Brewmaster

Sounds a bit dramatic. CMH is crushing past ridership records and is considering accelerating the plan to expand the airport. Record ridership numbers also indicate that people who don't normally fly are the ones making up Skybus' clientele. Like you said, business travelers aren't the ones flying on Skybus. If you were to argue that they are hurting the economy by allowing Columbusites to become more mobile and thus spending their dollars in other cities rather than allowing them to circulate in the local economy, I might agree with you. It sucks if your company is getting hurt by this effect, but maybe they need to tighten thier belts a little further and compete. This isn't like Walmart forcing out mom and pop stores and killing culture. Skybus is offering a stripped down product at stripped down costs, and the model seems to be working here like it has in Europe. And hey...I'm enjoying having them in town. After seeing San Diego for $10, I'll be off to San Francisco for $50 next week.

$80.18/bbl on the NYMEX! KJP - Does this mean that you win a bet with your boss?

And another... http://capcitysavvy.com/2007/08/19/construction-update-ibiza-urban-oasis/

You say disaster, I say opportunity. Why not use it as an opportunity to get more cars off of High St. and onto 3rd/Summit/4th where they belong. It might even spur development off of the High St. corridor (I always find it amazing that we can only support one commercial street through the heart of this town). I do agree that part of the beauty of a streetcar line is that they can run along with traffic, but for the stations, eliminating a portion of the turn lane, or a few parking spaces will hardly be the end of the Short North as we know it.

We did it folks!!! We CRUSHED the record! We're down to 20.0 days!!! [/sarcasm] With a record number of projected travelers for labor day weekend...next stop...19! The EIA's weekly publication, This Week in Petroleum, actually wrote about it... http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twiparch/070829/twipprint.html We're now worse off than we were Post-Katrina! :-o

One more thing to add. I think I've read that if we were to use the ENTIRE annual corn harvest of the US to make ethanol, we'd displace something like 14% of our gasoline consumption. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that it's not even a good alternative, yet it's practically being marketed as our "freedom fuel".

I think the points of others on this board is that pursuing ethanol is actually counterproductive. 1) It confuses people into thinking we've got everything solved 2) Studies show that it only yeilds a small net gain of energy, at best 3) It drives up costs of food 4) It's being marketed as a "green" technology even though it's far from it The only positive about the subsidization of ethanol will be realized only if MASSIVE advances in cellulosic ethanol happen. If we can make cellulosic ethanol minutely competitive, we'll at least have a distribution infrastructure set up to allow for easier adoption. Right now, that doesn't look promising. Damn thermodynamics. :x

Exactly! It needs to cost 30 percent less to break even...not 30 cents less.

Here's a phenomenal article that really backs up KJP's point about the transformative nature of rail transit. Be sure to click on the interviews in the sidebar too. Good stuff. http://www.governing.com/articles/6transit.htm Charlotte is generally thought of in the same light as Columbus. They've got similar average commute times (20-25 minutes), and always get labeled as having a "car culture". Also...a few citizens and I have started up a transit blog called X-ing Columbus ( http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/ ). If anyone would like to be a contributor (KJP and Noozer I'm looking squarely at you ;)), please drop us a line. We'd like to have many contributors adding fresh content as possible. Hopefully it'll prove to be accessible to our city leaders, transit planners, etc... I'm thinking of adding a spot to sign online petitions on there as well (probably wouldn't be formal, but showing support is showing support).

Wow. I'm a little suprised that the developer didn't just take it one step further and call them "backwoods hillbilly's".

My wife and I only have one car...and it's mostly hers (she's got a little longer to commute). I generally hitch a ride with her on the way, walk, or take COTA.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/08/24/windmills.html

I actually just heard Mark Shanahan (the guv's energy advisor) give a speech yesterday. He mentioned that himself, Lee Fisher (lt. guv), and Strickland have been talking with 4 wind turbine manufacturers and parts suppliers to set up shop here in the state. He also said that a popular response from manufacturers has been, something like...why the heck should we set up shop in Ohio if you don't even have a renewable portfolio standard? There might be some truth to that, but I just took that to mean, "hey ohioans...we're gonna propose a renewable portfolio standard...so come to grips with that sooner rather than later." That's just my read. I would think that manufacturers would be more interested in tax breaks than to strongarm a state into an RPS, but who knows. Ohio is also well situated for shipping large equipment across the country, so I think we can make a strong sales pitch even if we don't install many turbines within the state's boundaries.

Last week saw a huge draw on gasoline of 5.7 million barrels even in the face of refineries running at 91.6% capacity. We're now sitting at the second lowest gasoline inventory (in terms of days of supply) that we've seen since the EIA began keeping track of it (March 1991). We've got 20.4 days worth of gas left in the "tank". We've been at that level two other times in the past (August 29, 2003 and Sept 2, 2005). The post 1991 record is 20.3 days and was set August 22, 2003. Keep driving everyone! We so close to setting a record!!!!! Just to put that into perspective, here's the data since 1991 from the EIA's website that I averaged out for each year... Year Days of Supply 1991 29.2 1992 30.1 1993 29.7 1994 28.4 1995 26.5 1996 25.7 1997 24.9 1998 25.9 1999 25.1 2000 23.5 2001 24.0 2002 23.9 2003 22.8 2004 22.6 2005 22.8 2006 22.7 2007 22.1 (average to date) I don't think this is a sign of peak oil, but it does show how vulnerable we are getting to any future shortages. It probably says more about how little we have invested in storage at our refineries compared to how much demand has gone up.

^ Great article Noozer.

Quoted for emphasis...

Not you Mayday...Boreal. I think his/her passion is great...it just always ends up in unproductive name calling. For the record...I shouldn't have called Boreal's statement ignorant either. I'm speaking for myself. :-D

Read my posts above. I never advocated against wind power. I'm a HUGE fan of renewables. I thought it was disingenuious of Boreal to call people incompetant for not building wind turbines like crazy in Ohio. Look at the wind maps, and look where people are building wind farms. That should give you a really good idea of where wind is "in the money" as I called it. The whole tone of that post reminded me of those who blame Big Oil for our "pain at the pump". They've got a stake in it, sure. But to participate in name calling and price gouging witch hunts every time gasoline breaks $3/gallon isn't productive or practical. Lets be realistic and talk about solutions, not participate in name calling.

Really? It's a good report, but it's all about the manufacturing and construction of turbines and parts, not installation. It doesn't say anything about it being profitable for Ohio to cover the state with wind turbines, just that we do a good job manufacturing bearings and gearboxes. How did you read it?

Maybe not a misquote, but definitely out of context. I wrote... You turned it into... You agreed with me...but took it out of context so you could disagree with me. ;)

Ok...so now we're detaching the US from Ohio in terms of making a commitment to installing wind power. I'm ok with that. We can make parts with the best of 'em, but it's difficult, and not profitable in the majority of the state to actually install turbines. I think everyone should be able to agree with that. Just to remember where we came from here...Boreal called people incompetant for not throwing up turbines willy-nilly. That's what I took issue with.

^ Isn't that more of a testament to our crappy economy than our ability to economically generate electricity from wind? Couldn't you come up with a similar study that says we stand to benefit the most from filtering out gold from sea/lake water?

I never said that. Please don't misquote me. That's true. There are also loads of opposition to overcome from environmentalists, fishermen, and recreational users of the lake. You can almost guarantee getting caught up in a legal battle the day after you propose a project there. Can you please link to the study. I wouldn't want to be "misinformed". I find it hard to believe that our potential areas of wind generation in the middle of the lake, or in the northwest trump those of Oklahoma, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and even Michigan. I'd actually be suprised if we were in the top 15-20. Seriously...link to that study. It'd shock the hell out of me if we were ranked 3rd.

For those like me who only fill up an 11 gallon tank once a month, this might be a good time to hit the gas station. Here's the brief writeup from the EIA... http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp Also interesting is the drop in gasoline inventories. With refineries now operating in the low 91-92% range, you wouldn't expect a drop of 1.7 mm barrels, but demand is staying really strong at 1% above last year (the low prices lately shouldn't help much). The market hasn't caught up yet. Sometimes it seems to take a few days to let the speculators have thier fun, but things seem to be pointing towards higher prices. So far, prices are relatively flat.

Winning is the best medicine.