If We're At Peak Oil Does It Make Sense To Build Any New Roads?

[ThomWV]

Why would we build an inch of new road if the oil is going to run out? We're not going to burn coal or build nuclear reactors to make electricity to power cars, there isn't enough space in the country to build the solar arrays to run them, there is no source and method of producing hydrogen that produces more energy than its production consumes; and the same can be said for grain-to-fuel schemes too.

So why new roads? In fact as fast as vehicle fuel is pricing itself out of existence why do we even bother to repair the roads we have?

[DS1]

1. Yes, we're still growing as a population. Also, your stance and wind and solar is short-sighted

the technology will get better, it always does.

[zonmoy]

18. might get better. but will they get good enough to power our world

solely on them when fossil fuels get too precious to use for fuel. also can one smelt steel or do all the industrial processes needed for our civilization to exist using such power sources. if not then such technologies will fail as will civilization.

[Ganja Ninja]

2. Sure it makes sense.

Rail Roads.

[L. Coyote]

3. A small windmill will power your car.

Take an upper already!!
Seriously, we just need to capture existing energy.
At the same time, we need global population controls of some sort.
And a global plan.

[Lorien]

7. Especially if you drive one of these:

www.aptera.com





On the road in California by the end of this year.

[L. Coyote]

14. It is time for the Nerds to make the cars!

Enough with how big is your engine :rofl:

[UndertheOcean]

24. cool car !

[ThomWV]

29. Let me ask you something - honest question.

What do you think is happening to all that existing energy now and what will happen when we 'capture' it? Would you leave the desert surface dark? Would you put windmills back to back along every hillside and shore? What will be the effect on the earth from square miles of solar collectors covering what had once been grasslands or forest? What will happen when all that energy that used to bounce back into space is retained, harnessed, focused on our desires - what will be the effect on the earth of that?

On an earth that we are already warned is warming is capturing energy that would otherwise have bled back off into space a sane thing to do?

[high density]

4. Well I guess we might as well just kill ourselves now

Because we'll be dead eventually.

I think this country is going to have a turnaround on nuclear energy. The options are going to be changing our policy to include nuclear or entirely changing our lifestyles and our way of life to avoid nuclear energy. I think people would rather embrace nuclear power instead of descending into a new dark age.

[Systematic Chaos]

11. Then you obviously haven't been following the Environment/Energy forum enough.

There's enough ignorance there to choke a solar pool heater. :eyes:

[Subdivisions]

12. What the hell is that supposed to mean? n/t

[zonmoy]

19. only way nuclear power can possibly be viable is if we develop

workable fusion plants real soon. since fission uses uranium and its products also a limited resource.

[defendandprotect]

22. Didn't I just read that ITALY is shipping their nuclear waste to UTAH . . .????

Whaaaat . . . ???

[PVnRT]

5. Because people still need to get places

Whether their vehicles are powered by black gunk, the sun, or pixie dust.

[Lorien]

6. You really aren't up on the times. The newest innovations in hydrogen

produces three times the energy that is put into it. I don't have a link to the article (it was here on DU), but the first devices being built using this technology sound a bit like the "Mr. Fusion" of "Back to the future".

Scientists also say that it would only take 100 square miles of solar panels to power the ENTIRE United States. It would be easier that building roads into ANWR (where the permafrost melts and re-freezes every year), and probably far cheaper than a few months in Iraq...but the fossil fuel companies profits would plunge, so you know it won't happen.

We don't have the space?? Ever heard of the Salt Flats?

[TheWraith]

16. I'm afraid that "100 square miles" thing is a complete myth.

It's patently false. Even in the most optimistic versions, it's 100 miles SQUARE. As in, 100 miles by 100 miles. And under more realistic numbers, it's 214 miles square, which is roughly 60% of the size of Nevada.

[Lorien]

27. Nope:

The stigma of solar as only one of many solutions needed to satisfy our energy needs may not be true. David Mills, chairman and chief scientific officer of solar company Ausra, recently presented a paper at the International Solar Energy Society conference saying that solar thermal plants could indeed solve all of our energy problems, including nighttime electricity. I know...all our energy problems??? Well, I guess it's worth taking a look.

The plants use mirrors arranged in a Fresnel configuration to heat tubes of liquid rather than solar cells that convert the sunlight directly into electricity. The steam produced by the heated liquids power turbines that create electricity. While not a new technique, Mills says the technology will allow liquids to hold heat and produce steam during the night also. The paper calculates that 92 square miles of solar thermal farm could power the entire country.

Despite the optimistic results of their calculations, they warn that a plan like this requires a complete revamping of the current electric infrastructure. The country's AC grid would have to be converted to High Voltage DC in order to decrease transmission loss from 50% to around 3% while moving the power from the sunny Southwest to the power-hungry North East. Miles says this would be a huge undertaking that would help move the country from "capital-intensive fossil fuel plants that need to run 24/7" to "electricity created by people's and the economy's daily rhythm," which solar and wind energy follows closely.

In the meantime, Ausra plans to develop a 175-megawatt solar power plant with their solar storage technology, hitting the market mid-2009.
-snip-

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/991

[ThomWV]

28. 2 sources, neither of which is viable

The first is you get your hydrogen from water, but unless someone has invented a perpetual motion machine there is no way to get more power out of recombining that hydrogen with oxygen than it took to break them apart - so hydrogen from water is a losing proposition. The other source is hydrogen from coal, the problem there being that no matter what you do with the hydrogen you still have to deal with the rest of the crud from the coal, and the energy you need to deal with it can not be removed from the equation. Despite the pie-in-the-sky predictions there will never be a hydrogen economy. Sorry about that.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

31. Is cold fusion a complete myth?

The idea of cold fusion has been poo-pooed by mainstream scientists for many years but it seems that there are now several scientists who are reporting the ability to reproduce the original controversial experiments in the laboratory, including scientists at MIT, Rennselaer Polytechnic, the University of Colorado, the University of Utah, UCLA, and U.S. Navy researchers from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center. I don't know much about the subject but it seems interesting.

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/ColdFusion/

[Lorien]

32. Like I said:

http://www.livescience.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=080207-hydrogenfuel

[bananas]

8. Watch this video

I think it'll answer your question: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=85630
150 MPG SUV.
In this video, we get a first-hand look at the XH-150™ Extreme Hybrid™ SUV during calibration and testing in December of 2007 at Michelin's Laurens Proving Grounds in South Carolina. Features interviews with AFS Trinity's Chief Technology Officer, Don Bender and Former Asst. Secretary of Energy at the D.O.E. (1995-1998), Dr. Joseph Romm.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. No, it doesn't make sense

Existing roads need repairs desperately (driving on the roads around the Twin Cities isn't quite as bad as driving on cobblestones, but it's getting close, and we are the place with the collapsing freeway bridge) and all new roads do is encourage people to think that they can live farther and farther out in the boonies. Any new road built to accommodate increased traffic becomes congested within a couple of years, because its existence fools people into thinking that they'll have an easy commute.

The sooner we wean ourself off automobile dependence, the sooner we stop facilitating automobile dependence, the better off we'll be.

Yes, some people are so attached to their cars that they'd drive if gas were $10 a gallon and there was a transit center a block away, but in America today, most people don't have a choice about whether to drive or not. We need to make driving a choice rather than a necessity.

[mr_hat]

10. We might need them for levitating vehicles.

[catnhatnh]

13. Yes Thom it does....

Because if the internal combustion engine disappeared tomorrow, roads would still be the paths of commerce...Think horses and wagons and bicycles and pushcarts....no matter the course of the future we will still need roads-both new and old.Here in NH there are 3 fine north-south routes but east-west connectors are scarce...and that didn't matter when a 30 minute/25 mile jog north or south could get you to an east-west road on cheap gasoline.It would matter quite a bit more if it took an extra 4-8 hours of walking, pedaling, or on horseback.So yeah,some places need new roads, no matter what the future holds.

[kineneb]

17. still need roads for the bicycles

"off-road" is not my idea of transportation, even by bicycle. Besides, having good bike paths cuts down on soil erosion.

[Javaman]

15. as the price of oil goes up so does the price of asphalt.

any new road built now comes at a cost of not being able to afford to repair the old ones.

[B Calm]

20. I think we need to be thinking about solar powered flying cars. If the

Supreme Court hadn't elected Bush and Al Gore would have been in office the past seven years, we probably would be driving solar powered flying cars by now.

[defendandprotect]

21. The potholes are creating accidents and killing tires which create more accidents . . .

and, let's simply build electric cars ---

we can subsidize both ends of this -- manufacture and purchase and get rid of all the gas-guzzlers
in 3-5 years!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Gee, the Romans ALSO built roads

Roads connect towns, and whether we use a new form of fuel to move our cars or go back to cart and buggy and steam, for trains, guess what? You will need roads

[chaska]

25. What I can't understand, why the hell are we so desperate to save the automobile???

Cars are one of if not the biggest problem our society faces. We should replace all private, non-essential autos (just emergency and transport vehicles) with bicycles. IMMEDIATELY.

Phase out the private auto and society will become sane again. Slowly, but it can (and will) happen.

[TCJ70]

26. For the bikes we're all going to be riding? n/t

I said n/t, but I'm putting text in here anyway...muwahaha.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

30. Or the horses and buggies