NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a great, succinct article on what our options really are for our energy future.


In the next 50 years, give or take, those of us in the United States will face two challenges. We must wean ourselves off of oil and we must cut our carbon-dioxide emissions by around 60 percent. Either would be difficult in isolation; together, well ... imagine patting your head and rubbing your belly at the same time, only with trillions of dollars and millions of lives at stake. And with one arm tied behind your back.

What's the best way to meet these challenges? If you were the proverbial Martian, visiting our planet to dispassionately assess our options, what would you find most promising?

Would it be nuclear power? "Clean coal"? Ethanol? You'd only decide on those options if you happen to be an uncommonly gullible Martian (or one in the pay of big industry—but more on that later).

Substantially increasing the amount of electricity we get from nuclear power would mean building dozens of expensive new plants, none of which would be completed for at least 10 years. Each would be a huge risk for investors and virtually uninsurable without government assistance—and once it had run its course, would cost a fortune to decommission. Each would produce tons of waste—when we don't even know what to do with the waste we already have—and each would produce fissile material that could fall into the wrong hands. By some estimates, the CO2 emitted in the full lifecycle of a nuclear plant—taking into account the oil burned mining, transporting and processing uranium, not to mention constructing the plants themselves—would be only a third less than that released by a coal-fired plant.

Burning coal releases CO2. To avoid climate catastrophe, "clean coal" plants would have to sequester their CO2 emissions underground. This technology is speculative, untested and at least 10 years out.

Corn-based ethanol is the result of an extremely energy-intensive, CO2-emitting, polluting process. Corn is grown in massive monocultures with petroleum-based herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, which are busy accumulating in an enormous "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. Ethanol refining plants consume enormous amounts of natural gas or coal; their product is distributed across the country in oil-burning vehicles. In the end, grain-based ethanol produces little more energy than what's required to make it, and does virtually nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

What about cellulosic ethanol, the oft-cited, eco-friendlier cousin of grain-based ethanol? Well, it's—wait for it—largely speculative, untested and at least 10 years out.

Would a smart Martian choose these uneconomical and/or inefficient and/or unproven fuel sources as its primary means of addressing America's immediate energy challenges? Would he be willing to wait 10 years to ramp up supply, in a quixotic attempt to keep up with burgeoning demand? Not unless he'd been paid off by big energy companies. (Which, let's face it, would inevitably happen.)

Our Martian would probably suggest we focus first on reducing our energy use—and might be delighted to discover several simple, at-hand ways to do so. Some low-hanging fruit: boost energy efficiency standards for cars, appliances, industrial equipment and buildings. Institute "feebates," which would tax the purchase of fuel-inefficient vehicles and apply the revenue to rebates on fuel-efficient vehicles. Mandate that all government purchases—of vehicles, buildings, appliances, or anything else—be tied to strict energy-efficiency requirements. Pass a federal renewable portfolio standard, mandating that the feds get a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources.

And if our Martian wanted to get a little bit more ambitious, he might emphasize these broader policy and technological initiatives:

• Quit subsidizing fossil-fuel industries. Period.

• Impose a gas or carbon tax. It would put uniform pressure on the market to reduce oil consumption, without favoring any particular alternative. (The impact on low-income Americans could be offset with reduced payroll taxes.)

• Encourage density by reversing land-use policies at all levels of government that subsidize road-building and sprawl at the expense of compact, walkable, mixed-use communities served by effective public transportation.

• Drop perverse agricultural subsidies that overwhelmingly favor petro-heavy industrial agriculture and long-distance food transport at the expense of organic farms and local food systems.

• Scrap electricity-market regulations that virtually mandate centralized power production at large, inefficient plants (by some estimates, up to two-thirds of energy is wasted en route to end users); instead, encourage decentralized production from small-scale, site-appropriate sources.

Given the panoply of readily available demand-reduction measures, our befuddled Martian might wonder, why is debate over America's energy future dominated by supply-side options like nuclear, "clean coal," and ethanol? If he hung out for a while and studied the socio-economic scene, our Martian might propose the following explanations:

• Policymakers are terrified to tell constituents that big upheavals are coming and big changes are needed. They prefer to propagate the illusion that one set of fuels can simply be swapped out for another, with no disturbance in the hyperconsuming, big-box retailing, suburb-expanding American way of life.

• Many of the most effective energy strategies would mean less fossil-fuel power and more people power—i.e., labor. Site-situated power plants and small organic farms, for instance, require more human labor than their centralized, mechanized, super-sized counterparts. The economic consensus of the American power elites (in both parties) has it that labor costs must be held to a minimum by any means necessary—union-busting, federal rate hikes, outsourcing, or liberal use of illegal immigrants.

• Finally and most significantly: it's the money, stupid. Scratch the surface of each of the elite's favored alternatives and you'll find an industry with political connections and the financial clout to shape public dialogue. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry front group, has openly established an organization designed to push pro-nuclear talking points into the public sphere—it's already paid off in the form of an influential op-ed in The Washington Post . Ethanol has even more friends. Legislators from agricultural states love it; corn brokers like Archer Daniels Midland love it; automakers who want their products to look greener love it; the oil companies that will eventually own and run ethanol refineries and stations love it. And coal—well, even kids love coal!

Alternative fuels backed by big industry bucks aren't necessarily without merit. But those concerned about America's—and the world's—energy future need not accept the debate as it is currently configured, with its skewed focus on supply increase over demand reduction and big-industry products over decentralized, human-scale solutions.

Public dialogue is influenced by big money, but it is also, at least for now, influenced by the public. And we, the public, should approach the energy problem with fresh, unbiased eyes.

Like Martians.

In the next 50 years, give or take, those of us in the United States will face two challenges. We must wean ourselves off of oil and we must cut our carbon-dioxide emissions by around 60 percent.

Except I don't accept this statement, which pretty much destroys the whole article.

Except I don't accept this statement, which pretty much destroys the whole article.
Why not?

Except I don't accept this statement, which pretty much destroys the whole article.
It doesn't make a difference whether you accept it or not. Circumstances are going to force you to. In fact, they already are and this is just the beginning.

http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/aspo_oil_and_gas.png
http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/discovery_gap.gif
Total oil burned in 2005 = roughly 30 billion barrels.
Total discoveries in 2005 = roughly 11 billion barrels.

I'd have to agree overal. I'm going to break this up in to parts to make it more manageable.

Part 1

Removing subsidies would let the market function properly and would make the functioning alternative technologies cost competitive with fossil fuels in any setting. However, I think we should temporarily encourage coal and nuclear if only to serve as a load stabilizer in lieu of natural gas and until distributed generation systems are fully functional nationwide.

Wind, solar, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, and tidal power are all economically feasible options and all share the extremely helpful attribute that when one is not working, the others usually are or are working at higher levels. Geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomass are all great alternatives to coal/natural gas/nuclear load stabilization. The economics of most alternative energy are real; wind power in particular is a major contributor, and it will soon be surpassing natural gas as the main source of new electricity generation.

To a degree, shipping of certain products might be more desirable over long distances due to the savings in the supply chain that outweigh the cost of shipping. Rail and container ships are more efficient means of transportation in terms of ton-miles per gallon than trucks or small vehicles; also, container ships run on residual oil, which is little more than tar and is extremely cheap and energy-efficient. Airplanes consume a relatively small share of global fuel (something like 8 percent) and are an extremely valuable means of international transportation. If we add together all of the petroleum used in all plastics, planes, agriculture and shipping we get a number around 30% of total petroleum consumption. That amount has not changed significantly since the 1970's and is still below its 1975 peak.


Part 2:

60% of fuel is consumed in transportation; not in shipping, agriculture, airlines or plastics but in individual vehicles and truck transportation. That 60% is almost entirely gasoline with a smaller component of diesel fuel, and that is the biggest problem right now.

I honestly believe the majority of our petroleum and gas consumption is centered entirely on lifestyle issues. The decentralization of cities and the rise of suburbs in and of itself is not a problem; it is the fact that these places are primarily accessible only by car and have little or no mass transit...even the lack of walkable services would not be as big a problem with efficient mass transit. A 50-mile commute to work would not be a problem if the route was serviced by a light rail system, but the fact that the 50-mile commute is most commonly drive is a problem.

We need to expand the services of freight rail and waterways to take advantage of these more efficient methods and reduce the number of trucks on the road; the establishment of more circular means of manufactruing will be paramount, as will individual companies' support for mass transportation services for employees.

Part 3

Another major area is the waste of energy.

We can still conserve as much today as we could in 1973 or 1979; thankfully, this period of high prices is spurring fairly rapid development of efficiency upgrades and alternatives in industry and commercial enterprises, but the residential sector is still somewhat lagging. Passive solar/solar water heating, natural air conditioning, installed PV on rooftops and improvments in insulation and the energy efficiency of appliances are all becoming cheaper but there are still cost issues in regard to large-scale rollouts of these technologies in homes. It is feasible in industrial and commercial settings, however.

Another immediate issue is central heating; a lot of energy is wasted in this area. Turning thermostats down 2 degrees in winter nationwide would save us 8% of our natural gas consumption; in summer, that amount could be even higher if people pursued more passive cooling methods. Using the heat produced by things like appliances or using the naturally cooler temperatures in basements would also help mitigate the need for natural gas or electricity for temperature control.

Part 4:

Ethanol subsidies need to be scrapped. Corn based ethanol is at best marginal in its benefit; although farmers can benefit from using it, the benefits
are little more useful than as a fuel additive for reformulated gasoline. Cellulosic ethanol will be economically feasible, but it's still 6 years down the line and will take years after that to reach a level of production suitable for replacing gasoline.

Biodiesel is promising for both farmers and consumers. Biodiesel and regular diesel will be part of the transition from fossil fuels; hybrid diesels running on biodiesel blends will be a major improvement over existing technology, as will plug-in hybrids; however, plugins are much farther in the future than conventional hybrids and so are not a short-term solution. Fuel cells, nanotechnology, bioplastics and all of the miscellaneous technology I could not possibly cover here will all have specific roles in the transition from fossil fuels.

I think the best way to sum up this situation is in terms of adaptation. Those places and consumers that adapt to changes and pursue alternatives (like the West Coast or perhaps Texas) will thrive in a fossil fuel transition, while those who do not will suffer any degree of economic hardship and inflationary recession until the transition is complete. These nonadapting markets will inevitably make the transition to the new post-fossil fuel era by necessity, but almost undoubtedly with significant and prolonged hardship that may set them in to a nigh-irrecoverable decline.

I always remember that California boomed during the Great Depression when it comes to this situation, because that is a symbol of how an economy can continue to grow even in the face of widespread hardship if it adapts properly to the situation at hand. However, the question remains as to what the effects will be on the places that do not adapt; it might be mild in some places and of a Depression magnitude in others, it might last a few years in some places and decades in others, and some places might recover while others are pitched in to permanent decline, just like the Rust Belt cities were in the 1970's.

It all depends on the actions taken by the people of each region effected and the actions of their government in response to these changes...it may not be "adapt or die", but it will certainly be "adapt or suffer".

Why not?

Because it's unsupported. Why does the US need to cut its CO2 emissions?

Total oil burned in 2005 = roughly 30 billion barrels.
Total discoveries in 2005 = roughly 11 billion barrels.

Oh, the oil is running out, sure, but the poor nations will be forced to abandon it sooner. Traditionally, there has been a 15 year supply already discovered and waiting to be produced. That's dropped a bit below 15 years, now, so I'll accept that our supply of oil is dwindling. But there's still lots. There's almost a trillion barrels sitting in Canada's oilsands. Venezuela's Orinoco sludge is just as big. We need to look to non-traditional reserves.

the article seems mostly spot-on. It acknowledges the difficulty of reform in the american lobbyist-dominated legislative/electoral system, but I feel that the corruption of the present establishment govenment is understated, if not underestimated. I sense a futility in searching for reform at the ballot box when, it seems to me, the lobbyists themselves have seized the administration, (the legality of which is even disputed): several of the Bush cabinet are members of the Project for a New American Century, the think-tank founded around '97; is that correct? It also seems to me that the administration functions with a mafia or gangster-like mentality that is resistant to traditional legal parameters. The Saudis are alleged to have a trillion dollar investment in the United States, with the Chinese approaching this level; given these substantial market influences and the increasing non-transparency of the US government, what pragmatic options does the US citizen, or even non-citizen resident, have in seeking to improve governmental policy?

This question, in a disturbingly-similar, different context, exists in Taiwan, where national sovereignty is subverted by both the Chinese Communist Party abroad and the Chinese Nationalist Party and its allies domestically. Taiwanese national sovereignty is as plain as day in Taiwanese culture and fulfills standard political-philosophy requisite conditions such as having (1) a polity with universal suffrage and democratically elected representative government; (2) an indigenous national currency; (3) an indigenous military; (4) a territory with defined boundaries; (5) national passports; and (6) a cultural sense of national identity; despite naturally meeting all of these conditions, the 23 million Taiwanese were, last week, denied observer status (much less membership!) to the WHO for the tenth consecutive year; that is still a microcosm of Taiwan's denial of recognition by the United Nations; these and ever-more similar examples are dismissed by the international community without conscience or ethical standard. What are the Taiwanese to do?

I teach a variety of senior high school composition classes, and I presented this dilemma (particularly UN membership) to my students; to my great surprise and excitement came what seems like the best answer I've ever heard: one high school freshman (10th grade) proposed that continuous 'parades' be organized, petitioning for UN recognition and membership; when the demonstrations have continued for a few weeks, they ought to begin reaching world news, in fact ultimately, every little nook that receives TV, even Bhutan now...simply yet perpetually asking for international activism. The Taiwanese mustered 2 million people for a one-day peace rally two years ago...in the immortal words of Perry Farrell, "that's the whole key, man: we've got to organize".

In the States, though, I'm not confident that ground-swell demonstrations are viable. I would first be concerned that the police would prevent such a thing. Secondly, I am unconvinced that any amount of grass-roots pressure will sway the present administration from its agenda. So, my original question: what can be done?

Because it's unsupported. Why does the US need to cut its CO2 emissions?


Have you been living under a rock for the past 30 years? Because if you dont the planet will heat up far faster than the natural cycle intended it to, damaging the planet seriously.

To be fair though its not just the US, although the US is one of the worst offenders when considering its rate of consumption to its population size.

Have you been living under a rock for the past 30 years? Because if you dont the planet will heat up far faster than the natural cycle intended it to, damaging the planet seriously.

To be fair though its not just the US, although the US is one of the worst offenders when considering its rate of consumption to its population size.

That would be an altrusitic act, then. They have no reason to believe the rest of the world will cut its emissions. Plus, the US is probably best equipped to adapt to the warmer climate or to find a non-emissions based solution (like a solar shield).

That would be an altrusitic act, then. They have no reason to believe the rest of the world will cut its emissions. Plus, the US is probably best equipped to adapt to the warmer climate or to find a non-emissions based solution (like a solar shield).
Now that I'd pay money to see.:rolleyes:

Because it's unsupported. Why does the US need to cut its CO2 emissions?The article is not about global warming.



Oh, the oil is running out, sure, but the poor nations will be forced to abandon it sooner. Traditionally, there has been a 15 year supply already discovered and waiting to be produced. That's dropped a bit below 15 years, now, so I'll accept that our supply of oil is dwindling. But there's still lots. There's almost a trillion barrels sitting in Canada's oilsands. Venezuela's Orinoco sludge is just as big. We need to look to non-traditional reserves.
The point isn't that we're going to run out. The problem is that as we go from easy, cheap oil to hard, expensive oil we will have to make serious, probably painful adjustments. The fact is that you will never be able to produce oil from Candian tar sands or from Venezuelan heavy oil as cheaply or as prodigiously as you can produce light, sweet crude oil. The Athabasca tar sands deposits in Canada are a mined commodity. It takes two tons of sand to produce a single barrel of crude oil. When brought into full capacity by 2020 they expect to produce around 3 million barrles a day. That's about equal to that amount of production we will have lost from mexico by 2009. oil has always been able to be produced faster to match rising demand so demand has always been able to grow almost completely freely. We are entering a time when production will be constrained by geology, not politics. When that happens production will no longer be able to rise to meet demand, rather demand will have to fall to meet production. The way that that happens is through price. As prices skyrocket it will effect everything we do because everything we do is dependant on oil. Most alternatives to oil are, in fact, dependant on oil.

And then I'll go talk to the deaf about the wonders of music! :rolleyes:

As much as I hate it, nothing is going to change.
Americans will be Americans and continue to buy gas until you make all cars not use it.

This is too jumbled. Ignore this post.

Move Along

The article is not about global warming.

So what's the justification behind: "...we must cut our carbon-dioxide emissions by around 60 percent."?

Why should I find that compelling?

I want to elect the martians for president...or at least Congress.

So what's the justification behind: "...we must cut our carbon-dioxide emissions by around 60 percent."?

Why should I find that compelling?
Rather I should say the compelling force behind the article is oil depletion, not global warming.

I want to elect the martians for president...or at least Congress.

At the risk of putting "They Live!" in a wholly new light, I tend to agree.

Rather I should say the compelling force behind the article is oil depletion, not global warming.

So the carbon dioxide component is just a red herring?

• Quit subsidizing fossil-fuel industries. Period.

• Impose a gas or carbon tax. It would put uniform pressure on the market to reduce oil consumption, without favoring any particular alternative. (The impact on low-income Americans could be offset with reduced payroll taxes.)

• Encourage density by reversing land-use policies at all levels of government that subsidize road-building and sprawl at the expense of compact, walkable, mixed-use communities served by effective public transportation.

• Drop perverse agricultural subsidies that overwhelmingly favor petro-heavy industrial agriculture and long-distance food transport at the expense of organic farms and local food systems.

• Scrap electricity-market regulations that virtually mandate centralized power production at large, inefficient plants (by some estimates, up to two-thirds of energy is wasted en route to end users); instead, encourage decentralized production from small-scale, site-appropriate sources.

Amen!

So the carbon dioxide component is just a red herring?
No, it's just part of the problem. If you read teh article it's argumments about alternative fuels do mention CO2 output, but the main point in it is the amount of energy return you get from alternative fuels as well as their ultimate reliance on oil.

Put it this way. Read the article from the stand point of oil depletion and you'll see it's arguments are substatiated even sans the CO2 points. It's solutions and the challenges it poses are relavent even if CO2 smelled like roses, covered the smell of farts and made everyone smile.

The point isn't that we're going to run out. The problem is that as we go from easy, cheap oil to hard, expensive oil we will have to make serious, probably painful adjustments

In this case, the factor limiting the maximum production is the cost of oil, which will start to increase asymptotically until it reaches a point where demand peaks; that peak demand may be an extremely severe, even permanent economic depression or a mild recession or slowdown depending on the strategy used by individual economies to adjust to the changing dynamics of the market.

Certain things like artificial embargos, price spikes, and technological innovation in oil production can adjust the specific values of the curve or set us farther back on it, but they are not permanent solutions to the problem.

That would be an altrusitic act, then.

Not really, its their climate as much as anyone elses. And because of the politcal power of the US if they set an example, other nations will follow.

In this case, the factor limiting the maximum production is the cost of oil, which will start to increase asymptotically until it reaches a point where demand peaks; that peak demand may be an extremely severe, even permanent economic depression or a mild recession or slowdown depending on the strategy used by individual economies to adjust to the changing dynamics of the market.

Certain things like artificial embargos, price spikes, and technological innovation in oil production can adjust the specific values of the curve or set us farther back on it, but they are not permanent solutions to the problem.
That's true, but there are also basic, physical limitations that will prevent us from producing alternatives t oil at the rates we can produce oil. No matter how you slice it, digging up two tons of sand, transporting it to a gigantic retort, crushing it and heating it up with a natural gas furnace and squeezing out the oil can never be done as fast as putting a hole in the ground and having it shoot out under it's own pressure. Crude oil produces itself. All you need to do is remove the barrier for it.

Because it's unsupported. Why does the US need to cut its CO2 emissions?
Because they're greenhouse gasses (before you yell at me, take the time to look up the chemistry - the reactions happen and the proof is there).


Oh, the oil is running out, sure, but the poor nations will be forced to abandon it sooner. Traditionally, there has been a 15 year supply already discovered and waiting to be produced. That's dropped a bit below 15 years, now, so I'll accept that our supply of oil is dwindling. But there's still lots. There's almost a trillion barrels sitting in Canada's oilsands. Venezuela's Orinoco sludge is just as big. We need to look to non-traditional reserves.

If we don't do this, then your kids will have to. Oil is a limited, nonrenewable resource. That's really all there is to the debate. We HAVE TO stop consuming oil at some point, because it WILL run out. The longer we wait, the harder the transition will eventually be, because it will have to be made that much faster. It's irresponsible to not think in the long-term, especially with such global consequences.

That's true, but there are also basic, physical limitations that will prevent us from producing alternatives t oil at the rates we can produce oil. No matter how you slice it, digging up two tons of sand, transporting it to a gigantic retort, crushing it and heating it up with a natural gas furnace and squeezing out the oil can never be done as fast as putting a hole in the ground and having it shoot out under it's own pressure. Crude oil produces itself. All you need to do is remove the barrier for it.

Well, that's also one of the reasons why oil prices increase asymptotically; extracting oil from oil sands or shale is a lot more demanding and costly than conventional oil, to say nothing of the energy requirements.

However, in a peak environment those technologies will be invested in if only to help stem the decline in conventional oil. Slowing the decline by 0.5%/year is huge, especially in the first decade or two post peak.

Could the OP post a link to this article?

Well, that's also one of the reasons why oil prices increase asymptotically; extracting oil from oil sands or shale is a lot more demanding and costly than conventional oil, to say nothing of the energy requirements.

However, in a peak environment those technologies will be invested in if only to help stem the decline in conventional oil. Slowing the decline by 0.5%/year is huge, especially in the first decade or two post peak.
Of course. It needs to be noted, though, that we are still dealing with a period of declining net energy production and that our future is no longer one of figuring out new, novel ways of using the cheap and abundant energy resources we have and is now one of trying to figure out what systems we need to adopt to live the best we can in a world with expensive, scarce energy.

Could the OP post a link to this article?
Oops..

sorry

http://www.energybulletin.net/16423.html

Oops..

sorry

http://www.energybulletin.net/16423.html
Merci. :)

All these remedies suggested are going to push prices up, rather dramatically I forsee. Two problems with this: For pushing up prices the people won't elect the same government next election, they'll elect a different government who'll undo all the good work the previous had done. And now that prices are up people will demand more wages to pay for fuel and new fuel efficient cars, so production becomes expensive and the firm will make the product more expensive, and we'll get into a wage-price spiral.

All the remedies suggested don't seem to be either politically or economically feasable.

Because they're greenhouse gasses (before you yell at me, take the time to look up the chemistry - the reactions happen and the proof is there).

But that's entirely irrelevant to the rest of the article.

All these remedies suggested are going to push prices up, rather dramatically I forsee. Two problems with this: For pushing up prices the people won't elect the same government next election, they'll elect a different government who'll undo all the good work the previous had done. And now that prices are up people will demand more wages to pay for fuel and new fuel efficient cars, so production becomes expensive and the firm will make the product more expensive, and we'll get into a wage-price spiral.

All the remedies suggested don't seem to be either politically or economically feasable.

Bottom line: The problem is that people are dimwits.

All these remedies suggested are going to push prices up, rather dramatically I forsee. Two problems with this: For pushing up prices the people won't elect the same government next election, they'll elect a different government who'll undo all the good work the previous had done. And now that prices are up people will demand more wages to pay for fuel and new fuel efficient cars, so production becomes expensive and the firm will make the product more expensive, and we'll get into a wage-price spiral.

All the remedies suggested don't seem to be either politically or economically feasable.
The prices are going to be pushed up by the supply/demand profile of the energy picture. The solutions in the article are economically feasible not because they will allow us to continue to live the way we live or that they will bring down the price of oil and all that it depnds on, but because they are necessary to prevent a complete collapse of the oil dependant infrastructure.

The prices are going to be pushed up by the supply/demand profile of the energy picture. The solutions in the article are economically feasible not because they will allow us to continue to live the way we live or that they will bring down the price of oil and all that it depnds on, but because they are necessary to prevent a complete collapse of the oil dependant infrastructure.


I fail to see your point.

I fail to see your point.
The fact is the price of oil is going up and it will continue to do so. The reason for that is because we are entering a time when total world production for oil is going into decline which means what is produced will be bid up by people competing for what oil there is. This is not political, it is geologic. As the price goes up there will have to be alternatives, but none of those alternatives will have the same bang for your buck as oil so we will just have to learn to live with less energy available to us. This means that we need to have an effective strategy to deal with that reality. Not doing the things in this article will only make oil and the things made possible by oil right now MORE expensive. The things listed in the article are economically feasible because the alternatives only make thinsg worse. Politically, you're right. The only way these things happen is if the public comes to terms with oil and energy depletion and our governments get the balls to defy certain interests like the corn lobby. The jist of the article is that most people now are trying to grapple with the cpoming energy crisis by looking at supply side solutions. The problem is that none of them will actually work, at least not in a way that allows us top keep out 50 mile commutes and our fequent trips to the mall. We're going to cut down on demand whether we like it or not. We can either plan for it or let geology do it for us.

• Impose a gas or carbon tax. It would put uniform pressure on the market to reduce oil consumption, without favoring any particular alternative. (The impact on low-income Americans could be offset with reduced payroll taxes.)
There is already a gas tax. It just adds to the expense. And a speculation and fear fueled market just makes things worse. Everyone is afraid that we'll not be able to get any so the producers hike the price. The consumer wants to grab it before the price skyrockets even more so the demand goes up which causes the price to jump even more. It's a vicious cycle and the downside to a free market economy.

• Encourage density by reversing land-use policies at all levels of government that subsidize road-building and sprawl at the expense of compact, walkable, mixed-use communities served by effective public transportation.
And make the heat island effect even worse? Great! Let's see how much we can disrupt local weather patterns! Dense cities breed disease and pollution. Mexico city. LA. Brazilian cities regularly issue air quality/pollution alerts. On the other hand, if abandoned, a rural house and farm will be almost completely gone in about a century. The house would be mostly decayed and uninhabbitable and the fields would be taken over by native plants. But let's try to reduce pollution by stuffing people together, even though history shows that does the opposite.

• Drop perverse agricultural subsidies that overwhelmingly favor petro-heavy industrial agriculture and long-distance food transport at the expense of organic farms and local food systems.
Hate to be the one to tell you this but organic farming is inefficient, the majority of the produce is generally of poor quality because pests get to it, and it's very expensive. People aren't trying to hold back organic farming, it just doesn't work well on a large scale. And I worked in a grocery store so I would know the difference between organic and regular.

• Scrap electricity-market regulations that virtually mandate centralized power production at large, inefficient plants (by some estimates, up to two-thirds of energy is wasted en route to end users); instead, encourage decentralized production from small-scale, site-appropriate sources.
And just what would that be?
*Wind? That is supplimental at best and unreliable at worst. They're loud, inefficient, and all around unpleasent.
*Solar? Solar panels are expensive and inefficient. They go from about 6-30% but the 30% types are extremely expensive (as much as 100 times the cost of the lower efficiency commercial models) lab models not fit for mass production at this time. 8-12% is what you're likely to find in mass production.
*Hydroelectric? I think it's great but not everyone agrees with me. Some people think they disrupt rivers and kill fish and they're right. But would you rather be burning coal?
*Nuclear? I love it. Build more. There are ways to refine and recycle spent fuel into new pellets and rods. We can recover up to a little over 90% of fuel from spent rods and pellets. We know how to build them better and safer than ever but people hear the word nuclear or radiation and think they're going to get blown up.
And we have plenty of nukes right now just sitting around. While their fuel can't be used in power plants it could be used to propel experimental spacecraft. There have been some proposed craft like the Orion. This was never built and any real craft would almost certainly look very different but it might be a possibility some day, at least for probes.
*Fusion will take years if ever and the tokamak will not be the answer as it will never put out enough power to even make up for what it consumes in construction and operation. Several fusion reactor prototypes have been designed and built over the years but the only two places we've seen fusion work break even is in the sun and bombs. We couldn't simulate the gravitaional confinement of a natural star if we tried so that's out. And hydrogen bombs are bombs so they're out. We've been hearing for about 60 years now that the breakthrough is right around the corner and all that is needed is a little more funding. About 35 billion with a B has been spent, and we while we keep getting closer, break even still slips away. If you move toward something, cutting the distance you between your current position and your target by half, no matter how many steps you take you will never get to where your going. It's like a half-life (not the game).
*Free energy/perpetual motion? Stay away from these people.

• Policymakers are terrified to tell constituents that big upheavals are coming and big changes are needed. They prefer to propagate the illusion that one set of fuels can simply be swapped out for another, with no disturbance in the hyperconsuming, big-box retailing, suburb-expanding American way of life.
Agreed for the most part but this sounds pretty close to fear mongering.

• Many of the most effective energy strategies would mean less fossil-fuel power and more people power—i.e., labor. Site-situated power plants and small organic farms, for instance, require more human labor than their centralized, mechanized, super-sized counterparts. The economic consensus of the American power elites (in both parties) has it that labor costs must be held to a minimum by any means necessary—union-busting, federal rate hikes, outsourcing, or liberal use of illegal immigrants.
So we should all live in dirt-floored straw huts and eat beans?
Unions should only exist when workers are being exploited. Otherwise they're just a drain on the people they claim to protect.
And did you know that having H&R Block do your taxes for you is outsourcing? A lot of people don't realize that outsourcing can be accross the street or even in the same building. We just hear more about the out of country stuff because it scares people while the tamer form is seen as just normal business.

• Finally and most significantly: it's the money, stupid. Scratch the surface of each of the elite's favored alternatives and you'll find an industry with political connections and the financial clout to shape public dialogue. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry front group, has openly established an organization designed to push pro-nuclear talking points into the public sphere—it's already paid off in the form of an influential op-ed in The Washington Post . Ethanol has even more friends. Legislators from agricultural states love it; corn brokers like Archer Daniels Midland love it; automakers who want their products to look greener love it; the oil companies that will eventually own and run ethanol refineries and stations love it. And coal—well, even kids love coal!
It is indeed all about the money. Overly environmentally friendly solutions like forcing everyone to work on an organic farm all their life instead of pursuing a career they want is expensive and facism. Ethanol kills mpg.

-partial snip- The jist of the article is that most people now are trying to grapple with the cpoming energy crisis by looking at supply side solutions.

And, of course, that is why such solutions will not work. Increasing supply, maintaining present levels, or slowing decline will all be very beneficial to the near-peak economic environment by mitigating the severity of price spikes, but they will not solve any problems.

In any market, increasing supply does not lead to lower prices except in the very short term; demand inevitably rises back to the equilibrium point which is always at the previous price level or higher. The only way to lower prices is to lower demand; the 1970's crisis was mitigated by plunging demand, not rising supply...it took until mid-1995 for oil production to recover to its 1979 level. Supply side management is important for keeping prices stable, but it is the demand side that will ultimately be responsible for transitioning from oil to alternatives.

Demand destruction is a powerful tool, and will be the most immediate means of adjusting to spikes in oil prices; however, early mitigation* steps like those taken by the US West Coast/Texas, Europe, Japan, and even China are all beneficial to the post-Peak economic outlook. Europe in particular is making dramatic steps, with its installed wind energy capacity approaching levels that were originally projected for 2010-2015 in 2003, and for 2025 in 2001.


*Note: Many of these programs are not intentionally created for PO, but for economical and environmental factors. However, many of those factors are driven by higher fossil fuel prices and the pollution caused by them.

The fact is the price of oil is going up and it will continue to do so. The reason for that is because we are entering a time when total world production for oil is going into decline which means what is produced will be bid up by people competing for what oil there is. This is not political, it is geologic. As the price goes up there will have to be alternatives, but none of those alternatives will have the same bang for your buck as oil so we will just have to learn to live with less energy available to us. This means that we need to have an effective strategy to deal with that reality. Not doing the things in this article will only make oil and the things made possible by oil right now MORE expensive. The things listed in the article are economically feasible because the alternatives only make thinsg worse. Politically, you're right. The only way these things happen is if the public comes to terms with oil and energy depletion and our governments get the balls to defy certain interests like the corn lobby. The jist of the article is that most people now are trying to grapple with the cpoming energy crisis by looking at supply side solutions. The problem is that none of them will actually work, at least not in a way that allows us top keep out 50 mile commutes and our fequent trips to the mall. We're going to cut down on demand whether we like it or not. We can either plan for it or let geology do it for us.


My point ha nothing to do with solely the price of oil. My point was that having to buy fuel efficient tractors, machinery, company cars, etc, would create a hell of a lot of cost-push inflation. General prices would go up and because of the severity of the inflation there'd be a wage-price spiral.

I've also been thinking about the effects of a regressive nationwide gasoline tax on consumption and the economy. As prices rise, the tax is calculated relative to the real index value of the current retail price to result in higherr taxes as the price deviates from the base level.

My point ha nothing to do with solely the price of oil. My point was that having to buy fuel efficient tractors, machinery, company cars, etc, would create a hell of a lot of cost-push inflation. General prices would go up and because of the severity of the inflation there'd be a wage-price spiral.

Well, the wage-price spiral was a reality during the 1970's, so in the event it happens again we will be better prepared to deal with it. However, beating the spiral required the 1982 recession caused intentionally by the world's central banks...and that was not a pleasant one by any means.

However, we also have to take in to account the deflationary effects of increased efficiency, higher productivity, better technology, and globalization which means a higher supply side price level can be tolerated before such a spiral sets in. It is feasible that a wage-price spiral will be averted by these factors, although likely at the temporary expense of real wages.