Still, I figured that the plan was to make sure than any expanded drilling came with enough bureaucratic costs that it would surely get so bogged down in process that no oil company in its right mind would ever even conceive of a serious attempt to drill for the pathetic amount of oil actually available. And so I supported the President’s announcement – very savvy, especially following the passage of the health care legislation.

And now we have an epic disaster on our hands. The benighted Gulf coast, still recovering from Katrina, now faces an ecological disaster that will capture imaginations for a generation, the Cuyahoga fire or Valdez wreck for the Twitter set. Will it change minds? Can Palin ever again utter her drilling mantra without irony, shame, or – at least – qualification? I doubt it, or at least I hope not.

The bigger question to me now is, how does this change the debate around energy policy? If Rahm Emanuel were Karl Rove, I’d almost say he’d blown up the oil rig himself, given the timing. I’m looking forward to the debate between the Red State fisherman and shrimpers along with the Red State property developers and the Red State governors and legislators versus the Red State oil interests. Talk about a wedge issue!

I’d say it would be fun to watch, but it’s a shame that it takes a tangible disaster like this for people to reconsider misguided opinion.

Under Dems, we’ve established that off[s]hore drilling is OK. Nuke subsidies are OK. Coal subsidies are OK. As yet, gotten NOTHING in exchange.

I suppose after the health care victory we have to give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he can still get climate legislation through congress. But from the cheap seats out here in Seattle, it sure looks like he gave the GOP everything they wanted on energy, with out them giving him a single thing in return.

Oil prices, which provide the bulk of state revenue, were well over $100 a barrel in late August when Ms. Palin left to campaign with Senator John McCain. Now they are slumming south of $60 a barrel, below the level required to balance the state budget….

“Now we kick in that fiscal conservativeness that needs to be engaged, and we progress this state with $57-a-barrel oil,” Ms. Palin said. She said the state would have to “be prudent with public dollars and provide services more efficiently than have ever been provided in the state of Alaska before.”

Well, she’s not the only one who’s suffering. Other religious extremists who lead oil-producing states are having similar issues:

As oil prices plummet, Iranian pessimism grows. In 2006, Tehran planned its budget assuming an oil price of $60/barrel. High oil prices masked Ahmadinejad’s incompetence. While Iran’s budgetary process has grown more opaque, it appears that Ahmadinejad constructed his budget with the assumption of oil price stability. Now that oil has plummeted, the Islamic Republic is in trouble.

Of course, environmentalists like myself aren’t so thrilled with $60/barrel oil either, since it makes alternatives less attractive. Still, watching these two whackjobs suffer politically makes it mildly more palatable.

Oil analyst Peter Beutel says residents in the greater New York area will see a raise of 50 cents a gallon in the next 72 hours.

Beutel is also predicting the Chicago area will see a 75 cent raise and Houston area will be hit with a $2 increase.

Beutel says Hurricane Ike is to blame for increases.

“I’m looking at the wholesale prices that gasoline resellers or the people who sell us the gasoline are going to be paying for the gasoline that we’re going to be getting. So this price increase has already occured. It is a fact already, and it’s just a matter now of working it’s way through the distribution chain into our tanks,” said Beutel.

Jeez, is this possible?

The report says that eight officials in the royalty program accepted gifts from energy companies whose value exceeded limits set by ethics rules — including golf, ski and paintball outings; meals and drinks; and tickets to a Toby Keith concert, a Houston Texans football game and a Colorado Rockies baseball game.

The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”

The investigation separately found that the program’s manager mixed official and personal business. In sometimes lurid detail, the report also accuses him of having intimate relations with two subordinates, one of whom regularly sold him cocaine.

Oy. This is what happens when you’re addicted to oil. I don’t see any wind companies handing out sex and drugs in exchange for wind farm leases! And Bush/McCain want more oil drilling. Man, if Obama can’t make hay out of this, he should just retire right now.

[This being September 11, though, and both campaigns in an effective cease-fire, that may not happen.]

Update: reading to the end of the article, we finally get to why this is a bad thing, aside from the luridness:

On one occasion, the report said, the royalty-in-kind program allowed a Chevron representative who had won a bid to purchase some of the government’s oil to pay taxpayers a lower amount than his winning offer because he said he had made a mistake in his calculations. A report from Mr. Devaney’s office earlier this year found that the program had frequently allowed companies that purchased the oil and gas to revise their bids downward after they won contracts. It documented 118 such occasions that cost taxpayers about $4.4 million in all.

…

[The government officials] said they did not view socializing with oil company representatives and taking gifts as inappropriate because they said they needed to be part of the marketing culture in order to market the program’s oil and gas.

Right, because you need to actually market oil and gas. Not that crap sells itself! Here we get to the fundamental problem with the Bush Administration’s worldview: that all the government has to offer is opportunities to whore itself out. We see this in the crafting of the medicare drug benefit, and even in the war in Iraq, where tens of thousands of Iraqis were left unemployed and pissed off for years while we waited for glorious private industry to take off in Iraq.

When we elected two oilmen president, we probably knew that they were going to be generous to the oil companies. But what we didn’t see coming was an entire worldview based on a life lived in the resource extraction business. To Bush and Cheney, the whole government — the whole country — is a resource to be exploited by industry, and they’ve got an 8-year lease. It’s not the 50- or 100-year leases that oilmen are used to, but it’ll do.

Happy “Patriot Day.”

Nuclear power provides 77 percent of France’s electricity, according to the government, and relatively few public doubts are expressed in a country with little coal, oil or natural gas.

With the wildly fluctuating cost of oil, anxiety over global warming from burning fossil fuels and new concerns about the impact of biofuels on the price of food for the poor, nuclear energy is getting a second look in countries like the United States and Britain. Even Germany, committed to phasing out nuclear power by 2021, is debating whether to change its mind.

One of the nice things about having so much cheap, carbon-free electricity is that you can use it to power industry, transit networks, and more without fossil fuels. It also helps you meet your Kyoto targets for reducing greenhouse gases. Right now, it’s hard to see any other electricy source that can ramp up to match coal in the short timeline we need to halt the damage caused by global climate change.

But here’s the real kicker:

France has 58 operating nuclear reactors, the highest number of any nation besides the United States. In America, where nuclear construction has been moribund, there is also new interest. At the moment, 19.4 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is from 104 nuclear plants, according to the Department of Energy. [emphasis added]

First, this is a reminder of how energy-inefficient the US is. If we were as energy-efficient as the French, those 104 plants would be providing 30 or 40 percent of our electricity (factoring for the increase in population, but assuming that all plants are equally powerful).

But that’s a small point. The larger point is that the US has 104 nuclear plants. We’re way more committed to nuclear power than we might like to admit. So, why not double down ousrelves? We’ve already got one foot in the water, so we ought to either decide that nuclear power is too horrific and shut down the 104 plants in operation, or dive in and solve our climate crisis.

Back in ’02, Friedman wrote that the invasion of Iraq could lead to either $6/barrel or $60/barrel oil, but he spilled a lot more ink on the glorious benefits of the $6 scenario:

The scenario that could produce $6-a-barrel oil goes like this: Iraq under Saddam has been pumping up to two million barrels of oil a day, under the U.N. oil-for-food program. Let’s say a U.S. invasion works and in short order Saddam is ousted and replaced by an Iraqi Thomas Jefferson, or just a ”nice” general ready to abandon Iraq’s nuclear weapons program and rejoin the family of nations.

That would mean Iraq would be able to modernize all its oilfields, attract foreign investment and in short order ramp up its oil production to its long-sought capacity of five million barrels a day. That is at least three million barrels of oil a day more on the world market, and Iraq, which will be desperate for cash to rebuild, is not likely to restrain itself. (Now you understand why Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait all have an economic interest in Saddam’s staying in power and Iraq’s remaining a pariah state, so it can’t produce more oil.)

Today, Iraq is producing roughly the same (or less) as before the invasion. And though the Saudis and Kuwaitis would have preferred to keep Saddam in power, it wasn’t because they feared its massive increase in production capacity. They simply liked the stability.

Oh, and, of course, $6/barrel oil would have unleashed a torrent of increased consumption. We’d all be driving Hummers today. It would have led to an environmental disaster that would make 2008 Friedman’s head spin. But 2002 Friedman had other priorities.

The question is, how do the markets respond to this, and can the Saudis actually single-handedly keep prices down. That may not be possible any more.
Update: the markets have responded, and they obviously don’t think the Saudis have the goods here.

Where are these plants? The ideas here aren’t new ones. A pilot project, the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) was to build a liquid sodium metal cooled, plutonium and U-235 fueled fast neutron reactor with an on-site waste processing center. The project’s budget was cut in 1994 by President Clinton’s energy secretary and thus languished before the project could be completed. The ideas from this project have been rejuvenated, with plans for a liquid sodium, liquid lead and gas cooled reactor variants based around the same general principles, called generation IV reactors, to be ready for commercial operation in 2030.

The designs are, individually, brilliant. The lead-cooled variant is designed to be modular. The reactor is small, easily installed and removed and works for about fifteen to twenty years without having to be opened or refueled. Perfect for countries or remote areas with no interest in or infrastructure for refining nuclear fuels. The gas-cooled variant can operate safely at huge temperatures and is incredibly efficient at minimizing waste products in a relatively simple manner. The sodium-cooled design is the dreamiest to me. Such a reactor complex could not only operate at tremendous efficiencies, but also eat up the waste of the older pressurized water reactors. Keen!

2030 is too far away. If we were smart, we would throw resources at these fourth generation technologies, pushing to have the pilot reactors and designs finalized within ten years. None of these are perfect. No source of power is without risk or environmental injury. None. Our planet hosts nearly seven billion people. Fossil fuel reserves are dwindling. The atmosphere and oceans are buckling under the carbon strain. Nuclear power, particularly responsibly applied with standardized plant designs and a real plan for dealing with the waste, remains are best hope. The physics and technology is available. We just need to do it. Now.

I agree. Wind, geothermal and solar are great, but not available quickly enough in sufficient quantities. Coal is killing thousands of Americans every year, and hydro power is basically maxed out.

Representative Anthony D. Weiner, Democrat of Brooklyn and Queens, drives a 2008 Chevrolet Impala, leased for $219 a month. Representative Michael R. McNulty, a Democrat from the Albany area, gets around in a 2007 Mercury Mariner hybrid, a sport utility vehicle, for $816 a month.

“It gets a little better than 25 miles a gallon,” Mr. McNulty said.

Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably.

“It’s one of the bigger Cadillacs,” Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week. “I’ve got a desk in it. It’s like an airplane.”

Modest or more luxurious, the cars are all paid for by taxpayers. The use of a car — gas included — is one of the benefits of being a member of the House of Representatives.

There are few restrictions on what kind of car the members can choose, and there is no limit on how much they can spend. But the benefit can be politically sensitive, given the growing concerns about automobile emissions and an economy that has left many people struggling to pay for the rapidly rising cost of gas, which was averaging $3.63 a gallon nationwide earlier this week.

Not only does the federal government pick up the cost of the lease and the gas, but also general maintenance, insurance, registration fees and excess mileage charges. The perk itself may draw heightened attention in the coming weeks as members of Congress consider proposals to address gas prices, including one to suspend temporarily the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon.

Congressional records show that about 125 members of the House make use of the benefit, which has been in place since at least the 1980s and is part of the allowance provided for their office operations. They include Representatives Charlie Melancon of Louisiana (2007 Chevy Tahoe), Bobby L. Rush of Illinois (2007 Lincoln Navigator) and Alcee L. Hastings of Florida (2006 Infiniti M45).

The Senate does not permit its members to lease cars with public money.

The WRX has a 15.9 gallon gas tank, and requires premium gasoline. With premium gas running $3.929 per gallon in the Seattle market, a full tank costs $62.47. Presume that Congress elects to implement the McCain/Clinton plan for a Gas Tax Holiday.

1) Assuming that the price of premium gasoline remains fixed at $3.929/gal., how much money in dollars does Apocalypse Tom save on his weekly trip to the pump if his weekly top-off requires purchase of 3/4 tank? What can Tom buy with the savings?

2) What is Apocalypse Tom’s percentage savings over the taxed price, again assuming a fixed price of $3.929/gal.? Round your answer to the nearest hundredth of a percent.

3) Because the Gas Tax Holiday is sure to be temporary, what is Apocalypse Tom’s total savings in dollars over a period of 20 weeks?

4) Assuming that he chooses to save the extra money calculated in Question 1 instead of spending it on junk food, how much whiskey can Apocalypse Tom purchase with the accumulated savings, in order to get him through a notional McCain inauguration?

Answers After the Jump. Seriously, try to work it out, and let Tom know if you think he’s insane.

1) Trick question. Apocalypse Tom saves a consistent 18.4 cents per gallon during the Gas-Tax holiday regardless of changes in the price of gas. Overall, Tom saves $2.19 on 3/4 of a tank of gas if the tax is eliminated. With $2.19, Tom can purchase one 16 oz. bottle of water and one “Big Grab” bag of Doritos for the drive.

2) Apocalypse Tom saves 4.68% on his gas.

3) Tom saves $43.80 over 20 weeks.

4) God, not nearly enough.

Richard Dyer, Friends of the Earth’s transport campaigner said: “Flying virtually empty planes is an obscene waste of fuel. Through no fault of their own , each passenger’s carbon footprint for this flight is about 45 times what it would have been if the plane had been full.

“Governments must stop granting the aviation industry the unfair privileges that allow this to happen by taxing aviation fuel and including emissions from aviation in international agreements to tackle climate change.”

I found myself watching Who Killed the Electric Car? last night, and it’s quite an interesting little movie.

One thing that’s hinted at in the film, but not really fleshed out, is the idea that electric cars are a really, really disruptive technology. Like any disruptive technology, they create a whole new class of winners and losers. And, just like health care reform, land use reform, or just about any large-scale government intervention, the existing winners will fight like hell to preserve the status quo (Iraq, anyone?).

Moving to electric cars would have several ramifications. Most obviously, electric utilities would replace oil companies as our primary transportation energy provider. Electric utilities tend to be heavily-regulated quasi-public entities, much more so than oil companies. On the minus side, electricity in the U.S. tends to come from coal. On the plus side, though, upgrading a single power plant to cleaner technology — hydro, nuclear, wind, etc. — will instantly make the whole transportation grid more carbon-friendly (instead of, say, increasing CAFE standards and waiting 10 years for people to buy new cars).

Also, the film makes the point that electric cars are simpler and much easier to maintain. This is great for consumers, but terrible for auto dealers, who make much more money from their service departments than they do from their sales floors. Add in the cost of re-training and re-certifying service techs, and you can see why auto dealers would prefer the status quo.

Finally, the auto companies, understandably, hated the idea that the government would pick be picking the winning technology, as the state of California seemed to be doing with the electrics, so they fought it like hell. Governments should never be in the business of picking technological winners and losers. Instead it should create the rules of the market (i.e. “vehicles must emit fewer than X particulates of CO2″) and let the technology follow from that.

The subject of the film, the GM EV1, was introduced in the late 90s when gas was still $1.40 or so per gallon and rechargable batteries were of the lead-acid variety that long-time laptop owners will remember as providing a stunning 30 minutes of battery life. With gas hitting $4/gallon, and Litium-ion batteries — such as thosed used in the Prius* — providing the power, it might be time to look at EVs again.

So how would you do it in a way that prevents the oil companies and car companies from killing it? Well, I think the EV1 provides some interesting lessons. First, as I said above, government has to set up the market correctly, which means pricing gasoline appropriately, facilitating charging stations, and generally not doing things that get in the way. Next, customers need to be educated about the idea that they could have different cars for different purposes. The EV1 is not a good car for the family vacation, but it’s fine for commuting, getting groceries, etc.

GM is prepping a new electric car, the Chevy Volt, for a possible 2010 launch. Right now it’s vaporware, but assuming they get it right, it could be a game-changer. CEO Rick Waggoner said that killing the EV1 was the biggest mistake he made, which is reassuring.

Critically speaking, the film is not a great documentary. There are gaping holes in the logic (such as the use of street interviews and anecdotes to “prove” that there was massive demand for the EV1), and the tone is uneven. But it’s an interesting story, one worth hearing.

* Update 3/25/08: The Prius uses NiMH batteries, but Toyota is experimenting with Li-Ion batteries for use down the road.

Photo by Flickr user Corvair Owner, used under a Creative Commons license.

Ricardo Caraballo was having a familiar American experience at the filling station the other day, groaning as the pump clicked up, up, up. By the time he finished it read $505, and his tank was only half full.

A few years ago, “$500 would have kept me rolling for two weeks,” he said. “Now, I’ll be lucky to make it three days.”

Mr. Caraballo is a trucker, and instead of gasoline he was buying 143 gallons of diesel. While the price of gasoline may be on the verge of setting another record, diesel is already there.

According to AAA, the motor club, the average nationwide diesel price has set records on 18 of the past 19 days, including Monday, when it hit $3.83 a gallon.

In the nation’s tool and die plants, in the driver’s seats of farm tractors and in the cabs of the long-haul semis that ply America’s highways, people are feeling the pain.

“It’s killing us,” said Chad Beachler, co-owner of Beachler Trucking, which operates nine trucks in Loudonville, Ohio. “Every day, I come in here and wonder if I have enough money to buy fuel.”

. . .

When Tony Jarachovic bought his white Kenworth semi in 1998, diesel cost 88 cents a gallon. Today the truck’s odometer reads 1.1 million miles. It needs new front tires, which together cost $900, and a major overhaul, which will cost $8,500.

Spending $1,500 a week on fuel has depleted his maintenance budget, however. Now he avoids driving from his home base in Lodi, Ohio, into Pennsylvania because the hills strain his motor. Mr. Jarachovic used to buy Krispy Kreme doughnuts at truck stops, and treat his family to dinner at Applebee’s every Sunday. Now his wife cooks extra spaghetti so he can eat leftovers on the road.

“I have no expenses left to cut,” Mr. Jarachovic said.

Trucking companies are looking for efficiencies, as well. O & S Trucking of Springfield, Mo., recently installed electronic devices in each of its 350 trucks to kill the engines automatically after they idle for two minutes, said Jim Frieze, the equipment director. And all the company’s trucks have devices that limit roadway speeds; Mr. Frieze has dialed those down from 70 miles an hour to 65 to conserve fuel. He audits every truck’s computer every week, searching for wasteful habits.

“If a driver’s gear shifts take him over 1,800 r.p.m., he’s just blowing fuel out the stack,” Mr. Frieze said. “I take him aside and counsel him to shift faster.”

For Benjamin Franklin, daylight saving time was about saving candles and for modern lawmakers, it’s about electricity — but a recent university study found it might actually cost more energy when the nation resets its clocks Sunday.

Matthew J. Kotchen, a professor of environmental economics at the University of California in Santa Barbara, and Laura E. Grant, a doctoral student in the same field, studied the effects of daylight saving in Indiana, where some counties used it and others did not. The states changed the law two years ago so that all counties now use daylight saving time.

In an interview, Kotchen said using residential electricity bills for Indiana, he and Grant found that daylight saving time reduced electricity use for lighting but that more was used for air conditioning in the summer and heating in the fall than was saved.

(Which is to say — holy christ, it’s already Daylight Savings Time!)