the future

Quoted message said:

and the standard of living is less.

Everything I've read (apart from that which is obviously bunk) says the
standard of living will be (way) higher, just transport/energy may cost a
little more.

Worldwide, the standard of living in 50 years time will be w-a-y higher,
tho that's partly 'cos it's starting from a low base.

I haven't yet read anything that suggests otherwise.

What got me was that the bleakest scenario was quite clearly a load of
tosh, whilst the opposite 'extreme' seemed fairly reasonable[1] in it's
outlook.

To be equally far-fetched, Optimistic should have been more like 'A clean,
free and never-ending source of energy is found, the current world order is
overthrown and mankind lives in an age of peace and plenty, where lambs
play amongst -recently turned vegetarian- lions.'

[1] Admittedly from reading the article rather than the full report.

Quoted message said:

and the standard of living is less.

Everything I've read (apart from that which is obviously bunk) says the
standard of living will be (way) higher, just transport/energy may cost a
little more.

Worldwide, the standard of living in 50 years time will be w-a-y higher,
tho that's partly 'cos it's starting from a low base.

I haven't yet read anything that suggests otherwise.

What got me was that the bleakest scenario was quite clearly a load of
tosh, whilst the opposite 'extreme' seemed fairly reasonable[1] in it's
outlook.

To be equally far-fetched, Optimistic should have been more like 'A clean,
free and never-ending source of energy is found, the current world order is
overthrown and mankind lives in an age of peace and plenty, where lambs
play amongst -recently turned vegetarian- lions.'

[1] Admittedly from reading the article rather than the full report.

John Pitcock said:

Today's Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2011758,00.html

"Transport experts have seen , and it's got pedals"

John Pitcock

The very first sentence is complete bollox (tm). We will still be able to
travel whenever we please. We will probably be able to travel wherever we
please too, it will just cost more. A lot more, perhaps, if the oil really
does run out.

OTOH I was pleased to see:

<quote>
Congestion should be tackled by making more intelligent use of existing
capacity rather than by building roads and other transport links.
</quote>

Anyway, if their "bleakest scenario" does come to pass, at least the obesity
epidemic will be stopped.
--
Chris

"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."

John Pitcock said:

Today's Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2011758,00.html

"Transport experts have seen , and it's got pedals"

John Pitcock

The very first sentence is complete bollox (tm). We will still be able to
travel whenever we please. We will probably be able to travel wherever we
please too, it will just cost more. A lot more, perhaps, if the oil really
does run out.

OTOH I was pleased to see:

<quote>
Congestion should be tackled by making more intelligent use of existing
capacity rather than by building roads and other transport links.
</quote>

Anyway, if their "bleakest scenario" does come to pass, at least the obesity
epidemic will be stopped.
--
Chris

"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."

in message <[email hidden]>, Mark

Thompson (') said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, most journeys would be made by [...] horse in "the bleakest
scenario".

Which just goes to show how silly the bleakest scenario is. Reading
between the lines it seems that in 50 years time we'll have reverted to
an agrarian society based around largely self sufficient villages with
limited travel.

That, or starve, yes[1]. Possibly not in 50 years, but in 100 the
transport of large quantities of food into urban centres is unlikely to
be possible on anything like the present scale. Fortunately with good
telecommunications and with a telecommunications infrastructure which is
not desperately energy intensive the need for urban centres is already
largely gone.

Quoted message said:

The whole thing sounds weird, particularly as

"The most optimistic scenario envisages that a cleaner alternative to
oil is available in abundance, allowing the present trend towards
greater globalisation to continue apace."

doesn't sound nearly as far fetched.

All through the 60s and 70s the nuclear industry had a techno-fix to
their waste problem 'just around the corner'. It didn't emerge, and it
still hasn't. It may be possible to cover the sahara desert with solar
panels and use the electricity produced to split hydrogen out of
seawater, or something equally improbable. And, of course, sailing ships
worked before fossil fuels were being exploited on a large scale, and
will continue to work (rather better, because of the advances we've made
in technology) after the fossil fuels are gone, so a certain amount of
bulk transport, at least to the coast, will remain possible. But their
'bleakest scenario' seems to me, at least, improbably optimistic.

[1] Probably starve. Neither democratic politics nor capitalist industry
is capable of taking the hard, long term decisions required to avoid it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.

in message <[email hidden]>, Mark

Thompson (') said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, most journeys would be made by [...] horse in "the bleakest
scenario".

Which just goes to show how silly the bleakest scenario is. Reading
between the lines it seems that in 50 years time we'll have reverted to
an agrarian society based around largely self sufficient villages with
limited travel.

That, or starve, yes[1]. Possibly not in 50 years, but in 100 the
transport of large quantities of food into urban centres is unlikely to
be possible on anything like the present scale. Fortunately with good
telecommunications and with a telecommunications infrastructure which is
not desperately energy intensive the need for urban centres is already
largely gone.

Quoted message said:

The whole thing sounds weird, particularly as

"The most optimistic scenario envisages that a cleaner alternative to
oil is available in abundance, allowing the present trend towards
greater globalisation to continue apace."

doesn't sound nearly as far fetched.

All through the 60s and 70s the nuclear industry had a techno-fix to
their waste problem 'just around the corner'. It didn't emerge, and it
still hasn't. It may be possible to cover the sahara desert with solar
panels and use the electricity produced to split hydrogen out of
seawater, or something equally improbable. And, of course, sailing ships
worked before fossil fuels were being exploited on a large scale, and
will continue to work (rather better, because of the advances we've made
in technology) after the fossil fuels are gone, so a certain amount of
bulk transport, at least to the coast, will remain possible. But their
'bleakest scenario' seems to me, at least, improbably optimistic.

[1] Probably starve. Neither democratic politics nor capitalist industry
is capable of taking the hard, long term decisions required to avoid it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Mark Thompson said:

"The most optimistic scenario envisages that a cleaner alternative to
oil is available in abundance, allowing the present trend towards
greater globalisation to continue apace."

doesn't sound nearly as far fetched.

I think the future may be somewhere between the best and worse
scenarios. After all 100 years ago there were cities and international
travel by rail and ship.

The rail travel was dependent on abundant cheap fossil fuel (coal). We
don't have an endless supply of that left, and as the screw of global
warming tightens, it will become more and more difficult to make use of
what we have. Rail will inevitably become more expensive than it is now,
unless it is subsidised (in which case, by whom?).

Coastal shipping will become more common again, because moving goods by
sea is generally less energy intensive than moving them overland, and
windpower becomes more usable.

Quoted message said:

However the cost of long distance travel and
transport will mean that both personal travel is more limited and the
standard of living is less.

The first, yes. The second, not necessarily, if by standard of living you
mean adequate security of food, water, shelter, health-care. If you mean
lots and lots of consumer gizmos, no, you won't have as many of those
any more. There's no real reason why telecommunications needs to break
down, however. With good political leadership the transition to an
economy in which material goods don't travel much does not have to be
catastrophic. It probably will be, but it does not have to be.

And you won't eat fresh peas grown in Kenya any more, or asparagus from
Peru.

Quoted message said:

Of course parts of the UK are only a couple of generations away
from being largely self sufficient. My mother was brought up in Lewis
in the 1930s and 1940s . I remember remarking that she seemed to know
everyone in her village and the adjacent villages but that if we went a
couple of miles further away she knew very few people. Her explanation
was that they just didn't mix. Few people owned horses or cycles so to
visit somebody 3 miles away was a 2 hour return trip.
At that time much of the food was grown locally or was from
local fishing. I remember even in the 1960s and 70s many crofts growing
barley and potatoes. Now food is so cheap and/or incomes so much
greater that very few crofts have anything other than a few sheep.

Indeed, but, as you say, it won't take much to turn that around. The real
problem is the big urban centres, where there simply isn't enough arable
land left to support the population. A responsible government (if you
can imagine such a thing) would already have passed an edict saying
'thou shalt not build (anything at all) on arable land'.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; 'I think we should trust our president in every decision
;; that he makes and we should just support that'
;; Britney Spears of George W Bush, CNN 04:09:03

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Mark Thompson said:

"The most optimistic scenario envisages that a cleaner alternative to
oil is available in abundance, allowing the present trend towards
greater globalisation to continue apace."

doesn't sound nearly as far fetched.

I think the future may be somewhere between the best and worse
scenarios. After all 100 years ago there were cities and international
travel by rail and ship.

The rail travel was dependent on abundant cheap fossil fuel (coal). We
don't have an endless supply of that left, and as the screw of global
warming tightens, it will become more and more difficult to make use of
what we have. Rail will inevitably become more expensive than it is now,
unless it is subsidised (in which case, by whom?).

Coastal shipping will become more common again, because moving goods by
sea is generally less energy intensive than moving them overland, and
windpower becomes more usable.

Quoted message said:

However the cost of long distance travel and
transport will mean that both personal travel is more limited and the
standard of living is less.

The first, yes. The second, not necessarily, if by standard of living you
mean adequate security of food, water, shelter, health-care. If you mean
lots and lots of consumer gizmos, no, you won't have as many of those
any more. There's no real reason why telecommunications needs to break
down, however. With good political leadership the transition to an
economy in which material goods don't travel much does not have to be
catastrophic. It probably will be, but it does not have to be.

And you won't eat fresh peas grown in Kenya any more, or asparagus from
Peru.

Quoted message said:

Of course parts of the UK are only a couple of generations away
from being largely self sufficient. My mother was brought up in Lewis
in the 1930s and 1940s . I remember remarking that she seemed to know
everyone in her village and the adjacent villages but that if we went a
couple of miles further away she knew very few people. Her explanation
was that they just didn't mix. Few people owned horses or cycles so to
visit somebody 3 miles away was a 2 hour return trip.
At that time much of the food was grown locally or was from
local fishing. I remember even in the 1960s and 70s many crofts growing
barley and potatoes. Now food is so cheap and/or incomes so much
greater that very few crofts have anything other than a few sheep.

Indeed, but, as you say, it won't take much to turn that around. The real
problem is the big urban centres, where there simply isn't enough arable
land left to support the population. A responsible government (if you
can imagine such a thing) would already have passed an edict saying
'thou shalt not build (anything at all) on arable land'.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; 'I think we should trust our president in every decision
;; that he makes and we should just support that'
;; Britney Spears of George W Bush, CNN 04:09:03

Simon Brooke said:

With good political leadership

A very rare beast indeed

....

Quoted message said:

A responsible government (if you can imagine such a thing)

No

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits, To report the
behaviour of the sea monster, Describe the horoscope,
haruspicate or scry, Observe disease in signatures." (T.S.Eliot)

Simon Brooke said:

With good political leadership

A very rare beast indeed

....

Quoted message said:

A responsible government (if you can imagine such a thing)

No

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits, To report the
behaviour of the sea monster, Describe the horoscope,
haruspicate or scry, Observe disease in signatures." (T.S.Eliot)

Simon Brooke said:

The rail travel was dependent on abundant cheap fossil fuel (coal). We
don't have an endless supply of that left, and as the screw of global
warming tightens, it will become more and more difficult to make use of
what we have. Rail will inevitably become more expensive than it is now,
unless it is subsidised (in which case, by whom?).

Very little coal powered rail is left. Electric rail powered from
nuclear stations is a quite viable option.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Simon Brooke said:

The rail travel was dependent on abundant cheap fossil fuel (coal).

Only because we happened to have lots of it at the time. Other rail
industries used local fuels - wood, particularly in the US, and sugar
cain husks in the West Indies, which are (can be) renewable resources.

R.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Mark

Quoted message said:

Which just goes to show how silly the bleakest scenario is. Reading
between the lines it seems that in 50 years time we'll have reverted to
an agrarian society based around largely self sufficient villages with
limited travel.

That, or starve, yes[1]. Possibly not in 50 years, but in 100 the
transport of large quantities of food into urban centres is unlikely to
be possible on anything like the present scale.

Er, rubbish, Enough Green-Blue Algae can be grown on a few % of the US
land to supply enough diesel equivalent fuel for all of the US's
needs. Other oil crops are also possible of course, as is electric
power from nuclear power stations. There's certainly no energy
crisis, just a transition from one energy form to another...

Quoted message said:

All through the 60s and 70s the nuclear industry had a techno-fix to
their waste problem 'just around the corner'.

Except they do have a solution, it's just not a solution you feel
comfortable with...

Jim.

Jim Ley said:

Er, rubbish, Enough Green-Blue Algae can be grown on a few % of the US
land to supply enough diesel equivalent fuel for all of the US's needs.

I find that hard to believe. Could you give a reference for these figures?

Translating this to the case in the UK, which I admit is not equivalent as
we have a hugely different population density, I often read in the papers
about councils using biodiesel for their vehicles etc.
Let's look at the Buncefield fire - said to have consumed 60 million
(lires? gallons?) of fuel, which is one days supply for the UK.
Lets say all cars are running on diesel, and the biodiesel comes from rape
seed. Do we REALLY have the amount of land in the UK to grow that amount
of biodiesel?

As I say, I would like to see your figures for the USA.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:40:00 +0000, John Hearns <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

Er, rubbish, Enough Green-Blue Algae can be grown on a few % of the US
land to supply enough diesel equivalent fuel for all of the US's needs.

I find that hard to believe. Could you give a reference for these figures?

Sure, there's lots of papers published on the study, although I got
the initial ideas from a bloke Imet in the pub (Richard from
http://www.solaroof.org/wiki ), and only after checked his figures
with some more reasonable places.

Start at say:
<URL: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html >

to give you the things to search on, and the paper trails to follow.

Quoted message said:

Lets say all cars are running on diesel, and the biodiesel comes from rape
seed. Do we REALLY have the amount of land in the UK to grow that amount
of biodiesel?

Possibly not, just like we don't have the oil any more, and like
france doesn't have the oil today - we'd buy it from those places that
do.

Jim.

John Hearns said:

Jim Ley said:

Er, rubbish, Enough Green-Blue Algae can be grown on a few % of the US
land to supply enough diesel equivalent fuel for all of the US's needs.

I find that hard to believe. Could you give a reference for these figures?

Actually just 1% of the agricultural land area would do in theory. Have
a look at http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

John Hearns said:

Lets say all cars are running on diesel, and the biodiesel comes from rape
seed. Do we REALLY have the amount of land in the UK to grow that amount
of biodiesel?

No and the energy gain is not that great (energy produced vs energy
consumed to produce it) unless you burn the straw for energy production too.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/
http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/levington.htm

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven said:

Actually just 1% of the agricultural land area would do in theory. Have
a look at http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

But bear in mind that although this sounds hopeful, it really is just
theory for now. No-one has scaled this up to any significant amount
AFAIK, and the large-scale processing may not be trivial.

Standard biodiesel is a very different matter - proven at farm scale
but the yield is low enough that it is not a meaningful solution at
least for now.

James

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:19:32 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Hearns said:

Lets say all cars are running on diesel, and the biodiesel comes from rape
seed. Do we REALLY have the amount of land in the UK to grow that amount
of biodiesel?

No and the energy gain is not that great (energy produced vs energy
consumed to produce it) unless you burn the straw for energy production too.

Er, algae doesn't have any straw...

Jim.

Tony Raven said:

John Hearns said:

Jim Ley said:

Er, rubbish, Enough Green-Blue Algae can be grown on a few % of the US
land to supply enough diesel equivalent fuel for all of the US's needs.

I find that hard to believe. Could you give a reference for these
figures?

Actually just 1% of the agricultural land area would do in theory. Have
a look at http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Erm, even if that can be put into practice, what is the land good for
*after* a year or two?

--
not me guv