Slashdot Mirror
Japan Striving For Energy Efficiency
diamond writes "The NYT has an article on how Japan is squeezing to get the most out of the costly fuel. 'The government recently introduced a national campaign, urging the Japanese to replace their older appliances and buy hybrid vehicles, all part of a patriotic effort to save energy and fight global warming.'"
In Sweden, experimental 0-liter houses (without heating at all except inhabitants and appliances) have already been built (sorry, Swedish only). Sweden is a bit colder than Germany (have lived in both countries so I have own experience about that one). Go figure. Or maybe we Swedes just tend to be more nerdy and more often have our own Beowulf clusters as heaters. :P
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
What are you, marketing department for one of the big oil companies? Hybrids aren't perfect but you're talking out of your *arse*.
_ release.html?id=20040623
The batteries used in hybrids last as long as the vehicle, 150,000 - 200,000 miles at least and are guaranteed for at least 8 years. The batteries are NiMH, not lead acid or Nicad.
e.g.
http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display
Deleted
The Clinton administration signed the Kyoto treaty, which the Bush administration withdrew from. The Clinton administration set up the "million solar roofs" program. Those are just two things I know off the top of my head.
That said, I don't think any American administration has taken energy seriously. Oddly, I think the Bush administration does, but only because the oil peak is something the oil-industry connected administration understands well.
Make no mistake. I like much of what is in the Bush energy bill (although I don't think it goes nearly far enough and my personal repulsion for the man and his politics is boundless). Before you assume too much about me from these statements, one of the things I wholeheartedly endorse is streamlining licensure of nuclear power plants (despite the fact that he [Bush] continues to call them "nucular" plants).
The oil supply is going start shrinking soon folks. When it does, the price is going to shoot up and the oil companies will make even more money than they do today, but not for too much longer. We have very few alternatives to oil. Yes, solar and wind can supplement. And we'll build that. But they aren't there all the time. Yes, coal is there. But it is just as exhaustible as oil and we'll face the problem again in the future.
Splitting those atoms is the only sure way we have to keep our economy alive and to do so without destroying our climate. Yes, the waste is a problem, but nothing compared to inaction when the oil supply begins to shrink.
The other big thing to do is go after EFFICIENCY. The good news is that the price of energy will force it (again, this left-leaning liberal might suprise you by saying "markets work."), but the bad news is that we might not be able to make the needed changes quickly enough.
I'm genuinely worried about the next 25 years and energy. I'm far more worried about this than the "terrorist threat." Why? Because when gasoline rises to $10+ USD per gallon it will affect many more people than any suicidal maniac possibly could, even with NBC weapons.
A world without oil (or oil prohibitively expensive) is a world where everything you have must be made and moved with your own hands. Take a look around you and ask yourself how much of what you have now you could have in such a world?
Obviously human ingenuity and engineering skills won't disappear. We'll come up with things. The new computer controlled phase driven electric motors being developed might very well give us a way to do our transport and civil engineering with electricity instead of oil. Other developments will come. But how soon?
I can imagine a return of regional food production. The return of railroads for the bulk of freight and interstate travel. Etc.
Our present just-in-time economy is based on cheap oil. It won't be with us much longer.
"Splitting those atoms is the only sure way we have to keep our economy alive and to do so without destroying our climate."
So what happens when we hit peak uranium? There are two major uranium isotopes, only one of which is suitable for use as nuclear fuel. It's also the one that there is the least supply of. The two isotopes together can be used to create vast amounts of plutonium, but nobody considers that a viable alternative because it could mean the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The only REAL alternative is not splitting atoms, but fusing them. That technology is being developed, but it won't be ready till mid-century. When it gets here, the use of deuterium and tritium as fusion fuels will provide us with enough energy for several million years (though our lithium supplies will run out much earlier, still well beyond even our great-grandchildren's lifetimes), but we need something to sustain us till then. Fission may help as a stopgap measure, but it's no replacement for oil.
And of course all of this ignores oil as used in the production of goods, such as plastics. Processes such as thermal depolymerization may assist in this, but that's still largely unproven technology.
It's gonna be a rough couple of decades, children. Better buckle up.
This poo is cold.