Slashdot Mirror

we avoided 1 entirely because this hasnt been our style since 1910. We avoided 2 because we have a 25 year track record of failed wars and coups, not to mention king georges debacle in iraq. we also dont pick fights with countries that possess a nuclear fleet or long range bombers. Three works, and it works because we're beholden as members of NATO to protect our allies. because we rely on russia very little (as does russia us) we expect to get away with what basically amounts to a great deal of symbolism.

Wait what? You haven't heard? It was just another oil grab, you Americans really don't know the real reason US went to Ukraine?

Holy shit, you guys are dumb, the WHOLE WORLD knows.

The Farce Is Complete: Joe Biden's Son Joins Board Of Largest Ukraine Gas Producer
  BidenÃ(TM)s Son Gets Ukrainian Oil Company Gig
  Vice President Joe Biden's son joins Ukraine gas company
  Joe BidenÃ(TM)s Son Appointed to Board of UkraineÃ(TM)s Largest Gas Producer

And not a single link to back up your claims.

http://peakoil.com/publicpolicy/record-number-of-coal-fired-generators-to-be-shut-down-in-2012/

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

Apologies for not including links. I know that doing a simple Google search is beyond many people's intellectual capabilities thanks to teacher's unions' grip on US schools.

Obama has expanded gun rights since going in to office.

Now that's just a bad joke.

Strat

Damn. How much misinformation can you pack into a single post?

Hydrogen is just an energy storage medium, just like batteries. You still need to generate power or use fossil fuels to make the hydrogen. See wikipedia for more.

For electric cars, the grid won't need upgrading, because electric cars will mostly charge at night. See here for more.

ICE cars aren't efficient. Most cars today are about 20% efficient.

Nonsense. Gore's home is highly energy efficient. The energy he uses is produced by non/less polluting alternative sources. His large "home" includes offices for his wife, himself, space for staff and a lot of security.

Even at that scale, and even before he renovated years ago, Gore's house didn't use anywhere near "50 times" as much as a "normal" house.

You Republicans (er, "libertarians") will just lie and say anything to attack people who actually work to protect us in this country.

See the graph titled Us Energy Consumption 1949-2003. The graph shows that our consumption is relatively flat from 1973 on, especially when compared to the projections or price of oil.

We were not talking about total energy, we were talking about oil.

THIS table shows that our use of fossil fuels has actually decreased from 2004 to 2006.

And finally, from HERE:

Again, we were not talking about total energy consumption or fossil fuel consumption, your original statement ("US demand has been flat") was in reference to oil, not generic energy. I posted a graph of US oil consumption to refute that statement. Stats showing total energy use do not contradict my assertion that the US petroleum demand has not been flat.

Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.

[citation needed]

Google "Peak Oil" for all the citations you need.
Compare those stories to THIS one:

I am advised by real experts that BP, BG, BHP and others, are making massive investment decisions in the oil and gas sector of this country that have as much as a 25-year horizon. They are the real experts who put their money where their mouths are, and they know that we will not be running out of gas (or oil) in the near future.

And THIS one:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., November 14, 2006 â" In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theoryâ(TM)s proponents -- and that the âoepeak oilâ argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.

I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman. Where are these predictions?

Flat in comparison to what? Here [indexmundi.com] is a graph of US oil consumption for the last 25 years, sure doesn't look flat to me. It looks like we have increased our consumption nearly every year.

See the graph titled Us Energy Consumption 1949-2003. The graph shows that our consumption is relatively flat from 1973 on, especially when compared to the projections or price of oil.

THIS table shows that our use of fossil fuels has actually decreased from 2004 to 2006.

And finally, from HERE:

A report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) shows that U.S. energy consumption (as measured per dollar of economic output) will be slashed by the end of 2008 to half of what it was in 1970 from 18,000 British thermal units (Btus) to about 8,900 Btus.

Moving along...

Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.

[citation needed]

Google "Peak Oil" for all the citations you need.
Compare those stories to THIS one:

I am advised by real experts that BP, BG, BHP and others, are making massive investment decisions in the oil and gas sector of this country that have as much as a 25-year horizon. They are the real experts who put their money where their mouths are, and they know that we will not be running out of gas (or oil) in the near future.

And THIS one:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., November 14, 2006 â" In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theoryâ(TM)s proponents -- and that the âoepeak oilâ argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.

in some cases up to 20% of our total traffic.

That would be too long of a post and it's been covered in other places:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8972.html

Also see http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html to see some info on their plug-in hybrids that achieve over 100 MPG. Hopefully Google will help fund something similar, except this time we can buy it.

Ugh, another article about our "hydrogen future."

Hydrogen is such a 'pie in the sky' technology. It costs too much to make hydrogen, it's expensive to store and the infrastructure is non-existant. Even with this new technology, hydrogen costs more to make and loses more energy than any other fuel out there.

Not only that, but there is already a proven alternative. Electric cars have the infrastructure (power outlets), are more efficient than either oil or hydrogen, and there is far less pollution using power from the grid than burning oil or making hydrogen with current methods.

Anyone who wants to know the truth needs to look at California. Back in the 1990s, California forced major car companies to make a choice... either make EVs or you can't sell cars in California. The auto companies made electric cars that were fast, looked good and could go 120 miles on a charge. Thousands of people wanted them. Instead of selling the cars, the auto companies leased them, then joined oil companies to lobby California politicians to cancel the EV mandate.

Andrew Card, former GM lobbyist and Bush Chief of Staff acted as a plaintiff against the State of California, attempting to sue the state for pushing the EV mandate. A few years later, the Department of Justice under the Bush administration filed an amicus brief supporting GM and other automakers. The automakers were very clear, they didn't want to make electric cars... so much so they even took back and crushed every EV they leased.

To replace EVs, Bush presented the new "Hydrogen Economy." He gave $1.2 billion of taxpayer money to car makers just to research the technology. This article is no doubt part of that research.

Hydrogen is of course 10 to 15 years away... suspiciously convenient for auto-manufacters and oil companies who don't want electric cars. So my conclusion is that, everything you see on TV, everything you see on the web about hydrogen, it's all just a big charade to distract people away from electric cars.

Good discussion and movie:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8972.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBykAngDpY

Not to thread jack but Peak Oil has far more evidence for it and will have a more immediate (next 10 to 15 years) catastrophic impact and may have already happened according to some experts however it hardly gets as much press as Global Warming does.

I almost suspect that Global Warming is a euphamistic way for countries to talk about peak oil. One other thing is that China, India, and Russia ignore the whole Global Warming issue. Too them it doesn't matter and since our whole industrial base will be in China and India soon, short of invading those two countries and sending them back to the post-industrial age, there's not much we can do about it. In fact, I almost don't even care about global warming because I know that everywhere, when the rubber actually hits the road and it's reduce carbon emissions by reducing standards of living people will always balk. Talk is cheap, republicans are easy to bash but this all really doesn't matter in the end.

http://peakoil.com/ All these issues have been examined in depth at PO.com There is indeed a difference of opinion about peak oil. One of the premier peak detractors posts regularly @ PO.com Mike Lynch Matt Savinar from LifeAftertheOilCrash.com is also a regular. The answers are out there... & they will find you... If you let them...

Peak Oil News and Discussion has a lot of info and discussion topics on Peak Oil. It even mentions the current slashdot peak oil thread.

1. a social change to a lower standard of living
2. lower the population, a hugely irreverent and unacceptable proposition, but maybe Mother Earth will flex her muscles and get rid of a large chunk of us on her own accord (remember, she just created us because she wanted plastic :-) )

The whole world will be oil free by 2020, because oil will be too expensive to use as a fuel. Do not forget, the peak is near.

I doubt it, fusion is only being pushed because of people's fantasy that some miracle technology is going to replace oil. nothing will replace oil, nothing at all. when oil becomes too expensive, there wont be anything to fall back on. not fusion, not fuel cells, not even fucking coal. in short: were fucked. http://www.peakoil.com/

Think about what you said lol.

(Note to self: nuanced sardonic wit is wasted on the /. reader.)

In addition to the increasing dollar cost being evidence of inflation, you can simply take a look at various loan or bank interest rates. These also have a relationship with inflation. So its not just the government cooking the books.

Since when does private banks set interest rates independent of the Federal Reserve? Since they don't, that falsehood doesn't support your contention that banks cook the books. (Not that I would disagree with that conclusion; although its pretty irrelevant to the discussion here.) Good thing you're not a bank director. As a reporter, you would be one sorry assed yellow journalist, but apparently you'd fit in well.

To summarize: Minimal inflation does not mean falling dollar amounts to purchase stuff. That would be deflation. So you will always see stuff increasing in dollar amounts as long as we have any sort of inflation, even minimal.

Gee pal, thanks. Like I've never heard of deflation. Why am I supposed to believe the gov't, when they are saying "there is no signficant inflation", and my cost of living jumps 10% above what they claim is the inflation rate? (This is well before the fuel crunches this year.) I didn't fall off the turnip truck, unlike you.

(Note that I'm NOT disagreeing that the goverment can and sometimes does cook the books. I'm just disagreeing that they are doing it in the case of our inflation rate).

Then why is the Fed about to do this? Do you even understand the significance?

I've had the same gripes about inflation

And did you notice the inflation was creeping up for the past four years, even before the fuel crisis caused by Katrina?

Friend, let me creep out out some more. Look at what the Fed is about to do: M3 report discontinuation

I consider 116 homicides in NYC relatively good news in a city with 8 million residents, that triples in population during a workday. 116 homicides in Pahrump, NV on the other hand... So what size city are we talking about?

I don't think the article could say less with more works if it tried. It is supposed to be about Ethanol but it slips in this one line about biodiesel "It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel". huh? Lets try to be a little consistent here.

For actual useful information on bio-diesel take a look at the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

For information on why oil replacement fuels are going to become very important to mainstream America and not just tree huggin' greenies you should parous the forums over at http://www.peakoil.com/

The hour is very late for American-style horizontal suburbia which, as Jim Kunstler puts it (rather harshly), is "the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. America took all its postwar wealth and invested it in a living arrangement that has no future." Except for certain places like New York which actually have working mass public transit, Americans usually don't get to walk anywhere, do they?

If you're planning to, as they say, "get the heck out of dodge", here's a thread on best places to live through Peak Oil :
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic9541.html

Don't be planning too far ahead.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://www.peakoil.net/
http://www.peakoil.org/
http://www.peakoil.com/
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/20 05/04/08/BUGA4C50P61.DTL/

Do a lot of reading, make up your own mind.

mod parent up!
in 20 years, oil will be at more than 100$ per barrel for sure, and "alternative" energy are crap...
http://peakoil.com is your friend!

It's called the abiogenic theory of oil, and while it would be very comforting to believe, it's also viewed by most as complete bunk. Even if it was true that billions of barrels of abiogenic oil was produced, imagine the damage to the environment that would be done if we never HAD to switch to cleaner sustainable energy (this century)!

Cheap oil and gas have been like winning the lottery--we got many hundreds of thousands of years worth of solar energy inputs concentrated into a convenient portable form. The problem is, like most lottery winners, we have wasted most of our bonanza and will end up overextended and in debt.

The days of oil are coming to an end much more quickly than is generally acknowledged. Many petroleum geologists expect the peak of oil production to occur within the next 3-5 years (even BP has recently announced that they think oil will peak between 2010 and 2020). From that day on, the amount available for use goes down every year forever. That has incredible consequences for a species that has let its population expand to meet its available food (that is, oil) supply and which has invested nearly all of its energy windfall into building infrastructure and systems that cannot operate without cheap and plentiful oil.

Feel free to continue the futile debate about how to match our lottery-winnings-level energy usage, but when you are done why don't you turn to something more real and pressing--how do we restructure our industrial society to operate on one half or one quarter of the energy we use now and maintain food, housing, fresh water, transportation, safety and any kind of economic livelihood for the 6.4 billion people now living?

This process starts soon--possibly before your cell phone contract expires. And the most likely first effect is an economic meltdown that will leave us hard pressed to finance and build any significant numbers of the energy replacement "alternatives" so vociferously touted here.

It is not to say that we shouldn't be looking at the next alternatives, but we need to set the parameters of the design--what is the best way to start making the transition from systems that depend on fading inherited oil wealth and build ones that can run on yearly energy income.

The world will not end until the sun becomes a red giant in about 4 billion years and engulfs the earth in its rapidly expanding diameter. Even then, the physical existence of the earth will still be present, merely inside of a star and uninhabitable. It is not the end of the world I am talking about, it is simply a severe change in the American way of life. I simply do not want the problems of Venezuela or Ethiopia to arrive on the shores of the US, and the peak oil situation threatens to do exactly that; end the modern industrial society based on consumerism. Yes, I hate the deluge of advertisement, and have actively pursued to limit the amount of advertisement that I am subjected to, (such as by eliminating television, and all American radio broadcasts), and have found a new home on an ad-free internet, (thanks to a 2048 KB long hosts file), as well as S/W radio. Who ever came up with the scheme that material objects should influence ones happiness should have taken a psychology examination, and been shot up full of morphine.

I want consumerism to die, not industrial society. The thought of worrying about having enough rain to feed my crops in order to survive rather sucks compared to worrying about how I am going to fit a rectangular box into a square hole while binning excess freight. We need capitalism back, not this new corporatist regime where entrepreneurs cannot compete on any level with Wal*Mart and other giant retail chains. Consumerism must die, industry must live.

Terrorism, and a lapse economy are great to bitch about for effecting the outcome of an election, but what about something of global importance, such as peak oil? Peak oil is the greatest threat to not only the United States, but to the very life of consumerism that has gripped the globe. If you thought the battle of OSS is important, then the coming global oil crisis will be not only endangering the microsoft empire, but all of society.

Terrorism, and a lapse economy are great to bitch about for effecting the outcome of an election, but what about something of global importance, such as peak oil? Peak oil is the greatest threat to not only the United States, but to the very life of consumerism that has gripped the globe. If you thought the battle of OSS is important, then the coming global oil crisis will be not only endangering the microsoft empire, but all of society.

I sure as hell can't afford a hybrid vehicle. The Prius starts at $20k new (of the 9 basic models of Toyota cars, it is the 3rd most expensive.)

I work two jobs, go to school, and live in a city where public transportation sucks (Tucson, AZ). I'm a damn greedy fat American for driving my beater 15 year old Mercury Topaz. 18 years old is not a good time to get into $20k of debt. I use maybe $500 of fuel a year on a car that costs probably just over that much.

I would love to have an alternative fuel or hybrid vehicle when I can afford it. It'll probably be a while before I earn enough to afford one, and their prices drop. I think the reasons why people are reluctant to use the first generation of new technologies is that they're more comfortable with them being a bit more battle-tested before they buy. As much as we would like to think otherwise, the thing that is going to kickstart development and use of alternative fuel technologies is when oil drilling falls off of the peak and it becomes terribly expensive to drive yesterday's cars.

I'm accepting donations if anyone wants to buy me one so I can do my part to the environment.

There's loads of potential oil in them there tar sands but it's not going to help. It's too expensive (in energy terms) to get it out. It's only just positive and the maximum rate of extraction is low.

It's not going to be much to help this imminent problem:
This article is a good introduction.
A statement on Peak Oil.
Home of the association for the study of peak oil and gas (ex senior geologists and academics). The monthly newsletters are very good.
Some coverage from their recent conference.
A rather extreme America's take on it.
Peak Oil news portal with a good forum.