Check out this |-- well-researched document on peak oil --| produced by "South Lakes Action on Climate Change - Towards Transition", based in the UK.
Transition Towns Forum » Discuss
Peak Oil update by "South Lakes Action on Climate Change - Towards Transition"
(9 posts)-
Posted 1 month ago #
-
Nice report but no author's names and no review
Better to go here (in my opinion)
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/Global%20Oil%20DepletionPosted 1 month ago # -
Hi Jon
The author's name (me) and contact details are at the end of the report, before the references.
I often wanted to get someone up to give us an update on the current situation regarding peak oil but could find no-one that wasn't charging the earth. I also wanted a nice summary of the current situation without having to read endless pages of several reports, but could find no such document. So in the end I decided to do a review of the latest literature in order to inform our group and myself. I also hoped that it would provide a useful overview for other groups and interested people who didn't have the time to pour over a dozen or so lengthy reports and data - which is why I have publicised it.
It was not funded and done in my own spare time - many evenings and spare afternoons over a few months - so it's not intended as an academic document. Merely as an overview of the latest situation regarding peak oil to the best of my ability.
The report you mention is referenced in this report. The problem with reading just the report you mention is that you don't get a balanced overview. I have attempted to read and summarise as many recent reports as I could find (six in all) in the hope of trying to get a balanced understanding. Each report has its own flaw and assumptions, so by combining several I hoped to get a more realistic picture of where we stand.
Personally, I was very disturbed by what came out.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Thanks Sonny
I missed your name at the bottom. The trouble with (very well researched) documents that are not peer reviewed & published is that it's difficult to refer to them when trying to make an argument for change at an institutional or governmental level.
There's a very specific reason for my interest: If we are truly saying that near-future generations will not have access to energy in the same way that we do, this introduces inter-generational inequality if we focus on producing short life assets (as opposed to the daily needs of humanity). In construction, it's unfortunate that the energy content of a building tends to be proportional to it's lifespan.
So by making choices for low carbon assets (buildings, infrastructure) with respect to risks to the atmosphere (to allow future generations to meet their needs) we simultaneously reduce the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Hi Jon
Am intrigued by yr last comments (maybe it deserves a fresh topic heading).
Are you saying that if we now require all new buildings to be designed and built to generate far fewer carbon emissions, we will end up producing buildings with shorter lifespans, thereby leaving later generations with a bigger challenge?
This suggests the aim needs to be refined - from 'lower carbon emissions during its lifetime' to lower carbon emsissions per year of its expected lifetime'.
That'll keep academic architects busy for a few more years.
(Fortunately for us in UK, the real choices are about alterations to existing buildings, of which we have ample. Trickier for designers and builders to do well, but far cheaper in carbon emissions than puttign up new ones.)Closer we get, the more I wish we had swithced direction a long time ago...
Posted 1 month ago # -
"Are you saying that if we now require all new buildings to be designed and built to generate far fewer carbon emissions, we will end up producing buildings with shorter lifespans, thereby leaving later generations with a bigger challenge?"
Yes, I wrote the sections and databases on embodied carbon for the Green Building Bible and we found that there's remarkably little 'annualised' carbon difference between a long life building and a short term building (assuming the same annual operational carbon costs such as lighting, heating etc)
As it happens, I wrote out the thinking for this yesterday as a site (largely for other engineers to comment on and think about)
http://www.embodiedcarbon.co.uk
Any comments on the relative ethical arguments gratefully received!
Posted 1 month ago # -
Too much information / too theoretical?
Posted 1 month ago # -
Too little information - there seems to be all sorts of elements wrapped up together here.
For example, to start near the bottom, how relevant is 'embodied carbon' - quantitatively - compared to operational carbon costs? How variable, and how easy to influence, is this?
If annualised carbon costs really are similar across long-life and short-life buildings, can the design choices be 'sliced' in other ways, to reveal more significant differences?If not, short-life buildings offer three advantages:
lower emissions now in their construction;
less resource wasted on buildings, techniques, and materials that become superceded by more carbon-efficient ones, within a few decades;
fewer redundant buildings to be disposed of.
(design for re-use of materials might be more relevant?)The aesthetic of durability is a strong one , though, and the proper suspicion of inbuilt-obsolescence will add a lot more resistance.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Thanks Cliff:
Perhaps there should be an introduction page rather than going straight in? (it's aimed at a technical audience)
No easy to answer: Typically a building's operational energy (in space heating & water) will equal its embodied energy in about 3 decades. The variability tends to be in the region of +/- 35% for the finished product. However, variability in individual items is massive.
I haven't covered the idea that technology might allow reduction in relative content later so will add that in: This is difficult to cover because, for example, timber's 'embodied' emissions are largely in transport.
Why would short term designs provide fewer redundant buildings to be disposed of?
Posted 1 month ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.