BIKE: The end of the Oil Age

[rcbaker]

This Economist article is pretty stupid, but not just because of the $7 trillion.

It says that hydrogen could replace oil as a portable source of energy.
But we use only natural gas to make hydrogen and we're running short of that.
And hydrogen is a very bulky fuel and only platinum can make high power fuel cells.

Then it goes on to imagine that bioethanol could replace gasoline if we assume a whole 
lot of dubious future scientific advances. 

"The Party's Over" by Heinberg debunks such claims with solid documentation.

There are many oil producers in many countries competing to produce oil, resulting in 
one world market, based on world supply and demand. Since there is no way to break 
our oil addiction, contrary to the Economist's claims, the price will soar when world 
production peaks, which will probably happen within this decade. Oil is way too cheap 
considering its world rate of depletion, and the Persian Gulf is no longer a cheap 
producer -- they are actually near to their production limits. If the Saudis stopped 
pumping (which however they can't afford to do) the price would instantly soar. 

Far from US customers being ripped off, our addiction has been encouraged by the US 
government for decades, and the price has been kept artificially cheap by the $50 billion 
we spend annually on our military force in the Persian Gulf. If the price is really too high, 
then why would we have to use all that military force to try to keep it cheap? 

-- Roger  


On 24 Oct 2003 at 10:16, Loren Schooley wrote:

> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2155717
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Get on or off this list here: 
> http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/listinfo.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info
>