$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dub_scratch', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', '
')Sorry for the long post, but this is one of my pet issues, and both sides deserve a fair and respectful argument.
PeakOil is You
Hybrid Hype
by mgibbons19 » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 09:22:13
Don't be sorry, mgibbons19. That was a beautifully well put observation. Thanks for giving me hope that there are people who can see the forest beyond the trees.
I like to think it all in fun, but perhaps my vitriol reflects a bit of frustration with many Americans, especially intelligent well intentioned ones I run into. I cannot figure out how so many of these folks can go to Europe, to the amazing towns like Barcelona or Prague and see that urban life is so much better there and then come back here and insist on keeping this unproductive system of car dependence....
But we have this mess of a system and I guess we'll keep tinkering with it until the whole thing collapse and we have to start over.... I just wish that we as a society would realize this and decided instead to skip this last dreadful step, step back, take a good look, see that we don't need this, and get rid of it. I did and I absolutely have no need for anything like a biofuel car.
Indeed, I do fully 100% agree with you. From Kunstler and New Urbanist rants against Disneyworld "main streets" to my own town, wanting to widen every street around, speed up the crosstown, all while the city schools lose funding, the city loses population to the next suburb over, and they fight over where to get the several hundred million dollars to put a freeway link in to the capitol. Ppl just cannot connect the dots and it is a tremendous frustration.
Head, meet brick wall.
- mgibbons19
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
by Kez » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 11:22:29
More efficient cars won't solve the problem. If kids growing up never have to carpool, walk, bike, and whatnot to get around, they will grow up as spoiled as everyone else. This means more cars will be on the road, each burning energy. The overall energy burned may go down, but the other costs render that pointless.
Meanwhile, roads will be increased and millions will be spent on them. In my area, they announced that they are $800 MILLION overbudget on 2 major roads. Think of all the gardens and bike-paths that could be built for what they are doing to just extend existing roads.
If cars get more efficient, it just means the continuance of one person - one car, and massive costs to build, repair, and maintain the roads.
Meanwhile, roads will be increased and millions will be spent on them. In my area, they announced that they are $800 MILLION overbudget on 2 major roads. Think of all the gardens and bike-paths that could be built for what they are doing to just extend existing roads.
If cars get more efficient, it just means the continuance of one person - one car, and massive costs to build, repair, and maintain the roads.
- Kez
- Lignite
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Fri 06 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: North Texas
by bentstrider » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 17:25:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kez', 'M')ore efficient cars won't solve the problem. If kids growing up never have to carpool, walk, bike, and whatnot to get around, they will grow up as spoiled as everyone else. This means more cars will be on the road, each burning energy. The overall energy burned may go down, but the other costs render that pointless.
Meanwhile, roads will be increased and millions will be spent on them. In my area, they announced that they are $800 MILLION overbudget on 2 major roads. Think of all the gardens and bike-paths that could be built for what they are doing to just extend existing roads.
If cars get more efficient, it just means the continuance of one person - one car, and massive costs to build, repair, and maintain the roads.
Meanwhile, roads will be increased and millions will be spent on them. In my area, they announced that they are $800 MILLION overbudget on 2 major roads. Think of all the gardens and bike-paths that could be built for what they are doing to just extend existing roads.
If cars get more efficient, it just means the continuance of one person - one car, and massive costs to build, repair, and maintain the roads.
More garden and bike paths would help make cycling and walking a helluva lot more enjoyable too.
I remember putting up a post where I ranted about riding into the wind.
Riding into the wind is especially painful if it's blowing on you faster than your bike is moving into it.
A tree shaded, cement'n'graded, bicycle/ped path would somewhat damper that problem.
But, it's always about catering to the cars.
- bentstrider
- Lignite
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Mon 25 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Southern California Desert
Zevon's paradox is bunk
by DoctorDoom » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 18:52:32
There's nothing to it. Economics 101 - if something costs less, demand goes up, if it costs more, demand goes down. Zevon's "paradox" says nothing more than the "cost less, demand up" part. What's relevant is to consider that in conjunction with the "cost more, demand down" part that we all know needs to happen as we go post-peak. Once that happens, technologies like hybrid cars will pull costs (per mile, not per gallon) in the opposite direction, thus allowing some level of the status quo for a while longer. The previous round of efficiency increases were indeed met with increased consumption because they happened pre-peak; with energy supplies abundant and greater efficiency in technology, both factors were pulling the supply/demand balance in the same direction (towards larger/heavier vehicles, long commutes, etc., etc.)
- DoctorDoom
- Expert
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California
by dub_scratch » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 21:04:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'T')o think we'd have to starve to continue our driving habits is ludicrous, but depending on how we approach the peak crisis and how much we reduce the amount of driving done and by eliminating an outright need for an automobile, we don't have to be faced with that option.
This is where your approach is all screwed up. Why are we going to reduce the amount of driving done, and design walkable living arrangements when we have all this wonderful technology like high-mileage vehicles and electric cars and hybrids?......
You have to get off the fence. You can't tout the wonders of efficient vehicles and the importance of car-free living at the same time. It's logically inconsistent.
I agree. The very claim by some of the Greencar advocates that they are also in favor of reduced car dependency is a confused position. Some of the biggest car preservation advocates, such a Amery Lovins, spend way more time advocating fleet replacements than alternatives to driving. I think there's not a lot of sincerity by those who claim to advocate Greencars and reduced car dependence.
Both strategies are not complimentary. In fact they really are conflicting and contradictory by nature. If we as a nation were to embrace the idea of drastically reducing car use, then any new car technology or alternate fuel scheme would have no value. Marginalizing the car also marginalizes the promised benefits of the Greencar. In such a paradigm shift away from car dependency, there would be no need for any new car. The current fleet of cars, including the most inefficient SUVs, would do just fine and would not make much of a difference.
The two strategies are conflicting, but one truly is superior over the other if we as a society were to get a grip of this PO problem. Toecutter shows us how he is personally engaged in a technology that he says can free us from the dependence of oil. Of course, this will take time, research, investment, energy and a few lucky brakes for this to pay out. While he's waiting and working on it, I happen to be actively doing my own scheme, which blows the doors of any bio-hybrid-electric-hyper-ethanol he can throw at us. I reduced my milage from 14k a year to less than 1K by moving my job three blocks down the street. I also live in a town with many of the goods and services I need accessible on foot. The net effect is that I spend very little time traveling and I hardly ever get in a car to do it. This is the same strategy used to make computers faster but done on the urban format. It works exactly the same way.
Batteries not included (and not needed either).
- dub_scratch
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 700
- Joined: Thu 16 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
