Peak Oil and the Magic Free Market

[J]

Following on to what GrandMasterTerwynn noted above, the forthcoming transition to oil alternatives, assuming society survives to make the change, will be completely unprecedented in human history. In the past we've made two significant transitions; wood to coal and whale oil to petroleum. In both cases the new energy source was already present, developed, and abundant by the time the old source started running low. Coal mining was already well underway in Britain when they started running low on trees, and there was more petroleum than people knew what to do with in the US when whale oil started running out. All that was required was an expansion of the infrastructure for the new energy source, and with the abundant energy provided by coal & oil this was relatively painless & easy, if costly.

The situation now is far grimmer. We have no viable alternatives with which to replace oil on any meaningful scale. Nothing. To put it bluntly, unless a miracle happens, we are screwed. We need something along the lines of a (cold) fusion engine that will fit in our cars & vehicles. That's the magnitude of the miracle we'll need to replace oil.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Now that isn't quite to say that everybody everywhere is completely and totally screwed. There are undoubtedly nations on the planet who have both a sufficient proportion of their power grid not exceedingly dependent on oil or natural gas-fired power plants, and sufficiently developed natural resources and infrastructure that they might just survive the post hydrocarbon-economy transition without having to reacquire technological know-how last employed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

However, they'd have to first survive the potential attacks and intrigues by energy-hungry nations reliant on natural gas and oil to preserve their survival as viable socioeconomic entities. (Why does one think Iran wants La Bomba so badly that they'll tolerate any number of UN sanctions to get it? Or why do they want closer ties with that political cesspool formerly known as Iraq? They know the entire Middle East is going to going to be square in the sights of post-oil driven imperialism. For that matter, Venezuela's recent actions make perfect sense in light of such thinking.) They'd then have to survive the collapse of inexpensive high-volume global trade. (You're not going to carry anywhere near the volume of trade goods on sail-driven galleons and coal-fired steamships, even if you somehow applied the lessons of modern engineering to their construction . . . after we re-learn how to build and operate such things.)

This, admittedly, is cold comfort to those of us who are looking at a likely catastrophic collapse of society as we know it, and the following interregnum of effective neo-barbarism. This is of even colder comfort to the significant fraction of the planet's population who will probably die off as a direct result.

[aerius]

A few observations:

1) Optimism is a shitty disaster planning technique. Only the idiot bases his plans upon the assumption that things will go better than expected, rather than things going worse than expected. I thought Iraq would have taught us this already, but I guess some people are slow learners.

This is the part that scares the shit out of me. When faced with a situation, it's always "the market will fix itself, nothing to worry about, the invisible hand of the free market will provide all the solutions". There are no what if's, there is no Plan B. If the market doesn't correct itself there is no fallback and we are completely fucked.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

A few observations:

1) Optimism is a shitty disaster planning technique. Only the idiot bases his plans upon the assumption that things will go better than expected, rather than things going worse than expected. I thought Iraq would have taught us this already, but I guess some people are slow learners.

This is the part that scares the shit out of me. When faced with a situation, it's always "the market will fix itself, nothing to worry about, the invisible hand of the free market will provide all the solutions". There are no what if's, there is no Plan B. If the market doesn't correct itself there is no fallback and we are completely fucked.

Hell, as I said earlier in the thread, at least one big oil company has started an ad campaign tacitly admitting (once you unwrap the layers of sticky-sweet, feel-good "Join the discussion" language) that Peak Oil is upon us. Given that companies are much more likely to react after the fact, than they are to be proactive in the first place, this change in rhetoric should be very, very worrying to the average person.

[J]

Hell, as I said earlier in the thread, at least one big oil company has started an ad campaign tacitly admitting (once you unwrap the layers of sticky-sweet, feel-good "Join the discussion" language) that Peak Oil is upon us. Given that companies are much more likely to react after the fact, than they are to be proactive in the first place, this change in rhetoric should be very, very worrying to the average person.

Not to mention British Petroleum rebranding itself as Beyond Petroleum. All the major oil companies have known for many years that peak oil is real, read between the lines a little and observe what they're doing instead of what their PR departments are saying and it's pretty clear that they know what's in store. Unfortunately it's a lot easier for the average person to hear the economists and pundits constantly reassuring them that there's an ample supply of oil and everything will work out fine rather than facing the cold unpleasant facts presented by scientists.

[Medic]

The free-market could at least work to reduce the consumption of oil.

Trucker Unions might not like some solutions but oh well. Trains are much more economical than trucks, especially cross-country.

Furthermore, modernizing transportation grids could curb demand.

Electrification 101
Electrification of Transportation as a Response to Peaking of World Oil Production

Commentary by Alan S. Drake
November 2005 (rev. December 2005)


With this commentary, Light Rail Now initiates a series we're calling Electrification 101 – a discussion aimed at informing transportation professionals, decisionmakers, and the public at large of the value and advantages of electrifying transportation operations, and the electrification of public transport systems in particular. This commentary, the first article in our series, has been slightly adapted from a professional paper prepared by the author.

Alan S. Drake is an engineer, former accountant, and professional researcher based in New Orleans.

NOTE: The tally of U.S. electric trolleybus systems, earlier stated as three, has been corrected to four.

The imminent peaking of global oil production and its potential impact is triggering concern at the highest levels of many countries, including the United States. Policymakers and the public in general are searching for timely and appropriate responses to "Peak Oil", and this paper highlights an under-appreciated option.

U.S. DOE study

Recently, the US Department of Energy (DOE) commissioned a study on the prospect of peaking oil production, particularly with a view to evaluating possible responses and effects. This study resulted in a report, Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management, by Robert L. Hirsch (Project Leader), Roger Bezdek, and Robert Wendling, published in February 2005.

The report is available online at the following URL:

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflas ... j_Cens.pdf

As the DOE study authors note,

The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.

The DOE study authors make a number of very cogent points. For example,

Oil Peaking Could Cost the U.S. Economy Dearly

Over the past century the development of the U.S. economy and lifestyle has been fundamentally shaped by the availability of abundant, low-cost oil. Oil scarcity and several-fold oil price increases due to world oil production peaking could have dramatic impacts. The decade after the onset of world oil peaking may resemble the period after the 1973-74 oil embargo, and the economic loss to the United States could be measured on a trillion-dollar scale. Aggressive, appropriately timed fuel efficiency and substitute fuel production could provide substantial mitigation.

Oil Peaking Presents a Unique Challenge

The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.

However, the authors' conclusions with respect to energy alternatives for transportation seem quite narrow and limited.

For example, they emphasize that "The Problem is Liquid Fuels" and point out that "Under business-as-usual conditions, world oil demand will continue to grow, increasing approximately two percent per year for the next few decades. This growth will be driven primarily by the transportation sector." Yet they also note that, because "The economic and physical lifetimes of existing transportation equipment are measured on decade time-scales", the "turnover rates" are low, and, therefore, "rapid changeover in transportation end-use equipment is inherently impossible." Thus, "Motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, and ships simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels. Non-hydrocarbon based energy sources, such as solar, wind, photovoltaics, nuclear power, geothermal, fusion, etc. produce electricity, not liquid fuels, so their widespread use in transportation is at best decades away."

In other words, the report gives short shrift to the possibility of electrifying transportation and no consideration at all is given to the effects of building more urban rail.

In the late summer/early fall of 2005, motor fuel shortages, mainly associated with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, caused massive traffic jams at service stations. Similar scenes, comparable or worse than those in 1973 and 1979, may result from a sudden interruption of oil imports. Electrified transportation, where available, would supply an invaluable alternative. Switzerland survived a six-year complete oil embargo during World War II with electrified transportation.


Transportation electrification offers valuable response

My own view is that the electrification of transportation is a natural and highly efficient response to the problem of "Peaking of World Oil Production" (hereafter cited simply as "Peak Oil"). Furthermore, substantial oil substitution can be effected within 10 to 12 years by a combination of market forces, government action to facilitate the quick and efficient realization of these market forces, and transforming the means that government uses to promote and provide transportation. The DOE report completely overlooks this possibility.

The technology for electrification of transportation is extremely well proven and widely used(more so outside the US) and, from an energy BTU/joule point-of-view, highly efficient. Well-established modes of electrified transportation in use today provide many more freight ton-miles/BTU and passenger-miles per BTU than the competing rubber-tired, oil-burning transportation alternatives.

The ratio in energy efficiency is so great, especially when electrified rail is substituted for "18 wheeler" tractor trailers and single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs), that minimal, if any, expansion of the national electricity grid will be required to reduce U.S. national oil consumption by 10%, or about two million barrels per day.

Electrified transportation is also much more environmentally benign as well. Central power plants are more efficient thermodynamically and their emissions can be more easily controlled. Electric motors are dramatically more efficient than internal combustion engines.

There are three viable electrified modes available in the USA today: (1) urban rail – rapid/heavy rail, high-performance light rail transit (LRT), and streetcars, (2) electric trolleybuses, and (3) electrified inter-city railroad lines (predominantly freight, but with a passenger component).

The US could learn from the French "Grand Strategy" of using domestic nuclear and hydroelectric power to operate electrified inter-city transportation and urban rail. A majority of French towns of 250,000 or more are now getting at least one new tram line.

Orléans is one of a growing number of French cities to adopt an electric light rail tramway system as a major component of their public transport networks.
[Photo: N. Z. Adam, Mar. 2004]


In 1973, France emitted 89,563,000 metric tonnes of carbon from liquid fuels. In 2000, France emitted 58,626,000 tonnes of carbon from the same source, a 34.5% reduction. By contrast, the USA released 592,991,000 tonnes in 1973 and 607,204,000 tonnes in 2000, a 2.4% increase over the same time period. Further reductions are expected in French emissions and further increases are expected in the U.S. for 2005 totals.

Urban rail

The District of Columbia (i.e., the core of the Washington, DC urban area) provides a classic example of the partial transformation from private auto to electrified urban rail. In 1970, before the installation of a modern rail transit system, 4% of DC commuters used mass transportation, i.e., the city bus system. In 2000, in contrast, 38% used mass transportation, predominantly the Metro subway system. Today, that number may be over 40%. Further investments (a rail line to Dulles Airport, streetcar lines, and a Purple Line rail transit option are some of the major projects on the drawing board) and further oil price increases might be reasonably expected to increase that percentage significantly.

In Europe, Copenhagen is debating whether to go to a car-less inner city, allowing only delivery trucks, emergency vehicles and perhaps taxis. This suggests that the limits of "limited oil" urban living are quite high.

The Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) is currently implementing severe restrictions on plans for new electrified urban rail. For example, federal matching has declined from 80% to a maximum of 50% and even less with respect to some projects (e.g., only 20% in Seattle). Meanwhile, the bar has been raised for evaluating which systems will receive any funding.

Despite this, and in part out of frustration with the "federal process" and its delays, cities like San Diego and Los Angeles have built LRT lines without federal dollars; Denver in November 2004 passed a referendum committing local funds to major rail system expansion; and Salt Lake City is likely to have a referendum imminently on whether to triple the region's dedicated taxes in order to build out its 30-year plan in just ten years. In a more supportive environment, other cities would likely follow this example.

Despite the bias of the FTA in favor of oil-burning "Bus Rapid Transit", there is a large existing backlog of urban rail plans with local funding for multiple lines in a number of large cities, including Miami, Dallas, Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City, with single lines in many other cities. A ten-year crash program, building solely on existing "wish lists" with preliminary planning in place (some currently funded, some not), could transform well over a dozen cities, just as Washington, DC and San Francisco have been transformed since the 1973 Oil Embargo. And many more cities might well jump quickly on the bandwagon.

Two-car electric light rail transit train of Salt Lake City's TRAX system not only substitutes versatile electric propulsion for petroleum dependency, but also provides far greater peak capacity than private motor vehicles in this major arterial.
[Photo: L. Henry, Nov. 2003]


Much, perhaps all, of such a crash program could be financed with existing federal motor fuel taxes. Currently, under the latest federal authorization, mass transit of all types gets 18% of federal motor fuel tax revenues. Giving 75% of the remainder to urban rail exclusively would finance much of what is needed.

The mere existence of urban rail creates its own ridership over time through Transit Oriented Development (TOD). This trend is likely to be tremendously accelerated in a "Peak Oil" environment. The sooner urban rail is in place (or even just under construction), the larger the TOD effect will be when the full effects of "Peak Oil" arrive.

A good example of TOD is the Pearl District in Portland, Oregon. A formerly largely unpopulated railroad freight yard and warehouse district, it is now served by streetcar and interurban-type light rail, has well over 10,000 residents, and is growing rapidly. The Pearl District has upscale incomes but low levels of vehicle ownership and very low levels of direct gasoline consumption. A peak build-out may house 50,000 people with associated businesses and nearby employment.

One secondary source of energy savings is based on the fact that TOD is more energy-efficient in providing services and moving goods. Postal workers can walk their routes, many police can walk or bicycle a beat, deliveries can be concentrated rather than spread out, and electric tramway (light rail) freight can even be used in some cases (e.g., Zürich and Dresden).

After World War II, many once-nice homes in older urban areas were boarded up and abandoned. Our nation and economy thrived despite this loss of housing capital. Therefore, there is no public policy imperative to support fuel-inefficient housing patterns "no matter what". Economic forces should be allowed to work out, with all governmental promotion and bias in support of TOD. Government programs and policies that previously favored and subsidized suburban sprawl should be quickly phased out.

Just how much of the USA's total transportation fuel used could be saved by a crash urban rail building program with an extremely supportive public policy (zoning, lending policies, gas taxes, etc.)?

Through an analysis based upon post-1973 experience in Washington, DC and the San Francisco Bay area, plus the impacts of much higher oil prices and supportive government policies, I think 5% is a reasonable goal in 12 years and 9% in 20 years. This implies a reduction in private automobile use by 8.3% and 15% respectively, with associated health, accident, and pollution benefits.

The residual automobile and SUV fleet could be simultaneously transformed with more fuel-efficient vehicles due to high oil prices, so the 5% and 9% savings in oil consumption from urban rail would be attained in addition to other oil consumption reductions due solely to higher prices.

The economic and social benefits from reduced automobile disabilities and deaths, plus reduced pollution, could well justify the investment in large scale electrified transportation on these grounds alone.

Electric trolleybuses

Several dozen U.S. cities once operated electric trolleybuses, but today only four currently remain (San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and Dayton). However, the technology is very well-proven and a new opportunity is arising with the recent interest in hybrid buses (using fuel engines to charge batteries and run electric drive motors).

San Francisco Muni's electric trolleybuses on the Stockton line negotiate steep hill with ease.
[Photo: L. Henry, Nov. 2003]


A careful choice of internal operating voltage in a hybrid bus, combined with twin trolley poles and overhead wiring, would create a part-time electric trolleybus that can operate either off of grid power or off of its own diesel-electric engines/battery combination. Classic trolleybuses, operating only off grid power and their electric motors, are also likely to see a revival in a "Peak Oil" world. They are somewhat lighter and much simpler and cheaper than hybrids.

Demand for public transportation is likely to increase dramatically in a "Peak Oil" world. Even with expanded urban rail, the number and size of city buses operating are likely to increase significantly.

Increased use of hybrid buses and trolleybuses can allow bus liquid fuel demand to decrease, even at elevated service levels. The better economics of trolleybuses will allow public transit agencies to operate more service, with more passengers, without major increases in public subsidies.

Electrified intercity rail

The rail systems of Japan and the continental European Union (EU) are largely electrified, with the Russians in the midst of massive electrification. The Trans-Siberian Railway, from Moscow to the Pacific, one-sixth of the circumference of the globe, was fully electrified in 2002.

Electrification provides a variety of operational advantages. Lower fuel costs, faster acceleration (which means quicker trips and closer headways), lower capital and maintenance costs, and locomotives with substantially longer service lives are among these advantages. The Vice-President for Engineering at a locomotive manufacturer has assured me that the current U.S. fleet of diesel-electric locomotives could be easily rebuilt as all-electric locomotives, and that he would welcome the business.

Electrification of freight railway operations is widespread in Europe, including here in Germany, where an electric locomotive hauls a mixed freight through Cologne.
[Photo: Ian Leech, Sep. 2005]


The primary disadvantage in the USA is higher property taxes on electrified rail lines. This has outweighed the advantages of rail electrification so far in the U.S.

The US rail industry uses relatively little oil. This belies the rail industry's relatively large role in US transportation and its extreme energy efficiency. Freight rail carries 27.8% of the ton-miles with 220,000 barrels/day while trucks carry 32.1% of the freight miles with 2.07 million barrels/day (all 2002 data). Light commercial trucks consume another 300,000 barrels/day. This makes railroads more than eight times more fuel-efficient, as well as more labor-efficient than trucking.

It is apparent that the major oil savings can come from a modal shift from trucking to rail for intercity shipments rather than just reducing rail's oil consumption. A good, although limited, example is the cooperative endeavor between Norfolk Southern and Florida East Coast Railway. Trucks can load onto rail in Atlanta (via containers or roll-on trailers), and then be picked up for local delivery in Jacksonville, near Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale, or Miami (or vice versa). There are major labor and energy savings with this intermodal service.

A higher level of service speed and reliability than is typical for U.S. rail is required to make such inter-modal transfers competitive today. Increased investment (and perhaps better management) will be required to make this type of service the dominant form of long-distance freight movement in a "Peak Oil" world. Electrification of freight rail is only a part of what is needed to develop this modal shift. Other measures, such as restoring double-track service (where one track was removed perhaps for economy of maintenance and/or reduced property taxes), improved signaling and scheduling, building modal transfer points, etc., are also needed.

In a crash program, such a transformation is possible within a decade or so. A net saving of one million barrels/day between rail electrification and modal shift seems possible. Such electrification and modal shift would also serve a national strategic role in case of an oil supply interruption by transporting essential goods with minimal oil consumption, thereby extending the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Semi-highspeed freight & passenger service

The following model for a workable and economic semi-high speed rail system has been developed based upon observations of EU and Japanese consumer behavior as well as an analysis of rail economics coupled with physics.

Electrified rail lines capable of top speeds of approximately 110 mph can attract a majority of traffic between city-pairs (both cities with urban rail) if they are within 175 to 250 miles. Such rail lines, unlike higher-speed lines, are also capable of carrying high-value, moderate-density freight as well. This type of freight is rarely shipped by rail today, but by express truck or air. Longer distances are better for freight, but will lose almost all of their passengers as distances lengthen.

Electric locomotive speeds Amtrak's train no. 190 through Rhode Island in electrified Northeast Corridor.
[Photo: LRN file]


One could extend the existing Amtrak Northeast Corridor southward from Washington, DC to Richmond-Charlotte-Charleston-Jacksonville-Orlando-Ft. Lauderdale-Miami with Charlotte-Atlanta and Orlando-Tampa spurs. Such a service could provide highspeed and reliable freight service along the U.S. East Coast and service a number of viable city-pairs with passenger service, provided each city has a viable urban rail system. Urban rail appears to be an essential requirement for significant intercity rail travel.

A San Francisco/Sacramento-San Jose-Bakersfield-Los Angeles-San Diego route also appears quite viable. An intra-Texas connection might be viable (if all cities build urban rail) as might a New York City-Buffalo (or Philadelphia-Pittsburgh)-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-St. Louis-Kansas City line.

It would appear that significant portions of such semi-high speed electrified rail connections could be built within a dozen years and all within 20 years. This service would attract traffic that existing freight railroads do not service. The business model and structure required to build and operate these new semi-high-speed rail lines would, of course, need to be developed in further analysis and discussion.

Immediate potential for electrification

The bottom line is this: The potential for electrification in transportation appears to be far more immediate, well-proven, and readily available than non-transportation experts such as Robert Hirsch seem to acknowledge. Of all the policy responses noted in his report, electrification of transportation appears to have the potential for the quickest, the most permanent, and the most profound impact with the best ancillary benefits for human health, land use, pollution, and Global Warming.

The economic and social benefits of reduced automobile disabilities and deaths, coupled with reduced air pollution, may justify the investment in electrified transportation on these grounds alone. Alternative responses to "Peak Oil" have ancillary costs in areas where electrification of transportation has ancillary benefits. Thus the totality of the costs and benefits for electrification of transportation is overwhelmingly positive versus other alternatives.

Necessity may require that all alternatives to conventional petroleum are pursued, but the most beneficial alternative – electrification of transportation – should be pursued most aggressively. Existing urban rail plans could be built out within a few years with appropriate federal and local funding. New urban rail lines beyond those currently planned could be planned and built within a decade. Heavily used city bus lines could be converted to trolley buses within a few years.

The technology to electrify the major freight rail lines is quite well-known and only requires the decision to devote the capital to electrifying and less than a decade for widespread implementation. The creation of a network of semi-highspeed rail lines will take longer, but well within the time frame for alternative liquid fuels to be developed in large quantity.

On the whole, it seems clear that electrification of transportation ought to be the leading economic and policy response to the advent of "Peak Oil".

Light Rail Now! website
URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2005-02.htm
Updated 2005/12/20

Legislation can also be introduced to increase carpooling, get rid of gas guzzlers [if indeed they don't get rid of themselves in a crisis] and beef up public transportation.


I still agree though that we should be making the switch SOONER than later -- if these solutions are done in response to a crisis, it'll still hurt. A collective and cooperative WWII scale effort at conserving the last hours of ancient sunlight, as Robert Newman put it, just to survive or avoid starvation isn't something I'd look forward to.

[Darth Wong]

Some problems are not so easily solved. Realistically, the most efficient way to design cities is to have everyone in apartment buildings. The enormously sprawling cities that we've built in the last century are a direct result of the automobile and it's pretty hard to de-sprawl a city. The suburban subdivisions that make up most of the land area of a typical modern North American city are a nightmare to service with public transit, and are generally less efficient in many other ways too.

[Dennis Toy]

Some problems are not so easily solved. Realistically, the most efficient way to design cities is to have everyone in apartment buildings. The enormously sprawling cities that we've built in the last century are a direct result of the automobile and it's pretty hard to de-sprawl a city. The suburban subdivisions that make up most of the land area of a typical modern North American city are a nightmare to service with public transit, and are generally less efficient in many other ways too.

You don't want to put people in just apartment buildings. People would like to have their own properties. I think the most efficient way to design cities is to design neighborhoods that consists of small apartment buildings, townhomes and middle-class type homes. This was actually the standard until the 1950's when the suburbs began to sprawl. One of the reasons that cities began to sprawl is because of the interstate system created by Dwight Eisenhower in 1950. Another way to design cities is to design cities around mass transit like buses and subways and have commuter trains go between cities.

[Seggybop]

If we're facing a global catastrophe who cares if people like to have their own properties? I don't know if your proposition is feasible or not, and it would obviously be preferable if everyone's happy, but what people would like to have is of minimal relevance. They'll need to deal with whatever is ultimately necessary regardless of if they enjoy it.

[Xess]

God this is depressing. The worst part is I don't know what to do, maybe I should write some letters to my MP for a start.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I work mostly in land subdivision. Most of the land in my area is already zoned for relatively low densities. Even if developers wanted to construct model compact communities, they would be prevented by local laws, and the perception that apartments or high densities = low class druggie tenants. Plus land is still relatively cheap out here compared to the cost of construction, so for most it's optimal to put fewer big houses on relatively larger lots than integrated multi-story structures. There are efforts to rezone and redesign the urban (if the term can apply to a desert suburb) master plan along higher densities, mixed use, and public transportation nodes. However, the agencies are understaffed, unfamiliar with the process, and in general, progress will be slow compared to the production of thousands of hundred-home suburban tracts carving up the currently unused incorporated territories. After which smart development will have to be squeezed into the interstices of preexisting sprawl. A major transition towards the smarter lifestyle will probably not occur until after the global situation makes the need urgent, and even now, though the redevelopment agency makes mention of environmentally friendly design, long term energy costs seem to take a much smaller part of discussion than how we want the public benches and street signs to look.

[RedImperator]

The Sun Belt is utterly boned. In a hundred years those subdivisions in the desert, and maybe the cities around which they're built, are going to be ghost towns.

[Darth Wong]

Why on Earth would people build sprawling cities in the desert anyway? Isn't that the height of hubris? Next thing you know, they'll be so arrogant that they build a city under sea level and surround it with a network of levees that completely fuck up the local environment and destroy the surrounding wetlands.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

God this is depressing. The worst part is I don't know what to do, maybe I should write some letters to my MP for a start.

Write letters to your representatives. Better still, get your friends and family to do it with you. Also, learn to conserve. Conservation isn't hard. For example, if your home is lit with incandescents, then replace them with compact fluorescent light fixtures. Turn your thermostat down in the winter, and up in the summer. Don't shop at the nearby Super-Hyper-Mega-mart when you can patronize the local farmer's market and pick up food that hasn't been trucked as far. Try your hand at gardening. A small vegetable plot screened by an inexpensive greenhouse takes up surprisingly little room and will help supplement your diet. Even if you're stuck in a high-rise apartment, you can still grow herbs to season your food with. Get into the habit of living frugally and locally ... that way when energy prices go apeshit, it won't affect you as badly. Get into shape and stay that way. If you live in a country where your powerplants are oil-fired, you will experience rolling blackouts, and you will have to do things manually that you might've done with machinery before. You will also have to get from place to place on-foot, or on bicycle. A healthy body will let you do that, and will preserve you against spiraling healthcare costs. Even if worst comes to worst, you can still live a full and satisfying life.

[RedImperator]

Why on Earth would people build sprawling cities in the desert anyway? Isn't that the height of hubris? Next thing you know, they'll be so arrogant that they build a city under sea level and surround it with a network of levees that completely fuck up the local environment and destroy the surrounding wetlands.

To be fair to the city fathers of New Orleans, the city was founded on land above sea level, since the colonial French and Spanish hardly had the resources to drain the marshes in which most of the modern city was built. That's why the French Quarter and the Central Business District, the oldest sections of the city, stayed dry after the levees broke. It wasn't until the late 19th century when the really bad decisions were made.

As for the cities in the desert, they're due to get hit from three different directions this century:

1) Their transportation networks are completely dependent on the automobile. Even if they started a crash transit building program, the only practical way to make it work would be to abandon large portions of the city and condense the population inward. They're just not dense enough. Phoenix, for example, has almost the same population as Philadelphia in over three times the land area.

2) Peak oil is going to be the end of cheap electricity. Who in the hell is going to want to live in Albuquerque or Scottsdale or Dallas without air conditioning?

3) As if running out of oil wasn't enough, the southwest is running out of water, too. I can comprehend neither the stupidity nor the banality of moving to the desert and then growing a grassy lawn like you're still in Ohio. Nevertheless, the southwest is attempting to serve a rapidly growing population with a finite and shrinking water supply, and instead of acting like water is a scarce resource that shouldn't be wasted on growing a goddamn lawn, they're acting as if they expect Lake Michigan to migrate south any day now.

[Xess]

God this is depressing. The worst part is I don't know what to do, maybe I should write some letters to my MP for a start.

Write letters to your representatives. Better still, get your friends and family to do it with you. Also, learn to conserve. Conservation isn't hard. For example, if your home is lit with incandescents, then replace them with compact fluorescent light fixtures. Turn your thermostat down in the winter, and up in the summer. Don't shop at the nearby Super-Hyper-Mega-mart when you can patronize the local farmer's market and pick up food that hasn't been trucked as far. Try your hand at gardening. A small vegetable plot screened by an inexpensive greenhouse takes up surprisingly little room and will help supplement your diet. Even if you're stuck in a high-rise apartment, you can still grow herbs to season your food with. Get into the habit of living frugally and locally ... that way when energy prices go apeshit, it won't affect you as badly. Get into shape and stay that way. If you live in a country where your powerplants are oil-fired, you will experience rolling blackouts, and you will have to do things manually that you might've done with machinery before. You will also have to get from place to place on-foot, or on bicycle. A healthy body will let you do that, and will preserve you against spiraling healthcare costs. Even if worst comes to worst, you can still live a full and satisfying life.

Thanks for the advice. Where I live we get most of our elecricity from hydroelectric plants and I already prefer going everyone I can on bike/foot. I should move to Winnipeg so I can include my school on the list of places I can get to cycling.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Not sure about your dates, Dennis.

You don't want to put people in just apartment buildings. People would like to have their own properties. I think the most efficient way to design cities is to design neighborhoods that consists of small apartment buildings, townhomes and middle-class type homes. This was actually the standard until the 1950's when the suburbs began to sprawl.

I thought major suburbanization began in the 1920's, not the 50's.

One of the reasons that cities began to sprawl is because of the interstate system created by Dwight Eisenhower in 1950. Another way to design cities is to design cities around mass transit like buses and subways and have commuter trains go between cities.

The Interstate system was later than 1950. Ike wasn't even president then. I think it was more like '56 when construction began.

[RedImperator]

Not sure about your dates, Dennis.

You don't want to put people in just apartment buildings. People would like to have their own properties. I think the most efficient way to design cities is to design neighborhoods that consists of small apartment buildings, townhomes and middle-class type homes. This was actually the standard until the 1950's when the suburbs began to sprawl.

I thought major suburbanization began in the 1920's, not the 50's.

Suburbanization isn't possible before the GI Bill pumps enough capital into the hands of returning WWII soldiers to buy houses. We demobilize 12 million service personnel, stuff a big wad of cash in their pockets, and turn them loose on their new wives with stiff dicks. On top of that, there's a massive housing shortage and virtually no housing stock younger than fifteen years old thanks to the Depression and the war, and it's much much cheaper to buy out a bankrupt farmer and turn his fields into a neighborhood built from scratch than to find space for more rowhouses in the city.

[Dennis Toy]

the suburbs according to wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbs

from wiki

While suburbs had originated far earlier, the suburban population in North America exploded after World War II. Returning veterans wishing to start a settled life moved en masse to the suburbs. Between 1950 and 1956 the resident population of all US suburbs increased by 46%. During the same period of time, African-Americans were rapidly moving north for better jobs and educational opportunities than they could get in the segregated South, and their arrival in Northern cities en masse further stimulated white suburban migration, a phenomenon known as white flight.

[Dennis Toy]

according to this book called "The End of Suburbia", the suburbs will become the next slums and third world shithole. The people who once drove big oversized SUV's and had McMansions will become the new tribes that will pillage and plunder big cities looking for supplies.

[Darth Wong]

according to this book called "The End of Suburbia", the suburbs will become the next slums and third world shithole. The people who once drove big oversized SUV's and had McMansions will become the new tribes that will pillage and plunder big cities looking for supplies.

They'll plunder each other first. The target is a lot more convenient, and can't stay awake on his porch with a shotgun 24/7.

[Dennis Toy]

Some may band together and create tribes then plunder those who are the richest or have more riches.

[RedImperator]

according to this book called "The End of Suburbia", the suburbs will become the next slums and third world shithole. The people who once drove big oversized SUV's and had McMansions will become the new tribes that will pillage and plunder big cities looking for supplies.

They've already plundered the cities. Suburban voters have been voting to fuck the cities for decades. The suburban lifestyle has been taxpayer subsidized since the very beginning, and trillions of dollars have been poured down a rat hole building these places with money that could have gone to improving the cities and building a modern, efficient transportation infrastructure.

As for them looting and pillaging in the literal sense, speaking as someone who grew up in the suburbs and has worked in the city, fat fucking chance. Their candy asses will get owned if they try to play Visigoths and Romans with city people.

[Xess]

according to this book called "The End of Suburbia", the suburbs will become the next slums and third world shithole. The people who once drove big oversized SUV's and had McMansions will become the new tribes that will pillage and plunder big cities looking for supplies.

They'll plunder each other first. The target is a lot more convenient, and can't stay awake on his porch with a shotgun 24/7.

Fuck, I really need to move to the city.

[Lord Zentei]

And there are fields waiting to be tapped now? If there aren't, and I maintain there aren't any fields of significance, then the situation is the same except on a larger scale. Apples & apples.

Er, no: if there were other fields waiting to be tapped elsewhere, that would be the same. If there are none, alternative sources are exploited instead.

You continue harping on alternative sources, buthave yet to show they're even feasible.

Yes, I have. I have pointed out that alternative sources are being used in a commercially profitable manner - specifically coal liquefication. Unlike ethanol, it is not climate dependant.

Ah, economics does not apply? Basing arguments on it is stupid? Wow. Never mind the fact that we have real-world examples of such occouring.

Using the simplified ideal textbook case out of a high school economics text which neglects all real world factors, which is what you are doing, is goddamn stupid. What you've argued to date is identical to the classic "building widgets" example in my high school Economics text. You can't seriously tell me it applies to the real world.

No, you are goddamn stupid, and no, this is not out of a high school textbook. That you cannot see that such shifts have occoured in the real world is not my problem.

Linka. Sasol's capital assets are worth about 65 Bn Rand, which translates to about 10 bn dollars. Scaled up 50 times means about 500 billion dollars worth of capital assets.

That only counts the conversion plants and some of the coal mines. Coal liquifaction projects do no operate in isolation and require a large infrastructure to support them. Massive expansions of both coal mining, coal transportation via railways, and power generation will also be needed.

How much? Well US transportation needs in oil are equivalent to 16 quadrillion BTUs of energy (quads). Coal liquifaction is about 67% efficient at best. A kilogram of coal has 2.3e7J of energy. To replace 37% of the oil used in US transportation needs would require the mining of an additional 3.8 billion tons of coal every year. Current US coal production is 1 billion tons a year. Figure out the capital value of all US coal mines, multiply by 4. I'll bet it's a real big number.

Xstrata recently considered purchasing 33¹/³% of the Cerrejón thermal coal operation in Colombia (“Cerrejón”), from Glencore International AG (“Glencore”) for a cash consideration of US$1.7 billion. Cerrejón produces about 32 million tonnes of coal. That suggests about 5.1 billion for the whole of Cerrejón, and about 640 billion dollars four four billion tonnes. The cost of the coal mines will be in the same ballpark as that of the liquification plants, in other words.

Also, those 250 year US coal reserves? They've just gone down to 50 years.

Oh noes, we only have 50 years of coal based energy left, surely our civilization is doomed.

I'm sure you are aware of the size of the world's proven coal reserves.

Which as shown above, ain't going to amount to much.

50 years = not so much?

Great, you've replaced some oil. But now you've increased coal consumption to several times the current level. Wonderful.

Yes, it certainly is. See, you seem on the one hand to expect me to point to a workable solution to the immediate crisis and on the other hand to provide a long term solution over multiple generations as well. Bad form:. If we have a solution for the next 50 years, your challenge has been met.