Choosing our energy future?

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
I just finished an interesting book Hubbert's Peak: A Guide to Oil Literacy .

Basically it tells of a oil supply forecasting technique that was used in the 50's that projected U.S. oil production would peak in the 70's and decline ever after. That is what happened (peaked in 1970...declining ever since).

Now the same technique has been applied to WORLD oil production. The forecast is that it will peak (and decline ever after) sometime starting in 2004 (most pessimistic) or in 2009 (most optimistic).

If this is correct (it was for U.S. production), AND...if countries like China and India are on the "up-cycle" of their energy use (they are)...then it seems like we are going to be in for a bumpy ride in just a few years as more and more societies on Earth struggle to control less and less oil while demand is steadily rising.

The question posed by my post is...will we choose our energy future (while we can), or will we just allow it to unfold without preparing for it?

Technologically speaking...we have a variety of alternatives. Wind power is coming on strong (unfortunately, the best equipment comes from Europe) but it needs public support for building transmission lines from the windy places (from west Texas on up thru the Dakotas) to the big city consumers of power. Also, one of the best places for wind is off shore like Nantucket Sound . Although, that site is being opposed by folks that think the wind farm will spoil the view (BTW...we have several large wind farms in Iowa. I find them beautiful to observe).

We also have BioDiesel (use in a VW EPA rated at 49 mpg Hwy) and Ethanol that are renewable liquid fuels that can be adopted now...with almost no change to our infrastructure. We can start with recycling the 3 billion gallons per year of waste restaurant fryer oil. The technology is already scaling up but additional public support will help it become more than a minor player...sooner.

Finally...we have energy efficiency and conservation. Since this is a lighting forum, it shouldn't surprise anyone that compact flourescent bulbs use about 1/4 of the energy of incandescents and last about 6 times longer. We all just need to pay attention to our energy usage and go for lights, appliances and vehicles (2004 Prius is as roomy as a Camry and gets 59 City & 51 Hwy) that stretch our energy as far as possible. Heck...it even saves us money to do so.

At the moment... we can choose. There is still time.

Before too terribly long though, our choices will diminish.

There will be a point where the world is using more and more of less and less oil. Those societies WILL fight for the resources they need. Just as we would (and will).
 

X-CalBR8

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 14, 2001
Messages
1,098
Location
TN, USA
"it shouldn't surprise anyone that compact flourescent bulbs use about 1/4 of the energy of incandescents and last about 6 times longer."

I agree. We've saved several hundred watts, house-wide, by going over to fluorescent bulbs. We use the high frequency ones so that you don't get that annoying (headache producing) flicker effect like you do in office buildings that use the common low frequency bulbs (60 hertz IIRC).

The only drawback that I've been able to find to them so far is that they produce far too much RF (Radio Frequency) interference in the FM range of frequencies to suit me.

The ones that we are currently using cause interference on channel 5, in particular, on our TVs. It's not just real bad, but it's annoying as can be sometimes. It will also cause some interference on some FM radio channels, but I seldom listen to the radio unless the power is off anyway, so that's not too much of an issue for me.

Too bad the manufacturer took the cheap route and didn't shield these well enough to stop the interference from escaping. Oh well, we are saving enough on the electric bill that it is worth all of the minor drawbacks, I suppose.
 

ewick

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
252
Location
Kentucky
FYI (a little off-topic):

I'm under the impression that the fluorescent bulbs you're talking about are the standard screw-in incandescent bulb replacements (like 60W bulbs for floorlamps). If that's the case, then beware that these are NOT to be used in enclosed spaces, i.e. in ceiling light fixtures with globes. The bases generate too much heat and are a FIRE HAZARD as well as a code violation.

They are only to be used in spaces where they have ample ventilation, like hanging naked in an attic, or installed a floorlamp with a generous shade. This is stated on the packaging of the bulbs themselves, but I would never think to read the installation instructions for a lightbulb.
 

X-CalBR8

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 14, 2001
Messages
1,098
Location
TN, USA
ewick: Yes, they are the type that just screw into a standard light socket. Myself, being the overly cautious person that I am, came to the same conclusion that you did that it wouldn't be a very wise idea to use these in conjunction with shades so I've not had any overheating problems as of yet. In fact, we've been using this type of bulb for quite a few years now and have not yet had any serious problems with them. The only really significant problem that we've had with them is the afore mentioned RF interference escaping from them. Oh well, seems like most things in life have their trade-offs.
 

Ginseng

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Messages
3,734
Is there any doubt that energy conservation coupled with a concerted effort to bring renewables onstream is the answer?

Wilkey
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Ginseng said:...any doubt...conservation...[and]...renewables...is the answer?

Not IMHO.

Most of the opposing view comes from a sort of "head in the sand" attitude. "I went to the gas station today. There was gas. I could afford it. I pumped. I drove away. What's the problem?".

The real problem with this is that the two events are disconnected. Pump petroleum...what else happens?

Later, we send mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters off to the Persian Gulf to fight, kill the locals and sometimes be killed as well.

In the 70's, we used to talk about that like some event that MIGHT happen but was too horrific to really think about...fighting a war to ensure the flow of petroleum. But later, it is exactly what we did in the first Persian Gulf war. Iraq invaded Kuwait, they were an additional threat to Saudi Arabia and we responded. The whole world responded. BTW...I supported that war. We HAD to respond. Letting Saddam Hussein control that much of the world's oil would not have been smart.

But...when George Bush '41 was asked "Is this war about oil?" his answer was "No...it is jobs, jobs, jobs" (that's almost a direct quote).

Although, its pretty obvious that if one country in Africa invaded one neighbor and threatened another...we would hardly have noticed. What is the difference? ...the oil.

Why wasn't Bush '41 more "straight up" about why we were going to fight? Most people figured out that it was about the oil. So why couldn't he say so?

Here's my opinion.

To be "straight up" about it would require us to really start doing something about shifting away from the use of imported petroleum. We'd have to start moving to more efficient vehicles (ever noticed that the trend in the last 10 years is AWAY from more efficient vehicles?). We'd have to change. People don't like change. When politicians ask people to do things they don't like...it is harder for them to get re-elected (look what happened to Carter). So...not oil, it was jobs, jobs, jobs.

The funny part is that it didn't help Bush '41. He lost the next election anyway. I guess he should have been more "straight up" about it. Maybe we'd be 10 years closer to a better, more secure and sustainable energy future. Maybe he would even have gotten re-elected.

So...do we want to change the way we do things so we don't HAVE to respond with war? I do. I want the option of NOT having to kill the people who live on the land above oil. I don't want my hand to come away from the gas pump handle with a smear of human blood on it.

Here's something to think about.

President Bush ('43) has asked Congress for $87 billion for Iraq. Of that, $20 billion is for "infrastructure"; new power plants, water, oil industry re-building and modernization. He is asking that the $20 billion be an outright grant to Iraq...not a loan. How come? Why couldn't we *loan* them the money? I mean, they are sitting on top of the world's second largest reserve of oil. That's worth a lot. It would be great bank collateral. So how come he wants a outright grant of taxpayer dollars to Iraq instead of a loan? I'm still thinking about that one.
 

X-CalBR8

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 14, 2001
Messages
1,098
Location
TN, USA
ikendu: I couldn't agree more with what you just said. There are still so very many people in this country that actually believe the media hype that this is some kind of war about "morality", when in fact, our government could really care less about who is killing who in the world if our direct monetary interest were not at stake somehow.

Anyone that has closely observed the world situation for the past few decades can be sure of this fact. In countries where we have very little monetary interest, our government allows all manner of atrocities to go on unchecked and our media allows such to go on without properly informing the people as well because those countries don't contain enough "U.S. interest" for us to be concerned with them.

Where is all of that supposed government "morality" when it comes to all of those countries that have nothing in particular that they want to take possession of? The government only plays the "morality" card when they think it will get the people, as a whole, on their side in the next resouce war (whether it be oil or some other resource they desire).

I've been saying this for many years now, if you don't want to fight oil wars (no matter what the press or the government may call them), then do what you can to help support plans that are put forth that will lead us, as a country, away from consuming so very much oil.

Defenseless country has oil + we want more oil = oil war. It's as simple as 1+1=2 when viewed from this perspective.
 

DieselDave

Super Moderator,
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
2,703
Location
FL panhandle
[ QUOTE ]
X-CalBR8 said:

Anyone that has closely observed the world situation for the past few decades can be sure of this fact. In countries where we have very little monetary interest, our government allows all manner of atrocities to go on unchecked and our media allows such to go on without properly informing the people as well because those countries don't contain enough "U.S. interest" for us to be concerned with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a small list of countries where we've seen action over the last 20 years and IMO we have very little monetary interest in them.

LEBANON
GRENADA
LIBYA
PANAMA
SOMALIA
HAITI
BOSNIA
AFGHANISTAN
SUDAN
KOSOVO
 

X-CalBR8

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 14, 2001
Messages
1,098
Location
TN, USA
I never meant to imply that all of our wars are fought over oil, but the U.S. had either a resource interest or a strong political interest in most of those places. Many U.S. military actions are a product of the failing "war on drugs". Just look at all of the military conflicts that we have had with Columbia over the years.

Not all of the United States interest revolve around oil, just a high percentage of it. When the whole country revolves around oil (and we currently do), then cut off the oil and the whole country collapses. That's why we are forced to fight oil wars. Like ikendu said, I just wish our government had the guts to admit to the truth of why they are doing this and not make up some kind of fairy tale about it being for "weapons of mass destruction" or "humanitarian" reasons or any of the other bull that they are spouting.

Again, if our government was in it for the "human rights" angle, then we would have already pretty well declared marshal law on most of Africa. There is not hardly a day that goes by that you don't hear of some country in Africa at war with it's neighbor.

If one wanted to use the excuse that Africa is far away and that's why we don't mess with it, then so is the Middle East. Besides, if we are mostly just interested in what happens closer to home, then that would fail to explain why we allow so many wars to rage in South America. It seems like there is always some South American dictator making the news from one year to the next.

I bet if South America or Africa had half as much oil as the Middle East, we would be hearing on the news every night about how we need to help "stop the atrocities".

I still stick to my belief that we only declare ourselves the policemen of the world when either, the country as a whole, has a vested interest in a conflict or a group of very rich and influential people/corporations here have a vested interest in it.

Like I've said before, most of the oil interest in Iraq are controlled by American oil companies. Do you think that we would have been so quick to have fought such a war if most of that oil had belonged to, say, France?
 

Brock

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 6, 2000
Messages
6,346
Location
Green Bay, WI USA
I hate to chime in on these things, but I have to vent for a second.

Why is it everyone complains and says the war in Iraq was all about oil and that we shouldn't be involved in it. Then later, that same month, from the exact same people we hear that the government should do something about the high price of gasoline, particularly Saudi Arabia, because they (and OPEC) reduced supply by 25% last month. Is that contradictory or what? If we had gone to Iraq for the oil, we would have the oil and wouldn't have an issue with oil from other countries, but we do, because we believe it belongs to the people Iraq and they still own it.

I am not saying the war was fought for oil; I personally believe it was for many more reasons then I need or want to know about. I am glad the slaughter of 2.5 million people by the Iraq government has ended. If for no other reason, that was reason enough for me.

I support the idea of using alternative energy whenever we can and encourage other people to do the same. I currently run bio-diesel in my VW TDI and I am glad to do it.
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Brock said: I currently run bio-diesel in my VW TDI and I am glad to do it.

Ah, biodiesel. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Good for the environment, economy, jobs and our security. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 

X-CalBR8

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 14, 2001
Messages
1,098
Location
TN, USA
"Why is it everyone complains and says the war in Iraq was all about oil and that we shouldn't be involved in it."

This may seem to contradict on first glance, but it really doesn't. When I say that we shouldn't be involved in it, it's because we should have already moved to a point in this country that we wouldn't be so dependant on foreign oil that we would have to go to war over it. Since we are still so dependant on oil, we were left with very little choice than to go to war over it because it is either that or our whole economy will collapse without it. We've backed ourselves into an oil dependant corner here.

"Then later, that same month, from the exact same people we hear that the government should do something about the high price of gasoline, particularly Saudi Arabia, because they (and OPEC) reduced supply by 25% last month."

I expect that Saudi Arabia is very high up on our who-to-attack-next list, even a few news commentators are suggesting this as future possibility. After all, they still have a dictator and dictators usually tend do nasty things so I see the possibility of another "morality" oil war with them to be quite likely, after we finish up with Iraq, of course. All our government would have to say is that they were harboring Osama, after all, it worked in finding an excuse to deal with Iraq.

"If we had gone to Iraq for the oil, we would have the oil and wouldn't have an issue with oil from other countries."

The reason that there is a shortage at the moment is that they are currently rebuilding the oil infrastructure in Iraq and they don't have things running 100% as of yet. Also, we don't own the oil directly because of restrictions of international law that are kind of complicated to explain. It has to do with the way we went to war with them, but I can't remember the exact details off the top of my head. Anyway, we didn't go to war in order to control the oil directly (well, we did at first, but the UN didn't cooperate with that plan), we own the oil indirectly because American oil companies are the ones that are getting paid to do the pumping and refine the stuff. This is making some few American citizens very very rich, some of the very same ones that had the political pull to get the war in the first place and of course, it doesn't help matters any that our president is an oil man.

"we believe it belongs to the people Iraq and they still own it."

We only believe that because international law says that we have to believe it. I remember seeing a big long news report on the subject a few weeks back. This is also why we can't simply use the sales of Iraq oil to rebuild Iraq. It is prohibited by international law under the terms that we went to war with Iraq.

"I am glad the slaughter of 2.5 million people by the Iraq government has ended."

Amen to that.
 

robk

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
608
Location
Near Daytona Beach, FL
Take the $87 Billion and spend it on alternative energy research. Admit to an "error in judgement" in Iraq and pull out all troops. Let the UN and it's member countries figure out how to fix the damage inflicted by Dubya and his crooked staff.
Rob
 

X-CalBR8

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 14, 2001
Messages
1,098
Location
TN, USA
If that same $87 Billion was spent on getting the countries first fusion reactor online then we would have basically free electricity for all of the new electric cars that they are trying to get on the market. No more oil problems and no more oil wars.
 
Top