 | An updated schedule and some more resources for our House Energy Bill project.... | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: June 30, 2007 |  |
IEA: without Iraqi oil, we'll be in deep trouble by 2015
Posted by Jerome a Paris on June 29, 2007 - 9:22am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: africa, biofuel, fatih birol, iea, iraq, saudi arabia [list all tags]
In a stunning interview for the French (reference) daily Le Monde, Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (i.e. the intergovernmental body created after the oil shocks of the 70s to coordinate the West's reaction to energy crises) effectively says that peak oil is just around the corner, and that without Iraqi oil, we'll be in deep trouble by 2015:
Si la production n'augmente pas en Irak de manière exponentielle d'ici à 2015, nous avons un très gros problème, même si l'Arabie saoudite respecte ses engagements. Les chiffres sont très simples, il n'y a pas besoin d'être un expert. If Iraqi production does not rise exponentially by 2015, we have a very big problem, even if Saudi Arabia fulfills all its promises. The numbers are very simple, there's no need to be an expert
And as long as the US occupies Iraq, production will not increase... Houston, we have a problem...
The whole interview is amazingly frank and free of diplomatic obfuscation. He blasts biofuels ("not based on any kind of economic rationality"), he notes that Africa is suffering the most already from expensive oil, he points out that even a slowing of China's growth will not reduce oil demand, and he talks pretty explicitly about production peaks and depletion:
D'ici cinq à dix ans, la production pétrolière hors-OPEP va atteindre un maximum avant de commencer à décliner, faute de réserves suffisantes. Il y a chaque jour de nouvelles preuves de ce fait. Au même moment aura lieu le pic de la phase d'expansion économique de la Chine. Les deux événements vont coïncider : l'explosion de la croissance de la demande chinoise, et la chute de la production hors pays de l'OPEP. Notre système pétrolier sera-t-il capable de répondre à ce défi, c'est la question. Within 5 to 10 years, non-OPEP production will reach a peak and begin to decline, as reserves run out. There are new proofs of that fact every day. At the same we'll see the peak of China's economic growth. The two events will coincide: the explosion of Chinese growth, and the fall in non-OPEP oil production. Will the oil world manage to face that twin shock is an open question.
He says it again twice in the interview: the gap between demand and supply will widen, and he blasts our governments for doing so little:
Malheureusement, il y a beaucoup de paroles, mais peu d'actes. J'espère vraiment que les nations consommatrices vont comprendre la gravité de la situation, et mettre en place des politiques très fortes et radicales pour ralentir la hausse de la demande de pétrole. Unfortunately, there's a lot of talk, but very little action. I really hope that consuming nations will understand the gravity of the situation and put in place radical and extremely tough policies to curb oil demand growth
Of course, we might need to curb more than "demand growth", and actually move to curb "demand" itself, but his words are at least quite direct and explicit. Even more interestingly, he puts the finger on two important but rarely discussed items: field depletion (he mentions an 8% decline rate for mature fields, but indicates that even a 1% difference in the actual number would mean huge volumes by 2020), and Saudi reserves:
Je crois que le gouvernement saoudien parle de 230 milliards de barils de réserves. Je n'ai pas de raison officielle de ne pas y croire. Cependant l'Arabie saoudite de même que les autres pays producteurs et les firmes internationales devraient être plus transparents dans la présentation de leurs chiffres. Car le pétrole est un bien très crucial pour nous tous, et notre droit est de savoir, selon des standards internationaux, combien de pétrole il nous reste. I understand the Saudi government claims 230 billion barrels of reserves, and I have no official reason not to believe these numbers. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia - as well as other producing countries and oil companies - should be more transparent in their numbers. Oil is a crucial good for all of us and we have the right to know how much oil, as per international standards, is left
While not a direct attack on Saudi numbers, this is by far the most explicit voicing of doubt about their reserves from any official of a major organisation that I have ever read. "No official reason to doubt"??? That's a pretty gaping hole there to sneak other kinds of doubts... He notes that he believes Saudi Arabian promises to be able to bring its capacity from 12mb/d today to 15mb/d in 2015, but notes at the same time that (i) it's the only place in the world (other, potentially, than Iraq) where production can grow and (ii) it's less than the expected demand growth by then from China alone.
While none of these facts should be surprising to my regular readers, it's quite something else to see them explicitly stated by one of the top officials of one of the major energy watchdogs of the Western world.
The only question left is - will our governments listen, now?
Jerome - thanks very much for this translation - amazing stuff? So if Birol is chief economist at IEA does that mean a major shift in IEA reporting standards or will he be sacked?
I sense a significant increase in main stream media PO coverage and in growing acceptance at higher political levels. If Mr Birol wants an unofficial reason to doubt Saudi reserves he may want to look at Lies, damned lies and BP statistics, or maybe he already did?
Pardon my french, but doesn't Birol actually put it rather stronger than your translation suggests.
I read:
If Iraqi production fails to rise exponentially from now on until 2015 we have a very big problem...." ???
Classical economic theory rests on the solid foundation of the fourth Law of Thermodynamics.
You're correct. "if it has not risen massively by 2015" would be a better wording, maybe.
thanks for the post Jerome.
trans:
If Iraqi oil production doesn't increase exponentially from today to 2015,
/we have a major problem
/a serious problem ...
/etc.
We'll be in deep doo-doo in any case. While Iraq may be the last largely untapped reserve aboard this planet, it can only plateau the peak. Sooner or later we all must deal with the slow but maddening decline. After all, demand is ridiculously inelastic. Demand only drops due to demand destruction. Since Africa is notorious for poverty, demand destruction will occur there first. But it's not just Africa. Consider the case of Iran, of all places.
As we type, Iran became the first country to invoke gasoline rationing. Iranians decide to suddenly torch gas stations in protest, which only makes matters all the worse. Talk about poetic justice. What better place to have to invoke gas rationing. All we need to do is shut the gasoline valve the rest of the way to bring Mahkmoud Ahmadinejad to his knees. And be sure to take a monkey wrench to the valve handle to shut it tight. Then, we just sit back and watch the Iranians do our dirty work for us.
All the better, Europe will have plenty of incentive to shut that valve on Iran. Officials of the EU need to get re-elected so anything they do to slow the inevitable rise in petrol prices will get them a constituency. So, shutting the valve on Iran means more petrol for Europe.
That'll leave our friend Mahkmoud a rough choice. Either build refineries OR continue trying to build a nuclear bomb. But he cannot have both. He had better choose wisely. The power over Iran is in the hands of the EU officials. They can shut that valve or leave it partially open. The EU can effectively say "Either you cut out your nuke programme or we finish shutting the valve". Welcome to the post-peak world!
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
Thanks for including the original text along with your translations. I hope that future article translations will follow this example.
I first got on the topic of the oil peak from Jay Hanson's infamous dieoff site. When I heard GW Bush wanted to invade Iraq I knew what it was about. He wanted for his friends a nice largely untapped oil province to make gigabucks from to plateau the peak. From the day gas was 99 cents/gallon in 1999 on I knew that gas prices were going to rise.
I took Bush's Iraq invasion to be a sign that we are getting awful close to the oil peak. I also see the 9/11 disaster to be a perfect excuse to generate fear to distract the public. It sure worked! Fun conspiracy theory: The Bush and bin Laden family are awful close. Bush could have easally called up bin Laden to order the 9/11 disaster like ordering a pizza. Then, Bush sits back and lets 3,000 people die and two buildings go down to make the excuse. Believe it or not, your choice.
Have some fun with Google about 9/11 oil and the like. There was a book put out by an European about just the conspiracy theory. It's a fun read. And, yes, Peak Oil is barely mentioned.
Some fun things:
The Bush family are a family of oilmen. They are PO - aware.
The Arabs are also PO - aware.
Our "intelligence" agencies are PO - aware. (think of the Soviet oil peak of 1988)
The Bush and bin Laden families are intertwined about oil.
Osama bin Laden was, after all, one of the CIA's employees. (he became a loose cannon!)
Put that all together and you can cook up an absolutely killer conspiracy theory! :)
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
Re increase in media coverage.
The present trend on the internet on peak oil seems to be down- whereas there is an slight upwards trend in the Blogsphere.
Google trends says:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=peak+oil&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
and Blogpulse says ( last 6 months:)
http://www.blogpulse.com/trend?query1=peak+oil&label1=peak+oil&query2=&l...
kind regards/And1
"Peak Oil" is not the only words searched on when people are trying to discover when oil peaks. "Oil Production" is the word I most often search on because I want to know who is up and who is down in oil production this month.
Oil Production gives an entirely different profile and in the Blogpulse, well over twice as many hits.
And there are many other words peak oilers search on. Just measuring the hits for "Peak Oil" does not give an accurate picture of things.
Ron Patterson
These things can be read so many different ways. The insurgents are destroying the world economy etc etc.
I am yet to be convinced the production potential is there? I am not saying it isn't just the situation exists where someone can be blamed for removing access to it..whether it exists or not...
and thats the problem with this Iraq mess... no clarity
Boris
london
Given the atrocious reservoir management during the oil for food sanctions era and the lack of investment and development of Iraqi oil it's crazy to think that today's 2 million barrels per day represents the geological potential of the province. The fact they can still extract so much indicates a resource capable of delivering much more with aggressive development.
Wouldn't that have damaged the reservoirs and thus limit future production from those damaged fields?
This is the problem. You may well be right but no one can really say, and moreover people can make audacious claims that oil price volatility would not exist if it wasn't for..
US intervention
Iranian intervention
Islamic fundamentalists
etc
etc
...
how much credence does one give to the pre war claims that Iraqi production can be raised to 12mbd... one such figure bandied about at CSIS in the run up.
I have seen some very wild claims about what is out there. Have you a sound source or perhaps some idea of Iraq's potential?
I am totally open to any evidence anyone has especially given I must confess to total ignorance on the subject
Boris
London
Fact of the matter is in post-Saddam Iraq oil production has not been able to achieve anything greater than the pre-2003 invasion...
This is the true failure of the neo-conservative strategists. It wouldn't matter to policy makers if all this "sectarian strife", IED, suicide bombing bloodbath was going on as long as oil production at least increased (in fact, I always assumed that talk of a "calm Iraq" was bullshit--these guys knew that, they put it up as another one in a series of window dressings to moo the cattle along--the "American people".) Actually to revise that, it doesn't seem to matter that this bloodbath is going on and oil production is down and doesn't seem to be rising. La de da, policing fundamentalists who've been living under a fascist for decades, who we "supported" for a long amount of time--the neocons own point! Funny thing, is then the same criticism arises, for a different era--this time instead of from the right, from the far left, a 1980s version of the same condemnation, except the neocons only focus the 90s.
Anyway, after we get into in Iraq, we disband the Sunni army... I mean: come on, from the looks of it they specifically sent Bremer over there to fuck shit up worse... That had to be their thinking, imho. If we can't have the honey pot, we'll make damn sure no one else will die trying. This only goes to strengthen my initial argument. Want another irony? I got it straight out of this month's foreign affairs. Wolfy testifies to congress in '03 that General Shinseki is wrong, we don't need more troops. At the time, the military was not particularly happy with the war (attempting to follow the Powell doctrine to avoid another Vietnam). And, come to think of this, they still are pretty upset. The absurd irony is now the military wants troop reductions from the Iraq War--as, get this--the White House goes for a "surge". These civilians (our fearless leaders) are just playing a game, I'm convinced, even if a deadly serious one.
Of course, we all know that oil is the primary driver (not sole reason, but primary driver) of the war in Iraq. Put hardcore conservatives in charge of our type of economy and culture, and you get this type of behavior. However, now that I think about it the Kennedy and Johnson administrations did this same type of thing, with even hazier strategic thinking (I know, I know, hard to imagine! The democrats are lousy two-faced wussies--who would of thought they were capable of starting their own disastrous wars?) The Nixonites took it over, and we know that story. Elements from the Nixon/Ford administrations created this foreign policy. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neocons ideological children, Wolfy, Perle ad naseum.
Point of the matter is these guys know the 70s, know how finance works--they're all ex-corporate academic types, dominant backgrounds in transnational integrated oil companies, or oil services companies (big H/KBR in the "house".) They know energy, and Iraq was/is all about energy--and the fact of matter is that oil production there has not risen in the last 4-1/2 years.
And this is because the country is a wreck! People that talk about increasing Iraqi oil production are in denial how badly this war is going. They simply don't know the history of the country, the situation on the ground, etc. I am continually astounded that 40% of the military still thinks this war is going fine and Dubya is actually doing a good job... These soldiers are goddamn Spartans, that's for sure. That's intense... My hat is off to them since they're simply taking orders from incompetent civilian strategists.
To summarize:
I'd love to hear a Pollyanna scenario for Iraqi oil production, but I'm afraid anyone indulging it would quickly enter fantasy which would simply result in me ridiculing them. But I am open to thoughts. A brutal adaptation of Goldilocks is the more likely story here, but we humans can't control where our fairy tales go very well, now can we?
Hi Boris,
I wonder also if the potential is there. Here is the HL plot for Iraq oil, with a normal trend along the edge of the envelope as an indication of potential. Pretty dismal. Unless they have a new field to open up somewhere, it does not look that they will make their 115Gb reserves.
(1960-2006 EIA data with 1975 cumulative from Richard Nehring)
IIRC the Iraqi eldorado theory is that it is essentially a new basin in the west of the country and would not follow the older production profile?
ie second peak
but then again?
Boris
London
I think Boris is right.
The pre-Iraq invasion (2003) US made Iraqi oil maps sized up Iraq reserves as remarkable and with a potential for a new yet discovered super-giant.
Ref: Maps and Charts of Iraqi oilfields: Cheney Energy Task Force
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/04-12-05/discussion.cgi.46.html
Various sources have claimed that Iraqi daily production using currently known reserves, but with improved recovery could mount up to as much as 6Mbpd. As for how long, I haven't seen any estimates.
Ref2: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ26Ak01.html
Of course, as-yet-to-be-discovered fields can always produce great amounts of oil. At least to the point when they are (not) discovered and appraised.
I think Al-Husseini's criticism of the IHS Iraq oil resource estimate is a good reminder how wrong estimates can be.
is an extra 4mbd enough to mitigate this 2015 deadline?.. frankly sooner rather than later is my wish..why wait for the day of days.
Perhaps the message is Iraq won't and we are there already.
the credo is apocalypse now..assume peak now, we are there or there abouts anyway by most peoples guesses.
If Iraq really is the only screw left to turn you might as well cash in your chips now and start a new game. more stories about spanish solar power stations please.
Boris
London
What about building those recently canceled trams in Leeds, South Hampshire and Liverpool ?
Best Hopes for the English building 1/3rd as many new tram lines as the French,
Alan
Sheffield, Tyne & Wear and Manchester still in limbo.
In Edinburgh we have just approved a new tram line but it was forced through the Scottish parliament by the oppostion as our SNP leaders do not have majority vote and did not want the trams to go ahead!
Interestingly one casualty in this deal is Edinburgh Airport-city centre tram link which has been posponed/cancelled. This is likely a smart move as in post peak times I do not expect as much air travel.
SNP had mentioned peak oil on their website some time ago, so I am wondering if they are dropping in on this site occasionally. Their oppostion to the trams stemmed mainly from spiralling costs which seem to afflict many large projects these days. eg our scottish parliament building which was supposed to cost circa £50m eneded up costing £414m!!!!
Marco.
That is why I said English and not British. The Scots are doing a better job of it than Westminster. Not perfect, surely, but then no one is doing an ideal job of it.
France, Switzerland, Thailand and Brazil are, IMHO, getting large parts of the puzzle right, but NO ONE has a complete game.
Best Hopes for more steps. small and large, in the right direction,
Alan
I have to say, I don't really see the benefit of trams.
Realistically the one thing you can say about a bus route is that it regularly travels through particular points. It should be ridiculously easy to arrange recharging of electric buses at key parts of the route (say flywheel, liquid battery, even compressed air) sufficient to carry it around the rest of the route.
So why go to the expense of tramlines, overhead wires, etc.?
Trams are dramatically cheaper than the Rube Goldberg set-up you describe.
Rolling resistance of steel on steel is an order of magnitude less than rubber on concrete/asphalt (i.e. low grade diesel).
Carrying your batteries with you is an enormous waste of energy when one can tap directly into the grid (and feed back as well when braking). Remember that it is not JUST the weight of the batteries but the structure to hold them, the rolling resistance to move the batteries + structure, the limited life of the batteries, etc.
A 2004 estimate was that simple over head wires were $2.5 million/mile for double track.
The French are building new tram lines (to a high level of aesthetics typically) for 20 to 25 million euros/km for ALL costs (trams, electrical, barn, spares, controls, training, etc.) Figure the trams to last 30 to 40 years, track a century or more (how long do roads last ?)
No technology to debug#
Best Hopes for No Gadgetbahn,
Alan
# The French could not resist and put in a couple of km of no overhead wire. A "3rd rail" turns on 12 or 15 m sections when a tram is overhead (safety considerations). PROBLEMS, PROBLEMS !
In Michelin HQ city and a couple of others they put the tram de pneu. No rails, rubber tires, but other wise similar. Problematic (not nearly as bad as above) is the judgment. Higher electrical consumption as well (duh !)
The conservative proven technology solution works reliably with minimal costs per pax-km.
'How long do roads last'
Roadway deterioration is largely dependent upon the number of large axle loads, subgrade quality/drainage and freeze thaw cycles (among others).
Rural concrete interstate (say 10,000-20,000 vehicles/day) in northeast US can provide 40 years of service with relatively minimal maintenance.
Flexible pavement (asphaltic concrete) is less costly at the front end but requires much more significant investment over a similar time period.
Current design life of modern NE US bridges is 75 years.
Concrete ties in heavy Class I service (an order of magnitude greater loads than a rural interstate lane) are expected to last at least 50 years (only two decades experience). In lighter duty service "indefinite".
Heavy rail (141 lb/yard) should last 40 years in all but the heaviest service (Powder River Basin spur). In lighter duty service, a century plus is a reasonable expectation.
The Greenbush commuter rail line (pax only service south of Boston, about to open) concrete ties, 132# or 135# rail (from memory) and concrete ties should have an indefinite life span except for the wooden ties used for at grade road crossings.
Rail bridges, without salt exposure, should also have century plus life expectancies. Many 100+ year old rail bridges remain in service without any significant life expectancy issues. Others have abutment and other ancillary issues.
Best Hopes for long lived infrastructure,
Alan
There is some amount of planned design flaw in roads. One time on the History Channel on "Modern Marvels" they showed how they build a runway for the 747s. It ends up being a road on steroids built out of concrete.
A runway must be made to hold up a 100-tonne vehicle with 3 landing gear and tolerate it going 200mph. But the funny thing is that for a runway, it's only about twice the thickness of a concrete roadway meant to hold up a semi. Why not make roads like runways and get it over with? It would save the government a lot of money - and save gas on many commuters not wasting gas stuck in traffic from "road construction".
Also, a road that'll last will last for many years to come as bicycle and rollerblade users as they use it for decades. Is it too much like making sense to make a road to last more than 3 years?
Build a concrete road to hold up a semi for 20 years and you have a road that'll hold up a bicycle user for a thousand years, like La Via Appia of Olde Roma.
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
It's been done in places: Portions of the German Autobahn were built to allow tracked vehicle (i.e. tanks) travel and to be used as emergency airstrips without suffering as a result, same in places in Switzerland.
It's my understanding that some of these roads in what became East Germany got pretty much $0 spent on them from the end of ww2 through to the failure of the Soviet Union and were still able to safely handle traffic at 100 kph.
It often looks obvious but it isn't. Adjust the discount rate higher and spending 20% more now on a road is more expensive than building the whole thing over in twenty years.
It seems like you're investing in the future; You are. But every investment has an opportunity cost. You could use that extra 20% for something that has a higher return.
Alan:
Just read the above in the context of $2.5mm per mile of overhead and thought of a system powered by 3rd rail sections but with the 3rd rail confined to station platform areas. The LR would enter the station to load and discharge and at the same time would connect to electrical supply. 3rd rail would be located under platform apron in such a way that it is not open and accessible to public.
Operation would be a form of "pulse and cruise." This is reported to give the highest mileage in auto applications and should do the same in LR. Train sits in station and loads passengers while at the same time taking on energy to take it to the next station stop. Train accelerates out of station while still pulling power from 3rd rail ( and it is the acceleration phase that has the highest energy demand). LR then cruises through to the next station stop where the process is repeated.
Outside the station area the LR maintains speed through combination of momentum, or capacitor discharge to drive motors, or by pulling power from a flywheel that was energised at last station stop. I'm thinking of station intervals as being similar to current urban bus spacing not as widely spaced as Toulouse - Paris. On severe grades it might be necessary to install 3rd rail to assist with the climb but in most urban settings this likely would not be required. Seems to be a relatively inexpensive solution.
Comment?
Cheers!
Not a massive fan of trams myself.
Particularly in the UK where our streets are congested enough as it is without adding tram lines to the chaos.
There is also the issue of low frequency vibrations caused by metal on metal rolling as the trams pass. This is a significant problem for many houses in Manchester where new tram lines have been built. The vibrations cause cracking in house foundations.
Now considering that much of Scotland's housing stock consists of tenement type buildings lining the main thoroughfares and you can see why the return of trams would not be welcome.
After the demise of trams they were largely replaced with Trolleybuses.
These were so quiet that they were known as the "silent service" (or the silent death...)
They didn't survive the cheap diesel of the 60s/early 70's. By the early 70's they were all gone.
To me trolleybuses represent a much better solution. Much lower investment than trams, & in our congested roads, their ability to move around double parked cars, delivery vans etc is their coup de grace over fixed line trams.
Trolleybuses can now be built in tram like lengths, so the argument over capacity is null & void. With certain lengths of their route the buses can run in dedicated bus lanes and so can pick up scheduling advantages in rush hour traffic.
They may not be quite as efficient as trams, but you have to grant them the lower up front capital cost (which in the UK is the real make or break factor for large public schemes) and better integration & flexibility. And the nimby's have less objections due to lower noise & vibration issues and no road disruption during construction.
If trams were proposed for anywhere I lived (especially near my house) I'd activity campaign against them. And this is from a guy that lives within the fallout range of the local nuke and doesn't mind it one bit....
Andy
Noise and vibration are a function of engineering detail.
The Canal Streetcars (built in house in New Orleans with trucks by Brookville, also used in new PCC II streetcars in Philly) have no preceptiable vibration. Less than a diesel bus or truck for sure (and this is on the Jello like soil of New Orleans, where a train a km away has bounced me in bed).
Over grass tracks they are as quiet as a passing car. Over concrete tracks, as quiet as a passing 5 ton delivery truck.
Since the roads are "free" the upfront capital costs can be lower for electric trolley buses. Longer term they are often the "second best" solution (they do require not one but two overhead wires BTW). ETBs do not significantly increase ridership (historically +3% over diesel) and trams do (+26% for new French trams over buses they replaced in the first year, usually higher % in the USA).
Less space for cars is, IMO, a good and not a bad thing *IF* there is a private ROW for tram that is not held up by congestion. In other words, it is good when trams move faster and cars move slower from my perspective post-Peak Oil.
If your perspective is that trams are for other people, and trams are just a bus replacement, then I could see disagreement. (Hope that is not a straw man).
Still, ETBs do have their place. They are "Step 3" of my plan.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
Best Hopes for More and Better Trams post-Peak Oil, everyone is going to need them,
Alan
Our buses run 24/7. As far as I'm concerned a 5 ton delivery truck is way too noisy at 2am. Plus any new trams in the UK will not be built to the best standards but will be built by the cheapest bidder. So what do you think is going to happen noise wise? The clatter of the old trams were one of the few reasons people were glad to see the back of them.
I'm sorry, but I subscribe to working with the best you've got. Within the confines of what we've got in the UK, I see trolleybuses as being the quickest to implement at the lowest cost. In Glasgow bus ridership already beats the trains hands down so I don't think it'll be a problem convincing folk that trolleybuses are a good thing. Plus it'll get rid of those damn diesels for once and all. (Can you tell I'm a cyclist?)
The roads ain't free, they are paid for already by the rest of us car drivers via our Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax).
But because this is the situation, I'd prefer trolleybuses as they mess up the roads less.
And in the UK, capital costs are still king. I'd rather get a medium sized well thought out trolleybus system than a small, expensive, goldplated tram system that hardly serves anyone. And being the UK, that is exactly what'll happen.
Put it this way. In the UK the only way we'll get either trams or trolley's is if the infrastructure is paid for by grants/regional/local authority. The actual service will be provided by a franchise/concession allowing a supplier to provide a monopoly service at agreed prices. the supplier will provide the rolling stock.
Thus the public authority is going to universally want low up front engineering costs and the supplier low rolling stock costs. You'd also be wise not to upset homeowners or rail unions (another reason I'd want to stay away from steel rails).
the problem I have with this is the underlying assumption that peak oil=no cars.
Really?
The way I see it, no oil=lots of little short range electric vehicles with all the attendant double parking etc that we have now. Small, short range electric vehicles are already available for reasonable costs so to think that the personal vehicle is going to pack up and die due to a lack of oil is one of the more interesting assumptions that I question about peak oil. Personal mobility is very highly cherished (otherwise we wouldn't be discussing trams/trolleys in the first place) and I don't see it going without a fight.
Buses are for other people. Can't stand the damn things myself. Not too keen on trains/trams either.
I've always said that public transport has two problems:
1> The public (they smell and are frequently violent)
2> The transport (slow, expensive, unreliable..)
But, hey, other than that its fine ;-)
Lower population and electric cars are definently the way forward. And if all else fails then I can always ride my bike.
Andy
Our streetcars (but not our buses) also ran 24/7 before Katrina. Every day but Mardi Gras :-)
I'd rather get a medium sized well thought out trolleybus system than a small, expensive, gold-plated tram system that hardly serves anyone
You assume trolley buses will be done well but trams will be done poorly. Under that assumption, I would also chose good design and management over poor design and management. But I do not see the quality of management as being dependent upon mode.
Some narrow streets are only practical with trolley buses unless the entire street is devoted to the tram.
The French experience (and I am actively searching for official confirmation of this ATM) [sterotype] is to:
1) select a very heavy bus line for conversion to tram
2a) Take two lanes entirely away from rubber tires and have grass running (except on cross streets). Some streets are turned into grassy lanes.
2b) Take two lanes and make the surface faux cobblestones. Cars can use it, but they avoid it unless congestion is high.
Taking the tram largely out of traffic makes it faster and more reliable (some of your objections) AND cheaper to build and operate.
3) Add pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the way (Grenoble is going to a bike + tram network with service vehicles, the goal is few private cars)
Low floor trams work quite well with bicycles. The French are pushing that combination with Grenoble the most extreme example.
Financing of public projects need not be static. You make dour projections based upon the dismal British history. One can assume more of the same as the UK slips further behind France.
You assume that ETBs are going to be substantially cheaper than trams. I question that assumption. Slower = more vehicles = more cost for rolling stock and more operating expense. And costs are shifted (street repair vs tram installation)
20 to 25 million euros/km (1.5 euros/pound ?) is reasonably close to affordable.
Perhaps the Scots lack the management and design skill of the French (the Americans certainly do) and all you can muster in a post-Peak Oil world is a "second best" stop-gap solution. So be it. Better than nothing !
Just do not delude yourself that it is not a second best solution,
Best Hopes for the Best Solutions,
Alan
That wasn't my assumption. I assumed that for a given capital cost we'd get a much larger trolleybus system than a tram system. Also if road maintainance costs can be pushed onto motorists (or shared with freight/delivery trucks) then it further lowers the cost for the trolleybus operator as they aren't solely responsible for track maintainance like trams are.
I think there may be a fundamental disconnect between our visions here. In the US and France you have nice large grid iron pattern cities with wide thoroughfares which you can easiy tap into to allow dedicated running lines for trams.
In both Glasgow & Edinburgh this is most certainly not the case. Glasgow has a very long history of trams. Indeed at one time it had a world class tram system the soldiered on until 1967.
BUT, if you'd ever seen a Glasgow tram then you'd understand many of my objections. They are, to all intents and purposes, the same size as a modern double decker bus. They're non-articulated like modern UK trams. When they were taken out of service it was easy to replace them with double decker trolleybuses and diesel buses. Here's a nice pic:
Even going back to 1902, all of Glasgow's roads have been shared access and I don't see it ever going over to dedicated tram lines. Our main thoroughfares aren't large enough to contain dedicated tram lines. They never were.
Not only that but the main reason for the trams was to connect outlying Glasgow suburbs to the city to enable the workforce & professionals to commute into and out of town. This means that you'll need a very extensive tram line network. At its heyday the Glasgow tram system had over 150 miles of double track. No doubt nowadays you'd need more to cover some of the newer developments.
I think the other reason I see trolleybuses as a bus replacement rather than a tram replacement is that many Glasgow suburbs already have good rail connections to central station. To me setting up a tram network is a bit too much like duplication. If you want to ride on rails out of the flow of traffic then you already have that choice pretty much anywhere in Glasgow.
All of our buses are already low floor.
Unfortunately our dour British history is already dooming us to fall further behind the French in other areas. I have my doubts that we'll get the next generation of nuclear facilities by the time we really need them. Certainly the government doesn't seem to be making encouraging noises. If it refuses to give any support either financially or with guaranteed power purchase price agreements with the national grid then operators are likely to come to the conclusion that it is not worth building new nukes in the UK until after a power shortage pushes up our electricity costs. By this time we'll be running a grid heavily dependant on russian gas.
Now where did I say we'd need either more vehicles or that they'd be slower? 1 modern computer controlled articulated trolleybus (that happens to look like a tram) can replace 3 buses. It can also accelerate & decelerate much faster than trams can allowing a quicker service. See: http://www.tbus.org.uk (no affiliation to myself BTW)
Indeed the French have a very nice looking prototype in Nancy and Caen, see: http://www.tbus.org.uk/article.htm
I'm still not convinced that spending millions to lay track over hundreds of miles of our most valuable roads will give us that much benefit.
Horses for courses (but no diesels please).
Andy