Peak Oil News and Message Boards

I'm trying to make sure I don't have peak oil blinders on and refuse to consider things that may lead to a soft landing/gradual transition. I think it's easy with this issue to get caught up in being so sure we're right and others don't know what's coming...so thinking about how improved fuel economy may lead to a gradual transition or soft landing...

Someone pointed out to me that our automobile fleet, within a decade or two, could become MUCH more fuel efficient. Just look at fuel efficiency in some parts of the world with much higher energy prices and our fuel economy could easily triple.

Might this not lead to a soft landing/transition over the next decade or two?

LadyRuby wrote:I'm trying to make sure I don't have peak oil blinders on and refuse to consider things that may lead to a soft landing/gradual transition. I think it's easy with this issue to get caught up in being so sure we're right and others don't know what's coming...so thinking about how improved fuel economy may lead to a gradual transition or soft landing...

Someone pointed out to me that our automobile fleet, within a decade or two, could become MUCH more fuel efficient. Just look at fuel efficiency in some parts of the world with much higher energy prices and our fuel economy could easily triple.

Might this not lead to a soft landing/transition over the next decade or two?

The time isn't there to make a transition. Peak Oil is anywhere from this year to 2007. Further out dates are more optimistic and rely on too many assumptions.

The problem with enacting higher fuel standards is basically this:

As people use less and less fuel per trip (basically the definination of increased efficencies), more and more fuel is avialable on the markets. This additional supply drives down prices. Driving down prices means it is more affordable to everyone (not to mention that it will kill alternative energy research, development and implementation); basically it encourages growth. So families that got by on one car by carpooling or using public transportation can now afford two or three cars. Also, lower fuel prices will tend to increase sprawl (look at the 40s, 50s, and 60s when gas was 4-5 cents), meaning that more people have to drive more to get to the same place.

Not to mention that other countries will readily pick up our slack, namely China and India. The net effect is that we end up in the same place within 10 or so years except that the decline will hurt that much more.

Good point - we _could_ be driving 80mpg small diesels. But if gas is sitting at $8.00 at that time then we have a whole lot of other problems than driving. I think the main issue is (as per Bartletts exponential growth presentation) that our entire economy is based on infinte growth which absolutely cannot continue. So where is your investment and retirement when it can't gain in value. Why would industry invest if it can't boost profits every year. Don't get me wrong I think we can hold the growth model a little longer by doing those things but eventually it has to unravel - might take 10 years might take 20...

Its gonna be a rough retirement me thinks...

-G

I saw a report on CNBC today that said while there's a tiny market (relatively) for hybrids and subcompacts, the vast majority of car buyers in America still want big cars and SUVs.

Recently I read that China alone adds 10,000 new cars a day to the world.

I think Simmons is right; there won't be significant demand destruction until fuels rises to $6 or $7.

(I ride a little motorcycle most of the time these days.)

0mar wrote:The time isn't there to make a transition. Peak Oil is anywhere from this year to 2007. Further out dates are more optimistic and rely on too many assumptions.

The problem with enacting higher fuel standards is basically this:

As people use less and less fuel per trip (basically the definination of increased efficencies), more and more fuel is avialable on the markets. This additional supply drives down prices. Driving down prices means it is more affordable to everyone (not to mention that it will kill alternative energy research, development and implementation); basically it encourages growth. So families that got by on one car by carpooling or using public transportation can now afford two or three cars. Also, lower fuel prices will tend to increase sprawl (look at the 40s, 50s, and 60s when gas was 4-5 cents), meaning that more people have to drive more to get to the same place.

Not to mention that other countries will readily pick up our slack, namely China and India. The net effect is that we end up in the same place within 10 or so years except that the decline will hurt that much more.

But even by your scenario, this would be a more gradual "crash" than an apocalypse that we can't get out of. So fuel prices are high for five years, gradually our vehicle fleet is replaced by much more fuel efficient vehicles. At some point, of course, even that won't be enough, but that could be 15 or 20 years down the road, no? Then we'd really have to have been switching to some kind of alternative. I guess my point is that when oil peaks doesn't necessarily have to be a complete collapse. It could be instead a bumpy road for decades.

Yeah total collapse is nowhere near the only scenario. In fact I think the initial demand destruction from outrageously high prices would really flatten the peak a bit... But the economic crisis as a result could be rather bad. I would think a lot of people would consider "great depression x2" to be a fairly bad collapse... And with the current national debt, personal debt, and massive deficit I am worried that scenario looms larger all the time...

-G

I think reduced demand due to high costs is the obvious path. People in Texas are already trading in their SUVs for small cars.

As supply drops and the price goes up, demand destruction will kick in and reduce demand. The prices won't be going all the way back down either - they will find an equilibrium at the new supply level.

So yes, this will drag out over many years. If there is some supply shock, we'll have a big demand shock along with it.

Sears will just have to stop offering same day deliveries. We'll have to wait till the truck is full.

LadyRuby wrote:But even by your scenario, this would be a more gradual "crash" than an apocalypse that we can't get out of. So fuel prices are high for five years, gradually our vehicle fleet is replaced by much more fuel efficient vehicles. At some point, of course, even that won't be enough, but that could be 15 or 20 years down the road, no?

No.

How do you propose we find the oil to replace the majority of our cars? Even if we had that much time? The amount of oil that goes into manufacturing a car is VERY high (even more for hybrids incidently), and after the peak when its in short supply, is the absolute WORST time to try and replace our massive fleet.

Also, those very high oil prices will have a very significant affect on our economy. In fact, at best, we could be looking at a massive recession, if not a depression. Could most people even afford a new car at all at that point?

The problem is that you are trying to look at the problem in isolation, but in reality, nothing exists in isolation. Everything from our energy infrastructure to our economy, our goverment policies, and our individual happenstance are all interconnected. They all affect each other and are affected by each other.

Googolplex wrote:How do you propose we find the oil to replace the majority of our cars? Even if we had that much time? The amount of oil that goes into manufacturing a car is VERY high (even more for hybrids incidently), and after the peak when its in short supply, is the absolute WORST time to try and replace our massive fleet.

I'd be curious to know how much oil or energy it takes to manufacture the typical car. Do you have some good data/sources on this?

Edited later. One source I see (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Res ... #anchor_72) indicates that the average car will consume during its construction 10% of the energy used during its lifetime. Or about 27 barrels of oil.

LadyRuby wrote:

0mar wrote:The time isn't there to make a transition. Peak Oil is anywhere from this year to 2007. Further out dates are more optimistic and rely on too many assumptions.

The problem with enacting higher fuel standards is basically this:

As people use less and less fuel per trip (basically the definination of increased efficencies), more and more fuel is avialable on the markets. This additional supply drives down prices. Driving down prices means it is more affordable to everyone (not to mention that it will kill alternative energy research, development and implementation); basically it encourages growth. So families that got by on one car by carpooling or using public transportation can now afford two or three cars. Also, lower fuel prices will tend to increase sprawl (look at the 40s, 50s, and 60s when gas was 4-5 cents), meaning that more people have to drive more to get to the same place.

Not to mention that other countries will readily pick up our slack, namely China and India. The net effect is that we end up in the same place within 10 or so years except that the decline will hurt that much more.

But even by your scenario, this would be a more gradual "crash" than an apocalypse that we can't get out of. So fuel prices are high for five years, gradually our vehicle fleet is replaced by much more fuel efficient vehicles. At some point, of course, even that won't be enough, but that could be 15 or 20 years down the road, no? Then we'd really have to have been switching to some kind of alternative. I guess my point is that when oil peaks doesn't necessarily have to be a complete collapse. It could be instead a bumpy road for decades.

Even with oil at record highs, we are still only talking about alternatives. If oil goes down, due to increased efficencies (more supply available), then alternative talk will be crushed.

The markets don't work for the good of the human race or for people, they work around maximum profits.

Ruby...if it were only about the oil, i would wholeheartedly agree!

But when you factor in an economy that needs GROWTH...ummmmm...i think we're royally screwed

Really big improvements in US car gas ecomony would be a plus.

As far as alternatives, what alternatives? Ethanol is about 3% and all
the others combined probably don't represent much more than .5%. Ethanol won't be crushed either, most of its use is from 90/10 blends
with gasoline in locations that required it.

LadyRuby wrote:I'd be curious to know how much oil or energy it takes to manufacture the typical car. Do you have some good data/sources on this?

Edited later. One source I see (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Res ... #anchor_72) indicates that the average car will consume during its construction 10% of the energy used during its lifetime. Or about 27 barrels of oil.

Ah, yes. Well there you go!

aahala wrote:Really big improvements in US car gas ecomony would be a plus.

As far as alternatives, what alternatives? Ethanol is about 3% and all
the others combined probably don't represent much more than .5%. Ethanol won't be crushed either, most of its use is from 90/10 blends
with gasoline in locations that required it.

Alternatives, I'm thinking (long-term) of some type of small electric vehicles. The electricity (I hope) we'd eventually be able to generate primarily from solar and wind.

LadyRuby wrote:

aahala wrote:Really big improvements in US car gas ecomony would be a plus.

As far as alternatives, what alternatives? Ethanol is about 3% and all
the others combined probably don't represent much more than .5%. Ethanol won't be crushed either, most of its use is from 90/10 blends
with gasoline in locations that required it.

Alternatives, I'm thinking (long-term) of some type of small electric vehicles. The electricity (I hope) we'd eventually be able to generate primarily from solar and wind.

Actually, we might be able to build reasonably cost effective electric
vehicles now if there was sufficient demand, but the public mainly wants
cars they can drive 100 miles a day or at highway speeds.

Did you know that at one time in the US, electric cars had about a 40%
market share? OK, it was 1900 and there were only a few thousand cars.

I'm saving the "wind" solution for the grid as it is now -- I see a big
potential problem because of NG. If we lose NG, it's lights out.

aahala wrote:Really big improvements in US car gas ecomony would be a plus.

As far as alternatives, what alternatives? Ethanol is about 3% and all
the others combined probably don't represent much more than .5%. Ethanol won't be crushed either, most of its use is from 90/10 blends
with gasoline in locations that required it.

Ethanol is less than 3%. It is something around 1.2%.

The thing about improving efficencies is that it allows for business as usual. When decline sets in, the pain will be that much harder.

This is discussion is moot anyways, there is simply no time (unless you take the USGS peak date) to increase fuel effencies in a meaningful way.

We can't improve the fuel efficiency of the fleet overnight, but how the existing fleet is used can change pretty darn fast. I survived the 70's gas crunch, and let me tell you:

1. Gas rationing gets big cars off the roads fast.
2. Gas rationing also causes gas theft to skyrocket (need a new thread for that one
3. Carpooling appears like magic.
4. "Trip combining" with family members and neighbors becomes "fun."
5. Hitchhiking suddenly becomes a status activity.

We could have the same fleet but double the efficiency of it. We had to in the 70's, and we did. THAT might buy time and free resources to create the replacement fleet, but ONLY if we are smarter than we were 30 years ago...

If the price of gas had not dropped after those interesting times, we would all be driving microcars today. As someone else pointed out, cheap gas leads to vehicular excess. Expensive gas leads to the opposite.

Hi All,

Electric motor/generators have advanced considerably during the past few years.

An Electric Vehicle with current technology can:

1. travel 200 to 300 miles on a single charge.
2. go 0 to 60 in less than 6 seconds.
3. exceed 100 miles per hour if not governed.
4. is quiet and non polluting.
5. last 500,000 miles.

http://peakoil.com/fortopic8972.html
http://www.chorusmotors.gi/exec_summary.shtml

Wow, those are pretty good specs for an electric vehicle.

But how long does it take to charge-up one of those? And how many kWh does it store?

(Sorry if info is on the links, but I'm a bit busy to browse it right now )

0mar wrote:

aahala wrote:Really big improvements in US car gas ecomony would be a plus.

As far as alternatives, what alternatives? Ethanol is about 3% and all
the others combined probably don't represent much more than .5%. Ethanol won't be crushed either, most of its use is from 90/10 blends
with gasoline in locations that required it.

Ethanol is less than 3%. It is something around 1.2%.

I was wondering how you got that percentage.

Here's how I got mine. I took the reported daily gasoline useage
of about 9.1 MBD, multiplied by 42 to convert to gallons and then
by 365 days. Rounded up, about 140 billion. Then I divided using
3.53 billion of 2004 ethanol consumption.

I believe I got the exact ethanol figure from some Renewable fuel site, but
amounts similar it and the daily gasoline useage I used are on official sites
like eia as well.