I think the most interesting thing about the Dr. Frank article is that it was published in 2003 -- 5 years ago! And we (because of the $4+ fuel) are just now telling car makers that we really want these things. (I'm in the group that does not blame the car makers -- SUV sales over the past few years should convince anyone that we weren't serious yet.)

I do think we'll be seeing PHEVs/BEVs very soon. The Chevy Volt and Saturn Vue are two from American car makers that will be out within the next two years. Honda has a hydrogen car out now. Toyota has the Prius hybrid now, but will be offering that as a PHEV. Volvo and Porche are also working/testing PHEVs.

So...if we can hang in there a little longer, I think real relief is on the way.

But then I've always been an optimist. ;>

BTW...until that happens, one might consider converting your current vehicle to flex fuel. I've done that on my Jeep, and it works great. I'll be converting my Acura this fall. (I know the "growing pains" of building up our ethanol capabilities from corn have had limited/mixed benefits, but they're in the process of swtiching over to feedstock like switchgrass and sweet sorgum which should make a quantum leap in that technology.)

/Jerry

Hamguy,
Practical and affordable is in the wallet of the beholder. Like the Tesla I keep touting as an example. It is not only practical at 2 cents a mile to run today, and affordable, as a two-seat Supercar class niche market car runs from just over the price for a Tesla at the low end,to over a million bucks for some, and it beats almost every one in performance.

The question is if we are in the market for a supercar.

It is not affordable or practical for a family of four with a budget for a $15k vehicle.

But soon, very soon.

How many folks think a motorhome is impractical and not affordable. But for the niche market we are in, RVrs, we know that they get a lot better mileage than a brix n stix house!

Ease up a bit bud in this respect. If it weren't for the early adopters with big wallets we wouldn't be talking around the world on PCs. I and you I am sure, remember when PCs cost $5000.00 plus, software came in binders on big floppies, no copyright protection, and printed documentation on glossy pages two inches thick! And 648 k versions of Harvard project cost $1000.00!

God bless early adopters, entrepreneurs who risk it all for technology they believe in, and the folks that see it coming, and let them know that if they build it, we will come, as soon as the price comes down for our niche or budget.

I just checked into a US Smart car. Perfect for us, and we could walk in and pay cash. The nearest dealer is in Dallas, 3 hours away. They said the wait is 12 to 18 months. So much for practical and affordable, today.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RV,

We can say what we want but the world is an oil based economy. PERIOD, and will be for the foreseeable future.

The cost to convert my gas Nissan Maxima is ???. I have 130,000 miles driving it and another 20-30,000 towing. It runs on GAS. I cant afford $15,000 for any kind of new car.

And a multi fuel car is waaaay more than 15K, I bet.

I maintain, new cars must run on Nat. gas or propane. Leave the gas for truck diesel.

BUT DRILL NOW. If anyone is foolish enough to actually believe we can lower the cost of gas by charging Mobile higher taxes they are NUTS.

We have more reserve oil in our purview than we have used since the auto was invented. Lets use it.

Built 50 nuke plants and build 100,000 coal cars for the RRs. Tell the UAE, SA and Iran to pound sand. They have more than enough of that.

And what if it takes 7, 8, 9, 10, or 199 years to get oil. How much sooner will if be if we wait?

76% of the people in this country want us to DRILL and we are told by the leaders that no one does. They LIE!

They are trying to ruin this country and getting perilously close to doing so.

DRILL. DRILL NOW, DRILL ALL OVER BUT DRILL

end rant.

quote:

I feel confident that the government will try to stop this -

I think I am hearing the Twilight Zone theme playing in the background.

Well call me NUTTY! There is NO shortage of oil. Have you seen any stations that do not have fuel? I haven't. There is plenty of oil there is just a big demand for it. On top of that you have many folks trying to make a huge profit by gambling on oil. The Futures Market is just a huge gambling pool betting on which direction the price of oil will go. This is driving up the cost of fuel.

Will nilly drilling is going to nothing but put lots of holes in places we don't want them and do nothing or VERY little to help bring down the price of fuel.

We need a balanced fuel policy. Not a drill everywhere policy. And we are the leading technical innovative society in the world. Why aren't we taking advantage of that?

You need look no further than Brazil to know that a society can become oil independent. And they have accomplished this in a relatively short period.

HamRad

Government is paritally to blame and the rest belongs to us for the mess we are in. Back in 2002 we purchased a VW Jetta as we knew that the look at schools for the youngest and four years of college visits would probably rack up some serious miles. By 2007 we had piled up about 115,000 miles on the Jetta and used some 2300 - 2400 gallons of diesel. Since the state of former residence chose to adopt the CARB rules there are no diesels allowed to be sold in Maine.
I filled the car this afternoon and for 499.8 miles the tank was full at 9.89 gallons. I call that 50 MPG.
Question: Does it make sense to prevent the sale of a vehicle that exceeds the MPG of any hybrid?

Hamrad,
I agree with you completely,
If you read all of my posts on the subject I am not a greenie, regardless of the fact of mentioning alternative energies.

I also continually state that the oil economy will go on beyond my lifetime and I am one of the younger guys here at 56.

You gotta get past the greenies, and realize that some of the alternative energy supporters are also in your camp. Long term independance is the goal. As well, the greenies need to get past the oil economy being a player for the mid future to long future at least.

Got a 1/2 inch fish on the verge of extinction that gets in the way of drilling and only occurs in that one spot? OK, let's discuss why it is endangered and in that one spot, which is still pristine and not drilled on. It already lost the survival of the fittest test. I have no problem with the greenies going out and capturing the remaining fish and raising them to better numbers and relocating them to a better location at their own expense and effort.

You see, the choice between our culture, survival of humans, and maintenence of our lifestyle at the top of the foodchain and those of an endangered species which is already a lost cause, because of simple evolutionary failures on the part of whatever species, does not balance out. Many zoos and organizations have saved endangered species thus far, the American alligator is a great example in the wild, wolves at yellowstone, etc.

However, extreme greenies, or extreme anti greenie conservatives leaves no room for balance.

If we start from passing all laws to allow drilling everywhere I have no problem with it. It would be three to five years before results are seen that affect our independance as well, and then if we are independant, we have to refine here too, to get the max bang for the buck.

We want cheap energy but none of the pollution in our neighborhood!

Sorry bud but there are no overnight solutions.

Like a good stock portfolio, I think diversification and long term investment, as opposed to selling on a down cycle, rather than waiting for an up cycle, is the key to long term satisfaction.

Short term? We have a couple of years to make the right balanced decisions to solve energy for us in the long, short, and medium term.

Fortunately entrepreneurs are producing, not dreaming, about alternatives. Today. As are the oil and gas folks.

We waited as a nation because the oil only folks viewed everything "greenie" with a jaundiced eye, as did the greenies anything oil, claiming we can't tread where evolution failed to begin with, while sitting at home reading pamphlets and not producing any alternatives themselves. That is a major reason we are in the boat we are in today. Speculators, the economy, the declining dollar etc. have everybody freaking out for one extreme or the other.

Fortunately we have folks at both extremes doing something, and developing solutions, that get lost in the scams, claims, and media.

I think we need every brain cell at our disposal, as a team, a nation, so we cannot only move past supporting those who attack us with our own petro-dollars, but regain our footing as the center of energy expertise and technology exportation. We still are in oil etc. technology, and are moving forward fast in alternatives.

Again, fortunately, we have folks that are risking it all, in oil, gas production, and alternatives, that can reduce our use of oil, exponentially, over the same two years it will take for markets and oil to get a little more stable. By then our own oil production may be up to demand as well.

Let's do it all. Oil, electric vehicles, Hydrogen from solar, solar, and see where the chips fall over time. The entrpreneurs are already doing it, the government is about two years behind the knowledge avilable, (except for DARPA, but then again they are engineers solving problems, not politicians, or a largly uninformed populace that is polarized) and the population is in a pinch taking one extreme side or another, based on sound bites.

Despite my voice and yours, we have a choice. Do we want to be like those evolutionary failures as a species ourselves? One-trick ponies as it were? Or move forward with everything we've got?

Don't discount what technologies are developing because they are "alternative."

I submit to you that there is no immediate gratification available. None. We are where we are, and here we are.

Do we go forward with all at our disposal? Or allow politics and pamphlets to discount everything we can do now? Polarize as one extreme or the other, or look hard at all energy ramp ups for America?

If anybody has an immediate gratification solution, not aimed at you Hamrad, don't you think we'd have it?

Takes time, and work.

Even if just posting here and spreading the word. The word is energy.

We gonna fix the problem, or just the blame?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RV,

Bill,
Nope.

One more note for any polarized folks out there be that from politics, greenie vs conservative, oil vs alternatives, etc.

I am just a retired military guy. But we had to know our enemy, learn his thoughts, improvise, adapt, and overcome.

But first we had to "know" our enemy. That meant reading their pubs, bios, strategies, and personal quirks. That is the only way to prevail. The only way.

If you think alternative folks or oil folks are the enemy, do you know your enemy?

If you are a conservative or oil man, have you read all the enemy "propaganda" to see them clearly, or vice versa?

There is a middle ground, taking the best of each, and formulating a rational, national policy.

Oh, and by the way, there are irrational "nuts" at both extremes. Takes a lot of reading and research to get past them. And the answers don't come in three line posts or extremist slogans.

Stuff is really happening in all arenas. Thank goodness!

quote:

For the future, the company intends to provide 1kw-class generation systems...

Although the production cost is currently about ¥2,000,000 (US$18,522), it can be reduced to ¥500,000 ($4698) or lower if Genepax succeeds in mass production.

Pardon my late entry into this thread, but I think the above cuts to the meat. One Kw of power is what my Honda EU1000i portable generator provides - at a cost of less than $800. The above system, with an as of yet unproven life-cycle, costs much, much more. Even at $10 a gallon, I doubt I'll burn enough fuel over the life of the Honda to even approach this system's projected cost.

That's the problem with most if not all of these "miracle" solutions. Their projected costs per unit of energy greatly exceed even the current inflated costs of oil. Which means there is no practical alternative to using oil to run our economy, at least in the forseeable future.

The biggest cause of our present financial woes is the immense amount of money we're sending out of the country to buy foreign oil. Not just now, but going back 20 years or so. This needs to stop ASAP. By keeping that money in this country we'll have more than we ever dreamed of to spend on research to develop alternative forms of energy. That means we need to drill here and drill now, to buy us the time we need to transition away from oil-based energy. Otherwise all that will happen is our wealth will continue to be drained and transfered to foreign states while we try to find the miracle cure.

Lou!
Good to see you're posting and still monitoring. Dual approach for the short and long term is the only way. Today's technology today, tomorrow's tomorrow.

There is no miracle cure. I think you'll agree though that every windmill, solar generating plant, and other small tests of technology today does reduce the imports. Small now, more later? One thing I do know. No one in the 1700s could even imagine where we are today. I'm not a pollyanna putting all my eggs in new technologies being a miracle cure. Just posting there are some breakthroughs and possibilities, and folks putting their own money where their mouth is, which is admirable in any new endeavor, and doomed to fail a majority of the time. Just not every time.

I posted that link with the caveat that it has not been proven out yet but bears watching. Might prove to be a hoax. The "or lower" and economies of scale can make a lot of difference. But again, it runs on water and air, if they are to be believed. The first DVD recorder/players were $10k, remember? Doesn't prove a thing though, as it is a sudden announcement, and they could not get the materials needed for a real demo, which raised my suspicions, thus my caveat.

Good to see ya.

RV,

Excellent series of posts. It seems that many of us tend to focus on one or two "silver bullets". You gave an excellent statement of the fact that there are no such things.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, most of us get our news mostly from broadcast journalists who, with a few exceptions, are scientific and economic illiterates. This has only served to muddle the issues. The same applies to most, but not all, of our political decision makers on both sides of the aisle. This, unfortunately is nothing new, and is relatively tolerable when everything is going well. If you want a horror story, look at the effect of journalists and politicians on the conduct of the civil war. Had it been left to the generals, it would probably been resolved much earlier. I fear they will do the same for our current energy problems.

As you state, many of the alternative technologies are getting closer to practicality every day, some already are in limited applications. Unfortunately, much development is still needed. At some point in time, those technologies, in all liklihood some that we've never heard of, will be dominant. In the mean time, we still need to live and the political and journalistic finger pointing is more of a hinderance than a help.

For all the "let's drill everywhere" group. What makes you think we'll be any better off than we are now. Let's say we drill somewhere and hit a small ocean of oil. Would that make us oil independent?

Why would the oilman limit his sale of this oil to the U.S.? The answer is he wouldn't. Any new oil we may drill and find is going to be sold to the highest bidder. Part of the reason we have the higher fuel costs has nothing to do with our actual supply (you will note that there is currently NO shortage of crude oil supply) and most everything to do with more demand world wide and the willingness of other folks to pay the higher prices.

Drilling for more oil to make us oil independent simply does not make sense! It will only make us more dependent! And in some instances destroy one of a kind environments.

We must develop other forms of energy and do so now!

I wish it were otherwise but it is what it is.

HamRad

HamRad:

You might be misinterpreting the intentions of at least some of us who support more drilling...

At least in my case, I have no dillusions that more drilling will make us energy- or oil-independent. My position is that we need to do it all: more drilling (on- and off-shore) AND development of cellulosic ethanol AND nuclear power plants AND switch as soon as possible to battery electric/REEV cars AND development of wind power AND more solar power AND anything else smart people can come up with. Surely if we put our minds to it, we can develop as much energy in this country as we need.

I think that it will take more than any one or two solutions. I also think that, as we become energy independent from the collection of sources above, we could actually become an oil exporter. (BTW...the question about drilling off-shore is not "will we do it?" it's "WHO will do it?" China/Cuba/Brazil/Denmark and maybe others are already working towards drilling off our coasts.)

Most of all, I'm NOT in the camp of "we're going to have to start lowering our standard of living, because there just isn't enough energy." We need to get out of the stance that we can do what I want, but NOT what he wants...why can't we do it all?

Just my opinion...

/Jerry

I think what is being missed in the discussions on oil drilling is that the price of crude is not just a matter of supply and demand.

The true pundits say that just on the supply and demand ratio, including all the new users like China and India, the going price of crude should be in the $60-$70 a barrel.

So what drives the price to $145 a barrel. It is the FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) factor. What if there is a war in the Middle East, what if one of the main suppliers drops out of the game, what if, what if. The speculators trade in oil futures based upon the FUD factor.

It used to be that this FUD factor was $10-$20 a barrel (10%-20%). Now it is over 60%.

Yes there are some factors affecting the FUD factor but not to justify the markup in the marketplace. That is why investigation into the commodity traders is necessary and certain legislation needs to return to again outlaw some of the speculation trading in oil.

Some will say that that would be against the rules of a capitalistic system. Not really, you are not allowed to captivate and manipulate many things like water to a quick example.

How does drilling affect this. Drilling doesn't change the supply/demand ratio which is okay at the moment. What new wells do is remove the FUD factor. With more than enough reserves proven (they are not proven until they are drilled), the speculators lose their justification for the FUD markup that there presently is.

The removal of the FUD factor is why the real industry pundits can say that just the starting to drill new wells will cause an immediate drop in the price of crude and a subsequent reduction in fuel costs.

This is a double edged sword. The current cost of fuel is finally shutting off many of the naysayers against drilling, nuclear, wind turbines in my backyard, power transmission lines in my back yard, etc. and any other solution. (Do you ever notice, the people who are against oil and coal are also against everything else. It is always some new creation that doesnt exist yet.) It we get the FUD factor out, then fuel costs drop and we will be back listening to the naysayers again.

Like I have said before, we need some government action to keep the development going. We need to stop using liquid fuels in things that don't move like power plants. All the wonderful new technologies just aren't up to powering some of the mainstays of our society, like airplanes, farm tractors, and trucks.

The Federal Government needs to make the power grid happen. Business can't get the job done fighting every three signature petition that doesn't want anything anywhere. With the grid, then the solar and wind technologies can be exploited.

Also I am tired of hearing communities that want power but don't want to contribute, like Ted Kennedy not wanting wind turbines on his view of the sea or California and Florida not wanting drilling off shore. They are perfectly fine with North Dakota having the wind turbines and Nevada having the solar sites. I think there should be a Federal "Not in my backyard" tax. If your area can generate energy but the populace doesn't want to, then they should pay for the privilege of having someone else generate the energy.

Having to pay for some of these things puts a different complexion on things as we have seen lately with fuel costs.