Americans to be rescued from high gas prices?
Saudi Arabia appears to be frightened of Americans’ desires to cut back on oil use and to start putting money into alternative forms of energy - so they plan to raise their output considerably next month.
It must be hard to balance one’s profits against one’s desire to keep customers hooked … I wonder if drug dealers feel that way?
It would be ironic if Ford retooled all those factories to build their more-efficient Eurocars only to find that gas was cheap again and Americans were back to big SUVs.
It would also be sad if Americans proved to think so short-term… I can almost understand forgetting the 1970s, but forgetting the Spring of 2008 by the Fall of 2008 would be pushing it.
When one thinks about it, the best thing OPEC can do is vary supply now and then, just often enough to get people to invest in fuel efficiency, then make it an unworthy investment. That would give fuel efficiency a bad name for businessmen, so that if the price did slowly, slowly climb up (like cooking a frog), few would be willing to put their capital into fuel efficiency.
I’m probably assigning more intent into this than is merited. However, as Americans, we are definitely hooked on cheap energy. No children’s party is complete with plastic bags filled with plastic rubbish designed to be thrown away after a day or two. Americans, unlike Europeans, still heavily favor the top-loading washers that use three times the water and quite a bit more energy; and precious few people dry off their towels on clotheslines. Again, not to be redundant, but lots of people and business don’t even use the sleep features of their computers (or the “shut down” feature). People leave their SUVs running while they drop off their kids at school, for ten or fifteen minutes… on nice days as well as days when one can pretend that they need to keep the car warm.
Nobody listens when I say that energy is still cheap — though a lot of people are seeing their net income run into deficits with the change in gas prices. Still, power is so cheap that many people leave their lights on 24/7, along with their computers and air conditioners. It’s so cheap companies leave the lights on in their buildings and air condition massive atriums to 65 degrees. It’s so cheap people are still buying track lighting with halogen bulbs. It’s so cheap people don’t think about power costs when they buy a TV, ignore the energy usage labels on their refrigerators and air conditioners, and leave the a/c on overnight instead of opening windows, even in rooms they’re not using.
Power is expensive enough to complain about (and to really hurt people whose incomes are finely balanced with their expenses), but not so expensive that the large majority of people will use less, even when it won’t cost them anything but a few seconds to shut a light or put on their energy saver or shut their computer or spend $20 on a slightly better a/c unit or $100 more on a refrigerator … though many will gladly spend more than that to get their precious stainless steel refrigerator skin.
In a real energy crisis, we would all find ways to economize, just as Californians during a drought slash their water usage (admittedly a small percentage cheat.) Industry would find ways to save energy, just as automakers are now increasing their wind tunnel time and making stylists live with minor changes for the sake of aerodynamics (or, at Toyota, major changes for the sake of aerodynamics). There’s lots of things we can all do and when the price is really high, we’ll do all those things.
Or, of course, we’ll find people to blame, get all angry, and make ExxonMobil and the leaders of a small number of oil-rich countries very happy and very amused. But I’m hoping the future holds the America of FDR, George Washington, and Thomas Paine, and not the America of Senator McCarthy, Henry Ford, and A. Mitchell Palmer.
George Washington and Thomas Paine, no problem. FDR? Hell NO! And the only fault with McCarthy was that while he was right about the much scoffed “Red Menace” by people like yourself, the Verona papers vindicated him on that. Same can be said about A. Mitchell Palmer, Anarchists were a real subversive threat and often associated with Communists. I will give you that McCarthy was wrong in the way he went about it. But Anarchists actually tried to kill Palmer. Not to mention 44 people and injuring 400 on Wall Street in a bombing. And Henry Ford is one of the reasons you have a blog that celebrates automobiles.
I’ll be blunt, stick to the Mopars and Toyotas and avoid the politics. Your east Coast lefty views don’t play well west of the Hudson River.
Comment by Martin — June 16, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
Let me be equally as blunt. Don’t give political advice. Labeling people is not what this is all about. That you disagree is obvious, but no need to be rude, which you are. That the views expressed may not agree with you, is not enough reason to extend your bias into everyone living West of the Hudson River. That is just your singular opinion, and I daresay not one shared by many on this forum.
Comment by Curtis Redgap — June 16, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
May I point out that most of those arrested by Palmer were NOT anarchists? Also, that I live West of the Hudson River? Martin, you talk about labelling but as Curtis said, you label as well as the rest of them.
Henry Ford… was a raving nut in terms of politics. He wanted every Jew in the world to be jailed or murdered. To me, that’s not the American way, no matter how many crappy, obsolete cars he mass-produced.
Comment by Dave — June 17, 2008 @ 7:22 am
PS> The reason for FDR, since you obviously missed it, had nothing to do with his Depression counter-measures, such as the banking insurance that has prevented major economic disasters in this country since 1945 (until it was tampered with, quickly resulting in failed S&Ls). The reason for bringing FDR in was his leadership during World War II. He was able to bring the entire nation together to fight the Nazis and the Japanese, to the point where children brought their toys to be melted down into weapons for the cause, men gave up their cars, automakers stopped selling vehicles, and Chrysler produced innumerable weapons and war materials at no profit. Of all our wars since 1812, World War II probably had the very least profiteering, by a huge margin. That’s leadership for you, even if you have a problem with the politics.
By the way, I hear some people West of the Hudson OTHER than me like FDR. But then, I also like Winston Churchill despite some of his flaws and arguable decisions.
Comment by Dave — June 17, 2008 @ 7:53 am
I like many come here because I’m a huge fan of Mopar and you have one of the best web sites in regards to it as far as I’m concerned. The political references were as far as I’m concerned, unecessary. Granted it is your soapbox, but why pile on to an already saturated overdone subject?
I don’t think lower gas prices will lead to a resurgence in SUV’s. They’ve been around since the 50’s and some people, depending on where they live have a genuine need for them. The problem is not because of cheap gas but that they are nothing more than status symbols for insecure people both left and right. Nothing more.
McCarthy and Palmer have nothing to do with those that obsess over “Keeping up appearances”
Comment by Martin — June 17, 2008 @ 10:38 am
I agree with you - the point, which perhaps I did not make well enough, is that we can either blame third parties for high gas prices, or do something about them. This is a time when positive national leadership would be helpful, but so far politicians, of both major parties, have done little but throw blame around. Unofficially, there have been rants on Web and e-mail lists which blame specific groups for all ills… “if only it weren’t for Israel/environmentalists/Arabs/Chavez/ExxonMobil/Cheney, gas prices would never go up.”
Some people have been predicting this for years.
I don’t know where you come off saying I’m giving out political advice. I just re-read the blog and the first person to introduce politics was you, unless you count my listing FDR on the “goodies” side (prevented WWII from being the kind of profiteering nightmare that WWI and the Civil War — at least in the North — were), and Palmer (who broke numerous laws and the Constitution in his desires to break anarchists, unions, and other groups without any particular differentiation or legal justification) on the “baddies” side.
Basic points:
1. We still waste a lot of energy.
2. Leadership would help us reduce said waste.
3. I do not know whether we will have the kind of constructive leadership that moves us forward or the kind of destructive leadership that points fingers and strips Constitutional rights while avoiding the main problem.
Comment by Dave — June 17, 2008 @ 10:50 am
I agree wholeheartedly that there is a lack of leadership as to energy policy. We have politicians that don’t want to do the obvious, drill for our own supplies right here. What has set this off the “witchhunt” mentality is that people are finding out that other countries are doing the same. And one in particular is damn near in our backyard! And that, has sent many reasonable people over the edge.
Add to it,we now have those who are revelling in high gas prices or subscribe to the Church of Global Warming(Or Climate Change) and want to use them as a way to force their ideas on how we as Americans choose to move around.
We probably are more than agreeable on the basic ideals. I just think that Palmer and MccCarthy were poor examples of the witchhunt mentality. Both made wrong executions of the right idea. And FDR isn’t widely held as a “hero” in the minds of everyone. At least not where I am.
Comment by Martin — June 17, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
You must be in an unusual place. Most people think that FDR’s leadership in World War II left almost nothing to be desired. I don’t know anyone who thinks he’s a saint, any more than Churchill.
If you consider climate change to be a religion, you have not done any serious research, and by “serious research” I mean “also looking at data you disagree with.”
Of course, since I actually know how to do research and am PAID to do research, I am automatically an ivory tower liberal who doesn’t understand mainstream America - forgive me if I shove words into your mouth but I’ve had these arguments before - so you can ignore anything I say, because all liberals are America-hating liars - according to the arguments I’ve heard.
As for the oil drilling by Cuba, that’s a hoax… http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jun13/0,4670,CheneyOilDrilling,00.html
And those of us who live in states where tens of billions of dollars of tourism money come from beaches, and who have already seen ExxonMobil’s high commitment to clean oil drilling (!), would rather wait until the White House changes hands to see offshore drilling, simply because the current administration has shown no signs of caring about these issues and is unlikely to oversee any such drilling.
If you believe that oil is non-renewable, then drilling right now is the wrong thing to do anyway. Plentiful oil will be quickly consumed in the least efficient manner we can manage, and then we’ll be back where we started. We were in this mess (and worse) in the early 1970s and look what we’ve learned from it: nothing. If we have a not-critical shortage which drives prices up but does not meaningfully constrain supplies, people will still be able to drive, heat their houses, etc., but will start to look for ways to use less, and alternative forms of energy will be researched. In the long run many people will save money from efficiency (the water heater example comes to mind - pay $100 now, and save $400-$500 before the end of the water heater’s lifespan! or just simply shutting off computers at night - no cost, but you save numerous kW.) Then when we really DO need the oil, we start drilling - and by then the technology will have advanced so we can hopefully drill offshore without causing billions of dollars of damage to beaches and fisheries.
Comment by Dave — June 18, 2008 @ 7:24 am
I will grant you that there is a whole LOT MORE political meddling than is necessary, just as there is WAY too much government, from local to Federal. The point being is that it became so due to lack of interest by the people. FDR is not exactly my best reference for bestowing a hero status on, not because of his guidance through the Second World War, which was surely needed, making him a man of his times, but the legacy he left with a myriad of departments that established the “Imperial Presidency.”
Just as an aside, the FBI always had an agenda when they choose to become involved in a case, which was a Hoover tactic in all that he did. He was in office way too long. McCarthy was a brute, an alcoholic, that derided good people through intimidation, innuendo, with a lack of evidence. The Verona papers, did not exonerate anyone, or indict anyone, nor vindicate McCarthy. They were influenced by J. Edgar Hoover, who, more than anyone, needed to cover his own tracks in assisting McCarthy if not illegally, at least hugely, immorally. The information supplied was largely tainted, with most of the sources being compromised, inaccurate, or extracted through duress. And duress is what Hoover knew how to use, expertly, in the many “witch hunts”, often ignoring laws with illegal entry or wiretaps, that he conducted over his way too many years in charge.
This site in it’s entirety is not solely dedicated to automobiles. The blogs were created by a need for people to express what views they have without being confined by automobiles. Dave and I have disagreed a lot on this blog right here, none of which was applicable to cars or to Chrysler. In some cases, I came away with a whole new light on information that I had not been previously had privy to. A little research, and you know, even if Dave lives West, (I think he is East) of the Hudson, he can make a point which should make one think.
Given that, the points he made about wasting energy gave me cause to check on MY own costs in obtaining and using energy. My electric bill is not good. As we speak, we are switching to methods I found, through Dave’s thoughts, on a website (I research) with simple, cost effective suggestions to reduce energy consumption. I also have never been a great waster of gasoline, however, my local price of $3.82 at COSTCO has made me change my habits, too. We went down to two vehicles from three. We only drive now when we consolidate trips, even in conjunction with a necessary trip such as taking the grandson to school. We plan on what can be utilized in those daily necessary trips. I don’t idle the car, even in the heat of the Florida Sun, which can be brutal in summer time. There is much more, but, it is the blog entry by Dave that got me to REALLY thinking about how cheap, and how much we DO waste our resources. That is why a REAL energy policy needs to be set in stone, not all this political blather. I may have some disagreement about Global Warming, not supporting Al Gore, HOWEVER, something IS going on, and we should not dismiss the calls being made about such things. IMHO.
Oil prices are absolutely ridiculous. However, evidence makes it appear that the cost of it is being driven by people of the Untied States, huge American Banks, and politicians that will not do anything. There is currently NOT a shortage of crude oil. It should have raised a whole lot of outrage that places like Goldman-Sachs is making predictions of $200 a barrel for oil, and upwards of $7.00 a gallon for gasoline. When in fact, they are the same people driving up the speculative prices into the ridiculous. President Bush made a speech today that nearly calls the Democrat Congress as the sole source of lack of oil. He wants more drilling. There is also a grass roots movement, started by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calling for “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.” Which is disingenuous because it would take some months for oil newly drilled to reach a point to make a difference. Even if it came in tomorrow, the inescapable fact is that it would go to the oil speculation markets where it would cost just as much as it is today! The Democrat responded, correctly, that there are 86 MILLION ACRES of OIL LEASED LAND that has no drilling restrictions or bans that is NOT being utilized or drilled on currently. Someone needs to answer that obvious question. Why more when you aren’t doing with what you already have?
Unfortunately, there would be a resurgence to large vehicles if the perception of lowered gasoline prices were to suddenly occur. Our record on that is clear. In the phonied up crisis of 1973, where gasoline supplies were artificially manipulated, people started to flock to smaller cars, and other measures were launched to conserve. After that “crisis” subsided, fuel prices stabilized, relatively, rising slowly, instead of spiking, the manipulators learned that people will pay almost any price, as long as there is a good supply of it. Even to the point that the refinery capacity in this country is running at an estimated 87%. We continue to import gasoline. OK. Hey, I love large cars, I truly do. However, it troubles me that I remember my Dad’s 1951 Chrysler New Yorker with that fabulous Hemi V-8, the original. It gave great performance, had an interior that seemingly had enough room to live in, returned 20 miles to the gallon on regular grade gasoline that cost all of 19 to 22 cents a gallon. It weighed close to 5,000 pounds. My current 2007 Chrysler weighs about 3600 pounds, has a 3.3 litre V-6, fuel injected, etc: and gets 18 actual miles per gallon at $3.82! Is there a better way? Of course. Biomass renewable sourced fuels, of which we should have been invested in, and had available way back, way back, when automobiles were first introduced.
Comment by Curtis Redgap — June 18, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
This weekend my son and I travel to the Illinois Railway Museum for the observance of the 50′th anniversary of the discontinuance of streetcar service in Chicago. I know some people will read this and roll their eyes thinking, “here’s another GM-Firestone-Chevron conspiracy kook”. The fact remains the mighty USA ranks behind many third world countries in providing public transit. Other countries look at rail transit as a public utility. We spend $3 billion a year out of the federal budget for air traffic control. That money doesn’t come from ticket prices or the airlines. Chrysler just sold 6,500 Challengers with over two grand of gas guzzler tax on each unit sold. It would have been nice if the money could have gone to energy research or some new transit starts. The reason I am bringing this up at an automotive weblog is I would rather have a Charger R/T in my garage for the weekend and ride public transportation to work, than to be forced to drive a pod car (a Yaris or a Smart) everyday.
Comment by Pat From IGH — June 18, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Pat, I am with you. I love history, and railroads and trolley cars are such a HUGE part of our history. It is just such a shame that we in this country don’t pay enough attention or homage to it. The airlines operated just fine, up until deregulation destroyed that sound infrastructure. Have you ever ridden Southwest airlines? Yes, they are making money, but talk about an actual rendition of “cattle car!” Part of my history was that my Grandfather was a blacksmith. He contracted work for the local trolley car company and ended up building his own forge to make parts for that company. I never got to ride that trolley. It went out of business right after I was born. I can tell you that I was very impressed at the rail, bus, trolley integration systems used in Europe. We can do better in that regard. Commuter rail has been an issue here in Central Florida for many years. The latest legislative session took the proposed plan that had taken nearly 20 years to perfect, right OFF the entire future projections. It means it will have to be brought back, Phoneix like, literally from the ashes inside a grave. I would agree with you. Even now as I am retired, I would ride a trolley to do my shopping, if I had a nice 1960 Chrysler 300 F in the barn, alongside a 1964 Plymouth Sport Fury Hardtop! BTW, I saw my very first Smart car on the road yesterday. I don’t know if I am impressed or not. I did see a whole lot of them in Europe a couple years back. I don’t think I was very impressed then either. I think our technology and dedication to resolving issues with ethanol, fuel cells will get us the best of both worlds.
Comment by Curtis Redgap — June 19, 2008 @ 12:03 am
I’m with both of you, and I’ll add that the new rail system in Jersey City was almost immediately running at far over projection. There’s a huge pent-up demand for those who would rather sit reading a newspaper than sit in traffic. If we had decent mass transit in every city, hybrids would probably be much less popular - and then, mainly used by taxis.
Comment by Dave — June 19, 2008 @ 8:09 am
An improved rail system would also alleviate the pressures facing the airline industry. These problems we face are all interconnected. There really needs to be an overarching plan–but I don’t expect our leaders to offer that sort of vision. Too easy to keep mouthing the catch phrases of health care, hope, change, democrat, republican. Or offer soundbytes like tax holidays and excess profit taxes.
We can’t increase rail without more nuclear or coal power for electricity–unless we want to import more natural gas. Then we’re back where we started. No politician is willing to argue that standardized, efficient, pebble bed reactors would provide safe, clean domestic power for decades and decades.
I agree conservation needs to be a part of it. But consumers need to make that choice–the government musn’t tell us to set our thermostat at 82 degrees in the summer and fine us if we fail to do so. That’s not a country I want to live in. There should be tax deductions for solar panels on businesses, homes, hybrid vehicles. If I want to pay for 4.00 gas I should be able to buy a 3500 crew cab if I want. Common sense would incline me to drive something more efficient to and from the grocery store. We ought to conform our diesel emmission standards to Europe–allowing diesels, rather than making their sale all but impossible, would be a great near-term boost to fuel economy, before we ultimately transition to a majority of electric or fuel cell cars.
We can be alot more efficient without reducing our standard of living. Businesses, and government offices do not need to be at 68 degrees in the summer. When it’s 95 degrees outside, 75 inside would feel just fine. I do not agree with the eco-fanatics that would say, if their views were followed to their conclusion, that I must shivver in some recycled hut in the winter in order to reduce my “carbon foootprint.” Every garbage truck ought to be hydraulic hybrid. Every bus ought to be hybrid or electric. Let the cities lead by example. I dare say a Mack diesel garbage truck burns up more fuel than a private citizen’s sedan.
New sources of power need to play a role–like wind, ocean wave power (this is like a floating snake that captures the power of waves as they roll into shore). I agree with the WW2 analogies–we need to come together for our country, use less energy where we can, be willing to accept the technology. The “not in my back yard” selfishness has to stop. If windmills in my back yard would get us off Saudi oil, let them turn night and day. I have no problem with nuclear power in my community of it helps our country use less natural gas from Venezuela.
Comment by Chryco fan — June 20, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
It is a shame and a sham that leadership spends thousands of dollars to develop those “sound bytes” that lead to exactly nowhere. While our sovereignty as an independent nation is clearly at risk. The WW II reference brought back memories that my parents told about how EVERYONE made sacrifices, and helped one another, when America was at it’s darkest hours. The result made this country the finest in the world. Then the specter of more, bigger, faster, more power, and the money changers entered the picture. E-Z financing rules the economy while the Federal Reserve Bank seeks more authority to sneak peek into your personal financing instead of tracking lying manipulators like Bear-Stearns officials. A sound energy policy, with an ever expanding program of energy independence will never coalesce unless the people begin to create a grass roots movement and collect money to get the attention of those that seek to spend all your taxes without oversight. The Florida Republican Governor has received criticism from several leading newspapers about “flip-flopping” on allowance of drilling off the coasts of Florida’s rather pristine beaches. It is true that he has always stated previously that he was against it. The ORLANDO SENTINEL claims that Floridians are aghast and against it, castigating Governor Christ. However, his office has literally been inundated with letters (the best method to communicate to a pol) telephone calls, emails, and personal visits from a HUGE number of Floridians that DO want drilling, wind power, wave power, and agricultural programs for ethanol production. What is a politician to do? If he is wise, he will exert leadership and find that it is always the right time to do the right thing. In exchange for allowing drilling, the renewable sources for energy should expand at 5 times the rate of drilling. The concept being is that we need to get away from oil, period. Therefore, renewable projects need to be larger than drilling projects, and it needs to be on a national “CRISIS” basis. It can’t get here soon enough!
It is also hard to fathom why Florida has not been the model for trolley, commuter rail and train travel. There is never a weather problem to consider in construction, nor is there any mountains, rock hard ground, or lack of labor to build it. When you consider that it was a Rail Road that truly opened up Florida and made travel to it via Florida’s East Coast Rail Lines with it’s considerable fancy hotels associated with it. Known for being the Rail Road Across the Sea, the line from Miami to Key West was an engineering marvel. It should have lead to much further development and integration of spurs and other lines throughout Florida. Early Florida cities had an pretty well developed trolley car systems in the major population areas.
Comment by Curtis Redgap — June 22, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
Ah, back from a short weekend road trip with a car that averaged 37mpg with a family of four and luggage and an average speed of 70+mph. And the car used was my “grocery getter” 1996 Dodge Neon with 150,000+ miles on the clock. Someone want to tell me again WHY they dropped the Neon?
That aside, I think the main issue that no one wants to face is that we still NEED Oil at this point to develop alternative energies to the point that they are viable methods to meet energy needs. Right now, the Eco-crowd is in an uncomfortable situation for leading up to the problems we have now. And Politicians that want to use the current situation to force changes to alternative energies that are unreliable and very limited in meeting the needs of this Country.
I favor more domestic drilling despite Democrats, some Republicans and Enviromentalists that must have been asleep in every economics class they took or are outright lying in telling the public that increasing the supply will not lower the price. Curtis is right that it will take some time, but not the “10 years” that House Speaker Pelosi claims. Although if they keep dinking around it will be 10 years before anyone sees any relief! The answer is to start taking steps NOW. As far as I’m concerned the Sierra Club is the biggest offender in the “Not in my backyard” crowd. It’s OK for everyone else to drill, but we can’t?
Ultimately, a lower price of what we have now(Oil)comes better economic conditions to fund the development of Alternatives. And a total, forced switch to Alternatives is not the answer for everything. Trains and Trucks still need Diesel and Airliners still need Kerosene, I haven’t seen a solar, electric or wind powered alternative to any of them.
Mass Transit works in some places and not in others. But I have yet to see one that can sustain itself on the people that use it. And personally, I see no need to make things harder on people economically in order to “Force” them to take the Bus or Train.
Comment by Martin — June 24, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
I spent the weekend riding on electric transportation. Both public and private (museum). Trains run on electricity all over the world. In this country we have electric trains used heavily in the North East. As far as mass transit sustaining itself, we have spent 30 billion dollars total on Amtrak since 1971. That sounds like a lot of money. We spend 3 billion dollars YEARLY on air traffic control. I have no idea what we spend on airport security. In this years state budget funding for public transit was cut, but the politicians voted to subsidize private parking ramps at the Mega Mall.
Comment by Pat From IGH — June 24, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
I just hope we’re not looking at $600 dollar a barrel oil when Israel has to launch air strieks on Iran. What scares me the most is not 4, 5, or 6 dollar gas, but a return to 70’s style gas lines. I am all for investment in an infrastructure of electric cars, trucks and trains. I’m all for the investment in the nuclear power, solar, and wind that could get us there. Michelin is doing alot of work on developing units that would be contained at one’s home to use solar power to produce hydrogen from water. I would not oppose tax-dollars to help the big three get that to market. GM has the Equinox fuel cell cars on the road in small numbers–we just need the government to help subsidize that the way Toyota did for the Prius. The time has come to protect our national energy security.
I don’t see Ethanol as a great solution–one of the Pres. candidates does, but check and see who his fundraisers are (Archer Daniels Midland). Corn at $50 a bushel will not be a good thing for anyone. The other one’s idea about 300 million for a battery is wrong too–the plicy ought to be tax breaks for domestic manufactureres for every car they build that gets 80 mpg or better. Gasoline and diesel will still be the bulk of our transportation for many years, but we could get to the point that Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Venezuela, can’t hold us hostage.
Comment by Chryco fan — June 25, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
For the future of public transportation, Montreal still needs to improve http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2008/05/when-public-transportation-actuallyi.html
Chryco fan, as for ethanol, you’re right then the corn based ethanol isn’t great compared to sugar-based ethanol extracted from sugar cane in Brazil.
We have to go to 2nd generation biofuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_generation_biofuels like cellulosic ethanol, 3rd generation biofuel like aglae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel biodiesel can be derived from 2nd and 3rd-gen biofuels.
As for electric cars, we have to upgrade the transmission power line grid and built some new plants other then coal plants like wind farms or even nuclear plants. Let’s hope then some environmentalists will let Hydro-Quebec to built some new hydro plants in Northern Quebec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project#Grande-Baleine_River_project
Comment by Stéphane Dumas — June 25, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
I wish that everyone would grasp that corn is not the best produce for making ethanol. Brazil, which is energy independent, and EXPORTS ethanol, uses sugar cane and sugar based crops. There are MANY more crops that have NO real food value or economic impact on the food chain other than corn. Juthropa is 40% MORE productive than corn per acre, and the oil from the seeds, with no further refinement, burn cleanly in a diesel engine. Sugar beets. Sweet Sourgham. Switch Grass. Wood Chips. Soy Beans. All growth can be utilized for biomass to make ethanol. It a country like Brazil, which is no backward place, can achieve energy independence, without crude oil, then what is wrong with this country? Don’t try to tell me we can’t grow our way into energy independence when there are millions of acres sitting in Farm Banks, subsidized by the Feds NOT to grow anything, and get paid for it! But, Chryco Fan has a point, in that ethanol should not be considered the WHOLE answer, but sort of wedge in the pie that would get us free from oil. OK, batteries are great, BUT, they have to be charged! That takes burning something somewhere outside the great hydro electric projects that most people don’t live near. In that sense, the power needed for charging millions of cars would not decrease oil consumption that much. Enter Nuclear. Got to have it folks. Perfect answer to electric. However, the uranium disposal is said to be a huge problem. Yet, I know of two different military weapon systems that utilize depleted uranium. So how could that be if uranium remains deadly for like 25,000 years? If you melt a metal, it changes. It no longer is radioactive, since it is a new substance, even if it is still the same metal. Must be some sort of process to get it done if we have uranium ammunition and missiles with uranium cores. The core of this subject is that we need to get things done in a hurry. Oil at 160 a barrel is really gonna happen and we will be paying $7.00 a gallon for gas, close to $9.00 for diesel. What then? $200 a barrel oil? $10 a gallon for gasoline? When then does the depression occur that will dump this country and the world into chaos?
Comment by Curtis Redgap — June 27, 2008 @ 2:35 am
The DU (depleted uranium) antitank rounds were still somewhat radioactive, and have been replaced by tungsten for that reason. However, your point is well-made. With what we are facing, nuclear power has to be part of the solution. Not the whole solution, but a big part.
Environmentally conscious countries have already decided the pros far outweigh the cons–France gets most of its electricity, I believe it’s 80% from nuclear power. When Iran cuts off the flow France will still have lights on and mobility. A modern reactor could run for a decade and not create more than an orange-crate worth of waste. We could safely store that in places like Yucca mountain. Modern, pebble-bed reactors are very safe and efficient. We have ALOT of nuclear fuel that can be used for years and years. The benefits far outweigh the negatives.
We have to move fast–it will take years to get new nuclear plants designed and built. Delaware has a good idea with offshore wind farms–we could do that along a good protion of the US coast, but it will take years to do enough of that to make a difference. I just hope we aren’t in rolling brownouts and gas rationing by that time. What frustrates me most is the lack of leadership: if either of the candidates would say we need to do XYZ, even if I didn’t agree with all of it, I could get behind it. We don’t need to be made to “feel good,” like we’re a nation of children, we need leaders to give us solutions. Simply buying more corn from ADM or giving a $300 million prize won’t get it done. Simply saying we’ll conserve our way there won’t get it done–I, for one, do not believe we should let our standard of living go into free fall.
We are held hostage by the NIMBY crowd–we can’t do wind because the turbines are ugly. We can’t do coal because we don’t believe it can be made clean enough. No drilling because it might disturb the polar bears. No solar because it costs too much. Every alternative does have some disadvantages. But choices must be made.
Comment by Chryco fan — June 27, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
We should pursue all avenues of technology. We by far have the biggest coal reserves in the world and we sit on them. Companies that wanted to research clean coal burning technology in the 1980’s were thwarted and instead money was used to flood huge regions of Canada for hydropower. I’m not saying use this instead of nuclear or wind generated electricity. We need it all. I don’t think flooding rain forests for hydropower is a smart way to go.
Comment by patfromigh — June 28, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
“We are held hostage by the NIMBY crowd”
I don’t think you understand what NIMBY means, and I dislike your extreme oversimplification.
Perhaps you, like 99% of everyone else, should investigate who created ANWR and why.
Comment by Dave — June 29, 2008 @ 9:58 am
I am aware of how ANWR was created, and by whom. The issue is not democrat-republican, or at least ought not to be. It wouldn’t matter if it was created by Eisenhower or Clinton, the issue is one of practicality. If ANWR can reduce dependence on foreign oil it ought to be on the table; if exploration can be done safely we need to consider it as an option. It should not be an automatic nyet, nyet–and that’s what we’ve got from alot of our leaders.
Anyway, my comments were not limited to just ANWR. ANWR is just a small piece of the puzzle. I think you’ll find that people that oppose wind farms and the like are quite willing to apply the “Not in my backyard” emblem to their efforts, whether that is a corruption of the original concept or not. The energy needs of whole communities are being thwarted, and that mentality goes far beyond dealing with ANWR. For example, in my community we are at a point we need to build additional electricity generating plants. It will come a point that if we do not, we will be having rolling brownouts. No matter what is proposed, whether it be burning coal, more natural gas plants, biomass, wind, nuclear, whatever, the activists have their way and nothing gets done.
Comment by Chryco fan — June 30, 2008 @ 10:14 am
I don’t think you should be able to get out of it that easily. You accuse those who don’t want to open up ANWR of being NIMBYs. The puzzle is complicated and drilling in one of the last major wildlife preserves is possibly part of the puzzle, when we’re more desperate.
Think about the long term - in decades, not in years. At some point in the future, if oil is not self-renewing as some claim, you WILL want to have that massive reserve of oil there, instead of opening it up to be burned by oversized vehicles driven on frivolous trips, made into cheap throwaway toys, etc. Oil is essential to your current lives, and having a massive reservoir of it is a strategic advantage that should not be thrown away merely to cut costs, especially if there are other options - yes, including nuclear energy. It’s not, as you said in a clear straw-man argument, just about polar bears, nor are those who oppose ANWR drilling just reactionary knee-jerk environmentalists, NIMBYs, etc., etc.
Has it ever occurred to you that the sudden love for drilling everywhere without oversight is great for those who are making obscene profits, but not necessarily something we NEED to do? … especially if, as some claim, oil IS self-renewing. (I should mention I don’t personally believe that, but hey, if we’re allowed to ignore global warming, we can ignore any theories about the origins of oil, too.)
There’s a lot of waste still to be cut before I think radical steps are needed - even if it’ll take ten years for said steps to materialize. Among other things, we COULD try limited offshore drilling, which apparently will produce as much oil (or more) as opening ANWR.
Comment by DaveAdmin — June 30, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
Again, my point was not simply about ANWR, but an overall resistance to ANY alternatives to what we are doing now. I think that is clear from the words I wrote earlier, which included wind power and other things that encounter resistance from activists regardless of their merit. I stand behind the fact that activists have frustrated MANY types of alternatives–including wind, and yes, including ANWR. We don’t have more nuclear power today because of that, “don’t build it in my town, don’t build it anywhere” mentality.
I’m, personally, not married to the idea of ANWR drilling. I kind of realize we need to transition to a post-oil economy. But I’d much prefer tapping ANWR to living in the dark with a dead car in the driveway. That may be where we’re heading because we don’t have leaders that say the future is solar or nuclear or whatever, and here’s what we gotta do. We have “managers” that just respond to various interest groups–whether they be the enviros or the oil companies or ADM (i.e. Obama).
The problem I have with those opposed to ANWR, is not a problem with opposition backed up by fact and logic–that’s fine, if it’s no good, back it up with facts and I can respect where that person is coming from–but opposition that comes from dogma, from belief that would not allow drilling under any circumstances. That is never good policy or science. That’s the problem I have with global warming activists, now that you mention that subject. There are facts on both sides. No matter who it is, it can even be the founder of the weather channel, if they don’t adhere to the established party line, they are ostracized as a tool of big oil. But pro-anthropocentric global warming sicentists taht get money from the US goverment are beyond question. Al Gore, that has made about $100 million off global warming is above question.
I’m not sure the oil companies really want to open up a lot more drilling. I think they like things as they are. We are dealing with a monopoly–perhaps an oligopoly–that really has no incentive to hurt its own business.
Comment by Chryco fan — June 30, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Dave, the sudden “Love” for drilling isn’t just so that Oil Companies can make a buck. It’s an actual solution to those that bemoan us being dependant on OPEC Oil. But it seems that those in control or think they’re in control don’t want to hear it. The end goal is energy independance. The issue now is how to go about it. Do we risk crippling our economy in pursuit of expensive, ineffective and unreliable sources and don’t work effectively everywhere? Simply because the MIGHT work?
Or do we take steps to secure, stabilize prices and conserve a reliable source implement other sources and encourage development of other alternatives that over time can become an economical and practical replacement.
I’ll take option #2, thanks!
Comment by Martin — June 30, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
We don’t have more nuclear power today because it loses money for utilities. Oil and gas prices have been too low for the huge expenses of building and running nuclear plants to make economic sense. Those costs will rise if they start to seriously plan for terrorist attacks. Think about larger, better-patrolled perimeters, placement further from the river, no tours, and serious barricades. That’s a lot of land.
You are setting up a false choice with “no gas if we don’t tap ANWR.” If it gets that bad, then by all means, let us tap it. It does not look as though it will be that bad. If we tap it now, we’ve lost it forever, and we’ll just waste it all the faster. If oil is not renewable, it is finite. If it is finite, we should try not to run through it is quickly as possible “while it’s cheap.”
Your own opposition to the opposition appeared from your first posts to be dogmatic in itself. Consider that. How can you tell if people are arguing from fact if you immediately apply a label? That’s the kind of strategy certain people in power today used very successfully - anything they disagreed with was automatically liberal or socialist, and they were automatically conservative. It’s a great scheme for dismissing other ideas without having to think about them, but it also poisons any chances of finding the truth, which is why they do it.
Am I being a NIMBY now? I don’t live anywhere NEAR Alaska. Martin, earlier, assumed I couldn’t be reasoned with because he said I live East of the Hudson (I don’t, but even if I did, so what? that’s where William Buckley was published!).
Al Gore… I wonder if he really made all that money from global warming or if you’re just repeating something you read on the Internet. I’ve heard on the Internet that Barack Obama refused to swear on the Bible when sworn into Congress, too (it’s a hoax obviously) and I’ve even seen photos of Obama, Hillary, and Bush all using a telephone upside down.
I’m positive oil drilling companies want to drill more. They love the high prices, but they’d love the same high prices with continued high volume. I don’t think anything frightens them more than the idea that we, like Brazil, might find alternatives to burning oil in our cars. They need to keep the price just below the price at which we switch to alternatives. And THAT is why they LOVE it when you argue for drilling anywhere and everywhere, right now, without any rules or regulations getting in the way.
Of course, when the oil runs out, they’ll be fine, too. The executives and major shareholders will have made their hundreds of millions or their billions of dollars. It’s like the big investment banks… put two companies together, and if they go bankrupt, there’s a great opportunity to sell them to someone else and make some more millions.
Comment by DaveAdmin — June 30, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
We probably waste alot of time arguing about ants when we all more or less agree about the elephant approaching. I can listen to both sides. I can respect different views. I don’t care if the solution is liberal or conservative–if it works. The day we import zero barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia can’t come too soon. I’m open minded about how we get there–other than simply turning off everything electrical and parking everything mechanical.
I believe the $100 million report was from the Tennessee Policy Institute, that also reports that his utility usage is up another 20 percent. Even if the dollar amount is half that, it should be taken into consideration when you weigh his credibility on an issue and its resulting policies that could require us to spend billions of dollars and possibly jeopardize our economy if opther nations aren’t held to the same standards. I can listen to people that say no way to ANWR oil, or that we need to cur CO2 by 20 percent or whatever. I don’t labelo those people in any way. But if anyone dares question them, they are called ignorant, on the payroll of Big Oil, etc. I don’t like extremism from either side, but the main extremism I see today is coming from the left, that allows no dissent, no differing views about the environment or global warming. And I see it in the globalists, where if you disagree with their notion of free trade, if you want to protect the economy and standard of living of your own country, whether that be the US, Canada, etc, you’re labled as protectionist, fear-mongering, even racist.
Going back to the WW2 point: whether we are lib or conservative, true-believer global warming or a skeptic, whether we come to it from a point of environmentalism or one of security, we all can agree it is in our interest to use less oil.
Comment by Chryco fan — June 30, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Dave, you missed te part where I stated CONSERVE the new sources we tap into. But contrary to your thinking, I will not stand by while an artificial crisis is maintained by inaction in order to force people to adopt a lifestyle that a vocal minority have determined as “Correct”. I never made any reference to Al Gore, that was Chryco. But in reality Al Gore is preaching that everyone should live as he dictates as correct. And has the arrogance to declare that the “Debate is over” on the reality Global Warming(Or whatever it’s called at the moment, they keep moving the goalposts!) yet he fails to live within the same limitations he believes shoud be imposed on the rest of us.
While you say the no new Nuclear plants are needed, may I remind you that California is in dire need of power plants since they foolishly decided long ago to stop building them. And tried to dictate to out of state suppliers what they can charge for rates. Not to mention, if we are planning on having all these wonderful electric cars any time soon, wind and solar will not be able to handle the additional strain that charging these electrical cars will require.
You keep bringing up my “East of the Hudson” reference. Let it go, it was simply a metaphor to point out that not everyone, everywhere considers McCarthy or Palmer the absolute evil villans that you do.
Comment by Martin — July 1, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
You can say “conserve” all you want but if prices are low, nobody will do it. We had 9/11 to push us to conserve and we didn’t. History is history.
The debate is over on melting of the ice-caps, at least; we know that’s happening, and the change is rapid enough to be affecting the local wildlife which is suddenly discovering “hey, there’s dirt under this here ice!” If you have a better theory than global warming to account for it, by all means, present it now. Mind, admitting that global warming exists is NOT admitting that humans influence it. I don’t want to argue that now, it goes on forever and nobody convinces anyone of anything. But seriously, if you can explain the big melt without higher temperatures, go for it.
California needs powerplants (as does NYC). As for the Gray Davis events, the suppliers were discovered to have colluded to create an artificial shortage — for personal profit and presumably for “regime change.” But nuclear? You decide. Obviously if we go nuclear I’d like to see them choose areas without earthquakes.
You said East of the Hudson many times. It means something to you, obviously. It means something to me, as well - that you feel you can win arguments by throwing out labels and making dark hints that someone can’t possibly be right if they live in a certain location. Well, not everyone in the West feels that McCarthy and Palmer were NOT evil villains. (Are you REALLY defending McCarthy, the man who never seemed to have any evidence but felt that none was ever needed? Do you REALLY think that even if our government SHOULD be in the business of prosecuting people based on their political views, that those methods would ever have worked?)
Do you believe in ANY of the Constitution other than the Second Amendment?
Comment by DaveAdmin — July 1, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
I think we need someone with the will and the guts to declare our position of NOT being totally energy self sufficient, as akin to the same goal as President Kennedy declared in getting men to the moon. That would be much like going to war, only using technology as ammunition, and intelligence of men as strategic options. All options on the table. Examine them all. Bring out good and bad points. Let the full advantage of EACH area count. Then do it. And if you don’t mind, please do this NOW! NIMBY have points, and those of us that would put a oil well or wind mill on our front porch have points. As for drilling in ANWR, it can be done without disturbing anything. Watch Ice Road Truckers? They just moved a drill rig, lock stock and barrel, and when it was done, I defy you to mark the place where it was. New techniques avoid all environmental issues. The well was dry BTW. Only 250K feet. When was the last environmental issue reported from the HUGE Prudhoe Bay Alaska oil basin reported? Strategic Reserve? That should be set aside in light of the current threat to the entire US economy. Did we just not see Chrysler sales fall 35%? And the rise in gasoline? Food? Clothing? Electric? Natural Gas? All tied together and going up fast. According to UNofficial reports, actual inflation is about 11%! BUT, the footing for all the areas we need to look at needs leadership, goals, and guts to make it a national vision. This nation got to the moon. July 20, 1969. It took less than 10 years. But it took someone like a John Kennedy who was a leader, as opposed to someone like Richard Nixon who enjoyed all the success of all the manned moon landings, but, lacked vision. He forced all the Scientists from Germany, lead by Wernher Von Braun to retire by 1972, then cut the NASA budget severely. Think of the employment opportunities that would be created if we formed the NATIONAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY. With the goal to getting all the programs we are arguing about done in full or in part, to achieve NOT importing ONE drop of middle east oil, or the many other oil sources, and sorry Canada, none of theirs either, within 10 years. The height of the Apollo program saw over 400,000 jobs directly tied to it, and possibly another 300,000 indirectly related. Finger pointing has not worked, and continues to frustrate the public at large.
Comment by Curtis Redgap — July 1, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
OK, nobody seems to have read my comment under Oil prices, Gas prices, and Refineries. I believe that was posted May 26. I left a link there.
Comment by patfromigh — July 2, 2008 @ 9:44 am
Y’see, this is what drives me nuts. I post a blog entry saying maybe we should try cutting back on our waste, and I end being slammed with old arguments on every topic … and criticized. Damn, what have we come to when saying “gee, let’s shut out the lights when we’re not using them” (etc) results in implications that I’m a know-nothing Eastern-ivory-tower-intellectual NIMBY?
Comment by DaveAdmin — July 2, 2008 @ 11:10 am
My son has this expression, “accidental environmentalism”. That’s when people do things considered beneficial to the environment because they are practicing old fashined virtues like temperance and thriftiness. I hope there isn’t anything I wrote that offended you.
Comment by Pat From IGH — July 2, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
No, Pat, nothing you wrote offended me (at least not today! I didn’t go back to your May comment.) Indeed, accidental environmentalism works for me. Frankly my own personal conservation is probably more due to my natural frugality than anything else… though I gotta admit I’ve been putting some money into trees (personal carbon offsets). I don’t believe in taking chances when the risks are immense and the gain is minor.
Comment by DaveAdmin — July 2, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
This is in response to ‘patfromigh’. I’m a Canadian and I sure don’t remember huge parts of Canada being flooded to create hydroelectricity. Could you be more specific? when and where? I do agree tho, that we, as north americans need to seriously look at coal and nuclear power. Where I live in Alberta (the oil patch) our government is already making the decision to build a nuclear power plant in our province. When our oil runs out, hopefully we’ll be ready for it. Fortunately we also have huge coal deposits, but that is very polluting and needs work. P.S. Why can’t we load used waste onto a Saturn 5 and drop it in the Sun, or on the Moon?
Comment by jimboy — July 4, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
Again, a comment. Dave - only the northern ice cap is receding. Antarctica is actually growing in size. Global warming, No, Increased sunspot activity affecting our weather. British Columbia recently introduced a ‘Carbon Tax’ on gasoline purchases that are already (carbon) taxed federally and provincially to the tune of 60% of the price. This new carbon tax is a licence to steal funded and supported by our own elected political representatives. Wouldn’t you say we deserve what we get?
Comment by jimboy — July 4, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
Can’t make an argument without throwing mud, can you? I’m going to delete the personal attacks first, but let me also say that you shoudl read this before drawing conclusions about Antarctica. To summarize (a) it was predicted by global warming theory, (b) sunspots don’t explain anything that’s been happening, and (c) it doesn’t compensate for the melting.
Comment by Dave — July 5, 2008 @ 7:57 am
Dave, who’s throwing mud? You have the same attitude that Chryco points out about Al Gore, you simply dismiss any counter-point out of hand. Conservation is a good thing. But being forced to do so by the Govt. is counter to the principles of freedom that this Country was founded on.
As for being slammed, that’s one of the side effects of having a public forum blog, people will disagree and inform you of their disagreement.
Comment by Martin — July 6, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
No, I don’t dismiss any counterpoint. I don’t recall EVERY saying the government should force you to conserve. You’re shoving words in my mouth.
As for being slammed - there’s a difference between disagreement and ignorance couples with a combination of straw man arguments and ad hominem arguments. You people who don’t THINK before you write just throw around some rumors you heard somewhere about Al Gore and combining it with your own bigotry about people who don’t agree with you on everything. Well, I don’t need to offer you a forum for that.
Comment by Dave — July 6, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
I believe the flooding occured in Quebec. I remember seeing news articles about some Japenese company logging with submarines and divers. It seems once the forests are underwater its OK to harvest the trees.
Comment by patfromigh — July 7, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Sounds good to me though I have to wonder about the value of the wood.
Comment by DaveAdmin — July 7, 2008 @ 10:49 am
You’re correct, There was a large Hydroelectric project in NE. Quebec and Labrador about 20 yrs. ago. They created a dam and sell the power to the U.S. northeast and eastern Canada.
Comment by jimboy — July 9, 2008 @ 5:35 pm