Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

[Dr.No]

Hanson expects that the coming decades will see an up to 90% reduction in the number of humans on the planet due to declining world energy production and the war(s) that may be triggered by energy/resource scarcity.

He believes that the only way to avoid massive catastrophe would be large-scale investment in alternative (to hydrocarbon) sources of energy begun at least a decade or two before the peak. The build-out of such alternatives would consume a moderately significant percentage of world hydrocarbon production (used in mining, transporting, and processing the materials needed to build solar energy facilities, wind turbines, nuclear power plants, necessary infrastructure, etc.), and there would be a tough period during the transition.

However, he believes we are already at or very near the peak (at least in net energy terms *) of world hydrocarbon production, and in order to rapidly build out alternatives now that we have waited for the market to signal the problem via high hydrocarbon prices (instead of investing to solve the problem well ahead of time), up to 70% of the (soon to be rapidly declining) world hydrocarbon production will need to be spent in order to successfully implement the alternatives on a large enough scale. This would not leave much energy for the production of food, consumer goods, or personal transportation during the transition period:



He thinks the conflict over the remaining sources of hydrocarbons (vital to making this transition away from hydrocarbons) is likely to trigger a global nuclear war within around 10-15 years. He hopes he is wrong, but is afraid he is not. After all, we are animals, and might end up acting less in the spirit of co-operation, and more based on fear, aggression, and a desire to secure resources for ourselves rather than agreeing to mutually sacrifice for the benefit of the future of mankind.

One might see Hanson as a bit of a pessimist. It would certainly not be too pleasant if it turned out that he was a realist.

*Energy available for other work after subtracting the rapidly rising percentage of energy produced (well, mainly extracted) that is used (reinvested) in the energy production process itself. The rate of return on each unit of energy reinvested in future hydrocarbon production keeps declining as many small and hard to access deposits (which are often also of lower grade oil or coal) are needed to compensate for each large deposit that is depleted.

[jtabeb]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

Hanson expects that the coming decades will see an up to 90% reduction in the number of humans on the planet due to declining world energy production and the war(s) that may be triggered by energy/resource scarcity.

He believes that the only way to avoid massive catastrophe would be large-scale investment in alternative (to hydrocarbon) sources of energy begun at least a decade or two before the peak. The build-out of such alternatives would consume a moderately significant percentage of world hydrocarbon production (used in mining, transporting, and processing the materials needed to build solar energy facilities, wind turbines, nuclear power plants, necessary infrastructure, etc.), and there would be a tough period during the transition.

However, he believes we are already at or very near the peak (at least in net energy terms *) of world hydrocarbon production, and in order to rapidly build out alternatives now that we have waited for the market to signal the problem via high hydrocarbon prices (instead of investing to solve the problem well ahead of time), up to 70% of the (soon to be rapidly declining) world hydrocarbon production will need to be spent in order to successfully implement the alternatives on a large enough scale. This would not leave much energy for the production of food, consumer goods, or personal transportation during the transition period:



He thinks the conflict over the remaining sources of hydrocarbons (vital to making this transition away from hydrocarbons) is likely to trigger a global nuclear war within around 10-15 years. He hopes he is wrong, but is afraid he is not. After all, we are animals, and might end up acting less in the spirit of co-operation, and more based on fear, aggression, and a desire to secure resources for ourselves rather than agreeing to mutually sacrifice for the benefit of the future of mankind.

One might see Hanson as a bit of a pessimist. It would certainly not be too pleasant if it turned out that he was a realist.

*Energy available for other work after subtracting the rapidly rising percentage of energy produced (well, mainly extracted) that is used (reinvested) in the energy production process itself. The rate of return on each unit of energy reinvested in future hydrocarbon production keeps declining as many small and hard to access deposits (which are often also of lower grade oil or coal) are needed to compensate for each large deposit that is depleted.

This guy doesn't understand the idea of nuclear primacy.

[Guest]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

Jtabeb believes in "progress".

[VIT]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

I am afraid when I will be twice older then today I will be thinking like Jtabeb. Even today I agree with him on many ideas, but fortunately they do not come to my mind first

[jtabeb]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

I am afraid when I will be twice older then today I will be thinking like Jtabeb. Even today I agree with him on many ideas, but fortunately they do not come to my mind first

You guys both sound like sarah palin when she was asked what the Bush Doctrine was.

Nuclear Primacy in the case of the US means nuclear conflict is less likely not MORE likely because there is no incentive for a nuclear armed country to try to attack us because we have in some cases (china) the ability to preeemptively remove their nuclear capability. (This applies to nuclear state powers, not to independent rouge or terrorist activity)

Less chance of Nuclear war not MORE, get it? (Esp. With the new president elect).

Look at Israel for a good example (conventional in this case). Israel's conventional military strength makes it UNLIKLY that a state actor would act in an oververt manner to attack Israel because Israel has conventional primacy. (the ability to reduce the opposing military's capability to wage conventional warfare).

[Chomsky]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

They also have nuclear primacy.

[jtabeb]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

They also have nuclear primacy.

"Officially" they don't have a capability;)

[VIT]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

You guys both sound like sarah palin when she was asked what the Bush Doctrine was.

Nuclear Primacy in the case of the US means nuclear conflict is less likely not MORE likely because there is no incentive for a nuclear armed country to try to attack us because we have in some cases (china) the ability to preeemptively remove their nuclear capability. (This applies to nuclear state powers, not to independent rouge or terrorist activity)

Less chance of Nuclear war not MORE, get it? (Esp. With the new president elect).

I did not get it. It is not about somebody attack US, but US "pre-emptive" strike which is in US doctrine. No doubt nuclear reduces the war possibility between those who has it, but not with others. And I would not completely remove from the agenda the war between nuclear sates (even nuclear) somewhere outside of their territories.

[jtabeb]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

I did not get it. It is not about somebody attack US, but US "pre-emptive" strike which is in US doctrine. No doubt nuclear reduces the war possibility between those who has it, but not with others. And I would not completely remove from the agenda the war between nuclear sates (even nuclear) somewhere outside of their territories.

I can't say much more but I will make one point.

The question is "If the the US has nuclear primacy against certian govs, would it us it?"

You have my opionion in my previous post.

The capability paradoxically reduces the chances of employment UNLESS the BIGGEST HAWKS ever get a chance to wield control.

We can, they can't, but we won't (see caveat above). Make sense?

[Guest]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

I fully grok your assertion regarding nuclear primacy, and lest you be tempted to "pigeonhole" me as anti-nuclear weapon, I have actually been fully on board with nuclear deterrence for 30 plus years. When I was growing up in Europe in the 1980's literally everyone around me was hollering about how "warmongering" the Americans were for staging cruise missiles into Europe to counter the massive deployment of SS20's which the Soviets had just placed in Eastern Europe.

I had friends in France, Germany, Italy, and the UK all in a hellacious lather about how America was going to drag them into another war and not one of them had the intellectual honesty to note that Russia had staged enough SS20's into Eastern Europe to turn the entire continent into a glass parking lot well before the Americans even began urging Western European countries to respond. In short, the 1980's witnessed all of Western Europe coming within a whisker of being summarily Finlandized. Of all the teenagers I knew back then, I was practically the only one who fully understood that and was emphatically a backer of the staging of Cruise and Pershing missiles into the West to maintain political independence.

So don't pigeonhole me as something that I'm not today, as I have never been remotely near the stereotype you wish to impose on those disagreeing with you. Today the situtation is vastly different. Proliferation is rampant and will become far worse in the next two decades. And I find your application of the text-book theory you were taught in the Air Force to be highly formulaic and frankly about to be rapidly superceded by events. You are talking to a conservative here pal, not a wild and woolly Berkeley radical. I think it's you rather that needs to reexamine your blanket assertions and render them a little more subtle and pliable, for the myriad profound shifts occurring in the 21st Century. Your thesis is waaay too formulaic.

I can't say much more but I will make one point.

The question is "If the the US has nuclear primacy against certian govs, would it us it?"

You have my opionion in my previous post.

The capability paradoxically reduces the chances of employment UNLESS the BIGGEST HAWKS ever get a chance to wield control.

We can, they can't, but we won't (see caveat above). Make sense?

[VIT]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

To jtabeb:
It makes the perfect sense. But as you said unless "biggest hawks", but it might be the wild world problem instead of hawks. Problem-reaction-solution

The question is "If the the US has nuclear primacy against certian govs, would it us it?"

Depends on the problem :rolleyes:. Now US has the primacy in conventional military and still uses it.

What do you think is the ultimate goal of US anti-missile shield and why it is developed. Could you tell it will make the world safer.

[BlackVoid]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

Nuclear primacy increases the chance of nuclear war significantly.
The country that has it, may use it in a desperate situation.
The country that does not have it may start the war, because it fears nuclear primacy will be used against it.

However I do not think that nuclear primacy is achievable. The USA is driving for it, but Russia is determined to counter this threat.
The missile shield in Europe will NOT BE BUILT. If the US does not give up on it, Russia will use the oil / gas weapon and close the taps. This will topple cooperating governments in Eastern Europe and also create a price super-spike in oil.
Also it is not a missile shield the US really wants to build (knowing that it cannot be effective). They want to deploy nuclear missiles there. It will not happen.

[BlackVoid]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

You guys both sound like sarah palin when she was asked what the Bush Doctrine was.

Nuclear Primacy in the case of the US means nuclear conflict is less likely not MORE likely because there is no incentive for a nuclear armed country to try to attack us because we have in some cases (china) the ability to preeemptively remove their nuclear capability. (This applies to nuclear state powers, not to independent rouge or terrorist activity)

Less chance of Nuclear war not MORE, get it? (Esp. With the new president elect).

Look at Israel for a good example (conventional in this case). Israel's conventional military strength makes it UNLIKLY that a state actor would act in an oververt manner to attack Israel because Israel has conventional primacy. (the ability to reduce the opposing military's capability to wage conventional warfare).

Nuclear primacy means that the country that has it can launch a first strike and survive it without significant retaliation.

Reply to first paragraph: This effect is achieved by nuclear MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). There is no need for nuclear primacy for this effect.

To last paragraph: WRONG. Israel has about 200 nuclear bombs - this is the deterrent and not their conventional army (which may or may not have primacy). Their conventional army failed miserably in Lebanon. Anti-tank missiles are now CHEAP and I believe this negates superiority of their conventional army.

Nuclear primacy has one and only ONE use. The one who has it, can do whatever they want (USA could blackmail Russia). It is NOT STABLE.

Lets compare mutually assured destruction (MAD) with Nuclear Primacy.

MAD:
First strike => retaliation: LOSE-LOSE
All scenarios are like this, this is STABLE.

Nuclear primacy (assuming USA primacy, Russia antagonist):
USA first strike => no retaliation: WIN-LOSE
Russia first strike => retaliation: LOSE-LOSE

Nuclear primacy would encourage Russia to launch a first strike, because they may rightfully fear that otherwise the US would use nuclear primacy against them and they will be destroyed without retaliation. Russia has everything to lose with a US nuclear primacy. This is a situation that Russia must avoid at ALL COSTS, because this would make them very vulnerable. If Obama does not stop the missile shield program, Russia will become VERY-VERY UPSET. We are already moving towards this, look at Medvedev's reaction to the US election.
President Dmitri Medvedev orders missiles deployed in Europe as world hails Obama


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5090077.ece

Russia is signaling that IT WILL NOT ACCEPT nuclear primacy of the USA.

[jtabeb]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

So don't pigeonhole me as something that I'm not today, as I have never been remotely near the stereotype you wish to impose on those disagreeing with you. Today the situtation is vastly different. Proliferation is rampant and will become far worse in the next two decades. And I find your application of the text-book theory you were taught in the Air Force to be highly formulaic and frankly about to be rapidly superceded by events. You are talking to a conservative here pal, not a wild and woolly Berkeley radical. I think it's you rather that needs to reexamine your blanket assertions and render them a little more subtle and pliable, for the myriad profound shifts occurring in the 21st Century. Your thesis is waaay too formulaic.

I do not know WTF you are talking about. I was claiming that the author of the article in question didn't have a well grounded grasp of the geostrategic puzzle that is nuclear deturrence. I also was claiming that by accepting his premise, one would be making accpeting a flawed argument. And further, that if indeed part of the premise is flawed, the entire conclusion may be flawed. I didn't want people to do that.

Lukster, BTFO, dude. My punny retort didn't ascribe ANYTHING at all what you ascribe to your own self in the above response. If you read THAT MUCH into my one-liner, then sorry but you have only yourself to blame for it.

And, no I can't talk alot about this, but I can try to correct some errors in understanding that are very gerenral, but hopefully instructive to all. I try to do that as much as I can as often as I can.

Don't agree with me, fine. Because I will not be able to debate you on a factual point-by-point baisis without talking about things that I can't talk about.

Wait for an actual attack on your person or charater next time, or do you just like to start fights for no reason?

[jtabeb]

Re: Peak Oil and Alternative Energy - Summary of Jay Hanson's View

Depends on the problem :rolleyes:. Now US has the primacy in conventional military and still uses it.

What do you think is the ultimate goal of US anti-missile shield and why it is developed. Could you tell it will make the world safer.

There is, I would claim, the last line in the sand. Conventional is one thing, a big bad bloody thing, but he who uses the first nuke chooses to end the world. Our first stike position basically is "we know this will end the world, but we WOULD do it if we are going to be destroyed"

Make no mistake about that and also do not underestimate the military's grasp of this significant fact. (yes, we have our Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson's out there, but that's why we have civilian control of the military and not the otherway 'round).


The anti-missle shield was/is an ultamately doomed effort to impose limited nuclear primacy on russia. You can see that limited and priamcy are mutually exclusive, so that is why I assess that it is a doomed effort. Beyond that, the whole concept is EASILY defeated by countermeasures (esp delivery vehicles) so it is stupid and a waste of money, and time and won't work. I think it was really only a geopolitical chess piece.

It kind of plays out this way. We say we are going to do "something". Someone else gets mad at this and responds with a threatend counter response. Then we eventually cave-in for a consession that we seek. The counterparty may or may not agree to the concession. But if they do, you litterally get something for nothing (a loss of enemy capability in response for no loss in your own EXISTING capability). This is a big chess game just like a certain era that purportedly "ended" a little while ago. As long as you understand that this is the "means to an end" and not the "end" then you have the correct construct for analysing the activities of the involved players.

Think bigger, I guess whould be my advice in looking at this matter. (we always want the other guys thinking small, that's how we play to win)

"you know that I know that you know that I know" is very instructive.

In practice it is not as simple as this it may be more like:

"you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know that..."

We don't want the other guys to know what layer of the onion we are playing at.;)