Military Advisory Board findings on US Transportation, Fuels

Related:

"The Energy Trap"

the-energy-trap-t5442.html

Related:

"The Energy Trap"

the-energy-trap-t5442.html

a post about 3/4 the way down the comment section:

Some commentators seem to be missing the point of this piece. As I understand it, Tom’s point is that any form of new energy infrastructure which involves upfront investment is not going to happen, because the status quo is the only option with short term benefits. We’re not going to sacrifice the short term for the long term, ever.

This is why thorium reactors are irrelevant. The upfront cost of setting them up may be attractively low, but the upfront cost of sticking with the fossil fuel status quo is even better – it is zero – and so we will stick with the fossil fuel status quo.

Ditto improved solar. Ditto wind. Ditto more hydro. In fact, ditto everything. We will hold onto the status quo with a death grip until we have no energy left which we can afford.

This is why Tom is right to leave economics out of the piece, because the economics do not change this. Let’s say, for sake of argument, that fossil fuel prices go up on the supply downslope. The prices will go up even more if we’re trying to use some of that fossil fuel to create a new renewable energy infrastructure. The result is huge energy prices, and society will be under immense pressure to get those prices down. What to do? The quickest win is – wait for it – abandon the renewable energy infratstructure. That will relieve some of the pressure on the FF prices, and everyone breathes a bit more. So that’s why renewables will not happen. If the price of FF resources rocket, then society will savagely cut everything else to pay those FF prices. Tom’s argument therefore still stands.

top find on that link ralfy!

the military will get theirs and the rest will starve

i have said often - you want a view of 'merika's future look to north korea.

I figure more along the lines of Post-Soviet Russia.

But we all have different glasses.

but here's my question to you phil - you pick a number - any number you like (10 billion - 100 billion - 1 trillion - a Google) of humans you think can fit on this rock...then tell me what the plan is when your number comes up?

Have asked that in reverse of many Doomers -- so I suppose it is a fair question -- as a Show Me the Math Question. But you follow I do not have a "right-sized," optimal, do-not-exceed-this-carrying-capacity number? Having pondered by ranges of numbers, I came to look it as a Quality thing rather than a Quantity thing.

If you look at the farther ranges up or down -- 100,000 Assholes would be too many, but we could even do 10 Billion low-impact, decent, all get-along-together folks. So that is not math at that point -- more a decent folks thing. Could we become a world where folks would act decent? You might be correct. We may die, first.

really phil - what do you propose to do as king of the world?

Don't really see it as a King of the World thing. More a Fix You-Sef, First, thing. Than out larger as communities, nations, and the world does or does not follow. But just fixing US, first -- as far as Oil goes -- does a whole lot for everyone else.

If you look at the farther ranges up or down -- 100,000 Assholes would be too many, but we could even do 10 Billion low-impact, decent, all get-along-together folks. So that is not math at that point -- more a decent folks thing. Could we become a world where folks would act decent? You might be correct. We may die, first.

well - that has rarely been the case - the only thing humans like more than sex is killing each other...too bad - that is just the way it goes. That brings it right back to the OP...the military is gonna get there's and the killing is gonna continue.