Economic impact (merged)

[Armageddon]

Who in the hell is going to afford them in a worldwide economy that is on the verge collapsing ?

[seenmostofit]

Except that the cars themselves can be charged by solar panels either at charging stations (e.g. here), or at home (e.g. here), or at work (e.g. Chevy Volt), or on the car itself (e.g. Fisker Karma).

the free fuel provided by some employers isn't all bad either. I wonder how long that can last though, if these things catch on in a major way?

[seenmostofit]

Who in the hell is going to afford them in a worldwide economy that is on the verge collapsing ?

Actually collapsing back in 2008 didn't seem to slow down the development of these EVs, certainly now that the capital investment has been made, it sure be easier to sell during the next collapse, should sell like hotcakes to those trying to escape fuel bills. There are other ways of course, but for the commuter who just can't give up his wheels, an EV might be the way to go.

[Beery1]

...A small number of analysts forecast that oil production will start to fall by 2020 - not because we are running out, but because we just won't need it.

...It is a bold prediction. Could it be right?

Yeah, that could be right, if we start building nuclear and renewable power stations by... I dunno, say 1995.

[Lore]

Except that the cars themselves can be charged by solar panels either at charging stations (e.g. here), or at home (e.g. here), or at work (e.g. Chevy Volt), or on the car itself (e.g. Fisker Karma).

All very well and good, except what makes the solar panels, the electric motors and batteries and all the things that make up the auto itself? Let's not forget the roads and their maintenance and the transmission lines for the new grid and on and on, well you get the picture.

[seenmostofit]

...A small number of analysts forecast that oil production will start to fall by 2020 - not because we are running out, but because we just won't need it.

...It is a bold prediction. Could it be right?

Yeah, that could be right, if we start building nuclear and renewable power stations by... I dunno, say 1995.

It could also be right if we started prototyping hybrids and whatnot by...oh...1999? Oh, we did that!

It has always struck me that a penny saved is a penny earned, so demand destruction through more efficient transport is at least as important as new generation and discoveries or whatnot. Certainly a well thought out transport plan can negate most transport fuel usage for large numbers of commuting Americans, and by extension other countries as well, as they become less competitive with America if they continue to sink money into fueling transport rather than using their disposable income for more productive economic purposes.

[ralfy]

Related:

"The Energy Trap"

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/201 ... ergy-trap/

In short, consider the resources (not just oil but various minerals and even fresh water) needed not only to make electric cars but more electric cars, and not just more electric cars but various infrastructure connected to it (from paved roads to even power stations), and not just electric cars and infrastructure but even various consumer goods related to electric cars needed to maintain business as usual, not to mention continuous economic growth requiring the equivalent of around one Saudi Arabia every seven years (according to the IEA).

Given such requirements, is it logical to argue that oil will lose its luster? If any, I think it will be the opposite: oil will be more important than ever.

[Graeme]

Except that the cars themselves can be charged by solar panels either at charging stations (e.g. here), or at home (e.g. here), or at work (e.g. Chevy Volt), or on the car itself (e.g. Fisker Karma).

All very well and good, except what makes the solar panels, the electric motors and batteries and all the things that make up the auto itself? Let's not forget the roads and their maintenance and the transmission lines for the new grid and on and on, well you get the picture.

You criticism is addressed in kublikhan's thread "Is 100% Renewable Energy Viable?"

[Revi]

We think we need to have a car and live an energy intensive lifestyle, but the rest of the world may be able to teach us a thing or two. We could take the bus and get around a town on foot. The best use for fossil fuels is to grind grain or to cut wood. It should be used to transport goods instead of people. We are going to enter a world where you need to get more BTUs than the fuel you are using. For example you buy a gallon of gas and with it you drag out and cut wood that contains more energy than the gas you used. Otherwise it makes no sense. Going to the grocery store to get a carton of milk in a 5000 pound hunk of metal will seem as crazy as it really is.

[seenmostofit]

Going to the grocery store to get a carton of milk in a 5000 pound hunk of metal will seem as crazy as it really is.

Agreed. You are making a "right tool for the job" point I think. For individual transport, there are so many other things we can do besides taking that SUV. While any of the EVs on the market would be wonderful, they are a bit expensive for the average commuter. So I collected one of these, which should repay itself in fuel costs within 5000 miles of use. Call it two summers of commuting.

[JohnRM]

Of course the whole problem with electricity is it is just a carrier of FF energy (for the most part) no different really from unleaded,

Oh, its very different from unleaded. Electricity is primarily generated by burning coal, so it is even worse. I certainly don't think that the natural gas bonanza will last.

[GASMON]

Electric vehicles are NOT for the average joe - they are just to expensive new, and expensive secondhand when you factor in replacement battery sets.
Besides, am I right in saying there isn't enough resource for umpteen thousand million battery sets that require renewal every few years. That's not even starting on how the increased demand electricity is going to be generated.

As Lore said, there ain't any free lunches in the energy game. Perhaps we in the UK come closest to a free lunch with our many river estuaries with a very high twice daily tidal range - I believe the severn barage project is now being looked at again.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -30999967/

Unfortunatley the world is run by get rich quick pisspots who have no intention of investing for the future. WE will see - soon.

Gas

[seenmostofit]

Of course the whole problem with electricity is it is just a carrier of FF energy (for the most part) no different really from unleaded,

Oh, its very different from unleaded. Electricity is primarily generated by burning coal, so it is even worse. I certainly don't think that the natural gas bonanza will last.

The bonanza wasn't even supposed to START.

The solution is to pray. Pray for mild weather and a mild winter. Pray for no hurricanes and to stop the erosion of natural gas supplies. Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it's a certainty.

Matt Simmons, August 2003

From such pessimism industry gave us...abundance...instead. It cannot last forever of course, no more than oil production can continue forever, but such obvious misfirings should at least give most rational people pause prior to proclaiming the end of a thing.

And if we can drop our demand faster than the natural decline of supplies? Presto....no different than the appearance of abundance, the discrepancy between supply and demand from whence all things good flow. Price wise anyway.

[seenmostofit]

Electric vehicles are NOT for the average joe - they are just to expensive new, and expensive secondhand when you factor in replacement battery sets.

I agree with you.

As Lore said, there ain't any free lunches in the energy game.

But this isn't why. This statement is axiomatic, and has been so since man first decided to stand up and run across the savannah rather than swim around in primordial ooze. It certainly didn't stop us from getting from there, to here, and it certainly will still apply going forward, and will not stop us from going from here, to there, either.

[Lore]

As Lore said, there ain't any free lunches in the energy game.

But this isn't why. This statement is axiomatic, and has been so since man first decided to stand up and run across the savannah rather than swim around in primordial ooze. It certainly didn't stop us from getting from there, to here, and it certainly will still apply going forward, and will not stop us from going from here, to there, either.

Or, as Captain Kirk once said; "to boldly go where no man has gone before!"

[Windmills]

And if we can drop our demand faster than the natural decline of supplies? Presto....no different than the appearance of abundance, the discrepancy between supply and demand from whence all things good flow. Price wise anyway.

It's quite different than the appearance of abundance. It's rather like saying, "it doesn't matter that we're running out of food, so long as we continuously reduce our caloric intake to match the declining food supply, we'll be fine price-wise."

What matters is the rate at which we can substitute for the decline of various resources, and whether the economy, culture, and political systems can withstand that rate of change. It's possible that the market signals most people are awaiting will come too late and the required changes will have to happen too quickly. A massive chunk of the global economic system will be difficult to change overnight. The changes will come, but at what cost in life, environment, health, and political stability? Can all these solutions be ramped up rapidly enough at a point in the future in which we're likely to be in another recession? Who's going to pay for all the new infrastructure when the government and the consumer have nothing to spare? Who's going to invest in a declining economy when there are profits to be made in other parts of the world that might still be growing? It's easy to dream; it's much harder to finance a dream.

[seenmostofit]

And if we can drop our demand faster than the natural decline of supplies? Presto....no different than the appearance of abundance, the discrepancy between supply and demand from whence all things good flow. Price wise anyway.

It's quite different than the appearance of abundance. It's rather like saying, "it doesn't matter that we're running out of food, so long as we continuously reduce our caloric intake to match the declining food supply, we'll be fine price-wise."

That is exactly what it is. Except I can choose to use less crude oil based fuels and products, and they can be substituted for over time. There is no known substitute yet for caloric intake. Or oxygen intake. There is no such requirement for using crude based fuels, putting it in a different category than food or oxygen.

The changes will come, but at what cost in life, environment, health, and political stability? Can all these solutions be ramped up rapidly enough at a point in the future in which we're likely to be in another recession? Who's going to pay for all the new infrastructure when the government and the consumer have nothing to spare? Who's going to invest in a declining economy when there are profits to be made in other parts of the world that might still be growing? It's easy to dream; it's much harder to finance a dream.

True. But it will happen, one way or another, by hook or by crook. The uncertainty of not knowing HOW it will happen has nothing to do with the near certainty that it will.

[efarmer]

The fleet of vehicles, the fleet of power plants, the fleet of heating systems is manifest and huge. It does not change or turn over rapidly because it cannot. The only thing that is here and now doable and could make a huge difference is a change in attitude especially in the high life style countries to reduce their cost of ownership by voluntary sharing of fossil fuel powered systems, beginning with road transport. It is a trick that can cut consumption by a 20% factor, drop demand, lower prices, use existing infrastructure and owned systems, and turn the clock back to permit time to do something better and smarter.


Electronic communications that let's your run into town or work or shopping or on vacation bring another person along or deliver a desired product or good on the way home and knock a few bucks or more off of your personal overhead would be a game changer. Think of being a rural person and making a credit card buy of something in town and neighbor Joe drops it off for a $4 Paypal hit and you duck a $9 round trip to town and a 90 minute gap in your productive time, or being a senior and not having to drive or fret the trip.

A way to use the web to share personal transport on a compensated basis is a big bag of nickels for whomever makes it work. People who get into it will do their desired trips and turn a profit, those who are everyday folks will reduce their cost of vehicle ownership and fuel cost. This is the only bag I can think of you can stick on suburbia and temper it's fossil fuel folly, it also just might be fun. Since it requires a central financial clearing mechanism it should be lucrative for financial entities. If anything qualifies for tax incentives from the Feds or State or Local Gov. this should be it. They can tax the transport share to make up for the fuel tax loss from gasoline or diesel, and if ever there was a national security mission from on high, it is reducing our dependency on foreign petroleum for a nation built on cheap motoring and the living structure it has spawned and that is built and taxed and lived in right now.

[ralfy]

The bad news is that given a global capitalist economy coupled with increasing human population, demand has to keep rising.

So much for "presto".

[Beery1]

...A small number of analysts forecast that oil production will start to fall by 2020 - not because we are running out, but because we just won't need it.

...It is a bold prediction. Could it be right?

Yeah, that could be right, if we start building nuclear and renewable power stations by... I dunno, say 1995.

It could also be right if we started prototyping hybrids and whatnot by...oh...1999? Oh, we did that! ...

And then we promptly negated the whole point by installing the engines in the heaviest cars possible.

My wife drives a hybrid - it doesn't get any better gas mileage than a modern subcompact. If the auto industry was making only super-efficient lightweight hybrids, you might have a point. But it's not. Most hybrids coming out now are midsize sedans or SUVs - they're a bad joke. They get piss-poor gas mileage and do nothing but prove Jevons' Paradox.