As gas prices hover somewhere between $3.65 and $4.50 (depending upon where you are and what you buy), and all manner of schemes, plans, and programs are discussed for reacting to that, there’s a simple question:
There’s no question that America has substantial untapped oil reserves: in Alaska, off the shore, under the Great Plains. And new technologies may make recovering even more of this affordable, even at sub-$100/barrel prices. At $125/barrel and above, we’ve definitely got more oil we could be extracting.
But of course, that comes with a price: damage to the environment and treating the symptoms without addressing the disease. Like a junkie facing withdrawal who simply scores more of his chosen poison, we’d simply be feeding our addition, not dealing with it.
So, to drill or not to drill? That’s the question for you all.
Oh, that and the obvious follow-up: whether we drill or not, what else do we do? If you’re pro-drilling, you’ve still got to face that we’re just delaying things. If you’re anti-drilling, you’ve still got to face that spiraling fuel prices lead to poverty and even death for real live people.
So, either way, what do we do after deciding to drill, or not to drill?
May 14, 2008 at 12:04 pm
The best part about not drilling is that it allows us to retain a strategic oil reserve for free… As to how to address the power problem, the answer involves lots of uranium, but that has it’s own issues (which I will detail in my next non-humor article).
May 14, 2008 at 2:01 pm
This really is a problem. I consider myself an environmentalist, but the dent in my wallet makes me think otherwise. I know I want to buy a hybrid to save on gas and the environment, but I cannot afford it. There really should be more rebates to help those of us who want more efficient cars but cannot afford them.
May 14, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Well, one thing that you (and all environmentalists) can do to help is to take a serious look at old technologies like nuclear fission, innovative technologies like snake drilling and deepwater oil drilling (start with Shell’s page on this), and new approaches like distributed power generation and algae biofuels.
No one thing is going to do the trick, and we’ll need bridge technologies even if renewables pan out. Right now, fission is the best and most environmentally responsible option, despite its drawbacks.
In the US, we get the vast bulk of our power from coal-fired plants.
Each year, these coal plants emit more radioactive isotopes into the air than our entire nuclear power industry uses (see this excellent discussion of the issue). Every coal plant replaced by a fission plant would reduce the consumption of nuclear fuels—not to mention storing that waste instead of simply spewing it into the environment!
At the same time we—and even more the developing world—will also need oil for the foreseeable future, so innovative ways to recover oil and minimize environmental impact need to be promoted. And that means working with, not against, Big Oil.
May 15, 2008 at 11:10 am
venturellak,
Affordability is a big problem with a lot of new technology, and certainly early-adopters accept a certain level of financial pain for the benefit of having the “cool new thing” or “for the cause” of helping establish a new technology as a common product.
Since cool new products are often failures, I’m hesitant to want to spend tax money on rebates for them. If special interests really believe that these cars will save the world, then they can fund the rebates with money they raise themselves. If a technology is important enough, it’s merits will demonstrate themselves, and there is no need for the government to prop up ideas with the hope that they will be the magical solution (hybrid cars, decades of ethanol production, Major League Baseball, etc)
For now, from a review of pure wallet cash flow, as a cash-strapped conservationist, you’re probably better off getting a non-hybrid and spending some of the money you’re saving on other conservationally-minded projects.
For instance, a new Prius will run you something like $21,760, but a new Corolla will be $15,865 – a difference of $5,895.
Driving 15K miles per year, the real-world gas prices look like $1,211/yr for the Prius and $1,925/yr for the Corolla – a difference of $714/yr. (at $3.72/gal for gas).
At that rate, it takes around 8.25 years to make up in gas savings what you lay out in the initial price of the car. My assumption is that maintenance for a Prius is also more expensive than for a Corolla.
Since a modern consumer is not likely to keep a car for over 8 years ( although a long life-cycle of a product is probably the best thing it can contribute to conservation ), you’re better off saving your money, and investing in a solar-power start-up or a nuclear power bond issue.
With any luck, by the time you want to replace your car in 3-4 years, you will have more savings and even more efficient cars to choose from as efficiency technology trickles down from the gadget cars into the common cars.
-AI
May 22, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Well, nobody will ever see this, I suppose, but foolish me, I’d forgotten than a fellow Angry Man had already discussed the nuclear vs. coal issue at length. So for any stalwart readers who have made it this far, make sure to check out AM’s excellent post.