We Don't Have an Energy Crisis, We Have a Transportation Crisis

Yes, but at that point the money invested in catenary (not cheap) might as well be used on rail lines and not the laughable idea of bumper cars on the interstate system.

Ships could also be nuclear.

Planes can use synthetic fuels made using electricity.

Cars and trucks can use electricity, for at least part of their energy. And non-oil liquid (or gaseous) fuels for the rest.

We desperately need an upgraded grid. We also need to expand the rail system. Only government leadership can help in these areas. But if we can get the prices of coal and natural gas to rise like oil has, then switching to other energy sources will happen very naturally.

This may be a modest argument for overstatement by the Peak Oil community, but it only makes climate change worse. Great, let's run ships on coal now, as if the bunker oil they burn isn't bad enough.

Peak Natural Gas will be within thirty years, so we will be spending a bunch of time in cold buildings.

Peak uranium will be at about the same time, so Nuclear does not have much of future, while managing to saddle us with waste that actually gets more dangerous over time.

Trying to talk about Peak Oil while ignoring climate chaos only makes things worse, as does ignoring other resource depletion and the death of living systems.

The problem is that the traditional economic model did not factor in environmental cost, leading to unsustainable civilizations and cultural norms.

The question isn't how to fuel transport trucks and ships. The question is why do we need to truck lettuce from Arizona to Alaska and buy so many damn barbecue sets from China.

I agree we should use less oil. But to say we should use more electricity and include coal as a source option seems like we'd be going back to the same problem we began with. Yes, upgrade/modernize our grid to use less polluting sources of electricity, but don't expand the use of coal to use less oil. That would just be silly.

"there are lots of alternatives to gasoline if you realize that the problem lies almost entirely with transport. "

I would raise the following questions in response to this comment..

What about the enormously environmentally degrating systems we currently use for our electricity generation, such as CO2 emissions from the coal, and the known and unknown risks pose by using nuclear, which he proposes.

Also, how would a reorganization of the transportation sector help at all with the fact that our built environment accounts for nearly 40 % of our energy use, and make up nearly the same percentage of our landfill waste.

Oil and transportation is a very big problem, but I belive it is very dangerous to say that it is the only problem which we face in order to sustain our technological civilization

Adaptation isn't survivalism; it's evolution. Survivalism is fatalism.

The first posters comment on rail is
ridicoulis. Rail is the most expensive
mode of travel anywhere and the most
inconveinent. Whoever is sending out
this PANIC needs therapy.
There is no Oil/Gas shortage every
gas station I've been to has plenty.
We have a economic problem.
Very nice energy flow trend map!

This is a gross simplification of what Kunstler has written. He makes the point, over and over again, that one sign the US is getting serious about energy will be a revitalization of the railroads and, I assume, he would be in support of electrification of rail transport. There is a recent post at The Oil Drum which outlines one proposal to do just that:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4301

Kunstler's main argument is that the post-WWII suburbanization of the US based upon a car culture will end up as a massive waste of resources, has hurt this country greatly, and will make a transition to a renewable economy extremely difficult. As difficult a person as Kunstler may be, I believe his argument is essentially correct.

I also believe that we are going to have a low energy future due to higher efficiencies as well as scarcity but that's another story.

We only have one problem on this entire planet! TOO many people! (99% stupid) Stop buying and using up the earths resources. The Native Americans knew the right way to live WITH the land.

Not that the exception breaks the rule - but just a reminder. Florida gets the majority of its electricity from burning oil imported in from Venezuela, using the Orimulsion process. Very dirty.

1. 1/4 billion cars and trucks on U.S. roads are a lot to replace.

2. Lots of petro-based products, too: asphalt, pharm., textiles, plastics, and...

3. Agriculture - without ferilizers, pesticides, and herbicides our productivity drops big time.

4. Regarding electricity, coal and nuclear and are nonrenewable, so increasing them speeds up resource depletion. Sadly renewables (minus hydro) are not used in a significant way and electric demand continues to increase globally.

I'm with Galls,

There is nothing more efficient for land based cargo delivery than steel wheels on steel rails ... oh and I have a class 1 ( ie Tractor trailer or rig) driving license and used to drive large rigs.

Mag-lev and bullet trains are great for people but not high weight cargo trains.

******************************************************************
Nuclear based merchant ships is not as safe a the standard internal combustion based ships. An internal combustion ship engine breaks down it's not a great concern, but a nuclear ship-board generator breaks down in many cases this could cause massive freaking issues.

I'm having trouble understanding this post for several reasons, not the least of which is I thought EVERYONE knew we use crude oil for transportation and electricity for everything else, and that crude isn't making our electricity. The idea that someone could not know that never crossed my mind.

If you want to read something that really might change your perspective on things which at the same time proves the futility of this alleged "argument", read this article at moneycentral on MSN. It points out that Saudi Arabia and Iran have enough oil reserves to buy EVERYTHING in the United States:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/HowMuchOilItdTakeToBuyTheUS.aspx

It was time to do something about this problem back in Jimmy Carter's day when he told the country it was time to start thinking about this stuff.

If you read the websites of the peak oil survivalists, you'll understand that their point isn't that we cannot use anything but oil for transport. Their point is that oil is so easily produced with very little energy input. Other methods all require more energy to produce them; you need energy to make solar and wind power stations, and quite a bit to make a whole new power supply (I don't think nuclear is as great as it's proponents claim. We'll run out of fuel for the reactors eventually). It would work to run the world on wind and solar, but we need to build the infrastructure while we have oil to make it. Efficiency is still an issue since solar and wind don't yet produce as much energy as oil. We also need total commitment from everyone, which the peak oil survivalists do not see happening. I think that is mainly why they are worried. No one is willing to change because it may happen 30 years from now rather than thirty days. There is still the attitude that our children are the ones who need to fix everything. In reality, many of us will be alive in thirty years or when ever this happens, and if we put it off, our children won't have the resources to build a whole new power supply overnight. Read the websites and you'll understand their arguments. They are warning us not saying we are totally doomed.

I've noticed a flaw in the argument here. The article leads one to believe that if all transportation were powered by something else, then imports and production of petroleum would drop to zero. The problem arises in that crude oil is used for things other than making fuels/energy. Admittedly, I don't know what percent of the crude oil produced ends up as chemicals, plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc..., but I know it's not zero. Anyone care to sound off on this?

Liquid fuels aren't an absolute necessity for air travel, either. Aircraft need not be fueled by petrofuels or biofuel substitutes for petrofuels. One of the earliest ideas for a hydrogen propulsion system is the scramjet, which is well-suited to the use of hydrogen as fuel. The potential exists for industrial-scale production of H fuel without the use of oil or natural gas.

@ Anthony,
Nuclear ships are incredibly expensive and inefficient. The nuclear reactors on board generate 200x the power needed to run the subs, for example. Better to create cargo ships that supplement fossil fuel engines with wind (parasails) and solar (a lot of sun out at sea) in the short term.

@Ruben,
Peak natural gas in the continental US will be much sooner than 30 years, and it's much more expensive/dangerous/difficult to import than oil. We'll start seeing the effects of natural gas depletion in 10 years. Not to mention the downside slope is much steeper than oil.

@Bro,
Assuming you aren't being sarcastic, you don't understand the problem. Oil is running out. There is no more to be found, and production of most existing wells is declining. There is NO SUBSTITUTE for oil: it's energy density, ease of extraction, and ease of transportation make it unique. I suggest you go to www.theoildrum.com. It's a great site for understanding this issue. Rail is a big part of the solution, b/c it can be run on any source of electricity: coal, wind, solar, etc. Japan and Europe have extensive rail lines, and as a result use much less per capita electricity than we do. In addition, they are very convenient, and faster in many applications, since rail is predictable and there's no traffic. You always *do* have to walk or bike home, but it's a good way to unwind and get exercise too.

@gmoke,
Exactly. And I'd like to add that Kunstler points out a transportation crisis IS an energy crisis, since without transportation, there is no energy: No supply lines, no construction, no grid maintenance, etc.

@JoWi,
Yes. I imagine in the future, having children will be highly regulated. Countries that fail to do this will collapse and see large parts of their populations die. We are already seeing this happen in Darfur and other places.

@Jason,
1. Yup. It's virtually certain that electric vehicles will not be as cheap/plentiful as cars currently are in our lifetimes. That's why building an electric rail infrastructure is so important.
2. Yup, and yet we waste it in SUVs.
3. Agriculture uses about 15% of our current oil usage, so with prioritization, we should be okay. For discussion of why Big Ag will do fine, see this post: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3481
4. As far as solar goes, the output from one coal plant is equivalent to all the large solar projects going on in the world right now. Obviously, a lot more needs to be done here. Wind is a different story, though. Last year 20GW of wind were added world wide, compared to just 2GW of nuclear. Wind is a mature technology that is simple, easy to do, and getting cheaper all the time.

@stevejust
The underlying problem with this article is that it treats transportation as a black box. If there's no transportation, there's no electricity, period. The two are inextricably intertwined and interdependent. So, without oil, there are no refrigerators, computers, TVs, cars, etc. I actually reject the underlying premise of this article. It IS an energy crisis, b/c without oil we're back at 1850 again.

"Other methods all require more energy to produce them; you need energy to make solar and wind power stations,"

And pumping, transportation of oil to refineries, refining, and transportation of final product is energy-free?

I still reject the claims of the peak oil doomers, because so many of the arguments are so ridiculous that it amazes me that people take them as seriously as they do. Look at what's happened in the U.S. retail sector so far. Rather than the death of Wal-Mart, they're one of the only retailers thriving right now, and they're one of the only companies who can afford to adapt to the new economic realities. I still don't like Wal-Mart but gosh darn it that prediction has fallen flat on its face so far.

Some of the doomers will then move on to peak natural gas (power and artificial fertilizer) peak potash (ditto on fertilizer) peak water, peak this, peak that. Some of the peak oil people are doing great things to raise awareness but there's this obnoxious small core of doomers who have this dream of 95% of the world's population dying Real Soon Now that will latch on to anything which could make their dream a reality.

(I couldn't resist)

@Bro, here are some suggestions for the final draft of your comment:

"The first poster[']s comment on rail [transit] is
ridicoulis [sp]. Rail [transit] is the most expensive
mode of travel anywhere [citation needed] and the most
inconveinent [sp] [citation needed]. Whoever is sending out
this PANIC [word choice] needs therapy.
There is no [o]il/[g]as shortage[.] [citation needed] [E]very
gas station I've been to has plenty.
We have a[n] economic problem.
Very nice energy flow trend map! [Not a sentence, poor word choice]"

Please rewrite with some respect for the proprieties of grammar, spelling, and argumentation.

Best Regards,
Grant

Don't forget that both nuclear and coal are going to experience peaks just like oil is. In fact any finite natural resource will eventually experience a peak as the available supplies pinch out, the only significant question is whether or not the resource is reusable, a fact that would lower demand on raw supplies and reduce the urgency of the peak.

Grant, I think I done missed a few of them there commas in my post. Beggin' yr puddin'.

Regeya, I did not say that oil does not take any energy to produce. I said other methods of making power require more energy than pumping, refining etc. This is what JSDreyer was talking about when he mentioned "energy density". Oil has a lot of energy and was there already in the ground. It takes very little oil to get more oil. It takes a lot more energy to make solar panels and windmills. That is why we need to build infrastructure even while Wal-Mart still exists.

I believe the comments on nuclear ships being too expensive are off base. That assumption is based on the cost of nuclear powered naval vessels.

Naval vessels, nuclear or conventional, are far more expensive than equally sized commercial vessels. They are designed for combat and the weaponry, both defensive and offensive, are included in the cost.

The US navy up until now has built nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines because of their superior combat capabilities. The navy has until recently rejected the notion of smaller surface ship for nuclear propulsion because the cost breakeven point is about $80/barrel of oil. Because oil is not expected to get back down to that level, the navy is now considering using nuclear power on other ships for economic reasons.

It is true that uranium, like all minerals, is a finite resource but it is not a particularly rare one. Uranium has about the same frequency of occurance in nature that tin does. Uranium can be extracted from seawater for about $200/pound and this source would last over 1000 years. $200/pound does not severely degrade the economics of nuclear power since fuel is not a large fraction of the operating cost of a nuclear plant. .

Just shoot that nuclear waste back at the sun. Problem solved.

People,

The energy discussion and very important and highly relevant, but you forget one thing. Infrastructure is what damages the environment. Yes, traffic is a problem, because for every road that you see, there's once been green land, free for animals to roam.

We need less infrastructure and reduced energy consumption, which means we need less people on the planet. This is common sense.

@ David,

Here's a breakdown of petroleum use in the USA:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/326-detailed-breakdown-of-us-petroleum.html

@regeya

I'd be interested in hearing how you think things will play out.

Peak Oilers are raising these issues now b/c they take decades to address properly, and the costs of not addressing them in a planned, coherent manner will result in social and economic collapse, and perhaps the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. Oil has allowed us to increase the carrying capacity of this planet several times beyond its natural capacity. It created the middle class in America, Europe, and Japan; without it, we will probably descend again into feudalism or oligarchy. The market, with its focus on quarterly and yearly profits, should not be the sole arena to try and find solutions to the energy crisis.

Addressing oil decline requires a multi-pronged, long-term strategy involving conservation, electrified mass transit, alternative energy production, and improved grid infrastructure among other things. It will cost trillions of dollars in research, construction, and education. It will require massive changes in culture and ways of living and thinking, esp in the USA, which has built its infrastructure based on the availability of cheap oil.

Walmart is among the most efficient of retailers in the world, so it stands that they'd be able to weather the current economic storm better than other retailers. Kunstler predicted the demise of Walmart, along with the collapse of big ag, since on the costs of transporting goods across 1000s of miles would be greater than the cost of producing such goods locally. This may not be the case; the price of transport may never get that high. Kunstler has been hit or miss in his predictions in the past, but his (and others) overall concerns are ones that need to be addressed seriously and with haste.

As for natural gas, fertilizer, water, etc. are you saying these are infinite resources? Do not believe these are non-renewable resources, or in the case of water that we are capable of using more than can be replaced in a given year? All of the scientific evidence points towards this depletion, so I'm curious as to the source of your skepticism. Failure to address these issues will result in war of scarce resources and famine at some point in our or our children's lives at the latest. It has always been thus in human history.

Oil and gas have been a trust fund we got from a rich uncle, which, going forward, will be doled out in smaller and smaller amounts. With that money dwindling away, we'll need to go out and work for our money (solar, wind, geothermal, oil sands, etc. with their higher cost and lower EROEI). It will be hard and require sacrifices and ways of living we have forgotten. If we sit around and wait until the last minute to find a job, we'll suffer much more greatly than if we plan for it and start learning those skills now.

Please let us know why you are so skeptical.

Transportation without oil is now a potential reality, the byproducts of oil that we use to make everything else is going to be the biggest issue when oil runs out. Look around your home, nearly everything that isn't made from wood contains an oil byproduct....

What this analysis misses is this:

As oil price increases, cost of electricity from coal will rise more than renewables because coal needs to be transported around in vast quantities.

This is why coal plants are either close to coal mines or near the coastline - in order to keep the cost of shipping coal minimal. The further they are from a mine, more expensive is the electricity.

Tesla warned in 1900 that we would run out of anthracite (high grade coal). Government & industry ignored it. We did, in the 1920s and it was a major contributing factor to the Great Depression. The costs of power and transport skyrocketed overnight. It took years to switch to new technology and recover.

M. King Hubbert in the 50s warned that US oil production would peak in the 70s. Government & industry ignored it. It did. We scrambled to switch to imports. The result was a severe and protracted economic weight was placed on the US economy that gets worse every year. People love to play with different rates of inflation but the fact is the hours worked per household in the US has gone up every year since 1973.

Hubbert also estimated the entire world production would peak shortly after 2000 and the result of not preparing would be a dramatic surge in prices and fighting over what was left.

The US trade deficit is $60B a month. Over $40B of that is oil. There's also $10B/mo for the 'war on terror' and as much as $13B/mo in oil industry subsidies depending on who's numbers you use. It should be clear that in economic terms the only thing that matters is to stop importing oil.

Regarding Uranium 235 fantasies of 'power too cheap to meter' the truth is the industry's own numbers show the entire world only has 80 years left at the current rate of consumption but that consumption is expected to skyrocket as China is planning a huge mass produced nuclear power program. The big Japanese national program estimated 200 years more worth of U235 - if they filtered the entire ocean. Again, that's at the current rate of consumption.

There are other nuclear technologies like breeder reactors but they scare people because they mean more plutonium floating around out there. There are things like Thorium which are much better though. Eventually large commercial ships probably will be some form of nuclear but it's not just cost but safety that's a problem. The technology in use today is not something you want bad guys to have access to.

But this is all foolishness for land based power. We are bathed in free solar energy every day and MIT's study on geothermal energy estimates the US has a 30,000 year supply. There's geo plants that have been running over 100 years and have real world power costs of about 1 cent a kWh. That's real world prices with existing technology cheaper than even the wildest claims by pro nuclear & coal shills.

I want to emphasize the point that oil is used to make products and to transport them. OIl is used in ways we take for granted. Without it, we currently can't make plastics and we can't deliver anything (it's not just driving around that will be affected). In fact, I have read that 10% of oil is used for making plastic.

If we want computers in our homes, we will need to find another way to manufacture them and to deliver them.

This is not impossible, but takes many, many steps, and people who have technical skills and care enough about it.

Unfortunately, when we need technical and leadership most, we have gutted our education system.

To replace oil in plastics, we can use hemp-based plastics...oh wait...it's illegal to grow in the US. Hmmm.

I think we need new leaders so we can undo what is counter to moving forward, and consider the public interest instead of large corporations' interests.

In the meanwhile, consider gasoline as a cheap waste product from the much more profitable plastic manufacturing (gasoline is cheap by the pound, but plastics and engineered plastics are expensive by the pound). When a barrel of crude oil is refined, 42 gallons of gasoline are created. If we lower our demand for gasoline without changing the demand for plastics, jet fuel, etc, the price will go down very quickly because they can't stop making gasoline if they want to make plastics.