AlexS

California's Fuel-Efficiency Battle and Peak Oil

Fitz, as you say, nothing I say will change your opinion. So I'll just get back to work.

California's Fuel-Efficiency Battle and Peak Oil

Bellard, your article has some good points. I would take a few exceptions. First, a lot of oil is produced on private lands. What has happened in the fairly recent past is that the Feds have identified potentially productive land and then basically seized it, and then set out to benefit from the fees or stop development altogether. I would say ANWR is an example. In that case it takes some gall to accuse companies of shortchanging the entity who seized the land. Second, if carbon dioxide is taxed as a pollutant, does that mean that everyone who breathes will be taxed as a polluter? How about all the natural sources of CO2? It seems a politicians tax heaven. Third, I don't look at companies as polluters when they produce energy. People are polluters when they consumer energy. However, I know Washington prefers to tax people through companies rather than directly, when they can.

Fitz, you really do Bush bash too much. As an example, you take Bush to task over the Gulf of Mexico contracts but as we all know those contracts were negotiated (and the escalation clauses left out) during the Clinton administration. Are you blaming Bush for Clinton's shortcomings too?

California's Fuel-Efficiency Battle and Peak Oil

Energy has been brought to us by energy companies not by energy policy. A good part of energy policy lately has been to slow or stop the energy companies from doing what they do best and to attempt to control the energy markets. Trying to control what someone else produces is not a legitimate energy policy. Nor is blaming the energy companies, nor holding countless hearings, a legitimate activity. If politicians want to be movie stars they should resign and go to Hollywood with the rest of the crowd.

California's Fuel-Efficiency Battle and Peak Oil

These conversations end up being variations of kicking the can down the road. Mike likes natural gas, Econ says natural gas is about out too and points to electricity. But electricity is not free either, and in the main is generated by coal (dirty dirty), with new plants from natural gas, so it begs the question. Nuclear. Three problems. 1. Fear from the public, exacerbated by lots of politicians. 2. Jimmy and the Congress outlawed breeder reactors back in the 70's, so existing uranium supplies only last a couple hundred years. 3. because spent fuel cannot be reprocessed, nuclear waste ends up being 50 times greater than if you could reprocess it. So where to put it and how to secure it? Plants are just putting it out back. Yucca Mountain, the best technical answer, is opposed by some powerful politicians, who will probably be even more powerful in the next 4-8 years (if the polls are right). Heck, they're even talking about banning nuclear in some states and some countries. Plants need time to be built. Politicos just keep kicking that can. Someone needs to pick it up. The road is ending.

California's Fuel-Efficiency Battle and Peak Oil

I will add something about the technical aspect of calculating fuel economy. If GM makes a flex fuel vehicle, the fuel economy of the vehicle is calculated assuming E85 is the fuel in use (although of course they mostly use standard gasoline) and the fuel economy is calculated on the gasoline part of the fuel only. Thus a large vehicle, if it gets, say, 15 mpg (like a Hummer), if it is flex fueled that is counted as a 40 mpg vehicle, for CAFE purposes. The auto makers are using this to store up credits for future "tightening" of fuel economy numbers. It's true that the latest energy bill lessens the use of this E85 fudge factor in the future. Time will tell of course if the politicians choose instead to extend it if their constituents are cool to very small vehicles. Beware of calculations in the hands of the politicians. As my sixth grade teacher used to say, "Figures never lie, but liars figure."

California's Fuel-Efficiency Battle and Peak Oil

OK, Mike. Actually I left significantly more political comments on your previous discussion, so I won't repeat them here. I have read your energy policy and I basically agree with it. I don't particularly like a lot of what the Republicans have done but I recognize that the last 7 years have always included either a Democratic Senate majority or one that could filibuster successfully, and so I don't blame just Bush for every missed opportunity. He's sounding a lot like the Dems now anyway (ethanol, fuel efficiency. etc.). As for my November vote, like you I recognize the biggest issue is running out of supply and so I will vote for the candidate who is undeniably for nuclear energy. As you say, you can support whoever you want.

California's Fuel-Efficiency Battle and Peak Oil

Time to stop applauding politicians for setting goals that only take effect long after they are gone. It is not more commendable, for instance, to say we are going to cut global warming emissions by 50% by 2050 instead of 40%. The politicians are just laughing as the media takes this BS seriously (actually the journalists are laughing too, if they have any brains at all).

California has two problems. One is that they are doing essentially nothing about supply other than talk of pie in the sky. Nuclear is out, coal is out (clean or not). Their answer is to prescribe clean power plants built in another state. Is that courageous or what?

Their other problem: just look at the LA highways. Millions of people driving by themselves to work. No car pooling. No mass transit. You can keep prescribing small and smaller cars for the people, but what they will do is buy comfortable cars for their 2 hour commute. They will buy the smaller cars, and loan them to their kids to go over to their friend's house 5 minutes away.

We should support politicians who are for nuclear power (McCain as opposed to the other two). We should support politicians who are for drilling in ANWR or the OCS (most of them are Republicans, unfortunately so far not including McCain). We should oppose politicians (Obama and Clinton) who want to cripple the ability of oil companies to find more oil supplies. We should support mass transit in highly populated cities, and do it seriously. We should stop using clean energy as an excuse to throw big funding to our favorite universities and our favorite loyal professors.