As passengers on the Titanic were headed for the lifeboats, I wonder how many were debating politics. . . Peak Oil makes strange bedfellows. Interesting change for Boone, who has stopped contributing to partisan political programs, like the Swift Boat ads that he helped fund in 2004.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/071908...
Pickens, Democrats agree in calling for alternative fuels

WASHINGTON – T. Boone Pickens says he's ready to give up partisan politics if it means weaning the country off foreign oil. . . As Democrats struggle to address high gasoline prices without opening more wilderness and coastlines to oil companies, Mr. Pickens offers a valuable partnership: a certified oil industry icon who says the country can't drill its way out of the energy crisis. "I can be most effective as a nonpartisan, and I think the Democrats know me to be an honorable person," Mr. Pickens said Friday, adding that he's talked to Al Gore and the two agreed on "95 percent of what we talked about."

. . . Mr. Pickens will appear next month in Las Vegas with several famous Democrats, including former President Clinton and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, at an energy summit hosted by Mr. Reid and the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

It's all about the MONEY.

Now that his business model has changed, he stands to get more help from the Dems.

Probably true to some degree, but at age 80, having made more money since he turned 70 than his cumulative income prior to 70, I think that he is primarily motivated by his concern for the future of the country. In any case, from the linked article:

The ideas align perfectly with his business ventures, which appears to make Democrats enthusiastic – not cynical – about his pitch. "If Pickens can show it's very profitable, that's a very important point," said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

"That will help steer investors toward those kinds of investments."

T. Boone Pickens is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Most oilmen, especially the old-timers, know that solar and wind will deliver about as much real energy as a cigarette lighter where energy is needed, that is in transportation.

The idea of using solar power to generate electric power in order to free up natural gas for transportation begins to look like Rube Goldberg, especially because the energy used in developing solar and wind would consume enormous amounts of oil and drive up the price of oil even higher.....hmmmmmmmmm.

Kind o makes me wonder what is goin on here??? :)

What if the real goal isn't to fuel cars, but to make some money while hopefully preventing the meltdown of the economy due to massive energy shortages overall?

For the American populace, saying "Gas prices are too high. Tell ya what, I'll invest a billion bucks to give you cheap electricity, and that'll free up some natural gas for car use, and that will drive down fuel costs nationwide" seems pretty upbeat and palatable.

If you say, "Over the next five years you will become unable to afford to drive your car, the nation's wealth will be sapped to pay to heat the NE during the winter, and then we'll all freeze together once that too is gone. But if we build my wind farm, you can keep your cars for another few years and then heat your house for a while after that while we work like hell to come up with something else" it just doesn't sound as good.

Coupling wind and CNG is just marketing -- the real point is building wind energy production at a profit. Everything else is spin or candy-coating.

But from what I've read numerous times here on the Oil Drum, is that we are likely to experience SERIOUS problems with Peak Natural Gas in the next few years. So just how realistic is this whole idea on any even medium-term basis?

Antoinetta III

Antoinetta III, you are right, of course.

I don't understand what you are so het up about.
Of course gas is going to get too expensive to use for transport for most people.
Keeping electricity up is a very good idea, we all need (like) fridges and washing machines and computers and more. Keeping the grid up and running any which way is smart. Going completely renewable (wind, solar and muscle) is even smarter.
It might even be possible to keep a few threads of our interconnected cultures alive...

What else is there to do? Wind is still one of the best choices. If transportation collapses, that is very bad, if the grid goes with it.....
And of course electric rail is the best choice for transportation .

I agree 100%. It doesn't matter what the marketing spin is, in the end if you get wind supply built, it's a net positive.

Consider the converse, what is the downside of building Picket's Plan? That an old man might make some money? Is there any other significant negative consequence?

Actually, you want the most money to be made by old people. You get a faster return on your investment through the higher rate of the estate tax vs. income tax.

Most oilmen, especially the old-timers, know that solar and wind will deliver about as much real energy as a cigarette lighter where energy is needed, that is in transportation.

Based on this real world comparison done by the Japan EV Club, usiing a Mitsubishi i MiEV and a Subaru R1e, the electric cars covered the journey using electricity generated by one sixth of the FF energy required by a typical Japanese gasoline car. Given a likely bias from the source, let's cut that advantage in half, to a third. Still a big gain in my book. Is it possible that, electrified transport will only require as much energy as a cigarette lighter?

Alan from the islands

Actually, I was a little disappointed by the Japanese numbers. They used about 160 watt/hours per mile. AC Propulsion and Solectria were putting up better numbers in the 1990s. But Hokkaido is pretty rough country; maybe there were a lot of hills on the route.

We've got to get it under 100 watt/hours per mile if we're going to put out affordable electric cars. The math says it's possible.

Damn right it's possible! After just about 100 years of tweaking and massaging the ICE, with millions of dollars spent on research and development, we're still stuck at about 30% maximum efficiency. No amount of electronically controlled ignition, fuel injection, variable valve timing, variable length intake manifolds, supercharging, turbocharging or (insert favorite technology here), has been able to get past the theoretical limit of efficiency set by the laws of thermodynamics.

On the other hand, electric drive trains, batteries and electronic systems have theoretical efficiencies that can exceed 80%. What will the efficiency of a typical battery electric vehicle be, after 50 years of R&D at the level that has been devoted to the ICE?

Alan from the islands

Not a direct thermodynamic limit per se, but a limitation of materials. You can make the heat to work conversion efficiency as high as you like by increasing the temperature at the hot end of the cycle.

The basic problem is that we don't have a (cheap) material that can take high temperatures while maintaining good mechanical strength and manufacturability. Metals have an upper operating temperature of about 1000oC give or take a couple of hundred, and that is what results in the thermodynamic efficiency of about 30%.

Ceramics take higher temperatures but are much harder to manufacture machine parts from and have crap tensile strength.

Hey Island boy,

Lets talk about moving real 18 wheel trucks, instead of little Japanese toys.

Okay, since you asked:

Brown Goes Green: UPS adds 50 new HEV trucks to delivery fleet

In case you think that's hot air, this one ain't no freakin hybrid

Brown goes green in NYC: Full-sized UPS EV truck

Neither is this one from the city of London

Modec truck looks great in UPS brown

For a little balance

FedEx puts 2 million miles on hybrid trucks, adds 75 more

Let's look at something a little heavier, the one in the background

Confirmed: Smith electric to build the Ampere and the Faraday II

Unfortunately you may not be seeing the above stateside

Bad economy prompts Smith Electric vehicles to curtail expansion

If you're gonna pick on a Prius, make sure his bigger Japanese cousin isn't around

Mitsubishi Fuso's new Green Truck

How about a real heavy duty hybrid

Volvo revving up its trucks with heavy-duty hybrid drivetrains

Here's a couple of hybrids from closer to home

Peterbilt shows off medium-duty hybrid truck
Eaton confirms order from Coke for 120 hybrid trucks
Peterbilt, Eaton and Wal-Mart partner on diesel-electric hybrid truck

Now, "about moving real 18 wheel trucks"

Heavy duty (really heavy duty) electric truck in use at LA port

All the above are not vaporware but actual working trucks, albeit most of them are being evaluated. They were all found by searching just one web site, Autobloggreen.com.

A google search for "electric truck reminded me that some of the biggest beasts of them all, the giant earth movers, have always been diesel electric hybrids. It was actually easier to use electric motors to transfer the huge amounts of power to the wheels, than to use a mechanical transmission. Many of the "stradle carriers" used in container terminals around the world to shuffle the containers around, are diesel electric hybrids as well.

With diesel fuel getting more expensive and in some places impossible to get, while batteries are likely to get better and less expensive, making the leap from diesel electric to battery electric doesn't seem too far fetched. This is certainly applicanle for short haul trips within a city or from a rail line to a factory or distribution center.

Alan from the islands

Alan - thanks for the links. You have enough material there for a guest post on this important topic - shoot an email to the editors box or nate@theoildrum.com if interested.

Just like I said, no 18 wheelers for long haul.

And what is the source of electric power -- 50% from dirty coal, 20% from natural gas, some from nuclear and oil.

And a 50% plus loss of fossil energy in power generation.

Then some loss in power transmission.

Then a 25% loss in the batteries.

Sounds to me like a lot of waste of fossil energy to get electric energy.

And what about the infrastructure for all of the electric economy, there are not even any plans for how to do all of it, and it would be trillions of dollars of infrastructure for the thousands of miles of highway.

Big capital costs in change over that will not be made in today's global bankrupt economy.

Seems like you solar folks are talking about what you dream about, rather than what is real.

And in so doing the above you are not looking at reality, the end of oil and time for risk management. We are moving at 100 MPH and the end of the tracks is just ahead, and you can't see it as you dream of what can never be.

This site is full of MEN, mostly MEN from the richest and most affluent societies on earth, who are obsessed with trying to invent technofixes to keeping things economic growth going, rather than careful analysis, which indicates that we have lost the battle with nature and can't keep this economy on the same path of everyone thinking they can have all the material possessions they want.

We've mostly used up our one time endowment of oil, and now you are grasping at straws, like solar and wind, which give us electric power, which we will have a surplus of when the factories, plazas, and airports shut down, this is happening today.

What will you do with spare electric power?

We have met the enemy and it is us, and ideologies and cultures of affluence, arrogance, and greed.

When the highways and power grid go out, so too will your solar toys.

What will you do with spare electric power?

Steel, aluminium, titanium, carbon fibres, cast metals, machined metals, hydrogen for fertilizer fuel and other chemistry, streetlights on bicycle paths, power plug-in hybrids, space heating via heat pumps, wooden furniture, power railways, semiconductors, solar cells, xmas lights, etc, etc.

In economic depression (coming to a movie theater near you soon) we will have spare electric power, more than is needed to do what you have above, and what do you do with it, can't store it or eat it. Hydrogen for fertilizer, not much of that being done. Power railways, nice idea, but we have few and no $$$ to build more. Sorry :(

Lets talk about moving real 18 wheel trucks, instead of little Japanese toys.

Just like I said, no 18 wheelers for long haul.

Huh? I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the work of Alan Drake. Just in case you missed it, he advocates the rapid build out of electrified rail for long distance freight haulage to replace big rigs and passenger transport to replace air travel. If trains are doing the longer distance haulage, electric and hybrid trucks could take care of the last miles.

Oh, and those Japanese toys would come in mighty handy for 10km trips to your nearest Walmart when it's raining down there in Mexico, assuming you've got enough wind and solar to charge one. At 86kWh for 859km or 10km/kWh, I'd guess about 5kW of solar PV should be sufficient to keep one micro EV in a sufficient state of charge and have some left over to run a small fridge, a computer, a radio and a few CFLs. If you've got good wind, you could buy a large fridge or set up a solar powered absorption chiller and become the local cold storage guy.

Alan from the islands

"He advocates the rapid build out of electrified rail for long distance freight haulage to replace big rigs and passenger transport
to replace air travel. If trains are doing the longer distance haulage, electric and hybrid trucks could take care of the last miles."

Advocating one thing, actually doing it is another. And where is the capital for this trillion dollar adjustment going to from when oil is $200, then $500, then $5,000 per barrel.???????????

I advocate the we should scrap the global consumer economy immediately, idle all cars, close all of the malls, stop eating packaged foors, stop drinking sodas, beer and wine, and get serious about using the remaining oil for survival.

Unfortunately, 99.99999999 percent of the people are laughing at my proposals.

And I am not giving up drinking red zinfandel wine!

I can see curtailing all automotive travel, but stopping all beer drinking - the State of Texas would NEVER go for that.Be careful CJ you might start another revolution with your proposals.

A missive from two years ago:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/14606
Open letter to Texas newspapers about peak oil: 'Why aren’t you listening?'
by Jeffrey J. Brown
April 2, 2006

Mr. Rainwater was profiled in the 12/14/05 issue of Fortune Magazine, “The Rainwater Prophecy.” Mr. Rainwater is deeply concerned about Peak Oil. In the article, Mr. Rainwater said, “This is the first scenario I’ve seen where I question the survivability of mankind.” Mr. Rainwater first became concerned about Peak Oil after reading “The Long Emergency” by James Howard Kunstler. . .

On November 1, 2005 the Greater Dallas Planning Council and the Southern Methodist University Environmental Sciences Department cosponsored a symposium featuring Mr. Kunstler and Matthew R. Simmons entitled “The Unfolding Energy Crisis and its Impact on Development Patterns.” Mr. Pickens, via BP Capital, was one of the lead underwriters of the event. . . . Mr. Pickens has publicly stated that he believes that the world is at peak oil production. Mr. Pickens has publicly suggested increasing the gasoline tax, in an attempt to reduce oil consumption, with offsetting tax cuts elsewhere.

I certainly don’t speak for either Richard Rainwater or Boone Pickens, but my impression of these two gentlemen--along with Matt Simmons and Jim Kunstler--is that they are American patriots, in the truest sense of the word, who are trying to warn their fellow Americans about the dangers posed by Peak Oil.

BTW, I proposed, and helped organize, the 11/1/05 event in Dallas, which brought Matt Simmons, Jim Kunstler and Boone Pickens together in one room, and the sole local media coverage was the SMU student newspaper.

I'm happy they appeared together. They are all human beings, all Americans, all probably family men -- at some level, all can find themselves in agreement with each other.

However, not everyone is ready yet to go where they seem to be going -- our local radio mouth was droning on yesterday how Obama and Gore are "anti-American" because part of their proposals involve changing our mode of transportation and our expectations for ever increasing amounts of stuff.

In the end, it isn't the survival of the human species that is so much at risk-- human beings can adapt to almost any Earth climate and geography -- but the survival of a particular high-energy, highly complex civilization, Western Industrial, or whatever you want to call it.

Then the question becomes, what part of that culture is worth saving, and who is going to decide what is to be saved and what is to be discarded? Do we need a White Knights to make the hard choices and tell us what to do, or can we more democratically build an improved culture from the ground up -- by individuals consciously making better choices?

Or do we just sit back and wait for the Invisible Hand of the marketplace work its wonders by default? The default option will certainly work, but it doesn't quite seem the best choice to me.

I don't think many 80 year old think too much about money. However, it is true that any businessman knows that for a project to be successful, it needs to be profitable. If I had a $1B to spend, would I give it away to charity, to be spent piece-meal to address immediate needs, or would I undertake a high-profile, high-risk project to set the world on a new course? Gates and Buffet went with the former, Pickens with the latter. I can't fault any of them, as they are still putting money with their words.

For wind to grow massively, as it must, there must be economies of scale coupled with overall profitability. If you had a choice of many projects to be a nation-leading pilot-project, wouldn't it only make sense to pick one that had a high likelihood of success, and then to work to ensure its success? Sure you would. And how do you make a major project successful? You market it -- to consumers (Picken's Plan website), to the media, and to local movers and shakers. In local politics, that means lobbying for favor and spending money to slant things your way. After all, you can be sure there is somebody sitting on a fair number of oil wells who has just been waiting for peak oil before they start pumping, and they're going to be doing their best to keep BAU.

To me, it's simple: oil is a dead-end. Wind and solar are the future. Any major wind project, however it's funded, marketed, or profited by, is still a good thing. This particular project appears to have a higher private-funding fraction than most energy projects, so let's get behind it and make it successful so other projects will follow.

Ask yourself, who will benefit if the Picken's project fails?

I don't think many 80 year old think too much about money.

That all depends. My 80-year-old grandparents thought about money all the time. That's because they didn't have much, and had to be very careful with the money they spent.

"don't think many 80 year old think too much about money."

That's just crazy.

My Uncle, Dad, and Father in Law are cited as case examples.

And if they're not thinking about money, then Power.

And I'm wondering why Big Oil is not concerned about that
increasing Low Pressure Depression SSE of Jamaica forecast to be in the GOM Monday.

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/carb/loop-wv.html

US HAZARDS ASSESSMENT
NWS CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER CAMP SPRINGS MD
300 PM EDT JULY 18 2008

SYNOPSIS: A TROPICAL DISTURBANCE CURRENTLY IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SEA IS EXPECTED TO MAKE ITS WAY NORTH AND WEST TOWARDS EXTREME NORTHERN MEXICO AND SOUTHERN TEXAS. DESPITE THE UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDING THE FORECAST INTENSITY OF THIS SYSTEM, RECENT MODELS HAVE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT IN ITS TRACK. THUS, THERE IS A LEVEL OF CERTAINTY WITH A FORECAST OF HEAVY RAIN FOR SOUTHERN TEXAS, WHICH COULD PROVIDE SOME DROUGHT RELIEF. IN ADDITION, SIGNIFICANT PRECIPITATION IS EXPECTED FROM THE GREAT LAKES INTO NEW ENGLAND DURING THIS ASSESSMENT PERIOD. AT THIS TIME, LARGE SCALE FLOODING IS NOT EXPECTED, ALTHOUGH ISOLATED HEAVY RAIN AND SEVERE WEATHER IS POSSIBLE. THE DROUGHT REGIONS ARE EXPECTED TO REMAIN, ALTHOUGH RELIEF IS POSSIBLE IN THE SOUTHEAST. DUE TO A VERY ACTIVE MONSOON, RELIEF IS ALSO POSSIBLE IN THE SOUTHWEST.

Make that Two Uncles, a Dad, and a Father in Law- 8D

On the 16 July DrumBeat, I pointed to a mini tropical mess over Florida. It exhibited lots of circulation and the tight circulation on the radar image looked much like a hurricane. As it drifted towards the East, both NOAA and NWS let it drop off their area of concern. Well, this afternoon, the thing has popped up again off the coast of South Carolina. It even has been given a new designation, 03L. The disturbance is beginning to look like a real tropical storm, as it picks up steam (literally) over the Florida Current. Just a reminder that the O.C.S. off the Eastern U.S. is another spot likely to expierence hurricanes, etc.

E. Swanson

Everybody wants some money, a few people want power, but most people want recognition and respect, and to attain whatever their personal definition of success might be. I doubt for TBP it's money or power either one, but I don't know the man.

I think most of us wish we were better compensated for doing what we already do, but we're unwilling to change what we do to become better compensated. Perhaps that means that a good bit of our compensation is liking what already do, or fearing change too much to bother upsetting the status quo. Excuses are easier to make than changes.

I don't think many Very Rich 80 year olds think too much about money.

Paying the bills this month is certainly not an issue for T. Boone,

Alan

No, but if it's what you've always done, it doesn't mean you stop just because you have too much or get older. It's a game for those who do it. I'm not willing to assess his motivations, and probably none of us actually know them. But often we don't even realize our own motivations for some of our actions if we don't sit back and analyze them.

As they say, money isn't a problem, unless you don't have any.

I think he is most likely motivated by his legacy. And I don't know much about his children and grandchildren..but probably something there too with leaving them something. He touts his cause as noble...I tend to believe him...but no doubt his motives are multiple.

I have read somewhat scandalous reports about Pickens wind project, which is wolf in sheeps clothing ...or as some say putting lipstick on the pig to get his water company revenues:

http://earth2tech.com/2008/06/20/t-boone-pickens-taps-water-wind-for-lan...

Having dealt with many billionaires in my prior job(s), I assure you that he is motivated by the competition, the comparisons with his peers, and being right. The common denominator of these is a surge of dopamine vs a baseline.

I agree. Like the Donald says, "Money's just a way of keeping score."

My personal sample set is just two, but they would fit your description.

I know several multi-millionaires that get off on just getting good things done, though, too.

Never met a billionaire, but I expect the drive that got them there doesn't just switch off.

Plus, "Pickens has five children and twelve grandchildren", says Wikipedia, which may also be a factor, although surely 3 billion / 17 is enough to get through college?

After hydrogen, solar and wind are the biggest scams in the alternative energy area. Solar and wind yield electric power, which is not what will move 18 wheelers, tractors/combines, trains, buses, ships, airplanes, much mining equipment.

18 wheelers -- these can go away (and gladly so) in favor of Alan's electric trains.

tractors -- no great solution here, but any liquid fuel (even CNG) or batteries could work to an extent. For that matter, run them on power cables -- the irrigators go in nice big circles, and the tractors could too. Just not the way we do it now.

trains - Electricity works fine for this. Just ask Alan.

buses - first hybrid, then either battery or electrified trolley car or tram. Nothing fundamental about buses, but a switchover will be expensive.

ships - wind is the last resort (it worked for 3000 years or more). Coal and oil, in ever-more-costly form, will work for a long time if that's all that's left. Biofuel would work for this too. Nuke will work, but it's expensive (just ask the Navy!).

airplanes - these are toast. What is left will have to pay the premium for what's left of oil, or biofuel. This is where a negative EROEI isn't necessarily infeasible, just expensive.

mining - underground mining could use electrified rail and electric diggers (heck, it might now for all I know). Strip mining could move to gas or electric with cables, with electric conveyors and rail for transport out of the mine. Again, hard and expensive, but not nonviable, I think.

My take is that if we can have ENOUGH energy at a decent cost point, we can solve the energy conversion issue.

There are plug-in hybrid buses that are already deployed in the US. In some cities (Seatlle), the buses use electricity (overhead tran wires) when in the city and shut off their diesel engine.

It is really difficult to get a reality check on this energy thing when we are trapped in "irrational exuberence".

"18 wheelers- these can gladly go away, ships - wind...it worked for 3,000 years...airplanes - these are toast...trains - electricity works fine...etc."

Let's all get in the way-back machine to the days when wind power worked for boats. In the meantime what do we do with the extra 6 billion people?

I'm actually pretty doomerish, but I don't at all buy that we should sit and wait vs doing all we can to change the outcome. Watching and waiting is one more flavor of BAU.

Trucks CAN go away, though, as can airplanes. It will hurt economically, but fundamentally those modes add a speed value for transport (the time is money part of the equation) rather than transport itself.

The economy WILL optimize for higher energy, and there was a time not too long ago when barge and rail was a much bigger fraction of shipping and trucking was a lot less. 1950 wasn't the dark ages.

I know there is value in painting a bleak picture to get people's attention, but the intention must be to encourage production change. Depression is valueless, while apprehension can be channeled, and knowledge IS power.

We cannot say "none of these options is good enough, so let's get the dying started". We have to look at the options, and pick at least the top handful to undertake as best we can. Chances are some will not work out, but some will do better than expected.

And when it comes to the extra 6 billion, my goal is that my family is not part of the excess. Rational self-interest is a powerful force.

If you look at the current paradigm and you arrive intelligently at the conclusion that a collapse is imminent, why would it be a good use of resources and attention to try and prevent that collapse? The current system is built upon the premise of cheap energy. Cheap energy is over. Why wage a futile struggle to try and reform a system that is ultimately unreformable?

Collapse is not the end of the world but a real opportunity for change. Wouldn't it be a better course of action to prepare for that collapse in ways that will help people adapt to that change?

To me, collapse with a subsequent stable reality is merely change managed poorly.

If a system is not reformable, it must be so because the people that compose it are nor reformable, and that is the postulate I hope to refute.

With vision, leadership, and motivation, a population can accomplish amazing things. Maybe the majority will change course, or maybe not, but even a decent minority can drive significant change.

Again, collapse may occur, but why wait to see? Let's endeavor to change NOW to a sustainable target (however meager it may be) and if we fail and our society collapses, what harm have we done?

To strive mightily and fail is no dishonor, if the goal is just. To stand inactive in the face of impending collapse is at best lazy, and at worst evil.

As I write this here in my office in Huntsville, AL, I can see the Space Center with its Saturn V relic. If ever there was a testament to man's ambition and ability, that is it.

I am not a cornucopian, but I do believe in the power of concerted effort. The Saturn program did not succeed because of 100,000 talented engineers, but because of 100,000,000 people who supported the effort. I guarantee that the vast majority of the current populace can understand priorities and will struggle and sacrifice as required to maintain their civilization, even if they're absent-mindedly sitting at Starbucks slamming the US and self-flagellating their lifestyle today.

Maybe we can't fix everything, and maybe we can't save everybody (heck, we fail miserably at that already!), but hopefully we can make things better. We can't wait for anybody else to rescue us -- sacrifice -- including hard work -- always best starts at home!

To stand inactive in the face of impending collapse is at best lazy, and at worst evil.

I am in no way advocating standing idly by. Instead I choose to support alternative systems (permaculture, local communities, downsizing) rather than wasting precious resources maintaining a civilization that has promised "endless prosperity" in the form of consumerism. IMO that is a dead-end. If all you want is to keep the cars and trucks moving, globalization and maintain the suburban wasteland you can count me out.

If I talk to people about sustainable economics they think I mean "buy a Prius". When I tell them it involves riding a bike and growing their own food they immediately tune me out.

Maybe we are more in agreement except for terminology and magnitude. If by "collapse" you mean the current system goes away, I can agree. If you mean "it goes away in a week or two, people riot by the millions and die from pestilence and starvation by the 10's of millions", then I can't accept it.

Certainly there is a gulf of understanding that has to be crossed, but for most it will need to be in steps. Many people just do what the other people they know do -- they drive their SUV full of kids from their big house in the suburbs to their private school in the city and complain about the cost of gas while running errands and hauling kids to events because that's what they do.

Those people are not going to immediately and happily give up their lifestyle, but they will make incremental changes, and they will do it enthusiastically if appropriately motivated. Certainly a Prius is much better than the SUV, and you're seeing a lot of those these days -- that buys us a few more precious days of time. Everybody will have a garden when it's "OK" in their social circle to do so, and the first go-round they'll spend too much money and get little out of it, but eventually as it becomes cool to be I-NPK savvy all the soccer moms will be able to grow organic produce in their back yards just as well as they can tend exotic plants in the front yards today.

Most parents don't shuttle their kids to private schools or live in expensive suburban neighborhoods because they really LIKE big mortgages and lots of driving, but because that's where the good schools are, and they want their kids to be well-taught, well-behaved, and successful. Today the money flows to the best schools and out of the worst ones in a nasty decaying spiral. To fix this you have to be able to drive the worst elements out of the mediocre schools, and with the current social structures when that happens people will cry racism and class warfare. Regardless, as gas becomes short you'll have upper-middle-class kids going to neighborhood schools (public or private) and more local activities and fewer drives cross-town.

At the point where most people don't NEED to drive cars, the kids are already on a bus or walking to school, and grocery-shopping is a once-a-week again, biking will become an option that people will consider. The same people will still be willing to work and sacrifice to give their children the best possible, just they'll be doing it a different way. At that point a move to a smaller, more affordable house (utility bills will be extraordinary by then), at most one car, and more localized life will be a social upgrade -- then they'll be with all the other people just like them again (or still).

People like you are a decade ahead of the curve. Maybe I'm one year ahead, and maybe my wife is a year behind, but we're getting there. It's gotta be frustrating being the visionary and path finder, but really, would you want it any other way?

I am very happy to be able to long term influence local environmental policies etc to make the local society more sustainable, efficient and able to produce a lot more of usefull stuff for a post peak oil world.

Its not hopeless since so much already have been done, manny things are being done and being an curious engineer kind of person I know about hundreds of good ideas. I know that we dont have to be withouth electricity, nitrous fertlizer, gas and oil for chainsaws, fuel for local logistics, heat for the district heating systems and so on.

I expect some parts of the current consumption to become too expensive when oil prices go up, avialability go down and hundreds of millions of people work realy hard and enter the middle class and bid up the global prices for clothes, toys, cars, furniture components, etc, etc.

But that is not a scary change when we have lots of electricity, lots of fresh water, well functioning and growing cities and towns, a reasonable and growing rail network, production larger then the local consumption in manny industries that mostly use electricity and local mineral and biological resourcers as feedstock and have world leading know how in a handfull of industrial sectors.

The political system works ok in municipiality and state level and a lot of our politicians actually listen to scientific advice including economical advice and most of our lobby is from production interests and not an oversize legal system. The middle level that mostly run our healthcare is a mess and in realy bad times I expect that average life lenghts will fall by half a year or a year when we no longer can afford the utmost efforts for elderly patients. That will be a tough debate but you can not leave children and people who could regain life quality withouth health care.

Even if we would fall back to 1950:s level of prosperity with much larger houses and way better physical- and telecommunications and toys I expect it to happen in an orderly way with most of the people working realy hard to make it good times in another way then during the epoch of large and noisy.

Post peak oil is like the 60-80:s build to get most of the population to survive the fallout from a small or medium scale thirld world war, the 90:s reformation of the pension system, ongoing work like paying off the state debt and getting rid of the CO2 emissions and barely started work like reforming the levels of government to make the administration more efficient and handling the demographics with an aging population that will cause troubles in the 2020s. We only have to shift focus and apply the same mechanism and to a large degree the same solutions as adaptation is forced by market mechanisms or influenced by politics.

I am quite fond of our political system. Our previous government were socialistic and the then current prime minister made oil independance a prioritized goal. Our current center-right government is using its political capital to tear up and renew parts of the old socialistical systen that do not work. The oil independance efforts are left untouched instead of used for political pot shots and the parts that makes sense commercially or for lowering CO2 emissions are being intensified.

To see government, corporate and private investments constantly increasing in post peak oil relevant areas gives me confidence. I am a lot less worried then I were two year ago and a lot more can be done if investments are made easier and that includes small efforts like micro scale power production and new small scale farmers.

And the closest neighbours to Sweden are run at least as well or better. Other countries could do the same and you do not need such an abundance of physical resources if you have can-do sprit, social capital and a willingness to change. We have to push politically to get people to change and move from handouts to work and you have it in your culture in USA?

And then you looked at infrastructure cost, and the fact this 90% of what you are talking about is not even in the planning stage, and then you woke up.

Yup, and I immediately said, "Boy, it's late. I guess we best get busy planning and figuring out the infrastructure investments".

What better day to start than today?

Who knows, maybe a 10% decline in us driving and a recession in China might buy us a few more years, and we'd start the turbines spinning just about the time the peak manifests, and have Gore's terawatts before Ghawar goes away.

The nice thing about wind power is that the incremental return will start accruing as the first units come on-line. At some not-so-distant point the averted energy cost of oil could fund continuing expansion, with a positive marginal return with each new installation.

The highway system wasn't built all at once -- they built some, and liked it, and built more. It seems like we've built enough turbines (and PV, and thermal solar) to see that we like it. Let's build more.

Again, what else would YOU have us do? Start digging our graves and drawing straws?

Paleocon,

You are right, let's do something without thinking, and let's start today to waste the little bit of oil that we can afford to buy on something, no matter if we waste it on something will give us electric power, which we will have a surplus of in the great depression looming, when all factories and plazas will be closed.

What the fuck, let's just do it!!!

Full steam ahead says Paleocon, who doesn't even know the first thing about the problems ahead.

CJ, I know you've been doing this for a long time, and I'm relatively new. What do YOU think we should do to prevent a mass-suffering collapse? Or to simply mitigate it? All I'm asking for is as optimal plan as possible to use the remaining FF for best future value. I KNOW it's going to be bad, that's the great value of this site so far. But we NEED to change directions, and SOON. Surely we agree on that?

I'm all for thinking and planning, that's why I said "let's start". If we don't start, we won't finish. We might not save everybody, but if we save some, it's still a job well done.

Alan presented one high-level plan. Pickens another. Gore another. It shouldn't be that hard for the millions of sharp people in this country to come up with a reasonable plan -- we do it all the time for all sorts of reasons.

If our oil is spent on any renewable, at least it's not up in smoke in a Suburban. The sooner we spend it on building wind towers or solar cells, the less likely it'll go in somebody's gas tank. How is that bad? How can doing less somehow be better?

Paleocon

The only thing that will have anywhere near any effect addressing the converging issues is a fundamental cultural shift in the developed world.

This would require a "Well Informed Public".

Do you see that in our near future?

If not then get your a$$ in gear setting yourself and your close ones up to be ready.

What does it mean to be ready?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... now there is a good question.

Well informed public? Everybody has the Internet. If they want to know, they can know. It doesn't take 2 days of looking into the cause of high gas prices to figure it out well enough, so I assume most don't want to know. But that doesn't fix things, does it?

Well armed, well provisioned, and well away from the city?

Paleocon -

"...18 wheelers -- these can go away (and gladly so) in favor of Alan's electric trains..."

"...trains - Electricity works fine for this. Just ask Alan..."

Are you suggesting we have an electric train depot behind every wharehouse, department store, grocery store, and restaurant?!
Just where is the money going to come from to finance such an endeavor?
Tractor trailors are the reason you have food on the table every night to feed your bambino's.
I suppose you want to use nuclear power as your energy source for 'Alans electric trains'.
Can we deposit the radioactive waste in your backyard instead of an Indian reservation?

If this is the best we can come up with we're screwed.

Before we had interstates, we didn't have 18 wheelers, or none to speak of. Barge to the docks, rail to the interior, truck to the destination. Local delivery CAN be done lots of ways, including with oil. But we CAN save a lot by getting trucks off the roads. It takes a driver and a 400hp motor for each container, while on a train it takes a handful of engineers and a few thousand hp to pull hundreds.

There USED TO BE trains by every warehouse. There can be again. Sure, it'll be painful and expensive, and there might be shortages. The point is there is still time RIGHT NOW to make such changes, and there are no shortages RIGHT NOW. Local businesses can still be served by local trucks (they're not 18 wheelers now unless they're coming from an interstate distribution center), which can be hybrid or electric. That's just a few years out, if that. Europe doesn't use 18 wheelers for delivery much at all, in the places I've been. Neither does India, and they still have restaurants and shops.

Money is the least issue. If it's creating durable value, it should be a net positive for the economy, since we have people out of work today. We just need to set priorities -- no more road budget, lots of train budget. No more welfare, lots of work. Much less bureaucratic entitlement jobs, much more private industry.

I figure we'll power it with coal/oil/gas/nuke/hydro, with a big shift to wind. It won't be as fast and flexible, but it'll be more efficient, and it will keep us fed.

Besides, there will be enough vestigial US oil for high-value uses (transporting food is high-value, even if there isn't much fertilizer left). Without trucks we won't have 20,000mile salads and South American bananas, but we'll still have corn and wheat.

I think Leanan was talking about nukes, not me, but let's go there. Let's reprocess the waste (forget about proliferation - that cat is out of the bag, just look at Pakistan) and do the Yucca thing for now, and decommission when we have enough wind and solar. This isn't a game with nice-to-haves and wishes, it's survival. Who cares whose back yard it's in, really? Nuke waste is already somewhere, and it's not going away, so 2x or 10x more is just a scaling issue, not a new problem.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, I'm just saying let's get busy and do something that has a decent chance of improving our future. Solar and wind are both decent options, IMHO.

Do you have a better option? Let's hear it. It seems that "we're screwed" is where we started. From there we can do little harm.

As far as what you wrote, no, I do not have a better option other than extreme conservation.Your ideas are fair to be sure.But the big question is will Americans be willing to live like the people of Europe or even India?
America's infrastructure is so spread out it would take a monumental and an unprecedented cooperation between all levels of government to accomplish a conversion to an electric railway system in a timely manner.Corruption could easily abrogate the endeavor; and we are all painfully aware of our track record.
Your priorities are good in that you see food deliveries as paramount, and I would assume that you would be in favor of cutting waste.
The arms industry, and perhaps most of global industry in general, is intrinsically wasteful.
But this again proves whats really in the heart of man in general.There are shortages of oil happening right now in many parts of the world and its affects are being felt in very high prices in food production which is exacerbating riots and violence in some areas.Most Americans do not seem to be troubled by these events; and I do mean most.

I think the real answer to the solution, ultimately, will be if mankind can somehow change his nature of being selfish, and in the current paradigm it is very difficult for an iconoclastic person like yourself to really make a difference.

Fair enough. Extreme conservation is a noble goal, and even modest conservation would be, for most, a new endeavor.

Even if the conversions get somewhat side-tracked (and they will, until things get bad enough to hang the guilty and put people who can do the job in charge), any progress will eventually save lives. I figure every SUV that gets traded for a hybrid saves as much gas as every Corolla that gets traded for a bike, and it's a lot more likely to happen. Every one of those likely will literally save a life somewhere, maybe even a life per tankful?

As for the heart of mankind, he is the noblest and the most primal of beasts, depending on the individual and the day you observe him. I doubt the nature will chance, but sometimes you can get people to move in concert and that is far more of a difference than any one of us can do alone.

I think whatever America does it will not be quite Europe or India, but the evolving result could certainly be much more efficient and frugal than it is.

To quote James Howard Kunstler "Nature doesn't negotiate". On the downside of Hubbert's Peak Americans are going to have very little choice as to whether they want to live like Europeans or even Indians. Had the US invested in renewables or Nuclear, like France or Germany and done so 10 or 20 years ago, things would be different. Now the peak is upon us and all bets are off.

To be honest, I am scared s#!tless about the kinds of things that are going to happen WTSHTF. Look at some of the stuff that's happening now that we're on the bumpy plateau. The decline hasn't even started yet and one of my worries is that with EOR, in many cases when the decline starts, I fear it is going to be precipitous. All I have gleaned in the few months since I have become aware of peak oil indicates, for example, that when the water cut at Ghawar starts going up, the decline there is going to be rapid and Saudi Arabia will have peaked. You know what Matt Simmons has said about that.

My pointing out technologies that might make things better than they might otherwise be is not naivety. I just sincerely hope that, technology will help the human population decline to a number that is in line with the available energy, in a peaceful, controlled manner. Do I think it will happen? No but, I would really like to live to see my fathers age (90), without having to endure terrible hunger and pain.

Alan from the islands

As long as you have hope hunger and pain can be endured.That might be easy to say with a full refrigerator, but it's what I know to be true.Hard times bring out the best in some people and the evil in others.I can assure you with certainty though, in the consummation of 'the long emergency', life is going to be better than OK for those who endure to do the just and right actions until the end.

I expect such local efforts to create export resources like paper products, steam turbines, fuel efficient wehicles, power distribution equipment, etc that will have an important positive effect for tens of millions of people or more.

much of the infrastructure alan's plan relies upon, no longer exists. most of it has been torn up by salvage company's who melt or rework the rails into other things and sell them. right now mainly to china.
it's a good vision of what should of been, though the time, resources, and energy needed to replace all of this that was torn up for the past 70~80 years of the car is better used elsewhere.

The biggest resource we are lacking is will.

Alan

I expect peak oil leading to slow +40 m long +24 wheelers with combined cycled diesel engines that burn FT-diesel, methanol, DME, ethanol or biogas and use the heat in the exhaust. They make sense for rural logistics including transporting logs and other biomass from forests.

Are you suggesting we have an electric train depot behind every wharehouse, department store, grocery store, and restaurant?!

In stages, almost yes.

Every warehouse, almost without exception.

Local deliveries of a half mile to half a dozen miles by electric trucks are quite doable.

Trolley freight, running freight on streetcar tracks outside rush hour has been done, and can be done again.

A freight railroad runs down the middle of 5th Street today across the river in Gretna. Once tracks went through city streets throughout the Warehouse Districts of almost every city.

The speed on transition will depend on many factors, but the USA has made a couple of dramatic transitions in twenty years before.

From 1897 to 1916 the USA built subways in all of their largest cities and streetcars in 500 cities, towns and villages. And from 1950 to 1970, we trashed virtually every price of prime commercial property (called "downtowns") and many well built, established neighborhoods (called "inner cities").

Alan

Interestingly, the rise of highways destroyed the downtown here that it was intended to serve. The massive interstates went through middle-class housing, and drove out quiet-loving families on both side. Over time, one side joined with the "wrong side of the tracks" into blight, and the downtown was abandoned for the new suburbs. There are still valuable mid-town areas on the "right side of the highways", and that area is growing in popularity.

Many local sidings have been torn up in recent years as fill-in development increased traffic in manufacturing and industrial zones. It is a shame, since some of those tracks that inconvenienced drivers went the same direction the drivers do.

I would think that package freight could be delivered at night or early in the morning, freeing rail for passenger work during rush hour. But then, I think highways could be made truck-free during rush hour as well, but they're not.

And we did so in an era of abundant, cheap energy and an energy supply that was "growing." We are now entering an era of energy, and economic, contraction.

I'm thinking the two eras aren't exactly equal.

;)

Cheers

1897 to 1916 was *NOT* an "era of cheap, abundent energy". Coal was mined by hand with pick & shovel, a few tons per 12 hour shift. Horses and mules hauled it to the surface. Children and women sorted out the coal from the waste above ground. It was more dangerous to be a coal miner than a soldier or sailor in WW I. The price of coal was, adjusted for inflation, several times what it is today.

The result was a much lower GDP, about 3% to 4% of today (for 1/3rd to 1/4th of the population). Technology was primitive (simple hydraulic jacks would have made curving rail MUCH easier, instead they used brute force, sometimes aided by a fire or coals) Yet we STILL built the subway I took to ASPO-Boston (in 1897) and streetcars in 500 cities, towns and villages !

Best Hopes for not romanticizing the past,

Alan

1897 to 1916 was *NOT* an "era of cheap, abundent energy".

Yes, it was. A new world of natural resources was being exploited. There was a reason people were streaming to America. It wasn't because it was resource-constrained.

Energy was not "cheap and plentiful" !

Comparatively, the USA had more resources, but with the technology of the time (and lack of long lived infrastructure such as hydroelectric power plants), it took much more effort to extract those resources.

I suspect that USA produces as much energy with almost no effort today from hydroelectric plants as we mined coal (BY HAND WITH PICKAXES AND SHOVELS and mules) in 1900. And that hydroelectric energy is in a much more useful form.

Energy today is "cheap and plentiful", not so in 1900.

Alan

On 1900, the USA mined 51.2 million tons and shipped from the mines 45.1 million tons of anthracite (rest used in mining) and bituminous coal 205 million tons was mined (no mine use stats given).

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A01EFD81E38E733A25757C1A...

In 2006, the USA mined 990 million (metric ?) tons of hard coal and more lignite (plus oil, natural gas, hydroelectric).

Comparatively, the USA had more resources, but with the technology of the time (and lack of long lived infrastructure such as hydroelectric power plants), it took much more effort to extract those resources.

What matters, IMO, is the ratio of resources to population. That has changed drastically since 1900, and not in our favor.

I think it's ludicrous to compare our frontier past with the resource-constrained future.

What matters, IMO, is the ratio of resources to population. That has changed drastically since 1900, and not in our favor

In the 1900 census, 76,094,000

http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt, a bit more than 1/4th of today. Assuming equal ratios of mine use for bituminous coal as for anthracite, we have as much coal/capita today as we did in 1900. But today we have effortless hydroelectric power, oil, natural gas and growing wind, geothermal etc.

But we make MUCH better thermodynamic use of this energy today. A major use of 1900 coal was for railroad steam locomotives that were often in single digits thermodynamically. A modern coal fired plant can have 40+% thermodynamic efficiency and "to the wheel" efficiency on an electric loco of 36% - 38% or so (how does one account for regenerative braking in electric locos vs. waste in steam ?). More than 4x as much useful work from the same coal !

I think it's ludicrous to compare our frontier past with the resource-constrained future.

Yes, it will be MUCH easier in our resource constrained future, with equivalent human effort.

You do not seem to appreciate the massive amounts of work that went into pre-WW I industrial society. That coal was mined by hand, in 12 hour shifts, and hauled to the surface by mules, sorted for waste by hand. YET we built subways in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, elevated in Chicago, and 222 miles of streetcar in New Orleans, etc.

As noted, a half dozen 100 ton hydraulic jacks can do more than 100 laborers. And hydraulic jacks will not disappear. The same is true of all the other advances in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, materials engineering and computer controls, etc. for at least the next few decades.

Alan

Howdy,

Leanan already hashed this out before I saw these posts, so I'll let taht do for now, but just want to say you took me too literally. I was referring to the Petroleum/Carbon Man Era, not just those years. As Leanan pointed out, relatively, it absolutely WAS an era of cheap, abundant energy, and, as she also pointed out, one of GROWING abundance. That last point meant one could be reasonably assured of getting something back on investments. Can we say the same looking forward? Will large outlays for infrastructure see a return into the future? There is some doubt as to the viability of the global system, so...

As for your comparisons of labor... good lord, alan, do you rally think it's a sure thing to do the same for the support of 6.7 BILLION?

I hadn't thought you lacking in objectivity, but am slightly less certain of that now. I hope you are not getting too wedded to your dream.

Cheers

relatively, it absolutely WAS an era of cheap, abundant energy

WRONG, WRONG, simply WRONG !

The only means of extracting the two primary energy sources of 1900 America were pick & shovel in a hellhole of very deadly mine, hauled out by mules and sorted by hand or with an ax and/or "misery whip" in the forests, skidded out by horse or mule. That was it !

The human labor required to extract energy in 1900 America made it neither cheap nor abundant. One consequence was a GDP/capita about a tenth of today (think 2008 Bolivia = 1900 America), another was much longer work weeks and much shorter life spans.

The raw energy available/capita was several times less (coal & wood vs. Coal + Oil + Gas + hydro & wood today) and the useful work that could be extracted from that energy was about an order of magnitude less/capita.

The American frontier closed in 1890, so the primary source of increasing wealth (in those days), farmland, had been shut down (later Bureau of Reclamation irrigation schemes in the West were still a couple of decades in the future then). The other source of increasing wealth, technology (aka progress), was just beginning to make itself known.

Expectations ? I think it is difficult to transport ourselves back into that era. Urban Rail was a revolution, dramatically enhancing affordable transportation (people moved from Manhattan to Queens & the Bronx & commuted to work for example).

The motivations of the USA from 2009 on will be quite different from USA 1900, but we will have several times more energy/capita and MUCH more effective use of our resources because of technology, so a much smaller comparative effort will be required to have a dramatic impact.

Could the USA, by investing in large amounts of long lived energy efficient & renewable energy infrastructure (and restraining population growth) support a population of 335 million in 2100 at 11% of today's GDP/capita ? I think that we could. I could see 250 million at a third of today's GDP but with an overall higher quality of life than today.

Could the world do so (7 billion @ 11% of today's GDP)? No.

Alan

Hardy any building is cheaper to build then a warehouse. Automated goods handling equipment is a lot more expensive but it can be moved to a new warehouse.

I expect large scale goods handling will be moved with a few years lag time after fuel price increases since it is a very competitive market. And the local large scale businesses is handlig this in an encouraging way. A few years ago Ikea even started their own rail freight company for goods to and from their main warehouse since they were displeased with the local rail freight market. (Its now sold and their rail freight is increasing. )

Regarding Ikea they stated in early summer that they are contenplating starting local manufacturing of sofas close to their stores since volume inefficient freight from a few global factories is starting to be too expensive. A well lubricated organization like Ikea can probably sort out such a change within two years.

Yes, oil is primarily used for transportation and I agree that hydrogen looks to be a bad choice for a transportation fuel. However, in spite of your repeated rants, electricity can provide transportation, just not with the same sorts of equipment as we are accustomed to use at present. With electricity, you can run machines in factories to make more systems to replace oil and solar and wind are the two main renewable alternatives. Of course, if society wants to accept the risks associated with nuclear electricity, such as a total authoritarian society, then that will happen too. And, lastly, with electricity, one can run HVAC equipment, even in Winter. Running a country on electricity is technically feasible. Whether it is economically or politically acceptable is another question entirely.

E. Swanson

do yourself a favor and look up things like the chemical and pharmaceutical feed stocks. but i will give you a hint, it would be hard for you to go through a normal day without touching something that needs a dirivitive of oil to be made. by need i mean it can't be made without it because there are no substitute material's. this would not even be a issue if it were 'just' a transportation issue.

Solar Heating is a direct offset of transportation fuels, particularly in the northeast where Heating Oil is still heavily relied upon.

A 'Scam', CJ, is something which doesn't work. Solar Electric and Wind are both extremely reliable technologies. They are fairly expensive, but that may be a message about the actual worth of incoming power, and an indication of how preciously it must be spent.

Your objections to electric trains remain unclear to me. You go into 'Rube Goldberg' terms again, but as a heavy lifter of both People and Goods with a simple and clean drive-system, it seems your objection must be ideological and not physical.

Out of Money? We're never out of money.. it's merely a symbol of exchange.

Expect a resurgence of Sailing Ships.. Does that not count as another of Windpower's potential for offsetting fuel use?

Bob

Jokuhl... I believe that it is possible to build steel hull sailing ships that will rival the speed of convential steel hull ships powered by bunker/diesel ice coupled to steam turbine.

Information can be found about steel hull wind powered cargo haulers in many places but if you check the links below, notice that the last of the strictly wind powered steel hull vessels averaged 16 kts. Compare this to the modern container ship which, depending on width, length and displacement averages speeds of 'For ships in the size range of up to 1,500 teu, the speed is between 9 and 25 knots, with the majority of the ships (58%) sailing at some 15-19 knots. The most popular speed for the 1,500-2,500 teu ships is 18-21 knots, which applies to 70% of these ships. In the 2,500-4,000 teu range, 90% of the ships have a speed of 20-24 knots. 71% of the 4,000-6,000 teu ships have a speed of 23-25 knots.' Of course, some of the really fast wooden hull sailing vessels such as the 'Flying Cloud' and 'Cutty Sark' often turned in average trip speeds of over 20kts. Wooden ships were limited to overall length by wooden construction. When sailing vessels began using iron frames they could be made longer and the speed increased. Total steel construction increased speed even more. A totally modern design from scratch could probably compete in speed with modern bunker/diesel fueled cargo haulers...imo.

Of course some compromise would have to be made regarding deck loading of containers on sailing vessels but modern shipyards and marine designers can overcome the problems even if designs require containers to be below deck. This would allow for a sailing vessel to manuver and handle in the wind much better than would containers on deck. Cargos would be less but speed would not be compromised a great deal with sail. Little compromise would be needed for sail powered bulk liquid carriers or dry freight carriers...these ships could compete without compromise with their modern counterparts.

Once large sailing vessels are at the harbor mouth they would be manuvered into place by harbor tug, much as the current steam turbine ships are in many locations.

Shipping might slow 20% at most but commerce could continue. The jit model would suffer...But so what? The economic model is going to change anyway. Switching back to sail will take time...but, so will switching from trucks to rail. We have a lot of adjustments to make but I see no obstacle that cannot be overcome in shipping and rail. What is of vital importance is to direct gdp to segments of the economy that will add to gdp. The market is good at making this sort of adjustment if the meddeling hand of government is kept out of the directing. For a good example look at the current housing mess which was not created by the 'unseen hand' but by idiots with control over the economy that they should not have had. Common sense, iow.

'The barque rig can outperform the schooner rig , can sail upwind better than full-riggers, and is easier to handle than full square rig. The usual cargo capacity was 2,000 to 5,000 tonnes. Usual windjammer cargo was bulk, such as lumber, coal, guano or grain. The largest windjammer ever built was five-masted full-rigged ship Preussen, which had displacement of 11,600 tonnes. She was also one of the fastest, regularly logging 16 kn average speed on transatlantic voyages.

Windjammers are often confused with clippers, but they are two different breeds. A clipper is a sailing vessel optimized for speed; windjammers are optimized for cargo and handling. Most clippers were of composite construction, full rigged and had cargo capability less than 1000 tonnes; windjammers are of steel construction, usually barques and have far greater cargo capacity. The clippers had already begun to disappear when windjammers emerged.'

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/container-types.htm

why not have the rigging mount onto a container that snaps in with the strapdown stuff? I mean those containers are tied together just a little bit of smarts I bet sails could be fitted with little effort and be removable to allow for normal container removal.. Or am I just insane? Vasa comes to mind if I am wrong ;-)

However I do think that it could be done steel is incredibly strong.. Small engine by comparison to hook it all up via hydraulics and it could be manned with little crew. I bet it would work :)

Instead of flying spinnakers downwind you could use giant kite-sails as well. Once you get them up high, the wind is strong.

Were there ever any major ships built with steel masts? The sailing ship of today could vary from the ships of yesteryear as much as the America's Cup boats have. Even massive catamarans could be envisioned to maximize sail area and control.

Plus, with GPS and satellite weather, many of the issues with doldrums and storms could be evaded. Plus, you could always carry bunker fuel for emergencies -- it would just deduct from profit when you had to tap into it.

All to often I've seen JIT turn into NQIT (not quite in time) with more spent for expediting than inventory stocking. For a lot of cargo the inventory carrying cost is not that high. Plus, as mentioned before, globalization is going to decrease so remaining cargo will tend to have more intrinsic value, else it will be replaced by local offerings.

I believe container shipping will decline but not so with bulk liquid and dry freight. Think about what is shipped in containers and what will be shipped in containers as the economy evolves. Local manufacture will be more attractive. It already costs more to ship a load of iron ore to China from Brazil than the cost of mining the ore and getting it to port by rail. Shipping costs rise with FF costs.

Container ships when loaded are subject to crosswinds and would be difficult to manuver with the 'additional stationary sails' of containers high in the air above deck. The cross section of hull combined with cargo needs to be low in comparison with sq ft of sail. Containers would work against the sails for they are stationary.

We have excellent marine engineers and architects to design new vessels. They would be models and thoroughly tested in water tanks prior to construction. Lots of talent chaffing at the bit to take on a project like this. It is doable.

River - I lived aboard in San Rafael in the SF bay for many years. Was the last in the marina with a gas powered gray marine aux. with up draft carb (insert multiple curse words here IRT that carb).

I have several patents around sail power and even marketed through west marine (Wal-Marine)for several years but don't hold that against me.

Take a closer look at the fully battened Junk rig, in particular Colvin designs for shoal draft, bilge keel, steel hull cargo schooners.

IMHO they are the most efficient sail craft on the water.

I'm sure CJ can speak for himself but what I think he's saying is not invalidating the legitamacy of solar or wind as viable technologies rather that the notion that they are the antidote for peak oil and climate change is patently absurd and that could be considered a Scam.

I can't see how they won't help peak oil and climate change, though such would be just one part of a solution. The elephant in the room is over population, but outside of that renewable energy and sustainable farming seem to me to be key, and cheap electricity will better enable a differentiated technological society.

Again, I'm not saying it's a panacea, and I see myself closer to doom than cornucopia, but I think we owe it to our society (and my children, for me!) to make the crash least-bad.

If a train is headed to a switch, and you can see it's switched the wrong way, thereby heading the train to a disaster, and you don't know now to throw the switch, what do you do? Stand there and watch helplessly, or try to do something to the switch anyway? Until the train is passed, there is still hope.

Maybe the reality is that many of you believe we're past the switch point, while I still think it's worth trying the switch. Heck, even if you throw it as the train is going by you'll wreck the train but some will survive.

Years ago when I was in the Air Force stationed at a TAC base in LA there was an A-7 squadron jet with a gear up emergency. He had his wing-man verify that his gear were not down and he did two fly-bys to verify. He had no choice...he was going to crash land...no way out! If he could have ditched it in the swamp he would have but then he could drown or be eaten by alligators. He took the other option to dump fuel and land on a runway after we soaped it. When that pilot landed gear-up you could see the sparks from the next town. Good call however...the pilot walked away. The aircraft however was done.

A lot of people are saying that we are already past Limits To Growth. The point of this blog, TOD, is to make accurate, intelligent observations about where we are in relation to peak oil, resource depletion and overpopulation. Are we past being able to salvage infrastructure? Is a crash imminent?

If you believe it is then the logical question is can we mitigate the crash or will it be out of control? Fear can be a good thing. It keeps us alert. But at the same time we need to start making some real good decisions - Fast.

Perhaps we should be a lot more worried than we are. No?

I would not count on getting money from the dems, repubs or government going forward. We are the dems, repubs and government. Funding is going to become problematic and fast. It is all about the economy. Ask yourself this question...Why is this administration suddenly willing to talk to Iran and agree to a timeline for troop withdrawal in Iraq? Check this out:

'Taxpayers Can Bear No More'

This story is from the UK but the same situation applies here: Taxpayers can bear no more, admits Alistair Darling.

Taxpayers are at the limit of what they are willing to pay to fund public services, the Chancellor has said in an interview with The Times. In his gloomiest assessment yet of the state of the British economy, Alistair Darling gave warning that the downturn was far more profound than he had thought and could last for years rather than months.

He revealed that he told Cabinet ministers this week that there would be no more money for schools, hospitals, defence, transport or policing.'...snip...

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

".....Mr. Pickens will appear next month in Las Vegas with several famous Democrats, including former President Clinton and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, at an energy summit hosted by Mr. Reid and the Center for American Progress Action Fund...."

I think T-Boone should forcefully predicate Matthew Simmons protocol of conservation as the best way to handle the energy crisis during his trip to Las Vegas.He should say something like - "...You know Harry, the best way to handle the onset of peak oil is conservation...I humbly submit to you that the best thing society could do is curtail its unnecessary use of fossil fuels - namely in industries such as entertainment and superfluous retail.Just think of all of the oil that could be directed towards functions of society that would be beneficial to its health such as farming and housing for the poor.Energy = money Harry.All you would have to do to help alleviate the peak oil crisis would be to close down Vegas, you know, turn off the switch....Don't worry about work for the residents of Las Vegas - we could relocate them and have them do more productive work for society in general...The strippers could find jobs picking fruit or something similar, since they really do not have an education or skills to speak of.On the plus side for all of the perverts - they could still play with tits - they could milk dairy cows by hand all day if they wish....
I think this would be a good start on the road to truely finding an answer to our energy dilemma.Wouldn't you agree Mr. Reid...?"

Interesting development on the political front.

Idea of gas-tax holiday runs into a dead end.
Talk now is to raise tax a dime a gallon to fund road improvements

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25751775/

Imagine that paying for things as you go. Could this be the dawning of the new Age of Reality?