But back to Grist:
Green reactions to Stevens’ and Obama’s bills reveal a tension between energy security and environmental protection that’s likely to escalate in coming months and years. As NRDC’s [policy director David] Doniger says, “There are solutions to global warming that are also solutions to energy security, but there are solutions to energy security that go backwards environmentally, that make global warming worse.”
Environmentalists want energy legislation that attacks both of these big problems, rather than one at the expense of the other. As strange as it seems — and it seems deeply, deeply strange — Ted Stevens has got a better start on this in the new congressional session than many of his Democratic counterparts.
Grist also reports that a school system in Washington State has banned Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, from classrooms because, it seems, creationists are pissed Gore left The End Times out of his PowerPoint presentation.
Grist links to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
“Condoms don’t belong in school, and neither does Al Gore He’s not a schoolteacher,” said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old.
“The information that’s being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. … The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn’t in the DVD.”
No, Dorothy, we’re not in Kansas anymore.
The fuel efficiency is a no-brainer. I’m looking at new cars now, to replace my Clown Car (2001 PT Cruiser) and just about ALL the ones I’ve seen are in the 35 – 45 range (leaning towrds a Honda Sport Fit – and befoe you get on me, I put @ 35,000/yr on a car, almost exclusively highway – hybrid isn’t a good option for me, but fuel efficiency is).
You go, P.P. That kind of driving doesn’t fit the hybrid profile, which favors low-speed, around-town driving.
<
p>
I was working at a Habitat site alongside a guy about my age, and telling him about moving from inside 128 (where we could get away with driving one car and taking the T) to outside of 495, and how my wife would now have to commute 80 miles round-trip to work, etc., and I asked him — like I’d asked everybody else I talked to — what kind of car I should get. Without hesitation, he said, “Get a Honda Civic.” It was at that moment I realized I was talking to Ray Magliozzi of “Car Talk”. When one of the “Tappet Brothers” tells you what to buy…
<
p>
I keep the tires inflated to 35 psi and get 39 mpg on the highway, consistently. Unfortunately, I can probably only expect to get 200,000 – 300,000 miles of use out of it, by which time Bubba down the street will have replaced his SUV three times.
I had a ’93 that I bought new, and got rid of it with 230,000 miles, bur only because my family outgrew it.
We should obviously increase mileage on average, getting rid of that idiotic carveout that allows people to write off personal SUVs as a “small business expense” would be nice, but..
<
p>
We’ll still need quite a bit of gas on a national basis, even if it’s 1/3 less than now (honestly, we’ll be lucky to slow down the demand growth). Unless hydrogen takes off, coal-to-gas is still better than relying on the middle east.. Or is it? Is coal to gas significantly worse for the environment than pumping oil out of the ground?
…but I would defer to Kira, who seems more up on this (?).
<
p>
And of course, we need to build the wind farm.
Burning coal produces more CO2 than any fossil fuels and the scrubbers usually only take out sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, not CO2.
<
p>
(formerly a Western PA coal entrepenuer)
Well, I’m no expert on coal emissions or mining, but to get the coal out of the ground involves things like “mountaintop removal,” literally blowing apart whole mountains to get the coal. It’s not just what comes out the smokestack that is a problem.
<
p>
This means that only 11% of our total oil usage comes from the Persian Gulf. If we could make 15% gains in fuel efficiency, we could meet oil needs without a drop of oil from the Persian Gulf.
<
p>
But how much oil do we use in transportation? * tUSA uses about 2/3 of its oil for transportation (source) * About 6% of tUSA’s consumption of oil comes from home heat (nearly all in the Northeast) and electricity generation (again, lots in New England, but also in Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, Alaska, and Hawaii (source, source)
<
p>
This means that if cars suddenly were 20-25% more efficient, we could make oil ends meet without Persian Gulf oil. Replacing oil burning power plants (like the Salem Mass Power Plant) with other generation — perhaps even renewable — could shave a bit more oil usage out, and keep the air quite a bit cleaner.
<
p>
How much do speed limits impact fuel consumption? * The EPA uses a formula of 45% highway, 55% city driving (source) * Driving at 65 mph results in a 10% drop in fuel efficiency as compared to 55 mph due to drag; 75 mph results in a 20% drop in fuel efficiency (source)
<
p>
This means that lowering speed limits on highways by 10 mph nationwide would reduce oil consumption by (.66.45.10) = 3%.
<
p>
That’s right. Lowering speed limits on highways by 10 mph (and enforcing the new limits) would instantly reduce our imports from the Persian Gulf by a third. Improving our auto’s fuel efficiency by 15% would easily accomplish the other two thirds, thereby eliminating Persian Gulf oil imports to tUSA completely.
<
p>
The fact is, we could completely eliminate Persian Gulf oil from US imports and keep all other sources of oil constant within five years. How?
1. Reduce the speed limit on highways by 10 mph, nationwide.
2. Increase the national gas tax from $0.184/gallon (source) to something higher. It’d probably be easiest to swallow if it were done in tiers, say add an additional 5, 7, 9, 11, then 13 cents to it (totaling 45 cents more per gallon). Let everyone know the tax increase schedule, so they know that their next car should be more fuel efficient.
3. Increase the CAFE standards, particularly for heavier vehicles.
4. Invest mucho dolores into public transit, both commuter and city. It’s no surprise that New York uses less gasoline per capita than any other state (source) — they’ve got a huge portion of their citizens with access to good public transit, both in and around NYC. While we’re at it, invest mucho dolores in intra-city public transit. For example, improve and expand Acela. Perhaps extend it from DC to Richmond, RTP, Greensboro, Charlotte, Atlanta. For that matter, create a similar high speed line to run North-South up the Pacific Coast. The mpg on an airplane ain’t so great.
5. Expand biofuel requirements, both for fuel contents and engine capability. Its true that corn-based ethanol has only a small net-positive energy gain, but requiring E5 or E10 everywhere will help subsidize US farmers and create the infrastructure for ethanol production using other feedstocks such as switchgrass, biomass, or other sources. Additionally, encouraging biodiesel accomplishes similar results, but biodiesel is already more net-energy-positive and has the added benefits of cleaning out the engine of gunk.
<
p>
So, it can be done — and it doesn’t require any CTL technology, FT or otherwise. It’s true that carbon sequestration might allow CTL to be carbon-neutral, but I’m skeptical. I’m not saying we shouldn’t continue to research and consider it, but when there are so many other effective tools out there that reduce consumption of oil and the release of carbon, why start with CTL? Young Democratic “rock stars” like Barack Obama and Jon Tester are right to look out for their own states’ interests where they intersect with national interests, like fuel production. However, there are plenty of other ways to influence supply and demand that are so much better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
Do YOU know anybody driving on Rt 128 at 65 mph?
There’s an upper bound on how fast most people are willing to go, and its usually a function of the posted speed limit. For me, its about 10 over. For others, it may be close to 20.
<
p>
It would seem that 1-10 over is “no” risk of a ticket, 11-20 is a risk, and 21+ leads to tickets and reckless driving charges sometimes.
<
p>
So, lower the limit, and people slow down. That doesn’t mean they stop violating the speed limit, just that they slow down… and slowing down saves fuel.
<
p>
Besides — I didn’t argue that any of these proposals (especially the gas tax increase) were politically viable, just that they would accomplish a reduction in the consumption of gasoline.
Put your cruise at 65 on the pike and count how many cars nearly rear-end you. Actually, it’s easier to count how many don’t. People routinely speed mightily, 70+. Returning the speed limit to 55 would bring that down to 65ish based on your “safe to speed” calculation, which I think is pretty accurate.
I enjoy putting the pedal to the metal as much as anyone, but since gas prices shot up, I decided to slow down. I won’t go over 60 mph unless it is unsafe to do so. That’s usually when there are a lot of big trucks on the road.
<
p>
I found that my gas effeciency shot up.
<
p>
Yes, I get passed right and left. On the Pike, it’s easier to sit in the right lane and plod along. It’s not too bad on 128 because the limit is 55 so I don’t feel bad if I’m doing that. You all can just pass me. The problems come on 93, where the limit is 65. You take your life in your hands to go as slow as that, never mind 60. But I try. I’m lucky in being able to avoid highways and stay clear of them during rush hour (that one hour when the traffic is heavy and moving fast, before it slows to a crawl for the next several slow hours).
<
p>
I get really peeved when people complain about gas prices but won’t slow down. Why would you choose to pay 10-20 cents more per gallon? That’s what you do when you speed.
<
p>
Try it. Set your trip odometer to zero the next time you fill up. Drive as you usually do. Next time you fill up, note how many miles you drove and how many gallons you take, reset the odometer, then drive at or under the speed limit. Next time you fill up, note the miles and gallons and compare the miles per gallon to what you got with the first tankful. (Even a mathphobe like me can do it: miles divided by gallons.)
<
p>
Then report back here. I’d love to see the results. This is a good time of year, since we’re not using air conditioning, which lowers mpg.
Definitely not America anymore either.
The logic of politics is gone. This makes as much sense as the Democrats fully endorsing Bush’s never ending global war on terror by passing, what, an anti-terror bill? That and billing it as an “achievement?
<
p>
Homeland Security identity checkpoints on American roads and highways;
– Mandated biometric iris and finger scanning systems for all Americans at airports;
– Creation of a biometric national ID card for all American citizens;
– Expansion of “no-fly” and “watch lists” to prevent more Americans from traveling (even though such lists have been ridiculed time and time again for flagging completely innocent people including Senators and children);
– Increased special screening of all passengers at airports (greasing the skids for invasive body scanners that capture a naked image of the passenger to be implemented as standard);
– Federal takeover of publicly owned communication systems such as radio;
– Increased government surveillance of Americans’ financial records and activities;
– Domesticating the CIA to watch American citizens;
– Government wide sharing of information and centralization of databases containing information about American citizens.
<
p>
I don’t call the Nazification of America an “achievement”.
It’s also not the same thing as reducing greenhouse emissions.
<
p>
Keep your eye on that prize as you listen to the State of the Union next week. (Or as you read it if, like me, you can’t stand listeining to the man.)
Even if we produce enough to meet all of our own needs, we will continue to import from the middle east, and sell off the excess to pacific rim nations.
It’s a simple matter of logistics.
if tUSA is self sustaining, and Europe is self sustaining, and South America is self sustaining…
<
p>
before you know it, the OPEC nations won’t have much influence, nor the source of wealth they have now. In addition to the foreign policy gains, our balance of trade will swing back toward the middle, the risk associated with oil price swings will be reduced, and then there’s those benefits to the environment.
We will continue to buy it from them. But they will no longer have the leverage that they now enjoy.
I think someone is being played for a sucker here. Since something like half or more of the “cars” (passenger vehicles) sold are SUVs or trucks, it’s going to do more to help Stevens’ political career than to make a dent in the consumption of renewable fuels. And that’s not the only loophole in the proposed bill, which
<
p>
<
p>
As determined by whom? The automakers? Vehicles would average 50mpg right now if legislation that was in place in the 70’s hadn’t been thrown out during the Reagan administration. Automakers have had to be dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way regarding improvements in safety and fuel efficiency. Leaving it up to the auto industry — via SUV loopholes in fuel-efficiency legislation — is how we ended up with streets and highways clogged with gas-guzzling glorified farm equipment.
<
p>
<
p>
A crock, simply put. If the obvious cynicism of something like this escapes the folks at Sierra Club, then we should expect a flood of swiss-cheese regulations and political grandstanding from Republicans, with an eye towards preempting any meaningful proposals from Democrats, and towards feathering their nests as the political pendulum swings the other way.
I said “renewable” when I meant “non-renewable”. Corrected (and expanded) here.
…It is because station wagons (remember them?) were included in CAFE standards, and SUVs were not, was one of the rather significant reasons for the demise of the relatively fuel economical station wagons, and the rise of the horrendously uneconomical SUVs.
<
p>
Until every passenger vehicle is brought within CAFE standards, the whole thing is BS.