Why every American should be happy for high oil prices

[werepossum]

The oil industry is, more or less, a free market. Yes, there is a cartel which controls 30% of the world's production... but that group of oil exporting countries is only capable of controlling prices if nobody else can increase their oil production.
SNIP
Oh, and cull the conspiracy theories. The reason nobody buys electric or fuel-cell cars is that they suck.
Electric cars are expensive and have short range, and can't be filled up at a gas station.
Fuel-Cell cars are REALLY expensive and can't be filled up at a gas station. And don't have awe-inspiring range, in most cases.

Never mind finding a mechanic...

Electric scooters do exist, though. My understanding is that they generally get about 200 mpg equivalent and have a useful range. I suppose that should be translated into "miles per kg of coal", though, given how their electricity is generated.

That's an incredibly intelligent post. I don't disagree with any point, but I do have a couple of comments. First, previous oil shortages have been artificial, due to OPEC cutting production or embargoing the West. These were fairly easily solved by the oil companies opening up new sources or increasing production in other countries. (Those of us old enough to remember Jimmy Carter's attempt to manage oil distribution, let alone production or refining, still shudder at the thought of any additional government involvement.) As you say, this oil shortage is different because most producers are now at or near capacity.

Second, alternative energy technology can rapidly change. Catalytic converters used to be very expensive, $600 to $1,200, because of the platinum and other rare and expensive materials required. Then automobile companies (read: evil greedy capitalists) increased research and discovered better methods of manufacturing and new technological methods to do the same thing at less cost - enlightened self interest (read: definition of capitalism.) Now they cost $200 to $300. Had this been left up to government we would be subsidizing platinum producers and providing catalytic converter vouchers for the poor.

Third, starving people tend not to starve in place. People in countries too poor to feed their poor - or just unwilling to do so, which is already pretty common - will see floods of refugees crossing into productive nations. Probably won't topple civilization, but it's going to suck. Like Saskwach I'm a bit worried that peak oil will arrive unnoticed and go with a steep downhill side (nothing says a curve has to be symetrical) that will cause severe disruptions to civilization. Some of the Mexican fields for instance declined much more quickly than predicted, at least from what I've heard.

Fourth, I totally agree with your comments on conspiracy theories and electric cars, but we're actually pretty close now to practical use of grid-generated electricity in general-use automobiles. We probably won't have a totally electric car with a practical range (comparable to a tank of gasoline) for decades, but plug-in hybrids can come pretty close, charging overnight (when electricity usage is lower) and functioning as an electric car for daily commuting whilst retaining the range of gasoline cars. Once plug-in hybrids become commonplace even more research will be devoted to refining the designs, lowering manufacturing costs, and increasing range simply because of competition for the consumer's dollar. Here in Chattanooga we have electric buses. Electric or combustion/hydraulic accumulator technology works great for heavy vehicles running repetitive urban routes.

And no one who's ever ridden in a 70's-era electric car would believe they died out because the oil or automobile companies killed them. They sucked major ass at a time when the number of consumers willing or forced to accept major ass-sucking vehicles was too low to sustain a viable industry.

 

[BoilingLeadBath]

The wars in the middle east isn't to blame for the high cost of oil.
1) The countries you mention don't produce a significant fraction of the oil.
2) Their production is still considerable.
3) IF the other countries could increase their production, the oil prices would not skyrocket.

Oil is expensive because the supply curve has a cap and the demand-curve is steep. Demand for oil is inelastic; people NEED their oil, and are willing to pay high prices to get it. If their is less oil available than people collectively need, prices will go up until someone can't afford it.

And the supply curve is capped because of geology.

[edit]...yeah, as werepossum said. Peak Oil. Google for more.

***********

The plants that are turned into bio fuels consume carbon during their growth. Minus the energy required to make their fertilizer, they are roughly carbon neutral.

As I said, electricity looks like it will soon (couple decades) come primarily from PV systems. PV is not coal.

**********

IIRC, electric cars have been made. They didn't sell well.
Battery tech has advanced significantly since the last time serious effort was sunk into electric cars, but they will probably never be performance-competitive with petrochemical ICE vehicles.

...er, [edit], what werepossum said!

**************

[edit]...yeah, I suppose the decline probably won't be symmetric. And not just because it's likely to be less stable, but large scale differences in the curves as well.

[edit] Never heard of the Mexican Field issue. I haven't paid much attention to the oil production situation for a few years. Call it rational ignorance.

 

[werepossum]

You know, I've always been less worried aobut "OMG the petro it is all gone!" than I am about what the byproducts/waste of some of the most explored alternatives are. Biofuels...you're still burning carbon, stupid. Electircs...you're burning COAL STUPID!!! Nuclear...um...we cant ever in the forseeable future get rid of that crap...


I know the economy and the socio-political situation are linked and are important, but dude...

when people stop running out of places to live where it's safe to eat the food grown, drink the water flowing down hill and breathe the damned air...capitalism and the socio-political mess that goes along with such a destructive and exploitative system ain't gonna look so priddy.

You think capitalism is "such a destructive and exploitative system"? There are currently three Communist countries - Communist (mainland, as opposed to Taiwan) China, Cuba, and North Korea. Pray enlighten us heathern capitalists as to exactly how these countries are so much better.

As to nuclear waste, to loosely quote one of my college chemistry professors:
We can dispose of radioactive waste by placing it in barrels with slow leaks and dumping it all across the ocean. We don't increase the world's radioactivity so much as concentrate it, and it is the concentration of radioactivity, not the radioactivity itself, that is both useful and dangerous. But to dispose of it at all is stupid. What we call radioactive waste has a great deal of potential energy, and although it may not be technologically or economically feasible to use that energy now, it certainly will become so in the future. Therefore we should store our radioactive waste in a secure but accessible location for the future.

In the thirty years since I've seen nothing to indicate he was wrong.

 

[H0ncho]

The wars in the middle east isn't to blame for the high cost of oil.
1) The countries you mention don't produce a significant fraction of the oil.
2) Their production is still considerable.
3) IF the other countries could increase their production, the oil prices would not skyrocket.

I'm assuming it is me you are referring to when you say "you".
While it is true that Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan are not the largest producers out there, the instability in those countries are nevertheless a factor among many.

Demand for oil is inelastic; people NEED their oil, and are willing to pay high prices to get it

I've heard this argument before, and I don't buy it.
There are plenty of ways to reduce oil consumpton when prices rise: Travel with others (currently I think each car transports about 1.7 people, obviously this would change if oil prices became a significant cost), travel less (most people use car, ships and airplanes for a *lot* of non-essential stuff), use more public transport, and buy more fuel efficient cars. Sure oil is essential, but it is not at all impossible to reduce consumption of it and still lead comfortable lives.

 

[Oh-Wiseone]

Gas is only half of a barrel of oil, and consumer end-usage of that gasoline is only a part of that. Anything making use of a variety of the other petroleum products will rise in price as oil prices rise. Anything needing transportation will suffer an increase in price as well, and that includes food. You can cut your own personal usage of gasoline to 0, but you will still feel the effects of higher oil prices.

While every American should be happy about 'weaning' ourselves off oil, for the number that see the cost of everything, including basic necessities, rising far faster than their stagnating incomes, feeling 'happy' about it quickly becomes a luxury of the rich.

 

[werepossum]

The wars in the middle east isn't to blame for the high cost of oil.
1) The countries you mention don't produce a significant fraction of the oil.
2) Their production is still considerable.
3) IF the other countries could increase their production, the oil prices would not skyrocket.

Oil is expensive because the supply curve has a cap and the demand-curve is steep. Demand for oil is inelastic; people NEED their oil, and are willing to pay high prices to get it. If their is less oil available than people collectively need, prices will go up until someone can't afford it.

And the supply curve is capped because of geology.

[edit]...yeah, as werepossum said. Peak Oil. Google for more.

***********

The plants that are turned into bio fuels consume carbon during their growth. Minus the energy required to make their fertilizer, they are roughly carbon neutral.

As I said, electricity looks like it will soon (couple decades) come primarily from PV systems. PV is not coal.

**********

IIRC, electric cars have been made. They didn't sell well.
Battery tech has advanced significantly since the last time serious effort was sunk into electric cars, but they will probably never be performance-competitive with petrochemical ICE vehicles.

...er, [edit], what werepossum said!

**************

[edit]...yeah, I suppose the decline probably won't be symmetric. And not just because it's likely to be less stable, but large scale differences in the curves as well.

[edit] Never heard of the Mexican Field issue. I haven't paid much attention to the oil production situation for a few years. Call it rational ignorance.

I agree with all that. Right now we are totally screwed (at least in the USA) if we switched to electric heat, non-oil power generation, and electric or hydrogen automobiles. The grid has too little excess capacity, and too much of its power is generated by burning oil or natural gas. But if in the near future we get some more nuclear plants on line and get some alternative energy like wind power and solar evaporative low heat steam generation going, we might be able to cut oil consumption drastically without too greatly changing our way of life. If we can add efficient PV cells on every (or even many) houses and businesses, most of the electricity consumed in homes could be offset by their own PV power generation. The grid would take in residential power during the day, using it for commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings without sufficient area for complete PV use. The grid could also power flywheels or pump water up to elevated storage lakes during the day (using that water for hydro generation) for excess night or demand capacity. At that point hydrogen and/or electric hybrid cars become very practical. Of course there's always the chance that capacitors with ultrahigh power density, steady discharge, very fast recharge, long life, non-toxic disposal, and safe electrodes can be invented and economically manufactured, but I see nothing in the physics that suggests something like that is possible. Therefore it depends on a paradigm-shifting technology, which is unpredictable - it might happen next year, or in fifty years, or never.

Regarding the Mexican fields, it's hard to get reliable information about oil field production and capacity, their current points on the life cycle curve, and likely end-of-life complicating factors. I know what I've been told by a friend involved in the oil equipment business, but that's just the rumors currently believed by the people in the business that he believes. I tend to take it as fact, but the people who actually know aren't talking and the people who don't know are talking constantly. There's a dearth of reliable information, so take that information as worth what you paid for it. lol

EDIT: H0ncho, no commodity demand is completely inelastic but oil demand has proved surprisingly inelastic. A lot of oil is used in manufacturing plastics, most of which are not yet suitable or practical for organic or synthetic polymers and thus decline only with the economy. A lot is used for power generation or for direct home heating, neither of which are easily replaced. And people (Americans at least) who can afford it have cut back very slightly since gas has skyrocketed since 2006. Remember that elasticity is measured not by what people could do, but by what people actually do.

 

[zari]

You think capitalism is "such a destructive and exploitative system"? There are currently three Communist countries - Communist (mainland, as opposed to Taiwan) China, Cuba, and North Korea. Pray enlighten us heathern capitalists as to exactly how these countries are so much better.

We can dispose of radioactive waste by placing it in barrels with slow leaks and dumping it all across the ocean. We don't increase the world's radioactivity so much as concentrate it, and it is the concentration of radioactivity, not the radioactivity itself, that is both useful and dangerous.

Nitpick: None of the communist countries[1] are really communist in the proper sense of the word (or even socialist).
And the trite answer to your question would be they're better because the majority are already living without the benefit of plentiful resources ;P
I am curious as to where the reference to communism came from anyhow, since the quoted post was a criticism of capitalism not an endorsement of communism. Economics isn't completely black and white.

As far as radioactive waste goes, from what I've read it's not so much the radioactivity that is the problem, it's the effect which some of the isotopes (mainly Strontium-90 and Cesium-137) can have on living things. Both of these isotopes take a relatively lengthy time to decay (30ish year half life) and both are mistaken for other chemicals by living things and stored in the body (Strontium-90 in particular is mistaken for Calcium and so contributes to damage of bone marrow). Both isotopes can thus be passed along the food chain to damage other consumers.

On the main topic, I have a hard time seeing a silver lining in the decline of the oil industry. I look upon the American situation to be similar to the situation in Australia - a large land-mass of which a fair bit is relatively arid, and thus depends on the transportation of large volumes of resources. While it isn't too hard to see the possibility of alternative methods of fueling urban transportation, the long range movement of produce is another matter. Even if population densities become higher to mean lower distances to travel, you still need large areas of land for crops, livestock and so on (not to mention water, which is worth another thread on its own).

[1] - Well, China and N. Korea anyhow, frankly I have trouble trusting any source of information about Cuba and thus have no idea what the political or economic situation is really like - quite frankly even if I did know it'd still be a bad example due to the influence of US policy on its economy.

 

[raemiel]

Just as an aside, biofuels are entirely not viable. Brazil is a working example of a biofuel based economy. On a large and possibly even worldwide scale though biofuels would require such large areas of land to be taken up by the appropriate costs that there would be food shortages worldwide. Not just in developing countries but even in places like the USA or Australia or any other developed country you can think of.

Also, we have already passed peak oil, you only need to look at the escalating price over the last two years to see that. The OPEC countries have been lying about their reserves for over 20 years too.

Finally, hybrid cars are not our saviour either. If every car in the USA became hybrid overnight then it would only stave off what is happening now by 8 years.

Other then that I don't want to get too deep into this, exam tomorrow and all that (happens to be on economic and resource geology coincidentally).

 

[werepossum]

Nitpick: None of the communist countries[1] are really communist in the proper sense of the word (or even socialist).
And the trite answer to your question would be they're better because the majority are already living without the benefit of plentiful resources ;P
I am curious as to where the reference to communism came from anyhow, since the quoted post was a criticism of capitalism not an endorsement of communism. Economics isn't completely black and white.

As far as radioactive waste goes, from what I've read it's not so much the radioactivity that is the problem, it's the effect which some of the isotopes (mainly Strontium-90 and Cesium-137) can have on living things. Both of these isotopes take a relatively lengthy time to decay (30ish year half life) and both are mistaken for other chemicals by living things and stored in the body (Strontium-90 in particular is mistaken for Calcium and so contributes to damage of bone marrow). Both isotopes can thus be passed along the food chain to damage other consumers.

On the main topic, I have a hard time seeing a silver lining in the decline of the oil industry. I look upon the American situation to be similar to the situation in Australia - a large land-mass of which a fair bit is relatively arid, and thus depends on the transportation of large volumes of resources. While it isn't too hard to see the possibility of alternative methods of fueling urban transportation, the long range movement of produce is another matter. Even if population densities become higher to mean lower distances to travel, you still need large areas of land for crops, livestock and so on (not to mention water, which is worth another thread on its own).

[1] - Well, China and N. Korea anyhow, frankly I have trouble trusting any source of information about Cuba and thus have no idea what the political or economic situation is really like - quite frankly even if I did know it'd still be a bad example due to the influence of US policy on its economy.

My reference to communism came from the attack on capitalism, as capitalism (individualism) and communism/socialism (collectivism) are the two surviving and diametrically opposed economic systems. Capitalism (individualism) simply means that the rewards of a man's labor, and property (real or otherwise) he attains with those rewards, belongs to him exclusively. Socialism (collectivism) simply means that the rewards of a man's labor, and property (real or otherwise) he attains with those rewards, belongs to society at large, which should divide those fruits evenly to the betterment of the society as a whole. No society is completely one or the other; a completely capitalistic society would be anarchy (no law without some collectivism), and a completely communist society would have no private property even for the ruling elites.

In true Marxian socialism, everything belongs to society as a whole. Communism approaches this ideal most closely, but even Chinese communism has recognized that people simply don't work as hard for "society" as for themselves and their own loved ones. There are two other huge problems with communism. First, people are only human. Leaders will be selected, and decisions made, not for the good of society, but for the good of those who make the decisions. All communistic systems will degrade into a relatively small and wealthy ruling class and a relatively large and poor ruled class. Second, central planning is horrible at determining practical and advantageous future technologies. Bureaucracies by their design are limited in scope and vision, and the twentieth century really hammered that home. Opponents of capitalism love to trot out that tired old saw that communism has never really been tried, or never been tried properly, or never been tried at the right time and place with the right conditions and the right people in charge. This is bullshit; pure communism never works because on human nature. If you are in a very small commune where everyone knows everyone and has to face them if caught slacking, collectivism can be made to work somewhat, but will never be as productive as capitalism because people just won't work as hard for a fraction of the result as if they are allowed to keep most or all of the result.

Socialism is just communism light, but recognizes that some things require cooperation from a vast percentage of society. All advanced capitalistic societies are socialist to some point, even Singapore (probably the truest capitalist country), because some things (like national defense, roads) are not efficient to create among individuals. Thus we agree as a society to give up some freedom and treasure to a central authority to make these things practical. A socialist society tries to select some necessary businesses and functions in order to make better decisions for society than people would make for themselves, as well as to confiscate and redistribute enough wealth to minimize the difference in wealth across society whilst not confiscating and redistributing enough wealth to make it not worth your while to work harder and take chances with your life and your capital. That is, people who only want a job (any job) can find one which requires minimal effort and education and then rely on government to bring them closer to the wealth level of those who are smarter or more industrious, whilst people who are driven to improve society or just their own position in it can still realize enough profit from their extra work to make it worth doing, or enough profit from investments to make it worth saving and investing money.

But all socialist societies rely on capitalism for wealth generation, using socialism merely to redistribute it more evenly. Otherwise they would be communist countries. Even Communist China has recognized the power of capitalism if not democracy, and it is China's capitalistic practices which have taken one of the poorest countries in the world and put it on the path to wealth. That is why I bring up communism when capitalism is attacked, because a lack of capitalism is be definition communism. Too many college professors are Marxists, and too many young people think capitalism is evil oil companies crushing ideas for the betterment of society whilst things like music and food just magically appear.

I don't disagree with your comments on radioactivity, but it's not contradictory to what I wrote. Our bodies take up radioactive isotopes all the time; that's why Carbon 13 and other forms of isotopic dating work, because when you die you cease to take up those radioactive isotopes you normally take up every day.

 

[FireFox170]

Now...I'm not a genius or anything, and have only just finished high school, but this article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_141/3029-Weird-Science) Gave me an idea. If you'll notice, the second topic in it is about Nuclear Batteries. Using Radioactive Isotopes to power batteries via the particles they spew off. So, build some new Nuclear Power plants, develops the technology to turn the nuclear waste from those power plants into powerful batteries and put them into cars and we have an efficient way to travel and have electricity to power our country at the same time. This manner of fueling our country could probably last until we manage to develop Fusion Energy and we would actually be able to make the Particles we need, who knows? It's an Idea anyway....

 

[werepossum]

Now...I'm not a genius or anything, and have only just finished high school, but this article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_141/3029-Weird-Science) Gave me an idea. If you'll notice, the second topic in it is about Nuclear Batteries. Using Radioactive Isotopes to power batteries via the particles they spew off. So, build some new Nuclear Power plants, develops the technology to turn the nuclear waste from those power plants into powerful batteries and put them into cars and we have an efficient way to travel and have electricity to power our country at the same time. This manner of fueling our country could probably last until we manage to develop Fusion Energy and we would actually be able to make the Particles we need, who knows? It's an Idea anyway....

I doubt it's practical for moving automobiles, but it certainly is cool. It would be the ultimate irony if nuclear waste replaced oil as the backbone of our society. One thing proposed to make electric cars a practical replacement for oil-burners is to make filling stations exchange stations, similar to propane exchange stations, as a way to get around the limited range of electric cars. The filling station would take your old battery and exchange it, for a price, with a freshly charged battery. If your old battery was filled with nuclear waste you'd probably be more willing to trade it in.

I don't see any method of regulation on this type of battery, though. The radiation will be emitted continuously, even when you have no sink for the captured electrons. If you had a superconducting coil, perhaps you could just send them into a loop, to be picked off as needed. Or perhaps to some degree you could use the constant output to charge capacitors or more conventional batteries, to be used as in a conventional electric car that just happens to recharge itself while you're at work. (How cool would that be?) Or maybe someone will come up with some practical method of regulating the output itself.

 

[Vaemer-Riit]

About the Nuclear Battery, couldn't you just put an adjustable lead sheath around the radioactive material that opens or closes as needed?

 

[Erana]

I was just over there; the prices in Japan are around double that of the US.
I also got the card of a major Japanese politician! =D

 

[yzzlthtz]

Don't forget exercise! most of us Americans are overweight.
i've been walking a lot more since the gas pump started ramming my behind every time i visited it. walking more, driving less.
of course i keep getting arrested on the highways.

i think we need no put a temporary halt to all unnecessary industry and transportation. give everybody a few months off, provide free food, and devote all of our resources to rebuilding our infrastructure, converting to renewable energy, mending the environment, and tracking down and locking down all volatile nuclear material.

either we do that, or we will all probably die within a century or two.

 

[werepossum]

About the Nuclear Battery, couldn't you just put an adjustable lead sheath around the radioactive material that opens or closes as needed?

The problem is that radioactive material is breaking down and emitting isotopes continuously, and if this thing has enough power to power a car, that lead jacket's going to get really hot. Unless you have a way to restrict the radiation emitted (e.g. control rods to inhibit the reaction), you'll need a way to handle the unwanted power. If you have a way to restrict the radiation emitted, you'll probably need a method of cooling the inhibiting method.

I'm assuming that since this thing is a battery, it is normal radioactive decay and not near the level of a chain reaction. But basic physics then apply. If there is a continual release of energy, you either use that energy or it will heat its environment. If it has the power to move an automobile, it's got a lot of power, unless it is used just for on-board recharging of conventional batteries and/or capacitors. In that case its output could be much lower and heating (or electron output, depending on the design) would be lower and might be below problematic heat levels.

I'm guessing though that this thing would be most useful for long-term, continuous power applications such as wilderness radio beacons or relays, telecomm relays or switching stations, satellites, emplaced sensors - I can think of literally hundreds of applications if the thing works and is economical enough for true mass production.

And I'm still thinking that a stylish electric commuter that recharges itself overnight or while you work would be pretty cool. No fooling with cords for recharging at night, and your range to work each morning is effectively doubled since it would recharge while you are working.

 

[werepossum]

Don't forget exercise! most of us Americans are overweight.
i've been walking a lot more since the gas pump started ramming my behind every time i visited it. walking more, driving less.
of course i keep getting arrested on the highways.

i think we need no put a temporary halt to all unnecessary industry and transportation. give everybody a few months off, provide free food, and devote all of our resources to rebuilding our infrastructure, converting to renewable energy, mending the environment, and tracking down and locking down all volatile nuclear material.

either we do that, or we will all probably die within a century or two.

Wow, what a great idea. Since government's money magically appears the resources for all this shouldn't be a problem, and reworking our entire society and economy couldn't possibly take more than a few months. [/sarcasm]

 

[John Galt]

Don't forget exercise! most of us Americans are overweight.
i've been walking a lot more since the gas pump started ramming my behind every time i visited it. walking more, driving less.
of course i keep getting arrested on the highways.

i think we need no put a temporary halt to all unnecessary industry and transportation. give everybody a few months off, provide free food, and devote all of our resources to rebuilding our infrastructure, converting to renewable energy, mending the environment, and tracking down and locking down all volatile nuclear material.

either we do that, or we will all probably die within a century or two.

Sir, our Feasibility Meters are pulling nothing on this.

How could we give everybody a day off if we are to completely overhaul our economy? Everyone would have to work even more to pull off this mad scheme. The capital required to do this would be immense and when coupled with our massive national debt, would bankrupt the country for years. Also, the effects of closing down "all unnecessary industry" would have horrible consequences on a global scale. Even if we had all the capital required to proceed, finding the man power to carry out this plan would be a nightmare especially since "most of us Americans are overweight" and therefore not fit for the kind of labor that would be required.

 

[Alone Disciple]

Well, while it was tough to read in that long run on paragraph format, I hope you can take what I'm about to say in good measure....

You make some interesting points, and while I'm sure most people would tend to agree on the surface, much of it sounds like typical cable television talking points you can see on most nightly news shows.

A few things I think would be interesting for you to explore that are mentioned are:
1) Why did both Republicans and Democrats do virtually nothing the last 20+ years in office....as if no remembers the gas crunch under Carter ('77-'78).
2) We are so focused in the media on Arab and OPEC states and drilling in Alaska....what about our oil imports from Mexico and Venezuela?
3) Why does Brazil (basically a third tier nation) have better flex-fuel capacity that North America does? Who dropped the ball here on that and why does Brazil do it so well?
4) What effect did Detroit lobbyists, PACs, and clean air emmission standards (CA for one) have on our policies.
5) What happened to nuclear power here....we've come a long way since 3 mile island.

Me thinks that while you have thine courage, our policies are so layered and complex and touch so many realms you could spend years writing a paper and never be done.

Can you change topics?