We have to face the fact that the world supply of petroleum is limited and ultimately we must learn to do with less. Best estimates are that there is about 1000 billion barrels of petroleum left in the world and our present consumption is about 24 billion barrels per year; simple arithmetic says that is about 40 years, if consumption does not increase. But, the population is increasing and third world nations are wanting the things that we have; all of which spells higher rates of consumption. Most electricity is produced from petroleum, natural gas and coal. The supply of coal is also limited but less so than petroleum.

For those who want to believe that nuclear energy will be a panacea, even if it were endless in supply and had no problems; it can only be used for heating and electrical power generation. And, I hope, no one will agree to making eastern Nevada and western Utah a nuclear dumping ground for the nation or world.

For those looking for another panacea; I should point out that it takes more electricity to make a silicon solar cell than it will ever produce in its lifetime. (Assuming 100% efficiency 10 hours a day every day and no losses in transmission or storage it would take a solar cell approximately 23 years to generate the electricity that was used to make it.) It may well be that the most energy efficient way to use solar power would be to plant trees, then cut the trees and burn them to produce electricity.

The first oil well in America was completed August 27, 1859 near Titusville, PA. We now depend on fossil fuel energy for transportation, heating, generating electricity, cooling, and pumping water. Plus, petroleum is virtually the only source for organic chemical products such as: synthetics, plastics, automobile tires, lubricants, paints, pesticides, and even fertilizer and paved roads. The use of fossil fuels has allowed the human population to expand to about ten times what could be supported using only renewable resources.

When any animal specializes too much it spells extinction. If the human animal is going to continue to exist, the dependence on fossil fuels must end. This must be done within the life time of most people who are reading this. Most likely it will come sooner because of wars and a real holocaust when the pain of energy shortages start to be felt. The only way to avoid disaster is to reduce consumption and population. I believe it will be easier to reduce population than consumption! You don't believe it? Just think for a minute about how difficult it would be to get people to give up:

• Their cars.
• Heat in their homes.
• Electric lights.
• Refrigerators and Stoves.
• Water that is pumped to homes, and farms.
• Foods we have because of cheap transportation and farming.
• Plastics, and synthetics such as nylon, polyethylene, and polyesters.

Many today are oversold on technology being able to solve all problems. But if you look at the facts, virtually all of the technological advantages we have today come from the use (exploitation) of the chemicals, and energy we get from petroleum. I predict that when the oil runs out, technology will collapse and the few humans that survive will again be living as hunter-gather cave men. ?How's that for a dose of pessimisms?

Need I say more? Mandatory population control would be much simpler, easier and more effective.

But first lets consider consumption

1. Decorative use, such as pumping water for "entertainment". Most of us could live quite well without Fountains and waterfalls that run 24 hours a day. Also there are a lot of decorative and ornamental uses of lights such as lights on roofs or on the structure of bridges that cross San Francisco Bay.

2. Electrically pumped water and lights in green houses to grow flowers. Flowers are nice but really not necessary. Yes, some industries and their jobs will ultimately have to go.

3. "Clothes Dryers" in homes were unheard of until about 1950. People dried their clothes by hanging them on lines. In the summer the evaporation provides some indoor cooling. We really don't need to dry wet cloth by electrically baking the water out.

4. Home air-conditioning came after WW II. People lived quite well without it, although not in some of the hottest areas where we find houses built today.

5. Many agricultural products that require a lot of electricity are really only luxury. We could survive quite well without: Lettuce, Strawberries, or Wine.

6. And to the surprise of many pseudo ecologists mass transit may well prove be too energy inefficient to be kept. Busses with the frequent stops and starts are getting around one to three miles per gallon of fuel. Furthermore, they never stop running even when there may be no one riding except for the driver. I had a 1959 VW and it got near 40 miles to the gallon, it always had at least one passenger; and it was stopped until it was needed. The VW was obviously more energy efficient than any regularly scheduled bus. In actual practice busses are more efficient than trains because too many trains run pulling far fewer cars than they are capable of, and often the cars have to be moved empty to free up the tracks. For anything to be efficient there has to be a good match between the load and the power. Electric trains are even worse because of transmission line losses. From an energy point of view trains are great for moving loads of freight, but a disaster for moving people.

7. Another area that a lot of power could be saved is with radio, and to a lessor extent Television. No I am not implying that people should turn their radios off. What I am saying is that we don't need but about one tenth as many radio stations. Furthermore, many radio stations are broadcasting with 50 Kilowatts of radiated power when a tenth of that would be more than enough power for they type of programming that they do. Here in the San Francisco bay area we have several AM radio stations and far too many FM stations, most are broadcasting unnecessary junk such as: advertising, music and sporting events. Power is wasted even for broadcasting useful information, for example: KGO and KCBS are both 50 KW AM stations that are covering "traffic" from about 100 miles north of SFO to about 100 miles south. Now really, is anyone in Stockton or Sacramento interested in what roads are backed up in Santa Rosa, or Gillroy? I am not disputing that traffic reporting is useful, but it is of only local interest and a 500 Watt transmitter would more than cover all the drivers that would ever get to the area of an accident before it was cleaned up. I submit to you that we could be better informed using 1% of the electrical power that we are now using to clutter the air waves.

In addition to things that we could live without there are other things that could be done, and would be done if energy were not so cheap. For example: In much of the country for about half of the year it is cold outside and we burn gas to keep the home comfortable. But at the same time we are burning gas to heat the home, we are burning more gas to make electricity to power a refrigerator to "undo" the heating. I agree that it is very convenient to have a refrigerator inside even when it is freezing outside; but we could have refrigerators that would simply circulate an antifreeze from the cold outside. But it would be a bit more costly, especially till there was enough demand to get the economies of mass production. Such technology will never be developed when electricity is essentially free.

Another refrigerator waste. Any refrigerator just pumps heat out of the inside to the outside while adding the heat of the electricity consumed. In the summer, this heat is added to the air in the room increasing the air conditioner load. But it is even worse! At the same time the refrigerator is pumping heat into the air which may well be 80 degrees or higher, we are burning gas or electricity to heat water that comes into the house at around 50 degrees. The refrigerator would be more efficient if the its' heat were used to warm the cold water coming in; and it would take less gas to heat our hot water. Even more! On a hot day the air-conditioner is pumping heat out of the house into air that may be well above 90 degrees; this heat should also be giving us cheaper hot water. Every house that has both hot water and a refrigerator is wasting energy! Again this technology will not go into production until it is economically competitive with electricity, and so long as electricity is cheap no one will bother with any added complexity.

Another area. There is a fixed amount of heat in a cubic foot of gas or a gallon of diesel fuel. It doesn't matter how you burn it, so long as it is completely burned you get the same amount of heat. The smart thing to do would be to burn either of these fuels in an engine that is in the home and use the mechanical energy produced from the engine to generate electricity. Any excess electrical energy could be sold, and put back into the electrical grid. But again I cannot develop and market such a "generator furnace" when electricity is so cheap.

These ideas are simple and do-able with todays technology; but will not be done until there is economic motivation. This will not be done so long as politicians exploit tomorrow to keep prices low today so they can get votes. Stupid politicians are creating future disaster, for their short term political gain.

---

Contact me at:

For comments call, or e-mail me. Go to My Home Page or TOP of this page.