So he sought me out, and I assisted with the article, but not so as to correct some of the problems in it. (Basically, my ideas didn't jibe with his thesis.) Nevertheless, the writer was earnest and honest, and it's a good article. It shows, however, how quick looks at history can be misleading. He came up with the idea for the article after discovering in the historical newspaper databases a 1925 pronouncement of the coming end of petroleum fields. Not knowing the context of 1925, he made some poor assumptions. In 1924, for example, the government announced that national oil production was down from the previous year. This alarmed many into thinking the oil had run out, whereas the real cause was lower prices following the 1920 depression and the introduction of cheap CA oil, both of which suppressed extraction in the East and Midwest.
As for why gasoline, the Post writer set it straight with this, coming from me:
"Against competing technologies, gasoline ultimately won because it was inherently a more useful form of storing energy," said Michael L. Bromley, a automobile historian in Bethesda.
Freepers will note that the (com)Post article does not mention the, perhaps, greatest oil-running-out prediction, Hubbert's 1956 "peak oil" theory. The Post writer deliberately limited his discussion to the 1920s and before. We've had plenty enough discussions of peak oil here, so Freepers ought to be plenty familiar with that theory.
One comment about it: peak oil does not accommodate price reactions to/from supply, so it serves no other purpose than, right or wrong, to define when a particular oil field has "peaked." It says nothing about the usefulness of petroleum or its alternatives. For that, see my blog, as per the above link.
Come October, watch for Diesel cars to get a big push. And watch for Honda's diesel. They could possibly change how history looks at diesel engines; as being clean burning and better than gasoline engines.
Innerestin'
The good ole New York Times, always incorrect, inconsequential, but not often informative.
Steam powered automobiles would probably be a LOT cheaper to manufacture as the tolerances required are not nearly as fine. Plus they could use crude oil directly in the boilers .. or anything else liquid that burned.
This is the point everyone seems to miss. Feedback in a dynamic system makes static predictions virtually useless. Price changes are feedback.
Gee. Nailed that one, eh. Just like Weird Algore predicted Global Warming would destroy the earth in ten year. Just don't point out to him that he made that prediction 15 years ago.
When I'm weary, down and out, I'll remember to practice my "strenuousity"... :)
LOW OIL This Should Help Explain It All...
A lot of folks can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country.
Well, there's a very simple answer. Nobody bothered to check the oil. We just didn't know we were getting low. The reason for that is purely geographical. Our OIL is located in: Alaska California Coastal Florida Coastal Louisiana Kansas Michigan North Dakota Oklahoma Pennsylvania Texas Wyoming
Our DIPSTICKS are located in Washington DC
Any Questions?