Topic: Peak Oil

[KJP]

VMTs were starting to fall before the Great Recession. GenY, the largest demographic group in U.S. history, is racking up fewer VMTs than the previous smaller generations, according to Kiplinger http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/no-cars-for-generation-y.html and JD Power & Associates http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/10/study-millennials-have-less-interest-in-cars.html.



And the second-largest demographic group, the Baby Boomers, started retiring in 2011, which will hasten the drop in the VMTs. In fact, all age groups are seeing a drop in the percentage having driver's licenses:



Not a good time if you're a road construction contractor who depends on gas taxes to build more roads that will be used less.

[taestell]

There are lots of "gas prices rising" stories making the rounds today -- I won't even bother linking, because it's all the same information you've read before.  It's just incredibly frustrating to look at the comments on these articles, and the only suggestions are to relax drilling regulations in the US. It's like people are completely oblivious to the facts, or just don't want to believe that:
- Drilling more in the US will only add a few more drops to the bucket.
- International demand for oil is growing, and we're all going to share the pain, so get used to it.
- Our only solution in the long term is to dramatically increase fuel efficiency in vehicles, and more importantly, dramatically improve mass transit.

[KJP]

When I was a practicing alcoholic, my solution to hangovers was to drink. And guess what -- it worked!

Of course my memory was failing, I was getting digestive tract problems, and my hands shook. Unfortunately, America can't flip a switch and go cold turkey on oil overnight, but if we addicts were serious about addressing our oil addiction, we wouldn't consider "more hair of the dog" as serious solutions. So we have yet to move past addressing our denial. Perhaps many of us have but we're still in the bargaining step.

[Gramarye]

Of course, there's no reason we can't do both--allow for increasing exploration of domestic conventional energy sources and also continue to develop alternatives.

Also, developing and deploying better transit systems won't save all that much oil, in larger terms, unless that transit system itself runs on alternative fuels (nat-gas buses, electric trolleys, etc.).  It would be more efficient than a system designed around single-driver cars, of course, but it would still have significant energy demands and therefore burn a lot of gasoline or diesel fuel if those are what the transit system depends upon.

[KJP]

The portion of the transit system that saves the oil is the spin-off, walkable development patterns. Consider the pie chart below and then think about how those trips are done in different types of development patterns:




Then consider the distances and vehicles needed to conduct the above trips in this setting:




Then consider the distances and vehicles needed (or not needed) to conduct the above trips in this setting which offers a very high quality of life too:

[natininja]

From what I understand, most fuel a person "consumes" is used through transporting goods they purchase, not personal trips. So using sustainable fuel sources for freight and buying local, and enacting policies which promote these things, are in fact more important than "alternative" modes of personal transportation.

Promoting sustainable personal transit does have a side benefit of promoting a nodal distribution system which makes such a freight distribution system more feasible. It divorces people from the "need" for more, wider, faster roads, as well, encouraging a more objective view of costs and benefits of infrastructure projects. It also makes people healthier and has other benefits. The primary benefit is not lower personal consumption of petrol, however.

There's also the economic problem associated with building/maintaining too much infrastructure per capita. This is the best argument for alternative personal transit, IMO. It's very intuitive and does not rely on layers of inference. It doesn't have to do with peak oil, however, until you get into the inference.

[KJP]

That's not correct. Here's a couple of charts:

[natininja]

Hmm, wish I could find where I got that info.

[Gramarye]

True enough, certainly--but you still have a great deal of existing suburban development, and the vast majority of people still want to live in suburbs (it's just a slightly less vast majority than it used to be).  The chicken-and-egg problem returns here: the places that are best suited for efficient public transit systems are those areas that already developed in a dense, walkable, mixed-use form without transit in place.  Running a rail line out to the neighborhood in your first picture above would be problematic, even with a park-and-ride system (which would be the only way to make it remotely compatible with existing development).

[natininja]

^ Not necessarily. If there's a park-and-ride system which takes someone to walkable neighborhoods, it can be quite functional. Particularly since employment centers are often walkable.

This is the strategy with the Cincinnati streetcar. Suppose it is built, then Downtown & Over-the-Rhine become much more functional stops on a light rail line which connects, say, the suburbs and the airport. Once such a line exists, TOD can develop in the burbs. Remember, it only took us half a century or so to build the sprawl we have. Putting the wheels in motion now, why couldn't we expect similarly rapid results?

If people prefer the suburbs, one might expect them to prefer higher-functioning suburbs, given some exposure.

[GCrites80s]

True enough, certainly--but you still have a great deal of existing suburban development, and the vast majority of people still want to live in suburbs (it's just a slightly less vast majority than it used to be).

Want to live in suburbs, or just defaulted to them?

[natininja]

True enough, certainly--but you still have a great deal of existing suburban development, and the vast majority of people still want to live in suburbs (it's just a slightly less vast majority than it used to be).

Want to live in suburbs, or just defaulted to them?

Touche. We shouldn't forget the lifestyle subsidies afforded for suburban life.

[Gramarye]

True enough, certainly--but you still have a great deal of existing suburban development, and the vast majority of people still want to live in suburbs (it's just a slightly less vast majority than it used to be).

Want to live in suburbs, or just defaulted to them?

I used to believe the latter as well, but most of my coworkers (both at my current job and my previous one) really do want that lifestyle, notwithstanding my proselytizing for urban living.  To them, downtown is someplace they go (or stay after work for a little while), not someplace they live and breathe.  And I choose not to take such discussions or thoughts in any direction that would imply that their decisions were essentially made for them or that they're just blind followers or anything else that seeks to explain away their preferences as anything other than as genuine as my own preference for the urban lifestyle.

[WestBLVD]

Hmm, wish I could find where I got that info.

Even looking at that chart. Personal trip oil use and those derived from goods they consume are almost equal. If you figure that several percentage points can be knocked off the car, light truck, suv categories to placed into the non personal trip category. Think of all the local plumbing services, food and flower delivery, USPS, courier delivery, landscaping services, light construction, and so forth that just use regular cars or light trucks that aren't personal trips. It's probably a lot closer on average and if you are a city dweller then your personal consumption is probably a lot less from personal trips than through the items consumed.

[GCrites80s]

True enough, certainly--but you still have a great deal of existing suburban development, and the vast majority of people still want to live in suburbs (it's just a slightly less vast majority than it used to be).

Want to live in suburbs, or just defaulted to them?

I used to believe the latter as well, but most of my coworkers (both at my current job and my previous one) really do want that lifestyle, notwithstanding my proselytizing for urban living.  To them, downtown is someplace they go (or stay after work for a little while), not someplace they live and breathe.  And I choose not to take such discussions or thoughts in any direction that would imply that their decisions were essentially made for them or that they're just blind followers or anything else that seeks to explain away their preferences as anything other than as genuine as my own preference for the urban lifestyle.

Never a fun conversation to have, indeed.

[Gramarye]

More to the point, an inaccurate conversation to have.

[KJP]

Interesting article, what with all of the new domestic energy projects underway. I wish we would use NGLs for more transportation, however....




September 28, 2011

Report: North American oil output will hit all-time record by 2016
Posted on September 28, 2011 at 10:31 am by Tom Fowler    in Canada, Commodity Prices, Drilling, E&P, Economics

Maybe Hubbert’s Peak isn’t the tallest mountain after all.

North American oil production will hit a new all-time high by 2016 given the current pace of drilling in the U.S. and Canada, according to a study released by an energy research firm this week.

U.S. oil production in areas like the Permian Basin, the Eagle Ford, Bakken and others will rise by a little over 2 million barrels per day between 2010 and 2016, according to data compiled by Bentek Energy, a Colorado firm that tracks energy infrastructure and production projects.

It’s a reversal of the steady downward production trend that started around 1970, when U.S. oil production peaked at around 9.5 million barrels per day.

READ MORE AT:
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/09/28/report-north-american-oil-output-will-hit-all-time-record-by-2016/

[Robert Pence]

For the last two or three days, unleaded regular at the Speedway station nearest my house in Fort Wayne has been $3.169, the cheapest price I've seen in a long time. Makes me want to buy that big pickup I was looking at the other day; it has two 19-gallon tanks that I could just fill up and use for storage. I could run my Focus on that for about a month!

[Eighth and State]

^It would be cheaper to just buy some tanks without the truck. Even so, you take the chance that the price of gasoline will go down!

By the way, how do you like the Focus? I'm thinking of getting one of those. What kind of mileage are you getting?

[KJP]

Great read.....

Published Jan 30 2012 by ASPO-USA, Archived Jan 30 2012
Commentary: Peak Oil: Yes, still a serious issue
by Ray Long

The director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) will be delivering a lecture titled “U.S. Energy Outlook: Whatever Happened to ‘Peak Oil’” at Indiana University on February 6. The description of the lecture provides some background: “Not long ago, the public heard much concern that the nation and the globe had reached or was about to reach the point of peak oil production and would be on a downward trajectory due to declining resources. Despite growing demand for energy, however, fossil fuel resources have never been higher.”

One would hope that the USGS director will point out that the peak of US oil production occurred in 1970 around 10 million barrels of oil per day, and while US production has increased recently, it currently stands far below the peak at approximately 6 million barrels of oil per day - this in a time when “fossil fuel resources have never been higher.” As those familiar with Peak Oil know, the key issue is not the total size of the resource - but the rate at which the resource can be extracted and utilized.

News of the USGS director’s address prompted thoughts about the nature of the Peak Oil debate and how criticism of Peak Oil typically contains certain predictable characteristics, often fails to emphasize the daily rate of extraction, and dismisses the reasonable view that we should soberly examine both optimistic and pessimistic projections about future oil supplies.

READ MORE AT:
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-01-30/peak-oil-yes-still-serious-issue

[Gramarye]

This position - that we should critically examine global oil depletion and develop a plan to mitigate the economic consequences of oil production decline - is not just the position of ASPO-USA, it’s also the position of organizations from Australia, the United Kingdom, and around the globe, financial professionals, public health professionals, growing numbers of economists, and institutions as varied as the US and German militaries, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Suggesting that we "critically examine" oil depletion and "develop a plan" could be fine, but as with anything that generic, the devil is in the details.  I think there is a broad concern among skeptics (skeptics of central planning, that is--I think most people acknowledge that oil cannot be extracted at its current rate and price level for another generation, let alone another century or two) that any "examination" by peak-oil alarmists basically has a preordained conclusion, complete with a policy prescription (almost inevitably a very statist one) attached to that preordained "critical examination."

Personally, I don't even think "we" need to "develop a plan."  That's not because I refuse to acknowledge the extraction rates or any other stat you care to name, but simply because I don't trust the competence, the prescience, or the motives of those who want to be the acclaimed "planners."

[Nexis4Jersey]

But not everybody wants to live in a city , so in this region the leaders have recognized that and have rezoned certain corridors for dense growth.   Which attracts those that want a dense environment but not the hassles of a city , its being done along 20 corridors in this region.   What they do is add light Rail or in most cases bus Rapid Transit , Bike lanes , wider sidewalks and rezone the corridor to encourage dense infill which replaces strip malls and other suburban garbage.    These corridors are often in between the Dense suburban Railway corridors and are catered to those car lovin suburbanites.    The hope is after these projects are done that will change , these projects also add sidewalks or wide shoulders for biking to connect towns and cities....   So there are ways in curving the dependence on driving everywhere....Alot of Suburban Roads could use a diet , shrink them down to a lane in each direction and when in small towns widen the sidewalks to at least 2 lanes wide , which usually takes from the huge road width.   Only 10% of the Northeastern population lives in a Urban area , 25% live in the Inner dense suburbs , 30% live in the auto suburbs , as of 2010 census.   The Hope is that by 2025 that Urban population makes up 15% and the Inner Dense suburbs grow to at least 35% , there is some good news that came out of the last census auto suburbs are starting to die in this region while Transit suburbs are exploding.    So i'm not to worried about any oil crisis impacting this region , I think will be ready , but for the rest of the US it looks grim.


Here's some proposals on making our suburbs more livable and pedestrian friendly ....alot of these proposals have been adopted into the towns long term growth plans....

New Jersey's Edge Cities , Inner City Suburbs , and small towns
http://www.rpa.org/pdf/MICDNJoct2006.pdf

Making Connecticut and Westchester Towns More Livable

http://www.rpa.org/pdf/Connecticut_and_Westchester_Institute_TOD_Report.pdf

Bike Lane Evesboro Medford Rd at Greenbrook Drive by JSF0864, on Flickr


Burlington NJ at dusk by jrowners, on Flickr

[KJP]

That's OK. Compact, mixed-use land uses supported by a mix of transportation alternatives are the key to eating up vehicle-miles traveled and thereby reducing energy demand and costs.

[KJP]

I couldn't figure where else to put this. But I sure do hope CNG can be used more for transportation purposes....

Chesapeake, 3M Partner to Develop CNG Tanks for Transportation Market
Tuesday, February 21, 2012

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Chesapeake Energy and 3M this week announced an agreement to collaborate in designing, manufacturing and marketing a broad portfolio of compressed natural gas (CNG) tanks for use in the United States transportation market.

The fuel tank on a CNG vehicle is its most expensive single component, the companies said in announcing the venture. The new CNG tanks developed through the partnership will reduce costs while increasing performance, which will enable greater market adoption of CNG as an alternative automotive fuel source.

3M's CNG tank solution combines the company's proprietary liner advancements, thermoplastic materials, barrier films and coatings, and damage-resistant films to transform the pressure vessel industry. Using nanoparticle-enhanced resin technology, 3M will create CNG tanks that are lighter with 10% to 20% greater capacity, all at a lower cost than standard vessels.

READ MORE AT:
http://businessjournaldaily.com/drilling-down/chesapeake-3m-partner-develop-cng-tanks-transportation-market-2012-2-21

[Gramarye]

This technology still has a lot of room to run (and it's already good enough for commercialization in many segments, such as the heavy vehicle sector).

[unusualfire]

Sounds dangerous if punctured.

[thomasbw]

I started seeing a lot more broken-down cars by the side of the road starting in about 2007, which leads me to believe that people are deferring their maintenance.

I also made that observation a few years ago.

[Gramarye]

Sounds dangerous if punctured.

Well, sure ... almost all compressed gas or aerosol canisters are.

[jjakucyk]

As are tanks filled with highly flammable and toxic hydrocarbon liquids and vapors. 

[unusualfire]

Well i mean it's dangerous with a human driving it around anywhere. One accident will make it explode. The more you have out there the higher the chance.