£1.40 a litre

Kohoutek

Really2 wrote: »

I know what he meant, but it was not oil based agriculture which lead to that.

from 1850 - 1930 a new born babies average life expectancy shot up from 38 to 59.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ghwBatlqPM0J:www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html+life+expectancy+1920&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

So food production and health must have increased pre oil boom also as nearly led to a 50% rise in population.

Oil makes cheap fertilizers and is a reason why population is held up. But it is not the the cause of a population boom around that time.

It was going to be higher without cheap oil, cheap oil has enabled it to be higher. But that is not to say without cheap oil the population was going to be higher than 2B anyway.

I'm not sure why people keep saying oil is used for fertiliser. Natural gas is used for fertiliser, not oil, to provide the hydrogen found in ammonia.

You can also get the hydrogen for ammonia from coal gasification...I would imagine that's how a lot of fertiliser was made from 1850-1930 in Western countries. It's still used in China.

The problem of depending on fossil fuels to create ammonia could be mitigated by getting more hydrogen by electrolysis of seawater, and by converting more sewage to fertiliser directly.

Really2

Kohoutek wrote: »

The problem of depending on fossil fuels to create ammonia could be mitigated by getting more hydrogen by electrolysis of seawater, and by converting more sewage to fertiliser directly.

Or Cultivated Microbes or enzymes. (which are not currently here/discovered, imagine if we had a enzyme that could break down water back to elements)

It was brains that got us here, it was not oil that made them

I think it will be brains again that get round the problems, maybe we will change how we live a bit but a lot of that could be for the better. But I do think on population we do need to think about what is sustainable.

But in saying that nature usually decides that if it gets to big.(new disease etc)

AD9898_2

Ok going back to the transport issue, what do board here believe the price of a litre of petrol/diesel has to br before people find that it's almost uneconomical to travel (even to work) bearing in mind we are seeing very low wage inflation and as the cost of fuel rises so does inflation in essentials, squeezing people's disposable income.

That time, in my opinion is no more than a decade away, so what do we do to scale a global solution that covers all forms of travel within the timescale. It is my opinion that it can't be done, we don't even have even the slightest idea on the drawing board never mind anything else.

ess0two

RenovationMan wrote: »

What are you doing to prepare yourself for this? According to your recent posts, you only have between 2 and 5 years to sort yourself out. What are your plans?

Stocking his bunker.

Really2

AD9898 wrote: »

Ok going back to the transport issue, what do board here believe the price of a litre of petrol/diesel has to br before people find that it's almost uneconomical to travel (even to work) bearing in mind we are seeing very low wage inflation and as the cost of fuel rises so does inflation in essentials, squeezing people's disposable income.

That's kind of what we have talked about, if you work so far away you have to rely on diesel you will either have to outlay for an electric or hybrid.

If you work close enough you can lower you costs now. As far as I know people traveled and worked before oil we still will without it.

vivatifosi

AD9898 wrote: »

Ok going back to the transport issue, what do board here believe the price of a litre of petrol/diesel has to br before people find that it's almost uneconomical to travel (even to work) bearing in mind we are seeing very low wage inflation and as the cost of fuel rises so does inflation in essentials, squeezing people's disposable income.

That time, in my opinion is no more than a decade away, so what do we do to scale a global solution that covers all forms of travel within the timescale. It is my opinion that it can't be done, we don't even have even the slightest idea on the drawing board never mind anything else.

Personally, it would have to go to £3 before I got rid of my car. Under those circumstances we'd probably reduce to a 1 car family. I can make do with an electric bike and walking as what I need is for the most part nearby as is the electric train network. If push comes to shove, I can walk to the supermarket with one of those trolley bag thingies, though I know I'd end up paying more for food due to delivery costs. DH has to have a car to get to work, though more worryingly he works for an airline, so the question is what this would do to air transportation. DH's car is ridiculously cheap to run so fuel costs aren't high anyway.

If petrol did go that high, I think companies would expect a lot more people to work from home and tele-conference. The software exists now for monitoring keystrokes etc to make sure they are productive and not faffing about. Not good news for office owners though.

Really2

What would be interesting is if they worked out how much oil we could save if people moved to currently viable affordable alternatives.

EG company cars to be hybrid or electric, 2nd cars as electric if viable, cycling if local etc.

Would be interesting for the government or manufacturers to put up cost calculators also to work out if current technologies are affordable.

EG GD think electric or hybrid is high outlay, would TCO over 2/5/10 years sway him?

wotsthat

AD9898 wrote: »

Ok going back to the transport issue, what do board here believe the price of a litre of petrol/diesel has to br before people find that it's almost uneconomical to travel (even to work) bearing in mind we are seeing very low wage inflation and as the cost of fuel rises so does inflation in essentials, squeezing people's disposable income.

I don't think there's an answer to the question. It depends on how the price of petrol affects you personally.

Just not travelling to work would be an absolute last resort. People are much more likely to make adjustments to their lifestyles rather than give up work. I could, but don't want to, cycle 65 miles a day if I needed to. If I was ten years older I'm not so sure. I could move closer to work, get an electric car, camp in the car park at work, put a hammock up in the canteen etc.

It's too pessimistic to say that society will crumble just because we can't afford to fill the car with petrol.

I wouldn't underestimate just what people would do to try and ensure that their families are provided for.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Yes, so would the idea of using less of it not make it last longer and stay cheaper for longer?

Doubt it, OPEC would simply reduce supply.

Yesterday they released a statement stating they will not be doing anything about the price of oil, i.e., increasing supply.

However, it's not really the cost of oil thats the issue, its the tax.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Doubt it, OPEC would simply reduce supply.

It would still last longer, so we could use it for longer.

In theory it should stay lower if there is less demand, opec never said they would reduce supply now? I believe they dont meet until june on production so perhaps that is why they are not doing anything.