[zoommair]

President Bush's State of the Union pledge to end America's oil "addiction" and his tour last week of emerging energy-technology centers have touched off a national debate on how to achieve energy independence.
"The answer is pretty simple. We will never get to energy independence while we are using oil as the major fuel," said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California's Energy Institute in Berkeley.
There are ways to break America's oil addiction, experts say, but it will not be easy. Cures include stricter conservation, higher fuel-economy standards, alternative fuels made from common crops, and next-generation batteries for hybrid cars that could get more than 100 miles per gallon.
These and other options are promising, but all would require sacrifice and trade-offs. And, as important, none is yet cost competitive with oil. That is the biggest challenge to escaping America's oil-based economy. Although growing global demand has strained supplies, oil remains widely available and relatively cheap, even at today's high prices.

[CoronaWithLime]

I personally consume less and drive less due to higher oil prices. I'd be willing to take an even bigger hit if it would be worth it in the long run. I would definatly drive one of those 157MPG cars even though they are slow. Hell, turn it into a hybrid and get me 200+MPG and i'd be willing to go 70MPH max (the speed limits on most interstates anyways).

[oilfreeandhappy]

I agree with your statement that oil is still incredibly cheap. The cost definitely needs to go up before people start REALLY considering alternatives. I consider military escorts to oil shipments a subsidy for oil. There are many other similar subsidies, such as military presence, that many don't consider subsidies.
Jim
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/

[dohboi]

Even with America's abominably insufficient public transit system, much of the transportation use of oil is at least partly elastic-- most people can carpool, work from home, walk, bike...much more than they do now.

Home heating, on the other hand, is much less elastic. Most homes in Minnesota and other northern regions are heated with oil or gas. As both peak, will these regions just become uninhabitable? Can massive programs of super-insulation forstall such an outcome?

Most of the emphasis in these forums seems to be on transportation problems, but avoiding millions freezing to death needs to be an equally pressing concern.

[truecougarblue]

"I wish I knew how to quit you!"

[Caoimhan]

most people can carpool, work from home, walk, bike...much more than they do now.

I think this is debatable. None of these options come without a sacrifice... and that sacrifice is large for most people.

[dohboi]

I didn't intend to say that most could make these changes with absolutely no problem, but I do think that many people are simply in a mind set where they rule out these posibilities without really trying. Of course resistance in most people for any significant life style change in this direction is huge, and I am not optimistic about most people changing habits. But the difference for me between sacrificing convenience, time, and maybe some pounds versus sacrificing the livability of the planet is pretty clear to me and to a growing number of others.

The point is that as hard as they are to adjust, habits are in theory adjustable without major imputs of added energy and material (both of which will be in shorter and shorter supply); whereas major improvements in insulation _will_ require major inputs as well as major disruptions of our daily lives.

I'm mostly just suprized that this side of peak oil (huge swaths of the north becoming essentially uninhabitable) hasn't gotten much play on these forums (unless I'm missing a major thread).

[oilfreeandhappy]

Even with America's abominably insufficient public transit system, much of the transportation use of oil is at least partly elastic-- most people can carpool, work from home, walk, bike...much more than they do now.

Home heating, on the other hand, is much less elastic. Most homes in Minnesota and other northern regions are heated with oil or gas. As both peak, will these regions just become uninhabitable? Can massive programs of super-insulation forstall such an outcome?

Most of the emphasis in these forums seems to be on transportation problems, but avoiding millions freezing to death needs to be an equally pressing concern.

I agree that heating is as pressing a problem as transportation. Super-tight homes with heat recovery ventilators are definitely a good conservation technique. There are Geothermal techniques being employed that are promising. And today, many of us employ passive solar. Even still, homes will still require another heating source; especially as you mentioned, homes in the North. Wood burning or wood chip burning perhaps. Although somewhat inefficient, heating with electricity is an option. This will require even more power plants though. In other posts, I've talked about the importance of stored power, especially in the form of "pumping water uphill". This allow intermitent renewables to support a much larger percentage of our power plant needs.
Jim Gagnepain
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/

[whereagles]

Right now I managed to quit oil. Using the subway to go to work Oh, wait.. the subway is powered by the local coal plant.

Still, it's coal, not oil

[Doly]

I never got very addicted to oil anyway (never learned to drive). I use an electric train for commuting. Unfortunately, a lot of electricity in the UK comes from our dwindling gas supplies...

[Caoimhan]

I plan on building an Earthship. http://www.earthship.org

It uses geothermal mass to moderate temperatures, along with passive solar heating and cooling. They are ideally designed to generate most or all of their own electrical power, and make ultra-efficient use of water resources, using rainwater collection where practical.

[mgibbons19]

Those earthships are cool and all, but...

Following some of those links leads us to an "earthship subdivision." Earthship subdivisions seem to be even more remote than regular subdivisions. Isn't this promoting more sprawl? and isn't it likely to be quite isolated when driving to town is not economically feasible?

[oilfreeandhappy]

Those earthships are cool and all, but...

Following some of those links leads us to an "earthship subdivision." Earthship subdivisions seem to be even more remote than regular subdivisions. Isn't this promoting more sprawl? and isn't it likely to be quite isolated when driving to town is not economically feasible?

I am not connected to Earthship at all, but I just watched their film and read about their internship program. I agree that the subdivision is out a ways, and they even suggest having a car for the internship program, but overall, this is a quite an eco-effort. I can see some type of sustainable biodiesel or other mass transportation in the future.

The Earthship concept could be anywhere, and not necessarily in isolated subdivisions. I find it very intriguing, and I may even build one some day.
Jim Gagnepain
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/

[tawnybill]

Hi Friends,

My mother used to maintain; “If people did what they could with what they had, they’d probably find they had all they needed” Then Mick Jaeger made a fortune on it in the hit “Satisfaction” years later.

The solution may be right in front of us....

Would you be interested in a “Can-do” effort and an avenue of address as opposed to sitting and complaining about what “others should do” rather than doing something of consequence yourself?

Following is a copy of my posting under “Energy Technology” that presents such an avenue, with further info. available on my work/research on my web site.

Please consider the concept as food for thought since I am not a PhD in physics, math, or the english language, don’t let an ‘I’ that isn’t crossed or a‘t’ that isn’t dotted or numbers that don’t quite add up take away from your thinking and reasoning in terms of the potential of the concept….and with that here is the posting;


The Waste

The first thing that comes to my mind is the question that I have about most hydrocarbon combustion. Why so much waste?

Although the following example uses diesel fuel (because it and heating fuel are nearly the same thing), I see the problem as universal and it applies to any vehicle/ home heating fuel used today, including gasoline, methanol, natural gas, propane, etc. and even hydrogen.

In both a diesel engine and home heating furnace, 50% (plus or minus) of the fuel energy is wasted, on a continuous basis.

In the engine, the explosive power of the fuel is used and the heat is discarded, while in the furnace, the heat is used and the torque producing explosive power is defeated.

The specific purpose for which the fuel energy is purchased to accomplish in the one application, is discarded as worthless in the other, and vice versa, is it not?

In terms of efficiency then what is needed is a method to capitalize on the heat to produce additional torque in the vehicle which would increase fuel mileage, and alternately a method that would make use of the torque production potential defeated in the furnace to produce heat, and would increase its heating fuel efficiency also, right?

How about a similar system that improves both?
I have posted further information on how to achieve this on my website at:
< http://tawnybill.tripod.com/a2zefficenc ... index.html >

This will not resolve our Peak Oil predicament, only increase our 'interm' fuel efficiency and buy us more time. With a near immediate start by reducing GHG emissions and Acid Rain production on the very vehicle you use every day, and/or on the furnace that heats your home!

Concepts

"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein

Engineering

A good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possible. There are no prima donnas in engineering.
Freeman Dyson (b. 1923), British-born U.S. physicist, author. Disturbing the Universe, pt. 1, ch. 10 (1979).13

Cheers,
Tawny Bill.

[grabby]

I thinik we cannot see the forest because we keep crashing into the trees.

Efficiency design is not going to help us.
Conservation is not going to help us.

They both sound nice nice.

They are good objectives,
they won't help us.

Our society depends on 84 million barrels a day. if we make everything 100 percent more efficient we are still going to have a peak oil crash.

[tawnybill]

"And we stick our heads,
between our legs,
then kiss our act good-bye"
too bad eh?

[dooberheim]

It amazes me how warm a lot of people keep their houses. Before I got my woodstove, I'd keep the house between 49 and 54 in the winter (higher when it was really cold, to protect my pipes). One just puts on more clothes. You'll save money because your refrigerator will run a lot less too.

I would use less than 100 therms for heat (Nov through Mar)even in a cold winter. With the wood stove, I've used all of 7 therms all winter. It can be done. Horrible part is the gas I've saved with the stove is only maybe one or two weeks of use for the average American family.

Even without extra insulation, a quick weatherstrip jub and keeping the thermostat around 55 or so would save tremendous amounts of gas. Too many people are just too used to being warm.

DK

[tawnybill]

Congratulations on your commitment to live in the cold to save consumption, (earlier eskimos lived at even colder temperatures, or their igloos would have melted) what I propose obviously is of little consiquence for you, however infants and the elderly would be at health risk under those conditions, not to mention that I too like a warm house.

So for me and 90%+ of the poulation where applicable, this method to achieve better fuel efficiency is sensable and achiveable to maintain a comfortable house temperature and use less fuel in doing it.

Science and it's application is exploitable by us for our benifit, when using that benifit causes us consumption problems then better scientific application of the principles just makes good sense.

[JonathanR]

If GWB does nothing to artificially curb oil supply (imports), then nothing will change. I'd say he needs to do is to add an exponentially increasing (time based) tariff on imported oil and derivative commodities to have any real effect.

This would slowly wean the US off imported oil. It would also help pay down the deficit.

Political suicide though.