Gulf Oil Spill 2010

[Patman]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Despite my commutes, my lifestyle is much more sustainable than yours is presently in DC when you look at it that way.

Two words: Urban chickens

I personally think anybody who is peddling the "local food" angle, as a matter of sustainability, is quite essentially a dumb hippie. There are many other reasons to prefer it, fine, but people dream of this harmonized biosphere like ideal. Frankly, this ideal has been floated around for a long time... hell, Disney tried to realize it.

The problem here is that we need innovation and we should avoid this whole "idealized world" crap. The issue we have right now is one of communication and knowledge. We wouldn't use coal if people were more informed on nuclear. Any alternative to oil will only come from people talking to each other and realizing what is implementable in a realistic scale at a realistic time. There are probably one or two innovations to be had if we ditched certain idealizations and just threw the information out there and connected the dots. What happens if super-capacitors become feasible for use? Would that help rail? Would that help the automobile?

The problem with the "mega city" ideal based on intra-connected rail is that it ignores the desires of people and it presupposes a solution and thus rejects all manners of things which are not in line with that solution. The ideal solution, as it is being generally sold, is some holistic urban culture where people are drawn closer to the city and then do not have to go far from that city. That's why they see its no problem in adopting the CURRENT state of the electric car... that's the way it should be. Everything else you can use rail... and isn't that just a wonderful choice... to be beholden to the time schedule of an undependable means of transit for intra-region (as we currently define it) trips. Do we really want the nation to depend upon entities similar to Amtrak and WMATA?

Personally, I don't think many people, outside of the urban planning field, truly laments the fact that Boston no longer has a population of 850K.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Yeah but you dont have to drive a piece of crap mileage car...like say an F-250 That is what (I think) he was getting at. you may not have a choice where you live or work, but there are choices you can make that will make things easier.

What if they're a contractor? What if that's their work vehicle? I know you guys aren't talking about artificially raising prices (unless you are, but then this conversation would be over because you'd both be idiots ).

Exactly. Dxm, you've made a choice for your lifestyle and commute.

The simple reality is that driving and oil use have many costs, most of which have never been directly passed on to drivers. $200 per barrel oil would change that, and I'm sure it would encourage a lot of Americans to re-think the choices they've made on a personal level, and a lot of policy makers to re-think the choices they've made for transportation and infrastructure.

Personal or economic? I don't think they are the same thing. They're related but different.

This kinda misses the point, as oil isn't going to disappear, it will just get very expensive. And what is better overall, a grocery store in the city where patrons walk to and from the store, or one where they drive? The food will still get there. But wouldn't it be better if the Diesel was there for the kinds of trips that actually need it?

I contend they are both equally "good". I can't even fathom trying to feed a family of four with daily trips to the grocery store.

Sure, it would be painful. But maybe not as painful as you think. Nearly 50% of trips in metro areas are less than 3 miles in total distance - 28% are less than 1 mile, yet 65% of those 1-mile-or-less trips are made via automobile.

This is not an efficient use of resources. Some simple retrofitting of the roadways to make walking and biking safe and enjoyable would go a long way to making other modes available for those trips. Likewise, those are low-hanging fruit - trips that can shift to other modes with little pain.

You say simple, I see dollar signs. Big fat dollar signs. Sorry, but people value their time more than anything. If it takes me 15 minutes to walk to a store or 1 minute to drive, I'm going to drive 99% of the time. I think it's safe to say this is true for the vast majority of people who live outside of major urban centers.

In short, no, we do not have to drill to keep up. Drilling won't matter much anyways, the cost of oil will still rise and those short car trips will still be unsustainable.

Well, this opens up a whole other set of issues - buying a house is also a choice. It's unfortunate that we hold it as the default in the US, because there are many cases where renting makes much more sense.

Nobody is telling anyone where to live, either. People will vote with their feet - the challenge is recognizing that the options they are picking from isn't some magical free market of housing stock and employment locations - those are the direct result of public policy choices (highway construction, zoning codes, housing finance regulations) over the last 60+ years that have explicitly given us the kind of landscape we have today.

And you propose to change this how? You want to talk about pain, that's an assload of pain you're talking about to change this.

 

[Patman]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

If it takes me 15 minutes to walk to a store or 1 minute to drive, I'm going to drive 99% of the time. I think it's safe to say this is true for the vast majority of people who live outside of major urban centers.

It takes me HALF AN HOUR to go from my apartment to the grocery store. The grocery store is a mile and a quarter away. Back home it takes me 4 minutes in the car. Groceries are easily a hour and a half task and you don't pick up anything on the fly mid-week.

I'm looking at my financial figures and running over numbers and options to see if I can move to 1) cut down my commute, 2) give me more freedom and accessibility given by a car.

The urban ideal works for some... but it doesn't mean we should all live by it. To me, the city often a measure of status and social class more than it is convenience. Half an hour for groceries is not convenient.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

I have not run the numbers or done the research, but who is to say which of the following two situations is more efficient use of oil?

1- Consumers co-located to their produce. However, Diesel power is required to get the food there from decentralized locations.

2- People are required to drive to work, but are co-located ( give or take) much more advantageously than people in the city to their produce.

Either way, Oil products are being consumed. Which is better?? no idea off the top of my head...

1 is better by far. One trip by truck to drop off a load of potatoes = ~20 gallons of diesel burned. 1000 trips by consumers if they have to drive to buy potatoes a bag at a time = ~1000 gallons burned.

It's a simple economy of scale. If you had to move a ton of potatoes, would you use one big truck or one 5-lb bag each in 400 cars?

are we talking about on a pedestrian level or an macro economic level? The number i have heard for domestic transportation needs requiring petrol products is 95% of the sector. A departure from oil would mean stuff doesn't move in the U.S.A which would severely mess up the economy.

Again, be careful with words like "need" and "require." I would easily believe that 95% of domestic transportation happens to be based on petrol currently, but not because it is required - it's because of choices we've made.

On Sustainability, ask yourself this: if we were to lose power and roads...how long could you survive. How much food do you have and how could you get it with millions of other starving people nearby? How about access to clear drinking water? I contend that a quick departure from these necessities would not only be painful, it would be fatal for many. Sure you have a commute on foot, but while I drive to town for my work, I could grow all the food I need within walking distance. Despite my commutes, my lifestyle is much more sustainable than yours is presently in DC when you look at it that way.

I'll get off my doomsday soap box

Well, now you're talking about going back to a subsistence agrarian economy, which very well could be where we end up in 500 or 1000 years, if a new energy source (e.g. fusion) is not found. At that point, nobody will have the mega-energy "needs" that we have today, because their farm implements will be human and animal powered, and the arable land in the world would probably support only support between 1 and 2 billion people.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

It takes me HALF AN HOUR to go from my apartment to the grocery store. The grocery store is a mile and a quarter away. Back home it takes me 4 minutes in the car. Groceries are easily a hour and a half task and you don't pick up anything on the fly mid-week.

I'm looking at my financial figures and running over numbers and options to see if I can move to 1) cut down my commute, 2) give me more freedom and accessibility given by a car.

The urban ideal works for some... but it doesn't mean we should all live by it. To me, the city often a measure of status and social class more than it is convenience. Half an hour for groceries is not convenient.

No kidding. Plus you have to lug the groceries home.

I figure I spend about $250 a month in gas and car maintenance (oil changes, repairs, tires, etc. averaged over a year). Rather, I should say it topped out at about $250-$300 a month when gas was at $3.50-$4.00.

For it to become financially reasonable to move closer to work, gas would have to hit $10-$12 a gallon. At that point, we'd ALL have bigger things to deal with.

 

[blockski]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

This kinda misses the point, as oil isn't going to disappear, it will just get very expensive. And what is better overall, a grocery store in the city where patrons walk to and from the store, or one where they drive? The food will still get there. But wouldn't it be better if the Diesel was there for the kinds of trips that actually need it?

I have not run the numbers or done the research, but who is to say which of the following two situations is more efficient use of oil?

1- Consumers co-located to their produce. However, Diesel power is required to get the food there from decentralized locations.

2- People are required to drive to work, but are co-located ( give or take) much more advantageously than people in the city to their produce.

Either way, Oil products are being consumed. Which is better?? no idea off the top of my head...

My point is a simple one - the trips that do not absolutely require oil can be replaced with something else. The freight hauling of food probably does require oil for the near future, so the more sustainable option is to locate groceries where people can walk to them, ride transit, etc. Simultaenously, develop the areas around those stores to enable more of a market immediately in the neighborhood.

The general idea is that when oil gets expensive, only the trips and jobs that absolutely require oil's energy density will use it. The consumer's trip to and from the store isn't one of those trips.

Sure, it would be painful. But maybe not as painful as you think. Nearly 50% of trips in metro areas are less than 3 miles in total distance - 28% are less than 1 mile, yet 65% of those 1-mile-or-less trips are made via automobile.

are we talking about on a pedestrian level or an macro economic level? The number i have heard for domestic transportation needs requiring petrol products is 95% of the sector. A departure from oil would mean stuff doesn't move in the U.S.A which would severely mess up the economy.

I don't doubt that the 95% figure is true, but that's not what I'm talking about - my point is that most of those trips are easily replaceable with a different mode because they are very short.

A departure from petroleum means that those 28% of trips that are less than a mile will see the auto mode share drop considerably.

The entire point I'm trying to get at is that the way we use oil is not some hard and fast rule of the universe. Similarly, the idea that transition away from that usage will be painful is merely a statement of fact, not a reason to avoid action - we'll be facing that pain either through our own policy choices or through the increasing market price of gas.

You can either ween your way off the addiction slowly and in a controlled fashion, or you can wait till we can't afford it anymore and have no choice but to quit cold turkey. Take your pick.

On Sustainability, ask yourself this: if we were to lose power and roads...how long could you survive. How much food do you have and how could you get it with millions of other starving people nearby? How about access to clear drinking water? I contend that a quick departure from these necessities would not only be painful, it would be fatal for many. Sure you have a commute on foot, but while I drive to town for my work, I could grow all the food I need within walking distance. Despite my commutes, my lifestyle is much more sustainable than yours is presently in DC when you look at it that way.

I'll get off my doomsday soap box

I think your doomsday scenario is too over-the-top. Sustainability from an individual's perspective and from society's perspective are two very different things. Your hypothetical involves a whole lot of other factors beyond just high energy prices.

Cities aren't going away. They're the most efficient means of living we have in our society, they are the lifeblood of our economy and the use far less resources on a per capita basis than any other from of human settlement (given the set standard of living). Yes, they are interdependent with lots of other systems, but that's a hallmark of our entire society.

What's far more dangerous in my mind is those that live in suburban or exurban places who fancy themselves as independent and able to live off the grid as you suggest, when the underlying dynamics of those places is actually the same as that of a city - the form and the aesthetics are the only difference.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Cities aren't going away. They're the most efficient means of living we have in our society, they are the lifeblood of our economy and the use far less resources on a per capita basis than any other from of human settlement (given the set standard of living). Yes, they are interdependent with lots of other systems, but that's a hallmark of our entire society.

So what's the point? That we should all live in urban setting?

I'm not even confident you're correct when it comes to your claims in this statement. Less resources? By what measure?

 

[bronconick]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

So what's the point? That we should all live in urban setting?

I'm not even confident you're correct when it comes to your claims in this statement. Less resources? By what measure?

It's probably what'll happen as oil gets more expensive. Instead of abandoned inner cities, you'll see miles and miles of suburban neighborhoods with sale signs and slow decay.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

It's probably what'll happen as oil gets more expensive. Instead of abandoned inner cities, you'll see miles and miles of suburban neighborhoods with sale signs and slow decay.

You do realize how expensive oil would have to be for this to happen right?

 

[Patman]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

What's far more dangerous in my mind is those that live in suburban or exurban places who fancy themselves as independent and able to live off the grid as you suggest, when the underlying dynamics of those places is actually the same as that of a city - the form and the aesthetics are the only difference.

Form and aesthetics mean a lot to people... otherwise they wouldn't want to move away from the city in the first place.

edit:

The overarching thing is that there exists a world view that you (and others) desire to place upon the rest of us. Yes? Do we get to consent to this?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Form and aesthetics mean a lot to people... otherwise they wouldn't want to move away from the city in the first place.

I hate cities. I avoid them whenever possible. Too many people. Crappy driving. Much less safe.

 

[Patman]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

I hate cities. I avoid them whenever possible. Too many people. Crappy driving. Much less safe.

The reason I live where I do is because

1) the area where my work is located is probably one of the most dangerous collection of suburban communities in the United States.
2) I am still young (and awkward... see the other threads) so I need places to meet people.
3) it give me access to the city for said events... if I felt I could have enough activities in my life elsewhere I will do it... and hence why I'm thinking of moving further out. If I'm not doing much here then I can do that same not much elsewhere... accessing the city might be slightly harder, but its not inescapable.
4) its about as close as I can get without the costs being too absurd and the distance too ridiculous.

To be honest, I moved here because I thought I'd get myself out more on the very young (lots of people in their 20s and early 30s) Rosslyn-Ballston corridor. Frankly, I thought I'd be doing more by now but I'm working on it... I've got a few things in play.

This urban ideal to itself is ridiculous and it feels controlling. I'm not terribly fond of being told that i must do something for my own good.... unless it really is for my own good. The urban center is not a panacea of life. I'd love to move out to a more relaxed quieter neighborhood where I can drive my car around... and be able to go long distances if I need to. I'm in the city because I want to meet people and do things... if I could do that in the suburbs... I'm gone. The city is too restricted... too confined... and **** too expensive... lets face it... people want the freedom given by a car.

 

[blockski]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

So what's the point? That we should all live in urban setting?

I'm not even confident you're correct when it comes to your claims in this statement. Less resources? By what measure?

My point is merely that a) what we've built is not some magical free market manifestation. It is a product of policy. b) more urban settings (dense, walkable, with transit) are already very attractive and will be moreso as oil prices increase, and therefore c) public policy should change to enable these kinds of places to develop where the market warrants. These kinds of places are currently actively discouraged from developing, thanks to various zoning laws, public policies, etc.

And cities are more efficient by pretty much any measure - land use per capita, resource use per capita, energy use per capita, economic output per capita, etc.

It's probably what'll happen as oil gets more expensive. Instead of abandoned inner cities, you'll see miles and miles of suburban neighborhoods with sale signs and slow decay.

yes.

You do realize how expensive oil would have to be for this to happen right?

It's already happening - as the housing market slowly rebounds, the places that are dense, located close to job centers, with transit access, are holding value far better than suburban places with strong auto-reliance and long commutes no matter what job you have - the true costs of those places has been exposed, they are a type of development that's predicated on cheap oil - an assumption that is no longer valid, hence the market will not support that kind of development for long.

Form and aesthetics mean a lot to people... otherwise they wouldn't want to move away from the city in the first place.

edit:

The overarching thing is that there exists a world view that you (and others) desire to place upon the rest of us. Yes? Do we get to consent to this?

Of course aesthetics matter. It's a mistake, however, to think of this as a dichotomy between 'the city' and 'the suburbs'. That's not true, nor is it really relevant. For a good model, just look back to pre-WWII suburbs and small towns - they were walkable in scale, still featured all the single family homes and backyards, but with enough density to support local retail and often with a transit connection to the nearby city. There's a whole continuum of options, the point is just that the paradigm of auto-dependent (and hence oil dependent) suburbs cannot sustain themselves.

As for what to do, I don't know why you always try to put this in terms of 'forcing' people to do something. All I'm talking about is letting the market respond to the challenges we will face. I like cities and I think the qualities of cities are well-positioned to deal with the challenges of high priced oil. All I ask is that public policy allow cities to do what they do, and that it not subsidize oil-intensive lifestyles as it has been for the past 50-60 years.

You'll be free to choose whatever lifestyle you want, but you shouldn't be able to force me to subsidize it for you.

I hate cities. I avoid them whenever possible. Too many people. Crappy driving. Much less safe.

Funny you should mention that - when calculating an overall safety index, suburbs are often far less safe than cities due to much higher traffic fatality rates. That's not as sexy as urban crime, but no less deadly.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

And cities are more efficient by pretty much any measure - land use per capita, resource use per capita, energy use per capita, economic output per capita, etc.

Edit: Let me rephrase that. Of course they use less land per capita, that's the ***** point. Resource? What kinds of resource are we talking? Energy? Maybe. Economic? Probably. Because suburbs are where people go to LIVE not WORK.

It's already happening - as the housing market slowly rebounds, the places that are dense, located close to job centers, with transit access, are holding value far better than suburban places with strong auto-reliance and long commutes no matter what job you have - the true costs of those places has been exposed, they are a type of development that's predicated on cheap oil - an assumption that is no longer valid, hence the market will not support that kind of development for long.

Ah yes, because that had NOTHING to do with people who wanted to get out of the city but couldn't afford it rather than the actual sustainability of it. Not EVERYONE can afford to live outside of a metropolis urban center. I'm sorry if this is offensive to anyone's sensibilities, but the facts are facts.

Of course aesthetics matter. It's a mistake, however, to think of this as a dichotomy between 'the city' and 'the suburbs'. That's not true, nor is it really relevant. For a good model, just look back to pre-WWII suburbs and small towns - they were walkable in scale, still featured all the single family homes and backyards, but with enough density to support local retail and often with a transit connection to the nearby city. There's a whole continuum of options, the point is just that the paradigm of auto-dependent (and hence oil dependent) suburbs cannot sustain themselves.

As for what to do, I don't know why you always try to put this in terms of 'forcing' people to do something. All I'm talking about is letting the market respond to the challenges we will face. I like cities and I think the qualities of cities are well-positioned to deal with the challenges of high priced oil. All I ask is that public policy allow cities to do what they do, and that it not subsidize oil-intensive lifestyles as it has been for the past 50-60 years.

You'll be free to choose whatever lifestyle you want, but you shouldn't be able to force me to subsidize it for you.

Oh, yes. Let's then get rid of all of the low income government subsidized housing. Welfare. And pretty much every other social program that subsidizes city life? Fair?

Funny you should mention that - when calculating an overall safety index, suburbs are often far less safe than cities due to much higher traffic fatality rates. That's not as sexy as urban crime, but no less deadly.

Yes, because fatalities are the only form of crime in society. Thanks, but I like being able to walk to a neighbor's house without fear of getting mugged.

Oh and just because baltimore and dallas are so unsafe, doesn't mean they can drop a blanket statement across all suburbs. Ever driven in Texas? They're f*king maniacs.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

What if they're a contractor? What if that's their work vehicle? I know you guys aren't talking about artificially raising prices (unless you are, but then this conversation would be over because you'd both be idiots ).

Well that is still their choice now isn't it...this isn't Soviet Russia where your job chooses you

Oh and I would never advocate for the artificial inflation of prices, not unless it was an absolute last resort. I tend to agree with Patman more that innovation and communication are the key, not some Utopia that will never exist in this country. I know in Europe things are different, but guess what we aren't Europe. Guess what, I am in Egypt right now and things are different here too...the exact opposite way.

Now, I chose to live in Uptown so that way I could use my car less. That works for me based on my situation. That won't work for everyone, and pumping up gas prices won't change that. In fact it will destroy it as more people move into the city.

 

[Patman]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Oh and I would never advocate for the artificial inflation of prices, not unless it was an absolute last resort. I tend to agree with Patman more that innovation and communication are the key, not some Utopia that will never exist in this country. I know in Europe things are different, but guess what we aren't Europe. Guess what, I am in Egypt right now and things are different here too...the exact opposite way.

I could see that if things go the way they might that people would trend back to the cities... its when its painted as an ideal state that I get leery. People make choices about their reality... if an urban planner is making decisions and advisories based on known phenomena then that's no big deal. Its another matter to advocate based on your desires.

I just get the feeling that some would like us to re-organize like Europe, in terms of city structure. I just don't want to be told that we must do so.

edit: the thing about utopia... what if they came up with a electric car charging system that takes only 10 minutes that could be done at the Gas and Go or what have you.... I think you'll find that (aside from the oil companies) you will have people who take a lot of consternation to that development. Again, not that the oil companies will be pleased either.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

Yes, because fatalities are the only form of crime in society. Thanks, but I like being able to walk to a neighbor's house without fear of getting mugged.

Sorry, but that is kinda lame. I walk around Minneapolis all the time at all hours and never think twice about it. Unless you live in a ridiculously bad neighborhood or you are being stupid and say, holding a wad of bills for everyone to see you should really never fear being in Minneapolis.

BTW the one time someone broke into my car and stole something I was in Plymouth, so lets not pretend that suburbs are super safe and cuddly. I mean you can go to pretty much any suburb and find all sorts of shady stuff. (drugs, violence...etc.) You can't change human behavior via distance.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

I think your doomsday scenario is too over-the-top. Sustainability from an individual's perspective and from society's perspective are two very different things. Your hypothetical involves a whole lot of other factors beyond just high energy prices.

It is and that is why I stepped off that "doomsday" box. Its just another point of view beyond the typical 'I can walk to work, so Oil prices won't affect me' bit. For the most part, sustainability is a term thrown around by people whom mostly I disagree with. Nothing we do now is sustainable; we eat up a lot of coal and oil and those resources aren't sustainable. The green energy freaks who love their corn ethonal and woody biomass also think their views are sustainable too! I mean, trees go back, right?

1 is better by far. One trip by truck to drop off a load of potatoes = ~20 gallons of diesel burned. 1000 trips by consumers if they have to drive to buy potatoes a bag at a time = ~1000 gallons burned.


you are forgetting to factor in the city population vs the population located near food producers. One truck to drop off a load of potatos goes for how many people? What If I live in a town and can walk to the farmers market? Its the same argument the city folk are saying about walking (as opposed to driving). You and I both know it is more complex than that, and neither of us have concrete numbers to support either claim. Either way, it is sort of irrelevant...my point was simply that if oil were to disappear, there might be some ruckus within higher density living areas due to sudden shortages.

The problem here is that we need innovation and we should avoid this whole "idealized world" crap. The issue we have right now is one of communication and knowledge. We wouldn't use coal if people were more informed on nuclear. Any alternative to oil will only come from people talking to each other and realizing what is implementable in a realistic scale at a realistic time. There are probably one or two innovations to be had if we ditched certain idealizations and just threw the information out there and connected the dots. What happens if super-capacitors become feasible for use? Would that help rail? Would that help the automobile?

you nailed it with a few points. Will something of reasonable scale in a realistic time period work? Green energy including solar, wind, corn ethonal, all require too much and produce way too little. Yet, the government is throwing tons of money at them! All of them are low energy density, expensive options that require huge swaths of land and aren't reliable. I will update this if I find differently, but to displace 20% of our domestic transportation needs with corn ethanol, you'd need something the size of Oklahoma to farm all the corn. Thats not realistic, its insane.

One thing I agree w/ patman is that the city is much better than living in the sticks and commuting any distance. There are people near my age in the cities, and you don't need a car to get from place to place. Driving and spending money on gas sucks. Believe it or not, I am certainly not disagreeing with you folks; I want to ditch the car and walk to work more than you know!

What's far more dangerous in my mind is those that live in suburban or exurban places who fancy themselves as independent and able to live off the grid as you suggest, when the underlying dynamics of those places is actually the same as that of a city - the form and the aesthetics are the only difference.

You mean like urban sprawls like in California? I suppose it is easier to power a city since the population is closer together and requires less in the ways of power lines and substations. You'd never catch me dead living in a place like that w/ a 1 hour + commute to work ( actually I might die of a heart attack from the stress of driving).

there is no living 'off the grid'. we all need 'always on' power for everything. I won't pretend otherwise. If **** hit the fan and everything got cut off, i'd be sitting mighty high and comfortable though! I see a few years worth of steaks outside my window now!

Well, now you're talking about going back to a subsistence agrarian economy, which very well could be where we end up in 500 or 1000 years, if a new energy source (e.g. fusion) is not found.

last one I promise ( as if its not obvious I have a keen interest in this stuff!)

in 500 years we will be making our own oil. Heck in the next 5 years we will be making our own oil. Oil comes from old algae, and the government as well as private facilities have already succeeded in making algae derived fuels who work as drop in fuels for jets ( a 50/50 blend) and it performs as well with regards to various specs such as cloud point etc. The energy content is the same too! The yields are astronomical compared to corn and soy, and we can use the ****tiest land known to man to grow the stuff. Projections are that 1 billion gallons annually of fuel can be algae derived. yes, its expensive. No it has not been proven yet on a large scale...but I think we will figure it out. Engineers need to be able to do their thing and make these systems cheap, and reliable!

 

[Patman]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

One thing I agree w/ patman is that the city is much better than living in the sticks and commuting any distance. There are people near my age in the cities, and you don't need a car to get from place to place. Driving and spending money on gas sucks. Believe it or not, I am certainly not disagreeing with you folks; I want to ditch the car and walk to work more than you know!

Eh... I think you might mean "disagree"... I don't want to be "out in the sticks" either... but you know, the car is so vital to mobility. I can think of a handful of things I could do with a car that I can't without one that I've run into so far. The car allows for a strong degree of flexibility.

It should be noted that with the curtailing of the automobile, via gas prices, you will a decrease in efficiency because you lose that general mobility... what happens when things become more compact? Its generally hard to move... and when persons want to go to places (friends, events, otherwise) the flow of persons becomes more difficult. I'll leave it there.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Gulf Oil Spill 2010

edit: the thing about utopia... what if they came up with a electric car charging system that takes only 10 minutes that could be done at the Gas and Go or what have you.... I think you'll find that (aside from the oil companies) you will have people who take a lot of consternation to that development. Again, not that the oil companies will be pleased either.

Yeah, but as I mentioned earlier, this kind of power draw (while not nearly as large as the one that would occur near the end of rush hour) would require a massive reworking of the current power infrastructure. Either that or you'd have to limit it to very small stations.