<Some reprieve in Jan VMT The Oil Drum Pregnancy revisited or some thoughts on coal>

186 comments on Responses to Salon & an open thread

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

mikey on March 28, 2006 - 11:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That means an enormous investment in new mines, new miners, coal mining tools and technology, etc. And not only production, the infrastructure for transporting it has to be ramped up, as well as whatever technology is going to convert it to oil.

Aaaaaaaaahhhhh! It will be a nightmare trying to replace the oil we need once depletion starts to set in.

On the other hand, we could drive less.

We could drive a lot less. And be happier doing it.

A lot of discussion at TOD reminds me of a super-obese character in the habit of eating daily: 12 buckets of fried chicken, 3 trays of mashed potatoes, 2 gallons of ice cream, half a cow, a bushel of baked beans, 5 cakes, 9 big gulps, and 2 pans of collard greens ... raising a huge hullabaloo because due to reduced circumstances he's going to have to switch to a more sensible diet.

I just don't think we need to use anywhere near the amount of oil we're using. My response to peak oil is "bring it on."

Maybe I'm wrong and we really do need to use that much oil. I'll have to see that with my own eyes (thru events unfolding) to believe it, though.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pamur on March 29, 2006 - 4:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Your reaction is right on.  Right now coal (and all minerals) are extracted, produced and distributed using a petroleum  power based system.  To ramp up coal extraction for existing uses would require more infrastructure and that would have to compete with other petroleum needs for diminishing oil supplies.  If we are going to use coal for various new products, new infrastructure for extraction, production and distribution of those new products will have to be built.  Again, in the face of declining oil.  It will be impossible to make that happen if we are operating in a post-peak oil world.  My take is that we won't have viable alternatives until they are completely produced and delivered economically using only alternative fuels.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jamie on March 29, 2006 - 11:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You are right of course. Just switch US over to the European averages for transport and save more than 10% of the world daily oil consumption. Where's the problem? The european way of life is not so bad, some may think better. Ah just a minute though, what does everyone do while you replace 250m cars - even Toyota may struggle with that one. Just possibly the price and availability of steel may marginally hinder the rail track laying on the scale required. The problem is not that US citizens could not live on less oil its the getting from here to there that may be a little taxing.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
writerman on March 29, 2006 - 4:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yeah, I know it sounds like an obvious and tempting idea, reduce U.S. oil and petrol consumption to European levels and save a lot. I agree it's worth trying, but there are some problems associated with it that one has to keep in mind. Western Europe is substantially smaller than the continental United States and population density is higher and most of us are crowded into big urban areas. I've tried driving long distances across Europe in a small car and a big limosine, and believe me the limosine was preferable. America is a big place and America has enormous suburbs, with highly undeveloped mass transport systems compared to most of Western Europe. Don't get the impression I'm being crital for the sake of it. I just think the whole question is, unfortunately, very complex and requires a great deal of planning, organisation and hard choices.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jimvj on March 30, 2006 - 11:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
As many have pointed out, the passenger-miles per gallon nearly doubles if the number of commuters per car doubles.  The saddest part of watching the gridlock every work day in any city is not just the number of gas guzzlers, but that most of them have a single occupant.

There was a time when companies provided vans and fostered commuter pools. That mind-set will return once the price/scarcity of gasoline gets critical.

The bad news is that the US is extremely profligate; the good news - at least for a while - is that we can cut back on waste without too great a hit on lifestyle.

The question is whether we will use the time these waste-cutting measures give to mitigate - as Hirsch puts it - the PO crunch.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

186 comments on Responses to Salon & an open thread

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version