[mojo2]

For weeks I've been swimming amidst dozens of citations and quotes and links and so on re: oil and the problems with the alternative energy options currently on the table.

It's not easy wrapping one's brain around all this and keeping it all organized unless you make it a point to do so.

Anyway, there are a few posters who have aggressively lobbied for the viability of hydrogen as an alternative source of energy that will save our collective bacon.

Everything I've read has suggested hydrogen is NOT the answer. But every time these pesky posters brought up their belief it only made me frustrated and I have never been able, to my own satisfaction, been able to elaborate or even cite quotes or links that explain WHY hydrogen is such a "NOT LONG TERM SOLUTION."

Well, this is what I have wanted to post but haven't done so til now.

PHEW! It feels like a giant sneeze!


http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

"What About the Hydrogen Economy?"

Hydrogen isn't the answer either. As of 2003, the average hydrogen fuel cell costs close to $1,000,000. Unlike other alternatives, hydrogen fuel cells have shown little sign of coming down in price.

Even if the cost is lowered by 98%, placing the price at $20,000 per cell, hydrogen or hydrogen fuel cells will never power more than a handful of cars due to the following reasons:

I. Worldwide Shortage of Platinum

A single hydrogen fuel cell requires 20 grams of platinum. If the cells are mass-produced, it may be possible to get the platinum requirement down to 10 grams per cell. The world has 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum reserves. There are approximately 700 million internal combustion engines on the road. Ten grams of platinum per fuel cell x 700 million fuel cells = 7 billion grams of platinum, or practically every gram of platinum in the earth.

Unfortunately, as a recent article in EV World points out, the average fuel cell lasts only 200 hours. Two hundred hours translates into just 12,000 miles, or about one year’s worth of driving at 60 miles per hour. This means all 700 million fuel cells (with 10 grams of platinum in each one) would have to be replaced every single year.

Thus replacing the 700 million oil-powered vehicles on the road with fuel cell-powered vehicles, for only 1 year, would require us to mine every single ounce of platinum currently in the earth and divert all of it for fuel cell construction only.

Doing so is absolutely impossible as platinum is astonishingly energy intensive (expensive) to mine, is already in short supply, and is indispensable to thousands of crucial industrial processes.

Even if this wasn't the case, the fuel cell solution would last less than one year. As with oil, platinum production would peak long before the supply is exhausted.

What will we do, when less than 6 months into the "Hydrogen Economy," we hit Peak Platinum? Perhaps Michael Moore will produce a movie documenting the connection between the President’s family and foreign platinum companies while following the plight of a mother whose son died in the latest platinum war?

If the hydrogen economy was anything other than a total red herring, such issues would eventually arise as 80 percent of the world’s proven platinum reserves are located in that bastion of geopolitical stability, South Africa.

Even if an economically affordable and scalable alternative to platinum is immediately located and mined in absolutely massive quantities, the ability of hydrogen to replace even a small portion of our oil consumption is still handicapped by several fundamental limitations. NASA, which fuels the space shuttle with hydrogen, may be able to afford to get around the following challenges, but there is a big difference between launching the space shuttle and running a global economy with a voracious and constantly growing apetite for energy:

II. Inability to Store Massive Qunatities at Low Cost:

Hydrogen is the smallest element known to man. This makes it virtually impossible to store in the massive quantities and to transport across the incredibly long distances at the low costs required by our vast globaltransportation networks. In her February 2005 article 1.entitled "Hydrogen Economy: Energy and Economic Blackhole," Alice Friedemann writes:

Hydrogen is the Houdini of elements. As soon as you’ve
gotten it into a container, it wants to get out, and since it’s
the lightest of all gases, it takes a lot of effort to keep it
from escaping. Storage devices need a complex set of seals,
gaskets, and valves. Liquid hydrogen tanks for vehicles boil
off at 3-4% per day

III. Massive Cost of Hydrogen Infrastructure:

A hydrogen economy would require massive retrofitting of our entire global transportation and fuel distributionnetworks. At a million dollars per car, it would cost 350,000,000,000,000 to replace half of our current automotive fleet (700 million cars) with hydrogen fuel cell powered cars.

That doesn't even account for replacing a significant fraction of our oil-powered airplanes or boats with fuel cells.

The numbers don't get any prettier if we scrap the fuel cells and go with straight hydrogen. According to a recent article in Nature, entitled "Hydrogen Economy Looks Out of Reach:"

Converting every vehicle in the United States to hydrogen
power would demand so much electricity that the country
would need enough wind turbines to cover half of California
or 1,000 extra nuclea power stations.

Unfortunately, even if we managed to get this ridiculously high number of wind turbines or nuclear power plants built, we would still need to build the hydrogen powered cars, in addition to a hydrogen distribution network that would be mind-boggingly expensive. The construction of a hydrogen pipeline network comparable to our current natural gas pipeline network, for instance, would cost 200 trillion dollars. That's twenty times the size of the US GDP in the year 2002.

How such capital intensive endeavors will be completed in the midst of massive energy shortages is anybody's guess;

IV. Hydrogen's "Energy Sink" Factor:

As mentioned previously, solar, wind, or nuclear energy can be used to "crack" hydrogen from water via a process known as electrolysis. The electrolysis process is a simple one, but unfortunately it consumes more energy than it produces. This has nothing to do with the costs and everything to do with the immutable laws of thermodynamics. Again, Alice Friedemann weighs in:

The laws of physics mean the hydrogen economy will always
be an energy sink. Hydrogen’s properties require you to
spend more energy to do the following than you get out of it
later: overcome waters’ hydrogen-oxygen bond, to move
heavy cars, to prevent leaks and brittle metals, to transport
hydrogen to the destination. It doesn’t matter if all of the
problems are solved, or how much money is spent. You will
use more energy to create, store, and transport hydrogen
than you will ever get out of it.

Even if these problems are ignored or assumed away, you are still faced with jaw-dropping costs of a renewable derived hydrogen economy. In addition to the 200 trillion dollar pipeline network that would be necessary to move the hydrogen around, we would need to deploy about 40 trillion dollars of solar panels. If the hydrogen was derived from wind (which is usually more efficient than solar) the cost might be lowered considerably, but that's not saying much when you are dealing with numbers as large as $40 trillion.

Even if the costs of these projects are cut in half, that makes little difference over the course of a generation, as our economy doubles in size approximately every 25-30 years. In other words, by the time we will have made anyreal headway in constructing a "hydrogen economy", the problem will have already compounded itself.

If the "hydrogen economy" is such a hoax, why then do we hear so much about it? The answer is simple when you "follow the money" and ask "who benefits?" (Hint: GM, Shell, et al.)

[von Wrangell]

Yet another thread?

[mojo2]

WHY NUCLEAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!

Same as the above reason for posting...giant sneeze.

"What About Nuclear Energy?"

Nuclear energy requires uranium - of which the US has enough to power existing reactors for 25-40 years. As with oil, the extraction of uranium follows a bell-curve. If a large scale nuclear program was undertaken the supply of US domestically derived uranium would likely peak in under 15 years.

Even if such a program is undertaken, there is no guarantee the energy generated from nuclear sources would be any cheaper than energy generated from fossil fuels. Attempts by China and India to scale up their use of nuclear energy, for instance, have already caused uranium prices to skyrocket.

Uranium supply issues aside, a large scale switch over to nuclear power is not really an option for an economy that requires as much energy as ours does. It would take 10,000 of the largest nuclear power plants to produce the energy we get from fossil fuels. At $3-5 billion per plant, it's not long before we're talking about "real money" - especially since the $3-5 billion doesn't even include the cost of decommissioning old reactors, converting the nuclear generated energy into a fuel source appropriate for cars, boats, trucks, airplanes, and the not-so-minor problem of handling nuclear waste.

Speaking of nuclear waste, it is a question nobody has quite answered yet. This is especially the case in countries such as China and Russia, where safety protocols are unlikely to be strictly adhered to if the surrounding economy is in the midst of a desperate energy shortage. It may also be true in the case of the US because, as James Kunstler points out in his recent book, The Long Emergency:

. . . reactors may be beyond the organizational means of
the society we are apt to become in the future, mainly one
with much weaker central authority, less police power, and
reduced financial resources . . . in the absence of that
(cheap) oil we can't assume the complex social organization
needed to run nuclear energy safely.

Assuming we find answers to all questions regarding the cost and safety of nuclear power, we are still left with the most vexing question of all:

Where are we going to get the massive amounts of oil
necessary to build hundreds, if not thousands, of these
reactors, especially since they take 10 or so years to build
and we won't get motivated to build them until after oil
supplies have reached a point of permanent scarcity?

Remember, once we get the reactors built, we still have the not-so-inexpensive task of retrofitting a significant portion of the following to run on nuclear-derived electricity:

1.700 million oil-powered cars traversing the world's
1.roads;

2.Millions of oil-powered airplanes crisscrossing the
1.world's skies;

3.Millions of oil-powered boats circumnavigating the
2.world's oceans.

Scientists have made some progress in regards to nuclear fusion, but the road from success in tabletop laboratory experiments to use as an industrial scale replacement for oil is an extremely long one that, even in the most favorable of circumstances, will take decades to traverse.

Again, as with other alternatives to petroleum, all forms of nuclear energy should certainly "be on the table." But if you're hoping that it's going to save you from the ramifications of Peak Oil, you are sorely mistaken.

[mojo2]

Why Biofuels Such as Ethanol and Biodiesel Are Not The Answer!

"What About Biofuels Such
as Ethanol and Biodiesel?"

Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.

In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"

. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would
devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to
grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for
10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's
the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the
same period of time.

And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with
ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with
corn, he adds.

Biodiesel is considerably better than ethanol, but with an EROEI of three, it still doesn't compare to oil, which has had an EROEI of about 30

While any significant attempt to switch to biofuels will work out great for giant agribusiness companies (political campaign contributors) such as Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, and Monsanto, it won't do much to solve a permanent energy crisis for you.

The ghoulish reality is that if we wanted to replace even a small part of our oil supply with farm grown biofuels, we would need to turn most of Africa into a giant biofuel farm.

Obviously many Africans - who are already starving - would not take kindly to us appropriating the land they use to grow their food to grow our fuel. As author George Monbiot points out, such an endeavor would be a humanitarian disaster. Any attempt to turn Africa into a large-scale biofuel farm will likely result in a continental-sized insurgency that would make the current disaster in Iraq look like a cakewalk.

Assuming the conversion of Africa into a large scale biofuel farm is even economically, technically, and militarily viable, and putting the humanitarian concerns of such a project aside for a moment, we would simply be replacing our "dependence on foreign oil" with "dependence on foreign grown biodiesel."

Some folks are doing research into alternatives to soybeans such as biodiesel producing pools of algae. As with every other project that promises to "replace all petroleum fuels," the project has yet to produce a single drop of commercially available fuel. This hasn't prevented many of its most vocal proponents from insisting that algae grown biodiesel will solve our energy problems.

The fact that so many people in the green/environmental movement refuse to acknowledge the fundamental inability of fuels like biodiesel to replace more than a tiny portion of our petroleum consumption underscores why a complete collapse of the petroleum powered world may now be unavoidable. As Dr. Ted Trainer explains in a recent article on the thermodynamic limitations of biomass fuels:

This is why I do not believe consumer-capitalist society can
save itself. Not even its "intellectual" classes or green
leadership give any sign that this society has the wit or the
will to even think about the basic situation we are in. As the
above figures make clear, the situation cannot be solved
without huge reduction in the volume of production and
consumption going on.

The current craze surrounding biodiesel is a good example of what Dr. Trainer is talking about. While folks who have converted their personal vehicles to run on vegetable oil should certainly be given credit for their noble attempts at reducing our reliance on petroleum, the long-term viability of their efforts is questionable at best. Once our system of food production collapses due to the effects of Peak Oil, vegetable oil will likely become far too precious/expensive a commodity to be burned as transportation fuel for anybody but the super-rich. As James Kunstler points out in an April 2005 update to his blog "Cluster **** Nation", many biodiesel enthusiasts are dangerously clueless as to this reality:

Over in Vermont last week, I ran into a gang of biodiesel
enthusiasts. They were earnest, forward-looking guys who
would like to do some good for their country. But their
expectations struck me as fairly crazy, and in a way typical
of the bad thinking at all levels of our society these days.

For instance, I asked if it had ever occurred to them that
biodiesel crops would have to compete for farmland that
would be needed otherwise to grow feed crops for working
animals. No, it hadn't. (And it seemed like a far-out
suggestion to them.) Their expectation seemed to be that
the future would run a lot like the present, that bio-diesel
was just another ingenious, innovative, high-tech module
that we can "drop into" our existing system in place of the
previous, obsolete module of regular oil.

Kunstler goes on to explain that when policies or living/working arrangements are set up around such unexamined expectations, the result is usually a dangerous deepening of our reliance on cheap energy and "easy motoring."

[mojo2]

"Can't We Use a Combination of the Alternatives to Replace Oil?"

Absolutely. Despite their individual shortcomings, it is still possible for the world economy to run on a basket of alternative sources of energy - so long as we immediately get all of the following:

1.A few dozen technological breakthroughs;

2.Unprecedented political will and bipartisan cooperation;

3.Tremendous international collaboration;

4.Massive amounts of investment capital,

5.Fundamental reforms to the banking system;

6.No interference from the oil-and-gas industries;

7.About 25-50 years of general peace and prosperity to 7.retrofit the world's $45 trillion dollar per year economy, 7.including transportation and telecommunications
7.networks, manufacturing industries, agricultural
7.systems,universities, hospitals, etc. , to run on these
7.new sources of energy.

8.A generation of engineers, scientists, and economists
8.trained to run a global economy powered by new
8.sources of energy.

If we get all of the above, we might be able to get the energy equivalent of 3-5 billion barrels of oil per year from alternative sources.

That's a tremendous amount of oil - about as much as the entire world used per year during the 1950s, but it's nowhere near enough to keep our currently mammoth-sized yet highly volatile global economic system going. The world currently requires over 30 billion barrels/1.2 trillion gallons of oil per year to support economic growth. That requirement will only increase as time goes on due to population growth, debt servicing, and the industrialization of nations such as China and India.

So even if the delusionally optimistic 8-step scenario described above is somehow miraculously manifested, we're still facing a 70-90% reduction in the amount of energy available to us. A 70-90% reduction would be extremely painful, but not the "end of the world" if it wasn't for the fact that, as explained above, the monetary system will collapse in the absence of a constantly increasing energy supply. If a shortfall between demand and supply of 5% is enough to send prices up by 400%, what to you think a shortfall of 70-90% is going to do?

To make matters worse, even if the all of the above obstacles are assumed away, we are still faced with the problem of "economic doubling time." If the economy grows at a healthy clip of 3.5% per year, it doubles in size every 20 years. That growth must be fueled by an energy supply that doubles just as quickly. Thus, our total "energy debt" will have compounded itself by the time we have made any major strides in switching to alternative sources of energy.

"What About Amazing New Technologies Such As Thermal Depolymerization, Solar Nanotech, Space Based Solar Arrays, and other 'Energy-Miracles'?"

Thermal depolymerization is an intriguing solution to our landfill problems, but since most of the feedstock (such as tires and turkey guts) requires high-grade oil to make in the first place, it is more "high-tech recycling" than it is a solution to a permanent oil shortage.

While the following analogy is certainly a bit disgusting, it should clearly illustrate why thermal depolymerization won't do much to soften the coming collapse:

Expecting thermal depolymerization to help solve our long
term energy problems makes as much sense as expecting
the consumption of our own feces to help solve a long-term
famine.

In both cases, the energy starved party is simply recycling
a small portion of the energy they had previously consumed.

On a less grotesque note, the technology is besieged by several fundamental shortcomings that those desperately hoping for a techno-messiah tend to overlook:

First, there is the problem of production costs. According to a recent article in Fortune Magazine, a barrel of oil produced via the thermal depolymerization process costs $80 to produce as of January 2005. To put that figure in perspective, consider the fact that oil pulled out of the ground in Saudi Arabia costs less than $2.50 per barrel, while oil pulled out of the ground in Iraq costs only $1.00 per barrel.

This means that with spot oil prices in the $50/barrel range, a barrel of oil produced via thermal depolymerization in January 2005 would have to sell for between $1,600-$4,000 per barrel to have a return on investment comparable to oil produced from Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

Oil prices of $1,600-$4,000 per barrel would put gas prices at roughly $80-$200 per gallon.

If the technology was the miracle many people are desperately hoping for, the company would likely not have needed a grant from the Department of Energy to keep its head above water. Nor would it have been the subject of an April 2005 Kansas City Star article appropriately entitled, "Innovative Turkey-to-Oil Plant Eats Money, Spits Out Fowl Odor."

Sky-high production costs and horrific odor problems aside, a look at the history of thermal depolymerization tends to show it will never amount to more than a tiny drop in the giant barrel that is our oil appetite.The technology was first developed for commercial use in 1996. Here we are, ten years later and there is only one thermal depolymerization plant online and it is producing less than 500 barrels of oil per day, despite record high oil prices. Even if oil production from thermal depolymerization is upscaled by a factor of 1,000, and the cost of production brought down by a factor of 10, it will still only be producing 500,000 barrels of oil per day. While that may make a tremendous amount of money for the company, it won't make much difference in our overall situation as the global need for oil is projected to reach 120,000,000 barrels per day by 2020.

If thermal depolymerization sounded "too good to be true" when you first heard about it, now you know why. Again, as with other alternatives, we shouldn't let these challenges discourage continued research, development, and investment into the technology. However, we have to be realistic about what the technology can and can't do. If you're a big agribusiness or energy company, you may want to look into thermal depolymerization.

If, on the other hand, you're just a regular person trying to figure out how you're going to acquire things like food, water, and shelter in a post-cheap oil world, you may as well forget about thermal depolymerization. It is never going to make a discernable contribution to your standard of living.

As disappointing as thermal depolymerization has been to those hoping for a techno-savior, at least it has produced a small amount of commercially available energy. The same cannot be said for space-based solar arrays, which according to NASA, are plagued by "major technical, regulatory and conceptual hurdles" and won't see the light of day for several decades.

Even if these major hurdles are somehow cleared inside of 5 years instead of 50 years, there is still the not-so-minor problem of rewiring all of industrial civilization - including agriculture, communications, transportation, defense, health care, education, industry, government, finance/banking, etc. . . to run on space-derived solar energy.

Of course, before the global rewiring can begin, we have to find the energy, raw materials, political willingness, financial capital, etc. to get such a project off the ground.

We also have to find a way to prevent China's million man standing army from snapping up all the raw materials necessary to make the transition.

While there are some promising technological advancements in solar-nanotechnology, even Dr. Richard Smalley, the scientist at the forefront of these technologies, admits we need a series of "miracles" to prevent a total collapse of industrial civilization.

In the February 2005 issue of Discover Magazine, Dr. Smalley gave the following prognosis:

There will be inflation as billions of people compete for
insufficient resources. There will be famine. There will be
terrorism and war.

He went on to say that it will take "presidential leadership" to inspire us to pursue technologies that might alleviate this crisis.

In other words, the chances of technology saving you from the coming economic collapse are about the same as the chances of another virgin-birth taking place.

For you or any other "average" person to expect high-tech solutions to save you from the economic effects of Peak Oil is akin to a person living in sub-Saharan Africa to expect high-tech medical treatments to save their community from the effects of AIDS. These treatments are only available and affordable for super-wealthy people like Magic Johnson, not the average people in Africa.

Likewise, many of the recent technological advancements in energy production and efficiency may be available and affordable to extraordinarily wealthy people or agencies like the Department of Defense, but they aren't going to be available or affordable to you.

Adaptation by the wealthy does not necessarily equal survival for you.

[mojo2]

"What About Hybrids and Super Fuel Efficient Cars?"

Hybrids or so called "hyper-cars" aren't the answer either because the construction of an average car consumes approximately 27-54 barrels (1,110-2,200 gallons) of oil. Thus, a crash program to replace the 700 million internal combustion vehicles currently on the road with super fuel-efficient or alternative fuel-powered vehicles would consume approximately 18-36 billion barrels of oil, which is the amount of oil the world currently consumes in six-to-twelve months. Consequently, such a program (while well-intentioned) would actually bring the collapse upon us even sooner.

On a similar note, the construction of an average car also consumes 120,000 gallons of fresh water. Unfortunately, the world is in the midst of a severe water crisis that is only going to get worse in the years to come. Scientists are already warning us to get ready for massive "water wars."

Thus, the only way for us to replace our current fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs with fuel-efficient hybrids is to to seize control of the world's reserves of both oil and fresh water and then divert those resources away from the billions of people who rely on them.

Even if were willing to undertake such an endeavor, the problem will still not be solved due to a phenomenon known as "Jevon's Paradox," whereby increases in energy efficiency are obliterated by corresponding increase in energy consumption.

The US economy is a good example of Jevon's Paradox in action. Since 1970, we have managed to cut in half the amount of oil necessary to generate a dollar of GDP. At the same time, however, we have doubled our level of consumption. Thus, despite massive increases in the energy efficiency over the last 30 years, we are more dependent on oil than ever. This trend is unlikely to be abated in a market economy.

The widespread use of technologies such as the internal combustion engine and the air conditioner is what got us into this situation. It is thus unlikely that even more technology will get us out of it.

"What About Large-Scale Efforts at Conserving Energy or Becoming More Energy Efficient?"

Amazingly, such efforts will actually make our situation worse. This probably makes absolutely no sense unless you understand how the modern day banking and monetary system works. To illustrate, let's revisit Jevon's Paradox, explained above, with an example:

Pretend you own a computer store and that your monthly energy bill, as of December 2004, is $1,000. You then learn about the coming energy famine and decide to do your part by conserving as much as possible. You install energy efficient lighting, high quality insulation, and ask your employees to wear sweaters so as to minimize the use of your store's heating system.

After implementing these conservation measures, you manage to lower your energy bill by 50% - down to $500 per month.

While you certainly deserve a pat-on-the-back and while your business will certainly become more profitable as a result of your conservation efforts, you have in no way helped reduce our overall energy appetite. In fact, you have actually increased it.

At this point, you may be asking yourself, "How could I have possibly increased our total energy consumption when I just cut my own consumption by $500/month? That doesn't seem to make common sense . . .?"

Well think about what you're going to do with that extra $500 per month you saved. If you're like most people, you're going to do one of two things:

1. You will reinvest the $500 in your business. For instance,
you might spend the $500 on more advertising. This will
bring in more customers, which will result in more
computers being sold. Since, as mentioned previously, the
average desktop computer consumes 10X it's weight in
fossil-fuels just during its construction, your individual
effort at conserving energy has resulted in the
consumption of more energy.

2. You will simply deposit the $500 in your bank account
where it will accumulate interest. Since you're not using
the money to buy or sell anything, it can't possibly be
used to facilitate an increase in energy consumption,
right?

Wrong. For every dollar a bank holds in deposits, it will loan out
between six and twelve dollars. These loans are then used by the bank's customers to do everything from starting businesses to making down payments on vehicles to purchasing computers.

Thus, your $500 deposit will allow the bank to make between $3,000 and $6,000 in loans - most of which will be used to buy, build,or transport things using fossil fuel energy.

Typically, Jevon's Paradox is one of the aspects of our situation that people find difficult to get their minds around. Perhaps one additional example will help clarify it:

Think of our economy as a giant petroleum powered machine that turns raw materials into consumer goods which are later turned into garbage:

[mojo2]

"So What's Going to Happen to the Economy?"

Even if you can currently afford the latest in alternative energy technologies, it won't help you much since the majority of the population can't. Got solar panels on your roof and a brand-new hybrid car? Great, but since most people can't afford those things, and the global industrial base hasn't been retrofitted to run on them, the economy is still going to implode.

The US economy is particularly vulnerable to the coming oil shortages. As the most indebted nation in the world, the US is completely dependent on strong economic growth just to pay the interest on its debts. This is as true for individual citizens as it is for corporations and governments. A declining oil/energy supply means the economy can't grow which means individuals, corporations, and governments can't pay off their debts, which means economic anarchy is on the way.

Furthermore, unlike nations in Europe, the US has built it's entire infrastructure and way of life under the assumption oil would always be cheap and plentiful. Since that is no longer the case, the US economy is in even more trouble than the economies of nations like the UK, Germany, Spain, and France.

So even in the best-case scenario, we're looking at an international financial meltdown and a collapse of the value of US dollar so severe that the Great Depression will look like the "good ole days."

That's if we manage to avoid the "economic Armageddon" recently predicted by the chief economist at investment banking giant Morgan Stanley.

The end of cheap oil also means the elimination of Great Depression era social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Pensions too will soon to be a thing of the past.

On the international front, the financial dislocations wrought by the coming oil shocks will plunge the world into a series of resource wars and "currency insurgencies" unlike anything we can imagine. The international destabilization and devaluing of the US dollar will further exacerbate the economic collapse at home while impeding our physical & financial ability to pump whatever oil is left in the ground and then bring it to the market.

As the US economy begins to rapidly disintegrate, massive civil unrest may break out as the various factions of the divided American citizenry seek to blame the economic situation on whoever their favorite scapegoat is. Liberals and blue-states will blame "Bush, Big-Oil and the Neocons" while conservatives and red-staters will blame "Bin-Laden, Big-Government, and the Extreme Left."

Both groups will likely gravitate to and rally around reactionary political demagogues who promise to bring back the good days by eliminating whatever domestic or foreign group(s) they have decided are at fault for the economic and geopolitical unraveling.

Put simply, the end of oil may result in the end of America as we know it.[/QUOTE]

"How Can I Be Sure This Isn't Just More 1970s Doom-and-Gloom?"

The oil shocks of the 1970s were created by political events. In 1973, OPEC cut its production in retaliation for US support of Israel. In 1979, Iran cut its production in hopes of crippling "the great Satan." In both cases, the US was able to turn to other oil producing nations such as Venezuela to alleviate the crisis.

Once global production peaks, there won't be anybody to turn to. The crisis will just get worse and worse with each passing year.

The evidence of an imminent peak in global oil production is now overwhelming:

1.Ninety-nine percent of the world's oil comes from 44 oil
1.producing nations. At least 24 of these nations are
1.past their peak and now in terminal decline.

2.The entire world - with the exception of the Middle
1.East peaked in 1997. The US peaked in 1970, Russia in
1.1987, the UK in 1999. Even Saudi Arabia - the famed 1."producer for all seasons" may be on the verge of
1.seeing it production collapse.

3.Global production of conventional oil has essentially
3.plateaued since the year 2000.

As far as "doom-and-gloom" consider what widely respected Deutsche Bank had to say about Peak Oil in a recent report entitled, Energy Prospects After the Petroleum Age:

The end-of-the-fossil-hydrocarbons scenario is not therefore
a doom-and-gloom picture painted by pessimistic end-of-the
world prophets, but a view of scarcity in the coming years
and decades that must be taken seriously.

The Australian Financial Review echoed the sentiments of Deutsche Bank in a January 2005 article entitled, "Staring Down the Barrel of a Crisis":

The world's oil production may be about to reach its peak,
forever. Such apocalyptic prophecies often surface in the
middle of the northern hemisphere winter. What is unusual is
that this time the doomsday scenario has gained serious
credibility among respected analysts and commentators.

On a similar note, as mentioned previously, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley recently predicted that we have a 90% chance of facing "Economic Armageddon," while stating, "I fear modern day central banking is on the brink of systemic failure."

When somebody like the chief economist at one of the world's biggest banks makes a statement like that, it's not a surprise somebody like investment banker and Bush-consultant Matt Simmons has stated "the only solution is to pray."

In April 2005, investment bank Goldman Sachs recently released a report predicting a global oil price "superspike" that would (conservatively) send prices to $105/barrel, while French investment bank Ixis-CIB has warned, "crude oil prices could touch $380 a barrel by 2015."

While not specifically mentioning Peak Oil, Warren Buffet has warned of impending financial chaos. Similarly, Forbes Magazine recently ran an article explaining that the "world is on the brink of financial ruin."

Given the credentials of those sounding the alarm the loudest, it is extremely unwise for you to causally dismiss this as just more "1970s doom-and gloom."

"Do World Governments Have Plans to Deal With This?"

Absolutely.

The US government has been aware of Peak Oil since at least 1977 and has been actively planning for this crisis for over 30 years.

Three decades of careful, plotting analysis has yielded a comprehensive, sophisticated, and multi-faceted plan in which military force will be used to secure and control the globe's energy resources. This plan is simplistically, but not altogether inaccurately - known as "Go to War to Get Oil."

This strategy was publicly announced in April 2001, when a report commissioned by Dick Cheney was released. According to the report, entitled Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, the US is facing the biggest energy crisis in history and that the crisis requires "a reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy."

That's a diplomatic way of saying we are going to be fighting oil wars for a very long time.

James Woolsey, the former Director of the CIA, practically admitted as much at a recent conference on renewable energy:

I fear we're going to be at war for decades, not years . . .
Ultimately we will win it, but one major component of that
war is oil.

Recent statements by Henry Kissinger echo those of Woolsey. In a June 2005 Financial Times article entitled, "Kissinger Warns of Energy Conflict," Kissinger was quoted as saying:

The amount of energy is finite, up to now in relation to
demand, and competition for access to energy can become
the life and death for many societies.

Kissinger distinguished these energy conflicts from previous conflicts such as the Cold War:

When nuclear weapons spread to 30 or 40 countries and
each conducts a calculation, with less experience and
different value systems, we will have a world of permanent
imminent catastrophe.

The war in Iraq, which has been 23 years in the making, is just the beginning of a worldwide war that "will not end in our lifetime." The reason our leaders are telling us the "war on terror will last 50 years" and that the US engagement in the Middle East is now a "generational commitment" is two-fold:

1. All the countries accused of harboring terrorists - Iraq,
Iran, Syria, West Africa, Saudi Arabia - also happen to
harbor large oil reserves.

2. Within 40-50 years, even these countries will see their
oil reserves almost entirely depleted. At that point, the
"war on terror" will come to an end.

While the Middle East countries find themselves targets in the "war on terror", China, Russia, and Latin America find themselves targets in the recently declared and much more expansive "war on tyranny."

Whereas the "war on terror" is really a war for control of the world's oil reserves, this newly declared "war on tyranny" is really a war for control of the world's oil distribution and transportation chokepoints.

China and Russia have taken notice of these declarations and seem to be making preparations to defend themselves.

China has also strengthened it's ties to oil-rich Venezuela while engaging in an undeclared oil-war with long time rival and US ally Japan.

This type of large-scale, long-term warfare will likely require a massive expansion of the military draft. It's probably not a coincidence that the director of the Selective Service recently gave a presentation to Congress in which he recommended the military draft be extended to both genders, ages 18-35.

The strategy - as distasteful as it may be - is characterized by a Machiavellian logic. Given the thermodynamic deficiencies of the alternatives to oil, the complexity of a large scale switch to these new sources of energy, and the wrenching economic and social effects of a declining energy supply, you can see why our leaders view force as the only viable way to deal with the coming crisis.

Of course, the US is not the only nation that needs affordable oil. Not by a long shot. France, Germany, Russia, and China all need it also. While these countries may not be able or willing to directly confront the US on the battlefield, they are more than willing to attack the US financially. The US may have the world's most deadly cluster bombs, but the EU has the world's most valuable currency, and intends to wield it as a strategic economic weapon to offset US firepower. This is known as "petrodollar warfare"

"Is There Any Reason to
Remain Optimistic/Hopeful?"

If what you really mean is, "Is there any way technology or the market or brilliant scientists or comprehensive government programs are going to hold things together or solve this for me or allow for business to continue as usual?", the answer is no.

On the other hand, if what you really mean, "Is there any way I can still have a happy, fulfilling life in spite of some clearly grim facts?", the answer is yes, but it's going to require a lot of work, a lot of adjustments, and probably a bit of good fortune on your part.[/QUOTE]

[von Wrangell]

Please. Stop. It.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Please. Stop. It.

Tell. Me. Why. It. Bothers. You.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Tell. Me. Why. It. Bothers. You.

Because you already have eleventy billion threads on the subject.

Either

1. Start a blog for it.

or

2. Put it in one thread.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Because you already have eleventy billion threads on the subject.

Either

1. Start a blog for it.

or

2. Put it in one thread.

That doesn't answer my question well. For example, why shouldn't we restrict the number of threads devoted to Muslims and Islam? Why shouldn't everything re: Muslims and Islam be restricted to one thread?

Why doesn't anyone wanting to discuss OBL start a blog?

Once again, this is a perfect example of how liberals just naturally assume they know what's best for everyone else and do their best to have everyone else dance to their twisted little tunes.

I can see why you'd enjoy being a Muslim. You can tell others what to do and if you understand scripture well enough the poor little followers will have to obey you and not only that, but they'd have to kiss your ase and you LOVE that!

What you seem to be is an out-of-control-control-freak!!!


When OBL sets foot in the White House as the NEW RULER of the USA only then will these lips come close to your ase. Although I know that breaks your heart. To console yourself, just find some impressionable little Muslim convert.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

That doesn't answer my question well. For example, why shouldn't we restrict the number of threads devoted to Muslims and Islam? Why shouldn't everything re: Muslims and Islam be restricted to one thread?

Why doesn't anyone wanting to discuss OBL start a blog?

Once again, this is a perfect example of how liberals just naturally assume they know what's best for everyone else and do their best to have everyone else dance to their twisted little tunes.

I can see why you'd enjoy being a Muslim. You can tell others what to do and if you understand scripture well enough the poor little followers will have to obey you and not only that, but they'd have to kiss your ase and you LOVE that!

What you seem to be is an out-of-control-control-freak!!!

I don't think that is his point.

However, let me add this: the threads created in the Pol Lounge, as you demonstrate yourself, (and so have I, as well as a majority here) are often aimed to make a point, and rationalize to keep it that way. Which is why, imho, right and left are more often than not in constant opposition. Every thread is aimed to bring a point that sustains why one or the other party is right, or the good one, or the good choice. At times it is fun, at other times bothersome.

It is never about what is right. We rarely see compromising positions, or people learning from the opposition. Which is normal, because there are no such things as relaible proof on the Internet; there may be, but their legitimacy is hard to recognize, as we are filled with conspiracy theories and prejudice. More often than not, people do not care to read (as I accidentally demonstrated by resurrecting the 71% poll thread) because our minds are often all made up, and we cling to it as if our lives depended of it.

Regarding oil, hydrogen, etc. I thought you had made your point. But you keep adding on, providing us with a flood of information we cannot discuss because there is too much of it. There is no discussion possible with this thread, if not about your posting style.

You may be aware of Denial Of Service attacks? My understanding is that DOS aim at flooding channels that receive information, which disables the channel. When you post so many pages at once, you decrease the value of your thread in the eyes of the audience here, making it moot, because there is just too much of it.

Respectfully,

P

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I don't think that is his point.

However, let me add this: the threads created in the Pol Lounge, as you demonstrate yourself, (and so have I, as well as a majority here) are often aimed to make a point, and rationalize to keep it that way. Which is why, imho, right and left are more often than not in constant opposition. Every thread is aimed to bring a point that sustains why one or the other party is right, or the good one, or the good choice. At times it is fun, at other times bothersome.

It is never about what is right. We rarely see compromising positions, or people learning from the opposition. Which is normal, because there are no such things as relaible proof on the Internet; there may be, but their legitimacy is hard to recognize, as we are filled with conspiracy theories and prejudice. More often than not, people do not care to read (as I accidentally demonstrated by resurrecting the 71% poll thread) because our minds are often all made up, and we cling to it as if our lives depended of it.

Regarding oil, hydrogen, etc. I thought you had made your point. But you keep adding on, providing us with a flood of information we cannot discuss because there is too much of it. There is no discussion possible with this thread, if not about your posting style.

You may be aware of Denial Of Service attacks? My understanding is that DOS aim at flooding channels that receive information, which disables the channel. When you post so many pages at once, you decrease the value of your thread in the eyes of the audience here, making it moot, because there is just too much of it.

Respectfully,

P

Thank you for your well reasoned and intelligent post.

There are people here who use these pages to post photos of sexy babes. Talk about their pets. Discuss films. Ask about a bump on their body parts. Lobby for non-existant hypothetical MacNN elective positions. Discuss their favorite food. Get advice on which moped to buy. Ask if we'd all vote for a lesbian. Argue for a sport's figure's inclusion in the Hall of Fame and more. In fact here's a few from the lounge.

How to reply to rude e-mails?

Is our educational system in crisis?

My Passion Is....

My idea for a poster ( 1 2 3 )

Microsoft innovating from the front again

3 days in L.A., what should I see? ( 1 2 )

My new job as desktop support tech....

Dr. Louis Turi PREDICTED KATRINA. Read it here & his NEW PREDICTIONS!

Poll: Your job: cushy or hectic?

Look what I made in Photoshop. Vroom.

How to Dog Paddle?

My New Web Comic

something is wrong in this picture

What could Apple do to take down Windows? ( 1 2 3 )

American Construction (Now with slightly oversized pics!) ( 1 2 3 )

Moved: So, are people from Europe helping with Katrina?

Recover Erased File? URGENT!!!

So I got a T637 today...

Nintendo Revolution ( 1 2 3 4 5 )

U.S. Open Tennis

Can anyone assist me with some College Level Biology Questions? ( 1 2 )

I need help bypassing a Mac System 7.1 "At-Ease" password

Everyone feel sorry for Eug!

The Stupid Hurricane Weatherman Thread

Poll: Best nin album

Hot babes - 2005 (super pic orgy) ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Last Page )

Apple's Mac Mini "Free" Trial

Holy Bat On My Balcony Batman!

The Itchy Bra syndrome

Where's the rake?

As there are many people who STILL don't get it I believe there is still a need to bring more info to the table. However, I now see light at the end of the tunnel. Many of the people who were resistant to the idea have now seemed to accept the reality, which is a relief!
There are people who seldom post in the P/L but who get information from the P/L and spread it in the lounge. For several reasons I still bother to post this info.

If ONE person gets the message and decides NOT to buy an SUV or decides not to place all their hope and faith in the alternative energy sources as a result of my taking a few inches of space here to spread the word, I don't know about you, but I kinda think that's at least as valuable as a couple of threads on where's the rake or the itchy bra syndrome.

And in a message to von Wrangell, this is STILL America and in America we believe in freedom of "read."

You can read or not read whatever you'd like. That extends to these pages.

Hmph!

THE STORY OF MY LIFE!

THE PEOPLE I WANT TO READ MY STUFF, NEITHER LOVE NOR MONEY CAN GET EM TO DO IT.

THE PEOPLE I WISH WOULDN'T READ MY STUFF, I CAN'T MAKE EM STOP READING!

[Jim Paradise]

Mojo Blog.™

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Once again, this is a perfect example of how liberals just naturally assume they know what's best for everyone else and do their best to have everyone else dance to their twisted little tunes.

I can see why you'd enjoy being a Muslim. You can tell others what to do and if you understand scripture well enough the poor little followers will have to obey you and not only that, but they'd have to kiss your ase and you LOVE that!

What you seem to be is an out-of-control-control-freak!!!


When OBL sets foot in the White House as the NEW RULER of the USA only then will these lips come close to your ase. Although I know that breaks your heart. To console yourself, just find some impressionable little Muslim convert.

Mojo. Take a break. If I said this about a christian, I would get completely raped.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Mojo. Take a break. If I said this about a christian, I would get completely raped.

Just ignore him and report him. Though for some reason I suspect little will be done about a comment like that.

[von Wrangell]

A small test:

I can see why you'd enjoy being a Jew. You can tell others what to do and if you understand scripture well enough the poor little followers will have to obey you and not only that, but they'd have to kiss your ase and you LOVE that!

What you seem to be is an out-of-control-control-freak!!!


When Baruch Goldstein sets foot in the White House as the NEW RULER of the USA only then will these lips come close to your ase. Although I know that breaks your heart. To console yourself, just find some impressionable little Jew convert.

[Doofy]

. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for 10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the same period of time...

...If you're still eating deathburgers. If everyone went veggie, it's doable. It takes sixteen times the land to produce the same amount of protein from deathburgers as it does from vegetable sources. Sixteen minus one (for the food) minus eleven (for the biodiesel) = four spare acres.

Combined with the amount of methane and CO2 which deathburger sources pump out (and the chopping down of the rainforests to provide habitat for deathburger farming), this is why everyone who isn't veggie should STFU about global warming, peak oil and the like.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Mojo. Take a break. If I said this about a christian, I would get completely raped.

Nah. Just substitute any hierarchical organization where someone with a little power can get their willies by having subordinates brown-nose them or practice unquestioned obedience and you'll see why this isn't an attack of his religion.

It's a comment about his penchant for coming into a thread that he could and should have simply NOT entered in the first place if he even THOUGHT it was going to be so offensive, and after seeing it was offensive to him, instead of LEAVING, he decides to troll or leave some flame bait or whatever you want to call it.

He chose to try to tell me what I should do! Well, I don't go for that. And I responded within the rules of acceptable MacNN behavior guidelines and THAT's why HE doesn't believe anything will be done about my supposed MacNN offense.

He "asked" for it. He was being intentionally provocative. I broke no rules.

And crab, I had no idea you were Muslim. But certain things sorta, kinda make more sense now that I think about it.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

A small test:

I can see why you'd enjoy being a Jew. You can tell others what to do and if you understand scripture well enough the poor little followers will have to obey you and not only that, but they'd have to kiss your ase and you LOVE that!

What you seem to be is an out-of-control-control-freak!!!


When Baruch Goldstein sets foot in the White House as the NEW RULER of the USA only then will these lips come close to your ase. Although I know that breaks your heart. To console yourself, just find some impressionable little Jew convert.

No. Not quite the same. The Jews already own the White House, wouldn't you say?

Let's see if...and how long before...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And crab, I had no idea you were Muslim.

Where did he say that?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Where did he say that?

wait, Doofy...

[mojo2]

By the way...

It just hit me!

Suicide Posting!

What if a poster wanted to get A LOUDMOUTH OBNOXIOUS but spot-on accurate poster thrown out of the P/L and knew the loudmoth's hot buttons and pushed them in order to provoke the loudmouth into comitting an offense which would get said loudmouth banned from the P/L?

And what if the scheming poster knew that the current rule is to ban BOTH the provocateur AND the victim so that instead of the schemer getting thrown out as well, he got an UNDERLING to do the reporting to the mods? In essence, to 'take one for the team."

VERY SNEAKY if true.

Hahaha!



Suicide Posters and Stooge Underlings.

Watch for them everyone.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

...If you're still eating deathburgers. If everyone went veggie, it's doable. It takes sixteen times the land to produce the same amount of protein from deathburgers as it does from vegetable sources. Sixteen minus one (for the food) minus eleven (for the biodiesel) = five spare acres.

Combined with the amount of methane and CO2 which deathburger sources pump out (and the chopping down of the rainforests to provide habitat for deathburger farming), this is why everyone who isn't veggie should STFU about global warming, peak oil and the like.

Yeah. Animal protein is going to become VERY expensive and that's just ONE example of the thousands upon thousands of changes that the economy will go thru as the supply decreases and the prices increase!

The farmer is going to read the writing on the wall and make the shift to farming plants not animals and that is going to drive supplies of animal protein down even further and the prices up even higher. Some farms will go belly up. And the companies that specialize in agricultural products that are Cow or Pig or Chicken or Lamb specific are going to have fewer sales and some of THEM will go under and there will be layoffs and people scrambling to find different kinds of related work.

And their mortgages won't be paid and some will go into foreclosure. And that will affect the banking system and the housing market and the stock and futures markets and so on...

Because the price of gasoline went up a few cents.

We still have oil. Billions of gallons are still to be pumped, but someone who expires from dehydration still has water in his/her body.

Just not enough.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Combined with the amount of methane and CO2 which deathburger sources pump out (and the chopping down of the rainforests to provide habitat for deathburger farming), this is why everyone who isn't veggie should STFU about global warming, peak oil and the like.

Really? So what do you suggest? Should we slaughter all the fish in the ocean (that I eat)? Please do elaborate on your "thoughts".

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Really? So what do you suggest? Should we slaughter all the fish in the ocean (that I eat)? Please do elaborate on your "thoughts".

Wait a minute. You mean there really IS a reason to have another thread devoted to the subject?

Well, whattya know?



Don't let me stop you, go right ahead...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Really? So what do you suggest? Should we slaughter all the fish in the ocean (that I eat)? Please do elaborate on your "thoughts".

Why would you have to slaughter all the fish in the sea if you stopped eating them?

[OreoCookie]

First of all, you're mixing all kinds of subjects here, mojo. If you want to discuss hydrogen, fine, then you don't need to massively quote other articles about hybrid cars, bio fuel, etc. Stick to the topic at hand.

Then, I don't think the article was written by someone intimately familiar with the subject at hand. Many types of fuel cells do not use platinum at all, in particular the different types of hot fuel cells. Fuel cells are not the only way to use hydrogen (gas) to power vehicles -- regular combustion engines can also be refitted to work on hydrogen (BMW has built many prototypes doing just that). Fuel cells are nevertheless a promising alternative which is already used, e. g. the world's most advanced non-nuclear submarine uses fuel cells to propel itself while being submerged.

Hot fuel cells can be used as emergency generators and small power plants.

The point of producing hydrogen (what is inaccurately described as `wasting energy') is to store energy and hydrogen is very energy-efficient at that. The article also inaccurately states it's the smallest element (instead of lightest element) as well as the `Houdini of elements'; both titles belong to helium, though, which is smaller and -- unlike hydrogen -- cannot be chemi/physisorbed on surfaces for instance.

Hydrogen can be produced from energy sources which are not constantly available (e. g. solar power which only operates efficiently during day time in areas closer to the equator or wind power) so they cannot be adjusted to demand. You do get an important point of oil: we (as in humanity) consume natural resources at a much larger rate than they are produced. For instance, if you use the energy to produce methanol instead of regular hydrogen, you can use the existing network of gas stations with very little modifications: methanol is a liquid at room temperature and not more difficult to handle than regular gas.

[Millennium]

Hydrogen is not the answer, but it is an answer. Most of the alternative-energy proposals I've seen could indeed provide permanent solutions, but are not practical right now. As you so deftly point out, they require technological and scientific breakthroughs which have not occured.

Because of this, we need to be thinking of interim solutions as well as permanent ones. This is where things like hybrids and superefficient internal-combustion engines come into play. They do not completely solve the oil problem, but they do bring consumption down enough that it can be managed for a little while longer. During that time, we need to put significant effort towards developing the things which will make permanent solutions workable.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Hydrogen is not the answer, but it is an answer. Most of the alternative-energy proposals I've seen could indeed provide permanent solutions, but are not practical right now. As you so deftly point out, they require technological and scientific breakthroughs which have not occured.

Because of this, we need to be thinking of interim solutions as well as permanent ones. This is where things like hybrids and superefficient internal-combustion engines come into play. They do not completely solve the oil problem, but they do bring consumption down enough that it can be managed for a little while longer. During that time, we need to put significant effort towards developing the things which will make permanent solutions workable.

http://www.sound-effect.com/sounds/h...e/cheer_8k.wav

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Hydrogen is not the answer, but it is an answer. Most of the alternative-energy proposals I've seen could indeed provide permanent solutions, but are not practical right now. As you so deftly point out, they require technological and scientific breakthroughs which have not occured.

Because of this, we need to be thinking of interim solutions as well as permanent ones. This is where things like hybrids and superefficient internal-combustion engines come into play. They do not completely solve the oil problem, but they do bring consumption down enough that it can be managed for a little while longer. During that time, we need to put significant effort towards developing the things which will make permanent solutions workable.

Exactly. It is essential to keep a mix of different technologies. Hybrids increase fuel efficiency, but obviously there are physical limitations which limit those improvements. But is that a reason to stop investing in technologies like fuel cells, solar panels, etc.?

As for the costs, I think the biggest breakthroughs will happen here: the relative costs of alternatives have to and indeed to decrease. Also, a society/economy which invests in alternative technologies will be less sensitive to changes (read: increases) in the oil and energy prices. Alternative fuel concepts are not just show cases for a bunch of tree-hugging hippies, the more oil costs, the more interesting it gets for `serious' business.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

First of all, you're mixing all kinds of subjects here, mojo. If you want to discuss hydrogen, fine, then you don't need to massively quote other articles about hybrid cars, bio fuel, etc. Stick to the topic at hand.

Then, I don't think the article was written by someone intimately familiar with the subject at hand. Many types of fuel cells do not use platinum at all, in particular the different types of hot fuel cells. Fuel cells are not the only way to use hydrogen (gas) to power vehicles -- regular combustion engines can also be refitted to work on hydrogen (BMW has built many prototypes doing just that). Fuel cells are nevertheless a promising alternative which is already used, e. g. the world's most advanced non-nuclear submarine uses fuel cells to propel itself while being submerged.

Hot fuel cells can be used as emergency generators and small power plants.

The point of producing hydrogen (what is inaccurately described as `wasting energy') is to store energy and hydrogen is very energy-efficient at that. The article also inaccurately states it's the smallest element (instead of lightest element) as well as the `Houdini of elements'; both titles belong to helium, though, which is smaller and -- unlike hydrogen -- cannot be chemi/physisorbed on surfaces for instance.

Hydrogen can be produced from energy sources which are not constantly available (e. g. solar power which only operates efficiently during day time in areas closer to the equator or wind power) so they cannot be adjusted to demand. You do get an important point of oil: we (as in humanity) consume natural resources at a much larger rate than they are produced. For instance, if you use the energy to produce methanol instead of regular hydrogen, you can use the existing network of gas stations with very little modifications: methanol is a liquid at room temperature and not more difficult to handle than regular gas.

I'd hate for someone to read this...

Many types of fuel cells do not use platinum at all, in particular the different types of hot fuel cells.

And go forth into the world thinking you had said, and they would spread the new gospel of, hot fuel cells for cars when they failed to read this from your cited link...

June 16, 2000
Web posted at: 12:41 p.m. EDT (1641 GMT)

By Environmental News Network staff

Fuel-cell technology is cool. It offers the promise of low-emission power generation for everything from cars to entire metropolitan areas. And Japanese researchers say they have built a fuel cell that runs efficiently at temperatures as low as 932 degrees Fahrenheit.

[mojo2]

Friends, I can't tell you how gratifying it is to behold the serious consideration this subject is finally getting on these here pages. Because as much as I thrash and am thrashed here, I do feel a sense of community for you all and do want you all to live long and prosper. With oil or without oil. If it must be without oil I do hope you will have as much advance notice as possible. Now that the alarm is being heard. I shall take a bit of a break. Maybe a few hours. Maybe longer. Nothing dramatic going on, just that this project of getting the oil thing known seems complete and I want to think about what to tackle next.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I'd hate for someone to read this...

I never suggested hot fuel cells for cars. They are suited for use as small power plants and emergency generators. There are many different kinds of fuel cells, hot, cold, `warm' (100-200 degrees Celsius) which are suited for different purposes. Not all of them need platinum (what the article you quoted seemed to rant about).

Instead, I thought you catch on to my train of thought when I mentioned you can use combustion engines and modify them for the use with hydrogen.
(I've written another post which went into more detail, but that got swallowed by a crash of Safari.)

[ThinkInsane]

I'm going to assume that since you have started your own thread on this topic, you'll no longer be bringing the topic up in every other thread. In fact, I think I must insist on it. Thanks in advance.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Why would you have to slaughter all the fish in the sea if you stopped eating them?

I do no speaka gooda enlash at ta moment do I? Too many things on my mind at the moment sorry.

What I meant was that you were implying that the meat we eat is causing global warming. That is why I asked you if we should slaughter all the fish in the ocean. It's a naturally occuring resource with no human intervention (until we drag it up into our trawlers).

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I never suggested hot fuel cells for cars. They are suited for use as small power plants and emergency generators. There are many different kinds of fuel cells, hot, cold, `warm' (100-200 degrees Celsius) which are suited for different purposes. Not all of them need platinum (what the article you quoted seemed to rant about).

Instead, I thought you catch on to my train of thought when I mentioned you can use combustion engines and modify them for the use with hydrogen.
(I've written another post which went into more detail, but that got swallowed by a crash of Safari.)

I know you didn't say hot cells were suitable for cars. I guess I'm trying to correct for reader error or miscomprehension before it goes to the point where I'd find myself having to dispel a false notion in a future debate.

I can see it now...

Poster: Well we could always just use hot cell technology in building cars. I don't see what the big problem is. I think it's just the Bush family trying to make us all crazy and panicky...

As far as picking up on your very deft lead-in to the subject of combining technologies, I must apologize that I'm not all that excited about the necessary and vitally important efforts that are aiming at giving our civilization time to find that one real answer to oil.

To me, using a baseball analogy, the interim steps are like the unheralded and underappreciated set-up pitchers in baseball.

If I'm a purist, I LOVE these guys because they have to be good to do what they do consistently well and these interim alternatives to oil HAVE to work and work well if we are going to have a chance in hell of making it to the 'unpromised land.'

But, my psyche feels most attuned to the situation of the closer. There's no if's, and's or but's about it. He's GOT to come through or we lose it all. If we DON'T come up with some kick ass magic potion, bullet or what have you then our game as a civilization is OVER.

The time and money and effort needed to develop that killer substitute or substitutes has yet to be addressed in a real way that I can tell. Although it only takes a minute for a decision to be made and new eyes are opening every day. So the right people may now be starting to work the problem.

Some folks say we DON'T need a Manhattan Project like commitment to finding the answer. I wonder what THEY know that they aren't telling me! I'd say we DO need such a commitment. One of TIME and MONEY and MANPOWER and RESOURCES and of NATIONAL WILL.

Anyway, back to combining technologies.

It's vitally important. I'll probably be the first one to want to make use of it, but I'm sorry. It doesn't make my 'toes tingle' like the prospect of finding THE answer.

I'm interested in it but, well, you know.

I want to make sure anyone advocating alternatives has their facts straight because, as I've mentioned before elsewhere, offering up technologies and alternatives that aren't suitable (for whatever reason) will only lead people to relax and stop doing what's needed to find THE Answer.

I'm going to sleep now OreoCookie. Thanks for your understanding.

[iLikebeer]

So what kind of discussion are you really looking for? People point out many large errors in your hydrogen article, and you point out a fact from an article he posts. They show you the technology (not mentioned in your article) that could make hydrogen viable as a major energy source over time, and you're not interested?

wtf, why didn't you name this thread the "Why we need a major investment in a replacement to oil now" or something, since the other 56 articles you posted aren't even about hydrogen, and apparently you aren't interested in learning anything about hydrogen outside of nonsense. this is the most pschizo post i've seen you make in a few years. If you need that many posts to make your point, write out an outline and make it readable, logical, and debatable at least.

[besson3c]

Bite sized pieces Mojo...

I cannot keep up with you, you simply write too much.

You really would do well to have your own blog. The search engines would just eat it up with the fluency of content you'd have to offer on popular topics.

[besson3c]

Also, I'd be happy to start you out on your own blog... you could easily turn on your web sharing and host your blog on your own Mac for a while if you wanted.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I know you didn't say hot cells were suitable for cars. I guess I'm trying to correct for reader error or miscomprehension before it goes to the point where I'd find myself having to dispel a false notion in a future debate.

I can see it now...

[snipped for brevity]

I'm going to sleep now OreoCookie. Thanks for your understanding.

No prob.
Just keep in mind when you hear about new technologies that (i) the prices are relative (to the oil price) and (ii) new technologies can take off in areas never suspected. Take a look at the transistor or nano technology.

We need a mixture of energy sources/storages anyway, and the least we will get out of it is a competition of different ideas. Just to give you some food for thought, the idea to store hydrogen directly lost a lot of momentum AFAIK. There are two possible options: either you absorb it on a catalyst (a metal with a huge surface), but this seems unfeasible. The tank would be huge. The other way is to pressurize it and use gas tanks. This is technically feasible, but certainly implies major investments.

New prototypes by Daimler Chrysler for instance use methanol fuel cells; methanol is a liquid that can be handled pretty much like gasoline. It would be very compatible and competitive compared to hydrogen gas.

AFAIK hot fuel cells are not well-suited for smaller installations, they are more for industrial use. The ones used in cars are made of a special polymere which is coated with basically a platinum ruthenium alloy. Current research tries to minimize the amount of platinum with the boundary condition to have an acceptable efficiency. Also, new fuel cells can process methanol directly which in itself is a very desirable asset.

For special purposes, fuel cells containing platinum might/are an alternative already, e. g. for buses in public transportation. Here, a wide net of gas stations and losses of gas are not as important.

I don't think hydrogen is THE answer, but I'm sure it'll be PART of the answer (one way or another). I'll hit the sack myself now.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

So what kind of discussion are you really looking for? People point out many large errors in your hydrogen article, and you point out a fact from an article he posts. They show you the technology (not mentioned in your article) that could make hydrogen viable as a major energy source over time, and you're not interested?

wtf, why didn't you name this thread the "Why we need a major investment in a replacement to oil now" or something, since the other 56 articles you posted aren't even about hydrogen, and apparently you aren't interested in learning anything about hydrogen outside of nonsense. this is the most pschizo post i've seen you make in a few years. If you need that many posts to make your point, write out an outline and make it readable, logical, and debatable at least.

Now, that the worst of Katrina is history, hopefully...

To answer your questions. I'm not really expecting much debate. What is there to debate when you know you are Fxxxxd if you do and Fxxxxd if you don't?

The do's and don'ts here are ignore our vulnerability to oil disruption, ignore our need for foreign oil, ignore our lack of viable alternatives, ignore the reality that once oil peaks - and many analysts insist it has - that things will begin to get worse and unless we find/discover/create/build and convert EVERYTHING over to that new alternative energy miracle, we are Fxxxxd.

For a while it seemed EVERY time I tried to make the community aware of where we stood, REALISTICALLY in terms of our dependence, and our efforts to develop new alternative energy sources someone would bring up one inconsequential pet idea or another.

I wanted to list a post for EACH MAJOR area of (false) hope that anyone could bring up so we could move on to the future with our eyes wide open.

iLikeBeer, your post is understandable but you have no idea what it takes to shepherd an idea to dozens and dozens of intelligent people around the world, with varying levels and types of interests, intelligence, perspectives, beliefs and etc. What you responded to represented my frazzled attempt to alert you all to the dangers at hand so we could apply our considerable brain powers to the issues that are important rather than thinking there is no problem to worry about or to oppose the actions in Iraq which are clearly motivated by a need to secure deliveries of oil.

The Cinders and the cost of the war and all certainly ARE important. But, within the right context.

Without that oil we get from the Middle East, we have no more USA. Nothing exists anywhere and nothing is on the horizon that is going to change that reality. And there are thousands of people, right now, who would gladly DIE to prevent you from getting the oil you need and they would just as gladly kill you and everyone you love under most any circumstance.

That's the proper context. Any discussion that goes on should be with that understanding.

That's what I want everyone to know. Someone who didn't give a shix wouldn't bother.

iLikeBeer, your comments strike me as being made from an academic remove. As though you are casually watching a football game from your armchair. Oh, you are interested alright, but you really have nothing at stake.

Well, I assure you, it's not MY argument about hydrogen that matters here. I'm simply trying to get folks to understand the limits of hydrogen and why they shouldn't place all their hopes on something that can not deliver the results you expect or hope for.

So, in that regard, iLikeBeer, it's YOUR argument for or against hydrogen that matters.

Don't rag on my lack of coherence. Slap YOURSELF on the wrist for waiting this long to become interested and engaged and then find out what does or doesn't work and then spread the word to others and raise the critical mass that MAY get our political leaders to understand we aren't interested in the same old pacifiers.

If you BELIEVE hydrogen and methanol are the answers, that's what the politicians will continue to give you.

By the way, NEITHER hydrogen nor methanol are THE answers.

And don't bother posting me a reply with some hypothetical, theoretical, textbook or experimental application. If those were THE answer don't you know EVERYBODY would be talking about it and BILLIONS of dollars would be going into it and we'd be hearing phrases like, "this is or will be the answer to our energy problems..."

None of the above is taking place.

So, hoist a beer and say a toast for me, then start reading any of the sources I've posted or just google Peak Oil and go from there.

[Athens]

The only long term solution to this is communism. Hear me out before flaming me. Our economic system is based on consumption, it requires growth in order to survive. Well unlimited growth is impossible. Products are simply made to have a set life in order to continue consumerism. The answer to our growing problems is to move away from consumerism but this would destroy our current economic system. The light bulb is a perfect example; Our normal standard light bulbs are designed to last X number of hours. We have the capability to make a light bulb last 100 years. But if every light bulb lasted a 100 years people would not need to replace them.

Solution to this is build cities densely and to last with intelligent design. Because the economy could not survive this we would ether have to accept 80% unemployment rate or a government that delegate jobs and supplies our goods.

We need to look at the most important basics

Food
Water
Electricity
Shelter
Heat
Education

Lets look at Water first. Under our current economic system, in order to supply more water, there is great costs. Diverting sources, trapping sources, filtering sources. In order to pay for all this, we need a strong economy to supply the tax revenue for the government to carry out these projects. Under a communist system, if a filtration plant is needed, it finds the workers to build it, if a dam is required it finds the workers to build it. Basically people become a resource. What I envision is a society that devotes 4 days a week to working delegated tasks in order to remain part of society. For 6 months of the year you may be asked to work the farms. The next 6 months you might be asked to work construction. Those trained as doctors would work as doctors and so on. Youths may be asked to work the movie theatre. The problem of why this solution is not the perfect solution is because there are those that wont want to do that they are asked, and worst the quality of work will be substandard. If you no matter what you have a job, why would u do it well or right, and if everything is available to you, what stops greedy people taking more then the fair share. This was the problem the USSR had. The quality of work was bad. And with out competition innovation lags far behind. Could it work? Perhaps. With electronic means, people as resources could be managed. If some one has strong strengths in management, they would be given more management positions. Some one who is told to work the desk of a hotel for example ends up not being suited for the job at all, well his electronic record would show this and would be rotated to other jobs until one was suited. Some one who refuses to work jobs delegated to them would not be able to take home food from a local food store because there ident card would show they are not eligible.

Why could it work now, and failed in the old USSR. Well we have more knowledge now then back then, our population is much better educated. More advance tools to manage such a complex system exist today. Computers can aid in deployment of people resources, and in goods resources much more effectively. The key would be to identify the strengths and weaknesses of people. A person talented in music should be able to explore that talent, not work in a hydro plant. Some one who has a strong interest in design should be working in design. Because of how efficient we are now, and how efficient technology has made us, there is always going to be more people then enough work which is why 3 or 4 day work weeks would be viable.

I cant see any real alternatives.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

The only long term solution to this is communism. Hear me out before flaming me.(SNIP) I cant see any real alternatives.

Sorry, you lost me at "communism" and only momentum and sheer willpower got me to the "flaming" part. I skipped to the end.

All I can say is that, AT LEAST it shows you are thinking outside the box.

Yes, you are asking to be 'flamed."

[Athens]

well take the time to read it

[Athens]

btw the info on the hydrogen fuel cells is out of date or just plan wrong. Ballard Power Systems currently have fuel cell stacks that last for 2200 hours (good for 100 000km) and is on target for the goal of 5000 by 2010, they have reduced cost from $134 dollars per stack in 2002 to to $104 and are on track to get it to $30.00 by 2010. They have reduced the use of platinum by 30% since 2002.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Without that oil we get from the Middle East, we have no more USA. Nothing exists anywhere and nothing is on the horizon that is going to change that reality. And there are thousands of people, right now, who would gladly DIE to prevent you from getting the oil you need and they would just as gladly kill you and everyone you love under most any circumstance.

That's the proper context. Any discussion that goes on should be with that understanding.

That's what I want everyone to know. Someone who didn't give a shix wouldn't bother.

iLikeBeer, your comments strike me as being made from an academic remove. As though you are casually watching a football game from your armchair. Oh, you are interested alright, but you really have nothing at stake.

Well, I assure you, it's not MY argument about hydrogen that matters here. I'm simply trying to get folks to understand the limits of hydrogen and why they shouldn't place all their hopes on something that can not deliver the results you expect or hope for.

So, in that regard, iLikeBeer, it's YOUR argument for or against hydrogen that matters.

Don't rag on my lack of coherence. Slap YOURSELF on the wrist for waiting this long to become interested and engaged and then find out what does or doesn't work and then spread the word to others and raise the critical mass that MAY get our political leaders to understand we aren't interested in the same old pacifiers.

If you BELIEVE hydrogen and methanol are the answers, that's what the politicians will continue to give you.

By the way, NEITHER hydrogen nor methanol are THE answers.

And don't bother posting me a reply with some hypothetical, theoretical, textbook or experimental application. If those were THE answer don't you know EVERYBODY would be talking about it and BILLIONS of dollars would be going into it and we'd be hearing phrases like, "this is or will be the answer to our energy problems..."

None of the above is taking place.

So, hoist a beer and say a toast for me, then start reading any of the sources I've posted or just google Peak Oil and go from there.

Nobody said, they are `the' answer, hydrogen and other bio fuels are part of the answer to decrease dependence from oil. Posting an article whose author gets so many fact wrong or makes ridiculous extrapolations to ridicule a realistic ansatz is certainly not helping making a good argument here.

Also, the established industries do have an interest to stay where they are. A few years ago, the energy industry in Germany said, alternative means to generate electricity are non-sense, because they were much more expensive. The costs of oil was roughly a third back then. Now, Germany produces a sizeable part of its energy using wind turbines -- and with the current oil and gas prices, technological progress and mass production, the whole price calculation is changing.

I think you're expecting a simple solution to this problem. But there is no such thing.

[Y3a]

Actual wisdom suggests the REAL SOLUTION would have been to reproduce LESS the past several hundred years, so the actual fuels consumed would be less.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Actual wisdom suggests the REAL SOLUTION would have been to reproduce LESS the past several hundred years, so the actual fuels consumed would be less.

That is certainly one solution. But are you going to get people to use condoms for the sake of oil consumption? I mean there are people who refuse to use condoms even when their very lives are directly at risk!

Oh, and the oil consumption thing only got going in earnest after the 1850's.

[el chupacabra]

i only read about a paragraph of your biofuel critic, but I think it sort of misses the point. Biofuels such as ethanol dont require extra land to make the product. They use the extra leaves from rice and stuff that used to just be thrown out or burned and they ferment it to ethanol which can be added to gasoline. I recently bought the float of an ethanol company after seeing how the process worked. Its very simple and cheap to produce and farmers are looking for people to take the biowaste off their hands. It is currently in the works with people trying to genetically engineer plants that can produce tons of petroleum products with little land and resources.

Canada has about as much oil as Saudi all they need to do is solve the water problem. Canadas proven reserves increases about every month as they discover new technology to extract more oil. I dont think we have much to worry about as far as energy concerned. Just a temporary set back do to americans always waiting last minute to act.