Thoughts on Peak Oil

Zaleukos said:

20 miles is at least a 1h cycling trip, I wouldnt want to do that during the rainy season

Click to expand...

Even if it saved you the 15% of income you're spending on fuel? I'd cycle a couple of hours in the rain each day for a 17.5% pay increase.

And they could do it in the non rainy season and save a bit of cash for driving when the weather's bad.

Benedict said:

Ah sorry, I saw the bit where you referred to "the poor people who bought into the bigger is better theory on the SUV's" and read poor as you feeling sorry for them rather than as actual poor people.

Click to expand...

Well, I actually was speaking figuratively, so you weren't far off, but my compassion also doesn't run too deep for those who see a vehicle as a status symbol or a cosmetic accessory at the expense of responsible consumerism.

Call me picky but IMO 20 miles each way is entirely manageable by bicycle. My girlfriend does about 12 each way and we live in a particularly hilly part of London, 20 miles each way across the flat swathes of the rural south is perfectly manageable, and would do wonders for the obesity crisis too.

Click to expand...

No doubt about that --to play devil's advocate, however, two-lane rural American highways are extremely poorly designed for two-wheeled vehicle traffic. Many have virtually no shoulders, no extra lane room, and often consist of precipitous slopes here called a bar-ditch, which is rough drainage. And if people can't see a huge Harley without running it off the road, being on a bicycle is even less safe. Also, for long commutes into the city, most people use interstate highways where non-motorized vehicles are prohibited.

This is no excuse however--it's terrible planning, and terrible infrastructure based on the assumption that full-tilt cheap energy consumption would always be on the books. The result: absolutely no alternatives except to basically start over, which imo badly needs to be done. Suburban sprawl needs to turn into suburban community or revert the land usage into food production or something else useful.

Not mention we are talking the south. The DEEP south in most cases. 9 months out of the year, it is HOT, and often humid. Unless you want to carry your work clothes separately and your employer has a shower on site, you really can't get away with cycling. When I worked in Dallas, I was about 5 miles from my office in downtown. For a few weeks in the Fall and Spring, the weather was decent enough to cycle to and from work. But I STILL had to keep changes of clothes at my gym (across the street from the office) and go change their before I went into work.

All good points, never have visited (and most likely never will) the deep south so my assumptions of what's feasible are probably pretty far off the mark.

In terms of what should be feasible eventually though I'd have thought cycling would have to come into its own a bit more, it should end up being standard for employers to provide showers and roads should be built so that it's reasonably safe.

Sounds like there's some major infrastructure changes needed for the US, even more so than I'd expected . . . . it's going to be a tougher adjustment for you than for the rest of us, but I don't think you've still got the economic clout to resist it with the latest crash and loss of value on the dollar.

Benedict said:

Even if it saved you the 15% of income you're spending on fuel? I'd cycle a couple of hours in the rain each day for a 17.5% pay increase.

And they could do it in the non rainy season and save a bit of cash for driving when the weather's bad.

Click to expand...

I'm not even sure they have any predictable rainy season down in the American south Personally I'd never make that tradeoff, and I've cycled to school/work in anything from summer heat to -15C with 10cm thick snow for the last 15 years (but I've also made a conscious effort to find housing within a 2-3 mile radius from the daily destination). A couple of hours of cycling in rain adds a bit to the risk of catching a nasty cold that would cost me enough work hours to offset the saved fuel.

There's also the matter of travelling time, and that decent cycling lanes are almost nonexistant outside Northwestern Europe. And of course the climate in much of the US is far hotter than London during most of the year.

Benedict said:

Sounds like there's some major infrastructure changes needed for the US, even more so than I'd expected . . . . it's going to be a tougher adjustment for you than for the rest of us, but I don't think you've still got the economic clout to resist it with the latest crash and loss of value on the dollar.

Click to expand...

That definitely makes problems worse, but the US is also richer than most other western countries.

When I lived in Denton, TX, bn, I used to bicycle my son to daycare in the kiddie seat and then on to my job. It was fine in the mornings, but that trek home at 4:30 with temps in the F100's plus was a killer.

@Benedict: I think in urban areas, a lot of this actually is happening, but there's no doubt we're seriously behind the rest of the world in energy awareness. One of the things I like about Obama is that he has a few ideas(some rather off-base and impractical, it's true) about trying to at least begin to address all this.

Speaking of which, can anyone tell me what exactly "clean coal" is, and why it's a bad idea?I understand the problems with ethanol, and nuclear power somewhat, but I'm less up on that one.

Sounds like there's some major infrastructure changes needed for the US, even more so than I'd expected . . . . it's going to be a tougher adjustment for you than for the rest of us, but I don't think you've still got the economic clout to resist it with the latest crash and loss of value on the dollar.

Click to expand...

The weak dollar and the current market woes are not good, but the sky isn't falling, we still have enough economic clout to survive any commodity related pressure. As for infrastructure, it is far more likely that we will lead the way in some type of alternative fuel vehicles than we will in changing to a bike society. For one thing, cycling is viewed as a step backward by many, and we simply, as a nation, won't tolerate that.

magerette said:

Speaking of which, can anyone tell me what exactly "clean coal" is, and why it's a bad idea?I understand the problems with ethanol, and nuclear power somewhat, but I'm less up on that one.

Click to expand...

There are many variations of 'clean coal.' For instance, there is a version of clean coal where coal is used to produce diesel. They've been doing it for years (since the Carter admin IIRC). It is actually cleaner than regular diesel and not as bad as burning coal. Unfortunately, it's not economically efficient. It has only lasted this long due to government subsidies. With fuel prices as they are now, it might be economical, I'm not sure, but just like big oil producers are not rushing out to build new refineries, because fuel prices could drop significantly, this industry won't expand either.

Another version of 'clean coal' is where you use it to generate electric power, but rather than allow the exhaust to escape up a chimney, you pump it back into the ground (I think there is some cleansing of it along the way). Often they use depleted, or under performing, oil and natural gas fields for this. It also pushes the remaining oil (Not sure about nat gas) to the top and makes it recoverable. Theoretically since these fields have held gas or oil for millions of years, once capped, they should hold the coal exhaust not problem.

To me, it's a stop gap until more efficient alternative means exist.

part of the problem is a) the coal still has to be mined which even if done carefully is harmful to the environment and possibly local communites. b) clean coal 'technology' is based on capturing the coal and then 'housing' it in underground tanks or resorviors; so that not only means those tanks are going to have to be put somewhere and leaks are almost inevitable due to probabiltiy not to mention what a disaster it would be if a fire/explosion occured.

im sure a yucca mountain diamond edition is already a twinkle in someone's eye...

Benedict said:

Call me picky but IMO 20 miles each way is entirely manageable by bicycle. My girlfriend does about 12 each way and we live in a particularly hilly part of London, 20 miles each way across the flat swathes of the rural south is perfectly manageable, and would do wonders for the obesity crisis too.

Click to expand...

Or if you're lazy, a motor scooter or light motorbike. They'll do over 100 MPG. The best new hybrid scooters on the market will do over 200 MPG.

Zaleukos said:

There's also the matter of travelling time, and that decent cycling lanes are almost nonexistant outside Northwestern Europe. And of course the climate in much of the US is far hotter than London during most of the year.

Click to expand...

It's also cultural. I love cycling in France -- you're the king of the road. It's the national sport, and everyone either is a cyclist, knows a cyclist, or at least watches cycling on TV. That means that if I'm working my way up a hill on a narrow, twisty road, cars will happily drive behind me until either I scoot onto the shoulder and let them by, or there's a nice straight stretch where they can overtake safely. Finland has more bike lanes, but bikes get no respect at all from motorized traffic -- you have to get out of the way or be run over.

magerette said:

Speaking of which, can anyone tell me what exactly "clean coal" is, and why it's a bad idea?I understand the problems with ethanol, and nuclear power somewhat, but I'm less up on that one.

Click to expand...

It's a buzzword, and it's a bad idea because the buzzword is used as a cover for all kinds of things that aren't all that clean.

The basic idea is sound, though: build a coal power plant with special technology to scrub the pollutants (including CO2) out of the air. Carbon sequestration techniques are a pretty big research topic right now; you can pump them into the bottom of the sea or into the ground -- a depleted oil field, for example, gets the job done nicely.

curiously undead said:

part of the problem is a) the coal still has to be mined which even if done carefully is harmful to the environment and possibly local communites. b) clean coal 'technology' is based on capturing the coal and then 'housing' it in underground tanks or resorviors; so that not only means those tanks are going to have to be put somewhere and leaks are almost inevitable due to probabiltiy not to mention what a disaster it would be if a fire/explosion occured.

Click to expand...

Actually, CO2 is inert, so explosions or fires wouldn't be a problem. Carbon sequestration in geological strata is a perfectly feasible solution -- assuming you're putting your power plant somewhere with suitable geology. Pumping it under the ocean is more problematic, since we're not entirely certain that it stays there. Using artificial tanks or reservoirs isn't feasible; there's just too much of the stuff.

Prime Junta said:

Or if you're lazy, a motor scooter or light motorbike. They'll do over 100 MPG. The best new hybrid scooters on the market will do over 200 MPG.

Click to expand...

That's a more likely solution, and they have increased significantly in popularity over here.

I don't think it'll be too long before we'll see electric scooters good enough for the general market either. If you're in the South, just bung a solar panel on your roof and another at your office, and plug the damn thing in when you're not using it, and voilà, infinite gas mileage on your commute.

I actually think that people will end up with more vehicles for different purposes. For the 5-10 mile commute they'll be using a light, hybrid or electric vehicle -- scooter or mini-car -- something like this only electric:



Whereas for longer trips with more people or more stuff, we'll be using something a lot like our current cars. It's totally ridiculous to haul around a couple of tons of steel in order to go buy a quart of milk; get rid of that inefficiency, and we'll be able to cope fine with declining oil supplies.

Thanks for the explanations on clean coal, all. Obviously no solution is ever perfect, but at least now I can see some practical aspects of advocating this other than appeasing the miner's labor unions.

When we talk about retooling a huge energy system based on petrochemicals, we're also talking about redirecting investments and lots of people's existing jobs. I can see how there may have to be a transitional phase where this type of technology could make use of some existing resources if properly done--though of course there's never any guarantees and our present regulatory system(EPA) is pretty broken.

EDIT: I want that car!

I saw a Smart Car on Saturday in Queens. Given the parking situation NYC, I'm surprised I haven't seen more, but I guess most people that buy cars when they live in NYC can afford garages and the rest just bring what they have when they move here.

I'd heard though that relative to some hybrids and the mini, the smart car doesn't really get much better mileage. Not sure if that is true or not, but I'd have to get pretty damn good gas mileage to give up a decent sized car!

Prime Junta said:

It's also cultural. I love cycling in France -- you're the king of the road. It's the national sport, and everyone either is a cyclist, knows a cyclist, or at least watches cycling on TV. That means that if I'm working my way up a hill on a narrow, twisty road, cars will happily drive behind me until either I scoot onto the shoulder and let them by, or there's a nice straight stretch where they can overtake safely. Finland has more bike lanes, but bikes get no respect at all from motorized traffic -- you have to get out of the way or be run over.

Click to expand...

That's of course true, but I doubt many countries have as cyclist-friendly culture as France. It's likely not much more common than the extensive separation of cyclists and motorists we have around our urban areas.

Cheap specialised vehicles such as that cute car seem like a more realistic option anyway

magerette said:

EDIT: I want that car!

Click to expand...

Then go ahead and buy one.

[ http://www.smartusa.com/ ]

blatantninja said:

I'd heard though that relative to some hybrids and the mini, the smart car doesn't really get much better mileage. Not sure if that is true or not, but I'd have to get pretty damn good gas mileage to give up a decent sized car!

Click to expand...

True. Their new hybrid version does pretty well though; it's rated at 58 MPG. Not available in the US yet. The next-generation Smart hybrids, currently in the prototype stage, will be between 80 and 100 MPG.

blatantninja said:

With fuel prices as they are now, it might be economical, I'm not sure, but just like big oil producers are not rushing out to build new refineries, because fuel prices could drop significantly, this industry won't expand either.

Click to expand...

You couldn't economically build a large-scale new refinery today if you wanted to. The only reason the current ones are legal is because they were grandfathered into the environmental laws that have been passed. This is also a significant component to our power grid issues- it takes the blessing of God to fulfill all the EPA regulations to build a new power plant.