[MonteQuest]

I hope not, I am not in favor of biofuel or manufactured liquid fuel subsidies.

But TPTB are. They want more liquid fuel. The world runs on liquid fuels. Look at the Hirsch Report in 2005. Conservation, efficiencies, renewables were mentioned, but producing more liquids fuels was the main mitigation for peak oil.

That's what this thread is about.

[toolpush]

it probably won't be able to accommodate the 88% increase in freight projected by 2035, much less all long-haul trucking freight.

MonteQuest,

You do realize that if you double track, single track line you triple the capacity. And for inter-modal traffic when you double stack, you double capacity. Giving you a 600% increase across that section of line, not counting any speed increases from improved and new track. If the money is there, the investment will be made, and the capacity will be created.

One thing for sure, the interstate system will certainly not be near doubled to account for this 88% increase in traffic, while the no new taxes philosophy in maintained in the US.

Just for the record, we are not talking about all freight traffic going by rail. High security, high cost, very time dependent, over sized, and awkward loads will always be dominated by road. Part loads under 500 mile are also dominated by road. Less densely populated areas will be road based as well .

I am sure you could also come up with some other categories that will favour road base transport, but the rail system has grown rapidly as the price of fuel has risen, and computerized tracking systems have decreased the time in transit. Taken to the logical conclusion, the US freight system could come down to a hub and spoke system, where rail delivers to the hub and the trucks run the spokes, up to 100 to 300 mile, while trucks could be running up to 500 mile point to point.

[MonteQuest]

If the money is there, the investment will be made, and the capacity will be created.

My point is that the capacity to move long-haul trucking freight to rail does not exist today and there is concern that they won't be able to accommodate the 88% increase already coming that doesn't even consider such a move.

[vtsnowedin]

The key point is that the automatic increases are set in law

Good luck with that new "tax" law.

Think about what can be done that is reasonable to TPTB to maintain BAU.

We are discussing here what might might work. Not what keeps TPTB in power or what keeps BAU going a bit further down the road. The fact that TPTB don't like a plan or that it involves a change from BAU sheds no light on the value of the plan.
Soon enough we will have BTWIUTB and TWIIN. Business the way it used to be, and The way it is now. TPTB need to look sharp and adapt or they may become TPTW. the powers that were.

[vtsnowedin]

Also Americans adapt faster then Europeans.

You are hopelessly obtuse.

Good luck with that.

That is merely a counter to your constant "can't happen because it is a change" and TPTB won't like it. Not to be taken seriously unless it matters. In that case remember that Americans have been under estimated several times before.

[MonteQuest]

The key point is that the automatic increases are set in law

Good luck with that new "tax" law.

Think about what can be done that is reasonable to TPTB to maintain BAU.

We are discussing here what might might work. Not what keeps TPTB in power or what keeps BAU going a bit further down the road. The fact that TPTB don't like a plan or that it involves a change from BAU sheds no light on the value of the plan.

But how the people react does.

Automatic increases?

Massachusetts Rolls Back Automatic Gas Tax Hike Nov, 5 2014

"Massachusetts voters eliminated part of a 2013 transportation law designed to help gas tax revenues keep up with inflation. "The proposal to repeal the inflation measure earned 53 percent of the vote. Pollster David Paleologos said previous polls showed Massachusetts residents were skeptical of automatic increases."

[ralfy]

Transport is not the only sector that is dependent on oil. The same goes for portions of manufacturing, food production, mining, etc.

[MonteQuest]

We are discussing here what might might work. Not what keeps TPTB in power or what keeps BAU going a bit further down the road. The fact that TPTB don't like a plan or that it involves a change from BAU sheds no light on the value of the plan.

No, we are discussing whether renewable energy will be used to produce more liquid fuels. Reread my initial post.

[vtsnowedin]

The key point is that the automatic increases are set in law

Good luck with that new "tax" law.

Think about what can be done that is reasonable to TPTB to maintain BAU.

We are discussing here what might might work. Not what keeps TPTB in power or what keeps BAU going a bit further down the road. The fact that TPTB don't like a plan or that it involves a change from BAU sheds no light on the value of the plan.

But how the people react does.

Automatic increases?

Massachusetts Rolls Back Automatic Gas Tax Hike Nov, 5 2014

"Massachusetts voters eliminated part of a 2013 transportation law designed to help gas tax revenues keep up with inflation. "The proposal to repeal the inflation measure earned 53 percent of the vote. Pollster David Paleologos said previous polls showed Massachusetts residents were skeptical of automatic increases."

Massachusetts votes Democratic more often then not. In other words "not to bright".

[vtsnowedin]

We are discussing here what might might work. Not what keeps TPTB in power or what keeps BAU going a bit further down the road. The fact that TPTB don't like a plan or that it involves a change from BAU sheds no light on the value of the plan.

No, we are discussing whether renewable energy will be used to produce more liquid fuels. Reread my initial post.

Well it is your thread, which I had lost sight of,. I think the answer to your question as stated here is an obvious yes. But that leads to the question of how much and will that amount support a given population.

[MonteQuest]

I think the answer to your question as stated here is an obvious yes. But that leads to the question of how much and will that amount support a given population.

I see an all-out effort to maintain the status quo for as long as possible. While there are alternatives to fossil fuels, there are no replacements for liquid fuels made from them.

Car manufacturers are still designing and selling gasoline muscle cars. Diesel trucks are here to stay. Planes fly on jet fuel. The US military is the largest single consumer of fossil fuels in the world.

I think liquid fuels will be made regardless of economics or EROEI.

If we can't make them, we will take them.

[vtsnowedin]

I think the answer to your question as stated here is an obvious yes. But that leads to the question of how much and will that amount support a given population.

I see an all-out effort to maintain the status quo for as long as possible. While there are alternatives to fossil fuels, there are no replacements for liquid fuels made from them.

Car manufacturers are still designing and selling gasoline muscle cars. Diesel trucks are here to stay. Planes fly on jet fuel. The US military is the largest single consumer of fossil fuels in the world.

I think liquid fuels will be made regardless of economics or EROEI.

If we can't make them, we will take them.

You are a bit cynical you know. The design and sale of muscle cars continues only because gas in the US is still cheap. They will park them when the price tells them to. And yes people that are comfortable with BAU will not want to change until they have to.
I don't think you can ignore the economics or the EROEI. True that the military would spend $1000 of alternate or renewable fuels to get $50 worth of jet fuel to whack Putin with ,but the tax payers will have to pay the $1000 plus processing fees.

[toolpush]

MonteQuest,

Why does everyone have to talk in absolutes? Peak oil doesn't mean we will not have an oil. It means we will not have as much as we would like? We don't have to design a world for no oil. We don't need to design a rail system for no road transport, we do not need to design a system for no ICE cars or trucks. We just need to alter the balance between systems that use a lot of liquid fuel, to those that use less or none.
I feel that if a mind set is created in people that liquid fuels are going to be more expensive as time goes by, the pressure will be there to make manufacturers produce more efficient vehicles, alternate fuels where they make sense will grab parts of the market, rail will get a boost and rail in the States may switch to LNG. Electric rail in the States have much higher hurdles than other parts of the world, double stacked containers being one, but in an extreme case may happen, where possible. It doesn't need to be every rail line. Only France has attempted this, but they have had a much broader electric rail system for many years.
There is a big push currently in the US to convert stationary oil use to Natural gas. WWhere there are no pipelines, they are trucking in CNG. Country folk, convert their Oil heaters to Propane. New York/New England build out natural gas pipelines, where they can get their permits authorized.

Many things are happening now to lower the use of liquid fuels. If the price went higher the rate of change would increase. Now that the price is coming down, the rate of change will slow. If you want to maintain the rate of change make up the difference with taxes. If possible/goodluck??
Things are not staying the same, they are constantly changing, depending on pricing. Car fuel efficiency has made large improvements in the last 5 to 10 years. A lot of these have yet to work there way through the system, with people holding onto their cars for so long and new models with 20 to 30% improvements with fuel economy from previous model coming out each year.
Your favourite line seems to be, "It ain't going to happen". But it is happening before your eyes. Maybe not fast enough for you, or absolute enough for you, but it is happening, despite what BAU is on any current day.

Just to tie into your original point about renewables, they have a place, but they are having to hit a moving target. Liquid fuels are certainly more useful than electricity for many uses, especially when it comes to being mobile. If the amount of liquid fuel being used can be kept under control, by the dynamic I mentioned above, then its use in the higher valued areas can be maintained. I do not consider a single person 50 mile commute in a F-250, to be a high value use, but I believe those that do, will die off due to natural selection.

[vtsnowedin]

Massachusetts votes Democratic more often then not. In other words "not to bright".

You should have put an emoticon on that, otherwise it makes you look stupid. MA is probably the most highly educated and wealthiest state it the Union.

Ever hear the expression "educated fool"

[Quinny]

Ever hear the expression "not too bright"?

Massachusetts votes Democratic more often then not. In other words "not to bright".

You should have put an emoticon on that, otherwise it makes you look stupid. MA is probably the most highly educated and wealthiest state it the Union.

Ever hear the expression "educated fool"

[MonteQuest]

You are a bit cynical you know.

I read a lot of history. It makes you cynical.

I don't think you can ignore the economics or the EROEI.

But yet we do with all manner of subsidies and more to come.

Ethanol is barely positive with an EROEI of 1.24 to 1. Some argue it is an energy sink. How desperate is it when a country like the US feeds 40% of it's corn crop to it's machines, and that is only 9% of the 135 billion gallons of gas we consume each year.

[MonteQuest]

MonteQuest, Why does everyone have to talk in absolutes? Peak oil doesn't mean we will not have an oil. It means we will not have as much as we would like? ....Your favourite line seems to be, "It ain't going to happen". But it is happening before your eyes. Maybe not fast enough for you, or absolute enough for you, but it is happening, despite what BAU is on any current day.

Well, I have seen the decline rates of mature fields. 4.5% to 6.7%, depending on your source. Using the Rule of 70 for halving or doubling time, that gets you to 1/2 the oil we produce today, in 10 to 15 years.

Do you know the day and hour that terminal decline will start? No one does. But here we are, unable to stimulate an expensive oil economy with zero interest rates and $4 trillion of asset inflation.

The day before the peak, we will produce more oil on that day than ever before. The day after, we start down the slope at 4.5 to 6.7 %/year. As systems collapse and demand falls off along with price, that decline rate will accelerate as marginal plays are abandoned. Claims against future growth cannot be paid and fiat IOU's become worthless.

Infinite growth in a finite world "ain't going to happen."

[dashster]

Well we built the first tracks across the country back in the 1800's before there were cars, trucks or diesel locomotives. We should be able to build more track, no matter what.

That is the epitome of a lack of "critical thinking."

This is the epitome of a worthless reply.

[Tanada]

MonteQuest, Why does everyone have to talk in absolutes? Peak oil doesn't mean we will not have an oil. It means we will not have as much as we would like? ....Your favourite line seems to be, "It ain't going to happen". But it is happening before your eyes. Maybe not fast enough for you, or absolute enough for you, but it is happening, despite what BAU is on any current day.

Well, I have seen the decline rates of mature fields. 4.5% to 6.7%, depending on your source. Using the Rule of 70 for halving or doubling time, that gets you to 1/2 the oil we produce today, in 10 to 15 years.

Do you know the day and hour that terminal decline will start? No one does. But here we are, unable to stimulate an expensive oil economy with zero interest rates and $4 trillion of asset inflation.

The day before the peak, we will produce more oil on that day than ever before. The day after, we start down the slope at 4.5 to 6.7 %/year. As systems collapse and demand falls off along with price, that decline rate will accelerate as marginal plays are abandoned. Claims against future growth cannot be paid and fiat IOU's become worthless.

Infinite growth in a finite world "ain't going to happen."

I believe conventional oil hit peak in between January 2005 and December 2008 but the way things are measured is so technical and obscure different people can pick any value in that period as peak. We got lucky that in the USA fracking had become mature enough technology by 2008 that ramping it up between 2010-2014 obscured the conventional peak very well, but it is the red queens race. Pops has posted graphs repeatedly over the last couple of years showing that in real terms all of the growth in world oil supplies has been USA fracked oil. The world market and end consumers do not care where the liquid fuel comes from and what damage is done extracting it, all they care about is how much it costs them individually to consume it.

Technically the world as a whole is producing more oil today than it was in 2008, but every bit of that hard fought growth has come from very high depletion rate fracked wells. If the USA fracking bubble pops due to this theoretical oil glut USA production will rapidly fall back to the conventional decline level plus deep water oil plus sweet spots where the oil producers can still make money fracking.

Who knows, once this bubble is popped perhaps the push to develop Utah tar sands will take off again, it was just starting to get attention from finance when the Fracking boom took off and sucked up all the capital for investment. Or maybe the Thermal Depolymerization of Lignite coal will be the next big player. Or maybe they will fire every arrow in the quiver of idea's and still fail to replace declines in conventional oil.

That, IMO, will be the final peak.

But look on the bright side, because there are so many idea arrows in the quiver we have so far delayed world terminal decline for 6-9 years depending on where you place conventional peak. BAU has managed to stumble along years past where I thought it would end. At this rate we will continue to use up conventional reserves at that 4.6% rate MQ mentioned above and every arrow in the quiver will have a larger gap to make up between conventional production and over all demand. Even if every arrow is as successful as the Fracking arrow each only applies to a limited resource base which limits its potential effect. Athabasca/Utah tar sands are huge, but we can only extract them at a limited rate. Orinoco super heavy oil is the same, vast but slow to extract. Lignite TDP requires large factories and big mines to have much impact. Probably the biggest possibility is underground coal gassification being used as feed stock for F-T synthetic fuel production. There is a lot of coal too deep for surface or shaft mining that can be drilled, fracked, control burned in place and used as feedstock for F-T. It has been done a few places, but just like the Utah tar sands the Fracking boom in the USA sucked up all the capital and it has not been deployed so nobody really knows what it will cost in money and environmental terms. If it turns out to be as cheap as some of the estimates I have seen online we will fall back into happy motoring for another 20 years. At the end of that 20 years conventional oil would only be producing about a quarter of what we have today. Then what?