In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes:

Well, if Jim (N2EY) doesn't mind me jumping in here ...

Not at all!

My own beliefs are that the free market is not necessarily the right place
for certain things. Would we have all of the nice communications satellites
if the government had not been in a space race with Russia (and spent many
billions of dollars)? Now, of course, it is moving into commercial market,
but without the government lead, I doubt we'd have nearly the communications
capability that we currently have.

Valid point! OTOH, do we really have a "free market" at all?

Consider transportation - the airlines didn't build the airports, or the air
traffic control system, or the weather service that reports on conditions at
flying altitudes. Nor did the bus and trucking industries build the interstates
or the bridges and tunnels. Construction of significant parts of the railroad
system was not funded by the railroads, nor were the canals and river systems.

The federal deficit is enormous; so is the imbalance of trade. I would
probably start (and get promptly voted out of the White House LOL) with
getting some experts and deciding and a good gasoline rationing plan (not
the odd/even stuff from the 70s).

You have identified two of our biggest problems: dependence on imported
petroleum products and the trade deficit.

Allow so many gallons per licensed driver in a household (no, you don't get
more because you have a truck, SUV, RV, two Jaguars and three motorcycles),
plus some additional for school age children. Take the numbers and come up
with a limit to reduce oil consumption by 10%. Each year, reduce it a bit
more. Some folks wouldn't use their allotment, and they'd be entitled to
turn it into an "open" account. They would receive cash equal to the
unpurchased gasoline. Anyone who wishes could purchase gasoline credits
from that account. The government would, of course, tack on about a 50%
tax, both to pay for this rationing plus bring a few extra dollars into the
treasury.

Over a few years, folks would be looking once again for fuel efficient
vehicles. If someone really wants to buy a Dodge Viper with a 500
horsepower 10 cylinder engine, they could. They could also expect to be
purchasing from that fund of unused gas rations (with the extra surcharge).
However, if we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 25 or 30
percent, we'd be in better shape (both in the trade balance department as
well as in better shape in case of an oil embargo).

I agree with the goal but not the method. The problem, as I see it, is that
there would be too many ways around the system for some people, and it would be
too bureaucratic. But the goal is right.

The Europeans and Japanese control oil consumption by taxing the fuel at the
pump, and then using the taxes to fund energy-efficient alternatives to the
private auto. That's why their transit systems are so pervasive and so popular:
they don't expect transit to make money or even pay for itself.

The big questions a how to reduce consumption without serious negative
economic effects on industries like agriculture? And how do we make the changes
permanent?

In a larger sense, overall energy policy needs to change. Which isn't going to
be popular, because it influences our way of life in all sorts of ways - more
fuel-efficient cars, less driving, more transit, more fuel-efficient homes and
businesses, living in denser communities with sidewalks and town centers rather
than in sprawl.

This isn't primarily a technological problem, it's an attitude and policy
problem. Gasoline is actually so inexpensive in the USA that it 'doesn't pay'
to conserve it. Example: Suppose you drive 15,000 miles a year. If you drive a
vehicle that gets 15 mpg, and you pay $2/gallon, your annual fuel cost is
$2000. A vehicle that gets 30 mpg saves you half that, but it's only $1000 a
year - less than $20/week. A 45 mpg vehicle saves you only $333 more. While
these costs aren't small, they are only a small part of the total cost of a
vehicle, when you look at car prices, insurance, repair/maintenance, etc. Plus
when you look at the effect of inflation, $2/gal gasoline today is less
expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars than $1/gal ~20 years ago.

Shrub talks about hydrogen power but doesn't explain where all the hydrogen is
supposed to come from. US carmakers push, and US drivers buy, SUVs rather than
cars, and the govt. reinforces the sales by classifying SUVs as "trucks".

Let us not kid ourselves, however. Currently, I believe we only produce 25%
of the oil we consume. I think it was a bit more than 50% back in the days
of the oil embargo.

From what I've read recently, back in the '70s we imported one-third and
produced two-thirds. Today it's the other way around.

It should be remembered that a lot of our imported oil comes from places like
Canada, Mexico and Nigeria, and not from the Middle East. The significance of
Middle East oil is two fold:

1) Oil companies are multinational, and aren't going to freeze, strand and
starve Western Europe so Americans can drive SUVs.

2) The big producers like SA have enormous influence on price.

This might be a reasonable place to start.

Yep. But it's not popular.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
ps - not going to start with the FCC auctioning of spectrum. That is crazy
enough, but doesn't help the foreign trade deficit.

Agreed!

73 de Jim, N2EY