Questioning Peak Oil Economic Assumptions:

There is a large and expanding economic literature that seeks to explain why the steep oil price rise since 2003 has not led to a recession. The common conclusion, arrived at by different models and analysis methods, is that the U.S. economy is now mostly immune to oil prices hikes and has been so since the mid-80’s. Peak oil proponents assume a simple model of the relation between oil supply or price shocks and economic performance. Economists have called into question some aspects of that model. Those studying peak oil need to make cogent responses to ensure that their view is taken seriously. It is beyond the scope of this column to do a detailed analysis, but it is possible to lay out some of the current debate and the issues that need to be addressed.

…

Many of those concerned about peak oil take their economic assumptions—naively, peak followed by collapse—as axiomatic. So-called “doomers” assume the worst, but they have not done all of their homework. Peak oil theorists or commentators often ignore the economic literature that discusses the complex relationship between GDP growth and the oil markets. They do so at their peril. By default, the oil supply and price is seen as the single overwhelming determinant of economic performance. This simple model is belied by the demand-driven price shock of the 2003-2007 period. Many economists have also been taken by surprise, and they are scrambling around to come up with explanations.

Many of those studying peak oil need to develop well thought-out scenarios that include models of future economic activity based on their oil supply projections instead of running around telling everybody the sky is falling. The good news is that there may be time to develop such scenarios and implement solutions, like a robust national railroad system, that make sense. Time will tell.

First and foremost: Dave Cohen writes, you stop whatever the heck it is you’re doing (or supposed to be doing when you’re goofing off and reading this site) and go read.

Second, I can’t possibly do justice to Dave’s whole column with a couple of quotes; there’s a lot of detail in between the snippets above, including several links to oil economics papers.

Third, I agree completely with his basic assertion that both economists and peakers in general have to be much more diligent in knowing the theory and history relevant to what we’re facing, or they risk spending a lot of time and keystrokes making themselves look like chimps playing with a flashlight. This is why I keep howling here about why I think some of the most well known “conclusions” regarding peak oil, e.g. the suburbs will disappear, we won’t have the oil needed to maintain wind turbines, we won’t be able to make fertilizer for crops, etc., assume a far worse situation than the people who parrot them (seem to) believe.

Crossovers not providing the MPGs people want, so they’re going back to SUVs:

Hm, this is an interesting little twist. BusinessWeek’s David Welch has written an article about SUVs that might come across as slightly counter-intuitive. It seems that many used-vehicle buyers are once again in the market for large SUVs, even though gas prices and crude oil prices are steadily increasing. Overall, SUV sales are still suffering, but Welch has found that people who shunned SUVs a year or so ago now miss the carrying capacity they once had. The smaller crossovers many turned to just aren’t cutting it and don’t provide enough of an improvement in the miles-per-gallon category to convince drivers to stay with the mid-sized CUVs.

What’s that you say? You wonder if this is a prime example of why I dearly hope we have much higher gasoline prices in the US? Why, yes! Yes it is!

Cleaner Nuclear Power?:

Senators representing several Western states, including Utah’s Orrin Hatch and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, are working on legislation to promote thorium. They say it’s a cleaner-burning fuel for nuclear-power plants, with the potential to cut high-level nuclear-waste volumes in half.

See the article for much more technical detail.

I must confess, thorium is one of those topics that I hear about occasionally, but never find the time to read about in depth. So much geekery, so little time, and all that.

But if we converted every nuclear plant in the US over to thorium, as described in this article, we would still create over a ton of nuclear waste every day (the number now is about 2.2 tons/day). Is that “good enough”? Or would 1 ton/day, on top of the 55,000 tons already piled up that we don’t know what to do with, only make the mess even worse, albeit less quickly?

Exxon says film may lead to car battery like laptop’s:

Exxon Mobil Corp. believes it has found an answer to a problem that has bedeviled the auto industry in recent years: using rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, like those found in cell phones and laptops, to power cars and trucks.

This weekend, at a conference in Anaheim, Calif., Exxon Mobil will unveil a super-thin plastic sheeting the company says can improve the power, safety and reliability of lithium-ion batteries for use in automobiles.

Exxon Mobil considers the film a breakthrough because it allows battery makers to build smaller and cheaper battery systems — removing key obstacles that have kept automakers from building hybrid and electric vehicles on a wide scale.

Wait a minute–ExxonMobil, as in the ExxonMobil, the company that has repeatedly dismissed alternative energy as bad business and not worth investing in?

Excuse me while I lie down on my fainting couch. I suddenly have the vapors.

Virtual Antarctica revealed in high definition:

An international science team unveiled a new high-definition, interactive map of Antarctica on Tuesday, capping an eight-year satellite mapping project.

The Landsat Image Mosaic of Antarctica, or LIMA, is the most geographically accurate depiction of the full continent ever made — and it’s being made freely available over the Web.

Researchers can use the true-color map to plot their expeditions, geologists can get a better fix on remote rock formations, and the general public can get its best view yet of a continent that looms large in the imagination as well as real-world climate science.

OK, now this is cool. I haven’t had a chance to play with this online toy yet, but as soon as I hack through the worst of my work backlog (around the time the Chevy Volt is on sale), I will.

Study finds 2002 dry weather left extra carbon in atmosphere:

A new study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder shows that millions of extra tons of carbon dioxide were left in the Earth’s atmosphere as a result of the 2002 drought across North America.

The findings, the first from NOAA’s atmospheric monitoring and modeling system called CarbonTracker, show that the amount of carbon dioxide absorbedby vegetation and soil dropped from an annual average of 650 million metric tons to 330 million metric tons. The excess amount of the heat-trapping greenhouse gas remaining in the atmosphere that year was equivalent to the annual emissions of more than 200 million U.S. automobiles.

“Everyone here has been surprised about how big an impact the drought had on the variability of the carbon cycle,” said Andy Jacobson, a University of Colorado research scientist working with NOAA and a co-author of the study. “This is the first time we’ve been able to get a picture of year-to-year variability and also spatial variability within the continent.”

Oops.