How? Supporting incredibly wasteful and expensive government programs,(do I need to make a list?) paid for by tax dollars is about as anti-Libertarian as you can get. Know your adjectives before you begin to apply them.

You need to learn to read peoples comments before assuming they said something. Neocons are NOT libertarians; they do however have libertarian streaks. Am I, as a neocon, libertarian about spending, drugs, or foreign policy? No way in h***. Am I, as a neocon, libertarian about guns, property rights, speach, religious speach, and the market economy? Absolutely. That is what is meant by the word "streak", try looking it up in the dictionary.

You need to learn to read peoples comments before assuming they said something. Neocons are NOT libertarians; they do however have libertarian streaks. Am I, as a neocon, libertarian about spending, drugs, or foreign policy? No way in h***. Am I, as a neocon, libertarian about guns, property rights, speach, religious speach, and the market economy? Absolutely. That is what is meant by the word "streak", try looking it up in the dictionary.That's the thing about some political philosophies, they're kind of an all-or-nothing proposition, Libertarianism being one of them. I could describe myself as having an "anarchist streak," but since I vote and want a, uh, government, I don't even bother. Feel free to come back when you want to be pwn3d again.
:)

The original question was will peak oil make cars unsustainable? No, I don't see that happening. Will it change life styles and auto usage? It already has. From a personal standpoint, since the latest major increase in oil prices, I now commute to work in a 14 person van pool, 50 to 60% of the time. I read where the US oil use is down about 7%. Those who remember the oil crisis of the 70s may recall a reduction in oil usage by the US of 10% caused panic in the mid east oil producing nations.
I think we will maintain auto ownership, but change the frequency we use these cars and more fuel efficient cars will certainly replace the ridiculous 12 MPG mega SUVs that many people are stuck with.

That's the thing about some political philosophies, they're kind of an all-or-nothing proposition, Libertarianism being one of them. I could describe myself as having an "anarchist streak," but since I vote and want a, uh, government, I don't even bother. Feel free to come back when you want to be pwn3d again.
:)

Dribbling cute gamerspeak into a biking forum does not change the definitions of real English words.

Granted a card carrying libertarian would never consent to bless such a useage, but I'm not asking their permission. FACT: There exists a subset of policy preferences claimed by libertarians which are also endorsed and supported by neoconservatives. Then, by definition, neocons have a libertarian streak. That is basic logic and simple English, nothing more, nothing less.

I think we're getting a bit off topic.

I haven't read the whole thread, so excuse me if this has been stated already:

Lately I've been pondering how people will be able to own a car that runs on fossil fuel while fossil fuel production is declining. Assume a modest decline rate of 3%, plus increased usage in Asia making the amount of fuel available in North America decline at 6% per year. So you buy a new car thinking, "I can afford to drive this car at the current gas price". Well what about in 5 years? The car will still (hopefully) be in excellent condition with another decade of life left in it. So at the end of year 5 there is apx 35% less fuel available, aka, you have to drive your car 35% less. Quickly the car will become obsolete despite being in perfect working order. With this in mind, I'm wondering if in the future there will be less car ownership and more car sharing or renting. If a group of people shared a car, the car could be "used up" before it became obsolete, assuming of course that the people sharing the car were people who would not have used a car every day.

Anyways, big changes coming down the pipe! Should be interesting...

I haven't read the whole thread, so excuse me if this has been stated already:

Lately I've been pondering how people will be able to own a car that runs on fossil fuel while fossil fuel production is declining. Assume a modest decline rate of 3%, plus increased usage in Asia making the amount of fuel available in North America decline at 6% per year. So you buy a new car thinking, "I can afford to drive this car at the current gas price". Well what about in 5 years? The car will still (hopefully) be in excellent condition with another decade of life left in it. So at the end of year 5 there is apx 35% less fuel available, aka, you have to drive your car 35% less. Quickly the car will become obsolete despite being in perfect working order. With this in mind, I'm wondering if in the future there will be less car ownership and more car sharing or renting. If a group of people shared a car, the car could be "used up" before it became obsolete, assuming of course that the people sharing the car were people who would not have used a car every day.

Anyways, big changes coming down the pipe! Should be interesting...


I don't think its quite a question of obsolecense, but rather finally respecting the amount of power one wields when they do take out the truck/car. Right now, even at $2 a gallon, this power is rediculously cheap, and is used in way that is consistent with that cost. As fuel price rises in response to scarcity, people will for the most part avoid hopping in the SUV to drive 50 miles to eat at a favorite pizza place. They'll still use the vehicle for the 300 mile trip to Grandma's for Easter, or for taking the entire soccer team to lunch after the game, but the days of taking a 3000 lb SUV to Walmart to grab a 10oz can of soup will be long gone.

As to vehicle lifetime, I only own Japanese made autos, and they always last between 10 and 15 years. But on the car sharing thing, I think it'll happen more via rental companies; there's to much wierd shared liability if you and a neighbor share and use the same car. I think lots of New Yorkers (not concerning the current sillyness) have already become accustomed to the idea of renting cars when they need one but not owning one. As this market grows, the rental car folks will improve their ability to meet this demand in an efficient and convenient way, especially for repeat customers. Currently they suck at this, but I have confidence they'll figure it out.

You are absolutely right. Nuclear waste and nuclear meltdowns are very good for the environment. Not only that, but uranium and plutonium are renewable resources.

You're not saying that "some things are not worth protesting" but that "everything is not worth protesting". That's a pretty weird statement but it does help to see how the wires in your brain are crossed causing you to constantly utter ridiculous statements. Really, what is such a reactionary neocon as yourself doing in a carfree forum? Shouldn't you be over in the Creationist forums, or maybe the Kill the Poor, Taxcuts for the Rich forums? Maybe you thought this forum was the Cat Free forum...

Let me explain my self.... People protest everything. I went to KFC this summer and had to walk through people picketing the mistreatment of CHICKENS! People protest the spaying of dogs for goodness sake.



Nuclear waste and nuclear meltdowns... As if nuclear power means barrels of nuclear waste are removed and hidden buy the truck load. The "nuclear waste" from power plants is spent rods..... VERY, VERY, VERY stable and easy to store. Not to mention it can be recylcled several times.

Nuclear power provides over 16% of the world's electricity, almost 24% of electricity in OECD countries, and 35% in the EU. Its use is increasing. There have been a few noteable nuclear accidents mostly happening 40+ years ago. in the past, most were attributed to operator error and/or system malfunction. NOTHING is without risks but I think we can assume it has proved its effectiveness and safeness. If not, should we close the 100 plus nuclear power plants we have in the US?


While it is true Uranium is not a renewable resource, it is a plentiful one. 500 times more abundant than gold and about as common as tin.

Maybe nuclear power won't sustain us for ever but it is the obvious next choice.

Now, go put on your PETA shirt and boycot Wallmart and Starbucks.

Maybe nuclear power won't sustain us for ever but it is the obvious next choice.


I agree. Nuclear may not be environmentally friendly, but being environmentally friendly will probably be one of the least important criteria we look at when examining different energy sources in the midst of a crisis. Love them or hate them, Nuclear and Coal are probably going to be the knee jerk reactions we turn to.

You are absolutely right. Nuclear waste and nuclear meltdowns are very good for the environment. Not only that, but uranium and plutonium are renewable resources.

You're not saying that "some things are not worth protesting" but that "everything is not worth protesting". That's a pretty weird statement but it does help to see how the wires in your brain are crossed causing you to constantly utter ridiculous statements. Really, what is such a reactionary neocon as yourself doing in a carfree forum? Shouldn't you be over in the Creationist forums, or maybe the Kill the Poor, Taxcuts for the Rich forums? Maybe you thought this forum was the Cat Free forum...

Let me explain my self.... People protest everything. I went to KFC this summer and had to walk through people picketing the mistreatment of CHICKENS! People protest the spaying of dogs for goodness sake.



Nuclear waste and nuclear meltdowns... As if nuclear power means barrels of nuclear waste are removed and hidden buy the truck load. The "nuclear waste" from power plants is spent rods..... VERY, VERY, VERY stable and easy to store. Not to mention it can be recylcled several times.

Nuclear power provides over 16% of the world's electricity, almost 24% of electricity in OECD countries, and 35% in the EU. Its use is increasing. There have been a few noteable nuclear accidents mostly happening 40+ years ago. in the past, most were attributed to operator error and/or system malfunction. NOTHING is without risks but I think we can assume it has proved its effectiveness and safeness. If not, should we close the 100 plus nuclear power plants we have in the US?


While it is true Uranium is not a renewable resource, it is a plentiful one. 500 times more abundant than gold and about as common as tin.

Maybe nuclear power won't sustain us for ever but it is the obvious next choice.

Now, go put on your PETA shirt and boycot Wallmart and Starbucks.

In the U.S., over a hundred people a day die in motor vehicle crashes. I haven't seen a single protest about that. So it's not true that people protest anything and everything.

I'm glad to have a point of agreement with bito7 and others on the "opposing" side of this debate: I've always thought anti-nuclear power protests a bit ridiculous.

Nuclear war? OK, I totally get protesting that.

But nuclear power? It's a lot cleaner than coal or oil, and as bito7 points out, the "waste" is compact and to a large extent, recyclable.

Unfortunately, though, if the peak oil hypothesis is correct, nuclear energy won't solve the problem (barring a fusion "miracle" discovery). Uranium is a finite resource. If we depend on it to take oil's place, there's only enough uranium to supply our energy needs for a few years. Not to mention that we'd need thousands of nuclear power plants.

But yeah, nuclear has been unjustly demonized, and it should certainly be on the table.

With nuclear waste reprocessing and MOX fuel nuclear reactors, the usable life of nuclear power can be extended significantly. Nuclear power, combined with overall usage reductions, can buy us some time. We need that time to build all other alternatives that are technologically ready and for the R&D to stay alive to bring us the next wave of technology.

Uranium Resources

Uranium's history as a resource is quite short, with military demand beginning during World War II and serious non-military demand not arriving until the late 1960's.

Today annual requirements to fabricate fuel for current power reactors amount to about 67,000 tonnes of uranium. According to the authoritative "Red Book" produced jointly by the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, the world's present known economic resources of uranium, exploitable at below $80 per kilogram of uranium, are some 3.5 million tonnes. This amount is therefore enough to last for 50 years at today's rate of usage - a figure higher than for many widely used metals.

Current estimates of all expected uranium resources (including those not yet economic or properly quantified) are four times as great, representing 200 years' supply at today's rate of usage - http://www.world-nuclear.org/position/uranium.htm

Of course this is at todays usage so once we start relying more and more on Nuclear it will deplete much, much, faster. To think that 50 or 60 years ago nuclear power would have been considered impossible, miraculous, or "magical" I think it is completly reasonable to think we will have develepments in the fringe energy sources like hydrogen in the next 50 to 100 years. Most of the things that are mundane to us today (electricity, cars, flying, computers, telephone, camera) went through a cycle such as unthought of, thought impossible, now mundane and ordinary. Is there any reason this could not happen for the future of energy? Especially since the rate of advancement in most areas is so rapid.

BTW..... Merry Christmas everyone! I hope you everyone has a great weekend with lots of family, food, & fun, and hopefully an extra day or two off of work.

Here's a very good survey from _The Economist_, run on April 28, 2005. There is a large amount of information about the prospects for the oil business, including an extended and detailed discussion of the peak-oil scares. I should have remembered this survey earlier.

I won't paste the whole thing, as it is a long, multi-page article. Furthermore, it's copyrighted, and however bad the institution of private property is for "sustainability" and our Mother Gaia, I will respect the institution in this case.

Unfortunately, the article would cost a few dollars to anyone who wanted to read it all and doesn't already subscribe. I highly recommend the survey, however. After all, if you're already willing to spend hours cruising around those conspiracy-economics, Easter-Island websites from the peak-oil crowd, a few bucks for well-informed, sober discussion is hardly excessive. And, you can always find it in the library.

The link, and then a few pasted paragraphs from the introductory section:

"The Bottomless Beer Mug"

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3884716

quotation:
But this [the peak oil] argument is wrong both on a philosophical and a practical level. The philosophical problem, says Michael Lynch of EnergySEER, a consultancy, is that the pessimists treat the level of recoverable oil resources as fixed—like the amount of beer in that mug. In fact, expert estimates on the ultimate recoverable resource base have consistently grown over the past few decades, even though the world has been guzzling oil as if there was no tomorrow (see chart 5).

Peter Odell of Rotterdam's Erasmus University points out that “since 1971, over 1,500 billion barrels have been added to reserves. Over the same 35-year period, under 800 billion barrels were consumed. One can argue for a world which has been ‘running into oil' rather than ‘out of it'.”

What makes the estimates go up continuously is a combination of economics and innovation. The IEA explains the process this way: “Reserves are constantly revised in line with new discoveries, changes in prices and technological advances. These revisions invariably add to the reserve base.”

A few decades ago, the average oil recovery rate from reservoirs was 20%; thanks to remarkable advances in technology, this has risen to about 35% today. But despite this improvement, two-thirds of the oil known to exist in reservoirs is still abandoned as uneconomic, leaving room for tomorrow's discoveries or innovations to lift recovery rates and magically push the global Hubbert's peak even further towards the horizon. Pundits had predicted that fields in the British North Sea would reach their maximum output by 1990. In fact, they have only just peaked.

Dozens of similar examples from around the world added up to defy Mr Campbell's prediction of a global Hubbert's peak by now, which plainly has not materialised. Indeed, even the legendary Hubbert did not get it quite right. His forecast for the American production ignored the vast quantities of oil that lie under the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. That may seem an unfair critique, as he had no way of knowing about the wave of offshore drilling technologies that have become available in the past decade. But that is the point: today's pundits cannot foresee tomorrow's innovations. End quotation.

Lynch makes a good point about ultimately recoverable reserves increasing, but in the end it's the rate of extraction that will be more important. New technologies are allowing us to get more out of the ground and at faster rates, but faster does not equal any arbitrary rate we choose. If it did, production in the US wouldn't be declining every year, or in the North Sea either.

I'm still waiting to hear if you think the economy can be grown forever or not Merriwether. What do you think of Professor Bartlet's assertions about steady growth and it being unsustainable?

Look at the numbers.

Total U. S. Crude Oil Proved Reserves
1970 39.0 billion barrels
1980 29.8
1990 26.3
2000 22.0
2004 21.4

Sorry, I don't see anything but a 35-year trend of decreasing crude oil reserves in the U.S. We're down to about half what we had in 1970.

Maybe the folks in Russia and the Middle East are having better luck than we are. We don't know because they haven't been eager to share their information.

What about biodiesel? Why can't peanut and vegetable oils replace fossil fuels? I know it will only work in diesel engines but why is this not feasable? Rudolf Diesel, whom invented the first diesel engine, designed it to run on peanut oil. You can mix straight veg oil or peanut oil with diesel at a ratio of 70% 30% and run it in a diesel with no modifcation at all. With some work and refining I believe you can use 100% organic oil. To purchase bulk oil it costs roughly $1.55 to 1.95 per U.S. Gallon plus about $.75 per gallon to refine it.

A positive side effect is your exaust smells like douhnuts.

From Life After the Oil Crash (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)

What about Biofuels such as Ethanol and Biodiesel?

Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs [Energy Returns on Energy Investments]. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.

In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"


. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would
devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to
grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for
10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's
the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the
same period of time.

And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with
ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with
corn, he adds.

Biodiesel is considerably better than ethanol, (and probably the best of the biofuels) but with an EROEI of three, it still doesn't compare to oil, which has had an EROEI of about 30.

While any significant attempt to switch to biofuels will work out great for giant agribusiness companies (political campaign contributors) such as Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, and Monsanto, it won't do much to solve a permanent energy crisis for you.

The ghoulish reality is that if we wanted to replace even a small part of our oil supply with farm grown biofuels, we would need to turn most of Africa into a giant biofuel farm, an idea that is currently gaining traction in some circles. Obviously many Africans - who are already starving - would not take kindly to us appropriating the land they use to grow their food to grow our fuel. As journalist George Monbiot points out, such an endeavor would be a humanitarian disaster.

Some folks are doing research into alternatives to soybeans such as biodiesel producing pools of algae. As with every other project that promises to "replace all petroleum fuels," the project has yet to produce a single drop of commercially available fuel. This hasn't prevented many of its most vocal proponents from insisting that algae grown biodiesel will solve our energy problems. The same is true for other, equally ambitious plans such as using recycled farm waste, switchgrass, etc. These projects all look great on paper or in the laboratory. Some of them may even end up providing a small amount of commercially available energy at some undetermined point in the future. However, in the context of our colossal demand for petroleum and the small amount of time we have remaining before the peak, these noble projects can't be expected to be more than a "drop in the bucket."

Tragically, even many well-meaing people attempting to develop solutions don't even understand the problem. As Dr. Ted Trainer explains in a recent article on the thermodynamic limitations of biomass fuels:


This is why I do not believe consumer-capitalist society can
save itself. Not even its "intellectual" classes or green
leadership give any sign that this society has the wit or the
will to even think about the basic situation we are in. As the
above figures make clear, the situation cannot be solved
without huge reduction in the volume of production and
consumption going on.

The current craze surrounding biodiesel is a good example of what Dr. Trainer is talking about. While folks who have converted their personal vehicles to run on vegetable oil should certainly be given credit for their noble attempts at reducing our reliance on petroleum, the long-term viability of their efforts is questionable at best. Once our system of food production collapses due to the effects of Peak Oil, vegetable oil will likely become far too precious/expensive a commodity to be burned as transportation fuel for anybody but the super-rich. As James Kunstler points out in an April 2005 update to his blog "Cluster F*** Nation", many biodiesel enthusiasts are dangerously clueless as to this reality:


Over in Vermont last week, I ran into a gang of biodiesel
enthusiasts. They were earnest, forward-looking guys who
would like to do some good for their country. But their
expectations struck me as fairly crazy, and in a way typical
of the bad thinking at all levels of our society these days.

For instance, I asked if it had ever occurred to them that
biodiesel crops would have to compete for farmland that
would be needed otherwise to grow feed crops for working
animals. No, it hadn't. (And it seemed like a far-out
suggestion to them.) Their expectation seemed to be that
the future would run a lot like the present, that bio-diesel
was just another ingenious, innovative, high-tech module
that we can "drop into" our existing system in place of the
previous, obsolete module of regular oil.

Kunstler goes on to explain that when policies or living/working arrangements are set up around such unexamined expectations, the result is usually a dangerous deepening of our reliance on cheap energy and "easy motoring."

Biodiesel advocates can get downright nasty when somebody points out any of the above described limitations of their favorite fuel. For instance, in a December 2005 article entitled, "The Most Destructive Crop on Earth No Solution to the Energy Crisis," well known progressive journalist George Monbiot, recounted his experiences attempting to point out the limits of biodiesel:


The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making
diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as
I have ever been sent for my stance on the Iraq war. The
biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in
their denial as the executives of Exxon.

For what it's worth, my personal experiences with the biodiesel community are similar to those of Monbiot and Kunstler.

I suggest you (and anyone else wanting to be part of this discussion) read Life After the Oil Crash (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/). You may not agree with it, but you will understand what all the fuss is about.

I am not going to try and dispute anything you are saying but it seems there are other sources that must be much more efficient. The most common sources of biodiesel are soybean and yellow grease (i.e. recycled restaruant oil) not corn. I would be interested to see the numbers regarding production of soybean oil but I can't find them. Of course things would have to change if we hit peak oil but couldn't it be a mix of technologies such as... nuclear power & electric cars, biodeisel for shipping, etc?

There are other planet materials bio diesal can be made of, some of which are more efficient than making it from corn. I think I've heard people discuss making it from sea weed or plankton being very efficient. Like many other alternative technologies I think bio diesel has a place in a post petroleum world, but we wont be running the current automobile fleet the way we're running it on bio diesel.

Dave Pimentel gave a speech about bio diesel at the Petrocollapse conference. You can listen to it here. (http://www.petrocollapse.org/resources/audio/20051005-0946-Pimentel.mp3) It wasn't very encouraging.

Of course things would have to change if we hit peak oil but couldn't it be a mix of technologies such as... nuclear power & electric cars, biodeisel for shipping, etc?


Yes, it's possible. But when many people discuss these kinds of alternatives, they talk of them as if they will be able to completely replace oil and allow us to continue living the way they're living. They all have potential and will be useful to be sure, but no combination of current alternative technologies will allow us to live the way we're living (and consuming energy) right now. "We're going to have to down scale and rescale everything that we do." - James Kunstler. That pretty much sums it up. I think we can still live very happy lives consuming less energy, others would disagree...

check this site out. Museletter (http://www.museletter.com)

Maybe what we should all be debating here is how to deal with the real problem instead of the symtom. Peak people is the problem ...... peak oil is merely one of the symptoms.

Food for thought

Peak people = overpopulation? Yup. That's it. But overpopulation is a result of steady growth...we've talked about it a bit earlier in the thread if you havn't read it yet.

since everyone's so big on reading (http://www.geo.utexas.edu/ugs/alcadeoil.pdf) (1mb pdf)

since everyone's so big on reading (http://www.geo.utexas.edu/ugs/alcadeoil.pdf) (1mb pdf)

That's three University of Texas professors giving their opinions. I'll try to summarize. If my summary isn't even handed enough, I'm sure someone will let us know.

Mukul Sharma, Dept. of Petroleum Engineering: Says Hubbert's Peak is valid for conventional oil. We can produce unconventional oil and it will be more expensive. Prices will moderate if the world economy slows down drastically. Current federal energy policy is a disaster.

Scott Tinker, Bureau of Economic Geology: Demand is outstripping supply for the first time. CO2 injection will get us a lot more oil from declining wells in Texas and the Gulf of Mexico. We'll switch to other energy sources. We can run a natural gas economy for 70-100 years. China may not need gasoline or diesel to run their cars and trucks, they may go straight to electric.

Don Fullerton, Dept. of Economics: Stock market doesn't predict a peak oil crisis.

I just read the book: The Party's Over ... Revised edition.

Awesome.

=)

Will Peak Oil mean cars are unsustainable?
Define "unsustainable".

It might make them less affordable. As they get less affordable, the demand for more affordable alternatives will rise. As the demand for alternatives rises, entreupreuners in the free market will jump to make money by satisfying the rising demand. As entreupreuners supply alternatives, the supply of alternatives will rise, and their cost will drop. As competition will drive the price of alternatives down, cars will become more of a luxury, but I see no reason for them not to be sustained as a luxury.

Define "unsustainable".

It might make them less affordable. As they get less affordable, the demand for more affordable alternatives will rise. As the demand for alternatives rises, entreupreuners in the free market will jump to make money by satisfying the rising demand. As entreupreuners supply alternatives, the supply of alternatives will rise, and their cost will drop. As competition will drive the price of alternatives down, cars will become more of a luxury, but I see no reason for them not to be sustained as a luxury.
What do you think the alternatives will be like? Do you think more bikes when oil prices go up? What else?

What do you think the alternatives will be like? Do you think more bikes when oil prices go up? What else?

This past late summer/early fall, when gas prices shot up, the guy at my LBS said they were seeing a lot of people dig their bikes out and bring them in to be serviced to ridable condition. (I enjoyed teasing my co-workers, "Oh, gas went up again? What is it now?") I think it will be a very long time, if ever, before we see a significantly large movement to human powered vehicles as a widespread alternative to automobiles, particularly in rural areas. But there are some fence-sitters who will decrease car use and increase bike use as oil prices rise.

Conspiracy theory says auto makers have been sitting on or holding back alternative-fuel technology (or development thereof) for some time now. True or not, I think they will begin to embrace alternative fuels etc as this becomes necessary for them to stay profitably in business. Look at what Ford just announced - basically, "We're doing poorly, we're going to shut down a big chunk of production." Assuming peak oil either has already happened, is happening now, or will happen in the very near future; demand from consumers (if nothing else) ought to force alternatives to be developed. As gas rises towards, say, $10/gal, only so many people are going to be able to afford it, even with more fuel-efficient cars. If gas prices "only" double, fuel efficiency will have to double as well (and at the same pace) to maintain the current market. It's got to be cheaper to move to something else.