 | Peak Oil - Politics, Geopolitics, and Choke Points Video | The Oil Drum | Advice to Pres. Obama #1: An Actuary's Impractical Perspective |  |
155 comments on DrumBeat: January 12, 2009
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
155 comments on DrumBeat: January 12, 2009
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
- Thanksgiving Open Campfire Thread
- How Relocalization Worked
- How to Set Up and Run a Bicycle Repair Company
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
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 - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
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.
“Men argue; nature acts.”
—Voltaire
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
Thanks for your input
Segeltamp, they are providing corporate clients (in particular) with an overview of upcoming trends in different areas. I'm not sure what their business model is; probably they sell reports with more detail than what's on their web site or in Halal's book, Technology's Promise.
Yes, they're trying to reduce uncertainty from 100% to 10-20%, they say. The book contains less broad descriptions.
Well put, Bob; I'll try crafting a question around that.
E.Swanson, this is probably where technological possibility collides with market economics. I think Lovins believes that the technology for the Hypercar exists. With the expert panel's apparent blinders to energy constraints (they're aware of climate change), I'm not sure they would have predicted a breakthrough for the Hypercar. But now I'm putting words in my interviewee's mouth.. This would be another fruitful line of questioning.
Don't ask a miner if we need less coal
Don't ask a vehicle manufacturer if we need less cars
Don't ask a plastic surgeon if we need less face lifts
Don't ask a general if we need less arms
Don't ask a corn farmer if we need less ethanol
Don't ask a fund manager if we should liquidate our investments
Don't ask a stockbroker if he knows what he is doing
Don't ask a banker if her bank is safe
Don't ask a politician anything if you really need to be told the truth
The point being............IMO to be able to fully appreciate their point of view. We really should know and understand who, whom or what people are dependent on for their livelihood.
PS not the same as asking a new mother if there should be less babies.
The hyper car concept is an extreme example of the current hybrids. Consider the story linked above, 48 mpg is nice, but hybrids don't add up right now. The improvement in MPG may seem large, but the savings do not justify the added cost of the technology unless the cost of fuel is very much greater than that today. Lovins has apparently added plug in capability to his concept, which just shifts the burden to electricity from the grid, which will also be needed by other users as the fossil fuels are exhausted. Our economic system philosophy does not address problems from energy shortages, given that there's the assumption that shortage in one sector will be met by growth in another. But, energy is the foundation commodity, the fuel which is the basis of all other commodities produced and traded thru the economy. As fossil fuel shortages appear and the prices of those basic commodities increase, all other prices downstream can be expected to increase as well. I think we will find that our market economics will not function well after Peak Oil as cheap energy can no longer be expected to be available into the future.
E. Swanson
Beware the MPG illusion. Assuming 1200 miles driven a month, going from 50 mpg to 100 mpg saves only half as much as going from 25 mpg to 50 mpg.
True, but I'd still like for people like this to get consideration along with Ford, GM and Chrystler wrt the auto bailout. I don't like the Auto bailout in general, but if you're going to do it, why not give this guy $200 Million and see what he can come up with.
With OPEC cutting fuel production, the world may need less cars as there might be less fuel available, same thing with jets, trains, etc. Why not just shut down inefficient auto plants rather than push the U.S. closer towards bankruptcy by trying to keep open what is not affordable.
Rain:
There is a lot of doublespeak going on wrt the auto bailout. There are doom and gloom predictions regarding job losses if GM and Chrysler go under (parts suppliers, other manufacturers, yada, yada), but they ignore certain fundamentals.
In rough numbers, the system has the capacity to make 16 mil. cars per year and it is possible that actual sales at the end of 2009 will be half of that. This means that 50% of the system going to be out of work, regardless of who goes under.
If GM goes under, and I think it should, there will be many other plants to take up the slack. In the doom and gloom, it is somehow implied that if GM goes, that those cars won't be built and sold, which is nonsense.
The whole premise of the bailout is BAU after the big 3 get by this little rough patch. BAU, of course, is what got them in this hole in the first place.
A bailout IMO, just allows the dead wood to scale back evenly (and dratically) across the board while the US gummint takes on more unsustainable debt with little net benefit.
Doesn't make much sense to me either. We should just let Darwin do his job.
Naturally Darwin wasn't referred to when the first 8 trillion was being transferred and added to taxpayer liabilities.
Just to be clear, I'm not in favour of any bailout unless there is an endgame with a net benefit.
Be it auto manufacturers or Ponzi banks, you can not sustain the unsustainable.
My only question is; Was softening the crash worth 8+ trillion?
It is worth it if you get a slice of the pie (that is the way your fearless leaders look at it).
Brian T - Wow! With $8 trillion added to "taxpayer" liabilities, who is having their taxes raised? Who is Obama raising taxes on? Have your taxes gone up exponetially? Do you expect them to increase? It is one thing to have a liability. It is totally different to have to pay it. And do not claim that it will be your great grandchildren.
"do not claim that it will be your great grandchildren."
Why on earth not? In the end there isn't any thin air to make this stuff out of. One way or another some future generation will pay. And strong inflation is as much of a tax - a capricious and arbitrary one at that - as any other.
Well, if you accept the arguments put forth by Reagan supporters, we can pay off that debt by cutting taxes even more. Wanna try it and see?
In the real world, not the one inhabited by Bushes and Reagans, governments have to pay their debts. The whole tax cut increases government revenues thing was started by increased collections from social security and medicare after the economy started to rebound not too long after Reagan took office. Since those collections are included in the general fund revenues of the US government, it looked like the whole "cut taxes to increase revenues" thing would work. But, as it turns out, it was smoke, mirrors and fraud. They got away with it, too, and if we have out of control inflation again, it may bail itself out again, but I doubt it.
who-hooo! All righty then, let's just 'print' as much money as we want, and everyone will be rich! McMansions and Escalades and 100-inch LCD TVs in every room! Genius!
Leanan,
It's not the savings that are relevant it's consumption; a 100 mg vehicle consumers 12gallons, half as much as a 50 mpg vehicle hence the resource will last twice as long(more than that because there will be some resource additions).