Right now, it's no longer ultra-cheap (at least the price begins to be noticeable), but it's still not expensive enough for us to really look for ways to do without (ie it's not painful enough, for large numbers of consumers).
So if demand is to actually shrink in any significant way, pain will need to spread a lot wider and deeper. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
It still won't help, because the genius of the markets has failed to offer any reasonable short or medium term alternative.
Rationing, power cuts, and a limited working week are the next stage, and will guarantee a wave of foreclosures and other financial mayhem.
We are, in fact, completely fucked already.
Only supersized alternative energy projects, like the Severn Barrage, are going to be able to make a dent in what's needed. Anything smaller is going to be cosmetic.
But it's going to take years to get those big projects legislated and built. And we don't have years.
As a rather famous Frenchman (guess which one) once said..."People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognise necessity when a crisis is upon them".
The solution is not going to be some big thunderbolt from the sky, but a host of smaller actions.
On the wings of a billion butterflys.
The difference now is there's limited industrial capacity, and limited political understanding of the problem. No one could debate the fact that the war in Europe was happening. But you can interpret peak oil and climate change endlessly without having to do anything about them.
If it were framed as a war effort - or something like it - you'd start to see some changes. But that's unlikely to happen with any of the current crop of pols. And the population aren't used to being told they have to make sacrifices, so they're unlikely to vote for anyone who says otherwise.
Peak oil is tied in, at least from an energy perspective, is tied in with climate change. At least in Europe, climate change has been a major political issue for at least a decade. The result of that has been an upswing in R&D across a range of technologies such as printable solar panels, bigger wind turbines, fuel efficency and fuel cells. The scope and range of technolgies that exist and going to exist is truly mind blowing.
These technolgies are coming increasingly on stream and going into production. These are also areas in which Europe dominates. Inudustrial capicaity is limited, but it is not static, it can be increased when demand increaes. It also helps that the EU has the largest industrial base on the planet.
The challegne tends not to be technological, but political and social. People STILL deny that climate change is an issue, that high oil prices are JUST because of taxes, and so forth. Its up to politicans to address the issues, and for an infomed populos to make sure they stay focused.
Thank-fully(!) climate change is the 900lb gorrila sitting in the corner of the room messing the place up. It did not go away, and has now brought its mates along to smash up the party. Europe is better placed than the USA with regard to peak energy because we have taken climate more seriously and have been making investments, both in terms of technology and socially and poltically.
We are not yet on a 'war' footing, and it does take time, but as my original analogy was making, once things get going, progress can be very rapid.
The next decade, mark my words, be very intresting.
Regarding major shift in private transport... I am quite with you here...soutions are way way behind.. adn the investment needed willl take a decade at fast speed....so driving less and flying less is the only option I foresee now. Luckily, this would be enough since we are overusing roughly 15 million barrels per day on unnecessary driving.
Another question is how people would feel about having to drive less and about the oil-realted inflation in agricultural and imported products.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
It will be difficult on the transport front.. but not as much in the energy front.. amaor projects in electricity would probably be needed .b. utt hey are roughly on time adn with a delay of 5 years at the most.
Not in the UK, unfortunately. We have plenty of greenwashed PR spin, but not so much of the useful power-generating windmill spin.
The point isn't so much about where we are now, it's that there are no plans - none at all - for dealing with peak oil.
There will be contingencies for rioting and civil unrest, and probably some mouldy minimal food stocks somewhere. But Whitehall and Westminster have no clue how to deal with oil or gas shortages.
The last time this happened inflation exploded, and we were all on a three day week with rolling power cuts trying to survive by candlelight. I don't see any evidence of better organisation this time around.
It's going to take mega-schemes like the Saharan Sun project to make a difference, and that's not looking likely until around 2020 at the earliest.
I wonder if there will be a 'Not investing enough in your future energy needs' funds?!
The problem in SPain is the same as in other parts of the world regading no "forwad thinking" regarding peak-transport but I wanted to point out that not everyone is as fuc*** as UK and other coutnires in similar situations) which may have problem in the electric grid without shrot-term solutions :)
If it gets to the stage of 3-day weeks and rolling power cuts, then I would expect such bureaucratic/administrative luxuries will be ditched quicker than a very quick thing. Of course if our governing classes had been a bit more clueful then we'd have avoided all the costs and inefficiencies of doing a crash build at the same time as world+dog - but you can't have everything.
Regards Luke -- #include witty_sig.h
I start my PHD in nanophysics this July, working on nanocrystalline diamond, which could be a really efficient converter of solar heat to electricity. My project will be trying to adapt the material to use in Condensed Thermal Solar plants, with any luck we'll be producing it within five years at much greater efficiencies than the steam ones used now. If we don't get there, someone will. The technologies are coming and it's beginning to get serious funding so hopefully any new plants in the short term will just be stopgaps.
It's already started. Down here, at least, petrol usage has been flat for the last two years, and some preliminary statistics earlier in the month suggested that counter to all the economists predictions, it had in fact dropped. That's what three years of high prices and a recognition it is only goign to get worse will do to you.
Unfortunately, our government has used it as an excuse not to include transport in its emissions trading scheme. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I disagree completely. Many such mega-projects, and the Severn Barrage especially,
The demand reduction will be starting now. People will be driving less, flying less, buying less, and heating their homes less. It still won't help, because the genius of the markets has failed to offer any reasonable short or medium term alternative.
we don't have years.
Not to worry, prices will increase until prices are actually passed on and cause new consumption patterns; the fact is that the current "boiling frog" price increases are unlikely, it would seem, to lead to shortages or rationing in the short term, because that's not where the problem is.
CNN Money, April 27, 2008
Sales of large SUVs plummeted 28% in the first quarter this year, while subcompact sales rose 32%, according to Autodata Corp. [snip] Small cars are now the largest segment of the U.S. auto market, accounting for 18% of new car sales. Last year, U.S. consumers bought a record 2.8 million of them, and with sales up 4% in the first quarter this year, the record almost surely will be shattered.
[snip]
Small cars are now the largest segment of the U.S. auto market, accounting for 18% of new car sales. Last year, U.S. consumers bought a record 2.8 million of them, and with sales up 4% in the first quarter this year, the record almost surely will be shattered.
Kansas City Star, Apr. 21, 2008
U.S. drivers are doing something they haven't done for nearly two decades -- consume less gasoline. Gas consumption so far this year is down about 0.2 percent compared to last year, according to the Energy Information Administration. The federal agency is predicting that gasoline demand will be down 0.4 percent this summer and 0.3 percent for the year. That may not sound like much, but it would be the first time since 1991 that there's been a decline in annual gas consumption. And it would be only the eighth year since 1951 in which demand for gasoline has declined.
Gas consumption so far this year is down about 0.2 percent compared to last year, according to the Energy Information Administration. The federal agency is predicting that gasoline demand will be down 0.4 percent this summer and 0.3 percent for the year.
That may not sound like much, but it would be the first time since 1991 that there's been a decline in annual gas consumption. And it would be only the eighth year since 1951 in which demand for gasoline has declined.
The boiling frog is jumping all right.
Higher fuel costs are being worked into the economy like they were in the 70s and the 80s. Individual-level, consumers are already taking the options which are available to them. At the infrastructure level, there are no huge technology obstacle to substitution by GTL, CTL, BTL, augmented xTL by renewable or nuclear electricity. Same with EVs, etc. If the consensus among the economic "elites" is that oil prices will stay very high, alternatives will show up, late and way above cost like everything else, but it will show up if there is money to be made. I trust the markets to get there nilly willy, two steps forward, one step backwards.
The real issue is whether the governments of consumer countries will just bob around with the flow of the market for solutions - at the cost of lost opportunities, huge wealth transfers to producing countries and the occasional riot - or if they will tackle the issue proactively through taxation and direct public investment. Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.
huge wealth transfers to producing countries
The plans and landing sites for marines and paras where drawn up during the Carter administration, and they just have to be dusted off.
That should give the Saudis et al an extra incentive to increase production. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
No. Very bad idea. Like always with war unless you really have to.
It's a very bad idea because, if a country can tie its shoelaces on its own, it has much better things to do at home to solve the issue than going around blowing up things and killing people. And if it can't tie its shoelaces like a grown up, well, going to war is a bad move anyway.
The US has blown about $540 billions in direct expenditure on the Iraq war so far.
Now, take the Oryx GTL plant in Qatar: 1 billion for 11 millions barrels/yr. It's still in start-up phase with teething problems but just 4 years after ground-breaking, it's perfectly normal. That's about $90 per bbl/yr capacity.
Two things:
121.5*0.8).
A CTL plant is about 60% efficient in energy conversion and self-sufficient for its utilities. Assuming 25 MJ/kg for a mix of sub-bituminous coal and lignite and 35 MJ for a mix of LPG, gasoline and diesel, 1 m3 of liquid fuel takes 2.3 tonnes of coal ( 35/0.6/25) or, for the non-metric folks, 0.4115 short tons per barrel of liquid fuel.
I don't count the cost of the coal extraction equipments - not very expansive or it wouldn't be so popular for electricity - nor take into account the fact that pure CTL is butt-ugly for CO2, but hey, global warming or war, the choice is easy, and a CTL plant actually produce its CO2 as a fairly pure, separated stream, ready to pump if CO2 sequestration ever becomes reality.
~~~~~~~~~~
So, if, instead of going to war with Iraq and pissing away $540 billions in the wind, the US had built CTL plants with those $540 !@#$&^* billions, it would have on-line or in the pipeline a production capacity of LPG, gasoline and diesel in the order of 5.4 billion barrels a year for an annual consumption of 7.6 billion barrels of crude (which means less in products after refining).
It would use ~2.2 billions short tons of coal for that, a 180% increase of its current production (~1.2 billions short tons), which is a lot but not a jump in order of magnitudes, so we're still within the bounds of physical reality.
With that CTL capacity and local oil production, the US would not be importing a single drop of crude. Oil would be $15 a barrel. That would hurt the producing countries far more than any war.
So, tell me, if something as inelegant and crude as CTL works, why would anyone (Republicans set aside) go to war? Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.
a CTL plant actually produce its CO2 as a fairly pure, separated stream, ready to pump if CO2 sequestration ever becomes reality.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/2/28/19644/7315 Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.
So, tell me, if something as inelegant and crude as CTL works, why would anyone (Republicans set aside) go to war?
I'll note that Stavrid didn't say he thought it was a good idea. I tend to agree with him that it's not an unlikely scenario.
It's just that even from a purely utilitarian point of view, all morality set aside, war is darn stupid. Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.
I obviously think it is madness. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
And as I clarified, I believe an invasion, an armed robbery against the UAE or KSA would not only be immoral but also stupid, which is why I think it might very well happen. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Well, you are right that that doesn't have much to do with Darfur or Zimbabwe. I guess that's why no one has intervened...
No oil=no intervention.
Why, there is oil in Chad... And French and Swedish troops are deployed there. What a surprise. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
There is always a lag between price signals and infrastructure changes. With cars, it takes about 20 years to renew the fleet although strong pressures like gas prices can accelerate that.
Actually, you should read that too:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/median-vehicle.html
What's interesting in the US is that both the median age of the fleet and the scrappage rate are going up. What it suggests is that recent vehicles are going to the scrapyard - cars sold during the gas guzzling madness of the past 10 years - but older vehicles, which tended to be pretty sober, are staying in the fleet. It would actually match a bit what I see around me, with friends churning through new fancy cars but also hanging dearly on their old Honda Civic 1989 for commute. So, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a reduction of a couple of percents a year in the US. Just because of market inelasticity, it could end up moving oil prices quite a bit.
But at short term, I agree. Demand destruction will mostly happen on the margins, in weaker economies where energy is a much bigger share of income, hence much more sensitive. It's already happening in countries that cannot sustain subsidies against current prices - Nepal, Africa, etc. Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.
What it suggests is that recent vehicles are going to the scrapyard - cars sold during the gas guzzling madness of the past 10 years - but older vehicles, which tended to be pretty sober, are staying in the fleet.
