# Future without cars:



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

http://www.alternet.org:80/envirohealth/50049/

We are not going to run Wal Mart, Walt Disney World, Monsanto, and the
interstate highway system on any combination of solar or wind energy, hydrogen,
nuclear, ethanol, tar sands, oil shale, methane hydrates, thermal
depolymerization, zero-point energy, used french-fry oil, or anything else you
can name. We will desperately use many of these things in many ways, but we are
likely to be disappointed by what they can actually do for us, particularly in
terms of scale -- apart from the fact that most or all of them are probably net
energy losers in economic terms.


We Must Imagine a Future Without Cars


----------



## Hip_Shot_Hanna (Apr 2, 2005)

Wall Mart will have nothing to sell , Disney world will become a orchard , monsanto wont be able to deliver their seeds, fertilisers or round up , 
and ethanol will starve more mexicans north , 
try this thought provoker .


http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/petch/2007/0408.html


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Aint happenin'.We can go to an all electric economy anytime we have the will.

BooBoo


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

hillsidedigger said:


> http://www.alternet.org:80/envirohealth/50049/
> 
> We are not going to run Wal Mart, Walt Disney World, Monsanto, and the
> interstate highway system on any combination of solar or wind energy, hydrogen,
> ...


maybe one wont work by it's self but alltogether they can make a lot of power


bassketcher


----------



## Andy Nonymous (Aug 20, 2005)

Booboo, 
The significant use of oil for fuel has been but a blip in human history 
and what fuel, praytell, will generate the daily additional gigawatt_seconds_ of electricity needed to replace the fuels currently used for 'internal combustion'? (how many million barrels of oil does the US economy consume per day? (look for yourselves)) And how many 'watts' worth is that? A barrel of oil contains 42 gallons, about 274 pounds, with each pound of crude producing about 19,000 btu (crude densities and energy content vary). A Kilowatthour equals 3,411 Btu's, thus a barrel of oil is the rough equivalent of 5,206,000 Btu's, or about 1,526.24 KWh per barrel. Multiply that by the nearly 10 million barrels a day used, and you have to come up with 15,262,386,396 kilowatthours of additional electricity per day (that's 15 trillion, 262 billion... watts per hour, all day, every day, all year - one would need to roughly triple that generating capacity for wind / solar, depending greatly on location), plus factor in an additional amount for transmission line losses, storage cell losses, etc, etc. Just for reference, a 180# person doing "vigorous" exercise on a stationary bike (perhaps connected to an alternator), burns about 900 calories an hour - even allowing for a 90% conversion rate to generated electricity, that equates to 810 calories of 'work', which is one (single) watthour, or 1.34 horsepower /hour. (conversion data here) The typical electric water heater is 4,500 watts. How much hot water are you going to 'generate' personally? The typical SUV is 200 HP - got room for at least a hundred sets of pedals? Sure, performance will suffer, but it 'utilizes the installed base' Total electric switch possible "right now", with (I assume) a minimal change in lifestyle? Prove it, please.

What is the net return, after deducting all energy inputs for manufacturing and disposal, per watt of the typical solar panel over it's theoretical 30 year lifespan (of decreasing efficiency)? Ethanol production is (or is really close to) a net loss of energy, figuring the energy inputs to grow, transport, distill and distribute it, and hardly a 'proper use' of a foodstuff (unless we're talking a use for getting rid of GM corn stocks, without ever planting another crop of it).

Face it: there is no "easy" or comfortable solution - we (as an industrial nation) have been 'living large', and "nobody" accustomed to that wants to give that up, for any reason. It's become a "right" (even if it's wrong). 

Thinking "how do we keep this thing going?" is akin to driving a '68 Caddy with the 454 (or was that a 455?) motor everywhere, just because you like the 'ride', even when going just to the end of the driveway to get the mail. Wrong premise for any feasible answer. The current rate of use of energy can't be maintained, and won't be maintained here much longer. For a large number of reasons and causes, it will come to a stop, more likely sooner than later, and it won't be a pretty one - more like an over-stuffed SUV prom night joy-ride that ends at a large oak. The carnage will touch all of us, deeply.

Historians may look back and say "they had so much potential", "they could have done 'this' or 'that'", but the sad truth is that "they were having too much fun, living too much in the moment, going too fast down the wrong road, and 
just
couldn't
slow-down
or stop".

"and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (and no amount of sackcloth and ashes will bring back the dead from the "wreck", nor save those who will be crushed by the subsequent fall of the oak).

Be thankful I'm an optimist.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

Just guessing, but I would say that no more than one/sixth of the people in the world right now are dependent upon private automobiles. For the other 5/6ths., it will be no big deal (were it not for the fact that much of the food for many of the 5/6ths. is grown, processed and transported with fuel drinking machinery).


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Look where we have gone in the last 100 years.What will the next 100 hold?

How much power will we use,how much more efficient will power using items be in the future? A LOT more efficient than they are now.

Nor am I afraid oil is gone.Drilling technology and searching technology also continues to increase.

More than enough solar power reaches the earth every day to power everything now,and a huge amt. more.And the wind blows every day too and we have enough of that to power the Earth too.With plenty to spare.

If and when oil plays out,we will have plenty of alternatives to replace it with.Windplant power is exploding worldwide,and will continue to do so because it WORKS.

Im not the least bit worried about it.About the only sure bet I can see is the Oil Powers and their pawns,ie,the governments and the power elites,will rape us totally in the process.

Sorry,I dont buy Peak Power,end of the world as we know it.I know better,I know how much solar and wind is available,and it greatly exceeds our usage many many many times over,every single day.

More power to the eggheads who think otherwise,they are wrong,power is out there,and can be harnessed today CHEAPER than using fossil fuel to produce it,right now.

Political will,and the end of the OIL Cartel/governments who have a very vested interest to keeping us on the oil track is the ONLY thing standing in the way of a the change,as has been noted here,is but a small blip on the radar in world history.As weve had oil,we will have renewables thanks to our technology making it feasible.

Will we need to rebuild our infrastructure,you bet we will.Maybe if we took the money getting pee'd into the wind in the middle east and put it into renewable infrastructure,instead of Oil wars,we might get some true security here.A TRILLION DOLLARS WOULD GO A LONG WAY TOWARDS THAT GOAL.

The sky is NOT falling.

OUR POLITICIANS ARE traitors,SIMPLE AS THAT.And they are the only things standing in the way of change,Right 'Uncle Bandar?'

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

The last hundred years seems to me to be the greatest period of 'degression' in human history.

So, Boo, are you saying it will only get worse?


----------



## susieM (Apr 23, 2006)

Forget the future without cars, it may also be a future without electricity.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

with (I assume) a minimal change in lifestyle? Prove it, please.
Windplants and solar thermal electrical generation,neither of which require ANY lifestyle changes,and are economically feasible RIGHT NOW, and will be even more feasible as fossil fuel prices cont. to inflate.


What is the net return, after deducting all energy inputs for manufacturing and disposal, per watt of the typical solar panel over it's theoretical 30 year lifespan (of decreasing efficiency)?

What is the net energy gain of making MILLIONS of cars every year,which we can do with impunity.I believe the energy input to output on solar PV cells is seven years right now.
Solar thermal plants,which are just NATGAS plants with solar firing the up the steam,are very cheap and cheaper than Natgas plants right now,with no threat of loss of fuel supply or escalating costs of that power. 
BTW,my 4.5 amp rated solar panels,monocrystalline,are putting out 4.5 amps 10 years later. Fully expect them to outlast me.I believe the 30 year guaranteed output of panels is no more than 15% loss.I dont buy the 30 year lifespan at all,know of plenty that have exceeded that.But that is a whole 'nother thread.


Face it: there is no "easy" or comfortable solution.

Yes there are,I just named 2.Sorry it costs money to do it,we are paying plenty for oil too,and getting by just fine.We will meet these costs too.Infrastructure costs money,both in upfront costs,and maintenance,and improvemnets.Always has,always will,nothing new there.

Thinking "how do we keep this thing going?" is akin to driving a '68 Caddy with the 454 (or was that a 455?) motor everywhere

I believe mine was a 472,also made a 500.Very nice motors BTW.Which is why we now have V-6 engines that put out 200HP and get 25 miles to a gallon.And I can go nose to nose stoplight to stoplight with that Caddy in my Jetta,and carry 4 people,and outrun it on any road.Came a long way in 40 years,and will come further in the next 40.

Be thankful I'm an optimist.

Im more than that,Im a realist and can see whats right in front of my eyes,expanding windpower and thermal solar electrical generation within 30 miles of me,and working at a competitive and less cost than the 'OLD SCHOOL' power generation we have now.Cheaper,Cleaner,Safer and HERE RIGHT NOW.There are NO technological roadblocks at all to them,they are here and real.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## Hip_Shot_Hanna (Apr 2, 2005)

intresting piece here

http://www.netcastdaily.com/fsnewshour.htm

2,nd hour with mathiew simmonds . 
what struck me is what he says about the deep wells , the rock is under such presure that when the "oil " is drawn out ther fractures close and the "oil" stops flowing , the well presure has to be kept up , the problem we cant build pumps or pipe strong enough to stand the presures . and rigs are costing 1/2 a million a day to hire .
and listen to what he says about mexicos cantarel field


----------



## Triffin (Apr 20, 2005)

New Nukes and lots of 'em ..
Solar and wind where applicable ..
Oh yeah .. GW aside we *will* burn all the coal .. no choice ..
Enjoy the ride .. no more oil ( in amounts that matter ) by 2034 ..
Mr Fusion ????

Triff .. http://www.theoildrum.com/


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Triffin said:


> New Nukes and lots of 'em ..
> Solar and wind where applicable ..
> Oh yeah .. GW aside we *will* burn all the coal .. no choice ..
> Enjoy the ride .. no more oil ( in amounts that matter ) by 2034 ..
> ...


Why do you want nuclear if wind and solar is unlimited and clean?Nuke is NOT clean,it can kill you and has.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

5MW windplants,500 of them per state would replace all our nuclear generated power.Nukes are 20% of our electrical power output.2,500 5 MW wind generators per state(125,000 wind turbines total) would replace all our electrical generation.That includes a 35% overbuild to acct for downtime,ie,figuring on wind capture 65% of the time.

Thats doable.And thats at todays next generation wind turbines currently being tested.

2500 per state,doesnt scare me a bit and I certainly think it could be done.So,some states maybe less,some more,some out to sea,its a doable thing.

And that doesnt count water power generation or solar either in the mix.Or anything else at all.

We do have options.That are reliable and clean and economical.

BTW,Europe has already installed wind power equal to 25% of our total Nuke output,or equal to 5% of our electrical use.
Again I would say,it can be done,we can have clean renewable power,Europe is already 5% of the way there towards installing what would be 100% of our electrical needs.

I say we better get humping on this and "Get er done!"

BooBoo


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Costs dropping while installation soars.Wind power,fastest growing power source in the world,and thats some pretty dramatic growth.Sorry I couldnt find more up to date graphs,but that upwards trend has gotten steeper still.
----------------------------------------------------------


















BooBoo


----------



## Kevingr (Mar 10, 2006)

I think it's great that oil will last until 2034. When I was going to a Technical College for Alternative Energy back in the 1981-82 school year we were being told that we'd run out by 2000. 

Sounds to me like we've made great strides in efficiency, alternatives and new oil reserves since 1981. I'm very excited by what we'll find for efficiencies, alternatives and new oil reserves to get us beyond 2034.

I don't buy into the gloom and doom. But I do what I can to help stretch things out, such as my hybrid car, compact FL lighting and hopefully a wind plant in the near future. Do these things cost more to produce than they save? I don't know, but my gasoline bill is way down, so is my electric bill, and that's good for me.


----------



## Triffin (Apr 20, 2005)

*
Why do you want nuclear if wind and solar is unlimited 
*
Because it has the highest energy density of any substance we can handle
Because wind and solar are intermittent and usage isn't
Because we don't yet know how to store solar and wind as it's produced


Triff ..


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

One thing I can't understand about civilization nowadays is why many people aren't allowed to have livestock in certain areas even if they have enough land, because of zoning laws. How nice it would be if some people could go back to horse and buggy for transportation, in little towns especially. If people could raise their own chickens, eggs, and have a milk goat in their backyard, how much fuel would be saved by not mowing? The last one would be I wish there was a way to make those battery operated golf carts street legal, maybe in the bicycle lane. Alot of people would use those. I know I would even if it took longer. For trips to the grocery, or however far they would go.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Triffin]*
Why do you want nuclear if wind and solar is unlimited 
*
Because it has the highest energy density of any substance we can handle
Thats probably true.So? Also can kill you,and waste products that last thousands of years,also terrorist targets.

Because wind and solar are intermittent and usage isn't.
Thats why you have a grid,and nat gas at the solar plants (Thats current design in Ca.) And an overbuild.You can pretty much figure how much will be produced.The plants are dispersed.
Usage IS intermittent,it changes hourly throughout the day.Nukes dont throttle up and down(usually) both wind and solar can do so.

Because we don't yet know how to store solar and wind as it's produced
You dont store it.You use solar during the day when its most needed,wind doesnt care about the sun at all.About the only power we store is hydro,by backing up water.Or store fossil fuels on the pre-production side.We arent storing post production power.

Should the sun NOT shine,and you need the plants output,you fire the boilers with nat gas,as we do now.

Interesting note.Germany is CLOSING Nukes,and replacing them with Wind.Germans arent stupid.So it must work.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

wendle said:


> One thing I can't understand about civilization nowadays is why many people aren't allowed to have livestock in certain areas even if they have enough land, because of zoning laws. How nice it would be if some people could go back to horse and buggy for transportation, in little towns especially. If people could raise their own chickens, eggs, and have a milk goat in their backyard, how much fuel would be saved by not mowing? The last one would be I wish there was a way to make those battery operated golf carts street legal, maybe in the bicycle lane. Alot of people would use those. I know I would even if it took longer. For trips to the grocery, or however far they would go.


The GEM electric vehicle, manufactured by Global Electric Motorcars, LLC, is the first multipurpose neighborhood electric vehicle available for sale from a major automaker. GEM vehicles are engineered to meet federal safety requirements for street-legal operation as a Low-Speed Vehicle (LSV). GEM vehicles are for sale at a variety of DaimlerChrysler and authorized GEM dealerships across the United States and Europe.


GEM vehicles can be driven on most public roads that are posted at 35 mph or less. It is an ideal vehicle for local, around-town use. Uses include transportation from mass transit stations to the workplace or home, taking the kids to school or the library, grocery shopping, or other common neighborhood or downtown errands.

Charging
GEM vehicles are powered by a 72-volt-battery system, which provides power to a custom controller and powers the electric drive motor. The GEM e2, contains six 12-volt flooded electrolyte batteries. The batteries are charged with an onboard charger that plugs into a standard 110-volt outlet. The GEM e2 take approximately six to eight hours to recharge. In addition, with an optional fast charge package, GEM vehicles can be fully charged in less than one hour. The ideal time to charge is at night when the demand for electric power is at its lowest, although the GEM vehicle can be plugged in virtually anywhere, at any time, to top off the charge or to completely charge the vehicle.

Safety
GEM vehicles meet the latest requirements set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for this class of vehicle. The requirements include a safety glass windshield, wipers, headlamps, taillights, turn signals, high mounted stoplights, mirrors, and three-point safety belts, among other accepted automotive safety features.

Range
Many things can affect the driving range of the GEM vehicle, including ambient temperature, terrain, driving conditions, payload, driving habits, battery age, and tire pressure. It is hard to say exactly what your range will be, but a typical GEM vehicle, used under proper conditions with fully charged batteries, will get up to 30 miles on a charge.

Options
Defrost, headlights, wipers, hazards, heat, side view mirrors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I really like the GEM.About 8,800 new.There are 2 of them up here,I need to talk to the owners if I can ever catch them.Couple years old are 4500 or so.


















---------------------------------------------------------------------
or these,about 9,800
















---------------------------------------------------------------------

or the citicar








----------------------------------------------------------------------

These are NEV's,Neighborhood Electric Vehicles,street legal on roads at posted speeds of 35 MPH or less.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

. . .Unfortunately . . .

With the red neck kind of thinking
"What the he** is that piece of sh** doing on my road. Well now we'll just play a little bumper tag with that piece of sh** "
Around here to get from town "A" to town "B" you better have something that will do more than 35. 

It would scare me to drive one of those.
and I dought I'm alone in that line of reasoning.


----------



## Triffin (Apr 20, 2005)

booboo ......

*
Im more than that,Im a realist 
*

You might want to take off those rose colored glasses you're wearing 

Get back to me when you can identify a solar panel manufacturer or
a wind turbine manufacturer whose only energy inputs for their
maufacturing process is derived from renewable energy ..

Absent fossil fuels ( finite resources ) you're advocating a rather
cold dark future without a massive powedown and/or die off ..
Sorry no nat gas turbines when the wind isn't blowing or the 
sun's not shining ..

If your 'future world' is going to sustain 6 billion+ humans; it's going
to take a lot more than solar and wind to do so .. 

We can just agree to disagree, because I don't think you have
a grasp on the magnitude of the power requirements of the 
status quo ..

Triff ..


----------



## susieM (Apr 23, 2006)

http://www.aci-multimedia.net/bio/voiture_air_comprime.htm

This link is in French, sorry...but it seems that there are cars that run on compressed air.


----------



## susieM (Apr 23, 2006)

http://www.theaircar.com/

In English. With pictures.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Triffin said:


> booboo ......
> 
> *
> Im more than that,Im a realist
> ...


The wind doesnt stop blowing everywhere,thats why they are farmed out on the GRID.
Same with the sun,it doesnt stop shining everywhere either,but when it does its a simple matter to fire it up with natgas.These plants are hybrids.

You think its just going to disappear overnight,well guess what,Ive been hearing that my entire life.Hasnt happened yet.

Sort of like the coming ice age predicted by the eggheads in the 1970's,oh wait,now its global warming.Cant get much more wrong than that.

Since renewables are in their infancy,no I cant identify any thing being done completely with renewables.We arent there yet by any stretch.Neither are Cars,how many million cars do we make a year,think we cant make a million turbines before we run out of oil and natural gas?Think we cant make synthetic fuel from coal,those Crazy Germans again,they ran their war machine on coal derived liquid fuels.

As for solar,its said that the solar gain reaching the Mohave desert per day is enough to power the entire world.So you tell me Im underestimating the power from the sun,not hardly.

Now why you advocate for Nuclear power plants,yet ignore the safest nuclear power source the world has ever known,the sun,beats me.

So no,I hardly underestimate the power we use,or the power thats available from sun and wind.

Germany currently meets 17% of their electrical use from wind.Crazy Germans,guess no one told them it cant be done.Even when they are doing it with wind and have done it before with liquid coal fuels.  

And those goofy Brazilians,they have found a way to make alcohol cheaper than gas,we cant do it cause the eggheads say we cant,and we have a ridiculous crop, food grade corn,being used for it (set up to fail) ,but the Brazilians,goofy as they are,can.  

Another thing,as renewables ramp up,fossil fuel usage goes down.We keep blasting out wind turbines (and we will,hate to disappoint you),as the graphs I posted clearly showing an explosion in growth,fossil fuel needs will decline.

Ive shown where 125,000 turbines can replace all our electrical demand,with a 35% cushion for downtime if the wind isnt blowing at 35% of the sites,and you poo-poo it as unworkable.Not using ANY other power source,just wind,using current electrical usage in the USA,and you KNOW it cant be done.
Amazing.

Instead of studying just one side of the equation,you should study the other side as well.Its clear you havent grasped at all what renewable energy has done,what its doing,how its growing,how its produced,and its HUGE capability.

BooBoo <-----"It'll never Work"


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

One of the reasons for the world wide shortage on PV pannels shortly ago was that the German Gov. made really good incentives for grid tied PV systems. Consquequently the German market was sucking up all the PV pannels they could get their hands on. . . . .and at that, the per watt price was very high.
I'm trying to remember where to get the figures on the number of systems installed. Its a staggering amount.

Yup, those crazy Germans, between their PV and the Wind those folks are way ahead of the nay-sayer idiots in this country.


----------



## susieM (Apr 23, 2006)

Jim-mi said:


> One of the reasons for the world wide shortage on PV pannels shortly ago was that the German Gov. made really good incentives for grid tied PV systems. Consquequently the German market was sucking up all the PV pannels they could get their hands on. . . . .and at that, the per watt price was very high.
> I'm trying to remember where to get the figures on the number of systems installed. Its a staggering amount.
> 
> Yup, those crazy Germans, between their PV and the Wind those folks are way ahead of the nay-sayer idiots in this country.


Maybe it's not the nay-sayers...maybe it's that the people running the petroleum industry in the world just don't want to give up their system.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

susieM said:


> Maybe it's not the nay-sayers...maybe it's that the people running the petroleum industry in the world just don't want to give up their system.


Absolutely,give up the biggest fortune on the Planet,along with the power derived from it? They wont go down without a fight,thats for sure.










BooBoo <---"It'll never Work"


----------



## Triffin (Apr 20, 2005)

booboo ..

*
You think its just going to disappear overnight
*

Nope .. never said it and don't think it ..

We'll experience a long slow and hopefully gradual 
decline in fossil fuels availability over time .. So far,
May 2005 was/is the peak production month for crude
and nat gas liquids .. 

We'll need all the wind and solar we can put in place and then some ..

My contention is that as we slide down the backside 
of the fossil fuels production curve that the growth rate 
of renewables won't/can't keep pace with the rate of depletion 
of the fossil fuels .. That's all .. It's an energy density issue ..

New Nukes have the possibility of mitigating the effects 
of fossil fuel depletion on a scale that renewables can't fill ..

Triff ..


----------



## strider3700 (Feb 2, 2007)

I entirely agree with booboo that solar and wind could replace our current energy usage. Lots and lots of energy out there. The problem as I see it is thatI totally disagree with the 2034 number, I also disagree with the US geological surveys date of 2020 peak. Also I believe it was the IEA that called 2012. I agree that conventional oil peaked in may of 2005. That means the time to switch away from oil to alternatives is already passed. Carter may be ridiculed but he was right about energy. Reagan scrapped the programs and now it's too late. 


I can't see any way that we'll replace enough with in time. At the moment Demand for oil is exceeding production and world stockpiles are declining . Mexico's production from the 2nd largest field in the world Cantarell is declining rapidly. The North Sea is also in decline . And now it appears the the worlds largest oil field Ghawar is pumping more water then oil on some of it's wells.

So Although we probably could replace oil with some other energy source the resource we're now critically short of is Time. This is why I'm a doomer and spend most of my time in the Survival/prep forum.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

SusieM, shure can't disagree with your post.


-----"Spend what ya got to to make the renewables look bad"
------"Keep the sheeple believeing that oil is the end all . . .and that they WILL pay for it no matter what the cost" . . . .

these thoughts are brought to you by exon and all george's friends.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Something about oil production.

1-Why would you increase your pumping capacity beyond what is meeting the needs now? It doesnt make sense to have excess capacity for 2 reasons.Why put out the capital expense to develop something you dont need.The other reason NOT to do it,"THERE IS A SHORTAGE,THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! PAY US WHATEVER WE ASK!"
I would NOT expand production for those reasons,neither is to the benefit of the Oil Producers.

2-Why the big Rush to get the new Oil Producer agreements in Iraq? Everyone keeps saying over and over we are in for a great expansion in Oil drilling and production in Iraq.Another BIG winner for big oil,as no oil anywhere is cheaper to produce than Mid East oil.That doesnt sound like they are planning for it to end now does it? No,obviously they are planning on producing oil.

That says to me its in Oils interests to keep everyone panicked about supplies,and keep the costs up.And that there is indeed untapped supplies out there.Are current fields in decline? Probably.Is there a shortage,absolutely not.Use increases every year,not bad since we are in a decline,eh?

But lets panic the people with reports how we are pumping water and there is no more to be found to replace it.Im still waiting for a real shortage,again,Ive heard nothing but talk about it my entire life,yet Ive never actually seen it at all.

Been my lifetime experience too that this is how its been gamed for the last 50 years.Its either a political shortage,or a supply shortage,or a refining shortage,but the one constant is,ITS ALWAYS A SHORTAGE and the SHORTAGE ALWAYS BENIFITS BIG OIL.

Another explanation Ive heard from the Peak Oil crowd..."They would never lie about reserves,it lowers stock value".HOGWASH. It doesnt matter one IOTA what their stock value is,its income that matters.And lying about reserves keeps the prices up,shortage,supply and demand,remember that?

Why should I believe anything else now about the latest and greatest Oil shortage? Ive learned long ago to trust my own lying eyes over what Im fed.

Also on the what happens if we are indeed in declining oil resources? I might buy we have x or y amt. of decline,but then they ELABORATE with the doom and gloom predictions,while ignoring that we have other options that can fill the void.At that point they lose all credibility with me,because these 'OIL EXPERTS' seem to be also 'RENEWABLE IGNORAMUSES' and suddenly are greater predictors of the future World than Nostradamus!

Predictions from self proclaimed experts who DONT have the inside knowledge big oil and governments have of their actual reserves and projected developments and identified untapped reserves,how do they make future projections when they DONT have that very private,closely guarded,trade secret inside info? Somehow they are privy to EXXONS,BP's and the Worlds Leaders most sensitive,valuable info,I dont buy it,not for a minute.

I see College professors and Grad students,writing reports on campus,from published reports.Dont see where they have anything else,or any super secret inside info on actual TRUE reserves or future projects.That top secret info,that trade secret info that corporations guard so diligently.

Quote 'Oil' Sources on Reserves? See above,its hugely to their benefit to have the 'SHORTAGE' keeping prices sky high.

Think about it.You need 30 widgets,am I going to tell you I have 600,or that I MAY,MAYBE be able to get 30? Im going to tell you 30 and bank on its scarcity and rarity to up the price on these essential widgets.How business works especially when you pretty much have a monopoly on production.

My thoughts are with Jim-Mi,propaganda being fed to sheeple to turn around and present it as fact.Thats the Peak Oil crowd EXPERTS,pawns being used by the Oil Companies,and they are SOOO Smart they cant even grasp they are being used. :nerd: 

Sorry,Ive seen the game played too many times to buy into it.Why should I buy into it this time?

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## gregbaka (Apr 4, 2007)

The thread started out with "A Future Without Cars", but between now and the time that happens there will be a future with less cars.

The latest newsletter from Community Solution focused on a workable way to handle that in-between zone. It has some pretty interesting ideas on a ride-sharing concept that actually helps the person driving pay for their expensive fuel bill. Here is the link to the newsletter:
http://www.communitysolution.org/pdfs/NS12.pdf

...and their summary of the idea:

"For many decades, the problems of transportation have revolved around the issue of private versus public. After World War II the country made transportation via the private car the top priority at the expense of public transportation. This choice is not sustainable. The private car, regardless of its convenience, can no longer serve as the principle mode of people transport. Its high cost, the depleting of fossil fuels, and climate deterioration â along with high rates of deaths and injuries â make it unacceptable. Our choice today is to determine what kind of strategy should be adopted to move the basis of transportation away from the private automobile.

Since Peak Oil could arrive sooner than expected and the depletion rate could be faster than predicted, prudence requires a backup plan other than merely changing car technology. A âSmart Jitneyâ system could be developed rapidly, and provide for a very sizable (50-75%) reduction of gasoline consumed and greenhouse gases generated by transportation. It could also be the model for a new and more efficient approach to personal mobility. Ultimately, it could be vital in keeping our economy going by giving people a way to get to and from work if there suddenly was not have enough fuel for private cars."

Food for thought???

Greg in MO


----------



## dnw826 (Jan 9, 2007)

wendle said:


> One thing I can't understand about civilization nowadays is why many people aren't allowed to have livestock in certain areas even if they have enough land, because of zoning laws. How nice it would be if some people could go back to horse and buggy for transportation, in little towns especially. If people could raise their own chickens, eggs, and have a milk goat in their backyard, how much fuel would be saved by not mowing? The last one would be I wish there was a way to make those battery operated golf carts street legal, maybe in the bicycle lane. Alot of people would use those. I know I would even if it took longer. For trips to the grocery, or however far they would go.


I agree. I would gladly do it. Of course I'm sure most people in our society would not even dream of it. They might get *dirty*.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Greg . . .thats a lot of good words . . . . .but whats it gonna take to *sell* the masses on that . . . ??

Yup . . .$ 10 a gallon . . . !!!


----------



## gregbaka (Apr 4, 2007)

Yep, Jim-mi, that would definitely do it!

But it may not even take $10 gas:

It could be a combo of medium high gas prices and high unemployment (in other words, an almost empty wallet)...

It could come from some futuristic movie were Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet start a romance in a jitney and live frugally ever-after...

It could come from patriotic urge to conserve after some major disruption to the oil supply chain (ala Victory Gardens or WWII material collection campaigns)...

It could just come from today's kids growing up into a world were they have a hard time making ends meet, don't remember Chevelle's and Bronco's anyways, decide to do something about the energy and climate issues we debate today, and maybe just get tired of only meeting people online and decide to this is a cool way to really meet others...

But I do agree that it will mark a MAJOR change in the American way of life.

Greg in MO


----------



## idahodave (Jan 20, 2005)

Cars are gonna be around for a long time.....but they won't be 5000 lbs with 300 hp engines. Small gas (maybe CNG or coal created) hybrid electrics that weight 2000 lbs or less would go a long way towards conserving what's left of the world's petroleum.


----------

