[gg3]

This is where my green streak and my libertarian streak always get into a fight with each other.

I don't object to performance standards, but I mightily object to regulations that dictate how those standards should be met.

And I also ferociously and violently object to regulations that result in over-complicated and over-automated products that are designed for idiots, impossible to modify, and nearly impossible to maintain.

For example, take the washing machine. Modern front-loaders are certainly efficient. But they are mechanically complicated and computer-controlled, and the controller circuit board is an obvious point of failure. In contrast I have a "twin tub" washer that's basically 1950s technology with no computerized anything, and uses half the water of a conventional washer and 0.07 KWH of electricity to do a 6-1/2 lb. load. My machine won't qualify for Energy Star because all the controls are mechanical: someone could theoretically use the machine in a wasteful manner if s/he really wanted to. However it's more efficient than most of what's presently on the market and it's so simple that it will proably last 20 years.

Similar dynamics apply to other types of appliances, and to automobiles as well. What happens is that the regulators require everything to be designed for people with two-digit IQs, and the manufacturers happily comply, and people with decent brains in their heads are forced to bear with the outcomes.

It would be simpler and more direct to just go ahead and ration energy and water supplies, tax the hell out of carbon emissions, charge for refuse collection based on weekly weight (this is already possible and being done in some places), and let the free market work out the technical details. Everyone gets so much gasoline per week, so much electricity per month, with adjustments for household size and for factors such as electric automobiles, and then they can buy & sell their rations on the open market. Meanwhile, manufacturers come up with clever new stuff (or resurrect clever old stuff like the twin-tub washing machine) that enables smart people to maximize efficiency and sell their surplus rations. Win-win-win.

Here's an example of how that works.

Note the following numbers are all rough estimates, one of these days I am going to take a Kill-a-Watt power meter to a TV store and make actual measurements.

Back in the good old days, a "big" television was one with a 32" diagonal screen color picture tube. This would consume between 300 and 600 watts while it was on.

Now if you take a 32" diagonal picture and use flat-screen technology, you can probably do that for 100 to 150 watts: excellent, a 50% savings with no sacrifice.

But instead we have now got 60" and 80" and in some cases 100" flat screen TVs, which are back up to 300, 600, and in some cases over 1,000 watts. In a case like that, the 300 watt 60" TV gets the Energy Star for its category.

So with the present regulatory approach, we just got nowhere.

With the rationing approach, we get an incentive for people to stick to the 32" picture and cut their power consumption by half, and sell the surplus rations on the open market.

As for those huge TVs, the place for them is in community auditoriums and micro-theatres where groups of people can congregate to watch. And if people hung out after to talk about what they just watched, it would tend to enhance community rather than fragmenting people into their own isolated living rooms.

[Michael_Layden]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Indiantiger', 'M')y feeling is that while the free market has done a great job in the 1970s to pursue energy efficiency and conservation, the biggest opprotunity now is in residential and small commercial buildings.

What do you guys think about government regulation vs. free market's ability to effect energy over the next 10 years.

[evilgenius]

In the seventies Jimmy Carter's fireside chats and mandatory conservation proved an effective weapon against those that would hold the US hostage to supply shocks. The Saudis have done everything they can over the years to keep that weapon from coming back into play. It is one of the reasons that the Saudis work so well with the neocons. The neocons hold that weapon over the Saudis heads. They promise the Saudis that in return for their cooperation they won't allow it to come back into play. That way the Saudis can be made to comply with the American demand for a swing producer that can keep the dollar in its place at the top. Its just like any industry, the member of the oligopoly that can produce whatever product for the lowest price sets the pricing structure for that industry. In this case it isn't just price, but denomination.

[gego]

Give me a break. You are saying that the politically electable are the best to decide how we live our lives.

Where have you been all your life?

I guess we all should get together and vote on how Indiatiger spends his money and how he best can live his life; clearly he thinks that this is how each of our lives should be guided, i.e., by elected officials, and collective decisions rather than by freely representing our own self interest.

Give this guy a mama and dadda, and a tit to suck on to help solve his own perception that he is unable to take care of himself. The world is full of malformed personalities, but their insecurities and need to gather together in a big hug fest is unlikely to surmount the problems of huge human numbers. Grow up.

[TommyJefferson]

Whether or not it comes in the form of a central agency, like in the U.S.S.R., or the U.S. Government, centralized economic planning always creates chaos, inefficiency, and, ultimately, economic hardship for the majority of citizens.

On the other hand, it always provides those in power with MORE authoritarian power and MORE wealth.

In the US, central economic planing is done via the legislative process. The legislative process when applied to energy matters means that members of Congress favor their most important constituents, a.k.a. their biggest campaign contributors.

Can you say "Archer-Daniels-Midland Chevron Exxon Wal-Mart"?

The economies of the communist countries are the best empirical refutation of socialism. Do you want to standing in long lines just to purchase basic items? Do you want goods of horrendous quality? Do you want even MORE wealth, influence and power concentrated in the hands of Congress/corporations?

In the 1970's price and allocation controls turned oil markets here into Soviet-style disorder that imposed huge costs upon everyone. Texas did however benefit from all your resources directed our way and we thank you.

Central economic planning does not work any better here than it did in the U.S.S.R.

[sirrom]

i would just like to point out that there will be no widespread oil shortage in free market economies.

i seem to see lots of posts about rationing petrol/oil/oil products,but what people forget is that if there is low supply the price will go up and demand will be reduced,so there will always be oil for those that can afford it.

[RdSnt]

That is of course if you regard the free market as a rational environment where everyone knows their place and accepts it. Very British.
You are depending on everyone knowing what's going on and understanding why there are shortages, staying calm, not hoarding, not striking, not rioting.
You are of course relying on the greed filled puss sacks that are the monied wealthy taking an equal hit and nobly making sure essential services are adequately supplied.

[RdSnt]

What free market economies? I don't know of any. Each of the so-called first world nations interferes very deeply with their economies. Thus the international currency crisis, the subsidies for the wealthy, the trade wars, the fiat money printing, the stupid rescue of mortgage lenders, etc.....

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sirrom', 'i') would just like to point out that there will be no widespread oil shortage in free market economies.

[Fishman]

there will be no widespread oil shortage in free market economies.

What you are saying is correct in an economics class, seldom true in the real world. There can be no shortage if the price is high enough, it will be unavailable because of the cost. Politics and a multitude of other factors will creat their share of shortages.

[Cynus]

I don't think most people are going to split hairs over the meaning of the word "shortage" vs. "can't get any because it's too expensive." For all practical reasons they amount to the same thing.

[Heineken]

Sirrom, your assertion is nonsense, because it assumes that 100% of oil demand is elastic.

In fact, a very large proportion of oil demand is inelastic. It's baked into the continued functioning of civilization as we know it.

Thus, oil-demand destruction can go only so far before a different kind of destruction comes into play.

[DantesPeak]

If oil were perfectly distributed around the world, and all countries had completely free markets, the high prices may theoretically stop most shortages.

Since many countries subsidize oil and oil products (which by the way, the US also does for ethanol), demand has a tendency to always exceed supply. So shortages are bound to result as oil production drops.

[LoneSnark]

A market can be considered free for as long as the right to contract is unencumbered. So, while the government subsidizes a lot of stuff, taxes a lot of other stuff, and mandates some things, the world-wide trade in oil is a free market (this has not always been so). Most countries don't even have import tariffs on the stuff.

That said, judging by the beliefs I have found on this board, when Peak Oil hits the first thing that will be sacrificed will be the freedom of contract. Restrictions will be placed on who you can sell too and at what prices, making it no longer a free market but instead an arm of the political system, as existed in 1970s America and 1930s Italy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou are depending on everyone knowing what's going on and understanding why there are shortages, staying calm, not hoarding, not striking, not rioting.

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he energy watchdog of the OECD countries, the International Energy Agency (IEA), recently started to talk about looming oil shortages. The high oil price of today will remain is the message they are spreading. We need to save more oil, invest more in increasing oil production and upscale alternatives. However, the IEA does not see a peak in worldwide oil production occurring in the coming decades. Based on the expectation that large amounts of oil will be discovered, not yet on the radar of oil companies worldwide. This new stance follows below from the translated transcript of an interview recently broadcasted on the Dutch television channel RTL-Z with Aad van Bohemen, the Director of Crisis Management at the IEA

[Kingcoal]

Peak Oil is the end of cheap oil, that's common knowledge. Oil will always have a price, however, eventually; even first world countries will find it not worth it.

[mark]

The world has a short memory. Necessarily so given our limited lifespan; we think a 100 years is a long time. Taking the longer perspective is likely to provide greater clarity. It’s only a short 350 years that we’ve been on this carnival ride known as “modern” civilization. Why, given our million year existence, have we only now reached such dizzying heights that the delusional among us proclaim we’re about to partner with silicon. I’m guessing we’ve also reached peak idiocy.

If you can conjure up a vision of what the world is going to look like when slapped upside the head by resource scarcity, I want what you’re smokin’.

I’ve learned a lot here in the last 3 years but the more I learn the more I realize that I don’t know how things will work out. However, given the level of illusion amongst the people and the enormous criminality of our ruling class, I can’t imagine we will call it normal.

[clueless]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sirrom', 'i') would just like to point out that there will be no widespread oil shortage in free market economies.

i seem to see lots of posts about rationing petrol/oil/oil products,but what people forget is that if there is low supply the price will go up and demand will be reduced,so there will always be oil for those that can afford it.

[aflurry]

as long as i can't afford to buy food, there's no food shortage. i won't starve. i sure do loves me some free markets.

[LoneSnark]

As there is no point at which you cannot afford food (either you gave up spending your money on luxuries or those with money are supporting you through charity), what always gives in a food market is waste (people throw less food away), types of food (instead of feeding grain to cows to make meat people just eat bread instead) or the supply is more carefully handled (something like 1/6th of all the grain produced in America is lost in transit, with expense it could be saved).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'm')any PO experts believe much of the oil remaining will not even be extracted because of economic chaos that will ensue once we hit the first few supply shocks.

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'A')s there is no point at which you cannot afford food (either you gave up spending your money on luxuries or those with money are supporting you through charity), what always gives in a food market is waste (people throw less food away), types of food (instead of feeding grain to cows to make meat people just eat bread instead) or the supply is more carefully handled (something like 1/6th of all the grain produced in America is lost in transit, with expense it could be saved).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'm')any PO experts believe much of the oil remaining will not even be extracted because of economic chaos that will ensue once we hit the first few supply shocks.