Rising Fuel Costs and the Consequences Thereof

RichardAnd

I'm aware that there is a currently active thread discussing the rising fuel costs at the pumps. However, I think that a separate thread to talk about the effects that might arise from ever rising fuel costs would be an interesting and distinct topic. Thus, I'm starting this thread.

For myself, the cost of petrol has always been something I paid alot of attention to. I have always kept track of the prices at my local stations and I check the national averages on pumps.ie regularly. The reason I do this is that I know well that fuel is like blood to an economy and there lack of it means trouble. It has also been said that high gas prices were a contributor to the global recession (article). Given that we are still in a dark place, I can't imagine that the high cost of petrol will being auspicious tidings.

Thus, the question arises; what will come of this? Well I don't like to think of Ireland descending into a Mad Max state of affairs but what such a film does illustrate well is social breakdown. Less fuel will mean more hardship and when humans suffer, they tend to loose faith in any larger sense of self and become more insular. The basic reasoning behind this can be drawn from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In a nut shell, this espouses the belief that a person will look for certain things in sequence and only move on to a more advanced need when a basic need is fulfilled. Article

But that's getting into the human psychology which isn't my intention. Thus, my question would be this; what do you think will happen here as fuel costs continue to rise?

shedweller

Some possible outcomes (assuming savings has ceased):

Local shops will suffer as people will be driven more by price and therefore go to "ald-idl" etc.

The sale of very warm clothes will rise. This being cheaper than filling the home heating oil tank an extra time per year.

More of the extras we buy will simply stop. Holidays, internet, satellite tv, etc.
A lot already do this.

Those with cars will take it easy and cut down fuel usage. They will learn to service them themselves. The sale of part worn tyres will rise more than it has so far.

Taxes will rise to offset the above. Look at the CO2 tax fiasco on cars!

pacquiao

RichardAnd wrote: »

I'm aware that there is a currently active thread discussing the rising fuel costs at the pumps. However, I think that a separate thread to talk about the effects that might arise from ever rising fuel costs would be an interesting and distinct topic. Thus, I'm starting this thread.

For myself, the cost of petrol has always been something I paid alot of attention to. I have always kept track of the prices at my local stations and I check the national averages on pumps.ie regularly. The reason I do this is that I know well that fuel is like blood to an economy and there lack of it means trouble. It has also been said that high gas prices were a contributor to the global recession (article). Given that we are still in a dark place, I can't imagine that the high cost of petrol will being auspicious tidings.

Thus, the question arises; what will come of this? Well I don't like to think of Ireland descending into a Mad Max state of affairs but what such a film does illustrate well is social breakdown. Less fuel will mean more hardship and when humans suffer, they tend to loose faith in any larger sense of self and become more insular. The basic reasoning behind this can be drawn from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In a nut shell, this espouses the belief that a person will look for certain things in sequence and only move on to a more advanced need when a basic need is fulfilled. Article

But that's getting into the human psychology which isn't my intention. Thus, my question would be this; what do you think will happen here as fuel costs continue to rise?

Your thread is a waste of everyone's time. This has happened numerous times throughout the last century.

RichardAnd

pacquiao wrote: »

Your thread is a waste of everyone's time. This has happened numerous times throughout the last century.

Civil discussion on a pertinent topic is a waste of time to no-one with an opinion worth sharing. As you seem to have nothing constructive to say, please stay out of this discussion until you do. If you feel the need to dismiss my efforts of using a discussion form to discuss things in a derisive manner again, I will report you to the moderators. Just because this is the internet, you don't have licence to be rude.

Thank you.

bbam

Spiralling inflation has to be the biggest problem.
Fuel directly affects the price of everything from bread/ milk to apples.

As both the prices of fuel and everything associated goes up people will be forced into cutting back more and more on discressionary spending thus things get worse

Rising fuel prices are a huge risk to any potential recovery and may even worsen the current recession we are seeing.

Farmer Pudsey

Another reason if you are unemployed not to look for a job as the cost of going to work will be more expensive

spank_inferno

Food costs will continue to rise, as the costs of diesel and fertalizer increase.

Less disposal money overall in peoples wallets.
Less incentive to create jobs with demand depressed.

woodoo

Rising fuel costs can only be bad for the economy. With less money in your pocket at the end of the week it will affect your spending power.

It will obviously be extra tough on people with long commutes. But even for the average motorist it will reduce disposable income.

I used to do a lot of driving around at weekends for leisure. I don't do as much now.

The_Honeybadger

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Another reason if you are unemployed not to look for a job as the cost of going to work will be more expensive

I don't see much sense in this approach, maybe if you have kids and are in receipt of RA and medical card etc, but not the case for most people who are unemployed. Even for folks with childern there is FIS when you do go back to work, either way the dole is not a good long term option no matter what way you look at it.

Chuck Stone

Interesting interview with Professor Michael Greenberger on the manipulation of the oil market by speculators/manipulators.

TL;DW.

The real price of a barrel of oil is thought to be in the region of $60 to $80 rather than $120 but isn't due to market manipulation by speculators.

Last year Obama asked the Justice Dept to convene a task force to look into the issue of price manipulation.

Professor Greenberger reckons that a serious criminal investigation would drive the manipulators out of the market which would cause the PPB to fall to its 'natural' level.

Bullseye1

Inflation is the biggest problem. Rising food prices as a result of transportation costs increasing.

But the biggest rise will be in those people who take pleasure in seeing people who live in commuter towns suffer as a result of "lifestyle choices". You know the type.

Farmer Pudsey

mickeyk wrote: »

I don't see much sense in this approach, maybe if you have kids and are in receipt of RA and medical card etc, but not the case for most people who are unemployed. Even for folks with childern there is FIS when you do go back to work, either way the dole is not a good long term option no matter what way you look at it.

Tell that to the 200,000 odd long term unemployed also people need to wake up any old car will do you if you are unemployed and you will be spending 30-50 euro a week less on fuel at least that is 1500-2500 after tax. It is bad enough that long term unemployed do not want to take on employment as it takes too long to get back on the benifits but now the cost of transport to work is a big discentive to taking a job

beeftotheheels

The oil crisis in the '70s and its impact on Icelandic inflation was a catalyst for their increasing expenditure on domestic renewable energies. While economists from Krugman to our own Kinsella love to claim "ironically" that "Ireland is not Iceland" they fail to recognize the fact that relative energy independence is a major factor in Icelandic inflation not shooting through the roof while they devalued the Krona and is cushioning their adjustment.

Perhaps high oil prices will continue to spur interest and investment in wind power here, and reduce the "not in my back yard" opposition to it which was allowed to prevail in the Celtic Tiger era.

Good for the planet, good for Ireland so long as protectionism risk remain in the global economy, good for Ireland longer term given oil production has peaked.

RichardAnd

Some interesting points raised thus far. I suppose the cost of traveling will prompt more people to work from home, if that have work. I already know of some people doing this to save money and if I drove to work, I'd probably do the same.

If this keeps up, I'd imagine that many will start to question their need for a private car. It's nice to have the option of convenient travel but for people living in Dublin, this is often more of a luxury than a need. No car means no NCT, no motor tax, no insurance nonsense, no service bills and no danger of being volunteered to pick people up. Given all the problems cars cause, if they also cost a fortune to run, I don't think it's hard to see those with the option to hand in the keys.

bbam

I agree that rising prices will pressure a more vigerous look at wind and other alternative energies. The NIMBY crowd have a sin to answer for that there wasn't huge investment in this area during the boom.
However for those of us born and living in rural Ireland high fuel prices will be very destructive. This isn't a lifestyle choice, it's our life!
The rising price of fuel for many is making travel to work less and less attractive. There is no work local to where I grew up, only closures of existing business. Travelling 80/100 km a day to work is not unusual but is becoming a non runner for many.
I've seen FIS mentioned, does this take account of travel costs to work?

High fuel costs will signal the death of many rural communities

Dannyboy83

This is an examination of the collapse of the Soviet Union and comparing it to a potential collapse of the US.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23259

Slide [10] Soviet public transportation was more or less all there was, but there was plenty of it. There were also a few private cars, but so few that gasoline rationing and shortages were mostly inconsequential. All of this public infrastructure was designed to be almost infinitely maintainable, and continued to run even as the rest of the economy collapsed.

The population of the United States is almost entirely car-dependent, and relies on markets that control oil import, refining, and distribution. They also rely on continuous public investment in road construction and repair. The cars themselves require a steady stream of imported parts, and are not designed to last very long. When these intricately interconnected systems stop functioning, much of the population will find itself stranded.

Ireland with the exception of parts of Dublin is entirely car dependent so I imagine we will be earlier adopters of next generation technology given the necessity.

maninasia

I recall that a huge part of fuel cost in Ireland is tax, carbon and VAT.
So failed government policies are largely to blame.

There will be no miraculous next generation public transport system in Ireland when the existing one has not been properly upgraded in 100 years.

There are alternatives to oil and diesel dependent cars, but again it depends on govt policy

- petrol scooters
- LPG cars
- electric cars
- electric bikes
- electric scooters
- privately run buses

I foresee small electric cars becoming incredibly popular within 5 to 10 years. It costs less than a euro to 'fill the tank'. This is a no brainer.


The other massive change will be in teleworking, this is the decade that teleworking will finally take off due to cost, cultural acceptance and technological advancements.

The_Honeybadger

maninasia wrote: »

I recall that a huge part of fuel cost in Ireland is tax, carbon and VAT.
So failed government policies are largely to blame.

There will be no miraculous next generation public transport system in Ireland when the existing one has not been properly upgraded in 100 years.

There are alternatives to oil and diesel dependent cars, but again it depends on govt policy

- petrol scooters
- LPG cars
- electric cars
- electric bikes
- electric scooters
- privately run buses

I foresee small electric cars becoming incredibly popular within 5 to 10 years. It costs less than a euro to 'fill the tank'. This is a no brainer.


The other massive change will be in teleworking, this is the decade that teleworking will finally take off due to cost, cultural acceptance and technological advancements.

Agree with this, electric cars with petrol or biodiesel range extenders are the future, all charged up at night by the wind. Will take a decade or two to get there but the technology already exists and with the right policies it can be done. Of course if we weren't broke it would help immensely .
Also expect to see the public sector enter into ESCO (see below) contracts to retrofit govt buildings with insulation and biomass heating etc, with the private sector following. The west simply has to break its dependence on fossil fuels, and none are more dependent than Ireland, despite having some of the best renewable resources in Europe.

A newer breed of ESCO evolving in the UK now focusses more on innovative financing methods. These include off-balance sheet vehicles which own a range of applicable equipment configured in such a way as to reduce the holistic energy cost of a building. The building occupants, or landlord, then benefit from the energy savings and pay a fee to the ESCO SPV in return. At all times, the benefit (saving) is guaranteed to exceed the fee. In all instances, The ESCO starts by performing an in-depth analysis of the property, sometimes at risk, designs an energy efficient solution, installs the required elements, and maintains the system to ensure energy savings during the payback period.[1] The savings in energy costs are often used to pay back the capital investment of the project over a five- to twenty-year period, or reinvested into the building to allow for capital upgrades that may otherwise be unfeasible. If the project does not provide returns on the investment, the ESCO is often responsible to pay the difference

mrsdewinter

bbam wrote: »

However for those of us born and living in rural Ireland high fuel prices will be very destructive. This isn't a lifestyle choice, it's our life!
The rising price of fuel for many is making travel to work less and less attractive. There is no work local to where I grew up, only closures of existing business. Travelling 80/100 km a day to work is not unusual but is becoming a non runner for many.
I've seen FIS mentioned, does this take account of travel costs to work?

High fuel costs will signal the death of many rural communities

This.
I live in Dublin but members of my family live in rural Ireland and I simply don't see how families can continue to run 2 cars.
There's already anecdotal evidence of quieter roads - fewer people hopping in the car to visit friends or relatives during the day - and I've heard of at least one instance of a determinedly middle-class family simply ditching the second car because fuel, tax, NCT, etc. are making life too expensive.

Brussels Sprout

This video of a lecture given by an unassuming old man has got a ridiculous title and the quality is pretty bad but it ties in well to this topic. It's about population growth but a huge part of it is about energy depletion. It's over an hour long but it's absolutely worth setting aside some time for. You'll never look at percentages the same again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

Edit: if you only have time to watch 20 minutes then fast forward to 49:00, where he talks specifically about oil

Dirk Gently

RichardAnd wrote: »

what do you think will happen here as fuel costs continue to rise?

My wages will continue to fall as the company fuel bill increases.

WillieFlynn

Another problem with rising fuel costs, is fuel poverty.

People who cannot afford to heat there homes, the obvious ones people will think of such as unemployed, old. But it also effects students, both when I was a student and later worked in a university, it was not uncommon to meet students who would go to the library or other university building just to get warm.

Joe1919

Food prices at present are still relatively low.
I would be concerned that rising fuel prices will rise food costs. Fuel is necessary for food production, transportation, fertilizer manufacture etc. & also increased fuel prices may change land usage to biofuels, thereby reducing food output.

Even a mild food shortage could drive up prices considerably.

RichardAnd

WillieFlynn wrote: »

Another problem with rising fuel costs, is fuel poverty.

People who cannot afford to heat there homes, the obvious ones people will think of such as unemployed, old. But it also effects students, both when I was a student and later worked in a university, it was not uncommon to meet students who would go to the library or other university building just to get warm.

I've heard that before. In the early 90s when I was about 7, my aunt (was was in college at the time) related a story like to to us over a family meal. I don't recall too much of what I thought but it was what my grandmother said that stuck with me. With a wistful smile, the old woman gave us these words of wisdom: "Ara, sure they're young!"

I love the Irish attitudes towards the young.

_Kaiser_

maninasia wrote: »

I foresee small electric cars becoming incredibly popular within 5 to 10 years. It costs less than a euro to 'fill the tank'. This is a no brainer.

Do you really think that the price and taxes on it won't shoot up if your theory is right? You only have to look at the current talk around increasing the CO2 tax bands because everyone went and bought "low emission" BMW 520Ds. Rest assured if these cars take off in any serious way, "fuel" will cost well over €1 per unit as well.

Leaving aside the current impracticality of these cars for anyone who does more than a shop/school run (although that will change as the technology evolves, granted) and the cost involved in installing fast-charge points everywhere (which if I recall a thread from Motors, the Nissan Leaf isn't even compatible with anyway?), not everyone WANTS to drive tiny, bland little boxes on wheels anyway.

(goes out to pat his big "polluting" 2L TDI Passat)

maninasia

I am well aware of the tax component cost of fuel, but if they want to increase electricity cost again there will be a lot of resistance. Yes they may add tax to other components but electricity can be generated and sourced in many ways.


Also, just ask yourself if you could have predicted smartphones suddenly becoming so ubiquitous and powerful in the space of 3 years?
There's a technological and infrastructure nexus being built now and with favorable economics electric cars are a certainty, sooner rather than later. All batteries need to do is to double storage capacity and you can get 300 miles out of them in a single charge.

Most cars are used for short daily commuting trips, I envisage one run around electric and one petrol/diesel will be common. The idea that it will be one or the other is from people who are not thinking about how it will work with families and couples. Ultimately the extra diesel/petrol car will be abandoned as electric range improves. If I had an electric car for my daily run arounds or 1 hour trips that would cover me for 90% of my travel.

maninasia

Joe1919 wrote: »

Food prices at present are still relatively low.
I would be concerned that rising fuel prices will rise food costs. Fuel is necessary for food production, transportation, fertilizer manufacture etc. & also increased fuel prices may change land usage to biofuels, thereby reducing food output.

Even a mild food shortage could drive up prices considerably.

This is true, however it can be ameliorated by cheaper natural gas, oil is not the only option. The economics of gas vs oil is going to become an important influence.

_Kaiser_

maninasia wrote: »

I am well aware of the tax component cost of fuel, but if they want to increase electricity cost again there will be a lot of resistance.

And since when does Irish "resistance" to increased taxation work? You could use the new Household Tax as an example I suppose, but over half (and rising) DID pay it and the rest no doubt will as the penalties and scare tactics (linking it to the dangled offer of an exemption for people who paid high stamp duty in the boom for example.. IF we pass the Austerity Treaty of course!) force them into line.

Personally I disagree completely with the Household Tax but that's because our government is still as wasteful as ever while telling the rest of us to tighten our belts... and as for the above "carrot" - why should I (who didn't go mad in the "good times") pay for someone else's decision to "get on the property ladder" regardless of cost, ability to repay or consequence.... but that's another thread!

Also, just ask yourself if you could have predicted smartphones suddenly becoming so ubiquitous and powerful in the space of 3 years?

Well personally I'm not at all surprised as I work in IT and have seen technology change dramatically in the last 30 years, plus we as a country have one of the highest levels of mobile ownership so put the two together and it was inevitable.

There's a technological and infrastructure nexus being built now

In Ireland? Where broadband is still unavailable in a large part of the country, never mind "high speed" broadband.. and 3G dongles don't count as broadband incidentally

and with favorable economics electric cars are a certainty, sooner rather than later.

That's the key.. in a country up to its eyeballs in debt and officially back in recession, where people are struggling to pay their utility bills, I think this is a ways off yet myself.

All batteries need to do is to double storage capacity and you can get 300 miles out of them in a single charge.

Not everyone can afford to splash out on a new car, certainly not now given that most of these new cars were historically bought on credit which of course is no longer available - but we've seen what happens then already with the Co2 system.. those who can't afford to "upgrade" get penalised twice: first with the cost to change as their pre-08 but still perfectly fine car drops like a stone in value cause it doesn't have the "cheap tax", then again with stupidly high rates (like over €600 a year for a pre-08 2L)

Most cars are used for short daily commuting trips, I envisage one run around electric and one petrol/diesel will be common.

Maybe these people should get buses or the LUAS or walk? Oh wait that's just in Dublin - I forgot about most of the country where cars and long commutes to work are a way of life

Ultimately the extra diesel/petrol car will be abandoned as electric range improves. If I had an electric car for my daily run arounds or 1 hour trips that would cover me for 90% of my travel.

But that's you... as I say there's a substantial amount of others who do a lot more driving than that. Incidentally where does the electricity come from that is charging these cars? Or even building them? Or transporting them to dealerships? That's right.. fossil-fuel powered plants/trucks which use far more diesel and oil than cars ever will.

Electricity isn't the way.. hydrogen maybe

oppenheimer1

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Do you really think that the price and taxes on it won't shoot up if your theory is right? You only have to look at the current talk around increasing the CO2 tax bands because everyone went and bought "low emission" BMW 520Ds. Rest assured if these cars take off in any serious way, "fuel" will cost well over €1 per unit as well.

Leaving aside the current impracticality of these cars for anyone who does more than a shop/school run (although that will change as the technology evolves, granted) and the cost involved in installing fast-charge points everywhere (which if I recall a thread from Motors, the Nissan Leaf isn't even compatible with anyway?), not everyone WANTS to drive tiny, bland little boxes on wheels anyway.

(goes out to pat his big "polluting" 2L TDI Passat)

Not everyone wants to drive bland little boxes but economic necessity often forces people to adopt changes they don't really like.

Rising fuel costs will have some short term impacts and a number of medium to long term impacts.

In the short term there will be a stabalisation in the amount of money people spend on fuel. With rising price this equates to a reduction in use. This can be achieved with higher efficiencies but most likely with people not driving as much and opting to telecommute where possible.

In the medium term it will see a diversification of the fuel supply for the national fleet. With improvements in electric car and battery technology I expect to see a major adoption in electric vehicles in cities. The elecrtic car for the short commute will be common in a few years. We will also have road pricing as it won't be feasible to tax "motor electricity". There will be a renaissance in public transport use also. Cheap air travel will however be a thing of the past.

It will also hasten the demise of rural communities and destroy the non agricultural sector in those areas, while agriculture has the potential to boom. The question is can this provide enough employment ro replace the other industry? How this is managed by the political class will shape the future of the nation. Expect to see rural fuel protests soon (within a few years) imo.

In the long term, pragmatism will also win over and nuclear will become an option for Ireland and will become part of a wider fuel mix of nuclear, renewables and fossil fuel.

Ireland has the cohesion and the necessary natural resources to cope with a fuel shock. Other countries do not, and this may lead to some nasty conflicts. We produce enough food to feed this country many times over and we have considerable renewable energy resources. Ireland, compared to other countries (such as the UK and much of continental europe) is actually well placed to take advantage of the end of the fossil fuel era.

We just have to grasp the opportunity. My 2c anyway

oppenheimer1

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Electricity isn't the way.. hydrogen maybe

You've actually exposed your own ignorance there. Hydrogen is just an energy storage mechanism as there are no hydrogen reserves in the earth. Hydrogen is produced by the electrolysis of water (which is energy intensive) or the decomposition of methane. As you can see both of these require fossil fuels as the primary energy source. Hydrogen is just an intermediary.

The argument for using electricity is that it is easier to produce it efficiently and many base load electricity stations operate at efficiencies of 60% while cars have efficiencies of no better than 25% typically. If we can increase the electricity base load we can potentially half our fossil fuel use - just through the use of a more efficient existing technology.

thebman

maninasia wrote: »

All batteries need to do is to double storage capacity and you can get 300 miles out of them in a single charge.

Oh right, p*** easy to achieve that, don't know how they haven't done it already, got 3 in my garage ....

Most cars are used for short daily commuting trips, I envisage one run around electric and one petrol/diesel will be common. The idea that it will be one or the other is from people who are not thinking about how it will work with families and couples. Ultimately the extra diesel/petrol car will be abandoned as electric range improves. If I had an electric car for my daily run arounds or 1 hour trips that would cover me for 90% of my travel.

Well that is an ever bigger negative impact on the environment to have 2 cars, one electric and another internal combustion.

Electric cars need to last about a week, most people don't want to refill/recharge every day. They are reluctant enough to do it with their phones, cars are essential to have running every day in this country for most people.

Jaysus, some of you lads don't even know you're born.

In the mid-1970s, when the average weekly industrial wage was the equivalent of about €60, and a pint cost the equivalent of 45 cents, a litre of petrol set you back about 90 cents. :eek:

The average weekly industrial wage now is something like €600 (that's 10 times as much), and the average pint is what, about €4.50 (also 10 times as much). Meanwhile petrol is about €1.65 (not even twice as much). So for things to be as bad for drivers as it was back in the 1970s, you'll have to wait until the price of a litre hits nine euro. :eek::eek:

maninasia

thebman;78024498]Oh right, p*** easy to achieve that, don't know how they haven't done it already, got 3 in my garage ....

Well that's the whole point, it hasn't happened yet but is probably going to happen in the next few years. Don't believe me, just see the steady progress in lithium-ion battery storage for electronic devices. There are multiple new avenues being explored for battery improvements, anyone could result in doubling of storage capacity.

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/25-battery-breakthroughs-for-gadgets-electric-cars-the-grid/
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-27/classified/sc-cons-0322-autotips-20120327_1_lithium-ion-electric-vehicle-batteries-nissan-leaf
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/03/15/prweb9280084.DTL

Well that is an ever bigger negative impact on the environment to have 2 cars, one electric and another internal combustion.

Electric cars need to last about a week, most people don't want to refill/recharge every day. They are reluctant enough to do it with their phones, cars are essential to have running every day in this country for most people.

What argument are you trying to make, what's this got to do with the environment, this is about saving money. Your statement that electric cars need to last a week is utter rubbish (I think you mean charge here but you are not very coherent in your statements).

I recommend you bring your brand of Ricky Gervais humour someplace else.

maninasia

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You've actually exposed your own ignorance there. Hydrogen is just an energy storage mechanism as there are no hydrogen reserves in the earth. Hydrogen is produced by the electrolysis of water (which is energy intensive) or the decomposition of methane. As you can see both of these require fossil fuels as the primary energy source. Hydrogen is just an intermediary.

The argument for using electricity is that it is easier to produce it efficiently and many base load electricity stations operate at efficiencies of 60% while cars have efficiencies of no better than 25% typically. If we can increase the electricity base load we can potentially half our fossil fuel use - just through the use of a more efficient existing technology.

Hydrogen? Hydrogen needs to be produced by electrolysis of water or further refinement of natural gas, all of them require a heap of energy. It's not efficient.

The electrical infrastructure is pretty much ready to go to support electric cars once battery technology improves which it is doing steadily. A couple of breakthroughs and it will come in very quickly. Who has a problem to charge their car overnight if it's going to save them a bunch of cash..answer...almost nobody. It's difficult to plug in a car? Not really.

The reason I mentioned smartphones was that they suddenly went from being the next big thing predicted for many years...and nobody had one...to actually being the next big thing and pretty much everybody had one.

So it's a good example in my book.

As for raising electricity prices, there is a limit to how much they can be raised without completely dragging down the economy. If they lose money on fuel tax they will probably slap it on something else though.

D1stant

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

This video of a lecture given by an unassuming old man has got a ridiculous title and the quality is pretty bad but it ties in well to this topic. It's about population growth but a huge part of it is about energy depletion. It's over an hour long but it's absolutely worth setting aside some time for. You'll never look at percentages the same again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

Edit: if you only have time to watch 20 minutes then fast forward to 49:00, where he talks specifically about oil

Thats pretty excellent common sense. He has done this speech on average once every 8 days for the last 40 years. Al Gore my arse

thebman

maninasia wrote: »

Well that's the whole point, it hasn't happened yet but is probably going to happen in the next few years. Don't believe me, just see the steady progress in lithium-ion battery storage for electronic devices. There are multiple new avenues being explored for battery improvements, anyone could result in doubling of storage capacity.

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/25-battery-breakthroughs-for-gadgets-electric-cars-the-grid/
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-27/classified/sc-cons-0322-autotips-20120327_1_lithium-ion-electric-vehicle-batteries-nissan-leaf
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/03/15/prweb9280084.DTL


What argument are you trying to make, what's this got to do with the environment, this is about saving money. Your statement that electric cars need to last a week is utter rubbish (I think you mean charge here but you are not very coherent in your statements).

I recommend you bring your brand of Ricky Gervais humour someplace else.

If it appears Ricky Gervais like, it is probably because your posts don't read very serious to me. You appear to be ignoring all obstacles assuming they will work themselves out somehow when someone else does all the work.

It isn't very realistic. Battery technologies have been researched for years without any major breakthroughs that made them good enough for cars and there is little reason to assume it will happen in the next few years just because we want them more now.

The thread is about the consequences of rising fuel costs. If your going to use batteries, we have to acknowledge the environmental cost of using them and the consequences of those decisions.

The_Honeybadger

thebman wrote: »

If it appears Ricky Gervais like, it is probably because your posts don't read very serious to me. You appear to be ignoring all obstacles assuming they will work themselves out somehow when someone else does all the work.

It isn't very realistic. Battery technologies have been researched for years without any major breakthroughs that made them good enough for cars and there is little reason to assume it will happen in the next few years just because we want them more now.

The thread is about the consequences of rising fuel costs. If your going to use batteries, we have to acknowledge the environmental cost of using them and the consequences of those decisions.

Car manufacturers are working on range extenders, which would involve a small petrol motor installed alongside the electric one, once the electric battery runs down the petrol motor kicks in to recharge the battery, which will extend the range significantly. If you don't drive far enough to run the battery down then you never use the petrol, however the extra capacity is there for long runs. This will be a stop gap until the technology can be perfected. Electric motors will become very popular IMO and the continuing development of the technology will bring more improvements. Of course the initial investment will put the electric motor out of reach for many for some time but this will change gradually.

shedweller

mickeyk wrote: »

Car manufacturers are working on range extenders

That'll be the opel ampera.

ardmacha

In the mid-1970s, when the average weekly industrial wage was the equivalent of about €60, and a pint cost the equivalent of 45 cents, a litre of petrol set you back about 90 cents.

:mad:This is nonsense. A gallon of petrol was about 70-75p in the mid seventies, more or less 90c. But that is 20c/litre!

The average weekly industrial wage now is something like €600 (that's 10 times as much), and the average pint is what, about €4.50 (also 10 times as much). Meanwhile petrol is about €1.65 (not even twice as much).

Your point is a useful one that the real price in the mid 70s wasn't so different, but your calculations are way out, which should have been perfectly obvious as the contention that petrol hadn't doubled in price was rather odd as it has pretty much doubled in the last 5 years!

ardmacha

ardmacha wrote: »

:mad:This is nonsense. A gallon of petrol was about 70-75p in the mid seventies, more or less 90c. But that is 20c/litre!



Your point is a useful one that the real price in the mid 70s wasn't so different, but your calculations are way out, which should have been perfectly obvious as the contention that petrol hadn't doubled in price was rather odd as it has pretty much doubled in the last 5 years!

Oops, you're quite right, sorry about that.

I was looking at the transcript of an old Dáil debate, and misread the figures. :eek:

In that case, we're not that far short of the post-1973 oil crisis price in relative terms - maybe about 20-25% below.

At that time, the comparison prices given for several countries were (per gallon just so I don't repeat the inaccuracy):

Ireland 71.7p
UK 72.5p
Germany 74p
Holland 76p
France 81p
Italy 90p

Currently, according to the source below, the equivalent figures (for regular unleaded per litre) are:

Ireland €1.70
UK €1.72
Germany €1.71
Holland €1.88
France €1.79
Italy €1.90

http://www.fuel-prices-europe.info/

So I s'pose Ireland is still at the cheap end of that group of countries, and still the cheapest of the "old" EU member states (except for Austria). Given that the international price is going to have the same effect everywhere (except for the occasional currency variation outside the eurozone), presumably Irish prices are at the lower end either because we have lower fuel taxes or the sellers take lower profits. It may be a combination of both. Irish fuel taxes make up a hefty chunk of fuel prices, but they are still lower than in a lot of other EU countries. Meanwhile a report a few years ago by the National Consumer Agency showed that fuel retailing in Ireland is very much a high-volume low-margin business.

http://corporate.nca.ie/eng/Research_Zone/Reports/NCA_petrol_and_diesel_price_investigation.doc

The point I was making (albeit in a somewhat smart-alec way) was that these debates aren't new. We talked like this in the 1975 and 1979 because fuel prices were high, and then we did the same during the 1980s because our incomes were so low. Since the late 1980s, we had a run of almost 20 years where we had a combination of an economic boom and low fuel prices. We've left those behind us now - so we're now back to talking about this stuff the way we did back then.

Of course, what seems a little different about this debate is that we're assuming that this time we're entering a new paradigm - an "energy shift", if you like. Maybe we are - there's been enough written about Peak Oil to suggest that this is the case. But bear in mind that we all thought exactly the same in the 1970s. In 1972, there was a hugely influential prediction that the world's oil reserves would run out sometime between 1992 and 2003 (Google "The limits to growth" for that one). Current estimates vary, but according to the CIA World Factbook proven reserves represent about 43-44 years of supply at present consumption rates.

Anyway, the tl;dr version says sorry for the booboo (not intentional), but the debate isn't a new one.

maninasia

mickeyk wrote: »

Car manufacturers are working on range extenders, which would involve a small petrol motor installed alongside the electric one, once the electric battery runs down the petrol motor kicks in to recharge the battery, which will extend the range significantly. If you don't drive far enough to run the battery down then you never use the petrol, however the extra capacity is there for long runs. This will be a stop gap until the technology can be perfected. Electric motors will become very popular IMO and the continuing development of the technology will bring more improvements. Of course the initial investment will put the electric motor out of reach for many for some time but this will change gradually.

I agree with almost everything you wrote here, except for the part in bold. When change comes it's going to be very fast. Just like smartphones.

Electric cars will be better for the local environment, the reduction in air pollution is going to have a very positive effect on health. This must of course be balanced with relatively clean source of power (think natural gas, not coal) or locating the polluting coal plant far from urban centre. Sorry people of Clare.
The batteries themselves can be recycled, this may be up to the car manufacturer if they are going with a rental model.

Sesshoumaru

If you go to www.nissan.ie you will see the Nissan Leaf has already had a price drop of 5k. New starting price is 25,595. I see others have already posted links to the confirmed breakthrough from Envia in regards to battery technology. They are just one of many companies and countries pouring new money into battery research.

I think a tipping point is fast approaching in regards to fuel prices and EV take up. A lot of people I've spoken to are really interested, but just a little unsure about battery technology. Once fuel prices go a little higher and EV technology becomes more accepted, I think EV's will start selling in greater numbers.

maninasia

maninasia wrote: »

Electric cars will be better for the local environment, the reduction in air pollution is going to have a very positive effect on health. This must of course be balanced with relatively clean source of power (think natural gas, not coal) or locating the polluting coal plant far from urban centre.

Realistically, though, is it not the case that for electric vehicles to benefit the global environment, the electricity used to power them will ultimately have to come from entirely renewable sources?

maninasia

To benefit the global environment we shouldn't drive cars at all, but we do and we are here already. Powering everything by renewables is not possible but renewables combined with electric cars are a really good combination.

The_Honeybadger

maninasia wrote: »

I agree with almost everything you wrote here, except for the part in bold. When change comes it's going to be very fast. Just like smartphones.

Electric cars will be better for the local environment, the reduction in air pollution is going to have a very positive effect on health. This must of course be balanced with relatively clean source of power (think natural gas, not coal) or locating the polluting coal plant far from urban centre. Sorry people of Clare.
The batteries themselves can be recycled, this may be up to the car manufacturer if they are going with a rental model.

Gotta disagree, average Joe may be able to splash out on a smartphone which he gets for free once he signs up to 3 or Vodafone or whoever, but dropping € 25k + on a new motor is an entirely different matter. Average Joe will still have to buy a second hand petrol or diesel model until we have enough electric vehicles available second hand for it to be an option for him. That will take a decade or more. It will take a long time before we see electric cars as being the "norm", although I agree we will see lots and lots of them on our roads in the coming years. It makes sense, the big power generating stactions can't be shut down at the flick of a switch so much of the wind capacity at night is currently dumped because of lack of demand, 100,000 or so electric cars all chartging up at night using this spare capacity would be great and it's an import substitute so win win for everybody. I believe we should be encouraging the use of electric as much as possible. I know they have their limitations but for the average motorist doing less than 100km per day they would be a fantastic option for them and the environment.

Joe 90

Deleted User wrote: »

Jaysus, some of you lads don't even know you're born.

In the mid-1970s, when the average weekly industrial wage was the equivalent of about €60, and a pint cost the equivalent of 45 cents, a litre of petrol set you back about 90 cents. :eek:

The average weekly industrial wage now is something like €600 (that's 10 times as much), and the average pint is what, about €4.50 (also 10 times as much). Meanwhile petrol is about €1.65 (not even twice as much). So for things to be as bad for drivers as it was back in the 1970s, you'll have to wait until the price of a litre hits nine euro. :eek::eek:

I think that might have been a gallon of petrol for the equivalent of 90 cents or so back in the 70s.:)

Joe 90

Joe 90 wrote: »

I think that might have been a gallon of petrol for the equivalent of 90 cents or so back in the 70s.:)

It was indeed. Have a look about 5 or 6 posts back.

johncdub

Hi Guys

I'm currently on a disability payment which has been reduced to E80 per week. The fuel allowance has just ended.

I have no other income, and I'm unable to pay bills. Having had Cancer 2 years ago, I seem to be extremely sensitive to the cold. I've contacted the SV de P. First time in my life. I need to heat my house, as I've been without heat for 2 months. I'm freezing. I've asked for assistance, and I've told them I'll pay them back when back on my feet.

I wondered if anyone else has ever received assistance from SVP? I'm mortified asking for help, but I have no choice. Do they visit your home, ask for proof of bills, bank account?

PM me if you wish.

Thanks