I have read a number of the Peak Oil commentaries, as well as "Life After the Oil Crash" by Matt Savinar. I think a number of great points are mentioned, but I also think they are a little "doomsday" oriented.

I agree that oil depletion is a major problem, and that we are currently not responding quickly enough. Wind Energy has been a real success in recent years, and is now the fastest growing energy source in the world. In it's natural form, wind energy can only provide about 20% of the world's energy needs. But combined with hydroelectric power wind energy can far exceed this, and maybe reach 70%. Pumping water uphill, and storing it's potential energy, is nothing new. It's been practiced throughout history, and can occur with only a 20% loss in power. This technology allows wind power to be "stored".

This same technology can be used in conjunction with solar power. In addition there are other power storage strategies, although not as efficient, that can be employed.

These technologies are quickly becoming cost feasible. As oil prices continue to rise, as we've seen in recent years, these technologies will come more and more to the forefront. And oil prices will continue to rise, probably a lot quicker than most of us anticipate.

Jim
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/
Favorite Quote: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." Einstein

If I may paraphrase a famous quote, here's one small step for the enlightened individual and one giant step toward energy sustainability. Read the pledge at the Natural Resources Defense Council and join me in signing it. Then pass the link to all of your enlightened friends.

Editor, propeace.net

Those are big questions, and no one has definite answers. Bush's statement about "addiction" has caused a bit of stir, and strangely enough, both conservatives and progressives are wondering why Bush used that word in the context of a vague energy policy. For myself, I think Bush is timidly admitting a bitter truth that most of us don't want to confront. I'm trying to change my lifestyle to use as little fossil fuel as possible.

There are many things we can all do - walk, bicycle, carpool, mass transit instead of jumping in the car to drive to the mall for the latest consumer bauble. Try to buy locally produced food whenever possible. Resist the temptation to get into debt to purchase non-essential items. Learn to use solar, wind and geothermal energy as these may well be our only choices in the coming decades. Practice good old-fashioned conservation.

Simply put, its hard to be an advocate for peace if you're cold, hungry and unemployed. Expect the best but prepare for the worst. Become self-sufficient, don't expect the government to come to the rescue on this issue. If Iran and other oil exporters stopped selling oil, we could all be in the same shape as the Katrina victims in a very short while.

Artie

PEACE
Thanks for clarifying my statement. The big picture, however, is that we have learned nothing and done almost nothing since Jimmy Carter declared that the biggest threat to peace will be our dependence on oil.
Will we learn in time or use up the fossil fuels and perish? Or will we perish as a result of
scrambling to exist as the price of oil and oil products rise to unsustainable heights?

Those three words have as much truth as you care to invest (speaking of investment, Artie!) in them. Get a spine! Make sure that "we" doesn't include "you" or you will create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Meanwhile, keep the information out there and work hard to oust whoever is responsible for those budget cuts to research that can bail out this ailing culture of greed and excess. Energy Department, Steve? That's Cabinet, right?

• Join the cause called for by MoveOn to oust corrupt incumbents and put people in DC who represent people, not special interests. All of the House and 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election in '06.
• We must clean up our election system, as has NC (among others), and get out the disenchanted, rural, and minority vote.

We have a (bloodless) revolution on our hands!

Editor, propeace.net

I know what you mean. It's easy to sink into anger and cynicism these days. The mass media seems to be helping the current administration deliver a never-ending stream of lies, half-truths and Orwellian double-speak.And you have no reason to believe me any more than you do Bush and the mass media, but FWIW, I believe that "addicted to oil" is 100% true. I tell you this because this addiction will be the most serious problem mankind will face this century.

The single most important thing to know about this addiction is that there is a limited supply of the drug, and everyone in the world wants it. Our entire economy depends upon it, and it will become much, much more expensive in the future. And the essentials of life - food, water shelter - are all inextricably linked to our access to cheap fossil fuel. Expensive fossil fuel means that the effects of poverty will be greatly magnified as many more of us fall under the poverty line. There will be bitter conflict and war over scarce energy supplies. The young people of today face hardships many of us can't begin to imagine.

I believe The Powers That Be (TPTB) have known about the coming energy crisis for a long time now. They have tried to obscure that fact to prolong the status quo and maintain order for as long as possible. Bush's "addiction" remark, as equivocal as it might seem in light of the retractions and amdndments, is proof to me that the truth of the matter is becoming so obvious that even he cannot deny it.

Once again, I strongly recommend "Prepare for Peak Oil Now" by Richard Heinberg. http://www.alternet.org/story/28212 Let me suggest that you take your anger and cycnicism, and apply it to understanding what Heinberg and many others are saying about peak oil. Anyone who genuinely seeks peace cannot overlook this.

Its obvious we can't depend on Washington whenever we want "action." There is a growing community of people discussing and preparing for the coming energy crisis. They come from all walks of life and political persuasions, and they are beginning to understand that government and technical solutions will not avert this crisis. I believe this is something we'll all have to understand and deal with, sooner or later. I say the sooner the better for all our sakes.

Artie

It means S.O.S. - Same Old Shit, say something, anything that sounds good to someone, it can be retracted, revisited, reworked, re-whatever-ed, as long as something is being said, their will be debate, distraction and hence NO-ACTION. It's all about image, and when your image is suffering, you make the people suffer the ineffectiveness of doing nothing, which in turn gives you the ability to do almost anything as long as the debate and distraction continues.

S.O.S. - S.O.S. - S.O.S. - S.O.S. - S.O.S. - S.O.S. - S.O.S. - S.O.S. - DROWNING IN THE SAME OLD SHIT, just a game of power for money, why should any one playing care what the outcome is for the people who pay the way, its a win win, as long as the debate and distraction continues, time to change the rules, stop paying for the same old shit.

BL*M

Love*Rulz - @
Timeless-ink-Press.com

Absolutely! Thank you, Susan.

So many of our geo-political problems are based on our lack of understanding of what it really means to live sustainably. Our economic system is predicated on growth, yet we live in a finite world with finite resources. There are inevitable, inescapable limits to growth. In the United States, we have long since passed the point where we could actually produce for ourselves what we need to run our huge national infrastructure. For that, we have to borrow money in the trillions from foreigners. For that, we are the world's largest debtor. Similarly, we cannot produce enough oil energy here at home for our car-happy culture, so we have to import oil from hostile countries to support our ever-growing populace and economy. The United States by itself uses more oil than China, Japan, Russia and Germany combined.

This is simply not sustainable. We are indeed addicted to a finite resource, and we've used about half of it in the last 150 years. Collectively, the citizens of world will consume the second half much faster. There will be no fill-up.

Our president tells us we're addicted to oil, but the war in Iraq in not about oil. This is the question that puzzles me - I agree with Bush that we're addicted to oil, but I disagree with the idea that the war is not about oil. And this is the first time I've found myself agreeing with Bush on anything. It's not a pleasant feeling.

Artie

No, the "addicted to oil" portion was not retracted. That phrase is the only 100% real thing he said all night. The part that was "retracted" (or spun), was the part about the dependency on Middle East oil.

Bush's statement appeared to say that we were looking to free ourselves from Middle East oil, when in reality, the oil we are addicted to comes from all over the world, not just the Middle East.

We are indeed addicted - the US produces about 7% of the world's oil, yet we consume 25% of the world's oil. That means we import the difference.

And while importing all this oil might not appear to be a big problem, there is ample evidence that oil production has peaked and oil prices are headed much higher in the near future. The implications of this cannot be overstated.

I strongly recommend Richard Heinberg's Alternet essay as an introduction to those unfamiliar with the coming energy crisis: http://www.alternet.org/story/28212/

Artie

The words may have been retracted, but they cannot be unsaid. This saying and the retraction were no doubt entirely choreographed. I doubt much about the Bush presidency is not choreographed. I'm sure the energy secretary reviewed the speech, and the retraction was discussed in detail.

So, all you political observeres and analysts out there, what does it all mean?

CLICK on the name A.J. Muste and look him up in the wikipedia. You cannot know how far back and deep the seeds of the peace movement goes until you read some of the work done by the great peacemakers of our time.
A tribute to our work here would be to highlight those who came before us and give tribute to their great works and ideas. Never forget that peace has been a goal from the beginning of time just as war has been marching down alongside. Some day the masses will teach the warriors how to conduct themselves.
That day is coming. Trust me. If we are to survive the arms race that never stopped with the cold war, we must make that day a reality.

My friends three words in Mr. Bush's speech were true and shocking. They were the only part of his speech that was retracted by his own energy secretary.
It is scarey that even Mr. Bush can't utter the truth without it being muffled by the sounds of evil men in the cabinet and who are controlling the real agenda. That speech was worked on for many hours and the fact that Mr. Bush wanted to convey this urgent message is a telling sign that he too is not in charge.
The speech that contained those sixteen words that led us into Iraq pales in comparison to the effects that doing nothing about the energy crisis will have on our future. We cannot imagine the geopolitical fallout of continuing on our merry way toward oblivion.
And this time even Bush warned us.....

PEACE

I don't mean the "addicted" comment. Heck, I was just as shocked to read it (I can't bear to watch that man speak) as anyone else. But it didn't take even 24 hours for the White House to retract the statement, and it didn't even take 24 hours to belie the subsequent promise for greater funding.

Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
Knight-Ridder 2/2/2006

Bush's Goals on Energy Quickly Find Obstacles
New York Times 2/2/2006

Steve

=========

Our lives begin to end the moment that we become silent about things that matter. (Martin Luther King Jr.)

Artie, I read you loud and clear. Alternative energy such as biodiesel for mobility, solar and wind for heating and other applications, biomass processing for plastic substitutes - all of these are just single facets of the greater issue of developing sustainable lifestyles and making peace with the earth, the mother of us all. I'm glad there are people like you who know the economics of investment, whether in money or energy. It's not my area of expertise, and I lack the interest to become informed, so I try to reduce my need for investment (in both energy and money) and trust people like you to tell me what to do when I am forced to take an action. It's still a highly specialized world, and I hope you will similarly defer to me in areas where perhaps I have training or knowledge that you lack. We are a social species for a reason. Thanks for the proactive attitude reflected in your ever-interesting and rationally enlightened posts.

Editor, propeace.net

Susan,

Lots of people are talking about biodiesel. Since the SOTU address, I've seen several stories in the mass media about Willie Nelson's biodiesel company. I know people using biodiesel right now.

Biodiesel will play a part in our migration away from depleting fossil fuels, but it will not be a replacement for our addiction to oil and natural gas.

In my earlier post, I mentioned "net loss." I think most of us here are at least passingly familiar with how investing money works. In the simplest terms, you put money in a bank account and it accrues interest. This interest is your Return on Investment or ROI.

The same principles apply to using energy. To get energy, you first drill an oil well, mine coal, process wood chips, corn, french-fry oil, etc. In every case, you must first invest time, money and effort before you reap the benefit of the usable energy. The useable energy you get AFTER you've drilled, harvested, processed, etc. is called the Energy Returned on Energy Invested or EROEI.

The problem with biodiesel - and other alternative energy sources - is that in many cases the EROEI is actually a very low or even negative number! In other words, your energy investment produces very little return, and it often takes more energy to produce the biodiesel than the biodiesel produces when it's burned.

For example, think of how much energy is expended in the production of McDonald's french fry oil. The fry oil itself was first grown as a plant of some sort, cultivated, watered, harvested, processed and pressed into oil, a very energy intensive effort. Then that oil is shipped via truck to the restaurant and heated to a high temperature, also very energy intensive operations. Then the discarded oil must be shipped to a another location where it is processed into biodiesel, another energy intensive process. Then the biodiesel is shipped to the filling station. (and don't forget that fried foods are artery cloggers as well!)

And similar processes are involved in making biodiesel from other biomass sources.

This is not to say that biodiesel is not a worthy effort. I'd rather have biodiesel than no fuel at all. But we have enjoyed cheap crude oil for so long, we simply cannot comprehend what an incredibly cheap source of energy it is/was. And while we've enjoyed cheap crude oil for years (our addiction) experts believe we've used about half of all the world's fossil fuels, and we did that in only 150 years. There is no "free lunch" when it comes to investing money or energy.

Artie

Why is nobody talking about biodiesel? It uses organic material that would otherwise enter the waste stream. The best technology I've heard about is processing used deep-fry fat from fast food restaurants. Some service stations are actually pumping it! Even if there's no pump, it is available in gallon containers from cottage industries. And the beauty of it is that it takes no particular retooling of your diesel engine or the plant that manufactured it - you just have to reconcile yourself to replacing your fuel lines perhaps twice in 100,000 miles. You can be sure that my next vehicle will be a diesel!

Editor, propeace.net

Right, the only surprise about this statement was the lips from which they were uttered. Hopefully political minds will be open enough to the science community to realize the "net loss" problem you identify. But regardless of whether we agree or disagree with any other Bush policies, any move to honestly discuss and correct our addiction has to be applauded. The looming crisis will affect all human beings, not just those of a particular ideological stripe.

Now let's see some action...