Archives

Running Out of Fuel, but Not Out of Ideas (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/business/25every.html?bl&ex=1211860800&en=bd602c42bf4daa1e&ei=5087%0A)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/071126_PeakOil_dl-vertical.jpgBen Stein - The New York Times - May 25, 2008

Does it really make sense to replace one non-renewable energy source with more expensive and dirtier non-renewable sources? -- Ed.

AS I watch the drama about gasoline and oil prices play out on the streets and in the news media, some images and memories come to mind.

There is Will Rogers, the great sage and comedian, who famously commented during the Great Depression that America would be the first nation to “go to the poorhouse in an automobile.” This doesn’t sound comprehensible now, because driving a car is so basic to American life. But in those days, it was still something of a luxury and a novelty to have a car, and to drive it to the poorhouse was a contradiction in terms.

There are also scenes from the great “Mad Max” movies. In one of them, Australia has been reduced to chaos amid a cruel shortage of oil and gasoline. Men will kill in an instant for a few drops of precious gasoline to power their motorcycles, and life as we know it has stopped because of a deficiency of that magnificent stuff.

Most of all, the images are of the glory of driving cars, cruising through our towns and suburbs, just burning up gas… http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/business/25every.html?bl&ex=1211860800&en=bd602c42bf4daa1e&ei=5087%0A

This part hits home:
"If we keep acting as if the landscape were more important than human life, we will make ourselves the serfs of the oil producers and eventually reduce our country to poverty and anarchy."

----

It's hard just to get the rich folks to allow windfarms off the coast around here.
They will never allow offshore drilling for oil.

http://www.capewind.org/



http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/NEWS11/80506009/-1/SPECIAL01

Letting endangered bird species control our future will lead to 'us' becoming an endangered species.

I gotta agree with Ben - we need to explore OUR sources of energy and reduce our dependency on Foreign Oil. I think energy independence is a bit more pressing than environmental concerns. If our economy is destroyed and we descend into chaos, nobody is going to care about the environment.......fix the dependency first, THEN worry about the environment. If we can take care of both at the same time, then that's great.

Hi All,

Well the good thing about Ben's article is he is stressing that an extreme situation is around the corner without action.

Putting wind turbines in off-shore area is realtively benign compared to an Oil drilling rig. Think about about a hurricane going into Nantucket sound full of Oil platforms? Versus a bunch of bent over wind turbines on a shoal that has been there forever.

While I do not favor windfall profit taxes. I just cannot stomach freebee oil resources to refiners either. Which is in effect what happens with US Government Property Oil rights. Maybe it makes more economic sense for the Government to develop these resources and sell them on the market like others. And also be able to start putting oil in the strategic reserve again.

And, while on the topic, it seems like wind is also a resource, and off-shore areas are government property. And the US has a big deficit.

It's good that the article realizes the problem, but the solutions...? The environment has always taken a back seat to the economy and probably always will. It's not hard to understand why it's this way (not claiming any perfectly pristine behaviour on my part, by any means), but it is very unfortunate. The more we harm it, the less we'll be able to fix it by throwing money and effort at it later. Wait too long and possibly no amount of trying will be able to restore it, not to mention that the damage will also harm the economy everyone is worried about. Human society doesn't exist in a bubble outside of nature. We're quite firmly in it and depend on it.

Ben Stein is a Likudnik that doesn't give a crap about The US or Science. In Ben's world, god, not science will solve the energy problem.

Forget oil shale, tar sand, liquefied coal, ethanol and for now, hydrogen. Conservation and higher efficiency are our only hope at this point.

It's good that the article realizes the problem, but the solutions...? The environment has always taken a back seat to the economy and probably always will. It's not hard to understand why it's this way (not claiming any perfectly pristine behaviour on my part, by any means), but it is very unfortunate. The more we harm it, the less we'll be able to fix it by throwing money and effort at it later. Wait too long and possibly no amount of trying will be able to restore it, not to mention that the damage will also harm the economy everyone is worried about. Human society doesn't exist in a bubble outside of nature. We're quite firmly in it and depend on it.

I agree. I don't see why the environment has to "take one for the team." It's not like we're choosing between survival and the environment. We're choosing between the environment and the bloated, unsustainable American lifestyle.

It's interesting that conservation gets almost no mention in the media. It's always drill, drill, drill.

"If we keep acting as if the landscape were more important than human life, we will make ourselves the serfs of the oil producers and eventually reduce our country to poverty and anarchy."

This is the best thing I've heard in a long time. If we think the polar bears or the deer in an utterly uninhabitable area are more important than human beings, then we've got a serious problem.

"If we keep acting as if the landscape were more important than human life, we will make ourselves the serfs of the oil producers and eventually reduce our country to poverty and anarchy."

This is the best thing I've heard in a long time. If we think the polar bears or the deer in an utterly uninhabitable area are more important than human beings, then we've got a serious problem.

They're more important than driving gas guzzlers.

They're more important than driving gas guzzlers.

I see what you're trying to say but you're never going to sell that idea to anyone, because a major part of living in a free country is the freedom to choose what you want to drive. If it's an enormous FSP that's never going to haul anything or go off-road, then it's your problem if it costs $100 to fill it up twice a week.

Unfortunately you can't sign into law specific limitations on vehicle size, targeting larger SUV's and pickups. The minute you do, where does the slippery slope end? When we're driving Yugos? If we're so hell-bent on reducing our carbon footprint that the economy collapsed and anarchy ensues? Then we've got much, much bigger problems to deal with than high gas prices.

Hi Lamebums,

We have a socalled "gas guzzler" license fee here in Illinois. Because heavier vehicles cause more road damage, primarily. That fee could be boosted easily.

I think the automotive property tax is more of the slipery slope. They have that in Connecticut, and its level varies from community to community. I travel there on occaision, and people buy cars that depretiate fast just to lessen the burden. So the Yugo is the ideal car there, if it can be kept running. Or surplus police cruisers. Or ten year old pickup trucks. Technology cost money to develop, yet the regressive tax in Connecticut diminishes what can be charged for a vehicle. This is kinda an AMT situation. I imagine it was originally meant to ding the rich but now you cannot buy a car which you will pay more in property tax for it each year, than the gas it uses. Or it was that way till this year.

Unfortunately you can't sign into law specific limitations on vehicle size, targeting larger SUV's and pickups.

Sure we can; in fact, we just did. The new CAFE standards law is too weak with too many loopholes, but it will in fact dictate what vehicles you can drive in the future.

Peak Oil will dictate terms, anyway. Don't be too surprised to see gasoline rationing. That law took effect during WW II. Be fun to see how the gas-hog drivers deal with something like that.

Ben Stein is a smart guy, but I agree that while he mentioned that we drive SUV gas-hogs, he didn't emphasize the importance of changing over our fleet of vehicles to fuel-efficient ones a quickly as possible. Hopefully, high gasoline prices will do that more efficiently than the government can, especially a government that is corrupt and guilty of being bought by lobbyists.

Harry

And, I think that conservation would be a higher priority for everyone concerned when its OUR oil we're burning, and not somebody else's.....:flag:

I can't say I'm a fan of more government regulations to try and solve the problem........

Sure we can; in fact, we just did. The new CAFE standards law is too weak with too many loopholes, but it will in fact dictate what vehicles you can drive in the future.

I'm not 100% in the know about the new CAFE, but can't they get around those CAFE requirements if it's a flex-fuel E85 vehicle? :angry:

Yes, and Americans don't like to hear (or acknowledge) that we're mostly a bunch of mega-consumers-and that there's little reason for it. Why, I just heard either Hannity or Limbaugh taking it to Barack Obama for a comment he made several days ago stating as much (albeit in a very cautious way.) There's a reason we're called "Ugly Americans" in Europe, as well as some other countries in the world. Instant gratification is the mantra of the day, I'm afraid. There is very little real "drama" in our day to day lives as Americans; thus the proliferation of the "reality-based" television shows which scar the television landscape and popular culture at large. I think I'll quote some John Prine now: "Blow up your T.V., throw away your paper, move to the country-build you a home. Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches, try to find Jesus on your own!" I feel much better now.
brian

I gotta agree with Ben - we need to explore OUR sources of energy and reduce our dependency on Foreign Oil. I think energy independence is a bit more pressing than environmental concerns. If our economy is destroyed and we descend into chaos, nobody is going to care about the environment.......fix the dependency first, THEN worry about the environment. If we can take care of both at the same time, then that's great.

Many great past civilizations have collapsed in large part to environmental degradation and climate change (man made and/or natural). Check out Collapse by Jared Diamond. I agree that we need to shore up our economy and continue to look out for "numero uno", but if we totally disregard the environment, we may do so at our own peril.

I'm not 100% in the know about the new CAFE, but can't they get around those CAFE requirements if it's a flex-fuel E85 vehicle? :angry:

Yes, if I understand it correctly, that is one of the biggest loopholes, courtesy of GM and Archer Daniels Midland. Ain't it a wonderful country we live in? It's the best government money can buy...

All the shaningans our government and auto makers engage in can't get around the awful prospect of Peak Oil. Our fleet of vehicles must change. Gasoline prices will see to that. And if our auto makers won't supply the fuel efficient vehicles we need, then the Asian and European auto makers will. That's how the free market works. Hopefully, we'll still be able to afford these new vehicles...

Harry

There's a reason we're called "Ugly Americans" in Europe, as well as some other countries in the world.

I Wish we were Ugly Americans. Unfortunately, far too many of us are so insular and self-assured of our own righteousness that'd it never happen.

And please, could everyone stop quoting books they've never read or understood? In the book, the Ugly American is the GOOD GUY!:rolleyes:

Yes, if I understand it correctly, that is one of the biggest loopholes, courtesy of GM and Archer Daniels Midland. Ain't it a wonderful country we live in? It's the best government money can buy...

All the shaningans our government and auto makers engage in can't get around the awful prospect of Peak Oil. Our fleet of vehicles must change. Gasoline prices will see to that. And if our auto makers won't supply the fuel efficient vehicles we need, then the Asian and European auto makers will. That's how the free market works. Hopefully, we'll still be able to afford these new vehicles...

Harry

Therefore the new CAFE does not really change the type of vehicles we will drive, since all the Big 3 have to do is make their FSP's flex-fuel compatible and then keep pumping them out?? :angry:

But yeah I agree that gas prices will change the market in ways that no amount of government regulation will ever achieve.

As to Asian and European automakers supplying the more fuel-efficient vehicles, didn't that happen in 1973? In response, we drove around Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas, and imported Volkswagen diesels from Europe because of their better mileage?

Of course, those same Japanese automakers have succumbed to the lure of FSP sales and the wider profit margins--so who perhaps would take the place?

Mark my words--we'll see cheap imports (most likely China--google Chery Automobile) that are little ****boxes but they're good on gas and relatively easy to maintain despite being really, really unsafe. But it won't cost a fortune to fill it up and as a result they'll sell like mad.

Here's a followup--consider the Chery QQ for example.

http://www.cheryglobal.com/modelsshow/detail.jsp?columnId=11731673390001&cursorColId=11731677470001&childIndex=3

With the 1.1L engine and a five speed manual transmission, it's FE is 5.2L/100km at 90km/h (55mph).

That's 45 MPG highway if my calculation is correct. Can you imagine what a hypermiler could get with that? :D

Here's a followup--consider the Chery QQ for example.

Yeah, GM's overseas division makes some great vehicles don't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chery_QQ

Lamebums,
for the sake of my blood pressure, please never diss an American company while praising the pirated Chinese copy of its products.

2005 out of 2008 components on the QQ are interchangeable between the QQ and the Chevy Spark/DaeWoo Maitz and the Chinese have the nerve to claim its not pirated.:mad:

I don't like the Big 3 but I hate the blatant theft of many Chinese companies more.

Lamebums,
for the sake of my blood pressure, please never diss an American company while praising the pirated Chinese copy of its products.

2005 out of 2008 components on the QQ are interchangeable between the QQ and the Chevy Spark/DaeWoo Maitz and the Chinese have the nerve to claim its not pirated.:mad:

I don't like the Big 3 but I hate the blatant theft of many Chinese companies more.

Well, I don't have much choice but to pile it on when the Big 3 don't even offer us a decent alternative for gas mileage. Chevy is pimping out their cars and saying they're champions of mileage when the four-cylinder Malibu gets 30 MPG highway.

Tahoe Hybrid? :angry:

I almost want Chery to be able to import those cars and steal it right from under GM's nose since they've proven they don't even want to sell a fuel-efficient model here. Maybe then the Big 3 will finally sell a non-FSP in the States when the realize their loss :eek:

The biggest question, I believe, with regards to any specific alternative fuel development is, "Will the cure be worse than the disease?"

Most of the things I've read about liquid coal suggest that, at best, GHG and smog emissions are on par with gasoline, and at worst, far worse than gas. The same seems to hold with biofuels (at least in their current forms) and hydrogen (current well-to-station emissions at least).

With oil shale and deep well drilling, it is a non-trivial possibility that contamination would occur (much like the gulf coast dead zone from fertilizer runoff). That would affect fishing very directly and probably a few other industries (basically anything that depends on large amounts of water...paper, possibly farming if that water makes its way to irrigation systems).

Humanity and the landscape are intertwined, to be sure, and a lot of our livelihood depends on a healthy landscape. You can't separate the two, and the future is not going to be a simple choice of either the economy or the environment. Framing the debate in those terms does no justice to the serious issues at hand. The most important thing during upcoming alternative fuel development is to make sure that we don't have tunnel vision. In order to be truly effective, whatever energy policy and fuel(s) we come up with will need to be both economically and environmentally sustainable. We're a creative people, I'm sure we can have our cake and eat it too.

Hi Lamebums,

We have a socalled "gas guzzler" license fee here in Illinois. Because heavier vehicles cause more road damage, primarily. That fee could be boosted easily.

I think the automotive property tax is more of the slipery slope. They have that in Connecticut, and its level varies from community to community. I travel there on occaision, and people buy cars that depretiate fast just to lessen the burden. So the Yugo is the ideal car there, if it can be kept running. Or surplus police cruisers. Or ten year old pickup trucks. Technology cost money to develop, yet the regressive tax in Connecticut diminishes what can be charged for a vehicle. This is kinda an AMT situation. I imagine it was originally meant to ding the rich but now you cannot buy a car which you will pay more in property tax for it each year, than the gas it uses. Or it was that way till this year.

No need to look all the way to the East Coast Dondee, just across the River to Missouri where we also have personnal property tax on our cars. I've lived here over 20 years, and although people bitch about it, I've never heard anyone say they've bought a less expensive car because of it.


And please, could everyone stop quoting books they've never read or understood? In the book, the Ugly American is the GOOD GUY!

Ah, so when someone calls me an Ugly American, they're complimenting me. Gotcha.

The biggest question, I believe, with regards to any specific alternative fuel development is, "Will the cure be worse than the disease?"

Most of the things I've read about liquid coal suggest that, at best, GHG and smog emissions are on par with gasoline, and at worst, far worse than gas. The same seems to hold with biofuels (at least in their current forms) and hydrogen (current well-to-station emissions at least).

With oil shale and deep well drilling, it is a non-trivial possibility that contamination would occur (much like the gulf coast dead zone from fertilizer runoff). That would affect fishing very directly and probably a few other industries (basically anything that depends on large amounts of water...paper, possibly farming if that water makes its way to irrigation systems).

Humanity and the landscape are intertwined, to be sure, and a lot of our livelihood depends on a healthy landscape. You can't separate the two, and the future is not going to be a simple choice of either the economy or the environment. Framing the debate in those terms does no justice to the serious issues at hand. The most important thing during upcoming alternative fuel development is to make sure that we don't have tunnel vision. In order to be truly effective, whatever energy policy and fuel(s) we come up with will need to be both economically and environmentally sustainable. We're a creative people, I'm sure we can have our cake and eat it too.

Not a cure. Anyone that looks at our problems and thinks about them for a while will end up thinking
of alternate sources of oil or oil from coal etc is only a band-aid to get us over this rough spot.
Looking back at what we have already accomplished environmentally since the 1950s,
everyone has to know that we can't go back to the good old days for very long
and not suffer major repercussions.

Around the NE, cars rust away pretty fast. It's hard to find cars on the road from the 1980s. With gas prices shooting up, my guess is, we will have about 50% less gas hogs on the road within 3 to 5 years.