Re: Peak der Ã-lförderung welche logischen Schlüsse

verfasst von Sorrento, 08.03.2004, 16:24

-->>Hallo,
>wenn wir davon ausgehen das es wirklich um 2006/2007 dazu kommt, dass die mögliche Fördermenge des Ã-ls drastisch fällt, weil die Ã-lfelder schon maximal ausgebeutet sind welche Anlagenmöglichkeiten gäbe es dann? Ersetzt Ã-l dann Gold? Und wie partizipiere ich dann an dieser Tatsache.
>Gruß
>Ebony

Hallo,
also zuerst mal wegen den Anlagemöglichkeiten, ich schlage vor:

- Aktien von Ã-l-und Gas-Eplorern, die sich auf"kleine" Vorkommen spezialisiert haben, die heute noch unter der Rentabilitätsschwelle liegen
- Hersteller von regnerativen Energien
- Rüstungsaktien oder 1,2 Hektar Wald kaufen

Aber anscheinend hast du die Dimensionen noch nicht ganz verstanden, Peak Oil heisst nicht, daß da was eben mal ein wenig teurer wird und man nur kurz den Gürtel enger schnallt und ansonsten die Party weiter geht! Das wollte mir, wie ich mich das erste Mal mit dem Thema beschäftigt hatte, zuerst auch nicht in den Kopf, aber:

Zuerst wird nur der Energiepreis hochgehen während infolgedessen der Energieverbrauch auf immer mehr Gebieten zurückgeht, solange bis auch die letzten es merken werden, daß unsere gesamte heutige Zivilisation auf der Basis von BILLIGEN, FOSSILEN Brennstoffen beruht:

Von der Chemie,Textilien, Alltags"erleichterungen" (Aufzüge,Waschmaschine, Computer) über das Transportwesen bis hin zu einem ganz wesentlichen Punkt, der als so selbstverständlich hingenommen wird, daß es kaum jemand noch zur Kenntnis nimmt:
<font color="#ff0000">
Die Nahrungsversorgung für über 6 Milliarden Menschen! Das Überleben dieser Menge kann nur durch die Verfügbarkeit von billiger fossiler Energie gesichert werden! </font>Im 18. Jhrdt.- vor der Industriellen Revotluion- waren es weit unter 1 Milliarded, d.h. bei einer Energieintensität wie damals könnten heute über 5/6 der Menschheit nicht existieren.

Als kurzen <a href ="http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil_summary.html">Anhaltspunkt:
</a>


1. In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

· 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer (excluding feedstock)

· 19% for the operation of field machinery

· 16% for transportation

· 13% for irrigation

· 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

· 05% for crop drying

· 05% for pesticide production

· 08% miscellaneous8

2. To give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern agriculture, production of one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This is not considering the natural gas feedstock.9 According to The Fertilizer Institute (http://www.tfi.org), in the year from June 30 2001 until June 30 2002 the United States used 12,009,300 short tons of nitrogen fertilizer.10 Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen, this equates to the energy content of 15.3 billion liters of diesel fuel, or 96.2 million barrels.

3. Between 1945 and 1994, energy input to agriculture increased 4-fold while crop yields only increased 3-fold.11 Since then, energy input has continued to increase without a corresponding increase in crop yield. We have reached the point of marginal returns. Yet, due to soil degradation, increased demands of pest management and increasing energy costs for irrigation (all of which is examined below), modern agriculture must continue increasing its energy expenditures simply to maintain current crop yields.

4. The U.S. food system consumes ten times more energy than it produces in food energy. This disparity is made possible by nonrenewable fossil fuel stocks.

5. Unfortunately, if you remove fossil fuels from the equation, the daily diet will require 111 hours of endosomatic labor per capita; that is, the current U.S. daily diet would require nearly three weeks of labor per capita to produce.


Schön erklärt wird der ganze Zusammenhang auch hier, es empfiehlt sich sehr, im Original weiter zu lesen.


This paper will argue that populations exhibit a behaviour that could be described as punctuated equilibrium[1]. That is, populations generally exhibit long-term homeostasis. During brief and rare periods in history, population pressures lead to the commercialisation of a new source of energy - particularly a higher quality energy source - which in turn will raise the population ceiling, or the number of people the earth can support. At this stage, populations will grow quickly to approach the newly raised ceiling, then growth will slow and a new homeostasis will develop.



The planet could not support the six billion people that exist today without first the commercialisation of coal, then of oil and gas. If these energy sources were necessary for the historically rare and unprecedented population growth that has occurred over the last three hundred years, then this growth might be correlated (and modelled), in some way, after the pattern of consumption of these energy sources.





In 1750, the world’s population was approximately 720 million people. Over the previous 1000 years, this population had been growing very slowly at an average rate of about 0.13%. At this rate population doubles every 500 years and it would have taken over 1500 more years (sometime near the year 3250) to reach our current population of 6 billion people. But sometime in the 18th century, circumstances changed and population began growing rapidly.



The most common explanation for this change in circumstances is that a mortality revolution reduced the rate at which people died and that this mortality revolution was brought about by the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution changed everything. It was an economic revolution, which spawned revolutions in science, technology, transportation, communication and agriculture. As a consequence, humanity began to experience improvements in health, nutrition, food variety, medicine and quality of life. More people survived infancy and childhood and they carried on to live longer lives. Because people were dying less quickly, populations grew more quickly.



Large and sustained population growth is thus a contemporary phenomenon: until historically recent times it was rare to non-existent. Preindustrial populations grew when times were good (favourable climatic, agricultural, political and economic conditions) and shrank when times were bad (droughts, famines, wars, plagues, bad weather). Population growth was at all times restricted by the amount of land and food available. Land was needed to grow food for humans, fodder for animals and trees for building and fuel. As populations grew and occupied prime land, people were forced onto less productive land and the competing interests of food, fodder and fuel grew stronger.



This pressure on land led to a number of different consequences: rising prices, under-nourishment, hunger; migration, territorial expansion through aggression and war and internal revolt. Populations became more susceptible to famine, disease, plague and death. Thomas Malthus referred to these consequences as positive checks on population growth. Population pressure also lead to what Malthus referred to as preventive checks. Preventive checks consisted of celibacy, reducing fertility within marriage and through increased age at first marriage (i.e. marrying later). These observations - as populations grew survival became more difficult (populations experienced declining marginal returns), leading to positive or preventive checks on population growth - lead to Malthus’ famous Essay on Population (1798).



So according to Malthus, an initial population starts with few people. It then grows in an approximately exponential manner towards demographic saturation[2]. This exponential growth then slows as the limit to population size, or the population ceiling, is reached. It is at this point that populations become homeostatic. This ceiling results when most available land has been used, and most productivity gains have been realised. Any further expansions into less productive land, or further productivity gains, suffer from declining marginal returns.
...


Each commercialisation of a new source of energy, particularly if higher quality than the then dominant source, raises the population ceiling.


But contrarily, each new step up the energy ladder raises productivity per capita (assuming productivity growth can outpace population growth) and income levels. This tends to slow population growth through several negative effects on fertility rates.
...
If Biomass Population growth from 800 to 1850 were extrapolated to the year 2000, the value would be 1.09 billion people. This may or may not be an indication of how many people the planet would now be supporting if coal, oil and gas were never commercialised, assuming there were still frontiers to expand into.
...
Oil also plays a significant part in the so-called Green Revolution that has led to growth in agricultural output that has managed to keep up with or even exceed the number of mouths that require feeding. Green Revolution agriculture relies on large amounts of pesticides and fertilisers, products highly dependent on oil and gas. Intensification of agriculture leads to surplus production, enabling greater increases in population which in turn lead to still greater demands for food.


Water for agriculture is also highly dependent on fossil fuels. Pumping of aquifers and groundwater for irrigation “is a phenomenon of the late twentieth century, made possible by the availability of electricity and cheap pumps.”


Daß eine Reduzierung der Erdbevölkerung innerhalb einiger Jahrzehnte um 5/6 ohne Hauen und stechen abgeht, wird wohl selbst der größte Optimist nicht behaupten wollen...
<ul> ~ Quelle</ul>

Thread gesperrt

 

gesamter Thread:

• Peak der Ã-lförderung welche logischen Schlüsse - ebony, 08.03.2004, 15:07
  • Re: Peak der Ã-lförderung welche logischen Schlüsse - XERXES, 08.03.2004, 15:40
    • Mini Future - Helmut, 08.03.2004, 16:08
      • Danke für die Infos - ebony, 08.03.2004, 19:09
  • Re: Peak der Ã-lförderung welche logischen Schlüsse - Sorrento, 08.03.2004, 16:24
    • Interessanter Artikel über die Folgen von Peak Oil aus der LA Times - Sorrento, 09.03.2004, 09:52