Oil , and Hubbert's peak ?

[Cybernetist]

Have any of you heard of Hubbert's peak oil theory ?

What it states is that the consumption/depletion of any natural resource follows a curve, similar to that of a standard distribution curve. That when the resource is developed the increase in the rate of extraction proceeds at a near exponential rate as technology and efficiency in extracting the resource improve. This continues until the preferred grade of the resource is no longer readily available or has been depleted and what remains is impurer and more difficult to extract from the environment and process. The rate of extraction hits a plateau and then enters into decline even as the technology and efficiencies are further improved in order to harvest the even more valuable resource. The theory has successfully predicted the rate of extraction of coal from Great Britain and of oil in the United States and even resources that are extracted from the environment at a greater rate than they reproduce.

A more detailed and accurate description I'm sure is available on the internet for those who chooses to avail themselves of the tools at their disposal.

I invite you to comment on the validity of the predictions that have been made using it's model and the theory itself as well as the consequences of the predictions made using it.

 

[Kuu]

Yeah, I've heard about it. I generally agree with it... but I don't have much to say. I'd rather discuss the implications of it, but maybe that would be threadjacking... unless of course, you also wanted to discuss the implications of it, not only its validity...

 

[Cybernetist]

If you wish to discus implications then by all means.

Do you think that we can farm as effectively at the scale we currently do without the inputs from fossil fuel derived sources such as fertilizers and pesticides ?

At a minimum nitrogen based fertilizers being derived from natural gas and pesticides being derived from petroleum.

 

[Jordan~]

We should switch to vertical and non-pastoral farming. If consumerism happens to die because of high oil prices, then hurray.

 

[Kuu]

No, I don't think we could. At least not with the same farming techniques. And also, I don't think we should, though we need to take population under control first....

I was also thinking of the possibility of vertical farming... its a great idea if they get it to work... A bit of more heavy investment up-front, but you get to have total control of the crops, so maybe in that clean environment where nutrients are specifically calculated for the plants there would be few need for pesticides and fertilizers, yet still get quality and high yield. Besides, bringing agriculture into the city makes sense, urbanism-wise. Less transportation means less energy (oil) consumption. And then the lands could go back to being forests. And as people no longer need to live in rural zones, the infrastructure network would be relieved of bringing water, gas and electricity to far off places, thus concentrating on the urban cores.

Unfortunately, it seems the most important players in the global oil issue are the ones that take it less seriously. All of a sudden people are crying "I can't drive my car! Oil prices keep rising!" when they've been warned for years that it would happen...

 

[Cybernetist]

If consumerism happens to die because of high oil prices, then hurray.

The field of study know as economics, that perpetuates the idea that an exponential increase in profits is an indicator of the viability of an economy or a company needs to be first assailed as those under it's expectations have conceived consumerism as a tool to achieve that end as closely as possible given the constraints of limited resources.

Less transportation means less energy (oil) consumption. And then the lands could go back to being forests. And as people no longer need to live in rural zones, the infrastructure network would be relieved of bringing water, gas and electricity to far off places, thus concentrating on the urban cores.

The suburbs draw residents out of their host towns/cities and seem to marshal more resources for their expansion and other developments, make for a poor use of land and render impractical the use of means of transportation other than an automobile for even the most trivial of tasks such as buying groceries.

I do not think that farms should be abandoned or the existing infrastructure neglected for farms that actually produce food and not the fodder of industry.

The suburbs also present a quandary to the farmer who owns land next to one, as land values to near properties increase so do those of the farmer. As a result the taxes on the property and no longer can the farmer afford to pursue the activities that previously would of been engaged in as they do not typically generate the income necessary to pay the increased upkeep the property would then require.

 

[Kuu]

The suburbs draw residents out of their host towns/cities and seem to marshal more resources for their expansion and other developments, make for a poor use of land and render impractical the use of means of transportation other than an automobile for even the most trivial of tasks such as buying groceries.

Uhh yeah I knew that already (doesn't everyone?)... So what's your point?

I do not think that farms should be abandoned or the existing infrastructure neglected for farms that actually produce food and not the fodder of industry.

Well of course they wouldn't be abandoned overnight... but if vertical farming works out to be better, then most traditional farms would slowly become extinct just by the act of market forces...

Also consider that if fossil fuels become inviable, alternatives to petrodiesel would have to be developed in order to keep traditional farm equipment running... most probably biodiesel... and that won't be cheap from the start. (Obviously using food crops like corn to produce alternative fuels when there are extensive food shortages is plain stupidity)

Besides, traditional farming damages the land, pollutes water, as well as displacing plant and animal species... increasing ecological concerns would also favor alternative methods in the long run...

The suburbs also present a quandary to the farmer who owns land next to one, as land values to near properties increase so do those of the farmer. As a result the taxes on the property and no longer can the farmer afford to pursue the activities that previously would of been engaged in as they do not typically generate the income necessary to pay the increased upkeep the property would then require.

Yes, that happens today... But considering peak oil, prices aren't going to come down, and car-based transportation will become impossible... that basically means the death of suburbs. People would then have to abandon suburbs and live in densified, walkable urban cores, like I said before.... and thus the property values of suburbs (and the neighboring farm land) would plummet. Of course that would be just a tiny breath of hope for farmers as they wait to the inevitable: being put out of business by vertical farms.

 

[Jordan~]

The future has no place for rural living. People will live in arcologies, the countryside will be uninhabited and reclaimed by nature. Farming will occur in cities, inside specially-designed buildings, extremely intensively. Cities will be all but self-sufficient in necessities, especially with the advent of nanotechnology. Let old ways die out.

 

[Cybernetist]

I didn't know what skyfarms were. I think the idea has merit and would like to see it implemented and succeed.

I also think that algae holds great potential for producing a liquid fuel from a species with high lipid content in a relatively small area. The projected yield from results in the lab is on the order of 20000 gallons/acre/year for a raceway.