Face Up to Natural Limits - Paul Mobbs in the Ecologist

[KenB]

List,

This brief article contains just one chart.  It does however clearly point out the seriousness of the situation Britain now faces from an energy security perspective.

http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/papers/ecologist-201001.html

I suggest we all start to work on a Plan B.


Ken

[Ted]

Ken, good to see you back.

Am I reading that graph correctly?  I find it hard to believe that we imported zero petroleum between 1980 and 2005. And presumably nuclear imports are for raw nuclear fuel rather than nuclear powered electricity.

[brackwell]

I believe this is so flawed i have difficulty knowing where to start!  Mankind just takes the easiest route.

Chop down all the forests when they have gone
Dig for peat, then coal then oil- Ups imported all increases in price (OPEC 1970s) better find our own (birth of north sea oil)
Oils getting expensive better stop just burning it - that Nuclear looks nice and cheap and convenient.
That cheap north sea gas (by product of needing the oil) lets use this more
Foreigners have cheaper oil and gas, lets use that instead. ( the chinese produce stuff for 10% the price lets buy that)
Petrol goes up in price lets buy more economical cars
Gas and electricity go up - insulate more (is it 50% of houses still do not have loft insulation) - Makes investment in other new technologies viable

and so it goes on and on and on

Supply and demand always balances. A shortage of something will increase its price and mankind will find the next easiest route. You never know perhaps putting on a pullover instead of turning up the central heating !

[Outtasight]

I liked the advice that we should only buy and make stuff that is well made and lasts a decent time and is repairable rather than disposable.

The most insane example these days are ink jet printers.  For some, it costs the same or nearly less to buy a new printer than to buy replacement ink cartridges for it.  So car boot sales are flooded now with nearly new printers that have no ink because folk just buy another printer rather than the ink!

The whole idea of changing the car number plates twice a year was to make people buy cars more often - Not twice a year obviously, but if you've got an old 52 plate and it's coming up to the 10 plate, you'd be tempted to sell the old one and buy a new one before its value dropped after the plate change.  Otherwise, you might have waited until later in the year. Psychologically, changing the plates twice as often convinces people that their car is ageing twice as fast (human perception of time being measured in elapsed "events" - hours, seconds, plate changes).  In fact, you car is ageing twice as fast.  Because it's not built to last 20 years any more, just 10.  So it starts to fall apart and get shabby twice as fast and this further reinforces the buying cues vital to maintain economic growth rates.

At a mere 5% growth per year, if you assume that resource consumption follows economic activity then in 15 years you will double consumption and in 30 years you will have quadrupled consumption.  You want to elect someone who promises you an indefinite geometric progression with no consequences?

[KenB]

I think the point Paul Mobbs was making is that we are going to be back to the bad old days of the 1970s - importing almost all our primary energy, but not having the manufacturing base or GDP to pay for it. What about the 876 billion debt that now needs servicing?

If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing, something is drastically wrong.


Ken

[dhaslam]

There is also  an economic benefit in  developing renewable resources.      If you spend say ten billion on  a tidal  generating system   that saves one billion per annum in imported oil or gas.  That ten billion doesn't disappear in the same way as the  payments for imported oil does, most of it circulates back into the economy.     

[Outtasight]

I think the point Paul Mobbs was making is that we are going to be back to the bad old days of the 1970s - importing almost all our primary energy, but not having the manufacturing base or GDP to pay for it.

That's why it's suddenly become economic to re-open some of the coal mines that were closed down in the UK and there's a push for open cast mining of new seams and also a push for coal powered generation (not only because it's quick to build). 

They also plan to reintroduce coal gasification to supplement imports and dwindling North Sea gas (so going full circle back to when the Victorians made gas from coal).  This enables access to 17 billion tonnes or 300 years supply (estimated by British Coal Gasification) by burning the coal underground and so converting it to gas, avoiding the need to mine it and then process it.  It relies on them building CO₂ capture and store systems though...

http://www.britishcoalgasification.co.uk/UCG.html

[brackwell]

Perhaps this will change/balance peoples perspective. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/

Ken

[Ancient Brewer]

The decline of British manufacturing has not been anywhere near as bad suggested. Back in the 1970's manufacturers did all their services inhouse - advertising, marketing, HR, etc. These were all classed as manufacturing jobs. Outsource them to stand alone services and they are reclassified as service jobs.