America Is Driving Towards Disaster

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I don't really understand this claim. Future energy solutions will be much more efficient than using oil. If the author is claiming that we will have to sacrifice some luxury in the short term then he is probably correct, but there is no reason that we cannot eventually become energy independent and enjoy a rich lifestyle.

He's actually saying we cannot afford our disconnected commuter lifestyle. We can't afford to drive so many commuter miles daily; we can't afford to transport immeasurable amounts of goods from one corner of our country to another.

We can lead rich lifestyles, but they will have to be reconfigured around a model that doesn't consume so much energy per person (from any source, oil or 'future energy solutions').

We seem to be consumed with the notion that we can simply replace our overconsumption of oil with an overconsumption of a different energy source, and both roads will eventually lead to disaster.

actually we can, the technology just doesn't exist yet

:laugh:

Thanks for proving my point.

:music::music:When you wish upon a star...:music::music:

most of it does exist though, high speed electric rails, nuclear power, hydrogen powered cars, the main this thats needed are the small scale improvements to make them more competitive, as well as a couple $T is infrastructure. Fusion power would be nice too.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I don't really understand this claim. Future energy solutions will be much more efficient than using oil. If the author is claiming that we will have to sacrifice some luxury in the short term then he is probably correct, but there is no reason that we cannot eventually become energy independent and enjoy a rich lifestyle.

He's actually saying we cannot afford our disconnected commuter lifestyle. We can't afford to drive so many commuter miles daily; we can't afford to transport immeasurable amounts of goods from one corner of our country to another.

We can lead rich lifestyles, but they will have to be reconfigured around a model that doesn't consume so much energy per person (from any source, oil or 'future energy solutions').

We seem to be consumed with the notion that we can simply replace our overconsumption of oil with an overconsumption of a different energy source, and both roads will eventually lead to disaster.

actually we can, the technology just doesn't exist yet

:laugh:

Thanks for proving my point.

:music::music:When you wish upon a star...:music::music:

most of it does exist though, high speed electric rails, nuclear power, hydrogen powered cars, the main this thats needed are the small scale improvements to make them more competitive, as well as a couple $T is infrastructure. Fusion power would be nice too.

you think American families are stretched using gasoline now? Sure, technology may exist. But affordably? lol Sure, if youre in the top 1% of income earners. Realistically, it doesnt exist.

 

[ericlp]

yeah esp, since the USA is burning up 60% of the oil for the entire world.... Makes one think about harder about it all doesn't it? OINK!OINK!


Scream little piggy scream... Mean while we are still a bunch of dip shits building 13-15 MPG SUV's! What's wrong with this picture?


http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html


demand for oil in the USA alone... = 22 million barrels per day!


What? 130 dollars a barrel? = 2860000000 per day in US dollars = 1043900000000 per year in US dollars?


Is it starting to add up now?

Oink!

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: mshan
I believe $4/gallon is where people stop "clinging to" their SUVs. :laugh:

BHO


(seriously, though, I remember reading that $4/gallon has been previously projected as the approximate price point that actually starts to curb driving habits)

I have to agree.
SUV's just aren't selling anymore; Ford is actually suspending production for now IIRC.

The war has almost been won! 😎 get those glutton fad mobiles off the road!

 

[maverick44]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I don't really understand this claim. Future energy solutions will be much more efficient than using oil. If the author is claiming that we will have to sacrifice some luxury in the short term then he is probably correct, but there is no reason that we cannot eventually become energy independent and enjoy a rich lifestyle.

He's actually saying we cannot afford our disconnected commuter lifestyle. We can't afford to drive so many commuter miles daily; we can't afford to transport immeasurable amounts of goods from one corner of our country to another.

We can lead rich lifestyles, but they will have to be reconfigured around a model that doesn't consume so much energy per person (from any source, oil or 'future energy solutions').

We seem to be consumed with the notion that we can simply replace our overconsumption of oil with an overconsumption of a different energy source, and both roads will eventually lead to disaster.

The whole world can afford a commuter lifestyle... many times over. many many times over.

Saudi Arabia alone has enough crude to feed the world for 80-100 years. Alberta Canada has enough in oil sands to feed the world for the next 300 years at present consumption levels and price levels. Plus there are more oil sands in africa.

This whole mess is only because of OPEC and their idiotic politics.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: desy
Unfortunately Mans short sightedness is going to cause war famine disease and pestulance the world over.
Rich NA is going to be the last to feel it as there is so much over capacity in our current system that its a huge cushion.

I think you actually have that backwards.

Ever heard the phrase "the meek shall inherit the earth." I think its appropriate those poor people in other nations who dont have electricity or cars will be going along their lives as usual while we will have to adapt or die.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: maverick44
The whole world can afford a commuter lifestyle... many times over. many many times over.

Saudi Arabia alone has enough crude to feed the world for 80-100 years. Alberta Canada has enough in oil sands to feed the world for the next 300 years at present consumption levels and price levels. Plus there are more oil sands in africa.

This whole mess is only because of OPEC and their idiotic politics.

Where did you get that information?

As for the part about "present" levels of consumption? How do you intend to maintain present levels? There has always been growth? Our whole economy is based on growth and there being more people spending more every year.

 

[maverick44]

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: maverick44
The whole world can afford a commuter lifestyle... many times over. many many times over.

Saudi Arabia alone has enough crude to feed the world for 80-100 years. Alberta Canada has enough in oil sands to feed the world for the next 300 years at present consumption levels and price levels. Plus there are more oil sands in africa.

This whole mess is only because of OPEC and their idiotic politics.

Where did you get that information?

As for the part about "present" levels of consumption? How do you intend to maintain present levels? There has always been growth? Our whole economy is based on growth and there being more people spending more every year.

I am majoring in chemical engineering, so i have some idea of the situation.

Linky:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_oil_sands

Read the article.

"present levels" of consumption are only to give you some idea of how much oil there is out there in alberta alone and around the world.

Demand goes up and so does price and then there is a constant effort by engineers and geophysicists to suck the maximum amount of juice from every drop of crude.

Sorry to disappoint you but oil is not like gold where you can just dig it all up. There is a refining process involved. Earlier it wasnt economically feasible to extract oil from all but the purest of crude. But now other LESSER quality reserves are ripe for extraction aka oil sands

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: maverick44

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: maverick44
The whole world can afford a commuter lifestyle... many times over. many many times over.

Saudi Arabia alone has enough crude to feed the world for 80-100 years. Alberta Canada has enough in oil sands to feed the world for the next 300 years at present consumption levels and price levels. Plus there are more oil sands in africa.

This whole mess is only because of OPEC and their idiotic politics.

Where did you get that information?

As for the part about "present" levels of consumption? How do you intend to maintain present levels? There has always been growth? Our whole economy is based on growth and there being more people spending more every year.

I am majoring in chemical engineering, so i have some idea of the situation.

Linky:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_oil_sands

Read the article.

"present levels" of consumption are only to give you some idea of how much oil there is out there in alberta alone and around the world.

Demand goes up and so does price and then there is a constant effort by engineers and geophysicists to suck the maximum amount of juice from every drop of crude.

Sorry to disappoint you but oil is not like gold where you can just dig it all up. There is a refining process involved. Earlier it wasnt economically feasible to extract oil from all but the purest of crude. But now other LESSER quality reserves are ripe for extraction aka oil sands

Yes there is a reason why we import 18% of our oil from canada.... @ 130 a barrel it's looking better and better to squeeze out of the tar sands.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: desy
Unfortunately Mans short sightedness is going to cause war famine disease and pestulance the world over.
Rich NA is going to be the last to feel it as there is so much over capacity in our current system that its a huge cushion.

I think you actually have that backwards.

Ever heard the phrase "the meek shall inherit the earth." I think its appropriate those poor people in other nations who dont have electricity or cars will be going along their lives as usual while we will have to adapt or die.

LOL yaaaah for Africans!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ericlp
yeah esp, since the USA is burning up 60% of the oil for the entire world.... Makes one think about harder about it all doesn't it? OINK!OINK!


Scream little piggy scream... Mean while we are still a bunch of dip shits building 13-15 MPG SUV's! What's wrong with this picture?


http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html


demand for oil in the USA alone... = 22 million barrels per day!


What? 130 dollars a barrel? = 2860000000 per day in US dollars = 1043900000000 per year in US dollars?


Is it starting to add up now?

Oink!

Things will change this year. A summary of different sources about consumption

A few highlights:

**China's consumption of crude oil and refined oil products both hit record highs in the first quarter of the year according to statistics released by the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Association. China's consumption of oil products - composed of gasoline, diesel and kerosene - rose by 16.5 percent year on year in the first three months. Crude oil consumption rose by eight percent. (Xinhua)
**China?s crude oil imports rose 25 percent in March.(Dallas Federal Reserve)
**With China's crude demand expanding at 11 per cent a year the country will soon replace the US as the world's biggest oil importer. The growth of India's oil demand isn't far behind....As these countries get richer the number of cars in the world, now around 625 million, is set to double in less than 20 years. The impact of that on global oil demand will be immense - around 70 per cent of current crude output is used to fuel autos. (Telegraph)


The US isnt the only bad guys here. And once China and India overtake US consumption, guess what-theres NOTHING we can do about it.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're not accounting for the huge populations of both China and India in those calculations, blackangst1. Their per capita consumption of oil will remain far below that of the US for hte foreseeable future. It is, as I've pointed out before, many times, a simple matter of efficiency and utility. They'll get a lot more out of a gallon of gas that the vast majority of Americans, bet on that... so they'll be willing to pay more for it... despite having lower incomes...

Efficiency is really the only answer, and that'll be slow to come here in the US, simply because people are locked into upside down contracts on their SUV's and trucks, also their homes- they can afford the higher price of gas better than they can afford to buy or trade for something more efficient... squeezed from both sides, as it were... When the price of gas hits $5/gal, you won't be able to give away motor homes, for example... no matter how much you owe on 'em...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
The author also doesn't take into account the role of enviromentalism in our energy crises. It has it's place, but if we want relief we are going to have to drill for new sourses (starting w/ ANWR), build new refineries, and build new nuclear power plants. A new refinery and new nuclear power plant haven't been built in 30 years--it needs to be done. It's the only way prices will decrease or level out and get ourselves off middle east oil.

We have a light rail system in Phoenix now, don't know how it's going to do but it will be interesting.

You realize that the oil companies don't even really want to build more refineries right? There is very very little pressure from them to make more. Refining is a very low profit business, and even in places where refineries have been approved there has been extreme difficulty in getting anyone to invest in it.

Drilling for new sources won't solve our problem. ANWR would take decades to develop and even at maximum capacity would do very little to change oil prices. Again, you need to remember that oil is a GLOBAL COMMODITY. We can't 'get ourselves off middle east oil'. It's simply not possible. If you want to make some more nuclear power plants, that's something I could support. Modern reactors are extremely safe and it seems like a reasonable compromise between environmental concerns and the electrical power we need... at least as a stopgap measure.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You're not accounting for the huge populations of both China and India in those calculations, blackangst1. Their per capita consumption of oil will remain far below that of the US for hte foreseeable future. It is, as I've pointed out before, many times, a simple matter of efficiency and utility. They'll get a lot more out of a gallon of gas that the vast majority of Americans, bet on that... so they'll be willing to pay more for it... despite having lower incomes...

Efficiency is really the only answer, and that'll be slow to come here in the US, simply because people are locked into upside down contracts on their SUV's and trucks, also their homes- they can afford the higher price of gas better than they can afford to buy or trade for something more efficient... squeezed from both sides, as it were... When the price of gas hits $5/gal, you won't be able to give away motor homes, for example... no matter how much you owe on 'em...

Oh I understand about per capita. But its the NET result the matters. To put it in simple terms, if group A has 100 people and consumes 100 gallons of water, and group B has 1000 people who consume 110 gallons, it doesnt matter that those in group B consume less per person, the net result is more consumption.

Or did I miss something?

I agree about efficiency also. As has been mentioned, sure we have solutions and technolgy in place, but at what expense? The average family CANT afford alternative energy solutions-yet. Like I have always said fossil fuel is the most efficient on the planet.

 

[CPA]

Idiots who believe that a nationwide passenger railroad system would work in this country need to have get a reality check.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: blackangst1This guy is a fucking LOON.

actually, Kunstler makes a fair living writing about doom. that's not so loony.

he's definitely set a world record for the number of different ways to say, "our urban planning sucks".

but this is something that can be studied without relying on Kunstler.

http://www.energybulletin.net/index.php

http://www.theoildrum.com/

http://www.peakoil.com/

Originally posted by: JohnnyGageA new refinery and new nuclear power plant haven't been built in 30 years--it needs to be done.

We have a light rail system in Phoenix now, don't know how it's going to do but it will be interesting.

the problem is, it takes a lot of ENERGY to build all these things.

one of the classic tomes on the subject is the Hirsch Report. big study that came out in 2005. one of the basic conclusions - in order to engineer our way out of this without "massive social dislocation" we needed to start 20 years ago.

basically, Jimmy Carter was quite right about energy related subjects. his fireside chats about saving energy were not well received.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CPA
Idiots who believe that a nationwide passenger railroad system would work in this country need to have get a reality check.

Im pretty sure people were referring to light rail...which DOES work. *shrug*

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: blackllotus
I don't really understand this claim. Future energy solutions will be much more efficient than using oil. If the author is claiming that we will have to sacrifice some luxury in the short term then he is probably correct, but there is no reason that we cannot eventually become energy independent and enjoy a rich lifestyle.

He's actually saying we cannot afford our disconnected commuter lifestyle. We can't afford to drive so many commuter miles daily; we can't afford to transport immeasurable amounts of goods from one corner of our country to another.

We can lead rich lifestyles, but they will have to be reconfigured around a model that doesn't consume so much energy per person (from any source, oil or 'future energy solutions').

We seem to be consumed with the notion that we can simply replace our overconsumption of oil with an overconsumption of a different energy source, and both roads will eventually lead to disaster.

actually we can, the technology just doesn't exist yet

:laugh:

Thanks for proving my point.

:music::music:When you wish upon a star...:music::music:

most of it does exist though, high speed electric rails, nuclear power, hydrogen powered cars, the main this thats needed are the small scale improvements to make them more competitive, as well as a couple $T is infrastructure. Fusion power would be nice too.

The thing I don't understand is, why not invest further in nuclear power and just use the electric car technology which is ripe now? It wouldn't take that long to build up support infrastructure, and it would be worth a hefty government subsidy to get us less dependent on foreign oil, even with current battery technology. And new battery technology is poised to hit the market that will make electric cars even more viable.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CPA
Idiots who believe that a nationwide passenger railroad system would work in this country need to have get a reality check.

Im pretty sure people were referring to light rail...which DOES work. *shrug*

High speed rail would work well to replace short/medium haul air travel, especially on the Eastern and Western coasts. The initial funding layouts are quite large so until recently it scared everyone away. California has their bond initiative for an LA to SF segment of high speed rail to be built on the November ballot, this will be a good barometer to see if the public is willing to invest in something other than just more roads.

 

[1prophet]

Railroad Fuel Efficiency Sets New Record

Railroad Fuel Efficiency Sets New Record
Baltimore to Boston on One Gallon of Diesel Fuel

WASHINGTON, May 21, 2008 ? What's more fuel efficient than the newest hybrid car? A freight train.

And last year, freight railroads were more fuel efficient than ever.

In 2007, major freight railroads in the United States moved a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on each gallon of fuel. This represents a 3.1 percent improvement over 2006 and an astonishing 85.5 percent improvement since 1980.

"That's the equivalent of moving a ton of freight all the way from Baltimore to Boston on just a single gallon of diesel fuel," said Association of American Railroads President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger.

He noted that thanks to railroads' fuel efficiency gains, since 1980 freight railroads have reduced fuel consumption by 48 billion gallons and carbon dioxide emissions by 538 million tons.

Hamberger pointed out that railroads are three or more times more fuel efficient than trucks, adding: ?In fact, if just 10 percent of the freight currently moving by truck went instead by rail, the nation could save one billion gallons of fuel per year."

Moving more freight by rail does more than just reduce fuel consumption and pollution, he said. It also reduces highway congestion. "A single intermodal train can take 280 trucks off the highways. And because the average size of a truck is equal to almost four automobiles, that's the same amount of space that 1,100 automobiles would occupy."

Railroads are taking concrete steps to further reduce fuel consumption and emissions.

"Railroads and their suppliers have developed technologies that reduce the need to idle locomotives when not operating? said Hamberger. ?They have developed new hybrid and "gen-set" locomotives that also reduce both fuel consumption and emissions in rail yards. And they are working to develop new hybrid locomotives and fuel cell locomotives that have promise to bring further improvements in both areas

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Railroad Fuel Efficiency Sets New Record

Railroad Fuel Efficiency Sets New Record
Baltimore to Boston on One Gallon of Diesel Fuel

WASHINGTON, May 21, 2008 ? What's more fuel efficient than the newest hybrid car? A freight train.

And last year, freight railroads were more fuel efficient than ever.

In 2007, major freight railroads in the United States moved a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on each gallon of fuel. This represents a 3.1 percent improvement over 2006 and an astonishing 85.5 percent improvement since 1980.

"That's the equivalent of moving a ton of freight all the way from Baltimore to Boston on just a single gallon of diesel fuel," said Association of American Railroads President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger.

He noted that thanks to railroads' fuel efficiency gains, since 1980 freight railroads have reduced fuel consumption by 48 billion gallons and carbon dioxide emissions by 538 million tons.

Hamberger pointed out that railroads are three or more times more fuel efficient than trucks, adding: ?In fact, if just 10 percent of the freight currently moving by truck went instead by rail, the nation could save< one billion gallons of fuel per year."

Moving more freight by rail does more than just reduce fuel consumption and pollution, he said. It also reduces highway congestion. "A single intermodal train can take 280 trucks off the highways. And because the average size of a truck is equal to almost four automobiles, that's the same amount of space that 1,100 automobiles would occupy."

Railroads are taking concrete steps to further reduce fuel consumption and emissions.

"Railroads and their suppliers have developed technologies that reduce the need to idle locomotives when not operating? said Hamberger. ?They have developed new hybrid and "gen-set" locomotives that also reduce both fuel consumption and emissions in rail yards. And they are working to develop new hybrid locomotives and fuel cell locomotives that have promise to bring further improvements in both areas

Impressive... until you realize that's less than four gallons of fuel per year for every man, woman and child in the US. So, wipe out ALL the freight trucking and replace it with rail freight, and it's a few tanks of gas per person. It puts things in perspective.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Impressive... until you realize that's less than four gallons of fuel per year for every man, woman and child in the US. So, wipe out ALL the freight trucking and replace it with rail freight, and it's a few tanks of gas per person. It puts things in perspective.

Add in pollution, congestion, and road damage due to trucks.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Railroad Fuel Efficiency Sets New Record

Railroad Fuel Efficiency Sets New Record
Baltimore to Boston on One Gallon of Diesel Fuel

WASHINGTON, May 21, 2008 ? What's more fuel efficient than the newest hybrid car? A freight train.

And last year, freight railroads were more fuel efficient than ever.

In 2007, major freight railroads in the United States moved a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on each gallon of fuel. This represents a 3.1 percent improvement over 2006 and an astonishing 85.5 percent improvement since 1980.

"That's the equivalent of moving a ton of freight all the way from Baltimore to Boston on just a single gallon of diesel fuel," said Association of American Railroads President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger.

He noted that thanks to railroads' fuel efficiency gains, since 1980 freight railroads have reduced fuel consumption by 48 billion gallons and carbon dioxide emissions by 538 million tons.

Hamberger pointed out that railroads are three or more times more fuel efficient than trucks, adding: ?In fact, if just 10 percent of the freight currently moving by truck went instead by rail, the nation could save<< one billion gallons of fuel per year."

Moving more freight by rail does more than just reduce fuel consumption and pollution, he said. It also reduces highway congestion. "A single intermodal train can take 280 trucks off the highways. And because the average size of a truck is equal to almost four automobiles, that's the same amount of space that 1,100 automobiles would occupy."

Railroads are taking concrete steps to further reduce fuel consumption and emissions.

"Railroads and their suppliers have developed technologies that reduce the need to idle locomotives when not operating? said Hamberger. ?They have developed new hybrid and "gen-set" locomotives that also reduce both fuel consumption and emissions in rail yards. And they are working to develop new hybrid locomotives and fuel cell locomotives that have promise to bring further improvements in both areas

Impressive... until you realize that's less than four gallons of fuel per year for every man, woman and child in the US. So, wipe out ALL the freight trucking and replace it with rail freight, and it's a few tanks of gas per person. It puts things in perspective.

Maybe this is why Warren Buffett took a big interest last year in railways...Burlington Northern (BNI), Norfolk Southern (NSC), Union Pacific (UNP). Fortune reported both he and Berkshire dropped significant cash.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: punchkin

Impressive... until you realize that's less than four gallons of fuel per year for every man, woman and child in the US. So, wipe out ALL the freight trucking and replace it with rail freight, and it's a few tanks of gas per person. It puts things in perspective.

Add in pollution, congestion, and road damage due to trucks.

... all tiny in comparison to problems caused by cars, with the possible exception of road or bridge damage (I couldn't find data on this online).