I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

[BIGPHILLY]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

If high gas prices is what this country needs to cut back on its consumption and finally start to make alternatives a real choice, then great. Depending on foreign oil is like depending on your FG kicker to bail you out with 40+ yard field goals - things were fine a few years ago, but absolutely suck today!

* LOL.

[ThoughtProcess]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

Thanks for the lesson/clarification, LG. Most fascinating.

[NoDakIggle]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

The Bakken formation in North Dakota (and southern SK) has skyrocketed in oil over the last year with as many rigs operating in ND as anywhere in the country. (anyone who can pass a UA and wants to work can walk into ND and pick up a 60k job with less than a GED) Even with that it is a drop in the bucket compared to OPEC. The difficulty has been, and continues to be, the lack of pipelines to get the crude to refineries and the limited refineries we have in the country. Currently they have had to move to rail transportation which adds to costs.
For those who didn't live the 70s I believe you will find that there was great commentary about how we need to become self sufficient and we are not going to let those countries hold us hostage again, yada, yada, yada. Well, embargo ended and stations once again had gas and prices stabilized, etc. Then we didn't follow through, we didn't build refineries, we didn't pursue alternatives to a level to make a difference, and we again let ourselves get "held hostage" if you will.
I agree with LG in that complete aternatives aren't there right now but I hope this generation pursues that self sufficiency that didn't get taken care of last time around.

[Luzinski's Gut]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

If I was king, this is what I would do:

1. Mandatory 35mpg vehicles by 2010. We have the tech to get there right now.

2. Begin taking oil and coal fired power plants off line and replace them with natural gas and nuclear plants on a one for one basis. This allows oil to be used for commercial transportation only.

3. Start building more railroads and trains, and start getting 18 wheelers off the road. Trains are much more efficient in moving material than trucks.

4. This is going to sound funny - start building huge fleets of helium blimps. Lighter than air craft can move massive amounts of cargo. We have a lot of helium.

5. Look at switchgrass and hemp for biofuel potential. Both grow in poor soil and are not competing with food crops.

[Eaglebreath]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

If I was king, this is what I would do:



2. Begin taking oil and coal fired power plants off line and replace them with natural gas and nuclear plants on a one for one basis. This allows oil to be used for commercial transportation only.

5. Look at switchgrass and hemp for biofuel potential. Both grow in poor soil and are not competing with food crops.

Coal plants provide a lot of our base load electric production. We don't have the natural gas infastructure to replace them, and nuclear waste is really no more enviromentally friendly than sequestered carbons when you think about it. Probably worse. Coal isn't going anywhere. As for oil plants, they are critical on the electric grid, because they serve as peaking plants. They don't run as often, but they can provide quick generation and reactive power support. Since I work in one, I would say that bioDiesel/hydrogen dual fuel is the future there, I hope.

I agree on biofuels being a flawed solution. Ethanol is a freakin disaster. But, to me, it's about efficiency. We're horrilbly inefficient as a nation. What we really need is not so much a rush towards alternatives as a rush to energy self reliance. Get ESR first, then start worrying about a solar/hydrogen/biofuel economy.....

[sdeaglefan]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

I didn't change my driving habits -- yet -- because of my work load. Public transportation would add another hour each way to my commute, though I'd be able to read or something once I got on the train.

What I did do, though, was drop my speed from 70-75 mph to 50. It drives the other commuters nuts, it's true, but your car's much more fuel efficient at that speed, something like 15% more. I heard that the 55 mph speed limit worked so well, dropping fuel consumption so much, that Arab countries wound up in price wars, cutting the price of oil to try to get business.

Agree on minimum MPG requirements. The technology has existed since the 70's. Hell, the Ford Escort had 47 mpg on the highway. In addition to better public transportation, Europeans drive almost nothing but small economy cars. At least that's all I saw when I lived in England in the 90's, and I did look.

[Luzinski's Gut]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

Natural gas is all over the place, and can be actually be produced rather easily (methane). Building the infrastructure costs a lot in the beginning but will pay for itself many times over in the end.

Nuclear waste is of course an issue, but if the powers that be were smart, they'd identify a few storage facilities in the middle of nowhere that don't have seismic issues. Alaska is a big state, I'd start looking there.The French have somehow managed to have 85% of the power generation come from nuclear power with little concern about nuclear waste. If the French can do it, we can do it better.

If there is no infrastructure for NG, there surely is no infrastructure for hydrogen.

It would also be real nice if nuclear fusion could become viable. That would really solve a lot of issues.

If I was king, this is what I would do:



2. Begin taking oil and coal fired power plants off line and replace them with natural gas and nuclear plants on a one for one basis. This allows oil to be used for commercial transportation only.

5. Look at switchgrass and hemp for biofuel potential. Both grow in poor soil and are not competing with food crops.

Coal plants provide a lot of our base load electric production. We don't have the natural gas infastructure to replace them, and nuclear waste is really no more enviromentally friendly than sequestered carbons when you think about it. Probably worse. Coal isn't going anywhere. As for oil plants, they are critical on the electric grid, because they serve as peaking plants. They don't run as often, but they can provide quick generation and reactive power support. Since I work in one, I would say that bioDiesel/hydrogen dual fuel is the future there, I hope.

I agree on biofuels being a flawed solution. Ethanol is a freakin disaster. But, to me, it's about efficiency. We're horrilbly inefficient as a nation. What we really need is not so much a rush towards alternatives as a rush to energy self reliance. Get ESR first, then start worrying about a solar/hydrogen/biofuel economy.....

[NoDakIggle]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

If I was king, this is what I would do:

1. Mandatory 35mpg vehicles by 2010. We have the tech to get there right now.

2. Begin taking oil and coal fired power plants off line and replace them with natural gas and nuclear plants on a one for one basis. This allows oil to be used for commercial transportation only.

3. Start building more railroads and trains, and start getting 18 wheelers off the road. Trains are much more efficient in moving material than trucks.

4. This is going to sound funny - start building huge fleets of helium blimps. Lighter than air craft can move massive amounts of cargo. We have a lot of helium.

5. Look at switchgrass and hemp for biofuel potential. Both grow in poor soil and are not competing with food crops.

Certainly good points in the thread.
I do agree with EB in that I do not believe coal is going anywhere anytime soon but I do see a continued discussion to do away with coal over a very long term. I also agree that there is absolutely no reason we can't have more fuel efficient vehicles coming on line now. However, in a somewhat NIMBY view I am against federally mandated speed limits. I, and many others, have slowed down on my own due to gas costs, esp in my pickup. However, when I am in the car and have to travel from one side of a very big state to another, which I do often, I need to get there. Most trips save <5 min but if it saves me an hour that means something.
Being in an area with significant ethanol impact I agree that the country has to look at alternatives. In fact, I talked my son out of investing with other owners in a plant about 3 years ago because of the number of plants going up too quickly. In ND 3 plants were completed in the last year that never started production or just began and had to shut down. I agree that you have to use waste products such as corn stalks or things such as switch grass. Of course there are those in state and fed gov that don't want that poor land used because it provides habitat for animals, birds, etc and is necessary for the hunting world (which is probably another discussion on its own). I would also say the energy achieved with those products isn't as high as it is with corn or other food products that could be used for the alcohol so I am not so sure it gets you far in replacing oil. I think it has to be federally mandated in order to get industry really after a solution, it will have to be real energy savings over the energy needed to produce it, and we have to invest in the infrastructure to get it from the middle of the country where it is produced to the coasts where it is needed. I'm not sure we will be there anytime soon.
As for trains v trucks, I don't recall the periodical but I believe it was a trucking industry publication discussing environmental impact where I read that trains in fact were not more efficient that trucks. That may have been fodder for their target audience but I would be interested to know the real numbers. Of course we have all seen the 100 car trains with each car carrying two 53ft trailers or shipping containers. That would look to be more efficient but I don't know that it is. One issue of course is the number of lines. The country has lost significant lines over the years. In 1920s every little community had an elevator and rail line. Today every little community has lost its rail line due to costs. They truck their grains to large facilities. Facilities must be able to load full unit trains in 24 hours (which means they have signifcantly larger elevators than in years past) if they want the railrod to stop there. It used to be you could get 1 or 2 cars for loading and then it was 25 or 50 car trains but that has gone by the wayside. It is silly but in the 20s the train came through my FILs small town on M, W, F. He could put a letter destined for Sears Chicago on the train on Monday to get a part or order a dress and the dress or the part would arrive on Weds most likely but definitely on Fri. I ordered a part for our washer from Sears recently and was told it would be seven business days. I don't see that as progress.
Not a scientist and didn't stay at the holiday inn express so these are just some thoughts from what I read and hear.

[CHIP72]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

I definitely agree we need to focus on alternate modes of transportation on both the passenger side and the freight side, but the flexibility trucks have over all other freight modes (rail, ship, airplane) means they are staying around (and should stay around - the U.S. economy has benefited enormously over the last 50 years since the interstate highway system was built).

One critical thing that greatly impacts our dependence on oil is land use patterns. When you have cul-de-sacs and other non-connected roads, and also have segregated land uses where those uses don't need to be segregated (like residential and most commercial retail), it forces most people to have to use their cars to drive everywhere. The lack of an interconnected transportation network in many locations (especially those built in the last 40-45 years) also creates massive congestion and gridlock when incidents occur (which also makes it more difficult for trucks to make deliveries and ultimately helps force the cost of those goods to go up, due to lower efficiencies in the supply chain). People like to talk about how "traditional village" development (i.e. development that resembles the towns and cities that were built before World War II) benefits public transit, but really those kinds of development benefit all transportation modes, most notably using your own 2 legs, and have efficiencies regardless whether transit is there or not (though transit definitely can operate more efficiently in mixed-use, compact, interconnected locations).

The problem with the above is it is hard to modify land uses once they've been built. Some many of the developments (thinking primarily residential developments) would be practically obsolete if high fuel prices sustain themselves, due to their inefficiency. (Incidentally, as LG hinted above, fuel prices will go back up when worldwide demand for products in general goes up; at a simple level we're talking supply and demand.) The fact it is hard to modify existing land use patterns means many people are going to have trouble adjusting to higher fuel and commodity prices in the long-term. It should be noted many people prefer living on cul-de-sacs and will pay a premium to live on them. I have no sympathy for those people when fuel prices rise and/or congestion on the overburdened road that connects them to the rest of civilization makes it hard for them to leave their development - those are the direct prices you pay for a lack of interconnectivity (in addition to the indirect prices of higher oil demand driving up other commodity prices).

One other thing LG didn't note is there are increasing pressures to use low emissions fuel in the United States and to a lesser degree worldwide. This actually isn't too much of a problem for trucks and trains because for the most part they already use low sulfur fuels. Where the issue will show up is on the international waterborne shipping side where most ships use a high sulfur content fuel called bunker fuel. Eventually the total switch to low sulfur fuel being used in ships will occur, but there will be some economic pain over the next 10 years while the switch is occuring.

Finally, I agree with LG that biofuels in general are a dead end. The only semi-viable biofuel I've seen so far is fuel derived from sugarcane (though admittedly I'm not that knowledgeable about biofuels). Brazil in particular may stand to benefit if sugarcane-derived fuels rise in use (Brazil is by far the #1 producer of sugarcane-derived biofuels).

[leifdawg]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

Can't say that I feel sorry for anybody who owns a Hummer. That's a car for somebody who just wants to say, "Yeah, I can afford spend this much on a car and gas. So there."

Nothing says date rapist like a yellow hummer.

[leifdawg]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

[quote=Luzinski's Gut]Natural gas is all over the place, and can be actually be produced rather easily (methane). Building the infrastructure costs a lot in the beginning but will pay for itself many times over in the end.

Nuclear waste is of course an issue, but if the powers that be were smart, they'd identify a few storage facilities in the middle of nowhere that don't have seismic issues. Alaska is a big state, I'd start looking there.The French have somehow managed to have 85% of the power generation come from nuclear power with little concern about nuclear waste. If the French can do it, we can do it better.

If there is no infrastructure for NG, there surely is no infrastructure for hydrogen.

It would also be real nice if nuclear fusion could become viable. That would really solve a lot of issues.

If I was king, this is what I would do:



2. Begin taking oil and coal fired power plants off line and replace them with natural gas and nuclear plants on a one for one basis. This allows oil to be used for commercial transportation only.

5. Look at switchgrass and hemp for biofuel potential. Both grow in poor soil and are not competing with food crops.

Coal plants provide a lot of our base load electric production. We don't have the natural gas infastructure to replace them, and nuclear waste is really no more enviromentally friendly than sequestered carbons when you think about it. Probably worse. Coal isn't going anywhere. As for oil plants, they are critical on the electric grid, because they serve as peaking plants. They don't run as often, but they can provide quick generation and reactive power support. Since I work in one, I would say that bioDiesel/hydrogen dual fuel is the future there, I hope.

I agree on biofuels being a flawed solution. Ethanol is a freakin disaster. But, to me, it's about efficiency. We're horrilbly inefficient as a nation. What we really need is not so much a rush towards alternatives as a rush to energy self reliance. Get ESR first, then start worrying about a solar/hydrogen/biofuel economy.....

[/quote:b6ab1]Agree with pretty much everything you say, but gotta disagree with Alaska. Alaska is awfully close to the "ring of fire" and parts of Alaska is actually right over it.

[Jukin]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

I would like to see a move to hydro-electric power with a change in consumer cars to REAL electric vehicles. Right now the technology is available to make electric cars a realistic alternative to fossil fuels. A Northern California company called http://www.teslamotors.com/]Tesla[/url] is selling a car that goes from 0-60 mph in under 4 seconds. It has a range of roughly 225 miles between charges and can be plugged into a standard house electrical system to charge the batteries. Granted this car is extremely expensive at over $100,000 but if the technology was put into mass production the prices would drop drastically. GM is working on a version that is even more promising. The electric battery has a 40 mile range before a small gas powered motor kicks in to charge the battery for longer trips. So if you normally drive under 40 miles per day you could essentially drive this car without ever using the gas powered motor. So how do we supply the electricity for all of these future cars?

In traditional hydro-electric power stations, a large cavern would be built along the beach. As waves fall into the recess they turn a turbine and as the water recedes it continues to spin the turbine which generates electricity. The biggest issue with these systems is that no one wants to use their coastline to create these ugly caverns which make their beaches unusable for other activities. Back in the late 90's a new type of hydro-electric generation plant was tested. The new concept used piston driven cylinders connected to buoys located about a mile off the shore of Massachusetts. The rising and falling motion provided continuous movement of a series of pistons that was converted to electricity. A one acre area of these pistons generated enough power to supply a small town with all of it's electrical needs. The test lasted 1 year and the Department of Energy extrapolated the data to suggest that a 1 square mile area would be needed to provide enough power for a city the size of NY. This would equate to about 50 square miles to provide enough power for the entire North Eastern US. That's a lot of wires and cable to maintain and when our favorite former Oil Co. CEO became President of the US the Dept. of Energy released a statement saying that salt water corrosion of the linkage made the system impractical and it dropped funding and support for the concept. Personally I think that's a load of crap.

There are cables that have been in the ocean for decades that have managed to withstand the corrosion of salt water and we have ships and oil rigs that have far more complex drive shafts and linkage on them than these systems would use. Maybe these systems would need a great deal of maintenance but I can't believe that we can't develop a means to protect them from salt water. I also have to think that we can improve the efficiency of the pistons and generation equipment to reduce the area needed for power generation so that it's more realistic. I just don't see why this concept was shut down when it clearly seems so promising.

Imagine if we improved the efficiency of the pistons system by 50 times. We could provide a never ending supply of electricity to the entire NE by using 1 square mile of the ocean. Now build similar systems in the SE Atlantic, the Gulf, the Pacific and in the great lakes. You suddenly have a series of generating stations that can supply the entire country with all of the electricity it will ever need. Continuing to improve the generation ability and adding several more facilities would provide future growth and back up facilities in case of failure or damage from storms etc. There will certainly be problems with a system like this - but the benefits are HUGE and any problems we encounter we should be able to solve in a reasonable amount of time. This type of system along with development of true electric cars, trains and trucks would provide a never ending supply of power that doesn't destroy the planet and allows us to be completely self reliant for our energy needs. All we need is the will to make this happen -- and politicians with enough balls to stand up to big oil.

[saratoga]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

If gas prices drop below $3/gallon and stay there a few months, people with oversized vehicles will be able to get more for them on a trade-in to a smaller vehicle. Right now, some dealers won't take them at all.

If you don't drive much, an used oversize vehicle can had at a bargain price. If you only ddrive about 5k/year, it might be more cost-effecitve to get a fire-sale big vehicle than pay a premium for s small car. Or at least that was the case a few weeks ago.

Right now, I don't have any car payments. And I only drive more than 5 miles twice a week. So I'm not in the market for a newer vehicle.

I may get the chance to test you out on this. Some lady ran a stop sign in front of my wife, and my car is totalled.

[BIGPHILLY]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

Outside of my lame initial post - great thread!

[Jukin]

Re: I have to make a somewhat political comment (OT)

Hey saratoga, I hope your wife is ok.