[LoneSnark]

Heineken, it sounds like you believe oil will just vanish one day. On monday we produced 83 million barrels of crude, on tuesday we produced 0 million barrels of crude, and so everything collapsed and we all had to go stand in bread lines.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'H')eineken, it sounds like you believe oil will just vanish one day. On monday we produced 83 million barrels of crude, on tuesday we produced 0 million barrels of crude, and so everything collapsed and we all had to go stand in bread lines.

[benzoil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '1').Your inflated $600 billion figure is roughly what we already spend on cars every year.

I am perfectly content to devote $600 billion a year towards automobile consumption because...we already do it.

2. I never said they have to pay it off in one year. I said that the cost to build enough plants to build 16 million cars a year is $64 billion.

I often hear from doomers that retrofitting our industry is impossible because it would cost trillions of dollars. Well I've just proven that building the plants is cheap. Even if I'm off by 100 billion dollars, it's still cheaper than Bush's economic stimulus plan.

3. I don't care what the taxes are, what the design fees are, building costs, production costs, etc. All of that stuff is already included in every single other car on the road today. I'm not saying that electric cars will be free, I'm saying that they are going to cost the same amount of money (or less money) than every other car on the road RIGHT NOW.

The only difference between an electric car and a Chevy Suburban is that we have the plants to build a Suburban, we don't have the plants to build a Volt. Fine, spend the $64 billion and build a 16 million car/year capacity to do just that.

4. The average sticker price on a new car was $30,000 in 2004. The Chevy Volt will retail for something similar. Even if the Volt was as inefficient as your average Chevy Trailblazer, the world wouldn't be significantly worse off because the money is already being spent. Instead, we can redirect it towards far more efficient cars and cut down on wasted energy expenses dramatically.

As for 5 years being a long time to wait...is oil going to run out tomorrow? Next year?

And that 5 years assumes new construction, the more likely scenario is a cheaper and faster retrofit of existing infrastructure.

[alokin]

We must not discuss the one future model there are several, hybrids, electric etc. If everything goes on like that, there is no economic downturn etc. most people in developed countries might buy such a car.

But I don't think so. There are definitively too much problems around which should have been fixed years ago: PO, overpopulation, soil loss. etc etc. and the marode financial system.

The stock market has recovered a bit but I guess it will crash. And it is not true that high oil prices is the only reason, because other economies always paid their crude much more expensive as oil is (was?) pegged to the dollar and they're better off now.

I think it was such a big illusion that a non producing economy could work. New economy was a complete failure. Because you have to produce something to exchange it with other countries.

The US industry is simply not more able to produce competitive stuff. White goods, cars, tools, machines, appliances - are you able to sell anything in Europe?? (Two cars are seen: Ford Transit and sometimes a small Ford I forgot the name). I never ever saw a US fridge washing machine in the stores of Europe but I saw it in Colombia.

Maybe there will be a financial crash, and the oil in the ground simply will be forgotten. Our culture like every other culture is not eternally and we're in the twilight.

[LoneSnark]

Heineken, my good friend, for you to be right then all the horrors you've envisioned must have come to pass way back in 1980 when oil consumption started falling fast. By 1983 U.S. oil consumption had fallen by 21%. By your reasoning I guess 21% of us died off, right?

[seldom_seen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'B')y 1983 U.S. oil consumption had fallen by 21%

[Tyler_JC]

Between 1980 and 1990, US oil consumption fell by 4 or 5%.

And yet the US population grew by 10%.

Real, inflation-adjusted manufacturing output increased by 38% between 1980 and 1989 despite a 6% loss in jobs (productivity soared!)

Total employment grew by 19 million.

The energy intensity of the US economy plummeted.



Source

And most importantly, we are no where near 1980 levels of energy expenditure as a share of GDP.

[mos6507]

US oil consumption is still a huge chunk of global oil consumption and is unlikely to follow an unpressured downward slope rapid enough to avoid PO hardships.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'B')etween 1980 and 1990, US oil consumption fell by 4 or 5%.

And yet the US population grew by 10%.

Real, inflation-adjusted manufacturing output increased by 38% between 1980 and 1989 despite a 6% loss in jobs (productivity soared!)

Total employment grew by 19 million.

The energy intensity of the US economy plummeted.



Source

And most importantly, we are no where near 1980 levels of energy expenditure as a share of GDP.

[LoneSnark]

Heinie, you quoted him but evidently did not read it:
"Real, inflation-adjusted manufacturing output increased by 38% between 1980 and 1989"

So, to sum up, from 1979 to 1989 industrial output grew 38%, population grew 10%, economic activity doubled, and total oil consumption, which you say is what really matters, was still 10% lower than the peak set in 1979.

And lower oil consumption would have continued were it not for an oil glut which drove prices down to $12 a barrel in 1986, which just so happens to be when we see oil consumption start rising again.

[Heineken]

Snark, what I wrote is not inconsistent with a net increase in US manufacturing output. The important thing is the change in the tilt of the US economy toward services---the blend. That's what affected "energy intensity" per unit of GDP. That was my point.

Anyway, why are you looking only at the single decade of the 1980s? Also: oil use and energy use are not synonymous!

Bottom line: total energy use by the human enterprise continues to grow, even as sources peak. Vulnerability increases.

[LoneSnark]

Sorry, forgive me for thinking Peak Oil was about oil. There is no doubt that electricity production skyrocketed during the 80s on all fronts, from coal, nuclear, hydro, and natural gas. And I know of no reason they cannot continue to do so. The point was that your assertion that falling oil supplies would cause society to collapse, when this is obviously false: society has weathered falling oil supplies before because other sources of energy were available.

Similarly, the economy has not shifted from manufacturing the services, only the labor force has. Jobs have not been exported to China, they have been eliminated by robots. That is why industrial output today is more than three times what it was in 1979.
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~gsparson/data/ind ... output.gif

Which does not explain the entire situation, either. Government statistics are also the problem. Back in the 60s a factory had everything: a janitorial staff, maintenance crews, accountants, delivery truck drivers, etc, and according to government statistics every single one of them was classified to be working in the manufacturing sector. Today, all these tasks have been outsourced to outside companies, which means today every single one of them is classified by the government to be working in the service sector.

[Heineken]

Peak Oil is not just about oil. Not nearly.

[Tyler_JC]

Actually, manufacturing productivity has been rising for decades.

In fact, our productivity is so high that we don't need nearly as many workers to do factory work as we did before.

The laid off employees aren't just losing their jobs to the Chinese, they are losing their jobs to technology.



Output per man-hour has increased by 80% since 1992. That represents a 4% annual increase in productivity. That's faster than the economy as a whole is growing.

Hence our surging exports.

[raisinbran]

I've been following the peak oil story for nearly a year now, and given developments as of late, I side more with the notion that we are about to face some serious troubles. I want to emphasize, though, that we simply don't know.


I think the issue that stands out to me the most of the volatility of the financial markets. Since we have seen how volatile they are just from the past week's activity, I will argue that the financial system is more vulnerable than ever before.

Peak oil is not the sole reason for the trouble, but is a contributing factor. It is undeniable that the oil supply, at the very least, has been tight lately, as we have seen prices spike within six months. Fears on a shortage of oil, the fact that small militias in Nigeria can literally scare oil traders in the U.S. about oil supplies, etc, indicate that there just isn't LOTS of oil anymore. So the financial system is more vulnerable.

The housing crisis, I think, is just a reflection of how much "fake money" is in the financial system right now. Given the current collapse of the housing market, the financial system is even more vulnerable.

Other factors that play a role right now include the falling dollar, international political tensions, the current political machine, rising demand from India and China, technology/efficiency, and, the most unpredictable, mass psychology (fears). Given all these factors, it is extremely difficult to predict the outcome with real certainty

The funny part is that all of these factors depend on each other. For example, Tyler's proposal depends on the political machine to literally force the production of electric vehicles, because at this point the only way I can see it happening is by there being enough trouble to force big business to implement production. The government will need to force the fleet/plant production before troubles happen.

However, I think that, as we have seen develop in the past few months, the current system of affairs is not sustainable indefinitely. Serious changes need to happen. We haven't seen any real changes in the past twenty years that would have avoided the trouble we are seeing today. Serious changes, as far as I can tell, can only come about from trouble.

[NWMossBack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('raisinbran', 'I')'ve been following the peak oil story for nearly a year now, and given developments as of late, I side more with the notion that we are about to face some serious troubles. I want to emphasize, though, that we simply don't know.


I think the issue that stands out to me the most of the volatility of the financial markets. Since we have seen how volatile they are just from the past week's activity, I will argue that the financial system is more vulnerable than ever before.

Peak oil is not the sole reason for the trouble, but is a contributing factor. It is undeniable that the oil supply, at the very least, has been tight lately, as we have seen prices spike within six months. Fears on a shortage of oil, the fact that small militias in Nigeria can literally scare oil traders in the U.S. about oil supplies, etc, indicate that there just isn't LOTS of oil anymore. So the financial system is more vulnerable.

The housing crisis, I think, is just a reflection of how much "fake money" is in the financial system right now. Given the current collapse of the housing market, the financial system is even more vulnerable.

Other factors that play a role right now include the falling dollar, international political tensions, the current political machine, rising demand from India and China, technology/efficiency, and, the most unpredictable, mass psychology (fears). Given all these factors, it is extremely difficult to predict the outcome with real certainty

The funny part is that all of these factors depend on each other. For example, Tyler's proposal depends on the political machine to literally force the production of electric vehicles, because at this point the only way I can see it happening is by there being enough trouble to force big business to implement production. The government will need to force the fleet/plant production before troubles happen.

However, I think that, as we have seen develop in the past few months, the current system of affairs is not sustainable indefinitely. Serious changes need to happen. We haven't seen any real changes in the past twenty years that would have avoided the trouble we are seeing today. Serious changes, as far as I can tell, can only come about from trouble.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'A')ctually, manufacturing productivity has been rising for decades.

In fact, our productivity is so high that we don't need nearly as many workers to do factory work as we did before.

The laid off employees aren't just losing their jobs to the Chinese, they are losing their jobs to technology.



Output per man-hour has increased by 80% since 1992. That represents a 4% annual increase in productivity. That's faster than the economy as a whole is growing.

Hence our surging exports.

[LoneSnark]

Yes, because you know that is a new turn of events to have difficulty finding products with "Made in USA" stamped on them. Oh wait, no it isn't. When I was growing up in the 80s nothing was stamped Made in USA, not even my clothes. Everything I found to check was from either Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, etc. etc. The family car was imported by boat from Japan.

Today, a car made by the same company comes from Kentucky.

Just because you cannot find "Made in USA" among the cheap crap you bought at WalMart does not mean 'uSA' does not make anything; all it means is that we don't make cheap crap. Go check your air-conditioning system, your water heater, the dry-wall, and your furniture. Now, travel overseas and check these same items in a Japanese home; I suspect something there will have "Made in USA" stamped on it (if they require that there).

[FreakOil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'J')ust because you cannot find "Made in USA" among the cheap crap you bought at WalMart does not mean 'uSA' does not make anything; all it means is that we don't make cheap crap. Go check your air-conditioning system, your water heater, the dry-wall, and your furniture. Now, travel overseas and check these same items in a Japanese home; I suspect something there will have "Made in USA" stamped on it (if they require that there).

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'Y')es, because you know that is a new turn of events to have difficulty finding products with "Made in USA" stamped on them. Oh wait, no it isn't. When I was growing up in the 80s nothing was stamped Made in USA, not even my clothes. Everything I found to check was from either Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, etc. etc. The family car was imported by boat from Japan.

Today, a car made by the same company comes from Kentucky.

Just because you cannot find "Made in USA" among the cheap crap you bought at WalMart does not mean 'uSA' does not make anything; all it means is that we don't make cheap crap. Go check your air-conditioning system, your water heater, the dry-wall, and your furniture. Now, travel overseas and check these same items in a Japanese home; I suspect something there will have "Made in USA" stamped on it (if they require that there).