[orz]

The death of the private automobile is not akin to the death of civilization. The world would be better of without suburbs.

However, this doesn't mean that once we restabilize the cities with alternative power, that alternative fuel cars won't make a resurgence.

[0mar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orz', 'T')he death of the private automobile is not akin to the death of civilization. The world would be better of without suburbs.

However, this doesn't mean that once we restabilize the cities with alternative power, that alternative fuel cars won't make a resurgence.

[orz]

That doesn't change the fact that it has to happen. (Unless the peak is somehow past 2030 or so)

Past that, it's hard to tell exactly how it will affect what happens to us.

[Daryl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('azreal60', 'I') can't say this enough i guess, yes, it is happening all around, but by one or two people. I see all sorts of concept cars. America is not populated by kit car drivers. Not one major manufacturer is proposing an electric vehicle current. Not one. I know we Can, the important things are Are we and how Fast are we? Kind of like peak oil really. It wouldn't really be a huge deal if it wasn't seeming to happen, well, Now.

[azreal60]

I agree on many points daryl, but your still dodging what we are arguing about. Yes, we do know how to make electric cars. (although they still aren't up to ICE standards, not even close in terms of edurance)
The problem is that even in a crisis of fuel, things take time. Retool can't be rushed just because we want it to. (well, not past a certain point)

I do agree hydrogen and electric shouldn't be lumped together. They are two very different animals, and of the two, electric has alot more potential at least in the short to mid term. The problem is, everytime you solve one problem, another aspect of the energy lack we face bites you in the behind. So, you manange to convince the nations car manufacturers to make a electric full up productionline automobile. (no small task in and of itself) Where do you get the energy for it when our electric grid is already facing massive shortages, everyone is clamoring to change our coal supply to gas to help with the liquid fuel shortage, and your abililty to build new electric power is at least partially if not wholy disrupted by a lack of the fuel you need for the construction?

The point is, while that is a very pessamistic view point, it's also much more close to the reality of what we face.

One thing did bother me though. You really are convinced that in a crisis people would be eager to nationalize. I don't know about outside the us, but i can not see even in a crisis people willing to nationalize auto production anytime in the next 20 years even with peak oil. We as a culture are too wedded to the fact that private industry can do it better. It's one of our has to be true or else we where wrong about everything kind of cultural supports. People will follow those kind of things even to their death, or the death of their culture. It's why cultures vanish. They just can't believe they are wrong.

Oh, and yes, while it would be great if you could just wave a magic wand and have the ICE automobile disappearing just magically cause all the suburbs to be converted into reasonable cities and countryside, if we on a large scale lose the use of the ICE for transport in the US, you can kiss any kind of enconomy goodbye. Heck, forget enconomy, you can kiss goodbye our ablity to transport food. That worrys me more than anything else, especially given how long it takes for new rail construction.

The long and the short of it is, while i agree that electric is a much better option than hydrogen by a long shot, your talking to the wrong people. The people you should be convincing are your congresspeople. Because if they don't start regulating this now, like right this year, hell it may already be to late. I have no idea. But i do know the longer we wait, the less likely we'll come out the other end.

[Daryl]

1 - I don't think it will be a matter of convincing automakers to convert to electric. They are already practically in Chapter 11. In a severe energy crisis, they will require a government bailout. Conservatives are only anti-government until they need it. The same thing will happen in the airline and trucking industries. Electric is going to be the only option for autos.

2 - Electric autos will be required. I don't think the infrastructure can make that big of an adjustment to bicycles and mass transit. the sprawl can't be reeled or abandoned at this point. (Sorry, eco-guys. I don't like it either). I do see a massive deployment of electric bus transist systems in sprawled areas. dub_scratch over in the Energy Technology section posted an interesting link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba. The whole discussion over there is very good. http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic14524-60.html

3 - I agree, there is a serious objection here about timing. It all depends on how peak oil plays out in terms of how quickly the supply shrinks, how price behaves, how badly the economy is affected. These things are not really knowable. Pessimists have plenty of material to work with and I don't think their scenarios are far fetched at all. What is of particular concern is the economy and unemployment. At the same time, I don't think my scenario is unreasonable at all, either, At some point there will be a wrenching price shock. I believe it may precipitate the events I described. The whole electric fleet doesn't have to be deployed at once. Demand destruction (rationing, banning Sunday driving, carpooling, working from home, rationalizing trucking) could keep oil prices from rising too high (thus not killing the economy) while the fleet gradually rolls out year by year and things get back to normal.

4 - I mostly wanted to make the point that many pessimists will go on and on scaring people about the lack of feasability and scalabilty of hydrogen, geothermal, solar, wind etc. and they often ignore electric cars, coal and nuclear, all viable, scalable current solutions. Once you accept that, it becomes a simple matter of arguing timing of deployment. It is not a credible argument that the US economy cannot afford these things (with the one exception - if it is critically crippled by the inital energy shock. This is possible).

The turning around the Titanic analogy might be an apt in the end, I don't know. And it is true, right now we aren't even trying to rearrange the deck chairs, much less change direction. But you have to realize that you cannot project the current way that decisions are made to the way they will be made in a crisis. If we could go back in time, the US, France and England would have made a preemptive strike against Hitler in 1936 and saved tens of millions of lives. Some were arguing for that in 1936, I assure you, but nothing could change the status quo until the threat was raised high enough.

[Mesuge]

On the EV note again, just a few contrarguments about the "mirage" of transition to EVs:

1. There is no technology available>
Not true. First 60mph car was an EV made 100 years ago driven by Jenatzy in Belgium. Nowadays we can get 150-200Wh/mile at 70mph.. The Big Three have all the technology available but makes no sense for them in the times of cheap oil (+ no gas tax in the US) and assests buried in old ICE plants..

Sound battery technology IS available, I think I've covered it enough in my post:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic14524-0-asc-30.html
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic14524-0-asc-15.html

I just found lately to my surprise I can get decent battery pack of 13kWh in sealed lead acid, enough for Euroland commuting 80km roundtrip, for only 1200EUR! Remember in the EV world cost of electricity is only 1/10 of the entire running costs - basically your battery is your real gas tank. And with proper current/thermo management it will last 50.000km.

That's because of the just-in-time/cheap labor/poor environ in China where it is manufactured. The same battery pack would cost approx. 2-3 more if made in EU though, but still good enough..

The revival of old and cheap lead acid battery now stronger, lighter more ecological is here with the carbon sponge collector technology. FireFly Energy, Power Technology (google it).

2. There's no el. energy to cover the extra EVs fleet needs>
Not true. As Antimatter and Starvid presented, the extra electricity needed is about +25%. On the other hand there are estimates that even higher number than that is just being currently wasted by overusage of AC, "porch lights" and whatever..
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic14524-0-asc-0.html
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic14524-0-asc-15.html

3. Not enough time and energy to change the ICE fleet>
Not true. Large part of the current ICE fleet can be recycled into EV operation. Obviously you won't get 150Wh/mile with SUV but enough to go after daily commute. If it is still too distant to cover by EV then rellocate closer to your job.. Average cost of diy recycling of ICE into EV is about $4-10k. Government can pay part of it..and employ a lot of people too - that's a highschool lab job.. In fact you can get now 3-5k EUR gov. refund if you buy an EV in many countries of the EU, plus in Switzerland, Norway..

http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic14524-0-asc-15.html
-------------------------------------------------------------

Yet again, let me emphasize that this is not a solution itself and there
is very little time to manage the transition in timely manner..
Yes, we have to powerdown, drive less, use more public transport anyway.. Move the commercial stuff on railroads and water ways.

The US holds all the bad cards in this situation and it will cost much
more there to alter the infrastructure in comparison to Europe but it can be done..

[CARVER]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', '.').. an interesting link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba. ...

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', ' ') I mostly wanted to make the point that many pessimists will go on and on scaring people about the lack of feasability and scalabilty of hydrogen, geothermal, solar, wind etc. and they often ignore electric cars, coal and nuclear, all viable, scalable current solutions. Once you accept that, it becomes a simple matter of arguing timing of deployment. It is not a credible argument that the US economy cannot afford these things (with the one exception - if it is critically crippled by the inital energy shock. This is possible).

[Daryl]

Many of the economic conditions today are unchanged from 20 years ago. i.e. trade deficit, current account deficit, budget deficit, low saving rate, yet somehow the entire automobile fleet turned over.

I don't think the global financial system is so simple that guys sit in Bejing and decide what we build and don't build. We are also their biggest customer. Some discussions about the Chinese USD asset questions here.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic14771.html

I believe 70% of US oil consumption is from transportation. If in 15 years even half of the auto fleet is electrified, and trucking transportation is rationalized and other kinds of extreme conservation are enforced, surely this makes a substantial impact of the consumption numbers you are running. How can these just be small contributions?

[azreal60]

There we go. That's the kind of statements that i can agree with. I would say daryl that your statements are finally arguments where i don't have to chide you for existing in reality. I agree with your statements that their are things we can do. In fact, those are even pretty good ideas.

Mesuge, that was an interesting post. You sound total optomist and then end like Matt or Monte. I have to say these are the kind of posts i enjoy reading because they give hope without sounding totally divorced from the facts that we know to be true.

I am not sure i agree that Antimatter and Starvid "proved" that the energy increase would be at about 25 percent. I do think that's an area that until we actually start doing it, we simply won't know. This is an area that battery storage really comes into as well, because if you can increase battery storage enough, it lets you charge with offpeak energy, rather than peak times. It's the peak usage rates that are going to kill the grid if we started doing EV on a large scale basis. Cause right now, a good 70 percent of drivers would have to be charging all thru the day. I know i would have to. Even with altering my driving, i simply have to go too far to work, plus driving my wife to work, plus next year dropping the kids off at daycare, man, that adds up. And i actually thought about peak oil before i planned where i lived and where i worked. How many people can say that?

Still, Kudos to you both. It's about time i've had some people throwing ideas out without resorting to ad hom attacks on people on this site, presenting totally unworkable ideas with no facts, and just generally sounding like they are throwing sheets to the wind. I can handle optimists. I'm just not a huge fan of people wasting my time. Those posts where not a waste of my time. Thank you.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') believe 70% of US oil consumption is from transportation. If in 15 years even half of the auto fleet is electrified, and trucking transportation is rationalized and other kinds of extreme conservation are enforced, surely this makes a substantial impact of the consumption numbers you are running. How can these just be small contributions?

[Daryl]

I have to say I am more pessimistic about the ability of developing countries to handle the higher energy prices that are coming. These economies are very fragile and lack depth and economic infrastructure. I remember when Saudi started building refineries. Every time a piece of heavy equipment broke they had to put it on a ship to England to fix. Came back a year later. Europe is best positioned for an energy crisis, then the US. IOW, the demand destruction in Chindia will be enormous.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', '.')..the demand destruction in Chindia will be enormous.

[grabby]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Flow', ' ') Prices have homes have gone from $50,000 in the 80s to $500,000 today yet the price of gas has only gone from $0.80 to around $2. We should be paying $8 a gallon if all things are constant, but we are not. So how can anybody predict how much fuel will cost in the future.

[Dukat_Reloaded]

100k is worth nothing like it used to in 1980's. You also would not have been paid 100k back then, my father at that time was earning $60 a week. Inflation and salaries rise hand in hand, the 3-4% savings rate for cash is to make up for the inflation if you decide to save your money, but generally your usually better off to invest that money elsewhere.

[Daryl]

I don't know a whole lot about the Chinese economy, but I do know that the financial media get enamoured with high growth economies and they often become overrated. The conventional wisdom on what is a successful economy is very changeable and often does a 180 degree turn. Japan has had some ups and downs in this regard. In the early 80's they were considered the ideal system: long term planners with great cooperation between the private sector and government. US companies, on the other hand, were considered incompetent, greedy idiots chasing quarterly earnings per share. That was the conventional wisdom in 1985, just when the US was on the cusp of an unprecedented low inflation economic expansion and Japan was headed toward a paralyzing period of economic stagnation. All of a sudden the media started praising the US for being so flexible and innovative, while Europe and Japan have been cosigned to second tier status.

So, the cheerleaders of growth (i.e. capital and equity investors) think China is great right now. But how much of their growth is based on overleveraged US and European consumer buying cheap junk they don't need? What happens when US and Europe are hit by rolling recessions (at a minimum) after the inital Peak Oil energy shocks? It won't be pretty.

The concept of resource wars in these forums is also way overblown. I doubt the Chinese army is going to have many options. This is an issue that needs some input from some knowledgable military people. As far as I know, the Chinese do not have a Navy or Air Force capable of supporting an invasion of the Persian Gulf. Their military advantage is a large land army and nukes. I doubt it is feasible for them to run a supply chain over the Islamic mountains to reach the Persian Gulf. They have a real adversary on their own border in Russia. Might be a real bad idea to march your army over land half way around the world to do what, destroy the oil infrastructure in a knock down drag out fight with the US, Europe, Russia and all the local suicide kooks? I don't get it. Oh yeah, and your main enemy is sitting on a trillion dollars of your assets in NY. Real smart.

It would be interesting if the predictors of resource wars would provide some realistic scenarios of how China is going to use their military in this regard.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dukat', ' ')Inflation and salaries rise hand in hand, the 3-4% savings rate for cash is to make up for the inflation if you decide to save your money, but generally your usually better off to invest that money elsewhere.

[GoIllini]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dukat', ' ')Inflation and salaries rise hand in hand, the 3-4% savings rate for cash is to make up for the inflation if you decide to save your money, but generally your usually better off to invest that money elsewhere.

[CARVER]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', '.').. The concept of resource wars in these forums is also way overblown. I doubt the Chinese army is going to have many options. This is an issue that needs some input from some knowledgable military people. As far as I know, the Chinese do not have a Navy or Air Force capable of supporting an invasion of the Persian Gulf. Their military advantage is a large land army and nukes. I doubt it is feasible for them to run a supply chain over the Islamic mountains to reach the Persian Gulf. They have a real adversary on their own border in Russia. Might be a real bad idea to march your army over land half way around the world to do what, destroy the oil infrastructure in a knock down drag out fight with the US, Europe, Russia and all the local suicide kooks? I don't get it. Oh yeah, and your main enemy is sitting on a trillion dollars of your assets in NY. Real smart.

It would be interesting if the predictors of resource wars would provide some realistic scenarios of how China is going to use their military in this regard.