[p2p-research] good summary of anti-transition hypothesis

[Michel Bauwens]

I don't agree, but it's a good summary of the radically pessimistic peak
oilers: http://www.integralworld.net/markus3.html



The vast majority of people – public, mass media, political and economic
elites – are not aware how serious the human predicament is. There is a
widespread hope that either oil reserves are huge, or we can develop
alternative energy sources, just on time «to leave oil before oil leaves
us». New American president Barack Obama's program for «clean energy» and
«clean technologies» has very wide support and popularity inside and outside
the USA. So called transition towns in New Zealand, USA and several other
countries are part of these wishes and programs. But this is a big illusion
and a symptom of faith in technological miracles, very often a phenomenon in
industrial society. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as «alternatives».


So called alternatives – nuclear power, solar, wind, geothermal etc. – are
just technologies for electric energy production. Technology is not energy
and «alternatives» are really just derivatives of fossil fuels. That means,
we must have vast amounts of cheap oil and gas for the development of
alternative technologies, but, because of peak oil, we haven't. It takes
«oil energy» to make «alternative energy». In the post-peak oil world
development of «alternatives» will mean a big increase of demand for oil and
gas, price will go up and the economy will either crash or retreat into an
even deeper recession. Development of «alternatives» is possible only by
constant economic growth, but the fundamental precondition for it is cheap
energy – and the circle is closed.

«Alternative» forms of energy simply can't replace 30 billion annual barrels
of oil (the problem of «net energy»). There are other problems with
«alternatives» as hard collecting, because sun, wind or water are not simply
in the ground, as oil, gas and coal are, but they are not always available
and depend much on (fast changing) climate. Nuclear power, which only can
produce bigger quantities of electricity, is too expensive and dangerous
(terrorism, weapons, waste). Second, there is simply no time for such
massive energy transition. The first oil shock (1973) was a good (but
wasted) opportunity for the beginning of the energy transition, because it
takes ca. 30-50 years. The increasing supply gap in the next 20 years or so
can't be closed by all other energy sources combined. Investing in
«alternatives» means a waste of
money.[7]<http://www.integralworld.net/markus3.html#_edn7>So, the era
of cheap energy will not return and without it there will be no
long-term recovery. Mainstream economists simply can't understand that
because for them resource shortage is not possible. If prices go up either
production will be increased or alternatives will be found quickly. But
today neither is possible.


-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090918/4ab85cce/attachment-0001.html>