Columbusite
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 6
- Location
- Columbus
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Billo_Really said:I don't know why we can't do what their doing in Brazil.
Columbusite said:Whether we peak in 5, 10, 20, or 40+ years is not the point.
1977-79:
General Motors spends over $20 million in electric car development and research, reporting that electric vehicles could be in mass production by the mid-1980s.
1980-97:
Various automobile companies, as well as independent inventors continue to improve upon the theory of Hybrids, creating many proto-types and plans. These years are considered to be important in Hybrid history because the computer started to be used in Hybrids to help increase their efficiency.
1992:
Toyota Motor Corporation announced the "Earth Charter," a document outlining goals to develop and market vehicles with the lowest emissions possible.
1997:
Toyota Prius went on sale to the public in Japan. First-year sales were nearly 18,000.
1997 - 1999:
A small selection of all-electric cars from the big automakers—including Honda’s EV Plus, GM’s EV1 and S-10 electric pickup, a Ford Ranger pickup, and Toyota’s RAV4 EV—were introduced in California. Within a few years the enthusiasm was again dropped.
Will the world ever physically run out of crude oil? No, but only because it will eventually become very expensive in absence of lower-cost alternatives. When will worldwide production of conventionally reservoired crude oil peak? That will in part depend on the rate of demand growth, which is subject to reduction via both technological advancements in petroleum product usage such as hybrid-powered automobiles and the substitution of new energy source technologies such as hydrogen-fed fuel cells where the hydrogen is obtained, for example, from natural gas, other hydrogen-rich organic compounds, or electrolysis of water. It will also depend in part on the rate at which technological advancement, operating in concert with world oil market economics, accelerates large-scale development of unconventional sources of crude such as tar sands and very heavy oils. Production from some of the Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan heavy oil deposits is already economic and growing.
In any event, the world production peak for conventionally reservoired crude is unlikely to be "right around the corner" as so many other estimators have been predicting. Our analysis shows that it will be closer to the middle of the 21st century than to its beginning. Given the long lead times required for significant mass-market penetration of new energy technologies, this result in no way justifies complacency about both supply-side and demand-side research and development.
The fact is, alternative energies presented so far will not be a viable alternative to oil. In this country, the majority of people live in spawling suburbs where cars are a necessity, not an option,
Columbusite said:and China and India are rapidly industrializing, so that even if we did have real alternatives, they'd be consumed at such a high rate that they are not the solution.
Columbusite said:The USA accounts for about 5% of the world population, yet consumess 25% of oil used the world over. Whether we peak in 5, 10, 20, or 40+ years is not the point. The point is that in this country we need to do some serious overhauling in our living arrangements & transportation, otherwise we are setting ourselves up for a doom & gloom scenario.
Columbusite said:We need to take rail seriously for transporting both goods and people, while sprawling suburbs are going to have to, where possible, be turned into walkable towns. A small number of suburbs are already wakable/bikeable and therefore exempt.
Columbusite said:This endeavor will take decades so the time for this to start is now. Some alternative energies will act as suppliments, but most certainly cannot replace oil the way we are consuming it today.
There are serious scalability issues with alternatives--they will not, in any combination (except possibly nuclear) be brought to market in a way that will come remotely close to replacing the energy base that oil gives us.
ashurbanipal said:3) Classical economists did not foresee situations where a finite resource would become the principle currency of any given economy.
ashurbanipal said:Once oil becomes too expensive to produce at its present rate, the usual laws of supply and demand will become null and void.
Kandahar said:Nuclear power can supply us with all the energy we need. But why don't you think that other forms of power could also do it?
Kandahar said:Money itself is a finite resource.
Ash:Once oil becomes too expensive to produce at its present rate, the usual laws of supply and demand will become null and void.
KandaharWhy? If gas-guzzlers are more cost-effective than hybrids at $2 a gallon, people will buy gas-guzzlers. If hybrids are more cost-effective than gas-guzzlers at $4 a gallon, people will buy hybrids. Same logic applies to anything else that requires energy.
Even if I accept your premise that cars are a necessity, that doesn't automatically translate into oil being a necessity. Alternative energies will come to market whenever there is enough demand for them. There will be more demand for them as the price of gasoline increases.
If they were in such high demand, they'd be very expensive and therefore companies would scramble to supply as much alternative energy to the market as they possibly could. That would, in turn, lower the price.
No we aren't. The idea that we're going to continue using the amount of oil we're currently using until we suddenly run out is implausible. The price of oil will necessarily increase as the supply decreases. We'll never use up the last barrel of oil.
How exactly are we going to do this? Economics already provides us with a sort of evolutionary mechanism: People will naturally move to more walkable cities, and abandon the less walkable cities, if they feel its in their economic interests to do so.
Why not?
I would say that this is almost the whole point. If we peak in 5 years (which I consider somewhat likely), the word "cataclysm" doesn't really capture the situation we will find ourselves in a few years later. If we peak in 40 years, we have time to effect mitigation.
Supply and Demand has a way of working things out. I don't think energy is an exception. As oil supplies dwindle, the cost of fuel will rise, resulting in significantly more money being invested in alternative sources and solutions.
Hybrid cars have been available but, prior to a few months ago, it was rare that you'd see one on the street. The American Public offered very little incentive to the Auto makers to pour billions into a stagnant market. Don't underestimate the Industrial Might of the US or the ability of our Researchers.
Link
Here is an excerpt from a US Geological Survey that is highly regarded by Industry expects and the Government.
link
The East Coast has a very effective Public Transportation system. In fact, the majority of people living in Manhattan do not own a car and only about half own a car in the NYC area.
Houston, where I live, has a reasonable Public Transportation system that could be upgraded to handle heavier traffic as well.
In short, as oil prices rise from lack of supply, Hybrids and Public Transportation will rise resulting in better Public Transportation Systems and improvements in alternative sources.
Their population is 186 million vs 300 million and people there can't afford ubiquitous sprawling suburbs. Instead, they walk, bike, and take public transit in cities and towns, again not car-dependent suburbs. In other words, they aren't consuming 25% of oil used worldwide. If it could work putting aside whether it takes more energy to make that ethanol than what you get out of it, where could we grow all that sugarcane and/or corn? How are we going to increase AND sustain suburban sprawl with that along with expanding highways for transporting people and goods? That may aide us, but it cannot make-up for the extraordinarily high amount of oil the average American consumes everyday.
Supply and Demand has a way of working things out. I don't think energy is an exception. As oil supplies dwindle, the cost of fuel will rise, resulting in significantly more money being invested in alternative sources and solutions.
Hybrid cars have been available but, prior to a few months ago, it was rare that you'd see one on the street. The American Public offered very little incentive to the Auto makers to pour billions into a stagnant market. Don't underestimate the Industrial Might of the US or the ability of our Researchers.
Link
Here is an excerpt from a US Geological Survey that is highly regarded by Industry expects and the Government.
link
The East Coast has a very effective Public Transportation system. In fact, the majority of people living in Manhattan do not own a car and only about half own a car in the NYC area.
Houston, where I live, has a reasonable Public Transportation system that could be upgraded to handle heavier traffic as well.
In short, as oil prices rise from lack of supply, Hybrids and Public Transportation will rise resulting in better Public Transportation Systems and improvements in alternative sources.
I want people who are at least relatively knowledgeable on the subject to give input.
The fact is, alternative energies presented so far will not be a viable alternative to oil.
The point is that in this country we need to do some serious overhauling in our living arrangements & transportation, otherwise we are setting ourselves up for a doom & gloom scenario.
NN said:Then, apparently, you don't qualify to post in your own thread. There are MANY viable alternative fuels.
NN said:The fact is that there are. The first is nuclear power to generate electricity for homes buisinesses, etc. We could already have this oil dependency solved if people would stop being such big babies about it.
NN said:The second is solar/electric for vehicles. The Tesla motor company has created the most promising solar/electric model called the Tesla Roadster. I'd take a look if I were you because that baby is exponentially better in appearence and performance than most of the scrap heaps on the road today. There would be a higher demand of such vehicles and they would be cheaper and produced in greater numbers if the Washington pinheads would spend less time salivating over the feet of the Saudi royal family and more time promoting and dedicating tax dollars towards research.
NN said:The problem isn't finding viable alternative fuels because we already have them.
NN said:The problem is that almost everything around us is made from a byproduct of petroleum. What we're going to do about that in less than 49 years, which is when we will see the peak oil marker, is still a mystery.
It's pretty much a "given" that if you use a limited resource at an ever increasing rate that eventually you'll run out. I can't claim to know much about oil sand, shale oil, or any other of those technologies though.
I really think Hydrogen is our future. I don't want to drag your "peak oil" thread off topic, and I'm not ready to start a hydrogen thread, so that discussion will have to wait for another day.
Then, apparently, you don't qualify to post in your own thread. There are MANY viable alternative fuels.
The fact is that there are. The first is nuclear power to generate electricity for homes buisinesses, etc. We could already have this oil dependency solved if people would stop being such big babies about it. The second is solar/electric for vehicles. The Tesla motor company has created the most promising solar/electric model called the Tesla Roadster. I'd take a look if I were you because that baby is exponentially better in appearence and performance than most of the scrap heaps on the road today. There would be a higher demand of such vehicles and they would be cheaper and produced in greater numbers if the Washington pinheads would spend less time salivating over the feet of the Saudi royal family and more time promoting and dedicating tax dollars towards research.
The problem isn't finding viable alternative fuels because we already have them. The problem is that almost everything around us is made from a byproduct of petroleum. What we're going to do about that in less than 49 years, which is when we will see the peak oil marker, is still a mystery.
I also live in Houston, where the Gulf freeway has been under construction since 1955 - LOL.
Seriously, I think the rail system is a disaster. Not only does it make for more of a nightmare when driving downtown, but more buses could have been put into service, thus doing the same job at a fraction of the cost.
There's no need for another thread, hydrogen is totally relevant to peak oil. If you have broadband pause this video, let it load and start it at 51:07. It's the part of the interview with James Howard Kunstler which deals with hydrogen and the problems it faces. The Long Emergency: Surviving Catastophies of the 21st Century - Google Video
Rail is what will save us from disaster.
Rail can help, but it can't save us. You can't use rail to plant and harvest crops. You can't use rail for moving everything. rail can't go to every farm, factory, and store. No matter how many new rail lines you build you won't reach everywhere.
I live in a city with no light rail transportation and live about 30 miles from my work place. But I'm not worried about how I'll get to work if we run out of oil.
I live in Detroit and work in the auto industry. If we run out of oil there will be no job to go to, and transportation will be the least of my concerns. :crazy3:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?