# End of Oil



## begreen (Mar 29, 2011)

Two generations left. Think $4/gallon is bad? How long before denial is not an option?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42224813


----------



## bogydave (Mar 30, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Two generations left. Think $4/gallon is bad? How long before denial is not an option?



Good question. I Don't think the Gov't has a plan.
Gonna be up to us. But how?
Be allowed to drill in Alaska, & off shore US?
Natural gas? 
Battery  or mass transit inside big cities, say 20 mile radius?
No plans in the mill that I know of.
Good question


----------



## Amaralluis (Mar 30, 2011)

I remember in the 80's hearing about that oil would last for 20 years, so if we are now at 50 years we are doing pretty good actually.


----------



## smokinj (Mar 30, 2011)

lol 4 bucks a gallon! Ask the rest of the world how much they pay? We really pay way more than that......Just what shows at the pump.


----------



## hilly (Mar 30, 2011)

What we pay at the pump for gasoline drives me crazy. Here in Canada it's about $1.25/liter ($4 or $5 per US gallon) but, for example, if you look at the Alberta tar sands I think the price we pay is far too small. Right now there are many thousands of acres completely polluted up there and I can see the tax payer being left to pay for the clean up. The fast, easy money will be gone, and the company or subsidiary will claim to be broke and simply leave. Somebody has to clean this up and the clean up cost should be incorporated into the cost of the fuel that way those that use more pay more. Instead the tax payer will pay the bill. For fun check out the history of the Britannia mine, which is between Vancouver and Whistler. It's in the mining sector, but remarkably similar to the tar sands.


----------



## begreen (Mar 30, 2011)

Amaralluis said:
			
		

> I remember in the 80's hearing about that oil would last for 20 years, so if we are now at 50 years we are doing pretty good actually.



Are you good at math? World oil consumption is steadily increasing from 1980 (61,569,000 BPD) to 2009 (84,077,00 BPD), while production in most major oil fields is in sharp decline. We can drill like it's 1969 and it still is going to be in decline because of rampant consumption and waste. Oil will still be there, but it's going to be damned expensive by 2050. So much so that the use of it for fuel might be criminal. Keep up our current pace, without a plan and Mad Max doesn't seem like such a fantasy anymore.


----------



## Highbeam (Mar 30, 2011)

Whatever, they also said we would all be using the metric system.

The article loses all credibility when the author starts spouting about carbon emissions. That immediately makes me dismiss her information as biased towards a pro enviro extremist. 

Did you see man-bear-pig run by? I'm totally cereal.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 30, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Two generations left. Think $4/gallon is bad? How long before denial is not an option?
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/42224813



Were already OUT of the $1,2,3  dollar oil.  And are now using up the $3.50-$4 oil. That may be OUT before the years end and so on and so forth.


----------



## nate379 (Mar 30, 2011)

Oh well, I won't give 2 shits when I'm 6 feet under


----------



## begreen (Mar 30, 2011)

Best to keep an open mind here. The report is by a major world bank's senior economist. BP has also published a report with similar conclusions. You may not agree with their solutions, but that doesn't change the net effect of increasing population growth and decreasing resources. There is one simple fact. Oil is a non-renewable resource.


----------



## begreen (Mar 30, 2011)

This is one of the best explanations about the effect of the growth of human consumption of fossil fuels that I have seen. It's simple math based on the exponential function. Take 30 minutes to watch this informative lecture by Dr. Albert Bartlett. 

Video here: http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html

Audio here: http://old.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461


----------



## North of 60 (Mar 30, 2011)

When I read the posts here on this site about the amount of heating fuel people burn to heat there uninsulated old homes in the lower States and Canada with those mild climates on top of heating with a stove , I think is just sickening. These areas need to be addressed to stop the big dent in oil consumption. The money they are spending on oil leaves them broke to do any home upgrades after mortgage payments etc... Its an ignorant vicious circle. Owning and driving vehicles is another story. :zip:


----------



## spirilis (Mar 30, 2011)

Hah, loved the video, and I didn't know about using the natural logarithm to compute the doubling (tripling, etc) time.  New mathematical tool in my limited arsenal!


----------



## bogydave (Mar 30, 2011)

We have yet to even address the real problem.
China has hit on the problem & we call it very unreasonable at the least.
The population of the people on this planet continues to grow. Every new person is 
going to use oil. 
Population control is not ever mentioned in US politics.
More people in the US, = using more oil!
 More people in the US = need to create more jobs for 
them or tax those working more to pay them entitlements to not work.
More people in the US = producing more food, consumer goods, vehicles, electricity, houses, which all increase the need for more oil.
the "untold reason" for using foreign oil is never mentioned, ** "use other countries oil first, save our for when they've run out"
If the oil was needed from ANWR, because their was no other place to  get oil, we'd be drilling tomorrow.
Americans are not conservationist, we waste allot of energy recourses, recycle very little, because we can. (we're selfish, take from those people but don't take from me)
"Denial" of needing more oil, is a symptom. We will never have enough. We'd use it, it would be cheaper & we'd use more. 
It is like fire wood, never have too much. 
Too many people using this planet's resources is the real problem. Not enough jobs for all of us. To produce more food, more oil is needed. 
Vicious circle now. We'll never have enough.

The problem is not a simple one, so no government is going to solve it. 
We have to go through a severe collapse & failure to ever have a chance to solve the problems. 

Have a good day


----------



## begreen (Mar 30, 2011)

China is only part of the Asian growth. India may surpass them. All together they are already ahead of us in consumption and have a rapidly growing middle-class, which means a whole lot more consumption coming on line.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 30, 2011)

north of 60 said:
			
		

> When I read the posts here on this site about the amount of heating fuel people burn to heat there uninsulated old homes in the lower States and Canada with those mild climates on top of heating with a stove , I think is just sickening. These areas need to be addressed to stop the big dent in oil consumption. The money they are spending on oil leaves them broke to do any home upgrades after mortgage payments etc... Its an ignorant vicious circle. Owning and driving vehicles is another story. :zip:



Thats exactly why im against the "free" heating fuel program in the states(which obama cut in half by the way) Theres no attempt to solve the problem with conservation or insulation just pay to kick the can down the road another year. Would make more sense to buy people wood stoves than pay for their oil.


----------



## North of 60 (Mar 30, 2011)

More sense to apply more money for energy retrofits. Maybe EXTREME HOME MAKEOVER can visit every home by 2012. :smirk:


----------



## mr.fixit (Mar 30, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> north of 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The problem with buying them woodstoves is you would have to cut their wood for them too! 90% of the population won't do that kind of manual labor. ITS WORK!!


----------



## North of 60 (Mar 30, 2011)

mr.fixit said:
			
		

> trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




EXACTLY + it would be unsafe. These kind of people could not plan on processing wood or having it seasoned. Chimney fires galore. They would all need to by a truck etc with the money they don't have. A wood stove install cost= a minimum of $3500 would go farther on retrofits or high eff fossil fuel units.


----------



## bogydave (Mar 30, 2011)

north of 60 said:
			
		

> mr.fixit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Solution?
I mean one practical that will work, in our culture & society.
Then work for the world. If we (North America) were to use less, price goes way down. Others use it more  because now it's cheap.


----------



## Billy123 (Mar 31, 2011)

Once you train the woman to chop and stack, its no problem!


----------



## btuser (Mar 31, 2011)

It ain't gonna happen.  We will take what we want, because that's what power does.  There's hundreds of years of oil left in the world.....as long as we keep it for ourselves.


----------



## begreen (Mar 31, 2011)

No doubt there are lots of oil reserves. But for sure the easy oil has already been taken. Now it gets more expensive and will continue to. That's why we're drilling over a mile down in the gulf.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 31, 2011)

[quote author="BeGreen" date="1301519363"]This is one of the best explanations about the effect of the growth of human consumption of fossil fuels that I have seen. It's simple math based on the exponential function. Take 30 minutes to watch this informative lecture by Dr. Albert Bartlett. 

Video here: http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html

Audio here: http://old.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461


> Whenever you start talking about slowing population growth be prepared to be pounced on from all sides.


----------



## bogydave (Mar 31, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## begreen (Mar 31, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> Whenever you start talking about slowing population growth be prepared to be pounced on from all sides.



Yes that's a hot potato, but one that has to be discussed. This is a finite space with finite resources. 

Note I said growth of human consumption, not of the human race. We can grow population at a modest rate and still dramatically decrease consumption.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 31, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I started watching those 8 videos at about 12.30 AM and i could not stop. i think it was almost 2AM before i saw the last one. Fascinating to say the least,scares the livin crapola out of you though.


----------



## benjamin (Apr 1, 2011)

north of 60 said:
			
		

> More sense to apply more money for energy retrofits. Maybe EXTREME HOME MAKEOVER can visit every home by 2012. :smirk:



The problem with retrofits is they enable the prolonged use of unsustainable old homes that will never be anywhere near efficient or economical.  Eliminating fuel assistance, govt. retrofit programs and mortgage subsidies will drop the bottom out of the housing market, bring out the bulldozers, and cause anyone with any brains and money to consider their true housing/heating/energy needs vs cost.


----------



## begreen (Apr 1, 2011)

benjamin said:
			
		

> north of 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Energy retrofits at this stage of the game is the best investment. There is a simple problem right now - cost. Exactly where is the money coming from to re-house maybe 75% of our population? The number of homes needing improvement is immense. And it's not only old homes. There are a lot of poorly built newer homes out there as well. And recently a ridiculous amount of personal palaces that have too much cu ftg to heat practicallly. Unless you are going to contract Rubbermaid Corp. to create giant styrofoam ice chests for mass relocation of the population, the only practical solution right now is to tighten up what we've got. And perhaps to turn McMansions into multifamily homes.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 1, 2011)

I recently insulated 1 side of a 70 year old duplex and in February it never went below 50 Deg inside even if the heat was off for days. Blown in cellulose is the material of choice. 2x4 wall cavities.
Gas bill is around $100 a month in winter including gas hot water. YES you can retrofit older homes, i do it for a living, If care is taken to details and its done right.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 1, 2011)

mr.fixit said:
			
		

> trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats why the US is the leading the world in obesity and possibly high school drop-outs.


----------



## bogydave (Apr 1, 2011)

85 million barrels per day 
USA uses 22 million.
Mostly transportation fuels.
Insulating my house saved some Natural gas (NG) & fire wood. Not a drop of crude oil.

Need to find a  bigger  solution. Crisis is the only solution. Then we have to act.
*** 
Electric cars: Build more power plants (coal, nuke, NG) so we can plug in & go 50 miles then plug in again.
***
Corn for fuel: takes just about as much energy to produce corn alcohol as it does to grow corn. + Fed gov. is subsidizing farmers to grow it.
Now food cost more. Profit in corn due to Gov subsidies. Growing less wheat, more corn. Bread cost more. Feed cattle corn (feed corn now cost more) hamburger cost more.
Eggs cost more cause chickens eat corn. & on & on.
***
Wind mills:  :lol: LOL
*** 
Hydro: dam more rivers, make more lakes. Eat stocked & farmed salmon & other fish. (Here they're called "Franken fish") Not enough rivers. 
***
Mass transit in all cities over 100,000. No combustion engine vehicles allowed in cities. Rent electric cars when we go to the cities or use mass transit.
***
No more 18 wheelers allowed to drive more than 100 miles per day. Trains only, mostly electric.
***
I could go on but none of the above are going to happen, so why go on.
We have to have a crisis. Humans react to a crisis cause we have to. :zip:
We complain about gas prices & future oil shortages, but we are not going 
to do anything. Now ration fuel to 10 gallon per week per person. (no exceptions rich or poor & no transferring your allotment). 
Then we find a way to drive/ride something, busses & trains &
 save the gas for our chain saws , log splitter, lawn mowers, ATVs etc. :cheese:


----------



## benjamin (Apr 1, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> benjamin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You hit the nail on the head with that last sentence. Doubling up is what the real estate industry calls the elasticity in the market when the population goes up and the number of inhabited homes goes down. One c.2003 Mcmansion can house X number of people for far less energy and cost than X number of retrofitted obsolete c.1928 homes. Typical skin deep energy retrofits are a SHORT term solution to a LONG term problem. 


My prediction, with current and future economic conditions, there will be many homes that were worth significant amounts of money 5-10-20 years ago that will be soon abandoned and bulldozed because they are not sustainable to heat, retrofit, maintain and pay the property taxes on, and a disproportionate percentage of them will be homes that the govt is spending money retrofitting now. I believe Detroit is proposing something like this currently.


----------



## begreen (Apr 1, 2011)

My prediction is that it will cost too much to bulldoze them down. They will be taken over by roaming hordes that set up colonies with perimeter defenses. The few stand alone McMansions will be scavenged right down to the boards to build smaller, easier to heat homes.


----------



## pyper (Apr 1, 2011)

trump said:
			
		

> Thats exactly why im against the "free" heating fuel program in the states(which obama cut in half by the way) Theres no attempt to solve the problem with conservation or insulation just pay to kick the can down the road another year. Would make more sense to buy people wood stoves than pay for their oil.



Truth! In the early 1990's I visited my grandmother. She was paying like $400 a month on heating oil. Rather to say the state was paying. It's not like the house was ever warm, either. It's a nifty old house, the oldest part of which was built in the 1700's.  For one year's worth of heating, they could have put in insulation and weather stripping. Wouldn't have been as efficient as a new house, but it would have been a major improvement. When my grandfather was alive (he died in '78) he heated with a wood furnace. He'd cut the trees and haul them up, then saw them and split them. I don't think he had a chainsaw either.


----------



## pyper (Apr 1, 2011)

bogydave said:
			
		

> ***
> Electric cars: Build more power plants (coal, nuke, NG) so we can plug in & go 50 miles then plug in again.
> ***



That would almost get me home from work in the evening. OK, maybe I shouldn't live where I do, or maybe I shouldn't work where I do, but if I bought a house near where I work, then it would be far from where my wife works. My house isn't near where anyone works -- what's going to happen to all the rural houses if we outlaw long distance driving? 



> ***
> Mass transit in all cities over 100,000. No combustion engine vehicles allowed in cities. Rent electric cars when we go to the cities or use mass transit.




You've never been in Atlanta, have you? ;-)

I was at a conference a couple years ago, and the keynote speaker read a letter someone had written to the President. It was about power and foreign wars and how our energy dependence on foreign sources was going to be the downfall of our nation. But the letter was written over 100 years ago and the subject was whale oil. The speaker was an official from US Dept. Agriculture, and he was talking about a new technology, that if it works, will release the energy from the leavings of logging operations. It's some kind of enzyme that will digest pine trees. Supposedly there's more energy from the stuff left over after you log an acre of pine than there is when you grow an acre of switch grass. And since we're already cultivating the pine trees, there's little additional energy cost to harvest this stuff. It's what they normally push into big piles and burn -- instead they would haul it to a plant.


----------



## jharkin (Apr 1, 2011)

benjamin said:
			
		

> You hit the nail on the head with that last sentence. Doubling up is what the real estate industry calls the elasticity in the market when the population goes up and the number of inhabited homes goes down. One c.2003 Mcmansion can house X number of people for far less energy and cost than X number of retrofitted obsolete c.1928 homes. Typical skin deep energy retrofits are a SHORT term solution to a LONG term problem.



Hmm. I'd bet my "obsolete" home will still be here standing long after I'm dead and those shoddily built McMansions have crumbled.

If you include the amount of energy that went into the materials and labor to build that new 2003 house in your calculation I think we will find retrofits are far cheaper.

If I take my 200 year old house, add storm windows, air seal put down 12in of fiberglass in the attic I can probably get 80% of the benefit of new construction with a fraction of the materials. (much of which I have done).

And thats not considering all the passive benefits many older homes have such as siting for good southern exposure/solar gain, fewer windows relative to wall area, etc.


----------



## Chain (Apr 1, 2011)

Third generation algae based bio-fuels......It's a big part of the answer to our ever growing energy needs.  Cheap, efficient, and created without food stuffs.  And it "eats" CO2 as part of the process of growing the oil.  Best of all, it can be shipped and distributed in the already existing gasoline infrastructure.  And large scale production is only a few years away.....


----------



## begreen (Apr 1, 2011)

The US is so used to cheap oil that we are way behind the rest of the world in almost everything except consumption. The first step here has to be live with less. 

For bogydave's point about mass transit, look how far we have to go:

Obamma's proposal for funding high-speed rail between 2012-2017 = $53 Billion
China's minimum spending plan for the same between 2011 and 2015 = $451 Billion (Max is $602 B)

Current length of America's ONLY high speed rail network (Acela Express) = 225 miles
Current length of China's high speed rail network = 4840 miles
Current length of Europe's high speed rail network = 4124 miles

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/stories/high-speed-trains


----------



## benjamin (Apr 1, 2011)

How many miles of high speed rail in Canada? Australia? South America? Africa?

High speed rail is not an economical solution with low population densities.  Buses make much more sense, but they have a bad reputation and nobody will win an election by promising to make people take the bus, and large public works projects are a good way to grease the skids for a democratic politician.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 1, 2011)

pyper said:
			
		

> trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



These programs start out helping elderly and disabled people which is a good thing,and im all for it. But as with every Govt run program it expands to include every one,even any young healthy adult with a phone can call and get free oil. Then when they bankrupt the program they cut aid to everyone even those to who it may mean the difference between buying heat or food but not both.


----------



## begreen (Apr 1, 2011)

benjamin said:
			
		

> How many miles of high speed rail in Canada? Australia? South America? Africa?
> 
> High speed rail is not an economical solution with low population densities.  Buses make much more sense, but they have a bad reputation and nobody will win an election by promising to make people take the bus, and large public works projects are a good way to grease the skids for a democratic politician.



Agreed they should only be connecting major cities that are relatively close. Can we say San Diego, LA, SF? Boston, NYC, Philly, DC? Vanouver BC, Seattle, Portland? Note that Acela is not high speed in comparison to other countries. It's just faster and more expensive. We skipped out on Acela from Philly to DC because there was only a 10 min gain for a lot more money.


----------



## mecreature (Apr 1, 2011)

Necessity, who is the mother of invention.


----------



## Dune (Apr 1, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> benjamin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you saying just coastal or cross country too?


----------



## PJF1313 (Apr 1, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> The US is so used to cheap oil that we are way behind the rest of the world in almost everything except consumption. The first step here has to be live with less.
> 
> For bogydave's point about mass transit, look how far we have to go:
> 
> ...




BeGreen - 

  I'm not defending the US, but look at how the old rail lines are laid, and when they where.  Now, today,  try and buy the properties needed for a high-speed line.  

  On the Island, for as long as I can remember, they wanted to build a bridge/bridge+tunnel to CT.  The water crossing wasn't 1/4 of the battle -  it was/is the land sale.

  The Acela line can only go as fast as the rail and rail bed allow.  Then there's that rotten apple in the way.  There's no "straight" way to get on/off an island that densely populated; either above (Ell) or below (subway)


EDIT : On the Acela line, I do believe that there's a bunch of grade crossings, that they have to slow down for.  

Any CONDUCTORS on the board?


----------



## begreen (Apr 2, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was wondering about NY/Chicago. In a lot of areas the distance gets too great and in between is not well served due to low populations. The idea being to dramatically reduce flights and single car trips, so that should be the first priority.  

Not sure if we can achieve this now, you don't build infrastructure overnight. We'll probably end up with slower trains than a lot of the advance industrialized nations. The point being that this should have been started back in the 80's. Instead we gave Carter a bunch of crap and took the solar panels off the White House.

PF you are right about right-of-way. The technology is secondary. We'd have to nationalize some property like was done for the freeway system, which would tie some folks shorts in a knot for decades. I believe the Acela line is running on old roadbed. If you look at the rest of the world's high speed rail networks they are independent of other rail systems and don't share tracks.


----------



## PJF1313 (Apr 2, 2011)

Not being cynical, but good luck with that!  

The freeway/highway system is great in the mid-west.  Loooong straight lines, no water, no mountains, no drastic anything.  Now, say, from  DC; Philly; NY; Boston, or any eastern hub; to Chi-town, most have water to cross; no major deal; a hump called that Appliances; also not a major deal; but the multi-million dollar "estates" that would have to be bought, or sub-divided, WILL turn political (I'm trying to stay away from that)


----------



## benjamin (Apr 2, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> [Agreed they should only be connecting major cities that are relatively close. Can we say San Diego, LA, SF? Boston, NYC, Philly, DC? Vanouver BC, Seattle, Portland? Note that Acela is not high speed in comparison to other countries. It's just faster and more expensive. We skipped out on Acela from Philly to DC because there was only a 10 min gain for a lot more money.



Agreed. I don't spend much time in those areas so I hadn't considered them. "High Speed" is a joke. They proposed a "high speed" train from Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-La Crosse and or Rochester-Twin Cities. Even with the top speed they were talking about, it would have been slower than it was a century ago with steam, because the Chicago-Twin Cities route didn't go through any of those cities except La Crosse. That proposal amounted to what used to be called a milk train, one that stopped at every stop to pick up the milk cans, or maybe even a stumpjumper that went through the small valleys in this area. 

Don't forget that when the railroads were built it was a huge government giveaway and many of them still went bankrupt shortly thereafter. Before the railroads there were huge stock booms in plank road companies which were much more profitable and not significantly slower for decades. 

We already have the highway infrastructure for a bus system, if gas goes up and American prosperity goes down there will be much more convenient mass transit in short order, republicrats notwithstanding. I'm just a little leery of further mortgaging our children's futures on a century investment in such a specialized mode of transportation that may be obsolete in a few short decades.


----------



## benjamin (Apr 2, 2011)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> My prediction is that it will cost too much to bulldoze them down. They will be taken over by roaming hordes that set up colonies with perimeter defenses. The few stand alone McMansions will be scavenged right down to the boards to build smaller, easier to heat homes.



The cost of demolition is in the landfill, I'd be suprised if you couldn't bulldoze just about any house with under a gallon of diesel.  There are hardly any boards left in homes to scavenge, ever tried to unstaple OSB from trusses? or reuse celotex?  

The other alternative (and my personal defense against the roaming hoards) will be a strict scorched earth policy.


----------



## bogydave (Apr 2, 2011)

PJF1313 said:
			
		

> Not being cynical, but good luck with that!
> 
> The freeway/highway system is great in the mid-west.  Loooong straight lines, no water, no mountains, no drastic anything.  Now, say, from  DC; Philly; NY; Boston, or any eastern hub; to Chi-town, most have water to cross; no major deal; a hump called that Appliances; also not a major deal; but the multi-million dollar "estates" that would have to be bought, or sub-divided, WILL turn political (I'm trying to stay away from that)



Exactly!
There is no solution for a future potential problem.
Not going to happen until a crisis. When a crisis makes it the only option, Then things will begin to be changed.
Political suicide to do it now. 
We wait for a crisis, then spend 10 years or more catching up until another crisis happens. Typical crisis management. "Don't fix it if it ain't broke".
When the bridges collapse, a few hundred die then we'll "start" to build new ones.
***
Resistance to change: 
"Take stuff from those people, but don't take anything from me"
***
Like a "bridge to no-where". It can't be to somewhere until the bridge is built.
If we never built a bridge across the Mississippi, the West would still be "no-where". (or  thousands of large ferry
 crossings that get washed out every flood season)
 Again, I'll say " We will not change until a "crisis" gives us the need" with almost every problem we face, as a World, Nation, State, City & Community.
Humans exist on "Crisis Management" (+ Now with, "who is going to make the most $$ money from the crisis having the biggest say)
***
We haven't changed since WWII, we were totally against going to war against Japan & Germany until a crisis happened, Pearl Harbor. Next day almost
every US citizen was for going to war. "Crisis management"


----------



## DBoon (Apr 2, 2011)

> One c.2003 Mcmansion can house X number of people for far less energy and cost than X number of retrofitted obsolete c.1928 homes. Typical skin deep energy retrofits are a SHORT term solution to a LONG term problem.



Hi Benjamin, 

What exactly is your beef with older homes?   Many have been well cared for, and/or restored and weatherized and are more efficient than any McMansion with 2x4 stud construction and cheap windows.  It seems like just about any post from you includes a dig on "older" homes and a plug for new construction.   It seems that every post from you is dripping with venom about how awful old homes are and how wonderful new homes are.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 2, 2011)

The beauty of restoring old homes is you can do one section at a time WHILE YOUR STILL LIVING IN IT.  I do it for a living.
If i want a standard  R value  I blow cellulose into the wall cavities.If i want MORE R value i can put Foaminsulation outside before the siding goes on. If i want SUPER insulation i can also put Foam board inside before the drywall goes up.
Im getting very good results with just the cellulose and good windows. 
Nowadays i mostly install gas heat,never oil unless its ABSOLUTELY the only choice.


----------



## benjamin (Apr 2, 2011)

I have nothing against restoring old houses, I own a few but they're not "restored". I think there are many fine houses that should be at least saved, and if you want to retrofit or restore one then go for it. 

I AM venomously opposed to using govt funds to subsidize the upgrades of houses that are better off demolished, and IMHO that is too many of the houses they work on. I'm very familiar with the block grant programs (often called Community Action Program, CouleeCAP locally).  They obviously have to focus on the short term payback items and that is simply a band aid approach to reducing energy use when what we need is Dr Kevorkian doing the triage. 

Keep in mind that we are not necessarily talking about the same houses. You live in an area where a two hundred year old house is not that unusual, two hundred year old houses around here are tiny log cabins or stone huts. Many cities in the midwest were "thrown up" in a very short period of time, and were designed to make money for the builder, not to last a century. My own great-grandfather owned a small lumberyard and put up dozens of spec houses throughout the depression. I've seen the houses and they were well enough built, but you can only do so much with what they are. One is still in the family and I've seen the owners put way more money into than it would cost to demolish and build new, and it is still a terribly performing bungalow. Sure it may have already been improved by 80% but it still uses at least twice the energy of another relative's new slab on grade ranch that's not any better than the minimum code requirements, at less than the cost of the upgrades to the cute bungalow. 

I think the notion that a well cared for old home is more efficient than a "mcmansion with 2x4 walls and cheap windows" is ridiculous and shows your ignorance of the code requirements and the airtightness of even the cheapest vinyl windows (initially at least!)

Trump obviously knows his stuff, and I agree entirely that it can be done, and I agree entirely with his methods, except my wife doesn't allow me to live-in-rehab anymore (I'm finishing the "other side" so it's a pretty fine distinction). When inspecting potential old house purchases for friends-relatives-potential clients I almost always tell them that the house is not worth the trouble, at least if I'm getting paid to do the work. About half of the time they ignore this advice so I get a pretty good test of my appraisal. Sure you can take an old structure and completely replace everything except the frame, but the frame is such a small percentage of the total cost of a house, and the reuse is so much more time consuming than new construction, that it's usually not worth it.

If I were dealing with European building methods, or maybe even Northeast building methods I might be more in favor of retrofits, but with the added on-cobbled together-junk that I've dealt with, I'm pretty sure of my assessment.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 3, 2011)

Half of what the Govt does dont make sense, the half that does they screw up anyway. Like building houses below sea level.   
I don,t really replace everything except the frame, it s too expensive,actually almost everything stays, i landfill close to 0 demolition waste. Less than 1% im sure. Housing prices are so low right now im losing money on every house i do, but i have to finish what i start or i lose even more.  
The goal if you have the dough is  NetZero But like a hybrid or electric car, the payback may take awhile. 
We have less time to waste than most people think IMO cuz when declining oil production crosses with increase demand things will get ugly very fast.
 Fortunate will be the people who need very little to no heating fuel or motor fuel.


----------

