This is what I've been screaming for years. I recently finished my masters in urban planning, where New Urbanism [TM] is all the rage. To my consternation, most of my classmates seemed to believe that most Americans would, given the choice, readily abandon cars and large-lot single family dwellings and live like Europeans if we could just force enough developers to build that stuff.

Well, I now work in the development industry and I can tell you that no sensible developer will build something he/she isn't able to sell. While I share the goal of revenvisioning American cities on a more euro model, I've always believed that nothing short of economic necessity would make these changes occur. - It's the economy, stupid!

Unfortunately, for many Americans, living in suburbia is an economically rational response to market forces beyond their control. My state's unique policies have inspired some novel forms of development but it's not enough. I think the current gas crisis, if it goes on long enough, may help make all development into "smart development," out of sheer necessity.

For the long haul, I say the smart money's on geothermal energy.

posted by pieisexactlythree at 1:21 PM on April 14, 2005

The price of gas is directly correlated to the number of peak oil news stories.
posted by smackfu at 1:21 PM on April 14, 2005

With oil being priced in dollars and the dollar being weak (and getting weaker) does that mean that outside of the US oil is getting cheaper? i.e Is the rise in $ cost offset by the exchange rate. Not that the question is relevant to running out of oil but curious never the less.
posted by zeoslap at 1:28 PM on April 14, 2005

Posted yesterday.
posted by blahblahblah at 1:30 PM on April 14, 2005

The price of gas is directly correlated to the number of peak oil news stories.
posted by smackfu at 1:21 PM PST on April 14 [!]

Are you trying for the Capt. Obvious label today?

Becasue Peak Oil is about the end of CHEAP oil. Higher oil prices is what Peak Oil is defined as.

If you wanna play 'snark the Peak Oil', I suggest user Raphael who is trying to equate energy to God.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:33 PM on April 14, 2005

Looks like the search engine isn't coming up with the right results. Peak oil has been posted about twice in the last month, in addition to the one I mentioned above, making this a triple posting of "The Long Emergency". See also here.
posted by blahblahblah at 1:34 PM on April 14, 2005

Well, hell.

Sorry, all. I thought it hadn't been posted on very recently, or at least with not similar links.
posted by Specklet at 1:36 PM on April 14, 2005

Personally, I think we can kiss the marvel that is suburbia goodbye

I think a more likely response would be increased mass transit between the city and its suburbs.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:41 PM on April 14, 2005

zeo: I was just recently in England and Ireland and it seemed that the price of gas was rising at about the same rate (percentage wise) as that here in the good ol' US of A. So, it seems that the rate hike affects everyone. And, being in England and Ireland references to the price per barrel were made in British Pounds Sterling and the Euro respectively. It's also worth noting that after conversion from the local currency to the dollar the price we pay is still much lower than what they pay.
posted by horseblind at 1:44 PM on April 14, 2005

I think a more likely response would be increased mass transit between the city and its suburbs.

Without a concurrent increase in the density of suburbs, mass transit most likely will not be viable because people have to walk too far to reach the stations. Creating mixed use villages like the one I linked to is the best fix I've seen. Typical low density suburbs have notoriously high marginal costs for services. This is as true of transportation as it is for all other kinds of infrastructure.

Worse still, many people now commute from suburb to suburb, so the hub-and spoke system of transit cannot effectively serve many commuters.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 1:45 PM on April 14, 2005

Well OK. For all the careful research and insightfulness of this article, it still falls into the tradition of the Great Apocalyptic Prediction. Yes, peak oil is coming on hard and fast and Yes, it will mean far more than just alternative fuels, and Yes this will require major cultural transformations. But we won't really know the details until it happens, or more likely until it has already happened.
Unfortunately the second half degenerates into a kind of wishful-thinking demand for an end to the technology-driven and consumer-oriented modern paradigm, and a return to pleasant and peaceful agrarian farming and craftsman society, or a kind of second Dark Ages depending on your point of view.
There isn't really any new information or any call to action here, except maybe for us all to learn how to grow crops, sew clothes, and start a fire. Whatever massive changes occur, life will adapt, however painful it may be. Technology isn't going away.

But just in case, I'll be maxing out all my credit cards now.
posted by sharkitect at 1:46 PM on April 14, 2005

As a Kentuckian living on a horse farm.... hahaha.... sure hate yalls bad luck!
posted by The Infamous Jay at 1:49 PM on April 14, 2005

To my consternation, most of my classmates seemed to believe that most Americans would, given the choice, readily abandon cars and large-lot single family dwellings and live like Europeans if we could just force enough developers to build that stuff. . . . I've always believed that nothing short of economic necessity would make these changes occur.

I have to ask, pieisexactlythree: Did you ever happen in your studies come across any information regarding the full cost of large-lot single family dwellings in low-density suburbs?

The economic necessity is already here, we've just jury-rigged the system in such a way as to disperse the costs to the rest of society and/or defer paying the full price for another generation or two.

Double post or not, this is worth bringing up again and again. Daily. To my mind, the front page of every responsible newspaper in the world should contain a headline every day that reads: "Human Activity Brings Planet One Day Closer To Ecological Catastrophe." It'd be no trouble finding stories every single day to justify the headline.
posted by gompa at 1:50 PM on April 14, 2005

Change is comming. We simply have to choose whether we want it to happen the kinda hard way or the really fucking hard and miserably unpleasant way.

And horseblind hit the nail on the head: we consume stupidly because our lifestyle (suburbia) is heavily subsidized. If actual market forces were brought to bear, there's no way people would be driving around in cars like the lowered suburban with 50-series tires I spotted on my lunch break.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 1:50 PM on April 14, 2005

I'm originally from England so know all about the high gas prices, last time I was there I was filling my Dads car up and I stopped at 50 quid, wasn't even full, couldn't believe it. Think it's about $7 a gallon, now that's spendy. While I realise on the news it would be reported in sterling they are just converting the dollar amount as that's what oil is traded in. Guess it's rising faster than the dollar is depreciating then.
posted by zeoslap at 1:53 PM on April 14, 2005

But really, save the oil for plastics and such. Maybe if we had to walk or ride (bike or horse), Americans would have less probs with obesity.... of course the how food shortage thing wound suck.
posted by The Infamous Jay at 1:53 PM on April 14, 2005

yeah, well, what about the TCP?.
posted by Mach5 at 1:55 PM on April 14, 2005

gompa:

Yes, I've seen loads of material like the links you provided. This is a case of externalities which are not added into the basic transaction costs of things like homes (most people's largest single investment). The true costs are hidden in things like energy costs, taxes foisted on inner city folks (like myself) to subsidize inefficient suburbs, and even childhood obesity. I don't have time to dig up stuff now, buy you can email me and I can pass on some more bibliographic stuff when I get off work.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 1:56 PM on April 14, 2005

sorry....bad spelling day ;)
posted by The Infamous Jay at 1:56 PM on April 14, 2005

but you can email me ...arrrrrgh! I did it too!
posted by pieisexactlythree at 1:58 PM on April 14, 2005

OK, so to inject some of the discussion from the other thread, if this discussion is going to continue: Peak oil seems likely to be real, although estimates of the peak range from 2004 to 2020. Peak oil will not result in the destruction of civilization, but it is may result in recession or even depression as the economy shifts to other energy supplies. A gloomy (but relatively sunny compared to those who want to get their horses and run for the hills) and respectable report on the subject is the SAIC study (here from Google). Long-term, it is likely that energy will be able to still be produced cheaply, as will oil. Coal-oil production and oil shale production, along with nuclear power, can supply the full range of power needs without needing to resort to fusion. Of course, this is going to be a lot harder if we don't start conserving and switching now, which is why warning about peak oil is good, although predicting doom is not really warranted.
posted by blahblahblah at 2:03 PM on April 14, 2005

Without a concurrent increase in the density of suburbs, mass transit most likely will not be viable because people have to walk too far to reach the stations.

I haven't been following the discussion that closely, but my impression was that the whole concept of "peak oil" is that it isn't the end of oil; just a decline in production and consequent increase in price. Gasoline will become more expensive, but it isn't disappearing overnight. It may no longer be economically feasible for a worker to drive 40 miles each way from home to work every day, but he can still afford to drive the two miles to the mass transit station.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:04 PM on April 14, 2005

to clarify, the TCP seperates 100 pounds of these things into:
Plastic bottles
Oil 70% Gas 16% Carbon solids 6% Water 8%

Turkey offal
Oil 39% Gas 6% Carbon solids 5% Water 50%

Sewage sludge
Oil 26% Gas 9% Carbon solids 8% Water 57%

Medical waste
Oil 65% Gas 10% Carbon solids 5% Water 20%

all with a process that uses 15BTU's for every 100 it makes. If we were to put all our agricultural waste into the TCP, we would become self-sufficient on our own oil.
posted by Mach5 at 2:09 PM on April 14, 2005

oh, and link link link

and also I BEFORE E EXCEPT AFTER C. [hits self]
posted by Mach5 at 2:12 PM on April 14, 2005

but my impression was that the whole concept of "peak oil" is that it isn't the end of oil; just a decline in production and consequent increase in price

Right now consumption is outstripping production...there is no slack in the system.

As America goes bankrupt, just like many other countries thoughout history that went out and waged war, the global demand will drop. So long as the oil-injected fields like Gharwar keep producting, prices will drop. But parts of Gharwar are at 35% water cut (40% is historical 'that well is dead' signal), the sour crude outta Gharwar is rising (another sign of a dying field) and most fields have 40 year life span (1952 I believe is Gharwar's Birthday) the economic 'shock' to the system could be severe - less global demand and lower stocks.

Not that the PrimusParis's neo-con'd types won't blame "The Arabs" for the recession.
posted by rough ashlar at 2:14 PM on April 14, 2005

Park and ride has long been a straw man used to pay lip service to the idea of increasing ridership. Now, it's better than nothing at all, but it's a seriously half-assed fix to a much more serious problem. As long as we keep building communities that look like this, cars will be an all too ubiquitous feature in most folks' lives. People need to drive to everything in the suburbs. The trip to and from work is not the only one people make, and in environments like this, cars are all but absolutely necessary for "trip chaining" the process of making numerous stops on one vehicle trip.

But y'all don't have to take my word for it. The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute has published a ton of great research on transportation issues. btw, the train in their front page is Portland's (my home town - w00t!) own Max light rail.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 2:18 PM on April 14, 2005

(Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating increased mass transit with little change to the suburbs; merely predicting it.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:46 PM on April 14, 2005

if anyone's interested in a more balanced take on this, you should check out the economist archives. here's a recent article.
posted by mcd at 3:56 PM on April 14, 2005

As a large-lot single family dwelling low-density suburbanite I have only this to say: AAAAAHHHH!!!!
*runs in circles*
...at least I buy fuel efficient cars and drive only about 2 miles to work (I need the car to do the work tho').
Hmmm...wonder if I could ride a horse around the 'burbs. Plenty of places to graze.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:44 PM on April 14, 2005

if anyone's interested in a more balanced take on this, you should check out the economist archives. here's a recent article.
posted by mcd at 3:56 PM PST on April 14 [!]

Oh boy! Economists talking.

During my econ college courses, they told me that money has value over time. And that one had to apply formulas to get the present value of money and future value of money.

Yet, when electrical energy is created, if you do it from gathering sunlight, slowing down the wind, causing water to move across a turbine, oxidizing carbon from rotting 'trash', trees, long dead trees in coal form, or algae put under pressure, or taking long dead solar bodies and splitting 'em the electical energy costs exactly the same under the 'present economic system'.

So if time has 'value' why is nearly instant sunlight -> power conversion the same as sunlight -> heating difference expressed as wind the same as water/vapor/water cycle the same as sunlight -> plants (a growing season to years for trees) the same as long dead plants as fossil fuels the same as nuclear?

Well? Just because 'some economic price' was reached WRT oil does not mean that pricing was correct.

So either time has no value or ability to effect value and therefore how energy from the sun is harvested is irrevelant OR time has value and the pricing of energy has been busted, thus making the 'common' analysis (read: present day system) is broke and due for a re-alignment.

I'm gonna stake out that time HAS economic value and therefore energy pricing to date is busted. As you feel 'The Economist' is 'more balanced' - are you willing to claim that time has no economic value? Because mcd, how else is PV power 'economically the same' as natural gas and is 'economically the same' as nuclear unless time has no value?
posted by rough ashlar at 5:15 PM on April 14, 2005

As a large-lot single family dwelling low-density suburbanite I have only this to say: AAAAAHHHH!!!!

It gets better for ya - what does your water table look like, and what does the covenants on the land say?

Because if you can't get access to water - how valueable is that land long-term?

The 'deed restrictions' may prevent your horse-y dreams.

(Still looking for my 40 acres and a wind machine - I'll have an electric bike and electric tiller rather than a mule)
posted by rough ashlar at 5:18 PM on April 14, 2005

Joe Vialls says Russia is already exploiting Deep Oil, and he helped them do it. Deep oil is oil under the granite mantle cap. It appears to be unlimited in quantity. Instead of whinging about oil running out, we should put our effort into preventing sulphur dioxide pollution, the byproduct of oil consumption.
posted by Linc at 5:33 PM on April 14, 2005

Yet, when electrical energy is created, if you do it from gathering sunlight, slowing down the wind, causing water to move across a turbine, oxidizing carbon from rotting 'trash', trees, long dead trees in coal form, or algae put under pressure, or taking long dead solar bodies and splitting 'em the electrical energy costs exactly the same under the 'present economic system'.

The cost of producing the electricity is NOT exactly the same. Its the price that it sells for that is pretty much the same. I say pretty much, because if you actually did something like using windmills to create energy more cheaply than the current market price on a scale of that of the demand for energy, than the price would change.

And how does one object value changing over time (money) imply that time itself has an intrinsic market value? The problem with time is, well, no one has figured out how to package and sell it or create more of it.

Time itself has no market value, it what you do during a time interval that has value.

how else is PV power 'economically the same' as natural gas and is 'economically the same' as nuclear unless time has no value?

This statement makes no sense. Electric power is electric power is electric power. People will pay for it in proportion to the asking price and what they can use the electricity for.

Maybe you're arguing that fossil fuel generation is underpriced? If so, I would agree- the price doesn't take in to account externalities on how the electricity is generated. So go figure out a way to calculate the cost of these externalities (and don't forget to pick up your Nobel prize in economics) and then figure out a way to force the entrenched big businesses to start paying them (and then use this enormous political power to become the president) and then we'll see the true economic price ration between different ways to generate electricity.

The question once you know that the price is out of wack, what's going to happen? Is it going to slowly correct is itself and be just fine in the long run? Is there going to be a massive "correction" with wars and global chaos insuing? Is it going to be something in the middle?
posted by gus at 5:43 PM on April 14, 2005

Joe Vialls says Russia is already exploiting Deep Oil, and he helped them do it.

Joe says alot of things. Joe also thinks the man has their jackboots on his neck. Now if you wanna believe what Joe is peddl'n - Abiotic Oil, I'll quote another person as he does a better job than I at pointing out how even if true, oil made that way matters not - world demand outstrips possible extraction rates. (Oh, and Joe can point to what well where that 'we' can go see?)

"1) Although helium and methane can be found in igneous rocks, and especially in magma, there are no existing commercial oil or gas deposits in igneous strata, with the exception of Vietnam and Mexico. In Vietnam, fractured igneous rock OVERLAYING a sedimentary basin is the reservoir. This overlaying granite is from a volcanic eruption, which covered the older sedimentary source rocks. Mexico has overlying detritus from the Chixlub meteor impact which is igneous as well.

2) Sedimentary rock is the sole source for commercial petroleum. The oil discovered from each of the fields cited in the linked report have been sourced to deeper sedimentary strata below the initial discovery. These deeper sources and reservoirs have been found to be interconnected to the shallower reservoirs through a series of faults or channels. In the Gulf of Mexico, this was termed the "Sub-salt Play" by geologists.

3) Even if Dr. Gold's' theory of oil origination turns out to be accurate, in order for us to be able to utilize this oil it must be contained in a reservoir. His theory would imply that this oil is trapped within some type of porous structure deep in the crust of the earth. Igneous rock has no appreciable pore space to hold oil at a microscopic level, and if it did, it would need to be something similar to sand that can support the overlying weight of the rock and still maintain porosity in the face of 20,000 feet of overlying rock weight. To date, no igneous rocks of this type are known to exist at the proposed depths of Dr. Gold

4) If Dr. Gold is correct, it is immaterial. What is required for commercial petroleum is a RESERVOIR in which the oil can accumulate. To date, the only igneous strata found to contain oil are those overlying sedimentary strata.

5) With respect to Dr. Gold's "prehistoric life assays"; most oil is derived from marine shales, which are primarily formed by deposition of dead marine plankton and animals deposited in the deep ocean over eons. Standard theory posits that temperature and pressure work to form complex hydrocarbons at depth from this "source shale". These "source shales" have NON-COMMERCIAL quantities of oil found within them, WHICH ROUTINELY MATCH EXACTLY the oil composition found in the overlying or nearby reservoirs.

6) In spite of the "deep oil drilling" by "smaller oil companies" (this is kind of like the term military intelligence" - small companies do not have much cash to risk on something such as this), no evidence has been discovered to support this theory of oil origination. The deeper drilling done in Eugene Island only verified that the oil was coming from deep sedimentary rocks below the initial reservoir.

Myself? I hope he is right. But the facts push me in the other direction entirely. "
posted by rough ashlar at 5:48 PM on April 14, 2005

how else is PV power 'economically the same' as natural gas and is 'economically the same' as nuclear unless time has no value?

This statement makes no sense.

Then in your world time has no economic value when it comes to producing a watt of electrical power. In the world where I hand over pictures of dead men for electrical power, time has no value too. Doesn't mean it is the correct system, its the one I'm stuck with also. But when people try to claim 'energy is about economics' - I'll call bullshit and point out how the variable of time is not accounted for.

Hence the reason 'Peak Oil' is an economic problem. For if time to create the way electromotive force was included in the price, PV would be quite cheap as the time from photon to watt is near instant, whereas oil is photon -> carbon and hydrogen via a plant growing season, then 'processed' by many thousands of years. While you are waiting for your next hydrocarbon Watt of power, the PV solution is still kick'n out watts. If time for that next watt was accounted as a variable in pricing, humanity would have moved from coal/oil to PV/Wind/Water/Biomass and oil/coal would be raw material for items like metals are a raw material. (and McDonalds would lack plastic do-dads for a happy meal)

calculate the cost of these externalities (and don't forget to pick up your Nobel prize in economics)

No one said calculating for time or other factors would be easy......

As an aside:
If you want to add in 'intellectual energy' into the equation, then you want to look into EMERGY - the idea of Howard Odum.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:05 PM on April 14, 2005

wow rough ashlar, that was quite a response.

i merely thought that the links in the original post were pretty apocalyptic and contained a lot of FUD. the economist does not generally print fuddy articles. that was what i meant by "balanced." basically, they admit it's a problem, but argue that as the price of oil rises we (particularly america) will be forced to consume less of it. while we can do various things to consume more efficiently (for example, hybrid cars), we will also have to substitute _other_ sources of fuel, such as renewable energy, nuclear energy, etc. these are "economically the same" because they are all sources of energy, and you can substitute one for the other (in many cases, cars being a notable exception). i don't particularly care how the electricity i use is generated, as long as it's relatively cheap and it works. sorry if that was unclear.
posted by mcd at 6:12 PM on April 14, 2005

mcd, I appreciate someone else arguing the economics here as well.

Essentially, this does come down to cost. Each energy source has a cost, the cost of extraction and transport per BTU plus the cost of any externalities (pollution, dependence on foreign sources, etc.). Unfortunately, externalities are not properly priced in most cases. Thus, oil, which is cheap to produce and transport, is cheap on the market, even though it has a lot of negative externalities associated with it. When oil starts to get expensive, other sources of energy become more efficient than oil, even ignoring the price of externalities. So, here's the cool thing, the cost in cents per Kilowatt hour, plus externalities (stats from Renewable Energy World, Feb, 2003) using present technology:

Coal $.03, $.06 with externalities
Gas $.035, $.12 with externalities
Nuclear $.04, $.055 with externalities
Biomass, $.028, $.032 with externalities
Wind $.04, $.033 with externalities
Solar $.12, $.11 with externalities

So there are alternatives, even now. The thing about oil is that it is very portable. To substitute we would need to either create oil from coal (as China is doing), or store energy alternately (batteries or, maybe, hydrogen). This involves a major economic shift, since we use oil as the best source of mobile energy, hence the problems with increasing fuel costs, including the risk of a prolonged recession, or even a depression as we switch. But it does not mean that we will have the end of the end of civilization.
posted by blahblahblah at 6:58 PM on April 14, 2005

but argue that as the price of oil rises we (particularly america) will be forced to consume less of it

The logical flaws are:

1) Oil is a WORLDWIDE raw material. For plastic, fertilizer, various chemicals, et la. Eventually you get to the 'consumer' face of oil - gasoline. While you can create hydrocarbons with electricty, the sealand process is not equivalant to oil. Just because hydrocarbons can make electrical power doesn't mean you can sub in electrical power whereever hydrocarbons are now used.
2) Right now, many countries have alot of dollar-valued paper. And American dollars can be traded for things like oil. (And whatever else America might make....who am I kidding?!?!? The dollar has value as a way to get oil) So the countries with them dollars can outbid America for that oil. So the others with piles of dollars can trade them dollars for oil and can pick up the slack for American consumtion
3) As long as population grows, so will consumtion.
4) As long as others seek "The american way of life" consumption levels from where they are TO 'the American way of life' will rise.
5) The present economic system is based on growth. It 'breaks' in no growth or shrinkage of the money supply .
6) As people have opted to buy V6/V8 low milage autos and chose to live 30+ miles from work - they still need to get to work so they can pay for the borrowed money that got 'em their 3000+ sq foot home and the 2.5 cars. They can't dump the car w/o taking a loss, or sell the home w/o a loss because people entering the car/home market will want eaiser to heat homes and more economic to use cars. So gas consumption will stay the same. Instead "the extras" will be cut from the budget - until they loose their jobs because they work at a firm that 'makes "the extras" that others are cutting out.

But hey, I'm just a mean, scarry guy, Listen to The President and channel his soothing words "be patriotic - go and buy something!"
posted by rough ashlar at 7:02 PM on April 14, 2005

Gompa -- you are smoking crack. What you call inching closer to catastrophe is also known as progress and it has been happening for decades. You neo-Malthusians are so ignorant of basic economics that it makes me laugh: ha.
posted by esquire at 7:02 PM on April 14, 2005

mcd, I appreciate someone else arguing the economics here as well.

Huh. You are 'arguing the economics'? How? One of the cornerstones of accounting and economics is that time has value.

Yet, when presented with the idea that electrial power on this planet is derived from stellar bodies and the time it takes for that potentional to be stored should be valued, you choose to throw away the cornerstone of time having value.

Exactly how valuable is 'economics' when you are willin to throw away a key value when it provides a warm feeling?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:08 PM on April 14, 2005

so ignorant of basic economics that it makes me laugh: ha.
posted by esquire at 7:02 PM PST on April 14 [!]

If you are so 'knowledgeable' about economics as to laugh, then please explain why 'time has value' is a cornerstone of economics, yet time is ignored in the pricing of how electrcity is created?

'basic economics' looks to be what is laughable if one of the cornerstones of economic analysis is disreguarded as a matter of convience in another analysis,.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:14 PM on April 14, 2005

Time is ignored because the process of converting the suns energy to oil has already occured. People don't have to wait for it to happen.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 7:56 PM on April 14, 2005

zeoslap: thanks for your own clarification on oil being traded for dollars. I am aware of this but I was just trying to be clear on where my numbers came from.
I can't agree more with Gompa: this issue deserves daily posts; obviously with fresh links. So, while this is double post in a way, Specklet did give us new links that are certainly relevant.
While I don't see Americans as intrinsically evil, I do wish that we'd wake up and smell the coffee. We live so easily compared to so many other counties and peoples on this earth. It's time we give a little back. Or at least take a bit lot less.
posted by horseblind at 8:00 PM on April 14, 2005

rough ashlar: i really enjoyed your website

oil is already oil, coal is already coal. Time is irrelevant in pricing these goods.

on preview: what drscrooge said.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:01 PM on April 14, 2005

Time is ignored because the process of converting the suns energy to oil has already occured. People don't have to wait for it to happen.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 7:56 PM PST on April 14 [!]

Ok.

So, is that a logical and rational choice to make?

Or does such a choice create market distortions when comparing to less wasteful uses of time and/or materials?

(One calculation claimed 98 tons of plant bio-matter to make 1 gallon of gas using the 'make oil via burying for thousands of years' method.)
posted by rough ashlar at 8:06 PM on April 14, 2005

The logical flaws are:

1) Oil is a WORLDWIDE raw material. For plastic, fertilizer, various chemicals, et la. Eventually you get to the 'consumer' face of oil - gasoline. While you can create hydrocarbons with electricty, the sealand process is not equivalant to oil. Just because hydrocarbons can make electrical power doesn't mean you can sub in electrical power whereever hydrocarbons are now used.

absolutely true. so we substitute other things where we can, and become more efficient where we cannot.


2) Right now, many countries have alot of dollar-valued paper. And American dollars can be traded for things like oil. (And whatever else America might make....who am I kidding?!?!? The dollar has value as a way to get oil) So the countries with them dollars can outbid America for that oil. So the others with piles of dollars can trade them dollars for oil and can pick up the slack for American consumtion

yeeeaaahh. i have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

3) As long as population grows, so will consumtion.

populations in heavily urbanized nations is falling, population worldwide looks to peak over the next couple of decades and level off or possibly decline.

4) As long as others seek "The american way of life" consumption levels from where they are TO 'the American way of life' will rise.

as the price of oil rises americans will use less of it. the same will be true for the rest of the world.

5) The present economic system is based on growth. It 'breaks' in no growth or shrinkage of the money supply .

hmm. sounds ok to me.

6) As people have opted to buy V6/V8 low milage autos and chose to live 30+ miles from work - they still need to get to work so they can pay for the borrowed money that got 'em their 3000+ sq foot home and the 2.5 cars. They can't dump the car w/o taking a loss, or sell the home w/o a loss because people entering the car/home market will want eaiser to heat homes and more economic to use cars. So gas consumption will stay the same. Instead "the extras" will be cut from the budget - until they loose their jobs because they work at a firm that 'makes "the extras" that others are cutting out.

there will definitely be hard times. the price of oil is going to rise, and the price of anything related will rise too. so yeah, some people will lose their jobs, and you'll definitely see fewer gass-guzzlers on the road. but we'll innovate, mix in other sources of energy like renewables and nuclear, and get on with our lives. it's not going to be the end of the world, or the end of america, or the end of capitalism.
posted by mcd at 8:06 PM on April 14, 2005

more the bad spelling! : "We live so easily compared to so many other counties and peoples on this earth." Should have been: "We live so easily compared to so many other countries and peoples on this earth." I'm sure most of you caught it but just to be sure...
posted by horseblind at 8:07 PM on April 14, 2005

oil is already oil, coal is already coal. Time is irrelevant in pricing these goods.

Really? And you believe this because?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:09 PM on April 14, 2005

Or does such a choice create market distortions when comparing to less wasteful uses of time and/or materials?

(One calculation claimed 98 tons of plant bio-matter to make 1 gallon of gas using the 'make oil via burying for thousands of years' method.)


This line of reasoning is bizzare and makes no sense.

For arguments sake assume that we do not use oil. The bio-mass used to create the oil is still going to be transformed into oil. So there is no waste.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 8:22 PM on April 14, 2005

i have no idea what point

Sources of American dollars to consume oil are far beyond American's borders.

If the drscroogemcduck and Ynoxas POV is the valid one, that time is not a relavant part of the energy equation, then you should consume as much energy as you can, as fast as you can...as time doesn't matter.

If you have American Dollars - backed only by "the full faith and credit of the United States of America", why ould you not spend them on oil NOW VS the value of a country who has no budgetary controls, has liquidity problems in Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac (the housing market) and the largest companies like GM and Wal*Mart need cheap oil to sell Hummers and to support a 12,000 mile supply chain?

it's not going to be the end of the world, or the end of america, or the end of capitalism.

Depends on how 'people' react. When you have 'a system in place' that is willing to spend $27.5 million to ship $88,120 worth of LNG - all because of an invasion of another land that the official stated reasons do not match the observable reality, what makes you think the rational POV you have stated *IS* gonna be the way it goes down?

I've seen no 'retraction' of "The Carter Doctrine" - and I see no reason for others to NOT react with force if force is used to keep the American Way of life 'non-negotionable'. In the past force was rocks, these days - not so much. So I hope you understand why I am not seeing things as 'hopeful' as you do.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:28 PM on April 14, 2005

This line of reasoning is bizzare and makes no sense.......[snip]
posted by drscroogemcduck at 8:22 PM PST on April 14 [!]

I'll ask the question you didn't answer again:

So, is that a logical and rational choice to make?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:29 PM on April 14, 2005

Or does such a choice create market distortions when comparing to less wasteful uses of time and/or materials?

(One calculation claimed 98 tons of plant bio-matter to make 1 gallon of gas using the 'make oil via burying for thousands of years' method.)


are you trying to argue that oil is overpriced because it takes so long to make it? that it _should_ be the same price as 98 tons of plant bio-matter? i don't understand what your point is...
posted by mcd at 8:29 PM on April 14, 2005

Oh. Well, we'll just rely on the advancement of technology to allow us to weasel out of it!

In all seriousness, that's the only way we can possible survive as a civilization. Any idiot can see our current way of life is unsustainable. On the other hand, returning to a permanently ecologically sustainable way of life would require the death of the vast majority of the people on the planet, and a truly pathetic standard of living for the survivors. That's hardly pleasant; I'd almost rather just let the ecology collapse. Furthermore, in such a situation, no scientific or technological advancement would be possible. We'd just stagnate until we either died off or something better evolved.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:31 PM on April 14, 2005

If you have American Dollars - backed only by "the full faith and credit of the United States of America", why ould you not spend them on oil NOW VS the value of a country who has no budgetary controls, has liquidity problems in Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac


well, the people who have massive amounts of dollars lying around are the central banks in east asia. and they can't get rid of them without severely hurting their own economies (basically they're loaning us money so we can keep buying their exports). i agree that this is a substantial problem, but i don't see how it's related to the whole peak oil thing.
posted by mcd at 8:33 PM on April 14, 2005

Are there companies making plastics out there from materials other than plastic? If so, what materials do they use?
posted by sophist at 8:42 PM on April 14, 2005

correction: ...other than oil?
posted by sophist at 8:44 PM on April 14, 2005

i agree that this is a substantial problem, but i don't see how it's related to the whole peak oil thing.

The 'economic argument' that "as oil increases in price, demand will decrease".

If you have something 'backed by the full faith and credit' of a non-credit-worthy entity, why would you hold onto that something VS converting it as quick as you can into oil? The price may increase, but the desire to get rid of increasingly worthless paper means the demand for exchanging that paper for oil will also remain high.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:46 PM on April 14, 2005

Sophist - platics can be made from non-ancient sources of hydrocarbons. But due to ignoring time-to-create-the-hydrocarbons in the pricing of the hydrocarbons, using hydrocarbons from old materials is cheaper.

Plastic from soy-based oils has been done. Just not common at this point is all because, well, stored sunshine of the past is cheaper due to faulty market logic.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:50 PM on April 14, 2005

If the drscroogemcduck and Ynoxas POV is the valid one, that time is not a relavant part of the energy equation, then you should consume as much energy as you can, as fast as you can...as time doesn't matter.


Yes. I think you should consume as much energy as it makes economical sense to consume. Even if useable energy was finite (in the not billions of years away sense) and consuming now would deprive future generations of useable energy.


If you have something 'backed by the full faith and credit' of a non-credit-worthy entity, why would you hold onto that something VS converting it as quick as you can into oil? The price may increase, but the desire to get rid of increasingly worthless paper means the demand for exchanging that paper for oil will also remain high.

And the desire of entities to receive this worthless paper will decrease which means the demand for exchanging paper for oil will remain low. Not to mention that there are many other goods you can buy with this paper. Not just oil!
posted by drscroogemcduck at 8:55 PM on April 14, 2005

{mcd} . . .populations in heavily urbanized nations is falling


Oh? And what nations might those be?
posted by Neiltupper at 9:02 PM on April 14, 2005

Yes. I think you should consume as much energy as it makes economical sense to consume. Even if useable energy was finite (in the not billions of years away sense) and consuming now would deprive future generations of useable energy.

Please make sure you have lots of pictures and documentation of your consumption so your grandkids and great and great-great grandchildern know what a swell guy you were.

And the desire of entities to receive this worthless paper will decrease

When ya have 2 trillion of the slips of paper, that gives you alot of paper to be rid of even if you stop collecting 'em.

When you ignore 2 trillion, your comment about "will remain low" would be reasonable. But hey, who am I to try to introduce you to reality eh?

(and in the interest of full disclosure, I'm sending 'em some 9,000 slips of paper to buy some evacuated glass tubes with heat pipes. But the US Government wants to charge me 6% to compensate all the Americans who were denied work in the evacuated glass tube+heat pipe business. Nevermind there are no American makers of vacuated glass tube+heat pipes.....)
posted by rough ashlar at 9:03 PM on April 14, 2005

Are there companies making plastics out there from materials other than plastic? If so, what materials do they use?

Cargill Dow's using Corn.
posted by crumbly at 9:09 PM on April 14, 2005

Good idea, given that corn is so cheap. And why is that? Because it's made with petrochemical fertilizers. Betcha dollars to doughnuts that the oil -> corn -> plastic process is less efficient than oil -> plastic.
posted by Aknaton at 11:18 PM on April 14, 2005

From Aknaton's point it also follows that the alternative energies that come from agriculture (biodiesel, ethanol) are not going to be the miracle cure if large-scale agriculture fails due to lack of oil for fertilizer / machinery / transport.

What would make more sense at this point than coming up with some time-relation formula would be to end the US oil subsidy. This page cites a few sources putting that subsidy total at $20b per year. If even half of that money was passed to renewables... but we've all heard that argument before.
posted by sophist at 12:32 AM on April 15, 2005

For the long haul, I say the smart money's on geothermal energy.

There just isn't the resource for that to happen in most places. It's valid in Iceland due to that country's position on fault lines and the availability of both warm and hot areas at accessible depths, combined with large amounts of available water and a very low population density. (I'm taking a field trip to an Icelandic geothermal power station next week so have been doing my homework)
posted by biffa at 2:37 AM on April 15, 2005

Are there companies making plastics out there from materials other than plastic oil? If so, what materials do they use?
posted by sophist at 11:42 PM EST on April 14 [!]

Eastman Chemical makes plastics from coal.
posted by nofundy at 5:31 AM on April 15, 2005

For such an exciting prospect, there seems to be a dearth of quality information about making plastics from natural fibers. Plastics can also be made from hemp as well as other natural fibers. There are also composites, which are made of multiple substances, generally a mixture of natural fibers and synthetic plastics. Biodegradeable plastic is often made from mostly plant sources, though some seem to just include extra ingredients that help plastics to break down quicker.
posted by nTeleKy at 9:41 AM on April 15, 2005