Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
All I am saying is that the US has the natural resources to make it through the transition on its own, which the EU doesn't.

And the US population seem to still be rather densely concentrated, and mostly near waterways.

People may need a car, but not a big car. The problem is that people are not being encouraged now to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles, or to reduce the number of vehicles per household. The US vehicle fleet could be replaced at the normal pace in what? 10, 15 years?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 06:48:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
People may need a car, but not a big car. The problem is that people are not being encouraged now to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles, or to reduce the number of vehicles per household. The US vehicle fleet could be replaced at the normal pace in what? 10, 15 years?

I'd guess something around that, yes. The problem is also in the social structure. People need to load their big SUV full of goodies at the Wal-Mart once a week to save time on shopping, so that they can keep up their 60-70 hour work week. Similarly, they need place for their big bodies which have gotten fat due to saving time on eating (fast food) in order to do more work (mostly office work that doesn't involve moving). There is a kind of mutually reinforcing effect in traffic that if you aren't in a higher driving position, you can't see as much on the highway because of all the SUVs.

Of course you could just gradually raise the fuel tax to $10 a gallon and that would force most people to change the car size when they renew. But it's not going to happen.

So I think the point is first, what you said, that the US has more resources to make it through a transition to an economy without oil. But, second, the political momentum is already there in Europe to begin with a transition, it is not there in the US, and it is not particularly likely to emerge in the US until there is a big crash.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 08:03:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think people underestimate just how bad North American suburbs really are, and how prevalent they are. They are economic deserts dependent on an input energy resources to function. They destroy valuable farmland and an amazing rate. They are extremely expensive to provide any sort of public services to them. Some have been carefully designed to prevent public services from being provided to them. The classic example would be underpasses leading to the suburbs. The bridges in some cases have been carefully arched to prevent busses from using these roads. Over time most of these bridges have had to be rebuilt to allow busses, but it gives an idea of the scope of the problem. Let me take it back a bit: Suburbs prevent economic activity by design. That is their big attraction.

Part of an extreme melt down would probably require mass migration of North American population out of the suburbs. Too dense to farm and not dense enough to provide any sort of self-sustaining society. Suburbs located in and very close to cities would in effect need to be re-built. Los Angeles would become the classic nightmare, being a city that is mostly suburb.


aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 12:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey nanne, you're getting personal!  I'm not that fat -- yet.  I may be the only person in the US that keeps a car 10-12 years though.  My neighbors seem to buy a new one every couple of years.  I think/hope that by the end of this summer petrol prices will reach over $4.00/USG forcing everyone (else) to re think their fat SUVs and uh - bodies.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 10:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, I'm just looking at the averages!

$4 a gallon petrol will not be enough to force a major shift in the choice of vehicles. We in Europe almost have $7 a gallon petrol right now. If you'd have that, you would get a real shift. If the vehicle fleet becomes more like Europe, you get more small cars and less cheap SUVs and pickup trucks; luxury SUVs will remain more or less the same as people driving them still have enough money to pay for that kind of petrol.

Could be that the US market functions differently from the EU market in various ways (due to poorer public transport and the aforementioned social factors in driving SUVs). So even with $7 petrol the shift towards a smaller vehicle fleet could be quite slow.

Also see this post by Atrios plus the comments.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 01:35:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not the absolute level that matters, only the rate of change. We stopped increasing gas taxes in Europe 10 years ago, and look at the results - we're back to big SUVs and increasingly heavy cars. Fuel efficiency is barely a concern, because gas is again cheap, relatively speaking.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 05:54:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
With regard to cars, I think car taxes, yearly but especially on new cars, are much more promising (because they're less politically dangerous) than fuel taxes.

The eco tax in Germany was introduced in 1999 and ramped up until 2003 (increasing taxes on petrol by 30% and on diesel by 50%). Since then fuel prices have continued to rise. Still, I see hordes of Cayenne, Touareg, M Class, X5, Q7 SUVs all around me. The problem is that European SUVs are largely luxury SUVs and the people who can afford them, the haves and the have mores, can also easily afford higher gas prices.

The kind of fuel taxes that you need to curb this kind of luxury consumption are just not going to get a political majority. Atrios is right on that in the US and his point also goes for the EU. We can talk about what would work as if we are detached from the need to command political majorities and detached from the constraints of existing institutions, but I don't think that is very useful.

Fuel taxes in the EU will first require a new treaty or a two-speed Europe because they now require unanimity. And even then, I think it is very optimistic to even hope for an increase of 50 eurocents, phased in slowly.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 06:54:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The fuel tax was raised at the height of the second oil price shock in then West Germany. Admittedly, Kohl came... but with a coup, not an election victory.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think Jerome is correct instating that it's not the amount of the price of petrol overall that causes a shift in vehicle type but the amount over a short period of time.  Two examples:

(1)  The 1973 Yom Kippur War and ensuing petrol price increases and shortages caused a major change of vehicle usage in the US.  The congress enacted legislation in 1975 that mandated increased mpg and this did rise until 1987 to 26.2 mpg. (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/energy/i/cafe_standards.htm ) All of this occurred due to the "shortages" and doubling of the price per gallon.  If I recall correctly the price was about .32 cents per gallon and rose to something like .79 cents give or take.  The prices in GB, where I was at the time were already hitting a quid for a UK gallon - about $2.40.  Upon our return to the US in 1976, we were able, by 1978 or so to buy a Honda Civic than got 42-48 mpg, and the trend was definitely downsized foreign made vehicles.  I've never bought anything but Honda sedans or hatchbacks since and the Honda became for a time the most popular car on the road.

The unfortunate loophole in the 1975 legislation was that it exempted small trucks, thus over time even though petrol prices have risen, so have wages, and people became accustomed to paying more (still only $1-$130) until a year or two ago.   The small truck loophole led to invention of "cars" built on truck frames, thus the SUV with no cap on mpg.

(2) One of my relatives manages a small business providing a line of products including installation. The business runs on a shoestring budget in order to make a profit because the products are probably considered non-essential luxury items, but lots of people that don't make huge salaries want them.  Most of the companies employees are basically unskilled workers when hired on but they receive training and are paid relatively low wages.  When the price of petrol started to rise dramatically a year or so ago quite a few employees said they would have to quit because they could no longer afford to commute from outlying areas (lower housing costs).  The company held fast and the price of petrol gradually became lower.  Now, even my relative is worried that the company, which uses a fleet of inexpensive relatively low petrol mileage vans, will not be able to afford the price of petrol soon.  He has to replace the fleet soon, but there are no real choices on the market that meet the company's size requirements.  Should the price of petrol suddenly hit $4-$5 this summer, the company (typical of many I suspect) and its employees will face a major crisis.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just a reminder that those Coal reserves you show for the US are political, not technical. The real numbers are considerably lower.

Russia, China and Germany are probably still overstating their Coal reserves also.

You might find me At The Edge Of Time.

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 09:11:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, good, like the OPEC oil reserves.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 09:26:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another example is the wind potential, which is larger in the US than in Europe:



Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 09:39:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You forget the Sea on that assessment.

I'm not saying that the situation is bad for the US, just that it isn't that bad in Europe.

You might find me At The Edge Of Time.

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 10:26:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is a lot easier in Europe because the North Sea has very low water depths over huge surfaces. If it becoems necessary, you can build a LOT of wind farms in an area which is not very far from very big population centers.

Wind power is not yet the cheapest, but it gives us a wonderful hedge as the price will NOT increase once capacity is installed (cost at the time of installation can vary as raw materials to build the farms vary, but it's still not that resource intensive to build anyway).

Current plans are in the UK for offshore wind to provide 13% of total electricity by 2020. A lot of it is already permitted, or in the planning phase. And that's without a crash programme, just the current framework.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 12:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That is not only true of the North Seam it is true also of the Hudson Bay, Newfoundland and the US Eastern Seaboard
The edge of the Caribbean basin would work too, were it not for those pesky tropical cyclones.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 12:29:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a difference between depth below 100m and depth below 40m, in terms of how easy it is to build fixed structures there.

The North Sea is really a lot more convenient in that respect.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 01:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
for failed rifts.

Let's remind everyone that during the last ice age people could walk to England across the North Sea shelf. Archaeologists generally suspect there were communities making a living on the shelf, before the rising tide washed them away.

by Nomad on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 04:15:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And as of today, there are only 2(!) wind turbines developed specifically for offshore operation deployed in the North Sea.

This is in fact a huge resource waiting out there.

You might find me At The Edge Of Time.

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 01:30:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are more than 10 large wind farms in operations - below only the bigger ones:

Denmark
Middelgrunden 40 MW (2001)
Horns Rev I 160 MW (2002)
Nysted-Roedsand 165 (2003)

UK
Barrow 90MW  Apr-06
Kentish Flats 90MW Nov-05
Scroby Sand 60MW Dec-04
North Hoyle 60MW Jul-04

Netherlands
NoordZeeWind 99MW (2006)

Lots more info in this this pedf presentation on offshore

The 2 turbines you refer to are the 5MW REpower turbines installed on the Beatrice project, I presume.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 04:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, off course, all the others are onshore turbines tweaked to function at sea.

You might find me At The Edge Of Time.
by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 02:34:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jérôme forgot Arklow Bank in Ireland, which consists of developed-for-offshore 3.6 MW GE turbines.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 05:53:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I only took the big ones - that work. Alklow Bank has been an unending series of problems - so much so that GE has effectively abandoned this turbine model.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 05:55:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I knew of several technology-related delays before opening, and the lack of new orders for the model spoke volumes (as did the abandonment of any talk about the planned second phase of Arklow Bank), but is it off-line now?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 06:15:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They've stopped marketing it. They are working on a new model now, as far as I know.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 05:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, I meant Arklow Bank, not the turbine type. Is it still operational, or was the type such crap that Arklow Bank is idle?

By the way, have you heard anything about Vestas's plans for a biggie (V120)? there is total silence on that, too.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 21st, 2007 at 06:14:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series