Good point. The lobbyists on both sides want open borders, which is why neither party represents the voters on immigration. But so far, the angry voters have prevailed.

You're assuming that battle is over. Give the moneyed folks who want open borders another two-to-five years. They will get what they want, one way or another.

Do I need to post the articles about how Blackwater is setting up camp on the U.S.-Mexican border? It's not so they can stop the illegal immigration. It's so they can blast whichever factions aren't paying their proper cut to the moneyed folks.

That is unless we collapse into total chaos before then, something I think is a distinct possibility if not outright probability.

BTW, I realize asking PG if he has lost his (or her?) mind is borderline flamebait but he (she?) is not made of sugar, I'm sure he can take it.

Chimp, work on improving your self-worth:)

My self-worth is very high. That's why I don't need to immerse myself into delusions of self-worth and power. Thinking that the call you place to your congressman matters is an example of an artificial sense of worth and power. You have no ability - even in conjunction with others - to influence the U.S. government. But if pretending you do makes you feel worthy and powerful, then by all means go for it. It's certainly a cheaper version of imagined self-worth and power than buying an expensive car, and has fewer side-effects than taking SSRIs. (cue a rebuttal by somebody on SSRIs)

Like I said "cue the rebuttal . . ."

All joking aside, I often wonder if I would be more likely to buy into and/or participate in the whole scam if I was on SSRIs.

(I don't mean that in an offensive way Bob even though it sounds like that.)

The next question is: given this reality, how does one proceed?

Our suburban buildout economy is about as 'effed as the Tower of Babel was. There is nothing that can be done to save it. Just try to get you and yours out of the way of the falling rubble as best as you can.

AS far as guiding people towards action: I don't give a crap what they do or do not do as I have next-to-no influence over their behavior.

Hi, Aniya -- and Chimp!

I agree with Chimp.

I think that the main purpose of USA electoral politics now is to co-opt and disperse any movement among the masses of people -- or especially among the elite -- for change.

We are mostly little fishes swimming in a fascist ocean.

Political leaders know that the masses of voters are as dependent upon and enmeshed in the fascist system as the elites, and can only comprise a real force for change if they change the way they live.

One key component that I find myself unable to comprehend or engage in is that we must divorce ourselves from the mainstream economy if we are to effect change. Every transaction within the mainstream economy is like another tiny strand binding us together as participants in the great, intentional market failure that fascism requires.

We are just as closely bound to the vast, global resource war that so many of us feel so opposed to. It is our daily work, spending, and assent to keep up the routines of daily political, business and social life that keep the whole "Rape Culture" going.

What to do next? I've been trying to slowly create an alternative lifestyle within the slowly collapsing Rape Culture. This sustainable lifestyle will become, I hope, the foundation for local, community survival as the larger, culture increases its violet attack on the planet and the poor people of the planet.

Even so, I have very little hope for personal survival, and embrace the absolute vulnerability which is the fate of myself and my family and friends.

I have a mystical hope that it is in fact the embrace of absolute vulnerability that gives new, peaceful, sustainable life the possibility of germinating and growing through this. That is a matter of faith and hope.

The point Chimp has made about the futility of political engagement is crucial. We enable the Rape Culture by pretending to reform it. We are too often like battered spouses. We are betrayed over and over again -- in the name of all that we might hold sacred -- and yet insist upon believing the rhetoric of the Ever Bigger Lie as we are promised that the Rape Culture will change and reform.

The more we benefit from supporting the Rape Culture, the easier it is to pretend that something else is really going on here. The well-paid professional managerial class -- the "Little Eichmanns" will go to any length to deny that something is fundamentally wrong, and that we are a fascist culture -- belligerent, militaristic, and full of lust to kill for "Lebensraum."

This is a tough part of the Peak Oil dilemma. Who are we and how did we get here? We have become precisely the kind of Sociopathic Species that we pretend to abhor. Among all of the species, we have struck the planet in a most violent way. We have mortally wounded our ecosystem --the sixth great extinction is our only legacy.

We got to Peak Oil and Global Climate Change precisely by following the rules of our fascist leadership, who now compete to see who gets to be Global Dictator for a few years.

There is no one thing to do, I suppose. It is not even certain that survival for another day is necessarily the right thing for any of us, although we usually try to tell ourselves stories that make this seem like the right sort of thing to do.

The chances of positive change diminish. Each day seems to require more faith and hope in spite of the evidence that even intelligent people among us have drunk the Reagan-Bush-Clinton Fascist Kool-Aid and do not understand the collapse at all.

In places outside the USA, the Fascist Kool-Aid is administered under various other brand names, of course. But here in the USA we have managed to Kill Off or marginalize any leaders who might have pushed our country in a truly democratic and sustainable direction.

Collapse will be the way through to anew future, if a new future there be....?

greenish,

I think its a spiritual discipline to take the right action even if I think its futile. So I'll make the calls, even though the farm lobby has the Congress so well trained they don't even have to ask how to vote on something like ethanol.

I do think its important to take the right action even when its pointless. The basis of any type of advertsing is repetition. If we keep the pressure going even on votes where we know we will lose the congress will believe we have a movementand a voting block and possibly pay more attention on issues where there is a possibility that we can have an influence.Bob Ebersole

Hi Bob,

Coal Gas-to-Liquid has some problems.

In 2006, the U.S. National Coal Council proposed a program to develop a coal gas-to-liquid (GTL) plant that could generate 2.6 million barrels per day by 2020 and produce an additional 475 million tons of coal per year. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has not accepted this proposal and it is not in a planning stage of development.

The 2007 GAO study identified significant problems with the coal GTL program: “This fuel is commercially produced outside the United States, but none of the production facilities are considered profitable. DOE reported that high capital investments—both in money and time—deter the commercial development of coal GTL in the United States. Specifically, DOE estimates that construction of a coal GTL conversion plant could cost up to $3.5 billion and would require at least 5 to 6 years to construct. Furthermore, potential investors are deterred from this investment because of the risks associated with the lengthy, uncertain, and costly regulatory process required to build such a facility. An expert at DOE also expressed concern that the infrastructure required to produce or transport coal may be insufficient. For example, the rail network for transporting western coal is already operating at full capacity and, owing to safety and environmental concerns, there is significant uncertainty about the feasibility of expanding the production capabilities of eastern coal mines. Coal GTL production also faces serious environmental concerns because of the carbon dioxide emitted during production. To mitigate the effect of coal GTL production, researchers are considering options for combining coal GTL production with underground injection of sequestered carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery in aging oil fields.”

Future coal GTL is limited by the availability and rising cost of coal. The German based Energy Watch Group reported in Coal: Resources and Future Production (2007) that global coal production would peak in about 2025 “in the best case” and that “The U.S. passed peak production of high quality coal in 1990 in the Appalachian and the Illinois basin. Production of sub bituminous coal in Wyoming more than compensated for this decline in terms of volume and – according to its stated reserves – this trend can continue for another 10 to 15 years. However, due to the lower energy content of sub bituminous coal, US coal production in terms of energy has already peaked 5 years ago – it is unclear whether this trend can be reversed. Also specific productivity per miner is declining since about 2000.”

The Institute for Energy (IFE) of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, reported in The Future of Coal (2007) that “A review of recent market trends suggests the following (excerpts): "The supply base of coal is being continuously depleted. World proven reserves (i.e. the reserves that are economically recoverable at current economic and operating conditions) of coal are decreasing fast. Coal production costs are steadily rising all over the world, due to the need to develop new fields, increasingly difficult geological conditions and additional infrastructure costs associated with the exploitation of new fields.”

For links to these sources go to pages 36 to 28 of: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

There are insurmountable obstacles in ramping up oil production from coal gas-to-liquid (GTL). First, developing substantial oil production from coal GTL requires the consumption of enormous quantities of finite water resources that are already stressed by urban populations and agriculture in the western states. Second, the production coal damages the local environment and increases atmospheric CO2 levels. Third, the capital costs for coal GTL ventures would be enormous, and increasing inflation (that is generated by high energy prices) will limit coal GTL plant construction.

I will try this again
" The syngas produced from gasifying such biomass feedstocks as corn stover, wood by-products, and chicken litter is more difficult to clean up than natural gas-based syngas but much easier than coal-based syngas."
from terra preta
Back during World War II, two Swedish scientists, Dr. Fischer and Dr. Tropsch developed a method to convert "synthesis gas" into liquid fuels, like Methanol and Ethanol. The German army harvest wood from the Black Forest and made liquid fuels to supply its vehicles using the process. This was done in the back of truck! In a Fischer-Tropsch reaction "synthesis gas" is heated and injected into a pressurized chamber that has a metal surface (something like an Iron-Cobalt alloy) which "catalyzes" this gas-to-liquid conversion.
The gasification of grasses grown on land not well suited to food crops plus GTL would also be a source of energy environmentally better than refinery products, but again deployment is the bottleneck. There again are not enough people who know how to organize such projects and operate them or enough who know how to build them.
from Range Fuels
Our Two-Step Thermo-Chemical Process
Step 1: Solids to Gas
Biomass (all plant and plant-derived material) that cannot be used for food, such as agricultural waste, is fed into a converter. Using heat, pressure, and steam the feedstock is converted into synthesis gas (syngas), which is cleaned before entering the second step.
Step 2: Gas to Liquids
The cleaned syngas is passed over our proprietary catalyst and transformed into mixed alcohols. These alcohols are then separated and processed to maximize the yield of ethanol of a quality suitable for use in fueling vehicles.
from me, grow plants in the ocean and convert them into fuel, stop playing with that shark and get back to work. I had the plans for this thing and I tossed them out twenty years ago, It was to be built in Mexico.
I would get rid of the kerosene lamp and get a solar charged battery led lamp, the kerosene powered refrigerator you are stuck with for another twenty years.

The external costs of oil?
$604B over 4 years, $200B more requested (source)
3860 US lives, 130 more dead from self inflicted wounds, 12,831 wounded
source: http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

76,701 – 83,571 Iraqi civilian lives

War costs could total $1.6 trillion by 2009, panel estimates.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/index.html

"Office of Budget and Management Director Jim Nussle dismissed the report, saying "the Congressional leadership is attempting to manipulate economic data for public relations purposes." LOL! that is really funny.

link to history channel not working.

Thx boss!

Release the hounds...er...peers! :P

Cool site...but history channel is cable/sat only I think...

I did check the list anyways.

Cheers!

Do you know who threatened to filibuster? I know Bush has said he'll veto any bill that uses the tax code to advance any specific industry. Unbelievable as that is.

IMO the Democrats would be better served by keeping the solar/wind credits and renewable electricity standard in the bill, as these are bipartisian measures enormously popular with the public and fundamental steps necessary to insure future energy supply, and present it to the President. Hell, maybe there's enough votes to override a veto.

To completely drop the renewables will do zilch for the democrats, and saying the GOP is the enemy of renewables is stupid.

Hey... anyone know if GWB installed his solar and geothermal equipment and collected the tax credits for such systems. Info should be in the public domain? And any other members of Congress?

Wow, Matt Simmons just said "strike ethanol"!

"No new Manhattan Project will be required ... The chemical knowledge required to do it is quite well established, being hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of years old. All we need to do is make alcohol."

And then drink it. Drink it all.

Innumeracy appears to be a consistent failing of ethanol proponents.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone

Zubrin's focus is on methanol, not your corn-based or sugar-based ethanol. I think that methanol is a better biofuel than ethanol, unless you are part of the ADM lobby. Ethanol is better for drinking though, if you are a primate.

Zubrin's statements on conservation describes how our conservation efforts will not protect us from the ill will of OPEC. He doesn't arugue against conservation in general. The major plank of his argument is that it would be really great if we didn't depend on OPEC so very much for our well being.

Paraphrasing his quote, "We can depend much less on OPEC controlled petroleum and use more fuels based on methanol and ethanol."

One thing he didn't mention in the linked article is that methanol can be used in fuel cells. Methanol fuel cell electric vehicles may become a major component of personal transportation.

Bleah there's no way I'm staying up that late!

The local rooster will have me up at 7, plus the patented steer and burro chorus, and that's not the worst of it, once that starts a certain meadowlark tries out really catchy jingles about 10ft outside my window. Those are so good I have to get out - make good coffee commercials or something.

We don't sleep late around here.

I thought the follow up on renewable energy was even better! :D

I'd be most curious what newcomers to the issue or those without a clue might have thought. Probably won't get that here directly.

My own studies indicate we either have 1250 barrels and peaked back in the 1990's and growth in production has been driven by technology, and the current peak is because technology and opportunities to drill have peaked, not that we are at 50% URR. If we were at 50% URR the argument is technology is so much better today we should be able to continue increasing production well past 50% so production rates should increase for the next twenty years if we have 2000 GB of oil. A peak in 2005 at 50% URR is not a correct conclusion.

Memmel, you are clarifying what I also have been thinking, you seem to have a good theory to explain the current situation - actually, just to clarify my understanding, I think you mean we went through 50% URR in the 1990's - and that is before any substantial 'above ground' factors! (Make the theory fit the data ... not the data fit the theory.)

A peak in 2005 at 50% URR is not a correct conclusion.

Seems like good news then - we can't be anywhere near peak - move along, nothing to see here - phew! - but then, why has the price gone to $100? :-)

Xeroid.

A really good film would have scared the hell out of [the shee-] people, scared them off their dead asses and into some action.

Darwinian,

Sorry. The human brain is not built that way.

My father is a Holocaust survivor.

He recalls as a youth that a disheveled man came running into town screaming that the Germans were coming --and they were exterminating all Jews. So run for your lives.

The village elders gathered around this poor soul --and beat the living crap out of him for spreading false rumors and trying to scare the people out of their peaceful and prosperous existence.

BTW, my father is the sole survivor of his entire large family. All were wiped out. All of them. He got through by sheer luck. And of course, if not for that, I wouldn't be here to talk about how humanity always manages to muddle its way through the challenges and survive.

well, I don't know where to put myself: I'm somewhat of a doomer, but i don't buy the 'Mad Max' survivalist crap or Olduvai.

I don't think we're going to Easter Island ourselves worldwide, though we might do that in some places. I think there will be a lot of pain. War will probably engulf Africa -- the Congo Wars were just the start. The USA is in a nasty cul-de-sac that will require drastic change.

But there will come a stabilizing point somewhere in the future. Whether it's renewable energy resources like wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, or wave action, backed by nuclear, or just burning a zillion tons of coal, we should hold on at that lower level of energy use for a long time, and perhaps even start expanding again. Fusion might be available by 2100, and that would be truly LIMITLESS energy...your own portable star.

Basically: I think we're looking at a speed bump that might last a generation or two, but in the long term energy use will expand. Peak oil is a FUELS crisis. there is more energy coming to earth from the sun every hour than humanity has used since we split from Apes. We just need to harness it better.

It wasn't the stat that was funny. It was the fact that it was a steam locomotive that made it funny. Which would run on either coal or wood, and not diesel fuel.

Yeah, I suppose you could retrofit a steam locomotive to run on diesel, but what would be the point in that :-)?