The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack.”
—George Monbiot
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- Russia: There Is Life After Peak Oil
- Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
- Oilwatch Monthly - August 2008
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Aniya:
I have to grin since lots of my proposals and papers begin, these days, with comments about the problems of future energy supply - which I then tie into the relevance about the subject I am writing about - which may superficially not be related. I am, in short, becoming quite a bore on the subject.
The main problem I was trying to decry is the system inertia that will now occupy the body politic for the next three years, minimizing the willingness of industry to make an investment now since they don't know how the election will turn out - so from that point of view it is not really the candidate that can do much about it. Unless, that is there was broad political agreement say that whoever got in would put a CTL plant in Montana, or accept a nuclear reactor in Manhattan or whatever.
I would like to see a significantly greater investment in relatively novel ideas for addressing the energy imbalance, and this would include programs to stress conservation as well as broader funding for innovation - no matter, in the first go round, if it does not initially meet the approval of "the man who Knows." The problem is big enough that we can afford to fund a few blind alleys, just in case some of them aren't quite that blind.
And the reference to the travel etc related to the scale of the impact that is likely to come about as travel prices rise, since so many "discretionary" industries will become vulnerable.
HO,
First, nice post. I agree with you and GreyZone that we have a focus problem not a technical problem.
In my simplistic mind I have boiled this down to the inability to craft a viable business plan based on using less. Less of anything, but particularly less energy.
How does one get funding for launching projects with the defined goal of ultimately using less than the existing infrastructure. Why would a bank or government fund it? There is more return in the status quo system. Until the system of lending money (to get more money returned) breaks, we won't use money to build infrastructure that consumes less energy.
It not about being efficient with energy or food. It is about being efficient with money. What is the best way to multiply it? I don't see that model having a lot to do with using less.
Hi NC,
I appreciate your comments, which I'd like to understand a little better.
1) re: "In my simplistic mind I have boiled this down to the inability to craft a viable business plan based on using less. Less of anything, but particularly less energy."
Well, for sure, we can say: given no change, on the global scale, "we" are (in global total from all sources, already? not sure) (or will be soon) using less energy.
However, it seems that regarding what appears to be (on the technology side of things) - the "need" to expand the renewable wedge for the predicted shrink of the FF wedge in HO's article...
This isn't exactly "less" in every framework.
To expand the renewable wedge is "more".
So, part one is: If we stop building roads tomorrow, and start putting in wind farms - do you mean...no business plan that does not count on re-directed tax revenue and/or subsidies?
And part two: If renewable energy technologies are manufactured, this means (perhaps) electricity will (still) be available, hence the infrastructure that uses electricity presumably can still use it.
Yes? No? Maybe?
2) What am I missing? In other words, yes, on the large scale - less energy. However, for any particular piece of it - I'm not so sure. How would you address this?
3) Someone has written previously with the example of Starbucks, along the lines (to put it in my own words), some times the material component of a price is very small - it's a kind of tokenism, really, not reflecting the material of the product.
So, for example, if every coffee customer brought in his/her own cup...? Don't know what this might do to the arrangements, in terms of money flow. Also, strictly speaking, in terms of energy, if each cup is washed by the user. Still...?
4) Of course, the rationale for the "ultimate goal" part is - do with less or do without altogether. We each have our personal preferences, which may make the problem seem intractable. Still, there are some "goods" people can agree on. Maybe - ?