I just read this article on the impending crisis in energy.
As one who has taught courses on Energy Resources, I can confirm that Kunstler's assessment of the fossil fuel situation is quite accurate. Right now, global demand for oil is increasing far faster that global production of oil. Although its possible that discovery of some vast new reserves (ie ANWR) or renewed production of oil in Iraq may delay the crisis for a few years, the crisis is coming.
I think Kunstler is a bit too negative about possible alternatives, but we have delayed the push toward alternatives far too long. Unless there are some major policy changes that accelerate increased energy efficiency, conservation and development of alternatives, we are in for serious trouble.
I'm interested in two questions. If you were required to cut back your energy use to 1/2 its current level (both what you use directly and what is used in the products you buy), how would it change your life? What community decisions could we make that would make that transition easier for you?
The second question, if you were in charge of development of implimentation of national energy policy, given the facts in Kunstler's article, how would you set energy priorities. What would be your plan?
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
quote:What community decisions could we make that would make that transition easier for you?
It would be nice if we had trains we could ride in. Or buses. Or rickshaws - I'm not picky, really.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Here is some interesting data on per capita energy consumption (kilograms of oil equivalent/per person) in various wealthy countries. (data is from 2001)
Australia 5,974.90
Austria 3,789.90
Belgium 5,743.30
Canada 7,999.50
Denmark 3,706.10
Finland 6,517.90
France 4,458.60
Germany 4,263.50
Greece 2,622.10
Ireland 3,876.10
Israel 3,432.60
Italy 2,990.20
Japan 4,091.50
Netherlands 4,831.30
New Zealand 4,795.30
Norway 5,920.60
Portugal 2,465.10
Spain 3,116.40
Sweden 5,762.30
Switzerland 3,906.20
United Kingdom 3,993.80
United States 7,920.90
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*feels terrible*
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
I saw an interesting take on the portion of the fuel situation we have in America. In an automotive show, one of the commentators said that if Americans switched to diesel cars, we could help ourselves in the short term quite a bit.
Apparently, diesel cars get much better mileage per gallon than regular cars, and usually outstrip the hybrids that are coming through right now. Heavily used in Europe, many automakers aren't bringing their diesels to America because of our higher sulfur content in the diesel fuel (which makes it harder for them to meet the emission standards).
He went on to say that unlike hydrogen, the diesel infrastructure is well in-place and accessible to everyone.
The direct benefits to the consumer are also much better than that offered by hybrids currently. Firstly, diesel fuel is generally cheaper than gasoline per gallon -- combine that with better mileage and you get a double bonus. In addition, diesel engines are easier to service than regular gasoline engines and much, much easier than hybrids.
To me, it seems like a no-brainer. But perhaps he was massaging the issues a bit. While diesel cars are common in Europe and manufactured there in numbers, I haven't seen any diesel Japanese or Korean cars. American-made trucks and a few vans, yes, but not too many cars.
Could we be shying away from diesels because it doesn't suit American and Asian manufacturing as well as does the hybrid route for passenger cars?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
VW makes diesel cars. I own one. Diesel fuel was cheaper than gas a year ago, but is about 20 - 25 cents more expensive than gas now. I still get some savings at 45 mpg, but it's not huge. So, switching to diesel cars alone wouldn't be a great thing at this point (lots of particulate emissions, e.g.), but switching to mass biodiesel production would be really good. As would development of diesel-electric hybrids -- there have been prototypes, but no plans to produce them as far as I know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The second question, if you were in charge of development of implimentation of national energy policy, given the facts in Kunstler's article, how would you set energy priorities. What would be your plan?
If it's a serious as he says:
First, implement conservation measures:
1. On all new energy-using appliances, provide a two or three level tax on "inefficient" models. A refrigerator takes more than X kWh per month, it gets $100 tacked on at sale. 2X per month, it gets $200.
2. All cars assigned an MPG rating. This rating sets the gasoline tax when it gasses up. So less efficient cars get a double hit that compounds quickly. Provide exceptions somehow for cars that actually carry more people regularly. 9-seat SUV that carries 9 people twice a day gets a break. I have no idea how to verify this part of it.
3. Start charging for garbage removal based on volume and weight. Require manufacturers to put the cost of of disposing of the packaging material on the outside of the package.
4. Do SOMETHING about disposable batteries. How energy inefficient must these things be?
5. Provide tax credits when someone moves to be closer to work. We know the home address. We know the work address. Should be easy to compute. make the credits subject to recapture if the commute distance changes within a certain number of years.
Next, get electrical generation and distribution on track:
1. Provide super-fast depreciation for tax purposes of all renewable-source electrical plants. Put up a wind turbine, deduct over 5 years or so.
2. Tell those idiots to decide where to put the tocamack for the next generation fusion experimentation and get moving.
3. Fast track the next generation of fission reactors.
2 & 3 will take a long time, I know. That's why I want them moving now.
4. Start a massive overhaul of the electrical grid, including storage and transmission systems.
5. If thermal depolymerization looks promising, buy out the patent and start putting in place wherever possible.
The idea being that as we get to the point where electricity can power more things, we're ready for it.
Now, put it to use:
1. Institute improved transportation service that use the grid; electric buses and trains. Provide flexibility and speed somehow.
2. Convert as many point energy sources to non-point as possible. No real idea here.
3. Make a standing offer for rechargable batteries with certain performance characteristics: energy to weight/volume with good recharge, no memory, etc. The government will pay X million dollars to anyone who patents one. In exchange, the public is licensed to use it immediately (maybe charging a small licensing fee to the government for each use, maybe not). Get as many things running on them as possible.
Of course, my preference would be doing things that expose the true costs of things to consumers. Cars are cheaper than public transportation both because of the cost for using public transportation in time and money but also because roads, parking, and fuel are subsidized far more than public transportation. There are a lot of situations where it's just cheaper to be wasteful. We should identify situations where that lower cost derives from market failures due to misallocated costs.
I have no idea how much I actually favor these policies, it was mainly musing inspired by an interesting question.
Dagonee
[ April 13, 2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
1. Limit packaging of products to no more than 1/3 again the size of the product they hold.
2. Ratchet the speed limits back down to 55 mph.
3. Establish mpg standards for vehicle types, with a minimum of 20 mpg for all passenger vehicles. Then have a 2 mpg boost mandated every 5 years (manufacturers have to get a five year run from a vehicle/engine design to get their money back from development -- if the car is a success).
4. Eliminate the tax deduction for mileage. You'd be amazed at how much this will cut back commutes and travel if folks can't get their 26 cents per mile.
5. Put a surcharge for business travel airline tickets.
6. Re-regulate the airlines industry to promote higher ratios of paid seats to trips made. Right now, too many airliners travel at less that 40 % occupancy. The idea that we have a flight ready when you want to leave has killed the industry. Return it to we don't have hourly flights leaving for New York City to a more manageable, we have flights leaving at 9 a.m., noon, 3 p.m. and 9 p.m.
7. Make the government's Energy Star ratings mandatory minimum benchmarks for appliances and then create higher levels for the new Energy Star labels.
8. But let's not just put it on the consumers... industry takes energy...
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I like Dagonee's ideas. However, I have absolutely no faith in our government to initiate any of these changes in the next 4 years. They won't even hold meetings to debate changes like this.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Every article I read on Peak Oil (including this one) conclude that it's too late to do anything but hunker down in a hole and eat the plate of worms the authors of these articles obviously believe that we richly deserve.
Okay...
Is there anyone who acknowledges the problem but DOESN'T say hiding under the bed whimpering is the only thing ordinary people can look forward to?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
There is the option of biodiesel from algae (yes, I've linked to this article before, and I'll continue to do so until other people start bringing this up in these threads). If done right, which admittedly is rather unlikely, we could completely replace our current demand on foreign oil through a combination of this method (especially when combined with coal power plants to capture the CO2), and a gradual switch to diesel cars and diesel-electric hybrids.
While we're at it, we could improve our rail infrastructure and start replacing our tractor-trailer shipping system with trains, where possible.
I like Dag's and Lost Ashes' ideas. Can someone explain to me why our politicians are so afraid to examine these issues seriously? Isn't this the kind of program that would demand innovation, create jobs, and boost the economy? Plus, save our a**es in the long term?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
From the article:
quote:Virtually all "biomass" schemes for using plants to create liquid fuels cannot be scaled up to even a fraction of the level at which things are currently run. What's more, these schemes are predicated on using oil and gas "inputs" (fertilizers, weed-killers) to grow the biomass crops that would be converted into ethanol or bio-diesel fuels. This is a net energy loser -- you might as well just burn the inputs and not bother with the biomass products. Proposals to distill trash and waste into oil by means of thermal depolymerization depend on the huge waste stream produced by a cheap oil and gas economy in the first place.
This is true for ethanol production, where the energy output is roughly equivalent to the energy input. But everywhere I've read about it puts the ratio of energy output to input for biodiesel production at around 3:1. Have I been misled?
Also, the point is well taken about the thermal depolymerization. It could never be a complete solution, and was never intended to be. It does, however, ameliorate two serious problems at once. Just because it isn't a miracle cure doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: 2. Ratchet the speed limits back down to 55 mph.
Is there any unbiased research to support this as a method of increasing efficiency? I know that when I drive to NC (6.5+ hours on the highway) where the general traffic is going about 80 MPH down Interstate 81, I can get around 40 MPG for the trip. Normally my mileage is around 33 MPG.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Also, the point is well taken about the thermal depolymerization. It could never be a complete solution, and was never intended to be. It does, however, ameliorate two serious problems at once. Just because it isn't a miracle cure doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
I agree. Throwing this out because it's basically recycling the "cheap oil" we've already used is like saying "re-using that plastic cup is a waste because we've already bought the bag anyway."
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Is there any unbiased research to support this as a method of increasing efficiency? I know that when I drive to NC (6.5+ hours on the highway) where the general traffic is going about 80 MPH down Interstate 81, I can get around 40 MPG for the trip. Normally my mileage is around 33 MPG.
Also, is there any evidence that bringing speed limits down will actually cause people to drive slower?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:4. Eliminate the tax deduction for mileage. You'd be amazed at how much this will cut back commutes and travel if folks can't get their 26 cents per mile.
First of all, you can't take the deduction for mileage for commuting.
Secondly, people don't travel for work because it's fun - there are people out there who must travel to make a living. Unless you want to rip every pipe out of your house and drive it to the plumber's shop when you have a leak. The deduction (which is 33 cents, not 26, I believe) doesn't even begin to offset the costs to those businesses, especially with current gas prices.
It would really, really make me happy one day if when proposing "solutions" people kept in mind what type of impact it would have on small businesses and the people that are actually paying the high gas prices every day just to keep in business.
Things are not so simple and cut and dry as "Eliminate mileage deductions so people won't drive as much." As business owner that still has to drive to his customer's house is not going to stay home and drive less - there is no energy that's going to be saved, and you're going to force those businesses to raise their prices significant to help cover for the deduction their losing.
So no energy gets saved, and people are now paying even more for services. Yeah. That'll really help.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Lost Ashes, diesel in this area (metro Boston) is more expensive than the lowest grade gas... And as soon as diesel became ubiquitous, how quickly do you think prices would go up, in response to demand?
That said, it's idiotic that we still don't have low-sulfur diesel mandatory yet.
Also, even with low-sulfur diesel, deisel engines create more CO2 (I think) than a gas engine.
We should all just move to ethanol!
-Bok
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Belle, that's a good point about milage deductions. We definitely shouldn't jump headlong into destructive policies. Which is why I'd really like to see a debate about this from our leaders, not just silence. And also a change in policies to benefit smaller businesses, but that's another story.
Bok, see the above comment about ethanol production having no net energy output. We'd have to put in just as much energy (presumably in the form of fossil fuels) to produce the stuff as we'd get out of burning it. I can try to find a good source for this info if you'd like. This is one of the places where biodiesel shines. Also, biodiesel emissions are considerably lower than those from petrodiesel: http://biodieselamerica.org/biosite/index.php?id=24,24,0,0,1,0. (Also, CO2 isn't the main problem with diesel emissions, at least in comparison with gas/ethanol, it's the NOx, sulfur, and particulate emissions that are the worst.)
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
quote:diesel fuel is generally cheaper than gasoline per gallon ..... In addition, diesel engines are easier to service than regular gasoline engines
I live in a farm town, and I really disagree. This morning, diesel at my local gas station was 3.09 a gallon, while the lowest grade unleaded was 2.28. Diesel engines may require less service (I'm not sure) but are a lot harder to service. I have a friend who does diesel mechanics here in town and is the only one in the area certified to do so. He had to go through all sorts of extra training, and constantly has to re-work damaged engines that standard mechanics tried to fix on their own. There just isn't the experience and knowledge base in the mechanic industry for current shops to work on diesels.
Also, when the neighbors start their stupid loud diesel pickup at 6:00 am, it makes me really mad. Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
My philosophy still relies on public transportation. We need to get over ourselves and our silly notions of needing to drive everywhere by ourselves.
Our country is covered with railway systems that are degrading from unuse. What would happen if we spent our highway funds on repairing the tracks and getting functional passenger trains running?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
PuffyTreat.
quote: Every article I read on Peak Oil (including this one) conclude that it's too late to do anything but hunker down in a hole and eat the plate of worms the authors of these articles obviously believe that we richly deserve.
Is there anyone who acknowledges the problem but DOESN'T say hiding under the bed whimpering is the only thing ordinary people can look forward to?
As someone who has taken a keen interest in Peak Oil, I understand and sympathize with your snarky comment, "these articles obviously believe that we richly deserve."
It seems that almost any article that believes or disputes the phenomenon takes an anti-American stance. However, I no longer see anti-Americanism as the motivation for this research.
The above article is worth the 91 page read. The language and presentation is professional, and viable solutions are presented/explored.
Some quick notes:
Page 8 presents a table of peaking predictions. The first 6 Geologists/Scientists/Investment Bankers place the peak between 2006-2010. Included are Colin Campbell, who started ASPO, and Matt Simmons, CEO of the worlds largest independent energy bank--having Halliburton as a client.
Those two are spearheading the Peak Oil Debate, and Simmons certainly is not Anti-American. I am not sure about Campbell yet. Simmons has some interesting articles.
In order to offset the destruction Peak Oil promises, the US government should implement aggressive mitigation strategies 20 years before peak.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
In answer to the first question asked (how I personally/my household could reduce energy consumption)...
Well, the top two energy consumption categories are transportation and food. So if we had to make a serious effort to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we were using, we'd reduce our cars down to just one for the household, and make it a diesel or hybrid or whatever else we could get that is the most fuel-efficient. This might or might not necessitate one of us (I live in a triad) quitting work--probably my husband, as he has the least earning power of the three of us, but that would still leave two of us employed, and my work is only two miles away so I could probably walk or bike. We'd need to plan errands more carefully, perhaps to the point of doing all our shopping in one big trip every couple weeks or every month. As for the food, I'm making my first foray into vegetable gardening this summer, but if I were going to be really serious about it I'd enlarge and diversify the garden well beyond what I have now, and take advantage of all three growing seasons instead of just summer. We live in the city, so livestock aren't an option, but if we lived farther out I think I could see us having a couple of goats and some chickens maybe. In any case, whatever we couldn't make ourselves we'd buy as close to the source as possible (e.g. the farmers' market), and eat what's in season instead of taking it for granted that we can have anything in every season (...says the person who succumbed to the strawberries on sale at the grocery store today ).
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I thought ethanol is made out of corn?
-Bok
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote: We live in the city, so livestock aren't an option
Not necessarily. My uncle lives in London and keeps chickens in the backyard.
Other than that, you make some good points. Here is a "footprint quiz". It makes a rough estimate of how much of the Earth's resources you use. And here are some suggestions for reducing your footprint. A lot of the changes you mentioned are listed there.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
While Mass Transit and bicycling might be ideal alternatives, we should be sure that anything proposed is something the American public will willing accept and pursue.
A decade ago, I was part of a regional sustainable development organization that was working with a three-county area to come up with viable economic strategies. I was a big proponent of the effort until the two professors leading the project turned in their final reports to the county commissions (reports that were not approved by the constituent members of the groups). In the report, they suggested as an environmental step that the counties push local farmers to begin using draft animals instead of tractors and combines on their farms.
Sure, that was just one tiny, itty bitty portion of the plan (which had many strong points) but it caused the entire work to be thrown out. It also had members of the commissions and attending public rolling in the aisles.
But let's face it, if you believe in bicycling or mass transit as noble efforts, then chances are good that you're already doing your part. But you won't be able to convince your neighbors. It won't work for them or their lifestyle or personal timetables.
Any change has to be something that takes into effect our real communal priorities. As Americans (and most folks in the first world) we'll sacrifice resources if we can get more done or do less work to get something done. It's not exactly the best way to do things, but let's face it, it is how it is done.
How many times have you called out for a delivery pizza rather than making one yourself?
Any changes made to better efficiency either have to be behind the scenes completely or made in such a way that Americans perceive this as a step forward.
It's why rail travel for most Americans is nowhere near an answer. It is a step back and it is a slow and tedious method of transport, just a bit better than travel by bus.
So if the stick won't work, what carrot will?
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Hmm, my footprint is 17 acres, where the average for my country is 24. Still, apparently "if everyone lived like me, we'd need 3.8 planets." I know I could be doing more...maybe once the guilt builds a little higher, I will Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Stray mine was also 17.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
What must people be doing to drive the average up to 24, then? I think you and I probably live pretty average lifestyles, I shudder to think how wastefully some must be living to make the average so high...long commutes, SUVs, and meat-heavy diets, I suppose.
Edited for typo
[ April 14, 2005, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Stray ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Mine was 1.6. Guess we all can't be vegans within walking distance of, well, everything
Actually, Ashes, I think the only thing that will work is the stick, which hasn't been tried yet. Until it is too costly to own 2+ cars, live in the country and drive to the city people won't cut back. If (once?) the price of gas reaches the 4-5$/gallon that you see in Europe I think things will change in a hurry.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Yowza! I wish I could live as lightly on the earth as you, Bob, but I don't think the vegan life is for me, and forget about convincing my family to do it.
I'm really getting into this gardening thing, though. And I really do prefer buying as much of my food as I can from the farmers' market; everything tastes better when it's fresh and locally produced. The fruit in supermarkets is bred for appearance and the ability to travel well; flavor and texture are secondary concerns, and I find that a lot of it is just icky, not to mention expensive out-of-season because of having to be trucked in fro who knows where. Hence my plan to grow lots and lots and lots of red and yellow bell peppers this summer, cut em up and freeze em, and tell the stores what they can do with their $4-a pound ones this winter Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
14 acre footprint...
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
8 acres. But that's my whole family.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:
quote: 2. Ratchet the speed limits back down to 55 mph.
Is there any unbiased research to support this as a method of increasing efficiency? I know that when I drive to NC (6.5+ hours on the highway) where the general traffic is going about 80 MPH down Interstate 81, I can get around 40 MPG for the trip. Normally my mileage is around 33 MPG.
I believe most cars reach peak fuel efficiency somewhere between 40 and 60 miles per hour. It's not driving faster that improves fuel economy—it's not stopping all the time.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Generally, as you creep above 55, your wind resistance increases exponentially, thus requiring more energy used for every 1MPH gained.
-Bok
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I got 12, but according to the webpage that means if everybody lived like me we would need 2.7 planets. Another way of saying that is that Earth's population should only be about 2.2 billion people if everyone lived like me.
Ultimately, that's my answer to the whole problem. We've just got to bring the population down, no matter how politically untenable it is.
As far as mass transit goes, I think the first step is that we have to plan housing to accomodate it. No more urban sprawl. We need to build small tight knit communities where we are within walking or biking distance of "everything", and then link them with the best mass transit we can build. We need to stop destroying arable land by building McMansions and shopping malls on it. Also, eliminate the tax break for a second home.
There should be a law that thermostat manufacturers can't have setpoints higher than 70 deg for heat, or less than 74 deg for cooling. All thermostats should be programmable, and all homes should be required to upgrade.
There should be a direct tax credit to replace home heating units (furnaces and boilers) with new units with an AFUE of higher than 85%. Heating oil or gas companies should be required to calculate BTU/Square foot/degree day for each house they service, and inform customers of this. There should also be a tax credit on any upgrade for insulation/windows/doors, to improve efficiency.
Heated driveways should be illegal. (It's not that common - yet. But it really pisses me off.)
Major commuter roadways should be automated. This would eliminate speeding, road rage, accidents (except maybe for deer, I think), and by allowing cars to travel in close proximity, fuel ecomony would improve dramatically, and congestion would be reduced (added benefit, lower road construction costs).
Government has to get into the carpooling business. Connecticut has a really good vanpooling system, but most states don't really bother. Car insurance companies should be required to offer special policies for pooled vehicles. (I tried to put together a vanpool club, but would have had to pay $14,000 a year for livery insurance, as if I was running a taxi service, instead of just running 9 people to and from work in a van)
We need to make organic farming the norm, and produce as much food as possible locally, to reduce shipping, and also to keep people aware of how valuable agriculture is as an industry (community based agriculture like this). Also to reduce invasive species transport.
I agree with Bush (amazing!) that permitting to rebuild coal burning powerplants should be easier, but not so that the plants can be made larger, only so that cleaner and more efficient systems can be built. I'm also pro-nuclear, but again, not to increase output. And if wind and other renewables become viable, I would hope that the fossil fuel power plants will close. Eventually they'll have to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Start a major public relations campaign to get people to line dry their clothes rather than using an electric or gas dryer. Make it illegal for home owners associations to prohibit line drying of clothes.
Make it illegal for home owners associations to require outdoor lighting.
Give big tax breaks for renovation of older buildings to improve energy efficiency.
Ban the sale of all new non-flat screen computer monitors.
Replace all traffic lights with LEDs. Put more research money into developing LED lighting for homes, offices and street lights. Then give big tax incentives for people to upgrade to efficient LED lights.
Put an additional 25 cent/gallon tax on gas and pour the money into decent mass transit systems.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Anti-American?
I didn't say anything about finding the article anti-American, or that I didn't believe Peak Oil evidence was real. I'm not quite sure where you got that, lem.
I said that I found the "All you can do is wait for the crash, suckers!" and "Oh yeah...gettin' yer just desserts now you fast-food eating, car-driving, movie watching Middle Class morons!" tone of this and most of the other online articles I've read about it to be annoying. There's a difference.
[ April 14, 2005, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Puffy Treat ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:The production of one gallon of ethanol requires 129,600 Btu's of energy input but yields only 76,000 Btu's of useable energy. “About 70% more energy is required to produce 1,000 liters of ethanol than the energy that actually is in the ethanol”
The article takes a similarly dim view of biodiesel, but only considers current production, which is indeed very inefficient. The proposed system in the article I linked above uses algae instead of soybeans, which have the added benefit that the algae farms can be built on otherwise non-arable land.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Anti-American?
quote:Every article I read on Peak Oil (including this one) conclude that it's too late to do anything but hunker down in a hole and eat the plate of worms the authors of these articles obviously believe that we richly deserve.
Sorry I misread you. I thought you were talking about how the tone of these articles, which imply that Americans "richly deserved" to "eat a plate of worms," seem to be Anti-American.
I got off on the Anti-Americanism because when I read these articles, I see five themes which seem to crop up all the time.
1: There is no such thing as Peak Oil. America is fabricating the idea so the population will go along with it's Zionistic and Imperialistic ideas.
2: There is no such thing as Peak Oil. America is fabricating the idea so that the population will go along with war to cut down the population of the world.
3: There is no such thing as Peak Oil. America is fabricating the idea so that the population will support the War in Iraq to take over the oil fields for profit.
4: There is such thing as Peak Oil. It is America's fault because they use a disproportionate amount of oil. Their suburban lifestyle makes them too reliant on oil. They use up the worlds resources, and when the inevitable crash happens, they will be the worst hit--and they deserve it!
5: There is such thing as Peak Oil. Dick Chenny knows about it, and the War on Terror is really just a justification the administration is using to grab the last major oil fields in Iraq and the gas/oilines in Afghanistan. Some people go even as far to say that the administration orchestrated 9/11 to rile public opinion to support a War on Terror.
It has been frustrating for me to study peak oil and wade through all the Anti-Americanism. When I saw "richly deserve," I mistakenly thought you had encountered the same politics.
My apologies.
My point about the 91 page article is still valid to your request. It does not say we have no hope. It lays out three scenarios of what will happen depending on when we try to mitigate the transition to a society after the peak. Even the worst scenario does not imply the permanent deindustrialization of society.
EDIT: Added the 5th theme.
[ April 15, 2005, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by WigginWinning (Member # 7811) on :
Put as much money, tax relief and publicity into a plan to research and switch to alternative feuls. The only reason solar, bio, aero and other forms of energy have not been more thoroughly investigated and implemeneted has only to do with the fact that the most powerful people in the country for the past 150 years have drawn their income directly from the oil industry. Fossil Feuls built this country. And they ain't givin' it up that easy.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
My footprint is relatively high right now. I think the transportation side is a big reason, too. I can't bike to work. Dangerous and impractical would be the two reasons why. I'd probably die in an accident with a car within a week or starting. Public transit would be an option, if I could determine the schedules and get a regular work schedule (ie, one that doesn't require me to work until 10:30 at night periodically). So thus, I drive.
I atone for some of my ecological sins. The "footprint" quiz did not ask me how much I recycle, which I didn't consider fair. I recycle so much that I only have a small sack (plastic grocery size) of trash every week or two.
Oh yeah, ideally I would bike to work fairly regularly. I would also garden if I had access to such a thing. (Of course, in an ideal world, I wouldn't be working in retail sales with a college degree, either.)
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: We - and by this I mean people throughout the industrial world - have to make the transition to a Third World lifestyle. There's no way to sugar-coat that very unpalatable reality. Fossil fuels made it possible for most people in the industrial world to have a lifestyle that doesn't depend on hard physical labor, and to wallow in a flood of mostly unnecessary consumer goods and services. As fossil fuels deplete, all that will inevitably go away. How many people would be willing to listen to such a suggestion? More to the point, how many people would vote for a politician or a party who proposed to bring on these changes deliberately, now, in order to prevent total disaster later on?
John Kenneth Galbraith has written a brilliant, mordant book, The Culture of Contentment, about the reasons why America is incapable of constructive change. He compares today's American political class (those people who vote and involve themselves in politics) to the French aristocracy before the Revolution. Everybody knew that the situation was insupportable, and that eventually there would be an explosion, but the immediate costs of doing something about it were so unpalatable that everyone decided to do nothing and hope that things would somehow work out. We're in exactly the same situation here and now.
quote: Does this model apply to the current situation? Almost certainly. As oil and natural gas run short, economies will come unglued and political systems disintegrate under the strain. But there's still oil to be had - the Hubbert Curve is a bell-shaped curve, after all. The world in 2020 may still be producing about as much oil as it was producing in 1980. It's just that with other fossil fuels gone or badly depleted, nearly twice as many people in the world, and the global economy in shreds, the gap between production and demand will be vast. The result will be poverty, spiralling shortages, rising death rates, plummeting birth rates, and epidemic violence and warfare. Not a pretty picture - but it's not an instant reversion to the Stone Age either
I've got to run and I haven't finished the article yet, but it seems pretty good so far. The others I've read and they are just more stuff like what's already been posted, but in terms that normal people can understand. Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
We may, *GASP*, need to relook the idea of nuclear power here in the US. Sure, it's not the most palatable energy form to some, but it could go a long way to getting us weaned back from fossil fuel consumption.
Of course, that presents its own plate of worms to be eaten, with waste disposal and safety, but I feel that a solution to the waste disposal would be much easier than the idea of shifting to basically a third world economy.
Like I said before, we can't take steps backwards and who wants to? There is a brighter horizon ahead, we just have to start working towards it, rather than hunkering down with the plate of worms some folks feel we richly deserve to eat.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I believe that one of the first articles posted on this thread explained why that wasn't feasible. My short term memory sucks, but I thought it had something to do with not enough time to build as many as would be needed and there would be too much resistance to getting them built because of the "not in my backyard" syndrome we seem to have.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I believe that one of the first articles posted on this thread explained why that wasn't feasible.
The gist of it is that the problem of Peak Oil is a liquid fuel problem--not a traditional energy problem. The majority of the oil we use is used in transportation. We also need oil for rubber and other transportation products, but our economy depends on cheap abundant oil for transporting goods. Any disruption in our liquid fuels will have long term world economic effects.
How far do the products at Wal-Mart have to travel to reach their final destination (including the cost of transport for the consumer to go and buy the products)?
quote:In 2003, the world comsumed just under 80 million barrels per day (MMpbd). US comsumption was almost 20MMbpd, two-thirds of which was in the transportation sector. {Page 4 of the aforementioned Peak Oil article and analysis}
Hydrogen only stores energy; so in order to move away from liquid fuels, we would need to convert the American automobile fleet to a hydrogen system that collects energy from an alternative source.
Assuming we had radioactive, solar, or some other energy producer that was attached to "Fill-Up stations" and was fully functioning today, it would still take about 9-12 years to convert our automobiles to hybrid cars. It takes time to build cars, and not everyone will go out to buy a new car. It will be a painful, long process.
THAT IS ASSUMING WE HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE FILL UP STATION TO RE-CHARGE THE CARS.
Since we don't have that yet, the report claims we could make a transition (albeit rough) to alternative energy IF we have 20 years before the peak to rigorously research and update our automotive industry and our dependency on liquid fuels.
So much of our economy rests on liquid fuels--not good old fashion energy.
We need to be investing large sums of money into this approach. We need to not subsidize oil so that market forces will help cut down on usage. We need to set policies, like Dag mentioned, to encourage conservation. We need to be fully committed to pay the burden now to convert to a non-liguid fuel mode of transportation.
I really Liked Dags emphasis on policy and investment.
It really does boil down getting the masses weaned from liquid fuels---and we don't have the technology yet to implement a 10-20 year conversion plan.
God help us if we are in the peak now. I hope that both Shell and the Cambridge Energy Research Associates are correct when they say the peak will occur after 2020. Even then, we are optimistically looking at only 15 years to prepare.
But there is a lot of evidence that it could be around 2010...or even 2005-2007.
We may not revert back to the stone age, but it already seems world players are setting the stage for the battle of resources, and unlikely allies are setting up to contest America for dwindling fossile fuels.
EDITED to fix grammer/communication problems.
[ April 15, 2005, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Nuclear adds, if completely replacing all non-nuclear power plants, 350 years to solve the energy problem... Except it doesn't solve the transportation issue by itself (Can't put a nuclear reactor in a car ).
-Bok
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Except it doesn't solve the transportation issue by itself
The transportation issue is the MAJOR issue. Like it says in the report, the problem of Peak Oil is a liquid fuel crisis, not a normal energy crisis. ~See above post.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I predict that skyrocketing energy costs will drive the following changes:
1) Gas prices will continue to rise until it is very difficult to afford to drive to work for anyone not making a "professional" salary.
The response to this will be a huge proliferation of more efficient cars such as hybrids. Maybe we will see something that should have existed long ago- an efficient 1 passenger commuter vehicle
2) Homes will become much more energy efficient- Rabbit mentioned LED lighting and flatscreen monitors. There will doubtless be new sorts of more efficient heating made available on two fronts: a) Smart heating (microprocessor controlled heating which could heat different rooms separately, drop heating levels when no one is home etc) and more efficient heating systems.
This will likely contribute to changes in "urban sprawl" and huge changes in home buying- older homes will be too expensive to heat and cool and hence will have to be sold and far cheaper prices. Newer homes will be more expensive and so far more people will be likely to live in inherently more efficient condos and apartments.
3)Development of renewable energy sources will get a huge boost. There are many, many workable solutions out there which aren't being developed due to lack of demand. I expect to see huge government grants and private sector financing into a plethora of new technolgies both for new sources and making old sources more efficient. Buy stock in changing world technologies the moment they go public!
I expect that thermal depolymerization or an equivalent technology will become as widespread as sewage treatment plants. I expect that every University in the world will have a large and well-funded energy research and development department. Expect to see a lot more in the news about things like microwave energy collected in orbit and beamed to earth, geothermal, hydroelectric and biological energy sources.
4)human powered transportation will become very popular.
Every family will own at least one bicycle. Bicycle trailers and the like for transporting children, groceries etc. will become commonplace. Cities will need to put a lot more infrastructure in place to separate motorized traffic from bicycle traffic. For economic reasons it will become a lot more commonplace to see neighborhood grocery stores, restaurants etc. I expect that in a lot of ways the US will look more like it did 70 years ago.
While the potential certainly exists for economies crashing, nations fracturing and the death of all society as we know it, I suspect that change will be for the most part incremental and that we generally won't really even notice it happening.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Jacare, what we're facing is not so much an energy crisis as it is a liquid fuel crisis. The effects you mention probably will happen to some extent. But even cutting back like this we will still maintain a demand for oil that will outstrip any supply from fossil sources. Thermal depolymerization is nice, but is essentially a recycling effort. Where do we get all the oil we need? Also, keep in mind that any transition to more efficient transportation involves replacement of our huge fleet of existing vehicles, which will take a long time even in the best case scenario (see lem's link above).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Scientists have managed to coax bacteria into producing hydrogen - a development that would reduce the cost of waste water treatment.
Using a little amount of electricity - about 0.25 volts - scientists at Pennsylvania State University found that a microbial fuel cell can overcome its "fermentation barrier", Xinhua reports.
The voltage is just one-tenth needed for electrolysis - the process that uses electricity to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen.
"Basically, we use the same microbial fuel cell we developed to clean waste water and produce electricity. However, to produce hydrogen, we keep oxygen out of the microbial fuel cell and add a small amount of power into the system," said Bruce Logan, a professor who led the study.
In a paper "Electrochemically Assisted Microbial Production of Hydrogen from Acetate", the researchers explained that hydrogen production by bacterial fermentation was limited by "the fact that bacteria, without a power boost, can only convert carbohydrates to a limited amount of hydrogen - and a mixture of 'dead end' fermentation end-products such as acetic and butyric acids".
The voltage to be given, scientists explain, is a small fraction of the voltage needed to run a typical six-volt cell phone.
But it overcomes the "dead end" created during fermentation and produces four times more hydrogen than would be typically generated by fermentation alone.
Besides, the new process is not limited to using only carbohydrate-based biomass. Theoretically, it yields hydrogen from any biodegradable, dissolved, organic matter and cleans wastewater.
In the procedure, when the bacteria eat the biomass, they transfer electrons to an anode. The bacteria also release protons - hydrogen atoms stripped of their electrons - which go into solution.
They speak of the voltage but not the current required, so I can't tell how power efficient this is. But it sounds cool.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yeah, that was my comment too.
Edit: The current versus voltage thing.
[ April 24, 2005, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I can't imagine that the current would be that high, since the voltage is basically being applied to dirty water.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
I wish I could live as lightly on the earth as you, Bob, but I don't think the vegan life is for me, and forget about convincing my family to do it.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)