Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Don't you need to keep the Coyotes around to eat the rabbits and squirrels, to keep the latters' population in check? Balance of prey and predator animal populations is also part of a balanced environmental agenda.
By the way, I'm very happy to have my own well and pump. Gagrice - it'll soon be cheaper for you to disconnect from the system and buy bottled water for all your needs. They must be balancing the budget with the amounts you're getting charged.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-05-04-oil-hearing-usat_x.ht- m
Dmitry Orlov:
I watched the Soviet Union collapse, and I have tried to put my observations into a concise message. I will leave it up to you to decide just how urgent a message it is.
http://www.cluborlov.com/ClubOrlov/ConfSlides/index.html
Although I am not a vegan, I have limited the amount of meat I use to one helping a week from one helping a day. You can add more protein by using soy, lentils etc etc.
The hypocrite hippo drivers will not only cause problems for themselves, they are also taking the good guys down with them. Thats what upsets me.
"Slightly more material": A 5500 lbs escalade compared to a 3500 lbs BMW 3 or camry. Is it slightly?? You need math classes! Its a massive 57% increase in weight and consequently materials.
"Too emotional": What is so emotional about mentioning that SUV owners are a threat to the global environment and geopolitics.
"Japan": This is baseless speculation about number of parts etc. US imports trillions of dollars of chinese goods, should we stop buying everything from alaska due to transportation costs? Should we even stop commuting from california to boston or florida? Should japanese just drink tea and play with swords? or nintendos?
My calculations: As I have already proved, you need basic math classes. 2+2 = 4. That will be a good start. The combined cafe standards for light trucks (SUVS and PU) is 21 and for cars it is 27.5 and both are evenly split on sales. So consumption due to light trucks is a whopping 26% more!
link title
Just look at the yellow monster in above link. It will be very revealing to you.
"Laws of conservation": Since the demand in US drops, the rest of the world will suck up the balance! Vow, very clever! impressive.
No one is asking to shut american industry except maniacs. What I recommend is cap the supply, reduce the demand by increasing efficiency and killing SUV terror, and gradually rolling back dependence on oil and materials by heavily taxing them.
Hippo tax, hog tax, terror tax.
"Nuclear Fusion": This is the only sensible comment in your post.
"World Population": That is again speculation. Only in islamic countries there will be explosive growth. In europe and Japan, population is already dropping, In US it will start dropping in 25-30 years, same for china, India will stabilize in 40 years and then there will be decline in population due to prosperity.
And I dont think islam will add 10 billion so quickly! But who knows these are maniacs, so you may be right!
me: My comments on future energy use come from the DOE. See the graphs in the upper left on P. 95 - 96. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_4.pdf
you: "Slightly more material": A 5500 lbs escalade compared to a 3500 lbs BMW 3 or camry. Is it slightly??
me: you weren't comparing the mass of an SUV to the mass of a Camry. You were talking about overall resource usage I believe. My comment was that the extra resources used to make SUV's compared to cars is not much - this is relative to the amount of resources available in the world.
you: What is so emotional about mentioning that SUV owners are a threat to the global environment and geopolitics.
me: Then show us the math, instead of that comment. I've been thru the DOE numbers of how much oil is used in the world, how much is used in the U.S., how many SUV's are likely on the road, and considered if we took people from 17mpg SUV's and put them in 27mpg cars. You save 0.5% of the oil usage. If you'd like to calculate otherwise show us.
you: The combined cafe standards for light trucks (SUVS and PU) is 21 and for cars it is 27.5 and both are evenly split on sales. So consumption due to light trucks is a whopping 26% more!
me: yes but the U.S. uses 25% of the oil. And it is not all for gas; oil is used for heating and plastics, and fertilizers ... And maybe 33% of the vehicles on the road are light trucks. And of those many are used in businesses and on farms. So in the U.S. you can save 2% of the oil consumption by eliminating unneeded light trucks.
you: Just look at the yellow monster in above link. It will be very revealing to you.
me: yes and if you reduce the yellow, the amount the cars goes up, though I agree with you it would not be as much. Using your data the yellow would be converted to a green bar 74% as high, added to the existing green (cars) bar. But as I stated before the total still goes up every year. You do not solve the energy consumption issue, only make it slightly less worse.
Going to all cars does not decrease demand, it only slightly lowers the increase.
you: What I recommend is cap the supply, reduce the demand by increasing efficiency and killing SUV terror, and gradually rolling back dependence on oil and materials by heavily taxing them.
me: and since the whole world uses oil who's going to do this? Europe already has high taxes. China wants to grow its economy and will use as much oil as it can get. India is just beginning to rev up it's economy. If the world now has 1 billion cars, trucks and motorcycles, there are a couple more billion people who want one, and many who will soon have the money.
More and more people are driving. More and more factories are being built, and energy demand is going to keep increasing. In China there are hundreds of millions of peasants looking for a better life; China is building urban areas for these people the size of Philadelphia EVERY month. Read China Inc.
You are right that the more advanced countries aren't really growing. Except many advanced countries ARE growing because of legal and illegal immigration. Even if the U.S. were to level its legal population, the population will still grow as Mexico (and Caribbean) continues to grow and the poor continue to flood across the border. Where you'll have the most growth is in poor areas of the world, and you can see how desperate people are for resources. Read about how people in Nigeria hack open the pipelines.
Not many people are willingly going to conserve. People will spend their last dime on gas for their truck, or commit a "drive-off" crime at the pumps, or hack open the pipeline and haul gas in buckets.
Kernick,
I find your remarks always very close to the mark and realistic. I believe those that demonize others for whatever reason, usually have something to hide. This $10 per gallon to curb use is an elitist view. It is obviously aimed at taking cars from the lower classes. A position that only the upper classes should be allowed to own personal transportation.
Although I am an SUV owner, I have limited the amount of driving that I do. I drive one round trip a week now instead of one trip a day, unlike some car-driving gas hogs. How did I do that? Telecommute, change of profession, and moving closer to work. On top of that, I get 22-26mpg on my weekly trips because I drive during low-traffic time, better gas mileages than even Civics stuck in traffic jams. . . a friend of mine had a civic after getting out of college, he never got better than 18mpg in LA commute traffic.
The hypocrite hippo drivers will not only cause problems for themselves, they are also taking the good guys down with them. Thats what upsets me.
The hypocrite long-distance daily car commuters will not only cause problems for themselves, they are also taking the good guys down with them. That's what upsets me.
(tongue firmly in cheek, of course)
HUH,,,,, if any civic gets anything less than 30 MPG, then something is serious wrong with that car and needs to be repaired.
That may be a bit optimistic. I asked a girl at the Costco gas pumps how she liked her new CIvic. She liked it but not real happy with the mileage. She had not been able to get 30 MPG as of yet. That is the new model. Driving in rush hour traffic takes its toll on gas mileage. For example on the 405 freeway around LA I hit the Ventura end at 2PM it was 6:30 PM when I came out on the 5 headed toward San Diego. I have no idea what kind of mileage I got that was in a 1984 Bronco. Most of the time you are creeping along at 3-5 MPH. That was in the 1980s, it may be better now.
me: Yes, traffic congestion can be a major factor in gas consumption. The amount of traffic mathematically is a function of the number of miles driven in any area - (number of drivers) x (number of miles per driver). If you have an area where the average commute is 30 miles instead of 10 miles you're going to have at least 3X more gas used. And I say 'at least' because once traffic increases enough with people exitting and entering, people trying to switch lanes ... then you cause backups and frequent breaking. That tripling of miles (30 miles) driven may actually cause a 10X increase in gas consumption.
The best thing we can do to save gas is to go for shorter commutes when deciding on jobs or homes/apartments, and carpooling. At least until our employers realize that we might stagger the hours of employees in some cases, or even go to (4) 10 hour days as a standard. These sorts of things require no technological breakthru, building of a billion hybrid batteries, or construction new refineries and wider highways. Simple lifestyle changes and a rearranging of work schedules (for most who can) would save plenty of fuel.
I've worked for a few companies, who at least on paper had flex time alowable by the head office, however, the office heads allways demanded that everybody arrive at peak traffic times and leave at peak traffic time, and don't forget, the much needed going to lunch at exactly 1200 hrs for peak traffic there.
Sure, every office and work enviorment could change, but for some reason, people get set in their way and change is not an option, just like driving habits!
Depending on the type of work, companies need to think outside the traditional office cubicle. My son in law was part of a pilot program at his software company. He works from his home office all but two days per month. They are now cutting back on office space that is very expensive and expanding the program. He does not have that 22 mile each way commute. It is a total win win solution. Programs like his could do more to impact our fossil fuel usage than all the high mileage cars combined.
They live in an apartment that is one block from the super market shopping mall. His car sits most of the time and they are losing weight by walking to the store.
I find it very interesting that Brazil has become energy independent, yet we have made no real effort to try. It really makes you wonder what the war in Iraq is all about. Clearly it has nothing to do with our nations security, if we had spent that $350 billion on developing an E85 infrasturcture in America, I am sure we would be well on our way.
Only problem with that is Exxon, Shell, and all of King George's rich oil buddies would not have been able to screw us out of billions.
Only problem with that is Exxon, Shell, and all of King George's rich oil buddies would not have been able to screw us out of billions.
Yes after 1973 Brasil's military gov't decided to find a way from total dependance on fossil fuels and after 30 years for various resons they basicly did. Just as Argentina has done with porpane.
LOL.... as for the USA seriously thinking about alternative energy sources, I serious doubt it since too many corporatons are making plenty of $, so why would they want to invest more for the future, unless they are forced to.
I surely don't make any connection between iraq security and greed in the energy industry and all politicals.
me: LOL. Propane is produced during the refining of oil. Propane is not a substitute for oil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane
me: LOL. Propane is produced during the refining of oil. Propane is not a substitute for oil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane
Actually the laugh is on you!
Because, the cost for them for propane is 10% the cost of regular gas.
So even the $1000.00 to install the total propane kit, pays off in a very short time.
Also, I didn't say propane is a subisute for anything, just another alternative as the USA needs a few alternatives now, not after the whole chit hits the fan.
Well, THAT make's sense. :confuse:
Whether you call it a 'substitute' or an 'alternative' is beside the point.
If propane is derived from oil, how is propane an 'alternative' to oil?
let me ask you....do Ferrari or Cayman..which only seat 2 people...seem more practical to you ?
The SUV is just plain safer in most accidents.
There is alot of utility. I had a 2000 Boxster S, and we all hated the unpractical and space deficient car. (we did like to drive it solo, but that is a big waste , right ?)
YOur spewing of venom does nothing to solve the problem.
By the way...did you know that the Prius gets great mileage...but costs lots more energy and plastics and fuel to produce in the first place ? Then , you have to contend with the expensive batteries to replace....and recycle them....
It is so great to look at the world when you are at a bottom of a well....great view of the world. :sick:
#1. On a per capita basis, a Brazilian consumes approximately 5 % of the energy for transportation than an American.
#2. The extraction of ethanol from sugar cane is more efficient than the extraction of ethanol from corn. It is the lobbyists in middle America that view corn as a savior since it will create an artificial economic boom in the Midwest.
#3. Almost all energy balance calculations indicate that an almost equivalent amount of diesel is required to get ethanol from corn. I have no clue how a Brazilian farms so I can't comment on how they get the energy to harvest and irrigate sugar cane.
It is an interesting situation. High crime in urban areas forced working people into the suburbs making work commutes longer. Lazy and incompetent politicians did nothing to enforce higher mpg standards for US automakers over the last 35 years. Local zoning policies did nothing to restrict the size of suburban Mcmansions which consume huge amounts of heating oil (a distillate fraction of crude oil). Yes, I see how that makes an oil conglomerate completely liable for the total incompetence and apathy of the American public.
me: I've heard that, and I've also heard proponents tout a net gain of energy. IMO, there is a lot of energy used to run the tractors to plant a crop, then there is a lot of energy used for irrigation and fertilization, and then there is the tractor energy again to harvest and bring in the crops. Then the crops have to be transported to a rail-line where workers have to load the crop. Then the crop needs to go to a plant to be processed, which is energy intensive. Then the ethanol needs to be piped and trucked to stations. All the people who touch the ethanol in the process have to drive back and forth to work. So after all this have we really received more ethanol than energy used?
Ethanol by the way, is nothing more than a method to collect and store solar energy, which grows the crop to make the ethanol.
1) Hydrocarbons stored and created by decaying organic matter - this includes oil and its byproducts - gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and propane to name the most popular; natural gas, methane from garbage dumps, hard and soft coals, oil sands and shale.
These fuels can be substituted for each other in many cases, or even used to convert from 1 fuel to the other. These are a single pool of energy which is our main source. We are using this pool faster than it is being replaced. You can switch between these fuels for a couple of hundred years but it would take millions of years for them to be replaced. It is this pool of fuels that we need to figure out, how to replace. These are the carbon based fuels that will create CO2 when used.
2) Renewable energy - solar (panels), and organic solar (this includes ethanol conversion of plants, wood, and any other burning of plants), wind, wave, hydoelectric, and geothermal. These are basically infinite in availability. The problem is collecting a sufficient quantity that is available in all areas of the globe in a constant supply.
3) Current nuclear fission; fuel is not unlimited.
4) Nuclear fusion - not proven feasible; At least 50 years away.
5) Unknown - dark energy, or Star Trek science (antimatter and quantum singularities). Obviously there is someone/something that obtained the knowledge and power to create the millions of galaxies of the universe. All we want is a teensy-eensy bit of that knowledge. Maybe the knowledge and power to create 1 little star.
Sure in fender bender, yea, they come out ahead, however as everybody can see every other day on the roads just like the insurance companies can read the stat's on how easily Support Usama Vehicules(SUV's) allways rollover and allways serious injury it's passenger.
So bottom line is...... the accident rate evens out one way or another.
No problem, they're working on the Sound Transit projects. It'll all be OK. Right. I can just hear all of the pithy Puget Sounders who want to get rid of the Seattle Sonics basketball team sounding off against Sound Transit. Whoever decided the Mariners were a better entertainment value than the Sonics, anyway? Confounds me. And why is the City of Seattle so pre-historic and barbaric in their demands on the Sonics? Nutso and stupid City Council. That's how that one goes, just for goofy starters. I'd dump the Mariners any day before dumping the Sonics. But go ahead, ask me how I really feel about that subject.
Wait! What was that noise? I think I can hear them all the way over here in eastern Idaho. Yikes. Puget Sounders, possibly because of all of their traffic and high mortgage costs, don't like to take on anything extra for sports stadiums. I learned that when I was still living over there.
Oh, this thread is about oil, eh? No, we'll never get over our dependence on it. Easy subject to ace. Hybrids are a novel attempt to jump out of that box but a smidgely little half-pence of what still needs to be done.
Who's got the best answers on that one? George Noory, come in.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I wondered what element voted for our new baseball stadium in San Diego. All it has done is bankrupt the City employees retirement. If I had my way they would send all professional sports teams packing. Just a bunch of over paid, little talent whiners. Not to mention the wasted gas required to get all those fans to the park. If we had real sports we would have a coliseum and throw politicians to the Lions. Now that would be fun to watch.
On topic, on my way to work this morning, the stoplight scheduling was all messed up, and several times I was caught in random changes with no cross traffic (it was before 6am). There needs to be massive outcry against this inefficient and wasteful system. I wonder how much gas is wasted through illogical traffic planning. Good enough for government work, I guess...accountability-free zone. It needs to be reigned in.
As far as traffic lights; they should be tied into motion detectors, to be intelligent, rather than justt work on a timer. If there is no traffic coming in 1 direction, why not leave the light green in the other direction? People lose the momentum energy of their car in braking and coming to a stop, and then wasted gas idling. I'd guess this happens several billions times per year just in this country.
I'm also for making speed limit signs digital where each police force for jurisdiction for an area would set the speed limit based on time, weather and road conditions, and traffic conditions.
Proposals to Lower Fuel Prices
You are badly mistaken. We are living in a world of 6.5 billion people, not 100 million.
Environmental impact of plant foods vs animal foods:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S
The vegan lifestyle is unhealthy at best.
You are terribly misinformed. I wonder how many papers in nutrition and medical journals you have read. Which ones have led you to make such a statement?
American Dietetic Association's position on vegetarianism and veganism
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/adapaper.htm
Lower meat consumption = greater longevity.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S
also see:
Blackburn GL.
"Vegging out" for better health? Vegetarians may have healthier, longer lives than their carnivorous counterparts.
Health News. 2003 Nov;9(11):8-9. No abstract available.
PMID: 14619817 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Segasothy M, Phillips PA.
Vegetarian diet: panacea for modern lifestyle diseases?
QJM. 1999 Sep;92(9):531-44. Review.
PMID: 10627874 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Sabate J.
The contribution of vegetarian diets to human health.
Forum Nutr. 2003;56:218-20. Review.
PMID: 15806870 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Darmadi-Blackberry I, Wahlqvist ML, Kouris-Blazos A, Steen B, Lukito W, Horie Y, Horie K.
Legumes: the most important dietary predictor of survival in older people of different ethnicities.
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(2):217-20.
PMID: 15228991 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Chao A, Thun MJ, Connell CJ, McCullough ML, Jacobs EJ, Flanders WD, Rodriguez C, Sinha R, Calle EE.
Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer.
JAMA. 2005 Jan 12;293(2):172-82.
PMID: 15644544 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I suggest you start reading and learning.
I think I am going to believe a guy with a PhD in molecular biochemistry who has spent the last 3 years studying this issue, when he says basically by using grass, to produce ethanol it is highly efficient.
I am not sure why people want to fight this idea. You can state all the theories about this or that and why it can't be done.
The simple FACT is it can be done. Brazil is not a theory, it is reality.
Do you have a link(s) to an evaluation of the Brazil ethanol production industry?
Also is this more feasible in Brazil because of the wet tropical climates, where you have the abundant water, sun, and long-growing seasons? They can probably plant 2-3 crops whereas most of the U.S. has 1 crop per year.
Brasil, is a different story, they have a tropical climate where sugar cane can be grown all year of which that also give the best returns for alcohol. The USA is in a northeren climate what different agricultual products must be used but the USA has enormus protential and can pull it off if there was any real political muscle, sort of like Kennedy did for the space program, but unfortunatly, I believe it will be politics as usual and like allways the public will allways lose.
You never know. Maybe the only place we see cars 20 years from now is on "Lifestyles of the RIch & Famous". :shades: Or the History Channel.
There are places in US were rails were placed in the center of interstates for commuter trains. Would this work for cargo on interstate routes heavily travelled by 18-wheelers?
Do countries such as Japan, Germany, etc. have advanced rail technology that could be useful in the US?
The rail system for travel sounds good to some media type who lives in the middle of a large metro area. But it has been proposed to build a rail from Cinci to Columbus to Cleveland. IT wouldn't reduce petro useage because most people aren't traveling from Cinci to Cleveland to the area where the rail is going on business nor pleasure. It's not feasable no matter how much they minimize the real cost of building such an animal. ON the East Cost/West Coast, yes; Ohio, no.
Even a commuter rail to locations around Cinci won't work. Everyone is going somewhere else when they drive other than where the rail would go.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Great point. Read somewhere in past that wear/destruction of roads goes up exponentially with weight. A 3200 pound car causes negligent wear on interstate road compared to fully loaded semis.
In this part of the universe/solar system, Hydrogen and Carbon are two of the top four most abundant elements along with Oxygen and Helium. There is simply not enough Oxygen to combine with all hydrogen and carbon at the 2:1 and 1:2 ratio that the respective stable compoounds would require. The result is a lot of left-over free hydrogen and free carbon, which can combine into hydrocarbons under high temperature and high pressure. That's why meteorites are often full of hydrocarbons and carbonaceous material, and nobody ever suggested there is a massive presence of cosmic-ray resistent biological species multiplying like weed in space to produce the "fossil fuel". By the same token, the planet earth is also full of carbonaceous material under the earth's crust.
There is also a natural process that limestones (CaCO3) are laid down at the ocean floor at a rate dependent on CO2 level in the atmosphere. When limestone is then subducted under the crust, in the high temperature high pressure earth's mantle, CaCO3 and H2O can be combined to produce hydrocarbon.
In other words, we are not running out of hydrocarbon any time soon . . . at least not before we run out of space/volume on this planet. Of course it's finite, as the planet volume is finite, but as we know "infinity" is just another really large number in any practical sense.
That's why oil price is simply a reflection of currency value, reflecting the cost of extraction (from earth, and more importantly from convincing people who already have a claim on it to give it to us).
It's only about a 15 minute walk.
(Unless I had to cross a highway, that is... or had to drive around due to the job)
:shades: