Peak Autos: America's Love Affair with the Automobile May Be Coming to an End

Below is an article about Peak Autos, which I found interesting.

Automobiles is an area of great interest to me, and probably one of the factors that has drawn me to learn more about Peak Oil. I grew up always loving cars, and America has been known among many things as "the land of cars". After all, no other country has more cars and roads than the US. But this scenario seems be changing.

I have always had a love affair with cars. Yet on the back of my mind I've always known that there's "something wrong": the obvious fact that cars are powered by gasoline derived from petroleum, which is a finite resource. The only question is "how long will we be able to drive on?" Well, for a while no one seemed concerned, so I assumed that someone was watching and keeping tabs, and that "the would let us know" if it's time to be alarmed. September 11th was that alarm for me, and that's when I started quickly learning about Peak Oil.

It's fascinating to me that the number of vehicles in the US decreased in 2009 for the first time since World War II. My deepest fears seem to have been true: the whole infrastructure that we created for cars isn't sustainable. It's interesting for me to watch the American middle class get poorer while the cost of owning and maintaining a car increases in the very land of cars. I will be watching this trend closely.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/peak-autos-americas-love-affair-with.html

Seattle Peak Oil Task Force - Question and Answer

Last week we had a meeting in Seattle for Peak Oilers - we are attempting to create some Peak Oil Task Force group or something similar. We were recently asked a question by a gentleman who emailed us, and below is a response by Greg Rock.

Question:
It is not clear to me if "peak oil" refers only to conventionally
drilled oil or to fossil fuel substitutes such as coal-to-oil/gas. My
main fear is not that we will run out of oil but that we WON'T run
into peak oil for a very long time, and will use hugely
environmentally destructive means to get oil at any cost, and then
externalize those costs and provide cheap gasoline which is, in fact,
heavily subsidized.

Answer:
Larry you have correctly assessed what I believe the big challenge is. It is not actually running out of energy that is potentially so bad, but turning to an "energy no matter what the cost" scenario that could be disastrous. This would lead us down a road of unconventional liquid fuel production of tar sands and coal to liquid technology + nuclear. Due to the layered energy required for production (Creates a Lower Energy Return over Energy Investment) and the higher carbon content of the dirtier source fuels the impact on global warming would be significant.

I model data using Argonne National Labs GREET data. Based on their numbers per gallon of gasoline burned, if the gallon of gasoline was made from tar sands it produces 17% more GHG emissions than conventional petroleum. 17% increase in our GHG emissions just if we burn the same quantity of fuel represents a challenge if we are trying to reduce our GHG emission 20% in the next 50 years. But it gets worse with coal to liquid technology which represents a whopping 131% increase in GHG emission per gallon of gasoline burned. Biodiesel from soy on the other hand creates a 53% reduction in GHG emissions. With peaking conventional oil there will be high social and economic demand for all alternative liquid fuels to be developed. Getting the economy to choose the source of its life-blood with a conscious is the real challenge.

So we really face two challenges. Peak oil has really already occurred for conventional oil supplies. Our first challenge is to produce enough alternative liquid fuel supply with a simultaneous demand reduction to keep prices from spiraling out of control destroying our economy. Our 2nd challenge is to not turn to probably the cheaper and easiest alternative fuel choices like Coal to liquid because the use of them would be catastrophic for climate change.

The real challenge is that Joe Schmo American is just going to want cheap gasoline for their car and they won't care where it comes from. Generally the cheapest will be the dirtiest unless we internalize the negative cost of burning finite resources and releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere into the cost of fuels. Without a proper price structure I suspect we are doomed to run full speed into a climate disaster while attempting to avoid and energy crisis.

Greg Rock

More on Seattle's garbage as a renewable energy source:

Renewable power is an expensive proposition for Seattle
"Getting energy from garbage reflects a new environmental truth: renewable power is more valuable because we've made it so.

Seattle City Light's announcement Thursday of a 20-year arrangement to buy electricity produced in Oregon from landfill gas was the latest part of a rush to buy energy that comes from a replenishable source."

Entire article here

Seattle producing electricity from garbage (article)

The article below vaguely mentions that "Seattle has begun getting electricity from its own garbage and will soon get more":

Garbage power: Seattle touts renewable energy source

Is it just me or does this article suggest that we can convert garbage into electricity as in "the more garbage we produce, the more energy we have?" or "let's produce more garbage so that we can increase the share of energy we get from renewable sources?" Something about the way this article was written just doesn't sit right with me.

Also not mentioned is what percentage of the garbage is converted to electricity. Is it 100% of the garbage or 20%? Inquiring minds want to know.

Also would be interesting to know the amount of energy spent to move the garbage to the landfill location and the energy spent to transfer the electricity back to Seattle. But I suppose that is technical information that would be too much to ask.

Being a Bicycler in Seattle

Last December I moved to Seattle after getting married. I had been living on the Eastside for a year and doing what most people who live on one side of the water and have to cross to the other side for work do: I drove from Kirkland to Seattle almost daily in order to go to work. In case you don't know the Seattle area very well, this is one of the most effective ways to waste huge amounts of gasoline and time getting nowhere. You mostly sit in stop-and-go traffic crossing one of the bridges while wondering if traffic on the other bridge is any worse. As for me, I tend to listen to the radio while sitting in traffic and moving at sluggish speeds; usually listening to a show on NPR about carbon emissions and how our vehicles have been contributing to global warming.

Luckily in my case I have a somewhat flexible schedule, so I can try to avoid the rush hour traffic when possible. Only problem is that rush hour traffic seems to be almost 24 hours this day. I know that this problem is not specific to Seattle: while we suffer for the fact that we have many lakes that do not allow for the construction of more freeways, many other cities suffer just as much from congested traffic for having too many cars and people, and a lack of public will to build any real mass transit solution.

So I took advantage of the opportunity of getting married and convinced my wife that moving to Seattle was our best choice, even though she works on the Eastside. She used to live in a place that was a five-minute walk from her work. So now I live in the place of my dreams - a short walk from the Seattle street car, which regularly goes downtown in a ten-minute ride. The downside of our living situation (from an environmental perspective) is that my wife now drives daily to the Eastside; sometimes twice a day if she has a long lunch break. Needless to say, our carbon footprint has increased as a result of my great desire to live in Seattle and develop a more sustainable lifestyle. But the goal is that my wife will work less in the future, and eventually transfer her work to Seattle so she does not need to commute to the Eastside at all anymore. In the event of a huge crisis such as a gasoline shortage or gas being sold for ten dollars a gallon due to some unexpected war, I trust that my wife could easily arrange a situation with her company so that she does most of her work in Seattle. As for me, I'm preparing myself physically and emotionally to be in a situation where I can go pretty much anywhere I need to go on a bicycle. Just in case. As a matter of fact, my wife and I have been discussing the possibility of having only one car instead of two. If we ever do that it will be only because I have become a bicyclist who does not need a car daily.

Well, we are still unpacking and so I don't even know where all my bike gear is. Just recently I located everything but my gloves. So on a weekend recently I decided to go to Ballard and back on a bike ride with my wife. She is also an incredible bicyclist and athlete, so we did it and it was fun. I have yet to get back into shape.

While I want to go back to riding a bicycle daily, I have been slow to adopt a bicyclist lifestyle (again) not only because we're still unpacking, but also because it's been cold. I know that sounds like a lame excuse, but it's just a lot easier and desirable to go on a bike ride (even for commute) on a beautiful sunny day than on a gloomy cold day. Anyone who's lived in Seattle knows how discouraging/depressing winter weather in Seattle can be. However, last week I decided to overcome all challenges and get on my bike to go a meeting in Queen Anne regardless. The artificial incentive I used to accomplish this was this (in case you wish to emulate me): I took my car to the shop for a needed repair and asked them to do an excellent job and take their time with the car with needed. So I was in a situation in which I needed to get to a meeting in Queen Anne from Eastlake, but could not drive because my wife had the car that night.

So I decided I'd go to the meeting on my bicycle. Below is a short description of my journey in bulletpoints; this is what was like for someone riding a bicycle in the winter in Seattle after not riding for over a year.

1) I forgot the incredible amount of preparation that it takes to go out a ride a bike long distance while obeying the laws. In a sunny place like California, I suppose one can just hop on a bike and go somewhere. In Seattle, however, you have to check that you have your lights (and that the batteries work), helmet, clothing that will not get soaked in light rain, and in case you have a very nice bike: locks. In my case I was delayed even more by the fact that I now refuse to go on a long-distance ride without wearing my clip-on shoes. Because this preparation was taking so much time and I was going to be late, I decided to ride away wearing my clip-on shoes to the meeting (which looked funny with the outfit I was wearing), instead of trying to find a bag to put my other shoes inside so I could carry them with me. I was late very late for my meeting that night. My point is this: driving a car can be a lot more convenient than riding a bicycle, for obvious reasons. I'd go as far as to say that riding a bicycle is not for everyone, while driving a car has been made incredibly convenient of a lifestyle for the masses (not withstanding the fact that you will waste huge amounts of gasoline and time when going almost anywhere these days in 24/7 rush hour traffic).

2) Some people like to say that "Seattle wasn't built for cars" because it's so hilly and the streets are so narrow. Often in my area and most Seattle neighborhoods, drivers have to stop to let the other car go by first - because Seattle streets typically have a line of parked cars on one side, another line of parked cars on the other side, and a narrow lane that only allows for one car to go through. This is a problem when two cars are heading in the opposite direction in a one-lane street. Well, I don't know who was the first person to notice that Seattle was not built for cars, but I have something to say to that person, "Seattle was not built for bicycles either".

Seattle benefits from having a lot of beautiful bicycle trails and now some bike lanes on main avenues (which I refuse to take because I will not share a road with cars if I'm on a bicycle). But as I approached the top of Queen Anne, I had to use the zig-zag approach in order to stay on my bike. As I get back into shape, I imagine that riding to the top of steep hill such as from lower to upper Queen Anne should become much easier, but my point is that bicycles still will not appeal to most people because on a bike your legs have to do the work rather than the gas tank on your car.

I felt a bit silly at my meeting because my shoes looked funny and they have a clip-on metal piece that is uncomfortable to step on. But eventually I'll overcome these challenges. I'll find a bag that I can put my gear on. I'll get used to carrying my helmet. I'll get used to changing my clothes everywhere I go on a bike when I am in an occasion that requires a certain dress code. Heck, I might even be able to prepare in 5 minutes or less when I need to go on a ride. But I don't expect riding a bicycle to become as convenient as driving a car. Even the insanity of sitting in traffic for hours at a time does not deter most people from driving.

I'm still toying with the idea of having just one car for me and my wife. My future experiences when riding my bicycle will help determine that. Regardless, I am fortunate to live in Seattle again, and I will become a bicyclist again so that I can get the great exercise I need and enjoy. And I will be prepared to ride my bike long-distance should we have a gas shortage or be in a situation where we have to pay the true cost of gasoline that so many drivers could not afford in that case.