desperation - a nice example of declining energy intensity

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
Ralph
Posts: 370
Joined: 02 Nov 2012, 22:25

Post by Ralph »

vtsnowedin wrote:
Ralph wrote: It is not. Unless you are ramping up actual consumer costs to account for what might be better described as "societal" costs. My scooter gets about 100 mpg, at $20/g it would run me about $230/year for commuting to and from work. As well as minor grocery shopping, collecting one of the children from school on occasion. At todays prices I don't even notice the fuel I use for it, taking it from the lawnmower can when it needs a gallon.
Lets see... 230/20=11.5 gallons x100mpg =1150 mile A Year? Yah Righttt. I got to tell you Ralph or (whatever) I'm a real American commuter and when I'm working which recently is about thirty weeks a year I put on at least 1100 miles each week.
You are not the average American commuter. 75% of them commute less than 40 miles per day, so 200 miles per week isn't even average, the number is smaller than that? People who make the choice to invest huge portions of their lives droning to and fro in a cage don't get to complain about the cost of their choice, particularly when it is nowhere near the "average" commute of an American. More like the "drive till you qualify" nonsense that only a Californian could dream up, or someone desperate to live two lives, one firmly anchored in BAU and the American car culture, the other on a hobby farm.

The miles I put on my scooter are approximately just as you've calculated. I can also bicycle, walk, or take a motorcycle. The school for the children is closer than work. All schools, elementary, middle and high. Mass transit is closer yet.

Why in the world would anyone worried about peak oil ever live outside of the reach of mass transit, light rail, bicycling to places? A lifestyle choice involving the most CO2 emissions humanly possible? Sort of a counter-environmentalist?
vtsnowedin wrote: I'm semi retired so don't work in the off season and then put on less then 100 miles a week. just a beer and milk run is ten miles. The Mrs. who works in town puts on at least 18 miles each workday on her car Then drives a 60 passenger school bus another 50 for
175 days a year(5mpg) but lets not worry about that. so 50 weeks x 5 x 18 = 4500 miles all without leaving town. Edit to avoid confusion: She works two jobs ,bus driver at each end of the day when school is in session and town clerk mid day every business day. The school is on the way to her office so no extra miles to get to that job.
I recommend you not confuse your situation with that of folks who understand peak oil, the costs associated with our current expensive energy environment, the emissions that a lifestyle choice like yours creates, and choose to do better. While glorious excess is undboutedly desired by some, the idea of peak oil folks doing it seems a bit….surprising?
User avatar
Ralph
Posts: 370
Joined: 02 Nov 2012, 22:25

Post by Ralph »

RenewableCandy wrote:
Ralph wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:I'm afraid you're probably p!ssing into the wind there VT: "Ralph" doesn't seem to understand how high prices (of anything) present problems.
Define "problem".
:lol: :lol: :lol:
See what I mean?
No. To some, the price of petrol increasing by 10% is a problem. To others, not having any is a problem.

Common frames of reference are necessary for conversation, you confusing a hangnail with a "problem" in the context of peak oil, or prices, or economics, is just a demonstration of small thinking.

Try and think bigger. Ask the other Ralph what I mean, he is educated and all.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

Ralph wrote:[
Why in the world would anyone worried about peak oil ever live outside of the reach of mass transit, light rail, bicycling to places? A lifestyle choice involving the most CO2 emissions humanly possible? Sort of a counter-environmentalist?
Why? Because my family has lived in this county of Vermont from 1784 and on the land I own now post 1933. So before oil and before peak oil. The land I own was too small a holding to be viable as a dairy farm in the 70's Vermont economy so I chose other work. The cost of commuting was constantly compared to the cost of moving closer to work but as the work was highway construction projects they moved from year to year so it was never cost effective to give up a base owned free and clear and join the real estate competition with the Jone's.
You certainly don't expect one to have solved a problem before the problem presented itself?
Back in the fifties my father would not commute from the farm to his job as a stone worker eighteen miles away. The roads and cars were not up to the task and renting an apartment or just a room was cheaper and more reliable. I expect my family will be just as adaptive as peak oil drives up prices and changes the economics of work. Two of my daughters are car pooling to work as I right this, converting a 27 mpg SUV into a 54 mpg transport.
If you would look back up thread it was I that proposed that people would walk to work in the future when oil got up to $300 a barrel. That does not mean that some will not own cars then or all need to move this very day.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12777
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

Ralph wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:
Ralph wrote: Define "problem".
:lol: :lol: :lol:
See what I mean?
No.
Well at least it's honest :D
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

Image

Showing the point where your return is negative, a concept familiar to any actual human who has invested badly.

Citation for trolls here.

Citation for genuine board members here.
the oil industry spent over $3.5 trillion to achieve a decline in overall conventional production.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12777
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

Heinberg wrote:But the problem is hidden from view by gross oil and natural gas production numbers that look and feel just fine—good enough to crow about.
:lol: :lol: :lol: (sorry couldn't resist)
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3390
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

Ralph wrote:Define "problem".


std::string s1 = "problem";






( I tried to ignore you but it's difficult, like toothache ).
User avatar
Ralph
Posts: 370
Joined: 02 Nov 2012, 22:25

Post by Ralph »

vtsnowedin wrote:
Ralph wrote:[
Why in the world would anyone worried about peak oil ever live outside of the reach of mass transit, light rail, bicycling to places? A lifestyle choice involving the most CO2 emissions humanly possible? Sort of a counter-environmentalist?
Why? Because my family has lived in this county of Vermont from 1784 and on the land I own now post 1933. So before oil and before peak oil. The land I own was too small a holding to be viable as a dairy farm in the 70's Vermont economy so I chose other work. The cost of commuting was constantly compared to the cost of moving closer to work but as the work was highway construction projects they moved from year to year so it was never cost effective to give up a base owned free and clear and join the real estate competition with the Jone's.
Bingo. Always the bugaboo of the peak oil argument….even if the cost of the fuel is higher, YOU have a situation that makes it cost effective to use.

Good for you!! Proving that folks can CHOOSE to continue their behavior based on an evaluation of the economics…and some of us can CHOOSE to not live a chunk of our lives driving, ride a scooter, live close to work, and mitigate the discretionary income you must spend to enjoy the life style you choose.

It has nothing to do with the absolute value of the fuel, only its value relative to the other things it allows you to do, or how you live.

And why would anyone ever make the claim that everyone can't make exactly this kind of informed decision, all of the world, reacting to economic stimuli exactly as you have?

Every dollar you spend on commuting, that I do not, gives me a $1 discretionary income advantage somewhere else. $1 more for IPhones for the wife, $1 more for housing, $1 more for education, vacations, road tripping…and if you add up enough of those $1 differences, they really, REALLY matter.
vtsnowedin wrote: If you would look back up thread it was I that proposed that people would walk to work in the future when oil got up to $300 a barrel. That does not mean that some will not own cars then or all need to move this very day.
A) Oil has no need to go to $300 barrel for the next 6 trillion barrels or so other than during geopolitical turmoil or surface constraints (IEA 2008 WEO Figure 9.10)
B) I have already calculated for you commuting costs even with a near quadrupling of fuel prices here in the States, and it certainly didn't require much of an increase in commuting costs for an intelligent consumer, let alone forced walking,
C) People choosing to NOT own cars and DO SOMETHING ELSE is the entire POINT!!

You cure people with oil prices, regardless of supply availability, because supply availability isn't the problem…people are!
User avatar
Ralph
Posts: 370
Joined: 02 Nov 2012, 22:25

Post by Ralph »

emordnilap wrote:Image

Showing the point where your return is negative, a concept familiar to any actual human who has invested badly.

Citation for trolls here.

Citation for genuine board members here.


Richard Heinberg has never published peer reviewed science in his life. Richard has never put his name on a reserve report of any kind, participated in discussions creating the most recent definitions of reserves, he has no experience with the geology of resources, he has no experience with estimates of recoverability of resources, he has neither explored for, developed or produced any carbon/hydrogen molecule that wasn't the result of a digestive process in his life, his education and training on any of these topics amounts to…zero….if I recall his resume correctly….and the only reason you wish to use him as a citation is because he agrees with your preconceived and ill informed notions on any, or all, of these topics.

Oh…and resources below the line on that chart? Were being developed back in 19th century, so I recommend he read a "History of Oil and Gas Production in the US for Dummies" book that he not mislead the gullible who haven't noticed his lack of qualifications enumerated above.
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12777
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

"True but irrelevant" bucket. Again.

Guys, we need a bigger bucket :)
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
snow hope
Posts: 4101
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: outside Belfast, N Ireland

Post by snow hope »

RenewableCandy wrote:"True but irrelevant" bucket. Again.

Guys, we need a bigger bucket :)
And some sticky tape and a paper bag to stop the talking, typing, etc.... :lol:
Real money is gold and silver
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Post Reply