The FHA has reported that miles driven per year by Americans is dropping for the first time since records have been kept. Clearly, this is due to to cost of driving increasing.

 

    There is also some evidence that the number of cars on the road is declining. This comes from an analysis of the number of new cars made per year versus the number of cars that are scrapped.

 

    If electric cars are going to replace conventional cars, it is certainly not evident YET.

 

    "The government will find another source of revenue"

 

    Maybe, but will they be able to find a source of revenue large enough to replace the gas tax? A tax in dollars is essentially a tax on economic activity. If the economic activity, measured in GNP, BTU'S, gallons of gasoline, or any other method declines, then the tax revenue potential declines.

 

    The corollary to Peak Oil is that all economic activity is going to decline with oil consumption. I don't know to what extent this will be true; some of the shortfall might be made up with coal or nuclear power. Still, 40% of our total industrial energy today comes from petroleum. That's a very large percentage of the budget to make up. How many governments will be able to function with 60% of today's resources? 

 

     

The 3C Start-Up couldn't happen at a better time: 

 

Virgin's Richard Branson takes on peak oil

 

A report out of Britain funded by Virgin Airlines owner Richard Branson and other British business leaders warns that peak oil is looming in 2015. The controversial idea that growing oil demand will soon outstrip more finds is capturing the attention of governments.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0215/Virgin-s-Richard-Branson-takes-on-peak-oil

Ha ha. Beat ya to it, Gildone....

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2706.msg462587.html#msg462587

 

But at least you found it in another publication, which is why I'm not deleting it as a duplicate post.

Does anyone have a copy of this report and/or know what Branson actually meant when he said "act?"  What exactly is he proposing?

Here's a link to the report, including its recommendations:

 

http://peakoiltaskforce.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/final-report-uk-itpoes_report_the-oil-crunch_feb20101.pdf

 

 

And now for some opinion columns from various publications......

 

FEBRUARY 11, 2010, 5:47 A.M. ET.

The Next Crisis: Prepare for Peak Oil

By PATIENCE WHEATCROFT

 

Against the gloomy economic backdrop that Europe currently provides, siren voices shrieking that a potential energy crisis is imminent and could be worse than the credit crunch are liable to be dismissed as scaremongers. Since they are led by Sir Richard Branson, whose Virgin group runs an energy-guzzling airline, and include Brian Souter, who runs Stagecoach, another energy-hungry transport business, they are also at risk of being seen as self-interested scaremongers.

 

But the work of the Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security shouldn't be disparagingly dismissed. Its arguments are well founded and lead it to the conclusion that, while the global downturn may have delayed it by a couple of years, peak oil—the point at which global production reaches its maximum—is no more than five years away. Governments and corporations need to use the intervening years to speed up the development of and move toward other energy sources and increased energy efficiency.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704140104575057260398292350.html?KEYWORDS=peak+oil

 

 

 

Society ignores the oil crunch at its peril

Warnings of a crash in oil production are no longer limited to a prescient few individuals - major British companies and oil CEOs are now sounding the alert

Jeremy Leggett

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 February 2010 11.02 GMT

 

In the years approaching the credit crunch, whistleblowers were limited to a few insightful economists and financial journalists. Now whistles are blowing again about another grave threat to the global economy and the security of nations. They warn of an oil crunch: an unexpected crash in global production such that supply can no longer meet demand, even if China and India throttle back.

 

This time the warning is not limited to a prescient few individuals. Major British companies, led by Virgin, Scottish and Southern and Stagecoach, are flagging the danger, in today's report from the UK industry taskforce on peak oil and energy security . So too are the CEOs of oil companies themselves, in the case of Total and Petrobras, and growing numbers of other senior oil industry figures, usually recently retired. Even the International Energy Agency is sounding the alert, in a coded sort of way.

 

With modern economies geared to their rivets on just-in-time supply of copious amounts of affordable oil, society surely ignores this risk issue at its massive peril.

 

• Branson warns of oil crunch within five years

• Peak oil could hit soon, report says

• Peak oil: Terry Macalister on what the data says

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/10/oil-crunch-peril

BTW, my latest avatar was photographed in Ecuador in 2008. As developed nations bid for the declining supply of oil and gasoline, developing nations couldn't afford to bid against them, leaving them with shortages.

 

 

My tag line below it refers to the prediction by the International Energy Agency that all nations will experience shortages starting in 2015, after the global economy fully recovers.

 

"Escuche mi fusil: No hay gasolina, mi amigo" means.... "Listen to my gun: there is no gasoline, my friend" in Latin American Spanish.

Another biggie producer is literally over the hill -- past peak oil....

 

US Dep. of Energy: Egypt oil production to drop

Written by Egypt News   

Monday, 22 February 2010 

 

.....The authority said in its report that in addition to Mexico, the United Kingdom and Norway, the three countries that represent the largest share of the decline in the supply of liquid oil from outside OPEC, many of the producers are not members of OPEC and they would also see a decline in production during the current period of monitoring.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://news.egypt.com/en/201002229387/news/-business/us-dep.-of-energy-egypt-oil-production-to-drop.html

Worth reading......

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704182004575055910461373220.html

 

FEBRUARY 22, 2010.

The Long Road to an Alternative-Energy Future

Why it will take many years for new technologies to make a dent in our current energy mix

 

New Nuclear Reactors

 

Carbon Capture and Storage

 

Algal Biofuels

 

Wind

 

Solar

 

Electric Vehicles

BTW, my latest avatar was photographed in Ecuador in 2008. As developed nations bid for the declining supply of oil and gasoline, developing nations couldn't afford to bid against them, leaving them with shortages.

 

 

My tag line below it refers to the prediction by the International Energy Agency that all nations will experience shortages starting in 2015, after the global economy fully recovers.

 

"Escuche mi fusil: No hay gasolina, mi amigo" means.... "Listen to my gun: there is no gasoline, my friend" in Latin American Spanish.

It's really sad that a country like Ecuador that has allowed a combination of corrupt oil companies and virtually no government regulation of them do so much damage to their rain forests in indiginous controlled territory in search of poor grade crude oil and yet can't get enough gas for its people.

Hope you enjoyed the respite over the past year.....

 

Gasoline heading above $3 a gallon by this summer

By Chris Kahn

Associated Press

 

POSTED: 02:50 p.m. EST, Feb 22, 2010

 

Associated Press writers Pablo Gorondi in Budapest, Hungary and Alex Kennedy in Singapore contributed to this report.

 

NEW YORK: Retail gas prices likely bottomed out last week, and they're again headed to above $3 a gallon this summer, experts said today.

 

Pump prices typically rise this time of year as refineries switch to a more expensive grade of gas. But this year, prices are increasing after millions of Americans received pink slips and kept their cars in the driveway.

 

''If you look at demand, it's just abysmal,'' said Fred Rozell, retail pricing director at Oil Price Information Service.

 

What's pushing prices higher isn't American consumption. It's the crude oil that's used to make motor fuel, Rozell said. Crude is an international commodity that's become ever more expensive as demand grows in China.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/84976662.html

Breaking News Alert

The New York Times

Wed, February 24, 2010 -- 3:46 PM ET

-----

 

G.M. Plans to Shut Down Hummer After Sale Falls Through

 

Hummer, the brand of big sport-utility vehicles that became

synonymous with the term "gas guzzler," is being shut down

after a deal to sell it to a Chinese manufacturer fell apart,

General Motors said Wednesday.

 

Read More At:

http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na

^Sure is starting to look like a plateau.

The magnatude of the jump from 2002 - 2005 surprises me.  China?

^And a pretty robust global economy during that period, no?

^^Not to mention Peak SUV production.

 

All of that continued until 2007 or even into 2008 but oil production couldn't keep up with demand. I'm sure speculators were part of the deal (I'm one of them -- I took a REAL long position on oil futures, meaning 10+ years out), but for a fundamental explanation for the rapidly escalating prices after 2004, kindly review the excellent chart above.

Hummer in a Peak Oil-Fearing Era: Why China Couldn't Buy the Brand

By Kirsten Korosec | Feb 25, 2010

 

General Motor’s (GMGMQ.MX) failure to sell off its Hummer brand to Chinese manufacturer Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machines highlights the country’s hyper-awareness of its growing energy appetite.

 

The Chinese government’s decision to scuttle the deal suggests it’s worried whether the global oil supply can meet the country’s energy demands in the long-term. China wants to promote efficient, gas-sipping cars, not massive SUVs with poor fuel economy.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10003245/hummer-in-a-peak-oil-fearing-era-why-china-couldnt-buy-the-brand/

I don't think Hummer was a good fit for China, but I think that something else needs highlighting here: even compared to other SUVs, Hummer was a bit of a lemon.  By the numbers, it was inferior to many, even most.  In addition, I've spoken with several people who've ridden in them and found that they actually didn't feel all that roomy, which is supposed to be one of the things you're paying for with both the purchase price and the extra gas expenses.  Maybe it just used its volume inefficiently.  Whatever the cause, it wasn't just a failure by the metrics of SUV-hating environmentalists.  It was a failure even by the measures of people who could be SUV customers.

 

    Gramarye is right on this one. Hummer ranked worse among all vehicles for number of mechanical problems and failures. This kind of surprises me, since it was based on a military vehicle that is supposed to be built to take abuse. Maybe the luxury add ons just were not well designed.

BTW, my latest avatar was photographed in Ecuador in 2008. As developed nations bid for the declining supply of oil and gasoline, developing nations couldn't afford to bid against them, leaving them with shortages....

Petroleum fuels are used to run the water works in those countries.  It will become that they cannot afford the fuel.  The water works will shut down and the people will get cholera.  There will be mass deaths. 

 

  If Gramarye has his way, some new technology will come along and save the day.

 

   If Gramarye has his way, some new technology will come along and save the day.

 

And if you have your way?

 

P.S. My futurism isn't about "having my way."  It's about simply predicting what will happen.

I met some of your comrades six years ago when they predicted technology will allow us to tap more oil and bring prices back to $15 per barrel.

 

So how are your predictions working out so far?

I never made any such predictions, nor do I think that many in the tech blogs and Web sites I frequent did so, so I have no idea who you're calling my "comrades."

 

That said, if I'm forced to be delusional, I'll take their delusions over yours.  The best you, Eighth & State, etc. offer is a world in which we all starve slowly together, increasingly rationing a little more every year by means direct or indirect.  Forgive me if I find that vision both unconvincing and unattractive.  I've backed up my claims about new technologies on the horizon, including in the energy sector, the transportation sector, and everywhere else where I'm gathering you want to take control and force a lower standard of living on people who owe you no apologies for their lifestyles.

 

Every generation brings its own prophets of doom for the next generation to laugh at.  How will history remember you?

 

  I don't have a way. I have no control over it.

 

  Like you, I like to make a game of guessing about the future. I am using a different model than you are.

 

  If I were to bet, I think that they will no longer afford to get petroleum, their water works will eventually fall apart, and they will get cholera. This won't happen quickly, but over a long period as petroleum consumption patterns change globally.

 

 

If it happens gradually, that will make adaptation easier, not harder.  Sudden shifts are far more dangerous than gradual changes.

 

Absent an economically viable substitute, I agree, those people are likely not going to be able to continue to use a petroleum-based water works.  So what?  It's not as if that's the only conceivable design for a water works.  You really think that in 10, 20, 50 years, they'll be in exactly the same position?  No advances in civil engineering, public health, sanitation, etc. whatsoever?  If so, they deserve what they get, but I find that an extremely difficult proposition to believe.

 

ETA:  I'm not sure how realistic <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/16/technology/business2_futureboy0216/index.htm">this</a> is, but part of the wonder of technology is that it's constantly improving.  Kamen has always had a bit of an idealistic streak.  That said, if something like this is possible, I'm pretty sure getting clean water to a community that already had the means to build at least some infrastructure is doable.  There are places in far worse shape than that (as the article notes obliquely via its stats about the number of people lacking safe drinking water today, as opposed to in some dystopian hypothetical future).

 

 

      Speaking of Ecuador, I have never been there, but I would like to share this information that I heard from some environmental types.

 

    Ecuador is so named because it is located on the Equator. It is tropical; yet, it also has snow and glaciers on it's highest mountains.

 

    Some of the villages get their water supply from meltwater from these glaciers. Since the glaciers are high, they can get their water supply by gravity. All they have to do is run a pipe from the village to the glacier to intercept the meltwater. It doesn't require treatment, or pumping.

 

    Some of the glaciers have been observed to be shrinking. The environmental types may tell you that this is a result of global warming; I have no comment on that aspect in this discussion. I just want to point out that IF the glaciers are not replentished by new precipitation, and IF the glaciers are in fact shrinking, and IF this trend continues, then at some point the glaciers will melt completely and the water supply will be gone. The villagers MIGHT be able to extend the duration of their water supply by storing water in a tank and allocating resources carefully without wasting it, and depending on conditions they may be able to substitute fresh water from another source, but the fact remains that there is nothing they can do to INCREASE their water supply. They are at the mercy of nature in this regard.

 

      In the same way, the global industrial economy has a limited supply of petroleum to deal with. There is no increasing it.

 

   

 

   

BTW, my latest avatar was photographed in Ecuador in 2008. As developed nations bid for the declining supply of oil and gasoline, developing nations couldn't afford to bid against them, leaving them with shortages....

Petroleum fuels are used to run the water works in those countries.  It will become that they cannot afford the fuel.  The water works will shut down and the people will get cholera.  There will be mass deaths. 

 

Stop sugar coating it Boreal!

In the same way, the global industrial economy has a limited supply of petroleum to deal with. There is no increasing it.

 

We agree about the first part of this.  My reservations about the last part are based on the potential of developing an energy-efficient way of producing synthetic alternatives, such as the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/algae-solve-pentagon-fuel-problem">algae-based jet fuel</a> that mainstream publications have reported that the Pentagon is making promising strides developing.  However, as of this moment, I agree with your second part as well.  There is no increasing our existing reserves with existing technology.

 

The real issue, though, isn't even whether we'll develop synthetic petroleum.  It's the economic consequences of a petroleum-free world.  As long as we evolve to that state slowly enough, I see no hypothetical consequences that hypothetical improvements in technologies already under development could not alleviate, so I don't lose sleep at night thinking that human civilization has nowhere to go but down from here.

 

  I took the time to read your link about the water-purifying machine. Indeed, I wish Mr. Kamen the best.

 

  If a poor country already has a supply of fresh water, even if it is polluted, they should in theory be able to use this machine to make clean, drinkable, fresh water.

 

  What this machine does NOT do is

  1. Provide a source of fresh water.

  2. Transport it where it needs to go.

 

  Water treatment plants, which are basicly a large scale, industrial version of Mr. Kamen's machine, are versatile, and can be built practically anywhere. This is the easy part. The hard part is finding a source of fresh water and transporting it. These two things require energy, which brings us back to peak oil. 

 

 

I sleep well at night, too, for two reasons: 1. Whatever will happen will happen; 2. I couldn't care less how history judges me. But I do find the hubris of mankind in its perpetual confrontation of mother nature disturbing. So whenever she kicks our ass, there's a part of me that enjoys watching it.

 

 

    "I don't lose sleep at night thinking that human civilization has nowhere to go but down from here."

 

    I don't either. But look at how you said it. You said "human civilization." On some previous posts you said "economy."

 

    Let me ask you this. How in your mind do you measure the economy? Population? Volume of stuff produced? Diversity of stuff produced? Value of stuff produced?

 

    In my mind, The Economy is another word for the value of stuff produced. This is not the same as volume, but it is related.

 

    Peak Oil is about a decrease in volume. Less oil, less natural gas, and less coal translates to less cement, less steel, and less silicon, since these materials require energy to produce. Less raw materials translates to less finished goods.

 

    Unless the value per unit material rises substantially, the overall value will decline with volume, and we have a decline in the economy.

 

    This is not necessarily bad, but it is very different from what we are used to. Our money system is based on a growing economy. The fact that you can put money in the bank and earn interest on it, without working for a living, is an effect of our money system and a growing economy.  A lot of folks today intend to retire, because they saw their parents and grandparents do it. Depending on what the effects of peak oil are, they may be disappointed.

 

   

I sleep well at night, too, for two reasons: 1. Whatever will happen will happen; 2. I couldn't care less how history judges me. But I do find the hubris of mankind in its perpetual confrontation of mother nature disturbing. So whenever she kicks our ass, there's a part of me that enjoys watching it.

 

Hubris?  Tell me you're joking.  Our "perpetual confrontation of mother nature" is the reason we've advanced so far since the Enlightenment, the reason for our historically long (and still-increasing) lifespans, and the reason for our material standard of living.  We didn't do so well when we just left mother nature to her own devices.  The "confrontation of mother nature" is the single most valuable and productive endeavor on which mankind exerts his efforts.

 

I think if you enjoy watching nature "win" against human effort, you're going to find life less and less enjoyable over the course of the 21st century.

 

    "I don't lose sleep at night..."

 

  I should add that there was a point in my life where I didn't know very much about petroleum or natural resources in general and didn't think much about it, and I had certain models of how I thought the world worked in my head. I first came across the idea of peak oil in an economics forum on the internet and it caught my interest, as I already had an interest in geology. I did my own research, mostly on the internet, and by the time I was done I was shaking in my boots. It took me a week or two to settle down.

 

    I'm ok now though, and don't lose sleep over it anymore. I have a different view of the world now.

 

 

   

"I don't lose sleep at night thinking that human civilization has nowhere to go but down from here."

 

I don't either. But look at how you said it. You said "human civilization." On some previous posts you said "economy."

 

The two are inextricably intertwined.  It's pretty hard to have a strong civilization with a weak economy.  But I'll accept your point, as far as it goes.

 

Let me ask you this. How in your mind do you measure the economy? Population? Volume of stuff produced? Diversity of stuff produced? Value of stuff produced?

 

  In my mind, The Economy is another word for the value of stuff produced. This is not the same as volume, but it is related.

 

Agreed.

 

Peak Oil is about a decrease in volume. Less oil, less natural gas, and less coal translates to less cement, less steel, and less silicon, since these materials require energy to produce. Less raw materials translates to less finished goods.

 

Here it is you starting to bleed concepts together.  You are assuming a link between the decreased availability of naturally occurring fossil fuels and decreased availability of energy.  Cement, steel, silicon, and basically everything else in the economy requires energy to produce (right down to the basics of food, clothing, and shelter).  Therefore, yes, if there were a substantial decrease in the energy available for human utilization, the economic consequences would be severe.  I'm not challenging that premise.  What I'm challenging is your assumption that the link between fossil fuels and energy cannot be severed.  The total potential energy in the ecosystem, after all, vastly outstrips our needs, even our projected needs, for centuries.  The issue is how economically it can be extracted and rendered into a usable form.  It is there that I see far more potential for advancements in the near future than you or KJP, and that makes all the difference in our politics.

 

If oil, gas, and coal dry up and we have nothing to replace them, yes, that would be serious indeed.  I just don't see that happening.

 

Unless the value per unit material rises substantially, the overall value will decline with volume, and we have a decline in the economy.

 

What I think you mean here is that unless the value of our outputs increases, increased energy prices will make us pay more for the same results, which would lead to decreased standards of living and economic decline.  This is true, and we've already experienced that as the prices of staple foods (milk, eggs, etc.) shot up during the spike before the commodity bubble burst.  If you meant something different, please let me know; I had trouble following this sentence.

 

This is not necessarily bad, but it is very different from what we are used to. Our money system is based on a growing economy. The fact that you can put money in the bank and earn interest on it, without working for a living, is an effect of our money system and a growing economy. A lot of folks today intend to retire, because they saw their parents and grandparents do it. Depending on what the effects of peak oil are, they may be disappointed.

 

A shrinking economy pretty much *is* necessarily bad, and it can indeed force people to delay retirement, but I don't see that becoming a long-term trend in the country.  To the extent that people are going to have to put off retirements in America, it will be because longer lifespans force the federal government to continue raising the retirement age (or find some other way to control entitlement costs, of which Social Security and Medicare combine to form the lion's share).  As for the interest rates on deposits, that's a whole other issue, and it is actually largely unrelated to whether the economy is shrinking or growing.  Getting high interest is obviously not much good if the inflation rate is equally high, which is a sign of an unhealthy economy.

 

    Coal, petroleum, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear, biomass, and a little bit of solar, wind, and geothermal make up our industrial energy sources. I neglected to say industrial before. Industrial energy is what make our industrial societies run.

 

    Lack of an industrial energy source does not mean the end of civilization, but it DOES mean the end of INDUSTRIAL civilization.

 

    Solar radiation is not an industrial energy source. It can be converted, but at a cost in industrial energy. If it can be converted at a low cost, industrial society may last beyond the age of fossil fuels. As of today, no one has discovered a method to convert solar radiation to industrial energy at a cost in energy less than what it consumes.

 

    Nuclear power is the wild card. We don't understand nuclear as well as the other sources. As of today, the capacity of nuclear power in this country is declining.

 

    I would contend that the interest rate on deposits IS related to whether the economy is expanding or contracting. I'll have to continue this topic later since I need some time to explain.

   

 

   

 

 

   

 

   

 

   

I sleep well at night, too, for two reasons: 1. Whatever will happen will happen; 2. I couldn't care less how history judges me. But I do find the hubris of mankind in its perpetual confrontation of mother nature disturbing. So whenever she kicks our ass, there's a part of me that enjoys watching it.

 

Hubris? Tell me you're joking. Our "perpetual confrontation of mother nature" is the reason we've advanced so far since the Enlightenment, the reason for our historically long (and still-increasing) lifespans, and the reason for our material standard of living. We didn't do so well when we just left mother nature to her own devices. The "confrontation of mother nature" is the single most valuable and productive endeavor on which mankind exerts his efforts.

 

I think if you enjoy watching nature "win" against human effort, you're going to find life less and less enjoyable over the course of the 21st century.

 

Au contrare, I'm enjoying it more and more. Every time we build in earthquake-prone areas. Every time we build along storm-prone waterfronts. Every time we add more hungry people in nations that can't feed those already living. Every time we make more cars for a world with an oil supply at plateau.

 

Humans advance only when Mother Nature lets us. When she doesn't, she tells us. When we don't listen to her, I take enjoyment in the fall of political and business leaders who said it was OK to ignore her. Problem is, many innocents who trusted their leaders get hurt too. But they have minds of their own. The more we use them, the more we realize who really is in charge.

 

I realize I am not going to get through to you just as you aren't going to convince me of your view. I will not spend more keystrokes on this discussion. But I'm sure you will continue to add your own slants to articles and research as I post them.

 

Coal, petroleum, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear, biomass, and a little bit of solar, wind, and geothermal make up our industrial energy sources. I neglected to say industrial before. Industrial energy is what make our industrial societies run.

 

Lack of an industrial energy source does not mean the end of civilization, but it DOES mean the end of INDUSTRIAL civilization.

 

Solar radiation is not an industrial energy source. It can be converted, but at a cost in industrial energy. If it can be converted at a low cost, industrial society may last beyond the age of fossil fuels. As of today, no one has discovered a method to convert solar radiation to industrial energy at a cost in energy less than what it consumes.

 

  Nuclear power is the wild card. We don't understand nuclear as well as the other sources. As of today, the capacity of nuclear power in this country is declining.

 

All admittedly true.  However, the issue is "thinking fourth dimensionally," to borrow a phrase from a greater decade.  You've described the state of the world as of 2010, but we still have oil in 2010.  The issue is whether our advancements in getting energy from other sources happen sufficiently quickly to compensate for the decline in the availability of fossil fuels.  Alternative energy skeptics like to point out that wind, solar, etc. form only a tiny portion of our energy portfolio today, which is true ... but is that an immutable fact of life?

 

You're describing a snapshot of the present, but the critical variables in this debate cannot be captured by snapshots.  It is rates of change that matter ... the rate of decline in fossil fuel availability (or the related inverse, the rate of increase in the price of fossil fuel energy), and the rate of development of alternative means of taking energy that already exists and turning it into a form that industries (and consumers) can actually use.  The links I'm fond of posting here are oriented towards that frame of reference: showing that we actually really are making progress at a fast enough pace to compensate for the supply stresses we're likely to face in the next decade, progress which is likely to accelerate as those stresses actually materialize due to the higher potential economic rewards and the lower threshold of competitiveness (i.e., alternative energy doesn't have to be quite as efficient if gas becomes $5/gallon to be market-competitive).

 

I would contend that the interest rate on deposits IS related to whether the economy is expanding or contracting. I'll have to continue this topic later since I need some time to explain.

 

I'll be interested to see how you make this argument; it certainly goes against everything I learned in economics.

 

 

Social and Individual Breakdown Pent up toward Collapse

February 28th, 2010 2:45 AM   

by Jan Lundberg

 

...Many in the U.S. still deny that their empire and general economy are heading toward thorough collapse. A short list of noticeable indicators might be enough to contradict adequately:

 

● Less family cohesion, exemplified by a divorce rate over 50%

● Popping of the financial bubble with associated massive job losses

 

● Wall Street bonus-greed

 

● The war machine and anti-terror sector hum along all the way to the bank

 

● Mother Nature either on the run or striking back

 

Knowing these things may help, but also hinder. Can the truth sustain you as your whole diet?

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/02/28/social-and-individual-breakdown-pent-up-

^This was an interesting read, but it's hard for me to take seriously someone who compares Hiroshima to the march of the Nazis.

Hubris? Tell me you're joking. Our "perpetual confrontation of mother nature" is the reason we've advanced so far since the Enlightenment, the reason for our historically long (and still-increasing) lifespans, and the reason for our material standard of living. We didn't do so well when we just left mother nature to her own devices. The "confrontation of mother nature" is the single most valuable and productive endeavor on which mankind exerts his efforts.

 

Actually, if I may, I believe in the idea that our advances occur when we stop fighting nature and make a more honest attempt to understand it. Agriculture, germ theory, flight, all products of a quiet and persistent observation of nature, and a great deal of modesty. Hunting, exorcisms, jumping off cliffs in bird suits, all expressions of our will to push against nature before a better paradigm was discovered.

 

It's my opinion that our tenacity is simply our will to survive, not our source of power. Our power comes in understanding systems.

^This was an interesting read, but it's hard for me to take seriously someone who compares Hiroshima to the march of the Nazis.

 

I had a hard time with that one, too.

 

 

Actually, if I may, I believe in the idea that our advances occur when we stop fighting nature and make a more honest attempt to understand it.

 

Well said.

 

  ^---"it is rates of change that matter"

 

  You are exactly right.

 

    In America in the 1950's and 1960's, the number of automobiles on the road was doubling every 10 years, with cooresponding rates of change in petroleum consumption and motorway construction. This change was HUGE, yet no one really seemed to pay attention to it, because the day to day change was too small to be noticeable.

 

    If projections hold to be true, sometime around 2030 to 2050, the reverse is going to happen: petroleum consumption is going to be cut in half in 10 years. This is an almost unimaginable change.

 

    Gramarye seems to think that alternatives will come along. I am not ruling it out, because I can't predict the future, but the current trends do not show it. 90% of our transportation energy comes from petroleum, and 40% of our total energy does. This is an enoumous amount to make up from alternatives.

 

  "Alternative energy doesn't have to be quite as efficient if gas becomes $5/gallon to be market-competitive."

 

    In my humble opinion you are making a great mistake here. We have choices in technology, and we tend to go with the one that is most economically efficient; this is NOT the same as energy efficient.

 

    Suppose that solar energy today costs $9.00/unit of energy, and petroleum cost $4.00 per unit of energy and is rising. A rational person will choose to use petroleum, because it is less expensive.

 

    Suppose in 10 years solar energy costs fall to $8.00 per unit of energy, and petroleum costs rise to $9.00 per unit. Obvisouly, a rational person will switch to solar. The change in prices has rendered solar market-competitive.

 

    However, if the person had $8.00 to spend on energy, he could get 2 units of petroleum energy today, and 10 years from now he can only get 1 unit of solar energy. That is a DECREASE in energy use!

 

    This is like saying, if gasoline were $15 a gallon, it would be cheaper to take the horse and buggy. That's a step BACKWARD, not forward, at least in the sense of industrial society as we are accustomed to thinking about it. The Horse and Buggy is more ENERGY efficient than the automobile, but not more ECONOMICALLY efficient. 

Hubris?  Tell me you're joking.  Our "perpetual confrontation of mother nature" is the reason we've advanced so far since the Enlightenment, the reason for our historically long (and still-increasing) lifespans, and the reason for our material standard of living.  We didn't do so well when we just left mother nature to her own devices.  The "confrontation of mother nature" is the single most valuable and productive endeavor on which mankind exerts his efforts.

 

Actually, if I may, I believe in the idea that our advances occur when we stop fighting nature and make a more honest attempt to understand it. Agriculture, germ theory, flight, all products of a quiet and persistent observation of nature, and a great deal of modesty.

 

Heh.  I agree with all of this except the word "modesty."

 

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."  --George Bernard Shaw

 

   ^---"it is rates of change that matter"

 

   You are exactly right.

 

    In America in the 1950's and 1960's, the number of automobiles on the road was doubling every 10 years, with cooresponding rates of change in petroleum consumption and motorway construction. This change was HUGE, yet no one really seemed to pay attention to it, because the day to day change was too small to be noticeable.

 

    If projections hold to be true, sometime around 2030 to 2050, the reverse is going to happen: petroleum consumption is going to be cut in half in 10 years. This is an almost unimaginable change.

 

It is.  But is it so unimaginable to think that the advances in technology between now and then will be equally unimaginable?  What do you think the people of 1960 would say if we described to them some of the advances we consider a part of everyday life today--the cell phone, the Internet, LASIK, etc.?

 

Gramarye seems to think that alternatives will come along. I am not ruling it out, because I can't predict the future, but the current trends do not show it. 90% of our transportation energy comes from petroleum, and 40% of our total energy does. This is an enoumous amount to make up from alternatives.

 

I'm well aware of the latter point.  However, the total potential energy from alternative sources *is* sufficient to make up that shortfall.  The question is whether we can efficiently convert that energy to human use.  I think we can.  At least, I certainly have more faith in our scientists and engineers than our regulators and legislators who think that they can somehow save us from ourselves.

 

As to your contention that "current trends do not show it," well, that is really the heart of everything I've been trying to prove on this thread (and others where I've engaged this topic): current trends *do* show it.  I don't know how many links it will take to convince you and the other harbingers of doom, but I'm determined to keep trying, if only to satisfy my own suspicion that you're not interested in evidence at all, since accepting the evidence would invalidate the anti-consumption political crusade that peak oil alarmism justifies, which I'm starting to think is your real endgame.

 

The promise of algae-based biofuels has been circulating in scientific circles for a while now and recently went mainstream, as I already linked to in the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/algae-solve-pentagon-fuel-problem">Guardian</a> article on the subject.  It grows quickly enough already, and we're already at work <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news138338233.html">increasing yields</a>.  <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327186.000-craig-venter-programming-algae-to-pump-out-oil.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news">Corporate money</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/business/07algae.html?_r=1&ref=science">venture capital</a> are getting behind the effort, which means that some people are willing to put money on the line to pursue advancements in the field.  Even if enthusiasm for this research dies out here, which I doubt will happen, scientists in <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622165830.htm">other countries</a> have recognized the potential recovery there, too.

 

Advancements in solar power are already coming so fast that it's almost hard to keep up with them.  I'll be truly stunned if we haven't achieved grid parity against <em>today's</em> electricity prices by 2020, let alone against the fossil fuel energy prices of 2020.  IBM recently found ways to build solar cells with <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news185093054.html">cheaper components than were previously necessary</a>.  Cheap but inefficient thin-film cells <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24623/?a=f">are closing the efficiency gap with their more expensive counterparts</a>.  Even with last year's recession dragging down the prices of fossil fuels, solar power closed part of the cost gap and had a good year, and <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24498/?a=f">this year looks likely to be even better</a>.  In the longer term, expect to see new advancements bringing efficiency improvements that are currently only theoretical, such as the use of <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24240/?a=f">"hot electrons"</a>, to the market, further increasing cost-competitiveness.  And, of course, never forget one of the major advantages of solar power: the fact that it can be <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news180189541.html">generated locally</a>, meaning that there is less loss from power lines and that the distribution infrastructure has fewer weak points for accident or sabotage.

 

Now then.  What were these "current trends" that "do not show" alternatives coming along?

 

"Alternative energy doesn't have to be quite as efficient if gas becomes $5/gallon to be market-competitive."

 

    In my humble opinion you are making a great mistake here. We have choices in technology, and we tend to go with the one that is most economically efficient; this is NOT the same as energy efficient.

 

    Suppose that solar energy today costs $9.00/unit of energy, and petroleum cost $4.00 per unit of energy and is rising. A rational person will choose to use petroleum, because it is less expensive.

 

    Suppose in 10 years solar energy costs fall to $8.00 per unit of energy, and petroleum costs rise to $9.00 per unit. Obvisouly, a rational person will switch to solar. The change in prices has rendered solar market-competitive.

 

    However, if the person had $8.00 to spend on energy, he could get 2 units of petroleum energy today, and 10 years from now he can only get 1 unit of solar energy. That is a DECREASE in energy use!

 

    This is like saying, if gasoline were $15 a gallon, it would be cheaper to take the horse and buggy. That's a step BACKWARD, not forward, at least in the sense of industrial society as we are accustomed to thinking about it. The Horse and Buggy is more ENERGY efficient than the automobile, but not more ECONOMICALLY efficient.

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure the horse and buggy is far less energy efficient than the automobile.  The cost per joule of food energy and the energy investment needed to maintain stables for horses is substantial.  Five dollars' worth of gasoline contains far more energy than five dollars' worth of hay, and the horse is using a good deal of that energy to keep himself alive, whereas the energy in gasoline just sits there until you turn the ignition key.

 

I don't think the rest of your analogy supports your case, either.  Energy efficiency and economic efficiency are two different (albeit related) concepts, yes.  However, the variables for energy efficiency are units of output per units of input, and you never dealt with the output side of the equation in your analogy.  It would be more apt to say this: people will use an inefficient but cheap source of energy if the discount is high enough--in other words, the relevant metric is dollars per unit of work, not dollars per joule, joules of input per joules of output, or joules per unit of work.  This may be true.  However, the scenario you just described shows how the ratio that people directly care about (dollars per unit of work) can change due to changes in the ratios that they don't directly care about.

 

The other part of your hypothetical that I don't think is going to hold true over time is that you have the price of solar power holding steady over the next ten years.  In that eventuality, yes, that would lead to a drag on the economy.  I just don't think it's likely, and one of the main thrusts of my counterargument against the Peak Oil doomsayers is that the price of these alternatives isn't just holding steady as the price of fossil fuels rise to meet it--these technologies are getting <em>cheaper</em>, and indeed, many solar companies are beginning to make predictions of <a href="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/01/oerlikon-solar-promising-30-cost-reduction-in-2010">grid parity within a few years</a>.  Even if they're a little optimistic, I think it's still almost certain that we'll reach grid parity within a decade, easily in time to switch to a predominantly electric economy by the 2030-2050 range in which you see the problems coming.  (That timeframe I consider realistic.  It's the predictions that civilization will collapse this decade that make me shake my head in disbelief.)

 

  I am not predicting that civilization will collapse.

 

  I am excited by solar photovoltaics, but remember that most of our grid electriciy comes from coal, with significant amounts from nuclear and hydroelectric. Peak Coal is projected to occur within 200 years.

 

  By contrast, peak oil is occurring NOW. We are very heavily invested in a single fuel source, petroleum, for transportation. Transportation is what makes markets work. 90% of our transportation energy comes from petroleum.

 

    A lot of the peak oil discussion is focused on how to replace the conventional gasoline powered automobile. I think we are fooling ourselves: there just isn't a replacement. That is not to say that battery-powered electric cars will be manufactured; it says that battery powered electric cars are not a true replacement for conventional cars. If we do somehow manage to convert the fleet, the new fleet will have totally different characteristics from the existing one, for better or worse.

 

 

    Just about everything that is produced today involves petroleum, including solar photovoltaics. If the price of petroleum increases, I would expect the price of photovoltaics to increase as well, not decrease. Granted, if the technology improves so that not as much petroleum is needed per unit, the price may be able to decrease. According to projections, petroleum consumption is going to decrease RAPIDLY come 2030.

 

A lot of the peak oil discussion is focused on how to replace the conventional gasoline powered automobile. I think we are fooling ourselves: there just isn't a replacement. That is not to say that battery-powered electric cars will be manufactured; it says that battery powered electric cars are not a true replacement for conventional cars. If we do somehow manage to convert the fleet, the new fleet will have totally different characteristics from the existing one, for better or worse.

 

There isn't a replacement <em>today</em>.  I don't hear you saying that there <em>cannot be</em> a replacement, however, and that's really where my focus is.  The fact that a replacement would have different characteristics doesn't mean that it would not be a replacement nevertheless.  The horseless carriage had different characteristics than the "horseful" one, after all, but it's still accurate to call the former a replacement for the latter.

 

The fleet will not be replaced in a year, nor should it be.  Sudden changes are seldom as easy as gradual, organic ones.  It will simply be captured in changing statistics from year to year, with the ratio of electric-to-gasoline-powered vehicles on the roads gradually rising, punctuated by the occasional news story about a new business opening up to service the growing electric sector (an electric-car garage, a restaurant installing electric car recharging stations at some parking spots, etc.).

 

Replacing semis and tractor trailers with electric equivalents will be substantially harder.

 

The primary differences between electric cars and gasoline cars is that electric cars take longer to charge and have a shorter driving radius, but are substantially cheaper to drive per mile.  Other differences depend on other factors (for example, if the electricity comes from a coal or nuclear plant).  A switch to a transportation sector along those lines would occasion some societal changes (more local driving and less intercity driving), but nothing that make me lose sleep.

I've been thinking about the obvious disadvantage of electric vehicles, their short range, and how to remedy this.  If you think about the current gasoline car model, you fill your tank and drive until the tank is nearing empty and then you stop to fill the tank and continue on your way.  How do we apply this same model to electric cars?  You make a removable battery pack that can be quickly and easily changed at a road side refuelling station.  Same model as a propane tank.  You don't refill the tank you just trade it in for a full one and the empty one is filled later. 

 

If a battery pack was designed to be quickly changed at a "gas station" then the largest problem of electric cars can be overcome.  You would just pull into a station and have your battery replaced with a charged one.  They charge up the battery pack you left them and give it to the next guy.  Any major reasons why this couldn't work?  You may need multiple battery pack sizes (3 or so maybe), but that is doable.  If something like this is to happen, though, the government needs to quickly determine what the standard size and interface should be so that all manufacturers are on the same page.

 

Any thoughts?

It would impose some serious design constraints onto cars- placement would most likely need to be standardized, unless it was to be done by hand, which would likely be slow.  It would be like getting a 3,000 mile service every time you needed to change the batteries.

I think X is right.  The short range of electric cars will be a handicap until they can go at least as long as a typical consumer does in a single stretch without wanting to stop for a bite to eat, at least.  There are already technologies in use in production hybrids that can extend battery life somewhat by using braking energy, and I think that there would be a lot of room for improvement there.  (I don't know if we'll get to the point of having solar panels on the roofs of our cars, but it's an interesting possibility.)

 

However, once the driving range on a charge crosses 350, maybe 400 miles, it's going to matter a lot less because very few people drive that far in a stretch even on a long road trip.  The Tesla can already break 200 miles, and the next generations should start the gradual, evolutionary process of inching upward into the range that most people will want.  After all, it would be a definite selling feature.