Oil Money And A Smart Energy Policy Don't Mix

[BuddyLee]

"Drivers, start your engines — and empty your wallets!

As we gear up for the biggest driving weekend of the year, vacationers all across America are coming face to face with the highest average gas prices in history — up 42 cents a gallon since 2001 — and a bad case of "pump panic," a new malady in which your heart rate instantly matches the price of full-service high-test. Where I live, there are lots of folks palpitating at 325 beats a minute.

At the same time car owners are having to consider taking out a second mortgage in order to fill up their tanks, oil companies are raking in record profits.

ConocoPhillips, for example, the United States' largest oil refiner, recently reported its largest first quarter profits ever. And Exxon Mobil just posted its highest first quarter refining earnings in 13 years."

http://ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=713

 

[willie]

Something about Adrianna makes me a bit skeptical. I think she is bitter that she wasn't elected Queen.

 

[SamSpade]

I'm always a *little* skeptical about *anyone* who switches parties. I'm even more so about someone who changes their whole philosophy as well - Arianna used to be the most conservative pundit, to being one of the more shrill liberal ones. You gotta believe that somewhere, somebody must have pizzed in her Wheaties.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by SamSpade
You gotta believe that somewhere, somebody must have pizzed in her Wheaties.

Maybe someone told her to stop speaking in that ridiculous Baba Wawa accent.

 

[BuddyLee]

Originally posted by willie
Something about Adrianna makes me a bit skeptical. I think she is bitter that she wasn't elected Queen.

I'm always a *little* skeptical about *anyone* who switches parties. I'm even more so about someone who changes their whole philosophy as well - Arianna used to be the most conservative pundit, to being one of the more shrill liberal ones. You gotta believe that somewhere, somebody must have pizzed in her Wheaties.

Maybe someone told her to stop speaking in that ridiculous Baba Wawa accent.

What do cheap shots at the author have to do with the subject at hand?

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by BuddyLee
What do cheap shots at the author have to do with the subject at hand?

Just trying to be funny. Years ago I saw her on Politically Incorrect. I wasn't looking at the screen at first, and I thought Walters was on the show.

 

[BuddyLee]

Originally posted by Tonio
Just trying to be funny. Years ago I saw her on Politically Incorrect. I wasn't looking at the screen at first, and I thought Walters was on the show.

Yes she does have quite the accent.


Does Ms. Walters still broadcast?

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by BuddyLee
What do cheap shots at the author have to do with the subject at hand?

I didn't think being skeptical of someone who switched sides constituted a "cheap shot". But it does make me doubt their assertions and I'm more inclined to believe they're slanting their take on the facts.

For one thing, at a time when everyone is griping about the economy - she reports in ominous tones that the oil industry is doing well. Well, isn't THAT horrible? If it was doing *badly*, that would also be horrible. Oil is up over 40 dollars a barrel, and it is *spring*, the one time a year you can *guarantee* that gas prices go up.

The way she's written about Condi Rice, you'd think they named a tanker after her because she was in the White House - even though it happened *years* ago (~1995). So a lot of his associates are somehow connected to oil - so was the Gore family. Big deal.

See, the thing is, if you're liberal - big oil is *EVIL*. With a capital E. On the other hand, the government is your *friend*, unless that person is a Republican. Her list of numbers are not the slightest bit impressive, unless you think there's something awful about oil companies, to begin with. I'm not sure WHY oil companies are evil but everyone just knows they ARE anyway.

And some of her facts are just WRONG. Like the facts about ANWR, about Powell and Prince Bandar. The kind of half-baked facts a liberal trots out, because they either have let someone else do their thinking FOR them, or they hope you won't check the facts before you believe their point.

Basically, a great deal of that simple article is not entirely *honest*, but like I said at the beginning - remember, this is a person who jumped ship from one side to the other. They either "saw the light" or have been dishonest one way or the other about the issues.

To be fair about this - I also am wary about conservatives who were former liberals. I read what they write, but I check their facts. Examples: Dick Morris or Dennis Miller. I like them, but they don't get a free pass.

 

[rraley]

I don't have a suspicion about people who change their views; I think that it shows open-mindness and an ability to truly consider all sides of an issue. But that's just me. I still don't like Dennis Miller; his form of debate is ridicule and that doesn't sit well with me and I don't like Arianna Huffington either because she's far too left.

Back to the topic at hand...it is time for the United States to ween itself off the oil dependency that it has developed since the last oil crisis. There are several ways to do this: first, we need to increase mandates for fuel efficency, second, we need to increase our domestic production of oil, and third we need to research the many different forms of renewable energy that have come out in public lately. Our American society has always believed that "bigger is better" and our car size certainly does show that. Just think about how many gas-guzzling SUV's you see everyday; no doubt some of you have them. These cars are mandated by law to have a certain mileage per gallon and Detroit will produce only to the bear minimum of those standards (of course to save costs and maximize profits, there is nothing wrong with that). To combat this, the government should take a market-oriented approach to increase gas mileage standards. There is currently technology that can make cars average over 40 miles a gallon; but Detroit has refused to produce such cars due to the increased cost. The US tax code should be redesigned to allow for Detroit to be rewarded if they choose to develop higher mileage cars. No arbitrary government mandate should come down, for that would only harm business, but a market-oriented approach will keep business going while also decreasing our dependency.

Most of our oil comes from overseas, especially from the Middle East, one of the most destabilized regions in the World. To further decrease our dependency, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we should increase domestic oil production. The largest debate recently has been over the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge - there is a large oil field right under it, but because of some polar bears, fellow Democrats will not allow drilling to occur there. A Clinton Administration study said that up to 600 million barrels of oil exist in ANWR and that only one square mile of the refuge would be damaged due to drilling. Drilling would be beneficial there and the environmental catastrophe that environmentalists claim will occur is baseless. There are other areas where drilling could produce even greater domestic production including in the Rockies and in the Gulf of Mexico. Sadly not only do Democrats oppose drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, but President Bush does as well because his brother Jeb wouldn't be too happy with some drills in the backyard of his state. Basically, there are major opportunities out there for increased domestic oil production, and our government should capitalize on those opportunities.

Ultimately, it would be the most beneficial in the long run for the government to seriously invest in studying renewable energy. Rather than be dependent on the Middle East for our power and our gas, renewable energy would allow us to be energy independent, more efficient, and much more environmentally sound. President Bush studying hydrogen cars is a good first step and there are many other studys we can mandate in order to develop even more renewable energy.

 

[sleuth]

People change their views all the time. However, it is usually a gradual shift.

I registered as a Democrat when I was 18... because it seemed "noble" to want to solve problems like world hunger, homelessness, etc., and the Dems are who I thought had the best handle on doing that.

It took about 6 years for the transformation to be complete, for me to realize that these problems can't be solved... they can only be managed. This is simply because either some people don't want to be helped, and most of those that do, don't want to stop being helped. So the problems never get solved, because they can't be solved unless people are willing to help themselves.

My transformation was capped off by reading Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". It was after that point, that I realized I was now a conservative. I "woke up". And I don't see myself ever turning back.

 

[Bruzilla]

Lord save us from the Liberal mentality!!!

I've been working for a Ford dealership in Jacksonville for the past month, and the biggest selling vehicles are SUVs and F-150 trucks. I've seen about 40 of these go off the lot for every fuel-efficient Focus that's been bought. If people are panicking over $2.00+ per gallon gas down here, they aren't showing it.

I think it's great that people are talking about alternative fuel vehicles, but no one is talking realistically about them. They make it sound like there's all this proven technology just waiting to be sold to the public but the auto makers and oil companies are dragging their feet. The truth is that the US of A would go broke if we were to try to field these vehicles right now.

Imagine what would happen if POTUS were to mandate the use of fuel cells by executive fiat...

1. Would the DOT, DOE, and EPA be willing to exempt these vehicles from all testing, certification, and licensing requirements to get them on the road now? No.
2. Most people can't afford the $40-60,000 price tags for these vehicles, so is the government going to buy the vehicles for everyone? No.
3. There's several hundred thousand points of sale for gasoline, and about a dozen of hydrogen for cars stations. WHo's going to pay to have all of these stations converted over?
4. What makes people think that if we reduced our oil consumption by say 50% that OPEC wouldn't reduce their production by 50% so that the price and availability would stay the same?

The common problem that I see with all of the Green folks on this issue is that they view the world as static while they are making changes. They fail to realize that any change they make ro reduce oil consumption will be compensated for by the oil producers and nothing will change.

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by Bruzilla

1. Would the DOT, DOE, and EPA be willing to exempt these vehicles from all testing, certification, and licensing requirements to get them on the road now? No.

And they shouldn't. Just because we switch to fuel cells doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to monitor consumption and emissions and continue looking for even better alternative solutions.

Originally posted by Bruzilla

2. Most people can't afford the $40-60,000 price tags for these vehicles, so is the government going to buy the vehicles for everyone? No.

This is where I feel the government is dragging their feet. If they really wanted us to buy these vehicles, they need to make them sales tax exempt for say 5 years, and renew that exemption, until they become mainstream technology. They also need to offer tax incentives for gas stations who offer these alternative fuels at the pump, even if they offer one or two pumps of alternative fuel at the start, and then increase them as they increase demand. And the big oil companies also need to be given mongo tax incentives to research, promote, and sell these alternative fuels.

Originally posted by Bruzilla

3. There's several hundred thousand points of sale for gasoline, and about a dozen of hydrogen for cars stations. WHo's going to pay to have all of these stations converted over?

See my above comments. Leave it to the owners to invest in order to get significant short- and long-term tax incentives.

Originally posted by Bruzilla

4. What makes people think that if we reduced our oil consumption by say 50% that OPEC wouldn't reduce their production by 50% so that the price and availability would stay the same?

I don't think anyone expects that. The idea is to make it such that we don't have to buy oil, period.




I'm not saying that the government should mandate the use of fuel cells or alternatives, but they could certainly prod the market with a sharp stick and give this alternative fuel technology a swift kick in the butt.

 

[Larry Gude]

The ONLY reasonable...

...position for a 'green' or anti oil person to take is to support the LOWEST mpg vehicles possible and to oppose any and all conservation and efficiency measures.

Done spitting up?

The day the world starts truly moving away from fossil fuels is the day they are no longer so cheap which is the day they are not so readily available which is the day we actually are nearing exhaustion of supply which is a day so far into the future that is makes this whole line of thinking a joke and will only, obviously, be FARTHER away if we concern ourselves with absurd notions like making it last longer.

We're talking about getting rid of buggy whips...in the year 1700.

If we seriously want to get rid of dependence on foreign oil, just make it illegal to import. That will instantly make it economically viable to pump more in the US again and motivate alternatives. Of course, this throws the econmics out the window.

Perspective: The Middle East should not even matter in terms of long term oil supply. It just happens to be the cheapest and easiest to get right now.

Perspective: http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/index.html

 

[czygvtwkr]

There is currently technology that can make cars average over 40 miles a gallon

Please tell me what kind of car you drive?

Also please tell me what technology this is?

The fact of the matter is those cars would have less power and nobody would buy them. Detroit focuses on what people will buy, they aren't this evil collection of people determined to keep you down.

 

[Sparx]

I was under the impression that only 15% of our oil came from the middle east. Anyone have the info on this stat?

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by Sparx
I was under the impression that only 15% of our oil came from the middle east. Anyone have the info on this stat?

It looks like about 25% of our imported oil comes from the middle east. I also saw somewhere that about half of our oil is domestic (Alaska, Texas, etc.). So, your 15% figure seems about right. Here's a link.

 

[Bruzilla]

The best technology that's available today is in the form of Mild and Full Hybrid vehicles. These use electric motors to move the cars at slow speeds and during peak acceleration to augment a low-power gas engine. Then, the brakes are coupled to generators so that when you step on the brakes, the energy that's normally lost to gravity and heat is converted into power that recharges the vehicle's batteries. Ford is coming out with a Full Hybrid Escape SUV that gets almost 40 MPG in the city and 30 on the highway. This seems wierd, but it's because hybrid engines shut down when not needed, so the city milage is higher than highway.

Maybe the greeners should look to Japan for answers. The Japanese government is concerned about having too many old cars laying about and about keeping their automakers busy. When you buy a new car in Japan, you pay virtually nothing to register it. After is hits two years old, it starts getting more and more expensive to register. By the time a car is four or five years old, it costs more to register it than to buy it.

I guess the Liberals could mandate that US automakers start making hybrid/fuel cell cars at affordable prices, and then use draconian measures to force us all to buy one. But then what would happen to that poor welfare mom who's still driving the 1985 Ford Tempo with no bumpers and 700,000 miles on it? Oh yeah... the Libs would just madate that people making over $50,000 a year must make car payments for a person making under $50,000... the Democratic way.

 

[ylexot]

Yup, hybrid is the way to go for now. I'm still waiting for someone to build a gas turbine/electric hybrid. Turbines are far more efficient than piston engines (something like 25% efficient vs. 15% efficient). The other benefit of hybrid is that the gas engine runs at it's peak efficiency whenever it is running. Since it is not actually driving the vehicle, it does not need to run at different, less efficient rpms.

Bru, Your expanation of regenerative braking is either wrong or misleading. The brakes aren't connected to generators (well, they could, it would just be very inefficient). They simply use the drive motor as a generator when braking.

Also, it's important to note for anyone looking into hybrid that electric motor horsepower does not directly equate to gas engine horsepower. I think they are like 3:1 equivalent so you would use a 10hp electric to replace a 30hp gas.

 

[czygvtwkr]

I know all about hybrids, in 96/97 before anyone heard of them I was building one in my senior design class in college for the Future Car challenge.

Tooo many things to go wrong with them, you think a regular modern car has a lot to go wrong, a hybrid has atleast twice that. They have matured alot from being pieced together from parts that "might" work but I still dont see them as a long term solution. If I were to buy a hybrid there is no way in hell I would hang onto it for more than 3 years.

rraley was talking like there was some secret technology that Detroit won't let anyone know about, hybrids have been talked about from the 80's

Turbines are not the answer, at their peak efficiency they are actually less efficient than a piston gasoline engine. Turbines take a long time to spool up, there is a gyroscopic effect of that heavy turbine spinning, and if there was a major accident the energy release from the rotating mass could be deadly. Diesel engines however are about 10% more efficient than gasoline engines at their peak. This is the reason locomotives are diesel/electric (hybrids) and have been for a long time. The point of a hybrid is to keep the IC engine operating at its most efficient range. Think about it when you are at a stop light your engine is 0% efficient there is input but no output.

If people could accept cars with a little less horse power and change the way they drive we could easily achieve 25% more fuel efficiency.

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by czygvtwkr
I know all about hybrids, in 96/97 before anyone heard of them I was building one in my senior design class in college for the Future Car challenge.

The UMD team w/ Dr. Holloway???? I was the aero guy that didn't really get to do anything. Luckily, I was just doing it in my "spare" time and not for credit.

Yeah, you're right. ICE can be more efficient than turbine. As usual, I was thinking aircraft where turbofans are most efficient. As for the safety of turbine blades...they're no less safe than capacitors, flywheels, or many other energy storage options. Just shield it right.

One of the things my GF told me (her parents bought a hybrid) is that once the battery pack goes...might as well throw away the car because the replacement battery pack will cost more than the car is worth.