 | IEA WEO 2008 - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios | The Oil Drum | The 2008 IEA WEO - Renewable Energy |  |
242 comments on DrumBeat: December 3, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
242 comments on DrumBeat: December 3, 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
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
- The US stimulus and "green jobs" for wind energy
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
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 13th 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
- 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.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
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
In the spirit of T Boone Pickens energy plan posted above, I thought Micheal Moore's Plan would also be of interest. I absolutely love his idea of the government simply buying the companies instead of giving them bailout money and using the companies to create electric vehicles, including cars, trains, etc. A excerpt below:
Yep, that's similar to what I've been saying, although I'd suggest a minimum MPG number for each vehicle produced, rather than pure electric (not enough Lithium). And only one company can get supported, first come, first served.
Buyout rather than bailout and shut down the loss making / carbon polluting elements immediately. That would concentrate the CEOs minds wonderfully.
Of course the attachment to the idea of 'free markets' is so strong in the US it will never happen.
One minor quibble, i'm not sure I beleive the not enough Lithium quote. The guy that originally wrote the "Peak Lithium" article now believes that Lithium is in Abundance:
theantidoomer -
I can hardly think of anything more certainly doomed to failure than having the US government buy up the US auto companies in order to make the 'right' kind of cars.
First off, they would piss away countless billions just studying the problem. Then the inevitable pork train would start rolling, then all sorts of politically well-connected contractors and subcontractors would pop up like mushrooms to consume all the pork, then after a few years you might see some half-assed design-by-committee vehicle finally hit the road, probably at a (true) cost that would be twice as high as if done by private enterprise.
How many major undertakings that the US government has embarked upon have ever been anything close to being a financial success and have not been vastly behind schedule and vastly over budget? Just look at the so-called 'defense industry' (which in reality is a quasi-government enterprise) and how many of its weapon systems turned out to be twice or thrice as costly as originally projected.
Now, I'm hardly saying that the US auto industry has been doing a good job ... they haven't. But the US government can only do worse, far worse.
Any plan made now will undoubtedly be based on a return of the US motor industry, and the European and Japanese ones for that matter, to 'normal', ie producing 16 million cars or so a year in the US alone.
As many of you are aware, I support EV cars, but it is quite clear that there is no way that we can ramp up immediately to anything like that volume.
The US plan then will be to move towards building many millions of small, European style cars with better fuel economy.
It seems unlikely that anything like that number of cars will be affordable.
By 2012 or so when EV cars become available in rather greater quantities, although of course not in the tens of millions, it seems unlikely that more than a fifth or so of present production will still be running.
Joule,
I regret the rating system only allows me to give you a +1. Otherwise your would get much higher from me! My sentiments exactly. I just saw Denninger's rant for the morning. The monstrous actions with AIG is outrageous. And to expect these same crooks to take over the Auto Industry? I am a hard core fast crash doomer and getting the government to take over things is the fast way to achieve a quick hard crash.
Please note the captain has turned on the fasten seat belt sign. Please put away any laptop computers or electronic devices and return your seats to the upright position.
Yeah but the cockpit door is ajar and it is empty and we're flying along on auto pilot... Btw wasn't that the pilot and co-pilot that just bailed out (no pun intended) of the back of the plane with their parachutes on?
No worries, the new crew will be along shortly, they're riding in the fuel tanker that's flying along behind us and they'll be sliding down the refueling hose to take their place at the controls, soon.
Unfortunately there are these uncharted peaks dead ahead...it's just not the best time to hit heavy turbulence. Damn looks like we're out of air sickness bags too.
Instead of the Feds running the U.S. auto industry with a mandate to accelerate the production of next generation Hybrids, and later EVs, why not take NASA out of the space business and focus their efforts on developing the technology the auto industry desperately needs. There is a hell of a lot of talent there.
I would suggest the 'defense industry' is a huge success. At least for those involved. Two or three times over budget? Even better. A missile defense system that doesn't work? What's the definition of "working system"? If there are no missiles in the silos - or paper crete missiles - that works just fine. Bill'em Danno.
The concept of "saving the car industry" is, in and of itself, a death march. Wrong paradigm. Luckily, one won't have to make that case on resource arguments; it will be as simple as no one will be able to buy them.
cfm in Gray, ME
"I would suggest the Defense Industry is a huge success"..??????
You're joking, right?
If not, that is one of the most insane statements I have yet to hear on this web sight.
Citizen... Without a well funded defense industry, we would not have been able to train and equip Osama bin Laden's allies and we wouldn't be able to invade Iraq like we did in 2003. Not to mention things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki- all the
soldierscivilians that were killed (about 250,000). Now, who wouldn't support an industry like that? /sarcasm(In all fairness, we would not have been able to go into Afghanistan and destroy (mostly) the Taliban either without a defense industry, but this, like all other
warspolice actions, there are invariably civilian casualites of war).We didn't mostly destroy the Taliban. Its supporters have been in the Afghan senate for years and now all the talk in Kabul is of a negotiated settlement. Nor are the politicians who are supposedly Afghan democracy anyone we should be proud of supporting.
I stand corrected... And the Taliban were never my favorite group of people. I don't support destroying world heritage, nor do I support rape or dismemberment as acceptable forms of punishment.
i am of the persuasion that one deserves the government one wants, and by simply not uprising en-mass to dislodge them. they, or at least the majority of them, approved of such a government. It is of up most hubris to assume everyone yearns or desires one certain form of government.
The Taliban were not always the reviled lot that they have now become in the eyes of the US Govt. They were a vital cog in the wheel to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. They were set up and trained by the ISI in Pakistan with the active connivance of the CIA (why do the dirty job of fighting when someone more ruthless will do it for you?).
I remember in Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore shows a delegation of them coming to Texas sometime in 1997. I think the idea was to use Afghanistan for a Unocal pipeline from Central Asia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/war111901a.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1997%2F12...
The Taliban were in power from 1996 to 2001. Nothing was done by the US or NATO to get rid of them. They probably had some utility value then. As long as they were good dogs, fine. Never bite the hands that feed you.
Bush has come and gone - no sign of Osama yet. He was supposed to have been smoked out in 2001.
Srivathsa
Yes, they were in power, and nothing was done to get rid of them. Coincidentally, they had not yet sponsored a terror attack that killed 3,000 people in New York.
The real sponsor of terror is still in the White house for a few weeks. He has killed over 5 thousand Americans.
Should we invade?????
Be my guest. I'll sell popcorn.
the defense industry is one of the most succesful at looting the treasury, so on that basis successful. but the all time looting award will probably go to the banking industry. and that prediction has profound implications i.e. past peak looting.
Reading is a matter of interpretation, not just direct relation of fact.
US readers seem to have so little confidence in their government to run anything, and so much in their market led companies. Has anyone ever stopped to question if that little canard is anything but spin?
The $500 hammer was sold by those companies...
The $71-million(projected) US Capitol visitor center just opened yesterday.
The final cost was $621-million.
The government doesn't build these things - they put them out for bid. This famous "over budget" thing surely says more about the slimy corporations that knowingly low-ball their bids than it does about the government. Not that I love big government.
If you don't low ball your bid you won't get the contract.
Of course. It's a complete and utter collusion between govt and the corps. A handy-dandy term for this is "fascism". I just reject the argument that government always sucks and the "free" market (gag me) always works out great. It's this hideous blend that we are dealing with. The system is broken.
Now, I'm hardly saying that the US auto industry has been doing a good job ... they haven't. But the US government can only do worse, far worse
One thought:
Governments have elected officials up top... companies have appointed CEOs. Governments (supposedly) are accountable to their populations, who could demand various things like safety, or justice, or jobs etc....companies answer to shareholders, who demand profit. I'm not sure, but I think if you look at "job perks" as a variation of "bribes" the corruption might be similar.}
Not saying governments owning businesses is a good thing, but I'm not entirely convinced that its a bad thing either. Especially if the majority of people don't have the money to own shares but can vote.
It all might depend on how democratic the US government is.
Unfortunately, in tandem, the government would also have to order the people to use said trains, buses, subways, and light rail. We need to focus on creative ways to get people to use the public transit that we already have. Without some really major incentives, don't expect to see any more increased use with the insanely low prices for gasoline we have right now.
As much as I support CAFE standards and think the auto companies should be prohibited from lobbying and political action to resist said standards, including those passed in California, I will believe that the government is serious when they pass something serious like a feebate. But that is not enough. The slow turnover in the vehicle fleet mandates a package of incentives and disincentives to actually get people out of their cars and driving less. Start with things like pay as you go insurance to make the cost of driving as variable as possible. This has been done in Texas and is being proposed here locally by my Boulder County, Colorado state representative.
We are going to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars in the next few years on so called infrastructure. Not one penny should be spent on new roads and not one penny should be spent on any infrastructure that enables development that is not contiguous with existing infrastructure.
I totally agree that spending money on building new highways is daft, which probably means it will happen.
Some money on making sure bridges do not fall down might be a good idea.
In the US, 90% of new car purchases use finance, and the huge fall in orders is largely due to that drying up.
This should get substantially worse next year as people are made redundant.
In a few years then, it seems that many will be using public transport willy-nilly.
Some sensible measures such as you suggest would ease the transition.
Unfortunately, in tandem, the government would also have to order the people to use said trains, buses, subways, and light rail. We need to focus on creative ways to get people to use the public transit that we already have
WRONG !!
The USA has a bare pittance of Urban Rail. MANY projects just need to be built in order to generate high ridership. Two big $ projects are LA's "Subway to the Sea" (at least to UCLA as step 1) and the 2nd Avenue Subway in NYC, taking some of the pressure off of Lexington Ave. (600,000 riders/weekday). A downtown connector Light Rail line in LA may have the highest cost benefit.
I developed a list of Ready to Go Urban Rail projects (about 130 of them)
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-04a.htm
Miami wants to build 103 miles of elevated subway, and the feds should pay the same % that they did for interstate highways, 90%.
The best way to increase ridership on an Urban Rail line ? Build another one.
If Line 2 is built, ridership on Line 1 increases. If Line 3 is built, ridership on Lines 1 & 2 increase. Build Line 4 ...
Best Hopes for More Urban Rail,
Alan
I did not mean to suggest we shouldn't build more, and what you say is true regarding light rail. But the bus system will still be a major way for people to get around including feeding to and from light rail/subways. I road the bus from Boulder to Denver last week to a Broncos game. It seemed like a no brainer as I did not have to deal with massive traffic, parking, and then the hassle of getting out of the stadium parking lot after the game. Not to mention all the people who drank to excess during the game. Even so, the vast majority of those going to the game drove their cars. The love is still there for the personal auto and the hate is still there for the bus, even if efficient, fast,reasonably priced, and on time.
After my wife wrecked her car while having a low blood sugar, she began riding the bus. It took her an hour, with two transfers, to get across town. In the car it takes 15 minutes. The bus was seldom on time, and if drivers called in sick on any given day, a 30 minute wait at the bus stop would turn into an hour. While waiting at the bus stop, she was besieged by panhandlers and drunks. Once there was a dead "street inebriate" - as the drunken Navajos around here are euphemistically referred to - at the bus stop. He'd passed out drunk in a slumped position & suffocated himself. The busses were filthy since the drunks puked & pissed on them. The bus drivers, most of them women, were surly and rude from dealing with drunks all day... After a few weeks, my wife refused to ride the bus anymore, and now has our son or me chauffeur her around. My point is that people aren't going to ride public transportation around here until forced by economic necessity to do so.
Probably will get worse. Difficult and expensive to exclude the public on public transportation, and I expect alcoholism and aggression to increase with the belt tightening.
Goes for commuter rail too, my scariest time in quite awhile was riding the Sacramento line one night after ASPO this fall. A couple accosted me, they were able to stop the train and interfere before anything serious happened, but it causes you to think twice. OTOH, the early am ride was everything it's supposed to be.
I used to take the dog (Greyhound) north into Canada years ago. Such a difference. Canadian's were polite, friendly, fun to talk with. The US portion was a nightmare, like a mobile version of the Inferno. Everyone seemed to be carrying a knife, and let you know. Then again it was the mid 80's, and times weren't the best.
I've had mixed experiences with trains. The Alaska Railroad, for example, is wonderful. On the other hand, riding the Amtrak from central Illinois to Chicago was always a nightmare of screaming kids & piss smelling seats. The Long Island Railroad usually wasn't too bad, but could be really crowded at rush hours. As for subways, the one in Mexico City was clean but was so crowded it can't be recommended to the claustrophobic. Easy to get your pocket picked or be fondled, if you're a woman, in the crush. NYC's subway is older & nastier but I never had a really bad experience on it other than it being overly crowded likewise. There isn't a rail line within 200 km of where I live now, besides the Durango - Silverton narrow gauge steam train. That thing is a nasty polluting anachronism that routinely ignites forest fires. But since the tourism industry in SW Colorado counts on it, suggesting it be shut down or at least have a catalytic converter put on its smokestack is heresy around here.
I wonder what determines that... I grew up in Montreal, Canada. I took the bus everywhere as a teenager - even in cold winters, of course. The bus was full of young and old people from all walks of life. I never felt threatened riding the bus or the metro for 10 odd years. I eventually found I could save time by riding my bicycle (April to November), but driving a car is a nightmare - can't park it, snow conditions, etc. etc...
Here in Boulder, CO, the bus seems underused, and as there is little traffic and parking is acceptable, there is little incentive to take it. I don't feel threatened on it, even though I live near the homeless shelter, and run into old patients on the bus...
I wonder whether the social conditions in a given city are reflected on the bus. The more inequailty, racism, etc.. the more the bus experience would be unpleasant for those not on the very bottom of society.
I wondered the same when I was on the bus. The biggest surprise were the frail old ladies, I just couldn't imagine that occurring then in the states, tho I knew my grandmother would ride years before. It didn't seem to be a city function, as I rode through and across BC, Alberta, Sask. Is it still the same?
The other marvel back then was the condition of the neighborhoods. A striking difference, with disrepair and peeling paint here vs a Judy Garland type of Oz north of the border. I still wonder why that recession of the eighties seemed to hit the US so much harder. I have my pet theories, but none are tested.
As more people ride public transportation, I fully expect social pressures will generally spruce up these problems. It's sort of like my neighbors worried about building a path into the city park behind them, since "there were homeless people down there and our children will be unsafe...". Increased use of the park reduced the homeless problem.
I doubt it reduced the homeless, they, rather, moved elsewhere. What sort of pressures do you envision? The response I read is always to outlaw them in some fashion, make them illegal and hopefully, they move on. Outa sight, outa mind.
It's the ignored flip side of public transportation, even more ironic as the recession intensifies. They are not going to go away. An added cost will be policing the transport, whether rail, bus or pod. We are not far from vigilantes policing the subways again.
But what do we do with the homeless or "disenfranchised"? There but for the grace go all of us.
Unlike the GWB Administration, I do not see a major role for buses post-Peak Oil. As feeders to Urban Rail, and some express bus services, yes. But NOT as the backbone of public transit (at least in cities over 150,000-250,000 population).
The fuel mileage of a bus (if FF and not ETB) is comparable to a Prius overall. They do not appeal to the middle class (unless they connect to Urban Rail). Urban Rail does. There are only a few exceptions to that rule (express buses being one).
Best Hopes for Urban Rail and bus feeders,
Alan
Alan
"The fuel mileage of a bus (if FF and not ETB) is comparable to a Prius overall"
This I would doubt, I keep telling my friends that the "Greeness" of a suburban bus is a myth, a 40 seater has a maximum seated average load of 10 (25%) in a rushhour situation (As it starts off empty, peaks at its destination and returns empty, A full bus ceases to be public transport), an express bus 20 (50%) if it fills at the start and returns empty, paradoxically the farther you go by bus the better the utilization so you can improve the "mileage" by commuting farther (somewhat self defeating).
Electric Trains, ETB's and Monorails are similarly hampered but start off with a far higher efficiency.
Here in Auckland NZ the average bus load is less than 6pax per K, which is why it is subsidized, It is a social service, not an environmental one
Neven
Neven
The average ridership varies widely; your stats are on the low end. Ridership profiles, etc. vary significantly.
One very nice thing about Urban Rail (and not so for buses) is Transportation Oreintated Development. Urban rail creates it's own riders, and multiple sources and destinations (I am a believer in that theory) along the line allows the same seat to be used (sold) to more than one person per RT (3 or 4 is not uncommon in good situations).
Alan
Urban rail is the way to go. I am also impressed with BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) systems I have experienced in other countries (Colombia). These are relatively cheap to build and operate (presumably cheaper than rail, but I don't know). I eagerly await the construction of the DC Metro Silver Line to Dulles (under Tysons, not over), but I was disappointed that BRT wasn't taken more seriously as an option.
Regarding the variable [un]pleasantness of buses and trains, I've observed that they tend to be touchstones for local culture. The NY subway system seems dirty and unpleasant to me, whereas DC's metro is clean and pleasant in a shallow sort of way. People just read and listen to iPods and never make eye contact. I've heard that closing the system every night helps cleanliness enormously. You can take the pulse of most cities by their metro systems--Santiago's is utterly clean and super efficient, Madrid's is a party and it's common to start conversations with people you've never met and then spontaneously get off the metro for a drink, every city is different. The "Chinatown" bus is currently the cheapest passage between DC and NYC--it can be a pretty seedy crowd but mostly it's students and folks who are using what they can afford though it is also appreciated by people who understand the value of a downtown-to-downtown ticket. It is way cheaper than the train.
I suspect that most locales get the culture they deserve on their mass transit systems. It takes political effort and public will to develop and operate a pleasant, efficient system. These challenges are not technical, but a good technical underpinning helps a lot.
In Caracas a 23 seater bus has 18-20 people off hours. In peak hours it can have 33 or more. (People stand in the door, half in half out.) You breath diesel fumes, and the time it takes to get where you're going depends on the chaotic traffic. The people begging for money are depressing.
The metro air is clean but hot and humid. In off hours a 32 seat wagon might have 30 people, in peak hours you have to lever and wriggle your way in the doors. I've never succeeded in counting, but i estimate there's 50 to 70 people in each wagon. The people begging for money sing, or bless you.
I think one big difference here is that they don't put money into roads unless forced to, whereas public transport does get reasonable support. The roads are planned and constructed piecemeal, so car traffic is a frustrating snarl. Just imagine a 6 lane highway turning into a 2 lane highway in the center of the city. Then add a traffic circle, a few zig-zag avenues that might be one way, potholes, corrupt-ish traffic cops, street vendors, motorbikes, a few jugglers and the general conception that yellow lights mean go fast, red lights mean go if you can, and green lights mean honk as the other guy cuts you off. It makes you really like the metro, or any other transport that is on a track that can't be re-routed.
And soon they will open the metro cable. Its a ski lift style thing that will transport people to the neighborhood on the hills overlooking my apartment. No buses go there because There are no roads!
I will put up a picture if I can figure out how.
I wonder how much urban rail and other useful things could have been financed with 700 billion dollars.
In 1998 the Swiss people voted to spend 31 billion Swiss francs (over 20 years) improving their already superb rail system. Several goals (for THAT much money) but #1 was transferring freight from truck to (hydro) electric rail.
Adjust for population and currency, and this would be like the USA voting to spend $1 trillion on useful infrastructure.
Best Hopes for Less Wasted Money,
Alan
Perhaps a better idea?
Splat.
Brave lemmings always "stay the course".
It is only cowards who "cut and run" the other way.
A profit in the hand (almost) is worth flapping for, even if you're not a bird.
What do you do when you're branded
And you know you're a cow?
The Government solution is a grey liquid
being neither black nor white
gas nor solid
one drop of which totally disolve your mind
I believe you have indulged
Ignore - This didnt post where I intended
I think any talk about alternative fuels and conservation should be conducted in past tense. The public is not interested. We are facing global gluts of oil, and for years. The global recession has just started, and oil trading down into the mid-$40s. This could drag on for years (sadly). We will see oil under $20 in 2009, maybe single digits. Nobody is going to care about anything except recharging the economy. If this recession follows the pattern of the 1980s, it will be 10 years before demand recovers. Given new technologies and AGW policies, demand may never recover.
Man, what a change. Only yesterday there was talk of $200 oil. Now $20 seems probable. Hey, only off by a factor of 10. I guess we have seen worse forecasting, but I am not sure when.
Not necessarily - 1) the Net Export crisis, 2) reduction in new projects coming online due to current low prices, 3) natural depletion rate for existing production base of circa 9%, as per EIA, and 4) continued if more moderate demand growth in East Asia may all combine to cause a renewed spike in oil prices quite soon - even as the descent into economic depression in the wealthy West continues to take its course in the absence of any economic recovery whatsoever.
On the other hand, you may be right also. We certainly live in interesting times. I would like to call attention again to the fact that FROM THE WILDERNESS published an article some years ago explicitly predicting the possibility that oil prices could possibly fall as low as $15 per barrel under a scenario such as the present. This may be seen as an early prediction of what you are proposing. If anyone could provide a link to that article, I would be grateful.
The website with publications is here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
It is easiest if you search on it to find the exact publication you have in mind, as there seem to be a bunch that are similar.
If you use Google advanced search you can search just that site.
Hope this helps.
Gotta love his way with words.
Makes sense to me.