Britain faces 'oil crunch' within five years, Richard Branson warns

flaire

Davesnave wrote: »

Forget cars. In an oil starved future, producing food will be of primary importance, so supplying sufficient of it to make fertilizer will be of paramount importance. Much of the rest will be needed for distribution.

Heating cold houses might come a poor third; I'm not sure.:(

For every 1 calorie of food consumed, 10 calories of energy from oil are used to grow, harvest and transport it. Pesticides and fertilizers all use oil.

Cuba faced an artificial 'Peak Oil' back in the 1990's following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the embargoes forced on it by the United States. The average Cuban lost 20lbs during the 'Special Period', as they refer to it. By converting every bit scrap of spare land (from roof tops, to patios), reverting to organic farming methods (including the use of the oxen), and de-centralising farming to individual farmers and co-ops, Cuba was able to feed itself.

Britain might have to 'Dig for Victory' once more.

Davesnave

ILW wrote: »

No point in producing all that food if you can't drive to Tescos to pick it up.

Oh ye of little imagination!

How food gets from the retailer to the consumer would be a matter of ingenuity. Different ways would be invented to suit varying places, but they'd probably not require going to some glass & steel box at an out of town retail park.

They might even involve the purchasers lugging the goods home manually and, possibly, (heaven forbid) co-operating with their neighbours to do it.

Serious stuff, but hey, they'd all be fitter.:)

Really2

Davesnave wrote: »

co-operating with their neighbours to do it.

Was that not one of the things you could not do in the 10 commandments?

Davesnave

flaire wrote: »

For every 1 calorie of food consumed, 10 calories of energy from oil are used to grow, harvest and transport it. Pesticides and fertilizers all use oil.

Britain might have to 'Dig for Victory' once more.

We had a good discussion about this on Greenfingered about two months ago, where the Cuban experience was mentioned.

Basically, a loss or serious reduction in inorganic fertilizers might involve some return to Victorian ways of land husbandry, though we'd still have modern varieties of plants.

We have almost trained people to separate their rubbish in the last ten years, but getting them to collect 'night soil' might pose a few problems!:rotfl:

bernard_shaw

chucky wrote: »

did the bronze age end because they ran out of copper or tin?

Ugh. That's such a red herring. The bronze age ended because the smelting of iron (a superior material) became possible.

There is a connection to energy, tho. The development/discovery of charcoal as a higher temperature energy source (greater energy density than untreated wood) enabled the transition to iron tools.

At present (and for the next nn years or so), we are in the process of transitioning to renewable sources of energy which have lower energy densities than the fossil fuels which we've been using.

It is in how we manage that transition where the risk is to be seen.

Nuclear power alone has a higher energy density, but don't expect a surge of new development in the immediate term. Since Chernobyl the supply chain has withered.

There are at present only 2 (two) suppliers in the whole wide world capable of and qualified to forge the large pressure vessels required for commercial reactors and these enterprises currently have orderbooks full-up for the next 15 years. One is Japan Steel Works, the other is Forgemasters Sheffield (remember the Supergun?). IIRC there is a Russian heavy industry consortium (can't remember the name) trying to prequal a forge at the moment for American customers, this is not a trivial process and it's not going well for them.


Edit.
That all comes over as a bit tinfoil hat, I know. But it's all true.

chucky

bernard_shaw wrote: »

Ugh. That's such a red herring. The bronze age ended because the smelting of iron (a superior material) became possible.

There is a connection to energy, tho. The development/discovery of charcoal as a higher temperature energy source (greater energy density than untreated wood) enabled the transition to iron tools.

which agrees with my point and you're agreeing that throughout history we have developed to use other technology

bernard_shaw

chucky wrote: »

which agrees with my point and you're agreeing that throughout history we have developed to use other technology

Yesssss. But you should read the whole of my earlier post which broadly highlights the challenges facing us over the coming short few decades. It is in how we manage the transition that we can identify risks.

The bronze to iron age transition to using charcoal, and so making iron tools, took hundreds of years and involved wars, shortages, trade disruptions and, indeed societal collapse.

It's all in the Idiot's Guide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_age#Transition_from_bronze_to_iron
Actually, that last article's quite interesting - it seems that, in the Levant, the bronze age ended (and a period of turbulence began) precisely because they did run out of tin.

chucky

bernard_shaw wrote: »

Yesssss. But you should read the whole of my earlier post which broadly highlights the challenges facing us over the coming short few decades. It is in how we manage the transition that we can identify risks.

The bronze to iron age transition to using charcoal, and so making iron tools, took hundreds of years and involved wars, shortages, trade disruptions and, indeed societal collapse.

It's all in the Idiot's Guide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_age#Transition_from_bronze_to_iron
Actually, that last article's quite interesting - it seems that, in the Levant, the bronze age ended (and a period of turbulence began) precisely because they did run out of tin.

i never said it was going to be easy

bernard_shaw wrote: »

Actually, that last article's quite interesting - it seems that, in the Levant, the bronze age ended (and a period of turbulence began) precisely because they did run out of tin.

they didn't really run out of tin - they had to invade other countries and take it from them.
that's one of the main reasons the Romans invaded Britain

bernard_shaw

chucky wrote: »

i never said it was going to be easy

they didn't really run out of tin - they had to invade other countries and take it from them.
that's one of the main reasons the Romans invaded Britain

Should we, therefore, invade Titan?

Kohoutek

bernard_shaw wrote: »

Should we, therefore, invade Titan?

No we should invade a country with lots of oil that can't defend itself....Blair and Bush figured that one out a few years ago.