by GoIllini » Sun 19 Mar 2006, 01:23:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dub_scratch', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dub_scratch', '
')On top of that we have the costs of 220 million EVs of an approximate price tag of 5 trillion. And then we have billions of miles of road infrastructure that is very old and has to be replaced, say another 2 trillion.
When peak oil hits, we won't have to go from 22 mbpd consumption to 0 overnight. In fact, even if cars have a 10 or even 18 year life cycle, we can simply replace them as they go off the road to offset even a 5% decline. Assuming only a 2% decline, we can replace them with the market doing 80-90% of the work.
GoIllini, you’re simply not doing the math.
At 5% annual oil decline, if global production peaked tomorrow at 86 mbd then in ten years oil supply would be 54 mbd. If that decline in availability of petrol was matched in the US, our consumption would have to drop from 21 mbd to 13.5 mbd. And remember, this is a period where our car fleet has not all been replaced with nuke powered EVs, so much of the 10 mbd needed to run the current car fleet would have to remain availible-- meaning something other than our National Traffic Jam will have to take the hit on curtailment. One of the things we would have to sacrifice is the building of this new nuke power plant infrastructure and building of the EV car fleet.
Well, let's assume the peak is symmetric, as Hubbert projected. Back in 1996, the world produced 70 mbpd of oil. First off, OPEC is estimating that oil demand this year will average 84 mbpd. This would suggest a 17% decline over the course of ten years. Let's be pessimistic and say that oil production declines 20% faster than it increased in the past 10 years. Oil production in 1994 was 67 mbpd; that's a 21% decline over 10 years.
(Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t44.xls)
This said, a straight line model of decline is more realistic- and closer to the original model proposed by Hubbert as well as many doomerish models, than more pessimistic exponential decay declines.
Americans have several options for reducing their consumption 20% without making any noticable changes in their lifestyles:
A). Change their driving habits. When gasoline hit $3.20/gallon in the wake of Katrina, I decided to start accelerating more slowly, coast into lights when "Don't Walk" was flashing, and drive no faster than the posted speed limit on highways. My lifestyle didn't change, but I found myself using about 20% less gasoline.
B). Switch their primary car to a higher efficiency one. There are 200 million cars in the country with about 80 million households. Thus, we have 2.5 million cars. Personally, I have no idea how Hirsch comes up with a 18 year life cycle for a car (I think that's crazy), but even if he's right, the vast majority of American households will be buying at least one new car in 7 years. The average car being sold today averages 25 mpg; by merely switching to one that averages 30 mpg, we can reduce consumption by 20%. By shelling out the extra ~$2K-$3K to buy a hybrid, a family can reduce consumption by 50% if they make the hybrid their primary car.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n reality, it is not likely that we can preserve driving and direct curtailment from the more vital economic sectors that need oil or energy. That certainly will not give us much reason to drive in the first place. Our economy would go down the toilet and the freeways would be clear.
by KennyBeeAK » Tue 04 Apr 2006, 20:10:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('familyradio', 'A')ny stock market investors here? I am one who believes oil prices are going to $120 a barrel very soon and I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I've had my eye on stock symbol ZP over the last several years... Anyone else like this play on high oil prices and micro / electric cars?
If you are not a highly experienced investor, do not buy individual stocks. (I make no judgment about you in particular; this is for general information.) Invest in broadly-based mutual funds, especially those with strong social responsibility screens. For general information:
http://www.socialfunds.com/
Select funds with low load, fees, and expense ratios. Then check morningstar.com for performance records:
http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds. ... hetabfunds
Look particularly for a good five-year performance, which will tell you how well the fund managers did during the last major stock market downturn. You can also look at what companies the funds are invested in, to see if any, for example, have holdings in ZP.
We are invested in mutual funds in the Parnassus and Ariel fund families.
A good play on high inflation is to invest in mutual funds specializing in gold and other precious metals, or in gold & silver coins, but only up to 5% of your total portfolio. More than that becomes very risky. We are planning to transfer part of our funds into the US Global Investors Gold fund this month.
This should give you a short list of mutual funds, from which you can then request prospectuses from each, to make your final decisions.
Caveat: I am not a financial professional. I've just read and spoken with a lot who are.
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." ... Eleanor Roosevelt
-

KennyBeeAK
- Wood

-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: Anchorage, Alaska
-
by KennyBeeAK » Tue 04 Apr 2006, 20:38:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'W')hat's the problem? When you want to go farther away, take the bus. It's coming and soon. I have been taking the train and getting around on busses. The number of people without cars is large already large and growing.
When I got married six years ago, I asked my wife why she wouldn't take the city bus unless I took her with me. She made an excuse at the time which I couldn't argue with, though it didn't seem rational.
Last month, asked why my youngest son is in especially good physical condition even though he is not active in sports, I answered that I have never run taxi service for my kids. They've ridden the bus or bicycles, or walked (as I have myself much of the time). Response: "Well, we have daughters, and with daughters there's the safety concern." Turns out, though, that the safety concern is not in walking to or from the bus stop, or waiting there, as I immediately assumed. No -- it's a fear of being accosted by strangers ON THE BUS.
And now my wife admits this has really been her fear all along. I point out that never has anyone ever been attacked while on an Anchorage city bus; and if it did happen, the driver would immediately radio the police. I have seen drivers make obnoxious passengers get off. But that doesn't matter. She admits it's an irrational fear, but she won't start riding the bus.
At least not until gasoline is unaffordable and we're lucky if we even have buses to ride.
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." ... Eleanor Roosevelt
-

KennyBeeAK
- Wood

-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: Anchorage, Alaska
-