[gwmss15]

in the back wall of the fire place is about 20 pipes that the water passes thought and it heats it up in a very similar to a gas instant hot water service the fire place had the pipes put in in 1920 and it provides nice warm water all winter long but our winter is not as cold as the usa

[Graeme]

The style of transition from an oil-based economy to a post-oil
society will ultimately depend on policy decided within the US
government. Unfortunately, US policy is heavily influenced by big
business interests which want the status quo to remain, i.e. an
economy based on oil.

These are the observations that Paul Roberts makes in his
book "The end of oil, on the edge of a perilous new world".

If we want a change in US policy, we have to reach US voters. If
you know of any US congressman or senators who are friends with you,
please contact them and let them know your views!

Graeme Scott
New Zealand

[AnnaLivia]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'I')f we want a change in US policy, we have to reach US voters. If you know of any US congressman or senators who are friends with you, please contact them and let them know your views!

Graeme Scott
New Zealand

[Graeme]

Sorry I'm a bit naive about US politics. My intention was sincere though. Perhaps it would be better to spread the news about peak oil and associated problems through the US media - preferably from a high profile energy analyst like Matt Simmons. I know he is about the release a new book but this and other news needs to reach more people through TV, radio, newspaper and magazines. What do you think?

Graeme Scott
New Zealand

[savethehumans]

You did right, Graeme. The skeptics that post here will look for any opportunity to dis someone, a habit that I fear afflicts too many of the PO believers here, as well.

Like I said, I posted the Heinberg story over on the Geopolitics thread, having no idea you were doing the same on Open Discussion! Many of us here LOVE having recent stories and interviews posted in this forum--given the scope of the times, we need to keep up on things 24/7! So you keep up the good work!

[Egon_1]

Check out this article:

Unlikely Allies Fight U.S. Oil Dependence

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nlikely Allies Fight U.S. Oil Dependence
Bipartisan network to press for reduced consumption
by John J. Fialka and Jeffrey Ball
Mon, Mar 28, 2005 12:34 GMT


WASHINGTON - High oil prices are uniting unlikely allies in a campaign to change American energy policy. A bipartisan coalition -- including an increasing number of defense hawks -- is backing policies to curb petroleum use, a cause generally associated with environmental activists.

Today, 26 former national-security officials from Republican and Democratic administrations will send a letter to President Bush calling for "a major new initiative to curtail U.S. consumption" by improving the fuel economy of U.S. autos and developing alternatives to fossil fuels.

The group asks the federal government to spend as much as $1 billion on the effort over the next five years -- "a level proportionate with other priorities for our nation's defense."

"The price at the pump is not all we're paying right now. We are also paying $400 billion for a defense budget," says Robert C. McFarlane, President Reagan's national-security adviser and a signer of the letter.

Frank Gaffney, another signer and former Reagan official who heads the Center for Security Policy, a national-security think tank in Washington, adds: "I don't often find myself in agreement with those at the Natural Resources Defense Council, but I'm delighted to have them joining us in this initiative because I do think there is common ground.

There is now a critical mass of national-security-minded people coming together to make the argument that this is no longer something we should do at some point. Reducing U.S. oil consumption, he says, is "no longer a nice thing to do. It's imperative."

[j_bumble]

The two questions that come to mind immediately are:
Will it be enough?
Will it actually happen?

[UIUCstudent01]

Maybe the hawks are realizing that Iraq might have been the first of the wars where the amount of money and energy we spend in getting the resource soon won't matter because Iraq and the World only has so much... And they realize that Peak Oil is essientially going to destroy the industrial-military-oil complex. Thus, they have no other choice...

(This may be off a little bit off topic: It may have been said before somewhere, but I think it's telling sign that the Bush and co. is spending money like no tomorrow... the hawks seem to want to preserve the status quo, Bush seems to have another agenda...)

[spear]

This is clearly the US govt saying :
"we fucked up thinking we could go out and STEAL it and since plans B and C probably wont work either,here is plan D.

[TheSupplyGuy]

Whether they know about peak oil or not, it is common sense. I saw a figure on ABC World News Tonight saying that in 1974, only about 1/3 of U.S. oil was imported, now it's 2/3. And as we know, a majority of that 2/3 comes from places that aren't friendly to the U.S. And it also has been agreed upon that Americans consider cheap energy integral to society. Thusly, our reliance on foreign imports for energy is now a defense problem. Secondly, the some of the money we spend on those imports probably goes to terrorist cells, reinforcing the defense issue. So by reducing our imports(and oil demand) you kill a whole flock of birds with one stone(high demand, environmental factors from using less oil, less money needed to be spent on defense budgets, less money going to paying for the relatively expensive oil, etc.).

[hull3551]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Egon_1', '"')The price at the pump is not all we're paying right now. We are also paying $400 billion for a defense budget...

[aahala]

"The group asks the federal government to spend as much as $1 billion on the effort over the next five years -- "a level proportionate with other priorities for our nation's defense."

I get a kick out of the word "proportionate". US highway transportation
consumes about 11-12 mb per day. At say $55 per, we're at 1B. . . .
every other day.

[entropyfails]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hull3551', '
')280,000,000 US population
175,000,000 # of US drivers
$400,000,000,000 $ spent on oil security
15,000 avg miles driven/year
2,625,000,000,000 total miles driven
20 avg vehicle mpg
131,250,000,000 total gallons consumed
*****************************
$3.05 addl $/gallon subsidy

[hull3551]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('entropyfails', '
')Welcome Hull3551,

I completely love this calculation. We DO have a gas tax, we just pretend we don't. Completely awesome! *smile*

[pilferage]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hull3551', 'W')ell I've always believed this. Consequently, the price of gasoline is closer to US$6/gallon per the following assumptions:

280,000,000 US population
175,000,000 # of US drivers
$400,000,000,000 $ spent on oil security
15,000 avg miles driven/year
2,625,000,000,000 total miles driven
20 avg vehicle mpg
131,250,000,000 total gallons consumed
*****************************
$3.05 addl $/gallon subsidy

[gg3]

Good one, Hull. Excellent in fact. If you could footnote unimpeachable sources for your key figures, you could make that little paragraph of numbers into an icon. Instead of calling it "subsidy" I would suggest calling it "the real gas tax," because more people grasp the concept of taxes more readily than subsidies.

Figures to footnote: most importantly, the 400-lotsa'-zeroes oil security budget (which will probably be taken by some to be an ideologically-motivated figure unless you cite a source), and the number of US drivers (hardly as controversial, but useful to have a source for that).

TheSupplyGuy: My feelings exactly. If ever there was a national security issue, this is the one: we're funding our sworn enemies to the tune of megabucks, and the solution to this will also be a boon for American industries. A few years ago I made up a poster with a photo of someone holding a nozzle in their gas tank, and the caption "...And a few cents for Al Qaeda. Where did you think they got their money from?" I should probably send the .jpg to these groups and let 'em print the posters as a fundraising item.

Looks like a lot of folks are now talking 500-mile-per-gallon cars using PHEV technology (already feasible) with new fuels compounded on the ratio 85% biofuel/ 15% petrofuel, and recharged at night with offpeak electricity which can come from uranium, wind, solar, biomass, municipal waste, etc. etc. We can do this. It's not hard.

If economics is called "the dismal science," engineering ought to be called "the uplifting science" or "the hopeful science." (Notwithstanding the fact that it's applied science rather than pure science, the point being to put a new meme into the culture about this.)

[hull3551]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'G')ood one, Hull. Excellent in fact. If you could footnote unimpeachable sources for your key figures, you could...

[chris-h]

Cartoon. Warning: Adult content

[alpha480v]

Great cartoon.That about says it all right there.

Thanks for the laugh!!

[Graeme]

Biomass to Play “Essential Role” in Reducing Global Dependence on Fossil Fuels; Time to Get On It

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')riting in the journal Science, a group of scientists from the UK and the USA said that using biomass rather than oil or coal to produce fuels and chemicals could play an essential role in reducing the world’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Credible studies show that with plausible technology developments, biofuels could supply some 30% of global demand in an environmentally responsible manner without affecting food production. To realize that goal, so-called advanced biofuels must be developed from dedicated energy crops, separately and distinctly from food. This is a multidisciplinary task in which biologists, agronomists, chemical engineers, fuel specialists, and social scientists must work to integrate and optimize several currently disjoint activities.