The Dead Zone (or, BP and the Oil Well That Keeps on Giving)

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well yes. It'd be a tricky bit in New York, where complete backbone grid blackouts due to a failing piece of equipment are part of a good summer's day*.

* Or rather: the grid isn't exactly as solid and reliable as what one would wish.

[HoreTore]

Electric cars at this time are:
1. Too expensive compared to the petrol models.

Nonsense, they're cheaper than a Micra.

2. The few I've seen are ugly little tin cans that most people in the US don't want to drive.

They look about the same as a Micra, Yaris or Corsa. And yes, those cars are sold in the US, believe it or not.

3. The electric grid to support, and the maintenance facilities to sustain them is non-existent.

You can plug it in your outlet at home at night, and it has the capacitity to store enough to last throughout the day. No problems.

[Beskar]

There are also the SMART cars which are hybrids and have something like 180 miles to the gallon, compared to a typical cars 30 miles to the gallon. It makes no sense not to adopt at least hybrids, if not hydrogen or electric.

The thing is, it is the oil companies which doesn't want the consumers to actually get these types of cars, and thus invest bribe the automobile manufactures into not simply rolling out alternative types.

And people argue we should give these companies more power with a "Free-r" market because they will obviously act in our interests and not their own.

[HoreTore]

There are also the SMART cars which are hybrids and have something like 180 miles to the gallon, compared to a typical cars 30 miles to the gallon. It makes no sense not to adopt at least hybrids, if not hydrogen or electric.

The thing is, it is the oil companies which doesn't want the consumers to actually get these types of cars, and thus invest bribe the automobile manufactures into not simply rolling out alternative types.

And people argue we should give these companies more power with a "Free-r" market because they will obviously act in our interests and not their own.

Fortunately for the rest of us, however, in 10 years nobody will dream of buying an american car, and the Japanese make greener and greener cars.

[Marshal Murat]

As someone on the Gulf Coast, there is alot of anger at both the administration and at BP. From what I've read off of BBC articles, it seems that the Brits are indignant that the Americans are heaping so much blame on a "foreign" rather than a "domestic" company, but that's not what I wanted to write about.

Personally I don't really see too much point in blaming anyone for the situation, because I don't think anyone at BP or Admin. really had any "choice" in this accident. I don't blame BP at all, not because they've dug into their coffers to try and stop this situation. Instead I believe it was the individual contractor's fault in this situation but the easy sell is "big oil company screws up environment", which plays well. It's irresponsible for the government to really try and expedite a process that is already being expedited. BP is trying everything they can to solve the situation, which is a no-win for them. I think the problem needs to be fixed, ASAP, with no mark on BP.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Horetore:

Hydro-electric power is good stuff, I wish we had more of it. Even with our limited percentage of hyrdo-generated power, we generate twice what you do in Norway. Regrettably, that is only about 7% of our need.

We will not be building hydro-electric projects because they involve building dams that block the natural flow of rivers, change wildlife habitats, and flood tracts of land upstream from the dam. No larger dams equals no channeled, gravity-powered water for hydroelectric power generation. At the moment, there is a growing movement to dismantle existing dams and even smaller dams designed to create drinking water resevoirs are not being built due to political opposition. Locally, the new proposed resevoir that all civil engineers say is necessary was fought for 15 years and now seems likely to be cancelled. Between NIMBYs and "don't you dare alter the environment" types, the court battles at every step make it a waste of time to try.

We are also, in practical terms, prohibited from using nuclear power. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, people became so scared of nuclear power plants that all construction of them stopped until 2006. We generate an appallingly low percentage of our power this way, with little chance to see in increase for decades as: court fights slow the building of each individual reactor and aging reactors go off line, forcing new ones to replace rather than increase power generated in this category.

Windfarms get hammered by high generation costs, environmentalist opposition (mostly to land-based windfarms), and NIMBYs. The cost per megawatt is way over that of other sources. The same is even truer for solar power.

Geothermal plants run into trouble from environmentalists and scarcity. We don't have all that many places where it would be viable, and some of them are effectively untouchable (they're not gonna cap and use Old Faithful for example).


Electric cars? Nice idea, but CR and Hosa are right about the reactions of most Americans. Hybrids are appealing, but the current added cost of a hybrid when compared to a standard ICE often leaves the total consumer cost higher because the savings in gas costs aren't enough to offset the added purchase price and financing price over the use-life of the vehicle.

The economics don't add up. Short of government fiat, it isn't happening here anytime soon.

[Beskar]

Electric cars? Nice idea, but CR and Hosa are right about the reactions of most Americans. Hybrids are appealing, but the current added cost of a hybrid when compared to a standard ICE often leaves the total consumer cost higher because the savings in gas costs aren't enough to offset the added purchase price and financing price over the use-life of the vehicle.

The economics don't add up. Short of government fiat, it isn't happening here anytime soon.

That makes no sense, I could go out and buy a brand new hybrid car at a price cheaper than most people buy their non-hybrid type cars at, even if it was used.

However, in the UK, there is a trend to buying second/third hand cars, unless you are a doctor or similar, at which you constantly have brand-new cars every year, as it turns out being cheaper to drive it for a year, then sell it on, then to buy it and keep it for a few years, or something similar to that.

Then there are those who won't buy as hybrid car due to illogical reasons like "It isn't manly".


So ultimately, unless Britain for instance has a secret recipe which the Americans don't have, it makes no sense for every new car to be a hybrid car. Being honest, if I was the government/regulator, I would ban the production and selling of non-Hybrid cars, which will make the market full of hybrids, while the old guzzlers die out due to age. There is no reason for progress to be stalled due to corperate interests from multinationals.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That makes no sense, I could go out and buy a brand new hybrid car at a price cheaper than most people buy their non-hybrid type cars at, even if it was used.

However, in the UK, there is a trend to buying second/third hand cars, unless you are a doctor or similar, at which you constantly have brand-new cars every year, as it turns out being cheaper to drive it for a year, then sell it on, then to buy it and keep it for a few years, or something similar to that.

Then there are those who won't buy as hybrid car due to illogical reasons like "It isn't manly".


So ultimately, unless Britain for instance has a secret recipe which the Americans don't have, it makes no sense for every new car to be a hybrid car. Being honest, if I was the government/regulator, I would ban the production and selling of non-Hybrid cars, which will make the market full of hybrids, while the old guzzlers die out due to age. There is no reason for progress to be stalled due to corperate interests from multinationals.

An example:

Ford Escape lists at $21,020; Ford Escape Hybrid lists at $ 29,860. Increased cost of Hybrid = $8,840

Ford Escape mileage is 22/28; Ford Escape Hybrid is 34/31.

Average gas price is about $2.85/gallon.

Now, assume a service life of 150,000 miles (ten years average useage, though most Americans do not keep their cars a full ten years).

Gas costs for traveling 150,000 miles would be: $19,432.82 for the Escape and $12,573.53 for the hybrid version. Hybrid Savings = $6859.29

Choosing the hybrid costs you nearly $2,000 more over the service life of the vehicle.

This is usually made worse by the typical 60-month financing arrangement whereby most Americans purchase their vehicles. The higher up-front cost of the hybrid translates into much greater interest payments on the loan and an even more horrific overall price of ownership (Note: if you put $5000 down on the above Escape or Escape hybrid, after 60 months financing at 7% the total cost would actually be: $24020 for the Escape and $34,520 for the hybrid version. This would make the functional price $10,500 LESS for the standard vehicle, upping the vector to more than $3600.)

Personal property taxes are assessed on the re-sale value of the vehicle. Hybrids have a higher cost even in re-sale, so the tax assessment and tax cost is likely to be higher throughout the life of the car, again, exacerbating the functional cost.

Because of their higher dollar value and higher repair costs, hybrids are also slightly more expensive to insure (though liability insurance costs are the same for both at present. NOTE: some folks are suggesting that hybrids are more likely to kill pedestrians due to their low noise levels at under 40mph not providing pedestrians with enough warning.).

The concept is neat, but at current costs the hybrid is a poor economic choice for a family. You only buy it if you are willing to personally sacrifice in order to reduce your carbon footprint.

[HoreTore]

A Ford Escape is an american-made car. American cars are completely irrelevant when it comes to hybrids.

Check again using either japanese or german cars as your basis.

The Prius costs about the same as other cars in the same class, ditto for the blue motion Passat.

And cars last at least 15 years. The engine doesn't start to fail until well into 300.000km. And a Prius/blue motion uses 3 litres per 100km, a normal car with low fuel usage(like my Vectra) uses 6 or 7. In other words half the gas bill. At least.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A Ford Escape is an american-made car. American cars are completely irrelevant when it comes to hybrids.

Check again using either japanese or german cars as your basis.

The Prius costs about the same as other cars in the same class, ditto for the blue motion Passat.

And cars last at least 15 years. The engine doesn't start to fail until well into 300.000km.

Setting aside the snide comment regarding American Auto design.....

Honda Civic and Civic Hybrid

Price: Standard = $15,655, Hybrid = $23,800 Hybrid "extra" cost = $8,145

Mileage: Standard = 26/34, Hybrid = 40/45; gallon of gas $2.85

10 Years at 15k/year = 150,000 miles; 15 years at 15k/year = 225,000

Fuel cost Standard: $16,442.31 for 10 years; $24,663.46 for 15 years.

Fuel cost Hybrid: $10,687.50 for 10 years; $16,031.25 for 15 years.

Hybrid Fuel Savings: $5,754.81 for 10 years; $8,632.21 for 15 years.

Less "extra" cost at 10 years: $2,390.19 additional cost over 10 years.

Less "extra" cost at 15 years: $487.21 savings

Average length of car ownership in USA = 49.9 months.


Sorry Horetore, it still isn't an economically sound idea here even if I did accept your premise regarding manufacturer quality.

[Lemur]

And there's always the question of those hundreds of pounds of toxic batteries. I never feel as though that gets addressed.

If you want to make a real personal difference, go diesel. But the big savings in transportation would be switching commercial trucks over to natural gas. That would be worth getting uppity about.

-edit-

Getting back on-topic for a moment, here's a good article about the last major spill in the Gulf of Mexico:

The Mexican company running the Ixtoc I rig attempted a slew of now-familiar remedies --- they pumped mud into the well, capped it with a metal "sombrero," shot lead balls into the well and drilled relief wells -- but it took 10 months to stop the leak even though the drilling was taking place just 160 feet below the surface.

The Deepwater Horizon, which blew on April 20, was drilling 5,000 feet underwater.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And there's always the question of those hundreds of pounds of toxic batteries. I never feel as though that gets addressed.

If you want to make a real personal difference, go diesel. But the big savings in transportation would be switching commercial trucks over to natural gas. That would be worth getting uppity about.

-edit-

Getting back on-topic for a moment, here's a good article about the last major spill in the Gulf of Mexico:

The Mexican company running the Ixtoc I rig attempted a slew of now-familiar remedies --- they pumped mud into the well, capped it with a metal "sombrero," shot lead balls into the well and drilled relief wells -- but it took 10 months to stop the leak even though the drilling was taking place just 160 feet below the surface.

The Deepwater Horizon, which blew on April 20, was drilling 5,000 feet underwater.

Alcohol, bio-diesel, and natgas are much more practicable alternatives for the US market. Still, none of these have achieved cost-effective status save as fleet vehicles (at least so far).

[Tellos Athenaios]

Bio-diesel is quite cost-effective: sunflower oil costs about $0.02/L. You require a darned lot of the stuff, though; so you really do need to have a network of bio-diesel pumps to get anywhere with it.
So it pre-requires a well-established culture of using diesels in personal vehicles, so that the niche of bio-diesel is economically viable for individual pump owners. That's the real issue with them; and it pretty much the same issue with newfangled hydrogen based engines, too: you need a market large enough that even small market share can be profitable.

[PanzerJaeger]

Fortunately for the rest of us, however, in 10 years nobody will dream of buying an american car, and the Japanese make greener and greener cars.

Slightly disagree. In 10 years no one will be buying a Chrysler or GM. Ford has taken the necessary steps to maintain global competitiveness.

Also, unless the Japanese can slow down the Yen, they'll soon be overcome by Korea.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bio-diesel is quite cost-effective: sunflower oil costs about $0.02/L. You require a darned lot of the stuff, though; so you really do need to have a network of bio-diesel pumps to get anywhere with it.
So it pre-requires a well-established culture of using diesels in personal vehicles, so that the niche of bio-diesel is economically viable for individual pump owners. That's the real issue with them; and it pretty much the same issue with newfangled hydrogen based engines, too: you need a market large enough that even small market share can be profitable.

That is, of course, the biggest limitation on bio-diesel -- you have to have your own refining station in your garage. While not ridiculously expensive, these things aren't cheap at $3500. Still, $3500 is much cheaper than $8k plus for a hybrid engine. Moreover, even if you have to purchase cooking oil as opposed to obtaining used oil for free, wholesalers make it available for roughly .08 USD/liter (.31 a gallon). Even with shipping and storage, you're talking less than .50/gallon. The stuff even has the same cetane ratings as European diesel -- better than most US petroleum diesel brands. Its Achillles heel is its performance in cold weather -- biodiesel is much more prone to clogging things up as temperatures get really cold.

[Lemur]

Heard from a journo friend that CNN is circulating a memo requesting "positive stories" about the oil spill. Yeah, gotta get both sides of that story, CNN. Wouldn't want anyone saying you were being unfair. To the oil spill. And they wonder why they're bleeding viewers.

Looks like somebody came through:

Website Offers Betting on Spill-Related Extinctions of Gulf Species

Think the spreading oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico could drive some species to extinction? Put your money where your mouth is.

The gambling website PaddyPower.com placed odds today on what species would be first to become extinct as a result of crude belching from BP PLC's ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Odds are the Kemp's ridley turtle, and endangered species that migrates to the Gulf this time of year, would go first. A $5 bet on the turtle would win $9 if it's listed as extinct at any time because of the spill. Less likely species -- the gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish and elkhorn coral -- have payout rates of 20-to-1. [...]

Marine biologists have said that tuna are at risk from oil and dispersants (Greenwire, May 14). There are two populations of bluefin tuna: One spawns in the Mediterranean and the other in the Gulf of Mexico. The center wants endangered status for both.

Bluefin tuna is second on the bookies' list in the PaddyPower.com pool, with a payout rate of 6-to-4.

[Beskar]

What is strange is your comparisons. You can see the companies trying to purposefully fiddle the consumer with "Hybrid extras". Compare across company, for example SMART do both Electric and Hybrid cars. How much are they compared to your Ford Vector? I believe they are cheaper.

[drone]

What is strange is your comparisons. You can see the companies trying to purposefully fiddle the consumer with "Hybrid extras". Compare across company, for example SMART do both Electric and Hybrid cars. How much are they compared to your Ford Vector? I believe they are cheaper.

There is nothing strange about his comparisons. Smart Cars only come in 1.0L ICE over here. And what is a Ford Vector? You need to look at the US-specific websites for various auto makers. You will find that models offered are very different.

Hybrids are not worth it. Pure electrics would be better for short, in-town commuting, but they just aren't widely available, and without the range/quick recharge, they will not be practical for many Americans. We would do better to just downsize out of the SUV insanity and get more fuel efficient sedans/coupes.

[HoreTore]

Setting aside the snide comment regarding American Auto design.....

Honda Civic and Civic Hybrid

Price: Standard = $15,655, Hybrid = $23,800 Hybrid "extra" cost = $8,145

Mileage: Standard = 26/34, Hybrid = 40/45; gallon of gas $2.85

10 Years at 15k/year = 150,000 miles; 15 years at 15k/year = 225,000

Fuel cost Standard: $16,442.31 for 10 years; $24,663.46 for 15 years.

Fuel cost Hybrid: $10,687.50 for 10 years; $16,031.25 for 15 years.

Hybrid Fuel Savings: $5,754.81 for 10 years; $8,632.21 for 15 years.

Less "extra" cost at 10 years: $2,390.19 additional cost over 10 years.

Less "extra" cost at 15 years: $487.21 savings

Average length of car ownership in USA = 49.9 months.


Sorry Horetore, it still isn't an economically sound idea here even if I did accept your premise regarding manufacturer quality.

Funny how you didn't touch on the market leader; the Toyota Prius.

The cheapest Prius costs 272.300NOK, while the cheapest Corolla costs 230.800NOK. HOWEVER, the cheapest corolla is a really strapped car, nobody buys that modell without pimpin' it(the smallest eninge is like 2% of total sales), AND the cheapest Prius has a wide range of extra stuff, as well as a bigger engine. To make it a fair comparison, one would have to add at least 25K to the Corolla. The diffence now? 17k. And that's a little over a years worth of gas, so.... within 3 years you'll have that money back.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway; I never made the argument that the hybrid is cheaper. I made the argument that you can afford it. And yes, you bloody well can. If you have the money to buy that new Honda Civic, or even that Ford, then you can afford to buy a 3-5 years old hybrid of the same model.

So no, this oil spill still wouldn't have happened if you people had some sense and drove economically. And you can all afford it.

And there's always the question of those hundreds of pounds of toxic batteries. I never feel as though that gets addressed.

Irrelevant. 1. Since when did anyone start preserving their use of batteries? Are we buying fewer computers? 2. You don't care about scrapping the car 10 years before its lifetime ends, why on earth do you care so much about it in this particular case? You don't think there's any enviromental damage from producing twice as many cars as is needed...?

[Ser Clegane]

You don't think there's any enviromental damage from producing twice as many cars as is needed...?

Hey - you're the one promoting the idea that we should have two cars instead of one...

[HoreTore]

Hey - you're the one promoting the idea that we should have two cars instead of one...

You already own two cars. The other one might as well be a green one.

[Ser Clegane]

You already own two cars. The other one might as well be a green one.

I only own one car. When some patrons pointed out the disadvantages of the green car you first mentioned you argued that people should have two cars and that everybody can afford two. Then you complain that there are too many cars anyway.

[HoreTore]

I only own one car. When some patrons pointed out the disadvantages of the green car you first mentioned you argued that people should have two cars and that everybody can afford two. Then you complain that there are too many cars anyway.

Not a family man, then?

[Ser Clegane]

Not a family man, then?

Two person household. As I prefer to use public transportation to get to work I see no point in having a second car (and this would not change if we had kids).

So, do you think people should have one car or two cars?

[Beskar]

Two person household. As I prefer to use public transportation to get to work I see no point in having a second car (and this would not change if we had kids).

Everyone pretty much has 2 cars, with older children, it shoots up to 3 and possibly a 4th.

You commuting on the bus/etc, is instead of the second car. Therefore you wouldn't need one. (Thus you rule yourself out)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Two person household. As I prefer to use public transportation to get to work I see no point in having a second car (and this would not change if we had kids).

So, do you think people should have one car or two cars?

Depends entirely on their situation. If you live and work in Manhattan, you probably don't need a car at all and can easily rent one for those rare occasions that you do. The public transportation system there is reasonably efficient and a good cost alternative given the costs of car ownership in NYC. On the other hand, in a typical U.S. suburb and with the typical activities of a family of four, having only one car would create a deal of inconvenience. With some larger families, it would be outright counter-productive. Our suburbs have public transportation, but the density required to make cars irrelevant would be cost prohibitive.


Horetore:

What you suggest is unworkable on a mass level. Car manufacturers do not manufacture 3-5 year old hybrid cars. While it may be an excellent personal choice for any indvidual to do so, SOMEONE will have to buy the new cars and absorb the comparatively high front-end cost of vehicle purchase -- or there will be no new cars.

I didn't do a Prius to non-Prius comparison because I wanted a direct parallel for "side-by-side" comparison. Once you go that route, you need to spend forever making "what's comparable" decisions on loadout as well as mileage modifications for those loadouts -- and I only had a few minutes.

[Ser Clegane]

Everyone pretty much has 2 cars, with older children, it shoots up to 3 and possibly a 4th.

Does everyone pretty much need two cars (let alone 3 or 4 so that the "older children" all have their own cars)?

You commuting on the bus/etc, is instead of the second car. Therefore you wouldn't need one. (Thus you rule yourself out)

I am not sure if I see the point you are trying to make ...
Are you saying that everybody who has 2 cars needs 2 cars (or 3 or 4)?

EDIT: Just for clarification - my response about the 1 vs 2 car point is based on these two statements from HoreTore

And what's stopping you from having two cars; one electric for driving short distances, and one petrol/hybrid for longer trips...?

You don't think there's any enviromental damage from producing twice as many cars as is needed...?

Neither has anything to do with a family needing more than one car to better organize logistics.

[Beskar]

Does everyone pretty much need two cars (let alone 3 or 4 so that the "older children" all have their own cars)?

They don't, but they do. So unless you want to simply go into Public Transport investment debate.

I think HoreTore was more on about using Green cars opposed to a 2nd guzzler which the vast majority own. You say you don't have a 2nd car and don't need one, so his comment isn't directed at you at particular.

[HoreTore]

Horetore:

What you suggest is unworkable on a mass level. Car manufacturers do not manufacture 3-5 year old hybrid cars. While it may be an excellent personal choice for any indvidual to do so, SOMEONE will have to buy the new cars and absorb the comparatively high front-end cost of vehicle purchase -- or there will be no new cars.

I didn't do a Prius to non-Prius comparison because I wanted a direct parallel for "side-by-side" comparison. Once you go that route, you need to spend forever making "what's comparable" decisions on loadout as well as mileage modifications for those loadouts -- and I only had a few minutes.

Irrelevant.

The point was that we can all drive more economically.

And this was never about saving money. This was about avoiding an oil spill like the one we're seeing.

EDIT: Just for clarification - my response about the 1 vs 2 car point is based on these two statements from HoreTore

If you look at my first post in this thread, you'll see that my point is that we can all drive greener, even you. For some, that means swapping one car for an electric car. For others it may mean selling all the cars and take the bus instead, etc etc.

[Ser Clegane]

If you look at my first post in this thread, you'll see that my point is that we can all drive greener, even you. For some, that means swapping one car for an electric car. For others it may mean selling all the cars and take the bus instead, etc etc.

And as one option you suggested to buy a second car to counter the argument that an e-car would not be suitable for long distances - certainly not a very good choice from an environmental/sustainability perspective (as you yourself noted in the second quote I gave and which I now responded to).

I appreciate any attempt to move to more sustainable solutions in e.g, transportation which is why I like to use public transportation wherever possible (with the additional benefit of being able to read something while commuting), I just have the feeling that flippant remarks about access to hydropower and the feasibility to buy a second car to make your average fuel footprint greener help a lot to promote the switch to laternative energy sources.