This whole thing sounds fishy to me. Is it possible that there is a different cause than "great deals, low gas prices and winter weather" (all of which I'm sure have some effect)? Another part of this may have to do with the fact that you need a stellar credit score to even get a car loan these days -- like mid-700s. So most people buying cars right now either have these awesome credit scores or can pay in cash, and most others are just repairing their old cars. Perhaps the demographic of those buying cars now has shifted to those who are unafraid of the high gas prices -- which everyone knows will return -- or those people and businesses who actually need the large trucks for work.
jeff_pickens
· 11 months ago
The market is reactionary, not forward-thinking. It works really well as a way to transact goods and services.
If we want to achieve a societal goal of greater fuel efficiency or "greener" living or conservation, we shouldn't rely upon a "free market" to achieve these goals independent of policy.
We don't, and haven't had (to my knowledge) an energy policy in Washington for awhile. Markets don't generate ideas, they respond to them. We won't buy our way out of energy dependency, we have to think our way out.
DLS
· 11 months ago
Anyone reacting with anger, or more laughably, rage about these truck and SUV sales is an embarrassment and disgrace to humanity.
* * *
Of course it's exploiting price reductions. Whether or not this is a harbinger of deflation, of course people will seize the opportunity to exploit the bargains that are to be had given the state of the motor vehicle industry as well as the economy in general.
Don't be surprised to see pickup truck sales remain in force. Ford did the right thing by proceeding with its new F-150, for example. There are many people who not only want, but need trucks, to use them as trucks, not merely as "daily drivers", and prefer pickups to (truck-based) cargo vans. Only the ignorant would not envision people and businesses replacing their older F-250 and F-350 trucks with more modest, modern, more fuel-efficient F-150s.
I have seen new vehicles other than trucks and SUVs here in Detroit and elsewhere this holiday season, including car-based "crossover" SUVs.
As for SUV and full-sized truck sales, plenty of people still prefer full-size vehicles, and there is nothing "wrong" [sic] with that. The owners and operators are paying more to acquire these (than they would for many smaller vehicles) and paying more to operate them (higher fuel costs). They are free to make that choice and to pay more for doing so if that is what they wish to do. Anyone angry about it is a joke.
christoofar
· 11 months ago
"Anyone reacting with anger, or more laughably, rage about these truck and SUV sales is an embarrassment and disgrace to humanity."
Yes, I'm very familiar with how lemmings think. What, me worry? Let's hope we don't get deafened by the screaming from all these shiny new SUV owners when gas prices go back up into the wild blue yonder.
DLS
· 11 months ago
Actually, the market is simply free. There is forward thinking, there are ideas, all the time, but acting at the forefront or vanguard is risky.
Why do we want necessarily to seek greater fuel efficiency (which alone will never resolve energy shortages), or "greener" living (which nowadays is well in excess of pollution avoidance and other laudable goals, and which extends to effective religious fundamentalism), or conservation (which more generally will not resolve energy shortages, no matter how desireable it may be in theory), at all costs, which means costs that grossly exceed even the real (as opposed to imaginary) benefits that would result? First, do no harm!
By all means spend (not "invest" [sic]) money on R&D for alternative energy sources, and on conservation measures (even if they are more seen as technical advances, such as with LEDs for lighting), but don't neglect real-world practical objects such as deriving clean fuels from coal, trying to put waste from existing energy sources like coal to use (isn't there _some_ use that can be found for the ash, if not for the smoke?), rationalizing and correcting the approval process for nuclear power plants (one source of excess costs for that kind of energy source), good old fuel cell progress, and so on, not simply the darling love interests of the Left, coupled with an anti-industrial and anti-progressive attitude toward energy use and conventional energy sources (be it in the name of "global warming" religion or any other thing).
A tax on motor vehicle fuels for real (not "greenhouse gas") pollutant mitigation (to address externalities) is useful. (Also, such a tax is better than the emissions-trading game that is often sought as a substitute to a pollutant tax on fuels.) Yes, it could be done by removing or reducing a tax at the same time such a new tax is imposed -- reducing the income tax is the best candidate for this. Note that any tax revenues from motor vehicle fuels don't _necessarily_ have to be spent (not "invested" [sic]) on alternative energy R&D but on other, more pressing needs at this time (including infrastructure remediation and new construction, for example).
mlhradio
· 11 months ago
Like many others, I suspect that the surge in sales of larger vehicles has less to do with gas prices, and more to do with ridiculously good deals. Since the demand for gas guzzlers has dropped so precipitously, so have prices. Some of the savings deals being offered out there on the fancier gas guzzlers are eye-popping.
Also, has anyone suggested the possibility of a sliding scale of taxes on gas prices, rather than just one flat number? Say, very high taxes when gas is at a dollar, dropping incrementally as a percentage as the gas price increases (pegged to a national average figure, adjusted, semi-annually).
StockBoySF
· 11 months ago
I agree with DLS and Jeff Pickens....
With DLS... on the fact that people do have a choice to buy or not to buy. It's the consumers' decision. Some people do need trucks and prefer SUVs. If they can afford them, then so be it.
With Jeff... on the fact that if we do want a greener society then we need to have a comprehensive energy policy to encourage fuel efficiency.
Personally I am astonished that people are buying these.... even if some models are nominally more fuel efficient than older models. Just a few months ago it seemed as if everyone was dumping their SUV for more fuel efficient vehicles because they could not afford the high gas prices. The currently low gas prices will only increase.... gas prices won't go down because producers will stop drilling if prices go down further and will only drill once higher prices return (supply and demand). People who feel that they can afford this luxury are fools.... unless they really are able to afford the gas for SUVs when gas prices go back up.
I sometimes wonder where their parents were when they were growing up. Didn't anyone ever teach them to plan for the future? At any rate, last summer I felt sorry for those folks who had to dump their gas guzzlers because of soaring gas costs. If people have to dump their new gas guzzlers when prices increase they won't get any sympathy from me... they should have learned their lesson (or have learned the lesson from others).
lethalox
· 11 months ago
First off the title of the story is misleading. It is really the sale of light trucks will exceed the sales of cars. Light truck are not just SUV's, but pickups and vans. Those sales have been in the toilet most of 2008. Many of those purchase are by business and these vehicles are abused. That is why you can expense (depreciate) 3/4 of the value in year. Consumers are cutting back car purchases, but business can not indefinitely postpone equipment purchases. I would guess that we are really seeing a big decline in car purchases vs big increase is Light Truck sales.
JSpencer
· 11 months ago
Deconstruct it whatever way you like, but in the long run, decisions to ignore the realities of finite energy resources, to ignore the importance of conservation, to ignore environmental concerns, etc. only point out a certain collective myopia - and probably a certain amount of self absorbtion as well. As individual consumers, we may not have much to say about national energy policy, but in our own lives the choices we make about personal energy consumption say much about both our level of knowledge and our sense of responsibility. By the way, the popularity of trucks and SUVs isn't based primarily on utility; if it was, we'd be seeing a significantly lower number of them on the roads.
DLS
· 11 months ago
J. Spencer -- the issues here are so many people's childish and wrongful overreactions to conspicuous consumption and even to gluttony, and so much more often to nothing of the kind, for politically correct (and often downright stupid) "reasons." This most of all is simply an issue of exploiting cheaper prices in order to replace existing vehicles. (I already have referred to cargo vans, while neglecting the missing full-size station wagon, which explain SUV popularity in addition to faddishness and conformity and address the utility question. I'm surprised there's not much criticism of people choosing more durable vehicles rather than paying higher taxes for better roads, though the PC crowd dislikes roads, too, so perhaps the lack of howling shouldn't be surprising after all.) People are just seizing the chance to buy vehicles that are cheaper and less over-priced (as houses continue to be!) than before. Oh, and plenty of us value conservation as well as a small footprint (compact vehicles, compact homes and home sites), but don't have misplaced naive faith in it. (For years there has been a subculture of economy-minded youth who love using a tool called the "Scan Gauge," both generations of which I have owned and used myself. Both models are currently in the cab of my compact pickup truck, the newer model plugged into the OBD II port as I write and post this.) Once homes go down in price more, eventually you'll see people buying them, too. As for the vehicle purchases, it's replacement in a mature, saturated market and we can't expect these sales necessarily to continue, even if prices diminish more.)
Stockster -- yes, it's people's decision. With cars it's the same as other things like more discretionary items in the cast of most, such as boats (I continue to be reminded of this to a fascinating extent here in Michigan) and more commonly, with houses. It's not ever a question of what people need, but what they want, that matters. They aren't harming anyone else by choosing larger or more specialized (and expensive) homes or vehicles than are absolutely necessary (no, we don't all need to be shoved into Yugos and Trabants, or into tenement tower buildings). Nobody needs a huge home, but some people are homebodies who want a nice, large home, extra rooms for his and her playroom-sanctuaries (at all ages) as well as the common home offices, and so on. Good for them if that's what they want!
DLS
· 11 months ago
"I would guess that we are really seeing a big decline in car purchases vs big increase is Light Truck sales."
Ford was smart to persist and to proceed with its new F-150. Dodge's new Ram is ready to accept the challenge, it seems initially.
Consider the appeal to the businesses and the contractors and other owners of F-250 and F-350 models who can now downsize to an improved F-150 that's a better value for the money. (That includes fuel efficiency, which is the object of boasting for trucks as well as for some smaller automobiles as well as, say, airliners during the past several years. Nobody wants to spend more than they need; better efficiency means more power and less fuel consumption; even though this is outweighted by often-increased demands by many for engines that are larger and more powerful than necessary, that's a free choice, and hardly a crime -- the owner-operator pays for the privilege of the extra performance. No doubt many businesses and fleet owners of trucks would be happy with the base engines in the trucks. I've had two Ford Rangers (the first with the dual-plug four, the second with the old, long-lasting Vulcan six -- I wanted another four with a manual transmission but took what I could get at the time and I like the Vulcan when hauling loads on the highway and on hills) and only replaced the first one when it was struck on the road. I was still on the original engine and the original clutch at 240,000 miles, and there was still no slippage uphill on a 10+ per cent grade. The little four got me and a full load over the highway with no problem. If the new F-150 and new Ram (full-size, not compact) can be offered in stripped down models with base engines, few options, for an extra low price, I bet such vehicles would sell in large numbers to individuals (construction workers, contractors, etc.) as well as to businesses.
DLS, I prefaced my comment with "in the long run" - the selling of existing vehicles would be "short run". As for "conspicuous consumption" and "gluttony"? Most of us know what that means, and most of us realize they are negatives, not positives. We need to be looking forward, not finding rationalizations for continuing with more of the same.
DLS
· 11 months ago
And yes, before Joe Windish chooses to interject -- you can be fancier than the Scan Gauge:
Conspicuous consumption and gluttony are personal failings; they are not and should not be consider crimes of any kind against others.
I suspect many are not gambling that last year's oil spike is the peak for years to come (after all, plenty of people have failed to return to the stock market) but are simply seizing on the current lower vehicle prices -- the market cannot be predicted, and prices could rise much sooner than many suspect or are being led to suspect. (I believe it could get worse, and deflationary, but that's my view, not everyone's.)
I and others indeed are looking forward. That's why I and others support alternative-energy R&D. However, we know there is no urgent rush (not factually, not honestly, anyway) just as the hysteria is inappropriate over global warming (or more properly, because warming has stalled for years even before today's economic slump, greenhouse gas emissions largely from combustion), and remains too much an excuse for interventionism ranging all the way to totalitarianism. (As one critic of that global-warming Convenient Religion put it, years after it already had become fact, "green is the new red.") We can expect decades to pass even after viable, economical, practical energy alternatives (to valid ones that exist now, including nuclear energy and clean fuels from coal, for example; even Gaian pessimists about global warning like James Lovelock, pessimistic to the point of being misanthropic, know how good nuclear energy is and is shocked at the anti-nuclear hysteria and opposition to it by the Usual Suspects), decades to pass before it is adopted and used in a manner like what we might expect (or imagine; often things develop differently, not to mention defy expectations -- what if LED lighting were so cheap to use that much more artificial lighting was employed in the future, compared to now? Highways fully lit throughout the USA, etc.?). There are no instant, magic solutions at hand, and the practical, smart steps that are already in hand that can be taken are ironically often opposed.
JSpencer
· 11 months ago
DLS, I think there may be some middle ground between what you refer to as "hysteria" and what I see as complacency. There is certainly little reason in the US to fear too much progress too soon. It isn't exactly our MO. ;-) Heel dragging, on the other hand, has an actual track record.
kritt11
· 11 months ago
DLS- We still have to consider that driving gas guzzlers contributes to global warming. Its not just a matter of personal finance anymore. Otherwise I wouldn't give a rat's a** if people bought Hummers that got 9mpg!
Ricorun
· 11 months ago
Human nature being what it is, it seems to me obvious that people will change their habits (or life-style) only to the extent that the existing options are untenable, and/or when better ones come along, and not so much because of some intent to do what is best for the common good. Most people aren't that altruistic. Thus, to the extent that one has to make a choice between fuel economy and size/comfort, or between fuel economy and cost, most folks will weigh the alternatives on those bases.
That being said, I've been reading up on the ideas of a guy named Amory Lovins. He's an energy expert, and the founder of Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org), which he refers to as a "think and do" tank. As a result of some of his work he also formed a company called FiberForge (www.fiberforge.com), which developed a technique to mass manufacture carbon fiber composites at low cost. CArbon fiber composites are extremely strong, but very light weight. So assuming they are incorporated into car frames and bodies the resulting vehicle is substantially lighter, and thus more efficient to propel without sacrificing size, comfort, performance, or safety. This is the kind of disruptive technology that will make the biggest difference, because it substantially reduces the choices a consumer has to weigh.
DLS
· 11 months ago
"We still have to consider that driving gas guzzlers contributes to global warming."
Driving _anything_ and burning _anything_ contributes to global warming (which hasn't been happening lately, and may be delayed a few years more due to global economics, but which is likely eventually to recur, but which is not the catastrophe the dishonest would have you believe). James Lovelock ("the Gaia guy"), who is excessively pessimistic about humanity and Earth's future, is at least consistent, not only in his support for nuclear power due to its superior emissions and tiny-waste nature (and he is shocked at the anti-nuclear activism of the greens, so often ignorant and substituting emotion for reason and political goals for science goals, as is true with global warming itself), is at least consistent, and notes that biofuels and alternative fuels are no solution to global warming, because their use, too, is by combustion. (There's also the problem of deforestation that would be necessary if sufficient land were to be devoted to fuel production.)
So much opposition to gas guzzlers is merely emotive and political, nothing else. We'll always be heavy energy users. So will the rest of the world that chooses to progress rather than remain retarded in development.
* * *
Ricorun, Amory Lovins has been working on the low weight vehicle (a means of lowering energy consumption) for ages. Yes, it can be perfectly safe; the same approach he is advocating is already in large part used in modern auto racing, and you can see people walk away routinely from crashes that cause the vehicles themselves to disintegrate.
kritt11
· 11 months ago
DLS- Hey are you still here in DC? I am going to be volunteering next week for the Inauguration.
Take a trip up to Alaska sometime and look at the melting glaciers, and try to pretend its all not really happening. Yes, the bleeding heart liberal animal-lover that I am is getting sick hearing about polar bears and penguins becoming endangered--just so that some idiot can drive a Hummer to work.
Yes, we need cars- but we don't have to have gas guzzlers. A gas tax might discourage this type of idiocy. Also we can develop the electric car which would be less toxic.
Ricorun
· 11 months ago
DLS, yes he has. He's also been working on many other things for ages -- integrated design principles, passive construction, low friction plumbing, etc. The good news is, the market is finally catching up to him. Toyota recently unveiled a carbon fiber concept car, and almost simultaneously announced a partnership with Toray Industries, who recently announced that they had perfected a way to mass produce carbon fiber parts much more quickly than before. Apparently though, their process is still very expensive. Lovins claims Fiberforge's process can produce cars for about the same cost as steel ones, if one figures in all the cost savings associated with manufacturing and assembly. I hope he's right. Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner is about 50% carbon fiber, and uses 20% less fuel than a comparable plane. They're selling like hot cakes, and basically turned the company's fortunes around. So apparently, at least in the airline sector, carbon fiber can be implemented at a reasonable cost.
And while I have no particular opposition to nuclear power, this study, published by the Center for American Progress, is the latest in a growing number from different sources indicating that nuclear power is not cheap. Rather than link to the study itself, this link provides a link to the study, but also provides a discussion of its finer points, including a long comment by the author addressing some of the more cogent criticisms offered by other commenters. They’re worth a read, too.
Yeah, I know -- CAP is a bunch of children - even though the founder (John Podesta) served as Clinton's Chief of Staff and is now co-chair of Obama's transition team. Additionally, there is this study, from Synapse Energy, an independent consulting group, which comes to similar conclusions. Likewise, in an October 2007 analysis by Moody’s Investors Service (a highly regarded credit rating agency that wears big boy pants) argued that utilities are underestimating the costs of building a nuclear facility. The utilities predict expenses will run $3,000 to $4,000 for each kilowatt of electricity generated. Moody’s pegged it at $5,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt. That higher ratio increases the price tag of a 1,500-megawattnuclear reactor to $9 billion. And that’s pretty close to what Progress Energy, the contractor that wants to build a pair of 1.1 GW nuclear plants in Florida, estimated a few months later: $14 billion, plus $3 billion more for transmission lines (that’s 2007 dollars, not nominal dollars, by the way). And that’s their low estimate. As the St. Petersburg Times reported a Progress Energy executive warned, “They may be more expensive”. Especially in an uncertain credit environment, that’s not good news.
"Heel dragging, on the other hand, has an actual track record."
Federal civil rights for _all_ US citizens took 100 years after Appomattox. Yes, yes, there were rationales for not rushing things, but c'mon.
DLS
· 11 months ago
"Hey are you still here in DC? I am going to be volunteering next week for the Inauguration."
No, sorry to say. [smile] I'm back in Detroit. I may be back there for the Inauguration but may instead be moving things from Iowa to here in Detroit at that time, it now turns out.
"Take a trip up to Alaska sometime and look at the melting glaciers, and try to pretend its all not really happening."
I've seen photos of receding glaciers and such already. I've also known about the greenhouse effect for a long time, and that interest in it and the increase of carbon dioxide levels (which cannot lead to a runaway greenhouse here, as on Venus; water vapor saturation results in clouds, which acts as a brake on warming) that has existed since the carbon dioxide has been increasing thanks to humans since the Industrial Revolution. (A good book on the subject: "Is the Earth Warming?" I believe that's the title; the book is not in my truck right now, but back in Iowa; sorry. It discusses large-scale weather phenomena, not limited to the greenhouse effect. The start of the book has a somewhat wrong but useful analogy to concern about warming, which is the warnings people were hearing about overfishing of the oceans. Those granola-head lib'r'ls, what do they know. There's nothing wrong; everything's fine; they just value fish over people that's all! We all know what's happening now to the fisheries in places like Canada's Grand Banks. The book irresponsibly says we're in a boat headed toward a waterfall, then later it uses the metaphor I thought of myself, which is more correct and proper, that we're headed for some rapids sometime in the years to come. There is no need to exaggerate, engage in hysteria or scaremongering, or exploit science or emotional concerns for political and even totalitarian purposes, all of which is worse than denying we do have the ability to change our environment for better or for worse.)
"Yes, we need cars- but we don't have to have gas guzzlers. A gas tax might discourage this type of idiocy. Also we can develop the electric car which would be less toxic."
1. But consider the costs and the wrongdoing associated with trying to force people to want, or at least to have to use what they don't want, something other than what they do want, even if it's wasteful.
2. Yes, a fuel tax would work well here (and be a large revenue raiser).
3. I have long loved the electric car idea. Think of the pollution abatement in metro areas if personal transport were electrified. And the reduction in noise pollution! That and the efficiency issue appeal to me the most, more than the novelty (for now) of such vehicles (I have driven them before -- they are fun and so quiet inside as well as outside they even justify premium sound systems inside them) or the performance advantages. (I am hardly a drag racer these days with the vehicle I own and drive now. I'm a feather-foot instead.) But the electric car, despite what some like Michigan Govenor Granholm keep repeating, is not the instant magic solution to our problems. It's going to take time. (That's where more battery R&D should pay off.)
Note that I even think about related things. Rationally, it makes sense for electric vehicles to eventually have standard charging systems that can connect to ordinary household current. If this happens, people will want electric outlets where they park their vehicles, such as at work. Now, people like me would take advantage of this even with our conventional vehicles. What I would do would be to install (as I plan to anyway) a block and battery heater in my vehicle, and then in such a scenario with outlets everywhere I would routinely plug in (use) my block heater. That would be at least for three-season if not all-year use. Why? Warming the block reduces warm-up time for conventional engines, and it's during the warm-up that emissions are especially high and fuel efficiency is low. Consider the advantage if so many of us did this routinely. Think of the fuel savings and emission reductions. All that while supporting development and use of electric vehicles.
K: I neglected to state it, but also, of course, warming the block before starting could well make the engine last longer. (My vehicle's engine is known for being durable, reliable, and long-lasting, but I'd like to baby it even more if I could.) Also, the links I provided about the block heater use mention the Scan Gauge; I have checked my own engine for warm-up time and it routinely takes 20+ minutes for warmup at idle or forced-fast idle when left overnight in still-often-mild winter temperatures here in Detroit (teens and twenties F).
Also, a plain tax on motor vehicle fuels is better in my opinion than "fee-bates" based on projected fuel consumption, engine displacement or peak horsepower (or torque), or taxes on other things like this or vehicle weight (gross vehicle weight rating or even gross combined weight rating -- what if the engine is changed later, or would that become illegal?).
* * *
Rico,
"Center for American Progress, is the latest in a growing number from different sources indicating that nuclear power is not cheap."
Yes, the startup costs in particular are huge. Chris WWW pointed me to that study some months ago if I recall correctly.
I'd like to see some reform that is behind some of the costs -- it can take years for a licence approval, and that is inexcuseable -- but it's still expensive. That is nuclear energy's weakness. (Waste has not been a technical, merely a political, problem, not to mention how little waste is produced by nuclear as contrasted with coal, oil, or even gas.)
The problem is, the alternatives to coal aren't cheap. Here in Michigan, we have loonier environmental crusaders demanding that the Governor simply disallow approval of any new coal plants. They say that will force us to use alternative, to them better, energy sources. That of course ignores the problem that the alternatives aren't there to replace coal, much less be anywhere as economic (and these same activists will be first and loudest to complain about much-higher electricity prices later). Yes, Michigan can provide quite a bit of wind energy, but it won't solve everything at this time and it's not cheap, and it's silly to oppose coal to a blind-rage extent. (This was a similar attitude to what I heard on the Diane Rehm show on NPR when I was going through Cleveland on the way back here from DC a couple of weeks ago. The environmentalist on that show was simply against coal, period, while being pathetic when asked why it's okay for China or India to use coal, and be even worse polluters than the USA. "They're lifting people out of poverty." Why should we regress?
Wind and solar are intermittent and for that reason, other sources must be provided to be there on a 24-hour basis.
I would like to think that someday we can see (practical, economic, reasonably priced) carbon-fiber or other light, fancy automobiles. Yes, reduced fuel consumption (and emissions and sound, or noise) has been boasted about by aircraft makers for quite some time now.
Ricorun
· 11 months ago
DLS, actually that CAP study was released just a few days ago. And it breaks down the of various capital components that contribute to the cost of a nuclear plant. Legal fees are substantial, but pale in comparison to the other costs, and the licensing process takes too long. That probably could be streamlined. But building those suckers are still a very lengthy process, and cost overruns are the rule not the exception. And as the Forbes article indicates, bottlenecks in essential equipment are a serious concern (Moreover, Whitman says McCain's grand vision is a "nice idea" but it's "not going to happen," partly because one reactor component is only built in Japan. That would be the containment vessels.
I get the "proven technology" argument vis-a-vis nuclear. But the argument is mitigated by the fact that one of the things it's proven to be is expensive. And also as the Forbes article points out, it hasn't attracted any private capital. There's too much risk involved. Streamlining the regulation process would help, but not that much. Unfortunately, the nuclear will remain, as it has always been, dependent upon large government subsidies.
Renewables, on the other hand, have attracted gobs of private capital -- well over a hundred billion dollars per year for the last few years. And in the case of wind, solar, and geothermal, what's to prove? Obviously they will continue to benefit from improvements in techology and manufacture (which is kind of why it's essential to build them), but there are no "breakthroughs" necessary. The only thing that absolutely has to happen for them to continue to penetrate the market is a better transmission network. Then again, a better transmission network is necessary regardless of the contemplated energy source. That includes gas and coal, and particularly nuclear. When you hook up renewables like solar and wind to a wide distribution network, many studies show, the intermittency of individual sources are substantially mitigated.
You also seem to be skeptical about the promise of energy efficiency. Do you want some sources about that? The potential there is huge. And cheap. One of the big stumbling blocks is that most utilities make their money producing energy, not saving it. The latter concept is called "profit decoupling". It's been in use here in CA for years, and has been adopted more recently in a few other states. MI, as I understand it, isn't yet one. Anyway, if you have an hour and a half to spare this video is terriffic. It's Amory Lovins discussing numerous ideas such as integrative design, smart plumbing, and vehicle ultra-lighting.
DLS
· 11 months ago
"You also seem to be skeptical about the promise of energy efficiency. Do you want some sources about that? The potential there is huge. And cheap."
I'm skeptical of the extent to which we can save because our population and economy should continue to grow, we will use electricity more than ever in the years to come (while also on schedule to triple our petroleum imports -- yes, I know, that seems a head-scratcher), and if new energy sources were cheap, we'd use them much more (and in many more ways) than we currently do. I mentioned earlier an example of, should LED (or other) lighting sources become practical and cheap, doing something like fully illuminating our entire highway network here in the USA. Another example would be in-roadway heating for snow and ice control not merely on bridges but on entire roadways in the Snow Belt. Not to mention driveways and walkways in homes and businesses.
I don't mind renewables (I'm not as pessimistic as Lovelock is toward their use, nor even as negative as he is toward wind, for that matter) but they need to be economical and practical, offering the same energy density or something similar, at a lower cost if the density is lower. I'd be willing to go by fuel-cell-powered electric flying-wing airliners at only 350 MPH if it were cheaper. Same for rail transport. (We can't expect nation-wide high-speed rail because our density is too low and our distances too great. High-speed rail is a regional matter here, practically speaking. I love high-speed trains and would even support subsidized period inter-regional connections, but it would be less popular than many people would believe to travel coast to coast by high-speed rail using such connections.)
Yes, transmission is needed, not only for solar and wind but insofar as needed capacity and interconnectability right now. I read something about that earlier today.
Thank you for the Lovins video (and the other information). I confused Chris WWW's earlier cost-problem nuke critique with this new one.
All Comments
If we want to achieve a societal goal of greater fuel efficiency or "greener" living or conservation, we shouldn't rely upon a "free market" to achieve these goals independent of policy.
We don't, and haven't had (to my knowledge) an energy policy in Washington for awhile. Markets don't generate ideas, they respond to them. We won't buy our way out of energy dependency, we have to think our way out.
* * *
Of course it's exploiting price reductions. Whether or not this is a harbinger of deflation, of course people will seize the opportunity to exploit the bargains that are to be had given the state of the motor vehicle industry as well as the economy in general.
Don't be surprised to see pickup truck sales remain in force. Ford did the right thing by proceeding with its new F-150, for example. There are many people who not only want, but need trucks, to use them as trucks, not merely as "daily drivers", and prefer pickups to (truck-based) cargo vans. Only the ignorant would not envision people and businesses replacing their older F-250 and F-350 trucks with more modest, modern, more fuel-efficient F-150s.
I have seen new vehicles other than trucks and SUVs here in Detroit and elsewhere this holiday season, including car-based "crossover" SUVs.
As for SUV and full-sized truck sales, plenty of people still prefer full-size vehicles, and there is nothing "wrong" [sic] with that. The owners and operators are paying more to acquire these (than they would for many smaller vehicles) and paying more to operate them (higher fuel costs). They are free to make that choice and to pay more for doing so if that is what they wish to do. Anyone angry about it is a joke.
Yes, I'm very familiar with how lemmings think. What, me worry?
Let's hope we don't get deafened by the screaming from all these shiny new SUV owners when gas prices go back up into the wild blue yonder.
Why do we want necessarily to seek greater fuel efficiency (which alone will never resolve energy shortages), or "greener" living (which nowadays is well in excess of pollution avoidance and other laudable goals, and which extends to effective religious fundamentalism), or conservation (which more generally will not resolve energy shortages, no matter how desireable it may be in theory), at all costs, which means costs that grossly exceed even the real (as opposed to imaginary) benefits that would result? First, do no harm!
By all means spend (not "invest" [sic]) money on R&D for alternative energy sources, and on conservation measures (even if they are more seen as technical advances, such as with LEDs for lighting), but don't neglect real-world practical objects such as deriving clean fuels from coal, trying to put waste from existing energy sources like coal to use (isn't there _some_ use that can be found for the ash, if not for the smoke?), rationalizing and correcting the approval process for nuclear power plants (one source of excess costs for that kind of energy source), good old fuel cell progress, and so on, not simply the darling love interests of the Left, coupled with an anti-industrial and anti-progressive attitude toward energy use and conventional energy sources (be it in the name of "global warming" religion or any other thing).
A tax on motor vehicle fuels for real (not "greenhouse gas") pollutant mitigation (to address externalities) is useful. (Also, such a tax is better than the emissions-trading game that is often sought as a substitute to a pollutant tax on fuels.) Yes, it could be done by removing or reducing a tax at the same time such a new tax is imposed -- reducing the income tax is the best candidate for this. Note that any tax revenues from motor vehicle fuels don't _necessarily_ have to be spent (not "invested" [sic]) on alternative energy R&D but on other, more pressing needs at this time (including infrastructure remediation and new construction, for example).
Also, has anyone suggested the possibility of a sliding scale of taxes on gas prices, rather than just one flat number? Say, very high taxes when gas is at a dollar, dropping incrementally as a percentage as the gas price increases (pegged to a national average figure, adjusted, semi-annually).
With DLS... on the fact that people do have a choice to buy or not to buy. It's the consumers' decision. Some people do need trucks and prefer SUVs. If they can afford them, then so be it.
With Jeff... on the fact that if we do want a greener society then we need to have a comprehensive energy policy to encourage fuel efficiency.
Personally I am astonished that people are buying these.... even if some models are nominally more fuel efficient than older models. Just a few months ago it seemed as if everyone was dumping their SUV for more fuel efficient vehicles because they could not afford the high gas prices. The currently low gas prices will only increase.... gas prices won't go down because producers will stop drilling if prices go down further and will only drill once higher prices return (supply and demand). People who feel that they can afford this luxury are fools.... unless they really are able to afford the gas for SUVs when gas prices go back up.
I sometimes wonder where their parents were when they were growing up. Didn't anyone ever teach them to plan for the future? At any rate, last summer I felt sorry for those folks who had to dump their gas guzzlers because of soaring gas costs. If people have to dump their new gas guzzlers when prices increase they won't get any sympathy from me... they should have learned their lesson (or have learned the lesson from others).
Stockster -- yes, it's people's decision. With cars it's the same as other things like more discretionary items in the cast of most, such as boats (I continue to be reminded of this to a fascinating extent here in Michigan) and more commonly, with houses. It's not ever a question of what people need, but what they want, that matters. They aren't harming anyone else by choosing larger or more specialized (and expensive) homes or vehicles than are absolutely necessary (no, we don't all need to be shoved into Yugos and Trabants, or into tenement tower buildings). Nobody needs a huge home, but some people are homebodies who want a nice, large home, extra rooms for his and her playroom-sanctuaries (at all ages) as well as the common home offices, and so on. Good for them if that's what they want!
Ford was smart to persist and to proceed with its new F-150. Dodge's new Ram is ready to accept the challenge, it seems initially.
Consider the appeal to the businesses and the contractors and other owners of F-250 and F-350 models who can now downsize to an improved F-150 that's a better value for the money. (That includes fuel efficiency, which is the object of boasting for trucks as well as for some smaller automobiles as well as, say, airliners during the past several years. Nobody wants to spend more than they need; better efficiency means more power and less fuel consumption; even though this is outweighted by often-increased demands by many for engines that are larger and more powerful than necessary, that's a free choice, and hardly a crime -- the owner-operator pays for the privilege of the extra performance. No doubt many businesses and fleet owners of trucks would be happy with the base engines in the trucks. I've had two Ford Rangers (the first with the dual-plug four, the second with the old, long-lasting Vulcan six -- I wanted another four with a manual transmission but took what I could get at the time and I like the Vulcan when hauling loads on the highway and on hills) and only replaced the first one when it was struck on the road. I was still on the original engine and the original clutch at 240,000 miles, and there was still no slippage uphill on a 10+ per cent grade. The little four got me and a full load over the highway with no problem. If the new F-150 and new Ram (full-size, not compact) can be offered in stripped down models with base engines, few options, for an extra low price, I bet such vehicles would sell in large numbers to individuals (construction workers, contractors, etc.) as well as to businesses.
http://www.scangauge.com/
http://www.plxkiwi.com/
I suspect many are not gambling that last year's oil spike is the peak for years to come (after all, plenty of people have failed to return to the stock market) but are simply seizing on the current lower vehicle prices -- the market cannot be predicted, and prices could rise much sooner than many suspect or are being led to suspect. (I believe it could get worse, and deflationary, but that's my view, not everyone's.)
I and others indeed are looking forward. That's why I and others support alternative-energy R&D. However, we know there is no urgent rush (not factually, not honestly, anyway) just as the hysteria is inappropriate over global warming (or more properly, because warming has stalled for years even before today's economic slump, greenhouse gas emissions largely from combustion), and remains too much an excuse for interventionism ranging all the way to totalitarianism. (As one critic of that global-warming Convenient Religion put it, years after it already had become fact, "green is the new red.") We can expect decades to pass even after viable, economical, practical energy alternatives (to valid ones that exist now, including nuclear energy and clean fuels from coal, for example; even Gaian pessimists about global warning like James Lovelock, pessimistic to the point of being misanthropic, know how good nuclear energy is and is shocked at the anti-nuclear hysteria and opposition to it by the Usual Suspects), decades to pass before it is adopted and used in a manner like what we might expect (or imagine; often things develop differently, not to mention defy expectations -- what if LED lighting were so cheap to use that much more artificial lighting was employed in the future, compared to now? Highways fully lit throughout the USA, etc.?). There are no instant, magic solutions at hand, and the practical, smart steps that are already in hand that can be taken are ironically often opposed.
That being said, I've been reading up on the ideas of a guy named Amory Lovins. He's an energy expert, and the founder of Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org), which he refers to as a "think and do" tank. As a result of some of his work he also formed a company called FiberForge (www.fiberforge.com), which developed a technique to mass manufacture carbon fiber composites at low cost. CArbon fiber composites are extremely strong, but very light weight. So assuming they are incorporated into car frames and bodies the resulting vehicle is substantially lighter, and thus more efficient to propel without sacrificing size, comfort, performance, or safety. This is the kind of disruptive technology that will make the biggest difference, because it substantially reduces the choices a consumer has to weigh.
Driving _anything_ and burning _anything_ contributes to global warming (which hasn't been happening lately, and may be delayed a few years more due to global economics, but which is likely eventually to recur, but which is not the catastrophe the dishonest would have you believe). James Lovelock ("the Gaia guy"), who is excessively pessimistic about humanity and Earth's future, is at least consistent, not only in his support for nuclear power due to its superior emissions and tiny-waste nature (and he is shocked at the anti-nuclear activism of the greens, so often ignorant and substituting emotion for reason and political goals for science goals, as is true with global warming itself), is at least consistent, and notes that biofuels and alternative fuels are no solution to global warming, because their use, too, is by combustion. (There's also the problem of deforestation that would be necessary if sufficient land were to be devoted to fuel production.)
So much opposition to gas guzzlers is merely emotive and political, nothing else. We'll always be heavy energy users. So will the rest of the world that chooses to progress rather than remain retarded in development.
* * *
Ricorun, Amory Lovins has been working on the low weight vehicle (a means of lowering energy consumption) for ages. Yes, it can be perfectly safe; the same approach he is advocating is already in large part used in modern auto racing, and you can see people walk away routinely from crashes that cause the vehicles themselves to disintegrate.
Take a trip up to Alaska sometime and look at the melting glaciers, and try to pretend its all not really happening. Yes, the bleeding heart liberal animal-lover that I am is getting sick hearing about polar bears and penguins becoming endangered--just so that some idiot can drive a Hummer to work.
Yes, we need cars- but we don't have to have gas guzzlers. A gas tax might discourage this type of idiocy. Also we can develop the electric car which would be less toxic.
And while I have no particular opposition to nuclear power, this study, published by the Center for American Progress, is the latest in a growing number from different sources indicating that nuclear power is not cheap. Rather than link to the study itself, this link provides a link to the study, but also provides a discussion of its finer points, including a long comment by the author addressing some of the more cogent criticisms offered by other commenters. They’re worth a read, too.
Yeah, I know -- CAP is a bunch of children - even though the founder (John Podesta) served as Clinton's Chief of Staff and is now co-chair of Obama's transition team. Additionally, there is this study, from Synapse Energy, an independent consulting group, which comes to similar conclusions. Likewise, in an October 2007 analysis by Moody’s Investors Service (a highly regarded credit rating agency that wears big boy pants) argued that utilities are underestimating the costs of building a nuclear facility. The utilities predict expenses will run $3,000 to $4,000 for each kilowatt of electricity generated. Moody’s pegged it at $5,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt. That higher ratio increases the price tag of a 1,500-megawattnuclear reactor to $9 billion. And that’s pretty close to what Progress Energy, the contractor that wants to build a pair of 1.1 GW nuclear plants in Florida, estimated a few months later: $14 billion, plus $3 billion more for transmission lines (that’s 2007 dollars, not nominal dollars, by the way). And that’s their low estimate. As the St. Petersburg Times reported a Progress Energy executive warned, “They may be more expensive”. Especially in an uncertain credit environment, that’s not good news.
Federal civil rights for _all_ US citizens took 100 years after Appomattox. Yes, yes, there were rationales for not rushing things, but c'mon.
No, sorry to say. [smile] I'm back in Detroit. I may be back there for the Inauguration but may instead be moving things from Iowa to here in Detroit at that time, it now turns out.
"Take a trip up to Alaska sometime and look at the melting glaciers, and try to pretend its all not really happening."
I've seen photos of receding glaciers and such already. I've also known about the greenhouse effect for a long time, and that interest in it and the increase of carbon dioxide levels (which cannot lead to a runaway greenhouse here, as on Venus; water vapor saturation results in clouds, which acts as a brake on warming) that has existed since the carbon dioxide has been increasing thanks to humans since the Industrial Revolution. (A good book on the subject: "Is the Earth Warming?" I believe that's the title; the book is not in my truck right now, but back in Iowa; sorry. It discusses large-scale weather phenomena, not limited to the greenhouse effect. The start of the book has a somewhat wrong but useful analogy to concern about warming, which is the warnings people were hearing about overfishing of the oceans. Those granola-head lib'r'ls, what do they know. There's nothing wrong; everything's fine; they just value fish over people that's all! We all know what's happening now to the fisheries in places like Canada's Grand Banks. The book irresponsibly says we're in a boat headed toward a waterfall, then later it uses the metaphor I thought of myself, which is more correct and proper, that we're headed for some rapids sometime in the years to come. There is no need to exaggerate, engage in hysteria or scaremongering, or exploit science or emotional concerns for political and even totalitarian purposes, all of which is worse than denying we do have the ability to change our environment for better or for worse.)
"Yes, we need cars- but we don't have to have gas guzzlers. A gas tax might discourage this type of idiocy. Also we can develop the electric car which would be less toxic."
1. But consider the costs and the wrongdoing associated with trying to force people to want, or at least to have to use what they don't want, something other than what they do want, even if it's wasteful.
2. Yes, a fuel tax would work well here (and be a large revenue raiser).
3. I have long loved the electric car idea. Think of the pollution abatement in metro areas if personal transport were electrified. And the reduction in noise pollution! That and the efficiency issue appeal to me the most, more than the novelty (for now) of such vehicles (I have driven them before -- they are fun and so quiet inside as well as outside they even justify premium sound systems inside them) or the performance advantages. (I am hardly a drag racer these days with the vehicle I own and drive now. I'm a feather-foot instead.) But the electric car, despite what some like Michigan Govenor Granholm keep repeating, is not the instant magic solution to our problems. It's going to take time. (That's where more battery R&D should pay off.)
Note that I even think about related things. Rationally, it makes sense for electric vehicles to eventually have standard charging systems that can connect to ordinary household current. If this happens, people will want electric outlets where they park their vehicles, such as at work. Now, people like me would take advantage of this even with our conventional vehicles. What I would do would be to install (as I plan to anyway) a block and battery heater in my vehicle, and then in such a scenario with outlets everywhere I would routinely plug in (use) my block heater. That would be at least for three-season if not all-year use. Why? Warming the block reduces warm-up time for conventional engines, and it's during the warm-up that emissions are especially high and fuel efficiency is low. Consider the advantage if so many of us did this routinely. Think of the fuel savings and emission reductions. All that while supporting development and use of electric vehicles.
http://metrompg.com/posts/warm-up-idling.htm
http://metrompg.com/posts/block-heater-how-long...
http://metrompg.com/posts/block-heater.htm
Food for thought, anyway.
Also, a plain tax on motor vehicle fuels is better in my opinion than "fee-bates" based on projected fuel consumption, engine displacement or peak horsepower (or torque), or taxes on other things like this or vehicle weight (gross vehicle weight rating or even gross combined weight rating -- what if the engine is changed later, or would that become illegal?).
* * *
Rico,
"Center for American Progress, is the latest in a growing number from different sources indicating that nuclear power is not cheap."
Yes, the startup costs in particular are huge. Chris WWW pointed me to that study some months ago if I recall correctly.
I'd like to see some reform that is behind some of the costs -- it can take years for a licence approval, and that is inexcuseable -- but it's still expensive. That is nuclear energy's weakness. (Waste has not been a technical, merely a political, problem, not to mention how little waste is produced by nuclear as contrasted with coal, oil, or even gas.)
The problem is, the alternatives to coal aren't cheap. Here in Michigan, we have loonier environmental crusaders demanding that the Governor simply disallow approval of any new coal plants. They say that will force us to use alternative, to them better, energy sources. That of course ignores the problem that the alternatives aren't there to replace coal, much less be anywhere as economic (and these same activists will be first and loudest to complain about much-higher electricity prices later). Yes, Michigan can provide quite a bit of wind energy, but it won't solve everything at this time and it's not cheap, and it's silly to oppose coal to a blind-rage extent. (This was a similar attitude to what I heard on the Diane Rehm show on NPR when I was going through Cleveland on the way back here from DC a couple of weeks ago. The environmentalist on that show was simply against coal, period, while being pathetic when asked why it's okay for China or India to use coal, and be even worse polluters than the USA. "They're lifting people out of poverty." Why should we regress?
Wind and solar are intermittent and for that reason, other sources must be provided to be there on a 24-hour basis.
I would like to think that someday we can see (practical, economic, reasonably priced) carbon-fiber or other light, fancy automobiles. Yes, reduced fuel consumption (and emissions and sound, or noise) has been boasted about by aircraft makers for quite some time now.
I get the "proven technology" argument vis-a-vis nuclear. But the argument is mitigated by the fact that one of the things it's proven to be is expensive. And also as the Forbes article points out, it hasn't attracted any private capital. There's too much risk involved. Streamlining the regulation process would help, but not that much. Unfortunately, the nuclear will remain, as it has always been, dependent upon large government subsidies.
Renewables, on the other hand, have attracted gobs of private capital -- well over a hundred billion dollars per year for the last few years. And in the case of wind, solar, and geothermal, what's to prove? Obviously they will continue to benefit from improvements in techology and manufacture (which is kind of why it's essential to build them), but there are no "breakthroughs" necessary. The only thing that absolutely has to happen for them to continue to penetrate the market is a better transmission network. Then again, a better transmission network is necessary regardless of the contemplated energy source. That includes gas and coal, and particularly nuclear. When you hook up renewables like solar and wind to a wide distribution network, many studies show, the intermittency of individual sources are substantially mitigated.
You also seem to be skeptical about the promise of energy efficiency. Do you want some sources about that? The potential there is huge. And cheap. One of the big stumbling blocks is that most utilities make their money producing energy, not saving it. The latter concept is called "profit decoupling". It's been in use here in CA for years, and has been adopted more recently in a few other states. MI, as I understand it, isn't yet one. Anyway, if you have an hour and a half to spare this video is terriffic. It's Amory Lovins discussing numerous ideas such as integrative design, smart plumbing, and vehicle ultra-lighting.
I'm skeptical of the extent to which we can save because our population and economy should continue to grow, we will use electricity more than ever in the years to come (while also on schedule to triple our petroleum imports -- yes, I know, that seems a head-scratcher), and if new energy sources were cheap, we'd use them much more (and in many more ways) than we currently do. I mentioned earlier an example of, should LED (or other) lighting sources become practical and cheap, doing something like fully illuminating our entire highway network here in the USA. Another example would be in-roadway heating for snow and ice control not merely on bridges but on entire roadways in the Snow Belt. Not to mention driveways and walkways in homes and businesses.
I don't mind renewables (I'm not as pessimistic as Lovelock is toward their use, nor even as negative as he is toward wind, for that matter) but they need to be economical and practical, offering the same energy density or something similar, at a lower cost if the density is lower. I'd be willing to go by fuel-cell-powered electric flying-wing airliners at only 350 MPH if it were cheaper. Same for rail transport. (We can't expect nation-wide high-speed rail because our density is too low and our distances too great. High-speed rail is a regional matter here, practically speaking. I love high-speed trains and would even support subsidized period inter-regional connections, but it would be less popular than many people would believe to travel coast to coast by high-speed rail using such connections.)
Yes, transmission is needed, not only for solar and wind but insofar as needed capacity and interconnectability right now. I read something about that earlier today.
Thank you for the Lovins video (and the other information). I confused Chris WWW's earlier cost-problem nuke critique with this new one.