<How to avoid a windfall profits tax The Oil Drum The continuing presence of China in the market>
<Weiner Concedes The Oil Drum: Local Upcoming events>

53 comments on From Peak Oilers to Citizens for Sustainable Living

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

isaiah on September 15, 2005 - 1:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
how do you justify #1?  i don't see any major pushes for conservation, at least not in the US or most EU nations.  most analysts who understand PO think oil is WAY too cheap (Simmons believes it should cost well over $100 right now).  and what kind of conversion is happening?  please describe the massive amounts of funding (federal or private) being dedicated to this conversion.

please, describe how #3 is happening?

  1. you are right that lighter, low-drag hybrids and EV's can cruise closer to 60mph and still be near max efficiency (unlike high-drag, heavy SUV's which max out around 40-45mph), but allowing them to go to 75mph causes drastic reductions in fuel efficiency.  why should they be allowed to go that fast?  anyway, i hear about (and see) many more people voluntarily driving the speed limit in the US since gas prices spiked.

  2. this is a ridulous statement.  less traffic doesn't mean people will drive farther.  if i need to drive to work, i'm not going to go somewhere else just because there is no traffic.  there might be more vacations, scenic driving, etc. but overall that seems trivial compared to the MASSIVE loss of fuel efficiency in gridlock conditions (average speeds are often around 15mph in major metro areas during rush hour).  plus, all the losses from accel and decel during stop-and-go traffic is a major waste of fuel.  being able to cruise consistently around 60mph would reduce fuel consumption greatly.  
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on September 15, 2005 - 6:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
(Why are you allowed to use the "value" tag on a list element, and I'm not?  I call shenanigans!)

No conservation push?  I saw people slowing to 60-65 MPH on freeways; this occurred in the space of a week.  People did this to save fuel, and thus money.  Interest in hybrids is at an all-time high.  The timing of the energy bill, which was passed before things came to the public consciousness, was unfortunate; however, we can still expect the politicos to follow suit eventually.

  • Re 5:  Think customer choice.  The option to use carpool lanes is a strong incentive for people to buy hybrids.  If a high-economy vehicle such as an Insight allows people to cruise at 75 MPH rather than the 55 MPH (confined to the slow lane) they'd be allowed in an SUV, they are far more likely to buy the hybrid.  The choice is not between the Insight getting 65 MPG and the Insight getting 50 MPG, it is either an Insight getting 50 MPG or an Explorer getting 20.
  • Re 6:  People are not limited by the distance they can go, but the time they have.  Less traffic means people can cover more distance in the same time.  Suburbia and exurbia only exist because of the construction of roads which reduce commuting time to what people find acceptable.  Cut the congestion without other changes, and people will move farther away in search of lower crime and housing costs.
Another thing we can do to economize is to do something about the phenomena which drive sprawl.  Two of these are noise and crime.  If criminals were allowed little or no freedom of movement (home, work, and little else) neighborhoods would be safer.  If we outlawed aftermarket motorcycle exhausts, boomer cars and internal combustion lawn gear, people would find it much more comfortable to live closer together.  If those problems are not controlled, sprawl and its attendant energy-use patterns will continue.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
isaiah on September 15, 2005 - 7:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
i'm not even sure how that list happened.  i think there was some auto-format option that took over...

i agree on #5 that a hybrid getting 50mpg is much better than an SUV getting 15mpg.  unfotunately, you contradict yourself with #6.  if people are slowing down, they take more time to get where they want to go.  why are they doing this?  to save money of course.  but in #6 you claim that time is the main issue, and that they will sacrifice money by driving farther without traffic.  i don't think that's likely with gas over $3/gal.  maybe if gas prices collapse, but i find it hard to believe people will move even further away from their jobs when gas prices remain this high.  extra time is simply outweighed by monetary concerns for most at this point.  perhaps you would argue that they really wouldn't have to pay more if they could cruise at 60mph instead of fighting 15mph stop & go.  perhaps, but then i would say that you've violated your original argument that they would consume more fuel, because now they're getting better fuel economy and just driving farther...it's a wash...

so E-P are you suggesting some sort of concentration camp for the "criminals"?  home, work and little else...i'll leave the policing effort to you on that one ;D

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on September 15, 2005 - 10:44am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
if people are slowing down, they take more time to get where they want to go.
Not much; the difference between 60 MPH and 70 MPH over a 30-mile stretch is all of about 4 minutes.  But the differences get more and more significant as the distance increases, and it doesn't take much 15-MPH stop and go to make up the difference from a lot of 70 MPH cruising.  Eliminate the congestion and you free up time budget, and the savings from less fuel burned in traffic plus the freed time can make a move further into exurbia quite attractive.

Peak-hour tolls could perhaps keep people from adding themselves to congested roadways.  Adaptive cruise control could smooth out the traffic so that it goes 25 MPH smoothly instead of 15 MPH jerkily.  The problem is to keep the solutions from removing people's incentive to make more of the problem.

so E-P are you suggesting some sort of concentration camp for the "criminals"?  home, work and little else...i'll leave the policing effort to you on that one ;D
We already have them; they're called "prisons" for parole violators.  Enforcement is done with things like electronic tethers and parole officers.

If the crime-prone find themselves with few alternatives except to sit at home, work or go back to prison, more of them will work instead of making trouble.  The fewer of them make trouble for the law-abiding, the more liveable cities are.  The more liveable cities are, the less pressure people feel to move to suburbia and exurbia.  This translates into much lower energy requirements for a decent standard of living.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

53 comments on From Peak Oilers to Citizens for Sustainable Living

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version