Karl,

Your comment for today goes into a basic, unavoidable facet of American society: We're an incredibly spoiled, self-centered, self-absorbed society who's been living too well for too long.

All through my childhood (50's and 60's), I had to listen to my late father's constant lament, "What this country desperately needs is another Great Depression." Obviously, I looked at him like he was from another planet or something like that. After hearing all his stories about what it took to keep the family farm going, etc., I couldn't figure out why he'd want to see the country back on the ropes that badly.

Having now lived through the 80's, 90's and 00's, I understand. He didn't want the COUNTRY on the ropes - he wanted a lot of spoiled Americans to be nastily thrust back into the basics: Keeping food on the table, a roof over one's head, raising the children, etc. Put back to the point where the basics matter and a sense of reality is forced back upon them.

I think he's about to get his wish, or at least a part of it. And part of me is looking forward to it.

Then again, other than the last six years on a mortgage I'm not in debt . . . . . in the slightest. And that's deliberate. And if my job goes belly up tomorrow, I've still got reserves I can count on, built over over the last fifteen years.

I have a feeling I'm going to be nastily chuckling at some people over the next few years. Thank you dad, for pounding into me, a Depression-era mentality, no matter how out of style it was for the current era, and no matter how many toys I had to do without.

syke - Sorry I cannot more strongly disagree with you. This forced misery on mass numbers of people so that you can 'teach' them a leason.

When alot of the reasons that leason would have to be learned is through no fault of their own.

At the end of the day, how many people really took out subprime mortages that shouldn't have? I dont know the answer, but its not as many as the media is making it seem to be, but its far more then the 'industry' predicated.

And while the people that took out the loans should be blamed for not reading what they signed for, the blame cannot be taken away from wall street offering loans to people they KNEW (but turned a blind eye too) shouldn't have.

Even now, in general, the number of foreclosed homes is like what, far less then 1% of all mortages? The problem is, the bean counters bet on what .1% of mortages going under?

--------

Finally, you sound just like the person Karl described... Their might be solutions to problems yet, you'd rather sit on you chair and say 'Told you so', then actually work to fix the problem.

I see no reason why people shouldn't enjoy more then the basic's. Heck, slaves had the basics, food, place to live. How basic do you want to get?

Whats wrong with advancing society, working to have more/be better then the previous generation? Apperantly in your world and your dad's everything.

According to the US Department of Energy, the impact of allowing offshore drilling would "insignificant" on gas prices and the oil markets. Allow me to quote - "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030". "For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher". Seven percent after 2030... yeah, that'll go far.

If you need to check - http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

Wave power? you live by the sea.

Solar was going great and then the US stopped funding research and now the big users of solar are...the germans. Regardless, we have millions of square acres of uninhabitable land throughout California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Nevada top set up large scale solar farms.

Like politicians who refuse to invest in mass transit because of upfront cost, nobody in the US looks to longterm ROI. A good solar system may not show constant ROI in 5 or even 10 years. But 50 years later it'd seem like Hoover dam - you might recall that big old dam was considered excessively expensive when it was made.

Short term expense an eventually lead to something that will pay off for generations. We've got the space, so why not try something?

FWIW, California's ocean is so nasty and polluted, I can't see how adding oil would jack it up too much. Our water is essentially untouchable dreck anyway.

This sounds like the same government that "predicted" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Here's an idea! Let's chuck the "predictions" and authorize the widespread drilling for oil in our own reserves. What's the worst that could happen -- oil stays expensive after Exxon, Shell and the rest of the wealthy oil industry spends its own money on trying to find more?

I can live with that worst-case scenario.

Wow syke and opfreak, two very different views and I guess you both have valid points. I think we'd all agree it's probably a bit redeeming for the ants of the world to see the grasshoppers cold, but it's not right to let the freeze.

But Vacagrande, is your point that limiting citizens access to potential sources of energy doesn't matter? Are you nuts? If the DOE is right, why don't the just open the area up to exploration, and nobody else will be interested anyway, right?

And I maintain that just the threat of having access to more reserves would drop the price NOW.

Wind energy: The basic idea behind wind energy is that you use the wind to spin some rotors, that rotate a shaft on an electric generator, to produce electricity.

It sounds great on paper, because it uses a renewable resource that requires a minimum investment to renew.

However, some of the difficulties of wind energy are as follows:

1) There is a limit to how much energy a specific turbine can generate in a specified time frame.

2) Because of 1, numerous turbines are required to produce the equivalent of a conventional power plant. Additionally, because a turbine "uses up" some of the wind, they can't be closely spaced, meaning you need a large area in which to set up the turbines.

3) The energy generation is stable. What I mean is, that at different times of the day, month, and year, you will have a different output from a wind farm. This creates difficulties in managing the energy grids, as there is a critical balance between supply and demand that must be maintained.

4) Peak energy production from wind power occurs during lower demand times. For example, the strongest winds are usually at night, and occur during the spring and fall. These are times when air-conditioning usage is at its lowest.

5) Unlike a coal plant, not all locations are suitable for wind power generation.

There are solutions to some of these problems coming along. In West Texas, they are building a wind farm that will pump pressurized air into salt caverns, and the pressurized air will be used to generate electricity. This will help to alleviate the time sensativity of the wind power.

bepperb - We limit access to potential resources every single day - there are other motivations for decisions than pumping more oil. You can't pave over wetlands to develop at will, you have to have a catalytic convertor that robs power from your engine to clean the exhaust, there's no more leaded gas, you can't strip mine in most areas in this country... need I go on? It's not nuts to draw the line on oil drilling when there are plenty of resources currently available domestically. Look at North Dakota, for example. That may be the biggest domestic field yet.

The oil companies have leases on thousands and thousands of acres of federal land that lies untouched and thus far unexplored. They're already allowed to drill on this land. Why do they need more?

We need to move past the idea that we can just go find more to drill and put our heads together to come up with a sustainable solution to power our country that doesn't rely on foreign powers. It can be done, it's just going to take more willpower than anyone is showing. Like blueguy said, it's going to take someone putting in the resources and not treating every aspect of modern life as a business. Maybe the government can spur private industry with grants and funding to develop real energy solution.

We should open up more, probably all, areas for oil exploration and drilling. It should be done in as friendly to the environment as possible. We should also make every effort to develop solar, shale oil, wind, fission, fusion, coal, geothermal, wave, and any other power source imaginable.

It's foolish to be so dependent on oil. But we are, and it will take time to develop other methods.

To say we shouldn't develop known oil sources because they won't reach the market for 10 years, is nuts. We will need it in 10 years, just as we need it today.

Blueguy,

Solar power has significant barriers that have not been overcome. The information you normally see published about solar power returns are based on idealized circumstances.

Once you go out into the real world and start converting hundreds of square miles into solar power farms, reality sets in. Things like ground shift, rain, and dust will all cause a reduction in the efficiency of the solar power panels. Something like an earthquake, hail storm, or sand storm could literally destroy your entire facility by ruining the solar collectors.

vacagrande - what is wrong with doing both? finding other solutions and drilling?

Not drilling for oil here is stupid. Dont even think about the big 'energy' picture.

Think of jobs, money, wealth. Instead of shipping billions of dollars overseas, we spend some of those billions here. And taxes..

Heck even if oil doesnt drop, its stupid NOT to drill for it now.

If you had a few billion/trillion dollars of gold buired in your back yard, would you go for it? Or buy it from your neighboor, while he gets rich, and you live in the poor house?

As for having millions of acre's of land to all ready drill on. It appears that land doesn't have the easy oil, or has no oil the companies can drill.

Heck I can give farmers millions of acres of desert and then claim they have all the land they need to farm, while blocking all the land in the middle of the country to farm.

I personally do not believe that future changes will effect the price now.

The referenced article would lead you to believe that oil prices will drop due to speculation, based on things like expected return from investment of the oil money. If the return is high, then you pump up the oil and sell it. If the return is low, then you leave it in the ground.

The idea is that if the prices would be expected to drop in the future, then the oil companies would pump up more oil now so that they could use the money for investing and increasing short-term gains.

However, from a long term view, the price of oil will always be going up. It's a non-renewable resource, so the long term supply is always going downwards. From that point of view, I don't think that the oil companies will tap into their oil reserves due to an expected price decrease in the future. Instead, I think they would hold onto the oil to keep the price high now. Being that the oil companies will be the ones developing new resources, they could then use the Dakota or Offshore oil to keep up with the fields they have that are running dry.

One thing I have seen is that the oil companies are looking at using alternative sources to turn into oil. For example, Shell has developed a process to turn natural gas into a fuel liquid.

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=qatar

Processes like this would allow for development of natural gas resources and for the reclamation of natural gas from oil deposits to be used as fuel source other than just as natural gas.

blueguydotcom

- Is their a public transport system in america, that does not depend on tax payer dollars forever?

Even in areas where it has been well 'funded'... think of chicago, this year they needed what, a few extra billion dollars?

Car ownership means the owner pays for most if not all of the bill, you pay for the car, the insurance, the roads, the maintance, etc etc.

Public transport, you pay 1 or 2 bucks, for a ride, that to break even should cost you 10-15 dollars.

Most of those using public tranport, pay next to nothing for the roads, the buses, the driver, the insurance etc etc.

Sorry in general the ROI for public transport is negative.

The high oil prices caused by not recovering oil here will make more oil fields in the rest of the world economically viable.

And you'd better believe that Chinese contractors running high cost of production fields in Africa aren't going to spend one red cent along the way to cleanly and safely coexist with adjacent wildlife - or adjacent Africans for that matter.

Environmentalists aren't stupid. They know that perfectly well.

But they don't care, because the point isn't to save the environment it's to knock the US down a notch because they hate our success.

That sounds awfully cynical aspade.

I just wish I could write it off as untrue...but I think for a frightening percentage of environmentalists -- your right.

Karl, I have to disagree. Nuclear power plants are not that easy and are very risky. Even though scientists say they have become much safer, their still not anywhere near being 50% as safe as any other type of energy. Wind, solar, and hydro energy look to be the best forms of energy for our future. Heck, most of the Northeastern coast is powered by Niagara Falls.

I really don't see it as being very difficult, but rather a lack of funds. Our government should be going out of their way to help make these forms of energy possible for us, thats why we pay taxes! But rather we spending an insane amount of money on trying to make another country like us. Not sure why, because the US isn't anywhere near being a good role model to other countries.

Imagine if all of the money put into war, was put into an economy that is floundering and seeing no growth in sight. I'm sure anyone would buy a windmill for their backyard or solar panels for their rooftop if it was less than the cost of an Aveo. Atleast it won't be a losing investment like the Aveo, and hopefully pay for itself after a decade or two.

Even if we all could not have windmills because we live in large cities, I'm sure a 40% reduction in reliance on the grid all of the time, would help reduce costs and make what we have left last much longer until the next BIG IDEA.

I'm a greenie in the construction industry, and I'm quite satisfied with the current environmental impact assessment process - I think we could easily drill in Alaska without causing any significant harm. It wouldn't be as cheap as if we didn't care, but then our landscape would look like that of the USSR. We can afford to do it well. That said, I'm not convinced it'll make much of a difference. Saudi Arabia has felt the pressure to increase their exports to keep prices level... if we produce more domestically, they'd rather reduce their exports back to normal. We'd have the same supply in the end.

Worse, we'd be using our domestic reserves first, and once those run out we'll really be at the mercy of petroleum exporters. It seems prudent to use their oil first and save ours for last - the only scenario under which that doesn't save us money (in the long term) is if we stop using oil completely before falling back on our reserves. We might stop using it to power our cars, but too many industries (eg plastics) need it.

Solar is getting closer to being economically viable. They're improving (albeit due to government incentives for research) and I'm hopeful. Fusion, the holy grail of power, isn't working out. Fission (nuclear) is fine by me, but we still don't have a proper nuclear waste management system. I don't know if I have enough trust in the people involved to do it right. (Being originally from NV, I think Harry Reid should give up on opposing Yucca Mountain and just use it to get all the concessions for the state he can get - I think it's too late to stop it, and I don't think it's that bad anyway.)

As for us... the more desperate it gets, the less unrealistic we'll be. I'm finally seeing a little less of the "but I NEED my gas guzzler!" attitude (so they can tow their other gas guzzler to a lake and fill it with hydrocarbons), and seeing more people admitting that they WANT their gas guzzler and it is a negotiable part of their budget. Even private contractors are realizing that they didn't need an F-450 to carry their toolbox and Ready-Mix bags around. The guys with old Frontiers and Tacomas are doing just fine, with less whining. If the change in attitude is big enough, maybe it'll carry over to the rest of the car enthusiast world. Maybe it'll be the end of posts saying "Hey, this upcoming car looks great! I'll buy it - as long as it has 300hp, RWD, weighs less than 2,500 lbs, gets 30 mpg, fits five basket players inside, has a soft-touch interior with 47 speakers, and costs less than $25,000. Otherwise it'll suck and I hope it dies a horrible death"

Taht sounds a lot like the people who say, "Why can't Chevy just make me a Suburban that get's 40 mpg? The government should do something!"

The government can't change the laws of physics (or human nature, but that's a blog for another day). If solar/wind/hydro are unworkable for the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population then "funding" those forms of energy won't change anything.

Let's not forget the Tesla. The car that was finally going to break the bonds of all those old fuddy-duddy automakers and give people the ultra-clean electric car they've always wanted.

The car is late, more expensive, less capable than originally advertised, and the production rate is one a week.

And these were the Apple/Google guys who had all the money and brainpower in the world at their disposal. But pure electricity isn't a viable form of automotive transportation, just like pure solar/wind/hydro isn't a viable form of large-scale energy production.

To quote the Rembrandt's "other" song: That's just the way it is baby...

My previous comment was meant for z479, btw.

z479: "Nuclear power plants are not that easy and are very risky. Even though scientists say they have become much safer, their still not anywhere near being 50% as safe as any other type of energy."

Short of Chernobyl style meltdown, which is winning powerball twice odds with modern western reactors and physically impossible with a pebble bed design, there is no risk at all in the gamble sense. Only the known quantity problem of waste disposal.

The economically viable other type of energy is coal. Coal isn't a gamble either. Burning literally billions of tons of it and filling the air with commensurate amounts of CO2, SO2, NOx, Hg, particulates, etc. is a certainty. And the side effects are global and now, not maybe irradiating localized ground water hundreds of years from now.

Every day that the nuclear transition is put off over arguments that it isn't perfect and we need to wait for some pie in the sky like mass solar to become viable is another day using far and away the dirtiest source there is by default.

z479 - another id-ot that claims nuclear power is dangerous...
thats why the rest of the world is much less afriad of it.

Thats why china is gearing up to build dozens. Thats why most of western Europ uses it for power.

Greenies like you would complain that the wright brothers plane is worthless because it only goes 200 ft.

Karl, the WSJ article and your rationale for more oil drilling are not very convincing because they not address how much we could increase our supply with additional drilling. Currently the US consumes about 7.5 billion barrels of oil a year. The estimates for ANWR range from 6 to 16 billion barrels of oil and the estimates for outer shelf drilling are around 18 billion barrels. Relative to our baseline consumption these are rather small increases in supply. Given the concurrent increase in global demand the the smal increase in global supplies provided by the exploration of this oil will have minimal impact on oil price specutation. If the benefit to our oil security is minimal I think it makes a lot of sense to try to avoid harm to sensitive enviroments. I find it sad that one of your commenters has to resort to the Fox News retort that anyone concerned about the environment must somehow hate this country. Your concurring statment of a "frightening percentage of environmentalist" is also the same sort of distortion used to stifle debate. For what its worth I'm a car enthusisat and an environmental consultant. Back to oil.....the one domestic source of oil that could provide a large supply is oil shale. With about 800 billion barrels it could supply the US for over a 100 years at current consumption. Howver, it would be very expensive to exploit so it will never be a cheap sourece of oil.

Sorry you don't like my characterization wolverine, but when I hear environmentalists claim nuclear power still "isn't safe" and/or I hear them say we'll ruin moose trails despite drilling techniques that would have minimal impact on the surface of ANWR I'm left with no other logical conclusion as to why these people want to fight common sense.

As for the supposed oil reserves, I remain convinced that just trying to get this oil will send a message to the speculators that we're willing to step outside the OPEC overlords, versus paying them whatever they charge while we ignore our own supplies because of moose trails. And who knows, maybe there's more there than the "estimates" suggest. Outlawing our ability to even look seems ludicrous (and/or self destructive, ergo the "environmentalists just want to hurt the U.S. because they hate our success" comment).

While I slightly disagree with Karl that opening up drilling would have much of an affect on current prices, it definitely will in the long run. For the people who say "that won't increase supply for at least 5 years", my response is "great! I'll still need oil 5 years from now." Personally, I think we have to drive hard in every facet of energy production: fossil fuels, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, hydrogen. It's not a "this or that" situtation, it's a "we need all of it" situation. And if CO2 is a problem with coal and gas then we need to figure it out real quick because our appetite for energy isn't going to decrease. And if we don't do all of these things, we will just import more and more from other countries, which is the worst possible thing to do.

"A similar situation exists with energy costs in the U.S. Once again, an easy solution exists -- nuclear power -- but the "wanting the impossibles" haved banned the construction of nuclear power plants in a number of states. "

Is there any proof of this "ban"? I dont believe that is true at all. The US (and this includes citizens) in general lost interest in building power plants. Show me a community in the US clamoring for a plant right now. Politicians may not be the brightest but its naive to assume that the American public is any smarter. Everyone is out for their own self interest and thus NO ONE in the US wants a refinery or nuclear plant in their area. If that isnt true perhaps we can start throwing a few up on the California coastline. I agree we need nuclear power (although this wont do much for oil prices since much of our power comes from coal) but its simplistic to say no plants have been built because of a "ban" on construction.

The ANWR drilling thing is BS at this point. They arent even sure how much is up there and if there is a little as reports have indicated the entire excercise would cost a lot of money and make little difference in gas prices. Future supply can bring prices down but it has to be SIGNIFICANT future supply. The amounts in ANWR would barely make a dent in terms of US consumption, much less world consumption.

"Is their a public transport system in america, that does not depend on tax payer dollars forever?

Even in areas where it has been well 'funded'... think of chicago, this year they needed what, a few extra billion dollars? "

The more a public transit system is used the lower the operating subsidy. Transit systems in smaller cities or west coast cities are likely the most subsidized in the country because of lack of rider density. Public transit isn't a for profit operation so asking why it doesnt turn a profit is like asking why the public education system doesnt turn a profit. Highways are subsidized and so are public transit systems. While gas taxes cover some transportation costs, they do not cover all of them. LArge projects are usually paid for upfront with borrowing and tax dollars are used to pay off the debt. Some of that tax money may be from gas taxes and some may not.

As for ROI you need to remember that transit offers returns that arent monetary. Reduced traffic, commute times, parking needs and pollution are all ROIs stemming from mass transit use. I fail to see how anyone advocating the now ubiquitous "energy independence" could be against public transit. The more transit we have the less fuel we are using.

"As for the supposed oil reserves, I remain convinced that just trying to get this oil will send a message to the speculators that we're willing to step outside the OPEC overlords, versus paying them whatever they charge while we ignore our own supplies because of moose trails."

First of all it should be noted that there are oil reserves in the ocean floor right now that cant be tapped because of shortages in rigs and drilling equipment. Instead of worrying about digging up oil in Alaska that wont be ready for 10 years the US would be smart to find a way to build the oil rigs we need to access untapped wells in the Gulf of Mexico. The US has allowed its manufacturing capacity to dwindle and now we dont even have facilities capable of building rigs. We are at the mercy of Norway and South Korea and all rigs in production are spoken for through 2011.

What is ludicrous is that the US cant even tap all the oil they know about and people are claiming that the only way to get more oil is to start a 10 year project seeking what could be a limited supply in Alaska. The only reason ANWR is a major issue is because its easy to frame this (supposedly) as crazy enviro nuts vs "logical people" who care about America. Usually when people get into those types of arguments they dont mention how much oil is in Alaska or what impact those reserves will actually have on prices. As large as Alaska is I find it hard to believe that the only untapped oil field in the state happens to be in this refuge.

As for OPEC, it should be mentioned that they dont even supply an overwhelming majority of our oil. Based on what I've read Canada is our biggest oil exporter. On top of that, only SOME of OPEC's members are middle eastern countries and few of them are actually at odds with the US government. The media and politicians have made a big issue out of a nonissue by trying to make OPEC member synonomous with turban wearing people who go around burning American flags.

Karl I did not realize that you were an expert on nuclear power and drilling. Given that I have worked the last 10 years on helping DOE clean up former nuclear weapon production facilities I know all to well the issues involved in the transport and final disposition of Spent Nuclear Fuel. I do agree with your premise that people will hold contradictory desires and I can imagine that many of those supporting more nuclear power plants would resist have a plant being built near there home. Personnaly I'm undecided about nuclear power but I don't think it is unreasonable to be concerned. Then there is the economic factor that nuclear power plants have to be heavily subsidized by the Federal government to compete economically. So much for cheap power. You seem to be fixated on moose trails. If you must use this cheap refrain then at least get your facts straight as the ungulate referenced in the ANWR debate is the caribou.

But they don't care, because the point isn't to save the environment it's to knock the US down a notch because they hate our success.

Egad, someone needs to turn off talk radio. Very few people are jealous of anything in the USA. Americans like to claim it but it's just not that true.

Someone mentioned the problems of solar collection. Solar doesn't have to be giant farms of panels. The solar wind tunnel or solar updraft tower uses heat and turbines to create energy. No solar cells required. This is why all of our useless, hot, arid areas would be ideal for such concepts. Theoretically one tower can provide 200k homes with power, so it's not hyper efficient but the costs are relatively low, maintenance is low and longevity is great. If 20 of these could power a city 2-3 million (I'm figuring the actual number is lower than 200k homes), then why would we say no to it? We have the space!

A 20 billion dollar investment now, plus 20 billion in operating costs over say 30 years for 2 million people = $670 a year for electricity for 30 years. They're actually supposed to last for 50 years but I say that's too optimistic. Also, even 1k a year over 30 years for electricity would be fantastically cheap.

Notice I'm picking worst case scenarios too! Half as efficient, expensive to maintain, 60% of the projected life - there's no way it will cost 670 million a year to keep these 20 structures/devices operational. Just a thought...

"they dont mention how much oil is in Alaska "

That's because no one knows how much oil is there. Only complete idiots who fake intellect on internet forums know exactly how much oil is there.

Hey... not surprisingly you know how much is there "The amounts in ANWR would barely make a dent in terms of US consumption"

1487 - You are just wrong on public transportation costs.

Generally the higher the usage the higher the cost. You need more buses, more drivers, more fuel used. In high usage cities like chicago, the 'income' from fares barely clears 50%, of expenses.

And I dont even remeber how many extra millions if not billions they are spending this year on repair the train lines, replacing buses etc.

not to mention they still pay for gas, while having a fixed pay structure for a budget year.

And thats in a city that see's 'high' system usage. Now move that to cities that are smaller, and have even less people using it. And whats the % that the fars pay for the system their?

Car owners and drivers pay for a far greater majority of the roads they use then the average bus/train user. Like I said before, you pay taxes when you buy the car, every gallon of gas you use you pay taxes on, in most states you pay for car regestration.

You car needs new tires? who buys them you do.

The average bus user is someone that cannot afford a car. and by default uses the bus, because they have no other choice. Its clear based on traffic patterns, that a vast majority of people prefer their own car as a means of transportation then getting on a bus/train with other people.

You must be blind, or diluting yourself that, bus and public transportation is a worthwhile 'investment' of public money.

I'll say that there probably needs to be a basic level of service, but beyond that, public transport in this country is an epic fail. And thats not for a lack of trying to supply the serivce, its just a product no one wants.

Usually I view 1487's comments in a different light, but when there's no GM products involved 1487 makes a lot of sense. Excellent comments.

I have to agree with blueguy again - how could anyone really think that there is any significant number of people who want the US to fail at something to "get knocked down a notch"? That's a nasty, spiteful thing to think about your fellow Americans. Get Rush Limbaugh out of the way for a few minutes and speak to some real Americans, not the straw men he invents to knock down ("Some say America should be taught a lesson", "Some say America deserves to lose", etc.). The instant you start thinking like that the whole debate gets knocked down to a childish level.

1487 -The ANWR drilling thing is BS at this point. They arent even sure how much is up there and if there is a little as reports have indicated the entire excercise would cost a lot of money and make little difference in gas prices. Future supply can bring prices down but it has to be SIGNIFICANT future supply. The amounts in ANWR would barely make a dent in terms of US consumption, much less world consumption."

So if we dont know how much is there, How can you claim there isn't enough to make an impact.

I wont argue we can drill our way to oil idenpedance. But to argue against drilling period, because the amounts wont have a massive impact on the current market is just as stupid.

Once again ignoring the fact, that the billions of barrels of oil could be bring the country billions of dollars of wealth.

1487- you stole my point. Regardless of whatever offshore fields exist, there are not enough rigs in the world to tap them anytime soon. If the US wants to create high paying blue collar jobs, they need to start manufacturing rigs ASAP. There are plenty of laid off auto workers who would be more than happy to get back on the line creating a product that is completely resistant to this slow economy.

opfreak
"The average bus user is someone that cannot afford a car. and by default uses the bus, because they have no other choice. Its clear based on traffic patterns, that a vast majority of people prefer their own car as a means of transportation then getting on a bus/train with other people.

You must be blind, or diluting yourself that, bus and public transportation is a worthwhile 'investment' of public money.

I'll say that there probably needs to be a basic level of service, but beyond that, public transport in this country is an epic fail. And thats not for a lack of trying to supply the serivce, its just a product no one wants."

Where to you live? Philly's transit agency is leasing 25 year old rolling stock from New Jersey because of epic overcrowding on our regional rail system. SEPTA's ridership has experienced record gains in the last few months and cannot cope with the increased demand due to deferred maintanence and years of under-funding. The low income, inner city ridership remains somewhat constant while the new influx of transit patrons are more affluent and already own a vehicle. There are even talks of revitalizing old decrepid right-of-ways spread throughout our five county area so those people can park their cars and ride the rails. Seems it's a product people definitely want.

bepperb,

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080707_Guarding_the_Alaskan_wild_.html

this is where I'm getting my information. Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean that everyone else here is the same.

"Usually I view 1487's comments in a different light, but when there's no GM products involved 1487 makes a lot of sense. Excellent comments."

Actually I dont change anything in terms of reasoning. If you are one of those who believes that anything and everything American automakers do is wrong so you likely take issue with some of my other comments. There is no lack of reasoning however. I would definitly recommend paying more attention to actual comments made as opposed to who is making them or what the chief blogger says about the author.

chavis10 - really? has the traffic in major areas gone down significantly in those areas?

Or are their still traffic jams? I'm not saying ridership hasn't grew by some amount. But compared to the amount of people using cars, in general, its hardly significant, given the costs.

blueguydotcom - You should stop reading all those moveon.org posts, theres really much less hate for america, outside that fueled by american haters like the moveon.org crowd.

And while we should build some on your solar air tunnel planets, do you really know how much land area they require?

a 3100MW coal plant in il, sits on ~12km^2 of land.

a 200MW sollar planet, needs ~28km^2 of land.

so to equal the output of a single coal plant, you need ~16 solar plants, which will occupy ~600km^2, or to put it in miles, ~230miles^2.

Or ~15miles x 15 miles.
Just to equal one coal plant

opfreak,

I have no idea what you are talking about. The more a system is uses, the more it relies on fares instead of subsidies. NYC probably has one of the lowest subsidies per capita out of any system in the US. Our local system gets about 40% of revenue from fares. Mass transit is NOT a for profit operation and it hasn't been since the advent of the car and interstate system. This is well known in the rest of the world but Americans dont seem to grasp this concept. Mass transit exists for the greater public good just like libraries, police departments and school systems.

You are also mistakenly assuming that every fee you pay in relation to a car goes to road maintenance. You pay sales tax on a car because its an item you purchased, not because the state wants to funnel that money back into roads. Much of the revunue your car purchase and ownership generates simply goes into state coffers.

The bottom line is that mass transit is subsidized to encourage usage because that usage guarantees less traffic and pollution. In a city like NY or Chicago the dissolution of the mass transit system would lead to a near collapse of the local economy because roads would be clogged and goods could not be delivered efficiently.

In east coast cities (and Chicago) public transit is anything but an epic failure. If you have been paying attention to the news lately you would note that ridership is up across the country, even in transit adverse places like Charlotte and LA. You are out of touch with reality on this topic. Since you are against subsidies I supposed you support the disbanding of the military, coast guard, local law enforcement agencies and public schools.

What frustrates me the most, is that none of the plans mentioned in these comments so far will take place anytime soon/ever.

No one is going to ramp up oil rig production, or start whipping out nuclear plants. It will forever remain talk - things don't change.

"Based on what I've read Canada is our biggest oil exporter. "

Give us our oil back.

If you give people an alternative to filling their tanks with $4.15/gal gas, they will take it. My area is proof of this as people are fleeing their cars left and right for other means of transportation. Drilling for more oil will only prolong the inevitable and likely won't decrease the price consumers pay for the end product. In the end, the oil companies are the only ones who will profit from the explotation of new oil reserves.

The press wants to blame the Big Bad Big3 for sucking up all of the oil with Excursions and Escalades but the fact is, Americans need a lifestyle change and that is the bottom line. If demand drops enough, won't the prices follow suit? Only in America do people feel the need to keep moving futher away from the places they work for an extra few square feet of yard space and more traffic/strip malls. I don't feel sorry for people who moved 20 miles outside of their place of employment to seek suburban seclusion and feel the need to cry foul over current gas prices. In my area, the smart, trendy and affluent folks are moving into beautiful row homes in the heart of the city and ditching their cars altogether(or getting a Prius!!). We have a large comprehensive multi-modal transit system and two car share companies with affordable rates. Oil prices are still affecting the products they buy but they avoid the double whammy of paying for lots of expensive gas as well.

"Or are their still traffic jams? I'm not saying ridership hasn't grew by some amount. But compared to the amount of people using cars, in general, its hardly significant, given the costs."

Not in major cities. YOu need to keep everything in context. In places like NYC, Boston, Phila., etc. a significant # of people use transit. I believe 1/3 of the people who work in downtown Phila use transit to commute. That sounds significant to me. SEPTA moved 301 million people a year as of FY07. It's higher now.

Since we are on this topic I figure I'd share this story.

One of my area's most popular beach destinations- Rehoboth Beach, DE- recently announced a new offshore wind turbine project which will be operation by 2012. 150 turbines will power 50k homes a year (16% of the power company's juice) and cost $1.6 billion. They will be anchored 12 miles off the coast in 75 ft deep water with piles driven 90ft into the seafloor.

Here's the full article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/23/wind.turbines/

"No one is going to ramp up oil rig production, or start whipping out nuclear plants. It will forever remain talk - things don't change."

exactly. America is all about the blame game. No one is about results. The Dems blame the repubs (and vice versa) and the Libertarians blame both parties and nothing gets done. America is the land where people want gain with no pain. The same people who are quick to suggest drilling in Alaska would be rioting if the government dictated that a nuclear plant be located in their pristine suburb. Everyone is for spoiling someone else's landscape.

"Give us our oil back."

No.

In Dallas the mass transit fares pay for about 11% of the cost, per the Dallas Morning News. The remaining 89% is subsidized by sales taxes. I am not against mass transit. However, I do not like being forced to subsidize losing propositions like DART. If DART was a for profit operation, they wouldn't last 5 minutes.

"chavis10 - really? has the traffic in major areas gone down significantly in those areas?

Or are their still traffic jams? I'm not saying ridership hasn't grew by some amount. But compared to the amount of people using cars, in general, its hardly significant, given the costs."

Ofcourse there is still traffic, this city is old and the highway system's capacity has already been exceeded. However, the one project which could've alleviated traffic on our most clogged interstate was shut down a few years ago because your government did not want to cough up the funds.

Ridership has grown in record amounts (14% for the year so far) and because of the lack of funds, they aren't even able to deal with these extra passengers. More people would ride if there was more capacity. The government's short sightedness is now blowing in their face. Read this for more details: http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080708_GET_ON_THE_TRAIN__CONGRESS.html?24071799=Y&submit=Vote&oid=1&mr=1&cid=8500281&pid=24071799

I've been taking public transit to work for a few months - got a new job in the middle of San Francisco. I drive 5 minutes to the train station, get on the train for an hour, and walk a couple of blocks to my office. If I tried to park in the city, it'd cost me $30 a day and the cost is only that low because there isn't a flood of cars, thanks to all the buses and subways.

We all live pretty far apart, and unless you work in a big city, we all work far apart too. But we all get on the same freeways in one big convoy - that's the part of our commutes that would be better spent on a train. The problem is that most people need personal transportation on both ends of that corridor, but only have one car. Maybe there's a fix for that (smart car rentals), or maybe public transit can only work for those who either work or live in a dense area, and only need a car on one end of the trip.

The way traffic is getting, the time saved by reducing freeway commuters would probably make up for a lot of the cost of a public transit system.

"In Dallas the mass transit fares pay for about 11% of the cost, per the Dallas Morning News. The remaining 89% is subsidized by sales taxes. I am not against mass transit. However, I do not like being forced to subsidize losing propositions like DART. If DART was a for profit operation, they wouldn't last 5 minutes."

Well, obviously public transit works best in dense metropolitan areas. The fact is public services will never turn profits and cannot be compared to a for-profit company. Since the majority of Europe was blown up in WWII, they had an opportunity to rethink transportation and "start from scratch," if you will, to create their current state of the art rail network. This country was too greedy, stupid and arrogant to do the same.

"What frustrates me the most, is that none of the plans mentioned in these comments so far will take place anytime soon/ever.

No one is going to ramp up oil rig production, or start whipping out nuclear plants. It will forever remain talk - things don't change.

I agree 100%. Pure fruitless rhetoric

chavis/1487, I dont care about the system turning profits. Outside a few major cities, where public tranport was laid out while the city was being built. The amount of tax payer money going to it is massive.

So at best we are seeing nyc with 40%, and chicago with ~50%. Most are running well below that.

And 1487, I'm sorry but you are just wrong about road funds. Most come from car fees (gas taxes, regestration, wheel tax, licenses, tolls, etc etc).

Not only that, but most gas taxes also help support public transporation. IE less drivers on the road, less road funds, less funds for your beloved public transport.

And you still failed to address all the other costs a car owner/operate bears, that the public transport tax payer leech doesn't.

Lets raise the costs of buses and trains to near break even amounts, and then lets talk about ridership.

and 1487, I love how you are using an editorial piece for your information.

Esspically one that argues out of both sides of its mouth.

on one hand we dont know how much oil there is in the ground.

But we 'know' its not alot.

funny how the people against drilling always make that statement. Logic and reasoning fails them.

Why not let an expert from say Mobil or Chevron, with a lot on the line make the decision of whether there's enough oil or not? Sounds like Capitalism to me?

Instead of guesses from the DOE (which hasn't drilled an exploratory well yet).

"And you still failed to address all the other costs a car owner/operate bears, that the public transport tax payer leech doesn't."

Your entire basis is unfounded theory. You are arguing from the prespective that the majority of people who use public transportation do not own cars- there is no proof to back that claim. The people who pay the highest transit prices in my area likely need a car just to access the train stations from their remote living areas. Parking lots at the most heavily used stations are all planned for expansion (meaning lots of people owning cars as well) in the near future. Monthly passes go for $84-181/month depending on the distance from downtown and that isn't exactly chump change. I just paid for a car inspection, car registration and a driver's license renewal fee and I ride public transit everyday. But I'm a leech, right?

"Not only that, but most gas taxes also help support public transporation. IE less drivers on the road, less road funds, less funds for your beloved public transport"

The goal is less overall oil consumption, period. Promoting increased individual consumption to bolster increased transit funding in paradoxical. The whole point of transit is to relieve congestion, improve air quality and decrease oil consumption. Also, less road volume means less road maintenance and longer resurfacing intervals. It would balance itself out.

"As for the supposed oil reserves, I remain convinced that just trying to get this oil will send a message to the speculators that we're willing to step outside the OPEC overlords, versus paying them whatever they charge while we ignore our own supplies because of moose trails."

Karl, could you describe (very carefully!) how speculators are supposedly driving up oil prices?

Here are some basic facts about petroleum (crude oil, natural gas plant liquids and other liquids) production and consumption. Total world production is about 85 million barrels/day, of which OPEC produces just under 30 million barrels/day. The bulk of world production comes from non-OPEC sources and most of OPEC production is from countries friendly to the USA, such as Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE.

The USA consumes 21 million barrels/day, of which 12 (~60%) are net imports. Net imports exceed the total production of Saudi Arabia, the world's largest producer with some of the biggest oil fields in the world. It exceeds production from top-10 producers Canada, Mexico and Norway combined. 70% of US consumption is used for transportation.

World consumption is growing at over million/barrels/day each year -- more than Iraq's current production. Production from 60% of the world's producers have already peaked. USA production peaked back in 1970. UK production from the huge North Sea reserves peaked in 1999.

Discoveries of new reserves worldwide peaked back in the sixties, despite huge improvements in exploration technology since then. It's generally agreed that we have already found nearly all the major fields ... except perhaps those in very remote areas where production and transport is very difficult and expensive.

Now drop the invectives against environmentalists and others and see if you can use the above and other facts to figure out what's really going on. For one thing, as Wolverine pointed out, new drilling in the US is very unlikely to affect supply in any significant way.

z479 - "Karl, I have to disagree. Nuclear power plants are not that easy and are very risky. Even though scientists say they have become much safer, their still not anywhere near being 50% as safe as any other type of energy. "

There have been two major failures of nuclear power plants of which I am aware, both of which occured over 40 years ago. There are currently over 400 nuclear power plants in use in the world, producing aproximately 17% of the world's electricity.

http://www.icjt.org/an/tech/jesvet/jesvet.htm

Nuclear waste isn't as big of an issue as it used to be, as we can now build power plants that use this waste as fuel. It does cost more for the electricity that they generate, but eliminates over 90% of the waste product from other nuclear facilities.

Nuclear power plants cost more than conventional power plants due to the extremely high amount of regulation and engineering required. I would bet money that your average nuclear power plant has more engineering and safety regulation than the space shuttle does. And it is at least as complicated a system.

1487 - "Is there any proof of this "ban"?"

Yes. California, during the time that they suffered from rolling blackouts in the 80's and 90's, had three nuclear power plants for which construction was completed, but had never been turned on.

To obtain construction permits for a new power plant can take over 10 years, and it takes 5+ years to obtain permits to build a new reactor at an existing site.

Read the following article for an example of how Wisconson has banned nuclear construction:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=502707

So the opposition to solar towers - 15 measily square miles? Op, you ever been through Nevada, Texas, CA, Az, NM, Utah, OK, Wyoming, SD, ND? We have hundreds and hundreds of empty miles. It's desolate, man. We've got the space. If 15 square miles will power a city the size of SD and we've got way more than that in our deserts, we're golden.

Coal mine = inefficient, polluting and expensive. Solar tower = cheap to maintain, cheap to produce, pollution free and when the natural resource powering it fails (the sun) we're dead anyway. What's the opposition again? Space? lol

blueguydotcom first off, you miss read the number

to equal one coal power planet that supplys 3100MW of power, you need 230 sq miles of land.

basically a sqaure 15 miles x 15 miles.

the american consumption of electricty is about 3 BILLION MWatts a year.

Now figure out how much land you need

so let me get this straight,
drilling for oil in a desert of alsaka = bad.

but covering the whole desert with plastic = good

Those involved in the nuclear debate should be aware that only 2% of USA electric power is generated from petroleum. That also happens to be the percent of USA petroleum consumption by the sector.

USA Electric Power
Coal 51%
Nuclear 21%
Natural gas 17%
Renewable 9%
Petroleum 2%

USA petroleum consumption
Transportation 70%
Industrial 24%
Residential & Commercial 9%
Electric Power 2%

Saudis have to reduce their oil production. It is in best interest of the country. Arab countries depend exclusively on exporting oil for their wellbeing and oil is a valuable resource – it is used in chemical industry. So why to extract more – just to make arrogant Americans happy? Americans do not want to drill on their own territory and are actually saving their own resources for future generations but have impunity to send their president to Saudi Arabia to lecture about extracting even more resources and selling it for cheap so Americans can drive their SUVs. Yeah? Saudi Arabia is not an American colony and must do whatever is good for future generations of Saudis. And they do not need $$ either – euro has more value and is better-managed currency too.

Op, who said anything about powering the country? I'm talking about the West. What happens to the fly-over and east coast states is their problem. California has more than enough unused land to supply power for LA, SF, SD and even places like Sacramento. We have hundreds of miles in CA that have never been used. Ever driven from LA to SF? There's 300+ miles of nothing - weeds, sun and lizards.

Drilling for oil is fine if you want to make the seaside communities as ugly as the gulf. I'm not talking about fuel for cars, but fuel for homes/businesses.

blueguydotcom - oil isn't just a base product for cars.

And you are still missing the point, the awnr drilling project drawfs in size to your idea.

Which I add is based on a model. Yes a few small scale solar tunnels have been built. But nothing apporaching that size.

-------------------------------------------------

chavis10 - I wish people would stop living based on their observations. Its like people that say GM cars suck because they had a bad car. Heck, people has bad toyotas, honda's etc.

The truth is that outside of vast metro areas, that use public transport heavily (think the rest of the country outside the top major cities).

The people that use the bus are people that do it because they HAVE to, not because they WANT to.

And a vast number of those, do not own cars, and generally dont pay any taxes.

My point is, that you and others supporting public tranport are unwilling, or to stupid to acknowledge, is that the average car OWNER, pays a far greater share of his use of the ride, then the average bus RIDER.

And even in communties where there are millions of rides a week. The cost of the fare, doesn't come within spitting distance of the cost ride.

If at best tax payers have to foot ~50% the cost of each ride, and at worst 90% the cost of each ride. and outside of new york, what city even apporach 50% of workers using public transport to get to work?

Its bunk to think that public tranport is something that people want. Its something the elitest want to force on people.

"Not only that, but most gas taxes also help support public transporation. IE less drivers on the road, less road funds, less funds for your beloved public transport.

And you still failed to address all the other costs a car owner/operate bears, that the public transport tax payer leech doesn't."

You continue to expose your limited understanding of transit and taxes. Public transportation riders pay taxes just like everyone else. People who move into the middle of nowhere and then benefit from costly road expansion projects to alleviate congestion are "leaches". You need to get a handle on the fact that different states have different laws. In PA has tax revenue can ONLY be used to roads, not mass transit. Our mass transit subsidy comes from other tax revenue. Also, I fail to understand why you cant get the idea that many mass transit riders (like me) own cars. Who said that all transit riders rely on transit 100% of the time? I certainly did not say that. As a transit rider I pay for fares, I pay property tax, I pay state and local income tax plus federal income tax. Where the hell is my "free" ride? My tax dollars and fares cover my ride and then some. My tax dollars also go towards expensive and uneccesary road projects in rural PA that are done simply to provide jobs. You need to open up your mind a little bit.

In my particular case, Milwaukee, yes... generally the only people who take the bus are people who can't afford a car. And much more than half the cost is paid by tax revenue. So I have to pay for my car, and for someone else to take the bus. It's not perfect.

I've been other places... DC, NY, Denver where the public transport was better, and I would be more likely to ride there. But here, to get to the airport would be a half dozen busses and three hours of my time, or 20 minutes in my car. There isn't even a good way to get to downtown from the airport.

I guess it depends on where you live. And don't forget the millions of people who don't live in an area where public transport would even be an option.

Wind, Solar... they're coming along. If you don't believe, give them time. We're gearing up for wind power here, and will get 5~10% in the next five years. I see it as the glass being 10% full.

"and 1487, I love how you are using an editorial piece for your information."

The editorial clearly stated the source of the information discussed. The author didnt make up the facts, he quoted existing reports. What sources have you quoted? Where are you getting your information? If you know of reports or articles that discuss the huge reserves in Alaska you should post some links or stop commenting.

"Yes. California, during the time that they suffered from rolling blackouts in the 80's and 90's, had three nuclear power plants for which construction was completed, but had never been turned on."

I want to know if there is a national ban on nuclear plants. I didn't think Karl was referencing specific state bans. If there is a national ban on nuclear power someone should offer some proof. Even if the red tape is removed people dont want plants in their towns. Americans are out of touch with how the rest of the world does things because we are taught that only American gets things right. We are taught to look down on the French and yet they are far ahead of us in nuclear power. But hey, they are French so everything they do MUST be wrong.

"The people that use the bus are people that do it because they HAVE to, not because they WANT to.

And a vast number of those, do not own cars, and generally dont pay any taxes."

Again you are showing your lack of exposure. Everything you say is based on the premise that the poor are taking something away from you. Lets stop the middle class victimization talk and look at reality. Step away from the right wing talking points and join us in the real world. In metro areas like NYC, Philly and Chicago many hundreds of thousands of commuters CHOSE to use mass transit. The most heavily used commuter rail line in our area comes in from the wealthy PA suburbs. ALL of those people have cars and many of them have luxury cars. They ride the train because its CONVENIENT and FAST and it saves them MONEY. You are totally incorrect in assuming that only poor people use transit. Many upper middle class people commute into NYC from North Jersey, Long Island, Westchester County and southern CT. These are some of the wealthiest suburbs in America. The cost of parking in major cities plus the traffic makes transit use a no brainer.

In Toronto the subsidy for mass transit is about 20% because of heavy use. Its 55% here in Philly although that may decrease as ridership increases.

"I guess it depends on where you live. And don't forget the millions of people who don't live in an area where public transport would even be an option."

I dont think anyone has argued that PT is efficient or viable everywhere. In car based sunbelt cities PT isnt that efficient. IN older cities that existed before 1950 transit is well developed and relatively useful. Whats old is new again. When gas was cheap sunbelt cities grew due to cheap land, lower taxes and plenty of parking. Going forward transit is going to be a major factor for companies looking to relocate operations. I would say over the next few decades you will see a slow shift in population and business to the cities that are not based on the car. America is the only developed country in the world where major population centers are completely based on automobile. High gas prices are going to force our cities to become more like their counterparts in Europe and Asia.

"drilling for oil in a desert of alsaka = bad.

but covering the whole desert with plastic = good"

What are the harmful side effects of having windmill farms? I'm not clear on how they destroy the environment. Atlantic City has wind driven turbines and they are actually interesting to see. They look much better than oil refineries. Phila has major refining facilities near the airport and they are VERY insightly which is why they are isolated from residential areas.

1487 - I addressed most if not all your points.

Yet you fail to grasp ANY of mine.

The fact remains, no matter where, Public transportation fares, NEVER come close to covering the costs of the system.

While the costs of car ownership do come close to covering the costs.

Yes many people that own cars use public transport. But overall, the MAJORITY of users dont.

NYC for example has very low car ownership, and very high public transporation rates. About ~50% of the workers in NYC use public transport. Yet that system doesn't have the fares come close to covering costs.

The are a handfull of cities that have rates of usership even close to that of NYC, and those 4-5 cities have roughly ~30% of the employees using public transporation.

After those 5-6 cities, the rates of ridership crash.

At the end of the day, unless your head is in the sand, and you are just unwilling to admit the TRUTH. Public tranportation is a black hole of money, that a small percentage of the population uses.

Is there a need for it? Yes.
Does it need to be expanded? No.
Is it the holy grail of saving the country? No.

Unless you want to force people to use something they do not want to use. And become a dictaroship, its not going to change.

You argue that in your state the gas tax pays for the roads, and only the roads. Well geuss what, the buses use the roads, and most bus users dont pay for them.

------
But why argue with people who have their heads stuck in the sand.

And back to the topic...

The REALITY of the energy situation is, that we should be doing All of these things.

Wind plants
Solar plants
geothermal plants
Coal plants
Nuclear power
Drilling for oil,
Opening land for drilling.

Heck, the chinese are going to be drilling off cuba, in the same ocean that our goverment says we cant. Most other countries aren't as stupid and have their heads stuck in the clouds.

Wake up, its 2008, we dont have flying cars, and there is no magic cure for the engery we need.

To stop going after energy we have, in the HOPE that we will find a magic cure, is just plain stupid.

There is no simple answer that will solve our short-term and long-term energy supply problem. However, the lack of one silver bullet solution doesn't mean we give up. We need to clear the roadblocks to many incremental improvements.

It seams reasonable to me to open up a small part of ANWR and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (adjacent to existing oil infrastructure) to oil and natural gas drilling ASAP and using the lease and royalty revenue to fund programs specifically related to replacements for gasoline and diesel fuel. For example drilling revenue could fund the transition to flex-fuel vehicles that could run on methanol and ethanol along with gasoline. We could also increase the incentives to install CNG refueling pumps along the interstate highway system.

Besides drilling for oil, one short-term way to increase the supply of oil for transportation fuel would be to quit using it for heating oil. Give the Northeast tax incentives to install natural gas furnaces, electric heat pumps, or solar heat so they wouldn't be burning basically low grade diesel fuel to just make heat.

T. Boone Pickens proposes a large expansion in wind power generation to free up more natural gas for use as a transportation fuel. http://www.pickensplan.com/ This would probably work here in Texas where we have both wind and natural gas. Probably doesn't scale up for the entire country, but it would be a useful incremental improvement.

The uncertainty of the costs of environmental regulation is probably holding back the key technology of coal gasification. It appears that cheap coal can be converted to syngas, carbon monoxide and hydrogen, and then the syngas can be used to make more valuable liquid fuel like methanol. At some price point converting coal to something else is profitable, but nobody knows what carbon tax will be imposed.

opfreak - Wanted to address one of your points - Transit systems are not now, and should never be run as businesses. That's the flawed thinking that keeps American cities from having real transportation alternatives. Do you think the airports were built and paid for by the airlines? Do you think carmakers build the roads? Do you think shipping lines dredge the harbors and shipping lanes? Public transportation systems are a resource we get more out of than just ticket revenue.

"The fact remains, no matter where, Public transportation fares, NEVER come close to covering the costs of the system."

You are arguing something that I never contested. Show me where I said PT ever turns a profit or broke even. I asked if you supported disbanding the military and public schools since they are subsidized and you didnt answer. Please explain to me why PT shouldnt exist when we have tons of subsidized institutions. Public colleges are subsidized as well. Should they be told to rely exclusively on tuition so that middle class families cant afford that tuition?

"At the end of the day, unless your head is in the sand, and you are just unwilling to admit the TRUTH. Public tranportation is a black hole of money, that a small percentage of the population uses."

Many Americans have no access to PT. The question is how much is PT used in areas where it's viable. The answer is that its used quite a bit. In NYC people use tranist 24/7 and not just for commuting. You are throwing around a lot of stats but no proof of anything. How do you know transit is only used heavily in 5 or 6 cities? How do you know how many tranist users own cars? Even if you dont own a car you PAY TAXES. It is beyong idiotic to suggest otherwise. In many areas sales taxes are used for transit and everyone pays sales tax. The federal goverment offers funding for capital improvements and almost everyone pays federal taxes. By the same token transit riders who dont own cars pay taxes that are used to fund road projects.

"Unless you want to force people to use something they do not want to use. And become a dictaroship, its not going to change."

Again, you make an argument that flies in the face of logic. If ridership is up NATIONWIDE and most of the new riders are people who previously DROVE to work your inference that no one wants transit is totally incorrect. How can demand be incresing for a service that no one wants? Please explain to me how any one can be forced to catch the bus or train. Please explain why we should stop investing in transit while we are simultaneously trying to reduce oil consumption and many routes have standing room only. Try to use some common sense before responding furhter. You are making claims that are not supported by the current realities of transit use in America.

opfreak-

You are completely ridiculous and flip flopping on your stance.

"I'll say that there probably needs to be a basic level of service, but beyond that, public transport in this country is an epic fail. And thats not for a lack of trying to supply the serivce, its just a product no one wants."

That statement makes no sense at all as you contradict yourself. You say there's a basic need but it's a product no one wants? Which is it?

"Yes many people that own cars use public transport. But overall, the MAJORITY of users dont"

Statistics please? If anything, more bus riders own cars than ever as many people who drive are choosing the leave their cars at home and catch transit due to gas prices. Your head appears to be stuck in the sand buddy.

"The truth is that outside of vast metro areas, that use public transport heavily (think the rest of the country outside the top major cities)."

Is anyone arguing this? I don't think so. Rural and sparsly populated areas are always at the mercy of gas prices as there's no reliable alternative. That's just the nature of certain areas of the country however all big cities would benefit from comprehensive transit options. As 1487 said, different states have different tax strategies.

"Is there a need for it? Yes.
Does it need to be expanded? No.
Is it the holy grail of saving the country? No."

You'd catch hell for those comments in my area. The most affluent counties are all clamoring for increased expansion of transit services. If Philadelphia does not expand its transit, the city will become as bad as New York in terms of vehicular traffic and congestion. Ironically, those who've chose to move way out into the suburbs are the main ones crying about the lack of transit. As I've said, lower income inner city transit ridership has remained constant even when gas prices were low. It's the people in the suburbs with the $400k houses that are looking for alternatives. You seem to be in the minority with your thoughts as the movement is already underway and increased funding has already begun. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (Wash DC to Boston) is the only profitable passenger line in the country and it has already reached capacity.

Transit was never created to break even or turn a profit. Why can't you grasp this concept?

As far as drilling goes- it doesn't matter. There aren't enough drills in the world to start tapping new fields anytime soon. The current rigs are booked as well as the ones excepted to be built in the near future. If people want oil rigs off their beach house horizon, your country better start manufacturing their own. America is ruled by big companies who care only about profit margins (as the should). Now that they've outsourced just about every manufactured good, people want to cry foul.

George2040, I'm not going to say much about the merits of your individual proposals. I find it odd though that transportation accounts for 70% of USA petroleum consumption, but your demand-reduction proposals are all aimed at little bits of the remainder. It's as if you view transportation as a sacred cow.

With respect to coal, individual consumers don't buy it directly like we do gasoline and the price of electricity generated from coal tends to be sticky due to regulation. Consequently, most people are probably unaware that coal prices have already doubled and tripled since January, depending on grade, and are still rising.

Something to think about as we propose further big increases in demand for gasification and electric power.

"Transit was never created to break even or turn a profit. Why can't you grasp this concept?"

I grasp it, I think opfreak grasps it. Do you grasp, it is a flawed concept. Why shouldn't it be a break even, with the actual users paying for it?

If the users actually had to pay for the real cost of public transportation... Even with subsidized PT, a vast majority prefer to use private transportation.

Chavis10

"I'll say that there probably needs to be a basic level of service, but beyond that, public transport in this country is an epic fail. And thats not for a lack of trying to supply the serivce, its just a product no one wants."

That statement makes no sense at all as you contradict yourself. You say there's a basic need but it's a product no one wants? Which is it?"

Your right, theres some contradication. Personally, I would say we should do without public tranport, why should tax payers fund the rides of 'slackers'....
In reality some basic form of public tranportation however is required.

And Need Does not equal want. I need water, I want a soda. Get it? I might need the bus, I want a car?.

"As far as drilling goes- it doesn't matter. There aren't enough drills in the world to start tapping new fields anytime soon."

Wow, amazing, after years of restricting drilling, and cheap oil prices there arent millions of idle drills just lieing around.

Talk about a chicken and egg situation. Expect we know the answer, allow the drilling, the drill's will be made.

If the drilling is not allowed, no drills will be made.

Might as well just use that we wont see any oil for 10 years line.

Heck, I can keep saying i'll give you a million bucks tommorow,everyday.
------------------------------------------------

1487 - my initial ROI statement was to bluedotguy, that said we should look at the ROI of public transport. Reality is, the ROI is negative.

As for the % of workers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport#United_States

City
#of Workers,%Public Transport,% Drive Alone,Mean Travel Time (Mins)

New York City 3,597,547 54.24% 23.58% 39.0
Chicago 1,209,122 25.38% 52.57% 33.4
Philadelphia 550,988 26.43% 50.75% 31.4
Los Angeles 1,721,778 10.97% 67.28% 29.2
Washington, DC 284,007 38.97% 35.43% 29.2
San Francisco 394,646 30.29% 40.47% 29.0
Baltimore 258,373 19.55% 57.94% 28.2
Boston 286,969 31.60% 39.39% 27.7
Houston 953,116 5.22% 72.32% 26.4
Las Vegas 260,821 4.79% 76.97% 26.4
Detroit 255,809 7.09% 72.95% 26.0
Phoenix 674,096 3.68% 72.74% 25.4
San Jose 431,910 3.92% 76.66% 25.4
Dallas 556,494 4.39% 73.68% 25.3
Seattle 318,402 17.79% 55.15% 25.2
Fort Worth 295,882 1.67% 79.48% 24.9
Charlotte 334,129 3.40% 75.24% 24.3
Denver 272,493 7.44% 69.95% 23.8
San Antonio 555,115 3.46% 77.85% 23.4
Portland 276,465 12.64% 60.61% 23.2
Jacksonville 378,297 1.82% 77.97% 23.1
Nashville 269,710 1.59% 81.44% 23.1
San Diego 623,801 4.10% 74.67% 22.4
Austin 379,540 4.20% 72.95% 21.9
Memphis 268,695 2.93% 78.14% 21.8
Indianapolis 368,870 2.11% 82.07% 21.4
Louisville 254,627 3.67% 81.38% 21.2
Columbus 349,329 3.47% 81.00% 20.6
Oklahoma City 253,703 0.93% 79.58% 19.5

mnorm1 - There is no form of transportation outside of biking and walking that is not subsidized. You pay the government to maintain and improve the roadways and intersections. Do you think the money you put into your car is the only cost of driving? You pay the government to build airports, hire air traffic controllers, and regulate the airlines. You pay the government to keep trains running. You pay the government to keep ports open and functioning. Your private transportation that everyone prefers to use is extremely heavily subsidized. Get the picture?

There is no such thing as a "break even" form of transportation outside of walking or riding your bike.

"You pay the government to maintain and improve the roadways and intersections." You're right, I pay thru gas taxes and tolls, that is not a subsidy. Others don't pay for me to ride/drive free.

For the record, I object to every subsidy you mentioned. To insure the efficient use of resources costs should be born by the user. Subsidies insure resource waste.
There are few exceptions.

Sorry for suggesting there are self-loathing Americans.

Next thing you know I'll be suggesting potential First Ladies have never been proud of their country.

"Karl, could you describe (very carefully!) how speculators are supposedly driving up oil prices?"

Sure:

PEOPLE-IN-A-POSITION-TO-CONTROL-OIL-PRODUCTION AND/OR-SALES-ARE-CONVINCED-OIL-WILL-BE-MORE-VALUABLE-IN-THE-FUTURE. AS-A-RESULT-THEY-ARE-PURPOSELY-LIMITING-THE-PRODUCTION/SALE-OF-IT-RIGHT-NOW.

Karl:

You're a car guy, and (judging from the Michelle Obama comment) evidently a Republican as well, so maybe you have a hard time seeing the value of preserving the environment ("to a hammer everything looks like a nail...."). I think I can sum up your article by saying you value cheap fuel more than the environment. Just keep in mind that the population as a whole would like both affordable energy and keeping a few parts of the earth unsullied by our addictions. They may be contradictory, but they are both valid wishes.

Here's another perspective: there will always be a major proportion of oil reserves in unstable parts of the world. More US production doesn't mean we'll be able to set the price of oil -- it's still a global market with most production and (increasingly) consumption outside the US, so events outside the US will continue to set the price (i.e., we can't just drill our own oil and set a U.S. only price -- it goes on the global market and is sold at the market price.) More drilling won't get us away from that volatility and dependency.

So let's do the easy stuff now. Joe White in the WSJ wrote recently about three vehicles the industry can make in the next few years (a 7 pax vehicle that gets 30 mpg, a sedan that gets 40 mpg, an efficient pickup) which will get us a long way. We need to get on with finding an alternative (in an ideal world, I'd like to use all that military money we pour into the Middle East on a project to find alternative fuel, e.g. hydrogen production and infrastructure).

Everyone knows oil is finite and we will eventually have to use something else. We're in our current predicament because we acted as if oil would always be cheap. Now that reality has dawned, it's time to get started on conservation and alternative energy in a significant way, and get ahead of the curve for once. Drilling may well ruin some pristine part of the earth, and for what? A couple more years of oil? Maybe that's an acceptable price for some car guys -- but not everyone is a car guy.

"Your right, theres some contradication. Personally, I would say we should do without public tranport, why should tax payers fund the rides of 'slackers'....
In reality some basic form of public tranportation however is required.

And Need Does not equal want. I need water, I want a soda. Get it? I might need the bus, I want a car?."

Actually, I just want a car as I don't really need one in this city. If I had children than maybe I would NEED a car.

Judging by the amount of expensive cars I see at park and ride stations, I'd say there are plenty of well healed people riding public transportation. I used to work for my city's transit agency collecting ridership statistics. Lower income Philadelphians (those who you deem can't afford cars) pay a lot less money for transit than the higher income suburbanites who come from the surrounding counties. Not sure how your logic explains that.

Interesting comments dharbin. They've given me my blog topic for tomorrow. Thanks (and check back please).

P.S. Yes, I'm a republican (that whole "personal responsibility" issue keeps me squarely out of the Democrat camp), and I'm a car buy. But I'm also a conservationist who appreciates everything from our national parks (LOVE Avenue of the Giants) to our pure Rocky Mountain Spring water (sorry for the ad line, I grew up in Golden close enough to smell the Coors beer hops).

I would caution you in thinking every car guy is out to kill all life on the planet. That would be like assuming every Democrat wants the U.S. to go Socialist...

"I grasp it, I think opfreak grasps it. Do you grasp, it is a flawed concept. Why shouldn't it be a break even, with the actual users paying for it?

If the users actually had to pay for the real cost of public transportation... Even with subsidized PT, a vast majority prefer to use private transportation."

Who said tranist is for profit? Roadways (aside from turnpikes) are not for profit so why should PT be for profit? I asked a simple question that OPfreak nor anyone else has answered: should be disband every non profit institution in this country? That includes the military. furthermore, only someone who is completely ignorant could ignore the fact that life for driving people would be WORSE without PT. That is just common sense. If you like to drive why in the world would you clamor for PT to disappear so more people can clog up the roads? PT is hardly the only thing that is subsidized but as usual people only have problems with subsidies when they feel they are disproportionately benefitting the poor.

"You're right, I pay thru gas taxes and tolls, that is not a subsidy. Others don't pay for me to ride/drive free. "

Why cant you and you and OPfreak acknowledge there are taxes outside of gas taxes? To say that anyone who doesnt drive doesnt pay taxes and is getting a "free ride" is totally absurd. How can you not see that? Do you honestly think that a six figure stock broker in Manhattan who commutes by cab and subway doesn't pay his share of taxes?

"Next thing you know I'll be suggesting potential First Ladies have never been proud of their country."

Is that a requirement of American citizenship? I pay taxes, thats enough as far as I'm concerned.

The whole drilling issue is a distraction that has become a political football. It means little in the scheme of things and people are arguing over ideology more than anything else. Even Republicans know there isnt enough oil up there to make enough of a difference in terms of global supply. This is the type of stuff Americans like to debate about instead of coming togehter to find creative solutions.

"I grasp it, I think opfreak grasps it. Do you grasp, it is a flawed concept. Why shouldn't it be a break even, with the actual users paying for it?

If the users actually had to pay for the real cost of public transportation... Even with subsidized PT, a vast majority prefer to use private transportation."

If you and OPfreak had your way NY City, Chicago and Philadelphia would all screech to a grinding halt. Please let me know how any transit agency can break even without charging $10-20 per fare?

All this talk about public transport being unprofitable is just ridiculous. I don't know about other cities but I know why Septa is unprofitable in Philly. Because they are stupid morons, that's why. Their service is unusable. Buses are few and far apart. Bus routes don't make any sense. Schedules don't make any sense. As a result, buses run EMPTY most of the time! I ride the bus to work every day and half the time I am the lone passenger DURING RUSH HOUR. Of course they need subsidies! How can they afford to keep going when they have no riders? They transport air, I kid you not. Meanwhile, all around them, there is a sea of large, heavy, powerful cars/SUVs/pickups/vans, each with just ONE person on board. That's the reality I see every day.

Wk- which route to you ride? Your claims are very ridiculous and unless you are riding on a suburban route or in the middle of the night, I find your claims simply false.

vvk,
Don't know if they are stupid morons in Philly, but I do wonder about the DART managers here in Dallas.

"Please let me know how any transit agency can break even without charging $10-20 per fare?"
I don't know what there break even point is. But if it is $10-20 per fare, why shouldn't the users pay that.
In my comments I did not say PT should be profitable, I did say PT should break even.

chavis10, unless I've missed something, you're saying PT can't charge enough to break even, if they do, no one will ride.
I am saying, that even with a subsidy, a minority use PT. PT doesn't provide a cost effective transportation alternative; in most cases massive subsidies are required to attract any significnat number of riders. It's a waste of resources.

For a host of reasons most in the U.S. prefer not to use PT.

People are not going to use public transportation in USA. You have to understand that America is different from Europe and rest of the world. People chose to come to America to enjoy personal freedoms that includes freedom to go anywhere anytime. Americans unlike Europeans (or Africans) will not tolerate high gasoline prices and public transportation forced down their throats by repressive totalitarian government.

As an example I have co-workers who live in the same town but we do not commute together in one car, even considering today’s high gas prices. Why, because we want the freedom to
go anywhere anytime and to not depend on each other. Public transportation? I want to sit in comfort of MY car, listen MY favorite talk show or music station and enjoy life instead being stressed everyday in public transportation in company of people I do not know and do not like.

I absolutely will not tolerate US government making gas prices artificially high or trying to dictate how to live my life.

Thanks for your comments, Karl. I count myself as a car guy too (I wouldn't be reading this blog otherwise), but I don't want to increase the risk of Exxon Valdez style spills in Alaska or off the coast of Santa Barbara, just so we can get a couple years more oil. It all depends on how much you value it, I suppose.

I've had the fortune of being able to live in a lot of countries (I'm in Lebanon now), and it frustrates me that so many countries do a better job of energy policy than we do. I've used public transportation for years in Canada, Italy, and (the former) Czechoslovakia, and I can tell you that it actually increased my love of driving (because I could use the car for pleasure and exploration, instead of soul-crushing commutes or petty errands).

Republicans and personal responsibility....hmmm...well, this is the wrong blog for that topic!!

Hey, there is at least one good thing about high fuel prices....less traffic on the 405!!

chavis10,

I ride Route 58 and past Philmont I am often the only remaining rider. And this is during rush hour -- both am and pm. I recently took route 7 to Pier 70 in the afternoon and was the only rider between Ikea (Columbus Blvd) and Broad St. During all this the streets are always crowded with cars.

Because of the star pattern of most Philadelphia bus routes, most passengers get on at a major hub like Olney or Frankford. Very few people get on in between to go from one street to another.

I try to think up ways to utilize public transportation to ge places -- in 99% of cases I cannot. Due to very sparce coverage and very poor frequency of service I am seldom able to go somewhere other than in my car. Other than downtown area, Philadelphia has unusable public transportation. Compare this to Moscow, for example. Talking about buses in particular -- there is a bus route on EVERY major street with buses coming less than 1 minute apart during rush hour. Compare this to 1(!) bus route serving far NE Philly with buses coming 30 minutes apart. And on top of buses Moscow has many other modes of public transport, such as vans (follow bus routes but stop more often), trolleys, trams and an outstanding subway system. Rides cost only a few pennies -- despite this, they are very profitable.

wk- Rt 58 operates at about 42% (revenue/cost) and is not a heavily used route. Passengers going past Philmont would be wise to catch the R3 instead. Even still, it's performance is about in the middle of the range. Most passengers from Frankford will only be going as far as Cottoman or Grant/Haldeman. The 58 is considered a city route with suburban characteristics.

Routes 60, 54, 33, 6, 79 and 47 all run at or above 60%. Four of the above routes do not operate in Center City. I would hardly call that unusable.

This is America, not Russia. You can't compare them because this country does not encourage nor promote public transportation. How many citizens in Moscos own cars? You can't expect buses to run every minute in Philly if a) we don't have that many citizens and b) if the citizens we have don't want to ride the bus.