An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Putting Oil in Perspective
Oil and the New Anti-Capitalist
Fareed Zakaria helps to put oil into perspective in this Newsweek Column.
All the growth sectors, from technology to services, are powered by the grid, not gasoline. What will feed this grid—coal, nuclear power or new technologies—is another large subject, but one thing is certain: it will not be oil.…Oil will go from being the lifeblood of the industrial world to just one of many sources of energy. After a century and a half, oil will be put in its proper place.
An aggressive priority to develop and distribute renewable energy methods is a central element to a more stable world future. It could be one of the basic legs of US humanitarian aid.
17 Responses to “Putting Oil in Perspective”
I agree Paul.
One question though: what do you think the chances of that happening are in the US (since the oil companies seem to have quite some influence, or is that influence overrated)?
owwwkay… not a great sentence…
heh.
It’s anyone’s guess about how strong and enduring the oil companies’ influence will be — but I’ve always believed that if you want an answer to a question like this one, follow the money. If the money is to be made somewhere other than oil, the oil companies will find themsevles on a short leash and eventually irrelevant.
Yes, government regs have their place, but the free market is still a wonderfully self-correcting mechanism. (Reference: Paul Ormerod’s Why Most Things Fail.)
It may be slow until another tipping point is reached where the profits from renewable systems exceed oil based businesses. As oil prices rise the motivation increases to switch systems.
If the Congress has the will, it could remove the tax and regulatory advantages the non-renewable energy industry enjoys and level the playing field.
The change could be very fast with the right motivations.
“An aggressive priority to develop and distribute renewable energy methods is a central element to a more stable world future.”
Indeed. Only shortsighted oil company employees and lobbyists do think otherwise.
Just to play the contrarian though (I agree that I’d like to see new energy technologies be made available to all), this strikes me as similar to Einstein’s proposal immediately after WWII that the US should give nuclear technology to all nations. I think there inevitably are power issues at play that will probably prevent the sharing of renewable energy technology just as we weren’t willing to share nuclear technology then. And I think there is more at stake than the financial gain of the petro industry, because there is something to be said for having ‘one up’ on the current oil rich nations of the Middle East. Again, I’m not proposing that hoarding the technology is the way to go, but I do see the argument on the other side.
C Stanley,
I do see your point.
But at this point it seems to me that there is more to gain by reducing the influence of rouge nations and predators.
“this strikes me as similar to Einstein’s proposal immediately after WWII that the US should give nuclear technology to all nations.”
Hmm. Was Einstein wrong?
“Westinghouse’s fuel business has five sites in the USA and two in Europe, employing 4200 people. Our fuel customers are in 15 countries, and we have licensees of fuel technology in Japan, Spain, Korea, and Brazil. Fuel products designed and fabricated by Westinghouse continue to help our customers achieve very low fuel costs, with 9 of the best 10, and 17 of the best 20, fuel costs achieved by Westinghouse customers in the USA for the last three-year reporting period.”
All y’all need to go here: http://www.peakoil.com for better debate on the subject. “I’m so sincere” (c) HOV
C Prez, can you summarize what we might learn at this site?
I don’t always agree with Thomas Friedman, but THIS video is such a brilliant and concise description of the need to go green, I hope everyone will watch it.
GreenDreams,
Thanks for the lead. It is a brilliant presentation.
Zakaria has no idea what he’s talking about. The engine of global economic growth over the last 15 years has been globalization; this will continue to be the driver of growth going forward. Globalization is 100% dependent on transportation. Transportation is fueled by oil. He mentions this, only to say that hybrid and electric technologies will replace oil. Pray tell, does he know of anyone developing a hybrid airplane? What about a hybrid container ship or a hybrid locomotive?
I’m not a peak oil doomsayer, but Zakaria’s view is clearly myopic. Oil will continue to play a huge role in the overall economic picture going forward
It is entirely possible that a major chunk of all fuel for transportation could be replaced by biofuel. Sean speaks of planes, locomotives and container ships. Aviation fuel closely resembles diesel and the latter two both use diesel. Biodiesel could power the latter two easily and planes with some research. One often mentioned objection is that the crops that could produce biofuels including ethanol would displace food crops. But that assumes that there aren’t plants that could produce biofuels that would grow in conditions that aren’t optimal for food crops. I think that’s a big assumption.
I saw the headline and was ready to jump in and point out that oil and electricity are not closely tied in the US (except for home heating in some areas) – but was happy to see the commentator had beat me to it.
I think the first, second, and third priorities of any energy policy should be conservation. The cheapest, best energy is that which you don’t use. Conservation (or energy efficiency, if you like) is one part of the solution.
A second, key priority needs to be creating some common base of understanding among the body politic about energy supplies and production. Renewables and green energy should both be pursued and expanded, but they are not a full solution, merely a chunk of it. In the electricity arena, even with conservaton and renewables there will still be a need for a sizeable amount of bulk, 24/7, dependable power supplies – so you’re back to fossil, nuclear (and a little hydro) again. Even with conservation, we will use a HUGE amount of electricity.
How many among us understand how electricity is actually produced and what the real world pros and cons of the various methods are. As an energy professional, I can answer – not many, especially among politicians, pundits and other media folks.
To provide a bit of a solution to this knowledge gap, I’ve written a lay person’s guide to electricity, and nuclear power in particular, via my thriller novel Rad Decision. The inside world of atomic energy is much different than what most imagine – not all good, not all bad, just different. The book is available online at no cost to readers at RadDecision.blogspot.com – and they seem to like it, judging from their homepage comments. (It will soon be out in paperback as well.)
We’ll make better decisions about our energy future if we first understand our energy present.
“I’d like to see Rad Decision widely read.” – Stewart Brand, noted environmentalist and founder of The Whole Earth Catalog.
What about a hybrid container ship or a hybrid locomotive?
Actually, locomotives were our first hybrids. No clutch can start a train from a dead stop, only an electric motor, powered by huge diesel generators. Otherwise excellent points. We’re addicted to bringing cheap goods from far away. That will get more expensive.
James, thanks for the thoughtful comment. Conservation is indeed the key. My friend’s new house has negative energy input (he gets a check rather than a bill from the power company), needs no backup heat in our northern climate and cost only 8% more than conventional construction. We can do this.