Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

[Jay]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

I think building needed infrastructure is possible, but we're going to see even more erosion of personal liberty before it can occur.

If NIMBY can keep out power plants, I posit that much more drastic measures are needed before booting out tens of thousands of homeowners to make way for light rail/subway tracks.

Similarly draconian measures would be needed to reduce the numbers of cars on the road - simultaneous with teardown of single family standalone homes to be replaced with large Soviet style housing blocks.

Then there's the whole metering issue - there are still many areas where water isn't metered.

Besides shooting all the lawyers, there are many steps still needed before all this future potential mass transit/conservation benefit can be sown/reaped.

Once this downswing is in full bloom, I see eminent domain as it relates to infrastructure as the new front page issue. It will take a full blown economic calamity to push through major projects (that China can force through right now with a stick if it wants, i.e. the Yangtze dam) and some good old "let's do it for the good of America!" sentiment, and that's probably where we are headed.

[GRG55]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

While the U.S. is vast in comparison to European countries, it is less a issue of sheer size and more a issue of urban/city planning (city design). Look at America's metro areas with a more european design like NYC, Boston, Chicago and Philly. Densely packed with mass transit, everything in walking distance and far more efficient on energy and water distribution. Now lets contrast that with places like Atlanta, Miami or Fort Lauderdale. All the above mentioned, for the most part, have ignorned intelligent city planning and instead focused on a more spraweled out design. This means inefficient use of resources and it inhibits the ability to plan meaningful mass transit design. For example, Miami and Fort Lauderdale are trying to design mass transit systems right now. Problem is, business are not centered in particular areas so moving people to places of work is a nightmare. Then couple that with the fact the city centers do not have a lot of living space around them. So for those that do work in the city center they have to commute from the utter 'burbs. It is also unfriendly to the citizen in terms of bicycling, walking and mass transit. If cities across the country would have adopted a NYC sort of design from the beginning, I believe this upcoming transition would have been far easier than what it is going to be.

I would dispute that it has anything to do with "intelligent city planning" or "European design". The core of the older cities in North America were developed before the widespread availability of automobiles [as were all the great cities in the Old World]. They had to be compact and "more efficient" because the mode of transportation (other than walking) was largely electric street trolleys and horse-power (literally). Even in the early part of the 20th century the newer cities in the west of the continent continued the pattern of the most dense development (apartments, etc.) occurring first parallel to the street car routes radiating out from downtown.

The "newer" cities, especially in regions where economic growth was chronically subdued (and Atlanta may be an example) successfully obliterated much of the evidence of these early patterns during the 1950's/60's when "urban redevelopment" became fashionable and old neighbourhoods on edge of downtown were ploughed up and residents displaced en mass to make room for freeways and the occasional govt. housing project (remember proponents describing it as "slum clearing" while opponents characterized "urban renewal" as "urban removal"?).

Separately, do not underestimate the issue of the sheer size of the continent/country. A quick look at the statistics for travel within the USA during the annual Thanksgiving holiday gives an excellent indication of my point. People travel vast distances in the USA without ever leaving the country. There is no equivalent in Europe (unless you include Russia in Europe), and no amount of intelligent planning or mass transit design within US or Canadian cities is going to alter that contrast between North America and Europe.

Years ago I read an interview with Kihachiro Kawashima, the first manager of Honda's American sales branch established in 1959. He spoke about criss-crossing the USA seeking dealers for the small motorcycles Honda then manufactured, and being completely overcome with how vast the country was. He said he could not understand how the Japanese government ever expected to defeat a nation with the resources of America.

[Wild Style]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

I would dispute that it has anything to do with "intelligent city planning" or "European design". The core of the older cities in North America were developed before the widespread availability of automobiles [as were all the great cities in the Old World]. They had to be compact and "more efficient" because the mode of transportation (other than walking) was largely electric street trolleys and horse-power (literally). Even in the early part of the 20th century the newer cities in the west of the continent continued the pattern of the most dense development (apartments, etc.) occurring first parallel to the street car routes radiating out from downtown.

The "newer" cities, especially in regions where economic growth was chronically subdued (and Atlanta may be an example) successfully obliterated much of the evidence of these early patterns during the 1950's/60's when "urban redevelopment" became fashionable and old neighbourhoods on edge of downtown were ploughed up and residents displaced en mass to make room for freeways and the occasional govt. housing project (remember proponents describing it as "slum clearing" while opponents characterized "urban renewal" as "urban removal"?).

Separately, do not underestimate the issue of the sheer size of the continent/country. A quick look at the statistics for travel within the USA during the annual Thanksgiving holiday gives an excellent indication of my point. People travel vast distances in the USA without ever leaving the country. There is no equivalent in Europe (unless you include Russia in Europe), and no amount of intelligent planning or mass transit design within US or Canadian cities is going to alter that contrast between North America and Europe.

Years ago I read an interview with Kihachiro Kawashima, the first manager of Honda's American sales branch established in 1959. He spoke about criss-crossing the USA seeking dealers for the small motorcycles Honda then manufactured, and being completely overcome with how vast the country was. He said he could not understand how the Japanese government ever expected to defeat a nation with the resources of America.

I see what you are saying, however we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Densely populated cities, intelligent growth and mass transit would make a world of difference. Tie metro areas together via commuter trains to solve the city to city travel. What we have in America is a mismanagement of resources.

Speaking of Atlanta, while I was in Nashville a few months back they had a special on water shortages in Georgia. They sited sprawl and poor city design as one of the main contributers.

Anyway, I am from NYC originally and now live in South Florida. In NYC we never drove, always took mass transit or walked. Chicago where my wife is from, she never drove either, always took the train, bus or walked. Compare that with South Florida, where I travel 20 miles a day to and from work, without much choice. In my opinion, it would seem better city design given today's soaring energy crisis, would have made a HUGE difference across America. Say I live in Brooklyn, have a car and work in Manhattan. Gas hits 4 dollars, I park it and take the train bus or even bicycle it to work or where ever it is I am going. Contrast that with S. Florida, gas hits 4 bucks, I don't have much choice in many areas of this place.

Living in a densely populated areas means more options given intelligent urban planning is my point. Would make the transition a lot easier. Would make the solutions a lot easier as well. My wife knows one of the city planners in Hollywood Florida. His team is tasked with creating a mass transit solution for that place. The thing he mentioned as the biggest problem is how sprawled out that city is. He said they have to some how figure a way to get people to pack in closer to the city cores. This way it will be easier to get them to and from where they need to go. He said as it stands now, it is a logistical nightmare. He also mentioned business are not centralized, so that provides another headache.

The new fangled energy source they will move to will demand people buy new vehicles. Be that bio diesel or whatever. The state the economy will be in recovery mode once all this new tech comes online. Many people will not be able to buy new cars or whatever else they come up with. So they are going to need to rely on mass transit, bicycling and telecommuting as EJ has alluded to, many times.

I saw a show on Sundance channel a few weeks ago. They showed London, France and one other European city (I forget the name). Showed the solutions they have come up with to combat high energy prices. That is when it became abundantly clear why we are at a disadvantage in the present situation.

I do appreciate our country is far larger than most in Europe. I also recognize why many of these cities have been laid out the way they are now. However, I also recognize these design issues only exacerbate the problem.

[GRG55]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

I see what you are saying, however we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Densely populated cities, intelligent growth and mass transit would make a world of difference. Tie metro areas together via commuter trains to solve the city to city travel. What we have in America is a mismanagement of resources.

Speaking of Atlanta, while I was in Nashville a few months back they had a special on water shortages in Georgia. They sited sprawl and poor city design as one of the main contributers.

Anyway, I am from NYC originally and now live in South Florida. In NYC we never drove, always took mass transit or walked. Chicago where my wife is from, she never drove either, always took the train, bus or walked. Compare that with South Florida, where I travel 20 miles a day to and from work, without much choice. In my opinion, it would seem better city design given today's soaring energy crisis, would have made a HUGE difference across America. Say I live in Brooklyn, have a car and work in Manhattan. Gas hits 4 dollars, I park it and take the train bus or even bicycle it to work or where ever it is I am going. Contrast that with S. Florida, gas hits 4 bucks, I don't have much choice in many areas of this place.

Living in a densely populated areas means more options given intelligent urban planning is my point. Would make the transition a lot easier. Would make the solutions a lot easier as well. My wife knows one of the city planners in Hollywood Florida. His team is tasked with creating a mass transit solution for that place. The thing he mentioned as the biggest problem is how sprawled out that city is. He said they have to some how figure a way to get people to pack in closer to the city cores. This way it will be easier to get them to and from where they need to go. He said as it stands now, it is a logistical nightmare. He also mentioned business are not centralized, so that provides another headache.

The new fangled energy source they will move to will demand people buy new vehicles. Be that bio diesel or whatever. The state the economy will be in recovery mode once all this new tech comes online. Many people will not be able to buy new cars or whatever else they come up with. So they are going to need to rely on mass transit, bicycling and telecommuting as EJ has alluded to, many times.

I saw a show on Sundance channel a few weeks ago. They showed London, France and one other European city (I forget the name). Showed the solutions they have come up with to combat high energy prices. That is when it became abundantly clear why we are at a disadvantage in the present situation.

I do appreciate our country is far larger than most in Europe. I also recognize why many of these cities have been laid out the way they are now. However, I also recognize these design issues only exacerbate the problem.

If one starts with the premise that the "solution" is mass transit, then quite naturally urban sprawl makes that solution more difficult and expensive; especially to retrofit.

How are you going to apply mass transit, or even interurban trains in North Dakota?. Or Nebraska? Or Wyoming? Or Prince George, B.C.? The idea that the current transportation energy cost problem would be "easier to solve" if the USA [and Canada] had just modelled itself completely like NY or a European city is oversimplistic.

Every transition from a "crisis" in the USA or Canada inevitably brings out editorials that "resources have been mismanaged". I don't know about the USA, but in Canada the very next sentence is that more government rules, regulations and taxes [and, of course, civil servants] are needed to reverse the "failure of the market" and to prevent any such disaster from every happening again. Call me a cynic, but I have little patience for that sort of hand wringing.

[jk]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

ej's model of the housing bust has the price reduction wave moving centripetally, and then the stabilization centrifugally. city centers are becoming more desirable as transportation costs rise. we can expect increased gentrification. "inner-city" will come to have a different meaning. in general we should expect the middle class, or as much of it as remains, to reverse its prior movement to the suburbs, and to repopulate the inner cities. [this might take the form of generational turnover- young people who start their careers living and working in the cities will be less likely to move to the suburbs when they start families. their parents will retire, and not need to commute.] peripheral areas will have to become the domain of the rich on the one hand, and the poor and the retired on the other - the former who can afford gas, whatever the price, the latter unemployed and in no need of commuting.

[Wild Style]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

ej's model of the housing bust has the price reduction wave moving centripetally, and then the stabilization centrifugally. city centers are becoming more desirable as transportation costs rise. we can expect increased gentrification. "inner-city" will come to have a different meaning. in general we should expect the middle class, or as much of it as remains, to reverse its prior movement to the suburbs, and to repopulate the inner cities. [this might take the form of generational turnover- young people who start their careers living and working in the cities will be less likely to move to the suburbs when they start families. their parents will retire, and not need to commute.] peripheral areas will have to become the domain of the rich on the one hand, and the poor and the retired on the other - the former who can afford gas, whatever the price, the latter unemployed and in no need of commuting.

this is exactly my point and highlights what I have been trying to say. This is a correction process where city cores become more dense. We start to see infill, new urbanism etc.

On the flip side, suburbs may turn into ghettos where those without money (ex middle class) are stuck in the burbs and those with the means move to city cores. Some burbs may become ghost towns, slums or potential farm land (hydroponic farms feeding the metro area). Or as you have pointed out they could become retirement villages.

[GRG55]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

this is exactly my point and highlights what I have been trying to say. This is a correction process where city cores become more dense. We start to see infill, new urbanism etc...

This is NOT a new trend, allegedly brought about by high commuting costs. Cities like Houston, Texas have been experiencing a revitalization of their inner core for two decades; a period of steadily declining fuel prices (until just recently that is). By whatever measure, restaurants, number of art galleries, live theatre or chi-chi loft conversions, there has been a steady increase in the density of residents living in or near downtown (20 years ago the Houston downtown was a ghost town after work hours). I doubt Houston is unique.

Perhaps increasing fuel and commuting costs will accelerate that trend (that you label it a "correction process" speaks volumes ), but the jury is still out on that. The main deterrent will be the same as always...living space in or near downtown sells for a considerable premium, the range of services, such as schools, is limited, and the change in lifestyle far to great for most people's tastes. That's why the overwhelming majority of people will still spend more than an hour a day, each way, commuting on the train from suburbs like Flossmore to the Chicago Loop. Or driving from the Woodlands to downtown Houston.
http://www.flossmoor.org/
http://www.thewoodlands.com/

Just so there's no misunderstanding, my wife and I do not have children and therefore, for many years, had the luxury of living an 18 minute walk to my downtown office (until I left North America to move overseas). I am well experienced with both the considerable advantages and also the disadvantages of inner city urban living (including the marriage-stressing passtime of lovingly restoring an ancient inner-city home, on a tight budget, while living in it).

On the flip side, suburbs may turn into ghettos where those without money (ex middle class) are stuck in the burbs and those with the means move to city cores. Some burbs may become ghost towns, slums or potential farm land (hydroponic farms feeding the metro area). Or as you have pointed out they could become retirement villages.

There is no doubt that many new(er) suburbs, especially those built during the housing bubble, will not age gracefully. The tacky, badly designed (often pretentious), poorly constructed (out of pressed oatmeal panels to quote comedian Dave Barry) housing subdivisions deserve to become ghettos and bulldozed - this might be the one thing with which I agree with James Kunstler.

Despite this the "death" of the classic American suburb is grossly exaggerated.

Maybe we should substitute "oil" for "sun" in the strip below?

[Wild Style]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

This is NOT a new trend, allegedly brought about by high commuting costs. Cities like Houston, Texas have been experiencing a revitalization of their inner core for two decades; a period of steadily declining fuel prices (until just recently that is). By whatever measure, restaurants, number of art galleries, live theatre or chi-chi loft conversions, there has been a steady increase in the density of residents living in or near downtown (20 years ago the Houston downtown was a ghost town after work hours). I doubt Houston is unique.

Perhaps increasing fuel and commuting costs will accelerate that trend (that you label it a "correction process" speaks volumes ), but the jury is still out on that. The main deterrent will be the same as always...living space in or near downtown sells for a considerable premium, the range of services, such as schools, is limited, and the change in lifestyle far to great for most people's tastes. That's why the overwhelming majority of people will still spend more than an hour a day, each way, commuting on the train from suburbs like Flossmore to the Chicago Loop. Or driving from the Woodlands to downtown Houston.
http://www.flossmoor.org/
http://www.thewoodlands.com/

Just so there's no misunderstanding, my wife and I do not have children and therefore, for many years, had the luxury of living an 18 minute walk to my downtown office (until I left North America to move overseas). I am well experienced with both the considerable advantages and also the disadvantages of inner city urban living (including the marriage-stressing passtime of lovingly restoring an ancient inner-city home, on a tight budget, while living in it).



There is no doubt that many new(er) suburbs, especially those built during the housing bubble, will not age gracefully. The tacky, badly designed (often pretentious), poorly constructed (out of pressed oatmeal panels to quote comedian Dave Barry) housing subdivisions deserve to become ghettos and bulldozed - this might be the one thing with which I agree with James Kunstler.

Despite this the "death" of the classic American suburb is grossly exaggerated.

Maybe we should substitute "oil" for "sun" in the strip below?

I see what you did there. Well, time will tell

[Guest]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

I lived in Italy in the mid 1990's in rural Tuscany (farming country). Everyone drove methane converted vehicles, and the cost was dirt cheap - I mean really realy cheap, like 4 or 5 cents per mile in a economy (EU economy class) 2 litre engine. Fiat has been making ultra light tiny FIAT 500's for the past 50 years, and they are real gas sippers as it's only a HALF LITRE engine. In the 1990's they developed the FIAT PANDA, a successor to the FIAT 500 that was available in a four wheel drive version. I have driven in wet, cold, icy muddy winter, in a tiny four wheel drive PANDA with a half litre engine, up the steepest and most horribly rutted mountain dirt tracks, with a load of five people piled into the car (going boar hunting). They get over ruts, giant stones and potholes in the road far better than any other car as they have a tiny, ultra short wheelbase. These vehicles are unstoppable on rough terrain and surprisingly sturdy under loads.

The new version are coming out squarely addressing the fuel cost issues. They are coming out with hybrid versions, diesel versions, methane versions, a hydrogen powered version, and hybrid combinations of the above. These cars, the methan version for example, have a cost per mile that is probably HALF the above 2 litre car conversions? What does that work out to? 2 cents per mile? And they can tour long distance all day long at 70 MPH? The technology and refining of this concept for FIAT is old hat. They have been doing this for decades. Clearly, this entire conversation about uprooting entire nations away from the suburbs so that they can be regrouped around dense urban cores is totally off base. The cost benefit analysis of simply walking away from a multi trillion dollar global legacy of suburban infrastructure into some "Flash Gordon" inspired new urban cores makes no financial sense. What an energy crisis will command instead is the roll out of individual transport such as companies like FIAT pioneered. Today's PANDA car, obtaining 3 cents per mile running on methane, will average roughly the same cost as a mid-size sedan does today, when gasoline rises to cost $20 per gallon.

Now which option will governments and individuals elect in a world of $20 a gallon gasoline - to simply scrap multi-trillion dollar legacy infrastructure and go build equivalent infrastructure from scratch into massively dense urban cores, or to refine concepts such as the PANDA car and keep the world mobile?

Talking about the abandonment of the entire world's suburban infrastructure has a quaint sort of quality, like Jules Verne era readers all agog contemplating the flying machines of today. The thinking needs to depart from what is already there, and extrapolate what will be least traumatic for society to attempt. If we spent 100 years building it all outwards, we'll damn well put on the full court press to develop vehicles that simply stride right over that problem, before we Calvinistically "tear down all our suburbs" to start hydroponic farms. There have been plenty of people out there working on renewable methane fuel solutions that work out to between 3 cents and 10 cents per gallon. Anyone suggesting the world won't find a way to leverage solutions like methane, together with cars like the PANDA to keep people commuting out to our multi-trillion dollar housing stock is looking at the near future through the wrong end of the telescope. At least such solutions will be much more likely implemented for a 20 year transition period than would the abandonment of suburbia.

Here: Renewable methane from ordinary compost = 3 cents a gallon (crackpot mad looking inventor working out of a woodshed in Devonshire, CA 1975! ). Plus the world has innumerable other sources of methane as byproducts of our existing industry and agriculture. Plus there is a good deal more natural gas in the world than dwindling petroleum. At very least, it would appear the natural gas vehicle scaled down as FIAT designs them can buy us a precious extra 20 years of individual transport. Americans have a whole new concept of "car" barrelling down at them. At a certain point they will just have to "hold their noses" and buy one.

http://www.truehealth.org/methane2.html

___________

2006 FIAT PANDA MULTI-ECO CONCEPT CAR -

Since its divorce and cash-paid settlement with General Motors, Fiat has done some serious thinking about the future. After a near-death brush with accountants, the brand has moved well ahead, bouncing back from the sorry state it was in just a year ago with several new products for the Fiat brand and its luxury/performance subsidiary, Alfa Romeo, destined to enter North America by 2008.

One of the key vehicles behind the Italian firms rejuvenation is the Panda, a city car so impressive that it bowled over judges, winning European Car of the Year back in 2004 when it debuted. Though it is powered by an assortment of engines suitable for small kitchen appliances, Fiats

The Fiat Panda MultiEco is the latest in a long lineup of Panda-based concepts. (Photo: Fiat S.p.A.)

think big motto and practicality strong-card helped this tall, boxy, but extremely affordable Panda put young Europeans on wheels.

Given its outright popularity, Fiat has explored different themed routes with the Panda. The companys first modification was to allow the little machine to head for the hills by jacking up the suspension, fitting it with a torquey MultiJet diesel motor and a lightweight all-wheel drive system. The result? A Panda at home in the wilderness. Fiat also added some colorful

Fiat CrossPanda Climbing: Not a verb, but a trim level. (Photo: Fiat S.p.A.)

cladding and some new bodywork, spot lamps and a safari-style roofrack system to the Panda 4X4, and called it the Simba Concept. It was such a successful prototype that Fiat decided to produce it, giving it the name PandaCross. Its an appropriately cute name for such a cute vehicle.

In more recent times, Fiat has become more serious about the environment; this years Geneva Show served as a platform from which the brand launched a variety of new alternative fuel technologies, including a prototype hydrogen-powered Panda, a near-production methane-powered Panda, and this, the Panda MultiEco.

As

Hydrogen-powered Panda gives light for an even greener Panda. (Photo: Fiat S.P.A.)

the name suggests, the MultiEco lumps together Fiats advancements in the environmental powertrain department. The MultiEco uses the fundamentals of the methane-powered Panda and combines it with other existing ecological engine technologies. By the way, methane-powered cars arent anything new; in terms of the automotive world, methane fuel is natural gas, also known as CNG, a cleaner fuel than petrol. Coincidentally, the MultiEco runs on methane, one of the primary emissions of the black-and-white, bamboo-eating Panda. All silliness aside, what the MultiEco brings to the table is a new engine thats able to run on gasoline, CNG, or a mix of the two, and in the near future, hydrogen will be added to that list.
Lightweight panels help to stretch the MultiEcos range to 217 miles. (Photo: Fiat S.P.A.) />Built on a modular and flexible chassis with a tall body, the Panda was an easy conversion to natural-gas power. Its frame allowed for two new tanks - one longitudinally, one transversely - to be fitted giving it a capacity of 13 gallons, without detracting from the interior volume or cargo space in any way whatsoever. The MultiEcos powerplant is a converted version of the Pandas FIRE (Fully Integrated Robotized Engine), featuring a new belt-operated starter (BAS). This innovative starter-alternator provides instantaneous starts for the idle-stop mode, and is a similar system to that used in hybrids.

Before the Pandas green-generated power hits the front wheels, it is mated to a robotized clutchless manual gearbox, similar to the unit found in the smart fortwo. This style of transmission combines the

Silly looking CrossPanda is actually very capable off-road. (Photo: Fiat S.P.A.)

power and efficiency of a manual with the convenience of an automatic, without the third pedal of the former or the energy-sapping torque converter of the latter.
To make the most out of these incremental changes, Fiat has improved the Pandas exterior by ways of material and styling. Using recyclable thermoplastics to replace standard steel body panels, lightweight seats plus carbon-fiber and steel for the fuel tanks, Fiat shaved an impressive 202 lbs off the curb weight of its production contemporary.

To further enable the car to reach its claimed 217-mile range, the Pandas body spent some time in the windtunnel, yielding more aerodynamically efficient bumpers, mirrors and other extremities. Of course, to give it a bit of glamor for its Geneva debut, the car was finished in pastel blue paint scheme with unique blue-tinted headlamps and tail lamps. The Panda MultiEco also rides on low-rolling

The MultiEco Panda emits 42 percent less CO2 gas, and is some 63 percent cheaper to run per mile than this, a regular Panda. (Photo: Fiat S.P.A.)

resistance tires with a new compound developed by Pirelli that reduces energy loss, but provides consistent grip in wet and dry conditions.

The Panda MultiEco doesnt so much bring anything new to the game of green automobiles, as it perfects existing mechanical know-how. The combined efforts of Fiat allow the MultiEco to cut its carbon dioxide emissions by up to 42 percent as compared to the gasoline version, which is roughly equal to 5.3 oz/mile. For comparison, a 2.0-liter gasoline-powered compact car (e.g. a VW Golf or Ford Focus) emits around 10.5 oz/mile. Further benefits of natural gas include cleaner emissions than gasoline, and the reduced cost of natural gas means that the MultiEco is roughly 63 percent cheaper to run in relative costs per mile.

As was mentioned, the MultiEco is Fiats concept demonstrator vehicle for a milder, natural-gas/gasoline bi-fuel powered Panda that goes on sale later this year. Too bad that nothing like this will be available on our side of the Atlantic.

[World Traveler]

Buses: the short term solution

In the mid-90's, I spent some time in poorer South American countries of Ecuador and Peru. One of the things that made an impression on me was how people moved around. Like the U.S., they did not have good rail systems, and unlike the U.S., most were too poor to own cars.

Their answer - a lot of buses, in cities and between cities. If you needed to go somewhere, it was not that big a problem, you caught the next bus. Between cities, the bus systems were multi-layered - comfortable, new buses if you had money and uncomfortable but functional ones if you did not.

At least until cost-efficient alternatives to gasoline-based cars are available, I think the near-term solution to higher gas prices and America's suburban sprawl will be modelled on Houston's Park and Ride system, that is used to get people Downtown and back, during rush hour. It's optional and not really cheap, but...from your suburban house, you drive to a Park and Ride lot, where you park your car during the day and take a comfortable, air-conditioned bus to work.

There are multiple commercial centers in Houston, and Park and Ride system could be expanded to them, if price of gas went up enough.

Also, Houston does have a bus system for daily travel around the city and near suburbs. Right now, it's very incovenient, but if gas prices go up enough, the fleet could be expanded and more areas served with more frequent buses.

I was born and raised in Chicago, within 5 miles of downtown, then moved to Houston in my mid-20's and have lived here ever since, so I actually have comments on both.

Public transporation is great in Chicago, and efficiently, adequately covers entire city. I grew up in 50's and 60's, and even in midst of cheap gas era, a lot of people used public transportation because coverage was so good. If you were too far from the "L" (elevated train), you used the bus line.

Re: Grg's comments on expensive inner cities, I concur. Inner Houston has been increasingly gentrified and is now becoming the most expensive place to live (within 6 miles of downtown). Living there is not an option for a lot of people.

[bill]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

Redevelopment agencies in cities have powers of eminent domain, condemnation, rezone, grant tax incentives, issue attractive finance and manage. By creating redevelopment zones cities have experience growth usually with developers selected by city politicians. That said I see limitations of growth within these zones. One way to expand the area of potential inter city growth would be to convert inter city existing cargo rail to passenger rail, relocate inter city cargo train traffic to outer city intermodal logistic hubs. This is now happening and the trend is just getting started.
http://www.alliancetexas.com/Develop...3/Default.aspx
http://www.dallashub.com/
Read my post here as well http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...37017#poststop
Just google satellite
I find value in acquiring inter city single vacant lots or homes if you have the nerves to be a landlord. Take advantage of middle class migrating into lower class intercity communities and supply them with affordable housing with closer proximity to jobs. One example of what’s going on is here. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.467d3f2.html
The inventory is abundant.
http://www.hud.gov/homes/index.cfm

[World Traveler]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

This rail solution would work well for Chicago, it has a great rail system infrastructure that many suburban people have used for decades to commute into Chicago for their jobs. If eminent domain worked its magic, Chicago metroplex's railroads could be readily expanded to additional suburbs.

Houston, though, is another story. Houston is a city that began its frenetic growth after World War 2 and so has been designed for and grew up for a car-based lifestyle. It just doesn't have an adequate existing rail structure to build on. For a spreadout metropolitan area with a poor rail infrastructure, a spoke and wheel bus system that combined short car rides with longer bus rides would be a good interim solution.

[bill]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

It just doesn't have an adequate existing rail structure to build on.

Elevated rail,
if this place can get it done, anyone can
http://www.vnbusinessnews.com/2008/0...d-railway.html

http://www.transrapid.de/cgi-tdb/en/...825912&a_no=34
http://www.transrapid-usa.com/main.asp

[Slimprofits]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

necron's post reminded me of something i first read about in the whole earth catalog in the '70s! [dates me] COGENERATION. i've always thought it incredibly stupid that i get heating oil, which is essentially identical to diesel fuel, delivered to my house and all i do is burn it for heat! an engine in the basement could be using it to generate electricity and to heat my home simultaneously.

The Germans are leading the way internationally and moving full-steam with ahead combined heat and power generation (CHP).

Combined heat and power generation - Deutsche Bank Research

To use fuels more efficiently in future the share of CHP-based power production is to be raised from around 12% in overall electricity generation in Germany at present to about 25% by 2020. These are the targets of the proposals to amend the CHP Act (KWKG) passed in 2002 and to adjust the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) in 2009.

[GRG55]

Re: Gasoline still dirt cheap in the USA

The Germans are leading the way internationally and moving full-steam with ahead combined heat and power generation (CHP).

Combined heat and power generation - Deutsche Bank Research

Leading the way, huh? No surprise a German investment bank would be pushing research about how the Germans are so far ahead of the rest of us.

Have a look at the dates of the very small sample of North American projects below. You'll see that cogeneration has been around for quite a while (the first Canadian CHP project I could find on record was in Sarnia in 1962), continues to improve like any technology, and continues to be implemented.

I realize that the Germans have good and valid reasons to be proud of their "green" credentials, but they aren't as "far ahead" as everyone [including the UN IPCC] would prefer us to believe.


Cory Cogeneration Project

In May 2000, ATCO Power Ltd. and SaskPower International Inc. announced a partnership to build a world-leading 260-megawatt natural gas-fired, cogeneration power plant at the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.'s (PCS) Cory Mine outside Saskatoon.

The cogeneration plant co-owned by ATCO and SaskPower International, features leading-edge technology. The plant will operate mostly in highly efficient cogeneration mode, a process that allows it to generate steam and electrical power from the same energy source. The plant is also capable of operating in straight combined-cycle mode, a process that combines a natural-gas turbine and a steam turbine to generate only electricity.


The plant consists of two natural gas-fuelled combustion turbines and generators. The exhaust gases from each gas turbine is sent through a waste heat recovery boiler to produce steam. This steam is used to power a steam turbine as well as provide all of PCS Cory’s steam requirements.

The Cory cogeneration plant's 'state-of-the-art' design enables it to generate electricity with minimal effect on the environment. Both of the gas turbines and heat recovery steam generators are equipped with low NOx combustors to minimize impacts. The Cory cogeneration station turns between 55% and 70% of the natural gas’s potential energy into electricity and steam - compared to an average of 35% achieved by conventional power stations - while emissions of "greenhouse" gases are only about one-third of a similarly sized coal-fired power station. As well, further reduction in "greenhouse" gases will be realized as PCS will no longer be using direct-fired boilers to produce steam.

ATCO Power is involved in several cogeneration projects including Joffre, Primrose, McMahon, Bulwer Island, Heathrow, Osborne, Rainbow, Scotford, Muskeg River and Cory. In these projects, a gas turbine turns an electrical generator. The hot exhaust gas from the turbine is captured in a heat recovery boiler where the heat is converted to steam. The steam is used in an adjacent process.


TransAlta and Air Liquide Canada Cogeneration Project in Fort Saskatchewan Goes Ahead

Business Wire, Sept 16, 1998

CALGARY, Alberta--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 16, 1998-- TransAlta(TSE:TA.) (ME:TA.) (Alberta Stock Exchange:TA.) Regulatory approvals and signed contracts pave the way for TransAlta and Air Liquide Canada Inc. to start construction of a $90 million cogeneration plant at Dow Chemical Canada's Fort Saskatchewan facility in September.

"Plans are going ahead to build this project and get it running by the end of next year," says Dawn Farrell, TransAlta's executive vice president of Independent Power Projects. "The facility will provide power for Dow and free up additional power to help address the growing electricity demand in Alberta."

The facility will produce 120 megawatts of electricity and 100 tonnes of steam per hour. The project recently received approval from the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environmental Protection.

TransAlta and Air Liquide have now signed contracts with Dow which will allow construction to begin on Dow Chemical Canada's existing petrochemical site in Fort Saskatchewan. The project, which will be owned and operated by a joint venture between TransAlta and Air Liquide, is expected to be operational by November 1999.

"This cogeneration project is an example of the innovative global solutions we offer our customers to optimize their electrical and steam requirements, improve their industrial performance and help them protect the environment," states Don Murdock, general manager, Tonnage Business, Air Liquide Canada.


Whitby Cogeneration Project - Whitby, Ontario, Canada


First Rolls-Royce Trent Power Plant
The Whitby Cogeneration Plant was the first industrial application of the Westinghouse packaged Rolls Royce Trent 50 MW gas turbine/generator set.
Plant Location:
Whitby, Ontario, Canada

Commercial Operation Start:
January 1997

Plant Description:
Rolls-Royce Trent
IST Once-Thru HRSG
No Steam Turbine

Plant Owners:
WestCoast Power
Atlantic Packaging




Cogeneration project set to begin


Dave Hall, Windsor Star

Published: Saturday, September 29, 2007

Construction is expected to begin within weeks on a $212-million cogeneration plant adjacent to Ford Motor Company's old powerhouse on the city's near east side.

The East Windsor Cogeneration Centre, a joint project of Pristine Power Inc. and Fort Chicago Energy Partners, both of Calgary, is expected to begin producing 84 megawatts of power by summer 2009.

The new power plant is expected to make the automaker's engine plant more competitive and environmentally friendly.

The project resulted from a bid process conducted by the Ontario Power Authority which has seen plants capable of producing 400 megawatts of power built or approved in recent months.

Provincial Energy minister Dwight Duncan said another 600 megawatts will be awarded during the next round of bidding.
"This plant is good for the environment and will provide more efficient, less expensive power for Ford which will help keep them more competitive," said Duncan.

Power generated by the plant will be fed into Hydro One's grid when Ontario's power demand peaks.




BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Project



Date permit application received:

• June 19, 2002.

Name of the facility:

• BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Project

Location:

• Northwestern Whatcom County, 7 miles southeast of Blaine, Washington.

Distance from the US/Canada border:

• 8 miles

Type/size of the facility:

• The proposed 750 megawatt cogeneration project will be located adjacent to the existing BP Cherry Point petroleum refinery. BP proposes to construct three GE 7FA combustion turbines in combined-cycle mode. Each heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) will be equipped with a duct burner. One common steam turbine and electric generator will serve all three power trains. Steam and electricity from the cogeneration project will be provided to the refinery.

Muskeg River Mine Cogeneration Station
The MRM Cogeneration Station is a 170-MW cogeneration facility, located at the Muskeg River Mine, 75 kms north of Fort McMurray and is part of the Athabasca Oil Sands Project (AOSP), owned by Shell Canada Limited (60%); Chevron Canada Limited (20%); and Western Oil Sands L.P. (20%).

The MRM Cogeneration Station is owned 30% by SaskPower International and 70% by ATCO Power.

The plant operates in a highly efficient cogeneration mode, which is the simultaneous production of electricity and steam from a single fuel source using combustion gas turbines and heat recovery steam generators.

The plant consists of two natural gas fuelled combustion turbines and generators. The exhaust gas from each gas turbine are sent through a waste heat recover boiler to produce steam that is used in the mine's bitumen extraction process. The Muskeg River Mine will use all the steam output from the cogeneration facility and about half of the power output, with the remaining power being sold into the Alberta power grid.

The MRM Cogeneration Station's design enables it to generate electricity with minimal effect on the environment. Both of the gas turbines are equipped with low NOx combustors to minimize the environmental impact of generating electricity. The MRM Cogeneration Station turns approximately 84% of the natural gas's potential energy into electricity and steam - compared to an average of 33% achieved by conventional power stations - while emissions of greenhouse gases are only about one-third of a similarly sized coal-fired power station.



Capacity

• 170 megawatts

Equipment

• Two GE 7EA gas-fired turbine and generator sets with low nitrous oxide burners
• Two heat recovery steam generators with supplemental heat injection.
• Two standby auxiliary gas-fired boilers.
• Associated control equipment

Highlights

• Mine uses about 50% of electric energy generated. Balance is sold into Power Pool of Alberta.

Commercial Operations

• January 2003

Ownership

• SaskPower International Inc. - 30%
• ATCO Group- 70%

Beacancour combined heat and power (CHP), Trois-Rivieres, Quebec
http://cdeamap.navlar.com/cases/beacancour.pdf



The Thorold Cogeneration Plant
24 Sep 2007
http://www.northlandpower.ca/downloa...24%20Final.pdf