Prius cost increase

Toyota's $500 increase in the price of the Prius is an important reminder that the gasoline use is only part of the energy consumed. Quoth the spokesman: "Almost everything is made out of petroleum. Rubber, plastic, transportation (costs), glass, things like that." A hybrid will save some energy, but it's important to consider where you're starting. If you have, say, a 5-year old conventional Honda Civic, a Prius will likely be a net loss, energy-wise.

Of course, that assumes that you accept Toyota's stated reason. Seems more likely that the price increase is because sales are through the roof. Claiming it's due to transportation is no doubt partly true, but also a more acceptable justification for a price increase in economic hard times.

Hybrid minivans

As far as passenger vehicles go, it seems to me that the best ones to hybridize would be minivans.

Minivans usually get worse mileage than cars, so the impact would be greater. Pickup trucks and SUVs obviously get bad mileage as well, but a lot of people buy those who don't fully use them, or, if they do, don't do it often enough. Those people would be better off just buying a smaller vehicle with a conventional power train and renting a larger vehicle as needed. On the other hand, you can be pretty sure that anyone who buys a minivan derives substantial practical benefit from the things it can do that a smaller vehicle cannot. Nobody buys a minivan for image.

The usual owners of minivans tend to be families with multiple children. Odds are pretty good that they do more driving than the average person getting kids to and from school and other activities. It's also more likely that minivans will be in stop-and-go driving situations where hybrids are most valuable. Of all passenger vehicle types, minivans seem like the best target for hybridization efforts, because they use substantial amounts of gasoline, there is often no practical alternative.

Most of this probably applies to smaller SUVs as well, but they're basically just tall minivans anyway.

Easy ways to encourage saving gas

"Gallons per mile" is more intuitive than "miles per gallon".

One thing I'd like to see is a real-time mileage (gallonage?) display in every new car. Some new cars come with them, like the Toyota Prius (obviously) and the Honda CR-V (less obviously). Driving habits can make a huge difference. Giving people instant feedback is a lot more likely to alter driving habits than giving a bunch of tips. That and shock collars for people who keep their foot on the gas when the light ahead is no longer green.

Stupid political reactions to high oil prices

Eliminate "speculators." Restrict futures trading. Levy windfall taxes on oil companies. Open up more areas for drilling. They're all dumb ideas that might actually get implemented as Capitol Hill tries to fix a problem they should stay out of. None of those will work.

Eliminating speculators reduces the liquidity of the energy market. That increases risk. Ditto for restricting futures trading. Both make oil prices more volatile and less predictable. When the outlook is risky, people tend to reduce their exposure, i.e., produce less oil.

The same applies to windfall taxes. Why should Exxon invest in more production and refining capacity, if the profits of those investments will just get taken away from by the federal government? It's hardly an incentive for them to do something that would really increase oil supplies and cut prices.

Then there's increasing drilling in places like the California coast and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the best of scenarios, those supplies will reduce oil prices by a couple percentage points in a decade, but more likely in 15-20 years. If it's going to take that long, we might as well just build nuclear plants.

I'm starting to see a silver lining here, though. Oil prices are not a concern for me at this time. What is a concern is oil use. If Congress wants to waste its time pursuing measures that are ineffective or counter-productive, that's actually not a problem. It means less production at higher prices, and thus lower use. That means less pollution and a bigger market for alternative energy sources.

As such, I'm less worried about Congress doing something stupid, and more worried about them doing something stupid that has broader costs. Any policy that directly or indirectly encourages using more coal, for example, is a net loss. Drilling in environmentally sensitive areas is also a no-go. I certainly don't want to expand subsidies, either on the producer side or the consumer side.

There's certainly going to be a cost to some people of the "acceptable" stupid policies. I don't mean to overlook that. Realistically, though, they'll be fine. Wall Street will find other places to play, and the oil companies will adapt their financial models. Congress may end up inadvertently hastening the end of the oil era.

Alternatives to oil look a lot better

Italy makes a voltafaccia regarding nuclear power:

Italy announced Thursday that within five years it planned to resume building nuclear energy plants, two decades after a public referendum resoundingly banned nuclear power and deactivated all its reactors.

Obviously, I think that's a good thing. What's worrisome is how rapid the turnabout was, and in the face of oil prices that really aren't that high. Yes, the dangers of nuclear power are greatly exaggerated, but I don't think this change is due to a rational and deliberate consideration of new arguments and evidence. I think it's all about money.

One of the stated reasons is the carbon-free nature of nuclear power. I'm worried that the Italian government's attachment to that is less strong than they claim. If there are problems with nuclear power, like if the resistance among parts of the Italian population is stronger than they expect, they may find that cheap energy matters more than clean energy, and look to coal. After all, they're already building new coal plants.

The muted upside of high oil prices

Coal is booming. Economic systems are not static. People aren't going to just stop using oil if there's an inexpensive substitute, and coal is nothing if not cheap. In the short-run, at least. In the long run, coal is much worse for the environment. High oil prices won't have the positive environmental effect that I had hoped for. There is just so much coal out there.

a carbon tax is more complicated than I thought

Very interesting analysis, especially re: non CO2 greenhouse gases and the incredibly difficult problem of figuring out exactly how big the external costs of coal or any other energy source are.

Gas isn't too expensive

Recently observed behaviors:

If you would rather wait 3 minutes for a closer parking space instead of walking an extra 100 feet (in pleasant weather, even), gas isn't too expensive.

If you're sitting in your Ford Expedition with the engine running while your kid plays soccer, gas isn't too expensive.

If you pass someone as you're both approaching a red light (as in switching lanes, accelerating, and switching back), gas isn't too expensive.