look at how markets function, they only do with "Free and fair access to information" that goes back to adam smith. How does that occure? By fraud regulations and the like. Our banking system works best with "Transparancy" that is guaranteed by, guess what, laws and regulation. The notion of "lasaiz-faire" markets working today is just stone age thinking. If you look at the history of our economy, the best growth isn't from the free reighn of markets, it's from mixed economies where the well known shortcomings of imperfect markets are dealt with by forces external to the markets. History is full of examples of the truth of this fact, yet the notion that "the markets know best" seems to perpetuate dispite tons of historical facts that show this is not generally the case.

Markets are just feed-back systems. Not all feed-back systems are inhearently stable. those that are unstable, whether oscillitory or massively positive in the feedback co-efficient need external devices to keep them from going wacko. Remember the S&L bailout of the 80s? This was due to market DEREGULATION with an unstable market mechanism. Markets are "constructs" not natural items. I'd also postulate that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have complete access to required information in todays world of complexity without being massively rich. Want to not buy toys with lead in the paint? Better have analytical equipement in your car cause the manufacturers sure won't tell you, even if they know. And you better hope the store lets you chip off some paint to test. If not you're hosed. The notion that unregulated markets cure all ills is just one of the many fallicies that perpetuate our problems. history backs me up on this one.


Matt

 

Terms such as "totalitarians" and "wackos" are used in desperation to shut down a reasoned discussion. See also "unpatriotic".

 

The Wife unit is an interior designer and works in the commercial industry. She recently did a lighting design using fiber optics for all the indirect lighting driven using LED's. The lighting in that office is the best I have ever seen. Fills the room with virtually no shadows and zero hot spots. The savings to the company she did it for will pay for the upgrade/installation in less than 2 years over what they had.

 

One of the things left out of this discussion in the argument concerning markets and the price of oil, is the price of commodities in general. Remember 1.99 per gallon milk, just 6 years ago? Look at the commodities page and you'll see it is aghast. Much driven by trading speculators. I used to work for a while years ago in a metal refinery. One of the buyers there said for commodities the best time for trading in commodities is in a period of unrest. Drives up everything. It takes very little in today's unsettled world to have crude shoot up 5% in a day, a hurricane, political unrest in a oil producing country, even just a statement by OPEC . Its not the price I object to so much as the uncertainty and instability in it. I spent a year in Houston in 99, oil was as low as $14 a barrel, today 90-100. In the last year it has been as low as 55 and almost hit the 100 mark a few weeks ago. Unstable.

 

I currently pay and have paid over $3.50 a gallon for the last year and a half. I spend between $400 and $500 a month on gas. I think my most recent fill up was 3.75 a gallon. People paying 2.60-2.80 a gallon for gas have no place to complain. The last time I paid 2.60 a gallon for gas was in 2002/2003.

 

What's the time line for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to be available at resonable prices?
Is nuclear generated electricty a good solution?

 

http://world.honda.com/news/2007/4071114All-New-FCX/
http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/FCXCONCEPT/

I saw this car at the LA Auto show.

Honda will be releasing a fully functional Fuel Cell by mid-2008. It will only be available to those that currently have hydrogen filling stations near their house. I'm fairly certain this means LA Only.

That covers the availability part, as for cost, Honda is marketing the car as a lease only option, with an estimated cost of around $600 a month, including car insurance and all maintenance. It'd be a 3 year lease. That really isn't that bad.

The car is actually quite big. I didn't really care enough to walk up and look at it, but from afar it looked to be fairly large. The specs on Honda's website list it at 4760mm or 15.62 feet long. That's about a foot longer than a honda civic.

 

If the price of gas in 1967 (40 years ago) was $0.33, as one internet source claims, then adjusting for inflation would put it at $2.05 per gal. That was leaded gas, so figure something for a safer formula (even more for California), and we aren't too far off.

 

You have a good point--here in Houston we pay considerably less for our gas. There was a real push to ride the van when gas went to about $3.25. It's backed down to about $3.10 to $3.15 (I'm talking premium here), so we've seen the van demand ease off. I'm sure it's proportional to the "current" average gas price in your area--i.e., if your "normal" is $3.50, it would probably take about $3.75 before you had a real change. I'm plugging in numbers, but you get the idea.

Robin, I can recall visiting Texas in the very early 70's (before moving here). Somewhere in west Texas we got gas for $.26. Unfortunately that really WAS cheap gas--our BMW 2002 was pinging on level ground. We ran the tank down a bit and filled with better quality gas as soon as we could.

Back in those days we also flew--I can remember av gas at about $.42 a gallon. I don't fly anymore, and don't know the current price, but the last time I heard it was a bunch of dollars more.

Ah, the good old days!

 

there's a good read called Zoom! by two writers for the Economist magazine (that well known green/liberal publication, Matt says sarcastically!) It explaines a lot of the reasons that we have what we have, and a couple of paths to the future one of which is good, the other is bad....

Anyway, I'll admit I'm a greenie, but they make the case for change based on economic grounds only, and show that there's a lot going on that are outside of the current market forces that have lead to where we are now.

Matt

 

The thing about the price of gas is the technology of the plug in electric car has already been developed. The average commute is less than 30 miles. A Nicad based electric car has the range of slightly over 100 miles. Unfortunetly when GM made the EV1 in the 90s they also patented the technology. Guess who bought the patent from GM, Chevron. Some of the other manufacturers also made Nicad electric cars and Toyota was sued by Chevron for continueing to manufacture Nicad plug in electric cars. So now all plug in electric vehicle are based on the lithium Ion battery, which is not cheap.

 

100 miles just doesn't cut it though, unfortunately. Most people are not going to buy a 100 mile car that they can only use for a short commute, and have to buy yet another car to do all the other things that they need to do.

The electric car needs a longer range, and easier refill-ability. Until then, we are stuck with gas vehicles. (I rather >like< my gas vehicle actually.) The only thing I know of that is close is hydrogen fuel cell, as you can fill those up while on the road, instead of plugging the thing in and waiting a few hours for a charge.

When the tech gets there and it is as attractive as todays gas cars, people will buy them.

 

The hydrogen car is a fantasy. It takes natural gas to make hydrogen. The hydrogen auto will be out of the reach of the average consumer, price wise. You are right, 100 miles is not much range but eventually oil is just going to be too costly because the supply is not unlimited. Alternative forms of transportation will be needed. Transportation could develop into electric cars for the short haul and mass transit for the longer trips.

 

Gee, then what do you call using government to limit other peoples choices and make them conform to someone else’s preferences and opinions? Or manufacturing a "crisis" so we can use it to justify enforcing mandates we want to impose on our fellow citizens?

I don’t like having other people rule my life or make my choices for me. As much as possible I want everyone to be free to make their own decisions. That includes what cars they drive and what light bulbs they use. If someone wants to drive a Hummer or a 1 ton crew cab dually why is that anyone else’s business?

There are plenty of people happy to limit those choices, for “our own good” of course. Some places have already limited food choices and outlawed smoking. Many on this forum seem eager to limit other choices as well. There are very few areas of our lives that there is not someone pushing for more regulation over. That seems to be the very definition of totalitarianism. If calling a predilection to control others what it is offends you, tough.

 

http://www.theaircar.com/

and you don't HAVE to use natural gas to create hydrogen, you can electrolyse water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

 

Driving one of those cars is nobody's business. Wearing a Rolex watch isn't either. Wearing a 3 carat diamond is cool, as long as you can afford it. The point is that drivers of Hummers and dually trucks aren't paying their share, if you compare the US to, say GB. My point is that if gas cost $7/gallon most people who now drive a Hummer would not buy one again, because on the average it would cost $650/month in gas alone. Now is costs about $280. I don't care if they drive them, I just wanna make them pay their fair share. I'll be happy to pay $7/gallon if everyone else will do it too, providing the excess tax goes toward developing/rewarding technology that reduces reliance on fossil fuels. I'd much rather pay a farmer than an Arab oil shiek.

 

Yea, it really is constricting that I can't murder people that annoy me.

There is a balance between allowing people to do what they want and preventing them from hurting others. The smoking bans are to protect the people not smoking from the 2nd hand smoke of others. They weren't put in place just to punish smokers. If smokers had had more respect for the rights of those around them, the bans wouldn't have been necessary.

The debate over how much to protect will be a continuous one. It is rarely a simple equation.

I was in elementary school in Los Angeles when the term "smog" was coined. I'm very happy that California managed to reverse the trend in air pollution. If we hadn't, the air in Los Angeles would have become unlivable, and it would have blown east. Those of you who condemn California for our strict air pollution laws should remember that you are breathing air that may have been in California shortly before. If the feds win the fight with states controlling air pollution regs, your air wont be so clean. We have a lot of cars here.

What is more alarming than California having to accept more lax fed regs is the future of China and India. As their economies explode, their citizens will be able to afford cars. These cars probably wont have much in the way of air-pollution controls. Somewhere I heard an estimate of 250,000,000 cars being added in India and China over the next five years.

There is an air quality monitoring station at Chew's Ridge in Monterey County. It was put there to monitor air pollution from China. It is a small world. We all have to breath here.

 

smoking bans do restrict 2nd hand smoke, but it's also true that the full cost of smoking isn't born by the smokers, so society has a right to step in to effect smoking trends.

What many forget when they biatch about regulation is the very nature of a societal group. It is a self assembled population that gives up some idividual privalige for an improved overall experience. What is very disturbing is that this notion now has a bad rep, instead of the good reputation that it should have.

NiCd is old tech, and Cadmium isn't too good for the envirnment. The NiMH and LiIon are better technologies, with higher energy densities as well. For those that think that 100 miles doesn't cut it, it does for a very large percentage of the driving population. The EV-1 was a wonderful car, and it's early demise just shows how screwed up GM was at the time. Rick Wagoner even admits he didn't know what he was doing when he killed the program...

Back to the new CAFE standard. It will have two effects: lower overall fleet usage per mile driven, and creating even more technologies that will allow for more power per unit displacement.

You can bet the dinausar car companies will complain all the way, and those that are smarter won't say anything, and will just deliver the required technologeis to the market, kicking butt in market share while the dinosaurs complain thier way to market insignificance....

Matt

 

Hyundai-Kia make hydrogen fuel cell versions of the Sportage and Santa Fe. I drove one when I was in Chino, it's pretty cool. There's a refueling station there, too - which is something like an hour from LA.

 

The full cost of drinking, unhealthy foods, and lack of excercise isn't paid by those who choose to engage in those vices either. It's a slippery slope that can ultimately justify whatever the majority wants.

The last time around it had the unintended affect of moving people who wanted large, comfortable vehicles into SUVs. It will likely have unintended consequences this time around as well. It's misguided and dishonest to regulate an industry to build a products with such limited demand.

Dinosaurs like BMW? They've been no advocate of strict CAFE regulations and they fought the Euro carbon standards tooth and nail. In fact, they've failed to even meet the current CAFE standards since 2002.

 

Ah, but it IS my business. I breathe the air
these inefficient monsters pollute. And it's
the earth's business, too.

Ditto smoking. I pay the costs--health care
and others--for those who refuse to quit. Oh,
and I breathe THEIR polluted air, too.

 

You pay the costs of AIDS care and research too. Should we outlaw all the activities that spread that? You may also pay for the costs of obesity, should we outlaw fatty foods? Motorcycles are dangerous, along with scuba diving, sky diving, many other sports. Should we simply ban the ones that may cost society some money? Should we reimpose the 55 national speed limit to save gas and make the busybodies feel like they’re accomplishing something? Once we accept your argument that “society” has the right to restrict peoples private decisions for the sake of limiting costs, risks and the use of resources, what is off limits to the nanny state? How many of YOUR choices are you willing to leave to the discretion of others?

As for the smoking bans. The owners of restaurants, bars and other businesses lost the right to control their own property. Is that ok? How much more should they be prepared to lose to the nanny state when it wants to further restrict them? As for the secondhand smoke hazard, it has only been “proven” by recourse to “studies” that abandoned the accepted rules of statistical analysis. In other words, they cheated to get the desired results. In reality it has been restricted because many people simply don’t like it. I don’t like rap music or the public use of vulgar language, should I have the right to ban it?

As I said earlier, there are plenty of people eager to restrict the rights and choices of others and make them conform to their own preferences. The totalitarian impulse is alive and well in America. Once others lose the right to make their own decisions you have no reason to expect to be able to retain yours.

As C S Lewis said:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

 

There's no valid evidence that smoking in bars/restarants hurts anybody. Don't bother, I'm in the business and have read all their "evidence", and it's basically worthless. Owners should get to decide, not voters. If the voter doesn't wanna go in, don't go in. If he doesn't wannt go into a topless bar, don't go in. If he hates Thai food, don't go in. If your friend has a party at his house and they smoke, don't go in. Banning smoking in private establishments is a clearcut violation of the owners rights. It's wrong. And don't think for one minute that smoking could not similarly be banned in private cars and home, because the same people that proposed it for restaurants/bars want to do it for homes/cars (for the same reason). The would welcome prohibition days again.

 

You are right stateing that you can use electrolysis to generate hydrogen from water, but that uses MASSIVE amounts of electricity and at this time, most of our power is generated by oil, coal, natural gas and some by nuclear, wind, solar and water. All expensive regardless of their source. So that would not be economical at all in a mass production situation.

 

See above - slippery slope. Nobody really needs the additional horsepower of the S model MINI. What right do any of us have to burn that extra 10% of fuel and emmit that extra 10% of planet killing pollution purely for our own pleasure? Wouldn't it be ironic if MINI dropped or nuetered the S model to gain a higher CAFE number from MINI to help offset BMW's big cars?

The problem is that CAFE regulations don't provide consumers with any incentive to change their fuel consumption habits. If you increase fuel efficiency without increasing fuel costs proportionately you make driving cheaper. When driving gets cheaper, people do more of it. Thanks, you've just made it economical to commute 30% further in from the suburbs.

There are a myriad of reasons why CAFE is bad policy. The only reason it has support is because legislators aren't willing to take the hit for doing anything that the voters will see as a direct attempt to change their behavior. It's much easier to force manufacturers to build vehicles that consumers don't want and leave it up to them to figure out how to sell enough to keep their numbers up.

Automotive fuel and emissions are only a part of our total energy use and pollution. If legislators were really looking for a solution instead of an opportunity to be everyone's nanny and look like they're doing something they'd do something more like a blanket carbon tax.