With gas prices pushing $3 a gallon, drivers aren’t just digging deep into their pockets. They’re getting angry—not just with oil companies and President Bush—and they think Democrats can do better. Yet converting those sentiments into electoral victories, let alone effective legislation, may not be so easy. According to several polls taken in late spring, Americans rank gasoline prices slightly… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (30)Page 1 of 1 pagesThere isn’t enough said about home energy use. Heat pumps ( sometimes called geothermal systems) can be used anywhere there is shallow groundwater. And, unlike solar systems which need space and can be unsightly (but also work) heat pump systems are underground. The Energy Bill was supposed to provide tax incentives to retrofit your home. Guess What? Bush hasn’t requested the funds so they don’t exist--although the “words” are in the bill. (Sound familiar?). A massive conversion to home energy produced at the home needs to be part of the equation. The technology is already here and proven.
Posted by timeforchange on Jul 3, 2006 at 8:30 PM Leave it to politicians and it will be a race to see if we choke to death on emissions or of a stroke at the gas pump.
Cutting prices is exactly the wrong thing to do. (Where are all the “Free Marketer” Republicans hiding on this issue?) It is only when prices begin to squeeze budgets that people think about the energy problem. And this IS a real problem for the average people. They are the ones who now have to drive many more miles to get to a job now that we’ve exported them to cheaper labor countries. They are the ones who lost their health care and have been dipping into their retirement funds early.
Higher prices stimulate research and encourage investment in alternative sources. All the other proposals, atx relief (just transfers to something else), bonuses, price-gouging laws, blaming big oil companies are political posturing
Thirty years ago alternatives were sought — until prices dropped. Smaller, more fuel foreign cars came on the scene. My 15-yearold VWs gives better gas mileage than any of the new ones offer. Why? Because the Honda, Toyota, VW, etc. have all grown soft, big and fat — just what the market asked for when the pump price became acceptable again.We have never had a genuine energy policy and never will as long as Washington can find a way to dodge the issue. Perhaps high prices and the anger they generate can force the issue and create enough interest for a long term comprehensive approach.
We can begin with an Interstate High Speed Passenger Rail system such as France and Japan have operated for decades. How about a monorail down the median of the Interstate Highway for starters? The land is there. The jobs would be welcome. Rail is the most economical way to move large numbers of anything. Emissions would be cut. Highway fatalities lowered. What’s not to like?
While waiting — invest in oil. It’s a bettter bet.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 4, 2006 at 6:40 AM Cutting prices is exactly the wrong thing to do. (Where are all the “Free Marketer” Republicans hiding on this issue?)
It is only when prices begin to squeeze budgets that people think about the energy problem. And this IS a real problem for the average people. They are the ones who now have to drive many more miles to get to a job now that we’ve exported them to cheaper labor countries. They are the ones who lost their health care and have been dipping into their retirement funds early.
Higher prices stimulate research and encourage investment in alternative sources. All the other proposals, atx relief (just transfers to something else), bonuses, price-gouging laws, blaming big oil companies are political posturing
Thirty years ago alternatives were sought — until prices dropped. Smaller, more fuel foreign cars came on the scene. My 15-year-old VW gives better gas mileage than any of the new ones offer. Why? Because the Honda, Toyota, VW, etc. have all grown soft, big and fat — just what the market asked for when the pump price became acceptable again.
We have never had a genuine energy policy and never will as long as Washington can find a way to dodge the issue. Perhaps high prices and the anger they generate can force the issue and create enough interest for a long term comprehensive approach.
We can begin with an Interstate High Speed Passenger Rail system such as France and Japan have operated for decades. How about a monorail down the median of the Interstate Highway for starters? The land is there. The jobs would be welcome. Rail is the most economical way to move large numbers of anything. Emissions would be cut. Highway fatalities lowered. What’s not to like?
While waiting — invest in oil. It’s a bettter bet.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 4, 2006 at 6:46 AM Widening alternative transportation networks such as those of mass transit, rail, pedestrian, and cycling would be best. Forgoing that, cars can be built to run exceedingly more efficiently than they are currently. In addition, ethanol derived from cellulosic sources is completely feasable and wouldn’t use all that much land. Corn-ethanol is infeasable due to it’s low yeild and high energy usage. We need to attack our transportation and energy problems from more than one angle if we really care about the future.
Posted by DougE on Jul 4, 2006 at 12:56 PM The “Free Marketeer Republicans” are in hiding, WTHbecause you can’t run any modern society without a decent central Government.
Their extremists said they wanted to flush it down the plug-hole . Ideologues. Bullshitters.
Individually, many US States are passing their own laws, thank God. I saw the influence here in Europe when California and Germany tightened up, way back, . It was good.
You do dislike Jimmy Carter, I’m sure, but 38 or 39 years ago he was talking about energy-independence I think.
Much like Mahatma Gandhi, who believed that “staple” foodstuffs should not cross frontiers. This is of course the diametrical opposite of our modern situation, where the WTO forces countries to import food, while producing cash-crops for export. At cheap world-prices, of course.
They lose and starve.
Posted by frog on Jul 4, 2006 at 7:11 PM I agree w/whattheheck let prices rise. invest more in trains. but mass transit won’t serve to meet the way americans have spread themselves out in suburbs. foolish planning, sure. but that’s where most of us are. the democrats i hear make generalizations about alternative fuels and massive govt subsidies for alternatives. but unless prices float higher, the market won’t be there no matter how much is dumped into “research”. the alternative fuel subsidy could end up like a lot of Pentagon projects: cost plus spending; no quality controls; few penalties for failure; and a few large companies getting rich and new products coming on line that are obsolete by the time the first unit rolls off the line.
americans need to drive less and use less energy. that is going to cost btw millions of jobs of many low income people in restaurants, hotels, tourism and entertainment. but price increases are only practical rationer of resources unless
1. you want to let or compel the oil companies to drill everywhere(i’m OK w/it but i understand the objections) and
2, ramp up nuclear fuels(again, fine by me but it shouldn
be shoved down the throats of nervous neighbors)3. expand coal use w/efforts to make coal cleaner
bush’s energy programs sans the subsidies to the already profitable energy companies were not irrational. Reasonable objections to them sure. but no one’s coming up with practical alternatives that the American people as they are and not as some would have them be would accept.
a very tough problem. I certainly don’t insist that anything I say here is gospel or not subject to change. but i haven’t heard workable, practical aternatives, much as i’d love someone to come up w/free hydrogen clean energy tomorrow and put this all to rest. OK, I’m done. Geniuses out there and engineers---HELP!
Posted by knocko on Jul 5, 2006 at 9:32 AM Frog,
You’re right — Carter is not one of my favorite people. (too sanctimonious for one thing) However, hardly anyone is ALWAYS wrong and Jimmy was right on with that idea. I voted for John B. Anderson in 1980 who proposed a $0.50 tax per gallon to finance alternative energy development.
In general I have been in favor of free markets, but only if the ground rules are fair and even. I was able to compete freely with other, but we were all subject to the same rules of conduct.
A typically hypocritical approach is all the political talk of doing things to lower the per gallon price. When it is our jobs at stake the “Free Market’ god is praised by the same people.
-----------------
Knocko,Before the automobile became so dominant in our culture we had a network of interurban rail lines connecting at a hub (like spokes in a wheel). I’m suggesting a completely integrated people transport system which connect all forms of transport — auto, rail, air, and sea.
Conceivably a person could travel nation wide or world wide using public transport.
My son sold his car about five years ago, walked two miles to work in downtown Chicago (except in sub zero weather). He has since moved to a suburban rides the train. To come home to visit he takes a the “El” (elevated train), bus, another train and the a bus.
The cost of insuring and maintaining a car in the city was outrageous. To buy a parking space at his condo would have cost $18,000. His insurance on a ten year old vehicle was 25% of the value of the car annually.
Keep the price high and we’ll find a better way.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 5, 2006 at 1:45 PM The article barely mentions highway-capable electric vehicles (EVs,) which are now being driven on US roads in the thousands. EVs are zero emissions vehicles, and even taking power-generation emissions into account, they’re far cleaner than the alternatives. That’s why major US refiners have fought against EVs for a decade and automakers have crushed several thousands of their own EVs. See Chris Paine’s documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” now playing across America.
The well-to-wheels fuel efficiency of electric vehicles is over ten times that of any petroleum-fueled hybrids. The cost of petro-fuels includes huge amounts of electricity used in refining oil, the emissions caused by protecting, shipping and trucking petroleum feedstocks and fuels, and the respiratory disease rates due to oil’s long emissions tail plus burning it in our vehicles. Electric vehicles (EVs) can eliminate over 40% of US air pollution with only moderate new electrical-generation capacity. Thousands have already installed solar cell arrays on their home roofs; dozens of Toyota RAV4 EV drivers thus have truly zero-emission vehicles.
Energy independence, driving for 3 cents per mile, healthier lungs: EVs.
Posted by Hewman1 on Jul 6, 2006 at 11:23 AM I agree with the posts above about alternative methods of transportation and the policies that will make them work. Where I live now, the Democrats established in City Hall do not think people walk so we do not have sidewalks. Yet, we have pedestrian-triggered walk lights in the middle of green islands that exist between the on- and off-ramp of an interstate highway that can be accessed only by walking several blocks where there are no sidewalks and very narrow shoulders on roadways. The local daily newspaper brags about the wonderful retail stores and restaurants but I look at all the empty store fronts and listen to other small business people who shake their heads and say that there is not enough concentrated traffic to sustain businesses in the spread out metropolitan area. Highly-promoted business districts virtually are void of small businesses because there is insufficient potential. I keep telling the deaf officials that we need to stop the sprawl and reduce the business and shopping centers if we are to improve the economic climate for small businesses, and that includes having bus service that lets people reach those locations.
I watched Andrew Cuomo in his tenure as Secretary of HUD during the Clinton administration with horror. I think he did a disservice to people who rent their housing. In one city where I sat on a neighborhood board in a neighborhood that was 80% renters, only property owners were given respect through the Neighborhood Revitalization Board and the public money that was meant to improve neighborhoods. I kept asking for energy-efficient air conditioners and other appliances for tenants to be funded with some of the money, but that was never considered as important as helping a homeowner improve his or her old, or not so old, house.
Also, the Des Moines Register today has an article about 9 people who were rushed to hospital from exposure to carbon monoxide because their electricity had been shut off and they were paying more money to use energy inefficient, and deadly, alternatives.
Yes, we need an energy policy, and that policy needs to be tied to economics, but not necessarily, or at least not primarily, the economics of digging deeper into a wallet to pay for gasoline...and I didn’t even start to talk about the health consequences of an energy policy that reduces EPA standards or increases NOx emissions as more people drive more miles.
Posted by SillyLeftist on Jul 7, 2006 at 5:10 PM mr. moberg sounds like a very intelligent person.
however , he is wrong when it comes to the latest good feeling words of alternative energy resources.
there are no alternatives to sustain this nation except the nuclear option.
switchgrass? horse manure.
ethanol ? more horse manure.
solar ? not practicable. or acheivable.
wind turbines ? more science fiction from the snake oil sellers in europe.biofuels ?… it is all bullcrap designed for all of us suckers to buy into
the latest garbage from such liberally designed news agencies that have only one object in mind : to sell more advertising , and to get rich off of your fears and apprehensions.at least the conservative news does not hide behind such notions that will make you feel like willing your hard earned money to a public broadcasting system.... instead of your children .
there are no options… except for easy oil ... and that is running out in a big hurry. give it ten years. goodbye.
do you not have the limited brains to realize that companies like general motors and exxon would like nothing better than to have developed a carburetor that delivers one hundred miles per gallon ?
with that kind of technology , they would have sold a million times as many vehicles… and a lot more gasoline.
they would not be scaling back their factories. or consolidating their refineries.
all companies survive by going above and beyond the present technology. but there is one factor in all of this hypocrisy that stands clear… and that is the fact that you can not get something for nothing.
oil , coal , and natural gas have seen their day.
the only way to have any serious plan to any kind of future is to bridge that gap with nuclear power sources.
so if you people out there want to keep on trucking , and air conditioning , and cookie cutter home investing , then the only way to achieve your means is to go nuclear.
the asian countries have realized this fact already.
they are doing something about it.
sure , there are those liberals that will say there is only forty years at best of uranium for nuclear development left on this planet.
and that the resultant waste will devour the planet earth.
they are correct about the uranium ... i will give them that fact.
but forty years is better than nothing.
so what is the alternative ?
to simply talk about our problems and not have the guts to move forward is worse than no action at all.
believe me when i say that you will see your children and grandchildren
starve or freeze to death inside of a nation with no future in nuclear energy.and that is where we are heading.
many malthusians state that this would be a good thing for humanity…
that is , that a downward scale of population is the only way to survival.so i say to all of you liberals out there....which one of you will volunteer
to be the first head under the chopping block ?i do not see anyone stepping forward in our near future.
do we want to be left behind in a nation of good feeling , hippie conscious , left wing liberal , we know better patronizing attitude , lets just solve the problem by riding bicycles , kind of existence ?
that is the way of fools.
Posted by thefarnz on Jul 9, 2006 at 3:22 PM Our research here in frogland shows that E3 Bn on renewables plus energy-saving produces/saves more energy than our next particular Nuke facility. .
GM and EXXon were selling OIL and IC vehicles, shit-head , so why should they sell you less oil or vastly more economical vehicles ?
They are in BIZ for the short-term.
NUKE power is for idiots.
Posted by frog on Jul 9, 2006 at 5:11 PM The Farnz apparently didn’t bother to read the comments before adding his “limited brains” nukes-only rant. Tnes of millions of zero-emission, highway-capable electric vehicles (EVs) can be recharged overnight using idle generating capacity already built.
I agree that uranium is limited. Farnz’ statement that solar is not possible is idiotic: photovoltaic is zero-emission, free power (put it on your hime roof and it also cuts cooling costs) that is now quite efficient and rapidly coming down in cost. Here in Florida, I’ll get thousands in tax rebates for installing it, and the state will not have to pay for as much asthma treatments (caused by combustion for generation and transport.)
Posted by Hewman1 on Jul 9, 2006 at 8:14 PM Electric Vehicles only barely help. Consider that with a huge increase in EVs on the road the resulting huge increase for the need for electric power.
In the US we have various types of electric power plants and barely enough to support electrical needs even now. Our most common power plant is coal fired which are a major contributer to greenhouse gases. We have natural gas fired plants, but natural gas is under the same type of price pressure as oil in the US. Natural gas has reached peak US production just as oil did in the 1970s, unfortunately shipping it by sea as liquid natural gas is something the US hasn’t much capabability at this point. Oil power plants are of course no solution for using less oil, that leaves mainly hydro and nuclear.
It’s been little publicized that many dams built for power plants have been accumulating silt and effectively are running out of time as viable dams in the US. Dam resevoirs in the Southwest are losing volumn. The nuclear plants are as stated earlier problematic as we still haven’t settled what to do with the byproduct and uranium is also going to run out. If it’s true that uranium mining will be essentially dead in 40 years, what’s the point in investing in highly expensive and long term building projects for plants that will be obsolete not but a couple of decades after going on-line, maybe sooner as uranium prices rise as uranium begins it’s downturn on production.
Wind and solar power are nice concepts but have problems as to producing massive amounts of electricity to a nation that is addicted to electricity.
In the US we are facing in the next two/three decades several “crisis.” One of course is oil, peak oil is real and we are at the apex of the curve. Natural gas is going to face the same peak curve and already has as to US production. Water shortages in the Southwest and Midwest (the farming belt has been depleting its’ water table). Add in effects of global warming (climate change for Republicans) to the mix as well.
We have tough choices ahead and aren’t making good use of dollars today. What is the point of rebuilding New Orleans as a city under sea level facing a world of rising sea levels? It’s the definition of insanity, just as contining the settlement of the Southwest as a region running out of water and climate change (global warming for Democrats) predictions expecting the increased desertification of that area.
It’s more than probably that our suburban lifestyle is going to reach unsustainability. Very few regions of the US are evening bothering to think about the rationality of a suburban existence in a future of rising oil, natural gas and electrical prices. Our economy sits teetering on the belief in cheap energy, a dream that will probably shatter that economy.
Continuing to build exoburbs, the suburbs beyond the suburbs, based entirely on big energy sucking housing types for SUV commuters is more insanity and a poor use of dollars.
And in every “option” for the future it depends on the oil economy to develop options. It takes oil to build another cookie cutter cul-de-sac as much as it takes oil to rebuild New Orleans or to build a wind or solar farm and maintain the equipment. It takes plenty of oil to wage war in Iraq so that we can someday hope to control their dwindling oil (or something like that), what a waste. And oil permeates so much of our plastic world both within the products and the production of those products.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 10, 2006 at 2:42 PM We may in fact be living in the twilight of the industrial age. We’ve come to a point where we’ve mined our planet of most of the minerals needed to sustain that age. Six billion plus people are such a strain on the Earth’s resources and at this point there is no silver bullet to change that. In the US we argue about our energy needs to sustain our car/computer/suburban lifestyle while millions on our planet still burn dung for heat. Maybe we should just start thinking about how to advance to an society that is not pumping the Earth for minerals at such speed that the resulting mineral crash isn’t so tragic to so many humans. Of course the dung burners won’t even notice the change, but we certainly will.
In the US we are more than probably going to face some upheavals in the way our society works and in politics. Consider as the rise in natural gas prices affects the price of fertilzers used by the farm corporations which in turn will affect the price of food on our tables. But to get that food to our table it has to be transported by trucks facing rising gasoline prices. But in the meantime the E-85 proponents want more land for corn from the cornbelt that the farm corporations have been draining that same water table.
And the futurists are talking hydrogen but not explaining how we convert the entire country of gas stations into hydrogen refueling points, a gas that is much more dangerous than the current fuel gasoline. To fuel the same amount of cars with hydrogen as opposed to gasoline at the filling station it will take three tankers of hydrogen to todays one tanker of gasoline. Transportation costs of hydrogen is going to cost more energy. Saving energy is becoming harder to do.
We in the US have had this attitude that any problem can be fixed, that the future will continue to be improved. And we’ve done OK with this attitude in the industrial age of cheap energy. But can we pull more rabbits out of the hat as we face rising energy costs? Looking at all the options right now, I think we’ve run out of rabbits.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 10, 2006 at 2:59 PM John B apparently didn’t read my post before opining that EVs are little help. 40% reduction in air pollution and driving for 3 cents a mile are a pretty big deal to most people, John.
I’ve been an EVangel for a decade now; I can back up everything I say.
See my guest blog posts on EVWorld.com, which refute your argument and the next two objections you’ll think of…
Posted by Hewman1 on Jul 10, 2006 at 6:42 PM Hewman,
The fuel costs of EVs is more than your claiming. The cost of replacing batteries. Unlike a petro-car which doesn’t require replacing the fuel tank and fuel system every three years or so, the all-electric vehicle does require an investment to replace the battery at a cost of something like $3,000 give or take depending. Average that over the three years, (this is all guestimate due to low EV production numbers) and that is a grand a year.
We have no idea what the effects would be on a grand scale across the country, and the strain on the oil economy to ramp up the change. And you do realize that producing your EV is still done in a petro economy? All the parts and production involve oil in some way. For example, they’re not shipping your EV parts to the production facility via electric vehicles, more than likely diesel fueled trucks. And look around your vehicle, how much of it has oil in it? Steering wheel? Dash board? Seats?
Reduction in air pollution is relative. Certainly the vehicle itself beats a gas powered motor, but what of the source of your charge? Much of this country is powered by coal, in fact 60% of our electrical needs are from coal plants. And considering the Bush Administrations lack of concern from pollution of those coal plants, it would be surprising if you are actually reducing pollution. As well, consider that mining coal is polluting (not to mention the deaths of miners) and I wonder if your green fever is a bit unfounded. In effect every new EV on the road has a 60% chance of drawing electricity from a coal fired electrical plant.
In a utopian society, I might be more on your side, but we live in America. On a small scale EVs probably make some sense (as in your case) but on a grand scale involving our entire society, the jury is out. I just laugh when the pie in the skyers envision all our employers providing plug-in stations for our EVs. Fat chance, not unless they are forced to by law and you can bet it will really come out of our wage and benefits.
As to pollution, I’d love to be part of the Kyoto Agreement, another fat chance. Our politicians absolutely don’t have the will. Besides, we’re probably screwed as to global warming. Most earth scientist think we’ve already hit the tipping point or that we must make massive changes NOW to have any possible affect. When do you figure America is going to make those massive changes? My estimate is long past now.
Electricity comes from somewhere. I’m all in favor of solar power, particularily for homes. But solar power equipment is still dependent on petroleum for manufacturing. If you believe in peak oil and that we’ve reached that peak, you must know that times are going to be a changin’ and America is going to have a tough time changing. Consider that planes can’t fly on batteries. Tanks would never be able to cruise the battlefield while hoping they don’t lose their charge. Long distance trucking won’t work well on batteries (at least at this point), and we have a rundown rail system as an alternative. Our transportation system is entirely dependent on oil.
I’d really like to believe in EVs on a mass scale, but I endured the blackout of 2003 and noticed how unprepared our region was. I don’t have much hope that our country is ready to increase electrical use dramatically.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 13, 2006 at 6:28 AM John B:
The fuel costs of EVs may be less than I stated. You don’t think that a 90% reduction in repairs and maintenance makes a difference? By the time that EVs are actually offered for sale in this backward country, nickel metal hydride (NiMH) or Lithium batteries will outlast the car. You assume EVs using century-old lead-acid techology.
Everything you hold against EVs is true of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs.) No one said that the entire machine would be organic (although complete auto-component recyclability is now becoming available.)
Can you bring yourself to accept that the huge pollution involved in exploring, drilling, extracting, shipping and refining crude oil (much of it from hostile regions overseas) is to by added to the pollution caused by burning it in your car? It’s called apples-to-apples comparison, since you did sock that tar-baby. If you’d read my guest blogs at EVWorld.com, you would not advance such an ignorant argument. Studies show well-to-wheels fuel costs to be a hundred times more than mine-to-wheels, since coal need not be conquered or protected like oil; the US military is the most polluting entity on this planet, and oil refining is the biggest single use of electricity in California.
California employers have provided charging stations. When I rented a GM EV1 in LA six years ago, there were over 150 free public charging spaces in the area, provided by the local utility.
The US military is now moving into hybrid and electric propulsion. Don’t you consider that explosive fuels might be a disadvantage for a tank? Not to mention that gas tanks run dry, too.
Paul MacCready built a flight-record-setting electric plane five years ago. Where have you been, John?
Your arguments do not actually show any disadvantages of EVs; you simply cry, “but, but, EVs aren’t perfect!” Please educate yourself before embarrassing yourself further.
America is entering a cultural revolution in how we count costs of our profligate lifestyles. The true costs of burning a gallon of gasoline (including health impact) have been estimated as high as $15/gallon.
I am not a utopian; it seems to me that you are the one with your head in the sand.
Posted by Hewman1 on Jul 13, 2006 at 5:34 PM Even if everybody did like me and bought a Prius and ran it on biofuel, we would still be putting too much carbon dioxide into the air, still importing most of our oil, and still stuck in gridlock. We’ve got to get people out of cars and quit shipping via cross-country trucks.
What did people do when the price of gas first shot up? They did the intelligent thing and crowded onto buses and trains. Why not build more trains and more windfarms to power them. Construction, operation, and maintenance of transit systems would provide a lot of jobs that do not require college degrees and are traditionally more unionized. What is the Democrats’ problem?
Posted by charleswinter on Jul 14, 2006 at 11:43 AM Just imagine if a small part of the money wasted on Arms research went towards this.
Lifestyle changes are inevitable, and not always all that painful.
I’m waiting for the electrically assisted bike price to come down here, which will replace a good proportion of my car-miles.
No point taking 1.3 tons of steel etc to the pub.
On nukes I found this by Chicken Yogurt which farmz will not like. And I hope the rest of you do--- another piss-take on Tony Blair ---- he’s getting as accident-prone as Dubya
NOTHING is going his way, except large amounts of shit.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Posted by frog on Jul 14, 2006 at 6:05 PM Herman,
First off, the energy debate absolutely is comparisons between apples and oranges as well as pears and bananas. A comprehensive energy plan is a fruit basket of comparisons. You extol EVs which are a portion of the use of electricity (apples) by comparing them to gas powered vehicles which are part of the oil sector (oranges), while others dream of hydrogen (kiwi fruit) and every year I see the solar powered (peaches) car race on TV news. All of these “fruits” must be compared if America wants to continue its’ driver friendly suburban lifestyle. And those comparisons have their plusses and minuses which is the crux of the debate, which fruit is more delicious to Americans.
At a point in time in human and Earth history we’ve come to the realization that one of those fruit trees is dying off. The oil (oranges) is going to need to be replaced as an energy source. Other sources will need to be increased to compensate for oil depletion. Sure, the apple trees (electrical sources) will need to be escalated. Your EV religion on a large scale will most certainly strain the apple trees. Electric sourcing has options, hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, coal, natural gas, rats on a treadmill, there are many types of fruits (pears, peaches, bananas, etc.) Our fruit groves will need to be grown much larger. You can’t talk about car culture without talking about energy culture.
If you want EVs on a nationwide scale (a huge increase on our nation’s electrical needs), then provide that amount of electrical power. As I stated before, natural gas production has peaked in the US and we actually face a more immediate need for that than oil. One of the consequences of the 1970s US peak oil production and then the subsequent oil embargo was that America switched over many home oil uses to natural gas, as well natural gas power plants came on-line. Now, we face the problem of rising natural gas prices and there will be a price point that natural gas will become disfavored (fairly soon).
So, what do we replace natural gas power plants with? Well, the easy answer is coal, we have plenty of that, although we have been using up the most desireable high grade deposits (also the cleanest). As of now, coal is reponsible for 60% of our nation’s particulate emmisions (cars and trucks make up most of the rest). Coal is implicated in mercury poisoning of humans, acid rain and global warming. So, even before you saturate our nation in EVs, we are probably going to increase coal producing electricity.
Not even experts that are pro clean technologies believe that wind and solar can hope to replace our current electrical sources. They understand that those technologies first rely on the wind and the sun, two commodities that don’t appear 100% of the time. They also understand that you can’t produce wind technology just with wind or solar cell equipment with just the sun. They depend on oil technology just as much as any other sector of our society. Additionally, they require large land outlays, particularily solar.
Hydro power can be increased in the US, there are more sites that could be used for dams. Yet, on the other hand existing dams are under scrutiny. For instance, Lake Powell behind the Hoover Dam is at it’s all time low level. Older dams are beginning to have silt build-up. And some dams have been dismantled for environmental reasons such as disrupting salmon runs.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 15, 2006 at 11:12 AM Are you ready to increase nuclear power? Most Americans aren’t. The nuclear debate is well known and highly involve the main factors for change on any major thing in the US. Popularity, politics, and economics.
Those three things are what drive any changes you may want so that you can get our entire country driving EVs. Popularity? The people don’t want EVs, at least right now. Politically, there’s no will. Economics isn’t driving change. And energy needs don’t add up either. EVs are not a silver bullet for our car culture whatever you may believe.
~~~~~Addressing some of your points. The advanced batteries are little better. They are more expensive, they still require oil economics to produce and involve more rare earth metals. Every study I’ve seen does no jumping for joy over the “miracle” batteries.
Yes I can accept that there is huge pollution involved in the world oil economy. Yet, most of this infrastructure already exists and as the oil runs out it will diminish greatly. So, the main available solution to increased electrical use is coal (and poorer quality coal at that) I suppose our motto is, “you can pollute me now or pollute me later in order to maintain America’s car/suburban culture.”
Yes, there is less maintenance in EVs, I’ve not argued that except that those repairs and updatings need an oil economy. Oil prices will always be an upward price trend from here on out. That means EVERYTHING will increase in price. From the price of bananas to the price of Chinese imports (and people wonder why China would deal with Iran? So they can get oil to sell Americans billions in oil based economy products) to those EV replacement parts including the most expensive part, the battery.
~~~~~~
I lived through the peak US oil production and now I’m living through the peak world oil production. I remember the economic stagflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s as our economy adjusted to oil importing rather than primarily providing our own oil. Our economy will suffer again soon as oil prices rise to a certain point (probably at about the $4.00 range). Yesterday, the price per barrel rose to an all time high (although not an adjusted rate dollar).During the stagflation, we had high unemployment. Our current economy is largely driven by the suburban home lifestyle based on decent employment numbers. What happens when prices rise, employment ticks up, and our society of people living in highly mortaged homes? It’s the housing bubble popped. For a country that is deep in debt, the housing economy is the main pillar of “strength.”
Even if all that you espouse about EVs were true (just for the sake of argument) we face problems that will likely alter our car lifestyle before EVs would be relevant.
I’ve not been wrong much in my interpretting trends for our future. I knew the stock market was a bubble back in 1996. I knew that gold prices would soar. What I can’t predict is timing. I know that the US is in for many changes, there is no instant answer that solves our energy problem as I write this. I expect a downturn in our economy that might even rival The Great Depression. But how long? I give it two decades give or take ten years.
We are a society accustomed to cheap oil and at the same time a wasteful society. We spend money we don’t have both at a personal level and at the federal goverment level. We always expect that technology will solve every problem, and always and ever are simply too much to hope for. We right now face a natural gas peak and no real answer for that, but also rising oil prices. We face increased global warming factors, like increased desertification of the Southwest. We are depleting the Midwest’s water table. And then we have a political system that just ignores so much of what is coming at us. Sorry, I’m not optimistic.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 15, 2006 at 12:15 PM John B:
Again, you are confused (or are one of the oil and auto industry employees being paid to attack EVs, such as the hundreds of commentless negative-review votes on film sites covering the documentary, ‘Who Killed the Electric Car?’ now showing nationwide.)
One, the oil industry backs hydrogen; it requires dedicated fueling equipment in thousands of new stations, which is their bailiwick. Also, the likeliest way to obtain H2 is by extracting it from petro-fuels. Finally, hydrogen-powered cars are propelled by electric motors - they’re just over-complicated EVs. Of course, they remain perpetually a decade from market, allowing Oil to continue business as usual. So your ‘kiwis’ are oranges and your ‘peaches’ are actually apples. The emissions created in the manufacture of vehicles and their fuels have been compared by agencies and universities and EVs are by far the cleanest. Curious that you cannot see this, John.You still can’t understand that EVs charging overnight in home garages will use under-utilized off-peak capacity; 40 million EVs can now be recharged off-peak without one new power plant.
I can get $20,000 for installing a home photovoltaic (PV) system in my state. Home-roof PV (which requires no additional space, John) is now quite efficient and components are being mass-produced, bringing cost down. Solar creates zero emissions, just like EVs, and I know a few dozen people who have EVs and PV - true zero-emission driving! The massive European demand for solar cells has finally eased, so that payback on the cost of a home system are now under seven years (without government help.)
A huge desert PV system is now under construction that will more than double US solar electricity generation. John, you remain ignorant or willfully misleading.
I find it amusing that you continue to tag clean technologies with component-manufacturing emissions without mentioning equivalent pollution in making any conventional hardware.Your refusal to address comparisons of energy sources in equivalent units (such as kilowatt-hours, to which BTUs or any other energy measure can easily be converted) marks you as backward or an oil industry shill. EVs will reduce US air pollution by 40%. Do you not know anyone with asthma, John? It’s 40% due to auto pollution, which you are, in effect, defending.
Posted by Hewman1 on Jul 15, 2006 at 12:35 PM Batteries ‘little better,’ John? Lithium-ion batteries now in mass production (in large formats suitable for highwway-capable EVs) have three to four times the energy density (KW/hours to Kg) of lead acid batteries. Your self-important prognosticating may be fine for gold prices, my friend, but you know nothing about battery developments. Li-based batteries already power our cell phones and laptops because they are vastly superior to even the latest nickel metal hydride formulations. Please continue your ignorant ramblings, John; I’m laughing at your repetitive and bone-headed incorrect pronouncements.
Posted by Hewman1 on Jul 15, 2006 at 12:54 PM Herman,
I can see you don’t understand me one bit. You actually think Im defending gas powered autos? I think they are dinosaurs. I just don’t believe your stats because every study of academic authority that I’ve seen aren’t drooling about EVs as you do. Please cite an authoritive study so that I might believe you. For instance a study of ethanol by the University of Minnesota just recently found that it was porbaby not an energy saver.
What you don’t understand about politics and economics apparently is that just because an idea might be good, doesn’t mean it is good. Implementation for the populace might be harder than you envision, or more costly.
You envision every house having an EV and a home solar system in most homes across America. At my families income for instance we can’t afford a new car, EV or otherwise. We can’t afford an outlay for a solar panel system. Even if we could afford a new EV we couldn’t begin to save for the replacement battery. Our family of four is lower middle income and we live paycheck to paycheck and every surprise expense is a strain on our budget. And guess what? There are multi-millions of families such as us. We have health insurance, but 45 million working families don’t and probably couldn’t afford the initial investments you envision.
I congratulate you on making an EV lifestyle work. For about the third time I’ve said that on a small scale it works. But I’m still not convinced any mass switchover is as glorious as you express.
As to why GM pulled the EV? They haven’t said. My guess is that the time would be approaching to replace all the batteries in the fleet out in the public. Whose outlay would that have been? GMs or the leasees? Was that settled when people started leasing the EVs? But I can’t explain why GM pulled the plug. I do know that if they could make profits off an EV they would pursue it. This is capitalism. Why don’t the Japanese or German auto companies get the same blame as GM? Only Toyota is still making an EV for the California market. I’m to believe that there is a massive collusion between ALL (excluding Toyota) the car companies? I’m a sucker for a good conspiracy, but I don’t buy this one yet.
You still haven’t figured out that I don’t believe there is any real answer for the peak oil production problem. I believe that America is looking into a near future of major societal problems that are coming together at almost the same time and energy is only one part of it. Unless I see that politically there are efforts to address these looming problems, I won’t be changing my mind no matter how much you rant on about EVs, only a small effort to alleviate all the problems I see.
You belief in the suburban drive-anywhere America is misguided, I see it as a house of cards waiting for the wind. In about twenty years we will know who’s right.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 17, 2006 at 9:42 AM Jon:
The National Academy of Sciences this year released their review of US energy policy, and recommended that EV development get a significant percentage of federal research funding for autos. I imagine that you can find the NAS site and the study for yourself.
Implementation, or vehicle choice? I simply want Americans to have a meaningful choice in vehicle fuels. The cost to install hundreds of public charging stations (as done by the Los Angeles power utility) was quite small, compared to the tens of billions proposed for high pressure hydrogen filling equipment for fool sell (fuel cell) cars. If the people of America could switch from horse carriages to automobiles a hundred years ago, I imagine that we could adapt to plugging our cars in at night. EV-charging wiring isn’t very expensive, since we have power almost everywhere.
You know very little about me. I commuted by bicycle for 25 years; I worked as a hospital clerk for fourteen years. I have never had the opportunity to buy or even lease a major-maker EV (not being a resident of CA, AZ or NM,) and probably wouldn’t have been able to afford it if I had. A new State grant might get PV onto my roof, if I can afford to buy a home in central Florida. I drove a rented GM EV1 during a week in Los Angeles six years ago, fell in love with its speed, handling and comfort and began asking how I could get one (knowing by then that GM would never sell an EV1 to anybody.)You seem concerned about some plan to replace all cars with EVs. We’re nearing the bottom of the list of commonly-posed objections to EVs here. Nobody wants anything but the choice to buy an EV; I can’t get a major-maker EV unless they’re mass-produced (lower priced than now,) so I’m an EVangel.
GM has many explanations for axing the EV1; click on the OnlyGM ads popping up all over the net.
It boils down to: “We could only lease 800 EV1s. There’s no market.” GM only offered 800 EV1s for lease.GM CEO Rick Waggoner this year said that his biggest mistake was killing the EV1 program.
As to GM’s motives: Automakers fought against installing $17 PCVs, safety glass, padded dashboards, seat belts and air bags, as well as every directive to make more fuel-efficient or cleaner autos. Also, with essentially one moving part in the motor, EVs require 90% fewer repairs and maintenance and may last half-a-million miles. Dealers joined GM and Chrysler in suing to avoid a mandate to mass-produce EVs, and when authorities offered a compromise on EVs, almost all EVs were repossessed (lease-only, remember?) and crushed. Unprecedented.
Electrical generation is domestically fueled, cleaner by far than in the 60s and becoming cleaner by the day as wind, solar and other clean power sources come online. Millions of EVs could be charging now, using idle nighttime generating capacity, without building one new power plant.
As I probably misunderstand you, your opinion that I endorse “suburban drive-anywhere America” makes me laugh. I’ve walked lightly on this Earth for 56 years now, and I’m trying to do better with an EV.
The movie will spark a mass movement towards EVs, which promise us energy independence, cleaner air and driving for 3 cents a mile. I find it difficult to see where the problem is (apart from Oil and Auto) with that.
Posted by Hewman1 on Jul 17, 2006 at 10:01 PM Jon:
I just re-read your last post. Once mass-production of lithium power-packs (which are made from relatively cheap raw materials) cranks up another few notches and EVs benefit also from the cost reductions of even modest automotive production numbers, the price of an EV will be lower than that of an equivalent gas car.
According to the US Electric Auto Association, several thousand EVs built by small shops and handy individuals are already on the road. Even lead-acid battery replacement every three or four years costs less than the gas an equivalent car would burn over the same distance.
Many of us are not well-off; that’s why I’m publicizing information on how we could be driving for less than a nickel a mile: EVs.
Posted by Hewman1 on Jul 17, 2006 at 10:23 PM Hewman1
The real irony of the supposedly “most affordable alternative” as Jon “the Shill” seems to believe, is that Oil is “so inexpensive” because of all the laws that have been written to ensure that many of the costs of development can be hidden or passed on or disguised so well people don’t realize that’s part of the cost of using oil as energy.
One tiny example are the “oil leases” companies bid for and explore for new sources.They get them dirt cheap, and pay dirt cheap royalties.
The actual value of the oil produced eventually vastly exceeds the initial cost of exploration. Additionally, thanks to a variety of tax tricks, and accounting slight of hands, oil companies manage to make it look far more expensive than it is, and reap alls sorts of Gov’t. capital breaks to basically win back even those paultry dirt cheap Gov’t. fees plus some.
Of course then there are the endless wavers allowing them to do great environmental damage that costs society now or later billions of dollars to fix later. These costs are never even thought of as “costs associated with using oil as fuel.”
Ironically other sources of fuel solar Etc (and yes even nuclear) are forced to “prove themselves as environmental saints” before they are allowed to go forward before they can obtain a fraction of the massive, complex supports the oil industry receives in a thousand different ways. Each of which aren’t outrageous on their own, but cumulatively make oil the “cheapest” type of fuel the big multinationals can explore for and produce.
So as a result, the big multi-national energy companies only pursue oil as a source of fuel.
The “true cost” is paid by society, which ends up depending on oil far longer than it would, thanks to the multinationals corrupting our capitalist system so much that it ceases to be a “free market” an instead is a “managed market, but it’s NOT Government doing the managing, but the multinationals via their manipulation of our political system. Which is how they got this thing set up in the first place.
If ONLY we had a “free market” system, like Jon fantasizes we do. IF ONLY oil were forced to compete as a source of fuel WITHOUT the multiplicity of supports it has wrought from our Gov’t, which while legal would meet few people’s definition of right or the in the public’s best interest.
Their manipulations have effectively made alternative fuel far less competitive, while forcing us to pay much more for oil, while getting less of it.
Because therye are too many people like “Jon” who naively think we have a “true capitalist” system, the oil companies and other huge multinationals will always be able to do things their way for the reason they decided was best, quick, short-term profit.
I am always amazed that anyone could be so daft as to believe that “If EVs were economical, then GM and the other car makers would build them.”
Anyone who thinks that must also believe the Easter Rabbit lays its own eggs.
I’ll spare people the reasons why such beliefs are so inane. Simply because anyone so inane simply knows too little about the topic to discuss it.
Jon’s inabily to answer your valid points, Hewman1, make it clear just how futile it is to do this.
It’s far better to seek out those who truly want answers, and avoid people like Jon who think they have nothing to learn, because they have all the answers.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Aug 23, 2006 at 9:41 PM johnnyincentrix proving he’s too stupid to understand what he reads once again.
I know all about the oil subsidies and how we pay more through taxes etc, that should be included in the price of gas when we look at that pump price.
I don’t believe in the free market, what free market? From sugar to farm prices to oil, we don’t have a free market. Nor would I want one as a business government would eliminate any and all regulations that they could.
And I certainly don’t think I have all the answers. What I’ve concluded at this point in time is that there is no answer to our coming energy problems. First it takes political will to begin changing our oil addiction, show me that will. You might say it will result because the people will demand it, but I’ve seen numerous examples of the peoples demands not being met by politicians. Show me the will.
In a perfect America, EVs might be the answer, but we certainly don’t have a perfect America. By the time political will finally comes around to deciding that EVs is what they want, then the price of oil and energy will have increased to the point that producing the infrastructures (massive amounts of vehicles, solar panels, etc.) neccessary to switch the vast country over to EVs will have become prohibitive for most Americans. It takes oil to produce things.
Apparently you can’t read or understand what I’ve written. I do believe we’ve reached world oil peak production. I believe from here on out oil prices will trend upward until oil is too price prohibitive for most Americans and for our economy to continue to sustain “our way of life.” I do believe that oil companies have political influence to the point that nothing will really change until it’s probably too late to make the massive changes needed.
Again, I well remember when America experienced our own nations peak production (coinciding with the oil embargo). Long lines at the gas station, stagflation, and then increased reliance on import oil. It took a number of years for our economy to rebalance itself somewhat, although we still see effects from those years in our huge federal debt. We imported our way out of high oil prices, but we won’t be able to do that this time.
So whose going to afford brand new EVs (it will take even more years for a used EV market), the home solar panels, the replacement batteries, etc. as the price of oil rises to affect prices on almost every other goods and services in our economy? As oil prices rise, the production costs of EVs, solar panels, etc, will cause those items to increase in price as well. We probably won’t see the price decreases for increased production on those things like we have come to expect from examples like computers, TVs, etc.
To me. it’s not even a question whether EVs are a good idea or not, it’s whether there is the political will (which we need now, not 10 years from now) and whether our economy which is highly reliant on oil in nearly every aspect of our society (America, the plastic nation) can switch over quickly and efficiently. I’m dubious.
But you can’t prove me right or wrong, and I can’t either. We are just going to have to have this conversation in about 15 or 20 years from now and see what our society has done in the meantime.
Posted by Jon B on Aug 24, 2006 at 3:42 PM “ wind turbines ? more science fiction from the snake oil sellers in europe.”
You’re an idiot.
Wind alone could power the entire US grid. That’s why Rumsfeld recently shut down the US wind industry with bogus claims that they could possibly, potentially, maybe interfere with military radar. No evidence could be found to support the claim. Utter nonsense.
Another powerful technology is TIDE GENERATION, which will become more prevalent as oil goes into crisis.
Nuclear is a nightmare. Ask the people of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Yucca Mountain. Also, they are hard to defend potential targets of terrorism. Not a good thing.
Posted by johndoraemi on Aug 31, 2006 at 1:28 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Obama and the Union Vote
Polls suggest mandate for reform surpasses support for Obama - The View From Ohio
Will voters in the economically ravaged Buckeye State 'get over' race and support Obama? - Back for the Future
Progressives at the Democratic National Convention look to FDR as a model for an Obama presidency - Dixie Turning Blue
- Moving Obama Left
- Let Them Eat Free Markets
How deregulation fuels the global food crisis
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
