We hear alot in the news about how we can "grow" our way out of oil dependancy. Here's an article that takes a look the energy equation and says it doesn't add up.

The False Hope of Biofuels
For Energy and Environmental Reasons, Ethanol Will Never Replace Gasoline
By James Jordan and James Powell
Sunday, July 2, 2006; Page B07

...

But as we've looked at biofuels more closely, we've concluded that they're not a practical long-term solution to our need for transport fuels. Even if all of the 300 million acres (500,000 square miles) of currently harvested U.S. cropland produced ethanol, it wouldn't supply all of the gasoline and diesel fuel we now burn for transport, and it would supply only about half of the needs for the year 2025. And the effects on land and agriculture would be devastating.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html

Ethanol is just a farm subsidy. Politics.

The bottom line on "bio"fuels is that there will never be enough
bio mass to feed the earth as fertlizer via crop waste, humans as
food, vehicles as fuel with over 6+billion humans on earth now.

Farming yields now are largly the result of petro chemicals that
boost yields well past the earths natural ablitity to grow crops.
This leads to false hope that bio will save the day.

I honestly don't believe that ethanol or biodiesel are the total answer, but if world oil prices become high enough they can be used as a extender. Then you have the hydrogen bandwagon...I don't see that one either. We work at a plant where they get liquid hydrogen delivered. When the "H" truck is on site all work has to stop, and you walk to the nearest break area and wait until it is done before resuming work. There are estimates that it would cost over 6 trillion dollars to convert to a total hydrogen economy. It is very bulky, to reduce bulk you have to compress, the more you compress the stronger the lines and storage containers need to be to handle it. It is also highly flammable...remember the Hindenburg? Not something that I want to see a cellphone yacking soccer mom playing with:p Personal preference is electric. I think that the continued development of superconductors will play a role in this. Electric light rail for interurban transportation. Bicycles and walking for anything under 15 miles. Use heavy rail to move commerce vs the ungodly number of large trucks on the roads today. There is no real reason for a truck to bring a load of anything from the west coast to the east coast other than the strength of the trucking lobby, and the $$ that corporations think they are saving by not maintaining a current inventory and long range inventory planning. We have become an instant society, with "on time" inventory, and delivery. I realize this is a fragmented series of thoughts but they are all interrelated whether we realize it or not. We need to reduce our dependency on oil period. Kind of like the old saw of not "placing all your eggs in one basket".

Aaron:)

I agree that hydrogen is not the solution to scarcer fuel. But I don't think it's flammability is the main problem. Unlike gasoline, hydrogen is non-toxic and it dissipates quickly in the atmosphere, so the flames more or less "go away." Almost all of the people killed in the Hindenburg died from falling, not from burns.

Fact sheet on hydrogen safety from the govt. of California (www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/facts/einsafety.pdf)

I agree that hydrogen is not the solution to scarcer fuel. But I don't think it's flammability is the main problem. Unlike gasoline, hydrogen is non-toxic and it dissipates quickly in the atmosphere, so the flames more or less "go away." Almost all of the people killed in the Hindenburg died from falling, not from burns.

Fact sheet on hydrogen safety from the govt. of California (www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/facts/einsafety.pdf)

Roody,
I will agree, but I think the possibility of explosion and the requirement of pressure vessels and high strength piping are the main limiting factors.

Aaron:)

I agree that hydrogen is not the solution to scarcer fuel. But I don't think it's flammability is the main problem.

Generating Hydrogen is the hard part. What you need to do is get a lot of power and some water and split the oxygen and hydrogen.

When I lived in the California Desert, SunLine, the local transit company was experimenting with hydrogen powered buses. What made it practical was all the available sunlight. They used it to split the oxygen and hydrogen. But that is still not a practical solution for many areas.

SunLine Transit Hydrogen Buses (http://www.sunline.org/home/index.asp?page=80)

Peanut butter and bananas are my most favorite biofuels.

For motorized transport, all the alternative fuels look like losing propositions to me, with butanol being the best of a bunch of bad choices. Although butanol really stinks.

I don't talk about the futility of biofuels because most people aren't psychologically ready to deal with the impending end of cheap & easy motoring. I'm already concerned that carfree advocates will be targeted for plenty of hate and anger, being perhaps accused of conspiring to take people's cars away.

Among the problems with current biofuels is that most of the sunlight that the plant converts into chemical energy appears to go into cellulose and other plant body parts, not the oils and starches that are generally what is made into biofuels. Researchers are actively working to genegineer organisms that will go from cellulose to ethanol in one step. Then we need to see which plant is the best converter of sunlight into biomass (cellulose?). NORML may be right about non-drug hemp being the best plant for that; I'll wait and see.

The only real, sane answer is CONSERVATION. That's where the real gains are to be made. Rail is the most efficient method of large-scale transit on the planet. We need to return to heavy rail for freight and high-speed rail for long-distance personal transit. Restore the light rail ripped out of our cities at the behest of the "big 3" automotives. Restructure our society so that we once again live where we work -- and/or telecommute. Build more facilities that cool and heat using natural forces rather than depending wholly on electricty/oil. Switch our working sites so that we use natural light rather than boarding off all windows and forcing everyone to toil beneath flourescent monstrosities.

If we do all these things, we may have petrol left to allow us to continue fertilizing and tilling crops ... and to relocate the people displaced by the newly emergent weather patterns. There may be just enough fuel around to allow us to avoid widescale starvation and subsequent wars.

Unfortunately, most addicts, like the old cigarette add used to say, would rather fight than switch.

The only real, sane answer is CONSERVATION. That's where the real gains are to be made. Rail is the most efficient method of large-scale transit on the planet. We need to return to heavy rail for freight and high-speed rail for long-distance personal transit. Restore the light rail ripped out of our cities at the behest of the "big 3" automotives. Restructure our society so that we once again live where we work -- and/or telecommute. Build more facilities that cool and heat using natural forces rather than depending wholly on electricty/oil. Switch our working sites so that we use natural light rather than boarding off all windows and forcing everyone to toil beneath flourescent monstrosities.

If we do all these things, we may have petrol left to allow us to continue fertilizing and tilling crops ... and to relocate the people displaced by the newly emergent weather patterns. There may be just enough fuel around to allow us to avoid widescale starvation and subsequent wars.

Unfortunately, most addicts, like the old cigarette add used to say, would rather fight than switch.

Amen, friend. Not because of any political agenda or philosophical belief, but because it's the pragmatic thing to do. I understand one of the Scandinavian countries is getting this seriously underway now.

There would be other benefits to such a massive change, such as the benefits to our health. I think humans have learned in the past 100+ years that while excessive physical labor can kill a person, so can a complete lack of it. We automate and mechanize nearly every aspect of our everyday lives and then criticize people for not making time in their lives to go somewhere and engage in structured exercise with no practical purpose. I just find that to be a ridiculous expectation for the vast majority of people. A restructuring of our everyday lives to include using physical activity to get some things done would be very good for Homo sapiens.

Not that I have a lot of optimism. Secular people either think that Peak Oil and all that goes with it is too extreme to be true, or is true but they're paralyzed by the enormity of the problem. The nonsecular people think God is punishing us and we have to take it, or is going to somehow save us like a comic book superhero, or this is the beginning of the "End Times". The litany of rationalizations for doing nothing amaze me in their scope and creativity.

The only real, sane answer is CONSERVATION. That's where the real gains are to be made. Rail is the most efficient method of large-scale transit on the planet. We need to return to heavy rail for freight and high-speed rail for long-distance personal transit. Restore the light rail ripped out of our cities at the behest of the "big 3" automotives. Restructure our society so that we once again live where we work -- and/or telecommute. Unfortunately, most addicts, like the old cigarette add used to say, would rather fight than switch.

And the CalTec student that burned
the Hummer's in protest got 35 yrs,
while Congress still gives subsidies
for people to buy gas hogs... IIRC.

Conservation, and car free living.
I don't have anything better to
cheer for, so I am putting my money
and personal time and energy in that
area. And bring on more buses, light
and heavy rail. Let the airlines die!

Personal transportation (40-50% of oil) is a social issue (sorry to mantra this).
We build cul-de-sacs and drive to get a gallon of milk instead of walkable communities linked closely to our daily needs. We demand/AmericanDreamize 3/2 ranch houses, surrounded by grass (fertlizer, pumped h20), miles from work/school/stores and complain our SUV's cost too much.
The basic social issues center on our current living arangements. The thought of giving up your personal status device is wonderfully illustrated by 8 people reading this sub-forum out of 2K confirmed cyclists.
The next time you break down molecules, caculate hpower vs geo metros, or solar/ nuclear/ electric/ transportation consider walking to the store for milk.
*Shamelessly based on Kunstler's Geography of Nowhere.

How come Brazil is doing it just fine? Oh wait, we grow corn for biofuel, a highly inefficient crop, while they grow sugarcane.

The article should be re-title: The False Hope of Biofule(In the USA).

Even when they are talking about using waste products, they are still using corn as an example. What hacks.

How come Brazil is doing it just fine? Oh wait, we grow corn for biofuel, a highly inefficient crop, while they grow sugarcane.

The article should be re-title: The False Hope of Biofule(In the USA).

Even when they are talking about using waste products, they are still using corn as an example. What hacks.
Read Strong Oil/Corn Lobby in the USofA and Strong Sugar Cane Lobby in Brazil...they have also been working on it for 30 years, can't say that about the US.

Aaron:)

the US already produces as much ethanol as Brazil and it doesnt even make a dent in US consumption, and that is the key, the US just flat out uses too much for ANY alternative to replace gasoline/diesel, bottom line.........at some point we will be FORCED to use less, and it will be quite a bit less

The next time you break down molecules, caculate hpower vs geo metros, or solar/ nuclear/ electric/ transportation consider walking to the store for milk.


I do walk (Or, rather... bike, most of the time) to get milk. And Soda. And Toilet paper, and Dog food.... and everything else I need. I haven't driven or gotten a ride from anyone to do grocery shopping in two months.

It's kinda fun to do everything on my own, WITHOUT relying on my gas-guzzling truck.

I can carry a half a shopping cart full of groceries on my bike, and when I have the time, I'm going to build a trailer, so I could carry more stuff if I need to.

After a semester of thermodynamics, it is impossible for me to believe that we will ever run out of energy, more than adequate to all our genuine needs as a species. It is easy for me to picture us running at our current rate of per capita joule use, forever, or even doubling or quadrupling it sustainably. How about 10 megawatt tethered wind plants in the jet stream? Takes a carbon nanotether, which good minds are working on and is considered achievable on a ten year timeframe. Sewage postprocessing into lipid-rich algaes? Farming of the oceanic deserts for biomass? Makes a whole lot more sense than corn syrup and corn oil, which are tiny distillations from the basic process of keeping the corn plant alive. It's reasonable to expect a 50% biomass yield of usable lipids from algaes, which starts to make the system look like a feasible alternative to the entirely wasteful sewage systems we have now.

What concerns me is the great antiquity of our social institutions, and the weight of reverence they have acquired. I don't know if the engineers are going to get a chance to fulfull our material needs, because it might require drastic change to the insane monetary and political systems we're stuck with. Imagine: Money is no longer based on any reserve or supply, but is create out of fiat, and yet WE ARE STILL TAXED BY THE ISSUERS OF CURRENCY...we are owned, in other words. Our democratic process plays out in years while the Internet gives us the ability to play it out in minutes. Something must give, and revolution is not out of the question, in the sense of a basic change in the way economic and political power is distributed.

That is half the problem, the Mammon which drives growth and creates bankrupcy, both beyond all reason. The other half, in my opinionated opinion, is the global tragedy of supporting meat animals in vast overage of what the land can reasonably sustain. This has destroyed the Middle East, Northern Africa, and the area that is now the Gobi desert, all in historical times, and is well on its way to destroying large swaths of the rest of the world. Herd animals extract nutrients from the soil at rates faster than they can be returned, cause disease, and destroy the soil texture with their hoofs, accelerating runoff. The Romans used to feed their entire empire from the fertility of Northern Africa, and most of what is now the Sahara was jungle before the goats came. If we cannot curb our appetite for flesh to something the planet can bear, we will destroy it, period: this is the cause of most deforestation that isn't caused by firewood, the lions share of erosion, and so on, not to mention significant greenhouse emissions, and each meal of meat could provide ten of vegetable foods from the same lands, with even less overall environmental impact.

atman, I don't think the issue is that we will suddenly run out of energy. Rather, energy is going to become increasingly expensive and hard to get. This seems to hold true no matter what new systems and processes are developed.

The development of the jet stream turbines, for example, would be very expensive--probably beyond the financial ability of any one country acting alone. Therefore, we are going to need to cooperate on an international level, and it sure doesn't look like the countries of the world are moving in the direction of greater cooperation.

Conservation is essential. North America is using far more than our share of energy now. Much of this energy is wasted in providing the luxury of private automobiles to our people. Conservation in all areas will be needed, but personal transportation is the area where we can conserve the most energy, at the least inconvenience to individuals and to our economy.

Hence....carfree living!

Ah, Roody....money is the huge elephant in the corner which we just can't ignore. WHAT IS IT, in a world where its origins and movements are obscure to most people: this is a real question with an answer that appalls most people. When a bank invests in something, 80% or more of the money is created on the spot, and the rest is created through similar fiat at the federal reserve level. 'Expensive' is a concept which has more in common with 'groovy' than it does with 'warm' or 'heavy'.

What would change the entire picture would be a reorganization of how resources are controlled, both of the 'political' and 'economic' varieties. I'm not referring to any sort of 20th century solution like socialism or anarcho-capitalism, but to something made possible by the Internet: a transparent decision-making process which is collaborative and democratic while allowing for differing stakes in various affairs, coordinated through a system of arbitrage not unlike the present-day courts. In such a system, we would develop metrics for expense which take into account everything we know about the ecosystem and the economy, and we would cease to consider all our disparate resources, natural and personal, through the single filter of money. Coal, though easy, should be considered more expensive than something resource-intensive but necessary like jet stream turbines: why not? Expensive is our idea, we need to make it serve us, and (literally) bailing out New Orleans is pretty resource-intensive too.

This is why I'm not entirely optimistic, because I still see so few people thinking this way. It may take a lot of damage, and even a few riots that resemble outright insurrections, before even contemplating a new way is possible. I hope not, because that actually makes implementation harder. Nevertheless, trances must be broken, if not through theatre then through the news. Fortunately, some of this can be implemented on a smaller scale, to develop the technology to deploy it nation and world wide. When it's ready, it'll happen, and the pot will really start to bubble...I think the best image of what's coming I can hack together in the present paradigm is "Google Vote".

atman, I don't think the issue is that we will suddenly run out of energy. Rather, energy is going to become increasingly expensive and hard to get. This seems to hold true no matter what new systems and processes are developed. Hence....carfree living!

Right you are. We actually have vast energy resources in the ground now, that few want to tap. It's called COAL. I for one am very happy to leave that vile stuff in the ground for future more desperate generations.

Right you are. We actually have vast energy resources in the ground now, that few want to tap. It's called COAL. I for one am very happy to leave that vile stuff in the ground for future more desperate generations.
Yes, besides saying energy will become more expensive and harder to get, I should have added that it will probably become DIRTIER too.

[QUOTE=chicbicyclist]How come Brazil is doing it just fine? Oh wait, we grow corn for biofuel, a highly inefficient crop, while they grow sugarcane.
QUOTE]


So far, so good. Sugar Cane has high social costs as well. It tends to be grown in what might otherwise be wetlands causing habitat loss. The fertilizers pollute the downstream water. Harvesting it is notoriously labor intensive and the source for a lot of labor abuse. The cane is burnt causing lots of pollution.

Not saying that some of these problems can't be overcome, but it's important to recognize them.

Electric light rail for interurban transportation.
Aaron:)

I agree with your assumption on lightrail for interurban transportation but did you know that it costs close to 1 billion dollars for 10 miles of electric track! It's incredibly expensive and there is NO way you can extend these lines out to the burbs due to the costs involved.

We had an extensive interurban lightrail system in the U.S. at the turn of the century but they went almost as fast as they came.

While it's unlikely that car companies will start using this...the key is electric cars with the new infrared-nanotechnology solar cells.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

These cells are 5-6 times more efficient (at creating usable energy) than current solar panels and can be sprayed on to fabrics or added to paint. They work with the infrared spectrum so they get power not only from the sun but from ANYTHING that gives off heat. So they'll work under clouds, at night, and the heat of a car's engine, the human bodies inside the car could all be helping to power/recharge the car.

Imagine that the part of the car housing the engine is sprayed with an adhesive containing these cells, the car seats and roof inside the car can have these cells, and the outside paint on the car as well. Pretty much the entire car, inside and out, could be grabbing energy. While all that energy might not be enough to power the car indefinitely, it'd likely be enough to take current electric cars that go 60-80 miles on one charge umuch further, perhaps 400 miles (a complete guess) or more.

So far, so good. Sugar Cane has high social costs as well. It tends to be grown in what might otherwise be wetlands causing habitat loss. The fertilizers pollute the downstream water. Harvesting it is notoriously labor intensive and the source for a lot of labor abuse. The cane is burnt causing lots of pollution.

Not surprisingly, oil has alot of those baggages, too. Only its pollution results in a net gain of carbon, whereas the burning of sugar cane results in none since the carbon waste product was already present in the atmosphere.

OK folks, I hate to be contrary. But conservation is not the answer. Even if we all cut down our energy usage by a large percentage, as long as the population and economy keep growing, sooner or later we will be back where we started in terms of energy use. I heard some study which said that if tomorrow everyone started driving hybrids, assuming current population and economic growth rates continue, in five years we'd be using as much gas as we do now. And for good reason, no one wants to stop the economy from growing, thereby creating mass poverty, or keep people from reproducing like China does. People will not accept radical reductions in their standards of living. This may come as a shock but most people don't want to live in dense urban areas in one bedroom highrise apartments, in order to conserve energy. People, especially me, like living spread out in the countryside in nice houses with nice yards. And in areas like that, rail transport and public transportation are simply not efficient.

As for bicycle transportation, it can be a great idea if you live close to where you work. I love my bike but I can't commute with it because I live 50 miles away from where I work. Why do I live that far? Because I have a family, and a house big enough to accommodate the six of us any closer to work would cost me closer to a million dollars than 500,000 dollars. With the longer commute I got my house for much less.

So what is the answer? I propose that the answer is exactly the opposite of what others have proposed - it is not forced poverty and going back to the Amish lifestyle. Instead, the answer is technology. As current technologies become more and more expensive, capitalism will provide the motivation for new technologies. Do we know what those technologies will be now? No, we don't. Remember, though, 150 years ago no one could envision the technologies that we have now. The energy problem is a difficult one to solve, but as a society we have solved difficult technological problems before. We did land a man on the moon, after all.

Why haven't we come up with new techologies already? People may start flaming me for this, but gasoline still isn't that expensive. The $3 a gallon we pay in the US is still a lot less than what they pay elsewhere. Adjusted for inflation, it isn't even at a record high. I drive a hundred miles every day to commute to work, and while I wouldn't call my total fuel costs cheap, it is still much less expensive than my mortgage and about the same as what I pay for food for my family and my car payment. If gas hits $10 you will begin to see some more serious changes, but for now there is no crisis.

So what is the answer? I propose that the answer is exactly the opposite of what others have proposed - it is not forced poverty and going back to the Amish lifestyle. Instead, the answer is technology. As current technologies become more and more expensive, capitalism will provide the motivation for new technologies. Do we know what those technologies will be now? No, we don't. Remember, though, 150 years ago no one could envision the technologies that we have now. The energy problem is a difficult one to solve, but as a society we have solved difficult technological problems before. We did land a man on the moon, after all.


We don't have 150 years to solve the upcoming energy problems. The price of gasoline will double in the next five years or less and we need a major breakthrough in the same level of the atomic bomb to find a solution. Capitalism is what's keeping any NEW technolgies from entering the market as they are being hidden or squached by the motorcar coroporations. Due to the fact that billions of dollars worth of oil remains in the ground, you can rest assured those oil companies are NOT looking for alternatives with any urgency. In fact, they are the only ones who have the economic resources for developing new technologicies but only until the last drop of oil is sucked from the ground. The moon shot you refer to was not due to capitalism but a government agency (NASA) competing with the Soviets for bragging rights. Our upcoming energy crisis will require much more upfront capital than sending a man to the moon.

the answer is conservation, population control, a new financial system which does away with the fractional reserve banking system, existing technology which allows more efficient movement of goods and people, and smaller more diverse local economies-----in other words, doing away with or reversing what we have created in the last 50-60 years

technology does not and cannot solve social problems, never has and never will

just thought you'd like to know that reading this thread has convinced me to bike to the grocery store today. however, i regret to say that i am going to be cooking burgers afterwards. Habits of consumption are so difficult to alter! I tried looking for sweatshop-free clothing...it's so tough.

technology does not and cannot solve social problems, never has and never will

That is a very broad statement, and completely untrue. Take the internet for example, it solved more or less instantaneous global communication, at a very cheap price.

Even the car solved many social problems. Of course, it introduced new ones, at which we're at crossroads today. But, 100 years ago, you could not easily travel dozens of miles quickly to conduct business, visit family/friends, etc. The automobile solved that, albeit unsustainably.

Technology has also allowed agriculture to produce more efficient methods of producing food.

Technology is ALL about solving social problems. We're social beings, and we'll always use technology to enhance specific aspects of our social interactions.

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong wrong wrong, you just mentioned it yourself---unsustainably, and introduces more problems

your confusing what a "social" problem really is with what technology allows to happen, common mistake

social problem would be something like, feeding the population, living with each other in peace, living within the means provided by the environment, technology doesnt "fix" any of this, just allows us to cheat nature and rob peter to pay paul for a limited amount of time and masks social problems, it doesnt solve them at all

technology doesnt promote peace, doesnt allow us to live with each other any better than any other unrelated part of our lives, doesnt even allow us to feed ourselves any better, just allows higher production at the long term expense of the planet and its resources and ultimately will reduce the amount of food we can produce when the technology fails because it relies on unsustainable limited resources

BTW, the statement I posted above comes from something I learned in college in psychology class of all places. President Carter commissioned a world model done by computer, and at the same time about 6 other projects similar to it were being done by various agencies and colleges and govts. From that, it all was distilled and compiled into about 10 truths or easy to understand and remember phrases, the above is one of them. Another one is "interdependence among nations is profound", and there are many others which are quite obvious but many fail to recognize and understand.

Social problems are solved by behavioral changes period, nothing more, nothing less.

Social problems are solved by behavioral changes period, nothing more, nothing less.

Ahh, I shoulda guessed-- you come from a behavioral psychology background.

I guess our definitions of sociology is different.

PS: Never say never, even by your own definitions. Technology may produce sufficiently high-level AI that models the human brain.

Purple of weather shin, shin dog. That is to say....

Holy crap, you're both *wrong. Talking about technology and society as seperate entities is just nuts. Interdependence among every thing is profound... And stating that social problems are solved soley by behavioral changes or that technology is all about solving social problems is just redundant. It's a lovely, complicated dance, with both "concepts" influencing each other. We **help create things, these things help create our society, which in turn helps to create more things, etc...

*and right. ;)
Since, for all intents and purposes, you're both talking about the same thing since what we call technology is altered by what we call society and vice versa.
**I say help because it's not like we're soley responsible for their creation, other factors are at work, everything's connected, blah, blah, donkey.

nope, I come from a electronics technology background among other things, psychology was just one of the other courses I took

and I stand by what ive posted, tech doesnt make us live differently to the point of making rational decisions about how we live, on the contrary, it tends to allow us to make detrimental ones quite easily, and does nothing to fix how we live together, same issues will always exist whether the tech is there or not

for example, you mentioned travel, ya, making things move faster is one way, putting things closer together is the other..........

sure, tech allows us to swap petroleum for food, having less people to feed is another way to solve the problem.........technologic answer versus behavioral or social solution

A person could make a huge list like this, I think you will find when it comes to long term solutions to our problems of living on this planet, the only ones that work 100% and ARE sustainable are social or behavioral changes, not a single one can be 100% attributed to technology and be sustainable indefinitely. The traits man has will always be there: greed, lust, compassion, brutality, etc etc Tech doesnt change mans nature or fix it.

the answer is conservation, population control, a new financial system which does away with the fractional reserve banking system, existing technology which allows more efficient movement of goods and people, and smaller more diverse local economies-----in other words, doing away with or reversing what we have created in the last 50-60 years

technology does not and cannot solve social problems, never has and never will

Good luck selling that to the American populace. Something tells me the forced sterilization platform won't play well - neither will the destruction of the economy. The "cures" that are being proposed for the energy problem seem a lot worse than the disease. I'd rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than to live in squallor under dictatorship, which is the only way these radical ideas could be brought about.

We don't have 150 years to solve the upcoming energy problems. The price of gasoline will double in the next five years or less and we need a major breakthrough in the same level of the atomic bomb to find a solution. Capitalism is what's keeping any NEW technolgies from entering the market as they are being hidden or squached by the motorcar coroporations. Due to the fact that billions of dollars worth of oil remains in the ground, you can rest assured those oil companies are NOT looking for alternatives with any urgency. In fact, they are the only ones who have the economic resources for developing new technologicies but only until the last drop of oil is sucked from the ground. The moon shot you refer to was not due to capitalism but a government agency (NASA) competing with the Soviets for bragging rights. Our upcoming energy crisis will require much more upfront capital than sending a man to the moon.

If that much oil remains in the ground, there is no crisis and oil will continue to be affordable. Corporations can't squash innovation to that extend - whoever invents an engine that runs on cheap plentiful fuel that burns cleanly will be a billionaire overnight. And the corporations want to be the people who come up with such an invention.

Perhaps the moon landing wasn't a good example. What about the transition from horse based transportation to automobiles? That was mainly driven (pardon the pun) by the private sector, and was certainly an enormous change. It took time but it happened. The same thing can happen again. It will happen long before the last drop of oil is sucked from the ground - when ordinary people can no longer afford oil those who sell it will have to sell something else otherwise they will go out of business.

Good luck selling that to the American populace. Something tells me the forced sterilization platform won't play well - neither will the destruction of the economy. The "cures" that are being proposed for the energy problem seem a lot worse than the disease. I'd rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than to live in squallor under dictatorship, which is the only way these radical ideas could be brought about.


mother natures cure is disease, starvation, and war..........we will deal with it one way or the other, the question is how well or who lives thru it, I prefer to make changes voluntarily myself, ive seen how some less fortunate countries and people are coping or not coping wth it, doesnt look like much fun

$10 a gallon LOL, hee hee, once the world as a whole realizes what the situation is, try $100/gallon or more, probably way more considering how much energy 1 gallon of gasoline holds

destruction of the economy? its not bulletproof, its been fubarred before, just 80 years ago and by our own stupidity and greed, those qualities havent gone away

I dont have to sell anything, not attempting to, but being aware of what the deal is, is important. Some people are techno-cornucopians, some doomers, some I guess for lack of a description pragmatists, some malthusian of a sort, some optimists, take your pick.....none are 100% right or 100% wrong, man does have a long long history of this same situation just on smaller scales, same outcome every time too. History repeats itself and lessons are repeated till learned. Until we learn the simple concept of what exponential growth means, we will continue to face this same scenario. It isnt rocket science.

Good luck selling that to the American populace. Something tells me the forced sterilization platform won't play well - neither will the destruction of the economy. The "cures" that are being proposed for the energy problem seem a lot worse than the disease. I'd rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than to live in squallor under dictatorship, which is the only way these radical ideas could be brought about.

my $0.02:
1. Wouldn't $10.00 gas pretty much guarantee that all but the wealthy would be reduced to squalor in any event?
2. Given the constraints of the environment and our population, all of us will have to get used to the idea of consuming less. Our personal feelings about this issue don't matter; the bottom line is, we can suffer a little bit now, and make serious corrections, or we can continue as before and suffer a LOT more later. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's "Collapse," I highly recommend it; it changed the way I look at life.)

BTW, those dire predictions aren't the ramblings of wild-eyed environmentalists; banks, insurance companies and the Pentagon have been saying these things recently, too. Better hold on to your bike...

This may come as a shock but most people don't want to live in dense urban areas in one bedroom highrise apartments, in order to conserve energy. People, especially me, like living spread out in the countryside in nice houses with nice yards. And in areas like that, rail transport and public transportation are simply not efficient.

The problem with that is that people like you are effectively being subsidized by those one-bedroom inner city dwellers. If you paid the full cost of your lifestyle you might not like it as much as you do.

man does have a long long history of this same situation just on smaller scales, same outcome every time too. History repeats itself and lessons are repeated till learned. Until we learn the simple concept of what exponential growth means, we will continue to face this same scenario. It isnt rocket science.


I have been saying "history repeats itself" alot lately. The problem is that many people complain about gas prices, and then they just wait and hope that some scientist somewhere will break them free with technology. People are not willing to give things up. People complain about oil prices, global warming, etc. but most are not willing to inconvience themselves. If everyone were like the people in this forum, then obviously this would not be a problem.

I believe that people will wait for a technological break through, and still look down on us for riding our bikes :rolleyes:

Maybe that break through will not come, and we will see $10 a gallon, but we see right now that people will give up just about everything else to keep the auto.

Good luck selling that to the American populace. Something tells me the forced sterilization platform won't play well - neither will the destruction of the economy. The "cures" that are being proposed for the energy problem seem a lot worse than the disease. I'd rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than to live in squallor under dictatorship, which is the only way these radical ideas could be brought about.Forced sterilization won't be necessary, as most people in developed countries automatically reduce their numbers unless they belong to some religious cult telling them to go and overpopulate the world.

Like most Americans, you can't see that trying to preserve your way of life will ultimately undermine *any* reasonable future for your children. Ten dollar/gallon gas is fine -- the bad part is when we start invading 3rd world countries to take their oil -- as we are already doing in one country. I'm sure some future president can find some reason that Venezuela is posing a terrorist threat.

Conservation *is* the answer if we want to maintain a decent standard of living without war and without major climate change. You don't have to drive a 6000 pound vehicle in order to have a decent life. You don't have to live 50 miles away to have a decent home ... if you have some imagination and are willing to work for a better world for everyone rather than consuming vast amounts of energy just for your own personal comfort.

Trusting in technology to solve our problems takes a faith as great as any religion. We don't see anything
on the horizon that could even vaguely meet our future energy requirements if we continue to consume at current rates. There are some interesting technologies (like Biofuels) that may help if we also conserve. And neither hydrogen nor biofuel technologies will do anything to prevent global warming and its attendant dislocations, drought, and disease.

Conservation is the fastest track to preventing global warming and preserving a respectable way of life for future generations.

Purple of weather shin, shin dog. That is to say....

Holy crap, you're both *wrong. Talking about technology and society as seperate entities is just nuts. Interdependence among every thing is profound... And stating that social problems are solved soley by behavioral changes or that technology is all about solving social problems is just redundant. It's a lovely, complicated dance, with both "concepts" influencing each other. We **help create things, these things help create our society, which in turn helps to create more things, etc...

*and right. ;)
Since, for all intents and purposes, you're both talking about the same thing since what we call technology is altered by what we call society and vice versa.
**I say help because it's not like we're soley responsible for their creation, other factors are at work, everything's connected, blah, blah, donkey.
I think you're probably the rightest, although I wasn't able to understand all that you said. But clearly everything mentioned in this thread is important, so there are no wrong answers--other than answers that overly simplify the prolems.

Conservation is important, not so much to hoard oil as to quickly reduce emissions that cause global warming. Technology is important, because we have a lot of people to feed, shelter and move around, and we need to do this fairly and effectively. Social change is important, because we must make big changes in the way we live in order to save the species and the planet. Moral compasssion is important, because the only way to solve current crises is to raise people out of poverty and educate them, so they will have fewer children and become more invested in making the necessary changes.

my $0.02:
1. Wouldn't $10.00 gas pretty much guarantee that all but the wealthy would be reduced to squalor in any event?
2. Given the constraints of the environment and our population, all of us will have to get used to the idea of consuming less. Our personal feelings about this issue don't matter; the bottom line is, we can suffer a little bit now, and make serious corrections, or we can continue as before and suffer a LOT more later. (If you haven't read Jared Diamond's "Collapse," I highly recommend it; it changed the way I look at life.)

BTW, those dire predictions aren't the ramblings of wild-eyed environmentalists; banks, insurance companies and the Pentagon have been saying these things recently, too. Better hold on to your bike...

Actually, those predictions are the ramblings of wild-eyed environmentalists. People have been predicting these calamities for years, especially in the 70's and 80's. Look at the following link, to a Wikipedia article on the book "The Population Bomb". The author of that book in the 70's predicted the same kind of nonsense people have predicted here, and he was about as utterly wrong as one could be. In the 70's environmentalists were also predicting an ice age; 30 years later they say global warming will be the end of us. This is all horse hockey. Note how the wikipedia article describes how food production has far outpaced population growth, and how the growth of the population in developed countries is fairly small.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

I believe in the late 70's people were also predicting that we'd run out of oil - adjusted for inflation the price of oil now is about the same as it was then.

Time has shown that these predictions of armegeddon are beyond baseless. The reason people make these predictions is not because anyone has any proof that they will come about, but rather to scare the populace into implementing the sorts of draconian changes that the predictors desire in order to form their ideas of utopia.

Time has shown that these predictions of armegeddon are beyond baseless. The reason people make these predictions is not because anyone has any proof that they will come about, but rather to scare the populace into implementing the sorts of draconian changes that the predictors desire in order to form their ideas of utopia.

Laugh Clown, Laugh!

Forced sterilization won't be necessary, as most people in developed countries automatically reduce their numbers unless they belong to some religious cult telling them to go and overpopulate the world.

Like most Americans, you can't see that trying to preserve your way of life will ultimately undermine *any* reasonable future for your children. Ten dollar/gallon gas is fine -- the bad part is when we start invading 3rd world countries to take their oil -- as we are already doing in one country. I'm sure some future president can find some reason that Venezuela is posing a terrorist threat.

Conservation *is* the answer if we want to maintain a decent standard of living without war and without major climate change. You don't have to drive a 6000 pound vehicle in order to have a decent life. You don't have to live 50 miles away to have a decent home ... if you have some imagination and are willing to work for a better world for everyone rather than consuming vast amounts of energy just for your own personal comfort.

Trusting in technology to solve our problems takes a faith as great as any religion. We don't see anything
on the horizon that could even vaguely meet our future energy requirements if we continue to consume at current rates. There are some interesting technologies (like Biofuels) that may help if we also conserve. And neither hydrogen nor biofuel technologies will do anything to prevent global warming and its attendant dislocations, drought, and disease.

Conservation is the fastest track to preventing global warming and preserving a respectable way of life for future generations.

Trust in technology has been vindicated thoughout the years - America in particular has never failed to rise to the occasion when presented with technical problems. We have managed to cure diseases, defend ourselves against ruthless enemies, and just make our lives a whole lot easier in more ways than one can count. Conservation of any serious magnitude won't create one extra gallon of gas and would require a halt in economic growth which would clearly create more poverty. As mentioned earlier, one thing that hasn't been vindicated by history are dire predictions of calamity, drought, nuclear winter, mass famines, etc. Predictions of such things are a dime a dozen and yet they are always hogwash, without exception. History has shown that with technology things like food and energy have gotten more plentiful, not less, and people's standards of living have gone up thoughout the years, not down. The trend lines are on my side, not yours. As mentioned previously, even today's gas prices are not really that high - the roads are still clogged with drivers and people are still going on vacation because energy is still very affordable. As it gradually ceases to be affordable, it is a reasonable prediction that new technologies will take its place - that is the way things have worked in the past. None of us truly know what the future holds. But the past is some guide to the future and clearly it is on my side of the argument. Having said that, if you or anybody want to give up automobiles, and live in a highrise apartment, more power to you. That will just make gas a little cheaper for the rest of us. Just don't to force us to adopt your way of thinking by putting out dire predictions of global meltdown which have no basis in fact.

Also, look at societys which do live the way some people here are advocating. North Korea is a perfect example. People there have every aspect of their life controlled. Everyone there rides bicycles and no one drives. People don't get much to eat. North Korea can certainly take pride in its lack of energy consumption. And yet who among us would really want to live there? Do we really want to live like they do? I don't volunteer. Why is it that we assume that we must cut back consumption rather than increase production? One approach requires regression, the other one progression. Sorry, I take progress every time.

Also, look at societys which do live the way some people here are advocating. North Korea is a perfect example. People there have every aspect of their life controlled. Everyone there rides bicycles and no one drives. People don't get much to eat. North Korea can certainly take pride in its lack of energy consumption. And yet who among us would really want to live there? Do we really want to live like they do? I don't volunteer. Why is it that we assume that we must cut back consumption rather than increase production? One approach requires regression, the other one progression. Sorry, I take progress every time.Wow. You must sit glued to Clear Channel all day. Sounds like you've had a complete Limbo-ectomy.

If you spent any time paying attention to science publications rather than the rantings of a drug-deaf ex-diskjockey, you'd know that SCIENCE -- the same science that you think will some how magically save us, is telling us loud and clear that global warming is real and imminent. The whole idea that there is some conspiracy of scientists who want us to cut back on consumption just because that's how they get their jollies or something -- is ludicrous. We're talking about hundreds of scientists including the best minds in climate modeling. Why exactly would they want to "scare" us? Massive bad hair day?

Technology doesn't make us better. Just take a bike ride and see how nasty people have become. Technology has allowed us to flee neighborhoods rather than fix them, and has separated us farther from each other.

The comparison to North Korea is just plain silly. North Korea is a dysfunctional country with a highly disproportionate amount of energy diverted to its military. When you see the military parades there its scary how such a small country can wield such a massive, well-organized military. Nothing happening there has anything to do with conservation. Only someone plugged into Clear Channel lunacy would ever think to compare NK with simple, reasonable conservation measures taken among civilized countries to pre-empt a potentially explosive situation.

Trust in technology has been vindicated thoughout the years - America in particular has never failed to rise to the occasion when presented with technical problems. We have managed to cure diseases, defend ourselves against ruthless enemies, and just make our lives a whole lot easier in more ways than one can count. Conservation of any serious magnitude won't create one extra gallon of gas and would require a halt in economic growth which would clearly create more poverty. As mentioned earlier, one thing that hasn't been vindicated by history are dire predictions of calamity, drought, nuclear winter, mass famines, etc. Predictions of such things are a dime a dozen and yet they are always hogwash, without exception. History has shown that with technology things like food and energy have gotten more plentiful, not less, and people's standards of living have gone up thoughout the years, not down. The trend lines are on my side, not yours. As mentioned previously, even today's gas prices are not really that high - the roads are still clogged with drivers and people are still going on vacation because energy is still very affordable. As it gradually ceases to be affordable, it is a reasonable prediction that new technologies will take its place - that is the way things have worked in the past. None of us truly know what the future holds. But the past is some guide to the future and clearly it is on my side of the argument. Having said that, if you or anybody want to give up automobiles, and live in a highrise apartment, more power to you. That will just make gas a little cheaper for the rest of us. Just don't to force us to adopt your way of thinking by putting out dire predictions of global meltdown which have no basis in fact.

Also, look at societys which do live the way some people here are advocating. North Korea is a perfect example. People there have every aspect of their life controlled. Everyone there rides bicycles and no one drives. People don't get much to eat. North Korea can certainly take pride in its lack of energy consumption. And yet who among us would really want to live there? Do we really want to live like they do? I don't volunteer. Why is it that we assume that we must cut back consumption rather than increase production? One approach requires regression, the other one progression. Sorry, I take progress every time.

Well I agree that given enough time, scientists probably will develop alternative energy technologies. I hope we have enough time, but I doubt it more and more every year. There are very few serious efforts to even research alternatives. We pour more research money into extending the life of the now useless space shuttle than we do on alternative energies. The oil companies claim they are devoting a lot of money to research, but we have only their own word on that, and they are not renowned for telling the truth.

Actually, from the 1970s through the end of the century, conservation was a great success. Oil consumption in the US started to rise recently, due to some very poor choices made by consumers and businesses in the US. Thankfully, other developed countries have not followed our lead, and they continue to seek efficincy and conservation.

Conservation is a stopgap effort, as it doesn't deal with the root issues. However, quick stopgap measures are desperately needed now, for three basic reasons:


Political crises are heating up due to our dependence on other countries for our energy addiction.
The price of energy will continue to increase as the easily obtainable petroleum will soon peak and decline. This will probably fuel inflation and decrease economic growth.
Global warming is probably the single biggest crisis ever faced by the human species. What we do NOW determines how large the climate changes will ultimately be.


BTW, your statement that somebody is advocating that we live like North Koreans is pure bull****, and you know it. Riding a bike, or taking a bus, is not as big a hardship as you car trolls make it out to be.

Wow! I just jumped into this thread, and there is like 30 posts that I want to reply to. This discussion has already taken place in the P&R forum, but this one is a little more rational (those P&R people are kinda kooky!).

Not surprisingly, oil has alot of those baggages, too. Only its pollution results in a net gain of carbon, whereas the burning of sugar cane results in none since the carbon waste product was already present in the atmosphere.

Where do fertlizers & pesticides come from? fossil fuel. What powers the tractors and the trucks that transport the biomass? fossil fuels. What runs the machinery to convert biomass into bio-fuel? fossil fuels.

OK folks, I hate to be contrary. But conservation is not the answer. Even if we all cut down our energy usage by a large percentage, as long as the population and economy keep growing, sooner or later we will be back where we started in terms of energy use.

Thats because growth is the real problem here. "Until you change the way money works, you change nothing" as Dr Hubbert puts it.

just thought you'd like to know that reading this thread has convinced me to bike to the grocery store today. however, i regret to say that i am going to be cooking burgers afterwards. Habits of consumption are so difficult to alter! I tried looking for sweatshop-free clothing...it's so tough.

Try a thrift shop.

Technology has also allowed agriculture to produce more efficient methods of producing food.

Nope. sorry dude, organic growing is much more efficient than modern agribiusiness. The only difference is that it takes less people to grow food now. That, and these companies are able to do it on such a massive scale.

Organic growing methods are sustainable. all technology has done for us here is turned most of our farmland into a giant chemical spounge which, when there is not enough petroleum, will become useless. This, not to mention the fact that the typical american meal travels an average of about 1500 miles before it is eaten.

Good luck selling that to the American populace. Something tells me the forced sterilization platform won't play well - neither will the destruction of the economy. The "cures" that are being proposed for the energy problem seem a lot worse than the disease. I'd rather pay $10 a gallon for gas than to live in squallor under dictatorship, which is the only way these radical ideas could be brought about.

You dont have to sell it, and you don't have force it. People just need to be educated. educated people don't breed as much. there is empirical evidence to support this. The cost at the pump is not the only price increase you will feel. The entire economy is gonna deficate all over itself when oil production begins its decline. Just look at everything that is totally dependant on cheap energy and this isn't difficult to comprehend.

What about the transition from horse based transportation to automobiles?That was mainly driven (pardon the pun) by the private sector, and was certainly an enormous change.


You mean the transition from horses to trains?

And then the transition of GM, firstone, and standard oil illegally setting up front companies to buy up the public rails so they could tear them up and build highways and cars instead (which helped immensly to put us into this crappy situation)? You are right, I want every aspect of my life to be run by the private sector, they really got my back!

Ok anyway, I hear a lot of people say that technology is the answer. Technology will not allow us to cheat on the simple arithmatic of the exponential function.

While it's unlikely that car companies will start using this...the key is electric cars with the new infrared-nanotechnology solar cells.

Nanotech...quantum dots...more of a false hope than biofuels. But it brings in the research dollars.

But seriously, solar cars will never be practical, for the simple reason that you can't collect enough energy in that small of an area. The energy from the sun is about 1000W/sq. meter, or about 1 HP. Even if you covered a car with 100% efficient cells, you're still talking single digit HP. Yes, the batteries could be charged while the car is sitting in the parking lot, but it will be much more cost-effective to plug your car in and have the electricity produced elsewhere.