"The End of Suburbia" video on youtube

[GasSavers_Randy]

Originally Posted by Coyote X

We will run out of uranium for our current old style nuclear reactors before we run out of oil. ...

Building something like a Integral Fast Reactor type nuclear reactor would solve a huge amount of the energy problems in the short term. These reactors do not have any radioactive waste problems since they don't have any. The only waste they have is inert within 300 years so it is not really a problem either. They also use 99.5% of the energy in the isotopes used so they can run on the waste from the current types of reactors for a really long time. These types of reactors will never be built since weapons grade material can not be made from them.

There's plenty of uranium in the world, and like oil we wouldn't run out, just run short. We waste a lot of it the way we use it now, because it doesn't take enough advantage of the U-238 to plutonium cycle. We also don't process out the plutonium, which is the big reason the waste is radioactive for so long. Reprocessed waste is pretty much worthless for a nuclear bomb: you need short exposure times to keep the Pu-239 down compared to Pu-238. I think they're mostly worried about dirty bombs.

Fast breeders have operational problems, but are interesting. I think the really interesting design is the 'Energy Amplifier': a sub-critical nuclear reactor that's forced by an external neutron source. Since the pile is sub-critical you can use Thorium (a comparatively common element) as the main fuel source. Also, it stops reacting if something breaks. No long-term waste storage, no enrichment, no plutonium, etc. Plus it retained good ideas like defense-in-depth, unlike the brain-dead ceramic bead idea.

Note that they're talking about re-starting the large fast-flux reactor at Hanford. It shouldn't face the NIMBY problem (just NIanybody'sBY), but it will be a slow process.

[Peakster]

I don't think the price of gasoline is really going to make people stop driving. Even at $15 a gallon, it would only cost me $1 to drive to school one way in my 50mpg Geo. That commute is less money than a current bus fare or half the price of just one 600ml bottle of Coca-Cola. People are currenly leasing cars for $500+ per month, pay $1,500+ per year for insurance, and have quarter-million dollar mortgages. They won't bat an eye at $15 per gallon gasoline.

The thing that will have people making changes is if gasoline become real scarce. Like I mean when gas staions are out of gas. When people have an empty tank and have no way of filling it, that's when people will change.

[Snax]

Originally Posted by Peakster

People are currenly leasing cars for $500+ per month, pay $1,500+ per year for insurance, and have quarter-million dollar mortgages. They won't bat an eye at $15 per gallon gasoline.

Hey, I resemble that remark - EXCEPT FOR THE LAST PART! At $2.91/gal, I just spent $80 to fill up our truck. When it costs $400 to fill it, you can bet it won't be driven except when absolutely necessary!

[cfg83]

Hello -

Great Documentary!!!!!!!!!

QUESTON FOR SIMON (milesgallon.com) : I would really appreciate your input on this documentary, because I think it really shows the historical difference between Finland and the USA when it comes to what cars have come to mean in USA society. The context's must be totally different.

On to the documentary. At this time frame :

11:37 to 12:11

The above time frame is almost literally the origin of Los Angeles. I am sure I said this before, but LA is built on real-estate, and people didn't have cars at the turn of the century. LA Real Estate developers would use bonds to create light rail systems so that they could sell the land. Once the land was sold, they would sell the rail systems to people (aka suckers) who would be unable to make a profit. Why? because the rail systems had a built-in debt load that would make it impossible to survive. They were never *intended* to make a profit, they were intended to sell the land. That made them easy targets for oil and tire companies later on.

At this time frame :

19:29 to 20:20

I hear this quote :

We have to grow electricity or we will not grow our economy.

I disagree with this statement. During the Carter Administration, we grew the economy while our energy use was almost flat. All the economists were "flat" wrong, so to speak. This was because of energy conservation (55 MPH speed limit, Pink Panther insulation, la la la) measures that our government implemented. There is an argument that this is one of the things that broke Opec's back in the early 1980's. Opec was predicting that we would continue to use oil at a linear rate in relation to the growth of our economy. That didn't happen, Opec countries didn't make the money they planned to make, and started to sell their oil at lower prices. In a sense, Reagan has Carter to thank for the Roaring '80s (i.e. CHEAP OIL!).

However, the context today is different. Hubbard's peak was not "in play" to the degree that it is today. I can't think of an overt oil war going on during the late 1970's, just the usual shell game. And losing Iranian oil didn't seem to hurt us.

This country is soooo stupid. We can solve our problems. We may lose suburbia, but we can still have decent lives with renewable energy technologies that we can sell to the rest of the world.

What a mess,

CarloSW2

[repete86]

If you like submedia's work, you might want to check out the crimethinc Guerilla film series. They're pretty unrelated, but good docs made by people sharing submedia's ideology. Check out Breaking the Spell, Pickaxe, and the Miami Model.

[Peakster]

Old Suburb House (the kind I grew up in) Note that you actually have expose yourself to the elements *gasp* :

Attachment 390

New Suburb House (YUCK!) Note that you never have to see the light of day, hence current society needs tanning salons :

Attachment 389

I can't stand prominent forward facing garages. Its like saying: "Look at me, I have a private collection of vehicles. *thumbs nose*"

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Peakster

New Suburb House (YUCK!) Note that you never have to see the light of day, hence current society needs tanning salons :

Tanning salons! ug..

"See that thing up there [sun] - I put this [sun block] on my skin to protect me from UV radiation"

"This place here [tanning salon] - this is where I go to purposely irradiate myself with UV radiation, I even strip down to expose more skin"

I guess culturally, we've done worse... but really now

[zpiloto]

I Love my garage. So does that make me a bad person

[Peakster]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

I Love my garage. So does that make me a bad person

Don't get me wrong, garages are okay (every house I lived in had at least one). But there's a huge community difference when you live in a house that has a detached 1 & 1/2 car garage at the back of the parking pad, compared to a giant box with 3 huge doors taking over the front lawn. Just my opinion. Lucky for me the "Old School" houses that I like are considered obsolete, so the one pictured is less than 1/2 the price of the "New School" one (even though the liveable square-footage is very similar).

BTW, my dad is currently making a SIX car garage at the lake. His reasoning is: "I need 2 stalls for the vintage cars, 2 stalls for my daily drivers, and 2 more for the shop area". Whatever floats his boat I guess.

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by Peakster

Don't get me wrong, garages are okay. But there's a huge community difference when you live in a house that has a detatched 1 & 1/2 garage at the rear of the parking pad, compared to a giant box with 3 huge doors taking over the front lawn. Just my opinion. Lucky for me the "Old School" houses are considered obsolete, so the one pictured is less than 1/2 the price of the "New School" one (even though the liveable square-footage is very similar).

Just giving you a hard time. I've lived in both and I think that those that roll in and out wouldn't talk to anyone even if they were parking outside. Don't want to get the thread to off topic.