, and frankly, nuclear power is less than ideal.

Fuel cells have a huge potential, especially when coupled with a reformer. That concept is being intensively researched in Germany, and we have just introduced into service a class of type 212 submarines using fuel cells and hydrogenium in a hybrid propulsion system, also featuring a diesel generator and batteries, and the next batch is going to use a reformer that's 'cracking' fossile fuel, diesel or Methanole into Hydrogenium and Carbondioxide and Oxygen. That is to say: The technology is there.

Of course, the issue there was air independent diving and not the environment. But the technology is interesting enough to be tested and developed by Daimler-Chrysler for buses and the like.
http://www.greatreporter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=207

The other aspect is that every energy supply that decouples us from the so-called 'arc of instability' of the oil pumping countries should be more than welcome. Enviromental protection and alternative, independent energy supplies are strategic assets.

 

I call Does the article really say that, about Tokyo having only 6-7% O2 in the atmosphere? If so, then I'm glad I haven't taken the time to read it yet, and either the editor or the fact checker should be fired. In an industrial setting, self-contained breathing apparatus is required whenever there's the possibility of people working in an atmosphere with O2< 18%. If the conditions cited really existed, no one would be able to access those rescue packs in time because they'd be too busy climbing over the bodies of the people who tried and failed.

Scroll down for a graphic of the impacts of low O2

 

Rally beat me to it, but this is a load of crap. Even if pollution in Tokoyo is extremely severe, there's this phenomenon called WIND CURRENTS which would quickly disperse the pollution throughout the atmosphere. There is no planetary process where one region of the planet can have O2 levels that are that far below normal. In fact, there is no where on the planet earth where the relative O2 concentration is less than 19%. Any biologist will readily point out that o2 binds to hemoglobin in the blood based on the partial pressure of O2. Partial pressure is calculated partially (no pun intended) based on the concentration of atmospheric O2. At 7%, it wouldn't even be sufficient to bind properly to hemoglobin, and people would be literally passing out in the streets.