Five Dollar Gas

Valens-

Thanks for the insightful replies. Comments below.

> It is not a trivial problem. It is so far a very difficult one with no
> solution in sight beyond wild fantasies.

Happening now, see for example:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/
Earth based PV use continues to expand exponentially.

But I'll conceed towards Tango's points that energy storage options
(lead acid batteries) aren't that great and the grid would need to be
redesigned if most people wanted to use it instead of local battery
storage.

But as I never tire of pointing out, here is a working and cost
effective example of a house using (mostly) renewable energy:
http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/popup/hhtoronto/facts.htm
"CMHC's Healthy House in Toronto is:
* A 1,700 square foot, semi-detached, three-bedroom family dwelling
with four floors of living space on a vacant (infill) lot in the
Riverdale area of Metropolitan Toronto.
* Totally self-sufficient. It is not dependent upon existing water
and sewer systems or hydro and gas utilities.
* Based on the winning design of the CMHC Healthy Housing Design
Competition, it is designed and constructed to promote occupant health,
enhance energy efficiency, improve the efficient use of natural
resources, and encourage environmental responsibility. And it is
affordable, with total annual operating costs expected to be under $300."

So, I don't see that as a "wild fantasy". It is here now. Yes, I do see
it as a lot of work to move the US over to that basis. But, that would
also create a lot of desperately needed well paying jobs!
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/mar05/031005.htm
" Increasing the amount of New Yorks electricity produced with
renewable energy could create 43,000 new jobs in manufacturing and
energy related industries and through increased economic activity,
according to a report issued today by New York State Comptroller Alan G.
Hevesi. "

> While the freemarket will
> ultimatelyl provide the imputus for the innovation necessary for real
> solutions, fundemental obstacles remain in the way. The amount of energy
> needed, environmental consequences, waning resources, and basic scientific
> limitations all stand in the way. It will not be an easy or quick thing
> unless we get very lucky. Most importantly, your talk of freemarket
> solutions is almost 100% canceled by the big government power intervention
> and regulation you advocate.

Actually, for the record, this is what I think of the free market in the
long term: :-)
http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html
(Short summary: the economy will implode as most work isn't really
needed and what remains will be made into play or automated. Whether
many people suffer a lot during that process is another question.)

But in the short term, I see nothing incompatible with the notion that a
"free market" is what happens within the rules set by the People.
There really isn't any "free market" anyway unless we talk
self-organized anarchy. Isn't the notion of private property itself just
a legal fiction?
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/bigpicture.htm
Why else do we need laws and courts and police etc.? The bigger issue is
who makes the rules. I experienced the heart break of the "Free market"
at an SSI poster session about 15 years ago when I listened to some
people talking about winning aerospace related government grants or
getting various tax preferences or favorable laws passed, and I realized
how difficult it would be to fairly compete with organizations that were
continually shaping the economic and legal landscape to their advantage.

While there are difficulties, there is such an exponential growth of
renewables worldwide that I think solutions will be put in place. Check
out the news articles at:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/newspage.asp
How much the US population suffers given the US government's current
energy policies is a different story.

> Paul, your insights and perspectives are much better when you avoid the use
> of questionable anecdotal stories. This sounds suspiciously like the urban
> legendary 60 mpg carb on the monte carlo that was removed as soon as the
> dealership maintenace dept found out that it was a secret research carb
> installed at the factory by mistake. I also heard it once as the 90 mpg carb
> - the guy telling this story was a mechanic and he believed it.

She was ex-royalty too! I swear it!! ;-)
http://topics.practical.org/browse/stella-andrassy

> I have seen detailed cost breakdowns on urban and other rail, and it is not
> cost effective.

That's part of my point below, but it is due to poor land use planning
and other regulations. Light rail (like street cars or individual
capsules) makes a lot of sense in compact cities without suburbs (as are
more common in Europe for various reasons).
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_1999_Fall/ai_56639775
Although some people disagree with that, see for example, at:
http://americandreamcoalition.org/landuseinfo.html

I was actually sort-of in a graduate transportation program for a while
(not to say I did well in it, but I probably soaked up a couple of
things. :-) Again though, any truth to your statement reflects more the
current built infrastructure than any natural law. Here is a
conservative look at trucks vs. rail for shipping today:
http://www.bctrucking.com/truckvsrail.html
"Trucking's traditional rival has been rail, but the two modes are more
complementary than competitive since they essentially provide different
services. The railways are best suited to hauling large, heavy, low
value loads that are not time-sensitive over distances greater than 700
km. The trucking industry specialises in moving time-sensitive goods
that are usually smaller and lighter, and need to be transported less
than 500 km. Truck and rail compete on less than 20% of total freight.
As a result, there is more cooperation between the truck and rail modes
today than ever before. This is called intermodalism and it marries the
strengths of both modes. However, while intermodalism might reduce the
need for trucks for certain long haul shipments, trucks are still
required to drop-off and pickup at the railhead."

It's true though that rail systems have had economic problems and shed
rail lines and so on. But, one might also argue that trucks are
subsidized heavily by the government -- public roads which use taxes
don't completely cover, military subsidies to the fossil fuels use,
accidents, air pollution, traffic congestion, and so on. And if trucks
are ever more efficient, again this has to do with how the US has built
an inefficient distribution of factories and homes from a delivery
perspective. And note that the US government also subsidized this
sprawl! And local governments are still subsidizing it.

>>And worse, the
>>growth patterns since then have built the US into a very difficult to
>>defend and operate situation, with sprawling cities and suburbs that are
>>highly automobile dependent. Light rail no longer makes as much sense,
>>given these unusual development patterns relative to the rest of the
>>world where cities tend to have clearer zoning boundaries and land
>>speculation is controlled.

>> So these companies really have addicted the
>>USA to the automobile, and that will be a tough addiction to break (the
>>internet is helping some though, for telecommuting and online purchasing).

> It is massively subsidized, and the vast majority of those
> that ride could not afford the real cost.

Note: you are talking passenger service. That is a completely different
cost/benefit issue than shipping boxes etc. And the solutions are
somewhat different for passengers than boxes. Number one is developing
communities where people who have to work can generally walk to work.
And that comes from a different look at zoning and land use planning.

> Granted, a good deal of the cause
> lies in exorbitant wages demanded by unions and other such
inefficiencies,
> but I don't think that a return to the labor conditions of the
thirties is
> something we would like.

Well, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish (See "the abolition of work"
link above). But the short answer is, if people don't want to do
something and it has to be done -- either redesign it or automate it.
I'll agree, unions sometimes get in the way of automation (for good or
bad is another question, depends on who gets the profits of the
automation and who controls it I guess -- one fundamental problem of our
society today is who gets the benefits of automation and so far it
hasn't been the workers, with real income per worked falling overall for
decades, while productivity has been steadily rising, otherwise most
people would probably be working three day weeks and have more time for
family and community).

> I doubt that the internet will have enough of an impact in the near an
> intermediate term to help ease the dependence on fossil fuels, though I wish
> otherwise as you do.

I wanted to show that as an example of how solutions to a problem aren't
always obvious. Solutions to transportation problems can entail coming
up with ways not to have to move physical objects (like send bit or
produce things locally). Consider for example, if people produce most of
their power from roof top PV, and people have nanotech fabricators in
their homes that look like microwave ovens but produce or recycle just
about anything that fits in them (with new raw stock delivered once a
year or so), then there goes the need for most physical transportation
of either energy or goods or people (because most energy is made
locally, most finished goods are not moved, and also people no longer
need to "work" very much). That is the future I want to see (and you can
also see why I wasn't too popular in a graduate transportation program :-).

And we are seeing this revolution now, for example, look at any of these
Google results on "3d printing":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=3d+printing&btnG=Google+Search
It's not quite there yet, but it's getting close. Here's an article on
printing "body parts" even!
http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id'24491
Remember, thirty years ago, to have something printed in small
quantities you generally had to go to a central printing place (or a
computer center) -- whereas now almost everyone who has a computer has a
printer sitting beside it. Thirty years from now, I will go out on a
limb and predict, short of a plague, WWIV, etc., just about everyone in
the USA will likely be able to print most of their physical goods
(perhaps including food).
"Haute cuisine, meet high-tech: Printing sushi"
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000923030247/

> Trucking was the death of small and other rail,

See above

> not an evil plan to addict
> the public to the auto.

But buying up light rail systems and destroying them clearly was an evil
plan! It was also alluded to in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". ;-)
http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/programs/stia/students/vol.02/mareinov2.htm
"Their shining moment was in 1988's Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, in which
Detective Valiant uncovers a plot by Judge Doom to raze 'Toontown', the
home of all cartoon characters, to build a freeway:

Doom: You lack vision. I see a place where people get on and off
the freeway. On and off. Off and on. All day, all night. Soon where
Toontown once stood will be a string of gas stations, inexpensive
motels, restaurants that serve rapidly-prepared food, tire salons,
automobile dealerships, and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as
far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful.

Valiant: Come on. Nobody's gonna drive this lousy freeway when they
can take the Red Car for a nickel.

Doom: Oh, they'll drive. They'll have to. You see, I bought the Red
Car so I could dismantle it.

In Washington, the dismantling of the streetcar network and the creation
of the successful Metro subway was a much less emotional process. "

But as that article suggests, there was also public sentiment for
personal cars. And also a big bill, even ignoring external costs and
subsidies:
http://search.csmonitor.com/2005/0321/p13s01-wmgn.htm
"Americans can easily spend $250,000 on cars during their lifetimes. "

> In addition, autos provide a very efficient means of
> transport for average Joe and Joanne. In fact, in absolute terms, they are
> far more efficinet at mass transport than any form of rail currently in
> operation, or on the drawing boards of feasibility.

Again, see the fact that it reflects urban sprawl in the USA. In Europe
things are different in some locations where cities have sharper
boundaries. See for example:
http://www.carfree.com/
or links at:
http://www.carfree.com/link/ftrp.html

Cars certainly aren't more efficient than being able to work at home or
walk to work in five or ten minutes. And whether people can do that
reflects complex social choices -- where again, the automobile solution
is not paying its true cost up front (pollution, military, obesity,
alienation, accidents, etc.). Were those choices made in an informed
fashion -- well perhaps that is a separate subject of debate.

And how are cars more efficient if, according to:
http://www.aaany.com/press/where_we_stand/story.asp?xml=on_the_road_to_public_health.xml
"As the cause of more than 40,000 deaths and 3 million injuries in the
United States [yearly], motor vehicle crashes deserve a top spot in the
roster of enemies of public health." How do you factor in these deaths
and injuries (many life altering) into an equation of "efficiency"
versus working at home, walking to work, or using light rail?

> My question to you: How is it that several large companies with some
> supposed degree of collusion but otherwise competetive are more of a danger
> to the peoples benefit than is the complete monopoly that must be present in
> the form of the government if 'the power' is to be applied. I think that
> history is replete with examples on the course that this takes, and it isn't
> pretty. And, BTW, those examples were all heavily marketed as 'by the people
> and for the people'. We must be very careful about advocating big
> governement intrusion.

Here I definitely think is your most insightful point. And it is a good
one. And there is no easy answer. "The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance" etc. To recap though, for the sake of argument, I'm building
on the original posters notion of a "free market" and considering how to
make it really work well for the People through appropriate regulation.
Personally, I think the market is already a dinosaur, and the future
lies in the gift economy and local production of most energy and goods.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gift+economy
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC41/PinchotG.htm
http://www.gift-economy.com/

And, ultimately, I see space habitats as more likely to result from a
"gift economy" than a short sighted "free market". And that is where I
really part company with Gerry O'Neill's and SSI's development plan
(though perhaps not the ultimate vision). If any good comes out of "five
dollar gas" IMHO it will be local renewables, with space based
renewables like SSPS once again ignored as being too long term. Of
course, to defend Gerry O'Neill's original plan, had we built SSPS
starting in the 1970s, they would be coming online now when we need
them. But since that didn't happen, other solutions will be in place way
before thirty years from now. So, I don't think there any point in
hoping energy demand will bring about space settlement, and thus we must
pursue other paths.

--Paul Fernhout