Will The End of Oil Mean The End of America?

[Martin Eden]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-12.htm
Published on Monday, March 1, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Will The End of Oil Mean The End of America?
by Robert Freeman

EXCERPTS:

Perhaps it goes without saying but it deserves repeating anyway: oil is the sine qua non of “industrial” civilization—the one thing without which such civilization cannot exist. All of the world’s 600 million automobiles depend on oil. So do virtually all other commodities and critical processes: airlines, chemicals, plastics, medicines, agriculture, heating, etc. Almost all of the increase in world food productivity over the past 50 years is attributable to increases in the use of oil-derived additives: pesticides; herbicides; fungicides; fertilizers; and machinery.

When oil is gone, civilization will be stupendously different. The onset of rapid depletion will trigger convulsions on a global scale, including, likely, global pandemics and die-offs of significant portions of the world’s human population. The “have” countries will face the necessity kicking the “have-nots” out of the global lifeboat in order to assure their own survival. Even before such conditions are reached, inelastic supply interacting with inelastic demand will drive the price of oil and oil-derived commodities through the stratosphere, effecting by market forces alone massive shifts in the current distribution of global wealth.

If the US economy is not to grind to a halt under these circumstances it must choose one of three alternate strategies: dramatically lower its living standards (something it is not willing to do); substantially increase the energy efficiency of its economy; or make up the shortfall by securing supplies from other countries. President Bush’s National Energy Policy published in March 2001 explicitly commits the US to the third choice: Grab the Oil. It is this choice that is now driving US military and national security policy. And, in fact, the past 60 years of US policy in the Middle East can only be understood as the effort to control access to the world’s largest supply of oil.
<snip>

This is why the US operates some 700 military bases around the world and spends over half a trillion dollars per year on military affairs, more than all the rest of the world—its “allies” included—combined. This is why the Defense Department’s latest Quadrennial Review stated, “The US must retain the capability to send well-armed and logistically supported forces to critical points around the globe, even in the face of enemy opposition.” This is why Pentagon brass say internally that current force levels are inadequate to the strategic challenges they face and that they will have to re-instate the draft after the 2004 elections.

But the provocation occasioned by grabbing the oil, especially from nations ideologically hostile to the US, means that military attacks on the US and the recourse to military responses will only intensify until the US is embroiled in unending global conflict. This is the perverse genius of the Grab the Oil strategy: it comes with its own built-in escalation, its own justification for ever more militarization—without limit. It will blithely consume the entire US economy, the entire society, without being sated. It is, in homage to Orwell, Perpetual War for Perpetual Grease.
<snip>

The alternative to Grab the Oil is to dispense with the hobbling dependency on oil itself and to quickly wean the country off of it. Call it the path of Energy Reconfiguration. It is to declare a modern day Manhattan Project aimed at minimizing the draw down in the world’s finite stocks of oil, extending their life, and mitigating the calamity inherent in their rapid exhaustion. It means building a physical infrastructure to the economy that is based on an alternative to oil. And it means doing this, not unilaterally or militarily as the US is doing now, but in peaceful partnership with other countries of the world, the other counties in our shared global lifeboat that are also threatened by the end of oil.
<snip>

The economic benefits are at least equally impressive. By reducing energy imports, the US would reduce its hemorrhaging trade deficit and the mortgaging of the nation’s future that such borrowing implies. A national corps of workers set to retrofitting the nation’s homes and businesses for energy efficiency would address employment problems for decades in a way that could not be outsourced to Mexico or India or China. And a more efficient industrial infrastructure would make all goods made in America more competitive with those made abroad. In all of these ways, Energy Reconfiguration raises, not lowers, the average standard of living while increasing the resilience of the economy as a whole.
<snip>

MUCH, MUCH MORE:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-12.htm

[iamjoy]

1. It's Pinky And The Brain!!!

That's why they had those closed door energy meetings. Here we are thinking it's all about Bush/Cheney rewarding their friends. No. They are looking after us (in their own twisted way).

With oil levels declining, and demand threatening to outstrip supply, Bush/Cheney had secret meetings because A. They don't want us to know how bad the situation is and B. They are planning to use our military might to grab the world's oil and they don't want the rest of the country or world to know their plan to

TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD

[salinen]

3. Yes iam

You're a hard person to deceive.

[cprise]

5. They want to make money on every last recoverable barrel of oil

...instead of switching to alternatives earlier and having to leave those oil assets in the ground.

[cprise]

2. I just don't see it

I've read lots of these articles and the die-off sites and I'm not afraid of this scenario the way I used to be.

A huge proportion of the population is already too poor to be reliant on oil.

Would it be such a huge hardship to travel 1/3 as much and quintuple the number of buses? To move closer to Main St. and use a bike?

Farm equipment is already run on ethanol and biodiesel to a large extent.

Fertilizer and electricity comes from natural gas, so food and basic power should still be OK.

True hardship will be suffered by people with oil heat. But that's all I can think of.

Did I miss something in all this?

Isn't the real threat climate change resulting the overuse of fossil fuels?

[hedda_foil]

4. Yes, you missed something.

Natural gas has peaked as well.

[cprise]

6. That's not what I read

I know you're a very intelligent person, and no doubt believe that Hubert's Peak is valid.

But I think it's a stretch to apply the same timeline to natural gas.

Can you show me some evidence?

[kalian]

8. This will explain it to you....

http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_section1.htm

Enjoy...

[JohnyCanuck]

13. For information on natural gas depletion check this site.

http://postcarbon.org/

It's got links to presentations by environmentalist Julian Darley concerning a coming peak in gas production in North America. While there are still substantial undeveloped reserves in places like Siberia, it will be very expensive to ship that gas to North America as it will involve building expensive liquification facilities (which do have a habit of blowing up from time to time) and tankers etc.

Look down near the bottom of the home page at postcarbon.org for Darley's presentation to the Centre for Strategic Studies in Washington DC. There's various options for viewing the presentation depending what type of bandwith you have available.

Below is a quote from a press release for one of Darley's lectures.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the world is running out of cheap fossil fuels. Just this month, CNN carried a story titled "World Oil and Gas 'Running Out'" (by CNN's Graham Jones, Thursday, October 2), which noted that "The world's oil reserves are up to 80 percent less than predicted," A team from Sweden's University of Uppsala says. Production levels will peak in about 10 years' time, they say." This study merely confirms warnings that have been issuing from dozens of prominent petroleum geologists over the past few years.

Mike Ruppert, investigative journalist whose newsletter’s subscribers include members of Congress, university professors and journalists, asserts that “The truth about peak oil and gas is revealing itself to be worse than most people had suspected. The crisis is upon us now and no governmental figures have even acknowledged it. The Middle East – especially Saudi Arabia and Iraq -- is more critical to US survival than ever”.

Julian Darley, energy analyst, co-founder of the Post Carbon Institute and author of a forthcoming book on the natural gas crisis, adds “The situation regarding natural gas in North America is even more urgent. A full-blown supply crisis was averted this past summer only through "demand destruction"-raising wholesale prices so dramatically that whole industries were driven out of the market. Today nearly half of the American nitrogen fertilizer industry is gone . . .
so that Americans can heat their homes this coming winter. But North American natural gas production rates are continuing to fall, which means that the crisis is certain to return within months”.

The challenge to our industrial way of life can hardly be overstated. Moreover, there is clearly no coordinated, rational response issuing from national and state governments, or from entrenched energy industries. The problem is simply too big: no one has an easy solution, so everyone in a position of power would prefer to change the subject. If solutions are to emerge, they will come from local communities

http://postcarbon.org/events/northbay2003/press-release.php

There's an article on this web site as well called "When markets fail – America leaps off the gas cliff without a parachute."

In the aptly chosen Mayflower Hotel grand ballroom, the atmosphere was coldly surreal. Outside, late June Washington was climbing towards a hundred degrees, the hottest day of a damp and dismal year so far. Inside, the air conditioning held the gathered guests a comfortable thirty degrees cooler. A perfect and profligate example of the absurd charade about to unfold. This particular piece of theater, was produced in a hurry by US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, hosted by the National Petroleum Council, and scripted by global corporations, like Dow Chemical and billed as a Natural Gas (crisis) Summit.

The outcome was both farcical and grim: Americans should be worried, because their corporate masters with their political pawns, still have not grasped that this is not a temporary hiccup, with a happy end, but a gruesome farce written by greed, but now being firmly dictated by geology, not by ‘invincible’ markets.

The idea, according to Abraham’s opening speech, was that the scores of invited industry guests would furnish the short-term solutions to get America out of what could be its worst energy crisis since the 1970s. The public were allowed to attend, but not given any opportunity to speak. Most notably, as the Union of Concerned Scientists pointed out, no-one from the renewable energy industry was represented amongst the panelists or the invitees. <1> No surprise there, but still the date of June 26th, 2003 should be one for the history books, as it marks a turning point in the history of petroleum. The US, having peaked in oil production more than three decades ago, has realised that the same is now true for natural gas. US oil peak has clearly been disastrous for the planet and all its life-forms as the US finds itself needing ever more of the planet’s oil production. This article will lay out some context for future judgments on whether gas will follow suit, and lead to even more militarization of US energy policy and more misery for the people that have the misfortune to live in gas- and oil-rich countries.

I can't link to it directly but if you click on this link:
When markets fail – America leaps off the gas cliff without a parachute you'll see a clickable link to the actual article.

[Ready4Change]

7. Pick nearly ANY object in your sight right now.

Almost ANY object, and I can trace it's existence, there in your reach, through oil.

Oil doesn't just touch almost every aspect of every life here in the USA. It IS almost every aspect of life here.

[cprise]

11. So what?

Do I need everything encased in plastic, with fancy printing?

Do I need a new computer every 4 years?

Shouldn't I just continue to take care of my stuff (unlike most people) and buy used when I can?

OK, so every aspect of life here would be touched. I don't think that ets us up for a die-off situation.

[Ready4Change]

14. It matters.

It's not going to be a little colder. You're going to have no heat. Not less heat. NO heat.

Yes, people 200 years ago had heat. But you likely have no clue all they did, all year long, to ensure they would have heat. Any idea how to store wood so it won't rot? How to cut down a tree? Without a chainsaw? Ever done it yourself, or are you just sure that since they did it 200 years ago it must be a snap?

That's just one part of your life, heat. Almost every element of your life will undergo major change.

You talk like riding your bike will solve all your problems. Look at the ingredients used in your tires lately? Most likely all oil based. If it's natural rubber, that probably came from overseas via a deisel powered freighter. Now imagine what the cost of that rubber is going to be with 1 billion Indians and I billion Chinese and 5 billion other peoples clamouring for that one essential element that will allow them to get to work and earn a living.

Hope your bike runs well on bare rims.

People are far too complacent about this. Far to sure that someone else is going to wave some magic wand and make it all better. Oil is the magic wand of the last 150 years. But it's going to be all used up, and there won't be any more wand to wave.

[BlueEyedSon]

38. How about FOOD??

Our method of agriculture relies on gobs of cheap oil to run machinery and to make fertilizer, pesticides, etc. It's pretty certain that without oil augmenting the productivity of farmland, the earth could not carry 6 billion people (and plenty of those are already hungry).

Read this: "The Oil We Eat" http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280191.shtml

[kalian]

9. Here are some links....

http://greatchange.org/ov-campbell,outlook.html

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Running-Out-Of-Oil.htm

http://www.durangobill.com/Rollover.html

My personal favorite:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Stop believing what you are being told. Stop believing in what the
government tells you. If it sounds too good...then it probably is...

[cprise]

12. These reports say NG has several decades longer than oil

What's more, I think our dependency on oil for pest control is overstated. For instance, organic farming is a technology field like any other, and benefits from its own variety of advances:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Productivity


So that means home heating oil remains the semi-major survival issue on my list.

IMO, the major survival issue remains climate change.

[Ready4Change]

15. Several decades longer AT CURRENT USAGE RATES.

As oil gets harder to obtain, NG becomes a better deal. As it becomes a better deal demand rises, and it gets used up faster.

I think it still will be around longer than oil. But just like oil, it will get to the point that it will only be affordable to the ultra rich.

By then we'll all be burning coal, and climate change may seem like small beans compared to particulate pollution.

[cprise]

20. How does NG become a 'better deal'?

I'm interested in understanding this process because the last I checked, our cars and trucks couldn't use NG.

[Ready4Change]

23. My town has many NG powered buses.

But most current cars and trucks don't run on NG. Since gasoline is cheap now it's not economically viable for manufacturers to build NG vehicles. But, as oil prices rise as they will when this situation really gets rolling, people will stop buying gasoline powered cars, knowing they won't be able to afford fueling them.

At that point, car makers are going to look around for alternatives.If NG is still comparatively plentiful at that point, that would be a natural direction for them to go. Burning NG will become a selling point, not a liability. Most towns already have an NG pipeline structure, so tieing fueling stations into that wouldn't be hard.

Sure, NG cars will have to top the tanks twice as often. But, if you can't afford gasoline, more frequent stops will seem a small price to pay.

[cprise]

25. So how much does it cost

..and how many quads of energy per year can it supply?

[Ready4Change]

26. Don't know what a "quad" is.

Not 100% sure, but I think, at this time, NG is very comparable to gasoline in cost per mile. The cars themselves are a few thousand more expensive, even after incentives. That would change if more people were interested in them. But gasoline is still king here in the USA.

Another NG problem is you need a huge tank to get the same number of miles from tankfull to tankfull. In order to maintain usable trunk and passenger space, the tanks are sized a bit smaller, so you wind up having to top off the tank more often. That compounds the problem of there not being a lot of stations that provide NG for cars. The owner of such a car pretty much needs to plan trips from station to station.

Buses work well, because they operate around their own vehicle depots, which provide NG pumps.

[cprise]

31. But we currently need NG for food production

Why waste it on SUVs? You don't seem to know if there is extra NG capacity for transportation.

At least with biodiesel, you get at least 3.2 units of energy back for each unit consumed in producing it, making it a true renewable. That figure includes energy for fertilizer, other chemicals, farming and processing. And existing diesel engines use it unmodified, getting the same range per tank of fuel.

I use it in my own car, now.

[Ready4Change]

37. I think we're talking past each other.

I think we'd both like to convert to a renewable energy civilization.

It's like our society's in a big boat in the middle of the ocean. We're charging along, full speed ahead. You and I know that we're almost out of fuel. While everyone else is saying "go faster" we're saying "We should build ourselves a sailboat."

The difference between our points of view is this:

- You're assuming a sailboat will just magically appear when we need it, simply because we know how to build one.

- I'm are aware that, when our old boat runs out of fuel, we won't be anywhere near an island. I know if we wait we'll have to swim to an island to obtain the resources needed, and a lot of people are going to drown during that swim.

I say build the sailboat now. It's efficient enough we'll hardly know we're towing it behind us. And when we run out of gas, we can pull it up and climb aboard.

Heck, some of us might go sailing early and travel outside of the old boats smokestacks. We might like sailing so much we abandon the old boat, only returning to it when there's a problem only its engines and fuel can answer. And then we'll be glad we didn't use up all that fuel.

[Wells]

28. Funny you should mention NG buses...

These NG buses are CRAP! They are NOT state of the art in propulsion. Municipalities promote them as advanced, but they're not. HYBRID-drive systems, not these NG buses should be every riders demand.

WHY? The NG bus engine is just a diesel converted. Buses polute most heavily during repetitive acceleration. An NG-burning engine, connected to a generator and electric motor drive, burns even cleaner and up to 40% greater miles per gallon.

So, next time you heap praise on an NG bus, STOP and consider: Your city bought the NG buses as a PAYOFF to industry interests who've far too long, knowingly profitted from obsolete technology.

[JohnyCanuck]

40. Check out this new experimental, diesel-electric Dutch bus.

Each wheel in the bus is actually an inside-out electric motor which drives the wheel and draws its electricity from a battery pack. The bus's normal diesel engine is replace by a much smaller unit running at a constant rpm to recharge the battery pack.

This winter, in the city of Apeldoorn, a city bus will be used to prove that the claims about the new invention are true. These are quite bold. E-traction, the company that developed the bus, boasts fuel savings of up to 60 per cent, with emissions down to only a fraction of the soot and carbon dioxide an ordinary bus would blow out of its tailpipe.

In addition, the test bus requires no adaptation, its drivers need no extra training and there'll be no discomfort for passengers. It will simply run on diesel, just like all the other buses, and it should be just as reliable. One thing however will be very different; the Apeldoorn bus hardly makes a sound, hence its nickname "the whisperer".

<snip>

The power to drive the Apeldoorn bus is stored in a big battery pack that sits in a steel drawer under the bus. Changing the batteries every time they're drained would be impractical, as would be taking the bus out of service for recharging them for hours on end. Instead, a small diesel-powered generator built into what used to be the bus's engine bay continuously charges the whole battery pack.

Since in-wheel engines are so highly efficient, the generator's diesel engine can be very small, about the size of the compact city car's engine. Because charging the batteries is all it needs to do, the tiny engine consumes very little fuel and can run continuously at a speed of 1700 revs per minute, the most efficient rev count.

www.rnw.nl/science/html/031215wheel.html

[Wells]

27. "Global Warming" is CODE

Terms like "Global warming" and "Climate Change" are code for "oil depletion". The political elite cannot disturb the public with the truth about this, and many other situations.

The discourse has too much emphasis on alternate fuels and fuel economy. And, not enough discussion about the rebuilding of local economies. Urban centers are going to need neighboring farmlands, but suburban housing compounds (sprawl) have paved them over. Oooops.

See the USA,
In a Chevrolet,
Getting humped by some maniacs named Bush.
They've been there all along.
Since the World War One.
And after that, they sold cars to the Reich.
Oh, get rid of those pesky, dog gone Commies,
who protest mass producing Opel wheelies.
Yes, get them out of the way now.
World War Two is the way now.
Bomb the cities and rebuild for the cars.
So.., see.. the.. USA,
In.. a.. Chevrolet...
Fall apart and become a cheap, heap, jeep.

Sorry about that. Ewww. I got carried away.

[cprise]

29. Let me crack the "code" for you:

Reduced oil capacity is not a threat to our civilization. Climate change is.

Reputable scientists know this, and that's why you see them fighting for proper government treatment of the climate change issue. They know peak oil is coming, but our food supply is mainly dependant on natural gas and there is decades more of that left than oil.

Peak Oil is a disaster for people who can't stand buses and bicycles. Don't let anyone use it to scare you into supporting another non-renewable fuel source in our cars. Bush is already using Peak Oil hysteria to railroad us into using coal to make hydrogen.

[teryang]

32. I'm sceptical of this argument

It is misdirected. Yes there is always relative scarcity of cheap recoverable energy resources. But I don't follow all the conclusions of the peak oil theory.

First, American efforts typically block access to cheap recoverable assets to inflate prices. This invariably has been the result of American mideastern policies. Its effect, if not its purpose, is to raise prices and profits for the oil industry. This would suggest that market supply is in relative excess of demand at least at present.

Our current regime, which is obviously wholly controlled by the energy industry, doesn't seek to secure access to international oil sources, it seeks to seize them. There is a big difference. With the US Armed Forces, their traditional mission is to secure the sea lanes and other avenues of international commerce for free trade. This mission has been morphed (as it was in the thirties for Germany and Japan) into seizing territory and resources without critical commentary.

With free trade in the past, the dominant economic power could dominate energy trade (and international commerce in general) by virtue of economic strength in a "free market." Now that we are less competitive ecomically primarily as a result of Islamic nations (and other former colonies) repatriating their national resources rather than the result of any physical shortage, our corporatist national leadership resorts to war, threats of war, and invasion to recover their former illegitimate possessory interest in these resources (allegedly, the cheapest recoverable energy sources).

America finds itself in the position of the typical poor person. Its neighbors now have more than we do as a result of the passage of the colonial era and the success of nationalist movements. Rather than compete economically to provide goods and services worthy of exchange, we arm ourselves to the teeth and invent fictitious dogmas and enemies to seize what we don't want to pay for in the "free market" because it results in the transfer of wealth to those whose interests and policies don't emanate from the corporate boardrooms in Houston and New York. If one views our foreign policy, the focus on the following nations is really nothing more than a imperialist reaction to their nationalistic repatriation of their energy assets and/or other markets: Libya, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.

Normally when one is presented with rising prices whether occassioned by increased demand or a legitimate shortage decision makers are presented with utility curves. Should one pay 45 dollars or more for the equivalent of a barrel of oil or should one change their behavior and purchasing habits. Obviously, the answer is a little of both. Those competitors who adapt their behavior to changing economic circumstances remain competitive, those who go to war because they are wed to obsolete cultural patterns get destroyed.

There is just as much oil in Canada as in Iraq, the problem is that it is more expensive to get at and allegedly not as profitable as conquering Iraq. But it is recoverable. If we had spent all of what we have squandered and will go on to squander in wars and other schemes of imperial conquest we could have bought the entire Iraqi reserve with cash and initiated important changes in energy usage patterns here which would alleviate the so called peak oil crisis.

[JohnyCanuck]

35. Canada's oil reserves are mostly in environmentally unfriendly tar sands

There is just as much oil in Canada as in Iraq, the problem is that it is more expensive to get at and allegedly not as profitable as conquering Iraq. But it is recoverable


Unfortunately most of Canada's oil reserves are in the Alberta tar sands. Extracting the oil from tar sands is very energy intensive and produces only a small EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) and is environmentally harmful. It also uses very large amounts of increasingly scarce fresh water. We saw last summer several reports on Canadian TV of droughts in Alberta and Western Canada and the impact water shortages were having on farmers and farming communities. There really isn't that much water to meet the needs of towns and cities, tar sands development and agricultural needs as well.

Gallon believes that it takes so much energy to extract the sand from the bitumen that it almost isn't worth it. "If they were to do a net energy analysis, they would find that it almost takes as much energy to mine, process, refine, and upgrade the bitumen oil they get from the tar sands as the energy in the light oil they are producing. There is a small net energy gain. But it is estimated that 5 to 10 times the amount of greenhouse gases are released processing tar sands as released when processing conventional oil." Accordingly, several investment analysts have warned that if carbon taxes or tradable emissions permits are introduced to restrict greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, which Canada has signed, the extraction process could become financially unattractive. Koch Industries, a U.S. energy company, recently withdrew from a C$3.5-billion Alberta oil sands project giving Kyoto as the cause even though the cost of producing a barrel of oil is, by some estimates, only around $8.

Gallon lists the problems with tar sand extraction as follows:

Misuse of resources: tar sands oil is hard to unstick from the grains of sand and it costs a lot of money and energy to do so. As the net energy gain is small, it can never escape the oilenergy cost cycle.

Climate change: the greenhouse gas emissions from uncovering, extracting, refining, upgrading and transporting tar sands oil are many times more than those associated with extracting refining and processing either conventional oil and gas, or even coal.

Environmental destruction: Shell's tar sands process requires the stripping of the soil and rock from hundreds of thousands of acres of land to get at the bitumen 200 feet or more under the surface. Forests, wildlife habitat and water sources are ruined.

Water pollution: tar sands extraction and processing requires the use of massive amounts of water. When the used water is discharged it can cause oil and phenol contamination far beyond the stripmine site.

(Also as I noted above increasingly scarce water will have to be taken from agricultural use to produce oil /JC )

Air pollution: discharges from the processing and refinery upgrade facilities can spread large amounts of toxic and carcinogenic compounds over a wide area.


http://www.feasta.org/documents/wells/contents.html?one/panel1.html

[teryang]

42. I'm not an engineer or geologist

My reading in this area indicates that industry expects production utlimately to reach the about 70 percent or more of the impaired level that Iraq brings to market today. Of course longitudinally this is less than one sixth of Iraq's maximum daily potential with billions of dollars of investment beyond the 159 billion we've already wasted there. I agree with estimates that place the total costs of Iraq policies at one trillion dollars American. Certainly, there are more economical alternatives. Yet this is the policy that peak oil theory seeks to justify.

I'm sure the multiple industry sources that I have read minimized the environmental costs. These costs are off budget no doubt being shifted to someone's disadvantage. This they always do. I either wasn't informed of or didn't remember the costs in water utilization. Of course government also denies the environmental contamination and real costs of aggression in Iraq.

Your comments are appreciated because the real costs are always overlooked. I'm not focused on tar sands as "the" solution although I think they are a good long term investment in contrast to Koch. My point is that there is a deep rooted obsession with disguising the true nature of the problem.

Changed behaviors and development of technological alternatives and responses will only be promoted by paying the true costs for energy. This our current American plutocracy is unwilling to do as the true costs are disguised, subsidized, and transferred to others in an effort to maintain "profitable" cheap energy. Now we have reached the absurd situation where conversion (theft) of resources by military aggression is a allegedly part of the "solution" but conservation and other policy alternatives are ridiculed. What I propose is adaptation and diversification. It's a no brainer. The peak oil response is no, it's impossible.

If we are to "require" 40 percent more energy in 2017 maybe someone ought to consider the possibility that the level of energy consumption needs to be curbed now. Letting prices rise is the first step. The second step is promoting alternative sources, responsive technologies and behaviors with subsidies and incentives. No doubt this will cut into oil company profits, the National Missile Defense and the colossally wasteful Pentagon budget.

[Sorwen]

18. Ethanol and biodiesel

Ethanol and biodiesel are not used that extensively right now and they require oil to be produced. I don't know the truth of the matter, but some argue that just as much energy (or more) is needed to produce ethanol as is obtained from it. Oil is also needed to produce wind mills, solar panels, etc. As oil prices go up, food prices will go up.

[cprise]

19. No, those technologoes ARE produced with oil

We have a largely oil-based economy, remember?

Also, all of the technologies you listed return far more energy than they require. In the case of soy biodiesel, 3.2 units of energy are returned for each unit invested in the process.

About 3% of Germany's diesel consumption is supplied with biodiesel, and 5% for France.

[Demeter]

10. I Rather Think It Will Be the Remaking of America

The America the Founding Fathers envisioned, and the Founding Mothers 100 and 150 years later invoked, and the founding minorities 50 years after that. We have nothing to lose but the corruption and addiction...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. We could cut our oil consumption by

promoting alternative fuels and mass transit, retrofitting our communities for walking and cycling and transit, and by subsidizing the search for alternatives to plastics.

All this would be much more constructive (and probably cheaper) than fighting wars for oil.

[Ready4Change]

24. I totally agree.

I love my gasoline powered cars. But I've a suspicion kids in the future will wonder what it was like for us to zoom around the nation so fast and carefree.

I wonder if they will admire us for the brave world we lived in, or deride us for our greed and how we wasted such a precious resource?

[emetzl]

16. Thoughtful words

... and thought provoking ideas. Thank you
Einat

[Bhaisahab]

17. thanks for this. its worth sharing with the wife n/t

[damnyankee2601]

22. Nope.

The end of oil will be the end of the current oligarchy. They know this and are trying to delay the inevitable, because when they lose their economic dominance, they lose their power.

The next John Rockefeller is getting beat up by football players in high school right now. Wherever he is, he will do to big oil what Bill Gates did to IBM. But first he needs a market. And he will have one in about 15 years.

[cprise]

30. Agreed!

That's because the energy alternatives (quite viable, even if we have to cut down on frivolous waste) tend to be de-centralized and domestic. There are no dark-skinned countries to beat up and make them give us these new forms of energy.

It makes a good analogy to PCs replacing mainframes.

[pfitz59]

34. Decentralization is the fear....

Big oil wants total control. Alternatives to oil such as wind, water, and solar are "free". After an large initial investment, they have low maintenance and operating costs. can be scaled down to individul users. With gas we are REPEAT customers. ITs a drug, people! Its not absolutely critical for life or society! The 1%ers fear change, the rest of us will adapt.

[JPZenger]

33. Info on Fuel Cell Cars

Hopefully, within 10 years, cars running on renewable clean fuel cells will become common. General Motors is spending $1 billion on the technology, and the State of Ohio is spending hundreds of millions.

Here's some info.:

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/index.html

[cprise]

36. For $16,500 I have a car that runs on renewables

For the past two years normal, production Volkswagen TDIs have been winning the Tour de Sol alternative fuels rally. They run on biodiesel, a fuel that removes about as much CO2 in production as it adds to the air when its used.

It is currently made from surplus veg oil from agricultural processing (the soybean industry produces about 300 mil. gallons of surplus soy oil per year).

[BlueEyedSon]

39. Where do you get your biodiesel and what do you pay per gal?

[cprise]

41. A filling station about 5 mi from home

Since I get over 47 MPG, I only fill up once every 3 weeks.

Price for B100 (100% bio) is usually between $2.20 and $2.40/gal in the Northeast (the most expensive region for bio). The last I paid for B20 (20% bio) was $1.96/gal.

Cost wise, I figure it isn't much different than buying a mid-size American car and running it on gasoline.