The "Green" movement

[AFPheonix]

As I already stated, OPEC is working very hard to prevent that, as they will lose out on shittons of money. I'm not sure when it will happen, but it most likely will at some point.

Regardless, that doesn't mean that we can't use this as a perfect opportunity to start conserving better and considering more drastic measures of conservation, like upgrading city centers to make them more inviting to live in, which would put more people near their places of work, cutting down on fuel spent on commuting.
Better public transport would be another way. I'm spoiled absolutely rotten because my city is very innovative about public transport and has done a lovely job between it's bus lines, the MAX train and Portland Streetcar.

[Seshat]

Yes, I figured you did. BBFTH is simply the most complete book I have ever found

Then I'll look for it - thank you.

You do realize that there is more at stake than just "driving to the corner store a few more times", right?

Are you aware of how many products that we use are petroleum based???? Packaging materials, asphalt, . . . Do I need to point out how dependent we are on plastics?

Believe me - I and all the other chemically intolerant canaries know JUST HOW MUCH petroleum-based junk is in our environment. We're WELL aware.

Monash University has developed a (not yet commercially feasible) biologically-based form of 'crude oil'. It's not just a fuel, it will make those other products continue to be possible. So we'll probably shift to using the bio-crude for the ones we as a society deem most important.

Nuclear energy is clean and safe. If environmentalists ran my country, they'd be building more nuclear plants, not less.

I did a study on Three Mile Island, when I was at uni.

Nuclear plants are safe ... if you don't include human error. But human error exists, and I believe that nuclear plants will blow at some point in their lifetimes. I don't want to live near one, or draw my power from one.

I'd much rather have a personal solar farm or windmill on my roof and limit my electricity use to what can be personally generated in my home.

For townships and villages that live near rocky coastlines, there's an easy and safe and 'green' form of power generation: pick a spot where the waves crash dramatically in a gap in the cliffs. Shove a turbine in there, wrap it in concrete or wire mesh or something that will protect the sea birds from the turbine blades, attach a generator to the turbine's axle. The test one I heard about produced enough power to supply the neighbouring township and then some.
Use ochres to colour the concrete to match the cliffs, and rough the concrete surface up a bit, and it won't even mar the landscape.

How they work is simple: the wave crashes in, driving air up and through the turbine, spinning it one way. Then the wave crashes out again, pulling air down and through the turbine again, spinning it the other way. A bit of clever engineering means that whichever way the turbine spins, power is generated.

These need little maintenance: just a check to see that erosion isn't taking away the cliffs it's relying on, a clean of the wildlife-protective grill, and the standard maintenance for turbines and generators.

So are you telling me that you (or she) will be first in line to give up the products listed that are petroleum based? Are you both ready to lose your current standard of living?

I am. And, in fact, my current standard of living isn't -that- different from a 'once oil reserves are gone' standard.

However, I'm participating in various local projects which will maintain a modern-ish but cleaner, greener standard of living and not rely on oil.

We need to do something soon--we've already seen NYC shut down when they lose power. Demand for power isn't going away, yet we're not building new plants.

My personal vision has solar cells common on the rooves of houses and workplaces, and small wind turbines being as common as TV antennas or satellite TV dishes.

Rocky coastlines will have those wave-crash turbines I mentioned earlier in this comment. Other region-specific power sources can be used: geothermals where its reasonable, banks of solar or wind power generators. To go with this, reducing wasted power will be helpful. I'm sure we can all spot places where we waste power that we wouldn't even notice the change.

(When we upgrade the wiring in our old house, I'm getting motion-detecting nightlights put in. So when we -need- a little bit of navigational light, we have it, but without any of the large lights on. And the nightlights can probably be simple LEDs - use almost no power anyway. Note that I haven't fully researched this: it's possible that always-on LEDs or on-if-its-dark LEDs would use less power than motion detectors.)

For those of us with gardens, edible gardens are probably a good thing. We're working on ours: almost every plant we've put in since we moved in is edible, and the few that aren't are living mulch or useful in other ways. This - food production at the same place as consumption - is yummy, healthy, and uses almost no transportation-power. Just the power for the seeds.
Of course, you have to balance out fertilizer and water costs: but so far we're doing fine with wilful neglect of our garden. A bit of weeding, and using reasonably clean wastewater judiciously, and the garden is fine. (Food-garden 'wastewater' is stuff like the water from washing veggies, or the old water when changing the pet's water bowls. We just wash our veggies in a bowl now instead of under running water.)

Regardless, that doesn't mean that we can't use this as a perfect opportunity to start conserving better and considering more drastic measures of conservation, like upgrading city centers to make them more inviting to live in, which would put more people near their places of work, cutting down on fuel spent on commuting.
Better public transport would be another way. I'm spoiled absolutely rotten because my city is very innovative about public transport and has done a lovely job between it's bus lines, the MAX train and Portland Streetcar.

Yup. Or as well as upgrading city centres, how about satellite cities? I live right near a developing satellite city: we can walk (or I can scooter) to the shops and the public transport hub, there's most services in the same complex-area as the shops and PT hub, and there's an increasing number of jobs being generated there. It's within walking or easy PT distance of a lot of people, and the PT is improving as well.

For some things we still need to go to the city proper, but even that we can do with PT. We still have a car, but the number of times we need it is gradually reducing.

[protege]

Not really, as the reason fuel is very expensive is not due to supply issues as it is speculators driving up the price.

That's one of the main reasons. The others, are OPEC manipulating the supply, increased demand from places like India and China, and the unrest in the Middle East. However, none of those things can drive up prices like the speculators can. In fact, one of those fools was quoted as saying something similar to "the only reason I bought oil for $100 a barrel...was so I could *say* that I bought oil for $100 a barrel." Seriously! Just today, they're predicting oil to rise up to $150 a barrel by year end. Where is it now? Currently around $130. If these idiots don't settle down soon, it's going to hit $150 by next month never mind year end.

Oh, and as I'm typing this, CNBC is saying that high oil prices might (and possibly will) wreak havoc with our already-struggling airline industry

[AFPheonix]

Yep, some doofus in Singapore got us up to $130 today.
OPEC does manipulate supply, but they're doing so now to keep the bubble going, not to make a point like they did in the 70's.

[protege]

Also consider that even if the supply *was* increased, our current refining capacity couldn't handle it. It would be sitting around in tanks somewhere until either capacity is added, or we use up what's already here. One of the OPEC cartel leaders was actually quoted as saying something like this--"why should we increase production of crude? It's not like the US can actually handle it." On that end, it doesn't really make much sense. I can't blame them for that.

Also, people forget that oil is used in many other things besides fuel. All of the products used in paint, plastics, and other consumer goods are also made at the refineries. Again, lack of capacity isn't helping to keep prices down.

[rahmota]

Also, people forget that oil is used in many other things besides fuel. All of the products used in paint, plastics, and other consumer goods are also made at the refineries. Again, lack of capacity isn't helping to keep prices down.

Yeah but what a lot of people dont realize is that bio cellulose from corn and soybeans for example can be used to replace a lot of the petrochemicals used in a variety of products. Hemp can b e used instead of synthetics, its all just a lot that the petrochemicals make a buttload of money for these comapnies and their executives and thats why they dont want to make any changes.

[Boozy]

Bio-fuels still have a long way to go.

It takes fuel to harvest the corn (or soybeans, etc), ship the crop to refining centers, extract and refine the fuel, and then distribute the finished product. Currently, the fuel used in the production of bio-fuels outweighs the amount of bio-fuel produced. It's idiocy.

So why do we do it? Because the thought that we can grow our own fuel gets votes from farmers, environmentalists, isolationists, and everyone in between. From a politics standpoint, it's a winning issue.

Bio-fuels have also been a major cause of the recent jump in grain prices. The west hasn't seen food shortages yet, but we're certainly paying more at the grocery store.

[rahmota]

Well in some ways yes biofuels have a little ways to go. But part of that is the political BS from the oil addiction.

Speakign as a farmer we have the capacity in this country to expand our productive capability by ending the fallow subsidies where farmers are paid not to farm.

Also I was referring to how bio-cellulose can replace a lot of petroleums in plastics and pharmaceuticals and all the rest of the stuff we use oil for. Generally if there is a use for petrochemicals there is a plant or other renewable growing substance able to replace it. I'll have to do some research to find all the replacements, but there are quite a few.

As for the jump in prices that isnt the fault of the farmers or the biofuels more the cost of transportation and the stores and major producer companies (ie kelloggs etc... deciding to try and keep their profits up. I know that the end of the chain standing out in the farm is not seeing as high a jump in profits as the ceo of Kelloggs is.

[AFPheonix]

Corn is not the best crop to get bio-fuel from as it requires so many resources to be grown. Cellulose-based ethanol will be a better innovation once it gets more efficient.

[kamn]

Erm, correct me if Im wrong, but arent fusion based engines being developed for cars? (H2O) I thought hybrid cars are using this and normal gas. Also, I dont think corn or any such grown ways for fuel will be a good idea on the long run...

[Pedersen]

Erm, correct me if Im wrong, but arent fusion based engines being developed for cars? (H2O)

Fusion based? No. Not a chance. Not when the coolest fusion reactions we are able to generate on this planet are still in the thousands of degrees.

If you meant fuel cells, then yes, they are, but I'm not sure how trusting I am of them. Hydrogen isn't exactly known for its lack of combustion when a spark hits it, ya know?

[Boozy]

Corn is not the best crop to get bio-fuel from as it requires so many resources to be grown. Cellulose-based ethanol will be a better innovation once it gets more efficient.

Sorghum is looking promising. The best part of sorghum is that only the top part is edible, and the stalks are usually tossed aside...but the cellulose is extracted from the stalks.

Its also a hardy crop and doesn't require many resources to grow.

The biggest hurdle may just be finding people who like things made of sorghum. Ew....

[AFPheonix]

The great thing is that any plant matter will do. Hell, even weeds would work. They just need the cellulose.

[Boozy]

The great thing is that any plant matter will do. Hell, even weeds would work. They just need the cellulose.

Scientifically, that's true. But there are logistical issues.

Ideally, bio-fuels would be produced and used within a very small radius. Every country should be able to grow their own, which means arable land becomes a concern. That's why its best to find a crop that can be used for both food and fuel.

[Difdi]

Hydrogen isn't exactly known for its lack of combustion when a spark hits it, ya know?

Hydrogen is actually pretty safe. It's possible to mount the fuel tanks so there is zero risk of the occupants of a vehicle getting burned if it ignites.

Most people will point to the Hindenberg crash as a reason why hydrogen is too flammable and dangerous. But there's two interesting facts about the crash.

The first interesting fact: Know how many people burned to death in the crash? Zero.

Second fact: The reason people died was massive blunt force trauma. People were so panicked by the fire, they jumped out while the zeppelin was still hundreds of feet in the air. Of those who stayed aboard until it touched, the worst injury was smoke inhalation. Zero deaths.