PDA

View Full Version : Energy Independence and Ending "Crisis Mode"




Roonie
04-29-2009, 06:58 PM
Hey everyone.

I've not exactly been very active on these forums, but I've been lurking for a while and I've come up with something that I would like to share with the group. I don't know if I've been around long enough to plug my own website here, but I think this could be important and I would appreciate anyone checking it out.

It's a blueprint for a project that will triple the fuel economy of every vehicle on the road. It will secure our energy independance by 2015, reduce our nation's carbon emissions by 15%, and save us upwards of $700 billion annually. (Not to mention that it could prevent another oil war.)

I'm asking you guys to take a look at it because it has found a certain amount of popularity in the last two months. I put this online on Valentine's Day and I told my acquiantences about it, and since then I've had thousands of visitors from all over the world looking at it. I'm relying entirely on word-of-mouth, so there's no way that all these people would have found out about it and come to read it unless the plan is golden and people are talking about it. (Or so I like to think.)

I also like to think that this has something to do with the rally on Wall Street, so I'm pretty sure that people have already decided that this is going to happen . . . I'm trying to get the word out to the greater public before the powers-that-be take credit for a recovery that they didn't create.

I believe this is a great opportunity to get in the spotlight and do something constructive. We should also be able to lessen that "emergency feeling" that so many people seem intent on abusing.

Of course, this will futher increase our spending in the next few years, which is bad . . . but, like it or not, we are dependant on that spending at the present. We have until the dollar crash to remedy the situation, and this project should boost confidence in the American brand and keep the dollar together for at least another few years, giving us some time. After this crisis, we should have an easier time mobilizing the people.

www.thisoughttohelp.com

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

Now, I gotta tell you, I'm new to the whole libertarian thing and I'm still figuring out what it's all about. I was actually pretty leftist not too long ago - and then I realized that our gov't is a power structure just like any other and I figured out how our money system works. I was interested in libertarianism before that, but that "scared me straight."

So if this takes off, I may need some help figuring out exactly what this whole movement is about - but I'm definitely one of you and I'm beholden to no one. I should get a good size royalty payment from this along with a certain amount of notoriety, and I hope to use these to secure my freedom. (Your freedom, of course, would be an unavoidable consequence.)

There's a lot of work to do to save this country from socialism, and if you'll help me get the word out about this, I'll do my part in the bigger fight.

Thanks-in-Advance,
Roonie.

silverhawks
04-29-2009, 07:34 PM
Hi Roonie,

Thanks for posting. Interesting idea, and one that seems to mesh with the recent proposed idea of a new, high speed rapid transit system. However, I don't believe President Obama is going to deliver on this promise; its a future event that promises hope and reform, like much of his empty rhetoric.

First, take a look at this.

YouTube - Dr Michio Kaku's FutureCar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxU-Hm8dWjE)

I'm sure that you'll agree the parallel here is unmistakable, it seems as if you are describing the transit system tailored to something like this vehicle. (I don't much appreciate Dr Kaku's assertion that if car manufacturers won't advance, governments will intervene and force them to...)

I could see these two systems combined with the GM Hy-Wire concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Hy-wire), to create a unified transit system and power grid.

However, here's my greatest concern, and one I'm sure you'll find valid given the times we live in.

With tracking computers and sensors in every single vehicle, what is to stop this system being used as a form of mass surveillance?

Can you see any problems from going from the completely free-form system we have now to transitioning onto rails? It seems to me there is a definite learning curve there, that will lead to frequent accidents until the system becomes commonplace.

What we have today in America is NOT a free market...its barely capitalism. What we have today is corporatism, the economic ideology of a fascist system that promotes the merger and interaction of government and corporate powers. A free market would look radically different from what we have today, and would operate with no regulation or government intervention at all; the government would exist only to protect people's rights.

And we are only truly dependent on government spending while we consent to be; if the system failed today, we'd be forced to find alternatives. If we had networks of entrepreneurs looking for individual solutions to our challenges then we'd probably find those solutions much faster than wait on government to provide funds and then regulate and subsidize a good idea into the dirt.

Original_Intent
04-29-2009, 07:50 PM
I like the concept, in fact I have had similar thoughts for some time is that we need the efficiency of rail with the flexibility of personal vehicles and surface roads.

Some things that I wonder if you have considered in your calculations:

How much weight do the steel "rail" wheels and the mechanism to raise/lower the two sets of wheels add to the vehicle?

I wonder if a monorail concept might not be more feasible. At points where you went from surface road to rail there could be guides to align your car centered over the rail, the rail gradually angles up until your car "high centers" laterally on the rail and the rail-drive engages. Saves you needing to raise/lower wheels.

The disadvantage obviously is it would not be flush with the road, and would need to probably run alongside of the current interstates. You wouldn't even need to have offramps at every current exit, you could just monorail and then drive the surface interstate to your exit.

This would put a lot of truckdrivers out of work, because unmanned freight cars could also use the system. Being as how it is light rail there would still be business for truck drivers and trains for moving large, heavy freight.

Anyway just some additional thoughts. I like your idea. The biggest problem is it almost requires an immediate switchover tot he new tech - it will be hard to get cars built that could use it until rails are built, it will be hard to get rails built without cars to utilize it. Nasty catch-22.

Original_Intent
04-29-2009, 07:52 PM
Hi Roonie,

Thanks for posting. Interesting idea, and one that seems to mesh with the recent proposed idea of a new, high speed rapid transit system. However, I don't believe President Obama is going to deliver on this promise; its a future event that promises hope and reform, like much of his empty rhetoric.

First, take a look at this.

YouTube - Dr Michio Kaku's FutureCar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxU-Hm8dWjE)

I'm sure that you'll agree the parallel here is unmistakable, it seems as if you are describing the transit system tailored to something like this vehicle. (I don't much appreciate Dr Kaku's assertion that if car manufacturers won't advance, governments will intervene and force them to...)

I could see these two systems combined with the GM Hy-Wire concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Hy-wire), to create a unified transit system and power grid.

However, here's my greatest concern, and one I'm sure you'll find valid given the times we live in.

With tracking computers and sensors in every single vehicle, what is to stop this system being used as a form of mass surveillance?

Can you see any problems from going from the completely free-form system we have now to transitioning onto rails? It seems to me there is a definite learning curve there, that will lead to frequent accidents until the system becomes commonplace.

What we have today in America is NOT a free market...its barely capitalism. What we have today is corporatism, the economic ideology of a fascist system that promotes the merger and interaction of government and corporate powers. A free market would look radically different from what we have today, and would operate with no regulation or government intervention at all; the government would exist only to protect people's rights.

And we are only truly dependent on government spending while we consent to be; if the system failed today, we'd be forced to find alternatives. If we had networks of entrepreneurs looking for individual solutions to our challenges then we'd probably find those solutions much faster than wait on government to provide funds and then regulate and subsidize a good idea into the dirt.

Very valid concerns let me add one.

The governemnt could completely shut down travel with such a system. Being able to stop people's mobility is stock and trade of totalitarian governments.

Roonie
04-29-2009, 08:48 PM
Well, there are undoubtedly many proposals for the future of transportation. But the thing that sets this plan apart from these others is that it is just an upgrade for what we already have. Existing cars can be converted and no new land needs to be seized.


How much weight do the steel "rail" wheels and the mechanism to raise/lower the two sets of wheels add to the vehicle?

Sure, this would add a couple hundred pounds to each vehicle, but not so much that they would become too heavy to travel on the roads or other places that cars currently go. The reason my idea is feasible is beacuse it is actually pretty inexpensive for what it does. Building new lanes of travel (even if only in interstate medians) is many times more expensive than just laying the track and one reason other people fail is because they require this.


The biggest problem is it almost requires an immediate switchover tot he new tech - it will be hard to get cars built that could use it until rails are built, it will be hard to get rails built without cars to utilize it. Nasty catch-22.

Well sure, but not as much as other systems. If we're going to build a new system, we're going to build the whole thing. And once you decide to do that, you're going to see Caterpillar or one of their competitors come out with machines that can lay the rails in one pass and it will actually be pretty quick - especially on the interstates. At that point people would start having their cars converted, which would take a day or two in the shop at most . . .

I mean, we have to do something about our oil dependance, and the sooner the better. For a whole nation-wide system, $5 trillion and a few years is actually not that much.


With tracking computers and sensors in every single vehicle, what is to stop this system being used as a form of mass surveillance?

--------

The governemnt could completely shut down travel with such a system. Being able to stop people's mobility is stock and trade of totalitarian governments.

Yes. These are of course things that I thought about a lot.

But if they're just trying to track you, they're going to use your cell phone. It has a unique personal identification signal and towers are everywhere. Triangulating your position is not very hard, and newer phones have GPS in them and can send out very detailed information about your location.

Your car would not necessarily have to have this kind of identification signal for traffic handling: the system would just need to know how many cars are on the road and where. Of course, if you are going to use it to pay tolls, you would have to have ID info, but something similar to a prepaid phone could be used.

When it comes to clamping down on traffic, the new cars would still be able to drive over the rails without using them, so they can't really disable the system without setting up roadblocks - which of course is totally possible today too.

But the gov't wouldn't be able to do something like that without raising eyebrows of course, and they don't want something like that. They would only do that kind of thing if it were the final end of liberty . . . and in that case, you would want to be far from city centers and there wouldn't be rails out there because traffic is too light for it to make economic sense. Everyones' cars would still have offroad capability, so you could still drive there.

I realize there is a tradeoff here as a system like this would expose transportation to greater government intrusion. But it's not without benefits: terrorists would lose their petrofinance which will diminish their capacity and also the gov'ts ability to use their spectre to frighten us. Watching the free market reduce carbon emissions and move towards Alt Energy on its own would reduce the push for "environmentally friendly legislation" which we all know to be merely another excuse to tax us. And saving hundreds of billions of dollars every year is nothing to laugh at . . . we might just be able to make the interest payments on our collective debt with it.

Dreamofunity
04-29-2009, 09:03 PM
(I don't much appreciate Dr Kaku's assertion that if car manufacturers won't advance, governments will intervene and force them to...)


YouTube - Dr. Michio Kaku: 3 types of Extraterrestrial Civilizations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHbnM_42mQE)

Dr. Kaku is a globalist, although not (necessarily) in the evil tyrannical way people associate globalists with here. He sees it as an inevitable, that is if we don't kill ourselves first, process of civilization. I think he's a little confused and doesn't have much regard for individual liberty, with more concern for human potential progress; but that said, he's a badass theoretical physicist.

silverhawks
04-30-2009, 07:21 AM
Dr. Kaku is a globalist, although not (necessarily) in the evil tyrannical way people associate globalists with here. He sees it as an inevitable, that is if we don't kill ourselves first, process of civilization. I think he's a little confused and doesn't have much regard for individual liberty, with more concern for human potential progress; but that said, he's a badass theoretical physicist.

Here's the thing. Globalism, like statism, is inherently evil, because it opposes individual rights. Kaku doesn't even refer to people opposed to global government as individuals with opinions, he groups them together into a collective and calls them "Terrists".

I am not a Terrist! I am an INDIVIDUAL, with AN INTEGRAL, INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY.

Do you think that you will be able to opt out of paying carbon taxes via your utility bills? Do you think that if the global collectivist government decides guns are bad, you'll be allowed to keep a firearm and defend your own life? Do you think that if the globalist majority decides that mandatory service is required for the advancement of humanity, you'll have a choice? Globalists will tell you that they make these decisions for the good of the entire human race; while a soldier with a assault rifle stands behind them.

No Nazi believed they were evil. They believed they were morally correct, morally superior even, in slaughtering millions for the betterment of all.

Focusing on "human progress" as a collective is what creates totalitarian government. What we should be focusing on is individual progress, which ties directly to individual liberty. Not one huge upward jump, but 6 billion little jumps that will achieve the same goal - improvement of life for everyone.

Dr Kaku seems to assume that a Type 1 civilisation will automatically involve human freedom. A civilisation based on collectives cannot support true freedom. I find his thought process to be paradoxical; he refers to the EU as the foundations of a Type 1 government that will be tolerant of all cultures. The EU itself is not tolerant of cultures or individual choice; it does not respect sovereignty of nations or of the individual. What kind of world government does he expect to come out of that?

And Dr Kaku also has a flawed assumption; that this huge leap is 100 years away; he needs to not ignore the law of accelerating returns. We aren't a century away from this - it's happening right now.

However, our society is not advancing at the same rate as our technology, because the generally accepted collective paradigm is not based on progress - it is based on status quo, on maintaining the norm. Fascist governments run on corporatism impede progress on all levels through regulation, subsidies and intervention.

The very mechanisms that are being used to keep us down drive us harder to find ways to make us free - look at how global warming is being hyped up to impose global taxes, demand global solutions and global governance.

The collective cries out for energy independence, and waits for government to provide the solution, which it never will while it is profiting from the old way of doing things.

What does the individual do? Works out a way to take their house off the grid; they become personally energy independent, primarily to save money, and as a secondary priority to be good for the environment. Government and business cannot profit from them any more; in fact, power companies find they have to pay that individual or credit them as an energy producer. That individual has challenged the status quo, and broken out of the collective paradigm.

If every house in America had a small hydrogen plant to cover its energy needs, with home manufacturing systems for hydrogen, we'd have energy independence as a nation tomorrow.

Take a look at this:

LA 2007: Honda shows 4th generation Home Energy Station (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/15/la-2007-honda-shows-4th-generation-home-energy-station/)

Honda's Home Hydrogen Fueling Station (http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/nov2007/bw20071127_309229.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech)

Honda FCX Clarity Home Energy Station (http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/home-energy-station.aspx)

You see Obama, Sarkozy, Brown, pushing for this to be installed in every new home? See any great mention of this in the mainstream media?

I would bet you that the reason for not mass-marketing this would be: well, how would the power companies make money? wouldn't a lot of people be out of work?

So should business interests remain more important than individual prosperity? Should collective interests override individual liberty?

What people need to look at is WHY we don't have things this way, why we are not encouraged to work individually with post-scarcity as our immediate goal. When one person achieves it, it becomes possible for every other person to achieve it - just like freedom.

Look at who raises the barriers to individual prosperity, and individual freedom. Government and bankers - because they cannot find a way to profit from it, cannot tax it, or worst of all, because it threatens their control and power over the people.

Elwar
04-30-2009, 07:27 AM
"Crisis Mode" is not a real phenomenon that can be solved by real solutions.

silverhawks
04-30-2009, 07:46 AM
"Crisis Mode" is not a real phenomenon that can be solved by real solutions.

Another way to put it is that crisis mode is the result of psychological trickery that can be negated by real solutions.

If you're told that there is an economic crisis (which is really the global collapse of fiat currency, the end of a global ponzi scheme), that's going to worry you because you worry about food for yourself and your family, how to keep your lights on, how to put gas in your car.

Developing and encouraging personal food production, personal energy production and personal fuel production negates those concerns. People would laugh at the idea of a global economic crisis then.

Roonie
04-30-2009, 10:10 PM
And we are only truly dependent on government spending while we consent to be; if the system failed today, we'd be forced to find alternatives.

While that is true, that would be very uncomfortable and possibly disastrous. Actually, that would definitely be disaster.

The bailout for instance: we all hated it, but once it's been introduced on the floor of the House, you HAVE to pass it. By that point, the time for action had long since passed. If we had said no to the bailout, it literally would have caused the catastrophic collapse of the worldwide financial system, and anyone who wants that to happen just simply doesn't know what they're asking for.

Most of the people of this nation are totally dependant on the economy for food, water, shelter . . . all the essentials. Those things would not be available if the system collapsed. And hungry people are desperate people. If the finance system just fell apart, that would cause the kind of chaos that would get the people begging for the government to send in UN aid and "peacekeepers." And I'm sure you'll agree that we don't want that.

Building a free and fair financial system is going to be like raising a child. They don't come out of the womb with an appetite for steak and potatoes: they have to be slowly weaned.


What does the individual do? Works out a way to take their house off the grid; they become personally energy independent, primarily to save money, and as a secondary priority to be good for the environment. Government and business cannot profit from them any more; in fact, power companies find they have to pay that individual or credit them as an energy producer. That individual has challenged the status quo, and broken out of the collective paradigm.

-snip-

Look at who raises the barriers to individual prosperity, and individual freedom. Government and bankers - because they cannot find a way to profit from it, cannot tax it, or worst of all, because it threatens their control and power over the people.

Personal food, water and energy independance is actually on the top of my list of things to make happen if I suddenly get capital. I definitely agree with you:


Developing and encouraging personal food production, personal energy production and personal fuel production negates those concerns. People would laugh at the idea of a global economic crisis then.

But that will take some time . . . a few years at least until enough people have that kind of capacity that we can challenge the status quo without fear of global armageddon.

All innovation is inherently revolutionary, and you mentioned the law of accelerating returns . . . we are headed towards a period of great innovation and change. (google the Technological Singularity) I believe that as we enter this period, humanity MUST flatten all power structures, both public and private, or these will fight to maintain their control during the process and end up ultimately destroying the human race.

(I used to be more scared of private power structures since their leaders were not democratically elected, hence the leftism.)

I'm not saying they have to be totally flattened, just more than they are now, and I choose this to be my mission in life.

CUnknown
05-01-2009, 09:34 AM
Roonie, I like your plan. It seems feasible and it would provide nice benefits in terms of efficiency (both fuel efficiency and highway space/controlling traffic efficiency). But I completely fail to see how it ends our dependence on foreign oil. These cars are still running on gasoline, right? Well, we'd still need foreign oil for that. They may have a higher fuel efficiency, but mostly only for long-distance travel, not getting around in the city travel that people do most of the time (I assume they will not be forming these trains as much in the city). Even if it doubles fuel economy, that doesn't do a whole lot as far as getting us off foreign oil. For that, we're going to need another power source.

Roonie
05-01-2009, 04:33 PM
Well, there actually are a good number of around-town trips that are long enough to get into trains. The trick is knowing which cars are going the same place you are so you can hook up with them and take all the same turns together.

This won't be hard because we are going to put wi-fi on every mile of road so we can surf the net while we are not-driving-anymore. The cars' driving computers will use the net to talk to each other to figure out everyone's destinations. (This does of course put more of your personal information online, and it would be feasible to track your movements based on your commuting pattern . . . but again, it's a tradeoff and you can always retake control of your vehicle and drive away if you need to.)

So there will be efficiency gains in the city too, and we will further reduce our need for oil because once alternative energy vehicles/tow cars are put on the road, we will use them instead of the gasoline engines. People will begin building these tow cars as soon as we make the decision to lay the tracks, so they should both be ready at about the same time.

I can only estimate, of course, but all travel on the highways and the bulk of city travel will all be alt energy by the time all these different parts are ready. (Should take 5 years -ish.) After all these things are added up, the amount of oil we need to import will be drastically reduced.

This will put a big squeeze on oil suppiers and oil will become a buyer's market. We will be in control, and they will become dependant on us. This condition will last for a period of time while oil suppliers are recovering from their dependancy on selling oil and, by that time, alt energy vehicles should have penetrated the market fully enough that we can satisfy our need for oil with domestic supplies.

Chase
05-01-2009, 05:31 PM
Another way to put it is that crisis mode is the result of psychological trickery that can be negated by real solutions.

If you're told that there is an economic crisis (which is really the global collapse of fiat currency, the end of a global ponzi scheme), that's going to worry you because you worry about food for yourself and your family, how to keep your lights on, how to put gas in your car.

Developing and encouraging personal food production, personal energy production and personal fuel production negates those concerns. People would laugh at the idea of a global economic crisis then.

I agree but I would take it even further than that. It's a fundamental illustration of why principals are vital, and why you stick to them ESPECIALLY in times of hardship. By slowly moving away from our principals over time, we have created so many unintended consequences that we now have oceans full of government-created or government-subsidized problems.

Anything we stitch together with government is worse than just adding a bandaid to terminal cancer: it makes the cancer even more terminal. Most people's understanding of the role of government has been perverted... people have not been taught the very simple reasons why government action (beyond protecting liberty) is inherently destructive.

Having done an (admittedly small) amount of study into Austrian Economics as per my own initiative, I now realize that Ron Paul's suggestion about the climate and about gas prices (let the market work) was even more substantial than I took it for at the time. Ron offered it as an alternative to what we are now doing, but I now understand it is the only sane choice, and I can say with confidence that no possible proposed government solution can beat the free market. All governments can do (beyond protecting liberty) is to destroy the good work of the free market. People have all sorts of reasons for thinking that governments need to do something... the markets have failed!!!! but then you just point out to them how the problem they're trying to solve was actually created by government "solving" all kinds of other problems in the years past.


Edited to add: for the original poster, I want to suggest a 54 minute speech by Walter Block of the Mises Institute called "Roads, Education, and Waterways: The Case Against Public Services". It may not provide enough context to fully solidify Walter's arguments depending on your level of exposure to the basic facets of (Austrian) economics.

http://mises.org:88/1_HMC_Block

There's also the MP3 of the speech, should the video fail to work for you: http://mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/misescircle-houston08/1_HMC_Block.mp3.

Roonie
05-01-2009, 05:52 PM
Having done an (admittedly small) amount of study into Austrian Economics as per my own initiative, I now realize that Ron Paul's suggestion about the climate and about gas prices (let the market work) was even more substantial than I took it for at the time.

I believe his proposal was to enable people to use the courts to sue polluters for material damage to their water, air and land and thereby environmental damage becomes a direct cost to the polluter, correct?

I disagree. The best thing to do about climate change is absolutely nothing.

The earth moves in geological time, right? Changes occur over decades, centuries and longer. So the fact that we are already seeing an accelerating change tells me that in all liklihood, the damage has already been done. (And I'm not worried about co2, I'm worried about all the other, more directly toxic shit . . .)

So, what we have to do is develop the technology to go through and clean the planet on a molecular scale. We need nanotechnology, ASAP. To get it in time, we must not inhibit our economic progress. Now of course, that's no reason to start dumping plutonium anywhere we please, but we're going to have to get used to the idea of living with pollution for a few decades.

Once we have nanotech, we will be able to reform this planet in any way we please.