Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Former SecDef James Schlesinger adress Senate on Peak Oil!

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: James Schlesinger on peak oil

Unread postby dub_scratch » Thu 16 Mar 2006, 16:14:07

KennyBeeAK,

Thanks for replying to this thread.

I pretty much agree with your opinions on your post. It's just that you have mistaken me for GoIllini in your quotes. I sharply disagree with everything in them as well.

Your post should look like this:



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KennyBeeAK should have ', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', 'd')ub_scratch wrote:

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.



I believe it is generally understood we won't have to go to 0 mbpd consumption overnight. That's not the issue. Neither is the issue primarily the 2% or 5% projected annual decline in oil production. The issue is declining oil production COMBINED with increasing world demand, especially from newly industrializing nations such as China and India. Further combine that with my previous statement that the political consensus needed to deal with this will not happen until peak oil really begins to hurt. Denial.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', '
')
... I think an electric car in every home isn't that crazy. And with new computer technology, it wouldn't be that tough to have computers run the most traffic-prone areas of our highways. Using GPS, (relatively modest overhead), and a $500 computer chip in each car to control it, we could probably obtain twice our ordinary max traffic flow on any area of the highway...



We won't get there within the next four to seven years; which, as I explained above, may well be all the time we have before the world "liquid fuels crisis" really sets in. Time is of the essence.
dub_scratch
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu 16 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Re: James Schlesinger on peak oil

Unread postby KennyBeeAK » Thu 16 Mar 2006, 17:03:37

Thanks for the correction. I'll try to be more careful.
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." ... Eleanor Roosevelt
User avatar
KennyBeeAK
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Re: James Schlesinger on peak oil

Unread postby dub_scratch » Thu 16 Mar 2006, 20:00:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', '')$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.

In 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.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoIllini', '
')Given that an electric car might cost $5K on top of an ICE, and we need to replace 220 million cars, that's only $1.1 Trillion, first off.


You got that wrong too.

If the average car today costs approximately $20K and an EV is priced $5K more, then the price tag for a 220 million fleet replacement would run near 5 $trillion.

We don't have that kind of money, unless perhaps we sacrifice the nuke power plant building project needed to run the fleet of 220 million EVs.

The EV fleet replacement is just a non-starter. We are going to have to get rid of automobile dependency.
dub_scratch
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu 16 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Top

Re: James Schlesinger on peak oil

Unread postby 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.

You tell me. Wal-Mart just implemented a plan to increase the efficiency of their trucks by 50% in 5 years. Meanwhile, rail is a much more efficient alternative to trucking and growth there would offset energy costs.

I'll agree that air travel might end temporarily. Ethanol from switchgrass (Bill Gates is investing in cellulosic ethanol, BTW) might eventually restore air travel by having switchgrass and much smaller grain fields (to meet our food needs) displace fields for oats and field corn that are currently being used to feed the cattle we need to sustain the Atkins' diet.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f the average car today costs approximately $20K and an EV is priced $5K more, then the price tag for a 220 million fleet replacement would run near 5 $trillion.
In which case, we'd have $4 trillion in savings by not having to buy ICE cars. You assume that the moment peak oil hits, people stop budgeting for cars. I assume that people will continue paying for cars at the same rate they always have. To be fair, I might be a little optimistic, but at the same time, it seems that you're being overly and unfairly pessmistic. In reality, you at least have to admit that we'll get something on the order of trillions of dollars of help from the fact that we won't have to purchase ICE cars at the same time we're purchasing electric ones.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e don't have that kind of money, unless perhaps we sacrifice the nuke power plant building project needed to run the fleet of 220 million EVs.
The U.S. has a GDP of $10 Trillion/year. A hefty $500 billion/year is spent on oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he EV fleet replacement is just a non-starter. We are going to have to get rid of automobile dependency.
The thing is, it's already started. Honda and Toyota can't keep hybrids in stock. Ford plans to be producing 250K/year by 2008, and something tells me that the Japanese are way ahead of them in their plans for the U.S. market. Hybrids are a natural transition to PHEVs- practically hybrids with electrical outlets, which can run on electricity derived from nuclear.
User avatar
GoIllini
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat 05 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: James Schlesinger on peak oil

Unread postby KennyBeeAK » Sun 19 Mar 2006, 20:26:23

Looks to me like you're assuming the oil supply to the U.S. will decline at roughly the same rate as does total world petroleum production. If so, that is not taking account of increased demand from India, China, and other newly industrializing countries. Lately China's economy has been growing at around 8% annually.

This worldwide economic growth will come to a screeching halt once we pass Peak Oil, and then start declining. But population growth will continue, so per capita GDP will decline more rapidly than will the decline in world oil production, even while prices rapidly increase for motor vehicle fuels. Most people won't be able to afford new vehicles, hybrid or otherwise, but soon they won't be able to afford fuel for the old gas-guzzlers. These will sit until the people default on their mortgages and lose their homes. Then the primary function of the old Hummers and SUVs will be housing rather than transportation.

Please include this factor in your calculations.
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." ... Eleanor Roosevelt
User avatar
KennyBeeAK
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Re: James Schlesinger on peak oil

Unread postby familyradio » Tue 04 Apr 2006, 02:30:44

Any 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. This stock has been hammered recently, but a rebound finally came as ZP has turned around and had a record month of auto sales last month. Today ZP traded to a high of 3.60. That's not bad considering ZP was down to the .20s a few months ago. ZP is now listed back on the NASDAQ. Anyone else like this play on high oil prices and micro / electric cars?
User avatar
familyradio
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon 03 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: James Schlesinger on peak oil

Unread postby Revi » Tue 04 Apr 2006, 10:10:43

I think people who want to continue moving around will be in Neighborhood electric vehicles and not in regular cars soon. They can be charged off of the existing grid and get you around town just fine. Park one in a solar garage and it charges itself while you work. What'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.

I wonder why people are planning so much for a car dominated future? I have had 5 cars in the past 10 years. I still have a 35 year old bicycle in my garage. It still runs. Half of my old cars are in the junkyard. Five years from now those SUV's from the 90's will be going to the knacker too. Why plan a whole culture around something that won't live as long as a cat? NEV's should outlive the cars that they will replace. They will be built with lightweight, but more durable materials. We are working on a solar NEV right now with high school kids. These things could be built by small plants no problem. The fossil fuel car manufacturers may not even be in the business of providing transportation soon. Who needs them?
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: James Schlesinger on peak oil

Unread postby 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
User avatar
KennyBeeAK
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Top

Re: James Schlesinger on peak oil

Unread postby 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
User avatar
KennyBeeAK
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Top

Re: James Schlesinger on peak oil

Unread postby Revi » Wed 05 Apr 2006, 09:25:34

Busses got really bad in the 70's and 80's. They are much better now. The bus stations are cleaned up and the bathrooms are not a scary place to be avoided unless you wanted to be robbed. The Port Authority in NYC has even been improved greatly. I believe the reason is that there is a new group of people riding the bus. They are young and doing ok. Most are recent immigrants from other countries. Others don't want to drive long distances to cities. There is a whole new culture in this country and it resembles the people who live in the rest of the world. Mass transit isn't scary anymore. Regular people take it again. Those of us who grew up during the bad bus years have an aversion to it, but the world has changed. For the better.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: James Schlesinger on peak oil

Unread postby Revi » Wed 05 Apr 2006, 09:26:02

Busses got really bad in the 70's and 80's. They are much better now. The bus stations are cleaned up and the bathrooms are not a scary place to be avoided unless you wanted to be robbed. The Port Authority in NYC has even been improved greatly. I believe the reason is that there is a new group of people riding the bus. They are young and doing ok. Most are recent immigrants from other countries. Others don't want to drive long distances to cities. There is a whole new culture in this country and it resembles the people who live in the rest of the world. Mass transit isn't scary anymore. Regular people take it again. Those of us who grew up during the bad bus years have an aversion to it, but the world has changed. For the better.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Previous

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests