No more cheap energy: when does the U.S. hit the wall?

[LonesomePolecat]

I suppose this is more fit for Great Debates, but as I’m so freakin’ frustrated by the mass stupidity I see, I’m putting it in the Pit where I can use the language I feel like using.

The era of cheap energy is over, and Americans seem to be too stupid and shortsighted to realize it.

Sales of SUV’s have been dropping, but I still see far too many of these gross examples of wretched excess tooling around the highways. Development of mass transit is virtually at a standstill. The whole idea of energy efficiency seems to be a joke to most Americans. We still continue to design our communities so that it’s virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to get through an ordinary week without having to use a car.

Oil supplies have peaked. I don’t expect sudden catastrophe, but the fact that the easily exploitable supplies of oil are now on the decline combined with rising demand in Asia necessarily means that petroleum is going to be more expensive for us than it’s ever been before.

And I don’t see us doing a damn thing about it. We go right on buying and driving gas guzzlers. We seem to think that the concepts of fuel efficiency and public tansportation was spawned by Satan. We continue to build suburban subdivisions where you can’t get groceries, get to work or school, or get the kids to soccer practice without a land yacht.

Would it really kill us to have more energy efficient homes and transportation? Has it never crossed anybody’s mind here that a more modest lifestyle might also be a more stable and secure one? (I’m lookin’ at the righties now with a jaundiced eye; it wasn’t the left that invented consumerism.) Has no one given any thought to energy alternatives to petroleum? Why are we not developing nuclear energy for use in our homes? (And now I’m aimin’ my baleful glare at the lefties; enviro-wackos are the main reason the U.S. is so far behind in developing nuclear energy.)

When do we hit the wall?

Do we think this is just going to go on forever? Do we not understand that our heavy dependence on foreign oil creates all sorts of political problems for us abroad? Do we really think that God takes care of fools, drunkards and the United States?

What’s it going to take to convince Americans that our oil addiction is a serious threat to the nation’s economy? Will it take some kind of total freakin’ disaster?

Can we really be as stupid as we seem to be? Are our egos so completely tied up with our cars that we absolutely can’t look at transportation in any kind of rational way? Does anybody really believe that urban sprawl is a good thing? Do I ask an awful lot of rhetorical questions?

And in closing, a message to SUV owners: IF YA WANNA DRIVE A FUCKIN’ TANK, JOIN THE FUCKIN’ ARMY!!!

Thank you for reading my bad-mood-on-a-rainy-Monday-morning rant. You can get back to your lives now.

[Ryan_Liam]

I suppose this is more fit for Great Debates, but as I’m so freakin’ frustrated by the mass stupidity I see, I’m putting it in the Pit where I can use the language I feel like using.

The era of cheap energy is over, and Americans seem to be too stupid and shortsighted to realize it.

Sales of SUV’s have been dropping, but I still see far too many of these gross examples of wretched excess tooling around the highways. Development of mass transit is virtually at a standstill. The whole idea of energy efficiency seems to be a joke to most Americans. We still continue to design our communities so that it’s virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to get through an ordinary week without having to use a car.

Oil supplies have peaked. I don’t expect sudden catastrophe, but the fact that the easily exploitable supplies of oil are now on the decline combined with rising demand in Asia necessarily means that petroleum is going to be more expensive for us than it’s ever been before.

And I don’t see us doing a damn thing about it. We go right on buying and driving gas guzzlers. We seem to think that the concepts of fuel efficiency and public tansportation was spawned by Satan. We continue to build suburban subdivisions where you can’t get groceries, get to work or school, or get the kids to soccer practice without a land yacht.

Would it really kill us to have more energy efficient homes and transportation? Has it never crossed anybody’s mind here that a more modest lifestyle might also be a more stable and secure one? (I’m lookin’ at the righties now with a jaundiced eye; it wasn’t the left that invented consumerism.) Has no one given any thought to energy alternatives to petroleum? Why are we not developing nuclear energy for use in our homes? (And now I’m aimin’ my baleful glare at the lefties; enviro-wackos are the main reason the U.S. is so far behind in developing nuclear energy.)

When do we hit the wall?

Do we think this is just going to go on forever? Do we not understand that our heavy dependence on foreign oil creates all sorts of political problems for us abroad? Do we really think that God takes care of fools, drunkards and the United States?

What’s it going to take to convince Americans that our oil addiction is a serious threat to the nation’s economy? Will it take some kind of total freakin’ disaster?

Can we really be as stupid as we seem to be? Are our egos so completely tied up with our cars that we absolutely can’t look at transportation in any kind of rational way? Does anybody really believe that urban sprawl is a good thing? Do I ask an awful lot of rhetorical questions?

And in closing, a message to SUV owners: IF YA WANNA DRIVE A FUCKIN’ TANK, JOIN THE FUCKIN’ ARMY!!!

Thank you for reading my bad-mood-on-a-rainy-Monday-morning rant. You can get back to your lives now.


Look at Supply and Demand factors. Then apply to Oil. Rinse and repeat.

[Finagle]

Sales of SUV’s have been dropping, but I still see far too many of these gross examples of wretched excess tooling around the highways. .

So...all the people who currently own SUVs should toss them out immediately because gas has become more expensive? That doesn't sound very energy efficent to me.

[Mr. Moto]

In the summer of 2001, I was paying rediculously low prices for gas. At one point I could get it for about 75 cents a gallon, which might mark the low point for gas prices in history once prices are adjusted for inflation.

That doesn't sound like any kind of oil shortage to me. Kindly explain how peak oil has happened in just over three years.

[Mr. Moto]

Development of mass transit is virtually at a standstill.

P.J. O'Rourke noted that it's hard to reach the drive through window from a speeding train.

Make mass transit more convenient, and people will actually use it. As an example, I'm able to carpool every day because the carpooling system I use doesn't require me to conform my schedule to those of my passengers.

The whole idea of energy efficiency seems to be a joke to most Americans.

That would explain, I guess, why a modern freezer costs less to use than a constantly running 40 watt bulb. Modern appliances use less than a third, typically, of the power of an appliance from thirty years ago.

We still continue to design our communities so that it’s virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to get through an ordinary week without having to use a car.

How else would you design them? It's impossible to do this in a country our size, with significant numbers of people living in rural and semirural areas. By contrast, Europe is almost entirely urbanized.

Would it really kill us to have more energy efficient homes and transportation?

See the above point about appliances. Also note that fuel economy for sedans used to be as bad or worse than today's SUVs.

[hajario]

Right on, Brother. You should read some of the works of Paul Erlich. He's been preaching this same stuff since the late 1960's. According to him, we will be facing severe shortages of engery and massive worldwide famine by around 1985. He keeps pushing out the date of course but one of these days he might even be right.

Haj

[InvidiousCourgette]

We pay about $8 a gallon for gas in the UK. Some people drive gas guzzlers. When prices hit the same levels in the US, fewer people will drive them. Like here.

[World Eater]

Will it take some kind of total freakin’ disaster?

Yes.

btw Moto it's almost 2005, get with the times. :p

[Soul Brother Number Two]

You make a good point, but your righty/lefty dig, "leftys didn't invent consumerism," is one of the more ludicrous statements I've seen on the Dope in some time. Get you some mint-flavored shoes, stat.

[Mr. Moto]

Comments about the cost of oil were intended to illustrate that oil is quite plentiful indeed. Otherwise, it would have been expensive back in 2001 as well.

What caused the price jumps is a world economy now out of recession and certain geopolitical uncertainties in South America and the Mideast.

[jjimm]

Look at Supply and Demand factors. Then apply to Oil. Rinse and repeat.The problem is that if the supply falls off sharply with no alternatives in place, one would be in something of a tricky situation. This site (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.com/), for all its hysteria, raises some genuinely interesting points about the lack of feasibility of implementing renewable energy in a realistic timeframe.

(Also, do you have to quote a 15-paragraph OP for a one-liner?)

[Mr. Moto]

I think that point is flawed.

There are tons of viable alternatives to oil. The problem with all of them is that they're not economically attractive right now. Oil is cost effective and has a distribution network in place.

When the prices rise enough, the other formes of heating, electricity production and auto fuel will become much more attractive. Since the market will bear them, they will be sold.

A similar thing happened between 90 and 80 years ago, as feed stores went out of business and gas stations opened at a rapid clip. The first drive-up gas station opened in Pittsburgh in 1913.

[jjimm]

There are tons of viable alternatives to oil. The problem with all of them is that they're not economically attractive right now. Oil is cost effective and has a distribution network in place.One of the points he makes is that to create the alternative energy sources, one needs oil. If the price of oil has risen so high that precludes making the stuff, then the stuff doesn't get made, or is only available to the super-rich. And indeed food production relies on oil, and everything we own, is made of petrochemical products.

Even though his worst-case-scenario is unlikely to happen, I trust, it could still be a rather unpleasant transition.

[Mr. Moto]

Do you think the owners of the feed stores thought it was an unpleasant transition? Or, to use a more frequently cited example, the buggy-whip manufacturers?

[The Long Road]

Look at Supply and Demand factors. Then apply to Oil. Rinse and repeat.


Was this the throwaway post of the day to inflate your number of posts?

Demand is short-term inelastic for petroleum. People and industry still need to purchase it to meet their requirements and can only adjust their demands downward over a long timeframe. Even if prices go up $3 per gallon tomorrow, most people will bite the bullet and fill their tanks, making cutbacks in other areas. They may drive less and skip a driving vacation but they will still need the fuel. Perhaps the person will buy a more fuel-efficient car in 3 or 4 years if gas prices stay elevated but that won't change the immediate situation.

[jjimm]

Do you think the owners of the feed stores thought it was an unpleasant transition? Or, to use a more frequently cited example, the buggy-whip manufacturers?The gas stations and whatever-buggy-whip-manufacturers-became had a new technology that already worked, with a (seemingly) inexhaustible energy supply. Is there an alternative energy supply that could be implemented throughout the developed world over the course of a decade or so?

[Mr. Moto]

The transition to motor vehicles similarly took years. The problem is that you are looking at this upcoming period, if it does come to pass, as an economic problem instead of a situation that can be easily resolved by a dynamic market economy.

If you really think the future is in these other technologies, I encourage you to work in these fields or invest money there. You stand to make a killing.

[El_Kabong]

IMO, basically the current situation where oil is used mostly as fuel for personal vehicles is unsustainable at pretty much any but the lowest levels; the only question is where the end point occurs. From that standpoint the problem will take care of itself; whether we want to or not, we will be finding other means to power personal transport or we won't be using personal transport.

Looks to me like the real, absolute, no-bullshit wall looks to be somewhere between 2040 and 2060, when daily production is projected to fall to the levels of the 1950s.

There will be generally increasing prices and 1973-style spot shortages before then, of course.

[Mr. Moto]

The gas stations and whatever-buggy-whip-manufacturers-became had a new technology that already worked, with a (seemingly) inexhaustible energy supply.

That's not true. Sorry.

At least at the outset, there was a lot of competition among different types of engines, and it was uncertain which ones would win out. The early 1900s was the heyday of both the electric and steam car. In this period, there were other engines made that ran on everything from kerosene to fuel oil to gasoline.

How this is different from today, with new electric, fuel cell, hybrid, hydrogen, and natural gas powered vehicles proven to work?

[CanvasShoes]

And I don’t see us doing a damn thing about it. We go right on buying and driving gas guzzlers. We seem to think that the concepts of fuel efficiency and public tansportation was spawned by Satan.
I don't know where you live, but here? Public transportation WAS spawned by satan. It's better than it used to be, but for a real person's life? It just doesn't work.

To make it work, would take so much more money and planning than this gov't is willing to even look at. Where would that money come from? You? Are you willing for your taxes to jump up to 60, 70 percent, just to fund redesign of existing comunities so that pedestrian and public transportation needs would be met. That's not even counting new designs or new public transportation.

IANA City planner, but I've worked for a few designers, and the cost of this sort of thing is way out there. Everyone keeps saying "we need cheaper energy sources, 'they' need to design it".

Well, who's "they"? The oil companies? When people complain about this, they act as if it's the SUV manufacturer or oil companies' responsibility to come up with this new, clean, cheap "alternate energy source".

Why is it that "they" mysteriously and suddenly have the knowledge to do this? "They" are oil drillers and producers and auto designers, how on earth does this qualify them, or even make them responsible for these new "alternate energy sources" the greenies are always clamoring at them for?

The "they's" that DO know about cold fusion, corn liquor fuels and the like are the ones we need to be clamoring at. imho that is.

[Liberal]

I remember when they told us that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter. Hell, they need to put ball bearings in those meters now.

[booka]

Why do you think the U.S. is over in the Middle East fighting a war right now?

So that we exert our influence on, develop, and protect, for the benefit of the greater capitalist world, their big oil reserves.

What - did you think we'd go over there for an altruistic cause like defeating tyranny? Because we want to defend Israel for the sake of defending Israel? Because we like sand and nice rugs? No - we want them to be nice, cooperative neighbors in the ever-expanding westernized world, and we're trying to drag them, kicking and screaming, into 2004.

I think that there will be plenty of oil around for a fairly long time, and it won't be overly expensive. Too many rich and influential people want it that way. The U.S. won't be hitting any energy wall anytime soon.

Seems pretty obvious. In the game of nation-state politics, it's a good move for the U.S..

[kanicbird]

On some points I agree with you on others you are so far off base your not even in the city the ballpark is in.

The major beef is 'no more cheap energy', totally false, the US has hundreds of years of coal which is easilly extractable and there is a process to convert coal to a gasoline subsitute since at least WW2.

If you think we will just sit with our thumb up our ass when/if oil runs dry (or prices itself out of the market), you have no idea what this country is made of.

(checking.......

Ok still in the pit, continuing)

As for the SUV craze, I agree, I wish I could drive a fuel efficent car, but to be honest I don't feel safe in one because of all the SUV's out there. Especially it is common around here for parents to give their teens a new HEAVY SUV because they know that teens are more likely to get into accidents, and they want their kid to survive, most likely at the expense of a responsible driver, driving a fuel efficent car.


As for mass transit, I use it often. I frequently walk 21 minutes to a train station (yes I know the time exactly, if I allow 20 minutes I miss the train), and enjoy it. But there are issues w/ trains and more w/ buses that I feel must be addressed before it becomes more accepted. One is trains should run at a higher speed so it is competive with drive times, 2nd is Amtrak, which could be run a lot better, but OTHO should not have to pay to maintain the track network anymore then greyhound should have to pay to maintain the interstate network, right now they are at a great disadvantage. As a frequent LIRR, Metro North and Amtrak commuter, I do have to say that Amtrak has a very nice system which I would like to see the other commuter rails adopt. 1st is the quite car, no cell phones, no talking above a wisper, low lights so people can sleep. The 2nd is comfortabel reclining seats, and the 3rd is tray tables so one can get some work done. Oh yea also there is usually a snack car, which would solve the drive thru comment.

Buses just suck, they take the slower routes and make frequent stops, dedicated bus lanes could help a lot.

So I agree we need to re-work our mass transit system.

But also consider this, low energy prices help out the poor and lower middle classes more then the upper. It allows them to work further from home, giving them more opportunities to better themselves and families. It also allows the lower classes to live outside the congested areas to experence a better quality of life that only the rich can afford in other countries.

[BrotherCadfael]

Right on, Brother. You should read some of the works of Paul Erlich. He's been preaching this same stuff since the late 1960's. According to him, we will be facing severe shortages of engery and massive worldwide famine by around 1985. He keeps pushing out the date of course but one of these days he might even be right.The same logic applies to those awaiting the Rapture.

[Smeghead]

I can take public transportation from right outside my door to right to the front door of my work. I tried it once. It took roughly an hour and a half, since it requires three busses and two trains. Or I can drive to work in less than 20 minutes. Guess which I do?

Actually, it's less of a dilemma than that, even, since by the time I go home from work, all the public transportation is shut down.

[Quartz]

My brother is in the oil industry.

First off, we are not in Iraq for the oil. Secondly, we have oodles of oil reserves - it's just not become economic to exploit them. Thirdly, the use of oil for vehicles is a small if not miniscule proportion of the use of oil.

[Sean Factotum]

And in closing, a message to SUV owners: IF YA WANNA DRIVE A FUCKIN’ TANK, JOIN THE FUCKIN’ ARMY!!!
Go Navy! Beat Army!

Tell ya what, pal. I'll drive whatever you fucking want me to drive when you're making the payments.

[Liberal]

Go Navy! Beat Army!

Tell ya what, pal. I'll drive whatever you fucking want me to drive when you're making the payments.Oh, lordy, don't say that. Now we'll have a fuck-you-with-a-stick tax to provide Kias for everyone.

[El_Kabong]

My brother is in the oil industry.

First off, we are not in Iraq for the oil. Secondly, we have oodles of oil reserves - it's just not become economic to exploit them. Thirdly, the use of oil for vehicles is a small if not miniscule proportion of the use of oil.

Your brother may or may not be correct on point one, but I'm afraid he is at least partially wrong on points two and three. Most projections of oil reserves I've seen do factor in reserves of non-conventional hydrocarbon sources, although I'll agree that there is room for debate on their true extent. As for usage, this chart I've linked to (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Dem_image_US_cons_sector.htm) on a Department of Energy site shows that transportation accounts for 2/3 of all US oil usage. The accompanying text (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Demand_text.htm#U.S.%20Consumption%20by%20Product) states that 2/3 of that total consists of gasoline, most commonly used for personal transport. The proportion of refined products used for transport is less in many other countries, but to the best of my knowledge is growing worldwide.

[booka]

My brother is in the oil industry.
Oh, well hell - I guess that changes everything. :rolleyes:

[jjimm]

the US has hundreds of years of coal which is easilly extractableBasic Choices and Constraints on Long-Term Energy Supplies (http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html#tab1), Physics TodayThe largest fossil fuel resource available in the US is coal. The energy content of the current US reserve is about 5667 Q. If demand remains frozen at the current rate of consumption, the coal reserve will indeed last roughly 250 years. That prediction assumes equal use of all grades of coal, from anthracite to lignite. Population growth alone reduces the calculated lifetime to some 90?120 years there is a process to convert coal to a gasoline subsitute since at least WW2.Any new uses of coal would further reduce the supply. The Fischer-Tropsch process has been used to convert coal to gasoline motor fuel in South Africa for decades, for example. The process requires that one carbon atom of coal be sacrificed to generate at least two hydrogen atoms, and it takes energy to decompose water to make that hydrogen. As a result, the process consumes 2 Q of coal to generate 1 Q of motor fuel. Hydrogen production would require an even greater consumption of coal. The use of coal for conversion to other fuels would quickly reduce the lifetime of the US coal base to less than a human lifespan.

[RandomLetters]

We pay about $8 a gallon for gas in the UK. Some people drive gas guzzlers. When prices hit the same levels in the US, fewer people will drive them. Like here.

Well, remember that in the UK gas is so much more expensive is because of the much higher fuel taxes - 50.19 pence per liter. That is equal to 3.6 GBP per gallon; which works out to about $7 per gallon at current exchange rates. Pre-tax, gas prices in the UK are only slightly higher than they are in the US.

[kanicbird]

thanks for the info jjimm, but my main point stands, Americans are not just going to sit there w/ their collective thumbs up their asses, they will find energy sources. Coal is a quick fix till we get something else going. Perhaps He3 from the moon (which AFAIK has plenty and a single shuttle size payload returned would fuel the US electricity needs for a year IIRC), that's if we can figure out that ellusive fussion thing, and reinvent lunar travel.

[Una Persson]

Basic Choices and Constraints on Long-Term Energy Supplies (http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html#tab1), Physics Today
The largest fossil fuel resource available in the US is coal. The energy content of the current US reserve is about 5667 Q. If demand remains frozen at the current rate of consumption, the coal reserve will indeed last roughly 250 years. That prediction assumes equal use of all grades of coal, from anthracite to lignite. Population growth alone reduces the calculated lifetime to some 90?120 years


The estimated total reserves are at least double that value. The link you provide is only considering economically recoverable reserves (at least, the "250" number lines up with that). However, what is economically recoverable with coal changes dramatically and fairly rapidly, as those on the East coast of the US are discovering with FOB prices double what they were last year. And coal reserves are not nearly so mapped out as people think - there is a large level of uncertainty still, even in the major basins, as to exactly how much coal there is. Even waste coal tailings are common enough now for several small power plants to be built in Pennsylvania just to use the mine waste (can't say too much more on that since I'm working on designs for 2 of them...)

[Priam]

Enlighten my ignorance here. Why aren't we using more nuclear energy in our country?

(Honest question, I swear. No hidden motives except curiosity.)

[Mr. Moto]

Hell, they can't even build new coal-fired plants in California without environmentalists hamstringing the approval process through endless legal action.

This is much worse in the case of nuclear plants, and essentially makes them nonstarters from the outset.

NIMBY is worst of all when it comes to power plants. Hell, this attitude torpedoed a windmill farm off the coast of Cape Cod.

[Quartz]

Your brother ... I'm afraid he is at least partially wrong on points two and three. Most projections of oil reserves I've seen do factor in reserves of non-conventional hydrocarbon sources, although I'll agree that there is room for debate on their true extent.

Since that is partly his job - reservoir modelling - I think he knows what he's talking about. The key phrase is 'economic to recover'.

As for usage, this chart I've linked to (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Dem_image_US_cons_sector.htm) on a Department of Energy site shows that transportation accounts for 2/3 of all US oil usage.

The linked article states that in the rest of the world the primary use is heating and power generation.

[Michael Ellis]

Enlighten my ignorance here. Why aren't we using more nuclear energy in our country?

(Honest question, I swear. No hidden motives except curiosity.)

NIMBY. Most people hear the words "nuclear power" and immediately think "OMG CHERNOBYL ATOMS EVIL NO NUKES!!!!!" as if every reactor is a potential dirty bomb. Never mind the fact that Chernobyl was a completely different (and awful) design than Western nuclear plants, and despite this the only reason the accident occured was because the plant technicians overrode every damn failsafe installed to prevent such an accident. I once heard it described as something close to breaking into a bank vault and killing the security guard just so you could shoot yourself in the head with the guard's gun.

[Tuckerfan]

The problem is that if the supply falls off sharply with no alternatives in place, one would be in something of a tricky situation. This site (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.com/), for all its hysteria, raises some genuinely interesting points about the lack of feasibility of implementing renewable energy in a realistic timeframe.

(Also, do you have to quote a 15-paragraph OP for a one-liner?)
"Hysteria" is putting it mildly. If you read what the guy has to say, it doesn't matter what we do, we're boned. We could convert to a cold fusion society, were that possible (though, interestingly enough, I couldn't find any mention of nuclear power in any form on his site), and we'd still be fucked as far as that guy's concerned. How did James Randi put it? You'll never go broke predicting gloom and doom.

At least one consultant (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=195817) says that it'd be possible to switch over to a hydrogen economy by 2015 with an aggressive program by the government. Synthetic oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization) seems to be progressing nicely, and one could always buy an air powered car. (http://www.theaircar.com/)

Does Arizona still have the tax credit program for people who buy or convert their cars over to alternative fuels? I know that the program was so successful that it nearly bankrupted the state and there was talk of getting rid of it. Based on Arizona's experience, it looks like people will buy alternative if given an incentive to do so.