At a recent dinner for journalists in Detroit, GM Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz, known for his love of gas-guzzling sports cars and fighter jets said, surprisingly: "The electrification of the automobile is not just a possibility. It is inevitable."
This is exactly the point I argued with Vinod Khosla. He wants to stick with biofuels, because we already have infrastructure for that. But if you understand the situation with biofuels, you can see that in the end electrification has a much greater chance of providing a substantial fraction of our current transport needs. Biofuels don't actually have a remote chance, unless you are willing to play unrealistic "what if" scenarios (what if we engineer a bacteria that eats unprocessed cellulose and excretes pure biodiesel). Well, yeah, we could do that. Or we just engineer wings and lightweight bones on all of us, and just fly around like birds.
I'm struck by the fact that everyone sees a future in which we use less oil as 'inevitable' and, most importantly, extremely desireable, yet there is so much resistance to any policy/product/idea that gets us to this allegedly inevitable future that one has to seriously question how our society makes long-term decisions.
Lutz and his ilk have been leading the fight against this future for a long time. Did the logic of why oil use must change only get to him now? Did he see it before? The future is an obvious combination of electrification, conservation, renewables, and nuclear power...why the resistance to change? I'm a political scientist and fully understand the power of vested interests, but at a certain point even the most powerful vested interest eventually bow to the weight of the majority or reality. Is there something I'm just not getting? It's as if Americans have a cultural aversion to the long-term, societal public-good thinking that underlies energy/environmental policy.
Ten years ago GM was telling a story: we'd drive gasoline cars (and SUVs!) now, and when oil or global warming became a problem, hydrogen cars would be ready to replace them. This might have been a cynical marketing move ( tobacco companies & cancer, Exxon & global warming, GM & fossil fuels ), but it is also possible that they bought into it themselves, over time.
They may have come to believe their own BS that oil would stay cheap, and then (cheap?) hydrogen would be there to replace it.
I snagged this quote in July of 2005:
[…] Sherrie Childers Arb, director of environment and energy communications for GM, said it’s wrong to assume higher oil prices.
“Our indicators show that oil will go down, not up,” she said, pointing to information she gets from the federal Energy Information Agency, which is part of the Department of Energy.
By 2010, the agency expects a barrel of oil to fall to $26, she said.
Anyway, I think GM got caught flat-footed, either because they thought they had more time to run the SUV -> hydrogen game, or because they'd fallen for their own marketing. At that point they were stuck with a lot of product and a long design cycle (it takes years to get a totally new car on the road). So they had to talk a story that supported their current inventory. They had (desperately) to keep people buying, while (secretly?) in the back room scrambling to come up with the new generation.
But again the interesting thing is that they can't be too "forward" in their statements. They've got a lot of Tahoes down there on the lot, right now.
odograph,
Great post, and points to at least two very important issues:
The first is the way GM execs can pull the idiotic EIA projections out of the hat for cover. I complained of this in other posts, in that these projections will be used by bankers, venture capitalists, and large corporations to justify their argument that there is no need for change, at least not yet.
The other point you make "They've got a lot of Tahoes down there on the lot, right now." Exactly, and they still have a huge investment in tooling and assembly plants to somehow try to modify or expense down as no longer useful. It is a huge logistical undertaking for a company already bleeding badly financially. One way forward may be to use one of it's more "offbeat" nameplates, like Saab, to make the switch to really advanced vehicles, the type that would lure the "first adaptors" of new tech as much for novelty sake as anything else (the Toyota Prius has done well among that type of buyer), and then move from division to division. After all, work trucks will still be needed, and going to an advanced drivetrain, such as hydraulic hybrid with either propane or Diesel engines could buy them a window of time costing down the chasis assembly lines of the current chassis, as they plan for a more radical product.
Anyway they do it, it won't be easy, and if we do get a sudden flood of cheap oil from new production, they will be caught flat footed, with an advanced product and no one greatly interested in it (they recall well the EV-1, praised but never profitable).
Notice that the Volt has a gas fired generator on board. One of the "problems" with the electric vehicle like the EV1 is that it required very little maintenance, a very unattractive option for an auto company. As long as we can perpetuate some sort of ICE along with the battery, we can ensure the need for continue and long term maintenance like oil changes, etc.
I will believe that people like Lutz "get it" when they announce that the overwhelming dependency on the automobile for transportation is a model that it is inappropriate for the survival of the planet as we know it and continues to be a serious hindrance to livable cities and a high level quality of life.
I note with sadness that another article above points out that places like Ireland have decided to follow in our footsteps. No one ever learns until it is too late.
Yes I wholeheartedly agree with that. The usage of cars as a primary mode of transportation is the root of all evil - and depletion of resources is just one of, not even the most acute one IMO.
Notice that the Irish article ends with a notice from Praga's tram system. When I was back to my home city - Sofia, I was saddened to see it becoming much more like Dublin than the way it used to be - a compact, walkable and mass transit oriented city like Praga. Now it is increasingly becoming the typical polluted and gridlocked nightmare we are talking here.
IMO urban sprawl and the related problems are all a result of an unadequate public policy. During the socialism we managed to build compact and well served cities, where the car was a complementary instead of mandatory mode of transportation because of the ability of the govts to plan the cities around mass transit. Now in US and increasingly in EU the government "follows" urban development - e.g. building roads "on demand". This acts as nothing but putting temporary quick fixes to the problem, which last no longer than the next election. Government's retreat from city planning is resulting in the fast depletion of the "commons" by the private sector - in this case the commons being mass transit, affordable downtowns, walkable neighbourhoods etc. The results are obvious and will show up to be devastating in the near future, IMO.
I wish I fully understood how true that statement is before investing in degrees in architecture and urban design. The problems are generally understood within academia, but the lack of public policy and government leadership means that these planning oriented professions are effectively owned by the developers. This makes it extremely difficult to actually practice without being part of the problem. No meaningful movement is likely to originate from this profession despite the heroic efforts of some. Those that understand the issues simply are not empowered.
Long-range planing and capitalism (as we are now practicing it) don't seem to coexist well and few professions drive this home like land use planing and urban design. I changed professions early on to avoid being part of the problem and still live a satisfying life. As public officials have withdrawn from reconciling community interests with development, and have instead taken on roles as advocates for developers, I have come to see a growing tension between present day capitalism and the common good. We all play a small role in how public policy issues are prioritized and how long term thinking figures into it, but I have no clue what to do about it in the current climate (no pun intended).
Yes it is puzzling. Switz. is very green and ecologically minded, has a hands on democracy, and the vested interests are not oil lobbies or car/machine manufacturers or the military-industrial complex, so called. .. Corps, all the same, eg. Bank-insurance and Big Pharma. And CH produces a LOT of arms.
And yet the picture is very similar.
It seems to be the case that ‘oil’ (fossil fuels) is so tightly wound into our ‘modern’ economies that the very thought reducing their use is frightening; for the present economic scheme - capitalistic growth- to continue, oil must keep on pouring in and giving forth its miraculous free lunch. Without it, or realistically, with mild or sharp reductions in availability, so much changes that no-one can really contemplate it.
This attitude is shared by pols (who want to be elected or remain in place), the ‘economic milieu’ (who wants to keep earning pots of money with their businesses), and ‘the people’, mostly employees, who want their children to succeed, want to drive a car (even a second, why not?), want to indulge in expensive leisure (planes, ski holidays, trips to the mall) and generally consider that living standards, including medical care for. ex. have to rise. Disabled people, special ed kids, and pensioners live off the investments made by their ‘funds’, which have to perform, return at least so much %.
Not new, I know. Says little about the future. The point is that much of the tortuous discussion and real life attempts re. green energy and renewables are attempts to maintain the status quo, if only psychologically...those in the know (vested interests, savvy Gvmt. types, the military, etc) understand that much of the ‘diversification’ of energy proposed is not reasonable, cannot really function (EROEI, long term considerations, etc.) so their response is luke warm or muted or even scornful.
It is not puzzling at all. Oil is simply the cheapest way of moving a machine the size of a car. Even in Switzerland. Even if you are a free thinker. Even if you believe that global warming is the worst problem humanity has ever had to deal with. The fact that using oil at current market prices is the cheapest of fuels useful to power an engine the size of a car is a fact.
It won't stay that way. And that is when change will happen. Not when people come to their minds and not when politicians decide to making changes in the law. Not even when Toyota offers a plug-in hybrid. It will be the day when oil will stop to be cheaper than something else.
As for renewables... they are on the move. Solar and wind have become mainstream industries. You can count the number of years until they become the darlings of every politian on the block (local, state or federal) on two hands because both solar and wind are labor intensive. They both will create jobs far beyond any other energy industry. And that is when people will start to care. Do something against the solar and wind industry in the near future and you will reap political hate and voter's revenge.
It has nothing to do with the oil. It has everything to do with individuals demanding cars - this is universal phenomenon everywhere around the world. Cars are a typical "tragedy of the commons" thing. Individuals think that their car will contribute nothing to the problems we discuss here, but with time the cummulative effect of so many cars inevitably excaberates the problems.
In this regard we behave like spoiled kids, who demand that we are given the toys we want or to be left out lingering in the night clubs but are moaning when we have to face the concequences - for example poor education or ruined health. My solution would be not to listen to the kids and follow a longer term program. Make them toil for their toys (e.g. expensive mobility) or simply not giving it to them at all.
But of course this is utopical suggestion in our current arrangement - the whole idea of democracy, the way we have it now revolves around giving the kids what they want.
Very few people could afford to have a horse in preindustrial society. Indeed, in countries such as England it was ILLEGAL for commoners even to ride horses, much less to own them. Horses were reserved for the "equestrian class," a tiny aristocracy of less than five percent of the population.
In the U.S., horses, mules and other draft animals were so scarce (prior to about 1840) that for hundreds of years men would hitch up their wives to pull the plow; only the rich slave-owners like Washington and Jefferson could afford to ride horses.
At the height of prosperity of ancient Rome, a few aristocrats had chariots or slave-born chairs for personal transport. Most people put a lot of miles on their sandals.
"Very few people could afford to have a horse in preindustrial society. Indeed, in countries such as England it was ILLEGAL for commoners even to ride horses, much less to own them. Horses were reserved for the "equestrian class," a tiny aristocracy of less than five percent of the population.
In the U.S., horses, mules and other draft animals were so scarce (prior to about 1840) that for hundreds of years men would hitch up their wives to pull the plow; only the rich slave-owners like Washington and Jefferson could afford to ride horses.
At the height of prosperity of ancient Rome, a few aristocrats had chariots or slave-born chairs for personal transport. Most people put a lot of miles on their sandals."
That was not true in land rich and frontier areas like America. Horses were so common that Virginia passed a law allowing people to geld any horse running loose that was less than some specified height. Horses were what you used to keep down the trees while you waited for the roots in your 'cleared' acreage to decay enough for you to plow. That was because trees were so common that you just girdled the trees so that they would die and dry out, then burned them to clear them as cheaply as possible.
Tree land (where you pastured pigs on mast) was nearly free, pasture land little more expensive. Fenced or walled farmland was what cost money. The fences and walls were to keep the damned horses, cows, pigs, and sheep out of your crops.
Horses in 'settled' countries like Europe, India, and China, really were prestige objects that cost a lot to own and operate compared to cattle, especially larger horses that had to be grain fed instead of hay fed like ponies. Oxen were common draft animals for that reason.
In that good old horse-loving land of Virginia, what percentage of the black people owned horses? And what percentage of the population were black? Although the shortage of livestock was not as bad in the original colonies, such as Virginia, only rich folk rode, well into the nineteenth century. In 1850 in Missouri, only half the farms were wealthy enough to have even one mule.
Just because the white planter/aristocracy was worried about the excess of scrub horses, that tells you nothing of how the ordinary folk got around.
Virginia is a very strange case - in the counties where plantation style cultivation was practical (for simplicity, call it the Tidewater), the slave population in 1800 ranged from as high as 69.8 to a majority ( http://www.virginiaplaces.org/population/pop1800numbers.html ). However, in the Shenandoah/Piedmont (also West Virginia in 1800), the percentage was often under 10% - covering possibly a quarter of the white population. (You can also see why splitting off West Virginia in the Civil War was practical, beyond the geography - the people there weren't generally slaveholders and weren't economically reliant on slavery.)
However, in terms of how rare horses were - Virginia has the only 'wild' horse population in the Eastern United States, which tends to argue for the fact that horses weren't all that uncommon, otherwise they would have been captured and sold off, likely in numbers which would have destroyed the population.
There is a major difference between 'urban' colonial America, like New England and Tidewater Virginia, and the 'western' America which grew after the Revolutionary War - that 'western' area (Charlottesville, for example) did not suffer for any lack of horses or mules, in part because like cows, such animals can live in fairly hilly/steep terrain which is not that useful for other activities, except logging, where horses/mules are an asset. However, in the areas which had been colonized for a century or more at that point, horses were an expensive burden, as the farm land was no longer as fertile, and logging was a dead industry.
Of course. In Spain a 'Caballero' or horseman was a term equivalent to 'gentleman' or 'person of means' in a society where the common 'hombre' walked and, if he was lucky, had a small burro to carry the burdens.
Sancho Panza rode a burro . . . but was it owned by his master, Don Quixote?
Both the ownership of horses and that of swords was restricted to aristocracy in Europe; they did not want peasants, even rich ones, getting any uppity ideas.
Limited access to 'horsepower' is probably why efficient hand digging and cultivating tools were once so common. In Spanish they are called an azada, in India a powrah, in english speaking areas they are simply called a digging hoe or a planter's eye hoe. You can still get them at the site http://www.easydigging.com/
True. Now, if only we had one billion horse carts back then, and we had to feed those horses with a straw only coming from a large granary in the Middle East, and if those horses changed the climate during the centuries, then now we would have had the experience and would have known what to do about it. Phew what a long sentence...
Re: Well, yeah, we could do that. Or we just engineer wings and lightweight bones on all of us, and just fly around like birds
Nice.
Oh, for everyone -- I highly recommend An Almost Friendly Update on World Oil that Leanan found. Thanks for that. Banks is an energy economist and not an optimist. Try A Few Uninvited Comments on the Work of Some Prominent Oil Optimists. His remarks when speaking of Maugeri, Lynch, et. al. are hilarious.
Birds that fly in flocks have genetic collision avoidance systems, humans do not.
I see flying humans in rush hour flyways as a massive disaster waiting to happen.
Useful for rural travel no doubt, but electrified Urban Rail is a better solution that can be implemented quicker than raising a next generation of flying children (think teenagers with wings and ground bound parents !#).
Best Hopes for electrified Urban Rail :-P
Alan
#"Grounding" as punishment would take on a completely new meaning ;-)
When I was young, all the smart money was on personal helicopters or autogyros as the future of transportation. Serious "futurists" thought cars would be obsolescent by the year 2000.
I had an idea a couple of years ago. What makes personal flight difficult? It takes a lot of energy to provide lift. So, I got this crazy idea about personal blimps, as the lift would be provided by light gases. I did a bit research, and I was quite surprised to see that someone has done it, and patented it:
Your hopes (and mine) for electrified urban rail may have got a boost on Friday when Caltrain, our local commuter rail operator, announced that they are seeking federal permission to run lightweight EMU's (electric multiple units) on their line between San Francisco and San Jose (Caltrain planning for rail revolution). These lightweight cars are more energy efficient and accelerate/decelerate faster than standard US commuter vehicles. Caltrain hopes to address the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) objections to mixing lightweight trains and freight trains (although freight is light on the caltrain line) by improving their train-detection and other safety systems.
If its efforts are successful, Caltrain will open the door for other agencies around the country to modernize their rail services with cheaper, more efficient rail vehicles like those used in Europe and other parts of the world
I noted the discussion on another board I frequent, but have not had time to read carefully.
There are several operational advantages in getting away from the FRA 800,000 lb crush standard (from memory). It adds weight to commuter rail cars, which increases costs to buy & operate (and even wears out rail faster, 40 year renewal could be expanded to 60 or 70 years :-).
Modern controls can mix two-way traffic on both tracks of a double track freight RR. IMHO, they cna be relied upon to keep commuter trains from crushing into freight trains (or each other).
FRA has a reputation as a "stick in the mud" and it is ALWAYS easier for a bureaucrat to say "No" unfortunately.
Today, temporal seperation is allowed between Light Rail (that does not meet FRA 400 ton standard) and freight to operate on the same tracks. The last freight train has to be off the tracks at least 2 hours before the first Light Rail train and vica versa. This was a major step forward for dual use.
I live a hundred yards from the Caltrain tracks. I only see freight trains on a regular basis late at night well after the commuter trains have stopped running. Normally I think they run one freight train a day. It would be very easy to ensure that freight is always separated from commuter trains.
This line runs up the peninsula to San Francisco and terminates so there would never be any through traffic going beyond San Francisco.
When I lived in Japan I rode their electric trains daily. They really are quick to start and stop. In fact I'd guess that the train reached top speed before the last train left the station. They also entered the station at nearly full speed ( about 60 MPH ).
I do hope they continue the idea of having express trains connecting to local trains. One of the worst experiences in Japan was riding a certain local lines that had no express trains. I think the line from Kawasaki to Tachikawa had something like 25 stops during a roughly fifty minute ride. The train stops, the doors open, the bells ring, the doors close, the train runs for a minute or so then the process repeats. It was maddening.
In Japan they would run freight on the same tracks as commuter lines. Mostly they ran at night. On occasion you'd see them in the daytime.
The 1,000 mile Pacific Electric network in the Los Angeles basin would use a streetcar full of pax to pull a boxcar or two full of oranges or other produce in mixed pax & freight operation (I was told). They would also run short, light freight trains on the tracks on occasion (with some seperation).
Lots of things can be done, have been done, but are not allowed today (in the US).
Yes, here's a great quote:
"I’ve heard the opposite of Lynch’s claim, but it hardly makes any difference. What we see when we observe these curves is that they go up on the left, and they go down on the right, and regardless of what happens in between, that is enough to claim that something very unpleasant could eventually take place with the global supply of oil"
This site is quite good, but the quality of the articles is mixed. It is aimed at the energy market, mostly conventional utilities. It has two other sites - one is a daily news one and once a week the editor writes a column.
At a recent dinner for journalists in Detroit, GM Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz, known for his love of gas-guzzling sports cars and fighter jets said, surprisingly: "The electrification of the automobile is not just a possibility. It is inevitable."
This is exactly the point I argued with Vinod Khosla. He wants to stick with biofuels, because we already have infrastructure for that. But if you understand the situation with biofuels, you can see that in the end electrification has a much greater chance of providing a substantial fraction of our current transport needs. Biofuels don't actually have a remote chance, unless you are willing to play unrealistic "what if" scenarios (what if we engineer a bacteria that eats unprocessed cellulose and excretes pure biodiesel). Well, yeah, we could do that. Or we just engineer wings and lightweight bones on all of us, and just fly around like birds.
I'm struck by the fact that everyone sees a future in which we use less oil as 'inevitable' and, most importantly, extremely desireable, yet there is so much resistance to any policy/product/idea that gets us to this allegedly inevitable future that one has to seriously question how our society makes long-term decisions.
Lutz and his ilk have been leading the fight against this future for a long time. Did the logic of why oil use must change only get to him now? Did he see it before? The future is an obvious combination of electrification, conservation, renewables, and nuclear power...why the resistance to change? I'm a political scientist and fully understand the power of vested interests, but at a certain point even the most powerful vested interest eventually bow to the weight of the majority or reality. Is there something I'm just not getting? It's as if Americans have a cultural aversion to the long-term, societal public-good thinking that underlies energy/environmental policy.
Ten years ago GM was telling a story: we'd drive gasoline cars (and SUVs!) now, and when oil or global warming became a problem, hydrogen cars would be ready to replace them. This might have been a cynical marketing move ( tobacco companies & cancer, Exxon & global warming, GM & fossil fuels ), but it is also possible that they bought into it themselves, over time.
They may have come to believe their own BS that oil would stay cheap, and then (cheap?) hydrogen would be there to replace it.
I snagged this quote in July of 2005:
The source is now gone but my old blog entry is here: http://odograph.com/?p=267
Anyway, I think GM got caught flat-footed, either because they thought they had more time to run the SUV -> hydrogen game, or because they'd fallen for their own marketing. At that point they were stuck with a lot of product and a long design cycle (it takes years to get a totally new car on the road). So they had to talk a story that supported their current inventory. They had (desperately) to keep people buying, while (secretly?) in the back room scrambling to come up with the new generation.
But again the interesting thing is that they can't be too "forward" in their statements. They've got a lot of Tahoes down there on the lot, right now.
odograph,
Great post, and points to at least two very important issues:
The first is the way GM execs can pull the idiotic EIA projections out of the hat for cover. I complained of this in other posts, in that these projections will be used by bankers, venture capitalists, and large corporations to justify their argument that there is no need for change, at least not yet.
The other point you make "They've got a lot of Tahoes down there on the lot, right now." Exactly, and they still have a huge investment in tooling and assembly plants to somehow try to modify or expense down as no longer useful. It is a huge logistical undertaking for a company already bleeding badly financially. One way forward may be to use one of it's more "offbeat" nameplates, like Saab, to make the switch to really advanced vehicles, the type that would lure the "first adaptors" of new tech as much for novelty sake as anything else (the Toyota Prius has done well among that type of buyer), and then move from division to division. After all, work trucks will still be needed, and going to an advanced drivetrain, such as hydraulic hybrid with either propane or Diesel engines could buy them a window of time costing down the chasis assembly lines of the current chassis, as they plan for a more radical product.
Anyway they do it, it won't be easy, and if we do get a sudden flood of cheap oil from new production, they will be caught flat footed, with an advanced product and no one greatly interested in it (they recall well the EV-1, praised but never profitable).
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Notice that the Volt has a gas fired generator on board. One of the "problems" with the electric vehicle like the EV1 is that it required very little maintenance, a very unattractive option for an auto company. As long as we can perpetuate some sort of ICE along with the battery, we can ensure the need for continue and long term maintenance like oil changes, etc.
I will believe that people like Lutz "get it" when they announce that the overwhelming dependency on the automobile for transportation is a model that it is inappropriate for the survival of the planet as we know it and continues to be a serious hindrance to livable cities and a high level quality of life.
I note with sadness that another article above points out that places like Ireland have decided to follow in our footsteps. No one ever learns until it is too late.
I'm glad other people realize the 'necessity' of continual maintenance in GM/Fords business play :P
Yes I wholeheartedly agree with that. The usage of cars as a primary mode of transportation is the root of all evil - and depletion of resources is just one of, not even the most acute one IMO.
Notice that the Irish article ends with a notice from Praga's tram system. When I was back to my home city - Sofia, I was saddened to see it becoming much more like Dublin than the way it used to be - a compact, walkable and mass transit oriented city like Praga. Now it is increasingly becoming the typical polluted and gridlocked nightmare we are talking here.
IMO urban sprawl and the related problems are all a result of an unadequate public policy. During the socialism we managed to build compact and well served cities, where the car was a complementary instead of mandatory mode of transportation because of the ability of the govts to plan the cities around mass transit. Now in US and increasingly in EU the government "follows" urban development - e.g. building roads "on demand". This acts as nothing but putting temporary quick fixes to the problem, which last no longer than the next election. Government's retreat from city planning is resulting in the fast depletion of the "commons" by the private sector - in this case the commons being mass transit, affordable downtowns, walkable neighbourhoods etc. The results are obvious and will show up to be devastating in the near future, IMO.
I wish I fully understood how true that statement is before investing in degrees in architecture and urban design. The problems are generally understood within academia, but the lack of public policy and government leadership means that these planning oriented professions are effectively owned by the developers. This makes it extremely difficult to actually practice without being part of the problem. No meaningful movement is likely to originate from this profession despite the heroic efforts of some. Those that understand the issues simply are not empowered.
Long-range planing and capitalism (as we are now practicing it) don't seem to coexist well and few professions drive this home like land use planing and urban design. I changed professions early on to avoid being part of the problem and still live a satisfying life. As public officials have withdrawn from reconciling community interests with development, and have instead taken on roles as advocates for developers, I have come to see a growing tension between present day capitalism and the common good. We all play a small role in how public policy issues are prioritized and how long term thinking figures into it, but I have no clue what to do about it in the current climate (no pun intended).
Yes it is puzzling. Switz. is very green and ecologically minded, has a hands on democracy, and the vested interests are not oil lobbies or car/machine manufacturers or the military-industrial complex, so called. .. Corps, all the same, eg. Bank-insurance and Big Pharma. And CH produces a LOT of arms.
And yet the picture is very similar.
It seems to be the case that ‘oil’ (fossil fuels) is so tightly wound into our ‘modern’ economies that the very thought reducing their use is frightening; for the present economic scheme - capitalistic growth- to continue, oil must keep on pouring in and giving forth its miraculous free lunch. Without it, or realistically, with mild or sharp reductions in availability, so much changes that no-one can really contemplate it.
This attitude is shared by pols (who want to be elected or remain in place), the ‘economic milieu’ (who wants to keep earning pots of money with their businesses), and ‘the people’, mostly employees, who want their children to succeed, want to drive a car (even a second, why not?), want to indulge in expensive leisure (planes, ski holidays, trips to the mall) and generally consider that living standards, including medical care for. ex. have to rise. Disabled people, special ed kids, and pensioners live off the investments made by their ‘funds’, which have to perform, return at least so much %.
Not new, I know. Says little about the future. The point is that much of the tortuous discussion and real life attempts re. green energy and renewables are attempts to maintain the status quo, if only psychologically...those in the know (vested interests, savvy Gvmt. types, the military, etc) understand that much of the ‘diversification’ of energy proposed is not reasonable, cannot really function (EROEI, long term considerations, etc.) so their response is luke warm or muted or even scornful.
It is not puzzling at all. Oil is simply the cheapest way of moving a machine the size of a car. Even in Switzerland. Even if you are a free thinker. Even if you believe that global warming is the worst problem humanity has ever had to deal with. The fact that using oil at current market prices is the cheapest of fuels useful to power an engine the size of a car is a fact.
It won't stay that way. And that is when change will happen. Not when people come to their minds and not when politicians decide to making changes in the law. Not even when Toyota offers a plug-in hybrid. It will be the day when oil will stop to be cheaper than something else.
As for renewables... they are on the move. Solar and wind have become mainstream industries. You can count the number of years until they become the darlings of every politian on the block (local, state or federal) on two hands because both solar and wind are labor intensive. They both will create jobs far beyond any other energy industry. And that is when people will start to care. Do something against the solar and wind industry in the near future and you will reap political hate and voter's revenge.
It has nothing to do with the oil. It has everything to do with individuals demanding cars - this is universal phenomenon everywhere around the world. Cars are a typical "tragedy of the commons" thing. Individuals think that their car will contribute nothing to the problems we discuss here, but with time the cummulative effect of so many cars inevitably excaberates the problems.
In this regard we behave like spoiled kids, who demand that we are given the toys we want or to be left out lingering in the night clubs but are moaning when we have to face the concequences - for example poor education or ruined health. My solution would be not to listen to the kids and follow a longer term program. Make them toil for their toys (e.g. expensive mobility) or simply not giving it to them at all.
But of course this is utopical suggestion in our current arrangement - the whole idea of democracy, the way we have it now revolves around giving the kids what they want.
People have always wanted and possessed personal transportation, and producing and fueling it always used to be a major industry.
This is not a new phenomenon.
For most of human civilization, it was known as a "horse".
Very few people could afford to have a horse in preindustrial society. Indeed, in countries such as England it was ILLEGAL for commoners even to ride horses, much less to own them. Horses were reserved for the "equestrian class," a tiny aristocracy of less than five percent of the population.
In the U.S., horses, mules and other draft animals were so scarce (prior to about 1840) that for hundreds of years men would hitch up their wives to pull the plow; only the rich slave-owners like Washington and Jefferson could afford to ride horses.
At the height of prosperity of ancient Rome, a few aristocrats had chariots or slave-born chairs for personal transport. Most people put a lot of miles on their sandals.
"Very few people could afford to have a horse in preindustrial society. Indeed, in countries such as England it was ILLEGAL for commoners even to ride horses, much less to own them. Horses were reserved for the "equestrian class," a tiny aristocracy of less than five percent of the population.
In the U.S., horses, mules and other draft animals were so scarce (prior to about 1840) that for hundreds of years men would hitch up their wives to pull the plow; only the rich slave-owners like Washington and Jefferson could afford to ride horses.
At the height of prosperity of ancient Rome, a few aristocrats had chariots or slave-born chairs for personal transport. Most people put a lot of miles on their sandals."
That was not true in land rich and frontier areas like America. Horses were so common that Virginia passed a law allowing people to geld any horse running loose that was less than some specified height. Horses were what you used to keep down the trees while you waited for the roots in your 'cleared' acreage to decay enough for you to plow. That was because trees were so common that you just girdled the trees so that they would die and dry out, then burned them to clear them as cheaply as possible.
Tree land (where you pastured pigs on mast) was nearly free, pasture land little more expensive. Fenced or walled farmland was what cost money. The fences and walls were to keep the damned horses, cows, pigs, and sheep out of your crops.
Horses in 'settled' countries like Europe, India, and China, really were prestige objects that cost a lot to own and operate compared to cattle, especially larger horses that had to be grain fed instead of hay fed like ponies. Oxen were common draft animals for that reason.
In that good old horse-loving land of Virginia, what percentage of the black people owned horses? And what percentage of the population were black? Although the shortage of livestock was not as bad in the original colonies, such as Virginia, only rich folk rode, well into the nineteenth century. In 1850 in Missouri, only half the farms were wealthy enough to have even one mule.
Just because the white planter/aristocracy was worried about the excess of scrub horses, that tells you nothing of how the ordinary folk got around.
Virginia is a very strange case - in the counties where plantation style cultivation was practical (for simplicity, call it the Tidewater), the slave population in 1800 ranged from as high as 69.8 to a majority ( http://www.virginiaplaces.org/population/pop1800numbers.html ). However, in the Shenandoah/Piedmont (also West Virginia in 1800), the percentage was often under 10% - covering possibly a quarter of the white population. (You can also see why splitting off West Virginia in the Civil War was practical, beyond the geography - the people there weren't generally slaveholders and weren't economically reliant on slavery.)
However, in terms of how rare horses were - Virginia has the only 'wild' horse population in the Eastern United States, which tends to argue for the fact that horses weren't all that uncommon, otherwise they would have been captured and sold off, likely in numbers which would have destroyed the population.
There is a major difference between 'urban' colonial America, like New England and Tidewater Virginia, and the 'western' America which grew after the Revolutionary War - that 'western' area (Charlottesville, for example) did not suffer for any lack of horses or mules, in part because like cows, such animals can live in fairly hilly/steep terrain which is not that useful for other activities, except logging, where horses/mules are an asset. However, in the areas which had been colonized for a century or more at that point, horses were an expensive burden, as the farm land was no longer as fertile, and logging was a dead industry.
Of course. In Spain a 'Caballero' or horseman was a term equivalent to 'gentleman' or 'person of means' in a society where the common 'hombre' walked and, if he was lucky, had a small burro to carry the burdens.
Sancho Panza rode a burro . . . but was it owned by his master, Don Quixote?
Both the ownership of horses and that of swords was restricted to aristocracy in Europe; they did not want peasants, even rich ones, getting any uppity ideas.
The counterpart to Caballero was Peon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peon
"In its obsolete usage in Spain itself, the word denoted a person who travelled by foot rather than on a horse (caballero)."
This word obviously carries derogatory connotations in English.
Limited access to 'horsepower' is probably why efficient hand digging and cultivating tools were once so common. In Spanish they are called an azada, in India a powrah, in english speaking areas they are simply called a digging hoe or a planter's eye hoe. You can still get them at the site http://www.easydigging.com/
Greg in MO
It was never illegal for anyone to ride a horse in England. Stealing one is another matter.
True. Now, if only we had one billion horse carts back then, and we had to feed those horses with a straw only coming from a large granary in the Middle East, and if those horses changed the climate during the centuries, then now we would have had the experience and would have known what to do about it. Phew what a long sentence...
Re: Well, yeah, we could do that. Or we just engineer wings and lightweight bones on all of us, and just fly around like birds
Nice.
Oh, for everyone -- I highly recommend An Almost Friendly Update on World Oil that Leanan found. Thanks for that. Banks is an energy economist and not an optimist. Try A Few Uninvited Comments on the Work of Some Prominent Oil Optimists. His remarks when speaking of Maugeri, Lynch, et. al. are hilarious.
Birds that fly in flocks have genetic collision avoidance systems, humans do not.
I see flying humans in rush hour flyways as a massive disaster waiting to happen.
Useful for rural travel no doubt, but electrified Urban Rail is a better solution that can be implemented quicker than raising a next generation of flying children (think teenagers with wings and ground bound parents !#).
Best Hopes for electrified Urban Rail :-P
Alan
#"Grounding" as punishment would take on a completely new meaning ;-)
Doomer!
No, no! Alan is just a "Realist"! :)
Oh, and now I will tease RR: r u a "Wing-ed Cornucopian?" ;)
(OK, I'll stop with the rather idiosyncratic levity now.)
When I was young, all the smart money was on personal helicopters or autogyros as the future of transportation. Serious "futurists" thought cars would be obsolescent by the year 2000.
Ah, how the future changes . . . .
I had an idea a couple of years ago. What makes personal flight difficult? It takes a lot of energy to provide lift. So, I got this crazy idea about personal blimps, as the lift would be provided by light gases. I did a bit research, and I was quite surprised to see that someone has done it, and patented it:
http://www.personalblimp.com/
It is a lot bigger than I had envisioned.
Or your personal flying saucer: another perpetual motion machine
Yikes! My company would need a much bigger parking lot for those blimps!
Alan,
Your hopes (and mine) for electrified urban rail may have got a boost on Friday when Caltrain, our local commuter rail operator, announced that they are seeking federal permission to run lightweight EMU's (electric multiple units) on their line between San Francisco and San Jose (Caltrain planning for rail revolution). These lightweight cars are more energy efficient and accelerate/decelerate faster than standard US commuter vehicles. Caltrain hopes to address the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) objections to mixing lightweight trains and freight trains (although freight is light on the caltrain line) by improving their train-detection and other safety systems.
I noted the discussion on another board I frequent, but have not had time to read carefully.
There are several operational advantages in getting away from the FRA 800,000 lb crush standard (from memory). It adds weight to commuter rail cars, which increases costs to buy & operate (and even wears out rail faster, 40 year renewal could be expanded to 60 or 70 years :-).
Modern controls can mix two-way traffic on both tracks of a double track freight RR. IMHO, they cna be relied upon to keep commuter trains from crushing into freight trains (or each other).
FRA has a reputation as a "stick in the mud" and it is ALWAYS easier for a bureaucrat to say "No" unfortunately.
Today, temporal seperation is allowed between Light Rail (that does not meet FRA 400 ton standard) and freight to operate on the same tracks. The last freight train has to be off the tracks at least 2 hours before the first Light Rail train and vica versa. This was a major step forward for dual use.
Best Hopes for Rational Bureaucrats,
Alan
I live a hundred yards from the Caltrain tracks. I only see freight trains on a regular basis late at night well after the commuter trains have stopped running. Normally I think they run one freight train a day. It would be very easy to ensure that freight is always separated from commuter trains.
This line runs up the peninsula to San Francisco and terminates so there would never be any through traffic going beyond San Francisco.
When I lived in Japan I rode their electric trains daily. They really are quick to start and stop. In fact I'd guess that the train reached top speed before the last train left the station. They also entered the station at nearly full speed ( about 60 MPH ).
I do hope they continue the idea of having express trains connecting to local trains. One of the worst experiences in Japan was riding a certain local lines that had no express trains. I think the line from Kawasaki to Tachikawa had something like 25 stops during a roughly fifty minute ride. The train stops, the doors open, the bells ring, the doors close, the train runs for a minute or so then the process repeats. It was maddening.
In Japan they would run freight on the same tracks as commuter lines. Mostly they ran at night. On occasion you'd see them in the daytime.
The 1,000 mile Pacific Electric network in the Los Angeles basin would use a streetcar full of pax to pull a boxcar or two full of oranges or other produce in mixed pax & freight operation (I was told). They would also run short, light freight trains on the tracks on occasion (with some seperation).
Lots of things can be done, have been done, but are not allowed today (in the US).
Best Hopes for better regs,
Alan
Yes, here's a great quote:
"I’ve heard the opposite of Lynch’s claim, but it hardly makes any difference. What we see when we observe these curves is that they go up on the left, and they go down on the right, and regardless of what happens in between, that is enough to claim that something very unpleasant could eventually take place with the global supply of oil"
Great article.
Dave Cohen wrote:
Just checked out the online discussion group mentioned in that article.
It's called "Energy Pulse" and can be found at:
http://www.energypulse.net/
Very high quality. It's moderated. In fact, it seems you have to be somebody to participate. But quality is very high.
James
James,
This site is quite good, but the quality of the articles is mixed. It is aimed at the energy market, mostly conventional utilities. It has two other sites - one is a daily news one and once a week the editor writes a column.