Very good work, and as I noted in our prior work, I was building on prior work by Simmons & Deffeyes, based on Khebab's excellent technical work.

In my opinion, declining net oil exports should be the #1 story in the world, and we need to be implementing emergency electrification of transportation programs, combined with a crash windpower program and a big push for more local, organic food production.

As Alan Drake has pointed out, if we could do electric transportation 100 years ago in West Central Texas, with minimal oil input, why can't we do it in 2008?


San Angelo, Texas, Circa 1908

http://www.energybulletin.net/14492.html
Electrification of Transportation (Alan Drake)

http://www.energybulletin.net/5673.html
Published on 22 Jul 2004 by San Francisco Chronicle. Archived on 25 Apr 2005.
Berkeley: Urban farmers produce nearly all their food with a sustainable garden in their backyard

I'm all for electric transportation, but we should focus most immediately on reducing waste in the current system. It seems that cutting driving speeds could potentially reduce gas use in half, though the speed reductions are drastic. Government assistance for growing food at home are harldy in the public eye. There is much waste which could be cut out of the system right now, and that would buy us time. Educating the public, especially on a global scale, takes leadership. Let's game extra time out of the current system while we bring new technologies to market.

Tell everyone you know who might possibly be able to, to ask to telecommute

You can't just fight alligators, though, you have to start draining the swamp. The Hirsch report says at least 10 years is required for even an "Apollo Mission" level of effort by government, industry, and citizens. Hence, the beginning of a dramatic push to restructure our transportation system cannot be put off.

Jeffery! You and your ELM is described in the biggest Swedish Industrial Daily "Dagens Industri" today. You find the paper here www.di.se, but the article is not online.

The articles headline is "Därför stiger oljepriset" which translates into "This is the reasons for escalating oil prices"
The ELM is given centre stage for the explanation of rising oil prices and your calculation that Mexico will be net importer by 2014 is quoted as well as that the Saudis might consume 4,6 mbd in 2020. A funny thing is that “Peak oil” is not mentioned at all. Maybe the economic nature of ELM is easier to grasp for an economist, rather than the geological reasons for “Peak oil”´.
Rgs / Olle

Thanks for the story. The irony is that my local paper, The Dallas Morning News, is (mostly) still pretending that the net export decline is not newsworthy.

Wow! Thanks for this piece of news, Olle! Can you translate key parts of the article (I don't get the paper version of DI)?

This may be small thing for others and may be easily lost in this summer season news, but I think it is big for us Swedes and Finns. DI is followed closely by business people here in Finland as well, so some of the more hard-headed bozos who's heads I've been trying to turn will now start to make a bit more notice.

It really is quite funny, if it weren't so sad at the same time.

We can have the exact same data and often more thorough analysis, but they don't believe us. But once it's in DI/KL/WSJ/FT/name-your-paper-here, it becomes the truth - regardless of the solidity of the data or reasoning.

But I'm glad it's happening. This will really help in trying to tell the companies what they can do. Ignoring the fundamentals is not a wise choice for many a business.

In fact, I just came from a meeting with a very sharp and open-minded CEO, to whom I gave the overall PO pitch a year ago. This year, after rising transportation costs, spiraling oil price and combined crunch in financial and agri-comms sectors, he's ready to act. Unfortunately he's clearly in the heatseeker category. The rest will follow with a 2-5 year lag based on my previous experience with such trends. They are totally in a reactive and temporal damage control mode. They think this is a passing trend. By the time they may have changed their mind, it may well be way too late for many of them.

So if you're investing in companies, start making note which of them are peak oil aware and actually acting on it.

I can mail you the scanned article if I get your e-mail address.
Rgs / Olle

What a feeling it must have been to enjoy public transportation in West Central Texas and many other parts that were electrified in 1908. I think that it will be easy to re-electrify them in the future, although I have concerns about our grid's capacity. Technical and capacity challenges aside I believe that this will be the among the many public works projects undertaken during the coming transformation. (Is that the new euphemism for greater depression?)

One thing is clear though; the age of the automobile is probably over. Simply doing the math indicates that there just isn't enough time to accomplish a seamless replacement of the fleet in the U.S. There are currently 300 million registered automobiles in the U.S. Toyota just sold their millionth Prius hybrid after eight years. While they are ramping up to one million a year by 2010 even replacement of one third of the U.S. fleet would take 100 years from now.

No doubt other manufacturers will step in, and produce fully electric cars for mass market consumption in the near future, however we are still up against a resource problem. I suspect that there simply isn't enough time and energy available either.

Being optimistic I believe that human ingenuity will save us through combinations of massive conservation through re-use, lifestyle changes and replacement of the automobile with public transportation and electric scooters and bicycles. The transformation will be difficult for those that are most attached to the current paradigm.

Hi Occitan,
Just think a minute, in 1908 what was the per capita electricity production capacity in US?, I would guess only a fraction of the 11,000 kwh today. Now that allows a lot of todays electricity to be diverted for trams, electric cars etc. Most developed countries do quiet well with annual 4,000 to 8,000 kwh/ per capita.
In the US 15 million new vehicles are sold per year and 50% of VMT is done by vehicles aged 6 years or less. By 2010 there may be less than 1million hybrids sold in US, but many other vehicles having much higher fuel economy than existing new cars(25-27mpg) could be sold, and if gasoline stays above $4 a gallon will be sold. SO in 6 years we could have 50% of VMT by vehicles perhaps having 50% or possibly having 100% better fuel economy than todays new vehicles. your assumption that it would take 100 years to replace entire vehicle fleet with hybrids is assuming that the maximum production of hybrids will never exceed 7% of market. If think even GM completely changes it's production in less than 20years( look at how quickly SUVs and light trucks went from 10% of fleet to >50%). At the rate of new SUVs sales could see SUV and light trucks back to 10% of new fleet in a few years. Since this segment has 22mpg average fuel use, if these were replaced by 44 mpg vehicles, very substantial reductions in gasoline use would be possible.

If you look at traffic on weekends, its obvious that a lot of VMT are not essential for work or for the productive part of the economy, but are for shopping, entertainment,recreation. If prices continue to rise to say $8 a gallon( European prices) or even higher, 2 car families will use the more fuel efficient vehicle more often, a even cut back on some driving.We will probably see an increase in mass-transit use.

I like the idea of mass-transit but its just not going to happen very quickly because of the very high capital costs, the way cities have been built since 1945 and great increases in taxes needed. Much easier to convince US (and Australian) public to buy new plug-in hybrids and hybrids and save a bundle on gasoline, keep the suburbia dream, add a little insulation to homes, replace incandescent bulbs with more efficient lights and a few other token conservation measures .

Car sales are dropping rapidly not just SUV your making a big assumption that people will be able to buy cars at the rate they did in the past.

Given that we will be at least in a prolonged recession.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/business/19charts.html?partner=rssnyt&...

Probably a depression. In any case fleet replacement in this never ending recession will take longer than 10 years. Next of course the value of the older gas guzzler will drop rapidly in general the car owner would have to bring a lot of money to the table to pay off his old car loan and get the new one. And of course he has to remain credit worthy to even get the loan.

Yet again people that see a bright future focus on one or two things and ignore the entire problem.

Start first with understanding that long term loans for cars and homes etc was based on fiat currencies and the ability to inflate away part of the debt version to prevent default. This was driven by cheap oil and commodities so the government could inflate without causing commodity price inflation. Without cheap oil/commodities if the inflate it just raises the prices of critically needed items such as food so purchasing power drops.

The beast cannot be saved.

memmel,
Thats an interesting graph because in the 1978-85 period when car sales($ value or number?) declined is when vehicle fleet mpg increased the fastest in the last 50 years. If you think about it, most fuel efficient cars( except HEV's) are much less expensive. I am not sure about prices in US or Europe, but in Australia, smaller cars using 6L/100km cost about $AUD 15,000, while SUV's and light trucks getting 9-14L/100km, are about $AUD 35,000 or more. In other words a family could rather than buy a new SUV, replace both fuel inefficient cars with two new cars, use about half as much fuel for each car and still spend less. If its not happening yet in US, wait until prices are >$8 per gallon. Just about every new-car buyer can do the sums( small car=saving >250 gallons of fuel per year, plus half the financing costs).
Its more complex for second-hand car buyers, but if you look in papers lots of older fuel efficient cars available <$5,000.
The issue about paying off existing cars is important, but many new cars are on 3 year lease arrangements. Its not as though consumers are spending 100% of disposable income on vehicles. In The Australia Financial Review it showed a graph that shows that vehicle running costs as % income are only 6%( was 8% in 1980). Even a further doubling in fuel( to $3.50/L;$USD 12/gallon) could be accommodated by reductions in eating out, reductions in electrical, furniture and white goods purchases.