"Moreover, electricity is not a fuel that can be used for air travel and probably not for long-distance travel, especially by big trucks."

Excuse me, but there is very little air travel conducted that is essential -- a teeny tiny fraction of that which is going on.  The faster we cut back on jet travel, the better for the climate.  

As for long distance travel by big trucks, electricity is the perfect fuel for heavy, efficient, massive load carrying trucks.  They're called trains.  You may have heard of them.  

(Although maybe not.  The Clinton Administration did prefer shoveling money at Detroit to not develop the 80 mpg car through the "Next Generation Vehicle" boondoggle rather than spend any money on the essential infrastructure of rail.)

Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.

To Barack's ear, Joe.  He's got to start listening and using this in his campaign.  He needs every green voter at the polls in the fall.  Might as well start gathering their support now.

Political dirt will convince many of them to stay home otherwise.

Plugin hybrids plugged into a renewable smart grid to reduce and finally eliminate oil consumption over the next 20 years.  That's a great issue.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Rather than "shifting focus away from Peak Oil."

How do we shift the focus away from "Oil Alternatives".

i.e. A supplyside focus.

Judging from what is written by Joseph Romm, it's pretty clear that nothing substantial (correction, make that nothing at all) will be done about global warming. Minor techno-fixes but nothing to disturb the sleepy consumer, and this is the progressive side.

Existing trains are one of the most fuel efficient ways to move freight.

in a discussion here some time ago.  You're Salon article didn't even mention them, or policies to make town and city centers more walkable and more transit-oriented.

This is important because it's possible that electrifying the 3 trillion vehicle miles that people drive in this country will require more electricity than we can handle.  If cars, on average, were able to get 1 mile per 1/3 kilowatt, for instance, we would need 1,000 billion kwhrs of extra generation.  Since we consume 4,000 billion kilowatt hours total now, and coal generates half of that, then an all-electric fleet could increase coal use by 50% -- so we need to understand where the renewable electricity would come from.

Greyflcn, there may be the capacity to charge those cars (I'm assuming plug-ins are an intermediate step to all-electric), but are you saying that all of those kwhrs are currently being wasted, on the order of 1/4 of the electricity we generate?

cjwirth, I believe it was about 20 years ago that an industrial engineer I know calculated that electrifying rail would cost about $100 billion, hardly a bank-buster.  According to Alan Drake at lightrailnow.com, freight hauled by train is 8 times more energy efficient than hauling it by trucks -- and we're not talking about the miserable shape of the interstate highway system as the result of all of that truck traffic.  So, really, there is no reason to have long-haul trucks except that the infrastructure is not there.

Greyflcn, there may be the capacity to charge those cars (I'm assuming plug-ins are an intermediate step to all-electric), but are you saying that all of those kwhrs are currently being wasted, on the order of 1/4 of the electricity we generate?

Well, you do need to add more fuel to get the desired kwh's.

Most power plants do not run at 100% capacity all the time.  Especially at night.

The point being that we don't need new power plant infrastructure to power a dramatic number of electric cars.

And better yet, to power cars in a way which is greener than existing petroleum cars.

Depends what type of plugin.

"Series Plugin Hybrids"

Are essentially identical to fully electric cars

Except the battery pack is about 1/3rd the size, and there's a motorcycle sized engine without a transmission used as a backup generator for extra range.

...to power those vehicles, GreyFlcn,  seems to be a point of contention.  Cohen, like many (though not all) peak oil activists, seems to think renewables will not provide nearly enough for our current electrical demand, much less adding automobiles.  This site has pointed to many studies (including my own posts) arguing that there is plenty of renewable potential, although I don't know if those studies show that there is also enough for electric vehicles.  So much of the discussion of where the automobile will go boils down to how and whether we can construct a renewable electric system, and what it will be capable of.

So you're telling me that when I underestimate my programming time-lines by at least 50% I'm not special? "It shouldn't take very long", my favorite phrase!

In case most of us have been asleep for the last 30 or so years, most diesel trains ARE electric! No need for tram-way, street car like lines and subway like rails. . . .The diesel engines on trains--and Seattle's ferries--are there to generate electricity which drives huge electric motors. You gain more fuel efficiency--the engines only run more when more load is required and idle much of the time--and you gain control--an electric motor responds quicker to commands.

The problem I see with developing alternative fuels, or agricultures is they are all dreamed of on a petroleum based paradigm. Hybrid cars still require plastics, lubricants, fuel--all petroleum based. Huge towering skyscraper tall, vertical farms still require buildings, fittings, electricity--all based on fossil fuels in the near future. Ethanol and other bio-fuels, propane, natural gas, etc all require petroleum to make a reality. Our mad dash to replace oil and lower emissions has led to the biggest spike in both.

One thing you never hear in a discussion of peak oil/not peak oil is the point in which the military locks up supplies for its own use. They burn through tons of fuel a minute in completely inefficient vehicles with no practical plan to rectify any time soon. As supplies dwindle the military will control it all for its own use--a pre-peak to the peak.

We're about to find out what this will mean when truckers can no longer afford to fill their tanks for a long haul--just look at what's been going on in Argentina with the farmer's strike. We need to lobby for better and easier means of developing local economies and sustainable agriculture models to reduce consumption while we re-think what our transportation and fuel needs will be.

You have a choice--drive or eat--which will it be?

John,

That is exactly what my engineers used to say when they saw my bumps on their estimates. Go figure!

But the story I didn't tell is that when I was one of those engineers (software) I was just as guilty! Somehow it always seemed it should be easier than it turned out.

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

Meant Jon, not John.

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

is much of the problem.  You really don't know how long something will take -- you have a decent idea of how you could do it, you know the basic steps you need to take, and if there were no complicating factors, then it wouldn't take long.  But of course, there are always complicating factors, because you're always dealing with a system, and particularly when you're dealing with complex systems -- like an operating system or web software or instrumentation -- you can never know what the consequences of a particular action will be.

There's a deeper problem here, I think, because I think that the problems inherent in trying new solutions is a large reason that we keep merrily going on reconstructing the same old economy; exhibit number one probably being the comfort level that utilities (and their engineers and managers) have in constructing a new coal plant, as opposed to, say, a solar thermal plant.  Nobody used to get fired for buying IBM (now Microsoft), you're much safer going with tried and true technologies.  Which is why the government may need to step in and "let 100 flowers bloom", just to get people to a comfort level with renewable technologies.

Both trains and trucks carry heavy loads, batteries and solid oxide fuel cell/turbine generators (70% efficient versus 14% for internal combustion) can ride along with less of a design problem than in cars.

Trains are already serial hybrid powered, a diesel generator powers electric motors, put a battery car behind the engine then all that electricity wasted as heat with downhill braking can recharge batteries.  Short stretches of track electrified can recharge batteries.

Semis are going hybrid too, Peterbilt has one.  Add batteries and induction pickup charge lanes on the freeway and renewable electricity can power them too.

But a whole new backup engine, in the form of solid oxide fuel cell/turbines, for (even) planes, trains, and automobiles is just waiting to be mass produced.  And quadruple mileage.

Battery energy density is getting better, theoretically it is possible to approach the energy density of liqiuid fuel.  And considering that battery power converts to motive force at 5 times the efficiency of liquid fuels in internal combustion engines, including aircarft turbines. That means batteries need only contain one fifth the power of liquid fuel to go the same number of miles.

Sure investment capital seems hard to scare up now that fossil fuel and oil wars have driven us into a recession, but this green energy revolution can still pull us out of this downturn.

The fed is "printing" electronic money to pull us out of disaster right now.  Backed by basically nothing.  And it's working.  Imagine if that play money was backed by resurging industry and lower energy costs?  Now that's a recipe for a real boom with real productivity increases.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Jon,
The point I was trying to make about locomotives is that we don't need any overhead wires--they don't need to be electrified from the grid, they create their own electricity. Train freight is actually still a viable means of haulage. If a sustainable source of biodiesel can be grown which doesn't impact our food system, then trains will continue to be a means of transportation and freight long after long distance road haulage has been priced out of existence. At least until we can come up with something else non-petroleum.

Now, let's talk about getting a solar panel and electric motor on my tractor so we can keep food affordable. . . .it's being done, but needs to be standardized in retrofit kits to help keep the costs down.

You have a choice--drive or eat--which will it be?

As I commented above, about 20 years ago an industrial engineer named John Ullmann calculated that it would take about $100 billion to electrify the rail system in the U.S.   That's not too much, it seems to me.  If freight rail was to replace trucking, which would make sense, then I don't think we could find enough biodiesel to do the job without harming agriculture.

As for electrifying agricultural equipment, now that sounds like something some agricultural schools should experiment with!

Roads are made from asphalt. No more oil = no more asphalt = no more roads = no more cars.

A very simplistic take on this issue, sure, but there's no denying that even maintaining roads in their current state requires a steady flow of asphalt made from oil.

Asphalt can be recycled but not indefinitely and usually needs to be blended with fresh asphalt.

There really is currently no alternative to asphalt within the current transport paradigm. Merely substituting fossil vehicles with EV's will not escape the need for road maintenance.

We could devote ever increasing expense to keeping our roads and cars paradigm or simply contract settlement and eliminate most car travel at much lower cost.

One is technically infeasible, the other politically infeasible.

...then what we have now, GreyFlcn, I'm trying to understand what the world would look like with no oil and no coal, because 1) if we need to reduce carbon emissions by 90%, for all intents and purposes that means no fossil fuels (or just a bit for some critical applications), and 2) the stuff will eventually run out anyway.  So we're talking about different time-frames -- I'm talking about the long-term, you're talking about the medium-term.

Elbarto, asphalt takes about 3% to 5% of petroleum.  I'm told the interstates are getting the crap kicked out of them by long-haul trucks, and I've read that local counties and states are having a hard time maintaining their roads as the price of oil (and asphalt) goes up.  So unless the Feds step in, in seems to me, in a big way, the age of Happy Motoring will start coming to an end because the road system will start to break down.  The logical thing to do would be to use those right-of-ways to put down rail, including the interstates, but that seems politically rather far off at this point.

Asphalt grade varies as to where it is laid. Hot areas require a harder grade in order not to get too soft in the heat of summer and cooler areas a softer grade not to crack in freezing conditions.

Presumably global warming will accelerate the degradation of asphalt roads.

Ok, a minor issue in the scheme of all things but one of the great many adverse confluences likely to surface as a result of peak oil + global warming.

So unless the Feds step in, in seems to me, in a big way, the age of Happy Motoring will start coming to an end because the road system will start to break down.

This isn't the end of society, walkable cities would be happier and healthier in my view.

Cohen is right about one thing.

Those concerned about global warming need to put forward a viable demand-side strategy to dealing with peak oil.

Since otherwise our addicted world population will start burning anything they can get their hands on to make their cars go.  Regardless of the consequences.

And we need to stop that before it happens.