TGV - Liaison Montréal - New-York

[MtlMan]

De quelle vision tu parles? ta vision personnelle?

 

Aux USA, voyager en avion fait ben plus de sens qu'ici. On n'est pas capable de comprendre à cause de nos prix ridicules sur les billets d'avion.

 

Et le gaz est taxé à des niveaux corrects, qui permet au gens de voyager plus loin qu'ici en auto.

 

Putain de merde man! On dirait que t'es religieusement obsédé à cracher sur toute forme de discours autre que celui du conservatisme fiscal. Shit, faut lâcher un peu! La vision, c'est de prendre des mesures pour changer des habitudes: investir dans les trains à grande vitesse et taxer de façon "correcte" le gaz (aux USA) c'est-à-dire plus! Comme ça, ils arrêteront de se promener en méga-VUS pis "caler" de l'essence comme des ivrognes. En échange, on leur donnera une alternative pour voyager sur de longues distances, dans des délais raisonables. Pis cette vision, ce n'est pas seulement que la mienne, c'est celle de millions d'Américains aussi qui aimeraient ça qu'un réseau de TGV se développe. &%?$%&&%, tu vis-tu dans un char pour les vénérer à ce point-là? Moi aussi j'en ai un, pis je m'en sert en masse, mais je vos plus loin que ça!

[Malek]

Putain de merde man! On dirait que t'es religieusement obsédé à cracher sur toute forme de discours autre que celui du conservatisme fiscal. Shit, faut lâcher un peu! La vision, c'est de prendre des mesures pour changer des habitudes: investir dans les trains à grande vitesse et taxer de façon "correcte" le gaz (aux USA) c'est-à-dire plus! Comme ça, ils arrêteront de se promener en méga-VUS pis "caler" de l'essence comme des ivrognes. En échange, on leur donnera une alternative pour voyager sur de longues distances, dans des délais raisonables. Pis cette vision, ce n'est pas seulement que la mienne, c'est celle de millions d'Américains aussi qui aimeraient ça qu'un réseau de TGV se développe. &%?$%&&%, tu vis-tu dans un char pour les vénérer à ce point-là? Moi aussi j'en ai un, pis je m'en sert en masse, mais je vos plus loin que ça!

 

Ton problème c'est que tout doit passer par une taxe directe à la consommation!!! hehehe c'est un véritable fléau cette ligne de pensée. Taxe ça, taxe ci, et on règle tout!!! FAUX!

 

Le gouvernement a déjà instauré des plans pour contraindre les constructeurs à une consommation réduite pour toutes leur autos. Ça veut dire que si ta compagnie automobile produit 10 modèles, la consommation de toutes tes autos vendues doit être en deça d'une certaine limite... et si ça dépasse, le constructeur doit payer une pénalité (qui doit refiler au consommateur et donc rendre ses autos plus chères vis à vis la concurrence!!)

 

Dans les faits, un constructeur automobile peut avoir 10 modèles, 5 de petites tailles qui se vendent beaucoup, 4 de taille moyenne qui se vendent moins, et une grosse luxueuse qui a le gros moteur de la mort et qui se vend peu (à cause de son prix).

 

Chaque constructeur devra donc offrir des plus petits modèles, et de la motorisation moins gourmande pour tous ces modèles pour respecter ce modèle.

 

En bref pour 2011, CAFE est maintenant rendue à 30.2 miles par gallon pour les berlines, comparativement il était de 18mpg en 1974, et 27.5mpg en 2007. Et on vise les 35mpg en 2020 pour les autos et camions légers.

 

Alors, non, on n'est pas obligé de taxer les automobilistes, il s'agit aux gouvernements de forcer les constructeurs à mettre leur culottes et refaire leur devoirs sur la consommation de l'essence.

[Cataclaw]

We need a combination of strategies and incentives to tackle this issue. We do need price floors, consumption taxes, supply quotas, subsidies and other incentives.

Malek's point regarding quotas is certainly a valid one, however taxing gas is also an excellent (and necessary) means to alter the supply curve. Shift the supply curve upwards and the market settles on a new equilibrium point with a smaller quantity demanded. That's just simple microeconomics.

 

So again, taxing the heck out of gas isn't and shouldn't be the only solution. I agree with that wholeheartedly. However it should still be one of the many tools we have to curb fuel consumption and promote increased efficiency. One incentive i particularly like is raising efficiency and MPG minimums. The north american market is still a lucrative one, and we shouldn't be afraid of scaring off suppliers by enacting stricter regulations. Besides, lots of countries already HAVE stricter regulations and the supply-side of the market hasn't been affected all that much due to the marginal elasticity of supply.

[Cyrus]

Why have any such strategy? What is the problem that the solution is trying to fix? Automakers aren't putting holes in the gas tank to make it burn more...

 

CAFE as was noted by a "famous" auto executive, tries to combat obesity by making it illegal to sell large size clothes

 

Already in Quebec we have stupid taxes... if you have a car with a large engine, the license plates are double the price... regardless of the actual fuel economy... witness the situation of the Dodge Challenger... with the V6, you pay $260 per year. With the V8 (5.7 L), you pay double plus a `luxury` tax... the fuel consumption is the same!

Modifié 4 novembre 2010 par Cyrus

[Malek]

That famous executive is trying to sell his electric car

 

Anyways, i wonder what those closet-commies will come up with when cars will be electric.

 

Their real agenda is to reduce personal mobility, pollution is just a "smoke screen".

[Cyrus]

That famous executive is trying to sell his electric car

 

The most interesting man in the world

 

Here’s the story in short form:

 

In 1968 or 69 (Bob believes it’s 1965 but the car shown in the picture is a 1967 Model. This can be recognized by the two slots over the front bumper and the non leaf spring setup on the rear. And also George Gallion was present. But he joined Opel in 1968) there was a big test day at the Opel proving ground in Dudenhofen. The engineers and Managers where all there to compare the Opel products with the competitors from Ford, VW etc.

 

At noon they all sat together to have lunch and Bob rushed in to call Hans Mersheimer (technical director): “Hans, someone in the US told me the Kadett is not safe. It can easily flip over when performing the J-Test.” “No, that’s impossible” replied Hans, “the Americans are always on the road with insufficient tire pressure. Our car is safe”.

 

“I’ll show you, but someone has to explain me what to do on the J-Test” said Lutz.

 

The J-Test is driving straight ahead with around 50 mph then applying the hand brake and turning the steering wheel to one side extremely. The car should not flip over in this situation.

 

Five minutes later Bob sat in that poor little Kadett speeding to 50, applying the hand brake and turning the steering wheel to the left. The Opel showed heavy roll and eventually flipped over.

 

Bob climbed out of the wreck, lighted up a cigar and waited triumphantly sitting on the Kadett for the engineers and managers to come back from lunch. Mersheimer was very embarrassed because Lutz had proved him wrong in front of nearly every important engineer of the company.

 

Anyways, i wonder what those closet-commies will come up with when cars will be electric.

 

Their real agenda is to reduce personal mobility, pollution is just a "smoke screen".

 

I agree... people aren`t supposed to make decisions for themselves... having access to personal mobility is too much power for `little people`.

Modifié 4 novembre 2010 par Cyrus

[Cataclaw]

Why have any such strategy? What is the problem that the solution is trying to fix?

 

This is a complicated question but i'll try my best to explain : the basic problem is there is a finite supply of oil and it's dwindling fast.

 

The free market has a power of adaptation in the form of supply and demand. As the oil producers are forced to obtain oil from more and more expensive places (such as the outer continental shelf or Alberta's oil sands) the cost of obtaining said oil increases. As a result, the price of oil increases too. The increased costs associated with buying, owning and operating a vehicle shift the supply curve upward, meaning the market equilibrium point will have a higher price and a lower quantity. This in turn will encourage suppliers to develop ways of mitigating the impact of higher oil prices by inventing more fuel efficient engines.

 

Unfortunately, in a free market with zero intervention or oversight, the supply-demand interactions are reactionary. Suppliers won't feel the need to change their ways unless they are forced to in order to make a higher profit. One of the problems is there is a time delay between when suppliers are forced to make changes and when those changes are implemented thereby affecting price. This is due to the fact that technology isn't just developed over night... there are a lot of factors at play.

 

Although the market is great at finding an equilibrium and settling on it, that equilibrium is not always the most efficient outcome because of external costs.

 

 

If oil supply drops sharply in the next few years, as it has already started to do, consumers will be left scrambling to adapt their ways of life and suppliers will be left scrambling as well. If the decline is more gradual and the transition to alternative energy sources is smoother, that difficult and sharp adaptation period (one that could conceivably lead to numerous wars driven by the socioeconomic implications of oil shortage) could be avoided.

 

So in a nutshell, the free market is good at what it does, but it isn't perfect. It needs some help every now and then. In some cases adaptation to drastic changes is too slow and in other cases the market settles on outcomes that are inefficient.

 

Incentives help alleviate the problem. The idea behind incentives is not to override the free market.. on the contrary. The idea is to provide a boost and get the market to "do its thing" faster and better!

 

---

 

Just so we're clear, i'm talking about the issue of energy. I'm not talking about the use of cars... i personally believe in the availability of personal mobility. I love to travel and i would hate a world in which my options for traveling were severely limited. That's why, in fact, i'm a supporter of regulation and incentives designed to promote alternative energy vehicles that can allow us to continue to use cars well into the 21st and 22nd centuries!

Modifié 4 novembre 2010 par Cataclaw

[Cyrus]

There has been no beginning of drop in oil reserves, they keep increasing as they have for basically forever. It is not logical, as you drink from a bottle the beer disappears, but in oil you drink and drink and there is more left Just last week, they revised the reserves of Hibernia upward a fair bit. They expected it was a bit less than a billion barrels, but they have already extracted 700 MMbbl, so now estimate 1.4 billion bbl remaining I agree that oil is getting increasingly expensive and scarce however.

 

But oil`s sexiness has made the market all screwed up with the influence of OPEC, economic nationalism, `peak oil`theories and the like... there is no market fundamentals to support the current situation, oil is only `really` worth about $20\bbl... but we are paying 80 and there are supertankers floating anchored in the ocean filled with oil nobody wants to buy Of course, at 20$ the supply would be more limited, no oil sands... but there is enough swing room in Saudi and other low-cost regions to maintain higher supply...

 

So already consumers have a major price signal to curb oil consumption. Particularly in regards to automobiles, gasoline is often the dominant price factor in operation, so there is already a big interest in improving efficiency, which has happened. Cars today are heavier, faster, more powerful, much safer in accidents and still burn less gas... but at the end of the day you are still limited by Carnot's law...

 

But yes there is an issue if there is a major, rapid price spike, even like what happened between 2003 - 2008 where oil went from $25 to $147/bbl and gasoline went from 65 cents to $1.51/L, especially considering that cars are durable goods that are expensive and not economically worthwhile to replace in that situation. It is very nice of the government to have stepped in and raised taxes after the oil price fell so that we can now pay $1.16/L with $86/bbl oil instead of 90 cents like it was the first time

 

I don't really think there is an issue with suppliers sticking in "old-think" instead of innovating to improve profits... likewise all I am seeing with fuel-economy regulations is a restriction on consumer choice instead of "free" new technology. V8's are awesome

 

What happens when new technology doesn't impact consumption, but instead on the supply side. Oil sands technology put a hell of a lot of oil now into play, the rate of extraction limited only by the amount of people you can persuade to go up there. Look what has happened with shale gas, it was expected for Canadian natural gas production to go into decline, but instead is growing, and the US instead of being a major gas importer, is now becoming a global exporter... Gas can be used directly in vehicles, but there is also shale oil to potentially crack.

 

What would be most amusing would be nuclear powered cars... a piece of uranium the size of a cherry would run you a car for 120 years + if you could get it to critical mass

Modifié 4 novembre 2010 par Cyrus

[Cataclaw]

There has been no beginning of drop in oil reserves, they keep increasing as they have for basically forever. It is not logical, as you drink from a bottle the beer disappears, but in oil you drink and drink and there is more left Just last week, they revised the reserves of Hibernia upward a fair bit. They expected it was a bit less than a billion barrels, but they have already extracted 700 MMbbl, so now estimate 1.4 billion bbl remaining I agree that oil is getting increasingly expensive and scarce however.

 

Ah but there is a drop in oil reserves. I love my car (i also love public transit, but yeah, i do in fact love my car and driving it) but we have to be realistic here Cyrus. Oil supply IS decreasing. It's already started. In fact it started a long time ago. Yes new reserves are being discovered, but the rate of their discovery has fallen sharply over the last few decades. This isn't a "normative issue" where you're an environmentalist or not, or a pro-car or anti-car person... this is an issue of raw numbers and raw facts, and the raw facts are we are running out of oil... and it's a huge f-ing problem!

 

Look at this graph of USA oil production:

 

 

It isn't just in America, look at this graph for oil discoveries. Yes there are new discoveries all the time, but their rate has fallen. That's a fact.

 

 

So yeah.. we can't kid ourselves and tell ourselves that we'll have oil forever. It is a finite resource and we WILL run out. Put the environmental issue aside. Put the fuel efficiency issue aside. Just focus on this : if we want to still be driving cars in the future, we have to move away from oil and develop better technology. Period.

 

WTB nuclear fusion plz.

[Cyrus]

Discoveries aren't the only part of reserves

 

http://www.bp.com/subsection.do?categoryId=9023761&contentId=7044545

 

Proved oil reserves at the end of 2008 are estimated to have been 1258.0 thousand million (billion) barrels. That represented an increase of 17.7% over the 1997 figure of 1068.5 billion barrels, despite estimated cumulative production of 290 billion barrels during the intervening ten years, ie global reserves additions amounted to around 480 billion barrels between end-1998 and end-2008.

 

Their Excel file shows a consistent year-over-year increase in global reserves as far back as it goes (1980 - 2009), going from 999 billion bbl in 1980 to 1333.1 billion bbl in 2009, not including any oil sands (143.3 billion bbl in 2009) or other kinds of synthetic oils (derived from natural gas, coal, biofuel whatever).

 

Now it is possible / likely to have a global decline at some point in time, as has happened in various countries. Mexico for one has been in decline in production and reserves for some time, for example their reserves in 1982 were 57.1 billion and in 2009, only 11.7 billion, mostly because of Cantarell.

 

The United States, which was the first incidence of the "peak oil" has actually seen pretty steady reserves, oscillating between about 28 billion and 31 billion bbl remaining...

 

There is also consideration that needs to be given to investment in oil production... many banana republics or countries with nationalised oil industries have sucked all the money out of the industry and leave nothing for reinvestment. If you look at Iran for just one example of many, most of the infrastructure and fields dates back to the 1950's... if there was investment in the infrastructure, and even applications of new technologies like enhanced recovery techniques, you could get a lot more oil out of there. It is important to note, that in a conventional oil well, only about 20 % of the oil in place is ever extracted... there is a lot of extra room to increase reserves (extractable oil) and production by improving technology.

 

In Canada, there are several "old" oil fields that were left for dead, in Alberta and Saskatchewan, that now everyone is rushing to again because of EOR... for example in Weyburn, SK, they are making a CO2-sequestration project, taking CO2 produced by a coal-fired power plant, injecting it into an old oil well, and by increasing the reservoir pressure, extracting extra crude oil for free, that was previously thought inaccessible. Carbon-footprint, less than zero

 

My basic point is we have not yet reached that point of no return

 

edit

 

I just love this:

 

1901 As known natural gas supplies dwindle, Ontario government bans exports to U.S.

Modifié 5 novembre 2010 par Cyrus