Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No thats not what i'm saying at all. Put aside the monetary analysis and just visualise it as the total ammount of energy available to run your economy on, GDP is just a measurement of energy consumption after all. What i'm saying is that the ammount of surplus energy from crude is so vast that it allows us a high level of economic activity. Shale's EROEI is only one fifth that of crude at best- meaning you would only get one fifth the level of economic activity per barrel that you'd get from crude.
No thats not what i'm saying at all. Put aside the monetary analysis and just visualise it as the total ammount of energy available to run your economy on, GDP is just a measurement of energy consumption after all. What i'm saying is that the ammount of surplus energy from crude is so vast that it allows us a high level of economic activity. Shale's EROEI is only one fifth that of crude at best- meaning you would only get one fifth the level of economic activity per barrel that you'd get from crude.
That makes no sense at all.
Hell it would require more work to get the things up and running, which would grow the domestic economy, and grow GDP.
The less surplus energy there is from oil, then the less energy there is to run your economy on- i.e. The economy must contract if the ammount of available net energy declines. To replace crude we need a fuel with similar EROEI as crude (16-20) to maintain the level of economic activity. Its the massive surplus of energy we get from fossil fuels that makes modern economies possible, less net energy = less economic activity. Money isn't the issue here.
I'm not great at explaining this. Look on youtube for 'chris martensen' he explains it better than me though he talks about coal not oil, but the principle is the same. I wish i could link the vid but my phone doesn't allow it. Its towards the end of his last public presentation.
We will have a replacement to oil, possibly synthetic. There is a tremendous financial incentive to finding the replacement, just not yet because there is a tremendous amount of profit to still be made.
Most people want a private mode of transportation, or an extremely fast one.
We are to spread out for having an effective high speed rail system. And most folks drive so they don't have to rent a car when travelling to a larger town, then travelling to the smaller regions around it.
There is a population that lives its entire lives in bigger towns and cities. But most of us do have relatives and events that we attend several miles outside of town, which make high speed rail less effective.
All of the train trips I've taken are miserable.
They take to long, and make to many stops.
1. Subjective. Sweeping generalization. No evidence in support.
In contrast, see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehoVnykvMKY
2. Subjective. No evidence in support. If there is no "cheap and plentiful" petroleum, and only electrified rail remains economically viable, people will want rail transportation.
3. Before the rise of oil, there were railroads. After the fall of oil, there will be railroads. Coincidentally, before 1920, "suburbia" was created by expanding streetcar networks. Streetcar suburb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. Before 1920, 95% of all trips were by rail, mainline (steam), and electric traction (streetcars and interurbans). High speed rail is not the only form of rail transportation.
5. Subjective. Did these trips take place only in America, on Amtrak?
6. Subjective. Depends on the train, local or express.
Up until the last century and a half or so, all of humanity existed without a dependence on oil. So I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll find a way to survive after the last drop has been used up. Unless we have completely lost our inventiveness, in which case that will be the end of civilization.
Agreed. Humans are so dang inventive, they have even created fake women (dolls) for a man's pleasure when he can't get a woman to go out with him. If they want to find a way, they will. (Humans)
If we chose to develop Nuclear fission power with full fuel reprocessing and recycle we will be able to make enough synthetic petroleum to meet the demands of the chemical industry. I doubt that we will be able to maintain our "car culture" as that petroleum will likely be very expensive. I expect personal transport will return to a trolly/railroad/HSR combination and freight will be almost entirely carried by electrified railroads and river barges (energy source undecided).
I suspect the people will learn to use the system while marveling at the automobiles, trucks and jetliners in a few museums.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
