Re: OT: Hybrid Escape

From: jon@dakota-truck.net
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 00:29:49 EDT


"Jason Bleazard" <dml@bleazard.net> wrote:

: jon@dakota-truck.net said:
:>
:> I prefer to let technology come into play based on its own
:> merits. Nobody had to create laws forcing people to buy cars
:> instead of using their buggies back when horses were polluting
:> the streets with their ummmm, "exhaust". ;-) Cars were better,
:> so people adopted them.

: [.....]

: Interesting example. I'm not sure if it applies completely, unfortunately.

  It probably doesn't ;-) but that was what came to mind and didn't seem
*too* horrendously out of place. :-)

: Note: I'm not saying I necessarily agree with what's about to follow, just
: pointing out the opposing arguments for the sake of discussion.

: I believe the thinking behind the mandates on electric and alternative
: fuel vehicles comes from two things:

: - There's a lot more total pollution from car exhaust today then there
: ever was from horses

   Possibly... Depends on what type of pollution you are willing to
live with I guess - the kind you breathe or the kind you step in. ;-)
This makes me wonder - if all of the people in NYC or Chicago or any of
these other big cities were using horses and buggies instead of cars,
which type of pollution would the citizens find most offensive? :-)
Except possibly for LA, which acts like a sort of smog trap due to the
geography, I'd have to guess that people would probably prefer the type
of pollution that is more or less invisible and odorless than dodging
steaming "land mines", :-) along with the pests and disease that comes
with it.

   I also take issue with the idea that cars need to go away because
they pollute too much. Vehicular "pollution", in comparison to natural
"pollution", is infinitesimal. Current estimates put the amount of oil
naturally seeping into the world's oceans at 180 million gallons per
year, and I forget the exact statistics, but I seem to recall hearing
that one volcanic eruption causes more pollution than man has been
able to produce in his entire existance. Essentially, the earth is
very strong, and more than capable of taking care of itself. Man is
like a flea riding on a dog - to think that we could destroy the earth,
or create the effects such as were depicted in "The Day After Tomorrow"
(now polluting a theater near you) ;-) is the height of arrogance. I'm
not saying that we shouldn't respect the earth, and certainly there are
local effects from pollution, so we should certainly take care in our
actions, but the Chicken Little syndrome which a vocal minority have
adopted for their own selfish political reasons is vastly overblown,
and way out of proportion with reality.

: - The country has grown incredibly dependent on the oil supply, and that
: supply isn't going to last forever.

: Horses were never in danger of losing their feed supply. However, there
: *is* a danger that the oil reserves are going to dry up long before we
: have developed the technology to live without them. I think the fear is
: that people are not going to move past oil on their own as long as oil is
: available. It's too easy to sit back and be comfortable with the cars we
: have for as long as they continue working.

: You said that people will naturally migrate to alternative fuels once they
: become preferable to gasoline. Unfortunately, there's a big difference
: between what's considered "preferable to gasoline" today vs. what will be
: considered "preferable to walking" once the oil is gone. When that day
: comes, we had better be ready for it. If we wait until the oil disappears
: and then decide "oh, crap, guess we'd better start engineering some
: electric or fusion cars now" we're going to be SOL, because it's going to
: be a very long process.

     I can see this point, and can appreciate the desire to want to get a
head start on the "next" technology. However, I truly don't think this is
a problem. First of all, I beleve that necessity is the mother of invention,
and I have great faith in the scientific community and the general workings
of the free market. As the need to find something other than oil pumped from
the ground becomes greater, there will be an increased desire to explore
new technologies. Of course, this all hinges on when the supply of oil
will run out. As you mentioned, I don't think it is really possible to
estimate how much we have left, although I suspect that we are in no danger
of running out for quite some time. A part of the problem is political.
We have a huge quantity of oil right here in the US which we could be
using, but we are prevented from taking it out of the ground due to people
playing politics (they are putting their own interests ahead of those of
the nation). Another issue is technology. Over the years, we have gained
the ability to drill to depths that were unheard of just a few decades ago,
especially in the field of offshore drilling. It seems like even as the
naysayers predict we are going to run out, technology brings into reach
vast quantities of new oil that were previously unattainable.

   Based on the info I have been able to find (from OPEC itself), 1996
worldwide usage of oil was somewhere around 70 million barrels per day.
In 1996, the proven oil reserves worldwide were about 1.05 trillion barrels,
that would be just over 35 years worth at that usage. 2001 worldwide usage
was 76 million barrels per day, and the proven oil reserves at that time
were just over 1.07 trillion barrels. During that 5 years, we were using
between 70 and 76 million barrels per day, (133 billion barrels) but the
"proven oil reserves" went UP by over 27 billion barrels! I am not certain
if this is due to technology opening up additional reserves, or incorrect
estimates, but it would seem that the reserves are keeping pace with the
demand. OPEC themselves estimate their own reserves at 80 years at current
rates of production. Even if we took that worst case scenario and said that
the world will run out of oil in 80 years, that's a VERY long time to develop
new technologies. Consider that only 100 years ago, we were struggling to
learn how to fly; look at the technology in the aerospace industry now!

  Back in the 1940s, the Germans were creating their own oil, from
coal. Of course, we have synthetic oil now for lubrication purposes,
and there are other items which can be used for fuel, such as ethanol,
distilled from plants, etc. Of course, where diesel technology is
concerned, there are even more possibilities for fuel sources.

  Based on all of this, I don't see us running out of oil and being stuck
with a bunch of boat anchors in our driveways. Technology will take care
of the problem LONG before then. Wether we create oils and fuels to
power the existing engines, or move to different technolgies in our
vehicles, America will keep rolling long after the oil reserves are
gone (assuming the reserves actually do ever dry up, of course...) :-)

: Like I said, I don't completely agree with it. I don't remember the
: actual estimates of how many years we have left on the current oil supply.
: I know it's not in danger of drying up any time soon. There are probably
: too many variables to really calculate it with any accuracy anyway. But I
: don't think that there's currently much motivation for most people to
: switch away from gasoline to ANYTHING else, no matter how cool or
: efficient it is.

    That's true. Relatively speaking, oil is still cheap. However,
even though we have enough oil to last a very, very long time, already
people are thinking about electric cars, hybrids, etc. Just think how
much more inspiration there will be as it starts to look like the
reserves may be going away...

: I think that's what's causing the legislation. Whether you agree with it
: or not, the legislators think that they have to start guiding technology
: in this direction before it's too late, because in this case they don't
: think it's going to get there on its own.

    I can understand that, but I resent the way they have gone about
it. If they want to spur development, what about offering tax breaks
to companies who do research in these areas rather than saddling auto
manufacturers with burdensome quotas and ultimatums? Personally, I
don't feel that any artificial incentive is necessary, so the legislators
should focus their time and our resources on more pressing matters,
since, IMHO, this one is a non-issue.

: My opinion? I think that there'll be a gradual process. The oil reserves
: aren't going to go dry overnight. As the supply gets less and less, the
: price is going to increase over time. And the higher the price gets, the
: more interested people get in alternative fuels. Just look what's
: happened this spring. I'm not sure if that interest is substantial enough
: yet to drive the development of practical cars that don't require dead
: dinosaurs. Hopefully it'll get there on its own.

   Yep! That is exactly what I anticipate happening as well. As the
need for alternative fuels or motivation becomes obvious, it will
become more profitable to delve into these areas, so more and more
development will take place. I have every confidence that the
free market would solve the problem without any goverment meddling.
IMHO, legislation will only exasperate the effort.

   The free market, like any natural system, is a beautiful thing.
Leave it alone, and it will do its thing. Start to mess with it
though, and all bets are off. I find it interesting that the very
people who complain about upsetting the balance of the ecosystem
seem to have no reservations about polluting the free market... ;-)

-- 
                                          -Jon-

.-- Jon Steiger ---- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com --. | 1970 Barracuda - 1990 Dakota 'vert - 1992 Ram 4x4 - 1996 Dakota | | 1996 Intruder 1400 - 1996 Kolb FireFly - 2001 Ram QC 3500 CTD | `------------------------------------ http://www.jonsteiger.com --'



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 01 2004 - 00:15:16 EDT