I have also seen some write-ups on technologies that are in development that can rapid charge these batteries.  I guess only time will tell if the technology is commercially viable.

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.

 

I haven't heard any news about it in more than a year, but an Israeli entrepreneur was setting up a fairly large scale (and well funded) pilot with this exact model.  According to this [dated] article, other countries are exploring it too:  http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-06-17/news/17165216_1_electric-car-lithium-ion-battery-shai-agassi

 

I don't understand why the design constraints for swappable batteries would be harder to overcome than for other products, from VCR formats to watch batteries.  Plus, there's no reason why service stations couldn't support more than one (though only a few) different battery formats- like the old days at the video store.  Definitely not an easy model to roll out, but doesn't sound impossible, IMHO.

 

^Really you would only need stations along major highways and other long-haul routes.  With the ability to charge at home it would nearly completely remove the need for the corner "gas station".

 

    We already have golf cars. They have caught on in Peachtree, Georgia and lots of retirement communities.

 

    Not to rain on your technology, but I would like to point out a big drawback that hasn't been mentioned.

 

    Presently, when a barrel of crude oil is taken out of the ground, it is refined into a number of products including gasoline, diesel fuel, distillates, heating oil, asphalt, etc. There is some leeway in the proportion, but turning a barrel of crude oil into 100% of any of these products is not possible. The refinery operators make their decisions based on the prices at the time, or their assumptions about future prices.

 

    About a year ago, the Obama administration suggested that all trucks be converted to natural gas. "We will save X amount of diesel fuel per year," they claimed. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Out of that barrel of crude comes some proportion of gasoline, diesel, distalates, etc. For every X number of gallons of diesel fuel, you get Y number of gallons of gasoline.

 

    For this reason, the number of cars, trucks, airplanes, oil burning furnaces, etc., have to be approximately proportional to each other. If we were to somehow replace all gasoline powered cars with battery powered ones and did nothing to address trucks, diesel fuel would double in price and all the extra gasoline would go unsold. As long as we have diesel powered trucks, we are likely to have gasoline powered cars.

 

    You might say, "Switch the cars to batteries and put the freight on railroads." Well, we ALREADY have the freight on railroads. Railroads speciallize in long haul, bulk movement, and trucks specialize in short haul, door-to-door movement. Trains and trucks are part of the same system. They cannot operate without each other.

 

    Using the replacement argument, we should be seeing an awful lot of electric cars on the road now. After all, gasoline prices doubled in just a few years! Granted, it takes time, but instead of seeing more electric cars, we are seeing fewer cars altogether. So far, electric cars have NOT been replacing conventional cars. Miles driven are down for the first time since records were kept.

^I appreciate what you're saying, but you're taking an extremely simplistic approach.  The market would take care of the proportion of diesel and gasoline vehicles on it's own.  If we ever get to the point that the price of gasoline drops drastically because of an increase of electric vehicles then that gasoline will be used for something else.  New trucks might have gasoline engines installed, ships might burn it to heat their boilers, it may be used to generate electricity.  You've gotta be crazy to think that we couldn't find a practical use for gasoline if all cars were converted to electricity tomorrow.  It's possibly the most compact, portable, and potent energy source in history.

 

  Simplistic? I am just pointing out how complex the world is. You can't change one thing without affecting everything else.

 

    "It's possibly the most compact, portable, and potent energy source in history." 

 

    That's exactly what I'm trying to say. There are no true substitutes.

^No substitutes, sure.  But there are thousands of uses... of which transportation fuel is only one.  I just don't buy the notion that producing more electric cars will cause a collapse of the gasoline market.

March 2, 2010, 6:35 pm

Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say

By SINDYA N. BHANOO

 

To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

 

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

 

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/fuel-taxes-must-rise-harvard-researchers-say/

 

  No, no, no! Gasoline is the most versatile fuel. Gasoline powered cars are going to be around as long as gasoline is available.

 

    My point was that electric cars will not replace gasoline powered cars without affecting the diesel fuel market. Sorry if I didn't explain that clearly.

 

 

Analysts see the cost of gas rising

‘There is no legitimate fundamental reason’

 

updated 5:15 p.m. ET, Mon., March. 1, 2010

 

It may not make much sense, given that the economy remains weak, but the cost of filling up your car is about to go higher.

 

Seasonal influences are strong this time of year and account for much of the expected increase that many analysts say will push gasoline to a nationwide average of at least $3 per gallon this spring.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35650695/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

 

No, no, no! Gasoline is the most versatile fuel. Gasoline powered cars are going to be around as long as gasoline is available.

 

My point was that electric cars will not replace gasoline powered cars without affecting the diesel fuel market. Sorry if I didn't explain that clearly.

 

Ah, yeah, I can buy that. My point is that the market will shift to utilize whatever fuel is available and relatively cheap. Some large trucks, tractors, trains, etc... that ran on diesel would be converted to run on gasoline if the price of diesel did spike. That's not a very difficult thing to do.

keep in mind that diesel has a higher energy density than gasoline, so the price of diesel would have in increase considerably relative to gasoline.

Left unhampered by government, hasn't humanity always overcome such obstacles through ingenuity and innovation?  It's not like we're all going to go back to horse and buggies, right?

Not really, no.  Entire civilizations and economic systems have collapsed, many a time.  There's no basic guarantee of progress.

There's no basic guarantee of progress.

I agree but progress has been the overall theme of human history, hasn't it?  Creative destruction might last a few centuries but ultimately progress trumps the past, right?  Then again, there's always the chance peak oil is the deal breaker.

There's no basic guarantee of progress.

I agree but progress has been the overall theme of human history, hasn't it? Creative destruction might last a few centuries but ultimately progress trumps the past, right? Then again, there's always the chance peak oil is the deal breaker.

 

No

There's no basic guarantee of progress.

I agree but progress has been the overall theme of human history, hasn't it? Creative destruction might last a few centuries but ultimately progress trumps the past, right? Then again, there's always the chance peak oil is the deal breaker.

 

No

No that progress ultimately triumphs or No peak oil is not the deal breaker?

no that progress is not the fundamental course of human history . . .

no that progress is not the fundamental course of human history . . .

I agree with that actually.  It's unconventional wisdom but you're right.

Fossil fuels have allowed human population to explode in the past 200 years, and with oil, in the past 100 years. It blows my mind every time I'm reminded that the world had just 1 billion people on it in 1900. How long can we sustain that population growth? When do we hit the ceiling? What will happen when we do?

 

Who knows -- maybe we'll find a replacement for oil that's at least as energy-dense. But everything has a negative side effect. Never-ending growth is a fallacy. Indeed, tremendous growth is a very recent occurence in the 5,000 years of human history, and recent performance is not a guarantee of future results. We have no idea how this will all play out over the long-term.

 

Then, sometimes, mother nature decides she wants to over again and clears the slate.

KJP makes a very good point about the global population and how it has exploded mainly due to fossil fuels (mass production, food and goods distribution, transportation, etc...).  Found a nice graph I wanted to share that highlights how drastic the population increase of the last 200 years has been and where the majority of the growth is occuring.  How far will we fall when our oil supplies begin to run out?

 

There's no basic guarantee of progress.

I agree but progress has been the overall theme of human history, hasn't it? Creative destruction might last a few centuries but ultimately progress trumps the past, right? Then again, there's always the chance peak oil is the deal breaker.

 

Well, yes- in aggregate, in the long run, so far.  The problem is that you don't want to be a Roman in 450, or a Mayan in 1400, or (economically at least) any of the number of aboriginal people who are stuck at a much earlier level of technology.  Of course 1,400 years later Rome recovered, the Yucatan probably has a slightly better material standard of living than it did at the peak of Mayan civilization- though it might be unchanged for many.  Some places, like much of the Middle East, might have been better off 500 years ago (at least for the average person who can't afford imported western luxuries).  And of course, as KJP has said "recent performance is not a guarantee of future results".

^I'm not too concerned about the continued progress of the human race in a global sense, but some areas of the globe will be hit harder by oil shortages than others.  I'm fairly confident that North America will find a way to cope due to the other numerous resources the land provides, the wealth of it's countries, and the fact that North America has what seems to be a sustainable population density.  More densely populated locations may have more trouble providing for their people.  Importing food from other countries will become more expensive and could cause a lot of problems.  Just some thoughts...

Fossil fuels have allowed human population to explode in the past 200 years, and with oil, in the past 100 years. It blows my mind every time I'm reminded that the world had just 1 billion people on it in 1900. How long can we sustain that population growth? When do we hit the ceiling? What will happen when we do?

 

We can sustain that population growth (and more) indefinitely.  There is no ceiling, so your last two questions are irrelevant.

 

Who knows -- maybe we'll find a replacement for oil that's at least as energy-dense. But everything has a negative side effect. Never-ending growth is a fallacy. Indeed, tremendous growth is a very recent occurence in the 5,000 years of human history, and recent performance is not a guarantee of future results. We have no idea how this will all play out over the long-term.

 

Then, sometimes, mother nature decides she wants to over again and clears the slate.

 

You can keep telling yourself that, and dmerkow and Scrabble can keep telling themselves that about progress, but progress notwithstanding natural disasters, wars, famines, and everything else that we've suffered <a href="http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1">has indeed</a> been the <a href="http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0610.html?printable=1">story of human history</a>.  Scrabble, I don't know why you say that the "we're doomed" logic is "unconventional wisdom."  I hear far more people spouting cynicism about inevitable decline than the reverse.  Optimistic futurists tend to be lonely souls.

no that progress is not the fundamental course of human history . . .

I agree with that actually. It's unconventional wisdom but you're right.

What are you guys even talking about? How do you define "progress"? If you mean technological progress, yes, they general trend has been up. If you mean population, then the same is true. If you mean supply of natural resources, then no.

 

What is this vague notion of "progress" you are talking about?

 

Gramarye: I skimmed those articles...that guy is a crackpot times a thousand. He makes wild assumptions, which are far from certain (far from obviously possible, even), and then takes them to their logical conclusions and treats it as a "most-likely" scenario.

I wish I could attend this but I have to (er, want to) attend a birthday party for a family member....

 

http://writersandreaders.cpl.org/kunstler.html

 

James Howard Kunstler

Sunday, March 14, 2010

2:00 p.m.

Louis Stokes Wing Auditorium

 

An author, journalist, and urban planning expert, James Howard Kunstler is one of the foremost social critics of our time. The Geography of Nowhere (1993) and Home from Nowhere (1996) established him as a fierce critic of suburban sprawl and the high cost of our automobile-dependant culture.

 

His bestselling book, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the 21st Century (2005) addressed the ongoing global oil crisis by exploring the sweeping economic, political and societal changes that will result from the inevitable end of access to cheap fossil fuels. He expanded on his previous criticisms and detailed the impact the crisis will have on the way we live, work, farm and build.

I would go if it wasn't in Cleveland.  If the 3C was up and running, I'd definitely go.

^----"We can sustain that population growth (and more) indefinitely.  There is no ceiling,"

 

  I don't know what the ultimate peak human population will be. There are some that say we are near it now, but I just can't say.

 

  However, we CANNOT sustain population growth indefinitely. Utimately, humans need food to live. Food comes from plant life, which is based on photosynthesis of sunlight into hydrocarbons. That's the only place food comes from.

 

    Agricultural technology has improved the soil to produce more per acre, but you can't get more than 100% of the sun's energy tranformed into food. There is a limit.

 

  The peak oil folks think that petroleum is so important that other resources will not be able to make up for the decline in petroleum. The chemicals used in agriculture, for example, come from petroleum. Mechanized farming also depends on petroleum, and irrigation largely depends on petroleum. Whether the ultimate population peak corresponds to peak oil I can't say today. But if you think that population growth can be sustained indefinitely, you're fooling yourself.

^

When we are all cyborgs, we will be able to run off solar power. Or something like that. That is what Gramarye's articles seemed to be getting at -- that there will always be a technological ("evolutionary") solution.

 

Yeah, it's pretty wacky.

The peak oil folks think that petroleum is so important that other resources will not be able to make up for the decline in petroleum. The chemicals used in agriculture, for example, come from petroleum. Mechanized farming also depends on petroleum, and irrigation largely depends on petroleum. Whether the ultimate population peak corresponds to peak oil I can't say today. But if you think that population growth can be sustained indefinitely, you're fooling yourself.

 

If you think we can't, you're fooling yourself.  By the time we reach the true physical limits of what the planet can support, we'll be off-planet--you're talking centuries, here, not the likely challenges any of us will face in our natural lifetimes.  Likewise, if you think something as insignificant as the price of oil gradually rising to the point where other fuels become more cost-effective is going to result in worldwide famine, you're fooling yourself.  My guess is that many peak oil advocates don't even believe the worst-case scenarios themselves; it just dovetails nicely into social and economic policies that they want to see enacted anyway, including federally enforced austerity measures and the cessation of highway construction (and even the deconstruction of existing highways).

Likewise, if you think something as insignificant as the price of oil gradually rising to the point where other fuels become more cost-effective is going to result in worldwide famine, you're fooling yourself.

 

I find this to be an astounding take on the matter.  It's the same as saying that we shouldn't worry about homelessness if the price of an apartment rose to the point that a mansion becomes cost effective.  The question is the actual price that the crossover occurs at, and how that relates to income distribution of the population.  It's quite possible that we will see a future with ever more technologically advanced solutions for living that ever increasing numbers of people won't be able to afford.

By the time we reach the true physical limits of what the planet can support, we'll be off-planet--you're talking centuries, here, not the likely challenges any of us will face in our natural lifetimes.  Likewise, if you think something as insignificant as the price of oil gradually rising to the point where other fuels become more cost-effective is going to result in worldwide famine, you're fooling yourself.  My guess is that many peak oil advocates don't even believe the worst-case scenarios themselves;....

 

Most people who accept peak oil aren't apocalyptic about it.

 

As for the carrying capacity of the planet, there's more to it than energy.  Somewhere between 1980 and 1985 (depending upon which figures you look at) human beings began consuming "natural capital" faster than the earth can replenish it.  Virtually every living system on this planet is in decline and we're seeing the results of that in the falling production of fisheries, the rates of deforestation and desertification, the rate of species extinction, rate of topsoil loss, acidification of the oceans, aquifers being depleted from the Great Plains to the Southwest and Mexico to the Middle East to India and China), the plastic in the Pacific Gyre (and other areas of the oceans) that is now being found in the stomachs of fish and birds, etc. 

 

it just dovetails nicely into social and economic policies that they want to see enacted anyway, including federally enforced austerity measures and the cessation of highway construction (and even the deconstruction of existing highways)

 

Yeah, right.  So many people in the peak oil crowd would just be gleeful about this... give me a break.  This is exactly the kind of dismissive, unsubstantiated, B.S. statement that gets made whenever anyone wants to try to acknowledge any sort of physical limitation to the finite physical system that is this planet. 

 

We can sustain that population growth (and more) indefinitely.  There is no ceiling, so your last two questions are irrelevant.

 

I had to laugh when I read this one.... Show me the scientific data that says infinite growth is possible in a finite system. 

Top Photo: Enactment: A girl rummages through a garbage dump and finds a bicycle tire 10 years after oil disappears from Earth. (Photo credit: © Quiet Planet 2 Productions Inc.)

 

March 5th, 2010 at 12:15 am

National Geographic Aftermath: World Without Oil

 

The documentary will premiere on Monday, March 8, 2010 at 9 pm ET/PT on NatGeo Channel.

 

The program poses a question: what would our world be like if we ran out of oil? Our contemporary world is so dependent on technology fueled by oil, and yet oil will not last forever. CGI animation and dramatic recreation will reveal a possible scenario of what will happen when the oil supply does run out. How will the world change and how will people adapt as food disappears, electrical power fails? Witness the devastation in major cities as winter sets in. What will be more important to our survival; the technology to develop new sources of energy, or a change to a more sustainable way of life?

 

An overview of the program and additional pictures can be seen here: National Geographic Aftermath: World Without Oil

 

Video “Are You Prepared for the End of Oil?” – Imagine a world in which all of the oil has completely disappeared. Or let us do it for you. Link: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/aftermath/4462/Videos/07862_00

 

Likewise, if you think something as insignificant as the price of oil gradually rising to the point where other fuels become more cost-effective is going to result in worldwide famine, you're fooling yourself.

 

I find this to be an astounding take on the matter. It's the same as saying that we shouldn't worry about homelessness if the price of an apartment rose to the point that a mansion becomes cost effective. The question is the actual price that the crossover occurs at, and how that relates to income distribution of the population. It's quite possible that we will see a future with ever more technologically advanced solutions for living that ever increasing numbers of people won't be able to afford.

 

If the price of an apartment rises, the prices of mansions will essentially inevitably rise as well.  I don't think this analogy holds water.

 

It is true that solar, wind, etc. are more expensive now than fossil-fuel based energy.  However, I have tirelessly listed links in this thread and others showing that technologies already in prototype form are bringing alternative sources of electricity, including solar, within the range of grid parity in price terms.  In other words, the transition to an electric economy will not be that disruptive unless deliberately made so by government, and lurking in the background of all peak oil debates, I cannot help but see the specter of advocacy of strict industrial and environmental policies that would be utterly counterproductive and cause needless suffering in the ostensible name of preventing future suffering.

 

Scientists and engineers are not ignorant of the need to produce energy economically as well as sustainably (and those are two related but separable concepts).  They have been working on that for many years now.  See my previous link in this thread regarding IBM's new solar cells that require no rare Earth materials.

By the time we reach the true physical limits of what the planet can support, we'll be off-planet--you're talking centuries, here, not the likely challenges any of us will face in our natural lifetimes. Likewise, if you think something as insignificant as the price of oil gradually rising to the point where other fuels become more cost-effective is going to result in worldwide famine, you're fooling yourself. My guess is that many peak oil advocates don't even believe the worst-case scenarios themselves;....

 

Most people who accept peak oil aren't apocalyptic about it.

 

This thread could have fooled me.  If what you say is true, then our views aren't so far apart: I, too, accept the general proposition that world oil production will peak at some point, plateau, and later decline.  I just don't see that the implications of that are that profound.  Peak Horse and Peak Wood were also not all that notable in historical terms, notwithstanding the fact that our societies have changed dramatically since the dominant energy source shifted away from them.

 

As for the carrying capacity of the planet, there's more to it than energy. Somewhere between 1980 and 1985 (depending upon which figures you look at) human beings began consuming "natural capital" faster than the earth can replenish it. Virtually every living system on this planet is in decline and we're seeing the results of that in the falling production of fisheries, the rates of deforestation and desertification, the rate of species extinction, rate of topsoil loss, acidification of the oceans, aquifers being depleted from the Great Plains to the Southwest and Mexico to the Middle East to India and China), the plastic in the Pacific Gyre (and other areas of the oceans) that is now being found in the stomachs of fish and birds, etc.

 

No, no, not apocalyptic at all ...

 

it just dovetails nicely into social and economic policies that they want to see enacted anyway, including federally enforced austerity measures and the cessation of highway construction (and even the deconstruction of existing highways)

 

Yeah, right. So many people in the peak oil crowd would just be gleeful about this... give me a break. This is exactly the kind of dismissive, unsubstantiated, B.S. statement that gets made whenever anyone wants to try to acknowledge any sort of physical limitation to the finite physical system that is this planet.

 

The planet is theoretically finite; the universe is not (except in the absolutely broadest sense that is of no relevance to modern society).  As I said, by the time the physical limitations of the planet become meaningful, the planet will no longer be the boundary of the area from which humanity can extract resources. You're talking many, many centuries--society in 2510 will be no more recognizable to us today than society of 2010 would be recognizable to someone from 1510.  When you start talking about time horizons that long, you have to start treating science fiction as realistic, not just pleasure reading; we're not going to be burning gasoline to power our cars in 2500.  In fact, we're very likely going to be using energy sources that modern man hasn't even discovered or created yet.

 

We can sustain that population growth (and more) indefinitely. There is no ceiling, so your last two questions are irrelevant.

 

I had to laugh when I read this one.... Show me the scientific data that says infinite growth is possible in a finite system.

 

The amount of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and rarer elements than comprise the human body and the natural ecosystem exist in abundance in the Earth and beyond it.  There is no reason to believe that the Earth could not, if the growth were sufficiently gradual, support a population of greater than a trillion humans.  Also, as I noted earlier, the system is only finite as a snapshot, not over time.  In the long run, we have the potential to break the boundaries of the system, turning a bounded system into an unbounded one.  (As I said, this is getting into science fiction, but then again, so is a hypothetical trillion-person world.)  We are not a group of mindless bacteria in a petri dish that grow until we run out of food and then die.

 

The only thing that matters is maximizing the rate of economic and technological growth; as long as those two combine to keep us ahead of the rate of population growth, the actual rate of population growth itself is immaterial.  It matters only insofar as a high population growth requires more rapid economic and technological growth to absorb it; however, as I've already linked in the KurzweilAI essays, the rate of technological growth has actually been getting faster over the years, meaning that we could support a higher population growth rate today than the Pilgrims could, and yet our actual growth rate is lower.  Therefore, I lose no sleep over this whatsoever.  Declining population, not increasing population, is a far greater civilizational threat.

More Hydroelectric plants will spring up along all major rivers near metro areas. Not only would it prevent flooding in major cities but also provide an alternate  energy source besides coal.

No, no, not apocalyptic at all ...

 

Why not argue with the facts rather than just provide more empty rhetoric?  There isn't a single peer reviewed paper out there that can dispute that virtually all living systems on this planet are in decline. 

 

As I said, by the time the physical limitations of the planet become meaningful, the planet will no longer be the boundary of the area from which humanity can extract resources. 

 

And as I said, we started spending down the earth's natural capital 25-30 years ago.  The things I listed which you dismissed with the empty statement I quoted above are real and they are clear signals of the limits of the planet.  And these things are a problem because they are the planet's life support system. 

 

(As I said, this is getting into science fiction, but then again, so is a hypothetical trillion-person world.)  We are not a group of mindless bacteria in a petri dish that grow until we run out of food and then die.

 

Your entire argument is science fiction.  And, no we're not bacteria, but we have plenty of hubris, of which humans unfortunately have in abundance-- that hubris has gotten human civilizations in trouble in the past and just because we're more technologically advanced now, doesn't guarantee that we won't again.  Besides, the promise of some unknown future technology(ies) isn't a wise thing on which to bet our future. 

 

the planet will no longer be the boundary of the area from which humanity can extract resources.

 

You're assuming that we will be able to do this, but even if we are someday, what the Earth can provide as far as its natural systems go is finite.  All those ecosystem services I listed and you dismissed with one line of empty rhetoric are every bit as necessary for human life to thrive as all the other species on the planet-- and technology can't replace them.   

 

the rate of technological growth has actually been getting faster over the years,

 

First of all, past performance is not indicative of future results.  Second, not only is technological growth highly dependent upon cheap energy, and as I said, technology can't replace the Earth's life supporting services-- all of which the planet provides to us for free.  So, even if there were technological solutions to declining ecosystem services (which there aren't), why pay for what we are already getting for free?  It's far more cost-effective to become better stewards.

 

Anyway, I can see it's pointless to have this discussion with you.  Cheers...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More Hydroelectric plants will spring up along all major rivers near metro areas. Not only would it prevent flooding in major cities but also provide an alternate energy source besides coal.

 

We're more likely to see micro-hydro which is small-scale, distributed hydro-electric energy that doesn't require expensive dams.  And dams are an expensive way to control flooding anyway.  It can be done far more cheaply with greenspace, wetlands, better design on developed land, etc.  Read the chapter about Napa, California in the book:  The New Economy of Nature

gildone, I want to see where you're getting this notion that we started "spending down the Earth's natural capital 25-30 years ago."

 

And if you're pushing some government-imposed solution to this supposed crisis, I want to know exactly what it is.

 

ETA:  I wonder if I could entice some of the peak oil drummers (no pun intended) here to make actual predictions ... over-under lines, so to speak, on what we'll be paying in 2010 dollars for ...

 

(a) one barrel of oil;

(b) one kW/h of electrical energy (from whatever the blend of sources happens to be at the time);

© an entry-level electric car; and

(d) one mile of travel in that electric car.

^---- Peak oil is not about price. Peak oil is about quantities.

 

  I predict that we will be consuming about 40 million barrels of oil per day globally by 2035 compared to about 80 million today. I have no idea what the price will be.

 

  Suppose you measure the growth rate of trees in the forest and find that for a certain area you get 200 board feet of wood per year.

 

  If you cut down less than 200 board feet of wood per year, your harvest is sustainable indefinitely. If you cut down more than 200 board feet per year, your harvest is unsustainable. These numbers must be based on averages and account for the fact that younger trees grow faster than older trees.

 

    The same effect goes for natural fisheries, animal populations, water reservoirs, glaciers, organic material in soils, and all kinds of natural systems that are renewable. Taking a harvest that exceeds the rate of renewal is unsustainable.

 

    According to Gildone, around 1985 the sum of all harvests globally exceeded the rate of natural replentishment.

 

    There are a lot of examples of this in National Geographic magazine, which also has excellent articles about new technology. I recently read an article about Chesapeake Bay that said that the oyster and fish harvest peaked around 1950. The Chesapeake Bay area now imports seafood from the Gulf Coast.

 

Peak oil has to be at least partially about price: if the quantity available falls and the demand doesn't, price will skyrocket.  If the quantity available falls but market substitutes allow the demand to fall as some buyers (not all, but some) move to substitutes for petroleum-derived products for their particular needs, then the price will stay constant (in real dollars).

 

If the quantity falls but the demand falls even further, the price will be below what it is today notwithstanding the supply constriction.

 

Also, from a public policy standpoint, price is what people most care about.  If peak oil is "not about price," then what's the point?  What makes the issue even worth caring about?  I thought the entire point was that production would not be able to keep up with demand (i.e., the price would skyrocket, leading to famine, war, conquest, and pestilence), not that production would decline with no material economic consequences.

"The planet is theoretically finite; the universe is not (except in the absolutely broadest sense that is of no relevance to modern society).  As I said, by the time the physical limitations of the planet become meaningful, the planet will no longer be the boundary of the area from which humanity can extract resources."

 

  I will grant you that the energy resources of space are many millions of times greater than those of earth. If humans were ever to colonize space, we shouldn't have to discuss peak oil anymore.

 

  I disagree with your second sentence. The physical limitations of the planet are ALREADY meaningful. Just look at the apollo program and the chances of sending a man to the moon again. It's been said that we can't afford it, and we already have the technology to do it! The knowledge of HOW to do something is not the same as the ABILITY to do it. And the moon is practically our next door neighbor compared to the rest of the solar system, not to mention the rest of the galaxy. In science fiction, man can colonize space, but in the real world it's not likely to happen, EVER!

 

   

 

  In a free market, supply equals demand. The price will fluctuate to keep supply and demand in balance.

 

  Supply and Demand is a snapshot of the economic conditions at a point in time; "Supply" in this sense means the supply available right now, not the supply available 100 years from now.

 

    "Supply will not be able to keep up with demand" is technically not correct. Some economists look at historic trends and make a straight line projection. If we consumed 40 million barrels of petroleum in 1960 and 80 million today, a straight line projection says that we will consume 120 million barrels in 2050. The straight line projection is not a good assumption in this case.

   

    Likewise, Demand is not the same as want of something; demand implies the ability to pay for it. What those who say "Supply will not be able to keep up with demand" really mean is that people will want more oil than will be extracted out of the ground. We have 150 million drivers in this country, and most of them bought automobiles under the assumption that they would be able to afford fuel for it for the next 5 to 20 years, depending on how long they expect to drive the vehicle. When the price rose to $4 a gallon a few years ago, a lot of folks just stayed home and whined about it.

 

    What the price does is sort out who gets the remaining oil. The price of oil is heavily influenced by governments, so it's not really a completely free market, but that's another topic.

 

    The price of oil may or may not skyrocket. Rising prices are not a foregone conclusion.

   

  "What makes the issue even worth caring about?"

 

  Well, this forum is weighted heavily toward the urban planning interest. There are folks on this board who are employed in the planning of public infrastructure, and still more who want to be or take an interest in it.

 

    Personally, I think that a lot of planners, as well as the population in general, are wrong regarding assumptions about the future.

 

    I think that construction of a replacement for the Brent Spence Bridge is a mistake, for example. The replacement is unnecessary, and will divert resources from other projects. The reason why I think that the replacement for the BSB is unnecessary is because I expect automobile traffic to decline significantly during the useful life of the existing bridge. Maybe I'm wrong, but there is no way to know today.

 

    I have mentioned this opinion in the BSB thread, but in order to stay on topic I have placed most of my peak oil comments in this thread.

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

  "The transition to an electric economy will not be that disruptive unless deliberately made so by government."

 

  "And if you're pushing some government-imposed solution to this supposed crisis, I want to know exactly what it is."

 

    I detect an anti-government tone in your posts. No offense intended. I am not pushing any action. I just make a game of trying to understand the world, or at least some small aspect of it.

gildone, I want to see where you're getting this notion that we started "spending down the Earth's natural capital 25-30 years ago."

 

And if you're pushing some government-imposed solution to this supposed crisis, I want to know exactly what it is.

 

The information is not that difficult to find if you take the time to look for it.  (Eighth and State helped out here some).  As I said, the tangible, visible proof is in the falling production of fisheries (well documented), the rates of deforestation and desertification (well documented), the rate of species extinction (well documented in more science oriented sources), rate of topsoil loss (well documented), acidification of the oceans (this has been getting recent attention, info easy to find), fossil aquifers being depleted from the Great Plains to the Southwest and Mexico to the Middle East to India and China (well documented), the plastic in the Pacific Gyre (and other areas of the oceans) that is now being found in the stomachs of fish and birds, etc (more recently discovered problem, but there is ample information about this too).

 

There is no single solution, but a whole host of them that involves every economic sector-- private, public, NGO, etc. 

 

You're seeing in in the whole sustainability movement in Cleveland that involves the public, private, and NGO sectors.  The private sector is doing a lot on its own see various articles at www.greenbiz.com.  The World Business Council for Sustainable Development website:  www.wbscd.org is another.  You can also read Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution by businessman Paul Hawken-- available for free on the net at:  www.natcap.org.  Hawken also wrote a book called The Ecology of Commerce.  Then there is Winning the Oil Endgame by Amory Lovins, also available for free at www.oilendgame.com  From the viewpoint of a CEO of a multinational corporation:  Mid-Course Correction and Confessions of a Radical Industrialist by CEO of Interface Corporation, Ray Anderson.

 

One area where we disagree is that you think government is always the enemy.  I take a more moderate view: government clearly has its problems, sometimes go to far, and sometimes doesn't get it right, but it has a role.  Markets do a lot of things well, but they don't do everything well, and they clearly aren't perfect either.  Sometimes it's the rules the government sets for the economy that are the source of problems, sometimes they can be part of the solution.  Often the "bad rules" are the result of influence peddling by moneyed interests who really want to protect themselves from competition and want to divert money from the public treasury to their industries (i.e. corporate socialism, which is rampant in this country and the real socialism problem in this country-- but you'll almost never hear anything about corporate socialism in the mainstream media or from either political party-- both political parties depend on corporate money).

 

But, I'm getting off topic, back to peak oil and someone else's quote:

 

^---- Peak oil is not about price. Peak oil is about quantities.

 

It's a little of both... it's about flow rates... how fast you can get it out of the ground, how cheaply you can get it out of the ground, and how much energy it takes to get it out of the ground.  It's not about running out of oil, it's about running out of cheap, easy oil. 

 

"Supply will not be able to keep up with demand" is technically not correct.

 

It's probably more accurate to say the supply will not be able to keep up with demand at the prices we've become accustomed to for the past several decades. 

 

 

And if you're pushing some government-imposed solution to this supposed crisis, I want to know exactly what it is.

 

What difference does it make whether government provides solutions or private enterprise? Private industry can take away your rights as thoroughly as government can. The role of government is to provide a check on power by persons (people or corporations). The role of persons is to empower their government to whatever degree they decide. If self-interested persons (oil companies, etc.) are causing a misallocation of resources to the detriment (shortages, price spikes, etc) of society, then it is the role of government to check it.

 

And if you're pushing some government-imposed solution to this supposed crisis, I want to know exactly what it is.

 

What difference does it make whether government provides solutions or private enterprise? Private industry can take away your rights as thoroughly as government can.

 

I don't know how to respond to this.  To me, this is so self-evidently wrong as to be effectively a foreign language.  The private sector does not have the coercive power of the state.  Even in the situation in which a private actor's coercive power is at its zenith, a monopoly, the monopolist's power is transient and ephemeral unless backed by the force of the state.  Monopolies without state power behind them are inherently unstable and tend to vanish within a few years, as more efficient competitors honed in other markets penetrate the monopolist's, which usually cannot adapt.

 

Oil companies can't force me to buy gasoline, but the government can tax me to support "green" "sustainability" initiatives--or oil companies, if it chooses to do so.  Car companies can't force me to buy cars, but the government can tax me to bail out car companies that I would otherwise not buy products from (and when the government does so, I get no car).  Banks can't force me to borrow money, but the government can tax me to make me support them anyway (and not even get any temporary use of money in return).  Sugar companies can't force me to buy sugar (though I seldom need encouragement ...), but the government can tax me and give my money to the sugar industries without them having to give me so much as enough to support a bake sale.

 

Furthermore, the private sector, including the nonprofit sector, can decide something is a problem and I don't have to agree.  If you think peak oil is going to lead to shortages and price spikes, buy oil futures and publicly traded natural resource trusts, buy an electric car, ride mass transit, etc.  When government gets involved and starts calling Peak Oil a threat to the foundations of our civilization and starts lofting around grand schemes for "preempting" the problem, however, I have to fight for sanity and my wallet, or I'll lose both.

 

The role of government is to provide a check on power by persons (people or corporations).

 

The role of government is to safeguard the life, liberty, and property of its citizens, including against unjust action by the government itself.

 

The role of persons is to empower their government to whatever degree they decide.

 

Within limits.

 

If self-interested persons (oil companies, etc.) are causing a misallocation of resources to the detriment (shortages, price spikes, etc) of society, then it is the role of government to check it.

 

Didn't you just say that the role of persons is to empower government to whatever degree they see fit?  Those persons include oil companies.  By what standard do you define "misallocation" if the persons who empowered the government to create the status quo empowered it differently than you wish they would have?

"The planet is theoretically finite; the universe is not (except in the absolutely broadest sense that is of no relevance to modern society). As I said, by the time the physical limitations of the planet become meaningful, the planet will no longer be the boundary of the area from which humanity can extract resources."

 

  I will grant you that the energy resources of space are many millions of times greater than those of earth. If humans were ever to colonize space, we shouldn't have to discuss peak oil anymore.

 

  I disagree with your second sentence. The physical limitations of the planet are ALREADY meaningful. Just look at the apollo program and the chances of sending a man to the moon again. It's been said that we can't afford it, and we already have the technology to do it! The knowledge of HOW to do something is not the same as the ABILITY to do it. And the moon is practically our next door neighbor compared to the rest of the solar system, not to mention the rest of the galaxy. In science fiction, man can colonize space, but in the real world it's not likely to happen, EVER!

 

Are you a betting man?  I will take you up on that.  I think that we'll have ways of getting off-planet in 30-50 years that will astound you with both their audacity and their economy, and that by that time, our knowledge of robotics will be sufficiently advanced that the life-support questions, which will take longer to solve, will not matter for our immediate needs: we'll be able to mine asteroids with unmanned equipment, controlled from Earth.

 

In a free market, supply equals demand. The price will fluctuate to keep supply and demand in balance.

 

Supply and Demand is a snapshot of the economic conditions at a point in time; "Supply" in this sense means the supply available right now, not the supply available 100 years from now.

 

This is true.  However, since this debate is about what the supply and demand for oil will be in 20-50 years, the relevant snapshots are those that will obtain at that point in time, not those that obtain today.  Therefore, rates of change matter.  Indeed, the peak oil hypothesis is centrally about rates of change: the first derivative of annual oil production is predicted to turn negative sometime in the near future.  I agree with this hypothesis; that's geology, not economics.  Economics is simply a tool for predicting and understanding the implications of that geological event.

 

"Supply will not be able to keep up with demand" is technically not correct. Some economists look at historic trends and make a straight line projection. If we consumed 40 million barrels of petroleum in 1960 and 80 million today, a straight line projection says that we will consume 120 million barrels in 2050. The straight line projection is not a good assumption in this case.

 

I agree with your last two sentences.  As for what is meant by "supply will not be able to keep up with demand," I assume that it means that the equilibrium point between supply and demand will rise along the y-axis, or, in plain English, that the price will increase, whatever the supply happens to be.

 

Likewise, Demand is not the same as want of something; demand implies the ability to pay for it.

 

Still not quite correct.  Demand is the ability and willingness of a buyer or group of buyers to pay for a given good or service at all possible price points.

 

What those who say "Supply will not be able to keep up with demand" really mean is that people will want more oil than will be extracted out of the ground. We have 150 million drivers in this country, and most of them bought automobiles under the assumption that they would be able to afford fuel for it for the next 5 to 20 years, depending on how long they expect to drive the vehicle. When the price rose to $4 a gallon a few years ago, a lot of folks just stayed home and whined about it.

 

Had the price stayed at $4/gal., however, the whining would ultimately have given way to resignation and, then, adaptation.  Adaptation is not supposed to be a pleasant process--it is merely a healthy one for society.  Indeed, we were just starting to see that adaptation happening when the crash hit and gas fell to under $1.50/gal. in some places.  Before that, sales of SUVs and pickups were down and sales of fuel-efficient cars were rising.  Tesla began to get a noticeable uptick in press coverage at that point, and other, large-scale manufacturers began to take the need for alternative-fuel vehicles seriously again.  We're going to see the fruits of those efforts start to bear fruit here in the next 1-2 years.  My guess is that the first few years will be lackluster, reflective of growing pains, but that's just the next 1-2 years.  We have plenty of time for those manufacturers to work out the kinks in their designs and for other manufacturers to join the party before peak oil would otherwise start to be a grave concern.

 

What the price does is sort out who gets the remaining oil. The price of oil is heavily influenced by governments, so it's not really a completely free market, but that's another topic.

 

We agree here.

 

The price of oil may or may not skyrocket. Rising prices are not a foregone conclusion.

 

And here, though I have cited my reasons for believing that the "may not" hypothesis will be the correct one.

 

"What makes the issue even worth caring about?"

Well, this forum is weighted heavily toward the urban planning interest. There are folks on this board who are employed in the planning of public infrastructure, and still more who want to be or take an interest in it.

 

I count myself among those, you know, at least in large part.  I live in the center of a reasonable-sized city (Akron), walk to work and look forward to buying my first electric car.  I took the Amtrak from Alliance to D.C. rather than fly or drive, notwithstanding the need to get to the train platform at 1:25 a.m.  I don't do it because of some loyalty to "going green," which has always struck me as largely a cosmetic affectation, though; I do it because I simply like the walkable lifestyle and find that driving generally gets me in a bad mood.  It is possible to support high-density urban planning, mixed-use development, public transit, passenger rail, and upgraded basic physical infrastructure in the urban cores necessary to support larger populations without buying into the peak oil hysteria.  (Remember, I'm the one who said that it would be possible, and I'd go so far as to say desirable, to someday see a trillion humans in existence.  I don't propose that they all live in tenth-ring exurbs.)

 

Personally, I think that a lot of planners, as well as the population in general, are wrong regarding assumptions about the future.

 

Well, sure.  If predicting the future were so easy, a lot of the past decade would have happened differently.

 

I think that construction of a replacement for the Brent Spence Bridge is a mistake, for example. The replacement is unnecessary, and will divert resources from other projects. The reason why I think that the replacement for the BSB is unnecessary is because I expect automobile traffic to decline significantly during the useful life of the existing bridge. Maybe I'm wrong, but there is no way to know today.

 

I have mentioned this opinion in the BSB thread, but in order to stay on topic I have placed most of my peak oil comments in this thread.

 

I thank you for this.  Not because I have any particular opinions on the Brent Spence Bridge, since I confess that I don't know a darn thing about it, but for actually reaching the level of specifics.