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

1568101179

Comments

  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    1. Decreasing the gas price will not help.
    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 .... ;)
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    The high price of gas is due almost entirely to the high price of a barrel of oil. I'd like to hear a credible explanantion of how increased refining capacity will reduce the price of oil? The refining step adds about 10 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas. I don't care how many refineries we have it won't have a big impact on gas prices.
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    I agree with you on the devaluation of the $ being part of the problem of increasing oil costs. I have touched on it in the past stating that when the $ devalues, a) other economies purchasing power goes up, and b) the sellers of oil such as Saudi Arabia see there purchasing power going down, if they do not increase prices. While Saudi Arabia and OPEC can't raise prices by themselves, they are not unhappy to se ethe price go up if the value of the $ has gone down.

    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....!!
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    heard on meet the depressed this morning that there were 350 refineries and I thought they said 10 years ago; now there are 140.

    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...
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    when we buy cheap goods from other countries....they get lots of our money....and use it to build many more factories. Oh...and the wealth made most of them able and willing to buy a new car.

    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:
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: 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.

    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.
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    I agree, kernick.....

    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...!! :D

    Perhaps it is time to start more drilling and get back on the band wagon of nuclear power. ;)
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,989
    I'd hook up a Mr. Fusion to my car...some eggshells and an almost empty can of beer can give me gigawatts of power.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Transport exec will try to help sell House panel on Bush plan to up standard; Mich. lawmakers are wary.

    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
  • 2zmax2zmax Member Posts: 140
    While you whine about what we as a nation need to do, and come up with the same old lame excuse that we did it to our selves and that the only way out is to conserve and consume less. Do you realize that while we bend over backwards and spend gazillions on improving our efficiency that is already number 1, we are giving China’s of the world that have the worst efficiency a free ticket to get the rest of the good stuff that has left.
    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:
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Where is your pride?! Where is your American Patriotism?

    You are saying what many Americans would like to say. They just fear the "Political Correctness Police".
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Where is your pride?

    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.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    "Political Correctness" is really "Speech Control" sponsored by Liberal feel good socialists who practice Yoga.

    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?
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    I'm not sure why you bring China into this and why you have such an impression about it. Chinese economy in general is far more regulated (worse yet, haphazardly) than that of the US, and it is not nearly as prosperous because of it. What little prosperity it does have is happening because parts of China has been trying to mimic the Anglo-American free enterprise system over the past two decades. You, sir, are the one advocating copying China in your advocacy of government intervention. In fact, avoiding "dog-eat-dog capitalism" was the exact rhetorics Chinese government used decades ago to keep out American influence and beat on the head of anyone dare to make something of themselves by offering either valuable service or products on their own initiative . . .

    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.
  • 2zmax2zmax Member Posts: 140
    "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"

    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.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Who were the nations that came to our aid when Katrina hit?"

    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.

    :)
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    Why purely voluntary interaction between individuals, with as little tax and regulation as possible, work better? Because individuals are different and their skill sets are more varied and changing than any set of government statistic data can encapsulate.

    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.
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    The right solution is much simpler but a lot more brutal. Take over the Middle East oil reserves

    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...
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    The subject is our dependence on oil, not geopolitical concerns.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "We are already in the process of doing what you are talking about..."

    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.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    This stuff gets very intertwined with a lot of things and spins off towards all kind of tangents.

    Just have to keep an eye on the road signs now and then ;)
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    I think that you missed the point of my post. I was illustrating that we have already gone to war in the Middle East in order to maintain and increase supplies, and it isn't working. I'm not claiming that the goal was to hoard all of the oil for ourselves, but anyone who doesn't see that controlling a source of stable oil supplies was a goal of the war is in denial of how geopolitics works.

    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.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    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?

    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.
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    Trade deficit is the result of the excessive money printing. The money press (and electronic equivalent) is like a gold mine when gold was money. People and goods all rushed to California when gold was discovered there and being minted into currency. The macro picture is exactly the same today, people and goods are rushing into the US because money is being exported in return. The California gold rush also caused a devaluation of gold in silver terms and especially in cost of goods terms in California (hence all the goods and people rushing there); the US currency was bi-metallic.

    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).
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "I was illustrating that we have already gone to war in the Middle East in order to maintain and increase supplies..."

    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.
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    But that's not what the previous poster was alluding to.

    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.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I'm not going to argue semantics with you. It will quickly (if it hasn't already) devolve into a never ending 'discussion' of the rational for the use of force to achieve an end.

    There's no reason this topic must ALSO degenerate into pointlessness.
  • au1994au1994 Member Posts: 3,577
    To me, old or new EPA numbers are strictly a reference point. My 4Runner is (I believe) rated at 17/21 and I have seen within a MPG or 2 of these numbers. I knew what I was getting into when I got it so I'm not going to complain. I can tell by my MPG, when I've been to heavy on the throttle and when I've been a good boy.

    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

  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    It would be interesting if we stayed a little focused just once and hovered around a topic instead of going of into the ether.

    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
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    Very very good point. The world run on liquid fuel derived from crude oil because that's the cheapest way of getting calories in consistent liquid form. If burning alcohol made from potatoes were less expensive, the world over would have no qualms about burning just that. Much of Europe shifted from wheat to potato for food in a couple generations, and that's something one had to put in the mouth (and potato plant, the leaves etc, was/is actually poisonous). Humanity has been in need for high quality consistent liquid fuel for some time; liquid because that's the easiest way to transport and burn (try poking in your engine bay with a fire poke all the time while driving with a coal-fired car ;-) The exact source of liquid fuel has gone from animal fat, to peanut oil, to whale oil (so far were all mostly for lighting), to kerosene and gasoline derived from petroleum products . . . getting cheaper each step of the way. Until we find something cheaper to process into consistent liquid fuel for giving us calories, petroleum (or crude oil) will continue to be the source.

    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.
  • ammuscleammuscle Member Posts: 2
    I think if mass transit was readily more efficient, especially here in California, then maybe more people would consider taking it. I took the underground subway in LA, at one point, when I was visiting a friend, and it was great getting from the burb to dowtown because I didn't have to deal with using my car, wasting gas, and dealing with traffic. And besides, I was a being a tourist and not having to worry about getting to work. The downside to this was that there weren't enough stations to efficiently get around LA and it took too much time. And this was the point where I considered it was easier to use my car instead of using mass transit. :cry: Instead of building more highways in California, they should build one of those magnetic bullit trains!!! And then, maybe I would be less dependent on oil, except maybe on the weekends. :blush: After all, I'm a car lover, just like every other Californian :P.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Maybe the question is how can we satify or decrease our dependence on oil?"

    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.
  • wonderwallwonderwall Member Posts: 126
    the casualty rate for the occupation of Iraq is MUCH higher than the casualty rate for the occupation of Germany & Japan after WWII. In both instances, there was considerably less resistance to U.S. occupation than there has been in Iraq.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "If you want answers, send an email, after you do some more hard work of course."

    Isn't your e-mail address listed as "private" in your profile or am I missing something?
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    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.

    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.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    The Edmunds forums are not a place to play out personal disputes. If you want to make comments or assessments of other users, you are in the wrong place.

    The personal sniping stops NOW.
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    This is correct. It is partly lack of vision on both all the leaders and planners for the past 30 years....and also the lack of vision of us commoners. We should have insisted on living in high rises or apartments...instead of tract homes ..... I know....I live in one too....and this adds to the problem....
    -----

    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.
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    We have 20 % of all nuclear power plants in the world...but most countries are building new ones...except us.....

    ---------------

    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.

    :cry:
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    Wow, nicely said.

    :surprise:
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    The by-product of boiling water turned into steam from fission (heat-source) isn't Hydrogen?

    ----

    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:
  • stevekilburnstevekilburn Member Posts: 359
    The problem is not new sources of oil or stabilizing the current ones, but a neurosis in american thinking and attitude to drive the biggest gas hogs, indiscriminately consume the earth's limited resources and reckless endangerment of environment all the while believing that we are enjoying a high standard of living.

    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.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    It's a sad day when some cheese-eating surrender monkeys actually beat us in something

    With comments like that it's pretty easy to see why we aren't well liked throughout the world.
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    All who call for the reduction in population can always 'put their money where there mouth is' and reduce the world's population by one...

    It's amazing how few actually do so.

    Hypocrites. Do what I say, not what I do.

    :mad:
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    Ummm....

    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.
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    Why so cheap? $10/gallon gasoline.

    Why not $7,843.56/gallon?

    Then bottled water would really be a bargain.
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    Or how about drilling for the oil in the untapped oil fields, converting the oil shale/sands into crude, building enough new refineries to meet demand, and building coal gasification and thermal depolymerization plants.

    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:
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    OPEC is pumping oil at 100%, maybe we should give them some kind of Knute Rockne speech and tell them that we need 110%. Refining capacity may need to be increased but if that was really the problem we would have a big disparity between crude oil inventory and unleaded gas inventory. Without a supply limit the world demand for oil would increase by close to 3% a year. That clearly can't be satisfied so anyone that cites increased production as an answer isn't dealing with reality.

    -----

    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.
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    Because he wants to make the rest of us carless as well.

    :mad:
  • stevekilburnstevekilburn Member Posts: 359
    7843$/gallon is not workable because at that cost even public transportation will cost 100$/every day.

    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.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: 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.

    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! :(
This discussion has been closed.