Welcome to the Energy Blog


  • The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

    Jim


  • SUBSCRIBE TO THE ENERGY BLOG BY EMAIL

After Gutenberg

Clean Break

The Oil Drum

Statistics

Blog powered by Typepad

« MIT & TI Team Develop Chip up to 10 Times More Energy-Efficient than Current Chips | Main | FYI: National Geographic Special on Global Warming »

February 06, 2008

Comments

JD

This is a trend viewable on every oil company "world consumption" presentation for the last 15 years. It's a natural progression of developing economies. The sad part is, between the 300 million consumers in the US, and the 500 million in the EU and the 500 million in Central and South America that you forgot to count, there won't be much left for India and China's cheap cars to use. If they build 100 million of these things, and they really do still need oil when they're built, they're SOL. Lesson for us all: scaling out massive industrial and economic infrastructures from 2010 onward to be dependent on fossil fuels is asking for trouble.

spesbona

I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised that this otherwise excellent blog - and other similar sites - appears never to have considered ARCOLOGY as a the ULTIMATE and ONLY realistic long-term solution to the worlds energy problems.

I estimate that arcology-dwellers would consume only 10-20% of the energy of conventional sprawl cities or, as I like to call them, OBECITIES..!

Not only would arcology solve the energy problem in one fell stroke, but also the environmental degredation and (as a side-benefit) the SOCIAL alienation of mindless ugly wasteful SPRAWL. All of which are fed by cars..!

So all this talk about switching to more fuel efficient cars like "Prius´s", electric vehicles, and bio-fuel, is simply adding to the problem and throwing more fuel on the fire. The solution can only be NO CARS at all..! Or, let me re-phrase that - "No exclusively owned and used cars."

Does that sound simplistic and naive..? Only to those who have never heard of, or knee-jerkingly deride as both unlivable and impractical, the concept of ARCOLOGY as originally espoused by Paolo Soleri.

Having said that, I would be the first to admit that Soleri´s visualisations are far too huge to be practical at present and, perhaps even more importantly, far too frugalistic for must of us.

However the idea of living in smaller, smarter, more friendly, and more beautiful spaces, is an attractive one...at least for me. For example, I own - and have happily lived there (with a companion) for months at a time - a tiny 27.5m.sq apartment on a yacht marina directly over the water. But this is not just any ordinary marina - it has a big supermarket, cinemas, shops, restaurants, pubs, a gym, and a 24-hr bus service to the local city centre. In fact everything one needs and expects of a small city, except maybe ones work, is within 5 minutes easy stroll of home. Whenever I want a car I simply rent one, which is much cheaper and more worry-free than owning.

I propose that we should build "small" arcologies to house perhaps 10,000 people each, a size which surely would be practical both from an engineering and financial aspect..? Were this to be done I sincerely believe even the sceptics would soon be fighting each other to get in.

So why is NOBODY, least of all Al Gore, talking about doing this..?

Ronald Brak

The growing middle classes of India and China will buy many new cars over the coming decades. However, these groups are extremely sensitive to increases in oil prices. This will result in manufacturers introducing extremely fuel efficent models and vehicles that don't use oil such as electric cars.

Clee

I find that people have widely varying tastes. A housing community that one person loves will be abhorred by another. You can't force someone to want to live in an arcology/city/suburb/rural area. I know people who want to live in a house where they can't see or hear their neighbors.

The same thing applies to cars and other transportation vehicles. What one person thinks is the greatest vehicle in the world, another person will absolutely detest. It seems the only way to keep people from buying what they want is to price them out of the market. So I agree with the article that cheap cars will mean more demand for cars and more demand for oil.

spesbona

Clee said...." You can't force someone to want to live in an arcology/city/suburb/rural area."

You are of course right - but can you show me where i said "people should be forced...(to live in arcologies)..? I never mentioned any such thing but its interesting that you should have made such a glib assumption on my behalf.

Aside from any other reason it would be pointless to "force people to live in arcologies" because, even if a massive programe of arcology-construction began tomorrow, for decades to come demand (and trust me there will be huge demand) will far outstrip the supply.

The point I was making is that nobody is even talking about Arcologies as a solution, but they should be because IMHO it is the only long term sustainable solution to the our predicament - the ultimate predicament of technological society.

Which is, to put it into a nutshell, "how can we maintain and even improve our lifestyle whilst using a LOT LESS ENERGY and resources..?"

I believe the solution to many, nay most, urban problems lies in offering people an urban environment whereby they will happily and VOLUNTARILY dispense with their private cars and other frivolous hyper-wasteful consumerist habits.

I also believe the advantages of arcologies extend far beyond the reduction of energy usage and the curbing of hyper-consumption. How about crime and (related) illegal immigration to name just two..?

BornInZion

Why wait? I live south of I-20 in the Dallas area, and I have been car-free for the last 18 months.

Most folks reading this could get around just fine as I do on a bicycle. Some of you, naturally, will have some infirmity that would prevent such self mobilization, but you are a small minority.

Come on in! The waters fine!

Top five reasons to be car free:

1) It is fun!
2) Less stress! No more traffic jams for me.
3) Big savings- The costs of accessories and maintenance is about $800 a year. (Can you even insure your car for that amount?) I bought a top end bike that will doubtlessly last me ten years, but there are excellent bikes available in the $800 to $1,200 range. I have trouble knowing what to do with all my extra cash!
4) Less of me! I have lost 30 pounds without ever dieting. Guilt free holidays- I can pig out without concern because the extra calories are gone by New Year's day.
5) I never have trouble finding a parking space.

Clee

spesbona writes:
Clee said...." You can't force someone to want to live in an arcology/city/suburb/rural area."

You are of course right - but can you show me where i said "people should be forced...(to live in arcologies)..?

That is how I interpreted your earlier comment of
I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised that this otherwise excellent blog - appears never to have considered ARCOLOGY as a the ULTIMATE and ONLY realistic long-term solution to the worlds energy problems.

It seemed to me that if you thought ARCOLOGY was the ULTIMATE and ONLY solution, then you'd end up forcing people to live in arcologies. Please explain how it can be the ULTIMATE and ONLY solution without forcing people to live there.

I never consider any one thing to be the ULTIMATE and ONLY solution, whether it is solar, wind, wave, geothermal, nuclear, coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, CTL, biodiesel, ethanol, biomass, energy efficiency, conservation, finding a new planet to live on, or whatever. I believe it will take many different efforts combined and that local solutions will depend on local resources and needs.

Nucbuddy

The Original Post wrote: Cheap Cars Mean Higher Gas Prices
[...]
the sheer volume of these cars adds tremendously to the world's requirements for gasoline.

You have this backwards. Supply follows demand. Increases in demand cause increases in supply. Cheap cars ultimately mean lower gas prices.


More people, and increased income, cause resources to become more scarce in the short run. Heightened scarcity causes prices to rise. The higher prices present opportunity, and prompt inventors and entrepreneurs to search for solutions. Many fail in the search, at cost to themselves. But in a free society, solutions are eventually found. And in the long run the new developments leave us better off than if the problems had not arisen. That is, prices eventually become lower than before the increased scarcity occurred.

In 1978, in today's dollars, the average VCR cost more than $4,000. Today, the cheapest DVD players cost only $25, and the cheapest high-definition DVD players cost only around $100. The increasing demand for home-video systems has not caused prices to rise. To the contrary, it has caused prices to fall.

As with home-video systems, so with gasoline. As demand for gasoline rises, the price will continue to fall.

Clee

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm

So if oil prices fell through 1973 and have risen since then, that means we are no longer in a free society for the past 35 years?

Cyril R.

Hint: geology

DaveMart

I wonder if the JTEC membrane engine could power a car?http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/10/super_soaker_nasa_boffin_heat_engine_solid_state/
Super Soaker inventor touts solid state heat-2-leccy | The Register

I have no idea of how compact it is - but coal-powered cars?

Paul F. Dietz

You have this backwards. Supply follows demand. Increases in demand cause increases in supply. Cheap cars ultimately mean lower gas prices.

This is why we have such enormous supplies of whale oil for our lamps, right?

Sometimes increases in demand hit hard limits, and the market reacts by substitution, not increased production.

eric

>You have this backwards. Supply follows >demand. Increases in demand cause increases >in supply. Cheap cars ultimately mean lower >gas prices.

The link you point to is an example of why the geologists make fun of economists. You argue that higher prices lead to increases in supply, but I would phrase it differently. I would say that higher prices lead to lots of people trying to increase supply. Whether or not they succeed or not depends upon geology and physics, but just because you try something doesn't mean that it is going to happen.

The alternate view is this one:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/02/oil-shortages-s.html

Consumer electronics is a particularly poor model to choose when talking about oil.

Al Fin

These cars had better be either convertible to flex-fuel cars, diesels (for biodiesel), or serial hybrids. If they are gasoline-only, they will turn into scrap metal within 20 years. Only a breakthrough in bio-butanol can keep the cost of operating gasoline-only vehicles low enough for third world consumers by 2028.

Buddy Ebsen

Nucbuddy, did you know that there is a huge demand for masterworks in art, such as da Vinci's or Rembrandt's paintings? Yes, people are willing to bid millions at auction for these commodities.

Surely the supply of these historical masterworks will increase soon to make up this shortfall?

Ronald Brak

Eric, in defence of economists, they don't actually say that. If it were true we would now be producing 83 million barrels of whale oil a day. What economists do say is that as oil prices increase people will find substitutes. And in this context substitutes mean things such as electric cars, bicycles and public transport.

spesbona

clee said
"It seemed to me that if you thought ARCOLOGY was the ULTIMATE and ONLY solution, then you'd end up forcing people to live in arcologies. Please explain how it can be the ULTIMATE and ONLY solution without forcing people to live there."

I'm trying as hard as I can to see how you could interpret and conflate "ultimate and only solution" into "forcing". Well I cant. The mere idea is quite absurd.
Of course a lot of people do not like living in apartments and prefer to live in spaciously large detached suburban houses with big grounds. Although I believe this to be a wasteful and ultimately unsustainable lifestyle, good luck to those who can afford this option, and enjoy it while it lasts because it wont. Unless…..and unfortunately it is a big UÑLESS….low density citizens (LDC’s) expect high-density citizens (HDC´s) to subsidise their services – ie, roads, power, water, sewerage, policing, schools, libraries, etc, etc, ad infinitum. Because, whatever you say or think, that is exactly the present situation. LDC’s are being heavily subsidised by HDC’s, and I think this needs to be more widely known.

I don’t have the time to explain all the myriad advantages of arcologies, - environmental, health, community, social, economic, and political – and only one small disadvantage (smaller living spaces) – but they will become so patently obvious that people and business will be desperate to get in. They will be stormed like a post Christmas sale. And this is not hyperbole. Firstly, imagine how much money you would save by not having a a car..? And virtually no travel expenses. And, because of your compact living space, you could not possibly accumulate all that useless STUFF which ends up in your garage or storeroom or at the dump/charity shop. So on your formerly frivolous shopping expeditions would be a thing of the past - you would need to think very carefully before buying big stuff. You wouldn’t need so much furniture. You wouldn’t need TV’s, Computers, Stereo systems – any of that bumpf – you´d simply log into a central server.
And you wouldn’t or couldn’t spend much on your garden or home renovations, expensive tradesmen, etc. So you would spend less. A lot less. You might eat out much more often, because it would be pleasant and convenient to do so – no nasty weather or parking or breathalyser worries. And you would be able to meet friends and family much more easily. In fact you would meet and have more friends – assuming you wanted to - because it would be easier to keep in touch. And you would definitely have more money in your pocket. In short you wouldn’t NEED so much money as you do in your waste-generating low density suburban home. And because you wouldn’t NEED so much, you wouldn’t expect to get paid as much as you do now. Whats the point of money if you cant spend it? So wages would be lower, perhaps by a factor of half. And yet you would still WANT to live there. Admittedly I am no economist, but is all this not good for business..? And if what is good for business is also good for the environment, then it must happen. Yes, the more I think about it the more I am sure that Arcology is the ULTIMATE SOLUTION to civilisations dilemma. “How can we maintain and improve our quality of life whilst using 80% fewer resources”.
Can you think of a something else which achieves all this..? I suspect not.

Mysterymeat

What a strange mix of responses this pretty straight-forward post engendered. Many more gasoline powered cars on the road in the near future, combined with the same basic levels of oil supply (or possibly less) mean the price pressure is only going to build. What happens then is uncertain, but likely there will be business drivers to push more oil exploration and better recovery tech, as well as a persistent and growing hunt for oil free fuel automotive alternatives. And to close in the spirit of my fellow commentators here, good thing whales don't drive, cause they'd need really big cars.

Nucbuddy

Spesbona wrote: The solution can only be NO CARS at all..! Or, let me re-phrase that - "No exclusively owned and used cars." [...] You wouldn’t need TV’s, Computers, Stereo systems – any of that bumpf – you´d simply log into a central server. [...] you would meet and have more friends

It sounds like you are talking about green marxism. Is there anything in your vision of arcology for individualists, rather than collectivists?

Nucbuddy

Clee wrote: if oil prices fell through 1973 and have risen since then

The subject was gasoline, not oil, and the price of the former shows a clear downward trend for the past century. The latter costs around $1/barrel to pump out of the ground, and around $5/barrel to discover.

Tar sands, by contrast, are simply strip mined, like Western coal, and that's very cheap--but then you spend another $10, or maybe $15, separating the oil from the dirt.

Clee wrote: that means we are no longer in a free society for the past 35 years?

There is indeed a certain amount of corruption in the world:

But here's the catch: By simply opening up its spigots for a few years, Saudi Arabia could, in short order, force a complete write-off of the huge capital investments in Athabasca and Orinoco. Investing billions in tar-sand refineries is risky not because getting oil out of Alberta is especially difficult or expensive, but because getting oil out of Arabia is so easy and cheap. Oil prices gyrate and occasionally spike--both up and down--not because oil is scarce, but because it's so abundant in places where good government is scarce. Investing $5 billion over five years to build a new tar-sand refinery in Alberta is indeed risky when a second cousin of Osama bin Laden can knock $20 off the price of oil with an idle wave of his hand on any given day in Riyadh.
Nucbuddy

Back to gasoline, even though the price has clearly been dropping for the past 100 years, that is not the whole story. We should also consider the fact that today's gasolines are engineered to higher standards, and to contain more features, than was historical gasoline.

Typical mid-1920s gasolines were 40 - 60 Octane

Vapour Pressure and Distillation Classes. 6 different classes according to location and/or season.

Vapour Lock Protection Classes 5 classes for vapour lock protection

Antiknock Index ( aka (RON+MON)/2, "Pump Octane" )

Lead Content

Copper strip corrosion

Maximum Sulfur content

Maximum Solvent Washed Gum

Minimum Oxidation Stability

Water Tolerance

the EPA limits phosphorus in all gasolines to 0.0013g P/L.

As well as the above, there are various restrictions introduced by the Clean Air Act and state bodies such as California's Air Resources Board (CARB) that often have more stringent limits for the above properties, as well as additional limits.



Here are some of the typical modern-day gasoline additives:

A typical gasoline may contain

Oil-soluble Dye

Antioxidants

Metal Deactivators

Corrosion Inhibitors

Anti-icing Additives

Anti-wear Additives

Deposit-modifying Additives [for] Carburettor Deposits [...] Fuel Injector tips [...] Intake Valve Deposits [...] Combustion Chamber Deposits

Octane Enhancers

spesbona

Nucbuddy said - It sounds like you are talking about green marxism. Is there anything in your vision of arcology for individualists, rather than collectivists?

Absolutely the contrary. Our existing mega-states, which have to cater and compromise and bend over blackwards...er, backwards.. in attempting to placate so many diverse special-interest groups - somehow muslims and blacks spring to mind - that individualists are left out in the cold, so to speak.

With Arcologies being virtually self-sufficient and non-parasitical, and yet only occupying tiny portions of national territory, the prospect of "opting-out" from bureaucratic mega-states could become a real possibility. I foresee a future wherein an arcology - or cluster of arcologies - could buy a long lease on its territory and virtually secede from the host state. I wont go into detail, but such an arrangement would not only benefit the arcology city-state, it could also be very beneficial to the host state. Especially if the host state were a poor country lacking enterprise skills.

Did not Hong Kong benefit China enormously..?

What is for sure is that our present mega-million population mega-states have become far too large and unwieldy. Take the USA. Surely 300 million individuals under a single government, esp with a hefty dose of the "vibrant diversity" which is supposed to enrich us, is absurdly and grotesquely large for any meaningful consensus amongst its citizens.

As for the much smaller major countries of Europe - Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, etc., with populations from 40-80 million, even they are far and away too large. In fact if you look around it becomes apparent that it is the smaller countries - Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finalnd, Switzerland, Austria, and some of the up and coming "mini-states" of Eastern Europe - eg, Slovenia and Estonia - are the best run and often very desirable places to live in.

And, it seems to me, the smaller they are often the better they are. I think even as “few” as 1 million people under one government may even be too large. When they were at their most dynamic, and controlled much of the worlds trade, Holland, Portugal, Venice and Genoa, each had only about 1 million people. England had barely 5 million during its Elizabethan ascendancy. History has many more examples of tiny dynamic mini-states. Unfortunately most were swallowed up by greedy power-hungry empires, Hong Kong being just the most recent example, but the German states are another. Would there have been WW1 and WW2 if Germany had not "united"..? So was it a good thing..? Likewise wasn't Italy a much better place when it was "divided"..?

In the future there might well be separate arcologies for diverse interest groups such as Non-Smokers, Non-Drinkers, Non-Gamblers, Vegetarians, Vegans, Gays, Lesbians, Naturists, Gun-toters, Left-Handed, Blind, Wheelchair people, Esperanto speakers, even for Blacks and Muslims. The list is endless in its possibilities. Inside their individual arcologies these diverse people could live by their own rules, under a mini-constitution agreed to by the citizens themselves. It would be like joining a club, and you wouldn’t join a club with rules that you didn’t like, would you?

So, in theory at least, Muslims could have sharia law with floggings, stonings, and limb-choppings, if that is what majority Muslims truly desire (though I doubt it). And if you or I want to visit the Muslim arcology then we must dress and behave according to their rules. One of the many attractions of such an arrangement is that, if you grow not to like the rules under which you (or your parents) originally agreed to live under, you could easily up and leave for another “mini-state” more to your liking, and possibly one made in your own image. Of course this explains why a fundamentalist muslim arcology would not, and could not, succeed in the long run. Because, once they realise the freedoms available next door (possibly but unlikely), the young people would want to leave and maybe even, Allah forbid, apostate..!

Within such a paradigm all manner of diverse people might be able to co-exist on the same territory - something that is clearly (except to serial denialists) not possible under the present unsatisfactory arrangement, one that can only lead to a civil and racial war of extermination.

However, in arcologies many diverse individuals and cultures could co-exist and meet and be friendly with one another – assuming they wish to - on the common land separting the arcologies, where a common law would be in force.

If this vision of mine ever comes to be, we would have created a genuine voluntary multiculturalism rather than the bogus enforced one which, since WW2, has been foisted on the citizens of Western countries by nameless faceless left-liberal bureaucrats in a doomed-to-disaster attempt to purge “racism” from white people.

If all this, that I have explained, amounts to green Marxism and collectivisation, and the suppression of individualism, then pray a Moses comes to lead me to it, please..!!!

Nucbuddy

Spasbona wrote: meaningful consensus amongst its citizens

Are you sure that you are not talking about eco-socialism?

Decisions would be achieved [...] through consensus decision-making
Clee

spesbona writes:
Of course a lot of people do not like living in apartments and prefer to live in spaciously large detached suburban houses with big grounds. Although I believe this to be a wasteful and ultimately unsustainable lifestyle, good luck to those who can afford this option, and enjoy it while it lasts because it wont. Unless…..and unfortunately it is a big UÑLESS….low density citizens (LDC’s) expect high-density citizens (HDC´s) to subsidise their services

Ah well, there's the rub, and that's where we can agree to disagree. The subsidy exists and I expect it will continue to exist, even if you don't. And there are hundreds of billionnaires and there are millions of millionnaires. They'll be able to afford the non-arcology lifestyle. I doubt they'd care about saving a few thousands of dollars a year by not having a car, when some of them spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on to buy supercars, and millions on trips into space.

I'm sure there are many people who would love to live in arcologies, but considering how the square footage of the average house in the US has been increasing, I doubt that the majority of people in the US would be lining up.
As for individualists, in my limited experience, individualists and libertarians (not muslims or blacks) seem to be the people who most want to live in the boonies far away from their neighbors.

But hey, go ahead and live in your utopia. If the future proves your optimism to be more realistic than my pessimism, that'll be great. Until then, I'll see arcology as just one of many pieces in a mosaic that will form a solution.

Clee

Nucbuddy wrote:
Clee wrote: if oil prices fell through 1973 and have risen since then

The subject was gasoline, not oil,

Ah, well, I thought Julian Simon's topic was everything, natural resources, minerals, oil, food. Demand for oil (and not just gasoline) has increased.
I read at least the first seven chapters of his Ultimate Resource II and was very impressed, but felt something was missing. I've always wanted to read a rebuttle. So thank you Paul, eric, Ronald, Buddy, et. al. I still need to finish reading URII sometime.

Paul, Ronald, I'm now wondering... (and maybe you'd know),
did the demand for whale oil drop because a cheaper replacement just happened to be found? Or did the high price for whale oil cause people to look for a cheaper replacement and so they found one?

Buddy, the supply of the historical masterpieces increases.... in the form of forgeries ;-)

Ronald Brak

Did the demand for whale oil drop because a cheaper replacement just happened to be found? Or did the high price for whale oil cause people to look for a cheaper replacement and so they found one?

The production of whale oil peaked before kerosene took over for lighting, so it looks like the high price of whale oil caused people to find a substitute.

spesbona

Clee said And there are hundreds of billionnaires and there are millions of millionnaires. They'll be able to afford the non-arcology lifestyle. I doubt they'd care about saving a few thousands of dollars a year by not having a car,

I´m sure that if, or rather when, arcologies have finally replaced our grotesque wasteful sprawling "obecities" as the urban lifestyle of choice for most civilised people, there will still be many people living in the country, on farms and large rural spreads. But in the future this may become an increasingly dangerous option. Think of whats happening in South Africa. Oh, sorry, I forgot, your liberal-controlled media is painting that "democratic experiment" as a wonderful Mandelatopian multi-cultural success story. It is NOT..!!

Given the massive infusion of largely indigestible third-world cultures into western countries and their much higher propensity to give birth and commit crime, arcologies might become the only safe refuge from roving bands of brigands, just as a walled city was once upon a time.

Unlike previous waves of immigrants (mostly Christian Europeans and thus easily assimilable) this incursion is happening so fast that it is naive to hope that, given time, most of these can be happily assimilated into our societies. No, it is much more likely that they are going to "assimilate" us, or the less fortunate of us, by force or threat.

It is even more inconceivable to "hope" that a future white govt will wake up to what is going on, and deport them en-masse. So what is going to happen in 20-30 years time when, especially in some european countries, and long before then in many enclaves of those countries, they become the majority?

Well, its simple really - either we get rid of them or they get rid of us. But the most likely scenario is that "we" are going to have to effectively surrender large tracts of our countries to their "rule", and civilised people are going to have to retreat into their own secure enclaves. Hence the need for arcologies, over and above their resource and energy-saving credentials.

So it may well come to pass that, just as in past eras, most of the countryside between the "walled cities" (arcologies) will become a lawless "no-mans land".

averagejoe

Arcologies... more like SPAM in a can under some abusive oligarchy. Imagine the most tyrannical of the current homemoaners associations on steroids, that's what an arcology would be like. Sounds like a collectivist's wet dream repackaged under the guise of environmentalism. Still, if some people want to live in a nanny state community, I guess that's their business. I don't have a problem with that as long as it's not mandatory.

What I would like to see is more communities building bike paths and lanes for alternate vehicles like NEVs, bicycles, electric scooters, mopeds, etc. These kinds of alternate vehicles exist right now and are relatively affordable for those who choose to use them. A whole range of transportation options exist, we shouldn't fall into the trap of overly narrow thinking.

Clee

averagejoe writes:
What I would like to see is more communities building bike paths and lanes for alternate vehicles like NEVs, bicycles, electric scooters, mopeds, etc.

That would be nice, but considering this article on cheap cars, it reminds me that just a couple of decades ago, the roads in China were almost entirely filled with bicycles and some electric scooters, mopeds, etc. As cars have become more affordable in China, they are taking over the streets and it becomes increasingly unsafe to ride a bicycle. People maybe be switching to cars out of self defense. Well, that last sentence is pure speculation. A more likely explanation could be that people are switching to cars as a status symbol. Their No-Car days seem to have mixed results.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7007893.stm

averagejoe

Clee, when I mentioned bike paths, etc... I was thinking of dedicated routes that excluded regular car traffic. Maybe it's just me, but sidewalks and bike paths seem to improve the quality of life in a community. Perhaps I'm just indulging in some wishful thinking. Guess I'll have to start saving for a PHEV.

Nucbuddy

Nucbuddy wrote: Supply follows demand. Increases in demand cause increases in supply. Cheap cars ultimately mean lower gas prices.


Buddy Ebsen wrote: Nucbuddy, did you know that there is a huge demand for masterworks in art, such as da Vinci's or Rembrandt's paintings? Yes, people are willing to bid millions at auction for these commodities.

Surely the supply of these historical masterworks will increase soon to make up this shortfall?

juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR20.txt

We can clarify conservation issues by distinguishing among the following: (1) Unique resources, which are one of a kind or close to it, and which we value for aesthetic purposes; examples include the Mona Lisa, an Arthur Rubenstein concert or a Michael Jordan basketball game, and some species of animals. (2) One-of-a-kind resources that we value as historical artifacts; examples include the original U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Abraham Lincoln's first log cabin (if it exists), and perhaps the Mona Lisa. (3) Resources that can be reproduced or recycled or substituted for, and that we value for their material uses; examples include wood pulp, trees, copper, oil, and food. Categories 1 and 2 are truly "non renewable" resources, but contrary to common belief, category 3 resources (including oil) are all renewable.

This chapter deals mainly with resources in category 3, those we value primarily for their uses. These are the resources whose quantities we can positively influence. That is, these are the resources for which we can calculate whether it is cheaper to conserve them for future use, or use them now and obtain the services that they provide us in some other way in the future. The benefits we get from the resources in the other categories - the Mona Lisa or Lincoln's log cabin - cannot be adequately replaced, and hence the economist cannot determine whether conservation is economically worthwhile. The value of a Mona Lisa or a disappearing breed of snail must be what we as a society collectively decide is the appropriate value, a decision upon which market prices may or may not shed some light.


Marv is Saving Gas $

Thaks for sharing all these thoughts and resources. There is a solution somewhere. Now that we're all awake to the severity of the situation - a solution is forthcoming for sure. Some guys is Cali have propose an age old solution that still works -AND people pay 1/2 than normal for gas. See how they do it at http://urlhawk.com/GasMoney

Car Loans

Interesting article. Any idea on where I can get more information on this?

jakcrerv

Thank.but its no like.

UK Car Dealers

An interesting insight. They're already anticipating possible problem that might arise in the future with the introduction of smaller and cost efficient cars.

NYK007

Hi guys,

What a wonderful site along with nice article. Thanks

NYK
New Cars

NYK007

Hi guys,

This is a nice site. Thanks

NYK
New Cars

Cheap used cars

Nice information about cheap cars. i need cheap car not alot of money please because i have a limited amount...please email me and keep in contact if you do.

Cars for sale Philippines

Well, sometimes cars really consume Higher Gas Prices, but it also depends on the gas that you used before.

-seff-

car for rent philippines

Yeah! but My father always rent a cheap cars for rent and he used cheap gas so he can save more money.

-filicity-

Ford Escape

Interesting article, thanks!

ワン

中古DVD
中古DVD
中古DVD
アニメDVD
アダルトDVD
アダルトDVD
アダルト画像
サンプル動画
ヒップホップ
映画DVD
FAプロ
韓国ドラマ
イ・ボヨン
浅尾リカ

Van Sales

I visited this blog first time and found it very interesting and informative.. Keep up the good work thanks..

cheap computer

I have got the experience when ever i have got cheap car i have to spent a lot money on gas and on other car equipment which should be exchanged every 6 months. Think before you buy cheap car.

Dentist Seattle

It is so disappointing how the electric care has been suppressed by the ultra-wealthy elitist. This car could have great effects for our environment, foreign oil dependency, and way of life.

khurshid alam khan

thankyou,
==============================================
I like Take the USA. Surely 300 million individuals under a single government,
Compare Cheap Loans

scoremorecredit

did the high price for whale oil cause people to look for a cheaper replacement? did they found one as a replacement?

Reduce Electricity Bill With Earth Grounding

It's time to save energy and save the earth too. Do you know that you can save money on your gas by applying tricks to improve car air conditioner performance (without additional freon). Source: http://www.unique-stuff.co.cc/reduce_electricity_bill_with_earth_grounding.html

Cheap used cars Buying

It is true that cheap care consumes more gasoline as compare to other cars. This cars produces lots of air pollution which is very harmful for health and earth.

Merchant Account Seattle

Great information here!

The comments to this entry are closed.

. .




Batteries/Hybrid Vehicles

Peak Oil