Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Geodesic wrote:

dsula wrote:

Xenophobe wrote:Volts and Leafs for everyone!

Na, light small vehicles is the better choice. Motorcycle, 2 seater light cars (fiat 500, smart, ford ka, kia). Hauling around 500kg battery which must be replaced every 5 years is not good choice.

I have a 2000 Honda Insight. It gets 60+ mpg. The battery was reconditioned once at a cost of $1000. It's good for another 10-15 years with the charger/conditioner I installed. In other words it'll probably last longer than the car. Many 15 yo Rav4 EVs are still going strong with their NiMH batteries. Let's stop perpetuating the anti-EV propaganda, shall we?

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/~jarrett/EV/cost.php

Na, light small vehicles is the better choice. Motorcycle, 2 seater light cars (fiat 500, smart, ford ka, kia). Hauling around 500kg battery which must be replaced every 5 10 years is not good choice.
Let's stop pretending a high-tech high-energy-to-manufacture, high-energy-to-maintain vehicle is a solution.

I'm still betting on the "bust" instead of the $200 oil



Only 72 days of QE2 left.

End of QE2 has some investors fearing fall in June
Associated Press / Apr 17, 2011

Could the financial markets be heading for a June swoon?

The answer likely hinges on what happens after the Federal Reserve's $600 billion effort to boost the economy expires. Some investors warn that the end of the program, known as QE2, will upend the stock market and push other markets in unexpected directions.

But the soon won't happen in June since July 1 will be the first day with no more QE2--provided they don't terminate it early which they wont do since:

Bernanke May Sustain Stimulus to Avoid ‘Cold Turkey’ End to Aid
Bloomberg / Apr 19, 2011

“Headwinds” against U.S. growth, including higher gasoline prices, reduced spending by state and local governments and a housing industry that’s “flat on its back” make it difficult for Fed officials to end the reinvestment policy, former Fed Governor Lyle Gramley said.

There will be inertia for weeks or months until the crash--provided they don't go back to creating money.

$200 is still affordable. Most EU countries are already paying that much in retail terms based on US taxation levels.

When it reached $147 it was a peak, and it was only there for a few months. The price was going up and down about $5-10 each day.

This is more a "slow boil" so economies can adjust.

The media, politicians, and economists always characterize the situation thusly.

That man died because his brain stopped working, not because of the stab wound in his back.

In the same way, they won't blame high energy prices. They will blame the consumers and manufacturers when they stop spending and the layoffs begin. They never want to make that connection to the stab wound (high energy prices) that caused the bleeding in the first place.

kildred590 wrote:$200 is still affordable. Most EU countries are already paying that much in retail terms based on US taxation levels.

When it reached $147 it was a peak, and it was only there for a few months. The price was going up and down about $5-10 each day.

This is more a "slow boil" so economies can adjust.

But you don't have to worry about $800 Month for medical insurance premiums toboot....

kildred590 wrote:$200 is still affordable. Most EU countries are already paying that much in retail terms based on US taxation levels.

When it reached $147 it was a peak, and it was only there for a few months. The price was going up and down about $5-10 each day.

This is more a "slow boil" so economies can adjust.

Europeans travel less distance in smaller more efficient cars and in places where there is plenty of alternative public transportation.

kildred590 wrote:$200 is still affordable.

This is not at all about what is "affordable". This is about what will happen. $200 oil will not happen. Am I being clear? The system can't support it and when QE2 ends the market crash will begin.

Bernanke to Open Up as Fed Embarks on Era of Glasnost
By Jon Hilsenrath / WSJ / Apr 21, 2011

Despite internal opposition, Mr. Bernanke and his top lieutenants—Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen and New York Fed President William Dudley—have signaled they believe it is too soon to start raising rates. Though inflation is rising, they believe consumer-price increases will prove transient, as occurred in a 2008 run-up in food and energy prices. The press conference will give Mr. Bernanke a chance to explain this view to a sometimes skeptical public.

I predict once the glut abates we will see this meme rapidly reappear.

Subjectivist wrote:I predict once the glut abates we will see this meme rapidly reappear.

Why? AGW isn't going away.

I've been calling for a $20 (scaled up over a decade or so) AGW tax on gasoline (and equivalent for other transpo fossil fuels) in the US for years on this site.

A gasoline cost in the $22ish to $25ish area would equate to an oil cost roughly in the ballpark of $500 a barrel, based on the roughly 20 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil figure I get from the EIA in 2017.

Of course, my goal is to make it so unpleasant to pay for that people will be highly incented to actively seek greener alternatives, vs. say, cheering the Paris Climate Accords for doing nothing of substance (and thus not hitting their pocketbooks, and letting the good times roll).

Actually, as the EV and solar and wind rollout proceed over the next decade, demonstrating the viability of alternatives, I predict more strenuous renewed calls for serious AGW taxation (but not to anywhere near as draconian as my idea).

Of course, I'm projecting logical behavior on society, and that's probably a long shot, but hey, people besides hard crash doomers can have hopes!

I also think based on various factors not the least of which how brittle the entire world wide debt based economic system is and how weak consumers are as a part of it, that $100 dollar or more as the WTI oil price cannot be borne for any substantial period of time, by the Economy/Consumers.

pstarr wrote:

Subjectivist wrote:I predict once the glut abates we will see this meme rapidly reappear.

Your relgious faith seems to preclude not only a simple physical world-view, but a economic one as well. Yes Sub, there are limits to the roustabouts' ability to not only grab impossibly deep, dense, thick (like you) or stratified oil, but for the customer to purchase it.

Yes, the economy crashed when oil price reached $147/barrel and that is called evidence. Which suggests the oil price will never, can never reach $200/barrel. That is called first-grade science.

Clearly you have no clue what science is, based on that nonsense.

In the mean time, you cluelessly have denied for nearly a decade now what the vast majority of mainstream economists have known and repeated throughout credible economic articles and publications. A global real estate financial bubble popping crashed the global economy. $147 oil was at most, a minor contributor to that.

Not that we could ever expect you to understand, much less admit that.

Of course, you being the same person that constantly claims people can't afford oil based products at current oil prices, despite all the evidence to the contrary since the 2009 recovery started, says a lot about your judgement about oil prices and the real world economy.

Subjectivist wrote:I predict once the glut abates we will see this meme rapidly reappear.

And those who already own and drive EVs really won't care very much. Or at all.

All hail peak oil personal transport solutions! Get one now while they are still cheap like the gasoline!

A lot of idiots here want to argue that the so-called Arab Spring of 2010 and the destruction (and near destruction) of the Greek and Spanish economies (also in 2010) were coincidental, had nothing to do with exploding oil costs. The peak of conventional inexpensive oil caused a run up in prices.

The counter argument is designed to hold you down guy. Keep shopping, don't question. Keep sending your money to the banksters. It is so stupid lol. You keep saying it bad housing loans in the US and those nasty bankers. You can go on buying the Cool-Aid BS and I will keep calling you on it.

Right ....a lot of idiots. Seems to me that given pretty much every economist or financial analyst in the world determined that the crash in 2008 had nothing to do with high oil prices and everything to do with subprime mortgages and their derivatives and the recent drop in prices had nothing to do with high oil prices puts you in a difficult position since you can't offer up any evidence whatsoever to support the contrary. Calling everyone else "idiots" seems woefully misdirected. You are arguing from the standpoint of "well it makes sense to me, therefore, it must be right". Short of any actual evidence, what are your credentials that they outweigh all of the actual experts in this area that have published article after article on the subject? Folks here have shown you that throughout the $100/bbl oil period 2011 - 2014 oil demand increased and so did global GDP. Oil demand dropped after the recession of 08-09 but then continued to grow and continues to grow to this point.

You are no different than the nut on the corner with the "The World Ends Tomorrow" sign. You have no evidence to support your viewpoints (other than claiming that European economies that were already in trouble due to debt issues were suddenly affected by high oil prices) when confronted with evidence to the contrary you either ignore it or attack the poster with ridiculous claims such as "keep sending your money to banksters" and continue to march about with your doomsday sign.

The fact of the matter is that when oil went on its soar to $145/bbl the average American was hit to the tune of a couple of dollars/day extra for gasoline, something that could easily be offset by having one less mocha latte at Starbucks. The refineries actually did quite well given their highest crack spreads (1-2-3 WTI) were realized when oil spiked to $145 and then again during the period that it stayed around $100/bbl. There was not a sharp increase in food prices, nor a sharp increase in other goods during this period. Consumers kept consuming as prices went up, slowed down as the recession occurred and then began to consume again throughout the $100/bbl period. This information, of course, doesn't fit with your desire to predict doom, unfortunately, it is the truth and not something fabricated in your mind.

AdamB wrote:

Subjectivist wrote:I predict once the glut abates we will see this meme rapidly reappear.

And those who already own and drive EVs really won't care very much. Or at all.

All hail peak oil personal transport solutions! Get one now while they are still cheap like the gasoline!

Why wouldn't waiting make sense, if it's about saving money? (i.e. intelligently considering the odds, overall).

1). We know they're getting more plentiful in the next 3 to 5 years. Per manufacturer claims, 200 mile-ish range ones will get FAR more plentiful.

2). We know the trend is they're getting better. They're learning and improving on the batteries and the EV tech. all the time.

3). We can likely forecast (independent of gasoline prices for the moment) that they'll get cheaper. There is a LOT of LI ION battery capacity coming online in the next few years from the likes of Musk, and various international competitors (big names, and outfits in China, for example), aimed at EV's for coming years. Plus with more competition, it will be more of a buyer's market. (i.e., Musk can't arbitrarily slap on a $9000 price on a 90 mile range extension, without worrying about how that will make competitors' prices look, just because he wants a bigger Model 3 profit margin).

4). We can keep an eye on how things like EV tech and infrastructure progresses, and gauge our decision to pull the trigger with more information, if things like that are important to us, as EV owners.

5). So the only real downside to waiting (from a purely financial POV) is the risk of a substantial gasoline price rise, which could raise the demand for EV's. But oil prices might not rise quickly, or by a lot (or at all). And though it will no longer be a buyer's market re cheap gasoline prices, all the other points are pluses, which could easily pull the net EV price (especially for what you get) down more than higher gasoline prices increases the EV price.

....

Don't get me wrong, I think EV's in coming years, as the industry matures a bit, look hugely promising. I'm just not compelled to let the threat of a potential spike in gasoline prices scare me into rushing into a purchase decision with a rapidly evolving (and improving from many customer vantage points, like choice) market.

Of course, as with all things, one pays one's money (or waits), and one takes their chances. I can't see the future and have no idea which choice will be the "right" one.

1). We know they're getting more plentiful in the next 3 to 5 years. Per manufacturer claims, 200 mile-ish range ones will get FAR more plentiful.

2). We know the trend is they're getting better. They're learning and improving on the batteries and the EV tech. all the time.

I just saw that there are some pretty good EV SUV's lined up for entry into the market over the next couple of years (where I live you are not very bright if you don't have all-wheel drive). Audi has one that apparently will get 300 miles between charges all things being equal. Power wall storage units which could be linked to home solar cells will eventually be there as well.

Some other things to consider.

a. recharge facilities. Where I live the city ( I'm out in the country some miles away) has only 3 recharge stations in an area that is larger than San Diego. That has to improve before there can be wide uptake I think
b. power grid considerations. During peak power usage our area often sees outages due to overload. This can be scary during the dead of winter and if everyone has one or 2 EV's and they are all plugged in recharging the situation can only get a lot worse. There need to be some grid/policy changes made to accommodate the widespread use of EV's

to my mind, this will all eventually come to fruition. It would help if there were more government incentives both from the research side as well as consumer side (eg: Ontario now refunds 50% of the cost for installation of EV plug-ins in homes).

One fallout of all this that is often overlooked by the "get rid of all fossil burning" crowd is that one of the more reliable and cheaper sources of electricity in many areas will be natural gas derived. I can see where there will be a shift to more natural gas E&P versus oil in the not too distant future.

Outcast - "Why? AGW isn't going away." And neither is the lack of motivation by the political system. The federal gasoline tax has not increased in more then 20 years. And that includes under the "greenest POTUS" in history including periods when the D's had complete control of Congress. A 1/2 of one cent increased would have raised the cost of an average fill up less the 10 cents and even that meaningless CO2 tax wasn't implamented. And now what: you're expecting a big increase from the current administration and Congress??? LOL.

As in most aspects of life just because something needs to be done doesn't mean it will get done.

So an increase in EV's in the next 3 to 5 years. Great!!! And based on current purchasing trends for every EV purchased about 20 to 30 ICE's will be purchased. Folks can keep their heads stuck up their asses and ignore the ABSOLUTE NUMBERS and stick with playing the foolish percentage games.

But that doesn't change the reality of the situation.