Oil man T. Boone Pickens has built America's biggest "turbine farm" in the Texas panhandle and has given up on ever having it operational or profitable.
He has literally invested 100's of millions on this project.
If this WAS the answer it would be worth trillions and investors would be lining up to get a chunk of the action.
The cost of bringing this power to the end user, in a state that is 10X the size of Denmark, has proven to be too costly.
But who knows, maybe someday Gum Drop Island will be totally wind powered.
When building an infrastructure for wind is cheaper than deep sea drilling the wind will get to the end user.
Denmark gets about 20% of their electricity from wind.
You should read the links you post:
"Annual wind power production is currently equal to about 19-20% of electricity consumed in Denmark. The proportion of this that is actually consumed in Denmark has been disputed, with claims of up to 40% of wind power being exported"
Some people dispute this, but after doing extensive reading on this subject a year ago (this is a huge issue on cape Cod), I believe this to be correct. The fact that the Netherlands is stopping several planned wind projects tends to confirm this.
I read the entire link, thank you.
How does the portion you quote prove your point:
"So far, nobody has figured out how to integrate more than 12% of solar/wind power into a large scale grid."
Furthermore, the electricity that Denmark exports does not leave the grid. The grid simple extends beyond national boarders.
It's like saying that since Oregon and Washington export Columbia River hydro power to California, hydro power can not be integrated into the grid.
What is really going on here I think comes down to this:
"this is a huge issue on cape Cod"
For years people on the Massachusetts coast have been pumping millions of dollars into attempts to discredit wind power.
Money that would have been spent on figuring out ways to modernize the grid.
Well, you read it, but you didn't understand it.
And the people of MA do pay money to modernize the grid - it's called their electric bill.
I'm not sure how you're missing this, but you are. Again, the Netherlands generates a substantial amount of wind power, but can only use an amount that is equivalent to 12% of their consumption and have to sell the rest at a loss. The point here is that that is the most that any given large scale grid can use is this amount, and even that is after years of costly adaptations and research.
I never said the remainder was wasted or unused, but your claims that 'the bulk of' anybody's usage can come from these sources is clearly contradicted by the facts.
I like how use the fact that this issue affects me, and has led me to do hundreds hours of research (how much have you done?) to try and discredit my opinion, as though that makes any sense. The people of MA have also spent millions trying to support the wind farm - what does that prove? Nothing. I suppose you are much better suited to give an informed opinion, since you just make yours up off the top of your head.
Denmark gets about 20% of their electricity from wind.
You should read the links you post:
"Annual wind power production is currently equal to about 19-20% of electricity consumed in Denmark. The proportion of this that is actually consumed in Denmark has been disputed, with claims of up to 40% of wind power being exported"
Some people dispute this, but after doing extensive reading on this subject a year ago (this is a huge issue on cape Cod), I believe this to be correct. The fact that the Netherlands is stopping several planned wind projects tends to confirm this.
I read the entire link, thank you.
How does the portion you quote prove your point:
"So far, nobody has figured out how to integrate more than 12% of solar/wind power into a large scale grid."
Furthermore, the electricity that Denmark exports does not leave the grid. The grid simple extends beyond national boarders.
It's like saying that since Oregon and Washington export Columbia River hydro power to California, hydro power can not be integrated into the grid.
What is really going on here I think comes down to this:
"this is a huge issue on cape Cod"
For years people on the Massachusetts coast have been pumping millions of dollars into attempts to discredit wind power.
Money that would have been spent on figuring out ways to modernize the grid.
Well, you read it, but you didn't understand it.
And the people of MA do pay money to modernize the grid - it's called their electric bill.
I'm not sure how you're missing this, but you are. Again, the Netherlands generates a substantial amount of wind power, but can only use an amount that is equivalent to 12% of their consumption and have to sell the rest at a loss. The point here is that that is the most that any given large scale grid can use is this amount, and even that is after years of costly adaptations and research.
I never said the remainder was wasted or unused, but your claims that 'the bulk of' anybody's usage can come from these sources is clearly contradicted by the facts.
I like how use the fact that this issue affects me, and has led me to do hundreds hours of research (how much have you done?) to try and discredit my opinion, as though that makes any sense. The people of MA have also spent millions trying to support the wind farm - what does that prove? Nothing. I suppose you are much better suited to give an informed opinion, since you just make yours up off the top of your head.
I never said my opinion was worth more than yours.
You are the one who stated my opinion was "just not true". I apologize for responding in kind.
I apologize for being too dumb to see how extporting 40% or their wind power shows that they are not getting 20% from wind.
Please explain how there is a mathematical cap of 12% wind power that any grid can use.
Is wind power that much different than other kinds of power?
Do grids start rejecting wind power after 12%?
Can the grid distinguish wind from hydro or natural gas generated power?
Also, please explain why it is not advantageous to develop a non-carbon based energy source that could provide 12% of our energy usage.
Road Warrior is still a long way off even if peak oil is here. Anything short of Road Warrior and the doomers won't be satisfied that we've hit bottom. I think the decline will be gradual enough that we'll all just acclimate to the way things are. Children will be born into the bad times and won't know any different--it'll just be the way schitt is. Then the old people will die and nobody will have direct memories of the way it was. Then we'll get Road Warrior. But we'll all be gone by then. We've got a long way to fall though. We still have all of the coal and all of the forests to burn until we're Haiti poor, eating dirt cookies. And we have 6000 nukes. If the populace has the stomach for it we can just take what we need in energy for the next hundred years.
In the EVIL WORLD OF THE FUTURE armed officers of the state will be going to the homes of record collectors to seize their massive stores of petroleum by-products and render them down to produce power for the overlords.
The member list of this site has already been accessed and analyzed to prepare for this action.
Enjoy your not-so-floppy disks while you can motherfuckers!
Denmark gets about 20% of their electricity from wind.
You should read the links you post:
"Annual wind power production is currently equal to about 19-20% of electricity consumed in Denmark. The proportion of this that is actually consumed in Denmark has been disputed, with claims of up to 40% of wind power being exported"
Some people dispute this, but after doing extensive reading on this subject a year ago (this is a huge issue on cape Cod), I believe this to be correct. The fact that the Netherlands is stopping several planned wind projects tends to confirm this.
I read the entire link, thank you.
How does the portion you quote prove your point:
"So far, nobody has figured out how to integrate more than 12% of solar/wind power into a large scale grid."
Furthermore, the electricity that Denmark exports does not leave the grid. The grid simple extends beyond national boarders.
It's like saying that since Oregon and Washington export Columbia River hydro power to California, hydro power can not be integrated into the grid.
What is really going on here I think comes down to this:
"this is a huge issue on cape Cod"
For years people on the Massachusetts coast have been pumping millions of dollars into attempts to discredit wind power.
Money that would have been spent on figuring out ways to modernize the grid.
Well, you read it, but you didn't understand it.
And the people of MA do pay money to modernize the grid - it's called their electric bill.
I'm not sure how you're missing this, but you are. Again, the Netherlands generates a substantial amount of wind power, but can only use an amount that is equivalent to 12% of their consumption and have to sell the rest at a loss. The point here is that that is the most that any given large scale grid can use is this amount, and even that is after years of costly adaptations and research.
I never said the remainder was wasted or unused, but your claims that 'the bulk of' anybody's usage can come from these sources is clearly contradicted by the facts.
I like how use the fact that this issue affects me, and has led me to do hundreds hours of research (how much have you done?) to try and discredit my opinion, as though that makes any sense. The people of MA have also spent millions trying to support the wind farm - what does that prove? Nothing. I suppose you are much better suited to give an informed opinion, since you just make yours up off the top of your head.
I never said my opinion was worth more than yours.
You are the one who stated my opinion was "just not true". I apologize for responding in kind.
I apologize for being too dumb to see how extporting 40% or their wind power shows that they are not getting 20% from wind.
Please explain how there is a mathematical cap of 12% wind power that any grid can use.
Is wind power that much different than other kinds of power?
Do grids start rejecting wind power after 12%?
Can the grid distinguish wind from hydro or natural gas generated power?
Also, please explain why it is not advantageous to develop a non-carbon based energy source that could provide 12% of our energy usage.
I never said that it wasn't advantageous to develop non-carbon forms of energy - I said your claim that we could derive 'the bulk' (over 50%) from these current forms is wrong, and it is.
"Is wind power that much different than other kinds of power?"
Yes, it is, for reasons I've already mentioned. It's not predictable and therefore can never be a significant portion of any power grid because they rely on predictability to avoid blackouts and complete shutdown. The 12% cap isn't 'mathematical' - it's physical. The exact same problem applies to photovoltaic cells. And then there's the fact that, financially, both are a disaster.
from what ive read, wind and solar just cannot compensate for the decline of liquid oil. besides the necessity of vast amounts of oil to manufacture and maintain them, they will never be able to provide the multiple uses of oil.
what do you guys envision happening to out automobile infrastructure? it would seem that basic movement and markets would have to adapt somehow.
what about industrial agriculture? its largely oil/gas driven: fertilizers, pesticides, cultivation and processing...not possible without oil. looks like cuba broke up all its big monocrop holdings in recent years due to their oil scarcity.
it seems like a lot of us on soulstrut live around big cities. in the event of oil destabilizations, do yall see people leaving big cities or flocking to them?
i guess all my questions are assuming that we will have some dislocations with oil supply and demand in the near future. if, like horseleech thinks, we are good for a while longer, than maybe we just have longer to prepare. but eventually, oil is going to be too energy intensive to be worth extracting.
i recently had a long chat with a "green architect" from the southwest. he has been building for about 12 years. he got into it when he was contracted by a CIA employee to build him a sustainable compound on his land holding. the agent explained to him that the intelligence community and high level politicos and wealthy were all pretty much preparing for severe upcoming transitions. this was 12 years ago.
he also mentioned haliburton winning contracts to build detention centers capable of holding 80k people in various regions. some near border states, others in tennessee and other non-border areas. i havent looked into this yet.
from what ive read, wind and solar just cannot compensate for the decline of liquid oil. besides the necessity of vast amounts of oil to manufacture and maintain them, they will never be able to provide the multiple uses of oil.
They can't even come close for several reasons. That doesn't mean that they don't have a place in our energy future, but it will a relatively small one
tripledouble said:
what do you guys envision happening to out automobile infrastructure? it would seem that basic movement and markets would have to adapt somehow.
Car/truck culture will have to be scaled back. I found it telling a few years ago when Warren Buffet bought up almost all of the existing defunct rail lines in the U.S.
tripledouble said:
what about industrial agriculture? its largely oil/gas driven: fertilizers, pesticides, cultivation and processing...not possible without oil. looks like cuba broke up all its big monocrop holdings in recent years due to their oil scarcity.
This will be a huge issue, because this is the only way to feed our out of control population. As a former (part-time) organic farmer I have to face the fact that sustainable practices just can't feed the number of people now living.
tripledouble said:
it seems like a lot of us on soulstrut live around big cities. in the event of oil destabilizations, do yall see people leaving big cities or flocking to them?
Flocking to them. Urban living uses a lot less oil and other resources than rural/suburban living. Market pressures will force people to population centers.
tripledouble said:
i guess all my questions are assuming that we will have some dislocations with oil supply and demand in the near future. if, like horseleech thinks, we are good for a while longer, than maybe we just have longer to prepare. but eventually, oil is going to be too energy intensive to be worth extracting.
I don't think peak oil is upon us yet, but we still need to act NOW to determine what the world's energy future is going to look like. No matter what we come up with there will be major adaptations involved an the sooner we know what they are, the better. Failure to do this will lead to catastrophic conditions world wide and a possible collapse of civilization as we know it.
horse, my feelings exactly on all points. this is the kind of thoughts i was interested in with the thread. back and forth fact nitpicking, not so much (but it has its place).
i didnt know about Buffet and the rail lines, but his foresight is legendary for a reason. wow.
strutters, do horse's responses seem shrill? apocalyptic? are any of you thinking or planning about these possibilities?
Tom, thanks for linking up Collapse. (although it timed out before i could see the last 5 minutes)
I found it compelling and it corroborated a lot of things i have already read.
in Collapse, i found it interesting that he recommended investing in gold and divesting from currency. he prefaced it with how directly useless paper currency is and then mused on the lack of correlation to real gold/silver reserves
but what functional use does gold have besides aesthetic beauty?
what should we invest in?
Reynaldo, what you think? dont say salsa 45s.
land? canned goods? water sources? bullets? organic seeds?
I feel that the only way to prepare for peak oil is to heavily invest in nuclear fission and fusion, specifically excavating helium-3 and hydrogen-3 off the Moon and asteroids to use in fusion reactions.
from what ive read, wind and solar just cannot compensate for the decline of liquid oil. besides the necessity of vast amounts of oil to manufacture and maintain them, they will never be able to provide the multiple uses of oil.
what do you guys envision happening to out automobile infrastructure? it would seem that basic movement and markets would have to adapt somehow.
what about industrial agriculture? its largely oil/gas driven: fertilizers, pesticides, cultivation and processing...not possible without oil. looks like cuba broke up all its big monocrop holdings in recent years due to their oil scarcity.
it seems like a lot of us on soulstrut live around big cities. in the event of oil destabilizations, do yall see people leaving big cities or flocking to them?
i guess all my questions are assuming that we will have some dislocations with oil supply and demand in the near future. if, like horseleech thinks, we are good for a while longer, than maybe we just have longer to prepare. but eventually, oil is going to be too energy intensive to be worth extracting.
It's not going to run out any time soon, but that's no reason for complacency. Especially with China and India developing so rapidly, oil consumption will increase drastically.
But you seem to be viewing this rather simplistically. This will be a global problem of epic proportions, and not just because the oil has run out, but because of the money involved. It will not end well, unless someone can come up with viable, financially profitable solution. Which seems way too much like (unprofitable) hard work at the moment, when you can just wage wars in foreign lands, kill thousands of innocent people, and win oil. If anyone moves against you, brand them 'Evil' and impose sanctions.
please elaborate what you mention that i'm viewing simplistically
like you mention, politics and economics will be completely affected...we have a global economy that is facilitated primarily by fossil fuels.but i was asking about the aspects that will affect people on an immediate individual level and in ways for which they may want to start to prepare.
you say oil isnt going to run out anytime soon. keep in mind that the peak oil concept revolves around the end of the easily extractable reserves, after which there is a diminishing ratio of energy extracted per energy expended...while at the same time world demand continues to rise. do you think thats far off too?
in Collapse, i found it interesting that he recommended investing in gold and divesting from currency. he prefaced it with how directly useless paper currency is and then mused on the lack of correlation to real gold/silver reserves
but what functional use does gold have besides aesthetic beauty?
what should we invest in?
Reynaldo, what you think? dont say salsa 45s.
land? canned goods? water sources? bullets? organic seeds?
Honestly, being part of a large, stable community of people that lookout for each other is as important as any sort of stockpiling of goods or weapons. You probably know this. Network with like-minded folks. Invest in alliances. Marry the sheriff???s daughter. I'm out in the country in a small town so the lay of the land is probably different than where you are. The pace of change is slower. Home ownership rate is 78% and only 4% of housing is apartments; people tend to stick around and put roots down. Outsiders would be at a disadvantage if things got really tough.
So, yeah, get some land with good topsoil and trees, within a few miles of a lake/river. Not on a flood plain. Research the ground water/water table situation in the area. Get a well; make sure the water pressure is strong. Buy a generator and a full complement of tools and machines. Build a super insulated home. Find a hardworking woman with childbearing hips and have some kids so they can help you out when you get older. Free labor.
The funny thing about stocking up on canned goods/food is that people often end up having to consume the food before it goes bad (if they don't want to throw money away), and then they get sick and tired of eating the same damn thing. It's kind of the same thing with seeds. Vegetable seed keeps for 2 to 5 years (or up to 10 if properly dried out/stored), depending on the plant. Can???t go wrong with bullets, except you can only really kill things with them.
With enough money and technology one could build a secure, self-sufficient, fully stocked doomstead that can be retreated to at a moments notice, but that on its own is still only a short to mid-term solution. You can still get sick, injured, temporarily incapacitated. Things break and wear out; you???ll still need support from others???specialists, craftspeople, various professionals, aka society. One dude with a cabin in the woods, a satchel of gold, and five years worth of ammo and MREs isn???t the ideal social unit. For people not already living that kind life it???ll be that much harder to make the transition.
It's funny, but Rey and others have a valid point. The society we live in is extremely fragile. We live under the pretense that things are fine, but it wouldn't take much to flip our worlds upside down. This is no "Archaic" shit, I'm just being for real. There's no harm in being prepared even on a small scale. In fact, you'd be stupid not to.
That said, and again, not to be on some Archaic shit, but what do you guys make of this (since we're on doomsday mode)? Yes thread hijack...
No anonymity on future web says Google CEO "A tweet from the EFF pointed me to a short article detailing part of Eric Schmidt's speech to the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe on August 4. According to Schmidt, true transparency and anonymity on the Internet will become a thing of the past because of the need to combat criminal and 'anti-social' behavior. 'Governments will demand it,' he says, referring to full accountability and a 'name service for people,' possibly hinting towards mandatory Internet passports. The CEO of Google also made a couple of somewhat creepy references to the availability of information: 'If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go ... show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!'"
please elaborate what you mention that i'm viewing simplistically
like you mention, politics and economics will be completely affected...we have a global economy that is facilitated primarily by fossil fuels.but i was asking about the aspects that will affect people on an immediate individual level and in ways for which they may want to start to prepare.
you say oil isnt going to run out anytime soon. keep in mind that the peak oil concept revolves around the end of the easily extractable reserves, after which there is a diminishing ratio of energy extracted per energy expended...while at the same time world demand continues to rise. do you think thats far off too?
I have no idea when the oil will peak, or run out, and I'm not about to get all armchair expert and pretend on the internet that I know.
What I do know is that it's recommended that a viable alternative is in place 10/20 years before peak, so oil use can be slowly phased out. Some believe we're already a decade late on that and counting..
I don't personally focus on how it "will affect people on an immediate individual level" as I'm probably too much of a fatalist for such discussions, Power Down: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World by Richard Heinberg is a good book on the subject though.
I say 'simplistically' because you seemed to be ignoring the scale and financial side of the problem completely. Modern industrial societies are completely dependent on fossil fuels, and oil plays a major role in US foreign policy, terrorism, war and geopolitics. The industrial world is addicted to oil, breaking that addiction is going to painful.
That process can only happen if an alternative is found, but if a viable alternative isn't found soon, peak oil will have a catastrophic effect on economies, the US in particular, and I don't see your rulers allowing that to happen.
So I could see an eventual world war breaking out when the US inevitably tries to take control of the remaining oil, (the fact that they have built 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, maybe suggests that some are already preparing for such an outcome.)
Although this is nothing new, ever since WW1 (when the great war machines switched from coal to oil power) there have been battles going on to try and control oil production. - Here's an interesting piece about the inception of Americas favourite oil company BP - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2010/06/post.html
Comments
When building an infrastructure for wind is cheaper than deep sea drilling the wind will get to the end user.
Various "Environmentaist Groups" and members of the powerful Kennedy family are among the opponents of said project.
The estimated billion dollar project has the potential to supply up to 75% of the power to the Cape Cod & Nantucket areas.
Well, you read it, but you didn't understand it.
And the people of MA do pay money to modernize the grid - it's called their electric bill.
I'm not sure how you're missing this, but you are. Again, the Netherlands generates a substantial amount of wind power, but can only use an amount that is equivalent to 12% of their consumption and have to sell the rest at a loss. The point here is that that is the most that any given large scale grid can use is this amount, and even that is after years of costly adaptations and research.
I never said the remainder was wasted or unused, but your claims that 'the bulk of' anybody's usage can come from these sources is clearly contradicted by the facts.
I like how use the fact that this issue affects me, and has led me to do hundreds hours of research (how much have you done?) to try and discredit my opinion, as though that makes any sense. The people of MA have also spent millions trying to support the wind farm - what does that prove? Nothing. I suppose you are much better suited to give an informed opinion, since you just make yours up off the top of your head.
I never said my opinion was worth more than yours.
You are the one who stated my opinion was "just not true". I apologize for responding in kind.
I apologize for being too dumb to see how extporting 40% or their wind power shows that they are not getting 20% from wind.
Please explain how there is a mathematical cap of 12% wind power that any grid can use.
Is wind power that much different than other kinds of power?
Do grids start rejecting wind power after 12%?
Can the grid distinguish wind from hydro or natural gas generated power?
Also, please explain why it is not advantageous to develop a non-carbon based energy source that could provide 12% of our energy usage.
The member list of this site has already been accessed and analyzed to prepare for this action.
Enjoy your not-so-floppy disks while you can motherfuckers!
I never said that it wasn't advantageous to develop non-carbon forms of energy - I said your claim that we could derive 'the bulk' (over 50%) from these current forms is wrong, and it is.
"Is wind power that much different than other kinds of power?"
Yes, it is, for reasons I've already mentioned. It's not predictable and therefore can never be a significant portion of any power grid because they rely on predictability to avoid blackouts and complete shutdown. The 12% cap isn't 'mathematical' - it's physical. The exact same problem applies to photovoltaic cells. And then there's the fact that, financially, both are a disaster.
There's enough wind on sites like this to power a lot of things!
unfortunately it's phonetic so no kinetic energy can be derived.
Kinetic NRG says "I can be derived from a simple google search!"
What's your theory? That it's made by elves?
what do you guys envision happening to out automobile infrastructure? it would seem that basic movement and markets would have to adapt somehow.
what about industrial agriculture? its largely oil/gas driven: fertilizers, pesticides, cultivation and processing...not possible without oil. looks like cuba broke up all its big monocrop holdings in recent years due to their oil scarcity.
it seems like a lot of us on soulstrut live around big cities. in the event of oil destabilizations, do yall see people leaving big cities or flocking to them?
i guess all my questions are assuming that we will have some dislocations with oil supply and demand in the near future. if, like horseleech thinks, we are good for a while longer, than maybe we just have longer to prepare. but eventually, oil is going to be too energy intensive to be worth extracting.
he also mentioned haliburton winning contracts to build detention centers capable of holding 80k people in various regions. some near border states, others in tennessee and other non-border areas. i havent looked into this yet.
They can't even come close for several reasons. That doesn't mean that they don't have a place in our energy future, but it will a relatively small one
Car/truck culture will have to be scaled back. I found it telling a few years ago when Warren Buffet bought up almost all of the existing defunct rail lines in the U.S.
This will be a huge issue, because this is the only way to feed our out of control population. As a former (part-time) organic farmer I have to face the fact that sustainable practices just can't feed the number of people now living.
Flocking to them. Urban living uses a lot less oil and other resources than rural/suburban living. Market pressures will force people to population centers.
I don't think peak oil is upon us yet, but we still need to act NOW to determine what the world's energy future is going to look like. No matter what we come up with there will be major adaptations involved an the sooner we know what they are, the better. Failure to do this will lead to catastrophic conditions world wide and a possible collapse of civilization as we know it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
i didnt know about Buffet and the rail lines, but his foresight is legendary for a reason. wow.
strutters, do horse's responses seem shrill? apocalyptic? are any of you thinking or planning about these possibilities?
I found it compelling and it corroborated a lot of things i have already read.
i'll check the Prize as soon as i can too
anyone seen Crude?
but what functional use does gold have besides aesthetic beauty?
what should we invest in?
Reynaldo, what you think? dont say salsa 45s.
land? canned goods? water sources? bullets? organic seeds?
exactly
It's not going to run out any time soon, but that's no reason for complacency. Especially with China and India developing so rapidly, oil consumption will increase drastically.
But you seem to be viewing this rather simplistically. This will be a global problem of epic proportions, and not just because the oil has run out, but because of the money involved. It will not end well, unless someone can come up with viable, financially profitable solution. Which seems way too much like (unprofitable) hard work at the moment, when you can just wage wars in foreign lands, kill thousands of innocent people, and win oil. If anyone moves against you, brand them 'Evil' and impose sanctions.
like you mention, politics and economics will be completely affected...we have a global economy that is facilitated primarily by fossil fuels.but i was asking about the aspects that will affect people on an immediate individual level and in ways for which they may want to start to prepare.
you say oil isnt going to run out anytime soon. keep in mind that the peak oil concept revolves around the end of the easily extractable reserves, after which there is a diminishing ratio of energy extracted per energy expended...while at the same time world demand continues to rise. do you think thats far off too?
So, yeah, get some land with good topsoil and trees, within a few miles of a lake/river. Not on a flood plain. Research the ground water/water table situation in the area. Get a well; make sure the water pressure is strong. Buy a generator and a full complement of tools and machines. Build a super insulated home. Find a hardworking woman with childbearing hips and have some kids so they can help you out when you get older. Free labor.
The funny thing about stocking up on canned goods/food is that people often end up having to consume the food before it goes bad (if they don't want to throw money away), and then they get sick and tired of eating the same damn thing. It's kind of the same thing with seeds. Vegetable seed keeps for 2 to 5 years (or up to 10 if properly dried out/stored), depending on the plant. Can???t go wrong with bullets, except you can only really kill things with them.
With enough money and technology one could build a secure, self-sufficient, fully stocked doomstead that can be retreated to at a moments notice, but that on its own is still only a short to mid-term solution. You can still get sick, injured, temporarily incapacitated. Things break and wear out; you???ll still need support from others???specialists, craftspeople, various professionals, aka society. One dude with a cabin in the woods, a satchel of gold, and five years worth of ammo and MREs isn???t the ideal social unit. For people not already living that kind life it???ll be that much harder to make the transition.
:comedy_gold:
It's funny, but Rey and others have a valid point. The society we live in is extremely fragile. We live under the pretense that things are fine, but it wouldn't take much to flip our worlds upside down. This is no "Archaic" shit, I'm just being for real. There's no harm in being prepared even on a small scale. In fact, you'd be stupid not to.
That said, and again, not to be on some Archaic shit, but what do you guys make of this (since we're on doomsday mode)? Yes thread hijack...
No anonymity on future web says Google CEO
"A tweet from the EFF pointed me to a short article detailing part of Eric Schmidt's speech to the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe on August 4. According to Schmidt, true transparency and anonymity on the Internet will become a thing of the past because of the need to combat criminal and 'anti-social' behavior. 'Governments will demand it,' he says, referring to full accountability and a 'name service for people,' possibly hinting towards mandatory Internet passports. The CEO of Google also made a couple of somewhat creepy references to the availability of information: 'If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go ... show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!'"
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/08/06/0224255/Google-CEO-Schmidt-Predicts-End-of-Online-Anonymity
Food for thought.
I have no idea when the oil will peak, or run out, and I'm not about to get all armchair expert and pretend on the internet that I know.
What I do know is that it's recommended that a viable alternative is in place 10/20 years before peak, so oil use can be slowly phased out. Some believe we're already a decade late on that and counting..
I don't personally focus on how it "will affect people on an immediate individual level" as I'm probably too much of a fatalist for such discussions, Power Down: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World by Richard Heinberg is a good book on the subject though.
I say 'simplistically' because you seemed to be ignoring the scale and financial side of the problem completely. Modern industrial societies are completely dependent on fossil fuels, and oil plays a major role in US foreign policy, terrorism, war and geopolitics. The industrial world is addicted to oil, breaking that addiction is going to painful.
That process can only happen if an alternative is found, but if a viable alternative isn't found soon, peak oil will have a catastrophic effect on economies, the US in particular, and I don't see your rulers allowing that to happen.
So I could see an eventual world war breaking out when the US inevitably tries to take control of the remaining oil, (the fact that they have built 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, maybe suggests that some are already preparing for such an outcome.)
Although this is nothing new, ever since WW1 (when the great war machines switched from coal to oil power) there have been battles going on to try and control oil production. - Here's an interesting piece about the inception of Americas favourite oil company BP - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2010/06/post.html