Doug McDonald wrote:
> Bill in Schenectady, Upstate New York wrote:
>
> >
> > For a very short time because very soon the price of fuel will go up
> > many fold in a manner unprecedented in modern history. Market
> > capitalists ASSUME that higher fuel prices will simply lead to more
> > fuel development.
>
> and of course that's becasue it is TRUE
Pretty weak retort. There is a limit to total fuel. Yes we can grow
bio-fuels but there is an energy input to do that nearly as high, if
not higher, than the net energy output. There will be technical fixes
that allow fuel to be used more efficiently. But there is simply no
new oil and we can't wait millions of years to create it. We are
currently at or just past the peak of oil production with demand
growing. Demand is now beginning to outstrip supply. No we are not
running out of oil this year or this decade, but the cheap oil has been
developed and the oil that's left is more expensive to pump, transport,
and refine. Bottom line: expect energy prices to go up significantly
before the decade is done. It is already beginning. That will result
in economic changes and turmoil while we adjust to the new reality.
Many, many people will no longer afford to live 40 miles from work, to
heat and cool a 3000 or 4000 square foot home.
We have a choice: leave it all to "capitalism" and wait for the
turmoil before beginning the 10-20 year process of adjusting to the new
reality, or use regulations and incentives to help the process along.
I do have a great deal of faith in the ability to develop new
technologies. I also have little faith in businesses looking beyond
their next quarterly report. That's why we need incentives from
government to help the research along. We also need regulations so
that the rush to pump, dig, and develop remaining fuel supplies does
not result in extreme challenges to worker safety, does not create
environmental catastrophies (economic externalities that businesses
tend to avoid paying for but that the rest of us do), and that manages
the resources so that we don't, for example, spoil access to half of an
oil field in the rush to pump the first half.
> > But that ignores the limits to earth's carrying
> > capacity...limits that do not follow market principles.
>
> We are nowhere NEAR the limits of even oil production, and
> coal is barely scratched, as is uranium and thorium.
Actually, you're utterly wrong. We are about at the limits of oil
production now. The Saudis have the largest oil fields in the world
and they have been unable to increase production in the past couple of
years even while trying. I suggest you read "Twilight in the Desert"
for an in depth analysis. U.S. production peaked at about 1970 and has
fallen ever since. The Alaska North Slope will add a drop in the
bucket and in spite of movements to further develop the outer
continental shelf, the oil companies themselves aren't that keen as
they've already explored everywhere and have not come up with major new
finds.
There is a great deal of oil in the tar sands of western Canada,
however it takes an extreme amount of energy to produce and refine that
"sour" heavy crude.
Bottom line: there's oil left but there's little cheap oil left. That
will have major impacts on our economy and on many of the ways that our
lifestyles waste energy.
There is perhaps 150 years of coal left at current production rates BUT
as oil gets more and more expensive, coal production will increase.
Plus, you can't run a car on coal. Still, we'll manage to keep the
lights on but unless there is a huge investment in more modern coal
burning technology, we'll also see a significant increase in air
pollution, acid rain, and greenhouse gasses.
Similarly, we can keep going with nuclear power for a while, though
uranium isn't unlimited either. Plus, we have yet to solve the nuclear
waste problem.
I'm not as pessimistic as some: I don't think our society will
collapse as some do (read William Kunstler's "The Long Emergency".)
But I do think that there will be economic impacts that will cause a
collapse in suburban housing prices, significantly change worker
commuting patterns, and lead to a demand for a resurgence in public
transportation as fewer people will be able to afford to fuel cars.
>
> > We are
> > currently at the tipping point. Oil demand is beginning to surpass
> > supply and the Saudis have been unable to pump more because, frankly,
> > they are now at the downward slope of their production capacity ...
> > .limits that no amount of economic theory can solve.
>
> The current oil production capability is far in excess of
> world needs. The REFINING capacity is not, however, due to the
> meddling of certain socialist types.
Once you use the world "socialist" you lose me as a person who can
rationally argue a point. Notice that there is not a huge push by oil
companies to build new refineries and if there was, the fact that the
U.S. government is fully in the hands of the oil friendly Republican
Party would make it easier for them to do so. But I agree in one area:
much of the remaining oil is a "sour" heavier crude and requires more
refining to turn into gasoline. That will require more refining
capacity. Even with that, though, prices will escalate.
> >>>
> >>
> >>So long as the socialists (in the USA read: Democrats) are out of power,
> >>EVERYONE who is not a loafer will be able to afford a car or two or
> >>three. This even includes illegal aliens.
> >
> >
> > Try reading. We are currently in the final years of mass private
> > automotive transport. You are still living in the 90's. The 90's are
> > over.
>
> No they are not: they are 95 years in the FUTURE ... and cars
> will still be the major mode of transportation then.
Only if we can successfully develop electric and solar car
technologies.
>
> >>Trains are a very inefficient method of moving people. They are
> >>basically useful only for long distance moving of commodities. This is
> >>because they have limited scope (that is, tracks don;t go everywhere)
> >>and limited timing: they don't go when the individual wants to go.
> >>This is the definition of inefficiency. Planes have the same problem
> >>as rail, but they are so much faster that they can become quite
> >>efficient at moving people long distances.
> >>
> >
> > Trains are only inefficient because we have allowed them to deteriorate
> > to the point in which they do not provide adequate service.
>
> Installing enough track to meet adequate service needs is
> essentially economically impossible.
What???? We've spent hundreds of billions on an interstate highway
system and we can't build a railroad? It's merely a matter of
priorities! The rights of way are mostly there. In fact as the cost
of fuel results in fewer people driving, we probably won't need many of
our divided highways...one side of which can be used for track
development. After all, the grades are already favorable.
>
> > Go to
> > Europe though and you will find that you can get almost anywhere by
> > train, linked with busses that meet the trains. You may have to wait
> > an hour or two until the train you want comes by.
>
> 2 hours is simply unacceptable as a normal mode of short and
> medium distance transportation. Planes do better. Much better.
er....I've waited in airports for hours while changing flights and at
times for departing flights that get delayed at the drop of a hat.
Plus, you have to get to the airport at least 90 minutes before a
flight, especially if you have baggage to check. For distances of up
to 300 miles, trains can be much faster than air travel, especially if
you're going from city center to city center. And while it's nice to
get in the car and go where you want when you want, the coming
economies of petroleum will render that unobtainable for many people.
|