Energy Argument from Ruppert's new blog
I'm a little disappointed that you haven't gotten on board with SOLAR, WIND,
and TIDE GENERATION. These technologies are here right now, and can reduce fossil
energy usage by enormous amounts if the massive government subsidies were redirected
at them. Solar panels have been powering a still-active satellite since the
1950's. There is enough wind power in 7 states alone to power the entire US
grid. And tide generation is coming along, though not quite here yet, but it
looks as promising as the other two. THIS is where individuals can make a real
difference by taking control of their own power generation. Why aren't you seriously
advocating for this?
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at:
FTW admin said...
wind etc are wonderful but they don't approach the 'energy returned on
energy invested' of oil
"Matt Savinar said...
Mike does advocate that stuff."
All I've heard from him is doom and gloom, and a complete dissing of alternative
technologies. This is defeatist, and out of line with current trends, where
billions are being spent investing in them right now. There has been a large
shortage of solar panels worldwide because Europe and Asia are buying them up,
while Americans remain asleep.
" However, in order for wind and solar to offset just 1% of our current
petroleum consumption, they would need to be scaled by 3,300%!"
So what? That will happen anyway. The question is: why isn't it happening?
Because the WILL to do it isn't there. The technology is there and SO IS THE
OIL, which shoots down your next argument. There is no oil crisis, where we
are unable to power machinery to develop infrastructure. I can go anywhere in
the world and buy as much oil as I want right now. This defeatist reasoning
is counterproductive to an extreme.
"Keep in mind that right now 1 out of every 6-10 jobs in the U.S.
is dependent on the automobile manufacturing industry."
Whether true or not, the automobile itself needs to change. Electric is going
to come back, and the power for those electric vehicles can be made from solar,
wind and tide.
" Meanwhile, about 1 out of every 8-10 dollars of global GDP is flows
either directly or indirectly from the aviatino industry."
Lockheed flew a modified L1011 in 1979 that ran on hydrogen. This is quarter
of a century old technology. It is the will, not the technical limitations we
need to address.
"Neither of these industries can be run on anything remotely comparable
to their current scale on wind/solar etc."
Yes they can.
We're talking quantity, economies of scale. We spent 100 years building an
oil infrastructure. We need to spend the next 100 building a wind, solar, and
" That's just two examples where wind, solar, and other green altgerantives
simply don't cut it from a net energy and energy density perspective."
I do not buy this. Saying it doesn't make it so.
" And what does it take to manufacture these giant solar and wind
farms? Lots and lots of petroluem."
Which we have, right now. What we don't have is the will to do it.
" You ever see what a copper mine pit looks like? You can't drill
one of those without massive, amssive oil powered machines."
We will eventually have similar machines powered by electricity, hydrogen,
or whatever. You're trying to stay stuck in yesterday's paradighm. Right now,
however, I don't see the problem here at all.
" And you need a lot of copper for wind and solar to work."
I've never heard of any copper shortage crisis. Pennies aren't even worth the
cent they have printed on them, as far as I know. Stop concocting false reasons
why we can't do what people ARE doing all over the world as we speak.
" So these alternatives really can't do much to offset our current
Which is exactly the point I am refuting. They can do AS MUCH as we allow them
to do. There is NO artificial cap on renewables. There is NO force that blindly
limits their application. The arguments you present are not deal breakers. They
are simply problems to be overcome, and a description of current challenges
(mostly summed up by BIG MONEY INVESTMENT NEEDED). As far as "colossal
consumption" goes, there is colossal waste that needs to be cut back. And
will. Cutting waste and improving efficiency will be a major component that
also needs to be stated.
Seeing how we're not going to have much of a choice in a few years. These alternative
fuel industries will take off and explode, despite the nay sayers. It would
make a lot more sense to put our efforts (including our NATIONAL EFFORTS) into
these solutions sooner, rather than later.
(Step one: arrest the White House, of course...)
"megawatt solutions we have, but our
problems are terrawatt in size."
And I repeat that we have solutions to the energy/survival problems that we
face, be they terrawatt or petawatt, or whatever astronomical unit you think
you can put out there to discourage me. But it is going to require a planet-wide
paradigm shift. That means individuals are going to have to change the way they
do energy consumption, waste and production.
Energy is everywhere. Harnessing it is the issue. The desire to harvest one's
own energy (becoming a producer/consumer, instead of just a consumer) is the
main barrier that mankind needs to overcome.This is something new to most of
humanity, and as such, it is not embraced easily.
That is the question of will, which I repeatedly refer to. The technology is
there, the resources are there, the energy is there. These concepts have been
proven repeatedly. Implementation is the stage we are getting to, slowly. Only
the desire to change our relationship
to this energy consumption model is needed.
If everyone had solar roofs, then getting one would not be out of the ordinary,
or even cause for lengthy thought and analysis. It would just be. If everyone
lived under solar roofs, it would be a
different world. This one step, alone, would change the entire energy economy,
not even discussing all the other options at our disposal.
What if the government bought you half a roof? Every roof in America that needed
replacement got a free southward facing solar array, free of charge, in the
interest of "National Security?"
How would that flip the situation upside down?
How many solar tile factories would spring up overnight?
Large wind turbines (one unit that powers 1,000 homes) can be built at strategic
locations where high winds never stop. These are large investments ... but THEY
Every bit of coast has more energy potential sitting there than most people
In the 1970's, I believe, there was a cover image on Popular Science, of a
tower in the desert surrounded by a half circle of concentric mirrors on sun-tracking
rigs. This "solar furnace" design would mimic nuclear power plants
which boil water to steam and turn generator turbines. Easily available technology,
nothing special, nothing beyond the capabilities of modern industry: where are
these towers today?
I've never seen one.
Capturing energy can be as easy as a black pipe with water flowing through
it in the day. For every btu of energy you capture yourself, that's a btu of
energy that doesn't have to be taken out of the ground somewhere (added to the
transportation costs and inefficiencies associated with converting it into the
form you need it).
People need to rethink their energy needs and wasteful practices from the ground
This requires a worldwide shift in thinking. And I don't want to hear how it
can't be done. I know it can. If you put billions of people on the same page,
We're going to move into a world where 20 million American SUVs aren't wasting
as much fuel as possible for no particular reason whatsoever. That's a good
thing. The situation we're in was by design and through manipulation, and the
American people were all-too-willing participants (accomplices). The sooner
these fools feel the economic "pain" of their idiotic choices, the
better. That "collosal consumption" will be addressed one way or another.
As people who know better now, WE should be leading the way and actively ADVOCATING
for these technologies as much as possible.
The small determined groups sparking great changes motif fits here. That is
why I am disappointed in Ruppert's statements on alternative fuels, and why
I don't accept the dereatist (and often bogus) reasoning of the nay sayers in
this "peak oil movement."
We DON'T NEED a "peak oil movement." We need an "alternative
energy movement." Image is everything, no? Wasting bandwith trying to get
people to care about an economic chart (the "peak"), seems silly to
me, when we could be convincing people how and why they can change the "facts
on the ground."
Back to the "terrawatts." Just the other day, from this very blog
I clicked to renewableenergyaccess.com (a GREAT site),and learned that: "At
capacity, the factory could turn out enough solar cells each year to generate
430 megawatts of electricity, said Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen."
That's nearly half of a gigawatt (1/1000 of a terrawatt) per year, from one
What we need is one or more of these factories in every state of the union,
with some start up capital raided from the Pentagon, and things like my half
a roof program getting them out there everywhere.
This is an economic problem, not a technical impossibility. It's time we started
treating it as such.
To that end, I would really like to see Ruppert quit with the sky is falling,
and start getting people to take THIS stuff seriously. His casual dismissals
of the technologies of the future (despite proven track records, and a clean
bill of health) strike me as disengenuous.
Ruppert has been accused of hyping this peak oil thing for questionable reasons
(by Daniel Hopsicker for one, not by myself). Ruppert spends a lot of energy
and focus on telling us the sky is falling (which makes skyrocketing prices
for oil seem reasonable).
Where is his similar commitment to DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
Case in point is this thread about getting the Dick Cheney energy meeting stuff
made public. What for? What will that change? It's a six year old story, with
no interest from the public whatsoever. With a corrupt congress, nothing will
be done anyway. Why go down this road?
When you could be taking their power away from them one wind turbine at a time,
one solar array at a time, and getting thousands, perhaps millions to follow
suit? At least don't discourage other committed people from pursuing real world
solutions. That's what I don't accept.
We have large problems, yes. That's why putting the solutions front and center
What I believe some of you guys are doing is pretending that the solutions
aren't really solutions, that people shouldn't even try. That's what bugs me
to no end. If the boat is leaking, grab a bucket. Don't show me a chart.