Waaah! Americans whine about high gas prices....

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Mike Jamieson

That was kind of neat, though. They should make it an annual event: "Electricity Appreciation Day".

Best patios and barbeques ever.

I was at a friends house and we amused ourselves by shining flashlights on opposing buildings and using shadow puppets. At one point my friend chopped up some cardboard, and made a bat symbol. When we shined it on the opposing building, the laughter from neighbouring apartments was the loudest thing in Toronto.

Crazy how quiet a city with no power gets.

[Rob Beschizza]

Anyone read any of the reports from people visiting Pripiat, near Chernobyl? You can walk around it now, though you have to carry a dosimeter to warn you if the area you're in is too radioactive.

My favorite story is that they began doing package tours, because the place was a giant, perfect museum of mid-80s Sovietalia (It's been looted completely in the last couple of years: anything worth looking at is gone). Supposedly, the silence there was an insurmountable problem, no matter what they did, and people would become paranoid, panic and demand to be taken back to the bus, and so on.

Pripiat's is a dead calm free of any organic noise at all, a silence absolutely total: you walk around an empty city and hear nothing but every detail of your own movements.

See also the short story, "The Dragon of Pripyat" by Karl Schroeder.

[TheWombat]

Originally Posted by Rob Beschizza

Pripiat's is a dead calm free of any organic noise at all, a silence absolutely total: you walk around an empty city and hear nothing but every detail of your own movements.

Well, that and the sound of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. not being released....

[Jason McCullough]

Originally Posted by Phil_Stein

Oh, and in 2005, 17 million new cars and light trucks were sold in the U.S. So if you passed a government mandate that increased their cost by $5,000 each, that would mean somebody (consumers, government, manufacturers) would be eating about $85 billion in annual costs.

Considering the manufacturers are almost broke, it's gonna be the consumers, either in terms of higher car prices, or in extra taxes to the government that funnel back into the car industry in some way (tax credits, etc.)

That's one way to think about it. Another way is that you're moving the externality costs that those cars create (transportation density, pollution, wars to get the oil, you name it) back on the people producing them. Maybe if the real cost of a car is that much, we're doing something wrong there.

Highly dependent on the specifics, of course.

[Phil_Stein]

Although I haven't read up on it enough to be sure, I'd tend to agree that the externality costs of automobile usage are not fully 'recouped' under current economic structure. It's just that rather than some sort of arbitrary government mandate to force cars to be electric/hydrogen/hybrid/whatever, I'd prefer to see the primary means of attack on the problem to be higher fuel taxes.

Then, the market can respond flexibly, through a combination of reduction methods that's best for the market as a whole and individuals in particular. Some will respond by buying more expensive cars that reduce fuel consumption via new-ish tech (i.e. electric, hydrogen, etc.). Some will buy smaller, more fuel efficient gas cars. Some will arrange their life so that they have less driving to do. Etc...

To paraphrase Patton - "Don't tell them HOW to do it - tell them WHAT to do (reduce fuel consumption), and you'll be amazed by their ingenuity"

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, of course. Which brings up the problem of "fuel taxes are political suicide." Doesn't look like anyone has a solution to that one yet.....

[Charles]

Canada has a gas tax. We've had it since the 70s. About 35% of the gas price that's paid up here is pure tax.

[TrodKnee]

I'm just looking forward to the day when nascar idiots stop driving around in circles as fast as possible for hours on end. Where the hell are they going? American soldiers are dying in Iraq so that rednecks can watch the cars go zoom...

[Phil_Stein]

I'm pretty sure that NASCAR usage alone accounts for 46.2% of national gasoline consumption...

[Ben Sones]

Originally Posted by TrodKnee

I'm just looking forward to the day when nascar idiots stop driving around in circles as fast as possible for hours on end. Where the hell are they going? American soldiers are dying in Iraq so that rednecks can watch the cars go zoom...

American soldiers in Iraq probably use more gas in a week than NASCAR uses in a year.

Just sayin'.

[skedastic]

Originally Posted by Charles

Canada has a gas tax. We've had it since the 70s. About 35% of the gas price that's paid up here is pure tax.

The U.S. has gas taxes too, they're just lower than in most other countries (taxes by U.S. state, across selected nations). Most models suggest U.S. gas taxes are too low (e.g., paper).

[Mano]

Originally Posted by Jason McCullough

Transport is big, but it's only 50% of oil usage.

I think you might be reading that graph wrong Jason. I'm pretty certain that transport makes up around 67% of oil usage, and the label on the right-hand side seems to indicate that also.

Originally Posted by Rimbo

'cept that you have to use petroleum fuel to create the hydrogen in the first place

No you don't ;)

Originally Posted by Midnight Son

Uh huh. The fact remains that all major reserves of oil have been found and there's only so much of it that can be economically produced. As the demand increases and the supply decreases the price will rise and rise and rise and rise. If alternatives aren't phased in beginning about.... NOW! we are all in for a world of hurt. Pain, that is.

I think you're being a touch melodramatic ;P A reserve has to be found for it to be a reserve, otherwise it'd be classified as a resource. That said, no one is really sure how much more oil remains to be found, estimates range from 100 to 200% of total current reserves(where hubbert's peak is based on the reserve amount, not reserves+resources). As for economically produced, I'm not certain, but I'd be somewhat surprised if most of the current oil reserves couldn't be economically produced at todays prices. I'd assume it'd be more a question of capital constraints than economic feasibility.

Regarding the S&D, that's a toughie. Here you're assuming the supply will decrease, which isn't certain at all since there are plenty of alternatives, and if the eq shifts far enough to make those attractive(profit-wise because of capital constraints and roi's), then supply could actually increase. Essientially, lets say the supply of cheap oil decreases, while demand has continually increased. Basically you'd see supply from other sources such as bitumen, heavy oil etc... coming in to pickup the slack, which is what is most likely to happen if you ask me. So obviously, the prices will likely increase, but by how much is the question. Substiantially in the long-term? *shrugs*

I suppose the largest hurdle is that most of the investment is in drilling for cheap oil, which if I recall correctly costs like $4 per barrel to get out of the ground. Right now there isn't a strong incentive to invest in refining oil from other sources when the costs of that is like 3-400% higher. Sure it's still proitable, just not nearly as much when you have finite resources.

Originally Posted by jeffd

Charitable reading suggests what Rimbo meant was that geologists do not necessarily agree that Hubbert's peak is just around the corner or has already passed, as some of the more hysterical types will profess.

I guess it's also possible that he's suggesting that there's a magical neverending supply of oil somewhere beneath the earth. Remains to be seen if he'll clarify.

I think what he's trying to say is that Hubbert's peak is more of a boy cries wolf scenario than that it doesn't exist. From what I understand, hubbert's peak is when half of the easily accessible oil has been exhausted. The confusion lies in that most people seem to interpert that as 1/2 the total amount of oil, which is far higher i.e. shale, heavy-oil, bitumen etc.... Basically, the chances of us running out of oil is around 0% for the at least the next 2 centuries, if not longer. Now running out of oil that requires almost no effort to get is a different story and is what hubbert's peak refers too. I think ;P

[Midnight Son]

I believe the rosy picture you're painting is at odds with reality and my wallet.

[claybob]

Originally Posted by Mano

A reserve has to be found for it to be a reserve, otherwise it'd be classified as a resource. That said, no one is really sure how much more oil remains to be found, estimates range from 100 to 200% of total current reserves(where hubbert's peak is based on the reserve amount, not reserves+resources).

A reserve is an oil containing formation that HAS been found and its oil volume HAS been estimated by well logging. Its a reserve because its not being produced. Some reserves are formations that have oil pumped into them for storage.

The triple whammy about the middle east is not only do they have the most oil by a ridiculous margin, but that its the light, sweet crude not the asphaltine crap and its relatively close to the surface.