Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby entropyfails » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 06:16:06

In response to thefantastic discussion started by some good modeling on the part of Stuart Staniford over at The Oil Drum, I felt somewhat surprised that in the recent days no one has posted the most obvious follow through, how much GDP does the US get at what price of gas? Given that the historic average of miles to GDP measures 3.5 dollars per mile driven, I should be able to compute how much GDP I can get relative to the cost of gas in dollars. Perhaps from this we may also gain some insights on some of the fundamental limits that the US culture faces.

I have used the following simplistic equation in the generation of the following graph.

Average Miles Per Gallon * Historic GDP per mile driven * Gallons per Dollar
$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
21 miles 3.5 GDP dollars 1 gallon
---------- * ---------- * ----------
1 gallon 1 mile X dollars spent
')
Where X is the cost per gallon of gas. This leaves us with an equation of the terms GDP dollars per dollar spent on gas.

Image

Now another interesting thing I’d like to point out from the US perspective, becoming increasingly dependant on foreign sources of oil will have a drag on the "Net Export" part of GDP. If you pay 5 bucks for that gallon of gas and you get 70% of your oil from foreign sources you have paid 3.5 dollars off of GDP because GDP includes net exports. The Current US import rate is around 60% and rising. I’ve used the 70% number for that reason. The equation used was GDP - 70% of gas price. Note that this number becomes more important as the price goes up.

Arguably the number has been included in the current GDP numbers because the amount imported oil has went from 0% to 60% over the last 35 years while the GDP number has stayed constant, but I would like to point out the difference between that 0% and 60% is less than 5% of the GDP change and falls within the error margin of this 3.5 GDP per Mile number given by Staniford. But as we increase the cost per gallon, it becomes more profound. This allows us to calculate a break-over point after which driving becomes an economic loss. To me, this means the end of the status quo. I don’t know what will follow it, but I can reasonably say that we will have to see a different economic structure at the following price point.

Image

As for what comes after, a follow up done by Victor at Dead Parrots shows a way to attain an 8.5 to 1 ration of GDP dollars per mile namely, the WWII wartime economy. But I include this scenario along in the "change of the status quo" basket. Even in this case, the ratio goes negative at about $15 dollars a gallon. But you’d assume oil acquisition as a pretty high priority with this “wartime economy”, so anything goes in that scenario and the driving to GDP metric probably breaks down.

To those of us stuck reading the tea leaves, I think this chart can provide a useful measure of how the US Economy will fair against sustained high oil prices. When gas hit the 3 dollar price the US economy produced 22 Dollars of GDP per mile driven and we had the worst retail month since September 2001. When gas hits $5 per gallon, we’ll each only make half as much on average. By the time it hits $9.50, we are spending more on gas than we get back in GDP. Beyond that point, no balancing of the books will hide the fundamental imbalance in the US economy.

As long as the status quo holds, this particular relation will likely hold. Given that, we can use our friendly local gas station as a timely barometer of the US economy. If you see the price hit $10, expect substantial change in somewhat short order. If you were looking for a "bug out" price, you have it now. Perhaps if we all know where the wall is, we can persuade others with the evidence so that we can collectively avoid it. Forewarned is forearmed.

Let me know what you think!
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby MrBill » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 06:44:01

It is an interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing it. However, one variable you may not have considered is that the US is not a closed economy. You have to compare the US economy ($10.5 trillion) to the world economy ($40.0 trillion) and the amount of energy used per unit of GDP which is roughly 5-10% or 7.5% mid per unit of economic output.

As there is a world price for oil (currently $60 plus or minus the basis spread for where you are and what you burn) this price applies to all economies that import oil and turn it into domestic production and exports. You would have to consider relative levels of efficiency between different economies.

Also, you would have to strip out taxes and subsidies. Retail gasoline in America costs between $2.50-3.00 versus $5.00-6.00 in the EU. Most of this difference is in taxes paid, but there are other differences too like economic efficiency and using more diesel than gasoline for example.

So as you calculate the declining rate of GDP caused by higher fuel prices in the USA you must also adjust down GDP growth in other oil importing countries, too. If they are more efficient producers and if their costs of fuel are already higher their GDP may not shrink as much, but they will shrink. This may narrow the gap between the US GDP and others such as China, Japan and Germany, but it will not likely eliminate the gap. Higher oil prices are going to hurt everyone.
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby entropyfails » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 07:06:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I')t is an interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing it. However, one variable you may not have considered is that the US is not a closed economy. You have to compare the US economy ($10.5 trillion) to the world economy ($40.0 trillion) and the amount of energy used per unit of GDP which is roughly 5-10% or 7.5% mid per unit of economic output.

As there is a world price for oil (currently $60 plus or minus the basis spread for where you are and what you burn) this price applies to all economies that import oil and turn it into domestic production and exports. You would have to consider relative levels of efficiency between different economies.


A 70% payout on the gas spent still seems like a reasonable subtraction from GDP for me. By the time gas hits these prices we expect to be importing an even larger percentage of oil than that. The US has to pay out those costs to get the oil it needs to drive the miles to generate the GDP. That will be a net loss unless you feel that the net exports of the US will rise due to higher oil prices. That just doesn’t seem likely to me.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
')Also, you would have to strip out taxes and subsidies. Retail gasoline in America costs between $2.50-3.00 versus $5.00-6.00 in the EU. Most of this difference is in taxes paid, but there are other differences too like economic efficiency and using more diesel than gasoline for example.


Here I disagree. Government spending gets added into GDP. Taxes don’t change the equation at all. And taxes become a much smaller part of the equation at $9 dollar gas. At that point, it seem like who produces the oil matters most.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')So as you calculate the declining rate of GDP caused by higher fuel prices in the USA you must also adjust down GDP growth in other oil importing countries, too. If they are more efficient producers and if their costs of fuel are already higher their GDP may not shrink as much, but they will shrink. This may narrow the gap between the US GDP and others such as China, Japan and Germany, but it will not likely eliminate the gap. Higher oil prices are going to hurt everyone.


While I agree with the general principal that the amount of GDP loss might not be a constant 70% per dollar spent at the pump, I feel the current trend puts us there rather quickly regardless. The US has to send out those dollars to foreign exporters, though as you mentioned the US can mitigate that effect in various ways. But at a certain point these mitigations accumulate into a new way of life anyway. The WWII shows us that it can be done. I just wanted to put an approximate number on when that will have to happen.

Thank you for your reply!
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby MrBill » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 07:30:15

The question becomes at what price will each marginal barrel of oil contribute to a marginal increase in GDP, and which point will it become counterproductive to continue to produce? That level will be reached at the price when the marginal price of a barrel of oil equals 100% of the added unit of GDP keeping in mind that the starting point is less than 10% at the moment.

In terms of trade, you can forgo imports of non-essential goods & services and instead use that money to pay for imported oil. Therefore, that ratio of exports to imports is not static, but dynamic.

Also, trade will be carried out based on comparitive advantage. This would indicate that there would be a switch from energy intensive manufacturing to industries that produce more economic per unit of oil input, which has been the trend in the developed world for the past 30-years in any case.

I do not buy the hard goods are better argument. Yes, some financial or other services may not have intrinsic value, but neither do imports of non-essential manufactured goods if you cannot afford to pay for them. And depending on the cost of manufacturing, including the cost of imported fuel vs. the cost of transporting finished goods, production will be based where it is most competitive/cost efficient. The factories and supply chains are being designed by western managers even though the final factory may be located somewhere else. The technical skills to build and run factories are not being lost as some may suggest (except, for example, France may now possess more civilian nuclear know-how than the US, so this is not to say that some skills may be lost or displaced).


In any case, great analysis. Something thought provoking to think about. Certainly, if the conclusion is that as fuel prices become more expensive we have to curb our energy use then it is right on the mark. :)
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby pup55 » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 08:41:43

This is a delightful, excellent model. Thanks for posting it!
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby entropyfails » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 09:50:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I')n terms of trade, you can forgo imports of non-essential goods & services and instead use that money to pay for imported oil. Therefore, that ratio of exports to imports is not static, but dynamic.


I guess this ties into the heart of the issue, when these dollars spent at the pump start flowing almost entirely out of the country no one can honestly say how that will effect GDP. The $10 dollar mark probably will be a strong change point, but perhaps not as ominous as the $74 dollar price where the first graph touches the 1/1 ratio.

The second graph had a compounding effect on the price of oil to the price of gas. For every dollar increase that flowed away, more dollars were pulled out of the GDP model. As you point out, that number may be too strong. I made another model using the equation GDP - ( 70% of gas price / gas price) That model seems to assume no recycling effect of dollars in the economy, yet it still hits the 1 to 1 ratio at $43.

Somewhere in this band of $10 to $40 lies the real tipping point. We probably won't know until we passed it, but if anyone can help figure out the GDP lost due to high pump prices, we might be able to get a little better handle on it.

Thanks for your input!
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby MrBill » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 10:35:51

Well, regardless of whether your model shows the tipping point at $43- or $74 by the time we get there we are in for some serious economic adjustments. I think it is a good model and so long as one allows for some self-correcting behavior like substituting oil imports for other non-essentials it works fine for me.

Of course, parallel models would have to be run for the substitutes of petroleum products and at what price level alternative fuels become price competitive inclusive of all their capital costs to become viable in the first place. Perhaps somewhere between $43 and $74 petroleum becomes price uncompetitive with hydrogen produced from nuclear power?

By the way, I would like to know how to post graphs & charts into the forum if you can help? Thanks. Cheers.
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby entropyfails » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 10:45:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'W')ell, regardless of whether your model shows the tipping point at $43- or $74 by the time we get there we are in for some serious economic adjustments. I think it is a good model and so long as one allows for some self-correcting behavior like substituting oil imports for other non-essentials it works fine for me.


Agreed. Fiddling with the final subtraction to get the real GDP loss at these price bands will take more work. Like you said, we'll have to make some changes before we get their either way.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'O')f course, parallel models would have to be run for the substitutes of petroleum products and at what price level alternative fuels become price competitive inclusive of all their capital costs to become viable in the first place. Perhaps somewhere between $43 and $74 petroleum becomes price uncompetitive with hydrogen produced from nuclear power?


Certainly a lot of different technologies become competitive in that price range. The question is will we manage to use enough of them to keep the miles driven per year high enough to generate the GDP to pay for them. That seems like the biggest argument about how oil scarcity will affect things. I don't know that a simple model could handle that much variance but I'm up for trying.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'B')y the way, I would like to know how to post graphs & charts into the forum if you can help? Thanks. Cheers.


I use Excel or Open Office to make the graph. Then I save it as a .gif file and upload it to the following website.
http://www.imageshack.us/

After that, I can take the image and use the IMG tag that you see on the edit page to add the link. Hope that helps!
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby MrBill » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 10:51:01

Thanks. I will try it. Have a nice eve. Cheers :)
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby khebab » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 10:58:41

Interesting, I have two questions:
1- I think you are assuming a perfect elasticity of the GDP versus miles driven (alpha=1).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', 'Delta(GDP)/GDP = alpha x Delta(miles driven)/ (miles driven)')What is the value for alpha?
2- why not using a GDP per sector (service, manufacturian, etc.)?
______________________________________
http://GraphOilogy.blogspot.com
khebab
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby donshan » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 13:33:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'W')ell, regardless of whether your model shows the tipping point at $43- or $74 by the time we get there we are in for some serious economic adjustments.
.....

Perhaps somewhere between $43 and $74 petroleum becomes price uncompetitive with hydrogen produced from nuclear power?
.


I have been looking into the "hydrogen economy" being promoted by both environmentalists and the Bush Administration (read oil/gas/nuclear interests). There is a $1.2 Billion R&D program with lots of interest in fuel cells, hydrogen vehicles, and I even see BP TV ads now promoting their interest in a hydrogen economy. This has tweaked my interest, since it seems obvious to me, that since hydrogen must be manufactured, it faces a very serious obstacle in being competitive with gasoline until gasoline reaches extreme prices.

I have been collecting data, and doing some simple calculations myself to check some of the results posted on the Internet. It is a very complex issue, as one can get hydrogen from water or methanol electrolysis using electricity, from natural gas, from coal( reacting with H20), biomass, and others. The Bush Energy Plan rejects solar and wind electricity production "as needing more R&D to be competitive" and is pushing the fossil fuel/nuclear options to make hydrogen. I think I see the outcome of the infamous Cheny-Industry closed energy plan meeting to develop the plan that only included fossil fuel/nuclear interests. The fact that "clean" hydrogen from fossil fuels is an oxymoron, is simply another case of American denial. Also many decisions were based on natural gas at $3 to $4 per million BTU and now the price is $13.20 as I post. What will natural gas cost in 20- 50 years? I doubt we will ever see $4/ million BTU gas again.

From my data collection so far, it looks like hydrogen fuel would cost from 2 to 5 times as much as gasoline today which is $2.50-$3.00. This results in hydrogen fuel costing $5 to $15 per gasoline gallon equivalent.

Using water electolysis, it takes about 32.9 KwHr of electricity to make enough hydrogen to equal the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline at 100% efficiency . Since no system is 100% efficient, some estimates double this amount of electricity needed at 50% overall efficiency. If so at an electricity cost of 12cents/KwHr , then 32.9 * 2* 0.12= $7.90 per gasoline gallon equivalent and you have not added taxes, profits, or capital costs yet! Using electricity to electrolyze methanol uses less electricity, but you have to make methanol from something first (coal or natural gas again). Methanol electrolysis possibly gets hydrogen costs to 2X gasoline, especially if efficiencies are improved, as technology matures. However, water electrolysis is the only solution that does not generate CO2 gas to add to global warming and may be the only really long term sustainable fossil fuel replacement. Fossil fuel advocates say they can pump the CO2 back down depleted oil/gas wells so it won't get to the atmosphere. Maybe, but for hundreds of years?

Added to the fuel costs, you also have to completely rebuild the fueling and vehicle manufacturing infrastructure to replace gasoline with hydrogen vehicles. These capital costs are not included as far as I can see. To replace 8.8 million bbl of gasoline/day ( the current US consumption) by water electrolysis, you are talking about having to about double the total US electricity production. Think maybe 1000 nuclear plants, or over 10,000 sq. miles of solar panels, 560,000 wind turbines (1.8 Mw each). Thus, the "clean coal" crowd rushes in with their cheaper solutions.


Insert even $5 hydrogen per gallon gasoline equivalent into the GDP curves presented here, and the conclusion seems inescapable, GDP must contract, or at a minimum a major shift in sectors will occur. Or course this happened when cars replaced horse drawn buggies. However, that transformation occurred because oil made easily transportable, cheap input power possible.

I am not ready to say "hydrogen fuel will never happen", however, since many people said the airplane would never be possible before 1900. However, I am still in the camp that hydrogen fuels are not a "slam dunk" answer.
An expert is someone who has made every mistake possible in their field and learned how to prevent them.
donshan
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed 12 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Washington State, USA
Top

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby donshan » Tue 25 Oct 2005, 23:54:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('entropyfails', 'I')n response to thefantastic discussion started by some good modeling on the part of Stuart Staniford over at The Oil Drum, I felt somewhat surprised that in the recent days no one has posted the most obvious follow through, how much GDP does the US get at what price of gas? Given that the historic average of miles to GDP measures 3.5 dollars per mile driven, I should be able to compute how much GDP I can get relative to the cost of gas in dollars. Perhaps from this we may also gain some insights on some of the fundamental limits that the US culture faces.

I have used the following simplistic equation in the generation of the following graph.

Average Miles Per Gallon * Historic GDP per mile driven * Gallons per Dollar
$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', '
21 miles 3.5 GDP dollars 1 gallon
---------- * ---------- * ----------
1 gallon 1 mile X dollars spent
')
Where X is the cost per gallon of gas. This leaves us with an equation of the terms GDP dollars per dollar spent on gas.


Thanks very much for this post. I would have missed this otherwise.:)

I think there is some more insights to gain out of this relationship.

The Boston Globe recently published an article titled," The paradox of fuel efficiency" .

The paradox they describe is that the as the average fuel efficiency of vehicles went up, total gasoline use went up too, because more miles were driven. Thus increasing fuel economy did not reduce total oil use, but increased it. A quote from the middle of the article:

"In ''The Bottomless Well," a myth-busting new book on energy and how we use it, Peter Huber and Mark Mills acknowledge that this paradox -- ''the more efficient our technology, the more energy we consume" -- strikes many people as heretical. But the numbers bear it out. Thirty years ago, the energy cost of transportation was nine gallons per 100 vehicle miles. Today it is six gallons -- a 33 percent drop. Yet over the same period, the total amount of fuel consumed rose 56 percent -- from 115 billion gallons a year to more than 180 billion gallons.
This ''paradox of efficiency" is as true of cars and computers as of light bulbs, jet turbines, and air conditioners, Huber and Mills write. ''The more efficient they grew, the more of them we built, and the more we used them -- and the more energy they consumed overall."


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... fficiency/

__________

The link you provided showed a remarkable stability of the 3.5 GDP dollars/mile number over decades of time. It would appear then that the American population as a whole used the increased fuel efficiency to drive more miles AND generate more GDP. In other words people used the extra fuel economy to create more income and GDP. Perfectly rational behavior.

Your equation indicates that GDP can continue to grow even with increased fuel costs. All that has to happen is for the fuel efficiency term in the equation to rise faster than the fuel cost term.

In fact that seems to me to explain the "paradox", better efficiency results in more miles driven. It also is seen today in the fact that there is a waiting list for hybrid cars, and gas guzzling SUVs are sitting on the car lots.

Thus a conclusion for further discussion. If the US economy continues to function on a stable 3.5 GDP dollars per mile driven trend in future decades , and people need to drive more miles to generate increasing GDP in the face of increasing gas costs, all that needs to happen is a rapid increase in the average fuel efficiency of the American vehicle fleet. It suggests that Government mandated standards are not necessary. The market will solve this problem, as long as there is a slow trend. If Peak Oil caused a sudden shock then there will be severe effects.

Or is this a learning experience for me by making a mistake! :-D
An expert is someone who has made every mistake possible in their field and learned how to prevent them.
donshan
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed 12 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Washington State, USA
Top

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby GoIllini » Wed 26 Oct 2005, 00:16:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('donshan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
') Using water electolysis, it takes about 32.9 KwHr of electricity to make enough hydrogen to equal the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline at 100% efficiency . Since no system is 100% efficient, some estimates double this amount of electricity needed at 50% overall efficiency. If so at an electricity cost of 12cents/KwHr , then 32.9 * 2* 0.12= $7.90 per gasoline gallon equivalent and you have not added taxes, profits, or capital costs yet!

How'd you get stuck with $0.12/kWH for electricity?

I'm paying $.08, $.07 off-peak. And generating electricity at a well-run, well-maintained nuclear plant costs a utility around $.03/ kWH. Even the saner anti-nukes claim it costs around $.05-$.07/kWH. And a lot of relatively unbiased energy folks claim wind costs around $.05-$.07/kWH.

Want to hook your electrolysis machine up to my 120 V AC outlet and get a 16% discount?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')sing electricity to electrolyze methanol uses less electricity, but you have to make methanol from something first (coal or natural gas again). Methanol electrolysis possibly gets hydrogen costs to 2X gasoline, especially if efficiencies are improved, as technology matures. However, water electrolysis is the only solution that does not generate CO2 gas to add to global warming and may be the only really long term sustainable fossil fuel replacement. Fossil fuel advocates say they can pump the CO2 back down depleted oil/gas wells so it won't get to the atmosphere. Maybe, but for hundreds of years?

Ah, but methanol is wood-alcohol. Guess where it comes from.

Methanol is as sustainable as the forestry industry is. The question is if we can sustainably produce enough wood...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')dded to the fuel costs, you also have to completely rebuild the fueling and vehicle manufacturing infrastructure to replace gasoline with hydrogen vehicles. These capital costs are not included as far as I can see. To replace 8.8 million bbl of gasoline/day ( the current US consumption) by water electrolysis, you are talking about having to about double the total US electricity production. Think maybe 1000 nuclear plants, or over 10,000 sq. miles of solar panels, 560,000 wind turbines (1.8 Mw each). Thus, the "clean coal" crowd rushes in with their cheaper solutions.

Actually, we use 40 quads of oil, last I checked, and around 8-9 quads of nuclear. We have around 100 1 gWH nuclear plants in operation; adding enough nuclear capacity would only take 450 plants.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')nsert even $5 hydrogen per gallon gasoline equivalent into the GDP curves presented here, and the conclusion seems inescapable, GDP must contract, or at a minimum a major shift in sectors will occur. Or course this happened when cars replaced horse drawn buggies. However, that transformation occurred because oil made easily transportable, cheap input power possible.

If gasoline hit $5/gallon, the economy would be spending as much on energy as it did back in 1970.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am not ready to say "hydrogen fuel will never happen", however, since many people said the airplane would never be possible before 1900. However, I am still in the camp that hydrogen fuels are not a "slam dunk" answer.
Absolutely. It's going to take a lot of pulling together, a lot of wise investors, and a mix of different solutions.

If you do believe we'll get to a post-peak economy, the people who see this coming and invest accordingly will make out VERY rich.
User avatar
GoIllini
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat 05 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby MrBill » Wed 26 Oct 2005, 03:14:24

Excellent points.

GoIllini, I think you attributed some of donshan's comments to me. He has obviously run the numbers more carefully than I have.

I take some of your (donshan/GoIllini) points to heart about the technical intracies of introducing a hydrogen economy. No doubt it will be equally as challenging as NASA sending men into space and other such challenges, but I think the resources will be there because there is no alternative. We are not going willingly back to the horse & buggy, which in any case offers it's own set of unique problems. We will look for alternatives even if we do not find perfect replacements.

I agree about the elasticity of GDP and have to disagree with donshan on this point. The GDP may contract for any number of reasons. The absolute GDP is in any case not important. Quality of life is. The costs of replacing the petrol-fuel economy with the hydrogen-economy in terms of research & development, replacing infrastructure, fuel manufacture & distribution will contribute to GDP, not subtract from it, much like replacing main frame computers with desk tops and then lap tops has contributed to GDP, and as IBM stumbled Microsoft and its competitors were there with a better mousetrap.

I agree with GoIllini that money will be made by investors in the right technology and re-building an out of date infrastructure. By the way, re-developing inner-city, brownfield, walkable communities will also be expensive, but it will spur economic activity, and there will be winners and losers. The losers obviously being anyone that invested in suburbia and then didn't get out of that particular burning house on time.

I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but before we run out of transport fuel, we will see a huge amount of rationing. Basically anything stationary will be converted to solar, wind, nat gas, coal or nuclear and transport fuel will be priced for transportation where it is needed most of all as all fuels are partial substitutes for one another and as the price of one rises there is a switch to the next cheaper option. Much like Europeans are currently switching from gasoline autos to diesel autos. They are not abandoning their cars, but replacing them with the next best alternative as eco-taxes make gasoline more and more expensive.

If donshan's estimate is correct that with economies of size & scale that hydrogen might only be 2X or 3X more expensive than gasoline then we are almost there. Europeans already pay 2X more for gasoline than Americans and they still have functioning economies. There is no law that says that the government has to tax alternative fuels as heavy as they currently tax petrol. Therefore, if it makes the difference between having an economy or not taxes will be slashed enough to make alternative fuels competitive.

Also, do not worry about the cost of capital. At any given time the cost of capital to develop alternatives and the cost of capital to chase diminishing returns in the petrol-economy will be identical. Therefore, you have to instead focus on which technology, the old or the new, offers the most promising return on investment. As petrol becomes more expensive that dynamic changes. So you cannot compare cost of petrol today with the cost of an alternative in the future.

One question is how long will be the time lag between early adoption and mass acceptance? The so called 'S' curve. At some point you need critical mass. I think the pilot projects are already underway to show it is technically feasible. The roll-out of mass production in terms of both the production and the necessary infrastructure will bring economies of scale and therefore lower per unit costs. Also, like any emerging technology, first & second generation beta versions will not be as efficient in design as later versions. As I understand it the necessary mines & minerals are still a bottleneck so again substitutes will have to be found.

Keeping in mind that it may not be one alternative, but a combination just like hydro-electric currently competes with nat gas turbines for electricity generation. However, you cannot escape the fact that energy will be more precious (I don't like to say expensive because expensive is relative to the cost of everything else) than it is now. Therefore, the first step is to ration demand through price while we look for alternatives. The more time we have the smoother the transition. :)
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
User avatar
MrBill
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Eurasia

Re: GDP, Miles Driven, and Gas Prices

Postby donshan » Wed 26 Oct 2005, 03:24:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', 'H')ow'd you get stuck with $0.12/kWH for electricity?

Methanol is as sustainable as the forestry industry is. The question is if we can sustainably produce enough wood...

Actually, we use 40 quads of oil, last I checked, and around 8-9 quads of nuclear. We have around 100 1 gWH nuclear plants in operation; adding enough nuclear capacity would only take 450 plants.

If gasoline hit $5/gallon, the economy would be spending as much on energy as it did back in 1970.


Thanks for the comments.

I used the 12cent electricity only because the source I found for the 32.9 Kwhr calculation also used 12 cent power to calculate the equivalent price of gasoline. I realize that a wide range of electricity costs could be used. I left the larger number, since this would be new construction and I don't really have figures for what new nuclear power would actually cost, since there has not been one built recently. There are really cheap electric sources potentially available if we were serious about hydrogen.

For example here in Washington State the Federal Bonneville Power Administration provides hydropower to the aluminum industry about 3,000 Mw at 2.5 cents /KwH. Changing that power to to hydrogen production might be a better national use, but the politicians would scream bloody murder at the lost aluminum jobs dependent on the subsidy.

Methanol would be made from natural gas or coal, not from forest products. However biomass as a generic source is being looked at for hydrogen production.

see:
http://www.iags.org/methanolsources.htm

I too first calculated that about 480 1000 Mw nuclear plants would be needed, but then I noted the Internet sources applied a 50% efficiency factor thus doubling the power requirement. That covers the water electrolysis efficiency, and such things as storing hydrogen, by compressors, or converting as ammonia, metal hydrides and reconversion back to hydrogen. It is just a boundry condition upper limit, since many R&D programs are aimed at better efficiency than 50%.

Really the issue is not whether it is 480 or 1000 nuclear plants, it is the problem of building even ONE new one. The problem with solar/wind is not what their cost of power might be, but rather the current plan cut the R&D money, with the assumption they "are not economic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_e ... drocarbons

I used that lowest number of $5 since it may be feasible rather soon. However it comes from using fossil fuels as the source of the hydrogen and the CO2 issue must be solved.

The major point of my post is that a LOT of problems remain before we get to a hydrogen economy. So far the hydrogen program is mostly for PR value, rather than a serious program to a serious problem IMHO.
An expert is someone who has made every mistake possible in their field and learned how to prevent them.
donshan
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed 12 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Washington State, USA
Top


Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron