Poor South Parkites, they can't catch a break.

You have to starve, get shot at, and probably die before you reach adulthood so I can have a new cell fone!

Corruption and the struggle to maintain a monopolistic postPeak power structure invariably leads to frozen and/or bloody corpses in the Eurasian snows.  Putin and the Eurasian energy industries can only ride the tiger's back for so long.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

We're currently at a very weird time in the transportation situation, as virtually no one buying or leasing a new vehicle today realizes how much car technology and the market will change in the next 5 to 10 years.  In particular, there will be a frickin' huge loss of value for people with newer, low-efficiency vehicles (read: larger SUV's) once public acceptance of them really turns sour.

Once gasoline prices get high (sustained at over $4 to $5/gallon) then things will get very interesting, and consumers will be clamoring for ways to avoid the pain.  That's when the transition to lower oil use per unit of transprtation (which has started with the diving SUV sales) will kick into high gear.  I expect to see all-electric cars, the first mass market hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, diesel hybrids, plug-in hybrids, etc. all taking off.  It will be a typical scramble to find a set of good solutions to an overall economic problem.  We'll see a split of cars, buses, and some trains moving to batteries or fuel cells, and trucks staying with liquid fuels, derived from oil, coal, and bio sources, becuase they'll need the higher energy densities.

In the longer run things will sort themselves out, and the economic crunch will ease as we move an ever greater percentage of transportation off petroleum.  I think the key dynamic is that there's enough technology either here today or ready to hit the market very soon that we'll avoid high transportation costs by finding cheaper transportation, not by reshaping the physical layout of every urban center in the country.  

I'm NOT making a value judgment about which solution (better cars vs. better cities) is inherently, well, better.  I'm simply saying that looking at the technologies, costs, and scale of the situation, "better cars" seems to me to be the path of vastly less economic and cultural resistance, and is therefore the solution that will "win" by being used most and first.

The pickups and SUVs rule the road here, in all respects.  And the drivers are pretty much laughing at $2.79 gasoline.  It's going to need to go much higher before it impacts their lifestyle, it seems.

 There is a very positive side to Peak Oil, demand destruction and consequent forced social change.


 

The things you see on a bike are great, cool, and amazing. I've seen trucks flipped over, cool places to pick up boxes and packing materials, got to know every pothole in town and was developing a good bunnyhop, and you just see more of life. People got to know me, after all they're seeing my whole body and face not a car.

Rode with the Western Wheelers and got my azz kicked by ppl 2X my age (and I'm in my 40s) at first, I guess my downfall was riding with 'em more than paying attention to the utility riding I had to do, and the mountain climbing then gonzo descent routine proves you don't need a Porsche or Ferrari to be speed-crazy.

Recommended books people: Asphalt Nation, stuff on messengers.
Recommended web pages: Look up Lucas Brunelle's videos, wild stuff!

Some of the few publicly held ones may end up being scams. One of the very few listed companies is sounding out the California market and has no production - and just hired a front man from San Diego to give it "visibility."

Subsidies are good for these businesses in baby shoes.

The fact is that this industry could not exist without subsidies. Ethanol has consistently cost more than mid-grade gasoline on the spot market for 20 years, and yet has only 70% of the energy value.

B) mandates for the usage of ethanol are no different than mandates for other things used in society today... smart investors capitalize on this

I agree. There are a lot of stupid politically motivated mandates out there.

C) the EROEI of current methods of ethanol is MARGINAL not horrible... as technology evolves with the industry, the EROEI will increase significantly

How is technology going to evolve? Fertilizer production and distillation are both very mature technologies. The only way the EROEI can increase significantly is to use something other than grain as a feedstock. And an EROEI of 1.34 is horrible. It is about 1/4th of the energy return for gasoline.

D) the waiver has been put in place because demand is going to outstrip supply... there's NO WAY california ethanol producers are going to be hurt ANYTIME SOON

That is patently false. Feinstein has sought a waiver because they showed that use of ethanol actually increased pollution, and that they could meet the pollution requirements without it. The ethanol was adding a lot of costs to California consumers, and they were getting worse gas mileage as a result. It had nothing to do with supply/demand constraints.

F) yeah you might request a waiver but farmers and greens wont

Most "greens" I know are against ethanol because they see it for what it is.

G) dellusional my ass...  post your exchanges better yet post your calculations - I've had a few exchanges with ethanol proponents out of MN and found that they are at the top of their game

I have documented these in detail at my blog. I will be posting the exchange with the official at the MN Dept of Ag in short order. But here is one. See if you can refute it:

The EROEI for ethanol is reported to be 1.34. (I have shown in my blog that this is actually exaggerated, but let's go with that). So, let's say that our goal is to create 10 BTUs of energy. We will do it by producing gasoline, and we will do it by producing ethanol.

In the case of ethanol, we have to use 10/1.34, or 7.5 BTUs. We only net out 2.5 BTUs. In the case of gasoline, the following pieces of information are widely known, and I can personally verify that they are correct. The EROEI for oil production is about 10/1, and then for refining the oil into gasoline it is also about 10/1. Overall, the EROEI is about 5/1. So, to produce 10 BTUs using gasoline, we will need 10/5 or 2 BTUs. We netted out 8 BTUs, over triple what we netted out using ethanol. In addition, we wasted far more BTUs during the production of the ethanol than we did during the production of gasoline.

There you have it. Attempt to refute it. The MN Dept of Ag couldn't. All they could do was say "I disagree". I said "Fine, but show me some calculations". They never did. Maybe you can?

RR

Hard to argue with that.

I think you need to ask Pat and the other fundamentalists why they think, er... believe the end must come.  When we enter the realm of belief, well, anything goes, eh?  But here in the real world, there ain't but so much oil, gas, coal, water.  And you're right, it's a global society, but much less so once the easy shipping of goods comes to an end.  The silver lining?  The easy shipping of bads (soldiers, bombs, DU...) will also come to an end.  The hubris of humanity is about to get a much needed (for what's left of us, and, moreso, for all the other lifeforms on the planet that don't believe in anything) wake up call.

This is a tricky thing.  The "end times" was not something one discussed, in the conservative Christian church of my youth.  But by discussing it (and evolution, etc.) other groups come to dominate what the public perception of a "Christian" view is.

There are strange interactions between "end times" religion and national policy.  Tim Lahaye, author of the "left behind" books, was also president of the Council for National Policy (CNP), a Religous Right politcal group, etc.

I don't know how it adds up, but it seems strange.

I do think that in the coming years it will get rather nasty in the world and we if we looked back into the eyes of a Roman, or a Greek or any other major Civilazation would see parrellels to the agony of the people and places going on.  

No one knows the hour of the end.  All those that predict it have been and will be wrong.  I do not think that "pat" or "george" or anyone else should go trying to HELP GOD get it over and done with, that implies they do not TRUST GOD enough to let it happen in His good time.

In some way they are ringing like cultist in my eyes,  You can't do like Christ and Hate anyone and wish them dead, even your enemies, even as they nail you to a cross and want you dead you have to say as Christ did, Forgive them.
   

Stratfor.com had an essay a few months ago to the effect that any way you slice it, Iran is a winner. We took out their #1 enemy and rival in the region. Now, either we attack them and turn the world, especially the Moslem world, against the US, or we don't attack them and it appears that Iran made the US back down.

The thing that jumps out about today's anouncement is not just that they have successfully enriched Uranium, it is the fanfare with which they made the announcement.  It appears that they feel that this moment in time is a unique opportunity for them to change the status quo.  Unique because the US is militarily constrained by Iraq and economically constrained by oil supply.  So they believe that the US is unable to "punish" them.  And they have taken advantage of this opportuinity to end their enrichment moratorium, and also end the extraordinary inspections.  

Perception is reality, and they are making as big a deal as possible now, while the US is impotent, so that enrichment looks like a "done deal" a couple of years from now if more oil is on the market and the US military is resting in Kuwait.

I am not sure if the essay I saw a couple of months back was at Stratfor.com or not, but there has been an arguement made that the Iranian Govt. would accept/even welcome an attack on it because it would strengthen its hold on Iran's populace, many of whom are not happy with the theocratic rule.

The leadership would hole up somewhere in the north-east of the country and wait out the Americans and than be on top after the Bush Storm was over.

It defies logic at several levels, but there have been enough confirmed reports that indicate a willingness to even launch a surprise attack on USA forces by elements of the Iranian military and political leadership.

Personally, I do not think it will come to that. Some sort of sanctions will be put in place, hopefully involving refined oil products, that Iran lacks, and some sort of political movement takes place.

P.S. The General's essay in Time probably has more to do with General Zinni's new book.  

What is not recognised by the West is that the ball has always been in our yard - we were the ones that brought radicals is power in Tehran and we are the ones that are radicalizing it even more.

While I wouldn't make the choice this way, I can understand a country like Iran being reluctant to put their nuclear electricity supply at the mercy of the possibility that the UN or countries selling them such fuel elements will impose arbitrary new inspections or other odd conditions. The history of the Middle East over the last 100 years, and the number of regime changes that have been imposed by the West, have not, IMO, been conducive to building a lot of trust.