How nice to be able to agree, even a little, with something JMH posts here. In fact rail IS far more fuel-efficient at moving goods than the interstate system. Once it's rolling. But you have to go back to the inception of the Interstate System to understand why rail has been ignored in favor of trucking. That system was devised for national security purposes. In case of attack or sabotage, a truck can easily be detoured while a train cannot. Blame WWII experience in stopping German transport.. as well as the Autobahn. From a commercial view, think of all those rail crossings. Not to mention time spent in freight car switching; only recently have switching systems developed that can route freight efficiently.... roughly the same time as spent in dropping trailers and hooking them up again. In addition, 'Just-in-Time' manufacturing methods have made matters worse. JIT makes sense from a bean-counter perspective, but places production at risk if the slightest delay occurs at any point in the process. For JIT, rail just doesnt cut it.
The only way we will get any REAL changes in the United States in how we use and what we use for energy, will be because we have reached a level of such severe discomfort, as a NATION, not just as individuals, that we (specifically including manufacturers, specifically modes of transportation manufacturers) are literally forced to come up with another way. Big businesses need to feel as desperate as individual consumers to drive any substantial change, and that ain't happening. As long as we have the attitude of "well, let's just drill some more", whether deeper, longer, or in more places, nothing is going to change any time soon. (I did like, and have thought about myself, the New Yorker's idea of changing the way we view, work, and live as communities, and it sounds like it would actually do a lot to bring a better sense of community to our country. But too many people would see that as a step back in the evolution and dominance of the United States. I don't believe that is necessarily true, and it is certainly an idea worthy of much more discussion by many more people.)
When I was still in the classroom, my last assignment was in middle school. My 8th graders were well into their "why not" phase and I tried to nurture that. When those "why nots" dealt with polluting industries and -- to them -- outmoded means of producing electric power, I kept hearing "why not wind power" and "why not solar power" and "what about electric cars" and "don't people care about future generations." I acknowledged that there was some progress already made in these areas [1990-1992 here], but that if THEY were really interested in this, it would be their generation's task NOT to develop new sources of energy, rather to make them so economically attractive as to make choosing existing [inefficient, polluting, non-renewable] sources more dangerous to the profit line. The story of alternative energy in this country has been a successful one in terms of ideas and concepts. The failure has been in implementation. Although automobiles are more efficient and of higher quality than ever before, the internal combustion engine is still a story of how a substandard concept grew HUGE legs. The same is true with coal-burning and oil burning power plants. The fact that we're still debating how to replace them is ALL down to the fact that we've not followed through on making new sources more profitable than old ones. I agree that this isn't helped by the fact that both political parties are in the back pockets of the automobiile and oil industries. And it isn't helped by the fact that government investment in "alternative energy" has been overwhelmingly wasted on ethanol -- damn that "first in the nation" Iowa caucus. But the truth of the matter is that we live in a consumer society with a mixed economy. Better and cleaner don't come anywhere near being as economically important as less expensive to produce. And there won't be any substantive changes in policy or reality until this changes. Right now people who support alternative means of mobility and power are saying things like "this will save us money in terms of less money spent on anti-pollution legilation in the future" or "less money spent to counter the negative health effects of pollution." Until they can say "non-polluting, renewable energy sources are cheaper to produce and more profitable to provide to consumers," we're just going to see changes that put lipstick on the pig.
That's all good, but why are so many here not seeing the difference between $20 oil and $60 dollar oil? It was the $60 dollar oil, and admittedly the AGW hoax, that set off all the green projects we are seeing now.. there IS a certain lag-time, you know. The idea that we have to maintain prices at current levels is not supported. Any drilling we do will never take prices below $60 {which is actually $45 + inflation}. Further, witness the significant swings in oil/gas price with each and every minor mid-east incident. Drilling legislation would have an immediate effect on the speculative side, Actual production would have much more effect. But, no matter what, oil is never going down below the pre-inflation $45. Thus pre-inflation green technology will gain the edge.
I'm curious if there will be a glut of used cars, especially SUVs, for sale soon, and what effect that will have on the economy. I am definitely seeing more "extra" automobiles available here, as people realize that that extra car, truck, motorcycle, etc. really isn't necessary, but rather convenient. On a personal note, after selling my Diesel (almost $5.00/gallon) Mercedes (for multiple reasons), we are now a one car family of three (soon to be four), and there are definitely times of inconvenience, but they don't seem that inconvenient once you get used to it. Certainly gives the family a little extra time together and stresses our interdependence. And it definitely makes you guage how important any trip, down the street or far away, is. Making a list of multiple things to get done on trips out of the house becomes a big priority, instead of just jumping in the car without a second thought.
The question isnt IF THERE WILL BE a glut of gas guzzlers, it's a question of how much they'll pay you to take them off the lot. Drive by your local independent lot and take a look. GM already announced closing of truck assy plants in Dayton It's started. Get current Christian!
Small cars are really 'in vogue' here in Norcal now. Even those that can afford to still have a Hummer, and don't have their ego's too wrapped up in their toys, are going small. The Prius is everywhere and I see many seniors along with 5-door compacts and Civics. The move away from SUV's, sans the hybrids SUV;s, is in full swing.
and here in SA, our economic savior -- Toyota -- is cutting back production on their line here. We all thought it was a good thing that we were building their full-size trucks. Now, they're laying people off. But, you know; that's what the market is supposed to do.
Pulled up behind one at the light here the other day. However, either the driver is incredibly passive in acceleration or the pickup on that thing is absolute shite. This is exactly what I was talking about re: planning. The Toyota plant is on the far outskirts of town and that area's not built up yet. A lot of subdivisions sprung up and employees moved to be closer to their job. Now just a couple years in, some of those people are without a job and are faced with a sizable commute when they land a new one.
First, on Smart Car acceleration: You cant go by that. Likely the driver believes the slower you accelerate, the more gas you save. Bunk. That was for old carbureted cars. Pedal one third down in modern cars is all the same gas mileage. Car computer map is designed for brisk acceleration. Here's another gem: Change air filter frequently to save gas. Also bunk. Modern cars measure fuel against air flowing through the filter. Again, applied to carburetors, where it WAS TRUE.
