Oil Sucks

February 7, 2006 4:48 PM

All Your Oil Are Belong To Us. Coming off of a recordbreaking profitable quarter, the good chaps at ExxonMobil laugh at your puny attempts to get off of oil.
posted by owillis (82 comments total)

I wish I were an oil executive.
posted by wakko at 4:50 PM on February 7, 2006

I wonder how many alternative energy patents they have bought and shelved.
posted by sourbrew at 4:55 PM on February 7, 2006

or for that matter how many anti nuclear campaigns they have funded.
posted by sourbrew at 4:56 PM on February 7, 2006

What a contrast to this.
posted by juiceCake at 4:57 PM on February 7, 2006

None. With oil consumption at an all-time high, why would they bother wasting money on alternative energy patents?
posted by junesix at 5:00 PM on February 7, 2006

junesix, because any shelved patent is a non competing patent.
posted by sourbrew at 5:01 PM on February 7, 2006

Much as it might dismay me, it certainly seems at least possible he's right. That is, without disruptions to the American way of life and economy so profound as to preclude their implementation, we will always depend on some amount of foreign oil.

The obsession with weaning ourselves from foreign oil has always seemed askew to me, and when GW begins espousing it I feel that must be correct. Yes we need to reduce consumption, and yes we *really* need to examine how it affects foreign policy, but neither of these goals is particularly well served by insisting on only using domestic oil.
posted by freebird at 5:01 PM on February 7, 2006

.
posted by brundlefly at 5:02 PM on February 7, 2006

His argument is, basically: "Because we can't do it quickly, we shouldn't even try."

This is very akin to the crack dealer telling you that detox is hard..... have another bowl.
posted by Malor at 5:04 PM on February 7, 2006

Of course he's correct. There's no such thing as energy independence, or economic independence for that matter, at an individual or national level. And I have a strong suspicion that only some miraculous deus ex machina (e.g., cold fusion) is going to reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels by more than a trivial amount.
posted by argybarg at 5:05 PM on February 7, 2006

Here is one "supressed" invention story, although it is severely lacking in supporting material.

"In 1943, Francisco arrived in the U.S. with a letter addressed to the Chief Military Intelligence Service of the United States War Department from Colonel Clarence Barnett, the military attache to the American Embassy, introducing Francisco and requesting an audience to see his invention. At that time, it was believed that the hydrogen generator might be helpful to the U.S. war efforts. In April of that year, Mr. Pacheco successfully demonstrated his generator to the Bureau of Standards in Washington DC and applied for a U.S. patent. But, because there was a war going on, all U.S. patents had to be sealed for one year. After the year was up, Pacheco received a letter from the patent office stating that because of the high cost of aluminum and magnesium (the two metals used in his invention) that his patent was impractical. His patent attorney, after several letters to the patent office, also advised him to “shelve” his patent until a later date, as petroleum was still believed plentiful and cheap. "
posted by sourbrew at 5:15 PM on February 7, 2006

In the wake of Bush's SOTU remarks, I was surprised to learn how we actually import relatively little amounts of Middle Eastern oil. Reducing 75% of Middle East imports would comprise only 15% of total imports...

Fifteen percent? Why don't we stop importing this oil today?

Let's cinch in our belts, get off our collective tucus WRT alternative fuels, get serious about conservation, and eliminate this stranglehold that energy companies are exerting today, along with all the baggage that results from having our nads firmly in the grasp of a smallish number of despotic oil monarchs.

Is that such a great leap, really?
posted by deCadmus at 5:22 PM on February 7, 2006

Fifteen percent? Why don't we stop importing this oil today?

Because commodities are fungible.
posted by Kwantsar at 5:40 PM on February 7, 2006

Instead of trying to achieve energy independence, importing nations like the U.S. should be promoting energy interdependence, McGill said.

Um, WTF? Other countries should work toward energy independence so we can have more of what's left?

And what Malor said.
posted by effwerd at 5:54 PM on February 7, 2006

Exxon off $1.42 today.
posted by caddis at 6:02 PM on February 7, 2006

Well, you gotta admit it IS pretty funny. I mean, where's Bush's plan? Has a single American driver traded in their SUV for a hybrid since the SOTU speech? Has even one little old lady anywhere in the country purchased a single energy-efficient lightbulb? If I was an Exxon exec, I'd be laughing too, until I keeled over from a stroke, and went straight to hell.
posted by slatternus at 6:10 PM on February 7, 2006

Let's cinch in our belts, get off our collective tucus WRT alternative fuels, get serious about conservation, and eliminate this stranglehold that energy companies are exerting today, along with all the baggage that results from having our nads firmly in the grasp of a smallish number of despotic oil monarchs.

Why do you hate economic growth? /snark

I vaguely remember someone mentioning recently that we could achieve the same effect (of reducing foreign imports by 2025) by increasing fuel economy standards to 40 mpg. That of course makes the auto industry groan. Which means our reps won't do it, cuz, you know, the auto industry has more to spend on lobbying the government than the rest of us.

I thought it hilarious that Ford, with all its troubles and promises to become more relevant, released a new hybrid SUV. How daring of them. In the face of declining SUV sales and permanently higher gas prices, their answer is to make a hybrid SUV. Ford can go fuck themselves.

And why can't we get tax breaks for hybrid vehicle purchases? The Repubs are all about tax breaks aren't they? It would help and encourage me to buy one (though not a hyrbid SUV). Do they still have that tax deduction for buying a Hummer on the books?
posted by effwerd at 6:18 PM on February 7, 2006

...commodities are fungible.

I stake no great claim on understanding commodities, but... isn't fungibility dependant on markets, too? Let's say we replace that 15% not with oil bought elsewhere, but with alternative fuels and greater conservation. We stop being such a bloody great consumer. (We've got to, sooner or later, anyway... I'm for sooner.)

And when it comes down to it, really, oil is less and less a fungible commodity and more and more a political commodity -- one that's put a gigantic lever in the hands of a relative few desert capitals. That lever controls prices, to be sure, even as it exerts tremendous influence on the sociopolitical world.

Take away that dependence -- start with that 15% -- and you've taken a lot of substance out of the fulcrum.
posted by deCadmus at 6:18 PM on February 7, 2006

I think the point about fungibility is that 15% is a function of our geographic location, not an intentional effort to purchase commodities from a specific region.

I would speculate that as oil prices increase the percentage of oil imported to the US from the Middle East will decline as more difficult-to-reach Canandian oil becomes economically feasible.
posted by mullacc at 6:24 PM on February 7, 2006

I would think that whoever breaks (affordable?) alternative energy first and markets it would make a ton, but I can't pretend to understand business, finance, or economics. Is it a case that the investment cost is too great in the present for the future revenue? Is it that the minute you begin to market alt-energy technology your competitor will reverse engineer it? That seems silly in this patent- and litigation-crazy climate (I can forsee someone patenting "a form of producing [motive] power not derived from fossil fuels").
posted by Eideteker at 6:28 PM on February 7, 2006

Ok, I give up, how do I invest in oil?

How do I join the winning team? Buy shares in Exxon? Is there a better/smarter way? Where do you invest your money to gain from this state of affairs?
posted by -harlequin- at 6:29 PM on February 7, 2006

Invest in coffins.
posted by brundlefly at 6:32 PM on February 7, 2006

harlequin:
1. Find a nation with decades of military and political world dominance
2. Fool the populace into electing you leader (twice!)
3. ???? Wage war on oil-rich country(ies)
4. Profit!
posted by mullacc at 6:38 PM on February 7, 2006

sourbrew:

Sounds either distorted or dodgy - AFAIK the USPTO is not in the business of not granting patents based on predicted market non-profitablity (the cost of magnesium). There are bazillions of patents that seem insanely non-profitable concepts. If the device works, and is innovative, the mass-production costs should not be not relevant to patent evaluation. Perhaps the letter of denial was from the military or a VC that was funding the patent application process?
posted by -harlequin- at 6:41 PM on February 7, 2006

And why can't we get tax breaks for hybrid vehicle purchases?

You can.
posted by zsazsa at 6:47 PM on February 7, 2006

-harlequin-

as i read it his patent lawyer advised him not to spend the loot on getting it patented, but yeah the whole thing seems shady.
posted by sourbrew at 6:47 PM on February 7, 2006

"Fifteen percent? Why don't we stop importing this oil today?"

It would mean an economic disaster of startling proportions. 15% less oil means 15% less driving, 15% fewer trucks delivering, well, everything really, 15% less heating oil to go around, 15% less plastic, 15% less chemicals, 15% less electricity... 15% less everything.

And that includes 15% less money.

I'm oversimplifying, of course, as some things would be far more affected than others, and even some different applications of petroleum would be affected differently. For instance, heating oil stocks are high enough right now to get everyone through the rest of the winter, so although the price would leap dramatically, nobody would freeze to death.

However diesel fuel stocks are relatively low and the price is already pretty high - and diesel fuel is absolutely critical to the US economy, since almost everything moves by trucks, and even goods that move by rail depend on diesel-powered trains.

And then there's look-ahead - refineries would have to reassess their production priorities. Since diesel is so crucial, in order to keep the goods transport moving we'd need to divert crude that was to be used for something else over to diesel production, which means a big shortage in a few months of whatever we diverted from. We would have to determine where we can cut out 15% of consumption immediately in order to determine what would be shorted.

Since there really isn't any slack - demand for all petroleum-based products has gone up every year for many many years - that means a major realignment somewhere, on the order of WWII fuel rationing or worse. The places where it's probably most possible to cut use and demand are electric generation and passenger car fuel - and not so much of electric, since that's mostly fired by natural gas and coal now. Of course, cutting electric use by 15-20% wouldn't hurt... but:

How does a mandatory 25 gallons per month limit sound? How about mandatory car pooling - no less than 3 people in every single car, with really stiff fines and penalties attached? You think half the people in America will want to stop using their cars most of the time?

What do you think would happen to businesses that depend on gasoline use? Gas stations would get hit, sure, but so would restaurants, hotels and motels, any sort of tourist trade, auto dealerships, the car companies... Cities would lose revenue from bridge and tunnel tolls and parking tickets.

Again, I'm oversimplifying of course, and these measures are pretty drastic because they're coming off top of my head, but that's the kind of thing you're talking about. Minimum 15% drop in the US Economy. That's a major depression, it would put a lot of us out on the street.

There are many excellent sites where you can read up on all this. I like this one, though it's fairly technical. It has links to many others.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:50 PM on February 7, 2006

"Has a single American driver traded in their SUV for a hybrid since the SOTU speech?"

Well, I parked my 10MPG American behemoth in favor of a tiny little Toyota Corolla, does that count?

It had fucking well better, because when I unfold myself from behind the wheel and squeeze out of it, it looks like I'm getting shat out of a goddamned clown car.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:53 PM on February 7, 2006

Yes, mr_crash_davis, it counts.

10MPG?? What were you driving? The Merrimack?
posted by slatternus at 7:00 PM on February 7, 2006

Ahhhh, Ranchero P-side. Sweet.
posted by slatternus at 7:01 PM on February 7, 2006

zoogleplex:

I imagine if consumers could cut their driving gas use by 50% (doable for almost anyone, though not always pleasant), that would probably cover the 15% across a fair whack of the national infrastructure.

My guess is that little to no electricity is from oil, it's primarily hydro, coal, etc.
posted by -harlequin- at 7:08 PM on February 7, 2006

I reserve the right to be wrong, of course :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 7:09 PM on February 7, 2006

harlequin, I think we could do that, but I think it would have to be enforced nearly at gunpoint. If we cut our passenger fuel use by 50%, we would use about 25% less oil than we do now, since we burn 50% of all our oil in our cars. So yeah that would help quite a lot. But it ain't likely to happen.

It's easy for me to do - but then I'm already on a motorcycle every day, I don't really need to do it. I use 16 gallons of fuel per month, less than many cars carry in a single tankful. There are people I work with who commute 40 miles each way by car, with no other transit option. Car pooling would be their only choice other than trying to move closer to work.

There are many millions of Americans who would be in real trouble if they were forced to cut their miles by 50%, and an awful lot of businesses would be seriously hurt. I'm not saying it's not doable, but it's a monumental undertaking that would need the full support of Federal and state governments as well as industry. This will not be coming anytime soon.

You're right about the electric, most of it is gas, coal and hydro, so there's really not much slack at all there. Where else would we cut petroleum use? Jet fuel? Plastics production?

Gross economic impact and major dislocation in lifestyle for millions, no matter where you cut usage. 15% less imported oil means the economy tanks completely, no way around it.
posted by zoogleplex at 7:22 PM on February 7, 2006

if they were forced to cut their miles by 50%

they could switch their behemoths for more efficient vehicles if they didn't want to cut their miles.

(oil generates about 2% of US electricity)
posted by caddis at 7:28 PM on February 7, 2006

From the Edison Electrical Institute:

In 2004:
50.0 percent of our nation's electricity was generated from coal.
Nuclear energy produced 19.9 percent.
Natural gas supplied 18.1 percent.
Hydropower and, to a lesser extent, other renewable resources-such as biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind-provided 9.0 percent of the supply
fuel oil provided 3.0 percent
posted by JekPorkins at 7:29 PM on February 7, 2006

Thanks, zsazsa. Only 400 to 2,400 depending on how fuel economy compares to 2002 standards. Not bad but it won't help me as much as I hoped. Still anything is better than nothing I guess. If I could afford a fuel cell vehicle I could get 8k to 40k in breaks.

*looks around for fuel cell car dealer*
posted by effwerd at 7:33 PM on February 7, 2006

Thanks for the numbers, caddis and Jek.

As far as switching their behemoths, I agree - it's why I'm on the motorcycle, with the benefit of saving a lot of money - but there's a lot of people driving gas-guzzlers that can't really afford to switch to a new fuel-efficient car.

For them I'd recommend the car I own, a 1983 Honda Accord. It gets 28mpg city, about 36mpg highway, even now at 23 years old. What an excellent car. Looks like hell though, the paint's all oxidized and disappearing. Good thing I live in CA where it will never rust... :
Even so, many folks don't have the option to change. However, most of the people driving huge new SUVs and trucks certainly have the wherewithal.

They are also probably largely Republicans. Good luck trying to get them out of their God-given Hummers.
posted by zoogleplex at 7:36 PM on February 7, 2006

I wish Citgo sold gas in my area. I probably don't know everything I should about Hugo Chavez, but I've never heard of his troops firing into crowds of protestors, and I would think the US government would have gleefully publicized something like that if he had. The mere fact of having not having done that puts him above ExxonMobilChevronTexaco.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:47 PM on February 7, 2006

I blame the Democrats as well, but they're not as oil drenched as El Presidente. Quite simply, someone needs to throw the gauntlet down. JFK didn't say "well, going to the moon isn't feasible scientifically", he said "hey, you science guys are soooo smart, we're going to the moon by the end of the decade... figure it out".

If someone had told me 20 years ago I'd have access to tons of digitized pornography at the tips of my fingers, I would have laughed them off -- but we did it - thank you Internet.

Next to that, our leaders deciding that in 20 years or less we're going to be off oil one way or another no ifs ands or buts is trivial.
posted by owillis at 7:49 PM on February 7, 2006

owillis writes "JFK didn't say 'well, going to the moon isn't feasible scientifically', he said 'hey, you science guys are soooo smart, we're going to the moon by the end of the decade... figure it out'."

Absolutely. This argument needs be used again and again in this debate. Thank you.
posted by brundlefly at 7:59 PM on February 7, 2006

There is no alternative to oil. Its easy to lose sight of the economics at work here, but you can't go and put water or canola oil in your car. The price you will pay for oil is therefore quite flexible, and price determines almost everything.

What direct incentive does anyone have to stop using Middle Eastern oil? Do you even have a choice?

Not only is the smarmy Exxon exec right, but he understates the facts handily.

With oil demand so incredibly flexible, we won't slow our usage until oil gets unbelievably expensive... and I'm not talking about $3,$4,$5 a gallon.
posted by danl at 8:00 PM on February 7, 2006

Oils well that ends well?
posted by Balisong at 8:01 PM on February 7, 2006

Let me just point out that, compared to the task of eliminating the global economy's dependence on oil for not only motor fuel but as a manufacturing staple, going to the moon is completely insignificant.

Telling scientists to figure out how to get to the moon by the end of a decade is like telling a 14 year old to learn to swim by the end of the summer.

Telling scientists, corporations, and industries to end their dependence on petroleum and petroleum products is like telling that same 14 year old to build a cyclotron from scratch by close of business tomorrow (and not explaining to her what a cyclotron is).
posted by JekPorkins at 8:04 PM on February 7, 2006

Where else would we cut petroleum use?

You may remember Saving Oil in a Hurry from the IEA. Published last year, back when oil prices reached the alarmingly high level of $55/bbl. (Now trading around $63 on nymex).

how do I invest in oil?

Buying commodities futures isn't much harder than buying stocks, really. You can get some serious leverage. Not recommended unless you're prepared for volatility. There's some chance of an economic recession this year, which might send the price back down to $55. I wouldn't bet on it, but there's a chance.
posted by sfenders at 8:04 PM on February 7, 2006

You all raise very good points, however, there is a major impediment to any large scale reduction of oil consumption in this country, at least in the transportation sector, and that is the physical form of our cities.

We are so economically dependant on oil because since WWII this country has undertaken the largest shift in the paradigm of urbanism since the neolithic revolution. With all of our daily activities miles apart, most of us have few alternatives to driving.

Worse still, fixing this mess will be difficult, costly and will likely take many decades. It will not be done out of altruism. Here in Oregon, the government has taken a bolder stance towards constraining the geographic reach of growth, yet only those of us who can afford to live in the inner city can manage to live without cars.

In order to reconstruct the urban fabric in this country, some unpleasant things will have to happen: Land values for suburban land will have to decline massively. This will only happen if this land becomes massively less acessible. Gas prices will have to be very high for a very long period in order to seriously impact land values and bring about a revaluation of urban land. Then, we'll also be saddled with the economic fallout of the crash in suburban land. Remember, real estate development is a very popular choice for large investors like public employee pension funds. That's going to hurt!

Trading all the Hummers for hybrids is little more than re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 8:06 PM on February 7, 2006

There's no getting of oil until you make oil usage hurt. You could always try taxing the shit out of it, which would also be a good way of raising revenues for other things...

And if you're about to say "But gas already IS taxed to shit!", then you've never been to Canada or Europe. We'll tell you what taxes are.
posted by slatternus at 8:11 PM on February 7, 2006

There is no alternative to oil ... you can't go and put water or canola oil in your car

Before you assert something as fact you might want to actually look into it. You most certainly can put canola oil in your car, though you'd need a diesel engine.

Canola's not the best choice, and and even more productive oil crop biofuels will not begin to meet demand using current technology, but it is being developed and frankly every bit helps.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:21 PM on February 7, 2006

or how about ethanol, which I keep reading in every other mefi thread that it takes just as much petro, but read otherwise outside of it:

Moreover, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy. Ethanol production uses abundant domestic supplies of coal and natural gas to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel that can displace petroleum imports.

posted by destro at 8:29 PM on February 7, 2006

hmm, yeah, taxing the shit out of consumer oil is one stone that could kill in one throw almost all the birds pecking the US to death. (In many other countries, industry still runs on low-tax fuel, but consumer cars don't).

$10 bucks says it won't happen :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 8:30 PM on February 7, 2006

As you begin to panic about Peak Oil, you might also want to consider panicking about water.

The Ogallala Aquifer underlies a goodly amount of the USA's grain-crop plains, and it's drying up fast.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:32 PM on February 7, 2006

zoogleplex: 15% less imported oil means the economy tanks completely, no way around it.

I just don't buy into the doom and gloom scenario... I think we're more resilient than that. More, I don't see that cutting back on imports need necessarily mean we have 15% less fuel to use:

* Conservation. Cut back as much as 7 percent across the board through the same techniques we learned in the 70s when fuel supplies were, er... a bit of an issue. Set back the thermostat a degree or two, choose a more efficient fridge, add a layer to the attic insulation, carpool a couple times a week or telecommute, instead. Incent conservation, insulation and purchase of more efficient appliances through tax credits (paid for by a corresponding 7% gasoline tax, which should prove something of an incentive all by itself, or, it may never be noticed 'cause if we're using 15% less oil, I'd bet a quarter oil drops back below $50 a barrel.)

* Ethanol. Mandate low-level (10%) ethanol blends at the pump. A very large number of cities do this now as an ozone fighting tool. Roll out E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) pumps (Ford plans to make 250,000 E85 cars this year.)

That's two things that could *easily* and more or less painlessly go a long way to absorbing a 15% reduction in oil imports... (and on Preview, I'd enjoy a four-day work week, as advocated by sfender's link to Saving Oil in a Hurry.)

;)
posted by deCadmus at 8:33 PM on February 7, 2006

What slatternus said.

Wanna stop oil dependence. Tax it and use the proceeds to develop/encourage alternatives.

Tax highway usage to discourage stupid driving habits.

Tax the owners of fuel-gulping SUVs.

To help folks adjust, introduce the taxes gradually.

Yeah, make it $6/gallon, and you'll kick the habit reeealll quick.
posted by storybored at 8:38 PM on February 7, 2006

I think it's pretty funny that they decided to interview someone sitting at the pinnacle of a society on the topic of changing the way that society is run. What the hell else is he going to say?

"Americans depend upon imports to fill the gap," McGill said. "No combination of conservation measures, alternative energy sources and technological advances could realistically and economically provide a way to completely replace those imports in the short or medium term."

Buy. Less. Stuff.

Reason #451298.

Seriously, when people like this talk about "conservation measures," they don't talk about the real ones. To him, "conservation measures" means living exactly the way we are living (which really just means guys like him profting the way he is profiting), while consuming drastically less energy. Which simply isn't going to happen. But we do have to consume drastically less energy. So...

Buy. Less. Stuff.
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:42 PM on February 7, 2006

Buy. Less. Stuff.

Uh huh, and people will do this because?

People will only consume less if they have no choice. Unfortunately the economic conditions necessary to motivate such behavior will likely only happen as a result of rather horrific circumstances.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 8:56 PM on February 7, 2006

"And I have a strong suspicion that only some miraculous deus ex machina (e.g., cold fusion) is going to reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels by more than a trivial amount."

The deus ex machina you're looking for is a gent by the name of Peak Oil...
posted by stenseng at 9:11 PM on February 7, 2006

Encouraging urban densification is also something worth looking at. A lot of energy wasteage in North America is simply a function of suburban land development patterns that pretty much make energy efficiency nearly impossible. What about a tax break for people who purchase homes in high density areas, and a tax on low-density dwellings? It wouldn't be a quick fix, and it wouldn't be popular, but urbanites also tend to eventually become more blue-statey as well, so there's another good reason to tax suburban living.
posted by slatternus at 9:21 PM on February 7, 2006

You see, there is no human problem that cannot be resolved by taxing it.
posted by slatternus at 9:22 PM on February 7, 2006

15% less oil means 15% less driving...

Excellent. I started a new job six months ago, reducing my commute from 28 miles a day to 8.

I was actually going to buy a scooter or just bicycle, but frankly I'm terrified of being hit by a car.
posted by davejay at 9:40 PM on February 7, 2006

This whole 'the problem will solve itself once oil prices get too high' argument always struck me as mind-bogglingly stupid. By the time prices are so high that America is willing to dramatically alter its way of life, we're already screwed and economic damage will have been done. Waving hands and saying, 'The Market! The Market' isn't a magic incantation to escape the consequences of a basic failure to plan ahead.
posted by verb at 9:48 PM on February 7, 2006

slatternus, Yes, taxing inneficient forms of development may seem like a good idea, but it's a moot point because there is not, and never will be the political will to do it.

The closest Americans have come to this is in states which enforce artifical land supply constraints, via mandatory urban growth boundaries. This has been a marginal sucess, but calling it too little too late is a massive understatement. Most people choose to live in the suburbs because for them, it's a rational choice. Schools are good, crime is relatively low, and quality of life is (considered to be) good. And the price is right.

Taxing things isn't likely to fix anything. It will just lead to further distortion of the market. Rather, we need to look at removing the subsidies for inefficient development patterns, so that consumers pay all the external costs associated with their inneficient consumption patterns.

...and as for Peak Oil, which stenseng anticipates as a deciding factor in our consumption patterns, indeed running into a massive supply constraint will indeed fundamentally alter the fuel market. It will likely also result in a massive and extremely traumatic economic crash. That is something to be avoided at all cost. Therefore, the supply constraint must be bridged. I'm not optomistic about how we're going to do that, but someone smarter than me bloody well better figure it out.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 9:57 PM on February 7, 2006

verb, the problem will solve itself via the market. Unfortunately the cure will be just about as bad as the disease.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 9:59 PM on February 7, 2006

sourbrew, harlequin : Sounds mightily like Pacheco 'invented' hydrogen by chemical action and electrolysis.

From reading the abstract of the patent application, it generates hydrogen by 2 methods: chemical action on a aluminium sacrificial anode, creating aluminium oxide; and electrolysis at the magnesium cathode. The whole forms a simple battery, powered by the chemical reaction itself.

Or, put simply, it's extracting (a small portion of) the electricity used in refining the aluminium itself, and using it to crack hydrogen from sea water. I wouldn't have thought the voltage was high enough myself - 1.7v to crack water, IIRC, though maybe sea water requires less - and I don't know offhand what voltage an aluminium/magnesium cell would produce.

(And the mythical "super battery" from sourbrew's link was possibly a standard lead-acid cell - IIRC, tin and lead are commonly found together, acid is used in the extraction process and dumped in the waste water, and a lead-acid cell produces a nominal 2.25v.)

A lot of the chatter around Pacheco's 'discovery' points back to the AESOP Institute - which, depending on which Google result you follow, is either an "alternative energy" think-tank, or a defunct beauty school in New England.

"The closest we humans can get to free energy is a blissfully unaware person."
posted by Pinback at 11:00 PM on February 7, 2006

verb, the problem will solve itself via the market. Unfortunately the cure will be just about as bad as the disease.

I don't know about that. What rising oil prices will do is make alternatives that aren't being pursued right now because the marginal cost is too high look more viable. As the price of oil continues to rise, the marginal cost of using alternative technologies will get smaller and smaller and these alternatives will look more attractive, so people will begin to use them. At that point, economies of scale will take over and these alternative energy sources will actually become cheaper than oil and we'll all be driving hydrogen cars and powering our homes with tiny fuel cell generators like in that Wired article I read in freaking 1997.

Yes, this is a very complacent attitude to take towards a very serious issue. But in addition to happening to think it's right, I've also chosen to live in a town where I can drive so little that I have to fill up my gas tank once a month at most. The market will eventually get us off oil, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all do our part now.
posted by joshuaconner at 1:20 AM on February 8, 2006

joshuaconner, oil is not like other commodities, it's a primary source of energy, used to get more energy. So in the end, there's a thermodinamic limit to the "market effect", once you'll spend 1 unit of energy (forget about money and marginal costs!) to get another one (or even a liitle more), you're screwed.

Look at the steel, silicon and other materials and energy inputs needed by renewables and non-conventional fuels. Those are the limits we are approaching.

Economics as we know it won't be that useful once we start riding down the Hubbert slope, think like newtonian physics vs quantic. Newtonian still are useful, but once you get to the quantuum level, you need something else. So we'll have to move from neoclassical economics to a some form of thermoeconomics.
posted by samelborp at 2:51 AM on February 8, 2006

So what you're saying is that we're screwed because it takes other non-renewables (like steel and silicon) in order to build the infrastructure to utilize renewable energy sources?
posted by joshuaconner at 4:11 AM on February 8, 2006

I think he's saying the cost of production for steel and silicon(and plastic and aluminum and transportation and food) will be affected adversely by increased energy costs, so any calculations need to take that into account too.
posted by dglynn at 5:17 AM on February 8, 2006

mr_crash_davis writes "It had fucking well better, because when I unfold myself from behind the wheel and squeeze out of it, it looks like I'm getting shat out of a goddamned clown car."

On the internet everyone is 8 feet tall. AND a fireman.

Seriously, back in the day my family (5 ppl total) used to easily pack into a late-70s Toyota Corolla, which was a lot smaller than the ones they've made since. Methinks you might be exaggerating just a wee bit.
posted by clevershark at 5:21 AM on February 8, 2006

verb, the problem will solve itself via the market. Unfortunately the cure will be just about as bad as the disease.

Well, yes. It's like people who say climate change is no problem because Earth's climate is always changing, and the planet is still here. Doomsday scenerios aren't about Earth cracking in two and crumbling, they're about climate changing to the point that we can no longer sustain ourselves. Earth could transmute into a magma-covered ball of flame, and in the broadest sense 'things would still be fine.' It would make the morning commute rather unpleasant, though.

In the same way, the-market-will-solve-the-energy-crisis people ignore genuine threats to stability. If the entire economy collapses and everyone is reduced to bartering for lizard-meat with handfulls of heirloom jewelry, The Market is still working fine!
posted by verb at 6:44 AM on February 8, 2006

We're approaching a point where there simply will not be enough petroleum produced to keep up with ever increasing global demand, regardless of how high prices get.

The current economic model for oil production allows for increased demand only to a point. Adjust the price per barrel upward, and increase production capacity temporarily.

Hubbert's math tells us that global oil production will likely peak (if indeed it has not already) sometime within the next few years. This means that global production will peak somewhere between 65-70 million barrels of oil per day.


Problem is, the US Department of Energy predicts world demand will reach 119 million b.p.d. in 2025, with huge increases in China, India, and other developing nations.

Certain segments of the global population in a growth and societal mode requiring increasing access to petrochemicals will be priced entirely out of the market. There simply won't be enough of the stuff at any price.

That may get ugly.

Further, when the scarcity factor of oil reaches those proportions, it will essentially become the only currency of any importance.

Global economics will shift, whether we like it or not, to consider the net petrochemical cost to every action and transaction, in the same way that shipwrecked survivors on a desert island consider the use of every coconut very judiciously. Unfortunately, we're only making the potential for violence, hunger, and deprivation during this transition more likely with our Escalades, Hummers, disposable cell phones, etc.

The nation with the greatest potential for positive change will most likely be remembered as the nation of lazy complacent fatasses who shot the world in the foot, because they just couldn't get off the petrol binge.
posted by stenseng at 7:24 AM on February 8, 2006

I would like to offer slatternus a job within the UK government - I fear that they will soon be running out of methods for taxing seven shades of cash out of us and his suggestions make for heartening news for those of us that see barely 50% of their paycheck after taxation. Soon I will be free to pay tax on absolutely everything I consume and the world will be a better place for it.

p.s. Americans really have no clue about what real taxation is like so it's always kind of funny to see you complain about how extraordinarily cheap your fuel is. I remember last year filling up the tank of my hire car for about $25-30. The equivalent cost in the UK would be approximately $80-85. That's pretty much all tax. When you are paying $5.50 - 6 per gallon instead of an apparent national average of $2.30 gallon then we'll all start crying for you.

(no meanituditiness to Americans intended. suck it dictionaries)
posted by longbaugh at 7:30 AM on February 8, 2006

Get a bike.
posted by MarshallPoe at 10:41 AM on February 8, 2006

... You most certainly can put canola oil in your car, though you'd need a diesel engine.

This is exactly my point. Can you buy a bottle of canola oil at the grocery store, pour it into your gas tank, and continue driving as if nothing had changed?

1. You can't... and
2. You wouldn't. Canola oil is more expensive than gas.

Oil is cheap. Very cheap. Demand for it is very very very flexible. We will use as fast as we can until it is gone. We will not voluntarily cut back at any point.

As we run out, it will get more expensive. Our vehicles will become more efficient and we will pay more and more for oil, triggering more efficiency and more exploration and exploitation. The backlash against that exploitation will be disruptive but under the circumstances where oil=money the powerful (us (not US)) will get our way.

...even more productive oil crop biofuels will not begin to meet demand using current technology, but it is being developed and frankly every bit helps.

I'm not so sure. Brazil is gaining oil independance by burning sugar cane. In the process they are clearing rainforests for sugar cane fields at an increased rate.

Europe is pushing palm oil usage in transport, which is triggering massive jungle clearing in southeast asia at the detriment of both the people and the animals living there.

And in the end, both are more expensive than oil.
posted by danl at 11:01 AM on February 8, 2006

"That's two things that could *easily* and more or less painlessly go a long way to absorbing a 15% reduction in oil imports... (and on Preview, I'd enjoy a four-day work week, as advocated by sfender's link to Saving Oil in a Hurry.)"

deCadmus, I agree, these things would help quite a lot, as would a 4-day workweek, and allowing lots of telecommuting. I'm a video game artist, I could easily do my job from home using my own computers and moving files back and forth over a VPN, only going into the office when absolutely necessary. I'm sure many of us here could say the same.

The ability to do many things that will help is definitely there, but the will is not. It would really behoove all Americans to start cutting back on oil product use in particular and energy use in general, so I'd urge all MeFites to take a stab at it. It's not really that hard.

I cut my own electricity use by about 70% back during the Enron-induced California "Energy Crisis," by switching over to compact fluorescent light bulbs, making sure to turn off lights that I wasn't using, and by shutting down any computer I wasn't using at the time - I had four on a network all running 24/7, rather wasteful in hindsight. Shutting monitors off instead of leaving them on standby, and cutting power completely to my TV using the wall switch are other small measures - CRT TVs still use power when they're off. I've kept doing all these things since then, and since I'm slowly switching over to all flat-panel monitors, soon the biggest user of electric in my apartment will be the fridge.

"Excellent. I started a new job six months ago, reducing my commute from 28 miles a day to 8."

Thanks, davejay, you are helping out. :)

"So what you're saying is that we're screwed because it takes other non-renewables (like steel and silicon) in order to build the infrastructure to utilize renewable energy sources?"

That's definitely true, but the problem is more basic than that, as below:

"I think he's saying the cost of production for steel and silicon(and plastic and aluminum and transportation and food) will be affected adversely by increased energy costs, so any calculations need to take that into account too."

Yes, exactly. When energy gets more expensive, everything gets more expensive.

"Buy. Less. Stuff."

That's what kills the economy, right there. The economy is all about money moving around and "growing" via increased material production, generating profit for lenders. Buying less stuff is what negates that. I agree that it's the right thing to do, but that would pretty much destroy the "growth" economy and put us on, at best, a "steady state" economy, where all the wonderful improvements to our standard of living that we've been used to for so long become impossible.

When your TV breaks, you can't get another one. When your fridge fails, you can't just buy another one. When your tires go bald, there aren't any replacements. When you run out of bread, you might have to stand in line to get more.

I hope it wouldn't get that bad, but it is potentially possible.

Have you ever had to make do with less? Cut back your standard of living drastically? Back in the 70's, my mom and stepdad decided to give up civilization and try living as self-sufficient organic farmers in Maine, with no electricity or running water, and using wood heat. Kinda like what they did on "Frontier House" on PBS. Outhouse, kerosene lanterns, hand pumped well, wood stove... and very little cash income. I can tell you from direct experience that it's very, very hard to do, and not a lot of fun. Growing food in the Maine soil is really hard work, except for potatoes.

We ate a lot of potatoes. :)

And notice we still used oil products, like kerosene for the lamps, gas and oil for the roto-tiller, truck and chainsaws, tar paper and roof shingles... lots of stuff. We bought less stuff, but we still needed to buy a lot of stuff, and we still needed to drive the truck 10 miles into town a couple times a week for groceries etc.

I'm giving an extreme example as an illustration, so please don't think I'm saying this will happen to everyone. But just imagine how your life would change if 15-20% of the stuff you buy every day became unavailable, or even if you voluntarily stopped buying it.

I don't think it would kill anyone, I'm sure we could all make do with 15% less, but it would be pretty uncomfortable. Personally I think it's worth the sacrifice to get off imported oil, but I doubt most of my 290 million countrymen would agree.

(Re canola and palm oil) "And in the end, both are more expensive than oil."

Yes indeedy. The raw fact is that to fix the problem, we have to stop driving so many miles. Burning 50% of our total oil use in our passenger car gas tanks is almost the entire problem.

"We are so economically dependant on oil because since WWII this country has undertaken the largest shift in the paradigm of urbanism since the neolithic revolution. With all of our daily activities miles apart, most of us have few alternatives to driving."

And that is precisely why making any change in oil use will mean major hurt.

Many Peak Oilers are strongly recommending a massive project to refurbish the US railway system, in order to prepare to replace all the diesel-powered trucking that moves our goods around the country, as well as to replace passenger air travel. Rail transport is the most fuel-efficient per ton-mile way of moving anything on land, by a factor of 10-20 over anything else - only water transport is cheaper (and by another respectable multiplier) - so reworking the rail system could cut transport fuel use by a huge amount, not to mention employing a whole lot of people.

Not a great situation we're in here. Not unsolvable, but all the solutions are painful.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:43 AM on February 8, 2006

danl writes: Can you buy a bottle of canola oil at the grocery store, pour it into your gas tank, and continue driving as if nothing had changed?

Of course not. And you can't feed gasoline to a horse, and yet somehow we switched our personal transportation base from hay-powered to oil-powered. Wonder how we did that?

When arguing on behalf of the status quo, people always do this -- base their arguments on the simplistic assumption that everything else will remain the same, when obviously it cannot and in retrospect never has. Rather like Bush insisting that pollution reduction will destroy the economy -- because he only measures costs, not benefits, because it's to his rhetorical advantage to do so.

I imagine GM used this sort of argument when it was proposed that they modernize their plants and seek improved reliability and efficiency to meet the Japanese threat. Which is why they continued to produce garbage for two more decade, and lost immense market share which they never recovered, and they still were forced to modernize along the way. But by dragging their feet and whining about the cost they lost the initiative and much of the benefit of doing it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:26 PM on February 8, 2006

Just to briefly note: wow, what a thoughful and illuminating thread this has been!
posted by deCadmus at 12:47 PM on February 8, 2006

"Of course not. And you can't feed gasoline to a horse, and yet somehow we switched our personal transportation base from hay-powered to oil-powered. Wonder how we did that?"

Hear hear. Change can certainly be made.

Though it is fair to note that between 1900 and 1920 while that switch was being made - my grandfather didn't see a car until he was 13, in 1916 - the population of the US was less than 1/3 of what it is today, and the entire world's population was only 1.5 billion.

Also, that switch was from a slower, lower-energy transport base to a much faster, more efficient transport base and was powered by super-cheap oil. All the transport revolutions of the last century were powered by cheap oil

The switch we're talking about going forward from now will be a switch backwards in a lot of ways. Fewer "individual" miles traveled by almost everyone, more mass transit, more rail transport as opposed to air, more river transport as opposed to trucks; a general slowdown overall, in other words.

No such change has ever happened worldwide in human history, though there have been local examples such as the Roman roads deteriorating after the fall of the Empire, and people in the provinces returning to a much more local existence. Except for events like that, all throughout our history we have gone faster and farther with each advance.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:10 PM on February 8, 2006

more mass transit, more rail transport as opposed to air, more river transport as opposed to trucks; a general slowdown overall, in other words.

But don't you think diversification is better in the long run?

And it doesn't have to be a slowdown, more like a re-org. The same amount of stuff has to be shipped, the work still available.
posted by Miles Long at 2:45 PM on February 8, 2006

"Methinks you might be exaggerating just a wee bit."

clevershark, me and the Toyota, for perspective.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:21 PM on February 8, 2006

I do think diversification is better in the long run, yes. I think we're going to find that we don't have a choice.

As far as the same amount of stuff being shipped, that will depend greatly on how energy is reallocated to raw materials procurement and processing and thence on to manufacturing. If people are buying less stuff, then less stuff will be made, which means less transporting of stuff.

Our economy is based on constant consumption of stuff and constant building of houses - and then lending lots of "magically-created" money to people to buy all that stuff and those houses, "knowing" that constant economic growth is going to allow everyone to make more money overall so the loans will be repaid and growth will continue. Since the US Gross Domestic Product has been running an average of 3.5% growth every year for a long time, the assumption that the loans will be repaid has been valid up to now. That growth has been fueled by cheap energy and continuous population growth.

Cut back on energy use, and immediately we have a loss in GDP, which is one way that economists define a "recession," I believe. Negative growth. Continued negative growth leads to an economic depression, with all its terrible effects. Too bad most of the people who lived through the last one, who could describe it all first hand, are dead or almost dead (miss you Grandpa and Grandma), not to mention vastly outnumbered by the post-war Baby Boomers who have never known anything but explosive growth and prosperity. I think they're in for a pretty big shock.

It will certainly be a reorganization, but I think it's going to go a lot farther than just changing the current supply chain around to different carriers. First we'd have to restore and expand the national rail system, for instance, and that is a New Deal/wartime mobilization level task, a massive undertaking similar to construction of the Interstate Highway System.

Well, if the economy tanks there'll be plenty of people out of jobs available to go do the work by hand... and I'm likely to be one of them.
posted by zoogleplex at 4:56 PM on February 8, 2006

(nice post, and nice to see you posting, owillis!)
posted by onlyconnect at 7:34 PM on February 8, 2006

U.S. Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Companies
posted by homunculus at 8:45 PM on February 13, 2006

There is no replacement for oil because of the extremely high EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) of oil. Oil is a highly concentrated form of energy. Once located, the energy it takes to pull out a billion barrels of the stuff really isnt that much compared to how much energy you are pulling from those barrels after market. This is also reflected in the "low low price" of oil today. If you look at an eroei chart, you will see that nothing even comes close to oil. Hydrogen power is usually break even or a net loss of energy. (The actual EROEI of modern oil from the middle east is somewhere around 8-12 if memory serves, not 50+ as the rather misleading chart shows from the 1940s. I couldn't find a better one.)

All renewables are currently less than 2, and ethanol and hydrogen are usually calculated at less than 1. That means you are losing net energy to create the stuff. The cost of upkeep, construction, and transference in most renewable energies cannot replace oil even if drastic improvements are made within the necessary timeframe. This is what the Exxon guy in the post is hinting at. This does not mean that those technologies should not be pursued, but it does mean there are going to have to be drastic changes when the demand for oil in Indea and China collides with already maxxed out production.
posted by sophist at 10:22 PM on February 13, 2006