McCain Invents New Constitutional Power

Again, from John McCain’s acceptance speech:

We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. All these functions of government were designed before the rise of the global economy, the information technology revolution and the end of the Cold War. We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington.

I must’ve missed that part of the Constitution where it says that the government sets the standards for transportation fuel. Yes, yes, I know I’m in a minority opinion, where the Supreme Court has given the federal government carte blanche to do whatever it wants with the economy. Of course, no one has opposed the ethanol mandates, or the EPA gasoline/diesel requirements yet either, at least not successfully. Of course, as a nation, we have long accepted federal limits on economic freedom. Perhaps when you’re required to trade in your gasoline powered car for a T. Boone special, you might make a peep, or not.

Regardless, this is just another way that McCain is letting everyone know that he’s going to be fulfilling the Pickens Plan when he gets into office. He just doesn’t want to say it so directly. So much for that openness and accountability that he’s running on.

National Party Platforms on Transportation and Energy – Green Party

I have to give credit where credit is due: the Green Party is very, very open about what they want to do. Sure it’ll involve massive government intervention in everyone’s daily life, but they’re putting it out there in very specific terms.

The entire platform (including changes from 2004 to 2008) on energy and transportation policy, which they call “Ecological Sustainability” is available from the GP website. Unlike the Libertarian Party, the Greens are very specific about what they would like to do.

So lets see what they have on energy:

• “Our oil and gas addiction in particular has led to wars and human rights abuses in many countries….U.S. dependence on oil and gas has driven an unparalleled assault on the global environment and on human rights in many nations.” Of course, if we were to not use oil or natural gas anymore, these third world countries would be liberal democracies with no disputes or conflict whatsoever. This, of course, confuses the fact that the countries themselves start these wars. There are plenty of countries that have petroleum resources that don’t abuse their citizens (e.g. Canada), and there are countries that DON’T have oil resources and DO abuse their citizens (e.g. Zimbabwe). Removing the oil would not remove the source of these problems (the backwards societies and the lack of governing structure)
• “We oppose energy utility deregulation…. We recognize that deregulation and its reliance on markets – as opposed to state-based regulations – is incapable of providing affordable, reliable and clean energy…. We support state efforts to regain control over electricity by establishing democratic, public control systems to locally coordinate supply and demand and by eliminating energy trading.” It’s funny how people have no idea how economics (and socialism) work. PUCs are NOT democratic by any stretch of the imagination, and the current market system somehow does enable people to have affordable and reliable energy, and if you’re in a fully deregulated market like Texas, you can have clean energy too. If you’re in California or most other states, you have no choice in where you get your electricity and it’s “cleanliness”. But the Greens see markets as bad, no matter if they actually enable clean energy or not.
• “New construction should be required to achieve substantial portions of its heating energy from the sun.” Man, I’d hate to live in the Pacific Northwest under the Greens.
• “We oppose further oil and gas drilling or exploration – especially that which would occur in other countries, (emphasis mine)” I’d LOVE to see how they’d enforce banning oil exploration in other countries. This further enforces the general criticism of the enviros as wanting to keep the poor countries poor.
• “We call for independent, public-access radiation monitoring at all nuclear facilities.” If you want to do this, do this. Go to your nearest nuclear power plant, set up shop with a Geiger counter, and report your results. I’m not going to stop you and if the government does, then THAT’s your problem. But you don’t need the government to do this for you.

And their section on transportation:

• “We call for major public investment in mass transportation, so that such systems are cheap or free to the public and are safe, accessible, and easily understandable to first-time users. ” hahaha Short of spending TRILLIONS on mass transit, you’re never going to get all three… and since we’re talking about the government running this system, you’re NEVER going to get anything that’s easily understandable. No matter how much you spend.
• “The present-day approach of upgrading streets to accommodate increased traffic generates new traffic because access is now easier, and people will now take jobs further from their homes or purchase homes further from their jobs. Some people shift from public transit to private cars due to the trip time in cars being shorter. As patronage for public transit decreases, public transit loses funding, becomes less viable, and service deteriorates thus encouraging even more people to use their cars. ” This is the best part, the Greens admit that people don’t like taking transit, admit that private transport is faster, and that public transit wouldn’t work without massive subsidies. So, their solution is to make people do something they would prefer not to do in the first place. A winning political strategy.
• “Redirect resources that currently go to enhancing auto capacity into expanding human-scale transit options….Develop affordable mass transit systems that are more economical to use than private vehicles. ” What the hell is a human-scale transit option? And I’d love to see the day when a public mass transit system is more economical to use than a private system. That’s also the day communism will finally work. And pigs will fly.
• “Emphasize the use of light and heavy rail for freight transportation. ” WHY? It’s slower, it has a lot more delays and is constrained in where and how it can go. An airplane or truck can bypass congestion. A train can’t. Just ask anyone who’s taken Amtrak. Speaking of which…
• “Expand our country’s network of rail lines, including high-speed regional passenger service.” Because outside of the Northeast, there is not a single place that is built in a similar way to that region. So you’d be trying to shoehorn a system that works (barely) in one region, where it’s not needed elsewhere. And as most people who take Amtrak can attest to, Amtrak is beset by delays and general incompetence.
• “Ban flights between cities where land-based travel options can get a passenger to their destination within four hours.” Since you have the Acela, all of the Northeast just lost their air service… sorry. Not to mention the whole hub-and-spoke system for the airline industry. So for example, I live in Columbia, SC. Since nobody in their right minds wants to travel to Columbia, there are not many direct flights, so you have to have connections in many cities. Thus, you have alot of flights from Columbia to Atlanta (4 hours away) and Charlotte (1 hour away). Congrats, you no longer can fly that route. So this will either:
  1. Force people to drive up to 4 hours to get to the airport
  2. Force airlines to have you connect from somewhere MORE THAN 4 hours away.

  Either way, you’ve just made the whole air travel system ALOT more complicated and wasteful. But environmentalists are pretty ignorant when it comes to the law of unintended consequences. And to put a cherry on top of their economic backwardness…

• “We encourage the social ownership and use of land at the community, local, and regional level.” The Greens have never studied or heard about the Tragedy of the Commons.

So overall, the Greens have set out an expansive list of things they want to do, which is ballsier than most political parties. Of course, given that most of what they want to do would be economically wasteful at best, it’s not a very smart plan either.

Response to a Barrett Comment

From the comments on the Gresham Barrett Brings the Stupid post:

Right on, Mike! I’m with you all the way. Next time I’d like to hear you thoughts on Jane B Dyer the Democratic Party’s candidate for Barrett’s job.
She is the kind of candidate SC needs but the media seem to be conspiring to keep her candidacy quiet. She’s been an Air Force flier, She is now a FEDEX captain on one of those big freighters besides being a Mom and a Grandmother. She lives in Easley and she needs the help of guys like you.
Bill

Well, lest anyone think that I’m partisan in my distrust of politicians (unlike most of the media out there), here’s my thoughts on Ms. Dyer:

Sorry Bill, but it looks like Barrett doesn’t have any kind of competition in this race. Ms. Dyer is parroting the same rhetoric that has become standard for all politicians. But I think she’d get the T. Boone Pickens seal of approval.

Below is a more detailed look at Ms. Dyer and her environmental energy policy.

Gresham Barrett Brings the Stupid

Here in Columbia SC, we’re doomed to have at least one talk radio host who’s a complete moron, Kevan Cohen. He’s the definition of a neo-conservative, and makes my ears bleed if I listen to him for more than 15 minutes at a time. You can’t go five minutes without him making some pro-military or pro-war comment, but on every other topic, he’s about as spineless as they come.

So that’s why I didn’t hear him and Congressman Gresham Barrett talk about energy until the end of their conversation. Hannity wasn’t doing it for me today, so I switched to the other station. I only caught the end of the conversation, but this is where Mr. Barrett brought it. And by it, I mean his completely stupid idea.

Make SOUTH CAROLINA energy independent.

There’s enough problems with making the US energy independent. Like the fact that our electric grid is connected to both Canada and Mexico. But it’s at least possible given the resources of the entire country.

South Carolina, on the other hand, doesn’t have the resources to independent from anyone on energy. We don’t have coal beds, we don’t have natural gas production areas, we don’t have uranium mines. And most importantly, we don’t have the ability to use solar, wind or geothermal energy:

So in order for South Carolina to be energy independent, we’d have to completely rely on the state’s hydroelectric dam system. Needless to say, this isn’t a very smart way to encourage economic development, or keep the lights on in South Carolina.

So what does energy independence for South Carolina look like for Mr. Barrett? Pork. Lots and Lots of Pork.

Pork for nuclear.
Pork for biofuels.
Pork for hydrogen.
Pork for universities.
Pork for everyone.

He will basically be hiding a pork bill under the guise of making South Carolina the “leader in energy.” But he has to return the investment that his sponsors have made in him. His top sponsor, Washington Group International runs the Savannah River Site, which handles, you guessed it, the Department of Energy’s nuclear research. He also has received money from South Carolina’s investor-owned and electric cooperatives who have a heavy stake in all of the nuclear reactors found in the state. So any pork toward nuclear, which he’s pushing heavily, goes towards his financial benefactors. Big surprise there.

Finally, he came up with this bit of genius. He mentioned in passing that by building nuclear reactors, they can serve as desalinization plants as well. Uh, yeah. There’s just a little question of… where are you going to put this nuclear desalinization plant? Myrtle Beach? No, they can’t even handle motorcycles, nevermind a nuclear reactor? Charleston? Perhaps. But do you remember a little thing called Hugo, Mr. Barrett?

The point is that “energy independence” has become a phrase that has lost all meaning. Much like “going green,” this is a phrase that means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

First Anti-Pickens/Gore Graphic

The Future Under Pickens/Gore

There will be more to come with this, but it’s my first attempt at graphically showing one of the major flaws with the Pickens/Gore Plan, the basic unreliability of wind and solar. Without electrical storage (and there’s NONE right now), the Pickens/Gore Plan will leave alot of the country worse off with little to show for it.

Beware bi-partisan energy plans

Have you ever heard of a Gang that has done anything well? Gang of Four? Gang of Fourteen? Now, there’s the Gang of Ten, pushing a bipartisan energy bill that does… well, it’s alot of tax credits and drilling. That’s pretty much it.

Since it has the word Gang in it, of course Lindsey Graham, McCain’s lapdog in the Senate, has to be involved. But it can’t be good for conservatives, that’s for sure.

Basically, Republicans get their bone (more drilling), and the democrats get their bone (tax credits and R&D monies for alternative fuels). In the end, it’s going to be alot of money spent ($85 billion and not all of it paid for:

Offsets
The $84 billion in investments in conservation and efficiency in the New Era bill will be fully offset with loophole closers and other revenues. Approximately $30 billion will come from new revenues from the oil and gas industry through such measures as modifying the Section 199 manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas production and other appropriate measures to ensure that the federal government receives its fair share of revenue from Gulf of Mexico leases. Remaining offsets will be finalized in consultation with the Finance Committee after accounting for interaction effects with other pending legislation.

Translation: We’ll try and bleed as much as we can from oil companies, but for the rest, we’ll just tax and borrow like we always do. We don’t need no stinkin’ pay-go rules, this is an election year!

This will do pretty much the same as it was before, so there’s not going to be any real change in US government energy policy with this Gang of 10 bipartisanship. Huh, just like the Gang of 14.

One more note, this another time I’ve noticed that more spending for infrastructure “$2.5 billion in R,D&D on next generation biofuels and infrastructure; Tax incentives for the installation of alternative fueling stations, pipelines and other infrastructure;”

This, along with the other proposals (ie. the Obama plan and the fuel tax increase), all mention shifting money towards construction in infrastructure. Now, I don’t have a problem with this in principle, as long as the money is use wisely and correctly. The current political structure, on the other hand, has no idea how to spend money. So we should fix that before we start putting more money toward construction.

Of course, I’m impressed with the lobbying acumen of the highway construction/contractors group, whatever it is. I’m seeing more and more money getting shoveled in their direction. And the most recent highway bill doesn’t expire until next year!

Why Focus on Electricity?

Every plan for long term transportation use involves moving cars and trucks to electric vehicles, powered by alternative energy sources. But why use electricity, a delivered by the bulk power system?

One reason could be that there’s possible efficiencies in making energy in bulk and distributing it. It delivers lower prices than would be done if everyone generated their own energy. Efficiencies of scale, in economic terms. There’s also the efficiency of generation of electricity in terms of getting the most bang for the fuel. Steam generators operate at a higher efficiency than internal combustion engines. So we would be able to use less energy for transportation needs from electricity than from automotive fuels.

However, this does not take into account for the transmission losses as electricity moves from the generator to the consumer. This takes alot of the generational benefit out of the electricity. But even saying that this is a wash, there’s a different, more political reason why people like moving to electricity.

Control.

Governments, generation companies and environmentalists are heavily represented in the process of setting electricity prices and what types of generation are allowed. Note that consumers, and in particular, small consumers are not represented very well in these proceedings. Those who have a larger stake in power have a greater interest in the proceedings. Residential consumers aren’t going to take the time or energy out of their day to attend a commission meeting on electric rates. States try to get around this by setting up consumer advocates in the government itself, but is at best an imperfect representative.

However, in gasoline production, prices and quantities consumed are determined by largely economic forces. This is opposed to electricity, where prices and quantities consumed are largely non-economically determined. This is because of monopoly control of the electric distribution and how electricity is priced, which is very secretive. Most people have little idea of how much they are paying for electricity, the units of electricity and how their actions determine how much it costs.

Contrast this with gasoline. Everyone knows what gas costs, how it’s delivered and how their actions affect them. Thus, it makes it easy to know how their actions are influencing the costs. Also note that government (outside of a flat additional tax) has little say in how prices are determined. They make plenty of investigations into how prices are determined, but doesn’t have direct say in the price. This is a good thing, as markets, especially the gas market, works when allowed to work.

So moving from electricity from gasoline would allow government more control over a very large segment of the economy that it has relatively little control over currently. Also, it allows for other actors to become more important as well. That’s why these people have been driving this change to electricity, instead of focusing on other solutions.

Liveblog of T. Boone Pickens interview with Sean Hannity

I heard on the way home that Sean Hannity was interview T. Boone Pickens on the Pickens Plan. Since I was in the car, I couldn’t post directly to the internet, so I had to write it down and copy it now. As Pickens is a Republican supporter (he sponsored the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth), I can now look in hindsight that Hannity would throw softballs at Pickens. But I was expecting at least some questions that were more critical than were asked.

You can read the liveblog after the cut…

Electric Cars Closer to Universal Standards

Remember what I said about government intrusion into how much it costs to fuel your car?

You can apply that to electrics as well, except that the electric market is even more confusing and more tightly regulated than the natural gas market. Everything is micromanaged economically in the electricity market. Even in so-called deregulated markets. I say so-called in this case, because in the course of allowing consumers to choose their electricity suppliers, they added more regulations to govern how the process would work. In fact, there are probably more regulations with consumer choice than under the previous regime. But that’s more of a reflection on the nature of bureaucracy than anything else.

But as an outgrowth in the desire (increased demand) for electric vehicles, electric companies and car manufacturers are coming together to create a common set of standards for the charging of electric vehicles. This isn’t a bad thing, as this will be necessary for the common US/Canada market and to enable cars to be used in multiple places.

But the best part? No mention of government anywhere. So the next time someone, probably a politician, tells you government is needed to develop technology for anything, remember this article and the fact that the private sector can come together without prodding (ie mandates) from the feds.

Ok, I have to make one snarky comment. I found this quote amusing:

“Customers could drive from Montreal to San Antonio and then move to San Francisco and they could be connected and charged,” he said. “We are working together to make sure this can happen.”

Given the 40 mile range of the Volt, the only way this trip is happening is on the back of a trailer.

Critique of the Pickens Plan – Part 3 – (Death of the Road Trip?)

Both the Pickens Plan and the various ideas for creating electric cars have a drawback that I’ve seen few people make notice about.

The lack of range for both natural gas and electric vehicles.

For pure electric vehicles, the current available range is about 50 miles. There’s talk of getting up to 120 miles with future technology.

Natural gas cars right now have a range of about 220-180 miles, depending on who you ask.

Compare this to current technology: gasoline automobiles can generally get about 400 miles per tank, which depends on the vehicle, but that a general range for most cars I’ve seen. Some get more, some get less, but an average of 400 seems about right.

Now, for most people who have taken road trips, it can be a pain in the rear to find gas and fill up. Alot of the time, you end up paying more because you’re not familiar with the area, so you end up buying at a station that may not be the cheapest. There’s also the situation where you end up needing to get gas, and then miss the station down the road that’s a couple of cents cheaper. But if you only need to fuel once, or not at all, then you don’t have these problems to begin with. Plus, there’s the delay of having to stop driving, get out, fuel, then get going again. It’s a hassle.

So a longer range means less of these problems. But that seems to be the last issue on the minds of car developers and those who want to prop up alternative fuels right now. Electric car people tend to focus on commuters. Which is fine, if commuting was the only thing that people did with their cars.

It’s not.

The same problem goes with natural gas. From a link provided by the Pickens Plan:

* Second drawback: since natural gas is a compressed fuel, the tank takes up some trunk space, and only holds the equivalent of 8 gallons of gasoline. Honda estimates the vehicle’s range to be 220 to 250 miles, although Consumer Reports claimed it was closer to 180 miles.

NGV enthusiasts are getting around range limitations (and vehicle scarcity) by converting their own vehicles to run on natural gas and adding spare tank capacity. Throwing extra tanks in the bed of a truck, for example, can boost driving range to around 600 miles. The best part about converting a vehicle (as opposed to the Civic GX) is that if you run out of CNG, the system automatically switches back to gasoline.

– Gas 2.0

Throwing extra tanks in is fine if you’re by yourself and you have room to spare in your trunk. But vacationers don’t have that liberty, especially if they have children. Which means they’ll need bigger cars (oh no, SUVs!) or fill up more frequently.

Finally, there’s the problem of filling up. Now, there is the option of refueling at home for both electricity and natural gas. But what about on the road? Especially in rural areas, there seems to be a dearth of natural gas and electric refueling stations. Now, there’s also a dearth of gas stations in rural areas too, but I’m even talking along highways. You’re going to need alot more stations if the fuel doesn’t get enough range.

And what happens if you run out of gas. Like I mentioned before, there’s the problem of bringing gas out to someone who’s stranded. But what about LNG or electricity. Maybe you can find a house where you can plug your car in, but you’d need a pretty long extension cord. Or maybe drain from someone else’s car, but LNG is a bit more problematic than that.

Nevermind that alot of the cars proposed are compact/sub-compact. Again, a problem for families or people who are of larger than average size. I would like to see what the results for a full-size/truck/SUV are before I can say that electric/natural gas vehicles will have mainstream appeal. And without mainstream appeal, we’re just talking in hypothesis.

It seems to me that alot of the focus on travel seems to be withing larger urban and suburban areas and commuters specifically. Which is fine, except that it neglects a significant aspect of driving for many people. The idea of going somewhere other than work. That something that all proponents of alt fuels will need to grasp and pay attention to as well.