[jc4patents]

admittably, the future seems dire - we have to start somewhere, however, so let me propose:

1) generation of electricity and use of private cars makes up the greatest part of U.S. oil usage,
2) althought there are dangers, follow the French model (maybe we should not always make fun of the French) and generate the majority of U.S. electrical power with nuclear plants, and
3) with legislated requirements and/or enticements, require all personal vehicles to realize a 60 mpg average (to be subsequently increased to 100 mpg).

a future administration (not this one, obviously) that could motivate the American public to put 2) and 3) in place, would reduce our oil usage sufficiently to secure our future for at least 50-100 years while we consider further measures.
nuclear power has a scary past but with new safeguards, it can be reasonbly safe - if there were sufficient oil, forget it but in the reality we find ourselves in, it must be considered

[rogerhb]

When Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western Civilization he said he thought it would be a good idea.

[gego]

I would like to propose a ban on proposals, particularly these collectivist soultions that have a dismal history of failure.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', 'I') would like to propose a ban on proposals, particularly these collectivist soultions that have a dismal history of failure.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jc4patents', '
') 1) generation of electricity and use of private cars makes up the greatest part of U.S. oil usage,

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '
')
Of course, everyman for himself is an excellent solution.

[green_achers]

gego, read "Tragedy of the Commons." Garret Hardin. Your points were sophomoric 30 years ago.

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('green_achers', 'g')ego, read "Tragedy of the Commons." Garret Hardin. Your points were sophomoric 30 years ago.

[hopeless]

c'mon, gego, don't be simple. You may be right that NY is gonna be screwed. Do you really believe that there wont be mass migrations and people wandering around that will stumble on to your meeger little hideout in the boonies and decide they want a slice of your puny little pie? Do you really believe that isolating yourself is going to protect you and that your property will go unmolested? The only way to survive is cooperaton, collective efforts. As a matter of fact, its the "every man for himself" mentality thats gotten us waist deep in this doo doo in the first place.

[gego]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hopeless', 'c')'mon, gego, don't be simple. You may be right that NY is gonna be screwed. Do you really believe that there wont be mass migrations and people wandering around that will stumble on to your meeger little hideout in the boonies and decide they want a slice of your puny little pie? Do you really believe that isolating yourself is going to protect you and that your property will go unmolested? The only way to survive is cooperaton, collective efforts. As a matter of fact, its the "every man for himself" mentality thats gotten us waist deep in this doo doo in the first place.

[hopeless]

I agree that arbitrary mandates from above are a bad idea. while it would be desirable to cast off as many social fetters as possible, it would be, perhaps, necessary to also replace them with strong social bonds. so as to create interdependant communities. Think about GM buying up all the public railways to be replaced with the highway system. That was done by powerful elites in the name of their own self interest. that helped perpetuate a highly individualistic type of society of suburban drones who buzz around in their little death machines, also pursuing their own self interests. the only people who benefit from "every man for himself" is the wealthy and powerful. better learn to coexist or you and your neibors are screwed. Unless you are bill gates... you're not bill gates, are you? I mean there are some really bright people posting on these forums. people with some real valuble knowledge. but it cracks me up that they think they can just go hide from the rest of the world and wait for them to die off.

[hopeless]

and yes, i am aware that my typing is disorganized and fragmented.

[crapattack]

We come into this world dependent on the commons and most of us remain dependent to varying degrees. In NA we have a culture of 'individualism' but it is largely illusion. There isn't one of us who is able to survive without being dependent in some way upon others. IMO "Every man for himself" is a predator term that means little more than "everything for himself".

In the coming world protection and care from and for the commons will be crucial for survival. In any case, who wants to live alone in fortified bunker in the wilderness? Not me and I'd guess most wouldn't choose it. At that point I'd have to ask what was the good of "survival" if there isn't a community to share it with.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'T')here isn't one of us who is able to survive without being dependent in some way upon others. IMO "Every man for himself" is a predator term that means little more than "everything for himself".

[cr0bar]

hi, first time poster here, but i just wanted to point out that nuclear energy as a replacement for oil (coupled with electric vehicles i presume) can only ever be a stopgap measure. Uranium is, like oil, a finite resource in it's conventional form. Like oil it will follow a peaking cycle which could come up on very fast if everyone takes up nuclear programs. There are currently only 440 working nuclear reactors worldwide, what do you think will happen to the price of uranium if this figure were to triple or quadruple?

According to the 2005 BP statistical review 17452 terawatt hours were generated in 2004, this would equate to around 17000 typical nuclear power stations (1200MW capacity 1 terawatt hour per year generation) for a complete replacement, although this is an unlikely scenario given renewable contributions. In addition you must consider the electricity demand of all those electric vehicles.

In 2004 about 57% of oil was used for motive power. Assuming 20% average eficiency of use (a bit low, but I'd be surprised if it was much higher than 25% and astonished at more than 30%) this equates to around 1x10^19 Joules actually required for motive power. Electric motors are around 90% efficient (trust me, I'm an electrical engineer) so we require 1.11x10^19 J. 1 Watt hour is around 3.44x10^3 Joules which gives around 3200 Terawatt hours required on top of current requirements. I haven't taken account of the air travel component here which could not be replaced with electric systems and so on so we'd have to take this out, but it gives a rough idea of what would be required.

Also, it takes around ten years to build a nuclear reactor and there is some debate about whether the carbon dioxide released in it's construction and eventual decommissioning works out any less than that of a modern coal fired plant over it's lifetime. Nuclear is not an environmentally friendly option.

[crapattack]

crobar, welcome and thanks for your observations. I do suggest you check out the nuke threads on this forum as all aspects of nuke have been debated ad nauseum. I happen to agree with you that nuke cannot be the answer many proponents think it is. As well, I think it is unsafe - especially given the speed and quantity of nuke we will need to make a dent and it doesn't address liquid fuels, but like I say, there has been much discussion here.

[cr0bar]

True, when i posted I didn't realise there was in fact already a whole thread devoted to nuclear info elsewhere, and no doubt it has, as you point out, been discussed to death, was just answering the initial post though.