Big Oil to Congress: "LOLZ, we has ur moneys!"

[plasticbathmonki]

Okay, I typically am as red-blooded American as it comes when defending the virtue of a free-market economy, but something really must be done about these ridiculous prices. To put it in context, trucker are considering going on strike over the cost of diesel, and how will I be able to lose a few bucks at GS if the shipments don't make it from the ports to the stores. Before I go on any further, I think it goes without saying that this isn't the President's fault, and anyone who says that it is needs to take some basic econ courses. So, on with my suggestions:

1) End all taxation of oil imports

Pro: immediate 14% drop in the price of oil
Con: Big oil pays more in taxes than the lower 50% payroll earners do in income taxes each year.

2) Open up strategic oil reserves

Pros: At least a short term price drop
Cons: It's a reserve, as in, you aren't supposed to use it 'cept in emergencies. And I like Alaska the way that it is.

3) End all foreign aid to OPEC member countries (which, BTW, paid on average $.17 per gallon in 2007), and use the money for the aggressive development of fuel cells.

Pros: It would be awesome.
Cons: The UN whines about us not doing our part, etc. etc.

Okay, that's my 2 cents. Discuss.

[XxFuRy2Xx]

Stop giving them subsidies. No better way of forcing people to switch to an alternative fuel than by making the current fuel expensive as hell.

[Ikohn4ever]

they are already making 40 billion a year and that doesnt help i dont think cutting them a tax break is going to help us that much

[SpazX]

What we really need to do is use less oil, but that's not an easy task and if you tell people to conserve something they act like you're taking away their rights and freedoms and just raped their grandma.

I guess we need more incentives for buying more efficient cars? Anything to get more people to buy more fuel-efficient cars would be good.

As far as I can tell hydrogen extraction isn't nearly efficient enough to be used as a fuel right now and ethanol is just a stupid idea. Right now there just need to be a ton more electric and/or gas-electric hybrid cars until they can figure out a way to have a better fuel or just switch to electric shit entirely (which I guess would mean the power is mainly coming from coal and nuclear power plants, I dunno how much oil that would use...and that could create other problems).

[mykevermin]

Con: Big oil pays more in taxes than the lower 50% payroll earners do in income taxes each year.

Why is that a con? Fuck 'em. If they don't want to pay those kinds of taxes, they can jolly well drop their profit margin.

[SpazX]

Why is that a con? Fuck 'em. If they don't want to pay those kinds of taxes, they can jolly well drop their profit margin.

If I'm getting his point, I think he means it as a con as in the government wouldn't have that money.

[VanillaGorilla]

And I like Alaska the way that it is.Have you ever been to Alaska? I haven't, but I still say we should be drilling the hell out of that state. As long as people aren't living in the area, why not? Who cares about animal conservation, my Taurus needs gas.

[speedracer]

Okay, I typically am as red-blooded American as it comes when defending the virtue of a free-market economy, but something really must be done about these ridiculous prices.
These are mutually exclusive positions being put forth.

I think it goes without saying that this isn't the President's fault, and anyone who says that it is needs to take some basic econ courses.
Yea, who'da guessed that blowing big holes in a region by far the biggest supplier of an extremely limited natural resource would have economic consequences? Durrrrr, basic econ iz fun. And really, some admin officials cited cheap gas as a secondary reason for our hot sandbox action. I think it's fair at this point to realize that along with everything else they touch turning a deeper shade of poo, gas prices aren't too far from the tree.

1) End all taxation of oil imports
Tax breaks for the biggest, most profitable companies in the world. This is going to end well.

Pro: immediate 14% drop in the price of oil
lulz. A finite, wholly monopolized resource is going to drop overnight and stay there. All while the price of oil as a commodity continues to trade. Mmmmhmmmm.

2) Open up strategic oil reserves

Pros: At least a short term price drop
Cons: It's a reserve, as in, you aren't supposed to use it 'cept in emergencies. And I like Alaska the way that it is.
I'm not a fan, but I'd be willing to mull that one over.

3) End all foreign aid to OPEC member countries (which, BTW, paid on average $.17 per gallon in 2007), and use the money for the aggressive development of fuel cells.
Pros: It would be awesome.
Cons: The UN whines about us not doing our part, etc. etc.
You should ask the president (who's fault this isn't) to end OPEC aid. He's a reasonable man, wholly outside the influence of petty things like commodity dealers. You should write him a sternly worded letter demanding that he consider it.

[speedracer]

I guess we need more incentives for buying more efficient cars? Anything to get more people to buy more fuel-efficient cars would be good.
I can afford to say this because I'm not a politician and I realize that any that did would be virtually crucified, but I think we should raise taxes on gasoline at least 20%. Sure, we'd all eat it, but we're eating it anyway.

Faith in the free market to save us from high energy prices, right? I say let's do it.

[mykevermin]

I reckon you're right, Spaz. My reading comprehension today is fuck-all.

[plasticbathmonki]

@speedracer,

Obviously, we disagree on a lot of things so let me address them one at a time:

1) Instability in the Middle East is the main reason for the hike in the cost of oil

Not likely the primary cause, since the price of crude has been rising well before the Neocons began beating the war drum. That being said, it definitely doesn't help the situation. If that logic applied, then Gulf War 1.0 would have caused oil to skyrocket well past today's costs since so much more of the oil production in the region was halted (it capped and quickly fell from $60, adjusted for inflation). The main reason is simple: more people are using oil. As countries like India and China and a mess of sub-Saharan nations keep firing up oil-burning power plants, prices will continue to rise. That is why Big Oil has the same profit margins for the last 2 decades.

2) Ending taxation on oil imports

The reason I mentioned this (and summarily put why we can't) is because after factoring in the cost of mining and extraction (about 50% of the cost of the barrel), taxes form the bulk of the cost of we pay at the pump. Do I believe tax cuts on commodities lower cost? Yes, because it's happened before. Carter did this in part of the deregulation process during the 1979 oil crisis. The following year, we saw a massive drop in the price of oil.

3) Writing a letter to the president

I tried. He sent me back a letter asking if I like planes and baseball with an autographed glossy.

[fullmetalfan720]

What we need to do is:
a: Start using electric cars.
b. Start opening more nuclear power plants, and start utilizing more wind, solar and other energies in areas where they are viable.

[speedracer]

The main reason is simple: more people are using oil. As countries like India and China and a mess of sub-Saharan nations keep firing up oil-burning power plants, prices will continue to rise.
No disagreement, to a reasonable point.

That is why Big Oil has the same profit margins for the last 2 decades.
I live in Houston dude. It's difficult to believe any numbers that would suggest that when they themselves are strutting about town crowing that they've never made more money. Just sayin.

2) Ending taxation on oil imports

The reason I mentioned this (and summarily put why we can't) is because after factoring in the cost of mining and extraction (about 50% of the cost of the barrel), taxes form the bulk of the cost of we pay at the pump. Do I believe tax cuts on commodities lower cost? Yes, because it's happened before. Carter did this in part of the deregulation process during the 1979 oil crisis. The following year, we saw a massive drop in the price of oil.
1. I need to see your numbers.
2. 1980 was a long and interesting year. I'm curious if there weren't other factors there.

I tried. He sent me back a letter asking if I like planes and baseball with an autographed glossy.
That was awesome. Good for a laugh for sure. :D

[bmulligan]

@
2) Ending taxation on oil imports


Wait, you mean WE actually pay the taxes that the government imposes on business? No, no, that can't be right - they should just pay those higher taxes from their profits !

[JolietJake]

You're wrong about the president not being at fault, at least partially. Everyone knows that war in oil producing regions makes oil prices go up. It isn't that simple of course, oil investors play a part too. It is true that whenever there is active conflict in the middle east, oil prices go up. We certainly aren't helping to calm the middle east right now.

[homeland]

I like how Glen Beck said the higher revenues the oil companies are getting are actually a good thing. As it helps peoples retirement funds. Which is one of the most illogical comments I heard on April 1st.

[elprincipe]

You're wrong about the president not being at fault, at least partially. Everyone knows that war in oil producing regions makes oil prices go up. It isn't that simple of course, oil investors play a part too. It is true that whenever there is active conflict in the middle east, oil prices go up. We certainly aren't helping to calm the middle east right now.

Conflict in the Middle East, certainly not a new phenomenon, isn't the main cause of the gas price increases. The main cause is supply and demand, with the main problems being skyrocketing demand from China and India, plus our lack of extra refining capacity. Not to mention the fact that once people get used to paying $3 a gallon for gas the oil companies aren't going to say no to record profits.

What we need to do is:
a: Start using electric cars.
b. Start opening more nuclear power plants, and start utilizing more wind, solar and other energies in areas where they are viable.

Yes yes, this is the politician line, one that is wholly divorced from reality. Electric cars are great...except they still need electricity to run. Therefore, we need to generate electricity to run them. Now, you say, well, we will just open some new nuclear plants and get more solar and wind energy and everything will be hunky dory. News flash, even if we started building new nuclear plants today they probably wouldn't be up and running until near 2020. Solar and wind energy are a fraction of a percent of our total output. Even if we increased solar and wind energy production by 100x they would be a small, small portion of our needs.

So what I'm saying is not that improving solar and wind technology isn't good, or that we should give up on nuclear. I'm saying all energy sources are going to be needed until we can perfect the clean(er) ones. This means drilling in ANWR and off the coast of Florida, wind farms off Cape Cod, real biofuels (not ethanol which actually wastes energy). clean coal, the whole shebang. Not to mention getting serious about conservation. We need it all for some time, until technology leaps to where we need it to leap to and we can stop using finite fossil fuels altogether. But to pretend that we can just increase solar and wind power, switch to electric cars and everything will be peachy is to live in la-la land.

[VanillaGorilla]

The REAL answer is, we all need to start driving these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/IT_%28South_Park%3B_The_Entity%29.jpeg

[Ikohn4ever]

Conflict in the Middle East, certainly not a new phenomenon, isn't the main cause of the gas price increases. The main cause is supply and demand, with the main problems being skyrocketing demand from China and India, plus our lack of extra refining capacity. Not to mention the fact that once people get used to paying $3 a gallon for gas the oil companies aren't going to say no to record profits.



yeah OPEC intentionally causing the supply to stay the same while demand goes up has nothing to do with the MAIN cause of the gas situation.

[speedracer]

I'm saying all energy sources are going to be needed until we can perfect the clean(er) ones. This means drilling in ANWR and off the coast of Florida, wind farms off Cape Cod, real biofuels (not ethanol which actually wastes energy). clean coal, the whole shebang. Not to mention getting serious about conservation. We need it all for some time, until technology leaps to where we need it to leap to and we can stop using finite fossil fuels altogether. But to pretend that we can just increase solar and wind power, switch to electric cars and everything will be peachy is to live in la-la land.
Wait, how did we get here? I don't understand the conclusion. We should open up ANWAR, more of Florida, etc, .... so we can *hopefully* knock a couple of cents off the cost of gasoline?

[pittpizza]

Have you ever been to Alaska? I haven't, but I still say we should be drilling the hell out of that state. As long as people aren't living in the area, why not? Who cares about animal conservation, my Taurus needs gas.

I hate you.

What we need to do is:
a: Start using electric cars.
b. Start opening more nuclear power plants, and start utilizing more wind, solar and other energies in areas where they are viable.

Agreed, 100%!

About faith in new better technology on the verge: it's BS. Big Oil and car companies have been saying "We will have (insert alternative fuel here) in about 10 years" Since 1950. There is a huge tendency to massively overestimate technological advancement in this field. Watch. In ten years we will still be driving gas guzzlers. Don't beleive me, go watch the film Who killed the electric car? A: Big Oil, Big Auto, Government, California, and.....drumroll please........THE AMERICAN PUBLIC!

[fullmetalfan720]

Conflict in the Middle East, certainly not a new phenomenon, isn't the main cause of the gas price increases. The main cause is supply and demand, with the main problems being skyrocketing demand from China and India, plus our lack of extra refining capacity. Not to mention the fact that once people get used to paying $3 a gallon for gas the oil companies aren't going to say no to record profits.




So, you're telling me that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with how much oil they produced? Iraq has produced less oil since the Iraq war started, and that helps to drive prices up.





Yes yes, this is the politician line, one that is wholly divorced from reality. Electric cars are great...except they still need electricity to run. Therefore, we need to generate electricity to run them. Now, you say, well, we will just open some new nuclear plants and get more solar and wind energy and everything will be hunky dory. News flash, even if we started building new nuclear plants today they probably wouldn't be up and running until near 2020. Solar and wind energy are a fraction of a percent of our total output. Even if we increased solar and wind energy production by 100x they would be a small, small portion of our needs.

So what I'm saying is not that improving solar and wind technology isn't good, or that we should give up on nuclear. I'm saying all energy sources are going to be needed until we can perfect the clean(er) ones. This means drilling in ANWR and off the coast of Florida, wind farms off Cape Cod, real biofuels (not ethanol which actually wastes energy). clean coal, the whole shebang. Not to mention getting serious about conservation. We need it all for some time, until technology leaps to where we need it to leap to and we can stop using finite fossil fuels altogether. But to pretend that we can just increase solar and wind power, switch to electric cars and everything will be peachy is to live in la-la land.

First off, yes, nuclear power plants take a while to build. Adding new nuclear reactors to existing power plants also takes a while. However, the reality is, if we don't start using electric cars, we are
a. going to run out of oil fast. Some think we have already reached peak oil.
b. If we keep using oil, the price is going to go up, and the supply will go down, at worst causing another Great Depression and resource wars.
So, what we need to first do is, wean our country off of oil, and then when that is done, we can wean ourselves off of coal and use only nuclear, solar, wind, hydropower, and other alternative energies. That could mean using more coal now, until the nuclear power plants are online.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Yes yes, this is the politician line, one that is wholly divorced from reality. Electric cars are great...except they still need electricity to run. Therefore, we need to generate electricity to run them. Now, you say, well, we will just open some new nuclear plants and get more solar and wind energy and everything will be hunky dory. News flash, even if we started building new nuclear plants today they probably wouldn't be up and running until near 2020. Solar and wind energy are a fraction of a percent of our total output. Even if we increased solar and wind energy production by 100x they would be a small, small portion of our needs.

So what I'm saying is not that improving solar and wind technology isn't good, or that we should give up on nuclear. I'm saying all energy sources are going to be needed until we can perfect the clean(er) ones. This means drilling in ANWR and off the coast of Florida, wind farms off Cape Cod, real biofuels (not ethanol which actually wastes energy). clean coal, the whole shebang. Not to mention getting serious about conservation. We need it all for some time, until technology leaps to where we need it to leap to and we can stop using finite fossil fuels altogether. But to pretend that we can just increase solar and wind power, switch to electric cars and everything will be peachy is to live in la-la land.


And above is the lazy man's argument.

A crappy electric car can go 40 miles between charges. An expensive electric car can go 200+ miles between charges. Even if only crappy electric cars existed, that would satisfy 90% of commuters' daily driving needs.

What is the other 10%? The godawful cross-country car trips. Hmm. How about buses, trains or ships? Some can run on biofuel (such as ethanol from sugar cane instead of corn or diesel from waste grease) in addition to bigger batteries and water currents. So, electric cars are practical.

Oh, but how to power those electric cars? It takes $10,000 and 1,000 square feet of solar cells with today's technology to keep an electric car humming. Right now, the US spends $1,000 per person to stay in the Middle East.

After 10 years, the solar cells would be paid for. The other 10 years of service from the solar cells would be effectively FREE!

No new coal plants, no new nuclear plants, no whining assholes about wind turbines obstructing views or killing birds.

Even if solar cells couldn't be produced fast enough for a few years, overnight charging of electric cars would solve most of the power grid concerns.

We don't use electric cars because we're lazy and brainwashed by Big Oil and car companies that we couldn't survive without their cars.

[pittpizza]

A crappy electric car can go 40 miles between charges. An expensive electric car can go 200+ miles between charges. Even if only crappy electric cars existed, that would satisfy 90% of commuters' daily driving needs.

What is the other 10%? The godawful cross-country car trips. Hmm. How about buses, trains or ships? Some can run on biofuel (such as ethanol from sugar cane instead of corn or diesel from waste grease) in addition to bigger batteries and water currents. So, electric cars are practical.

Oh, but how to power those electric cars? It takes $10,000 and 1,000 square feet of solar cells with today's technology to keep an electric car humming. Right now, the US spends $1,000 per person to stay in the Middle East.

After 10 years, the solar cells would be paid for. The other 10 years of service from the solar cells would be effectively FREE!

No new coal plants, no new nuclear plants, no whining assholes about wind turbines obstructing views or killing birds.

Even if solar cells couldn't be produced fast enough for a few years, overnight charging of electric cars would solve most of the power grid concerns.

We don't use electric cars because we're lazy and brainwashed by Big Oil and car companies that we couldn't survive without their cars.

QFMFT! http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

[fatherofcaitlyn]

People give out the same shitty reasons why electric cars won't work.

1. They're expensive.

Yes, upfront. However, their maintenance and operating costs are lower and makes it cheaper than a gas guzzler.

2. They're unreliable.

No, not in the last 10 years. The electric RAV4s are still humming along after 200K miles.

3. Range is too short.

Only if you drive more than 100 miles a day every day.

4. They push pollution upstream.

Yes, if you get power from a coal fired plant instead of solar panels or wind turbines. Also, the coal fired plant must generate more pollution to power the car than gasoline would create from powering a comparative car.

...

Please add the rest of the reasons why electric cars are so impractical. Don't worry, they'll be crushed.

[pittpizza]

Please add the rest of the reasons why electric cars are so impractical. Don't worry, they'll be crushed.

:shock: Hot damn! With some attitude that time, I like it! :applause:

[daroga]

Does it boil down to the same reasoning when people bemoan professional sports players' salaries?

"They make too much money!"
"Then stop watching them on TV, buying tickets and merchandise."

"Gas is too expensive!"
"Only because you continue to buy it regardless of the cost."

[elprincipe]

yeah OPEC intentionally causing the supply to stay the same while demand goes up has nothing to do with the MAIN cause of the gas situation.

Isn't that what I said, supply and demand? OPEC doesn't change its production due to conflict in the Middle East; there has been conflict in the Middle East since oil became a valuable commodity.

[elprincipe]

Wait, how did we get here? I don't understand the conclusion. We should open up ANWAR, more of Florida, etc, .... so we can *hopefully* knock a couple of cents off the cost of gasoline?

Not at all, we should open these up plus all the rest to ensure that our economy is not crippled by energy costs. ANWR and continental shelf drilling by themselves won't solve all our problems, but realistically they are part of what we are going to need to keep energy costs from skyrocketing (more than they already have).

[elprincipe]

First off, yes, nuclear power plants take a while to build. Adding new nuclear reactors to existing power plants also takes a while. However, the reality is, if we don't start using electric cars, we are
a. going to run out of oil fast. Some think we have already reached peak oil.
b. If we keep using oil, the price is going to go up, and the supply will go down, at worst causing another Great Depression and resource wars.
So, what we need to first do is, wean our country off of oil, and then when that is done, we can wean ourselves off of coal and use only nuclear, solar, wind, hydropower, and other alternative energies. That could mean using more coal now, until the nuclear power plants are online.

I think you are agreeing with me. I am not saying don't develop electric cars; of course we should be developing them. I'm just saying that this is the easy part of the solution, and that we need the hard parts too if it is to work.

[elprincipe]

And above is the lazy man's argument.

A crappy electric car can go 40 miles between charges. An expensive electric car can go 200+ miles between charges. Even if only crappy electric cars existed, that would satisfy 90% of commuters' daily driving needs.

I think, again, you are misunderstanding me. The real lazy argument is to say let's just increase solar and wind and we'll be great next year. It is going to take time to develop the technologies that allow us to have sustainable energy resources. To get us to that time, yes, we are going to have to use oil/gas/coal/nuclear if we don't want our economy and standard of living destroyed - including the money to develop renewable technologies.

[BigT]

Does it boil down to the same reasoning when people bemoan professional sports players' salaries?

"They make too much money!"
"Then stop watching them on TV, buying tickets and merchandise."

"Gas is too expensive!"
"Only because you continue to buy it regardless of the cost."

It's a bit different, because for most people, getting to work is a necessity. Watch sports is purely entertainment. I like sports and I watch games when I can for free, but I refuse to buy season tickets or merchandise to support the rising salaries. I'm happy with that arrangement.

With gas, I don't really see an alternative. Public transit sucks in LA and pretty much only illegal aliens and transients use it... plus I'd have to walk 10-15 minutes to a bus stop and my whole trip length would increase by a factor of 2 or 3. I'd love to not show up at work with the excuse being: "gas is to expensive, so I decided not to buy it." But, I doubt that would fly... And no, I don't feel like walking 5 - 10 miles to work.

[Koggit]

There is an enormous difference between federal money spent on a war and federal money spent on subsidizing a global technology -- the former stays here, the latter does not.

As a very, very crass example, $1,000 for Iraq may mean $900 stays in our economy (as soldier pay, domestic military contracts, etc) and $100 does not (foreign contracts), where-as $1,000 for an electric car subsidy may mean $600 for Asian car companies, $200 for European car companies and $200 for American car companies (and a portion of that $200 goes to outsourced part manufacture).

I'm not saying these numbers are realistic, at all, but you can't compare the actual cost of a subsidy to military expense, since "cost" for federal action involves much more than just how much money leaves Washington -- you have to take into consideration how much of that will come back.

5 - 10 miles to work.

Are you serious? 5 - 10 miles and you're all out of options because you don't like public transportation? Bike.

In Seattle tons of people bike 15+ miles, and the majority of people I know who commute 5 miles or less do so by bike. My 63 year old law professor bikes 8 miles to and from campus every day -- I'm pretty sure you can handle it.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I think, again, you are misunderstanding me.

In one response, you're arguing we need to aggressively develop domestic oil resources. In another response, you're arguing the development of the electric car is easy of the way to go. It seems like you're trying to please everybody. Don't worry if you stomp on some toes. We're all adults here.

The real lazy argument is to say let's just increase solar and wind and we'll be great next year.

Next year? No. 4 years to make the US completely independent on oil import. 4 more years to make the US completely independent of almost all oil. Does my solution have to save the country in 6 months? ANWR won't help us for at least 10 years once exploration is approved.

It is going to take time to develop the technologies that allow us to have sustainable energy resources.

No, the technologies I am citing already exist. Solar panels fueling electric cars already have enough efficiency to be competitive with a gas guzzler BEFORE taking into account how much money must be wasted overseas to maintain the trickle of gasoline.

To get us to that time, yes, we are going to have to use oil/gas/coal/nuclear if we don't want our economy and standard of living destroyed - including the money to develop renewable technologies.

Bernanke much? Our economy and standard of living are on the decline. The massive amounts of money pissed away down Iraq are to blame.

[Koggit]

No, the technologies I am citing already exist. Solar panels fueling electric cars already have enough efficiency to be competitive with a gas guzzler BEFORE taking into account how much money must be wasted overseas to maintain the trickle of gasoline.

Solar powered *and* electric? And what's the MSRP? Driving on rainbows and sunshine is marvelous until you consider the economic plausibility.

The only way to make your wondercar viable is through enormous government subsidies and/or rebates. Either way, hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, would leave our nation, which would be absolutely devastating. This single move would throw us into a depression from which we may not be able to recover -- that's not hyperbolic, it seriously would be that devastating.

Our economy and standard of living are on the decline. The massive amounts of money pissed away down Iraq are to blame.

This, again, makes me feel like you don't really understand the difference between money kept domestic and money sent away.

For military funding, Americans are paid, American jobs are created and Americans use it to buy American products, paying American taxes, eventually going full circle. The money leaves Washington and a large portion of it comes back to Washington.

The same, of course, can not be said about a large subsidy for the auto industry, in which a very large portion of it would go to foreign companies, creating jobs in foreign countries, where they pay foreign taxes.


It should be noted that I'm an Earth-loving liberal -- I definitely don't defend the energy industry (or war efforts), but our economy is vital to every aspect of our life, and your proposition has a dreadful effect on it.

[k0kRoach]

I find it seriously hard to believe that any plan would make us almost completely independent of oil in under 30 years considering a large portion of the population still drives cars that are 20+ years old. Until you can go by the local mechanic shop and pick up an electric car that someone didn't pay the repair bill for, we will still need lots of regular unleaded.

[Ikohn4ever]

Solar powered *and* electric? And what's the MSRP? Driving on rainbows and sunshine is marvelous until you consider the economic plausibility.

The only way to make your wondercar viable is through enormous government subsidies and/or rebates. Either way, hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, would leave our nation, which would be absolutely devastating. This single move would throw us into a depression from which we may not be able to recover -- that's not hyperbolic, it seriously would be that devastating.


it would save us money in many fronts. First off it could be developed by a US company which would bring a ton of cash over here. Secondly it would stop the idiotic idea that biofeuls are the answer. This would have farmers just use their fields for food instead of trying to make a buck off the ethanol craze. This would lower the price of food greatly. Finally the long term health costs would be significant. The pollution produced from cars has serious long term effects on people. Cutting down those emissions to nill can save in the long term health costs, especially when there is some sort of Socialized Medicine in effect.

So i think the money you complain would go to subsidies would be considered a long term investment that would payoff

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I find it seriously hard to believe that any plan would make us almost completely independent of oil in under 30 years considering a large portion of the population still drives cars that are 20+ years old.

My last 4 cars over the last 10 years were all less than 20 years old. What great percentage of Americans drive 20+ year old cars on a daily basis? 1%? 0.05%? Sure, I've seen vintage cars (with historic plates) every few weekends on the interstate. In any parking lot, they're an anomaly.

[daroga]

My last 4 cars over the last 10 years were all less than 20 years old. What great percentage of Americans drive 20+ year old cars on a daily basis? 1%? 0.05%? Sure, I've seen vintage cars (with historic plates) every few weekends on the interstate. In any parking lot, they're an anomaly.I'd say you're living in a decently affluent area then. Around us, it's the newer cars that are the exception. Perhaps not 20 years old, but to see a car that is 10-15 years old is far and away the norm.

"Legacy" cars and people who simply can't afford a new car means it's a pie-in-the-sky dream to say we'll be completely off oil for a very long time. We can certainly do things to reduce our oil consumption, but we're not ever going to go cold turkey.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Solar powered *and* electric? And what's the MSRP? Driving on rainbows and sunshine is marvelous until you consider the economic plausibility.

The only way to make your wondercar viable is through enormous government subsidies and/or rebates. Either way, hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, would leave our nation, which would be absolutely devastating. This single move would throw us into a depression from which we may not be able to recover -- that's not hyperbolic, it seriously would be that devastating.


Are you describing electric cars or the last five years of making Iraq a democracy?

But seriously...

The average car payment is $378 over 63 months. http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2267.shtml
They're pissing away $4500 on car payments every year. They can afford a $10K conversion if the electric car is a more reliable product than a gas guzzler. (This is where you launch your first counterargument that will fail.)

The average American uses 500 gallons of gasoline every year. The average vehicle is driven more than 12,000 miles per year today. http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/efficiency/savingenergy.html
Using the best gas price I saw yesterday (3.11 per gallon), that $1555 per year if gas prices go no higher.
Pushing a car for 1 hour requires 10-15kWh at a speed of 60mph. That's 2000-3000kWh per year. At the current cost of coal delivered power (10 cents per kWh), that's $200-$300 per year if coal prices go no higher. BTW, coal is a product with enough domestic reserves that invading a foreign country isn't required. Then again, Kentucky could have WMDs.
At the current and expensive cost of solar panel delivered power (40 cents per kWh), that's $800-$1200 per year unless the sun stops shining or a supervolcano such as Toba blocks out the sun. (This is where you launch your second counterargument that will fail.)


This, again, makes me feel like you don't really understand the difference between money kept domestic and money sent away.

For military funding, Americans are paid, American jobs are created and Americans use it to buy American products, paying American taxes, eventually going full circle. The money leaves Washington and a large portion of it comes back to Washington.

The same, of course, can not be said about a large subsidy for the auto industry, in which a very large portion of it would go to foreign companies, creating jobs in foreign countries, where they pay foreign taxes.


It should be noted that I'm an Earth-loving liberal -- I definitely don't defend the energy industry (or war efforts), but our economy is vital to every aspect of our life, and your proposition has a dreadful effect on it.

A massive conversion to electric cars would create American jobs. Jobs to assembly batteries with current technology and distribute them locally. Another country could manufacture the batteries, but they would lose a significant amount of profitability transporting heavy batteries thousands of miles. Jobs to convert the crap Detroit churns out into electric. An electric car takes 80 man hours to complete. There are 240 million cars out there. That's 19.2 billion man hours of work to be completed that can't be shipped overseas. Are people going to ship their cars out of the country to be converted OR have it done locally?

Considering the lifespan of batteries and cars in general, the conversion has a built in percentage of renewal business.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I'd say you're living in a decently affluent area then. Around us, it's the newer cars that are the exception. Perhaps not 20 years old, but to see a car that is 10-15 years old is far and away the norm.

"Legacy" cars and people who simply can't afford a new car means it's a pie-in-the-sky dream to say we'll be completely off oil for a very long time. We can certainly do things to reduce our oil consumption, but we're not ever going to go cold turkey.

There's a trailer park less than a mile from where I currently live.

I can see 10 years old because I drive a 97 Sable and the wife drives a 99 Sable. 20 years is bullshit.

We don't have to go off oil tomorrow. For vehicular travel purposes only... I can get the country off of oil imports in 4 years and completely off of oil in 8 years. Do you want the math?

If somebody simply must continue driving a gas guzzler, there will be oil. Of course, there are probably still leisure suits available for purchase.

The idea isn't wand and fairy godmother. It is hard work for several years that can't be outsourced.

[daroga]

I would like to see the math, actually. :)

[elprincipe]

In one response, you're arguing we need to aggressively develop domestic oil resources. In another response, you're arguing the development of the electric car is easy of the way to go. It seems like you're trying to please everybody. Don't worry if you stomp on some toes. We're all adults here.

I'm not worried about stepping on toes around here or I'd be a party-line liberal. I don't like to be misunderstood. I'm arguing that we develop oil resources and electric cars aggressively as neither is a panacea.

Next year? No. 4 years to make the US completely independent on oil import. 4 more years to make the US completely independent of almost all oil. Does my solution have to save the country in 6 months? ANWR won't help us for at least 10 years once exploration is approved.

Four years? You're dreaming...I would say crazy dreaming. Realistically there is no way for us to be off foreign oil in the next 20-30 years completely unless we completely destroy our own economy to do so. So please, enlighten us as to how we stop using foreign oil altogether in four years. Our policymakers need to know this straightaway!

No, the technologies I am citing already exist. Solar panels fueling electric cars already have enough efficiency to be competitive with a gas guzzler BEFORE taking into account how much money must be wasted overseas to maintain the trickle of gasoline.

I think again you are dreaming. If not, you should be contacting some venture capitalists to form your solar car company. I'm sure if the technology is there people would be lining up to buy them given $3.50 gas.

Bernanke much? Our economy and standard of living are on the decline. The massive amounts of money pissed away down Iraq are to blame.

Our economy is slowing down, obviously. I don't think our standard of living is in decline as of yet, but who knows if things get worse. The massive amounts of money spent on Iraq are not really the reason though. Paying soldiers and buying equipment harming the economy is not a viewpoint I'd consider rational. You'd have better luck decrying the contribution of said spending to massive government deficits and a massive debt.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

In response to me stating earlier...

We don't have to go off oil tomorrow. For vehicular travel purposes only... I can get the country off of oil imports in 4 years and completely off of oil in 8 years. Do you want the math?

I would like to see the math, actually. :)

Absolutely. That's a more than fair request.

If you find a flaw in the math or a piece of data, pounce on it.

The United States has roughly 300 million people.

20% are under the age of 15 and are not allowed to drive cars. That leaves 240 million people including prison inmates and oddballs who walk and bike to work.

If nobody carpools or takes public transportation AND a person can only drive 1 car at a time, there are roughly 240 million cars in the United States.

As I've stated earlier, an electric car conversion requires $10,000. Federal and some state rebates exist, but we'll ignore those and possible costs overruns for the car's conversion.

We spend $300 billion per year on Iraq and Afghanistan to keep them "stabilized". (Also, the Pentagon and other Defense agencies request up to another $200 billion behind closed doors. However, I don't need that extra money to make the math work.)

$300 billion divided by $10,000 per car equals 30 million cars.

For every converted car, there is a savings on energy (see my 8:03AM post) of $200 (15kWh car fueled by solar cells) - $1300 (10kWh car fueled by coal plants overnight). These savings are rolled back into the conversion process next year to allow more cars to be converted. (Think interest on a bank account.)

SO...

End of Year 1: 30,000,000 electric cars
End of Year 2: 61,125,000 electric cars
End of Year 3: 93,375,000 electric cars
End of Year 4: 125,625,000 electric cars
End of Year 5: 157,875,000 electric cars
End of Year 6: 190,125,000 electric cars
End of Year 7: 222,375,000 electric cars
End of Year 8: 254,625,000 electric cars

The US uses 25% of the world's oil and produces 10% of the world's oil. 80% of the oil is used to push cars from point A to point B. The other 20% is used to make plastic bottles, fertilizer and pesticides to support highly inefficient and lazy monoculture agriculture (a different rant for a different time) and other products. The big picture equation is (10%/25%)/80%=50%. In other words, 50% of 240 million cars have to be converted to electric (120 million cars).

As you can see above, 120 million cars is reached just before EOY4. In the grand scheme of things at EOY4, the US would be using 15% of the world's oil and producing 10% of the world's oil. So, there is net import of oil BUT those imports can be used for something other than pushing cars from point A to point B.

For vehicular travel purposes only... off of oil imports in 4 years

More importantly, the entire US car population is converted to electric before EOY8. In the grand scheme of things at EOY8, the US would be using 5% of the world's oil and producing 10% of the world's oil. There is still oil being used BUT it isn't for pushing cars from point A to point B.

For vehicular travel purposes only... off of oil in 8 years

There's the math. Please point out any flaws.

...

Before somebody complains again that an electric car can't be bought as readily as a gas guzzler, I understand that.

Big Oil and Big Auto are as close your hand and your forearm. Both like it that way. Big Oil keeps the demand for its product high. Big Auto doesn't have to figure out how to make money on electric cars that have significantly lower maintenance costs than gas guzzlers.

Big Oil and Big Auto have inertia (and many, many government officials) on their side, not the math or logic.

[daroga]

Yeah, on paper that works. I just don't see that being a feesable real-life scenerio.

As you said, the oil and auto companies have intertia. The plan pretty much presupposes either A) we won't sell cars at all any more or B) on day 1 of year 1 all the auto makers will switch over to electric-only. Otherwise, you're still pumping in new gas-run cars to the eco system, which may or may not take the place of an already converted car, depending on how that goes. Even so I'm not convinced that the auto makers are convinced that there's more money to be made in electric cars as opposed to fuel-efficent and hybrid cars.

The problem with this country is the urban sprawl in most areas. When I'd visit my wife in Philadephia before we got married, we could go anywhere by train, bus, or walking. Here in the semi-outskirts of Milwaukee? Hardly! You'd be walking 4 miles to get to the grocery store. That's not really feesable.

We're in this awkward position in this country between not being in an urban enough area in most places to have things and PT readily available, but few own enough property or have the recourses to be semi-self-sufficient. As a result, our whole infrastructure in built around personal transportation, and as we both stated, I don't think the auto makers are in any hurry to drastically change anything that they're doing. Although more Civics and fewer Expeditions is a start.

Thanks for the math, it's an interesting read in that we could do it, but I think it's a fairy tale at this point. Meanwhile, gas jumped to $3.50 here for regular today.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Thanks for the math, it's an interesting read in that we could do it, but I think it's a fairy tale at this point.

You're absolutely right.

1. Big Oil has no incentive to lower price even if they could. Of course, Chevron owns the rights to NiMH car batteries and has no incentive to make the price lower. NiMH is somewhere between lead acid and lithium ion batteries in terms of range (>100 miles on a charge) and durability (10 years).

2. Big Auto has no incentive to introduce electric cars. Gas guzzlers have a lucrative maintenance schedule. A car sold at a loss can easily become profitable during normal maintenance.

3. The government has no incentive to nudge electric cars into the market or even attempt to educate the people. Big Oil and Big Auto have paid their dues.

4. The consumer has no desire to buy an electric car. The math above (8th grade level at best) would anger and confuse the average American and it can't be read while watching TV. Also, vehicle fuel costs still make up a small percentage of a family budget.

When will it change?

I don't have any math for that.

[Sarang01]

Solar powered *and* electric? And what's the MSRP? Driving on rainbows and sunshine is marvelous until you consider the economic plausibility.

The only way to make your wondercar viable is through enormous government subsidies and/or rebates. Either way, hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, would leave our nation, which would be absolutely devastating. This single move would throw us into a depression from which we may not be able to recover -- that's not hyperbolic, it seriously would be that devastating.



This, again, makes me feel like you don't really understand the difference between money kept domestic and money sent away.

For military funding, Americans are paid, American jobs are created and Americans use it to buy American products, paying American taxes, eventually going full circle. The money leaves Washington and a large portion of it comes back to Washington.

The same, of course, can not be said about a large subsidy for the auto industry, in which a very large portion of it would go to foreign companies, creating jobs in foreign countries, where they pay foreign taxes.


It should be noted that I'm an Earth-loving liberal -- I definitely don't defend the energy industry (or war efforts), but our economy is vital to every aspect of our life, and your proposition has a dreadful effect on it.

Pull your head out of your ass please! Zap's lower cost Electric cars cost around $14K for their low cost/charge model(25 miles to the charge with an additional battery upgrade that can bump it up to 40). Yes this is legit and the Zap-X at $60K gets 200-250 or even 300 to the charge. That's a SUV too.
They also have one $10K UNDER the Zap-X that gets like 150-200 I think.
Principle it's not so much they still run off Oil indirectly, it's that the electricity generated from those Power Plants and Oil is much more efficient then a car with an engine. Think about the cost of them getting the power in bulk.

[evanft]

fatherofcaitlyn, that was a great post. As an engineer, I really appreciate seeing raw numbers for these sorts of things. Couple things, though:

1. The demand for electricity would increase, yes? Would that cause an increase in costs, or are these converted cars equipped with solar panels to offset that?

2. I assume this would be concurrent with building nuclear power plants, as a unit at one of those fuckers can produce a GW, and electricity needs would rise.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

fatherofcaitlyn, that was a great post. As an engineer, I really appreciate seeing raw numbers for these sorts of things. Couple things, though:

1. The demand for electricity would increase, yes? Would that cause an increase in costs, or are these converted cars equipped with solar panels to offset that?

2. I assume this would be concurrent with building nuclear power plants, as a unit at one of those fuckers can produce a GW, and electricity needs would rise.

Question 1:

Demand for electricity would increase somewhat. Most battery technologies take several hours for a full recharge. However, a full recharge could happen while the driver was asleep in his or her bed. It is just a matter of keeping the power plant at peak or higher capacity for longer periods of time.

In terms of slapping solar panels on cars to fuel them, even thin film panels wouldn't work in sunny environments.
http://www.oksolar.com/pdf/solar_energy_catalog/unisolar_usf-32.pdf

The panels listed on that pdf are 0.11Wh/in squared on the low end.

My Sable's surface areas are 60"*44" (hood), 60"*60" (roof), 60"*24" (trunk), 60"*34" (windshield) and 60"*30" (rear glass). Obviously, removable solar arrays similar to reflective sunshades would be used to cover the windshield and rear glass when the vehicle was parked. Anyways, I have 8880 square inches of surface area. 0.11 Wh/in squared times 8880 in squared would equal 976.8Wh or just under 1kWh. That translates into 4-6 minutes of interstate driving time in the best of conditions.

If I had to power my car with solar power, I'd have large stationary or sun-tracking photovoltaic arrays with grid tie-in next to my parking space at work and next to my garage at home.

Realistically, I'd just plug the car into a 120 volt outlet until the car paid for itself or until rising utility costs made wind, solar or geothermal necessary.

Question 2:

There would definitely be more fuel (uranium, coal, etc.) consumed to power electric cars. However, uranium and coal have larger reserves than conventional oil. (Oil has optimistically 50 years, uranium has roughly 70 years and coal has roughly 200 years.) The need for more plants would depend on a power producer's ability to keep plants generating power in a safe manner. The coal plants I'm familiar with require a month of intensive maintenance per year, but the end consumer doesn't notice.

[fullmetalfan720]

Question 2:

There would definitely be more fuel (uranium, coal, etc.) consumed to power electric cars. However, uranium and coal have larger reserves than conventional oil. (Oil has optimistically 50 years, uranium has roughly 70 years and coal has roughly 200 years.) The need for more plants would depend on a power producer's ability to keep plants generating power in a safe manner. The coal plants I'm familiar with require a month of intensive maintenance per year, but the end consumer doesn't notice.


Also, if we were to start using (and converting to) breeder reactors, like France uses, we would have enough Plutonium for millions of years.

[Koggit]

We spend $300 billion per year on [war]

Sending $1 to some engineer in Japan and sending $1 to PFC Joe Blow do NOT represent the same economic impact, and are NOT of equal cost to our nation.

[evanft]

In terms of slapping solar panels on cars to fuel them, even thin film panels wouldn't work in sunny environments.
http://www.oksolar.com/pdf/solar_energy_catalog/unisolar_usf-32.pdf

How do those thin panels compare to the recent developments from Nanosolar?

The coal plants I'm familiar with require a month of intensive maintenance per year, but the end consumer doesn't notice.

Yep. The plant I work at started its outage yesterday.

[Sarang01]

Sending $1 to some engineer in Japan and sending $1 to PFC Joe Blow do NOT represent the same economic impact, and are NOT of equal cost to our nation.

You're an idiot. Seriously. Have you heard about the companies like Halliburton relocating to Dubai to avoid paying taxes?
Also Iraq is on credit so it's destroying our dollar. The money isn't there because taxes aren't being charged to cover Iraq.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

How do those thin panels compare to the recent developments from Nanosolar?


They aren't listing their prices, but they're sold out for the next 12 months.

If they can get the solar panels' cost down to $1/W, Big Oil will have to cut fuel prices or buy Nanosolar out to survive.

[Sarang01]

Father konnarka might be better then Nanosolar. I've been meaning to contact them and ask how well they can receive the sun's ray even on cloudy days which Konnarka's tech has no problem with. Also Konnarka's tech you can use inside to even get energy from the lights you have on. Imagine if you will your house powering itself at the same time you have the lights on. Basically someone has the TV on in another room and you have the fluorescents on in the kitchen and it's powering the TV partially.

[Tybee]

What we need to do is:
a: Start using electric cars.
b. Start opening more nuclear power plants, and start utilizing more wind, solar and other energies in areas where they are viable.

Speaking as someone whose wife is an engineer overseeing environmental permitting and compliance for a major power cooperative, I declare this post FULL OF WIN. But it only scratches the surface. And yes, whoever said getting new nuclear plants built takes a lot of time is absolutely right. Coal plants with scrubbers are, unfortunately, still the most popular way to go for most power companies.

Did anyone see that Nova report about how Germany looks like they will achieve something like 30 percent renewable energy within the next decade? Solar is HUGE there, but it's largely due to massive government subsidies that make it profitable. Everyone and their brother install panels on their farms and sell power back to the grid, plus get money from the government. Still, if they can make solar work in a cloudy northern latitude like Germany, you'd think they could make much better use of it in many parts of the U.S., especially when you look at the promise of solar thermal technology (great NY Times article on the latter (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/business/06solar.html)).

And let's stay the fuck out of ANWAR, k? Thx.

[elprincipe]

And let's stay the fuck out of ANWAR, k? Thx.

Interesting article on solar, thanks.

Why should we stay out of ANWR? There are few disadvantages and many advantages, in my view.

[Koggit]

Guess what's been on my fridge for the past seven months? http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/koggit/scan001001.jpg

[Magehart]

They aren't listing their prices, but they're sold out for the next 12 months.

If they can get the solar panels' cost down to $1/W, Big Oil will have to cut fuel prices or buy Nanosolar out to survive.

From what I've read and heard google is subsidizing them for the next 18 months to cut their costs under a dollar just to get the ball rolling and hype generated (which based on the stock/demand for the next year it seems to be working).

[VipFREAK]

The REAL answer is, we all need to start driving these:

Uhh... no this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSwlTqaM1oA

[thrustbucket]

Anyone seriously interested in getting to the bottom of why Oil is as expensive as is, owes it to themselves to watch this (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdo cid%3D-8668319287834598272&ei=Fuf8R_SvJJb8pgTdy_zvCQ&usg=AFQjCNE9YtEPtYowi0yqx6B6Wso6rcH81A&sig2=FG2jN5yAqR_7Nas2EzKOlg).

The oil company's are making record profits, but they aren't the main problem.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Interesting article on solar, thanks.

Why should we stay out of ANWR? There are few disadvantages and many advantages, in my view.

ANWR isn't a bad idea if it is understood as a stopgap method that will have no effect on oil prices for nearly a decade.

Opening up ANWR won't put gas back at $1 a gallon, but it will keep off peak oil for a few years.

ANWR could be of better use maintaining pesticides and fertilizers need for food growth.