227 comments on Losing our Balance? Some Predictions...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
227 comments on Losing our Balance? Some Predictions...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians.”
—Claire Huchet Bishop
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
The decline rate is critical. IF the decline can be held to 5% then even CAFE improvements and smaller cars will be able to match depletion rates for the next 30 years.
However, if the decline rates move up to 8% or higher, then even 40+ mpg cars will not prevent the commute distances being cut in half.
Longer term, rail is vital to stay ahead of depletion. I posted up some graphs showing required vehicle MPG a few days back. I will link in some new ones later tonight.
I think EVs are essential long term, but I also think NG in North America has peaked, and coal as well. It is going to be difficult to increase electrical production. I don't think wind and PV will grow faster that the 7% that oil did, once they get large enough to start impacting the overall economy. They are artificially high right now, via subsidies. But again, long term, they are all we have.
Jon Freise
Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows
"However, if the decline rates move up to 8% or higher, then even 40+ mpg cars will not prevent the commute distances being cut in half. "
But, a PHEV with a 40 mile range eliminates fuel for commutes of that length, though 1 way trips of that length would require finding a plug at work. Need to commute further? Buy an add-on battery pack. A PHEV would have an infinite MPG, for trips up to the all-electric limit.
" I also think NG in North America has peaked, and coal as well"
I'm sure gas has, but I've seen no indication at all that coal has. Coal may well peak in 30 years, but we won't need it much by then, I hope.
" I don't think wind and PV will grow faster that the 7% that oil did, once they get large enough to start impacting the overall economy."
I'm not sure what you mean by the 7%. Wind was 20% of new generation in 2006, and is doubling every 2 years. Wind can grow to 10-20% of KWH market share without significant changes to grid management. The intermittency of wind is a perfect match for schedulable charging of PHEV's, and the two can grow together very, very nicely, well beyond that limit.
"They are artificially high right now, via subsidies"
Wind is cheaper than natural gas right now, without subsidies. It's cheaper than coal, if you figure in all the external costs of coal: health, pollution, climate change, etc. And, it's getting cheaper, if you disregard the temporary cost increase due to demand rising faster than supply.
Again...what about carpooling, and telecommuting??
To the extent that any EV has to be used for commutes, the answer is metered recharging stations at the employer's parking lot. An even better answer is to erect a PV panel over the metered parking spot to power the recharging meter, and to also shade the vehicle.
For a "standard" space 2.6m x 5.4m, adding 50% more area as a credit for extending halfway over the adjoining aisle, at 52 degrees latitude, and 4 peak sun hours per day, average expected energy is 187 MJ of sunlight, perhaps 37 MJ electrical. At 1.4 mm/J, this is 52 km!
Actually, since that's an annual average, the limit on practicality would probably be set by the winter minimum, but I don't know how to find that.
52 km is still considerably farther than I had expected.
The following chart shows how commute distance declines as oil supply declines. There are two curves for each decline rate. The bold one shows what would happen if we adopt an aggressive CAFE standard. The unconnected dots show what happens if we don't improve MPG ratings.
For the faster decline rates, the distance starts at 16 miles radius (12,000 miles per year / 365*2) and falls to 8 miles radius. Each time distance is cut in half, urban housing density must double (area is radius square).
Here is a map of Minneapolis with the two commute circles put on it. You can see the outer suburbs get cut out quickly. Those people will need to move inward, change jobs, or have jobs move outward. Again, if commute distances are cut in half, then number of jobs disrupted is going to be 4 times larger because of area reduction.
As far as car pooling, has anyone seen any data on how effective it was during the 70's? I could add a corrective factor if car pooling can be quantified.
Jon Freise
Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows
Urban housing can easily cost $100K or 200k more than suburban housing. It would be infinitely easier and cheaper to buy a more efficient vehicle.
Gas prices double? Buy a Prius. Double again? Buy a PHEV with 40 mile range: that will give infinite MPG for commutes less than 20 miles each way, and 100MPG for 40 mile commutes. Have a 40 mile commute, and gas doubles again? Buy an extra battery pack (for roughly $3k), or get your parking garage to install outlets.
On carpooling: historical data won't help. Telecom has made such group scheduling much, much easier. Further, carpooling wasn't all that necessary then: we only lost 4M bpd worldwide. I can envision carpooling made a patriotic duty, and then made mandatory, with tickets for single occupancy vehicles. Carpooling could easily reduce commuter fuel consumption by 50%, in months.
If gas prices double, people will think that it will only last a few weeks. So they will temporarily spend more on gas from their credit or their savings, until it ends. If it doesn't end, of course,.. .
Right. If every person purchases a hybrid, there won't be a problem for years. But the opposite is also true. If only 2% purchase hybrids, and oil has declined 50% then gasoline prices still rise until gasoline usage is cut in half. The collective response is critical.
I don't credit PHEV with free MPG values. I don't believe that electrical generation will continue to increase in North America. As NG declines people will be forced to use electrical power for heating and industrial purposes. It would not surprise me if oil is shifted to home heating from driving.
Commuting requires two people have the same start point and end point. Thus the percent chance of overlap drops with the square of the commute distance. I would say that overlap is at least 1/4 what it was in 1970. But your right about improved coordination. (I have even thought of working on a kind of suburban taxi dispatch system. SUV drivers can charge for a drop off or pick up on the way to/from work. Those who want a ride call or internet to the dispatch. Not anytime taxi, just commuting).
I am not anti-solution. I have worked enough years in product development to shy away from optimistic estimates (especially when peoples lives are involved). Best to take a conservative view, knowing that something will not work as expected. If we need to plan for the worst, then we should.
Jon Freise
Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows
"If only 2% purchase hybrids, and oil has declined 50% then gasoline prices still rise until gasoline usage is cut in half. "
Hybrids are already at 2.2% of new sales, and growing 55% per year.
"I don't believe that electrical generation will continue to increase in North America. "
Wind was 20% of new generation in 2006, and could easily provide all new generation in 5 years.
"It would not surprise me if oil is shifted to home heating from driving.
No, home heating will be electrified with heat pumps, which even now are the cheapest way to heat & cool. No one will go from natural gas to fuel oil. Heck, even resistance electrical heat is barely more expensive than fuel oil.
"the percent chance of overlap drops with the square of the commute distance. I would say that overlap is at least 1/4 what it was in 1970"
What are the chances that 3-4 people within a mile of you, work within a mile of your work? Extremely high. My point is that it's doable, if absolutely needed.
Take a look at Zipcar.com for an example of how telecom changes things. Zipcar is car rental, but without the rental agents, with decentralized locations, and very short rental periods. None of this was possible 30 years ago.
"Best to take a conservative view, knowing that something will not work as expected. If we need to plan for the worst, then we should."
We should plan for the risk of the worst, in order to avoid it - I believe that's what you really mean. Planning for the worst is a very bad way to live. Further, we need to look at the most likely eventualities (as well as the consequences of the worst cases), in order to choose between alternatives.
For some reason, some people believe people like Kunstler when he makes nightmare predictions, despite a lack of a shred of evidence for his dismissal of wind and solar. Believing people like him isn't conservatism, it's just a mistake.
Heading for the hills before Y2K would have been a mistake. People (including Kunstler) made nightmare predictions, but others simply worked very hard to prevent problems, and succeeded.
It would not surprise me if oil is shifted to home heating from driving
I think Suburbanites would rather drive & shiver at home (or let their poorer neighbors shiver). I question if the market would allow such a diversion, and I also question gov'ts willingness as well.
In Washington DC, an interesting (and unplanned) phenomena has developed. Single occupancy vehicles wanting to use HOV lane pull into shopping centers with excess parking. There lines of people wait for certain destinations. "Pentagon" "Capital Hill" etc. The driver going to the Pentagon stops at the Pentagon line and takes on 3 pax, who board silently. The rule is that unless the driver speaks, no one says anything.
All four speed past congestion in the HOV lane. In the afternoon, there is one corner of the Pentagon where HOV pax gather and are randomly picked up to go back to where their car is parked.
AFAIK, this is limited to a few locations in the DC area and it "just happened".
Best Hopes for Solutions,
Alan
That's marvelous!
I don't see why that couldn't be organized & expanded...
A number of years ago, I was musing on the same idea (less well articulated or developed), when I realized that Urban Rail created "worm holes" (Yes, I watch Star Trek).
Get to the station (walk, bicycle, take a bus, drive a NEV or SUV) and it is low energy (not zero, but zero oil) to get to any other station. A time cost of course.
This utterly changes the "energy topology" of a city & metropolitan area (for people, not freight and not service).
One could live in a walkable suburb of Boston for example and as long as one could get to one of the 132 (my count, likely off) commuter rail stations without oil (or work locally w/o oil), buy groceries, etc w/o oil, and the same rail line could deliver freight to your suburb (large enough for self sustaining services close by), it was sustainable post-Peak Oil.
http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/rail/
Just add a North Station-South Station link !
The Green, Red, Orange and Blue subway lines are also on the map, but in "faded" colors. A clearer map at
http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/subway/
Best Hopes,
Alan
I was just thinking the same thing about light rail last night. That it creates 600 MPG links between areas. Wormholes is a good name. I was trying to think of how I would credit the light rail properly.
For the sake of discussion, suppose a light rail line ran from Minneapolis (in the center) to Plymouth (on the left edge). Then I could draw a new 8 mile red circle around Plymouth, representing a "park and ride".
Except that would be optimistic, because it assumes all the people in the red "park and ride" circle can get to work via the train, and they cannot.
So what do you think about this idea: We credit to the train with the area within walking distance of a station. And then put a circle around Plymouth of the same area. As the total rail connectivity grows, the end point circles grow. The larger the rail coverage, the more worthwhile it is to park and ride.
I can think of a few factors that would bump up the park and ride area:
1. Factor for job density. If the trains run through high job density areas, they get a higher factor.
2. Factor for bus connections. Because people can hop from train to bus, the train does service a wider area, but at some reluctance from the riders and at much lower MPG.
Are those assumptions realistic? They have a big impact. It does mean that you want the trains to run through the business district, rather than run through old empty industrial parks, if the goal is to maximize commute efficiency.
Jon Freise
Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows
Just some thoughts.
Park & Ride lots (IMHO) sterilize the immediate area around stations, preventing TOD (although they are also used as a means of land banking. For example, a former P&R parking lot in Miami was replaced by a 12 story residential tower (1st floor planned to be retail). This consumed half the P&R for that station. A net gain IMO.
The cost of parking garages ($10,000 to $20,000/car) would be better spent (IMHO) on more track.
An unlimited amount of bicycle parking should be available at almost every station. And small NEVs should get most of the rest (park 3 or 4 in the space of two SUVs).
The "walkshed" is 1/4th to 1/2 mile in radius if no major auto sewers interfere (assuming decent sidewalks).
In theory (mine), Light Rail & Rapid Rail (subway or elevated) should have stops about every mile once out of the downtown area/Medical Center/high rise condo areas. Minimal Park & Ride at most stops with an occasional larger P&R. People should walk, bicycle or take the bus in most cases (streetcar feeders are best).
But the terminus should be more than 2 miles past the next to last station, and have a very large Park & Ride lot (with a few acres set aside for medium to high rise with ground floor retail).
Devote most of the inner stations to TOD development (a few to Park & Ride deserts). The terminus is designed to lure suburban auto commuters out of their cars and into a mixed ride (car & train).
I believe in the Origin & Destination view of transit. People come from an origin (home, airport, hotel) and go to a destination (work, school, shopping, park, convention center, etc.). Transit has to serve both.
Hope this Helps :-)
Alan
"Light Rail & Rapid Rail (subway or elevated) should have stops about every mile once out of the downtown area/Medical Center/high rise condo areas"
I don't know. I'd go for every 1/2 mile. That really connects everything in that corridor to the train.
I don't like buses & feel bicycles should be left to recreation(unsafe). I'd go for more light rail in more or less parallel corridors, or many originating from a center.
" I don't think wind and PV will grow faster that the 7% that oil did, once they get large enough to start impacting the overall economy."
Sorry, I should have done more work on this idea before I wrote it up here. I wanted a way to "guess" how fast wind would grow. All industries start with a high rate of growth because they are small. But what is the long term growth? It is important to know how much decline we can hand in other fuels.
Industries grow (capitalize) via two possible energy influxes. The first way is that profits (energy surplus) from some other energy industry are invested in the new energy source. This is how any industry starts. But it cannot continue to grow this way for long, because it is acting as an energy sink.
The second is that they generate energy, they keep some profits, and reinvest those profits. Self capitalization. This method is the main way of growing, but it is limited by how much profit it is allowed to keep for reinvestment (PEMEX oil is an example of a company that cannot reinvest) . Wind is going to have some trouble here because until coal gets slapped with external costs, coal is going to keep wind profits small.
Ok, so it is complex and I wanted a back of the envelope method of generating a number. So I asked "what is the best case?" What energy industry has great EROI, huge reserves, no resource limitations (no rare elements needed) and makes good profits? What could I use as the best case model? And that would be Oil of course. I remembered from a post by Stuart that oil growth was about 7% before OPEC. That kind of gives us a best case scenario.
Jon Freise
Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows