Oh BS. Read my post. I never said that. The worst I said, and I gave it a low probablity at that, is that expensive energy COULD lead to economic instability and a downward spiral. But again, expensive energy aint gonna make ANYONES life better.
And an FYI, there is this stuff called fertilizer. Its energy intensive to make even if you ignore transportation costs. Make it expensive and people who can barely afford to eat are gonna feel a pinch.
Because it hastens the advancement of alternative fuel sources that can then supplant the need to extract and burn hydrocarbons that are running out. Duh…
But that’s not how it works, a higher price drives further innovation, and as such prices go down. Do you care about whether or not you drive a car that burns hydorcarbons or do you care about having a car that gets you from point A to point B effectively?
I was reading that exerpt and when I got to this part
It made me question all of his assumptions. The chart I posted in the OP shows that in 2000 we only used 2.2% of oil for agriculture, only 432,000 barrels a day.
The idea that we will revert to labor intensive farming due to a lack of 432,000 barrels a day of oil is absurd. Agriculture is always going to be given top priority if our country is under stress. We aren’t going to revert to farming by hand because of a shortfall of a few million barrels a day (if demand is 20 mbd but supply is only 17mbd). We still have oil after peak oil, just not enough to live the lifestyle we lived before the peak. So the idea that we won’t be able to get 432k barrels of diesel a day for agriculture is not realistic. Not only that, but like I posted in another thread on GD the majority of food crops in the US goes to feed livestock (aka a luxury). If we ate a more vegetarian diet, we could get by with half the oil we need for agriculture and still feed everyone. We probably use more than 432,000 barrels a day of diesel for shipping luxury items (furniture, mattresses, big screen TVs) via rail and semis.
Again, this is why I’m confused about peak oil. On one hand you have the cornicopians who think we will be able to mass produce large scale technological solutions on a very short time frame (the Hirsch report showed a crash program would still take 2 decades to switch the world to alternatives), which I find questionable since those solutions require large amounts of raw materials and trillions in investments. Making 100 million plug in hybrids in 5 years isn’t as easy as it sounds. On the other you have the anarcho-primivists who want society to collapse and actually want peak oil to be as miserable as possible who exaggerate the potential risks.
So it is hard to really know what to expect. I assume we will see a lot more efficiency and investment in alternatives, but I don’t think it’ll be horrible. I’m guessing/hoping it won’t be much different than domestic life under WW2 when people had to deal with rationing and natural resource shortages.
I’m just about to read Why Your World is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller, an examination of what happens as oil reserves dwindle. Will report back (probably).
Good grief.
I care what it COSTS me. Though I’d die a happy man if my car ran on the souls of Smurfs.
You ASSUME that expensive oil will drive innovations that will lead to cheaper alternate sources. Alternate sources that are equal to or cheaper than what exists today are required for us lucky folks to maintain our standard of living and for the unlucky ones to maintain theirs, much less hopefully get better with time.
But there is NO guarantee that will occur. Possible? Hell yeah. Probable? Yeah, reasonably likely. Certain? No IMO.
And all this magic/hippy/pixie dust stuff aint likely to come from some african tribesman. High tech and massive infrastructure generally comes from big, stable, high tech economies. IMO if oil gets too expensive too fast even those economies are at a low but non trivial risk.
Cheap oil is largely a result of subsidies, and cheap oil is running out. That’s the reality. How you feel about it is kind of irrelevant. You got hooked on cheap oil as a result of Cold-War strategy where the US invested in the Middle-East in order to drive the prices of oil down in order to hurt the Russian economy which was driven by oil production.
Expensive oil DOES drive innovation. This isn’t a matter of opinion.
It DOES occur and is demonstrable as we’ve had periods of price spikes in oil, which lead to investment in other forms of energy usage. When the price of oil was high several years ago, that’s when Solar panel efficiency started to grow by leaps and bounds, tons of money was invested in solar and wind-farms and oil shale, and oil sands fields started to get a lot more investment.
It’s funny how people use the term magic whenever they want to. I am not talking about magic, I am talking about demonstrable economic realities.
Your argument is tautological. It all hinges around this statement.
It’s tautological because it is of course true. But it hinges on a single word, ‘too’. Rising prices don’t mean that they’ll rise to be ‘too’ expensive. And the entire point of my statement was that as oil prices rise, the prices will be mitigated by the new sources of extraction and the increased reliance on alternative energy sources.
That and of course the price of oil isn’t the only consideration of value in the world. Economic and political stability in unstable parts of the world are an important issue, and innovating other forms of energy is essential before we reach a crisis point where emerging markets and dwindling supplies meet in the middle to create a perfect storm of demand exceeding supply, and prices skyrocketing. So indeed, a slight rise in the price of oil now could be beneficial, even to you, in the long-term.
The entire world resides on balances. Using the term, “too”, is a very loose debating tactic, because of course too much of anything causes an imbalance, by definition.
And it could be a fracking worldwide disaster. You seem to be the one hellbent on thinking its a sure and good thing. All I’ve said there is low but non zero possibility that the shit could hit the fan. And I like how you threw a “slight” in there.
Yeah, long term ,a massive epidemic that killed half the world might result in a better world 100 years down the road than if it had never happened.
And it could makes things really bad for a long time.
Well, over the past 25 years the average price of crude has increased 260%. While this has increased the interest in alternate resources, actual development results have been somewhat limited in finding a true replacement.
How much higher does it need to go before we see actual results of this hastening of advancements?
You seem to be resting on the idea that a rise in the price of oil will somehow be intentional, and are arguing against me as though I am in some position to impact the price of oil.
Sorry, I can’t think of any serious response to this.
So could prices dropping.
If one thinks in terms of finding a singular replacement yes. But replacement isn’t a matter of finding a holy grail tech, but a series of retooling efforts that includes a broad-based effort to claim energy from multiple sources.
It doesn’t. If you actually paid attention you could already see the hastening of advancements over the past 25 years as the price rose 260%.
But the really cheap alternative stuff is just around the corner! Its a sure thing.
You mean like the fact that Canada has stepped up it’s development and exploitation of tar sands? Or that Venezuela has done the same? Or that the R&D for shale oil development and exploitation continues and that pilot plants have been built?
The thing is, the cost, today, still favors traditional drilling exploitation, and probably will for years yet. That doesn’t mean that these other technologies are magic pixie dust and vaporware, nor is it really surprising (to any but the Peak Oil folks) that they aren’t CURRENTLY being fully ramped up. As the price of oil rises these technologies WILL become available, and we’ll gradually shift to them. And this leave aside alternative fuels (many of which already exist today). As the price of oil climbs not only will it open up huge new reserves (there is more tar oil sands and shale oil than there EVER was in traditional oil reserves), but it will also open up alternatives, such as synthetics, hydrogen/methane, and FEV with new battery technology.
-XT
Is straw on sale? Or, to put it another way, who in this thread is saying anything remotely like this?
-XT
And they will be…wait for…as far as we can tell so far…its coming…MORE expensive.
And take decades to implement. And cost a fortune to build.
Is more expensive energy a certain recipe for D O O O O M? No.
Short term is there any economic benefit? Hell no IMO.
You might as well argue being poorer or burning some of your money in the back yard is somehow a good thing.
But it seems like much of our oil use could be eliminated and it would only cause moderate inconveniences. People would have to take longer to get to/from work or shopping via public transit. People would carpool. People wouldn’t fly as often or eat as much meat. We’d have to rely on rail and barges more instead of semis, and coal instead of oil when making raw materials.
But by and large, we could probably cut a good deal of our oil energy usage (w/o replacing them with alternative energies, which is another issue) w/o really having any huge social impacts.
And…wait for it…waaaiiiitttt foooorrrr iiiiiitttt…THAT’S PRETTY MUCH WHAT EVERYONE HAS BEEN SAYING.
This is just ignorance. Building a new oil field costs ‘a fortune to build’. How many billions did it cost to set up the exploration and exploitation of the oil reserves in Alaska? In the North Sea?
As for decades…horseshit. The Canadians are ALREADY building the processing and infrastructure to exploit their tar sands. The Venezuelans are ALREADY doing the same thing. They simply haven’t scaled it up to full exploitation (yet) because the price of oil isn’t high enough to justify the capital investment. If the price of oil stabilizes at something like $110-$120/barrel then both reserves become economically viable…which means we suddenly have something on the order of a whole new Persian Gulf oil field reserve on tap. This isn’t pie in the sky…it’s real. It’s ready. The only REAL question, to someone who doesn’t have their fingers in their ears, is WHEN…not IF.
I assume you are talking about more expensive energy for transportation, not in general. And we already know that we can take higher prices for transport costs, since the price for gas has peaked at over $4.00 per gallon (and in Europe it’s generally fairly stable at double or more those costs). We KNOW we can take this kind of increase without ‘DOOOOOMMMMM!’…in fact, we can absorb it without any really serious impact on our current lives. After all, the cost of personal transport has ALREADY been increasing for decades now, both in terms of the fuel itself as well as in terms of absolute costs to the consumer…and yet, it’s still going strong.
No…but it won’t have a drastic economic negative effect either. Not realistically, at least not IMO, since we are tossing out WAGs and all.
You might as well build your strawman with a nice hat and a corn cob pipe, while you are at it. At least then it might be useful in scaring crows or something.
-XT
You’re neglecting the pretty drastic advancements made in fuel efficiency over the past 25-35 years.
Used to be, you got a 5.7 liter V8 that made 175 hp, and got between 10 and 15 MPG in a pickup truck. (Chevy 1/2 ton with a 351 ci V8)
Nowadays, you can get a 3.7 liter V6 that makes 205 hp, and gets between 17 and 21 MPG (Dodge Dakota).
Pretty significant gains, if you ask me. The difference is, everybody and their dog has a car now, unlike in the not so recent past.
Yea, but if you go back from 1985 to 1970 - that 350 v8 was producing 300 hp at around 15 mpg.
As for the vehicle to person ratio - I doubt there is a significant vehicle per capita difference over the past 25 years
WE could yes.
The BILLIONS of other people who are imporverished, bordline impoverished, or would actually like have any car to drive or an AC unit in their hut not so much.
268 HP, 3.5L, '07 Camry. 28MPG (observed, mixed driving) 248 foot-pounds at 4700 RPM.
(Dakota gets 235 at 4000)