Sen. Hutchinson discusses energy...

Wow. Complain about the $75 it costs to fill her SUV, and then conclude that we have to reduce the price of gas. It never occurs to her that a better solution to reducing costs would be to use less? Just shows how utterly ingrained our North American attitude is towards our need, even our "right", to drive such a behemoth.

I couldn't disagree with her more. Gas is too cheap. We are not paying what it really costs when you consider the environmental issues and are simply deferring this deficit to our children and grandchildren. If gas cost more, we would make better decisions.

 

I think she should come up with an inexpensive and environmentally sound replacement for gasoline. Have her get back with me when she is done.

Tom

 

We are in Peak Everything and need to prepare for the decline of oil. Emphasize walking & bicycles, electric cars, light and high speed rail. Gasoline and diesel are hydrocarbons and pollute. Fuel is indeed too cheap. As the price rises to $20 gallon ($5 Liter) we will make better choices and think long-term.

 

That is what we said ay back when,, " when gas reaches $1/gal, people will make better choices,,". Solution, Pinto, Chevette, Civic (advantage,, Civic)

"We will modify our behaviour when gas is $2/gallon, Solution, Explorer, Suburban, F-150, Corrola. (advantge Corrola)

"we I'll feel it when gas is $3/gallon". Solution, Hummer, Expodition, 5 litre turbo Mustang, Prius, Insight". Advantage Prius

"We will relly get it when gas is $4/gallon. Solution, Escalade F350, Toyota Tundra, Leaf, Volt. Advantage,,Leaf.

Some people get it others never will. Sen. Hutchinson clearly doesn't get it. Americans are convince that they have a right to cheap energy at any cost.

Icarus

 

I love that. "Cheap energy at any cost". Bloody brilliant. :rockon:

 

If we increase our production of oil and NG, OPEC will cut theirs... or demand will increase and the net effect will be 0... except we will have wasted that much more of the oil we're in possession of... and we're not exactly rich in oil anyways. We're not poor, but considering how much of the stuff we use, we're hardly rich in it.

 

Absolutely agree w/the above. Good lord!

The only thing is that the Trailblazer isn't really huge. It's a medium-sized SUV. The land barges that really irk me (usually seen being driven solo or w/minimal cargo and passengers) are the full-sized aka monstrosity class SUVs like the Tahoe, Escalade, Expedition, Suburban, Navigators and their ilk. What's worse is the uber-monstrosities like the Hummer H2 and Ford Excretion. I saw a lifted Excretion running around today along w/a H2.

 

i have to admit, those of us who grew up on .20/gal. gas just don't get it. at least most of us. four bucks in a recession just isn't fazing most people. and by the time we get to five? that won't either. what's gonna happen when the gov takes away the 40 billion in oil company perks? we might as well throw a nice tax on now before they do.

 

What people don't realize is that oil id fungible. That is, regardless of where it is produced, the world market determines the price. Only when one producer can increase (or decrease) production to manipulate the market can that manipulation have much effect on the price. For example, if we drill all kinds of new holes, we can't produce enough new production to marginally effect the price.

If, for example we find a huge new, easily accessible oil strike (not likely) that is big enough to have an effect on the market, the Saudis can simply drop production to keep the price high (as they have been known to do in the past. It is in the Saudis best interest to dole out their oil at a rate that creates market stability, and maximizes their return. Every year their oil stays in the ground, the more valuable it becomes.

The only way you are ever (if ever) going to drive down the price of oil is to reduce demand. Alternatives serve to do this in some measure, but quite frankly, efficiency has a much bigger bang for the buck.

As I have often written in the solar business, putting solar panels on a McMansion that does not use it's energy wisely is silly. I tell my clients that before you consider putting solar panels on your house, I suggest do everything you can to conserve, after that, do some more conservation, and after that,,, still more. Then, and only then, consider solar hot water (which comes much cheaper than PV) and then, and only then go for PV.

Personally, in the global economy I don't think the net/net price of energy is ever going to go down. World wide demand is ever increasing, and most sources are ever shrinking. Those who recognize this reality are the ones that benefit. The trick, then becomes, using the right resources for the right task. For example, using natural gas to steam tar out of the tar sands to make liquid oil for fuel is just plain crazy, especially since natural gas is such a great heating fuel. Ultimately, using oil in general as fuel is crazy. At some point, we will need it for lubricants, something it does well.

Smart energy choices, and use now, will reduce the increase in net/cost, but the reality is that the price will continue to rise over all. Any politician who tells you that drilling any where will lower ther price is either ignorant,, or lying,,, or most likely both!

Icarus

 

i know, but we have 3 parties (4?) who all think alike.

 

"I believe in clean energy." Apparently only as a good, dispensable sound bite.

 

Senator Hutchinson is the smart side of the republican gene pool. Check out Senator Inhofe for the other side.

From clueless to moron. What a party.

 

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN):

 

We need more statements like Lamar's from both sides of aisle about a wide range of issues.

 

How many readers here are too young to remember when the range of political opinions expressed by elected officials actually displayed significant overlap between the two major parties? That middle ground has been essentially wiped out by our very expensive partisan election system, where moderates are fired upon from both sides.

I remember the last such moderate to represent a congressional district in which I voted. His moderation was unacceptable to a few hardliners of his party, so they 'fragged' him, teaching him a lesson by throwing the election to the other party.

I haven't been represented by a congressional moderate since.

 

So the answer, according to the senator, is to subsidize a solution more expensive than the problem ($4/gallon fuel.)

uh huh.

 

He's representing Tennessee, where Nissan's going to produce the Leaf and has their North America headquarters, so his support of electric vehicles is certainly suspect. But the sentiment was nice.

 

Decent driving habits and a Prius decrease the cost of fuel by 75% for these same people whining about $4/gallon fuel in their vehicle hogs. That makes way too much sense to ever expect a politician to espouse. Why ? Because the US makes crap hybrids.

 

true for oil but not NG, we are using domestic NG. Problem is that many fossil fuel electric plants can work on multiple fuels, if oil gets expensive they switch to NG.

With respect to how oil prices yes OPEC is fixing pricing and more domestic oil will not result in lower prices, at least long term. Short term prices on exchange are driven through speculation (traders over-buying futures to drive price up and then re-selling them at higher cost), to prevent the prices spiking like they did in 2008 and now the way oil is traded on exchange must be changed.