Peak supply, peak demand
The peak oil movement believes world oil production is approaching a peak - identified after the fact as the year where the largest amount of oil produced (extracted) from the ground. The theory says we've used up something like 1/2 of the world's extractable supplies of oil and the second half is harder to extract.
Prudent thinkers would say we ought to "predict" this supply peak and encourage demand to peak just ahead of the decline curve so prices don't go out of control. Is this really prudent or should we just blindly wait for "demand destruction" based on price as it comes by "free markets?"
I accept the argument that in the long run conservation alone can serve no purpose except to keep prices lower for others who are late-comers to conserving for themselves.
The opposite side might imagine we ALL ought to (1) exploit cheap prices now for fun and profit (2) Be prepared to reverse course as prices rise.
What does that mean? Individually consuming oil generally comes from transportation, but how do I exploit low prices for fun and profit? Obviously being personally dependent upon low prices is risky, like living 60 miles from my work. I suppose we might say "party time" and travel, knowing things will change, but what's the use, unless I really want to travel. Well, in short, I have no great personal need for oil. I guess I could stock up on cheap electronics if I liked that, and any products that need a lot of energy, but things aren't built to last anymore, so what products can I buy for the long run?
It still seems my best bet continues to keep my expenses low and pay down mortgage debt.
The opposite side, the fear from OPEC, is that high prices will encourage a new source of energy and material that will displace petroleum. I don't believe substitution will work, at least not at current prices and consumption.
It is funny I'm all in favor of the reduced consumption incentives, but I admit if markets can keep the "shit from hitting the fan" (economic recession, unemployment, inflation), I might say Okay, let's see what happens. But if we could look backwards after the crisis perhaps there are more efficient steps we could take now.
If I KNEW oil would hit $300/bbl in 2007, and average $150 in 2007, I'd guess we'll be in deep shit, but perhaps I'd have said the same thing with $75/bbl oil when it was down around $30.
I SEE, in terms of planning, you want to be able to exploit prices while they're low and be able to offer quick substitutions if prices change. I mean individually and collectively.
At the moment natural gas consumption in North America is being displaced. Products are moving off continent that need NG to make, like fertilizers.
I wonder if the transportation industry could offer large scale shifts quickly based on cost? Well, there's like rail over trucking for transporting goods. I wonder if the airlines could cut back - probably not without even more bankruptsy - well that industry seems doomed anyway.
PROBABLY the best "conservation" tool now is speed-limits - a tool that can offer immediate results. In a longer term, smaller cars with lower power seem to me to have great potential for downsizing demand.
I try to envision poor people (or frugal people) living without cars, but smaller lighter slower cars are another choice. Parents love Minivans and SUVs, but I imagine such "people/kid movers" can be smaller, slower, lighter.
For me I'd say we should be making cars with a maximum speed of 40mpg, and weights on the same order as the people they move. A 30lb bike carries a 150lb person, so 20% vehicle weight. A moped might weigh 75lb, or 50%. For a 6-person vehicle limit, that's maybe 1000lb of people. Can we have a vehicle for them under 1000lb as well?
I imagine in the future that somehow efficient batteries will be created and lightweight slow cars will be created to get people around like cars today.
That's how I see cities evolving at least. I don't see how suburban and rural areas will replace cars. City people ought to appreciate 30mph speeds - 10 times faster than walking. Maybe networks of trains can do better than freeways?
It would seem wise to try these now.
Prudent thinkers would say we ought to "predict" this supply peak and encourage demand to peak just ahead of the decline curve so prices don't go out of control. Is this really prudent or should we just blindly wait for "demand destruction" based on price as it comes by "free markets?"
I accept the argument that in the long run conservation alone can serve no purpose except to keep prices lower for others who are late-comers to conserving for themselves.
The opposite side might imagine we ALL ought to (1) exploit cheap prices now for fun and profit (2) Be prepared to reverse course as prices rise.
What does that mean? Individually consuming oil generally comes from transportation, but how do I exploit low prices for fun and profit? Obviously being personally dependent upon low prices is risky, like living 60 miles from my work. I suppose we might say "party time" and travel, knowing things will change, but what's the use, unless I really want to travel. Well, in short, I have no great personal need for oil. I guess I could stock up on cheap electronics if I liked that, and any products that need a lot of energy, but things aren't built to last anymore, so what products can I buy for the long run?
It still seems my best bet continues to keep my expenses low and pay down mortgage debt.
The opposite side, the fear from OPEC, is that high prices will encourage a new source of energy and material that will displace petroleum. I don't believe substitution will work, at least not at current prices and consumption.
It is funny I'm all in favor of the reduced consumption incentives, but I admit if markets can keep the "shit from hitting the fan" (economic recession, unemployment, inflation), I might say Okay, let's see what happens. But if we could look backwards after the crisis perhaps there are more efficient steps we could take now.
If I KNEW oil would hit $300/bbl in 2007, and average $150 in 2007, I'd guess we'll be in deep shit, but perhaps I'd have said the same thing with $75/bbl oil when it was down around $30.
I SEE, in terms of planning, you want to be able to exploit prices while they're low and be able to offer quick substitutions if prices change. I mean individually and collectively.
At the moment natural gas consumption in North America is being displaced. Products are moving off continent that need NG to make, like fertilizers.
I wonder if the transportation industry could offer large scale shifts quickly based on cost? Well, there's like rail over trucking for transporting goods. I wonder if the airlines could cut back - probably not without even more bankruptsy - well that industry seems doomed anyway.
PROBABLY the best "conservation" tool now is speed-limits - a tool that can offer immediate results. In a longer term, smaller cars with lower power seem to me to have great potential for downsizing demand.
I try to envision poor people (or frugal people) living without cars, but smaller lighter slower cars are another choice. Parents love Minivans and SUVs, but I imagine such "people/kid movers" can be smaller, slower, lighter.
For me I'd say we should be making cars with a maximum speed of 40mpg, and weights on the same order as the people they move. A 30lb bike carries a 150lb person, so 20% vehicle weight. A moped might weigh 75lb, or 50%. For a 6-person vehicle limit, that's maybe 1000lb of people. Can we have a vehicle for them under 1000lb as well?
I imagine in the future that somehow efficient batteries will be created and lightweight slow cars will be created to get people around like cars today.
That's how I see cities evolving at least. I don't see how suburban and rural areas will replace cars. City people ought to appreciate 30mph speeds - 10 times faster than walking. Maybe networks of trains can do better than freeways?
It would seem wise to try these now.
posted by Ares Olympus at 10:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home