It's Like the Hydra

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by AKIron
Some lifestyles definitely need changing imo but I'm not going to try to tell anyone how to live, much less how much fuel they can consume.

I think the gist of the whole point that Tigress' was trying to make, was that Hydrogen Fuel Cells, or Hydrogen ICE's (Internal Combustion Engines) might be the way to quit using foreign oil, Mainly of Middle Eastern production, and to thus be rid of any political concerns with the Arabs.

[Holden McGroin]

Using the Fisher Tropsche method of making liquid fuel from coal can do that.  South Africa and China are doing it on a production basis now, and there is a plant up and running in Wyoming now.

The USA has like 1/4 the worlds coal supply, the equivalent of several Saudi Arabias worth of energy in Coal...  another few S-As in oil shale.  We just have to be willing to pay the price and do it.

Under present technology hydrogen fuel for cars will actuallt make us less energy efficient.  Large supplies of energy are required to pull it off.

Unless you have abundant geothermal and a relatively small population with no place to go like Iceland, a hydrogen economy is presently a pipe dream.

Iceland may pull it off though.

[B@tfinkV]

When i mentioned lifestyle i wasnt so much suggesting rationing the one we have already more finding a new way to exist completely. It's the one thing that is not 'down to the individual' to change in today's world.   Revolutions against todays governments would never be won with armed fighting, although there cannot be many military people in any country that would take arms against there own families...anyhow im losing the point. the point is that we cannot change the current global first world lifestyle it must be 'allowed' by those in power and short of a full global revolution that could not work this is never going to happen.
 The other major problem in this is that us humans like it this way and have done nothing but work towards this for generations so people who keep complaining about it publicly or privately should really keep it zipped untill they themselves are living in a log cabin in the forrest eating rabbits.  
 Lets hurry the hell up and burn the rest of this multi-million year old fuel now enjoying every ozone tearing second of it, and when it's done a new and more fragrant world might emerge.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
...anyhow im losing the point.  

I'm sorry, that's about all I got out of that. For now.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
the point is that we cannot change the current global first world lifestyle it must be 'allowed' by those in power and short of a full global revolution that could not work this is never going to happen.

So you disagree with the 'think globally act locally' credo.

I'm not for full global revolution, so I think I'll go out and get a Hummer H1.

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV

 Lets hurry the hell up and burn the rest of this multi-million year old fuel now enjoying every ozone tearing second of it, and when it's done a new and more fragrant world might emerge.

Arlo this was the bit i should have highlighted for you

 yeah holden, on certain subjects i think the power to act remains with the few not the many. recycling can be done by everyone and thier grandma, changing the basis of hundreds of years worth of lifestyle sculpting and the control of the prols is down to the people who govern our nations. For instance a move to outlaw all fossil burning vehicals cannot be made law by jonny no-name.  

so, no use moaning about using all the oil,  get on with it, then we will be forced into the changes that no one alive today is prepared to make.

if you do use a 'cleaner' form of energy then thanks and more power to you, but really it's like vulching.

you can feel good about hanging back while the others rape the field but  within 10 mins the enemy is pissed off and stops coming. Everyone else has got some kills except you and now you are all in the same boat again.

and besides all that, what on earth is the good of prolonging the depletion of this fuel? Even if half the world did the good deed of switching fuels the prices of oil would just get higher and last longer.

would we not eventualy get to a stage when such a small ammount of this fuel exists that it became worthy of being a museum exhibit rather than a source of power?

use it up. work new stuff out. evolve. as quickly as possible.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
so, no use moaning about using all the oil,  get on with it, then we will be forced into the changes that no one alive today is prepared to make.

Times they are a changing.

The fastest growing sector of electrical power generation is wind.

As of this last June, the USA has 12,500 MW of installed wind power and the industry is on track to install 4,000 MW just this year (2007).  We will probably continue with 4,000 or 5,000 a year in the forseeable future.

Palo Verde Nuclear Power Station in AZ is the USA's largest with about 1,200 MW capacity, so we are building the equivalent of a couple huge nukes a year.

The wind resource of the great plains could power the USA electrical grid if it were fully developed, although losses of pushing the power down the lines doesn't allow for New York to suck wind power from Nebraska, but all the people from the rockies to the appalachins could be substantially powering off the wind.

As the cost of oil grows, wind and other non traditional power sources become more profitable and therefore more available.  Perhaps we could build H2 from the wind when the grid isn't sucking it up.

[B@tfinkV]

would you say this developement is due to an effort to conserve the remaining oil or to prepare for when the oil is gone? or both? or is it purely finacial? a business move in advance of its true need? or all three?

 I just cannot see a need to conserve something that is certainly going to run out one day, perhaps i havnt thought it through well enough.

one reason might be that the saving made by switching all cars to another fuel would enable the fuel to be used in other modes of transport land and air for an increased time frame, yet still, eventualy it will run out and a new method must be found so why prolong the use of something soon to be obsolete.

electric airliners anyone?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
would you say this developement is due to an effort to conserve the remaining oil or to prepare for when the oil is gone? or both? or is it purely finacial? a business move in advance of its true need? or all three?

I just cannot see a need to conserve something that is certainly going to run out one day, perhaps i havnt thought it through well enough.

As the fossil resource gets less abundant, the price rises.  When it gets too expensive other sources move in to fill the demand.  When the demand for oil lessens, and it will when the price rises enough, profit can be made in renewables, FT liquid fuel, nuclear, etc. the energy market will balance on a new recipe.

You don't need governmental mandates to achieve this, although tax incentives in the wind industry did push the balance point up a few years.  The best thing government can do to spur the alternates is to allow the alternates a free hand (or at least less regulated) in siting, building, permitting, licensing, tax breaks, etc.  

ie get out of the way.

[B@tfinkV]

so from what you're saying obviously the strongest reason for researching renewable fuels at present (with fossil still available) is financial.

we should maybe expect that when all the oil is gone wars will be fought over the best wind or most sunlit areas.


this all assuming that our current lifestyle remains the same over the next few hundred years.

[Holden McGroin]

All decisions are financial when you come down to it.  How much is Fido worth?  Am I going to spend 350K for an artificial heart for my rotweiler?

Of course its financial: Finance is just how you keep score in the game of life.

[B@tfinkV]

then our ever increasing self imposed devolution is set to continue long past the finite supplies of oil. If finance was to be my life's score card i would happily die right now.

At the end of the day the oppertunity of developing a new world through the end of fossil fuels will be wasted and the business machine will continue to devour freedom and nature's pleasures.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Arlo
Rationing and lifestyle change was part of the homefront during WWII. People adjust to handle a crisis. And anyone selfish or criminal enough to fight society when such measures are deemed necessary don't seem to have a firm basis to avoid prosecution when caught. So the moral excuse of not imposing on people just because you don't like to impose isn't a strong argument - even historically within American ideology.

Hi Arlo & Bat,

Conservation of energy has always been a good idea.

To that end... I moved to within 3 miles of my workplace having commuted for years with a roundtrip of 64 miles daily. My cars, over the years, averaged 30 mpg.

Doing the math approximation for commuting gasoline consumption, I burn about 1 gallon per week, 50 gallons per year, as opposed to previously burning 500 gallons per year. That equates to one order of magnitude reduction in gasoline thus crude oil consumption.

That is to say, reducing my annual commuting crude oil consumption from 1000 gallons to 100 gallons. There are 42 gallons of crude oil in a barrel and it takes about 2 gallons of crude to produce one gallon of gasoline.

Other savings are serious milage reduction thus reduced wear and tear on the car thus increasing its trade-in value, lower insurance rates, reduced risk of an accident, and savings of time otherwise spent in the car commuting.

I choose to work longer hours overall because I love my job and still get home about the same time.

That is a three year old lifestyle change I really feel good about it and so far I have consumed about 64 fewer barrels of crude oil.

TIGERESS

[Tigeress]

Going back the first post of the thread it seems Bush and, more importantly, his advisors are starting to "get it"... finally, after so many years.

Quote from first post: "In my opinion, Geo. W. Bush & Co has been playing right into Islamic Extremists' hands and has been trying to force our international friends to go along with him thus forcing our Allies to play into their hands as well.

Our Allies, appear to me, to be backing off from us because it isn't working."

See: Bush and Sarkozy declare Iran aim --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7083339.stm

Good for you, Bush. It's about dang time you started mended fences and started dropping the "my way or the highway" approach, IMV.

TIGERESS

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
If finance was to be my life's score card i would happily die right now.  

Score (relative to others) has nothing to do with happiness.

I can be happy breaking 90 for 18 holes, but a score of 88 would not make Phil Michelson a happy camper.