We interrupt our regularly scheduled program here at GM/EV central to bring some disconcerting news: we just learned the electrification of transportation could be a wasted exercise because America will have all the petroleum it needs, and oil prices will decline because they always do.
Since we believe everything we read, it naturally leads us to wonder: Are environmentalists and people interested in national security therefore barking up the wrong battery-powered tree?
According to one auto industry pundit, the implicit answer could be yes.
The Volt is meant to wean us from dependence on oil and its pollution. This week, the publication that named the Nissan LEAF’s and Chevy Volt’s powerplant one of the “10 best engines” offered an editorial effectively questioning these cars’ raison d’être.
“Before this decade is out, we are going to see vast increases in the amount of oil and natural gas available,” John McElroy concluded in a column on the Wards Auto Web site.
The writer of the editorial titled, “Oil’s Price Always Comes Down” had led up to this by saying for nine decades, ups and downs have been normal, and Americans have strong reason to believe prices will drop.
“Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows the price of a gallon of gasoline over the last 90 years, on an inflation-adjusted basis, always has declined after a spike,” McElroy said, “It may jump during war time or global turmoil, but then it drops.”
After years of following the issues, McElroy said he is no longer concerned with oil supplies.
“Every day, we are bombarded with screaming headlines about soaring oil prices. What we rarely hear is that the price of oil always retreats,” he said. “Five years ago, I believed in the Peak Oil theory. It postulated that global oil production would peak in 2006, and the following shortage would send prices skyrocketing. Sure enough, in 2008 a barrel of oil shot up to $150. But less than 12 months later, oil plummeted to less than $40 a barrel. Yes, the price now is back up to $100, but I no longer believe in Peak Oil.”
For the first time in 40 years, McElroy said, the U.S. Department of Energy is predicting an increase in domestic oil production by two-million barrels per day by decade’s end.
Thanks to hydraulic fracturing for both natural gas and oil, America will have new-found supplies of these natural resources.
Supply also will come, he said, from new Brazilian offshore reserves that rival those in Saudi Arabia, and due to be tapped in coming years.
And in Iraq, McElroy said, infrastructure is on its way to multiply output by six or seven times, possibly making that nation the world’s largest oil producer.
“And this will have enormous implications for the auto industry and policy planners,” MacElroy said confidently.
Yes, because of the new-found energy deposits and a 100-year supply of natural gas, he ends his piece suggesting it will affect policy for auto industry and government decision makers.
In fact, his message flies in the face of what the Obama administration, other government and auto industry decision makers are planning for.
And if he is right, it seriously erodes one of the primary arguments in support of electrification of transportation.
Although McElroy never says this about EVs explicitly, his editorial leads one to wonder what is the concern over gasoline prices and supply?
This is the trailer for “Gasland” a movie that exposes “fracking.” McElroy calls fracking the “mother of all game changers,” and dismisses the film as nonobjective, non journalism, over a non-issue.
McElroy also poo-poohs concerns over one of America’s supposed saving technologies intended to deliver all this new fossil fuel. He said dangers of hydraulic fracturing, called “fracking,” have been overblown and sensationalized, and something easily controlled through regulation.
“Some environmentalists have seized on it as the next great danger to the planet. A documentary called ‘Gasland’ probably will win an Academy Award for hysterically pointing out the dangers of fracking,” McElroy said, “Of course, ‘Gasland’ approaches its topic with the impartiality and evenhandedness of pseudo-documentaries such as ‘Roger and Me’ and ‘Who Killed The Electric Car?’
Oops. There at least he said something kind of snotty about a topic and perspective held dear by some EV proponents.
Pick your pundit
So what do we make of this? Is Green Peace all wrong? Al Gore? Or if not them how about the U.S military? European Union? The Obama Administration? General Motors? The rest of the auto industry? Are all the private, corporate and government entities around the world that are pursuing a whole new battery powered industry basing it on bad data?
Given also biofuels, fuel formulations made from natural gas, synfuels, and others under development, will we have plenty of fuel to burn?
Is the fight for electric transportation no longer as worthwhile an endeavor toward a clean and sustainable future?
McElroy says nothing about hydrocarbon emissions, but perhaps that omission was one he has worked out also.
All we can say for sure is that in today’s information age, anyone can stand on a cyber stump and call to like-minded souls with soothing words that play to pre-existing biases in their minds and hearts; there is always someone willing to convince you of what you want to hear.
While we prize the First Amendment, aspects of the free-for-all are nonetheless what are really disconcerting.
To be fair, one could turn this assertion back around on us, and say we are just a fan club on a misbegotten adventure.
If so, we are not alone in believing energy independence is a worthy goal, and we have yet to be convinced oil is not problematic for many reasons.
The troublesome thing is not everyone has the ability to discern truth from fiction. In fact there are a lot of intelligent people on all sides of the argument – in environmental and energy issues, and for that matter, most issues facing society in this divided/united world.
Who do you believe? In this clip Greenpeace alleges VW is standing in the way of EU legislation that would further limit new vehicle CO2 emissions. If you want to see part two, you have to sign up, and Greenpeace will email VW a protest on your behalf.
McElroy’s tagline says: “John McElroy is editorial director of Blue Sky Productions and producer of ‘Autoline’ for WTVS-Channel 56, Detroit, and ‘Autoline Daily’ the online video newscast.”
In his opinion piece, he makes a defiant presentation that effectively muddies the outlook, which of course is his right.
He presents his case with some facts, and we credit him for having the guts to express opinions that are tantamount to saying millions of people are wasting their time, and he knows better. Is he arrogant, over confident, a bold visionary, or something else?
We won’t call it, but will ask: what do you make of this? Do you have facts that counter McElroy’s convictions?
A while back we reported an opposite-minded pundit from HSBC bank who said the world would be out of oil by 2060, and now here is someone who won’t call the end because he says it is nowhere in sight.
It is getting confusing here. Who has the story right?
McElroy does not say it, but others before him have made accusations that ideological blinders drive the EV movement.
Are his assertions nothing but a smearing of one old guard ideology vs. the new other?
What is the truth? Do you know?
Source: Wards Auto
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 29th, 2011 at 5:55 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+15
Jun 29th, 2011 (6:36 am)“4.92 billion barrels (207 billion gallons) of petroleum products, including 3.65 billion barrels (153 billion gallons) of crude oil, were imported to the US in 2007
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twiparch/081029/twipprint.html
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm”
4.92 Billion barrels X $100/barrel =$492 Billion dollars sent overseas for a raw material we just burn
Although we get most of our oil from Canada, Europe and China get theirs from the Middle East. So propping up worldwide demand funds terrorism. Even if we produced all of our own oil Europe and Asia can’t. It will still be in our national security interests to help others get off oil and let the middle east pound sand.
We need a tax Floor on oil and we need to get it started today. I don’t know the short/mid term price fluctuations for oil but I do know an oil floor would provide a lot more certainty. If we said ok today oil is $100/barrel and only $1 of that is tax we should set the tax so oil is either always at this level or higher if the markets take it that way. If oil goes back down to $40/barrel than the tax is $60/barrel. Industry has a relatively consistent idea of where oil prices are going to stay and we can use that money to pay back our debt. If oil never goes back below $100 than the tax did nothing but provide a little energy price certainty to the free market.
I am very much against raising taxes but at the same time this is such a national security issue that I think it should be done. The Saudi’s have already said they are scared of the EV movement and rightly so. They said they want to push oil prices back down and I believe that OPEC still has the power to do that. If EV’s really start taking off I have no doubts that the short term oil price will be back down to the $30 to $40/barrel range. They’ve managed to get America to forget about them too many times and an oil floor will take away their tool of oil price deception.
+16
Jun 29th, 2011 (7:04 am)Like many auto analysts, John McElroy doesn’t appear to be knowledgable about the oil and gas industry. Based on the quotes in the above article, he doesn’t seem to understand the basic concepts of peak oil.
Too bad he chose to speak out on these topics without researching them first.
GSP
+5
Jun 29th, 2011 (7:17 am)After reading John’s Wards Auto editorial, I will agree he is making a case for the world’s oil peak production rate being in the future, rather than the present. We’ll see. In either case it will happen, and it will be nice to have EVs and other alternatives (like CNG) when demand outpaces supply.
GSP
+3
Jun 29th, 2011 (7:18 am)Wouldn’t the expanded use of EV’s extend the useful life of fossil fuels? I don’t beleive that there is just a single source of fuel. There’s still a need for gasoline, diesel, CNG, Hydrogen, etc. Each fuel needs it’s own infrastructure so I beleive that a gradual conversion to each is necessary. Perhaps someday, the gas powered ICE in the Volt will be replaced by a hydrogen fuel cell. The keyword is “someday”. The Voltec drive train has proven to be powerful and reliable packaged into the Volt as a very nice sporty car. It’s a great “next step” using today’s infrastructure. Perhaps in ten or twenty years, the fuel source will be different, but consumers will still demand refueling convenience. We’ll see…..
Volt 63
+23
Jun 29th, 2011 (7:32 am)When gasoline prices go up $.90 per gallon in a year and then drops back by $.16 per gallon, I hardly call that a price “retreat”!!!!!
It is not about supply. The real question is: Is it worth the time, money, and trouble it will take to continue to get this product? And the geopolitical issues were not even mentioned, nor were the associated costs of the oil we use. I am sure if he lost a son or daughter in the military fighting in some desert to make sure we had a steady supply of oil, he might feel a bit different about all of this………..
It is time to move on from oil. It had a good run, but there are now better ways to do things.
JMHO
+9
Jun 29th, 2011 (7:33 am)I believe he is right about Brazilian oil and prices coming down. However, I hope that does not doom EVs. We still need to stop pollution and CO2 generation. Oil is still a precious resource for plastics and lubrication, best saved for future generations. The most wasteful thing you can do with oil is burn it.
We need to turn the rational for EVs away from “peak oil” and focus on GHGs, efficiency, pollution, silent smooth ride, lower maintenance etc.
+9
Jun 29th, 2011 (7:35 am)Fossil interests will always represent fossil interests.
Their band will play on as the ship sinks.
They have no choice to do that if they are going to put caviar on their party crackers.
OK. So they want as many places that can be possibly made available for the placement of their refined products, eg, ICE.
It’s getting increasingly and unbearably hot around the clock out here in these ICE service bays.
In Science Daily a few days ago, the case for the “hockey stick” of the rate of escalating
heat around the clock has been very substantially made based on historically valid datum.
Historical datum reveals that nine tenths of a degree per year hotter around the clock are
not just possible, but likely. In five years, the best talent will not want to work in those conditions,
because they are smart enough not to begin an employment career in such conditions.
Yet ICE complexities are added at insane rates as well.
My last few seminars that I taught to shop techs has the following phrase which these very hard working and very experienced, conservative technicians did not have disagreement with, as this Summer has already exceeded the number of over one hundred degree days compared to the Summer of 2009:
*
“It is all about global warming, and YOU HAVE TO WORK OUT THERE IN IT.” I said.
*
They do not disagree whatsoever, of course. Fewer individuals are going to be available to service your ICE vehicles because of precisely this unworkable condition, where the service
bays routinely have ambient and engine-fed temperatures in the mid hundreds.
Of course we have to have electrification. OSHA already is overloaded with too much work.
+17
Jun 29th, 2011 (7:42 am)I guess I’m not interested in new supplies of oil from Iraq and Brazil. Those are temporary solutions that can be gone in an instant.
As long as we are dependent on other countries for energy supplies (and that includes raw materials to make batteries and motors), our national security is at risk. We have to figure out a way to be self-sufficient, for there will always be those who would like to bring us down.
+16
Jun 29th, 2011 (7:57 am)Even if there’s tons of oil in the world, even if climate change isn’t occurring, that still leaves economic security as a strong reason to get off foreign fuel sources. 2 million more barrels a day in the US isn’t going to keep up with our growing usage.
Go electric and reduce out deficit, strengthening our economy. I also think his argument against peak oil is based on cherry picked data, but that’s JMHO.
join thE REVolution
+21
Jun 29th, 2011 (8:00 am)What part about “I just like to drive a well-built EV” does he not understand?
1) Quiet
Safer (ie. much heavier than equivalent gas vehicle)
2) Doesn’t stink
3) Smooth
4) 100% torque off the line
5) Fuel-up at home (No time wasted pulling into and out of, or thinking about gas stations)
6) Far, Far, Far fewer expensive and time wasting brakes repairs
7) No time wasted changing oil
BTW – adding 2.5 million barrels of oil per day satisfies about 2 and a half hours of US demand each day. In reality though that oil will be sold on the world market to the benefit of shareholders who demand the highest return on their investment dollar.
The real answer is drill baby drill, coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, and whatever else it takes to obtain energy independance, and promote job growth.
+11
Jun 29th, 2011 (8:07 am)Now the market is playing “Back to the Future”, revising what happened 100 years ago when the gasoline powered vehicles took over the electric vehicles because gas was cheaper?
I am an Electrical Engineer and I will always be in favor of the use of electricity to power everything in my life. I have an electric grass trimmer and a electric grass mower because it is safer, less noisy, and cheaper to operate and maintain. I can even mow at night because of the low noise. BTW, I have excellent lawn illumination, but adding headlights to the mower is in my list of “things to do”.
In this new century, we all need electricity to communicate and travel. We cannot go back to fuel-powered devices, since we know that is not good for us, for our economy and for our environment. Nature put all that carbon from the past air into the plants and stored it as food energy, but burning it up and releasing it back to the air will slowly kill us. I laughed at the Nissan ad with the gas powered devices, but that ad should be extended to show the damage that all gas-powered vehicles are doing now. I lived in cities all my life (especially in New York) and I hate what the gas engine is doing to the air that the residents are breathing. We will eventually follow what European cities are doing to reduce and eliminate all polluting vehicles travelling the streets, and help clean the air we breathe.
The only present and future solution is to convert to electrical transportation all the way. The Volt, and all the new EVs and better hybrids are giving us a head start, and we must support that. Too bad our government lets itself be prodded by fuel producers (like cattle led to the slaughterhouses), but we voted for them. Now we have more power than before, so we vote with our pockets to buy more electric powered transportation , and later we must vote the fuel-supporters out of office.
GM, Nissan, and Tesla are the modern pioneers, and we are supported them. We must continue with all the others producers. If not, the past history of gas versus electricity will come back.
Raymond
Jun 29th, 2011 (9:13 am)I’m sorry but I don’t think this site should pick-up on negative writeups, from John McElroy or anyone, who theorized oil will be plentiful in the future and because of that, will kill the electric cars. This is a pro electric site that should not help the anti electric car advocates spread their stories. Selling electric cars is hard enough w/o this kind of interventions.
+10
Jun 29th, 2011 (9:26 am)The Volt gives freedom to choose. If premium fuel drops below $1.50 a gallon, then stop charging at 11 cents per kilowatt hour at second meter rates. Fuel would have to be free to beat the cost of charging at the free public charging stations. Even if OPEC gave the fuel away, the local gas station would add delivery, taxes and profit.
The world needs EV and CNG cars to reduce our dependence on gasoline. All it takes is one major conflict in the Strait of Hormuz to shock the world into alternative methods of transportation.
Don’t let one reporter stop you from the joy of driving an electric vehicle. The almost silent spectacular torque with it’s no hesitation pickup from zero to whatever makes the ICE vehicle a dinosaur in comparison.
+8
Jun 29th, 2011 (9:46 am)I heard McElroy speak at a seminar earlier this year and he touched on this subject. I was left feeling like he’s talked somebody in the oil industry that really sold him on the idea that future oil needs will be met by new exploration methods and extraction techniques.
I think he’s crazy if he things those gains will offset exponential growth and auto adoption in growing markets like China and India.
Regardless of the cost of gasoline; it’s still cheaper, per mile, to drive on electricity. The only thing really standing in the way of widespread adoption is the cost and energy capacity of batteries.
Jun 29th, 2011 (9:53 am)Raymondjram,
Electric is great! I recently found the Fiskar Momentum Reel Mower that is human powered. It is very easy to push and powers through thick grass. Sounds like an advert but just want to get the word out there so we can save even electricity.
+5
Jun 29th, 2011 (10:00 am)Mr. McElroy failed to point out the real driver for the ‘new oil’ being found. There are about 3 billion Chinese & Indians coming into the consumer market in the next decades who will demand more of a western lifestyle, i.e. more energy use, cars, etc.
Even if we increase the discovery of ‘new oil’ by 50% (a very high number) this new increased population will demand more energy than can be supplied by oil alone. I see a future where energy in all forms will become more in demand and more costly.
+4
Jun 29th, 2011 (10:40 am)Dont let the facts get in the way of a good story. This article should be “Oil Never Comes Down”. The simple truth is if you take the PPB every year since 1946 and adjust for inflation, you will see the truth. A simple search found the table below.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp
There are many more just like it.
+2
Jun 29th, 2011 (10:44 am)I think McElroy is a good guy, but is really mis-informed on this subject. He sort of hangs his hat on the notion, “we were wrong on our guess of peak oil a couple of times before, so that must mean there will never be peak oil”. The easy to obtain oil is getting more scarce. The gulf oil he mentions is very deep and expensive to drill. Marcellus shale oil is available but won’t indefinitely sustain our country’s appetite. The bulk of the oil we buy is from hostile foreign countries. I could go on but I don’t want to preach to the choir.
Bottom line to me is there will be many with the same opinion as McElroy, but it will take time and patience on our behalf to show them a better way, and make them true believers. Getting John in the seat of a new Volt could go a long way!
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (10:46 am)The truth is gasoline – adjusted for inflation – has changed little over time. Of course where you pick your starting point is key in determining just how much it has changed. In 1918 gas averaged about $3.70/gal in 2011 dollars, about the same as today. But then for the subsequent decades it slowly dropped with peaks here and there (think WWII) until it settled at about $2/gal (once again in 2011 dollars) in the 70′s prior to the oil embargo. The 70′s saw it jump to about the $2.40 range and then then the big jump in 1981 saw it hit $3.30. The next 2 decades saw it drop down below $2 again until the last 10 years where it has jumped from $1.50 in the late 90′s to our present day cost of about $3.50 – below where we started in 1918. So McElroy is correct on that statement. The key difference is for most of that history we were an exporter of oil and now we are a huge importer.
The one most surprising thing to most people would be that adjusted for inflation the cheapest gasoline prices we ever paid were in the mid 80′s to the late 90′s! Bet few people would guess that!
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (11:05 am)Bryan,
Funny. I came to a completely different conclusion using the same source.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp
But as I pointed out picking your starting point is key. Key to either getting a fair analysis or a slanted one… Your starting point is 1946 – just after WWII where there was a drop in oil/gasoline prices.
+5
Jun 29th, 2011 (11:14 am)It doesn’t matter if oil is at peak or not. We need to diversify transport fuels period. Hanging our hat on the iffy supply of oil is plain dumb.
All transportation fuels need to be explored and examined. EV is just one way to go. We also need more alcohol, CNG, bio-diesel, and yes, even coal to go into transport. EV is just not going to cut it for large trucks, trains, jets, etc. in the near future.
I personally believe that EV is the future for personal transport since you can source electricity from many different/divergent fuels and methods. So, rather than changing the end user and infrastructure every so often, you change the conversion up front.
What really chaps my butt is that the US government actually makes it very difficult to do home-based work. I can do 90% of my job at home. I wouldn’t use any fuel at all for transport during those days. If you claim a ‘home office’ for this work, it’s an automatic audit. Idiots.
+3
Jun 29th, 2011 (11:20 am)You can only say this if you torture the data until it confesses. If you create a graph with the yearly prices adjusted for inflation the price goes up. Yes commodity prices are volatile, and if you want to pick an outlier year like 1998 you can say the price of oil hasn’t gone up much relative to some other year, but the facts are that the price of oil for the last five years has been double that which it was for the previous five years. Does it really matter if, for one year five years from now, the price drops precipitously?
The other issue he doesn’t get is that the volatility is, in and of itself, a problem. From an economic development standpoint it’s a disaster. You want stable commodity prices if a big segment of your economy depends on a given commodity. Ten years of oil priced at $80/bbl will give you far more economic growth than ten years of one year having oil priced at $50/bbl and the next year at $110/bbl, even if the “average price” in both cases is the same.
Additionally he doesn’t understand peak oil. Peak oil doesn’t say you run out of oil, it says that the new oil you get is higher priced than the oil you used to get because it’s more difficult and hence more expensive to extract it. For example, even if Brazil has offshore oil reserves as large as Saudi Arabia’s, does anyone question the fact that offshore development in deep water is more expensive than pumping oil on land in the desert? Someone needs to explain to him that from an economic standpoint “higher prices” and “shortage” are equivalents.
Finally, he’s right that fracking is important, no doubt about that. However, fracking is more important for natural gas than for oil, and, as recent news articles have suggested, estimates of how much fracking can actually produce may have been greatly exaggerated. In no case will it make an appreciable dent in the amount of oil we need to import. At best it will simply replace declining production from existing facilities.
+2
Jun 29th, 2011 (11:26 am)“Is the fight for electric transportation no longer as worthwhile an endeavor toward a clean and sustainable future?”
—————————
Let’s speak in McElroy’s language, money. Even if gas drops back to $2.50/gallon, it’s still cheaper to drive on electricity. Especially if you get energy from the sun/wind. So why would we stop working on electric cars? Once their initial cost is the same (if not less) than ICE cars, it would be cheaper to operate them. Not to forget, more fun to drive.
Now we should also mention oil spills, the emotional up/downs of oil prices, pollution, etc. All of this is still following McElroy’s assumption oil will never run out (which anyone older than age 3 knows is not true). The fact that oil is subsidized should also be brought to attention. What does McElroy consider “cheap” gas?
Jun 29th, 2011 (11:31 am)I don’t think this is true. Also, when they audit something they don’t audit everything, just the one thing they’re targeting. If the deduction is valid this is a ten minute issue. IOW if you want to take it and it’s valid I wouldn’t worry about it.
However, I question the value of the home office deduction. Every dollar you deduct gets recaptured as ordinary income when you sell your home, meaning at some point it’s a wash, except for the fact that at the later point in time you’re probably paying at a higher rate. Because of this, the only time the deduction would make a lot of sense is when you’re going to blow through the $500,000 exclusion on the sale of a principle residence.
Completely with you on alternative fuels. We can’t do them all though, which is why I’d like to see more done on the natural gas front. Having all gas stations with revenue over a given amount have at least one natural gas pump by some date would be a big step. The problem now is chicken and egg: that people don’t want to buy natural gas vehicles because there are no pumps, and no one wants to put in pumps because there aren’t many vehicles using them.
Jun 29th, 2011 (11:40 am)Another reason we need a gas tax. As long as gas prices keep going up/down, no one is going to change their habits.
+2
Jun 29th, 2011 (11:43 am)You never “run out” of a commodity. The commodity just gets too expensive as supply can’t keep up with demand. At that point you need to substitute an alternative commodity or you have to devote increasing amounts of GDP to buying the commodity, which strangles economic growth.
+5
Jun 29th, 2011 (11:46 am)It seems to me, that its much easier to capture something falling from the sky vs. digging it out from 3 miles underground.
Interesting stat:
“The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth’s non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.”
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (12:17 pm)Historically, one of the problems with peak oil theory is that there have been various concerns about it since 1911, at least as we know it today. There were probably concerns about peak oil when it was basically only used to make the kerosene for lamps. And there was concern when whales were quickly becoming extinct that there would be no more lamp oil, before petroleum was used.
Some areas, including the US in 1973, have peaked and are having a lot of trouble maintaining production despite the most advance exploration methods.
Yet those who historically were not very bright, and who did not understand peak oil have always gotten a reprieve.
The oil industry today is vast, oil use is vast, and the industries secrets are often held close to the vest for strategic gain. Will the tremendous growth of India and China, and continued economic expansion after the bust of ’08 finally lead to peak oil becoming the norm? Stay tuned.
+6
Jun 29th, 2011 (12:19 pm)Remember how the tobacco companies fought “cigarette smoking can cause cancer” for decades, while knowing all along it did? Don’t expect the oil industry to be any different. When they read about going 1000 miles between 9 gal fillups, my guess is “how can we kill this” pops into some heads.
The tobacco companies would release “studies” intended to muddy the waters to the point that the average consumer could not know whom to believe…and kept on smoking. They did this right up to the very end. The same is happening with oil.
Anyone who thinks that oil is an infinite resource on a finite planet is goofy. Peak oil simply means we have sucked all the easy to get oil. The hard to get oil is much more expensive to get. That means oil will be more expensive and there will be more expensive to remedy accidents. You can take that to the bank.
Jun 29th, 2011 (12:26 pm)A floor on gas prices is so much more palatable.
If prices crash due to over production, cheap gasoline will not blow away the technologies that are helping to get us off of oil. And if prices rise quickly, a floor tax will not add to the misery.
It’s like Superman said in the ’80s. That a floor tax clearly like Superman himself, represents truth, justice and the American way…
+2
Jun 29th, 2011 (12:47 pm)Gas prices may come down for a while for a number of reasons. But at some point we’re going to need another option.
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (12:52 pm)A price floor may be more palatable, but it amounts to a transfer of wealth from us to OPEC. Because that will eliminate any incentive they have to increase production.
Besides, gas prices are still very far from reflecting their true value. So, unless you’re talking about a price floor near European levels (which I don’t think the US economy can handle unless it’s phased in gradually), we’ll still be left with artificially cheap gasoline.
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (12:56 pm)Lots of excellent posts today. Thanks.
Interesting (and a bit scary) for me to speculate on what’s going to happen. The range of outcomes for the future of personal transportation, fuel supply and use, prices, impacts, etc. is so huge that anyone could speculate all day on what might happen. One of the things I feel most confident in predicting is that humans won’t act enough on global warming until one of its consequences gets catastrophic. At least that’s OUR country’s history. Maybe it will take a giant hurricane smacking into Manhattan, or wildfires so big they choke the skies over the eastern US for a whole summer, a more likely I think, a drought or downpours so severe that even OUR food supply runs out. Something really bad like that. Not the end of the world, but a Pearl Harbor attack moment, for sure.
Then things will make a huge jump for the better. Until then, a bunch of small adjustments as the problems worsen.
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (12:58 pm)Extrapolating into the future and drawing conclusions is a waste of time and effort.
But having said that…
Battery costs are going down,
The complex electronics needed and costs to buiild electric motors going down,
Production costs — the “knowhow gap” or “sunk R&D” u know what I mean…
between a EV and ICE are going down
(worse case) A nice natural gas turbine spinning a generator is quite a bit more efficient than an ICE burning gas.
I believe that once the bugs are worked out, an EV will be cheaper to make than an equiv ICE.
Even is the price of gas goes down and remains steady — these lines will intersect soon.
We may have already seen “Peak oil” Oil usage appears to be on the way down.
The tax man is already working on alternate methods to pay for roads because cars are too efficient, don’t need enough gas — compared to the ’60s.
It is kinda nice to hear opposing views — but both sides are going to be wrong.
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (1:16 pm)While the new supply through fracking is significant, it’s still but a tiny fraction of the overall petro supply. Iraq and Brazil currently contributes just about 5M bpd production, or <10%. even if they can double that, they cannot offset the decline in the oil field elsewhere. The world's overall petro production is likely to remain flat while depend is surging due to the incredible growing demand from China, India, and Brazil, and this means oil price will go up.
here's the graph showing that China auto sale, already worlds #1, growing on a monthly basis. Car in China are so cheap that they are now accessible to the huge and growing Chinese middle class.
http://www.heatingoil.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/china-car-sales-graph.jpg
here's a graph showing China's growing oil import:
http://www.heatingoil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/china-oil.jpg
When supply cannot increase to meet an inelastic demand curve, price will go up.
+4
Jun 29th, 2011 (1:28 pm)I don’t go to the gas station anymore. How cool is that?
=D-Volt
+3
Jun 29th, 2011 (1:59 pm)I’m not swayed or dismayed by this one man’s opinion.
However much oil remains on Earth, it is still finite. We will find it much easier to prepare for that reality now, while there is still enough oil for daily needs, than if we wait for the last drops to be pulled from the ground*.
No, full electrification isn’t going to happen quickly. Sorry. But if we do not take the first steps today, we will never complete that journey by the time it is vital for the survival of civilization.
*In fact, we must complete our transportation transformation long before this: oil has many more uses than for transportation; and at some point those needs will make burning the resource unconscionable:
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/dem_image_us_cons_sector.htm
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/dem_image_us_cons_prod.htm
Note that if the Transportation oil demand had magically vanished overnight in 2004, the remaining uses would have equaled total demand in 1950. The more rapidly transportation energy can be electrified, the longer oil will last for these other uses.
+7
Jun 29th, 2011 (2:15 pm)I’m not arguing a side here…but the historical, inflation adjusted cost per barrel of oil isn’t really the whole story.
To keep it in context to the discussion, it is about the inflation adjusted net cost at the pump for XX miles. Which means you have to take into account not only the resource itself, but the efficiency of its application.
ie) 30 years ago, the average domestic passenger car (according to the nhtsa) was operating at 13.7 MPG, whereas today the CAFE regulation is pegged at just over 30MPG and climbing fast.
+2
Jun 29th, 2011 (2:22 pm)If you think about it, most sources of energy are based on solar.
Oil/NG/Coal = plants that grew using sun energy and created deposits of their dead selves.
Hydro = water that was lifted to a higher elevation by evaporation and precipitation
Wind = air that is moving around mostly by sun power
Tidal = Ok. that one is the moon.
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (2:26 pm)The problem is that Solar falling from the sky is not concentrated. Fossil fuels, Hydro and Wind act as natural concentrators. Artificial concentrators (heliostats, dish reflectors and the like) and the high numbers of units needed to convert sunlight at ambient levels in useful quantities (photovoltaics), are neither easy to deploy or cheap.
Yet.
+2
Jun 29th, 2011 (2:33 pm)If we get over our addiction, we can leave OPECs desire to produce more or less strictly in their own interests as something the rest of the world has to deal with. If not we will be yo yo’d back and forth at their mercy anyway.
I don’t normally worry if crack dealers want to sell more or less crack because it barely affects me. Though the President of Mexico has a tremendous burden on his hands from their decisions. Depends on your economic position and I would like to be in a position where OPECs marginal changes in the distribution of black liquid crack don’t matter any more.
Jun 29th, 2011 (2:37 pm)Yes so wind and solar are based on nuclear, only the plant is located about 93 million miles away and no tsunamis will ever knock them offline.
Jun 29th, 2011 (2:41 pm)statik,
Yes the same technologies that can make range extenders smaller, lighter and cheaper could subvert the adoption of batteries altogether during a period of oil price drops.
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (2:43 pm)The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.
This saying is attributed recently to alGore, but, it was also used by the OPEC minister.
We just found another way after stones and we will find another way after oil.
For the record, I think that current oil/gas prices are way over stated. I also think that China’s usage of same is over stated including their future growth. Things have a way of going back to normal after a while. I don’t believe we are at ‘normal’ right now.
Jun 29th, 2011 (2:43 pm)Brazil has the potential to be self sustaining for some time to come, if they have the collective political will.
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (2:47 pm)It is intriguing to reflect that conventional nuclear power represents energy from a different Sun. Heavy particles floating through interstellar space coalesced with others to form the disc from which the Solar System originally formed. Geologic processes on Earth, over eons, concentrated these rare heavy particles in ore which could be harvested by Man. Fission releases the last embers of energy from the exploding supernovae which formed them. So in a way, even nuclear energy can be considered “fossil.”
Real Fusion would be imitating stars, but the hydrogen isotopes used in the reaction are presumed to be primordial.
BTW, you’re quoting my reply to Loboc.
Jun 29th, 2011 (3:00 pm)And now for something completely different!
Toyota has a recall for their hybrid system:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/06/toyota-highlander-lexus-rx-hybrid-systems-recall/1
Now back to our regularly scheduled debates…………..
+2
Jun 29th, 2011 (3:05 pm)“Subvert” is a pretty strong word for a small engine which justifies wide purchase of vehicles that contain a certain measure of those batteries. EREV can create the market necessary to eventually improve batteries and establish infrastructure to the point where pure EVs can be relied upon for most travel. It is a slow but continual process, and attempts to skip a step are likely doomed to failure. The Volt and similar future cars are such a necessary step.
In my opinion, the descendants of Volt are likely to retain a share of the market for decades to come.
Jun 29th, 2011 (3:11 pm)Key word is “yet”. I wish we would concentrate (pun intended) on these ideas more than we currently are. Why wait for nature to convert solar for us? Let’s just capture the raw energy first.
Jun 29th, 2011 (3:12 pm)OT (Sorry Jeff if you were going to report on this)
New 7 passenger car from Taiwan. Faster than the Volt.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/21/luxgen-ev-puts-chevy-volt-and-nissan-leaf-on-notice/#continued
(kinda funny, this review was also written by John McElroy)
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (3:13 pm)If the United States becomes oil independent, then the rest of the world will almost certainly follow. In fact, I suspect, given the lack of willingness in Washington to spend money on research, odds are that the rest of the world will lead, and we’ll follow.
That’s definitely the goal. It’s getting there that’s the issue. And that will take at least ten-twenty years. And I don’t want to send the Middle East any more money than we have to in the meantime. We need it here.
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (3:14 pm)ronr64,
The only reason your statistics are “true” is because in the 1980s, they changed the inflation index to eliminate FOOD and ENERGY from the calculation! HELLO! FOOD and ENERGY are the 2 things that *EVERYONE* has to buy. Put those 2 back into the inflation index, and you’ll find that your calculations fall apart.
Jun 29th, 2011 (4:34 pm)Let’s try this again……
The 2011/2012 Chevrolet is as Motor Trend called it a very cost effective car to drive.
I could care less what the MSRP is. I do not care how much oil is in the pipeline for future use.
I will drive my Volt when it arrives and will pay less CTD ( Cost to Drive ) then it currently costs to drive my 2006 Grand Prix. !!! ( Payment+Gasoline )
I will lease my Volt with US Bank. I will NOT pay sale tax on the $40,000.00 to $44,000.00
cost of the Volt, only tax on my monthly lease payment.
Chevrolet says $350.00 a month with $2,500 down plus first and last or $400.00 a month with just first and last up front.
My C.T.D. will drop from my current $250.00 a month for gasoline to just around $50.00
a month electric with some gas. I will be saving $200.00 a month to drive the same 1000-1200
miles a month that I am driving now……
Net C.T.D. now becomes $200.00 a month !!!! $200.00 a month to drive this sporty, fast, fun E.R.E.V !!!!!
This fantastic machine will almost pay for half itself in reduced C.T.D. !!!
Try it this way…..$400.00 a month X 36 month lease payment = $16,000.00 total lease payout. $200.00 a month reduction in gasoline expenditure=reduction of C.T.D.
equaling $7,200 over 36 months…..
$16000.00 total lease payments minus $7,200.00 C.T.D reduction = $8,800 Net C.T.D. this $40,000 plus E.R.E.V. Volt for 36 months!!!!!!!!
Then ready to pick up Gen 2 in 2014
Source for $1.20 daily charge if needed :Lansing Board of Water and Light
http://www.lbwl.com/PEVintro.pdf
Volt Guy
Jun 29th, 2011 (4:46 pm)Tom Thias-Volt Guy,
This site once had a dedicated follower whose handle was “Volt Guy.” He passed away from cancer shortly after receiving one of the very first Volts. I think I speak for many when I ask you, please, to pick another moniker.
Jun 29th, 2011 (5:29 pm)In the not-too-distant future oil will have to be pretty cheap to compete with nuclear power and electric cars (probably see this first in either France or China). Battery research really looks exciting now (30 years late but oh well).
Continuing to use oil also requires that we go against the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and dangerous. I think we will end up saving the oil for materials.
By the way, it is not definitive but there is an interesting set of articles in the NYTimes a day or two ago, that questions whether tight shale hydraulic fracturing will be all it is ‘fracked’ up to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/us/27gas.html?_r=1
This might be just a shade too conspiratorial for me, but there are some that suggest that the hype on gas is primarily to slow or prevent the construction of nuclear plants in the near future in the US. Later, the gas price will rise substantially and lovely profits will flow. Exxon’s purchase of XTO seems to suggest that — ‘In the last quarter of 2010, for example, the XTO business units of Exxon provided just $35 million in net income. Exxon invested $41 billion in that purchase, so the annualized rate of return on investment was an anemic 0.35%.’ (Rod Adams)
Jun 29th, 2011 (6:38 pm)Regardless of how the cost of gasoline has or hasn’t changed, driving on electricity costs 1/3 of what driving on gasoline costs. Buying electricity doesn’t fund terrorists either.
Jun 29th, 2011 (6:46 pm)“This site once had a dedicated follower whose handle was “Volt Guy.” He passed away from cancer shortly after receiving one of the very first Volts. I think I speak for many when I ask you, please, to pick another moniker.”
Jackson and to all who remember and revere our late friend ” VOLT GUY “. I remember his passion for the Volt and the posts of our loss of him. My regards. . . Although my passion for this wonderful machine beats strong I will not use this handle again..
Let us however hammer out to all the naysayers that the severely reduced Cost To Drive ( C.T.D. ) using electricity instead of gasoline combined with the US bank lease offsets the perceived high price of this “Moon Shot” of a EREV. Best !
Tom Thias lgtvotr
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (6:47 pm)My point was, it’s a finite fuel. Anyone that thinks it will never increase in cost (so long as it is a valid fuel source) is crazy.
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (6:49 pm)I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. I think you’re saying that greater efficiency can reduce demand and hence price. That’s true but as a realistic matter that effect will be swamped by an overall increase in demand. For example, you can double the efficiency of every vehicle but if at the same time you’re tripling the vehicle miles you’re still increasing demand. Put another but more realistic way, in developing nations like China, India, and Indonesia the passing of each day sees more vehicles going more more miles. Technological improvements in the combustion engine simply can’t deliver enough efficiency gains to offset this increase in vehicle miles, especially when a fleet takes more than a decade to turn over and those increases in efficiency take many years before they appreciably reduce demand.
On the supply side the easy to produce oil is being depleted. No doubt you can find more of it, but it will be more expensive.
And the price of oil will be set by the most expensive barrel needed to have supply equal demand.
I don’t know of a case where efficiency on its own reduced price, though you’d expect there to be at least one. What invariably happens when a commodity becomes too pricey is that people find an alternative or substitute.
+2
Jun 29th, 2011 (7:04 pm)I’m not disagreeing with your conclusion, more the way you’re positing the problem. You say “oil is finite”. Then some oil company says it has found a gazillion gallons of oil off the coast of West Africa or Brazil. Most people would think the problem has been solved because while oil is still infinite there is now lots more of it.
But finding more oil doesn’t solve anything because the critical issue is not the amount it’s the cost of bringing that oil to market. You can assume there remains a lot of oil. In fact you can assume as a practical matter there may be an infinite amount of oil. But if it’s increasingly expensive to extract the next barrel of oil that abundance doesn’t matter — prices will go up and up and up.
Jun 29th, 2011 (7:49 pm)A somewhat related post from the front page, regarding a link that ronhip posted about Sumitomo Electric of Japan having a new tech that is one-hundred-fifty-percent to three-hundred-percent as energy dense for Li ion.
They call it “Aluminum-Celmet”. (They call the less powerful and less applicable nickel version of this as merely “Celmet”)
That sort of advancement could definitely get the Japanese in line for BEV/EREV feasibility if their technology is a long term and dependable one.
It sure looks to me that many corporations in the world are certainly going after those monies that would otherwise be spent on gasoline. What would be even better is if some of that money was left in our pockets at the end of each month as well.
Great link, ronhip.
Jun 29th, 2011 (8:00 pm)An opinion shared by Bob Lutz in his recent book and the chairman of GM.
+2
Jun 29th, 2011 (8:38 pm)Of course conventional oil will have a highest producing year unless you think oil is renewable… It looks like it happened in 2006. The ugly down slope of Peak Oil will bring out some interesting theories and people in denial. The oil wars haven’t even really started…. EV’s will only be a band aid for the very few with foresight….
MrEnergyCzar
-1
Jun 29th, 2011 (8:53 pm)Lets say the motor is phenomenally cheap, strong and efficient. Why on earth would we need to waste our time with batteries when the next oil slump occurs and we are awash in cheap fuel?
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (9:17 pm)If,… the energy market was a free market, all of this would be true, but it doesn’t seem to be, between the speculators and the regulations.
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (10:01 pm)A Range Extender (and CS-mode, or a true parallel hybrid mode), requires a battery pack. In the Volt, Range-Extender output must match the electrical load as closely as possible to protect today’s limited battery technology — but it can’t fully succeed. The difference between RE output and electrical load is made up for to/from the battery pack. Even this much requires a fairly robust pack, in order to spread the partial charge/discharge cycles this causes out to many individual cells. While you could theoretically buy a Volt and never plug it in, I’d submit that with a battery pack large enough for CS-mode, you might as well plug it in.
Future batteries promise higher power densities, longer cycle lives, less weight, cost, etc; and it may be that a much smaller pack of these will still “buffer” the output of a Range Extender much more effectively than Volt’s present-day pack. Operating in a true parallel mode, with a small engine tuned to it’s most narrow rpm range for efficiency, a “Plug Free Volt” might well become possible; but only because of advancing battery technology. These necessary battery refinements will also make traditional EREV and BEV concepts more compelling.
However you look at it, batteries are the beginning and the end of all electric-drive designs, whether or not there is a plug-capable pack on board (You did say “Range Extender” — perhaps you didn’t mean to).
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (10:39 pm)I missed that story. Thanks for pointing it out.
If you ever want to email a lead to me, you can do that too.
This Luxgen looks interesting.
Jun 29th, 2011 (10:41 pm)After hours, completely off topic for performance/racing fans. Rider drags a helmet on the pavement cornering at what looks like somewhere around a 100 mph. This is one of the attractions ex-military “high risk operators” do to get their adrenaline fix after coming back from combat zones –
Biker Touches Head On Asphalt During Turn – Watch more Funny Videos
+1
Jun 29th, 2011 (10:43 pm)It seems to me that what’s needed is for a sustainable EV or EREV niche to take hold; one persistent enough to survive even the theoretical excesses of oil the writer assumes. This site has proven that many have interest in electric drive for it’s own sake, for reasons of forward thinking, out of a consciousness of oil’s true costs, environmentalism, etc. If the technology can maintain a presence, it can still advance until universally needed (after a magical oil glut inevitably disappears).
“Peak Oil” is a mathematical concept which, in practice, may turn out to be meaningless. What we will more likely have is uncertain supplies which will toggle the market between stability and chaos. Hopefully, enough people will seek advanced technology as a buffer against uncertainty; enough to keep electrification relevant even through the “good” times.
And let’s not kid ourselves. The most probable result of being awash in cheap fuel is the return of the SUV — with a vengeance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl8mQhxhE_Q
Jun 29th, 2011 (10:51 pm)Jackson,
Other factors are at play besides cheap oil or not. Stay tuned.
Jun 29th, 2011 (10:57 pm)This is what I hope. The premise made for much interesting discussion, though. Thanks for a compelling post!
-3
Jun 29th, 2011 (10:59 pm)Everybody pretty much knows oil will someday run out. This guy is just stating the obvious, it may not run out, or even run low for a very long time.
When I was a kid, a long long time ago, my president (Carter) put forth a policy saying the U.S. will lower it’s dependency on foreign oil if congress will only pass my legislation, (they did). When I was a young man, my president (Reagen, Bush I,) said similar things and congress obliged.
When I was a smart man, my president (Clinton, Bush II, Obama) put their 2 cents in, congress obliged with the appropriate legislation.
The end result is we burn more fuel than ever and import more oil than ever. Why do you say?
1: People need cars to get to work and get around. We are NOT Europe. Our population density is much lower than in Europe and spending hundreds of billions on mass transit just doesn’t make since here.
2: Cars got smaller, so people rejected cars and moved to trucks and SUV’s to get back some of the cargo capacity, towing ability, and passenger volume lost when big sedans and station wagons were essentially outlawed.
3: More people work to make ends meet. 400 families control half the wealth in the U.S., thanks to miss guided policies from our Democratic and Republican law makers. That means the rest of us have to fight like hell to get a share so mom, who might normally stay home, now goes to work too. A caveat to this problem is people tend to drive long distances to work because it’s almost impossible for Husband/wife, mom/dad, to be able to keep stable employment in a small geographic area. Dad(mom) loses job, now has to travel 2 hours to work for new job. Move? then the other spouse is in the same position and kids have to be uprooted.
A good friend of mine told me, “Live where you want because you can’t depend on your job being there tomorrow”. Basically, you need some stability in your life and your home is likely the only thing that qualifies.
4: There are simply MORE people in the country than there were 10, 20, 30 years ago when this whole mess started. MORE people drive MORE cars and burn MORE gas. Our Democratic and Republican lawmakers essentially made it legal for anybody with an airline ticket, or even the ability to climb a fence, to become a defacto American citizen so our population is rising at an unnatural rate.
5: By far the most important reason, gas is cheaper and better than any current alternative. When somebody comes up with a energy source that’s stable at any temperature encountered on the planet, that can push a car 30 miles or more with just 6 pounds of mass, takes up less than 1/2 cubic foot of space, can be topped off in 5 minutes, and is cheaper than gasoline, I’ll buy it. No matter how hard the Democrats and Republicans try, they can’t write a law that negates the laws of physics.
Jun 29th, 2011 (11:07 pm)Thank you. I hope tomorrow’s will be alright. It is less dramatically presented, but it is about something happening now that stands to have significant impact on “the future” of American transportation.
+2
Jun 29th, 2011 (11:45 pm)Oil. Oil is a greedy and enabling mistress. Its such an energy-rich, ages-old resource that will eventually run out. It has enabled much of the industrial age. But what it has done is prop-up our humanity in the 1900-2011 years where the world population grew by over 3x since 1900. A larger population requires more energy to survive and thrive. If oil did “go away” this world population would be a dramatic danger profile. Economies “breath” energy usage and oil is a huge part of it. World economic collapse will occur if oil runs out – at least in its current energy usage profile. Renewables are not yet ready to replace oil. People are not ready to “cut back” on their energy usage which is drastically needed. Imagine telling your kids “only one hour of tv and computer time today” and the inability to keep your A.C. running during the summer months due to energy rationing.
We talk about going into space so that the human species can survive. I’d like our governments to consider trying to figure out how to thrive here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Oil “helped” us grow and thrive. It will also be an eventual cause of some very hard times as we come down from this resource “high”.
Jun 30th, 2011 (1:55 am)I really like what you are saying, except I have been looking at demographics all of my life. The vast, vast, vast majority of population growth, has been internal. Simple births over deaths. We have been making more kids. Has been the source of most of our growth for a long time.
Jun 30th, 2011 (2:24 am)Very strong argument for an oil floor tax to help “maintain that presence.”
That is why I didn’t say anything about a range extender. Cheap fuel and high efficiency will mean a choice must be made of one of the two propulsion systems. Historically full electric (post Cadillac’s use of the electric starter) has been the loser. It’s not hard to imagine circumstances where this will happen again. Add stop start capability and a tiny Li-Ion pack that stores energy for an assist motor barely large enough to replace the starter. A compellingly cheap alternative for when the world is awash with cheap oil. A floor on gas makes this less likely.
+1
Jun 30th, 2011 (5:50 am)I’ll probably make a lot of people angry with my comments but it’s just my opinion. I believe that getting us off of foreign oil for national security reasons is racist. I say it’s racist because the assumption is that if one Arab is a terrorist then all of them are terrorists. That’s racist. We import and export many different things from many different countries. To say we need to get off foreign oil because much of the oil comes from predominantly Islamic countries is racist. There, I said it again because it bears repeating. But you might say, “We spend so much money fighting wars over oil” I disagree. The Iraq war was not about oil at all. Saddam Hussein was selling all the oil they could produce. Almost every country in the world imports oil and they aren’t breaking the bank fighting wars over oil. The Iraq war was about taking revenge on people that resembled the 9/11 terrorists.
Of course peak oil is real. It’s just a matter of time. The peak may not have been 2006 but it will come someday, definitely within the lifetime of many people reading this page. But that’s the least of our worries. If we swap imported oil for domestic oil, gas and coal it does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If you disagreed with the first paragraph of my post you probably believe the campaign of misinformation financed by the fossil fuel industry which asserts that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. You believe all the hundreds of climate scientists are part of a grand conspiracy. You don’t have to read the IPCC fourth assessment report if you believe it’s part of conspiracy. It’s quite long and highly technical. It has been read by experts who must also be part of the conspiracy if they agree with the conclusions. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and the US Department of Defense, just to name a few, all concur with the IPCC fourth assessment report. If it’s a conspiracy then it’s a really, really huge conspiracy. Only a psychotic person could believe in such a huge conspiracy.
Jun 30th, 2011 (8:32 am)While I realize that tremendous natural gas and oil reserves have been discovered, I find it hard to believe that America is close to truly becoming totally energy independent without some conservation and other initiatives. But even if America did become energy independent without making any changes to our energy consumption, this would not address the environmental reasons to drive electric.
I realize that natural gas is a relatively clean burning fuel and that coal is not so clean, however electric cars are inherently much more efficient. In addition the electric grid should continually make more use of cleaner, renewable energy sources. In addition it is much easier to regulate power plants than consumers and to clean emissions at a smoke stack rather than on millions of tailpipes around the country.
I do think domestic natural gas and oil should play a role in helping us to obtain energy independence, but we have more big problems to solve and electric cars will need to play a critical role regardless.
Jun 30th, 2011 (3:37 pm)Many many right ideas have been told today. I would like just add:
During recent years oil processing cost dramatically increases. May be some reserves are very cheep and profitable to extract but marginal oil is getting more and more expensive. Russians are claiming they would not survive oil price below $50. New discoveries are in deep waters or require lot of energy to extract.
Jul 3rd, 2011 (12:31 am)Steve,
I have that Fiskar’s reel mower, yes, it is great! You need to mow the grass consistently weekly (or parallel to grass growth) or else the grass gets too long and then the mower misses the longer blades of grass. But when you mow every time the grass grows about 2-3 inches longer, it’s fantastic.