NationStates Jolt Archive

This is frightening. You'll be giving up your SUVs whether you like them or not.

Just how bad are the geopolitics of energy, from the perspective of the United States?

This morning the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources launched its New Year with an unusual hearing into “The Geopolitics of Oil.”

The consensus conclusion of the witnesses: the United States is in deep, deep trouble, facing the emergence of an “axis of oil” that threatens to recreate the bi-polar world of the Cold War, complete with Russia as a principal actor.

Normally the Committee deals with less weighty matters, like fuel efficiency standards for cars. But the incoming chairman, Senator Jeff Bingaman, decided to go for the big picture, and the big picture is not pretty. There was an almost palpable sense of graveness and alarm that lent a chill to the room. The vice chair of Goldman Sachs, Robert Hormats, was one of the witnesses, as was the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, Dr. Fatih Birol, so this was hardly a “green” group.

One Senator described the testimony as “frightening.” And the outgoing Republican chair, Senator Domenici (R-NM), said that “what you told us today is absolutely startling with reference to the future.” There appeared to be a genuine sense that some members really were surprised at how bad things look for the U.S. The shock was so great that after declaring himself a “free-market conservative,” Republican Jeff Sessions (R-AL) concluded the session by admitting that if you looked at energy as a national security issue rather than as a market commodity, Congress might be justified in spending more money on energy R&D and tax credits.

The focus of the testimony was on oil in the transportation sector, which will be responsible for most of the predicted increase in demand over the next two decades. Dr. Fatih Birol described this dependence on oil in the auto, truck, and plane sectors as “the Achilles heel” of the energy problem.

Linda Stuntz, who participated in a Council of Foreign Relations report last fall on “National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency,” stunned the Senators when she said that there was consensus among the report’s authors that talking about “energy independence” for the United States was chasing an impossible dream. Stuntz said that it was not clear whether the U.S. could achieve energy independence even with the most “draconian” government interventions. Dr. Flynt Leverett from the New America Foundation echoed Stuntz’s analysis:

“…there is no economically plausible scenario for a strategically meaningful reduction in the dependence of the United States and its allies on imported hydrocarbons during the next quarter century.”

Having disposed of energy independence, the panel turned to the growing threat to the U.S. as the world’s only superpower. Dr. Leverett laid out a concise history of the rise of “resource nationalism” and “resource mercantilism.” Countries with oil are beginning to use oil for political leverage, like Russia’s cut-off of gas to the Ukraine—resource nationalism.. And national oil companies in oil-importing states are cutting deals with producers outside the commercial market for oil, particularly China and India—resource mercantilism.

Leverett described the emergence of a “new axis of oil,” based on Russian cooperation with the Chinese. Already this Sino-Russian cooperation has led to the minimization of U.S. influence in central Asia. And Russia and China have both been frustrating U.S. policy objectives in Iran, especially the effort to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Leverett was also very concerned about the strategic competition for influence over Iran in all spheres. He said that the U.S. should enter into negotiations with Iran with the goal of striking a “grand bargain” that would settle a whole slew of issues, arguing that the two countries will never reach agreement negotiating on an issue-by-issue basis. This proposal drew some skeptical comments from several Republican Senators, who questioned the very idea of negotiating with Iran. But as Leverett quickly responded, the U.S. has had successful talks with Iran on important issues like Afghanistan within recent memory.

Robert Hormats supported Leverett’s analysis, saying that the U.S. was fighting “in a post-9/11 environment with a pre-9/11 energy policy.”

The Republicans used the hearing to come to the defense of the beleaguered major oil companies. The most prominent visual aid at the hearings was a large chart showing ownership of oil reserves. State-owned oil companies now control 75% of the world’s oil reserves. Exxon, the largest commercial oil company, is 14th on the list of reserve owners. Senator Domenici (R-NM) suggested that this chart should put an end to all the attacks on U.S. “big oil” companies, and any efforts to tax them further.

But the chart also illustrated another trend that is running strongly against the United States. The percentage of oil reserves in the hands of state-owned companies will only get larger in the future. More and more control will fall into the hands of fewer and fewer producers, increasing the volatility of the entire international oil market.

As to what is to be done, there was consensus among the panel that the U.S. needed to completely alter the place of energy policy on the national agenda. Energy policy has become deeply intertwined with foreign policy, but the existing bureaucracies, both civilian and military, do not yet take account of the critical role of energy. Gen. Charles F. Wald, former Deputy Commander, US European Command, called for the reorganization of the federal bureaucracy to address the needs of a comprehensive national energy strategy, and said that the Defense Department should have a high-ranking energy security director.

All panelists agreed that we need a crash program on many fronts to reduce total consumption of oil while simultaneously vastly expanding the production of biofuels. Senator Dorgan (D-ND) agreed, characterizing U.S. policy thus far as nothing more than “baby steps.”

Several panelists and Senators raised the problem of the rising price of corn as food for humans as a result of the increased production of corn-based ethanol. Everyone hailed the potential of cellulosic ethanol as a way of avoiding the conflict with food for humans.

The panelists agreed that the U.S. should remove the 54 cent a gallon tax on imported ethanol, which would be especially helpful to Brazil’s ethanol industry, which produces ethanol far below the cost of the U.S. industry. Senator Martinez (R-FL) questioned them closely on this point, trying unsuccessfully to get them to say that ending the tariff would be bad for the domestic ethanol industry.

A comeback for nuclear power was also on the list of the panel’s proposed solutions. In this scenario, nuclear power would replace oil if the auto makers produce all-electric vehicles. Then owners could plug them in at night to recharge using electricity generated by new nuclear power plants.

Robert Hormats from Goldman Sachs emphasized the need for more government subsidies and tax breaks for alternatives to oil. He pointed out that the Congress passed a tax credit for oil drilling in 1916 that has never been changed. But the tax credit Congress passed for renewables in 1992 has expired 5 times and been renewed. With such short windows for investment, companies have been unwilling to make long-term investments in renewables. There was much nodding of heads among the Senators on this point.

With all of the fuss about global warming and the designation of polar bears as an endangered species, there was almost no mention of global warming during the entire hearing. Senator Cantwell (D-WA) brought the subject up briefly, suggesting that we should negotiate with the Chinese to supply them with our latest pollution control technologies as part of reducing competition between the U.S. and China. Linda Stuntz threw some very cold water on this suggestion, pointing out that the Chinese were bringing a new coal plant online every 10 days capable of meeting the electricity needs of a city like Dallas. Stuntz said these plants have no pollution control technologies at all, and that at least 20% of these new plants were essentially illegal, having never been approved by the national government at all.

There was a steady drumbeat through the hearing for bold, dramatic action. After closing the hearing, Senator Bingaman was surrounded by reporters. Did he think that Congress was now ready to raise fuel efficiency standards? Bingaman said he did not know, and walked away.

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/articles/836

If it pushes the USA to reduce CO2 emissions, I won't complain. You never know, it might even push us Brits into putting B20 and E15 into our pumps, but I won't hold my breath.

If I was the US I'd put a hell of a lot of effort into developing other sources of energy than natural oil and make sure I was self sufficient with my energy requirements. Then I'd tell all those countries that produce oil to go and get stuffed.

If I was the US I'd put a hell of a lot of effort into developing other sources of energy than natural oil and make sure I was self sufficient with my energy requirements. Then I'd tell all those countries that produce oil to go and get stuffed.

Oh, no. This was a meeting of the US Congress so they discussed the US. Your country is in worse shape.

For some time I have been encouraging people to be very observant of energy events in the UK, and this past year has fit the pattern that I have been predicting. I believe the UK will be the first major industrialized country to face the permanent global oil crisis head on.


"Britain is reportedly to be importing liquified gas, for the first time in history as its North Sea oil reserve dwindles..." [2005 July 4 (Xinhua)]

"The North Sea is now at peak, with the UK being off 7% in 2000 and 16% off October to October, meaning that production is set to fall by one-half in ten years...." [2001 April (Peak Oil: a Turning for Mankind)]
Look at the numbers: Norway has 4 million people and a significant amount of oil -- over 4,000 barrels per capita -- even though production is about to decline. The UK has nearly the same amount of oil, but with its significantly larger population, the remaining oil translates to only 250 barrels per person.

Some may think that 2000 was a hard year for the people in the UK who depend on oil -- truck drivers, fishermen and farmers -- who have protested vigorously against rising prices. Looking back in a few years, 2000 will seem like a picnic compared to what is in store. As the permanent global oil crisis shows its first symptoms in the UK, it appears to be a political or economic issue. It is hard to admit that this is Mother Nature speaking. She is beginning to reveal her limits, and few are prepared for the cold reality She is about to impose on life in the British Isles.

It is time for people in the UK to become familiar with the facts. It's none too soon to get ready for some long hard winters. Before the crisis hits hard, buy a few extra sweaters, solar panels and perhaps even an electric vehicle for yourself and your family. Develop wind energy, the most economical form of electrical generation -- Denmark, Germany, India and others have figured that much out. With so much more good fortune than most nations -- to have had the benefit of major oil resources for a few years to capitalize and build a sustainable economy -- what's holding up the works in the UK?

Ron Swenson, Webmaster
[2001 April 28]

http://dieoff.org/page180_files/image026.gif

Analyst fears global oil crisis in three years


John Vidal, environment editor
Tuesday April 26, 2005
The Guardian


One of the world's leading energy analysts yesterday called for an independent assessment of global oil reserves because he believed that Middle Eastern countries may have far less than officially stated and that oil prices could double to more than $100 a barrel within three years, triggering economic collapse.
Matthew Simmons, an adviser to President George Bush and chairman of the Wall Street energy investment company Simmons, said that "peak oil" - when global oil production rises to its highest point before declining irreversibly - was rapidly approaching even as demand was increasing...

...

The former UK energy minister Brian Wilson, a supporter of both nuclear power and renewables, said that Britain would be unwise to rely completely on importing gas from politically sensitive countries as North Sea reserves declined.

"Seventy percent of our electricity by 2020 will come from gas and 90% of that gas will be imported...We should be planning for an indigenous energy future," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1470330,00.html

Btw, PsychoticDan, I was correct in predicting last summer that oil would be at approximately $60/bbl by the end of 2006.

At least people are starting to wake up and see what we're actually facing. (although the recent collapse in oil prices to $52/bbl is not going to help in that regard). The United States is not in a good position by any stretch of the imagination; oil supplies are approaching their limits, and even the recent decline in prices is due more to a slowdown in the world economy than any rise in production, which is only keeping up with demand. For that matter, I wonder if we still have Carter's old gasoline rationing coupons lying around, because God only knows we'll need them if someone tries to embargo us. We are far more vulnerable today than we were in 1979.

Whenever I think of the world's oil dependence, I keep thinking of the events in the end of the novel God Emperor of Dune when Leto II dies and the supply of spice is cutoff...hopefully, however, we can avoid such a fate and the chaos it entails.

Shit...maybe that crazy "mass migration to cities" I had projected for 2011 when I first heard about Peak Oil wasn't so far off after all...(Would it even make sense, though?)This makes it real, doesn't it? It was just endless speculation for the most part, but this finally starts making it truly real. This is scary. Especially for fat me who likes his video games and sitting around playing them all day.

Btw, PsychoticDan, I was correct in predicting last summer that oil would be at approximately $60/bbl by the end of 2006. yeah. I thought it would be higher, but then I was looking for a hurricane or two. We'll see what happens this summer.

At least people are starting to wake up and see what we're actually facing. (although the recent collapse in oil prices to $52/bbl is not going to help in that regard). The United States is not in a good position by any stretch of the imagination; oil supplies are approaching their limits, and even the recent decline in prices is due more to a slowdown in the world economy than any rise in production, which is only keeping up with demand. For that matter, I wonder if we still have Carter's old gasoline rationing coupons lying around, because God only knows we'll need them if someone tries to embargo us. We are far more vulnerable today than we were in 1979.Copper is collapsing, too and, as they say, copper has a PHD in economics. We're facing a global economic slowdown if the old connection between copper prices and economic growth holds. That may continue to depress oil prices, but then the downside of peak oil is supposed to be a roller coaster at first as high prices hurt the economy which brings down oil prices which helps teh economy which brings up oil prices which hurts the economy which brings down oil prices...

Whenever I think of the world's oil dependence, I keep thinking of the events in the end of the novel God Emperor of Dune when Leto II dies and the supply of spice is cutoff...hopefully, however, we can avoid such a fate and the chaos it entails.

Great book. Herbert wrote that book about the Middle east and oil.

Shit...maybe that crazy "mass migration to cities" I had projected for 2011 when I first heard about Peak Oil wasn't so far off after all...(Would it even make sense, though?)This makes it real, doesn't it? It was just endless speculation for the most part, but this finally starts making it truly real. This is scary. Especially for fat me who likes his video games and sitting around playing them all day.

I think you'll see a migration away as food deliveries to cities fail. That a little way off, though. Unless we get into a multi-polar war or something.

Shit...maybe that crazy "mass migration to cities" I had projected for 2011 when I first heard about Peak Oil wasn't so far off after all...(Would it even make sense, though?)This makes it real, doesn't it? It was just endless speculation for the most part, but this finally starts making it truly real. This is scary. Especially for fat me who likes his video games and sitting around playing them all day.

And for me, the slightly less rotund, who enjoys the same. I want my electricity, dammit! Hell, I can walk to most of the places I need to be but I can't generate power on my own, nor can I exactly site a wind turbine or solar panels on my TV.

Even so, I hardly believe any migration to cities is going to be permanent. Once the energy crisis is over, it'll be time for Suburbia 2.0. Whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing is your own opinion.

What they are proposing is all well and good, but its only the tip of the iceberg of what must be done. The $500 billion that the US is spending on defense should be going towards alternative energy and efficiency if we hope to be able to survive the coming ecological collapse.

This world has needed an energy crisis sence the Oil monopolys have been around, the fact that thay are around just cripples the ability of many Nations to invest in alturnative providers, the only reason Oil is so cheap is because it has an infastructure and development supporting it so of course its going to be costly to change, thats the price that must be paid for not allowing other forms of energy generation to take root and develope.

The energy monoploy is a good example of why unwatched monopolys/major corparations end up doing more harm then good, even when thay start out doing alot of good a communit/nation or whatever thay supply a service to thay will at some point take a turn to start harming who thay are serveing unless thay are properly regulated.

Human history is full of this kind of thing changes that need to be made arent made till there is almost no time left then as the old Monopolys/kings get dislodged there is no time to get proper power shareing so a new Monopoly/king sets in place and the whole cycle starts all over again.

What they are proposing is all well and good, but its only the tip of the iceberg of what must be done. The $500 billion that the US is spending on defense should be going towards alternative energy and efficiency if we hope to be able to survive the coming ecological collapse.

The problem, if you read the article, is that they're not proposing anything. They're deer in the headlights. They don't know what to do.

And for me, the slightly less rotund, who enjoys the same. I want my electricity, dammit! Hell, I can walk to most of the places I need to be but I can't generate power on my own, nor can I exactly site a wind turbine or solar panels on my TV.

Even so, I hardly believe any migration to cities is going to be permanent. Once the energy crisis is over, it'll be time for Suburbia 2.0. Whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing is your own opinion.

Oh, you've got some fat on you and you know it.

As for me, I'm stuck in Pine, Colorado. Look it up on a map: it works great for our current system, but I'd be stuck completely without the nearby supermarkets--nearby in car distance, I should say, as walking would easily take about seven hours--or the relayed power. Sure, I've got Colorado wilderness, and yeah I could build a greenhouse and plant some stuff, but I'm not exactly in the best of positions.

Dan: Aye, that's what I figured now that I actually think about it. Perhaps migration towards farming areas, like in Illinois and Ohio, and/or California.

yeah. I thought it would be higher, but then I was looking for a hurricane or two. We'll see what happens this summer.

IIRC, El Nino is over and that was suppressing hurricane activity. Of course, due to the increasing volatility in the weather, it's going to be up in the air; suffice to say, a second Katrina will hurt.

Copper is collapsing, too and, as they say, copper has a PHD in economics. We're facing a global economic slowdown if the old connection between copper prices and economic growth holds. That may continue to depress oil prices, but then the downside of peak oil is supposed to be a roller coaster at first as high prices hurt the economy which brings down oil prices which helps teh economy which brings up oil prices which hurts the economy which brings down oil prices...

It's tough to call, especially considering copper production is again surpassing demand and that's putting some downward pressure on prices.

Of course, since the drop is also occurring across almost the entire commodity complex, I'd say we will see a slowdown just due to the sheer speed of the drop. However, whether it turns out to be a recession isn't really foreseeable right now; it will really hinge on whether or not the positives of falling commodity prices stir enough new activity to overcome the slowdowns that produced the drop in the first place.

If they don't, we'll probably have a recession starting in late 2007.

Great book. Herbert wrote that book about the Middle east and oil.

And one that illustrates the vulnerabilities of a society dependent on one thing quite well.

The problem, if you read the article, is that they're not proposing anything. They're deer in the headlights. They don't know what to do.

I read it. They just danced around the issue and complained about leftist governments nationalizing foreign oil resources, proposed a few tax breaks for companies, and then went out wining and dining.

This world has needed an energy crisis sence the Oil monopolys have been around, the fact that thay are around just cripples the ability of many Nations to invest in alturnative providers, the only reason Oil is so cheap is because it has an infastructure and development supporting it so of course its going to be costly to change, thats the price that must be paid for not allowing other forms of energy generation to take root and develope.


The reason oil is so cheap is because there is no rival as an energy source and there never will be. you get the caloric equivalent of 2500 hours of manual labor from one gallon of the stuff and all you have to do to get it is punch a hole in the ground and it comes shooting out at rates of up to millions of barrels a day. You can't grow corn that fast, the sun doesn't shine that bright and wnd doesn't blow that hard. It's millions of years worth of solar energy stored in a bank account that we just burn through like nothing. Any new energy technology, even old ones like nuclear don't come as easy, cheap, transportable and efficient as oil.

The reason oil is so cheap is because there is no rival as an energy source and there never will be. you get the caloric equivalent of 2500 hours of manual labor from one gallon of the stuff and all you have to do to get it is punch a hole in the ground and it comes shooting out at rates of up to millions of barrels a day. You can't grow corn that fast, the sun doesn't shine that bright and wnd doesn't blow that hard. It's millions of years worth of solar energy stored in a bank account that we just burn through like nothing. Any new energy technology, even old ones like nuclear don't come as easy, cheap, transportable and efficient as oil.

Which is why we all need our own portable fusion cells.

I read it. They just danced around the issue and complained about leftist governments nationalizing foreign oil resources, proposed a few tax breaks for companies, and then went out wining and dining.

Oh, I think they're scared. I think that some of our politicians have spent the last decade learning about politics and haven't learned much about the world. The fact that both Republicans and democrats on the House Intelligence Committee don't know who Hezbollah is and don't know that Al Qeada is Sunni illustrates this point. I think the world is starting to impose itself on our politicians and they're suddenly waking up to the fact that we have a real problem. They also are waking up to the fact that they have waited too long and don't know what to do anyway.

Which is why we all need our own portable fusion cells.

And if you think that will ever succeed, you're not looking at how the development of fusion technology has progressed over the years.

No, what I'd like to hold out for is quantum vaccuum power technology.

Dan: If you were able to advise these peeps on what exactly to do, what would you tell them? For that matter, what would you tell us citizens?

And if you think that will ever succeed, you're not looking at how the development of fusion technology has progressed over the years.

No, what I'd like to hold out for is quantum vaccuum power technology.

Dan: If you were able to advise these peeps on what exactly to do, what would you tell them? For that matter, what would you tell us citizens?

First, right off the bat, I'd institute a 55 MPH speed limit. Today. I'd use the power of the bully pulpit to tell America, in a prime time speech like the one last night, that we are in serious trouble and I'd ask them all to conserve in any way they can.

Second, I'd lay rail. All over the place. From every city to every other city from sea to shining sea. Id' reopen all those old, decrepit waterways. The Mississippi would be alive with river traffic again.

I'd remove all tax write offs for the use of oil in shpping so that people in California would drink California orange juice and people in Florida would drink Florida orange juice. I'd encourage the local production of food and goods and services around our cities and towns so that local economies could grow and flourish again.

I'd encourage the local production of energy. Biodeisel and ethanol don't work because if you grow the stuff in the midwest, ship it to California to be fermented and then ship it back all over the US for end use you use more energy in the chain of production and transportation than you get from the end use of the product. Locally produced biofuels don't suffer from these drawbacks.

I'd do the same with electricty production. Instead of a few massive power plants I'd open the market to small producers to provide electricity to local communities. This would make the grid much stronger because taking out one plant is no longer a problem for an entire region of the continent. If a local plant goes down the difference can be made up by hundreds of smaler plants insurrounding communities. I'd use as much solar, wind and hydro as possible in these plants. Coastal communities can use tidal power, etc...

After that I'll let the market come up with the Star Trek "solar panels in space" stuff.

Lord knows I don't follow these things well enough to add a truely educated opinion on the subject, but while reading the initial report as well as a few of the subsequent replies I thought I would add a few comments of my own as a chemist/biochemist:

1) While I would never advocate polution and am a strong supporter of stronger environmental controls and regulations, the effects of CO2 production are over exaggerated in my opinion. Most reports revolving around air polution and global warming and the like refer to percentage increases in man made pollutants like CO2 and chloroflorocarbons. In those reports they discuss the massive increase in those airborne chemicals from years past. While those things are true, they neglect to discuss the contribution of heat retention by water vapor in the atmosphere. Sadly I can't find the link of the report that I read some months ago, but in this report it duscusses the fact that water vapor comprises some 95-97% of all atmospheric gasses that are contributors to absorbtion of heat. Atmospheric water vapor is such a huge portion that it is essentially impossible for humans to make significant impact on these levels, so the level of CO2 that humans do add to the atmosphere has negligable effect on global warming.

2) As for biofuel, there is significant effort being put into development of enzymes that could efficiently break down cellulosic structures like grasses to make ethanol out of them. If that kind of engineered enzyme can be made then production of ethanol could become incredibly cheap and efficient. Field grasses grow quicker than crops of corn and you would not be restricted to the break down of simple sugars in corn like we are presently. In essence it would boil down to having vast farmlands of grasses that you'd go out and mow, collect all the clippings, grind them up to make a sludge, and enzymatically break it down to make it digestible by yeasts to make alcohol. That is the wave of the future for biofuels.

Its not entirely true that Oil is the cheapest energy provider it was just one of the ones that had a balance that allowed it to be easy to monopolise and easy to develope.


Cold fusion was once developed then quickly shot down by individuals that dont understand that that not all forms of fusion need to be hot to take place, and it makes more power then put in to make it, before being killed there were many folks at other labs confirming the findings so thay finally to get this stopped thay used a nice big chunk to buy the inventors ideas off them and then put a lid on it, as long as greed is heavy true glory can never be achived.

I am not sure if you ever heard of the car made to run on water but, for your little minds sake ill go for something you can understand better.
certain types of boozes have been used in the past and present to get better mileage and run cleaner then standard gasoline.

There are lots of ways to make energy that is cheaper and more dependable then what the Oil companys have domonace on but the problem a person faces long before thay ever have to worry about a company comeing down on here heads is the inability for most to belive that there lives can be anything but hard and a mountain of energy cheaper and unlimited is just to easy so by default for folks like that it must be a fary tale. Of course should thay ever get past the stage of human ignorance thay still have to beat the major corparations that are in charge of the energy market but at that point if thay already got customers and relieable service it will be easy.

First, right off the bat, I'd institute a 55 MPH speed limit. Today. I'd use the power of the bully pulpit to tell America, in a prime time speech like the one last night, that we are in serious trouble and I'd ask them all to conserve in any way they can.

Second, I'd lay rail. All over the place. From every city to every other city from sea to shining sea. Id' reopen all those old, decrepit waterways. The Mississippi would be alive with river traffic again.

I'd remove all tax write offs for the use of oil in shpping so that people in California would drink California orange juice and people in Florida would drink Florida orange juice. I'd encourage the local production of food and goods and services around our cities and towns so that local economies could grow and flourish again.

I'd encourage the local production of energy. Biodeisel and ethanol don't work because if you grow the stuff in the midwest, ship it to California to be fermented and then ship it back all over the US for end use you use more energy in the chain of production and transportation than you get from the end use of the product. Locally produced biofuels don't suffer from these drawbacks.

I'd do the same with electricty production. Instead of a few massive power plants I'd open the market to small producers to provide electricity to local communities. This would make the grid much stronger because taking out one plant is no longer a problem for an entire region of the continent. If a local plant goes down the difference can be made up by hundreds of smaler plants insurrounding communities. I'd use as much solar, wind and hydro as possible in these plants. Coastal communities can use tidal power, etc...

After that I'll let the market come up with the Star Trek "solar panels in space" stuff.

I agree with you on every step, especially the trains bit. We definitely need to start using trains again. Hell, I'd love to be a driver for a train if I could pull it off.

Naream: I'll let Dan explain why your suggestions aren't very useful, or if any of them actually could be.

Its not entirely true that Oil is the cheapest energy provider it was just one of the ones that had a balance that allowed it to be easy to monopolise and easy to develope.


Cold fusion was once developed then quickly shot down by individuals that dont understand that that not all forms of fusion need to be hot to take place, and it makes more power then put in to make it, before being killed there were many folks at other labs confirming the findings so thay finally to get this stopped thay used a nice big chunk to buy the inventors ideas off them and then put a lid on it, as long as greed is heavy true goly can never be achived.No, it was shot donw because no one was able tio duplicate it. The experiment is online and is easy to do. You try it. It doesn't work. If it did, Chevron would buy it and mass produce it and make billions.

I am not sure if you ever heard of the car made to run on water but, for your little minds sake ill go for something you can understand better.Yes I have and this is where people who don't actually think about these problems always blow it. The car and torch demostration you are talking about, it's HO instead of H2, needs MASSIVE amounts of electricity to generate the HO from water.
certain types of boozes have been used in the past and present to get better mileage and run cleaner then standard gasoline.Yeah. It's called ethanol. It's a net energy loer. It takes more or almost as much energy to grow, fertalize, water, harvest, transport, ferment, transport again and deliver the fuel than you get from burning it. The EROEI on oil is in access of 30 - 1. meaning you get 30 times as much energy from the oil than it takes to produce it. Ethanol supporters claim a 1.5 - 1 EROEI for ethanol and many say it's less than one. Go to a corn farm and watch how much oil they burn growing all that corn. Sugar cane is better, but it doesn't grow well in the US.

There are lots of ways to make energy that is cheaper and more dependable then what the Oil companys have domonace on but the problem a person faces long before thay ever have to worry about a company comeing down on here heads is the inability for most to belive that there lives can be anything but hard and a mountain of energy cheaper and unlimited is just to easy so by default for folks like that it must be a fary tale. Of course should thay ever get past the stage of human ignorance thay still have to beat the major corparations that are in charge of the energy market but at that point if thay already got customers and relieable service it will be easy.

Here we go with the big evil oil company conspiracy. They are not oi companies. They are energy companies and if they can make a buck from it they will - that's why Chevron just bought an ethanol company in Texas. Guess who the largest producer of solar energy in the world is? Yep, you guessed it. Royal Dutch Shell.

I didnt say there was a conspiracy.


Its kinda hard to make billions off of free energy unless you want to suggest a information conspiracy.

How much public rebellion against nuclear--that is, fission--power plants do you foresee, Dan? Obviously any significant attempt to combat this will require at least some more new fission power plants, but judging by the reactions such plants tend to provoke from people--I can never debate it successfully with any member of my family, for instance--it doesn't look too great. Do you think whatever administration is in power at the time will push it forward anyway?

(Would Obama do it?)

Lord knows I don't follow these things well enough to add a truely educated opinion on the subject, but while reading the initial report as well as a few of the subsequent replies I thought I would add a few comments of my own as a chemist/biochemist:

1) While I would never advocate polution and am a strong supporter of stronger environmental controls and regulations, the effects of CO2 production are over exaggerated in my opinion. Most reports revolving around air polution and global warming and the like refer to percentage increases in man made pollutants like CO2 and chloroflorocarbons. In those reports they discuss the massive increase in those airborne chemicals from years past. While those things are true, they neglect to discuss the contribution of heat retention by water vapor in the atmosphere. Sadly I can't find the link of the report that I read some months ago, but in this report it duscusses the fact that water vapor comprises some 95-97% of all atmospheric gasses that are contributors to absorbtion of heat. Atmospheric water vapor is such a huge portion that it is essentially impossible for humans to make significant impact on these levels, so the level of CO2 that humans do add to the atmosphere has negligable effect on global warming.To my knowledge, that number is highly exaggerated right there.

I didnt say ther was a conspiracy.


Its kinda hard to make billions off of free energy unless you want to suggest a information conspiracy.

You need a physics class. Ther's no such thing as free energy. Even if the Utah experiment in cold fusion did work you'd have to mine, refine, transport the tugsten and other matrials to build the plants. There's be operational costs, upkeep. A power company could build one and then charge end use customers the same way any power company does today.

Yeah. It's called ethanol. It's a net energy loer. It takes more or almost as much energy to grow, fertalize, water, harvest, transport, ferment, transport again and deliver the fuel than you get from burning it. The EROEI on oil is in access of 30 - 1. meaning you get 30 times as much energy from the oil than it takes to produce it. Ethanol supporters claim a 1.5 - 1 EROEI for ethanol and many say it's less than one. Go to a corn farm and watch how much oil they burn growing all that corn. Sugar cane is better, but it doesn't grow well in the US.

I think it primarily depends at what point you draw the line on the process; I've generally heard that (corn) ethanol is about 1.2:1, but then again you realize that that's not exactly the kind of ratio we need to replace oil, which ranges from 15:1 to 30:1 (although I think it has been falling over time as the easier reserves are tapped).

Really, corn ethanol is only good for an oxygenate and for developing the technology for ethanol in general; as an energy source, it's pretty bad. Now, cellulosic ethanol is something else entirely but that's still 5 or more years down the line from mass production on the scale of corn ethanol.

To my knowledge, that number is highly exaggerated right there.

It's also irrelevent because water vapor is a background contributer. The eproblem isn't that there are greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, there have always been and we couldn't live here if there weren't. The problem is that we are adding to the level. It's like if you fill your pool with water. There's already chlorine in it. It takes a person to take a jug and add enough more to kill everything in it so the water is clear.

It's also irrelevent because water vapor is a background contributer. The eproblem isn't that there are greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, there have always been and we couldn't live here if there weren't. The problem is that we are adding to the level. It's like if you fill your pool with water. There's already chlorine in it. It takes a person to take a jug and add enough more to kill everything in it so the water is clear.

Aye. It's not that we're adding more than anything else, or even close to that. We're just adding on top of what Earth naturally produces and can handle. The straw that breaks the camel's back, if you will.

And then there is the fact that research for useing gas more efficantly was diverted or made low priority for a long time.


How about a engine that could run even the lowest quality gasoline and run it clean while getting a 300% better gas milage, this stuff is quite intresting.

If you dont mind i would like to know what site as that experiment you were refereing to before so i can look at that one.

And then there is the fact that research for useing gas more efficantly was diverted or made low priority for a long time.


How about a engine that could run even the lowest quality gasoline and run it clean while getting a 300% better gas milage, this stuff is quite intresting.

If you dont mind i would like to know what site as that experiment you were refereing to before so i can look at that one.

That kind of technology has been constantly proven to not work, because believe you me, if it did work, we'd see it in our cars right now. That would ensure huge increases in profits all around, and the very fact that such technology isn't there should tell you it doesn't work. (Mythbusters testing some of the stuff also helps, of course.) Use your brain, Naream. Stop acting like energy companies are some huge conspiratorial entities out to take all the money we have. They are out for money, yes, but what business isn't? It's the way business works. That doesn't make them evil. Without such business, our economy could not function. Ple

And then there is the fact that research for useing gas more efficantly was diverted or made low priority for a long time.Because energy was so cheap people wanted horse power, not efficiency.


How about a engine that could run even the lowest quality gasoline and run it clean while getting a 300% better gas milage, this stuff is quite intresting.That's a bar myth. Never really happened. Think about it. The car companies make what cars they want and they don't ask teh oil companies and, even if they did, why aren't they getting 300 miles to teh gallon in China and Russia? Surely our car and oil companies couldnt' suppress these technologies there? It wasn't en engine, by the way, it was supposedly a carb.

If you dont mind i would like to know what site as that experiment you were refereing to before so i can look at that one.

Which? Cold fusion or HO? You can do a Google search on either one and surf for a while and you'll find it.

Why do you two keep throwing conspirocy at me i have not once suggested such a thing you should consider how you respond to this stuff considering you keep useing that word when i have not once suggested it.

dan your not reading what i have been typeing i said 300% threehundred percent.

Why do you two keep throwing conspirocy at me i have not once suggested such a thing you should consider how you respond to this stuff considering you keep useing that word when i have not once suggested it.

Your posts have implied that you felt oil companies have been suppressing technologies in order to sell more oil. If that's not what you meant, I apologize. It's a common response to threads like these.

it would not take a conspirocy to do what has happened its kinda a trait of human nature things dont change till there almost a dire need and till there is a dire need the majority dont want to shake things up if thay are comfortable.

Why do you two keep throwing conspirocy at me i have not once suggested such a thing you should consider how you respond to this stuff considering you keep useing that word when i have not once suggested it.

dan your not reading what i have been typeing i said 300% threehundred percent.
Why? Because you're not thinking clearly. Consider for a moment what a 300% increase in fuel efficiency would mean for profits, both for energy companies and the auto industry, in the long-term. It would keep them afloat for a lot longer than they might otherwise be. So why have we not seen such technology actually being used? Why would they supress it when it would be so helpful. Think, McF--I mean, Naream--think! It makes no sense.

Now, Dan, I'm curious as to what you think we'll be doing with our millions of cars once we stop being able to utilize fuels so easily. Could we potentially scrap them and use the parts to aid in rail and shipyard building and whatnot, or am I not thinking broadly enough?

Kyronea i hope your not getting upset as that was never my intention.

Anyway ill leave you two to your speculations.

it would not take a conspirocy to do what has happened its kinda a trait of human nature things dont change till there almost a dire need and till there is a dire need the majority dont want to shake things up if thay are comfortable.

Not really. The Toyota Prius is, I believe, the fastest selling car in its class and the crisis hasn't hit yet. Like I said, Shell is the largest producer of solar power in the world. If there's money to be made someone will make it. The reason you have not seen ethanol plants before now is because oil has been too cheap. Now that we are running out of the cheap stuff ethanol is becoming more viable, though without the massive subsidies i wonder if we'd be producing any. You wanna read about ethanol?

here:

In true journalistic fashion, the Old Gray Lady framed the food-versus-fuel issue in the first paragraph of the story:
"Renewing concerns about whether there will be enough corn to support the demand for both fuel and food, a new study has found that ethanol plants could use as much as half of America's corn crop next year."
What? The U.S. will use half its corn crop next year to manufacture ethanol? This raises a kernel of concern with me.

As I am sure you all understand, corn that is used to manufacture ethanol will not be available for other things, like eating. Nor will this ethanol-destined corn be used to feed other animals, or turned into other foodstuffs, let alone exported to raise foreign exchange for the U.S. And of course, the price of corn will rise.

So corn-based food, and products derived from corn, will become more expensive. And I know, so you don't have to remind me, that farmers will respond to the price signals and grow more corn. But I hope you also realize that the farmers will do this by using more tractor fuel, fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, and myriad of other substances derived from oil and natural gas. And the farmers will put into production the more marginal agricultural lands, with the less productive soils, which will then become depleted of soil moisture and nutrients. There is no free lunch.

http://www.energybulletin.net/24617.html

Read the article. It talks about many of its drawbacks.

Can't we just have hamsters run around in wheels to generate power? Presto, all our energy problems solved in one stroke!

That's a bar myth. Never really happened. Think about it. The car companies make what cars they want and they don't ask teh oil companies and, even if they did, why aren't they getting 300 miles to teh gallon in China and Russia? Surely our car and oil companies couldnt' suppress these technologies there? It wasn't en engine, by the way, it was supposedly a carb.

I've heard of said carb. Chevy 'owns' it. IIRC, someone trying to get a contract as an engine manufacturer sent it in before getting a patent. By the time he thought about it Chevy already did, no?

Kyronea i hope your not getting upset as that was never my intention.

Anyway ill leave you two to your speculations.

Who, me? Nah. I do tend to get a wee bit overpassionate sometimes about percieved boneheadedness. My personal apologies.

Dan: So what's your suggestion for fuel, then? Do we go for cellulose-type ethanol or do you have something else in mind?

*snip*

Now, Dan, I'm curious as to what you think we'll be doing with our millions of cars once we stop being able to utilize fuels so easily. Could we potentially scrap them and use the parts to aid in rail and shipyard building and whatnot, or am I not thinking broadly enough?

Maybe, but most likely:


http://www.raritanval.edu/departments/cis/full-time/Klinger/images/donkey%20pulling%20car.jpg

I've heard of said carb. Chevy 'owns' it. IIRC, someone trying to get a contract as an engine manufacturer sent it in before getting a patent. By the time he thought about it Chevy already did, no?

Something like that, but it's a myth. If Chevy owned it, with the problem it has now, don't you think they'd be selling it now? Also, how did they stop the guy from selling it to the Russians? He'd be rich beyond his wildest dreams.

Who, me? Nah. I do tend to get a wee bit overpassionate sometimes about percieved boneheadedness. My personal apologies.

Dan: So what's your suggestion for fuel, then? Do we go for cellulose-type ethanol or do you have something else in mind?

I think people will be using fuels that are appropriate to their locations and the application of the fuel. What grows well here? Do we need a lot of energy density? If we're pushing trains, they'll probably go back to coal, for example. I think the free motoring days will be over, though.

Do you see much in the way of warfare over resources, or do you think the countries in power will still support each other and attempt to keep each other afloat with alternative energy sources?

Dan: So what's your suggestion for fuel, then? Do we go for cellulose-type ethanol or do you have something else in mind?

Cellulosic ethanol is probably going to be the main fuel used as a replacement for gasoline; it's cheap, highly energy positive, and can be produced in abundance without the kind of additional fossil investments that corn-based ethanol requires. Also, it can be produced in a closed-system fashion that reduces the need for fossil inputs; IIRC, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol (which is similar in energy yield, albeit lower), can be produced without many external energy inputs because much of the power comes from burning the bagasse leftover from processing.

However, I don't think corn ethanol will die out; instead, I think we'll be using the entire corn plant to produce fuel, increasing the energy yield and improving the economics of the crop significantly. It is simply too politically valuable and eliminating it would be a nightmare. Perhaps after the situation has been managed, but not before.

Biodiesel from algae will also be a big one, since there is a lot of potential particularly given the ability of algae to consume CO2 in the process, making it both environmentally and economically friendly. However, the

I think people will be using fuels that are appropriate to their locations and the application of the fuel. What grows well here? Do we need a lot of energy density? If we're pushing trains, they'll probably go back to coal, for example. I think the free motoring days will be over, though.

More likely, coal will be made in to diesel fuel for trains, and we'll see a huge effort to electrify as many lines as possible. There are significant environmental and energy benefits of using CTL diesel as a fuel source and converting rail lines to electric power; one major advantage is that electric rail systems typically run at high speeds, producing a much less fossil-intensive alternative to air or road transporation.

Cellulosic ethanol is probably going to be the main fuel used as a replacement for gasoline; it's cheap, highly energy positive, and can be produced in abundance without the kind of additional fossil investments that corn-based ethanol requires.Theorhetically. No one has ever made any yet and th enzymes needed to produce it either don't exist or haven't actually been used to produce any meaningful amount so you have no way of knowing if any of that is true.

Biodiesel from algae will also be a big one, since there is a lot of potential particularly given the ability of algae to consume CO2 in the process, making it both environmentally and economically friendly. However, the

see above

Can't we just have hamsters run around in wheels to generate power? Presto, all our energy problems solved in one stroke!
Actually I retract that statement. Lemmings would be far more efficient, they're quick little buggers.

Do you see much in the way of warfare over resources.

Yes. Which is the main reason I doubt all these tech solutions will even happen. We'll be too busy fighting and the devestation will be too great. That's what the op in this thread is about.

Actually I retract that statement. Lemmings would be far more efficient, they're quick little buggers.

cat/buttered toast.

Maybe, but most likely:


http://www.raritanval.edu/departments/cis/full-time/Klinger/images/donkey%20pulling%20car.jpg
So Cuba is the one who is actually ten years into the future. Take that Japan!

Something like that, but it's a myth. If Chevy owned it, with the problem it has now, don't you think they'd be selling it now? Also, how did they stop the guy from selling it to the Russians? He'd be rich beyond his wildest dreams.
Probably. Chevy cannot be that blissfully ignorant.

But, why would the Russians be so interested. My instincts tell me they are up to something.

More likely, coal will be made in to diesel fuel for trains, and we'll see a huge effort to electrify as many lines as possible. There are significant environmental and energy benefits of using CTL diesel as a fuel source and converting rail lines to electric power; one major advantage is that electric rail systems typically run at high speeds, producing a much less fossil-intensive alternative to air or road transporation.

We'll see. Heck of a lot easier to use it te old fashioned way. Just dig it up and throw it in a furnace. No pesky plants to build.

Probably. Chevy cannot be that blissfully ignorant.

But, why would the Russians be so interested. My instincts tell me they are up to something.

It was supposedly invented in the 70s. There was a world-wide oil crisis then and the Soviets weren't beholden to corporate interests. If they found a way to get 300 miles to teh gallon they'd have jumped at it.

What about perpetual motion? It's supposedly on the verge of being discovered in various places in the world. Wouldn't that solve all this?

What about perpetual motion? It's supposedly on the verge of being discovered in various places in the world. Wouldn't that solve all this?

Prepetual motion has been on the verge of being discovered for centuries. It's not possible.

Theorhetically. No one has ever made any yet and th enzymes needed to produce it either don't exist or haven't actually been used to produce any meaningful amount so you have no way of knowing if any of that is true.

We're pretty close, though. A lot of the technical barriers have been removed in the past year or two, and experimental production will be coming online in the next year or two.

Of course, the problem is, we would need phenomenal growth rates to supply even an amount equivalent to current corn ethanol production. Assuming the first pilot plants were producing 100 million gallons per year, we'd need to grow that production at a rate of 50% per year to reach corn ethanol's levels in a decade, and at 106% per year to replace all gasoline in that timeframe. That's mammoth, to say the least.

If oil does not peak within the next 5 years or so, I think we could have significant cellulosic ethanol production provided prices remain high.

see above

Which page?

why?

We'll see. Heck of a lot easier to use it te old fashioned way. Just dig it up and throw it in a furnace. No pesky plants to build.

Yeah, but at the same time diesel trains and electric trains have some engineering advantages; if we can run a train from LA to New York that goes 200 mph, that would have a huge effect on both air and road travel, saving us a lot of fuel and the corresponding energy needed to produce it.

Which page?
I meant that my response to cellulosic ethanol is the same for algea oil production. Never really been done so there's no way t o know if it will actually work.

Yeah, but at the same time diesel trains and electric trains have some engineering advantages; if we can run a train from LA to New York that goes 200 mph, that would have a huge effect on both air and road travel, saving us a lot of fuel and the corresponding energy needed to produce it.

I understand, but when our economy is wrecked I think what you'll see won't be massive technological advances, but provisional behavior. People just making do with whats available to them with the remnants of what was. It's what we see in other parts of the world today and it's what we've seen in history and I see no reason to think that that will change.

It was supposedly invented in the 70s. There was a world-wide oil crisis then and the Soviets weren't beholden to corporate interests. If they found a way to get 300 miles to teh gallon they'd have jumped at it.

I've never heard the myth dated, so I just kinda assumed that it was present day for some reason. Anyways, the Sovies would have made his life glorious.

why?

1. Energy is never created or destroyed - it only changes form.

2. In nature there is a spontaneous tendancy towards disorder. Small amounts of high density energy break down into large amounts of low density energy.

With these two concepts yu can see that as a perpetual motion machine runs and you draw energy from it it will slow down requiring you to use energy to speed it back up. What you get is a net energy loss.

cat/buttered toast.

True, true that device is awesome in it's energy delivery, but you are forgetting one thing; it is a Dual-Use Device!

If you stick the nonbuttered side on the cat's stomach you get a bombardment projectile moving at (potentially) relavistic speeds and if the buttered side is stuck to the cat's stomach it forms an implosion/black hole WMD!

True, true that device is awesome in it's energy delivery, but you are forgetting one thing; it is a Dual-Use Device!

If you stick the nonbuttered side on the cat's stomach you get a bombardment projectile moving at (potentially) relavistic speeds and if the buttered side is stuck to the cat's stomach it forms an implosion/black hole WMD!

But that measn that in the end it is not a solution to our energy crisis because the power of the cat/buttered toast machine is to powerful to control. It's like using nuclear weapons to get our electricity from.

1. Energy is never created or destroyed - it only changes form.

2. In nature there is a spontaneous tendancy towards disorder. Small amounts of high density energy break down into large amounts of low density energy.

With these two concepts yu can see that as a perpetual motion machine runs and you draw energy from it it will slow down requiring you to use energy to speed it back up. What you get is a net energy loss.
Te only real way out is to convert mass into energy. The problem is scale. Unless you get to a star sized initial mass, you are going to need a large amount of energy keep get it going. When you get it down to something buildable on Earth, the energy needed to keep the process going is higher than what you get out of it.

But that measn that in the end it is not a solution to our energy crisis because the power of the cat/buttered toast machine is to powerful to control. It's like using nuclear weapons to get our electricity from.

Yet we can use it because, unlike nuclear weapons two people can control the deadly force: Oscar Wilde and Chuck Norris.

By using the genius of Oscar and the irresistable force of Chuck's long lasting kicks (though they do not look that potent to others) people can be stopped from making weapons from those devices, the devices already made and tiggered can be disarmed (Chuck can stop the irresistable force and can also explode the imploding mass). They can also control the awesome power of the version that produces power!

I understand, but when our economy is wrecked I think what you'll see won't be massive technological advances, but provisional behavior. People just making do with whats available to them with the remnants of what was. It's what we see in other parts of the world today and it's what we've seen in history and I see no reason to think that that will change.

We would have to fuck up really bad in order for that to happen...besides, even if the world did go down, there would be some economies out there that could rebuild and gradually rehabilitate the rest of us as time passes.

Even so, I hardly believe any migration to cities is going to be permanent. Once the energy crisis is over, it'll be time for Suburbia 2.0. Whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing is your own opinion.
What about the possibility that the energy crisis may NEVER be over?

What about the possibility that the energy crisis may NEVER be over?

Because it's not really possible; the market inevitably does find its equilibrium, no matter how much it hurts along the way. You'll always reach a bottom and move up from there; once we've got everything under control, we can gradually start to reconstruct what was lost and move on.

don't forget random natural disasters, such as asteroid strikes, massive hurricanes, etc.

don't forget random natural disasters, such as asteroid strikes, massive hurricanes, etc.
Celine Dion releasing another album.

don't forget random natural disasters, such as asteroid strikes, massive hurricanes, etc.

Yeah, but if those happen the abundance of energy won't really matter too much. In that case, the next time humanity will be known of is when alien archaeologists start digging up our fossils...

Yeah, but if those happen the abundance of energy won't really matter too much. In that case, the next time humanity will be known of is when alien archaeologists start digging up our fossils...
The sun's lifespan will end before aliens find us. :p

The sun's lifespan will end before aliens find us. :p

Yeah, but that's nothing to me...I'll either be floating around for eternity as a spirit, reincarnated somewhere else, or just dead for that amount of time. Although I kind of hope for the second one because I'd kind of like to see the sun's life end.

We would have to fuck up really bad in order for that to happen...besides, even if the world did go down, there would be some economies out there that could rebuild and gradually rehabilitate the rest of us as time passes.

I think we you don't just look at the energy curve, but add in the geopolitical situation around oil and look at the way the situation is actually playing out now that a scenario where we "really fuck up" is, well... I wouldn't be adverse to betting a payheck or two on it.

I think we you don't just look at the energy curve, but add in the geopolitical situation around oil and look at the way the situation is actually playing out now that a scenario where we "really fuck up" is, well... I wouldn't be adverse to betting a payheck or two on it.
But there is going to be a few regions who will just get hit nowheres nearly as badly as the rest.

What I wanna know is, how long before people think the government is weak enough to begin challenging it? Gonna be beyond a decade, but someone in some country (developed country) takes a stab at it.

Since I'm not that educated on the issue, I'm wondering whether it would be better to be caught in the cities or the suburbs on this one.

Since I'm not that educated on the issue, I'm wondering whether it would be better to be caught in the cities or the suburbs on this one.

Depends. How much do you like food?

Since I'm not that educated on the issue, I'm wondering whether it would be better to be caught in the cities or the suburbs on this one.

I would say that so long as you can subsist on your own for a while you'd be fine whereever you are. I may bleat about my situation but in truth I have a friend quite nearby who's family has a HUGE greenhouse full of various fruits and veggies, and they have some hunting equipment(and game tends to plentiful around the area though it's never actually hunted here) plus the water is well-water so as long as they keep their solar panels activated and the batteries charged for the pump we'd be set.

I would say that so long as you can subsist on your own for a while you'd be fine whereever you are. I may bleat about my situation but in truth I have a friend quite nearby who's family has a HUGE greenhouse full of various fruits and veggies, and they have some hunting equipment(and game tends to plentiful around the area though it's never actually hunted here) plus the water is well-water so as long as they keep their solar panels activated and the batteries charged for the pump we'd be set.

Eh, I don't think you really have to worry about the infrastructure going down; almost all of the problem is really going to be in getting things where they need to go. We use almost all of our oil in transportation and manufacturing; the rest of the stuff is comparatively trivial. Even agriculture is comparatively easy; really, the main fossil inputs come from natural gas for fertilizer, but that can be synthesized along with ethanol and biodiesel to fuel the machinery.

I think the best-case scenario is the most likely, but that's no reason not to plan for worse ones.

Eh, I don't think you really have to worry about the infrastructure going down; almost all of the problem is really going to be in getting things where they need to go. We use almost all of our oil in transportation and manufacturing; the rest of the stuff is comparatively trivial. Even agriculture is comparatively easy; really, the main fossil inputs come from natural gas for fertilizer, but that can be synthesized along with ethanol and biodiesel to fuel the machinery.

I think the best-case scenario is the most likely, but that's no reason not to plan for worse ones.

Because knowing humans, there is someone who will find a golden oppertunity to make things worse.

Because knowing humans, there is someone who will find a golden oppertunity to make things worse.

Murphy's Law and all that. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst...

Because knowing humans, there is someone who will find a golden oppertunity to make things worse.

Murphy's Law and all that. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst...

Murphy's Law and all that. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst...
Exactly.

Congradulations, fellow NSers. With the way things are going in the alternative energy field, I think we are witnessing the end of much of technological civilization.

Cheers! It's been a great ride while it lasted. :cool:

Yet we can use it because, unlike nuclear weapons two people can control the deadly force: Oscar Wilde and Chuck Norris.

By using the genius of Oscar and the irresistable force of Chuck's long lasting kicks (though they do not look that potent to others) people can be stopped from making weapons from those devices, the devices already made and tiggered can be disarmed (Chuck can stop the irresistable force and can also explode the imploding mass). They can also control the awesome power of the version that produces power!

Ahh... a fellow Uncyclopedian!

Several panelists and Senators raised the problem of the rising price of corn as food for humans as a result of the increased production of corn-based ethanol. Everyone hailed the potential of cellulosic ethanol as a way of avoiding the conflict with food for humans.

I seem to recall this plant that produced large amounts of cellulose.
It also provided medicine, thread and nutritious seeds.
I grew it in most climates very well and quickly almost like a weed .
I wonder if we could use such a plant to produce huge amounts of cellulosic ethanol ?
We would not have to use corn!
But wait there is a problem!
We live in a nation that made this plant illegal 70 years ago to protect the fortunes of the rich men that held sway in our society.
Using their newspaper stories and cheesy scare tactic films (http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html) they persuaded a racist society that this plant caused black people and Mexicans to rape innocent white girls.
Using their bought and paid for Congress they banned this plant to keep William Randolph Hearst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst)rich.
To help Dow Chemicals sell new fabrics made out of plastics.
70 years later we are still jailing tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of people if they decide to use this plant as a medicine or a recreational drug.

Maybe it is time to stop letting our government keep rich people, now the pharmaceutical and oil companies, rich?