[QUOTE=aNewLeaf]
How do you get the electricity for electric cars?
[/QUOTE]
Well, um, you build power plants. As market forces necessitate more electric power then companies expand to produce it. Because that means they make more money.
We have hundreds of years of coal reserves, of course, but you do realize that there are other ways of generating electricity besides coal, right?
Funny, coal only accounts for about 40% of our electric production today, and we don’t have ANY fusion plants. Seriously, wtf are you on about? There are other methods of producing electricity besides coal OR fusion.
People got outraged a few years ago when gas prices spiked, but they also began conserving. What makes you think if gas goes up to 5, 6, 7, 8 bucks a gallon, that demand will continue to rise?
[QUOTE=aNewLeaf]
wtf are YOU on about? Either you burn fossil fuels or you find an alternative that doesn’t exist today.
[/QUOTE]
sigh Today, does coal account for 100% of our electrical production? No? Well then, obviously alternatives to coal DO exist today. Or, are you claiming that fusion currently accounts for all electrical production not accounted for by coal??
Seriously, you seem to have failed to understand that there are plenty of non-fusion alternatives to coal that are currently in use. France, for instance, get’s something like 70% of their energy from non-coal sources…namely nuclear energy. You know, that fission stuff. The US gets over 20% of our huge energy budget from that same source. We also get a substantial part of our current energy from hydro-electric sources, increasingly from natural gas, and lesser percentages from geo-thermal, wind and solar. All of the above non-coal and non-fusion methods of production are in current use, and nuclear especially could easily be scaled to meet more demand if the need was there. Or, we could just, you know, stick with coal/natural gas for the foreseeable future if we didn’t want to build more nuclear power plants or expand solar or wind. The reality is probably a mix, if demand increases in the next few decades as the price of oil continues to rise and as alternatives that may require more electrical production rise as well…i.e. we’ll simply build more nuclear power plants, more coal/natural gas plants, more wind or solar plants, more geo-thremal (probably not more hydro) to meet increasing demand.
No magic or pie in the sky required…everything we need to do it TODAY is with us TODAY. Maybe, someday we’ll even have fusion, but it’s not required as you seem to believe.
Don’t you think there might be some causal relationship there? Every ingredient in that cheeseburger had to be grown on farm that uses tractors and trucks; trucked to a McDonalds factory; and then trucked again to all the restaurants. Imported petroleum represents an external real cost to the national economy; when the price goes up, it drives up the price of everything. That is a form of inflation you can’t fight with monetary policy.
Um…I think it has more to do with the fact that a dollar in the 50’s (the time period where it looks like a barrel of oil cost $20) had the buying power of around $10 in 2013 dollars. You know, adjusted dollars and all that? If you adjust for inflation, the price of a barrel of oil isn’t really out of line.
Just a quick note, you might want to factor in what the average worker at McD’s made in the 50’s and compare that to what they make today, when you are figuring out why a hamburger costs more (in absolute dollars, not adjusted dollars) today than it did back then. Also, I was making a joke, since I figured all of this was obvious to everyone (the burgers were actually $.15 a piece for instance, but I thought the nickle thing was funnier ;))
Inevitably when the debate arises over peak oil, the debate somehow changes to include other forms of energy. Fair enough. But if we are going to talk of coal, nuclear, or whatever, how about some realistic scenarios where oil is used today for its immediacy and portability, and other energy types just don’t fit?
We use refined oil to power trains, planes and automobiles. How well do other energy resources fit in with those? Sure we can have electric cars (already do). So now we have to change the entire road infrastructure to accommodate electric vehicles and their (present day) shorter travel between “fill-ups.” Do we convert trains to coal and electrical, all to save vital oil for what remains of air travel?
And what will replace petrochemicals in food production, and other areas? With rising oil prices forcing people out of their beloved cars/trucks, when does mass transit gear up to accommodate? Are people forced to abandon the car-hungry suburbs for cities again?
I just don’t see a simple conversion from oil to other energies where oil itself offers an energy source that is not easily duplicated by other energies to accomplish the same task.
There’s a tremendous amount of work being done into biofuels and creating them isn’t really that much of an issue. The real problem is getting out the exact right chemical structure you want - at least that’s I’ve been able to gather. But I did read something recently where even that problem was solved. Unfortunately I don’t save everything I read and couldn’t find it again.
Do you still use oil for trains in the USA? That sounds rather old fashioned. I suggest you get with the program and electrify your rails.
There will be a continuously shrinking number of niche industries where oil-based products will still be used. Aeroplanes may be one of those where gasoline fuel will be required for a little longer. Although incidentally the new Dreamliner travels the same distance on 20% less fuel compared to older generations of aeroplanes, so the price of fuel can rise 20% without putting us in a worse position. I expect we’ll se further technological improvements over the coming years.
And we’ll not just exchange one energy source for another. We’ll be getting vastly improved vehicles in the process. Much less particle pollution in cities (millions of saved lives a year), much less noise, less pollution from leaking gas stations, etc.
I don’t think anybody thinks it’ll be simple of easy. But it’s entirely possible and realistic. And we’ll be much better off for the transformation.
I think they mostly use diesel engines for locomotives in the U.S., which mostly run on distilled oil. There’s some push for high-speed rail here, California’s building a system, but nobody seems even to talk much about upgrading our conventional rail.
A long time ago I asked whether the infamous '70s inflation was due to monetary factors or due to the ripple effect of having a vital resource- petroleum- simply cost more to obtain than before. I don’t remember if I got an answer but I do remember that a lot of people couldn’t seem to differentiate the two kinds of inflation. Thank you for describing it better than I could.
I stand corrected. But I read Twilight in the Desert, and while I remember a lot about water injection, I don’t remember it discussing fracking with respect to mistakes that caused declines at Ghawar (what Duckster was referring to). I might be misremembering, though. And while I didn’t see any mention of fracking in Duckster’s link, I’ll admit that I only skimmed it, so maybe I missed it.
deltasigma–I think that European-level gasoline prices would have more of a negative effect on the North American economies than the European economies. The infrastructures are not equivalent. Suburban sprawl, etc., may limit alternatives to driving more in America than in Europe. (Although obviously, there are some areas of the US that have great public transportation–NYC, Santa Cruz, Seattle, etc). And in the link I provided, it discussed the effects on American automakers, which may have a larger role in the economy than elsewhere (although I haven’t looked up the stats.) So I am not too reassured.
Even in Europe, it took massive government intervention to install electric rail, and it typically happened as part of large infrastructure projects.
Massive government spending on infrastructure is politically improbable in the US in the near future. And even if it happened, we’d probably be putting the money into fixing our aging roads and bridges.
Worse yet, unlike much of Europe, virtually all commercial rail lines are privately owned, and private companies aren’t going to spend gobs of money on infrastructure spending without the hope of some kind of short term ROI.
Seriously, wtf are you on about? There are other methods of producing electricity besides coal OR fusion.