America and Oil Dependency

[JSUCamel]

I'm sure you're tired of reading about it and talking about it. If so, leave now. For those of you still here, I'm going to state my views on the whole oil thing.

Awhile back I went to the Glenn Beck simulcast at the movie theatre. I think Tam went to it, too. Good stuff.

One thing that Beck talked about was drilling in ANWAR. They're drilling there, apparently. For ice. Not for oil.

This has Beck furious. He's gung-ho about drilling in America, especially ANWAR.

Bad idea, imo.

A few nights later, my brother and his friends had a get together, and I showed up. We got to talking about the simulcast, and someone mentioned that this Jindal guy was planning on drilling in Louisiana somewhere. Everyone immediately filled up their shotglasses and threw up a toast to Jindal.

I sort of quietly said "I think it's a bad idea."

The entire room got silent and they looked at me.

"What?" my brother's boss, Charlie, said.

"I think it's a bad idea. I think gas prices should keep going up."

He wasn't a happy camper. I don't blame him.

Believe me, I don't want to keep paying $4, $5 per gallon. I'd love to go back to 75 cents per gallon like when I first started driving. That'd be wonderful.

But drilling isn't the answer.

"Why?" Charlie asked.

"Because drilling anywhere will give Americans hope."

"Hope for what?"

"Lower gas prices."

"What's wrong with that?"

"If America starts thinking the gas prices are going to go back down, we'll have no reason to switch to another type of vehicle."

Charlie and the others stared at me for another moment, then Charlie answered.

"Then you're forcing everyone to switch to something else. Fuck that. I want a choice."

I shook my head sadly.

"You don't have a choice right now," I said.

He said "Sure I do."

No, my friend, you don't.

Right now, America is dependent on oil for transportation. There are no alternatives. None at all.

Yes, the technology is there. Yes, there are a handful of cities that have hydrogen-fuel cell stations, or electric stations, or whatnot. Apparently, there are three hydrogen stations in Atlanta.

But that's not good enough.

I can't walk down the street and buy a hydrogen-powered car and drive it everywhere I want to go. It's not feasible. What if I want to drive to Birmingham, AL? I can't. No fuel stations along the way, and as far as I know, there aren't any in Birmingham.

And let's face it. Every oil powered car you buy increases our dependency on oil for another decade.

Charlie shook his head and said, "How much would it cost to switch everyone over to hydrogen or natural gas or whatever?"

"Millions, if not billions, of dollars."

"That's right. And how long would it take?"

I shrugged. "Five, ten years, at the rate it's going now."

"Exactly!" he crowed, proud at his logic.

"But," I said. "if prices go down, that rate's going to slow down. It takes demand to raise production of those things. It takes demand to get those cars and fuel stations out on the road. And for every dime the gas prices go down, Americans are that much less likely to switch or demand to switch."

Right now, gas prices are inconvenient. They're not truly painful. People tighten up their belts, they eat out less, they make fewer trips to the store. They save a little bit of money that way. But it's not truly painful. It's just inconvenient.

People aren't willing to lower their standards of living to compensate for gas prices. So they just cut back. They keep the same cars, the same houses. They keep eating at the same restaurants, go out to the same theaters and concerts. They just do it less. It's inconvenient, but it's not painful.

When gas prices go up to the point where you literally cannot make it to the store by yourself, when you literally can't afford to eat out ever, when you've got no choice but to find an alternative... then it becomes painful.

Most of us know someone who's lost a lot of weight. Most of those people did it through sheer force of will. But that will wouldn't be there if there weren't consequences for not losing weight. Why did they lose weight?

They lost weight because if they didn't, something painful, something catastrophic would happen: they would get diabetes, have heart failure, liver failure,... death.

It was an all-or-nothing situation. They HAD to lose weight... or they'd lose everything.

And that's the point that we have to reach in America. We have to reach that tipping point, that point of no return, where gas prices are so high that we literally can't afford to keep up that activity anymore.

Once gas prices hit six, seven dollars a gallon, things will start changing a lot faster.

Hydrogen stations will come in a lot faster. Two to three years, instead of five to ten. It might cost a little bit more, but in the end it will wind up saving money.

Right now, there are no alternatives. There are no choices.

Charlie wants to have a choice. I do, too. But right now there isn't one. And progress on those fronts are moving too slowly. Five to ten years is not enough.

And if during that time, the government announces they're going to drill in America, then interest in alternative fuel technology is going to drop like a brick in a well.

So don't drill. Let the gas prices go up. Tighten your belts. Stop by car dealerships and mention you're interested in a hydrogen fuel-cell car, a natural-gas car, an electric car. Let everyone know that we need alternatives, and we need them now.

And what's truly ironic about the whole thing is that once we develop viable alternatives and people start switching to hydrogen, natural gas or electric cars... once that happens, gas prices will plummet. The demand won't be there to sustain such high prices.

But I feel it's better to have two, three, four alternatives than to have no choice at all.

When you've got hydrogen, natural gas, oil and electricity competing to power your cars, the power leaves the fuel company's hands and enters your own. YOU have the power to decide. YOU have the power to determine the prices. Maybe not individually, but as a consumer.

Prices for all four will drop like a wet cat out of a window, because they'll have to compete.

The oil companies don't have to compete right now. There's nowhere else we can go. But the minute we can say "I'm taking my dollar elsewhere"... then we can change this.

Don't drill in America. Don't increase imports of oil. Don't give Americans false hope.

Reducing prices now will only postpone the inevitable.

Suck it up.
Develop alternatives.
Give us what we Americans should already have.
Freedom.
The freedom to choose.

[Sinistrum]

All I have to say on that kind of thinking is that it is very easy to embrace when your living situation is such that you won't have to deal with some of the more painful consequences of gas at $7 a gallon. The damage done to poorer people who depend on their cars to get to and from work every day or depend on the power company to heat their homes in the winter by such a policy would be catastrophic and irreparable in most cases.

Putting the country into a position where it is forced to switch over to alternative fuel sources looks great on paper and it is something with which I can empathize. However, the practical realities of such a policy would cause too much damage to those least able to "suck it up." Even if the inevitable side effect is to decrease the rate at which we develop alternate fuel sources, we still need to drill.

[Frenzy]

And THAT kind of thinking, Sinistrum, is the kind that keeps us doing things they way we're currently doing them. There are alternatives now for the poor, subsidized by tax dollars. Yes it will hurt them more proportionally, but a new balance will be found.

And this country HAS been put in a situation of forced change. The mandatory switchover to unleaded fuel is once example. The upcoming switch to digital television broadcast is another. There's a crapload of federal money out there being used to offer the poor upgrades to ther TVs. Can you honestly tell me that TV is more vital to the poor than transportation?

Besides, there ARE alternatives to cars. There's bikes. There's walking. There's public transit. There's mules. Cars are just the fastest and usually the most convenient way to get where you're going. Last time i looked, convenient & fast weren't constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Yes, change will hurt. And yes, it will hurt the poor more. Absolutely nothing new there. Also not new: the pain will be mostly short-term, and there will be federal assistance for those who need it.



aside: all those Obama supporters crying for 'change' seem to have forgotten that real change hurts. Then again, not changing hurts more. Life is pain, highness. Anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something.

[GonzoTheGreat]

Putting the country into a position where it is forced to switch over to alternative fuel sources looks great on paper and it is something with which I can empathize.
From what I've read, drilling in ANWAR (or anywhere else in the USA, for that matter) won't postpone this for more than a year, at the utmost. But it may very well postpone the moment when Americans realise they have to change by a decade. That would mean, when the time to change comes anyway, that instead of having 15 years for a change of your entire economy, you would have 5. If you're lucky. It could also be that you have two years instead of twelve.
However, the practical realities of such a policy would cause too much damage to those least able to "suck it up." Even if the inevitable side effect is to decrease the rate at which we develop alternate fuel sources, we still need to drill.If the drilling buys you time, that might make sense. But that doesn't seem likely, because it will take longer to get the results of that drilling to market than they would be on the market once drilling has started.

[JSUCamel]

Besides, there ARE alternatives to cars. There's bikes. There's walking. There's public transit. There's mules. Cars are just the fastest and usually the most convenient way to get where you're going. Last time i looked, convenient & fast weren't constitutionally guaranteed rights.

You're right. But for those of us who don't live in major cities, bikes and walking are NOT a viable alternative. I don't live near a farmer's market. I'm five miles from a grocery store. I'm twenty miles from a hospital. How do I bring home a few days worth of groceries if I'm on a bike, or walking five miles?

Some of us work in areas that are too far to bike or ride, that don't have public transit.

In a city like San Francisco or NYC, you can get away with saying bikes and walking are viable alternatives. But in a place like Stockbridge, GA or Jacksonville, AL, they aren't.

The best I can do here is drive 10 miles to a park'n'ride and ride to downtown Atlanta.

Again, that's simply an inconvenience and not enough to force change.

Even if the inevitable side effect is to decrease the rate at which we develop alternate fuel sources, we still need to drill.

No, we don't. From all accounts I've read, we still have decades worth of oil left and most of the price fluctuations have to do with speculation. The prices are going up because speculators are thinking we're gonna dry up, and from what I've read, that's not the case.

Even at a worst case scenario, we've got 15-20 years left of oil that can be used in America. And that's plenty of time to make the switch. And the faster and sooner we switch, the longer that remaining oil is going to last.

Yes, drilling would bring down the prices, but by accelerating a switch to alternative fuels, we'll be killing two birds with one stone: giving options and lowering fuel costs.

[Terez]

I wish that every place had a stable in addition to a parking lot. I'd have a horse for sure...

[Sei'taer]

Thats good thinking. The laws of supply and demand always work. I only have one question, if it takes 8, 10, 12 years to get alternatives up and running, how do we get there from here? Suck it up and pay $10 bucks for gas while the Canadians drill in the great lakes, the Chinese drill off the our coast, and the Russians tap ANWAR? My heart tells me we need these alternatives. My gut tells me we are a long way from it...

I've been in/on these rigs and watched drilling take place. I also do inspections on new water wells drilled around here. I have a good understanding of how it works, as do the roughnecks who now drill for water because the are too old to handle the pressure of the oil rigs. One old fella told me one time that he "figured we'd get off oil when the aliens took it all away from us...just like they tried to do in that movie where we kicked their ass with a computer program." He was a funny old codger and didn't know shit about anything but drilling.

One thing I can tell you, if you start from zip, and go through a full set up on a rig, then drill to the oil, it'll take about 4 months total to get that well in production. AS far as off shore or ANWAR, my guess would be that you'd triple that number...I'm not sure how accessible ANWAR is and I know it takes several months to move and set up an off shore rig. Shale oil would be a whole different story, and while I know how they do it, I've only seen it done here for water wells...and they are in a sand lens, so I'm assuming hammering thru shale would make it a hell of a lot harder.

[Crispin's Crispian]

You're right. But for those of us who don't live in major cities, bikes and walking are NOT a viable alternative. I don't live near a farmer's market. I'm five miles from a grocery store. I'm twenty miles from a hospital. How do I bring home a few days worth of groceries if I'm on a bike, or walking five miles?

You move closer to the things you need. Why do you think we have suburbs and bedroom communities and urban sprawl? Because we can. Right now, with gas prices relatively low, we can afford to live far from the things we need.

Before cars, most people didn't live that far from the urban centers so walking and biking were absolutely viable alternatives. If gas prices begin to force people to stop driving, they will move closer to the places they need to be. More importantly, businesses will move closer to population centers because they won't have any customers otherwise.

I appreciate your candor on this, Camel, but I'm completely cynical about this. Until (American) people start dying in droves, we won't make any huge efforts to move away from oil for fuel. And don't forget that gasoline is only part of our dependency on petroleum. Plastic, plastic, plastic...

[Sei'taer]

I appreciate your candor on this, Camel, but I'm completely cynical about this. Until (American) people start dying in droves, we won't make any huge efforts to move away from oil for fuel. And don't forget that gasoline is only part of our dependency on petroleum. Plastic, plastic, plastic...


Well, even hydrogen cars use oil products, as do electric. I guess we could do what they did in WW1 planes and lube them with castor oil (thats why they kept a shitter close to the runway)...no more stoppin up the old intestines that way.

[Weird Harold]

Well, even hydrogen cars use oil products, as do electric. I guess we could do what they did in WW1 planes and lube them with castor oil (thats why they kept a shitter close to the runway)...no more stoppin up the old intestines that way.
Lubrication plastics and petrochemicals are the biggest reason to stop burning oil as fuel. Lubricants, Plastics and many other petrochemicals can be recycled; oil burnt for fuel cannot.

There are alternatives available -- one of them is racked outside of most K-marts and Walmarts and outside of many convenience stores: Propane in 20 lb bottles.

Nearly every car sold in the US has an available EPA approved conversion to Propane (or compressed Natural Gas) and Propane and/or NAtural Gas are available in nearly every small town in the US. Granted, Propane and NAtural Gas are still fossil HYdrocarbons, but Methane is not a fossil hydrocarbon and most of the conversion to Propane is the same as is required for conversion to Methane -- Propane is just more readily available.

From what I've seen on the web, the conversion for most late model cars and light trucks runs between $500 and $2500.

Added up for every car in the US today, that comes to several billion dollars, but it IS within the reach of anyone with good credit right now -- you could be converted and running on "Blue Rhino" by next friday if you really wanted to be.

[Terez]

How does it compare to gasoline in price, though?

[JSUCamel]

Before cars, most people didn't live that far from the urban centers so walking and biking were absolutely viable alternatives. If gas prices begin to force people to stop driving, they will move closer to the places they need to be. More importantly, businesses will move closer to population centers because they won't have any customers otherwise.

So the suburbs are just fucked? I don't buy that.

My heart tells me we need these alternatives. My gut tells me we are a long way from it..

You're absolutely right. I wish there wasn't a NEED for alternatives. But there is. This is going to have to be like ripping off a band-aid. It's gonna hurt for a bit, but it's all worth it in the long run.

In the end, to me, it's not about the price of gas. It's about sustainability and long-term economics. Sooner or later, we're gonna be paying $7 per gallon anyway. If we drill now, we're just putting off the inevitable for a few more years.

Let's take responsibility for our problem now -- make the switch to alternatives sooner rather than later.

I'm all for gov't subsidies for conversions to natural gas, hydrogen fuel cells, electric, whatever... Whatever it takes.

Just don't sit here and clamor for drilling in America and giving Americans false hope.

[Weird Harold]

How does it compare to gasoline in price, though?
Propane?

Don'y know really, because I can't find any milage estimates for propane conversions. Natural Gas is a lot cheaper/btu than fuel oil and hasn't been going up nearly as fast as other fossil fuels.

The cost and availability will fluctuate as demand rises and transportation starts to compete with home heating and BBQs for propane.

Likewise, natural gas for home use will get more expensive as CNG conversion start hitting the road according to T Boone Pickens' plan, but the net cost to the economy as demand for gasoline and particulary for Deisel decline.

The point is mainly that there are alternatives to gasoline and Deisel for private vehicles and like the changeover to unleaded gas, the early birds are going to find it difficult to find fuel until the demand spreads out a bit.

[Crispin's Crispian]

So the suburbs are just fucked? I don't buy that.


Well, yeah. What else could happen? If we don't find viable alternatives to oil for fuel, we can't really drive very far to commute, shop, whatever. The metro areas will have to pull back eventually as people stop buying homes far away from everything.

It's not like it's going to happen overnight, though. I suppose it's entirely possible that we could have alternative fuel breakthroughs before most people are forced to move.

I should do some research in to where all those currently foreclosed and priced-out potential homeowners are finally ending up. If I had to guess based on gas prices, I imagine that people are already moving or staying closer to city centers to save money on gas.

[JSUCamel]

It's not like it's going to happen overnight, though. I suppose it's entirely possible that we could have alternative fuel breakthroughs before most people are forced to move.

That's why I say the sooner the better. The longer it takes to switch, the more people are going to be forced to move.

[Zaela Sedai]

I'm not sure moving will solve the problem...In city housing is FAR more expensive unless you are going to the projects.

[Davian93]

There's not enough oil in ANWAR to make a bit of a difference. Even if we DID drill it would likely only drop prices a few cents and it would prompt OPEC to lower its output to compensate and raise prices back. The economy has shown that it can afford $4 a gallon gasoline and thus it will stay near that mark.

[Weird Harold]

If we don't find viable alternatives to oil for fuel, we can't really drive very far to commute, shop, whatever. The metro areas will have to pull back eventually as people stop buying homes far away from everything.

The alternatives are available, it's mostly a matter of changing the American mindset about what constitutes a suitable alternative.

IIRC, the average commute for american workers is less than 20 miles one way. Very few commute more than 75 miles one way.

That means the need for a car that can go 300 miles between refuelings is all in the commuters' heads; a plug-in electric or "plug-in hybrid" that can go 100 miles and recharge in less than an eight hour work day is more than adequate for the majority of commuters.

That isn't going to solve the problem of the average commuter being "upside down" on his car loan and unable to replace his internal combustion engine vehicle without an unmanageable finacial loss. Propane or Natural Gas conversions would solve that problem -- and be more than workable if home compressors could be installed on domestic gas service to turn every home into a fueling station: I believe safety regulations prevent that at the moment.

(Honda sells a Home Energy System that converts domestic Natural Gas to Hydrogen to for a home energy Fuel Cell System with enough excess capacity to supply a hydrogen fueled car for daily commuting needs. but it's on a very limited distribution in the NorthEast only, last I heard.)

There ARE solutions available to either replace oil as a motor fuel or to save money on other energy sectors to free up cash to pay increased oil costs.

Not everyone is going to be inclined or able to take advantage of the alternatives, but everyone who does take advantage now will make it that much easier for others to follow their lead.

[Sei'taer]

1st, don't be such a pessimist Davian...you've got a real job now. Take the optimist view. Relax, it's the gov't employee way.

2nd, I'm not sure how it's made, or if there is any real oil in it, but is something wrong with synthetic oil that means it can't be turned into gas? That may sound stupid coming from a car guy, but I really don't know why you can't take an exceptionally good product like synthetic oil (I use it in all my vehicles...and have for about 10 years now) and make fuel out of it. Is it the way its made, or is it not feasible because of the cost?

[Weird Harold]

2nd, I'm not sure how it's made, or if there is any real oil in it, but is something wrong with synthetic oil that means it can't be turned into gas? That may sound stupid coming from a car guy, but I really don't know why you can't take an exceptionally good product like synthetic oil (I use it in all my vehicles...and have for about 10 years now) and make fuel out of it. Is it the way its made, or is it not feasible because of the cost?

Synthetic lubricants aren't the same as crude oil. Depending on what kind of synthetic it is, it might not even be flammable.

There is however at least one "synthetic" oil source that can be refined into Deisel and gasoline -- Google Turkey Offal Oil and read up on Changing World Technologies and Thermal Depolimerization/Thermal Conversion of organic waste into a "synthetic" oil that costs $80 a barrel to produce from $52/Ton offal from a Butterball turkey processing plant.

The process purportedly works as well on sewage and agricultural waste with only a differing ratio of output products from changing feedstocks.

[Crispin's Crispian]

Plus I honestly think people are going to move to places that are closer to what they need (work, food, etc.). Even if we don't see mass migrations of people into the cities, we'll see more pseudo-cities popping up in the middle of the suburbs. We have that now in Oregon where developers create these little shopping and entertainment centers within walking distance of several suburban neighborhoods. They also usually happen to be on the mass transit lines as well.

Like I said, I'd be pretty surprised if a lot of the people feeling the pain of the sub-prime crisis, or unable to get financing for a home, aren't moving to city centers.

And Zaela, I think the market now is going to change if this all comes about. Yes, a lot of cities are more expensive, but the market will shift as developer see what people want. Prices will get worse before they get better, though, which is bad for the average buyer/renter...

[Davian93]

Right now I believe they're predicting the housing market to hit rock bottom around late 2009 or early 2010...after that it should stabilize. Though I don't think the BS housing rescue bill that just passed is factored into that. Now idiots that overbought will be bailed out because "We didn't know we couldn't afford a 500K house on 50K a year!?!" ~starts crying~

Seriously though, we'll see.

[Terez]

I think one of my parents told me once not to buy a car that's worth more than a third of my yearly salary or a house that's more than 3x my yearly salary...somebody told me that, anyway. :)

[Davian93]

I think one of my parents told me once not to buy a car that's worth more than a third of my yearly salary or a house that's more than 3x my yearly salary...somebody told me that, anyway. :)

Those are both good rules of thumb generally. Honestly though the real rule is that you should and can buy whatever you want and if you get enough idiots to join you in your irresponsibility good ol' Uncle Sam will bail you out free of charge.

[Frenzy]

I should do some research in to where all those currently foreclosed and priced-out potential homeowners are finally ending up. If I had to guess based on gas prices, I imagine that people are already moving or staying closer to city centers to save money on gas.
In Cali the areas hit hardest by the housing crash are in the Central Valley. People can't afford to drive the 150-200 miles each day roundtrip to get to jobs in the Bay Area. Assuming they still have jobs in the Bay Area.

The 'burbs won't be ******* they just won't be middle-class anymore. 'Burbs are unsustainable right now anyway, which is why a lot of development is going Smart Growth and Low-Impact.

[JSUCamel]

Part of my problem is that the affordable housing is on the south end of Atlanta, while the jobs in the field I work in (web development) are all on the north side of Atlanta, which is twice as expensive. About 50% of those jobs are within reasonable (read: walking) distance of a MARTA public transit station. The rest I'd have to figure something else out.

I drove through Buckhead and Sandy Springs (north ATL) the other day with my family and the prices for gas were, on average, 15-20 cents more per gallon there than they were on the south side of Atlanta where we live. Housing was much, much more expensive.

I had a job a few months ago in Sandy Springs. I was driving 45 miles to the office and 45 miles back. It wasn't within the range of a MARTA station, so I pretty much had to drive. Took me an hour to get there and an hour to get back, if traffic was okay.

I looked into apartments in the area, and I found several that I would have enjoyed living in. They were within blocks of my job, a grocery store, restaurants, drug stores, gas stations, etc. The mall was five minutes away by car, 15-20 by bike, 30 if I walked fast. I could totally never drive the car and be able to do everything I wanted. I could easily drive to the nearest MARTA station and take the trip downtown to see shows at the theatre or whatever.

But the problem is that it was pushing the limits of my budget, even if I didn't drive. On the other hand, driving was costing me $400-500 per month in gas. I eventually told the boss I couldn't come in unless he had full work days for me, and to give me as much work at home as he could. Eventually, the work dried up and now I'm unemployed (and frankly, glad I didn't move or I'd be screwed trying to pay rent).

Basically, the only thing I would save by moving to Sandy Springs would be the two hour round-trip commute. Money wise, it'd be the same. Probably even a little more expensive, since food and such are more expensive there than here.

Anyway, yes, it's going to get worse before it gets better. But it's like a bandaid... rip it off quick and the pain goes away sooner. Hurts like a bitch, though.

Gas companies are fooling you. They're raising gas prices a few cents at a time, giving you time to get used to it, and then raising it a little more. While driving through Buckhead, gas was $4.29, $4.35 per gallon. Got back to Stockbridge (where I live) and the price was back down to $4.09. I looked at my stepdad and said "Wow, great deal!"

And then I smacked my forehead in disgust. Great deal?

That's what they're doing to us. Fucking around with our heads, making us think $4 gas is good, when it's not.

Get it over with quick and we'll recover quicker. I'm no economist, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[tanaww]

You move closer to the things you need. Why do you think we have suburbs and bedroom communities and urban sprawl? Because we can. Right now, with gas prices relatively low, we can afford to live far from the things we need.

Before cars, most people didn't live that far from the urban centers so walking and biking were absolutely viable alternatives. If gas prices begin to force people to stop driving, they will move closer to the places they need to be. More importantly, businesses will move closer to population centers because they won't have any customers otherwise.

I appreciate your candor on this, Camel, but I'm completely cynical about this. Until (American) people start dying in droves, we won't make any huge efforts to move away from oil for fuel. And don't forget that gasoline is only part of our dependency on petroleum. Plastic, plastic, plastic...

Well said, sir. I agree with you nearly completely. I am also going to resist the urge to share my thought that the effects of urban sprawl on the environment can't be ignored yet continually are. You erode habitats and there are consequences. Apparently no one cares.

[Crispin's Crispian]

Well said, sir. I agree with you nearly completely. I am also going to resist the urge to share my thought that the effects of urban sprawl on the environment can't be ignored yet continually are. You erode habitats and there are consequences. Apparently no one cares.

"Oh my gawd, there's a <<cougar/coyote/black bear>> in my front yard! Call the police, this is an outrage!"

Nevermind the whole problem of destroying filtering/flood controlling wetlands and erosion-preventing forests. It's not all about protecting the fluffy creatures.

[JSUCamel]

Hey, I'm all for moving back towards the city, but like I said, I'd be trading one set of bills for another; either way it's a net loss for me.

[Zaela Sedai]

One can just hope the gas keeps dropping, we're down to 4.09 here which means most of you should be back in the $3s right?

[tanaww]

$3.83 or something like that here in North Juarez.

What is still keeping people from coming back into the city center is that all too often what gets developed is high-end housing the average person can't afford and those who can afford don't want. GR is a prime example. Michigan is among the top 5 states in the country for mortgage foreclosures and GR is certainly no exception with people just walking away from their homes or setting them on fire to avoid foreclosure. But the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) keeps granting these contracts to developers bringing in $140k = $250K+ condos downtown when some decent, affordable apartments would be more in demand. This happens everywhere because typical government employees have no presence of forethought and the elected ones are pandering to the wealthy. It's absurd.

[Sei'taer]

Y'know, the more I think about this, the more I'm leaning the same way as Beck and Camels friends...I need to think about it a bit more, but something just doesn't seem right about all of this "we're running out of oil" thing. Maybe it's just me, and maybe I shouldn't have said anything yet, but the farther I go, the more something just seems screwed up with it. Just to kind of tease a little. Who stands to make money if oil companies go under?


And, did y'all see this? Pretty cool if it actually works, which I don't have a clue if it will. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080721001742.htm)

[Gilshalos Sedai]

So... making the oceans more alkaline won't harm fish in the least.


Right.

[John Snow]

Besides, there ARE alternatives to cars. There's mules.

Thank you, Frenzy! Now if I could just get a parking tag for my mule in the ramp under my office.

[JSUCamel]

something just doesn't seem right about all of this "we're running out of oil" thing. Maybe it's just me, and maybe I shouldn't have said anything yet, but the farther I go, the more something just seems screwed up with it. Just to kind of tease a little. Who stands to make money if oil companies go under?

To me, only part of the problem is gas prices. The big problem to me is the monopoly that oil companies have over transportation in America. You literally can't go anywhere without depending on oil. If there were viable alternatives to oil, we wouldn't be complaining about oil prices.

It's like if there was only vanilla ice cream. You don't have a choice -- you have to get vanilla. They start jacking up the prices to $5, $10 per pint. You get upset -- what the hell, man? And then someone comes along and introduces chocolate for the same price. It's not any cheaper, but it's an option. And some people start switching over to chocolate ice cream -- because it tastes better and, hey, it's something different! In order to woo those customers back, the vanilla people have to lower their prices a bit. Suddenly you're in a price war, with vanilla and chocolate ice cream down to $2 per pint.

It's the same thing here. We're so dependent on oil that when they raise prices, we can't do anything about it. We can't switch to another product. We can't use our power as consumers to reduce prices by switching to the opposition -- there is no opposition!

By drilling in America, you're supporting a monopoly on our transportation, you're supporting the oil companies.

By developing alternatives, you're increasing options, increasing competition, which means progress and better technology and lower prices.

You know we're using the same engine components from the 50s? There haven't been any major mechanical improvements in a car's engine in over fifty years. Small things here and there, but it's essentially the same technology.

We're still using the same oil refineries from the 60s and 70s. No technological improvements there.

Why bother? There's no competition. Where else can America go? Nowhere. So why should the oil companies change?

Oil execs are sitting in their board rooms every day, laughing their asses off and telling each other, "If we knew the American people would pay whatever we charged for gas, we would've charged $4 per gallon years ago".

We don't have any options.
We're beholden to Exxon/Mobil and their buddies.

I don't care if we keep using oil ten years from now -- I'm undecided on whether we'll truly run out anytime soon or not. But unless something changes, we'll just be setting ourselves up for this exact same situation a few years down the road.

It happened in the 70s.
It's happening now.
It will happen again.

Unless something changes.

[JSUCamel]

So... making the oceans more alkaline won't harm fish in the least.


Right.

Nice to see you're paying attention today, Gil. Per Taer's article,


adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment.'

[Crispin's Crispian]

We don't have any options.
We're beholden to Exxon/Mobil and their buddies.


I wonder how much difference it would make if all cars suddenly got, say, 50 mpg. Or let's say they developed an electric car that could go 300 miles on a charge and everyone bought it. How much would that change the picture, really?

I guess what I'm asking is, how big a piece of the petroleum pie is gasoline for cars? We'd still have to ship people and freight by plane, boat, and train. We'd still have a shitload of plastic stuff and derivatives that needed to be produced.

Where could one even find such figures?

[tanaww]

Once again, I'd invite all of you to read "The World is Flat" by Friedman. He's by no means a genius but he makes some very good points about ending our dependency on foreign oil and re-establishing competitive advantage in research and development particularly in the areas of medicine and alternative fuels. Remember, most of the time it is the U.S. that develops the technology and then some other country manages to mass produce it for less.

Mass production, thanks to the strength of labor unions among other things, is not one of our competitive advantages. But we do have a few smart people, import a few more and we can (and should) continue to develop talent in those areas (more physicists, chemists and other scientists and fewer history, english and other liberal arts majors - no offense but we're talking supply and demand) and fund that research to not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil but also help bolster the economy. A Win-Win!

[JSUCamel]

I wonder how much difference it would make if all cars suddenly got, say, 50 mpg. Or let's say they developed an electric car that could go 300 miles on a charge and everyone bought it. How much would that change the picture, really?

I guess what I'm asking is, how big a piece of the petroleum pie is gasoline for cars? We'd still have to ship people and freight by plane, boat, and train. We'd still have a shitload of plastic stuff and derivatives that needed to be produced.

Where could one even find such figures?

To the first, not much.

To the second, it's a big slice of the problem. The price of eggs and milk at the store are far less impactful (at least, to me) than the price of gas per gallon. I don't see a big old "EGGS - $4 PER DOZEN" sign every thirty seconds when driving down the interstate or at every corner in town. I DO, however, see "$4 per gallon" signs everywhere.

Like I said in my original post, providing alternatives would, incidentally, bring down oil prices anyway. So even if planes, trains, and boats still used oil, the demand for oil would still go down significantly since people will be switching to a (hopefully) renewable, reusable, cheaper, more reliable alternative.

As for plastic and derivatives, someone said awhile back that those are reusable oil products. You can re-use plastics, where you can't re-use car fuel.

[Ivhon]

I wonder how much difference it would make if all cars suddenly got, say, 50 mpg. Or let's say they developed an electric car that could go 300 miles on a charge and everyone bought it. How much would that change the picture, really?

I guess what I'm asking is, how big a piece of the petroleum pie is gasoline for cars? We'd still have to ship people and freight by plane, boat, and train. We'd still have a shitload of plastic stuff and derivatives that needed to be produced.

Where could one even find such figures?

also consider that the electricity used to power/charge the battery in the car ultimately comes from fossil fuels. Unless you do something totally tree-huggery and set up your own wind or solar generator to make your property (and car charger) completely fossil fuel free. Thats a trick, though.

[Crispin's Crispian]

also consider that the electricity used to power/charge the battery in the car ultimately comes from fossil fuels. Unless you do something totally tree-huggery and set up your own wind or solar generator to make your property (and car charger) completely fossil fuel free. Thats a trick, though.

Not true. In the PNW, our power comes almost exclusively from salmon...er...hydro. We've turned the Columbia River into a series of long, narrow lakes that allows us to be fossil fuel free.

[JSUCamel]

Not true. In the PNW, our power comes almost exclusively from salmon...er...hydro. We've turned the Columbia River into a series of long, narrow lakes that allows us to be fossil fuel free.

Exception to the rule. A good exception, to be sure. But this is one of the alternatives that needs to be developed across the nation, as well.

[Weird Harold]

To me, only part of the problem is gas prices. The big problem to me is the monopoly that oil companies have over transportation in America. You literally can't go anywhere without depending on oil.

You're running perilously close to ranking yourself in the "tinfoil hat brigade." The US Oil Industry is not a "monopoly" or even a Cartel or "Trust" -- there is no more a conspiracy to fix gas prices at "whatever the market will bear" than there is a nationwide conspiracy by the Dairy Industry to keep the cost of a gallon of milk on a par with a gallon of gas.

Henry Ford is more to blame for our current dependence on "oil" than Standard Oil -- it was his choice of a reciprocating internal combustion engine for the Model T that drove the expansion of the gasoline distribution network tot he point where it became the easiest option for fuel.

...
By drilling in America, you're supporting a monopoly on our transportation, you're supporting the oil companies.


Not True -- or at least clearly in "Tinfoil Hat" domain. Oil companies don't need to drill in America -- drilling in America would actually reduce their profit margins because drilling in difficult conditions in remote locations is more expensive than just driilling deeper into known oil deposits to extract previously unprofitable reserves.

You know we're using the same engine components from the 50s? There haven't been any major mechanical improvements in a car's engine in over fifty years. Small things here and there, but it's essentially the same technology.

More half-truths -- the basic technology of the reciprocating internal compustion engine hasn't changed for a lot longer than 50 years -- anything under your hood that Henry Ford wouldn't recognise is smog control stuff that is much less than 50 years in the making and unrelated to the actual function of the engine which is technology over a hundred years old.

I'm not sure whent he Wankel rotary engine was actually invented, but Mazda has been using them in their American models for thirty years or so. It is a radically different technology than a conventional reciprocating engine.

There have been intermittant attempts to introduce gas-turbine technology into the personal transportation market and/or the commercial transport market, but the American consumer has steadfastly turned back to the primitive technology of the reciprocating internal combustion engine becaueit's cheap and relatively reliable.

We're still using the same oil refineries from the 60s and 70s. No technological improvements there.

Only partly true, the Refineries are in the same locations and the basic technology hasn't changed -- because the essential chemistry of the process hasn't changed -- but much of the actual hardware is less than thirty years old and there is more of it in each refinery than there was 30 years ago. The same number of refineries doesn't mean the same refining capacity -- the numbers available on the internet vary wildly, but 30% more refinery capacity today than in 1970 seems to be a minimum figure that almost every reference covers.

[Weird Harold]

Exception to the rule. A good exception, to be sure. But this is one of the alternatives that needs to be developed across the nation, as well.
(re: PNW Hydro)

Not really an exception to the Rule -- my power comes from Hoover Dam and Nevada Solar One. (http://www.nevadasolarone.net/) The Tenessee Valley Authority still generates massive amounts of Hydroelectric power for the eastern part of the country.

The only State in the Union I can think of just off-hand that doesn't get some portion of it's power from Hydro-electric is Florida and that's only because the state doesn't have sufficient elevation to make it practical with pre-environmentalist obstruction technology. (new "low head" Hydro technology would make Hydro generation practical even in Florida)

[JSUCamel]

You're running perilously close to ranking yourself in the "tinfoil hat brigade." The US Oil Industry is not a "monopoly" or even a Cartel or "Trust" -- there is no more a conspiracy to fix gas prices at "whatever the market will bear" than there is a nationwide conspiracy by the Dairy Industry to keep the cost of a gallon of milk on a par with a gallon of gas.

I didn't say conspiracy, I said monopoly. It's not really a true monopoly in that one company is in charge, but it's like a monopoly in that we don't have any other viable options for transportation fuels.

The difference between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas is that I don't NEED the milk. I can drink water or soda or orange juice. I can't just pour milk into my gas tank and expect my car to drive. I have no choice when it comes to oil.

Not really an exception to the Rule

I stand corrected.

[Crispin's Crispian]

Exception to the rule. A good exception, to be sure. But this is one of the alternatives that needs to be developed across the nation, as well.
I'm not sure hydro is the best alternative, though, because it has it's host of problems as well. For one, wild Columbia River salmon are all but gone, and I doubt they'll be coming back. Second, tons of archaelogical and ecological sites are now underwater, and the entire hydrology of our region has changed.

Plus the Columbia River has some uniquely dammable characteristics, I think.

Finally, I'll just add that we supply power not only to Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, but also sell it across the west (including California). It's not as much an exception to the rule as one of the rules.

[Weird Harold]

I didn't say conspiracy, I said monopoly. It's not really a true monopoly in that one company is in charge, but it's like a monopoly in that we don't have any other viable options for transportation fuels.


I know what you meant by "monopoly" -- but like I said, Cartel or Trust are no more accurate than "Monopoly."

Gasoline, Diesel, and Jet Fuel dominate the transportation sector, but that is't the Oil industries fault, it's the vehicle manufacturers and the consumers fault.

Alternatives do exist: virtually every city in the country has a Natural Gas pipeline and Natural Gas to or near every building in the city and the car you own right now will run on Natural Gas -- or Methane, or "Syngas" from Coal or Biomass.

That is one of the benefits of using hundred year old internal compustion technology, BTW, virtually every flamable substance has been tried as a fuel at some point and the basic technology to adapt internal combustion engines to different fuels is well known.

Did you know that an Internal combustion engine will run on coal dust? A slurry of finely ground coal and water can fuel a Diesel engine almost as powerfully as #2 Diesel Fuel can. It's hard on the injector nozzles and prone to fuel system clogging, but it is an alternative that could be developed.

ETA:
The difference between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas is that I don't NEED the milk. I can drink water or soda or orange juice. I can't just pour milk into my gas tank and expect my car to drive. I have no choice when it comes to oil.

You may have an option when it comes to buying fresh milk, but many people do not -- parents, bakers, restaurants, etc. I'm sure that there is someone around who is lactose intolerant who can advise you on the dificulty of finding food products that don't contain "milk" in some form.

[JSUCamel]

Gasoline, Diesel, and Jet Fuel dominate the transportation sector, but that is't the Oil industries fault, it's the vehicle manufacturers and the consumers fault.

You're right, it's not their fault. But as consumers, we have to find alternatives, otherwise this... whatever you want to call it... dependency on oil will continue, and we'll just keep getting into these situations.

Alternatives do exist: virtually every city in the country has a Natural Gas pipeline and Natural Gas to or near every building in the city and the car you own right now will run on Natural Gas -- or Methane, or "Syngas" from Coal or Biomass.

It's expensive to convert. Not as expensive as buying a new car, but expensive enough to provide a roadblock to the switch. Yes, cars will run on anything combustible, but it's not _viable_ yet, because there are not enough affordable alternatives. What's the price comparison of natural gas to oil, per mile? How difficult is it to fuel my car using my city's natural gas pipeline? The infrastructure isn't there to fill up my car with natural gas.

My point isn't that there aren't alternatives. There are. There aren't any VIABLE alternatives, because the infrastructure isn't there.

Did you know that an Internal combustion engine will run on coal dust? A slurry of finely ground coal and water can fuel a Diesel engine almost as powerfully as #2 Diesel Fuel can. It's hard on the injector nozzles and prone to fuel system clogging, but it is an alternative that could be developed.

Again, can I dump ground coal into my gas tank right now and run it? No, I can't. My ex had water get into her gas tank somehow, and now she can't drive that car because it's all screwed up.

You may have an option when it comes to buying fresh milk, but many people do not -- parents, bakers, restaurants, etc. I'm sure that there is someone around who is lactose intolerant who can advise you on the dificulty of finding food products that don't contain "milk" in some form.

Water. Soda. Orange juice. There are viable options out there for the lactose intolerant. Many millions of people are lactose intolerant and they get by just fine. They might have to look a little harder and be more careful about what they eat, but they're not spending ridiculous amounts of money to do so.

I don't mind spending a little extra money or time to make the switch. I'm willing to put up with a little pain over the next few years to make the transportation fuel industry more diverse and more viable for the common person to utilize.

If all it takes is manufacturers developing cars that run on Natural Gas, then let's do something about it. Let's complain enough that they start producing NG-run cars.

But sitting here and saying "Oh, you can run a car on pig shit" isn't going to help anyone, until you get mass produced cars that DO run on pig shit.

There ARE alternatives out there. The problem is that they're not ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE, or VIABLE for your average consumer.

THAT'S the problem.

[Weird Harold]

It's expensive to convert. Not as expensive as buying a new car, but expensive enough to provide a roadblock to the switch. Yes, cars will run on anything combustible, but it's not _viable_ yet, because there are not enough affordable alternatives.

Propane conversion is a viable alternative because the conversion runs $500 -$2500 depending on your particular car and there are 26 phone listings in the Las Vegas Phone book -- including three nationwide truck stop chains -- where you can fuel up with propane.

ETA: I just spent $500 on auto repairs -- if my vehicle wasn't 23 years old, I'd seriously consider the $1500 for a propane conversion; if I ever replace it, it probably will look at alternative fuel options.

Depending on your driving habits and location, Compressed Natural Gas could be a viable conversion -- it's basically the SAME conversion as the Propane conversion -- if your local trasit commission is willing to sell you compressed natural gas.



What's the price comparison of natural gas to oil, per mile? How difficult is it to fuel my car using my city's natural gas pipeline? The infrastructure isn't there to fill up my car with natural gas.

If you live in a single family dwelling -- AKA a house -- that has natural gas service there is likely a gas fitting inside your garage. Whetehr it would be legal or not, you could hook a simple compressor to that fitting and fuel your car at home -- probably NOT the safest option unless you get a compressor intended for compressing flammable gasses without igniting them.

The basic infrastructure for natural gas or propane distribution is in place, and if you look in the yellow pages for your area under "Gas -- ..." you'll find suppliers of just about any flammable gas you'd care to fuel your vehicle with. You'll also find your local Natural Gas Company who can advise you on where and how you can obtain compressed natural gas in your area.

My point isn't that there aren't alternatives. There are. There aren't any VIABLE alternatives, because the infrastructure isn't there.


The infrastructure is there, it just isn't obvious or easily accessible to private vehicles -- because people won't put up with the inconvenience of only 26 locations for refueling insetad of ~~2600 locations.

I really don't know what the cost comparisons/mile are for any given conversion -- but I really don't care what they are at the moment because they're going to change many times before a new transportation economy settles out.

Again, can I dump ground coal into my gas tank right now and run it? No, I can't. My ex had water get into her gas tank somehow, and now she can't drive that car because it's all screwed up.

No you can't just dump ground coal into your gas tank, but you could convert your car to use coal dust if you really wanted to -- it is NOT a conversion I recommend, it just one that is possible; and one that would be suitable for some fixed installations to reduce demand for oil in that sector where it would be a viable option.

I don't mind spending a little extra money or time to make the switch. I'm willing to put up with a little pain over the next few years to make the transportation fuel industry more diverse and more viable for the common person to utilize.

If all it takes is manufacturers developing cars that run on Natural Gas, then let's do something about it. Let's complain enough that they start producing NG-run cars.


Every car sold in the US since about 1990 has at least one EPA approved conversion option to run on Propane or Natural Gas (the only difference I know of in the conversions is the thread of the refueling connection.)

You can order a propane/natural gas conversion direct from the factory or have one retrofitted -- in most cases you can get duel-fuel versions, which retain the conventional gasoline or Diesel fuel system as well.

Every major auto manufacturer that sells vehicles in the US does produce CNG/Propane versions of their vehicles -- there just aren't many people who buy them because people don't bother to research the alternatives or want to pay a bit extra to activate the multi-fuel capability of their present vehicle.

[Sei'taer]

We get our power from the TVA. Heres a short blurb from the site:

Fast Facts
The TVA system includes three nuclear, 11 fossil, 29 hydroelectric, six combustion-turbine, and one pumped-storage plant. TVA’s renewable energy program, Green Power Switch, includes 16 solar sites, one wind-energy site, and a methane gas facility.

Fossil-fuel plants produce about 60 percent of TVA’s power, nuclear plants about 30 percent, and hydropower dams about 10 percent. Green power also contributes to the generation mix.

There are 159 locally owned distributors that sell TVA electricity to consumers and 59 large industrial and federal customers that receive TVA power directly.


So, evidently we get our power here from a mix of everything. Theres also a map on the site that shows the areas that have power provided by TVA (http://www.tva.gov/sites/sites_ie2.htm)

[Weird Harold]

We get our power from the TVA. Heres a short blurb from the site:

Fast Facts
The TVA system includes three nuclear, 11 fossil, 29 hydroelectric, six combustion-turbine, and one pumped-storage plant. TVA’s renewable energy program, Green Power Switch, includes 16 solar sites, one wind-energy site, and a methane gas facility.

Fossil-fuel plants produce about 60 percent of TVA’s power, ...


TVAhas diversified considerably since it was first established, then. Being on the left sid eof the Map, I mostly know of TVA from (ancient) History class. :D