On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
With the right policies we can have have economic activity like never
before - and all to the good side. Vehicle replacement with energy
efficient vehicles is a huge economic opportunity.
I disagree. This will only call for the construction of some
production lines, which is not a big deal. The cars will be
replaced as the old ones wear out, which means there will be no
increase or decrease in economic activity.
There is a good possibility of retrofits. Also, gas guzzling SUVs
and trucks will probably end up in the junk yard much faster than
before. I think the transition period to new vehicle types must
necessarily result in increased economic activity. Additionally,
entire new career types will develop. Being an auto mechanic or
running a filling station will just not be the same!
What you are saying is true in the long run from a world
perspective. The problem in the transportation area is more along
the lines of *where* the main interim activity will occur. My
impression is that it will not be in the US unless significant
changes in attitude occur.
It is likely that building of entirely new vehicle classes, like
inexpensive personal commuter vehicles, will eventually reduce
overall economic activity. Similarly, reduced vehicle usage due to
changes in commuting habits should reduce vehicle dollar sales
volume. However, economic efficiency gains improve quality of life,
even ignoring environmental quality issues. And maybe that was your
original point - that we can reduce "economic activity" while
simultaneously improving quality of life.
Building a new energy infrastructure is a huge opportunity . . .
This would be expensive! And worth it, we hope.
. . . especially in housing tetrofits.
Not such a big deal. In the U.S. $1,000 per house would do wonders.
$10,000 per house would improve that by much.
Here it depends on just what kinds of retrofits are being made. I am
assuming here that these might include addition of solar energy
gathering, general energy storage facilities, utility coordinating
computers/communications, and vehicle energizing facilities.
Manufacture of renewable energy generation systems, not just for a
few countries, but for the world, is a colossal opportunity.
Yes indeed! CF, on the other hand, would cost less than nothing,
and CF all by itself would only reduce economic activity, not
increase it. If we end up consuming the same amount of energy with
the same set of machines, we reduce the world economy by $2.8
trillion per year, and add nothing. That outcome seems unlikely to
me. The money people save is likely to go somewhere else instead.
Renewable energy is achieved by the replacement of energy mining with
energy device manufacturing. I think this can be achieved at
comparable costs per BTU for petroleum, as shown in:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BigPicture.pdf
and substantiated in:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf.
This means that trillions of dollars per year are moved from light
labor activity (mining/exploration) to a labor intensive
manufacturing activity. The ultimate product is the same, the value
of 400 quads/year. However, the economic multiplier for labor
intensive activities, like manufacturing, is higher. More peripheral
support jobs are created, e.g. teachers, doctors, store clerks, etc.
The quality of life for the masses is improved. This is offset by a
reduction in income for the comparatively few who own the petroleum
infrastructure. However, if clever, the petro-people are the very
people who can benefit the most by having the wisdom to jump on the
renewable energy bandwagon as soon as possible with their windfall
profits. If not, they will ultimately go the way of the dinosaur.
Horace Heffner
