Why "Independence from foreign oil" is nothing but political sloganeering

[GliderGuider]

Not in this lifetime.

[madokie]

1. What percentage of our fuel use is for personal automobiles?

[GliderGuider]

3. About 45% is motor gasoline for cars and light trucks

All transportation (including heavy trucks, trains and aircraft) uses 70% of all oil consumed.

[grannie4peace]

2. you chart doesn't matter- we must change our energy policies!

[GliderGuider]

4. I agree you need do change your policies, but the chart does matter.

The chart tells you that if a politician says the USA can become independent of foreign oil, you know they are either lying or clueless. The best the USA can hope for in the near to mid term is to reduce your dependence on foreign oil. The slogan of "Oil Independence" is pure jingoism.

[kristopher]

5. The chart says nothing whatsolever about eliminating demand for foreign oil.

It is a data set. Nothing more, nothing less.

If used it as if it were an actual set of logical statements, it is made significantly more difficult to determine the actual argument and consequently the validity of that argument. This is the type discussions people who are usually wrong seem to prefer.

[GliderGuider]

6. Dependency is a trap.

The greater the dependence on a critical resource, the more difficult it becomes to eliminate that dependence. If the USA wants to eliminate its dependence on foreign oil, it must find a way to restructure its operations so as to eliminate over 60% of its oil consumption. If this reduction was spread evenly across all sectors, it would imply the elimination of 60% of all oil-fuelled transportation. This could be done any number of ways, of course, but I don’t think the public or political appetite is there for the degree of conservation that any such scenario implies.

Imports can be reduced, through the expansion of electrical transportation, conservation, efficiency and demand destruction, but the idea of eliminating two thirds of your society’s critical resource within a couple of decades seems like a stretch.

I find it much more believable that you will pursue mercantilist policies backed up by military force (or at least the threat of it) in order to secure the required oil and maintain BAU.

[kristopher]

12. Why would it be sprea evenly across all sectors.

The better strategy targets the sector where technology exists to replace fossil fuels - personal transportation to battery electric. And Pickens' actually does have a valid point that natural gas can substitute for the heavy trucking sector.

You must play chess with Nnumb-nnuts; the arguments you both make demonstrate a lack of capacity for understanding complex systems.

[hunter]

14. Natural gas [i]is[/i] going to substitute for liquid fuel in all sectors.

The entire MTBE fiasco wasn't about clean air, it was about replacing gasoline with a less expensive natural gas derived substitute.

These days companies like Shell are very big on converting natural gas to diesel and putting full page ads in national media.

This leads to other sorts of potential economic disasters. Gas to liquid technology is going to be hell on the electric power industry, especially if alternative energy sources such as wind becomes dependent upon nimble natural gas fueled power plants to maintain network stability..

Natural gas technology only delays the day of reckoning, and not by much. I think the most likely U.S. scenario is demand destruction. We'll end up cutting our use of petroleum by 60% or more because the collapsing economic system simply won't be able to support either imports or expensive and technologically challenging oil and gas development.

[Javaman]

7. That's true. The real truth is in the details...

no politician worth their lying salt will ever say what really needs to be said. That is, if we are to be "independent", then there is going to be some serious cut backs in the power we use. No more cars, no more plastic crap, food will be less available and people will need to grow a percentage of their own.

That's just for starters.

Now if we take into account coal and we choose to not only be "energy independent" but also kind to the planet, then will have to eliminate coal from the equation.

that means, limiting the amount of power each and every person uses each and every day. Probably rationing it. This means, like Jimmy Carter once said, "turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater". It would, of course be more extreme than that.

We built our society based upon abundant cheap energy. And until solar, wind, biomass, thermal, etc can take up the slack, if it ever does, it will be cold nights, hot days, limited lights and computers and lots of walking and cycling.

just a simple factoid before I close, "65% of our trade deficit is due to oil importation". Think about that for a while and it's implications.

[NNadir]

8. This picture hardly demonstrates anything meaningful at all.

This merely states what history has been, and it assumes that oil represents the globally maximized solution for a (select one or more): 1) Sustainable system of industrial life 2) A short term economically viable approach to energy 3) A means of sustaining transportation systems, 4) A politically viable alternative.

Other selections are possible.

In fact, through most of human history, crude oil has not been widely used. Indeed this was true for the majority of US history.

One could produce similar graphs of historical practices at any period of human or US history and "prove" that nothing that did happen could happen.

There are many good approaches to phasing out dangerous fossil fuels, most of which are technically well understood by professionals, although the public is notoriously ignorant of these approaches.

[GliderGuider]

9. It demonstrates

that the amount of imported oil in the USA today represents far too large a slice of the energy pie to be eliminated over the course of a few presidential terms. Anyone who thinks differently is clueless about human nature, especially that part of it that is expressed politically.

Can != will. Public ignorance, great though it is, is not the main obstacle in the path of change. Man is not a rational creature, he is a rationalizing creature that seeks to maximize his own inclusive fitness. If that requires beggaring his neighbour by turning his back on virtuous solutions, that is what he will usually do.

[NNadir]

20. Well if man isn't a rational creature, maybe woman is a rational creature.

Failing that, maybe a creature of any sex of the genus homo will maximize his inclusive fitness as he, she or it did in the 20 year period between 1930 to 1950 where he, she or it when from coal based transportation (in the large) to petroleum based transport.

We have the example of France, where they more or less phased out coal in 2 decades.

The key is just a small set of people manipulating prices - maybe by taxes - for the long term benefit of humanity. A carbon tax commensurate with the external costs of oil would quickly put it on the desired path to extinction. An aggressively wise President - and we don't know yet if we have the aggressive part - might accomplish much in 8 years.

[GliderGuider]

22. I think such an outcome is unlikely in this case

My post below describes in general terms why I think human behaviour is so hard to change. Given that in the case of climate change you need a global, all-country, species-wide change in behaviour, the combination of normal human behavioural inertia and the outcome expectations derived from the "Prisoner's Dilemma" game make this doubly unlikely.

We should try of course, but we should have a Plan B available in case it doesn't work. Is there a Plan B?

[kristopher]

10. What is the stated goal of the Obama administration?

I am more in line with Gore's ambitions, but the stated goal of Obama is:

Obama’s comprehensive plan to combat global warming and achieve energy
security will:

⇒ Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to the level recommended by top scientists to avoid calamitous impacts.
⇒ Invest $150 billion over the next ten years to develop and deploy climate friendly
energy supplies, protect our existing manufacturing base and create millions of
new jobs.
⇒ Dramatically improve energy efficiency to reduce energy intensity of our
economy by 50 percent by 2030.
⇒ Reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce oil consumption overall by at
least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels of oil, by 2030.
⇒ Make the U.S. a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading a
new international global warming partnership.

[GliderGuider]

11. It may be possible to reduce your dependence on imported oil,

especially especially with demand destruction if your economy goes in the crapper.

BTW, a 35% reduction from 2007 consumption levels would be only 7.25 mbpd, not 10.

My goal is to fly to the moon by flapping my arms. I believe that Obama's goal, as warm and friendly and hopeful as it is, is similarly unrealistic. But we'll see, won't we?

[kristopher]

13. The difference

The difference between your goal and the goal of going carbon free is vast - you have nothing but delusional depression to support your assertions; but there are a whole host of valid scenarios showing that the move to a carbon free energy infrastructure is completely doable.

[GliderGuider]

15. True. However,

the probability that enough of those doable things will actually be done to meet the goal is just as vanishingly small. In fact, I would say that expecting fruition borders on the delusional.

[kristopher]

16. Since I've been posting here

You have been consistently wrong and I have been consistently right.

[tom_paine]

17. I hate to get in the middle of this, but "delusional depression"? GG is giving you some hard math

and you are retorting with something like that?

Now, I don't know what other vast interaction and argument you two have here, and I am not pronouncing judgement on that which I don't know about, but on this thread here your reply seems ad hominem, inapproppriate and wrong.

In the end, so many of our environmental and ecological problems relate to simple math like the mathematical fact of production vs. consumption, our little economic depression notwithstanding.

A journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step, goes the old cliche, and certainly in this case if we are to have any hope of being around as a species in, say 10,000 years, we'd sure as hell better get on with those first steps, which we hope Obama will take.

But the mathematic fact of our production/consumption dilemna, whether we begin shaving off a few percentage points here and there or not, doesn't really change. And the fact that we need however many exojoules of energy to run industrialized civiilzation in it's current state in which half of the world's populace STILL lives like shit, isn't going to change much.

Consider the math behind GG's thread. In order to even DREAM of getting by on our own US dwindling production of oil, we would have to have every major American City powered by fusion in 20 years. That or something equally monumental in terms of impact on the hard math.

THEN we would start to see a big enough chunk to matter coming off the the "consumption" side as this new source of relatively pollution-free energy take up the slack of fuel-based electricity generation.

That, or something like that in terms of scale, would be required to make a significant long-term impact in the HARD MATH of the situation, the same way the oncoming global economic depression has already temporarily loosened the HARD MATH of Peak Oil (whether it's coming earlier or later, fast or slow) by suppressing consumption in a system now approaching or past balance between supply/demand, which temporarily, in concert with Bushie/Saudi/Oil Industry corruption has created this price crash.

Beyond the transitory economics, the hard mathematics remains. But at leaast, we hope, under Obama, the race to make significant impacts in the hard math has begun.

Yes, it may well be that carbon free energy infrastructure is completely doable.

But what massive changes in our daily lives would implementing them require, considering that in the absence of rapidly increasing clean fusion power, such would likely require massive downscaling in our societal energy budget?

And is such feasible in a "voluntary" scenario or will the economics, environment and ecology have to force us to do so when we literally have no other choice, in which case it's probably too late to matter.

[GliderGuider]

21. Many people find my viewpoint frustrating.

To those who are attached (in the Buddhist sense) to life as we know it today, people like me are intensely frustrating. From their perspective I have a dystopian and defeatist outlook on the future of civilization, and they react very strongly to my refusal to adopt their more sanguine view. They may couch their objections in various terms -- kristopher says I don’t understand complex systems or the role of policy -- but the crux of the disagreement is more philosophical than factual.

Of course both sides are working from the same set of facts regarding our current situation: energy supplies and consumption, land and water estimates, CO2 measurements, fish stock surveys etc. My impression is that the two sides come up with different projections based on this data set because they have fundamentally different perceptions of the malleability of human behaviour.

I take the position that aggregate human behaviour is very hard to change in the absence of external forces. That is, people are very reluctant to change behaviour they are comfortable with if there is no obvious need to do so. Intellectual evidence has very little impact on behaviour. For example, hearing reports that ocean fish stocks are depleting does little to change peoples’ fish consumption habits so long as there are still fish available in the market. As soon as there is an actual shortage of fish people will switch to other foods. Similarly, hearing about something called "Peak Oil" will not change most peoples’ driving habits so long as there is affordable gas in the pumps.

To those who are unaware of evolutionary psychology or the unconscious origins of decisions (that is, to most people), human behaviour seems much more accessible. People appear to choose their behaviour based on what they know. Given that perception, it would seem to require little more than effective education and a minor reinforcing incentive to shift group behaviour. When this approach fails (as it most often does), there is a tendency to attribute the failure to opposing external forces – after all, there is nothing intrinsic to human nature that is standing in the way, right?

I don’t know how much of this analysis applies to kristopher’s visceral rejection of my views, since I don’t know him. However, having had similar interactions with others I’ve come to believe that this is the basis of the conflict between these two views.

I do think that people are capable of making major changes in their behaviour. The catch is that they will typically do it only in response to events rather than in anticipation of them. Given the serious and irreversible nature of the ecological and energy events we are facing, waiting until they have occurred is a recipe for catastrophe.

[kristopher]

24. Since when is dishonesty a viewpoint?

[tom_paine]

30. If you are going to call someone dishonest, you should be specific and provide concrete examples.

Otherwise you look like the dishonest asshole, not the person you are accusing.

That's Hannitidiot-style "debating", and I don't much hold with it. I know you are capable of better. Take a deep breath, kristopher, and give it a shot.

[kristopher]

23. "Giving you some hard math"????

You have GOT to be kidding. He posted a single chart and ABSOLUTELY nothing substantive to support his assertions. Nothing; especially no "math".

Here is a much more informative chart that reveals the nature of the challenge facing us. Transportation is only one sector:


https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php


Now, if you don't want to believe it can be done, that's fine. But the FACT is that extensive analysis shows that it CAN be done with existing technologies and without the tremendous changes you posit as essential. Note the difference between primary energy (input) and useful energy.

The primary variable is the pace of change as determined by the amount of dedicated resources. A secondary related variable is the pace of technological improvement once a solid commitment is made to the transition to a carbon free energy infrastructure.

[GliderGuider]

28. So I guess my position is fine, then.

I believe it can be done (for some definitions of "done" at any rate), but I don't believe it will be done.

It's your very last phrase that takes it out of the realm of the probable for me: "once a solid commitment is made to the transition to a carbon free energy infrastructure." I do not believe we as a civilization will make that commitment, certainly not in time to avoid major disruptions to our way of life. You may believe we will, but that's as much a statement of faith as my skepticism.

[tom_paine]

31. kristopher, your chart is a massive non-sequitur to the point . You seem to be almost shrill here.

Not that shrill is always bad (wouldn't I be a hypocrite if I said THAT) but shrill has got to be backed up, man.

Please explain what relevance that 2002 energy flow chart is to the production/consumption debate. To me it seems like you cut and pasted a complex chart in a fit of pique, because it is completely irrelevant unless you can explain what I am missing.

As far as I can tell, it is a ideogram of sorts which catalogues the various inputs and outputs for 2002. 2002, I might add, and this is confirmed upon examination of the graph, which has nothing to do with Obama's plans, increased use of alternative fuels, etc.

As far as I can tell, it is completely irrelevant to the conversation about the future. It is a very short-term histogram of what happened in the recent past. :shrug: :wtf:

I am trying to to lose patience with you, kristopher, but recently every chance I have taken to civilly dialogue with you, you dissolve into non sequiturs and ad hominems, a bit like old NNadir.

I'm growing a little weary of trying, to be quite honest, as the respect I had for you diminishes with each weak argument and shrill insult you lay on.

So, while I still have some respect left for you, please explain what that 2002 chart has to do with the production/consumption issue.

You are dissolving into Hannity-like blither, as I watch. Pull up on the stick, man, and get control of yourself.

The math, undeniable and irrevocable as it is, only needs a single chart to illustrate a much larger situation and the ironclad nature of the simple decline of production and the increase of consumption. Again, you seem shrill and unreasonable in trying to deny it, throwing out non sequiturs and ad hominems like squid ink in the water.

So, I don't know what to say anymore to you, kris. Did I err in my initial assessment of you? Are you just another Hannity-shouter, a Lefty Limbaugh, if you will?

That chart was loopy.

So, one more chance to speak civilized and debate properly. Please pare me the charts unless they are relevant. Please spare me the ad hominems or I shall return them at 10X strength, then put you on ignore.

I'll ask you one more time, as concisely and clearly as I can. If you want to dodge and not answer the question, do so, but please spare me the verbal histrionics and ad hominems because I have heard it all before and in every possible variety of attempted insult, from smugly superior and detached to in-your-face.

The question: What is it about the math of our declining production vs. increasing consumption that you reject? Why isn't that chart "hard math" representing long-term consumption and production data? What is YOUR alternative hypothesis that supports your theme? Come to think of it, other than that you hate Paul, I can't seem to find one. So what is it exactly, that you are arguing? What is the specific point, other than that you are always right about everything and Paul is always wrong about everything? Start with explaining what point you are arguing here, and then defend it logically.

[kristopher]

32. "Energy independence is political sloganeering"

Is the primary point that is related to the chart.

Energy independence is a part of the much wider goal of addressing climate change. You cannot ignore the larger effort since there is a total restructuring that will be taking place. Labeling the goal of energy independence as nothing more than a political slogan is a slap in the face to all the people who are working extremely hard to make this new energy infrastructure a reality.

The chart I posted gives a much better representation of the actual challenge facing us; The actual problem is LARGER than just displacing petroleum.

The 2002 chart is very close to current energy use and is the most recent available.

The 2002 chart shows several important details missing from the presentation by GG - most notably inefficiency. I asked you to note how much energy is wasted. The chart GG posted is primary energy and MOST of it is wasted. Note that of the 39 quads derived from petroleum products, 21 quads is lost as waste heat. We see similar waste from coal and natural gas. This is a primary target of the energy efficiency efforts you hear so much about. Most renewables produce electricity directly without the waste we see in fossil fuels, so the amount we are actually challenged with displacing is much lower than the first chart (GG's) posted.

GG knows all of this and it is intellectually dishonest to make the argument as he did. Today is the first day of a new administration - which is the first that has publicly dedicated itself to taking action on energy and climate change. I really don't appreciate the challenge being misrepresented on this day of all days; especially by someone that knows better.

I'd also suggest that you learn a lot more about energy issues before you jump over your head and charge me with ad hominem and "loopy" arguments etc. Your fixation on fusion and lack of knowledge about renewable capability doesn't really put you in a position to leap to such conclusions.

[GliderGuider]

33. I didn't say that.

I said "Independence from foreign oil" is political sloganeering.

Of course I know that it will require less than the primary thermal energy contained in oil if we move everything around by electrical power instead of internal combustion engines (at least if the electricity is generated by hydro, wind, solar, or nuclear). Unfortunately, that's a red herring. The point is that to achieve perfect petroleum independence you would potentially need to move all transportation off oil, since the remaining uses (primarily as petrochemical feedstocks) appear to be more difficult to eliminate. Politicians who use "independence from foreign oil" as a rallying cry are simply bullshitting their base.

[tom_paine]

37. You were doing fine until you had to sneak in a shot with that last line.

My "fixation" on fusion? LOL. Then you have the nerve, you who presents themselves as an expert on literally dozens of topics, that I am not enough of an expert to join in the conversation? Ad hominem and bad form on your part, unless you actually do hold a dozen different Ph. D.'s in the various disciplines you claim expertise.

Do you? But, I'd better stop before I ramp up and make myself pissed at you. I, after all, have on numerous occasions admitted when I am wrong or when I do not know something. I have NEVER seen you do the same ONCE. Let's just say no pot is going to call my kettle black when said pot is so black as to be darker than night, so to speak.

Given that you made a genuine effort to be civil in the rest of your post, I'll let that one slide now. Back on topic.

Even IF this massive energy deficit in terms of renewables vs,. the petroleum energy we are trying to replace can be replaced by lowering the waste energy in transfer and other "leakage", do you really think it could be enough to compensate the huge energy gap between domestic production and domestic consumption, which grows wider basically every year?

You seem to think it's an all or nothing situation. That's OK. Lot of binary thinking going on in our country, these days. It's why we lead the world in critical thinking skills.

It's as if you seem to think that Paul and I are arguing that no effort should be made. And while I can't speak for Paul, I know that is NOT what I am saying. What I AM saying is that technological change alone will likely NOT bring us into energy independence from foreign oil.

In the absence of a new power input, and you can dream of reducing energy loss to 0% but maybe you should dust off that Physics Ph. D. and understand just how many physical laws one would have to break to do so, it is literally impossible...or highly improbable based on physical and technological limitations, to make cosmetic changes without making lifestyle changes on a societal level and gaining independence from foreign oil.

It sound like this is what your basic theme is, that we can have our cake and eat it too. That we can make no lifestyle changes and preserve industrial society in basically the same form it is today.

I can't say that it's impossible, nor that we shouldn't try. Sometimes that kind of thinking works, and the naysayers are proven wrong (of course, I think it is only in your binary-tending thoughts that Paul and I are "naysayers") but much more often, particularly in the last 30 years or so,it seems like the human race is less often breaking through these "impossible" barriers.

Could it be that all the "easy" stuff has been discovered, so to speak, and the things that remain that current science says are highly improbable, actually ARE highly improbable, because of science's advances on all fronts in the past two centuries, including self-evaluation?

You may use that last paragraph to divert me and attack me, but know that I am merely putting it forth as something to think about. Please refrain from the binary assumption that simply because I said it, means I am 100% married to it and 100% in belief of it, brooking no contrary data or opinion.

Finally, again I'll say that nobody is saying we shouldn't try. But what Paul is saying, I think, that all the increased efficiencies and all the robust alternatives, given the massive nature of the energy deficit we face, is unlikely to do the job even if the deficit we faced last year never got any larger.

Is it possible you REALLY believe that the energy deficit between production and consumption of oil is going to NARROW, all things being equal?

That's why you can bitch and smear, squirm and accuse, all you want, but unless you can find 50 or 70 new exajoules somewhere, either through input or I suppose by increasing energy transmission effectiveness to approaching 100% and all other energy "leakage" down to approaching 0%, then maybe it would be feasible against the hard math which you continue to deny.

Is not production greater than consumption by more than double now?

Is not US domestic production continually falling, meaning that every year we lose more ground unless an equal number of exajoules are recovery through increased efficiency or a large input of clean power (there's that fusion you so loathe) or some other quarter as yet unconceived?

We may have to agree to disagree here, especially if you can only come back with more binary thinking, which I cannot remain calm and rational in the face of such mental, Hannityesque sloppiness.

But if you try to respond to my questions, and keep the ad hominems out of it, we can try to have a conversation.

If not, let's just agree to disagree, move on, and no reply is necessary from you.

You can go back to fighting with Paul to your hearts content, since you are obviously right about everything, a degreed expert in everything, and everyone else is wrong about everything.

[kristopher]

39. Saying you are fixated on fusion

And don't know enough about renewables isn't a personal attack, it is an observation of your ability to correctly evaluate the circumstances.

Fusion is at least 30 years away, and is not considered a factor by any reputable energy researcher seeking to do something about climate change. We don't have the time to wait.

Likewise is there's a naivety in your perception of the scale of the problem. The OP & chart shows the INCORRECT implication that the scale of replacing only imported oil it too great to accomplish. The chart I posted shows that the goal presented in the OP is only a significant *fraction* of what we actually face. I showed that the challenge is greater. And in spite of that, there is little doubt that we CAN, with sufficient dedication of resources, achieve not only the minor goal of the OP declared undoable and a policital slogan, but we can in fact achieve the larger goal of elimination of both petroleum AND coal within one decade.


Not a pipedream; not a political slogan. A desperately needed, achievable public policy goal.


"Is it possible you REALLY believe that the energy deficit between production and consumption of oil is going to NARROW, all things being equal?:"
All things are not equal. We are going to start rolling out electric vehicles in a large way and the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine is going to relegated to a minor role in our transportation system.
Oil used for heating will be replaced by electric resistance heating. Obama's original plan called for 1,000,000 by 2030. CHRYSLER expects to have 500,000 on the road by 2013. (Note my remarks about uncertainty an the pace of change and private innovation when the goal is made clear.)

"That's why you can bitch and smear, squirm and accuse, all you want, but unless you can find 50 or 70 new exajoules somewhere, iether through input or I suppose by increasing energy transmission effectiveness to 100% and all other energy "leakage" down to approaching 0%, then maybe it would be feasible against the hard math which you continue to deny."

We lose about 5-10% of electricity generated due to line/transformer losses. A renewable grid will place much of the generation much closer to the point of use, but some of it will also be transmitted longer distances. So I wouldn't expect line losses to diminish unless there is a shift to the superconducting cables such as was recently placed by the Long Island Power Authority. My understanding is that this cable (which is buried) has an ultimate cost per mile that is eq to conventional xmission cable, but it isn't in large scale production yet so we'll have to wait and see.

There is no question that the energy resources and the means of harnessing the resources exists in cost effective technologies. All that is required is the decision to deploy them.
Bill Clinton (the prick) described energy policy as a sleeping dog that he had to avoid kicking.
Obama has committed to the energy infrastructure change as a means of dealing with
1) Energy Security
2) Climate Change
3) Economic Recovery

His intial plan of $150 billion over 10 years is moot since he is including more than that for the next two years in the emergency stimulus plan.

There are many, many analysis out there showing exactly what I'm saying, and political events regarding energy policy have played out EXACTLY as I have predicted on this forum for the past couple of years.

So once more, if you want to understand enough to make meaningful criticisms I suggest you educate yourself on the possibilities. I gave you two places to start, but since you asked the oh-so-clever mind boggler of a question of where I'm going to find 50-70 EJ of power somewhere; it is obvious YOU are the one intent on making this a dialogue based on personal attacks. I guess that is easier than actually taking an evening and reading a a dozen or so papers closely?

[tom_paine]

42. You're still missing the point, still tap dancing around the issue.

You continue to misrepresent me and my views. I severely doubt your ability to correctly evaluate anyone else's ability to correctly evaluate. This is merely an observation of your style in most situations, arrogant, pretending to expertise on any number of issues while having none (and I am not the first to notice this, as I have seen others criticize you for it, as well).

Saying I have a "fixation" with fusion is laughable. There actually was a DUer who had such a fixation, I think his moniker was Zach. My "fixation" with fusion starts and ends with the fact that it is the only potential source with enough power to make up such a huge energy shortfall that Peak Oil and the limits of petroleum usage due to environmental impact.

But it sounds better to call it a "fixation" doesn't it? Demeans my position, Hannity-style, without having to get too obvious about it.

The one interesting thing you said, in all your arrogant bloviating and pretend expertise (what do you do for a living again, is it in the sciences?), was electric resistance heating. I will look into that. I seriously doubt it answers in any way the question of massive future energy shortfalls involved in keeping our technical civilization unchanged or increasing in energy usage while still eliminating all use of coal and oil. But why would it? You have been avoiding the question so hard, dancing and distracting and pretending non sequiturs are answers, it's the only way you can keep up your delusional worldview. Like an Hannidiot.

Disagreement I can take. I like to be shown when I am wrong or to be given a well-defended opposing point of view to chew on and consider, What I cannot take is the Hannidiot-style of "debating", combined with your pretentiousness and absolute unwillingness to consider for even a moment that you might be wrong.

It's like I keep asking you "What's one plus one?" and you keep shouting answers "Ham!" "Pythagoras' Theorem!" "Look at this old energy distribution chart!" How can a person discuss with THAT? They can't. But you know, you are right about everything and everyone else is wrong about everything.

So, maybe one plus one DOES equal "ham".

Many have pointed this out about you, I have noticed these past months. I had on occasion defended you. It's quite clear now I WAS WRONG to do so. Others had you pegged long before I did, as you well know.

I gave you every opportunity to show me otherwise. It's not that you disagree with me, though your ego won't allow you any other belief for my irritation with you, I suppose. It's that you simply close your eyes to massive energy gaps and say truly loopy things like And in spite of that, there is little doubt that we CAN, with sufficient dedication of resources, achieve not only the minor goal of the OP declared un-doable and a political slogan, but we can in fact achieve the larger goal of elimination of both petroleum AND coal within one decade.

I mean, that is something like a Hannidiot would say. Something so crazy and unrealistic it takes your breath away. I mean, did you ever consider, even if it was possible with the technology on hand and all those lost oil exajoules and coal exajoules could easily be replaced, what kind of a works program it would entail

to power every city with something other than oil and coal-based electricity

to change over every single car, involving rebuilding the world's fleet of roughly a billion cars to accommodate the new type of global automotive (electric? solar?) fleet

oh, and let's not forget the massive costs in energy and metal to tear down and rebuild the world's auto fleet and replace it with these new cars IN ONE DECADE

There's more, so much more, but the breadth and depth of the staggering ignorance in your naive, quite unscientific and unrealistic belief that we can eliminate oil and coal in one decade, tells me it is a waste of time to point it out to you.

It is just not possible, and quite frankly, explaining it further is a waste of my time. You've established that here with your last two responses, which so beg the simple question of massive energy deficit each time that there really is no point in asking you any further questions.

I will give you credit where credit is due, though. I do agree with you wholly on one thing, and have since the start. You are so busy doing your hannity-thing, you barely noticed that I have agreed with this basic premise of yours since the start, which is that to try to achieve this goal, however long it takes is Not a pipedream; not a political slogan. A desperately needed, achievable public policy goal.

Unquestionably. Unquestionably we have to try as if it is, even if it isn't. And unquestionably I have been agreeing with that statement of yours since I first posted to this thread. You are so busy with your pretend-expertise and arrogance that you failed to notice that, didn't you?

The place we disagree is that action on the supply side, in the absence of massive infusions of produced energy input, cannot work alone and keep our technical civilization running at it's current energy usage level as the oil dwindles, and we can't switch to coal because it will hammer our atmosphere as bad or worse.

Which makes this interchange mostly pointless. Except for one thing. You've exposed yourself as someone who is not worth discussing things with. Not worth wasting my time on. A Hannidiot in your own right. I appreciate that you did that for me. I had started to figure that with so many people leveling the same charges against you month after month, that I was wrong in my initial assessment of you.

And yes, I was obviously wrong about you. Thanks for the tip on electric resistance heating. Another non sequitur with regard to massive energy deficits, but I'll bet it's interesting reading and an interesting technology.

Now I'm putting you on ignore, never to read another of your posts again. I know your type and I know you will have to reply and tell me how uneducated I am, how you have been right about everything (you know, one usually brings up concrete examples of predictions that have come true when one says such a thing as you just did, or are you just hannitying here, too?) and blah blah blah blah blah.

Even though I will never see it, as I make it a policy never to look at ignored replies for that gives idiots satisfaction and I am opposed to giving idiots satisfaction, your ego will force you to bloviate a reply.

Do so, if you wish. It will give me a chuckle if I come back this way and see an "ignored" reply hanging below this one.

:rofl:

'Bye now. :hi:

[kristopher]

43. Yes, I'll reply

Hanging your hopes of fusion instead of taking the time to educate yourself on current technologies and their capabilities constitutes a "fixation". You refer to Gore's goal of replacing fossil fuels in 10 years as "Something so crazy and unrealistic it takes your breath away".
I reply that your failure to understand the basis of the claim reveals you as foolish, at best. You assume that your knee-jerk criticisms (where you sometimes confuse 'world' for 'US') are things that have never been thought of. Amazing isn't it, how you are qualified to dismiss the work of hundreds of academic experts with a couple of half coherent thought/questions?

Yes, I'm sure the researchers, business leaders, and policy experts who conceive these plans never even considered how such a harebrained scheme could be paid for. Why would they do that, because surely they are as butt-stupid as your posts presume them to be, eh?

They couldn't possibly have considered the rate of turnover of our vehicle fleet in their planning, could they? I mean, damn, that would mean some researcher would have to actually look up how often the vehicle fleet rotates in normal times and how long it takes to retool to build EVs; and where would we find some university puke that has the kind of brains you're displaying who would think of even needing to know such a thing?

In short, you don't know what you are talking about; none of your posts in this thread have dealt with energy issues. Instead you have devoted your multiple screeds to personal attacks on me while accusing me of engaging in that type of attack. Pointing out a lack of knowledge isn't a personal attack. Pointing out dishonesty isn't a personal attack. These are valid issues that affect the facts within a discussion.

I've given you plenty of chances to respond substantively yet you choose the schoolyard approach.

Ignore me? Good riddance.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[excess_3]

18. the electric car is coming

not just to the US,
but to the whole world

[GliderGuider]

19. The impact of electric cars on American oil imports

Unfortunately, even if every last automobile in the USA was electric today, you'd still have to import oil. That's because 45% of your total oil consumption is motor gasoline, but 66% of your oil is imported. In fact, even if you completely eliminated that 45%, the percentage of oil you import would only drop from 66% to 40% (based on the figures from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008.

Electric cars may help, but they can't eliminate your nation's addiction to imported oil.

[kristopher]

27. So where is the rest used and how do we displace it?

You act as though these tidbits of information actually are meaningful. They aren't; they represent an attempt to dishonestly portray the task at hand and the multi-pronged approaches that are expected to be required to shift us to a carbon free energy infrastructure.

If you want to make a legitimate argument, then show the entire picture and demonstrate the technological challenges that prevent the proposed solutions from working. Merely pointing backwards and saying we haven't done it yet is no more persuasive than pointing to the 30s and saying the industrial accomplishments of the 40s and 50s are impossible because the political/economic will wasn't there.

[GliderGuider]

29. My point here was much more limited than that.

To gain absolute energy independence you need to cut out two thirds of your oil use. That's about as much as you use in ALL transportation -- cars, light trucks, transport trucks, trains, ships and aircraft in both the civilian and military sectors. My point here was that the scale of oil imports makes American petroleum independence highly unlikely in the near to medium term (i.e. not in this lifetime).

This is a totally different question than whether a low-to-zero carbon society is technically possible.

I do think the USA will eventually achieve petroleum independence, but I think you'll probably do it the hard way. I think the international oil export market will dry up before you have revamped your society's energy use.

[excess_3]

35. US rail, can be electrified

90% of US aviation, is frivolous
ships could be powered by coal
farm implements, could be powered by steam

people living in houses heated by fuel oil ...
the US state of Maine should be depopulated
and converted into a moose preserve

trucks (lorries), half of truck traffic is probably frivolous,
more trucks could be moved by train

etc

[GliderGuider]

36. Yes, of course.

There are lots of technical "solutions" to the immediate problem of oil. The big difficulty as I see it is this: so long as oil prices remain below $100/bbl none of them will gain a toehold; after prices pass $200/bbl it will probably be too late. The window between those two prices may be too short to be useful.

We need to keep fighting to reduce our civilization's dependence on oil, but we shouldn't be too surprised if we see a lack of headway. That die was cast over a hundred years ago.

[excess_3]

40. the world needs railroads

better put would be
'the rest of the world'

(3rd world) countries totally dependent on trucks and
roads could be in trouble.

I think the large diesel-fuel burn for (US)
trucks is in large part a result of the completion of
the Interstate highway system, and is not indicative
of civilization in general.

just my opinion, but if the rural part of the IHS dissapeared, I
think the economic output of the US would go up.
ditto airfreight

[IrateCitizen]

34. That, I don't doubt. However, you're not accounting for some big questions.

The bigger questions are, "How many people will realistically be able to afford it?" and, "What are the scope and scale of the changes needed to our electrical grid to supply not only current (or even greater) needs, but the added load of transportation?"

This first-generation Chevy Volt is expected to be fairly expensive, Posawatz conceded. (Some reports have put the price at $40,000.) But GM is not looking to make much money, if any, on the car, he said.

GM is expecting to produce at least 10,000 Volts in the car's first year and higher numbers after that, he said.

GM debuts the Chevy Volt

It seems that GM is counting upon an increasing demand for the Volt to drive down costs over the long term. However, given the dismal sales of automobiles in general combined with the credit slump, I'm wondering how safe a bet that really is. For people to be able to afford such hefty price tags on personal transportation assumes that much the illusory, debt-based wealth that recently vanished back into the thin air out of which it was created will also reappear once again.

However, I think there's also another question at play here that really gets to the heart of the opposed philosophical camps that manifest on this board. That question is, "Do you believe that humans have the limitless capacity to control their environment, or do you believe that they are ultimately limited by their environment?"

[tom_paine]

38. Damn, IC, that was WELL SAID! Way to boil down the bullshit into a single question of brevity and

clarity!

:hi:

That question is, "Do you believe that humans have the limitless capacity to control their environment, or do you believe that they are ultimately limited by their environment?"

Yes. Just so.

And those that believe the former are being reduced to more and more rhetorical twisting and absurdity to maintain such a belief.

Given that it's what the human race has pretty much believed since the dawn of time, I'll put my money on the latter being true.

Not a scientific determination perhaps, but one based on observation of 8000 years of human history.

Guess what, human history suggests that the ignorant and short-sighted view will very likely win. It has all the money and power and billions of dollars of propaganda, not to mention the human-loved "solution" of not having to change a thing about our lifestyles.

Lots of people will line up for that very profitable con-game, on both sides. Big money to be made on one side, being fed delicious and comforting short-sighted delusions on the other side.

Everybody will be happy, the con-ers and the con-ees...for a little while.

[hunter]

25. I'm optimistic today. We're getting a pilot who can land it softly in the river.

The plane isn't ever going to fly again, but Bush and Cheney have left the cockpit.

[GliderGuider]

26. That was a wonderful metaphor, wasn't it?

And the timing could not have been better.