I celebrate the courage it takes to be positive these days about anything.

Step one is to abandon GDP
as a measure of progress
and start using GPI.

Only when you start
measuring progress by the
Genuine Progress Index
will anything get better.

Unfortunately, we can be
certain that vested interests
will ensure that GPI will
not be adopted.

Therefore everything will
continue to get worse.

That's the system.
 

Who could object to this laudable plan and the specific acts (though seen without details)?

Let's stay reality-based.

• Energy Security by 2020: "defined as the ability to withstand a prolonged supply interruption"?

  How big a supply disruption? I will name only a few countries here--Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Kuwait. We could have a supply disruption in a period of a few short months that takes 2 to 3/mbpd off the world market. The realistic imagination finds no dearth of scenarios here and the mind reels. By 2020? How about by 2010? That's more realistic as an estimate and we can see that this date is virtually impossible.



• U.S. energy independence by 2040: "defined as energy self-sufficiency"

  By 2040? This is an unimaginable future date. What are we going to do this year? Next year? Goals by 2012? The shit will have hit the fan long, long before 2040. The Hirsch report makes this clear. I don't know what the solution is but I simply will not accept a plan that proposes energy independence by 2040. If you mean the Stone Age for a much smaller population, then, fine, OK. Otherwise, we need to get on the case now. This is Kunstler's Long Emergency.

The US has a little over 4 years of oil supply without any imports. The natural gas situation is almost just as bad. I'm not saying imports will just cease. I am only trying to point out the precariousness of the situation. Maintaining supply reliably at this time in history is like walking through a mine field without a detector.

sorry to say this, Dave

Speeds above 110 mph use dramatically more energy.  High speed reliable frieght could steal market share from air and truck express, saving energy.  Vegetables from Florida, fish, parcels, mail, Just in Time inventory are all markets for this.

In Japan and the EU, few pax take rail for more than 400 km (250 miles).  This has to be considered in plans.

I have worked for some time of these issues and would like some input.  Please note my prior efforts.

A transition period would give free transmission to renewables, half price to pumnped storage (unless it stored renewables) & nuclear power with full price for fossil fueled electricity.

I have some doubts about PV, localized or not.  Some grid issues with "islanding" and Hz drift for example.  And PV is not an economic technology and unlikely to become one on a political schedule (i.e. just because we tell it to).

While in Vegas, be sure to walk to the heart of the strip to enjoy the water shows at Bellagio and Treasure Island, where millions and millions of gallons of imported water are propelled high into the air, electronically syncopated with music amplified through dozens of speakers, with the fantastic electric light shows as backdrops.  Courtesy, of course, of the cheap energy made available to this desert boomtown.

I believe the theme of any trip to Vegas is: Consume More!!

1st there would have to be a free market.

Tax law changes:

1. Change tax law so that JIT isn't needed - re-fuigure the idea of taxing inventory.
   
2. remove the solar panel restrictions in the 179 deductions.

I mentioned in a past thread about the "JoeCell"... a mechanism that allows a car to run off water.

I was (predictably/understandably) dismissed.

Here's your proof.  This guy has been invited by a Senate Committee to demonstrate his technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqDT4ZiiTAE&search=water%20car

Combined with desalination... could this be a possible solution to oil?

The answer is not to be found
in techincal fixes. The answer
is in the fundamental way that
economies are measured. GDP
takes little or no account of
negatives. More construction of
prisons and more security guards
equates with GDP growth. More
construction of badly insulated
houses adds to GDP growth.
The entire economic system is
geared to consumption and
increases in consumption are
worshipped, when in reality,
increases in consumption should be
abhored. GDP worship is what is
driving most societies off the
cliff.

GPI allocates negative values to
negative aspects of societies.
Fix the fundamental fault in
the system and everything else
will come easily.

For instance, if pollution is
accounted for, then driving faster
becomes a negative, rather than a
positive (as under the present GDP
system, which simply reccords
greater fuel use as a greater
contribution to the money flow).

Under a GPI system, there is no
argument about funding railraods
because the benefits become obvious.

Under a GPI system, localisation,
permaculture etc. do not need to be
justfied. The benefits show up
immediately in th figures.

None of this is a technological
problem. All of it is political
problem, an exercise of power
problem.

The Energize America Proposal is an excellent start, but I fail to see where it includes discussion of detritus entropy and pop. overshoot vis-a-vis ultimate sustainability.  Failure to carefully plan the multi-year transition to the new paradigm with logically achievable goals that includes abundant biodiversity to support much less human density/sq. mile will only result in competitive violence.

Now I have no idea what is the actually sustainable number of Americans once the detritus is gone and global warming trends are all taken into account, but let's say it must bottom out at fifty million in 100 years.  Therefore, we need to peacefully decline by 250 million in five generations. A voluntary one child/family rule should take us from the present 300 million to the fifty million in a most graceful manner, and will allow the maximum resources/child even as the detritus depletes.  The ever decreasing human density/sq. mile should allow other lifeforms to rebound, and much more agricultural land can be allowed to go dormant to start healing the topsoil process, or can be dedicated to wildland for the other critters.

The population decrease will allow existing infrastructure to be optimized: hydropower, windmills, PVs, and some biofuel farming can be spread much more equitably over a shrinking population, and the detritus fuels decreasing availability can be saved for those uses deemed critical.  The decreased headcount will also reduce further growth in the burning of most fuels thus delaying climate change.

The abandonment of the 'Nuke their Ass--I want Gas' military mindset is essential to success so that other countries can undertake similar Powerdown plans.  This huge reallocation of taxdollars from the military to re-engineering new paradigm urban enclaves surrounded by permaculture farms, and then vast expanses of wilderness to maximize other lifeforms and offshore fishing is the only sustainable path forward.  Time will tell if we have the wisdom to pursue this course.

Peacefully shrinking populations worldwide will offer the best chance for global warming survivability as it will continually open up more areas for necessary migration if the current habitat becomes unliveable.  As an example, 300 million Americans cannot migrate north into Canada, but maybe 25 million can in 100 years, with the remaining 25 million living a comfortable lifestyle in the lower 48.  If Canada has reduced population in the same manner as the Americans, and if global warming now makes Canada a viable farming area, a gradual in-migration of 25 million should not affect their ultimate sustainability and existing biodiversity.

This is nothing more than running Malthusian Math in reverse to provide maximum resources/person-- the best way to prevent violence.  The question is: can the world agree to a simple and voluntary one child rule?  Or does the world prefer lethal combat and Mother Nature to whittle our numbers down?

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

But more seriously, what is proposed here is mostly an "EROEI crash". All this new investment in energy production and conservation would mean just that - moving to lower and lower EROEI solutions. And this means that you will have less net energy available than you think. So you will not know what hit you.

Real conservation is always prossible and easy - it will happen when prices are high enough or energy is not available. But it will mean a severe downsizing of the economy. And this is the challenge. If you are not ready to cope this challenge and tell the people that everything will be OK if only their will be enough energy investments it will cause real problems.

Why not tell the Americans that there is no reason to panic. The oil will not end in the foreseeable future (but production will decline). The US can safely import oil also in the future as the Europeans and the Japanese do, but prices will be high. War against Iran is no solution. But there will be no economic growth and probably a rather deep and prolonged economic recession. This will cause massive unmployment and social problems and require much better unemployment relief and social security network. This must be paid for, also by the rich. The social consequences will be the real security issue here. Learn to be an ex-hyperpower. Reduce military expenditures. Withdraw from foreign bases and from the ME. They will sell the oil to the Americans anyway.

Just face the reality.

Since I'm not a member over at Kos, and there's a 24 hr. waiting period, I hope you read my comment here.  Perhaps it's somewhere in the full document, but inclusion of a graphic such as that on p.5 here -http://www.seia.org/roadmap.pdf - that shows how our current "strategy" regarding PV has allowed Europe, Japan, and indeed the ROW to surge ahead of us in this critical technology might gain some traction with folks.

In the big picture, I'm not a techno-fixer - more in line with Totoneila, and I also concur with Kevin M and Mike A above who stress the inanity of the GDP - but solar is all we ultimately have to live on, so that's the one tech vein I advocate pursuing fully.

First, I believe it imperative that we substantially reduce the burning of fossil fuels in the near term, with the objective of reaching 40-50% of current use.  Can it be done in a decade?  To hopefully avoid a "mad max" scenario, there must be a well-planned and well advertised "power-down", made as equitable as possible.  That means bringing generally available alternative fuels, presumably alcohol and biodiesel, on line with all cautious haste.  This naturally calls for parallel development of relatively low-cost conversion packages to make conventional gasoline/diesel engines compatible with the new fuels.

A number of recent TOD postings have pointed to various  numbers for EROEI of products and processes, and the fact that these are not yet competetive with gasoline at $3, even with modest subsidies, but might be at $7/gal.  One post mentioned a figure of $7+ per gal. as the present cost of military protection of sources and transit.  I suspect that the scarcity of hard numbers reflects proprietary reticence.  In my view, the objective is being overshadowed by haggling about details.  The great need is to get the show moving pronto with one or more processes; the cost and efficiency factors can be smoothed out later.  Economic and social survival may lie in fairly bridging the coming fuel gap.

Obviously there are a number of caveats related to large scale commitment of agricultural land to crops devoted to alcohol/oil.  First among these is the continuing and likely growing need for food crops.  Next is the apparent requirement for various fossil fuel inputs in processing or in the fields.  Some posts have mentioned the odors produced by certain processes.  Remember the early paper mills?  That was said to be a green $mell.

In the past, federal financing has been available for major projects needing large amounts of capital, and where uncertainty was a deterrent to significant private investment.  Money was provided to cover academic research, pilot plant construction and studies, and in more than one instance a full production facility.  Beginning in 1938, war clouds were gathering, and the existing aluminum industry was unable to gear up for the kind of war then forseen.  Federal money was made available for the necessary R&D, for plants to process the bauxite ore into aluminum metal.  The total of that public investment would in today's money would be somewhere in the range of $20 to $25 billion.  Today's circumstance certainly fits that pattern.

2. I agree with getting a rational nuclear policy

3. You don't go into much detail about biofuels. But, based on the energy inputs for commercial farming of biofuels, I wonder if a lot of people aren't putting way too much stock into them as a golden egg.

To pick one item (III), increase heavy truck mileage from 6.2 mph to 14 mph (or more) by 2020.  And cut emissions at the same time as well.

How ?

By giving one year depreciation if one buys a thrifty truck.

This overlooks the existing efficiency incentives that heavy truck owners have to save fuel.  Why will a small tax incentive work when the massive costs of today don't ?

Engineering miracles will appear out of nowhere they assume.

Already truckers are switching to synthetic oils, special tires (Michelin has an extra wide tire to replace two) and even waxing their trucks (less friction) to get an extra 0.03 mpg.  Aluminum wheels are more common as well.

So, just how will fuel economy increase by a factor of 2.3 ?

All in all, not well though out I am afraid.

TOO BAD !! :-((

1.  Our fearless leader goes on TV and says "in case y'all haven't noticed, gas-o-line prices have been goin' up.  Guess what - that's going to be permanent.  The question is, does the cash from higher gas prices go to baaad terr-ist leaders and oil companies, or does it go to you, my fellow A-mer-a-cans.   I say we choose the second way - gasoline will become more expensive until we get alternatives and/or reduce our usage, but we will do it in a way that isn't going to hurt your bottom line or blow up our economy."

2.  The plan:  Increase the federal tax on petroleum-based fossil fuels by $0.10/month until demand is reduced by 3% (roughly the average depletion of onshore US fields).  Repeat each year until this 3% demand reduction/year goal is met, well, forever.  (One could argue for an initial shock tax here of $1.00/gallon just to get peoples' attention that this is serious, but I don't know if that's really wise...).  

3.  Of the federal government's take, 75% is rebated by reducing the employee contribution to the payroll tax, and the other 25% is used to offer rebates ($1000 for each 10 mpg above 40 mpg or similar), a buy-back of inefficient vehicles, certain incentives to maintain long distance transport, loan guarantees for alternative fuels (though not grants!), etc.  Make things revenue neutral, and give people a reward for doing more than their part (i.e., send them a happy-gram telling them how much extra pay they got each year from the reduction in the payroll tax).

The intergral fast reactor actually breaks
down plutonium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

These reactors could also make enough energy to
magnetic launch other waste into the sun one
vitrified kilogram at a time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrify
http://www.geomelt.com/

(But I don't know if depositing nuclear waste
into the sun would be good for it or us)

The following text is from Eshel and Martin's Diet, Energy, and Global Warming Paper, Earth Interactions, May 2005:

-------------------------------------------

In 1999, Heller and Keoleian (2000) estimated the total energy used in food production  (defined here as agricultural production combined with processing and distribution) to be 10.2 × 1015 BTU yr-1 .

Given a total 1999 U.S. energy consumption of 96.8 × 1015 BTU yr-1 (U.S. Department of Energy 2004a, Table 1.1), energy used for food production accounted for 10.5% of the total energy used.

In 2002, the food production system accounted for 17% of all fossil fuel use in the U.S. (Horrigan et al. 2002). For example, Unruh (2002) states that delivered energy consumption by the food industry, 1.09 × 1018 Joules in 1998, rose to 1.16 × 1018 Joules in 2000 and is projected to rise by 0.9% yr-1, reaching 1.39 × 1018 Joules in 2020. Unruh (2002) also reports that delivered energy consumption in the crops and other agricultural industries (the latter consisting of, e.g., animal and fishing) increase,
on average, by 1% yr-1 and 0.9% yr-1, respectively.

Thus, food production, a function of our dietary choices, represents a significant and growing energy user.

To place energy consumption for food production in a broader context, we compare it to the more often cited energy sink, personal transportation. The annual U.S. per capita vehicle
miles of travel was 9,848 in 2003 (U.S. Department of Transportation 2004, Table PS-1). Using the same source, and focusing on cars (i.e., excluding buses and heavy commercial trucks), per capita vehicle miles traveled becomes 8,332, of which an estimated 63% are traveled on highways (Table VM-1 in the same report).

According to the U.S. Department of Energy's 2005 table of most and least efficient vehicles http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml)
and considering only highly popular models, 2005 vehicles miles-per-gallon (mpg) range is bracketed by the Toyota Prius' 60:51 (highway:city) on the low end and by Chevrolet
Suburban's 11:15. At near average is the Toyota Camry Solara's 24:33 mpg. The salient transportation calculation (Table 1), demonstrates that, depending on the vehicle model, an American is likely to consume between 1.7 × 107 and 6.8 × 107 BTU per year for personal transportation. (U.S. Department of Energy 2004b)

Next, we perform a similar energetic calculation for food choices. Accounting for food exports, in 2002 the U.S. food production system produced 3774 Kcal person-1 day-1 or 1.4 × 10*15 BTU yr-1 nationwide (FAOSTAT 2005). (The difference between 3774 Kcal person-1 day-1 and the needed average ~ 2100 Kcal person-1 day-1 is due to overeating
and food discarded after being fully processed and distributed.) In producing those 1.4×1015
BTU yr-1, the system used 10.2 × 1015 BTU yr-1 . That is, given both types of inefficiency, food production energy efficiency is 100(1.4/10.2)(2100/3774) ^~ 7.6%. Therefore, in order to ingest 2100 Kcal day-1, the average American uses 2100/0.076 ^~ 72.6 × 104 Kcal day-1 or 4 × 107 BTU/yr.

In summary, while for personal transportation the average American uses 1.7 × 107 to 6.8 × 107 BTU yr-1, for food the average American uses roughly 4 × 10*7 BTU yr-1 . Thus there exists an order of magnitude parity in fossil energy consumption between dietary and personal transportation choices.

The problem I have with this is the assumption of energize America. My best understanding of the ramifications of Peak Oil tell me energy community. A plan like this serving as an outline for states and counties makes a lot more sense to me than a federal version.

I think your work on the "Energize America" proposal is great work, and constructive.

However, the one thing I fail to see when we discuss changes that will help is POPULATION.   If we are talking about 20 - 40 year timelines,  the relatively small step changes, will be outstripped by population growth.

Population is the reason for many resources (water, oil, metals, etc) running short.  

I don't suppose to have a solution either,  but it in IMHO it is the underlying reason for "doomers".

Here's hoping we can figure something out before Mother Nature picks from the left column.

Erik

Gasoline contains 115,000 BTU/gallon.  At 500 miles per gallon, that's 230 BTU/mile or 58 Calories (kcal) per mile.

A 150 lb person walking a level mile in 20 minutes uses 81 Calories per mile (http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/CALWALK.HTM).

You would have the Democratic Party promise to deliver mankind (oops, "personkind") a new machine that uses only 2/3 of the energy of walking?

Bring it on!

Here is a plan that will work hand in hand with the "Energize America" plan:

Many say we will see $3.50/gal this summer.  If you factor in Iran, who knows how high it could go. Everyone knows America MUST get off the oil.  After September 11, 2001 I expected our President to call on Americans to GET OFF THE OIL.  I was expecting a speech like the one JFK gave that motivated us to reach for the moon. As you know, this never happened.  Eventually I realized that the only way this is going to happen is for us to do it ourselves.  To that end I created this idea and have been trying to make it a reality..

The EPA is offering a research grant opportunity that I believe is a perfect fit for this idea.  I have sent an e-mail to a hand picked list of university professors who have experience with government research projects.  I'm looking to form a research team to apply for the EPA grant, conduct a social-economic experiment and surveys to determine to what extent the American public will support it, project the economic potential of WPH, and identify logistical, social and political obstacles as well as opportunities.

All government grants are awarded based on merit of the proposed research.  I believe WPH has merit but your help is needed to verify it. You can help by posting your feedback.  Let the professors and the EPA know what you think about WPH.  Do you think this idea is worth pursuing? We need to know if Americans will support a plan like this.

Do you have any ideas to improve the plan?

Share any and all of your thoughts.

Tell your friends and family about this Blog post and ask them to post their thoughts on WPH

http://wepayhalf.org

Thank you

Craig