Slow Train

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...063001480.html

bkrownd

Ethanol is just a farm subsidy. Politics.

Nightshade

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.

wahoonc

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 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

Roody

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

wahoonc

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

Artkansas 

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

Platy

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.

ken cummings

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.

MarkS

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.

donnamb 

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 **** 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.

nedgoudy

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!

carless

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.

chicbicyclist

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.

wahoonc

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

pedex

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

bmclaughlin807

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.

atman

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.

Roody

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!

atman

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".

Artkansas 

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.

Roody

Yes, besides saying energy will become more expensive and harder to get, I should have added that it will probably become DIRTIER too.

Artkansas 

[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.

Dahon.Steve

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.

donrhummy

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

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...arplastic.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.