> It does seem, on the surface, anyway, that petroleum has a
> universal utility and demand, and there is a capital cost 
> to producing it
> sufficient to make it a scarce commodity.

Stream of consciousness thunkings:
The cost of producing petroleum is extremely variable and 
has some relationship to its price but a lower relationship 
to its value. Value is a debateable concept even in this 
fairly 'real world' area. One arguably useful metric is the 
cost of performing the same tasks that current mainstream 
petroleum products do if mainstream petroleum was no longer 
available and a mature alternative existed. this may be a 
petroleum equivalent from similar hydrocarbons such as coal 
or even shale oil (as these require substantially different 
extraction and processing techniques) or Hydrogen used as an 
energy distribution medium for solar or hydro or wind or 
nuclear (fusion or fission) or sea power or biofuels 
(directly or via Hydrogen energy transfer) or ... . 
Petroleum is different than most of these in that NONE of 
the cost goes into creating the energy content. The whole 
cost is made up from location, extraction, distribution and 
WTMWB (WhatTheMarketWillBearium). All + tax. Traditionally 
WTMWB has often been a major of the overwhelmingly major 
component of the end cost. The invisible hand has sought to 
bring the end cost to a level not too much less than 
alternatives, with varying degrees of success.

The cost of mature alternatives has been much debated - both 
on this list and worldwide. I'd suggest that the general 
consensus is that alternatives are going to be "somewhat 
dearer than petroleum is now". The most promising long term 
is fusion energy with a suitable distribution medium - 
probably but not necessarily Hydrogen.  Mature fusion with a 
hydrogen infrastructure is liable to be in the 50 to 100 
year time span, if we last that long, so there are liable to 
be a few stopgaps along the way. As the others either have 
no direct distribution capability (solar, wave, hydro), or a 
lower energy density (biofuels, wood gasifiers, ...) then 
odds are Hydrogen distribution infrastructure is a longer 
term necessity unless some other alternative appears. 
Identify that and you become a billionaire. Some recent 
suggestions include Al-Ga (lower energy density, rare 
material), various forms of secondary cells (low energy 
density in both mass and volume), ... ). Other suggestions 
include things like flywheels (hard to tame at high 
densities), compressed gases (efficiency, density, safety) - 
the latter is staging yet another another revival with 
another (same tiger new spots) air car recently announced.

The cost of petroleum will rise towards and somewhat beyond 
its true replacement value in time. The invisible hand will 
allow some overshoot due to the startup costs of 
alternatives and the advantages of being the incumbent 600 
pound gorilla.

I'd love to see the day when He3 reactors come on stream 
using Lunar Helium, but at the rate we are going so far it 
seems unlikely;  that I will, even given my reaching the 
upper limit of my allowed span (about 2070).

> My curiosity, however, is
> concerning what is there if anything that can serve as a 
> universal basis for
> currency?

System Warning 31416
    Short response deleted.
    Expertise level falls from questionable to dangerously 
low.
    Leave for others to answer.



        Russell

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist