The End of Oil

[ComandanteCero]

yeh, just did a rough calculation of what NYC's urban density is in terms of inhabitants/hectare (the units they are using for urban density).  It's roughly 101-103 inhabitants per hectare (basically 8.2-8.4 million people, living in 305 square miles (which is roughly 79,000 hectares)).  So yeah, they must be including the suburbs.

I did the same calculation for the NY MSA (which is about 19 million people living in 6,720 square miles (or 1,740,472 hectares), and that comes out to about 10.1 inhabitants per hectare).  

So, not as bad as the official MSA, not as good as the city proper.  Must be some other definition of the NY metro area.

[FangKC]

You want density. I'll given you density.

http://www.archdaily.com/95757/kowloon- ... led-city2/

[LenexatoKCMO]

You want density. I'll given you density.

http://www.archdaily.com/95757/kowloon- ... led-city2/

Well of course.

But it is pretty clear that they are saddling all of the American cities with the full extent of their suburbs while ignoring all of the feeder towns for the European cities.  I have spent a lot of time in Vienna and the notion that it is even as dense as NY, let alone 3x denser, is quite possibly one of the most indefensibly preposterous claims I have ever seen in print and could only be achieved with some very intentional gerrymandering of the stats.  Pretty clear that the authors had a bit of an agenda. 

[Highlander]

Well of course.

But it is pretty clear that they are saddling all of the American cities with the full extent of their suburbs while ignoring all of the feeder towns for the European cities.  I have spent a lot of time in Vienna and the notion that it is even as dense as NY, let alone 3x denser, is quite possibly one of the most indefensibly preposterous claims I have ever seen in print and could only be achieved with some very intentional gerrymandering of the stats.  Pretty clear that the authors had a bit of an agenda. 

Perhaps not 3X but I would suggest it's as dense and even somewhat denser though.  Not all of NY is Manhattan, lot's of single family homes in Brooklyn, the Queens and Staten Island is very non-dense.  I think people forget that borough.  In Vienna, just about everyone lives in a 5-6 story apartment block, you'd have to get out of the city to find any appreciable neighborhoods with only single family dwellings. 

[FangKC]

Yeah, there are part of Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn that are a lot like Kansas City in density.  And Staten Island isn't very dense at all.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Yeah, there are part of Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn that are a lot like Kansas City in density.  And Staten Island isn't very dense at all.

Yeah, but the same can be said about most of these european cities.  Not all of London is Westminster either.  People commute into london from exurban towns and farm villages all up and down the thames valley.  There is just better seperation between the commuter towns and the central city than there is here.  Pretending there is no relationship between them is not a very neutral way of viewing the situation, unless of course you have an agenda. 

[phuqueue]

Yeah, but the same can be said about most of these european cities.  Not all of London is Westminster either.  People commute into london from exurban towns and farm villages all up and down the thames valley.  There is just better seperation between the commuter towns and the central city than there is here.  Pretending there is no relationship between them is not a very neutral way of viewing the situation, unless of course you have an agenda. 

Also I mean Highlander has probably spent way more time in Vienna than I have so I defer to him as far as the subjective experience of being in the city, but the actual population numbers put Vienna at less than 11,000 per square mile, which makes it less dense than every borough of NYC except Staten Island (which is like 8500 or something -- far denser than KC, incidentally).  Even Queens is nearly twice as dense.  Vienna's also less dense than San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, or Philadelphia.

My personal experience with Europe has always been that it's not so much every city is going to beat any US city on density, but more that every city is consistently far denser than the vast majority of American cities.  I mean you can throw out those five American cities that are denser than Vienna, but on the other hand Vienna isn't even a very big city.  NYC, SF, etc are all exceptionally dense by American standards and pretty average by European standards.  That's Europe's real strength, not that every city is denser than NYC minus Manhattan, but that European cities collectively are consistently far denser than American cities collectively.  You don't need Manhattan- (or Paris-) level density to build a livable and more energy-efficient city (but it doesn't hurt).

[FangKC]

The thing about European cities though is that they are very pedestrian-oriented, and usually have much better mass transit than US cities. Many of the people living in the suburbs are more inclined to use commuter trains that in most US cities, of which few even have commuter trains. More people there use mass transit, thus that is probably why the energy consumption for transportation is less--even when the density might be less.

Most of the densest cities in the USA are also ones that are somewhat constrained by geography. Manhattan is on an island. San Francisco is on a narrow peninsula.  Boston and Chicago are constrainted by water on one side. Los Angeles has the ocean and mountains.

[LenexatoKCMO]

The thing about European cities though is that they are very pedestrian-oriented, and usually have much better mass transit than US cities. Many of the people living in the suburbs are more inclined to use commuter trains that in most US cities, of which few even have commuter trains. More people there use mass transit, thus that is probably why the energy consumption for transportation is less--even when the density might be less.

Yeah, I am not debating their consumption stats - just their bullshit densities. 

[Highlander]

Interesting news from Wikileaks that should come as no surprise to anyone.  Saudi Arabia does not have the oil reserves that they claim.  Considerably less actually.  Something I've learned is never trust non-western government communications on oil resources, they almost always inflate by a big margin.   



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011 ... -wikileaks

[DaveKCMO]

Interesting news from Wikileaks that should come as no surprise to anyone.  Saudi Arabia does not have the oil reserves that they claim.  Considerably less actually.  Something I've learned is never trust non-western government communications on oil resources, they almost always inflate by a big margin.     



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011 ... -wikileaks

saw this earlier. is the story getting any traction inside the biz?

[Highlander]

saw this earlier. is the story getting any traction inside the biz?

I think the business already knows.  Governments in oil producing countries have a vested interest in pumping up the numbers; attract investment, internal stability, and for creating bargaining chips for concessions/service contracts.   Saudi Arabia gets away with it more than others because nobody gets to see their data....everything is owned by Aramco and there is absolutely no oversight (save for WikiLeaks).  Unfortunately, being by far the biggest, a 40% overestimate has profound implications for the rest of the world.  

[DaveKCMO]

i [heart] wikileaks.

[phuqueue]

A counterpoint (founded on pretty questionable logic): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j ... 21203.html

Love the reasoning.  We can't trust the Saudis when they tell us behind closed doors that their reserves are far lower than advertised, but we can trust them when they tell the New York Times that they're actually three times greater than originally believed.

[Highlander]

A counterpoint (founded on pretty questionable logic): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j ... 21203.html

Love the reasoning.  We can't trust the Saudis when they tell us behind closed doors that their reserves are far lower than advertised, but we can trust them when they tell the New York Times that they're actually three times greater than originally believed.

When the article is quoting reserves and is off by several orders of magnitude (the author keeps stating million instead of billion), it raises a red flag.  Another red flag is when people start talking about Bakken Shale production leading America towards oil independence.  That's a real laugher.  The fact that the Saudi's have overestimated their resources is nothing new to the oil industry and the author of that article seems a little goofy.   

[knucklehead]

I have read that all of the OPEC countries grossly overestimate their reserves.

The reserves are used to allocate OPEC's overall production target between countries. So the more you lie, the more oil you get to produce and sell.

This is an old story. The real scandal is how badly the US DOE/Energy Information Agency lies in their annual energy outlook.

As far as the Huffington Post article. It is clearly a push piece not a serious effort to inform. The snarky personal attacks are a hallmark of propaganda. When the facts are not on your side, attack the motivation and mental stablity of your opposition.

[shinatoo]

So listening to Brain Stuff podcats (which is awesome by the way) they mentioned a company called Joule Unlimited http://www.jouleunlimited.com/ that recently receive a patent for a tech that will convert easy to grow algae into diesel for about $30 a barrel. They said it will be ready for commercial use next year and you will be able to set up your own diesel plant in your back yard, at a gas station or even at a power substation.

If this is true we are looking at the end of the discussion about the viability of the car, a major scale back of oil extraction, the end of solar, hydro and wind industries, the end of coal fired power plans, the end of the gasoline engine, the end of the natural gas industry and maybe (this is what i really want to talk about) the end of investments in rail.

What impact is this going to have on urban, suburban and rural development? What impact will this have on rail development?

We will basically be returning to a 1950's mentality about cars.

[shinatoo]

Just ran some quick numbers. Joule says they can produce 15,000 barrels per acre per year. Currently the US consumes 7 billion barrels of oil a year. to meet that demand, just for oil, they would need 500,000 acres or about a tenth of the land in Kansas. lets assume they need 2 million acres to meet all demand nation wide. That's about .1% of the area of the US.

[bobbyhawks]

Just ran some quick numbers. Joule says they can produce 15,000 barrels per acre per year. Currently the US consumes 7 billion barrels of oil a year. to meet that demand, just for oil, they would need 500,000 acres or about a tenth of the land in Kansas. lets assume they need 2 million acres to meet all demand nation wide. That's about .1% of the area of the US.

As sparse as certain areas are, there are still environmental concerns that must be addressed.  Also, taking 1/10 the state of Kansas off the food map will have a pretty hefty impact on the price of wheat.  And do we know what climate is required for this type of fuel?

I think that algae is a terrific possibility for future energy production, but I also think that making diesel from algae is just a short term solution.  This does not address any of the environmental concerns from burning fossil fuel.  Diesel burns cleaner, but it still burns.  In my opinion, we should concentrate more on improving batteries for cars and focus algae research on zero emission power generation through the electrical grid.

There will eventually come a time when science catches up and individual vehicles are both cost effective and environmentally friendly (emissions-wise).  It could be 20 years, and it could be 100.  This will be a legislative nightmare, but one hopes with overpopulation and sprawl that legislative bodies around the globe are able to restrict encroachement on the countryside and deter traffic from certain areas.

[shinatoo]

As sparse as certain areas are, there are still environmental concerns that must be addressed.  Also, taking 1/10 the state of Kansas off the food map will have a pretty hefty impact on the price of wheat.  And do we know what climate is required for this type of fuel?

Well, you wouldn't need to put all 500,000 acres in Kansas, we are only talking about .025% of the total land of the U.S.

I think that algae is a terrific possibility for future energy production, but I also think that making diesel from algae is just a short term solution.  This does not address any of the environmental concerns from burning fossil fuel.  Diesel burns cleaner, but it still burns.  In my opinion, we should concentrate more on improving batteries for cars and focus algae research on zero emission power generation through the electrical grid.

How does it not address the concerns of burning fossil fuel? It eliminates fossil fuel! It's a zero carbon footprint. The acquisition of the rare earth materials, and the energy consumption required to produce batteries, has a huge environmental impact. Some say more of an impact than running a 25 mpg car for ten years.

There will eventually come a time when science catches up and individual vehicles are both cost effective and environmentally friendly (emissions-wise).  It could be 20 years, and it could be 100.  This will be a legislative nightmare, but one hopes with overpopulation and sprawl that legislative bodies around the globe are able to restrict encroachement on the countryside and deter traffic from certain areas.