On Jul 4, 2:04 am, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:
"What would a viable long-distance communications network in the age of peak
oil look like? To begin with, it would use the airwaves rather than land
lines, to minimize infrastructure, and its energy needs would be modest
enough to be met by local renewable sources."

http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=...icle&sid=40585

Frank Dresser

Fascinating article. Of course, it's much more likely that leaving
oil behind in the next 30-50 years will result in net economic and
health benefits, not economic ruin, given the proper priority to solar
thermal, nuclear, wind, and solar electric technologies. History
shows that large research efforts tend to spin off major economic
benefits in terms of breakthroughs, process improvements, new
products, and other positive externalities. (For example, an economy
based on making carbon neutral fuel (like H2) from renewable or at
least nuclear electricity would have little or no smog, with
correspondingly fewer respiratory illnesses and deaths than our
current regime.)

But it *is* really sobering to realize how FRAGILE our technology is,
because it's so interconnected and requires so many specialists to
maintain, let alone extend, the state of the art. It's good to know
that there are people among us who do for a hobby, something that
really can do the job with technology that can be preserved and passed
on. If there's one thing I don't worry about in a post-collapse
world, we will be able to pass news and communications along via radio
and remain *at least* as in touch as someone in 1930 would have been.
Or much better if the collapse was slow enough to give us some time to
prepare.