 | Peak Oil and "The Limits to Growth": two parallel stories | The Oil Drum | World Oil Forecasts Including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE - Update Feb 2008 |  |
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America.”
—George W. Bush, May 2001
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
In researching the UAE efforts (and comments by residents) I developed a fantasy.
UAE in 2030, everyone within a km or two (most within 500 m) of an Urban rail stop (Metro or tram). PV covered open walkways and bikepaths give some relief in the summer, but most do their walking & biking in the cooler months and take their short range EV in the summer if they do not want to ride the transit system.
Oil powered transport is reserved for special uses (garbage trucks, plumbers, medical, deliveries) and people are exhorted to not waste oil since oil exports are required to preserve their prosperity.
Paris and London are slightly less than two days away by luxury rail (at varying speeds) and this attracts a decent % of travel (air for the rest). Water taxi to Iran and rail connections eastward or northward.
Oh well, just a dream.
Best Hopes for Dreams coming True,
Alan
Best Hopes
No 'net exports' by 2030 means no long distance air flights or ICE vehicles for 'net importing' countries (no vacations?) - so there's no option but to take the electric train (it will have to be be close to 100% for what long distance long distance high speed travel there is) but I doubt people would need to travel long distance to Dubai for any real reason.
By 2030 - that's just 22 years, the world will be a very different place if there aren't any net exports of oil!
I was thinking of the rich Emiratis visiting quaint London & Paris for vacation, education, business, etc.
*IF* the UAE reduces their domestic oil consumption below today's level (say -80%), they will still be exporting oil in 2030. At an extremely good price.
ELM is NOT 'set in stone", although it seems the most likely outcome.
Another contra-example to ELM is gas rationing in Iran to constrain local demand.
Their plans to become a tourist center are heavily flawed and will likely fail (WAY too many A380s on order), but this leaves more infrastructure for the residents.
They are likely, IMHO, to have the resources to take a different path. And perhaps the wisdom.
Alan
True, but actually for oil (and many other commodities) there is plenty of evidence of ELM even now.
Hmmmm ... the only other place like Dubai that I have seen is Las Vegas - except Las Vegas has fresh water nearby ... you think Las Vegas has a long term future? In UAE/Dubai all they have other than oil, tourists and aluminium (it's not the USA!) is a lot of sand.
By 2030 there will almost certainly be significantly less 'net exports' and less 'all liquids' than now, and less energy per person in general - which almost certainly means less investment and resulting economic output - a 'contraction' paradigm.
In the UAE in 2030, the streets will be deserted aside from the odd stray camels that avoided been eaten.
The UAE, All Gulf states and KSA are very high energy dependency environments which depend on almost all food from outside, high energy drinking water production and every other facet of a tolerable life (such as air conditioning) is all imported.
The exponential growth of people in this region is way beyond carrying capacity. But, at present, they have one tradeable commodity that we all need.
At some point , and maybe sooner than 2030, they will be happy to trade oil for grains, proteins, and water.
Best hopes for New Zealand with all that water and delicious Lamb...
Quite possibly.
But a wise choice of investments, say solar distillation of water. solar PV, nuclear power, electric transit and a reshaping of the economy away from expansion/construction & tourism, might well lead to a sustainable future (particularly if the local population does more of the work and fewer expats are needed).
IMVHO it is possible to chart a different course, the resources are still there. Possible and probable are quite different concepts.
Alan
Alan,
As much as I look for your posts, as much as I like your optomism, I feel that in this case, you are way off the mark.
PV will help , certainly , yes. Oil? - thats the only stuff we want. Nuclear? - Well, maybe assuming a) they are allowed, b) are trained and c) the society doesnt implode.
Where once there were a few hundred thousands who knew the desert and how to survive, there are now millions - who do not.
Tourism: Is not sustainable at any level and especially in this region. But: the entire region is now setting itself upon this course and is attempting to attract super-rich tourists, finance, banking.
So, you have rock stars, bankers, plutocrats, oligarchs - and massive support personnel from bell hops , cooks, chauffers and nannys - all concentrated on a coastal strip that cannot support more than a few thousand Arab nomads.
No.
Like the man said.
The grandchildren will forget the lear jets and go back to camels.
As for the expats: they are the ones who make it all work: be you a Phillipino Maid, or a Dutch Petroleum Engineer.
I doubt that Michael Jackson adds much to the sustainability of Dubai. Besides massive natural increase, there are the expats.
The thrust of the current development is clearly unsustainable.
But there are a few straws that could be used when the current paradigm begins to fail. The locals need to start filling the practical jobs, a most unlikely change ATM.
The Green City may develop into a useful role model. Some % of the infrastructure could be useful to support a population of a few million for the UAE.
In a few years the A380s will start landing nearly empty. Financial turmoil will take it's toll. New Construction will slow to a crawl, many expats will be sent home. BUT the UAE will still be exporting oil. IMVHO, there will still be a window then for a change in direction, when the writing on the wall will be quite clear and resources are still available.
Modern technology can significantly increase the sustainable population, but by how much, I do not know.
Best Hopes for a Change in Direction,
Alan
Depends on what you are distilling the water for. It is possible to distill enough water to drink:
http://www.epsea.org/stills.html
But there is no way in hell you could, with solar energy, distill enough water for irrigation or virtually anything else.
When you distill water to drink, you are in survival mode, you are not in the mode of "maintaining the current status quo". When the economy collapses because of diminishing fossil fuels, and it will, solar power will be a non factor though many dreamers are placing their hopes on it. Solar power can replace but a tiny fraction of the energy derived from petroleum.
Neither solar nor wind will save the world's massive population from total collapse when the fossil energy that got us to this point....disappears.
Ron Patterson
When the economy collapses because of diminishing fossil fuels, and it will, solar power will be a non factor though many dreamers are placing their hopes on it. Solar power can replace but a tiny fraction of the energy derived from petroleum.
From a 6.6 billion perspective you are right. It won't a difference on the energy per capita numbers.
But, For individual families, and individual small communities, they may see benefits that may be way above the global norm.
I think also the needs will be compartmentalized. A home owner's options and choices for an energy solution for home and building heating will be different than the choices they will make for transportation.
I think the numbers of low tech/locally/home made solutions will be astounding.
You will see old 8 ft satelite dish's with aluminized film on them producing hot water for home/greenhouse heating,
http://www.junkyardsolar.com/page1.html
Home made alternators making electrical power.
http://www.otherpower.com
These I grant you, will hardly make a blip on the global energy per capita basis, But.. But for the home owner/community that can do it, it will make All the difference in the world.
What they chose for transporation will be different, but the inovation will be amazing to see. Something like how Cuba kept all those 55-57 chevys running.
Alright let's take this fantasy out to science fiction land. 100-150 years hence, there are no cars, yet no one is more than 6 hours distant from any other spot on Earth. In rural areas (of which there is now a resurgence) there is the bicycle ride to the town center, the trolley or light rail to a larger population center with high speed rail to the continental connecting hubs. Between these run the underground maglev trains at Mach 5. Of course near the equator some of these lines double as launch points for orbital and interplanetary journeys. The system is powered either by something to do with Earth's rotation or Bussard based fusion reactors. Actually this last point is rather interesting, if anyone here isn't more up to speed on it than I, the Navy or DARPA, can't remember which, is currently building and evaluating the seventh generation of the Bussard polywell fusion reactor. It is a doublewide tractor trailer size system, which prior to his recent death, Dr. Bussard felt was a few years away from commercialization. Bussard was also a science fiction writer, referenced in Star Trek with the "Bussard collectors". Of course others would object my science fiction scenario shows evidence of a terrible domination of nature with "brute force" solutions - which may be a reasonable critique. Still, why all the unnecessary concern here and gloom and doom ... all is well, polywell in fact. And if not, don't discount magical thinking, CERA sure hasn't.
Seriously, more rail is a tremendous idea and it is somewhat bizarre and disturbing in the current situation that US is doing so little, even as the PO headlight in the tunnel gets brighter.
I don't agree with the possibility of extensive tunneling being conducted in the near future. However, your last comment is spot on. Why is the government so lethargic when it comes to preparing for the aftermath of peak oil? Clearly the CIA has the best information on actual oil supplies. I can understand the official support for the oil companies and such but why no behind the scenes support for expanding Amtrak? Why not build in a new infrastructure while we still have relatively cheap oil? The cynic in me says that they see it as hopeless so they plan to take care of their own, pull up the drawbridge and let the rest of us fend for ourselves. Or perhaps they are so tied to the next quarter's results that they are incapable of reacting to a problem that is huge but won't officially strike till sometime in the future?
Their (the military-industrial complex) plan for the future combines authoritarian control of the domestic population, centralized corporatist control of the economy, and military control of international resource flows. The last thing they want is anything that would forward an alternative to this plan. The cutback in Amtrak and other idiocies and boondoggles (like ethanol) make complete sense under this set of assumptions.