Fight the gas prices

[eppie]

First off, let's agree this is an entirely subjective point. Second, let's agree you're wrong! :P
In other words, you say you understand the differences. But when you say things to the effect that European reliance on the automobile is the same to that of the United States', you're wrong Eppie. Raising tariffs on gas doesn't make sense here. And cutting back on gas isn't as easy stateside as it is in Europe.

Cheers,

Munk

I think you are wrong on several points, and we probably misunderstand each other on other points.:D

Safety: this is also something used in Holland by people that drive an SUV (mainly in the city and for the rest on our perfect asfalt) to 'defend' their choice for a too big car. Right you are safer.......but people on bikes, pedestrians or people in smaller cars are not when they meet you. Where will this end if we would just use this point? Are we going to drive around in tanks next?

About the long distance travel you are right.....I travel a lot and do that mainly my plane.....which is hardly a good alternative fuel consumption wise...so that is wrong. (it is by the way not 'a thing' for europeans to have visited most European countries by the way).

But the fact remains that your cars are too big. I mean this can be hardly a point of discussion seeing that the average car size in the US since the thirties is getting smaller and smaller. To be clear; let say a lexus (normal model) I don't consider a too big car in this discussion. You know that for many people (with low self esteem) a car is a status symbol.....so most of those have a car that is bigger/faster/more expensive than what is actually needed. Seeing that the gross majority of people could without any loss of comfort/time/safety do with something a lot less fuel consuming, the same as we can all to that around our own home, but that at the same time nobody gives a damn makes me sad. All these energy discussions (should we use more nuclear, is wind an option etc..) often not mention the point that with very small changes in our habits we can probably reduce our energy consumption by 50%. (see my point about Italian driving...cars are a lot smaller here but people use very much fuel because they never take a bike even for short distances and they have a driving style that is very aggressive)

[kandrathe]

...The primary (indeed often only) gas savings mechanism in hybrids is the recovery of energy when decelerating and breaking, energy that would otherwise only been converted to heat...

I agree with that point. I remember as a boy looking in my popular mechanics magazine at the momentum conservation devices soon (20 years ago) to be included in US automobiles. I'm still waiting. I think it is still because Detroit views an auto as a huge stylish disposable razor, and has no interest in engineering it to last. I might be willing to spend more on an auto if I would know that it would retain it's value over a 30 year lifespan.

For another thing, it makes a lot more sense to put carbon mitigating mechanisms on large, stationary structures rather than on individual automobiles (where, in addition to cost, they add maintenance requirements, and weight).

I know they have scrubbers for removing most of the heavy metals and SO2, but what do they do to mitigate CO2? I don't think at this time any power plants try to sequester CO2.

I agree that the future of clean energy will depend on hydro and nuclear.

[kandrathe]

I have no idea....men I even don't know what is my area. Where I'm living now people manage to use as much fuel with their 1.4 liter fiat punto, as an american does with his 3 liter dodge.
Why do you ask?

I drive about 65,000 Km per year as fuel efficiently as I can (56.5 KPL). How does that compare to the average Roman? I use up a car in about 5 years, so I choose an economical model that will last at least 5 years. I try to telecommute as much as I am able, but the nature of business is still face to face.

For me size and status are irrelevant. The vehicle will be junk too quickly for me to care about much more than the utility of the thing.

[eppie]

I drive about 65,000 Km per year as fuel efficiently as I can (56.5 KPL). How does that compare to the average Roman? I use up a car in about 5 years, so I choose an economical model that will last at least 5 years. I try to telecommute as much as I am able, but the nature of business is still face to face.

For me size and status are irrelevant. The vehicle will be junk too quickly for me to care about much more than the utility of the thing.

Where does KPL stand for? I think for driving in a city I would come up to 10 kilometers on a liter (rough guess).
And seeing the people drive here they consume 30 % more at least.

[roguebanshee]

I drive about 65,000 Km per year as fuel efficiently as I can (56.5 KPL).

If you meant km/l then that would translate to ~133 mpg. Somehow I doubt you are that efficient.

You need to divide with ~2.35 when going from mpg to km/l.

[kandrathe]

If you meant km/l then that would translate to ~133 mpg. Somehow I doubt you are that efficient.

You need to divide with ~2.35 when going from mpg to km/l.

I tried to google a mpg to kpl conversion -- and missed obviously. I get 23 mpg.

I think to the original poster, getting us back on topic, I would ask; What effect does government mandated fuel blends have on the spot market for gasoline? And second, since all cars now have catalytic converters and computer ignition, is there any reason for boutique fuels and government mandated blends?

[TheDragoon]

I get the impression that there is a lot of misinformation (or at least things that don't jive with my experiences in Seattle) floating around in this thread. Here are some of my thoughts regarding life in Seattle:

Energy Conservation
Someone brought up energy conservation activities earlier in this thread as something that people can do to help reduce emissions/energy use. However, he has assumed that those sorts of things are not being done in the US; that is a major misconception. Energy conservation is a big deal in the US. I know that for the past 15 or so years (and basically as long as I can remember) there have been publicity and/or public education drives trying to teach people all of the listed activities that can reduce energy use. People are turning off lights when they leave the room, taking shorter showers, using energy efficient lightbulbs (I have actually heard of laws dictating that they must be used in certain areas) and so on. This has been going on for a long, long time, and I think it really has made a difference throughout my region, at least.

Common American cars
The average Seattlite does not drive an SUV that gets 10 mpg. Rather, the vast majority of cars that I see on the roads are smallish cars. They are not necessarily as amazingly small as European cars, but they are certainly lightweight and even a normal internal combustion engine can average around 25-35 mpg, nowadays. That's pretty good. In addition, I am seeing a rising number of hybrid cars out there that can maintain 40-50 mpg easily. Certainly, there are a number of people who do drive big SUV's, but I've been noticing more and more of them that are using hybrid technology to push their gas mileage around 20-25 mpg. And let's be clear, there ARE people out there that need that big of a car (the best example I cite for this is one of my friends who attended the UW in past years. He drove a Chevy Avalanche around town because he could only afford one car and he works on a farm in Montana over the summer where he needs all of that horsepower) and then end up driving it around town.

Mass Transit
I think Munkay brings up some very valid points about how mass transit simply doesn't make sense in some areas. Certainly, it makes sense in the big cities or other high population density areas; that is why most big cities have mass transit options available. When I went to the UW, there were many people who had grown up in Seattle and did not even have their driver's license because it simply wasn't necessary. They could ride the bus everywhere they needed to go. However, in the suberbs things get much more difficult since people are more spread out, walking is less viable of an option, and people want to go to a wide range of destinations. I know down south of Seattle the buses are more few and far between because it simply doesn't make sense to drive a large bus around for the 5 people that its route works for. In that case, cars are a much better option.

Alternative Fuels
This isn't necessarily specific to Seattle, but as someone who has done research on fuel cells and other alternative fuels, I will chime in with my 2 cents:
1. Biofuels CANNOT fill demand.
The huge amount of space per gallon of fuel (ex: biodiesel via soy is ~100 gallons per acre per year if I recall correctly) means that there is no way you are ever going to be able to grow enough crops to make more than a small dent in the current consumption of fuel.
2. Biofuels DO reduce emissions slightly (in general) if you look at the lifecycle of the fuel, but its production does require a fair amount of fuel to run the farm equipment and process the feedstock. There is a net gain in fuel for most of these, but it certainly does burn fuel to make fuel.
3. Economy of Scale
Large facilities tend to be cheaper and more efficient than smaller facilities. This is why having a large centralized power station would be better than having small individual power stations (like, say, a car's internal combustion engine). However, as has been stated before, you're not avoiding emissions by using an electric car, you're merely moving those emissions to whereever your power is coming from. If everyone switched to electric cars then more powerplants would need to be opened so there would be more emissions from those. The big thing preventing this, right now, is the maturity battery and electric engine technologies compared to existing traditional technologies.


So overall, for our green European friends, I would say that the US is currently doing quite a bit to try and reduce emissions, the average person is driving a more fuel-efficient car than you seem to be giving us credit for, mass transit is used in places where it makes sense and it is not used where it doesn't make sense. All of this is being done without the need to tax gas beyond its current state. So why are we arguing? :)

[roguebanshee]

Common American cars
The average Seattlite does not drive an SUV that gets 10 mpg.

10 mpg sounds absolutely atrocious, I generally consider anything below 20 mpg fuel inefficient for personal transportation. It is of course possible to drive a vehicle rated at 25 mpg so that it only goes 10 mpg, but that is a question of teaching the driver how to drive.

[eppie]

So why are we arguing? :)

Because this is the lounge, and people that post here generally like arguing.

I agree with you that this should not be an America vs. Europe thing.

I just think that many people (everywhere in the first world) have a bigger car than they need, spend more fuel as they should (by driving like a maniac) or use the car too much in general.

I don't want to make this a discussion about examples like 'I have a friend that needs this car...blabla'. I know, I know that there are people that need the big car, that need to drive a lot, or that can absolutely not live without a car. That is in Europe so, so for sure it is like that in the US as well.

My problem is with the other group. Of course changing habits are not fun, and traveling by public transport is not always as comfortable as by car (although it very often is), but we should understand that we need to change our habits. Anyway, we will finish the worlds oil reserves before most of our African friends ever had the pleasure to drive a car, of course, but let's not overdo it. Unless spectacular new solar energy engines are invented, in the near future we will not be able to travel so much as we do now.
We should now start making a basis for our lives in 50 years. Think about teleworking, using products that are made locally etc. Now these are novelties but in the future it might be the only option.

[Nystul]

Well, 25 mpg is probably about right for the average American personal car/truck, including pickups and SUVs but not things like semis and earth pans. We certainly drive more efficient vehicles than we did in the 60s. This is "pretty good" as you say, but perhaps only from the American perspective. There do exist much smaller, more efficient vehicles that we frankly wouldn't be willing to drive if they were offered to us free of charge.

Of course it is not that simple. Like your example of the kid from Montana, this applies to a pretty large portion of the population in fact. Anyone who works for a living (not the same as having an occupation) is likely to need extra space for gear. Or if you have a family of 4+ and you get two 35 mpg sedans, you will drive everywhere in 2 cars and may be more efficient in a single SUV plus a sedan for the one with longest work commute, or even more efficient yet in a minivan. Even with a family of 3, good luck going on a skiing or biking trip using a subcompact car! It's also hard to fit a drum set or a tuba or a Little League team's soccer or baseball gear. There is almost no chance of an active family without some reasonably large vehicle, and only the upper class can make car payments and insurance payments on an extra vehicle in the name of fuel efficiency.

There are a lot of conservation efforts in the United States, but of course there is always plenty of waste and excess as well. Seattle is not necessarily typical with regards to the U.S. when it comes to environmental issues. Isn't Ralph Nader considered a viable politician there?

[Occhidiangela]

Not sure how to take that comment. Without assuming to much, Ill wait for a possible elaboration.

Rebellion without a well considered direction is not only ineffective, it can be counterproductive. I noted a slant toward bio fuels, which when one peels back the onion, have a considerable carbon investment per BTU extracted in the production cycle, and which also demand an unassessed, to my satisfaction, drain on water resources as an element of the production cycle of any crop.

"Fight gas prices" by asking Congress to intervene? To boycott gasoline? The supply and demand forces will, in the short term, render such moves laughable, while in the long term, a policy (personal) of making a smaller carbon footprint through one's own choices may, over a generation, have an impact. (The kicker is the cost benefit analysis each of us can make, and makes, based on resource constraints.)

Ill founded, iconoclastic idealism was a factor in the slow down, and then near cessation, of the licensing of nuclear plants in the US back in the 1980's. This mind set, rebellion against "evil nukes" absent a clue, led to the first ever State Utility, in New Hampshire, going bankruptcy due to a Massachusettes NIMBY policy about a "buffer zone" on the border of Mass and NH. The plant was built, but could not be used.

Qui Bono? The US Coal industry in particular, and to a different extent, anyone selling oil and gas. Thirty four years of poor energy policy (since the first Arab boycott) bolstered by the non-science of appeals to fear (Chernobyl) and emotion (Three Mile Island) have contributed materially to power generation not converting to more carbon friendly forms, like nukes.

Granted, nukes pose their own challenges, but nothing that R & D and hard work can't address, rather than the Ostrich method of policy crafting the "no nukes" crowd advocated, and achieved, to the detriment of the environment and US energy policy. Note: the French produce about 70-80% of their electricity from nukes. It can be done.

Your opening post, and some of the dross on the front page of your site, is examplary of misguided demagoguery on the energy topic.

Clicking, I found myself confronting yet another "rebel without a clue," and so noted my reaction.

For a similar type, see the people who bomb abortion clinics: rebels without a clue, on a different topic, or Jack Thompson, and his uninformed campaign against video games.

To your credit, you appear to be as much into fact gathering as in campaigning, so

Lay on MacDuff, and damned be he who first cries "Hold, enough!"

Added/Edit: If you want to influence global supply and demand problems, and thus cut gas prices, kill off about 500 million Chinese people. Then, cut drilling restrictions off the US coast. Then, do your best, and institute a viral campaign among your friends and associates, to use one less gallon of gas each week, than you did last year. Behavioral choices are hard to enforce, so it is hard work (but worth doing by those with the gift) to sell the change credibly. <== Aye, there's the rub. ;)

Occhi

[Swiss Mercenary]

I get the impression that there is a lot of misinformation (or at least things that don't jive with my experiences in Seattle) floating around in this thread. Here are some of my thoughts regarding life in Seattle:

Energy Conservation
Someone brought up energy conservation activities earlier in this thread as something that people can do to help reduce emissions/energy use. However, he has assumed that those sorts of things are not being done in the US; that is a major misconception. Energy conservation is a big deal in the US. I know that for the past 15 or so years (and basically as long as I can remember) there have been publicity and/or public education drives trying to teach people all of the listed activities that can reduce energy use. People are turning off lights when they leave the room, taking shorter showers, using energy efficient lightbulbs (I have actually heard of laws dictating that they must be used in certain areas) and so on. This has been going on for a long, long time, and I think it really has made a difference throughout my region, at least.

And yet they are still building glass coffin skyscrapers in Florida, and then wondering why the air conditioning bill is through the roof.

Not to say that there isn't that kind of idiocy (Although of a different sort) in Europe, but it's my impression that buildings codes still have a long way to go, both here, and in the States.

[Occhidiangela]

And yet they are still building glass coffin skyscrapers in Florida, and then wondering why the air conditioning bill is through the roof.

Not to say that there isn't that kind of idiocy (Although of a different sort) in Europe, but it's my impression that buildings codes still have a long way to go, both here, and in the States.

As a counter to that, Thomas Friedman has a great piece about TI's new green office building (Dalls FW area) that runs about 40% less energy per square foot. It was a few months ago, but Friedman is really beating "it is manly to be green" drum. I am finding myself in agreement of quite a bit of what he is saying on that topic.

Occhi

[TheDragoon]

Fair enough. I got the impression that there were a fair number of people who were convinced that we Americans were fuel guzzling, planet polluting evil-doers. Since that doesn't match my impression of the direction things are going, I thought I should throw in some counterpoint to that. :)

In general, I don't think the culture of energy conservation between Europe and the US are very different. As noted, there are certainly people who drive bigger cars than they need (it bugs me, too) in either case, but I get the impression that people are starting to return to sanity now that gas prices are going up. The 90's were a time of SUV domination (heck, even I drove a Jeep that got 8-10 mpg back before I got my current 20 mpg car) but I think the pendulum is swinging the other way, particularly with continued improvements to the current hybrid technology.

As for Seattle, this is an area that runs on hydroelectric power, homes don't have air conditioning and the support for the environment runs high, so that assessment is correct, but it's not like this is the only environmentally friendly part of the country. :)

[Chesspiece_face]

As a counter to that, Thomas Friedman has a great piece about TI's new green office building (Dalls FW area) that runs about 40% less energy per square foot. It was a few months ago, but Friedman is really beating "it is manly to be green" drum. I am finding myself in agreement of quite a bit of what he is saying on that topic.

Occhi

If only he were agreeable on any other topic! <_<

[Flymo]

Fair enough. I got the impression that there were a fair number of people who were convinced that we Americans were fuel guzzling, planet polluting evil-doers.

We're just too polite to say so. Americans use more energy per head than any other country; more than twice as much as we do here in the UK for example. One of the first things a European notices in America is how cars are used for short journeys that would be made by foot in his country.

[TheDragoon]

One of the first things a European notices in America is how cars are used for short journeys that would be made by foot in his country.

I don't buy this at all. Most people I know are perfectly happy to walk places, but it's not like you can walk 5 miles to the store or something as is the case for most people I know...

We're just too polite to say so. Americans use more energy per head than any other country; more than twice as much as we do here in the UK for example.

I would bet that most of the "energy per head" has to do with how industrialized the US is compared to other countries MUCH more than the way that people individually live their private lives. I can't imagine that the fuel efficiency of cars plays into this so much as the widespread use of electronics (think computers), high energy use industries and all of the travel/shipping to move things around such a large country. As such, I question the use of that statistic in the discussion of gas price difference between Europe and the US.

[Swiss Mercenary]

As a counter to that, Thomas Friedman has a great piece about TI's new green office building (Dalls FW area) that runs about 40% less energy per square foot. It was a few months ago, but Friedman is really beating "it is manly to be green" drum. I am finding myself in agreement of quite a bit of what he is saying on that topic.

Occhi

Of course some architects and their clients are adapting energy-saving designs - they end up saving money in the long run. I guess I should have given credit where it's due, there. However, you still get plenty of coffins going up, and ideally, the various energy-saving initiatives involved in architecture should become policy.

[kandrathe]

My big campaign in the work places I manage (all information workers) is for them to designate one day a week to work from home. For those that can do that effectively I might stretch that to two days per week. I figure if it catches on in enough places we can save 30% of the driving, give people back 30 to 60 minutes of drive time, and unclog the freeways to boot. Another idea is to stagger start time of day, allowing people to start at a time between 6 and 9 which makes their commute less, saving their time and fuel as well. The people who work for me install about 1500 to 2500 computers per year, implementing Energy Star features vastly reducing power consumption per machine and also reduces needed air conditioning.

These are tangible things that I feel are worth doing.

If people want to protest something, then organize a few thousand people and go protest the silly state of fuels regulations and the 26 or so unique boutique fuels regulated for summer use. Poorly implemented State regulations which drive up the prices every May as refineries need to switch from fuel oil cracking to a vast variety of summer fuel blends. These boutique blends which are all different depending on which PADD ( Petroleum Administration for Defense District) you live in, meaning that if you want Midwest type gasoline you can only get it from a few places, and hence you pay a premium for that. It has been recommended since at least 2001 that the Feds get involved and work to reduce the number of blends of summer fuel types.

If people want to know why prices are up now they should read EPA Study of Boutique Fuel Distribution Issues.

Or, protest the stupid weak knee politicians and the environmental lobbies which sustain them who will not even consider the idea of drilling in ANWR, the 2nd richest oil reserve in the world. An investment in energy independence that would put Hugo Chavez, OPEC, and other energy blackmailers out of the US internal politics for two decades or more. The proposed drilling area is a mere 2000 acres in a vast area of 19,600,000 acres. 99.99% of ANWR would remain pristine. Also, it's not like those 2000 acres would be devastated. That is fear mongering. Oil pipelines are far safer and cleaner than the current method of off shore drilling, loading, and shipping of oil to coastal unloading ports.

So hell yeah, conservation. But, not at the risk of driving us back to the stone age.

I'm not a big coal fan, but to give some people an understanding of why "electric cars" mean more coal. And, therefore more CO2, heavy metals pollution, and even more green house gas emissions. Here is a quote from a book I have from way back in 1979 when I first researched power.

To get an idea of how concentrated the energy is in coal, and how dilute it is in sunshine, consider a lump of coal needed to make 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity. It weighs a little under a pound, and when held in the sun, its shadow (which is the intercepted cross-section of the sunbeam falling on it) would measure perhaps 15 square inches. How long would the sun have to shine on those 15 square inches to bring in 1 kilowatt-hour of energy? For 1000 hours of pure sunshine. In the Arizona desert, where the sun is out 12 hours a day, that is almost 3 months. For the average location in the US, our little lump of coal would have to be out for nearly 1/2 a year to be struck by a total energy of 1kWh. But only struck by it; if we wanted to get 1kWh out of that sunbeam, we would have to divide by the conversion efficiency. For direct conversion from light to electricity , a great success has recently been attained, though as yet only in the laboratory: The efficiency hit a full 10%. So our 15 inch sunbeam would need to be harnessed for for a full five years to yield the same energy output as the little lump of coal blocking it will yield almost immediately.

Granted more breakthroughs have been made since then. Modern solar cell efficiencies are up to 15% for commercial grade, with 24% possible in the laboratory.

Another protest group for our youthful zealots; MORE NUKES NOW!!!

[Swiss Mercenary]

The problem with the Alaskan Oil exploitation, is that once you get it out of the ground, it doesn't magically transport itself to your nearest Shell station.

The logistics, infrastructure, maintenance, and potential for spills involved means that somewhat more then 2,000 acres will be lost.

I don't profess to know any exact numbers, or the exact risks, so I won't be making up statistics here, but there's more to this story then the two extremes.