Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency

billingsley

"abiogenic" is a word I've never heard before. What does it mean?

rorr

Re: abiogenic

Relates to the abiogenic oil theory that oil is NOT necessarily a 'fossil fuel' derived from the decaying remains of living organisms. Instead, the theory is that oil is formed from NON-biologic processes very deep within the earth's crust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_oil

edit: just so nobody goes off the deep-end, I'm not in here ENDORSING this theory.

jeffyscott

Global warming making the vast majority of the planet underwater or uninhabitably hot is overstating things just a bit. There would be serious consequences to "doing something" of any significance about global warming, as well.

kernick

Read the following: http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Polar_Ice.pdf

There are other more recent NASA reports and photographs showing how much ice has been lost in the last 30 years. You will also note that the loss of ice accelerates the loss of more ice.

Now consider how many cities and how much of the global population live in coastal areas. Entire states such as Florida are barely above sealevel. Also go find atlases of the globe that show elevations and you'll see how much land would be lost.

krony

Given the economic growth of India and China, combined with their billions and billions in population, I don't think oil dependence will ever end. They are no different that when the US was industrializing with everyone wanting the new car and a home of their own.

Even with more technologies like hybrids and ethanol it'll be hard not to still rely on oil. Energy will continue to be big business 20-50 years from now. After being in Germany and France two weeks ago I find it hard to complain about our $3/gal gas when they are paying 1.15Euro/Liter which is about $5.20/gal. Prices will drive behavior...

rorr

"Global warming making the vast majority of the planet underwater...."

OMG - I just looked at a globe and SONOFAGUN, kernick is RIGHT! Already, most of the planet is covered by water! My lord, how long has this been going on?

:P

Kirstie_H

This isn't a global warming message board, so the debate about whether it is/isn't happening needs to take place elsewhere. Let's focus on our dependence on oil... for our cars. Thanks!

kernick

There's really not much to discuss if you want to limit the discussion of dependence on oil to our cars. Yes, a large number of people will rely on oil.

If the U.S. and all the advanced societies around the world moved to some hybrid or nuclear batteries it would be rather expensive. Since the majority of people in the world won't have that sort of money, striving to buy a motorbike or basic car, these users of low tech, which is what the internal combustion is, would be used by this large group.

People will use oil year after year until there is no more naturally occurring (retrievable) in the ground. If you have continuously hungry people around the table, and there is decent food on the table it will all eventually get eaten.

jeffyscott

People will use oil year after year until there is no more naturally occurring (retrievable) in the ground.

Well not quite. If the price contiues to rise, eventually other alternatives will make more financial sense. The last barrels of recoverable (at any cost) oil will likely never actually be used.

The higher the price of gas, the more people will also be willing to drive much more efficient vehicles...some of this is happening now, SUV sales are down. In addition, more people in some locations will be willing to put up with inconveniences, like riding the bus, to save on gas.

As much as people like to complain about gas prices, it is still cheap or we would not use so much of it, without really thinking too much about it for the most part.

kernick

We (for this post it means - in this country and other advanced countries) will continue to use oil if we don't ave an alternative. If we do have an alternative come along such that we don't use much oil - say a super hybrid, that does not mean thhat oil use in the rest of the non-developed world will go down.

The vast population of the globe is poor. they are not going to be buying a $25K vehicle with the technology we are. The masses in China, India, Africa, and S. America, as they can make more money will be buying primitive motorbikes and cars, replacing their bicycles and such.

If we stop using oil for cars, it drops usage significantly temporarily. The cost of oil and gasoline drops substantially. That thus makes gasoline more affordable to those people who as I said can't afford our new tech. Unless this new technology that would replace oil is available to every person on the planet, people will use oil. The only thing a partial use of new tech. would do IS SHIFT the RATE and WHO USES THE OIL.

The villagers and smugglers in Nigeria will steal want the wells to run, and to get gasoline; whether they have to hack thhe pipes. The smugglers in Iraq will still steal the oil. And the billions of people who either have a cheap vehicle, or are riding a bicycle, mule or camel, will want a 2-stroke or lawnmower-engine powered bike or cheap car.

john500

Even if an alternative energy is developed for personal transportation (60-65 % of fuel usage), I haven't seen a lot of research involving alternative fuels for airplanes and Caterpillar vehicles (diesel). Even if airplanes and heavy equipment become powered with alternative energy, there are a vast amount of polymers and pharmaceutical precursors being produced from oil. Oil will likely never be obsolete, only not used for fuel if we are lucky.

billingsley

Thanx for clearing that word up.

davidkeith37

Re the word "Abiogenic" Some history on the use of this word . Way back when Ronold Regan was President he had a Sec of the Interior named James Watt. He was famous for, amoung other things, not seeing need for conservation since new oil is being formed all the time. The resource is not finite. Another reason he saw no need for conservation was that the second coming was nigh. Soon no need for oil or any other material object. Look how far we have come in these intervening years!

kernick

And since we're not going to wake up 1 day and find out there is no oil left, there really should be no crisis.

In the worst case - no replacement energy source and no significant abiogenic oil formation, production of oil will slowly decrease with the price going up. Our society would have years to adjust to the gradual diminishment of oil. We would have to change from a society that is used to living in urban/suburban areas and getting all our resources from a few who farm, ranch, and fish. The America of the 1800's managed to function and grow despite not having oil. There are many heavily populated societies today in which people have little or no oil, and people survive. So not having oil does not mean armageddon; it means you may need to change your lifestyle drastically. For some it may be like quitting a cigarette or other drug habit; but for me I could get adjust my life in a short time to get by either with a bicycle, or a with a horse and wagon

gagrice

You are exactly right. We adapt or die.

gagrice

Look how far we have come in these intervening years!

It had nothing to do with James Watt. It had to do with economics. We built over a hundred government subsidized ethanol plants during the 1980s. Oil got cheap again and 90 of them were shut down. Until oil is truly on the decline we will continue our wasteful lifestyle.

billingsley

Do you remember in the 80's when Exxon was in Wyoming starting coal-gasification? They pumped billions of dollars into it, and then the cost of oil plummeted again, and Exxon pulled out. We supposedly have more coal than the middle east has oil, so it would seem to be a no brainer to get back into this coal-oil thing again. There have to be some drawbacks, maybe enviromental.

gagrice

"Who Killed the Electric Car?" is a documentary now making the national art-movie circuit.

But a California company would like you to know that the rumors of the electric car's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

With gas prices surging to all-time highs and the mess in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, making it likely they won't be coming down anytime soon, a lot of people might be relieved to hear that.

ZAP, a Santa Rosa, Calif.-based company, said the interest has meant its $10,000 plug-in cars are shipping out just as fast as they roll off the ship from China.

Called the Xebra, the new vehicle has three wheels instead of four, weighs under 1,000 pounds and can seat four.

The Xebra travels up to 40 miles on one charge, and whirs along at up to 40 mph.

"We are so used to looking at four wheels, people always ask, 'Where is the other wheel?'" Starr said. "But once you drive it, you understand how stable it is."

Backing up Starr on that view is one of the first independent reviewers who has driven the Xebra, Philip Reed of Edmunds.com, a company that has been in the car-reviewing game for 40 years.

"When I got back to Edmunds and told the guys it is a three-wheeled car, they said: 'Oh gosh, it must have been unstable.' But it wasn't. I was going probably between 30 and 40," Reed said.

Today's Xebras can get a full charge from a 110-volt electric outlet in about six hours.

At less than one kilowatt of charging power for six hours, that works out to 2 or 3 cents per mile, or about $1 per charge.

One dollar divided by 40 miles of range equals 2.5 cents per mile.

2.5 cents per mile

Mr_Shiftright

The fuel economy of those old subcompacts seems to increase as the cars age...or as the owners age, not sure which :P

You're all correct---it's WEIGHT that differentiates the old tinny little boxes of yesteryear from the subcompacts of today...and weight eats gas...a LOT of gas...especially in city driving and especially with poor aero.

WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? I saw that film---it was interesting but it really didn't answer the question.

I test drove a ZAP electric conversion (Ford Escort) for three days back in the late 1990s, and for city driving it was fine...you just had to calculate the range before you went anywhere. You shifted it just like a regular manual transmission car.

Would I pay $10,000 for a car with a 40 mile range?

Doubt it. That's very limiting.

I'm trying to find the formula that calculates percentage of MPG lost for every 100 lbs.....

larsb

quote - "Would I pay $10,000 for a car with a 40 mile range? " -end quote

That depends on your financial situation and your commute.

Me, personally, I could use that car. My commute is my two kids and me, between 5 and 7 miles one way, depending on the time of year. I could go probably three days between recharging the car.

I would of course need ANOTHER car for longer trips and vacations. That's where the "financial" issue comes into play. Even a single dad/mom with kids would need two cars.

That's where the "bang for the buck" equation gets damaged when it comes to the small, low-range electric cars.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes I understand your argument perfectly but let me tell you what happened to me when using the 60 mile range electric car I had.

What happens is that you start out planning to commute just a few miles a day, but then things come up and you find yourself constantly saying "yeah I can go there" or "nope, I can't go there".

So for me having the electric car was like being 12 years old again, where I had to ask permission before I could just spontaneously go somewhere.

It got pretty annoying.

larsb

See your point. I guess it depends on how anal the owner is.

Me, I plan my trips ahead of time, so I would always know when I could go somewhere. Very Anal.... :shades:

And that's where the having a second car comes into play too - if you have an emergency issue, you can go home and trade cars.

hot_georgia

EV1 had a nominal range of about 160 miles and rated performance of 0-50 in 6.3 seconds, and at 50% SOC was still 6.5 seconds. It fully re charged on 240 volts (Like your electric dryer runs on) in about 6 hrs.

I drive 100 miles/day on my commute and this would have been be a perfect commuter car for me, even though research ended more than 7 years ago, and relies on out of date battery technology.
With today's infestructure surely I'd have to consider distance/range/charge if I had an EV.....
Which is why I'm 100% behind the plug-in hybrid cars which will hopefully be coming out within a couple years.
Full benefits of the EV but without any range consideration what so ever, at least until something better comes along.

(Well, maybe not FULL benefits as there's still nasty engine oil to change, spark plugs to fowl, injectors to clog and everything else engine related)

Question for Mr_Shiftright:
What EV were you driving which had 1/3 the effective range of the EV1?

-Steve

Mr_Shiftright

I'll bet you under normal highway driving you'd never get 160 miles out of an EV-1--your 100 miles a day would have been a knuckle-biter.

The car I drove was a ZAP conversion of a mid 90s Ford Escort. The 60 mile range was related to driving "just like a normal car", that is, highway speeds, going up hills, no coasting, no tricks, no "conserving"...in other words, the banal normality of what one would normally do with a Ford Escort.

I agree with you--rechargable hybrids are the near future, not pure electrics and certainly not hydrogen.

How come? Because that darn piston engine does not stand still---it is still developing as rapidly as the supposed "advanced" technologies trying to replace it. Your average piston engine car has what---about 70 microprocessors and 3 million lines of code? This is no meek and humble opponent, like when early steam and electric cars were conquered by the piston engine in the era 1910-1920.

hot_georgia

Thanks for that information.
My own information was from an EV1 data sheet, and after I made that post talked to an actual ex EV1 driver.
This was his response:

"The original PbA (lead acid) EV1's only got about 60 miles per charge and were limiting, the Gen2's had NiMH batteries and got the 120+ mile range. If you've got a 100 mile daily, commute, I am sorry. Were 120 mile EV's available, you could possibly top off a bit at work. I worked in 5 buildings in 3 cities during the time I had an EV1. One building was only 1/2 mile from a public charger, the rest less than a couple of blocks. That was in California. If cars are available, chargers can be installed.
The best mileage on a Gen2 I ever did was 140 miles (135 of them on the freeway). I believe the record was around 180 miles.
The range of the EV1 was a soft thing. Even when 'empty', you could still crawl a long way (20+ miles) at under 35 mph (kind of like a golf cart). It screamed and yelled at you but it wouldn't let you down.
Today's Lithium batteries, of course can offer ranges up to 300 miles on a charge.
By the way, charging time seldom approached 6 hours excepte for the time I went 20 miles past empty on a very hot day (I think it was just part of the punishment). With a 220 volt charger, one charged at about 25 miles per hour (4 hours to go 100 miles). Charging time is mainly limited to the power available. Commercial chargers could charge in less than an hour easily but houses are normally limited to 240 volts/30 amps."

So you're right Mr_Shiftright I would be sweating it for the trip home!
Too bad I can't post a link to the acutal conversation here. His alias is exEV1 driver and is a pleasure to converse with.
-Steve

Mr_Shiftright

Interesting....thanks.

highender

saw some guy adding gas to his car...but with the engine still on...

in front of a store...there was this woman who was outside talking to another woman...yet her engine was on for 5 minutes.....

idling the car when it is stopped gets the worse gas mileage....a complete waste of fuel....IMHO.

fintail

My pretentious fair city adds to it too, with their still out of sequence lights, especially on weekends. I sent the city an email, no reply, no acknowledgement. Maybe they need paper letters or someone busting into a city meeting. So much gas must be wasted when 10 cars sit idling and then accelerating from a stop, for nothing.

Karen_S

Just curious here. What is your daily commute time? Do you take alternate routes that may be longer to avoid congestion? Or do you have no choice but to be amongst the masses?

1racefan

Is 24 miles, and takes 40 minutes. Luckily, the "back road" route is shorter than going over to the interstate by about 5 miles. Luckily, based off of where I live, and where I work, I always seem to be going opposite traffic.

smittynyc

1. Walk to subway station -- approximately 2/5 mi (6-7 min)

2. Take subway -- approximately 11 mi (30-35 min)

3. Walk from subway station to office -- approximately 2/3 mi (10 minutes)

I'm sure this sounds awful to most, but I couldn't be happier that I don't have to commute by car (in this part of the world, at any rate).

andre1969

is about 3 1/2 miles each way. Usually takes about 7-10 minutes going in, and 10-12 coming home, depending on traffic and how I hit the traffic lights, etc.

fintail

My commute is almost indentical to Andre's...just under 4 miles each way...8 minutes in the morning, 12-15 in the evening as the traffic builds and the lights randomly change.

People I know who live 20-25 miles from work usually spend 60-90 mins in the evening.

ray80

18 miles, usually about 35 mins. Of course we have winter here sometimes and it could turn into 2 hrs or better, even using alternative back road routes.

fintail

Thankfully we have little in the way of real winter here...if we get more than a couple inches of snow, I will likely call in.

emmanuelchoke

110 miles round trip, same road 24 days a month, day in day out. I can drive it in my sleep and have momentarily done so.
Usually takes 70 minutes one way, four traffic lights, mostly highway. Deer the biggest menace.

logic1

I walk about 7 blocks. Sometimes I take West Broadway, others Church, others Broadway (my office is on Broadway).

If I get up early enough and the weather is fine, I like to walk over to Chinatown for some congee.

Unfortunately, the closest decent coffee (tourists bless and curse Downtown New York ) is over on 7th Avenue. Bit of a hike, I usually don't go until after work for an espresso.

astegman

I drive just under 30 miles one way to work, and as evidenced by the title of my post, I go in and out of Connecticut and New York four times as I go! Usual time is about 39-41 minutes door to door.

I have 3 ways of getting to my office, but routes #2 and #3 are just backups in case there's an accident or severe weather situation that prevents me from taking my preferred route. I love my drive - I get to wind my way through some of the most beautiful areas of CT and northern Westchester county (South Salem, Pound Ridge, and the like). And now that the leaves are slowly beginning to turn, it just gets better each day - really beautiful scenery, makes the drive go so quickly. The only drawback is the heavy deer population - gotta stay alert!!

I just got a new car 4 weeks ago that I love to pieces (a Mazda CX-7), and that just makes it even better. I crank up some good music, open the sunroof for an even better view (not that I drive looking up!), and have a nice detox after a busy day at work.

On another note, I feel very nostalgic reading about the folks who live/work in NYC; I did, too, for 10 years, and often used to walk the 44 blocks from East 86th St. to 42nd & Madison, when the weather was good.

bumpy

0.75 miles @30, take a left, 3 miles @60, 0.25 miles @45, 5 miles @60, 0.5 mile @30, 0.75 mile @60, take a left, 5 miles @60, stop at the post office, 0.25 miles @60, take a left, 1 mile @50, 1 mile @25. Do it again in the afternoon, ~25 minutes each way.

nippononly

but to be among the masses on the freeway. Luckily, I am to work at an hour (6:30) when the rush hour traffic has yet to build up. As a result my 4-mile commute takes me 8-10 minutes depending on traffic lights - I am less than a mile off the freeway, and my office is right off the exit ramp. :-)

I only WISH there were a curvy backroad alternative to my commute. Then maybe I would have kept my RSX and taken the alternate route a couple of times a week!

boaz47

16 miles down a winding twisting mountain road and two miles on surface streets or freeway, 6 of one half a dozen of the other, Same distance. The drive down the hill is a simple cruise in 4th gear no brakes, use 5th and there are some turns that need a bit of brake, till I get to the first light at the bottom of the hill. The drive home can be as easy if the day hasn't been stressfull., if it has the run up the hill might be a bit more spirited.

wale_bate1

Mine is a 14-mile jaunt mostly on a hilly canyon road. About 20 minutes total, very often grin-inspiring. On the way home I take a slightly different route through the next canyon over, and I can usually hoof it pretty lively through there. A true joy to drive, and precisely what my car and its superb tires were made for!

andre1969

but tonite I got out of work late, around 5:30. Traffic was bumper to bumper a good deal of the way home. My 3.5 mile commute which on a bad day might take 15 minutes, today took almost 20!

What in the hell is the world coming to? :P

andys120

It's just over 23 miles each way, most of which is uncrowded interstate highway (I-93-possibly the fastest rush hour traffic in the Northeast)
on which I can hit speeds over 80.

The only fly in the ointment is that the geniuses who run my company doubled my commute a year and a half ago. The office used to be located just over 11 miles from my home. :mad:

In my 40 years in the workforce I've commuted just about every way you can including trains, subways,buses and walking.

michaellno

... is about 20-22 miles one way. The first 5 miles is neighborhood and divided 4 lane (max speed limit 45, though most folks do 50-55). The rest is I-25, where the speed limit is either 75 or 65 (for the last few miles). Our office is just off the interstate at an exit right before the traffic builds up. The commute takes about 25-30 minutes.

There are no real alternate routes available unless I go out of my way - the downside to living in a semi-rural county near a major metropolitan area.

Unlike andys, my commute was cut in half last year - the office was downtown and the distance from home to work was just about 30 miles, but that last 10 miles took an extra 30 minutes due to traffic.

All things considered, not too bad. I've lived all around the metro Denver area, and this is the shortest commute, time-wise, that I've had in 13 years.

larsb

Drive my two kids (age 7 and 10) in my Camry Hybrid about 5 miles from our house to Circle K.

Buy two newspapers.

Drive 0.3 more miles to the kids' school.

Park the TCH at the school and unload the Segway HT out of the trunk.

Attach the "gorilla grip" anti-theft device to the steering wheel.

Sign the kids in to their before-school program.

Take the Segway 3.6 more miles to my work.

Repeat in reverse order in the PM.

varmint

Overall: 28 miles one way in roughly 35-40 minutes.

5-6 miles through suburbia to the critter drop-off point.
20 miles on the highway (often stop and go for about 2 miles).
2-3 miles on surface streets.

The killer is the rte 95/128 split. I've spent as long as 1.5 hours sitting on the same on ramp.

If I'm feeling frisky, the return home allows me to take a slightly longer drive through a nice curvey suburban back road. Can't race the whole length because of houses and blind corners, but there are enough safe places for a few shenanigans.

rockylee

Isn't this is why XM Navi-traffic was invented for ? :P

Rocky

lemko

...is very short - 15-20 minutes at the worst if traffic lights aren't in my favor or I'm stuck behind a school bus. I get up and leave my house earlier to avoid them. I take mostly side streets during the first portion of my commute to avoid the majority of lights.

andys120

that when they relocated my company 11 miles down the road they added a toll booth to my commute.

The toll's not too bad ($0.53 w EZ-Pass discount)
but having to go thru a choke point irks me.

It get's real bad going home on pre-holiday Fridays so I cut thru a back way that is semi-scenic and the other day (Fri before Labor Day) I discovered that it's 2 miles shorter (!)
I'll have to time it to see how much longer it takes (it's all two-lanes).