Peak oil production

[KrisA]

I noticed on CNN this morning they had a scolling 'headline' saying something to the effect of some group wants a congresional investigation into high natural gas prices, they believe energy companies are gouging them. Perhaps these folks should enrole in Economics 101 first, perhaps with a bit of understanding of supply and demand they would realize why natural gas prices are going up.

[cyclezealot]

I agree with Kris only in part. Yes, when supplies are tight prices obviously will skyrocket. Here in California we should knnow better. At part of our Enron/electricity caper was withoulding of gas supplies from a gas pipiline through Arizona. Gas supplies many electricity production plants. It was intentionally withheld to manipulate prices of gas and electicity.
When conglomerates control sources like pipelines or railroads at the turn of the century, their intent is to raise prices and drastically enhance profits to unreasonable rates.
To ignore this is to ignore American economic history. El Paso pipeline controls gas distribution, has had an interesting history, and to not monitor that company is cause to lower you home temperatures any given winter.

[randya]

The energy companies will switch to 'renewables' when the oil runs out AND they can figure out how to turn free solar energy into electricity that they can charge us for. BTW, about 20% of San Francisco's electricity is already generated by geothermal, and wind generation is viable right now, if the environmentalists would be practical and stop blocking the siting of every wind project that comes along.

[megaman]

if the environmentalists would be practical and stop blocking the siting of every wind project that comes along.

Good point, I consider myself an environentalist. I feel in the future we may have to look at doing some things that wouldn't have been previously considered.

We'll have to decide just how important some of our "luxuries" are.
My problem is on the home level I've done about all that I can to save energy. I have no air conditioning, thermostat in winter is set no higher than 64(wear alot of warm clothing in the house, but never get sick), turn thermostat at night to the bottom(if the furnace ever runs at night it's really cold out), have r-48 insulation in the attic and just last winter installed high rated insulated windows. Yet, this year even though I'm using more than 10% less energy, the darn utility bill stays the same.

What it boils down to is that the cost of whatever is done isn't gonna be cheap.

[Dchiefransom]

The energy companies will switch to 'renewables' when the oil runs out AND they can figure out how to turn free solar energy into electricity that they can charge us for. BTW, about 20% of San Francisco's electricity is already generated by geothermal, and wind generation is viable right now, if the environmentalists would be practical and stop blocking the siting of every wind project that comes along.

We have tides going back and forth on our rivers in the Bay Area here, but in Portland and many other cities there is constant movement. I've always wondered why they couldn't have low speed turbines coupled to gearing that drives generators to make electricity. That would take up less room than wind turbines.

[LittleBigMan]

In the midst of alternative energy discussion, I am reminded of the fact that even hydroelectric power, which would seem ideal (some large hydroelectric plants can put out more power than several nuclear plants,) has significant environmental consequenses.

The smallest changes in an ecosystem can disrupt wildlife life cycles to the degree that species can verge on extinction. Although sometimes it might appear as if there are a bunch of environmentalists obsessed with saving an obscure bird or turtle, as weighed against the more important human need of meeting ever-increasing energy demands. But we often don't forsee how wildlife species disappearing from the planet permanently, or changing entire ecosystems forever, can eventually affect human quality of life. For example, there is only a fraction of the world's former forestlands left. This is where our own oxygen supply is generated.

In the United States, while there are more acres of forest now than at the turn of the 20th century, 98% has been logged at least once. The remaining 2% of old-growth forests is getting smaller, along with their ecosystems.

Will our energy needs be balanced with our need to leave some natural areas intact for our grandchildren, or will they inherit an asphalt jungle?

[Dahon.Steve]

>>>>>As for my car driving coworkers, I ask them why they choose to live so far away, that they have to spend their precious time and money sitting in grid lock on their way to work. I urge them to hone their skills in selfishness.<<<<<<

I also want to add that people are moving to the sticks because NO ONE is building affordable housing anymore in the cities. Seriously. The only development around New York City are luxury apartments for the rich and upper middle class. The past three years have seen property values go through the roof around major cities and I'm afraid it's going to get worse before the situation gets better.

As a result, the only new home construction that remains affordable is way out in the middle of nowhere. What people don't understand is that living in these distant locations requires purchasing two or more automobiles and all the associated costs that come with new cars. Whatever money saved in moving to the burbs is wasted in car ownership. When you factor YOUR time spent in traveling to and from work, you'll find that actual costs of living in the burbs is far more expensive than you ever thought.

If the time ever comes that we were not able to find a replacement for oil, all those living out in the burbs will have to find jobs out there. Public transportation may not be available or exist on a limited bases as buses and trains are dependant on oil! Only those living in the cities will be in the drivers seat.

There was a time when everyone worked and shopped in Downtown. That day may one day return the moment the last drop of oil is sucked from the face of the earth.

[Dchiefransom]

>>>>>As for my car driving coworkers, I ask them why they choose to live so far away, that they have to spend their precious time and money sitting in grid lock on their way to work. I urge them to hone their skills in selfishness.<<<<<<

I also want to add that people are moving to the sticks because NO ONE is building affordable housing anymore in the cities. Seriously. The only development around New York City are luxury apartments for the rich and upper middle class. The past three years have seen property values go through the roof around major cities and I'm afraid it's going to get worse before the situation gets better.

As a result, the only new home construction that remains affordable is way out in the middle of nowhere. What people don't understand is that living in these distant locations requires purchasing two or more automobiles and all the associated costs that come with new cars. Whatever money saved in moving to the burbs is wasted in car ownership. When you factor YOUR time spent in traveling to and from work, you'll find that actual costs of living in the burbs is far more expensive than you ever thought.

If the time ever comes that we were not able to find a replacement for oil, all those living out in the burbs will have to find jobs out there. Public transportation may not be available or exist on a limited bases as buses and trains are dependant on oil! Only those living in the cities will be in the drivers seat.

There was a time when everyone worked and shopped in Downtown. That day may one day return the moment the last drop of oil is sucked from the face of the earth.


In my area, people would love to live closer to work, but they have to move almost 90 miles away just to afford a home. That's even with all the extra costs associated with commuting by motorized vehicle. I'm talking about the difference of putting $100,000 down on a home, and having a monthly payment of $1,500, versus the same down payment with a monthly mortgage payment of $3,500. When they builod affordable housing here, it's mostly for people on public assistance, and not for working middle class families. The only way to live near work now is to rent, which doesn't build up that equity for retirement. I understand home ownership is less in Great Britain, not sure about other Euro countries. A bigger cultural shift than how we get around is needed, as well as cracking down on the crime in "Downtown".

[Ebbtide]

I am reminded of the fact that even hydroelectric power, which would seem ideal (some large hydroelectric plants can put out more power than several nuclear plants,) has significant environmental consequenses.

I think hydro-electricty is Sweden's top export.

[randya]

In the midst of alternative energy discussion, I am reminded of the fact that even hydroelectric power, which would seem ideal (some large hydroelectric plants can put out more power than several nuclear plants,) has significant environmental consequenses.

The smallest changes in an ecosystem can disrupt wildlife life cycles to the degree that species can verge on extinction. Although sometimes it might appear as if there are a bunch of environmentalists obsessed with saving an obscure bird or turtle, as weighed against the more important human need of meeting ever-increasing energy demands. But we often don't forsee how wildlife species disappearing from the planet permanently, or changing entire ecosystems forever, can eventually affect human quality of life. For example, there is only a fraction of the world's former forestlands left. This is where our own oxygen supply is generated.

In the United States, while there are more acres of forest now than at the turn of the 20th century, 98% has been logged at least once. The remaining 2% of old-growth forests is getting smaller, along with their ecosystems.

Will our energy needs be balanced with our need to leave some natural areas intact for our grandchildren, or will they inherit an asphalt jungle?

I generally agree with you and think we, as stewards of the planet, need to do a much better job on true conservation of all types, as far as energy use, wild land preservation and so forth goes.

The big northwest hydroelectric dams that enabled the post war growth of Seattle and Portland (and, some would argue, won the war by generating the cheap and plentiful electricity to smelt the aluminum for Boeing to make the planes we bombed Germany and Japan with); well, it turns out that these dams are probably the largest factor in the demise and extinction of the salmon runs on the Columbia, Snake and many other nothwest rivers. Is this a good trade off? I'm not so sure, nor do I think that people of Western European descent are so eminently qualified to make this determination; more often I think their prevailing attitude is one of arrogance, entitlement and presumtuousness.

One thing that I think has been very hard for humans in general and Western Europeans in particular to learn is that each action has an opposite reaction. I would like to think that we have gotten smarter about all of this, but I'm not so sure, given the fact that the profit motive often seems to overrule good judgement, and we find ourselves constantly *engineering* ourselves out of situations that we *engineered* ourselves into in the first place.

Finally, since we're on an environmental jag here, the first and foremost environmental issue for humans should be population control. All other environmental issues are secondary to this one.

[Dchiefransom]

I generally agree with you and think we, as stewards of the planet, need to do a much better job on true conservation of all types, as far as energy use, wild land preservation and so forth goes.

The big northwest hydroelectric dams that enabled the post war growth of Seattle and Portland (and, some would argue, won the war by generating the cheap and plentiful electricity to smelt the aluminum for Boeing to make the planes we bombed Germany and Japan with); well, it turns out that these dams are probably the largest factor in the demise and extinction of the salmon runs on the Columbia, Snake and many other nothwest rivers. Is this a good trade off? I'm not so sure, nor do I think that people of Western European descent are so eminently qualified to make this determination; more often I think their prevailing attitude is one of arrogance, entitlement and presumtuousness.

One thing that I think has been very hard for humans in general and Western Europeans in particular to learn is that each action has an opposite reaction. I would like to think that we have gotten smarter about all of this, but I'm not so sure, given the fact that the profit motive often seems to overrule good judgement, and we find ourselves constantly *engineering* ourselves out of situations that we *engineered* ourselves into in the first place.

Finally, since we're on an environmental jag here, the first and foremost environmental issue for humans should be population control. All other environmental issues are secondary to this one.


My reference to using hydro-electric is not building a dam, but building a plant where the turbine does not block that much of a river. Their output wouldn't be as high, or as reliable, but would have much less impact on the environment. They would be lower speed, and use the natural flow. They found a way to keep from sucking fish into the pumps here in California, they could do the same in other locations.

[randya]

My reference to using hydro-electric is not building a dam, but building a plant where the turbine does not block that much of a river. Their output wouldn't be as high, or as reliable, but would have much less impact on the environment. They would be lower speed, and use the natural flow. They found a way to keep from sucking fish into the pumps here in California, they could do the same in other locations.

I was agreeing with Little Big Man and talking about the existing BuRec style dams, and not criticizing your proposal, which I did understand, and generally agree with. Harnessing tidal energy or river currents without plugging the river itself with a giant wad of concrete would seem to make intuitive sense, as long as it was done with sensitivity for the environment, rather than with arrogance and disregard for it.

[oscaregg]

Use the US military on interstate highways to enforce speed limits--if this ain't a national security matter I don't know what is.

[LittleBigMan]

Use the US military on interstate highways to enforce speed limits--if this ain't a national security matter I don't know what is.
Interesting thought. If terrorist groups were claiming 40,000 American lives every single year on our roads, we'd probably have a "Department of Highway Security" and be spending billions to keep order with federal troops.

Instead, we just go back to sleep, as if it's just an acceptable fact of life that we can't do anything about.

[oscaregg]

Yes! LBM gets it!

[Max]

Use the US military on interstate highways to enforce speed limits--if this ain't a national security matter I don't know what is.

Why not hardwire the speed limit into the car? For example, the car can not ride faster than 120 km/h on the highway, when the car enters the city, the city radio transmitter limits the maximum speed of the car to 60 km/h. The car may accelerate as fast as it was designed, but up to the legal limit for the area.

Such electronic device will be not much more expensive than the average mobile phone. Seal it to avoid unlawful interference, and US military can go home to their families, instead of standing on the interstate highways breathing toxic fumes.

It seems to be the attractive idea to solve the problems with military. But in fact the problem is, as usually, in the human brain. It is the part of the car culture to exceed speed limit, to demonstrate himself/herself and the others the macho. Resulting numerous deaths are also the part of the culture, like the gladiator's circuses were once. There are even the TV shows, which follow the car violence accidents and broadcast the details from the scene.

The same with energy. The demand for the energy is created by the consumer. It is also part of the consumerism to have as large house or apartment as one can possibly scuffle out (of course, it will need heating and air conditioning - meaning electricity). The fashion requires us to have piles of clothing, most of which will never be worn out even 25 %. And so on and so forth. Production of clothing and other items also reuires the energy.

On my unsupported long distance cycling tours, I am always amazed how, in fact, little one needs to support the normal healthy life. Living in the city we consume times more than we actually need. And it is not so easy to reduce the consumption, as one may lose the social status, which is based nowadays on how much one consumes (aka damages environment).

I think it would be the part of the solution, if we could rebuild our consumerism culture to use the items as long as possible. Certainly, they should be engineered for the prolonged usage. The question is how to make it compatible with the economical system?

One of the solutions of the deforestation problem could be abstaining from buying the cut fir trees. One can by instead plantable fir tree and plant it after X-mas, or just one small branch from the fir tree.

Sometimes the internal problem is being solved by external means erroneously. The overproduction of energy will not solve the problem, even if "cheap" source is discovered. What we may need is the political leaders of not spy-, corporate-, or military- background, but the leader - professional psychologist. It is not rare that one commits fraud, crime, to buy prestigious items, like 3 tons SUV, or 1000 square meters apartment, to impress people around. The good therapist could solve this man's internal problem in couple of hours and make his/her life more agreeable to himself/herself and others.

[prestonjb]

As the number of cars (population) increases we shall begin to see things like this (IMHO).

Heck if F1 imposes restrictions on speed (via tire choice) then eventually we shall see this on non-race cars as performance shoots through the roof..

[Dchiefransom]

[QUOTE=Max]Why not hardwire the speed limit into the car? For example, the car can not ride faster than 120 km/h on the highway, when the car enters the city, the city radio transmitter limits the maximum speed of the car to 60 km/h. The car may accelerate as fast as it was designed, but up to the legal limit for the area.

Such electronic device will be not much more expensive than the average mobile phone. Seal it to avoid unlawful interference, and US military can go home to their families, instead of standing on the interstate highways breathing toxic fumes."

The military won't be out there in the first place, due to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents them from being used for non-emergency law enforcment. If you want to enforce laws, put more police on the roads. Limiting speed limits in cities like you describe might be hard unless there was something to allow the cars to drive the speed limit on the freeways that run through the cities.
Psycologists running things and manipulating people's minds toward the "correct" way of thinking. There goes freedom and individual thought. Who gets to determine what "correct" thinking is?

[John E]

It is unrealistic to expect everyone to live near work. What about two-career families, such as my next-door neighbors? (He teaches 25 mi south at SDSU, she, 60 mi north, at UCI.) In a field such as mine (semiconductors), in which job changes are frequent, comparably frequent house moves would be very economically and socially disruptive to the family.

I am not against mixed-use development and some clustering or "smart growth" concepts, but the problem is far more complex and requires a blend of approaches, including commuter rail, fuel-efficient vehicles, carpooling incentives, telecommuting, and bicycling.

[LittleBigMan]

It has been clearly demonstrated that we will not voluntarily give up the ease, convenience and versatility of motor vehicles, and as John E mentioned, necessity dictates our dependence upon long-distance transportation. It is only when necessity and personal choice favors other options that any significant change will occur.

I've noticed a significant number of Hispanic-Americans riding cheap bikes for transportation. For them, it's better than walking for short trips, although I'm sure most would rather be driving.

[LittleBigMan]

Why not hardwire the speed limit into the car?
I've thought about that many times. The same answer pops back into my head, Max: no one will vote for whoever backs this proposal.

[cyclezealot]

It is unrealistic to expect everyone to live near work. What about two-career families, such as my next-door neighbors? (He teaches 25 mi south at SDSU, she, 60 mi north, at UCI.) In a field such as mine (semiconductors), in which job changes are frequent, comparably frequent house moves would be very economically and socially disruptive to the family.

I am not against mixed-use development and some clustering or "smart growth" concepts, but the problem is far more complex and requires a blend of approaches, including commuter rail, fuel-efficient vehicles, carpooling incentives, telecommuting, and bicycling.

I agree.We have problems in just thinking we can all switch to alternative tranpsortation..Sure use of rail corridors and the like would help.
But the problem developed because we think energy is unlimited and cheap.Wrong assumption.. The solutions will not be easy.

[Max]

I've thought about that many times. The same answer pops back into my head, Max: no one will vote for whoever backs this proposal.

Still it seems strange to me that on one side the police tries to limit the speed, working hard day and night.

On the other hand the industry produces the ridiculously fast cars. Why would one need, say, 240 km/h on the speedometer? Aircraft can take off at such speed.

It is like punishing the drug taker, but leaving alone the dealer, isn't it?

[megaman]

Max: no one will vote for whoever backs this proposal.

People are so addicted to every little freedom they feel they have a right to, that they'll do most anything to hang on to them. Here in Wisconsin we used to have a motorists' right group. They would help you fight speeding tickets and pay for them, lobby for increased speed limits, etc. They had a growing following until it was determined that them paying for your speeding tickets through your membership was like insurance. Since they weren't authorized to sell insurance, the brakes were put on them. For all I know they may still around. But the point is that they felt speeding wasn't a big deal as long as you did it safely(I never could figure out how driving as fast as you wanted could be safe). A lot people I talk to feel that it's absolutely necessary to speed cause of the safety issue. How will we ever start to get them to conserve if they don't want to on their own?

[Dahon.Steve]

>>>>I've noticed a significant number of Hispanic-Americans riding cheap bikes for transportation. For them, it's better than walking for short trips, although I'm sure most would rather be driving.<<<<

HEY! I'm one of those Hispanic Americans riding cheap bikes for transportation (Pacific toy bike) and I would NOT want to be driving. I used to own a car and was sick of the repairs, tolls, tickets, gas and high cost of insurance. Living in the city, I have a wide choice of public transportation from railroads, subways, buses, taxies and a 1.4 billion dollar light rail just five blocks away. There is NO logical reason for me to get a car when I can rent one just 10 minutes away by bike if the need should ever come. In the past 3 years, I've only had to rent a car for two days.

Folks.. As someone said, forty thousand people will be killed on our highways each year. I expect this number to go higher each year as the number of motorists continue to increase with each new car sold. I predict in 75 years, we will probably have one hundred thousand people getting killed each year and this does NOT include the numbers slaughered in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America.

I consider it population control.

[KrisA]

Oil prices are on the move today as there is anticipation that US inventories of crude may have fallen again. If US inventories continue to dwindle in the face of the economic expansion then I take this as evidence that we are peaking. It also does not bode well for the (short lived?) economic recovery. Time will tell.

[Dchiefransom]

Oil prices are on the move today as there is anticipation that US inventories of crude may have fallen again. If US inventories continue to dwindle in the face of the economic expansion then I take this as evidence that we are peaking. It also does not bode well for the (short lived?) economic recovery. Time will tell.

Combine that with the increase in auto sales in China. A show I saw on Sunday was about increasing auto sales in India, not exactly a low population country.

[LittleBigMan]

Combine that with the increase in auto sales in China. A show I saw on Sunday was about increasing auto sales in India, not exactly a low population country.
Well, folks--looks like we don't have to wait to run completely out of oil for gas prices to go up!

(Does this mean car prices will go down? Naaah!)

Truly a bittersweet scenario. All prices will go up. Things will be tougher all around. On the other hand, maybe China will sell good cars cheap...

Good news: bicycle commuters will have the upper hand, but bikes and parts will go up, too...

[Dahon.Steve]

>>>Good news: bicycle commuters will have the upper hand, but bikes and parts will go up, too...<<<<

Just get a good steel bike made of chromoly. It will last forever.

Although my next door neighbors will be suffering as they drive to the supermarket which is just ACROSS THE STREET! They think I'm strange because I bike to work!

[Robert Gardner]

Steve you may be a latino but I don't think you are the kind that was refrerred to. Here in southern California the latinos are not always riding cheap bikes, but they all seem to ride on the sidewalk, which I hope you don't. One noticed my clip on pedals and it seems that his bike which he had purcased for sixty bucks had them and he didn't understand them. He promised to bring the bike to the doughnut shop the next day for the pedals I promissed him. When he found out that my bike cost $2400 he was surprised and his attitude changed. He didn't bring the bike to the shop the next day as promissed. I was anxious to get the cerial number and license number of the bike if he did. Sorry, I mean no offense to latinos I can assure you. However I think he may have had an expesive stolen bike.

[KrisA]

Well the inventories report is in, and inventories declined 7 times more than analysts expected. They've declined in 5 of the last 6 reportings indicating to me that supply is not able to keep up with demand.

``This has been quite a year with prices rising because of political problems,'' said Kyle Cooper, a Citigroup Inc. analyst in Houston. ``The year began with the war in Iraq, Venezuelan production hasn't come back and there have been a number of problems in Iraq since the war.''

I always find it interesting that these 'analysts' always blame politics not physics for declines in available oil. When will ANYONE come out and say that oil well production is declining and new wells are either coming up dry or are have comparitively low volumes.

A lot of anlysts are predicting $25 or lower oil prices for 2004. My bet is on $33 or higher all year due to supply constraints, physical ones not political ones, putting serious pressure on the economies of oil importers (USA, China, Japan, most of Europe...).

[Poguemahone]

Not to poop on anyone's parade, but the demise of oil reserves has been predicted for some time. If it'll happen or not in our lifetime, who knows. I personally wouldn't mind higher gas prices, if just so my neighbors would start walking the five blocks to the neighborhood store, but I think further political instability is more likely to be a key determinant of rising prices then actual supply in the ground. Our two main oil suppliers are Venezuala and Saudi Arabia, neither which are paragons of political stablility. The Bush presidency even gave tacit support to a coup against Hugo Chavez of Venezuala, who may be a left-wing nut but is a democratically elected left wing nut. Huh. And we help prop up a throughly corrupt Saudi regime, in large part because they control much of the world's excess production, and thus the world price of oil. Not to mention ancient history, like the overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran to replace it with an oil company friendly and thoroughly venal Shah. Gah. Realpolitik is doing nothing but getting us in trouble, and all in the name of un-interupted oil supplies. Bah.

[LittleBigMan]

[The US overthrew the] government in Iran to replace it with an oil company friendly and thoroughly venal Shah.
SAVAK, the Iranian secret police under the Shah of Iran (our good friend,) was trained by our CIA. They brutalized innocent people in ways (and in numbers) that our arch enemy, the "Ace of Spades," Saddam Hussein, would admire.Our government knew about the Shah all along, but never bombed him, never threatened him. But the US did do one thing: we helped him.

We showed ourselves "democratic people of freedom" at home. In Iran, we aided the likes of Hitler.

At least I can say that here in my country, and not be afraid of being hauled off to a secret prison to be maimed and crippled.

[Poguemahone]

And here's what I find in the paper this morning:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46321-2003Dec31.html
'Nuff said.

[Dchiefransom]

And here's what I find in the paper this morning:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46321-2003Dec31.html
'Nuff said.

I'm hoping that article doesn't really surprise anyone.

[iceratt]

In 1982 I researched oil price forcasting as part of a political science project. All our glorious leaders had available to create policy were their biases, hidden agendas, and the learned divinations of oil availability and price, going out 5 to 10 years.

Using studies of known and suspected oil reserves, and guesses as to improvements in extraction, people who concidered themselves scientists, predicted that the price of oil would be anywhere from $25 to $125 per barrel in the forseable future.

The few experts that guessed correctly, were as lucky as the weather forcaster who claims to know what Providence will dump on our heads next week.

So, do I think that we are wasting oil, and will run out sort of soon? Sure. Are our policies driven by politicians' half baked fantisies and greed? Well, of course! And yet, I still think that we should do oil price forcasting, despite it's unreliable, because it's all we've got.

[Aaron]

Greetings from peakoil.com,

LATOC Matt Savinar, is a pretty scary read huh?

I'm a contributing editor and admin at peakoil.com and I recommend you take a look at:

ASPO for a more reasoned and scientific approach to hydrocarbon research. This is a University of Uppsala Sweden research topic run by serious scientists and researchers.

There are a growing number of professionals speaking about depletion issues, especially oil & gas reserves.

Come and join the debate on our dedicated depletion portal. Guest & Anonymous posts are allowed, and the boards are moderated.

Matt Savinar from LATOC is a regular, so come post your questions.

Thanks for your time & see you there.

Aaron Dunlap

[pletcgm]

Petroleum could be saved by use of sources such as thermal, solar, wind, biomass, ethanol,coal,shale, etc.

The laws of economics dictate that we will never run out of oil because the price will get higher and higher with less and less consumption. We will go to a new energy source because of the high cost of gasoline and therefor we will not have run out of oil.

[Seanholio]

The laws of economics dictate that we will never run out of oil because the price will get higher and higher with less and less consumption. We will go to a new energy source because of the high cost of gasoline and therefor we will not have run out of oil.

There is a lag between the discovery of a new energy source which is as efficient for size and weight as petroleum, after the economic incentives are there. During that lag, there will be mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, total anarchy. No, wait... prices will climb because the shortages creates higher prices, unless the government dictates lower prices, in which case consumption will continue at its previous levels, and then the gas runs out because the oil companies have no profits and no reason to refine anymore. No, wait..

The truth is, none of us can predict what will happen. We may never run out of oil.

I ride because I feel better when I do it. People are designed to be active. Sitting around looking at screens and only moving our fingers to type isn't enough.

Ride to work. Work to Live. Live to Ride.

[madpogue]

We may never run out of oil. Only if we stop using it. It takes tens of millions of years to make, after all. 'Course, if you're talking any kind of oil, including plant-based, then by definition we will never run out.


I ride because I feel better when I do it. People are designed to be active. Sitting around looking at screens and only moving our fingers to type isn't enough. Yup. No diet, no pill, no herb, no book, no program can substitute for mechanical movement of the body. Our lymph system is the most obvious evidence of this. It has no "pump" (like the lungs or heart); it only moves its fluid via movement of the body as a whole. Stop moving, and you start dying.

[gringorio]

BMI, Obesity, and oil consumption correlated?
:eek: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/prev_char.htm

[Seanholio]

Only if we stop using it. It takes tens of millions of years to make, after all. 'Course, if you're talking any kind of oil, including plant-based, then by definition we will never run out.

Does it? What if we're wrong, and it's not just dino-juice? That possibility exists.

More probably, vegetable-based oils can fill in some of the gap. Unfortunately, it is only a small portion of the gap.

[madpogue]

This is straying off-topic, but if we didn't dedicate so much land, water, etc. to food to feed to animals, which are then fed to humans, we could convert much of it to growing plant-based fuel. Of course (straying even further), if our population continues to increase, then yeah, actually, we could eventually run out of our capacity to sustainably produce plant-based fuel. But I'm straying into big-picture socio-political topics that are "beyond the scope" to say the least.

[Seanholio]

This is straying off-topic, but if we didn't dedicate so much land, water, etc. to food to feed to animals, which are then fed to humans, we could convert much of it to growing plant-based fuel. Of course (straying even further), if our population continues to increase, then yeah, actually, we could eventually run out of our capacity to sustainably produce plant-based fuel. But I'm straying into big-picture socio-political topics that are "beyond the scope" to say the least.

Yeah, shouldn't we be moved over to Politics, yet? Nonetheless, I continue. :D

I agree, that if we dedicated the land to other purposes, there would be more land available for those other purposes. My problem with that is: Steak tastes good to me. So do chicken, ostrich, buffalo, veal, lamb, and venison. Many other people feel much the same way (for the pursposes of this completely non-empirical statistic, I refuse to count those who believe that fast food actually contains any of these meats :) ). Until such time as the majority of the population converts to veganism, it's not practical to pursue that end.

Now, when gasoline reaches a cost to the consumer that biofuels become a profitable venture for businesses, you can bet good money that there will be land found for such enterprises, as well as the recycling of previously-used vegetable oils, such as old fry oils.