I have a new article in Salon on perhaps the most misunderstood subject in energy: peak oil.
Here is the short version:
- We are at or near the peak of cheap conventional oil production.
- There is no realistic prospect that the conventional oil supply can keep up with current projected demand for much longer, if the industrialized countries don't take strong action to sharply reduce consumption, and if China and India don't take strong action to sharply reduce consumption growth.
- Many people are expecting unconventional oil -- such as the tar sands and liquid coal -- to make up the supply shortage. That would be a climate catastrophe, and I (optimistically) believe humanity is wise enough not to let that happen. More supply is not the answer to either our oil or climate problem.
- Nonetheless, contrary to popular belief, the peak oil problem will not "destroy suburbia" or the American way of life. Only unrestrained emissions of greenhouse gases can do that.
- We have the two primary solutions to peak oil at hand: fuel efficiency and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles run on zero-carbon electricity. The only question is whether conservatives will let progressives accelerate those solutions into the marketplace before it is too late to prevent a devastating oil shock or, for that matter, devastating climate change.
That last sentence has been a major focus of my posts. I discuss it briefly in the article, but let me elaborate on it here. For more than two decades, conservatives have put up almost every conceivable roadblock to a sane energy policy. They have essentially said to peak oil -- and catastrophic global warming, for that matter -- "Bring it on!"
No one should be surprised that we are now mired in a tar pit of growing dependence on oil imported from unstable or undemocratic regions, that oil prices are over $100 a barrel, that we have a trade deficit in oil alone approaching $500 billion a year, and, of course, that we're faced with the very serious threat of catastrophic climate change from burning an ever-increasing amount of fossil fuels.
Many of us have predicted for a very long time that a quarter century of ignoring or underfunding the key solutions to our addiction to oil would have consequences. For instance, an April 1996 article I coauthored warned about what the Gingrich Congress was trying to do:
Congressional budget-cutters threaten to end America's leadership in new energy technologies that could generate hundreds of thousands of high-wage jobs, reduce damage to the environment, and limit our costly, dangerous dependency on oil from the unstable Persian Gulf region.
Now, absent an aggressive set of government-led policies, the oil situation will only get worse, with oil and gasoline prices doubling (or worse) in the next quarter century. Crucially, we must solve our oil addiction and carbon addiction together, and soon. Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency, said in November:
These two things put together, the short term security, medium term security of our oil markets, plus the climate change, consequences of this energy use, my message is that, if we don't do anything very quickly and in a bold manner, the wheels may fall off. Our energy system's wheels may fall off. This is the message that we want to give.
The problem is urgent. And the solutions are known.
Clearly we now have only two realistic strategies -- indeed, we have had only two realistic strategies for decades. We must greatly increase the fuel economy of our vehicles, and we must find one or more alternative fuel sources that are abundant, low-carbon, and affordable. Both of these are strategies that conservatives have strongly fought for a long time.
Just to be clear, let's just say we adopted the favorite strategy of conservatives (more supply) and we opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and we found enough to provide one million barrels a day for 30 years. That would delay the peak in oil one whole year! Catastrophe not averted. And, of course, it would only make global warming harder to fight. More domestic supply is not the solution.
Significantly, both Senators Clinton and Obama have announced plans to sharply increase fuel economy standards. As for McCain, one of his top economic advisors recently said that if his cap and trade system worked well enough, he might take the new standards off the books. That shows the McCain campaign does not understand what it will take to solve either the global warming or the peak oil problem.
Let's optimistically assume we can get fuel economy standards for cars and SUVs of 60 miles per gallon by 2030. We would still need half their fuel to be zero carbon. And that's just the time-line for dealing with global warming. If you want a motor fuel to deal with peak oil, then you need something that can provide a substantial and rapidly growing resource starting by 2020 at the latest (optimistically assuming we have a decade before peak).
Only one alternative fuel is even remotely plausible: carbon-free electricity.
Hydrogen is a "multi-miracle" nonstarter that became stake-through-the-heart dead this month when GM and Toyota told everyone the obvious -- we won't have "hydrogen fuel cells for mass-market production in the near term" but "electric cars will prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale." [Note to GM and Toyota: Duh!]
Corn ethanol is, as we've seen over and over again, a total loser from an energy and climate -- and every other conceivable -- perspective.
Biomass-based cellulosic biofuels hold a lot of promise, maybe even more promise than they held more than a decade ago when my office at DOE was pushing hard to develop them in the face of opposition from the Gingrich Congress. But we still don't have a single commercial cellulosic biofuels plant in operation in this country. So it will require massive government support for biofuels to be a major player by 2030, let alone 2020. Moreover, electricity is not a fuel that can be used for air travel and probably not for long-distance travel, especially by big trucks. So, again optimistically, we should probably assume every last drop of cellulosic biofuels will be set aside to cut non-automotive transportation fuel sharply in the coming decades.
I have previously explained why I believe plug in hybrids and electric cars are the cars of the future, especially as a climate solution. The Salon article "Peak oil? Consider it solved" talks about how they are the ideal solutions to peak oil, too.
The bottom line is that if we solve the climate problem, we will solve the peak oil problem. If we don't solve the climate problem, peak oil will be a somewhat painful but relatively short blip on the history of humanity compared to the extremely painful, multi-century tragedy our children and the 50 generations after them will face.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
The U.S. military’s battle to wean itself off oil
Comments
View as Flat
cjwirth Posted 3:46 pm
30 Mar 2008
Global oil production peaked in 2006 (or will peak within a few years) and will decline until all recoverable oil is depleted within several decades. Because global oil demand is increasing, declining production will soon generate high energy prices, inflation, unemployment, and irreversible economic depression. Regardless of the time available for mitigating Peak Oil impacts, alternative sources of energy will replace only a small fraction of the gap between declining production and increasing demand. Because oil under girds the world economy, oil depletion will result in global economic collapse and population decline. As oil exporting nations experience both declining oil production and increased domestic oil consumption, they will reduce oil exports to the U.S. Because the U.S.is highly dependent on imported oil for transportation, food production, industry, and residential heating, the nation will experience the impacts of declining oil supplies sooner and more severely than much of the world. North American natural gas production has peaked, importation of natural gas is limited, and the U.S. faces shortages of natural gas within a few years. These shortages threaten residential heating supplies, industrial production, electric power generation, and fertilizer production. Because U.S. coal production peaked in 2002 (in terms of energy provided by coal), the U.S. will experience significantly higher coal and electric prices in future years. The U.S. government is unprepared for the multiple consequences of Peak Oil, Peak Natural Gas, and Peak Coal. Multiple crises will cripple the nation in a gridlock of ever-worsening problems. Within a few decades, the U.S. will lack car, truck, air, and rail transportation, as well as mechanized farming, adequate food and water supplies, electric power, sanitation, home heating, hospital care, and government services. The full report is available at: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
cjwirth http://www.peakoilassociates.com
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:55 pm
30 Mar 2008
Dave Cohen of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) wrote a reply to your piece which we published at Energy Bulletin:
A response to Romm on peak oil.
Best wishes
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:56 pm
30 Mar 2008
Excuse me, but there is very little air travel conducted that is essential -- a teeny tiny fraction of that which is going on. The faster we cut back on jet travel, the better for the climate.
As for long distance travel by big trucks, electricity is the perfect fuel for heavy, efficient, massive load carrying trucks. They're called trains. You may have heard of them.
(Although maybe not. The Clinton Administration did prefer shoveling money at Detroit to not develop the 80 mpg car through the "Next Generation Vehicle" boondoggle rather than spend any money on the essential infrastructure of rail.)
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:17 pm
30 Mar 2008
Political dirt will convince many of them to stay home otherwise.
Plugin hybrids plugged into a renewable smart grid to reduce and finally eliminate oil consumption over the next 20 years. That's a great issue.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
naught101 Posted 4:54 pm
30 Mar 2008
You what?? Hybrids are a primary solution to peak oil?? what are you on? I don't even think efficiency is a primary solution to peak oil. Have you heard of Jevons' paradox?
The real solutions aren't going to be technologic. If anything they're going to be a simplification of current technologies, and localisation of everything. We can increase energy efficiency all we like, but all we're doing is treating the symptom. It'll just make the crash that much harder.
check out http://www.envirowiki.info, the knowledge database for environmentalists and activists.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:08 pm
30 Mar 2008
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3777
http://greyfalcon.net/coskata
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/28/113130/425
Or more specifically, how do we stop Peak Oil from being the all important benchmark; Instead of Climate Security?
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/report-eu-secur.h ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews. ...
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/13/climate-change-co ...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/epa-requests-co.h ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:24 pm
30 Mar 2008
Plugin cars don't need green energy to be greener than the status quo.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7
And we already got enough existing excess power plant capacity to provide enough electricity for 84% of the US Car fleet.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4
Permalink
cjwirth Posted 10:29 pm
30 Mar 2008
cjwirth http://www.peakoilassociates.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:29 pm
30 Mar 2008
How do we shift the focus away from "Oil Alternatives".
i.e. A supplyside focus.
Permalink
wgartist Posted 10:36 pm
30 Mar 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:37 pm
30 Mar 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:36 pm
30 Mar 2008
This is important because it's possible that electrifying the 3 trillion vehicle miles that people drive in this country will require more electricity than we can handle. If cars, on average, were able to get 1 mile per 1/3 kilowatt, for instance, we would need 1,000 billion kwhrs of extra generation. Since we consume 4,000 billion kilowatt hours total now, and coal generates half of that, then an all-electric fleet could increase coal use by 50% -- so we need to understand where the renewable electricity would come from.
Greyflcn, there may be the capacity to charge those cars (I'm assuming plug-ins are an intermediate step to all-electric), but are you saying that all of those kwhrs are currently being wasted, on the order of 1/4 of the electricity we generate?
cjwirth, I believe it was about 20 years ago that an industrial engineer I know calculated that electrifying rail would cost about $100 billion, hardly a bank-buster. According to Alan Drake at lightrailnow.com, freight hauled by train is 8 times more energy efficient than hauling it by trucks -- and we're not talking about the miserable shape of the interstate highway system as the result of all of that truck traffic. So, really, there is no reason to have long-haul trucks except that the infrastructure is not there.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:01 am
31 Mar 2008
So building electric cars, or better yet, trains, would not be deal-breaker. As for raw materials, there should be plenty available in the current automobile and truck fleet.
The second major point is about the "James Hansen" solution, that is, don't worry about petroleum, "just" eliminate coal. While I appreciate Hansen's point, I think that it is not a good one. We can walk and chew gum at the same time -- and by the way, we need to aggressively deal with the 3rd big source of ghg gases, deforestation, too. It's almost sectarian to argue that we should concentrate on one fossil fuel and not the other, that's one thing we shouldn't be criticizing each other over.
In some ways, dealing with petroleum will be harder than dealing with coal, even though, as I tried to show here, petroleum has never been necessary, it is more of a cultural choice, e.g., suburbs, while the electricity that coal produces really is vital to industrial civilization. So logically, it should be easier to eliminate petroleum than coal, culturally it will be more difficult.
But it will still be very difficult to eliminate the use of coal, obviously, because of its unfortunate necessity before we transform the society, so we need to proceed on both fronts, toward eliminating petroleum and coal, at once.
One last point -- I think that there would be an important demonstration effect if the US was to embark on these projects, so it is not necessarily true that all the petroleum (and coal) will be used up no matter what the US does, as Cohen seems to argue.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:57 am
31 Mar 2008
Well, you do need to add more fuel to get the desired kwh's.
Most power plants do not run at 100% capacity all the time. Especially at night.
The point being that we don't need new power plant infrastructure to power a dramatic number of electric cars.
And better yet, to power cars in a way which is greener than existing petroleum cars.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:00 am
31 Mar 2008
"Series Plugin Hybrids"
Are essentially identical to fully electric cars
Except the battery pack is about 1/3rd the size, and there's a motorcycle sized engine without a transmission used as a backup generator for extra range.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:07 am
31 Mar 2008
Permalink
gmobus Posted 1:18 am
31 Mar 2008
Now here is the irony. As climate change accelerates and creates massive dislocations we will need to have more total energy available to do the work of adapting. You don't move large population centers without a substantial amount of work. Coupled with this is the fact that population is slated to be greater at mid century as well. So we have growing demand per capita, growing population, and a need to invest in who-knows-what amount of adaptation.
But wait! The energy supply will be in decline. I see no feasible way that we can build up alternative sources to the level needed in the time frame projected. Besides, you need fossil fuel energy to build the energy capture and distribution infrastructure that would then need to be self-perpetuating after the fossil fuel goes away. In other words, for alternative energy sources to be sustainable, they will need to supply not only consumption demand, but self-replacement into the future (all energy technology has to meet this criteria, which has been easy for oil and coal to do as long as their ERoEI was > 30:1).
All of this presupposes we're not in massive, energy-consuming resource wars. It doesn't factor in water shortages, food shortages, etc.
I think, in general, people tend to seriously underestimate the energy requirements to do all the work, even if we could approach maximum efficiencies. Speaking of which, realistically we are not going to replace the standing stock of vehicles with more efficient ones over night. We won't be able to convert all industrial processes in the virtual wink of an eye. I believe there needs to be much more attention to scale and the interrelatedness of all of these challenges. Just looking at one challenge, say climate change, and saying that is the most important is a big mistake. They all interact in complex ways that we need to get a better handle on.
Finally, I take issue with your point #4. On what basis do you casually claim, '...the peak oil problem will not "destroy suburbia" or the American way of life.' That seems like a very bold statement without much to back it up. Perhaps you covered it in the article, but it would have been nice to provide some hint of why in your judgment this statement is true.
Becoming a curmudgeon I tend to question everything.
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:19 am
31 Mar 2008
"Only one alternative fuel is even remotely plausible: carbon-free electricity."
was a conclusion reached by many here on the Gristmill long ago. Dave summed it up with his URGE2 post, which the lay media has ignored to date, as they long ignored, and even promoted the biofuel debacle.
The New York Times will eventually say the same thing and will again ignore the bloggers and commenters on those blogs who are ahead of the curve as they just did for biofuels.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/12/151559/034
I got to thinking (again) about an elevator pitch for greens -- the "What Greens Want" that can be explained in a short elevator ride. Ideally the message would be simple enough to communicate, but meaty enough to imply some real choices and policies.
The second part of my Tom Paine piece is an attempt to formulate one, and trace some of the implications.
The message is this: use renewably generated electricity, efficiently. I'm going to call it URGE2, make it a "meme" on the internets, and cash in on some serious merch sales. Branding, baby. Say hello to early retirement!
Anyhoo, the four main things that fall out of URGE2 (imagine a metal-guitar power chord in the background every time you say it) are as follows:
Mine negawatts, i.e., focus on efficiency.
Electrify, i.e., shift all liquid-fuel uses over to electricity.
Kill coal, i.e., coal is the enemy of the human race.
Upgrade the grid, i.e., focus on energy storage and decentralization (this section was originally called "pimp my infrastructure," but, uh, TP had better sense).
URGE2 [metal chord]! Live the dream!
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
gmobus Posted 1:27 am
31 Mar 2008
Whenever I heard an engineer say something like: "alls you have to do is..." or "no sweat", I would look for at least a second opinion and then bump up both the time and cost. It is never as easy as "alls you have to do is..."
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:45 am
31 Mar 2008
Permalink
Podchef Posted 2:01 am
31 Mar 2008
The problem I see with developing alternative fuels, or agricultures is they are all dreamed of on a petroleum based paradigm. Hybrid cars still require plastics, lubricants, fuel--all petroleum based. Huge towering skyscraper tall, vertical farms still require buildings, fittings, electricity--all based on fossil fuels in the near future. Ethanol and other bio-fuels, propane, natural gas, etc all require petroleum to make a reality. Our mad dash to replace oil and lower emissions has led to the biggest spike in both.
One thing you never hear in a discussion of peak oil/not peak oil is the point in which the military locks up supplies for its own use. They burn through tons of fuel a minute in completely inefficient vehicles with no practical plan to rectify any time soon. As supplies dwindle the military will control it all for its own use--a pre-peak to the peak.
We're about to find out what this will mean when truckers can no longer afford to fill their tanks for a long haul--just look at what's been going on in Argentina with the farmer's strike. We need to lobby for better and easier means of developing local economies and sustainable agriculture models to reduce consumption while we re-think what our transportation and fuel needs will be.
You have a choice--drive or eat--which will it be?
Permalink
gmobus Posted 2:07 am
31 Mar 2008
That is exactly what my engineers used to say when they saw my bumps on their estimates. Go figure!
But the story I didn't tell is that when I was one of those engineers (software) I was just as guilty! Somehow it always seemed it should be easier than it turned out.
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
gmobus Posted 2:09 am
31 Mar 2008
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:14 am
31 Mar 2008
So basically, the problem is not so much that the military, or agriculture, use much petroleum, the problem is that petroleum is currently a critical component of each sector, so an increase in price will make life very difficult for both. Even plastics,etc., use at most 10% of petroleum. The problem is to convert them to nonpetroleum use.
Podchef, are you saying that diesel/electric locomotives could be converted easily to use overhead wires? Rail actually currently uses only about 1% of oil also, but if we were to greatly expand rail, it would need to be electrified.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:25 am
31 Mar 2008
There's a deeper problem here, I think, because I think that the problems inherent in trying new solutions is a large reason that we keep merrily going on reconstructing the same old economy; exhibit number one probably being the comfort level that utilities (and their engineers and managers) have in constructing a new coal plant, as opposed to, say, a solar thermal plant. Nobody used to get fired for buying IBM (now Microsoft), you're much safer going with tried and true technologies. Which is why the government may need to step in and "let 100 flowers bloom", just to get people to a comfort level with renewable technologies.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:19 am
31 Mar 2008
Trains are already serial hybrid powered, a diesel generator powers electric motors, put a battery car behind the engine then all that electricity wasted as heat with downhill braking can recharge batteries. Short stretches of track electrified can recharge batteries.
Semis are going hybrid too, Peterbilt has one. Add batteries and induction pickup charge lanes on the freeway and renewable electricity can power them too.
But a whole new backup engine, in the form of solid oxide fuel cell/turbines, for (even) planes, trains, and automobiles is just waiting to be mass produced. And quadruple mileage.
Battery energy density is getting better, theoretically it is possible to approach the energy density of liqiuid fuel. And considering that battery power converts to motive force at 5 times the efficiency of liquid fuels in internal combustion engines, including aircarft turbines. That means batteries need only contain one fifth the power of liquid fuel to go the same number of miles.
Sure investment capital seems hard to scare up now that fossil fuel and oil wars have driven us into a recession, but this green energy revolution can still pull us out of this downturn.
The fed is "printing" electronic money to pull us out of disaster right now. Backed by basically nothing. And it's working. Imagine if that play money was backed by resurging industry and lower energy costs? Now that's a recipe for a real boom with real productivity increases.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:41 am
31 Mar 2008
I'm sure there is a lot of truth to this, but there are many conservatives who have been trying to raise the alarm bells of peak oil for many years. Rep. Rosscoe Bartlett, Matthew Simmons and James Woolsey, to name a few.
One has to ask where have the Democrats been all these years, and could all those oil and coal lobby contributions have helped them turn away from the science.
And what about acknowledging the untiring volunteer work of Bart Anderson and friends who have been publishing almost daily for many years, compiling news reports and analyses on the invaluable energy bulletin site.
Permalink
Podchef Posted 7:02 am
31 Mar 2008
The point I was trying to make about locomotives is that we don't need any overhead wires--they don't need to be electrified from the grid, they create their own electricity. Train freight is actually still a viable means of haulage. If a sustainable source of biodiesel can be grown which doesn't impact our food system, then trains will continue to be a means of transportation and freight long after long distance road haulage has been priced out of existence. At least until we can come up with something else non-petroleum.
Now, let's talk about getting a solar panel and electric motor on my tractor so we can keep food affordable. . . .it's being done, but needs to be standardized in retrofit kits to help keep the costs down.
You have a choice--drive or eat--which will it be?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:13 am
31 Mar 2008
As for electrifying agricultural equipment, now that sounds like something some agricultural schools should experiment with!
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:37 am
31 Mar 2008
Good interview with him here:
http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/699
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:12 pm
31 Mar 2008
And that pretense is wrong.
Plugin cars don't need green energy in order to be greener than the status quo.
It can be powered by the dirtiest, least efficient coal plants on the planet, and still be greener than light sweet crude. (Much less "Alternative Oil")
There is not a single study out there which says otherwise.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3.png
http://pluginamerica.org/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/20/111715/427
http://greencarcongress.com/2007/12/argonne-assesse.html
http://aceee.org/pubs/t061.htm
Ryn: Cohen, like many (though not all) peak oil activists, seems to think renewables will not provide nearly enough for our current electrical demand, much less adding automobiles.
There's more potential in renewables than well over 100x our current electricity demand. More than we could ask for.
http://greyfalcon.net/greenenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4
And of course there's plenty of coal resources. (For the time being)
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png
Naught101: Hybrids are a primary solution to peak oil?? what are you on? I don't even think efficiency is a primary solution to peak oil. Have you heard of Jevons' paradox?
"Jevon's Paradox" makes two assumptions:
Prices of the Resource are relatively fixed
Total Resource Use goes up as Efficiency goes up
The critical flaw there is that Prices are not Fixed.(!)
Which is exactly what peak oilers are waving all these red flags about in the first place.
Infact the only way to avoid Jevon's paradox is that the price of the resource must go up prohibitively!
As such it's very possible to engage in a near fully demand-side approach. Especially when it's done as a substitution, instead of an elimination of transport energy.
Cohen: We can't afford PHEVs
aka "Since the economies of scale for PHEVs are zero right now, and the costs are high now, they will never be 'affordable'."
If we stuck with that line of reasoning, we'd still be using vaccuum tubes in our electronics, and it would cost a small fortune to buy a mere calculator.
Compared to Oil, it seems rather petty to say what we "can't" afford.
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/46 ...
http://greyfalcon.net/energyvsiraq.png
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/19/17517/9956
http://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project/campaigns/fil ...
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/20/doe-offers-30m-fo ...
Especially when you consider a gigantic new "Alternative Oil" infrastructure would not be without it's own inheriently large costs.
(Much less the current subsidies) And much much less the unpaid externalities.
http://media.cleantech.com/node/554
Wonder if this sound familiar:
Subsidizing gasoline prices -- wherever or however it occurs -- amounts to throwing away a precious, finite resource with no regard for the consequences that will surely follow down the road. Subsidies give the illusion of abundance and undermine market mechanisms that might encourage efficiency and fuel substitutes -- such as they are -- as prices rise.
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?Itemid=91&id=165&am ...
How can we afford to continue subsidizing oil and oil alternatives?
And yet not be able to afford a demand-side approach?
Permalink
elbarto Posted 1:48 pm
31 Mar 2008
A very simplistic take on this issue, sure, but there's no denying that even maintaining roads in their current state requires a steady flow of asphalt made from oil.
Asphalt can be recycled but not indefinitely and usually needs to be blended with fresh asphalt.
There really is currently no alternative to asphalt within the current transport paradigm. Merely substituting fossil vehicles with EV's will not escape the need for road maintenance.
We could devote ever increasing expense to keeping our roads and cars paradigm or simply contract settlement and eliminate most car travel at much lower cost.
One is technically infeasible, the other politically infeasible.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:44 pm
31 Mar 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:48 pm
31 Mar 2008
Elbarto, asphalt takes about 3% to 5% of petroleum. I'm told the interstates are getting the crap kicked out of them by long-haul trucks, and I've read that local counties and states are having a hard time maintaining their roads as the price of oil (and asphalt) goes up. So unless the Feds step in, in seems to me, in a big way, the age of Happy Motoring will start coming to an end because the road system will start to break down. The logical thing to do would be to use those right-of-ways to put down rail, including the interstates, but that seems politically rather far off at this point.
Permalink
elbarto Posted 3:41 pm
31 Mar 2008
Presumably global warming will accelerate the degradation of asphalt roads.
Ok, a minor issue in the scheme of all things but one of the great many adverse confluences likely to surface as a result of peak oil + global warming.
So unless the Feds step in, in seems to me, in a big way, the age of Happy Motoring will start coming to an end because the road system will start to break down.
This isn't the end of society, walkable cities would be happier and healthier in my view.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:23 pm
31 Mar 2008
Today the concrete has worn from the spaces around the stones, giving the impression of a very bumpy road, but the original surface was no doubt much closer to being flat. These remarkable roads are resistant to rain, freezing and flooding. They needed little repair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_road#Construction_of_a ...>
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:51 pm
01 Apr 2008
Those concerned about global warming need to put forward a viable demand-side strategy to dealing with peak oil.
Since otherwise our addicted world population will start burning anything they can get their hands on to make their cars go. Regardless of the consequences.
And we need to stop that before it happens.
Permalink