[quote=phillipsd]Thanks again for your insight. Do you think that I would be better off staying the the US? I plan to move to the Victoria area and will most likely work in an educational field.
[/quote]
If you have no responsibilities that keep you in your own country (good job, children, sick relatives, etc.) it may still be a good strategy to leave your own country and try to make your life elsewhere. This way, if the SHTF in your new country, you can always go back to America, but you wouldn’t be able to go the other way if America collapses… For reference, I live in Japan right now, but I may have taken the wrong bet, so, as the expression goes, your mileage may vary…
Samuel
Noodlydoo
Yep. What you are missing here is that we already have a fragile economy with too much debt. That downturn you speak of in 2009 had very bad effects on everyone that will continue. We can still have lots of oil in the ground, but when supply can’t meet demand, in an economic system that must grow to finance its debts, the wheels start falling off. As pointed out previously, this decline of supply will continually grow worse so it forms a vicious cycle. You are also missing the factor of Energy Invested Over Energy Returned. Price doesn’t matter when it takes more energy to extract and process it than you get back. Also technology doesn’t create energy.
View the Crash Course video, and then read the book. I understand where you are coming from, but you only have half the story.
Travlin
NEXT YEAR? We won’t be suddenly “out of oil”, but I think next year we’ll see ourselves “short of oil”.
Well… there’s probably just ONE trillion barrels left. BUT that isn’t the point, what matters is how fast can we get that trillion out, what will be the energy cost, and will it cost more than $120/150 which is the threshhold at which the economy tanks?
Why, nowhere of course! More to the point where will YOU be going, especially food wise?
That was me. Nice cliche, but again you miss the point… If people can’t afford to adapt, just how do you think they will fare? You dismiss this altogether without even seemingly thinking about it… it’s a serious issue don’t you think? If I suddenly find myself unable to fill my car up, I’ll just park it out on the street with the keys in the ignition, no skin off my nose. It’s only a car, it owes me nothing, and I don’t need it to survive. It’s called abandoning the Matrix.
Hence the concern… WHERE are those alternatives, capable of delivering the 30+ ERoEIs we currently take for granted. I ask again… have you done the crash course, and in particular the energy budgeting bit. Because if you haven’t you are not talking at our level here.
You can’t make claims like that in isolation of the other 2 Es. Where will the money come from? Where will the resources?
It takes 60 to 90 barrels of oil to build any kind of car… Before you even turn the key on! You want to replace the current fleet of ~1 billion cars, there goes 75 billion barrels…
[quote=noodlydoo]These changes won’t happen by waking up some morning…there may be some supply shocks, but supply shocks usually bring a fairly rapid change in habits and consumption. Its just that we havn’t had supply shocks here in the US in a long while. Other countries tend to adapt fairly quickly to such shocks. Why would be any different?
Much more likely is to see increases in living costs, gas, food etc, which will be experienced over time…like right now. But rarely does anything in economics or economies move in a straight line. There will be increases and pullbacks. People will have to adapt, but I doubt, HIGHLY, I am going to wake up sometime this week and find the world has changed overnight.[/quote]
Past shocks were nothing like what is coming. In the 70’s and 80’s, we still had three decades of growth left in the tank. No more. Quite likely, as of next year we will start to see declines. What you don’t seem to understand is that we built the Matrix one brick at a time, as and when it was needed with ever increasing oil supplies, and dirt cheap to boot. Now you want to replace the whole lot in no time flat with decreasing energy that is constantly getting dearer to boot.
[quote=noodlydoo]PS. CM predicted oil prices would rise again. Hey…me too…that why I bought call options on oil. Wow…I must be a wizard.
[/quote]
Good luck with that… I’ve invested ALL of our wealth into getting ready. AFAIC, that’s the only worthwhile investment left.
Mike
Noodlydo,
Reading your comments, I think you need to watch TCC again; this time in a quiet room. If you come to the same conclusions afterwards, then I applaud your positive outlook, and wish you the best of luck. Everything will be just fine. . .
Rector
Rector, Mike,Thanks for the thougtful replies. I have watched the crash course. Nothing in there that I disagree with. I guess I take issue with the speed that many people on this board think that the end of the world will arrive. Then it dawned on me…rarely, I mean very rarely, does anything (war excluded) change so dramatically overnight.
Go outside…feel the sun on your face. Life is short…find peace.
PS. Some hopeful alternatives:
Algae based biofuels have been hyped in the media as a potential panacea to our Crude Oil based Transportation problems. Algae could yield more than 2000 gallons of fuel per acre per year of production.[1] Algae based fuels are being successfully tested by the navy[2]
$0.03/kw electricity production (in existance TODAY). Enough sun shines on the earth in 1 hour to power the planet for 1 year. http://tinyurl.com/3d3aqsj
You mean, like this…?
So then… if this is so hot why is Spain in so much strife?
[quote=Damnthematrix]
It takes 60 to 90 barrels of oil to build any kind of car… Before you even turn the key on! You want to replace the current fleet of ~1 billion cars, there goes 75 billion barrels…
[[/quote]
Where did you get these data from? I’m interested to read more about this.
Thanks
I think he got it from Scout 
Claaaaaasic
[quote=Damnthematrix][quote=noodlydoo]
$0.03/kw electricity production (in existance TODAY). Enough sun shines on the earth in 1 hour to power the planet for 1 year. http://tinyurl.com/3d3aqsj
[/quote]
So then… if this is so hot why is Spain in so much strife?
[/quote]
Extremely good point! I’m sure they could repay all their debts by selling this cheap energy to Germany… NOT
Samuel
Stratfor.comEnergy giant Royal Dutch/Shell will close its offices in Kazakhstan on May 30, after laying off its staff over the past few weeks. Shell is a critical member of the Kashagan oil project in Kazakhstan’s section of the Caspian Sea - one of the so-called “Big 3” energy projects in the country. Shell’s decision has put the future of the massive energy project in doubt, along with much of Kazakhstan’s future oil expansion and ability to supply strategic projects like the Kazakhstan-China oil pipeline.
One of the largest oil fields discovered in the past 30 years, Kashagan is also one of the most technically challenging fields. It is located in the northern Caspian region, a hostile environment with more than 70 mile-per-hour winds and flying ice chunks the size of boulders. However, the lure of 30 billion barrels in reserves attracted many Western and other firms into the project. The consortium currently comprises Shell, Eni, ExxonMobil, Total, ConocoPhillips, Inpex and KazMunaiGaz. Kashagan received even more incentive to produce when the Chinese announced they would build a massive pipeline system across Kazakhstan and through China, with Kashagan as the source to fill the bulk of the multi-trunked, 1.2 million barrel-per-day pipeline.
Kashagan initially was meant to be running by 2007, but the consortium members underestimated the difficulty of developing the field. Costs soared, and the deadline for production was pushed back to 2014. However, around 2007, the Kazakh government began to follow the example of its Russian neighbor and target foreign energy companies, charging higher taxes and collecting fees for alleged violations while trying to increase government shares in energy projects. Kashagan was already problematic; the government’s aggression made the production delays worse.
[quote=SailAway][quote=Damnthematrix]
It takes 60 to 90 barrels of oil to build any kind of car… Before you even turn the key on! You want to replace the current fleet of ~1 billion cars, there goes 75 billion barrels…
[[/quote]
Where did you get these data from? I’m interested to read more about this.[/quote]
Google is your friend…
About three or four years ago, on the Oil Drum I think… It takes 22 gallons of oil just to make one tyre! Then you have to mine at least 20 tons of overburden just to get the mineral ores that go into all the metal bits, the glass, the plastics, the foam in the seats, etc etc etc…
Most people have no idea what oil is used for. I was amazed to hear the other day that each and every Australian “eats” 66 barrels of oil a year. No doubt this holds true for Americans too…!
[quote=guardia][quote=Damnthematrix]
So then… if this is so hot why is Spain in so much strife?
[/quote]
Extremely good point! I’m sure they could repay all their debts by selling this cheap energy to Germany… NOT
Samuel
[/quote]
Here’s an example of the economics of photovoltaics in an ideal location in southeastern France:
http://www.solarworld4u.com/alg_artikel.asp?Bericht=763&Title=Enfinity-completes-2-solar-installations-in-France
The article quotes a 70,000,000 Euro installation cost (about $100,000,000 US) and 26 million Kilowatt hours/year. Let’s assume it operates maintenance free over it’s quoted 20 year lifespan. Then our operating costs will be:
$,100,000,000/520,000,000 KWhr = $0.192/KWhr
That’s with no maintenance or transmission costs. Actual costs are probably significantly higher. There’s also the issue that solar is less reliable than coal and (especially gas) which can provide power when needed as opposed to only when the sun shines. Forecasting solar array output even a few hours in advance is extremely difficult. Trust me. I do it for a living.
Steve
Good info Steve
Again I would reiterate, why not use solar and wind power to produce hydrogen on site. Then you have reliable energy whenever its needed plus fuel to ship whats been prodused off site?
Yes I know that the conversion is inefficient but the source is “free”.
Thanks steveyoung, when I saw the $0.03/kWh number I was thinking “I find that difficult to believe”.
The problem is that you loose so much in the conversion. For instance this link says you end up with only 9% of your starting power. I haven’t checked the numbers but they don’t seem far off. PV wll probably never be the way to go for large scale installations - solar towers and updraft systems are more efficient.
Many of these large systems use heat to store the excess for later use instead of going through a chemical reaction such as with batteries/hydrolysis. The short answer is you don’t do it because if your going to spend the money on a storage system you spend it on the most efficient/cost effective solution. Just because you can make something work doesn’t mean it’s wise.
On May 12th we released Will Natural Gas Fuel America in the 21st Century?. Written by PCI Fellow J. David Hughes, the detailed report argues that the natural gas industry has propagated dangerously false claims about natural gas production supply, cost and environmental impact. Our report calls into question the prevalent assumption that we have access to over a century of cheap and easy natural gas.
Will Natural Gas Fuel America in the 21st Century has been requested by local, state and federal agencies, media and concerned citizens worldwide. Since it’s release less than three weeks ago, the report has been downloaded over 11,000 times.
Today we are releasing three supplements to the report that we hope you’ll find of interest and value:
“Agriculture and Natural Gas” by PCI Fellow Michael Bomford
http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=541cd93520&e=b27f59eaf2
“Problems and Opportunities with Natural Gas as a Transportation Fuel” by PCI Adviser Richard Gilbert and PCI Fellow Anthony Perl
http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=a551a61a91&e=b27f59eaf2
“Public Health Concerns of Shale Gas Production” by PCI Fellows Brian Schwartz, MD, and Cindy Parker, MD.
http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=faace9aa1e&e=b27f59eaf2
26 million KW.h/year is 0.005% of France’s electricity generation of 542 TW.h in 2009. (BP 2010), so another 20,845 of them and they could shut all their nuclear plants down.
Of course that would cost 1.46 trillion Euros and cover an area of…
Samuel,Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions about Canada. I have been planning this move for my family for years and I want to be aware of as many hazards as possible.
I have not been able to figure out exactly what you meant by “but you wouldn’t be able to go the other way if America collapses…”. Do you mean that I would not be able to move back to the US from Canada if the US economy collapses and Canada’s didn’t? Does that circumstance create some sort of financial trap?
phillipsd
[quote=steveyoung]Here’s an example of the economics of photovoltaics in an ideal location in southeastern France:
http://www.solarworld4u.com/alg_artikel.asp?Bericht=763&Title=Enfinity-completes-2-solar-installations-in-France
The article quotes a 70,000,000 Euro installation cost (about $100,000,000 US) and 26 million Kilowatt hours/year. Let’s assume it operates maintenance free over it’s quoted 20 year lifespan. Then our operating costs will be:
$,100,000,000/520,000,000 KWhr = $0.192/KWhr
[/quote]
Thanks! But let’s remember that noodlydoo was talking about concentrated solar… Still, I doubt very much we would gain anything by concentrating the light all in one place, then distribute it all over the place over the grid versus simply placing all those panels right where we need the electricity in the first place.
Interesting, do you use computer vision to forecast cloud formations and such?
Samuel
[quote=phillipsd]Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions about Canada. I have been planning this move for my family for years and I want to be aware of as many hazards as possible.
I have not been able to figure out exactly what you meant by “but you wouldn’t be able to go the other way if America collapses…”. Do you mean that I would not be able to move back to the US from Canada if the US economy collapses and Canada’s didn’t? Does that circumstance create some sort of financial trap?
[/quote]
No, as a citizen you can always go back to America, that’s the point. Let’s consider today’s Mexico and America, for example. American citizens can go visit Mexico anytime they want, without any visa whatsoever. But Mexicans need to apply for a visa before entering America, even as a simple tourist (for Mexicans who still believe America’s the place to go anyway). It’s like that all over the world. Between countries of similar standards of life like Canada, America, and Japan, no one needs a visa to visit anywhere they want. But for countries whose standards of living are lower than America, citizens need to a visa to enter America.
So, imagine America blowing up, and you did not go to Canada: Too late. Unless America decides to invade Canada, no chance of getting anywhere close the border. But if you were in Canada, and it blows up instead, then you can always go back to America as a citizen.
But then again, Canada and America are so close physically and economically, I’m not so sure it will make any difference… America has problems controlling its Mexican border, imagine Canada, whose population is 10 times smaller than America, controlling its border. Eeesh, not a pretty picture
Samuel