tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post113313502205538765..comments2023-11-03T02:18:41.733-07:00Comments on WattHead - Energy News and Commentary: A Simple Exercise in Fuel Economy ... or Why Drilling in ANWR Has Nothing to do with Domestic Energy SecurityJesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-1136765724174890312006-01-08T16:15:00.000-08:002006-01-08T16:15:00.000-08:00OK Patrick here goes:"But your logical error is to...OK Patrick here goes:<BR/><BR/><I>"But your logical error is to forget that your 'neat idea' has a cost of implementation behind it. You completely ignore it!"</I><BR/><BR/>->I don't assume that a 20% increase in fuel economy will happen overnight at the wave of a magic want, Patrick. Niether will drilling in ANWR.<BR/> <BR/>The time frames I've read for ANWR at that the first drop of oil likely wont start flowing for another ten years after Congress gives the OK (you suggest three years but I've never heard anyone offering such a short timeframe for ANWR). <BR/><BR/>I've also read that that half the U.S. transport fleet is replaced something like every 10-15 years. So yes, we won't see the solution I mention in place for another 10+ years, but that is the same as for ANWR and the longer we wait, the more new cars are purchased that don't include higher gas mileages.<BR/><BR/>The point is that there are a whole number of technologies that could provide incremental boosts to fuel economy without hindering performance, not to mention simply driving smaller/lighter cars/trucks. When Bush and the senate leadership haven't uttered a word of encouragement, much less put forth policies to promote these technologies or higher mileage standards, it's hard to believe that drilling in ANWR is about energy security. If it were part of some comprehensive push to ween us off of foreign oil, I wouldn't necessarily oppose it but the simple fact is, it is not. <BR/><BR/><I>"It's unlikely this system could be dropped-in added to existing cars in an economical way." </I><BR/><BR/>->Actually, that's <I>exactly</I> what <A HREF="http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/11/hydrogen_boost_.html#comments" REL="nofollow">the hydrogen boost system designed for trucks</A> is intended to do and is supposed to pay itself off in a very short period of time. In fact, the system is available now for lease and Jim at the Energy Blog reports that "with 15,000 miles per month and 6 miles per gallon an eighteen wheeler can save at least $450 and more likely over a $1000 per month above the cost of leasing a unit." That sounds pretty economical to me and more and more truckers are installing them. The deployment of this could happen in a very short period of time and makes perfect economic sense. They also have a smaller system for cars/light trucks and <A HREF="http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/hydrogenenhance.html" REL="nofollow">another company is working on one</A> as well which would make great sense for anyone driving many miles (i.e. taxi drivers, delivery vehicles, police cars, ambulances, buses, people with long commutes, etc.).<BR/><BR/><I>"150 million cars on the road today have to then get replace. costing say $15,000 per, then to get your fleet replaced to realize this benefit would cost $2.2 TRILLION. "</I><BR/><BR/>->Those costs will already be born by the U.S. consumers who will replace their cars regardless of anything else. Implying that this is part of the cost of implementation of improved energy efficiency is simply erroneous and misleading.<BR/><BR/><I>"And if this add-on adds 10% to the cost of the car, than the add-on alone costs $220 billion."</I><BR/><BR/>->Much or all of which will be repaid by decreased fuel costs, money that will flow back into the U.S. economy in the form of extra disposable income and perhaps even extra money to U.S. auto makers if they get their act together and get on board in promoting these technologies rather than more money for foreign oil regimes.<BR/><BR/>If we are concerned about consumers worrying about the initial costs of these technologies (i.e. 'sticker shock'), then we can implement higher gas taxes to encourage conservation and efficiency or subisidize these technologies with tax credits or low-interest loans to help alter the payback period or provide research incentives for auto manufacturers or we can simply mandate that <I>all</I> new cars get better mileage, thus eliminating the cost comparison with less efficient cars. This are the kind of options a President or Congress truly concerned with ending our dependence on foreign oil would be considering (in addition to <A HREF="http://watthead.blogspot.com/2005/12/who-needs-gasoline-incredible.html" REL="nofollow">promoting the use of plug-in hybrids</A>, not some far-off hydrogen hype).<BR/><BR/>Finally, this 'implementation' cost is also offset by the benefits of reducing the amount of oil consumed, rather than simply shifting the source to domestic supplies - i.e. reduced emissions and public health benefits, lower oil prices do to decreased demand, reduced global climate change impact etc.<BR/><BR/><I>"You also ignore the issue of the practicality of adding another type of fuel to the mix in the specific example of hydrogen injection."</I><BR/><BR/>There is no 'issue of practicality' here! In fact, the addition of small amounts of hydrogen actually cleans the engine in addition to improving performance. Read <A HREF="http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/11/hydrogen_boost_.html#comments" REL="nofollow">this</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>"Let me also point out, drilling in ANWR and getting the 1 mbd that it could generate, has all of these benefits you cite as well..."</I><BR/><BR/>->I'm not contesting that. My point is that there are other options that should be taken instead of or in addition to drilling in ANWR that have less of an environmental impact.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In summary, I oppose drilling in ANWR because it does not come as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and as such seems to me to be more about paying back political contributors and making more money for oil companies than about domestic energy security. Until I see a set of policy proposals that do more than simply shift demand from foreign to domestic sources of oil and actually move us forward towards consuming less or shifting demand away from fossil fuels, I just don't trust Bush, Stevens, et. al. in their 'energy independence' rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, the portion of revenue that goes to the federal budget is not significant enough for a resource held on public lands and whose extraction requires the environmental degredation of those lands. I would also be much more willing to support drilling in ANWR if the revenues were specifically set aside to fund further conservation or efficiency, plug-in hybrid development etc. ... anything that sets us on a path to a real sustainable energy future. <BR/><BR/>As you said, "Of course there is nothing that says we shouldnt try both" but until we <I>are</I> actually proposing both, I'm going to oppose doing the more destructive, polluting and unsustainable option.<BR/><BR/>Remember, no matter if the oil is coming from ANWR or Iraq, relying on oil for our energy needs can never be part of that sustainable scenario.Jesse Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-1133207035139008172005-11-28T11:43:00.000-08:002005-11-28T11:43:00.000-08:00And this is exactly what I'm talking about: GCC re...And this is exactly what I'm talking about: GCC <A HREF="http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/toyotas_new_com.html#more" REL="nofollow">reports today</A> that Toyota has released a new compact sedan for the Japanese market (US market to come?) that reaches 51 MPG on the Japanese road test cycle by utilizing a compact design, continuously variable transmission and variable valve timing. As I wrote above, picking a couple of technologies off the list of techs that can incrementally boost fuel efficiency could easily bring any car 1/3rd or better improvements in fuel economy.Jesse Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.com