The End of Oil

[DaveKCMO]

Oil Industry Braces for Drop in U.S. Thirst for Gasoline

Demand for all petroleum-based transportation fuels -- gasoline, diesel and jet fuel -- fell 7.1% last year, according to the EIA. This is the steepest one-year decline since at least 1950, as far back as the federal government has reliable data.

Many industry observers have become convinced the drop in consumption won't reverse even when economic growth resumes. In December, the EIA said gasoline consumption by U.S. drivers had peaked, in part because of growing consumer interest in fuel efficiency.

Exxon believes U.S. fuel demand to keep cars, SUVs and pickups moving will shrink 22% between now and 2030. "We are probably at or very near a peak in terms of light-duty gasoline demand," says Scott Nauman, Exxon's head of energy forecasting.

[enough]

^ good news.

[KCFutbol]

And we'd use even less if people would drive just drive the freaking speed limit.

[NDTeve]

And we'd use even less if people would drive just drive the freaking speed limit.

Unless speed limit is ridiculously slow..see I-29 and every city in Johnson County.

[KCFutbol]

Unless speed limit is ridiculously slow..see I-29 and every city in Johnson County.

I-35 from JoCo to downtown, the speed limit is 60 mph. That's fast enough for a 10 to 15 mile trip. I get passed 99% of the time, often by cars going well in excess of 60, more like 75.

[BSykes]

I-35 from JoCo to downtown, the speed limit is 60 mph. That's fast enough for a 10 to 15 mile trip. I get passed 99% of the time, often by cars going well in excess of 60, more like 75.

Better tell those little whippersnappers to slow down!

[AJoD]

I confess to finding 60 mph laboriously slow on wide three-lane interstate highways with relatively little traffic.

[AJoD]

Anyone here know much about rare earth metals?

I read a short piece in The Atlantic this month called Clean Energy's Dirty Little Secret, a pretty cursory treatment of neodymium mining.  These metals are apparently used to create much of the clean energy infrastructure (turbines, hybrid engines, etc.).  Big difference between rare earth metals and things like coal and oil are that the former are used to harness renewable energy sources, of course.  Still, it made me curious about any possible adverse consequences of switching to "clean energy," which are pretty rarely touched in the media.

[DaveKCMO]

Anyone here know much about rare earth metals?

I read a short piece in The Atlantic this month called Clean Energy's Dirty Little Secret, a pretty cursory treatment of neodymium mining.  These metals are apparently used to create much of the clean energy infrastructure (turbines, hybrid engines, etc.).  Big difference between rare earth metals and things like coal and oil are that the former are used to harness renewable energy sources, of course.  Still, it made me curious about any possible adverse consequences of switching to "clean energy," which are pretty rarely touched in the media.

i saw an interesting piece on lithium mining, another "next big thing" when it comes to batteries for electric/hybrid cars. that stuff doesn't appear out of thin air... it must be mined from poor south american nations.

best advice: don't drive at all or buy a used car (or at a minimum, own just one and rent/share for peak activities). the planet cannot afford 5 billion vehicles, even if they're all hybrids or electrics.

[Highlander]

Oil Industry Braces for Drop in U.S. Thirst for Gasoline

You may have noticed that in spite of the recession, the price of oil has been pretty healthy for the last few months.  Even when the oil price came screeching down to 34$/barrel, there was only the slightest supply bubble.  Oil consumption will indeed go down in the future but it's going to be because of peaking supply rather than anything we do with respect to auto efficiency or new technology.  Look around at what most major oil company CEO's say and you'll see some concern on whether supply can keep up with demand past 2020.

If Obama would listen to the right people, he might realize that while the US is oil poor, it is actually very natural gas rich and converting to LNG or CNG would be the easiest and most economical way of dealing with foriegn oil dependency.   

[KCKev]

Americans have very short term memories!
When gas was almost $5 a gallon, shit hit the fan in most peoples minds. Green was in, mass transit was on everyone's mind. We where ready to stop using OIL!

When gas prices dropped, everyone seemed to forget how it was at $5 a gallon, and continued to fill er up!

   

[DaveKCMO]

If Obama would listen to the right people, he might realize that while the US is oil poor, it is actually very natural gas rich and converting to LNG or CNG would be the easiest and most economical way of dealing with foriegn oil dependency.   

while natural gas is indeed plentiful in the US and canada, it can still be imported. since oil and natural gas are global commodities there is little the government can do to control where things are sourced (even though it's probably economically efficient to get it here). true renewables, however, tend to be sourced and used only locally or regionally (until we start building mega electricity "pipelines" to the desert). why not strive for permanent energy independence?

natural gas is a probably a better short-term replacement for dirty coal (because sequestration is the next hydrogen fuel cell... vaporware).

besides, natural gas is still a fossil fuel. while plentiful, it's not unlimited and still generates GHG.

[beautyfromashes]

Look around at what most major oil company CEO's say and you'll see some concern on whether supply can keep up with demand past 2020.

If Obama would listen to the right people, he might realize that while the US is oil poor, it is actually very natural gas rich and converting to LNG or CNG would be the easiest and most economical way of dealing with foriegn oil dependency.   

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=6995879

The oil scare mongering is getting old.  We have plenty of known reserves and lots of places we have good reason to believe there might be more. 

[phuqueue]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=6995879

The oil scare mongering is getting old.  We have plenty of known reserves and lots of places we have good reason to believe there might be more. 

Ergo, this finite resource will never run out and we're good to go as we are.

[DaveKCMO]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=6995879

The oil scare mongering is getting old.  We have plenty of known reserves and lots of places we have good reason to believe there might be more. 

the price of oil is constantly in a state of flux, not a great thing to base your entire economy on.

[Highlander]

while natural gas is indeed plentiful in the US and canada, it can still be imported. since oil and natural gas are global commodities there is little the government can do to control where things are sourced (even though it's probably economically efficient to get it here). true renewables, however, tend to be sourced and used only locally or regionally (until we start building mega electricity "pipelines" to the desert). why not strive for permanent energy independence?

natural gas is a probably a better short-term replacement for dirty coal (because sequestration is the next hydrogen fuel cell... vaporware).

besides, natural gas is still a fossil fuel. while plentiful, it's not unlimited and still generates GHG.

As you know, I am far greater concerned about an energy starved economy than I am greenhouse gas generation which I think has been overplayed to the point that science and logic are excluded from the debate.  Obviously, fossil fuels are finite and non-renewable but we have an economy and global population that has equilibrated the energy efficiency provided by fossil fuels.  Renewables will never be able to provide that efficiency and a life dependent on renewables, while inevitable at some point in the future, will usher in a time that will be very difficult for the human race.  Natural gas can be used for transportation which makes it at least a short term (<100 years) replacement for oil.  Energy depletion and starvation remains a far more dire threat to mankind than anthropgenic global warming ever will be.

[Highlander]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=6995879

The oil scare mongering is getting old.  We have plenty of known reserves and lots of places we have good reason to believe there might be more. 

The world uses 6 billion barrels of oil per year.  By the time this discovery comes on line, even if it is the high numbers claimed in the article which is extremely doubtful, we will have exhausted another 30-35 billion barrels.  We are simply not replacing what we take out of the ground and the differential is acute.  Now, getting back to that billion + barrels reported in the article.  Oil companies report their findings, pre-appraisal, in ranges and it always amazes me that the media latches on to the number that has only a 10% chance of coming to fruition. 

[ComandanteCero]

As you know, I am far greater concerned about an energy starved economy than I am greenhouse gas generation which I think has been overplayed to the point that science and logic are excluded from the debate.  Obviously, fossil fuels are finite and non-renewable but we have an economy and global population that has equilibrated the energy efficiency provided by fossil fuels.  Renewables will never be able to provide that efficiency and a life dependent on renewables, while inevitable at some point in the future, will usher in a time that will be very difficult for the human race.   Natural gas can be used for transportation which makes it at least a short term (<100 years) replacement for oil.  Energy depletion and starvation remains a far more dire threat to mankind than anthropgenic global warming ever will be.

I don't doubt the developed world would have major issues, but remember that 80 percent of the planet's population doesn't have a particularly energy intensive lifestyle.  If we expect everyone to live off energy intensive corn-based food industries with high meat intakes then yeah I see serious problems.  But I think there are a lot efficiencies that folks will be forced to find, one way or another.  I'm sure these efficiencies might be catastrophic to the American status quo, but that status quo is extremely energy inefficient.

Clearly, a major disruption in the developed world will cause massive disruptions in the rest of the world.  At the same time, in terms of who stands to lose the most, it's clearly the developed world.

[LenexatoKCMO]

I don't doubt the developed world would have major issues, but remember that 80 percent of the planet's population doesn't have a particularly energy intensive lifestyle.  

That's changing on an exponential pace - and that's the scary part.  Have you seen the Tata Nano?  The projections for chinese and indian car ownership?  How many power plants the PROC is building each year?

[DaveKCMO]

That's changing on an exponential pace - and that's the scary part.  Have you seen the Tata Nano?  The projections for chinese and indian car ownership?  How many power plants the PROC is building each year?

they're also eating our lunch on solar and other alternatives. this is out of necessity. they cannot keep choking their workers to death. people seem to forget that there's more to coal and burning gasoline than just the greenhouse effect.