<DrumBeat: May 19, 2006The Oil DrumDrumBeat: May 21, 2006>
<DrumBeat: May 19, 2006DrumBeatDrumBeat: May 21, 2006>

206 comments on DrumBeat: May 20, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

celticoil on May 20, 2006 - 10:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It seems like the national attitude is this (and I understand this wasn't westexas' point in this post): we have to find more sources of oil so we can continue to use it up as fast as possible. While I don't wish for $120 to $200 a barrel oil (I'm retired, on a fixed income, and drive a paid-for Voyager), it seems that higher prices for oil (to a level that would result in say $6.00 US for a gallon of gas) is the only way people will get off the stick and start driving smaller cars, driving less, conserving energy, and (in the macro) developing different energy sources. Around my area (the Pacific Northwest), people are still buying huge tricked out pickups and SUVs, V-8 thisis and thatis, and Hummers. In short they've already adjusted to $3+ gas prices! We need innovation and political leadership, and it would be nice if that would start now and not under the extreme pressure of an economic collapse brought about by disastrously high energy prices.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on May 20, 2006 - 11:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"we have to find more sources of oil so we can continue to use it up as fast as possible."

That's my point about "moving to the endpoints of the fossil fuel continuum," i.e., gas to liquids (GTL) and coal to liquids (CTL).  We are simply talking about accelerating our rate of consumption of finite energy sources.  

My continuing recommendation:  abolish the Payroll (Social Secuirty + Medicare) Tax and replace it with an Energy Consumption Tax.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Don in Colorado on May 20, 2006 - 1:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Westexas, I always tell my hardcore retired Republican buddies that we should put a $10-per-gallon tax on gasoline to help pay for the Iraq War.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on May 20, 2006 - 3:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Confession:  I was a volunteer in the 1996 and (to a lesser extent) 2000 Steve Forbes for President campaigns (I liked his tax policies).  Ironically, I now disagree vehemently with Steve regarding Peak Oil, but it was an interesting experience.  I got to meet lots of people way above my pay scale.  

In any case, I had dinner last night with a senior member of the Forbes campaign (who had been a member of the Reagan Administration).   She was largely Peak Oil unaware, but I pitched the Energy Tax/Abolish the Payroll Tax idea, and I think I sold her on the idea.  

She said that lots of Republicans are now lamenting their choice for president and telling her that she was correct when she tried to warn them about Bush.  I asked her if she could imagine George W. Bush giving Reagan's "Tear Down This Wall" Speech."  She said that "George Bush probably can't spell Berlin Wall."  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
skylar on May 20, 2006 - 3:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thomas Friedman and Sen Richard Lugar were on C-span this afternoon discussing energy and foreign policy. After much hedging they both endorsed an increased gas tax and a lowering of the payroll tax:

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=161283941

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DelusionaL on May 20, 2006 - 10:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Funny or not so funny we bought a ford explorer afew years ago- before I became fully aware of peak oil- yes we one of those hated SUV owners.  Our family is all tall-6'+ and small cars don't fit our family worth a crap.  We looked at fuel miliage compared to other vechiles and found that none of them were very impressive. Mini vans including toyota didn't deliver alot more.  The old MG had leg room like no other car has today.  We were driving today with three poeple in our car surrounded by several cars that only carried 1 person. Better gas milage per person?  Does this count? How much of our true traffic is still one person per car?  I bet if you filmed a highway for any lenght of time and counted people per car it would be interesting.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on May 21, 2006 - 12:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Vans, minivans, and SUVs are not horrible vehicles if you drive them with a full or nearly full passenger load all the time. But that's the problem - most people drive these monsters solo, with no one else in the entire vehicle.

Miles per gallon is not the only measure we should observe. We need to observe passenger miles per gallon. Yes, vehicles can and should get better mileage overall, but one SUV carrying 6 people and getting 12 miles per gallon is more energy efficient than 6 Camrys getting 40 miles per gallon being driven solo. Take a sample trip of 20 miles. The SUV will expend 1.67 gallons while the 6 Camries will expend 6 * 0.5 = 3.0 gallons for covering the same distance. This is precisely why mass transit is more energy efficient than solo drivers in cars. Even though something like a train gets far lower raw MPG, it carries far more passengers and/or cargo so the total energy expended is less per passenger or cargo pound moved.

If you drive your SUV with a full or nearly full load most of the time, then you are actually helping conserve energy. It's all those solo drivers, even in their hybrid Priuses that are wasting energy.

So carpool. It's a good way to start conserving energy. It's not the ultimate solution but it's a good place to start.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Twilight on May 21, 2006 - 7:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I've been thinking about this lately, I've concluded that the only real measure is fuel used per unit time.  It does not matter HOW you achieve it, the goal should be to reduce the number of gallons you use, say, in a month.  If that be from a higher mpg car, or combining trips, or car pooling, or walking, or taking the train, whatever.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
louGrinzo on May 21, 2006 - 10:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Bingo!  We have a winnah!

This is the point I keep making to people in person--don't get caught up in the minutiae of the situation, just look for ways to minimize your monthly energy expenses.  Use less (turn off lights in unused rooms, batch errands together, car pool), and use energy more efficiently (use CFL's, drive with a lighter foot), and you can save a healthy percentage of your energy bill, beginning right now, without making a major investment or change in your lifestyle.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Substrate on May 21, 2006 - 11:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ah, but here's the tricky part of people miles per gallon:

Take an average four passenger Civic getting 32 miles per  gallon.  4people X 32mpg = 128pmpg

And a large 7 passenger SUV getting 15 mpg.  7people X 15 mpg = 105pmpg

(For giggles you might also want to consider 5 people riding
in an Echo: 5people X 38mpg = 190pmpg)

First of all, with the (theoretical) vehicles at full
capacity the civic still beats out the SUV in people miles
per gallon.  That could obviously flip if the SUV got better
mpg in this case, but it'd still be a close call.

Now the real problem...what's the likelyhood that you can
find 7 people all going in the same direction at the same
time?  Pretty slim.  How about four people going in the same
direction?  Less slim, but still pretty slim I'd say.  I'd
say that two people going in the same direction at the same
time is a lot more likely.  So back to the math:

Civic: 2 people X 32mpg = 64pmpg
SUV: 2 people X 15mpg = 30pmpg

You somehow need to find twice as many people going in the
same direction to make the SUV match or exceed the efficiency of the smaller, better mileage car, and once you reach two people in the car (meaning four in the SUV) your likelyhood that all people are heading in the same direction at the same time decreases greatly.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.