I'd like to hear about why TOD still doesn't have a usable comment rating system.

I like the "More about population and overshoot issues" idea.

I would also like to see more about over population and overshoot. And would like to see a good review of Matt Simmons writings on the size of oil fields (super giants, etc.).

One think I would like to see none of is politics. There are thousands of websites where I can read boring examples of lefties and righties calling each other names.

I've spent this "holiday" filling the wood shed with cordwood, hoping to have the shed full before first frost. Splitting wood yesterday, it occured to me that, by the time it becomes fuel, I have handled every individual piece of wood at least 5 times. The wood heats the house and much of the hot water all winter and the only other input is solar to run the small circ pumps and passive solar. Sometimes while loading the woodstove (months later), I recognise a piece of wood, remember where it came from, even the tree that grew it. I have a very different relationship with my energy than most of you. Much of my food as well.

What is your relationship with the energy you use?

Good morning Gail,

Many of us are reinventing the wheel as we try and work out our energy dependence, and forge ahead on prepping for reduced energy availability. A specific forum discussion on suggested designs and plans for a self-sufficient approach would be very helpful. There is so much out there, for those who have made wrong turns and have learned from their mistakes....well, it would be nice for others casting about to be able to tap into their suggestions and wisdom. Sometimes I want to contact folks but they have no email on their bios, and I think it is bad form to direct specifics on a forum, even though we all do it once in awhile.

For example, many years ago I installed a constant head Michel turbine at a fish hatchery. It worked great. I have constructed small diversion dams anchored into bedrock, etc....+ pipelines. As a carpenter, building whatever.....

However, I am researching PV and wind right now, and there are so many options and articles, a little distillation would be great to see from those 'who have been there'.

As a political junkie, those with historical underpinnings are always very welcome in my reading focus....I love the ideas/comparisons of what seems to be happening now to different times and places in the past. Not just Easter Island allusions, but perhaps the Indus civilization, etc.

Could there be a forum site on 'hands on' topics? Linked to TOD? For another example, years ago I built an epoxy boat with online plans. The site had discussion forums on everything you could ever want to know about building, glassing, outfitting, whatever... about boats. Those discussions could simply be linked to TOD. Ideas, home PV, limitations of?...., building a small car for local transportation, etc and whatever. Campfire is great, but tends to wander and can be hijacked by rants and responses. Individuals who post links help with this issue, but they are still specific chiming(s) on a worldwide stage.

Thank you....Paul

I personally would like to hear more about slow decline. Peak oil isn't going to happen overnight. In fact I believe the vast majority of people don't believe this is the oil crisis right now. They are convinced it is just a 'financial crisis' but as Elizabeth Warren clearly shows the financial crisis was from the 1970s on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

People were 'just getting by ' until gas prices doubled and then tripled and when they tanked they took the whole economy with them. here we are still in hard times but gas is on it's way back to 3 bucks a gallon. Remember 'way back in 2000' when you could sometimes get gas for under a buck a gallon? Has anything else rebounded like that during this recession?

I know it's hard to hear but I don't actually believe we are *ever* going to get out of this 'recession'. I believe this is it, and even if it's not we should treat it like it is. Time is running out, either way.

I was thinking along the lines of...

...Discussions on psychological preparing, such as dealing with PO awareness induced depression and acceptance. I say this as I feel there are may be many who are aware of PO and feel that, given their skill set or financial circumstances, will not be able prepare so as to survive the slope.

...Discussions on political issues in the EU.

...Discussions on how communities will organize and fare against external threats in countries where the general population has no access to firearms. For example in countries where civilians are not allowed to legally possess firearms.

...Discussions on living off forest ecosystems, bushcraft and, food rationing and preservation.

A thorough vetting of the problems associated with scaling up various alternative energy proposals.

What are the most likely alternatives? What breakthroughs would be needed for them to be deployed on a large scale?

As a regular reader, I would like to read more about the science of thermodynamics and how energy plays a crucial role in everything we do. Why is usable energy as a concept important to the average Joe on the street paying 2.50 for a gallon of gas. More examples of thermo dynamics in every-day life (the messy room example maybe) and how society must play the game also but at a larger level.

I would also like to read more philosophical type post about the meaning of our society and our individual lives in terms of thermodynamics and energy gradients.

Just my two pesos . . .

Practical, real, application of Post/Reduced Carbon (in general) and Post Oil (in specific) systems and methods. Things like:

Electric Agriculture
Electric Transport
Solar A/C
Net Zero buildings
Adaptive Reuse and Recycle of existing Plastics, Glass, Tires, etc.

Probably with a whole lot less DDQ (Doomer Drama Queen, that is), but I know that sells to this audience, so whatever else keeps the light on. :)

I would like more discussion on how religion and politics interact to hamper or enhance are ability to confront peak oil.
Some are starting to question capitalism (which was taboo only a short time ago, except for the economically and politically literate).
I would like this to also happen with religion, and how it helps or hampers are ability to confront emerging problems.

Anything about agricultural energy inputs or outputs.

'Appropriate technology' in general.

Distributed generation of electricity.

Low energy transportation.

Cultural or social changes related to energy use & availability.

I'd like to hear a lot more about Natural Gas. Specifically Gas-to-Liquid technology. This seems like a very logical solution to our future energy problems.

When, if ever, will governments in developed countries, especially the US, officially recognize--and deal with--Peak Oil?

One of the goals that I suppose most Peak Oilers have is to get government entities to recognize, and deal with, Peak Oil (and especially Peak Exports). A logical step would be an energy consumption tax at the retail level (used principally to fund Social Security/Medicare), offset by abolishing the highly regressive Payroll Tax. But what if this is a completely futile expectation? Governments at all levels, in virtually every part of the country, are desperate for money, and the gargantuan deficits that the federal government is running are well known.

At least a few years ago, reportedly about 70% of Americans lived off the discretionary side of the economy. I assume that the percentage is somewhat lower now, but still well above 50%. This of course means that government revenues are extremely dependent on taxes derived from the discretionary side of the economy.

I suspect that government entities can't afford to implement measures--like an energy consumption tax--to reduce consumption, because they desperately need the revenue from discretionary spending (and in all likelihood any elected politicians advocating such action would be voted out office in any case). So, at the very time that they should be taking aggressive measures to prepare for an accelerating rate of decline in global net oil exports, the federal government is borrowing money to stimulate current consumption--and effectively doing precisely the wrong thing, at precisely the wrong time. Look at the huge sums of money spent trying to bail out and stimulate the auto, housing and finance sectors.

What if the principal problem we are facing, in trying to get governments to recognize and deal with Peak Oil/Peak Exports, is the famous Upton Sinclair quote?

“If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”

Perhaps the most that we can hope for is to warn those who are willing to listen.

In any case, is there any realistic chance that the US government will officially recognize, and deal with, Peak Oil/Peak Exports?

You have to talk about the reforms needed in the oil industry so that next time their is a major spill we are better equipped to manage and mitigate the risk without letting it escalate like the BP spill. Why must people talk GOO (Get Out Oil) after the 1969 spill or Boycott BP after the 2010 disaster, if the industry players are not reckless and manipulative? In every industry be it aerospace or drugs or food there are accidents. Mistakes are bound to happen in the technology era. But do you ever see so much hatred and anger....anger against oil that we all need today and cannot do without?

You have also to start talking about the transformation from oil energy to futuristic alternate energy..... Whether you like it or not, it is going to happen.... The oil drum will not last for ever....but the energy drum will continue to beat as long as humanity lasts. After all it is we energy engineers and experts in oil and coal that must explore and build the future of energy, not poorly informed economists who will give inadequate solutions like carbon trading to the world energy problems.

The intersection of Peak Oil and Climate Change.

They must be considered together to respond appropriately, and the interaction between them is interesting ground - they complicate each other.

Someone on TOD had responded to me that Climate discussion is discouraged here because it quickly gets nasty - I am stunnded that the majority of folks with the acumen to grasp the truth of one issue do not grasp the other! We must have this discussion; if you're looking at PO only you're not seeing the whole picture.

Technical issues on fossil fuel subjects are good. Who, how, when, why, projections, reports, reserves or resources, sizes shapes and locations.

Leave the fantasy crash scenario's, general population questions, politics, "my small farm lifestyle is better than your bunker" debates for the crackpot websites and hope that any commonality between those places and this place isn't as easy to notice as it has been in the past.

I'd like to hear credible and practical strategies for transitioning to a post oil world. At this point I'm convinced we're staring this transition in the face... so now what.

I have my own ideas, but it would be great to hear other credible ideas about how to start the transition now, while we still have 'abundant' resources.

I've been a TOD member for a long time and I think it is useful to remember what TOD used to be like. Most key posts were technical in nature and responses were few (a huge day was 60 comments) and there was no Drumbeat for more general news. TOD was also far more civil with few snarky replies. In addition, people stayed far more on topic with few thread thefts for OT stuff.

I agree with most of the comments up thread in that TOD has probably covered most of the technical aspects of PO and, perhaps, it is time to start to cover real life issues in more detail while continuing TODs tradition of technical writing. These would include governance, those who are "doing it" and societal issues. In a way, what I am suggesting is more along the lines of EB but with original material.

Todd

I'd be interested in hearing more about consumer responses to higher energy prices and contingency planning for fuel shortages at the community level. What lessons were learned from our past, e.g., Second World War, the UK coal miners strikes, etc., and what can we expect in the years to come?

Cheers,
Paul

Strategic focus:
Track progress in commercializing cost effective solar fuels.

See Sandia solar fuel research

Sandia’s Sunshine to Petrol project seeks fuel from thin air
Team to chemically transform carbon dioxide into carbon-neutral liquid fuels

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. —Using concentrated solar energy to reverse combustion, a research team from Sandia National Laboratories is building a prototype device intended to chemically “reenergize” carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide using concentrated solar power. The carbon monoxide could then be used to make hydrogen or serve as a building block to synthesize a liquid combustible fuel, such as methanol or even gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

Alliance formed to commercialize technologies that convert waste CO2 into diesel fuel using solar energy

June 1, 2010 ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — An alliance of industry, academic and government organizations, formed to commercialize technologies that will utilize concentrated solar energy to convert waste carbon dioxide into diesel fuel, was announced today.

The alliance team members include Sandia National Laboratories, Renewable Energy Institute International (REII), Pacific Renewable Fuels, Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne (a United Technologies Division), Quanta Services, Desert Research Institute and Clean Energy Systems. In addition, commercial partners have signed on to advance work on the first round of commercial plants. . . .
A solar reforming system is currently being demonstrated in Sacramento, Calif., and demonstrations will continue both at Sandia’s facilities in New Mexico and at a power plant project site in Bakersfield, Calif. Planning for the first round of commercial plants is under way at several locations in the U.S. The project team anticipates that deployment of the first commercial plants can begin in 2013.

DOE Establishes Research 'Hub' For Solar Fuels

The U.S. Department of Enery announced an investment of $122 million over five years to establish a a so-called Energy Innovation Hub to develop revolutionary methods to generate fuels directly from sunlight.

The Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis (JCAP), to be led by the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), will bring together multidisciplinary researchers in an ambitious effort aimed at simulating nature's photosynthetic apparatus for practical energy production. The goal of the Hub is to develop an integrated solar energy-to-chemical fuel conversion system and move this system from the bench-top discovery phase to a scale where it can be commercialized.

See: Fuels from Sunlight hub summary

JCAP Fact Sheet

JCAP Technical Summary

I am interested in what could happen and is happening in cities to help transition away from reliance on the automobile, especially those run by internal combustion engines. I know there are already sites devoted to carfree cities and am familiar with the fine work done by J.H. Crawford, starting with his first work, "Carfree Cities". However, I would like to see that kind of vision introduced and discussed at TOD. After all, there is a direct relationship with Peak Oil, energy use, and the use of the ICE in our cities. I have lived in and visited cities where a substantial part of the city is car free or virtually car free. Less use of oil whether imposed by nature or government, if looked at positively, could be a source of liberation, not necessarily of doom.

I recognize that most people are resistant to the idea of a future with less use of oil and energy. But there is some progress being made. Of course, there is cause for frustration. I was riding my bike to work in Sacramento 35 years ago and thought I was part of some new revolutionary wave that would eventually transform the nation. Wrong!!!

I would like to see more articles on the fringe. Methods generating power from wind turbines, solar, and dams have been beat to death. There has been in the past serious investigation of negative resistance and energy from the atmosphere. Some of these ideas may have an outside chance of working if serious thinkers could get exposure to the research.

Talking with friends, we had the feeling that it should be possible to continue business as usual with 10% less energy at almost no cost. I achieved this at work mainly by replacing light bulbs, turning off systems when they are not needed and changing water temperature in the air conditionning/heating system of the facilities (an IT company). All investments had an ROI of less than 12 months. More saving are still possible since very few computers have the right power saving parameters. I also did this 10 years ago at home.
It can be interesting to share these experiences because it gives us a little bit more time to adapt to peak oil.

I enjoy very much all the technology talks, regarding the past, the oil and the renewables.

I believe that only politics can organise the transition. If you're the only one in the county to be ready, guess how your neighbours will look at you once we'll be in trouble.

I would like to know why the Gulf is being reported as safe to swim in and the fish/shellfish ok to eat? I would like to know what kind of person believes this bunk? I would like to know why no one in the media is reporting on this any more. I would like to know the TRUTH about how safe it is to be a gulf resident right now. How can you possibly have an oil spill this size and the amount of toxic chemicals poured into the water and it not have an effect on the gulf, gulf sea life and the people living near the gulf. When will we get some answers? Is my family safe? These are questions I would like some real answers to.

Well... since I am worried about how fracking shale will affect water-tables...

I'd like one of those old fashioned Robert Rapier debunking pieces that tell us what the real deal is. Should I worry about the water or not?

I also request a tar sands update. Have any producers actually done the restoration work that's promised? Or will we look at waste lagoons in perpetuity?

I would like to hear more on HOW the gov. will response to future energy needs of our society.

They will be responding to the following report.
What inputs can this community have on our future energy needs?

http://www.acceleratorsamerica.org/files/Report.pdf

Accelerators for America’s Future - June 2010

Their conclusions

Many barriers stand in the way of deploying accelerator technology for the study and development of materials for future fission and fusion applications.

First is the requirement for research and development, as well as demonstration.

Second, limited funding within the domestic Fusion Energy Sciences community has not provided the capital required to build one.

This points to a third barrier, the need for inter- agency, interoffice and even international cooperation.

Finally, such a facility requires particle accelerator technology that is not familiar to either the fission or fusion community.
---

See the following if you are interested in the slides or video of the actual discussions and presentation which occurred

October 26, 2009..

http://www.acceleratorsamerica.org/symposium/agenda.html

I'm sure that, during their coffee breaks, they must have discussed the financial crisis and the implications.

I'm looking for more than a discussion of EROEI?

The decision makers will do As usual ... Spend now ... then figure out ... later ... if they had miscalculated the EROEI.

The decision makers are being guided by these kind of reports.

Extract.

Subcritical Reactors

Natural thorium, a widely distributed natural resource three to four times as
abundant as uranium in the earth’s crust, is a potentially valuable fuel for an
accelerator-driven subcritical reactor. The thermal power released in a subcritical
reaction is typically 100 times the power of the accelerated beam, offering the
opportunity for significant energy production. In an accelerator-driven subcritical
thorium reactor, the neutrons produced by the proton beam hitting a spallation
target breed 233U and promote its fission. Such fission reactions can serve either
for power generation or destruction of actinides from the U/Pu fuel cycle. Turning
off the accelerator simply and quickly stops the fission reactions.
An accelerator-based thorium reactor has clear advantages: the use of
thorium instead of uranium reduces the quantity of actinides produced; the
thorium cycle produces only half the amount of long-lived radioactive waste
per unit of energy as mainstream light-water reactors; the thorium cycle produces
much less plutonium than mainstream light-water reactors, and what it does
produce contains three times the proportion of 238Pu, lending it proliferation
resistance; the thorium cycle coproduces a highly radioactive isotope, 232U ,
which provides a high radiation barrier to discourage theft and proliferation
of spent fuel; and at today’s rate of power consumption there is enough thorium
available to sustain such systems for more than ten centuries.

Accelerators for fusion energy

Nuclear fusion is potentially a clean and safe energy source. Two approaches are
being developed worldwide: low-pressure/long-confinement-time devices using
magnetic field confinement; and very-high-density/short-confinement-time
devices using inertial confinement.

Magnetic fusion

For magnetically confined plasma fusion reactors such as the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, currently under construction
in France by an international consortium including the U.S., or the subsequent
planned demonstration plant, DEMO, fusion scientists expect ion beams to
contribute to the mix of plasma heating techniques. While different schemes can
achieve core heating of the plasma, it appears that the plasma current drive
required for steady-state operation depends strongly on the high current drive
efficiency of ion beams. The ion-beam requirements are quite daunting: tens
of amperes of negatively charged ions of about 1 MeV kinetic energy, subsequently
neutralized and injected into the plasma.

Heavy ion inertial fusion

In heavy ion inertial fusion energy, or IFE, high-energy charged particles from
an accelerator heat a small inertial fusion target containing thermonuclear fuel.
When compressed, the fuel ignites, releasing energy to generate electricity.
Inertial fusion energy has different challenges from magnetic fusion, including
the pulsed nature of the energy production, the required high rate of target
production and target placement in the reactor chamber, and the reactor-driver
interface. In all IFE concepts, the driver and the reactor chamber are separate.
Compared to magnetic confinement fusion, this may lead to savings in cost,
improved access, ease of maintenance, and reduced concerns for safety and
radiation damage and contamination.

Inertial fusion energy accelerator design efforts have converged on multiple
heavy-ion beams accelerated by induction linear accelerators. After acceleration
to the final ion kinetic energy, the beams, which are nonrelativistic, are
compressed axially to the 4-30 nanosecond duration (a few hundred terawatts
peak power), required by the target design. Simultaneously they are focused to
a few-millimeter spot on the fusion target.

I would like to read more about the intersection of multiple problems. While it appears like our societies are running headlong into a brick wall which is composed of peak oil, soil and water depletion, ocean degradation, fisheries collapse, deforestation, climate change, population overshoot, likely decline in agricultural production, and severe economic problems, it is not very frequently that authors map out a course that will address problems in tandem. I have seen some good charts showing the overlap in ways of addressing economic well-being, climate change and peak oil. I'd like to think there are similar strategies for addressing other issues. The human race is possibly screwed, but not definitely. We have some time to address important issues.

I note that many TOD respondents are frustrated with discussion of politics. I understand the frustration as the discourse in the body politic is coarse at best, degrading and exasperating primarily because there is so much focus on gaining advantage and attacking those who disagree as opposed to discussing issues, possible solutions, and paths toward sustainability. I don't see how we reach desirable goals without extensive political discussion. What I would like to see is civil discussion between those with differing political views on alternative ways of reaching desirable goals. What I don't want to read is how "everyone else is stupid because they disagree with me." Our problems are much too complex to believe that any one individual or group has all the answers. I think we could make a very important contribution if we could host civil discussions of politics related to peak oil, economics, and resource issues. Such discussion would necessarily be based on people with opposing views working to understand the other's position and how they arrived at their beliefs. This requires patience, empathy, and thoughtfulness--qualities which will increase in value as resources become diminished in supply.

Perhaps some more energy tech talk series along the lines of the oil well drilling and coal mining series of articles.

I suggest similar series of articles on: large-scale wind power. solar PV: large-scale and roof-top. Solar water heating (rooftop). CSP. Commercial nuclear power generation (various current and proposed technologies, including wast storage and re-proce3ssing and/or re-burn).

Histories, theories of operation, current state-of-technology, deployment, policies, pros/cons, future options and costs/benefits. State-of-play not just in the U.S., but selected examples from the World.

Same types of articles regarding energy efficiency and conservation technologies and lifestyles.

A survey of home, business, and industrial lighting technologies, to include natural lighting, for example.

Articles which survey advanced in transportation, such as EVs, more efficient ICE and hybrid vehicles, passenger and freight rail, buses, etc.

Often times interesting information on the facts of how these things work is found in the comments by people such as Alan from Big Easy (wrt trains) and many others, but this interesting info is scattered about amongst many threads on different days and ends up lost in the sauce of TO history.

Discrete 'series articles' on planes, trains, and automobiles (and buses and bikes etc) discussing working, histories, policies, current state, and future possibilities, with pros and cons and requirements for supporting infrastructures and skill sets, would be great additions to the oil and coal extraction serial articles.

Your choice, but I would prefer not to see articles on zero-point energy, negative energy resistance, harvesting energy from the air, and similar 'out in the aether' ideas which I think would be more of a waste of time than useful.

One last: It would also be prudent to for the Editors to stay away from (even inadvertently) hosting comments regarding (even obliquely) pre-or-post-collapse means of violence.

I am sure there are other places on the Internet where folks so inclined can discuss that to their hearts' content.

Here, it would drive reasonable members and readers away, and taint the otherwise productive, useful conversations and ideas...

Ideas for a functional society, not for doomer survivalism please.

I'm not sure there isn't anything WRT energy that has not been covered, save the out there or the more theory-laden 'these actors did this for that reason' kind of thing.

Perhaps a better handle on exactly how BAD the electrical grid is....a nibbling around the edges is common with 'old eq' or 'this report to congress gives a D' happens. Yet I'm guessing real knowledge is 'trade secret' or 'national security' and thus will not happen.

Fission power and nat gas will devolve into its good/not its not good with flammable water and Chernobyl.
Population devolves into 'you are a buch of eugenic nazi's.
Politics - we get sheeple and guverment loving liburls/world destorying rethugiclans kind of discussion.
Oil elsewhere boils down to 'congratulations! You found X days of worldwide use, with X being less than 100'

Alternatives would seem to bear the most fruit, but you'll still have the 'its not economic' arguments or 'nice you'd like to grow/do X - that won't work here because of the snow/lack of snow'

I'm tending towards:
Introductory overview posts - as newcommers won't go back over 5 years and read. Plus things that might have worked 5 years ago won't work now or perhaps some new technological do-hickey makes the unworkable now workable.

But really, I don't get much of a say as odds are I won't be passionate enough to write any of 'em. And really - if readers want to see something they should write about it.

I want the cornucopians to show how it could be done using; forecasts data etc and showing all their working out in the margins

For some years, I've been saying to my colleagues that we ought to be recovering NG from hydrates. My reasoning is not so much that it's a gas source, but that MH has the potential to become a global problem as temperatures rise. Every pound we use is a pound that won't end up as methane in the atmosphere. The answer I usually get is that it's too dangerous to mess with hydrate deposits because they could suddenly destabilize. Watching the DWH story unfold, I could clearly see that concern is overblown. Some of the hydrates even clung to the FailBOP on that long journey up. So I'd like to hear ideas on how MH could be utilized.

I'm also rather familiar with the Green River shale deposit and the really impressive amount of exceptionally good oil it holds. You guys know what the problems are. Could they be solved? I tend to favor ideas that involve in-situ recovery because, well, I really don't like trashing the environment either. I know that has been attempted without success, but hey - there are some really good minds here!

I would like to see an article about the characteristics and economics of natural gas distribution to rural areas. In the town of 300 people I live in there is no natural gas; people overwhelmingly use propane. Nine miles away a town of 1300 people has natural gas. Why? Why not? What would it take for natural gas to be extended to much more of rural America? I have heard of natural gas cooperatives (apparently popular in Alberta, Canada...). What about them?

It would be interesting to learn more about political/business/regulatory forces that keep pushing us in the wrong direction and keep us from making sane transitions.

For example, getting rid of old inefficient power plants has been hampered by the Clean Air Act and public utility commission's desire to keep utility rates low. Old existing plants were exempted from the Clean Air Act, while a retrofit or new plant goes through the full regulatory review and requirements. To avoid the hassles, it's easier (and cheaper) for the company to keep the plant limping along.

Buying a new-efficient plant also triggers the need for rate payers and their public utility commission to agree to higher rates to build the new plant. The old plant is already paid for so it's much cheaper.

It's certainly far more complicated than this. I simplified things just to show a quick example.

I'm sure that the experts here know of many similar examples. While there are plenty of technical challenges to transitioning, the non-technical challenges are probably even higher.

I believe that TOD has done a fantastic job of painting a broad-brush picture of what Peak Oil might look like and how overall energy descent might affect people. The varied comments on every post show that there is healthy debate even amongst Peak Oil believers as to how things will play out. However, much of the commentary is too broad-brush to be considered "actionable information".

My own personal opinion is that response to Peak Oil will be just as heterogeneous across the globe and even within a single city as the amazing diversity we see across those nations and cities right now.

PO Dubai, AE ≠ PO Seattle, WA ≠ PO Dallas, TX ≠ PO Caracas, VE ≠ PO Uppsala, SE

I would like to see occasional posts that focus on specific communities and provide a geologic, historical, political and energetic overview of what Peak Oil may hold for the folks in that particular community and how they are preparing or what assets they could leverage in response to Peak Oil.

It is my hope that this will help identify locations that have made good choices leading toward sustainability and that this information may act as motivation for others to push their own local governments to take similar decisions where appropriate. Local decision makers need actionable information.

Best Hopes for learning from others.

Jon

I think it would be useful to move beyond Peak Oil and also begin to talk about envisioning a sustainable future, however difficult or impossible that may seem.

How about some discussion along the lines of the Great Transition Initiative (Paul Raskin) and bending the cost, resource use, population growth, etc, curves? http://www.gtinitiative.org/

Here is a quote from Gus Speth about this:

“The road map to the future that Paul Raskin and his colleagues have presented in Great Transition is accessible, insightful and compelling. It's unique. I've used it in all my classes.”

Gus Speth
Dean, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Yale University

Regionalization. A random sampling of questions follows. I've used specific examples, although it is clear that the questions could be asked in a much more generic fashion.

• Should overshoot be considered a global question, or a regional one? India and China together account for more than one-third of the world's population, but have relatively small per-capita energy resources. Canada has only a small fraction of their population and relatively enormous per-capita energy resources, both fossil and renewable. India and China have overshot; Canada, quite possibly not. What responsibilities, if any, does Canada have to India and China?

• Same argument, only within the United States. The West has far greater renewable resources (and if you count coal, fossil resources) than the East. Should regionalization be based on current national boundaries, or should big countries be broken up? Is it legitimate to consider that the East has overshot to a much greater degree than the West, and if so, how should the consequences fall?

• If the US were to reduce coal production and consumption by one-third (just to pick a number), should coal-producing states be allowed to serve their local demands in full first and make the cuts only in "exports"? In other words, does (or should) the export-land 2.0 model apply within the country?

I would like to hear more about the EROEI=40 solar panels.

Small scale wind turbines.

Very efficient small motorcycles and vehicles like the Aptera.

And comparison of alternatives for ENERGY STORAGE.

How environmentalism / environmental permits is hindering the rate of both fossil and solar commercialization.

Slow permitting is likely the key constraint on oil sands in Alberta.
So too solar electric systems in California. e.g.

U.S. Decision on Pipeline Is Delayed

Wall St. firm behind slow solar pace on federal lands? "Goldman Sachs subsidiary bought lots of leases — but hasn't used them"

I always enjoyed the posts that Nate used to do, examining the evolutionary basis of human delusion & logical fallacies, our dysfunctional relationship with our own future and the living world. The fundamental problems arising from using our cognitive faculties mostly for rationalizing decisions pre-made in the our unconscious.

Marry that to evolution and the actual behavior of complex interacting systems, and examine what might approximate the optimal habitation of earth over the next million years by our species and others. Perhaps work towards a practical vision of the human future by the synthesists who gather here, a deep future for the planet.

In other words, expand upon the "and our future" part of the site's mission.

Just a thought.

One of the things I respect most about TOD is the general good behavior of the participants while discussing divergent views on a broad number of topics. When politics gets brought into any forum, the level of civil discourse begins to erode. Therefore, I recommend treading lightly around political topics.

Unfortunately, the majority of the problems that civilization is facing can be attributed to either political inaction or inappropriate action. At some point in time, government leaders across the globe are going to have to face the imminent threats of over-population, peak oil, climate change and declining economies.

Gail, if you could present 10 charts to every member of Congress, what would you say??

Gail, As many others here on TOD I love this website and I do understand your needs on feedbacks to keep the content of TOD at this high level. Interesting aspects of the oildrum are and should be continued:
A) Info on Global oil prospects;
B) Its international public, with comments of english speaking communities from around the globe.
C) The techtalks on specific tools and technologies for mining and drilling
D) The developments in energy consumption of China, India or Brasil and the possible impacts of it for OECD countries.

A wish may be, is the development of a more positive attitude to wind and solar power systems. Poeple are working on it, but it takes years to make it available as a important contributer to national grids in the different countries.

Hans

Renewable- and EROEI analyzes.

LFTR. Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor.

The concept seems to be too good to be true.

Can anybody tell me definitively why the technology won't work?

How could an working economic system after PO look like?

Who will invest, if most of the buisness are likly to shrink?

Whats the best way to distribute the limited resources for best benefit of society? Market forces vs. centrally planned economy?

For robust systems a reduction of complexity is often proposed. Meaning short production chains. Locally sourcing...
But on the other hand, technology might help to meet the challenges in energy production and conservation. These technologies often need high tech equipment for best results. E.g: computer simulations for component optimization
How to ensure that these powerful engineering tools are still available in a world with reduced complexity?

Understanding PO and it's implications is critical to every thoughtful person's long-term planning.
My premise is that we were right, peak is now in the rear view mirror and yet the reality of this fact (let alone it's implications) has not sunk in to most informed people yet.
So I would like to see more connect-the-dots type of posts.
I think TOD could do with a little more swagger about now, a little more confidence. A little more poke-Yergin-in-the-eye "we were right and you were wrong".
I think there are a lot of people who post thoughtful commentaries on this board whose reputations are daily enhanced by news about production, about reserves, about macro and micro-economic effects from the fact of PO.
I think the credibility of the site has been enhanced over the past year.
Why be timid? What's to be gained? The academic community is paralyzed by process as events unfold, both in climate change and PO. sites like TOD can play a useful role.

I have seen a lot of posts where readers are turned off by the idea of including politics into the discussion of PO. I can see why this would be, as the current political parties just seem to not get it, and trying to deal with them regarding Peak Oil issues can be extremely frustrating.

However, how would readers feel about talking about a new political party that is specifically devoted to dealing with the issues of Peak Oil? Would that be a little more palatable? There is one, a new poltical party, called the Foundation Party of America. We are dedicated to rebuilding this country, not taking it back. We focus on agrarian issues, relocalization of economies and infrastructure, reducing urban sprawl and finding other ways to deal with global energy and economic contraction.

Anybody interested in that?

Regards, and have a wonderful Labor Day.

I think the general emphasis and area of focus is good and appropriate. However, a couple of specific suggestions:

1. Viable economic systems that respond to resource constraints/depletion and/or incorporate externalities of energy and resource consumption. I know there have been some pieces by Herman Daly, etc. on envisioning steady-state economics; what I would really like to see is a roadmap for transforming institutions, financial and otherwise, where perpetual-growth models have been "baked-in" and how system-wide collapses might be avoided in a post-peak world. Are measures such as local currency or cashless/gift economies helpful, and how should they be advanced? Should we create banks whose primary stated purpose is to provide financing for energy transitions? There has been a lot of good work by Gail and others on the intersection of energy and financial institutions, so it seems evident at this point that a currency backed by debt is going to create serious problems even in the ability to finance alternative energy systems, but are there any potentially viable solutions toward which we should be working? I'd also be interested to see some discussions of environmental externalities of fossil fuels (including subsidies) and whether/how they should be included in energy pricing.

2. Renewable energy and nuclear energy given the same level of in-depth focus and technical analysis as conventional energy sources. That is not to say the current technical focus should be abandoned, just that it should be extended to these other energy sources as well; for instance, what is the EROEI of different types of nuclear reactors and how is it calculated? How viable are enhanced geothermal systems as a scaleable option for baseload electricity? Are there any (not merely promotional) studies available on the viability of thorium? Wave power? How should governments approach the problem of alternative energy? Also more on resilient electrical transmission and distribution systems and what kind of infrastructure is needed or helpful in avoiding systemic breakdown. If liquid fuels are going to become increasingly economically and ecologically expensive and unreliable, perhaps to the point of systemic collapse, then we need to know more about electricity, since it looks to be the only viable energy carrier that could, at least in theory, maintain the scale of present development (and hence the demands of 7 billion persons). And if we can't feed or otherwise provide for 7 billion-plus, what are humane and politically/morally acceptable methods of reducing population?

3. Alternative transportation systems: how to build them and where they might be viable, and to what extent they help in transitions. Is mass transit helpful, and how quickly can it be built to the scale needed? What are ways of overcoming political opposition? Can and should motor fuels/transportation be taxed and/or externalities priced to subsidize the construction of alternatives? Also, how to deal with the transition from the environment of suburbia built on a foundation of cheap and happy motoring to something sustainable? The geography of the transition seems to be the key here - it is all fine to envision transition towns, smaller, denser and more economically-localized communities, but how do we get from Point A to Point B when the far-flung suburban "community" has already been built and is where most people in the developed world live? Also, what are some non-oil-based transportation alternatives that might be viable for rural areas?

As stated above, I would avoid radically changing the structure or focus of TOD as a few of the comments have suggested, as I think it serves its stated purpose well as is. The above are merely suggestions for topics that I think deserve a bit more attention.

What could or would America look like without imported energy?

There is a major question about the format of this site. I don't think the format of this site is compatible with having the very broad array of subjects people are interested in discussing. So I think the site should either maintain the current format and have a narrow focus or switch to or add traditional discussion forums.

I second those that wish to see articles on our future. We know the problems so lets start looking at the solutions. Particularly solutions that people can partake in themselves rather than grand schemes involving governments, corporations and global finance which will probably fail abysmally.

Small-scale tech, methods and solutions that we can all put into effect. Rather than hand-wringing and waiting for grand schemes to be actioned by a failing economic and political system. Whether nuclear, alternate energy, bio-fuels, etc. succeed in saving us or not requires no input from me, what will be will be. I'm more interested in what we can do for ourselves, under our own control.

I'd like to see more polls and graphs. Sure we have other experts opinions on when oil will descend from peak plateau, but we don't have a consensus from TOD posters. TOD use to do that with future oil price guessitmates, or maybe even still does every six months, then why not post peak plateau (beginning of) descent mo/yr predictions?

Also, why not a bar chart with a line across the middle, with countries past peak below the line and those yet to hit peak above the line. Some better way to visually see how many countries are yet to hit peak.

I am interested in the Quality of Life of sustainable cultures. In the US we are taught that anything but high consumption is "the stone age". Yet the finest of music comes from a pre-industrial Mozart and Beethoven; the finest of sculpture from 400 BC Greece; the finest of silks from way back in China; the finest of Philosophy from Socrates; much of the finest food, including olive oil, wine, cheese, and beer refined BC; the most classic of architecture in ancient Greece; Running water and flush toilets in ancient rome; Fresh food of 100 varieties every morning at the market; spices from 1000 miles away; Fresh fruits, jams jellie and pies; Down blankets, pillows and coats; The finest of leathers and furs; the finest of furniture (see french circa 1700); There were great auditoriums, arenas, stadiums - for drama, plays, puppets, opera, sports - all achieving the peak of their arts. Perhaps most importantly the concept of coming to the acropolis or parthenon to stand under the columns to argue out all conflicts - until an "understanding" was reached.

The vast majority of things on the list of that which adds to the quality of life were developed long before the age of oil.
And while all of these things were available, pollution was near zero. Land was so abundant it was given away (to "homesteaders" and soldiers). Water was abundant and clean. Wood was free. Fuel was free (wood). Life was more vivid, colorful and social.

When we describe our idea of a great vacation, most people refer to things that were developed pre-oil: mountain lodge, log cabin, sailcraft, beaches and tiki huts, swimming, canoeing and hiking.

Of course, those who do not study history have been led to believe all pre-modern life was brutal and abysmal in its poverty. But how then did such thousands of great arts get conceived and embodied? There is plenty of anthropological evidence that ample resources and freedom from coercive government led to a very good life for most people.
But most city folk today have lost any appreciation that such quality of life is at all possible.

If we were to reenact the possiblities of those earlier days, and work out how the best of them can be fit together in a sustainable way, then that would be a model for people to aspire to. As long as we allow the past to be protrayed as impoverished, then no one will cooperate in the "movement" to sustainability.

First post. Two suggestions: First, regarding the truly excellent coverage of the Macondo well blowout in the Gulf, there have been many references to cement. Could someone knowledgeable please explain this in a bit more detail? Cement and concrete are two different things. It's fairly common for people to use the term cement when they really mean concrete. While I will not be surprised to learn that "cementing" well casings and plugging wells requires highly specialized formulations, are we in the end talking about concrete and not cement? The latter is a component of the former.

Second, I was tantalized by a recent thread that touched ever so lightly on the potential of thorium reactors. I'm fascinated by this subject and would love to see more attention paid to it on this fabulous and so very informative web site. Thorium seems to be available in sufficient quantities to meet our needs for quite some time and it seems to be truly difficult to make nuclear explosive devices out of the stuff. The radioactivity decays much quicker than conventional nuclear waste.

I suppose there is no magic bullet that will save us from ourselves when it comes to energy. But Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) seem to hold considerable promise.

I cannot say enough good things about The Oil Drum. It's been a favorite "go to" website of mine for a couple of years. I prefer to read what others say rather than post. But Gail did ask for suggestions and I felt obligated to respond. Thanks again to all who make this site so special.

I'd like to see a discussion of the current state of natural resources economics. My sense from reading economics blogs is that the mainstream view of the economics of oil is that as oil becomes scarce, prices will rise, as prices rise, innovation will occur, innovation will discover equivalent alternatives, and life will continue on as before.

Is this an accurate view of the state of economics? How many economists think about the possibility that no suitable alternatives exist or that they will be much more expensive (and the transition will be very expensive)? Are the economics of peak oil ever included in long-term projections of things like Social Security or GDP?

yup, I red everything down to here. many still have hope, others are struggling with mates who don't have a clue. Its the psychological thing we need to get accustomed too. Who knows whether it will be next year, next decade, etc. But if you have been paying attention, you know the jig is up. We are, at 6.8 billion, far into overshoot. We are not a kind and gentle species. Freud saw this very clearly in his later days. Jay Hansen seems to have looked at this predicament about as closely as anyone, and I think most folks would benefit from his stuff. No, It ain't pretty, but why don't you just post some of his stuff and moderate some of the hope BS. Me, I'm glad to be in the twilight years. You younger folks are f..ked. Have a nice day. Incidentally, if you got a wife that don't seem to get it. Try one more time to explain reality. If you are unsuccessful, move on. Our culture made them this way and they ain't gonna change. If you stay with them, you will just be one of the earliest that don't make it out of the first bottleneck. My guess is that the intellectuals that frequent this site will be among the first to go. We Cretins will stand on you as the first wave appears. Darwin was right.

Most important is a clear rational friendly discussion of how we are going to solve the overpopulation problem.

Second, I would like to see an article and discussion about propane. Where it comes from (oil/nat gas liquids?) What future availability might be. And of a big interest to most who live in the country, why does propane cost so much more than natural gas per btu? Why it is lagging so far behind oil, gasoline etc in inventory builds (in the weekly reports it always seems to be much lower in inventory position for that time of year vs the other petroleum products)

Lastly, let me say that I treasure the last 4+ years I have been reading TOD and the all the useful knowledge I have gained as a result. A big THANK YOU to the folks that keep TOD up and running for all the rest of us.

We talk about "Energy and our Future". But what, specifically would you, the reader, like to hear about?

Besides the good near-term discussions, how about some over-the-horizon topics.

A good topic candidate here, would be Nuclear Fusion.

For high temperature fusion, are we confident enough yet, in the software modeling, and control, and materials, to define firmer time lines ?

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2010/NR-10-01-06.html
That news seems to advance the software modeling, and control aspects.

Even 'Cold Fusion' [LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions] refuses to die :

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

and a good paper here
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusion.pdf

Data there suggests they are getting Excess powers well above any noise floor.
Values toward 7% Excess, are plotted.

The next question is, when will they have enough of a handle on the process, & actual mechanisms, to push that even higher ?
Or, will this sub-sector be a bit like Superconductor Research ?

A couple suggestions:

1) Would like to see some deep systems thinking and analysis on the inter-dependencies of energy, economy, and climate. My reading of climate change suggests that my kids are screwed (with drought and its affect on crop yields having the worst impact). I have been wondering if a deep depression (caused by debt overshoot) and subsequent oil decline (which will prevent us from growing out of the depression) might be enough to restore CO2 to a safer level. On other hand, wondering if a quick drop in economic activity and atmospheric particulates may cause a rapid jump in temperature.

2) Some brainstorming discussions on useful small-scale products/services to earn a living post-peak.

I would like to see more on the macro-economic side of peak oil ; what it means for tax policies, monetary policies, financial policies. I believe that crude assertions like "the financial system will collapse" or "fiat money will not buy anything" don't do justice to the complexity of what is going to happen. We have to think more about peak oil (and more generally peak "currently used" fossils) in the framework of classic inter-temporal economic calculus (especially the discount rate), not just in qualitative terms, but in quantitative terms.
Economy is the discipline aimed to allocate scarce resource optimally, and scarcity is really what the "peak" debate is about.

Thanks for the invitation Gail!

I would like to see continued coverage of the intersection of finance and energy constraints as we go forward. Similarly an occasional post of how the Net Export model is evolving.

I am curious as to how the large exporting countries are using their "profits". Are they investing in alternatives, expanding discovery/development/production/refining/transport of their exports, spending it on programs to maintain support within the populace, etc or something else?

Finally, I hope to hear the breaking news of the unlimited and perpetual energy source right hear on TOD! ;)

P.S. Having Nate, Stoneleigh, Chris Martenson, Sharon Astyck, and a few others for a podcast or round table discussion around a few topics would be great.

I had a very interesting experience a couple weeks ago. After reading this site for some months now (Macondo noob) I have become convinced that we're looking at a rocky road ahead. So I printed a few copies of the Hirsch report, the German military report, the US military report, and the UK business group report, and took them to a gathering of several dozen friends. The gathering wasn't for this purpose but there's kind of a tradition of show & tell amongst us.

I intentionally limited the scope of my comments to two points
1) Peak oil and the state of our infrastructure is going to mean possible shortages as occurred in the 1970's. Possibly including brief, temporary shortages of consumer goods.
2) The amount of debt that is now carried by government, industry, and private citizens assumes good times ahead. Considering point 1, that is doubtful so look to your investments.

That's it. Just those two points. They heard me out I'll give them that, although one wise guy heckled me as the boy who cried wolf. Some glanced at the data but most not at all. Several tried to argue that civilization was not going to fall (which I stated many times was not what I was talking about). The final consensus seemed to be that I had become a nutcase. This can't be real. Surely the government and the energy industry would come up with something. Everyone was focused on quarter four of this year and the fate of a double dip recession and that's about it. At one point all that information was actually seriously being considered against the jokes the heckler was throwing out - and the jokester was winning.

That was a real eye opener for me. I don't think I reached even one person. And I would like to stress these are not stupid people. In the room were physicists, biologists, chemists, teachers, a whole spectrum of folks. Not one really looked at the data (although the reports did go home with some folks so maybe there's hope). And they all know I'm an engineer who has worked in the oil industry.

I concluded that people just are really, really attached to their comfortable little lives to the point of ignoring the true facts in front of them. This is the first time that my professional opinion has been totally laughed off like this. So as a topic for discussion I would like to know if any of you have successfully passed on the message about peak oil, and if so how the heck did you get through to them?

Truth doesn’t have many adherents. The human mind is mostly in search of material and sensual satisfaction and covering voids with pleasant beliefs. I’m afraid people will herd behind any authority figure promising a return to “good times” even though good times have been twisted into an orgy of consumption in the creation of a fantasy world that cannot last.

The fantasy world of our own construction has held sway while we’ve eaten ever-larger quantities of fossil fuels. Soon entropy and overshoot will outdistance our ability to delude ourselves any longer. Most of the population may end up just as confused and looped-out as Glenn Beck now seems, and that’s frightening.

I’ve read TOD to confirm my ideas or find any evidence to the contrary and think that most at TOD want to avoid the tragic nature of our predicament. Like a terminally ill patient we hold out hope for some miracle treatment that will propel us further into overshoot or at least delay our collapse.

Sometimes I would like to see a deeper truth told on TOD, but then I realize that it would be psychologically depressing or completely rebuffed by those with a congenital sunny outlook. So maybe we just tell each other that things are going to be O.K. even though we surmise that the human technological experiment is deeply flawed.

How about advice for people who have now way of getting their hands on a decent piece of land.

What about, you lose your job and they repo your house, what do you do?

How does a burger flipper survive in a no-money economy?

If your only knowledge of engineering was playstation racing and horse power statistics, how would you build a life from nothing?

You're a loyal fan of a sports club. You'll defend each other to the bitter end. But do you have what it takes to feed yourselves? Do you know what it takes?

lukitas

I believe at some point we will have to confront the reality of overpopulation. By 2050 there will be over 9 billion people on planet Earth. Look around the world today and you can see the effects of desertification in areas that were once fertile and massive floods in other areas where little rain normally falls.

There is a presumption often made by global warming deniers that all that doesn't matter because other parts of the world that were normally cold are now heating up and able to sustain agriculture. One National Geographic issue looked at Greenland where some of that is occurring now. Problem is, there are more calamities with flooding than there were with severe cold. It's not just a matter of shifting geography around as if there is arable land everywhere.

That brings up another problem: ignorance. I can't believe the number of people, not just young people, many whom I have no doubt have high IQs, but couldn't tell you where Brazil, India or South Korea are. Some if you ask them which direction you'd go if you wanted to go to Mexico , and I kid you not, don't have a clue.

With finite natural resources which are dwindling, how do we treat the growing numbers of have nots? How do we deal with the ethical questions when we listen to those who say every single fertilized embryo must result in another "God's little miracle" while in the same breath these pious folks talk about Mexican women who come across our border and "drop a potential little terrorist?" How much do we really value life and should we value every life no matter how degraded the quality of that life becomes? Look no further than Somalia, Darfur or Ethiopia or Haiti. When I see that, it's hard to sit in a pew and say, "Well, that's all God's plan. Yes, God's plan is to let millions starve and be slaughtered each year."

We turn back boatloads of Haitians coming to escape poverty in their own country while we have an absurd policy for Cuba called "Wet foot, dry foot," where if Cubans can make it to shore they are accepted as refugees but if they are interdicted at sea they are turned back to Cuba.

Population control will, in my opinion, be the only way we can live in the future peaceably in a shrinking world of resources. Perhaps a pandemic will "solve" that problem or maybe there is an ancient genetic mechanism in our evolutionary past that will trigger mankind to turn to lemming behavior.

(corrected) Stephen J. Gould's thoughts on adaptive radiation come to mind and perhaps we'll find new exo planets on which to continue to populate the Universe. Of course, we will look far different on Pandora than on Earth. Some how, I don't see that happening. Have another beer.

I'd like to hear about how some of the Oildrum staff and writers live their lives with regard to their sensitivity to resource depletion and population overshoot. I read many a blog, i.e. Kunstler, Greer, Energy Bulletin, etc. and have a hard time seeing how some of these authors have time enough to write their blogs, respond to comments, and yet find time to garden, write their books and still live a simplified life. Kunstler ironicly seems to motor around a good part of the time and comments on all of the societal decay that he claims to observe (he was particularly harsh on the denizens of ME, NH, and VT recently; where many average Joe's actually live a much simplified life!). Practice what you preach.

I hold down a conventional job, raise chickens, ducks (as well as children), cut and split (by hand) 4 to 5 cord annually for home heating, hunt, tend and expand my veggie gardens and fruit & nut orchards. I have photovoltaic and evacuated tube systems, a hybrid car, and am looking into a wind system. Next spring I hope to raise a few geese and will be raising my own pig (a friend has done it for me the last two years and we butcher them together). I'm also ready to start fencing my pasture which I stumped myself for a few goats or sheep. My wife hangs out a lot of our laundry on the line and and has started some canning. Who has time to write articles, or drive around observing decay and whining about it. I barely have the time to even log a comment now and then!

P.S. Many of your readers could perhaps have solar sytems and such themselves if the would only stop throwing away money into ponzi 401k's and such. What better use for your retirement resources than a paid off house, free electricity and free hot water. Your money just devalues in their corporate ponzi schemes anyway; they get rich and you get the shaft. Take a loan against that depressing 401k and buy some solar, while all the while you repay yourself the interest instead of giving it to some debt-serf loving bank. Stop allowing those middle east sheiks to live like your defacto "Kings" by paying them tribute with your hard earned money and sweat. Kick (or vastly reduce) that petrol habit today! Let me tell you it's pretty cool to see a $32 monthly power bill when $12.95 of it was the "delivery charge".

The link between dealing with the end of fossil fuel, reduced atmospheric polution and climate change.

NAOM

I would like to see more energy graphs with the noise smoothed out.

Please can we make short term extrapolations of 9 months. These would be accurate enough for rule of thumb prognosis but not so short as to be affected by noise.

eg. Where is China going to be in 9 months time?
Hard, I know, but I don't demand accuracy just good faith.

I would like to see an article on Water. There are two aspects to this. Firstly there is the issue of peak water in urban areas. I think this issue can be largely dismissed, because most areas suffering water stress can reduce their consumption by 25% by simple updates to their infrastructure and by fixing leaking pipes. The second issue is how the high relative cost of oil/energy/electricity will affect water availability for agriculture, and what knock on effects this will have. For example, areas where the energy costs of irrigation are already significant.
It would be nice to get some facts, because most of the 'Peak Water' crowd appear not to be very technical.

I'd like to read more about economics - specifically, a system of economic management which can function without fossil fuel input and a serious discussion on how it can be implemented.

I would like to read more about population overshoot, complex systems interactions, and scalability issues with renewable energy sources and alternative technologies. I would also like to read more on how to prepare for a post peak oil world in every way. Thanks!

Hi Gail,
I am a long time reader and occasional commentator. My account does not reflect that because I lost my login credentials along the way!.

While 'Energy and our Future' seemed a good slogan way back then, it seems to me that TOD has gone a long way into pursuing further issues and their consequences. My suggestion is to expand 'Energy' into 'Energy & Resources'.

I say this because the Logistics function, which is the basis of the Peak Oil idea applies equally to all the fixed Geological assets. The connection to energy is close, particularly in regard to the the base metals and the rare earths.

cheersjuan

How has it all come together?
How will it all develop?
What are the likely future scenarios, of the whole picture?

Given the following -
1) Baby Boomer Retirement
This has already started to lower Demand in many areas, as Peak Spending is between 45-55 years and after 55 people save more.
The Boomer generation start "officially retiring on January 1st, 2011, but their Demand started to slow 10 years ago.
Boomer retirements are set to rise considerably over the next 10 years and will continue for 20 years.

2) Peak Energy, Peak Food, Peak Fresh Water
Global Oil Production Peaked in 2005. Oil & other related Energy costs have increased dramatically in the period 2001-2008.
These cost increases were a large factor involved in the GFC and they will continue to be a massive drag on the future Economy.
How will Peak Energy flow on to Peak Food & Peak Water?

3) Gloabl Over Population & Population Decline
The existing Global Population is already too high, given the likely effects of Peak Oil & Climate Change!
That said, Demand growth has also being slowing and will continue to slow, for a very long time, due to a slowing Global Population Growth rate, which has been in Decline for over 50 years.
This trend is now closing in on ZPG and within 20-30 years, the Global Population will go into actual decline.

4) Interest Rates already at or near Zero, in many major Economies.
There is little room to move, even if it made Economic sense, which it does not and nor does QE.

5) Debt & Deficits already thru the roof, in many major economies.
In the USA, even if "official" GDP figures remain "positive at around 1-2%, if Deficits remain at artificially high levels to stimulate/boost GDP, then the increased Deficit to GDP % should be taken away from the "official" GDP, to arrive at the correct NET GDP.
In other words, we should look at the GROSI, which is the Gdp Return On Stimulus Invested.
If this criteria were followed, then the net (real) US GDP over recent years would be well & truely negative!

6) Climate Change looking to curtail the Usual Economic expansion.
The Net loss to the Economy from the changes expected from Climate Change are massive, as is currently being shown in increasing Food Prices, arising from the recent Russian Heatwave & fires.
How will Climate Change flow on to Peak Food & Peak Water?

7) Real Estate markets are De-valuing, Financial markets are De-leveraging & Currencies (particularly in the USA) may be De-valued & Sovereign Debt (including the USA) may De-fault.

My first post. I would really like to see a detailed Peak Oil update. The last major update I can find is dated July 2009.

Topics I'd like to see more on.

1. Will the decline of global oil production past Peak Oil be rapid or gradual, smooth or stepwise?

2. Will the peaking and decline of oil and coal production make taxation or regulation of carbon dioxide emmissions unnecessary?

3. How will the decline of oil production affect international finance and trade?

4. What uses of liquid hydrocarbons cannot be discontinued, and how much fuel do they require?

5. What alternatives are available to fill these needs and at what cost? This should include biomass, coal to liquid, and so forth.

6. What is the required size of investment in non-oil energy generation alternatives that is needed, and what is the macroeconomic impact? This should include all non-oil sources, such as coal, gas, fission, fusion, wind, solar, biomass and so forth, whether fossil fuel or not and extractive or sustainable.

7. What is the required size of investment in alternative transport and other business/social changes needed to reduce the use of oil? This should include commuter rail, electric bus, electric car, reduced footprint settlement, substitution of communications for transportation, online ordering and delivery versus physical retail, and so forth.

8. What actions have been taken by governments to address Peak Oil?

9. What are the most economical energy conservation strategies and technologies for individuals, businesses, organizations, and governments?

Topics I'd like to see less on.

1. Population issues, since the trajectory of population growth for the next 40 years is essentially fixed by the existing population and the projected fertility of child bearing women and girls already living.

2. Politics around what actions are being proposed and discussed by governments and NGOs, since it is all just noise until a decision is taken.

3. Survivalist strategies for individuals or small groups, because we don't know whether they are necessary and they are unlikely be successful given a breakdown of social order, such as in Somalia or Central Africa.

4. General climate change and environmental issues, since that is a huge topic and dilutes the discussion of energy issues per se.

With us Boomers aging, what are the traditional roles of older people in society? If we do not want to be part of the problem then we need to become part of the solution. I see us as being the "even keel" from doing jackass things but then where were the Board of Directors in the Enron mess? We should be the ones who put pressure on our Congress critters to do the right things.

But physically we tire more easily, yet we should be smart enough to figure out how to do things more efficiently and effectively from all our experiences.

The TOD has been a big help in understanding what is going on but most farmers my age are thinking of selling the farm and ways to keep from "buying the farm" as they ease into retirement. Instead, all the comments point us toward taking up farming and we may not have the strength, energy, endurance to do so. Yet, the elderly have been revered in various societies.

What role have the elderly played?

Peter

I have been following this site since 2005 and assuming that the Peak Oil is imminent as has been rather convincingly argued, I would like to have some prepared articles of the reasons why this issue is not seen as more important by the decision makers, or is something done by governments secretly, or are there some forces against it and what are the motives?

I'd like to see more about some of the other concerns of Dr MK Hubbert (my hero!), especially the relationships between money, energy and food; this harks back to Frederick Soddy (another hero!) and others. Can you get a guest blogger who is a good writer and also an ace ecological economist? Or is that too difficult?

Noticing the other thread on ASPO, perhaps we could have a thread on peak oil and related organizations.

A lot of comments and I only skimmed so not sure if this was mentioned or not.

Fast decline or slow decline I don't believe that anything will be orderly, most especially regionally speaking. My interest lies in the future of places at the state, county, city level. The world is going to get a lot smaller IMO.

JHK famously gives his opinion of what the future of places like Phoenix and Atlanta might be, however he doesn't get into the technical aspects of it. I would like to see an analysis of how smaller regions will fare in a time of energy scarcity. For example, could a place like Alaska with a high energy production per capita stop their exports and hoard energy for their own population? Or would those living close to the SPR storage be better off, faster served, from a drawdown of those stocks? Could some regions decline less fast, etc.?

Basically I'd like to see a detailed analysis of downstream distribution and expert opinion of how it will all fall apart. For those of us that do travel quite frequently I sure don't want to get stuck at some airport when the pipelines are shut down and a city is left to panic.

speculations of the future have such a rapidly dropping probability with distance forward that I consider them mere sport, fun, but not of much if any real use.

I go along with the suggestion for more "this is what I tried and this is what worked, and didn't work" That goes for everything, not just hardware.

So, here goes. With hardware.

Solar water heaters. First I just put a coil of black plastic pipe on the roof and threw a couple of old windows over it. Worked, wife didn't gripe out of the shower. But needed more gas backup than I thought right. So I went and bought ( and buying things is not my style) a so-called, swimming pool heater. A thin plastic rug 20 ft long and 2 ft wide, with a lot of little water tubes running lengthwise. I was astounded to see how well this cheap thing worked, even with no insulation under and no glazing over ( warm summer weather, 40 north, near Ohio river.). Everybody was happy.

But I stupidly put it on the roof and soon made a profound discovery- the sun moves from day to day! And if this month it is behind tree x, next month it is behind tree y. So, after chasing that sunny spot a while, I took the whole shebang off the roof and put it just south of the house, on the ground along the road. I had not put it there at the start because township mower man might mow it to smithereens. But mower man says he is forbidden to mow anything, no matter how enticing, that is right in front of a house, for fear of mowing (a-la machine gun) people with the gravel his mower is slinging all the time.

I will tell you about bike transmissions another time.

But- I beg the editors to encourage anyone talking about costs to follow Mackay's suggestion- put it all into bits people can digest- $/kW-hr PER PERSON. Anything else is indigestion.

And another thing, always refer to costs as % OF GDP. Example, "alternative energy is too expensive, after all, we are spending 5% of GDP on it, and that is too much". That forces the remark to sound as idiotic as it is.

Overall it seems like the posters here think the Campfire should be about 10 times its current size.

I'd like to see some discussion or study done to come up with, oh say, 30-100 trackable indicators that can be used to mark the progress of peak oil, and then start charting the index.

I'm in the camp that said fluids production is not the only, or best way to watch this unfold. Maybe some combination of energy stocks, energy commodities, population, food, standard of living, etc.

I'd like a better understanding of our petroleum makeup and how it relates to asphalt supply (ie: potential shortage). our city had to take many lumps by homeowners wanting road resurfacing when oil was at $140 (and housing was at a peak bubble). the u.s. seems to have moved strongly toward light sweet crude, but from college chemistry, coke has historically been the unwanted byproduct of distillation refining (so much so that I suspect if we had to landfill it, it would be classified as hazardous waste). we seem to find "uses" for these unwanted byproducts (another example, spent coal makes up those black specs in some regions of the country where Concrete Masonary Units are referred to as "cinder blocks"). to get back on point, does our marked change from refiners handling sour heavy to only light sweet crude change the available supply for road paving asphalt? what about the advent of tankers shipping already refined gasoline (does that only occur to countries local to say, saudia arabia). how much, if any, do we receive by this method and how long is gasoline good for in an ocean going voyage?
related areas are the new interet in "brown asphalt" as a means of reducing solar heat absorption. And I hadn't posted this before, but always thought bp should have explored taking their tones of oil tainted sand and put it though asphalt reprocessing rather than landfill it (that caused tfhg so much consternation). similar things are routinely done now with say, cleaning up the sand of a diesel spill, or the past decades where gas stations converted to non-steel storage tanks and the tainted sand had to be dealt with.