Is it time to declare war on Oil? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

06-29-2010, 09:01 AM

War on oil. We aren't going to buy it anymore. Make it happen in the real world.

Go back to hunting and gathering, living in harmony with nature, cats and dogs living together? I guess it depends on who you mean by 'we'. If you mean you and the mouse (plus the eco-nutball faction) in your pocket then perhaps. If you are including the other 99% of society then I think you will be sadly disappointed.

Is it time yet?

Unless you can think of a way to get a large percentage of humans to decide to die horribly, I'd say the answer is 'no'.

So, conduct the war v. Oil on oil-based infrastructure? Until the Big Transition?

Instead of a silly war, why not simply learn what a 'market' is and how things are already starting to shift in this direction? Even leaving aside the 'daft' aspects, from a practical perspective a war on oil would be even less effective than a war on drugs, since people so heavily depend on oil (even more so than drugs). What you need to do is to invent a process or device that can challenge oil based transport on an even or near even basis (i.e. has the same performance characteristics and ease of use for the consumer).

-XT

Telemark

06-29-2010, 10:48 AM

Well, I certainly don't want anything nasty to happen.
So you want to change the entire basis of our economy, but you don't want anything nasty to happen. Good luck with that.

Baboonanza

06-29-2010, 10:52 AM

Why would you expect 'The war on oil' to work out any better than the examples you list in the OP?

None of them have exactly gone to plan so far...

emacknight

06-29-2010, 11:09 AM

I don't know. Are you ready for a long-lasting global depression? <snip>

Go back to hunting and gathering, living in harmony with nature, cats and dogs living together? I guess it depends on who you mean by 'we'. If you mean you and the mouse (plus the eco-nutball faction) in your pocket then perhaps. If you are including the other 99% of society then I think you will be sadly disappointed.<snip>

Interesting that you both chose doomsday as your arguments against the OP.

It wasn't that long ago that oil meant whale blubber. Imagine, having the audacity to suggest not using whales to light our lamps! We'd all be living in the dark, that DARK! What are you going to do when the sun goes down?!?

It also wasn't that long ago that the internal combustion engine was just as shitty and unreliable as the steam and electric engine.

And it wasn't all that long ago that products could be made out of things other than plastic.

If not for the millions of deaths at Three Mile Island we might have more nuclear power plants.

And if not for the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways cars might not have been so popular.

It is possible for a train to run off of electricity. It is possible for houses to be heated by electricity (although not particularly efficiently). But it's stupid for both of those to use electricity developed by burning fossil fuels.

There are alternatives to crude. It's laughable to suggest we'd all die without it.

Sateryn76

06-29-2010, 11:28 AM

Lobohan

06-29-2010, 11:29 AM

Interesting that you both chose doomsday as your arguments against the OP.

It wasn't that long ago that oil meant whale blubber. Imagine, having the audacity to suggest not using whales to light our lamps! We'd all be living in the dark, that DARK! What are you going to do when the sun goes down?!?

It also wasn't that long ago that the internal combustion engine was just as shitty and unreliable as the steam and electric engine.

And it wasn't all that long ago that products could be made out of things other than plastic.

If not for the millions of deaths at Three Mile Island we might have more nuclear power plants.

And if not for the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways cars might not have been so popular.

It is possible for a train to run off of electricity. It is possible for houses to be heated by electricity (although not particularly efficiently). But it's stupid for both of those to use electricity developed by burning fossil fuels.

There are alternatives to crude. It's laughable to suggest we'd all die without it.Dropping oil in a short time frame would probably cause a great many deaths. We aren't living in the whale-oil world. Our cities would starve without having food shipped to them.

The way I see it, we could build nuclear reactors and probably get the country off coal in a decade. We could probably swap over to natural gas for trucking during the same period. But changing the entire country's auto infrastructure over to non-oil would probably take a lot longer There are hundreds of thousands of gas stations that would need to be refitted. There are millions of vehicles that would need to be rotated out of service. Do we even have the capacity to build all the batteries the cars would need? Would we exhaust the world's supply of lithium?

Airman Doors, USAF

06-29-2010, 11:40 AM

Interesting that you both chose doomsday as your arguments against the OP.

It wasn't that long ago that oil meant whale blubber. Imagine, having the audacity to suggest not using whales to light our lamps! We'd all be living in the dark, that DARK! What are you going to do when the sun goes down?!?

It also wasn't that long ago that the internal combustion engine was just as shitty and unreliable as the steam and electric engine.

And it wasn't all that long ago that products could be made out of things other than plastic.

If not for the millions of deaths at Three Mile Island we might have more nuclear power plants.

And if not for the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways cars might not have been so popular.

It is possible for a train to run off of electricity. It is possible for houses to be heated by electricity (although not particularly efficiently). But it's stupid for both of those to use electricity developed by burning fossil fuels.

There are alternatives to crude. It's laughable to suggest we'd all die without it.

And back in those days we wouldn't have had any problem weaning ourselves off of oil, because we had not yet embraced that as the basis of our whole economy or our lifestyles. Now that we have it will be incredibly painful for us to do so.

When you didn't have any money you learned to live one way. When you got money you adjusted your lifestyle accordingly. Now take the money away and you'll find that life is infinitely more difficult than it was before. That's the way of things. We cannot simply wish things away.

As for electricity, how is that generated? Coal, mostly. But how is that delivered? Trains, right? And what are trains run on? Typically diesel/electric. We don't have the infrastructure to electrify the entire country for trains, and maintenance of such will be no less of a nightmare than with roads. And how are goods delivered? Typically by truck. If electricity is only just barely practical for a 2-ton car, how could it be even remotely adequate for trucks?

You have to factor these things into your equations. Oil is a necessity and will remain so for a long time. My so-called doomsday scenario is not an unreasonable result of what you suggest, just quitting oil cold turkey. We can, and we should, wean ourselves off of oil. But that's a long-term goal. It cannot, will not, and should not happen overnight.

EDIT: Also, millions of deaths at three Mile Island? What?

emacknight

06-29-2010, 12:05 PM

So, who's blocking nuclear? It would seem like we have defined a good alternative, but we can't get it done.

Is it time to declare War on Unreasonable Environmental Wackos?

YES! Oh please God yes.

06-29-2010, 12:08 PM

Interesting that you both chose doomsday as your arguments against the OP.

It's that 'reality' stuff. I know, it's like a wet blanket thrown on the smolder hopes of the neo-Luddite...

It wasn't that long ago that oil meant whale blubber. Imagine, having the audacity to suggest not using whales to light our lamps! We'd all be living in the dark, that DARK! What are you going to do when the sun goes down?!?

And if you had suddenly banned whale oil before figuring out a transition path to the new technology? Do you think that it would just have happened? Research and development into oil happened BEFORE we ran out of whale oil, as the prices rose and people were looking for alternatives. We started transitioning from whale oil lamps and whale oil as a lubricant BEFORE we ran out of the stuff.

And while I know this will be a shock to you, we are much more dependent on oil today than they were on whale oil in the 19th century. To them it would have meant an economic meltdown if there had been a complete moratorium on whaling. To us, today, it would mean the entire destruction of our world...'doomsday' as you put it. While the Peak Oil crowd are generally clueless, they have that part right...if suddenly the oil was turned off it would bring down our entire civilization.

And it wasn't all that long ago that products could be made out of things other than plastic.

We can make plastics out of stuff other than oil today. It's not that difficult. But you need a fairly large transition period to ramp up to something else. You can't just do it tomorrow and expect the flow of products to continue in a business as usual way.

If not for the millions of deaths at Three Mile Island we might have more nuclear power plants.

I'm guessing this was tongue in cheek.

It is possible for a train to run off of electricity.

It's possible to run trains off of dead babies. It's not a matter of possibility, but of practicality. We COULD run all our trains off of electricity, but it will take TIME to transition to something like that. Time and MONEY (I know that's a dirty word and all).

It is possible for houses to be heated by electricity (although not particularly efficiently).

Yes? And? Even if you could just wave your magic wand, declare war on oil and force people to go to all electric in their houses (simply another of the myriad things you'd have to do in order to do this), how will you FEED them? How will they get to and from work?

There are alternatives to crude. It's laughable to suggest we'd all die without it.

It's laughable that you don't seem to understand the scale or the scope of what you are suggesting. No one is saying there aren't alternatives to crude...if there weren't we'd be fucked in the next 20-30 years. The trouble is you don't seem to grasp the magnitude of what you are suggestion. It's all about time frames and transition. If you wanted to declare a really SSSLLLLLLLOOOOOOOWWWWWW war on oil (over, say, the next 2-3 decades) then that would probably work. It would be useless, since we are ALREADY transitioning off of crude and will probably be well on the way to something different in that time frame, but what the hell? People seem to need useless gestures, even when what they seemingly want is already happening (just not fast enough to suit their purposes). But if you wanted to declare your war (and if you were able to get enough insane and clueless people to join you and actually make it work)...THEN you are talking about a serious and perhaps fatal impact on society and civilization.

We wouldn't ALL die, of course...just a couple billion of us. And it's laughable that you don't get that.

-XT

The Hamster King

06-29-2010, 12:08 PM

Well, I certainly don't want anything nasty to happen.Then why are you calling for a war? Wars are nasty by definition.

Huerta88

06-29-2010, 12:13 PM

The tenor of the OP, and the suggestion that we should encourage "antipathy" toward oil [a thing], reminds me how apt the notion is that even when a society moves beyond a religiously-centric model, the type of cosmology that animates traditional theocratic thinking has by no means disappeared. The environment as G_d, oil and CO2 as The Fiend. Yet enviros are no doubt convinced of their essential sophistication and distance from what they'd see as childish beliefs in cosmology v.1.

emacknight

06-29-2010, 12:18 PM

Dropping oil in a short time frame would probably cause a great many deaths. We aren't living in the whale-oil world. Our cities would starve without having food shipped to them.

The way I see it, we could build nuclear reactors and probably get the country off coal in a decade. We could probably swap over to natural gas for trucking during the same period. But changing the entire country's auto infrastructure over to non-oil would probably take a lot longer There are hundreds of thousands of gas stations that would need to be refitted. There are millions of vehicles that would need to be rotated out of service. Do we even have the capacity to build all the batteries the cars would need? Would we exhaust the world's supply of lithium?

It just so happens that I know of a land FULL of lithium...

We shouldn't be so scared of restructuring our infrastructure system. People don't drive oil powered cars because they researched the alternatives and made a sound decision. Hybrid cars are less plentiful and more expensive, electric cars are unavailable.

If you look back at when the price of oil peaked a few years ago, a lot happened in a short period of time. Driving was reduced 5% over the spend of a few months. People ran out and invested (unwisely) in solar. Insulating homes, replacing windows, updating furnaces suddenly made sense. The demand for gas guzzling SUVs plummeted, demand for high mileage cars went up. The value of my shitty little Hyundai actually appreciated!

You also mentioned retrofitting gas stations, but we've already done that several times over the past few decades. They haven't always had three kinds of gas to choose from. And the safety standards for in-ground oil storage has been changed a couple of times. What you're describing is entirely possible. Hell, all the local gas stations near me just went through a major retrofit to offer multi-flavoured coffee drinks.

If driving an oil powered car was slightly more expensive, or slightly more difficult, people wouldn't do it. I'd love to have a diesel car, but it's too much of a pain in the ass to drive around looking for diesel. There are people that use bio-diesel which is even more rare.

None of this is impossible, it just requires a certain amount of political will. Maybe next year when we have another recession it will be what the government spends a trillion dollars on.

Huerta88

06-29-2010, 12:45 PM

If driving an oil powered car was slightly more expensive, or slightly more difficult, people wouldn't do it.

None of this is impossible, it just requires a certain amount of political will. Maybe next year when we have another recession it will be what the government spends a trillion dollars on.

For all values of "slightly" greater than "well above double." You can't just use weasel words like that -- you know that retail gas prices doubled between June 2005 and 2008, right? And the most you've pointed to is that at the height of the price spike, with gas at $4.10, you could maybe show a 5% dropoff in driving?

Oh and also for all vaues of certain greater than suicidal. The great majority of Americans do not believe that the great majority of their driving is discretionary or negotiable. They will drive with $4 gas, perhaps a little less. They would drive with $5 gas and a goodly number would drive with $8 gas a la some other countries (N.B. that becoming such a country, where public transit is a more widely used option, is not an option in the short or medium term due to lack of infrastructure and geographic dispersion).

emacknight

06-29-2010, 01:04 PM

For all values of "slightly" greater than "well above double." You can't just use weasel words like that -- you know that retail gas prices doubled between June 2005 and 2008, right? And the most you've pointed to is that at the height of the price spike, with gas at $4.10, you could maybe show a 5% dropoff in driving?

Oh and also for all vaues of certain greater than suicidal. The great majority of Americans do not believe that the great majority of their driving is discretionary or negotiable. They will drive with $4 gas, perhaps a little less. They would drive with $5 gas and a goodly number would drive with $8 gas a la some other countries (N.B. that becoming such a country, where public transit is a more widely used option, is not an option in the short or medium term due to lack of infrastructure and geographic dispersion).

You'd be amazed how cheap gas is in the US. So to say "it doubled" is kind of a meaningless statement. It went from a small number to a slightly larger small number, and the result was that Americans drove less.

Oddly enough, when you mention driving as non-discretionary and non-negotiable, I giggled. Driving is a choice that people make.

This morning, millions of Americans got up, went to their cars, and drove by themselves for half an hour to get to work. Crank up the cost of gas, and unsurprisingly many of those Americans who thought driving was non-negotiable turn around and negotiate a car pool.

Public transit isn't available in my area, because no one needs it. Driving is too cheap. But make it expensive and people will demand alternatives.

It's funny that you think public transit isn't an option because of geographic dispersion. Why is geographic dispersion considered a viable option in the first place?

Huerta88

06-29-2010, 01:34 PM

You'd be amazed how cheap gas is in the US. So to say "it doubled" is kind of a meaningless statement. It went from a small number to a slightly larger small number, and the result was that Americans drove less.

Oddly enough, when you mention driving as non-discretionary and non-negotiable, I giggled. Driving is a choice that people make.

This morning, millions of Americans got up, went to their cars, and drove by themselves for half an hour to get to work. Crank up the cost of gas, and unsurprisingly many of those Americans who thought driving was non-negotiable turn around and negotiate a car pool.

Public transit isn't available in my area, because no one needs it. Driving is too cheap. But make it expensive and people will demand alternatives.

It's funny that you think public transit isn't an option because of geographic dispersion. Why is geographic dispersion considered a viable option in the first place?So you were in fact using a not-in-anyone-else's-dictionary meaning of "slightly." And arbitrarily defining "doubled price" as "a slightly larger small number." What is your a priori source as to what a "large" price would be? Europe or Asia? There are places there where gas is $8, maybe a bit more. None of any significance where it is $20. You can't just move the goal posts -- you said "slightly higher" prices would mean that people "don't drive." I demonstrated that this was not true for most people, for a price that anyone else on this board would agree was more than "slightly" higher.

As for the rest of your response -- again, you are not free (if you wish to claim any credibility or intellectual honesty) to have double-secret-black-is-actually-white definitions of "people wouldn't do it." Everyone else here is talking factually about what that means in view of actual human conduct (doubling the price leads to slight reduction in driving). You are clearly using "wouldn't do it" to mean "I wouldn't do it" (I'm not assuming that's an honest answer, by the way) or "shouldn't do it." My response talked about how actual Americans actually viewed the negotiabity or discretionary nature of driving and the answer, as acted out in irrefutable action, is that they view it as only slightly negotiable even with significant increased price.

Your pointing out that a Phoenix area commuter facing a 40 mile trip has multiple options, as of this morning, for how to get to work, is trivial and unhelpful -- none of them are consistent, as of 6:30 this morning, with his keeping his job.

Your insistence that "people wouldn't [drive]" drive if gas were more expensive, or that people's actual views on the discretionary nature of driving should be ignored in favor of your much more enlightened views, is just a waste of time in the context of my contention that no American politician is going to force "driving is discretionary and you really won't miss it" down the throats of an electorate that believes strongly to the contrary.

emacknight

06-29-2010, 01:52 PM

So you were in fact using a not-in-anyone-else's-dictionary meaning of "slightly." And arbitrarily defining "doubled price" as "a slightly larger small number." What is your a priori source as to what a "large" price would be? Europe or Asia? There are places there where gas is $8, maybe a bit more. None of any significance where it is $20. You can't just move the goal posts -- you said "slightly higher" prices would mean that people "don't drive." I demonstrated that this was not true for most people, for a price that anyone else on this board would agree was more than "slightly" higher.

As for the rest of your response -- again, you are not free (if you wish to claim any credibility or intellectual honesty) to have double-secret-black-is-actually-white definitions of "people wouldn't do it." Everyone else here is talking factually about what that means in view of actual human conduct (doubling the price leads to slight reduction in driving). You are clearly using "wouldn't do it" to mean "I wouldn't do it" (I'm not assuming that's an honest answer, by the way) or "shouldn't do it." My response talked about how actual Americans actually viewed the negotiabity or discretionary nature of driving and the answer, as acted out in irrefutable action, is that they view it as only slightly negotiable even with significant increased price.

Your pointing out that a Phoenix area commuter facing a 40 mile trip has multiple options, as of this morning, for how to get to work, is trivial and unhelpful -- none of them are consistent, as of 6:30 this morning, with his keeping his job.

Your insistence that "people wouldn't [drive]" drive if gas were more expensive, or that people's actual views on the discretionary nature of driving should be ignored in favor of your much more enlightened views, is just a waste of time in the context of my contention that no American politician is going to force "driving is discretionary and you really won't miss it" down the throats of an electorate that believes strongly to the contrary.

What the hell are you talking about?

If gas was at $8 and it doubled to $16, that is a big change, that is a large number becoming a much larger number. Gas going from $1 to $2 is a small change. Are you familiar with the number system? Is an $8 increase the same as a $1 increase? Or am I allowed to say one is large and the other is small?

The rest of your post was nonsense. Americans choose to commute 40 miles to work, they are not forced to. At some point that 40 mile drive will get converted to being $4 a day, $20 a week, and get compared to alternatives. If Joe the Plumber wakes up tomorrow and his car doesn't work, is he doomed? Does he just curl up and die?

And frankly, the assertion that "the war on oil" would have to happen instantly is a ridiculous and laughable strawman.

What should scare you more is that if America is so dependent on oil, you're all fucked when it's supply gets disrupted. What is poor little Joe the Plumber going to do the next time there is an oil crisis? It should be viewed as a matter of national security that the US never use a drop of the stuff, foreign or domestic.

Huerta88

06-29-2010, 02:01 PM

What the hell are you talking about?

If gas was at $8 and it doubled to $16, that is a big change, that is a large number becoming a much larger number. Gas going from $1 to $2 is a small change. Are you familiar with the number system? Is an $8 increase the same as a $1 increase? Or am I allowed to say one is large and the other is small?

The rest of your post was nonsense. Americans choose to commute 40 miles to work, they are not forced to. At some point that 40 mile drive will get converted to being $4 a day, $20 a week, and get compared to alternatives. If Joe the Plumber wakes up tomorrow and his car doesn't work, is he doomed? Does he just curl up and die?

And frankly, the assertion that "the war on oil" would have to happen instantly is a ridiculous and laughable strawman.

What should scare you more is that if America is so dependent on oil, you're all fucked when it's supply gets disrupted. What is poor little Joe the Plumber going to do the next time there is an oil crisis? It should be viewed as a matter of national security that the US never use a drop of the stuff, foreign or domestic.

I don't expect you to understand this, but read along very closely:

(1) you have not been granted by God the ability to decide what is a "small" or "large" price for gasoline. When gasoline was $2 in 2005, $4 was an unimaginably large number. To look at it backward (as you seem to be doing) -- what is to say $16 is "large?" You made an assertion based on a "slightly higher price" that was at odds with 99% of the population's definition of slightly higher. You didn't disclose that you had your own authoritative secret definition of slightly. A disingenous position at best, a stupid one at worst.

(2) Where in the Hell have I asserted that people are "forced" to commute? You made the idiotic (factual) assertion that "slight" gas price increases would mean "people wouldn't drive." I pointed out that they would and did still choose to drive.

Your problem (I don't expect you to understand this either) is that you are confusing the descriptive with the normative. I have not done anything but describe what people would and did choose to do. You described what you thinnk (in a very smug and supercilious way) they ought to choose to do, but you did it by pretending that they would make that choice. We get your point, you're so much smarter and better than everyone else (who is doomed). Don't waste our time, though, with policy prescriptions based on some messianic view of fighting or hating a substance, accompanied by assurances that your simplistic, simple ideas (just raise the gas prices "slightly") would ensure that "people wouldn't drive." They would, so do not pass go, do not collect $200. Policies for people have to be policies that people would in a real world adopt.

Mr Smashy

06-29-2010, 02:03 PM

I say we declare on China and Tibet to steal their lithium (http://lithiumabundance.blogspot.com/). And can we get an over/under on how long before the lefty whackjobs start painting their 'no blood for lithium' signs?

06-29-2010, 02:13 PM

If gas was at $8 and it doubled to $16, that is a big change, that is a large number becoming a much larger number. Gas going from $1 to $2 is a small change.

Depends on the value of a dollar, I should say. When I was a kid, it was unimaginable to think of paying more than $5 for a fast food meal...today it usually costs me something like $20-30 to take the kids to McDonald's. When gas was a buck (and yeah, I remember when it was...when it was $.50/gallon for that matter) the thought of it being $4/gallon was a HUGE deal...unimaginably so. Today, the thought of $8/gallon gas is the same way (here in the US at least), but if it happens gradually, over time, folks will get used to it...as they have gotten used to the current prices (and even the spike prices where it topped $4/gallon).

BTW...going from $8/gallon to $16/gallon is exactly the same as going from $1/gallong to $2/gallon, as they are both factors of 2. :p

Americans choose to commute 40 miles to work, they are not forced to.

No? I suppose no one put a gun to their heads, to be sure. Just like no one has 'forced' poor people to live in ghettos, or 'forced' people to work at places like Walmart. I mean, they could always move...right? Get a better job...right?

And on an individual basis, it IS right...they COULD move, COULD get a better job. The key word there, however, is COULD.

And frankly, the assertion that "the war on oil" would have to happen instantly is a ridiculous and laughable strawman.

Frankly, the idea of a 'war on oil' is what's REALLY laughable.

What should scare you more is that if America is so dependent on oil, you're all fucked when it's supply gets disrupted. What is poor little Joe the Plumber going to do the next time there is an oil crisis? It should be viewed as a matter of national security that the US never use a drop of the stuff, foreign or domestic.

It took decades to build up to our current dependence (hell, half a century)...do you suppose we'll ween ourselves off of it in less time? Something we are already starting to do IMHO. No silly war required.

-XT

Little Nemo

06-29-2010, 02:16 PM

We could abandon oil and go back to the kind of economy we had around 1900.

Of course the population of the world was about one quarter of what it is now. And we use oil in food production. So we might have to kill off four billion or so people.

But hey, omelets and eggs.

enipla

06-29-2010, 02:18 PM

It's funny that you think public transit isn't an option because of geographic dispersion. Why is geographic dispersion considered a viable option in the first place?Because many people prefer it. And for some folks like myself, It would cost way, way more for me to move close to work than live 25 miles away like I do now.

It's just not feasible or desirable to have everyone living in a city center. Outside of the fact that many people don't consider that to be utopia, there will always be outlying areas that require workers.

emacknight

06-29-2010, 02:48 PM

I don't expect you to understand this, but read along very closely:

(1) you have not been granted by God the ability to decide what is a "small" or "large" price for gasoline. When gasoline was $2 in 2005, $4 was an unimaginably large number. To look at it backward (as you seem to be doing) -- what is to say $16 is "large?" You made an assertion based on a "slightly higher price" that was at odds with 99% of the population's definition of slightly higher. You didn't disclose that you had your own authoritative secret definition of slightly. A disingenous position at best, a stupid one at worst.

(2) Where in the Hell have I asserted that people are "forced" to commute? You made the idiotic (factual) assertion that "slight" gas price increases would mean "people wouldn't drive." I pointed out that they would and did still choose to drive.

Your problem (I don't expect you to understand this either) is that you are confusing the descriptive with the normative. I have not done anything but describe what people would and did choose to do. You described what you thinnk (in a very smug and supercilious way) they ought to choose to do, but you did it by pretending that they would make that choice. We get your point, you're so much smarter and better than everyone else (who is doomed). Don't waste our time, though, with policy prescriptions based on some messianic view of fighting or hating a substance, accompanied by assurances that your simplistic, simple ideas (just raise the gas prices "slightly") would ensure that "people wouldn't drive." They would, so do not pass go, do not collect $200. Policies for people have to be policies that people would in a real world adopt.

Now what the fuck are you talking about.

You were the one that said people in Phoenix have no other option.

And $4 a gallon was not "unimaginable." It might have been to you, but anyone that has ever been outside of the US was already well aware of $4 per gallon. Well, I guess it might have been unimaginable to them since they knew it probably wouldn't ever be that low.

We don't need as much oil as we use. And we do not need to live in some bullshit 18c existence. Those are ridiculous scare tactics.

Thanks to the lifestyle that cheap oil afforded us, we now have other technological advancements that could minimum the amount of oil we use--without going back in time. Of course it would require changes to our infrastructure. But so what, are you suggesting we're just stuck with it?

emacknight

06-29-2010, 02:58 PM

Because many people prefer it. And for some folks like myself, It would cost way, way more for me to move close to work than live 25 miles away like I do now.

It's just not feasible or desirable to have everyone living in a city center. Outside of the fact that many people don't consider that to be utopia, there will always be outlying areas that require workers.

None of this is relevant, and frankly it doesn't matter what people "prefer." Or this idea of utopia.

Right now, because gas is so cheap, living far from city-centers seems cheap. Right now that $25 ride might cost you a gallon of gas. Land value tends to go down as you move further away, and the problem today is that the cost to get there doesn't go up. But it doesn't have to be that way. And it doesn't have to be oil based.

But cities after Eisenhower evolved to have lots and lots of roads. No side walks, no bike lanes, no rail lines, just roads.

To address your specific fear: electrically powered rail lines could connect your area with other areas of interest. You could use an electrically powered car to get to a local transit hub. Large businesses could run shuttles from near by transit hubs. This sort of thing is not unheard of. It's not even that bad, often times way better than 45min in traffic.

Huerta88

06-29-2010, 03:04 PM

You were the one that said people in Phoenix have no other option.
Show me where I said that. You cannot, because what I actually said is whatever options he has are not, as of 6:30 this morning, consistent with his making it to work on time readily.

Just take back the part where you glibly assure us that "slight" gas price increases mean "people wouldn't" (not shouldn't), drive, and I'll leave this silly thread alone.

enipla

06-29-2010, 03:06 PM

To address your specific fear: electrically powered rail lines could connect your area with other areas of interest. You could use an electrically powered car to get to a local transit hub. Large businesses could run shuttles from near by transit hubs. This sort of thing is not unheard of. It's not even that bad, often times way better than 45min in traffic.Oh, I know. Before it makes any sense to move into the 'city' (town really), I'll be telecomuting and such. Train will be imposible. And they did try a bus route/shuttle but that did not work out. And yep, as gas becomes more expensive, and other options open up, I will simply move to that.

It most certainly does matter what people prefer. Many people prefer living in the city. Many others don't.

emacknight

06-29-2010, 03:10 PM

The real irony is that if the US did anything to reduce its oil consumption, the price of oil would fall dramatically--making it that much harder to justify not using oil.

emacknight

06-29-2010, 03:13 PM

Show me where I said that. You cannot, because what I actually said is whatever options he has are not, as of 6:30 this morning, consistent with his making it to work on time readily.

Just take back the part where you glibly assure us that "slight" gas price increases mean "people wouldn't" (not shouldn't), drive, and I'll leave this silly thread alone.

Where did you come up with the 6:30 bullshit? Did I say it? Did the OP say it? Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Gas price increases will decrease the amount people drive. Deal with it.

Kobal2

06-29-2010, 03:16 PM

Unless you can think of a way to get a large percentage of humans to decide to die horribly

All Hanna Montana, all the time.

Huerta88

06-29-2010, 03:24 PM

Where did you come up with the 6:30 bullshit? Did I say it? Did the OP say it? Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Gas price increases will decrease the amount people drive. Deal with it.

I thought so. You tried to propose some dramatic all-or-nothing "war" (which also made you feel good about your moral superiority due to your "antipathy" to oil). You raised the stakes by implying just how easy this would be if only everyone was a smart as you ("slight" price increases would mean "people don't drive.").

When challenged, you either retreat from or change the definition of your previously-shiny adjectives and absolute guarantees. Now you're reduced to saying that [some degree] of gas price increase will lead to [some degree of] diminished driving. Really Sherlock? Nowhere near as simple and guaranteed as you wanted us to believe with "slight" and "stop driving."

Which means at best you've backed off to an incrementalist transition, which the market would be driving anyhow. Which means a silly "war on oil" was never on the cards and you've wasted a lot of time, but thanks for playing.

06-29-2010, 04:37 PM

All Hanna Montana, all the time.

Too cruel and far to usual. You, sir, are a monster! How can you sleep at night??

(obligatory 'think of the children' ironic statement...)

-XT

emacknight

06-29-2010, 05:08 PM

I thought so. You tried to propose some dramatic all-or-nothing "war" (which also made you feel good about your moral superiority due to your "antipathy" to oil). You raised the stakes by implying just how easy this would be if only everyone was a smart as you ("slight" price increases would mean "people don't drive.").

When challenged, you either retreat from or change the definition of your previously-shiny adjectives and absolute guarantees. Now you're reduced to saying that [some degree] of gas price increase will lead to [some degree of] diminished driving. Really Sherlock? Nowhere near as simple and guaranteed as you wanted us to believe with "slight" and "stop driving."

Which means at best you've backed off to an incrementalist transition, which the market would be driving anyhow. Which means a silly "war on oil" was never on the cards and you've wasted a lot of time, but thanks for playing.

Um, what now?

I proposed a war on oil? When did I do that?

Try2B Comprehensive

06-29-2010, 10:01 PM

May I clear up a few things?

First of all, I am not suggesting flipping the switch on oil. 'Mah fellah 'Merricans, August 29th 2010 is the last day oil will be available in 'Merrica. Prepare yourselves.' Um no, that is not what I meant. Who fights a war like that? Even a blitzkrieg takes longer to unfold :rolleyes: Not destroying civilization seems like a predictable boundary for a war strategy, no?

-The idea isn't rubbish, WMFellows.

-Yes, antipathy. Whether the idea reflects a distasteful cosmology or not, Americans need to be motivated to reject oil. Antipathy toward oil (phrased better for the ad campaign) is something a lot of regular folks will be able to relate to.

-A war on oil might suck on an individual experiential level, but the long-term results are worth it. It'd prevent military conflicts like Iraq. It could be an excuse to replace or mitigate the war in Afghanistan, for starters. It could vanquish the specter of raised taxes to cut the debt by leveling our trade balance instead. It would stimulate the economy in the short term. The national message for once would not be bullshit, as the actual cause of many of our problems would be the target.

-The environment is not the motive.

-I admit there are currently some sclerotic measures being taken to reduce our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels. But as has been pointed out, it is not nearly fast enough. This country needs to realize that they are being screwed by oil. They should become angry when they realize that the choice architecture in this country leaves them without options. They aren't free, they are enriching people they don't like, and oil dependence is like a train on a track into a brick wall. Before a (very profitable to the oil companies) crisis emerges, this country needs to crack the whip, get off its ass and get off oil in a God damned hurry :mad:

-Interference from oil and fossil fuel interests is a significant factor in the retarded pace of our energy transition.

Huerta88

06-29-2010, 10:26 PM

-Interference from oil and fossil fuel interests is a significant factor in the retarded pace of our energy transition.
Unless I found out that the energy companies were subverting nuclear or solar, I don't know how they could really interfere with a more promising or efficient form of energy store.

In fact, most U.S. and global energy companies have massively hedged their bets with big investments in other energy sources -- most obviously, for our short term purposes, natural gas. Are you aware just how much natural gas we've gained access to in just the past 2-3 years through horizontal drilling in the Barnett Shale, Marcellus, etc.? It is a number that almost no one would have imagined coming on line so massively, so fast. It seems likely the U.S. could meet a huge portion of its BTU requirements internally for the next 40 years. Unlike with hydrogen or solar or other green-beloved techs, natty gas is also readily fungible for many coal power plants (like, overnight) and could be retrofitted to much of our vehicle/gas station installation within . . . x years, x being less than ten if there were anything approaching an oil crisis.

Thing is . . . markets being devilishly dynamic and technology guys being devilishly clever . . . the odds of such an oil crisis are arguably waning, not waxing. Have you heard of the Eagle Ford oil shale play in So. Tex.? Industry estimates think we're going to pump 900 millions bbl. from that in the next 10 years, give or take. But what about China? China's desperate for energy too, right? Sure (mutatis mutandis, if the double dip recession hits and the real estate bubble does pop). But have you heard of the Junggar, Tarim, or Sichuan shale plays in Western China? Look them up. Bottom line, there's a lot of carbon (and a few non-carbon energy sources) in the world that can in a pinch be substituted for oil -- and the pinch isn't likely to be super-sudden or acute. I always remind myself that a bunch of idiot Nazis being bombed day and night managed, within the space of a few short years, to keep a hyper-modern wartime military/economy and transport system running (not so well on the civilian side perhaps) for about two years with effectively no native or accessible oil resources. "Peak oil" isn't a myth/oversimplification because there's not a finite limit to the amount of carbon on Earth; it's an oversimplification because of the failure to account for the multivariate interaction of easily recoverable oil, vs. recoverable oil [using today's technology], vs. [recoverable oil using future exploration drilling and refinement technologies], vs. [cheapish oil substitutes/feedstocks], vs. [less cheap substitutes/feedstocks], vs. [other energy sources,] all taking place in a world of dynamic markets and economically rational scientists and businessmen.

So, no radical crisis, no dramatic crisis response required. "Sclerotic," for instance, is hardly the word I would use for the super-rapid bringing on line of vast U.S. natty deposits -- it was nimble, incredibly innovative, and potentially game-changing -- and it took place in less than a decade.

06-29-2010, 10:43 PM

The idea isn't rubbish, WMFellows.

To coin an English phrase, I think he was spot on.

Whether the idea reflects a distasteful cosmology or not, Americans need to be motivated to reject oil.

In favor of what, exactly? Let's say you get those evil Americans to reject oil...then what happens? What does 'reject oil' even MEAN??

Not destroying civilization seems like a predictable boundary for a war strategy, no?

When the neo-Luddite faction is in the house, who can say? You set no parameters after all. Even though you supposedly cleared things up here, you still have yet to do so. What kind of time frames are we talking about here? A year? That's about what it took Germany to beat the crap out of France. 5 years? A decade? Several? You don't say.

Antipathy toward oil (phrased better for the ad campaign) is something a lot of regular folks will be able to relate to.

Sure. 'Regular folks' get behind all sorts of stupid things though. If asked, most of them would love the US to impose tariffs and trade restrictions up the ying yang. Many of those 'regular folks' would favor prayer in school, abortion, teaching ID in the class room and any number of other dippy ideas. For instance, 'regular folks' are all for keeping our nuclear power industry neutered.

A war on oil might suck on an individual experiential level, but the long-term results are worth it.

You have this backwards. It would suck on a national level, especially long-term, unless there is a viable alternative and a transition path to get there. Trying to engineer such a path by pulling it out of your ass and imposing it by fiat (or, in your case, but stirring up antipathy and fear, or however you mean to stir up the 'regular folks' and make them think that sacrificing their entire way of life is a great idea) is the path of disaster. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all that.

It'd prevent military conflicts like Iraq.

Maybe so, maybe no. You can assert this, but that doesn't make it so. The US will still have global interests, even if we check oil off the list. What elements will your magic ponies require to make our wonderful new energy source...and who will have them? You seem to be assuming they will be right here in the good ole USA, but that's an assumption based on the fact that you are not getting too specific where this supposed alternative comes from or is.

It could vanquish the specter of raised taxes to cut the debt by leveling our trade balance instead.

But back here in the real world it doesn't work that way. Think about what you are saying here...we are going to get a magic new energy source (price and reality check unknown) AND we'll get No Mo' Wahr!, plus tax cuts, trade surpluses, (presumably) jobs JOBS JOBS!! and a free blow job every day too boot! I mean...seriously??

It would stimulate the economy in the short term.

How so? It would cost us big time in the short term, again depending on what time frames we are talking about. It has the potential to cause huge dislocations, since our current society is based on the performance envelop of the freaking car. Unless your magic ponies have similar performance you could be displacing or causing hardships in the short term for millions...hell, 10's of millions. And then there are the costs associated with building out a new infrastructure (for whatever magic we are talking here). In the SHORT term, that's RED ink, not BLACK, because it takes time to recoup that level of epic investment. Even if you are the good ole USA with seemingly unlimited (*snort*) funds.

If you guess right and actually pick the right pony we MIGHT do well in the medium and long term. Of course, I'd say the odds of anyone guessing what the next generation of energy and personal transport will be are pretty low right now, so most likely you'd trash our economy today and find that you've fucked us in the medium and long terms as well.

But we'd be off the evil oil. China (and India, not to mention our Euro buddies who don't seem to be giving up the stuff either), on the other hand would, with great reluctance no doubt, be happy to take that nasty oil off the world market at reduced prices (due to the lack of demand by the US)...

The national message for once would not be bullshit, as the actual cause of many of our problems would be the target.

Workers and peasants! Your sacrifice is not in vein! Even though things will be shitty for you, your children will enjoy a workers paradise (plus there is that free weekly blowjob to contemplate)!

Yeah, this is all new...

But as has been pointed out, it is not nearly fast enough.

Fast enough for WHAT, exactly? Why isn't the current dynamic 'fast enough'?

-XT

Huerta88

06-29-2010, 10:52 PM

Maybe so, maybe no. You can assert this, but that doesn't make it so. The US will still have global interests, even if we check oil off the list. -XT

U.S. is in quagmire-land in the ME with or without oil from there. Any chance the U.S. adopts a sort-it-out-yourself attitude to the region, oil or no [my favored approach], if Iraq points missiles at Israel, neither of them having oil? Nil is my guess. It is also (I've always thought) naiive to say that the U.S. policy is massively skewed by oil. Oil is called a "commodity" for good reason. It all looks, tastes, and burns the same. What are the Saudis or Iraqis or whoever going to do if the U.S. doesn't "engage" in the Middle East? Drink the stuff? As the failure of the food-for-oil program proved -- foreign policy doesn't have much to do with overall oil pricing or movement other than in the short term (suicidal boycotts), so other than in the short term, oil possession or non-possession by poor (or otherwise) ME countries won't massively or primarily shape or distort U.S. policy. It's not like the Saudis give the U.S. a discount or exclusivity deal over the oil they sell . . . it's more that there would be a short-term dislocation if the wells were set on fire, imams took over for a few months, etc.

Try2B Comprehensive

06-29-2010, 11:41 PM

Unless I found out that the energy companies were subverting nuclear or solar, I don't know how they could really interfere with a more promising or efficient form of energy store.
You'll want a cite. Let me get back to you.

In fact, most U.S. and global energy companies have massively hedged their bets with big investments in other energy sources -- most obviously, for our short term purposes, natural gas. Are you aware just how much natural gas we've gained access to in just the past 2-3 years through horizontal drilling in the Barnett Shale, Marcellus, etc.? It is a number that almost no one would have imagined coming on line so massively, so fast. It seems likely the U.S. could meet a huge portion of its BTU requirements internally for the next 40 years. Unlike with hydrogen or solar or other green-beloved techs, natty gas is also readily fungible for many coal power plants (like, overnight) and could be retrofitted to much of our vehicle/gas station installation within . . . x years, x being less than ten if there were anything approaching an oil crisis.

I'm not a big natty gas foe. I have to admit it can affect the trade balance. But I do not want transportation in general to shift onto natty gas. I think these resources are something that will be worth staggeringly more in the future, if only we bother to conserve them.
Plus, this is still a carbon fuel. Separately from the war on oil, we need to reduce our use of carbon fuels. I'm cool with exploitation of natty gas, but puh-leeze do not go all-chips-in!
Thing is . . . markets being devilishly dynamic and technology guys being devilishly clever . . . the odds of such an oil crisis are arguably waning, not waxing. Have you heard of the Eagle Ford oil shale play in So. Tex.? Industry estimates think we're going to pump 900 millions bbl. from that in the next 10 years, give or take.
In many cases it is best to leave oil shale alone. You can throw around big numbers of the total theoretical cache of hydrocarbons in the shale, but any realistic calculations needs to admit that the per-year yields are necessarily modest. I haven't heard of it. I guess I don't believe it. I could be persuaded. But I doubt I'd think it were a good idea.

But what about China? China's desperate for energy too, right? Sure (mutatis mutandis, if the double dip recession hits and the real estate bubble does pop). But have you heard of the Junggar, Tarim, or Sichuan shale plays in Western China? Look them up. Bottom line, there's a lot of carbon (and a few non-carbon energy sources) in the world that can in a pinch be substituted for oil -- and the pinch isn't likely to be super-sudden or acute. I always remind myself that a bunch of idiot Nazis being bombed day and night managed, within the space of a few short years, to keep a hyper-modern wartime military/economy and transport system running (not so well on the civilian side perhaps) for about two years with effectively no native or accessible oil resources.
Look dude. My line is not to convince the studio audience that you are stupid. I'll look up those shale plays later, ok?
The world today is not the world of 1945. The population is huge and still growing. We simply cannot afford to support them with fossil fuels long-term, oil in particular. We need a war on oil now.
"Peak oil" isn't a myth/oversimplification because there's not a finite limit to the amount of carbon on Earth; it's an oversimplification because of the failure to account for the multivariate interaction of easily recoverable oil, vs. recoverable oil [using today's technology], vs. [recoverable oil using future exploration drilling and refinement technologies], vs. [cheapish oil substitutes/feedstocks], vs. [less cheap substitutes/feedstocks], vs. [other energy sources,] all taking place in a world of dynamic markets and economically rational scientists and businessmen.
Peak oil is not the motive.

So, no radical crisis, no dramatic crisis response required. "Sclerotic," for instance, is hardly the word I would use for the super-rapid bringing on line of vast U.S. natty deposits -- it was nimble, incredibly innovative, and potentially game-changing -- and it took place in less than a decade.

I can admire the exploitation of the natty gas reserves, but again I urge caution. The globe is quickly running out of easy carbon fuel deposits. This natty gas would wisely be portioned out over the long term.

No radical crisis? Um, we have practically zero carbon-zero energy sources installed today. Please excuse my saying so, but your position is mad, sir.

Try2B Comprehensive

06-29-2010, 11:51 PM

xt: Before I address your points, do you mind sharing your thoughts on the choice architecture of our current energy regime?

Huerta88

06-29-2010, 11:53 PM

No radical crisis? Um, we have practically zero carbon-zero energy sources installed today. Please excuse my saying so, but your position is mad, sir.
One fifth of U.S. power consumption is nuclear- (i.e., no carbon sourced)-fueled. That is hardly "practically zero." The ability of nuclear and NG to substitue for coal (in itself, a not-unsustainable, particularly on the domestic front, resource, but not very clean, resource) is far from "practically zero."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

[neutral AFAIKT but dense].

I love nuclear, to clarify any confusion. I love anything that makes economic sense and won't kill us all [and none of the technologies under consideration come close to killing us all].

Try2B Comprehensive

06-30-2010, 12:20 AM

Hurrah for nuclear, but you have yet to answer the 25,000 year question- what to do about the nuclear waste?

Massive investment in Wyoming wind. Forget the cosmology or conservativism/leftyism factors. I mildly dislike Wyoming, but they got wind...

Nava

06-30-2010, 01:44 AM

It wasn't that long ago that oil meant whale blubber. Imagine, having the audacity to suggest not using whales to light our lamps! We'd all be living in the dark, that DARK! What are you going to do when the sun goes down?!?

Whale blubber was not used to make medicines, cars, computers, clothing, houses, furniture... are you willing to stop using anything containing plastic or rubber? Most of the "rubber" around you came from an oil well, not a rubber tree. Anybody whose clothing contains polyester or spandex in any quantity, drop 'em? Yeah right. Oh, and anybody whose pantyliners, Depends, diapers or sanitary pads have adhesive or plastic, take 'em off.

Oil isn't used only for burning.

ironbender

06-30-2010, 08:37 AM

Huerta88

06-30-2010, 08:48 AM

Try2B Comprehensive

06-30-2010, 08:53 AM

In fact, most U.S. and global energy companies have massively hedged their bets with big investments in other energy sources -- most obviously, for our short term purposes, natural gas. Are you aware just how much natural gas we've gained access to in just the past 2-3 years through horizontal drilling in the Barnett Shale, Marcellus, etc.?
2.5 trillion cubic feet at Barnett, and maybe a comparable amount at Marcellus? I never said it was a joke.
It is a number that almost no one would have imagined coming on line so massively, so fast. It seems likely the U.S. could meet a huge portion of its BTU requirements internally for the next 40 years.
But it is limited in the same way oil shale or oil sands are limited: by water. Consider this quote from here: (http://www.expertsreviewof.com/)
Due to the fact that it is a low porosity, low pressure gas formation it requires a serious "frac job" or fracturing of the rock formation, by a company such as Halliburton to produce gas. The fracturing process requires massive amounts of water, which is injected under extreme pressure to fracture the rock and allow it to release gas. This need for large amounts of water has put a strain on surface water supplies in the areas where Barnett shale directional drilling is concentrated.
That isn't the 'green' or 'eco' view- this is from what appears to be a pro-gas site. I am open to having any ignorance on my part fought, but for now I remain solidly unconvinced that we can transition (sensibly) to these sources on an overall scale. The deposits are big, but water is too scarce to run transportation entirely on shale gas and oil. China will face the same situation.
Unlike with hydrogen or solar or other green-beloved techs, natty gas is also readily fungible for many coal power plants (like, overnight) and could be retrofitted to much of our vehicle/gas station installation within . . . x years, x being less than ten if there were anything approaching an oil crisis.
I haven't seen anything to suggest hydrogen is practical. And please quit calling me 'green' or 'eco-' whatever.
I don't deny that nat gas is useful. I deny that we can shift from importing oil to relying entirely on shale gas and oil. Mainly because the yield is limited by water. Also because these are not carbon-free energy sources. It doesn't take an eco-nut to point out that continuing to base our economy on carbon-emitting fuels is a long-term loser.
So we want to avoid a situation where we do nothing because there is no immanent crisis, then shift to natural gas by default when/if the shit hits the fan. The T Boone Pickens types like that plan, but I don't.

Thing is . . . markets being devilishly dynamic and technology guys being devilishly clever . . . the odds of such an oil crisis are arguably waning, not waxing. Have you heard of the Eagle Ford oil shale play in So. Tex.? Industry estimates think we're going to pump 900 millions bbl. from that in the next 10 years, give or take. But what about China? China's desperate for energy too, right? Sure (mutatis mutandis, if the double dip recession hits and the real estate bubble does pop). But have you heard of the Junggar, Tarim, or Sichuan shale plays in Western China? Look them up. Bottom line, there's a lot of carbon (and a few non-carbon energy sources) in the world that can in a pinch be substituted for oil -- and the pinch isn't likely to be super-sudden or acute.
Again, these sources will be limited by water. The more they are relied on to replace conventional oil, the more they will lose their shine.

I'm advocating moving away from oil without waiting for a 'pinch' or crisis. Wind, solar, algae, nuclear (though everyone changes the subject away from the 25,000 year question) are better long-term solutions. A water crisis in a shale-gas glut would still be a nasty outcome. The current status quo leads to nasty outcomes. To ignore carbon-free energy sources is simply not realistic (and to respond to that point with eco-snark isn't an answer). But I acknowledge your points and expect these resources to be developed in the future. Please don't assume I'm out to kill these projects.

Tom Scud

06-30-2010, 08:54 AM

I would like to declare war on the concept of declaring war on something that is not a nation-state.

Sateryn76

06-30-2010, 08:58 AM

We could still use oil to make the those things, although alot of that can be repalced by other materials, but we should rethink our transportation policies to use less oil.

Rail is key to this, and you don't need to electrify every line to do it. All the major cities could easily be supplied with goods by the mainlines that exist today.

The electric- powered train would bring these goods to central warehouses in the cities. Then, electric -powered trucks would deliver the goods locally through out the city.

People could then use electric cars, buses and trolleys to go get the things they need. More people working from home would also help.

Airplanes could still be used, but basically only for long distance overseas trips. They would be huge A380 type planes to get the most bang for the buck.

We could do this now, with the tech we have today, and it wouldn't be like living in the 1900's. It would be a great start to reduce oil dependency.

Um...would you pass a law saying that "Airplanes could still be used, but basically only for long distance overseas trips" Requiring that no one work more than 5 miles from home?

At this point, the market dictates those things. As oil prices have gone up, so have airline tickets. If they go down, so will airline tickets.

Practically no one would change their lifestyle unless the price goes way up, driving up the cost of travel, plastic, etc. At that point, the market will step in, and find different, cheaper ways to do things.

Just, please - no more wind power. It's stupidly inefficient, pisses resources away, and looks terrible. The acres of wind farm in my part of Indiana has made the prairie look like a industrial area. :(

wmfellows

06-30-2010, 09:23 AM

May I clear up a few things?

Given the responses made so far, one does rather doubt that.

-The idea isn't rubbish, WMFellows.

Quite right, it's rubbish AND daft to boot.

It has neither merit as a stylistic device nor merit as a good means of organising policy. It is hackneyed, superficial and trite, as well as confused and woolly headed.

The remainder of your writing it superficial, largely emotive and entirely woolly headed.

Hurrah for nuclear, but you have yet to answer the 25,000 year question- what to do about the nuclear waste?

Recycle until end of life-cycle, then store. Rather simple really, if it were not for the woolly headed thinking that attaches "radioactive" to some entirely irrational emotive reaction, rather than proper logical risk analysis.

I would like to declare war on the concept of declaring war on something that is not a nation-state.

One should hope so.

However the comment right above against wind is silly. Aesthetics is not a proper way to judge wind. It has its place in an energy mix.

06-30-2010, 09:24 AM

Rail is key to this, and you don't need to electrify every line to do it. All the major cities could easily be supplied with goods by the mainlines that exist today.

What would it cost and how long would it take to convert the countries rail lines to run on electricity? What would it entail?

Then, electric -powered trucks would deliver the goods locally through out the city.

Same question. What would it cost to replace large portions of our current trucking with electric powered trucks? How long would it take to make the transition? What additional infrastructure would be required that doesn't exist? What new training would be needed?

People could then use electric cars, buses and trolleys to go get the things they need.

How will you force people to buy electric cars...and how long will it take manufacturers to ramp up to meet demand? How much will THAT cost?? What's the time frame for all this stuff? Also, same questions as above...what new infrastructure would need to be built to support all this, what new training, etc etc?

We are talking trillions here...maybe 10's of trillions. Over what time period? And who is going to pay for it all?

I know it's a dirty word, but personally, instead of trying to dictate changes as drastic as these by fiat (and almost certainly being wrong), simply let the market decide. As the price of oil goes up people will be looking for alternatives, and companies will be looking for various ways to provide them. This is already happening. Companies are already researching and developing (and even attempting to market) alternatives. People are already starting to consider their options...and all this is happening at a time when the price at the pump is still relatively low.

Instead of a dippy 'war on oil', or dictating solutions by government fiat, why not just raise the tax on oil to set the price at the pump at something between $4-$5/gallon? Invest the extra money in a series of X-prizes or use it to pay off the national debt.

-XT

Little Nemo

06-30-2010, 09:28 AM

The acres of wind farm in my part of Indiana has made the prairie look like a industrial area.Yes, all energy should be produced someplace else. Someplace that's Not In My Back Yard. And then it should be wrapped up in a tasteful package and discretely slipped under the backdoor of my house.

Der Trihs

06-30-2010, 09:29 AM

Hurrah for nuclear, but you have yet to answer the 25,000 year question- what to do about the nuclear waste?Stick it in a containment facility somewhere and stop pretending that it needs to be treated with such ridiculous paranoia. The problem with nuclear waste is political not technological. No, if some tiny leak develops in a thousand years it's not some big deal.

For that matter, it's quite likely that our descendants will just dig it up and use it for some purpose we haven't thought of yet.

emacknight

06-30-2010, 09:29 AM

Whale blubber was not used to make medicines, cars, computers, clothing, houses, furniture... are you willing to stop using anything containing plastic or rubber? Most of the "rubber" around you came from an oil well, not a rubber tree. Anybody whose clothing contains polyester or spandex in any quantity, drop 'em? Yeah right. Oh, and anybody whose pantyliners, Depends, diapers or sanitary pads have adhesive or plastic, take 'em off.

Oil isn't used only for burning.

OMG you are absolutely right!

I was cooking last night and went to put some EVOO extra virgin olive oil in the pan and thought, "what would I do without my EVOO extra virgin olive oil?!"

The same way the war on drugs didn't literally mean a ban on prescription morphine, the war on oil doesn't have to mean a ban on anything even remotely pertaining to long chain fatty acids.

And as I said before, if we are as dependent on oil as you say, shouldn't that be a serious wake up call?

Sateryn76

06-30-2010, 09:43 AM

Yes, all energy should be produced someplace else. Someplace that's Not In My Back Yard. And then it should be wrapped up in a tasteful package and discretely slipped under the backdoor of my house.

Yes, that's right. I prefer not to have giant wind farms stretched out over 100,000 acres of what used to be rolling green hills of crops. It looks terrible; to me just as bad as strip mining. At least strip mining is low to the ground - I used to be able to drive down I65 and look over the horizon, now all I see is wind mills packed closely together.

But I guess ruining the visual environment is okay as long as we get clean efficient natural energy! Oh wait:

"Despite shutting down when the winds are particularly fearsome, midwestern wind farms typically generate 30-35 percent of theoretical maximum output. Texas wind farms, for comparison, generate 40-45 percent. "

That's from our one and only Cecil Adams, from his column here (http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20091224.php).

emacknight

06-30-2010, 09:48 AM

What would it cost and how long would it take to convert the countries rail lines to run on electricity? What would it entail?

Have you ever seen an electric train? There are essentially two variations, one is to run current through the tracks, the other is to use overhead wires.

The first is easy but dangerous. The other is just a matter of running an overhead electrical wire the length of the rail line. Not free, not instant, but certainly doable. Would also mean a massive boost for the steal industry.

Here (http://www.khi.co.jp/sharyo/pro_final/train/jre_400_1.jpg) are two (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/2841291019_a2336082a3.jpg) pictures.

Instead of a dippy 'war on oil', or dictating solutions by government fiat,

Why not instead of ridiculing a person's ideas, try using some civility.

why not just raise the tax on oil to set the price at the pump at something between $4-$5/gallon? Invest the extra money in a series of X-prizes or use it to pay off the national debt.
-XT

This is a great idea, one suggested frequently. Unfortunately, when you consider that the dude in Phoenix needs to get to work, now you've just raised his cost of living. He HAS to drive, now it's just more expensive.

It's really too bad that new subdivisions and suburbs were never required to incorporate public transit. A lot of new ones that I've seen don't even bother with side walks.

Minneapolis, MN, recently started a commuter rail line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northstar_Line) running from the northern suburbs to downtown. One of the stops was about 4 miles from where I used to live, but it was completely inaccessible by anything other than car. I remember trying to find a bus route to get me to it. The route was 65min, and involved taking a 35min bus downtown, switching, then taking a bus 30min back to the station 4 miles from where I lived!

Switching off oil would definitely involve at some point raising the tax on gas and oil, I just think it needs to be paired with other options.

Der Trihs

06-30-2010, 09:50 AM

Not free, not instant, but certainly doable. Would also mean a massive boost for the steal industry.
It always does, it always does...

emacknight

06-30-2010, 09:54 AM

It always does, it always does...

I assume at some point we'll declare war of steel.

06-30-2010, 10:00 AM

Have you ever seen an electric train? There are essentially two variations, one is to run current through the tracks, the other is to use overhead wires.

Yes, I've seen both. The question is, how much would it cost and how long would it take to convert our existing system to electricity. You haven't answered either of those questions here. For example, if we run the electricity through the current rail, what additional equipment is required? Presumably you will need something to electrify the rails, some safety stuff that keeps folks from getting cooked, and those train thingies which can actually run on the electrified rails. All of that is going to cost money, since our current rail system is geared around diesel engines running on non-electrified rail. Most of the people who operate and maintain the current system aren't trained or checked out on this new proposed system.

And these are just the issues at the top of the list. There will be myriad others. So...what's it going to cost, and how long will it take to implement? (this, of course, leaves aside whether or not this is even a good idea and is just asking for some ballpark figures)

Why not instead of ridiculing a person's ideas, try using some civility.

I'm fresh out...sorry (ok, so I had a bit left after all)...

This is a great idea, one suggested frequently. Unfortunately, when you consider that the dude in Phoenix needs to get to work, now you've just raised his cost of living. He HAS to drive, now it's just more expensive.

What is going to be less expensive to the Dude in Phoenix? Raising the price of gas by around $2/gallon, or forcing him to move, buy a new electric car, pay for your electric train, and all the other bright ideas being tossed around? Considering the staggering sums we are talking about to try and force our current system off of oil (even if we are talking a decade or so time frame), I'm thinking that raising the price of gas at the pump would be the least of his worries.

Mind, I'm not a big fan of the government fucking with the market through taxation, but if the alternative was a War on Oil(tm) then it would be a matter of doing what's necessary to avert disaster. JMHO of course.

-XT

emacknight

06-30-2010, 03:11 PM

Yes, I've seen both. The question is, how much would it cost and how long would it take to convert our existing system to electricity.

Okay, let's see what you think of this:

The area around Toronto has a commuter rail system call the GO Train (http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/en/schedules/sysmap.aspx). There has been on going discussion about electrifying the system to replace the diesel engines.

This (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=2297) guy's blog provides a rather long winded discussion about the on going issues. To make a long story short, at least one company was supposed to provide a cost evaluation for electrifying the GO system, or at least parts of it. One of the apparent problems with the study seems to be that the numbers are getting inflated to discourage it from happening.

Towards the bottom, he provides these figures:

Overhead Catenary System (OCS) and Related Work

These costs are unique to the electric scenario:

* Overhead catenary: $56.9-million
* Traction power substations (3): $24.5-million
* Hydro connections: $35-million
* Signal modifications: $47.8-million
* Overhead clearance program: $39-million
* OCS maintenance facility: $3-million
* Property approvals/permits: $1-million
* Subtotal: $207.2-million

Note that this is for about 114 route-km or a cost of about $2-million/km. This seems rather low compared to other projects, and this may be due to assumptions about the availability of second hand equipment. Conversely, this total includes signal and trainshed modifications at Union which have, in practice, already been incorporated in the reconstruction projects now underway. Therefore these are not net costs chargeable to an electrification decision, but part of the ongoing provision that has been made for this option.

1 km is 0.621 miles, and $1 CDN is $0.9407 USD. So in American that would be a little more than $3million per mile.

The AMTRAK System has about 21,000 miles of rail. So you're looking about about $66 billion just to convert their lines. Then there is a cost per train.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Conversions) wiki page talks about converting from a third rail system to an overhead system. And then mentions areas such as Paris that electrified their system. In theory one could did up the cost of doing that.

ironbender

06-30-2010, 03:44 PM

emacknight

06-30-2010, 03:54 PM

What powers the "electric train?"

Just asking.Nuclear, hydro, and yes even coal, as I don't belive in man-made gobal warming.

xtisme, I know you can't be serious about cost, considering how the taxpayers just got robbed by the "bailouts" which have done no good.

That money would have been better spent for projects just like this.

One of the key benefits to using electric trains is that you can then decide how you want to produce electricity.

Currently the option is diesel, diesel, or diesel. So when the cost of diesel goes up you're fucked.

Compare that to a system of electric trains that use oil, coal, natural gas, hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear. As the price of the first three fluctuate you can adjust. The next three once established provide sort-of-free power when conditions are right, reducing the dependence on the first three. The last one just makes sense all around but can't get off the ground.

I've got an uncle in law in India that has a car with two gas tanks, one for petrol (gas) the other for natural gas. As he drives he notes the cost of each, does some crazy calculation in his head, then buys and runs off which ever is cheaper at the time.

My shitty car only runs on petrol (gas), so the price goes up I pay more, and if gas runs out I'm fucked. There is an advantage to diversifying--as has been exemplified by that poor guy in Phoenix.

ironbender

06-30-2010, 04:04 PM

One of the key benefits to using electric trains is that you can then decide how you want to produce electricity.

Currently the option is diesel, diesel, or diesel. So when the cost of diesel goes up you're fucked.

Compare that to a system of electric trains that use oil, coal, natural gas, hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear. As the price of the first three fluctuate you can adjust. The next three once established provide sort-of-free power when conditions are right, reducing the dependence on the first three. The last one just makes sense all around but can't get off the ground.

I've got an uncle in law in India that has a car with two gas tanks, one for petrol (gas) the other for natural gas. As he drives he notes the cost of each, does some crazy calculation in his head, then buys and runs off which ever is cheaper at the time.

My shitty car only runs on petrol (gas), so the price goes up I pay more, and if gas runs out I'm fucked. There is an advantage to diversifying--as has been exemplified by that poor guy in Phoenix.

I agree with you. I'm not saying that this could be done overnight, or that we should force people to change, but change has to start somewhere.

However, the things I've brought up could be done in a reasonable time frame, and the benefits would be seen within the same time.

06-30-2010, 04:22 PM

Okay, let's see what you think of this:

Thank you for the cites...I appreciate it.

1 km is 0.621 miles, and $1 CDN is $0.9407 USD. So in American that would be a little more than $3million per mile.

I don't know how accurate those figures are, but let's just go with them for the sake of the discussion. I'm sure more knowledgeable 'dopers will chime in if the figures are way off.

According to Wiki, there are 140,490 route-miles simply for freight in the US (as of 2006...it might have changed by now). At 3 million/mile that would be $4,214,700,000,000...or a bit over $4 trillion, assuming my math is right. And that's JUST for the track...I don't know if that includes all the other infrastructure that would be needed (I doubt it), or the trains themselves, or the re-training of personnel...or the other thousands of 'or' conditions I'm probably missing. And this would just be one aspect that would have to change to really prosecute a 'war on oil'.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be looking for ways to move us from oil to ???...we should be doing so. But the thing is, we ARE doing this already. We are exploring the alternatives and seeing what works and what doesn't from an engineering, scaling and economic perspective. And 'we' includes more than just the US. Europe is looking at this too. The Japanese especially have a HUGE stake in finding a viable alternative. China and India as well. Just about every modern, industrialized nation on earth has a stake in figuring out the next big thing...and that leave aside the huge stake the various companies out there have in figuring out the same thing. Look at the monetary figures involved!

xtisme, I know you can't be serious about cost, considering how the taxpayers just got robbed by the "bailouts" which have done no good.

I'm quite serious about the costs, actually. I won't get into the bailouts and whether they were or weren't worth it, as that would be a hijack, but I don't think some folks in this thread are really grasping the magnitude of the costs that are really involved in getting us off of oil by fiat change. It's staggering...many times what even the US's massive GDP is.

Personally, I'm for a gradual, market driven approach, with perhaps the government giving out generic incentives that don't attempt to direct research into any one technology. One way this could be done, as I said, is simply to increase the tax on gasoline at the pump. Yeah, this would be a hardship on people...but it would be much less of a hardship than if we tried to do some of the other things suggested in this thread. Making people buy a new electric car would be MUCH tougher...and it wouldn't work for a variety of reasons I can think of off the top of my head. It would be cheaper than trying to force the rail companies to electrify their system and run on electricity, or force the power companies to go solar or wind. We could use the extra taxes to encourage development of possible alternatives, or spend it on new nuclear power plants. Hell, we could just keep spending it on hookers and blow for that matter. The point would be to try and stimulate the market by putting a price pressure on the cost of gas at the pump, which, in theory at least, should stimulate companies to bring their alternatives to the market place. Then we can evaluate those alternatives and see what actually works (economically, socially, manufacturing/scaling wise, etc) and what doesn't.

-XT

emacknight

06-30-2010, 04:36 PM

Thank you for the cites...I appreciate it.

I don't know how accurate those figures are, but let's just go with them for the sake of the discussion. I'm sure more knowledgeable 'dopers will chime in if the figures are way off.

According to Wiki, there are 140,490 route-miles simply for freight in the US (as of 2006...it might have changed by now). At 3 million/mile that would be $4,214,700,000,000...or a bit over $4 trillion, assuming my math is right. And that's JUST for the track...I don't know if that includes all the other infrastructure that would be needed (I doubt it), or the trains themselves, or the re-training of personnel...or the other thousands of 'or' conditions I'm probably missing. And this would just be one aspect that would have to change to really prosecute a 'war on oil'.

It does not include the cost of the trains, but if you look at what I posted it shows what it includes. Couple of things to consider:

1. when the price of oil goes up again, all the diesel trains will have to deal with that cost increase. The cost of having diesel trains seems cheap compared to $4trillion in upgrades, but only because the cost of diesel is so low.

2. Trains have to be replaced eventually, you don't have to scrap the current ones right away. Put in the lines, then let/encourage/force the train companies to comply.

3. There is actually a pretty significant cost savings once you electrify a rail system. plus a host of side benefits

4. It's part of the cost of infrastructure. Think of all the trillions of dollars spent right now to expand the federal highway system. 2 lanes become 4, 4 lanes become 8. I know you recognize the need for the interstate highway system. And you probably see a need to maintain and expand it. The highways near me have billions being dumped into them to expand them so more people can drive. It was more than enough money to electrify the rail lines in the area. This money is already being spent on oil-dependent projects.

emacknight

06-30-2010, 04:45 PM

Personally, I'm for a gradual, market driven approach, with perhaps the government giving out generic incentives that don't attempt to direct research into any one technology. One way this could be done, as I said, is simply to increase the tax on gasoline at the pump. Yeah, this would be a hardship on people...but it would be much less of a hardship than if we tried to do some of the other things suggested in this thread. Making people buy a new electric car would be MUCH tougher...and it wouldn't work for a variety of reasons I can think of off the top of my head. It would be cheaper than trying to force the rail companies to electrify their system and run on electricity, or force the power companies to go solar or wind. We could use the extra taxes to encourage development of possible alternatives, or spend it on new nuclear power plants. Hell, we could just keep spending it on hookers and blow for that matter. The point would be to try and stimulate the market by putting a price pressure on the cost of gas at the pump, which, in theory at least, should stimulate companies to bring their alternatives to the market place. Then we can evaluate those alternatives and see what actually works (economically, socially, manufacturing/scaling wise, etc) and what doesn't.

-XT

What you are going to see in terms of "gradual market approach" will depend entirely on the cost of oil. I think a huge tax on oil is a great idea, because it will create both a higher perceived cost of oil, as well as a boost to government coffers.

If you follow your market approach (assuming gas at $5 or $6 a gallon) you will see very predictable results (this assumes the relative cost of electricity stays low): more hybrid (and high mileage) cars, car pools and a demand for car pool lanes, people switching to plug in vehicles for shorter use, city planning based on shorter drive times, expansion of public transit as well as non-oil-based public transit, changes to homes and home design.

Now, as intelligent individuals, we can either wait for the price of oil to go up, artificially force the price up, or side step it all and go straight to the end goals. Those goals being the results of high oil prices, ie dramatically less dependence on oil.

This concept of "war on oil" simply follows in the footsteps of the war on drugs and the war on terror which involved massive amounts of upfront government spending, and insanely draconian laws. Except, maybe this time we'd get something out of it.

06-30-2010, 04:59 PM

It does not include the cost of the trains, but if you look at what I posted it shows what it includes.

I did look it over. But I'm sure there would be more things missing than just the trains. Even if that's not the case, however, that's still a hell of a lot of money, no? :)

1. when the price of oil goes up again, all the diesel trains will have to deal with that cost increase. The cost of having diesel trains seems cheap compared to $4trillion in upgrades, but only because the cost of diesel is so low.

The thing is, it's not likely to go up enough to justify the costs any time soon, no matter what happens. If the costs continue with the same trends, then rail roads themselves will be looking into viable alternatives, and testing them out in the crucible of business and economics. Maybe electrification is the wrong answer. Perhaps natural gas will be the way to go. Or maybe it will be methane burners or fuel cells...or some other technology (maybe nuclear steam engines ;)). The point is, if you direct (by fiat) the rail roads to simply implement electrified rail (or whatever) when it doesn't make economic sense, you not only cost a bushel basket full of money but you close off all other research. After all, if you force in a $4 trillion dollar change you aren't likely to turn around and try and put something else in, even if the $4 trillion change turns out to be a white elephant. At that point you are stuck with whatever you get.

2. Trains have to be replaced eventually, you don't have to scrap the current ones right away. Put in the lines, then let/encourage/force the train companies to comply.

Why not just let them figure it out for themselves? If it makes economic sense, then they will move in that direction without forcing them to do so.

3. There is actually a pretty significant cost savings once you electrify a rail system. plus a host of side benefits

It would have to be damn significant to justify the up front capital costs. We're talking about something that could run up to a quarter or even half of the US's GDP for a year, after all. Your ROI would be...well, damn long I'd say.

4. It's part of the cost of infrastructure. Think of all the trillions of dollars spent right now to expand the federal highway system. 2 lanes become 4, 4 lanes become 8. I know you recognize the need for the interstate highway system. And you probably see a need to maintain and expand it. The highways near me have billions being dumped into them to expand them so more people can drive. It was more than enough money to electrify the rail lines in the area. This money is already being spent on oil-dependent projects.

But most of those costs were incurred over literally decades. Expansion or maintenance don't cost trillions...they cost billions. What you are talking about here is spending trillions to get back to basically where we are today. At that point, you will still be spending the same costs for expansion and maintenance as today...but you'll have the legacy of trillions of dollars in debt that will need to be paid down. And those trillions are JUST for rail. We haven't even started talking about what it would cost to switch over personal transport to a non-oil based system. Or power plants (presumably at some point you'd want to declare a war on coal as well). Or all the other things. The mind boggles at what the actual costs would be. Granted, if we are talking about a half century or so, then $3 trillion isn't so much. However, IMHO, on those time scales we are ALREADY moving away from oil.

I guess my point is that this thread seems to be trying to fix a problem that is already fixing itself, and is probably doing so as rapidly as is humanly possible, given real world constraints. Without massive dislocations, shortages and huge amounts of funding (which would be impacted by the loss in productivity such a move would have on the economy, among other things) you CAN'T just declare war on oil and have that be meaningful. It would be like declaring war on gravity or the sun.

-XT

ironbender

06-30-2010, 05:02 PM

I want to state that I am not in favor of forcing anything.

We could help the privately owned freight railroads electrify their main lines, for the benefit of the whole nation. Right now, we are choosing not to and I think that is a big mistake. Instead, we are sticking to the old normal, like it's 1965, which it clearly is not .

Try2B Comprehensive

06-30-2010, 10:47 PM

According to Wiki, there are 140,490 route-miles simply for freight in the US (as of 2006...it might have changed by now). At 3 million/mile that would be $4,214,700,000,000...or a bit over $4 trillion, assuming my math is right.

-XT

Why are you so committed to electrified track in the US? Oh yeah, you're an opponent to the war on oil.

Consider the municipal-scale battery (http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=27574&GoTopage=1&BzID=546&Category=1183&a=):
November 21, 2008 -- Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (NASDAQ: ALTI) announced today that its one megawatt (MW), 250 kilowatt-hour battery storage system met requirements to participate in the PJM Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) control area.

A 250 kilowatt-hour battery! I reckon a train might travel quite a ways utilizin' one of those. And in today's e-environment, they are bound to get bigger!

I understand the top of a train represents a rather large surface area compared to most vehicles. Solar film might be installed to boost the output of the electric motor(s) for long trips- which is pretty much every trip in an electric train...

Since these batteries are so large, allow them to be installed/uninstalled. That is, say Try2B Local Windfarm charges up batteries with wind. The truck shows up, picks up the charged battery, drops off an empty one, see ya in a few days. I put my boots up on the porch-rail and watch the wind pay my bills.

Why is this company's type of battery special? Consider this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-titanate_battery):
A lithium-titanate battery is a modified lithium-ion battery that uses lithium-titanate nanocrystals on the surface of its anode instead of carbon. This gives the anode a surface area of about 100 square meters per gram, compared with 3 square meters per gram for carbon, allowing electrons to enter and leave the anode quickly. This makes fast recharging possible and provides high currents when needed.

Batteries are likely to improve in a way similar to disk-drive space. The kinds of mechanics involved are similar, as I hope this example illustrates. IOW, yes, we can obtain enough raw materials. And, you can see how the mere opposition to the war on oil retards the progress of e-tech.

There are a lot of points on this thread and while I could answer them all, I don't practically have the time. I'll be back. I am glad wmfellows showed up for real this time :) Shall I mark you too down as an opponent to the war on oil? ;)

xtisme: I want to point out that while you are criticizing the war on oil, you are overlooking the guy who proposes pumping our fresh groundwater deep into the earth where it cannot be retrieved, to extract some gas whose price never stops increasing and which can be burnt only once, profits maximized for Halliburton. Do you seriously consider it prudent to go down that path? Ought we commit ourselves to this for 40-100 years?

emacknight

07-01-2010, 09:52 AM

I did look it over. But I'm sure there would be more things missing than just the trains. Even if that's not the case, however, that's still a hell of a lot of money, no? :)

Compared to what? Total cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are around $1trillion. This year in total the US has spent over $25billion on the War on Drugs.

The point is, if you direct (by fiat) the rail roads to simply implement electrified rail (or whatever) when it doesn't make economic sense, you not only cost a bushel basket full of money but you close off all other research. After all, if you force in a $4 trillion dollar change you aren't likely to turn around and try and put something else in, even if the $4 trillion change turns out to be a white elephant. At that point you are stuck with whatever you get.

Well, no, I disagree. Over the past 100 years all the research done has been on internal combustion engines, at the expense of steam and electric/battery which all started out at the same time. All your arguments prove we are essentially stuck with that technology. The rail lines could have been electrified at the start, which would have been cheaper than converting, and now we are stuck.

If the government was to push a head with this plan (and I'm not actually saying they should), but if they did, all the research currently devoted to the internal combustion engine would just shift over. Industry doesn't have any particular love affair with oil, nor does it have any reason to use it other than it's price/availability. Cut it off and industry switches over and carries on.

After the switch you'll start to see huge improvements in electric trains, engines, batteries, etc.

Or worst case scenario, it becomes unprofitable to ship by train, industry will respond by minimizing the distance goods are shipped. A read a book a few years ago called The Hundred Mile Diet, about a couple trying to eat locally on the West coast. They thought it would be easy because they were so close to where a lot of crab gets caught. Long story short, the crab is caught off the coast of Washington State, then taken by boat to China for processing before being shipped back.

This is why European countries dominate wind farm technology, it was never profitable/incentivized for American companies to bother researching it. Most of Europe has been working on this for decades.

Why not just let them figure it out for themselves? If it makes economic sense, then they will move in that direction without forcing them to do so.

Short answer is that industry works on short term gains (remember the mortgage meltdown) and have no interest in doing "what's best for the American public." Never have never will. If only is cheap they'll use oil. As you suggested, if government were to interfere and make oil expensive, they'd have an incentive to switch.

And more to the point, the cost of electrifying the whole system was high, but converting just AMTRAK was pretty low. It's entirely possible that converting the entire nation is too big a job, which is why there are alternatives such as battery powered trains. Instead, focus on electrify the commuter lines, and focus on getting more commuter lines. The US has both insanely dense populations and extremely sparse. So use the money in a "per capita" manner where you get the most return.

I guess my point is that this thread seems to be trying to fix a problem that is already fixing itself, and is probably doing so as rapidly as is humanly possible, given real world constraints. Without massive dislocations, shortages and huge amounts of funding (which would be impacted by the loss in productivity such a move would have on the economy, among other things) you CAN'T just declare war on oil and have that be meaningful. It would be like declaring war on gravity or the sun.

-XT

No, it's like declaring war on terror or drugs. But again, to the point, if there is ever another oil crisis, or if the cost of oil suddenly skyrockets, there WILL be all the doomsday scenarios you predicted: massive dislocations, shortages, deaths. And THEN the government will be expected to do something (like stock pile massive amounts of oil) because industry will simply lag.

Every argument against this war highlights how dependent the US economy is on oil. People have no problem making fun of the Middle East for not having a long term game plan. But where it that plan for the US?

If anything happens to the supply of oil, we're all fucked, that should worry us.

septimus

07-01-2010, 02:10 PM

I think governments should invest money in developing a cheaper, more efficient alternative to petroleum. Trying to fix a purely scientific problem with social and legal tools just won't work.

:confused: It wasn't long ago that refined gasoline was cheaper in the U.S. than bottled water! It's a very efficient fuel, and still quite cheap -- same would say its cheapness is a problem!

The route to better alternative energy sources is private enterprise, with the market adjusted via gasoline or carbon tax. Some sort of large carbon or petroleum tax is advocated by almost all serious thinkers. The problem in America is that our Representatives keep voting the way voters (think they) want them to. :(

Magiver

07-01-2010, 11:53 PM

Say we drop all the other wars as (literally) practically irrelevant. The war on drugs. The war in Iraq. The War in Afghanistan. Your stupid personal war. The jihadists' war against America. The unknown foreigners' war vs. The State (somewhere). Drop 'em all and send 'em all home. New mission.

War on oil. We aren't going to buy it anymore. Make it happen in the real world.

Is it time yet? That was actually suggested by a presidential candidate in the last election. Mike Huckabee suggested we become energy independent with a "Manhattan Project".

Not only is it possible, it could be done in a matter of years with little change in energy infrastructure using algae as a source of bio-diesel. The problem of growing it is fairly easy but currently converting it would mean a price of something like $8 at the pump.

So far government research as advanced the fuel to the point that it has been tested as aviation fuel. Not only does it work well it is more energy dense than current oil based fuels. Algae "farms" can be married to coal plants to feed off of Co2. Algae does not take up valuable farm land and is exponentially more efficient to grow than corn.

So yes, it could be done.

Try2B Comprehensive

07-02-2010, 09:22 PM

That was actually suggested by a presidential candidate in the last election. Mike Huckabee suggested we become energy independent with a "Manhattan Project".

I thought it was Mitt Romney who said that.

Try2B Comprehensive

07-02-2010, 09:43 PM

I don't know. Are you ready for a long-lasting global depression? Are you equipped to grow and/or kill your own food? Are you prepared to see people die because hospitals are unreachable? Can you keep warm when the temperature hits single digits where you live?
Oil contributes to all of those things. Some are more direct like oil-fired burners and automotive fuels, while others are less direct but just as vital as the means to deliver goods and services and other fuels needed to power a modern household.

There is no fuel on Earth better at what it does than oil or its derivatives. If there were we would have long since turned to it.

I never responded properly to this.

Are you saying that we just can't go on without oil? No way to replace it? With or without a war on oil? Or is there a line somewhere, or a set of exceptions? Is it doomsday without oil, or just doomsday with oil withdrawn too quickly?

Would a proper war on oil cause a depression or a boom? If the point is simply to replace oil in every way we can, done in a manner as if there is a fire under our collective ass, wouldn't that create much economic activity while also mitigating what you must admit are oil's *massive* downsides?

Try2B Comprehensive

07-02-2010, 10:06 PM

It is perfectly sensible to be concerned with the costs. Sorry if I sounded otherwise.

For comparison, let's try to measure the cost of oil. Take 20 years (at some point in the past maybe a war on oil wouldn't have had any effect?), going back to the days of HW Bush. I only count oil imports as a 'cost'; I see domestic oil as at worst a wash. It's all an estimate, feel free to revise!

-20 years of oil imports, averaged to $350 billion/year = $7 trillion
-Persian Gulf War (clearly motivated on all sides by oil) = Google says only about $20 Bbillion. Really?
-Exxon Valdez spill- I can only guess
-2nd war in Iraq (why would we be there if not for oil?) = ~$700billion to ~$3 trillion
-Afghanistan War (no angry OBL over US defending Saudi oil interests, no 9/11)= $280 billion to $1 trillion.
-Deepwater Horizon oil spill- I can only guess :mad:

It isn't obvious how to calculate the costs of the wars. There is this site (http://costofwar.com/).

Looks like we are in the neighborhood of $8-11 trillion. Then add two major environmental disasters, one a real record-breaker. Over twenty years, what do we have to show for it but death, pollution, and grief? Certainly not an independent energy infrastructure. For ~$10+ trillion, not even close!

Isn't it almost as if oil has already declared war on us?

Magiver

07-02-2010, 10:07 PM

I thought it was Mitt Romney who said that.
I can't find the quote but as I remember it, it was Huckabee who said it during a televised debate: Here (http://www.grist.org/article/huckabee_factsheet)is a quote that shows he wanted energy independence:

Places high priority on energy independence. On his campaign site, he says, "The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term."

Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/us/politics/12debate-transcript.html?pagewanted=print)is a debate quote where the term Manhattan Project was used but it looks like McCain said it. I think they left out Huckabee from the quote.

Try2B Comprehensive

07-02-2010, 10:30 PM

I can't find the quote but as I remember it, it was Huckabee who said it during a televised debate: Here (http://www.grist.org/article/huckabee_factsheet)is a quote that shows he wanted energy independence:

Places high priority on energy independence. On his campaign site, he says, "The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term."

Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/us/politics/12debate-transcript.html?pagewanted=print)is a debate quote where the term Manhattan Project was used but it looks like McCain said it. I think they left out Huckabee from the quote.

Here is a Mitt Romney site (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Energy_+_Oil.htm) (see 'The Time For True Energy Independence Has Come') with the money shot. I don't vouch for the soundness of Romney's positions overall; just pointing out the one thing:

I will initiate a bold and far-reaching research initiative--an Energy Revolution. It will be our generation’s equivalent of the Manhattan Project or of the mission to reach the Moon.

Maybe they both said it.

Try2B Comprehensive

07-02-2010, 10:58 PM

Unless I found out that the energy companies were subverting nuclear or solar, I don't know how they could really interfere with a more promising or efficient form of energy store.

What about subverting ev batteries?

I know it is a little dated, but I really wanted to give you some kind of cite (http://ev1.org/chevron.htm). What do you think of this?

California's 1990 ZEV mandate forced GM and other auto makers to produce Battery Electric cars such as the GM EV1. GM purchased control of the patents from the inventor, Stan and the late Iris Ovshinsky, in 1994 forming "GM Ovonics" under the guise of going into production with the EV1. But GM's Andy Card had been fighting Electric cars for years, and GM's true intention became apparent when on Oct. 10, 2000, GM agreed to sell their control of the EV batteries to Texaco. Less than a week later, on Oct. 16, 2000, only days after Texaco acquired control of the batteries, Chevron agreed to purchase Texaco in a $100 billion merger. Chevron announced the merger even though the GM sale of the batteries to what would become Chevron did not close until July 17, 2000. Perhaps Chevron wanted this sale to be announced prior to the merger so it would not look like Chevron (formerly Standard Oil of California) worked directly with GM. > >>

GM and Chevron collaborated with Toyota-Panasonic in such a way that these batteries were killed, and no such NiMH batteries are available for EVs. Chevron, awash in oil profits, assets and cash reserves, claims that "it's a chicken and egg problem" of "no demand", but that does not explain why they sued Panasonic, extracting $30,000,000. Shortly thereafter, the EV-95 line of proven, NiMH batteries still running in the RAV4-EV was shut down and killed, and the batteries cannot be sold or imported into the USA, according to one Toyota spokesperson. Only a few used EV-95, salvaged from crushed vehicles, are available, and those only for warranty replacement on existing RAV4-EV. Toyota won't sell even these used batteries to EV converters, who need long-lasting, reliable batteries and can't get them.

Those batteries don't seem so state-of-the-art here in 2010, but at the time they were a move away from oil that got squished by an oil company.

Oh, and isn't Texaco the company that fucked up Ecuador?