Hey , thanks for the discussion guys. Plenty of stuff here to get just about anybody's blood boiling.

A few points,

Texrat, come live in Seattle. You will have lots of company with your views in liberal Seattle. I could not live in Texas. I don't know how you do it. I think it's actually another country.

Benson, Saving gas by slowing down is sadly one of the few options we currently have to aleviate our fuel cost issues. Your statement that you think it was just common knowledge seemed a bit like an effort to discredit what I said by belittling it rather than something based in fact. I tell you what, try slowing down to the speed limit. All the sudden you will feel like you are going at a snails pace. But isn't it just a wierd form of peer pressure? You get on the freeway and you feel like you need to go the same speed everyone else is going or faster. I've seen it in myself- doing some sort of competition. I WILL BEAT THAT GUY THERE. But who cares.
The mere fact that nearly everyone is driving 65- 70 on the freeway these days says to me that if it is " common knowledge" that slowing down saves gas, that most people have either forgotten that fact, or have made a conscious ( or subconscious) decision that their time is worth more than the extra they will pay for the gas. I'm not condeming folks for making that choice, heck, I think to some extent I've been doing the same.
BTW- it was the Carter administration that changed the speed limits to 55 nation wide to save gas in the 70's.

What could have been? So, we are headed to the point very rapidly that we will have spent about a trilion dollars on this war in Iraq. The point was made that one would hope that that cash wouldn't have been spent on anything else. ( Ironic how the Republicans managed to spend so much cash isn't it? How about those borrow and spend Republicans?) To some extent I hesitate to talk about the cash spent on the war since there are people dying on both sides. But what if a trillion dollars was spent on Cancer research? What if a trillion dollars was spent on mass transit systems so that we can curb global warming and live healthier lives absent a lot of the pollution coming out of our cars? Or how many solar panels producing how many magawatts of power could be turning water into hydrogen fuel so that my next car was putting out nothing but H2O?

Anyway, that's politics right? It would take huge political courage to propose such things. A politician working for such things would quickly see his reelection hopes fade because the established oil based companies and institutions wouldn't like that direction much.

I could go on and on, said enough for now, but I will say that the 'signing statement' is one of the most outragous things that both the Bush and Clinton administrations did. They sign a bill that was passed by your and my representatives and then while noone is looking they write on the Bill that they do not have to abide by the contents of the Bill. WOW

Neil

Some excellent discussion indeed!

This is what breaks my heart. The Europeans have been taxing their fuel and then reinvesting it into public transit infrastructure. The Americans have been sprawling out into endless suburbs, mostly unaware that their fuel costs were artificially low because there was so little investment in public transportation infrastructure. It's going to get ugly, soon.

Or try riding the train, bus, or (gasp) a bike to work. I've never been more fit nor, strangely, more mentally sharp since I started commuting to work on my bicycle. I also have a crapload more disposable income. You should compare maintenance costs on a bicycle vs. on a car. You'll be shocked.

Or, even better, how about a car that puts out nothing at all except some heat from the inevitable friction of moving parts? Don't get lured into the hydrogen fantasy; the big oil companies just want you to keep putting their product in your tank. The alternative, not having a tank at all, and plugging your car into the electric grid each night, is scary for a lot of very wealthy people.

Interesting factoid: A car running on coal produces less carbon than a car running on gas! How can that be, you ask? If the coal is used to produce electricity in a large generating plant, even one of the dirty plants in operation today, an electric car charged from that plant's output would use that energy so much more efficiently than a gas powered internal combustion engine that it would be better to burn the coal than burn the gas.

[QUOTE=qole;193726]Some excellent discussion indeed!






OK, good points. I totally agree. I just wasn't thinking of it quite in those terms. Yes, of course, if you have other non car options, please do so. That way we can have a planet longer and one may have more good health as a result. What I mainly meant was that we in the USA have invested hardly anything in mass transit. OK, you guys in NY and the Bay area have pretty good systems. Ironically, London has an amazing mass transit system of subways and buses but still has a pretty serious car problem.


I'm all for electric cars. I would go buy one if it could meet my needs. I'm a self employed guy that needs ladders and equipment. I don't know but I would think a hydrogen economy would work because it would answer the range issues. I do understand the not wanting to keep supporting 'Big Oil' though. The other thing I like about hydrogen is that it appears to be a legit way to store solar energy during the day. Battery technology needs to come up with some breakthroughs IMO.

I did see a zippy little yellow car on the freeway a few weeks ago I'm assuming was electric. It looked very fun actually .

Neil

If only I could. None of those are options for me, sadly... especially the bike. As much as I'd like to get back to bike riding, I don't think I'd survive on highway 114 for long...

I did try riding my bike to work years ago, when I was just 2 miles from work. I was so excited at the prospect. I had to drop my stepson off at kindergarten so I stuck him in a child seat on the back.

On the way, drivers were very rude. They tailgated my BIKE (with a 5 year old on the back!) and threatened to go around me-- in a school zone!

After I dropped him off, I hit the access road to work. It was 3 lanes wide and I stayed in the far right. There were almost no cars that early. Naturally, some redneck had to jack with me anyway-- he used his truck to force me onto the curb, wrecking my bike. And just drove off. Fortunately a friend came by and took me to work, all banged up but mostly okay.

So, no thanks to the bike riding. Our town removed our bike lanes a few years ago so more cars could use the road. Typical Texas.

Not quite. While public transport works relatively well in big cities, it is not really usable in the countryside in many states. Besides, some countries (most notably liberal England... but also Italy) have invested close to zero in public transport in the past decade.


This mostly only displaces the problem. You need to generate that electricity somehow.

Amusing info: when in China, I was quite surprised to find out that they Chinese already use electric scooters. You won't find combustion engine scooters in large cities in China. Electric transport is perfectly doable with present technology.


And if I may tell you the opinion of a non US citizen: when travelling in the US, I was amazed at the energy waste, and so where my friends. Poorly insulated houses in freezing climates (Germany made insulation compulsory for new houses decades ago), insane overuse of air conditioning (I don't need to freeze in the Texas summer, gently cool will do thanks, especially if insulation is -again- deficient), cars which guzzle twice or thrice the amount of gaz as the average European car (why move around 2 tons of metal for a single person?), electric network infrastructure that would put a third world country to shame in some places, etc...

It is not that Europe is perfect, BTW. I just meant that the US could probably cut their energy needs by 20-30% using readily available technology and with the same quality of life.

Anyway: oil supplies are slowly drying up. There is still plenty of oil, but we can't increase production any more. There is still plenty of other fossile fuels (most notably coal). We can switch to nuclear power for electricity generation (France already produces 80% of its electricity this way), and that should last a few decades. But in the end, the biggest and easiest gains are to be made by saving energy.

All this does not necessarily mean the end of civilization as we know it, but it sure will hurt the world economy in the short to medium term. We can just hope that the transition (next 20-30 years) will be as smooth as possible.

I don't have anything new to contribute here...texrat already said what I would have said. But:

As someone who lives in Europe and grew up during the cold war with the iron curtain only a few kilometers away, I find it very comforting that at least some of the people in the US seem to still use their brains, do not support their government and see things happening.

It's so sad to see how the US changed during the last 20-30 years or so. I spent some time there in the mid-1980s, and it was just like any other civilized western country.

Now you have torture instead of human rights, war instead of freedom. It's more difficult to get in than it ever was travelling to the Soviet Union... they humiliate you and take away data from your laptops at the customs... US forces abduct innocent civilians from the streets right in the middle of Europe and torture them in concentration camps for years without explanation... In fact, the United States became the USSR of the 21st century. Maybe even worse.

A German comedian once said: "You Americans wonder why they put bombs under your asses? I wonder why they put so few bombs there."

It's a sad, sad story. And what's even sadder is that so many people don't seem to realize what's going on. I remember when a year ago one of the guys I met in the 80s asked me when I'll come and visit them again, as I told him I wouldn't because the US government would strip me naked and request all my personal data before I enter the country, he didn't even know. He had no idea about all this. He thought he'd still live in the land of the free.

It is always more efficient to generate energy on a large scale under controlled conditions for a large number of end users than it is to generate it for the same users individually while tooling down the road. You also have the option of diversity and redundancy in the fuel source. Can't do that in a car without replacing it. I'm fed up with breathing this toxic soup we call prosperity. Things must change and that doesn't have to leave us suffering, in fact the future could be wonderful.

Indeed, slow down, what's the hurry? It is easier to save a buck than it is to make one. Waste energy just to have more time to make money to buy that wasted energy? Each person has their own needs so no single answer fits all. Each time I've moved the one factor that had to be right was the commute. I currently don't have to drive to work at all, not even public transportation, I can see my office from home. But I still need to drive on occasion. I choose a non highway route for my 35km each way route that I make once or twice per week. The highway is conveniently close but I always choose the scenic route. Simply by driving 80-95km/hr vs 100-130km/hr I save fuel and have a much nicer, cooler, and stress free drive. And usually I'll guess that I even save time considering that the so called rush hour is closing in on 24/7. And so far not one person that I deal with that also needs to make that same drive will try my preferred route even once. They'd rather complain about the arrogance and greed of other drivers, the high cost of fuel for their oversized living room on wheels, and the time wasted because of traffic chaos.

We have to stop begging like a starving puppy to make our overlords do something about these petty issues. We have to come up with our own solutions and then demand them from our elected officials. Other changes we can do ourselves.

And please don't vote based on some promise to lower fuel costs. pretty please with organic sugar on top?

^^edit:::
I don't mean to say that generating energy on a large scale is always the best or most efficient way but normally and with our infrastructure it is right now most of the time. We can also supplement the grid with smaller plants in places that can. Seems silly to transport base fuels from so far just to pump it back long distances again. Hydrogen for example doesn't require some massive infrastructure change, it can be produced on the spot if the base fuels and energy is readily available nearby. The big oil companies aren't the only people that can supply fuels like this. In some cases geothermal fields and abundant water make that a better choice. But not for everywhere. I have a vision of small district systems that could easily be built during the construction phase of those ugly suburban neighbourhoods going up all over. Not electricity plants necessarily but district heating and cooling systems make a lot of sense. An old idea that can be the better idea. Why have a water heater in your house or business when that hot water can be pumped to you along side the cold water and other utilities? Paying a condo fee so that you don't have to cut the 5 blades of grass in your yard might be better spent if it paid for the district heating and solar plant that we can't afford individually. and power your car with this fuel while you're at it.

And sadly in the Netherlands we can top that at 1.689 Euro/liter which would be 9.95 USD/Gallon.

Now that would make a Yank's jaw drop....
Paying that much and more in Iceland is also a humbling experience. And oddly they like the big cars but that is changing in a hurry.

i love to watch the people wince when they have to fill up there suv/super duty pickups...heck my dad who has been a lifelong pickup truck driver (construction industry)told me he was considering getting a prius only the guys in these parts seem to think driving the old heavy v8s is some sort of status symbol (arrogant dealers)