How to mitigate some of the problems of peak oil.

Part 1 of 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHmXhgBhtWk&NR

This is a interesting series of videos although the consequences of the downward drop off in energy production for transportation i.e. liquid fuels after peak oil will probably see the reverse of the age of the motor vehicle back to a more locally based transportation system of bicycle, horse and buggy and shanks pony and electric tram, much like the scenes from this video of Auld Dundee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6CKDTtUXBk

An example of post peak oil - newspaper distribution @ 26 minutes into the video. Lets hope rickets doesn't make a return though!!

Replace airlines with high-speed rail, interstate trucking with cargo rail, urban car use with trolleys, subways and light rail, suburban cars with light rail and buses, rural cars with passenger trains.

The good news is that all those changes can be made with minimal disruptions and the expected schedules and capacities are easily accommodated once the systems are changed over. The other good news is that all those systems can be run on diesel fuel, which was originally a vegetable oil. The alternative supply line should lend increased stability.

The other good news is that all those modalities are inherently more efficient, no matter the energy source used, than what we have now. A two-fer in benefit because many of the engines replaced are gasoline.

But there will still be economic pressures to shift from distant sources to more local sources. Flying celery in from Spain, or flowers from the Netherlands, only makes sense with cheap fuel. A shift toward more local and seasonal food and materials, likely energy sources, seems inevitable.

Information and data will remain international, being virtual makes transport efficient and fast. Material good and energy are harder to shift. Power-line losses are high so there may be a shift to local small power production.

The problem with solar, wind and hydroelectric power is they are seldom near population centers that are the main users. Biomass and waste-steam, garbage and sewage, methane production are all promising for urban and suburban power production because the resource materials are much more coincidental with the need.

Nuclear.

Agreed. It's the greenest energy source around, as well as being the safest. Nuclear is the only way to go.

All the spoiled babies who want everything RIGHT NOW will fight those wonderful ideas tooth and nail, if not to the death.

Corporate greed is also an issue. My rail crews say that even though rail is the most efficient use of power, railroads don't want to deal with what they consider 'small orders', they only want to deal in carloads (if necessary), but what they really want to concentrate on is trainloads, entire trains of one commodity, like coal and grain. Conservation is not an issue to be considered.

With the American mindset of overwhelming greed, big business no longer sees the connection between service and profit. And they don't care if their country's economy goes down the toilet as long as they get their cut.

Like one of my rails said, "Railroads make money in spite of themselves, no matter what they do, no matter how they screw up. Can you imagine how much money they would make if they used some common sense in their decisions?"

In America, every decent-sized town used to have a rail depot, so it isn't like it's never been done.

The biggest problem is that so many people see Art's suggestions as a step backward, even if that step has more benefits than drawbacks.


As for those who want nuclear:
1) True accidents
2) Human carelessness and stupidity
3) Failure of equipment
4) Human carelessness and stupidity
5) Damage during transport
6) Human carelessness and stupidity
7) Radioactive material that is lost, stolen, abandoned.

When proponents argue how 'safe' it is, they only count deaths, not total negative results. And they never want the waste deposited near them (like their garbage); they always want it sent to Nevada or somewhere, which transport leaves it open to accident/theft/sabotage. They seem to confuse 'safe' with 'not visible'.

Sue

A bit off topic, but apparently rickets is on the up again, its something to do with the "yoof" of today monging in front of the TV all day and not getting enough sun.

Not enough sun is probably primary, but obesity can also be a contributor. Vitamin D is absorbed by fat cells, where it can't be used as well.

Fish and mollusks are good sources of Vitamin D, but we are warned not to eat too much fish due to chemical toxicity. Other sources are soy milk, butter and eggs.

Keep in mind that a 5,000mg supplement sounds like a lot, but is only the amount of Vitamin D naturally produced by your body when exposed to 10 minutes of strong sunlight (with no sunscreen).

Sue

I like your perspective on this. But in the real world none of this is going to happen on any scale to mitigate the problem. Firstly how many miles of new railway track has been projected to be built or constructed, say in the past 5 years, how many nuclear plants and how many petrol refineries in the USA. The will might be there, well actually it isn't (it was easier to just go out into the world and secure what was left) but if it (the will to change) was, the current economic constraints for a multi trillion USD investment by anyone (Government or Corporation) just is not available. Basically what you have now will be what you have in 10-20 years time except that there will be very little petroleum available to get soccer mom and dad from suburbia to the centrally located services and transportation hubs (assumming that there currently is a railway station in your town or city).

There is no technological solution for this problem i.e. electric cars will not be available on any form of scale currently with todays internal combustion engined vehicles. Diesel fuel, which was originally a vegetable oil, will be required not for vehicle mobility but to provide calories to stop mass starvation. Anyone who puts vegetable oil into a vehicle for mobility, whilst their neighbours go hungry probably wouldn't be to popular in the neighborhood.

Nuclear power could be an interesting part solution but the amount of energy i.e. fossil fuels required to construct a nuclear power plant would amount to a huge input of short term energy for a moderately long lasting output energy. I will have to find out what the energy payback return would be. The main problem for nuclear energy power stations would be the environmental risks for a society which will have to adjust to a semi-agricultural society. For example the Chernobyl accident laid waste to millions of square miles of land. The fallout from a worst case nuclear power plant scenario could potentially loose the agricultural productivity of a continent for many decades.

One thing is for sure, that is the need for careful management of the peak oil decline. This is the scary part of the problem simply because it will be at odds to the principle of free market economics. Time is quickly running out and the time scale of the decline could be rapid especially considering the state of the financial problems which are ongoing within the western economies. Hopefully it will be soft landing as the years roll back to a state of Auld Dundee. Wooden sailing ships were always more attractive anyway.

I'm struck by how the responses go to this post and specifically to my worm's-eye missive.

It occurs to me that it is the American character and practice to reject the hard-won truths of others and to press on with the Status quo, or unpromising novel innovation, typically a halfhearted compromise, as expression of national exceptionalism.

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
-- Winston Churchill

Europe has shown how to set up effective multimodal transportation and hybrid energy systems. Just as they have shown how to set up various versions of an effective healthcare system. But being exceptional Americans, we will have to experience near total breakdown, and huge amounts of societal suffering, before we get serious enough about it to swallow our pride and learn from anyone else.

Of course it doesn't help that there are a lot of people invested in, and quite happy with the profits, they harvest from the present situation. For them the brokenness of the system is a feature and opportunity for further profits for them. Frustration and desperation are excuses for charging more.

Europe's population density lends itself quite well to the modes that you've described. The US doesn't.

As for the comments on "safe" nuclear energy, I've participated in several case studies. It is extremely safe, and I would welcome it in my back yard. And France (and others) use it extensively. Last time I checked, France was in Europe. Hmmm....

And yes, we have done the right things, when many other countries have refused to, other possibilities included. For all.