Living Car Free - Ok, the oils gone so you CAN'T use a car..now what?

heh, just had a post apocalyptic resident evil-esque daydream there... Fiends roaming the streets in search of anything to put in their tanks.


Mwraaaaaaarrrrrrrr....gassssssss...Mwrrraaaaaaarrrrrrr....

How were they constructed? How are they attached to the rims?

Thirty six individual wooden blocks were fitted to a steel hoop and this hoop was then held in place by springs between the hoop and the original rim. In a museum in Auckland NZ they have a WW1 period German bicycle that uses this system, though unfortunately the wooden blocks are missing.
I'm trying to find out more about it as I wouldn't mind rebuilding my 1942 Dutch ladies bicycle to use wooden block tyres.
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4537/woodentyrescn0.jpg

Wooden tires...interesting concept...but beats the crap out of riding on just the rims. Being fairly well versed in wood working I would probably try and either steam bend or build up something using epoxy...possibly with a glued rubber surface for traction...

Aaron:)

In such a scenario, my personal transportation would be the least of my worries.

My current job, loosely tied to the housing industry, would be be at risk. My wife's business, reliant on people's discretionary spending would be in jeopardy, and the job availability for either of us would be questionable.

Whether we had anywhere to go would be a bigger issue than how we got there.

Good point.

There are going to be alot of jobs that will disappear. In fact, many of the jobs 30 years from now have not been invented. However, the jobs that require extensive motorized transport will be in danger. The high cost of fuel will make many professions unprofitable for those costs cannot be passed on to the consumer.

"Low power nuclear reactions have been successful in Canadian University research projects. The Canadian and US governments pulled the plug on the research once the theories were proven to work. Such research takes considerable money.


In other words, we'll have to end up building hundreds of "Low Power Nuclear Plants" in towns across the nation. Do you really think people will buy into this? Who wants a nuclear bomb near their town after 9/11?

I understand the urgency to replace oil but quite frankly, the days when you can build a nuclear power plant without any consideration to a terrorist attack are long gone.

Wooden tires...interesting concept...but beats the crap out of riding on just the rims. Being fairly well versed in wood working I would probably try and either steam bend or build up something using epoxy...possibly with a glued rubber surface for traction...

Aaron:)
Maybe start with a barrel as a source for curved wood pieces and hoops, and possibly take some inspiration from old time barrel making.

In other words, we'll have to end up building hundreds of "Low Power Nuclear Plants" in towns across the nation. Do you really think people will buy into this? Who wants a nuclear bomb near their town after 9/11?

I understand the urgency to replace oil but quite frankly, the days when you can build a nuclear power plant without any consideration to a terrorist attack are long gone.Given that they could be built underground, and are fairly small (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant), a terrorist would be foolish to target one when they could do as much, if not more damage targeting other assets that would likely be much softer. For instance, tall structures, the water supply, and/or a dirty/chemical suicide bomber in a mall or other crowded location.

I'm sort of a pessimist and have always thought that sometime in my lifetime there will be another depression. Which would go hand in hand with a fuel shortage. I can't imagine our society can continue the way it's going. So for the past few years I have been doing things that can keep my family going in times when there might be food/ fuel. Shortages.

1. We grow a lot of our own food. ( due to out mild climate we can grow year round)
2. We have a flock of chickens.
3. We ride our bikes as much as possible.
4. I live close to large river ( good source of food and water)
5. I own a .22 Good for hunting small animals.

I'm not some sort of survivalist, but I'd imagine I'm in a better situation than many people.

Wooden tires...interesting concept...but beats the crap out of riding on just the rims. Being fairly well versed in wood working I would probably try and either steam bend or build up something using epoxy...possibly with a glued rubber surface for traction...

Aaron:)

isn't the epoxy and the adhesive made from petroleum?

isn't the epoxy and the adhesive made from petroleum?
I bet in a pinch they could make all those kinds of things from syngas (H2 + CO). They could gasify wood to get the syngas.

We had adhesives long before the advent of petroleum and we'll have adhesives long after the age of oil has ended. We've produced foods and medicines before we had petroleum and we'll be able to continue to do so in the future. We've had thriving, orderly civilizations without oil in the past and we can continue to have working societies in the future.

We have thousands of years of recorded civilization, but we've only been drilling for oil for something like 150 years.

The end of oil is not the end of the world.

We had adhesives long before the advent of petroleum and we'll have adhesives long after the age of oil has ended. We've produced foods and medicines before we had petroleum and we'll be able to continue to do so in the future. We've had thriving, orderly civilizations without oil in the past and we can continue to have working societies in the future.

We have thousands of years of recorded civilization, but we've only been drilling for oil for something like 150 years.

The end of oil is not the end of the world.

All very true, but denied by most of the public & businesses. Most don't want the sweat manual
labor a non-oil supported world would bring. "Modern" life will not stop but it will change more
into labor intensive way to live.

One other point.....
Many have noted that electricity would save us in small way. T'ain't so. Coal is plentiful but coal
will also kill the planet if used in large amounts again. The number of people on the planet is
what must change first or all efforts to save the planet will, in time, fail.

"
Fusion power does not give off any radiation or pollution. You are thinking of something else.



You do realize that the sun is powered by fusion reactions and not fission reactions, right?
A hydrogen bomb is a fusion reaction....hellava lot of radiation there.
Where do you get that fusion does not give of any radiation or pollution? It produces massive amounts.

I agree with the notion that we'll see fuel slowly, slowly rise in price long before it's totally gone. The suburban commuters are already the first to be hit. Over time it will force a shift in demographics back to the core, just as the car allowed the shift out to the suburbs. We'll see more train lines go in I suspect. And a lot more people having to save some bucks by going to bicycles.

I doubt we'll see much in the way of "Mad Max" anytime soon, though in some ways we're already seeing the start of the resource wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. The worst case scenario is there's a sudden crash caused by some major fault in the supply chain. Major civil war in both SA and Nigeria, for example, could cut off most of our oil supply and we'd be unable to replace it quickly enough. This would trigger not just high prices but true shortages like the 70's. I could see some panic in the streets then, and would guard my bikes all the more carefully. I already had one panic-stricken motorist try to take my bike when his car broke down. Sudden emergencies like that can bring out the worst in people.

As far as bike parts, even in a modern bike there's little that can't be replicated or replaced with a simple machine shop. It's going to add substantial pounds, of course, but what's done with modern alloys now can be done with steel and brass instead. That's the great thing about bicycles. Like firearms they're inherently a late 19th century technology. All the high tech innovations have simply taken some pounds off of them. Computers are another story, as are modern motor vehicles which depend on computers.

Where would that leave the fat lady and her "big boned" kid? OUT of luck.

Hell, I started riding again at upwards of 450 lbs. I'm still morbidly obese per the BMI stats but I can bike fifty miles a day fully loaded. Even an old clunker cruiser can hold 600 or more pounds. Bikes are incredibly strong for their weight. The design is nearly perfect.

I agree with the notion that we'll see fuel slowly, slowly rise in price long before it's totally gone. The suburban commuters are already the first to be hit. Over time it will force a shift in demographics back to the core, just as the car allowed the shift out to the suburbs. We'll see more train lines go in I suspect. And a lot more people having to save some bucks by going to bicycles.

I doubt we'll see much in the way of "Mad Max" anytime soon, though in some ways we're already seeing the start of the resource wars with Iraq and Afghanistan.

As far as bike parts, even in a modern bike there's little that can't be replicated or replaced with a simple machine shop. It's going to add substantial pounds, of course, but what's done with modern alloys now can be done with steel and brass instead. That's the great thing about bicycles. Like firearms they're inherently a late 19th century technology. All the high tech innovations have simply taken some pounds off of them. Computers are another story, as are modern motor vehicles which depend on computers.



Hell, I started riding again at upwards of 450 lbs. I'm still morbidly obese per the BMI stats but I can bike fifty miles a day fully loaded.

Interesting, basically I agree with you. But why do you think we'll "lose" recent technology? We'll have the ability to make light materials even if we run out of oil. Such things are not sustainable on our current massive level, but might be sustainable on a smaller level. Also, carbon fiber and plastic are a great way to use petroleum because they sequester carbon almost as effectively as unmined petroleum and coal. Sometimes, "non-biodegradable" might actually be a good thing!

If you can ride 50 miles a day you're probably fit, no matter your weight. Are your cholesterol levels, blood pressure and blood glucose levels good?

I wonder if you can recycle carbon fiber components. Alloy I suppose you can, as long as you get the mix right. But the big advantage of steel is it's so much easier to work with. If a steel frame breaks, anybody with basic welding gear can fix it. It's fairly simple to work with it and re-shape parts, as well. Alloys can't be so easily repaired, and I thought it was basically impossible to repair carbon fiber, though I could be wrong. I suppose fiberglass can be used as a replacement for some parts.

If you can ride 50 miles a day you're probably fit, no matter your weight. Are your cholesterol levels, blood pressure and blood glucose levels good?

My heart rate, BP etc. have all come down in the past year and half. I'm still overweight but I honestly don't care much about that. It's coming off in the process. One of my biggest gripes with the diet-medico industry is the emphasis on BMI and raw weight. Weight is not per se the core of the problem, and getting people fixated on losing pounds misses the point. I view weight as a SYMPTOM of the real problem, which is poor diet and lack of exercise. You can absolutely have high BP and be out of shape on the inside but have a good BMI. A lot of hard core smokers fall into this category. And you can be overweight but be active and in good internal shape. It gets very frustraiting when I try to encourage other overweight friends to get out and DO things but they insist they need to lose X more pounds before they ride a bike or whatever. The doctors even encourage this nonsense, treating obesity itself as a disease instead of a mere symptom. What I think we need to be stressing is that the body WANTS to be active. It may be painful and difficult esp. after a long spell of couch time, but the body WILL bounce back unless there's some other underlying etiology such as a cancer causing the problems. Unfortunately since a high BMI is classed as a disease, it's used as both a formal and informal excuse to get out of PE for kids and to stay home for adults.

But I digress.

I wonder if you can recycle carbon fiber components. Alloy I suppose you can, as long as you get the mix right. But the big advantage of steel is it's so much easier to work with. If a steel frame breaks, anybody with basic welding gear can fix it. It's fairly simple to work with it and re-shape parts, as well. Alloys can't be so easily repaired, and I thought it was basically impossible to repair carbon fiber, though I could be wrong. I suppose fiberglass can be used as a replacement for some parts.

I don't think carbon fiber can be reused or recycled, but it does last nearly forever, with it's carbon atoms tightly locked into place, not messing with the climate or polluting the biosphere. sorta like buried oil and coal. Bury it when it breaks and never worry about it again.


My heart rate, BP etc. have all come down in the past year and half. I'm still overweight but I honestly don't care much about that. It's coming off in the process. One of my biggest gripes with the diet-medico industry is the emphasis on BMI and raw weight. Weight is not per se the core of the problem, and getting people fixated on losing pounds misses the point. I view weight as a SYMPTOM of the real problem, which is poor diet and lack of exercise. You can absolutely have high BP and be out of shape on the inside but have a good BMI. A lot of hard core smokers fall into this category. It gets very frustraiting when I try to encourage other overweight friends to get out and DO things but they insist they need to lose X more pounds before they ride a bike or whatever. The doctors even encourage this nonsense, treating obesity itself as a disease instead of a mere symptom. But I digress.

I totally agree. For years I struggled to stay at 175, my "normal" weight at 71". Finally I realized that I feel healthier at 210, I don't have to worrry about what I eat, and my lab values are all good. I don't know if this means I'm healthy, but it seems good enough! (But try saying this on the Clydesdale forum and they'll just about run you out of town! :D)

I don't think carbon fiber can be reused or recycled, but it does last nearly forever, with it's carbon atoms tightly locked into place, not messing with the climate or polluting the biosphere. sorta like buried oil and coal. Bury it when it breaks and never worry about it again.




I totally agree. For years I struggled to stay at 175, my "normal" weight at 71". Finally I realized that I feel healthier at 210, I don't have to worrry about what I eat, and my lab values are all good. I don't know if this means I'm healthy, but it seems good enough! (But try saying this on the Clydesdale forum and they'll just about run you out of town! :D)

Huh? Not that I've ever seen ;) 210 is a safe weight....if you feel healthiest there, it's not unreasonably heavy unless you're a short man ;)

You do realize that the sun is powered by fusion reactions and not fission reactions, right?
A hydrogen bomb is a fusion reaction....hellava lot of radiation there.
Where do you get that fusion does not give of any radiation or pollution? It produces massive amounts.It depends on the fusion reaction. Ideally, we could have something that'll produce a ton of energy w/ no radioactive isotopes left over so there's no nuclear waste in the conventional sense. But, we're a long ways from that AFAIK. Otoh, we could, say... Invest more into the research of separation and transmutation of the radioactive byproducts of fission, which could deal the whole nuclear waste problem. But, instead we invest tons of cash into fusion research. Nuclear power is already the safest form of power generation, if the waste problem was dealt with, it would likely mean the end of fossil fuel based power generation.

I wonder if you can recycle carbon fiber components. Alloy I suppose you can, as long as you get the mix right. But the big advantage of steel is it's so much easier to work with. If a steel frame breaks, anybody with basic welding gear can fix it. It's fairly simple to work with it and re-shape parts, as well. Alloys can't be so easily repaired, and I thought it was basically impossible to repair carbon fiber, though I could be wrong. I suppose fiberglass can be used as a replacement for some parts.





CF is like fiberglass, different cloth, same resin is used--epoxy or polyester of various formulations

you can even mix fiberglass cloth and carbon fiber cloth in the layup or ANY cloth or dust or material which will bind up inside the resin

best analogy I guess would be is composite is nothing more than resin reinforced with either cloth or strands of fabric

its basic composite technique

it can be sprayed into a mold, or laid up, or sprinkled then either left to cure or vacuum bagged and cooked till its cured, its done with fiberglass too

I view weight as a SYMPTOM of the real problem, which is poor diet and lack of exercise. You can absolutely have high BP and be out of shape on the inside but have a good BMI.

I'm really impressed that you can ride 50 miles a day. I'm a skinny guy at 5'10 130lbs and everybody I know thinks I'm super fit if they hear I can ride the 35 mile round trip to work (which I find exhausting if done a few days in a row).

Reading on bikeforums for a long time and noticing the huge diversity of weights/BMIs of members, even ones who ride a whole lot, has completely convinced me that weight is a bad indicator of health. (And that having an exercise habit in a big way, is a pretty good indicator of health.)

When comes to overall health I think resting heart rate probably is a better indicator than anything else. According to BMI I am slightly overweight. My resting heart rate is in the mid 40's (no too shabby for a 48 year old) I also think that if you can walk up a flight of stairs without wheezing or stopping to rest is also a good indicator. My biggest reason for wanting to drop a few pounds is to reduce the wear and tear on my knees. But at 6'-2" and 205 I am not complaining. I have never been able to understand how they think all of these various charts and the like are that accurate. Genetics plays a large part in our physical makeup and everyone is different. If you eat a varied diet with minimal additives and preservatives and get 30 minutes of moderate exercise daily you can't go wrong.

Aaron:)

When comes to overall health I think resting heart rate probably is a better indicator than anything else. According to BMI I am slightly overweight. My resting heart rate is in the mid 40's (no too shabby for a 48 year old) I also think that if you can walk up a flight of stairs without wheezing or stopping to rest is also a good indicator. My biggest reason for wanting to drop a few pounds is to reduce the wear and tear on my knees. But at 6'-2" and 205 I am not complaining. I have never been able to understand how they think all of these various charts and the like are that accurate. Genetics plays a large part in our physical makeup and everyone is different. If you eat a varied diet with minimal additives and preservatives and get 30 minutes of moderate exercise daily you can't go wrong.

Aaron:)
From the Wikipedia BMI article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index) (Wikipedia is always right):
Accuracy

The BMI is meant to broadly categorize populations for purely statistical purposes. As noted, its accuracy in relation to actual levels of body fat is easily distorted by such factors as fitness level, muscle mass, bone structure, gender, and ethnicity. People who are mesomorphic tend to have higher BMI numbers than people who are endomorphic, because they have greater bone mass and greater muscle mass than do endomorphic individuals.

Similarly, ectomorphic individuals could conceivably receive a reading below the normal range, when in fact their body type makes it healthy for them to be thin. In fact, ectomorphs could obtain healthy readings even when their body fat percentage is higher than is healthy, as their low lean mass will lower the BMI.

People with short stature tend to have lower BMI. Therefore they should use a lower cut-off value for obesity diagnosis. The same applies to older people, whose reduced muscle mass can hide additional body fat without increasing BMI.

It depends on the fusion reaction. Ideally, we could have something that'll produce a ton of energy w/ no radioactive isotopes left over so there's no nuclear waste in the conventional sense. But, we're a long ways from that AFAIK. Otoh, we could, say... Invest more into the research of separation and transmutation of the radioactive byproducts of fission, which could deal the whole nuclear waste problem. But, instead we invest tons of cash into fusion research. Nuclear power is already the safest form of power generation, if the waste problem was dealt with, it would likely mean the end of fossil fuel based power generation.

I am unaware of a fusion reaction that leaves no radioactive isotopes...I'm talking in reality here..not on paper. Sure...2 Hydrogen fuse to give you helium, on paper...in reality, you get all sorts of products and some are still radioactive. Now, if a way could be developed to control the process completely, then there could possibly be a reaction with little to no radioactive end products, but that's a long way off if ever.

CF is like fiberglass, different cloth, same resin is used--epoxy or polyester of various formulations

you can even mix fiberglass cloth and carbon fiber cloth in the layup or ANY cloth or dust or material which will bind up inside the resin

best analogy I guess would be is composite is nothing more than resin reinforced with either cloth or strands of fabric

its basic composite technique

it can be sprayed into a mold, or laid up, or sprinkled then either left to cure or vacuum bagged and cooked till its cured, its done with fiberglass too


To hell with steel and carbon fibre, the bike of the future is bamboo!

http://www.americanbamboo.org/GeneralInfoPages/BambooBicycle.html

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/12/bamboo_bike_by.php

http://duck-rabbit.ldeo.columbia.edu/bamboo/Home.html

Not just Mormons, and not just food, and water.

Weapons/ammo/reloading equipment, hard currency-silver, medicine, medical equipment, spare bikes and parts, spare shelter, and much more.

Oil, economic collapse, China, Islamic terrorism, exotic disease, and more. Lots to prepare for.

What about Christian terrorism?

Oh wait, you're an Ohio conservative. What am I thinking? There's no such thing in your world.

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture26.pdf

H3 Fusion.

and knowing is half the battle....

CE

Nice link...thanks.
Something else to read up on again! Up till now, most fusion work I was familiar with was based on hydrogen fusion to start things off...still get radioactive byproducts but not as much as in fission reactions.

Seeing how lazy the average person is in my town, I can't imagine how they would survive something like that. However, I imagine that personal gasoline use would be banned long before there was no oil left in the entire world. In that case I would do just fine, but I imagine there are many people in this country who would be completely screwed. I also imagine there would be a lot of people desperately looking for loopholes in the law so they could continue being lazy.

Seeing how lazy the average person is in my town, I can't imagine how they would survive something like that. However, I imagine that personal gasoline use would be banned long before there was no oil left in the entire world. In that case I would do just fine, but I imagine there are many people in this country who would be completely screwed. I also imagine there would be a lot of people desperately looking for loopholes in the law so they could continue being lazy.

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/414/sedanchaircp7.jpg

Without bothering to read through the rest of the thread, the short answer to the OP's question is that when the oil is gone, there will be another fuel used to power motor vehicles, and people will simply keep driving as they always have. Already here in Queensland we're seeing proposals to use ethanol (a by product of sugar cane) in fuel. Cost is about the only inhibition at the moment, but it's already in use in a lot of South American countries where it's cheaper to produce it than to import oil. That's a big hint about the way things will go in the future.

I can see a future where the fields that are currently used to grow food will be turned over to the production of fuel to power cars. It may not be as cheap as oil (which is probably the only reason it hasn't already happened), but the motor car won't go away -- even if it does get more expensive. Of course, this is where things will get really ugly, as we'll have social debates about whether farms should be used to produce fuel or food. I shudder when I think of the answers to that one.

I can see a future where the fields that are currently used to grow food will be turned over to the production of fuel to power cars. It may not be as cheap as oil (which is probably the only reason it hasn't already happened), but the motor car won't go away -- even if it does get more expensive. Of course, this is where things will get really ugly, as we'll have social debates about whether farms should be used to produce fuel or food. I shudder when I think of the answers to that one.

The important question at that point is whether we are taking food from the hungry or simply inconveniencing those who are already well fed. How we answer that question will speak volumes about our society.

as fossil-fuel energy rises in price, nuclear power will become more and more attractive to people. Fears about its safety will almost certainly give way if it's ever the only way that people can afford to have heating and cooling, and battery or hydrogen or other electric-powered cars.

In the city of Philadelphia, something like 15% of the population lives within a short walk of a road with overhead electric wires for trolleys. Everywhere within a mile or two of where I live, is easily accessible by trolley.

If there were no liquid fuels available, I have little doubt that people would try to come up with a system allowing private vehicles to run off of these wires, and to expand the wires to other areas of the city/suburbs.

Trains (the kind that aren't on roads) powered by overhead wires also serve the suburbs for tens of miles around.

as fossil-fuel energy rises in price, nuclear power will become more and more attractive to people. Fears about its safety will almost certainly give way if it's ever the only way that people can afford to have heating and cooling, and battery or hydrogen or other electric-powered cars.It doesn't even take rising prices, since the environmental aspect is being examined fairly closely. Given that fossil fueled power generation, primarily coal, kills ~30,000 people per year in the US, as well as negatively impacts the health of many others, while emitting fairly larger amounts of Carbon per unit energy, it just doesn't look as attractive as it used to when externalities (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/wgtloss.html) are accounted for. In fact, I doubt it could compete economically if it had to comply with the same waste/emissions standards of other power sources...

see the USA...in a Chevrolet

The important question at that point is whether we are taking food from the hungry or simply inconveniencing those who are already well fed. How we answer that question will speak volumes about our society.

The short answer will be both. As food production declines, the price will rise, this will have both effects you mention. Heck, even now the poor are already prepared to sacrifice food if they can't otherwise afford to put fuel in their cars (seen it happen myself). Increases in the price of either food or fuel will simply see more people making that decision.

Break out the Mr. Fusion and put my table scraps in it?Damn, we havn't invented that yet,guess I'll start gathering parts for a still instead.What I don't drink,I'll power my moped with.

There are countries in South America right now that power their cars with moonshine and it's about 1/3 the price of gasoline.We could do it NOW if we REALLY wanted too.

Maybe someone will invent a machine that runs on mice,cockroaches and stray cats.

Here in NZ most of our electricity is generated from renewable resources and the government is supporting research into replacing a high percentage of the country's vehicle fleet over time with electric vehicles. Also on the biofuels front NZ is undertaking cutting edge research into making fuel from algae grown on sewage effluent. Afterall everybody has to go and sewage is very much a renewable resource ;)

Given that they could be built underground, and are fairly small (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant), a terrorist would be foolish to target one when they could do as much, if not more damage targeting other assets that would likely be much softer. For instance, tall structures, the water supply, and/or a dirty/chemical suicide bomber in a mall or other crowded location.

The Galena nuclear plant is only 8 feet underground! There's only a token number of police guarding the plant during the day! The article says if anyone trys to start drilling, the town folks will easily be alerted. That sounds real safe to me. Suppose they don't decide to call? According to the article, they intend to "save" money by cutting back on security on this power plant because having an army would make it unprofitable. Wonderful!

A couple of shot guns should handle the security guards and maybe a hundred pounds of plastic explosives?

You do realize that the sun is powered by fusion reactions and not fission reactions, right?
A hydrogen bomb is a fusion reaction....hellava lot of radiation there.
Where do you get that fusion does not give of any radiation or pollution? It produces massive amounts.

And if we're going to replace all the oil with fussion reactors, I suspect every city will need to have one.

Now now gentlemen, the title of this thread is, -
'Ok, the oils gone so you CAN'T use a car..now what?'

May I gently guide you back to the subject in hand; - the Living Car Free forum is not the place to argue nuclear power plant security or the finer points of atomic physics. To clarify the topic the proposition is You can't use a car due to oil being unavailable, - what will you do now?

The Galena nuclear plant is only 8 feet underground!If by 8 feet, you mean 98 feet, then ya sure.The Toshiba 4S (Super Safe, Small and Simple) is a “nuclear battery” reactor design. It requires only minimal staffing.

The technical specifications of the 4S reactor are unique in the nuclear industry. The actual reactor would be located in sealed, cylindrical vault 30 m (98 ft) underground, while the building above ground would be 22 x 16 x 11 m (72 × 52.5 x 36 ft) in size. This power plant is designed to provide 10 Megawatts of power.

There's only a token number of police guarding the plant during the day! The article says if anyone trys to start drilling, the town folks will easily be alerted. That sounds real safe to me. Suppose they don't decide to call? According to the article, they intend to "save" money by cutting back on security on this power plant because having an army would make it unprofitable. Wonderful!

A couple of shot guns should handle the security guards and maybe a hundred pounds of plastic explosives?And then what? Even, if somehow, they manage to kill all 675 people in the town, that's still way less than were killed on 9-11, with a far larger investment in terms of manpower/resources than the 9-11 attacks, since procuring weapons/explosives and traveling to BFE Alaska isn't gonna raise any flags... Like I said before, given the other available targets, it would be silly to go after something as hard as a nuclear power plant when it likely won't do as much damage as other softer targets. I have a feeling Galena would be fairly safe with a dead bunny guarding the facility. Hell, with the firepower needed to get in, they would probably kill more by going on a rampage through the town than trying to target the reactor. :p

If by 8 feet, you mean 98 feet, then ya sure.

And then what? Even, if somehow, they manage to kill all 675 people in the town, that's still way less than were killed on 9-11, with a far larger investment in terms of manpower/resources than the 9-11 attacks, since procuring weapons/explosives and traveling to BFE Alaska isn't gonna raise any flags... Like I said before, given the other available targets, it would be silly to go after something as hard as a nuclear power plant when it likely won't do as much damage as other softer targets. I have a feeling Galena would be fairly safe with a dead bunny guarding the facility. Hell, with the firepower needed to get in, they would probably kill more by going on a rampage through the town than trying to target the reactor. :p

>>>>Chaney said a terrorist attack in a small, isolated rural community like Galena is unlikely because an unknown outsider would quickly be recognized. The 4S unit would be encased under several feet of concrete, "and if people show up with jackhammers, everyone in town will be aware of it."
<<<

LOL! This was from the article on the Net about the Galena. Oh I'm sure no one's going to Alasaka to blow it up and kill the whole town. However, it goes to show you that you really can't construct this with enough security or else it becomes unprofitable. Several feet of concrete separate the town from a toxic bomb.

A terrorist attack might be small for a rual community like Galena but not for a major city like Boston. You're going to need thousands of Galenas to replace our need for oil and they're going to have to be built close to the metropolitan.

bike, walk.

kinda kills the whole fun argument.

CE

Plenty of other options if you want. Consider the following:

Riding a horse
Riding in a horse-drawn buggy or wagon
Pulled by a dog sled in winter (or pulled in a cart by a team of dogs in warm weather)
Skiing in winter
Roller blading
Electric bike
Electric car
Hiring a pedicab or rickshaw
Hiring a couple of servants to carry you in a sedan chair
Pogo stick

The last few aren't serious suggestions and the animal-powered options aren't yet practical in our cities as we do not have easily accessible places to lodge work animals. However, in a world without oil, we could expect to see all of these options (except perhaps the pogo stick) in use to a greater or lesser extent.

People are able to cope with almost any change and will find solutions when necessary.

There was a guy that posted here some time back that took his CANOE to work one day! Both his house and work were on the water.

Plenty of other options if you want. Consider the following:

Riding a horse
Riding in a horse-drawn buggy or wagon
Pulled by a dog sled in winter (or pulled in a cart by a team of dogs in warm weather)
Skiing in winter
Roller blading
Electric bike
Electric car
Hiring a pedicab or rickshaw
Hiring a couple of servants to carry you in a sedan chair
Pogo stick

The last few aren't serious suggestions and the animal-powered options aren't yet practical in our cities as we do not have easily accessible places to lodge work animals. However, in a world without oil, we could expect to see all of these options (except perhaps the pogo stick) in use to a greater or lesser extent.

People are able to cope with almost any change and will find solutions when necessary.

All of those would work for me. Remember back in the late 1800's much of the transportation in the developed countries around the world was provided by horses, think of the Hansom Cabs of London...it was also provided by coal fired trains that polluted the air horribly. Only the more well to do people had horses and bicycles for personal transport. The common laborer walked. I hope we don't resort to those days and can at least maintain some of the technology we have gained over the last century and a half. I really think that the personal automobile as we know it will be gone. I can see limited use of personal electric vehicles, bicycles and animal drawn conveyance (mainly in the rural areas that can support them) Electric trains may be a viable option if wide scale electric production can be maintained without destruction of the environment.

I have actually started sizing/designing a solar system to power a small house for lighting and recharging of cycle batteries and perhaps an small electric sedan.

Aaron:)

(snip). Remember back in the late 1800's much of the transportation in the developed countries around the world was provided by horses, think of the Hansom Cabs of London...it was also provided by coal fired trains that polluted the air horribly. Only the more well to do people had horses and bicycles for personal transport. The common laborer walked. I hope we don't resort to those days and can at least maintain some of the technology we have gained over the last century and a half. I really think that the personal automobile as we know it will be gone. I can see limited use of personal electric vehicles, bicycles and animal drawn conveyance (mainly in the rural areas that can support them) Electric trains may be a viable option if wide scale electric production can be maintained without destruction of the environment.

This response is clearest visioned thus far........

Why do I say that? It has not one once of denial ,or assumption that the car will still be in use,
about the true scope of this topic. One only has to look at history, as this poster clearly did, to
see life when the oil is gone.

Humans have lived for about 150 years on an unstainable bubble of fossil fueled energy ,and all
it's chemical uses, to create the false artificial modern life as it is now. This same unstainable
energy has also lead to an explosion in the food supply which, in turn, caused an explosion in
the populaton. A population that simply can not exist without fossil fuels.

Deny all you want to.......the future will be very different.

I just don't see animal powered options as a practical solution anywhere but rural areas.
Horses and dogs are definitely extra mouths to feed and very time consuming. Electric
solutions will definitely work with limitations, like distance and startup costs. The electric
bike always seemed like a liability to me. They're almost always heavy, bulky and expensive.

As for the rich. Electric H2's and Navigators.

Some things never change.

CE

I wonder how many of the rich will remain rich. If they stubbornly cling to the old habits, they will gradually exhaust their funds. And if the economy tanks, they will be out of work just the same as everyone else.

Horses have other problems in urban areas. They leave behind stuff that other people don't want to have to deal with. On a farm you can just use it as fertilizer.

I just don't see animal powered options as a practical solution anywhere but rural areas.
Horses and dogs are definitely extra mouths to feed and very time consuming. Electric
solutions will definitely work with limitations, like distance and startup costs. The electric
bike always seemed like a liability to me. They're almost always heavy, bulky and expensive.

As for the rich. Electric H2's and Navigators.

Some things never change.

CE
I agree with the animals being only feasible in a rural setting. Proper care of horses requires a lot of space and they do eat. We have kept horses in the past and they can be high maintenance, but you can cover more ground in a day on a horse than you can on foot and move a pretty substantial load if necessary.

I don't see the electric bicycle as heavy, bulky and expensive in comparison to a large SUV being driven 4-5 miles to the nearest Starbucks. The main problem I have seen with the current crop of electric bicycles that are commercially available is that they are still in the toy stage, quite often they have some excellent components on them, but that fact is out weighed by the crappy ones. Schwinn (http://www.schwinnbike.com/products/bikes_category.php?id=109) has a line of electric bikes, I have yet to see any but the few reviews have read have been favorable.
Stokemonkey(currently production is on hold) is another that comes to mind as being viable. And yet another project that I am watching with interest is the conversion that is being followed in the Practical Pedal (http://practicalpedal.com/) All it takes is a bit of power to extend the range by a few miles, help to overcome a steep hill, or haul a few extra pounds of groceries and all of a sudden the bicycle becomes that much more of a better choice for personal transportation. Everyday I see hundreds if not thousands of 3000#-6,000# vehicles being used to transport a single 250# person a distance of a few miles...what a waste of finite resources.

Aaron:)

Without a supply of cheap oil, we could easily see more and more small rural communities springing up.

A century ago, there were all sorts of small farming communities in the Canadian prairies. Because of the time and effort it took to travel, small towns each had the services they needed. As transportation became more efficient, the smaller of these towns began to close down. Today, the prairies do not have small towns every few kilometres, each with their own basic services. Instead, some of these towns have disappeared or have become nothing more than a couple of houses, a cemetery and a few abandoned buildings.

If cheap oil were removed from the equation, whether gradually or suddenly, it would make sense once again to have a lot of small communities, each providing basic services. And it would no longer make sense to have huge sprawling urban areas. Such cities would quickly become unworkable and impractical.

I just don't see animal powered options as a practical solution anywhere but rural areas.
Horses and dogs are definitely extra mouths to feed and very time consuming. Electric
solutions will definitely work with limitations, like distance and startup costs. The electric
bike always seemed like a liability to me. They're almost always heavy, bulky and expensive.

As for the rich. Electric H2's and Navigators.

Some things never change.

CE

Cities like London and New York used draft animals until the invention of the car. That wasn't a real long time ago and those areas where very industrialized even then. I think we need to look at 3rd world and developing countries to see what will happen to our society when oil begins to seriously dry up. The rich will have cars to the bitter end. I think most of society has bikes already so they will become the dominant means of transportation. I don't think draft animals will come into use unless there is no oil at all ( or substitute) and we need to move things that are too heavy for a bicycle. Or we go through a couple hundred years of no oil and have a hard time making bike parts. I myself would like to see our society move back to a simpler more agrarian society. But I think if that were to happen we go through some sort of nasty mad max type stuff first. It's funny to think of those tribes in the Amazon who have had the same society for thousands of years. oil could dry up and life would go on just fine for them.