Contemplating disaster vs trying to do something to prevent or

[JohnWxy]

at least alleviate it.

Some spend time predicting disaster and inevitable drastic changes in our way of life do to the inadequacy of the fossil fuel supply. In my opinion, the situation is dire (re Global Warming). But I do not think we have the option to do nothing except wring our hands and wail. I think there are things that can be done. YEs, they may not avert disaster, but I would rather try and perhaps avoid the dire consequences of doing nothing at all.

As to the reduction of dependency on fossil fuels, and the attendant issues of Global Warming, renewables will provide some relief. Predictions vary, but most experts are expecting Fuel Cell cars to be practical in 20 to 30 years. Fuel Cell cars should eliminate the use of oil for cars (heavy applications like trucks, not so - leave that to ehtanol and bio-diesel). But rather than wait till Fuel Cell cars are developed we need to act now.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has predicted that ethanol can meet 30% of the gasoline demand (I don't know if energy crops such as switchgrass were included in this estimate). Switchgrass is several times as productive as corn for ethanol, requires little to no fertilizer and virtually no pesticides, and it grows on land which is marginal (at best) for food agriculture (this means new additional area will be added to that producing ethanol crops). Also, I doubt that this estimate took into account that FFVs can be designed to take advantage of the higher octane of ethanol (SAAB 9-5 Bio-Power gets just as good as mileage on ethanol85 as when it is using gasoline) by using compouter controlled turbo, or super-charging. This would increase the 30% figure a bit(possibly to as much as 37% - if ORNL estimate just used the energy equivalence of ethanol to gasoline without considering the possibility of optimising engine design for the higher octane of ethanol). Hybrid vehicles, though expensive will continue to be developed and prices will come down in time. Combining hybrid technology with ethanol we could see a 50 - 60% reduction in demand for gasoline (no, this is NOT 100%, but it's better than doing NOTHING). Bio-diesel will further reduce demand for oil for transportaion and heating and some industrial processes - how much I do not know. But the total reduction of all above could be 70-75%. That's not perfect but it is significant. By the way, the crops that are grown for ethanol, while they are growing they are taking Carbon Dioside OUT of the atmosphere. This is something no fossil fuel can do (well, it did it, but it was millions of years ago).


Now on the subject of oil supply shortages due to human (terrorist activities) or natural disasters (another hurrican season like 2005) we can expect to get a supply shortage in the next 3 to 5 yrs . What the odds are nobody knows but realistically, I think it's probably from 50% to a 100% chance. That is why we need to double production of ethanol as quickly as possible - to provide some protection from a disruption of supply of say 5 - 8%. Without some protection against this we will experience a serious recesssion which will put many out of work and not help out our economy. Ethanol, which we are currently producing, provides the most economical and quickest way to provide this short term protection against supply disruption.

Beyond that we should be aggressively developing cellulosic ethanol (practical within 5 yrs), bio-diesel (practical right now) and even hybrid technology (I only hope we have thoroughly thought out the environmental ramifications of the production and disposal of those batteries). Also, aggressive promotion of increased efficiency of all vehicles and powered appliances shouldn't be neglected.

We may not be able to replace all the oil but we should certainly try to reduce our use of it for national security reasons, economic reasons as well as of course, Global Warming.

I don't think doing nothing is an option we can afford.

A note on the SAAB 9-5 Bio-Power FFV:

BioPower models make up a staggering 60% of all sales of the Saab 9-5 range in Sweden. 400 cars alone have already been bought by the car rental giant Avis, and Hans Larsson, Director of Procurement at Avis Sweden, was enthusiastic about their purchase:

“The flexibility of the Saab 9-5 BioPower also makes it far more practical to use when compared to some hybrid and CNG-powered cars we have tried."

OH, if only the American car manufacturers would make their FFVs like Saab does (SAAB is owned by GM!). Then anybody buying a FFV (at no extra cost over a regular car) could get just as good as mileage on ethanol 85 as when they were using gasoline. But when using Ethanol 85 they would be reducing GHGs by 85%!! But that would mean getting serious about reducing GHGs and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuel. ...And who wants that, certainly not Dick "Quick Draw" Cheney.

[eppur_se_muova]

1. Well, there are some posters in this DG who ENJOY hand-wringing.

I'd rather look for the good developments and PUBLICIZE them, even if they haven't been fully worked out and polished to a fare-thee-well. There was a time when petroleum technology hadn't been worked out, either, but with money, ingenuity, and hard work it was built into one of the biggest industries EVER.

There are companies right now investing in all sorts of alternatives, and even BUSINESS commentators are talking about the investment potential in very positive ways. These things are a lot closer to market than most people realize. See this article about Xethanol (xethanol.com), an American company that is using fermentation technology to produce ethanol from various wastes:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/08/magazines/fsb/nextlittle_xethanol/index.htm?cnn=yes

And Iogen, from another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=42228&mesg_id=42320

[GOPBasher]

3. You're right about that, but what concerns me is

the lack of infrastructure for any of this. Yeah, I'm sure ethanol or fuel cells or electric cars or various hybrids of all of these are very viable. But, we can't replace all the cars in the country by tomorrow. Just about all of the automobiles out there right now run on gas. How long will it take for the the car companies to primarily make cars that run on these alternative fuels? And then how long will it take for the American people to replace a substantial percentage of the vehicle fleet? And how long will it take for gas stations to become "fuel stations" that offer fuel cells or ethanol right next to gasoline?

So, the technology is there. But now it will take a long time to use it to a sufficient degree.

Also, we don't have the infrastructure for mass transit, such as trains. That would take a long time to develop as well. So, this makes conservation that much tougher. Although, Americans would be able to conserve just by eliminating unnecessary travel. But of course we won't do that, we never do.

I'm no doomer here, by the way, but I just think that a prolonged recession is inevitable while we build the infrastructure to use these alternative fuels.

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Most gas stations have pumps with 3 grades of fuel, sometimes diesel too.

Ethanol is one more grade; same old same old.

We used to have mass transit. Miles of track were torn up when the local commuter lines were bought out by GM and other auto companies. See the documentary "Taken for a Ride". With Bush** cronies running things it will stay that way. Only a Democrat would fund mass transit properly.

Old cars have to be gradually replaced anyway. It's called "phaseout", and it happens with EVERY technology, just on different time scales. Try finding parts for a car from the 70's, they're basically junk now.

These are all perfectly forseeable problems, and solutions to these problems are just the sort of things that people come up with all the time -- often earning a profit in the process. It's the ones who won't change that end up with a busted company. There's nothing here to dread, just getting on with life.

[4dsc]

20. Ethanol required different pumps

If your talking about putting E85 into a gas station, they require special tanks and handling. That's called INFRASTRUCTURE and its not here. The State of Iowa is trying to force people to use E85 and getting into the business too. Bad idea all around..

[JohnWxy]

12. Any car that runs on gas can use ethanol 15 (15% ethanol).

We could require, yes require, oil companies to make ethanol 15 widely available. Every car running on ethanol 15 would be cutting it's gasoline consumption by about 12-13% (without turbo-charging or super-charging you cannot optimize for the higher octane of ethanol so you do lose a bit in terms of gas mileage (a couple percent for E15). With a program to boost ethanol production we can keep the price down even as demand rises. I think if people could find Ethanol15 they would use it, just to help with the importing of foreign oil situation.

There are about 5 million FFVs on the road right now. Ford and GM are cranking them out in pretty big numbers now (they're not waiting on fossil fuel Cheney to push for this). They do not cost any more than a regular gas-only car.

Lack of infrastructure is a problem and that is why I urge all to email and call for a national intiative to expand availability and production capacity of ethanol. We should be shooting for doubling ethanol production in 4 yrs. At the same time, push ahead aggressively with development of cellulosic ethoanol. THis should get the kind of emphasis that Kennedy gave the Man to the Moon project - and its' actually more important than that project (and I'm a big supporter of space exploration - if we can afford it. But first things first!).

You are absolutely right to point out how long does it take to retool, as it were, the automobile fleet. This is one of my points about hybrid cars. How long will it take to have hybrid cars up to a significant part of the entire fleet. Not everybody buys a new car every year. That's why I say ethanol, short term, is the quickest , and cheapest (hybrid cars cost thousands extra) way to start reducing our use of fossil fuels for cars and trucks - and provide a degree of insurance against a disruption of the oil supply when it comes - and count on it, come it will.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x42789

[Odin2005]

2. This is why the PO doomers scare me.

They are so convinced that the end is nigh that they'll turn it into a self-fullfilling prophecy when they start going survivalist when the post-PO recession hits.

[bananas]

5. I agree with you on that. nt

[4dsc]

6. Doomers or realist's

Oh why do they call us doomers?? I prefer the term realist. I believe that the future is not very bright with less oil and nobody has convinced by otherwise.. Our society and way life is built around oil, an idea that is lost on many people. And when the oil becomes less available in a big way, and yes its going to happen, its going to change everything, IMHO! To what degree its going to change we can argue about until the cows come home as nobody can predict the future.. But its going to change. Will there be a Die-Off, who knows. Will there be chaos in the streets only time will tell.. Will I need to find the latest survival skill in the near future, I hope not..

I find it funny sometimes that people who believe we can change simply by using "alternative" are the naive ones.. I call is the Jiminy Cricket syndrome.. I believe they are in denial about peak oil and its ramifications.. I don't not believe for second, and I'm not alone on this, that there is no viable alternative to oil, on the scale we currently use oil.. NONE!

But the fact remains that peak oil is upon us and as a society, if we do not change, mother nature will make us change..

[Boomer]

8. Another form of denial

Some people consider writing a will and arranging for a cemetary plot to be "morbid", while others consider it to be a practical response to reality.

Societal upheaval is the inevitable result of the short-term political policies of industrialized nations that are heavily dependent on cheap oil. The transition to other forms of energy will not be smooth, even under the best of circumstances, and so far we're doing nothing to get above "worst" of circumstances.

What is so outrageous about stating the obvious? Or about admitting that many aspects of the future are now beyond our control? At the very least, I'm psychologically prepared for the fallout, which is more than I can say for most of the people around me.

Speaking of people around me, I live in a neighborhood where many families are lucky if they can scrape together a few hundred dollars to buy a used car that will run for a year or two more. Many of them rent, so their heating bills are sky-high; the landlords have no motivation to even insulate these houses, much less install new energy-saving water heaters. Most of the major appliances -- refrigerator, AC, stove, washing machine -- are hand-me-downs from family or bought at a garage sale. So again, forget new energy saving features.

A good third of the homes are owned by very elderly couples or widows, and many of these houses are in need of basic maintenance and repair. Even when the owners have the funds for the projects, there are no reliable contractors to do the work.

These are not people who can jump on the new energy bandwagons. Their lives are focused on getting through the next day, not the next decade. Nothing short of a sweeping state or federal level program of housing renewal could connect my neighbors to new technologies for heating their homes and keeping their lights running, much less providing them with transportation.

[JohnWxy]

14. I leave predicting the future (or resigning yourself to any extrapolation)

to the psychics and prognosticators (doing nothing, I contend, is not a healthy adjustment or a constructive reality based mind-set). I don't have much patience with philosophizing or metaphysical musings. I do support taking action, properly informed with the facts. I do not support giving up without at least trying. Alternative fuels are just part of the equation. Fuel Cell cars offer a very promising technology for the future. They will not use any fossil fuel , or alternative fuels. Wind power, already the cheapest power available, has great potential. Wind turbines can operate hydrolysis plants when power demand is reduced (over-night) and generate the hydrogen needed for fuel cell cars. Solar power also has enormous potential.

I don't pretend to know what the final outcome will be but I do know your predictions will most likely be accurate if we continue to do nothing at all: the story of Tommy theTurd

[4dsc]

21. The “Jiminy Cricket Syndrome,

I believe Kunstler put is best in an interview when he stated:

http://www.energybulletin.net/10346.html

Kunstler’s main criticism was what he called the “Jiminy Cricket Syndrome,” that is, the idea that “If you wish upon a star,” the energy problem will be resolved.

One example of this is the idea that new technology will solve energy shortages, but Kunstler said there is little evidence to suggest that technology is at a point where it can make a huge contribution to the problem.

He was also critical of what he called the “Las Vegasization of America,” the idea that one can get something for nothing. He called it a “childish idea,” using the example of hydrogen as a renewable energy source. One of his slides had the title, “There will not be a hydrogen economy.”

Kunstler said that cities will have to get smaller and that communities will have to be more self-sufficient and rely less on big chain stores like Wal-Mart and Target. He said that suburban land will need to be used for agricultural uses, and that there will be a rise in the small, privately-owned shops.

The first step to improving and downscaling America is to improve the countries railroad system, he said. Kunstler said it was a goal that is reasonable and a great place to start. He said that a greater use of trains to transport goods would be an excellent way to start conserving.

[Skeptor]

16. As ever it has been thus. Technological 'fixes' alone won't save the

situation, since they depend upon the very 'growth economy' that has brought us to our present predicament. We have to reorganize the way we live, readjust our expectations, and reorder our economic structures, if we are to have a hope of living through, let alone mitigating the effects of climate change.

The first will include learning to live without total freedom of transportation by personal vehicle, and triple-packed, triple-transported, processed foodstuffs in nineteen flavour varieties.

The second will mean finding fulfilment in being astemious and contributing to environmental regeneration.

The latter entails selectively stripping back democratic capitalism so that those who hold power and who enjoy the most economic freedom are those whose actions are most likely to be beneficial. That probably won't include handing the keys to the presidency (assuming a presidency per se remains viable) to imbeciles and criminals with investments in the oil industry and war profiteering, or allowing exhibitionistic know-nothings (entertainers)to sprawl themselves across square kilometres of real-estate and cruise around in mile-wide SUVs.

O, and it probably means surrendering dreams of empire.

[phantom power]

7. This hand-wringer will attempt to explain himself with an analogy...

Suppose I've got a friend, Joe, who is 60 years old. One day, we're talking about the future, and he mentions to me "Well, Phantom (Joe has only ever seen me in my superhero costume), I'm preparing myself for retirement!" And I say "Hey, that's great Joe, how's it going?" And he says "Real well! So far I've saved $10,000, and I'm putting $50/month into my 401k. I'm planning to retire the minute I'm 65!"

Well, what do I say to Joe? Unless he wins the lottery in the next 5 years, he's not going to last more than about a year on his 401k. Technically, every $50 bucks he puts into that 401k is better than nothing, but it's not really going to change his situation, which is that he's screwed around about the time he turns 66.

My best advice for Joe would be "Man, you've got to try and figure out how to get at least 1000 bucks a month into that 401k, and if you can keep working until you're 70, maybe you can retire." But can he actually pull that off? Maybe, but the odds aren't really in his favor.

So, yeah, every hundred megawatts or so of solar power is a hundred megawatts better than nothing. But my best advice is, if we don't find a way to deploy many gigawatts a year of fossil-replacement energy, we're going to be in trouble.

I don't really begrudge anybody their optimism, but I don't share it.

(PS, not that it matters, but Joe happens to be a sort of composite character based on some actual people I know)

[JohnWxy]

15. THen I would suggest you start 'campaigning' for just such a commitment.

Wind power potential for the U.S. is equal to 1.5 times the total current demand. Wind power is the cheapest source of energy. If wind farms were allowed to be financed the same as utilities finance their coal and gas fired plants the cost of wind would go down by 40%! Future developments in Wind Turbines promise more power from lower wind speeds - increasing the total potential from wind. I do believe one-day fuel cell cars will be a reality. They will operate without fossil fuel. Wind farms will provide the hydrogen for fuel-cell cars by hydrolysis.

Optimistic? I don't try to predict the future. Except to say if we do nothing then you can be sure the future looks very bleak. Will all our efforts be for nought? I don't know, but I'm not gonna stop trying. That's not an option as far as I am concerned. (I guess there is a degree of hopefulness there).

[phantom power]

19. I sometimes ponder what kind of campaign could or should be conducted.

It seems like we already have such a campaign in the Apollo alliance. In terms of their platform, it seems just right, but if they've had any actual impact I'm not aware of it. They send me a lot of emails, but what energy decisions have they influenced?

I don't know if I blame them. In a country like ours where energy is privatized, it's hard to get much traction. Who do I write a letter to? Congress? Maybe, but they don't exert any direct authority over energy decisions. In fact, these days the exact opposite is clearly true. Energy companies tell Congress what to do, not the other way around. I might as well write my letters to Ken Lay.

It's one thing to "think globally act locally," but when it comes to energy production, the decisions aren't that local, unless you can afford your own solar installation. Things that the average joe can do locally generally run in the vein of conservation. Ride a bike, weatherize the house, turn down the thermostat, buy CFL bulbs, etc. Those things matter too, but they don't produce wind farms.

[IronLionZion]

9. How many times in history did they think the world was going to end?

And did the world end?

PO is coming. And it's better to research new energy sources or at least buy time until we find something better. Doomsaying will accomplish what exactly?

Keep in mind that even if we can't fucking get anywhere without oil, we'll still have electricity for our buildings. The US is the Middle East of coal.

[phantom power]

10. A couple comments...

For one thing, we have at least two very big problems coming our way: one is peak oil, and the other is climate change. If we cleverly avoid peak oil by burning enormous amounts of coal, we will just turn climate change from an already-bad problem into an even-worse problem.

You've probably noticed from reading this forum, but there are all manner of things happening right now, that haven't ever happened in recorded human history. Greenland is melting. The ice caps are disappearing. Aquifers are disappearing. The entire planet is full of 6.5 billion humans dependent on industrial agriculture, and rates of water-use that are not currently being supported by rainfall in all the right places.

Maybe we'll solve those enormous problems, maybe we won't, but I'm not sure what history has to say about any of it.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. History taps you on the shoulder...

...and points to Easter Island.

[Skeptor]

13. The difference being that back then all they had was ignorance and

religion (to the extent that these may be considered separate categories).

[phantom power]

17. Have you looked at who's in charge lately... :-)

[Skeptor]

18. I try not to - it's just too horrible.

[Kolesar]

22. Green your diet

Quit eating meat