The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
From a Peak Oil perspective, what's happening with the price of oil right now fits perfectly with the predictions of the more pragmatic Peak Oil people such as Matt Simmons. I don't agree with the "end of the world" predictions, they are unrealistic in my opinion.
The thing is Peak Oil isn't about running out of oil. Its about production rates peaking, and starting to decline. The most pronounced symptom of this is an increase in the price of oil.
I want to talk more about this, but my taxi to go out is here. I'll post more tomorrow.. or maybe tonight if I am coherent enough.
I would advise anyone who is interested in non-crackpot theories (again, my opinion) to check out matt simmon's website, http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/.
Guys, what he said.
This is not about oil running out. Srsly.
It's about approaching the maximum rate of production and declining because the supergiant fields we have been relying on for decades are starting to get tapped out, and the new stuff we are finding won't make up for it.
Add in growing demand from Asia (the cheap cars being made now by Tata in India scare the shit out of me), and a belief that market forces will make things right (they're not going to realise the problem until after the fact - most people, if they have given any thought to this at all, still think it is decades away), and you have serious economic trouble on the way.
Yes, there are crackpots out there. But there are also a lot of geologists who used to work in the industry, and even former heads of exploration, who are saying we have a problem.
Lifeafterteoilcrash.net is the single worst website you could ever use to try and promote Peak Oil to someone as it's not only biased in the extreme, it's also a conflict of interest for the site owner Matt Savinar who runs a store through the site selling all manner of doomer items relating to PO. A website loses it's credibility if they start of by saying "the downfall of the economy blah blah" and then in the next sentence say "buy this bulk food/books/garden tools/noose".
That said, I do believe in peak oil because the numbers are there. Look up Hubbert's Curve. The Hubbert peak theory posits that for any given geographical area, from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve.
Generally the only reliable way to identify the timing of any production peak, including the global peak, is in retrospect. United States oil production peaked in 1970, and this provides the greatest evidence to support the theory.
Meh - everyone (well, the Mayans) knows that the world ends in 2012 anyway.
That said, you'd be surprised how many "last-minute-miracle-alternatives" get trotted out by the oil/automotive companies once the same old stuff become unprofitable/untenable. What will be funny will be to see them try to act like they hadn't been sitting on the patents for decades.
Which patents?
Some of the many that they've pretty obviously bought up and are sitting on. One of my friend's old neighbor was working on alternative energy stuff, and one day he talked about how one of the major car companies was interested in buying his work and then he just up and disappeared - left his furniture, TV, everything. We joked about how they must've had him killed, but rumor had it that he got paid so much he never bothered to go back for his stuff.
I'm not fully buying into the idea that they've got a smorgasboard of universe-saving alternative energy stuff waiting, but the idea of companies buying up rights to discoveries/inventions that would compete with them or damage their ability to do business is nothing new. Look at the big pharma cartels!
Can you cite a few, please? I'm not digging through the USPTO's search engine without at least an idea of what the patents are.
That US graph makes me think we're not really in that much trouble - it did peak at 1970, but then it stabilized until about 1985, and dropped to 50% over the next 10 years. We're still pumping out half the oil we were at peak to this day.
If world production stabilizes at the current level for 15 or 20 years then slowly drops to 50% of current production over the next 20 years or so, that's plenty of time to reduce utilization and look into alternative energy sources, which we are already starting now with hybrids, hydrogen, biodiesel, etc. Sure these technologies might not be efficient now, but a lot of things we have now weren't very efficient forty years ago either.
There's no reason to believe that 40 years from now, with the political pressure from the environment/global warming people, with economic pressure from rising gas prices due to competition from asia, with a big strategic interest in moving energy production to domestic sources, that we won't be largely weaned off of foreign oil before this even becomes an issue.
The innovations are here, they're just locked up as intellectual property.
Good god, companies are not sitting on some magical panacea for the oil crash. It simply does not pass the smell test. If any one of those companies actually had a solution that actually works, then you would know the very next day.
I will tell you exactly what would happen if BP, ExxonMobile, Shell, etc. actually invented a car that runs on fuel cells / compressed gasses / water / whatever. Firstly, they would go into talks with automakers regarding licensing rights for this new technology, and gain fuckbillions of dollars. Then, they would announce to the world (and probably add a media blitz) about how awesome their new technology is and watch as their stock price skyrocketed. Next, they would look into the feasibility of opening or converting franchise gas stations, so that they could control the entire chain of supply to the consumer and gouge us for more fuckbillion dollars. Finally, shit would go into production as fast as possible in order to beat other companies to the punch.
Remember when hybrids were announced, then the huge media blitz that came with them, along with the race to be first to the market? Yeah, a workable alternative automobile would be like that times 1000. There is no big oil conspiracy trying to keep the innovations under wraps. These new 'innovations' just aren't polished enough to be profitable.
I caught the tail-end of a talk by the founder of the Interstate Traveler Corporation, which is a company (I think?) that are trying to build an elevated rail type system to run alongside freeways and such. Supposedly it would run on solar energy, and so on. There's more information here. Personally I don't think that this particular idea is currently feasible, but the fact that things such as this are being thought of makes the idea that the world will crash without oil seem ridiculous. Progress is being made toward alternatives. Is it slow? Maybe, but it's happening. There could be some hard times, probably will be, but we'll get over it and life will go on. It'll be a dip in economic production, but the trend has been for increased production for all data I've ever seen, even after events like the Great Depression.
Also, I wiki'd Tata motors, and the Tata Nano could either be a step forward (it gets something like 51 mph city) or a huge step backward (it's cheap, and it's in India, which could lead to an increase in drivers)
The innovations are here, they're just locked up as intellectual property.
Good god, companies are not sitting on some magical panacea for the oil crash. It simply does not pass the smell test. If any one of those companies actually had a solution that actually works, then you would know the very next day.
I will tell you exactly what would happen if BP, ExxonMobile, Shell, etc. actually invented a car that runs on fuel cells / compressed gasses / water / whatever. Firstly, they would go into talks with automakers regarding licensing rights for this new technology, and gain fuckbillions of dollars. Then, they would announce to the world (and probably add a media blitz) about how awesome their new technology is and watch as their stock price skyrocketed. Next, they would look into the feasibility of opening or converting franchise gas stations, so that they could control the entire chain of supply to the consumer and gouge us for more fuckbillion dollars. Finally, shit would go into production as fast as possible in order to beat other companies to the punch.
Remember when hybrids were announced, then the huge media blitz that came with them, along with the race to be first to the market? Yeah, a workable alternative automobile would be like that times 1000. There is no big oil conspiracy trying to keep the innovations under wraps. These new 'innovations' just aren't polished enough to be profitable.
There can be conflicts of interest though, such as with car companies and electric cars. Entrenched car companies have disincentives to make efficient electric cars, mostly because of maintenance. Internal combustion systems are more complicated and costly to maintain than electric motor driven cars, and a lot of car companies benefit from this by having in house mechanics, extended warranties, etc. However, this wouldn't prevent them from coming out with a magical cheap alternative to our current cars (they could make a killing on mark up), but it does make them a bit more lethargic in developing and rolling out alternatives.
Funny enough, there are market based ways that are the best to deal with that, particularly competition. If there are low barriers of entry for new firms and a ready stream of capital, then a new company could spring up and take advantage of the technologies that the old guard are slow to adopting to. Unfortunately, this is one of the key areas where intellectual property and patents are a double edged sword and stifle innovation, because with a warchest of patents a big company could potentially lock out new competitors from the market.
It's one of the reasons why patent reform is such an important issue despite getting little attention outside of niche press.
Savant on
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
There can be conflicts of interest though, such as with car companies and electric cars. Entrenched car companies have disincentives to make efficient electric cars, mostly because of maintenance. Internal combustion systems are more complicated and costly to maintain than electric motor driven cars, and a lot of car companies benefit from this by having in house mechanics, extended warranties, etc. However, this wouldn't prevent them from coming out with a magical cheap alternative to our current cars (they could make a killing on mark up), but it does make them a bit more lethargic in developing and rolling out alternatives.
Electric cars aren't available today because car companies can make more money on gas cars. Not even close. Maintaining new electric cars would mean that dealerships, and small mom & pop joints, would have to get new tools, and the expensive part, new computers. The computers that diagnose problems with cars are fucking expensive - you want to tell the small mechanic that he has to spend $texas on new computers to deal with new cars? The maintenance, particularly in the short range, is damn expensive.
Also, electric cars disappeared because for the most part, they were sitting at 40 miles per charge. For a good number of people out there, that's just not enough.
Seems like a good opprtunity to do away with the proprietary maintenence BS. One interface, any computer, a few competing programs, one plugin for each car.
There can be conflicts of interest though, such as with car companies and electric cars. Entrenched car companies have disincentives to make efficient electric cars, mostly because of maintenance. Internal combustion systems are more complicated and costly to maintain than electric motor driven cars, and a lot of car companies benefit from this by having in house mechanics, extended warranties, etc. However, this wouldn't prevent them from coming out with a magical cheap alternative to our current cars (they could make a killing on mark up), but it does make them a bit more lethargic in developing and rolling out alternatives.
Electric cars aren't available today because car companies can make more money on gas cars. Not even close. Maintaining new electric cars would mean that dealerships, and small mom & pop joints, would have to get new tools, and the expensive part, new computers. The computers that diagnose problems with cars are fucking expensive - you want to tell the small mechanic that he has to spend $texas on new computers to deal with new cars? The maintenance, particularly in the short range, is damn expensive.
Also, electric cars disappeared because for the most part, they were sitting at 40 miles per charge. For a good number of people out there, that's just not enough.
I'm not saying that electric cars are completely viable at this point. I'm saying that large car companies have disincentives to make them completely viable and research and build infrastructure for them, but that only goes so far. The main impediment to electric cars right now is batteries.
And really, a car running on an electric motor is FAR simpler than one running on an internal combustion engine. There are many fewer components to deal with, and I'm not buying your assertion that the initial costs of migrating mechanics to deal with electric cars would be prohibitive.. But the big thing is that they don't need as much maintenance, so that's less money coming in.
That US graph makes me think we're not really in that much trouble - it did peak at 1970, but then it stabilized until about 1985, and dropped to 50% over the next 10 years. We're still pumping out half the oil we were at peak to this day.
If world production stabilizes at the current level for 15 or 20 years then slowly drops to 50% of current production over the next 20 years or so, that's plenty of time to reduce utilization and look into alternative energy sources, which we are already starting now with hybrids, hydrogen, biodiesel, etc. Sure these technologies might not be efficient now, but a lot of things we have now weren't very efficient forty years ago either.
There's no reason to believe that 40 years from now, with the political pressure from the environment/global warming people, with economic pressure from rising gas prices due to competition from asia, with a big strategic interest in moving energy production to domestic sources, that we won't be largely weaned off of foreign oil before this even becomes an issue.
Consider this: oil prices have quadrupled in the last few years (some of this, to be fair, is from a declining US dollar).
This is happening at a time when there is a 'slow squeeze' of basically flat production and rising demand.
Saudi Arabia is probably the only swing producer left, and they just told us 'no thanks'.
And yes, we will explore alternatives and become 'more efficient'... against a backdrop of economic hardship. The Hirsch report I linked to before indicates a 20-year program to ensure a smooth transition, 10 years for a 'bumpy' one, and basically hard times if there is no mitigation attempt made. It's not the 'end of the world', but it will likely be unpleasant.
Edit: Nuclear Energy isn't clean, there's nuclear waste to manage as well as the harvesting process which is currently done through cheap oil vehicles and transportation. Also something to be said for the clean water which would be needed to keep the reactor cool, and water itself is being shown as a rapidly depleting resource as well.
This is like saying my room isn't clean because I need to throw out the vacuum bag. The point is that the dust isn't all over the floor.
This is not very accurate.
Nuclear energy may be "clean" in the most basic meaning of the word, but it is still harmful to the environment.
You know what they do with the boiling water they use to cool the reactors? They dump it into rivers and oceans. You know what happens to the wildlife there? They go kaput.
Also, nuclear waste is extremely expensive to contain and transport, not to mention dangerous.
There can be conflicts of interest though, such as with car companies and electric cars. Entrenched car companies have disincentives to make efficient electric cars, mostly because of maintenance. Internal combustion systems are more complicated and costly to maintain than electric motor driven cars, and a lot of car companies benefit from this by having in house mechanics, extended warranties, etc. However, this wouldn't prevent them from coming out with a magical cheap alternative to our current cars (they could make a killing on mark up), but it does make them a bit more lethargic in developing and rolling out alternatives.
Electric cars aren't available today because car companies can make more money on gas cars. Not even close. Maintaining new electric cars would mean that dealerships, and small mom & pop joints, would have to get new tools, and the expensive part, new computers. The computers that diagnose problems with cars are fucking expensive - you want to tell the small mechanic that he has to spend $texas on new computers to deal with new cars? The maintenance, particularly in the short range, is damn expensive.
Also, electric cars disappeared because for the most part, they were sitting at 40 miles per charge. For a good number of people out there, that's just not enough.
Kinda funny...tell that to every garage in NY state a couple of years ago, when they made emissions testing part of the process to get your yearly inspection sticker. Prior all they did was a visual inspection and maybe a short driving test. Now they need to hook it up to pass emissions and the computer uploads to NYS pass/fail info to prevent you from taking your car from shop to shop until you pass.
They're all still doing inspections. If the cars or the processes change the shops have to change. When cars all started getting airbags all the shops and mechanics either needed to be able to work on / replace them, or lose business. You can't stiffle innovation for the sake of every joe-blow street corner shop.
Staxeon on
Invisible nap is the best nap of all time!
No man should have that kind of power.(Twitter)
Meh - everyone (well, the Mayans) knows that the world ends in 2012 anyway.
That said, you'd be surprised how many "last-minute-miracle-alternatives" get trotted out by the oil/automotive companies once the same old stuff become unprofitable/untenable. What will be funny will be to see them try to act like they hadn't been sitting on the patents for decades.
Which patents?
Some of the many that they've pretty obviously bought up and are sitting on. One of my friend's old neighbor was working on alternative energy stuff, and one day he talked about how one of the major car companies was interested in buying his work and then he just up and disappeared - left his furniture, TV, everything. We joked about how they must've had him killed, but rumor had it that he got paid so much he never bothered to go back for his stuff.
I'm not fully buying into the idea that they've got a smorgasboard of universe-saving alternative energy stuff waiting, but the idea of companies buying up rights to discoveries/inventions that would compete with them or damage their ability to do business is nothing new. Look at the big pharma cartels!
This post is funny/pathetic on so many levels. 1: 'Big Pharma Cartels.' 2: According to my grandpa, the _same_ thing happened to his neighbor. Gramps, that you? 3: The whole tinfoil hat 'companies are sitting on X big discovery, because it would destroy them, and of course there is NO possible way 'Big Pharma :P' could profit from a cure for cancer, or 'Big Motora' could profit from the mythical 100 mpg engine.'
Nuclear waste is also no more dangerous then any other hazardous chemical substance we move around
...
You're kidding.
Are you aware of what it takes to transport nuclear waste from one location to the other? The logistical processes, the bureaucracy, the insane number of security procedures and clearances it has to go through? The fact that you have to store nuclear materials in specially isolated containers that cost a shit-ton to manufacture?
No, nuclear waste is not "no more dangerous than any other hazardous chemical substance we move around."
Also, nuclear waste is extremely expensive to contain and transport, not to mention dangerous.
Incorrect. It is either expensive or dangerous.
Currently, we spend a shitload on it, and it is very safe.
Doesn't matter; my point still stands. Nuclear energy is not the panacea that everyone makes it to be. It may be cleaner than burning fossil fuels, but the costs of building/running/maintaining facilities and the residue are way up there.
Also, nuclear waste is extremely expensive to contain and transport, not to mention dangerous.
Incorrect. It is either expensive or dangerous.
Currently, we spend a shitload on it, and it is very safe.
Doesn't matter; my point still stands. Nuclear energy is not the panacea that everyone makes it to be. It may be cleaner than burning fossil fuels, but the costs of building/running/maintaining facilities and the residue are way up there.
Uh, I'm pretty sure you're over-exaggerating this by a pretty huge factor. The Brookings Institution reported in 2004 Nuclear power plants cost about 15-30% more than conventional coal and natural gas plants. While that is certainly to some degree significant, nuclear power is the only carbon-neutral energy source that isn't subject to the fickle nature of other non-carbon-emitting energy sources --and it still manages to be cost-competitive. This is why it demands significant consideration.
You guys can't really think that some time in 30-50 years this shit won't get straightened out somehow, right?
I doubt in 2040something every world government's going to throw their hands up and go "Oil's out! Back to horseback riding and cold mead for everyone!"
When I was in high school a professor at a nearby university convinced me that the world would be completely out of oil by 1999.
PBR just found two of the biggest oil fields ever discovered.
Firstly, dismissing peak oil because a professor you knew made a wrong call is pretty poor reasoning. The Economist magazine was talking about a future of $5-10 oil back in 1999 (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00181.html). The think tank Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA, probably amongst the most optimistic of the analysts out there) has been declaring for the past few years that the price of oil was due to drop back to $30... then $40... then $60... Nobody has a crystal ball.
Secondly, Petrobras jumped the gun with their announcement - it has no means been confirmed. The Brazilian National Petroleum Agency reported the tests had not been carried out. The Economist goes into some detail here http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11043022&fsrc=RSS (and sadly, at the end of the article, completely misses the point by declaring that the world is not running out of oil).
Thirdly, the Brazilian find illustrates that yes, there is oil out there. It's in technically challenging, inhospitable and sometimes downright dangerous locations, but it is there. If the find is confirmed, if it is sizable and if everything goes smoothly, you might see production beginning in 5-10 years. If peak is soon, it will have about the same impact as Prudhoe Bay did for the U.S... a slight bump on the way down.
I repeat, the issues are rising demand, stagnant (or declining) production, and a long lead time in developing and scaling up suitable replacements (10 -20 years according to the Hirsch report).
I always thought that one of the major problems with Nuclear waste is the vast amounts of energy consumed in mining and refining it into a usable state?
I always thought that one of the major problems with Nuclear waste is the vast amounts of energy consumed in mining and refining it into a usable state?
That's easily countered by using the hydrogen produced by the reactor. People have trouble getting over Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and don't realize that modern reactors are ultimately better for the environment than any coal, gas, or oil fired plant no matter which negative you focus on.
And I'm sure the production of nuclear fuel is much safer than coal mining. You aren't going to die in a nuclear blast or from radiation making nuclear fuel, but you might die if a spark turns a mine full of coal dust in to an inferno.
As I said before, nuclear power is fairly safe. As well, you don't have the greenhouse gas emissions, etc, from nuclear power plants. And if you build breeder reactors, you can reuse the spent fuel rods several times before you have to dispose of the waste. New reactor designs are safer, more reliable, etc anyways.
To those of you who speak of Thermal Depolymerization or Hydrogen Cars I would like to direct you to the Second Law of Thermodynamics or Perpetual Motion.Good news by the way, $200 a barrel by 2012, and even better news on how people are going to be going without heat, warm water, or AC this year. For more information on the history of the geologic process to determine the science behind peak, look up King Hubbert for his prediction on the 1970 American peak, or Colin J. Campbell for the current trends in the peak.
There are a lot of problems with oil production data. The industry has a tendency to underreport initial discoveries so that they can add them on later to give the impression of a steady discovery rate. A steady discovery rate looks more appealing to investors. OPEC countries, on the other hand, have a marked tendency to over-inflate their oil reserves when it comes time to adjust quotas under OPEC. And politically, nobody wants to let the general population know that the party is almost over. The US Energy Information Association (EIA) has publicly stated-though in a roundabout manner-that first they project future energy demand and then they come up with reserve and production figures to meet projected demand. Making sense of the data requires a lot of detective work, but a scientific consensus has been achieved.
Despite what I've said I feel that I can't let this subject die until something major occurs which will prove these models true and then show some major activities being put in place to counter balance them. Or that the scientific studies put into these reports is completely bogus and off the wall.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Hello Larry, the Earth isn't a closed system! We aren't talking about heat death here, or the eventual demise of our sun. Of course nothing is going to last forever.
You are always going to lose energy in the process, or pretty much any process. The point of gasoline or hydrogen cars or whatever isn't that you gain energy from it, but rather that you make it portable. Price of 1 kWh != price of 1 kWh somewhere else.
Indeed. Right now we have no effective way of storing any electricity we generate. For industry and households, this isn't much of a problem, since we can transport it fairly well, and the efficiency of the plants is nice. But for vehicles, rural areas, batteries are not going to be good for a long time to come still. Hydrogen cells are rapidly approaching 70% effiency for small system energy generation... once we create a stable massive power plant (fission, fusion, solar, wind, coal, osmosis, water), converting there to H2, shipping it and using it > having everyone plug in their cars.
We have oil for a little while yet, and there is technology on the horizon to fix our problems. It will be expensive (Which i think will mostly screw over the 3rd world... that's the way it is still, also see the food crisis), but it's already clear we don't care about how expensive our energy is.... consumers are by far the least active in reducing their energy usage, even through the last years of madly rising prices. We want our comfort, our machines, and we'll pay what it costs.
I see fusion as the definite answer, but am pessimistic about it's arrival time... maybe 2040 for the first commercial plant. Chances are we'll use coal in the mean time.... not pretty but every time it's enviroment v. economy, the world chooses economy. Every time, and this time as well.
Posts
Guys, what he said.
This is not about oil running out. Srsly.
It's about approaching the maximum rate of production and declining because the supergiant fields we have been relying on for decades are starting to get tapped out, and the new stuff we are finding won't make up for it.
Add in growing demand from Asia (the cheap cars being made now by Tata in India scare the shit out of me), and a belief that market forces will make things right (they're not going to realise the problem until after the fact - most people, if they have given any thought to this at all, still think it is decades away), and you have serious economic trouble on the way.
Yes, there are crackpots out there. But there are also a lot of geologists who used to work in the industry, and even former heads of exploration, who are saying we have a problem.
If you want something a little meatier, try the Hirsch Report (commissioned by the US Dept of Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report) and the US Army Corp of Engineers: http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A440265&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Both a couple of years old, so keep in mind things have obviously gotten worse.
That said, I do believe in peak oil because the numbers are there. Look up Hubbert's Curve. The Hubbert peak theory posits that for any given geographical area, from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve.
Generally the only reliable way to identify the timing of any production peak, including the global peak, is in retrospect. United States oil production peaked in 1970, and this provides the greatest evidence to support the theory.
Can you cite a few, please? I'm not digging through the USPTO's search engine without at least an idea of what the patents are.
necessity breeds innovation
world ain't gonna end without oil - we're just going to feel an economic recession like we're supposed to
If world production stabilizes at the current level for 15 or 20 years then slowly drops to 50% of current production over the next 20 years or so, that's plenty of time to reduce utilization and look into alternative energy sources, which we are already starting now with hybrids, hydrogen, biodiesel, etc. Sure these technologies might not be efficient now, but a lot of things we have now weren't very efficient forty years ago either.
There's no reason to believe that 40 years from now, with the political pressure from the environment/global warming people, with economic pressure from rising gas prices due to competition from asia, with a big strategic interest in moving energy production to domestic sources, that we won't be largely weaned off of foreign oil before this even becomes an issue.
The innovations are here, they're just locked up as intellectual property.
Patent numbers, please.
I will tell you exactly what would happen if BP, ExxonMobile, Shell, etc. actually invented a car that runs on fuel cells / compressed gasses / water / whatever. Firstly, they would go into talks with automakers regarding licensing rights for this new technology, and gain fuckbillions of dollars. Then, they would announce to the world (and probably add a media blitz) about how awesome their new technology is and watch as their stock price skyrocketed. Next, they would look into the feasibility of opening or converting franchise gas stations, so that they could control the entire chain of supply to the consumer and gouge us for more fuckbillion dollars. Finally, shit would go into production as fast as possible in order to beat other companies to the punch.
Remember when hybrids were announced, then the huge media blitz that came with them, along with the race to be first to the market? Yeah, a workable alternative automobile would be like that times 1000. There is no big oil conspiracy trying to keep the innovations under wraps. These new 'innovations' just aren't polished enough to be profitable.
Also, I wiki'd Tata motors, and the Tata Nano could either be a step forward (it gets something like 51 mph city) or a huge step backward (it's cheap, and it's in India, which could lead to an increase in drivers)
There can be conflicts of interest though, such as with car companies and electric cars. Entrenched car companies have disincentives to make efficient electric cars, mostly because of maintenance. Internal combustion systems are more complicated and costly to maintain than electric motor driven cars, and a lot of car companies benefit from this by having in house mechanics, extended warranties, etc. However, this wouldn't prevent them from coming out with a magical cheap alternative to our current cars (they could make a killing on mark up), but it does make them a bit more lethargic in developing and rolling out alternatives.
Funny enough, there are market based ways that are the best to deal with that, particularly competition. If there are low barriers of entry for new firms and a ready stream of capital, then a new company could spring up and take advantage of the technologies that the old guard are slow to adopting to. Unfortunately, this is one of the key areas where intellectual property and patents are a double edged sword and stifle innovation, because with a warchest of patents a big company could potentially lock out new competitors from the market.
It's one of the reasons why patent reform is such an important issue despite getting little attention outside of niche press.
Electric cars aren't available today because car companies can make more money on gas cars. Not even close. Maintaining new electric cars would mean that dealerships, and small mom & pop joints, would have to get new tools, and the expensive part, new computers. The computers that diagnose problems with cars are fucking expensive - you want to tell the small mechanic that he has to spend $texas on new computers to deal with new cars? The maintenance, particularly in the short range, is damn expensive.
Also, electric cars disappeared because for the most part, they were sitting at 40 miles per charge. For a good number of people out there, that's just not enough.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
I'm not saying that electric cars are completely viable at this point. I'm saying that large car companies have disincentives to make them completely viable and research and build infrastructure for them, but that only goes so far. The main impediment to electric cars right now is batteries.
And really, a car running on an electric motor is FAR simpler than one running on an internal combustion engine. There are many fewer components to deal with, and I'm not buying your assertion that the initial costs of migrating mechanics to deal with electric cars would be prohibitive.. But the big thing is that they don't need as much maintenance, so that's less money coming in.
Consider this: oil prices have quadrupled in the last few years (some of this, to be fair, is from a declining US dollar).
This is happening at a time when there is a 'slow squeeze' of basically flat production and rising demand.
What happens when the actual decline starts?
What happens when countries start realising that it is actually in their interest to *pump less* - after all, what 's in the ground is only going up in value. Fun fact: the Saudi King recently announced this policy: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/04/22/peak-oil-saudis-squeeze-the-stone-even-harder/
Saudi Arabia is probably the only swing producer left, and they just told us 'no thanks'.
And yes, we will explore alternatives and become 'more efficient'... against a backdrop of economic hardship. The Hirsch report I linked to before indicates a 20-year program to ensure a smooth transition, 10 years for a 'bumpy' one, and basically hard times if there is no mitigation attempt made. It's not the 'end of the world', but it will likely be unpleasant.
PBR just found two of the biggest oil fields ever discovered.
This is not very accurate.
Nuclear energy may be "clean" in the most basic meaning of the word, but it is still harmful to the environment.
You know what they do with the boiling water they use to cool the reactors? They dump it into rivers and oceans. You know what happens to the wildlife there? They go kaput.
Also, nuclear waste is extremely expensive to contain and transport, not to mention dangerous.
He might have meant "cheap, easily accessible" oil, in which case he would be absolutely right.
Kinda funny...tell that to every garage in NY state a couple of years ago, when they made emissions testing part of the process to get your yearly inspection sticker. Prior all they did was a visual inspection and maybe a short driving test. Now they need to hook it up to pass emissions and the computer uploads to NYS pass/fail info to prevent you from taking your car from shop to shop until you pass.
They're all still doing inspections. If the cars or the processes change the shops have to change. When cars all started getting airbags all the shops and mechanics either needed to be able to work on / replace them, or lose business. You can't stiffle innovation for the sake of every joe-blow street corner shop.
No man should have that kind of power.(Twitter)
Incorrect. It is either expensive or dangerous.
Currently, we spend a shitload on it, and it is very safe.
This post is funny/pathetic on so many levels. 1: 'Big Pharma Cartels.' 2: According to my grandpa, the _same_ thing happened to his neighbor. Gramps, that you? 3: The whole tinfoil hat 'companies are sitting on X big discovery, because it would destroy them, and of course there is NO possible way 'Big Pharma :P' could profit from a cure for cancer, or 'Big Motora' could profit from the mythical 100 mpg engine.'
...
You're kidding.
Are you aware of what it takes to transport nuclear waste from one location to the other? The logistical processes, the bureaucracy, the insane number of security procedures and clearances it has to go through? The fact that you have to store nuclear materials in specially isolated containers that cost a shit-ton to manufacture?
No, nuclear waste is not "no more dangerous than any other hazardous chemical substance we move around."
Doesn't matter; my point still stands. Nuclear energy is not the panacea that everyone makes it to be. It may be cleaner than burning fossil fuels, but the costs of building/running/maintaining facilities and the residue are way up there.
I like the cut of your jig, sir
I doubt in 2040something every world government's going to throw their hands up and go "Oil's out! Back to horseback riding and cold mead for everyone!"
Firstly, dismissing peak oil because a professor you knew made a wrong call is pretty poor reasoning. The Economist magazine was talking about a future of $5-10 oil back in 1999 (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00181.html). The think tank Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA, probably amongst the most optimistic of the analysts out there) has been declaring for the past few years that the price of oil was due to drop back to $30... then $40... then $60... Nobody has a crystal ball.
Secondly, Petrobras jumped the gun with their announcement - it has no means been confirmed. The Brazilian National Petroleum Agency reported the tests had not been carried out. The Economist goes into some detail here http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11043022&fsrc=RSS (and sadly, at the end of the article, completely misses the point by declaring that the world is not running out of oil).
Thirdly, the Brazilian find illustrates that yes, there is oil out there. It's in technically challenging, inhospitable and sometimes downright dangerous locations, but it is there. If the find is confirmed, if it is sizable and if everything goes smoothly, you might see production beginning in 5-10 years. If peak is soon, it will have about the same impact as Prudhoe Bay did for the U.S... a slight bump on the way down.
I repeat, the issues are rising demand, stagnant (or declining) production, and a long lead time in developing and scaling up suitable replacements (10 -20 years according to the Hirsch report).
That's easily countered by using the hydrogen produced by the reactor. People have trouble getting over Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and don't realize that modern reactors are ultimately better for the environment than any coal, gas, or oil fired plant no matter which negative you focus on.
It is jib sir, J-I-B.
Despite what I've said I feel that I can't let this subject die until something major occurs which will prove these models true and then show some major activities being put in place to counter balance them. Or that the scientific studies put into these reports is completely bogus and off the wall.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Hello Larry, the Earth isn't a closed system! We aren't talking about heat death here, or the eventual demise of our sun. Of course nothing is going to last forever.
You are always going to lose energy in the process, or pretty much any process. The point of gasoline or hydrogen cars or whatever isn't that you gain energy from it, but rather that you make it portable. Price of 1 kWh != price of 1 kWh somewhere else.
We have oil for a little while yet, and there is technology on the horizon to fix our problems. It will be expensive (Which i think will mostly screw over the 3rd world... that's the way it is still, also see the food crisis), but it's already clear we don't care about how expensive our energy is.... consumers are by far the least active in reducing their energy usage, even through the last years of madly rising prices. We want our comfort, our machines, and we'll pay what it costs.
I see fusion as the definite answer, but am pessimistic about it's arrival time... maybe 2040 for the first commercial plant. Chances are we'll use coal in the mean time.... not pretty but every time it's enviroment v. economy, the world chooses economy. Every time, and this time as well.