The American Spectator

Reader Mail

American Muscle

11.7.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 5)

Traditional economic theory predicts that Increased fuel economy will resulted only in more driving. The last 18 months has seen the largest sustained drop in the Vehicle Miles Traveled in 27 years or since records are available. This sustained flattening of demand for Vehicle Miles Travel is unprecedented because it is not occurring during a time of recession.

Much of the alleged disadvantages of the big SUV can be blunted by looking at the vehicle as having potential to be a more efficient vehicle from a passenger mile standpoint. The SUV or large car can do articulated trips with multiple destinations before returning home to improve efficiency. The ability of the personal auto to do articulated trips 24 hours a day and on demand makes them the superior transportation of choice.
-- Danny L. Newton
Cookeville, Tennessee

It seems that the design, test, and tooling cycle for new cars, plus the time that it takes the public to realize that gas is going to stay expensive is about equal to the time it takes for oil prices to move from a local minimum to a new high. In engineering terms, the design cycle/product life has the same frequency as global oil costs. Unfortunately they are about 180 degrees out of phase so we got tiny, boring cars during the cheap gas days of the '90s, and big, fun, thirsty ones in the '60s to early '70s and again today. We'll probably have a petroleum glut in 8 or 10 years; just in time for a plethora of new tiny boring hybrids to hit the showrooms.
-- Glen Leinbach
Ft. Collins, Colorado

What's really cruel irony? How about a Senate that will not allow drilling in ANWR when oil is $100/barrel on speculative interest, not true demand. The announcement that the US is going to drill their would knock the price down 10% because it would show that the U.S. will do something to address this problem. It would also address the freefall in the dollar and, not cost the taxpayers one thin dime. TOO EASY.
-- Dan Hirsch
Waukegan, Illinois

"Maybe we'll discover that half a mile under L.A. sits more oil than in all of Saudi Arabia. That would be wonderful."

The problem is if we found oil the environmentalist would not let us drill. There is lots of oil off shore and in Alaska, but that is where it is going to stay as long as Dems are around.
-- Elaine Kyle

THERE THEY GO AGAIN
Re: William Tucker's Yet Another Energy Revolution (Yawn):

Mr. Tucker's report harkens me back to my early days in the energy business. Way back in the 1970s, when we were waiting in long gasoline lines, President Nixon established the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE was consolidation of a myriad of energy related agencies including the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA), which in turn had inherited the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).

DOE's new mission, in addition to overseeing the nuclear weapons complex and the development of commercial atomic energy, was to lead the charge for finding new energy sources.

Oil shale in western Colorado and eastern Utah were prime targets for exploration and development. Sadly, after huge investments by the government and several energy companies, it was discovered that it was heck of a lot harder to squeeze oil out of rocks than predicted by the so-called experts. The oil shale projects were eventually canceled.

As mentioned in Mr. Tucker report, DOE subsidized several solar plants here in California that have been proved to be inefficient when compared to more traditional energy sources. DOE also pushed for the expansion of thermal energy and subsidized a new plant near the Salton Sea, which was also failed to meet the experts' production predictions, and was fraught with technical problems.

The only "new" energy source with the potential to provide cheap, efficient, and clean energy was nuclear. However, due to a number of problems including hysterical reporting following the accident at Three Mile Island, the nuclear energy promise was essentially reduced to a whimper.

It is ironic now that many are touting the renaissance of nuclear energy we are now reliant on foreign expertise to revive the promise when over sixty years ago the United States was leader in nuclear technology.
-- Thomas Bullock
West Covina, California

William Tucker is right to point out that the left opposes the development of nuclear power for electricity generation, but he misses one exception which proves the rule, namely Iran's nuclear program, which has yet to engender the opposition that ours does in Greens and Democrats. Perhaps if we offered to buy Iran's surplus output, the left would consent to our use of nuclear power?
-- Mike Harris

"[This] vanguard of entrepreneurs [Vinod Koshla, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems] and financiers...believe their Silicon Valley success stories can be repeated in green energy...."

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Transportation, Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton, Business, Environment, Constitution, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, Immigration, Nuclear Weapons, Energy, Alaska, Oil