Destination Parks if oil gets scarce?

---

rollergator said:

---

Brian Noble said:For a very accessible treatment on the distinction between correlation and causality, I suggest Freakonomics.

---

Changed the way I view "the 3Cs of life"...causality, correlation, and coincidence. Truly, one of the great books of our time...

---

And I'll third it. :)

I read it based on Brian and Gator's recommendations. Lots of good stuff, a few points I didn't really agree with, and a whole lot of what seems like common sense to me but apparently isn't to the general populous.

Good stuff and if it gets people to start thinking more along the lines outlined in the book, then we're all better off.

I'll get the book and read it tomorrow. Good conversation guys...especially your contributions Brian.

I just want everybody to know that I bought a Prius for strict economic reasons. I drive all over Vegas...and twice a week to a town 60-70 miles out of Vegas to provide home health services. I go at least 30,000 miles per year on the low end. At $3.00 per gallon I figured the premium (hybrids cost more) saved over my other choices (Civic, Corolla, Focus, etc) would pay off for me in about 4-5 years (which is how long I plan on owning it).

While environmental concerns are a nice benefit, I make decisions based upon what is economically best for me. Should gas go to prices opined in this article...I'm guessing others...even those who don't drive 30,000 miles per year...might look for better alternatives.

The point to all this is that people's responses to world events are dynamic and hard to predict. Those on this very board who have known me for a while (including myself) would NEVER have predicted a guy like me would drive a hybrid. Times have changed, gas is up...and the unthinkable has happened.

There are lots of "unthinkable" responses globally and at home that would happen should oil reach the levels suggested...

Edit to add...I really hope this Lankster guy sticks around! *** Edited 9/21/2007 4:37:40 AM UTC by Jeffrey R Smith***

There's a town 60-70 miles out of Vegas? :)

I still think that the plug-in hybrid concept has some potential, but only if we get more nuclear, recycle our nuclear fuel and do a good job recycling batteries in the long term. All of these are solvable problems, though the first two are largely political, unfortunately.

The problem with hybrids is people view them as the "end all be all" of fuel efficiency, which they are not. It's a useful technology if used appropriately and only as a band-aid short-term solution to real change like a shift to alternative fuels and an overall reduction in energy use as a whole.

Here is a list of the fuel efficiency of various hybrids

The only vehicles with any sort of "special" efficiency are the top several models from Toyota, Honda, and maybe Nissan. There a lot of small functional cars that have a mpg close to or exceeding hybrids, and without the premium cost.

Take a look at the Chevy Silverado hybrid with the "amazing" mileage of 15-19 mpg. There is no significant difference from the nonhybrid versions.

It's ridiculous to focus only on hydrid tecnology instead of the most fuel efficient vehicle that fits your needs. And really look at your needs. How many people really need a 2 ton four-wheel-drive crew cab pick up to schlep a gallon of milk from the grocery store.

And the focus shouldn't only be on driving. There is lot of embodied energy in everyday products. Think about how much oil it took to get that fruit from South America.

On a vaguely related tangent, I have a research collaboration with Ford. If you've seen their recently announced Sync feature, you can guess what it is that someone who works in mobile, wireless, and pervasive computing might be doing with them.

http://www.syncmyride.com/

Part of the direction Ford is taking with Sync was really surprising to me---much more social networking than anything. I didn't understand why an old-economy company was so interested in new-economy ideas, until one of the Ford engineers explained it to me. According to this engineer, car sales are driven primarily by emotional connections made between the purchaser and the vehicle.

Anecdotally, this makes sense to me. We're looking to replace one of our cars in the near future. We're a couple of limousine liberals, so we had always just sort of assumed we'd be buyuing either a Prius or a Civic Hybrid---you know, the "status liberal" cars. Unlike JRS, our annual mileage doesn't pay off on a hybrid until gas hits about $4, so it would be a pure statement purchase, not an economically-driven one.

However, my wife turns 40 later this year, and in true mid-life crisis mode, she has decided she wants a Lexus SUV---you know, the "status soccer mom" car. Not to be outdone, I rented a convertible on a recent business trip to the Bay Area, and REALLY liked it---you know, the "status middle-aged man" car.

We're so cliche, it's not even funny. ;)

millrace: It turns out that a hybrid engine is capable of producing more torque, pound-for-pound, than a straight gas engine. So, you can engineer the drivetrain to provide more fuel efficiency, OR you can provide more power. The Prius does the former. The Silverado does the latter. If I recall correctly, the Ford Escape tries to play both end of the game, with marginal improvements in both mileage and power.

Yes, but how much power do people need? Are they marketing the Silverado hybrid as a more powerful truck, or are they marketing the altruistic angle of "hybrid = outstanding fuel efficiency"

What about the power output with a diesel. Would a fuel-efficient clean-burning diesel engine outperform a hybrid and a gas engine both with power and energy consumption (in the case of a large truck)?

And/or how many people pay attention to the details and get all giddy about owning a hybrid. "Wow, I can own a giant truck that I don't need because it's a hybrid so I won't use any gas!"

Anyway, I'm really only suggesting that Rob was not completely off-base by suggesting that hybrids do not necessarily lead to greater fuel savings.

My wife has a fairly new Civic (nonhybrid) and we've still been able get about 40 mpg on the highway. We both have very short commutes so we didn't see a huge advantage in the extra-cost of the hybrid version. My own car is embarrassingly dismal with gas mileage, but I'm fortunate enough to be able to bicycle commute to work; I put about 10,000 miles a year on my car of almost exlusively fun weekend adventures). :)

My car is getting on in years, so I could get a shiny new hybrid. But it still runs great and I'd have to figure in the energy cost of manufacturing a new car and of disposing of the old car (which would probably continue to run under a new owner who might drive it more than I do). Would the increased mileage of a new car really have a positive effect?

Oh, I completely agree with you---I'm just pointing out *why* it is the case that hybrids sometimes have no better efficiency than their all-gas counterparts. As for the marketing muscle of hybrids-used-for-power: all I can say is PT Barnum was on to something.

I actually don't understand diesel engines nearly well enough to make a comparison with them.

The hybrid GM trucks are pretty much useless when it comes to saving fuel. Mileage is increased ever-so-slightly and therefore are clearly more of an advertising gimmick than anything else. As far as hybrids go, they will always produce more torque because a major component of a hybrid powertrain is an electric motor, and electric motors produce maximum torque as soon as they start, unlike gasoline engines that don't produce maximum torque until 3000-8000 RPM.

Anyway, I did a little research. I think the article I read was in the Wall Street Journal, and as most of you know, you need a subscription to read online versions of WSJ articles. Still, I found the following:

This article is particularly interesting, especially under the Why CAFE Fails To Reduce Consumption heading. For those of you who don't know, CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy- a law that states a car company's models must have a certain average fuel economy by a certain date. Hybrids are a big deal because they are supposed to help auto makers get their CAFE averages under control.

CNW Research is a private company that recently published the Dust To Dust Automotive Energy Report. You can view the PDF version here, but allow yourself time because it's 400+ pages long. Still, if you skim it, you'll see why hybrids aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Finally, Car And Driver's long-time Editor-in-Chief, Csaba Csere wrote this column in the June 2007 issue of the magazine. While it's not an actual study, Mr. Csere is a respected citizen in the automotive industry and knows more than a little about this sort of thing.

The town is Pahrump. This is the place where the stuff that is not not technically legal in Vegas goes on legally. It is also a snowbird Mecca...which is good for the home-health business.

My comment on the whole hybrid argument is that we are heading in the right direction. The political AND economic winds dictate that alternative fuels, plug in electric, stop-gap hybrids, and stuff we have not even thought of will be worth it to produce.

Whether you subscribe to the Al Gore (we all know I don't) end of the world scenario, or see it as a defense issue (I could buy some of this argument) or somewhere in between...is not really the point. The point is that we are currently experiencing great change in the transportation industry. Nobody knows where this is heading, but unless oil returns to $10/barrel, you can bet that innovation will continue. As long as there is economic incentive, there will be innovation.

I fully believe we will change our transportation means way before we would return to community-based self-sufficiency. The former is much more economically and sociologically feasible.

---

Brian Noble said:
I'm just pointing out *why* it is the case that hybrids sometimes have no better efficiency than their all-gas counterparts.

---

Thanks! I never really thought about the power output of hybrids vs straight gasoline. Probably because my own power requirements could probably be satisfied with a scooter.

But I think I'll get a Silverado anyway. One never knows when they will have to haul a couple of Clydesdales off-road over the Continental Divide

JRS said:

I fully believe we will change our transportation means way before we would return to community-based self-sufficiency. The former is much more economically and sociologically feasible.

But transportation means also includes walking, biking, and mass transit, and not just gee-wiz new technology. So changing the way we live is a requirement for alternative transportation means to be possible. What looks sociologically and economically unfeasible right now could be drastically different in years to come. *** Edited 9/21/2007 2:27:25 PM UTC by millrace***

Isn't there still an issue with disposal of batteries on hybrids as they (eventually do) wear out and need to be replaced? There is lots of environmentally unfriendly stuff inside there.

This might be anecdotal, or one of those "what if" things, bu I remember reading something awhile back about how accident scenes involving hybrid vehicles would have to be considered "haz-mat" events. This would make cleanups a lot more costly and time consuming (meanwhile all the people stuck in traffic behind the accident are idling their gas-powered engines). Again, I don't know if it's true or not, just something I read in an article.

The thing that gripes me the most about this new environmental movement is that its celebrity "leaders" set the worst example of all. Putting solar panels on the roofs of your 6 20,000 sq ft mansions on 4 continents does NOT make you earth-friendly.

---

CNW Research is a private company that recently published the Dust To Dust Automotive Energy Report.

---

I've skimmed this report in the past, and haven't changed my opinion about it. It is total crap. There are so many assumptions built into it that with minor changes on the energy costs of this and that you can come up with completely different conclusions.

A lot of people who, for some reason, have something against hybrids are quick to point out the energy required to build them as being higher. While that's certainly a valid concern, it ignores the fact that not all forms of energy are created equal. Nuclear generated electricity, for example, is far more "green" than any form of carbon-based fuel. So it stands to reason that manufacturing with this "cleaner" power still offsets the pollution caused by lower emissions of the car.

Hybrid tech hasn't been pushed as far as it could go yet, but it's one step. There's still a lot of potential for different flavors of electric cars, in part because electricity can be generated in so many different ways.

And by the way, I disagree with the notion that big houses are bad. If they're built right, they're actually very good. A guy at work recently built a house that uses geothermal for heating and cooling, at an additional cost of $20,000, but over the course of his mortgage, he'll save far more than that in energy costs. He's simply moved the cost from his energy bills to his mortgage, and saved a little in the process.

Everything is a balancing game, with wins and losses, and sometimes compromise. The key is that you have to at least play the game to make a difference.

But suppose you did the same geothermal stuff in a more modest house? Does anybody really need a 20,000 square foot mansion?

And geothermal does nothing for transportation costs, or the resoruces and transportation used for the materials to build the house.

The whole issue with big/little houses is whether most households need them. A generation ago, you had 5 people in a 2 or 3 bedroom house. Now you have 2 or 3 people in a 5 bedroom house. Why? The whole thing is driven by the real estate market.

Why is a young couple being told they have to buy a 5-bedroom house? Because they might have 3 or kids 4 someday? No, because "that's what sells." Don't build or buy your house to meet your needs now and in the future, think about what some person you don't know will want to buy 10 or 20 years down the road. Just overlook the fact that the 5-bedroom house costs a lot more, and gets the realtor a heftier commission. Besides, credit is cheap, right?

BTW, if anyone here is a realtor, I apologize. It's just that in my line of work, I deal with a lot of them, and my experiences have shown where a lot of them are coming from.

I'm involved in the design of many of these developments, and all of them that people hate for the reasons millrace gave above are built in strict compliance with what local ordinances require. We have hit solid walls in many locations when our clients have tried suggesting mixed use developments, small lots, clustering, etc. Even where they "encourage" smart growth, they still require insanely wide streets and other features from traditional design.

What we charge clients for design and getting plans approved is probably over $5000 per lot now. Municipal fees and permits probably equal or exceed that. Include the cost of the land and constructing the infrastructure, and the developer might have 30-50K per lot sunk into a site before he digs his first foundation. That's why you have all these McMansions being built, there is no profit at all in building mid-level afforable housing. You can't build a 1500-2000 sq ft house and pass along all those development costs.

Jeff, if your friend really needs that much space, then for him a big house is good. But for most people, houses are getting bigger so we can store all of the "stuff" we accumulate. Then when we run out of space in our houses, we run off to the local storage facility and rent more space.

The real estate boom was a huge gravy train for many townships in PA. They latched on and made quite a sum just collecting review fees. Case in point-- I can't think of a township in southeast PA with a municipal building that wasn't either built or massively renovated in the 90's. I'd like to see what happens if the current housing/credit crunch dries up a lot of township business. Will they try to make the process easier or just get more greedy and try to grab more from they fewer plans they do get? Until they make the process less expensive and cumbersome, we won't see much affordable housing being built. Here I am, ranting about business on my day off. :)

I don't entirely understand what the problem is if you want a lot of space. Mind you I was still married when I bought the house, but I have three bedrooms, two and a half baths and about 1,800 square feet. I wouldn't call it a huge house, but it's comfortable. It's not big to "store all of the 'stuff'", it's room to stretch out. When I was living with my wife, and even when my girlfriend spends time there now, we don't have to be right on top of each other, and we're not confined. Right about January, you appreciate that.

I don't know anyone who buys a big house to keep stuff. They buy a big house because it's comfortable.

Or they buy a big house and it sits empty because they are spending all their money and then some in an attempt to avoid defaulting on all those sub-prime no-money down mortgages.

Yeah, I'm with Jeff (at least on the house thing).

I've been staying out of this one for a reason. Judging by the opinions here, I'm not just part of the problem - I am the problem. :)

Somewhere between there and here in life, I've come across the idea that it's nice to have things I want. I'm on pretty much the complete opposite end of the spectrum from someone like millrace (who seems to prefer a simple life and is happy with needs being met and nothing more).

If I reduced my life to what I really needed, my list would include nothing more than food, water and a nice spot under a rock somewhere...anything beyond that is luxury to me. It's to what degree we pursue that luxury that makes us different, I suppose.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to start up the SUV-lite (as Jeff once so eloquently put it) and head out for my Starbucks fix...after cranking down the air-co another degree or two, of course. (it sure is getting warm here today) ;)

It's not about deprivation. I really don't think I'm missing out on a great experience by not having my own personal bowling alley in the basement, and by bringing reusable bags to the grocery store.

I take vacations, drive a car, buy stuff I don't need, etc. Simplification is an ongoing work-in-progress. :