' The truth - We will go extinct, very soon.'
POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Sunday, May 18, 2025 05:23
VIEWED: 65274
PAGE 60 of 68
Quote:HA! Too true!
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh I'm having a wonderfully wonkish thought experiment with Kiki. Who cares about Marcos?
I'm just wondering which one of them is Marcos.It's not Wishy. No point in having a sockpuppet if you're going to behave worse than the sockpuppet does. -SIX
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think there are too many variables to calculate, which is why I went to a real world example. Whether or not it happens quickly or slowly, if there's a real energy crunch a lot of the froufrou will be dropped like a hot potato
I wonder if this topic is amenable to spitballing, or if the question is so finely balanced it requires detailed analysis.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transportation.php
This source indicates 28% of energy use is for transportation, and of that, 54% is for gasoline (it looks like they assume transport energy is pretty much 100% fossil fuels). So when it comes to goods transport, I'd assume all gasoline is passenger, and the rest is commercial.
I'm just putting this out as a marker for later.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I wonder if this topic is amenable to spitballing, or if the question is so finely balanced it requires detailed analysis.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transportation.php
This source indicates 28% of energy use is for transportation, and of that, 54% is for gasoline (it looks like they assume transport energy is pretty much 100% fossil fuels). So when it comes to goods transport, I'd assume all gasoline is passenger, and the rest is commercial.
I'm just putting this out as a marker for later.
Quote:Yes but ... Cuba was able to accommodate I think for some very specific reasons: they're small, the climate is relatively temperate, they don't have heavy industry to support, or extremely large megalopolises, and they're pre-adapted in terms of not having a society dependent on high energy consumption.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think there are too many variables to calculate, which is why I went to a real world example. Whether or not it happens quickly or slowly, if there's a real energy crunch a lot of the froufrou will be dropped like a hot potato.
If the US were to face a sudden cut-off or even significant reduction of energy, there goes everything dependent on transport - the commute to work, the goods from everywhere. And there goes the energy-intensive arrangement we have - the high-rises that need fuel and electricity for heating, cooling, and breathing, and so on. Our infrastructure, geographic arrangement, and housing would need to be massively re-shaped, I think.
This started as a discussion about which countries have really high per capita energy consumption, and why. I think there might be issues with how we're structured that would need more than tinkering around the edges to resolve.
The ultimate answer might look like Cuba, but the transition from here to there would be rigorous.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This was an interesting read...
13 years ago.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060113055909/https://www.rollingstone.co
m/news/story/_/id/7203633
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So what I'm thinking about is not "peak oil" but a voluntary, if drastic, increase in fuel prices. (BTW, unless this is a worldwide effort .... the kind of action that COULD have been implemented under the Paris Climate Accord) the USA would have to tariff goods shipped over long distances based on their carbon-transportation and carbon-content costs.
Anyway, at a sustained 10% increase if fuel prices, people would drive less and buy fewer SUVs. Electricity costs would increase, so AC use would go down. Farming costs - which is extremely energy-dependent in the USA - would increase. The only upside to farmers would be that they wouldn't be competing with goods shipped in from afar.
At a sustained 50% increase, real changes would happen. Monopolies dependent on shipping goods here and there would think seriously about their transportation costs, and possibly start sourcing inputs closer to production, and production closer to markets. People would seriously start thinking not only about the vehicles they drive but the number of miles away from work. Suburbs would become less attractive, except areas close to bus or rail lines would become more attractive. Farmers would have to scale back their energy-intensive capital investments, less mechanization and more labor-power. If the cost of fuel was doubled, you would see real interest in solar panels for homes as electricity costs zoomed out of sight. I can't imagine what the changes to production and housing would be. If the costs of energy multiplied by ten, the USA would be unrecognizable, I think.
What this thought-experiment tells me is that no SINGLE nation would voluntarily limit its own energy consumption and torpedo its economy this way, because of the loss of competitive advantage, and for not good purpose if other nations continue to increase fuel-burning. This would be like the Easter Islanders who cut down their last trees in order to place their moai, unleashing an ecological disaster that led to starvation and cannibalism. For some reason they saw an existential problem in refraining from cutting dow their trees and never foresaw the worse consequences of continuing on.
A carbon tax would have to be mandatory, and it would have to be international.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to address both Jack's link and the Cuban real-world experiment ... if we drastically curtailed energy use, at best we'd look like Cuba, where resources are limited but the distribution is mostly equitable. The other end of the extreme is that we'd look like the Philippines, where resources are limited but distribution is highly skewed. Given our current state and trajectory, I can't imagine we'd look like Cuba.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Rolling Stones, Posted Mar 24, 2005: "A few weeks ago, the price of oil ratcheted above fifty-five dollars a barrel, which is about twenty dollars a barrel more than a year ago. The next day, the oil story was buried on page six of the New York Times business section."
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This was an interesting read...
13 years ago.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060113055909/https://www.rollingstone.co
m/news/story/_/id/7203633
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Today West Texas Crude is $56.20 per barrel, which is very close to the price in the Rolling Stones' article. But, if you adjust $56.20 (2019 dollars) for inflation, the price in 2005 dollars is only $42/barrel (2005 dollars). In other words, the inflation adjusted price of oil has dropped over the years.
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/45
The price of gasoline for my first car was $0.33/gallon(1970). Adjusted for inflation, that price equals $2.19/gallon(2019). I paid $1.90/gallon at my recent fill-up in Baytown, Texas.
www.thestate.com/news/databases/article68603317.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Rolling Stones, Posted Mar 24, 2005: "A few weeks ago, the price of oil ratcheted above fifty-five dollars a barrel, which is about twenty dollars a barrel more than a year ago. The next day, the oil story was buried on page six of the New York Times business section."
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This was an interesting read...
13 years ago.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060113055909/https://www.rollingstone.co
m/news/story/_/id/7203633
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Today West Texas Crude is $56.20 per barrel, which is very close to the price in the Rolling Stones' article. But, if you adjust $56.20 (2019 dollars) for inflation, the price in 2005 dollars is only $42/barrel (2005 dollars). In other words, the inflation adjusted price of oil has dropped over the years.
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/45
The price of gasoline for my first car was $0.33/gallon(1970). Adjusted for inflation, that price equals $2.19/gallon(2019). I paid $1.90/gallon at my recent fill-up in Baytown, Texas.
www.thestate.com/news/databases/article68603317.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Yeah. It has if you're looking right now.
I remember it being $4.75 at a local pump during the Obama administration.
That article was written when "Fracking" was Battlestar Galactica's "Gorramit"
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:$4.75/gallon in California was not Obama's doing: "California’s High Gasoline Prices Are No Accident"
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Yeah. It has if you're looking right now.
I remember it being $4.75 at a local pump during the Obama administration.
That article was written when "Fracking" was Battlestar Galactica's "Gorramit"
Do Right, Be Right. :)
www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2019/10/10/californias-high-gasolin
e-prices-are-no-accident/
If gasoline prices in Texas doubled, matching approximately California prices, Texans would double their efforts to burn less gasoline. But some of them would attempt to overthrow the Governor in Austin. It would be a statewide emergency . . . fuel trucks full of gasoline would be stolen, riots over the gas tax, Martial Law declared, etc. All because the price went up $2/gal. Texans would rather kill than ride-share.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I think about it more, Signy and Jack
The map I posted was for energy use. But some countries get a huge portion of their energy from renewables. As low-energy-consumer, as it is, Kenya gets nearly 100% of its energy from geothermal sources. Iceland gets about 30%. According to WIKI, China gets about 35% as wind power (installed), while the US gets about 16% as wind power (installed). (Whether or not it's operating at capacity is another question.) Germany's renewables share of total power production was 15% in 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
It may be possible to 'renewable' ourselves off of the petroleum base if we work at it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME