Getting ugly with energy policy. (Long)

Getting ugly with energy policy: part 1

Oh sure, the Washington cowboys will deny it until the cows come home, but the war in Iraq was about oil. It was about oil for the simple fact that we are running out of it. Michele Rupert founder of From the Wilderness, dot-com paints a grim picture. Not only that we shall soon "past peek production" of our oil capacity in the next ten years, but that we are just NOW running out of natural gas as natural gas wells are being exhausted here in North America. Already, there is a growing natural gas crises that will only be realized this coming fall & winter.

And (this is what scared the hell out of me) many of the promises of renewable energies are overblown, if not being out right false. Solar and winder power can not replace oil. Not even hypothetically. And the way Rupert paints it, Human society is doomed to a post apocalyptic world when the oil finally dose run out.

But ha! An double ha. HA! HA!. Not to laugh at Rupert's predictions because I think it would be foolish to challenge such an assembly of information that he has collected. (I have seen his web sight at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/index.html It is an impressive body of work that are all peer reviewed.)
That said, I know that it is human nature to overcome difficulties. These difficulties can be over come, but with a cost.

And this is what this post is about. To look at some of those costs, and the undoubtedly ugly solutions. Some of the more obvious solution are solutions that supply siders and conservatives are already railing against. Well, screw them. This is stuff that needs to be said, and stuff that needs to be placed on the table.

First, some observations.


The Utopia Abolition Dilemma
This is a recognition of the reality of just how much control the right wing and cooperation have over government and society. The thing is that Carter tried to recognize this problem and tried to enact policy according to the dangers. And the powers that be nixed it. Big time. It is vary likely that any serious attempts at solutions will most likely require extreme political upheaval.

Much of my following arguments & observations will tend to ignore this dilemma for the sake of expediency. Unfortunately, it must be taken into account at some point. Not just on the political spectrum, but also on a technical one as well. The longer it takes to bring solutions to the field, the more extreme these solutions will have to be.

First off, it should be noted that I am NOT dealing with short term solutions here, but long term programs that span decades, even centuries.

Human technical society is grossly inefficient.
Oh, now if this isn't the understatement of the century. The fact is that we haven't even begun to conserve energy. And most of the energy conservation programs in place today are little more than feel good PR campaigns. Every where you look there is vast sums of energy being wasted.

More to the point, Cheeny was just flat out wrong when he said, "we can not conserve our way to prosperity." Indeed, if we expect to maintain any kind of technologically advanced society, conservation of energy at every level will be critical and essential.

Here are just a few examples of waist that I have observed.
(+) Vampire circuits. A vampire circuit is a circuit that remains on at all times. Any thing that uses a remote control, such as TV's and VCRs all have vampire circuits. Many thermostats are also on vampire circuits when mechanical systems worked just as well with no current applied.

(+) Roadway lighting. Currently, every city has vast arrays of external street lights lighting up freeways and intersections. Easily 1/4 of a cites total energy consumption goes to street lights. All though these are proven to be essential for safety, there are other ways. One solution would be to use more glass reflectors along the road way, making the road more visible in the dark. Or to even use black lights from cars to illuminate road markers, reducing head light glare. Technology can also give us active scanners such as infra-red and light amplification, giving us the option of doing away with headlights and street lights all together, as a significant energy savings.

(+) An over reliance on "macro" scale transportation, and geo-trade.
I once asked a supply sider to explain to me the relevance of free trade, and this was his text book response. "Free trade is the illumination of space and time in regards to trade and global exchange of goods and services." He elaborated that what this means is that new global free trade realties in the global market means it is not possible to ship any thing, nearly instantly, any where in the world, to any where in the world, for virtually no cost.

You can point to any thing on a Wall Mart shelf as an example of this. Take a Barbie Doll made in Melissa using slave labor. (I will side step the slave labor part for now, as it rest outside this topic.) Free trade establishes that a shipment of Melissa made Barbie Dolls can be shipped over night to any store, any where in the world, at virtually no expense.

And pigs can fly by eating rocket motor parts. Horse feathers. Every pound of Barbie Dolls will require its own weight in fuel, just to get it aloft, BY DEFINITION of aerodynamics and gravity. The fuel, pound per pound, from Malaise to any where in the US (which is where it is going.) will easily require several times its own weight in fuel. Just to ship it. And fuel isn't cheep, especially in the coming post oil realities. And shipments by boat, while being more efficient fuel wise, is still going to require a significant amount of fuel from port to port.

Here is a thought. Why not manufacture your Barbie dolls locally. Placing your plant in the Midwest for sample will realize significant savings in fuel.

Now I am not advancing the idea that we get rid global trade. For example, cultural products, such as hand made Samurai Swords from Japan would still have to be geo-shipped from Tokyo to New York (Not unless you are willing to relocate Japanese craftsmen.) But our current free trade regime isn't trading in regional spastic merchandise, are they, other wise it wouldn't be Barbie dolls in Malaise, would it. Free trade basically takes advantage of cheep over seas labor, for the manufacturing of EVERY THING, and then shipping EVERY THING half way around the world to be consumed in the US.

A more blatant model of inefficiency is hard for me to imagine.

(+) Over extension of our dally "habitation range."
Where you roam on a daily bases is called your habitation range. In the old days, you lived, worked, and shopped within a signal neighborhood. Nearly every thing that you might need would be found within walking distance. Shops used to be built with apartments above them. One of witch would be the owners/operators of the shop. Many places offered room and board in the place of fiscal compensation for their employees. For them, commuting to and from work, is no more involved than a few doors, and a walk down flight of stairs. (Remember that next time you are stuck in rush hour traffic.)

Fast forward to today, and I think you will be hard pressed to find any one who lives within a few miles of their work place. I know folks who commute 80 miles OR MORE dally. And that only includes work/home commutes. The mileage racks up even more when you consider shopping (for food stuffs) as well as typical "soccer mom" chauffeur duties. Multiply this against a half a million people, and you can see where the oil is going.

(+) Poor adaptation of homes to their local environment.
I used to work in construction. And I can tell you as fact that these energy efficient homes, are NOT energy efficient. Oh sure, they have the latest in fiber glass insulation, and highly rated air-conditions and heaters. But if you truly want to see how good all that technology happens to be, try turning the AC off. Many of these newer "energy efficient" homes suddenly become walk in ovens without the AC units standing watch over the thermostat. And these homes have windows and doors poorly position to allow outside circulation. Most homes no longer even consider asses to the outside as "desirable" thus the doing away of screens and door vents.

Central heating is also to blame. Instead of heating/cooling one room, and isolating the rest, all rooms, including those not occupied are now heated cooled for the comfort of non-existent occupants.

Make no mistake, energy efficiency has come a long way. Unfortunately, the gains in one area such as more efficient A/C units, are quickly consumed by those large bay windows.

(+) Far flung metro-infrastructure and zoning, and inflexible zoning codes
This is part of the over extension of our habitation zones that I mentioned earlier. Most of us commute to all of our activities because they are too far to walk. And it yet another symptom of urban flight and our suburban developments. So this isn’t really a mater of personal choice.

But it is one of grave concern to any metropolis. The further spread out things are, the harder it is to serve, both economically, and in terms of energy. Which in this case are closely related. And population densities drop, the harder it becomes to support community services in that area, and the less efficient that area becomes.

For example, a bus service can only be economically viable with a certain population destiny, or greater. A subway service or light rail system requires an even higher density. Below that figure, transportation needs have to be met on an individual one on one bases, such as the use of cars or caps. This is especially true for newer cities that have evolved with a dependence around the automobile, such as most comminutes in the Midwest and the South.

This in tern causes that "driving alone" problem as people comminute by themselves with SUVs or cars. Which is remarkably energy inefficient.

(+) Non-utilization of human power systems.
This was one of the most bizarre things I saw. I saw a man trying to rush the task of mowing his lawn, using a self-propelled lawnmower, so that he could get inside and start in his treadmill. ( _-_) <Face vault.

It seems like a perfect solution to kill two birds with one stone. Encourage Americans to do more labor, saving on energy, while also losing weight and burring off them calories. Thinks such as biking or even walking to and from work. (More on the auto a little later.) Most of the world is already bike and pedestrian friendly. Some times so much so that cars and even public transpiration needs are greatly reduced.

Rethinking "energy economics"
Now some of you are probably wondering why I posted this in the economics forum. After all, something like this most likely belongs in Environment & Energy board. Well, perhaps it should be there. But the problem is that solutions I am going to talk about in this next part has less to do with that sector, and every thing to do with economics.

As with most things in science, many studies are closely related. Some times so closely related as to be difficult to tell them apart, and this is one of those times. There are more economic issues at work here, than energy and environmental ones.

The broad definitions of economics, is the study of a recourse through a system. The findings of such things, all though first applied to fiscal economics, has already found application in technology. Lap tops, PDA's, and Cell Phones all use economic principals to design and control circuits, minimizing power consumption, and this increasing battery life, as well as reducing the current demands, permitting a smaller battery.

In other words, the life of the power cell in a lap top is extended not by improving the battery, but by making the lap top itself as energy efficient as possible.

Obviously, why not expand this thinking from the level of a lap top, to the geo-metro scale? Hence, what I call energy economics. This is less about technology, and more about how we apply and control it. The simple fact is that there is no renewable power source that can produce as much energy as fossil fuels. But when the oil runs out, we won't have a lot of choice, will we. But solar, thermal, wind, and tidal will be far more feasible, if we are far more efficient. If we can become energy efficient enough, and reduce our dependency for energy enough, than we can vary well live within the means provided by renewable energies.

But that new energy economics mindset is going to require some radical new thinking on a social scale. I don't believe it will require a lowering of our quality of life by any stretch, but that is under the thinking that things like a yard of Kentucky Bluegrass, or even a yard in and of itself, has any thing to do with that quality of life.

So without further adue, I will continue my collection of thoughts.

An over reliance and over use of the auto-mobile?
I have already touched on this with a few other observations. However, before you start tar-&-feathering me for trying to outlaw the automobile, you should check your fire long enough to hear me out. Regardless of what ever form of technology that comes down the pike, the car is most likely going to be with us in the long run. Even in a post oil age.

But what can not be argued, is that we are too overly dependent on the car. And the reason we are too dependent on the car is because our infrastructure has been built around it. So much so as to give fuel for your tin foil hat club :tinfoilhat: thinking that this is a conspiracy on the part of contractors and auto manufactures. If they are correct, than we will run into the utopia abolition dilemma.

Now some comminutes can be altered relatively easily with bussing or subways. But for most communities, this will not be as easy a proposition as just buying a few busses. More all-encumbering changes will have to be made to the infrastructure itself.

Again, I am not advocating the abolition of cars. But I am arguing the mandatory presentation of alternative transportation. But I am also advocating that we live closer to work, with in waking distance. That we also live within close proximity to shopping. Each community will also need to be more independent, growing its own food, and producing its own energy. Frankly, this could be a good thing, as each city would then begin to develop its own cultural heritage and civic identify.

Metropolis reformatting or metro-displacement.
This is far far more encompassing than redevelopment project. Think of an urban-renew project designed for the whole city. Relay every street, and move every building and you are starting to get an idea of what metropolis reformatting involves. Metro-displacement is even more so, because you are latterly talking about moving an entire city from one place, to another. And while such project might be hard to get your mind around, you would be surprised at its viability. The army core of engineers have been doing metro-displacement ever senses WWI, granted these tend to be towns rather than full cities, but it is usually found to be cheaper to move a town out of a flood plane, than to build a flood control system to protect the town.

If Midwestern towns are to become less dependent on the automobile, than they only way to do that, will be to acquire higher population densities (note, no necessarily larger populations), and to do this, will require reformatting. And in many cases, it will just be cheaper to start over from scratch.

But the advantages would be astounding. Even the new comminutes here in America have been built piece-meal style. A chunk their, a chunk here. With most towns having vast expanses of suburban development that are harmful to the local economy (not just energy efficiency) because of low population densities. Reformatting a city will give that city more order, and even open up avenues for artistic expression on a metro-scale. Modern technology, including communications, pneumatic tubes, subways, and light rail could be "built in". Many social problems caused by poverty (dilapidated buildings, garbage, and lack of services) could be addressed (though unlikely salved.)

Of course, these are remarkably expensive propositions. And unlikely in such an economically depressed situation. Not to mention the social and political upheaval this would create. But these would be temporary problems. The only question would be how to pay for it. Then again, having the power to design your tax base, from scratch, might just provide that answer.

Reformatting will also address some key, and critically neglected transportation infrastructure issues. For one thing, it is my opinion that the last thing you want in the city, is an airport. September 11th any one? Getting the airports away from the cites will go a long way to improve security, and safety as well. Shortly after September 11th, a 707 failed to take off, and crash landed into an apartment complex built at the end of the runway.

Rethinking transcontinental and intra-city transportation.
Why isn't their more rail? Railroads are far more efficient that both the truck and the airplane. And with better safety records as well. And with high speed rail, though not as fast as a 747, can still get up to the 80 mile mark.

Such systems would not replace transcontinental flights, and especially intercontinental flights, but that isn't the key. Rail would take over the airline routes as they try to serve the short hops. Especially the ones that are losing money. The shorter the hope, the less efficient air travel becomes, as well as more time consuming.

Currently, there is no public transcontinental transportation system. And we are the ONLY countries that don't have one. Even most third world countries are ahead of us on this out of necessity. (The US happens to be technological leaders my foot.) Why? Because the Republicans have chosen to support the airline industries and even actively work to suppress rail, both in terms of commuters and cargo. As well as being ideologically oppose to public systems of any kind, unless they can make money from it. They also want to focuses on sexy technologies such as airlines, while ignoring the tried and true railroad.

To go back to the issues of airports from the previous idea (I am not addicting the abolition of air travel at all.) what you want to do is set your airport away from the city. Then connect the airport to the city vea rail service. For city to city transportation, you could just use rail (or busses for smaller routes).

Reduction of infrastructure from geo to regional scale.
If you visit Chocko Canyon, you will see the remnants of an ancient abandoned city. It is commonly believed that too many years of consecutive droughts caused the crops to fail, until out of hunger, they ate their own seed corn. They either moved away, or starved, and the city failed.

Such lessens of the past have been the foundations of our new geo-trade model (not necessarily free trade, mind your.) Geo-trade deliberately links up all cites, with all cites, on a trade level. With an abundance of energy, this is practical, and cording to the lessons of Chocko Canyon, even desirable.

Today, such drought conditions no longer have such consequences, senses the food stuffs from all around the world are on the same trade market. While one region is suffering a "local famine" another is pulling in a record bumper crop. And thus, there is now no need for a city to ever fail again.

But energy is about to become much harder to come by. As energy expenses go up, cities and communities will no longer be able to afford to maintain such a trade-relationship. Instead, cites would only call on such recourses in conditions of economic stress, and be able to sell off its production accesses. Between those points, each city will have to take care of itself, and relay on its own recourses.

Of course, this will also result with massive economic dishevel. Many cities over the years have evolved a dependency on this trade system. Take LA for example. A city in the desert. Water is always in demand their because their isn't any their to take advantage from. So it trades for excess water from other areas.

And that is interlay the point. More and more, communities, and societies, because of such energy and resource availability, have evolved to be inefficient, consuming more and more and more of the recourses of the community.

To put this into an analogy. Imagine that you are at a diner with 50 people. Every one can order what they want from the menu, and at the end of the diner, the ticket will be divided by 50. So, thinking yourself so sly, you order the lobster, knowing that the expense of your meal will be shared by every one else. Well, more and more, every one else is starting to order the lobster.

Cutting the communities off from this sort of commercial free market pool will force that community to begin to evolve back within its means again. Of course, this also means that a community will fail. And when a city fails, it results with force displacement of populations, or mass human die off's. Hay, I did say that this was going to get ugly, didn't I.

Reductions in human populations.
The facts are pretty grim. There are just too many humans here on the Earth. We simply have to reduce the human population. By definition, as the population grows, the economy must grow with it, or face human die offs. And a modern economy requires energy, and as the economy grows, the energy needed to support it grows as well.

The writing on the wall, by 2200, the population will likely resemble that of 1700. We can either do this ourselves, by reducing our numbers by restricting our breading, or face human die offs so vast that we would be the oil and coal reserves for the next 10,000 year oil explores, assuming that the earth is not made uninhabitable.

The rediscovery of older technologies.
Some would have you that our technology has advanced from the old days, and the stuff today is far superior than any thing they had then. Yay, right. I know better. Many technologies that we have long senses abandoned, is exactly what the doctor ordered in an energy conservation dependant world. The old cable cars for example are significantly more efficient than even the best bus or even electric subway car. And this technology has proven itself to be reliable and cheap. New York was once piped with miles of pneumatic tubes, capable of delivering groceries from building to building, and even people in one instance, at the fraction of the energy used by modern busses and cars today.

How did they do this, you might ask? Simple, mass. The less mass you have to push around, the less energy required to push it. The pneumatic tubes of old only had to push around the cargo (say 500 lb of groceries) and the shuttle container that would weigh about 20 to 40 pounds. In contrast to today's schemes, the same cargo would be transported by one human being, an a vehicle that would at least weigh a 1 1/2 tuns. (An SUV weighs on average 2 to 4 tuns.) A cable car dos not have its own power plant, and sees a significant savings in mass there.

Like wise, home energy efficiency could be far better improved by rediscovering old ventilation systems. Windows on all sides of the homes, and each door having vents, allowed wind to ventilate the home to keep it cool. Higher ceilings also prevented a home from heating up by making room for convection to carry away excess heat. Shutters on the outside of the window not only protected the window from storm damage. (Something those in hurricane prone areas have forgotten. They must likely plywood to windows, when their ancestors would just close and lock down the shutters.) but also heated up on the OUTSIDE of the house, keeping the inside cool. Where today curtains and blinds absorb the sun's energy on the inside where that heat must be removed by the AC unit.

Grandpa was also far better at recycling as well. Containers used to be made out of glass. This aloud them to be steam cleaned, and reused for fresh product. Today, in our disposable world, a lot of energy, as well as patrolman for plastics, is wasted with manufacture of disposable containers that end up in land fills. This also went for containers made from galvanized steal, ceramics, and clay containers. Materials used to be shipped in bulk form, residence packaging even more. And even reduced shelf space, how cool is that?

The CAFA standers are another such example. Why the industry resists is a mystery to me. For one thing, cars are not aerodynamic. Oh sure they may look that way, until you open the hood, or look underneath it. What you will find, will be a major drag, literally (yuk yuk) compromising your fuel efficiency. Similarly, there are hybrid cars that work more like gas/electric systems, which has shown itself for years to be far more energy efficient than the all gas systems. So much so that the rail road industry has been using diesel electric for half a century to pull trains with. (No power my ass.) Aerodynamics was a fad in the 50's, and hybrid power plants have been in use senses the 20's.

Rethinking civic life
Is the American dream, truly the dream of Americans? Or is it the dream of developers? The simple truth is that owning your own home is not a dream at all, but one of economic necessity. That said, such an observation seems to have little baring on the "American Dream" which has degenerated into little more than rhetorical nonsense.

Convention wisdom has it that would by home biers are looking for the following qualities in a home.
(+) Open air and wide open spaces. IE, a large yard for children to play in.
(+) Low traffic areas.
(+) Away from commercial and industrial zones.
(+) High retention of market value.

Being here in Wichita, I can tell you from personal experience what this suburban sprawl produces. They produce "a desert of homes." For about 8 years, I worked as a utility locator. I located Gas, electric, and telephone lines for both new subdivisions and older comminutes on the west side of Wichita. And during the work day, regardless of weather it’s a school day or not. These lush and beautiful comminutes are virtual deserts. It was extremely rare for me to see any one in these subdivisions. It was because most people were away at work, and the children were away at school or day care. And with both parents working, that means no one is left to keep an eye on the place. It might not let you sleep well to think that some one like me (a utility worker) might have free rain or your backyards.

And when I did get to talk to people, they were aware of this. Conservative or liberal alike, they had a problem with sprawl. The problem is that this is what contractors and developers tell us what we want, by not providing any alternatives.

What we have here, is the Cash Cow mentality. When an industry learns that a certain sector of an economy produces money, they latterly drop every thing else, and focus on the cash cow. And we poor people, don't have a right to tell them how to run there business, even though we are ultimately the consumers, whom they claim gets to make the choice.

Just look around at the number of SUVs on the highways.

Some points before I rush off to work:
1. It's already to late to prevent massive die-offs
2. I see no movement in the needed direction, or even wide-spread acknowledgement about how severe the problems we're facing are - in fact with * and co. in charge, we're going the other way.
3. I recently read "The spirit in our genes" - Reg Morrison, and "The party's over" - Richard Heidberg, and so became aware how screwed we are. I posted here, and have started conversations at work and elsewhere with almost no response except denials, usually couched in terms about how often they hear doom predictions, and about human ingenuity. Not relevant, when it will all be too little too late. (how many responses are you getting to this thread?)
4. I've been trying to think about possible courses of action, including selfish plans to ensure my family's survival, but I haven't got far. I did order 8 copis of The Party's Over, at my own expense, and am planning to give them out to people I feel will benefit. Do you have any iseaes on the local / personal scale?

Well, I better be off.

1. It's already to late to prevent massive die-offs
Some would even argue that Iraq and Afghanistan are part of this die off. But I disagree, those are mass-homicides, war crimes. The only real examples of human die-offs would have to be catastrophic economic failures such as in N. Korea, the Gongo, Ethiopia, extra. Where starvation is taking place.

But the true die-offs that I eluded too have not yet taken plac. I can't speak to weather die-offs are unavoidable or not. Certainly it may seem that way.

Most likely however, certain parts of the world will fare better than others. Despite all the rhetoric, of how poorly Europe is doing, for the long term, Europe actually looks like it will fare a lot better than the US. Much of Europe has actually evolved around pre-oil systems, so for them, its simply a mater of reconfiguring the cites back to older methods of existence. And they are already on the path to more energy efficiency.

In contrast, the remaining "western" and "westernized" nations, such as America, China, and Russia have converted to the new economy. In the long run, America will look like a fuddle empire, with the masses living on the street with little to no energy, while the ruling classes live in decadent wealth and luxury. It would be here that the die-offs would most likely take place as these are where the energy dependant infrastructures are located.


2. I see no movement in the needed direction, or even wide-spread acknowledgement about how severe the problems we're facing are - in fact with * and co. in charge, we're going the other way.
This would speak to the Utopia Abolition Dilemma that I spoke of earlier. And I fear you are correct. We are being taken in the wrong direction, and it will hasten the oil peek, and increase the severity of its impact. The next few years will determine weather this will change.

3. I recently read "The spirit in our genes" - Reg Morrison, and "The party's over" - Richard Heidberg, and so became aware how screwed we are. I posted here, and have started conversations at work and elsewhere with almost no response except denials, usually couched in terms about how often they hear doom predictions, and about human ingenuity. Not relevant, when it will all be too little too late. (how many responses are you getting to this thread?)
I have posted this in the last forum, and its response was quite good. All though I was challenged on a few elements, this is to be expected.

As for talking about this in the "main stream" public. The reaction I get is similar to yours. Mostly denials and being uninformed. Most seem to think all of our oil needs can be met in ANWAR.


4. I've been trying to think about possible courses of action, including selfish plans to ensure my family's survival, but I haven't got far. I did order 8 copis of The Party's Over, at my own expense, and am planning to give them out to people I feel will benefit. Do you have any iseaes on the local / personal scale?

Now that is an interesting question. One that I haven't thought about much.

Right off the bat however, short term solutions for just a single family sounds unlikely. If you think of economies like organisms, and each of us like cells, then you can get an interesting perspective on the challenges that you would face.

Currently, a modern economy is like a large animal or plant. Each community is like tissues, or a community of cells performing a specific function. Each function sees to the health of the whole individual by sharing the fruits of the sum of these functions. For a more independent family unit, each of these cells would begin to behave like bacteria, with each cell having to perform ALL the tasks needed for servile.

It can, and is being done. But it only works on a small scale. Just like cattle, a human would also need a certain amount of acreage of free land to sustain oneself. And this acreage must have sufficient resources. Plus, man is, and has always been dependent of fuel, even as far back as cavemen. We need it to serve winters and too cook vegetables (cooking brakes down the cells walls, permitting digestion.) Its how we evolved.

A community will make for a compromise of sorts. You're not a lumbering giant, but not bacteria either. A privet "militia" keeps coming to mind as the solution. Like the kind that sprang up during Y2K.

You talk about economics broadly defined, but you are still talking about what John Commons called "formal" economics - the efficiency question. The broader definition is "substantive" economics, or the study of how people make a living.
I taught intro economics from 1988 to 1991, and talked about the Club of Rome's limits to growth. Students found the topic too depressing to think about, and maintained a belief in some kind of "cold fusion" solution which would keep them from having to control their energy consumption. My feeling was that "against optimism, even the gods contend in vain."

What I find especially energy foolish is our unwillingness to adapt to the weather. Very few people use sweatshirts, longjohns, hats and scarves to keep warm in the winter. Today, with a heat index of 110, I was the only one at the laundromat who was using a clothesline. In the old days the frozen rivers were mined for ice, but now we prefer electricity to cool our ice chests.

I found Germany and Switzerland and France to have a network of electric trains, but the electricity is, alas, nuclear generated. Also when the train filled up with school kids, I realised that we have a very expensive mass transit system that is only used for school kids - school buses.

You follow the same school of thought as my uncle who is also a PhD
in economics and currently teaches economics at a Florida college.
He too believes in the Club of Rome's limits to growth and he also
has mentioned that many of his students become depressed and angered
with the topic.

But you have also made some interesting comments about how people
are foolish in their adaptive behaviors. Again, its coming back to
what I have stated about Americans in nature: they are too lazy...
they are ADDICTED to cheap energy.
Example, I live in Colorado and I see people in SHORTS and a light
sweatshirt during the winter... Why? Because they have their
80+ heater in their homes...they run to their cars and turn on
their heaters in there...then they run into the office or shopping
mall where its cozy and warm. Their exposure to the elements are
at a bare minimum. These people do not know how to SURVIVE. I have
always told my friends...wait until your car breaks down in the
middle of a snow storm and all you have are your Bermuda shorts
and a light tshirt...

I believe, that when the energy crisis does finall wash upon our\
shores (and it will within the next 10 years), Americans will feel
the pain that hasn't been felt for three generations. Unfortunately,
people being addicted to their lifestyles will be much more
willing to conquer and invade other countries in order to maintain
their current lifestyles...just wait and see...

4. I've been trying to think about possible courses of action, including selfish plans to ensure my family's survival, but I haven't got far. I did order 8 copis of The Party's Over, at my own expense, and am planning to give them out to people I feel will benefit. Do you have any iseaes on the local / personal scale?

Now that is an interesting question. One that I haven't thought about much.

Right off the bat however, short term solutions for just a single family sounds unlikely. If you think of economies like organisms, and each of us like cells, then you can get an interesting perspective on the challenges that you would face.

Currently, a modern economy is like a large animal or plant. Each community is like tissues, or a community of cells performing a specific function. Each function sees to the health of the whole individual by sharing the fruits of the sum of these functions. For a more independent family unit, each of these cells would begin to behave like bacteria, with each cell having to perform ALL the tasks needed for servile.

It can, and is being done. But it only works on a small scale. Just like cattle, a human would also need a certain amount of acreage of free land to sustain oneself. And this acreage must have sufficient resources. Plus, man is, and has always been dependent of fuel, even as far back as cavemen. We need it to serve winters and too cook vegetables (cooking brakes down the cells walls, permitting digestion.) Its how we evolved.

A community will make for a compromise of sorts. You're not a lumbering giant, but not bacteria either. A privet "militia" keeps coming to mind as the solution. Like the kind that sprang up during Y2K.

Communities are like "tissues" within a living organism. Good
analogy. The issue is that there first has to exist a sense of
community. People have to respect and be willing to support their
neighbors. Unfortunately, modern societies do not permit the
social interactions nor the sense of communal bonding that was
prevalent pre-20th Century. This has changed as cities became the new
habitat.

I agree though that for change to occur it has to start at the
"lowest" level and spread from there. Its a sense of mentality and
dedication to fellow man/woman.

This topic is way interesting and this is where social scientists
are currently at: they're looking into how our society has been
transformed within the past 100 years after the industrial
revolution became the norm. We're definitely at a turning point..and
where we go depends on the leaders that we select to lead us.

While I agree with the vast majority of your comments, I would
state that I "gentlemanly disagree" with your proposition that
alternative energy resources are over-hyped.

Solar, wind, geo-thermal, current generators, etc ALL can contribute
in the LOCAL sense. You expose that we should start creating
higher density cities where people can "walk" to work...nice thought,
not going to happen. Americans are addicted to cheap energy, they are
LAZY and would much rather DRIVE two blocks than walk them...or,
ride on their Segways.
Alternative energy sources cannot and SHOULD NOT be ruled out. COuple
them with efficient homes, like Earthships and adobe block homes and
you can start turning some things around. The question is though:
how many Americans want to give up their 3500 sq ft+ "homes" to
live in earthern covered houses?

Darwin would argue that maybe this is part of humankind's evolution.
Maybe we need to reach "the end" of the energy era and maybe we
need to get back in touch with Mother Nature.

I would dare say, as many environmentalists have stated, that
humans have far exceeded Earth's capability to support them. We have
a MASSIVE geological footprint and we require far more than what
the planet can provide. Of course, this is an analysis based on
what "modernized" socities need to "sustain" themselves. Western
nations, although the minority population wise are the majority
in resources and energy use...and just imagine when such nations
as India, China and Malaysia decide to reach our "levels" of
consumer expenditure...? Not pretty and it could be quite devastating.

I believe that the 20th Century, although one of the bloodiest, will
be known as a "golden era" of humankind expansionism...but it will
end and soon. The damage runs deep and it will take several
GENERATIONS before we can undo the damage and relearn what we have
lost. In the process, I believe that we'll see wars the likes of
which the world has never seen before and the extreme irony of the
situation is that these wars CONSUME massive amounts of energy and
resources. So, we'll be killing each other off to obtain the last
remenants of oil and other natural resources while at the same time
expending these very same resources...

In your commentary, you're projecting based on what is observed here
in the US, Europe and to some extent modernized Asia. But you fail
to point out that the MAJORITY of the world's population does NOT
live like Americans or Europeans...and they still walk to work...and
do their shopping in their neigborhoods.
If anything, we need to change OUR ways...and fast. As the years
go by, I am pressed to believe that our chance, our "mid-point" of
being able to turn this around, has already passed us by. I
personally believe that mankind has decided its fate a longtime
ago...out of greed and selfishness.

This is why I will be purchasing a small plot of land in the Rocky
mountains and will be building my earthship. I want to take as little
from Mother Nature as I can. I won't be a "hermit" but I will return
to our roots. I do not want to continue to contribute to the world's
demise. Solar panels, wind generators, grey-water planters and
copost toilets. My own greenhouse. Collecting rainwater. The
joy of tending to my gardens and animals.
That...is utopia. My home is my work...my work is my home. And
my fellow neighbors, fellow earthshippers, and I will barter and
help each other out... Its the state of mind that needs to be
changed...and Americans will NOT change...

While I agree with the vast majority of your comments, I would
state that I "gentlemanly disagree" with your proposition that
alternative energy resources are over-hyped.

Solar, wind, geo-thermal, current generators, etc ALL can contribute
in the LOCAL sense. You expose that we should start creating
higher density cities where people can "walk" to work...nice thought,
not going to happen. Americans are addicted to cheap energy, they are
LAZY and would much rather DRIVE two blocks than walk them...or,
ride on their Segways.
Alternative energy sources cannot and SHOULD NOT be ruled out. COuple
them with efficient homes, like Earthships and adobe block homes and
you can start turning some things around. The question is though:
how many Americans want to give up their 3500 sq ft+ "homes" to
live in earthern covered houses?

You miss the primary thrust of my article.

On the contrary, I do agree that renewable are the way before us. They are the only alternative to fossil fuels in general. But the hype comes as corporate CEO's and radical environmentalists like to paint renuwabules as a "plug in replacement" for oil.

The basic unit of energy is the Calorie, Watt, and Force. And there is nothing known to man that contains any where near as much energy as coal and oil. This is because it’s a vary tight package of chemical energy, and is the sum of some million years of solar energy on plant and animal life in the distant past. Renuweabules actually tries to harness sources of energy which by their nature are far more restricted. It’s the difference of drawing your water from the tub, or from the tap.

My argument was that renewabule energy sources can still give us a modern and technically advanced society, complete with jet travel and even space programs. But only if society as a whole is a lot more energy efficient and able to adapt quickly to changes in the energy environment.

I believe that the 20th Century, although one of the bloodiest, will
be known as a "golden era" of humankind expansionism...but it will
end and soon. The damage runs deep and it will take several
GENERATIONS before we can undo the damage and relearn what we have
lost. In the process, I believe that we'll see wars the likes of
which the world has never seen before and the extreme irony of the
situation is that these wars CONSUME massive amounts of energy and
resources. So, we'll be killing each other off to obtain the last
remenants of oil and other natural resources while at the same time
expending these very same resources...

I disagree with you here to. But on a more philosophical level. I suspect that your "golden era" is some what colored by materialistic values. What about the Renaissance, Early Roman, or Colonial America? China also had some golden ages of their own. All without technology as we see today. And the whole Earth was explored and mostly colonized using ships of wood and was all sail powered. What about art, music, philosophy, love, adventure? Do these things count for nothing?

And as to American's not changing. I find that hard to believe as well. Perceptions can change extremely quickly. If you don't believe that, than I suggest you look at the French Revolution, and see how quickly things can change.

Things may look dark. But they are far from hopeless, or even without their own possibilities and promises.

Yes, it will be considered a "golden era" of human EXPANSIONISM. There
have been thousands of scientific and industrial/technological
advances during the 20th Century. I do say the most in ANY other
period in human history...thanks to the over use of ENERGY.

I was not referring to the arts, music, etc...but the scientific
industrial aspects of our society. This stage will be coming to a
very abrupt halt. I think that we both agree with that.

Americans are lazy. Pure and simple. They want the most with the
least amount of effort..especially their own. If they could
automate their changes they would...if they could switch to
alternative energy sources without making any "sacrifices" they
would...but unfortunately, the changes required would push Americans
into hardships that they have not experienced since their great-
grandparents.

It will change...one way or another. But right now and for the
foreseeable 20 year future...everything will remain the same and the
Americans will continue to live in their American "dream"...complete
denial.

Understood your clarification with regards to the alternative
energy sources. Agreed.

But given your response, I think I did have the gist of what you were saying. I suspect it was my tone that was in error and for that I do apologize. Perhaps I should do a better job of explaining my self.

Either way, your comments are at the heart of the mater, and disserve further exploration.

Yes, it will be considered a "golden era" of human EXPANSIONISM. There
have been thousands of scientific and industrial/technological
advances during the 20th Century. I do say the most in ANY other
period in human history...thanks to the over use of ENERGY.

I might quibble with the working of this, as I am a bit more optimistic about the possibilities, as well as being a bit more generous towards our technical advancement. I would argue that the 20th century saw revolution in technology, and that this technology has as much to do with our social, cultural, and scientific advancement.

The point that I was trying to make however is that we have become to focused on the technology. Not just in terms of our dependence of it, but also in terms of our criticism. Sometimes even unfairly. I wish point this out because our overreaction both ill-serves our efforts to reform the system, as well as giving legitimate points to be used by our detractors.

One way to look at our energy situation is to thing about how our cities and societies have evolved, as well as the environments in which the evolve. For example, fresh water fish don't retain water vary well. Why should they? They just open up their mouth, and take water in. Their fore, a fresh water fish has evolved to be vary wasteful of water within its tissues. In contrast, a camel has evolved numerous strategies to contain and store water, as well as to use it more efficiently. Giving this, just how wise is it to beat up the fish for "wasting water?"

Our cities are also a lot like organisms in that they evolve as well. Not quite like the fish, I will grant, but evolution all the same. In this case, our cities have evolved in an energy rich environment. And not until recently (recent being about 30 years or so) has this even appeared as a concern. Like the fish in the water, why should a city evolve to become more energy efficient, when energy is so plentiful?

But, where the environment gave rise to the problem, we might look there to the solution as well, by beginning the evolution to be more efficient and frugal with our energy, as well as finding other alternative sources of energy. We have taken close to 70 years to get into this fix, it will take us some time to get out again.

The lack of oil will not end advanced technology, sense technology is actually a sort of knowledge, and knowledge is not easy to destroy. Sooner or later, energies will adapt advanced technology to the new energy realities.

But I am of the opinion that just regressing in technology is not practical. At least now without massive human die offs, and a return to older living conditions (shorter life spans, more decease, extra.)

I was not referring to the arts, music, etc...but the scientific
industrial aspects of our society. This stage will be coming to a
very abrupt halt. I think that we both agree with that.

I will agree we are about to see major and likely abrupt changes. But regardless of what happens, scientific and industrial evolution will continue.

Even with the worst case scenario will see an eventual turn around (assuming the earth is still habitable). If there are mass human die offs, than these human populations would likely the new source of bio-mass for oil and coal deposits for the next eon. An ironic end for such an oil dependent society. The die-off itself would provide its own solution, as the population would shrink until the energy needs of these who remain falls back within that which is available.

The question before us is will we control the process of this evolution, or will it control us.

Americans are lazy. Pure and simple. They want the most with the
least amount of effort..especially their own. If they could
automate their changes they would...if they could switch to
alternative energy sources without making any "sacrifices" they
would...but unfortunately, the changes required would push Americans
into hardships that they have not experienced since their great-
grandparents.

Well, dismissing the fact that you are painting with such a broad brush, you must remember that American's are apart of that evolutionary process described above. I don't think they are lazy as much as they are mis-informed and poorly educated on the subject. There is also a notorious lack of alternatives in the field.

People are starting to recycle, right? Even though it means more inconvenience on their part. Besides, if you beat up on the American people, you make enemies out of the vary people you are trying to educate.

It may be wise to correct to two things.

First, correct the numerous grammar, spelling, and typographical errors so that the reader can focus on the ideas you present, and not need to spend all his or her efforts on trying to figure out what you're trying to say. A couple of examples:

"The CAFA standers are another such example" - are you talking about the CAFE standards? or some type of coffee-growing alien beings that stand on two legs (for some reason, that was the first thought that crossed my mind when I read that phrase).

And about the trains that "can still get up to the 80 mile mark" - are you referring to 80 miles as being a reasonable distance for a daily commute (such as from Tracy to Silicon Valley?) Or a train that travels at 80 MPH?

I could go on, but I think I've illustrated my point, and there's no need to pile on.


Second, a more fundamental problem appears to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic science and technology behind energy-related issues. To illustrate here in the manner of the now infamous "sixteen words" in the SOTU address, here a two statements that are not arguably incorrect, they are just flat out wrong:

"Every pound of Barbie Dolls will require its own weight in fuel, just to get it aloft, BY DEFINITION of aerodynamics and gravity."

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


"The basic unit of energy is the Calorie, Watt, and Force. And there is nothing known to man that contains any where near as much energy as coal and oil."



:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:


The problem with statements like these ones is that I do not know if they're isolated, innocent mistakes or just the tip of the iceberg of a pattern of deceit that runs throughout the piece. I see that you are a long-term, contributing member of DU, so I am sure it is the former, however for myself, being a skeptical person I cannot help but discount the whole treatise you wrote.

First, correct the numerous grammar, spelling, and typographical errors so that the reader can focus on the ideas you present, and not need to spend all his or her efforts on trying to figure out what you're trying to say. A couple of examples:

Admittedly, there are numerous spelling and grammar errors, and I do try my best to correct them. However, if my spelling errors prevent you from seeing the ideas behind them. Quite frankly, that is the problem of the reader, not of the author.

"The CAFA standers are another such example" - are you talking about the CAFE standards? or some type of coffee-growing alien beings that stand on two legs (for some reason, that was the first thought that crossed my mind when I read that phrase).

Oh sure. Like one could logically conclude I was talking about coffee beans. :eyes: One could only draw that conclusion if one completely ignores the context..

Second, a more fundamental problem appears to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic science and technology behind energy-related issues. To illustrate here in the manner of the now infamous "sixteen words" in the SOTU address, here a two statements that are not arguably incorrect, they are just flat out wrong:

"Every pound of Barbie Dolls will require its own weight in fuel, just to get it aloft, BY DEFINITION of aerodynamics and gravity."

This was noted in the last post. I have only not been to correct it. But thanks for the reminder.

"The basic unit of energy is the Calorie, Watt, and Force. And there is nothing known to man that contains any where near as much energy as coal and oil."

Ah, now perhaps you should learn more science, before you make comments like this. Because this is completely true. Coal and oil contain energy because of the chemical composition. Energy that is released in the form of heat when it undergoes a chemical reaction. Compared to other sources of chemical energy, such as wood or by-chemical reaction no other process would releases as much energy.

The only conceivable exception to this would be nuclear power. But that is not stored energy, but atomic energy, and requires energy to release it. And compared to renuwabules, coal and oil contains 1000 times the calories as 1foot by 1foot of sun light. So much so that it isn't even fare to compare the too.

How about gasoline. No joy for you there because it is made from refined oil, little more than removing numerous chemical impurities from the hydro-carbons that actually contain the energy. As well as changing it's physical properties to make it more manageable.

Secondly, if my statement was false, they why are so dependent on oil? If there was an alternative energy sources that was competitive with oil, than changing over to it would not be a big deal. Did it ever accrue to you that the reason why we are so stuck on oil was BECAUSE it contained the most energy?

The problem with statements like these ones is that I do not know if they're isolated, innocent mistakes or just the tip of the iceberg of a pattern of deceit that runs throughout the piece. I see that you are a long-term, contributing member of DU, so I am sure it is the former, however for myself, being a skeptical person I cannot help but discount the whole treatise you wrote.

Skepticism is good. Unfortunately, pointing out some one's spelling errors its not skepticism. It's rude behavior. You should also be aware that some times I will intently put in false information in my posts to encourage skepticism.

If you were to bring me a skeptical position, I will ether try to refute it, or take the correction. It is one reason why I post here. Sort of a peer review from the layman's perspective. But mocking me for my spelling is telling me something that I already know. Sorry, but not all of us here on the DU are winners of spelling bees.

You say “Admittedly, there are numerous spelling and grammar errors, and I do try my best to correct them. However, if my spelling errors prevent you from seeing the ideas behind them. Quite frankly, that is the problem of the reader, not of the author.”

I say – I’ve never been quite bold enough to send a retort such as this one to an editor when I’m trying to get something published; but maybe I will . . . if it works, wow! Blame the reader – I like that!

There was an interesting debate on DU about whether “Bush Lied, People Died” or “When Clinton Lied Nobody Died” was a better slogan (or phrase for a bumper sticker). The advantage of the first version is that it is direct and its meaning is difficult to miss. The disadvantage is that it is rather trite and easily dismissed without a second thought – Duer’s, for example, would say “Yeah, well duh . . .” People on the other side would be apoplectic with rage upon seeing the “Bush Lied” part, and might not even finish reading it. The second phrasing is more subtle. The key advantage is that it gets people thinking who might have otherwise dismissed the “Bush Lied, People Died” version. Specifically, the right-wingers would see the “Clinton Lied” part and immediately start feeling all warm and tingly because somebody was expressing exactly how they feel. However, they would likely be confused about the “Nobody Died” part because people dying as a result of Clinton’s lies was never an issue; consequently they may begin to think the bumper sticker has a deeper meaning and begin wondering what the deeper meaning is. Well, they may start thinking, maybe somebody else may have lied and somebody died as a result . . . ultimately this thought process may lead to the “Bush Lied, People Died” meme – and because they thought of it themselves, they’ll remember it better (instead of immediately dismissing the idea). Of course, a pitfall of this indirect approach is that many people may never arrive at the Bush Lied, People Died endpoint – instead they may get side-tracked on debating with themselves whether or not Clinton actually lied.

The point of the preceding story is that the words you use have meanings, and even subtle changes in wording can greatly affect what a reader takes away from your writings. Therefore, far from mocking you for your choice of words, inattention to spelling, as well as the lack of veracity in seemingly trivial facts, I just wanted to provide my experience upon reading your article to point out when writing something full of complex and nuanced ideas, it would be wise to carefully choose your words so no interpretation or derivation from context is necessary. When I finished reading your article, the primary thoughts going through my mind were memories of my visits to the Bay Area and Wyoming, the fact that it hasn’t rained in three weeks, and it also gave motive to go start the following thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=169&mesg_id=169&page=

Somehow, I suspect that that’s not what you were hoping would happen when somebody read your thread. Basically, you could have kept me on topic by fairly minor revisions – for example, after reading your statement

“It might not let you sleep well to think that some one like me (a utility worker) might have free rain or your backyards.”

I started thinking about how some ‘free rain’ would benefit my garden right about now (as compared to the metered water that I pay for). Of course, you weren’t referring to precipitation at all, but you derailed my train of thought and my mind then wandered to the idea of you having a “free reign” in my backyard – perhaps you would establish a tiny monarchy of some type. Then, if you did, would it really be free (i.e., no taxes?), would it be a constitutional monarchy? would you as king be elegant and refined, or vulgar and boorish (ala King Henry the Eighth)? This confusion is what happened when you provided me with the opportunity to come to my own conclusions, and forced me to derive the meaning of your sentence from the context; these problems could have been avoided if you had simply used the correct word (i.e., ‘rein’).

Early in the article you mention a 80 mile commute; later you go on to refer to a “high-speed” 80 mile train. Now, because it wasn’t clear what an 80 mile train is, the reader once again has to try to figure it out from the context. Is the reference to earlier commute? Or is it to the speed of the train? From the context, the latter seems more likely – if you had explicitly written the statement to specify speed (i.e., 80 MPH) there would have been no confusion and I would have moved on to the next point you were trying to make. Instead, I had to stop and think, and once again, became side-tracked. Here, I started thinking, HMMM, a 80 MPH train shouldn’t really be classified as a “high-speed” train – that’s how fast the BART trains run under the San Francisco Bay, and nobody I know has ever associated BART with high-speed. Then I started thinking how I once paced a freight train heavily laden with coal at 80 MPH heading east across Wyoming. Once again, 80 MPH seems pretty mundane for the speed of a train. Heck, Amtrack has trains in this country that get up to 130 MPH, and the French and Japanese have 200 MPH trains. In any event, I was thinking about coal at this point, stopped considering your post, and went and worked on creating the thread referenced above.

OK, you have no doubt branded me as a hopelessly petty nit-picker by now. But, if you choose to use a word-based forum to communicate your ideas, the point is that your ideas would be communicated much more effectively if you used words more clearly. I’ve seen William Pitt post his articles on this board for comments, and he seems appreciate of nit-picking type comments like “You should have used ‘Their’ instead of ‘There’ on line 23; or “Shouldn’t you be using ‘because’ instead of ‘since’ in the last paragraph” – he doesn’t seem offended or accuse people of mocking him – instead he edits his piece and moves on.

Words have meanings. But so to do sentices and paragrafes. it never seces to amaze me how many english teachers are unaware of this

Just as you suggested, and can now offer an enhanced critique of your energy-related comments, specifically the following:


“"The basic unit of energy is the Calorie, Watt, and Force. And there is nothing known to man that contains any where near as much energy as coal and oil."

Ah, now perhaps you should learn more science, before you make comments like this. Because this is completely true. Coal and oil contain energy because of the chemical composition. Energy that is released in the form of heat when it undergoes a chemical reaction. Compared to other sources of chemical energy, such as wood or by-chemical reaction no other process would releases as much energy.

The only conceivable exception to this would be nuclear power. But that is not stored energy, but atomic energy, and requires energy to release it.”

My comments, now that I’ve gone ahead and learned a bit of science:

First, Calorie is a unit of energy! (ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!!)
But, Watt is NOT a unit of energy (it is a unit of power)
And, Force is NOT a unit of anything.

Now on to more substantial issues. If you take an introductory physics course, or do a google search for that matter, you’ll quickly find that it widely accepted that one can compare the energy content of hydrocarbon-based fuels and the heavy metals used for the generation of nuclear power. Conceptually, it is easy to see why this comparison can be made. When hydrocarbon-based fuels are combusted,

MOLECULES are split and in the process, new types of molecules are formed and useable energy is released.

Considering the process in which heavy-metals are used to generate ‘nuclear’ power,

ATOMS are split and in the process, new types of atoms are formed and useable energy is released.

Based on this simple comparison (differences are explored in more detail later in this post), a comparison in the energy content of both types of fuel is highly appropriate, and widely reported at many sites, e.g.,: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rcnh/gs102/EnergyEquiv.html or http://www.uic.com.au/whyu.htm

Firewood 16 MJ/kg
Brown coal 9 MJ/kg
Black coal (low quality) 13-20 MJ/kg
Black coal 24-30 MJ/kg
Natural Gas 39 MJ/m3
Crude Oil 45-46 MJ/kg
Uranium* - in light water reactor 500,000 MJ/kg

Clearly, considering that “Energy is the ability to do work. It is stored in various forms including chemical energy in biomass, coal and oil, nuclear energy in uranium, gravitational energy in water used in hydroelectric plants, the wind and the sun,” uranium far exceeds hydrocarbon-based fuels in energy content.

definition of energy is from http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:RA2NqFSJeakJ:www.doa.state.wi.us/docs_view2.asp%3Fdocid%3D778+energy+content+of+wood+coal+uranium&hl=en&ie=UTF-8



OK, let’s now turn to the statement “The only conceivable exception to this would be nuclear power. But that is not stored energy, but atomic energy, and requires energy to release it” – actually, reality is exactly the opposite of your perception. From a practical standpoint, combustion of hydrocarbons requires a constant input of external energy to release the stored chemical energy; whereas atomic energy is based on self-sustaining chain reactions.

First consider the combustion of a hydrocarbon, and to do so let's consider a simple one, namely propane. The combustion of propane is nicely illustrated at the following site:

http://www.spacesciencegroup.nsula.edu/sotw/newlessons/defaultie.asp?Theme=chemistry&PageName=burningpropane

To recap the combustion process, one molecule of propane (C3H8) combines with five molecules of oxygen (O2) to form three molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) and four molecules of water (H2O). But, propane and oxygen don’t spontaneous combust upon encountering each other, instead an input of energy is first needed to break the bonds that hold the various atoms together. Specifically the following bonds need to be broken:

Eight C-H bonds (413 kJ/mole for each bond)
Two C-C bonds (347 kJ/mole for each bond)
Five O-O bonds (498 kJ/mole for each bond)

In total, 6,488 kJ/mole is needed to break the chemical bonds of the molecules involved during the combustion of propane (a similar analysis can easily be done for any hydrocarbon-based fuel). Therefore, fuels such as propane or gasoline do not spontaneously combust in the presence of oxygen, instead they only do so upon the input of energy. In an internal combustion engine, the energy is provided by compression of the air in a cylinder (which heats it up) and a spark plug (or even higher compression in the case of a diesel engine).

Once energy is provided and the initial bonds are broken, new bonds form and create the endproducts (carbon dioxide and water). When these new bonds are formed, energy is released as follows:

Six C-O bonds (805 kJ/mole for each bond)
Eight H-O bonds (464 kJ/mole for each bond)

In total, 8,542 kJ/mole of energy is now released, or 2,054 kJ/mole more than required to break the bonds at the onset of the chemical reaction.

For more details on the combustion process, refer to: http://www.webchem.net/notes/how_far/enthalpy/bondenthalpy.htm

The bottom line is that the 2,054 kJ/mole of energy released is a good return (hence the popularity of fossil fuels), but nevertheless a considerable energy input (6,488 kJ/mole) was required to achieve this goal.

Obtaining energy from uranium-235 bears conceptual similarities to obtaining energy from a hydrocarbon by chemical combustion. Here you have one molecule of uranium plus one neutron; these two entities interact in a manner that splits the uranium atom into a krypton and barium atom, and release energy in the process.

Quoting http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fission.html#c2

A single fission event can yield over 200 million times the energy of the neutron which triggered it!

If you are interested in learning about fission and how this process generates millions of times more energy than possible with hydrocarbon-based fuels, please consult:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/u235chn.html#c1

You might want to click on the ‘chain reaction’ link in particle to dispel your misconceptions about how atomic energy requires energy to release the energy stored in uranium. Quite frankly, most people have the opposite concern, that the chain reaction will not be adequately dampened or controlled leading to ‘melt-down’ or nuclear holocaust-type explosions.

First, Calorie is a unit of energy! (ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!!)
But, Watt is NOT a unit of energy (it is a unit of power)

Eeeeee. Try again. Power and energey here are one and the same. the calorie is just a unit of heat. It can also be mesured in BTU's and WATTS (They can be converted, their fore, they must be the same.)
Watts mesures the amount of power IE heat radated by an electronic circut.

And, Force is NOT a unit of anything.
Then how come it is mesured in nutons, pounds, or hourse power? Last time I read my phisics books, its not posible to mesure nothing.

The rest however looks a lot more solid. I will read that later when I have time. But it looks like I do have some corections that could be made. That is the type of critisesm I look for.

But the rest of my thread still stand, sence vary little of it is argued on the grounds of phisics.

I stand by my statement that force is not a unit, just like speed is not a unit. If ‘speed’ were a unit, you could be traveling at 13 speeds, 87.3 speeds, 1,435 speeds (or whatever) depending on your mode of locomotion. Instead, you if you’re jogging, then your speed may be 13 km/h; if you’re driving on the autobahn, it might be 87.3 MPH, or if you were flying in the Concorde, you may be traveling at 1,435 knots. In these cases km/h, MPH, and knots are units that measure speed. Speed itself is not a unit. Similarly, newtons, dynes, or lbf are units used to measure force, force itself is not a unit.

In addition, power and energy are not one and the same. Power is the rate at which energy is consumed. It is NOT possible to convert calories, BTU’s, or joules (each of which is an energy measurement) into Watts.

A handy source of information on units of measurement can be found at:

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/index.html

At this site you can learn these definitions (plus much, much more):

joule (J)
the SI unit of work or energy, defined to be the work done by a force of one newton acting to move an object through a distance of one meter in the direction in which the force is applied

watt (W)
the SI unit of power. Power is the rate at which work is done, or (equivalently) the rate at which energy is expended. One watt is equal to a power rate of one joule of work per second of time


Perhaps by making the statement that a watt was a unit of energy, you were actually thinking of a ‘watt-hour’?

watt hour (W•h)
a common metric unit of work or energy, representing the energy delivered at a rate of one watt for a period of one hour. This is equivalent to exactly 3.6 kilojoules (kJ) of energy, or about 3.412 141 Btu, 0.859 846 (kilogram) Calories, or about 2655 foot pounds

Or the more commonly used ‘kilowatt-hour’?

kilowatt hour (kW•h or kw hr)
the commercial unit of electric energy. One kilowatt hour represents the amount of energy delivered a rate of 1000 watts over a period of one hour. Since the watt is 1 joule/sec and there are 3600 seconds in an hour, the kilowatt hour is equivalent to exactly 3.6 megajoules of energy, or about 3412.141 Btu, 859.846 (kilogram) Calories, or about 2.655 million foot pounds.

Edited to provide a diagram showing energy in its many forms:



Check out the web-site where this figure is from, too!


http://www.cea.fr/gb/publications/Clefs44/an-clefs44/clefs4412a.html

Note - this site actually contains 97 pages describing the many forms of alternative energy under development (or consideration).

Looks like someone else here remembers physics class. Sorry to pick on you Code_Name_D, but your science does need work.

Your hearts are in the right place.

It still erks me how some take a few errros and use that to throw out the baby in the bath water. The rest of my thoughs may not be impeachabule, but no one has chalanged thouse.

Even some of the more contraverhal ones such as metro-formating. Ideas evalve. But how far would we get, it we stopped at the first mestake, and turned around?

All though this perticuler argument fell flat on its face, its root still stands. That other forms of alternitive energey such as sun and wind, still can not produce any where near the energey contained in an equvlent amount of coal or oil. We can't control renewabules, even bio-crops are subject to crop failers and droubs. That means what ever system is on the other end, will have to constantly addapt and ajust ifself to no excead supply. While oil and coal can be brought up as quickly as desired at man's discresion, to meet what ever supply is incountered.

If renewabules are to be practical, their deploment must coincide with aditionl changes on the demand side to drasticly improve effichency at all levels.

Cityes today have evalved in an envirnemnt where energey was (and is) freely avaluble, not requring any restraints. Making them fundementuly incompatible with renuwabules. So one of the changes needed, is to squease the energey supply artifichaly to force a city to evalve under conditions of energey thrift. At best, such changes will be mesured in decades, and time is running out.

Can any one chalange those notions? Or are they going to turn back with my command of phisics?

I just would have corrected your mistakes, but CafeToad did it for me. Like I said your heart is in the right place.

We do need to be way more active when it comes to fixing our energy problem. I agree with most of your comments. Every little bit counts.

Personally I'm a big fan of wind energy. Here in german I take public transport powered by electricity, and buy green power for my home. Theoretically I burn no fossil fuels what so ever. I'm not sure it really works out that well in practice. My lifestyle here is way more enviromentally friendly than life in Houston,TX would be.

My big proposal: a fuel tax should be so high that it pays for all roads and possibly some public transportation. Why should we subsidise the auto industry? Fight sprawl hard core.

Make a big Kennedy style chalenge to NASA to build the cheap hydogen car in 10 years. Then make that techonology available to the world for free.

We the industrialised countries developed before the others and have a responsiblity to solve the problems of industrialisation before the others get here. When China and India all start burning fuel like we do, we'll be screwed.

Of course, you would be neglecting your DU duties if you don't point mistakes out where you find them. That is how ideas are improved, every thing is run through the fact checker, and the flaws pulled out.

That is what is so cool about this place.

But some times we do forget that we are in this all together, and even a simple point can turn into a flaim war, yep, call me guilty there too. And I was a little short.

(Ahem) I appoligise for that.

We all need to remeber that debates can be a colaberation of ideas too.

(Note to self. You are on the hook now to update tihs thing.)
B-)

Okay okay, I can see when I am licked,

Still, as I look at this graphic that you provided something doses accrue to me. (And this is some what off topic.) Shouldn't a nuclear reaction also result with radiant energy? That is what radiation is, after all. More specifically, Alfa, Bata, and Gamma waves/particles are all locates on the electromagnetic spectrum, just as light, infra-read (heat or thermal energy), and radio waves happens to be. Now I am aware radiation happens to be little more than high energy particles, but then again, so is a photon. Carrying that foreword, electrical energy can be unified with radiated energy in that high fervency AC currents will radiate energy. Or perhaps that is a little too high end part of the physics spectrum, getting into unification theory. (Yikes, where is my aspirin, so I can continue thinking about this?)

It dose however make me wonder if radioactive waste in an of itself might be a source of energy. Though I have no idea exactly how you would capture it.

and i was going to sit this one out since the thread seemed to pretty much recapitulate the correction of errors posted the first time around.

however, you do seem to have stumbled onto the truth in this post - in a broad sense all forms of radiation do indeed contain energy.


and yes, radioactive waste obtained from conventional nuclear power plants does indeed contain energy, moreover, it can be re-used :


Fuel Reprocessing
In the reactor, as fissions occur, increasing amounts of fission products, what we called the "ashes", are produced. Fission products are liable to capture neutrons, thus decreasing the number of neutrons available for fissions. These captures do not release energy since, the nuclei being relatively light, they cannot fission. The neutrons captured by the fission products are lost for all practical purposes. Fission products are said to "poison" the fuel, they must be removed from the reactor.

Computer simulations of the fuel reprocessing considered here have been done at the "Institut des Sciences Nucléaires'' (ISN) in Grenoble. It consists in extracting the fission products from the fuel, letting only heavy nuclei remain in the fuel, but leaving all the heavy nuclei in the fuel: the fertile nuclei, the fissile nuclei, and all the minor actinides, in order to satisfy the condition that all heavy nuclei will eventually fission. If the reactor is a breeder reactor, some of the fissile nuclei, the "extra" ones, are removed. If the reactor is a simple converter reactor, the fissile nuclei are left as is; by definition, there are enough to continue the chain reaction. Finally, the fertile nuclei consumed are replaced. After these reprocessing steps, the fuel is ready to be loaded in the reactor. The new fuel is actually the old fuel which has been cleaned of its fission products and supplemented with new fertile material, it is recycled fuel.

this quote is from:

http://lpsc.in2p3.fr/reacteurs-hybrides/english/NEWNRW/NEWNRW.html

a related article is found here:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw79.html

if memory serves correctly, Molten Salt Reactors are an especially promising technology (do a google search for more information)

whatever happened to all that cheap gas we were promised once the Iraqi oil started flowing?

In ten years that'll be possible. Nobody wants to invest because the country isn't safe. That's the problem with extracting resources from other countries, you have spend so much energy paying off war lords, dictators, and Bush's buddies it's just not profitable.

Of coarse in 10 years it'll be damn profitable and if the crisis is as bad as some think it will be, damn nessesary. The trick for them will be to make the US tax payer pick up the tab.