237 comments on DrumBeat: October 29, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
237 comments on DrumBeat: October 29, 2008
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
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
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
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- 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.
“Pessimism of the Intellect; Optimism of the Will.”
—Antonio Gramsci
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
Well, the point is that what we have to hand to replace oil is superior to oil in terms of EROEI so we should see improve prosperity compared to the present as a result of shifting off of oil. That is good for society wide pension programs. It is also possible for an industry to wind down responsibly, funding pensions based on planned decline. BP may be able to do this.
I expect that life expectancies will continue to increase, and, more importantly, people will remain healthy longer. So, I look for an increase in the retirement age getting set in the next ten years or so. Retiring at 72 or so pretty much clears up any issues with social security.
Chris
Chris,
I keep reading this kind of brain dead idea and I have to say it pisses me off. Since many others have suggested the same thing, this isn't directly directed towards you.
I, and several other TOD posters, are either close to 70 or over 70 and, perhaps, have a better idea of the feasibility of this. First, there are a lot of occupations that people have that are not physically viable at that age. Second, job stress is more difficult to deal with as you age. Third, assuming that the average retirement age is currently 62, that means a decade where younger people will lose their change for advancement as the old farts hang onto their jobs. Fourth, the reality is that older people have more health issues. Finally, it will make little sense to financially plan for a long term future. This, in turn, will impact a variety of financial entities.
Let's look at some real life examples:
My mom and dad retired at 62. He developed ALS when he was 66 and died at 68. My mom took care of him for those two years. Under the retire at 72 premise, would my mom have been compelled to keep on working and send him to a care home and, likely been wiped out financially and emotionally in the process?
In my case, I've had a variety of occupations ranging from research chemist to process development manager to plant manager to organic farmer to house designer and builder plus a few more. I know I could no longer build houses physically because I stop doing it when I was in my 40's for that reason. Same thing goes with farming on our small scale. Chemistry isn't too good right now as there have been many lay-offs. I mean, what's an old layed-off chemist supposed to do when there are likely no jobs?
I hope you get my drift in this.
Todd
Todd,
What I am anticipating is that your dad would get sick later in life than he actually did if he were born later. This is the demographic trend. You are close to seventy and still thinking of work even if jobs are scarce. I expect that will be more common in the future as health trends look good. One way the the need to advance younger people is handled in some places is to have those past a certain age consult rather than take up titled positions. It is a little awkward. I don't think we should increase the retirement age if the health indicators are against it. But, they seem to be encouraging.
Chris
Todd:
You are an anomaly according to Chris. Had your Dad been born later like only last year where he would still be a bouncing babe in excellent health, you are not really here except for some sort of time warp.
LOL
Chris: Please read your post before you hit the trigger.
Seriously though, I am in about the same shape. At 75, it can take all night to do what I used to do all night. I really hate to see these younger guys go off on some sort of tangent. What I really think is up is some sort of Soyant Green scenario where, you become a canned food product when you are no longer useful in the work force. Of course there are quite a few of us over aged well armed veterans that may not go for that idea.
Whichever future you wish to pick, it will be interesting.
I thought I had my meaning down clearly but I don't want to be misread on a fairly sensitive subject: People are liveing longer and staying healthier longer than they used to. Todd is apparently game for work near seventy while his father would not have been. All this is actually fairly statistical, but there is no reason not to bump up the retirement age if people are going to be living longer. As long as people still get a longer retirement than their parents, they are still "winning." Or getting an improved quality of life or whatever.
So, again, had Todd's father been born later, he would be more likely to live longer as well, on a statistical basis. If you don't read that in what I wrote, please try to see it in there now.
Chris
There are so many flaws in your thinking, I am amazed you cannot see them. First, the point already made. "IF" is not at issue. There are plenty of people alive now to make your "if" pointless.
As for health, you are looking at current trends. In a very short period of time, all those trends will be reversing due to a much lower standard of living.
Cheers
Though I agree about the sensitive nature of the topic, and I at least got to watch my parents enjoy 15 years of simple and modest retirement before they died. However, I have no expectation that I will be able to depend on social security even to the level they did, or that I will be able to hold on to meager investments and property at reasonable tax rates as they did.
I fully expect to have to work harder to acquire less, and to never be able to stop working, and yet I'll be happy if my kids (and grandkids?) can simply stay fed and have a decent life.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#027
Or, for a white male of black female life expenctancy at birth has gone from about 68 to 77 between 1970 and 2004. So, if the retirement age increase from 65 for people born in 1970 to 70 for people born in 2004 the people born later get 7 years of retirement rather than 3 on average. That is still a good deal. You will work longer, but you will also have longer to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
Chris
umm, wait, so you're proposing that 10 million or so Americans will not retire but instead go into 'consulting'. where will their salaries come from? no offense to consultants, but I doubt that armies of them will create enough value in our already stressed economic environment to justify consulting salaries.
plus haven't I been reading about the life expectancy headed down in the US going forward? I thought with obesity and it's associated problems, it was pretty much agreed that the current generation of children and young adults will grow up with more health problems and shorter lives than their parents. is that not the case?
f*ck later retirement, if that was the deal when I started working, I should have been allowed to stay in 'high school' or some other state of non-responsibility for the same number of additional years that I'm now expected to work. we are told our whole lives that computers and technology, etc. will make us more efficient and our lives will be easier and we will have more free time. then now the new 'reality' is we are so f*cked in this country that we have to work MORE years than the generations who lacked computers, blackberrys, 30-billion-lines-of-code software, video conferencing and all the trappings of 'productivity'. wtf? they're all liars looking for longer-serving debt-slaves, that's all.
In government at least, consulting seems sometimes to be a way to try to pay people what they are worth for a while. One can be hired in at a competitive salary but then the promotion steps end up being a cap that is not found in the private sector. People who retire (mandatory) and then consult often begin to see a pay level more similar to their private sector opposite number.
Consulting may not be a good solution everywhere, but it might make sense where promotion and titles are important for younger workers.
Chris
Chris, I have to agree with Todd, even with longer lifespans most workers are physically and mentally buggered well before age 70. I hate to see politicians and corporate execs in their 60s who think that others enjoy working in later life. Newsflash, pollies work in A/C offices with plush leather seats but the millions of blue collar workers stand 8-10 hours/day on steel or concrete floors or out in the sun/rain.
I'm 45 and can hand unload 60t of cargo a day, but I see plenty of 30 somethings who struggle, they will have a hard time working in their 50s to the (current Australian) retirement age of 65, let alone their 70s.
Once the depression hits and the medical system starts to break down or be unavailable to most people, we will not live past our 50's. Problem solved. (I'm 70.)
mdsolar wrote:
My understanding is just the exact opposite. Most alternative primary energy sources, especially renewable ones, do not have high EROEI returns. Oil wa so special when it was first being developed because it was relatively easy to obtain, thus it offered a high EROEI. One clear manifestation of high EROEI is low cost, which the renewables do not yet exhibit. Where do you find the data to support your claim that there are liquid fuel alternatives to oil which have high EROEI?
E. Swanson
That's not his claim.
His claim is that there are energy alternatives to fossil fuels that have higher EROEI, and that claim has been broadly supported by several articles on The Oil Drum which have looked into it.
His claim is further that those alternative energy sources can displace oil, even if they don't 1-for-1 replace it. The difference is minor, but crucial: even though electricity cannot be used in your car to replace oil, electrified rail or electric cars can displace demand for oil, giving a very similar result in the long run.
If you want to attack his claim, what you need to focus on is the tacit assumption that oil-burning tasks have electricity-driven equivalents.
I agree that oil-burning tasks have similar electricity driven systems. Surely, the end result should be used as the metric, not just EROEI of the primary energy source. And, lets not compare the low efficiency use of oil with the high tech "equivalent" without considering the rest of the system. Of course, one would like to make the comparison using the best diesel hybrid drive vehicle, something which is not yet available in the market, but which would be the obvious alternative to the pure electric drive.
For some sort of personal transportation, there's the problem of batteries, which require energy to manufacturer and then recycle at end-of-life. A pure battery driven vehicle is going to be heavier and will likely have less cargo space or carrying capacity than a similarly sized IC equivalent. With wind and solar PV, there's the problem of intermittent supply, which means that recharging the batteries in a pure electric vehicle may not be as simple as plugging the cord into the charging station at night.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of solar and wind energy. I live in a solar heated house, but there are times when the sun doesn't shine, such as yesterday, when we had clouds and snow showers almost all day. Low temperature solar thermal systems can cheaply provide more than half the thermal energy needed, but attempting to go all solar implies a much larger system and some dedicated thermal storage. Otherwise, there will still be a need for backup, which I provide with propane. My eventual goal is to use wood for backup heat, but that may not be an option in a higher density location, such as a city, where air quality problems could result.
I think that low temperature solar thermal ALREADY offers cheaper energy compared with oil, especially when oil begins to become scarce after Peak Oil. Certainly, my system was very cheap, being constructed of commonly available materials on site by yours truly. I worry that focusing on high tech PV and wind with centralized power generation and distribution may hide the immediate benefits of low temp solar thermal systems from the public, which could delay their adoption by people who will need them.
E. Swanson
In so far as we need new generation to replace oil consumed for transportation, gas and wind are in the lead currently. Central gerneration with gas together with a plug in hybrid is likely more efficient, well-to-wheels, than oil and an ICE because the combined cycle gas generator is about 60% efficient. Wind is better still and may take over from gas as the lead source of new generation capacity soon. Solar becomes competitive with coal at about 2015 so it is also important in the mix and may start to beat wind in annual additions of new generating capacity around 2020 or so. The additional generating capacity needed to replace oil consumed in transportation is not all that large so it is not a big deal getting that together. The bigger deal is getting satisfactory vehicles to plug in. GM has selected a battery supplier for its 2010 release so things seem to be moving along: http://www.wwj.com/Report--Compact-Power-Wins-Volt-Battery-Battle/3210223
Chris
My understanding is that EROEI of imported oil is now around 15. Wind is at least at 20 (usually higher) and solar PV can be expected to achieve 30 next year. Further, the energy produced by wind and solar can be used much more efficiently than energy derived from oil. So, we should expect increased prosperity as we get off of oil.
Chris
Speaking of solar:
http://greenwombat.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/10/29/new-solar-technology...
What is the netback for capital invested in wind or solar?
EROIE has to be >1 to use anything as a source of energy - that is the only criterion.
What is important for an alternative source of energy to oil is that it has the same cost as, or is cheaper than, oil.
The reason that the world has been able to consume ever more oil and hence grow our economies is that the oil has become ever more affordable.
Affordability is not just the price, it is the price relative to income - for most of the world's population oil at the current price is completely unaffordable.
Any viable alternative to oil will have to do the same, ie. get ever more affordable - IMO mathematically impossible, and unlikely, especially in the short term.