By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Can the world economy recover with rising oil prices?

I should add the next video in the series on energy budgeting, since it deals directly with rising costs of energy and their implications for society:



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:

I really hope that governments don't stop whatever they're doing to move away from oil, using low energy prices as an excuse to postpone the solutions. I'm unsure governments were doing enough as it stood before the recession, now they could be doing even less, threatening our future.

 

What does this have to do with government?

I hope gas gets to $10.00 a gallon. if that happens private industry will do more in 1 year then all the governments in the world could in 20.

You have just highlighted the big problem... The private industry only moves when it has to, they're very short/medium term oriented, while the peak oil problem requires us to start working very early. The Business God is not going to save you.

Have you heard about the Hirsch report? It was an indepth study about peak oil and mitigation, here are some of the conclusions:

Mitigation efforts will require substantial time.
20 years is required to transition without substantial impacts
A 10 year rush transition with moderate impacts is possible with extraordinary efforts from governments, industry, and consumers
Late initiation of mitigation may result in severe consequences.

 Mitigation efforts will require substantial time.

  • 20 years is required to transition without substantial impacts
  • A 10 year rush transition with moderate impacts is possible with extraordinary efforts from governments, industry, and consumers
  • Late initiation of mitigation may result in severe consequences.

According to all projections, we're already too late to have 20 years, and most of them say we're too late to have 10 years.

Read the wiki page, and maybe the report itself.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

That's an interesting question. At the same time recession has hit west the harderst and keeps deepening here, Africa and Asia are still experiencing growth, keeping the demand for fossil fuel.

As we know from history, cheap energy seem to be necessity for (industrial) economic growth.
High energy price also lessens the disposable income of consumer, you have after paying for neccessities.

In the future, we have nuclear fusion power, but it may take some time, since so far they have managed to produce net fusion energy only in atom bombs. Of course, we have practically unlimited source of fusion energy in the form of solar power, but it's currently not very practical.

Until fusion energy is commercially available, fission and using wind and solar power to extract hydrogen out of sea water, but the problem today is the cost of storing hydrogen and the recession cuts down funding for R&D.

So, economy can recover, but it takes a lot more time.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Yes but it has been made harder thanks to the price spike. The best all around solution would be to get off oil within the next 10-15 years at least.



Obama has taken a huge step in reducing American demand for oil by significantly raising car fuel economy standards. The U.S. is still by far the largest oil consumer in the world.  Reducing U.S. demand is essential to lower oil prices, as other countries will continue to consume more.  Not to mention it sets an example for other countries and encourages investment and research in "better" fuels.  The U.S. can then sell this technology to other countries or they can develop it themselves.

Obama Announces New Fuel Economy Standards

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520680,00.html

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

President Obama announced tough new rules Tuesday for fuel efficiency and emissions in the U.S. auto industry, calling for a national standard that all automakers would have to meet.

The president, calling the proposal an "historic agreement," announced new standards that will require all automakers, including Detroit's foreign competitors, to increase fleet fuel efficiency by 5 percent per year starting in 2012.

"The status quo is no longer acceptable," Obama said, warning that the American appetite for oil comes at a "tremendous price."

Flanked by auto executives and officials, the president said the proposal would simultaneously help end U.S. dependence on foreign oil, lead automakers to develop more advanced products and save consumers money in the long-term.

"This rule provides the clear certainty that will allow these companies to plan for a future in which they are building the cars of the 21st century," Obama said. "Yes, it costs money to develop these vehicles. But even as the price to build these cars and trucks goes up, the cost of driving these vehicles will go down, as drivers save money at the pump."

The standards are expected to add $1,300 on average to vehicles. But Obama said drivers would make that back within three years due to savings on gas.

The new rules will require a fleet fuel efficiency standard of 35.5 miles per gallon by model year 2016, a big jump from the 2009 model year requirement of 25 mpg. A senior administration official said the changes (when compared to current pollution and vehicle use totals) will have the effect of removing 900 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air, taking 177 million cars off the road and shutting down 194 coal-fired power plants.

A senior administration official called the standards "tough and historic" and predicted it will be achieved with only minor modifications to vehicle and engine design.

"You will see some changes," the official said, adding that "off-the-shelf" technology will allow most automakers to retro-fit their cars, light truck and SUVS "without dramatically changing them."

For 2016 -- the final year new the rules will apply -- the fleet fuel efficiency standard for all domestically sold passenger cars will be 39 mpg. It will be 30 mpg for all domestically sold light trucks and sport utility vehicles. The average of these two equals a passenger car and light truck fuel efficiency standard of 35.5 mpg. The current requirements are 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 mpg for trucks. The tighter standards will first affect the 2011 model year for cars and trucks.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

# 1   United States: 20,680,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 3   China: 7,578,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 4   Japan: 5,007,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 5   Russia: 2,858,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 6   India: 2,722,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 7   Germany: 2,456,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 8   Brazil: 2,372,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 9   Canada: 2,371,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 10   Saudi Arabia: 2,311,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 11   Korea, South: 2,214,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 12   Mexico: 2,119,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 13   France: 1,950,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 14   United Kingdom: 1,763,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 15   Italy: 1,702,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 16   Iran: 1,679,000 bbl/day  2006 
# 17   Spain: 1,611,000 bbl/day  2007 
# 18   Indonesia: 1,219,000 bbl/day  2006 
# 19   Netherlands: 984,200 bbl/day  2007 
# 20   Australia: 966,200 bbl/day  2007 


We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:

The problem is the government has no control over how people invent solutions. This sounds great and all, but you can't predict the future (at least we never have).

This idea is akin to someone 15-20 years ago saying we should beef up the cellular networks so grocery stores and fast food restaurants can more efficiently accept checks.

Only to have checks surpassed by credit cards, making the whole thing pointless.

If gas got to the point where it was worth more for corporations to find alternatives, there is no doubt in my mind that they will incredibly fast.

What they come up with is anybodies guess (hell, it could be compressed air).

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong.  Investment and research in new technology happens all the time because of government regulations, and sometimes because of the mere anticipation of future government regulations.  The government can, already has, and will continue to directly or indirectly encourage investment and research in new technology.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

ISP is messing up. Not typing this all over again :p



akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
 

The problem is the government has no control over how people invent solutions. This sounds great and all, but you can't predict the future (at least we never have).

This idea is akin to someone 15-20 years ago saying we should beef up the cellular networks so grocery stores and fast food restaurants can more efficiently accept checks.

Only to have checks surpassed by credit cards, making the whole thing pointless.

If gas got to the point where it was worth more for corporations to find alternatives, there is no doubt in my mind that they will incredibly fast.

What they come up with is anybodies guess (hell, it could be compressed air).

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong.  Investment and research in new technology happens all the time because of government regulations, and sometimes because of the mere anticipation of future government regulations.  The government can, already has, and will continue to directly or indirectly encourage investment and research in new technology.

Yes, but for 10x the cost and 1/10th the speed of the private sector, if there was a need in the private sector.

When it becomes a good market decision for big companies to make alternative fuel products, they will blow away anything the government has ever thought of, let alone done.

They always do.



TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
 

The problem is the government has no control over how people invent solutions. This sounds great and all, but you can't predict the future (at least we never have).

This idea is akin to someone 15-20 years ago saying we should beef up the cellular networks so grocery stores and fast food restaurants can more efficiently accept checks.

Only to have checks surpassed by credit cards, making the whole thing pointless.

If gas got to the point where it was worth more for corporations to find alternatives, there is no doubt in my mind that they will incredibly fast.

What they come up with is anybodies guess (hell, it could be compressed air).

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong.  Investment and research in new technology happens all the time because of government regulations, and sometimes because of the mere anticipation of future government regulations.  The government can, already has, and will continue to directly or indirectly encourage investment and research in new technology.

Yes, but for 10x the cost and 1/10th the speed of the private sector, if there was a need in the private sector.

When it becomes a good market decision for big companies to make alternative fuel products, they will blow away anything the government has ever thought of, let alone done.

They always do.

Why are you talking about the private sector as a whole?  The private sector is a heterogeneous amalgum of different groups with different interests.  Many people in the private sector benefit from the status quo.  Speaking of the private sector as a coherent whole doesn't really make any sense.  The private sector is full of people with competing interests.  The people who benefit from the status quo  have a strong incentive to maintain the status quo while the rest of the private sector is highly fragmented and largely functions as discrete individuals looking out for their own interests in the short run.  Not to mention the people who are most able to make the changes in our energy policy (oil companies/energy companies primarily) benefit more than anyone else from the status quo.  Do you honestly think that is a climate ripe for changing the status quo?

Oil companies are very active in maintaining the status quo.  They buy up patents to all kinds of new energy technology and just sit on them so that other people can't use them.  Do you call that the free market?

For this reason, the private sector can really drag its feet on a lot of issues.  Look at healthcare, dependence on oil, skyrocketing insurance costs on all types of insurance, CO2 emissions, and the U.S. China trade imbalance.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

I work in a company currently that is heavily related to both conventional and renewable energy and I'll let you in on something that is very well known ... Besides Fossil Fuels, Nuclear energy and Hydro-Electric we have no way to generate enough energy to meet our current energy consumption in a cost effective manner; and no matter how much money governments throw at it this is not likely to change for several decades.

At the same time, political resistance to the development of fossil fuel, nuclear and hydro-electric powerplants (and the growing environmental resistance to Wind, Solar, Geothermal and Tidal power) means that until we develop a magical energy source the world is only going to be able to increase supply by a tiny fraction of the increase in demand over the next half century.

I'm personally very afraid at what happens to the world when Oil starts to approach $500 a barrel ... People often don't realize how dependant the world is on inexpensive energy to provide the basic necessities of life. As people start being denied basic food, clothing, shelter and transportation because the cost of energy has become too high political instability will follow