We are aware of the login problems affecting the forums, and appreciate your patience as we work on a fix.
Did you recently purchase a new Tesla, Rivian or Lucid vehicle directly from the manufacturer and willing to share how your experience compared to previous vehicle purchases made through a traditional dealer? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 2/19 for details.
Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
2. Increasing the gas price through whatever means will.
3. Conservation is the key. We have to dramatically reduce oil consumption.
4. The only way we can achieve energy efficiency is when there is pressure on the wallet.
5. To put pressure on wallet, we have to dramatically increase gas price.
6. I think we should triple to gas price to somewhere north of 10$/gallon
LOL.. I see your point. I do think a gradual increase to higher gas prices will be better...to allow all the economy, the people, the car makers, the urban planners, the mom&pop buying homes...to make wiser choices.
I think we should conserve....lower the gas prices....buy all we can , but tax the usage of gas ....so the teen racers will sit at home and study and learn how to read.
Hey...that may apply to all Americans ....
agree with both brightness and kernick....
our incessant buying of cheap goods from other countries have :
1- made our trade dificit sky high...
2- made our own government in debt
3- most people in debt for unneeded items
4- other countries better able to compete with us for every barrel of oil pumped out
5- more people using what we need
Buy American ...if you can....
American workers...stop whining ..and start making good products at a cheaper price...and your people will support you....!!
YOu are correct. I pointed this out in an earlier post.
WE have shot ourselves in the foot...we are all hypocrites...in a sense....we do not want refineries...and we all want to save the environment....but we all want cheap gasoline.....
go figure...... WE should have built refineries and drilled more wells.
Hey...oil rigs in the ocean have been increasing the habitats of many animals...
WHich market sells the most AUdi's and BMW 700 series ?
It is not the US, though 10 years ago it was....
The drive from the airport to the downtown, in most cities that I visited in China....I saw factories and corporations on both sides of the roads. There were new freeways being built everywhere.
We need to coax all people on earth to downsize...to conserve, to not idle in thier driveways, to use less car...and walk more.
That is the only way for gas prices to come down. Sure, having more refineries will help, and have the GREEN environmentalists stop thier tampering unless it is for the good of the earth.
They have been quiet about their boondoggle of MTBE...which cost the refineries $4 billion to convert...and now all gas stations must redo their underground storage tanks...and refineries must re=convert back to preMTBE infrastructure...
Guess who pays for all this ? :sick:
me: It sure wouldn't hurt. But I have to admit if I had never had a car for years and now could purchase one, I sure would say "Since you've driven nice vehicles for so many years and taken jet-vacations, why don't we trade lifestyles for a while. You ride a bike and heat your house with cow dung and scrap wood for a while. That'd be fair." That's the sort of sentiment most of the world will have. I'm afraid the good things in life that we've created are too enticing.
WE made the American lifestyle fashionable....and the whole world wants to copy it....and you are right...they have suffered alot along the way....
Whereever we went in China, on tour with the adoption group.....the locals would all congregate and ask about all these foreigners who adopted babies...and then they would always say: " boy, the kids are lucky to be going to America !!"" and you could see the envious looks from all of them...men, women, kids, old folks...
WE have met the enemy...and they are US...!!
Perhaps it is time to start more drilling and get back on the band wagon of nuclear power.
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's proposal to boost federal fuel economy standards for passenger cars is on a fast track, with the House Energy and Commerce Committee set to weigh the measure this week amid rising oil prices.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta will testify Wednesday in support of the administration's request to increase the standard for the first time in two decades.
According to a three-page draft of the bill obtained by The News, it would essentially use the same language Congress adopted to regulate light trucks and allow for annual fuel economy increases; the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard for passenger cars has remained at 27.5 miles per gallon for years -- and today the industry is averaging 29 miles per gallon.
"Each standard shall be the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model year," the draft bill says.
Under the bill, automakers would be required to provide vehicle engineering specifications, product forecasts and future product lineups to help federal regulators determine how high fuel economy standards should rise.
The measure doesn't change the 18-month lead time that allows manufacturers to implement improvements -- meaning no changes could take place until at least the 2009 model year.
The Transportation Department would have to begin the rulemaking process within one year of the bill's passage.
In March, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration increased light-truck fuel economy targets from 21.6 miles per gallon to 24 -- a move that will save 11 billion gallons of gasoline when implemented.
Michigan lawmakers are noncommittal on the newest bill, and automakers have offered tepid support -- a sign that the administration's proposal might be the best chance to head off more restrictive measures.
Chris Preuss, a General Motors spokesman, said the company will work with the administration and "see where the legislation goes."
"CAFE has always been a challenge for the industry and really hasn't done anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," Preuss said. "We think working on alternative fuel solutions is the best place for the policy discussions."
U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, said the Republican chairman of the committee "has indicated he's going to hurry the bill."
Dingell said a panicky Congress is looking for quick-fixes to counter mounting oil prices -- noting that any increase in fuel economy is years away and has no bearing on today's gas prices.
"The oil companies are making record profits. The auto companies are hurting. Why do you want to kick the guy who's down?" Dingell said.
A bad bill "has a potential for increasing fuel usage. It has the real potential for job losses in the Detroit area. It has real potential for plant closings and for driving jobs oversees if it's not correctly done . This is a dangerous time for the auto industry," he said.
A stronger bill -- opposed by automakers and introduced by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y. -- would require that the average fuel economy achieved by automobiles manufactured by 2015 be at least 33 miles per gallon. That bill has 70 co-sponsors.
Environmental advocates say automakers have the technical ability to raise fuel economy levels and said the federal government didn't go far enough in raising standards for SUV's, pickup trucks and minivans last month.
Ten states, including California and New York, plan to file suit this week to force the administration to toughen mileage regulations for sport utility vehicles and other trucks. The suit contends that the administration did not do a rigorous enough analysis of the environmental benefits of fuel economy regulations. The suit will also claim that the government did not consider the impact of gasoline consumption on climate change when devising the new rules.
David Friedman, research director for the Clean Vehicles Program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, doubts the administration will require a stiff increase in fuel economy standards for cars.
"Even after two major hurricanes rocked the world in terms of the oil supply, the president didn't ask anything of the automakers," Friedman said.
"Is the president really going to take the initiative to help relive consumer's pain at the pump by significantly raising standards?"
U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, declined to say whether he supported the bill, saying he would review the bill "to ensure that it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions but do so in a way that would not harm our domestic manufacturing industries."
U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, said the current system "should be reformed."
To ease the sting of higher gas prices, Stabenow has called for a one-time, $500 per person tax rebate for people earning up to $119,950 annually. It would be paid for by rolling back $5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies.
Some Republicans want a $100-per person-rebate. Neither proposal would require workers prove that they are actually using gasoline to get the refund.
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060502/AUTO01/605020360/- - 1148
The right solution is much simpler but a lot more brutal. Take over the Middle East oil reserves, and cut China off. Let them dump all the dollar reserves they want, as soon as we get the oil they will bend over backwards to be nice to us.
If you think that the number one enemy is you – then go ahead and blow your brains out.
We will have more gas for us. Stop apologizing to the rest of the world that wants to see you dead and hates you for what you are and realize that the only way to survive in this crazy world is by being stronger, faster, smarter and better and not by kissing everyone’s behind.
Chinese gov. and people wouldn’t think twice to walk over US, if they had the chance.
The Arabs want us dead and the Russians are too stupid and proud to realize that they are picking the wrong side again.
It’s time to do what we do best, show the rest of them that we are #1.
I am tired of people like you apologizing for having the best lifestyle and living in the best country in the world.
Where is your pride?! Where is your American Patriotism?
:mad: :mad: :mad:
You are saying what many Americans would like to say. They just fear the "Political Correctness Police".
Being an American is an accident of birth for most of us. It's not something to be proud of but rather be grateful for. I personally feel that a sense of pride should be reserved for one's accomplishments. And it is very unlikely you, or any of us, played much of a role in making this country what it is.
Seize Middle East oil? That's brilliant. Make someone else pay for our mistakes. Why? Because we can and they hate us. What other reason do we need? If that represents current American mentality then just another reason to limit your pride. BTW, in 30 years when we've gone through their oil and the planet is heating up at an ever increasing pace who will we get to pay for that mistake?
I personally hold American ingenuity in higher regard than you obviously do. I think that we can solve our energy problems through technology and innovation. A far less Neanderthal approach than you're advocating.
Winners win while Losers philosophize and Winners do not explain, complain, but drive the train.
It is the Political Correctness philosophy that softens the blow of serious hard communication which needs to be said, heard, and felt.
We Americans know what we have accomplished to be No. 1 and the rest of the world knows what they didn't do to maintain their present status of mediocrity.
We have continued to save the world and should not apologize for that.
Who were the nations that came to our aid when Katrina hit?
Is Mises paying you like 50K a year just to bleat propaganda?
Ludwig von Mises died not long after I was born. So you probably have a better chance at speculating that I'm his spiritual reincarnate than expecting him to pay me.
Oh, and I got a chuckle out of "our honest labor".
Well, I worked 14hrs on Saturday, 6 on Sunday, and 10 on Monday . . . what was your schdule like in the last three days including the weekend?
The same human nature that devalues our modified capitalism, along with dooming socialism and communism surely . . . come into play in a pure dog-eat-dog unregulated labor market.
Please tell us what is modified capitalism, socialism and communism, and how they differ from each other. Please tell us what human nature devalued all three of them, and through what common mechanism . . . and why would the same mechanism cause unregulated labor market to fail. Details please . . . empty labels are not viable sutstitutes for original or even regurgitated thought process.
IMHO, "communism" was simply a cool name for its time when "community" was the "in" thing to express a set of values that places community value above that of the individual _involuntarily_ (when individuals voluntarily places the interest of the others above his or her own, there is no need for the government to enforce or even mention any -ism or even play any role at all; whatever -ism only matters when there is shortage of volunteers to do the government's bidding). It's innocuous sounding enough until one is astute enough to grasp the Involuntariness and what it means to any lover of individual freedom and liberty. "Socialism" and "modified whatever" are essentially new bottles for the same old wine when each of the preceding labels became unfashionable as the population at large started to catch on the Involuntariness, and a new name is needed to capture the imagination of another generation of youth. Some less politically savvy activists use the rather transparent bottle of "communitarianism" to express the exact same thing, the intellectual equivalent of, if push comes to shoves, the other 6 families in the same development can get together and vote or use whatever existing decision making process to take everything from the remaining 4 of you.
All of such Involuntary systems fail for one simple reason: since it's impossible to have straw poll on every single issue lest everyone just sits around and participate in straw polls all day every day, someone has to be put in charge to manage that awesome power of over-riding individual interest in favor of the supposed "all." Since interest of "the all" is already assumed to superior to that of the component parts, it's no great leap of faith to assume central government has the power to over-ride localities just like local communities have the power to over-ride individuals. When decision making power is highly centralized, it pays to be chummy with the decision maker instead of out there working. The decision makers who are in charge of daily use of centralized power tend to use it in such a way that benefit himself and his close friends, who tend to have his ears better than anyone else. That makes for inefficient decision making, often with dire consequences: for example, low-ranking bureacrats in the outlying areas have a strong incentive to turn peasants under their charge into slaves in order to beat quota so that they themselves can be promoted closer to the power center (bet you never thought of this externality :-)
If you have a gutteral hatred for the term "libertarianism" (I actually like the term "liberalism" better myself, but it's already taken by people advocating the exact opposite of individual personal liberty), we can avoid using the term, and call it "Individualism" (what's ironic is that I almost went to jail for advocating individualism in China a decade and half ago because someone in the government deemed such advocacy made me a "lap-dog" of American Imperialists, and here you are accusing me of trying to convince everyone in America to copy China . . . such is the life of a indpendent thinker like myself). What "Individualism" advocates is that interactions between individuals, and that between the individual and the State, should be voluntary association.
The way we’re going, there won’t be 30 years left for us.
As people with your mindset, would have completely sold us to China by then.
Do you really think that we could be better off trying to spend extraordinary amounts of dollars on technology, which might only be developed out of necessity in the next 10-20 years while the Chinese and the Russians are sticking it to us every day?
We won’t last for a decade with this kind of mindset.
And the only way to deal with the crazy Islamists in the Middle East is by using extreme “Neanderthal approach” and not treat them with kid gloves like you would propose.
Let them walk all over you and see how your “American ingenuity” will hold against barbaric assault. You still don’t get it do ya? It’s going to be down to us vs. them very soon, who’s side are you on?
And if you're not proud to be an American, then why don't you go outside and wave a Mexican flag for a while?
Seems to be the new hobby for the far left.
Well, for starters:
Afghanistan, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, China, Djibouti, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, India, Irag, Ireland, Isael, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, UAE, UK, and Venezuela.
Take for example, if you are an author (not knowing what you do for living, let's hypothetically assume that unless you disdain writing as a profession, then we can switch to something else) and you are really good at it. People pay to read your novels . . . it works out to be $50/hr for your time when all is said and done. You have done well enough for yourself to have a nice house with half an acre of land, beautiful lawn etc.. Coming fall, you have a leaf problem, removing all leaves on your lawn would take you 10 hrs. A gardener with the right machinery and his crew would only take 3hr, but wants $400 for the job. It makes sense to hire the gardner and spend your 10hrs saved to write another $500 worth of novels, right? Not if you are faced with a 30% marginal income tax rate, 15% self-employment tax rate and 6% state and local tax rate. Out of the $500 you earn, you can only keep less than $250, so you are better off doing the garden yourself. The gardner and his crew is out of a job, and your fans are out of more novels. The economy just shrank by $900, not counting items and services that the gardner and his crew would buy with their $400, or what your editor and publisher would make from the novel that disappeared into 10hrs of leaf raking and burning (not to mention the environmental hazard of burning because you don't have the giant truck vacuum to pick up the leaf pile that the gardener does).
Alternatively, raising the minimum wage and mandatory benefits that the gardner has to pay his crew and cause his price to go higher would have the same effect.
Specialization and division of labor are what make the wealth of nations: the gardner and his crew is much more efficient at cleaning leaves and you are much better at writing novels. Yet, taxation and regulation force you to do what you are not good at and the gardener and his crew to twiddle their thumbs.
Well, I must assume that either you are joking, or else you must not have read the newspaper for awhile. We are already in the process of doing what you are talking about, and it hasn't been working out too well...
Really? I was under the obviously mistaken impression that Iraq and Kuwait are selling THEIR oil on the open market. And then we (like the rest of the oil importing nations) bid for that oil. I think the current going rate is in excess of $72/bbl.
I'd really like to see those newspaper accounts chronicling the oil that we've simply confiscated and TAKEN from anyone.
edit: oops. Sorry sneakers - I just saw your post.
Just have to keep an eye on the road signs now and then
This dependency has significant implications, and it is costly in many ways that go well beyond what it costs me to fill up my car. The Middle East would be relatively unimportant if there wasn't oil there, and if you consider how many of our tax dollars go to maintaining our interests there, the cost of a barrel of oil is well above $74 per barrel. That being said, I don't see how we're going to reduce dependency on oil anytime soon, but we should be willing to put the money into the R&D that could get us there.
I'm no more proud of myself for being an American than I would be proud of myself for winning the lottery. That's not to say that I don't feel fortunate. And just like I wouldn't give back my lotto winnings I have no intention of giving up the benefits that I lucked into by being born an American. IMO, too much patriotism, or for that matter, too strong an affiliation with any group (religion, political party, ethnicity, soccer team, etc.) is confrontational.
Why limit the us verse them, survival of the fittest mentality to the world stage. Let's apply that rational domestically. If you want something that you don't have then use any means available to obtain it. If you suceed you are a winner and the person you've taken it from is a loser. To do any less is to accept the fact you are a loser.
I do believe that this globalization of the economies will lead to an osmosis of sorts. Wealth will tend to flow from richer to poorer countries. The overall growth will be greater but in the near term it will be detrimental to the richer nations. I'm not sure there is any getting around this.
Government debt creation is indeed the most important mechanism through which money is created today. The Federal Reserve buys government securities and pay for it with newly created money. . . government employees and contractors get to spend it, chasing up prices on goods that most of them never created.
What's really scary is that, in a rapidly devalueing monetary environment, taking on personal debt at low nominal rate is actually a smart thing to do. For example, if I had a pool, borrowing a lot of money at 6-8% and filling it up with gasoline when it was $2.20/gal would have been a brilliant move now that gas is near $3/gal. Well, better make that a very secure pool ;-) Also, this is not an endorsement to take on personal debt in general; most easy to get personal debt instruments have high interest rate. Just an illustration of how dangerous devaluing currency can do: people can horde and they will, in order to get rid off worthless paper money as quickly as possible, dramaticly increase the velocity of money (the other factor in inflation).
Yes. But that's not what the previous poster was alluding to. What was posted previously was "Take over Middle East oil supplies". You replied with "We are already in the process of doing that".
With all due respect, no, we are NOT "taking over" the oil supplies. That would imply confiscation. What you are NOW implying is that we are simply trying to stabliize the area to insure a stable source of oil.
Um, yes. But this is NOT the same as "taking over" the oil supplies.
Yes pf_flyer, I'm aware this gets us into geopolitical concerns. However, in all honesty, I'm not sure how practical it is to discuss dependence on oil WITHOUT bringing up geopolitical concerns.
I'm obviously assessing different aspects of that poster's position, namely the beliefs that we should resolve our dependency issues by going to war, and that we should do nothing to address demand. Again, my point is that we are already attempting a military solution to deal with our resource issues, and that this effort is a failure. It's a bit silly to advocate attacking Saudi Arabia when we already having problems just down the block.
There's no reason this topic must ALSO degenerate into pointlessness.
Seems like it's common sense. Don't want something that gets 12 MPG, don't buy a Suburban.
What you may see happen, is a few buyers may take a closer look at the EPA ratings given the higher gas prices and pass on a vehicle. Probably a small % of guyers though. If you're buying a $40k SUV, an $85 tank of gas is not going to break the bank.
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Limited Velvet Red over Wicker Beige
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
I don't think it's a question of if we can end our dependence on oil. The WORLD can't end it's oil dependence since oil is pretty much what makes the machines of industry go around.
Maybe the question is how can we satify or decrease our dependence on oil? Can we supplement it? I'm not sure we're ever going to decrease it.
We don't kick around serious stuff too often in the chats, but this could come up tonight!
PF Flyer
Host
Automotive News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles
The Mazda Club Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule
No one really complained about oil price sliding down from close to $30/bbl to near $10/bbl throughout the 90's, not any consumers in the US anyway. Global trade, development of India and China, Islamo-fascism were all going on back then. None of that mattered. The world had faith in the US Dollar in the aftermath of the short and decisive Gulf War (First Gulf War for us, and Second Gulf War for Iraqis and Iranians). The rest of the world were and are content with giving us the fruit of their labor in exchange for our paper money because they had/have faith in us, or at least our ability to back up our promisory notes with the most powerful military in the world. The hopelessly division in this country shown during the most recent Iraq entanglement is putting doubts into that faith; the massive printing press churning out new money only makes the situation worse. What we are witnessing is simply that the rest of the world is thinking less of us now (as reflected in oil price, gold price, silver price, copper price and practically every other commodity). Money is what we produce and export from this country; an important service to the rest of the world, but a service highly dependent on credibiity.
Lest anyone thinks I'm implying resolute warmongering . . . I'm not. The Iraq adventure itself has been about as successful as can be expected for military occupation; the casulty rate is remarkably low compared to say the occupation of Japan and Germany, and Saddam regime was so unprepared that they did not even destroy their own oil industry before our military was there. The problem is that, take-over does not mean free oil. It still takes money and blood to get oil out of Iraq. It goes to show that transaction between voluntary parties is really the least expensive way of doing business . . . slavery is a lousy way of getting things done for you even if you are lucky enough to be the master. What's happening is further proof that even the early 1970's "oil shock" was not really result of the world running out of oil or even really due to pointless political gestures like oil emargo (so what, the tankers got re-flagged to Polish or Russian but oil still flowed to the West, with a theoretical/nominal trans-shipping through the East Bloc; the fact of the matter remained that all those oil exporters of the middleast had to export oil to survive). It was simply a response of Nixon's closing of Gold Window and devaluation of dollar. Devaluation is happening again now. American consumers are certainly not happy about our effectively lowered income measured in every type of commodity; oil and gas price just happen to be something all of us have to buy all the time therefore a convenient point of focus.
Fair enough.
"How can we satisfy our dependence on oil...."
Oh, that's a biggie. Well, it depends on whether or not we are able to secure new sources of crude oil to replace current sources being depleted (which is hindered domestically through environmental/NIMBY issues) and/or whether we are able to stabilize current sources of crude oil to ensure that they REMAIN available.
Unfortunately, discussing either new sources of crude or stabilizing current sources of crude quickly devolve into geopolitical discussions. Hard to avoid since OIL by it's very nature drives a huge portion of the geopolitical climate on this planet.
"Can we decrease our dependence on oil?"
Sure. It will require REAL conservation amoungst the general populace AND/OR access to alternative fuels. Commercially, economically viable alternative fuels. But as long as crude oil can be pumped out of the ground at around $10-$15/bbl, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense to go through the gyrations to develop an alternative fuel which cost $50/bbl for the same energy equivalent.
Isn't your e-mail address listed as "private" in your profile or am I missing something?
I'm not sure it matters how much it costs to pump oil out of the ground. What's more relevant is how much you can pump compared to how much people want. The technology exists for cheaper solutions today. For instance a battery powered electric car. Okay, maybe it can only go 80-100 miles before it needs a lengthy amount of time to recharge, but it is an option that has an energy cost of about 3 cents a mile. At some point paying the price for a gallon of gas will seem like a bigger sacrifice than the limited range of an EV. IMO, this is so much closer to being viable than alternative fuels. And even if it only meets your needs 90% of the time, so what? The reality is that most of us live in multi-car households.
The personal sniping stops NOW.
-----
That's the problem right there. You view others as 'commoners', as well as yourself. Merely the dirt under the feet of some all-wise and all-knowing 'noble'. Which then leads into the belief that the government should order you to do certain things, such as... buy mopeds, ban SUVs, force the use of public transit, conservation, etc, etc, etc.
Me? I think that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
---------------
We don't have 20% of all the world's nuclear plants. We generate 20% of all US electricity with nuclear plants.
Whereas France generates 80% of all it's electricity through nuclear.
It's a sad day when some cheese-eating surrender monkeys actually beat us in something.
:surprise:
----
The byproduct of heating water in a nuclear reactor is simply steam (aka - water vapor). Nuclear plants use the steam to turn steam turbines and thus, generate electricity.
:shades:
This neurosis is so deep seated and our arrogance has blinded us so much that we are literally living on the edge. Our belief in technology as a solution to all energy/oil problems, focusing on how to increase production rather than focusing on reckless consumption is the main problem.
Many posts here have fundamental flaws:
1. They focus on personal and financial issues as excuse that "they need" such obese, massive gas hogs, and that price of fuel should be kept perpetually at 2.00$/gallon to indulge in this gluttony.
2. Some others are proposing totally bizzare solutions which may be applicable in 40-50 years or beyond but not now. These include solar powered cars and such. Even electric cars (not hybrids) have at least 20 years to go before they can achieve 500 miles before re charging.
3. Others are proposing even more irrational solutions such as ethanol, with absolutely no clue as to what would be the ramifications on soil erosion, massive use of land for growing corn to fuel those gas hogs.
4. Americans are a deeply neurotic people when it comes to gas and the only way they will understand is when our wallets will come under pressure. That is the only language we know.
5. No amount of environmental awareness, movies, media, hybrids, prius, holly wood photo-ops, celebrity adverts, campaigning will help. May be some minor impact, may be 1% of car buying public will show some urgency in this regard, but the vast vast majority will continue this reckless gluttony and even feel proud and happy about it.
6. When gas prices hurt the wallet like a sharp lance piercing the heart, then only salvation will come. And thats only going to happen when the [non-permissible content removed] hits the fan, which means a massive global oil crises. Till then, enjoy the escalade, the yukon, the STS, the AMGs, the SRT-8s, after all the hog inside you is hungry as ever.
With comments like that it's pretty easy to see why we aren't well liked throughout the world.
It's amazing how few actually do so.
Hypocrites. Do what I say, not what I do.
:mad:
If Europeans wanted cheaper gasoline, they could always vote for a government that would cut the taxes on it.
And the last time I checked, all the nations in Europe with the exception of Belarus are democratic.
Why not $7,843.56/gallon?
Then bottled water would really be a bargain.
Heck, with thermal depolymerization... Oil becomes a renewable resource. Considering that any oil-based or organic waste can be converted into a light oil through that process.
Imagine how much gasoline could be generated if major cities converted their sewage treatment plants into thermal depolymerization facilities.
Of course, it'll never happen... Because there are too many out there that believe that the current amount of oil produced in the world is the maximum amount that could ever be.
:mad:
-----
Amazing.
The concept of having OPEC build another well into the same oil field, thus gaining the ability to pump more barrels is lost to you. (of course, OPEC would then suck the field dry at a faster rate)
Or, for that matter, having us drill in our own large and untapped oil fields. Or utilize our own oil sands/shale. Or convert our coal into oil through coal gasification. Or converting our organic waste products into oil through thermal depolymerization.
Oh, no. Heaven forbid! The world has maxed out it's oil production! Peak oil is heeere! We're all gunna die!
And yes, there is a disparity between crude oil inventories and gasoline inventories.
:mad:
The reason behind 10$/gallon is because then we will lead the world in gas prices, and at the same time people will buy cars with combined mileage of 35 mpg.
Escalade gives 15 mpg. So in reality the price of running a 30 mpg car will be at most twice as expensive.
I think one of the ways to treat this problem is to raise fuel economy standards to 35 mpg across the board for all cars and trucks and stop this biased treatment in favor of SUVs, and then increase those standards at the rate of 1 mpg every year till it reaches 100 mpg or more.
But the Oil Baron in the white house will go the opposite way.
me: I agree that the methods you mention would produce more oil. But I don't know you could bring those on line fast enough to get ahead of the growth in demand. Right now a minority of people in the world use oil/gasoline but everyone would like to. If globalization spreads wealth from richer countries to poorer countriese you created millions of new drivers and users of electricity. And the population of the Earth keeps growing.
Look at Nigeria with its large population and the desire to have gasoline in the villages, thru which the pipelines run. I would say hacking into the pipeline as they do, and hauling the gasoline in open buckets is some serious demand!