Archive for the ‘energy’ Category
The new Chevy Volt - Bastard Child of a Twisted Mind?
It’s hard to believe that the Chevy Volt came from a company like GM which is led by the most unapologetic global climate change denier, Bob Lutz. Lutz appeared on The Colbert Report and not only trashed the idea of global climate change, but trashed his own product, the Volt.
ThinkProgress has a whole writeup on the odious Bob Lutz.
Filed under climate change, energy, environment, technology : Comments (0) : Sep 18th, 2008
Drill Here Drill Now Pay Less!
The Republican energy strategy can be be summed up in one (chant-able) phrase: “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less”. Wow, that sounds like a great plan. But will it work?
Sadly, no. Even if we decided to “drill here”, there would be a minimum of 5+ years before any of that oil hit the market. Rome was not built in a day, and nor is the infrastructure required to bring new oil wells online. (Here’s a great example–there are a finite number of drilling ships capable of tapping the oil reserves off-shore. And they’re all booked for the next 3 years.)
So “drill now” doesn’t really mean “now”. Bummer.
Then there’s the question of “pay less”. Any Econ-101 student can tell you that if you increase supply and demand remains constant, prices will decrease. In the case of oil, we have a few problems that must be dealt with before we can “pay less”:
- Demand. Baring total global economic collapse, demand will continue to increase in the foreseeable future. China, India, Russia, Brazil, and a host of smaller nations are developing rapidly. They will probably want some oil as well.
- Supply. The best estimates from the Energy Information Administration put our new production at somewhere around 250,000 barrels a day. That does not represent a significant addition to the 16,000,000 barrels already being produced every day. (It’s about 1.5%) It’s unlikely that the oil markets will be significantly moved by an extra 250,000 barrels/day.
- OPEC. Just yesterday, OPEC decided that oil prices had fallen too far since their high and cut production by 500,000 barrels/day. (Stop here, read that number again, and compare it with the number from point #2 above.) If we think that domestic drilling will give us leverage over the giant oil cartel known as OPEC we are severely disillusioned.
Here’s a pretty graph that ought to put things in perspective:
So, I’ve made the case that “drilling here, drilling now” won’t result in “paying less”. What should we do instead?
Decrease demand.
That same Econ-101 student would tell you that decreasing demand with a constant supply will also lower prices. By golly, that sounds pretty good. How do we decrease supply?
- Improve automobile efficiency. The rest of the world figured out how to do it–even the American auto makers sell efficient cars in Europe! It’s just disgraceful that we’re still driving cars that get 25 mpg (the same efficiency as a Ford Model T)
- Invest in public transportation. We ship trillions of dollars to the Middle East for oil every year and get nothing but oil (and the subsequent pollution) in return. Investments in public transportation would result in local manufacturing and service jobs and would provide options for American travelers.
- Raise the gas tax. We know that demand for gas will drop as prices go up–we’ve already seen it happen. Why not help things along and recoup some of the money ourselves instead of shipping it all to foreign oil producers? The money could then be wisely invested in public transportation. Wow!
- Study the rest of the world. We seem loathe to look outside our shores for lessons on how to do just about anything. Sadly, transportation is one area that we’ve fallen far far behind the rest of the world. We need leaders who are willing to learn from our global neighbors.
The great thing about decreasing demand is that it’s compatible with all energy options. We can continue to use oil. We can start to use more natural gas. Or renewables. Or hydrogen. Or nuclear. And OPEC or China or Russia or anyone else can’t do anything to stop us.
Filed under economics, energy, environment, politics : Comments (2) : Sep 11th, 2008
Dear Media. . .
I have a simple request for the national media outlets to whom we entrust our public airwaves : DO YOUR JOB!
There’s a bit of a huffle-puff brewing around Washington right now as what to do about high oil & gas prices. John McCain and most of his Republican friends want to drill offshore, assuming that new supplies would drive prices down. Barack Obama and most of his Democratic friends want to reduce consumption, assuming that less demand would drive prices down.
The media, in their infinite wisdom, are presenting the two positions as an even debate. There’s just one problem : THEY DIDN’T DO THEIR HOMEWORK!
You see, a little-known agency called the Energy Information Agency (aka the official source of energy data for the U.S. government) released a report last year that concludes the following :
The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. [emphasis mine]
Had anyone at NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc. etc. had access to, say, Google, they might have found the same report. Instead, they report both sides as though it’s just a matter of opinion. Paper or plastic? Red wine or white? Kittens or puppies.
There was a time when they practiced this thing called journalism. . . if my memory serves me, it involved actual research instead of simply replaying sound bites. Huh. What a concept.
Filed under economics, energy, politics : Comments (0) : Aug 7th, 2008
Highways vs. Transit
In my last post (which attracted a few great comments) I suggested that the automobile infrastructure might not be the optimal investment for the coming decade(s). Some might take this as an all-out attack on personal transportation–to be clear, it is not. (I wouldn’t even mind highways if we raised the gas tax enough to pay for them)
Here’s a great graph showing the comparison between what we spend on highways versus what we spend on transit. To anyone who bemoans building rail, bike trails, or mass transit projects, please keep this in perspective.
Today we have a pretty clear problem : we have a national transportation infrastructure built upon the assumption that gasoline can be produced and sold for a few dollars a gallon. Now that that assumption is no longer valid, there are two approaches we can take :
1) Start investing public tax dollars in non-automotive infrastructure (the highways still get all the gas tax they want).
2) Freak out, drill every inch of land (and ocean) in the U.S., and pour all available public funds into delaying the inevitable decline of the oil-based transportation.
You can guess which one I’m rooting for. Which do you prefer?
Filed under culture, economics, energy : Comments (3) : Jul 23rd, 2008
Solid Truth
I’ve been thinking more (and more [and more]) about the approach to transportation in the U.S. It’s no secret that we’ve invested very heavily in the personal automobile as the preferred solution. This decision is often treated as a forgone conclusion–how could we possibly live any other way?
I stumbled upon this quote today :
“If there is one message writ large within the annals of anthropology, it is to beware the solid truths of one’s own culture. If we contrast our views with those of others, we find that what we take to be ‘reliable knowledge’ is more properly considered a form of folklore.”
From Kenneth J. Gergen’s often quite interesting The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life.
If the U.S. is to flourish in this new century, we have to challenge even the most solid of truths. We just might discover that–dare I say–automobile infrastructure may not the best investment choice for our hard-earned tax dollars. We might even discover that–here comes the heresy–mass transportation and rail is a better option than personal cars and airplanes.
I know I’m not in line with the majority on this one, (as @b_samic told me last time I called for the end of cars, “be reasonable”) but to some degree the writing is on the wall. Cheap oil is over and we’re going broke. It’s time to invest what’s left in a sustainable future.
Filed under culture, energy : Comments (10) : Jul 18th, 2008
Bike to work : an update
This week I really hit my stride with the whole bike commuter scene. Somewhat by necesity (my car was in the shop), I rode to work 3 days in a row. After experimenting with a few different routes, I’ve found the optimal balance between distance, traffic, hills, and road conditions (in my case, Wisconsin Ave and State Street). I also discovered realized that my office building has a bike rack on the same side of the building as the gym (& showers) so I can minimize the risk of bumping into anyone in my sweaty condition.
I had my first roadside flat today, but fortunately I had all the necessary equipment to fix it. Surprisingly, it only took about 10 minutes to get back on the bike with a new tube. (I guess I just earned my bike commuter street cred?)
The biking itself is getting easier and faster. I can now consistently make the commute in 30 minutes, which compares very favorably to driving by car. I’ve noticed that I’m eating about 1000 more calories on the days I ride, but I suppose this is in line with the energy I’m using.
Final verdict : bike commuting is easy! fun! inexpensive! green! You should try it too.
Filed under energy, environment, frugal, work : Comments (3) : Jul 17th, 2008
Bike to work #1 : success!
After many many months of hemming, hawing, and making up excuses for why I couldn’t, I brought my bike to work today and rode it home. (Since I left my car there, I’m really hoping it doesn’t rain tomorrow morning.)
Initial thoughts on bike commuting:
- It’s shorter (by distance) and only slightly longer (by time). Since I’m taking a more direct, as-the-crow-flies route (as opposed to the highway), i’m shaving off a couple miles from the commute. Plus, since I can use the bike/curb lane and generally don’t need to wait for traffic, I can maneuver much quicker.
- Office buildings need showers. I got pretty sweaty riding home. That’s fine if I have a shower to jump into, but at work I’ll need to use the gym’s shower facilities. My frustration is that the people who run our gym refuse to entertain the concept of bike commuters using only the showers for a reduced rate. (I’m not planning to pump iron while at the office.)
- Very pleasant way to start/end the day. Unlike car commuting, when I have to constantly be thinking about traffic and watching for bad drivers, bicycling is very relaxing. I’m still watching for bad drivers, but I found my mind much clearer. I think it has something to do with the exercise component.
- Total gasoline used : 0 gallons!
- You should try it! I used to think it was too far, too many busy roads, too this, too that. Unless you try it, you’ll never know if you like it.
Filed under Milwaukee, energy, environment, frugal, work : Comments (1) : Jun 24th, 2008
MREA Energy Fair 2008
I went to the MREA Energy Fair yesterday with my friend Chris. It was really great to see so many people excited about renewable energy, conservation, and green living. Here are some photos :
Filed under culture, energy, environment : Comments (2) : Jun 22nd, 2008
Gas prices up, miles driven down : let the market work!
As you may or may not know, gas prices have more than doubled in the last year. Ouch. Politicians and pundits love telling us how this is “problem” is going to get solved. As I’ve recently explained, supply-side economics are not going to change the price of oil. What’s left? Demand.
And, believe it or not, it’s already happening! The U.S. DoT issues a monthly report of highway miles driven. For two consecutive months, Americans are driving fewer miles than we did a year ago. That’s right, the invisible hand of the market is working! Huzzah!
This raises a very important point : We need to let the market work. This means we must not mess with the gas tax! (Unless we raise it, to accelerate the process of moving beyond oil).
Keep this in mind, as one of the two presidential candidates (hint : the old, white one) wants to slash the federal gas tax. Let me repeat it once more : The market is working! Hands off, Washington!
Filed under economics, energy, politics : Comments (2) : Jun 22nd, 2008
Dear Congress : Wind is good!
While I was checking my Google feed reader under the Energy section, I stumbled across a graph that looked a little too familiar. The colors and overall design instantly grabbed my attention. Was this a GE pitch?
Indeed, it was. GE Energy Financial Services is trying to politely explain to the U.S. Congress that it’s a good idea to offer incentives to build wind energy projects. (This is the same U.S. Congress who routinely gives out hundreds of billions of dollars in oil production incentives.) It seems that just as the U.S. was on the way to catching up with the rest of Europe in renewable energy production, the fightin’ 110th decided to yank away the credits.
GE’s position is simple : by creating thousands of new jobs and millions of dollars in new tax revenue, building wind projects makes financial sense–even if Congress must first pay out some incentives. The net gain from 2007 was $250 million. Not bad, considering that doesn’t count the environmental benefits of wind vs. coal, gas, etc.
I’m a libertarian and don’t like subsidies in principle, but this one seems to make sense. Unlike coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, wind has a very high ratio of jobs per megawatt. It’s probably one of the few subsidies that literally pays for itself. We would be completely foolish in taking a huge step backwards by repealling the production tax credits.
Oh, wait. Foolishness is what Congress does best.
Filed under economics, energy, environment, politics : Comments (0) : Jun 20th, 2008
