SUVs plunge toward 'endangered' list

[aerius]

You are also focusing on the later versions of suburbia - older suburbs (some of which were absorbed into the cities themselves) have buildings with smaller footprints (easier to heat) and smaller lots.

That's for sure, almost all the new cookie cutter homes going up in the last few years in the Toronto suburbs are big cheaply built homes on lots with 60-80' frontages. Go to a neighbourhood from 30-40 years ago and most of the homes have maybe 40-50' frontages, with around 1100-1500 square feet of space per floor. Go back another 50 years and we're looking at lots with around 30' of frontage or so, maybe a bit smaller on each floor but they tend to be 2 floors or more. Those built around the end of the 19th century have dinky little 20-25' frontages on the lots, but the homes are still around 800-1000 square feet per floor, usually with 2-3 floors. Homes are deep and narrow, and there ain't much of a front or back yard. The entire front & back yard combined is probably smaller than the average 2 car driveway in a modern home.

[Kanastrous]

Why is the survival of suburbia important to you, when the land could be used to grow food for starving children instead?

Is this really an either-or, in the US?

Are we actually so short on arable land to cultivate, that converting suburban settlements to cropland would benefit people who are presently in trouble?

[Darth Wong]

Why is the survival of suburbia important to you, when the land could be used to grow food for starving children instead?

Is this really an either-or, in the US?

Are we actually so short on arable land to cultivate, that converting suburban settlements to cropland would benefit people who are presently in trouble?

Our attempts to produce the fuel necessary to sustain these suburbs are starving people in the third world already.

[Kanastrous]

Why is the survival of suburbia important to you, when the land could be used to grow food for starving children instead?

Is this really an either-or, in the US?

Are we actually so short on arable land to cultivate, that converting suburban settlements to cropland would benefit people who are presently in trouble?

Our attempts to produce the fuel necessary to sustain these suburbs are starving people in the third world already.

So, not an available land problem, but an available fuel problem. With the same consequences.

[Alferd Packer]

Honestly? I've been dealing with a 2 hour, 3-train commute (one way) for nearly three years now. It can get annoying at times (you know, like when Amtrak decides not to let my train onto the NEC for 45 minutes, the fuckers), but that's why I bring along books, my Nintendo DS, and my satellite radio. Shit, if I had a lightweight laptop with a broadband card, I'd bring that along, too.

But I would never move to a high-rise in or near the city. Ever. For starters, there exists no reasonably priced apartments within range of Manhattan anymore. My friend and his fiance rent an apartment in a large high-rise that's twenty minutes outside the city, built on a fucking swamp in the middle of nowhere, for $2,400 monthly. Double or triple that for a place in Manhattan. And then there's the fact that people are inconsiderate cunts and have no problems being as loud as possible when near shared walls.

I'd much rather buy a house near a train station further away from the city and ride the rails in to work. If the trade is a wasteful, decadent lifestyle in a single-family home on *gasp* one sixth of an acre and a long train commute versus efficiently going insane in some overpriced high-rise that I don't even own, I will gladly be the first one against the wall when the revolution comes.

[CmdrWilkens]

Is this really an either-or, in the US?

Are we actually so short on arable land to cultivate, that converting suburban settlements to cropland would benefit people who are presently in trouble?

Our attempts to produce the fuel necessary to sustain these suburbs are starving people in the third world already.

So, not an available land problem, but an available fuel problem. With the same consequences.

It may be an available land problem, or at least VIABLE land problem. The estimates I've seen have less acerage in crop production this year compared against last year even with rising food prices and the demand for the biofuel industry. This means that at the distances farmers are operating from the market it isn't profitable to add land even if it is arable. The land which woudl be ideal to add would be a moderate distance form the city and connectable by road or rail to the larger transportation infrastructure. Basically suburbia sits on the best land for adding acerage profitably back in to produciton. For that matter most of the more recent suburban additions (say from 1980 onwards) have come at the expense of a large volume of modestly profitable small/medium sized farms supplying the local markets. Simply ut the rise of suburbia has been slowly killing the local (and therefore less transportation dependent) farm with consequences for the nationwide costs.

[CmdrWilkens]

That's not really true at all. Sure, if we wanted to just go straight from gasoline cars to electric cars with nuclear power, that would take a prohibitively long period of time. But it's not like we'd go straight from 100% gasoline to 100% electric/nuclear. There are numerous intermediate stages:

You miss the point that the "intermediate stages" will take longer than for the peak to arrive and pass us since some estimates are looking at peak already being upon us and plenty of predictions for peak within the next decade. So lets look at how long its gonna take to implement your "intermediate" steps.

1. President Obama begins to push for the construction of more nuclear power plants.

Aside from the fact that there are already numerous applications for new plants or additions to existing ones it is going to take a long time. Take Calvert Cliffs #3. They decided to go forward back in 2007 with the initial applicaiton and even with fast track reviews they probably won't be able to break ground until late 2008/early 2009 which means first operation sometime around 2017...that's 10 years from the time of first committment and actually putting a fully filed applicaton before the NRC if you fast track it.

2. People drive less, and try to integrate metros and subways into some parts of their trips.

Only problem is its hard and expensive to do this. Being a Marylander myself lets look at MARC, Metro, and MTA Light Rail/Metro Subway. Currently MARC is beyond capacity, Metro (WMATA) is just about at capacity and expects to reach capacity around 2012-2015 on most lines, Light Rail is under capacity but it also serve on a single line and the same with MTA Metro Subway. Combined the three rail services (I'm counting LightRail/baltimore metro together) account for approximately 802,000 daily rides out of a regional population of 8.2 million.

Right now MARC is estimating it would take approximately $4 Bn and close to 30 years to increase capacity by 80k/day (from a current 27k max and 30k actual to 110k max). That's 50,000 per TRIP. Look at the Dulles metro extension which is going to cost $2.1 Bn to go 11 miles and nobody has yet counted how much more to go the remaining 12.

Simply put just getting the capacity is HUGELY expensive in terms of both dollars and time largely because of the distances, look at that last number, that's about $200million PER MILE of track. Getting track into all the suburbs would be insane. I've seen some numbers on building the Purple Line and there is a reason they immediately ruled out heavy rail (like Metro) and started looking at Light Rail but even then we are talking $50mil or more per mile.

3. People buy motorcycles for their daily commute to work, since many motorcycles get over twice the gas millage of the average car.

They are also FAR more dangerous in collisions, FAR harder to learn how to control effectively, FAR more dangerous in inclement weather (virtually every biker I know won't go out in more than a drizzle or misting) AND its still not any better than just getting folks to carpool. Added on to that it is useless for the routine intra-suburban driving many cars are used for: picking up groceries, clothes, etc. You can't transport much on a motorcycle so now you have to own two vehicles: one for your commute and one for your consumable purchases which adds additional costs.

4. When a person's car starts to fall apart or show signs of aging - the new choice for a car is a hybrid.

Lets look at what that saves us: Taking the ubiquitous Camry Hybrid you get 33/34 as your mileage so lets be generous and say 34 is your average. With the national average driver going 11,500mi that is 338 gallons of gas. Same year non-hybrid is 21/31 for an average around 27 or 426 gallons thats a savings of 98 gallons per year, or $980 at $10/gallon. Unfortunately the hybrid model costs an average of $4000 more so it would take 5 years at $10/gal to make up the difference. For the average consumer right now that is a TOUGH sell.

In other words you aren't going to be able to stop folks looking at the short term market (the $4k more for a hybrid) when even the long term market doens't help them much without stretching past a half decade with prices twice what they are now. Simply put social conscious is certainly driving increased hybrid purchases and therfore lower demand BUT it isn't saving enough for the average person to consistently chose the hybrid. Even then growth in number of cars on the road still means that those 98gal per person per year you save needs to be multiplied by 4 people doing it for each net (not gross) new driver even if the new driver choses a hybrid.

5. Companies that convert hybrids to plug-ins and add extra battery capacity prop up across the US.

Which runs in to the electrical supply issue we've been talking about so unless you are willing to wait the 10-20 years to get enough new nukes online this isn't a viable strategy unless you want to pollute the earth even more with extra coal burning plants.

6. Over time, car companies end up producing cars with large built in batteries.

What economic incentive will drive this and HOW are you going to get them to do this in the next 15 or so years?

7. At this point, the nuclear power plants come on line, and Suburbia is saved.

NOTHING you have offered is remotely likely to be completed within the 15 years or so we MAY, if we are lucky, get until we start feeling the effects of P.O.

8. Barack Obama is known as the Saviour of Suburbia, and is greeted as a hero far and wide throughout the land.

Since nothing you've mentioned will likely get finished up or really even halfway done until 2016 or so it will only be the historians doing this and only if your entire set of ideas miraculously happen.

[Crayz9000]

Umm, proportional to the size of the engine? So we should adjust the size of the electrical plug to match the size of the engine? I suspect that’s not what you exactly meant, but that’s what your asking for.

What I meant was proportional to the car's power needs. So a large car that required large amounts of power would be required to have a larger battery and the ability to recharge faster.

I think an easier mandate would be to simply require that the minimum battery-only range is, for example, 30 miles between charges. That's about 1/3rd of the 2nd gen EV1's range, but then again, that car was all batteries.

Incidentally, the Chevrolet Volt is estimated to have a 40 mile battery-only range.

[Broomstick]

Simply put just getting the capacity is HUGELY expensive in terms of both dollars and time largely because of the distances, look at that last number, that's about $200million PER MILE of track. Getting track into all the suburbs would be insane. I've seen some numbers on building the Purple Line and there is a reason they immediately ruled out heavy rail (like Metro) and started looking at Light Rail but even then we are talking $50mil or more per mile.

The Chicago area has an advantage in that we have an extensive rail system, about 1/3 of which is already electrified. We're having trouble keeping it maintained, much less expanding it. Many routes are at or over capacity. In many cases we can't add routes because it would cut into freight traffic - which is rising due to trucking costs. Fares keep rising. There is substantial social and political resistance to increasing rail/bus subsidies - foolish and short-sighted but that is the reality on the ground.

3. People buy motorcycles for their daily commute to work, since many motorcycles get over twice the gas millage of the average car.

They are also FAR more dangerous in collisions, FAR harder to learn how to control effectively, FAR more dangerous in inclement weather (virtually every biker I know won't go out in more than a drizzle or misting) AND its still not any better than just getting folks to carpool.

I'm having trouble imagining commuting in a Chicago winter on a motorcycle... just won't happen. Spring is heralded not with a return of robins around here but with a return of motorcycles to the road.

Also, if I could carpool with 3 other people I think I'd have a significantly lower ratio of fuel expended per person per distance than if everyone rode a motorcycle, or even if they rode double. (My car gets 40 mpg in city driving)

Added on to that it is useless for the routine intra-suburban driving many cars are used for: picking up groceries, clothes, etc. You can't transport much on a motorcycle so now you have to own two vehicles: one for your commute and one for your consumable purchases which adds additional costs.

You can actually get a trailer for your motorcycle - my Other Half owned one when he had only the bikes for transportation. Of course, then you have the problem of dealing with a trailer as well as a two-wheeler than is more difficult to master than a car. And they aren't large enough for an entire family's worth of laundry or grocery - for an individual it's a solution, not for a group.

4. When a person's car starts to fall apart or show signs of aging - the new choice for a car is a hybrid.

Lets look at what that saves us: Taking the ubiquitous Camry Hybrid you get 33/34 as your mileage so lets be generous and say 34 is your average.

I own a 4-person car bought in 2002 that gets 40 mpg in the city (and more on the highway). Why the hell would I buy a hybrid that gets less per gallon?

That's a problem with hybrids - if I can get better mileage in a standard gasoline powered car that suits my needs fuck the the hybrid.

Keep in mind, too, that since I do utilize mass transit I don't drive that average 11,500 per year - more like half that, including long-distance trips to Michigan and Tennessee. It would take me even longer to recoup the extra costs of a hybrid.

5. Companies that convert hybrids to plug-ins and add extra battery capacity prop up across the US.

Which runs in to the electrical supply issue we've been talking about so unless you are willing to wait the 10-20 years to get enough new nukes online this isn't a viable strategy unless you want to pollute the earth even more with extra coal burning plants.

Either that, or we get power rationing and people will have to choose between powering their cars and lighting their homes - or more realistically, between electricity using appliances/toys and charging their cars.

Really, it wouldn't surprise me if 5 years from now I'm still driving my current car, paying a LOT for fuel, and the entire backyard is planted in vegetables, including things like potatoes which provide a lot of calories and nutrition per acre.

[CaptainZoidberg]

You miss the point that the "intermediate stages" will take longer than for the peak to arrive and pass us since some estimates are looking at peak already being upon us and plenty of predictions for peak within the next decade. So lets look at how long its gonna take to implement your "intermediate" steps.

The first couple wouldn't take very long at all. How long does it take to start driving a motorcycle to work (you do have to get an additional license, but that doesn't take that long)?

How long does it take to convert your hybrid to a plug-in?

(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=89424919 this firm will do it for $10k)

I'm not disputing that the total transition from a petroleum based transportation system to a nuclear-electric based one will take time. All I'm saying is that there are several intermediate steps that can be implemented relatively quickly to ease the transition.

Aside from the fact that there are already numerous applications for new plants or additions to existing ones it is going to take a long time.

I've never disputed that notion. In fact, I only mention the plants coming online in step 7, after most of the intermediate steps have already eased the transition.

Take Calvert Cliffs #3. They decided to go forward back in 2007 with the initial applicaiton and even with fast track reviews they probably won't be able to break ground until late 2008/early 2009 which means first operation sometime around 2017...that's 10 years from the time of first committment and actually putting a fully filed applicaton before the NRC if you fast track it.

10 years isn't that bad. And besides, it's not like we need nuclear power to make suburbia work in the short term - coal power is providing electricity quite well.

Only problem is its hard and expensive to do this. Being a Marylander myself lets look at MARC, Metro, and MTA Light Rail/Metro Subway. Currently MARC is beyond capacity, Metro (WMATA) is just about at capacity and expects to reach capacity around 2012-2015 on most lines, Light Rail is under capacity but it also serve on a single line and the same with MTA Metro Subway. Combined the three rail services (I'm counting LightRail/baltimore metro together) account for approximately 802,000 daily rides out of a regional population of 8.2 million.

I'm not going to disagree with you there. Suburbia is designed around the personal automobile.

Simply put just getting the capacity is HUGELY expensive in terms of both dollars and time largely because of the distances, look at that last number, that's about $200million PER MILE of track. Getting track into all the suburbs would be insane. I've seen some numbers on building the Purple Line and there is a reason they immediately ruled out heavy rail (like Metro) and started looking at Light Rail but even then we are talking $50mil or more per mile.

I'm not saying that we would lay track all the way into the suburbs. But it would be possible for someone living in Fairfax to drive from the suburbs to the DC metro, and then take that to their downtown office. It doesn't take the personal automobile out of suburbia, but it cuts down on its usage considerably.

3. People buy motorcycles for their daily commute to work, since many motorcycles get over twice the gas millage of the average car.

They are also FAR more dangerous in collisions, FAR harder to learn how to control effectively, FAR more dangerous in inclement weather (virtually every biker I know won't go out in more than a drizzle or misting) AND its still not any better than just getting folks to carpool.

Carpooling doesn't always work, and I'd imagine people would be willing to accept the danger/controlling difficulty if they could save hundreds of dollars on gas.

Added on to that it is useless for the routine intra-suburban driving many cars are used for: picking up groceries, clothes, etc. You can't transport much on a motorcycle so now you have to own two vehicles: one for your commute and one for your consumable purchases which adds additional costs.

How about one for moving stuff (perhaps a minivan), and then a motorcycle? The minivan is used for family events and serious shopping - while the motorcycle(s) allows the husband and/or wife to commute to work while saving gas.

Lets look at what that saves us: Taking the ubiquitous Camry Hybrid you get 33/34 as your mileage so lets be generous and say 34 is your average. With the national average driver going 11,500mi that is 338 gallons of gas. Same year non-hybrid is 21/31 for an average around 27 or 426 gallons thats a savings of 98 gallons per year, or $980 at $10/gallon. Unfortunately the hybrid model costs an average of $4000 more so it would take 5 years at $10/gal to make up the difference. For the average consumer right now that is a TOUGH sell.

But when gas gets more expensive, and the research into hybrids by car companies increases, it will become an increasingly strong sell.

In other words you aren't going to be able to stop folks looking at the short term market (the $4k more for a hybrid) when even the long term market doens't help them much without stretching past a half decade with prices twice what they are now. Simply put social conscious is certainly driving increased hybrid purchases and therfore lower demand BUT it isn't saving enough for the average person to consistently chose the hybrid. Even then growth in number of cars on the road still means that those 98gal per person per year you save needs to be multiplied by 4 people doing it for each net (not gross) new driver even if the new driver choses a hybrid.

Government intervention is necessary to smooth the transition by support and subsidizing hybrid and electric cars.

Which runs in to the electrical supply issue we've been talking about so unless you are willing to wait the 10-20 years to get enough new nukes online this isn't a viable strategy unless you want to pollute the earth even more with extra coal burning plants.

It's not so much a question of what do I want to do - it's more a question of what will actually happen. I'd imagine the average American would prefer pollute the Earth with coal for a little bit until the nukes go online rather than give up suburbia and completely change their way of life.

What economic incentive will drive this and HOW are you going to get them to do this in the next 15 or so years?

If gasoline is prohibitively expensive people will flock to plug-in hybrids. Besides, companies are already working on it today - and some companies are even modding the Prius to work as a primarily electric car.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=89424919

NOTHING you have offered is remotely likely to be completed within the 15 years or so we MAY, if we are lucky, get until we start feeling the effects of P.O.

It will take 15 years for people to buy a hybrid car or a motorcycle? If they're feeling P.O. as much as you predict?

[Kanastrous]

How much more practical does nuclear power generation become, if we were to adopt an approach similar to France in the 1970s - standardized reactor and generator designs, instead of multiple custom designs?

[Patrick Degan]

How much more practical does nuclear power generation become, if we were to adopt an approach similar to France in the 1970s - standardized reactor and generator designs, instead of multiple custom designs?

It may be a poor analogy, but think of the diesel revolution in locomotive manufacture. Up to that point, steam locomotives were very much handmade machines. Even two units of the same design were never exactly the same (which also made supplying spare parts a nightmare, as they had to be custom-machined for each unit). And there were many different classes of locomotive depending upon wheel arrangement and boiler capacity (as well as custom-designed units for special rail lines), up to and including massive 4-6-6-4 Challengers and 4-8-8-4 Big Boys for pulling the largest trains. Diesel/electric traction on the other hand allowed for a small set of standardised designs to be cheaply mass-produced on an assembly-line basis. Pulling a five-mile long freight is simply a matter of plugging in multiple units slaved to the manned locomotive. Diesel units ended up costing only a fraction of the expense for a steam locomotive and, as they could be mass-produced so could replacement parts, which further cut the cost for a diesel fleet as opposed to steam traction. A revolution in rail transport made possible by standardised design and assembly-line manufacture.

Applying the same principles to nuclear reactor design and manufacture would give you plug-and-play units which could be added as necessary to increase the generating capacity of a power station. It would end any spare parts problem for obvious reasons, and it would eliminate much of the expense of power station construction as you could predict costs based on implementing a standard design for support and containment facilities —the only variable being exact materials costs which can be taken into account. Fuel load would also be a fixed variable across an entire family of reactors.

[Uraniun235]

If I understand right, this is what the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design is intended to accomplish: a standard design which can be purchased and deployed far more easily because the design itself has already been certified.

[Kanastrous]

It also suggests savings in training your operators and maintenance people, since now a person trained on one reactor, should be able to take up work anywhere else in the country on any other reactor.

Improved safety, too, since everyone is trained on a standardized system.

So, why don't we do it this way? Home-district-favoritism on the part of legislators?

Industry lobbying against it?

Too "socialist" a way to go?

[Surlethe]

The catch is this: by the time we switch to nuclear, suburbia will be long gone. The whole fuss about peak oil is not that oil will run out, but that society will take decades to adjust to prohibitively expensive and decreasing oil supplies. Alternatives exist, but producing them and manufacturing them in suitable quantities, especially with oil shortages, will require years and years -- and by then suburbia will be gone.

That's not really true at all. Sure, if we wanted to just go straight from gasoline cars to electric cars with nuclear power, that would take a prohibitively long period of time. But it's not like we'd go straight from 100% gasoline to 100% electric/nuclear. There are numerous intermediate stages:

Do you realize that this is a red-herring? My point was that the time it will take for these adjustments to occur will outstrip the time it will take for the economic ramifications of peaking oil to destroy suburbia. You have outlined what is perhaps a plausible adjustment path, but you have not shown that it will occur in less time than the annihilation of suburbs.

Nonetheless, let's take a look at your timeline and get some idea of how long it will take.

1. President Obama begins to push for the construction of more nuclear power plants.

2. People drive less, and try to integrate metros and subways into some parts of their trips.

Aye, and there's the rub: realistically, living in suburbs places a minimum on the driving that a person needs to do in order to live. You've actually identified the chief engine driving suburb destruction: people will no longer be able to live there precisely because driving will decrease.

3. People buy motorcycles for their daily commute to work, since many motorcycles get over twice the gas millage of the average car.

As Broomstick and Wilkens pointed out, motorcycles are not perfect car substitutes.

4. When a person's car starts to fall apart or show signs of aging - the new choice for a car is a hybrid.

Or an electric. The problem is that it will take twenty years to replace half the car fleet this way -- see the Hirsch Report.

5. Companies that convert hybrids to plug-ins and add extra battery capacity prop up across the US.

6. Over time, car companies end up producing cars with large built in batteries.

Of course -- over time. This is no doubt true. The real question is, how much time?

7. At this point, the nuclear power plants come on line, and Suburbia is saved.

Except that, as Wilkens pointed out, the time it takes for nuclear power plants to come on line is measured in decades, not in months or years. The production peak is happening now. In a decade and a half, when the nuclear wave starts coming on line, the suburbs will be long-gone.

[Sea Skimmer]

So, why don't we do it this way? Home-district-favoritism on the part of legislators?

Industry lobbying against it?

Too "socialist" a way to go?

No it’s just because nuclear plant construction up until it ceased in the US was such an insanely drawn out process that it’s wasn’t that practical, we’ve never had more then I think three companies certified to actually build civilian power reactors (the reactor its self, many companies can build the plants they go inside). It took (and still will take) years and years to do the basic work of getting a site approved for construction, and then it could be another ten years before you actually open. That means some reactor design you standardized in 1965 was probably going to obsolete by the time it opened in 1980 ect… Today reactor technology and many other technologies have radically advanced to the point that we aren’t going to make any more big leaps forward, and to standardize on one or two designs would be much more realistic.

[Kanastrous]

So, why don't we do it this way? Home-district-favoritism on the part of legislators?

Industry lobbying against it?

Too "socialist" a way to go?

No it’s just because nuclear plant construction up until it ceased in the US was such an insanely drawn out process that it’s wasn’t that practical, we’ve never had more then I think three companies certified to actually build civilian power reactors (the reactor its self, many companies can build the plants they go inside). It took (and still will take) years and years to do the basic work of getting a site approved for construction, and then it could be another ten years before you actually open. That means some reactor design you standardized in 1965 was probably going to obsolete by the time it opened in 1980 ect… Today reactor technology and many other technologies have radically advanced to the point that we aren’t going to make any more big leaps forward, and to standardize on one or two designs would be much more realistic.

What about handing the design process to the Navy? Does their experience with nuclear power plants for their own programs, translate into useful knowledge with which to build civilian reactors?

[CmdrWilkens]

You miss the point that the "intermediate stages" will take longer than for the peak to arrive and pass us since some estimates are looking at peak already being upon us and plenty of predictions for peak within the next decade. So lets look at how long its gonna take to implement your "intermediate" steps.

The first couple wouldn't take very long at all. How long does it take to start driving a motorcycle to work (you do have to get an additional license, but that doesn't take that long)?

How long does it take to convert your hybrid to a plug-in?

(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=89424919 this firm will do it for $10k)

I'm not disputing that the total transition from a petroleum based transportation system to a nuclear-electric based one will take time. All I'm saying is that there are several intermediate steps that can be implemented relatively quickly to ease the transition.

As is pinted out elsewhere in this thread I'mnot saying your stes can't be taken. I'm saying the TIME it takes to implement your steps is LONGER than we have before suburbia is no longer viable.

Aside from the fact that there are already numerous applications for new plants or additions to existing ones it is going to take a long time.

I've never disputed that notion. In fact, I only mention the plants coming online in step 7, after most of the intermediate steps have already eased the transition.

See above

Take Calvert Cliffs #3. They decided to go forward back in 2007 with the initial applicaiton and even with fast track reviews they probably won't be able to break ground until late 2008/early 2009 which means first operation sometime around 2017...that's 10 years from the time of first committment and actually putting a fully filed applicaton before the NRC if you fast track it.

10 years isn't that bad. And besides, it's not like we need nuclear power to make suburbia work in the short term - coal power is providing electricity quite well.

1) even before we go into the nonesense of the MASSIVE increase in carbon output remember that Coal is a finite resource as well so hooking ourselves up to massively increased coal produciton isn't exactly all that helpful of an alternative...oh yes and you ALSO create a massive increase in transit logistics to supply all this extra coal adding to an already growing traffic jam caused by rising fuel prices for commercial and industrial freight.

2) That's 10 years from...whenever the plan is submitted if everything goes perfectly. Realistically you are saying folks will start submitting plans after Obama pushes new nuclear well that leads to a couple problems:
- The supply chain is finite and everyone rushing in won't speed it up, that 10years will VERY QUICKLY become 15 due to lead time for critical components
- The above scenario posits essentially uninterrupted construction and testing. That means miracle of miracles occur and there are no massive environmental lawsuits, work delays, regulatory inspection faults, etc
- If folks start in 2009 then the earliest we are looking to BEGIN adding capacity is around 2020...8-12 years AFTER we have hit peak oil and suburbia begins to disintegrate.

Only problem is its hard and expensive to do this. Being a Marylander myself lets look at MARC, Metro, and MTA Light Rail/Metro Subway. Currently MARC is beyond capacity, Metro (WMATA) is just about at capacity and expects to reach capacity around 2012-2015 on most lines, Light Rail is under capacity but it also serve on a single line and the same with MTA Metro Subway. Combined the three rail services (I'm counting LightRail/baltimore metro together) account for approximately 802,000 daily rides out of a regional population of 8.2 million.

I'm not going to disagree with you there. Suburbia is designed around the personal automobile.

Exactly, your entire argument is that we can save suburbia well we can't do that in "suburbia" where the personal auto rules. There is no economically viable way to connect these scttered communities to jobs and commodities. Suburbia exists because when the personal auto was economically viable then the model for living was viable once you cannot get around viably on the personal auto suburbia is gone. We can't do it economically with transit (it will be tough enough for the less-dense prtions of cities and the immediate environs) so you are left with somehow providing everyone in suburbia with an economically viable path to a non petroleum dependent transportation mode.

Simply put just getting the capacity is HUGELY expensive in terms of both dollars and time largely because of the distances, look at that last number, that's about $200million PER MILE of track. Getting track into all the suburbs would be insane. I've seen some numbers on building the Purple Line and there is a reason they immediately ruled out heavy rail (like Metro) and started looking at Light Rail but even then we are talking $50mil or more per mile.

I'm not saying that we would lay track all the way into the suburbs. But it would be possible for someone living in Fairfax to drive from the suburbs to the DC metro, and then take that to their downtown office. It doesn't take the personal automobile out of suburbia, but it cuts down on its usage considerably.

Sure it does...but that only addresses COVERAGE. It doesn't address CAPACITY. In Fairfax County despite millions being thrown at the Orange line there will be literally no spare capacity after 2020 or so...read that again 2020 no spare capacity. If ridership continues to grow at its projected pace then running the maximum number of cars as close together as possible simply will not be able to handle the traffic demand. The ONLY way to relieve that kind of capacity crunch is to expand coverage and then we are right back to the huge costs of expanded coverage. Oh yes and that isn't counting the still considerable capital costs of adding capacity on the existing lines. Have you seen WMATA's funding requests?

3. People buy motorcycles for their daily commute to work, since many motorcycles get over twice the gas millage of the average car.

They are also FAR more dangerous in collisions, FAR harder to learn how to control effectively, FAR more dangerous in inclement weather (virtually every biker I know won't go out in more than a drizzle or misting) AND its still not any better than just getting folks to carpool.

Carpooling doesn't always work, and I'd imagine people would be willing to accept the danger/controlling difficulty if they could save hundreds of dollars on gas.

Really? You would be willing to bet? can you provide a SINGLE bit of proof other than simple assertion to back up your idea? People can save hundreds NOW and they aren't doing it so how the fuck does this support your idea that you can get this idea to catch on in lets say Long Island in January.

Added on to that it is useless for the routine intra-suburban driving many cars are used for: picking up groceries, clothes, etc. You can't transport much on a motorcycle so now you have to own two vehicles: one for your commute and one for your consumable purchases which adds additional costs.

How about one for moving stuff (perhaps a minivan), and then a motorcycle? The minivan is used for family events and serious shopping - while the motorcycle(s) allows the husband and/or wife to commute to work while saving gas.

Thanks for proving my point. You have now provided the typical suburban family with an additional required cost which can net savings of a perhaps 50 bucks a month in gas in return for $100+ a month in motorcycle payments and insurance. You aren't taking a car/van away you are simply adding a motorcycle to the mix or at best you are replacing one car with a motorcycle. In any even you are now adding training, padding and associated safety gear, additional licensing costs, additional insurance costs, another monthly vehicle payment, AND you still can't drive in inclement weather.

Lets look at what that saves us: Taking the ubiquitous Camry Hybrid you get 33/34 as your mileage so lets be generous and say 34 is your average. With the national average driver going 11,500mi that is 338 gallons of gas. Same year non-hybrid is 21/31 for an average around 27 or 426 gallons thats a savings of 98 gallons per year, or $980 at $10/gallon. Unfortunately the hybrid model costs an average of $4000 more so it would take 5 years at $10/gal to make up the difference. For the average consumer right now that is a TOUGH sell.

But when gas gets more expensive, and the research into hybrids by car companies increases, it will become an increasingly strong sell.

When will that happen? Oh that's right AFTER Peak Oil has already hit us and suburbia is no longer viable. For your massive replacement plan to work you need a couple decades AND favorable economics and if you get one(favorable economics) you aren't getting the other (a couple decades).

In other words you aren't going to be able to stop folks looking at the short term market (the $4k more for a hybrid) when even the long term market doens't help them much without stretching past a half decade with prices twice what they are now. Simply put social conscious is certainly driving increased hybrid purchases and therfore lower demand BUT it isn't saving enough for the average person to consistently chose the hybrid. Even then growth in number of cars on the road still means that those 98gal per person per year you save needs to be multiplied by 4 people doing it for each net (not gross) new driver even if the new driver choses a hybrid.

Government intervention is necessary to smooth the transition by support and subsidizing hybrid and electric cars.

Dude we can't even get the government to fund Health Care and you think we are going to magically finance everyone transitioning to hybrids and electric cars? moreover if the government funds it guess who pays? That's right the very same consumers. So basically your scheme is to have everyone pay the US Treasury a shitload of money which the Treasury will then hand back out to everyone when we all buy our Hybrids (since you plan requires near universal adoption of hybrids and electrics). You have now created the worlds most useless bureaucratic circle of money. Simply put every dollar the US treasury hands out for this plan has to come from the peple the plan benefits in some way shape or form.

Which runs in to the electrical supply issue we've been talking about so unless you are willing to wait the 10-20 years to get enough new nukes online this isn't a viable strategy unless you want to pollute the earth even more with extra coal burning plants.

It's not so much a question of what do I want to do - it's more a question of what will actually happen. I'd imagine the average American would prefer pollute the Earth with coal for a little bit until the nukes go online rather than give up suburbia and completely change their way of life.

Other than talking out your ass do you have any proof of this? American's are dumb panicky herd animals and we will protest the nukes AND the coal plants AND the rising energy prices all without batting an eyelash. THAT is what istruly likely to happen and when the protests are done we will be 20 years past peak oil and your "transition steps" won't even be halfway along. Suburbia is RIGHT NOW on death's doorstep. We can take maybe $5 or $6/gallon but once prices start going into $10/gal or more suburbia is shot and in all likelyhood that number is coming faster than ANY piece of your plan can be realistically implemented.

What economic incentive will drive this and HOW are you going to get them to do this in the next 15 or so years?

If gasoline is prohibitively expensive people will flock to plug-in hybrids. Besides, companies are already working on it today - and some companies are even modding the Prius to work as a primarily electric car.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=89424919

Which doens't change the fact that shifting the entire suburban populace into not just hybrids but hybrids with economically viable mileage (50MPG at a minimum) is going to take longer than it will for gas to reach $10/gal plus where suburbia will collapse due to its weight. yes we have these nice technical toys but again:

1) They aren't coming fast enough
or
2) They aren't coming cheap enough

to viably replace the gasoline driven personal automobile before we pass peak oil and the economics makes living in suburbia non-viable.

NOTHING you have offered is remotely likely to be completed within the 15 years or so we MAY, if we are lucky, get until we start feeling the effects of P.O.

It will take 15 years for people to buy a hybrid car or a motorcycle? If they're feeling P.O. as much as you predict?

See the other posts in this thread specifically Surlethe where he pointed to the Hirsch report, even the summary is a good read.

[Broomstick]

3. People buy motorcycles for their daily commute to work, since many motorcycles get over twice the gas millage of the average car.

They are also FAR more dangerous in collisions, FAR harder to learn how to control effectively, FAR more dangerous in inclement weather (virtually every biker I know won't go out in more than a drizzle or misting) AND its still not any better than just getting folks to carpool.

Carpooling doesn't always work, and I'd imagine people would be willing to accept the danger/controlling difficulty if they could save hundreds of dollars on gas.

What about people who CAN'T control a motorcycle, for physical reasons? What about elderly or frail people? Do you know how hard it is to find a motorcycle for short-legged people?

Also, motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, even if everyone else on the road is using them. There is NO crash protection. The savings in gas would be offset by the increase in medical care from all the inevitable accidents.

Added on to that it is useless for the routine intra-suburban driving many cars are used for: picking up groceries, clothes, etc. You can't transport much on a motorcycle so now you have to own two vehicles: one for your commute and one for your consumable purchases which adds additional costs.

How about one for moving stuff (perhaps a minivan), and then a motorcycle? The minivan is used for family events and serious shopping - while the motorcycle(s) allows the husband and/or wife to commute to work while saving gas.

No, you moron. Cripes, you have never lived without a car, have you?

Here's how it's done - IF you live in an area with decent public transit that what's you use and forget about owning a car. If/when you need a car you rent one. That's how a lot of people do it in Chicago, and I suspect in other dense cities with viable transit as well.

Extending to your suburbia idea - you own the commuting vehicle, if you need a van or other larger vehicle you rent one. That way you only have to pay for it for the few hours or days you need it. MUCH cheaper than owning and maintaining a vehicle long term.

[CaptainZoidberg]

As is pinted out elsewhere in this thread I'mnot saying your stes can't be taken. I'm saying the TIME it takes to implement your steps is LONGER than we have before suburbia is no longer viable.

Any one of the intermediate steps I've proposed has the ability to seriously reduce gasoline consumption - even if it won't work for every single person.

1) even before we go into the nonesense of the MASSIVE increase in carbon output

How will this affect the sustainability of suburbia in the time before the nuclear reactors go online?

remember that Coal is a finite resource as well so hooking ourselves up to massively increased coal produciton isn't exactly all that helpful of an alternative

It's part of a transition, not a desirable end state. Besides, coal reserves will last much longer than oil reserves, making your point completely moot.

...oh yes and you ALSO create a massive increase in transit logistics to supply all this extra coal adding to an already growing traffic jam caused by rising fuel prices for commercial and industrial freight.

We already generate enough electricity, mostly through coal.

2) That's 10 years from...whenever the plan is submitted if everything goes perfectly. Realistically you are saying folks will start submitting plans after Obama pushes new nuclear well that leads to a couple problems:
- The supply chain is finite and everyone rushing in won't speed it up, that 10years will VERY QUICKLY become 15 due to lead time for critical components

Okay, and that impacts the big picture how?

- The above scenario posits essentially uninterrupted construction and testing. That means miracle of miracles occur and there are no massive environmental lawsuits, work delays, regulatory inspection faults, etc
- If folks start in 2009 then the earliest we are looking to BEGIN adding capacity is around 2020...8-12 years AFTER we have hit peak oil and suburbia begins to disintegrate.

Another massive leap in logic. Even if nuclear only starts going online in 2020, we'll have plenty of power from coal - and suburbia will not be disintegrating.

People will not just abandon all of their positions and 500k dollar homes because of peak oil. I have already shown numerous ways that the average consumer can significantly cut their own gas consumption very rapidly, in a serious of small and flexible phases.

I will repeat them for the purpose of clarity:

1. People can buy motorcycles, which use less than half the gasoline of a full sedan.

2. Buying a hybrid and converting it to a plug-in could be done in under $30k. This less than 5% of the value of many people's homes.

http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/

3. Many people can cut a day or so off from their job, and work longer hours on the days that they do work

4. Long business trips could be replaced by telecommunications.

All of these changes could begin implementation now, and could start to have a serious impact right now. Your black-and-white assumption that a transition must be 100% completed on every single person to have any impact truly boggles the mind.

Exactly, your entire argument is that we can save suburbia well we can't do that in "suburbia" where the personal auto rules. There is no economically viable way to connect these scttered communities to jobs and commodities.

Nuclear powered electric cars. I've already conclusively shown that there exists feasible and timely transition states for moving from a gasoline based personal automobile based suburbia to an electric-nuclear personal automobile based suburbia.

Suburbia exists because when the personal auto was economically viable then the model for living was viable once you cannot get around viably on the personal auto suburbia is gone. We can't do it economically with transit (it will be tough enough for the less-dense prtions of cities and the immediate environs) so you are left with somehow providing everyone in suburbia with an economically viable path to a non petroleum dependent transportation mode.

The personal automobile is economically viable and sustainable in the absence of oil.

Sure it does...but that only addresses COVERAGE. It doesn't address CAPACITY. In Fairfax County despite millions being thrown at the Orange line there will be literally no spare capacity after 2020 or so...read that again 2020 no spare capacity. If ridership continues to grow at its projected pace then running the maximum number of cars as close together as possible simply will not be able to handle the traffic demand. The ONLY way to relieve that kind of capacity crunch is to expand coverage and then we are right back to the huge costs of expanded coverage. Oh yes and that isn't counting the still considerable capital costs of adding capacity on the existing lines. Have you seen WMATA's funding requests?

But even if it isn't possible for everyone to ride the rails, you can't just throw out the people that do. Each way I have thrown out that the consumer can reduce gas consumption is flexible. I.e., a person can adapt one but not another, and gas consumption will still be reduced.

Your point that the metros will fill up is a total red herring. It has no considerable impact on the overall transition. Those who can't find room on the metros will merely ride motorcycles, or better yet, by 2020, buy a plug-in hybrid. You yourself have admitted that by 2020 nuclear capacity will have increased and hybrids will be a viable alternative for the majority of the population.

Really? You would be willing to bet? can you provide a SINGLE bit of proof other than simple assertion to back up your idea? People can save hundreds NOW and they aren't doing it so how the fuck does this support your idea that you can get this idea to catch on in lets say Long Island in January.

It's your assertion that carpooling is as gas-saving as motorcycles. The burden of proof lies on you to show that such is true.

Thanks for proving my point. You have now provided the typical suburban family with an additional required cost which can net savings of a perhaps 50 bucks a month in gas in return for $100+ a month in motorcycle payments and insurance.

The debate here is about whether suburbia is sustainable in the condition of reduced oil production. Whether or not such a condition requires families to buy more insurance is a total red herring.

You aren't taking a car/van away you are simply adding a motorcycle to the mix or at best you are replacing one car with a motorcycle. In any even you are now adding training, padding and associated safety gear, additional licensing costs, additional insurance costs, another monthly vehicle payment, AND you still can't drive in inclement weather.

You actually can take away the van. Someone could survive on far fewer foodstuffs than the average suburban family consumes. Taking the van to a huge warehouse style store like Sam's Club or BJ's to buy massive amounts of foods is a luxury - not a necessity. A person can buy enough food to survive by taking the motorcycle to a local general store and loading

But even if we don't take away the van, the insurance costs are another red herring. Do you really think that someone would rather "abandon suburbia", their million dollar home, and most of their possessions - rather than pony up a few dollars for some extra insurance?

Let's get real here. The sacrifices required to abandon suburbia are huge for the average family. The sacrifices in terms of luxuries that my transitions will require are both mild and brief (your yourself threw out 2020), compared to abandoning your home and possessions.

When will that happen? Oh that's right AFTER Peak Oil has already hit us and suburbia is no longer viable. For your massive replacement plan to work you need a couple decades AND favorable economics and if you get one(favorable economics) you aren't getting the other (a couple decades).

That's a completely absurd fantasy. Do you really see millions of people giving up their million dollar homes, possessions, cars, and former lives just so they don't have to buy a motorcycle or a plug-in hybrid? You keep saying that $10,000 is too much to pay to convert a plug-in hybrid, but that's nothing compared to giving up your home.

Besides, I've already shown that my plan isn't the one-step replacement that you imagine it to be. Many of the intermediate steps could begin implementation very rapidly (driving less

Heck, right after Hurricane Katrine, when gas prices spiked, some schools started doing classes only 4 days of the week, and going for longer hours on those 4 days. Will we see such a policy after peak oil? Perhaps, but in your fantasy people won't try at all to adapt, they'll just decide that it's easier to abandon their home and friends to move somewhere completely new over night then spend some extra money on insurance or licensing fees. When the alternative to adaptation is giving up your home, people will adapt. I find it amazing that you fail to see this.

In other words you aren't going to be able to stop folks looking at the short term market (the $4k more for a hybrid) when even the long term market doens't help them much without stretching past a half decade with prices twice what they are now. Simply put social conscious is certainly driving increased hybrid purchases and therfore lower demand BUT it isn't saving enough for the average person to consistently chose the hybrid. Even then growth in number of cars on the road still means that those 98gal per person per year you save needs to be multiplied by 4 people doing it for each net (not gross) new driver even if the new driver choses a hybrid.

Option One: Try to adapt and make suburbia work

Short Term:

-May have to buy a motorcycle for main commute. Perhaps $15-20k in cost.

-May have to buy a hybrid car. Cost of $21,500 (http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/)

-May have to

-May have to commute one less day to work

-May have to buy food from local store rather than distant warehouse, small sacrifice in food selection.

Long Term:

-Probably will have to buy a plug-in hybrid.

Option Two: Give up, and move to an apartment in the city

Short Term:

-Loss of home, probably unable to sell home for any appreciable value

-Forced to uproot family

-Moving costs

Long Term:

-Loss of home, which would've appreciated significantly in value had people chosen to stay in suburbia

-Lower general standard of living in cities overflowing with people fleeing suburbia.

Either way you slice it, staying in suburbia is the intelligent choice.

Other than talking out your ass do you have any proof of this? American's are dumb panicky herd animals and we will protest the nukes AND the coal plants AND the rising energy prices all without batting an eyelash. THAT is what istruly likely to happen and when the protests are done we will be 20 years past peak oil and your "transition steps" won't even be halfway along. Suburbia is RIGHT NOW on death's doorstep. We can take maybe $5 or $6/gallon but once prices start going into $10/gal or more suburbia is shot and in all likelyhood that number is coming faster than ANY piece of your plan can be realistically implemented.

Prices can go well over $10 a gallon before suburbia dies. Consider that today gas prices are at about $4 a gallon. Let's just make up a scenario that is highly generous to your position, that the average American drives a small sedan that gets 40 MPG. There are motorcycles that get over 80 MPG. Right there, the average family is able to afford $8 a gallon gas prices without losing any luxuries except the comfort, ease, and safety of a car.

If a family started commuting to work only a 4 days in the week, rather than 5 - and working longer hours, then the cost could be multiplied by (4/5), meaning that the family is now able to afford $10 a gallon gas with only small changes to lifestyle.

See the other posts in this thread specifically Surlethe where he pointed to the Hirsch report, even the summary is a good read.

The transition can begin well before 15 years.

[Darth Wong]

As is pinted out elsewhere in this thread I'mnot saying your stes can't be taken. I'm saying the TIME it takes to implement your steps is LONGER than we have before suburbia is no longer viable.

Any one of the intermediate steps I've proposed has the ability to seriously reduce gasoline consumption - even if it won't work for every single person.

I hate to break it to you, but there's a whole world outside the United States, and much of the developing portion of that world is sharply increasing its gasoline consumption. Worldwide, gas consumption will continue to rise even if Americans can hold the line or even pull back. The cost of commuting will continue to accelerate sharply upwards, all of your ideas notwithstanding.

[CaptainZoidberg]

What about people who CAN'T control a motorcycle, for physical reasons? What about elderly or frail people? Do you know how hard it is to find a motorcycle for short-legged people?

It's not like every single person in the universe needs to own a motorcycle for them to seriously mitigate overall gas consumption.

Besides, most of the elderly people I know left suburbia because of the inherent challenges in maintaining a large house, not having help nearby, and driving in general.

Also, motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, even if everyone else on the road is using them. There is NO crash protection. The savings in gas would be offset by the increase in medical care from all the inevitable accidents.

Do you have any basis for those claims? What makes you think the two or three fold (for someone switching from an SUV, perhaps four fold) savings will be canceled out by a higher mortality rate in accidents? What makes you think that the low mass of motorcycles isn't a key aspect of their poor safety?

No, you moron. Cripes, you have never lived without a car, have you?

Wow. Is that your best defense?

Here's how it's done - IF you live in an area with decent public transit that what's you use and forget about owning a car. If/when you need a car you rent one. That's how a lot of people do it in Chicago, and I suspect in other dense cities with viable transit as well.

Oh, certainly. When I buy my own place, I want to live in a town/city with good public transit. I don't want to drive to work for a few hours each day.

But this debate isn't about whether we like suburbia, this debate is about whether suburbia will survive, and if suburbia is sustainable.

Extending to your suburbia idea - you own the commuting vehicle, if you need a van or other larger vehicle you rent one. That way you only have to pay for it for the few hours or days you need it. MUCH cheaper than owning and maintaining a vehicle long term.

That's an interesting idea. My family rents a minivan to take my sister up to and back from college, or for long trips.

[Shroom Man 777]

You know, this sucks. My dad sells second-hand SUVs, amongst other things.

[CaptainZoidberg]

As is pinted out elsewhere in this thread I'mnot saying your stes can't be taken. I'm saying the TIME it takes to implement your steps is LONGER than we have before suburbia is no longer viable.

Any one of the intermediate steps I've proposed has the ability to seriously reduce gasoline consumption - even if it won't work for every single person.

I hate to break it to you, but there's a whole world outside the United States, and much of the developing portion of that world is sharply increasing its gasoline consumption. Worldwide, gas consumption will continue to rise even if Americans can hold the line or even pull back. The cost of commuting will continue to accelerate sharply upwards, all of your ideas notwithstanding.

If I may go off of a tangent: I have no clue why the Chinese government is allowing their country to get dependent on oil. Why didn't they mandate the use of electric cars when personal transportation started to explode in popularity?

Couldn't they see the massive vulnerabilities they would incur by getting dependent on oil? Couldn't they see that cheap oil was going to go the way of the dinosaur?

Usually the Chinese government has had good economic sensibilities, but allowing the country to get hooked on oil just boggles the mind...

[Broomstick]

As is pinted out elsewhere in this thread I'mnot saying your stes can't be taken. I'm saying the TIME it takes to implement your steps is LONGER than we have before suburbia is no longer viable.

Any one of the intermediate steps I've proposed has the ability to seriously reduce gasoline consumption - even if it won't work for every single person.

And I agree with you to the extent that the solution will not be one solution but multiple solutions.

...oh yes and you ALSO create a massive increase in transit logistics to supply all this extra coal adding to an already growing traffic jam caused by rising fuel prices for commercial and industrial freight.

We already generate enough electricity, mostly through coal.

There's the question of sustainability - will we continue to be able to generate "enough" electricity? Encouraging people to use what we currently have more efficiently will not only reduce costs (or slow down the increase) for the consumer, but also reduce the additional capacity we will need to add.

1. People can buy motorcycles, which use less than half the gasoline of a full sedan.

But are also impractical for half the year in many parts of the country.

Personally, I'd also like to see bicycle commuting encouraged - it uses human muscles instead of expensive and/or polluting fuels and as a bonus it helps keep people healthy. Bicycles can be outfitted with saddlebags and/or small trailers, too. My last employer in Chicago used to have bike racks outside and showers on premises for those wishing to use their bikes to commute, it was a good thing. Secure storage is important though - if you start relying on your bike to get around you can't afford to have it stolen.

2. Buying a hybrid and converting it to a plug-in could be done in under $30k. This less than 5% of the value of many people's homes.

That's also TWICE the cost of my conventional car which gets 40+ mpg RIGHT NOW - hybrids have to at least as cheap as conventional cars and get at least the same mileage or it's not sensible for the consumer to buy one (unless motivated by concerns other than cost-effectiveness). As a bonus, with my car I don't have to worry about replacing a shitload of batteries at some point - I keep cars more than 10 years, last I heard hybrid batteries don't last that long.

3. Many people can cut a day or so off from their job, and work longer hours on the days that they do work

ONLY if the employer is willing to accommodate this! Many are NOT.

Personally, I like the 4 long days/3 days off cycle and get it whenever I can, but it's been very rare I can do that.

4. Long business trips could be replaced by telecommunications.

That was attempted post 9/11. The problem is, telepresence is still far from perfect, and there is a psychological component to face-to-face interaction that seems so desirable businesses are willing to pay for it. I agree that this is a good idea.

Of course, if people really do cut back on business travel the airlines will howl, but fuck 'em - they're mostly grossly mis-managed anyhow.

It's your assertion that carpooling is as gas-saving as motorcycles. The burden of proof lies on you to show that such is true.

Certainly, four people in my car beats one person on the average motorcycle when comparing fuel burn per passenger per mile.

Let's say the motorcycle get 60 mpg and my car gets 40. To avoid a lot of fractions, let's transport a person on the motorcycle 120 miles. That take 2 gallons for 1 person.

Let's transport 4 people 120 miles in my car. That takes 3 gallons, which is more in absolute quantity, but divide by 4 people. That's 3/4 of a gallon per person for the same distance which is more than twice as fuel efficient as the motorcycle.

Even if there are only 3 people in my car that's still only 1 gallon per person for the distance and that's still twice as good as the motorcycle.

With just 2 people in my car that's 1.5 gallons per person to go 120 miles which is still better than the motorcycle.

This doesn't mean motorcycles are a bad idea - for just one person they are the most fuel-efficient option, and when they can carry two also excellent - but they can't carry more than that, and many are single-seaters.

You actually can take away the van. Someone could survive on far fewer foodstuffs than the average suburban family consumes. Taking the van to a huge warehouse style store like Sam's Club or BJ's to buy massive amounts of foods is a luxury - not a necessity. A person can buy enough food to survive by taking the motorcycle to a local general store and loading.

But in the long run it's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy things in bulk when you can. Seriously, the less money I have the more bulk buying I do. In which case I'd argue rent a van for that once-a-month stock up and rely on local stores for the stuff that doesn't keep that long.

But even if we don't take away the van, the insurance costs are another red herring. Do you really think that someone would rather "abandon suburbia", their million dollar home, and most of their possessions - rather than pony up a few dollars for some extra insurance?

That's only possible if you have the money - and the cost of everything is rising. We already have people losing their "million dollar home, and most of their possession" against their will - they can't buy more insurance, they don't have the money.

Sometimes downsizing is your best long term option, even if it's painful short-term.

That's a completely absurd fantasy. Do you really see millions of people giving up their million dollar homes, possessions, cars, and former lives just so they don't have to buy a motorcycle or a plug-in hybrid? You keep saying that $10,000 is too much to pay to convert a plug-in hybrid, but that's nothing compared to giving up your home.

On the other hand, if there's no fuel and no power suburbia is unlivable.

-May have to buy a motorcycle for main commute. Perhaps $15-20k in cost.

I paid $14k for a brand new CAR - why fuck would I spend more than on a vehicle with less utility?

-May have to buy a hybrid car. Cost of $21,500 (http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/)

I bought a car for $14k that gets better mileage than most hybrids.

-May have to commute one less day to work

Only if the employer is willing to accommodate that.

-May have to buy food from local store rather than distant warehouse, small sacrifice in food selection.

And usually a significant increase in cost.

-Probably will have to buy a plug-in hybrid.

What the fuck is your love affair with "plug-in hybrid"? It's a bastard technology. Why don't you consider other options, like pure electric, biodiesel, bicycles?

Option Two: Give up, and move to an apartment in the city

I lived in just such for 15 years, 9 of which I did not own a car. This is NOT as horrific as many people think it might be.

-Loss of home, probably unable to sell home for any appreciable value

Happening already.

-Forced to uproot family

Americans move frequently anyway - sort of non-issue.

-Loss of home, which would've appreciated significantly in value had people chosen to stay in suburbia

Um... maybe you haven't noticed but lately homes are DEpreciating. Real estate does not always go up in value.

-Lower general standard of living in cities overflowing with people fleeing suburbia.

Post peak oil it won't matter where you live - virtually everyone's standard of living is going to drop.

Either way you slice it, staying in suburbia is the intelligent choice.

Really? Then why, even in affluent times, do some people choose to move into the city rather than out?

If a family started commuting to work only a 4 days in the week, rather than 5 - and working longer hours, then the cost could be multiplied by (4/5), meaning that the family is now able to afford $10 a gallon gas with only small changes to lifestyle.

We only have to get employers to agree to this - the average worker has no control over this.