Obviously you have to listen to the troll. And with this, dissect what’s truth from what’s “agenda”. But understand, this guy doesn’t do anything without an agenda to support his croney buddies.
What I’m having a problem with, is that the site is giving this guy a forum to spout his views in the first place. Why is the site looking for views from someone with his past? Personally, this guy shouldn’t be given the chance on this forum to forward his agenda, no matter what the subject is. He’s shown from his past, that he’s evil.
This person is the exact opposite (morally/ethically), of what CM.com is supposed to be about.
Just my opinion. Everyone doesn’t have to agree, nor approve. But I think everyone needs to think about this issue.
[Moderator’s note: This post is a violation of the forum rules. It reads as a direct personal attack against an invited guest, and fails the “dinner table” test. Corrective action with the user has been undertaken.]
Thanks for this interview, Chris. You successfully required RM to play ball in your park without conceeding any of his grandiose visions of the future. If we are going to change the discussion, more if we are going to have a discussion, about planning for the future we are going to need to draw the defenders of the realm into situations where reality is the measure of progress not the capitalist agenda. It would not be reasonable to expect RM to morph into a realist based on one CM interview but the mere fact that he did not run off when Chris used the dreaded words “peak oil” is a victory for the cause.
No one was more outraged at the orgy of criminality and bloodshed that was Iran-Contra than I. Many of the participants should still be in jail, perhaps including McPharlane. But, I would suggest that even psychopathic murderers have a good idea or two rattling around in their heads. I actually subscribed to Foreign Affairs for a number of years, and found the articles well informed and scholarly for the most part. So, I’m not willing to reject someone’s ideas and perspectives just because he/she was a member of CFR.
I don’t know the relative merits of Open Fuel Standards, but I certainly think they should be considered on an objective basis and not be rejected because of who presents them. If nothing else, CFR members tend to be pretty bright folks.
Hello everybody,
Recent inappropriate comments on this thread require me to make some statement about the purpose of these threads.
Chris refers to himself as an “information scout,” and this site serves to provide access to a range of views and opinions surrounding energy, economy, and the environment. It is the essence of informed decision-making that intelligent persons will seek out and consider the views of a wide range of people on a given topic. Once received, these diverse views may be analyzed in light of their factual accuracy.
The purpose of this site is not to search only for guests who cleave to the “party line”, and proceed to publish only those views.
Robert McFarlane devoted his time and energy to discussing his views seriously with Chris. He is a guest at our inclusive dinner table. If any user wishes to comment on the factual basis for his views about energy, then that is why these forums exist. But any user who wishes to “boo” and “hiss” a guest away from our table simply because they disagree with them seriously misunderstands the purpose of this site.
Yes, the U.S. imports between 65% and 70% of its oil but Europe, Japan, India and China also import substantial amounts of the oil they use. Therefore, disruptions to oil production, refining and distribution will affect more that just the U.S. Americans have a false sense of security regarding the continued availability of plentiful supplies of oil because the political leadership of this country has lied about oil depletion going back to President Nixon. President Carter might have been the only president who really grasped the nature of the oil depletion problem and he got voted out of office in 1980. Comments about hostile interests and their goals are just speculation designed to induce fear rather than understanding and are only suitable for political propaganda. New energy-related technologies are not going to “save” us from the irreversible decline in global net energy. The U.S. “energy policy” up through President George W. Bush was having $20/barrel oil. National conviction like technology is not a source of energy. Bio-fuel alternatives will never be produced in the quantities needed to replace current oil use. Mr. McFarlane should have a conversation with Dr. David Fridley (Post Carbon Institute and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) on the subject of bio-fuels and be disabused of the idea. We are already using 37% of our corn production to produce ethanol, which is a net energy loser. In a world of hunger how can anyone justify using corn to run automobiles? The “solutions” to our energy predicament are more radical than anything Mr. McFarlane and perhaps Mr. Martenson are prepared to talk about publicly. The political class will never have that conversation with the American people either because peak oil = peak capitalism = end of economic growth. Their only response to the situation will be to start WW III. How could it possibly be otherwise?
[quote=twessels]Yes, the U.S. imports between 65% and 70% of its oil but Europe, Japan, India and China also import substantial amounts of the oil they use. Therefore, disruptions to oil production, refining and distribution will affect more that just the U.S. Americans have a false sense of security regarding the continued availability of plentiful supplies of oil because the political leadership of this country has lied about oil depletion going back to President Nixon. President Carter might have been the only president who really grasped the nature of the oil depletion problem and he got voted out of office in 1980. Comments about hostile interests and their goals are just speculation designed to induce fear rather than understanding and are only suitable for political propaganda. New energy-related technologies are not going to “save” us from the irreversible decline in global net energy. The U.S. “energy policy” up through President George W. Bush was having $20/barrel oil. National conviction like technology is not a source of energy. Bio-fuel alternatives will never be produced in the quantities needed to replace current oil use. Mr. McFarlane should have a conversation with Dr. David Fridley (Post Carbon Institute and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) on the subject of bio-fuels and be disabused of the idea. We are already using 37% of our corn production to produce ethanol, which is a net energy loser. In a world of hunger how can anyone justify using corn to run automobiles? The “solutions” to our energy predicament are more radical than anything Mr. McFarlane and perhaps Mr. Martenson are prepared to talk about publicly. The political class will never have that conversation with the American people either because peak oil = peak capitalism = end of economic growth. Their only response to the situation will be to start WW III. How could it possibly be otherwise?
[/quote]
Hi twessels, and welcome to the fray… in my opinion, your post on this thread so far is easily the wisest. What I want to know is, did Chris fill this guy in about the ERoEI of his proposed “solution”?
Some of the proposals on this thread, like steam engines (not picking on anyone in particular or any one single idea) leaves out the fact that the problem is population… there are so many people wanting to drive cars today (and growing like topsy in China) that it doesn’t matter which technology you may wish to put under the hood, it will end in tears because it still is over consumption.
I personally know someone who made a gasifier for his car. He actually drove it from QLD to Canberra (Australia) and back several years ago on firewood! That’s 1500 miles at least. But he made it abundantly clear to me that if we all started doing this, all the trees in the country would be cut down in no time. The fascination with driving automobiles is stunning. Get over it though… I’m starting to think very few of us will be driving anywhere within five years, and maybe a lot less if there’s a revolution in Saudi Arabia. The looming crisis isn’t so much about oil as it is about over consumption and Limits to Growth. I would’ve thought anyone who’s seen the CC at least once would frealise this…
Mike
While I don’t want to chase anyone away, I do wish that Chris Martenson had revealed and discussed MacFarland’s background as a CFR member, Bilderberger and Iran Contra criminal. It seems to me that if these issues were not discussed in the interview (and I haven’t listened to the whole thing) it was quite the missed opportunity.Moderator Jason, is it your goal to prevent anyone else from discussing these aspects of MacFarland’s career in this forum, provided it is done in a civil matter?
…if cities are prepared for them. Using cars just to move people around is very inefficient (unless maybe if the car is full). If walking or going by bike is impossible, then it is preferrable to use public transportation. Which means cities must have a good public transportation network. If not, then small scooters are usually enough to move around. Unless of course one has to carry bulky things.
Cars are not bad by themselves, they are currently being abused. Also, as someone already said, cities must be designed to minimize energy used for daily transportation.
Concerning the interviewee, I’d say that his notable past should have been explicited from the beginning, although it is quite clear to me from its references cited by Chris that he is quite mingled with the system (in all its pejorative sense). It is anyway interesting to see how such people react to the questions posed here. It is also surprising to see them around here. But hey, even Chris used to be vice president of such big pharma as Pfizer.
Take a look at LLNL energy flow charts. By design the US rejects over 60% of our fuel as waste heat. Denmark rejects about 6%. The difference is about 54%. Oil and coal make up about 54% of our fuel input. Adopt the Denmark model and we do not need oil or coal. Look at Denmark District Heating and start with the link to history. Denmark became energy independent in 1998.
Also look at the water flow charts at LLNL energy flow charts. You will see we use almost as much water throwing away energy (cooling thermoelectric power plants) as we do for irrigation.
38% of fuel in Denmark is biomass and garbage. New York is hauling its garbage to Ohio and South Carolina.
Denmark mines the smoke stacks for various metals. And as Chris points out, the smoke stacks may be richer ore that our remaining mines.
I was disappointed in the podcast interview with Robert McFarland. His idea that we should all write to Congress demanding they pass legislation requiring cars and light trucks be able to burn gasoline, ethanol, methanol, and bio diesel is a dangerous idea. First, its the kind of law politicians love because it allows them to claim to have "done something" but it forces the auto makers into a technological corner trying to comply with an impossibly expensive regulation. If the auto makers fail, the politicians can blame them for not trying hard enough. Remember how GM tried to build an electric car to meet a “zero emissions” mandate by the state of California. It was a disaster and GM took the blame for the fact that an electric car that would only go 9 miles under adverse conditions was not acceptable to most motorists. Toyota decided not to even try to build a “zero” emissions car, but instead to develop a “low” emissions car and came up with the imminently practical and profitable Prius. Ironically, GM's patriotic attempt to try and comply with the California law contributed to their ultimate bankruptcy.
A spark ignition (gasoline) engine will not burn diesel or bio-diesel because the octane rating of diesel or bio-diesel fuel is much too low. If you build a spark ignition engine with low enough compression ratio that it will get by on diesel fuel it will be very inefficient. This means a multi-fuel engine must be a compression ignition (diesel) engine. Diesel engines are heavier and more expensive and making a diesel engine suitable foe gasoline and/or ethanol or methanol is a challenge because of the high cetane rating (explosiveness) of these fuels under the high pressures in a diesel engine as well as the fact that they do not lubricate the fuel pump like diesel fuel does. The US Army's 2 ½ ton truck has a diesel engine that will run on gasoline, but it's only recommended for limited use in an emergency.
McFarlane states that Brazil uses light car and light trucks that run on any combination of gasoline or ethanol, but the the ethanol situation in Brazil is totally different than in the US. They produce ethanol from abundant sugar cane and burn the waste (bagasse) to generate energy to run the ethanol plants. Therefore, they produce ethanol with a net energy gain. In the US we produce ethanol from corn, whereby we use as much energy in planting, fertilizing, watering, harvesting, drying, shipping, and distilling the ethanol as we get back out of it. Using over 40% of our corn corp for ethanol leads to higher food prices world-wide. This is tragic for the world's poor and ironically has contributed to the rebellions in Middle East, leading to lower oil production and higher oil prices. The ethanol mandate is a truly tragic piece of political fool-heartyness.
McFarlane states that cellulose ethanol is just around the technological corner. This is not true. I have friend who is knowledgeable in cellulose ethanol technology and he says we're not even close. Have you ever wondered why all the world's plants use cellulose as their structural building block when there are hoards of hungry microbes and larger animals who would love to eat it (cellulose passes right through cows and other herbivores without breaking down)? Cellulose is exceptionally difficult to break down, and that's what what must be done to produce cellulose ethanol. If you expend more energy breaking down the cellulose than you get out of the ethanol produced what's the use.
McFarlane needs to catch up on technical details on what he's recommending before he gets people to swamp Congress with demands for legislation requiring multi-fuel vehicles.
I appreciate the variety of guests and opinions presented at this site, and objective, scientific analysis of their views. One can learn a lot whether they agree with a particular view or not.
The possibility brought up by RMof an oil supply disruption due to hostile actions, aside from predictable declines in production rate, seems like another risk which I hadn’t previously considered much. Another good reason to just get used to using a lot less energy!
Just a reminder, although I post under “Thomas” I am DC mentioned above. (Thanks for the support you guys provided.)
Aristotle noted that an educated man can entertain an idea without necessarily endorsing it. I think it is amazing that Chris got RM to do the interview. As a reminder, Paul Craig Roberts worked with Reagan as well and he is a cult hero of those who worry about abuse of power. (Wikipedia would have told anyone interested who Robert was, so ignorance of his past is no real excuse.)
The CFR is (may be) misunderstood. There are something like 20,000 members–the Who’s Who of geopolitics. There are also some very impressive fellows, including noted Austrian economist Ben Steil, Sabbastian Malaby, and the always whacky Amity Schlaes. It has been said by someone very close to me and part of the CFR that, although everybody who comes into the CFR has an agenda, the CFR itself is relatively non-partisan. Its goal is to get these guys talking about geopolitically profound issues. (That may be a little idealistic, IMO.) Although it should be looked at with a wary eye, the CFR may be less than it is cracked up to be.
With that said, I was relatively confident that the single message had an underlying agenda. Didn’t seem all that well hidden. The comments above about Brazil being very different than us seem appropriate to me. I am not particularly optimistic that biofuels will have a place in the future, except as an inefficient source of liquid fuels. What makes peak oil so disquieting to me is that I am not very confident that adequate substitutes are on the distant horizon.
Hi Kirktim. I am not formally affiliated with the company. I have only followed their work with great interest over the last several years, and I am an investor. If you are interested to know more about their engine systems, then feel free to ask. I can likely answer your questions. For now, just know that theirs is a serious effort to bring steam power back for small and medium scale applications. They have the tools and the talent to do it. Also, as far as I can tell they’re doing things the right way by cutting no corners… that is, by not making the same mistakes that others have made in the past in trying to bring back steam power.
I agree that most biofuels in limited production today are simply a very bad idea… particularly corn ethanol. But I am optimistic about the prospects for biofuels derived from algae, and also ethanol using the Coskata process (bacterial fermentation of ethanol from CO and H2 generated from direct biomass gasification… or coal gasification). Natural gas may be used as a transport fuel. Coal may also be used as a transport fuel directly in external combustion engines like the Cyclone (it has already been fueled by coal dust with a propane pilot flame). A coal slurry can also be used in an external combustion engine. Oil can be derived from coal using a process currently in use in South Africa. Battery electric cars are fine for small passenger cars that see limited range… otherwise, I think they’re too costly to be a viable solution.In my opinion, fuel oil made from algae and used in modern steam cars is the best solution long term. Algae oil has a very high energy density, and it can be burned perfectly in a modern steam automotive system with no refining at all (collected straight from the cracker that lyses the cell walls releasing the oil). I say keep biomass and coal around for stationary power generation… but these power plants should be downsized and decentralized so the waste heat can be put to use as much as possible.
I agree. What we need to do is decentralize power generation to the point where most of the waste heat can be put to productive use in water heating, water distillation, space heating, and adsorption air conditioning. Steam systems are ideal for this purpose.Check out the Waste Heat Engine by Cyclone Power Technologies that is designed to capture heat from various industrial processes to produce electricity. Also, the steam exhaust (which is primarily saturated water in this engine system) from this system can be easily put to use in the heating applications discussed above. Saturated water/steam is an excellent medium for transferring heat. In fact, many cogeneration systems use waste heat to first produce saturated steam before putting the heat to use.
Also, Cyclone is developing a biomass fueled 10 KW power plant for residential use that used the Waste Heat Engine. The system can be operated for extended periods at very low power to make the most of cogeneration. It can easily provide all of the electricity, space heating, water heating, and air conditioning (using an adsorption chiller… see sortech.de). It could use wood pellets, wood chips, or even natural gas. Might be a good use for junk mail too, or lawn clippings.