Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
gnm wrote:Too true - less driving will be the save.... And to think around here they are spending hundreds of millions on upgrading the freeway system... And not even a mention of light rail or any such thing...
gnm wrote:In short I think they are overpriced feel-good greenie toyz..
As site administrator you darn well know this has been discussed several times before now. You are perpetrating an administrative sin.
I'm getting fed up with you guys with nothing new to say and others believing that the size of their posts makes what they say more likely.
Can we please have more facts and less bullshit, please?
FoxV wrote:well my hope is that out of the hybrid adventure there will be some good technilogical improvements that will either make hybrids much more fuel efficient to be worth their expense (+200 mpg)
or get electric cars going properly (not that fiasco they tried in CA). Already the battery technology is available for cheap (and powerful) electrics, all it realy needs is the manufacturing to ramp things up (and for people to get over being burned by the last electric effort)
The_Toecutter wrote:Fourth, Jevon's paradox is not a rule, but a special case that just so happens to be extremely prominent with our current economic system. People are encouraged to consume instead of save. As we are now, most who have spare money simply spend it instead of save it. That doesn't mean they will always spend. Those who grew up in the great depression are likrewise another extreme that saves instead of spends. The corrollary to Jevon's paradox provides an example based exactly on our current economic system of continuing growth. The reality, as us peak oilers understand, is that we don't have the resources for continuing and unlimited growth. Change the economic system and eliminate the need for growth, and you've made some headway with the problem of both PO and Jevon's paradox. The technology is ready, but is humanity?
The People who "encouraged to consume" are encouraged to drive cars. They are one in the same. If we continue driving cars, even energy efficient ones, it will mean resources & energy will get sucked away in the process (aka Jevon's Paradox). In our society today cars are not a means to an end but an end in itself. By that I mean cars exist for the purpose for us to devour commodities. There is no reason to expect anything different after PO. Once oil decline sets in the very idea that we should continue driving would be extremely stupid. If we our successful at maintaining traffic jams & car crashes, it would not likely be for long. And then when we are really compelled to dump cars, there will be no chance for us to do anything. Every car built is a wind turbine NOT built. Every freeway built is a hydro site NOT built. Think about it.
We would be far better off getting rid of cars so we can devote our time and resources to more important things.
dub_scratch wrote:FoxyV, when are you and other well informed peakers ever going to get it? Improvements of MPG in cars will only waste more energy and create more environmental degradation.
dub_scratch wrote:We need to get off the car treadmill if we are ever to get a grip on oil depletion.
dub_scratch wrote:It's not any fun anyway. Just ask people if they would like to drive more or drive less.
dub_scratch wrote:A 200 mpg car will mean that we will have to dump even more resources into cars, freeways, parking ramps, sprawl, tires, dealerships, etc. And those very resources will not be available for things like renewable energy systems, relocalization and sustainable agriculture.
dub_scratch wrote:If a 200 mpg car is developed and people use them they way they have in the past, then civilization is toast.
dub_scratch wrote:And as far as electric cars, well electricity has to come from somewhere. If people were to plug in their cars tomorrow then blackouts would be common or coal smoke would have to darken the sky.
dub_scratch wrote:Electric cars/ hybrid cars are a non solution but the problem. Cities where people can drive less are the best way to deal with personal transport on low energy.
Not really. Read a few more threads here in the Energy Technology forum and you will learn a lot about what is going on. There are numerous solutions that are feasible.
Google the following words: PHEV, Vectrix, biodiesel, cellulose ethanol.
Personally, I don't think it is fun to be crammed into a city with 7 million people, high crime, etc. The higher the population density is, the higher the crime rate. That lifestyle just sucks.
I'd rather have my Vectrix electric scooter and live in the suburbs.
If a 200 mpg car is developed, then biofuels easily meet our fuel demands. It has been estimated by that biofuels can meet only about 1/3 of our current fuel demand. That is often cited as the reason why biofuels are not a silver bullet. But with 200 mpg, that is an increase of approx 8x. Oops. I guess biofuels can get the job done.
And as far as electric cars, well electricity has to come from somewhere. If people were to plug in their cars tomorrow then blackouts would be common or coal smoke would have to darken the sky.
Move to Los Angles and enjoy your new urbanism lifestyle. Try Compton. I hear the schools are good there and great neighbors.
Just go thru a stack of old Popular Mechanics to see it for yourself. Oh but the DriveElectric guy wants us to trust that his techno hype will come for real this time. He's got the research in a lab somewhere to prove it!
Google these following words DriveElectric: Pemintel, EROIE, "Agricultural oil dependence", Soil degradation, water scarcity
The_Toecutter wrote:EROI is excellent for industrial hemp. It may not yield as much per acre as palm, but it can be grown on desert land unsuitable for other plants, needs no fertilizers, needs no pesticides, and yields a much higher EROI than any plant out there. Hemp also would help prevent further soil erosion, and is not water intensive like soy or canola would be. Water scarcity can be drastically reduced by lowering environmental pollution which renders unfit for consumption fresh water, and by eating less meat, which livestock is a much heavier consumer of water than food derived from plants. Cutting industrial processes by increasing efficiency also cuts water used in industrial processes.
mgibbons19 wrote:Sorry for the long post, but this is one of my pet issues, and both sides deserve a fair and respectful argument.
dub_scratch wrote:I just wish that we as a society would realize this and decided instead to skip this last dreadful step, step back, take a good look, see that we don't need this, and get rid of it. I did and I absolutely have no need for anything like a biofuel car.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests