A few observations:

a) no-one really knows how much domestic demand there will be for oil in 2030, never mind 2050. Political and environmental concerns may well constrain oil supply relative to global demand (incl. BRIC and other emerging economies), leading to structural price increases that prompt the development and exploitation of alternative technologies. Innovation could disrupt both the supply side (e.g. J Craig Venter + Exxon = synthetic algae that produce not triglycerides but alkanes) and the demand side (e.g. telepresence + electric trains + cars + bicycles) of oil in the transportation sector. On the other hand, the engineering effort oil companies put into fields already in production also depends on the price of oil. Secondary and especially, tertiary extraction technologies require massive investments that have to be amortized over time. If politicians were willing to set a sufficiently high floor on the price of oil via new taxation, the oil industry would apply existing technology to re-open and scrape more out of fields it has already abandoned, rather than risk another Deepwater Horizon.

However, the fundamental point that drilling in the ANWR alone wouldn’t make a dent in the big picture is well taken. Real change can only come from measures on the demand side.

b) Hybrids are slowly improving the fuel economy of the US passenger car fleet, much like diesels have already done in Europe (albeit at the expense of air quality). Plug-in hybrids and range-extended vehicles are different engineering concepts with the same goal: using grid electricity to cover some fraction of total miles traveled. All-electric concepts take that one step further, but suffer from severely limited operating range, very high initial cost and moderately to very slow battery recharge cycles.

Note, however, that existing generating and distribution capacity would be quite sufficient to support millions of plug-in hybrids or all-electric cars provided they are trickle-charged at night. The unit cost of electricity would actually go down due to improved capacity utilization. However, net aggregate CO2 emissions would go sharply up if the primary energy source is a fossil fuel like coal or gas rather than renewable (wind, geothermal, biomass). AB32 is forcing utilities to shift away from fossil fuels, but that only applies for this one state.

Quite a few Californians could actually achieve a much greater reduction in their personal carbon footprint by purchasing an electric bicycle for commuting in the summer months. Range in level terrain is already on the order of 50 miles. Unfortunately, Californians still think of bicycles as sports equipment rather than as a regular mode of adult transportation (cp. Holland, Denmark), so any form of electric motor is perceived as cheating. One consequence is that most city-level traffic planners refuse to reserve road space for cyclists, except where it’s easy to do. Btw, you’d need a system in the 600-750W range plus adequate gears if you live in hilly terrain and need to climb 10% gradients at 15-20mph.

However, whether you electrify your personal mobility via cars or (folding) bicycles, high speed rail will be an excellent complement for medium distances of several hundred miles. It’s not either-or, Californians need both.

c) Perhaps the most important lesson to be drawn from this oil spill is that the price of oil generally excludes the associated risk to the taxpayer. If you still think that cheap gasoline, diesel and kerosene are a God-given birthright, perhaps this event will finally prompt you to consider the massive indirect burdens of waging war in Iraq plus the devastated fisheries and tourism industries in the Gulf of Mexico. If the oil industry really had to pay for all that, prices at the pump would already be much, much higher.

Of course, if you’re a baby boomer, you may not care: the public debt that is propping up your oil-based lifestyle and indirectly, the value of your home, will be serviced by future generations, even long after you’re pushing the daisies. Just be sure to cross your fingers they’ll be not just able but willing to foot your social security and Medicare bills until then. Intergenerational contracts cut both ways.

[Comment moderated]

In the Mojave Desert there is Wildlife to think of that lives out there, Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Lions, Bobcats, etc, etc. A friend of mine who belongs to the Sheep Society has cameras and lots of pics from animals going to drinkers that the Sheep Society, Of course thats currently on His PC, Not on the website, Although there are a few select shots there at the moment.

The real secret to energy policy in the 21st century is going to be reduce the distance that energy travels as a way to cut costs. Fossil fuels require energy to be moved and no transmission line is made of a perfect conductor. For that reason it’s great n’ all to talk about wind solar, hydro and all the rest…but its always in the context of a traditional 20th century power plant.

Instead, there should be a focus on developing solar technology that can power homes off the grid and simulatenously charges electric vehicles in single family neighborhoods. Large facilities should use a combination of solar and nuclear to maximum effeciency (Florida Power and Light is doing such an experiment). If that’s not possible, there should be a mix of hydroelectric and natural gas plants to complement those nuclear/solar combinations.

High speed rail therefore, is an important tool in encouraging density and less use of cars as well as making trips more energy efficient.

The Gulf Oil disaster is days away from ruining Florida’s tourist industry for years. It’s also going to be hard on shipyards in Mississippi which are crucial to national defense to say nothing of the fishing in bayous….but hey…who’s counting?

I agree regarding the need for HSR vs. simply banking on electric cars. Some people seem to love slamming the thought of building out a HSR infrastructure. I’ve heard arguments that electric cars are the only true replacement for our current mode of transport. This is utter bologna.

First of all, there is a tremendous gridlock problem, as you pointed out, and it isn’t going away any time soon. Electric cars are not helping this problem. It’s just a one-for-one swap from gas to electric.

Then there’s the energy storage issue. Some companies have been developing ultracapacitors as a replacement for lithium-ion batteries, but thus far it’s mostly been vaporware. But let’s say a company produces a fantastic ultracap for electric cars. Where exactly do we get the power to charge a state full of these EVs in 5 minutes or less per car?

In case you were wondering, a gas pump can be thought of as a roughly 21 megawatt power station. That’s the flow rate of energy out the pump and into your car. For electrics, you’d probably need a little over a megawatt per car to charge it in 5 minutes.

If you had thousands of EVs charging simultaneously across the state, the draw on the electric grid would be enormous! Just for some sample numbers: 10,000 EVs charging and requiring 1.2 MW per car would require 12 Gigawatts of power! Today, the CA power supply topped out at around 29 GW. Obviously the system uses variable supply, but obviously we also do not have the power infrastructure to support such MW+ charging stations state wide.

Basically, the technological hurdles we’ll need to jump over to get to widespread use of electric cars are a lot more difficult than many people imagine. High speed rail systems are vastly more efficient than EVs in terms of watt per person. HSR systems, combined with intelligent urban planning, will help immeasurably in reducing gridlock, pollution, and our dependence on fossil fuels. Obviously power plants still use coal (we should be building nuclear plants, but that’s another story), but our goal should be to increase efficiency and usage-consistency.

One other thing HSRs are great for: improving communities. Some NIMBY-folk from Shallow Alto would scoff, but taking cars off the road and using trains can do wonders for cities. Centralizing the urban center, using land more effectively, and most importantly, taking noisy and fast moving cars off the streets can make a town quieter, more socially active, and more livable overall. Shut down a city block from traffic for a week and I bet people will meet neighbors they never even knew existed.

I’ve seen some figure showing that big part of U.S. electricity consumpiton goes to HVAC of poorly insulated buildings so there’s a room for energy savings.

The trouble with solar projects is that they are really intrusive and they also aren’t that efficient, because of multiple power conversion and large power storage needs. Better approach is IMO to place solar panels on roof of every house and use in-house supercapacitors to store the energy. That way, there’s only one power conversion between power source and socket – from low-voltage DC of solar panels and supercapacitors to grid AC. There are just two little political problems with such approach – no pork is left for big construction and power distribution companies and somebody must persuade people to to have the panels installed.

O/T: Looks like HSRA could lose its planned SF yard site in Brisbane … a developer has big plans for the long-vacant old SP Bayshore yard:

$425m plan for old Brisbane rail yards near Bayshore Caltrain stop