|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:30 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
that is the thing with gas that is so different than everything else... it is like the great equalizer...
everyone likes to complain but you really don't see any fall off in use of gasoline...it has actually increased... deep down in the back of people's minds they know even at $2 a gallon they are getting a bargain...
and it helps to know that everyone is paying the same price, everyone is in the exact same boat...
then of course consider that a gallon of evian water...water taken out of a 'spring' somewhere...is like $23 a gallon...that gallon of water certainly isn't doing as much for you as that gallon of gas... i think people are more than willing to pay the price and in their heart of hearts accept it as a reality they have to deal with |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to strongly endorse that point. Whenever there is a gas price spike, motorists are interviewed at gas stations across the country. How many times have I seen a man or woman, when asked if further price hikes would curtail their driving, say "No"? It's become a "given" -- an accepted "right," not to say a "rite," that the car will be used for any and all errands.
Someone could make an interesting and informative documentary -- if they haven't already -- on the numbers of parents, or their employees, who now line up in their SUVs in front of schools, motors running, for long periods of time every day, waiting to whisk their "precious cargo" away from elementary (and secondary?) schools, every weekday, for nine months of the year, in America today. What increase in fuel consumption does this, alone, represent?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems clear the world is close to that tipping point where demand exceeds supply. Elementary economics warns that when this happens prices increase.
Political events, of course, also have an effect on oil prices....is $200 a barrel unrealistic if the world’s largest producers are upset by war, invasions and political agendas?
A Pentagon study on the security implications of global warming, titled Imagining the Unthinkable, predicts that in the not too distant future, wars will be fought primarily over resources.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7643-2004Feb26.html
Its not only in cargoing the kids off to school, but how many of us will be able afford the R1000 or more it will take to fill our cars’ gas tanks? How will the price of food be affected when the costs of bringing it to market rise dramatically? How much of our economic model will survive, given that much of it presupposes cheap oil? Can we continue to assume that we can procure raw materials for manufacturing from anywhere in the world? Can we assume that we can sell goods anywhere?
And what of those businesses that are dependent on cheap oil for their survival? The airline industry is under severe strain with oil at clear and present danger levels, and some companies will be going out of business with higher fuel prices.
And what of all the oil by-products, plastics, tar and chemicals? For some of these, there are no alternatives on the market yet.
If oil prices soar, it is likely that globalisation will founder and world economies will become much more local. What we consume will need to be produced locally; where we work and where our children are schooled, too, will need to be close to home. We might end up in a world that rapidly contracts.
This may sound pretty far-fetched, but the data on oil supply seems to be telling us that we need to start making alternative production plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you, Donald. Much better to calmly survey the possibilities, rather than unhappily regretting the losses, isn't it?
"Presupposed cheap oil" is the concept that needs to be "re-supposed," doesn't it? It was nice while it lasted. . .imagine, perhaps, what would the industrial revolution have been -- or not been? -- with some other energy source, in addition to coal, than petroleum. Would electric generation have been managed entirely by coal, water, and wind? Could it, yet?
Is nuclear a completely unacceptable power source? Or have we simply done it the easy and "dirty" way -- perhaps the only method initially feasible?
What will the future "mix" be? I've missed most of the numerous predictions penned by the authors of science fiction, over the past fifty years, but somewhere among them might be the seeds of untried ideas.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Donald wrote: | | The environmental movement became the refuge-of-choice for socialists and communists who had nowhere else to go after the fall of the Soviet Union and the worldwide communist movement. Here they found a movement they could use to further their goals of weakening capitalism... |
Donald, your statement here is nothing but mass slander. It is so bogus as to indicate that you are seriously detached from reality.
I suppose it is good in a way that you share such views so frankly, because it provides forum readers with context on just how imaginary is the basis for your beliefs.
In fact, the actual business experience in most industries - contrary to the common rhetoric - is that working to raise environmental standards raises operational efficiencies, and thus profits.
Killing one's staff and/or customers has always been a short-sighted approach to business. Witness just for interest the higher standards of living in Scandinavia, hand-in-hand with higher levels of environmental controls - not to mention, generally high standards of design, as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Improved fuel efficiency in the world’s transportation sector will be a critical element in the long-term reduction of liquid fuel consumption, however, the scale of effort required will inherently take time and be very expensive. For example, the U.S. has a fleet of over 200 million automobiles, vans, pick-ups, and SUVs. Replacement of just half with higher efficiency models will require at least 15 years at a cost of over two trillion dollars for the U.S. alone. Similar conclusions generally apply worldwide.
For the foreseeable future, electricity-producing technologies, e.g., nuclear and solar energy, cannot substitute for liquid fuels in most transportation applications. Someday, electric cars may be practical, but decades will be required before they achieve significant market penetration and impact world oil consumption. And no one has yet defined viable options for powering heavy trucks or airplanes with electricity.
| Moderator wrote: | | Off-topic forum guideline violations blocked. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1137
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Someday, electric cars may be practical |
dat funny - there is a parking area at the end of my street where you can plug your electric car in to recharge it.
(the first Peugeot electric cars came on the market in 1996 I believe).
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whats even more funny, the local COSTCO store in my area removed all the electric plug-in spaces (maybe 10) because nobody was using them and they needed more parking space for their patrons. Of course we have electric vehicles, but it will take years for it to catch on....big corporate and auto industry business will keep that from happening anytime soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In reply to both posts above: Kevin, the improvement of health and long life could be argued, with incompassionate logic, to work against the goals of sustainable world well-being, to the extent that they contribute to an accelerating population growth (like euthanasia and drug policy, difficult and easily ignored subjects). Of course, illness doesn't help anybody -- but the implications of the opposite, longer and more lives, may be arguably problematic, too, no?
Donald, aren't the turnover rates of vehicles an assumed and constant expense? Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that the changeover to a different type of propulsion would be done all at once. . .the manufacturers are perfectly capable of switching to newer technologies (they do it all the time) as new models come on line and old ones are phased out. They complain bitterly about the expense of mandated imporvements, and routinely predict big price increases -- just look back at their resistance to air bag technology, now taken for granted: they screamed bloody murder and said it would add $800 to the cost of each car! Even if it did, the public now demands that improvement.
You're right about electric propulsion, so far; but look at the success of (and demand for) the currently available hybrid-engined cars, with Ford and Honda, among others, adding new models as we speak. There is no inherent limitation I am aware of to the scale of these powerplants, meaning we could see even large trucks with them, in due course.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SDR wrote: | | Of course, illness doesn't help anybody -- but the implications of the opposite, longer and more lives, may be arguably problematic, too, no? |
SDR, it's an interesting question, but ultimately that negative view is more of an old-school Malthusian fear or presumption, than an actual effect in the world. Over history, around the world, population expansion is eased by improving health and living standards, not worsened.
Donald, the amount of energy that could be saved in the U.S. vehicle fleet by rather modest mileage improvements swamps the small amount of oil that could be had by destroying the habit of the Porcupine caribou herd.
But we've already been over that. If you have concrete and authoritative evidence to reference to support your claims, then cite it. Otherwise, move on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The model community you must be looking for in a post peak oil period, might be best summed up in this test model Ohio community called Agraria:
http://www.communitysolution.org/agraria.html
I think if we pool all of our resources, as exemplified in this article, we might just be able to save those porcupine caribous, and maybe, one day, have the resources to head north to visit with some of them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ford is producing the F-150 hybrid to hit the markets this next model year i believe... lovingly produced in mcdonough's ford rouge river plant... green building popping out green vehicles...what a nice concept... maybe the F-150's should have 'green' bed liners like the roof of the plant 
the problem with pointing at hybrids as an answer is that they are really just "less-bad" since they are still using gasoline, just in lesser amounts... you could just as easily point to the diesel passanger car as as good of a solution... you can take the VW TDI from buffalo to nashville on a single tank of fuel...that is pretty damn good...and it isn't packaged in something that looks like a roller skate [honda toyota]
today legislators wanted to raid the stretegic oil reserve...bush said no as expected
as for solar panels, they can never replace our energy needs, it isn't possible unless we actually significantly reduce those needs... although a massive amount of solar energy hits the planet every second... that amount is entirely fixed for a certain area... i can't remember the exact number at the moment...eitherway a better part of the US would have to be covered in solar panels to meet our current energy needs... and that is using the THEORETICAL conversion rates... which are far from the actual rates seen in panels today...
then of course...it takes more energy to produce one solar panel than that solar panel will produce in its lifetime... so according to eMergy...it just isn't going to work...
nuclear is the only form of energy production that could actually make up for oil... unless you wanted to use coal, which also could do it for about 100 years...but i'm pretty sure no one is tossing that idea out there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is no solution to long term energy supply problems that does not involve reducing our energy needs.
And in many areas (not all, of course), reducing our energy needs can actually be done in ways that enhance our quality of life.
So good designers should, frankly, quit whining, and get on with the ethical imperative of our time: responsible green design. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yeah but it gets really sticky when you start to define that...
like the solar panels for example... you can't buy a solar panel that was made using only solar or green energy... so the solar panel although seemingly green... has by way of its process and creation contributed quite a bit to environmental problems...
i guess you could say...build a factory, cover it in solar panels and make solar panels using just that energy... the real asses will say, well what about the panels on the roof?? others will say, one panel can never produce enough energy to make another...they can't create enough energy to replicate on their own...i guess it depends how 'green' you want to be... do you want to be plant-a-tree green or full out granola eating cannibus wearing green?
i think that was the 'environmentalist' donald was talking about earlier... not the ones that want clean energy and good safe healthy design... he is more concerned about the ones claiming that wind power is going to make preditory birds extinct or that hydroelectric power is going to be the end of the brook trout... you know like the ones who enjoy blowing up mcdonald and such |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't get sticky - it just takes some work to calculate and get real answers - and/or a few minutes with Google to track down enough research to get a consensus of solid sources.
For instance, photovoltaic systems - "solar panels" with the trimmings - do pay back their embodied energy, about twice over currently, with prospects of great improvement in the foreseeable future:
The Energy Intensity of Photovoltaic Systems
http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvepbtoz.htm
Andrew Blakers and Klaus Weber
Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems
Engineering Department, Australian National University
Canberra 0200
October 2000
Summary
"The use of photovoltaic systems on a large scale in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions requires that the energy associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of PV systems be small compared with energy production during the system lifetime. That is, the energy payback time should be short. The energy intensity and cost of PV systems are closely related. At present the energy payback time for PV systems is in the range 8 to 11 years, compared with typical system lifetimes of around 30 years. About 60% of the embodied energy is due to the silicon wafers. As the PV industry reduces production costs and moves to the use of thin film solar cells the energy payback time will decline to about two years."
--
In design, a professional attitude calls for dealing with facts as such. In technical, factual issues, abstract speculation is no substitute for concrete data-driven findings.
I'm sorry if that sounds cranky. It just gets really boring to talk around and around solid technical issues as if they are impenetrable mysteries, when they are in fact eminently resolvable. Solving complex problems matter-of-factly is intrinsic to the competency of a good designer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
