Of concern to those who live in, and hike the Smokies. [Archive]

View Full Version : Of concern to those who live in, and hike the Smokies.

One Leg

03-29-2005, 09:25

This was in the area of Newfound Gap

Criminal charges might be filed in Smokies wreck

Five members of two Virginia families died in what might be the worst car accident ever in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

It happened Saturday on the Northbound Spur, the highway that connects Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge. It's also knows as Highway 441.

The Viriginia natives were all over age 64. They were in a Chrysler at a stop sign, on their way to a condo where one of the couples has a time share. They tried to cross two lanes of traffic, but a Honda Accord "t-boned" them. They were about a hundred yards from their condo.

Rangers think an 18 to 20 year old man was driving a red Nissan 24 SX two door coupe near the Honda. The Nissan has custom taillights and painting on the side that says something about high performance auto parts. Rangers think this witness saw the crash happen, and they want to find him. Anyone with information should call (865) 436-1230

Rangers are saddened, but not surprised by the deadly crash.

"This is a very dangerous highway," says Ranger Steve Kloster. "We will routinely write tickets for 75 miles an hour, which is in a 35 mile an hour zone."

They say speed and/or alcohol might have caused this accident.

"There's potential criminal charges," says Ranger Rick Brown, who superivses all rangers in the north district, and who was on the scene Saturday night. "It's all under investigation."

The five people who died were longtime friends vacationing together in Tennessee. The victims were identified as 80 year old George Nelson, his wife, Myra Nelson, 64 and Myra Nelson's mother, Audrey Fentress. They were from Chesapeake, Virginia.

Seventy year old Anthony Dietz and his wife, Betty Dietz were also in the car. They were from Virginia Beach.

Eighteen year old Johnny Hall of Lebanon, TN was driving the car that hit them. He is out of the hospital, and his 16 year old passenger was left with no serious injuries.

Jaybird

03-29-2005, 09:41

..."the most dangerous part of a hiking trip...is the drive to the trailhead..."

smokymtnsteve

03-29-2005, 09:56

They were in a Chrysler at a stop sign, on their way to a condo where one of the couples has a time share. They tried to cross two lanes of traffic, but a Honda Accord "t-boned" them. They were about a hundred yards from their condo.

just to clarify,,,were they still stopped at the stop sign or had the chrysler pulled out trying to cross the two lanes of traffic?

Automobiles and driving is so dangerous and expensive, I wish we had more public transportation (pt) that was actually useable and efficent, but as a society we have invested tremendous resources in bulding roads and cars and the infrustructure to maintain them. gatlinburg is a complete nightmare of automobiles,

wouldn't it be nice if we had a efficent rail system in this country ?

smokymtnsteve

03-29-2005, 09:58

Hey one leg...I was just thinking (something I do occasionally) :datz

do U drive a automatic ??or can U handle a stick shift and clutch with that legs of yours? :-?

Chip

03-29-2005, 10:11

just to clarify,,,were they still stopped at the stop sign or had the chrysler pulled out trying to cross the two lanes of traffic?

Automobiles and driving is so dangerous and expensive, I wish we had more public transportation (pt) that was actually useable and efficent, but as a society we have invested tremendous resources in bulding roads and cars and the infrustructure to maintain them. gatlinburg is a complete nightmare of automobiles,

wouldn't it be nice if we had a efficent rail system in this country ?
A good rail system would be great! The cost of gasoline going up, air fares and how the gov keeps bailing them out (airlines), high cost of insurance and lives also the darn air pollution. Our friends in Europe seem to have it down right. Maybe we can learn a thing or two from them. I love this country but we don't always do the right thing.:datz

Happy Trails,
Chip

minnesotasmith

03-29-2005, 10:19

The population density is much lower than that in Europe and Japan, which makes it a lot tougher to break even on passenger rail outside of the NE U.S. There may be high-speed maglev vacuum-surrounded nonstop coast-to-coast passenger rail built and operating before Peak Oil or some other crisis hits us (and guts nonemergency large capital projects for the forseeable future), but I would bet probably not.

The form of mass-transit that makes sense here IMO is intra-city massive expansion of bus use, to where over 30% of workers use it on weekdays.

smokymtnsteve

03-29-2005, 10:30

part of the "investment" that we have made in Automobile world is the design of our city/suburb living arrangements...so yes for rail to "work" we will also have to change our living/working arrangements.

bulldog49

03-29-2005, 10:36

wouldn't it be nice if we had a efficent rail system in this country ?

In a word, NO.

minnesotasmith

03-29-2005, 10:44

"the design of our city/suburb living arrangements...so yes for rail to "work" we will also have to change our living/working arrangements."

Instead of spending trillions of dollars (that we don't even have) tearing up most of our housing and roads, built over centuries, to replace them with something people have proved over and over they don't want*, building several hundred thousand buses makes a whole lot better sense IMO. Force applied to one's own population tends to result in failure, the top lesson to be learned from the demise of the late unlamented USSR.

*I highly recommend Banfield's book "The Unheavenly City Revisited" to get a good basic grounding on how populations have moved around during the history of America. It concentrates on the forces and motivations affecting movement urban and suburban populations, which are the ones that would be 95% or so of any mass transit users in this country.

smokymtnsteve

03-29-2005, 10:48

In a word, NO.

yea it would be just awful to be able to get on a rail system and travel comfortably and safely, even though U would have to adjust your life and travels to the rail schedules, of course now you have to adjust your travel times to traffic jam schedules. Automobiles 'accidents" are a huge killer of our people and a huge consumer of our resources,

Chip

03-29-2005, 10:51

smokymtnsteve

03-29-2005, 11:00

I picture a rail system that is inter-city,,,with bus connections.

our transportation system is extremely inefficent, and expensive here in the USA. along with our production, guess that is why we are losing our manufacturing capability,

One Leg

03-29-2005, 11:04

Hey one leg...I was just thinking (something I do occasionally) :datz

do U drive a automatic ??or can U handle a stick shift and clutch with that legs of yours? :-?

Steve:

Yes, I do drive a 5-speed, both with and without the aid of my prosthetic leg. When not wearing the leg, I use a 2 foot section of 1/4-inch PVC pipe for "hand controls". Works great, and I haven't been in any wrecks as a result.

Further clarification: the vehicle with the elderly occupants had pulled into the path of the oncoming vehicle. At dispute is the speed of the other vehicle. Some are saying that had the car not been going so fast, the deathtoll would me either minimal or non-existent.

minnesotasmith

03-29-2005, 11:08

Actually, high taxation and worse regulation (including but not limited to environmental regs) affirmative action featherbedding resulting in less productive workforces, lack of protective tariffs for our manufacturing, order-of-magnitude differences in labor costs, a legal system run wild, and NIMBY-ism over much large project construction are more important factors in the plummeting amount of manufacturing in the U.S. relative to the once-Third World.

It looks more and more as if Atlas is shrugging here.

bulldog49

03-29-2005, 12:22

yea it would be just awful to be able to get on a rail system and travel comfortably and safely, even though U would have to adjust your life and travels to the rail schedules,

I travel comfortably and safely now without, as you say, having to adjust my life to someone else's schedule. I'm just one of those retro types who prefers to do my own thing rather than travel with the pack. And in case you haven't noticed, AMTRAK has it's share of fatal accidents as well. There are risks associated with everything we do in everyday life.

smokymtnsteve

03-29-2005, 12:26

rail travel is much safer per passenger mile,

minnesotasmith

03-29-2005, 12:47

I'll bet hiking is safer yet.;)

bulldog49

03-29-2005, 12:49

rail travel is much safer per passenger mile,

So what, if safety was my primary concern I wouldn't do 80% of the things I enjoy in life. The point is there is risk associated with all types of travel.

I'm viscerally opposed to anyone who tries to tell me to do something because it's in my best interest. Whether I wear a seatbelt, or a helmet while riding a motor cycle or whatever, that should be my choice, not some buearucrat in Washington.

AbeHikes

03-29-2005, 14:35

The increase in gas prices is the best thing that ever could have happened to global environment. I hope they price themselves right out of an industry.

SGT Rock

03-29-2005, 14:57

I avoid the Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge area like the plague. This is but one of many reasons.

zephyr1034

03-29-2005, 22:00

I'm viscerally opposed to anyone who tries to tell me to do something because it's in my best interest. Whether I wear a seatbelt, or a helmet while riding a motor cycle or whatever, that should be my choice, not some buearucrat in Washington.[/QUOTE
================================================== ===========
No one wants to force you do do anything, pal. But since you mentioned the word "choice" why shouldn't we have a choice about how we travel? Driving should be a choice, but in most cases it isn't; driving is mandatory. So you want your choice but don't want to let other people have choices.

As best as I can figure out, there's no way to get to the Smoky Mountains except to drive. Gatlinburg used to have bus service, but it doesn't anymore. I will not, repeat WILL NOT, go anywhere near the Smokies during June, July, August or October. That still leaves me with eight months when I can go. I simply won't put up with the traffic; I'd rather stay home.

The Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge area does have a so called "trolley" system (they're really buses), and one of the routes goes all the way to Elkmont Campground. This would have some utility to hikers, although I've never tried it. (I believe it only runs during the summer, when I'm never there.)

The road where that fatal accident happened is a four lane, but it has some very sharp curves. I can see where there would be a lot of accidents on it, given the amount of traffic. It's nowhere near Newfound Gap, though.

If there were a comprehensive, efficient rail system in place in this country, millions of people would use it. And those who didn't want to could still drive.

SGT Rock

03-29-2005, 22:09

smokymtnsteve

03-29-2005, 22:21

I agree with choice as I am PRO_CHOICE and right now the only real choice is to have a car and drive as thier is no alternative transportion, we're such a rich country we should be able to afford a nationwide modern rail system, operated efficiently enough for fares to be affordable for the working class. (well maybe I am wrong we aren't such a rich civilized nation :datz )

sorry I was making an assumption about us being a rich, civilized, forward looking nation of people .

we afford highways, massive numbers of car in traffic jams, and build beautiful strip malls in all out towns, we have drive through windows where we never get out of our cars while we recieve delicious deep fryed foods handed to us through a window,,,

but we can't seem to have a simple little thing like a inexpensive nationwide rail system, even though we can put a man on the moon.

smokymtnsteve

03-29-2005, 22:33

Sure, and similar to some other national parks that have had to deal with overuse of transportation, why not put a couple of large parking lots on the outside of the park and then limit traffic in while providing a bus or tram like system? Honestly, it is highly annoying trying to get through Newfound Gap stuck between two motor homes or having a motor home that is too wide for the narrow lanes barreling at you half way in your lane.

Just my $0.02. I prefer to walk in the park anyway.

Charge a toll to personal transport and use that $$$ to run the transportaion system...hire a "welfare mom" to be an interpeter on the "bus" ...teach folks a little about what they are seeing...(god knows there are PLENTY of hillbilly welfare moms that could use a good job)

I have spent many 100's of hours volunteering for the park,,and when folks know more about a place the tend to respect and take care of it better.

i would be a greet thing for city kids to be able to work in the parks...

SGT Rock

03-29-2005, 22:44

Well except that the charter of the park means it has to be free for anyone to enter the park. So I don't think they would limit movement into the park only on a fee system. This same charter is also why horses are allowed into some places on the park. Otherwise I don't mind hiring somone to do it, welfare mom or retired Army NCO. Everyone needs to work at something.

Close some government subsidized motor home hook-ups and pay for some shuttle vehicles. Maybe it could work.

smokymtnsteve

03-29-2005, 22:57

yes I know about that enabling legislation that says people are always going to be allowed to enter the a park for free, however that means PEOPLE not cars, Edward Abbey's polemic on INDUSTRIAL TOURISM is the classic work,
it is a part of the book DESERT SOLITAIRE.

have U ever read this Rock? if not I highly suggest it.

but try again on the govt subsidized RV hook up's, none of the campgrounds inside the GSMNP have RV hook ups or even showers.

Not that I don't agree with your sentiment.

One Leg

03-29-2005, 22:59

welfare mom or retired Army NCO

You placing yourself into the same category, Rock?? (Teasing ya)

SGT Rock

03-29-2005, 23:05

Just trying to inject some humor on this. You know us lifer NCOs. It means No Chance Outside.

Got it Steve, I was making an assumption that they had RV hook ups in there. Good to know they don't. I also like your logic on the entry. I guess I can still get in if I want to for free :D and think of the benefit to hikers that know they can get a shuttle at the gap to town or from town to the gap whenever they need it.

And Steve, as much as I see you quote on Abby, I have to admit I have never read anything by him except your small quotes.

smokymtnsteve

03-29-2005, 23:25

well rock I don't even have a copy of solitaire in the house right now, I've given them all away. but I'll find one up and send it to ya..

careful though ...Abbey can change your life...

smokymtnsteve

03-29-2005, 23:34

another reason that cars and roads are imbeded into the GSMNP is that driving clubs/classic car clubsd were very active in raising funds/awareness for the purchase of the park... but times change...

zephyr1034

03-30-2005, 02:52

..."the most dangerous part of a hiking trip...is the drive to the trailhead..." ================================================== ============
I've hiked alone for most of my life (never mind why), and I've often been questioned about it.

Anyway, there was this one guy I worked with a few years ago, who asked me why I risked injury or death (from lions and tigers and bears, oh my) hiking alone. I told him that I was probably in less danger hiking than the average commuter was while driving to and from work.

His response was about the lamest thing I've heard in my life: "Yeah, but you HAVE to go to work."

zephyr1034

03-30-2005, 03:01

The increase in gas prices is the best thing that ever could have happened to global environment. I hope they price themselves right out of an industry.========================================= ====================

High five to that! Amen!

I used to hike in Rock Creek Regional Park when I lived in Montgomery County, Maryland. Right next to Lake Frank, there was this picnic area with access roads and two fair-sized parking areas. But for some reason, the picnic area had been closed, the roads blocked and the facilities removed. I have no idea why; it was closed when I first started hiking there.

Anyway, sometimes I would have this fantasy: I'd be walking along the abandoned road, stepping around potholes and seeing the faded white lines. I'd think: Maybe we'll run out of gas for real someday, and I-95 will look just like this. :-)

Abbey would have loved it.

MedicineMan

03-30-2005, 03:14

Someone said we dont have the money, dont we have printing presses anymore?

Sgt. Rock said he avoids the Pigeon Forge area...we long time Tennesseans learned a long time ago that Cosby and Fontana are great places to access the Smokes without getting plagued.

More power to you Scott! I'll never forget whining on my way to Harper's Ferry with my heels to replace a broken hiking pole, then saw you and Jack-you weren't whining :)

Rail travel is on the UP in the USA, if you do stocks study the issue and you will see opportunity.

Personally I think that if 50-60% of drivers were driving a diesel powered vehicle the country would be far better off as far as Peak Oil is concerned.

WooHoo, look at me, talking out of the gearbox-- this could be dangeros.

:)

smokymtnsteve

03-30-2005, 07:33

yep rail travelis up..but rail trave lwould be up even more if we actually had a workable system,

we are going to need a program like the old depression era CCC, maybe this program could be aimed at rail way construction, among other things we need,

I hear all the time folks staying that the USA is the richest, smartest, most advanced country in the industrailized world,,,looks like th e richest most advanced country in the world could afford a simple rail system.

another thing we are needing to do is to design communities and work where folks are not nedding to make long commutes, we spend LOTSA of $$$ and energy building roads and cars to accomadate folks commutes to work..seems likeit would be simpler and more effective to spend this time energy and $$$ on creating ways to elimante the commute,

the time saving alone would be worth many $$$ inthe long run...much time and energy is wasted with folks long commutes,,

SGT Rock

03-30-2005, 08:51

Sgt. Rock said he avoids the Pigeon Forge area...we long time Tennesseans learned a long time ago that Cosby and Fontana are great places to access the Smokes without getting plagued.
Yes, I am a new Tennessean, but I learn fast. I found a very cool trailhead to get into the Cades Cove area up on the northern rim of the ridges nearby Scott Mountain about 10-15 minutes from my house. And I never even have to go through Townsend even. I think if I keep driving around the outside and hiking some of the outer trails I might find some other cool spots like that.

One Leg

03-30-2005, 08:56

More power to you Scott! I'll never forget whining on my way to Harper's Ferry with my heels to replace a broken hiking pole, then saw you and Jack-you weren't whining :)

MM, oh, but I was complaining. I complained in spirit :sun Whenever I felt like complaining, there was always someone around who shared the same complaint, so I let their complaint stand for mine as well.

Incidentally, MM, I count my meeting with you as one of the true highlights of my hike. One never can have enough true friends.

smokymtnsteve

03-30-2005, 09:03

that south western end of the park is more isolated . not as many folks,

Stoker53

03-30-2005, 09:40

I'm with you Sgt Rock although I tend to dislike Pigeon Forge more than G'burg. My brother lives in G'burg ( out hwy 321 toward Cosby ). When we visit or I go to the Park we take the backway from Sevierville ( all the locals use it ) and we bypass all the crap. Bypass dumps you out on 321 E of G'burg close to Pittman Center. If anyone wants directions I can post them or send you an email.

minnesotasmith

03-30-2005, 10:19

"The increase in gas prices is the best thing that ever could have happened to global environment. I hope they price themselves right out of an industry"

It's not so good from the POV of the human environment. Gasoline/diesel/AVgas/bunker oil/etc. are how products we make and sell get moved to customers, and how the products we need to buy to sustain our lives are moved to us. Once those fuels become unaffordable or unobtainable, it means that both that anything that comes from far away will no longer be available to us. It's not just oranges and bananas to the North, wheat and potatoes to the South, and such; it's antibiotics and spare parts for all the machines we rely on, even if they run on wood or coal or solar. Not one person in a thousand probably lives within a day's walk of where the parts for a given device they use are made. Then, there's water purification supplies and equipment for municipal water treatment plants, fuel to run the local electrical generating plant (no, the transmission grid can't come close to handling sending all electricity 1000+ miles), fuel for heating and cooling homes/workplaces/schools/shops (imagine the U.S. North without heat in winter or the U.S. South without airconditioning in summer), maintenance of the Internet all of us here are used to using, etc. Lastly, without reasonably-priced petroleum, kiss the ~3/4 of agricultural productivity from oil-origin fertilizers goodbye, and watch as the end of agricultural mechanization means most people have to become agricultural laborers again.

The end of oil doesn't mean you'd have cleaner national parks to hike in (although that's true enough) so much as it would mean that you'd labor bent over in the sun or cold all day, 6 or 7 days a week, just to have a tiny shack sans utilities to live in, with little or no meat in most areas, and only food grown within 50 miles of there to eat. Oh, and you'll be too tired to go hike on trails like the AT, which will soon be overgrown because noone will be going out and maintaining it anymore.

All that's if you're one of the lucky ones. The end of oil means that the U.S. won't be able to support even 1/4th its population. Los Angeles can support maybe 30,000 people with its local water supplies (which are all it will have once water pumping from hundreds of miles away ends), and let's not think about Phoenix or Las Vegas... Too, imagine the inner cities once welfare ends, there is no 911 system, no street lights at night, no police radios or phones... Think the nursing homes and free clinics will operate long without Medicare/Medicaid? It goes on.

Be careful what you wish for; you may not like it at all, and won't be able to change your mind.
================================================== ==

MedicineMan said: "Someone said we don[']t have the money, dont we have printing presses anymore?"

Let me explain a couple of things about how money works. First off, the greenbacks in your wallet are not money. They are supposed to be representations of money, but between 1932 - 1972 that link was broken. They are not even guaranteed exchangeable for real money (gold, silver, etc.). They are what are called fiat currency, paper bills that only have utility due to someone declaring that they have value. All fiat currencies eventually become valueless. The dollar has gone from it taking only 20 of them to purchase an ounce of gold to it taking over 440 of them. (20*100)/440 = about 4 1/2 % of the dollar's value left, or put another way, it's lost over 95% of its value. With only 5% of it to go, I'd say we're not far from there.

Anyway, running the printing presses does not increase the total temporary purchasing power of the dollars that are in existence. Each new dollar bill printed gets its purchasing power by subtracting that from all the other dollar bills in existence, a kind of tax or vampirism on everyone else's cash holdings. Many people (including me) believe open Congressional voting on a new tax, with overt confiscation through some sort of taxation thereafter, to be more honest (although not desired either). Printing more dollar bills vs. breaking into people's homes to steal some of their possessions to sell --they're about the same thing. If you wouldn't advocate the second on moral grounds, you couldn't advocate the first.

DLFrost

03-30-2005, 12:48

Yes, I am a new Tennessean, but I learn fast. I found a very cool trailhead to get into the Cades Cove area up on the northern rim of the ridges nearby Scott Mountain about 10-15 minutes from my house. And I never even have to go through Townsend even. I think if I keep driving around the outside and hiking some of the outer trails I might find some other cool spots like that.
If you need to get into the center of the northern section go for the entrance that leads to Metcaffe Bottoms (halfway along 321 in Wear Cove). It's paved and provides access to a number of trails. The climb to Cove Mountain if a good conditioning dayhike.

The most practical way to avoid crowds is to go way early in the morning or late at night. Then you can just drive right on through.

As for accidents on 421 between Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge: Part of the problem is that they've set the speed limit too low on the northbound lanes, which actually encourages people to speed. I'd change it to 45, double the speeding fines there, and put up a sign telling people how much you'll pay in fines if caught speeding.

As for "light" rail: There is no such thing. They're all government-financed boondoggles, not one of which has ever become economically viable. (Go to reason.com and do a search on light rail.)

bulldog49

03-30-2005, 13:11

minnesotasmith

03-30-2005, 13:18

I agree with your comments about zephyr using "choice" when "coercion" would be the accurate term.

I'd also like to comment on this line: "As best as I can figure out, there's no way to get to the Smoky Mountains except to drive."

On a website devoted primarily to hiking the Appalachian Trail (which runs through the Smokies), someone says that?!?:rolleyes: :-?

I'm going to the Smokies later this year, but I'm going to hike through the place.

AbeHikes

03-30-2005, 13:45

"The increase in gas prices is the best thing that ever could have happened to global environment. I hope they price themselves right out of an industry"

It's not so good from the POV of the human environment. Gasoline/diesel/AVgas/bunker oil/etc. are how products we make and sell get moved to customers, and how the products we need to buy to sustain our lives are moved to us. Once those fuels become unaffordable or unobtainable, it means that both that anything that comes from far away will no longer be available to us. It's not just oranges and bananas to the North, wheat and potatoes to the South, and such; it's antibiotics and spare parts for all the machines we rely on, even if they run on wood or coal or solar. Not one person in a thousand probably lives within a day's walk of where the parts for a given device they use are made. Then, there's water purification supplies and equipment for municipal water treatment plants, fuel to run the local electrical generating plant (no, the transmission grid can't come close to handling sending all electricity 1000+ miles), fuel for heating and cooling homes/workplaces/schools/shops (imagine the U.S. North without heat in winter or the U.S. South without airconditioning in summer), maintenance of the Internet all of us here are used to using, etc. Lastly, without reasonably-priced petroleum, kiss the ~3/4 of agricultural productivity from oil-origin fertilizers goodbye, and watch as the end of agricultural mechanization means most people have to become agricultural laborers again.

The end of oil doesn't mean you'd have cleaner national parks to hike in (although that's true enough) so much as it would mean that you'd labor bent over in the sun or cold all day, 6 or 7 days a week, just to have a tiny shack sans utilities to live in, with little or no meat in most areas, and only food grown within 50 miles of there to eat. Oh, and you'll be too tired to go hike on trails like the AT, which will soon be overgrown because noone will be going out and maintaining it anymore.

All that's if you're one of the lucky ones. The end of oil means that the U.S. won't be able to support even 1/4th its population. Los Angeles can support maybe 30,000 people with its local water supplies (which are all it will have once water pumping from hundreds of miles away ends), and let's not think about Phoenix or Las Vegas... Too, imagine the inner cities once welfare ends, there is no 911 system, no street lights at night, no police radios or phones... Think the nursing homes and free clinics will operate long without Medicare/Medicaid? It goes on.

Be careful what you wish for; you may not like it at all, and won't be able to change your mind.
I'm not naive enough to think that Americans would just shrug their shoulders and say "Oh, well. No more fuel. Time to hitch up the horses."

One of the most advantageous traits we have is that we are adaptable and ingenious. We, as a nation, would not fail because oil is no longer a usable resource. We would finally complete development on the alternative fuel sources and methods we're half-heartedly researching or lightly funding.

I don't hate technology or prorgress. I can't stand oil dependency. We all know that it's a obsolete fuel source that will need to be replaced. The only force that will cause that is money. Make it to expensive to use or make something else much cheaper.

bulldog49

03-30-2005, 14:05

I'm not naive enough to think that Americans would just shrug their shoulders and say "Oh, well. No more fuel. Time to hitch up the horses."

One of the most advantageous traits we have is that we are adaptable and ingenious. We, as a nation, would not fail because oil is no longer a usable resource. We would finally complete development on the alternative fuel sources and methods we're half-heartedly researching or lightly funding.

I don't hate technology or prorgress. I can't stand oil dependency. We all know that it's a obsolete fuel source that will need to be replaced. The only force that will cause that is money. Make it to expensive to use or make something else much cheaper.

It's simple market economics. When the supply is low enough it will be priced out of demand, and an alternative energy source which is not economically viable today will become so. Likewise, if a mass rail transit system that some are calling for had sufficient demand, we would have one. Such a system would require outrageous fares, or huge tax subsidies, to build or operate. If you choose not to drive on the interstate, take a plane or bus.

zephyr1034

03-30-2005, 15:12

First off, I'm not your "pal" and have no desire to be. Just because you desire something doesn't mean others should be forced to subsidize it. If "millions" of people truly desired an "efficient rail system" (which is an oxymoron) one would be available. As it is, Amtrak, after years of service still has to be supported by the govt. You make the mistake of saying you are being denied a choice because others do not want to pay for something you desire. What you want is not choice but coercion.========================================= ===================
Why is acceptable to subsidize every mode of transportation except rail? If you think gas taxes completely pay for highways, you're kidding yourself. Likewise, landing fees and ticket taxes do not come anywhere near to covering the costs of airports and the air traffic control system. For both highway and air, vast amounts of general tax revenues are used to sustain them. No one seems to mind this. But let a proposal for a rail line come up, and it's supposed to make a profit. Why?

Millions of people in cities like New York do not own cars. So, according to your logic, their taxes should be reduced by the amount that would go toward building roads. If I don't have a school-age child, should I be "coerced" into supporting the public school system through my taxes?

I will never fly again due to 9/11. Not because of fear but because of the security hassles. Should I be "coerced" into paying for the TSA, which will never have the opportunity to screen me or pry into my personal life?

The reason we don't have a decent rail system is very simple: what I refer to as the "petroleum-automobile complex" doesn't want us to have one. They want to continue to "coerce" everyone to drive and maybe fly.The petroleum-automobile complex has vast political power at every level of government. It pretty much gets whatever it wants.

To get back to hiking, 30 or 40 years ago, there were many places where you could access the AT by public transportation. Bus lines ran along virtually every highway the crosses the Trail. You could take a bus to Panorama on US 211, for example. Now the choices are getting worse every year.

minnesotasmith

03-30-2005, 15:15

"When the supply is low enough it will be priced out of demand,"

Yep, true enough.

"and an alternative energy source which is not economically viable today will become so."

That is expressing faith and hope, not a reasoned conclusion justifiable by the situation. There is no forseeable workable substitute that will do the job (run at a thermodynamic profit with sufficient margin on a sufficient scale to substitute for what oil does now) in time to prevent an 8-digit population dieoff, especially given how terribly late we are in conversion to other sources. Except for nuclear power plants, we pretty much haven't made any real start on conversion, and they're all old; the environuts have prevented any new ones being built here for over a generation. (The odd windmill doesn't accomplish squat in the big picture.) Too, electricity doesn't make plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, etc., very well, and neither does it fill fuel tanks worth a ****. Remember, practically all the vehicles on the road (or construction/mining site, carrying cargo at sea, etc.) all are designed to run on fossil fuels. It took us how long during mostly prosperous times with cheap oil to build them all? Over 90% of them will likely never be converted, and unemployed/employed at low-wage people aren't likely to buy new ones, either.

Between oil getting scarcer and scarcer + ever more expensive, continued outsourcing of our manufacturing, ever-increasing percentage of income being spent on debt service (personal and governmental), and politically-unavoidable increased military spending to grab some of the last oil, there's no reason to believe in a return to prosperity in time to have that kind of disposable income, that mass conversion of vehicles and machines to a wholly-different power source would require.

Just because people want and need something enough to throw a bunch of paper dollars at it, doesn't mean the laws of physics and chemistry will be repealed. Governments don't get to change the laws of nature, no matter how desperate they get.

The automobile age started where only the rich drove; I expect it will end the same way.

I'd still like a response from a pro-environmental-cause forum member to respond to my expectation that the end of cheap oil and the automobile age will eventually mean the end of the Appalachian Trail. Hmmm?

Loafer

03-30-2005, 15:53

wouldn't it be nice if we had a efficent rail system in this country ?[/QUOTE]

We did after WWII. GM bought it and dismantled it.

The Cheat

03-30-2005, 16:13

I'm pretty sure the same people who build planes and cars also build trains.

However, in the event of a war, airports and roads may be more strategic than rails.

The Cheat

03-30-2005, 16:16

interesting reading:

Rolling Stone Story (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7203633?rnd=1111993802890&has-player=unknown)
(http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7203633?rnd=1111993802890&has-player=unknown)

bulldog49

03-30-2005, 16:46

minnesotasmith

03-30-2005, 16:59

smokymtnsteve

03-30-2005, 17:07

Hemp..baby.. Hemp

doesn't require those expensive oil inputs like other crops...

minnesotasmith

03-30-2005, 17:21

Without oil-fueled machines, who is going to be doing all the harvesting by hand? Then, there's the sowing, weeding...

Anyway, it would only be drops of fuel produced per person per day, not the gallons we use now.

smokymtnsteve

03-30-2005, 17:34

hemp fired machines...not much weeding needed....

Hog poop lagoons...

plus we have plenty of fat and oil storage in obese americkans ...I say let's render them down. :D

also change living patterns to not use do much oil..

less is more...u don't have to have everything in the store

Amerikans have too much junk now.

so we have to do some hand work...be good for a large % of Obese americkans to do some work...slim down be healthier and reduce health care cost.

smokymtnsteve

03-30-2005, 17:47

what is your take on the future of Methane Hydrates?

One Leg

03-30-2005, 18:53

And, apparantly, misery loves company. It amazes me at how some folks can take such a tragic story, such as the one which opened this thread, and turn it into a political-environmental debate. Not one mention of the lost lives, not one mention of the lives ruined, nothing but vehement arguing over insignificant things. Have we become so anesthetized that we don't care about our fellow man? The people killed were someone's parents and grandparents. They left behind some children and grand-children who are mourning their loss pretty hard. Who cares how much a gallon of gas is, whether they had gasoline or gasohol in the vehicle in which they were killed, or anything? Certainly not the people killed.

I swear to God, MS, you would argue that a black snake was white just for the sake of arguing. I bet if your power were to go out, you'd stand in front of a mirror and debate yourself over the length of your chin hair. You & debaters like you should go off somewhere and start your own debate club, seperate and apart from WB.

My apologies to the WB community for ever starting this thread. :mad:

smokymtnsteve

03-30-2005, 19:08

well scott I see it like this.if these folks that were invovled in the automobile "accident" had of had a choice to use mass transit in the park then they would not have been in the automobile to have had the accident..
and the grand children may have still had there grandparent. so love for my love ones is another reason I would like to see advances in rail transport..btw the alaska RR is a beautiful trip...being a local you get a good rate denali park to anchorage for $35 a 250 mile trip.

rail travel is satistically safer than automobile travel..automobile travel is one of the more dangerous means of transport,,,so having safer more efficent means of transport is relavant to this thread IMO

minnesotasmith

03-30-2005, 19:10

Frankly, I'm still making up my mind about them. A fair way of thinking about them would be as medium-deep depth oil shales that contain only methane. Alternatively, they might be thought of conventional hydrocarbon source rocks; they will need thermal maturation (like from burial to hotter depths, or vulcanism) to force them to give up their methane, plus a reservoir rock like a sandstone, and a structural or stratigraphic trap to capture any gas driven off. Most MHs do not have those.

They're almost always at 1000'+ water depth, usually more like 1500'+. We do drill deeper than that currently, but that's mostly for oil, which is more valuable than gas. It's often doable, but adds to the difficulty and expense. They're in areas that often have had negligible oil drilling and oil exploitation infrastructure (pipelines, etc.). Getting them to give up their gas is often the sticking point.

They have not been well-characterized yet, but are on a number of continental margins, including off both U.S. coasts. MHs do contain a huge amount of methane, but how much of it can be practically obtained is still an open question I don't feel able to make a call on yet. I think they were discovered by forming in pipelines in cold climates. I know they've been run into in conventional drilling, mostly from the danger they have presented on occasion.

Another note about MHs: having only methane means fewer BTUs than much natural gas often has. NG commonly contains significant ethane, which boosts how much heat a given volume yields when oxidized. That means gas from MHs is lower value than traditional NG.

I hope that will give you some idea, smoky.

minnesotasmith

03-30-2005, 19:14

Already had a big argument going. FYI, I post only when I believe I have something to say. I may have relevant information no one else seems to have, or people may be posting comments that I believe to be factually, logically, or morally insupportable.

Out of curiousity, what criteria do you use to decide when to post?

steve hiker

03-30-2005, 19:17

I can't stand oil dependency. We all know that it's a obsolete fuel source that will need to be replaced. The only force that will cause that is money. Make it to expensive to use or make something else much cheaper.

It's simple market economics. When the (oil) supply is low enough it will be priced out of demand, and an alternative energy source which is not economically viable today will become so.
Where's the infrastructure?

You think that simple supply and demand will result in new energy sources taking the place of petrolum products as they run out? Think again. Yes we have alternative sources of energy that could, theoretically, replace oil as an energy source. The problem is that none of them are in place, nor is any alternative being phased in. We're talking about replacing an entire worldwide infrastructure that is built solely around petrochemical energy. To replace that massive infrastructure with another (or combination of others) in time to avoid severe economic shocks and crumblings over the next 20 years would take an effort like we've never put forth before.

I don't see any efforts being made to replace the petroleum based energy infrastructure. Nothing is being built on any real scale that could deliver alternative energy. That's the key here, delivery. You can have the greatest alternative energy source dreamed of, but unless you can deliver it to every person, business, and government agency from Frorida to Alaska, and Maine to California, and beyond our shores, it ain't gonna do no good except as a toy on your shelf.

Instead of making efforts to develop and deliver serious alternatives to oil and gas, we're squandering massive resources invading other nations, and drilling our most precious wildlife areas (ANWR), in a stupid attempt to prop up the existing doomed system. That ain't gonna work.

Many people fall back on old economic theories or conjur up pie-in-the-sky dreams and denials in response to news of Peak Oil. That doesn't surprise me. But I tell ya one thing, you won't be able to ignore rising prices at the pump much longer. I'm curious: what pump price will gas have to reach before you park or sell your SUV?

smokymtnsteve

03-30-2005, 19:17

I think they look very promising as the "new" energy source.

there is some 'fast track" research being done in them...

lots of MH being found up on the tundra.

yes there are obstacles and problems but these can be overcome...MH deposits that are already know of have an energy capacity to last 350 years at our present rate of energy use...

and you could burn them in a rail road engine :eek:

steve hiker

03-30-2005, 19:20

And if that ain't enough, look here:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/30/UNEnvironment0330.html

Two-thirds of Earth's ecosystems at risk: UN

Last Updated Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:16:31 EST CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/credit.html)

UNITED NATIONS - A new United Nations report says we are using up our natural resources too fast and are in danger of destroying about two-thirds of the Earth's ecosystems. The Millennium Assessment, released Wednesday, warns that 15 of 24 global ecosystems are in decline and that the harmful consequences of this degradation could grow much worse in the next 50 years.

The UN study is a synthesis of the work of about 1,300 researchers from 95 countries. It is being hailed as the most comprehensive survey ever into the natural systems that sustain life on Earth.

UN Undersecretary Hans van Ginkel says the assessment reveals a consensus among the world's social and natural scientists.

"It's not yet extreme, it's not exactly immediate collapse, but we better act before the collapse is there," he said. ... (Remainder omitted.)

smokymtnsteve

03-30-2005, 19:21

[QUOTE=steve hiker what pump price will gas have to reach before you park or sell your SUV?[/QUOTE]

when pump price reaches that mark and SUV will be WORTHLESS..

was going to sell my ford escort...maybe I'll wait just a while and get more $$ for it

zephyr1034

03-30-2005, 20:33

wouldn't it be nice if we had a efficent rail system in this country ?
We did after WWII. GM bought it and dismantled it.[/QUOTE
================================================== ==========
Well, that's one-third true. In 1936, General Motors, Firestone Tire and Standard Oil formed a holding company called National City Lines. Between 1936 and 1950, NCL purchased about 100 streetcar systems all across the United States. They scrapped the rail systems and replaced them with, guess what: GM buses using Firestone tires and burning Standard Oil diesel.

At some point, the company was found guilty of collusion or anti-trust violations. Their penalty? A fine of $5000. That was real punishment, eh?

In nearly every city where new light rail systems have been built, they have been very well received. Many people who ride rail won't ride a bus. Buses smell bad and the ride is jerky. Plus some people look down their noses at buses.

What does all this have to do with hiking? Well, I think anyone would agree that a linear (as opposed to a circuit) hike is easier to do if you have public transportation to the trailheads. I'm from Washington DC, which has a wonderful system of trails both in the city and in the inner suburbs. I was exploring these trails before I had a driver's license by using transit. Even as an adult, I would often leave my car at home simply because I wanted to take a hike without retracing my steps.

From south to north, rail lines cross or crossed the Trail at Wesser, Hot Springs, Erwin, Damascus (now the Virginia Creeper Trail), Atkins, Pearisburg, Cloverdale, the James River, Waynesboro, Front Royal, Harpers Ferry, Penn Mar, Gettysburg, Duncannon, Port Clinton, Delaware Water Gap, Port Jervis, Bear Mountain Bridge, Pawling, Cornwall Bridge, somewhere in the Berkshires, Hanover, and at least two in Maine. I've probably missed a few, especially in New England.

All of these rail lines had passenger service through the end of WW II, although the Trail may have been rerouted since then. A few of them still do.

One Leg

03-30-2005, 22:44

Out of curiousity, what criteria do you use to decide when to post?

When it's something that pertains to the hiker community. This incident, being in the Smokies, pertains to hikers in that it affects their safety and well-being at the road crossings. I try to stay away from divisiveness and categories that are controversial. I didn't see where 5 fatalities in the Smokies could be so controversial. Obviously, I was wrong. I thought that people, hikers in particular, would see the human element here and have some compassion. Again, I was wrong.

One Leg

03-31-2005, 03:14

Man survives fall from waterfall

Rae Laws is thankful to be alive after falling dozens of feet from a waterfall. He thanks the nurses nearby for saving his life.

When Laws was hiking near his Greene County home on Tuesday, he had no idea he'd end up in a hospital bed.

"I just hit a slick spot on the rocks and went over," he says.

Laws fell dozens of feet over Marguerite Falls, a rugged area with jagged rocks.

"I went in head first and went off after I went over the edge. I bounced off the rock walls pretty good a couple of times," says Laws.

It took dozens of rescuers and a helicopter six hours to bring Laws to safety. His wife Jewell says it was hard to wait.

"It was heart stopping. Your knees turn to water," she says.

Laws escaped with a broken shoulder, nearly 30 stitches in his head, and plenty of bumps and bruises.

His heroes were two nurses and a nursing student who happened to be on the trail right behind him.

"If they hadn't been able to pull me out, I guess I wouldn't be here talking to you," says Laws.

"When I first saw him he was standing in the water," says nursing student Katie Beckett. "It was about waist deep, and he had a real dazed look in his eye like he just had no idea what was going on."

To keep him warm, the nurses cut his pants off and gave him some of their clothes. They even laid on top of him for 30 minutes until help could arrive.

His wife thanks the nurses for saving his life.

"The grace of God saved him. It wasn't us," says nurse Brooke Price. "We were just praying hard the whole time we were there."

Laws was released from the hospital Wednesday.

oldfivetango

03-31-2005, 08:58

The increase in gas prices is the best thing that ever could have happened to global environment. I hope they price themselves right out of an industry. Plastic my boy,plastic.That and a host of other "petro-chemilcals" make
our society what it is.Good news is that some of you younger folks will
all be driving hydrogen powered autos before you're done.And i may even live long enough to own one.But for now we are "painted into the corner" by petroleum whether we like it or not.And we NEED some refinery capacity in
this country-especially after losing one in an explosion last week that was doing nearly a half million barrels per day.
What if your car could fly like a helicopter and burn hydrogen for fuel?
No real need for massive infrastucture other than what we already have.
My grandfathers worked for the railroad-the railroad era has already run folks-it's over except for heavy freight in limited applications.That's why
we are dodging all those 18 wheelers on the Interstates.
Some day my grandchildren will think nothing of jumping in a vehicle that
provides both ground and air transportation.With modern computers and
GPS technology the air traffic control issue will not be that much of
a problem.Gentlemen,start your Google-you will see alot of the groundwork
has already been done.
Cheers,
Oldfivetango:)

greenman

03-31-2005, 09:26

i have heard there is a highly efficient petrol that is non toxic to the enviroment in the oils of a cannabis seed!if this is the case would fuel sources be at an all time low or an all time high!some even say that the illegalization of this process is abreach of defense to our country,because if another country industrializes before us millions of dollars and jobs would be lost!i dont doubt this!till something is done i guess i will keep driving my toyota,26 miles to the gallon!oh yeah!mairnt!!!!!!:D :D :D

rgarling

03-31-2005, 09:37

"Let's compare credentials, to see how seriously each of us deserves to be taken here."

I'll be presumptuous enough to speak for the majority. We can do without posts like this. Despite what you may think, your case was not made.

smokymtnsteve

03-31-2005, 09:51

http://fornits.com/curiosity/hemp/biomassa.htm

it isn't the complete solution but it could certainly help!

minnesotasmith

03-31-2005, 10:42

There is a fairly uniform sequence people go through in the process of accepting really bad news, such as finding out that they are terminally ill or a very close loved person (or a dream) had died.

Five stages of grieving:
(adapted from Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Grief and Mourning)
Denial and isolation—Griever does not believe someone
really died or that this is actually happening to him or her.
Spends a lot of time trying to appear busy or act as if noth-
ing happened. When reality hits, they move to stage two.
Anger—Griever becomes angry at everything and everyone
including God and himself or herself. Often the griever
may look for their lost loved one and even become angry
with them for dying.
Bargaining—A person may be hard on himself or herself
and ask questions like, “Why didn’t I see it coming or do
something?” He or she may even feel responsible for some-
thing that was out of his or her control.
Depression—This can be the lowest point of grieving.
Counseling can be helpful or necessary at this point. Many
times this is the stage where an individual is open to let-
ting God step in and heal.
Acceptance—The griever is able to look back with a positive
perspective. This doesn’t mean the loved one is not missed;
it means the person has dealt successfully with the loss
Five stages of grieving:
(adapted from Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Grief and Mourning)
Denial and isolation—Griever does not believe someone
really died or that this is actually happening to him or her.
Spends a lot of time trying to appear busy or act as if noth-
ing happened. When reality hits, they move to stage two.
Anger—Griever becomes angry at everything and everyone
including God and himself or herself. Often the griever
may look for their lost loved one and even become angry
with them for dying.
Bargaining—A person may be hard on himself or herself
and ask questions like, “Why didn’t I see it coming or do
something?” He or she may even feel responsible for some-
thing that was out of his or her control.
Depression—This can be the lowest point of grieving.
Counseling can be helpful or necessary at this point. Many
times this is the stage where an individual is open to let-
ting God step in and heal.
Acceptance—The griever is able to look back with a positive
perspective. This doesn’t mean the loved one is not missed;
it means the person has dealt successfully with the loss
Five stages of grieving:
(adapted from Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Grief and Mourning)

1) Denial and isolation—Griever does not believe someone
really died or that this is actually happening to him or her.
Spends a lot of time trying to appear busy or act as if noth-
ing happened. When reality hits, they move to stage two.

2) Anger—Griever becomes angry at everything and everyone, often
including himself. Often the griever
may look for their lost loved one and even become angry
with them for dying.

3) Bargaining—A person may be hard on himself or herself
and ask questions like, “Why didn’t I see it coming or do
something?” He or she may even feel responsible for some-
thing that was out of his or her control.

4) Depression—This can be the lowest point of grieving.
Counseling can be helpful or necessary at this point.

5) Acceptance—The griever is able to look back with a positive
perspective. This doesn’t mean the loved one is not missed;
it means the person has dealt successfully with the loss.

Most Americans are stuck on stage One with accepting that the petroleum era is inevitably rapidly coming to a close as forseen 50+ years ago, in many cases within their lifespans. The people on this thread range from Stage One ("Oh, I don't believe all that Chicken Little stuff. What's the TV Guide say is on tonight, again?") to Stage Two ("How dare you bring up an idea that's so unsettling that I don't have the background to disprove!! If jerks like you do't talk about stuff like that, it won't happen!") to a few at Stage Three ("Maybe a few people hand-gathering the odd wild plant in their spare time can make up for the gallons and gallons of high-grade crude oil per person per day that maintaining our current standard of living takes? No? Pleeeezze?").

Hardly anyone besides myself is at Stage Five on this issue; of course, I've been in the energy field off and on for over 20 years. If anyone else here is at Stage Five on Peak Oil, I'd like to hear from them.

smokymtnsteve

03-31-2005, 10:58

I'm at stage 6..post spiritual...

bulldog49

03-31-2005, 11:12

Let's compare credentials, to see how seriously each of us deserves to be taken here.

I've done the following:

-worked in gasohol research at a major corporation;

-worked running the laboratory and overseeing process flow at two gasohol production plants;

-have published two papers in scientific journals on alcohol fermentation with a focus on industrial use;

-written over 10 research papers on oil shale and did thesis work on it;

-have worked as a junior petroleum geologist in the oil industry;

-taken a graduate level course on coal mining and reserve calculation;

-have hard science bachelor's and master's degrees directly related to petroleum and fossil fuels, plus 3 years of science-major college chemistry and a year of college physics;

-read numerous books by professional historians on the rise and fall of complex societies.

Those are my credentials related to what is primarily a technical, scientific question, though with some historical and economic focus as well.

What are yours, if any?

I work in the computer field. In 1999 I was telling people the whole hysteria surrounding the supposed Y2K disaster was a bunch of hype. I was correct. Here's what you were saying about it MS:

My website, my postings on Y2K discussion forums, my FTF conversations with DGIs, and moving away from a populated area before rollover (so I'm not part of what follows) are my main contributions to my community re Y2K. Now, post-crash, once the killing and stealing largely stop, and people who will work only as free men are welcome again, then I have lots of ideas of ways to contribute. These begin with the skills I have, my hands and back, and the piles of technical books I own ala Heinlein's "Farnham's Freehold". No working under the total socialism North-Korea style Executive Orders for me, thank you. fficeffice" />>>
www.y2ksafeminnesota.com
-- MinnesotaSmith ([email protected]), ffice:smarttags" />November 19, 1999

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001o3y>>

So, you may have credentials in the science of energy, but your credentials vs mine as far as predicting the future leaves a bit to be desired. Knowledge is not the same as wisdom and common sense. You confuse the two.

Thanks Kim for the info.

bulldog49

03-31-2005, 11:20

To keep him warm, the nurses cut his pants off and gave him some of their clothes. They even laid on top of him for 30 minutes until help could arrive.

Next time I'm hiking near a waterfall and nurses are around, I'm falling in.

ed bell

03-31-2005, 11:37

Funny how in a backpacking discussion forum, where all questions and opinions are put out there in a friendly atmosphere (for the most part), Mr. Smith wants to toot his horn about his workworld resume. Yawn. Maybe he can tell us more about his lost wages/time on the Trail concerns. Yawn. Although some have asked about his hiking/backpacking credentials, most have just left that alone. I wanted to hear about his night in a tent at -42F. Now I see that he was a "chicken little" in regards to Y2K. What a suprise. Like I said in another thread, I know the type.

Youngblood

03-31-2005, 11:42

Next time I'm hiking near a waterfall and nurses are around, I'm falling in.
Bulldog, be careful what you wish for... MS might have a nursing degree also. :datz

minnesotasmith

03-31-2005, 11:49

Jaybird

03-31-2005, 12:01

i totally AGREE ROCK!

my wife & i visit Pigeon Forge about once every few years (we own a timeshare there)...& we take the backroads....to avoid the GATLINBURG Tourism crowd (those folks that show up for SHOPPING & never enjoy the mountains)...@ ALL COSTS! :D

ed bell

03-31-2005, 12:03

If anyone here thinks oil will drop back down to under $30.00 a barrel longterm, no doubt you've put your money where your mouth is by buying short options on oil.

Great, now he's giving financial advice.:rolleyes:

Did you really move to a less populated area because of Y2K? :-?

bulldog49

03-31-2005, 12:04

That there WAS a significant chance of disruptions, guys like Ed Yourdon (one of the inventors of structured programming) and Yardeni, technology advisor to lots of big orgs. I am not and have never claimed to be a programmer. I did know something about how fragile our society in general and energy industry in particular were, and based my conclusions upon what many nongovernmental/nonbigcorporate (nonbought) programmers and systems analysts were saying.

If anyone here thinks oil will drop back down to under $30.00 a barrel longterm, no doubt you've put your money where your mouth is by buying short options on oil.

NO, there wasn't a significant chance of disruptions. These guys were running around claiming there was all teh while making huge sums of money selling books and giving talks about a vastly over-hyped problem. There were issues with converting code to account for the millenium change but not of the apopolyptic level they were claiming. Most folks with common sense and a rudimentary understanding of computer software knew otherwise.

minnesotasmith

03-31-2005, 12:06

bulldog49

03-31-2005, 12:11

[
and going for walks where for two hours I might not see another human being.

And even better, another human being would not have to see you.

ed bell

03-31-2005, 12:24

"Did you really move to a less populated area because of Y2K?"

Yes. Of course, I wanted to anyway. I liked being where it was so quiet I could hear the snow falling on the ground, and going for walks where for two hours I might not see another human being.

I'm sure most of us stuck in sprawlville would like to as well, but to have the threat of Y2K make it happen is a tad obsessive, IMHO. Thats some nice sentiments you mentioned though. Maybe you are getting better.:D

SGT Rock

04-01-2005, 04:18

Geeze, seems some of y'all can turn anything into politics. I would love to hear the liberal vs conservative debate on "Why the chicken crossed the road"

minnesotasmith

04-01-2005, 09:28

"Thats some nice sentiments you mentioned though. Maybe you are getting better.:D"

Actually, I've always liked the outdoors. I went all the way through Cub Scouts, Webelos, and Boy Scouts, doing lots of day and overnight hikes in 4 states (mostly the Carolinas and N. Alabama, plus some in E. TN). As a 13-YO Boy Scout, I was part of a troop that did a 63-mile hike on the AT in NC over spring break. I was so taken with the beauty of the AT, that I knew from then on that I wanted to and would hike the whole thing one day.

MOWGLI

04-01-2005, 09:39

I would love to hear the liberal vs conservative debate on "Why the chicken crossed the road"

Conservative response: To get away from those tax & spend liberals.

Liberal response: Because it's a free range chicken, raised without hormones or antibiotics.

smokymtnsteve

04-01-2005, 09:51

Geeze, seems some of y'all can turn anything into politics. I would love to hear the liberal vs conservative debate on "Why the chicken crossed the road"

did the chicken cross the road or did the automobile-oil industrial complex build a road across the chicken's migration path...

what was first chicken or roads?

weary

04-01-2005, 11:12

The raccoons ate all my chickens. But I did wake up this morning to see two robins on my lawn, the first of the season that I've seen, though I know they must have been around for a while.

Yesterday, there was an adult bald eagle on the marsh. One of the most productive nests in Maine exists on the island a quarter mile across the bay. The eagle undoubtedly was looking for food for it's babies. The eggs must have hatched by now.

I thought briefly about disposing of one of my feral cats to provide the eagles with an easy meal. But you know how us liberals feel about killing things.

Weary

smokymtnsteve

04-01-2005, 11:23

Kats don't Kount!

Please stand for the modified Gospel of ABBEY!

"I'd rather kill kat to feed an eagle chick..not because I hate cats or love eagles rather it is a matter of propotion"

Blessed be to the flexible as they don't get bent out of shape!

SGT Rock

04-01-2005, 11:24

Semper Gumby

MOWGLI

04-01-2005, 11:54

. But I did wake up this morning to see two robins on my lawn...

Weary

Saw my first Barn Swallow yesterday here in Chattanooga!

MOWGLI

04-01-2005, 12:27

I would love to hear the liberal vs conservative debate on "Why the chicken crossed the road"

To go to Frank Perdue's funeral. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7356605/

One Leg

04-01-2005, 13:23

The chicken is a metaphor for the lowly internet hiker, and the road is a metaphor for the viciousness that takes place on the internet trail.

The chicken just wants to be in the woods, on the trail, but the road keeps cropping up, rearing its' ugly head, and has to be crossed. Only thing is, as soon as said chicken enters roadway, the invisible road crews continue widening the road, making it virtually impossible to cross. But the chicken doesn't give up, he perseveres until he either crosses the road, or gets smashed by a peice of road machinery.

oldfivetango

04-01-2005, 16:52

Geeze, seems some of y'all can turn anything into politics. I would love to hear the liberal vs conservative debate on "Why the chicken crossed the road"
Yo Sarge-this one was way too easy,sir.The chicken crossed the road to
show MISTER POSSUM that it CAN be done!
Cheers,
Oldfivetango:)

The Old Fhart

04-01-2005, 17:43

Actually the chicken wasn't trying to cross the road. It just ran into traffic to commit suicide rather than have to listen to the liberal's and conservative's incessant arguing. :)

Mountain Hippie

04-01-2005, 17:57

I don't know but it seems that the chicken may have been an independant and was playing both sides of the street. :eek:

Mini-Mosey

04-01-2005, 19:43

Did they file any charges in the auto accident? Did they find the supposed witness?

One Leg

04-01-2005, 20:39

Did they file any charges in the auto accident? Did they find the supposed witness?

Nothing more has been reported through the newswire regarding the accident. I won't be surprised when charges are filed, though, as the driver of the other vehicle involved was going in excess of 70mph in a 35mph zone when he hit the car load of elderly folks. If something comes across on the newswire, I'll post it here. If anyone else sees it before I do, please, post it.

smokymtnsteve

04-01-2005, 21:02

70 mph in a 35 mph zone..

I hope they have to use public transportation for the rest of thier lives. ;)

minnesotasmith

04-01-2005, 22:07

Why did the pervert cross the road?

He was stuck in the chicken.

Mountain Hippie

04-02-2005, 01:31

I was reading one of the local papers report about the accident and it said that the car that the five were in was pushed side ways for 40 feet. Anyway here is a link to the story.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=84161&ran=168697

Lilred

04-03-2005, 00:33

[
I'd still like a response from a pro-environmental-cause forum member to respond to my expectation that the end of cheap oil and the automobile age will eventually mean the end of the Appalachian Trail. Hmmm?

Necessity is the mother of invention. America has always risen to the needs of its people by coming forth with innovation. Already we are seeing an increase in hybrid cars. Oil may double or triple in price, but if we only use half of what we were using, the automobile age will not end, and neither will the Appalachian Trail.

steve hiker

04-03-2005, 03:02

Better buy your hybrid car soon, before demand pushes prices out of reach:

NEW YORK, April 1 (MarketWatch) - Oil prices are rising enough to begin to meaningfully reduce energy consumption, Goldman Sachs analysts said Thursday, predicting per-barrel trading is in the early stages of what it called a "super spike" period. Oil prices could reach $105 per barrel, up from a previous $80 estimate, according to Goldman's research note.

Necessity is the mother of invention. America has always risen to the needs of its people by coming forth with innovation. Already we are seeing an increase in hybrid cars. Oil may double or triple in price, but if we only use half of what we were using, the automobile age will not end, and neither will the Appalachian Trail.

HikerHobo

04-07-2005, 13:28

I would love to hear the liberal vs conservative debate on "Why the chicken crossed the road"JERRY FALWELL- "Because the chicken was gay! Isn't it obvious? Can't you people see the plain truth in front of your face? The chicken was going to the 'other side.' That's what 'they' call it - the 'other side. Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And, if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like 'the other side.' That chicken should not be free to cross the road. It's as plain and simple as that."

SGT Rock

04-07-2005, 13:34

I thought about this:

From both the Liberal and Conservative point of view:

He wasn't crossing the road, he compromised too much and was standing in the middle, afraid to go left or right, so he got run over. Pick a side and stay on it.

minnesotasmith

04-07-2005, 17:50

PEAK OIL - When Your Dip Stick Goes Dry: Life Without Oil.
<HR style="COLOR: #000000" SIZE=1>Dear Reader,

Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global “Peak Oil.”
"Are We 'Running Out'? I Thought
There Was 40 Years of the Stuff Left"

Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.

Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.

In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.

The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.
In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't have to deplete its entire reserves of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.
The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.

Fortunately, those price shocks were only temporary.
The coming oil shocks won't be so short-lived. They represent the onset of a new, permanent condition. Once the decline gets under way, production will drop (conservatively) by 3-6% per year, every year.
Almost all independent estimates from now disinterested scientists indicate global oil production will peak and go into terminal decline within the next five years.
Many geologists expect that 2005 will be the last year of the cheap-oil bonanza, while estimates coming out of the oil industry indicate "a seemingly unbridgeable supply-demand gap opening up after 2007," which will lead to major fuel shortages and increasingly severe blackouts beginning around 2008-2012.
The long term ramifications of Peak Oil on our way of life are nothing short of mind blowing. As we slide down the downslope slope of the global oil production curve, we may find ourselves slipping into what some scientists are calling a "post-industrial stone age."
Peak Oil is also called "Hubbert's Peak," named for the Shell geologist Dr. Marion King Hubbert. In 1956, Hubbert accurately predicted that US domestic oil production would peak in 1970. He also predicted global production would peak in 1995, which it would have had the politically created oil shocks of the 1970s not delayed the peak for about 10-15 years.
"Big deal. If gas prices get high, I’ll just get one of those hybrid cars. Why should I give a damn?"
Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer points out in his article entitled, “Eating Fossil Fuels,” approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.
The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step of modern food production is fossil fuel and petrochemical powered:

1. Pesticides are made from oil;
2. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is made from
natural gas, which is also about to peak.
3. Farming implements such as tractors and trailers are constructed
and powered using oil;
4. Food distribution networks are entirely dependant on oil. In the US,
the average piece of food is transported 1,500 miles before it gets to
your plate;
In short, people gobble oil like two-legged SUVs.
It's not just transportation and agriculture that are entirely dependent on abundant, cheap oil. Modern medicine, water distribution, and national defense are each entirely powered by oil and petroleum derived chemicals.
Most of the consumer goods you buy are made with plastic, which is derived from oil.
All manufacturing processes consume voracious amounts of oil. For instance, the average car - including hybrids - consumes the energy contained in 25-50 barrels (or about 1,200-2,400 gallons) of oil during its construction, while the average computer consumes 10 times its weight in fossil fuels during its construction.
All electrical devices - including solar panels and windmills - make use of silver, copper, and/or platinum, all of which are discovered, extracted, transported, and fashioned using oil-powered machinery.
Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also discovered, extracted, and transported using oil-powered machinery. Nuclear power plants also consume a tremendous amount of oil during their initial construction and continued maintenance.
Most importantly, the modern banking and international monetary system is entirely dependent on a constantly increasing supply of oil. Since as explained above, all modern economic activity from transportation to food production to manufacturing is dependent on oil supplies, money is really just a symbol for oil.
Consequently, a declining supply of oil must be accompanied by either a declining supply of money or by hyperinflation. In either case, the result for the global banking system is the same: total collapse. This may be what led Stephen Roach, the chief economist for investment bank Morgan Stanley, to recently state, "I fear modern day central banking is on the brink of systemic failure."
Most people new to the idea of Peak Oil tend focus on finding alternatives to oil, while wholly ignoring the more fundamental issue: the ramifications of Peak Oil on our monetary system.

Due to the intricate relationship between oil supplies and the global financial system, the aftermath of Peak Oil will extend far beyond how much you will pay for gas. If you are focusing solely on the price at the pump, more fuel- efficient forms of transportation, or alternative sources of energy, you aren’t seeing the bigger picture.

"Can't We Just Look Harder for the Stuff?

What About the Oil Sands up in Canada

& Oil Shale over in the American West?"

Global oil discovery peaked in 1962 and has declined to virtually nothing in the past few years. We now consume 6 barrels of oil for every barrel we find.

As Professor Michael Klare points out, many major oil companies now find themselves unable to replace their rapidly depleting reserves.

Oil Discovery: (3 Year Average, Past and Projected)

Source: Association for the Study of Peak Oil

The good news is that we have a massive amount of untapped "non conventional" oil located in the oil sands up in Canada.

The bad news is that oil derived from these oil sands is extremely financially and energetically intensive to extract and thus suffers from a horribly slow extraction rate. Whereas conventional oil has enjoyed a rate of "energy return on energy invested" - "EROEI" for short - of about 30 to 1, the oil sands rate of return hovers around 1.5 to 1.

This means that we would have to spend 15 times as much money to generate the same amount of oil from the oil sands as we do from conventional sources of oil.

Where to find such a huge amount of capital is largely a moot point because, even with massive improvements in extraction technology, the oil sands in Canada are projected to only produce a paltry 2.2 million barrels per day by 2015. That's not much oil considering we currently need 83.5 million barrels per day, are projected to need 120 million barrels per day by 2020.

The huge reserves of oil shale in the American west suffer from similar problems. Although high oil prices have prompted the US government to take another look at oil shale, it is not the savior many people are hoping for. As geologist Dr. Walter Youngquist points out:

The average citizen . . . is led to believe that the United States really

has no oil supply problem when oil shales hold "recoverable oil" equal to

"more than 64 percent of the world's total proven crude oil reserves."

Presumably the United States could tap into this great oil reserve at any

time. This is not true at all. All attempts to get this "oil" out of shale

have failed economically. Furthermore, the "oil" (and, it is not oil as is

crude oil, but this is not stated) may be recoverable but the net energy

recovered may not equal the energy used to recover it. If oil is

"recovered" but at a net energy loss, the operation is a failure.

If you want to know the harsh truth about the future of oil, simply look at the actions of the oil industry. As a recent article in M.I.T.'s Technology Review points out:

If the actions - rather than the words - of the oil business's major

players provide the best gauge of how they see the future, then ponder

the following. Crude oil prices have doubled since 2001, but oil

companies have increased their budgets for exploring new oil fields by

only a small fraction. Likewise, U.S. refineries are working close to

capacity, yet no new refinery has been constructed since 1976. And oil

tankers are fully booked, but outdated ships are being decommissioned

faster than new ones are being built.

In addition to lowering their investments in oil exploration and production, oil companies have been merging as though the industry is living on borrowed time:

December 1998: BP and Amoco merge;

April 1999: BP-Amoco and Arco agree to merge;

December 1999: Exxon and Mobil merge;

October 2000: Chevron and Texaco agree to merge;

November 2001: Phillips and Conoco agree to merge;

September 2002: Shell acquires Penzoil-Quaker State;

February 2003: Frontier Oil and Holly agree to merge;

March 2004: Marathon acquires 40% of Ashland;

April 2004: Westport Resources acquires Kerr-McGee;

July 2004: Analysts suggest BP-Amoco and Shell merge;

April 2005: Chevron-Texaco and Unocal merge;

What do you think could possibly be motivating these companies to take such drastic actions?

You don't have to contemplate too much, as recent disclosures from oil industry insiders indicate we are indeed "damn close to peaking."

In March 2005, the energy analysts at John C Herold Inc. - the firm that that foretold Enron's demise - confirmed industry rumors that we are on the verge of an unprecedented crisis.

"Is the Bush Administration Aware of Peak Oil?"

Yes.

In late 1999, Dick Cheney stated:

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual

growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with,

conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from

existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an

additional 50 million barrels a day.

To put Cheney’s statement in perspective, remember that the oil producing nations of the world are currently pumping at full capacity but are unable to produce much more than 80 million barrels per day. Cheney’s statement was a tacit admission of the severity and imminence of Peak Oil as the possibility of the world raising its production by such a huge amount is borderline ridiculous.
A report commissioned by Cheney and released in April 2001 was no less disturbing:

The most significant difference between now and a decade ago is the

extraordinarily rapid erosion of spare capacities at critical segments of

energy chains. Today, shortfalls appear to be endemic. Among the

most extraordinary of these losses of spare capacity is in the oil arena.

Not surprisingly, George W. Bush has echoed Dick Cheney’s sentiments. In May 2001, Bush stated, “What people need to hear loud and clear is that we’re running out of energy in America.”

One of George W. Bush’s energy advisors, energy investment banker Matthew Simmons, has spoken at length about the impending crisis. Simmons is a self-described “lifelong Republican.” His investment bank, Simmons and Company International, is considered the most reputable and reliable energy investment bank in the world.

Given Simmons’ background, what he has to say about the situation is truly terrifying. For instance, in an August 2003 interview with From the Wilderness publisher Michael Ruppert, Simmons was asked if it was time for Peak Oil to become part of the public policy debate. He responded:

It is past time. As I have said, the experts and politicians have no Plan

B to fall back on. If energy peaks, particularly while 5 of the world’s 6.5

billion people have little or no use of modern energy, it will be a

tremendous jolt to our economic well-being and to our health — greater

than anyone could ever imagine.

When asked if there is a solution to the impending natural gas crisis, Simmons responded:

I don’t think there is one. The solution is to pray. Under the best of

circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will be no crisis for

maybe two years. After that it’s a certainty.

In May 2004, Simmons explained that in order for demand to be appropriately controlled, the price of oil would have to reach $182 per barrel. With oil prices at $182 per barrel, gas prices would likely rise to $7.00 per gallon.

If you want to ponder just how devastating oil prices in the $200 range will be for the US economy, consider the fact that one of Osama Bin-Laden’s goals has been to force oil prices into the $200 range.

A recent report prepared for the US Department of Energy has confirmed Mr. Simmons' dire warnings. Entitled "The Mitigation of the Peaking of World Oil Production," the report observed:

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved

through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge

oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of

significant economic hardship worldwide.

Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before initiating

crash program mitigation leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel

deficit for two decades or longer.

The report went on to say:

The problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be

temporary, and past “energy crisis” experience will provide relatively little

guidance. The challenge of oil peaking deserves immediate, serious

attention, if risks are to be fully understood and mitigation begun on a

timely basis.

. . . the world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive

mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be

pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions were

gradual and evolutionary. Oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.

As one commentator recently pointed out, the reason our leaders are acting like desperados is because we have a desperate situation on our hands. If you've been wondering why the Bush administration is spending money, cutting social programs and starting wars like there's no tomorrow, now you know: as far as they're concerned, there might not be a tomorrow. The worrisome thing is they might be right.

When seen in the light of Peak Oil, the Bush Administration's Machiavellian foreign and domestic policies are perfectly logical.

Are There Any Conservative Members

of Congress Speaking Out About This?

Yes.
On March 14, 2005 Representative Roscoe Bartlett (Republican, Maryland) gave an extremely thorough presentation about the frightening ramifications of Peak Oil.

Representative Bartlett, who may be the most conservative member of Congress, quoted from this site extensively, citing the author (Matt Savinar) by name on several occasions, while employing several analogies and examples originally published on this site.

You can read the full congressional record of Representative Bartlett's presentation by clicking here.

"What About this Theory that Oil is

Actually a Renewable Resource?"

A handful of people believe oil is actually a renewable resource continually produced by an "abiotic" process deep in the Earth. As emotionally appealing as this theory may be, it ignores most common sense and all scientific fact. While many of the people who believe in this theory consider themselves "mavericks," respected geologists consider them crackpots.

Moreover, the oil companies don't give this theory the slightest bit of credence even though they are more motivated than anybody to find an unlimited source of oil as each company's shareholder value is based largely on how much oil it holds in reserve. Any oil company who wants to make a ridiculous amount of money (which means all of them) could simply find this unlimited source of oil but refuse to bring it to the market. Their stock value would skyrocket as a result of the huge find while they could simultaneously maintain artificial scarcity by not bringing it to the market.

Even if the maverick/crackpot theories of "unlimited oil" are true, they aren't doing us much good out here in the real world as production is declining in pretty much every nation outside the Middle East.

It certainly isn't doing us any good here in the United States. Our domestic oil production peaked in October 1970 at 10 million barrels per day. It has since declined a little bit each year and now stands at only 5 million barrels per day.

If oil a renewable resource, why isn't it renewing itself here in the good ole' US of A?

"If the Environmentalists Would Get Out

of the Way, Can't We Just Drill in ANWR?"

While some folks desperately cling to the belief that oil is a renewable resource, others hold on to the equally delusional idea that tapping the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve will solve, or at least delay, this crisis. While drilling for oil in ANWR will certainly make a lot of money for the companies doing the drilling, it won't do much to help the overall situation for three reasons:

1. According of the Department of Energy, drilling in ANWR will only

lower oil prices by less than fifty cents;

2. ANWR contains 10 billion barrels of oil - or about the amount the US

consumes in a little more than a year.

3. As with all oil projects, ANWR will take about 10 years to come

online. Once it does, its production will peak at 875,000 barrels per

day - but not till the year 2025. By then the US is projected to need

a whopping 35 million barrels per day while the world is projected to

need 120 million barrels per day.

"Won't the Market and the Laws of

Supply and Demand Address This?"

Not enough to prevent an economic meltdown.

As economist Andrew Mckillop explains in a recent article entitled, "Why Oil Prices Are Barreling Up," oil is nowhere near as "elastic" as most commodities:

One of the biggest problems facing the IEA, the EIA and a host of

analysts and "experts" who claim that "high prices cut demand" either

directly or by dampening economic growth is that this does not happen

in the real world.

Since early 1999, oil prices have risen about 350%. Oil demand growth

in 2004 at nearly 4% was the highest in 25 years. These are simple

facts that clearly conflict with received notions about "price elasticity".

World oil demand, for a host of easily-described reasons, tends to be

bolstered by "high" oil and gas prices until and unless "extreme" prices

are attained.

As mentioned previously, this is exactly what happened during the oil shocks of the 1970s - shortfalls in supply as little as 5% drove the price of oil up near 400%. Demand did not fall until the world was mired in the most severe economic slowdown since the Great Depression.

While many analysts claim the market will take care of this for us, they forget that neoclassic economic theory is besieged by several fundamental flaws that will prevent the market from appropriately reacting to Peak Oil until it is too late.

To illustrate, as of November 2004, a barrel of oil costs about $45. The amount of energy contained in that barrel of oil would cost between $100-$250* dollars to derive from alternative sources of energy. Thus, the market won't signal energy companies to begin aggressively pursuing alternative sources of energy until oil reaches the $100-$250 mark.

*This does not even account for the amount of money it would take to locate and refine the raw materials necessary for a large scale conversion, the construction and deployment of the alternatives, and finally the retrofitting of the world's $45 trillion dollar infrastructure to run on these alternative sources.

Once they do begin aggressively pursuing these alternatives, there will be a 25-to-50 year lag time between the initial heavy-duty research into these alternatives and their wide-scale industrial implementation.

However, in order to finance an aggressive implementation of alternative energies, we need a tremendous amount of investment capital - in addition to affordable energy and raw materials - that we absolutely will not have once oil prices are permanently lodged in the $200 per barrel neighborhood.

While we need 25-to-50 years to retrofit our economy to run on alternative sources of energy, we may only get 25-to-50 days once oil production peaks.

Within a few months of global oil production hitting its peak, it will become impossible to dismiss the decline in supply as a merely transitory event. Once this occurs, you can expect traders on Wall Street to quickly bid the price up to the $200 per barrel range as they realize the world is now in a state of permanent oil scarcity.

With oil at $200 per barrel, gas prices will hit about $10 per gallon virtually overnight. This will cause a rapid breakdown of trucking industries and transportation networks. Importation and distribution of food, medicine, and consumer goods will grind to a halt.

The effects of this will be frightening. As former oil industry insider Jan Lundberg recently pointed out:

The scenario I foresee is that market-based panic will, within a few

days, drive prices up skyward. And as supplies can no longer slake

daily world demand of over 80 million barrels a day, the market will

become paralyzed at prices too high for the wheels of commerce and

even daily living in "advanced" societies. There may be an event that

appears to trigger this final energy crash, but the overall cause will be

the huge consumption on a finite planet.

The trucks will no longer pull into Wal-Mart. Or Safeway or other food

stores. The freighters bringing packaged techno-toys and whatnot from

China will have no fuel. There will be fuel in many places, but hoarding

and uncertainty will trigger outages, violence and chaos. For only a short

time will the police and military be able to maintain order, if at all.

The collapse will be hastened by the fact that the US national debt will become completely unsustainable once the price of oil gets into the $100 range. Once this mark is passed, the nations of the world will have no choice but to pull their investments out of the US while simultaneously switching from the dollar to the euro as the reserve currency for oil transactions. Along with the breakdown of domestic transportation networks, the global financial shift away from the dollar will wholly shatter the US economy.

If you're wondering why the mainstream media is not covering an issue of this magnitude 24/7, now you know. Once the seriousness of situation is generally acknowledged, a panic will spread on the markets and bring down the entire house of cards even if production hasn't actually peaked.

In summary, we are a prisoner of our own dilemma:

1. Right now, we have no economically scalable alternatives to oil.

(Emphasis placed on economic scalability, not technical viability.)

2. We won't get motivated to aggressively pursue economically

scalable alternatives until oil prices are sky-high;

3. Once oil prices are sky-high, our economy will be shattered, and we

won't be able to finance an aggressive switch-over to whatever

alternative sources of energy are available to us. Without cheap oil,

and without economically scalable alternatives, we will basically be

"dead in the water."

4. An aggressive conservation program will bring down the price of oil,

thereby removing the incentive to pursue alternatives until it is too

late.

5. Any attempt to secure the energy and raw materials necessary to

power a large-scale transition to renewable forms of energy is likely

to be met with fierce competition, if not outright warfare, with China,

which has a million man standing army fully-indoctrinated to hate the

US.

"What About all the Various Alternatives

to Oil? Can't we Find Replacements?"

Many politicians and economists insist that there are alternatives to oil and that we can "invent our way out of this."

Physicists and geologists tell us an entirely different story.

The politicians and economists are selling us 30-year old economic and political fantasies, while the physicists and geologists are telling us scientific and mathematical truth. Rather than accept the high-tech myths proposed by the politicians and economists, its time for you to start asking critical questions about the so called "alternatives to oil" and facing some hard truths about energy.

While there are many technologically viable alternatives to oil, there are none (or combination thereof) that can supply us with anywhere near the amount of net-energy required by our modern monetary system and industrial infrastructure.

People tend to think of alternatives to oil as somehow independent from oil. In reality, the alternatives to oil are more accurately described as "derivatives of oil." It takes massive amounts of oil and other scarce resources to locate and mine the raw materials (silver, copper, platinum, uranium, etc.) necessary to build solar panels, windmills, and nuclear power plants. It takes more oil to construct these alternatives and even more oil to distribute them, maintain them, and adapt current infrastructure to run on them.

Each of the alternatives is besieged by numerous fundamental physical shortcomings that have, thus far, received little attention. For a detailed analysis of the various alternatives oil, go on to page two.

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

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)

One Leg

04-08-2005, 14:46

This morning, I checked my email as usual, and found the following in my inbox. Per the sender's request, I am omitting their name, but am including everything else.

Dear Scott "One Leg" Rogers,

I recently found your post on whiteblaze.net
regarding the accident that occurred Saturday 3/26 on
the Northbound Spur... Audrey Fentress was my
aunt and Myra Nelson was my cousin, and since my dad
(Audrey's brother) found out about it monday
morning watching the news, I figured I would have
better luck finding out details from the internet
than I would waiting for info to filter down word
of mouth.

Thank you for compassionately relating this story
to your fellow hikers, and you are correct to be
concerned. I would like to relate this to you
personally, so that you can pass on as you see fit.

It is ironic only to myself that some have posted
on this thread that public transportation would
be safer. My Aunt Audrey would have been 85 next
month and got around in a wheelchair. Audrey, who
usually stayed with Myra and George, would stay
with my dad whenever they would be doing any
traveling in that area on a bus, because she would not
be able to travel with the wheelchair.

Also, not only was the 18 year old going fast
enough to push Myra's chrysler 40 feet, but I have
found articles that state the Honda had left a 150
feet skid mark before doing so.
http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/202694
I also had found an article that reported
witnesses saw a Red Nissan drag racing the Honda just
before the accident. Unfortunately, the article was
gone (or edited?) the next day when I went to
print it out.

Also, I have heard that all 5 died of internal
injuries, further evidencing the speed and force of
impact involved. There would have been NO way to
get out of that Honda's way... God forbid if you
were hiking!!

If you find out anymore details please let me
know, and I will do the same for you. Again, THANK
YOU for your sympathy and compassion. I, for one,
truly appreciate it.

***** ******** ******
(Please don't use my name if you do post this.
Thanks again!)

Thoughts?

One-Leg

minnesotasmith

04-08-2005, 15:26

"There would have been NO way to
get out of that Honda's way... God forbid if you
were hiking!!"

"public transportation would
be safer."
Hiking can be done off-road, and around the AT mostly is. A hiker would likely not have even been there for the chance of being run into by a vehicle, at least while hiking.

Also, not only was the 18 year old going fast
enough to push Myra's chrysler 40 feet, but I have
found articles that state the Honda had left a 150
feet skid mark before doing so."

"I also had found an article that reported
witnesses saw a Red Nissan drag racing the Honda just
before the accident..."

Now you know why, if I have children when I remarry, while they live in my house under the age of, say, 20, there will be a governor on their vehicle engine that will limit their vehicle speed to 45. That speed's legal everywhere, even on Interstates, and will get them where they need to go.

MOWGLI

04-08-2005, 15:45

Now you know why, if I have children when I remarry, while they live in my house under the age of, say, 20, there will be a governor on their vehicle engine that will limit their vehicle speed to 45. That speed's legal everywhere, even on Interstates, and will get them where they need to go.

Where they need to go? Perhaps the easiest way to get someone killed is to only permit them to drive 45 MPH on the interstate. ESPECIALLY around Atlanta.

One Leg

04-08-2005, 18:32

When I posted the original article here, I did so out of concern for my friends who live in the Smokies, and my fellow hikers who have to negotiate the road crossings. It was my way of saying "Be careful out there."

From the humanistic aspect of it, it saddened me to hear about such a tragedy. It saddened me that I posted the article here to share with you guys, and it was turned into another one of your famous political/environmental debates.

I, like yourselves, hold opinions very strongly. I try, and most of the time am successful, at keeping my opinions to myself. However, like you, when I've reached my proverbial limit, some of what I think tends to spill over. Whether or not you think that public transportation would be a benefit in the Smokies, the fact remains that for the 5 occupants of the car involved, this is a mute point, as they are now cold and in the ground. Personally, I don't see where Public Transportation in the Smokies would've prevented this senseless tragedy.

I agree with you, MS, with regard to governers being beneficial on a young drivers' car. My friend down in Georgia, Bill Lively, just yesterday said that his 17 year old son received a "4 Point Ticket" for running 79mph in a 45mph zone. As the father of 6 (7 in 14 days) children, this is a concern that weighs heavily in my heart. I don't want any of my children to die because of stupidity, nor do I desire them to be the cause of someone elses' untimely death. I do realize that part of this lies with parental responsibility, but even the most responsible of parents cannot control what their children do when they are out of sight. You can only hope that what you've instilled in your children will take root, and aid in making decisions. I worked in the greater Atlanta area for 12 years as a Paramedic, and I know how crazy the drivers are. However, as the subject at hand points out, crazy drivers are everywhere. It behooves each of us to exercise a little caution, use our 2 eyes more, our 2 ears more, and our 1 mouth a whole lot less.

I feel that compassion is a lacking feature among some people. It's so easy to get caught up in a heated argument, and forget that people that someone loved have died. We need to be ever-mindful in situations such as this that surviving loved ones are grieving, and are in search of answers. In searching for answers, in this particular instance, the surviving loved one was lead to Whiteblaze because of this thread. Imagine their shock and surprise at some of the responses posted here. Place yourselves in their situation: Would some of the things said here benefit you in your grief, or would they only add more to it? What if it were your loved ones in that Chrysler who died? Would you want to hear the great debate about the benefits of public transportation, or would you take comfort in the fact that others cared about what happened, and exhibited a little human compassion?

One-Leg

minnesotasmith

04-09-2005, 09:36

for backing me up on governors for adolescent's cars. I clearly recall not having the best judgement as a driver for the first several years as a driver, and I knew many people around my age who were far stupider drivers than I was. My one significant wreck as a young driver would not have occurred had my parents installed such a device on my car. I was uninjured only because they were wise enough to insist that my first vehicle be a large older make that had plenty of steel, instead of a "Budweiser"-composition compact or other such vehicular deathtrap. (Anyone seen the Ford Pinto/18-wheeler impact scene in the flick "Kentucky Fried Movie"?)

MOWGLI, I currently live well north of Atlanta, and certainly don't intend to live in Atlanta when I remarry and start having children. I don't believe that a big city, with all its negative cultural influences and mostly poor values is an acceptable place to raise children, not for someone who has a significant range of options on where to live, as I do. Too, thank you for making the case that adolescent drivers don't belong on Atlanta Interstates, certainly not while driving at speeds reasonably safe for their low driving experience level; I am inclined to agree with that conclusion.

orangebug

04-09-2005, 12:15

... You can only hope that what you've instilled in your children will take root, and aid in making decisions. I worked in the greater Atlanta area for 12 years as a Paramedic, and I know how crazy the drivers are. However, as the subject at hand points out, crazy drivers are everywhere. It behooves each of us to exercise a little caution, use our 2 eyes more, our 2 ears more, and our 1 mouth a whole lot less. ...The idea that living in the city either dooms or redeems children is poppycock. I grew up in the country, and attended a few funerals for friends who wrapped their cars around trees. I've attended funerals in Atlanta for friend's children - who wrapped their cars around mailboxes.

Speed and hormones happen. Stupidity is more common than sense.

My girls drove VW and Volvos. They had at least their share of speeding tickets - as many in rural areas as on I-285. After watching both the use of underpowered vehicles and steel cages, I prefer the steel cage of well designed impact zones in used cars - without a fashion statement involved.

Smile

04-09-2005, 12:53

Suggestion.... raise kids in one place, with a sense of community, there wouldn't be a big rush to get out, get a car and get away to bigger and better things - that is taught by society in general.

Then of course....there is a parents "needing" a job in the right place, for the right money, etc. etc. Excuses not to raise kids, but to have their amount of "enough"....which is never 'enough'......

Guess it boils down to.....what you need & what you want, and the wisdom to know the difference.

So green people - how many of us are boycotting CARS?

Oh, sorry, that would be pure nonsense....need to consume oil and such.....

One Leg

04-09-2005, 13:56

The idea that living in the city either dooms or redeems children is poppycock. I grew up in the country, and attended a few funerals for friends who wrapped their cars around trees. I've attended funerals in Atlanta for friend's children - who wrapped their cars around mailboxes.

Speed and hormones happen. Stupidity is more common than sense.

My girls drove VW and Volvos. They had at least their share of speeding tickets - as many in rural areas as on I-285. After watching both the use of underpowered vehicles and steel cages, I prefer the steel cage of well designed impact zones in used cars - without a fashion statement involved.

Nowhere did I state that living in a city dooms or redeems children. I worked in Atlanta, so I know how the drivers there are. I also live in a very rural area, and know how the drivers here are. On any given Friday/Saturday night, they're out here burning rubber, drag racing, etc. And, there are wrecks with fatalities. So, am I immune because I choose to raise my family in a rural area? Absolutely not.

All my life, I have lived in rural areas. With the exception of 8 months in 1992, I have never had a neighbor, and wouldn't know how to act if I did. But my self-imposed isloation does not insulate me from the big-city problems whatsoever, there's just fewer of them.

skeeterfeeder

04-09-2005, 21:40

Oneleg, I arrived in Gatlinburg the night it happened. I did a zero the next day and was told by a trolley driver that the kids were drag racing. I'm not sure of the details, but it was sad. I appreciate the sentiments, and yes most hikers know to be safe on the highways. It is a lot safer (?) on the trail. At least it is a lot more quiet than it is near highways. From Erwin, (I just said hello to Ms. Janet), Skeeterfeeder.

orangebug

04-10-2005, 08:20

Nowhere did I state that living in a city dooms or redeems children. I worked in Atlanta, so I know how the drivers there are. I also live in a very rural area, and know how the drivers here are. On any given Friday/Saturday night, they're out here burning rubber, drag racing, etc. And, there are wrecks with fatalities. So, am I immune because I choose to raise my family in a rural area? Absolutely not...I'm sorry, but I wasn't trying to be arguementative, especially as I agreed with your original note. My reaction was more directed to another Georgian who hopes that rural life and a speed restrictor would protect him and potential children.

My work takes me from city to south Georgia swamps. I've seen bad luck and good fortune occur in both areas. We all face uncertainty in our lives. My experience is that some seem to focus on avoiding death, while others embrace life. I think I know which camp you are in.

BonzNRio

05-17-2005, 13:03

Taking a shot here to get in touch with Greenman,hope he's the same one I met in '03.Have a few photos I'd like to get to him.One is of Poetry In Motion & PapaSquat.Can someone holler at him for me & ask him to get in touch.Thanks.