When will oil run out and how will this affect transport infrastructure?

Wild Bill · 04-08-2011 9:12pm

monument wrote: »

I said it was being picked used as an alternative, you can own a car and also use a bicycle (a huge amount of cyclists are also motorists -- ask on the cycling board if you want). Where is it being picked as an alternative? Dublin, London, and many other cities -- cycling is seen an upsurge.

Economic, health, and the cost for users.

So it isn't "winning" anything then? The benefits you claim obviously aren't regarded as such by the people who chose cars.

The world population is nearly reaching 7 billion but nearly all estimates with a quick google shows that there are only something over 600m cars.

That's less than 1/7 of the population of the planet.

Talk about dodging the issue! Have you googled the rate of increase in car ownership?
In Beijing, everyone rode a bike till they could afford a car. Bit like Ireland and everywhere else really!

Cities in places like China and Russia have already encountered large-scale congestion and pollution. Even with massive road networks they have no room for extra motorists.

Russia doesn't have "massive road networks" and China is only building them. And they are both increasing both car ownership and road building exponentially. As is the case in India, Africa, South America, Arabia and nearly everywhere else.

Look it up. :cool:

Your solution is that the market will provide some yet unknown magic solution of an alternative fuel. Wow! Seriously, are you for real?!

That's about as safe as betting on Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

My solution? Unlike you, I don't see a problem, bar the need to develop more ways of keeping all those cars on the road in ever greater numbers!

You have some pseudo-religious belief that cars are bad. I'm a rationalist.

Judgement Day · 04-08-2011 9:47pm

Sadly those places that you quote (Russia, China and India) are indeed like Ireland - they have emerged from the 1930s into the 21st century but missed the 1950s on the way. The era of when the motor car was king are over but nobody has told them. Of course, like Ireland, they want the perceived affluence of the West but this is typical of the populist, short term outlook of politicians worldwide and look where it has got us.

monument · 05-08-2011 12:06am

Wild Bill wrote: »

So it isn't "winning" anything then?

It is winning as an alternative to car use (note again: car use, not car ownership).

Wild Bill wrote: »

The benefits you claim obviously aren't regarded as such by the people who chose cars.

If you want to dispute the benefits I "claim", go ahead. You using the word 'claim' won't change the facts that such benefits are real.

Wild Bill wrote: »

Talk about dodging the issue! Have you googled the rate of increase in car ownership?
In Beijing, everyone rode a bike till they could afford a car. Bit like Ireland and everywhere else really!

You're the one who is dodging the issue --

You claimed that "most of humanity" have chosen cars, but this is imposable given that the amount of cars is a good deal less than 1/7 of the current global population. Furthermore, in many developed countries the link between car usage and car ownership is not like it is in Ireland and developing countries -- for example, people with cars in many countries in Europe use public transport or cycle to work even when they own a car (thus car ownership is higher than car usage).

As for Beijing -- as I said congestion is already reached epic levels. Restrictions had to be put in place on sales and out of town cars are banned in rush hours, and car sales have stalled,see here. Beijing is generally an out of control mess, it's bursting at the seams -- see here.

Wild Bill wrote: »

Russia doesn't have "massive road networks" and China is only building them. And they are both increasing both car ownership and road building exponentially. As is the case in India, Africa, South America, Arabia and nearly everywhere else.

Look it up. :cool:

Sorry, I phrased it badly -- I should have said massive multi-laned roads which makes most roads in western European cities to look tiny -- as in Moscow and in Beijing.

I'm really not sure what you're so happy about here too -- continued exponentially increasing car usage is going to lead to oil shocks sooner rather than later. That does not really go well with your idea of keeping cars on the road.

Wild Bill wrote: »

My solution? Unlike you, I don't see a problem, bar the need to develop more ways of keeping all those cars on the road in ever greater numbers!

You have some pseudo-religious belief that cars are bad. I'm a rationalist.

You're concerned with keeping cars on the road, and I'm concerned with moving people more efficiently and in heather ways... and you're trying to claim that you're the rationalist and I'm pseudo-religious.

:rolleyes:

When you're asked for a solution to oil prices getting out of control your answer is about the same as writing to Santa Claus and asking him can he please magically keep cars on the road for the sake of cars. And you're the rationalist? :rolleyes:

Wild Bill · 06-08-2011 12:06am

I think this debate is at an end. Your forecasts are purely assertion based. Not a single coherent argument to support your semi-religious beliefs.

I'm not going to clutter the thread with endless repetition. If you make any more daft comments I reserve the right to reply. :cool:

monument · 06-08-2011 12:42am

Wild Bill wrote: »

I think this debate is at an end. Your forecasts are purely assertion based. Not a single coherent argument to support your semi-religious beliefs.

I'm not going to clutter the thread with endless repetition. If you make any more daft comments I reserve the right to reply. :cool:

Which of my "forecasts" are "assertion based"?

But I'm glad that you now accept you were wrong on a number of points.

Wild Bill · 06-08-2011 9:57pm

monument wrote: »

Which of my "forecasts" are "assertion based"?

But I'm glad that you now accept you were wrong on a number of points.

No I absolutely do not. If you want to childishly have the "last word"; feel free.
Zzzzzz............

monument · 06-08-2011 11:48pm

Again: Which of my "forecasts" are "assertion based"?

lucernarian · 07-08-2011 10:09pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

No I absolutely do not. If you want to childishly have the "last word"; feel free.
Zzzzzz............

I haven't added much to this thread but I'm going to say this: that was a very immature response. It doesn't augur well when your other comments include talking about "semi-religious beliefs" with someone who simply disagrees with you.

hi5 · 08-08-2011 10:34am

Electric cars will still need roads to run on.
Do people not like electric cars either?
If the electricity for electric cars is created by wind and wave and other alternatives then wheres the problem?
Whats wrong with the concept of personal transportation if its clean energy?
BTW, most of the trains in Ireland currently run on diesel(yes I know they can be converted to electricity as can cars).

dubhthach · 08-08-2011 11:59am

hi5 wrote: »

Electric cars will still need roads to run on.
Do people not like electric cars either?
If the electricity for electric cars is created by wind and wave and other alternatives then wheres the problem?
Whats wrong with the concept of personal transportation if its clean energy?
BTW, most of the trains in Ireland currently run on diesel(yes I know they can be converted to electricity as can cars).

Doesn't help that most of Electricity in this country is generated from Fossil Fuels given our lack of Nuclear

ei.sdraob · 08-08-2011 12:43pm

From an economics point of view I dare to point out that the price of fuels is very artificial with at least 2/3rds being taxes and taxes on top of taxes one just needs to travel around to see how much cheaper fuels are when not so much tax is levied. Also demand fuels innovation (necessity is mother of creation) as can be seen from a wide range of startups, stone age didnt end because they ran out of stones and all that.

From an engineering and science point of view we live in a word full of energy, we already have technologies to convert from one type to another (example gas to liquids or coal to liquids), and who knows with ITER under construction it might just hit its target of commercially viable fusion by 2030. Failing that we already have nuclear technologies to use and reuse same fuels for thousands of years. And then there are new extraction technologies such as shale gas which overnight made the likes of US worlds largest gas reserves.

To summarize, to stop infrastructure spending and construction due to some Luddite wet dream is madness, imagine if the British stopped building trains and railroads out of fear of running out of coal (and that fear was there then) instead the economy continued to grow as other fuels and modes of transport became popular and the standard of living raised for everyone since industrial revolution.

hi5 · 08-08-2011 1:00pm

dubhthach wrote: »

Doesn't help that most of Electricity in this country is generated from Fossil Fuels given our lack of Nuclear

Relate back to the original post.
When oil runs out or is too expensive to use should we abandon roads and concentrate on railways?
We know the way things 'are' we need to start looking at the future.

monument · 08-08-2011 1:03pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

From an economics point of view I dare to point out that the price of fuels is very artificial with at least 2/3rds being taxes and taxes on top of taxes one just needs to travel around to see how much cheaper fuels are when not so much tax is levied.

I'd dare you to tell us how roads will be built and repaired at increased levels of use without that tax going to the exchequer?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Also demand fuels innovation (necessity is mother of creation) as can be seen from a wide range of startups, stone age didnt end because they ran out of stones and all that.

From an engineering and science point of view we live in a word full of energy, we already have technologies to convert from one type to another (example gas to liquids or coal to liquids), and who knows with ITER under construction it might just hit its target of commercially viable fusion by 2030. Failing that we already have nuclear technologies to use and reuse same fuels for thousands of years. And then there are new extraction technologies such as shale gas which overnight made the likes of US worlds largest gas reserves.

Might, possible, etc -- I like the idea of cold fusion myself, but I would not bet on it.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

To summarize, to stop infrastructure spending and construction due to some Luddite wet dream is madness, imagine if the British stopped building trains and railroads out of fear of running out of coal (and that fear was there then)

Who said anything about stopping infrastructure spending and construction?

I think the general idea is to change direction and that's already happening to some level.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

instead the economy continued to grow as other fuels and modes of transport became popular and the standard of living raised for everyone since industrial revolution.

On other forms of transport -- Indeed, and these can include public transport and the bicycle.

monument · 08-08-2011 1:18pm

hi5 wrote: »

Electric cars will still need roads to run on.
Do people not like electric cars either?
If the electricity for electric cars is created by wind and wave and other alternatives then wheres the problem?
Whats wrong with the concept of personal transportation if its clean energy?

We're still stuck with growing congestion, for starters.

There's a few problems with the cars too -- there's the batteries for electric cars and the lack of large amounts of raw resources for these, the dirty production of them. And at the end of the day is it the best way to be using energy?

Look at it the other way -- For example, there's huge economic, user cost and heath benefits to cycling.

hi5 wrote: »

BTW, most of the trains in Ireland currently run on diesel(yes I know they can be converted to electricity as can cars).

A train running on diesel is more efficient than a car on the same.

CerebralCortex · 08-08-2011 4:20pm

monument wrote: »

Look at it the other way -- For example, there's huge economic, user cost and heath benefits to cycling.

Ya but try getting from Shannon to Limerick for work on a bike. Fùck that shìt!

monument · 08-08-2011 5:14pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ya but try getting from Shannon to Limerick for work on a bike. Fùck that shìt!

I'm not saying cycling is suitable for all journeys for everybody, but it is suitable for a lot of people's journeys.

The 2006 census shows that that the average distances for travel were:

To work -- 15.8km
Students 5-12 years old -- 4km
Students 13-18 years old -- 7.6km
Students 19 and over -- 13km

Out of the total workforce of 1.8m (includes just under 400,000 who did not state a distance) a total of 908,121 said they travelled less than 14km -- distances which should be cyclable for most people. Of those 400,000 said they travelled between 1-4km -- an easy cycle.

CerebralCortex · 09-08-2011 2:12pm

monument wrote: »

I'm not saying cycling is suitable for all journeys for everybody, but it is suitable for a lot of people's journeys.

The 2006 census shows that that the average distances for travel were:

To work -- 15.8km
Students 5-12 years old -- 4km
Students 13-18 years old -- 7.6km
Students 19 and over -- 13km

Out of the total workforce of 1.8m (includes just under 400,000 who did not state a distance) a total of 908,121 said they travelled less than 14km -- distances which should be cyclable for most people. Of those 400,000 said they travelled between 1-4km -- an easy cycle.

Good post you should add links though for sources. So what do you propose again?

monument · 09-08-2011 2:57pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Good post you should add links though for sources. So what do you propose again?

http://census.cso.ie/census/ReportFolders/ReportFolders.aspx

Click 2006 and Volume 12, and the stats I posted were sourced from tables 05 and 26.

What should be done? For starters, speed up implementing the measures in the in the national cycle policy and the Dublin City Developmental Plan like high quality segregated cycle routes along the canals, Dublin bay and the quays.

Put in 30km/h as the standard in most residential areas where there are no cycle tracks (ie not when it's a main road). Block off rat runs.

Enforce min standards for cycle tracks on local authorities (for example: min 1.5m wide, no tracks on main roads yielding to side roads, no "shared use" or cycle tracks on the same level as footpaths along any main road or for any great distance along any road, no segregated lanes where the council will not clear them). The staged removal or upgrade of sub-standard tracks.

hi5 · 10-08-2011 12:04am

Heres another statistic ,the government makes nearly 5 billion a year from the motorist.
http://www.simi.ie/uploads/documents/news/SIMI%20Pre%20Budget%20Submission%202011.pdf (see page 12)
Much and all as I like the idea of cycle lanes and low emmission public transport,this will cost money and not make any.
Is there even a government plan to wind down its dependence on motoring tax income?There should be but I've never heard of any.
When electric transport comes in full time you can expect it to be taxed the same as fossil fuels and hence promoted before cycling and public transport:(

Fiskar · 10-08-2011 10:18am

hi5 wrote: »

Heres another statistic ,the government makes nearly 5 billion a year from the motorist.
http://www.simi.ie/uploads/documents/news/SIMI%20Pre%20Budget%20Submission%202011.pdf (see page 12)
Much and all as I like the idea of cycle lanes and low emmission public transport,this will cost money and not make any.
Is there even a government plan to wind down its dependence on motoring tax income?There should be but I've never heard of any.
When electric transport comes in full time you can expect it to be taxed the same as fossil fuels and hence promoted before cycling and public transport:(

There is a plan and it is already in motion

Road tax will be replaced by property tax (Annual tax)

Road tolls will be replaced by water charges (pay as you use)

And for those who have septic tanks, an annual certified inspection (tax)

Wild Bill · 10-08-2011 11:01am

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I haven't added much to this thread but I'm going to say this: that was a very immature response. It doesn't augur well when your other comments include talking about "semi-religious beliefs" with someone who simply disagrees with you.

The "debate" was going around in pointless circles; no new points being made. I wasn't going to keep repeating myself endlessly just because someone else was doing so. Get's boring.

As for "semi-religious" beliefs? Yes, many "green" "facts" are nothing more. There seems to be a belief that if you repeat nonsense and gobbledygook often enough it magically becomes reality.

The assertion that "end of peak oil" = "less private motoring" is taken to be a hard fact by many people who cannot support that belief; and who, when confronted with an alternative view seem to think repetition of the belief in some way makes it more plausible.

It doesn't. :cool:

monument · 10-08-2011 12:53pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

The "debate" was going around in pointless circles; no new points being made. I wasn't going to keep repeating myself endlessly just because someone else was doing so. Get's boring.

I wasn't "repeating myself". I responded to your posts and then you made no reply and then try to claim it was all nonsense without challenging any of my points directly.

For example:

You claimed my "forecasts are purely assertion based", I asked what exactly you were talking about. You did not respond.
You asked what were the benefits to the alternative I said was winning amount alternatives (cycling), I outlined those benefits. You did not respond.
You claimed "most of humanity" chose to drive, I pointed out that such is imposable given that the amount of cars is a good deal less than 1/7 of humanity. You did not respond.
I said the likes of China and Russia massive road networks, you said their networks were not developed much, and I pointed out that I should have said they have massive roads within cities (which they can't expand). You did not respond.
I also outlined how Beijing -- one of your examples -- has already reached epic levels of congestion and car sales growth has stalled and restrictions are in place on out of town cars at peek times. You did not respond.
I said that it's not clear what you're so happy about here too given that continued exponentially increasing car usage is going to lead to oil shocks sooner rather than later and harm your goal of keeping more cars on the road. You did not respond.

The thing which was really repeating was your lack of response to points and even to responses to your questions.

Wild Bill wrote: »

As for "semi-religious" beliefs? Yes, many "green" "facts" are nothing more. There seems to be a belief that if you repeat nonsense and gobbledygook often enough it magically becomes reality.

Just because you're labelling something as such does not make it true.

Any more than just because you do so again and again does not mean it "magically becomes reality."

Wild Bill wrote: »

The assertion that "end of peak oil" = "less private motoring" is taken to be a hard fact by many people who cannot support that belief; and who, when confronted with an alternative view seem to think repetition of the belief in some way makes it more plausible.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you did not post any viable alternatives -- all you did is say that a solution would be found. That's more like a wish really, it's not "hard facts". Any luck writing to Santa Claus asking for one?

10-08-2011 12:57pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

The assertion that "end of peak oil" = "less private motoring" is taken to be a hard fact by many people who cannot support that belief; and who, when confronted with an alternative view seem to think repetition of the belief in some way makes it more plausible.

It doesn't. :cool:

This particular fact is easy to support if you compare at the number of cars globally verses the supply of fuel (petrol/diesel), you will see that the supply of fuel has stopped rising but the number of cars has continued to rise rapidly, particularly in China & India.

An increasing number are using LPG or other types of gas, but the vast majority are still petrol or diesel.

So the amount of fuel available per car is declining!
This means that private motorists in the west are having to do with less fuel!

monument · 10-08-2011 1:41pm

Also...

hi5 wrote: »

Heres another statistic ,the government makes nearly 5 billion a year from the motorist.
http://www.simi.ie/uploads/documents/news/SIMI%20Pre%20Budget%20Submission%202011.pdf (see page 12)
Much and all as I like the idea of cycle lanes and low emmission public transport,this will cost money and not make any.
Is there even a government plan to wind down its dependence on motoring tax income?There should be but I've never heard of any.
When electric transport comes in full time you can expect it to be taxed the same as fossil fuels and hence promoted before cycling and public transport:(

The cost of congestion to the economy in Dublin alone was estimated by IBM to be 4.1% of GDP or €4billion to in 2008.

Even with some people emigrating, we've just had a few years of a baby boom and our population is increasing -- if a car centric transport system is continued, that means more cars and more congestion. Source on population: CSO

"There are 327,000 children described as overweight, who cost the health service an estimated at €4 billion per year" -- I'm not saying getting more people cycling will solve the problem, but it would help a lot. Source: Irish Examiner and The Case for a National Physical Activity Action Plan.

And not including the cost of pollution and before you get into maintenance and building costs at local and national levels, and loads of apparently smaller costs which add up when combined including: the costs of lost life and injuries, the cost of clamping (it's not paying for its self as fines have been capped for years), costs of policing, cost of agencies such as the NRA and RSA etc.

What about the costs of cycle lanes and footpaths? Motorists do more damage to most of them then their users or natural ageing does.

hi5 · 10-08-2011 1:43pm

monument wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but you did not post any viable alternatives -- all you did is say that a solution would be found. That's more like a wish really, it's not "hard facts". Any luck writing to Santa Claus asking for one?

As has already been mentioned (yes we are going around in circles)the electric car is an alternative,thats a fact.
I saw a guy driving a Nissan Leaf the other day and he didnt have a white beard either

And all the so called disadvantages have been addressed by technology.
Once the leccy car becomes more popular those technologies will be rolled out.

Range anxiety? heres just one solution.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b0T5NUHyxs

hi5 · 10-08-2011 1:45pm

monument wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but you did not post any viable alternatives -- all you did is say that a solution would be found. That's more like a wish really, it's not "hard facts". Any luck writing to Santa Claus asking for one?

As has already been mentioned (yes we are going around in circles)the electric car is an alternative,thats a fact.
I saw a guy driving a Nissan Leaf the other day and he didnt have a white beard either

And all the so called disadvantages have been addressed by technology.
Once the leccy car becomes more popular those technologies will be rolled out.

monument · 10-08-2011 2:20pm

hi5 wrote: »

As has already been mentioned (yes we are going around in circles)the electric car is an alternative,thats a fact.
I saw a guy driving a Nissan Leaf the other day and he didnt have a white beard either
And all the so called disadvantages have been addressed by technology.
Once the leccy car becomes more popular those technologies will be rolled out.

Still a good few problems:

The raw resources needed for the batteries are set to become rare and expensive as demand increases. And not only do you need batteries for new cars but you also need battery replacement for older electric cars. That's not to mention how polluting the mining is.

Anyway, take the government grant away any time soon and electric cars look very expensive (the grants are already limited in its cap of applications per year here so far). Maybe more importantly if there was a large scale switch to electric cars you'd have to add on motor tax and possibly other taxes to support the cost of road building and maintenance and other costs -- then the running costs of electric cars also goes up.

And, yes, no matter what the solution is for a power source for cars, you'd still be dealing with problems of congestion and an inactive, overweight population.

EDIT: In saying all of that, I could still see electric cars (with continued grants and tax breaks) gain some traction. But I'm unsure how likely they are to become or to be able to become as popular as relatively cheap cars run on "cheap oil".

Wild Bill · 11-08-2011 4:11am

Deleted User wrote: »

This particular fact is easy to support if you compare at the number of cars globally verses the supply of fuel (petrol/diesel), you will see that the supply of fuel has stopped rising but the number of cars has continued to rise rapidly, particularly in China & India.

An increasing number are using LPG or other types of gas, but the vast majority are still petrol or diesel.

So the amount of fuel available per car is declining!
This means that private motorists in the west are having to do with less fuel!

An increasing number are using LPG or other types of gas, but the vast majority are still petrol or diesel.

You are making my point for me! :cool:

11-08-2011 5:41am

Wild Bill wrote: »

An increasing number are using LPG or other types of gas, but the vast majority are still petrol or diesel.

You are making my point for me! :cool:

But, the infrastructure to supply these vehicles is currently unavailable.
Plus the transportation of the gas to the stations will require an entire new pipeline network or tankers.

Do you think that LPG (or shale gas) production could be ramped up to suplement the current oil supply, at a price that consumers can afford.

The most important issue currently with peak oil is not the decline in supply of oil, but the decline in supply of cheap oil!
That still holds true, despite the recent drop in prices, as these are only temporary and many people are experiencing a reduction in disposable income.

ei.sdraob · 11-08-2011 8:28am

It is interesting to note that no one on the "OMG we are fuucked" side of this debate has actually bothered to answer the OPs question of "when"

When will oil run out and how will this affect transport infrastructure?

Comments