Living Car Free - New Energy Report

For those of you who are interested in energy issues, the National Petroleum Council is releasing a new report today. Looks like there's a bunch of bad recommendations in it but also they acknowledge that oil supply is not going last forever and we need to start doing something on the conservation side. Just another reason not to drive.

News Story (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_6389190)

No surprises here that I saw. I would imagine that the National Petroleum Council would, in fact, put a somewhat happier face on the supply situation than reality merits, and make insane recommendations like using liquified coal and corn-based ethanol to make up for deficits in future supply. I wonder what could be done to make the oil industry think of itself as a broad-based energy-supply business rather than a purveyor of flammable liquids?

...I wonder what could be done to make the oil industry think of itself as a broad-based energy-supply business rather than a purveyor of flammable liquids?
I thought the old line mail order companies would jump all over online shopping. It wasn't that they failed, it's more like they deliberately never saw it coming.

I wish people would move one step beyond conservation and also start thinking about preparation. In that I mean building (or re-building) the infrastructure that will enable future generations to survive in the post-petroleum world. Obviously, mass transit would be the first place to start, but also transitioning our power grids toward more sustainable options.

Even what we teach in schools needs to change. Riding a bike and taking a bus needs to be part of the curriculum. I look at the SUV parade outside of the elementary school where I teach and I can't help but wonder if kids today even know how to cross a street.

I wish people would move one step beyond conservation and also start thinking about preparation. In that I mean building (or re-building) the infrastructure that will enable future generations to survive in the post-petroleum world. Obviously, mass transit would be the first place to start, but also transitioning our power grids toward more sustainable options.

Even what we teach in schools needs to change. Riding a bike and taking a bus needs to be part of the curriculum. I look at the SUV parade outside of the elementary school where I teach and I can't help but wonder if kids today even know how to cross a street.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen. As long as short term petrodollar profits are in the offing, long term solutions to fossil fuel pollution, including greenhouse gases, and eventually dwindling petroleum supplies will not be addressed in terms of cleaner, renewable alternative energy sources or use reduction.

I wish people would move one step beyond conservation and also start thinking about preparation. In that I mean building (or re-building) the infrastructure that will enable future generations to survive in the post-petroleum world. Obviously, mass transit would be the first place to start, but also transitioning our power grids toward more sustainable options.



It's too late.

The infrastructure cannot be rebuilt but abandoned. Future generations will survive by driving out of these burbs once and for all. Real estate in cities, transit friendly towns will sky rocket as the population returns to large cities.

Then again, I see alot of burbs with populations growing just as large as cities at the turn of the century so who knows. One this is certain, energy is going to get a lot MORE expensive if we have to start mining shale for oil or growning acres of biomass.

It's too late.

The infrastructure cannot be rebuilt but abandoned. Future generations will survive by driving out of these burbs once and for all. Real estate in cities, transit friendly towns will sky rocket as the population returns to large cities.

Then again, I see alot of burbs with populations growing just as large as cities at the turn of the century so who knows. One this is certain, energy is going to get a lot MORE expensive if we have to start mining shale for oil or growning acres of biomass.

It is too late. There will not even be a turn of the century with civilization as we know it in tact, what with global warming, water shortages, and all the reporcusions associated with them. But with fossil fuels depleted, at least the survivors will not have the opportunity to make the same mistakes we did.

It is too late. There will not even be a turn of the century with civilization as we know it in tact, what with global warming, water shortages, and all the reporcusions associated with them. But with fossil fuels depleted, at least the survivors will not have the opportunity to make the same mistakes we did.Nope they will make a whole new set...it is the human way...

Aaron:)

Let's not get too pessimistic. (Too much pessimism tends to discourage action.) Humans are selfish idiots, it's true, but when the sh*t hits the fan, most of us tend to buck up and do the right thing. The suburbs won't die off, nor will most of their inhabitants. People, when given a choice between dying and changing their behavior, will, after a period of denial, change their behavior. The 'burbs, rather than becoming a lawless wasteland, will turn into a vast patchwork of smallholder vegetable farms: shopping mall parking lots and golf courses will be torn up and replaced with carrots and onions, and SUV-soccer moms, who once went to Starbucks after dropping the kids off at the school three blocks away, will be having meetings to figure out ways to improve community irrigation systems. People will be poorer, much poorer, and the ones old enough to remember the golden years of devil-may-care consumption might be depressed, but they probably won't be dead.

It's not so much the depletion of petroleum, itself that will have the most pronounced effect, rather the consequences of burning it. Once released into the atmosphere, C02 remains there for centuries. So, all the CO2 released since the discovery of oil (and the wide spread use of coal) is still there and about 50% of the world's oil is still in the ground. At the current rate of extraction, it will not take another 100 years to get the rest of it out and burn it up, maybe half that. So we're looking at near doubling of current grennhouse gas levels, even if measures are taken to curb that.

On top of that, once sufficient warming takes place, methane hydrate deposits in permafrost, alpine lakebeds, and on the deep sea floor will liberate a tremendous amount of methane gas into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. It only stays in the atmosphere for a matter of decades rather than centuries, but what it decomposes into, by oxydation, is CO2.

The first consequences of global warming are just becoming noticable because the ecosphere is so large and has so much "momentum" that inputs to that system take a long time to manifest the concomittant outputs. We may not see the full effects of what we are doing now, for 30 years or more.

One of these consequences, is that the arctic icepack is rapidly shrinking as are the glaciers left from the last ice age. It won't be long before all the glciers and high mountain sno fields are gone, even in the Himalayas. An many millions of people that live below the Himalayas depend on the runoff from them for drinking water and irrigation. All these people will either have to relocate from land their people have inhabited for many thousands of years, or die.

A few other predicted consequences are the spread of tropical diseases to the north and south of the equatorial region; severe droughts in some area and flooding in others; larger and stronger hurricanes and typhoons as they pick up more energy from warmer seas; sea level rising due to swelling of warmer water as well ass increased volume from ice melt that will change the coastlines to the point where all our maps will be obsolete.

Since the vast majority of the world's population live on or near the coastlines, litterally billions of people will be displaced. Many will starve or die of diseases that have a good chance of becoming pandemic.

Pessimistic? Or realistic?

^^^^ the first consequence of irreversible oil production decline will be economic collapse, can't have unlimited growth with dwindling energy supplies, and that is coming very rapidly, less than 5 years, actually its already started, but it will be a bit longer yet before the world wakes up to this

^^^^ the first consequence of irreversible oil production decline will be economic collapse, can't have unlimited growth with dwindling energy supplies, and that is coming very rapidly, less than 5 years, actually its already started, bit it will be a bit longer yet before the world wakes up to this

True. And with the global economy in shambles there will not be sufficient resources to deal with the inevitable environmental collapse. The only saving grace is that the environmental collapse will be gradual, over the course of a few to several decades. But I don't think it will be gradual enough that the effects will be any less than devastating to the human species.

this tread is getting bookmarked with a reminder to self to check back in 5 years & see if the world has ended yet ;)

I think thing's will be starting to get pretty dicey by then, but I don't think it'll get really ugly for 25 or 30. I feel for my kids and grand kids. :(

I think we should start discussing possible solutions at this point, otherwise I'm going to have to get drunk and shoot out SUV tires around the neighborhood again.

I think we should start discussing possible solutions at this point, otherwise I'm going to have to get drunk and shoot out SUV tires around the neighborhood again.

:roflmao:

I recently started reading a book on this subject, called Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning. The author, George Monbiot, thinks the problem of global warming is the most serious problem that humans have faced since the dawn of civilization. He also thinks the problem can be solved, if we start working on it really soon, and are willing to devote a level of urgent effort to it that people in the industrialized world haven't seen since 1945. I recommend it, if for no other reason than it provides a bit of hope, and makes concrete suggestions about how to deal with this.

I recently started reading a book on this subject, called Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning. The author, George Monbiot, thinks the problem of global warming is the most serious problem that humans have faced since the dawn of civilization. He also thinks the problem can be solved, if we start working on it really soon, and are willing to devote a level of urgent effort to it that people in the industrialized world haven't seen since 1945. I recommend it, if for no other reason than it provides a bit of hope, and makes concrete suggestions about how to deal with this.

I hate to be a wet wash rag, but what do you think the chances are of that, realisticaly? Especially when the vast majority have no clue what's really going down. I haven't read that book but I am curious what he thinks can solve the problem. I've posted thid before but I think it bears a repeat:

According to John Browne, CEO of BP, stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at twice the pre-industrial level would require reducing emissions by 7 gigatons per year. Browne argues that elimination just 1 gigaton per year of CO2 output would require:

Replacing fossil-fuel-burning power plants with 700 nuclear stations
or
Increasing the use of solar power by a factor of 700
or
Ceasing deforestation and doubling reforestation

Even if all three of these capital infrastructure changes were accomplished, four more equally grandiose projects would still be necessary to stabilize atmospheric CO2. Although the MIT Sloan Management Newsroom calls Lord Browne “an unlikely activist”, his company has invested heavily in alternative energy technologies giving him a vested interest in the reduction of greenhouse gases through alternative energy applications.

I hate to be a wet wash rag, but what do you think the chances are of that, realisticaly? Especially when the vast majority have no clue what's really going down. I haven't read that book but I am curious what he thinks can solve the problem. I've posted thid before but I think it bears a repeat:

According to John Browne, CEO of BP, stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at twice the pre-industrial level would require reducing emissions by 7 gigatons per year. Browne argues that elimination just 1 gigaton per year of CO2 output would require:

Replacing fossil-fuel-burning power plants with 700 nuclear stations
or
Increasing the use of solar power by a factor of 700
or
Ceasing deforestation and doubling reforestation

Even if all three of these capital infrastructure changes were accomplished, four more equally grandiose projects would still be necessary to stabilize atmospheric CO2. Although the MIT Sloan Management Newsroom calls Lord Browne “an unlikely activist”, his company has invested heavily in alternative energy technologies giving him a vested interest in the reduction of greenhouse gases through alternative energy applications.

We'll have to do even more than that, a lot more. (It's not just a matter of buying a hybrid and changing your lightbulbs, as Gore seems to imply.) Addressing this problem is going to be very painful and horrendously expensive; but doing nothing would result in unthinkable misery on a planetary scale, which would be infinitely more painful. So we take our medicine now, or die like flies later; easy choice, I would think. And I think a lot of people are coming around to a more sensible way of thinking, albeit gradually. The fact that the Bush administration allowed the EPA to regard CO2 as a pollutant really says something.

I think we should start discussing possible solutions at this point, otherwise I'm going to have to get drunk and shoot out SUV tires around the neighborhood again.

Here on the east coast it reads like people are doing more than shooting tires.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701808.html

'It lasted five days on the street before two masked men took a bat to every window, a knife to each 38-inch tire and scratched into the body: "FOR THE ENVIRON." '

I hate to be a wet wash rag, but what do you think the chances are of that, realisticaly? Especially when the vast majority have no clue what's really going down. I haven't read that book but I am curious what he thinks can solve the problem. I've posted thid before but I think it bears a repeat:

According to John Browne, CEO of BP, stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at twice the pre-industrial level would require reducing emissions by 7 gigatons per year. Browne argues that elimination just 1 gigaton per year of CO2 output would require:

Replacing fossil-fuel-burning power plants with 700 nuclear stations
or
Increasing the use of solar power by a factor of 700
or
Ceasing deforestation and doubling reforestation

Even if all three of these capital infrastructure changes were accomplished, four more equally grandiose projects would still be necessary to stabilize atmospheric CO2. Although the MIT Sloan Management Newsroom calls Lord Browne “an unlikely activist”, his company has invested heavily in alternative energy technologies giving him a vested interest in the reduction of greenhouse gases through alternative energy applications.

That will all help, but I think the single largest problem with the world, THE problem that lies at the root of virtually every other problem, is overpopulation. There are simply too many people in this world, and the most difficult challenge that our race is ever likely to face will be to control it. We simply can't keep reproducing and reproducing, especially given the exponential nature of population growth.

Of course, starvation, disease, and war will quite possibly reduce the population sufficiently that it will no longer be a problem...

That will all help, but I think the single largest problem with the world, THE problem that lies at the root of virtually every other problem, is overpopulation. There are simply too many people in this world, and the most difficult challenge that our race is ever likely to face will be to control it. We simply can't keep reproducing and reproducing, especially given the exponential nature of population growth.

Of course, starvation, disease, and war will quite possibly reduce the population sufficiently that it will no longer be a problem...

This is certainly a big factor in the equasion. But I don't think of it in Malthusian terms. The issue isn't really one of "carrying capacity." I highly recommend this article for insight into the population issue: Lappé, Frances Moore and Rachel Schurman. “The Population Puzzle, The solution is found in addressing the impoverishment of families and the imbalance of power that perpetuates it.” In Context #21. (Spring 1989)

Just google it. It's available on the web.

First of all thanks to those who have brought this subject up in past threads, I had no idea. The topic is deeply depressing, but I prefer depression to ignorance any day. I've been talking to a friend of mine, and he had this to say:

"Yes, it is beyond our capacity to advance any investment in the industry of oil. The substitutes have been primed and hyped to a degree of interest, yet the infrastructure cannot withstand the shift to limited availability. Back in Biology, we studied "k selection" and "r selection". These were representational models for reproduction and the effects on environment. R selection is generally associated with mammals, such as rhinoceri, that reproduce with one or two offspring and balance within a given environment by limited stress on available resources. K selection, on the other hand, was akin to water fleas that reproduce without checks, consuming all resources available before dying out to reasonable numbers that can prolong the progeneration of the species. There are some scientists that believe that we are moving from "r selection" to "k selection" as a species and are doomed to consume all of our resources in a miasma of overpopulation that will make the oil shortage seem just an inconvienience in the scheme of starvation and disease that awaits us. Humans have yet to put a limit to their desire, and our children still believe that anything is possible. While this may be true of our spirit, it is the endowment of our future that we are consuming in the justification for today. Your bicylce is a welcome addition to the "Brave New World," but is small potatoes in the scheme of destitution that awaits future generations. Why not persevere in the scramble for resources? Why not indulge in the latest atonement for the cravings of man that will not cease untill the provisions of nature are simply exhibits in the carnival of becoming that may be our undoing."
-sfg

I have felt that I have lived a modest life, but now I am overwhelmed by the luxuries oil has brought my life, I fail to take them for granted any longer. Though it seems it will not be long before the world comes crashing down on our species leaving only the strong and lucky to fight for the right to survive and regenerate the species in a new dark age, a very hot, uncertain, dark age.

...The topic is deeply depressing...I have felt that I have lived a modest life...
A growing population of frugal consumers will hit the wall just as hard as a growing population of extravagant consumers. The difference will be only a few decades at most.

I also found the article to be fairly comprehensive on this topic. The only surprise to me was the following:

"the report said, coal, oil and natural gas will remain indispensable. In 2030, those three fossil fuels will account for the same share of global energy demand, about 85 percent, as they did in 2000, the report said. "

I probably shouldn't be that surprised. Even today, with rising gas prices, the majority of Americans are NOT altering their lifestyle. Most are simply adjusting their budgets accordingly, and allocating a higher percentage of their expenditures to gasoline.

Doom and gloom can be fun, I suppose, especially if you're a Christian fundamentalist with a fondness for the Book of Revelations, but it's not very useful. Simply saying, ooh, there are too many people, ooh we're f*cked, oh well, too bad for my grandchildren, is just ghoulish. Yes, we are probably in a desperate situation, or soon will be, but rather than wring our hands while our neighbors continue to drive and build mega-homes until we all die, does anyone have any actual ideas? Links to ideas?

Bragi,
Couldn't help but notice your avatar. Are you anti-motor scooter/motorcycle? I don't drive one, but my perception is that they are part of the solution. I'm not wild about the loud noise that some of them put out, but the electric ones are very quiet.

One of the things I've mentioned before in these forums, is that America is ripe for a car-free city. I really DO believe this! The publicity alone, would generate enough advertising and promotion for the city. I could see the following groups being interested in this concept:
1. Cycling enthusiasts.
2. Mass Transit enthusiasts.
3. People who have lost loved ones in Automobile accidents.
4. Peace and quiet seekers.
5. Individuals with allergies to air pollution.
6. People who just love the US, and want to see us end our Oil Addiction.

Here's a good link to the Car-Free City concept.
http://www.carfree.com/


Doom and gloom can be fun, I suppose, especially if you're a Christian fundamentalist with a fondness for the Book of Revelations, but it's not very useful. Simply saying, ooh, there are too many people, ooh we're f*cked, oh well, too bad for my grandchildren, is just ghoulish. Yes, we are probably in a desperate situation, or soon will be, but rather than wring our hands while our neighbors continue to drive and build mega-homes until we all die, does anyone have any actual ideas? Links to ideas?

...does anyone have any actual ideas?
Well, yes. I think a few interested people should start looking into possibilities for reducing car dependency. That's one of the things we do in this sub forum.

Doom and gloom can be fun, I suppose, especially if you're a Christian fundamentalist with a fondness for the Book of Revelations, but it's not very useful. Simply saying, ooh, there are too many people, ooh we're f*cked, oh well, too bad for my grandchildren, is just ghoulish. Yes, we are probably in a desperate situation, or soon will be, but rather than wring our hands while our neighbors continue to drive and build mega-homes until we all die, does anyone have any actual ideas? Links to ideas?

Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die? :D

I am convinced that the way to turn things around is to replace production for profit with democratically controlled productuion for use - a pure form of (oh no! the "S" word) socialism that has existed as social and economic theory for 150 years, but has never been implemented. But nobody will listen to me. :( It is the direct consequences of production for profit (capitalism) that will render the earth largely uninhabitable if it is not replaced with a saner system within the next 30 years or so.

Let's not get too pessimistic. (Too much pessimism tends to discourage action.) Humans are selfish idiots, it's true, but when the sh*t hits the fan, most of us tend to buck up and do the right thing. The suburbs won't die off, nor will most of their inhabitants. People, when given a choice between dying and changing their behavior, will, after a period of denial, change their behavior. The 'burbs, rather than becoming a lawless wasteland, will turn into a vast patchwork of smallholder vegetable farms: shopping mall parking lots and golf courses will be torn up and replaced with carrots and onions, and SUV-soccer moms, who once went to Starbucks after dropping the kids off at the school three blocks away, will be having meetings to figure out ways to improve community irrigation systems. People will be poorer, much poorer, and the ones old enough to remember the golden years of devil-may-care consumption might be depressed, but they probably won't be dead.
I totally agree. Local food growing offers at least three other advantages, beyond the obvious one of decreasing fossil fuel consumption. Also:
Better tasting, healthier food.
Makes farming a profitable enterprise that's also more psychologically rewarding as a career choice.
Improves the quality of soil, air and water rather than depleting their quality.
Contributes to a sense of community participation in both growers and consumers.


And beyond food growing, I think there are many other opportunities for improving our quality of life that come with the challenges of climate change, pollution and peak oil.

One thing I love about this forum is that it usually maintains a hopeful outlook toward these challenges. This hopefulness is lacking in many internet forms and blogs. I think that all the exercise we get from riding helps us to be more optimistic.

It's not wild-eyed car free types who authored the latest two reports saying future petroleum supply is an issue of genuine concern, it's the National Petroleum Council and the International Energy Agency. The NPC report recommends more action on the supply side than the conservation side, but very significantly for the first time it treats peak oil as one of the reasonable positions a thoughtful analyst can take. The phrase "addicted to oil" was spoken after careful consideration by President George W. Bush in a State of the Union address, not by car free conspirators hatching subversive plots in cellars.

The phrase "addicted to oil" was spoken after careful consideration by President George W. Bush in a State of the Union address, not by car free conspirators hatching subversive plots in cellars.

I had a little different take on this quote. To me, this was symbolic of the leaders of America, telling MOST Americans that "You will have NO choice but to burn oil for your transportation, and that's the way it is, and that's US Politics". Kind of an "in your face" type of statement.

Why else would he say this, while at the same time, stripping Amtrak of its funding, and doing nothing to reduce the numbers of cars on America's roads?

does anyone have any actual ideas?

I found many like-minded people with fantastic ideas right here! (http://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=226) :D

A growing population of frugal consumers will hit the wall just as hard as a growing population of extravagant consumers. The difference will be only a few decades at most.

I wasn't implying that a simple lifestyle would prevent me or anyone from "hitting the wall" nothing will prevent that, we're 30 years too late for the necessary paradigm shift for that. I was just pointing out how even though I treasure the simple pleasures in my life, the realization that energy is about to get expensive made me truly understand the "golden age" we are living in.


I had a little different take on this quote. To me, this was symbolic of the leaders of America, telling MOST Americans that "You will have NO choice but to burn oil for your transportation, and that's the way it is, and that's US Politics". Kind of an "in your face" type of statement.

That could be the case, but he also has been saying stuff like “What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America.”
—George W. Bush, May 2001

...“What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America.”
—George W. Bush, May 2001
Amazing, he really did say that. I Googled and found it on whitehouse.gov.

All I can think to do at my level is to ride my bike and caulk my windows. That's pretty pathetic, but I can't help out much with finding new super giant oil fields or building atomic reactors.

Amazing, he really did say that. I Googled and found it on whitehouse.gov.

All I can think to do at my level is to ride my bike and caulk my windows. That's pretty pathetic, but I can't help out much with finding new super giant oil fields or building atomic reactors.

I've been trying to wrap my brain around string theory and the supposed unlimited free energy from the quantum void. But I guess I ain't no Einstein. :o

That could be the case, but he also has been saying stuff like “What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America.”
—George W. Bush, May 2001
He has said a lot, but his actions have never, never followed up his words. He's never even supported better fuel economy standards. He's been in the camp of backwards consumerism-driven Corporate America, and this has dictated his every action (not his words).

I have not read the report linked in the OP but I have a question.
Do any of you try to use alternative energy sources? I know we all ride bikes, I'm talking solar power, wind power, build your own generator and power it by a stirling engine, etc.
Anyone research these alternatives and plan to implement?

I have not read the report linked in the OP but I have a question.
Do any of you try to use alternative energy sources? I know we all ride bikes, I'm talking solar power, wind power, build your own generator and power it by a stirling engine, etc.
Anyone research these alternatives and plan to implement?

We can't have our cake and eat it to.
I can't see a future in which we have enough solar roofs and wind farms to power our ever increasing energy consuming lifestyle.

Alternative or not, we still need a tremendous amount of power to keep current lifestyles humming happily along. I shudder to think about magically creating enough wind farms to power our current fleet of oil drinking automobiles magically turned into EVs. I just don't think its possible.

There are too many of us, too far apart, requiring too much energy to move about and supply with food and creature comforts. (actually, this statement is not quite true - there is a small percentage of highly privileged folk using the vast majority of the worlds resources to maintain or increase their 'quality of life' - including arguing about it on bikeforums ;) .)

I have not read the report linked in the OP but I have a question.
Do any of you try to use alternative energy sources? I know we all ride bikes, I'm talking solar power, wind power, build your own generator and power it by a stirling engine, etc.
Anyone research these alternatives and plan to implement?

I have had solar hot water systems in the past, but currently don't. One major issue I have run into is parts availability on older systems. The last solar system we had was great it kept a family of 6 with small children supplied with more than enough hot water year round. We never needed the back up system. However, when the controller panel went bad the company that made it was no longer in business. We had 3 choices, abandon the system, completely rewire the system, or attempt to have someone rebuild the controller. We went with the rebuild but it never worked correctly after that. The current owner of that house chose to abandon the system.

FWIW my wife and I are considering the possibility of building a house on land we already own vs buying a house somewhere else. If we build, it will be as passive as we can make it. Among features I want to include are earth sheltered, passive solar heat, solar hot water, and wired for low voltage. I am looking at using LED for task lighting and CF for general lighting along with solar tubes and the like. I much prefer natural lighting if at all possible...the price is right:D We will also be installing a grey water system that will recycle the shower and washing machine water for use in toilets and to water gardens. We also we be utilizing a cistern system to trap rain water to be utilized for toilets and gardens and possibly showers. The biggest hurdle to overcome will be with the local building code enforcement. Most of the stuff I want to do is so far above and beyond code they won't have a clue on what to do. Unfortunately most of the code officers I have had to deal with are unimaginative bureaucrats and don't like anything they don't understand.

Aaron:)

http://public.sphere13.com/capitalism.jpg

made my day :)

We can't have our cake and eat it to.
I can't see a future in which we have enough solar roofs and wind farms to power our ever increasing energy consuming lifestyle.

Alternative or not, we still need a tremendous amount of power to keep current lifestyles humming happily along. I shudder to think about magically creating enough wind farms to power our current fleet of oil drinking automobiles magically turned into EVs. I just don't think its possible.

There are too many of us, too far apart, requiring too much energy to move about and supply with food and creature comforts. (actually, this statement is not quite true - there is a small percentage of highly privileged folk using the vast majority of the worlds resources to maintain or increase their 'quality of life' - including arguing about it on bikeforums ;) .)


I have no belief that the current level of power consumption can be sustained indefinitely. I worked 7 years in a planning department of a large electric power company. There are numerous problems besides fuel that are going to rear their ugly little heads in the near future. Amongst these problems are existing capacity is aging and will need to be replaced or refurbished, where to add new capacity to meet the growing demands, and how to transmit that much energy. After all a 500KV line can only transmit so much power before it melts, and there's only so many places you can run those.

I recently visited with some freinds from the old office and we discussed the current long term forecast they are working on. The capacity demand right now is predicted to quadruple over the period of this study. Where in the world is that capacity going to be built?

Personnaly, I think its going to take a major change in the way things are done. Homes will need solar and or wind to supply their own power. The lighting will have to be super efficient perhaps LED lighting and skylights. The appliances are going to have to be much smaller and much more efficient. Keeping the airconditoiner set at 70F will have to be a thing of the past. But I'm confident these changes can be made over time, just how long that time is I do not know.

ModoVincere,
I am with you. And when you factor in the NIMBY syndrome of building anything infrastructure related...I doubt we would ever come close to providing enough energy to supply the projected needs. I propose that we reduce everybody's power base back to 50 amps and let them deal with it:D I have had plenty of houses over the years that you had to make the choice between the A/C, Dryer or Range...choose one!:eek: It is going to take a lifestyle change and for many it will be painful. But there are plenty of people in this world that do without a heck of lot more than the, by comparison, spoiled westerners.

Aaron:)

I have no belief that the current level of power consumption can be sustained indefinitely. I worked 7 years in a planning department of a large electric power company. There are numerous problems besides fuel that are going to rear their ugly little heads in the near future. Amongst these problems are existing capacity is aging and will need to be replaced or refurbished, where to add new capacity to meet the growing demands, and how to transmit that much energy. After all a 500KV line can only transmit so much power before it melts, and there's only so many places you can run those.

First we need to forget about maintaining and upgrading the current infrastructure, as the current infrastructure is what got us into this mess. The billions we spend on maintenence should be gradually switched over to developing and paying for a new infrastructure that has no reliance on fossil fuels.


I recently visited with some freinds from the old office and we discussed the current long term forecast they are working on. The capacity demand right now is predicted to quadruple over the period of this study. Where in the world is that capacity going to be built?

Personnaly, I think its going to take a major change in the way things are done. Homes will need solar and or wind to supply their own power. The lighting will have to be super efficient perhaps LED lighting and skylights. The appliances are going to have to be much smaller and much more efficient. Keeping the airconditoiner set at 70F will have to be a thing of the past. But I'm confident these changes can be made over time, just how long that time is I do not know.

Well let's start gradually. A realistic goal would be to cut energy consumption by 10 or 20 percent (through conservation and efficiency), and gradually have households/communities start producing 40 or 50 per cent of their own power through solar and wind.

This would decrease reliance on fossil fuels while simultaneously building a decentralized power structure that's less vulnerable to earthquakes, hurricanes, political upheaval and terrorist acts.

All I can think to do at my level is to ride my bike and caulk my windows.
+1
I would add, I'd like to convince one other person to do likewise. That would be swell.

I have not read the report linked in the OP but I have a question.
Do any of you try to use alternative energy sources? I know we all ride bikes, I'm talking solar power, wind power, build your own generator and power it by a stirling engine, etc.
Anyone research these alternatives and plan to implement?

Within the next 5 years, we plan on moving out of our existing home, and having a zero energy (or near zero energy) home built. The key is to make the home totally airtight, and utilize an air-to-air heat exchanger, also known as a heat recovery ventilator. This ensures that we will have ample air exchange in the tight home. In addition the home will have a PV integrated roof, with Net Metering. For heating and cooling, underground piping will be coiled throughout the yard, 6' under ground. This will be used in conjunction with a heat pump to provide HVAC. A separate heat exchanger will be used for hot water.

Within the next 5 years, we plan on moving out of our existing home, and having a zero energy (or near zero energy) home built. The key is to make the home totally airtight, and utilize an air-to-air heat exchanger, also known as a heat recovery ventilator. This ensures that we will have ample air exchange in the tight home. In addition the home will have a PV integrated roof, with Net Metering. For heating and cooling, underground piping will be coiled throughout the yard, 6' under ground. This will be used in conjunction with a heat pump to provide HVAC. A separate heat exchanger will be used for hot water.

sounds like a fairly hi-tech solution to the problem...

the key in your case may be to make the home airtight - but there are plenty of other ways to build - and each response should be tuned to the local conditions.

personally, i'm scared of the concept of 'airtight' - it takes some pretty tight building skills and attention to detail to pull it off, and in many cases even when details are followed to a 't' people still end up with mold, mildew, and water vapor problems.

building as you describe also typically means using lots and lots of 'hi tech', heavily processed materials - these require a large upfront energy input, are often times petroleum based products (think plastics, high density foams and sealants, etc), and require significant transport requirements to get to markets and job sites.

The PV system (probably about 6-7 KW) will have to be sized to power the heat pump. I did a Solar Home Tour here, and there were a few of these cutting edge homes. I want to continue to learn about the Airtight concepts, but a number of builders are using them. No doubt there are processed materials, but those are a one-time investment. I may also use some thermal mass concepts, but that would depend on location.


sounds like a fairly hi-tech solution to the problem...

the key in your case may be to make the home airtight - but there are plenty of other ways to build - and each response should be tuned to the local conditions.

personally, i'm scared of the concept of 'airtight' - it takes some pretty tight building skills and attention to detail to pull it off, and in many cases even when details are followed to a 't' people still end up with mold, mildew, and water vapor problems.

building as you describe also typically means using lots and lots of 'hi tech', heavily processed materials - these require a large upfront energy input, are often times petroleum based products (think plastics, high density foams and sealants, etc), and require significant transport requirements to get to markets and job sites.

The PV system (probably about 6-7 KW) will have to be sized to power the heat pump. I did a Solar Home Tour here, and there were a few of these cutting edge homes. I want to continue to learn about the Airtight concepts, but a number of builders are using them. No doubt there are processed materials, but those are a one-time investment. I may also use some thermal mass concepts, but that would depend on location.


Have you looked at underground houses? They would probably require much less PV then 6-7 KW. You would not even need a heat pump at all since the house would generally stay at 68F/20C. Air tight construction would be of little concern, I think. Water tight would be important though.

Doom and gloom can be fun, I suppose, especially if you're a Christian fundamentalist with a fondness for the Book of Revelations, but it's not very useful. Simply saying, ooh, there are too many people, ooh we're f*cked, oh well, too bad for my grandchildren, is just ghoulish. Yes, we are probably in a desperate situation, or soon will be, but rather than wring our hands while our neighbors continue to drive and build mega-homes until we all die, does anyone have any actual ideas? Links to ideas?

www.cnu.org