Can the World Survive $100(+) Oil? - Page 6 - PhillyBlog

ddelorenzo · #51 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markedixon

The change from farming to city living? Not as long as centuries. There was a big movement from the rural South to the industrial North in the 1920s. There was also a big move from the cities into the new suburbs in the decade after WWII.

Most likely, the transition will be more pronounced in some places than others. Upside, it may make the spread-out Sunbelt less attractive and the "real" United States (states north of the Potomac and east of Pittsburgh) more attractive. I've got a hunch that the Dixon Estate -- located about a mile from the R5 -- will appreciate as the value of mass transit is better understood.

I think it's more likely that the sunbelt cities will refactor to some extent to become more efficient. They have one inherent advantage over northern cities with regards to energy - solar will be economically competitive in the south and especially the southwest long before it is up here.

Retooling the country's public transit and energy infrastructures will be costly and time-consuming, but it won't be the largest hurdle the country has ever cleared.

Tannhauser · #52 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars

You engage in false patriotism....your ultra-right references are not exactly based in reality. However, I find it funny how you conveniently leave out any reference of the Pentagon's own study. You truly show your transparency and bias...

Well, since you don't know the first thing about me, my background, or my actions, you'd be as well qualified to comment on my Patriotism as you are on pretty much everything else you've stated on this thread.
The military's budget will increase to meet its needs unless the Democrats are in power.
So until that unlikely scenario re-occurs, it's another non-issue.

Tannhauser · #53 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddelorenzo

I think it's more likely that the sunbelt cities will refactor to some extent to become more efficient. They have one inherent advantage over northern cities with regards to energy - solar will be economically competitive in the south and especially the southwest long before it is up here.

I'm no expert on the geographical lay out of the Sunbelt cities, but don't they tend to be fairly spread out (by this I mean a large footprint of an individual city), lessening some of the advantages of living close to work, etc?
Also, once electricity is transmitted, is increased distance a major cost factor?

ddelorenzo · #54 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

I'm no expert on the geographical lay out of the Sunbelt cities, but don't they tend to be fairly spread out (by this I mean a large footprint of an individual city), lessening some of the advantages of living close to work, etc?

I'm no expert there either. I think that they are relatively spread out now, but I think they'll infill over time if the incentives are there for people to live/work close together. As an extreme example, Phoenix had a population of 106,000 in 1950 compared to 1,500,000 now, so rebuilding major parts of the city over a generation or two doesn't seem that unlikely, it's already been done.

Quote:

Also, once electricity is transmitted, is increased distance a major cost factor?

Transmission losses on the highest power backbone lines are in the single-digit percentages even in the 500-1000 mile range, so it's probably not a huge deal for the big coal, nuclear, and hydro plants. I don't know if solar or wind power will hit that sort of scale any time soon, but if you've got a city in the desert you probably don't need to locate the plants hundreds of miles away, either. Storing power for calm or cloudy days is obviously still an issue.

romano · #55 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddelorenzo

I'm no expert there either. I think that they are relatively spread out now, but I think they'll infill over time if the incentives are there for people to live/work close together. As an extreme example, Phoenix had a population of 106,000 in 1950 compared to 1,500,000 now, so rebuilding major parts of the city over a generation or two doesn't seem that unlikely, it's already been done.

Phoenix is actually a poor example. It grew by spreading out and annexing neighboring municipalities. The total land area for Phoenix is freaking huge. If you're looking for examples of density in the south, Phoenix ain't it. Quite to the contrary, it's sprawling mess.

ddelorenzo · #56 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romano

Phoenix is actually a poor example. It grew by spreading out and annexing neighboring municipalities. The total land area for Phoenix is freaking huge. If you're looking for examples of density in the south, Phoenix ain't it. Quite to the contrary, it's sprawling mess.

I'm not looking for an example of density in the south. I used Phoenix as an example of a city whose infrastructure was almost totally built up in a generation or two - and therefore probably could be rebuilt again in relatively short order if the incentives are there for people to live closer together. I don't know how much of its population gain is attributable to annexing its neighbors, but the state of AZ as a whole has octupled in population since 1950, so at the very least a decent part of Phoenix is new infrastructure.

Tannhauser · #57 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddelorenzo

Transmission losses on the highest power backbone lines are in the single-digit percentages even in the 500-1000 mile range, so it's probably not a huge deal for the big coal, nuclear, and hydro plants. I don't know if solar or wind power will hit that sort of scale any time soon, but if you've got a city in the desert you probably don't need to locate the plants hundreds of miles away, either. Storing power for calm or cloudy days is obviously still an issue.

I'm not sure I totally understood that. What I was getting at was, couldn't cities in the North East be powered by solar captured in the South West as easily as cities in the South West?

romano · #58 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddelorenzo

I'm not looking for an example of density in the south. I used Phoenix as an example of a city whose infrastructure was almost totally built up in a generation or two - and therefore probably could be rebuilt again in relatively short order if the incentives are there for people to live closer together. I don't know how much of its population gain is attributable to annexing its neighbors, but the state of AZ as a whole has octupled in population since 1950, so at the very least a decent part of Phoenix is new infrastructure.

Point is, Phoenix didn't infill, it spread. Now I guess you're proposing it might infill later, but I doubt it. The whole city grew around the car, the infrastructure is developed to support a car dependent lifestyle. In other words, it's mostly gated communities and shopping malls. It's not really a city at all.

ddelorenzo · #59 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

I'm not sure I totally understood that. What I was getting at was, couldn't cities in the North East be powered by solar captured in the South West as easily as cities in the South West?

The only numbers I found for moving electricity those distances suggested a 50-75% price premium for power generated that far away - so if solar becomes economical enough to be competitive, there's no reason it couldn't work, I guess, unless the transmission of that much power is unworkable for other reasons.