Heck of a time to start a trade war. Good likelyhood of another oil supply/demand bottleneck in five years and US oil patch won’t have the same circumstances to respond. Just as likely Fed fuel tax will not have been raised to fund infrastructure.
Always enjoy reading Mr. Bacevich. One quibble is point #9. The US has been a net importer of oil since the '40's and will always be one. That we export slightly processed oil or oil products doesn't change the fact we consume more than we produce.
The militarization of our energy and foreign policy carries with it self stroking narratives about the necessity of our presence in the Gulf but that's misdirection. Our vulnerability to oil price volatility or disruption is something shared by all importers and it's nothing the military can address. Our patterns of consumption make us vulnerable more than the source of the oil. The expanded production of US fracked oil came as a consequence of high oil prices and is now collapsing with low oil prices.
Juan, the leak wasn't a consequence of fracking but poor management of underground storage infrastructure. It is bothersome that this mess doesn't get the coverage the Deepwater Horizon did as it's on the same scale.
I think there's a bit of a self delusion going on that a "prosperous" economy can grow with a reduction in fossil fuel use. There are a lot of industries that will decline in such a transition and I don't think gov't will acknowledge that.
Still it's worth using the fossil fuels we have to build a more efficient infrastructure able to utilize renewables better.
Thanks for pointing out the nonsense in his statement that greater domestic production and reduced imports somehow translates into a benefit for the planet. Increasing tight oil and gas production has a higher CO2 emission per btu than Imported oil from conventional sources.
I wish Obama didn't slip into the "We're number one in oil and gas" as though that means anything. Unlike number two, three we aren't an exporter.
In the statistics for US "oil" production there is a pile of things that provide a larger production number but not reflecting actual crude with an API below 45 that can be used to make transportation fuels. Bio-fuels, natural gas liquids, increased condensate, refinery gain (volumetric increase) are all lumped into that "we're number one"
I'm afraid Obama will or cannot do anything to confront popular delusions about our fossil fuel resources.
Dear Juan, I appreciate your enthusiasm for these vehicles and the need for a massive reorientation in our transportation infrastructure but my take on depowering is different. The solution for decreasing CO2 and preparing for the decline in oil supplies will be most economically met by simply driving less, fewer new cars, fewer cars per capita (in the US), moving less mass of vehicle and more payload per weight of vehicle.
So it won't be replacement of a 3500lb ICE sedan driven 15,000mi/yr by a 3500lb EV driven 15,000mi/yr but the same 3500lb ICE sedan being driven 9,000mi/yr. EVs can have a niche like natural gas vehicles but fuel is not and probably will not be taxed higher to make EV competitive. When oil supplies decline or our ability to afford it declines there won't be the economic growth to make a large scale replacement of ICE vehicles. The greatest change in resource use is behavior not technical.
"Professor whilst I agree with you that electric cars would be wonderful they are just not going to happen until they are comparable with the combustion engine."
The ironic thing about this is that all the things one would do to squeeze efficiency out of a gallon of fuel in a hybrid or KWhr out of a battery you can do with a conventional vehicle and smaller engine. Essentially what people have been doing where fuel is $5/gal without hybrids. Anticipating higher cost fuel and price volatility I'd look for cheaper car upfront and reduced use. Even greater efficiency is gained by shared ownership and reducing the number of vehicles.
Electric vehicle might be competitive when we've massively reduced ICE engine use, at which point the idea of a 3500lb electric car to move one person 40 miles will be the domain of the 5% anyway. 38yrs ago I had a 2700lb truck with a 75hp engine that got 24mpg. Nowadays a 2700lb Honda Civic with 140hp gets 40mpg. There's still more efficiency available with lighter cares and smaller engines.
Our immediate challenge will be higher cost liquid fuels with no viable alternative fuel. Higher cost BHEV moves some of the energy in construction overseas, batteries, which China will use more oil and coal to produce.
We are powering down our auto use because we have no choice given the cost of oil. Instead of committing larger amounts of capital/energy to higher tech vehicles simply get a less energy intensive vehicle to purchase then drive it less.
Respectfully Juan our problem with unsustainable oil consumption and vulnerability to declining world exports of oil will not be addressed by purchasing passenger hybrids or electric cars.
First off the time it takes to replace 150million passenger vehicles is in decades, IF you have the capital or credit to do so. There's about another 100million vehicles from busses to heavy trucks and farm equipment that run on oil. The vehicles people have bought this decade aren't appreciably more efficient than ten years ago. The savings aren't in hybrids getting 50mpg compared to a small engine sedan getting 35mpg but in light trucks getting 15mpg instead of 11mpg.
What people are doing is what we'll continue to do which is change behavior, driving less with existing vehicles and not using vehicles at all for some errands. Using existing vehicles with more people between four tires and more shared cars like ZipCars.
If there's any chance of a terrorist attack on Saudi oil facilities like there was on the Grand Mosque in Mecca in 1979 the word economy will take a hit even from a short term disruption in supply. If I was an American with $15k saved for a new Prius and small note I would probably hold off the purchase because that cash will be more useful for existing expenses or unemployment.
Also look up Jevon's Paradox. It's less expensive overall and more effective to simply raise fuel taxes to reduce consumption.
Not worth it trying to discern whether there is meaning behind his words.
Heck of a time to start a trade war. Good likelyhood of another oil supply/demand bottleneck in five years and US oil patch won’t have the same circumstances to respond. Just as likely Fed fuel tax will not have been raised to fund infrastructure.
Thank you Mr Cole, it is all too weird what has become normal.
Always enjoy reading Mr. Bacevich. One quibble is point #9. The US has been a net importer of oil since the '40's and will always be one. That we export slightly processed oil or oil products doesn't change the fact we consume more than we produce.
The militarization of our energy and foreign policy carries with it self stroking narratives about the necessity of our presence in the Gulf but that's misdirection. Our vulnerability to oil price volatility or disruption is something shared by all importers and it's nothing the military can address. Our patterns of consumption make us vulnerable more than the source of the oil. The expanded production of US fracked oil came as a consequence of high oil prices and is now collapsing with low oil prices.
Juan, the leak wasn't a consequence of fracking but poor management of underground storage infrastructure. It is bothersome that this mess doesn't get the coverage the Deepwater Horizon did as it's on the same scale.
I think there's a bit of a self delusion going on that a "prosperous" economy can grow with a reduction in fossil fuel use. There are a lot of industries that will decline in such a transition and I don't think gov't will acknowledge that.
Still it's worth using the fossil fuels we have to build a more efficient infrastructure able to utilize renewables better.
Thanks for pointing out the nonsense in his statement that greater domestic production and reduced imports somehow translates into a benefit for the planet. Increasing tight oil and gas production has a higher CO2 emission per btu than Imported oil from conventional sources.
I wish Obama didn't slip into the "We're number one in oil and gas" as though that means anything. Unlike number two, three we aren't an exporter.
In the statistics for US "oil" production there is a pile of things that provide a larger production number but not reflecting actual crude with an API below 45 that can be used to make transportation fuels. Bio-fuels, natural gas liquids, increased condensate, refinery gain (volumetric increase) are all lumped into that "we're number one"
I'm afraid Obama will or cannot do anything to confront popular delusions about our fossil fuel resources.
Dear Juan, I appreciate your enthusiasm for these vehicles and the need for a massive reorientation in our transportation infrastructure but my take on depowering is different. The solution for decreasing CO2 and preparing for the decline in oil supplies will be most economically met by simply driving less, fewer new cars, fewer cars per capita (in the US), moving less mass of vehicle and more payload per weight of vehicle.
So it won't be replacement of a 3500lb ICE sedan driven 15,000mi/yr by a 3500lb EV driven 15,000mi/yr but the same 3500lb ICE sedan being driven 9,000mi/yr. EVs can have a niche like natural gas vehicles but fuel is not and probably will not be taxed higher to make EV competitive. When oil supplies decline or our ability to afford it declines there won't be the economic growth to make a large scale replacement of ICE vehicles. The greatest change in resource use is behavior not technical.
"Professor whilst I agree with you that electric cars would be wonderful they are just not going to happen until they are comparable with the combustion engine."
The ironic thing about this is that all the things one would do to squeeze efficiency out of a gallon of fuel in a hybrid or KWhr out of a battery you can do with a conventional vehicle and smaller engine. Essentially what people have been doing where fuel is $5/gal without hybrids. Anticipating higher cost fuel and price volatility I'd look for cheaper car upfront and reduced use. Even greater efficiency is gained by shared ownership and reducing the number of vehicles.
Electric vehicle might be competitive when we've massively reduced ICE engine use, at which point the idea of a 3500lb electric car to move one person 40 miles will be the domain of the 5% anyway. 38yrs ago I had a 2700lb truck with a 75hp engine that got 24mpg. Nowadays a 2700lb Honda Civic with 140hp gets 40mpg. There's still more efficiency available with lighter cares and smaller engines.
Our immediate challenge will be higher cost liquid fuels with no viable alternative fuel. Higher cost BHEV moves some of the energy in construction overseas, batteries, which China will use more oil and coal to produce.
We are powering down our auto use because we have no choice given the cost of oil. Instead of committing larger amounts of capital/energy to higher tech vehicles simply get a less energy intensive vehicle to purchase then drive it less.
Respectfully Juan our problem with unsustainable oil consumption and vulnerability to declining world exports of oil will not be addressed by purchasing passenger hybrids or electric cars.
First off the time it takes to replace 150million passenger vehicles is in decades, IF you have the capital or credit to do so. There's about another 100million vehicles from busses to heavy trucks and farm equipment that run on oil. The vehicles people have bought this decade aren't appreciably more efficient than ten years ago. The savings aren't in hybrids getting 50mpg compared to a small engine sedan getting 35mpg but in light trucks getting 15mpg instead of 11mpg.
What people are doing is what we'll continue to do which is change behavior, driving less with existing vehicles and not using vehicles at all for some errands. Using existing vehicles with more people between four tires and more shared cars like ZipCars.
If there's any chance of a terrorist attack on Saudi oil facilities like there was on the Grand Mosque in Mecca in 1979 the word economy will take a hit even from a short term disruption in supply. If I was an American with $15k saved for a new Prius and small note I would probably hold off the purchase because that cash will be more useful for existing expenses or unemployment.
Also look up Jevon's Paradox. It's less expensive overall and more effective to simply raise fuel taxes to reduce consumption.