2
   

Why Do Higher Gas Prices Anger You?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:52 am
Well, to be fair, we haven't spent 1/100th as much money devolping Solar and Wind power technologies as we have oil-based ones, so it shouldn't be expected that they would have become mature technologies in the way that the Petroleum industry has.

I agree with you on nuclear plants; they haven't been utilized to near the level that they could be. Just ask those surrender monkeys in France, they seem to be doing just fine with theirs. You would think that people would realize just how bad coal pollution really is...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 11:23 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Alternative sources of energy are indeed needed, however the public debate on this subject is centered too much on illusion and falsehoods - We are led to imagine that the disposal of the long lived radioactive wastes of nuclear power plants is somehow an intractable problem when, in fact, it is not We are also led to believe that somehow solar and wind generated power will replace fossil fuels when, in fact, after several decades of promises these sources amount to no more than a single digit, trivial contribution to our energy consumption.


Well, in 25 EU countries about 18% of the enrgy are neither coal or nuclear but from water, wind, solar, biological resources.

In Germany, until 2010 12.5% will (perhaps) be got from wind and solar power.
PDF data (in German, from the Federal Statistics Office)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 11:37 am
georgeob1 wrote:
As Thomas has correctly noted, thre "peak oil" myth has been around for a long time, and there is no more reason now to embrace it than there was 90 years ago.

Something wrong with this damn machine so my comments in capitals IM NOT SHOUTING Smile

YOUR BIAS IS SHOWING AGAIN GEORGE, YOU STATE PEAK OIL IS A MYTH BEFORE YOU'VE EVEN CONSIDERED IT. I THINK THERE IS MORE REASON TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY NOW, HUBBERT CAME WELL AFTER ROCKERFELLER. (AND BEFORE THE OIL CRISIS OF THE 70'S)


All terrestrial resources are finite, just as the history of the earth and the solar system are finite. We don't inhabit a steady state universe and the implicit notion in the posts above that we should somehow manage our lives and resources as though we do is simply contrary to the facts.

Petroleum is not a habit - it is a necessity for the maintenance of a population greater than five or six billion on the planet.

HEROIN USERS MIGHT DESCRIBE THEIR DEPENDENCY IN SIMILAR TERMS


Perhaps we could return to the relatively more bucolic world of 1820, but that would require that several billion people volunteer to die. Alternative sources of energy are indeed needed, however the public debate on this subject is centered too much on illusion and falsehoods - We are led to imagine that the disposal of the long lived radioactive wastes of nuclear power plants is somehow an intractable problem when, in fact, it is not

INTERESTING THAT YOU ADMIT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES ARE INDEED NEEDED, BUT I THOUGHT IT COULD BE LEFT TO THE MARKET. WHY ISNT THE MARKET COMING UP WITH SOLUTIONS?

We are also led to believe that somehow solar and wind generated power will replace fossil fuels when, in fact, after several decades of promises these sources amount to no more than a single digit, trivial contribution to our energy consumption.

INDEED THEY ARE TRIVIAL AT THE MOMENT. BUT AGREE WILL NEVER REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS

The falsehoods and illusions surrounding the economics of petroleum reserves, production, and distribution are also pervasive.

OPEC BEING THE BIGGEST LIERS.

Canada is a larger source of petroleum imports to the United States than the Middle East - they produce it through their north slope oil fields and production from the Alberta tar sands - while we in the USA leave our own resources, both on the North Slope and in the Rocky mountain regions untouched.

BUT EROI IS WHAT?

Reserves of oirdinary petroleum are a strong function of the expected price,

NO, PETROLEUM FUTURES ARE A REFLECTION OF THE RESERVES NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

and new discoveries are still being made. Oil at $60/barrel is no more expensive in real terms than was $6/barrel oil in 1960. Petroleum will remain a principal component of our energy consumption for many generations to come.


IT WILL BE A MAJOR PLAYER IN THE ENERGY MIX AGREED, BUT THE AMOUNT OF OIL CONSUMED WILL DECLINE, AS WILL ITS RELATIVE WEIGHTING.

We do need to develop and exploit alternative energy sources and to use those we consume more efficiently - to protect both our economies and our environment. However, we need to do so rationally, using the same basic principles that produced the riches of the developed world, and avoiding the approaches that have already proven themselves ineffective and destructive.

SUCH AS?

We certainly don't need government bureaucrats designing automobiles and electrical appliances. As JM has implied, we do need to consider realistically the tradeoffs among environmental, public welfare and economic issues, recognizing that there are no ideal options.

THERE IS ONE IDEAL OPTION, BUT NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION. WEAN OURSELVES OFF PROFLIGATE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 11:56 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, in 25 EU countries about 18% of the enrgy are neither coal or nuclear but from water, wind, solar, biological resources.

In Germany, until 2010 12.5% will (perhaps) be got from wind and solar power.


In the nited States the corresponding figure is 16%. In both Europe and the United States the majority of these renewable sources are hydroelectric. In both Europe and the United States solar and wind power constitute less than 4% of electrical power production. European promises in this area have been even more wildly inflated than those here, however the real growth of these sources in both continents has been consistently far below what is promised by their advocates. Why is this do? The reason is clear - both are far more expensive than available alternatives, both require large capital investments for land and equipment , and both have new adverse environmental impacts.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 12:09 pm
Really?

Wind and solar have adverse environmental impacts?



Really?

Compared to Petroleum?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 12:09 pm
5,5% of our consumption of electricity is from wind energy (as of September, 2005), which is more than thought of e.g. 10 years ago. (source: Federal Government)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 12:11 pm
AGAIN MY COMMENTS IN CAPS

georgeob1 wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, in 25 EU countries about 18% of the enrgy are neither coal or nuclear but from water, wind, solar, biological resources.

In Germany, until 2010 12.5% will (perhaps) be got from wind and solar power.


In the nited States the corresponding figure is 16%. In both Europe and the United States the majority of these renewable sources are hydroelectric.

TRUE

In both Europe and the United States solar and wind power constitute less than 4% of electrical power production.

TRUE


European promises

WHY SPECIFICALLY EUROPEAN PROMISES? NOBODY USA OR EUROPE IS MAKING PROMISES THAT ARE NOT TECHNICALLY EVALUATED

in this area have been even more wildly inflated than those here, however the real growth of these sources in both continents has been consistently far below what is promised by their advocates. Why is this do?

LACK OF GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE

The reason is clear - both are far more expensive than available alternatives,

AS WE BUILD MORE TURBINES THE PRICE/UNIT DROPS. AND WITH OIL GOING TO $100/BL?

both require large capital investments for land and equipment , and both have new adverse environmental impacts.

THATS TRUE. BUT WE ARE FACING A CRISIS. A WIND FARM ON THE HORIZON SPOILING THE VIEW FROM YOUR SITTING ROOM WINDOW DOES NOT COMPARE.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 12:12 pm
What exactly are the adverse environmental impacts of water, wind, solar and biological energy, George?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 12:29 pm
Walter, bio diesel from crops takes up an enormous amount of land. I dont think the people of Africa would be too pleased about all their land used to produce fuel for our cars rather than food for their stomachs.

Water, no real environmental impact, except shipping impacting with off shore structures Smile Oh and wild life trapped on the wrong side of some tidal esturary dam.

solar : land area required. Bit of an eyesore too.


In summary trivial compared with the pressing need to expand these sources

And nuclear energy will have to make a come back too Smile (or should that be Sad?)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 12:37 pm
I'm not speaking about bio diesel - I'm referring to power stations, making electricity from 'biological gas' or wood.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 01:03 pm
Biological gas? you mean natural gas? Where does that come from? Natural gas is a fossil fuel

Methane from cows however....Smile


Wood...It would take enormous forests and many many decades for that to get going. We havent got that time.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 01:19 pm
Cows, pigs, poultry - that's what is done here.

Woods: in Warstein they don'tr only made a fairly good beer but some new housing estates good their energy from wood pellets there. (Quite common now in the Sauerland.)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 01:30 pm
I agree power should come from a much wider mix of sources than now. I was reading about a geothermal power source somewhere in Germany.

The problem is that wood water wind cow-gas or electricity from chicken droppings (there is such a power station in Suffolk England) cant supply anything like the energy density that is required.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:54 pm
Wonderful day here in San Francisco - joined a group of old friends watching the Blue Angels airshow from the roof of the Faimont , overlooking the Bay and one of the most beautiful; cities in the world. Later joined the lsailing races by the Golden gate. Walter - what is that wonderful German word denoting the sweetness of life?

Hydroelectric power requires dams, and dams profiundly alter the ecology of downriver areas, trapping sediment and altering the floodplains below. They generally disturb fisheries, reduce wetlands and increase evaporative loss of fresh water, Moreover harmful materials trapped in the sediment behind dams makes for serious environmental impactsd if the dam is ever destroyed. In the USA the adverse effects of the dams on the Columbia River which produce huge amounts of electrical power are a hotly debated environmental issue.

Wind turbines kill birds and are a very big eyesore. Given that the best available turbine designs average about 500KW per turbine, the replacement of just one average sized power station requires about 2000 large turbines, an enormous capital investment in land area and a major headache in maintaining a large number of individual machines. Solar cell manufacture involves significant use of hazardous materials, substantial land use and, like wind turbines, an unreliable source of energy. Both of these soiurces are significantly subsidized by governments in Europe and North America. Despite this they remain insignificant contributors to the energy requirements of developed countries. Certainly iuncreased use of these sources is indicated, however they are not likely ever to be major contributors to our energy needs.

Apparently we all agree about the desirability of increased use of nuclear power. This is an emission-free source that is easily capable of providing the majority of electrical powwer requirements in developed nations.

None of these sources provide much for motor vehicle transportation requirements which still depend on petroleum everywhere. Much is made out of the possibility of significant use of biomasss and crop resources to produce ethanol and other useable fules from them. So far these are generally not yet energy efficient processes, but continued development may yield good results. My company does a thriving business in designing and building methane recovery systems for the food processing industry - the gas, derived from anerobic waste systems, is used for heating and power generation at the plants. However in these applications the end use is physically adjacent to the source, and the lack of need for storage or distributiuon systems yields a very favorable energy & economic result.

I dread most the dedicated environmentalists who too often advocate authoritarian government-directed programs for the "solution' of these issues. The free market is a much more inventive, adaptable source of progress. Authoritarian socialism in the GDR produced the Trabant. I prefer the capitalist BMW.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 11:09 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Hydroelectric power requires dams, and dams profiundly alter the ecology of downriver areas, trapping sediment and altering the floodplains below.

Some think the 'damage' is less than anything else, especially those in countries, where they get 60% to 100% of their electric power from this source.

georgeob1 wrote:
Wind turbines kill birds and are a very big eyesore. Solar cell manufacture involves significant use of hazardous materials, substantial land use and, likw wind turbines, an unreliable source oif energy.


Yes, that's a common argument. But I always like to show an old picture of 1800: a small Westphalian town, with 18 windmills inside muros (one of the bigger belonging to my family).

georgeob1 wrote:
Both of these soiurces are significantly subsidized by governments in Europe and North America.
[...]
The free market is a much more inventive, adaptable source of progress. Socialism in the GDR produced the Trabant. I prefer the BMW.

Free market here likes it, it's not only a good investment but also an important employer.
Besides, I think, every newly deloped thing needs some initiative aid.
Though I certainly would prefer a BMW to a Trabant - if I can only afford the latter, I'm pleased to have car.

georgeob1 wrote:
Walter - what is that wonderful German word denoting the sweetness of life?

Sorry, I'm not sure to which you refer
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 11:17 pm
Speaking of BMW: they are actually building cars that run on hydrogen. Every now and then you can see one in the streets here.

But I kind of left this thread some time ago, even though I would propose one simple and obvious thing in order to get people to drive smaller and/or more efficient cars: taxes.

Those could (and should) be used to subsidize research on new energy sources. Works for BMW.


Oh, and about the Confederate flag on huge cars: 3 weeks ago I went camping on Assateague. Lots of these huge trucks. Lots of these flags, too. Maybe it's all about the "out in the wild" thing, when you go fishing, have barbecues, don't know what else. But these heavy-load trucks (people usually use them to transport 2 fishing rods and 1 towel) did abound. As did the flags.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 11:30 pm
Walter, I doubt that those very picturesque Westphalian windmills produced enough power for even the streetlights in your town. I agree that wind turbines are often useful and beneficial, but I doubt that they will ever amount to more than a small percentage of the power requirements of a modern nation.

The hydroelectric potential of most western nations is nearly fully exploited already - there is little potential for new sources there. I don't wish to see what we have destroyed, but merely point out that this source, like all others, has its environmental cost as well.

We agree that BMWs are overpriced.

The hydrogen fuel myth seems to resurrect itself with astonishing regularity. While free hydrogen is indeed a useful fuel, it simply doesn't occur in that form in nature. Instead it is chemically bound up in compounds such as water and various acids. Separating the hydrogen from such compounds requires more energy than is liberated in burning it As a result, hydrogen, while an interesting fuel for some special applications, is not itself a source of energy.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 11:43 pm
Hydrogen myth? Well, I can see the cars, and I'm awake!

Sure, I'm aware that there are no hydrogen fields out there that we could tap or hydrogen ore that we could mine, thank you very much.

And yes, it's bound up in water. H2O. 2 hydrogen atoms, 1 oxygen atom.
But of course it's fairly easy and highly efficient (efficiency ratios close to 100%) to extract it from natural gas.

hint: -> Kværner Method
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 11:51 pm
According to BMW,

Quote:
An essential benefit of the hydrogen internal combustion engine is that customers will not have to sacrifice any of the performance, efficiency or driving culture they've come to expect. On the contrary - the most recent results of BMW's research show that hydrogen engines promise even more performance than current gasoline-based engines. Engineers at the BMW Group have developed a new technology for which they are now filing a patent. The secret lies in the ideal control of hydrogen combustion coupled with the optimal fuel-to-air ratio.



If you want to dig into it, you could start here.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 01:04 am
Nice report in today's Independent

Quote:
America's U-turn as Bush starts to preach for energy conservation

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Published: 08 October 2005

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00103/traffic_103689b.jpg
The behaviour of the Bush administration has not been without its own follies.
Embracing conservation was already a stretch for a White House that has shown nothing but disdain for energy efficiency.


To any rational person, the chaos left behind by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita spells real trouble for the United States and its free-wheeling, open-road way of life. Half of the country's oil refining capacity has been knocked out and doesn't look like coming back any time soon. Petrol prices are going through the roof. A chastened President Bush has even gone out on a limb and declared himself, very belatedly, to be an advocate of energy conservation.

But out on the streets of California - and every other state of the union - a peculiar form of denial is in full swing. Men of a certain age are still sitting proudly at the wheel of their gleaming behemoths - giant SUVs and superwide trucks and Hummers, the civilian version of military Humvees - and ripping up the asphalt as though oil was still $20 a barrel and peace and tranquillity had somehow burst out across the Middle East.

The big topic of conversation among Hummer drivers these days, in fact, is not the shocking price of petrol but rather the supposed wimpiness of the latest model of their favourite vehicle. The H3 Hummer is being touted by General Motors as a kinder, gentler road hog - smaller and more compact and much cheaper than the outrageously in-your-face H1, and considerably more fuel-efficient. Which is to say, it gets an advertised 19 miles per gallon, compared with as little as 8 on the old model.

This, to put it mildly, is not what the hard-core consumers want to hear. "Gas mileage.. what they heck is that about?" Hummer aficionado Thom Kirouac opined. "If you have to worry or even discuss gas mileage you should be shopping at KIA or Hyundai. Go hug a tree. Hey look, you spend $120,000 on a truck, who cares about the mileage?"

On the very day the Bush administration was talking about the need for energy austerity, Mr Kirouac and his fellow Hummer fans were engaged in a spirited Internet discussion about how the H3 was "pathetically underpowered" and how any Hummer that wasn't big enough to crush one of the new generation of environmentally-friendly, fuel-saving hybrid petrol-electric cars under its vast chassis wasn't really a Hummer at all.

Memo to the president: your new-found conservation mantra may have a problem.

Granted, the Hummer drivers are an extreme bunch. But all across post-Katrina America, the energy crisis - to the extent that it is even being acknowledged as such - is engendering some noticeably strange reactions.

In suburban Riverside County, one of the most conservative areas of California, the sports utility vehicles or SUVs are still very much in evidence - they have been the predominant mode of transport in such areas for years - but the Bush-Cheney election stickers that used to grace many a bumper have become noticeably scarcer since Katrina hit the Gulf coast.

Further afield, many people have heeded the president's call to cut back on their driving - although they tend to say they didn't need the president to give them the idea. But they also say they love their SUVs and don't want to give them up - even if it can easily cost $100 to fill up their tank these days. (That's still a snip by European standards, of course, but almost three times what it cost a few years ago.)

Several political leaders - not just the president - have issued calls for moderation, but have had a hard time practising what they preach. The governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue, took the drastic and faintly absurd step of closing his state's entire school system for two days last week, supposedly to save diesel fuel on school buses. But he did absolutely nothing to cut back his own hectic schedule of travel around the state, which involved elaborate motorcades and security details and the deployment of local police vehicles. So, politically speaking anyway, the initiative promptly blew up in his face.

One report in the main Atlanta newspaper even suggested Governor Perdue had closed the schools to appease the farming lobby, which was concerned about a diesel shortage and wanted to make sure its tractors and combine harvesters were serviced first. The governor, naturally, has denied stooping to any such depths.

The behaviour of the Bush administration has not been without its own follies. Embracing conservation was already a stretch for a White House that has shown nothing but disdain for energy efficiency - be it in cars, building practices, household appliances, or heating systems. "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue," Vice President Dick Cheney once said, "but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

So there was something immediately disingenuous about President Bush's announcement that the air conditioning in the White House would be kept at 72 degrees Fahrenheit -- hardly sweltering point -- and that federal employees would be encouraged to turn off their computers at night and carpool to work.

All of those savings, even if fully realised, pale somewhat in comparison to the cost and energy expenditure of a single trip on Air Force One to Louisiana - of which there have been a lot recently. The presidential plane costs more than $80,000 to fill with fuel, and the presidential helicopter several thousand more. As for the presidential limousine, a 2006-model Cadillac DTS, it gets less than 22 miles per gallon.

Most absurd of all is the Energy Department's new mascot, or rather anti-mascot: an outsize pig who looks a bit like a rapper, with a nose ring, tight curly black hair and a ski cap. This is the Energy Hog, and according to the Department's literature this Hog is one bad, bad pig. "Energy Hogs are nasty critters that hide all over your home and pig out on wasted energy," says the PR copy, with an entirely straight face. "To outsmart the Energy Hogs, you have to beat those nasty oinkers at their own game."
And so consumers are invited to buy energy-efficient fridges, insulate their windows and change out their ordinary light bulbs for government-approved, low-consumption, fluorescent ones. All very laudable steps, no doubt, except that the people being accused of being big fat wasteful pigs are the very people the government is trying to win over. Who's going to be seduced by that message? Jimmy Carter, infamously, tried something similar during the oil crises of the late 1970s and it almost single-handedly doomed him to a single term in the White House.

According to one of the most prominent consultants to the car industry, a flamboyant transplanted Frenchman by the name of Clotaire Rapaille, just about everyone from the president on down has got it wrong. "Monsieur Bush is in big trouble," he said. "After Katrina and Rita, we now have a complete confirmation of the total incompetence of politicians and bureaucrats to deal with any kind of emergency... and he makes these fantastic statements about reconstruction and conservation. What kind of goal is that?

"Americans listen to this and they think, reconstruction - boring. Conservation - boring. It looks so obvious that he's just trying to take advantage of the situation. He's not mobilising American minds, and because of that there's going to be another failure here."

In the States, Mr Rapaille is most famous for identifying the "reptilian brain" at the core of the average American consumer and encouraging the car industry to go all out with SUV production to satisfy that reptilian instinct. He doesn't think Americans have changed, but the times most certainly have.

The trick, he believes, is to let Americans believe they can have it all but also to appeal to their rugged sense of independence. "This is a very adolescent culture," he said. "You can't tell your adolescent, say no to sex. Of course they're going to do it. You can't tell them don't speed, because they're going to speed. We're not going to stop Americans in their desire for speed and power. But at the same time they don't want to be dependent on a bunch of crazy people around the world for their energy, because that would be worse than anything."

His proposed answer entails aggressive investment in alternative fuel sources, starting with hydrogen, and aggressive new standards for energy efficiency. Car companies should not be producing kinder, gentler gas-guzzlers, but rather a whole new generation of super fuel-efficient vehicles ranging from Hummer-style behemoths down to the smallest feel-good tiddler. Houses should be built to more exacting standards. Inefficient household appliances should be outlawed. And on and on down the line - the idea being to leave America's consumer culture intact while radically changing the terms for supplying it.

"We can have cars that do 60 miles per gallon. The technology is there. We can have hydrogen fuel. The problem is, nobody is giving companies any incentive to develop these things," Mr Rapaille said. And the American car industry, in his view, is as much at fault as the politicians.

"Toyota and the Japanese are the only ones who can think long term. The problem with the Americans is that they only think as far as next weekend. That's how far they go in their planning capability," he said. "Detroit is like the Soviet Union before the fall of the Berlin Wall, so slow in moving and adapting. Their SUV sales are down 40 per cent and what do they have to offer? Nothing."

Around the country, there are some pockets of sanity. Cities like Los Angeles and Salt Lake City are developing fleets of alternative-energy vehicles and thinking hard about the infrastructural revolution that is going to be needed to replace petrol pumps with hydrogen pumps. In California, energy consumers pay a modest public benefits charge on their montly fuel bills which goes towards investment into new fuel efficiency programmes.

In some big cities, officials have worked hard to make public transport more attractive as an alternative to rush-hour congestion on major commuter routes. In the more affluent liberal enclaves, especially on the two coasts, hybrid cars are enjoying a huge boom, likely to grow only bigger when hybrid engine technology starts making its debut in larger vehicles and trucks.

But at the level where the biggest difference could be made - the level of the federal government - there is nothing but stagnation. Congress has consistently refused to endorse tougher fuel-efficiency standards because of lobbying pressure from the oil and automotive industries. The Bush administration has shown considerably more interest in easing environmental standards for oil refinery companies at their existing facilities than it has, say, in offering tax credits so more refining capacity can come on line quickly and efficiently.

The trouble with the new conservation message is that it is extremely limited. "The problem is, the administration's not going to change their budget, or change government policy," said Mark Bernstein, a senior energy analyst with the Rand Corporation. "Their solution is to drive less. That's fine, but people are going to do that anyway. They don't need to be told that. The higher prices are hurting quite badly enough by themselves."

It's hard to overstate the damage done by the recent hurricanes. The Gulf refines half of America's oil and gas. Some 90 per cent of the oil and 70 per cent of the gas from the region was knocked out of production, and could easily take six months to come back.

At a time of record oil prices worldwide, that means the current spike in petrol prices is unlikely to recede. Higher fuel costs could, in turn, have a chilling effect on the entire economy. And conservation, under those circumstances, could become self-defeating.

If a cash-strapped school district, daunted by higher energy costs, has to choose between paying its teachers or running its school buses, it may well cut the bus routes. That, though, will lead to a net increase in consumption because parents will end up their children to school in their individual vehicles.

The same is true of cities facing higher fuel bills for its fleets of police, fire and municipal vehicles. They might well be tempted to cut public transport routes, thus putting more cars on the roads.

"This could easily drive us into recession," Mr Bernstein forecast. "None of the long-term solutions are going to make a difference to this crisis. If four years ago we had pursued some of these energy efficiency options to hedge against these types of risks, we would not be feeling as much of a pinch." America, in other words, is not getting significantly greener - just greener around the gills.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 07:10:16