"On a personal commentary, I think TOD should stop running advertising for all these financial firms for profiting on the Peak Oil situation; such as The Backdoor Play Exxon Doesn't Want You to Discover, or the Bakken Black Gold Rush. Doesn't the slick opportunism, pandering, or soulless merchantialism ever stop? It's not funny anymore people, time to grow up and be a fully functional adult part of the species."

I second that and would add that it is getting harder and harder to stomach.

The advertising is a brutal reminder, no doubt.. but isn't this also a fine example of 'Capitalism Selling you the Rope to hang it with?' The Messages here are rarely in conformity with the assumptions behind these Ads.. why not take their money to leverage new ideas?

We've all grown up with an increasing awareness of the glowing promises in marketing, and should be able to keep our heads clear as to what they are and are not. Maybe it's even Churchill's 'Protecting the Truth with a Bodyguard of Lies..'

Bob

I believe that the ads are auto generated by google adds. TOD doesn't have control over what is displayed unless it drops google adds, but then TOD would need another source of revenue to continue operating.

TOD faces ever present dangers of being co-opted by corporate interests. Those TOD editors who post high tech energy projects can be hired subsequently as consultants or speakers for the industry they have promoted. Without knowing it, they can be rewarded and thus corrupted. This is why governments attempt to regulate the activities of public officials during and after government service, at least for a short period of time.

The mission of TOD can be compromised. TOD posts many technofixs relative to the number of posts dealing with preparations for Peak Oil impacts. The message to the many readers among the public, industry, and government is that we can fix Peak Oil problems. This provides support for a Manhattan Energy Project, instead of what is needed -- a scientific study by the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.

One of the main problems with the posting of the technofixes is that rarely if ever do the sponsors provide a real EROEI analysis. A real EROEI analysis must include all of the energy that is consumed in all of processes getting to the final product, from all of the ores, components, and parts from all over the world, and the transportation of parts, products, and employees, and the factories and energy that supplies them, and the salaries of all the employees in a thousand processes and transportation to get the technofix to market and then maintained, and all of the oil, natural gas, and coal that all of these thousands of employees use when they spend their salaries. Opportunity costs must be included too, for example, if biomass is taken out of production. And a real time frame for the life cycle must be established, given that Peak Oil means less oil to maintain everything, and that the power grid will go out.

TOD editors are making a big mistake if they attempt to play the role of the National Academy of Sciences. Rather, TOD can play a role in asking Congress to commission the NAS/NRC to study these issues. We could have a letter writing campaign to Members of Congress. Maybe they would favor this approach. I'm sure that most of them don't know what direction to go in concerning the energy crisis.

I would disagree in that over the years the readership has been well served by those in industry that have taken the time to provide information and their time to write on areas of their expertise. The degree of willingness to provide this advice has been a considerable contribution to the worth of the site. It has not been something that I have seen being much abused, as you would suggest.

I actually disagree with you on what the best path forward is (and yes I have been on an NRC panel). There was a program back in the 1970's out of NSF run by a guy called Bill Hakala. They were looking at different novel ways to drive tunnels (the plan at the time was to run a high-speed rail tunnel down the East Coast). For the first year he sensibly said that if you could come up with a half-way feasible concept, then he would put up $100,000 for you to do a one-year study and the odd experiment to prove whether it was viable. There was a lot of useful information generated on a wide variety of ideas (a Pueblo in NM got a new sewer system out of one idea) including some surprisingly good results from a couple of ideas that initially some of us thought were crazy.

My comments about technofix posts have to do with co-optation of editors/contributors who are located all over the globe, and their possibly being influenced on what to post. I'm not sure how you know that this has not been a problem, nor will be a problem. Influence is hard to detect. This is a problem for every organization.

You seem not to know what I am talking about when I refer to a NSF study, and you seem therefore to indicate that the NSF should not undertake a study similar to the 1977 study,“Energy in Transition 1985-2010”:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11771&page=R1

This 600 page study is the most comprehensive energy policy analysis ever undertaken. The study utilized some 350 scientists from various fields, with a mix of the scientists from industry, universities, government, and non-profits. Information was shared, panels provided findings to a central panel that wrote the report and recommendations. Scientists who concurred or disagreed with the findings or recommendations included statements in an appendix, so all analysis and recommendations could be challenged. It is the ideal approach for policy analysis.

You do not give any reason for this position. I am perplexed that you would oppose an NSF study of energy policy. This is the only way to get the best scientists in different fields to analyze diverse complex questions that are interrelated, which is the context of energy policy. A central problem of Peak Oil is a lack of analysis about what policies will serve the public best. As well all know, a lot of lives are at stake. Congress and the president need advice, and they are hearing vastly different solutions. Given the importance of Peak Oil, it is amazing that the NSF has not been examining overall/comprehensive energy policy on a continuing basis since 1977. How could we let 30 years of study go by.

Dear Heading Out and Cliff,

re: Heading Out says:

"I actually disagree with you on what the best path forward is (and yes I have been on an NRC panel)."

And then he says,

"...some surprisingly good results from a couple of ideas that initially some of us thought were crazy."

HO, did you mean to say "I actually AGREE WITH YOU..."

If we clear this up, I may be able to go on to ask my questions.