Long commutes : Sustainable ?

[wsbca]

I decide what is and is not sustainable for me.

I think there are two different conversations going on here - obviously an individual can make choices based on their personal wealth, resources and circumstances. And obviously there are all kinds of special cases where an individual will make compromises in one area (eg. commute distance) to address issues in another area (available jobs, proximity to a family member that needs assistance - the list is endless).

The more general point is that some such choices don't scale to the world as a whole (or the country as a whole, if you want to limit it to that)- not even close. I don't think anyone can dispute that the finite resources we (humans, not just we lucky Americans) have available (in total) emphatically preclude every person on the plant having lifestyles like ours, or more specifically ones like those of us who are in a position to even be contemplating a purchase such as an electric vehicle. We've got a spectacular amount of flexibility in our choices and our personal available resources - there isn't enough of that to go around, I don't care how you do the math.

Whether it's an individual's responsibility or moral duty or whatever to scale back their own resource consumption to something closer to sustainable in that larger sense is a topic far beyond the scope of this or any other gadget-specific forum. As someone who tries very hard to have a low impact, I think, unfortunately, that there's no chance of me or anyone like me actually being able, given the structure of our society at present, to even come close to the reduction that would be necessary. But, one does what one can, or what one chooses to do.

This is going to be sorted out long after we are all dead and gone. It might work out OK, it might get ugly, it might be somewhere in between. It might take 10 years for it to get more obvious, it might take 100, it might take 1000. But let's not confuse personal choice (and/or microeconomics) with the laws of physics (and/or macroeconomics). Of course we can _each_ do whatever we want. We just can't necessarily _all_ do whatever we want. The 90 mile commute, for example, fails what I like to call the 'what if everyone did it test'. Not just because of the fuel...but the traffic, and mostly the time it takes. If _everyone_ in the labor force spent 2 hours in traffic every day, productivity would take a serious hit. That's the sense in which it is unsustainable. It doesn't mean some people some places in some circumstances won't have 90 minute commutes.

 

[Adrian]

Unfortunately ignorance is rampant.

I agree. Few people understand energy economics or EROI. Are you aware of peak oil ? If you think you know the solutions I'm sure DOD is all ears.

There is no silver bullet. It has to be a combination of multiple available technologies.

By the way, personal attacks while ignoring facts don't go very far with most objective people. Feel free to ignore everything I just said.

As far as peak oil, the peak changes based on price, something your friendly network news rarely elaborates on. It goes like this: the more you are willing to pay for it, more expensive technology can be used to obtain it. Again, see Fisher Tropsch, see Deep sea drilling, etc. As price goes up for energy, different technologies become feasible, including EVs.

Anyway, it's time for the honey do list, so Happy New Years!

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i have to agree that we are over-reacting to what i consider a pretty Innocent statement. a 90 mile commute is unsustainable. even if gas is a buck a gallon, its a finite source and the faster we suck it up the quicker we will run out. the real problem we have is in about 3-4 years the US will be #3 in auto sales behind China and India. but 87% of Americans who can drive already have a car. so buying more cars here only slightly increases consumption but only because we have more and more drivers every year.

but China, only around 10-15% who can drive, have a car. in India its less than 5 %. well, both countries are increasing the # of cars the buy by healthy double digit increases, but most of those cars are going to FIRST TIME BUYERS. this year China bought more cars than the US. that is the first time ever we came in 2nd.

ya, i hate to say it, but not only is 90 miles on gas unsustainable, but so is 40 miles on gas. oil is used to make a lot of stuff. gas will be tough to replace. revamping our auto fleet is expected to take a minimum of 25 years probably longer. but our oil surplus is expected to stop meeting demand in less than 2 years. that is the reason everyone is predicting $5 a gallon for gas. i have a feeling, it will get that high and settle there. this will force a lot of people to rethink how they get around.

 

[AndyH]

Nice graph. It ignores all forms of energy other than Oil. See my previous post. Add nuclear, coal, natural gas, wind, solar and hydro and that gap disappears. By the way, my emissions and costs using cng for both my wife and I are lower that someone with a Prius driving half the distance.

With respect, Adrian, which of those fuels will help make my diesel car go?

I agree completely with the folks that say we're too reliant on oil. I don't agree that we "must" go down the road to collapse, though that is one option. (And I don't think that folks here are suggesting that we "must"...)

I know that the fertilizer I use and sell isn't made from oil - but I am too aware that the fish and kelp come from the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coast of the US and the fishing boats run on diesel. The processed fish meal and kelp travel to Nrn Wisconsin via road and rail. The trace minerals are mined in Utah and travel East. Once the fertilizer's blended, it's put into plastic quarts, 2.5 gallon jugs, 30- or 55 gallon plastic drums, or 275 gallon totes - all made from oil. Then the fertilizer is shipped to one of 11 warehouses in the continental US and Canada. Then it's shipped via truck or UPS to the end user...the larger customers mix it with water and spray it on their fields with tractors fueled by diesel. Do you think the price of oil has any impact on this organic product?

Personal decisions have to be just that - and we don't have the right to judge another. My business mentors bringing in $20,000 a month don't really care about the price of diesel - they'll keep traveling 250 days a year to do trade shows. My best friend, medically retired from the USAF and living on disability and SSI on the other hand, isn't always sure where their next three gallons of gas will come from.

These times they are a changin'...

 

[Smidge204]

Fisher Tropsch is not magic, y'know. Right now they take fossil fuels and convert them to some other fossil-fuel-like substance - eg coal to diesel. Of course, this requires energy - and it's the source of energy that's ultimately the real problem. The fuel is a short-term problem.

If they get F-T working on biomass we might be in better shape, although if we're going to be converting biomass into liquid fuel my money is on thermal depolymerization or similar since it also has the ability to convert plastic trash into fuel and other useful products. If we're talking about diesel only then a portion of that can be covered with commercial biodiesel.

Biomethane is going to need a boost since methane is absolutely indispensable for so many applications. Fortunately this doesn't require much technological development, just engineering to increase scale of production. Rather, means of capturing the methane we already produce would be needed - methane is considered to be 72 times more potent as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas - burning it is actually better than just venting!

Ethanol is a waste of time and money if people insist on making it with corn or other food crops but there might be some sources that work out better... though I insist ethanol is best for human consumption :lol:

So to tie this all back to the original topic: 90-mile commutes are potentially sustainable, as long as the energy source is ultimately sustainable. We have lots of options, but until we can kick the oil addiction they will not be adequately explored.
=Smidge=

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

bio-mass is a "good" option. but even the most optimistic projections dont supply more than a few percent of our needs.

 

[Adrian]

Nice graph. It ignores all forms of energy other than Oil. See my previous post. Add nuclear, coal, natural gas, wind, solar and hydro and that gap disappears. By the way, my emissions and costs using cng for both my wife and I are lower that someone with a Prius driving half the distance.

With respect, Adrian, which of those fuels will help make my diesel car go?
A: Natural Gas, see Pickens Plan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_Plan
Also Biomethane or anything that has enough Carbon (trash) in it to allow for the use of Fisher-Tropsch for conversion to diesel

I agree completely with the folks that say we're too reliant on oil. I don't agree that we "must" go down the road to collapse, though that is one option. (And I don't think that folks here are suggesting that we "must"...)
Agreed, me too!!

Personal decisions have to be just that - and we don't have the right to judge another.

Absolutely Agree!

 

[Adrian]

bio-mass is a "good" option. but even the most optimistic projections dont supply more than a few percent of our needs.

Not yet unfortunately. We're too busy being judgmental instead of building consensus and support for our points of view so that actual progress can happen.
Others that tend to think more out of the box, do much better.
Check this article out: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/science/earth/11fossil.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

 

[Adrian]

Fisher Tropsch is not magic, y'know. Right now they take fossil fuels and convert them to some other fossil-fuel-like substance - eg coal to diesel. Of course, this requires energy - and it's the source of energy that's ultimately the real problem. The fuel is a short-term problem.

If they get F-T working on biomass we might be in better shape, although if we're going to be converting biomass into liquid fuel my money is on thermal depolymerization or similar since it also has the ability to convert plastic trash into fuel and other useful products. If we're talking about diesel only then a portion of that can be covered with commercial biodiesel.

Biomethane is going to need a boost since methane is absolutely indispensable for so many applications. Fortunately this doesn't require much technological development, just engineering to increase scale of production. Rather, means of capturing the methane we already produce would be needed - methane is considered to be 72 times more potent as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas - burning it is actually better than just venting!

Ethanol is a waste of time and money if people insist on making it with corn or other food crops but there might be some sources that work out better... though I insist ethanol is best for human consumption :lol:

So to tie this all back to the original topic: 90-mile commutes are potentially sustainable, as long as the energy source is ultimately sustainable. We have lots of options, but until we can kick the oil addiction they will not be adequately explored.
=Smidge=

FT is one solution, yes there are many others. As long there is more energy produced than the process requires, we'll be ok. Especially if we're using sources that so far go to waste and are very large.

And yes, we need to get off oil.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

one thing that favors F-T is scalability. it can work on very small community based systems. granted the output is low, but the infrastructure is dirt cheap and the fuel to run it is free and reduces our waste storage issues.

but once again, that success relies on community leadership. but right now, the small communities havent even enough money to pay for basic services without help. the only way is thru taxes and that alone has become a ridiculous joke.

a poll stated that 65% of Americans would pay higher taxes to insure medicare benefits for the elderly. but in WA State, we just completed financial budgetary suicide.

we voted down tax increases to fund basic services. we voted down tax increases to pay for infrastructure maintenance and improvements, and we voted down tax increases on "luxury" options to raise extra money for the general fund and 60+% of school levies failed. (obtw, we also voted down a measure that would make school levies easier to pass!! LOL, ya we screwed ourselves every which way but right!)

now, everyone is crying because the State is in the process of closing prisons, schools, public assistance programs and laying off thousands. but "we" decided this.

i use to pride myself on my cynicism being able to determine how pathetic our general public would be, but this past election, even i felt that some things would simply pass because they were simply "too right" to fail. for all but one single thing, i was wrong.

i am surprised, amazed, aghast and sick. i cannot believe that Washingtonians could be so self-centered and stingy and stupid.

its this attitude that will cause us to not do anything collectively for years. we have not suffered enough. i hate to say it, but until gas hits $5 a gallon and people start selling their cars and getting jobs closer to their home, etc. we will not do anything at the community level to work towards any long term solution. we simply have too many here that can "afford" to drive whatever they want and pay what ever they want for the privilege to do so but at the same time, will not pay an extra penny in sales tax to benefit the community.

 

[Adrian]

i have to agree that we are over-reacting to what i consider a pretty Innocent statement. a 90 mile commute is unsustainable. even if gas is a buck a gallon, its a finite source and the faster we suck it up the quicker we will run out. the real problem we have is in about 3-4 years the US will be #3 in auto sales behind China and India. but 87% of Americans who can drive already have a car. so buying more cars here only slightly increases consumption but only because we have more and more drivers every year.

but China, only around 10-15% who can drive, have a car. in India its less than 5 %. well, both countries are increasing the # of cars the buy by healthy double digit increases, but most of those cars are going to FIRST TIME BUYERS. this year China bought more cars than the US. that is the first time ever we came in 2nd.

ya, i hate to say it, but not only is 90 miles on gas unsustainable, but so is 40 miles on gas. oil is used to make a lot of stuff. gas will be tough to replace. revamping our auto fleet is expected to take a minimum of 25 years probably longer. but our oil surplus is expected to stop meeting demand in less than 2 years. that is the reason everyone is predicting $5 a gallon for gas. i have a feeling, it will get that high and settle there. this will force a lot of people to rethink how they get around.

If the statement was " X miles are not sustainable for society as a whole in the US using conventional gasoline and diesel" I'd agree. Notice all the qualifiers. I stand by my statement that only an individual decides what is or is not sustainable for them personally. Type of Fuel used matters in this equation. And yes, with our wonderful existing bureaucratic system we won't move fast enough to close the demand gap using other fuels. That will change once everyone hurts bad enough. Many other countries in the world have made significantly more progress in using other energy sources than we have.

One quick example. Currently in the CA, to convert a car to run on natural gas instead of gasoline or diesel, I would need EPA and CARB certification. These certs would have to be renewed annually for the respective manufacturer and engine class. All this at a combined cost in excess of $200,000 EVERY year!! Paid to our bureaucrats. Basic technology for these conversion systems if running exclusively on natural gas make it next to impossible to have higher emissions for such a car compared to running on gasoline or diesel. So only a manufacturer can afford this type of investment and only for a minimum batch of cars. In the US, Honda is the only still in the cng game. GM and Ford have pulled out of the US, but are selling cng vehicles worldwide. Apparently they only like to loose money on bad management. The EPA is re-writing these rules this year to make this process more like Europe and other countries where cng is taking off. I'm not holding my breath for CARB however.

Something has to change. I'd argue our government's stance needs to change first. Start by re-writing regs so that something that clearly makes sense can be encouraged. Start thinking outside of the box. Look at successes in other countries and remove obstacles at home that are stopping the same kind of progress. Stop subsidizing Ethanol now! The list goes on.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

my previous post probably happened while you were writing this one.

we need to stop relying on others to make change happen because it aint working, at least here it is not. we need to create the synergy that dictates the change on a personal level by spending the extra money to show that there is a better way.

i am buying a Leaf because this is what we have to do and the sooner someone does it, the sooner others will see how good an idea it is. i am no longer willing to wait for someone else to do it. that is why i am more than willing to take a risk with my money to do this.

i have already tried the EV game and failed. the Zenn was simply not what it was supposed to be. i lost money on that deal. but i dont care. its still the right thing to do. and i am "all in" with Nissan and willing to share the risk.

even if the Leaf does not fulfill its promises, i will not regret the money i spent because i still feel good about myself and what i have done NO MATTER WHAT

 

[Adrian]

my previous post probably happened while you were writing this one.

we need to stop relying on others to make change happen because it aint working, at least here it is not. we need to create the synergy that dictates the change on a personal level by spending the extra money to show that there is a better way.

i am buying a Leaf because this is what we have to do and the sooner someone does it, the sooner others will see how good an idea it is. i am no longer willing to wait for someone else to do it. that is why i am more than willing to take a risk with my money to do this.

i have already tried the EV game and failed. the Zenn was simply not what it was supposed to be. i lost money on that deal. but i dont care. its still the right thing to do. and i am "all in" with Nissan and willing to share the risk.

even if the Leaf does not fulfill its promises, i will not regret the money i spent because i still feel good about myself and what i have done NO MATTER WHAT

I agree with making personal decisions to lead by example. My wife and I have been driving cng fueled Honda Civics for about 5 years now. Luckily for us it has worked at every level. We did not use gasoline in these 2 commuter cars in 5 years, have reduced our NOX, SOX, PM and GHG emissions, saved about $20,000 in fuel and saved time by driving to work on the HOV lane. By the way, my commute is about 70 miles and my wife's about 80. And doing this is a lot more sustainable than living in LA county since I can't afford to buy a house there in an area where public schools are good and can't afford the private schools. By living where I do in Orange County my kids can go to a good school. Yes, this is sustainable for my family!

I am buying a LEAF for reasons similar to yours.

Having said all that, I refuse to judge anyone for making other choices. I feel the money I pay in taxes is wasted on many levels. I believe government needs to clean up their act and eliminate waste before they hold their hand out asking for more taxes.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I feel the money I pay in taxes is wasted on many levels. I believe government needs to clean up their act and eliminate waste before they hold their hand out asking for more taxes.

Amen Brother!!

 

[garygid]

How long before rationing of "necessities" starts to change the choices that even the more-wealthy have available now?

It might not always be "free market" to buy all the $10/gal gas or drinking water you want or have money to purchase.

 

[evnow]

FT is one solution, yes there are many others. As long there is more energy produced than the process requires, we'll be ok. Especially if we're using sources that so far go to waste and are very large.

Not so simple. I suggest you read the detailed analysis in theoildrum.com and other sites. Until you do the numbers you never know.

And yes, we need to get off oil.

Exactly. That is why long commutes, gas guzzlers etc are unsustainable.

 

[evnow]

How long before rationing of "necessities" starts to change the choices that even the more-wealthy have available now?

It might not always be "free market" to buy all the $10/gal gas or drinking water you want or have money to purchase.

Very true. People who can afford high priced essential commodities don't realize that rationing will happen when a large % of population can't afford those items. If governments ignore the situation either they get thrown out in the next election or worse there will be violence. That is why there will be rationing. I'd be surprised if there isn't one in 5 years.

 

[Adrian]

FT is one solution, yes there are many others. As long there is more energy produced than the process requires, we'll be ok. Especially if we're using sources that so far go to waste and are very large.

Not so simple. I suggest you read the detailed analysis in theoildrum.com and other sites. Until you do the numbers you never know.

And yes, we need to get off oil.

Exactly. That is why long commutes, gas guzzlers etc are unsustainable.

It's clear we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to what is and is not unsustainable. You know what would be even more useful? Focusing on building consensus and support for EVs. As I've said previously, statements like yours alienate many that could be joining our ranks instead. I guess one needs to figure out for themselves what is more important to them.

As far as running numbers, yes that's a start. Then there needs to be some analysis as to why a cost is multiple times higher in the US vs other countries. Then we need to think about whether we can affect some of the variables by making the lowest cost change. See my previous post in the thread on cng use and required certification costs in the US. That is just one example, there are many more. "Analysis paralysis" doesn't have to tie our hands, though I have to admit, it currently does. Instead I would ask, if country X can do this, why can't we?

Basically talk is cheap. US presidents since Nixon have been talking about getting off oil. John Stewart had a nice clip on that. Looks like they didn't even bother to hire new speech writers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/stewart-takes-on-americas_n_615529.html

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i dont think rationing will happen. we have to realize that many will not continue to drive when gas is north of $5 a gallon.

when gas hit $4 here, the personal effort to find alternative transportation was HUGE. the bulletin board at work had car pool notices, some of them put together on a daily basis.

now, its just the opposite. people wont go a mile out of their way or get up 5 minutes earlier to do it because gas is cheap.

trust me, that will change. back in 2008 there was article after article of what lengths people were willing to go thru to use public transportation. one excuse after another " i get up earlier, but i now have time to get work done on the bus, so i take my laptop"..."its nice to sit and relax a bit before i gear up for the workday" ..."i have actually met some very interesting people on the bus, its nice to engage in some great conversations...."

and that is what will happen. the price will continue to rise based on lack of supply and the well off will continue to pay it. some rationing might happen but the black market will always be there. people who can no longer afford to buy gas will be selling their shares for a profit, etc.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

What a cool thread to kick off the new year!

I'll put my faith in God, free markets, capitalism, and innovation to solve these problems.

None of what we see before us today, or even contemplate, is sustainable. As one of the heroes of most on this board put it, in the long run we're all dead.