The Greater Depression: How are you preparing?

[Demal]

Coal and natural gas can't easily replace oil. Natural gas can work for CNG cars, but changing the motor fleet over to CNG would be an overwhelming project (and how much oil would it take to create or convert all of those cars?) And can semi trucks run on CNG? I've never seen one, but that doesn't mean they're not out there. Coal can be converted into liquid (didn't Hitler do that?) but it's not efficient

 

Natural gas and coal would be used to generate electricity. Cars would be electric.

 

Last year, Wal-mart introduced some Peterbilt 386's which run on LNG:

 

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/20/wal-mart-now-using-lng-trucks/

 

Wal-mart is also looking at the hybrid electric/plug-in electric car market:

 

Imagine your customers pulling into your parking lot, and seeing wind turbines and solar panels, and being able to charge their cars while they shop. I think that would make them feel good about shopping at your stores. It would also make them feel good if they could save money in the process. What if we fed the power generated by those wind turbines and solar powers back into the electrical grid? Just imagine the impact of our customers being able to buy eco-friendly energy at the unbeatable Wal-Mart price.

 

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/24/walmart-ceo-there-is-a-place-for-wal-mart-in-the-hybrid-electr/

 

Even though I'm not a fan of Wal-mart in general, I feel a bit better about peak oil if Wal-mart's thinking ahead. It's that capitalism bringing about innovation thing.

[Spy Car]

To me, this forum does not seem overly diverse in terms of GENDER! :glare:

 

It's only 8824 to 7 :D

[Jean in Wisc]

Natural gas and coal would be used to generate electricity. Cars would be electric.

 

Last year, Wal-mart introduced some Peterbilt 386's which run on LNG:

 

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/20/wal-mart-now-using-lng-trucks/

 

Wal-mart is also looking at the hybrid electric/plug-in electric car market:

 

Imagine your customers pulling into your parking lot, and seeing wind turbines and solar panels, and being able to charge their cars while they shop. I think that would make them feel good about shopping at your stores. It would also make them feel good if they could save money in the process. What if we fed the power generated by those wind turbines and solar powers back into the electrical grid? Just imagine the impact of our customers being able to buy eco-friendly energy at the unbeatable Wal-Mart price.

 

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/24/walmart-ceo-there-is-a-place-for-wal-mart-in-the-hybrid-electr/

 

Even though I'm not a fan of Wal-mart in general, I feel a bit better about peak oil if Wal-mart's thinking ahead. It's that capitalism bringing about innovation thing.

 

 

As of today, it costs more to generate a kilowatt of electricity through either solar or wind technology than through the traditional means. Maybe someday it will be the "better" option, but right now it is not anywhere near the "unbeatable Wal-Mart price."

 

If oil and coal prices keep going up, maybe this will be the future. Who knows?

 

Jean

[Sara R]

Very cool about the LNG trucks. If we could get an electrified rail system that would solve a lot of problems. Of course, that requires money, and we as a country are kind of out of money. I think it would have been a lot smarter to put money there than into the black hole of bank balance sheets, but I think it's too late now...not that we ever had any of that money to begin with.

 

Revamping the US motor fleet, creating solar panels and wind turbines--all of that requires oil. And it requires coordination. People need to agree that this is the right thing to do, and that kind of agreement is hard to come by.

[KidsHappen]

Natural gas and coal would be used to generate electricity. Cars would be electric.

 

Last year, Wal-mart introduced some Peterbilt 386's which run on LNG:

 

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/20/wal-mart-now-using-lng-trucks/

 

Wal-mart is also looking at the hybrid electric/plug-in electric car market:

 

Imagine your customers pulling into your parking lot, and seeing wind turbines and solar panels, and being able to charge their cars while they shop. I think that would make them feel good about shopping at your stores. It would also make them feel good if they could save money in the process. What if we fed the power generated by those wind turbines and solar powers back into the electrical grid? Just imagine the impact of our customers being able to buy eco-friendly energy at the unbeatable Wal-Mart price.

 

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/24/walmart-ceo-there-is-a-place-for-wal-mart-in-the-hybrid-electr/

 

Even though I'm not a fan of Wal-mart in general, I feel a bit better about peak oil if Wal-mart's thinking ahead. It's that capitalism bringing about innovation thing.

 

The Walmart in Princeton TX has both wind and solar generators that help power the store. Many Walmarts now have sunroofs and and only run minimal lighting. I haven't seen any other major retailer making these kinds of changes yet.

[KidsHappen]

It's only 8824 to 7 :D

 

That just means that you seven really stand out! Do we really have that many people? :001_huh: I can remember when it was about 500.

[MomLovesClassics]

While on the subject of Walmart, I can't remember where I saw this. They hired someone to help them become more ecofriendly and have a more ecofriendly appearance. I can't remember what I saw that on. I believe that same person wa helping them to improve their image. I thas been a while back, so I am sorry I can't recall. Our Walmart had small section of organic beef for a bit, but they discontinued because it didn't sell, I believe it didn't sell because it was actually overpriced, and when I say that I mean it was more than anywhere else which is not what you expect at Walmart. When I inquired about organic chicken they assumed Pilgrim's Pride was organic. I most certainly knew the difference, and had to point out the difference to them. I rarely look around there so I was suprised to see a new organic and natural skin care section, and small organic pasta section. They do have some organic things scattered about if you look. They just increased the price of organic sugar and flour so this shocked me. It is actually not cheaper there. I haven't compared prices on all their organic stuff.

[BalanceSeeker]

I always gain a lot of information from these threads and enjoy them. We have always, more or less, lived this way. We have no debt and have not had any since 1987 when we paid off our mortgage. We pay cash, repair, trade and buy used 'quality'. We have a large garden and orchard, chickens and are considering a steer. We store ahead (I wouldn't say stockpile) exactly, but I have enough on hand that we could survive for probably four months except for fresh dairy products. We have two woodburning stoves and use our gas furnace as a supplement.

 

We have never nor do we now live this way because we believe in some 'great depression or catastrophe'. We live this way because we like it: simple, self-reliant, healthy, peaceful. We have never wanted to be tied to jobs so we eliminated debt as early as we could in our marriage and made a commitment to do all we could to not incur debt. We don't like monthly bills so have tried to pare that down to the bare minimum. We value our time and freedom. Of course, some people think we're not free at all since we're tied to our garden and animals, but that's how we find our freedom. I store up food because I detest driving in traffic and shopping plus it allows me to take advantage of sales. We try to live a healthy lifestyle so gardening and raising animals is huge plus in so many ways.

 

If a great depression comes, we will be better prepared than many. I guess it will be an added benefit. But that was not the reason for our chosen lifestyle. Even so, I'm always ready to learn new ways to avoid debt and live simply and frugally.

 

Janet

 

This is a mindset and lifestyle I could embrace :001_smile:

[TracyR]

"The Great Depression Ahead by Harry S Dent. He is an economy forecaster and has been about 98% accurate over the last 30 years"

 

I'll have to laugh a little on this comment. I have yet to meet an economic forecaster that has been 98% right about the economy. EVER. For the vast majority of the time they are WRONG.

 

The recession is depressing enough to even think that there is going to be a Great Depression of any sorts.LOL.

 

Anyways , in the spirit of things I'm on both sides of the fence. I do believe in becoming debt free. Everyone should strive for that. There's nothing worse then being in debt. Period.

We've always have grown our own food. We live out in the country. The bad part is we have only a few months out of the year to do it. Global warming. Phooey. Our area didn't get that memo. With having over 300+ inches of snow this year, ice cold temperatures , and the fact it has yet to really get warm yet and we only have until about late August for the rest of summer. I'm sure the earth is doing what it is supposed to do. We all know about the Ice Age. Man didn't cause that, it happened.

We do couponing ( something you should look into if you don't do it already) to save as much as we can on food and to stock up a little. We chose to live frugally. I'll admit we have to work on debt but that was accrued when my youngest was born with multiple health problems.

We recycle, we conserve energy the best we can. We do our part to be responsible people, but we don't do it thinking there is going to be a great depression.

If something like that should happen then so be it we'll ride it out like we are riding out the recession. If not, then we continue to live life the best we can.

 

As for oil, we still have quite a bit. Most of our oil comes from Canada and if extracting oil from the tar sands weren't so expensive we would have enough oil to last our life time and the life time of our children and children's children (Johnson,2009). Plus the United States continues to decide to not tap into its own resources so things will continue to be this way as long as they don't .

 

I do agree that both sides of the fence should be discussed intelligently. I also think it would be fair if the original poster would cite his sources as well when quoting fact. I know that most people feel there will be a Depression ,but around 90% of economic forecasters believe that the recession will end in 2009 (Aversia,2009). As for me all I can do is what I am doing now and pray that the Lord won't ever let something like that happen in my lifetime.

References:

Aversia,J.(2009).Survey: Most Economists' Predict Recession Will End in '09. Retrieved June 9,2009,from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/survey-most-economists-pr_n_207975.html

 

Johnson,K.(2009). Oil Sands: Canada's 'Dirty' Oil Might Be More Important Than You Think. Retrieved June 9,2009,from: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/02/19/oil-sands-candas-dirty-oil-might-be-more-important-than-you-think/

Edited June 10, 2009 by TracyR

[HootOwl]

If one were compiling a library of pertinant reference books, what would you recommend? (not theory books, but how-tos for basic skills)

 

One that my dh and I have been reading is "Back to Basics" by Abigail R. Gehring. It is a fabulous how-to-do book for ALL kinds of homesteading and preparedness concerns. I heartily recommend it!

[Ibbygirl]

I just happened across this article while searching for tips on how to store water for hurricane season and I thought I should share it here since so many people are stocking up and storing supplies. I hope this helps someone. :)

 

http://www.liquid-stabilized-oxygen.com/copyright_protected.html

[DawnM]

Hey Jennifer. Actually, I live in NC. I have lived in WA before....does that count???? I went to college for 4 yerars in WA.

 

Dawn

 

It's people like you guys who give me hope for our economic future, and look we live in the same state! You have done very well for yourselves, and I'm sure there are many many more out there who have as well. And, I get the feeling that there are others on your same path, just less advanced in their plans.

[RegGuheert]

 

Many have asked for me to provide references for statements that I have put forth. I may do that on occasion, but in this thread I have been speaking from my beliefs, based on research over the past decade on this subject. Instead, I will offer some links to websites from which I have gathered much of my information.

 

Disclaimer: MomsintheGarden (AKA DW) finds much of the material in the links below to be disturbing to her. She is a worrier by nature and the discussion of extremely negative future scenarios is too much fodder for her somewhat-pessimistic imagination. Please consider yourself forewarned that the links below will not be comprised solely of the happy talk that many may be used to in the mainstream media.

 

Disclaimer 2: Many (All?) of the sites linked below are not run by Christians and contain statements from non-Christian viewpoints. If you are a Christian, you may occasionally find comments that you will find offensive. I know I do. However, for the most part, the discussions included are technical and do not consist of worldview-bashing.

 

Disclaimer 3: I am not affiliated with ANY of the sites linked below. I merely consider them to be the most accurate sources of information and prognostication that I have found.

 

My Favorites:

Life After the Oil Crash:

This blog is focused on the issues of the economic collapse that is predicted as a result of the peak in oil production. The link above is a decent primer on Peak Oil. My favorite part of the site, however, is the daily links to news on this subject. The list of links contains a brief snippet and very little other commentary. Five years ago, these links were to other blogs and many quite obscure. These days, most of his links are to MSM, yesterday's contains LA Times, Globe and Mail, NY Times, USA Today, etc. This site also sells a LOT of books on preparedness, for those that are looking for books. The books are found on the left sidebar of every page on the site.

 

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis:

This is an outstanding blog to help make sense of the worldwide economy. Basically, Mike Shedlock (Mish) links to articles and information in the MSM and criticises it from the prospective of the Austrian economics model. It is an enjoyable read and his predictions are incredibly accurate. Mish is prolific: expect to see 2 to 3 new articles on this site daily, even on weekends!

 

Patrick.net:

Everything you ever wanted to know about the real estate crash. Daily links to real-estate-related news.

 

Other Sites Worth Noting:

 

(I do not read any of the sites below regularly, at least not anymore.)

 

The Oil Drum:

This site is the best source of technical information about Peak Oil that I have found. Many, many oil industry experts frequent this site.

 

Charles Hugh Smith Weblog:

Charles Hugh Smith writes a daily essay on various matters, most of which I find quite interesting and compelling. He has them all archived and linked in the left sidebar. I find it quite amazing that he can speak so clearly on such a broad range of topics. I suspect many on this forum will enjoy his writings. Still, some of his conclusions are quite disturbing.

 

Ludwig von Mises Institute:

This website is devoted to Austrian economics. My DS frequents this site.

 

Financial Sense:

This website contains editorials from many financial writers covering a variety of topics. I believe many of the writers are from the school of Austrian economics, but I am not sure.

 

Enjoy!

 

 

Edited June 10, 2009 by RegGuheert

[MomLovesClassics]

There is something that makes water from air. Does anyone know anything about that?? I do not know what it is called. maybe that would be a good option if one does not have a lot of space? I think it is said to work well in humid climates, and the water is actually supposed to be much more pure and clean.

[Marylou]

 

Financial Sense:

This website contains editorials from many financial writers covering a variety of topics. I believe many of the writers are from the school of Austrian economics, but I am not sure.

 

 

 

 

 

Chuck Bently from www.crown.org talks about how the times we are in right now could be considered the calm before the storm. Not in a doomsday way, but in a "get prepared" sort of way.

 

His two minute video from January:

http://www.moneylife.org/site/AM/ContentManagerNet/Search/SearchRedirect.aspx?Section=Videos4&template=/ContentManagerNet/HTMLDisplay.aspx&ContentID=3740

Edited June 10, 2009 by dmmosher
video is almost 3 minutes

[RegGuheert]

...I know that most people feel there will be a Depression ,but around 90% of economic forecasters believe that the recession will end in 2009 (Aversia,2009)...

References:

Aversia,J.(2009).Survey: Most Economists' Predict Recession Will End in '09. Retrieved June 9,2009,from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/survey-most-economists-pr_n_207975.html...

Unfortunately, well over 90% (my educated guess) of the economists in the world have been indoctrinated in Keynesian economics, which is based on the writing of John Maynard Keynes. I don't have much positive to say about Keynes or his teaching, but I will make one observation: the predictions of Keynesian economists typically equate to "The economy will be better one year from now than it is today." As such, they have been consistently wrong for the past four years. Any economic model that is incapable of predicting downturns in the economy is seriously flawed, IMO.

 

BTW, all of us educated in the public school system in America have been indoctrinated in Keynesian economics. We also get bombarded by this stuff whenever we turn on any economic news on the TV (unless Ron Paul happens to be the interviewee!).

 

For those of you who want to be able to predict future trends in economics, I strongly recommend that you consider the Austrian economic model of Ludwig von Mises. Interestingly, I was introduced to this economic model through our homeschooling efforts! Some years ago, MomsintheGarden purchased a book entitled Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? by Richard Maybury to teach our gradeschool-level children basic economics. This is an outstanding primer on Austrian economics. I also enjoyed some of his other "Uncle Eric" books, such as Ancient Rome and How It Affects You Today. You can learn the more technical aspects of Austrian economics by visiting The Ludwig von Mises Institute.

 

Personally I find that predictions from the Austrian camp tend to be much more accurate and forward-looking than those of the Keynesian economists. As such, I tend to ignore the prognostications of Keynesians and seek out predictions by the Austrians. YMMV.

Edited June 10, 2009 by RegGuheert
Finished the sentence about Penny Candy...

[Audrey]

From where I'm sitting, I don't see anything so dire about the economy, but I do think it's a good idea to be prepared to do it all yourself -- no matter what we're talking about, whether it be economics, education, or what have you.

 

We have no debt, not even a mortgage. We have a farm. People have lived on this place for generations being entirely self-sufficient. I see no reason at all why we couldn't do the same. We do so much of it all ourselves already.

 

We can cook, sew and farm. Pretty much covers it, especially when we have no debt. The last completely self-sufficient step would be power generation, but I don't that as an issue (as in being able to pay the bill).

Edited June 10, 2009 by Audrey

[KingM]

I've done a lot of reading on the subject, including following peakoil.com for several years, and I don't think Peak Oil will bring us to our knees. As soon as we see sustained triple digit oil prices for a few years, we'll rebuild our rail system, for a start, and revamp nuclear power, go to natural gas powered vehicles, etc. It will be disruptive, but not the end of civilization.

 

We built a great rail network in the 19th Century, when we had a far smaller economy that used far, far less fossil fuel. We can certainly manage it now, even if we were caught in a second Great Depression.

 

Having said that, I do think there is at least a 10% chance of a collapse and we should have our financial house in order. In addition to being a good insurance policy, it make sense in other ways, too.

[heart'sjoy]

My dad loves to follow energy conservation issues. He's looking forward to replacing household lighting wiht LED lights.

 

Multiple income streams is a weekly topic with DH. Not just for us but in planning for our kids education. What skills will our kids need besides a college degree hopefully?

 

Best Regards from Texas

[Peek a Boo]

By the way, I couldn't find "snarky" in the dictionary. If it is a word, what does it mean. If not, what do you propose for its meaning?

 

 

I tend to be pretty snarky myself :)

 

google is your friend.

 

snark

 

noun

Combination of "snide" and "remark". Sarcastic comment(s).

Also snarky (adj.) and snarkily (adv.)

His commentary was rife with snark.

"Your boundless ineptitude is astounding," she snarkily declared.

 

verbal ingenuineness that is brief, subtle, yet quite stabbing. snark is often marked by deep creativity & use of psychological attack. It employs coldbloodedness and is best served unprovoked. Snark can contain hidden complimentary meaning under a mean face, but it hurts more than it strengthens.

 

A smart a$$ remark made by wanna be hipsters who think they cloak their douchebaggery in a self important sense of fey cleverness and ironic witticism.

 

Just be careful your snark doesn't follow the stereotype:

Usually those who make "snarky" remarks , can expect to receive a punch to the face , which usually results in cries of injustice, inevitably leading to an apology for bleeding all over the aggressors shirt after being punched again for being a whiny little %!tch.

 

good luck on the board.

very few here are pushovers and "my reasoning stands" won't get you far w/ a crowd that actually studies logic, lol.

[Ibbygirl]

A smart a$$ remark made by wanna be hipsters who think they cloak their douchebaggery in a self important sense of fey cleverness and ironic witticism.

 

 

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:Oh my gosh!!! I freaking choked when I read that!! It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything or it would have shot straight out my nose!!

[KidsHappen]

good luck on the board.

very few here are pushovers and "my reasoning stands" won't get you far w/ a crowd that actually studies logic, lol.

 

:iagree: "My reasoning stands" is not a legitimate argument especially when your previous reasoning was not a logical argument supported by facts at all but instead simply your unsupported opinion. A more appropriate response would have been "my opinion stands". I also agree with the "good luck" as you seem to have gotten off on an unnecessarily snarky start which will not earn you much respect here.

[Melissa in CA]

We were one of those family's that fell for the Y2K scare. We didn't do anything drastic, but we did stockpile lots of food, buy a dehydrator, water storage bottles, etc. We sat in absolute fear New Years Eve actually anticipating disaster. In the end, we were not able to consume the large quantities of food we bought before they expired and much of it got thrown away. We wasted a lot of time, energy, and FEAR in following the many, many, MANY supposed reputable websites predicting catastrophe.

 

We won't fall for that again. Instead, I think it's important to be wise with what you are given. Don't spend more than you make. Have money saved for emergencies. Keep plenty of food onhand. Don't use credit unless you can pay the full amount when you receive your statement. For example, we like gas cards because they are just easier...but we always, always, ALWAYS pay the full total when due.

 

I also think it would behoove all to get back to the basics. Stop relying on prepackaged foods. Learn how to bake your own breads and cook from scratch. Plant a garden if you can. Raise chickens, goats, pigs, cows, if you can, etc. But don't panic and don't live in fear. Many Christians can make "preparedness" an idol that consumes their entire lives and it brings no glory to God. Don't DO that! Just. Don't. You can be as prepared as humanly possible, putting your whole lives into it, and then in the blink of an eye have it all snatched from you. You can have the best-running, fully self-contained farm and have the government take it from you, or outlaws, or God. In all things moderation with absolute trust in the Lord. Do what you can, now. Be wise with what you've been given, now, and then trust God with the rest.

 

Matthew 6:25-34:

 

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

 

I personally don't think God wants us to worry about a "greater depression."

[RegGuheert]

I personally don't think God wants us to worry about a "greater depression."

I agree. Nice post, Melissa, thanks!

 

Please note, also, that God often commanded people in the Bible to *prepare* for coming calamities. Obvious examples are having Noah prepare for 100 years for the flood, instructions to the Jews regarding how to prepare for the passover and also instructions to Joseph in his interpretation of Pharoah's dream to have Egypt store up grain during the seven years of great plenty to prepare for the seven years of famine.

Edited June 11, 2009 by RegGuheert
Added Noah. Duh!

[Blueridge]

I don't think that anyone who did preparation of any kind before Y2K should be embarrassed by their actions. In a way, that was an exciting time. We were prompted to prepare. We were taking control of our own families and doing what we could to be ready, in case something did happen. We were learning in uncharted territory. Make no mistake, it very well could have happened. That was a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence that computer wizards around the world could not predict exactly what might actually happen. Nobody could be sure of the stability of technology at that time. Now isn't this much the same? We understand the economy is haywire right now. There are ways to prepare for the possibilities that may arise. It's the same with the swine flu. We know the flu exists. We know that it spreads. But nobody can fully predict what it will do with time. It may go away...it may mutate and become a monster. So I believe prudence is in order. Do what we can, within our means, with reasonable sense, and pray for guidance and protection.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Blueridge

[Melissa in CA]

 

Please note, also, that God often commanded people in the Bible to *prepare* for coming calamities. Obvious examples are having Noah prepare for 100 years for the flood, instructions to the Jews regarding how to prepare for the passover and also instructions to Joseph in his interpretation of Pharoah's dream to have Egypt store up grain during the seven years of great plenty to prepare for the seven years of famine.

 

Oh, I agree. But I think being prepared and being obsessed are two different things altogether. :001_smile: Not at all implying that you or others on this thread are "obsessed." Just that what is wisdom (applied knowledge) for one person, can become great sin for another. As a Christian, one must stay balanced in their preparedness, while also putting their complete trust in God alone.

[Melissa in CA]

I don't think that anyone who did preparation of any kind before Y2K should be embarrassed by their actions.

 

Not embarrassed at all, just wiser and more balanced this time around. ;)

 

Do what we can, within our means, with reasonable sense, and pray for guidance and protection.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: :D

[CLHCO]

 

Please note, also, that God often commanded people in the Bible to *prepare* for coming calamities. Obvious examples are having Noah prepare for 100 years for the flood, instructions to the Jews regarding how to prepare for the passover and also instructions to Joseph in his interpretation of Pharoah's dream to have Egypt store up grain during the seven years of great plenty to prepare for the seven years of famine.

 

Keep in mind that common wisdom for many people has always been extra stores in case of the unexpected. The wise farmer was not living hand to mouth expecting everything to always stay exactly the same. If he didn't have stored food, he would have extra money for purchasing food to get him through a failed season.

 

Stewardship is also something to be considered. If we are given the resources to prepare, tangible or monetary, when hard times hit (and I think it's rather arrogant to believe hard times of some sort can never come to us), we will be in a position to bless others instead of being a burden. If we constantly squander what we have been given and pointless material things, we will be much like the many examples of the fool in the Proverbs.

 

A good steward will also look for the opportunity to use those resources wisely, buying when the prices are lower and rotating food to ensure it does not go bad. The Y2K panic of sudden hording was possibly a lesson on how not to do it, but it's not a lesson to do nothing.

 

As for money, I have concerns over the health of the dollar so at the moment I'm trying to use what wisdom I can muster for myself to make sure I'm not relying only on just money to back me up, but also in goods if the money lost value.

 

The best mindset, if not preparing for some major collapse, is to simply prepare when things are good to not burden others, including the government nannies, when things get hard. Much of this can simply be common sense that people understood in previous generations. Today we assume someone will bail us out, but look at California. It is in enough trouble that there is rumor some may try to slash the Welfare programs. For people dependent on this, it will be a disaster. If you become dependent someday for any number of reasons and there is no back up plan available, not only will it be a disaster for you, but it will take away your opportunity to be a blessing or at least not a burden to others.

[KristineinKS]

I would also heartily recommend "The Encyclopedia of Country Living" by Carla Emery & the Foxfire books. Here are a few others I own and enjoy:

 

"Homesteaders Handbook: A Guide to Raising, Growing, Preparing and Preserving Foodstuffs..." by Rich Israel & Reny Slay (OOP)

 

"Root Cellaring: Natural Cold Storage of Fruits and Vegetables" by Mike & Nancy Bubel

 

"The Self-Reliant Homestead" by Charles A. Sanders

 

"Storey's Basic Country Skills: A Practical Guide to Self Reliance" by John & Martha Storey (Storey's publishes a number of helpful books, depending on your specific interests)

 

"Successful Small-Scale Farming: An Organic Approach" by Karl Schwenke

 

"Seed to Seed: Seed Saving and Growing Techniques" by Suzanne Ashworth

 

"The Self-Sufficient Life and How to Live It" by John Seymour

 

I find a lot of inspiration from the Nearings' books also (such as "The Good Life"). In addition, if you look at any of the above books on Amazon, you'll find similar books purchased by customers - many of which look quite good!

 

Herbal medicine is another area I'm just getting into. I just recently ordered "The Book of Herbal Wisdom: Using Plants as Medicine" and "The Earthwise Herbal" by Matthew Wood, but have not received them yet.

[Chez J]

My Favorites:

 

 

 

 

Life After the Oil Crash:

This blog is focused on the issues of the economic collapse that is predicted as a result of the peak in oil production. The link above is a decent primer on Peak Oil. My favorite part of the site, however, is the daily links to news on this subject. The list of links contains a brief snippet and very little other commentary. Five years ago, these links were to other blogs and many quite obscure. These days, most of his links are to MSM, yesterday's contains LA Times, Globe and Mail, NY Times, USA Today, etc. This site also sells a LOT of books on preparedness, for those that are looking for books. The books are found on the left sidebar of every page on the site.

 

 

 

 

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis:

This is an outstanding blog to help make sense of the worldwide economy. Basically, Mike Shedlock (Mish) links to articles and information in the MSM and criticises it from the prospective of the Austrian economics model. It is an enjoyable read and his predictions are incredibly accurate. Mish is prolific: expect to see 2 to 3 new articles on this site daily, even on weekends!

 

 

 

 

Patrick.net:

Everything you ever wanted to know about the real estate crash. Daily links to real-estate-related news.

 

 

 

 

Other Sites Worth Noting:

 

 

 

 

(I do not read any of the sites below regularly, at least not anymore.)

 

 

 

 

The Oil Drum:

This site is the best source of technical information about Peak Oil that I have found. Many, many oil industry experts frequent this site.

 

 

 

 

Charles Hugh Smith Weblog:

Charles Hugh Smith writes a daily essay on various matters, most of which I find quite interesting and compelling. He has them all archived and linked in the left sidebar. I find it quite amazing that he can speak so clearly on such a broad range of topics. I suspect many on this forum will enjoy his writings. Still, some of his conclusions are quite disturbing.

 

 

 

 

Ludwig von Mises Institute:

This website is devoted to Austrian economics. My DS frequents this site.

 

 

 

 

Financial Sense:

This website contains editorials from many financial writers covering a variety of topics. I believe many of the writers are from the school of Austrian economics, but I am not sure.

 

 

 

 

Enjoy!

 

 

 

 

I read Financial Sense and Life After The Oil Crash daily. The breaking news page on LATOC is an excellent news aggregator of breaking economic news. For news related to the Middle East, I like the blog by Joel Rosenberg. He doesn't post often, but I pay attention when he writes as he is very well connected.

 

Sometimes I do have to "take a break" from the sites as it can get to you.

 

Lesley

[KingM]

We were one of those family's that fell for the Y2K scare. We didn't do anything drastic, but we did stockpile lots of food, buy a dehydrator, water storage bottles, etc. We sat in absolute fear New Years Eve actually anticipating disaster. In the end, we were not able to consume the large quantities of food we bought before they expired and much of it got thrown away. We wasted a lot of time, energy, and FEAR in following the many, many, MANY supposed reputable websites predicting catastrophe.

 

 

If it makes you feel any better, I worked as a software engineer and there were several other software engineers at my firm who thought those old lines of legacy code would bring civilization to its knees. When even the so-called experts are fooled...

 

I have mixed feelings about these things. On the one hand, sometimes civilization does suffer a collapse of sorts, and I'm not just talking about the fall of the Roman Empire or the Black Death. Imagine living in Poland in 1938, for example. I bet people who had a few gold coins or some extra wheat had a better chance of surviving, and maybe getting their families out of the country. I think the chance of a huge disaster in any given lifetime is non-trivial.

 

On the other hand people have been predicting the end of the world for as long as we have records. Every time there has been a big war or a famine or a even a comet in the sky, people have said that it's the world coming to an end. But it hasn't yet.

 

And it probably won't next year, or the year after that, either.

[Peek a Boo]

I have mixed feelings about these things. On the one hand, sometimes civilization does suffer a collapse of sorts, and I'm not just talking about the fall of the Roman Empire or the Black Death. Imagine living in Poland in 1938, for example. I bet people who had a few gold coins or some extra wheat had a better chance of surviving, and maybe getting their families out of the country. I think the chance of a huge disaster in any given lifetime is non-trivial.

 

This is another valid point: "disaster" and "collapse of civilization" has different meanings for different people. Proper preparation can be suitable for many different types of disasters.

[Jorsay]

:iagree: "My reasoning stands" is not a legitimate argument especially when your previous reasoning was not a logical argument supported by facts at all but instead simply your unsupported opinion. A more appropriate response would have been "my opinion stands". I also agree with the "good luck" as you seem to have gotten off on an unnecessarily snarky start which will not earn you much respect here.

 

 

I disagree.

 

1. My argument was simple, well reasoned, and based on mutually agreed upon facts.

 

2. When someone claims to be pointing out fallacies in your argument and you demonstrate that they are not fallacies. There is no reason to restate the same argument. "My reasoning stands" is sufficient. Also, if someone does not address one of the premises in your argument, a restatement of your argument will not improve your argument. In such a case, "My reasoning stands" is a sufficient reply.

 

The discussion went as follows:

 

This belief is based upon a series of false statements such as "The issue at hand is that we will never be able to extract more oil each day than we currently do." You don't have to be an economist, sientist, or oil expert to realize such a statement is false. Just reason through it. If someone builds another oil well and starts extracting oil, more oil is being extracted than previously. For all practical purposes, there is no end to the number of oil wells we could dig. Doesn't this make sense?

 

 

No. There are several fallacies in your statements:

- The assumption that the existing wells continue to produce the same amount of oil as you add new ones is false. In fact, in today's world, it is necessary to continuously drill new wells in order just to keep the production level from falling.

 

My reasoning stands

I made no such premise that we should drill new wells into already tapped fields. This was an attempt by Regguheert to obfuscate. It did not weaken my argument and required no response other than "My reasoning stands."

 

- Drilling new wells does not necessarily equate to adding new flows of oil. As you drill more wells in an oil field, the production rate of ALL the wells in the field is reduced. At some point adding more wells does not lead to more overall oil flow. Please note that Saudi Arabia has been ramping up drilling over the past couple of years by a factor of 5 IIRC and they have NOT been able to increase production. Other states in the Persian Gulf are now on their endless decline.

 

THere are wells that are untapped. My reasoning still stands

Notice the "not necessarily" in Regguheert's response. This is as much as an admission that drilling new wells will increase production. Again, Regguheert attempted to cloud the issue by making an assumption that drilling can only take place in old fields rather than new fields. As he admits in another post, he is aware that even in the US there are untapped fields.

AJ in Ohio]

That there are reported 2 Trillion barrels located 1000 feet below the surface of the Rockies. On August 8, 2005, Bush gave the mandate for its extraction.

 

Sorry, thought this FACT was included in previous article. Evidently we have more oil inside our borders than all other proven reserves on earth.

Things that make you go hmmmm....

 

I don't dispute that fact.

 

And back to regguheert alledging fallacies in my argument...

 

- Drilling wells where there is no oil does not improve the situation. The simple fact is that there IS an end to the number of wells you can drill.

 

My reasoning stands

This point does not address my premise and again a "My reasoning stands" is sufficient. Notice that Regguheert never addresses my argument which is that it is only logical that drilling more oil must increase production. Notice also that my argument has nothing to do with opinion. My argument is as simple as oil production is at a rate of x (doesn't matter what x is). Drilling oil has a positive rate of production. Starting with rate x and adding some positive rate of production is an increase. The assumption that drilling is done on an oil field that has already been drilled is an unnecessary assumption (given the acknowledgement that there are untapped oil fields) and thus an attempt to obfuscate.

 

The theory that a depression is coming because we cannot increase oil production is unsound.

 

My reasoning stands.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Jorsay

[Peek a Boo]

Jorsay, you are STILL wrong.

 

which facts do you think are "mutually agreed upon"?

have you even read any of the links he offered?

 

Oil production can and does decrease.

Sometimes they have to STOP drilling because they CAN't get anymore oil out. Drilling new wells won't help if 10 wells become depleted as they drill one new one. That is simple math.

 

a nice easy entry from wiki:

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. The concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines—sometimes rapidly—until the field is depleted. This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve, and has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.

You can also read the Criticism part of that entry for debatable *opinions,* but there are no "mutually agreed facts" that give you a slam dunk in this discussion.

 

"not necessarily" simply takes into account that there are a ton of variables out there, and that it might increase in some areas and might decrease in others. The fluctuation needs to be accounted for. Not to mention that "new untapped fields" have their own [possibly unseen] flaws that can sink a nasty wrench into the drilling process.

 

I'm sure you believe that you have demonstrated his arguments to be fallacies, but what we're telling you is that you have done an insufficient job of that based on observable facts. Apparently there are a few experts out there that disagree with BOTH of you.

 

Your opinion may end up being proved right in 300 years --as may his- but in general, your claim that he is completely wrong is still flawed, and still stands as flawed. And re-asserting it does not make it more logical or correct.

[creekland]

Jorsay, you are STILL wrong.

 

I'm sure you believe that you have demonstrated his arguments to be fallacies, but what we're telling you is that you have done an insufficient job of that based on observable facts. Apparently there are a few experts out there that disagree with BOTH of you.

 

Your opinion may end up being proved right in 300 years --as may his- but in general, your claim that he is completely wrong is still flawed, and still stands as flawed. And re-asserting it does not make it more logical or correct.

 

Thank you so much for writing things so well and saving the rest of us the trouble... :)

[Renee in NC]

That's what I call having to have the last word! 8 days later - dragging the thread back up, and in effect saying, "I am right and you are wrong!" without actually adding anything to the discussion.

 

lol

[Jorsay]

That's what I call having to have the last word! 8 days later - dragging the thread back up, and in effect saying, "I am right and you are wrong!" without actually adding anything to the discussion.

 

lol

 

I've been gone for 10 days. I noticed the abuse to which I was subjected during those ten days and decided to respond. Some have responded thinking that they are defending regguheert's argument when they have actually misunderstood it. Some, like yourself, still are not using reason to argue. I have laid out an argument with premises and a conclusion. Regguheert attacked my premises and I defended his attacked by pointing out that they his facts, even if accepted, do not contradict my premises. Thus, by the rules of logic, my conclusion stands. This is how reasoning works; it is far from saying "I am right and you are wrong." Emotional responses such as yours to a reasoned argument are somewhat mean and demonstrate a certain desperation.

 

Oil production can and does decrease.

Sometimes they have to STOP drilling because they CAN't get anymore oil out. Drilling new wells won't help if 10 wells become depleted as they drill one new one. That is simple math.

 

You are confused about the arguments that have been presented here; both mine and regguheert's. There are two premises made by regguheert that I have attacked. They are:

 

1. oil is reserves are almost used up.

2. Even if oil is not almost used up, the rate at which oil can be taken from the ground is at a maximum.

 

Statement number 1 was conceded by regguheert when he agreed that "2 Trillion barrels located 1000 feet below the surface of the Rockies". This is more oil than the entire world was previously thought to have.

 

Your statement indicates the reason that oil is at a peak is because the oil wells run dry as fast as new oil wells in new fields can be drilled. I do not believe that anyone but you is making that claim. Neither regguheert nor his experts in the books and links claim that 'peak oil' is caused by not being able to build oil wells as fast as they are running out. Do you agree regguheert? There is a theory that, at some number of oil wells for a specific field, more wells in that same oil field will not increase oil production from that oil field. This theory has then been applied to the world oil reserves and called 'peak oil'. (In my opinion, it has been applied incorrectly.) 'Peak oil' is someone's theory. All Experts do not agree with that theory as applied to the world's global reserves. In fact, in order for it to be correct, it assumes that we have tapped most of the worlds oil reserves. Yet, the 2 trillion barrel field discussed and agreed upon (peek a boo) means that we are not at peak oil production (even if you agree with the peak oil theory as applied globally). Regguheert clearly sees that this is a problem with his theory and he defends by adjusting his premise with the following:

MAXIMUM rate at which the oil can be extracted from the Rockies is 3 million barrels per day.

Although this point, (if agreed upon and I do not agree) defends regguheert's argument well after only a small adjustment, it also demonstrates that he agrees with me that the rate of oil production has not peaked. Despite this, he does not amend his next sentence "The issue at hand is that we will never be able to extract more oil each day than we currently do." by saying " to extract 'much more' oil each day" or "a 'significant amount more' of oil each day". Thus, rather than moving the argument along to his new premise which is "oil production can be increased but not at a rate comensurate with consumption", he keeps the focus on his initial premise which is false logic is applied to his own interpretation of the facts.

 

Regguheert's argument that oil consumption is about to outpace oil production and thus we are headed for a greater depression' stands upon either of the two premises numbered above. I have demonstrated, with logic and agreed upon facts, that these two premises are false. He countered my argument by saying that drilling more wells in already tapped fields or where there is no oil will not increase oil production. However, this did not address my premise of drilling in untapped fields. Thus, my premise still stands; and my argument has not been shown to be invalid and unsound.

 

We don't have to wait 300 years to see who is correct. It is a debate and can be won or lost right here if the parties agree upon certain key facts. We have agreed on most of these key facts. That's the beauty of this particular debate.

 

"not necessarily" simply takes into account that there are a ton of variables out there, and that it might increase in some areas and might decrease in others. The fluctuation needs to be accounted for.

 

This is incorrect. Perhaps regguheert would like to clarify since it is his statement. However, 'not necessarily' indicates that speaker believes that the veracity of the statement depends upon some circumstance. The statement may be wrong but, under some circumstance, the statement may be correct. It does NOT mean that the statement is wrong under all circumstances, as you are claiming above.

 

that he is completely wrong"

 

Why did you add the word "completely" when you misquoted me? This word is superfluous and inflammatory and I don't believe that I used it.

[KingM]

Jorsay,

 

Nobody is arguing that there aren't still huge quantities of oil left in the earth's surface, but the fact is that the low hanging fruit has largely been plucked. What's left is in deep water, or in war torn regions of the world or super giant, so-called elephant, fields that have been producing for decades.

 

You refer to the two trillion barrels under Colorado and Utah as a resource. This is not actually oil, it is shale, with the energy density of baked potatoes (literally). It is what will become oil after millions of years of pressure from the earth. It may be that we can eventually produce this resource, but current plans talk about using nuclear reactors to produce an ice wall around fields, then superheating the shale within. This is not a trivial operation and flows will be more modest than what you'd find in a conventional field.

 

I don't know if peak oil production was reached last year or will be in ten years, but it's clearly coming. Simply look at the major producers and how their production is gradually tailing off. There are only a handful of nations still increasing production and this number will dwindle over the coming years. Oil was $147/barrel last summer. If scaling up oil production were simple, we'd have seen it under those conditions. We did not.

 

I'm of the opinion that we will likely transition to a post-oil future, painfully, rather than see civilization collapse. Either we'll develop electric or fuel cell cars or we'll rebuild our rail system that has deteriorated over the last eighty years. It is a legitimate problem, however.

[Jorsay]

:iagree:Except for some minor details (like what others are arguing), I agree with you. I am alarmed at the rapid use and depletion of the world's oil reserves. I am aware that the 2 trillion is shale oil and, as yet, we don't even know if we can get at it economically. I will very likely make my next house a solar home.

 

I am arguing here against the idea that there is an imminent depression (greater than the Great Depression) due to oil production outpacing consumption. I am arguing that preparing for depression immediately before an inflationary period is more damaging than not. I am even arguing (with some) that the world is not about to collapse into a road warrior scenario.

 

Jorsay,

 

Nobody is arguing that there aren't still huge quantities of oil left in the earth's surface, but the fact is that the low hanging fruit has largely been plucked. What's left is in deep water, or in war torn regions of the world or super giant, so-called elephant, fields that have been producing for decades.

 

You refer to the two trillion barrels under Colorado and Utah as a resource. This is not actually oil, it is shale, with the energy density of baked potatoes (literally). It is what will become oil after millions of years of pressure from the earth. It may be that we can eventually produce this resource, but current plans talk about using nuclear reactors to produce an ice wall around fields, then superheating the shale within. This is not a trivial operation and flows will be more modest than what you'd find in a conventional field.

 

I don't know if peak oil production was reached last year or will be in ten years, but it's clearly coming. Simply look at the major producers and how their production is gradually tailing off. There are only a handful of nations still increasing production and this number will dwindle over the coming years. Oil was $147/barrel last summer. If scaling up oil production were simple, we'd have seen it under those conditions. We did not.

 

I'm of the opinion that we will likely transition to a post-oil future, painfully, rather than see civilization collapse. Either we'll develop electric or fuel cell cars or we'll rebuild our rail system that has deteriorated over the last eighty years. It is a legitimate problem, however.

 

By the way, electric and fuel cell cars do not answer the problem of finding a new energy source. Electricity and hydrogen are not a sources of energy like oil, they are (roughly speaking) forms of energy requiring an energy source like solar, hydro, wind, natural gas, or oil.

[KingM]

We're mostly on the same page, then. It seems to me that most people who think the world is about to end want it to end, because they think the world is either in spiritual decay or because humans are trashing the environment.

 

People who think that peak oil is going to bring civilization to its knees argue that to prepare for the end of the oil age we should have started to transition our transportation infrastructure decades ago and that it's too late now. While I do agree that we should have started a long time ago (or barring that, now), we did manage to build a vast rail network using only 19th Century technology and energy resources. We've also shown a remarkable ability to ramp up during times of war or crisis, so I think we'll do okay. It will likely be rocky for a few years, however.

 

By the way, electric and fuel cell cars do not answer the problem of finding a new energy source. Electricity and hydrogen are not a sources of energy like oil, they are (roughly speaking) forms of energy requiring an energy source like solar, hydro, wind, natural gas, or oil.

 

No, they are not. I'm of the opinion that nuclear energy is the only technology ready, right now, to deliver the amount of energy we need.

[Renee in NC]

I've been gone for 10 days. I noticed the abuse to which I was subjected during those ten days and decided to respond. Some have responded thinking that they are defending regguheert's argument when they have actually misunderstood it. Some, like yourself, still are not using reason to argue. I have laid out an argument with premises and a conclusion. Regguheert attacked my premises and I defended his attacked by pointing out that they his facts, even if accepted, do not contradict my premises. Thus, by the rules of logic, my conclusion stands. This is how reasoning works; it is far from saying "I am right and you are wrong." Emotional responses such as yours to a reasoned argument are somewhat mean and demonstrate a certain desperation.

 

 

:lol::lol:

 

I am not arguing at all - I don't *have* a reasoned opinion because this is simply not in my circle of influence. The only emotion expressed in my post was light-heartedness and humor.:tongue_smilie: I admire your tenacity and dedication to your position.

[theresatwist]

Unfortunately, well over 90% (my educated guess) of the economists in the world have been indoctrinated in Keynesian economics, which is based on the writing of John Maynard Keynes. I don't have much positive to say about Keynes or his teaching, but I will make one observation: the predictions of Keynesian economists typically equate to "The economy will be better one year from now than it is today." As such, they have been consistently wrong for the past four years. Any economic model that is incapable of predicting downturns in the economy is seriously flawed, IMO.

 

BTW, all of us educated in the public school system in America have been indoctrinated in Keynesian economics. We also get bombarded by this stuff whenever we turn on any economic news on the TV (unless Ron Paul happens to be the interviewee!).

 

For those of you who want to be able to predict future trends in economics, I strongly recommend that you consider the Austrian economic model of Ludwig von Mises. Interestingly, I was introduced to this economic model through our homeschooling efforts! Some years ago, MomsintheGarden purchased a book entitled Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? by Richard Maybury to teach our gradeschool-level children basic economics. This is an outstanding primer on Austrian economics. I also enjoyed some of his other "Uncle Eric" books, such as Ancient Rome and How It Affects You Today. You can learn the more technical aspects of Austrian economics by visiting The Ludwig von Mises Institute.

 

Personally I find that predictions from the Austrian camp tend to be much more accurate and forward-looking than those of the Keynesian economists. As such, I tend to ignore the prognostications of Keynesians and seek out predictions by the Austrians. YMMV.

 

I'd have to disagree. I think Keynesian economics DID dominate for a very long time. However, beginning with Reagan, if not before, I think we've really moved away from Keynesian economics. The source of my information would be David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism."

 

In any case, I don't want to get in a political argument. Generally, I think this recession/depression/whatever you want to to call it could be good for America. We need to get back to living in financial reality the government and ordinary citizens alike. What's unfortunate is that the people who are most guilty in all this aren't necessarily the people who are suffering the most.

[RegGuheert]

Briefly my thesis is this:

 

- Money is a proxy for energy.

- Fiat money (money not based on anything) systems require an increasing quantity of money/credit to continue functioning. (It is a Ponzi scheme.)

- Oil production is at it's worldwide peak. Other forms of energy are growing, but not quickly and they will peak in the future.

- The ongoing disconnect between the growing amount of money in the system and the non-growing amount of energy means there will be a significant dislocation between the financial system and reality. As global oil production begins to contract, things will get worse more quickly.

 

IMO, we have only seen the beginning...

My thesis is unchanged. Here is a longer version:

 

- Worldwide conventional oil production peaked in May 2005 at 74.298 million barrels per day. This is based on the official IEA and EIA data and based on their definition of conventional oil. This information is found on page 14 of a presentation by Matthew Simmons.

- Roughly half of ALL conventional oil has already been produced. (Probably somewhere between 40% and 60%.)

- The 86 million barrels per day of oil that is produced every day today is known as "All Liquids" in the oil industry and contains many forms of unconventional oil including oil from natural gas and oil from the sands in Alberta, Canada. Of this current total, about 73 million barrels per day are from conventional sources and another 13 million barrels per day are from unconventional sources. This amount of total liquids produced has been relatively unchanged for the past four years, ranging from about 84 to 87 million barrels per day. Please note that conventional oil accounts for 85% of all liquids.

- Exports of total liquids from oil producing countries also peaked in 2005. Why? Because the consumption of oil in oil-producing countries is increasing.

- Oil sands and shale oil are NOT conventional oil supplies, as KingM has explained so clearly. As such, their Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) is VERY low. Please note that if EROEI drops below unity, you are no longer producing energy. Also note that as EROEI approaches unity, you are both consuming more and more energy AND polluting the environment more and more. Finally note that PRICE has NOTHING to do with EROEI. This is NOT a financial issue. I'm not a big believer in global warming, but if we continue to pursue these unconventional sources of oil, we will make such an issue inevitable.

- Uranium is also near its global peak. Like oil, their is a huge amount of uranium on earth. The problem is that concentrated deposits of uranium are nearing their production peak.

- Natural gas is plentiful in the United States. However, production of natural gas cannot be increased much beyond the current level. This is for reasons completely different than the issues affecting peak oil. Here is an excellent primer on the issues related to natural gas.

- Coal is relatively plentiful in the United States. Coal production is currently growing at an exponential rate. If we continue to ramp coal production with this exponential growth, US coal production will peak around 2030. Unfortunately, we have already REMOVED 10% of the mountain tops in western West Virginia. Do we REALLY want to continuing to do this?

- IMO, renewable energy is THE source of energy for the future. I'm a big fan of PV solar for home use, and solar thermal and wind for utility-scale energy production. Unfortunately, renewables are such a ridiculously small percentage of our energy production that it cannot be expected to replace *any* significant dropoff in other energy supplies any time soon. Hydroelectric is BY FAR the largest renewable energy producer. Unfortunately, it only produces 2% of the worlds energy.

- Hydrogen is not a source of energy, but rather is an energy carrier, unless it is obtained from coal or oil, which are already accounted for above.

- The bottom line is that there is no obvious way to grow worldwide energy production in the future. In my estimation, total energy available in the world will be flat, but it may grow slightly.

- The global economy is based on a fiat money system that requires exponential growth to allow debts to be serviced. The total value of derivatives in the world today is US$600T. Without exponential growth, these derivatives all unwind.

- The global economy cannot grow without a growth in the amount of energy feeding it OR improvements in the efficiency with which the economy utilizes energy.

- As stated above, we have not seen real increases in the energy entering the system for the past four years and I do not foresee significant increases in the foreseeable future.

- I DO believe that the world economy is MASSIVELY inefficient and that HUGE improvents in efficiency are possible and will come. For instance, the THEORETICAL amount of energy needed to ship anything from the East coast to the West coast is ZERO. (Of course, nasty things like friction make the actual energy consumption much higher, particularly if you want to transport something quickly.) Unfortunately, efficiency improvements are gradual and come as technology sees fit. It is not something that will happen overnight.

- Because the world economy has not been sufficiently supplied with energy in the past three years, the cost of oil grew to the point were it equalled 7% of the ENTIRE GROSS PRODUCT of the world last summer.

- Since that time, and for a variety of reasons including oil costs, the world economy has begun to shrink. This has eased the strain on the world oil production system.

- Without any obvious sources of new energy, I see NO WAY for the world economy to resume its exponential growth and therefore to pull out of the current economic situation. Regardless of what any/all of the governments of the world do, there is no way to drastically change the worldwide erergy situation we face for the next decade or two. We will need to learn to live with the amount that we have. Likely, the economies of the world will pull back significantly.

 

My biggest hope is that the fraudulent financial systems that are currently in place in the world will be replaced by something more responsible. Unfortunately, I do not hear ANY such proposal from ANY of our governments. The only exception I'm aware of are the excellent proposals in Congress from Ron Paul of TX.

 

Many people have stated in this thread that they do not believe a "Greater Depression" is upon us. To me, this is simply wishful thinking. If you believe this, I must ask you to what you attribute your faith. Specifically, where will the additional energy come from to permit the resumption of worldwide exponential growth? Alternatively, how will massive improvements in efficiency be made to permit this growth? Will there be some combination of the two?

 

I'm sorry, but I simply don't see a way out. That is why the Guheerts have been preparing for over a decade. If I'm wrong, so be it. I hope I am!

 

Thanks for hanging in there for this entire post,

 

Reg

[BalanceSeeker]

Reg,

 

I SO wish I understood all this better! Such a huge learning curve.

[Elaine]

We're not doing anything because the government will take care of us.:001_rolleyes:

[RegGuheert]

 

I SO wish I understood all this better! Such a huge learning curve.

I SO wish the members of Congress understood this better! Unfortunately, they seem always committed to the status quo.

[RegGuheert]

 

We're not doing anything because the government will take care of us.:001_rolleyes:

Don't worry, they will! ;)

[creekland]

I SO wish the members of Congress understood this better! Unfortunately, they seem always committed to the status quo.

 

I don't know that it's so much the status quo that they want to keep. I think it's their (personal) job, income and benefits that drive their votes and not just on a federal level. But... that's another thread entirely too... and probably too political for this board. :)

[BalanceSeeker]

I SO wish the members of Congress understood this better! Unfortunately, they seem always committed to the status quo.

 

But we hear a lot about going green these days. In your opinion, are they heading in the right direction?

[RegGuheert]

 

But we hear a lot about going green these days. In your opinion, are they heading in the right direction?

No. My preference would be for the federal government to get COMPLETELY OUT of the energy business, as it is not one of the powers enumerated for them in the constitution. (Not surprisingly, I have this same preference regarding education!) Unfortunately, this is not going to happen. The bottom line is that the government spends BILLIONS of US dollars subsidizing traditional energy technologies and HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of US dollars defending the supply of oil overseas, while subsidizing alternative energy technologies to the tune of 10s or 100s of MILLIONS of dollars. As such, they are still GREATLY preferring the old technologies over the new ones using OUR money.