Yup, God will send us oil in plentiful amounts.

And wimmin, too!

Which is important to these guys, \'cause God hasn\'t provided them with one so far.

Tony, that's insane. I would have hit the guy over the head. Way to maintain composure on that one

God can't even balance his own checkbook...why do you think these TV preachers are always asking you for money?!?!?! How in the hell (every pun intended) is he going to afford the high cost of oil when it starts to become scarce?

"God" is already providing in the form of photons (sunlight), wind, water and conservation. The only problem is that utilities and fossil fuel companies do not have a monopoly and sunlight and have not yet figured out how to charge for what is delivered free around the world.

Good point, skruse. God is showering us with photons, like manna from heaven, but we're refusing to use it, and burning oil instead. Got to be a good sermon in there somewhere.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hybrid_Dave\";p=\"98897)</div>

Probably because the TV preachers are usually lining their own pockets and those pockets are insatiable. .

God uses what he has available....remember, once He only needed five fish and five loaves to feed five thousand.


Good points though on why we aren't using what God gave us. For example, one guy in OK used a water tank painted black in an old fridge to use as a water heater. Said water would get 150 degrees easily in the summer!

Go Solar!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO\";p=\"98942)</div>

Not us: my partner and I added full solar to our house, photovoltaic and hot water. We've cut our (city power grid) electrical use by 60%, our water use by 30%, and we're still finding ways to cut power use. Last night, we went to a solar power meeting and learned about "phantom" useage: all those little diodes you see lit on your applicances, the unnecessary clocks on things like microwave ovens, and pretty much any applicance with a remote control device, consume huge amounts of electricity over time. Most people, including us, had no clue as to how much energy we were frittering away for the convenience of using remotes, etc.

We put most items on power strips which can be switched off. The "huge" incovenience of this is that we need to turn the power strips on before we turn on the television, computer, etc.

Our son figured that last night we axed 200 watts of continuous and unncessary electrical use. Multiply that by 100 million households and you are talking some serious power savings, greenhouse gas reduction and power plant construction.

This is in Seattle; many of you get more sunlight per day than we do. California should be a world leader in solar but it isn't. Germany is, and they get about half the sunlight California does. I saw not ONE solar array on my trips to Palm Springs. Not one.

We are not rich, and I hope we don't come across as "more green than thou". My point is that if we can do it, pretty much anyone can. All politics is local.

If any of you would like more info on solar, contact me off chatline.
Bob

Right now oil is our energy economy. As reserves continue to decline it will become more and more expensive - duh! Of course the cheapest energy economy will always be the dominant one. Next will be LNG, and that will probably go for a few decades. As it dwindles and the price rises the next energy economy will take effect. It may be renewable (though the cost will probably be prohibvitive) or it may be coal, abundant but very dirty with present technology. My guess is that coal will be cleaned up at a cost less than renewables. Nuclear will probably be the final solution as processes become safer and the storage problem of spent fuel is solved.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ron Dupuy\";p=\"99330)</div>

Sorry, but I don't agree. Oil is the dominant energy source more because it lends itself better for the opportunity to centralize profits, and less to do with it's overall economy. (Though hydrocarbons like gasoline are indeed great portable storage mediums for energy. Though their days are numbered.)

Over the last 100 years, billions and billions of dollars have been spent on R&D and building the infrastructure to accommodate an oil economy. The result has been thousands of power plants and oil companies that are in the hands of a few thousand people. Coal, and LNG and even nuclear maintain that business model, so that is where we are greenwashed into thinking our future lies.

What would happen if we spent billions and billions on R&D and building an alternative energy infrastructure? There would be a real danger of every single citizen having their own power plant, or at least meeting 90% of their energy needs without the need for that many gigantic power plants.

This is a different business model then we are used to. Profits from the sale of those devices would be spread all across the planet, and there would not be a large monthly bill sent out to millions of people forever, with the bulk of the profits from that money from those bills going into the hands of a few.

So we are being brainwashed to believe that coal, LNG or nuclear and then hydrogen are our future because that is where the science is. Hogwash, we are being brainwashed to believe that because that is where the business model is able to centralize profits.

It's never been about science. It's always been about business, and more specifically, a very particular business model

The talk about hydrogen as the panacea for the future is all the proof you need for that. And one of the biggest threats to the success of that brainwashing, is the success of the hybrid.

Our home has an Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) of less than 1.0 based on detailed monthly records since 1989. We use less than 10% of surrounding homes. How? R-100 ceiling, triple pane windows, caulking, ceramic tile floor, curtains with storm liners. Owning a Prius is just more of "modeling what you teach."

The trick is to take personal responsibility and realize centralized power plants are inefficient. Decentralized power production (wind, water, photovoltaics) and conservation is where it is at. As spoken by Amory Lovins in "Factor Four," you double your wealth by doubling your efficiency. It is always cheaper to hold onto what you already have vs. "go get more." Lloyd's of London, Sorema and Munich Re learned long ago it is cheaper to NOT write a policy compared to writing a policy, collecting a premium, then paying out a huge amount due to a loss later.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse\";p=\"99362)</div>

I want to thank you for what you have done to help this nation postpone "peak oil" and global warming. I keep reading about how homes like yours are out there. If just 50% of the homes were like yours, our need for fossil fuels would probably be at 15 billion barrels per day and not at the 18 to 20 that it is at. And fundamentalist Islam would not be the financial powerhouse that it is. So I thank you for that as well. It's estimated that taking down the WTC cost the terrorists about $600,000 to $1 million. And that money came from our gas tanks.
Over the last few years, I've been saving everything that comes in styrofoam and throwing it on the top of my fiberglass insulation in my attic. I break the bigger pieces up. I've heard that there is formaldehyde in it, so I only use it where the fumes are very unlikely to invade my space. I live in an old house that leaks air. We've got great windows now, and all my bulbs are flourescent.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse\";p=\"99362)</div>

I certainly agree in personal responsibilty, but I also think society has to take some responsibilty. And in the USA, society is the government, the government is supposed to be us. So I also think government has to help the people to conserve, and help industry to convert. And not subsidize dead ends.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse\";p=\"99362)</div>

This is where it's at scientifically and socially and morally. But this is not where it's at for optimal centralized profits. Thus, the people will continue to get hoodwinked by very powerful forces that more drilling and hydrogen is where it's at. And that more wars is where it's at.

That leaves it to people like you to demonstrate another way. So again, thank you. And thank you to all Hybrid car owners, because we too are helping to prove that there is another way.

What did it cost for you to lower your utility bill? I would guess that for what you spent you could pay monthly bills for decades. Don't get me wrong, I think what you are doing is admirable, but it won't change the way the world does business. What motivates people is profit.

When the cost of energy goes up it will be profitible to add more insulation, photo-voltaic cells, etc., etc. Now it is not. Hybrids are close and that is why they will totally replace ICE's. Not because of ideology or business models. The same will follow with other uses of energy.

Prius04: I have probably said this before, but I will say it again, what you say fits perfectly into what Buckminster Fuller wrote 25 years ago in his book, "Critical Path". Bucky believed that no one should ever have to pay for energy. He was completely apolitical and explained how major business players had conspired to keep us from knowing what was happening. He did an inventory of the world's resources. Sounds like a monumental task, but those of us who knew of Bucky were completely confident of his findings. In fact, in those days nobody even considered refuting anything he did or said. He was a friend of Presidents who claimed that anything that made sense, any good idea takes at least 50 years to come into fruition.

Yes, and I went on Amazon and almost bought that book but didn't. Maybe I should this time.

All I ever really knew about Buck was his invention of the geodesic dome (that is him right?), though I'm well aware that he invented more.

He was an inventor, mathematician, writer, philosopher and more. He was wordy and sometimes boring, but I consider him one of the great men of the twentieth century. One of his guiding principles was that you cannot make money and make sense at the same time, the two are mutually incompatible. He therefore became a non-profit entity so he could make sense without worrying about profitability. For about 40 years he was loved by all and nobody ever refuted him.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bookrats\";p=\"98793)</div>

Two please!

Yea, Bucky was bright, but sometimes the brightest lack common sense. Free energy????? Marx had some interesting economic ideas also, unfortunately they didn't work out either.

Right now there are not many ways of producing electricity that are more expensive than photo-voltaic cells, but they are touted by the greenies. And that's even with my tax dollar subsidies, and discounting the effect on the environment from their production.

Once again, when fossil fuels get too high to compete the world will switch to another energy economy. It won't be any cheaper at first, but it will replace the ever rising cost of depleted fossil fuels. With time, delivery infrastruture and scales of economy may bring the costs down.

My mistake, I should never have implied that Bucky said FREE energy, that was a misstatement. However, if you were really familiar with what he said, you would distrust oil companies and probably any companies that have anything to do with our tangible resources. One of his suggestions was to tie power lines together across the Berring Straits (spelling?) which would drastically reduce the cost of energy. His conversation with Nixon went nowhere because of his paranoi about the Soviet Union. Pierre Trudeau, however, loved the idea and presented it to Breshnev and Kosygin who also were very interested. Events in the Cold War eliminated further talks and I don't expect today's politicians to pick up on any of this. Bucky's inventory of resources and energy capabilities showed how, based on technology that existed 25 years ago would, within a very short time, completely eliminate the need for oil. It appers to me that anyone who is interested in that possibility would also be interested in finding our how it can be done in a practical way.