Those statement by the head of Exxon are a complete joke. Brazil has
already proven that a large country can operate without foreign oil and
other countries will soon follow such as Sweden and Iceland. The only thing
stopping us from kicking our foreign oil habit is a lack of proper will and
necessity. We have more than enough tools to dramtically reduce our oil
consumption, if implemented sensibly.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-L@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Your Surrender has Been Ordered
People unfamiliar with plug-in hybrid technology may not realize the full
impact of the program I described. See:
http://www.calcars.org/
To make a long story short, after 20 years of development, these cars
would probably get on the order of 200 to 1000 mpg. That is to say, miles
per gallon of gasoline, plus a great deal of electricity, of course.
Fortunately, in the US electricity is not generated with oil. During the
20-year span of this project we could build enough new, non-polluting
electric power generation capacity to meet the needs of these cars.
Today's automobiles get ~20 mpg. So if nearly every automobile and
long-haul truck was a plug in hybrid, we would consume somewhere between
2% to 10% of what we consume today. U.S. production of oil is falling
rapidly and irrevocably because we passed the height of Hubbard's curve in
1975, but even with this decrease we could easily meet the demand for 10%
of today's consumption.
Bear in mind also that if we began this project, the US would not be the
only country rapidly converting to plug-in hybrids. Japan Europe and China
would follow suit, because if they did not, GM and Ford would soon put
their automobile manufacturers out of business. So after 20 years not only
would US consumption fall by a factor of 10 or more, so would consumption
nearly everywhere else in the world. This would bankrupt OPEC and Al
Qaeda.
Needless to say, plug-in hybrids are not the only way we could save oil
and other sources of energy. There are many other technologies waiting in
the wings. The cost, as I said, would be negative. As one expert put it,
when describing the benefits of compact fluorescent lights, "this is not a
free lunch: it is a lunch you are paid to eat." Not only does the improved
hardware save energy, the hardware itself costs less over the lifetime of
the product. This is usually the case with well-engineered, advanced
technology.
Any U.S. president or automobile CEO could have begun this project any
time in the last 100 years, as I said. Certainly anytime since 1970. There
is simply no excuse for continued energy shortages, high prices,
pollution, wars for oil, and the "Marshall Plan for for terrorists and
dictators." These things are caused by stupidity, greed, bad management
and -- in the face of terrorism -- energy policy that is tantamount to
treason. (These policies have been endorsed by both parties and the last
six presidents, but I still think they are close to treason.) Myriad
technical solutions to these problems have been available all along, in
plain sight. These solutions are nowhere near as good as cold fusion, and
they are at least a thousand times more expensive than cold fusion, but
they could easily have ameliorated the problems.
- Jed