Not just foreign oil - all oil

10 comments

Comments are closed - these are kept exactly as they were left.

1. cambler, September 27, 2004

   To think that we can end dependence on oil in terms of transportation is naive, Ross.
   Rubber. Plastic. Composites. Roofing material. Asphalt.
   How are you going to make them?
   If every individual walked one day out of the week how much oil would we save? Almost none.
   If we stopped shipping consumables by truck, that might make a difference. If we stopped flying jets that consume fuel, that might make a difference. Why isn't anyone calling for grounding of airlines?

2. Ross, September 27, 2004

   You need to start somewhere Chris and it certainly isn't airline traffic. A standard 737 only gets .41 mpg - but that includes moving 149 passengers!!
   The average SUV gets roughly 20 miles per gallon moving max 6 people. - or put another way, only gets 3.33 people miles per gallon. The 737 gets 61 people miles per gallon!! (assuming that my dim view of what qualifies as a valid calculation holds true).
   Sounds like a pretty efficient use of fuel to me.
   And if you want to talk about other ways to wean ourselves from oil, I'm all ears. Let's start by banning the sale of water in plastic containers that hold less than 20 litres. Let's lobby to get state or provincial incentives for homeowners that use terracotta instead of shingles...lets...stop talking about the problem and start implementing some of the solutions.

3. Ross, September 27, 2004

   PS - I biked to work and back today *and* walked to the store ;)

4. cambler, September 28, 2004

   The solution is to move to a hydrogen economy for fuel. That's the first step. The problem with the solution (ahem) is that it costs more to separate hydrogen out of water than it costs to extract fossil fuels and refine them.
   That's the problem that needs solving in order to move forward.
   Until there's a better fuel, in terms of flat-out economics, you're tilting at windmills with the best of intentions.

5. Peter Ejtel, September 28, 2004

   I think the biggest issue is not the fact oil is killing us, but that it's running out.
   Oil is over 60 percent of the world's energy supply, and has been the single largest factor in allowing our civilazation to expand past the 1 billion mark based on our sustainable food production limit back in 1760 or so when man struck the first oil well. Oil is pervasive in every industry, the manufacturing of almost every single device and process known today. Amazing, but talk about all your eggs in one basket ;)
   There is no replacement really; Hydroelectricity is less than 2% of our energy supply, Coal 20% but if increased anymore we'd have worse Greenhouse issues than we could imagine. Nuclear is GREAT, but we'd need another 10,000 or so plants to be built immediately to replace oil use in N.A. alone. Honestly I think it's a little late to be worried about conservation and maybe a focus on new energy discoveries is going to be key. We need an alternative.

6. Peter Ejtel, September 28, 2004

   Just in case you think Hydrogen or other existing technologies could replace oil, then read this as well which I found an interesting analysis.

7. rick3528, September 28, 2004

   Its statements like this one that makes me cringe, Peter. “Honestly I think it's a little late to be worried about conservation” Why recycle? Why bother to invest in R&D to get a vehicle to go further on less. Why car pool, Why invest in public transit????? Imagine the predicament we would be in now if nothing had been done and we were still in the 70’s fuel consumption mode. I think it’s a good thing to see oil prices going up. It creates a sense of urgency in our society and the capitalist wheels turn to build a better mouse trap. If gas goes to 3 bucks a liter watch how fast SUV sales decline and the fuel efficient cars of the 80’s come back into vogue.

   Every little bit helps. Replacing just ONE 60-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent in every Canadian household (more than 12 million of them) would save up to $73 million a year in energy costs. It would also reduce GHG emissions by almost 400,000 tonnes —the equivalent of taking more than 66,000 cars off the road.

   And in closing Peter, as my kids would say to me after I make a dumb comment. “duh!”

8. Peter Ejtel, September 28, 2004

   "Focusing on Conservation is a little late" Maybe I should have clarified that point but I felt the context of the entire post reflected it.
   The point here is that conservation on the most effective level, and that means the majority of us doing it all at once, on all levels, at all times may buy us a decade or so but that’s it. I try to do my part in little ways here or there, but I am a consumer, living in a consumer based society and the one thing that is consumed by all either directly or indirectly is Oil.
   Transportation solutions aren't the answer either, that is only 20% of oil consumption, the rest are based on Petro Chemicals, plastics, drugs, you name it. I just think that relying on conservation is not the answer, but it does help to a small degree and buys us some more time to come up with a real solution that may keep our way of life intact for at least all of our children’s children. Investing in projects and companies working on real solutions for the long term should be the focus.

9. rick3528, September 29, 2004

   "may buy us a decade or so but that’s it." Necessity breeds ingenuity. There is nothing like a deadline to provoke industry.(work) I believe the solution to this issue lies in mans creativity. The decade you speak of may very well afford mankind the "time" to allow for solutions yet undiscovered. A way to afford us yet more decades. Let us remember what old Ben Said.

   "The Body of B. Franklin, Printer; Like the Cover of an old Book, its contents torn out, And stript of its Lettering and Gilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be wholly lost, for it will, as he believed, appear once more, in a new and more perfect edition, corrected and amended by the author." ~B. Franklin~

   My glass is half full :)

10. ADavies, April 15, 2005

    Yes, we need to cut down on our oil dependency (and coal dependency, etc.). Absolutely. But nuclear is not the answer. Too much opportunity cost. Too many fundamental problems. Better to invest in renewable energies, and conservation.