Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Sunday August 24 2014, @02:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the Subsistence-Farming dept.

You all hopefully have heard of peak oil: that the easy oil is gone, and so now we're down to fracking. If fracking costs $120/barrel output, then the price of oil isn't going to go down below $120 a barrel ever again.

And you aren't going to find 2-ton copper nuggets in the streambeds either: the mines now get 0.04% rich ore, which takes a lot of oil to work the mines. So peak oil means peak copper, too.

Peak oil means peak everything. So that means peak growth.

But our world's national debts, which are all far above the highest debt-Gdp ratio that has ever been repaid, assume infinite growth. Worse, growth and prosperity depend on the same resources, so that means an end to prosperity. So what's coming? And how do we prepare? Chris Martenson, a former Fortune-300 CEO, has put together a website including forums, groups, and above all three crash courses: a free 1-hour overview course, a free 4-hour 2008 version broken into 2-6 minute chapters, and half free/half paywalled 2014 version. The 2008 and 2014 versions are basically equivalent, but the 2014 contains better graphics and a bit more info.

He's asking people to get the word out:

Go watch the crash course, and then prepare.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:31PM (#84952)

    > If fracking costs $120/barrel output, then the price of oil isn't going to go down below $120 a barrel ever again.

    Fracking does not produce oil, it produces natural gas.
    Natural gas isn't even measured in barrels.
    It is measured in cubic feet or sometimes BTUs.

    • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Monday August 25 2014, @02:52PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday August 25 2014, @02:52PM (#85342)

      This is how I know these are just ass-numbers and no actual research was done on this.

      Also, even now we see more people moving to greener forms of transportation due to the economics.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Zinho on Monday August 25 2014, @04:07PM

      by Zinho (759) on Monday August 25 2014, @04:07PM (#85363)

      If fracking costs $120/barrel output, then the price of oil isn't going to go down below $120 a barrel ever again.

      Fracking does not produce oil, it produces natural gas.

      This sentence makes my head hurt. It's half-right on one level, and wrong on many, many others.

      * Fracking is not a production technique. It does not produce anything.
      * Hydraulic Fracturing (aka "fracking") is an optimization technique - it creates high-permeability flow paths for the well fluids to reach the production pipe. It can be used on many types of well, whether they produce natural gas or West Texas Intermediate crude or even fluids nearly as thick as tar. It's analogous to putting larger diameter intake and exhaust pipes on your car to get better airflow.
      * Fracturing is a service performed on the well at a specific time and at a fixed cost. It's not a cost/barrel of output unless you amortize it over the remaining life of the well.

      The Fortune quote as I write this is apropos: "Your ignorance cramps my conversation."

      If anyone's interested I can write up a fairly clear explanation of what's involved in a Frac job and how it helps the well. If I don't get any response to this, though, I'll just quit my ranting and pop some acetaminophen.

      --
      "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Boxzy on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:35PM

    by Boxzy (742) on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:35PM (#84953) Journal

    Especially food and water. Reading about how many calories are required to extract one calorie from the ground sends chills down my spine.

    We are talking transportation, sowing, tilling, harvesting, AND fertilising.

    Basically the first world countries have been eating fossilised calories for decades.

    Expect major land grabs of fertile areas to become a growth military objective.

    --
    Go green, Go Soylent.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by evilviper on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:57PM

      by evilviper (1760) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:57PM (#85073) Homepage Journal

      Reading about how many calories are required to extract one calorie from the ground sends chills down my spine.

      You're probably being lied to by eco-nuts. Market forces simply dictate how things are done. If oil is dirt cheap, you'd be stupid not to burn a bunch of it to save time and effort. Once it's not so cheap, you'll switch to the next-cheapest-thing. If you were to analyze at the US, you'd think that people are highly dependent on CORN for survival, and PEAK-CORN will be the end of civilization. Cast a wider net, and you'll see others do just fine without corn.

      Certainly rice makes an interesting case for comparison. It's not hard to grow, it's dirt cheap to produce, people can survive on relatively little of it, etc. And while production is highly mechanized in the west, much of the Asian production is still done with traditional methods and lots of man-power, and comes out at about the same prices thanks to lower labor costs.

      In a Blade Runner-esque future, you simply won't be eating steaks on a regular basis, but there will be plenty of rice for everyone.

      Expect major land grabs of fertile areas to become a growth military objective.

      That's ridiculous. Just because petrochemical fertilizers aren't as cheap isn't going to change much, except farming methods. We've got absolutely ridiculous amounts of biomass available, that could be used for fertilizing soil. In addition, basic crop rotation allows for different nutrients to be reintroduced to the soil in alternate years. Beans, for example, take nitrogen from the air and fix it in the soil.

      Even without crop rotation, we've got many centuries worth of biomass available for use as fertilizer, if we just mine it out of landfills. Or a slightly "icky" perpetual long-term solution could be using treated sewage as crop fertilizer. Pathogens are already neutralized by modern sewage treatment plants, so there's very little-to-no risk to human health from closing the food cycle.

      --
      Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:02PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:02PM (#85091) Journal

        The Chinese closed the food cycle thousands of years ago. They called it "night soil" and harvested it out of outhouses they placed along roads and in highly trafficked areas. It was one of the most coveted jobs in Imperial China, because at one point through their inheritance practices the amount of land per farmer had shrunk to subsistence levels, so fertilizer became worth its weight in gold to get more yield out of the land you had. So the United States could get really far doing the same with its sewage, given how much people eat here. There are still vast swaths of the West that could be turned into productive farmland (think: the greater part of Wyoming) if it could be fertilized and irrigated adequately. And that's just the traditional kind of farming, without taking into account new trends like vertical farms and urban gardening.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @04:42AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @04:42AM (#85194)

          The Chinese closed the food cycle thousands of years ago. They called it "night soil" and harvested it out of outhouses they placed along roads and in highly trafficked areas. It was one of the most coveted jobs in Imperial China, because at one point through their inheritance practices the amount of land per farmer had shrunk to subsistence levels, so fertilizer became worth its weight in gold to get more yield out of the land you had.

          What you just described there is not a closed food cycle; it's an exploited food cycle with a bunch of middlemen holding subsistence to hostage, owing to inflexibly, bureaucratically managed societal practices. Also, the farming practices were so labour intensive that simply trying to survive required massive social coordination. That was the brink of starvation, not a model to emulate. The most useful thing about that is that yes, dung is a good source of plant nutrients - but the rest of it is a nightmare.

          So the United States could get really far doing the same with its sewage, given how much people eat here.

          Oh, goody! Yay, who's going to truck all that to my farm from the big city a hundred miles away when fuel gets expensive? Who will pay for the roads and the trucking and the everything? You?

          What, not you? You'll want me to pay for it myself? Yeah, that will be a problem. A problem for you, because I won't be doing it - it would make more economic sense for me to drop my productivity like a rock, to sustainable levels, and not subscribe to traditional chinese inheritance practices.

          What's more, as farmers stop using petrochemical power to do everything, including pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, soil tillage, harvest, crop treatment and so on, more and more manpower will be needed. And guess what? The price of food relative to the price of a day's labour will rise until it's justifiable for farmers to do that - because if it doesn't happen, farm production will simply drop like a rock. That means we're looking at food riots. Revolutions. Societal upheaval on a par with the napoleonic wars.

          There are still vast swaths of the West that could be turned into productive farmland (think: the greater part of Wyoming) if it could be fertilized and irrigated adequately. And that's just the traditional kind of farming, without taking into account new trends like vertical farms and urban gardening.

          OK, now I know you haven't done the math. Which city will be providing the humanure for Wyoming? Cheyenne? No, wait, Cheyenne is tiny. Chicago, maybe? Salt Lake City? Las Vegas? The fact is that it doesn't matter. The energy footprint of trucking 500 tons of humanure daily from Chicago to Wyoming is not only breathtaking, but even if you just knife it into the soil, assuming no difficulties with delivery, you still aren't creating a healthy soil biome. You still aren't improving the climate (which in Wyoming is punishing), you aren't improving the partial pressure of carbon dioxide at that altitude, and you haven't even begun to address how the hell you're transporting massive quantities of water uphill (Wyoming is mostly high up, not at ocean level at all) and then distributing it across the state. Hell, at Wyoming's rainfall rates, even if you captured every drop of water or chip of ice to fall on the land you'd still be left with a semi-arid climate in most of the state.

          The energy footprint of greening Wyoming, in the teeth of the loss of the energy surplus which let Norman Borlaug's green revolution even take off, is so breathtakingly expensive that I'm not sure that it could ever be justified.

          If I sound as if I'm yelling at you, don't take it personally. I, and many of my brother (and sister) farmers are just getting awfully tired of armchair agronomists telling us how we're doing it all wrong when many of us not only went to college for this, but also deal with the commercial realities on a daily basis.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @01:50PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @01:50PM (#85320)

            you aren't improving the partial pressure of carbon dioxide at that altitude

            People are already actively working on that one. ;-)

          • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday August 26 2014, @01:06AM

            by evilviper (1760) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @01:06AM (#85524) Homepage Journal

            who's going to truck all that to my farm from the big city a hundred miles away when fuel gets expensive? Who will pay for the roads and the trucking and the everything?

            The same people who do so with the (more expensive) petrochemical fertilizer you currently use.

            If transportation costs are too high to haul the fertilizer, you're going to have a hell of a time transporting your crops back to market, too. It's true that some farms are too damn far out in the middle of nowhere, and they will probably close up shop. But others, closer to towns or at least railroad tracks, will do fine and keep the food supply going.

            What's more, as farmers stop using petrochemical power to do everything, including pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, soil tillage, harvest, crop treatment and so on, more and more manpower will be needed.

            No, plenty of that can be done using non-petrochemical sources of power, with minor inconveniences. Eventually, your tractor and combine will likely have a long extension cord...

            And guess what? The price of food relative to the price of a day's labour will rise

            Yes. It will hurt, but won't be the end of the world. Like I said, people will be eating rice instead of steaks, but they'll survive. Right now, you can buy 25 lbs of rice for under 2 hours of minimum wage labor in the US. That bag will provide enough calories for an adult for more than a month. Oil doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc., even without alternatives, won't result in starvation for anybody with any income...

            And in that time, alternatives to oil will be popping up left and right, since there's so much money to be made fixing the problem... A simple doubling of fossil fuel prices would cause an instant explosion of solar panel installations, wind, etc. More efficient products will fly off the shelves. etc.

            Which city will be providing the humanure for Wyoming?

            The top farming state is California, which happens to be the most populous. Plenty of supplies from huge cities located both north and south of the farmland. Plus a short distance to market. You can either find a solution for your farm in Wyoming, or you can give up and let others do it. Other farmers better suited to the changes aren't going to refuse to make big money, and starve the public, in order to make a big protest out of your bad luck and your lack of both foresight and innovation.

            --
            Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
        • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Monday August 25 2014, @02:47PM

          by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday August 25 2014, @02:47PM (#85341)

          Human waste, and the waste of carnivores makes... ahem... shitty fertilizer. This is the reason why manure from cows and horses is used for fertilizer.

          --
          "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:51PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:51PM (#85105) Journal

        Common fertilizer from sewage treatment is a unusable because it contains to much toxic contaminants.

        • (Score: 2) by khakipuce on Monday August 25 2014, @12:17PM

          by khakipuce (233) on Monday August 25 2014, @12:17PM (#85286)

          In the UK Sewage sludge is regularly used as agricultural fertilizer. I don't know what you are eating and putting in your bath water but my output is free from toxins!

          Think about it, the vast majority of sewage treatment is a biological process, toxins in the mix would kill off the process and the polluter would be prosecuted. For example a few decades ago a dairy dumped a load of surplus orange juice down the drain, the acidity killed the treatment process, they were prosecuted.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @09:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @09:03PM (#85077)

      Eritrea Turns Saltwater and Desert Into A Sustainable Ecosystem [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dankalia.com]
      The only other stuff they had is sunlight, seeds, eggs from a few critters, and humans with hand tools.

      Now, the guy who figures out a cheap method of desalination will get the Nobel and everything else someone can think to give him.

      -- gewg_

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:46PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:46PM (#85104) Journal

        I have seen some serious innovation regarding desalination. I have forgotten about it however. But it means it's worth to search for current innovations in that area. Because a lot have happened. There's more than evaporation and reverse osmosis.

      • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday August 25 2014, @01:20AM

        by cafebabe (894) on Monday August 25 2014, @01:20AM (#85139) Journal

        I thought that reverse osmosis [wikipedia.org] was fairly cost effective.

        --
        1702845791×2
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @04:52AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @04:52AM (#85196)

          Apparently, "cost effective" isn't good enough.
          If it was, you'd think that California, which is now in SEVERE drought, [wordpress.com] would have that big old coastline covered with those things--or at least be building them as fast as possible.

          -- gewg_

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @12:41PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @12:41PM (#85300)

            We just need a pipeline going from the sea inland, instead of say from the inner delta to SF (one of the pre-Brown projects that he's helping push, along with a bunch of real estate shenanigans. 'Common man' my ass.)

            If seawater was pumped to the Salton Sea, the Mojave, Death Valley, or up into the less hospitable parts of the Sierras, we could use natural filtration to desalinize, recover the water table, and if pumped up into the sierras, energy storage for future hydroelectric energy production. Dedicate a nuke plant or two to handle the pumps and it could probably be made more cost effective than alternative solutions since it could utilize baseline power 24/7 to fill the storage location. Provided sufficient outflow, it could be balanced to keep the reservoirs full while providing filtered water, gravity fed hydro, and potentially salt and other mineral extraction via the filtration process. It wouldn't be a small undertaking, but the long term benefits both locally in California, and possibly abroad into the central states could be game changing.

            And yes I'm well aware of the engineering involved. But between the canal system which pumps water over the coast range from the central valley to LA, and the new Delta to SF water line, I'm pretty sure we're up to the engineering challenges.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by gman003 on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:45PM

    by gman003 (4155) on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:45PM (#84957)

    Or - and I know this sounds crazy but hear me out - we could go find new supplies of these increasingly-scarce resources.

    Copper? Seabed nodule mining seems promising. Plus, it's very recyclable.

    Oil? First off, it's slightly renewable, but more importantly, we've seen actual lakes of hydrocarbons on Titan, and some of the lighter ones in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn. I'd like to see humanity even try to use up all that. Not to mention that oil burned for energy could be replaced by basically anything. Nuclear, solar, geothermal... I'd like to see nuclear fusion but that's going to be twenty years away for at least the next thirty years so I'm not holding my breath.

    If the economy fundamentally cannot deal with not growing, well, first off, we have a pretty fundamentally flawed economy. But since we're stuck with it, why not just keep growing it?

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:57PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:57PM (#84965)

      "we've seen actual lakes of hydrocarbons on Titan"

      Theres a classic story in the peak oil community of geologists and economists along the lines of its really great to own a scooter with a one gallon gas tank etc but the day the closest gas station is more than "one gallon of gas" away, you start walking.

      'why not just keep growing it"

      We're shrinking it and can't even figure out how to steady state much less grow.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:37PM

      by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:37PM (#84988) Homepage

      Oil? First off, it's slightly renewable, but more importantly, we've seen actual lakes of hydrocarbons on Titan, and some of the lighter ones in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn.

      What the fuck? Is this comic book spaceship fantasy day in kindergarden and nobody bothered to tell the rest of us?

      Dude, do you have even the slightest clue about how far away Saturn is, and how much energy it takes to get there and back?

      No -- don't bother answering; you clearly don't. Not in the slightest.

      Extraterrestrial hydrocarbon deposits will never have a net energy return here on Earth. Not even close. Hell, even using solar photovoltaics to power the condensation of atmospheric CO2 and using something like the Fischer-Tropsch process to turn it into syngas for refinery feedstock makes economic sense with oil in the $200 / barrel range (which may well be a moot point since our economy isn't showing any signs it can function even with oil in the $120 / barrel range). If we go with 120 pounds / barrel, just to get a single barrel to low Earth orbit (which is a negligible fraction of a rounding error of what it takes to get to Saturn) and the typical $10,000 / pound figure used, we're talking $12 million per barrel just to put a refinery in orbit.

      The rest of your ranting is similarly disconnected from reality and not worth my time to address.

      Cheers,

      b&

      --
      All but God can prove this sentence true.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by gman003 on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:12PM

        by gman003 (4155) on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:12PM (#84999)

        Dude, do you have even the slightest clue about how far away Saturn is, and how much energy it takes to get there and back?

        Earth LEO to Saturn orbit is about 8.5km/s dV. That's actually less than Earth surface to LEO, which is ~9.5km/s plus atmospheric drag. So one could say that orbit is halfway to Saturn. Not an easy trip by any stretch of the imagination, but doable, particularly with alternate rocket designs like NTR or ion propulsion.

        Where did I ever say to bring it back to Earth? The problem is that the resources are way over there, and we're right here. We can fix that either by bringing it over here, or we can go over there. It seems rather pointless to bring it down here, getting it stuck in our gravity well, so the solution is to bring us over there.

        There is precedent. Pre-industrial Europe was struggling with resource depletion (mainly lumber), as well as economic stagnation due to a lack of untapped markets. They solved this with colonies - new land to export surplus population to, new resources, and new markets. The issues seem rather similar to our current ones, so I would think a similar solution would work.

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by Flyingmoose on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:17PM

          by Flyingmoose (4369) <mooseNO@SPAMflyingmoose.com> on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:17PM (#85007) Homepage

          Learn some physics or go back to Slashdot, doofus.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by geb on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:20PM

          by geb (529) on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:20PM (#85008)

          The only reason that oil is a valuable energy source on earth is because we get the oxygen for free. On Titan you'd have to either bring oxygen with you or find a source of free, unburned oxygen.

          Whether you ship oil one way, or ship oxygen the other, there's still no way you're ever going to get positive energy out.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by stingraz on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:25PM

            by stingraz (3453) on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:25PM (#85035)

            I can't mod this up since I already posted in this thread, so, "agree".
            Also, as opposed to outer-system hydrocarbons, the oil that we have on earth is nothing else but stored solar energy from long ago, via creation of biomass, and that happened with lousy efficiency: photosynthesis gets to 2% conversion efficiency under ideal conditions, 0.5-1% is more realistic overall; conversion from "raw" biomass to fossilized hydrocarbons is lossy as well, and what's left is getting ever harder and more (energy-)expensive to extract, which means that extraction efficiency is dropping ever lower as well.
            My point? Why should we rely on a process that takes millions of years and has an efficiency much below 1% to satisfy our energy needs, when we do have processes available that represent a much tighter loop and have much higher efficiency? Modern solar systems, both PV and Thermal, have efficiencies above 10% from radiation-on-panel to grid feed-in, and wind power is above 1% as well if you start your calculation with the incident radiant energy that creates the temperature and pressure differentials needed for wind to happen (the wind turbine itself usually gets peak efficiencies around 30% from wind-on-rotor to grid feed-in). Both these conversion systems use energy that was radiated by the sun minutes or weeks ago, not eons. Even hydropower only has a "latency" of a few years, or decades at the most.
            The game on Earth is going to be over as soon as oil and coal extraction costs result in higher electricity costs than those enabled by wind, solar and (for some fortunate places) hydropower. That point seems to be around 5-10ct/kWh at current technology levels, and oil prices are set to go above that threshold as soon as crude oil prices go up a little bit. Coal has a bit longer to go, but it will cross the threshold at some point as well.
            After that, there will still be a niche for liquid fuels in high-energy-density and emergency energy storage scenarios (moving vehicles, especially farm equipment, and providing emergency back-up power for the electric grid and critical infrastructure), but using fossil energy for the bulk of our supply is going to be too expensive.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:37PM

          by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:37PM (#85014) Homepage

          Again, what the fuck?

          You're suggesting we colonize Saturn to solve our oil problems?

          Dude.

          Antarctica is practically infinitely more hospitable than anywhere and everywhere else in the Solar System not on Earth. you'd expect people to laugh at you for suggesting we colonize Antarctica because of its plentiful freshwater reserves, right?

          So what makes you think people won't laugh at you for proposing we colonize someplace far more hospitable that would cost at least a trillion dollars just for a tiny manned science expedition because of its plentiful petroleum reserves?

          All that makes for some great space opera, to be sure, but it's got as much bearing on reality as sparkle tinkle rainbow unicorn pony cartoons.

          b&

          --
          All but God can prove this sentence true.
          • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday August 25 2014, @07:43PM

            by gman003 (4155) on Monday August 25 2014, @07:43PM (#85434)

            Today, sure. Probably for the rest of my life, even. But at some point, we're going to have to open the loops again - expand beyond this one planet. If we don't, we're dooming ourselves to extinction.

            Perhaps I should have made this clearer. When I speak of colonizing the outer moons, I'm thinking on a scale of centuries.

            When we colonized America, it took decades before any serious attempts started. Early ships could barely cross the ocean, let alone carry a large payload, reliably, at low cost. And when they did get here, most early colonies failed even though the continent was already settled, and they were often literally moving into towns abandoned by native tribes wiped out by smallpox. But eventually they learned how to cross the Atlantic easily and quickly, and learned how to build successful colonies.

            Right now, we can barely send a probe to Saturn. A colony right now is completely infeasible. But you're arguing against a point I'm not trying to make.

            My point is that humanity (as with all life) does not flourish when it is not expanding. When it is contained, it dies off, sometimes to sustainable levels, but sometimes completely (particularly when disaster strikes). This was a stated assumption, given the article we are discussing.

            Right now, there are enough frontiers left on Earth that we can keep the growth going, at a slower pace. I alluded to those with the seafloor mining. But eventually we will run out of frontiers on this planet, and we need to be ready to expand outward. And so we need to be preparing for extraterrestrial colonization now.

            PS: If we were facing scarcity of fresh water, and other, easier options like desalinization were already used to capacity, Antarctic colonies would be a good idea.

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:12PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:12PM (#85031)

          3 super sarcastic responses from people obviously with no chemical background, so I'll chime in as yes, Titan is probably the most important outer planets destination in the solar system.

          Hydrogen is not exactly rare, but where you'll get carbon and other yummy o-chem feedstocks other than Titan is not entirely clear.

          Assuming outer planets colonization etc etc Saturn will be the economic powerhouse of the outer planets because you've got infinite energy from saturn as a H2 source and infinite-ish carbon as manufacturing feedstock for everything from food to carbon fiber based machinery.

          The other outer planets are resource starved compared to Saturn. That planet and its colonies will dominate the rest of the outer solar system "eventually".

          Someone who wants to write an interesting hard sci fi / military sci fi story could do well to analyze the outer planets. I don't think jupiter stands a chance, but maybe allied with Neptune / Uranus / Pluto... And good luck doing trade in or out of Saturn without passing thru Jupiters orbit, so something akin to piracy might be an issue.

      • (Score: 1) by Flyingmoose on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:15PM

        by Flyingmoose (4369) <mooseNO@SPAMflyingmoose.com> on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:15PM (#85000) Homepage

        ...but since I don't, I'll just say: Thanks for posting this. We don't want this wonderful site to turn into Slashdot.

      • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:14PM

        by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:14PM (#85033)

        Off the top of your head what is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow in flight? African or European, doesn't mater. Don't know? Oh you must still be in kindergarten. Just because the OP is clueless about space flight beyond what gets posted in news site summaries is not a reason to insult him.

        You cited some excellent facts in your comment but the only thing most people are going to remember after reading your post is that you were an asshole.

        Great way to contribute to the SN community.

        --
        "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by evilviper on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:39PM

      by evilviper (1760) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:39PM (#85065) Homepage Journal

      Copper? Seabed nodule mining seems promising. Plus, it's very recyclable.

      You really want to go to crazy extremes to mine copper, when Aluminium is "the most abundant metal in the Earth's crust. It makes up about 8% by weight of the Earth's solid surface." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium [wikipedia.org]

      more importantly, we've seen actual lakes of hydrocarbons on Titan, and some of the lighter ones in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn. I'd like to see humanity even try to use up all that.

      To fly fuel to McMurdo station in Antarctica, you burn twice as much in the engines hauling it there, as you deliver. Would you like to guess what the distribution would be when flying rockets to/from Titan? Even if the moon was made of highly concentrated platinum, it wouldn't be worth the cost to go get it.

      Not to mention that oil burned for energy could be replaced by basically anything. Nuclear, solar, geothermal...

      Practically nobody burns oil for electricity. Nuclear, solar, and geothermal don't work too well in a compact car form factor, so we're going to need to mine a lot of chemicals to make all those Li-Ion batteries.

      --
      Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday August 24 2014, @11:01PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday August 24 2014, @11:01PM (#85106) Journal

        The moon has a lot of Titanium and the energy to melt it. Anyway, to get anything from there you go there and get-get-get-get-.. No need to go back and that's how you get it to work economically. The catch is the huge up front cost. But I guess resource starvation is going to make people put up with more and push for more inventions.

        Asteroids is btw, probably the source for materials to go for.

    • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:48PM

      by darkfeline (1030) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:48PM (#85069) Homepage

      Your solution to the problem of unsustainable growth and resource usage is... more unsustainable growth and resource usage? You should be a CEO, it's a match made in heaven.

      --
      Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
  • (Score: 2) by bram on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:51PM

    by bram (3770) on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:51PM (#84961)

    Three words: Simon-Erlich Wager.

    Look it up:
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon [wikipedia.org]–Ehrlich_wager

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by subs on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:51PM

    by subs (4485) on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:51PM (#84962)

    Peak oil means peak everything. So that means peak growth.

    No, peak oil means... peak oil. That's it. There's plenty of energy alternatives that can supplant oil as an energy source. Alternatives that are either functionally [wikipedia.org] infinite [wikipedia.org], or are able to serve for vast amounts of time [wikipedia.org] to provide a bridge [wikipedia.org] to the really infinite ones [wikimedia.org] (from a human perspective anyways).

    • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:04PM

      by Boxzy (742) on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:04PM (#84978) Journal

      Peak oil means peak plastic, it means peak food, it means peak Asphalt, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, chemicals of all kinds and artificial fibers used in clothing, upholstery, and carpet backing.

      https://duckduckgo.com/?q=list+of+what+is+made+from+oil [duckduckgo.com]

      Don't try to pretend that peak oil is just about fuel, it isn't.

      High oil prices will impact every industry.

      --
      Go green, Go Soylent.
      • (Score: 1) by stingraz on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:31PM

        by stingraz (3453) on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:31PM (#84986)

        No, peak oil merely means peak [anything made from fossil oil], it does not mean all the non-energy application of the petrochemical industry will become infeasible.
        Most oil today goes towards energy and therein mostly mobility: I count about 5-6% of oil consumption for non-energy uses here [eia.gov] (US-based data, I would guess, but variations should be relatively minor world-wide for important markets).

        As fossil oil prices increase, the search for alternatives would hit energy and transportation first (pushing to progressively electrify transportation, move electricity generation to coal, renewables and nuclear, depending on respective value propositions, etc.), which would slow the resulting increase in price, and leave a larger share of the remaining supply for non-energy applications. While diesel trains may lose to electric trains at $300/bbl, you can still make plastics with $300 oil, it's just going to be (nearly) 3 times as expensive as now.
        Also, if we just need a single-digit percentage of current oil consumption for absolutely necessary petrochemical applications, as it seems to be the case, we may be able to rely on "unconventional" crude-oil replacements (liquefied coal, natural-gas based products, fully-synthetic hydrocarbons made out of CO2, H2O and electricity,...). These all become competitive with "conventional" oil at some price point, some have already seen common use before the advent of cheap oil. The oil-based solutions in industrial use currently are common only because they are the cheapest ones today, not because they're irreplaceable.

        To me, this whole concept being pushed here is mostly fearmongering: There is obviously a limit on the growth of the human economy on Earth, with space and available resources being what they are, but seeing how the world economy's current energy throughput is an insignificant fraction of the (renewable, solar radiation) energy available at the Earth's surface for the next few billion years, we are far from hitting the hard limit anytime soon.

        This does not mean there will not be significant changes as we move (mostly) off some raw materials (fossil oil, and later coal and gas as stocks deplete), and we will probably keep on affecting the Earth's ecosystems and upper crust in ever increasing scale, but if we as a species want to keep on growing the world economy in the current manner, I'd imagine there is surprisingly little change needed for the next few centuries.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:04PM (#84996)

          To me, this whole concept being pushed here is mostly fearmongering

          If fearmongering gets us to stop wasting what little oil is left on the planet, then good. 50 years of warnings have been ignored, so its about time we start taking more drastic actions while it'll still be helpful.

          Oil is like heroin: the people using it will think "Oh yeah, I'll save some for in the morning so I won't be sick when I wake up," but then shoot it all 15 minutes later, and then when morning rolls around they get super sick with withdrawals so they have to scramble first thing to get more just to start their day. The better plan is to ration out what remains, but with oil, there won't be anything left by the time we admit there's barely any left.

          • (Score: 1) by stingraz on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:49PM

            by stingraz (3453) on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:49PM (#85019)

            I feel that we agree fundamentally, I just took a longer view in my last comment than you just did: I'm not saying that continuing on our current path is the best way forward. If we keep on the current projected consumption curves, we will use about three times as much oil (and other fossil carbon deposits) as we should to keep atmospheric temperature rise below 2°C, and we'll end up with 4-8°C warming (error bars get bigger as the system gets more energetic; this does not make things better for us), which is a bitch first and particularly for places like Bangladesh (160 million people, barely above current sea level, no reasonable means to protect themselves against sea level rise: they will start going to other places in numbers at some point), New York City, New Orleans, most East Chinese coastal cities, and any other place that currently experiences tropical storms, but really, for everyone.
            There will be massive climatological, ecological, social and thus economic disruptions in the next few centuries if we keep on doing what we do while growing in number of individuals and in individual energy usage. In the end, we as a species will likely adapt, and keep on "growing", in some sense.
            There will also (need to) be major shifts in behavior patterns if we are to change our ways so that our future way of life can stay as close to our current one as possible, or at least evolve more gently and less catastrophically.
            Each of these paths, adaptation or prudence, is going to be expensive; if we listen to the IPCC and the research they cite, it appears that being as prudent as feasible and getting ready to adapt as soon as possible is the cheapest option. But even if we don't listen to prudence, I cannot imagine that in the very long term (think millennia), humanity will not be resilient and adaptable enough to keep on going, and going ever upwards.
            Anyone is free to disagree, of course, and I don't expect to be able to prove anyone right: we all probably won't be around anymore to witness the excrement hit the ventilation, should we choose the wrong path.

        • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:05PM

          by Boxzy (742) on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:05PM (#84997) Journal

          Even a cursory search brings up this:

          http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm [ranken-energy.com]

          "One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:"

          And then a vast list of products.

          --
          Go green, Go Soylent.
          • (Score: 1) by stingraz on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:55PM

            by stingraz (3453) on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:55PM (#85023)

            Interesting source there; I could take a swipe at how Ranken Energy's business is in " oil and gas exploration and production" (as they put it), but that's somewhat beside the point.
            Going through the list of other products mentioned on the linked page, I find:

            1) no quantification, besides the "(over half)" bit you quoted.
            2) "Diesel fuel" and "Gasoline" listed (again).

            I don't really see how this invalidates my point: non-energy uses of oil are only a small part of total oil use. My point being: stop setting valuable raw materials on fire just because it's the "easy way"! We may need them for something more useful later on!

            • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:25PM

              by Boxzy (742) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:25PM (#85057) Journal

              WTF? I didn't notice that, I guess that list popped up way too easily.

              This has been my argument, fuel is a criminal waste of precious volatiles.

              I know we can make all the Org-Chem products we currently derive from hydrocarbons from other sources but the cost will be high.

              --
              Go green, Go Soylent.
          • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday August 24 2014, @09:50PM

            by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Sunday August 24 2014, @09:50PM (#85087)

            I hope you are aware that all the products listed, with the probable exception of "petroleum jelly", can be made from non petroleum feed stock. Oil was chosen because it was so cheap at the time. The original patents for the Diesel engine specifies fuel derived from plants sources. Most plastics can be made from cellulose derived feed stocks.

            There are alternative, we just need to start using them now so we can switch over at an easy rate instead of panicking when the oil starts to get too expensive to use for making common stuff.

            --
            "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
            • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:05PM

              by Boxzy (742) on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:05PM (#85092) Journal

              YES. This is why Peak Oil is described as a Peak, not a cliff. If we do nothing, prices of ALL petrochemical based products and transportation of same will increase. Especially food and water. Food relies on hugely energy intensive farm vehicles and international processes and freight to bring your dinner to the table. Clean water is currently in short supply and transporting it internationally, or desalinating it is far too expensive. The point is not that all these products cannot be made by other means, it's that other means largely do not exist and/or would currently be prohibitively expensive.

              --
              Go green, Go Soylent.
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:36PM

        by frojack (1554) on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:36PM (#85041) Journal

        Peak oil means peak plastic, it means peak food, it means peak Asphalt, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, chemicals of all kinds and artificial fibers used in clothing, upholstery, and carpet backing.
        Don't try to pretend that peak oil is just about fuel, it isn't.

        When you add up all the oil used for the purposes you list, they don't come close to the amount of oil used as fuel for vehicles or home heating. Production of plastics and other chemicals make up a tiny percentage of oil use [eia.gov]. Over all less than 5% world wide of petrolatum goes to petrochemicals. 71% of US production goes to transportation. (Source) [oilprice.com].

        Removing home heating and transportation use of oil would give us reserves more than sufficient for a couple thousand years, ant that is something that will happen all by itself via PRICE.

        Even when we start using electric cars we aren't really helping the problem because most electricity is still burning fossil fuels. Ultimately we are going to get over the Fukushima Jitters an go nuclear in a big way to move transport and HVAC to electricity.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:30PM

          by Boxzy (742) on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:30PM (#85099) Journal

          The point I've been trying to make is that the peak referred to is peak supply. Prices of all crude oil based fuels and derivatives and transportation of same will increase.

          If not permanently, then at least for a decade or so until a great many new technologies are invented or ramped up into industrial processes. Most importantly desalination and a replacement for lithium batteries.

          I guess I'm mostly agreeing with you, except I'm much more skeptical that all these things can be achieved with anything resembling a smooth transition.

          --
          Go green, Go Soylent.
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by subs on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:55PM

        by subs (4485) on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:55PM (#85046)

        peak plastic

        We know how to make plastic replacements, either in the lab or from naturally grown resources [wikipedia.org]. This puts an upper price on this and thus does not limit growth (it slows it down at best) and with volume production prices are likely to come down.

        peak food

        Since when is food made out of petroleum? If you mean fertilizer, then no, the only thing fertilizers take from fossil fuels (and gas, not oil at that) is steam reforming to get a readily available hydrogen source. There are other ways to get hydrogen in large quantities [wikipedia.org], provided energy is cheap.

        peak Asphalt

        Asphalt as a paving material is composed of the binder and aggregate. Aggregate is really just ground up rocks, so no forseeable shortage there. The binder can be replaced [wikipedia.org].

        pesticides, herbicides

        None of these need to be made from petroleum, it's just that it's often the cheapest and most convenient form of long-chain hydrocarbons as a feedstock. We know how to make these synthetically (and quite economically too, provided that the energy is cheap).

        detergents

        Seriously? Natural surfactants and detergents are all over the place [wikipedia.org] and have been in use for thousands of years [wikipedia.org]. Don't underestimate chemists.

        artificial fibers

        Ever heard of natural fibers [wikipedia.org]? Seriously, none of the things you mention are problems for replacements. Some of them may not be completely economical yet (because oil is so cheap), but that doesn't mean that with development and optimization of the processes they always need to remain so. Again, don't underestimate chemists, they're very smart people who know how to find solutions to problems.

        Don't try to pretend that peak oil is just about fuel

        It's about energy right across the board. If you have lots of it and it's cheap, you can afford to do tricks [stanford.edu] that otherwise might not be sensible and so force resource conservation. So the article does draw fundamentally incorrect conclusions about "peak prosperity". Prosperity is fundamentally about the price and availability of energy, and there's more of that than we could ever ask for.

        • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:17PM

          by Boxzy (742) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:17PM (#85054) Journal

          All of those things are going to get much more expensive, at least until equally cheap replacements are found. This is why peak oil is named such. Yes, I got the percentages of crude used for fuel wrong. The point here is that there are no equally cheap replacements for the feedstock oil provides today, and we'd better slow down our oil usage and ramp up our renewables while we still have the money to do it.

          --
          Go green, Go Soylent.
          • (Score: 1) by subs on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:55PM

            by subs (4485) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:55PM (#85072)

            More expensive does not mean it stops growth, as the story implied by talking about "peak growth", which is what I was responding to. As I said, even at higher prices, growth can continue, just slowed down perhaps. The term "peak X" means peak production of resource X, after which production will always be stable or lower. I fundamentally disagree with tying our prosperity to oil production as the submitter implied. We can keep on growing without it just fine and I'm confident alternatives can be made viable, as has already happened for every category you mentioned. Fossil-source hydrocarbons isn't a magical material without which we don't know how to live.

            we'd better slow down our oil usage and ramp up our renewables

            No argument there.

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:51PM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:51PM (#85071) Journal

          I wonder what all people speak of "the article" saying ... the "article" is a series of videos, and the part which is already publicly available did not speak about oil at all (OK, it mentioned peak oil in the introduction). It spoke about exponential growth in general, and then about how money works.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 1) by subs on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:57PM

            by subs (4485) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:57PM (#85074)

            Sorry, force of habit. Should be "story" or "summary" here.

      • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:29PM

        by evilviper (1760) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:29PM (#85060) Homepage Journal

        Peak oil means peak plastic,

        Plastic was built around oil, only because it was a dirt cheap source of complex molecules. Once sufficient motivation is there, other forms of non-petrochemical plastics will take over. Plant-based plastics already exist, they just aren't economical at current oil prices.

        it means peak food,

        Nonsense. Crop fertilizing methods will simply have to change. There is a huge amount of biomass available.

        it means peak Asphalt,

        Concrete has always been better, just not as cheap.

        pesticides, herbicides, detergents, chemicals of all kinds and artificial fibers used in clothing, upholstery, and carpet backing.

        Again, that's just going to require some work from the chemical industry, using different inputs for their source of long-chain molecules.

        --
        Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
        • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:46PM

          by Boxzy (742) on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:46PM (#85103) Journal

          Peak plastic and peak food are deeply linked. Which are you going to grow on your farm, rape seed plants for biodiesel, whatever plants are best for plastic feedstock (my money would be on hemp), or food crops? When the demand for fuels and plastics has to compete with food, I suspect a lot of people will be thinner.

          --
          Go green, Go Soylent.
    • (Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Monday August 25 2014, @01:03AM

      by zeigerpuppy (1298) on Monday August 25 2014, @01:03AM (#85133)

      The most oft forgotten issue in this debate is that having a useful new energy technology still requires energy to implement. The grids, power stations and roads don't get built without using the current energy supply.
      This is dangerous because the longer we wait, the more expensive the cost of the transition.
      Great discussion and debate on this site http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5580 [theoildrum.com]

      The transition from fossil fuels to the next energy source (most logically renewables) will be a bumpy ride, we have become very dependent on liquid hydrocarbons at every level of industry.
      I believe it is likely we will see considerable reshaping of human society, with cities reliant on cars and with scarce water being the first to become non-viable.
      This financial stress makes complex systems less reliable so nuclear is not a good transition, lower tech, smart power generation like large scale solar thermal and use of ammonia as a liquid hydrocarbon alternative will be our best path.

      • (Score: 1) by subs on Monday August 25 2014, @10:49AM

        by subs (4485) on Monday August 25 2014, @10:49AM (#85261)

        Have you been reading Amory Lovins' lies?
        1) Hydrocarbon fuels can be synthesized, even today and quite cheaply already (not quite as cheap as drilling, but we'll get there). Dimethyl ether can be used inside of slightly modified diesel engines. Meanwhile, lots of gasoline vehicles can be converted rather easily to methane, which can again be synthesized.
        2) The nuclear transition has already been done at scale in lots of places, like France and to a large part in the state of Illinois. It took ~20 years for the French, didn't bankrupt them and now they have CO2 emissions from electricity generation that are an order magnitude lower per capita than Germany today. If the French public hadn't gotten their panties in a bunch in the nineties over nuclear and instead continued to advance reactor technology beyond their PWRs with shitty PUREX reprocessing, by now they'd have a design that could address the cost, safety and storage issues pretty much completely.
        3) We've instead lost 20-30 years of R&D worldwide because people had stuck their heads up their asses because of the cold-war ultra-shitty Russian weapons-turned-power reactor, mismanaged to degrees that boggle the mind, at Chernobyl. Despite what professional fear mongers and internet armchair experts claim on their blogs, Fukushima was nowhere near as bad [bbc.com] and even if we expect linear-no-threshold dose response (which has its own set of problems), we'd expect about a couple hundred excess cancer deaths over the coming decades in a population of tens of millions of people - honestly that fatty bacon people are gulping down is probably much more of a worry for their health than any Fukushima radiation within the exclusion zone. That is not to say that we shouldn't be decontaminating the area or that TEPCO shouldn't be made to pay, but the irrationality of the public's panicky response to at best a very mild and dilute carcinogen is preposterous ("very mild" only in low concentrations, obviously).

        • (Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Monday August 25 2014, @03:14PM

          by zeigerpuppy (1298) on Monday August 25 2014, @03:14PM (#85347)

          I'm sorry but nuclear meltdowns/melt throughs are plenty bad. It will be difficult to estimate the total deaths from Fukushima so I'm not going to get into that game. Let's look at what we can say, at least 5000 sqkm of land (lets not count water resources for the moment) that is no longer arable nor fit to live in. That's a huge loss. Renewables don't pose that problem and are comparable in cost. Also, solar thermal with molten salt storage is a proven technology with base load capability.
          On your other point, what is the energy input to syntheses of hydrocarbons? What is the input material. EROEI is the key metric.

          • (Score: 2) by subs on Monday August 25 2014, @04:22PM

            by subs (4485) on Monday August 25 2014, @04:22PM (#85366)

            It will be difficult to estimate the total deaths from Fukushima so I'm not going to get into that game.

            You say you're not, but then you make outrageous claims like declaring huge swaths of land uninhabitable or unfit for use, so you clearly are willing to quantify the impacts. We have studies [stanford.edu] which quantify this risk according to very conservative models and it's fairly low, at least compared to some other industrial accidents.

            Let's look at what we can say, at least 5000 sqkm of land (lets not count water resources for the moment) that is no longer arable nor fit to live in.

            Can you please tell me how the 5000 sqkm figure was derived? 5000 sqkm would be the area of a semicircle that is ~57km in radius, whereas the actual exclusion zone is 20km (or some 628 sqkm) in radius.
            Also, there is dick-all reason to be concerned with living and using the land in most areas in the exclusion zone, as the radiation there is comparable to the background in some other places on Earth where people live without a single worry. There are some hotspots and those need to be identified and dealt with (and that's exactly what's happening). I'm not saying radiation isn't bad for you - it is - but you need to put perspective on the problem. It's nowhere near as bad as the alarmist blogs tell you.

            Renewables don't pose that problem and are comparable in cost.

            Wind & solar (because "renewables" is a broader term) simply cannot provide power reliably. They always need backup. That backup is either going to be gas or it's some mythical grid storage technology which simply doesn't exist yet. Moreover, we already have nuclear power designs in hand that are being built which are much more resilient to these types of accidents - had one of those been standing there in place of the old early 60s-designed clunkers, nothing would have happened, even with the monumental amounts of mismanagement that happened at that plant. We don't declare cars unsuitable for use forever because in the 60s they lacked seat belts, airbags, structural reinforcements and a myriad of other safety systems and design evolutions that make them inherently safer today. We learn from our mistakes, build better designs and move on.
            Please note that I'm not trying to set up an either-or situation here, where it's either all nuclear or all wind&solar. I think both can work together. Nuclear for baseload, wind&solar for capturing peaks and smoothing them out with some supplemental technologies (e.g. hydro or CSP as you noted). What I object to is declaring one technology as unfit because of misinformation from fear mongers. We need any and all help we can get if we are going to stabilize the climate (and perhaps more importantly, rapidly rising oceanic acidity, which makes AGW seem like a kid's game).

            Also, solar thermal with molten salt storage is a proven technology with base load capability.

            Besides being easily 3-4x as expensive as even the most wildly overpriced nuclear power projects, it isn't baseload capable year-round. Solar insolation, even in high-insolation areas like Arizona, can easily vary by as much as 2-3x year round and by much more on a day-to-day basis. That's not baseload.

            On your other point, what is the energy input to syntheses of hydrocarbons? What is the input material. EROEI is the key metric.

            Energy for the process can be derived from almost anything, be it wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal or any source that is zero-CO2. The source material is water (hydrogen) and a concentrated source of CO2 (can be CCS). For details see: http://www.os.is/gogn/os-onnur-rit/OS-2010-DME-project.pdf [www.os.is]

  • (Score: 0) by SoylentsISay on Sunday August 24 2014, @04:17PM

    by SoylentsISay (1331) on Sunday August 24 2014, @04:17PM (#84971)

    Soylent Fear-Mongering. For a minute I thought I was back on Slash-dot, a subsidiary of Fox News.
    thank-you for your attention to this matter :)

    • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:11PM

      by Boxzy (742) on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:11PM (#84980) Journal

      If you don't like it, submit your own news.

      PS. We don't enjoy hearing about The Other Site, Who Should Not Be Named.

      --
      Go green, Go Soylent.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by maxwell demon on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:26PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:26PM (#84985) Journal

        Are you sure? I think if the headline read: "Slashdot has lost all its readers, site gets closed" then I'm sure quite a few readers here would be interested in that.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:01PM

          by Boxzy (742) on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:01PM (#84995) Journal

          Wellll, ok. I give you that one example. :)

          --
          Go green, Go Soylent.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:07PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:07PM (#84998)

          Not really, a lot of us already know that DICE is intentionally trying to kill Slashdot, so when they succeed it won't be that shocking.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:26PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:26PM (#85058) Journal

      OMG! Peak Oil was, you know, what resulted in Soylent Green!! We are all doomed!!!

      On the other hand, a mere couple of generations ago, the primary energy source was solar, captured and stored in things like hay and oats. If large chunks of humanity make the shift to petroleum in a couple decades, they should be able to make the shift off it equally quickly.

      Or we could panic now and avoid the rush, like good survivalist wackos.

  • (Score: 1) by richtopia on Sunday August 24 2014, @04:23PM

    by richtopia (3160) on Sunday August 24 2014, @04:23PM (#84973) Homepage Journal

    Reading that summary I half expected to see the linked article describing which rifle you should be hoarding ammo for and what to put in your bug out bag.

  • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday August 24 2014, @04:26PM

    by cafebabe (894) on Sunday August 24 2014, @04:26PM (#84974) Journal

    Debt is promise of future work. Historically, that promise has been backed by an assumption of increased mechanization. If you don't have the energy (or have the energy in a sufficiently concentrated form) then that assumption is wrong and the promise is broken. If you have an economy based on growth and the growth based on debt then the economy fails.

    Until we have a solution for this, we're screwed.

    --
    1702845791×2
    • (Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:23PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:23PM (#85009) Journal

      Doesn't there need to be a problem first? We have plenty of energy.

      • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:42PM

        by cafebabe (894) on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:42PM (#85017) Journal

        We have plenty of solar energy and we have plenty of electrical energy. But we don't necessarily have enough energy to power every vehicle. That's the problem. If we keep going on the current course, there will be no tractors, no diesel trains, no planes, no buses and no cars.

        --
        1702845791×2
        • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:19PM

          by evilviper (1760) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:19PM (#85055) Homepage Journal

          We have plenty of solar energy and we have plenty of electrical energy. But we don't necessarily have enough energy to power every vehicle.

          We get enough solar energy hitting the earth to power all of humanity, including transportation, for our projected needs hundreds and thousands of years out. We have a LOT of solar energy available.

          Plug-in hybrids and EVs are available RIGHT NOW. If gas prices doubled, PEVs would be flying off the show-room floors. Buses tend to be municipal partnerships, so electrical connections can be installed in the street or on the sidewalk at every bus stop for quickly charging batteries enough to make it to the next stop.

          Interstate trucking is the one in the biggest trouble right away. Trains can relatively easily string electric lines over their tracks and eliminate the need to carry fuel. It doesn't work so well for all the highways in the country. When fuel costs double again, it's likely they'll switch to 4000psi CNG, but that's only a mid-term solution that'll go another century before it gets scare, too. But we'd probably be better off if interstate trucking comes to an end, and they're only used for short-hops from train stop to market, instead.

          Global container ships will have problems without petroleum, too. But right now, they run on the lowest-grade of bunker oil, that refineries practically can't give away, so they're less subject to price fluctuations than users of higher grades that are more in-demand. In a future without cheap bunker oil, they will probably switch to coal. They're huge enough that it would be economical for them to switch to on-board nuclear power plants, even if just RTGs/SRGs rather than reactors, but proliferation concerns might prevent that. Then again, I'm sure Russia couldn't care less about proliferation threats when cash is on the line, and they are capable of producing enough fissile material to supply all ship builders.

          --
          Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by cafebabe on Sunday August 24 2014, @09:41PM

            by cafebabe (894) on Sunday August 24 2014, @09:41PM (#85085) Journal

            Electrifying rail is the most sensible thing that can be done but the costs are obscene. Electrifying cars, buses and trucks may never be worthwhile. Even if a battery holds the same energy as a fuel tank and can be charged in five minutes, it is still at a disadvantage. This is because an electric vehicle still carries the deadweight of a flat battery. So, an equal amount of energy in a battery doesn't allow an equal distance of travel. Authenticated inductive loops aren't going to compensate for this, partly because they only cover one use case, and partly because the infrastructure required would be comparable to electrified rail.

            Unfortunately, I don't see either being developed. There is a crazy scheme to make a 798 mile, high-speed electric railway from Los Angeles to San Diego plus spurs at a cost of US$56 million per kilometre [wikipedia.org]. Meanwhile, the UK electrified nine miles of existing rail between 1997 and 2010 [parliament.uk]. A further 850 miles is planned [bbc.co.uk] but the costs aren't clear and may not be realistic.

            Overall, it isn't a matter of everyone switching to electric vehicles when the economics are inevitable. The technology isn't there and the infrastructure isn't there. We'll have to become accustomed to people/food/goods travelling shorter distances and vehicles taking longer to energize.

            Hydrocarbons are a premium resource and we are squandering them. Less than 5% of fossil fuels have been consumed but more than 50% of the liquid fossil fuel has gone. This is like slurping a coke before the ice has melted and only being left with the flavorless ice. That's pretty crappy.

            Buckminster-Fuller was concerned about this matter [wikipedia.org] and done some calculations. A barrel of oil has about 6.1GJ [wikipedia.org]. The equivalent amount of manual labor costs more than a million dollars. And it doesn't matter how many people you get together, they won't be able to do things like propel a plane. So, the true value of a barrel of oil is probably higher. And what are we doing with it? Making plastic chintz and having vacations in Hawaii.

            --
            1702845791×2
            • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:22PM

              by evilviper (1760) on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:22PM (#85097) Homepage Journal

              Even if a battery holds the same energy as a fuel tank and can be charged in five minutes, it is still at a disadvantage. This is because an electric vehicle still carries the deadweight of a flat battery

              The 60 lbs difference in low versus full tank doesn't make a dammed bit of difference to a 1.5-2 ton vehicle. Conventional vehicles carry the dead weight of an engine, transmission, etc., which you don't seem to care about.

              it isn't a matter of everyone switching to electric vehicles when the economics are inevitable. The technology isn't there and the infrastructure isn't there

              Bull.... You can go out and buy a 265-mile range electric vehicle RIGHT NOW. The operating costs are lower than a conventional vehicle. You can (slowly) charge it anywhere for pennies.

              For long-trips, charging stations will start appearing in short order. In the mean time, you can find the nearest RV campground, plug-in to 240V@40A power for a pretty quick charge and likely do so for less than the cost of a tank full of gasoline.

              We'll have to become accustomed to people/food/goods travelling shorter distances and vehicles taking longer to energize. Hydrocarbons are a premium resource and we are squandering them.

              You can take your hippie bike riding future and shove it. The technology is here, just as soon as economics of oil start forcing the issue.

              Electrifying rail is the most sensible thing that can be done but the costs are obscene.

              Most of Europe has already done it. If you think the costs of running power lines above tracks is "obscene", you don't realize just how much diesel those locomotives burn. It's a SMALL investment for the huge railroads.

              Your comparison with high-speed rail is a red herring.

              --
              Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
              • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Sunday August 24 2014, @11:19PM

                by Boxzy (742) on Sunday August 24 2014, @11:19PM (#85108) Journal

                I think the comparisons Cafebabe was making between ICE and electric cars was around the amounts of lithium required (there literally isn't enough lithium for everyone to have an electric car) to power those cars and their inability to, say move house across the country. 265 miles you say? What kind of load would that carry? These are lightweight cars designed down to a weight threshold the motors can feasibly move. Better not attach a trailer or roof rack, you won't get there.

                tl;dr The technology isn't there.

                --
                Go green, Go Soylent.
                • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday August 24 2014, @11:25PM

                  by evilviper (1760) on Sunday August 24 2014, @11:25PM (#85112) Homepage Journal

                  It's an extreme rarity for people to haul heavy trailers or drive a moving truck. Heavy-haulers can be accommodated by CNG easily enough. Coal would work, too. Hell, you could even burn wood in a gasifier.

                  Hauling travel-trailers is an interesting case, though. They're large but fairly lightweight. You could have a rooftop of solar panels going, charging up the EV towing it, while you go down the highway. And when your battery runs down, you just pull over somewhere, and wait an hour or so.

                  --
                  Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                  • (Score: 2) by khallow on Monday August 25 2014, @01:37AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 25 2014, @01:37AM (#85148) Journal

                    Petroleum probably could still help cover them too for a few more decades. It's not going to vanish overnight.

                • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday August 25 2014, @12:59AM

                  by cafebabe (894) on Monday August 25 2014, @12:59AM (#85131) Journal

                  I wasn't aware of a lithium shortage but there definitely isn't enough platinum to make the catalysts for hydrogen cars and I'm not aware of any other suitable catalyst.

                  A long distance journey is an infrequent but foreseeable use case. And electric cars really fail here. A one day task becomes a one week task. First, hire a vehicle which can do the distance. Second, drive it back. Third, make sure that your electric car is charged. Fourth, drive short journeys and hope you can charge it on the way.

                  Even on a short run, there is extra hassle if you run out of energy.

                  --
                  1702845791×2
                  • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Monday August 25 2014, @01:55AM

                    by Boxzy (742) on Monday August 25 2014, @01:55AM (#85154) Journal

                    Here's a couple of links explaining the rapidly approaching lithium shortage.

                    http://www.automotto.com/entry/lithium-ion-batteries-are-emnot/ [automotto.com]

                    http://www.thestar.com/business/2007/01/29/lithium_surge_lacks_staying_power.html [thestar.com]

                    And here's a Forbes article about Tesla that says maybe, just maybe, kinda.

                    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/03/is-there-enough-lithium-to-feed-teslas-gigafactory/ [forbes.com]

                    --
                    Go green, Go Soylent.
                    • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday August 25 2014, @05:58AM

                      by cafebabe (894) on Monday August 25 2014, @05:58AM (#85206) Journal

                      Ah, we definitely have a problem with lithium. Ignoring environmental issues, we have decades of supply if we only use lithium for phone/laptop/tablet batteries. However, we've only got enough lithium for 1.5 million electric cars. Indeed, we're already getting the games about reserves and estimates that accompany hydrocarbons. And, of course, the impeding increase in lithium price will be completely unrelated to scarcity.

                      To make matters worse, hydrogen cars also require lithium for their fuel tanks because the spacing if lithium atoms is the most effective at impeding the escape of H2 molecules. So, we don't have the resources to make all vehicles hydrogen, fully electric or a mix of the two.

                      This leads me to refine my position that hybrid vehicles will become dominant; using either lead acid batteries or sodium nickel chloride batteries to hold surplus energy. Unfortunately, if we don't find a sustainable supply of liquid hydrocarbons, the default source will be coal converted with the Fischer–Tropsch process.

                      --
                      1702845791×2
              • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday August 24 2014, @11:22PM

                by cafebabe (894) on Sunday August 24 2014, @11:22PM (#85109) Journal

                Regarding rail electrification, the cost of retro-fitting is almost as much as laying new track. Indeed, bang for buck, it can be more cost effective to lay new track while keeping the old track in service.

                The argument for high-speed rail is beguiling. If rail is going to be electrified, straighten the track and install high-current distribution. Unfortunately, this provides very little benefit and is a waste of energy.

                Regarding electric vehicles, I believe that a diesel electric car will be the most effective option. It provides the best energy density and carries the least baggage. It can also be re-energized with the least amount of time.

                You note that the cost of charging an electric car is already cheaper than the equivalent hydrocarbons. I argue that the hydrocarbons are vastly underpriced but that electricity could be sourced in a manner which is largely independent of this cost. Regardless, if people were primarily concerned about cost per mile or TCO [Total Cost of Ownership] then electric cars should already have the vast majority of the market. That hasn't happened. Therefore, I assume that other barriers are limiting adoption, such as range, charging time, charge point availability and battery life.

                --
                1702845791×2
                • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday August 24 2014, @11:34PM

                  by evilviper (1760) on Sunday August 24 2014, @11:34PM (#85113) Homepage Journal

                  Regarding rail electrification, the cost of retro-fitting is almost as much as laying new track.

                  Got a source for that crazy claim? Laying new track in the US is nightmarishly, astronomically, unimaginably expensive. Running overhead wires is piddly little nothing in comparison.

                  I believe that a diesel electric car will be the most effective option

                  I believe you're quite wrong.

                  if people were primarily concerned about cost per mile or TCO [Total Cost of Ownership] then electric cars should already have the vast majority of the market. That hasn't happened

                  The LIFETIME cost of gasoline in a conventional vehicle is so low, that the higher up-front cost of hybrids and EVs often may not ever be a savings, or would at least take a large number of years. But if fuel prices double, the economics will look much better for EVs and hybrids.

                  Therefore, I assume

                  Always a mistake...

                  --
                  Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                  • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday August 25 2014, @12:29AM

                    by cafebabe (894) on Monday August 25 2014, @12:29AM (#85121) Journal

                    Regarding citations, sections of the California High-Speed Rail are new track, sections are to be electrified and sections are to be refitted for higher current distribution. The average cost is US$56 million per kilometre. I presume more detailed figures were made available before US$9.95 billion of bonds were issued. Otherwise, it really is a crazy scheme.

                    Regarding TCO, I think that batteries are the dealbreaker. We've all seen what happens to old batteries in laptops and phones. We accept this in a US$500 product which follows Moore's law. However, it is a different proposition for a US$30,000 product which doesn't follow Moore's law. A car might have a 265 mile range when it leaves the showroom but will it have a 20 mile range after a few years? Will I be able to get a replacement battery in five years? Will there be an aftermarket for batteries which meets insurance requirements?

                    If I was buying a second hand electric car, I'd discount the cost of buying and installing replacement batteries - and that assumes they're available. If I was buying a new electric car, I'd factor this extra depreciation against the miles that I may or may not drive and arrive at a significantly higher TCO. If I could afford the TCO and the energy was environmentally friendly then I'd buy it. If not then I'd make other arrangements.

                    That probably explains why only a rich minority have switched to electric cars.

                    Regarding diesel electric, it is the most similar arrangement to fully electric while avoiding the issue of battery degradation. It is also the most compatible with the existing infrastructure. At this point, I believe our arguments are a mutual case of "My vaporware is better than your vaporware!" So, we will have to wait for a mythical battery, a method to turn sunlight into diesel and/or a nuclear powered shipping business.

                    --
                    1702845791×2
                    • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday August 25 2014, @01:46AM

                      by evilviper (1760) on Monday August 25 2014, @01:46AM (#85151) Homepage Journal

                      Regarding citations, sections of the California High-Speed Rail

                      That's an utterly different scenario than just electrifying existing freight rail lines, and I can't imagine why you keep bringing it up.

                      At this point, I believe our arguments are a mutual case of "My vaporware is better than your vaporware!"

                      EVs and plug-in hybrids exist and work quite well right now.

                      --
                      Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                      • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday August 25 2014, @02:30AM

                        by cafebabe (894) on Monday August 25 2014, @02:30AM (#85165) Journal

                        According to http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/statewide_rail/proj_sections/SanFran_SanJose/SF_SJ_Supplemental_Appendix_L_Cost_Estimates_8_5_10.pdf [ca.gov] via http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Statewide_Rail_Modernization/Project_Sections/sanfran_sanjose.html [ca.gov], new single track costs US$1,549,312 per mile, new double track costs US$2,100,224 per mile, signalling costs US$2,070,000 per mile, communications costs US$540,000 per mile, safety systems cost US$108,000 per mile, electrical supply costs US$1,170,000 per mile and electrical distribution costs US$1,485,000 per mile. So, double track costs US$4,818,224 per mile and electrification (to high-speed grade) costs an extra US$2,655,000 per mile.

                        Regarding electric vehicles, they work well if the batteries are new and you aren't going far. They don't work so well outside of these conditions. A hybrid will work outside of these conditions. However, efficiency may be impaired when its battery degrades.

                        --
                        1702845791×2
                        • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday August 25 2014, @02:34AM

                          by evilviper (1760) on Monday August 25 2014, @02:34AM (#85166) Homepage Journal

                          Oh boy, more references to high-speed rail that have nothing to do with low-speed freight lines... Yay.

                          Regarding electric vehicles, they work well if the batteries are new and you aren't going far. They don't work so well outside of these conditions.

                          You don't say? How many and what models of electric vehicles do you have?

                          --
                          Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                          • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday August 25 2014, @05:02AM

                            by cafebabe (894) on Monday August 25 2014, @05:02AM (#85198) Journal

                            Regarding rail electrification, you said the cost was negligible and I said it was about equal to the cost of laying new track. Furthermore, you wanted a citation relevant to the US. Well, the answer is approximately midway between our positions but you have been too dismissive to acknowledge this.

                            Regarding hybrids, your quoting has been very selective but it appears that some hybrids use lead acid batteries to avoid the memory effect which would occur with frequent charging and discharging of more recent battery developments.

                            --
                            1702845791×2
                            • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday August 25 2014, @05:59AM

                              by evilviper (1760) on Monday August 25 2014, @05:59AM (#85207) Homepage Journal

                              it appears that some hybrids use lead acid batteries to avoid the memory effect

                              I'm not aware of a single hybrid that uses lead-acid traction batteries (though they have a standard car battery for starting and 12V accessories). Care to name one?

                              Li-Ion cells aren't subject to any memory effects.

                              --
                              Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                              • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday August 25 2014, @06:55AM

                                by cafebabe (894) on Monday August 25 2014, @06:55AM (#85223) Journal

                                According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_battery [wikipedia.org], the Anderson Electric Car Company produced commercially viable lead acid electric vehicles between 1907 and 1939. The General Motors EV1 and the Toyota RAV4EV also used lead acid batteries. Lead acid batteries remain viable in niche applications, such as urban delivery and golf carts.

                                It appears the the Toyota Prius XW10, XW20 and (more popular) WX30 use neither lead acid batteries nor lithium ion batteries. Instead, they use nickel metal hydride batteries. The Toyota Prius ZVW35 uses lithium ion batteries but it has been a market failure.

                                (Oddly, the Toyota Prius XW10 was designed with semiconductors which were originally developed for high-speed rail. Also, the leading electric vehicle, the Nissan Leaf, is most popular in Norway, one of the countries most dependant on oil exports.)

                                http://phys.org/news/2013-04-memory-effect-lithium-ion-batteries.html [phys.org] describes the lithium ion battery memory effect. It is less pronounced than the nickel cadmium battery memory effect but it occurs in similar circumstances.

                                --
                                1702845791×2
                                • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday August 25 2014, @07:13AM

                                  by evilviper (1760) on Monday August 25 2014, @07:13AM (#85226) Homepage Journal

                                  Yes, lead-acid batteries were used before Li-Ion was developed. NiMH might have gotten widespread use starting in the late 80s, if not for Texaco buying the patent and locking-up the technology.

                                  The plug-in Prius with li-ion battery pack "is the world's third best selling plug-in electric car ever", which sounds pretty successful to me.

                                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Plug-in_Hybrid [wikipedia.org]

                                  That article on memory effects is talking about LiFePO4 batteries, which is a special type of Li-Ion that is extremely rarely used.

                                  --
                                  Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                                  • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday August 25 2014, @08:04AM

                                    by cafebabe (894) on Monday August 25 2014, @08:04AM (#85236) Journal

                                    The general trend seems to be lead acid -> nickel metal hydride -> lithium ion but the market seems to significantly favor nickel metal hydride. I saw the Toyota Prius ZVW35 being described as third best in its class but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Plug-in_Hybrid#Markets_and_sales [wikipedia.org] shows that sales are falling drastically. The best in class, the Nissan Leaf had 45% of the market with 100,000 sales and the third generation Prius had 1,688,000 sales over a similar period.

                                    I couldn't find clear sales figures for the Tesla Model S but it appears that the 265 mile range only applies if it purchased with upgraded batteries. The standard model has a range of 208 miles.

                                    I'll find a more suitable reference for the lithium ion battery memory effect when I have more time.

                                    --
                                    1702845791×2
                                    • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday August 25 2014, @09:57AM

                                      by evilviper (1760) on Monday August 25 2014, @09:57AM (#85249) Homepage Journal

                                      but the market seems to significantly favor nickel metal hydride

                                      Nah. Toyota is the only hold-out, and that's because the Prius is a dinosaur. Even Ford, who was second to market with hybrids, has updated their hybrids to use Li-Ion.

                                      NiMH was mature just a few years before Li-Ion. There was a hard cut-over in 2007, when Tesla Motors told the world that Li-Ion batteries were mature and ready for production EV use, and I don't think anyone else has used NiMH in new vehicles since (except Toyota's newer models of Prius).

                                      --
                                      Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                          • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:02AM

                            by Boxzy (742) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:02AM (#85559) Journal

                            Nobody needs to buy a giant lithium polymer battery to know the lifespan of ANY lithium polymer battery and I think you know that. Two years with substantial amounts of the original power, third year with half or less and forth year dropping rapidly to zero. That is the lifespan of all current lithium ion and lithium polymer batteries and as a value proposition its unacceptable.

                            --
                            Go green, Go Soylent.
                            • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday August 26 2014, @05:28AM

                              by evilviper (1760) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @05:28AM (#85594) Homepage Journal

                              Nobody needs to buy a giant lithium polymer battery to know the lifespan of ANY lithium polymer battery and I think you know that.

                              Your experience with the crap battery in your $100 cell phone is hardly representative of an $80,000 electric vehicle.

                              Two years with substantial amounts of the original power, third year with half or less and forth year dropping rapidly to zero. That is the lifespan of all current lithium ion and lithium polymer batteries and as a value proposition its unacceptable.

                              You just need to go to the front-page of teslamotors.com, and you'll see it in bold, right up-front:

                              "8 year, infinite mile warranty on Model S 85 kWh battery and drive unit"

                              If the battery isn't going to last for 4+ years (as you baselessly claim) they're going to have to burn through OBSCENE amounts of money (that they don't have) to honor that warranty.

                              And more than that, I've got stacks of Li-Ion batteries and battery packs that are over a decade old, and are holding a charge just fine.

                              --
                              Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                              • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Tuesday August 26 2014, @06:31AM

                                by Boxzy (742) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @06:31AM (#85605) Journal

                                Marketing, yes. I have specific strong opinions about marketers. They have a warranty for infinite mileage, but I guarantee the small print allows for losses due to a whole catalogue of 'user' faults like improper storage, insufficient charging, lack of timely charging, overheating, excessive cooling etc.

                                I currently have many expensive Li-Po powered devices and it's a simple fact that levels of stored charge decrease steadily. I'm just going to ignore your childish dig about my perceived lack of wealth.

                                Holding a charge isn't the same as holding the original manufacturer quoted charge. Repeatedly fully or even close to fully discharging Li-Po cells damages them. Maybe Tesla have indeed increased the lifespan somewhat, the simple mathematics of NOT ENOUGH LITHIUM remains however.

                                Let's get back to the actual problem, lithium is a non-starter for vehicle energy storage, we need much better.

                                --
                                Go green, Go Soylent.
                                • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday August 26 2014, @06:59AM

                                  by evilviper (1760) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @06:59AM (#85611) Homepage Journal

                                  the simple mathematics of NOT ENOUGH LITHIUM remains however.

                                  No particular truth in that:

                                  "At 20 mg lithium per kg of Earth's crust, lithium is the 25th most abundant element."

                                  "The total lithium content of seawater is very large and is estimated as 230 billion tonnes"

                                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Terrestrial [wikipedia.org]

                                  I currently have many expensive Li-Po powered devices and it's a simple fact that levels of stored charge decrease steadily.

                                  It's a simple fact that your anecdotes are of no particular value.

                                  lithium is a non-starter for vehicle energy storage, we need much better.

                                  Li-Ion batteries are very much a viable replacement for gasoline in consumer vehicles. They work fine right now, and we'll get significant reductions in price, and gradual capacity increases over time.

                                  --
                                  Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                                  • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Tuesday August 26 2014, @08:03AM

                                    by Boxzy (742) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @08:03AM (#85638) Journal

                                    But its going to be ridiculously, incredibly expensive to extract six hundred million cars worth of lithium never mind the 270 million more commercial vehicles, once the 1.5 million worth of easy to extract lithium is mined.

                                    Again, I think you really need to read this.

                                    http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/battery-warranty-1 [teslamotors.com] [teslamotors.com]

                                    --
                                    Go green, Go Soylent.
                                    • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday August 26 2014, @08:51AM

                                      by evilviper (1760) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @08:51AM (#85649) Homepage Journal

                                      its going to be ridiculously, incredibly expensive to extract six hundred million cars worth of lithium

                                      Except you're just making that up to suit your skepticism... Given a few years, the technology to extract the less dense deposits may get rather inexpensive... maybe it won't, but it's more likely that resource extraction will keep getting better and better.

                                      Other battery chemistries are in the works, too. In any case, supply and demand will take care of it. NiMH isn't dramatically inferior to Li-Ion, so it's a viable fall-back option if Li-Ion batteries ever get terribly overpriced.

                                      Again, I think you really need to read this.

                                      http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/battery-warranty-1 [teslamotors.com]

                                      Unverified stuff on a forum... so? If I considered that evidence, I'd be trusting the nonsense you say, too.

                                      Just how does your claim of dead batteries after 4 years match-up with your link claiming "10-20% loss of capacity after 8 years" or "after the first 5 years, degradation may be as low as 5%"?

                                      Not bad at all.

                                      --
                                      Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                                      • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:32PM

                                        by Boxzy (742) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:32PM (#85734) Journal

                                        Jeez, now, after several days, you start talking about Nickel Metal Hydride?

                                        Don't start that bullcrap about market forces and the invisible hand, there is enough lithium in several large deposits for 1.5 million cars and the rest is fairly evenly spread through the earths crust. If you cannot see that's not going to work, then I'm embarrassed for you. Just imagine digging up the rocky mountain range to make a million or so car batteries.

                                        Tesla won't and can't say how much their 8 year warranty means for energy storage.

                                        As far as I'd trust anything anyone says, I'd trust People who bought THE CAR, talking on a tesla forum about the manufacturers lack of openness over a million marketers.

                                        One group has an incredible vested interest in distorting facts and manipulating value judgments to the detriment of customers wallets and the other just want a fair deal.

                                        I can clearly see that you have near drowned your self in the cool-aid and I should just walk away.

                                        --
                                        Go green, Go Soylent.
                              • (Score: 2) by Boxzy on Tuesday August 26 2014, @06:49AM

                                by Boxzy (742) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @06:49AM (#85610) Journal

                                I think you really need to read this.

                                http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/battery-warranty-1 [teslamotors.com]

                                --
                                Go green, Go Soylent.
                    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday August 25 2014, @07:46AM

                      by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday August 25 2014, @07:46AM (#85234) Journal

                      So, we will have to wait for [...] a method to turn sunlight into diesel [...]

                      That method already exists: Let plants use the sunlight to build up hydrocarbons, and then refine those into diesel. The problem of this process is that it is not sufficiently efficient.

                      --
                      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Monday August 25 2014, @01:35AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 25 2014, @01:35AM (#85146) Journal

          But we don't necessarily have enough energy to power every vehicle.

          We're covered for several billion years.

  • (Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:45PM

    by Buck Feta (958) on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:45PM (#84989) Journal

    > Copper ... mines now get 0.04% rich ore

    You are off my an order of magnitude. The number is closer to 0.4%.

    Also, just because one method of oil extraction is expensive, that does not put a floor under the price of oil there. You could dream up an absurd scheme that would have lifting costs of $250 a barrel. And what does that do to the price of oil. Nothing. What do you suppose the lifting costs are in Saudi Arabia currently? $5.

    --
    - fractious political commentary goes here -
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:20PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:20PM (#85034)

      "What do you suppose the lifting costs are in Saudi Arabia currently? $5."

      (insert sarcastic tone) and whats the water cut out of Ghawar right now? State secret you say? Rumors say 90%? LOL that field is running on fumes. Thats kinda the point of the whole discussion.

      In a decade Ghawar is going to be as irrelevant as talking about the lifting costs of Yates or Prudhoe is in 2014. Can still make money, but S.A will be a net importer soon enough, just like the UK.

      You're talking about the cost to pump out a tank thats running along empty.

      • (Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:38PM

        by Buck Feta (958) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:38PM (#85064) Journal

        My point was not about the state of world reserves, but to point out the submitters ignorance of supply and demand economics. That is, pricing is not determined by the cost of production of any one producer, and thus the absurdity of this claim, "If fracking costs $120/barrel output, then the price of oil isn't going to go down below $120 a barrel ever again.".

        --
        - fractious political commentary goes here -
        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday August 24 2014, @09:47PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 24 2014, @09:47PM (#85086)

          Pricing will be controlled by the cheapest source... and Mexico is going to stop export pretty soon (has it already?) etc etc. Fracing might be the cheapest source.

          Its not like S.A will open the taps wider. They can't.

          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 25 2014, @01:24AM

            by kaszz (4211) on Monday August 25 2014, @01:24AM (#85140) Journal

            Provided the cheapest source can provide the majority of product. Just have a look at the effect of the Alaska exploration on price during oil crisis in the 1970s.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @04:01AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @04:01AM (#85182)

            Saudi Arabia is constricting supply via OPEC any time the price touches $80.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:24PM (#85098)

      Whenever I ready 'peek oil' I just change it to 'peek cheap oil'. If you look at it that way then it is different.

      Solar/wind is borderline economical. Because they got the manufacturing costs under control. Install costs are still pretty high. However, when 'cheap oil' becomes 'expensive oil' then other energy becomes economically viable. Look to the 'gas boom' and see how it basically did in 5 years what environmentalists have been trying to do for 50. Shut down coal plants. If people some how think we are going to give up energy for warm and fuzzies they are dreaming. Peek oil scare mongering is little more than that.

      The current oil market is not based in reality. It is based on commodity speculation. Much like gold. When those two bubbles burst it will be a sight to behold.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:52PM

    by sjames (2882) on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:52PM (#84991) Journal

    Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Nuclear. All available right now. We're just waiting on a big tractor to pull politician's heads from their asses.

    • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:02PM (#85051)

      It's happening, just give it time. Wind turbine buildout in the midwest has been proceeding nicely. The first couple of EPR and AP-1000 nuclear reactors are underway. They'll work the bugs out. PV prices have supposedly fallen. I am still pessimistic about geothermal, but hey.

  • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:53PM

    by Dunbal (3515) on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:53PM (#84993)

    Growth != Prosperity. Growth only enables you to screw up endlessly and hide all you errors and all your mistakes under the guise of "growth". There is absolutely no reason why society cannot be prosperous while maintaining constant numbers or even declining numbers - where everyone has a bigger share of resources tomorrow than they did today. Of course this means some sort of enforcement of breeding habits. Overpopulation will be curbed one way or another. Personally I'd rather do it willingly than see my children killed by disease or famine. Oh and the billionaires don't want to talk about declining growth because they make money by having a finger in every pocket. Because they are short sighted and don't see that their wealth will be exactly the same even if the numbers are smaller, they think that growing the population = more pockets to pick or slaves to exploit = growing their bottom line.

    • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:17PM (#85006)

      Under a debt-based economy, like we have now, growth is required for prosperity. Debt-based economies are fundamentally flawed since they require infinite growth, but good luck getting anyone to listen to that; you'll just be called a socialist and communist and brushed off like you're some kind of loony.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 25 2014, @01:30AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Monday August 25 2014, @01:30AM (#85143) Journal

        Without growth it just take longer to pay back the debt?

        But it probably means many countries will have to stop borrowing. No new spyphone every year.. OMG! ;)

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday August 25 2014, @07:55AM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday August 25 2014, @07:55AM (#85235) Journal

          Without growth it just take longer to pay back the debt?

          Strictly speaking the problem is not debt, but interest. As soon as the total interest is larger than what you can earn, the time to pay back your debt goes to infinity. Indeed, your debt will grow exponentially.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:29PM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:29PM (#85011) Homepage

    First, Chris Martenson identifies a great number of very real problems our society faces.

    Though there's lots of oil left in the ground -- about as much as we've already burned -- we've already used up all the cheap high-quality stuff. Long gone are the days when you had to be careful with a pickaxe in Texas lest you set off a gusher; now, we're drilling wells several miles deep with wellheads miles under the ocean surface. Not for shits and giggles and the coolness factor, but because that's the only oil that's left.

    Our whole civilization has been built on the energy in the oil we've dug out of the ground. Next time you get into your car, imagine pushing it. Now imagine pushing it at 60 miles an hour down the freeway. Now understand that it only takes a couple gallons of gasoline to do that for an entire hour, when you'd be lucky to just get the car to a walking pace and keep it there for a minute. That same access to cheap energy is what built the car in the first place, what built your home, what powers the farm equipment that grows your food, and in general allow you to surf Teh Innerwebs rather than spend all your time out in the fields tending crops.

    And oil is a two-fer: it's not just a great energy source, it's a great energy storage medium -- one that puts batteries and supercapacitors and hydrogen and all the other fancy new technologies to shame. That's the problem with solar and nuclear and coal and all the other potentially abundant energy sources: they just make electricity, and that's only half the equation. You're not going to have nuclear-powered combine harvesters at all during your lifetime -- not even indirectly.

    Not surprisingly, since our civilization is built with oil, our financial system is very closely tied to oil as well. Fractional reserve banking, quantitative easing, all of it can be traced back to the force multiplier of human labor that oil represents. Nor is it a surprise that our economy is in the shitter at the same time that it costs more to extract oil than the market is able to bear. Oil prices have been hovering in the $100/bbl range for quite some time, but most estimates are that oil companies need it in the $120/bbl - $150/bbl range to fund new exploration and development -- and, indeed, they've been cutting back on development in order to pay shareholders. Sure, prices can go up...but the economy is groaning as it is with $100/bbl oil; imagine the food riots if farmers raised their prices to cover a 50% increase in fertilizer and pesticides and diesel to run combines and ship food to market.

    Where Martenson goes off the rails is in suggesting that the rational response is to prepare for a zombie apocalypse within the next year or so -- and that you should prepare by buying gold and stocking up on guns and ammo and learning how to preserve garlic. And he makes a lot of money by telling people how to do all that.

    The first thing to know is that, if the shit really does hit the fan, you're gonna die, no matter what sort of crazy preppie stuff you do today. Yeah, sure, some negligible percentage might survive and maybe more of them than not will have done the preppie thing -- but, still. The shit hits the fan, overwhelming numbers of preppies die alongside everybody else.

    Which means it's a waste to prepare for the shit hitting the fan -- but that's what Martenson is all about.

    What does make sense is to prepare for Katrina-scale disasters, as those can and do happen. But it doesn't take much to prepare for them; remember that your hot water heater is already filled with water, and a sack each of rice and beans will keep you going for a long time. The same cheap hibachi you'd use to grill hamburgers in the summer will cook the rice and beans just fine. Add the first aid kit you should already have for when you do something stupid today, make sure you don't wait until the last minute to refill any lifesaving prescriptions, and you're done. Don't stuff your mattress with cash; it won't help you with a Katrina-scale disaster, as rich and poor will be sleeping side-by-side in the shelters.

    His financial advice is a similar mixed bag. Yes, get rid of your debt; but that's good advice regardless. But gold? For when the shit hits the fan? Who the fuck is going to want gold? Ever try to eat gold? Make clothing with it? Make tools with it?

    Instead, if you've got the capital available, cover your roof with solar panels. If it's business as usual, they'll repay themselves in about seven years -- which, if you remember the Rule of 70, means a 10% annual return on investment, something very good even by historical standards. If things merely go somewhat haywire, your investment soars as you've locked in your electric rates even as everybody else pays more. If the shit does hit the fan and you miraculously survive, you can kludge together some off-grid power supply with them. Similar deal with an electric vehicle, if you're in the market for a new car.

    And, absolutely; if you've got the space and the inclination, start a veggie garden. The food you'll grow will be much better than what you can get today at the market. If things go haywire, you'll be able to enjoy fresh produce you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, and you'll be in a good position to help your neighbors start their own gardens and increase your local area's standard of living. But if the shit hits the fan, you're gonna need the famous 40 acres and a mule to feed your family; your quaint little Victory Garden just ain't gonna cut the mustard.

    Most of the rest of his advice follows the same pattern: over-prepare for disasters you're not going to survive anyway. Great if you're the one selling the gee-gaws people are buying to prepare, dumb if you're the one buying.

    Cheers,

    b&

    • (Score: 1) by number6 on Monday August 25 2014, @12:29AM

      by number6 (1831) on Monday August 25 2014, @12:29AM (#85120) Journal

      Next time you get into your car, imagine pushing it. Now imagine pushing it at 60 miles an hour down the freeway. Now understand that it only takes...

      Reminds me of the first episode of the TV Series 'BBC Connections (1978)'. If you haven't seen it you are missing out on something very very special.
      After watching it, you may then proceed to this Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] and read what Plato had to say over 1000 years ago.

      Me personally... I love bicycles. I don't give a fuck about cars and car culture. As far as I'm concerned, the design of densely populated environments such as cities is completely wrong.

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday August 25 2014, @03:16AM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday August 25 2014, @03:16AM (#85176) Journal

      Sounds a bit like the old "duck and cover" exercises.

      Yes, I'm always skeptical of "the end is nigh" proclamations. They typically fall over right away at the first hard look.

      Are solar cells really that good now? Cheap and effective enough to pay for themselves in 7 years? My understanding is that your first use of solar should be for heating water. Whatever roof space you have left over after meeting your hot water needs can be devoted to electricity.

      Oh, and I've always heard it as the Rule of 72, not 70.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @04:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @04:00PM (#92449)

        n5BW8J khklwnogxqns [khklwnogxqns.com], [url=http://qtzwekunmyog.com/]qtzwekunmyog[/url], [link=http://lcvbjhdrcqiw.com/]lcvbjhdrcqiw[/link], http://ttpdoqerikda.com/ [ttpdoqerikda.com]

  • (Score: 1) by gallondr00nk on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:28PM

    by gallondr00nk (392) on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:28PM (#85037)

    In other words, the assumption that the future is an extrapolation of what we're doing now.

    Peak oil and peak energy are not the same thing, for one. There's abundant, clean, safe energy out there, from various sources. Yet it seems we're completely unwilling to commit to any of it, least of all wide scale nuclear power, which strikes me as the bridging point between fossils and thorium or fusion.

    There's a great Adam Curtis documentary from the early 90's talking about the early decades of nuclear power here [youtube.com]. Basically, it said that early reactor designs were incredibly flawed, built by cutting corners and often had completely unproven safety systems. They were dangerous simply because of defective design.

    Clean, cheap energy would be a good start to solving an awful lot of problems. Yet there seems to be a kind of paralysis at the moment where we're desperately clinging onto fossils even though better options exist.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 25 2014, @01:50AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Monday August 25 2014, @01:50AM (#85153) Journal

      There's a reactor type that can breed plutonium-239 from uranium-238 and capture many more neutrons than a regular reactor. It uses liquid lead to handle the reaction. It's quite transparent to neutrons but not for gamma rays. Anyway it enables one to make use of existing "depleted" uranium for a few thousands years.

      Another technology is to use accelerator to bombard fuel with sub atomic particles that will make it put out more energy than needed to run the accelerator. And it also used "deplated" uranium.

      Thorium from India is also an alternative.

      Then there's the usual fusion and other not yet prime time ready technologies. Or simple a HVDC line from solar panel farms in the equator. So energy can be made. But the powers that sign the checkbook has to enable things to happen. But perhaps stagnation and riots will solve that. A harder problem is to store energy for vehicle usage. Commuting by your own car is likely something that won't be economically feasible.

  • (Score: 2) by AsteroidMining on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:31PM

    by AsteroidMining (3556) on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:31PM (#85039)

    I didn't know that Soylent was taking advertising now.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:50PM

    by Aiwendil (531) on Sunday August 24 2014, @08:50PM (#85070) Journal

    Biodiesel has been dipping below 100usd/barrel for quite some time, and [South African gas/petrol-giant] SASOL did already about a decade ago report that their cost per barrel of syntethic oil from mined coal (via a modified fischer-tropsch) was at about 50usd/barrel (and it seems that US Navy estimates about 6usd/barrel for on-ship generation of synthetic jet-fuel from seawater and nuclear power)

    So.. unless we are running out of both plantlife and coal I have a hard time to see us running out of most kinds of oil.

    Also with minerals the new advanced leeching-methods allows for cost-effective extraction of resources that was considered uneconomical only ten years ago (for instance most of the refuse-piles near mines older than about a decade are now considered a cheap extra source of many minerals, and in modern mines they also extract many secondary minerals now).

    Heck, with today's technology even stuff like the ashes from a coalfired powerplant are worth mining for resources in some cases..

    If we have run out of anything it is cheap stuff that doesn't require advanced methods.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:05PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:05PM (#85093) Homepage
    I just viewed the 1 hour accelerated version, and the very first fact he presented was completely false. We're (or the US) not printing money as fast as anyone has ever done before - I have hundred trillion zimbabwean dollar notes that prove that to be false. And secondly, perhaps ironically, he doesn't understand the exponential function - there is no 'turning the corner'. If you chop off the 'corner' and everything to the right of it, and just look at the 'flat' bit, and scale it up so that it takes the full vertical range it has exactly the same 'corner' that you had earlier asserted was further to the right before you chopped it off. The 'corner' is everywhere, if you must, but I prefer to just not pretend there is a corner at all. Thirdly, his interpretation of the chart mapping cost of extraction to ore yield was totally bogus - the scale on the X axis was contrived so that curve had the shape he was looking for. The actual curve with a linear scale should have been pretty much a hyperbola. But on the whole a lot of what he said did seem fairly sane. Anyone who makes reference Bartlett's claim that the greatest failing of the human race is its inability to understand the exponential function is someone who's fairly well grounded in reality.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 25 2014, @02:00AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Monday August 25 2014, @02:00AM (#85156) Journal

      Add the understanding of probability to the lack of core cognitive ability in most people.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Appalbarry on Monday August 25 2014, @12:05AM

    by Appalbarry (66) on Monday August 25 2014, @12:05AM (#85117) Journal

    Seriously, I can pretty much guess 90% of what he was going to say anyhow.

    Unfortunately nearly everyone in the doom and gloom business has a pet project or product to sell. Or ideology. Consequently not much of use ever gets discussed.

    1) ALL non-renewable resources eventually run out. Smart people anticipate that.

    2) The value of renewable resources (to replace (1)) is proportional to the amount of inputs (eg: oil) needed to produce them; and the distance that you are from them; and how much it takes to turn the resource (corn, hemp etc.) into something usable (oils for instance).

    3) Sooner or later the economy in which you live will crash. Badly. Maybe next year, maybe next century, but it's coming.

    4) Cycles man, cycles.

    5) Global warming man, warming.
    6) Telling everyone (else) to give up imported food; washing machines; cars, and to live in straw bale houses contributes nothing useful to the discussion, even if it lets you feel morally superior.

    7) No, hemp will not save the world.

    My planning for the anticipated decline of our civilization is pretty basic - a house off the grid, preferably on an island.

    Not to hide out and play Rambo like the "preppers," (I remember back in the day when we called them "survivalists." Or kooks.) but to give me space to plant a good sized garden, and to have as much of a self sufficient life as possible.

    Solar for electric; a well for water (or rain); wood for heat; small livestock plus a cow.

    Keep your head down, and make do with what you can handle on your own, or with the help of neighbours.

    In other words, live like my homesteading grandparents did.

    Despite decades of reading some pretty cool post dystopian science fiction I doubt that we'll see the end of: cities; transportation; communication; or iced treats.

    I can though see the end of government as we know it. Eventually the People on the Bottom always rise up and smite the People on the Top, and it wouldn't take that big a push.

  • (Score: 2) by meisterister on Monday August 25 2014, @03:52AM

    by meisterister (949) on Monday August 25 2014, @03:52AM (#85181) Journal

    Step 1- Plug your ears.
    Step 2- Start shouting "LALALALALALALALALAALA!"
    Step 3- Occasionally say "CAN'T HEAR YOU"
    Step 4- Goto 2.

    --
    (May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @02:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @02:13PM (#85332)

      Actually, it's more like this:

      Fellow passenger: "We're heading towards a wall. You should brake and turn."
      Driver: "Why brake? You know, the laws of physics will stop the car anyway as soon as we reach the wall. Until then, I want to have the fun of driving fast!"

  • (Score: 2) by emg on Monday August 25 2014, @05:02PM

    by emg (3464) on Monday August 25 2014, @05:02PM (#85383)

    I remember how, when I was a kid, oil was going to run out before the end of the 20th century, and pretty much everyone in Africa would starve to death.

    Commies have been telling us for decades that we must cut back and stop using stuff and stop having fun because they know everyone now realizes that their Victorian-era claptrap about how Communism would lead to progress and growth was just plain old crap and it really leads to people queuing six hours to buy potatoes. But now that's good! Growth is bad! Progress is evil! Everything's running out! We must get used to queuing six hours to buy potatoes to please Gaia!