[SoothSayer]

>> I rest my case.

... but oil isn't like any other product ... it is part of almost everything.

Even sitting at home unemployed you are using some every day, in many different direct & indirect ways.

You have to eat, you need water, you need electricity, you need heating ... and then there's clothing, travel, toothpaste etc etc.

Surely the net economic & social effect of oil shortages and/or high prices is going to be VERY complex ....

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ohanian', '
')Hence there is less need for oil in the manufacturing which in turn causes the oil price to finally go downwards.

[Graeme]

DOE predicts gasoline shortages

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')asoline shortages and even higher prices loom, a new government report says, and it will take decades and trillions of dollars to replace American dependence on foreign oil.

The U.S. Department of Energy report directly addressed the concept of peak oil and how to deal with it. Peak oil means oil production is maximized and supply goes down from that point forward. Coupled with a surge in demand from countries like China and India, some energy experts say this could be a problem for America's economy.

"The world is consuming more oil than it is finding, and at some point within the next decade or two, world production of conventional oil will likely peak," the report says.

The July report was written by Robert Hirsch of Science Applications International Corp., and Roger Bezdek and Robert Wendling of Management Information Services Inc., based in Washington, D.C.

The report analyzed four options to produce large amounts of liquid fuels in the U.S.: increasing vehicle efficiency; creating petroleum from coal, called coal liquefaction; oil shale, which is rock that can be distilled to produce oil; and enhanced oil recovery, which means better ways to get oil from existing fields.

[Graeme]

This report was also posted as a news item on the 23rd August by Leanan, and can be accessed in the EnergyBulletin in this paragraph:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he problem with transport is a liquid fuels problem, and is to do with what it is that you have to put in in order to get clean liquid fuels out. The new study, “Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Option” is due out soon (it has since emerged, and is available here). It only looks at the US, and at the cost of mitigation, with increased vehicle efficiency surprisingly being the most expensive. Our forecast is that this programme would require 1 trillion per year. (Hirsch’s presentation was full of figures and graphs and charts which I failed to note down in time, so for the rest you’d be best to check out his Powerpoint, but that is the essence of it).

[Zardoz]

From the Energy Bulletin article:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') confess to being flabbergasted at the insanity of this proposal. Climate change wasn’t mentioned once in his talk, the fact that his choices of fuel are the most climatically destructive possible choices possible (a car running on petrol made from coal is responsible for 30-40 percent more CO2 than one running on ordinary petrol) wasn’t mentioned. This is utterly crackers. What the hell gives the US, the nation responsible for the lion’s share of contributions to climate change, the right to finish off life on Earth in exchange for a few more years motoring?

[rwwff]

I think I've said it before; whether you guys like it or not, we are going to find any and every way possible to turn every last gram of diggable coal into power and liquid fuel, and it will all be burned.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'I') think I've said it before; whether you guys like it or not, we are going to find any and every way possible to turn every last gram of diggable coal into power and liquid fuel, and it will all be burned.

[TT]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'I') think I've said it before; whether you guys like it or not, we are going to find any and every way possible to turn every last gram of diggable coal into power and liquid fuel, and it will all be burned.

[NEOPO]

Yeah and by not changing our lifestyles we will be saying "yes" to every last bit and saying "no" to the environment.

The choice is ours.

Now to get the rest of the nation/world to understand this....doh!

You have said this before? Hell this has been on everyones mind since we got here (peakoil.com).

The children are insane.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', 'Y')eah and by not changing our lifestyles we will be saying "yes" to every last bit and saying "no" to the environment.
The choice is ours.

[Ludi]

The only hope it seems is that the new forms of liquid fuel are so expensive and so impossible to produce in a failing economy that the US simply can't continue to be an energy hog, due to economic collapse. I really hate to say it, because I don't wish hardship on anyone, but it just seems the only hope to avoid even worse global climate change is for the US to have a major economic collapse as soon as possible. That means I'll be poor and probably not live very long, but, oh well. Me and a bunch of other folks. But really, what chance is there we will as a society suddenly change our way of life? The chance is remote.

[lorenzo]

So was this report written by the DOE and 'endorsed' by it or was it merely written for the DOE?
I don't know how this works in the US, but the EU for example commissions thousands of reports on hundreds of topics each day, but only a few of them get the official stamp of an EU agency, after which they become "important". The other reports are just background noise that is put in the archives after two days. Mainly meant to keep consultants and lobbyists happy.

So can the document be found on the official DOE website?

[dukey]

meanwhile the price of gasoline is doing this

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'S')o can the document be found on the official DOE website?

[greenworm]

Are you talking about the 2037 DOE?

What on earth made them change their minds?

[Sgs-Cruz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 'I') think I've said it before; whether you guys like it or not, we are going to find any and every way possible to turn every last gram of diggable coal into power and liquid fuel, and it will all be burned.

[FatherOfTwo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'S')o can the document be found on the official DOE website?

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'S')o can the document be found on the official DOE website?

[kjmclark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e are certainly entering a time where the surplus economy will no longer exist, and the resources that remain will go towards maintenance of the status quo, simply because we have no choice at this point.

[BW]

This guy on the oildrum addresses the DOE/SAIC/Hirsch report and it's convenient omission of increased rail usage to reduce liquid fuel use.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/25/91113/9720#55

The recent Peak Oil mitigation study, Economic Impacts of U.S. Liquid Fuel Mitigation Options prepared by Hirsch, Bezdek and Wendling for the Department of Energy overlooked the "best" solution. This overlooked approach can have a quicker and larger impact than any one of the proposed mitigations; and quite possibly more than all production orientated approachs together. In extremis, it is technically and socially possible (see historical precedents below) for this one solution plus declining US domestic production to provide all of our transportation needs without resorting to coal-to-liquids, oil shale or accelerated enhanced oil recovery. And do so in an environmentally positive way without any significant environmental obstacles to slow implementation.


The first of the two linked, and overlooked, approaches is to electrify our inter-city freight railroads (with some enhancements) and promote inter-modal transfers with free market and other incentives (such as Interstate Highway tolls). The DoE study states "...trains... simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels". This is clearly untrue for this particular mode for the time scales of the study. The only existing capital good affected, diesel-electric locomotives, can be easily rebuilt or replaced with cheaper electric locomotives for a "trivial" expenditure.

The other overlooked approach is to build Urban Rail on a scale at least comparable to (or more intensely than) the Interstate Highway system.
A conservative estimate, based on a major but not a crash effort, is that these two approaches can save 10% of US Oil use in ten to twelve years. (See attached paper). A crash effort could do more today than the "Peak Streetcar" building era from 1897 to 1916. As a nation of less than 100 million people, a majority still rural, with a GNP (inflation adjusted) of just ~3% of today and quite primitive technology, the United States built 500 streetcar systems. Most towns of 25,000 and larger got electrified transportation. Clearly the United States has the technology and resources to do much more today than a century ago.

In addition, electric trolley buses and enhanced transportation bicycling can provide vital links in a non-oil transportation system. Electric assisted "tricycles" can service a broad spectrum of the population with a non-oil alternative for local travel, such as to the closest electric rail stop or neighborhood grocery.

The changes in the urban form brought about by an abundance of electrified Urban Rail and a paucity of liquid transportation fuels would be of the magnitude of the changes brought about by deliberate federal policy from 1950 to 1970; when almost all downtown shopping and business districts died, most established neighborhoods declined and suburbia and shopping malls boomed.

We did it once, we can do it again !

Oil, or "Liquid Transportation Fuels", are not required to support an advanced Western industrial society with a vibrant democracy and a decent quality of life. A premier example is Switzerland of WW II. Due to strategic decisions made in the 1920s, and subsequent investments, they were able to function with 1/400th of current US per capita oil use in 1945. Three years later, they were still at 7% of current US oil use, a level that would allow the United States of today to join OPEC as the 3rd or 4th largest oil exporter.

In a more recent strategic decision, Swiss voters approved in 1998 a twenty year, 31 billion Swiss franc program to improve their already excellent electric rail system. Adjusted for population and currency, this is equivalent to the United States voting $1 trillion ! The dominant goal, of several goals, is to move all heavy freight by electric rail and not truck. Semi-high speed passenger service, improved rural access and quieter rail cars are other Swiss goals.

The Swiss are not alone in taking strongly pro-active actions to get off oil today. The Thais have budgeted 550 billion baht (~US$14 billion) for mass transit, are building a 95% renewable electricity grid and developing small scale rural bio-gas. All from a Third World economy of 60 million people ! And the French are in the midst of adding one tram line to every town of 150,000 and two tram lines to every city of 250,000 as well as finishing their renowned TGV system. Sweden and Finland are setting goals and deadlines for an oil-less society. Even Russia is rapidly electrifying their railroads. All of the above are working towards solutions that significantly reduce Global Warming emissions as well as significantly reducing oil dependence.

Electric rail and associated changes in development have, unlike the production alternatives studied in the report, a negative feedback relationship with tight oil supplies and an ability to scale up very quickly.

The more expensive oil becomes, the more effective Urban Rail and electrified freight railroad will become; thereby dampening the social and economic impact of Peak Oil. Of the approaches studied, this is true of only increased vehicle efficiency. And in a sudden oil supply interruption, both Urban Rail and electrified freight can be scaled up by 50% to 100% in a week if prior preparations have been made. This is not true of any other alternative proposed.

Coal-to-Liquids and Canadian tar sands use similar, and scarce, speciality industrial products and scarce personnel. Several key industrial products and personnel are bottlenecks today in the limited expansion of Canadian tar sands production. These existing shortages, with associated cost over-runs and delays, call into question the extremely aggressive schedule in the DoE paper. Enhanced Oil Recovery likewise competes with conventional oil and natural gas production for critically scarce resources.

By contrast, there is a large and robust international industrial base supporting the very large installed base of electrified rail. This international support can easily supplement any domestic shortfalls and allow massive implementation quickly.

Electric rail, Urban & Inter-city, vehicle efficiency, electric trolley buses and transportation bicycling are the best alternatives available and can, by themselves, potentially deal with the consequences of Peak Oil. All of these approaches are better environmentally, economically, socially and for strategic security; they can be scaled up faster and will not suffer as much from industrial and personnel shortages. There is no technological risk with electrified rail, unlike the extreme risks associated with oil shale and substantial technological risks with large scale CTL and EOR.

By every reasonable metric, the first alternatives listed are "better" than CTL and oil shale production.

The DoE study has one very large, unrealistic and unstated assumption; "More than doubling US transportation carbon emissions will have minimal political opposition and will not slow implementation". One reading of the political tea leaves is that CTL and Oil Shales will only be pursued if they are carbon neutral. One political strategy is to balance carbon positive CTL & Oil Shale recovery with carbon negative Urban Rail and railroad electrification (both with ~20 to 1 energy efficiency gains) in a carbon neutral program. This may be the only politically possible program that involves CTL and Oil Shales.

The crisis of Peak Oil may require that all alternatives, the best and the sub-optimal, be aggressively pursued. But the best alternatives should be pursued first, most aggressively and most complete l