Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The gasoline fuel shortage is easy to solve.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Jack Sprat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 07:05 PM
Original message
The gasoline fuel shortage is easy to solve.
I am serious. It just took too long to get to this point or recognition. Electrical power is all we need for the next 2 decades, which is the time needed to develop solar and hydrogen fuel cell technology. Electric passenger transit, mass transit in cities, is an immediate need. Fortunately, it is a need that can be met, by replacing gas stations with electric charging posts in parking lots, on interstates, and all traffic areas. International traffic will be limited to steam vessels like the old days, and space travel will have to cease until an anti-gravitational energy source is developed. Factories can run on electrical and hydraulic power.

All these adaptations will have positive effects. The end of expedient international trade will be a boom for our work force. The environment won't be exposed to gasoline powered chainsaws destroying forests wholesale. The air won't be exposed the by products of engine exhausts. The need for additional electrical power can be met by a combination of new solar, wind, and nuclear plants.

If anyone can dispute this revelation that I had while eating a bowl of porridge this afternoon, then I would love to hear the objections. I welcome your objections because I may have overlooked some detail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Inertial Electrostatic Confinment Fusion
Edited on Wed May-09-07 07:11 PM by FogerRox
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. Husband just bought plans for refitting our car
to hydrogen. The technology for making all hydrogen cars or making cars with a hydrogen booster (claims to boost fuel economy by at least 25%) are out there NOW, and the cost appears to be under $1000.

I'll try and keep you posted about what he does and how it works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
don954 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. space transportation doesnt use gas
it uses liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen. Steam is very inefficient. factories already use electricity and hydraulics. 80% of all households can get by on old-style lead-acid battery cars, but there is a mental block and a production block from allowing it to happen. Solar tech is already developed, it pays back its energy debt in less than 3 years for most moder cells. reducing gas usage to JUST small engine usage will cause a significant decline in CO2 in the air, which will help global warming.

We don't lack the technology, we lack the political will...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. And what are poor people going to do?
Most especially poor rural people? It's not as if they can just go out and buy a new car or have their current vehicle retrofitted. They can't afford it. I dare say it would be hard for a family of four making less than $75,000 a year to afford it. Then there's the question of what you do with all the cars that can't be retrofitted or are chosen to be junked instead. Sure, the steel can be recycled but there are scores of problematic substances and compounds in the ordinary car's construction. By mandating a sudden switch to electrically powered vehicles you would likely unintentionally create an ecological disaster. You would fail miserably at getting the rest of the world to make the switch too, not to mention in the next twenty years the number of cars in third world countries and China will dramatically increase more than offsetting the reduction in carbon footprint of the entire US making the switch. You have to remember too that electric generating plants, unless they're nuclear, have huge carbon footprints. It's debatable whether or not switching to all electric cars at this time would significantly reduce carbon emissions (although personally I'm all for constructing many new fission reactors).

It sounds like a good idea at first, and I share your concern over climate change, but you very quickly run into these and many other problems with any plan that calls for a sudden and dramatic change.

As the previous poster noted, rockets do not run on fossil fuels. While solid rocket motors such as those used on the Space Shuttle do tend to be rather dirty, most rockets are propelled by simple liquid O2 and H. However, it does take energy to produce those gases in quantity. However, you could switch to mass drivers for lifting cargo into orbit. If a couple of large mass drivers were able to be constructed it would likely be a boon to space exploitation and exploration as the cost per pound to orbit would likely decrease significantly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Sprat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. The space technology is then excluded
from the conversation. We can explore space for new matter without using fossil fuels. Now that we have cleared that obstacle, I will address your concerns for rural, poor people. The last time that I looked, there were far more city dwellers below the poverty line than small towns. Their farm equipment does require reciprocal engines, but they can adapt their lives to electrical power just as easily as the rest of us. I don't fathom the mass production of electrical cars to be the expensive luxuries that you suggest. The hybrids are around 20G. Why would the all-electrics be any more expensive? Keep in mind that I'm just asking. The change can be phased in but it must be dedicated. The jobs created in the making of tram tracks and maintenance, not to mention the electronics industry, along with the textile and other manufacturing returning home, solar building workers; we will have more jobs than the current immigrants can handle, not to mention jobs for our young people entering the workforce. The energy crisis can usher in a new day of interdependence. This is not USA only that I'm talking about. It has to be a world agreement to end oil production. It will end wars, employ poor people like never before, and put an end to globalization. Every nation's industrial giants will have to take a step back from the gluttonous riches that this fossil-fueled technical society has created. It can usher in a new age of world socialism, where technology and productivity is severely reduced and the worker is empowered again. If science can produce some natural new power source, then society advances. The alternative is higher prices of a vanishing commodity, more natural disasters from climate change, and only the few fat cats laughing and getting rich. Think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brmdp3123 Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. I sure hope this is a joke.
Edited on Wed May-09-07 08:13 PM by brmdp3123
But on the off-chance that you're serious, where do you think the electricity is going to come from? It doesn't grow on trees you know.

Are you going to burn oil, or natural gas, or coal to generate it? If so, what's the point?

Or do you have a solar cell technology that you're keeping a secret?

Of course, we could build nuclear plants.

You need to eat something other than porridge-you've overlooked ALL the details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Sprat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Water, wind, nuclear power
all these produce electricity. Come back to me when you get another thought. What do you think powers the turbines providing the electricity that runs your air conditioner tonight, or heats your home in the winter? If you don't have natural gas, then you probably have electricity provided by giant water turbines. You just don't get out enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. There is nothing simple or easy about any of this. It only appears to be simple and easy.
Ethanol and biofuels have big problems. Hydrogen? Study the plusses and the negatives of hydrogen before calling it the solution to our energy problems. Think gasoline makes a big boom, well wait to see the boom that hydrogen makes. Problems, maybe not insurmountable, but problems to be solved and not just glossed over with wide eyed enthusiasm and adoration that 1 simple thing will be the solution to the oil problem. There will not be 1 solution and it will not be simple. And it will be a problem for the poor because as it stands now almost anybody can afford some kind of gas powered vehicle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Sprat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Water = 2 parts hydrogen, 1 part oxygen
Where are the problems with a natural element? This is an easy problem that stubborn people are making hard. Also, the people who want to drain every consumer of every dime they have for GASOLINE, are making it hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Wow! You really haven't studied this out, have you?
Great ideas off the top of your head may only seem great. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. The myth of the hydrogen economy:
http://www.energybulletin.net/11963.html

"There is a lot of talk about the hydrogen economy. It is at best naïve, and at worst it is dishonest. A hydrogen economy would be a pitiful, impoverished thing indeed.

There are a number of problems with hydrogen fuel cells. Many of these are engineering problems which could probably be worked out in time. But there is one basic flaw which will never be overcome. Free hydrogen is not an energy source; it is rather an energy carrier. Free hydrogen does not exist on this planet, so to derive free hydrogen we must break the hydrogen bond in molecules. Basic chemistry tells us that it requires more energy to break a hydrogen bond than to form one. This is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there is no getting around it. We are working on catalysts which will help to lower the energy necessary to generate free hydrogen, but there will always be an energy loss, and the catalysts themselves will become terribly expensive if manufactured on a scale to match current transportation energy requirements.

All free hydrogen generated today is derived from natural gas. So right off the bat we have not managed to escape our dependency on nonrenewable hydrocarbons. This feedstock is steam-treated to strip the hydrogen from the methane molecules. And the steam is produced by boiling water with natural gas. Overall, there is about a 60% energy loss in this process. And, as it is dependent on the availability of natural gas, the price of hydrogen generated in this method will always be a multiple of the price of natural gas.

Ah, but there is an inexhaustible supply of water from which we could derive our hydrogen. However, splitting hydrogen from water requires an even higher energy investment per unit of water (286kJ per mole). All processes of splitting water molecules, including foremost electrolysis and thermal decomposition, require major energy investments, rendering them unprofitable."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Sprat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. You are making too much out
of this breaking down the hydrogen bond. For starters, you need to get away from this derivation of free hydrogen from natural gas. That is a defeatist notion. No wonder there is 60% energy loss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Hydrogen economy: energy and economic black hole:
http://www.energybulletin.net/4541.html

From the conclusion:

"At some point along the chain of making, putting energy in, storing, and delivering the hydrogen, you’ve used more energy than you get back, and this doesn’t count the energy used to make fuel cells, storage tanks, delivery systems, and vehicles (17).

The laws of physics mean the hydrogen economy will always be an energy sink. Hydrogen’s properties require you to spend more energy to do the following than you get out of it later: overcome waters’ hydrogen-oxygen bond, to move heavy cars, to prevent leaks and brittle metals, to transport hydrogen to the destination. It doesn’t matter if all of the problems are solved, or how much money is spent. You will use more energy to create, store, and transport hydrogen than you will ever get out of it.

The price of oil and natural gas will go up relentlessly due to geological depletion and political crises in extracting countries. Since the hydrogen infrastructure will be built using the existing oil-based infrastructure (i.e. internal combustion engine vehicles, power plants and factories, plastics, etc), the price of hydrogen will go up as well -- it will never be cheaper than fossil fuels. As depletion continues, factories will be driven out of business by high fuel costs (20, 21, 22) and the parts necessary to build the extremely complex storage tanks and fuel cells might become unavailable. In a society that’s looking more and more like Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil”, hydrogen will be too leaky and explosive to handle.

Any diversion of declining fossil fuels to a hydrogen economy subtracts that energy from other possible uses, such as planting, harvesting, delivering, and cooking food, heating homes, and other essential activities. According to Joseph Romm “The energy and environmental problems facing the nation and the world, especially global warming, are far too serious to risk making major policy mistakes that misallocate scarce resources (3)."

You don't solve problems by not addressing them or wishing they would go away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
20.  Why a hydrogen economy does not make sense
Edited on Wed May-09-07 09:25 PM by loindelrio
In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.

http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html



Oops, grafted to wrong post, oh bother . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Sprat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. May I ask you an honest question?
And get an honest answer?

Do you work for the oil companies?

You don't want solutions. You want to keep people tied up with problems. How do you think that other civilizations have coped. They adapted and survived. That's a good lesson for you, my friend elocs. You adapt and survive in a world gone mad with oil.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. No, I do not work for the oil companies. Please study the ideas just a little
before you present the conclusions you have reached to save the world from our energy problems. To adapt and survive it helps to know what you are talking about. Once you have actually taken the time to study some of these ideas you will know that there are no simple or easy ideas to overcoming our energy problems because problems do not magically solve themselves. You need to confront them and deal with them and solve them and change your pollyanna-ish ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Sprat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Polly-anish ideas? WHAT?
I offer positive hope for a world that needs to be changed. Hurricanes, tornadoes ripping up towns, icecaps melting, and all I hear is negativity.

Maybe, I can't provide the scientific answers, but I am willing to be positive and keep the focus on the ideas. Hey, I am not your enemy. The enemy is the addiction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-10-07 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Yes, the enemy is the addiction,
but much of the point seems to be to find something that will allow us to go on our energy wasting ways, to allow us to drive our vehicles as far and as often as we like. There will never be any one thing that is as cheap and as easily obtainable as oil which provides the energy of oil that can be used in so many different ways. There are things that are being hailed as our savior which are actually energy sinks, it costs more energy to obtain them than they provide. Ethanol is one and hydrogen is another. Maybe in 50 years they may be feasible, but we need solutions that will work right now. There are no easy and simple answers, only things which appear easy and simple, but do not hold up to close scrutiny as to the energy they provide compared to the energy needed to obtain them. We have things which work right now such as wind power, solar power, hybrid cars, mass transit which are already being effectively used and are being refined. We need to have the will to change our ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. What the Hell is porridge anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Sprat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Porridge...soup, stew..whatever.
You know........like the witch who boiled porridge for the 3 bears, who broke down the beds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. Not even close
In 20 years we start to make a serious dent in mitigation of the fossil fuels energy crises, if we start today with an emergency crash program.

We have spent a century building the fossil fueled consumoconomy, it will take decades to make the societal transition away.

Ever large ICE fueled four wheel living room that rolls off the assembly line is a sunk cost for the next 15 years. Every suburban McMansion built is a sunk cost for 50 years, or longer.

And where do the resources come from to make this virtually instantaneous transition to electricity as an energy carrier?

The following report studied the time required to mitigate the loss of petroleum due to global depletion. I do not agree with the mitigation schemes as they are liquid fuel centric, but it provides insight as to how long and difficult the inevitable transition from fossil fuels will be.


Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management.
Hirsch, Bezdek, Wendling, February 2005

www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf

. . .

Because conventional oil production decline will start at the time of peaking, crash program mitigation inherently cannot avert massive shortages unless it is initiated well in advance of peaking.

Specifically,
* Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer.
* Initiating a crash program 10 years before world oil peaking would help considerably but would still result in a worldwide liquid fuels shortfall, starting roughly a decade after the time that oil would have otherwise peaked.
* Initiating crash program mitigation 20 years before peaking offers the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic hardship worldwide.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CK_John Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
16. Building rickshaws would be a better solution than waiting for fusion and a lot more profitable. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Sprat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. The only difference between the gas guzzlers
that we drive today and the electric cars driven today is 1) Speed 2) Convenience. We can solve the convenience problem by installation of electrical charging stations on the roadways. The speed is something we didn't need to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CK_John Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. Rickshaws are pedal power no gas or electric and in 5yrs, the only thing on the road. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Sprat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Rickshaws may be nice.
I'm willing to give them a chance. I'm not pulling all the time, though. We split the horsepower or we aren't going downtown and that's it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
21. Some problems
First where do we get the electricity from? Solar, wind, tide and other renewable sources of energy produce LESS THAN 1 % of the electrical power we need NOW, if you transform oil to electrical you have to somehow triple the amount of electricity we are using now (Oil supplies over HALF of the energy we use today, mostly in transport). It would take at least ten years to install and built the needed solar panels and to install them on every roof in America (Many older roofs will have to be reinforced to take the weight). Even this will NOT provide the expected GROWTH in Electrical power let alone provide powers for cars, trucks, trains, and ships (and for you Nuclear advocates out there this is ALSO true of expanding Nuclear power plants to provide the electrical power). ,

As to hydrogen, why not just stay with gasoline? You can make gasoline (or its close twin Ethanol) why cheaper than hydrogen from vegetable matter. Furthermore you do NOT need a heavy reinforced container to hole Ethanol/gasoline. Hydrogen, being a gas, MUST be compressed to be usable in a vehicle, thus not only do you have the energy cost of producing the hydrogen out of water you have the energy waste of Compressing the Hydrogen. Hydrogen will contain to be used for Rockets for the power it provides, when burned, exceeds anything else we have, but at the cost of a very heavy rocket (and thus why only the heaviest Rockets have ever used Hydrogen, even the Space Shuttles booster rockets are aluminum oxide not Hydrogen).

Lets get real, while Solar, Wind, Tidal and even Nuclear power will provide us with electrical power as oil peaks, all of them in combination can NOT PROVIDE THE POWER we use in the form of oil. Conservation has to the BIG factor for at least 10 years (and maybe more depending on how fast Every Roof in America gets a solar panel, wind farms expand and Nuclear power expands). Conservation will have to go hand in hand with restructuring our society to be less wasteful of energy. Thus you will see more people return to the inner city (Kicking and Screaming, but going when they have no other choice do to lack of oil) just to be nearer their jobs. Jobs will also return to the inner city, to be nearer their customers and workers and the rail system.

How this will work out no one knows, but I can guess. First as oil production drops, people will protest and demand that the price drops. People will demand Congress do something about the price of Gasoline. You may even have riots (Mostly in Suburbia, most people in the inner city can get around without gasoline, I once joke you may have blacks lined up on the interstates to keep the rioting suburbanites out of the Ghettos, for most people will what to protest in a central location and that is the old Downtowns even today).

At the same time people will try to go with more fuel efficient vehicles. I remember in the 1970s while in High School a Teacher mentioning buying a motorcycle to save gasoline, when I mentioned a Bicycle instead he had a look like a deer in your headlights i.e. "What are you talking about, I am an American Adult and I do NOT ride a Bicycle since I am over 16". Thus the first step will be people buying Motorcycles and mopeds to save fuel. People will buy smaller cars like they do in Europe. You may even see people owning 2-3 cars, one for the "Family" i.e. today's family Sedan, to be sued when the Family go out together, and the other being a one or two seat commuter car with a moped engine to save gasoline. People will then convert o Bicycles as the price of Gasoline goes up, but sooner or later people will have to abandon their suburban dream homes and move closer to their jobs. The shops will follow the people (i.e. Good Bye Walmart).

As to Walmart, I foresee it following the path of A&P. For you people who do not remember A&P, A&P in the 1920s and 1930s HAD a Larger share of the Food Store Market then Walmart has of its marker today. A&P was so large it could (and did) do the same stunts Walmart is doing to its supplies today (Through it was more cost cutting against the American Farmers as opposed to shipping all the jobs to China). The problem with A&P it so filled its niche that when the market changed, it could not change with it. A&P was the first cash and carry supper market. Prior to A&P most markets gave out credit which the Customer had to repay on payday. This cost most stores money which A&P avoided by demanding Cash and Carry. The problem for A&P was it was formed when most people did NOT have a car. This changed during the 1920s and 1930s as more and more people purchased a car (yes in the mist of the Great Depression people purchased cars, to be able to get to the few jobs that were available). The big boom, when the Majority of Americans had Cars did not Occur till after WWII, but that was achieved by 1954. A&P did NOT anticipate this, it had small parking lots for people with cars, A&P adopted shopping carts so that people could buy more while in the store, but its Stores were still set by the size of Stores large enough to be near most people and close enough that people could still walk to them (To give you an idea of the Size of an A&P, the last one I know of that operated in the Pittsburgh Area was closed, torn down and replaced with an McDonald's, The McDonald's and its parking lot takes up the same space as the A&P and its parking lot did).

With the adoption of the car, A&P's much smaller competitors started to go to Bigger and Bigger Stores with large parking lots. A&P could NOT do the same without having to close down its already existing stores AND CUT PROFIT. Thus as the market Shifted A&P lost market share, lost profit to local Supermarkets who were willing to go to the Suburbs and build bigger and bigger Stores. A&P slowly went out of Business for it was to big to adjust its marketing Strategy when the market shifted.

I expect the Same with Walmart. It is to large to shift as the market changes. People will slowly try to shift the cost of gasoline to other people. As Cars gets smaller to save fuel, the ability to TRANSPORT more then a modest load of groceries will become the norm. Walmart Strategy has been to stay in the outer Suburbs (or the rural areas) and have people come to its huge stores. IT is rare to find a Walmart in an Inner-City or even an older Suburb. Once oil goes up, people will NOT be able to travel to Walmart and when people can not travel Walmart till fail, for Walmart, like A7P after WWII, can NOT adjust its Strategy for Walmart would have to commit to smaller stores or more expensive real estate which, given its corporate culture, Walmart will be unable to do. It may take 20-30 years and something called "Walmart" may survive, but 20-30 years after peak the huge Walmart Stores will be a thing of the past, like most A&Ps.

My point in going through the above is to show HOW society will change do to the lack of oil. Today's society is built on Cheap oil. Once Cheap Oil is gone, people will have to change. You will see more people walking and biking as a means of TRANSPORT as opposed to EXERCISE. Such people will cater to stores that accommodate such walkers and bikers (i.e. Smaller stores closer to where such people live). People will have to work, thus people will move closer to where they work so to be able to bike or walk to work. You will see a slow re-birth of Main Street America. The New Suburbs will disappear for they will be to far from most people's work. People who work in the Suburbs will slowly see they jobs move to the City as Employers try to minimize fuel usage (and the most fuel efficient land transport is steel wheel on Steel Rail).

Now certain suburbs will Survive, for example if a Mall is by a Light Rail Vehicle system I can foresee it surviving and even booming as it shifts from expecting all of its customers to come by Car to expecting many of its customers to come by Light Rail. An Example of this occurred during the 1973 Oil Embargo. Every Mall in the Pittsburgh Area saw a drop in sales EXCEPT South Hills Village. SOuth Hills Village was on the last Interurban Rail Line in the Pittsburgh Are. The line was rebuilt afterward as a Light Rail Vehicle line, but I remember taking the line with a lot of other shoppers when I had to go out. In the 1970s the Rail line was about 1/4 mile away and you had to take a dirt path and cross a four lane highway to get to the mall, but people did it and enough for South Hills Village to EXPAND sales when every other mall was seeing a decline in Sales.

People will change if they have to. In the 1970s People took the Rail Line to the Mall as opposed to Driving. If a Mall is on a rail line I see the same thing happening, but as the situation gets worse (i.e. the oil shortage set worse and price continues to go up) you may even see the MAJORITY of people traveling to such a Mall by rail. The Stores will want to stay open, but most of its workers will have a harder and harder time getting to the Mall (even with the Rail line). After everything else is tried (and I mean everything else, except pay increases) the Mall owners will accept that they have to provide Housing for they low paid employees in order to keep such employees. Thus I see the Mall building Apartments over the Parking lots for their employees and after a short while (and maybe even at the same time) for Senior Citizens and other people who have a hard time getting to the Mall. I these being two stories with escalators and Steps (Ramps for the lower floor only, remember these two floors will be OVER the Parking lot, thus in affect these will be three stories high, the Parking lot, and the two floors of Apartments). This will make such malls much like the old Downtowns around 1900, stores on the Bottom Floor, and Apartments above for employees (and often time the Owners).

Thus you will see people using less energy by changing their lifestyle, going to live by their work and since people will be living in these new Apartments you will see Business attracted even more to such malls by the rail line. On the other hand those areas more than 15 minutes by bicycle form the Rail line will slowly be abandoned and become rural farm land again (and that is about 2-3 miles depending on terrain). Such a change will lead to Americans saving enough fuel to keep the price in check for more important needs (i.e. Ambulances, Fire trucks Etc) but take 20-30 years.

After the price of Oil sidetracks most Cars, the next thing that will go will be Trucks. I foresee Trucks getting smaller engines to save fuel, I foresee them having a top speed of 25-30 mph and used for local deliveries only (Trucks Competition will be even slower Horses and Human Powered Vehicles, Human Power Vehicles for short). Small packages will be done by Human Power Vehicles (Mostly bicycles, but you may even see 2-4 man vehicles for light loads). For Heavier loads the choice will be Horses and Trucks. Horses eat every day and need to be taken care of every day (and spread their manure on all the streets which is why most cities tried to get rid of them as soon as the Truck was invented). Given the problems with horses I foresee Trucks being kept on in Urban Areas, but geared for the most fuel efficient operations even if that means low speeds. Unlike the Switch of Commuters to Light Rail and Bicycles, this will be marginal and one of the reasons the price of oil will stay high.

Light Rail will make a come back both for its use of Electrical Power (which means it can be powered by any other form of energy, Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Coal, Bio-mass etc). I also foresee the Heavy Rail lines going Electric (The Rail lines was on track to go Electric from 1900-1930 when the Great Depression stopped the move to Electric Drive and then the Steady drop in the price of oil from 1930 till the mid-1960s killed any further Electrification of the Rail lines, in fact some lines converted form Electricity to Diesel in the 1950s do to the drop in price of oil). Such electric Trains would be more energy efficient then today's Diesels and not depended on one form of energy as are diesel engines. Like increase electric generation such a conversion will take 20 years (Diesel started to replace Steam in the 1930s, but Steam survived till the 1960s on the major lines, but it was all over by 1970). Thus another long term changeover, but like increase electrical production doable.

Ships can revert to wind (with back up engines for calms) for trade. Modern Computers can make a sailing ship operate with the same size crew as a modern Diesel. People forget that the main reason steam and then Diesel replaced Sail, was NOT only that steam and Diesel Ships can move in calms, but such ships needed less crewmen to man than sailing ships. Sailing ships needed enough crewmen to adjust the sails as needed, you did NOT need those sailors on a Steam or Diesel Ship. Flatboats disappeared off America's inland Rivers in the 1920s for the same reason, you needed more men to guide a Flatboat downstream, then you needed to propel the same load with a Steam or Diesel Tug. This will reverse as oil goes up in price, followed by coal (even without increase demand for electricity caused by people converting from oil to electricity for transport as outlined above, Coal is expected to peak in production about 20-30 years after oil). Thus sail will make a comeback as I see no other reliable form of energy to propel ships (Through I do see such ships having axillary engines during calms and for assistance going in and out of port).

Notice I see transport using some sort of oil even after peak. Farming can convert back to the horse, people can adjust their lifestyle to be able to walk or bike to work, home and to go shopping. But once you look at Transport some sort of portable power must be used at times. Sail and Electricity will help, but even if trade contracts 90% (and I expect trade to contract that much) you will still see a use for oil (If coal is available it will be converted to oil as a more convenient fuel). Sooner or later most of this fuel will be bio-Diesel or Ethanol (i.e from Plants) but given people's need to eat these will be high priced (I expect $50 a gallon). At such prices only those people who need it the most will pay for it. This will be Transport, for most people will pay top dollar to get their sick or injured body to the Hospital.

Just some comments are why a simple solution like converting to Electricity is NOT the solution to peak oil. We have to look at ALL of our forms of energy AND adjust how we are living in any system to adjust the problems that Peak oil will produce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
22. I agree with everything except the easy part
You basically want to restructure society from scratch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC