Oil economy?

[AllyCat]

Over the weekend, I had an interesting conversation with a guy who remained silent and smiling through numerous political discussions (the WHOLE group was Dem or there would have been trouble) at a wedding. At dinner, I asked him what he did and he said he worked for a company that drilled in TX and LA for oil and natural gas. He made it sound like he was a worker bee, not someone in management.

But as I pressed him for information and discussed alternative energy, he showed his true colors. His argument that looking for alternative fuel was not in the interests of the US economy, seemed completely staked around the idea that our country's GDP is what should drive what we use for energy. He said things like "there is no way we can fuel the country with bio-diesel because all the soybeans planted now would only add 1.5% to our energy supply" and "to make those alternative fuels, we would still need petroleum to do so", and my favorite "Iceland uses a lot of petro because they are so rich, they all drive big V8 trucks they don't need". This last bit was in response that people don't want to conserve, even in a country like Iceland that makes almost all its own power from hydrothermal.

He was talking economics I really don't understand, but I got the distinct impression that he feels the only way we should look at our economy is in what oil/gas brings to the table and that our needs can only be met by oil and gas.

I talked to him about supplementing our power needs through alternative fuels and energy sources: windpower works in areas that have wind, hydroelectric works where there are dammed, fast-running rivers, geothermal works in many areas for heating homes. He was unwilling to discuss regional systems and seemed to think that the only way to fuel the country was with energy supplies that could be used EVERYWHERE at any given moment.

He hates Hugo Chavez and said that his economic policies will destroy the poor he claims to be helping. He loathes everyone in the Middle East. And he had nothing good to say about Africa. Apparently, it was okay that we import much of our oil from Canada. I got the distinct impression it was okay to buy oil from white people (in his world view) but not from people of various shades of brown. I didn't flat out ask him this, but it was what stuck in my craw later in the evening. Oh yeah, it's okay to buy from Mexico because they are friendly with us.

Is this true? Should our oil consumption and production be based on GDP only? I tried to explain there was more to an economy than oil, but he laughed at me, saying there was only one way to make everything else we "needed".

[Nordmadr]

1. Peak Oil. Expect a long term decline. While many alternative

energy sources can be applied, it is difficult to see them being able to meet the demand as it exists today, or even close to that. The planning hasn't been done, and the investment hasn't been made. We are frivolous and self indulgent in our "needs". Read "Powerdown" and "The Party's Over" by Richard Heinberg. The dominant human culture on this planet is in desparate need of a paradigm shift. Hopefully it will happen.

Olaf

[AllyCat]

5. When fuel costs climbed to $3.50/gal or more, I admit I was secretly

happy. I really saw people finally trying to conserve and drive less. There was talk all around me of people biking to work and taking the bus. I have a really inefficient vehicle, but live close to where I work and can walk to the grocery, laundry, and other services. I usually only have to fill up once every 2 weeks. So I didn't cringe all that much when we were paying $1/gal for gasoline than we are right now.

People went out and bought those HUGE vehicles they don't need. I'd guess 95% of SUVs never leave the pavement (heck, most aren't even made for off-road use). People with huge trucks don't haul much. I'm astonished the way we heat our buildings to 76 degrees in the winter and chill them to 60 degrees in the summer. There is no conservation and I was secretly happy to see people pay for it this summer.

Of course, this guy told me that such an attitude hurt the "little guy", but admitted he wanted the price to stay high...so he could make more in his stocks.

[MercutioATC]

2. He's right in a way...

Almost everything is made of petrochemicals...fuel, plastics...damn near everything. Some things just REQUIRE oil (you're not going to see an electric airplane anytime soon).

We'll still have a need for oil even if we switch 100% to alternative energy sources. However, we could greatly reduce our dependance on foreign oil if we started to develop more efficient methods of generating power from renewable sources for our ENERGY needs.

Aside from that, a few of the things you say make him sound like a complete twit. The bottom line is that using clean renewable energy sources is preferable to using dirty nonrenewable sources as long as you realize that petroleum is used for a lot of things besides energy production.

[AllyCat]

3. Since he kept talking about making money by investing in oil/gas stocks

I'm assuming he really didn't want to think that ANY alternative fuel would work in any instance.

We probably will continue to need oil, but the idea of having enough fuel in alternative forms to make our reliance on foreign oil next to nil (or allow us to buy only from the white people of whom he seemed to approve:eyes: ) would be preferable to and cheaper than what we are doing now. Buying from Canada and Mexico would reduce the amount we have to ship by tanker and reduce the fuel needed to ship it in the first place since it's a "local buy".

But reduction is NOT what he wanted to talk about.

The ONLY thing on which we agreed was that hemp should be allowed as an agricultural product in this country. Hemp oil is a good source of high energy raw material for bio-diesel. I think he was only looking at it as a source of government regulation that he hated.

[Ready4Change]

4. He is stuck in a paradigm. Some truth to it, though.

His paradigm is valid, in that oil is the centerstone of our current economy. It literally has its fingers in everything we do, from mining to farming to transport to the energy used by info tech. We burn it, we wear it, we even eat it, literally. Our current GDP is strongly enabled by oil supplies.

However, his mind is closed to anything outside his paradigm, including facts that indicate the end of that paradigms validity. I think that's denial of the fact that when you yank away oil, everything within that paradigm vanishes. It's frightening, so many just deny its even possible. Oil will last forever, lalallala.

Another problem with being so closed minded is that it ignores other possibly valid paradigms. Just because oil is currently king doesn't mean alternatives can't take over. Detroits car industry had a similar mindset in 1969. Big, powerful cars were king. Little japanese cars were a joke. Detroit stayed stuck in that mindset during the early 70's, giving the japanese manufacturers a nearly unapposed entrance to the US market, where they have been ever since.

Foriegn nations see the writing on the wall, and they are developing alternatives right NOW. We may be kings today, but if we rest on our laurels we may be tomorrows also-rans.

[happyslug]

6. He is both Right and Wrong

First he is right as to the fact Oil is the CHEAPEST, Most cost effective and easiest to use fuel (Nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric are actually Cheaper, but basically restricted to Producing electricity). When you look at the alternative to Oil, ALL have defects. For Example Bio-Diesels inability to provide the same level of price AND supply (Supply will be restricted by the need for food, to increase bio-diesel food production will have to be cut and even if you cut food production 100% bio-Diesel is just NOT capable of supply all of the oil we use today).

Natural Gas has a similar production outlook as oil (through delayed by about 20 years) but as oil price goes through the roof people first choice for heating will be Natural Gas, thus cutting out Natural Gas to replace oil as a fuel.

Other then Bio-Diesel, or Compressed Natural Gas (or Liquefied Natural Gas i.e. LNG) the other forms of energy are not as "nice" as oil. Do to the problem of using these other forms of energy, such forms of energy are used either producing electricity (Nuclear, Active Solar, and Coal) or in very large engines (Primarily coal in Ship and Trains). In these two situations the problems of these other forms of energy are minimized for example:

Nuclear, tend to be very large operations so to minimized the cost of producing the plant. Nuclear has been used to propelled Ships (Mostly Naval Vessels but the N.S. Savannah of the 1950s was an attempt to use nuclear on a Civilian Commercial Ship). Force to be at least ship size, nuclear powered trains are possible but even in such operations what you are seeing is NOT Direct Nuclear propulsion but Nuclear Electric Generations used to power electric motors. Given that such "Nuclear" Trains would really be nothing more than moving electric Generators, the better solution would be to just convert the Trains to Electric Power and than you have the option of using any form of energy to generate the electric power needed. Please note unlike other forms of Power how much nuclear material is on the earth is unknown. It is believed Uranium is limited but you do have other forms of Nuclear power possible (and if ever found in outer space possible to be mined and shipped back to the Earth). Please note the increase costs of this method of producing electricity over time.

Solar, like bio-diesel is limited to the amount of sunlight that hits the surface of the earth. It may be possible to provide a lot of power by Solar panels, but like bio-Diesel at the cost of food production and the ecology system of the world.

Coal is the major option to Nuclear, plenty around but if present growth rates continue coal will hit its peak in about 50 years. Thus coal can delay the day of Reckoning it can not prevent it. Furthermore once oil and Natural Gas is in terminal decline greater demand for coal will occur WHILE the production of coal declines as the coal operators switch from diesel fuel to coal as their own power source.

Once you look at the alternative NONE of them provide the same connivance at the price of Oil today. Thus your Friend was right, people will want to continue to use Oil forever, the problem is when they can NO longer do so, that is where your friend is WRONG.

Now if you look at the above and some of the more pessimistic web sites on Peak Oil you can be depressed and foresee a collapse of Society. On the other hand if you do a quick study of how we got here , you find that the situation will be stressful and force people to change, but society and civilization will survive. Suburbia will die but Rural and Urban America will expand for each has an alternative means of energy that is more efficient than even bio-Diesel, that is the Horse and the Bicycle.

Now I do not see the Horse returning to Urban areas (in some numbers but not large numbers). Technology has changed since we used horses and bicycles in Depression and pre-Depression days. Wooden wheels barely survived past 1900 and the steel wheels that replaced them on wagons are still a very good wheels on wagon. Pneumatic tires are good but drop in efficiency as both the weight of the wagon drops and the speed of the wagon drop, thus for horse drawn wagons steel wheels are better than the old fashion wooded wheels (Steel wheels on Steel Rail is still the most efficient transportation combination if you ar looking at energy efficiencies, for example when the first horse drawn street cars where installed they replaced similar sized wagons, but with the Steel Wheel on Steel Rail combination one horse could pull the same weight as four horses pulling regular wagons).

All told horses and mules are the most efficient hauling combination except for Gasoline and Diesel Fueled trucks. Once oil is scarce you will see a conversion back to the horse in rural areas.

In Urban areas, the down side of horses were seen by 1900 and most cities encouraged to switch from Horse to Trucks do to the manure in the street problem. Given the manure in the street problem I do NOT see the horse making a big comeback in the cities, certain heavy hauling will be done by them but not any light hauling. Bicycles, Bicycle Trailers and hand carts will do that work in the cities. Now I see the Streetcar system system coming back as a fuel efficient method of transporting people over long distances, and like in pre-WWII days these same systems will be used to haul fright and most large store will be on the Streetcar Line which will then use handcarts and bicycle with trailers to haul things to people homes.

The above situation also assumes electricity production for inner-City Train service with an integrated LRV system in the urban areas (Through in Certain Rural areas the difference between a LRV and a train will be blurred). You have to have people move things from the smaller farms that would be required with the conversion back to the horse AND to more compact but still individual homes of the Urban areas. The horse to the Train depot, the Train to the City, from the City Station to the LRV stations and then by Bicycle to the City Dweller (and reverse for goods made in the Cities). You will see globalization die as the cost to transport will be high.

Now the above is doable but at the cost the private Automobile and Suburbia (Suburbia will die out, to far to bike to to many people for horses, most will revert to farmland through some will become compact urban areas).

The best way to see this is see how we changed from an pre-oil society to an oil society (See my paper on the Growth of Suburbia for more details it is at this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=266&topic_id=203