I'll partially agree with this MSN/Money article that asserts energy conservation during the 1970's brought down oil prices in the 1980's. It does not mention that the Reagan administration encouraged the Saudi's to pump more oil so the Soviets they despised would go bankrupt.

Conservation will eliminate the need for more oil, even reduce the need, but alternative energy still needs to be found. I hear on one political extreme to just use less energy - the other to just pump more oil. The truth seems to be conservation along with finding alternative energy sources.

 

Hi Chuck,

I know I am not supposed to say this, rabid green liberal fanatic that I am, but I strongly think that voluntary conservation as a *method* to decrease gas prices/protect the environment/improve national security is dead from the get go.

Our society is driven by consumption. If you consume less, your virtual neighbor will consume more given the opportunity to do so. Equilibrium is reached through price/demand. Period.

Society only has two choices here: Increase prices now through taxes, and hopefully use the 'profits' to invest in alternatives; or allow the market to dictate prices, with profits directed outside of the country and the domestic energy infrastructure.

Left to it's own motivations, the petroleum industry will not substantially invest it's profits today, in the fossil-fuel poor, high energy demand future of tommorow. That is just reality, apparent to anyone who cares to review an oil company's business sheet, let alone peek at where Saudi Arabia spends it's dollars.

 

EricGo,

I think we agree that a lot more can/should be done about alternative energy/conservation. Yes, human nature may be a bigger problem than the technological challenges...

 

Nobody seems to take population control seriously. To me that is going to be the number 1 problem.

 

Last I heard on that is population of the Western World, esp Europe is declining. The developing world is plateauing and will start declining later this century. The problem will be the increased consumption per individual.

 

The scary thought is what will happen if developing countries do not plan on alternate energy sources now. The future will be bleak as power/energy sources are strained to the limit until something breaks. Eventually energy creation will peak out and start to decline if no alternate sources are utilized. Then what? Life as we know it today will be history and I'll be riding a real Mustang to work. At least by 2050 I won't have to worry...

 

"At least by 2050 I won't have to worry..."

bush uses the same construct for his policies, too.

 

Ever stop to think in the horse-and-buggy era, nobody could drive horses they way a lot of people drive their cars full throttle all the time? That would be animal cruelity!

After running several marathons, I've realized the human body has a lot in common with IMA hybrids:

• All human energy is glycose - the excess is stored as fat but does not burn as efficiently. Just like all of a Civic (or Insight's) power is the tank of gas - the excess is stored in the batteries but not as efficiently.
• The fast-twich muscles during heavy exertion such as sprinting are anerobic - they burn energy without oxygen, but far less efficiently than normal. The assist works without oxygen, but operates only on short bursts and less efficently than the gas engine (because it charged the batteries in the 1st place)
• A marathoner runs in an aerobic mode - about 70% of his max hearbeat for greater fuel economy. A hypermiler drives his Honda gas only as much as possible for greater fuel economy.
• If a marathoner starts out too fast, they deplete their 2000 calories of glyocgen before reaching the finish and "hit the wall". If a hypermiler starts out too fast, he will run out of gas and probably not the expecte mpg.
• A marathoner can't burn fat alone, but must have some glyocgen stored burn with it. A Honda hypermiler can't go batteries-only (forget the 2006 HCH!), but must use the assist along with the gas engine.
• A marathoner's heart rate will go up the first few minutes simply because he is getting an "assist" from the fast-twich muscles that require no oxygen. A Honda hybrid will use the assist from a standstill.

 

It seems inevitible that we'll be oil independant by then. What are the odds that any significant quantities of oil still exist forty-five years from now? Slim to none. Already we're paying as much or more for fuel than many estimates say we could produce biodiesel for. A recent story about the Canadian tar sands (since I consider Canada America for the purpose of energy-sharing) are producing oil at $18/barrel. The worst estimates I've seen for CTL (coal to liquid) fuel processing is $35/barrel. Now sure, tar sands and coal won't last forever either, but they're saying that the US has more recoverable coal than Saudi Arabia has recoverable oil. It seems like a workable stop-gap until we transition to renewable fuels.

 

Hi Delta Flyer:

___Your good … In fact, you are darn good

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net