President Obama has ordered the auto industry to make cars that average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. This is after his 2009 order directing the industry to make cars that average 34.5 miles per gallon by 2016.
As a free-market advocate, I should be outraged that Obama is ordering private enterprise around like a petty dictator. But actually I feel schadenfreude for all the anti-auto environmentalists who will now have an even more difficult time claiming we need to invest in transit and intercity trains to save energy.
As shown in the above chart, under Obama’s 2009 direction, the average auto on the road would use about 2,700 British Thermal Units per passenger mile in 2025 (about 29 mpg). But under the new direction, the average auto will use 2,400 BTUs per passenger mile (32.5 mpg), declining still further to a bit over 2,000 by 2030 (38.0 mpg). Obama’s orders and these averages apply to all autos, including pick-ups and SUVs, and not just “passenger cars.”
The gel form is convenient to professional cialis djpaulkom.tv ingest as well as offer incredible help to overcome ED. Earlier the viagra cialis india only cure for such things was to get operated. It is a low dosage oral treatment which dissolves in the systemic circulation and increases blood flow to the male body as kamagra to relax the arteries and veins in penis gets robust. cheapest levitra http://djpaulkom.tv/photos-studio-snacks-dj-paul-style/ Moreover, constant fatigue can gradually decrease the interest and knowledge of the speacquisition de viagra djpaulkom.tvt.
These calculations assume an average occupancy of 1.6 people per vehicle; today’s average auto gets about 21 mpg and new cars get 27; the auto fleet turns over every 18 years; improvements in new-car energy efficiency follow a straight line to Obama’s targets; and no improvements are made after the target dates. I also conservatively assumed that autos taken off the road in any given year were of average energy efficiency for that year; if–as seems more likely–autos that are junked are of less than average efficiency, then the average energy consumptions will be even lower.
For comparison, Amtrak uses about 2,700 BTUs per passenger mile, while transit in the New York metro area–the most energy-efficient transit system in America–uses a little over 2,600 BTUs per passenger mile. While a few commuter-rail lines use less than 2,000 BTUs per passenger mile, almost all light-rail and heavy-rail systems use well over 2,000 BTUs per passenger mile. While transit energy efficiencies may improve, the turnover rate for rail equipment is a lot lower than for autos, which means any improvements will take longer to implement.
Can automakers meet the targets? They have met most if not all EPA targets up to now. MIT researchers concluded that markets alone will boost the energy efficiency of the average new car to 42 mpg by 2030, and modest regulation or subsidies promoting light-weight materials such as aluminum could easily boost this to 69 mpg. Replacing gasoline with Diesel engines, the study found, could push it even further to 85 mpg.
One danger is that achieving the goal forces automakers to increase the price of their products by enough to reduce the turnover rate from the current 18 years to 20 or more, which would reduce the energy efficiency of the average auto. But if energy prices stay high, Americans will pay to save fuel; if they don’t stay high, then Obama’s targets will prove unnecessary in any case. In any case, anyone advocating rail transit, intercity rail, or compact development will have to take Obama’s targets into account when considering the potential energy savings from their proposals.
Wow, auto-makers have not been serious to increase mpg?
If only a company thought ahead to gain market share w/a better product.
If fuhrer Obuma nudges the Big3, will they invent better technology, which has already been a goal? How? Will an extra $100 billion of taxpayer (future generations’) money help out? What did $800 billion of porkulus borrowing do? It was 50% of known sources are.
R&D is ongoing to produce more efficient engines. The biggest difference [for mpg, among vehicles] is in weight. Styrofoam vehicles?
The green-extremos (we all want cleanliness) keep harping on wind & solar — besides the higher cost & many other drawbacks, those are not mobile. Forget about storage, for now; batteries are heavy, short-lived, expensive, take many resources, etc.
Oh, lithium, then it might be Chile, Afghanistan or China behind a battery push, where >50% of known sources are.
Word limits? Truncated parts, but, last line of 1st post combined sentences; should have been:
The $800 billion porkulus had <5% for infrastructure.
. continuing:
Regardless of econ beliefs, certainly not a way for growth.
Hidden goals?
Know: Obama & many in gov want to destroy the country.
Keynesian-ism does not work — public money comes from the private sector — so, any extra gov spending/borrowing is displacing other.
Raise the level of tub water by displacement?
http://discoverthenetworks.org
http://www.fee.org/
http://www.canadafreepress.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
Of course energy prices move around a bit.
Suppose we started making gasoline from natural gas which currently costs less than 1/4 the cost of crude oil per BTU:
The cost of gasolene made from natural gas could be only $1.75/gal. This will enrich all of us and raise our standard of living by freeing up gas money for better food for the family, a family vacation, help towards college tuition or a new set of clothes for the kids.
The New York Times reported (Dec 23,2010) that the refining cost of diesel from natural gas is just 19 cents more per gallon than from crude oil (50 vs. 31 cents). It is a simple matter to estimate the costs involved:
Components of gasolene from crude oil price:
Average West Coast retail gasolene…………….$3.65
Average Western US gas tax…………………….$0.61
Cost of refining (use diesel price)……………….$0.31
Cost of crude oil in gasolene…………………….$2.73 ($3.65-.61-.31)
To estimate the cost of gasolene from natural gas, we only have to divide the energy content cost by the cost ratio of oil/NG and apply the appropriate refining cost:
Components of gasolene from natural gas price:
Cost of natural gas……………..$2.73/4.4*…….. $0.62
Average Western US gas tax……………………….$0.61
Cost of refining (use diesel price)…………………..$0.50
Resultant gasolene price…………………………….$1.73 (sum of above)
* source of the 4.4 factor:
Natural gas spot market price (July 24, 2011) :.. $4.64 per million Btu.
Spot price of crude oil (Brent, 7/26/11) :…… $118.14 per 5.8 million BTU
(118.14/5.8) / 4.64 = 4.39
Yes I know this is not exact, but it should be close.
Thanks
JK
JimKarlock
What sort of refining capacity is required to convert natural gas to gasoline? The enviro-nuts would surely sue and do their best to fight any such proposals.
Why convert natural gas to gasoline. There are cars that run on natural gas in it’s current form, natural gas is cleaner than gasoline because it has fewer additives and residual solids. But doesn’t NG have a lower energy density than gasoline which means you may burn more for the same performance. The aviation industry is experimenting with propane as a substitute to jet fuel since it’s cleaner and can be packed into fuel tanks with even distribution.
Fortunately the market exists and is looking towards alternative fuels. We know full well ethanol derived from corn was a joke, that was governments fault not the private sector and most biofuels compete with crops. I was looking towards the idea of algae based fuels. One company has claimed that algae can produce more oil in an area the size of a two car garage than a football field of soybeans, because almost the entire algal organism can use sunlight to produce lipids, or oil. Arguably if the free market can provide a rapidly renewable fuel to power our autos. And of course electric vehicles will continue to improve until they become a mainstream practical vehicle. If we can push agendas for things like that why would anyone care about fuel economy anymore.
One can purchase cars ready made for natural gas consumption. Honda produces the civic as such. http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/
I am seriously considering buying one. It is lawful, in Texas at least, to fuel them from your own home from your own Natural Gas line. One need only call a plumber to run a line to your garage.
Lazy Reader,
This is one of those companies that produce lipids. They are based in my hometown.
http://www.globalgreensolutionsinc.com/s/VertigroFAQ.asp
Scott:
Wow, auto-makers have not been serious to increase mpg?
It sure doesn’t seem that way, does it? Fleet MPG has been stagnant since the 1980’s, and the technology to make big improvements is obviously available as anyone who has driven in Europe would know – their gasoline vehicles get much better MPG than us, and they have a large fleet of diesel vehicles which get even better MPG. They deal with the air quality problem of less emissions controls by simply not driving as much as our frentic pace.
If fuhrer Obuma nudges the Big3
The US government has an obligation in the interests of national security and our own prosperity to limit our dependence on foreign oil imports. If you don’t understand this, I guess you have forgotten the need for gas ratioining in WWII and the gas crises of 1973 and 1979, and how those worked out for our economy.
Unless you personally have an oil stripper well on your property to provide your personal energy supply, you are probably best to just keep your mouth shut about the actions the government undertakes to ensure you can continue to enjoy a modern mechanized lifestyle of travel and ease.
It has been difficult for me to understand why enviros and some planners are so concerned about running out of oil. We went through these same arguments 30-40 years ago, and yet there still is lots of oil. The capitalists who need oil are not concerned, and the oil companies are not holding back oil in expectation of higher prices later.
Why not buy foreign oil now while it is cheap? The Middle East and Venezuela dictators need the money from oil much more than the US needs the oil.
Nazi Germany had all its oil supplies cut off and it developed enough synthetic oil in a year to fight a two front war, at least until its oil production facilities were bombed daily. If you figure that technology has moved forward a lot in 60-70 years, and that the factories won’t be bombed, then why are we supposed to be so worried now?
If the US was really worried about its oil supplies, it would not huge oil discoveries off-limits in national parks and declare moratoriums on and off in vast other areas. The US is wealthy, secure in its energy supplies, and thus can afford to do that.
Direct alcohol production from nanotube chem factories, Sun, H2O and CO2.
We will ‘print’ sheets of molecular level nanotube networks, constructed in sheets, like a tarp. They can float on the surface of the gulf waters and sweat alcohol. The gulf coastal waters off of Florida are about 70 feet deep, Ok for floating alcohol factories.
The molecular alcohol factories will approach 35% solar efficiency.
Sandy Teal wrote:
It has been difficult for me to understand why enviros and some planners are so concerned about running out of oil. We went through these same arguments 30-40 years ago, and yet there still is lots of oil. The capitalists who need oil are not concerned, and the oil companies are not holding back oil in expectation of higher prices later.
The enviros are not really worried about running out of oil – but they celebrate that day (which may never come) and use “peak oil” as an excuse to oppose any and all improvements to the highway network, and to promote (expensive) rail transit projects, which perversely, in the U.S., are almost entirely funded by people that purchase gasoline, Diesel fuel, and certain other supplies for motor vehicles (such as tires).
The Antiplanner wrote:
But actually I feel schadenfreude for all the anti-auto environmentalists who will now have an even more difficult time claiming we need to invest in transit and intercity trains to save energy.</cite:
Excellent point. And since very nearly all funding for transit capital subsidies and operating subsidies comes from motor fuel tax revenues, it should put the transit advocacy industry in the curious position of opposing improved motor vehicle fuel economy, since transit is so profoundly auto–dependent in the United States.
Can automakers meet the targets? They have met most if not all EPA targets up to now. MIT researchers concluded that markets alone will boost the energy efficiency of the average new car to 42 mpg by 2030, and modest regulation or subsidies promoting light-weight materials such as aluminum could easily boost this to 69 mpg.
And I recall when the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 (with its ground-level ozone reduction goals) and (somewhat accompanying) Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 were passed by Congress, certain anti-auto/anti-mobility/anti-highway groups and activists were happily saying (amongst themselves) “we got ’em” because they were confident that there would be no way that the auto industry and the petroleum industry could meet those new (for 1991) air quality standards, which would then, in turn, trigger a shutdown of federal funding for new highway capacity (and presumably that the money would be promptly diverted to build more of the rail transit systems long demanded by the same entities).
The Antiplanner also wrote (indirectly quoting MIT research):
Replacing gasoline with Diesel engines, the study found, could push it even further to 85 mpg.
Correct. Even today, when Diesel engines in the U.S. consumer vehicle market are mostly limited to heavy-duty pickup trucks and a few import vehicles, the Diesels will often get MPG that’s significantly better than similar vehicles with gasoline engines.
And Diesels do not have to run entirely on fuel refined from petroleum. They can use blends of petroleum Diesel and non-petroleum oil (such as biodiesel B2, B5 and B20 (2%, 5% or 20% non-petroleum Diesel, respectively)) with little or no engine modification, or run on 100% biodiesel (B100), though it is my understanding that some mechanical modifications are required in order to use B100.
Simple just mandate everyone use the MYT engine with a claimed 150 mpg. 🙂 I wonder seriously if they will just sell high mileage cars at a loss like Ford did to avoid CAFE fines. All domestic companies have to make a token effort at the standard, otherwise they can be subject to some legal prosecution. Something to do with a company planning to violate the law. I guess that is why
DaimlerChrysler can just pay the fine now. Hell, if they were all foreign owned, they wouldn’t have to care. Could’ve happened if they were all allowed to bankrupt. I still don’t understand why we have it, all it does it penalize our domestic manufacturers.
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=908
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Massive_Yet_Tiny_%28MYT%29_Engine
http://books.google.com/books?id=b8XOcmTKzuEC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://web.archive.org/web/20080410055727/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Articles/Associated+Files/CAFE_Fines.pdf
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm
Sandy Teal:
running out of oil. We went through these same arguments 30-40 years ago, and yet there still is lots of oil.
The point is that we are running out of cheap and easily accessible oil. Any idiot can see that. That is why the focus of extraction efforts now are in places like fields 6000 feet underwater, or mining oil out of oil sands. These efforts are signs that the cost of marginal oil production is up around $80+/- per barrel, which is the price needed for a decent return on such endeavors.
The capitalists who need oil are not concerned
You are right. They are moving on by shutting down surplused oil refineries and diversifying oil companies away from being solely crude producers.
the oil companies are not holding back oil in expectation of higher prices later.
I think you are undermining your own point. No one is holding back from producing any additional oil they can right now, yet crude oil production peaked in 2005, and the price has gone through the roof. Why can’t we produce any more oil out of the ground with so much money to be made now?
Why not buy foreign oil now while it is cheap?
I don’t think most Americans feel $110-$120 Brent crude price is cheap. If you are suggesting its going to become more expensive in the future, which I agree, how do you think that is going to work out for the economies of the OECD?
The Middle East and Venezuela dictators need the money from oil much more than the US needs the oil.
In a theoretical sense, because we can adapt and use less oil, while the Saudi’s can’t eat sand.
Nazi Germany had all its oil supplies cut off and it developed enough synthetic oil in a year to fight a two front war, at least until its oil production facilities were bombed daily.
Germany still had crude oil production from Ploesti, Rumania at a rate of 35,000 barrels per day, which was half of field production there, and which was roughly 1/3 of crude production available to Germany (so total production was 100,000 barrels per day). It also used many more horses and steam trains than people realize to move its troops and supplies, and had huge fleets of producer gas vehicles run off CO.
German syncrude production peaked at 100,000 barrels per day in 1944 after growing about 25,000 barrels per day capacity per year. By contrast, the US produced 4,000,000 barrels per day in the 1940’s.
Keep in mind German consumption in 1938 was 44 million barrels in a year, while American consumption was an order of magnitude larger at 1 BILLION barrels per year (current consumption is 7 billion barrels per year). You can read more about German production here:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm
If you figure that technology has moved forward a lot in 60-70 years, and that the factories won’t be bombed, then why are we supposed to be so worried now?
Cost of the fuel vs. income of the people and business who need it, obviously. $10 or $20 per gallon fuel does you no good when all you can afford is $5.
SASOL, which actually produces liquid from coal and natural gas has been able to create modern gas to liquids plants at a cost of merely twice the cost of a standard refinery when built by coolie labor from India. Doesn’t that sound promising?
Fischer Tropsch process converts roughly 1 ton to 1.75 barrels. So to make our 19 million barrel per day demand from coal would only take 4 billion tons of coal mined per year, compared to current mining yield of 1 billion tons. Doesn’t that sound practical? Quadrupling American rates of coal extraction and transportation to replace oil? Or how about merely doubling to trippling production to just replace imports?
If the US was really worried about its oil supplies, it would not huge oil discoveries off-limits in national parks and declare moratoriums on and off in vast other areas. The US is wealthy, secure in its energy supplies, and thus can afford to do that.
You can’t continually spill oil into the Gulf of Mexico, or the Yellowstone River, or the Alaskan Tundra, and expect no reaction other than a shrug of the shoulders. The oil companies are well aware of the costs and expectations of a misfire in their activities.
—————————————————–
“We’ve got an unstable hole,” laments Bill Kirton, who’s overseeing the project for the oil giant BP.
The drill, suspended from the Enterprise’s derrick through a swimming-pool-size gap in the hull, has penetrated 17,000 feet (5,000 meters) below the seafloor. Instead of boring straight down, it has swerved more than a mile sideways, around a massive plume of rock salt. But now, with 2,000 feet (600 meters) to go, progress is stalled. Water has begun seeping into the well from the surrounding rock, and the engineers are determined to stem its spread before drilling farther. Otherwise, the trickle of water could turn into an uncontrolled surge of crude. “There’s a lot of oil down there wanting to come out,” says Cecil Cheshier, a drilling supervisor, after struggling all night with the unruly hole. “You can cut corners and take chances—but that could cost you a lawsuit or cause a spill into the Gulf of Mexico, and then deepwater drilling gets shut down.”
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/
But yes, by all means, keep your head firmly planted in the sand.
Andrew – Thank you for an intelligent response.
In addition to denialism regarding future oil supplies, the auto-apologiest ignorati here don’t seem to grasp the fact that the same technologies that will make possible 54 mpg+ automobiles by 2025–e.g., dramatically improved lightweight materials, hybrid propulsion improvements, using natural gas rather than oil, etc.–-can also be readily applied to larger road vehicles such as trucks and buses, as well as passenger rail cars.
Already the best hybrid city buses get 6-7 mpg, compared to 3-4 mpg for your typical 35- or 40-foot diesel smoke belcher traditionally bought by the 10,000s by the U.S. transit industry. With dramatically lighter AND stronger materials technology weight savings of 40%-50% with commensurate declines in installed horsepower could gradually boost these figures to 12-15 mpg over the next 10-15 years. Even with today’s average U.S. transit loads of 8 passengers, such vehicles could beat the likely 40-mpg fleet average in 2030 by a huge margin measured by passenger miles per gallon.
Applying the same materials and propulsion improvements to railcars, it is easy to envision a 40-50 metric ton diesel–or natural gas powered–multiple unit train obtaining 5-6 mpg with roughly the same horsepower currently installed in typical over the road motor coaches (~450hp). Single decker versions of such rail cars could carry around 150 people seated; double deckers around 250 or so. At typical loads of 33%, fuel efficiency of 250-500 passenger miles/gallon equivalent is quite possible.
Now, I don’t expect the auto-apologist ignorati here to believe me. Unfortunately, I can’t tell the group very much about the materials technology I’m talking about at the moment, because the company is currently in start-up mode right now and I’m constrained by a non-disclosure agreement until more information is public.
For now, skeptics will just have to take my word for it that you’ll be hearing a lot about the technology I’m referring to during the next few years. And yes, it can be applied to automobile design, making it possible for Detroit et al to meet the new CAFE requirements a lot more quickly and cheaply than they currently think.
First of all msetty, if you want to be taken seriously, stop using loaded terms like “auto apologist”. The implications of that term are ridiculous, implying that Americans have an almost irrational attachment to their automobiles. Usage of that term also implies that you hate autos and their users, or feel contempt for them.
Second of all, no one is against buses, except for those who are ideologically opposed to them because they feel they’re “low class”, or other such excuses. I fully welcome the advent of hybrid buses. Transit agencies spend a lot of money on fuel, and hybrids should help recoup some of that expense.
msetty wrote (and I added emphasis):
dramatically improved lightweight materials, hybrid propulsion improvements, using natural gas rather than oil, etc.–-can also be readily applied to larger road vehicles such as trucks and buses, as well as passenger rail cars.
Mr. Setty, I agree that trucks and buses can be built lighter, at least to some extent.
But I must respectfully and vigorously disagree with your comment about passenger railcars.
For one thing, consider that Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will not allow (relatively-speaking) lightweight passenger railcars to operate on tracks where they could come in contact with freight cars and freight locomotives. Those railcars must be built to withstand some pretty severe railroad wrecks. You may remember the sudden and complete shutdown of Amtrak’s Acela service back in 2005 because unexpected cracks were discovered in the undercarriages (brake systems) of those trainsets (NYT article here)? That was a consequence of the much heavier construction required for rail vehicles to run on U.S. railroads (as compared to European railroads).
I believe there is very good reason for FRA to impose such requirements. Consider the horrible and lethal performance of the lightweight Washington Metrorail trainsets (in particular the Series 1000 cars built by Rohr) in crashes at Fort Totten (2009), Woodley Park (2004), and under the National Mall (1982).
C.P Zilliacus makes an excellent point, above, regarding FRA regulation forcing passenger rail cars to be inordinately heavy. But it astounds me why a free-marketer would defend these regulations. If it’s just an attempt to make cars more attractive vis-a-vis rail, that’s hardly a pro-free market position.
If the real concern is over safety, then I would suggest two things.
First, a switch to crash avoidance standards rather than crash worthiness standards. This can mean dedicated tracks (not shared with freight) but it can also mean adopting Positive Train Control technology on shared tracks. This has not only been shown internationally to be a much safer method than crash worthiness, but is also FAR less expensive.
My second recommendation for those so concerned with safety is that passenger cars should be brought to the same safety standards as other modes. That means we need to see an order of magnitude’s worth of safety improvements to bring our highway deaths into line with our rail and aviation deaths.
C.P. Zillacus…
The Washington Metrorail cars have NOTHING to do with my point.
The only reason for such heavy construction of passenger railcars in this country is that heavy steel construction so far has been the only way to meet the excessive FRA requirements.
So far, the material designs I’m talking about have proven to be exceptionally strong, though very lightweight compared to traditional steel fabrication. The FRA rules are also quite primitive, even compared to U.S. auto crash standards, e.g., with little consideration
for “crumple zones” for example. So please don’t assume, a priori that new technologies and fabrication methods can’t meet existing and future safety standards.
Metrosucks:
First of all msetty, if you want to be taken seriously, stop using loaded terms like “auto apologistâ€.
This is downright “precious” coming from an auto apologist whose very handle on this blog is an implicit insult to anything with “Metro” in its name, and who has a long documented history of name calling against people who are so blatant to disagree with him.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
That’s fine, go ahead and play that way.
If anyone is interested, the website outlining the technology I’m talking about is http://www.tessallated.com.
——————————
Metrosucks yammers:
That’s fine, go ahead and play that way.
I guess with you there is no choice.
Msetty,
That link didn’t work for me. I am interested.
Andrew is missing the point. Car-makers already have incentive to make more efficient engines. Although the UAW & mismanagement have lead to bad decisions, including the bankruptcies. Gov coercion will not magically create better technology.
Reducing oil imports? That has never been a real goal of the Dems, most recently seen in the Gulf moratorium & BO’s giveaway to Brazil, the allowing them to drill in the Gulf & the mention of the US being their best customer. For decades, much potential domestic oil has been off limits — the West Coast & parts of Alaska (ANWR).
I’m sort of glad msetty acted that way, actually. It demonstrates who he really is: a car-hating ideologue who irrationally despises the very thing (cars) that give his particular choice of mobility practically all of its funding. I’ve always found it interesting that transit advocates are shooting themselves in the foot by waging war on their own funding (the auto). Others have brought this point up. Maybe they’re just not that smart.
Metrosucks, what about people that drive to a train station, then ride a suburban train?
Also CPZ, the USSR had plenty of nukes and they were Communist.
metrosucks, Michael (msetty) doesn’t walk the talk.
It’s funny — no ironic — no sad — no even worse:
The world would be much much much much less developed/advanced without the use of petroleum.
Check-mate! — you piece of shit, scumbag, enviro-human-haters.
Get it? This pretend Malthusian attitude, for the purpose of depopulation & equality, in the name of sustainability is a croak.
Oh, AGW is a hoax. But supposing that CO2 is a powerful warming GHG, more than data shows (science proves AGW wrong), any of the recent proposals & fear scenarios are wrong — graduality — ~650mm sea level rise in 85 years.
Logic & common sense? Notice the dialogue (non-intellectual or pretentious) in fear & extremes. There is not any connecting any weather extremes (beyond 2 SDs) to higher global temps. Look at lower latitudes — the tropics — is weather worse there?
Anyway, betty,
Why you still hypocritical?
Still living in a semi-rural area north-east of SF?
Can any person really have a high standard of living in about any less than-high-density place w/out a car?
I still kinda wanna do lunch some time, despite the 90 minute drive (4 hour transit). Hey, I don’t get violent (I’m big), & you can have confidence in being about ~2-decades older. It doesn’t even matter that I’m smarter & more logical (high probability)–remains to be seen — prove me wrong, smart[ass] guy.
What was your point shitty? I thought you referred to hating cars in a postive fashion, but you drive & derive much thru truck deliveries. I’m confused & must have misunderstood you.
Excuse, me. I typed a few things out of line.
I get emotionally distraught when people are against the many items which have enabled great development.
Also, too bad that many do not understand economics more.
Hey, Scotty, why the vitriol?
Could it be that you’re still a prejudiced ideologue in denial about the many negative impacts of the automobile, and get angry when people point out simple reality? You are still in the ideological haze of denial and to keep your ego intact, you must assassinate the character or intelligence of your opponents, e.g., those who have a clear-eyed understanding of the truth about the myriad social, economic, energy and environmental shortcomings of the automobile?
You reveal yourself as an auto apologist extremist when you fail (deliberately it appears) to understand the difference between those of us who wants to fix its shortcomings as opposed to the extreme “auto abolitionists” (for example, see Jan Lundberg (http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php, or http://www.worldcarfree.net/.) To paraphrase a wise man (I forgot who), “there are times when you wish some on your side were really your opponents.” (I wonder if some auto apologists feel the same about you and Metrosucks, but I digress).
Contrary to what you think you know, I “walk the talk” whenever possible. But in the U.S. unlike in civilized countries not tainted by the sort of b.s. spewed by libertarians, teabaggers and similar ilk, that is simply not often possible. Over the years I’ve lived in a wide variety of places, some with useable transit, some not. Yes, I currently live in Napa County due to family circumstances––an area with less than completely usable transit because of the usual U.S. stupidity.
And yes, an old, beat-up vehicle keeps me captive because one really has little choice in this increasing joke of a national kleptocracy, outside a few cities that were smart enough to maintain their transit systems at something approaching acceptable quality. Where you live (San Jose) certainly spends enough money to have developed a decent, usable transit network by now, but the requisite transit technical knowledge seems to be lacking and resources have been diverted to grossly overpriced projects (e.g., the San Jose BART extension, vs. dramatic upgrades to the Capitol Corridor at an order of magnitude less cost).
For trips into the East Bay and San Francisco, I am a routine user of the Vallejo ferry, BartLink to BART, and BART. One can’t use transit if it doesn’t exist or it is unusable. Unfortunately, even in the Bay Area outside the core cities, transit is spotty and limited.
For the record I grew up in a town that was quite walkable, thank you (Pacific Grove, about 70 miles south of San Jose), and walked and biked to school and other destinations, lived in Oakland for several years, and regularly used AC Transit and BART. I went to college in a quite walkable town (Chico) BEFORE there was ANY transit at all, and attended grad school in San Jose, where I experienced Caltrain and VTA daily at their SP low points circa 1980.
BTW, one can live a quite affluent lifestyle outside the densest cities with 1 or fewer cars per household–in untold thousands of places in “Old Europe” (sic) such as Germany or Switzerland (almost ANYPLACE, even the most rural, in Switzerland) but very few in the U.S. except perhaps for some suburbs of Boston, New York, Philly and a few places around Washington, D.C. (unfortunately in the Bay Area, little outside of San Francisco…even the central East Bay is iffy thanks to the lack of coordination between and double fares charged by BART and AC Transit The irony is that places like Switzerland could survive day-to-day, thank you, when the oil runs dry, thanks to their vast electric rail network powered by hydro and nukes, let alone their still very percentages of walking and bicycling.
As for “lunch” HA! I’m also “big” but non-violent…you claim you’re two decades older, which I guess makes you pushing 80 years old. Decrepit old farts have absolutely nothing to fear from me except things that will make their brains explode!
Bennett:
Try this again…should work; I copied directly from the website.
http://www.tessellated.com/.
Peak oil is not a concern as liquid fuels can easily be made from coal, the old German technology has been dramatically developed by Sasol see:
http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/downloads/CTL_Brochure_1125921891488.pdf
It seems likely that the requirements to avoid an energy shortage are the same as those required to avoid a famine, democracy, rule of law including low or no corruption, property rites and fair trade. This has been the history of the world energy supply and only countries that do not meet these requirements have run out of energy.
Interestingly the price of gasoline adjusted for inflation
http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/images/charts/oil/gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
Is not that much more than in the 1950’s and since cars get much better fuel economy now and last much longer it is likely that even at today’s gasoline prices gasoline may actually be a smaller proportion of the price of driving than it was then. Since this was the area of suburban expansion it hardly seems likely that the increase in gasoline cost will make a big difference in distance people drive, they will just by more economical cars as the car fleet turns over.
Even for those of us who love trains they are just too expensive per passenger mile to have any impact on the distance the developed world drives.
If indeed CO2 build up in the atmosphere needs reducing then the answer will be technological improvements to all sections of society. This might be battery operated electric cars or a hydrogen economy with solar cells in deserts generating H2, or even underground nuclear power plants, or coal sequestration. However, these technologies will have to come down significantly in price, or human induced global warming effects get much worse, for these technologies to come into general use.
Hey Scott:
With allies like Michelle Bachmann on your side, you don’t need enemies…
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/michele-bachmann-light-bulbs-agenda-21?page=1.
Paul:
Nothing is quite as “simple” as some people claim.
My understanding is that replacing 100% of U.S. oil consumption with coal to liquids would require quadrupling U.S. coal production from about 1 billion to 4 billion tons annually. Even if oil usage were cut in half through measures such as Obama’s new CAFE requirements and a significant expansion of alternatives to driving, and the remaining oil imports replaced, about a doubling of coal production would still be needed in the U.S.
Even ignoring the impacts on climate change, there already are myriad problems with current coal production such as a wide variety of pollutants, the impacts of mountain removals in West Virginia and Kentucky, ground water and surface water pollution, and a host of other coal-related ills.
The bottom line is that there is NO magic bullet, the pronouncements of extremist “free market” religious acolytes aside.
A “free market” means, no laws, no rules, no government.
It’s survival of the fittest, if you get robbed, raped or murdered, then tough luck that’s your problem!
So, Snotty, looking agin at your earlier posts in this thread, I see you have a link to Alex Jones, e.g., http://www.infowars.com.
So you ARE a conspiracy wingnutter! My mistake misunderstanding your pathology. Well, Snotty, I can be quite certain now that you’re well beyond any help if you can’t see your incredible lack of credibility by believing the crap spewed by the likes of Alex Jones, Michelle Bachmann et al.
msetty is the paranoid one. He believes auto drivers are “apologists” for “auto dependency” and auto drivers are “anti-transit” (translation: anti huge, wasteful rail projects that contribute little to livability, but steal funds from real mobility improvement and give Mikey nice photos of choo choo trains to publish on his website.)
Hey msetty, I could understand your position as a transit advocate if you opposed the wasteful pork like light rail and California HSR. But you probably support all rail projects, regardless of costs or benefits.
Hey Michael Setty, sorry I was kinda rude & crap.
For for comments that try to address issues, I’m confused.
Please elaborate:
What is a prejudicial, hazed denial?
Re: negative impacts of automobiles, do you know how less developed the world would be? Remember to think of petroleum & all its uses, such as railroads, trucking, shipping, flying, fertilizers, toiletries, cosmetics, etc.
How do I “apologize” for autos?
How would civilization be w/out the gasoline engine?
What is the “simple reality”?
Have you considered your contradiction in living in a semi-rural area? Your use of transit, when available, does not excuse you. Costs are not an answer either, as Dan thinks.
(It is more expensive w/widespread transit)
Look forward to any attempts at answers.
Additionally:
For my previous mention of a ~2 decade age dif, you misread the direction. Soon after typing, I realized that I was off [in addition to its irrelevance], thinking that you were almost the same age as Dr. Bossard. Yer probably about 8 yrs older than me. So what?
I do not think that any posters here w/opposing points would be violent. (The most lefty brain-dead one — Highman — is actually very wimpy, but I would not harm him.)
I have a hangup about those claims of conservative violence, when it’s the left that is traditionally violent. That Norway guy is neither a Christian nor has typicality w/any ideology. Sharing certain ideas not cut it. Moreover, it’s very inaccurate to generalize based upon one or a few.
What’s the objection to that article about coercive non-savings in a lessor light source? Mercury risk? Think about earthquakes or any structural damage. The rubble will be a toxic hazard.
It’s a shame that there was hardly discussion of issues here, but addressing distractions (partly my fault for previous non-sequitors).
You have made no case for a position. What is it? All to live above 10,000/sq.mi? Much oil is still needed. And then there is concentrated pollution, much less nature access, & many other problems.
Is your personal car use of ~15 VMT okay, but more is wrong? You could easily drive above the avg.
The whole US population, at the density of SF, could fit in an area the size of San Bernardino County. Is that what you want?
Consider the 20% of US residents (maybe only 10% truly, faraway) living in rural areas, on 90% of the land, having housing prices at about a 1/4 of big cities: Their energy use is not much higher & their happiness has much of what enviro-extremos yearn for.
Scott, it’s not as if you are for a mix of things.
Another witty one-liner from the village idiot. Just ignore him, Scott. He’s not worth it. When all the rail pork comes crashing down via the impending government meltdown from all the lib spending, Highwayman will be welcomed at his final destination: the home for the developmentally challenged.
Scott, msetty, Paul:
The SASOL technology for coal gasification yields 1.75-2 barrels of fuel oils per ton of coal. The ratio is worse if you use Lignite.
2 billion tons of additional coal mining would be required just to replace imported crude oil, which would mean US coal production would need to go from 1 billion tons to 3 billion tons. Consider to the logistical hurdles needed to move all of the additional coal and/or liquid fuels by rail or pipeline in the opposite direction from current oil import flows, which are mostly coastwise and out of Alberta.
I would suggest coal to liquids has yet to find an oil price in the US at which it is competitive or economically feasible for our economy to absorb, because we are not seeing any plants proposed or built. There appears to be an upper limit of somewhere around $120 per barrel before the price of energy causes and economic slowdown due to an excessive amount of money being spent to obtain energy for economic activities – thus the economic trainwrecks in 1981 and 2008, and the present slowdown with Brent Crude recently pushing that price.
There certainly are marginal amounts of additional oil that we could produce in ANWR and the West Coast offshore. At their peak, these might amount to 1-1.5 million barrels per day, and could be expected to last 30-40 years. These regions are currently off limits because of things like the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill (3rd largest in US history after Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez), and continual pipeline spills on land such as the recent Yellowstone River spill – i.e. the reason they are not open to drilling is misbehavior by the oil companies. By withholding them from market, they also form a strategic reserve the US can tap in the future for a variety of reasons (war, embargoes, depletion overseas), something which is important considering that recent drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve north of the Brooks Range in Alaska appears to have determined that the reserve actually holds relatively little oil.
Paul, you mention that the price of gas is not much more relatively speaking than in the 1950’s. Its funny that people seem to misremember this decade so much. Most of the post-war economic expansion took place from 1946-1953. There were a series of recessions in 1953-1954, 1957-1958, and 1959-1960 which hindered further growth. The 1957-1958 recession was particularly severe and caused the first widespread permanent damage to the northern economy of what is now the Rust Belt. Most families in the 1950’s only had one car. Many people still walked to work or took transit. Long distance trips were still typically by train. There are plenty of funny anecdotes about people who bought cars at this time but could not afford to regularly use them due to the price of gas. The real time period of easy motoring and cheap gas was 1958 to 1973 with the death of the railroads, the introduction of huge family cars, and the classic muscle car era. Just google 19XX Cadillac to get images of cars from the 1950’s and 1960’s, and note the jump in size around 1958.
Also, the suburban expansion of the 1950’s was mostly in small houses on small lots as people traded out of row homes, apartments, triplexes, and tightly packed single homes for a bit of grass. Again, just drive around a 1950’s era suburban development and note the original size of the houses built then (i.e.ignoring later additions built on to these houses). The truly large suburban housing on large lots was either classic suburbs of the 1920’s, or did not start coming about until much later in the late 1970’s-1980’s.
Notes to Metty and the Highwayman:
Note that I wrote “fair trade” not “free trade”. I reason that we need to be able to trade readily but need some rules to prevent monopolies, exploitation of the poor, unreasonable environmental damage etc. However, these rules should not be used to prevent people having to change.
As far as coal goes the increase in production would have to come over periods of decades, as the price of oil went up. Doubling or quadrupling coal production particularly in pleases where it can be deep pit mined with large equipment may be quite feasible with minimal environmental damage in that time frame. However since all major scientific organizations like the American Geophysical Union and the American Chemical Society are becoming very concerned about the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and climate change. It is obvious that nothing is meaningful is going to be done about this in the next ten years, but highly probable that CO2 production will have to be reduced in the future. If so then CO2 from fossil fuels with have to be sequestered or other energy sources found, so running out of oil or switching to coal will be a moot point. My point is that running out of oil is not a problem as if CO2 is not a problem then we can switch to coal. If CO2 is a problem then we need alternate energy sources.
As far as I am concerned our main focus in this forum is to prevent the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere being used as an excuse to build useless railroads that require most people to drive to subsidize them and promoting unreasonably restrictions that drive up housing costs all in the name of reducing CO2 when it these measures have no significant effect on CO2 production.
Hey, Metrosucks, you certainly are ignorant of what my actual viewpoints are.
And no, I only think extremist auto apologists like you are auto apologists, not the average motorist who is as stuck with the current system as everyone else.
You may not believe it, but I do oppose the worst HSR and transit projects, e.g., the ones that are pork barrel and make no sense. I think California HSR can work, but NOT the way they’re headed–where it will cost 3-4 times what it could. My alternative approach is outlined at http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/CaliforniaNetworkedTransit.pdf.
You also obviously have not read my posts very clearly. I have stated more than once the traffic levels that my associate Leroy Demery and I believe are needed to economically justify rail transit. This opinion is not based on something we pulled out of the air, either; actually, we did some research based on studies from various countries with far more rail expertise than the U.S., e.g., Japan, Germany, and the U.S. before 1950 when we still had a strong rail transit knowledge base.
The answer is 5,000 daily passenger miles traveled per mile of route for low cost (e.g., mainly surface) lines; this “threshold” increases as the cost of a project goes up, e.g., it is much higher for lines mostly elevated or in subway.
Our research is documented here: http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/specialreports/sr2.trafficdensityretrospective.htm“.
Even though I answered your only substantive comment, I don’t expect your bullshit to stop. Que sera, sera…
Scott:
What do you mean the fact I don’t live in San Francisco and use transit for 100% of my trip “doesn’t excuse me” for being a strong transit advocate??
Bullshit!!
The fact that decent transit alternatives are NOT available to the vast majority of U.S. residents, or denizens of the Bay Area, is more than sufficient justification for advocacy.
Certainly if we wanted to, we could have transit as good as available in that hellhole of humanity, Switzerland!
But instead, idiots like Michelle Bachmann and the teabaggers believing that improved transit and related matters under U.N. “Agenda 21” would turn the U.S. into a transit-based dystopia.
Yeah, like Switzerland! Gee, what a hellhole!! No wonder the U.S. is increasingly the laughing stock of the civilized world!
Paul:
Anti-rail diatribe ignored. Try preaching your eccentric views about “wasteful rail” to the Swiss, the Germans, the Japanese, hell, even the Bulgarians and Romanians! Only in the U.S. do such ignorant and bizarre viewpoints (undeservedly) gain traction.
Hey Metrosucky..
You obviously haven’t looked at my website, http://www.publictransit.us. I don’t have any photos of “choo choo trains.” Actually, steam locomotives don’t interest me in the least. They’re good for tourists and hard core “foamer” railfans, but I find them uninteresting and useless. The most modern EMU designs from Switzerland, on the other hand, are interesting because they are extremely relevant.
Putz.
Scott:
For the record, there are 2,518 municipalities in Switzerland, which cover 100% of the country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Municipalities_of_Switzerland
The average population is slightly more than 3,000 persons each; the largest is Zurich with a bit more than 350,000. The population density of Zurich city is about 10,000/square mile, 1/3 less than San Francisco.
No, not everyone has to live in dense cities like San Francisco, as the Swiss “hellhole” example shows. Actually, all but the tiniest Swiss burgs have access to clean, reliable bus or rail service that runs at least once per hour, in most cases much more often than that. Even the least populated canton, Graubunden, manages to generate 146 annual transit rides per capita–quite low by Swiss standards–despite its small population of 192,000 spread over 2,743 square miles (70/square mile).
If you actually want to learn something, I suggest the book Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age by Australian Paul Mees. Among other things, Mees points out that density–while important, particularly in terms of frequencies that can be provided and productivity particularly in terms of passengers served per hour––is important, the quality of service provided has more impact.
While higher density means more productivity relative to the number of passengers per hour served by a given train or bus service, it has little direct impact on “average load” served.
According to the SBB (google “sbb networking the region”), collectively their S-Bahn (suburban railway) services carry 56 passenger miles per train mile; in contrast, the RhB railway of Graubunden carries about 58.5 passenger kilometers/train kilometer traveled in 2010 (http://www.rhb.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Ueber_RhB/Organisation/Statuten_und_Berichte/Geschaeftsbericht_2010_low.pdf).
As previously mentioned, the average density of Canton Graubunden is 70/square mile. The average density of Switzerland is about 494/square mile, e.g., less than half that of the Bay Area. But the RhB’s average load per train is higher than the SBB’s average of all S-Bahn services!
So Scott, explain to me again, how “density” is such an overwhelming factor in explaining transit success? Or to be successful, “everyone” would have to live at San Francisco densities, which is 50% higher than in Zurich–where annual transit rides per capita tops 800 vs. less than 300 in San Francisco, BTW…I know why, but you wouldn’t like the reasons…
Certainly gasoline prices are one of the differences between Switzerland and the U.S., but not between urban and rural parts of that country. Also, the S-Bahns in Switzerland operate where “downtown” parking is severely restricted compared to U.S. cities; but in Graubunden, the only areas where parking is heavily restricted would be “downtown” Chur, the largest city but with only 35,000 and an urbanized area smaller than the City of Napa. There is also basically NO congestion in Canton Graubunden of any consequence.
Hey Michael Setty,
My point about you not living in a in a low density area — not a higher density Bay city (not necessarily SF) & you driving to some places, is partially that you do not “walk the talk.” Live where there is a plethora of transit?
A slightly similar excuse could be said about electricity use – that P&G has vast majority from fossil fuels or nuclear, but renewables are not offered, despite being <10% of overall national consumptions & their higher price. Although, moving to Washington using hydro won't change national consumption — so not exactly comparable, but if you live w/out a car — would have 1 less driver. How much you drive?
Sure, go ahead & advocate for tranit, but please realize the higher costs [mostly charged to non-users] & the less usefulness for transit in lower densities. Low ridership w/fewer persons near stations is unfeasible. One should not expect transit routes to come to them in areas w/less than ideal conditions. Make your [limited] choices to live, work, shop, etc where there is widespread transit.
Densities for large areas (counties, states, nations) are irrelevant for determining the potential access to transit. The Bay Area’s metropolitan density of about 1,000/sq.mi. is little value.
The Bay's urbanized area density, 5,000+ (2nd nationally; LA UA 1st) is more worthwhile. It's still not indicative, but SF's 16,000 is (especially its job concentration), plus Oakland & other nearby cities, above 10,000 are.
The 4th & 5th (approximately) densest UAs, LV UA (Las Vegas) & the NYC UA have vastly dif transit uses. Know why? Seems like not.
There are many factors conducive to transit. Look at the VTA’s LRT – terrible performance [& 20+ yrs old] – compare to the recent Phoenix LRT, which has higher ridership, w/ <½ the miles & at a lower density, which is surprising.
Focused density needs to be examined, to consider transit viability, such as the CBD, which is mostly about white-collar job concentration. Most of those workers have cars too, living in suburbs. You do know that looking at commuter transit use is different & much higher than trips, passenger-miles, usefulness & is composed of many car-owners?
Consider density around transit stations & up to a ~10-minute walk, which would encompass, at most, a ¼ square mile, depending on street layout. So, a rider needs to locate one’s home near a stop & find a job & other destinations within other stops’ walking range.
Do you want to shop by walking from your home or a transit stop? That entails much less choice & higher prices. A full-sized grocery needs about a 30,000 customer-shed, mostly from drivers. A big-box or a department store needs 100,000+. Walking & riding w/ many purchases is very inconvenient, especially after sunset [for many] & in weather elements.
There are many difs w/Switzerland. (I’m not that familiar.) Their transportation usage stats were not provided. The country does score well on freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking).
Their transit usage might have a higher % of visitors. Their smaller dwellings & fewer consumer goods purchases are something to consider for their happiness, utility & inefficiency.
A case: where I grew up in suburban Chicago, it was a mile away from any retail, but within 4-miles (< 9 minutes), 4 million’ sq. of shopping. (RTA routes were not near)
Most of the EU nations have a very high gas-tax & car-tax; much not for vehicle infrastructure – so there’s a price disincentive to having a car, plus there are many slower routes. Would you prefer to live there? Or you like forcing your preferences on others & wanting most of the cost to be paid by others? You do know that the cost of living there is really high?
Care to address previous questions?
Such as your pejorative, generalizing weasel words?
What is apologizing for the gasoline engine?
How much less development would there be without?
Would like to continue, twice longer & re-ask previous questions, but…
Msetty:
I think we have to make a distinction here between existing rail systems and panned ones. Yes Europeans want to keep their existing systems but are not nearly as ready to build new ones as the cost is so high. The same is true in the USA, existing commuter systems like those to NY and Boston and heavily used and are supported but new systems are much more controversial as they are so expensive.
Cites and are built around their transportation system that was economically dominant when the city was laid out. Medieval cities work well for walking, cities laid out in the 1890-1910 work well with commuter rail etc. In the USA in 1920 and Europe after about 1950 cities are built around the car. Visitors from the USA usually miss this as they visit the old historical centers of cities, not the new areas on edge of Paris or London which is built around the car.
Switzerland is a special case as the population tends to live along he bottom of valleys that rail naturally runs though, hence the population is naturally strung along a line ideal for rail. With abundant hydro power Switzerland was able to electrify rail systems in the early 1900’s and then keep this economical infrastructure. These conditions do not exist in many other places.
The Swiss have also built an extensive freeway system, and the my recollection is that 74% of passenger miles are still traveled by car in Switzerland, but I am happy to be corrected by references.
As to the quality of life in Switzerland, in the mid 1990’s I knew a Canadian professor who was offered a position in Zurich for about $180,000 per year, probably around twice what he was making in Canada. After the job interview he explored the housing market and discovered that there was no way he could buy a house in Zurich on that salary, and would have to commute a considerable distance to where he could afford to buy, or live in a small apartment in Zurich. Since he had a comfortable house and garden a ten minute drive from his office in Canada he did not take the Zurich position, he said he did not want to commute. It turns out that most of the Swiss I know live in condominiums, they cannot afford to live in a house with a garden. So Switzerland has some advantages and disadvantages.