Brewmaster

I swear you can find anything on teh internets. [youtube=425,350]1lLkp5gn8Yg [youtube=425,350]hkFu6IKt4to&rel=1

Former Salvation Army thrift store going condo Business First of Columbus - by Adrian Burns Business First Grange last fall disclosed it was buying the 1.4-acre Salvation Army property and said it wanted to sell the warehouse to condo developers. The company has followed through with those plans despite a slow housing market, said Grange Chief Administration Officer Mark C. Russell. The deal is complex and involves Grange sharing some of the project's costs since it is building an adjacent parking garage that would provide about 61 spaces for the condo development, Edwards said. That means the developer hasn't nailed down a final cost for the project, he said. Plans call for an underground tunnel to connect the former warehouse to the 1,050-space parking garage Grange will build next door. The garage as well as a 230,000-square foot Grange addition, which will include an office tower and data center, are expected to be completed by January 2009, Russell said. Read more at http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2007/10/01/story5.html?page=1

Perched atop the Brewery District, I feel like one of the kids in the commercial who shout, "WHOA! AWESOME!" every time they see one of the slow motion slot car accidents. OK...I can't actually see the accidents, but the circling helicopters and flashing ambulence lights are dead givaways that another one bit the dust. I also love how ODOT always gives the excuse that the highway is dangerous b/c it's operating above it's capacity. While I'm sure there are times when it's operating well above what it was designed for, the truth is, even on nights when there are few cars on the road, it's a nightmare. Try coming south on 315, merging east, then crossing 5 lanes in less than a mile to exit at Front St. I don't care how bad the traffic is...you better be alert! :-o

Is anyone else extremely scared of the game this weekend. We're coming off the bye week and playing an 0-7 opponent who is starting to get healthy on offense (QB, stud RB, stud WR) on the road. This has all of the makings of a vintage Cleveland sports "I'm gonna get your hopes up and then crush your dreams at the most unexpected time" level meltdown.

That's a great quote Boreal. Exactly what we're talking about here. To take things to the illogical extreme. Let's say a village pops up on the top of Mount McKinley because residents want to be able to take in the gorgeous Alaskan views. Then let's say that they're shocked by the annual avalanches and cold snaps. These natural disasters require FEMA assistance, gov't tax breaks, and handouts to care for the displaced while they rebuild thier homes. Why should I, Joe Taxpayer, continually foot the bill for this?

I don't the "federal relief" associated with think a tornado in Xenia, a 3.0 earthquake in Geauga County, or even a flood on the Ohio River comes close the BILLIONS spent in the recovery from hurricaines, earthquakes, or wildfires. I'm fine with paying our share (if there even is a share), just as long as some risk probability is built into the tax. I'm thinking of a tiered system where High, Medium, Low, and No risk areas are categorized based on our experience in the last 50 years. Why even have FEMA if the insurance companies have everything covered? Insurance companies don't give tax breaks, food, shelter, and temporary assistance to the people displaced by natural disasters. They just cut a check for personal property and sometimes a hotel, but this process takes weeks or months.

Not sure if I'm going to come off as insensitive for suggesting this, but after watching some footage of the SoCal wildfires, I actually found myself a little annoyed. Here you have people who are building houses in areas where wildfires have reclaimed land every few years for millenia. Every news story looks the same. The camera shows some amazing pictures of wildfires consuming houses (on land where fires have surely burned many thousands of times before), and then the news anchor comes on and says, "The president has declared the a Federal Emergency in the area which allows federal funds to be used for recovery." Obviously hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods are random, but only to an extent. Ohio will never be subjected to damage from hurricanes or earthquakes, and the small floods we have here every couple of years pale in comparison from a financial loss perspective. So why do we pay the same amount of money into the federal disaster recovery pot as Californians and Floridians do? I'm proposing that high risk areas pay a Natural Disaster Tax. Every spot in the country has a natural disaster risk assocated with it. If you decide to build your house on the side of a cliff that is mudslide prone, you pay a tax. If you decide to build your house in an earthquake zone, you pay a tax. If you build your house in a floodplain, you pay a tax. The collected Natural Disaster Tax revenues would go into a pot that helps victims recover, communities to rebuild roads and infrastructure, and pay for tax breaks that are currently given to disaster victims. We already do this to an extent with insurance rates (Floridians are whining about expensive insurance after the last couple of hurricanes), but this would cover the federal aid portion of things. Thoughts?

Honestly, I have no incentive to be efficient. I fill up an 11 gallon tank once a month, and my average electric and gas bills are $35/month each. I realize that I use less energy than average, but the fact still remains that energy is cheap, and until I'm incented to save it, I'm buying that granite countertop. Want me to make smarter decisions when it comes to window insulation and energy efficient appliances?...triple the price of my energy bills. That oughtta do it.

So how do we realize efficiency gains? We either need to 1) raise the prices for energy (money is the almighty motivator), 2) impose some arbitrary law to force individuals and companies to get more efficient, or 3) get energy companies to incent customers to use less of thier products. I like #1 and #2. I don't think #3 fits within capitalism...it's too altruistic ;). Some might argue that #2 doesn't either, but we can reasonably see that efficiency needs to play a role in our future, so why not use legislation to start down that path.

Good post Gildone. I think we're agreeing on 99.9% here. It's just that "the market" is made up of individual projects that work towards turning a profit, not towards being altruistic. Don't confuse prudence with altruism...a prudent project will turn a profit, an altruistic one will be misers with our natural resources to leave some for future generations. It's difficult for companies to ignore potential profits though. People in the companies run the numbers, use future projections for the price of natural gas, oil, carbon emissions, construction costs, labor rates etc..., and if it looks like it could still turn a profit, it gets the green light. That's the reality of the situation whether we like it or not. It's a shame that such a high quality home heating source like natural gas is being used to heat up tar, but it's making money in today's market, and today's market is being driven by gasoline demand. And you're right about the environmental impacts...that's why we need some regulation.

I wonder if they looked at cutting two floors off the top and increasing the building's footprint by getting rid of the suburban-esque setbacks? Also...is anyone else disturbed by the giant surface parking lot that remains in the top rendering?

That's actually exactly what the market will decide. The highest bidder will buy the natural gas and the low bidders will either turn thier thermostats down or stop making fertilizer. Everyone will get more efficient in the process. I don't see peak oil as something that will all the sudden happen over the course of one year, but rather something that is already starting to happen now as we begin to round over the hump. The markets are working...prices are going way up...crude oil users are outbidding each other and giving everyone a reason to get more efficient and look at other options. I think here's where we differ. 1) I don't think market transitions are ever smooth and relatively painless. What we have to avoid here are further wars, not fuel rationing. 2) I think the price signals have already started. The price of oil has quadrupled in about 5 years. Things have been working, we'll just be able to see it better when we look back in 2020. Getting back to the original point. Non-conventional oil sources, negative EROEI or not, will continue to provide new floors to our oil prices. The current floor is being supported by tar sands. If oil ever drops below $30/bbl, you'll have over 1 mmbpd drop off line and this lack of supply will boost the cost of oil up again. Next floor...coal to liquids @ $50/bbl. Who knows what's beyond that...unsubsidized ethanol...hydrogen? Just because all of these things seem ludicrous from an EROEI standpoint doesn't mean they won't happen. It starts with the demand for transportation fuel. What energy sources can we turn into transportation fuels and how much are we willing to pay for them?

I guess I'd challenge that by saying that the market takes care of EROEI on it's own. Even negative EROEI projects can be money makers...as long as the energy source going in is cheaper than the energy source coming out. The market usually takes care of these by adjusting on it's own and changing the economics though. Just think of how the chemical industry works...low value feedstocks...higher value products. Turning natural gas into ammonia is negative EROEI, but it's still profitable. Same goes for the energy industry. You're right that a huge swing in the prices of coal or natural gas could change the economics for those processes. If enough of a demand is placed on nat gas by tar sands, or coal by coal to liquids, the prices will go up and you'll need higher oil prices to support the continued operation.

That's not a correct statement. Our ability to produce oil at $5 and $10 bbl is lower, but it's not gone. I think it costs Saudi Arabia about $1.50 to extract a barrel of oil. Tar sands are somewhere around $30-40/bbl, and I also think it costs somewhere in the $40-60/bbl range to convert coal to liquid fuel. These are all off the top of my head, but the point is that we are never technically "out of cheap oil", we just might not have the ability to produce it at the rate which we'd like to consume it. That's why the price is going up. All of these non-conventional sources will get developed once investors believe that the higher prices will be sustained. Some, like the oil sands are going through that period now, but there are capacity restrictions with those sources too.

It's definitely a difficult excercise and is really a testiment to how quickly we need to start planning these systems if only to call "dibs" on the best corridors. Things are only going to get harder as land downtown gets developed, and along with that comes a more expensive and less functional system. It's a strange dynamic to watch the Arena Distict become our 2nd downtown, while we're still trying to rebuild our actual downtown. I just wish there was a way to allow City Center to become the transit hub, but it doesn't look like that's feasible. While we could have streetcars and light rail running along High, Broad, 3rd, and 4th, you wouldn't be able to transfer to the Ohio Hub system without taking another streetcar transfer (potentially the confusing "Z line").

This needs to happen. After coming off what many thought was a Pro Bowl season last year, Sean Jones looks like he's gained weight and slowed down on the field. He was drafted around 210, now he's listed at 225, but he looks even bigger than that. If he wants to add 10 more pounds and be a linebacker, that's fine, but I'd rather see him drop 15 and be a playmaking safety again.

That's a shame about the narrowing of the rail corridor. "Union Station" needs to be located in a spot thats easy to serve with other forms of rail as well (i.e. the streetcar and any future light rail). I assume it will be running along one or more of the major highway corridors so how about using the 70/71 split caps as a right of way? There are cross streets so it might take an expensive elevated system though. hrmmm. I suppose it could also slice down 3rd or 4th street kinda like the Amtrak Coaster does in San Diego. Then City Center could be the "Union Station".

Phenomenal article. Aside from the dig on mass transit requiring subsidies (but not mentioning that all forms of transit from air travel, to driving, to walking require subsidies), it was very well researched and through. Time for a "job well done" letter to the author.

Looks like the housing component shrunk from 400 units to 400 beds as well. Unless the retail component really takes off, this place might be vacant in the evening hours. Do they have a baseball team yet? 1,200 seats is pretty tiny. Like High School sized. It's way smaller than OSU's small baseball stadium at almost 4,500 seats.

Well that's a tough one! Slag is one thing (a little dynamite and you're set), but pig iron!?!?! eesh! How do you blow that up without blowing up the furnace?

Why isn't The Oil Drum picking up on this story and running with it? Isn't this the canary in the coal mine? Prices are at record highs...producers are more incentivized than ever to open up the valves...yet after 3+ years of very high prices, their production is slipping. Sounds peak oil-ish to me.

There are similar ideas with air compressors and underground salt domes. Use the wind turbine or solar panel to power an air compressor when the energy is available, and then discharge the compressed air through a turbine/generator when you need the electricity. Hydrogen production from electrolysis is another example of energy storage, although I think its much less efficient than pumped/compressed storage. You also end up with the hydrogen transportation/delivery system headaches. It's much easier to do it with electrons and wires. The problem with these is that they 1) introduce efficiency penalties into the system, and 2) introduce pumps/compressors which cost more $$$. So you end up with a higher cost, but at least you aren't hostage to the weather. I think lawmakers getting involved with a project as controversial as this offshore wind farm is a great step in the right direction. Somebody needs to moderate things when the BP's of the world come in and get sued up the wazoo. I'm no expert on the process, but it seems like these appeals (see: Nantucket) can paralyze a good project.

The 70/71 Split - Screwing German Village and The Brewery District since the 1960's.

I'd love to be more engaged, but I don't know about paying $50 to do so. :(

According to this release in July 2007, CMH experienced an increase of 23% over July 2006!!! http://www.columbusairports.com/news/press/release.asp?PID=265 They're expriencing a 13% year to date increase, so your "Skybus came during the summer" argument is working against you. If you want to make the claim that this was because of JetBlue and Southwest, you're gonna have to get some data on your side. We were averaging 7-10% year over year increases before Skybus came around. But Skybus is doing very little to increase business awareness of Columbus nationwide. Take a look at the Continental expanding in Cleveland thread to get a good idea of what having a real airline build and establish an operation in a city. No offense to Clevelanders (I am a former one), but I don't know how far you'll get pinning your argument on the economic vibrancy of Cleveland. 1) Why won't ever Columbus be a major hub? Just because Continental and Delta have hubs nearby? 2) You're still missing the point. Skybus is NOT aimed at business travelers. Officials have even said that they're business model is built around people who don't normally fly, or have no reason to fly from A to B except for a cheap fare. Just b/c they're not aimed at business travelers doesn't mean they are a "cancer" on our local economy.