While it's entirely true that fuel prices might be artificially inflated, too, MOST of the rising fuel costs we all face are due to the effects of Peak Oil. We are entering the early stages of an entirely predictable (and thoroughly predicted) energy crisis.
The post and thread here appear to be very US-centric -- they assume that any trade agreement that the US decides to offer to the world will be immediately accepted by other sovereign states.
The United States has a history of pushing its laws on other nations through binding treaties. A binding international treaty typically trumps domestic laws in a signatory nation. This is explicitly true in the USA: an international treaty supersedes US law and the US Constitution and Bill or Rights.
One good example of this practice is the way the United States exported its (insanely stupid and misguided) drug laws to the rest of the world. The United States pushed for the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, which required that all signatory countries 'toe the line' by criminalizing drug possession. This treaty prevented any signatory country from treating (certain types of) drug use as anything but a criminal offense. The same thing could be done with copyright infringement.
Here's a quote describing this from the Transform Drug Policy Foundation:
"The 1961 UN drugs convention marks a key turning point in global prohibition - enshrining prohibition in domestic law across the globe, and closing down any possibility of regulated models of production and supply for the proscribed drugs (anomalously excluding alcohol and tobacco)being introduced by individual countries even if they democratically determined to do so. An entire avenue of policy options was closed."
www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_Timeline.htm
This looks very much like what the **AA wants to implement with regard to copyright infringement. Such a binding international treaty would make it impossible for any country to opt out of enforcing standardized laws against copyright infringement. Such an international treaty would, effectively, export US law and policy globally.
I strongly encourage anyone interested in this topic to read up on the work done by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. I am surprised to find no links to this website previously posted. The CRNano group has been thinking about precisely this sort of issue, and even has articles about the disparity between public and scientific understanding of the topic. CRNano is primarily, but not exclusively, focussed on Molecular Manufacturing (Wikipedia Definition of MM).
The stated purpose of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (from their web site) is:
The mission of CRN is to: 1) raise awareness of the benefits, the dangers, and the possibilities for responsible use of advanced nanotechnology; 2) expedite a thorough examination of the environmental, humanitarian, economic, military, political, social, medical, and ethical implications of molecular manufacturing; and 3) assist in the creation and implementation of wise, comprehensive, and balanced plans for responsible worldwide use of this transformative technology.
Because nanotechnology (particularly MM) is a new and cross-disciplinary science even most SCIENTISTS have a poor understanding of the associated risks, benefits, and issues. Few scientists have the required background in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering to properly appreciate the current state and likely future implications of advanced nanotechnology. I suggest that many of the scientists polled on this topic (see the article) are probably not much better informed on this topic than the general public. I hope awareness of nanotechnology and the many practical and ethical issues surrounding it increases, both among scientists and amoung the general public. This discussion is a good start.
Speaking as a trained Physicist, I think it's vital to teach technologists to understand the social and political implications of science. Also, it's vital for non-scientists to learn the rudiments of science. The existance of this sort of class in no way precludes 'hard science' classes. Arguing that this sort of class has no place smacks of over-specialization.
As a long time user of voice over IP I was pleased to see that Skype was free and seemed to offer practical cross-platform voice communication. After installing and using it for a while we found that it delivered on its promise to 'just work'. We eventually determined two things about Skype:
#1 As promised, it 'just works'. Even a totally new internet telephone user was able to use the software effectively on the first try. For pure communication function Skype is better than any other VOIP software I have used.
#2 Skype seems to to inject some really noxious behavior any computer it is installed on.
Upon careful investigation we found that, in addition to allowing clear and effective voice communication, Skype was doing bad things. Specifically: Skype uses its host to transmit data not related to the user; Skype modifies the network stack on each machine we installed it on (a PC running Windows 2000 and a Mac running OSX) such that all network traffic went through Skype's modified local loopback; Skype's network stack changes caused other software to slow down and crash, even when Skype was not running, even after uninstalling Skype. On the Windows host Skype embedded many entries into the registry which it did not remove upon un-installation.
To this relatively untrained eye it seems as if the makers of Skype have both the means, motive, opportunity, and the complete lack of ethics to use the network of Skype-installed computers as a large zombie 'botnet. In order to eliminate the bad behavior introduced by Skype we eventually had to completely flatten the hard drive on every machine touched by Skype and re-install the operating system and all software from scratch. None of this bad behavior violated the wording of the Skype license agreement, as far as we could tell, because the license agreement is worded to allow such awful behavior.
In short, we found that Skype seems to be either Spyware or Malware, depending your definition. Since it provides a desireable function I suppose one could also classify it as a trojan. I'd really like to get a look at, and then publish, Skype's secret source code, to see just what 'extracurricular activity' it is up to.
I hope that other slashdot users can examine Skype and see if these observations are correct. If, indeed, Skype has as much nasty, poisonous code under the covers as it seems to have, then people need to be warned and something needs to be done...
I'm afraid I've lost a lot of respect for RMI over the past five years. They know the truth about the energy resources situation, but their publications promote soothing, pernicious lies.
Organizations that say "We have an energy crisis coming, and the only solution is radical efficiency combined with lifestyle change combined with shrinking the global economy to achieve a gradual Powerdown" get neither grant money nor political support.
Organizations that say "We have an energy crisis coming, but our technical fixes will allow the status quo to continue" get both grants and political support.
RMI has chosen to say the latter, even though they ought to know better. By promoting a 'technofix' approach and claiming it can solve the impending energy crisis (it can not), they do us all a grave dis-service.
If one carefully examines the numbers regarding viable future energy use, the realworld choices become quite clear. The single biggest step our species MUST take, that hardly anyone is even willing to discuss, is removing cars from cities. I personally believe that any city which has not converted to a mostly carfree model by about 2020 will cease to function as a city. About 30% of the global energy budget is spent on moving big chunks of steel and small people around our cities.
See http://www.carfree.com for a detailed and attractive explanation of why carfree cities would inprove urban quality of life while using drastically less energy. I hope we eventually all realize that it's how we should have done things in the first place.
Look, the efficiency numbers for hydrogen just do not add up.
While hydrogen has decent potential as an energy storage medium, it will never be an acceptable replacement for liquid petroleum fuels. The chatter about the hydrogen economy is based on wishful thinking and deliberate refusal to honestly consider the math.
There is an oil crisis and an energy crisis coming soon. The Hydrogen energy cycle is very inefficient. Just when we are desperately short of energy will NOT be an acceptable time to switch to a LESS EFFICIENT energy infrastructure. Given how quickly the fossil fuels are failing us, we are unlikely to have the additional energy resources to transform to the 'hydrogen economy'. Most hydrogen-economy proponents in North America suggest natural gas as the transition feedstock to make hydrogen, but North America has just run off the natural gas production cliff and faces immiment shortages of natural gas.
As a physicist and technogeek I'd love to see something similar to a 'hydrogen economy' work. Unfortunately, once one digs deeply into energy resources and the proposed 'hydrogen economy' one discovers that such a technofix is just bluster that will not work. I wish it was not so.
I suggest this foolish program exists not due to ignorance, but due to greed. The politicians who ordered this program, and the defense contractors who carried it out, know perfectly well it will never work. Future FOI documents will eventually bear this assertion out, but not until years after the Politicans' bribe money and the contractors' profits are hidden and long gone. It's a win-win situation for everyone except the public welfare.
Similarly, the Bush/Cheney administration is perfectly aware of the issues surrounding asymetric warfare. In fact, awareness that a missile defense system is useless in the current threat climate INCREASES its palatability, because then there's no risk of getting in trouble when the system fails in a real-life situation. This makes it a safe way to feed pork to friendly corporations in return for generous kickbacks.
There are no viable alternatives to oil within the current system of industrial society. As the oil and other fossil fuels fail, so will industrial society.
The myths about oil companies having powerful 'green' replacements for oil are just that, myths.
It's nice to see this topic being discussed. Global energy resources happens to be my technical specialty. The short answer is, "No, nuclear energy is definately NOT a viable replacement for oil in the manner and quantity in which the United States uses oil, BUT increased use of nuclear energy COULD partly mitigate the suffering we will all soon experience as a result of oil depletion and crisis in the Middle East".
Rather than post a dissertatation on the topic, I'll make a few brief points and then direct you to where you can find out more for yourself.
I. Blowback from US dependance on Middle East oil is just a SYMPTOM of global oil depletion.
II. Nuclear power plants have rather poor net energy. This means that it takes many years of continuus operation before a nuclear plant pays back the energy used to consrtuct and operate it. The advanced new designs, such as those being deployed by China, probably reach energy break-even in as little as 10 years, whereas the old-style plants in the USA took 40 years of operation to break even.
III. I have no useful input on the radioactive waste problem. Previous replies cover the issue well. It seems very likely that we will never run short of Uranium, given new technology that allows extraction of Uranium from seawater in marketable quantities.
IV. Global fossil fuel supplies are failing. Global oil supplies will certainly peak and enter permanent decline before 2010. Therefore, no possible alternative energy program started today (including nuclear) can offset the expected permanent 2%/year decline in available global net energy. This fact is guaranteed to wreak havoc with the global financial system (which requires constant growth in available energy), and is an intractible problem without revolutionary changes. In order to offset the decline of fossil fuels we would need to build more than 50 large new nuclear power plants EACH YEAR.
V. Many global leaders (certainly including the Bush/Cheney administration) are totally aware of this issue.
VI. There are only two viable solutions to this situation:
a. Voluntarily reduce global energy use in a cooperative way.
This option is called Plan Powerdown.
b. Involuntarily reduce global energy use via war & strife.
This is known as Plan Resource War or Last One Standing
This option is the default approach of most world leaders.
Finally, here are some excellent sources of information on this topic:
1. The Yahoo Groups RunningOnEmpty2 forum, which has been discussing this and related issues for years. This group includes many physicists, petroleum geologists, and other concerned citizens.
2. The websites http://www.dieoff.org http://www.peakoil.net
and http://www.energycrisis.org
3. Be warned that you will encounter much misinformation and disinformation on this topic. Be very suspicious of any single source (including me!). In particular, the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) provides seemingly authoritative data on future energy supplies which is a complete pack of lies. A historical study of the EIA shows that their PAST data is always accurate, but that future projections are politically, not scientifically, motivated. I can only speculate on the reasons for all this disinformation, but it is probably due to a combination of the corporate profit imperative, false assumptions in the 'science' of Economics, and human nature.
Thanks for your time and attention, all! If you feel this is an important and well-informed post I encourage you to vote it such that more readers will see it.
Regards,
Bruce Stephenson, aka EnergyScholar
bruce@peak.org
This author made an astute comment. Methane is natural gas. Natural gas is methane. While there is still quite a bit of natural gas left GLOBALLY (most of it in the Middle East), North America is entering the throws of a severe natural gas shortage/crisis. This is because North American natural gas production peaked in 1973, and is now mostly depleted. Here in North America we've USED UP nearly all the natural gas we started with. This shortage will almost certainly become a crisis in 1 to 3 years.
It's entirely possible, even likely, that the currrent North American natural gas system will be non-operational by about 2010 or 2012.
It's smart that industry is looking for low-carbon ways to generate electricity. It's not smart that they are looking to do it with a resource that is nearly depleted. 'nuff said.
Slashdot Mirror
While it's entirely true that fuel prices might be artificially inflated, too, MOST of the rising fuel costs we all face are due to the effects of Peak Oil. We are entering the early stages of an entirely predictable (and thoroughly predicted) energy crisis.
The post and thread here appear to be very US-centric -- they assume that any trade agreement that the US decides to offer to the world will be immediately accepted by other sovereign states.
The United States has a history of pushing its laws on other nations through binding treaties. A binding international treaty typically trumps domestic laws in a signatory nation. This is explicitly true in the USA: an international treaty supersedes US law and the US Constitution and Bill or Rights.
One good example of this practice is the way the United States exported its (insanely stupid and misguided) drug laws to the rest of the world. The United States pushed for the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, which required that all signatory countries 'toe the line' by criminalizing drug possession. This treaty prevented any signatory country from treating (certain types of) drug use as anything but a criminal offense. The same thing could be done with copyright infringement.
Here's a quote describing this from the Transform Drug Policy Foundation:
"The 1961 UN drugs convention marks a key turning point in global prohibition - enshrining prohibition in domestic law across the globe, and closing down any possibility of regulated models of production and supply for the proscribed drugs (anomalously excluding alcohol and tobacco)being introduced by individual countries even if they democratically determined to do so. An entire avenue of policy options was closed."
www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_Timeline.htm
This looks very much like what the **AA wants to implement with regard to copyright infringement. Such a binding international treaty would make it impossible for any country to opt out of enforcing standardized laws against copyright infringement. Such an international treaty would, effectively, export US law and policy globally.
I strongly encourage anyone interested in this topic to read up on the work done by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. I am surprised to find no links to this website previously posted. The CRNano group has been thinking about precisely this sort of issue, and even has articles about the disparity between public and scientific understanding of the topic. CRNano is primarily, but not exclusively, focussed on Molecular Manufacturing (Wikipedia Definition of MM).
The stated purpose of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (from their web site) is:
The mission of CRN is to: 1) raise awareness of the benefits, the dangers, and the possibilities for responsible use of advanced nanotechnology; 2) expedite a thorough examination of the environmental, humanitarian, economic, military, political, social, medical, and ethical implications of molecular manufacturing; and 3) assist in the creation and implementation of wise, comprehensive, and balanced plans for responsible worldwide use of this transformative technology.
Because nanotechnology (particularly MM) is a new and cross-disciplinary science even most SCIENTISTS have a poor understanding of the associated risks, benefits, and issues. Few scientists have the required background in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering to properly appreciate the current state and likely future implications of advanced nanotechnology. I suggest that many of the scientists polled on this topic (see the article) are probably not much better informed on this topic than the general public. I hope awareness of nanotechnology and the many practical and ethical issues surrounding it increases, both among scientists and amoung the general public. This discussion is a good start.
Speaking as a trained Physicist, I think it's vital to teach technologists to understand the social and political implications of science. Also, it's vital for non-scientists to learn the rudiments of science. The existance of this sort of class in no way precludes 'hard science' classes. Arguing that this sort of class has no place smacks of over-specialization.
As a long time user of voice over IP I was pleased to see that Skype was free and seemed to offer practical cross-platform voice communication. After installing and using it for a while we found that it delivered on its promise to 'just work'. We eventually determined two things about Skype:
...
#1 As promised, it 'just works'. Even a totally new internet telephone user was able to use the software effectively on the first try. For pure communication function Skype is better than any other VOIP software I have used.
#2 Skype seems to to inject some really noxious behavior any computer it is installed on.
Upon careful investigation we found that, in addition to allowing clear and effective voice communication, Skype was doing bad things. Specifically: Skype uses its host to transmit data not related to the user; Skype modifies the network stack on each machine we installed it on (a PC running Windows 2000 and a Mac running OSX) such that all network traffic went through Skype's modified local loopback; Skype's network stack changes caused other software to slow down and crash, even when Skype was not running, even after uninstalling Skype. On the Windows host Skype embedded many entries into the registry which it did not remove upon un-installation.
To this relatively untrained eye it seems as if the makers of Skype have both the means, motive, opportunity, and the complete lack of ethics to use the network of Skype-installed computers as a large zombie 'botnet. In order to eliminate the bad behavior introduced by Skype we eventually had to completely flatten the hard drive on every machine touched by Skype and re-install the operating system and all software from scratch. None of this bad behavior violated the wording of the Skype license agreement, as far as we could tell, because the license agreement is worded to allow such awful behavior.
In short, we found that Skype seems to be either Spyware or Malware, depending your definition. Since it provides a desireable function I suppose one could also classify it as a trojan. I'd really like to get a look at, and then publish, Skype's secret source code, to see just what 'extracurricular activity' it is up to.
I hope that other slashdot users can examine Skype and see if these observations are correct. If, indeed, Skype has as much nasty, poisonous code under the covers as it seems to have, then people need to be warned and something needs to be done
I'm afraid I've lost a lot of respect for RMI over the past five years. They know the truth about the energy resources situation, but their publications promote soothing, pernicious lies. Organizations that say "We have an energy crisis coming, and the only solution is radical efficiency combined with lifestyle change combined with shrinking the global economy to achieve a gradual Powerdown" get neither grant money nor political support. Organizations that say "We have an energy crisis coming, but our technical fixes will allow the status quo to continue" get both grants and political support. RMI has chosen to say the latter, even though they ought to know better. By promoting a 'technofix' approach and claiming it can solve the impending energy crisis (it can not), they do us all a grave dis-service. If one carefully examines the numbers regarding viable future energy use, the realworld choices become quite clear. The single biggest step our species MUST take, that hardly anyone is even willing to discuss, is removing cars from cities. I personally believe that any city which has not converted to a mostly carfree model by about 2020 will cease to function as a city. About 30% of the global energy budget is spent on moving big chunks of steel and small people around our cities. See http://www.carfree.com for a detailed and attractive explanation of why carfree cities would inprove urban quality of life while using drastically less energy. I hope we eventually all realize that it's how we should have done things in the first place.
Look, the efficiency numbers for hydrogen just do not add up.
While hydrogen has decent potential as an energy storage medium, it will never be an acceptable replacement for liquid petroleum fuels. The chatter about the hydrogen economy is based on wishful thinking and deliberate refusal to honestly consider the math.
There is an oil crisis and an energy crisis coming soon. The Hydrogen energy cycle is very inefficient. Just when we are desperately short of energy will NOT be an acceptable time to switch to a LESS EFFICIENT energy infrastructure. Given how quickly the fossil fuels are failing us, we are unlikely to have the additional energy resources to transform to the 'hydrogen economy'. Most hydrogen-economy proponents in North America suggest natural gas as the transition feedstock to make hydrogen, but North America has just run off the natural gas production cliff and faces immiment shortages of natural gas.
As a physicist and technogeek I'd love to see something similar to a 'hydrogen economy' work. Unfortunately, once one digs deeply into energy resources and the proposed 'hydrogen economy' one discovers that such a technofix is just bluster that will not work. I wish it was not so.
I suggest this foolish program exists not due to ignorance, but due to greed. The politicians who ordered this program, and the defense contractors who carried it out, know perfectly well it will never work. Future FOI documents will eventually bear this assertion out, but not until years after the Politicans' bribe money and the contractors' profits are hidden and long gone. It's a win-win situation for everyone except the public welfare. Similarly, the Bush/Cheney administration is perfectly aware of the issues surrounding asymetric warfare. In fact, awareness that a missile defense system is useless in the current threat climate INCREASES its palatability, because then there's no risk of getting in trouble when the system fails in a real-life situation. This makes it a safe way to feed pork to friendly corporations in return for generous kickbacks.
There are no viable alternatives to oil within the current system of industrial society. As the oil and other fossil fuels fail, so will industrial society.
The myths about oil companies having powerful 'green' replacements for oil are just that, myths.
It's nice to see this topic being discussed. Global energy resources happens to be my technical specialty. The short answer is, "No, nuclear energy is definately NOT a viable replacement for oil in the manner and quantity in which the United States uses oil, BUT increased use of nuclear energy COULD partly mitigate the suffering we will all soon experience as a result of oil depletion and crisis in the Middle East". Rather than post a dissertatation on the topic, I'll make a few brief points and then direct you to where you can find out more for yourself. I. Blowback from US dependance on Middle East oil is just a SYMPTOM of global oil depletion. II. Nuclear power plants have rather poor net energy. This means that it takes many years of continuus operation before a nuclear plant pays back the energy used to consrtuct and operate it. The advanced new designs, such as those being deployed by China, probably reach energy break-even in as little as 10 years, whereas the old-style plants in the USA took 40 years of operation to break even. III. I have no useful input on the radioactive waste problem. Previous replies cover the issue well. It seems very likely that we will never run short of Uranium, given new technology that allows extraction of Uranium from seawater in marketable quantities. IV. Global fossil fuel supplies are failing. Global oil supplies will certainly peak and enter permanent decline before 2010. Therefore, no possible alternative energy program started today (including nuclear) can offset the expected permanent 2%/year decline in available global net energy. This fact is guaranteed to wreak havoc with the global financial system (which requires constant growth in available energy), and is an intractible problem without revolutionary changes. In order to offset the decline of fossil fuels we would need to build more than 50 large new nuclear power plants EACH YEAR. V. Many global leaders (certainly including the Bush/Cheney administration) are totally aware of this issue. VI. There are only two viable solutions to this situation: a. Voluntarily reduce global energy use in a cooperative way. This option is called Plan Powerdown. b. Involuntarily reduce global energy use via war & strife. This is known as Plan Resource War or Last One Standing This option is the default approach of most world leaders. Finally, here are some excellent sources of information on this topic: 1. The Yahoo Groups RunningOnEmpty2 forum, which has been discussing this and related issues for years. This group includes many physicists, petroleum geologists, and other concerned citizens. 2. The websites http://www.dieoff.org http://www.peakoil.net and http://www.energycrisis.org 3. Be warned that you will encounter much misinformation and disinformation on this topic. Be very suspicious of any single source (including me!). In particular, the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) provides seemingly authoritative data on future energy supplies which is a complete pack of lies. A historical study of the EIA shows that their PAST data is always accurate, but that future projections are politically, not scientifically, motivated. I can only speculate on the reasons for all this disinformation, but it is probably due to a combination of the corporate profit imperative, false assumptions in the 'science' of Economics, and human nature. Thanks for your time and attention, all! If you feel this is an important and well-informed post I encourage you to vote it such that more readers will see it. Regards, Bruce Stephenson, aka EnergyScholar bruce@peak.org
This author made an astute comment. Methane is natural gas. Natural gas is methane. While there is still quite a bit of natural gas left GLOBALLY (most of it in the Middle East), North America is entering the throws of a severe natural gas shortage/crisis. This is because North American natural gas production peaked in 1973, and is now mostly depleted. Here in North America we've USED UP nearly all the natural gas we started with. This shortage will almost certainly become a crisis in 1 to 3 years.
It's entirely possible, even likely, that the currrent North American natural gas system will be non-operational by about 2010 or 2012.
It's smart that industry is looking for low-carbon ways to generate electricity. It's not smart that they are looking to do it with a resource that is nearly depleted. 'nuff said.