NationStates Jolt Archive

Noe of them will work. We'll have to make other arrangements.

I'm a big fam of Kunstler and generally find him to be right on. I also really like his writing style. Here are some outtakes followed by a link to a recent article.

And a harsh reality indeed awaits us as the full scope of the permanent energy crisis unfolds. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, world oil production peaked in December 2005 at just over 85 million barrels a day. Since then, it has trended absolutely flat at around 84 million. Yet world oil consumption rose consistently from 77 million barrels a day in 2001 to above 85 million so far this year. A clear picture emerges: demand now exceeds world supply. Or, put another way, oil production has not increased despite the ardent wish that it would by all involved, and despite the overwhelming incentive of prices having nearly quadrupled since 2001.

Both weather and oil costs are driving our crop yields down, while the industrial mode of farming that has evolved since the Second World War becomes increasingly impractical. We are going to have trouble feeding ourselves in the years ahead, not to mention the many nations who depend for survival on American grain exports. So the idea that we can simply shift millions of acres from food crops to ethanol or biodiesel crops to make fuels for cars represents a staggering misunderstanding of reality.

The truth is that no combination of alternative fuels or systems for using them will allow us to continue running America, or even a substantial fraction of it, the way we have been. We are not going to run Wal-Mart, Walt Disney World, Monsanto, and the Interstate Highway System on any combination of solar or wind energy, hydrogen, ethanol, tar sands, oil shale, methane hydrates, nuclear power, thermal depolymerization, "zero-point" energy, or anything else you can name. We will desperately use many of these things in many ways, but we are likely to be disappointed in what they can actually do for us.

The popular idea, expressed incessantly in the news media, is that if you run out of energy, you just go out and find some "new technology" to keep things running. We'll learn that this doesn't comport with reality. For example, commercial airplanes are either going to run on cheap liquid hydrocarbon fuels or we're not going to have commercial aviation as we have known it. No other energy source is concentrated enough by weight, affordable enough by volume, and abundant enough in supply to do the necessary work to overcome gravity in a loaded airplane, repeated thousands of times each day by airlines around the world.

the energy sector, one of the most vivid examples is seen in the short history of the world's last truly great oil discovery, the North Sea fields between Norway and the UK. They were found in the '60s, got into production in the late '70s, and were pumping at full blast in the early '90s. Then, around 1999, they peaked and are now in extremely steep decline—up to 50 percent a year in the case of some UK fields. The fact that they were drilled with the latest and best new technology turns out to mean that they were drained with stunning efficiency. "New technology" only hastened Britain's descent into energy poverty. Now, after a twenty-year-long North Sea bonanza in which it enjoyed an orgy of suburbanization, Great Britain is again a net energy importer. Soon the Brits will have no North Sea oil whatsoever and will find themselves below their energy diet of the grim 1950s.

It is probably more accurate to say that the global economy is a set of transient economic relations that have come about because of two fundamental (and transient) conditions: a half century of relative peace between great powers and a half century of cheap and abundant fossil-fuel energy. These two mutually dependent conditions are now liable to come to an end as the great powers enter a bitter contest over the world's remaining energy resources, and the world is actually apt to become a lot larger and less flat as these economic relations unravel.

We have to inhabit the terrain of North America differently, meaning a return to traditional cities, towns, neighborhoods, and a productive rural landscape that is more than just strictly scenic or recreational. We will probably see a reversal of the two-hundred-year-long trend of people moving from the country and small towns to the big cities. In fact, our big cities will probably contract substantially, even while they re-densify at their centers and along their waterfronts. The work of the New Urbanists will be crucial in rebuilding human habitats that have a future. Their achievement so far has been not so much in building "new towns" like Seaside, Florida, or Kentlands, Maryland, but in retrieving a body of knowledge, principle, and methodology for urban design that had been thrown away in our mad effort to build the drive-in suburbs.

It's a daunting agenda, all right. And some of you are probably wondering how you are supposed to remain hopeful in the face of these enormous tasks. Here's the plain truth, folks: Hope is not a consumer product. You have to generate your own hope. You do that by demonstrating to yourself that you are brave enough to face reality and competent enough to deal with the circumstances that it presents. How we will manage to uphold a decent society in the face of extraordinary change will depend on our creativity, our generosity, and our kindness, and I am confident that we can find these resources within our own hearts, and collectively in our communities.

http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/07-1om/Kunstler.html

The only thing that could come close to producing the energy density needed would be fusion power, but that's a pipe dream right now.

It still wouldn't solve the problem of portable power - if there were enough fusion powerplants, you could use hydrogen as a means of storing portable power (fuel cells), but it's nowhere near as powerful as a gasoline engine.

Some heavy vehicles couldn't be powered by fuel cells at all - not enough power density.

The only thing that could come close to producing the energy density needed would be fusion power, but that's a pipe dream right now.

It still wouldn't solve the problem of portable power - if there were enough fusion powerplants, you could use hydrogen as a means of storing portable power (fuel cells), but it's nowhere near as powerful as a gasoline engine.

Some heavy vehicles couldn't be powered by fuel cells at all - not enough power density.

the chairman of the physics department at the California Institute of Technology once said, "Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future - and always will be."

the chairman of the physics department at the California Institute of Technology once said, "Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future - and always will be."

Oh, I think it will be working someday - just not exactly in time for us.

The one I think is closest is this one:

http://wsx.lanl.gov/mtf.html

Oh, I think it will be working someday - just not exactly in time for us.

The one I think is closest is this one:

http://wsx.lanl.gov/mtf.html

It takes enormous resources to build a fusion reactor. Rare metals, plastics all smelted and refined to extremely exacting standards. I'm not sure it's possible to do that without oil. It's how we do it now. It's how we get, refine and mold platinum, magnesium, iron... none of this is possible without oil.

Where are the flying cars? The floating cities? We still have weather, for heaven's sake! Dude, where's my future?!?!?

It takes enormous resources to build a fusion reactor. Rare metals, plastics all smelted and refined to extremely exacting standards. I'm not sure it's possible to do that without oil. It's how we do it now. It's how we get, refine and mold platinum, magnesium, iron... none of this is possible without oil.

The MTF doesn't require anywhere near the size or expense of a tokamak.

Probably 1/100th the size of a tokamak, far less materials. Even the materials are simple - the implosion liner is steel.

We have enough coal to burn to get most metals.

the chairman of the physics department at the California Institute of Technology once said, "Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future - and always will be."

Ok. Now figure out how it works.
It's still only a pipe dream. Until then, we're fucked.

Where are the flying cars? The floating cities? We still have weather, for heaven's sake! Dude, where's my future?!?!?

It was mortgaged by the previous generation. We'll all have fun paying for it.

Ok. Now figure out how it works.
It's still only a pipe dream. Until then, we're fucked.

Yeah. That was the point of the quote. "...and always will be."

It was mortgaged by the previous generation. We'll all have fun paying for it.

Actually, it's being mortgaged by our generation right now.

I think the magical lollipops concept has merit.

The MTF doesn't require anywhere near the size or expense of a tokamak.

Probably 1/100th the size of a tokamak, far less materials. Even the materials are simple - the implosion liner is steel.

We have enough coal to burn to get most metals.

1. We'll have to start substituting coal for oil in most transportation systems which means we will not have as much coal as we think we do. Read the second half of the sentance people love to hear, "The US has enough coal for 200 years at present rates of use."

2. Iron extraction and steal production is extremely energy intensive and will continue to become more so as we continue to exploit lower and lower qualities of iron ore deposits. We're now using deposits of ore that are lower than 5% iron. I'm not sure we can continue to move mountains to strip mine iron ore, transport it across the globe and refine and mold steal from it without cheap oil and gas.

1. We'll have to start substituting coal for oil in most transportation systems which means we will not have as much coal as we think we do. Read the second half of the sentance people love to hear, "The US has enough coal for 200 years at present rates of use."

2. Iron extraction and steal production is extremely energy intensive and will continue to become more so as we continue to exploit lower and lower qualities of iron ore deposits. We're now using deposits of ore that are lower than 5% iron. I'm not sure we can continue to move mountains to strip mine iron ore, transport it across the globe and refine and mold steal from it without cheap oil and gas.

We will also get desperate enough to build breeder reactors.

We will also get desperate enough to build breeder reactors.

I now it sounds like I'm just throwing road blocks for the sake of arguing, but these question need to be answered before we commit to jumping into a lifeboat that we're not sure will float.

1. Breeder reactors require these same kinds of materials as well as uranium for fuel. I'm not sure the global strip mining, refining and transportation systems we have in place, all that run exclusively on oil right now, will be able to run when oil is scarce. We'll need what's left of it to transport and grow food, necessities and people.

2. Even if we can wish breedeer reactors into existence, how do you get them to run transoceanic shipping and strip mining operations?

I now it sounds like I'm just throwing road blocks for the sake of arguing, but these question need to be answered before we commit to jumping into a lifeboat that we're not sure will float.

1. Breeder reactors require these same kinds of materials as well as uranium for fuel. I'm not sure the global strip mining, refining and transportation systems we have in place, all that run exclusively on oil right now, will be able to run when oil is scarce. We'll need what's left of it to transport and grow food, necessities and people.

2. Even if we can wish breedeer reactors into existence, how do you get them to run transoceanic shipping and strip mining operations?

The new versions burn 95% of the material instead of a minor fraction (it can even burn "depleted uranium" which is considered waste nowadays).

It will also burn or destroy other nuclear wastes. It can burn thorium.

You won't be feeding a reactor like you would a coal fired boiler.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D5560-D9B2-137C-99B283414B7F0000&ref=sciam&chanID=sa006

Many of these are good sources of energy. Not as good as West Texas Light Crude, but good.

Commercial aviation is likely the first thing to go, but society will hardly collapse. Solar power would be a great source of energy if we put the collection cells in space. We could dramatically reduce intercontinental shipping costs by using a space elevator and dropping stuff from low orbit.

Actually, it's being mortgaged by our generation right now.

Speak for yourself.

The new versions burn 95% of the material instead of a minor fraction (it can even burn "depleted uranium" which is considered waste nowadays).

It will also burn or destroy other nuclear wastes. It can burn thorium.

You won't be feeding a reactor like you would a coal fired boiler.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D5560-D9B2-137C-99B283414B7F0000&ref=sciam&chanID=sa006

Yes, I know. I'm an avid reader of Sci Am and follow the tech closely but I'm still not sure that in an age of energy rationing that we will have the resources necessary to do much more than make sure we can subsist. Like Kunstler, I think we're just going to have to learn to live with the idea that the age of abundance is over. We got a big, fat inheritence and we just went to Vegas with it. Now we have to get back to the idea of living paycheck to paycheck and making due with less. We'll use all sorts of things for energy - from nuclear to horses - which will probably make a big comeback - but I doubt we're going to find some magic bullet to allow us to continue to consume th eway we do and move and live the way we do and go about our merry way. We're sitting here debating nuclear when the real answer to soften the blow of energy decent isn't some exotic new technology, it's old existing technology: trains, boats, bycicles - moving closer to where we work and working closer to where we live. We need to move agriculture back to where the people who need it use it - around our cities and towns. We have to abandon the notion that growing our food 3,000 miles away is a working scenario in an energy poor future. These are the solutions that we can start working on right now and that we KNOW will work.

Speak for yourself.

I'm speaking for every member of Western society. I don't care if you ride a bike twice a week and wear hemp. The fact is that we all collectively have come to expect and rely on a global economy that gives us oranges in winter and allows vegetarians to combine fruits and vegetable from all over the globe to create a whole protein. Now matter how hippy you are the fact that you're arguing online with a bunch of people means that you, too, have become accustomed to the technologies and conveniences provided by the fossil fuel bonanza of the Oil Age. Until you start composting your shit to grow your own food and forgo your computer, TV and car you have no right to try to extricate yourself from the blame fro living this way of life.

Many of these are good sources of energy. Not as good as West Texas Light Crude, but good.

Commercial aviation is likely the first thing to go, but society will hardly collapse. Solar power would be a great source of energy if we put the collection cells in space. We could dramatically reduce intercontinental shipping costs by using a space elevator and dropping stuff from low orbit.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PF_NEW%5C08_22_2005_A/PF_981493~2001-A-Space-Odyssey-Posters.jpg

I'm speaking for every member of Western society. I don't care if you ride a bike twice a week and wear hemp. The fact is that we all collectively have come to expect and rely on a global economy that gives us oranges in winter and allows vegetarians to combine fruits and vegetable from all over the globe to create a whole protein. Now matter how hippy you are the fact that you're arguing online with a bunch of people means that you, too, have become accustomed to the technologies and conveniences provided by the fossil fuel bonanza of the Oil Age. Until you start composting your shit to grow your own food and forgo your computer, TV and car you have no right to try to extricate yourself from the blame fro living this way of life.
Blame? Your casting blame?

It's hardly a crime to consume the resources being made available to you.

Blame? Your casting blame?

It's hardly a crime to consume the resources being made available to you.

Actually, I'm just reacting to this notion that some people have that if they recycle a few cans a month and eat range free chicken that they get to somehow excuse themselves for being a part of the mass consumption party we're living in.

I rather enjoy this mass consumption party. I fail to see why it's bad.

I'm speaking for every member of Western society.

Oh, so then I know to ignore everything you utter subsequently.

I rather enjoy this mass consumption party. I fail to see why it's bad.

The hangover. It's coming and it will be a doozy. ;)

Oh, so then I know to ignore everything you utter subsequently.

Last I checked, Sweden was a Western, industrialized, oil importing, getting-it's-natural-gas-from-Gazprom country. Your oil consumption per capita ranks you 41st in the world out of, what, 500 countries now? Got your heater on right now or are you bundled?

Sweden: 0.384 barrels per day per 10 P

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita

Dan, surely the combination of all the various alternative technologies and fuels and whatnot can somewhat preserve this massive party you are so fond of mentioning. Quite frankly you're coming across as a doomsayer and doomsayers tend to not be listened to. And unlike the movies, this is reallife, where the movie cliche of "the doomsayer not listened to until the doom comes gets proven right" just isn't going to happen.

Dan, surely the combination of all the various alternative technologies and fuels and whatnot can somewhat preserve this massive party you are so fond of mentioning. Quite frankly you're coming across as a doomsayer and doomsayers tend to not be listened to. And unlike the movies, this is reallife, where the movie cliche of "the doomsayer not listened to until the doom comes gets proven right" just isn't going to happen.

I'm sorry you see it that way. Nowhere did I say we're all gonna die or that we're all gonna live in cardboard boxes. I simply think we need to look at the future honestly and recognize the fact that cheap, abundant energy is quickly becoming a thing of the past and that we will all be much better off if we plan for it. you say, "surely the combination of all the various alternative technologies and fuels and whatnot can somewhat preserve this massive party you are so fond of mentioning." Do you know what they are? have you read about them in anything other than pop science magazines and message boards? Are you sure they will work? Do you know how they work? I would prefer that we look and see if the lifeboat we are planning to jump into will float before we do. There are available technologies right now that will help us deal with the coming energy scarcity - trains, boats, mass transit, localizing our economies again - but they are being pushed aside in favor of technologies that on paper have serious drawbacks and have never been tried. The consequences of investing our remaining resources in failing technologies are enormous. Making changes in our consumption habits is cheap and we know it works.

I'm sorry you see it that way. Nowhere did I say we're all gonna die or that we're all gonna live in cardboard boxes. I simply think we need to look at the future honestly and recognize the fact that cheap, abundant energy is quickly becoming a thing of the past and that we will all be much better off if we plan for it. you say, "surely the combination of all the various alternative technologies and fuels and whatnot can somewhat preserve this massive party you are so fond of mentioning." Do you know what they are? have you read about them in anything other than pop science magazines and message boards? Are you sure they will work? Do you know how they work? I would prefer that we look and see if the lifeboat we are planning to jump into will float before we do. There are available technologies right now that will help us deal with the coming energy scarcity - trains, boats, mass transit, localizing our economies again - but they are being pushed aside in favor of technologies that on paper have serious drawbacks and have never been tried. The consequences of investing our remaining resources in failing technologies are enormous. Making changes in our consumption habits is cheap and we know it works.

Don't worry, Dan: you've convinced me more than enough in the past that I know you know what you're talking about. Right now I'm merely trying to provide a foil for you to work against so you sound a wee bit more reasonable to everyone else, that's all. Problem with the way you're going about it right now is that people are very stubborn, and don't like hearing about problems. I'm open-minded and if you tell me there's a problem, tell me what it is and how to go about taking care of it, I'll take what you say in consideration; I don't just dismiss it. Most people don't do that, so you need to talk to them in a way that'll make them listen. Just don't ask me what that is, because I've yet to figure it out myself.

Don't worry, Dan: you've convinced me more than enough in the past that I know you know what you're talking about. Right now I'm merely trying to provide a foil for you to work against so you sound a wee bit more reasonable to everyone else, that's all. Problem with the way you're going about it right now is that people are very stubborn, and don't like hearing about problems. I'm open-minded and if you tell me there's a problem, tell me what it is and how to go about taking care of it, I'll take what you say in consideration; I don't just dismiss it. Most people don't do that, so you need to talk to them in a way that'll make them listen. Just don't ask me what that is, because I've yet to figure it out myself.

ok

I simply think we need to look at the future honestly and recognize the fact that cheap, abundant energy is quickly becoming a thing of the past and that we will all be much better off if we plan for it.
Space-based collection of solar energy. It will require some investment in infrastructure to get it up and running, but then that should be a cheap and abundant source of energy.

It just won't be as conveniently portable as diesel.

Space-based collection of solar energy. It will require some investment in infrastructure to get it up and running, but then that should be a cheap and abundant source of energy.These are the kinds of schemes that may not be possible post-peak. After peak we'll be leaving behind this era of abundant resources - the kind of resources needed to get stuff like that done.

It just won't be as conveniently portable as diesel.

Which is a HUGE drawback.

These are the kinds of schemes that may not be possible post-peak. After peak we'll be leaving behind this era of abundant resources - the kind of resources needed to get stuff like that done.
So we should do it now. But environmentalists keep cutting the budgets of space programs.
Which is a HUGE drawback.
It's a drawback, but for mass consumption that just means we'll need to drive on roads or ride in trains. We won't be able to travel as well off the grid, but we should be able to provide power to vehicles along planned routes.

So we should do it now. But environmentalists keep cutting the budgets of space programs.These technologies aren't ready now. It would take decades to build these things. I think we'd be better off right now getting our freight back onto rail and waterways. Building mass transit in cities. Keeping our accountants at home (why does an accountant need to go to work more than a day or week or so?). And then erasing tax subsidies so that Florida orange juice is competetive with california orange juice in California. Structural changes like these and technologies like these are ready to go right now, they're comparatively cheap and they make huge differences right away and don't require us to completely redesign our infrastructure. I read today about another cheap, novel approach. MPG meters on dash boards. Require auto manufacturers to include MPG readings on instrament panels so that people can see the mileage they're getting while they're driving. It's cheap (about $20), low tech, and it's very easy and would have a massive impact, especially with high gas prices. Thes are the kinds of things we should be focusing on. Let's leave the lasers and space based fusion dylithium crystal reactors for Captain Kirk.

It's a drawback, but for mass consumption that just means we'll need to drive on roads or ride in trains. We won't be able to travel as well off the grid, but we should be able to provide power to vehicles along planned routes.

It would require us to completely redesign our transportation infrastrucure. Right now we're designed to run on liquid fuels.


Edit: BTW - I've never heard of an environmentalist asking for space program cuts? :confused:

I think the magical lollipops concept has merit.

ALL lollipops are magical.

Wake up. There is more than enough energy in alternative energy than most people. If you add it up it comes out to more than oil. You have wind 10% potential-- Solar another 5-10%, Biomass-- Ethanol from food crops, methanol from human and animal waste -- 20%, Geothermal another 2%, Distributed Hydroelectric 10%, Wave Power along the coastlines another 10% of power. Then as you move into the future you have Ocean Thermal another 3%, Then you have deep geothermal-- if they get this right it would be like have fusion generator. Then you have methanol hydrates on the sea floor which can be mined. In the non-renewables you have coal which can be burned as a closed loop power plant, the waste is collected and processed into chemicals or it is cofired with biomass, natural gas, and nuclear energy. With these it could match our oil output.

For future energy you have hydrogen which can be created by solar or wind energy hydrolysis splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. You also have algae which can be programmed to produce hydrogen gas. Further there is the potential of deuterium deuterium fusion generators which can be run from deuterium extracted from sea water.

Biorefineries are being built faster than oil refineries are being built by companies like ADM and Cargill. These are analogs to oil refineries. Watch as first there is a 10% requirement for ethanol in all gasoline, then watch as biodiesel replaces diesel very quickly.

We are not in for a bad energy future. You are having the wool pulled over your eyes so the big companies can control which energy sources will be used and you can't choose to have a distributed energy system based on biofuels, wind, wave, ocean thermal energy, solar, hydrogen, distributed hydroelectric, and geothermal all of which are not that appealing for central control.

Wake up. There is more than enough energy in alternative energy than most people. If you add it up it comes out to more than oil. You have wind 10% potential-- Solar another 5-10%, Biomass-- Ethanol from food crops, methanol from human and animal waste -- 20%, Geothermal another 2%, Distributed Hydroelectric 10%, Wave Power along the coastlines another 10% of power. Then as you move into the future you have Ocean Thermal another 3%, Then you have deep geothermal-- if they get this right it would be like have fusion generator. Then you have methanol hydrates on the sea floor which can be mined. In the non-renewables you have coal which can be burned as a closed loop power plant, the waste is collected and processed into chemicals or it is cofired with biomass, natural gas, and nuclear energy. With these it could match our oil output.

For future energy you have hydrogen which can be created by solar or wind energy hydrolysis splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. You also have algae which can be programmed to produce hydrogen gas. Further there is the potential of deuterium deuterium fusion generators which can be run from deuterium extracted from sea water.

Biorefineries are being built faster than oil refineries are being built by companies like ADM and Cargill. These are analogs to oil refineries. Watch as first there is a 10% requirement for ethanol in all gasoline, then watch as biodiesel replaces diesel very quickly.

We are not in for a bad energy future. You are having the wool pulled over your eyes so the big companies can control which energy sources will be used and you can't choose to have a distributed energy system based on biofuels, wind, wave, ocean thermal energy, solar, hydrogen, distributed hydroelectric, and geothermal all of which are not that appealing for central control.

:confused: I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. 10% of what? 2% of what? Where's the EROEI for these sources?

Wake up. There is more than enough energy in alternative energy than most people. If you add it up it comes out to more than oil. You have wind 10% potential-- Solar another 5-10%, Biomass-- Ethanol from food crops, methanol from human and animal waste -- 20%, Geothermal another 2%, Distributed Hydroelectric 10%, Wave Power along the coastlines another 10% of power. Then as you move into the future you have Ocean Thermal another 3%, Then you have deep geothermal-- if they get this right it would be like have fusion generator. Then you have methanol hydrates on the sea floor which can be mined. In the non-renewables you have coal which can be burned as a closed loop power plant, the waste is collected and processed into chemicals or it is cofired with biomass, natural gas, and nuclear energy. With these it could match our oil output.

Yes, we live in a universe full of energy. We won't run out of energy any time soon. But, guess what? All of these are very expensive when compare to oil. Not only expensive to produce, but expensive to transport to where they're needed and expensive to store. In fact, storage is the big issue here. Nothing is as convenient or cheap to store energy as oil (in part because all the hard work was made millions of years ago by plants).

That's what the energy crisis means. Not that we are going to run out of energy, but that we are going to run out of cheap, widely available energy. This will require profound changes in our lifestyles: big cars with a single passenger, forget it; sprawling suburbs of ever bigger houses, gone; cheap intercontinental flights, never again; etc.

Of course, there are ways to adapt, like compact communities with relatively few people each, telework, local production of food using hydroponics and gm varieties, etc.

It's not the end, but it's going to be a shock for some nonetheless. Remember you read it here and fake surprise.

I got it! We GM cows to produce crude oil instead of milk!

yes, magical lolly pops. there's no way in hell out of the simple reality that sooner or later we're going to have to stop worshipping the private passinger automobile as our primary means of conveyance. period.

and the sooner we do so the better in more ways then i could possibly count or elaborate here.

wind, solar and hydro are NOT magical lolly pops but proven reliable tecnologies. applying them to transportation takes a bit more fenesse then just stickin a bunch of batteries and an electric motor in a car, though even that is a short term improvement. and of course they won't make electricity as cheaply and abundently available as we're used to. or so the vested intrests in bussiness as usual keep telling us. and of course nothing but nothing but nothing is completely lacking in a down side.

but the end of oil, even the end of cheep oil ISN'T the end of tecnology. just , possibly, the begining of the end of the long intoxication we've had with the idea that tecnology will always by able to wipe our bottems for us, with no need for self dicipline and responsibility on our own part.

if people are so emotionaly attatched to the idea of personal transportation that we start driving coal fired automobiles, even without liquifying it, yes, things could get worse, much worse.

but i think as well as hope, if we can get some of the intrests in power replaced with those even a little more responsible, we might yet be able to save the web of life on our planet from our own negligent self destruction.

=^^=
.../\...

yes, magical lolly pops. there's no way in hell out of the simple reality that sooner or later we're going to have to stop worshipping the private passinger automobile as our primary means of conveyance. period.

and the sooner we do so the better in more ways then i could possibly count or elaborate here.

wind, solar and hydro are NOT magical lolly pops but proven reliable tecnologies. applying them to transportation takes a bit more fenesse then just stickin a bunch of batteries and an electric motor in a car, though even that is a short term improvement. and of course they won't make electricity as cheaply and abundently available as we're used to. or so the vested intrests in bussiness as usual keep telling us. and of course nothing but nothing but nothing is completely lacking in a down side.

but the end of oil, even the end of cheep oil ISN'T the end of tecnology. just , possibly, the begining of the end of the long intoxication we've had with the idea that tecnology will always by able to wipe our bottems for us, with no need for self dicipline and responsibility on our own part.

if people are so emotionaly attatched to the idea of personal transportation that we start driving coal fired automobiles, even without liquifying it, yes, things could get worse, much worse.

but i think as well as hope, if we can get some of the intrests in power replaced with those even a little more responsible, we might yet be able to save the web of life on our planet from our own negligent self destruction.

=^^=
.../\...

A lot more than just cars are reliant on fossil fuels. Your clothes, your computer, everything made of plastic, your food... I really can't think of anything that isn't either made, harvested or at the very least transported without the use of fossil fuels. You also have to consider infrastructure requirements. Oil at $150/barrel? No problem! Will just run it all on electricity! And WALA!! A whole new electric grid capable of generating, handling and grounding enough electricity to replace all of the energy we now get from oil and everyone gets a new car! Not going to happen that way. Even if we had the resources enecessary to build tha kind of system it would take decades. We are going to experience an energy crisis that will be absolutely crippling in it's fury. People in the last two generations seems to have been luled into this idea that everything is always peacful and bad things don't happen. We've had about 70 years of relative peace and prosperity in the West and it's led us to believe that everything is always going to be allright and that we'll always prevail. Look around the world outside Europe and the US and tell me that. Look at history and you'll see that it is pock marked with unimaginable tragedy. Bad things do happen to humans and humanity all the time and they are usually the result of poor planning and greed and I see an awfull lot of that going around today.