The End Of the Oil Age is Near, Deutsche Bank Says

[bananas]

Peak Oil: The End Of the Oil Age is Near, Deutsche Bank Says

By Keith Johnson

<snip>

That will send oil to $175 a barrel by 2016—and will simultaneously put the final nail in oil’s coffin and send prices plummeting back to $70 by 2030. That’s because there’s an even more important “peak” moment on the horizon: A global peak in oil demand. That has already begun in the world’s biggest oil-consuming nation, Deutsche Bank notes:

US demand is the key. It is the last market-priced, oil inefficient, major oil consumer. We believe Obama’s environmental agenda, the bankruptcy of the US auto industry, the war in Iraq, and global oil supply challenges have dovetailed to spell the end of the oil era.

The big driver? The coming-of-age of electric and hybrid vehicles, which promise massive fuel-economy gains for short-hop commuting but which so far have not been economic.

<snip>

But won’t cheaper oil in the future just lead to a revival in oil demand? That’s what’s happened in every other cycle. Au contraire, says the bank: Just as the explosion of digital cameras made the cost of film irrelevant, the growth of electric cars will make the price of oil (and gasoline) all but irrelevant for transportation.

In a report filled with interesting tidbits, one in particular stands out: The cost of the Iraq war at the pump. Deutsche Bank figures the cost of the war at $1.5 trillion. Amortized over 20 years, that works out to $75 billion a year. “If the US government taxed US gasoline consumers purely to reflect the financial cost of the war in Iraq, gasoline prices should be some 54 cents per gallon higher,” the report notes.

[excess_3]

1. tax on jet fuel for international flight is zero, not a penny

why do you post this trash?

did you know that gasoline is not the only
use for petroleum?

..............................................
meanwhile, fake greenies,
(and you know who I mean)
jet-set around the world,
dine on endangered species,
and have the gall to tell me that
I use too much carbon
..............................
.....................................
war at $1.5 trillion. Amortized over 20 years, that works out to $75 billion a year. “If the US government taxed US gasoline

[bananas]

2. Thanks for kicking my thread!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=202784&mesg_id=202953

[goodenergy]

3. Interesting report indeed

It's always good to see trusted names like Deutsche Bank discussing this kind of thing. But I always wonder where they get their confidence in the analysis and their projections from. They don't have access to better information than anyone else, or such better brains - and yet they have the power to influence a whole market with these reports. If it goes the way you want it to, then great.

Michael

[bananas]

5. Welcome to DU, Michael!

You wrote, "I always wonder where they get their confidence in the analysis and their projections from. They don't have access to better information than anyone else, or such better brains..."
There is a similar analysis at Climate Progress, partly based on recent EIA reports: http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/11/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-peaked-in-2007/
On the other hand, there's a famous saying, "It's Hard To Make Predictions, Especially About the Future".
:hi:

[kristopher]

4. And a glorious day it will be. (K&R) nt

[Nederland]

7. Speed the Day

No more kissing up to Arabic despots and a hell of a lot less pollution...

[happyslug]

6. European Bank Applying Europeans Standards to the US

There is a report written in the 1920s about the then future growth the of US Auto market. The two areas of growth were the In city (remember we are talking of the 1920s) among Upper Middle Class (Notice NOT working class or the poor, both were expected to continue to use Streetcars for the next 20 years) AND Rural farmers (Including the working class farmers and workers on those farms). Europe, on the other hand, looked at growth ONLY among its Upper Middle Class (And in fact actually saw a retention of the Horse for URBAN Transport, while the US was already on its way to replace the Horse in Urban Areas, with the Truck).

After WWII, Europe had a terrible trade imbalance with the US, so Europe impose restrictions on anything that was imported from the US (While technically "Free Trade" was the rule, Europe's restrictions were aimed at US imports, including Oil, even as late as the 1950s the US was still the Number Oil exporter in the world, thus Europe put a high tax on oil). As Europe recovered from WWII and US oil exports dropped in the 1950s, Oil started to import oil from the Middle East, then in 1956 the first of three Oil Embargo were launched, in 1956 in retaliation of the British-French-Israeli attack on the Suzi Canal, then again in 1967, after the six day war, then in 1973 after the Yom-Kipper War (We Americans remember only the last one, for in 1956 and 1967 the US was still a net oil EXPORTER).

Given these embargoes, the oil shortage during WWII, and the long need to reduce the Trade imbalance with the US after WWII, Europe developed a system where oil use was minimized. On the other hand, oil use in the US was ENCOURAGED during these same time period for the US was NOT affected by the first two oil embargo, had a surplus of oil after WWII AND while the US had during WWII had rationed oil, oil use increased during WWII do to increase use of planes, trucks and cars during and right after the war.

In simple terms the US and Europe have been on two different lines on oil consumption since the 1920s. Europe forcing the prices high so it oil is only used where, even at a high price, it is cost effective, while in the US the price of oil was kept low so more and more people will buy cars. This can be seen in how Mass Transit operates in both areas, in the Europe operation of Mass Transit (as opposed to its constructions) is NOT subsidized (The high price of oil is enough of a subsidy) but in the US, we must subsidize to compensate for the low price of using a car instead.

Side Note: Since the 1990s, Europe actually has had more cars per capital then the US, but we drive twice as much. This is a product of high oil prices, Europe takes Mass Transit when it is the best alternatives, while in the US the first choice is a car.

My point is this report says the US will follow what Europe has done since WWII. The problem is the US is at least twice (if not 4 times) as dependent in the Car then is Europe. A European can leave his car sit at home and still get to work, while in the US that is almost impossible for most people.

[kristopher]

8. I think you underestimate them.

This isn't 1920 and there is no reason an analysis by a German bank would be based on false assumptions about the US market.

The answer in the US is the PHEV.

[happyslug]

9. My comment was more a comment on the expectation of a drop in demand

The US economy, especially the rural areas, are just incapable of converting from the Automobiles and as such will fight any such conversion no matter what is the price. Now sooner or later the price will get to high even for Rural America but electric cars do NOT have the capability to replace oil automobiles in Rural America. Some people in Rural American think nothing of driving 100 miles to work and filling their car up every day, even on the coldest days of the year. I mention cold, for cold eats up electric power in a Battery. Personal experience, when I ride my bike (Which has a generator to provide electrical power for my lights) if the temperatures are above 40 degrees, the capacitors in my lights will stay on, after I stop moving, for up to 20 minutes. The same capacitors when temperatures are below 32 last less then 20 seconds.

Now Lithium batteries will do a better job then my capacitors but my point is the electrical power stored rapidly disappears in Cold Weather compared to warm Weather, but the range of the Electrical car will go down (This is the chief reason Honda and Toyota went for Hybrids, in cold weather the battery will lose power but that is compensated by the gasoline engine coming on more often to re-charge the Battery). In a pure electrical car this drop in power will translate to a drop in range and with it make the car almost unusable to people who have to travel more then 20-30 miles a day to get to work (40-60 miles a day round trip, some do over 100 miles). While Urban America can convert to Electrical cars with out to much trouble (through since the 1950s people have lived far from where there work even in Urban areas, thus some urban populations will have to move so they are within range of their electric cars during cold time periods).

In rural America, the high price of oil will lead to abandonment of a lot of rural housing (NOT farmers per se, but the workers who support those farmers and others rural businesses). For example Farriers (People who put horse shoes on horses) presently travel by truck to the horse. It is a heavy truck with furnaces to heat the horse shoes so he can adjust it for the horse. Prior to mechanization (i.e. pre-1940s) this was done by farmers taking the horse to the Farriers (and requiring the Farrier to be close by, which require a lot of people who used horses, which was the case till right after WWII). Since WWII, most farmers have dropped using horses, those that do no longer has assess to a local farrier, thus the tendency since WWII for Farriers to buy large trucks and go to the horses instead of the Horses going to them. Can the farriers drop their use of oil? Not without going back to having the horse come to them (and until we have more horses that need shoes per rural mile NOT going to happen).

Now, I give Farriers as an extreme example, but a lot of working class people in Rural America have the same problem, they live tens of miles from where their work, many measure their commute not in miles but by the counties they go through. Furthermore, unlike Western Europe where less then 10% of their population live in Rural Areas, about 1/3 of the US population live in Rural Areas (Roughly 1/3 of the US population live in Suburbia, 1/3 in inner cities). Thus 1/3 of the population live in areas where Electric cars will be impractical (More do to limited range and long re-charge periods, today all such people have to do is drop into a gas station and five minutes later they back on the road, even the proposals for "Fast Charging" requires 2-3 hours of Charging before you can get back on the road).

PHEV is part of the answer, but it does NOT solve the problem of oil for Plug In Electric Hybrid Vehicles still need oil to go any long distance and it is oil that will be the limiting factor in Rural America. PHEV can do without oil in urban environments (Providing you have the excess electrical power to generate the power needed, a questionable premise even if you assume the charging of PHEV will be done at off-peak hours).

I hate to say this, but we are looking at radical changes in how we get to work, where we work, where we live and where we shop, all driven by the need to reduce oil consumption. Electrification of the Rail lines will be more effective then PHEV (From an friction point of view, steel wheel on steel rail is still the least friction based transportation system know to man, the only thing cheaper is water transportation and that is because the current can help a ship move its cargo). Reducing big trucks from the Shore to Shore hauling many are doing today, to being local shipments from the nearest railhead will save a lot of fuel (and making new railheads to reduce truck trips when needed). Making things locally instead of importing them will reduce fuel usage. It is the cheap oil over the last 50 years that produce today's "global" economy and the increase in fuel prices will force a return to local manufacturing of a lot of items presently shipped into the US.

These three things will save more fuel then converting to PHEV and even that may NOT be enough. This is where moving people closer to where their work, moving stores closer to railheads (to reduce transportation costs) and a renew moving of people to be closer to their work, will produce another huge savings in oil usage, we may even become more like urban center in Europe, but that will take time and given the demand of Rural American more time then this bank is giving the US to make the transformation. I hate to say it, the problem in my eyes is NOT that the US will make the Changes, but it will take longer and high prices (especially based on demand from Rural America) will keep the price up for a much longer period then this bank is calculating. Many people in Rural America will keep their cars long after they can no longer buy oil, and thus when the demand drops, as this bank says it will, they will buy the oil keeping it up.

Just an observation that the time period given by this bank is to short to cut back long term demand. High oil prices will cut back short term demand, but sooner or later Rural America needs to get to work and the store and right now and the foreseeable future that is by car and that also means going 50-100 miles in a day even in cold weather. I have my doubts of an electric car can provide that service, PHEV may provide part of that service but sooner or later we have to deal with an oil less future and that requires a rebuilding of out society similar to the rebuild we did after 1900 as we slowly embraced today's suburban lifestyle.

[kristopher]

10. You are looking in the wrong end of the telescope...

When you focus exclusively on what PHEVs can't do without looking at what they CAN do you are performing an invalid analysis if your goal is to understand the technology in relation to the prediction in the OP.


I don't think I've seen anyone crunch the numbers in this particular way because most forecasts are correlating market penetration with GHG emission reductions, however, since we are concerned about petroleum there is a fairly simple way to look at it using a known metric:
What sort of change in the national passenger fleet mile/gallon rating do you think will have to be achieved to make the prediction in the OP true?

As I said, I haven't seen a study that looks at that particular point, but given the known use patterns of US drivers, the PHEV can and will alter the average national mpg rating dramatically. Even with no further improvements in energy density (and some extremely large improvements (8-10X) are already in the pipeline) the ability of the *average* driver to do more than half their *annual* driving on battery electric power is going to have a profound impact on petroleum consumption.

I'll also challenge your assumption regarding the usefulness of PHEVs with a 40 mile range to people in rural areas. I live in a rural area and we could do more than 90% of our driving on the predicted battery only range expected in the Volt. We have two vehicles, and if we replaced only one it would reduce our gasoline powered miles driven by over 70% without compromising utility in the slightest.

Your 30% figure is not credible.

I do agree that, as described in your example, there will be considerable economically driven restructuring of the way things are done day to day by many people, but the overall impact described in the OP is going to come first and foremost from the more efficient technology of electric drive.

[NNadir]

11. No the answer is not greenwashing the car CULTure..,.

...with stupid Rube Goldberg fantasies.

The "answer" is in giving a fuck about humanity, but you wouldn't know that. You fucking think everyone should eat, drink and breathe your waste because your mentality is pure consumerism.

You call everyone a liar who challenges your consumerism, mostly because your game plan is denial and obfuscation.

Have a nice morally hollow intellectually vapid day.

[kristopher]

12. .

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Javaman]

13. you know...

I have never in my life seen someone as angry as nnadir.

It's like he's always in "blow a casket" mode.

really strange.

[kristopher]

14. He seems like a cardboard cutout

A persona used to perform a role - sort of like the Rush Limbaugh of the nuclear club.

Unwavering support for nuclear fission energy when much better alternatives are available can be considered an insane idea. His presence and method makes a reasoned argument (however misguided) for nuclear seem rational by comparison. If he wasn't there, where would the "center" be on the issue?