Economic impact (merged)

[sethJ]

Probably noone has to tell the people around here that this topic is serious and should be considered in the political process as well. I mean all presidents since Reagan (or even earlier?) have been talking about energy independence in one way or another, but not much has happend in regard to this so far. If you have a look at the numbers for the US (you can find the statistics http://www.statista.com/topics/760/united-states/ here, there is also a lot in regard to energy consumption) you can easily see that our progress has been, lets call it insufficient?

The topic has been around, but just not serious enough. I remember seeing a movie about the effect bio fuel could have as a replacement of regular fuel back in 08 (it might have been on sundance festival as well?) and a times article lately, but nethertheless there should be much more attention to this crucial topic and everything surrounding it (rail/infrastructure projects, domestic energy supply, ... you name it)

[SeaGypsy]

If we had listened to the voice of reason in the 70's instead of letting the mega-corps take over the world, we would now be approaching Shangri-La. Instead, we let greed and short term thinking dominate and we are approaching Hell in a Handbasket.

[seenmostofit]

If we had listened to the voice of reason in the 70's instead of letting the mega-corps take over the world, we would now be approaching Shangri-La. Instead, we let greed and short term thinking dominate and we are approaching Hell in a Handbasket.

The voice of reason in the 70's (known as Boomers here in the US) gave us suburban sprawl, the expectation of infinite growth, SUVs, mortgage derivatives, ENRON, the ramping up of government services to unsustainable levels (double dipping police chiefs anyone?) and just about everything else which prevented even the chance of Shangri-La. And lets face it, Shangri-La for one group (say, peace, love and dope) isn't necessarily Shangri-La to another.

[ralfy]

Related:

"Our Oil-Constrained Future"

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/ ... ned-future

[SeaGypsy]

If we had listened to the voice of reason in the 70's instead of letting the mega-corps take over the world, we would now be approaching Shangri-La. Instead, we let greed and short term thinking dominate and we are approaching Hell in a Handbasket.

The voice of reason in the 70's (known as Boomers here in the US) gave us suburban sprawl, the expectation of infinite growth, SUVs, mortgage derivatives, ENRON, the ramping up of government services to unsustainable levels (double dipping police chiefs anyone?) and just about everything else which prevented even the chance of Shangri-La. And lets face it, Shangri-La for one group (say, peace, love and dope) isn't necessarily Shangri-La to another.

B.S Shorty. The voice of reason is the voice of reason and it has no age. It was available to be heard in the 1970's. It was not heeded. Those 'boomers' who were my early teachers over 30 years ago would be most insulted to be blamed for the collective folly of their generation.

[seenmostofit]

Those 'boomers' who were my early teachers over 30 years ago would be most insulted to be blamed for the collective folly of their generation.

Let them feel insulted. Their generation gave us the attitudes, conventions, materials and ideas which landed us in the mess we are in today. Were a few of them hoping and working for something different? Maybe. DId it matter in the least? Apparently not. But it doesn't matter to them one way or another, does it? They got to live the high life while trashing the place for those who came later, pretty good deal for them, no matter how they CLAIM to feel about it.

[SeaGypsy]

I don't buy the generation blame game. The average IQ is 100 and it's possessor is highly susceptible to programming by those more intelligent and or powerful. If a psychopath convinces a bunch of dumbos to kill his mother, where lies culpability?

[seenmostofit]

I don't buy the generation blame game.

Why not?

The average IQ is 100 and it's possessor is highly susceptible to programming by those more intelligent and or powerful. If a psychopath convinces a bunch of dumbos to kill his mother, where lies culpability?

So the psychopath Boomers taught their children well, and the infection spread from there?

[vision-master]

Shorty......... lsol

[seenmostofit]

Shorty......... lsol

Sorry Vision, whatever baggage you have with (I believe he/she was referred to as "a turd that won't flush") that poster, may I recommend you go take it up with them?

[pstarr]

thirty posts and OUTED!

No computer program, parsed pattern-recognition would see Shorty coming. Only human sleuths trained in the Surreptitious Arts have the refined skills to out the troll!

[Quinny]

I don't think it is Shorty!

[Graeme]

Dump the pump: When oil will lose its lustre

PEOPLE have fretted about when the world's oil will start to run out ever since M. King Hubbert came up with the idea of "peak oil" back in the 1950s. The American geologist, who worked for Shell, pointed out that we are destined to reach a moment when oil production stops rising and goes into terminal decline. With it, the era of cheap oil that fuelled the post-war economic boom would end. The idea still provokes great debate, and many forecasters are predicting that global production will peak by the end of this decade as supplies dwindle.

Now there is a different view. A small number of analysts forecast that oil production will start to fall by 2020 - not because we are running out, but because we just won't need it.

They argue that the world will wean itself off oil voluntarily, through major advances in vehicle technology. Peak oil will not be a supply-side phenomenon brought about by shrinking reserves, but by motorists buying electric cars and conventional cars with highly efficient engines. If they are right, this shift will start the long-term transition from oil to electricity as the main transport fuel, reduce economies' vulnerability to spikes in the oil price, and cap greenhouse emissions from crude oil.

It is a bold prediction. Could it be right?

newscientist

P.S. To read the entire article, you will need to register with New Scientist. It's free; just supply an email address and password.

[Pops]

This is a story about how electric vehicles will let BAU continue into the rosy future because electricity is so cheap.

Of course the whole problem with electricity is it is just a carrier of FF energy (for the most part) no different really from unleaded.

Isn't a transition that moves us from fossil fuels delivered in one form (unleaded) to another form (electricity) like thinking we can conserve water by using a brass faucet instead of one made from steel?


You can read the story at the author's site http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=135 ... mment-1788

[TheAntiDoomer]

More hand waving from you huh pops? It's funny anytime a doom article comes out you scream from the rooftops, but when someone makes a concise case for a BAU future, you simply hand wave it away cause it doesnt say what you want.

[pstarr]

More hand waving from you huh pops? It's funny anytime a doom article comes out you scream from the rooftops, but when someone makes a concise case for a BAU future, you simply hand wave it away cause it doesnt say what you want.

He made a perfectly reasonable analogy. Electricity is still dependent on fossil fuels. I don't see how EV's will ever make a difference until we lay the infrastructure first. That means hundreds of thousands of public charging stations (or better yet battery switchout stations from Better Place and Testa) and suitable power delivery along thousands of miles interstates and to rural agriculture and mining areas.

[Pops]

So if I'm hand waving what is it you are doing? I see nothing in your post except an attack on me personally with no counter argument whatsoever. I'd call that an attempt at distraction from the facts I presented, a classic handwave.

How is this for concise?

Most of world electricity generation is fossil fueled, PEVs are maybe 20-25% primary fuel efficient (better than ICEs at 15%) but they are fossil fueled transport nonetheless and they will continue to be well into the future.



Most "renewables" are not sustainable, just waste from the current system:


So, who is hand waving, the guy with the facts or guy with the personal attacks?


Charts from 11/10
http://www.solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figu ... rket-share
Edit to turn the phrase lol

[Lore]

Thanks Pops for bringing this point of physics up. It's suprising how many of the citizenry must have either forgotten their basic science or were asleep when that was being taught. Electricity does not make electricity, that requires an energy source for its conversion and transmission. Therefore, the cost of electricity is directly related on the cost and problems of the source to generate it and support it. There is no free lunch.

[Graeme]

Except that the cars themselves can be charged by solar panels either at charging stations (e.g. here), or at home (e.g. here), or at work (e.g. Chevy Volt), or on the car itself (e.g. Fisker Karma).

[Revi]

It could work if we went to a decentralized grid. Every house could be both a consumer and a producer of energy. People could get around in small neighborhood electric vehicles. We could insulate our houses and save lots of energy. We could use much less electricity with more efficient appliances and lighting. We could live in smaller houses and fly much less. Will we? I think not. I think most people will opt for the biggest thing they can't afford. The sad thing is that we could make it work, but we won't.