AuthorTopic: From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?  (Read 1641 times)

Offline GypsyMama

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • "Dream your happiest dream vividly awake."
    • View Profile
    • The Butterchurn
From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?
« on: March 15, 2013, 04:29:38 PM »
I'd like to hear what the members of this forum have to say about this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/03/15/what-you-need-know-about-energy-security-trust

I ran across it today via ye olde' Facebook (unfortunately) and red flags started popping up in my mind, instantly.  I have just recently "Taken the red pill" and am overall having a hard time trusting anything I read online that lists statements such as, "In each of the last four years, domestic production of oil and gas has gone up and our use of foreign oil has gone down."  Seems pretty hard to accept that as truth, given what I know about Peak oil...AND given that I pretty much assume that America doesn't provide much of anything for themselves anymore (ex:  food, plastic products, etc). 

This plan, "The Energy Security Trust" claims to provide $2 billion for critical, cutting-edge research focused on developing cost-effective transportation alternatives over the next ten years.  TEN years.  Do we have time for this?  Furthermore, our excessive amount of vehicles aren't the only things requiring oil. 

I look forward to your responses.

Offline widgeon

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2013, 01:09:27 PM »
As I recall reading it on Friday, seemed like it talked about replacing gasoline for vehicular use.

There is simply no way to replace gasoline for vehicular use at anything approaching the level of activity we currently see and "have become accustomed to."

Try to get in your electric 18-wheeler and deliver a load 1000 miles to Syracuse in 16 hours; which we're accustomed to w/ gasoline.  Ain't gonna happen no way.  Now, do we NEED that?  Of course not.  But changing our expectations is the critical factor, not perfecting a matter/anti-matter drive (LOL).

Actually, I think US production and importation has done as the article said over the last 4 years.  However, it was as much due to a decline of demand in the US of about 2 million bbl/day as an increase of roughly 1 M bbl/day in production.

Offline GypsyMama

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • "Dream your happiest dream vividly awake."
    • View Profile
    • The Butterchurn
Re: From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2013, 05:12:58 PM »
There is simply no way to replace gasoline for vehicular use at anything approaching the level of activity we currently see and "have become accustomed to."

Yes, this makes sense.  This Trust seems to be giving the people false hope, in my eyes.  I guess they can't really get Americans to calm down and consume less without creating mass havoc.  Havoc is what I think would happen if the White House happened to come out with a statement that we should slow down our consumption of fuel, reasoned by "we are running out of petroleum, folks."  LOL!

*Sigh*  Sometimes I wish some hacker could access the Television waves and let the people know what is REALLY going on, here. 

Offline WHD

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
    • View Profile
Re: From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2013, 06:23:35 PM »
Quote
I look forward to your responses.

Lies, lies, lies, and more lies.

If these people were Leaders, they would be honest with Americans about car culture. But they are not Leaders, they are managers of the Status Quo. The entire land of American culture is dependent on moving vehicles around quickly. Like widgeon said, there is no fuel source to fill the void of declining oil, to move vehicles. People talk a lot about electrical vehicles, but electricity is generated mostly by natural gas and coal, which if we were to change to EV, ramp up biosphere destruction and climate change exponentially. Which as soon as they start using natural gas widely for vehicles, we will see an immediate scarcity of natural gas. Coal won't fill that void, but that won't stop them from trying. The same goes for Nuclear. Wind is a joke if you think that is going to fill that void. 

The only answer is, the decline of car culture. But again, that is NOT what Americans want to hear, not least because we spent a few trillion dollars building Suburbia, covering the farm land (here in the Midwest at least) that would go to feed non-driving city folk.

We Americans believe on the whole, that FREEDOM requires the rape of the earth. And the White House here is feeding that assumption. If anything is going to change the future of America, it is going to require Not new sources of energy, but fundamental change to our assumptions about FREEDOM. 

Fact is, vehicle culture WILL die, but Americans are likely to blame ANYTHING but declining resources. Consider, that this vehicle culture is dependent on Saudi Arabian oil, from which we get about 30% of our oil. Should the Saudi Royal family fall, that is IT for American car culture, which is why we spend more on "Defence" than all the other countries of the world combined. Which war machine will be the death of American car culture too, but hardly anyone want's to face that either.

What we should be doing is to treat as much land in and around the cities with bio-intensive, permaculture farming practises. It should be all about food, not more Energy, more Tech, more Science. But that won't happen as long as the conversation is filled with more lies about what we face.

Instead, we are most likely to pour all of the remaining resources in destroying the abundance of the earth.  :'(

Offline widgeon

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2013, 06:10:27 PM »
Thing is, I really do believe that it is possible (thermodynamically) for us live a very nice quality of life on 20% of the energy we use now (in rough numbers).  It would require a alot of sharing and quality muscle work - maybe along the line of an early 1800's lifestyle (and don't go on some tangent about slavery with that) except with some better aspects from "modern" medicine, etc. (like availability of anti-biotics).  If "we" could make that choice, it could be done.  I know it won't be ... we'll pillage till the last drop is wrung from the ground or we expire from Climate Change induced starvation and exposure.


Offline monsta666

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2013, 06:47:20 PM »
If these people were Leaders, they would be honest with Americans about car culture. But they are not Leaders, they are managers of the Status Quo. The entire land of American culture is dependent on moving vehicles around quickly. Like widgeon said, there is no fuel source to fill the void of declining oil, to move vehicles. People talk a lot about electrical vehicles, but electricity is generated mostly by natural gas and coal, which if we were to change to EV, ramp up biosphere destruction and climate change exponentially. Which as soon as they start using natural gas widely for vehicles, we will see an immediate scarcity of natural gas. Coal won't fill that void, but that won't stop them from trying. The same goes for Nuclear. Wind is a joke if you think that is going to fill that void.

When writing my various energy articles I found that 10-20% of an average vehicles lifetime energy consumption comes from the construction of the vehicle itself. Furthermore the construction of a battery of an EV is not only energy intensive but contains many rare earth metals and environmentally hazardous materials. In addition most of the benefits of the EV are negated by the fact people want the EV to accelerate quickly, have a nice top speed and be heavy so as to be safe. Those factors all cut down on the ultimate range and it is telling that despite the vast efficiency gains made in battery technology over the last century the range of EV's has not increased because all the efficiencies have been offset with making the cars heavier and faster than previous generations. These energy intensive issues are only made worse if people demand faster charging EV's as more fast chargers means more power stations must be made on account of the larger peak demand for electricity when all those cars would be charging.

To make matters worse the associated infrastructure to make cars viable (roads, bridges etc) is also highly energy intensive and these costs cannot really be reduced no matter what power source you use to power your automobile. At the end of the day transport via automobile is just not a very efficient means of travelling as you are transporting each person in over a ton of metal which takes a hell of a lot of energy to produce. People take for granted the amount of energy it takes to smelt metals because of the abundance of fossil fuels but just remember before we had fossil fuels we burnt whole forests just to procure a tiny fraction of the metals we use today. If there is a viable or more sustainable means of transportation it is not through cars but some mix of rail transport coupled with making such trains/trams travel slowly as low speed is a great way to increase efficiency (it is just that this form of efficiency gain is not a popular method as modern society dictates everything must be stronger and faster). 

I can understand how some people say that they require cars especially if they live in the countryside. But even this does not negate the fact this form of transport is not sustainable at all. People can only adapt to the reality and not argue to try and sustain the unsustainable. I would even go further and state that the train/tram solution I offered is not sustainable in the long-run either but perhaps that form of transport could buy us enough time to turn back to horses or other older forms of transport which are more sustainable. People got to accept the fact we will have to travel slower and less often.

Offline monsta666

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2013, 07:00:28 PM »
*Sigh*  Sometimes I wish some hacker could access the Television waves and let the people know what is REALLY going on, here.

Unfortunately even if a hacker could hijack a high profile event and spread the word it is likely they would just be lampooned by the media and later by the public. Just remember it is easy to lie to someone if the person wants to be lied to. The public want to believe the media's lies so they will easily believe it, at the same time they will quickly reject any contrary idea especially if they are given some encouragement from the media. It does not help either that people are so heavily invested in the current status quo. The only thing that COULD change things is if a figure of substantial authority such as Obama publicly addressed and acknowledged the existence of peak oil. But even that does not have guarantees; Carter tried to be honest to the public and people kicked him out of office and voted for Reagan.

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2013, 07:13:13 PM »
Quote
People got to accept the fact we will have to travel slower and less often.

Most definitely, electric cars are not the answer, cutting your driving by 50% and traveling at 50 mph are the answer. It would also be a boon for the environment.

Despite their whining and bull shit I know of no one that can't perform the above with some serious effort, planning, and desire to do so. That includes rural workers. Public transportation, car pooling, driving slowly are all available to most of them too.

We will witness what conservation is Really all about when the truth of finite energy resources expresses it self with sharply rising prices, better to get accustomed now.   

Offline WHD

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
    • View Profile
Re: From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2013, 07:59:25 PM »
Thing is, I really do believe that it is possible (thermodynamically) for us live a very nice quality of life on 20% of the energy we use now (in rough numbers).  It would require a alot of sharing and quality muscle work - maybe along the line of an early 1800's lifestyle (and don't go on some tangent about slavery with that) except with some better aspects from "modern" medicine, etc. (like availability of anti-biotics).  If "we" could make that choice, it could be done.  I know it won't be ... we'll pillage till the last drop is wrung from the ground or we expire from Climate Change induced starvation and exposure.

Spot on, widgeon!

I myself would be quite happy living much of the remainder of my life, in a remote Foxstead with fellow Diners, on 20% or less of the fossil fuel energy we use today. But consider even the so called "Liberty" movement here in America, who are aware for the most part of the Elite who rule this land, but who on the whole, lead by the likes of Brandon Smith at Alt-Market, and the folks at PrisonPlanet.com, who think that the elite are the only thing standing in the way of happy motoring for eternity. If they don't get the reality of declining resources, hardly anyone in the world does, outside of the PEAK community. So yeah, no doubt, humanity will burn fossil fuels and nuclear until either the economy, or climate change, or WWIII, or the sun knocking out the grid, or some damn comet kills most of us off, or some other stupidity from humans ends this madness. A sad deal.  :(

But enjoy it while you can. And be a seed for a better Aeon, if you can.    :icon_mrgreen:

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2013, 08:18:39 PM »
Quote
So yeah, no doubt, humanity will burn fossil fuels and nuclear until either the economy, or climate change, or WWIII, or the sun knocking out the grid, or some damn comet kills most of us off, or some other stupidity from humans ends this madness. A sad deal.  :(

You are most likely correct gents, that is no doubt the path we are on.

The only hope that I have for a different scenario is a violent sudden price hike in oil prices due to the absurd amount of usage and waste that results in a forced sharp decrease in usage and EXTREME conservation. I am not talking five dollar gasoline but fifteen or twenty and the resultant huge increase in all power costs like electricity from it. There would be severe economic problems brought about by it, but I think they can be overcome with time. If it happened it would a big plus for the environment, extend the future a bit, and likewise be healthy for most. A long shot for sure but possible.

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: From the White House: The Energy Security Trust?
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2013, 08:51:07 PM »
"When writing my various energy articles I found that 10-20% of an average vehicles lifetime energy consumption comes from the construction of the vehicle itself."

Is that assuming the vehicle has the lifespan of today's planned obsolescence? Because vehicles, electric or not, could be designed to last much longer. Part of the waste there is because it has been a better business model for companies to make cars that die as soon as they are paid for.

Ultimately, energy is energy to build cars, ..and it takes massive energy to drive and to live like many of us live. But it looks like we jumped off a cliff some time ago, and that we will be thrust into a much lower level of consumption before long. Whether or not we suddenly become more enlightened and voluntarily make what we might perceive as noble changes in our lifestyle is fairly irrelevant. The process is self-limiting. The thing is, when change is thrust upon us, will we be able to adapt? Got to have that action plan figured out at the least.

What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
415 Views
Last post April 08, 2015, 01:24:48 PM
by azozeo
0 Replies
465 Views
Last post September 23, 2016, 12:40:16 AM
by Palloy
0 Replies
215 Views
Last post October 03, 2017, 06:11:25 PM
by azozeo