Doom, gloom, death, destruction, chaos and horrible suffering! Yay!

[TheWraith]

I've just been looking over a thread where another dose of morose paranoia about peak oil deteriorated into a one-upping game of stupidity and reveling in the idea of human suffering. Oh, 50% of the world's population is going to have to die. No, 90%. No, we're going to go completely extinct. And now, I have the impulse to beat almost everybody in this forum with a clue-by-four.

This wouldn't be quite so pathetic if it weren't for the fact that many of the participants seem to enjoy it, and relish a kind of armageddon fantasy where we're all wiped off the earth, sent back to the technological dark ages, or end up living in some kind of idiotic commune system.

Do you know what one of the biggest sources of fuel was a hundred years ago? Whale oil. It was used for cooking, lamps, firing machinery, all sorts of things. Guess what--when we started running out of whales, it didn't mean that we were suddenly unable sustain civilization.

Of course, ironically the people with the loudest Cassandra complexes are also typically the ones who object the most strongly to any proposal of alternatives like fusion, nuclear, electric vehicles, etcetera. At most, they approve of the least practical forms of power generation like solar and to a lesser extent wind, which only further reenforces the idea that they don't really want a SOLUTION, so much as they want a problem.

Here's the bottom line reality. Yes, eventually fossil oil is going to run out. I doubt that that will be anywhere near as soon as a lot of people here expect. But no, it's not going to be the end of civilization. We're a resourceful species, and there are plenty of alternative ways to satisfy our energy needs, many of them even better than what we have now.

[YankeyMCC]

1. There was a thread recently

that demonstrated how many nuclear plants we would have to build and how quickly. Some interpretations led to high but not impossible numbers but still quiet the investment and it would have to happen Very soon.

You can count me as a supporter of using nuclear power as part of the solution at least if not The solution at least for the near and middle term. And I lean towards the optomist side myself but I am frankly very worried. Do you think we will take action soon enough to avoid major tragedies?

On edit: Here's the thread I was thinking of: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=109261&mesg_id=109261

[undergroundpanther]

4. I dunno if action will be fast enough

I hope so though.But I tend to look at both sides,worst case scenario and best outcomes BOTH.
The crash might be averted YAY,things keep on being the same,
It might be partial crash as in oh,damn tough times! better prepare.
or a catastrophy..as in oh fuck my ass is grass.

The future regarding peak oil could be like any of these future scenarios and having a realistic assessment means really being open to any sort of future scenario and facing them all as equally possible ,To do this you can not be blinded by pessimism/futility or false hope/denial.

[wordpix]

58. I say, humans need to get off the oil addiction or there WILL be mass catastrophes

Looking around at the natural resources of the NE, yes, we still have trees and SOME reservoirs of clean water in certain areas but we also have a huge population that would clearcut those trees in no time for fuel and bldg. materials. Our rivers and oceans are not only polluted but also no longer have massive populations of fish for people to eat. Our farm fields are covered with McMansions or have become suburban backyards, if not parking lot asphalt, high rises and condo villages. In short, we'd better get our act together and grow trees, preserve what clean water we have left, invest in community gardens and develop renewable resource energy. It is time for preservation of Agricultural Security Lands, Forest Security Lands and a hell of a lot more.

[undergroundpanther]

2. I wish

however the market would not be permitted to control whatever alternatives can be found to keep oil companies raking in dough,until the oil is gone.
That kind of monopolistic crap makes it less likely someone will find alternatives that work and are safe and do the job before the times get tough for the less than wealthy..

[phantom power]

3. "Being fine today doesn't Mean Anything... It's just a small piece of weather."

[IrateCitizen]

5. Any "innovation" will not come from the United States, though...

Why? Because we have utterly and completely wedded our industrial system, transportation system and way of life to petroleum. The "Petroleum Age" and the "American Century" are generally one and the same. Much like the "Wind and Water Age" accompanied the Dutch Empire of the 17th and 18th centuries -- and like the "Coal Age" ushered in the reign of the British Empire.

One other thing -- we are not facing the end of fossil fuels. We are facing the peak of liquid fossil fuels (as well as Natural Gas). We might even be there right now. While such a situation means that there is still 50% of the world's oil in the ground, that oil is often much more difficult and expensive to extract, and is often located in regions of the world where people don't want to give it to us.

As for your remarks about Cassandras and the like, I still haven't figured out which is more dangerous -- those who espouse the Olduvai Gorge theory of human descent; or those who maintain a Jiminy Cricket attitude toward technological saviors, that all you have to do is "wish upon a star" and all your dreams will come true.

Humankind will survive. We just don't know really WHAT the future holds. Personally, I think that the idea of unending economic growth and rising standards of living was a complete anomaly, one which our children will never truly see. While such a situation presents certain hardships, it also presents opportunities for significant social and political transformations. And many of these transformations may make our lives more meaningful in the process -- like the re-emergence of true interdependence and community between individuals and families.

For some reading on these subjects, I'd recommend the following:
_Deep Economy_ by Bill McKibben
_American Theocracy_ by Kevin Phillips
_After Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak_ by Kenneth Deffeyes

[AdHocSolver]

13. Kevin Phillips deals with the collapse of empires due to greed in his book"Wealth and Democracy".

[IrateCitizen]

18. He goes into more detail in _American Theocracy_

I've _Wealth and Democracy_ and _American Theocracy_, and find Phillips to be a very lucid voice in times that can seem a bit insane sometimes. In the latter, he discusses the implications of peak oil -- especially in the sense that the rise of the American Empire was wedded to the simultaneous U.S. domination of the global petroleum industry. This happened much in the same manner as the Dutch with Sea and Wind, and the British Empire's rise fueled by coal. In both instances, the nations in question were so completely beholden to the forces that fueled their rise to power that they were unwilling to consider the new technologies that were emerging to displace theirs. He predicts that much the same thing will happen to the U.S. as the global peak in petroleum production is approached and passed.

[GliderGuider]

6. Whale oil didn't exactly sustain civilization.

That job was performed by coal and wood, in both cases to the significant detriment of the environment.

I just call it like I see it. Unlike whale oil, rock oil is actually one of the supporting pillars of civilization. We have only 10 years or so to go before it becomes too expensive for many countries, let alone individuals, to afford. At the same time we have to deal with the fact that the ocean biome is, for all practical purposes, destroyed. And we have Climate Chaos descending on us out of a carbonic cloud. And food production is no longer rising. A certain pessimism seems justified.

I know full well that pessimism is a damaging emotion. On the other hand, magical thinking (e.g. technology = energy and everything is going to be "Just Fine With Fusion") seems just as unhelpful.

"Civilization" as a concept isn't going to end. There is not going to be an extinction of the human race, absent Peter Ward's green sky. However, the key question is whether our environment can support 6.6 billion of us doing what we do, consuming what we do? If your answer to that is "No", you are suddenly into very dangerous territory for optimists.

[Subdivisions]

7. "...there are plenty of alternative ways to satisfy our energy needs,

many of them even better than what we already have." ....

Ok, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian">Cornucopian, name them.

[TheWraith]

38. Fusion, fission, hydro, and tidal.

All four of those produce large amounts of power, and are more or less reliable for continuous generation, in descending order. Particularly if you factor in that much of our oil use right now is for vehicles: converting to pure electric vehicles would bring an increase in efficiency by a factor of five.

[Subdivisions]

45. I'm sorry, but...

[TheWraith]

48. So glad to see that you can't dispute my facts, so you pretend like they're not there. NT

[Subdivisions]

51. LOL! I don't HAVE to pretend they aren't there. ROFL! You

crack me up!

Thanks for the laff!

[GliderGuider]

50. The fact that you include fusion in that list

says a lot about the depth and realism of your analysis.

With all due respect to Dr. Bussard, even the generally positive Wikipedia article says, "the pulses of operation in WB-6 were sub-milliseconds". No constant power output has ever been demonstrated, and we only have Bussard's opinion that the reactor design will at some point be capable of it. Now, science is all about skepticism, and in this instance I am extremely skeptical. I've heard the phrase "Give me some more money and I'll show you" way too often in the past.

Despite Bussard's protestations, practical fusion power has yet to be demonstrated and thus has no place in a list like yours. It certainly can't be followed by the statement "All four of those produce large amounts of power, and are more or less reliable for continuous generation". That is simple BS, and utterly devalues the rest of your argument.

[Subdivisions]

52. Jeez, Paul. So many people with no clue AT ALL of what's

ahead of us.

No clue whatsoever.

Edited to add: Hey, you remember a couple weeks or months ago that there was this big announcement that some energy source was going to be demonstrated and when the time came it was: Oh, well, the internet streaming of the unveiling experienced technical difficulties so let's just forget about this whole thing. Was it fusion, fision or anti-grav? It was such a hyped non-event that I immediately filed it under B - for bullshit.

[GliderGuider]

54. I wouldn't mind so much

If they weren't the primary vectors for magical thinking.

I have nothing against people who ignore the evidence and just get on with the rest of their lives. There is no dishonour in trying to live well within the box you've accepted as reality.

The people I have a problem with are those who wake up halfway, get terrified by the glimpse of reality they see through their half-opened eyelids, and then try to block it out with desperately conjured dreams of sweet soothing salvation. Worse, they then spend way too much of everyone's time and energy trying to convince the world that those dreams represent The One True Salvation. In fact all they represent is another facet of the fear that Peace Patriot wrote about here: "The damage to planet earth is felt in our guts. It is visceral. It is profound. It is related to our fear of our own deaths (particularly acute in American "youth" culture), but it is even worse, much worse, than this. It is like seeing your children die. It is a deep, DNA-driven fear of being cut off from the future."

That fear makes people do all sorts of irrational things. Some invade Iraq. Others try to turn all our food into car fuel. Others cling desperately to unproven technology like Bussard's reactor. It is all profoundly disappointing. I had hoped for better from such a proud species.

[4dsc]

8. Considering we have no plan B

when the oil runs out we will suffer the consequences because we don't have a plan B.. And wishing upon a star and praying, as you seem to be inviting here, isn't going to get half the population of the world through the crisis..

Apparently you don't know just how much we depend upon oil!!

[Subdivisions]

9. The San Fransisco Chronicle on Plan B, or the lack thereof...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/26/INF7RM3OC.DTL

[phantom power]

10. Always look on the bright side of death!

[hatrack]

11. Geez, not the whale oil analogy again . . . .

You are aware, I assume, that whale oil, as a source of lighting, was tiny in comparison to the tonnage of coal used to maintain the burgeoning Industrial Revolution? You are also aware that whale oil was a premium-priced product for lighting oils and candles which was well out of reach of many Americans, while coal was the all-purpose fuel for powering industrial machines? Perhaps not, but this does render your comparison questionable.

By the time of the Civil War, US coal production had risen rapidly to about 20 million tons annually This was much larger than whale oil production which peaked at about 30 million gallons/year in the early 1850s.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/adams.industry.coal.us (It's not quite halfway down the page, just above the section entitled "Coal and the Civil War".)
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/history/whaleOil20040913.pdf

Since a gallon of water weighs about 8.3 pounds, and since whale oil is about 10% less dense than water, a rough guess would be that this was total production by weight of about 112,000 tons of whale oil, or not even 1% of coal production by weight.

Why dwell on whale oil? Simple - it shows that you haven't done any homework. Why bother when it's easier to shake the feathered rattle of techno-determinism and decry us all as denizens of an "idiotic commune system"?

I won't comment on your "armageddon fantasy" remarks, except to say that as someone vigorously engaged in the demolition of straw men, you seem to have engaged in that not-too-productive pastime at the expense of actually learning very much about the issues surrounding each of the energy alternatives you've listed. Nuclear fission is extremely expensive, the closest functional fusion reactor is about 93 million miles away and please fill us in the next time you see an electric vehicle at your neighborhood Ford of Toyota dealer.

For that matter, if you spent any time over here, you'd learn to E&E hosts strongly pro- and anti-nuclear posters, as well as those strongly in favor of biofuels, of wind, of solar and of a whole range of energy strategies. May I suggest that you use a slightly less broad brush next time?

So please, before being overcome with the urge to "beat almost everybody in this forum with a clue-by-four", enlighten us as to the "plenty of alternative ways to satisfy our energy needs, many of them even better than what we have now." Data on costs, output, energy demand and scalability will be appreciated.

On edit - fixed punctuation.

[TheWraith]

39. You're obviously unfamiliar with the concept of metaphor.

Note, please, that our use of coal to fire the machinery of the world has also been greatly reduced, and even when it is used it's no longer irreplacable. The point was that there's no such thing as an absolutely irreplacable energy source.

"I won't comment on your "armageddon fantasy" remarks, except to say that as someone vigorously engaged in the demolition of straw men, you seem to have engaged in that not-too-productive pastime at the expense of actually learning very much about the issues surrounding each of the energy alternatives you've listed. Nuclear fission is extremely expensive,"

Nonsense. On a kilowatt-hour basis, it's quite cheap.

"the closest functional fusion reactor is about 93 million miles away"

Actually, it's quite a bit closer than that, but I don't know where Bussard stored his gear when he finished development. Do a Google search for the names Bussard and Polywell, and learn all about how we're $200 million away from a 100 megawatt fusion demonstrator.

"and please fill us in the next time you see an electric vehicle at your neighborhood Ford of Toyota dealer."

You do know that Toyota makes an electric version of their RAV4 sport-utility, right?

"For that matter, if you spent any time over here, you'd learn to E&E hosts strongly pro- and anti-nuclear posters, as well as those strongly in favor of biofuels, of wind, of solar and of a whole range of energy strategies. May I suggest that you use a slightly less broad brush next time?"

Actually, I'm here quite a bit, and I wasn't using a broad brush at all. I was talking to a very specific group of people.

[Subdivisions]

53. Bwaaahhahahahahaa! I'll tell you what. You just stick to that

"just-in-time" delivery of the necessities of life to your cupboards. You'll be just fine in the warm embrace of the heat produced by your fusion furnace.

If Bousard is such a genious, why are we still burning oil?

[hatrack]

56. Toyota scrapped their RAV-4 EVs about, oh, five or six years ago . . .

It was right around the time that the GM was destroying their electric vehicles and when Ford was destroying their EV Ranger pickups, back when CARB removed the zero-emission mandate. Here's a little more information on today's RAV-4 lineup, in case you haven't been keeping up with current events:

http://www.toyota.com/rav4/specs.html

See any battery-powered options listed there? I sure don't . . .

Your statement on coal is ignorant. From the EIA's webpage on sources of electricity:



http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html

Good to know that the source of 50% of this nation's electricity is "no longer irreplacable".

Then there's China, which generates 77.8% of its electricity from coal . . .
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=CN

And India, which generates 69% of its electricity from coal . . .
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=IN

Good news that they're not basing their electrical grids on anything that can't be replaced, huh?

If nuclear is "quite cheap", then why aren't we hastening to build nuclear plants? Or China? Or india, or Germany, or England?

And as for Bussard's putative nuclear fusion "breakthrough", in the absence of peer-reviewed science on the topic, I'll be happy to file under "T", as in "Tesla, Nikola, Mystical Magical Lost Notebooks Of".

On edit - fixed italicization.

[Systematic Chaos]

12. Yeah, it's a good thing coal and crude took over for whale oil.

Otherwise, what would those people 100 years ago have done to replace:

Their whale oil-based fertilizers?
Their whale oil-based roads and transportation networks?
Their whale oil-based water and food distribution, featuring the world famous 800-mile salad?
Their whale oil-based pharmaceuticals?
Their whale oil-based plastics and packaging?

Wait. Hold the phone! Silly me -- I forgot that back then all they used whale oil for was powering little room lamps, and they didn't have several billion people dependent upon a single resource for every facet of their modern lives.

Well just whip me with a licorice stick, call me Phyllis and make me write bad checks! :silly:

[TheWraith]

40. Crude oil has little to nothing to do with the things you describe.

"Their whale oil-based fertilizers?"

You know how little artificial fertilizer actually involves oil-based petrochemicals?

"Their whale oil-based roads and transportation networks?"

Asphalt is simply a form of tar, which is easily replacable. So are fuels for aircraft and trains, both of which can be synthesized from bio-waste. But please do continue ignoring the metaphor.

"Their whale oil-based water and food distribution, featuring the world famous 800-mile salad?"

Care to point out where oil is required for water and food distribution, unless you're claiming that electric pumps will suddenly fail, and electric vehicles can't be built?

"Their whale oil-based pharmaceuticals?"

See fertilizer.

"Wait. Hold the phone! Silly me -- I forgot that back then all they used whale oil for was powering little room lamps, and they didn't have several billion people dependent upon a single resource for every facet of their modern lives."

Thank you for proving my point. You don't actually want a solution, you want a crisis. Nevermind the fact that you're creating a bunch of aspects out of whole cloth, and greatly exaggerating the difficulties.

[GliderGuider]

42. Fertilizer is currently made from natural gas

Natural gas, as well as being co-located with oil in many cases, is a fossil fuel that is on its own depletion trajectory. Rising NG prices have forced much fertilizer production offshore from the USA. It takes 34.5 MMBTU of NG to supply the hydrogen required to make a ton of anhydrous ammonia, the building block of ammonium nitrate and synthetic urea fertilizers. You may argue that this hydrogen could be made by electrolysis or thermal decomposition of water (say in a nuclear reactor) but the current source is natural gas. The cost of hydrogen from other sources is too high to make the investment needed to switch to a water source economically attractive. So there is no infrastructure in place at the moment.

Fuels for aircraft and trains (and cars for that matter) can be made from biowaste, but the scale and production rates required have so far made such sources infeasible. In fact, I'm not aware of any commercial scale liquid fuel plants operating on a biowaste feedstock. There have been some attempts at pyrolysis, but they have not panned out commercially for various reasons (feedstock handling costs, aesthetic acceptability, etc.)

Food distribution is currently done by truck, and the present trucking fleet requires liquid fuels to run. See my previous point.

The petrochemical industry that produces plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, artificial fibers etc. runs on a feedstock of natural gas. As I hinted above, gas is showing worrying signs of peaking and depletion in various places around the world, not least in North America. I'm not aware of any other feedstock for such purposes that would meet the scale and production rate requirements, let alone come close to to the current economic attractiveness and handling ease of natural gas.

Much depends on the rapidity with which oil depletes once the world rolls over its peak. Until that happens we will do very little to prepare. Once it does, and especially if oil and natural gas production declines at 5% per annum or better, we will have very little time to replace what is a fundamental, intrinsic feedstock for our civilization. The amount of infrastructure that will need to be re-engineered and replaced is simply mind-boggling. It has taken us a hundred years to build up to this point, and we will have perhaps two decades to replace it, if it can even be down.

Then there is the problem of declining net energy. All the replacement sources of liquid and gaseous fuels come with a much higher energy price tag, meaning that much more of our civilization's productivity will be invested in just producing them. And while net energy is declining, population and per capita consumption are rising, all of which puts more and more pressure on the planet's resource base.

In terms of scale and difficulty, here is a comparison you might find interesting. The world currently uses 5 cubic kilometers of oil every year. That is 6 Terawatts of constant power. To completely replace that would require 300 Three Gorges dams, or 6000 coal or nuclear power plants, or 6 million wind turbines or 100 billion residential solar panels. But that's only 40% of the fossil fuel we use. We use another 2.4 Terawatts of natural gas, and a further 7 TW of coal. It's a very, very, very large amount of energy. You do yourself no favours if you blithely assume that replacing it (or even just the 40% we get from oil) will be no big deal. If we do build a global civilization that can get along without it, it will look very different from the one we are living in today.

That doesn't mean there aren't things we could do right now to help ease matters. One good change would be to switch much freight transport to electrified rail. It wouldn't solve the "last mile" problem, buyt it would help. It's not happening though, except in Europe - the US and Canada are showing no interest in electrified transportation, not to mention Asia and Africa where infrastructure costs present a formidable obstacle.

Finally, you keep saying we pessimists "want" a crisis. I'm not sure why you think that. It's a long way from recognizing the possibility of a crisis to hoping for one. All that most of us want is for humanity to wake the hell up to the fact that there is such a possibility, and that if we keep somnambulating we will walk right into it. Further, we believe that only when the true shape of the crisis is know can effective measures be taken to counter it. I certainly don't believe that the shape and size of the looming catastrophe has been recognized - if it had been we'd never have experimented with something as monumentally stupid as corn ethanol. But wanting people to recognize the crisis should not be confused with wanting the crisis itself. That a lazy interpretation of our motives, in my opinion.

[Subdivisions]

55. Oh God! Stop it! You are KILLING me! Tar? Easily replaceable?

That is just too, too funny!

And oil has nothing to do with the distribution of food and water?



Oh! Gosh, you need a clue -- REALLY!

[AdHocSolver]

14. You are distorting the facts to make your position sound more tenable, but you are wrong...

on all counts.

First of all, you seem to have an impediment in understanding sarcasm. The people here aren't rejoicing in the potential suffering of millions of people. They are pointing out how greedy and uncaring the corporations and their politician lackies are to the problems they are refusing to deal with (since it is profitable for THEM).

In England, before the conversion to a coal-based economy, the wealthy, who controlled all the wood, charged the peasants exorbitant prices for wood to heat their homes and cook their food. Desperate peasants who tried to get wood for their families were put in prison or put to death, depending on the whim of the land owner.

Fusion power will become practical long after the oil is depleted to the point where the cost of food, clothing, and transportation is beyond the reach of tens, if not hundreds of millions of people.

Nuclear power is extremely expensive as well as dangerous to use. Nuclear power is a desperate measure by the powers that be to maintain their monopoly over power sources.

Electric vehicles are practical, save oil, are environmentally the cleanest form of power, and are economical. If widely adopted, this could reduce oil consumption dramatically. That is why the oil and auto companies are refusing to seriously develop them. The electric vehicle will drastically reduce their profits, and without government mandates, they will not be implemented on a wide scale.

Contrary to your derision about wind and solar power being practical, they hold the most promise of all the technologies under consideration.

And your final point about fossil fuel depletion not being the end of civilization, it will price hundreds of millions of people out of a decent life style, just to uphold the power and wealth of a small number of the super rich, and I think that is unconscionable. Such a world would be anything but civilized.

[TheWraith]

41. No, actually I'm not.

"First of all, you seem to have an impediment in understanding sarcasm. The people here aren't rejoicing in the potential suffering of millions of people. They are pointing out how greedy and uncaring the corporations and their politician lackies are to the problems they are refusing to deal with (since it is profitable for THEM)."

Wrong. They're quite clearly indulging in these fantasies, apparently because in their minds it either represents some kind of moral victory or justice for what they see as gluttony and greed, or the logical continuation of gluttony and greed, depending on how the fantasy plays out.

"Fusion power will become practical long after the oil is depleted to the point where the cost of food, clothing, and transportation is beyond the reach of tens, if not hundreds of millions of people."

It's practical right now. It's been done. See Dr. Robert Bussard's Polywell reactor design. Right now he's shopping for $200 million to build a 100 megawatt demonstrator.

"Nuclear power is extremely expensive as well as dangerous to use."

Wrong on both counts. It's one of the cheapest forms of power, and it's only dangerous if done stupidly. Almost 440 civilian reactors in the world, with a nearly 60 year history, and the only major accident that can be pointed to is a case involving a grossly flawed reactor design being used for an unsafe experiment by obviously unqualified users.

"Nuclear power is a desperate measure by the powers that be to maintain their monopoly over power sources."

This is the "supressed renewables" conspiracy theory again? I'm sorry, but solar and wind power don't produce a lot of energy because they don't produce a lot of energy. The amount of effort, time, and investment required to create a decentralized power grid would be VASTLY more than what's required to fix our system using better generation methods.

"Electric vehicles are practical, save oil, are environmentally the cleanest form of power, and are economical. If widely adopted, this could reduce oil consumption dramatically."

I agree.

"That is why the oil and auto companies are refusing to seriously develop them."

No. First, the oil companies don't build cars. The auto companies aren't doing more to develop electric vehicles because research and development costs money, and they're too lazy to do much unless there's already a market. They'll start doing it en masse just as soon as they realize that they're losing potential sales. See Tesla Whitestar, Chevy Volt.

"Contrary to your derision about wind and solar power being practical, they hold the most promise of all the technologies under consideration."

I'm sorry, but they don't. We can't afford to pave over an area the size of Nevada to produce solar power, which is what it would take to satisfy our energy needs. Wind is better, but it's still only 35% production effective, meaning that you'd need triple the rated capacity in order to displace the same amount of existing power. That's literally millions of turbines. Where do you put them all? How do you build them? What happens when the wind isn't blowing over a significant area?

"And your final point about fossil fuel depletion not being the end of civilization, it will price hundreds of millions of people out of a decent life style, just to uphold the power and wealth of a small number of the super rich, and I think that is unconscionable. Such a world would be anything but civilized."

I think we'll see a change in our overall infrastructure long before that happens.

[AdHocSolver]

46. Sorry, but I am not giving you crediblity for reading people's minds and...

interpreting their intentions.

According to Wikipedia, Bussard never actually built a successful fusion generator as his funding was cut, and he has been unable to raise money to make a usable working model. Like I said, "cheap" oil will run out long before useable power generation from fusion is realized.

Nuclear power generation is riddled with "hidden" costs that are covered up by the power companies. Many of these costs are covered covertly by the government using our tax dollars. How to handle the growing nuclear waste is hushed up in the media. Nobody wants the stuff in their back yard, but a lot of people are going to get it "shoved down their throats". Periodically, newspaper and magazine articles appear about nuclear waste "spills", but the stuff is purposely kept below the radar, so as not to "scare" the public.

The main reason more nuclear power stations haven't been built in the last 25 years is not because the power companies care about the dangers to the public, but because they are too damn expensive compared to using fossil fuels. Now that the cost of oil is rising rapidly, it is becoming relatively less expensive to build nuclear. The cost to consumers will still rise with nuclear generation.

While Chernobyl and, to a lesser extent, Three Mile Island, were the only publicized major incidents with nuclear power stations, there have been numerous "minor" incidents in which we were just plain lucky. Having worked in technical fields for several years, I have first hand knowledge of why the pessimists are more realistic than you are.

True, the oil companies don't build cars, but the people who invest in oil companies also invest in auto companies, and have a lot of say about how cars are built. When General Motors were testing their electric cars, the EV-1 and the EV-2, in California in the 1990's, the test drivers loved the cars and most testers wanted to buy them. GM was so upset with the electric car's popularity, that they recalled the cars and destroyed them. There is a market for fuel efficient cars out there, but they will not provide the kind of profits desired by the corporations.

While you tout Bussard's pie-in-the-sky fusion power generator (that is years away from realization), you ignore the technical advances being made in energy generation from solar power and wind power. One doesn't need to "pave over an area the size of Nevada". Neither solar nor wind power have to replace "all of our energy needs". If we can reduce oil consumption by 25 percent within the next few years (an achievable goal), we will have conserved a significant amount of oil, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution, and stabilized the price of oil to affordable levels.

As to your claim that "solar and wind power don't produce a lot of energy", may I point out that ALL of the power we use on earth came from the sun, and if you don't think that there is much power in the wind, just ask the folks in New Orleans. The problem for us is to learn how to harness that power, and the technology for harnessing this energy economically and safely is being significantly improved as we speak.

[TheWraith]

57. Sigh

"According to Wikipedia, Bussard never actually built a successful fusion generator"

Depends on your definition of a "fusion generator." No, he didn't build a thing which actually extracted energy--the test models were too small for that. He did successfully establish an energy positive fusion reaction, even using proton-boron fuel.

"as his funding was cut"

False. The funding wasn't cut, it simply wasn't increased.

"and he has been unable to raise money to make a usable working model."

Yes, and? You think it's that impossible that no one with $200 million to burn is thinking about this at the moment?

"Like I said, "cheap" oil will run out long before useable power generation from fusion is realized."

I disagree. Bussard thinks it would take 4-6 years to perfect the system and get a reactor running: 5-10 years after that, we could easily be running many fusion reactors around the country.

"Nuclear power generation is riddled with "hidden" costs that are covered up by the power companies. Many of these costs are covered covertly by the government using our tax dollars."

Care to provide proof?

"How to handle the growing nuclear waste is hushed up in the media."

Really? I must have hallucenated all those stories discussing the proposed Yucca Mountain depository.

"Periodically, newspaper and magazine articles appear about nuclear waste "spills", but the stuff is purposely kept below the radar, so as not to "scare" the public."

Actually, in my experience such things are pulled above the radar whenever possible, in order to scare the public. There's money in scaring the public--it boosts newspaper sales and TV viewing, so the media rarely misses an opportunity.

"The main reason more nuclear power stations haven't been built in the last 25 years is not because the power companies care about the dangers to the public, but because they are too damn expensive compared to using fossil fuels."

No, the reason they haven't been built is because a handful of fanatic activists--knowingly or unknowingly funded by the coal industry--have suceeded in keeping the public afraid of the idea.

"While Chernobyl and, to a lesser extent, Three Mile Island, were the only publicized major incidents with nuclear power stations, there have been numerous "minor" incidents in which we were just plain lucky."

Luck has less to do with it than the improbability of a significant accident, and the level of safety systems that are or should be adhered to.

"True, the oil companies don't build cars, but the people who invest in oil companies also invest in auto companies, and have a lot of say about how cars are built. When General Motors were testing their electric cars, the EV-1 and the EV-2, in California in the 1990's, the test drivers loved the cars and most testers wanted to buy them. GM was so upset with the electric car's popularity, that they recalled the cars and destroyed them."

That's a myth. They stopped offering the cars because the rule requiring them to make a zero-emissions vehicle was repealed, and the EV-1s cost twice as much to make as they were priced at. Furthermore, to sell them outright, GM would have been obligated to provide service and support for them for a certain number of years, which would be a further drain of money. It was cheaper for them to simply end the leasing program. No conspiracy involved.

"There is a market for fuel efficient cars out there, but they will not provide the kind of profits desired by the corporations."

Of course they will. Selling cars people want is good for car companies. That's the only equation which matters. They're just too lazy to

"While you tout Bussard's pie-in-the-sky fusion power generator (that is years away from realization), you ignore the technical advances being made in energy generation from solar power and wind power."

Despite your claim, there's been no significant increase in the efficiency of solar power in decades, and it remains 0.1% of our total electrical power. Wind is somewhat better, at a full 0.5%. Neither is suitable for replacing our base-load power generation, which needs to run 24/7, something that among renewables, only hydro power does reliably.

"One doesn't need to "pave over an area the size of Nevada"."

Yes, you do. To supply all US energy needs, we would need an area of solar cells 218 miles by 218 miles. Factoring in space for maintainence roads, moderate inefficiency, and a little room for growth, and that's almost all of Nevada. Not to mention, you'd need some way to store hundreds of gigawatt-hours of electricity for when the sun wasn't shining.

"Neither solar nor wind power have to replace "all of our energy needs". If we can reduce oil consumption by 25 percent within the next few years (an achievable goal), we will have conserved a significant amount of oil, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution, and stabilized the price of oil to affordable levels."

That's not a solution, it's a stopgap. Where does the rest of your proposed energy come from? Because it boils down to renewables, nuclear fission/fusion, or coal.

[bananas]

60. Sir, you are seriously misinformed about nuclear energy.

"The main reason more nuclear power stations haven't been built in the last 25 years is not because the power companies care about the dangers to the public, but because they are too damn expensive compared to using fossil fuels."

No, the reason they haven't been built is because a handful of fanatic activists--knowingly or unknowingly funded by the coal industry--have suceeded in keeping the public afraid of the idea.

No, sir, it's because they are too damn expensive.
I'll refer you to MIT's study "The Future of Nuclear Power" which concluded that nuclear energy won't be cost-competitive with fossil fuels for several decades.


"While Chernobyl and, to a lesser extent, Three Mile Island, were the only publicized major incidents with nuclear power stations, there have been numerous "minor" incidents in which we were just plain lucky."

Luck has less to do with it than the improbability of a significant accident, and the level of safety systems that are or should be adhered to.

Again, the MIT study "The Future of Nuclear Power" says the expected core failure rate of that generation of reactors is one every 10,000 years per reactor - with 440 reactors worldwide, that's one every 20+ years ... Chernobyl was 20 years ago ... tick tick tick ...

[depakid]

15. "Here's the bottom line reality."

The bottom line is that natural laws don't give a dann about what anyone thinks- and they don't care whether a person is innumerate or living with neoclassical economic fantasies.

Natural laws- like thermodynamics and basic principles of ecological systems (such as "carrying capacity" "overshoot & collapse" and "feedback loops") are also utterly ruthless- and along with reckless economics- have destroyed dozens of complex societies in the past- just as they will in the coming decade(s).

The real tragedy this time is human beings are going to take a LOT of other species with them.

[losthills]

16. Oil dependency is a myth.

And "Peak Oil" is not going to bring terror, death, and destruction of civilization.

Everything that we use oil for can be done as well or better with other technologies. And, no, nuclear power does not have to be one of them. As the price of oil rises, all the things we use it for will find natural replacements. If we're smart, we will use our political power to steer toward the better choices and away from the more polluting choices. Peak Oil should be embraced, and viewed as an opportunity to steer our civilization toward a new rennaissance.

Oil was never good for us in the first place, and we should be glad to see the end of it coming. And, no, that end is not coming in ten years or anything close to that. We will probably never actually run out of oil, because as the price of it rises, we will voluntarily move on to better technologies...

[IrateCitizen]

17. That's a bold assertion. Do you have any examples?

Data on cost, efficiency and transportability would also be much appreciated.

[losthills]

20. Nothing bold about it.....

Oil is just a choice.

One choice among many possible choices. It is not water or oxygen...

[depakid]

23. Nothing bold- other than it violates the 1st law of thermodynamics

and/or assumes limitless substitutability for the transportable energy source with the highest energy density AND lowest EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) on earth (for starters).

In other words- it's magical thinking, and no different than expecting manna to fall from heaven.

[losthills]

24. You need to go back to school

and study up on the first law of thermodynamics again.

You know the word, but don't understand the principle.

Oil is a convenient form of energy, but not an essential one. It is also environmentally destructive at every level of it's extraction and use and we will be better off when we leave it behind.

[depakid]

25. So, where do you think you're going to get a replacement?

Out of thin air?

How do you think you're going to run an industrial society with our population base without one?

It's not about "convenience." LOL -although I reckon there'll be a lot of people who'll find increasingly expensive petrol rather "inconvenient" and "uneconomic."

It's about the FACT that there IS no replacement or combination of replacements that will run American society as we know it- and unless you're suggesting a radical transformation and restructuring (which WILL happen somewhere down the line by necessity) then you haven't done the maths.

Yes, fossil fuels are incredibly destructive and will probably be our undoing- but to simply say "we can leave it behind" without an equivalent source of transportable low entropy energy, is magical thinking- or, as Americans have been wont to think these past two decades: getting something for nothing.

[losthills]

26. We don't need a "replacement" for something we never needed

Oil is not essential to anything to anything except the power structure that sells it to us. We will all be better off without it.

Figure out where it came from, and answer your own questions. You can't afford my fee...

[depakid]

27. A fee? LOL.

What would you do with that on the commune?

[AdHocSolver]

22. The corporations which profit from oil dependency will maintain it unless we stop them by...

succeeding in installing a government that will promote oil conservation and adoption of technologies that don't depend on oil.

Electric cars were prevalent and popular in the early twentieth century. Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were involved in a joint venture to develop an electric vehicle whose batteries would be charged by plugging into your house electrical outlet. This was in 1912. When they were well along in development, a mysterious fire destroyed most of Edison's laboratory complex where the work was being done. The two men abandoned the project. You can read about this episode and other corporate practices to keep the U.S. addicted to oil in Edwin Black's book "Internal Combustion".

In the 1990's, California mandated the auto companies to develop a zero-emissions concept vehicle. General Motors came up with the EV-1 and a successor model EV-2. These cars were leased to California volunteers to test drive and evaluate. The test drivers liked these cars so much that many requested to buy them. This popularity shook up GM so much that the company recalled all of the vehicles and destroyed almost everyons of them. They then issued statements that electric cars would not sell, and that there was no market for them.

There is no technical reason for not implementing oil conserving technologies now, but don't hold your breath as any such action will reduce the profits for many corporations. It isn't likely to happen UNLESS we get a government that is going to make it happen. And, it can't be a process of just throwing money to the corporations to develop alternatives. That was tried in the 1980's when gifts of tens of millions of dollars were given to the oil companies to develop "synfuels". They merely added those dollars to their profits, and we are no farther ahead.

Hydrogen powered fuel cells are not only decades away from practicality, they keep us dependent on the oil companies and they are expensive tehnologies that will keep us providing huge profits to big oil "forever".

We need the government to do what was successful in the 1970's when the government mandated fuel efficiency standards for vehicles with penalties and fines for noncompliance. Within a few years, car mileage increased significantly, pollution dropped, and the cost of gasoline stabilized. Importation of oil dropped by around 20 percent.

[TheWraith]

47. For once, you and I agree on some things.

"Everything that we use oil for can be done as well or better with other technologies."

Yes indeed.

"And, no, nuclear power does not have to be one of them."

Personally, I disagree on this point--I think that we should do whatever's neccessary to stop burning coal as soon as possible. To my mind, coal--along with the GHG and horrendous air toxins it emits--are a much bigger threat to our position on this planet than either "peak oil" or nuclear power. If the removal of coal requires that we embrace nuclear fission for a few decades until fusion reactors become common, I'm not afraid of that, but I accept alternate viewpoints, as long as they're not based on myth.

"As the price of oil rises, all the things we use it for will find natural replacements."

Indeed. Economics works in our favor. We're already itching for replacements, and we haven't even really had a shortfall of oil yet, just economic gamesmanship by oil companies to drive up the price.

"We will probably never actually run out of oil, because as the price of it rises, we will voluntarily move on to better technologies..."

True. Besides which, our current oil extraction technology is woefully inefficient--another case of "it works well enough," so we've never bothered to do better. The way we do it now leaves significant percentages of oil in even "dry" fields. Even if we still want some supply of crude oil for the future, it's there. Our problem isn't a lack of energy--it's a lack of motivation to change, which has begun to be fixed.

[wordpix]

59. making prouncements doesn't make your statements true

[skids]

19. Civilization will survive...

...if your idea of civilization lies somewhere between Zardoz and Mad Max, at least.

I mean really, do you expect that the human race is going to all proceed in a neat orderly single file line to the fire escape, seeing what you see every day as shining examples of our average level of character?

We'd be able to face even a challenge as big as climate change if we had the fiber to, but we don't.

I think you'll find the opinions in this group are varied and deeply thought out. I applaud everyone in this group for having the courage and mental strength to think the unthinkable. I for one do not begrudge my fellow doomsayers an occasional cathartic outburst. It's a hard world view to live with.

[losthills]

21. Mad Max was a comedy.

Oil is no more essential than cigarettes or Big Macs. Not only are they not essential, but you'll actually be better off without them...

[skids]

29. You've sure got a strange idea of comedy n/t

[Javaman]

36. In essence you are correct, in reality you are wrong.

Look at modern society. It's basic foundation by which it is currently built is on oil. Everything the way it's set up is all about oil.

The transition to a life without oil is going to be one heck of a bumpy ride.

Unless you live as a member of the Amish society, every nation in the world that transports food, farms with nitrogen fertilizer, uses machines of any sort, drives cars, has modern sewage treatment plants, has water treatment plants, has electric lights, etc, will be effected by peak oil and a lack of fossil fuels.

[bananas]

28. Agree and disagree

Here's the bottom line reality. Yes, eventually fossil oil is going to run out. I doubt that that will be anywhere near as soon as a lot of people here expect. But no, it's not going to be the end of civilization. We're a resourceful species, and there are plenty of alternative ways to satisfy our energy needs, many of them even better than what we have now.

Agree - it's getting like the old y2k forums - some even quote Kunstler who thought y2k would destroy civilization.

Of course, ironically the people with the loudest Cassandra complexes are also typically the ones who object the most strongly to any proposal of alternatives like fusion, nuclear, electric vehicles, etcetera. At most, they approve of the least practical forms of power generation like solar and to a lesser extent wind, which only further reenforces the idea that they don't really want a SOLUTION, so much as they want a problem.

Disagree - pro-nukes are the doomers; pro-renewables are backed by science and aren't doomers.
Some specific examples:

jpak:
- quotes IPCC report - cost 0.1% of gdp growth per annum to stop global warming - mostly renewables and efficiency - nuclear about the same percent it is now
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=94912&mesg_id=94931
- UK - nuclear not needed - renewables sufficient
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=77100&mesg_id=77178

garybeck:
- all U.S. electricity could be provided with just a small area of solar
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=109391&mesg_id=109391

bananas:
- quotes Stephen Pacala - co-author of carbon wedges study and co-director of princeton climate mitigation initiative:
more than enough low-carbon energy sources using current technology - nuclear a "non-starter"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=65621&mesg_id=65634
- quotes Paul Ehrlich - author of "The Population Bomb": now says population is leveling off
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=75420&mesg_id=75453
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=75420&mesg_id=75471

[diane in sf]

43. Thank you A and D for putting some facts on this thread. Here is another interesting article...

http://rmi.org/store/p15details5268.php?x=1&pagePath=00000000

Global Warming: A Real Solution

Rolling Stone, June 2007


The Transition From Oil
There is No Shortage of Technology and Innovation Waiting to be Unlocked


What would happen if we created a truly free market, one in which alternative energy could compete on an equal footing with oil and coal? In 2004, physicist Amory Lovins answered that question. In a study co-funded by the Defense Department, Lovins and his colleagues at the Rocky Mountain Institute detailed how the United States can completely wean itself off all oil — and create a much stronger economy — by 2050.

The transition from oil outlined by Lovins would occur in two stages. First, half of our current demand for oil can be eliminated simply by using oil twice as efficiently. We've already done this once — doubling our efficiency since 1975 — and we can do it again simply by encouraging the adoption of existing technologies. Then, the remaining half of our oil demand can be replaced with a combination of natural gas and advanced biofuels. The result would not only end our oil addiction completely, it would also lower our energy costs to the equivalent of $15 a barrel — a quarter of what we currently pay.

The study by Lovins shows how — with a one-time investment of $180 billion — we can completely retool the automobile and aviation industries, create greener and more energy-efficient buildings and foster a modern biofuels industry. Even assuming that the price of oil drops by more than half by 2025, Lovins shows that going oil-free would net Americans $70 billion a year — an impressive return on our initial $180 billion investment! At the same time, we would not only reduce the threat posed by global warming, we would also generate a million new jobs — three-quarters of them in rural and small-town America.

For complete article, see: www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15051506/global_warming_a_real_solution/1

[diane in sf]

44. And to add more...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15051506/global_warming_a_real_solution/1

Global Warming: A Real Solution

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. Posted Jun 18, 2007 7:24 AM


In early May, 100 of the nation's top business leaders gathered for a summit at a private resort nestled on 250 acres in California's Napa Valley. The attendees, gathered at the invitation of Silicon Valley venture capitalists, included CEOs and other top executives from such Fortune 500 corporations as Wal-Mart, Proctor & Gamble and BP. They had been invited to discuss ways to end America's fossil-fuel addiction and save the world from global warming. But in reality they had come to make money for their companies--and that may turn out to be the thing that saves us.

For three days, the executives listened as their colleagues and business rivals described how they are using new technologies to wean themselves from oil and boost their profits in the process. DuPont has cut its climate-warming pollution by seventy-two percent since 1990, slashing $3 billion from its energy bills while increasing its global production by nearly a third. Wal-Mart has installed new, energy-efficient light bulbs in refrigeration units that save the company $12 million a year, and skylights that cut utility bills by up to $70,000 per store. The company, which operates the nation's second-largest corporate truck fleet, also saved $22 million last year just by installing auxiliary power units that allow drivers to operate electric systems without idling their vehicles. In a move with even more far-reaching potential, Wal-Mart has ordered its truck suppliers to double the gas mileage of the company's entire fleet by 2015. When those trucks become available to other businesses, America will cut its demand for oil by six percent.

The executives gathered at the retreat weren't waiting around for federal subsidies or new regulations to tilt the market in their direction. Business logic, not government intervention, was driving them to cut energy costs and invest in new fuel sources. "We haven't even touched the low-hanging fruit yet," Kim Saylors-Laster, the vice president of energy for Wal-Mart, told the assembled CEOs. "We're still getting the fruit that has already fallen from the trees."

...

[Strelnikov_]

30. "idiotic commune system"

Please explain what is 'idiotic' about communal systems?

" . . eventually fossil oil is going to run out. I doubt that that will be anywhere near as soon . . "

I thought we were talking about Peak Oil (rate).

[Javaman]

35. everything is idiotic to the person that is not willing to give up anything...

What? share the work? what? share my crops? what? work together???? that's not the american way!!!

Sadly, it's more the American way then the OP realizes.

[Nihil]

31. Oh joy!

Another drive-by posting from a solution-free Pollyanna ... :eyes:

"Whale oil"? Hmph.

[Javaman]

34. I call them the tech only solution geeks...

They propose all these bizarre ideas that are going to be solved by good old american know how or humans are adaptable types, but never give any examples.

Well, they sit in their comfortable homes not willing to compromise their lives to help the change, they want someone else to come up with the big ideas so they can still watch american idol, drink their beer and eat their crap at a chain restaurant, with out so much as causing them to move an inch in their recliners.

Blind faith is also blind to reality.

[The2ndWheel]

32. "they don't really want a SOLUTION, so much as they want a problem."

Every solution leads to the next problem. It doesn't matter what we end up doing, progressive/regressive, up/down, fast/slow, technological/anti-technological, more people/less people, we're always going to have "problems". We cannot escape it. The more solutions we come up with, the more complex we make the system, and the more energy we require to run it. The more energy we use, the larger our presence becomes. The larger our presence becomes, the less diversity there will be. On the flip side, the fewer solutions we come up with, the more things begin to fall apart. The fewer people we have, the less human energy/money is being pumped into the system. The less energy/money that is being pumped into the system, the less we can do.

[Javaman]

33. Oh where to begin...

You said, "I've just been looking over a thread where another dose of morose paranoia about peak oil deteriorated into a one-upping game of stupidity and reveling in the idea of human suffering. Oh, 50% of the world's population is going to have to die. No, 90%. No, we're going to go completely extinct. And now, I have the impulse to beat almost everybody in this forum with a clue-by-four."

--Please enlighten me as to how a population close to 7 billion people will be sustainable without oil?

You said, "This wouldn't be quite so pathetic if it weren't for the fact that many of the participants seem to enjoy it, and relish a kind of armageddon fantasy where we're all wiped off the earth, sent back to the technological dark ages, or end up living in some kind of idiotic commune system."

--I don't enjoy it, frankly, I'm doing everything I can to avoid it, but the fact is our society is built upon oil. We wear it, eat it, breath it and sleep it.

You said, "Do you know what one of the biggest sources of fuel was a hundred years ago? Whale oil. It was used for cooking, lamps, firing machinery, all sorts of things. Guess what--when we started running out of whales, it didn't mean that we were suddenly unable sustain civilization."

--When we started running out of whales? lololol good one. The whaling industry overlapped the oil industry. The oil industry proved to be far more efficient in producing energy than whaling. Whaling didn't end because there was a lack of whales, it ended because it was no longer profitable.
A single barrel of oil is 42 gallons, it refines into roughly 49 gallons of products. You don't get that kind of return on whale oil.

You said, "Of course, ironically the people with the loudest Cassandra complexes are also typically the ones who object the most strongly to any proposal of alternatives like fusion, nuclear, electric vehicles, etcetera. At most, they approve of the least practical forms of power generation like solar and to a lesser extent wind, which only further reinforces the idea that they don't really want a SOLUTION, so much as they want a problem."

--I don't object to any of the alternative energy ideas.

-Let's take the ones you mentioned one by one shall we?

-Fusion: still in it's infancy. The longest fusion reaction to date is less than a second and required copious amounts of energy to generate the reaction to achieve the plasma for usage. Still a very long way off if ever.

-Nuclear: Read up sometime on the major sources of fissionable material and how they are in short supply. Also given the fact that we are the largest user of energy in the world. At current levels we would need to build 14,000 plants to maintain our current society. This doesn't allow for expansion. And if it takes on the average 10 years to build a plant, there is going to be a giant time lag, plus due to shortage of building materials (thank you china), it would probably take much longer than that. Plus, where do you put all that nasty nuclear waste??

-Electric vehicles: while not a energy source, is something other than a ICE (internal combustion engine). So suppose you switch the whole nation over. Explain to me how you plan to charge them and by what power source? If you say solar, wrong, because you still need fossil fuels to build the solar panels.
Currently 50 of our power needs are provided by coal.

-Wind and solar are wonderful but again take fossil fuels to manufacture.

You said, "Here's the bottom line reality. Yes, eventually fossil oil is going to run out. I doubt that that will be anywhere near as soon as a lot of people here expect. But no, it's not going to be the end of civilization. We're a resourceful species, and there are plenty of alternative ways to satisfy our energy needs, many of them even better than what we have now."

--It's never been about oil running out, it's about PEAK OIL. The point by which demand out paces output. When we hit that (and many believe we are in the early stages) gas, products, food, clothes, etc., start going up in price.

--What I think a lot of people fail to understand, and it appears as if you do too, oil is an energy carrier. Oil only stores the energy. If you can 1)show me any thing out there that currently has the energy storage capacity as oil does, I would love to see it. 2) Oil also produces an enormous amount of by products. Nothing else comes even close to this.

--Yes, many things can be made from other products. But our future will not have that one amazing energy source that will be able to fill that void that oil will leave. We will have to 1) change the way we live 2) scale back on everything 3) learn to live simpler and 4) understand that life won't be like anything we have set up in our current society.

--If there is going to be a massive die off, it will be because society hasn't prepared and like I always like to say, "stupid people have ways of solving their own problems" lol

[losthills]

37. Some people have aways feared change...

but the world keeps creaking along.

[happyslug]

49. You can NOT understand where we are going unless you understand where we came from

Thus I wrote the following paper in 2005. Its needs to be re-written, one of these days I will re-write it, but it gives you a good idea of how we got into this mess and how we will get out of this mess:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x203