From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Running out of oil  ->THIS DECADE<-
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:42:06 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Aug15.150240.14375@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov) writes:

>In all this discussion, I have yet to see a reference to economic 
>distortions that arise from not including all the "external 
>costs" in the pricing of our resources. 

Because it is very hard to to.

>If the costs arising 
>from climate change (due to carbon loading) were included 
>(difficult as this may be to determine), the price of oil would
>probably already not be competitive with some of the potential
>alternative sustainable sources. 

Uh, last time I looked there wasn't any proven present cost from
global warming.  They were still trying to show that it existed at all.
Then this volcano burbed and we dropped a few degrees ... kinda puts
it in perspective ...

Also, the world has had natural swings of temperature of a degree
similar to that imputed for global warming.  It adapted.  There is
even a theory which says that, since the 'warming' seems to be 
concentrated in warmer nights, we are making the world a better
place to live.  I wouldn't mind if California was a bit more
like Hawaii ...  (The last time we had much higher CO2 levels 
in the air, we also had tropics all over the place...  I can
live with that!  I think the 'global warming leads to deserts'
folks should look at the Carboniferous era ...)

>What lead time is needed to convert to a sustainable
>energy economy? I have seen estimates of 20 to 100 years. 

Depending on how much you want to convert and to what, these
are reasonable ranges.  But keep in mind that we are NOW a
user of 'sustainable' energy sources.  They fill 'nitch' markets.
I could get a solar water heater today (and might by next summer).
My neighbor already has one.  This isn't a 'convert 100% or die'
scenario we live it, it is a gradual substitution at the margin...

>When
>the price of oil shoots up to 40 or 80 dollars a barrel, will
>there still be time to convert without major social dislocations?

Yes.  And why, prey tell, do you think oil will 'shoot' anywere?
And how is it going to reach $80/bbl when it couldn't hold on to $50/bbl
during the embargo years when we didn't have nearly as many 'off the
shelf' alternatives available to us?  (An the USSR was not the 
friendly CIS of today looking to pump all the crude it can sell us...)

>The classical laws of supply and demand were deemed to yield
>the best market allocations based on the following assumptions:
>1. open access to quality information
>2. all costs included
>3. no monopolies
>4. short-term R and D. In Adam Smith's time, there was no concept
>of the long-term, capital intensive developments that we have now.

>Questions:
>1. Do we have common quality information about: remaining
>reserves, environmental costs, alternatives,...

Yes.

>2. How does the DOE's fixation on nuclear fission and fusion
>relate to a free market in the development of alternatives.

It leaves the alternatives free to develope without the hinderance
of Government control.

>3. Do we have the right to use up most of the accessible
>reserves of fossil resources, and leave little for our
>grandchildren?

Yes.  We are leaving them one heck of a heritage of technology to do
more with what's left than we could do with what existed before.  Take
a look at 'heap leach' metal extraction from ore... the old mine tailings
are now prime ore.  

>4. Are fossil fuels just another commodity, or a basic
>natural capital that we are wasting more than reinvesting?

Just another commodity.  Like {iron ore, copper ore, aluminum ore,
uranium ore, nickle ore, chromium ore, ...}.  They are all finite.

Like it or not we are in a technological Wonderland (ala Alice in 
Wonderland, Lewis Carole ...).  We have to keep running faster and
faster just to stay in the same place.  The other conclusion is that
if you are accelerating your running just a smidge faster than that, 
you can continue to go farther and farther ...

If we try to stop and stand still where we are today, we condemn
everyone to a spiral decent into hell.  We made our pact with the
technological devil a few millenia ago and now we must continue 
to run this race, like it or not.  The good news is that we have
been winning it from the very beginning and are still winning.
Life is much better now than it was in 1000 BC.  And better than
it was in 1940 ... and, IMHO, better than it was in 1960.

As long as we are finding ever better ways to use what remains,
I have no qualms about using up what exists.  (I DO have qualms
about ruining our own life support systems in the process, though...
those rain forests and acid rain are an issue for me.  Being stupid
isn't a good way to win the technological race...)
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
Xref: sparky sci.energy:4075 sci.environment:10800