[trinitro]

I really don't won't to burst anyone's bubble but it is time for major change in the U.S. With oil over 130 a barrel and continuing to climb why is our government getting directly involved with a hard line stance? At this point the government should be giving billion dollar tax breaks to any company that can produce non oil fuel NOW so that the back of big oil can be broken. There is no reason for the high prices other than a whole list of people are getting very rich at the countries expense. Alcohol can work as long as we don't use food products to produse alcohol(of course noone will discuss that oil has a long history controlling this country.) After hurricane charley the streets around where I live were piled high with organic waste and what did our wonderful government do with all this waste? It went to the incenerator. and trust me there was ALOT of yard debris after charlie, and wilma and dennis and catrina etc, etc, etc... just like with all natural disasters there is alot of organic debris that is just wasted. The people of the United States should be going through the roof. Fire the politicians and send them home without a job, they have allowed big business to controll every aspect of the government to the point that the government can now no longer seperate government and big business. Dig into the memory banks inside of your heads, and just for a second recall that in 2 years this country created a very detailed complex expolsive(the a-bomb) but now 65 years later we can't find a realistically priced alternative to gasoline. And another thought that comes to mind if in the 1990's we had gotten away from oil how much money would the middle east have to wage war? If the U.S. finds an viable alternative to oil do you think that the rest of the world will not follow suit? How come Our Federal government that every electric company in the U.S. to put up at least some windmills and utilise winpower to decrease the dependancy on oil and carbon based fuels for the production of electricity? Why is it not mandatory for all homeowners to have windmills to produce electricity? GET MAD it is time

[HEADER_RACK]

I don't think you have a true grasp of the problem at hand.Do some more reading and research.
If you are waiting for the government to come to the rescue, might as well get your number now for the bread lines.

[trinitro]

I don't think you have a true grasp of the problem at hand.Do some more reading and research.
If you are waiting for the government to come to the rescue, might as well get your number now for the bread lines.

I don't expect the government to do anything it is up to the people. Time to boycott oil

[eric_b]

That's just it - there is no 'non-oil fuel' that can replace oil. If there was a viable replacement - one that could could scale to replace the millions of barrels of oil we consume everyday - we'd already be on it.

This is what makes peakoil so dire. One on the 'kingpins' of the entire economy - its lifeblood, and the source of true wealth - is on the wane.

I agree with Aaron - before we hit bottom this likely means war at some point, over what's left. Well, that's already the case, why do you think the US is in Iraq and the ME? The US is going to find it increasingly difficult to continue its disproportionate consumption of the oil pie. We consume something like 25% of all oil, with only 5% of the global population. Especially now that we import something like 2/3 of the oil we need, and the economy is in freefall.

[FireJack]

I can see where you going, realistically we should be looking to replace oil but reduce the amount of energy we use. Rail systems, people not living 500 miles from where they work etc. People will have to change their lifestyles, not get angry.

[smallpoxgirl]

Time to boycott oil

Does that mean I can have your ration?

[arretium]

Welcome to peakoil.com trintro.


I agree with header_Rack. You might want to do some reading right here on the issue of oil depletion. Once you have a good grasp of that concept, start reading Montequest's alternative energy threads. Then you'll understand.

It's not the oil companies. Are they going to take the money? But of course they are. But it's *not* because of the oil companies that your gasoline is now oh so expensive. It is expensive because of you (and millions of others).

[arretium]

Welcome to peakoil.com trintro.


I agree with header_Rack. You might want to do some reading right here on the issue of oil depletion. Once you have a good grasp of that concept, start reading Montequest's alternative energy threads. Then you'll understand.

It's not the oil companies. Are they going to take the money? But of course they are. But it's *not* because of the oil companies that your gasoline is now oh so expensive. It is expensive because of you (and millions of others).

oh heck, just go straight over to
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

He explains the problem in simple terms. And don't give smallpox your ration, she's a wannabe doctor and doesn't need it. Instead, just give it to me.

[trinitro]

That's just it - there's is no 'non-oil fuel' that can replace oil. If there was a viable replacement - one that could could scale to replace the millions of barrels of oil we consume everyday - we'd already be on it.

This is what makes peakoil so dire. One on the 'kingpins' of the entire economy - its lifeblood, and the source of true wealth - is on the wane.

I agree with Aaron - before we hit bottom this likely means war at some point, over what's left. Well, that's already the case, why do you think the US in in Iraq and the ME?

your telling me that in 2 years the U.S. can produce but we cannot find an alternative to oil, bull. Oil is entrenched in our society and our country is being run by an oilman who couldn't even make an oil company profitable and it went belly up. And who do you think George rubs shoulders with, his oil buddies. And of course we are in Iraq because of oil it has nothing to do with the WMD that we were lied to about.(by the way Mr. Bush should be tried and hung for war crimes) The oil companies have us over a barrel. Even if you found an alternative to oil that wasn't supplied by the oil companies it wouldn't be sold by the oil companies unless they could profit as they are right now? But there are a lot of things this country can do to relieve the problem and it takes our government to do them(you know like electric high speed trains, ground the fuel pig airlines, solar and wind generation for electricity, forget nuclear no means of disposing the waste that is safe etc.etc.etc....)

[eric_b]

You need to do your homework. None of those alternatives can scale to replace oil.

Yes I'm telling you there's no substitute for oil. It's the best energy source there is, that's why we're using it. Deal.

Reality is telling us there's going to be less energy in our future, and this is what people will have to adapt to. It will affect everyone eventually, we're going to have to adapt, it will be a big change. We're not going to be able find a substitute which will let us continue 'business as usual'

Bye.

[smallpoxgirl]

The oil companies have us over a barrel.

The oil companies have us over a barrel like a crack dealer has a junkie over a barrel. No they're not helping the situation, but we've got an addiction problem of our own that is not going to be solved by blaming them.

Are there alternatives? Yes. All of them involve making do with less, and therein lies the rub. We don't want less. We want more. But less is what we're going to get. So we flail, and blame, and search for a messiah to save us.

[trinitro]

I can see where you going, realistically we should be looking to replace oil but reduce the amount of energy we use. Rail systems, people not living 500 miles from where they work etc. People will have to change their lifestyles, not get angry.

but the people need to get angry we are all like puppets on strings at the whim of rich corporations, who inevitably control our lives because they are financially powerful enough to lobby our politicians. You can see the proof of this everyday. I know the people of New york needed help after 9-11 but there alot of other issues about our lives that need just as much attention, but don't even get a second look. Yet year after year we keep putting the same politicians back into office(you know Kennedywho has been therre for forty years where are the term limits.) And everyone talks about how much the price of oil has been held down and doesn't meet inflation that is a bunch of hoopla, my salary doesn't meet inflation either.

[dinopello]

The importance and irreplaceability of oil in our current way of life is why that nuclear engineer president we had back in the 70's declared the Carter Doctrine.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

-Jimmy Carter
State of the Union 1980

[trinitro]

The oil companies have us over a barrel.

The oil companies have us over a barrel like a crack dealer has a junkie over a barrel. No they're not helping the situation, but we've got an addiction problem of our own that is not going to be solved by blaming them.

Are there alternatives? Yes. All of them involve making do with less, and therein lies the rub. We don't want less. We want more. But less is what we're going to get. So we flail, and blame, and search for a messiah to save us.

other countries use a much higher combination of ethanol and gasoline Why can't the U.S.? It doesn't make any sense to continue to flog a dead horse, bottom line we need to eliminate our dependancy on oil now not later. It is time for the nay sayers to stop talking about how we need oil so badly and figure out how to get away from it and that will take our government because the oil companies have no intention of cutting their profits. And remember we made a nuclear bomb in 2 years took a lot of research and alot money but at the same time how many billions have we spent trying to secure oil in Iraq? Seems like if we had spent some of that money on research rather than killing off our soldiers there might be an answer by now.

[Cashmere]

I really don't won't to burst anyone's bubble

Ahaaahaahaaaaahaaaa.

Holy shit, I almost wet myself reading that line.

The Donkey Shit Eater doesn't want to burst MY Bubble.



You see? He doesn't want to burst MY bubble.

I hope Daniel Day Lewis will forgive me.

Hey Donkey Shit Eater . . .

I burst YOUR bubble. I burst your Bubble. Your bubble is here, and here is my pin . . . it's a long pin . . . a very long pin, and I . . .BURST . . . YOUR .. . . . . BUBBLE.

[Don't bully me Cashmere].

Say it DSE, say it . . .

"I'm a Pollyanna, and alternatives are a Superstition."

Come on DSE, like your congregation is sitting right here . . . your congregation of fat, ignorant, Donkey Shit Eaters, just like you. Scream it DSE, so that they know you mean it . . .

"I'm a Pollyanna, and alternatives are a Superstition."

Donkey Shit Eater,

I

BURST


<b><i><u>YOUR</b></i></u>


BUBBLE.

On another note, fellow PO members, while it used to be humorous to have a NEO pulled from his womb and dropped here for us to gently nurse to health,

. . . is anybody other than me dreading having these DSEs in complete denial come barging into this site with soon to be daily posts of . . .

"Gas is 8 dollars a gallon because Big Oil is greedy - you're all wrong, and there's plenty of oil."

It's like the kid who walks halfway across town to tell the girl in his class, "I don't like you."

This is going to suck.

[The_Toecutter]

Why must we endure $135 oil? Because we currently have no alternatives to it that are being used in high volume quantities.

Why don't we have these alternatives? The technology isn't the problem, and in high volume, niether are economics.

The problem is politics.

$4 a gallon isn't anything yet. No, this could get so bad that farmers don't have diesel for their tractors and that the grocery store shelves go empty. Transportation will become the least of our worries in that scenario.

Depending on who you cite and what year the statistic is from, oil consumption accounts for roughly 40-45% of US oil consumption. Electric cars were able to achieve ranges of 200+ miles per charge since the 1990s. Consumers wanted them, even then. Because of the actions of the US government, the auto industry, and the oil industry, this transportation alternative is not available to us. Read more in the link below:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8972.html

If you generate your own electrity with wind and solar at your own home, you have the capacity to be completely energy independent from corporations because you can plug in an electric car and charge it with energy you make yourself, and they do not like this and neither do the tax hungry governments of G8 nations who make more money in oil tax revenues than OPEC makes in profit. The government wants its cut of the oil profits too.

We could also have 80+ mpg cars with no compromises to the consumer, if the auto industry would make them. They don't want to. Read about some relatively modern examples here, some of which have been sold overseas:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic24763.html

However, we could have had 60+ mpg midsize cars and small wagons with no compromises to the consumer since the 1970s, if the auto industry would have built them. Look up the Volvo LCP 2000(1983, 86 mpg highway, 0-60 mph in ~10 seconds) you could survive a head on collision at over 45 mph with one), Viking sports cars from the Vehicle Research Institute at Western Washington University(some of them did 170+ mph and exceeded 50 mpg highway in the 1970s!), Renault EVE+(1980s), Peugeot VERA+(1980s), Renault/Peugeot ECO 2000 cars(1980s), Renault Vesta(1980s, over 100 mpg, station wagon, capable of 85 mph), GM Ultralite(1990s, 80+ mpg, 0-60 mph in 7.8 seconds, 135 mph top speed, seats 4), Toyota AVX cars(1990s), GM Precept(2000), Dodge ESX3(2000), Ford Prodigy(1999), ect.

We could stop subsidizing the trucking industry so that cheaper rail would again be used, but industry frowns on that because of lower profit margins. This would also greatly reduce road maintenance(and the costs/oil used to keep them working, but still less than 1% of oil consumption), since the average 18-wheeler accounts for thousands of times more roadwear than a passenger car or SUV.

We had a very good mass transit system in the US in the first half of the 20th century. You didn't need a car, even in the suburbs. You could hop on a trolley and go where you wanted to. As a result, only 1 of 3 driving age Americans owned a car from the late 1920s to early 1940s. What happened? People weren't spending enough money to our government's liking, and our government decided it was best to force us to spend money by allowing the auto and oil industry to tear it all down so where we couldn't get anyhwere without a car, make a huge profit for these industries(growing the economy), and recieve some of it themselves in the form of increased road taxes and fuel taxes. Then the government subsidized suburbia while penalizing city dwellers to coerce Americans into spending more money, coupled with a propaganda campaign in the 50s assuring americans that it wqas patriotic to buy a house in the suburbs. All of this was unneccessary and Americans were content with what they had. In some cities, there were riots when the mass transit was torn down, but our government was in the pockets of industry.

Wind energy could realistically account for about 20% of US electricity consumption factoring in variations in weather patterns and lack of reactive power generated and inherent instability in the grid when these are used, but even though they are cheaper per kWh thanh coal to the consumer if done in areas suited to it, they have less profit margins than coal per kWh sold. This was as of 2006, but perhaps that is changing because more and more of them are going up around the U.S.; we could have done this in the 1990s though and have the utility industry take a hit in the profits a little.

The airline industry's lobbying has prevented high speed electric rail systems from being built in the U.S., air travel of which accounts for 12% of U.S. oil consumption. Now the industry can't stay afloat on its own since 911 and our government keeps on subsidizing them while arguing that electric rail systems have no right to exist since they can't immediately operate on their own unbsubsidized!

Industrial hemp can be used to make diesel, and actually has a positive EROEI and needs no fossil fuel inputs to grow, but thanks to lobbying by DuPont, Hearst, Standard Oil, and the like in the 1930s, it cannot be grown in the U.S. without threat of arrest. Today, the oil industry, pharmaceutical industry, and similar would have the most to lose from it being grown. You can even make car bodies with this stuff; Henry Ford did so with a Model A prototype. Realistically, perhaps 10% of U.S. oil consumption can be replaced with hemp biofuels without turning the remaining untouched sections of the US into a giant swath of farmland(it can be grown in deserts and even harvested feral).

But our government, sucking up to corporate interests, pursues 'solutions' such as corn ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells, and shale oil that are not viable. Why? Because our government doesn't really want to reduce oil consumption. Your average American does, but is uneducated, so to keep your average American happy, our government makes it LOOK like they are doing something. The government doesn't want the GDP to drop. If we go to alternatrives, it would drop like crazy, and most of the drop would be in the money earned by the top 1%. The government ceters to this economic group, and not to us.


The technology to ameliorate most of this crisis has been here, it works even better in some aspects compared to oil, and if in similar production quantities and if you remove subsidies from the equation for oil and these alternatives, the alternatives would be cheaper! I say this as an engineer who understands how these things work, and not some conspiracy nut(even if some may perceive me as such). We really did have a set of viable solutions that would have bought us at least another 30+ years to figure out how to eliminate the rest of the oil consumption from our society, and it has been robbed from us.

Why?

We'd spend a lot less. Lower GDP, lower profits for the top 1%, less taxes for big goverenment, less excuses for war, less handouts for the politicians, and most importantly, no crisis... IN A CRISIS THE OIL INDUSTRY WILL MAKE THE MOST POSSIBLE PROFIT AND THE GOVERNMENT COULD ISSUE THE MOST DRACONIAN LEGISLATION POSSIBLE. Oil company profits will increase as oil keeps going higher, and they want things that way. This could adequately explain a motive for Chevron-Texaco keeping the NiMH battery from use in electric cars.

Unfortunately, this crisis is very real, but because of the stalling of alternatives while the oil was still plentiful, it is also safe to say that this crisis has also been engineered. If we wait too long, it will be irreversible, and that's precisely where the elite wants things. The rich who can afford to invest in oil and who run industries in the auto/oil/defense areas are getting even richer because of it, while fat, grubby politicians pocket their handouts for the next campaign. Post peak oil, the middle class will be gone and they will be stuck with thge gas guzzlers they have because they won't have the money to get anything else once they are jobless. The rich will keep on consuming; there will be even more available for them.

The top 1% account for over 30% of the world's resource consumption and own more than 40% of the wealth. The bottom 90%, which still includes half of the world's middle class, consume less than 30% of the world's resources!

Joe Sixpack is not as much of a problem as you should be led to believe.

The clock is ticking. We're probably already out of time. Many say we have only ourselves to blame, but we were not in control of our own government or its attitude towards big business either for the last few decades. Joe Sixpack may have rowed their canoe up shit creek with their mindless consumption(thanks to Joe Sixpack not having any real freedom, mindlessly spending money on crap he didn't need was all he had), but the elite of society threw our paddle overboard.

If this crisis becomes extremely severe to the point that Americans are starving, it should be our sworn duty to shoot the bastards who have gotten us in this mess by using legislation and manipulation of money to do it. Unfortunately, they've got themselves sitting pretty with their own private bunkers, the largest military force the world has ever seen(and absolutely no restraints about using it on their own people if it ever came to it), and a burgeoning surveillance society to keep Joe sixpack in line if things get that bad.

Sooner or later, Joe Sixpack will feel that it won't be too early to shoot the bastards.

[trinitro]

The oil companies have us over a barrel.

The oil companies have us over a barrel like a crack dealer has a junkie over a barrel. No they're not helping the situation, but we've got an addiction problem of our own that is not going to be solved by blaming them.

Are there alternatives? Yes. All of them involve making do with less, and therein lies the rub. We don't want less. We want more. But less is what we're going to get. So we flail, and blame, and search for a messiah to save us.

other countries use a much higher combination of ethanol and gasoline Why can't the U.S.? It doesn't make any sense to continue to flog a dead horse, bottom line we need to eliminate our dependancy on oil now not later. It is time for the nay sayers to stop talking about how we need oil so badly and figure out how to get away from it and that will take our government because the oil companies have no intention of cutting their profits. And remember we made a nuclear bomb in 2 years took a lot of research and alot money but at the same time how many billions have we spent trying to secure oil in Iraq? Seems like if we had spent some of that money on research rather than killing off our soldiers there might be an answer by now.

Oh and by the way if we stop buying oil from the mideast will they still have money to wage war? Probably not and most of the terrorist operations of the middle east are funded by oil.

[trinitro]

The oil companies have us over a barrel.

The oil companies have us over a barrel like a crack dealer has a junkie over a barrel. No they're not helping the situation, but we've got an addiction problem of our own that is not going to be solved by blaming them.

Are there alternatives? Yes. All of them involve making do with less, and therein lies the rub. We don't want less. We want more. But less is what we're going to get. So we flail, and blame, and search for a messiah to save us.

other countries use a much higher combination of ethanol and gasoline Why can't the U.S.? It doesn't make any sense to continue to flog a dead horse, bottom line we need to eliminate our dependancy on oil now not later. It is time for the nay sayers to stop talking about how we need oil so badly and figure out how to get away from it and that will take our government because the oil companies have no intention of cutting their profits. And remember we made a nuclear bomb in 2 years took a lot of research and alot money but at the same time how many billions have we spent trying to secure oil in Iraq? Seems like if we had spent some of that money on research rather than killing off our soldiers there might be an answer by now.

Oh and by the way if we stop buying oil from the mideast will they still have money to wage war? Probably not and most of the terrorist operations of the middle east are funded by oil.

[HEADER_RACK]

The oil companies have us over a barrel.

The oil companies have us over a barrel like a crack dealer has a junkie over a barrel. No they're not helping the situation, but we've got an addiction problem of our own that is not going to be solved by blaming them.

Are there alternatives? Yes. All of them involve making do with less, and therein lies the rub. We don't want less. We want more. But less is what we're going to get. So we flail, and blame, and search for a messiah to save us.

other countries use a much higher combination of ethanol and gasoline Why can't the U.S.? It doesn't make any sense to continue to flog a dead horse, bottom line we need to eliminate our dependancy on oil now not later. It is time for the nay sayers to stop talking about how we need oil so badly and figure out how to get away from it and that will take our government because the oil companies have no intention of cutting their profits. And remember we made a nuclear bomb in 2 years took a lot of research and alot money but at the same time how many billions have we spent trying to secure oil in Iraq? Seems like if we had spent some of that money on research rather than killing off our soldiers there might be an answer by now.

Yes lets use our food to make our fuel! Not even going to get into the EROEI of it. Price of corn is going up,up,up but better to drive it rather than eat.
You might want to read the Hirsch report on peak oil and the time frames it takes to transition from oil.
Never heard any complaining on the oil companies when oil was going for $15 dollars a barrel and they were barely making it.

[katnipkid]

Let's face it, we are all joe sixpack in some way. We have all consumed beyond just what is necessary.
So, what are all of you actually doing to be less dependent on oil, even if it is cheaper and easier to just be a part of the consumerist culture?