America is addicted to oil. I’m sure this revelation ranks with “Chrysler’s in a spot of bother” on the scale of surprises. Everyone from the Sierra Club to President George W. Bush has lectured the country about its dependence on oil in general and foreign oil in particular. Pistonhead, blame thyself! Transportation fuels make up between 25 and 30 percent of total US energy demand. Needless to say, nearly all of that fraction is petroleum. Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot and the Stanley twins may have powered their jalopies on steam (even then, the Stanley Steamer was kerosene-fired), but modern vehicles are all about the distillates, baby.
A number of highly profitable oil companies provide America its 20M barrels per day (bpd) “fix” of refinery products. We mainline about nine million bpd of gasoline and shoot up another four million bpd of diesel fuel. We chase that with a 150K bpd shot of lubricants, and our cars snort along lines of oil-derived asphalt to the tune of another 500K bpd.
The “high” from all this hydrocarbon huffing: the world’s most mobile society. Americans can go just about anywhere we want anytime we please, bus schedules be damned. And we do. We pack like lemmings into our combined 250 million shiny metal boxes and rack up three trillion miles per year. That’s over half a light-year.
Yet all is not well. Like any other addict, American society is developing resistance to its petroleum addiction. We’re consuming more and enjoying it less. Using statistics on fuel use, vehicle miles and time spent driving, the math tells us that the average American car travels at five mph and gets 15 mpg in the process. While these averages may be somewhat misleading, there is plenty of research to confirm what we’ve all observed: we’re driving longer, going slower and consuming more fuel in the process.
Furthermore, like any other drug, petroleum has numerous side effects, for both ourselves and our society. From oil spills to asthma, from funding terrorism to expanding our waistlines, from purchased politicians to suburban sprawl, our addiction has downsides both obvious and subtle.
The first step to dealing with any addiction is admitting you have a problem (done!). The next step is figuring out how you got there. With petroleum, cars were clearly the gateway drug to our dependence. While oil had been used on a small scale since Biblical times, it fit the internal combustion engine like cocaine on dopamine receptors.
And the first thing those engines wanted was more petroleum. Oil companies, like other drug dealers, were only too happy to keep supplying their addicts customers with their products, and at enormous profits.
The American automotive/petroleum party lasted nearly six decades, transforming our landscape, culture, and commerce. Only when party-pooper OPEC didn’t bring their stash in the 1970s did Americans realize that the buzz wouldn’t go on forever.
But America’s sobriety was short-lived. We rejected President Carter’s stern temperance lectures and embraced President Reagan’s Morning in America optimism. When downsized cars, fuel economy standards, lower speed limits and other efficiency measures caused oil prices to collapse in 1986, America partied until it was 1999 . . . and a few years beyond that. Even buzz-kill Middle Eastern wars and the events of 9/11 didn’t stop the music.
To the contrary, after substantial fuel economy gains from the 1970s to about 1990, US fuel economy fleet averages have leveled off at about 22 mpg for cars and 17 mpg for trucks/van/SUVs. Even that level-off is a minor miracle given America’s stoner-with-munchies appetite for ever larger, heavier and faster cars.
Compare, for example, a 2009 Honda Accord (4 cylinder) to a 1990 model. The new car has 10 inches, 600 lb, 2 EPA size classes, 70 horsepower, and 2.5 fewer seconds in 0 to 60 mph acceleration over its ancestor but with nearly identical fuel economy.
It wasn’t until oil prices more than tripled between 2003 and 2008 that Americans once again started coming down off of their happy horsepower binge. Hybrids replaced HUMMERs as the cool personal fashion statement, and even the truck-dependent Detroit 2.8 started touting fuel economy again.
Despite this cultural shift and our recent economic woes, America is still a petroleum junkie. Consumption is only slightly off from previous years and US oil imports remain at near-record levels. Economic uncertainty means fewer people buying newer fuel-efficient cars and less capital for developing the next generation of miserly models.
However, we are not necessarily doomed to a massive post-petroleum hangover. Petroleum may be the easiest (and until recently the cheapest) way of fueling America’s automotive habit. But it is not the only way. In our next installment, we’ll look at some 19th-century chemistry that may keep us rolling into an automotive future.
Nice “Synchronicity II” reference in there. I think the distinction you make between “transportation fuels” as opposed to fossil fuels in general is a very important one, and one that is often missed by the casual treehugger who thinks that if we only had a few more windmills and solar panels, all our energy needs would be solved. Of course, without electric cars and tractor-trailers on the road and the infrastructure to support them, it doesn’t mean squat for getting from A to B. Looking forward to the rest of this series.
The worlds wealthiest country is a result of that oil consumption. Oil is what powered the US to this prosperity we enjoyed.
Driil! Drill! Drill!
It worked very well before the greenies shut down most development in the US.
This weekend I drove my 12 mpg Jeep to McDonalds in an effort to expand my waistline. It was a great trip! I just can’t wait for that man-made global warming so that I can drive with the top down more often. (wink wink)
Driil! Drill! Drill!
It worked very well before the greenies shut down most development in the US.
The US imports about two thirds of its oil.
Where exactly is this massive secret bonanza location the ‘greenies’ are blocking that would triple US oil production and add 13 million barrels a day?
bluecon:
“Driil! Drill! Drill!
It worked very well before the greenies shut down most development in the US.”
And shut down development offshore as well. But don’t worry, the Chinese will get it now.
But come now, don’t you know it will take 10 years to get that oil online? Let’s see, 1994 plus 10 years is 2004. We could have been pumping more of our own for the last 5 years. I guess the next thing they’ll say is it will take 5 years to build a nuclear power plant, and 10 years to get all the permits approved. I have seen the future and it is chicken fat.
We are “addicted to oil” because it works, and we value personal mobility. I’m sure that the coming years will bring many changes to what we drive, and even the fuel used to power those vehicles. But private automobiles will still be the way most people get around. It’s just that the private vehicle will more likely be a Fiesta, Civic or Accord (four cylinder) as opposed to an F-150, 4Runner or Tahoe.
The answer is blowin in deh win illustrated 6 posts down.
Well that was incredibly depressing. Did you really have to post this on the day that Camaro production finally starts up?!?
Kidding aside, This first part is very well written and I’m looking forward to the next installment. The comparison to drugs and drug addiction really gets the point across.
The line that got me was this: “we’re consuming more and enjoying it less.” So true. Between increased traffic congestion, near constant road works on our crumbling infrastructure, and seemingly exponential increase in the numbers of “municipal revenue generation department” officers on the roads, it’s almost gotten to the point that driving just isn’t fun anymore.
Tech98,
You miss the point of developing our own energy resources. The point is not to entirely replace the imported energy. It’s to introduce enough of our own to keep prices stable. It only takes a 2% or so difference between supply and demand to send prices skyrocketing. This doesn’t mean they won’t increase over time. It means that we won’t suffer price shocks.
And by imported energy I mean all energy. We shouldn’t be dependent on foreign only sources of batteries, lithium, solar cells or what ever else you can think of. We can’t do it all but we can do much more on our own than we are. I reject the notion that it’s a fait accompli and we will just have to adjust to having less energy than before.
To the “drill now” folks I always answer with the long-view position of “suck it out from under all those people who hate us first. When it is gone from there THEN drill here.” Why should we selfishly destroy our future so we can only become MORE dependent on people who hate us in the future?? It can only get worse. Think beyond the next tankful once in a while!
As for me personally, I switched my family fleet to Diesel almost a decade ago when I moved back to the USA from a stint living in Europe, where I was paying $4 a gallon for fuel. I figured with Diesel at least I can always make my own if it got too expensive. I was proven right. My cost for making BioDiesel is now under $1 per gallon. I know this doesn’t scale or work for everyone, but I am at least walking the talk of personal responsibility.
Oh, and before the “Diesel is more expensive” crowd chimes in, it isn’t. (photo taken last week)
–chuck
bluecon,
It’s not oil that made this country wealthy, although cheap oil aided – it was manufacturing that we priced ourselves out of and sent all those jobs over seas. Now we are a services based economy…and we can see that is really not the best spot to be in, at least IMHO. We need a manufacturing base here but most of what’s left is foreign owned.
As for global warming, think about the population. In 1900 it was 1,650,000,000. In 2008 the total population was 6,707,000,000. In just over 100 years we added more than 5 billion people to the planet. Do you not think for one minute that alone contributes to the problem? What about the increased power consumption and generation needed for the increasing population?
The U.S. simply does not have enough oil to drill its way out.
Thinking drilling will make us energy independent is nothing but magical thinking.
“To the “drill now” folks I always answer with the long-view position of “suck it out from under all those people who hate us first. When it is gone from there THEN drill here.”
This. Save it for when the Arabs run out (if God forbid we still haven’t come up with an alternative yet).
I’m actually not worried about an alternative for car propulsion and energy generation–there are many ways to do this–but rather how we’re going to make things like plastics after peak oil.
“I have a drug problem – my problem is I need more drugs!”
– The Drillers
“In just over 100 years we added more than 5 billion people to the planet. Do you not think for one minute that alone contributes to the problem?”
Depends really on how much beans everyone eats.
I’ll get my hat…
Driil! Drill! Drill!
It worked very well before the greenies shut down most development in the US.
We stopped drilling for multiple reasons, some being decreased production rates and cheaper foreign oil priced out domestic oil producers.
Oil is dirt cheap comparatively (and especially for us here in the States) so there’s absolutely no reason to completely exhaust our supply at the moment. As the fine Mr. Goolsbee stated above, I ask the same question.
A true Greenie-weenie is about conservation. Just because we can waste something is no reason to actually do it.
“The first step to dealing with any addiction is admitting you have a problem (done!).”
Judging by some of the comments, is that really true? But then this is a car blog…
I personally have come 180 degrees over the last 5 years, I really don’t enjoy driving like I used to (which was *a lot*) because of the reasons mentioned in the article. I much prefer to bike everywhere I can, the only problem being dealing with all the aggressive drivers on the roads pissed off about the same problems.
America is not addicted to oil. If something cheaper and more practical comes along, it will be adopted en masse. This is an important distinction. You can’t give a crackhead weed and expect them to have no issue with the substitution. America is addicted to cheap personal mobility and I suspect that those who hate oil hate cheap personal mobility.
The American economy is in total meltdown but they are so rich there is no need to drill for the available oil? Then you realize why the economy is in meltdown.
“I suspect that those who hate oil hate cheap personal mobility.”
False. I have a strong desire to see oil and other fossil fuels replaced as much as possible but most certainly don’t hate cheap personal mobility.
Since we have about 2% of the world’s oil reserves, touting “drill baby drill” as an answer to our energy future is a lot like selling intelligent design as science – a mainly faith driven exercise.
Our oil dependency is just not the American way – we should be the ones leading the rest of the world in energy research and our companies should be exporting products and services based on that technology.
We’re consuming more and enjoying it less.
Actually, I’m having a great time. I very much enjoy the fact that for the price of a large pizza with four toppings, I can drive a clean, comfortable, safe vehicle to Toronto and back. What a bargain.
I can’t think of any other product that gives such a great value to performance ratio.
You can try and throw shade on my oil addiction, but I’m gonna turn on, tune in and drop out.
With an 800-word limit and a complex issue, it’s hard to touch on every aspect.
To the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd: This won’t work for 2 reasons. The United States has something like 2% of the world’s known oil reserves, we consume something like 25% of the world’s oil. Do the math.
The second reason this won’t work is cost of production. Pumping oil out of Saudi Arabia or Iraq costs about $1.50/barrel. Pumping oil out of the average US well cost about $6/barrel. Furthermore, most of our new discoveries are offshore, where the cost of production is much higher.
So, unless we make the political decision to make our imported oil expensive, domestic oil is not competitive.
guyincognito wrote:
America is addicted to cheap personal mobility and I suspect that those who hate oil hate cheap personal mobility.
One could also say an alcoholic is not addicted to alcohol, he/she is addicted to the the feeling of being drunk (or the lack of withdrawal symptoms).
‘Cheap personal mobility’ can mean many things. In Paris, France, it means no part of the city center being more than 3 blocks from a Metro station.
In San Francisco, it means being able to walk from Civic Center to Fisherman’s Wharf in about an hour (or by cable car in 15 minutes).
Those who say ‘that won’t work in America, we’re too spread out’ get the cause and effect confused. We are so spread out because (cheap) oil made it possible. If we had been paying the real price of our petroleum addiction directly, people would not buy housing many tens of miles from their place of employment.
Johnny Canada wrote:
I very much enjoy the fact that for the price of a large pizza with four toppings, I can drive a clean, comfortable, safe vehicle to Toronto and back. What a bargain.
Yes, it is quite a bargain…considering all of the blown-off American serviceman limbs (due to oil-centric wars), asthma cases (due to air pollution), dead fish (due to ocean acidification), cancers and reproductive defects (due to pollution from oil refining), etc., that you are NOT paying for at the pump.
If you want to ‘get high’ on petroleum, that’s your choice. But I (and many other people) strongly object to other people paying the costs of your addiction.
Here are my short-mid and long-term suggestions (not that anyone in power gives a sweet f-a what I think, or you, for that matter). But this is based upon stuff I’ve read about over the years, and I can even add links for further reading.
Short to medium term: Gradually add FET (Federal Excise Tax) to oil imports while reducing other taxes, which will then naturally encourage US production of energy
Short term: Convert ethanol production plant facilities to Butanol production plant facilities, since Butanol is a virtual drop-in substitute for gasoline and, unlike ethanol, Butanol (a 4-carbon vs. 2-carbon alcohol) can be sent through oil pipelines. No conundrums about mis-fuelling cars. Where practical, grow sugar beets instead of corn to fuel the Butanol plants.
http://www.butanol.com
Medium term: Start building plants to convert offal, sewage and garbage to light oil (essentially what comes out is virtually identical to home heating oil, can be easily made to go in diesel vehicles).
http://www.changingworldtech.com
Medium to long term: Start increasing the amount of compressed natural “gas” vehicles on the road, by encouraging long-term reductions in road taxes on such fuels; guarantee a 20 year “zero” taxation policy followed by a very slow ramp-up over the next 10 years, to 1/2 the equivalent taxation of gasoline.
Medium to long term: Start increasing the number of electric vehicles on the road, by permanently banning any “fuel” taxation, but have a normal state license fee and gradually phase in a Federal Road Tax fee after 10 years of “zero”, ramping up to a modest fee over the next 10 years, and lock it in at this level to continue to encourage electric car use (while still having electric car users pay “something” for road repairs). Also bearing in mind that electric cars are probably less harsh on roads, being smaller and generally lighter than I/C cars (tho, not always, of course).
Long term: Look at solar, wind or solar + wind generation battery packs swaps for home use where possible, for electric cars. (Drive home from work, have the automated garage ‘robot’ pull the depleted power pack ‘A’ from the car, put it on the wind charger, pull charged power pack ‘B’ from the charger, put it into the car)
Long term: Do a “France” and where possible, add trains with auto-cars (so you can take your electric car with you on vacation/long commutes)
Long term: Consider that the US has hundreds of years worth of coal; pulverized coal (the consistency of copier toner) could be sold through hoses, just like liquid fuels, for use in micro-turbine hybrid electric or micr-turbine hydraulic hybrid cars; gas-turbine engines with regenerators run at maximum load and optimum RPM are extremely efficient, and could be cycled on and off. The continuous combustion also burns cleanly.
Short, medium, long term: begin educating people that good stewardship and actually having as much vehicle as is “needed” rather than just “WANTED” is beneficial to not only themselves, but to everyone around them; responsibly teach this to children and adults alike, through low key public education spots.
Well, what do the B&B think of these? Any others to add?
Mass transit can work for A-to-B commuting, any other use it is much more of a pain in the ass than driving (exception: Manhattan).
Grocery shopping, errand running, or any trip involving multiple stops is much harder on the subway or bus.
This is also assuming you even live near mass transit.
@ Eric
Yes, it is quite a bargain…considering all of the blown-off American serviceman limbs (due to oil-centric wars), asthma cases (due to air pollution), dead fish (due to ocean acidification), cancers and reproductive defects (due to pollution from oil refining), etc., that you are NOT paying for at the pump.
The line about Jimmy Carter’s “stern temperance” should have tipped me off.
OK, now I know where you’re coming from.
Eric said “‘Cheap personal mobility’ can mean many things. In Paris, France, it means no part of the city center being more than 3 blocks from a Metro station.
In San Francisco, it means being able to walk from Civic Center to Fisherman’s Wharf in about an hour (or by cable car in 15 minutes).
Those who say ‘that won’t work in America, we’re too spread out’ get the cause and effect confused. We are so spread out because (cheap) oil made it possible. If we had been paying the real price of our petroleum addiction directly, people would not buy housing many tens of miles from their place of employment.”
Folks who think that you can keep the boys down on the farm when they’ve seen Paris, are in denial dreamland.
Prior to the Ford Model T’s popularity in the United States and other countries, the average person never ventured outside a 10 mile radius from their homes 99% of the time, and rarely ventured outside a 25 mile radius of their homes at all. That’s a well known fact.
Are YOU ready to go back to that? I’m not.
Do YOU want to live in stinking, heavily polluted, crowded cities? Go visit Shanghai, Mexico City or the nice working class sections of New York City proper and tell me you do. I won’t believe you.
I know exactly what the Al Gore type fake greenie liberals want. THEY want to have Gulfstreams, THEY want to have two houses, THEY want to have twelve cylinder BMWs or bullet-proof Caddy-bama-mobile SUV’s, THEY want to have as much travel on jets as THEY want when THEY want it. As for
‘saving the world’ that’s for the peons to give up virtually all of their freedoms and live like sheep in pens in crappy cities with high crime.
No, thanks. It’ll be more FAIR for the ultra-wealthy to stop what THEY are doing and come down to the level of ‘ecological impact’ that the REST of us have to endure. How’s THAT for a novel idea? Besides, we peons outnumber the ultra rich oh, about several million to one… we can ‘convince’ them.
The reason people don’t live near mass transit is because of cheap oil, not the other way around!
The truth is, most people who insist they can’t live without a car have never lived in a place they can get by without one. Sure, if the dry cleaner and grocery store are 5 miles apart you don’t have much choice, but it doesn’t have to be that way. There are towns (most all pre-WW2) all over America where you used to be able to walk to everything. Of course, once zoning laws required 50 parking spaces per 100sf of store (a response to demand) then the dry cleaner and grocery couldn’t fit in town any more..etc, etc.
If we could reduce fossil fuel use for A-B commuting we’d make huge progress on the financial, political, and environmental fronts. If we could then reduce it for all those 1-2 mile errands, we’d get further still. I, for one, commute on the train but sure as hell want to have my track car for weekends!
“If we could reduce fossil fuel use for A-B commuting we’d make huge progress on the financial, political, and environmental fronts. If we could then reduce it for all those 1-2 mile errands, we’d get further still. I, for one, commute on the train but sure as hell want to have my track car for weekends!”
This is where I’m coming from, too. I’d gladly take the train to work if there was a train near me. I hate commuting.
However there’s only a busline near me, and intra-city buses combine the worst of car commuting with the worst of train commuting. They still are slow, get stuck in traffic, and belch fossil fuels, but you also have to wait out in the cold and/or heat and sit next to weirdos. No thanks.
But trains? I’ve lived in the D.C. metro area before and the Metrorail was great for commuting.
I can’t wait to read about this 19th Century Chemistry.
It is like the Wall Street crowd has convinced our politicians that we no longer need to manufacture anything in the US. How else can you explain coal and nuclear energy being taken off the table? And the plan to tax coal to death! Really this country needs to be put on suicide watch.
Natural gas is being used to produce electricity whole-scale. What a sickening waste and expense. You read how manufacturing is fleeing California at an accelerating rate. A model for the rest of the US? I hope not.
Why bother developing an electric car if the power plants and fuels that charge them up are hopelessly expensive?
We need reliable efficient domestic sources of energy or we are cooked.
carguy wrote
“Our oil dependency is just not the American way – we should be the ones leading the rest of the world in energy research and our companies should be exporting products and services based on that technology.”
I agree, and if we want to remain a first world nation we’d better get our act together quickly.
Eric_Stephans: One could also say an alcoholic is not addicted to alcohol, he/she is addicted to the the feeling of being drunk (or the lack of withdrawal symptoms).
That is not an accurate example.
Your original contention was that we are addicted to oil.
Guyincognito correctly noted that with a true addiction, a substitute will not work.
If we could figure out a way to make vehicles powered by electricity, soy bean oil or wood alcohol as cheap and convenient as those powered by petroleum, 99 percent of drivers would switch from oil without a second thought.
What people are seeking is inexpensive personal mobility. If said mobility can be provided with vehicles that run on oil, ethanol or some other fuel, most people will not care one way or the other.
Eric_Stephans: Those who say ‘that won’t work in America, we’re too spread out’ get the cause and effect confused. We are so spread out because (cheap) oil made it possible. If we had been paying the real price of our petroleum addiction directly, people would not buy housing many tens of miles from their place of employment.
We’ve ALWAYS been more spread out than Europe. That is why Henry Ford I used the principles of mass production and the assembly line to lower the price of automobiles. He wanted to put them within the reach of rural Americans, who were not rich enough to afford the Packards, Pierce-Arrows and Locomobiles of the day.
That is also why the idea of a low-cost automobile caught on here before it did in Europe, even though most of the automobile’s early developments were French and German in origin.
Eric_Stephans: Yes, it is quite a bargain… considering all of the blown-off American serviceman limbs (due to oil-centric wars), asthma cases (due to air pollution), dead fish (due to ocean acidification), cancers and reproductive defects (due to pollution from oil refining), etc., that you are NOT paying for at the pump.
Air pollution has been DECLINING for over 30 years. The Clean Air Act is working, and will continue to bring about further improvements.
If asthma cases are increasing, it can’t be becaues of fossil-fuel pollution, as that has been decreasing for decades. And I say that as an asthmatic.
Same with cancers and reproductive defects (and please note that the evidence linking reproductive defects to fossil-fuel use could charitably be described as flimsy).
And while we have used our military to secure the supply of oil, we are doing it for ALL of industrialized Europe, Asia and Australia. They use lots of oil, too. And they would be left seriously hurt by a disruption in the oil supply as well. They just let us do the heavy lifting (or make backroom deals with petro-dictators, as the French did with Iraq before the war).
Until there is a consensus in this country (or on this website) that harming the environment is a bad thing and not just a fantastical monster invented by pot smoking hippies, “greenies”, tree hugging, left wing, socialist, tie dye wearing, gay marriage loving, commies. Until that happens there can be no rational debate about this topic.
My guess is it will take at least another generation by which time it will be too late.
ZOMG, I dislike pollution and want to have a planet left that’s worth inhabiting for my grand children, I must be an Al Gore loving left wing nutjob!
What a joke.
“It wasn’t until oil prices more than tripled between 2003 and 2008 that Americans once again started coming down off of their happy horsepower binge.”
This is true. I’ll bet if the price of gas never got above $2.50 a gallon we would never see bandwidth wasted on an article like this. And if oil speculators were better regulated, auto manufacturers could have directed resources to more advantageous projects. Oh well, dead fish under the bridge I guess.
As for harming the environment, maybe you should direct your anger toward China. Right now they’re a bigger “player”, in many ways, than we are.
@menno – You went from quite reasonable (your alternative energy scenarios, some of which presage the next two installments) to wild-eyed ranting (“I know exactly what the Al Gore type fake greenie liberals want…”). What gives?…:-D…
@Johnny Canada – Yes, you know exactly where I’m coming from. The fact that our petroleum addiction is massively subsidized has been documented so many times by so many people that it scarcely bears pointing out. Yet many people (esp. many people who claim to believe in ‘free markets’) shut their eyes to this fact and argue energy policy as though the externalities of petroleum addiction did not exist.
@geeber – “…Air pollution has been DECLINING for over 30 years…”. Yes, but it is NOT zero. And there is no part of the pump price of fossil fuels that pays for the harms that the pollution causes. Yet *somebody* pays for it.
Similar arguments apply to your other contentions.
.
http://www.ecologycenter.org/erc/petroleum/world.html
@GeeDashOff – “…pot smoking hippies, “greenies”, tree hugging, left wing, socialist, tie dye wearing, gay marriage loving, commies…”, I resemble…er…resent…yeah, resent that remark…:-D…
@mytruth – “…And if oil speculators were better regulated, auto manufacturers could have directed resources to more advantageous projects”…Funny how some people like ‘free markets’ only when they produce certain outcomes (like cheap oil)
“As for harming the environment, maybe you should direct your anger toward China. Right now they’re a bigger “player”, in many ways, than we are.” – You are quite correct, and this perhaps the most important point. The rest of the world wants what the US, Western Europe, Japan, etc. have in terms of living standards/energy consumption (the two are highly intertwined). But they can’t have it. There isn’t enough fossil fuel to support 6 billion people as petroleum-addicted as 300 million Americans.
The graphic says it all. Perhaps instead of investing billions in drilling for more oil and digging shale domestically we should be re-building our infrastructure to be on more of a human-powered scale.
My bike at 10 mph gets ~1000 mpg, at 20 mph ~850 mpg (source: bicycling science 3rd ed by Wilson et al). For $9k you can get a 3-wheel velomobile that can cruise at 30 mph with some electric assist to get up hills.
For those areas developed with sprawl connected by high-speed roads remediation to allow more foot and bike traffic will be required, but it’s all a matter of $ and willpower. Meanwhile the areas with lots of pre-WWII city designs will have a competitive edge in the future as gas prices rise and people resort to more pedal power.
I choose to live in the suburbs in part because I like to drive. I believe that the desire to be able to go where you want when you want is an essential part of being an American. Guyincognito and menno correctly identify mobility, not oil, as the thing I’m addicted to. If gasoline was twice as expensive, my next car would be very fuel efficient like a Honda Civic or a Volkswagen Jetta TDI, but no way in hell I’d give up driving and meekly ride the bus. Try to take away mobility and its time for secession.
If coal to alcohol fuel became much less expensive per BTU than gasoline, my oil “addiction” would be miraculously cured. Independent of the government and in violation of EPA rules I would add circuits to my car to stretch out pulses to the fuel injectors to handle cheaper alcohol. I’ll gladly ditch oil for a cheaper alternative. However, I’m not so interested in a more expensive alternative.
We just got lazy when it got to energy for our mobility. Oil came out of the ground at relatively little effort, ICE came along, and we ended up captives to a specific technology, and didn’t look for alternatives for a long, long time.
Now we have to look at alternatives.
Consider, if you will, ammonia, which can be used to run cars. A volume of ammonia actually contains more hydrogen than a similar volume of pure hydrogen – go figure. There are some elegant solutions on the table already when it comes to using ammonia and fuel cells.
Ammonia can be created through dry distillation of nitrogenous animal and vegetable products (probably smarter than the E85 boondoggle, but nobody thought of it).
Unfortunately, today we get our ammonia by pulling the hydrogen out of natural gas – though many are looking for sustainable methods, as ammonia is a seriously good contender to replace hydrocarbons as motive energy for the future.
What’s good about all the effort being put into alternatives now, is that we’ll be seeing a hundred year old technology finally evolve into something more efficient, and probably even more fun, as we also consider the “how” of mobility, reducing congestion while possibly reintroducing the fun into driving.
GeeDashOff @ 2:31 pm,
There is no consensus here or nation wide that prevents rational debate. Your comment, if anything, is destructive to discourse. Try not to characterize people who you suppose to disagree with you as holding fantastic, irrational beliefs.
It really doesn’t help.
I may have been more of a hippie than you will ever be. I have seen animals in the wild that most people have only seen in the zoo or on TV. I am certainly a tree hugger. Wore tie dyed shirts made myself back when it was first popular. However, I never bought into the left-wing crap because of their propensity to murder. I read history.
“I dislike pollution and want to have a planet left that’s worth inhabiting for my grand children, …”
Who doesn’t? That doesn’t make you”… an Al Gore loving left wing nutjob!”. Rational people care about pollution also.
We’re all addicted to oil, even those of us driving Priora, riding bikes, or walking.
Last I checked, hybrids still need petroleum fuel.
Bicycles require substantial amounts of oil for manufacture of their metal, plastic, and rubber parts. And walking shoes with plastic, rubber, or “other” materials are also made with oil.
At current population levels, our manufacturing choices are to either use oil to make things or to use the skins, bones, wood, or other natural resources.
We’re addicted. And there’s not much we can do about it, unless we decide to stop feeding and clothing the great majority of our population.
At current population levels, we are quickly depleting our natural supplies of fossil fuels and fresh water. I think the ending here is not going to be good. At some point, what will happen is the same thing that happens when the herd of deer, antelope, or caribou rapidly outgrows the ability of the land to support said population.
Without a natural predator, nature’s corrective action is usually massive, rapid de-population (ie, starvation, disease, and death), until the size of the herd is brought back into line with what the Earth can provide.
«A number of highly profitable oil companies»
Slander.
Falsehood.
Myth-building.
The historic average of the US oil industry over the long term is a 5% return on investment. They happened to get a one good year in 2008, and a great year it was, indeed.
But do you invest in a coat-making factory because of its long-term record and prospects, or do you bet on it just because the 2008-2009 winter happens to be one of the coldest on record?
Lemme disabuse you of your betting-man self-deceipt. If you had bet $92 dollars on XOM stock less than a year ago because of the unusual windfall, your investment would now be worth all of $67, for a nice 27% loss.
Oil is actually an underperforming industry. It is a commodity, for crying out loud. The only real reason people invest on it is because it is so large it is relatively stable, and a balanced portfolio should always have a bit of this and a bit of that.
Highly profitable? Please.
Eric_Stephans: Yes, but it is NOT zero. And there is no part of the pump price of fossil fuels that pays for the harms that the pollution causes. Yet *somebody* pays for it.
Life spans are at all-time highs, even with all of the petroleum extraction and use occurring.
Unless you are arguing that everyone would live to be 125 years old without petroleum use.
We did have a period of time when there were no automobiles in use, no petroleum was being pumped from the ground, most people walked everywhere and most people got plenty of exercise growing food or hunting for it.
And most people were lucky to live until 35.
So, viewed through the lense of history, your arguments don’t hold water. Unless you really do believe that we lived in a veritable Garden of Eden in, say, 900 A.D. or so.
And nothing you’ve said refutes the truth that pollution levels are decreasing. If pollution is DECREASING, and the conditions you cite are increasing, then one must logically conclude that there is another cause.
Similar arguments apply to your other contentions.
In which case, they aren’t arguments at all.
And using the “ecology center” to buttress arguments is about as credible as asking the Chevrolet dealer for a review of the Malibu.
And I still don’t see proof that we are addicted to petroleum. What we want is cheap, personal and private mobility. If our vehicles ran on cow manure or french-fry oil, most people wouldn’t care.
They won’t refuse to drive – or suffer a nervous breakdown – because it isn’t regular unleaded in the tank.
Are we going to use less petroleum in the future? Sure.
Are we going to drive different types of vehicles in the future? Most likely – at the very least, the standard vehicle will be smaller.
Are we going to pay more attention to where we live? Sure, although I think that telecommuting will do more to reduce commuting times than any movement back to the city.
But misdiagnosing this as an “addiction to oil” or linking to websites that have an axe to grind with the Bush family, or ignoring why we use petroleum (hint – it’s easy to extract, it has fewer negative health effects than previous sources of energy, it’s cost-effective, and it’s easy to store), doesn’t do much to further the discussion.
This series seems more rantful than thoughtful.
As for harming the environment, maybe you should direct your anger toward China. Right now they’re a bigger “player”, in many ways, than we are.
This kind of logic always bugged me** because it amounts to “I don’t have to do anything, because so-and-so is doing something worse”. If you’ll forgive me, it sounds like something a preschooler would say.
Just because China pollutes more, doesn’t mean that the US (or the West in general) shouldn’t try to reduce consumption or emissions. In fact, what we ought to be doing is setting an example, because the first thing nations like China will say—and in fact, have said—is “Why should be cut back when you’ve had the opportunity to enjoy the open spigot”?
** It used to really piss me off when bootblacks for the Bush administration used to brush off their team’s human-rights and due-process abuses with “Well, at least we’re not Iran/China/Cuba”. Saying “We’re not the worst” is not the path to improvement.
Eric_Stepans: “There isn’t enough fossil fuel to support 6 billion people as petroleum-addicted as 300 million Americans.”
Maybe there is. I didn’t have to dig too deep to find these articles.
Sustainable oil?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
Geochemist Says Oil Fields May Be Refilled Naturally
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3D91530F935A1575AC0A963958260
I’ve also read somewhere that Saudi reserves are no less now than they were 50 years ago.
Now here’s the scary part. What if they’re right?
Specious statistics aside, would you be a happier driver if your vehicle obtained its power from something other than the combustion of petroleum? Put another way, do you drive to burn petroleum or burn petroleum to drive? Seems to me that if there is an “addiction” here, it is to transportation and petroleum merely provides the energy. The economic problem is that we have allowed a sole source supply situation with respect to petroleum to exist for too long, due mainly to politics. With different clowns in Washington, we could readily have other sources such as bio-diesel, coal to gas, and nuclear for cheap electricity.
psarhjinian: This kind of logic always bugged me** because it amounts to “I don’t have to do anything, because so-and-so is doing something worse”. If you’ll forgive me, it sounds like something a preschooler would say.
“It used to really piss me off when bootblacks for the Bush administration….”
I don’t forgive you. In fact, I claim victory.
You see, I’m going to sub “preschooler/bootblacks for the Bush administration” for hitler and apply Godwin’s law.
Godwin’s law
“References to Godwin’s Law often actually refer to a corollary of it which determines that the person who first makes an unwarranted reference to Nazi Germany or Hitler in an argument loses that argument automatically.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
You really need to watch your temper.
If we could just figure out how to burn whine and power our vehicles with it. The old can do attitude that made America so successful has been replaced with a no we won’t, no we can’t, we are wealthy and don’t need to do anything to be competitive. Keep it up and the wealth wil be fleeting.
Henry Ford
“If you think you can or you think you can’t you are right.”
ZoomZoom :
We’re all addicted to oil, even those of us driving Priora, riding bikes, or walking.
Last I checked, hybrids still need petroleum fuel.
Bicycles require substantial amounts of oil for manufacture of their metal, plastic, and rubber parts. And walking shoes with plastic, rubber, or “other” materials are also made with oil.
Umm, what? Ok, a bicycle requires some oil to manufacture and transport it to the point of sale. But are you seriously suggesting a good quality bicycle, manufactured once and then used for a decade or more can in any way be compared to a car in terms of oil use?
This ‘everything uses oil, so let’s do nothing!’ new environmentalist meme has been appearing in increasing frequency on Internet forums recently. I had a debate with someone claiming that CFL bulbs use MORE energy than standard, 5% efficient incandescents because you have to manufacture the CFL and transport it from China. Yes, manufacture one instead of several incandescents (uses less oil for transport) and then use 70% less energy over several thousand hours. Nope, they could not be convinced. ‘Since you manufacture something new, it must use more!’
@geeber – “…We did have a period of time when there were no automobiles in use, no petroleum was being pumped from the ground, most people walked everywhere and most people got plenty of exercise growing food or hunting for it.
And most people were lucky to live until 35…”
Actually, pre-Colombian Native Americans routinely lived to 70 or 80, and similar longevity has been reported in other aboriginal tribes.
There are many factors (civil engineering, better medical care, antibiotics, etc.) that have increased life span during the Petroleum age. I seriously doubt petroleum consumption per se is one of them.
@mytruth – the science behind abiogeneis of petroleum is very weak. As for Saudi reserves, they have been reporting the same numbers for decades. Which is more likely? That they’ve actually discovered enough reserves to replace what they’ve already pumped? Or that they’re lying?
@vww12 – «A number of highly profitable oil companies» Slander. Falsehood. Myth-building.
Yep, all those oil billionaires in Texas and Saudi Arabia are just figments of our imagination…:-D…
@bluecon – If we could just figure out how to burn whine and power our vehicles with it.
I thought we already did…:-D…
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30431
Per this topic, has anyone read Raymond Learsy’s book Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil’s Grip On Our Future? He makes the argument that oil is not really scarce. People pump up oil’s scarcity to hike the price and gain political power.
Seems a little hard to make that argument. But the excerpts from the book seemed lucid, not raving. I wonder if anyone has read the book and can give me their opinion of it.
@mytruth
A “bootblack” is “a person who cleans and polishes shoes for a living.”
Oil consumption is a function of population X per capita oil consumption.
The US population has doubled since the 1950s. At the current rate of increase that doubling will be a tripling by 2050. (In other words, we were 150 million some time in the ’50s, we were 300 million in the early ’00s, and we’re headed to nearly 450 million by 2050.)
According to the Pew Research Center, 82% of the growth from now until 2050 will be due to mass immigration. And that will put all the more pressure on resource use, even if we managed to get batteries with a range that can give us EVs with the flexibility of current gas powered cars.
Nonetheless, Harry Reid, in his wisdom, forced the democrats in the senate to block a 5 year extension of e-verify, the law that requires employers to verify immigration status of new hires, because he wants to tie it to an amnesty for illegal immigrants. That amnesty, combined with anchor babies, chain migration, etc., are the laws that will lead the US population to explode as Pew predicts. If you’re fed up with this sort of thing, join numberusa.com.
And call your senators, and tell them what you think. The main number for Capitol Hill is 202-224-3121
@Tesla Deathwatcher – “Raymond Learsy’s book Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil’s Grip On Our Future? He makes the argument that oil is not really scarce. People pump up oil’s scarcity to hike the price and gain political power.”
It is true that ‘oil’ is not scarce. What is scarce (and getting scarcer all of the time) is oil that can be inexpensively pumped and processed. In the 1930s, $1 invested oil exploration/production produced about $100 in revenue. Nowadays, that return number is $15 to $20, and is getting smaller every year.
And, yes, OPEC manipulates production for their own ends….
Eric Stepans:
It is true that ‘oil’ is not scarce. What is scarce (and getting scarcer all of the time) is oil that can be inexpensively pumped and processed. In the 1930s, $1 invested oil exploration/production produced about $100 in revenue. Nowadays, that return number is $15 to $20, and is getting smaller every year.
You’re probably in the ballpark.
However, by ignoring today’s oil pumped from deep sea and land fields (that couldn’t be pumped at any 1930s price), your numbers will overestimate scarcity.
Given drilling and oil/shale technological improvements, I’m quite certain we’ll be driving gas powered ICE cars for the next hundred years. (That is, if the ice caps don’t melt).
Comment from Eric Stepans:
“…Air pollution has been DECLINING for over 30 years…”. Yes, but it is NOT zero.”
Eric, if the goal is zero, we’ll never get there. I can’t recall what the ‘Clean Air Act’s’ goals were, but based on results, it appears to have had a significant impact on air quality.
We should approach the issue of energy independence in much the same way. Gentle pressure relentlessly applied.
Michal, responding to ZoomZoom:
Umm, what? Ok, a bicycle requires some oil to manufacture and transport it to the point of sale. But are you seriously suggesting a good quality bicycle, manufactured once and then used for a decade or more can in any way be compared to a car in terms of oil use?
Of course not. But we are using more than the Earth makes, unproven scientific conjecture aside.
This ‘everything uses oil, so let’s do nothing!’ new environmentalist meme has been appearing in increasing frequency on Internet forums recently.
I never said that, so you can stop right there.
I had a debate with someone claiming that CFL bulbs use MORE energy than standard, 5% efficient incandescents because you have to manufacture the CFL and transport it from China.
I said stop. Sure, they use less electricity and they last longer, but I don’t like CFL’s because they contain mercury, they give me a headache, and they interfere with some radio signals. So we can stop right there.
Yes, manufacture one instead of several incandescents (uses less oil for transport) and then use 70% less energy over several thousand hours. Nope, they could not be convinced. ‘Since you manufacture something new, it must use more!’
My solution is to use dimmers on my incandescant lights. For safety in a particularly dark area in my home, I have some 40 watt bulbs that have been running at about 10% power for over 2 years, almost never being turned off. Just bright enough to prevent accidents, without causing headaches or radio interferance.
The rest of them are turned off when nobody is around, and typically dimmed to something less than full power when somebody’s in the room.
For some people, CFLs are NOT the best solution. The mercury thing is particularly worrisome to me.
«Yep, all those oil billionaires in Texas and Saudi Arabia are just figments of our imagination…:-D…»
Wow.
An utterly unserious answer to follow up an unserious article.
People who genuinely believe this stuff do themselves a disservice by not investing all of their savings into oil companies.
I see there is no articulate support to the “highly profitable oil company” incendiary comment in the original argument.
@petrolhead85
“it’s almost gotten to the point that driving just isn’t fun anymore.”
In Switzerland it has already reached that. I got a $50 fine last week for doing 1 km/h over in a 30 km/h limit zone. Unbelievable..so I electro-cycled down that road this morning at 49km/h…try flashing me now Mr.Cop, and you just get a nice pic of my a..!!
Name calling and team positioning aside, menno has done more in the 5 minutes to create his plan than I’ve seen done by any administration.
I don’t always agree with menno but at least he has a plan.
And this plan I can agree with.
Eric_Stephans: Actually, pre-Colombian Native Americans routinely lived to 70 or 80, and similar longevity has been reported in other aboriginal tribes.
And the way to independently determine the accuracy of their age and longevity is found where?
There were people who regularly lived to be 80 and 90 years old in 18th and 19th century America, too. Unfortunately, lots of people also died much earlier, especially children. Families could regularly expect to experience the deaths of at least two children before said children reached maturity. Today it’s considered a catastrophe for a family if one child dies.
Eric_Stephans: There are many factors (civil engineering, better medical care, antibiotics, etc.) that have increased life span during the Petroleum age. I seriously doubt petroleum consumption per se is one of them.
Improved civil engineering, better medical care and antibiotics didn’t spring forth from the center of the earth. They were developed by a society that was able to invest a lot of money and time into making them happen.
Cheap, reliable, easily transportable energy – first wood, then coal, now oil – made that economic growth possible by raising everyone’s standard of living and putting people in a position where they can afford to demand those things.
menno: +1, agree with everything in your plan.
When I was in engineering school I had a class taught by someone from the Mining/Minerals Engineering department. As one of the side-discussions this professor stated that the university had developed a feasible process in the 60s or 70s to transport crushed coal slurry through pipelines between the coalfields of WV/KY and the Atlantic seaports (mainly Norfolk). It was even more economical than rail transport at the time. The railroad companies crushed the project before it could get off the ground.
US fuel economy fleet averages have leveled off at about 22 mpg for cars and 17 mpg for trucks/van/SUVs.
Another reason car sales are floundering, IMHO: I’m looking to replace my beloved 2000 323i, which is still pulling strong at 134k miles. I have been flummoxed by the discovery that my old bimmer get better mileage than the 2009 Fusion I-4 with a manual transmission??? Apparently, decade of engineering “progress” has put us further behind.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2009/ford/fusion/101010848/specs.html
And there are some really old bits of technology that could retasked to serve us in new ways.
http://englishrussia.com/?p=2314
http://englishrussia.com/?p=736
How about some sort of modern hybrid semi-truck for the interstates? Diesel off the highway, electric on the highway.
I’d rather have an electric bus with a pantograph quietly roaming the city vs the smoke belching noisy things that most modern cities have. And that power can come from any sort of generation source – hydro, coal, nukes, wind, solar, etc.
How about trolley tracks instead of buses? Much longer lasting. San Fran’s trolleys are how old now??? Most buses last how long?
Imagine passenger trains with auto-cars taking advantage of tracks in the median of the interstate. Electric even. Express runs from hub cities like Nashville and Atlanta to Florida. You drive 100 miles, climb onto a train WITH your car and ride to Florida where you exit and drive to your final destination – rested, fed, and consuming less energy. Drive on late in the afternoon and arrive in the morning…
Imagine small neighborhood schools that served neighborhoods within walking distance without an administration in each building (and thus less costs). Only teachers. Small schools of 100 kids who could bike and walk vs suburban schools where hundreds of kids have to be driven to school or bused – sometimes – one kid per car. What a waste (and we do it too. Getting a neighborhood school next year though).
I can imagine neighborhood shops that people could walk to springing up all over if the average person would shop there due to high fuel prices. Little strip malls down the street serving a mile radius of homes. Small markets, a post office to drop off and pickup mail (no mail delivery anymore)… That problem will solve itself when the time comes. I know too many people who would rather drive PAST their neighborhood shopping options now to go to some big box retailer to save a little on the pricetag. Never mind the cost of wear & tear, fuel, time, pollution, and how nice that empty neighborhood shopping center will look when it’s vacant and a vandalism target. Another one lost to the big box guys. We’re losing a Kmart and a grocery store this week to a Wal-Mart.
There is not one single answer. The answer will be a 1000 little “tweaks” (changes) to how America operates. Nothing is going to compete with gas or diesel in the short term cost analysis for a while. However we can place more value on a better quality of life with less pollution, less noise, safer streets, and more variety to how our towns and cities operate.
A little constant improvement (baby steps) would go a long, long way over a decade.
We can’t wait a decade though because China and India are rushing to come into the 21st century and those citizens want the same stuff we want. China is investing in Panama, Africa and across the globe. We’ve invade Iraq. At what cost? At what cost are the wars compared to their Chinese investments of capital and good will with the people in those African nations? I’ll bet the good will lasts decades for the Chinese. I know our Iraq debt will last decades too.
I’m for all the wind and solar that we can utilize everywhere it works. Then carry the rest of the load with the traditional sources – nuke, hydro, and coal. Research on ways to generate hydrogen with spare capacity for later consumption at those same power plants -or- pumping water into mountain top lakes with spare capacity so it can allowed to fall back to the lower elevation later and generate power.
http://www.tva.gov/heritage/mountaintop/index.htm
Lets get moving. We private citizens can make it start without waiting for the gov’t or the economy to change. Different choices at the stores, shopping at different stores, different consumption patterns, different goals, different personal transport decisions, plant a garden, etc.