The pursuit of mining the oil sands in Canada and the oil shales in the western U.S. while sidetracking alternative energy development, highlights the contempt for our planet by the energy cartels. Their extraction require massive amounts of energy which compounds their contributions to greenhouse gasses and related pollution. The environmental destruction resulting from their massive excavations, and wasteful consumption of water only add to their ddisasterous effects.

Oil Shale interests are well represented in the current administration who have continuously opposed real measures for conservation & carbon warming mitigation. Until we replace this administration with one that will detooth these thugs and invoke needed reforms, the degradation to our habitat from their reckless environmental policies can only accelerate.

"Change comes from a degree of discomfort that allows for and spurs thought and action."
William Blum

I heard about this from Naomi Klein on Democracy Now.
One of the things she mentioned was that the name TAR sands had been changed by the oil industry to OIL sands. I think it's important for people not to adopt the industry idioms as they are designed to confuse people about the issues. For many years the lumber industry insisted on reframing forestry issues as timber issues. This invites the uniformed to think of fragile ecosystems as resource vaults.

The more I read about the tar sands and the more I hear about the proposed "oil" shale project in Colorado and Utah the more I am motivated to go forward with my electric car conversion project. Yes, the electricity is generated from coal. But even an electric car charged up with electricity generated exclusively from coal is substantially cleaner that a gas powered internal combustion engine or even a hybrid-electric car. This is possible because the gas powered internal combustion engine car is about 12% efficient and the electric car's motor is 90% efficient and therefore requires less energy. Since Texas is getting an increasing share of its electricity from wind turbines the grid, at least in Texas, is only going to get greener.

I want to get off this suff and until mass transit becomes more accessible I am going for the electric car conversion because it's morally repugnant for me to keep burning petroleum so I can drop my son off at school and go to work.

Isn't a 6 sq kilometer tailings pond actually a tailings lake? Anyone know what the record is for the biggest toxic lake (sorry, pond) is? Something to aim for.

While it is commendable that people like radio_tec are looking at ways of subverting the oil industry, it will have a net zero effect (at best) on the environment or on the ONLY issue that matters: global warming and our survival as a functioning society.

Imagine what the planet would look like in a few years time if we continue to do, essentially, nothing to change our lifestyle (as is currently the case in this country) while China and India continue to industrialize (with the aid and complicity of the American people (consciously or unconsciously), even by the most well-meaning (let alone the masses who don't give enough of a shit about anyone but themselves to examine their own behaviors, let alone change them when they find them to be unworkable).

Switching to compact fluorescents, hybrid vehicles, or paying for carbon credits don't count, because they don't LOWER the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We need to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to less than 350 ppm from the 387 ppm we're at currently, and these measures- well-meaning as they are- will only very slightly slow the rate of increase, while allowing the few of us who can and will take such measures to feel better about our inherently unsustainable lifestyle. (You don't really expect the government ever to mandate effective enough measures, do you? It's members- both Democratic and Republican- are, as I'm sure you know by now, completely and irrevocably beholden to- and comprised of- corporate interests who have absolutely no allegiance to the other 99% of us.) Instead, we want to believe that as long as we're doing what we tell ourselves is our parts in "greening" the planet, we feel we won't have to examine the systems we continue to play by, or change our behaviors much. (Think about it. For example, when was the last time you purchased something made by a multi-national corporation? This morning? A couple of minutes ago?).

Coal is a worse polluter than oil and is a fossil fuel (and thus a potent source of greenhouse gases). We would in fact probably be worse off if the majority of us went to "non-polluting" electric vehicles overnight. (This obviously is not going to happen, as the vast majority of us could not afford to chuck their current vehicle even if they suddenly woke up to their responsibilities in the grand scheme, given the state of the economy.) Nuclear? Same problems as ever about the waste (both radioactive and water), the safety (Who is really willing to trade a few years of convenience of powering up the television, microwave, or air conditioner for the likelihood that at least one of the plants will suffer a catastrophic accident at some point in the relatively near future, and do you trust the abilities of the builders and operators of each plant?), the injustice of mining for uranium ore on sacred lands (not that all lands are not sacred- including those stripped to extract coal), and the lag time between when a nuclear plant is conceived and when it is operational. Solar? Clean in its use where there is enough sunshine, but incredibly polluting in its manufacturing, and even the best units don't last very long. (Maybe twenty-five years.) Plus, even with tax credits, only a relatively fortunate few can afford the up-front costs of buying an installing a large enough array. What's more, anyone using solar technology today has blood on their hands, as much of the key raw materials must be taken- stolen, really- from so-called "developing" nations, at a tremendous cost to the inhabitants lives, cultures, and freedoms. Wind? Least polluting of all the invasive technologies (except for hydro and geothermal), but like these can only be exploited on a large scale in a limited number of locations.

The problem, and the reason why we're on a path to our immanent demise as a functioning society ("DYSfunctioning" is probably closer to the truth), is that to virtually all of us, our way of life is sacrosanct. Very few of us are even willing to even question IF it might harm our planet, our fellow inhabitants, our psyches, and our souls (let alone in what ways). Specifically, we blithely, unthinkingly, and greedily subscribe to the ways and means of corporate capitalism, by our very actions, while never realizing that by doing so we sow the seeds of our own destruction. We live on a finite planet, yet continue to act as if it is otherwise.

So, radio_tec, do you STILL need that electric car? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at the bigger picture and opt out of contributing to a society that is based on competition and that is now in its death-throes, and be a part of creating one based on the spirit of love and cooperation instead?

M O O N G L O W,

I don't recall the town's name that was nearly destroyed, from the third coal tailings pond extension, but several hundred died, when a makeshift dam broke and dumped the whole "pond" at once upon the unsuspecting town. I believe this disaster occurred in near or in West Virgina area, back in the 60s. I saw a special about in on cable TV

Mine inspectors were complicit following earlier complaints of dam leakages, as well as ridiculously ineffective rules about design, construction, and inspection of such extremely dangerous dams.

The good news is some stronger laws did result to prevent this from happening again, but the coal companies greed and inconsideration of the deadly risks to the company's town folks -- is scandalously nothing too surprising -- then or now.¿ Does anyone recall the name of this town, and actual year ?

Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King

M O O N G L O W,

1972, Feb. 26 Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, see a global summary of all failings over 40 yearshttp://www.wise-uranium.org/mdaf.html

500,000 m3 released

500 homes and 127 dead

Here's one way to get directly involved in the solution.

http://climateconvergence.org/

Each and every one of us who understands the gravity of the situation MUST take MEANINGFUL and personal steps to repair the problem if we can, or at least ameliorate its effects. It is far too late to leave it up to "them" and hope that "they" will do anything to help us.

ricshev, your arguments reflect a common misconception about EVs and their ability to curtail CO2 emissions. The charging for my car would take place overnight when there's plenty of surplus capacity overnight. I would, in fact, be using electrical capacity that would go to waste anyway. So no new CO2 emissions are created. A study published in the December 2006 Scientific American by the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found that 82% of the car fleet could be changed out by EVs and charged overnight without building a single new power plant. That would substantially cut CO2 emissions without adding any additional CO2 emissions from electrical plants. Even when you're getting the fuel from coal, believe me I'm the furthest of fans of coal, the reductions between 40 studies show that reductions can range from 0 to 59%. Only two of the studies found 0% change. You can look at a faq posted by Sherry Boshcert, who herself is a big proponent of mass-transit but she lives in San Francisco, at http://www.sherryboschert.com/Downloads/Emissions.pdf/

Yes it would be nice not to even need a car but here in Texas, specifically Houston, we just completed a wonderful light rail system. Alas it is no where near where I live. I looked at using a bus but to commute by bus to work I would have to make two connecting buses. It would take me 2 hours and 40 minutes to make the commute and I would still need to drive my car to get to the nearest park and ride. The commute time doesn't include the additional 20 minutes it would take to get to the park and ride. So I looked into ride sharing but I have been on that list for close to 2 years now and the closest person to bite on this has not, to date, responded to my request to get in the car share. It is about 21 miles to commute the shortest distance to my work so I can't bike to work. Added to this I have to be home, promptly to take care of my son who has autism. (Please no sympathy. This is just my reality) Now I have been a big fan of mass-transit for 20 years. I used it when I lived in New Jersey and eagerly took the train to New York but I am no longer in New Jersey and I have to use what is off the shelf.

My situation does not allow me to "opt out." My son needs all of the services that a modern medical establishment can provide. Frequently those who opt out are frequently not really opting out. They build houses out in the middle of nowhere, put up a wind turbine, not a bad thing, or photovoltaics, equally not bad, and then back it up with a gasoline or propane generator. Just look at any issue of Mother Earth News. It's green on the outside but littered with all kinds of fossil fueled generators on the inside. Also has anyone given any thought that if we go back to wood fired stoves whether the forests can withstand the onslaught of everyone else that will also "opt out?"

How would that number of people get around? Horses won't work in this day and age. Horses were a health hazard at the turn of the 19th century because of the tons of feces, gallons of urine and thousands of horse cadavers that contaminated the cities and caused horrible diphtheria and typhoid epidemics. Cars were the eco solution of their day and the electric car was winning out until the invention of the electric starters, cheap oil with the Spindle top discovery just outside of Beaumont, Texas and the battery trust imploding from within. (Long story See Edwin Black's Internal Combustion)

Sorry for the length of this post but I am an accused blowhard and am guilty as charged. However, we need off the shelf solutions now and car capable electric motors exist. Plain old dumb, and 99% recycled, lead acid batteries exist. Lots of cars that are perfectly usable but destined for the junk yard, because of their blown engines, exist and gigawatts of wasted electrical generating capacity exist so let's do it and put a significant dent in lowering our oil addiction and get these out there while we build our mass-transit system and relocalize the economy. That will take work so let's get on with it. I'm going to be doing my small part with this EV.

http://g2bgreen.com/now-comes-the-air-powered-car

The article says nothing about how far the activists traveled and what mode of transportation they used. Anyone want to bet it didn't involve the consumtion of hydrocarbon fuel?

Nothing would affect the rate at which people polute the earth more than reducing the number of people. Not a simple thing to do.

In Werner Fornos' 1990 Book, GAINING PEOPLE, LOSING GROUND was this startling peice of information: If all mothers had no more children AND females not yet having given birth limited themselves to a single child, population would continue to increase for several decades. At the time the number of females on earth not yet having reached child bearing age was startling. Can it be less startling today?

Therefore, those of us who feel responsible must change our habits, including having more children.

If we want manufacturing reduced, purchase fewer manufactured goods.

If we want less petroleum used, drive less and don't buy plastic or nylon. Walk don't drive to the post office.

It's a long list.

Plant a tree.

radio_tec, it seems we have quite a bit in common, not the least of which are a propensity to use words as precisely as possible so that the intended meaning is conveyed without misunderstanding, and a familiarity with northern New Jersey and the commute into The City. (I grew up a half hour bus ride from the Port Authority, and learned early how valuable and necessary mass transit is, how convenient it could be, and what lengths most people will go to in order to avoid changing their lifestyle one iota no matter the overall need and potential gains. Although I've been living in the relative eco-paradise of Portland, Oregon for several years, I write this from Jersey, where I'm visiting family before moving to southern Ecuador. You see, I'm not one to ask more of others than I am willing to do myself.)

I obviously cannot take issue with your facts. If everyone were as conscious as you are and as willing to adjust their lives in the direction of greater sustainability I would be much more optimistic about the future. The reality is, very, very few of us will go all-electric in the near future, for reasons I outlined in my previous post. Not that you should let yourself be dissuaded from pursuing your plans. In fact, I feel a little ashamed. For the time that I'll be on this continent, I will be driving a vehicle with an internal combustion engine (albeit smallish, and fifteen years old) when I'm not taking mass transit, or walking or biking. (Very different story when I get to South America, however.)

I agree with your assessment that most people who "opt out" of the system in reality only THINK they do. Where I take issue with you is your assumption that most people need to "get around" to the extent we have become accustomed to. This is just one belief we in this society unquestionably take as sacrosanct.

Most Americans, I believe, feel it is our God-given right to travel wherever we want to whenever we get the urge or feel the need. That supposed "need" (much, MUCH more often than not) is merely an unconscious response to having grown up in a system that arose to support a specific paradigm- one that holds that the planet's resources are limitless, that our way of life is infinitely sustainable, and that humans have a right (and to some, a responsibility) to do what we please, consequences be damned. It seems to me that, at present, not enough of us seem to have internalized the Laws of Karma, that every action has its consequences, and nothing (and no one) is independent of everything (and everyone) else.

Yes, intermediary solutions are necessary and available, and you've mentioned a few, although I somehow doubt they will come into widespread use in time for us to substantially lower the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to avoid some pretty horrible circumstances. (Actually I do think it's possible, but if that turns out to be the case I believe it will be directly the result of a mass spiritual awakening.) It doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though, in whatever ways our particular level of consciousness permits. In fact, we have a responsibility to do so. The resources that would allow us to continue to evolve are out there right now (including more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet, and such 'magical' devices as those which use zero-point- or "new" energy. With proper guidance we could use our remaining finite resources responsibly to spiral up to a very conscious and very sustainable way of living.) Unless we are willing to accept that most everything about our way of thinking IS THE PROBLEM (because we build the world around us directly from what we perceive), and then act from a place of integrity instead of hubris NO MATTER WHAT, I see VERY hard times ahead for most (and probably all) of us.

Radio_tec, % efficiency in a vehicle is good to look at but miles/btu is even better. To max the miles/btu, minimize weight, maximize aerodynamics, minimize reserve horsepower and drive slow. For a versatile vehicle for both city and highway, flat and hills, this calls for electric transmission, charged with a small hp turbo-diesel. For city only, a plugin electric is optimum. For flat highway cruising, turbo-diesel only.

But miles/btu isn't the whole story. We have to look at the full costs of each approach which include land, water, materials/labor in, emissions out, and other social/environmental benefits/liabilities. If all these can be converted to "btu equivalent" then miles/btu allows an easy comparison.

Turbo-diesel running biodiesel delivers more miles/btu than coal-fired electric but less than gas-fired electric. But biodiesel is carbon neutral. What beats biodiesel? Solar/wind electric. But only for city vehicles, not long distance. So we need both - but place conservation and rail transport above those.

Radio_tec, the thing about the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study is that there is a reserve capacity in the existing power plants that can charge a national fleet of electric vehicles at night.

But they are not currently running at full capacity at night and merely dumping the excess output. They are currently running below capacity at night, and if a national fleet of electric vehicles plugged in, the plants' fuel consumption/cost would have to increase accordingly.

On July 25th, 2008 9:27 pm ricshev wrote:

>>radio_tec, it seems we have quite a bit in common, not the least of which are a propensity to use words as precisely as possible so that the intended meaning is conveyed without misunderstanding, and a familiarity with northern New Jersey and the commute into The City.<<

We do agree with one exception. People do and are changing. Miles traveled over last year has decreased by 3%. The market for what a group I belong to, Hypermilers, call FSPs (Fuel Sucking Pigs) has collapsed dramatically. People, even well to do people, want to get out of these things. Sure they're being forced by price and events beyond their control but this is what led to the development of electric trolleys at the turn of the 19th century and electric cars.

We have also made dramatic changes in the past too. In World War II many more people rode mass transit than used automobiles due to the gas rationing system. After World War II people had to be propagandized to use cars and GM, Phillips Petroleum, Standard Oil of California, Greyhound bus lines, Firestone Tires and Mack Truck formed National City Lines and targeted 40 cities for the destruction of their electric trolley systems to replace them with GM diesel buses. It's another long story but if you can get the film "Taken For a Ride" its all there. For me mass-transit is a liberating experience because I don't own and maintain a car, I fixed and repaired many, and I don't have to fight to find a parking space and worry if some cretin is going to ding my car doors.

We're getting there. Houston is expanding its light rail service and still, even now, people still complain about the rail disrupting there lives. Well the Interstate Highway system was also disruptive. Destroying the electric trolley system was also very disruptive. Well peak oil will put an end to such delusions. Even a social Cassandra like James Howard Kastler agrees that rail will be essential in a post petroleum era. Whether we get there is up to us.

Finally I don't believe in politicians like Obama I believe in the power of people to change things. This is why I want to make it my goal first to insure my son gets proper education and then fight like hell to curtail our profligate use of fossil fuels so that he and all children can inherit a planet worth living in. You're going to South America, to Ecuador, where the people elected a candidate of their choosing for the first time in decades to make change. If they could do it so can we.

rtdrury, I think we're working two ends of the same concept. Efficiency is going to be our gold standard. BTU's per mile is probably the most targeted way of addressing efficiency. Yes, low aerodynamic drag coefficient, tires with low rolling resistance, low car weight are all critical to motive efficiency.

I find that driving slow works for my Toyota Camry. I got it back in 2000 when my '86 Honda Accord just became too much of a maintenance nightmare to continue using it. My car is a 4 cyl 2.2 l (the smallest engine) and I deliberately picked one with a 5 speed manual stick shift and I love it. It shifts smooth like a dream and I am able to exceed the EPA fuel mileage rating of 24 MPG. I got 32 miles/gallon on my last fillip and that was with the A/C on. That's roughly a 33% increase in efficiency with no modifications to the engine. I modified my driving behavior. It's so Simple.

As for the spare capacity that goes wasted by utilities at night, Vehicle to Grid technology, V2G, could be used to stabilize the grid so that your car charges up at night and when it is plugged in at work the utility can tap into electric cars with V2G to provide power during peak load periods. Such a motor and motor controller capable of doing this already exists. Its not science fiction. It just needs to be scaled up to full use. The grass roots movement already exists for this. It has made for some very unlikely political marriages of convenience, ie James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney Jr., and you don't have to like their politics but this IS how change occurs in the society. We agree on this one issue and agree to disagree on the others but greening the grid will be the most essential project we engage in over the next 40 years and I intend to work hard toward this end. After all, we can't go back to horses, wood fired stoves, and coal fired steam engines or we're certainly going to kill the planet.

Just to add a little to the conversation.

At 56 for the past two years I have been riding my bike to work daily. Just two miles and I am in Florida so it's not bad. I put on my dress and pearls and I'm off.

Big problem now. Just lost my job and jobs here are as scarce as hens teeth. We have had our house for sale for two years and have wanted to move back to the big island for at least that long. We are stuck and now even more stuck. I am jealous of anyone who is able to move off the mainland.

I am beginning a new business on my own which will require my getting back into an outomobile and I hate the whole idea. I had gotten so used to biking and feeling so good about it.

Circumstances have really gotten so out of control in this country that many of us are being forced to choose to do some things we would do anything not to have to do.

Isn't there anyone out there that wants to buy our charming historic home in Florida?

We all have good reasons why we can't... A distant job, a family member, a 'good' school.

There is no free lunch and no free ride. We'll have to pick our priorities and consolidate our activities around the one location that is most important to us. If that means giving up a better paying or 'more rewarding' job, if it means changing neighborhood or schools, that's what it will have to be.

Instead of trying to make commuting more affordable and 'green', it should be considered anti-social behavior and discouraged accordingly. That's a change in outlook that only very few are willing to face even today. The time will come when it is forced upon us, though.

Some posters are talking as if there was lots of time to make gradual changes in the way we consume fossil fuels.

The burning political fuse could well render most of these discussions academic in an instant. Failing that, how much time is there to get with the program?

Scientists report from the vantage of the year 2050:
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/nov24.html

"While we encourage debate and dialogue about the environmental impacts of oil sands development, we do expect it to be conducted in a lawful and professional manner."

Translation: "Talk all you want, we'll continue to rape the environment."

radio_tec: Simple solution: MOVE OUT OF THE SUBURBS!