By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I fully support the use of rail for hard goods, freight, etc. Way better method than by truck if time is not an issue.
I suppose you could look at it that way. If your consumption decreased but someone elses increases, it might net out to be the same amount used that year. However, another countries increased consumption will increase the exact same amount whether you, as an individual, use 100 gallons of gas a year or 1,000. So by you cutting down as an individual, you are cutting out that much from how much would have been used on a global scale. Even if the net result is the amount of gas being used globally stays the same or increases slightly, it's still better than it increasing a lot. Your conservation is making a large global increase into a small increase or no increase. Not as good as a decline in use, but your conservation still reduces the amount used globally by the exact amount you conserve.
I guess just like any other statistics, it depends on how you look at it. I agree it's hard to conserve when you see family, friends, neighbors, or other countrys being so wasteful. At least with me, it makes me feel like what I'm doing isn't making a difference. But then when you think how much the little things add up, it does make a difference. If you save only 10 gallons of gas a month, you remove 120 gallons of demand from the system. That adds up.
What if a small percentage of the population of the US, let's say only 1 million people, saved only 1 gallon a month. 1 gallon is nothing, right? Why bother? Well, that's 1 million gallons a month...12 million gallons a year.
1979 Olds Delta 88, 6-passenger sedan, 15-16 city, 19-21 highway (measured)
1999 Ford Taurus, 6-passenger sedan, 20-21 city, 24-26 highway (measured)
I'll be replacing the Delta 88 with this:
1994 Chevrolet Suburban, 9-passenger SUV, 13-14 city, 18-19 highway (est)
This vehicle will get worse gas mileage, pollute about the same, and take up more space on the ground. It will be bulkier, heavier, and uglier (subjectively).
Why, in this age of $3.50-$4.00 gasoline prices, would I buy a vehicle which gets WORSE gas mileage than the one I have now?
Because we have six kids and a seventh on the way. When we go anywhere we have to take both vehicles. Effectively dropping their fuel mileage in half. A 60 mile trip from home to a park to dinner to walmart to home, would consume 6.14 gallons of gas driving both vehicles. We would use 3.75 gallons in the Suburban. Should we choose to go visit Grandma in Houston, a 565 mile round trip, we would use about 19 fewer gallons in the Suburban, saving us about $68 at $3.50 a gallon.
Over the course of a year, we drive about 12000 miles in my car and 24000 in the Taurus. At $3.50 a gallon that's an annual fuel cost of $6133. The Suburban would get driven 18000 miles and my wife's car would get driven 12000 miles. Annual fuel cost drops to $5804. We save $300 a year, and that pays off the price difference in 4 years. ($800 for my car, $2000 for the Suburban we're looking at).
Other bonuses:
not having to look for 2 adjacent parking spots all the time
not having to unload 2 car trunks when we get home
able to carry large items
able to tow a trailer
able to have working AC (my compressor is locked up and hers is marginal at best)
Americans WILL be using as much energy as before, just not gasoline. One good thing to come out of this price increase is that American ingenuity is going to kick in and progress alternative energy. I predict that American gasoline use will continue to go down in the next few years, and that we will probably be the ones to develop and exploit the next generation of transportation technology.
It was going to happen anyway, when oil got scarce. It is just going to happen sooner because of the price increases.
What engine do you have in that Olds? That's pretty commendable economy for something that size of that era. I had a '79 Newport with a 318-2bbl that would get lower 20's on the highway, but around town was more like 12-14. I now have a pair of '79 New Yorkers with the 360-2bbl. One of 'em is lucky to get 15-16 on the highway, although I did almost hit 18 a couple weeks ago, being forced to drive really slow on the highway due to a combination of bad weather and balding tires. As for the other one, I haven't had it running reliably long enough to get it out on a good highway run.
You need to find a new hobby. :P
Why should I go through considerable effort and expense when all I'll end up doing is keeping supplies higher; thereby lowering the prices for the developing countries.
e.g. I use less gas...more gas on market...lower prices for everybody else.
I'm effectively subsidizing 3rd world gas.
If we're talking about pollution; I mean junk in a landfill or toxic waste (I like CO2 btw
So...I wouldn't pay more for a hybrid (I do like the torque in a diesel so that would be a benefit I'd pay for) JUST to use less gas unless the was a real price difference/savings (I don't see it)
I don't consider a tax break on hybrid's a benefit...taking money from tax payers to inflate the ego of greenies...doesn't sit well with me.
Nothing wrong with a Civic, Fit, Corolla if you want to save on gas.
Two things come to mind, First is you have no ideal why that person has a truck or an SUV, maybe they actually need and use it,
Secondly if someone else doesn't do there part in conservation doesn't mean you shouldn't be doing yours.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I wonder if people who think like this would say that about charity.
"I'll give, but only if it costs me nothing"
Try looking at the health of the planet as a charity and maybe you will consider giving to it on a hibitual basis. Try walking or biking to school one day a week (how about one day a month! or once in your lifetime) and just pass all those cars lined up waiting to exit. Have a nice talk with Johnny on the way home from school.
Studies show that people feel happy when they give to charity. Helping the environment should make you feel happy.
What I'm suggesting is that it doesn't really matter. These non-renewables will eventually run out or become so scarce as to be too expensive. Whether this happens in year X or year X+5 doesn't make much difference to me. Actually that's not true. As far as I'm concerned the sooner the better when it comes to getting to the post petroleum era. Like I've posted before, conservation for the sake of conservation doesn't make much sense to me. Now if we determined that we have only 10 years of oil left and it will take 10 years to develop an alternative then I'd agree that we need to make this oil last 10 years while we put all our efforts into developing this alternative. Unfortunately the US does not typically plan for the future like this. We react to crisis situations.
BTW, I'm not really anti-conservation. I'm anti-sacrifice for the sake of maintaining the status quo for a while longer.
My wife gives to charity...I don't, the gov't does on my behalf. Though I do help small children on the playground if they need assistance :shades:
I'd love to ride a bike to work...it's 90 right now and only going to get hotter; i guess I could use my tie as a headband.
Can't walk home from school...no side walks...65mph on the shoulder is not fun with a small child...
I did throw my empty can of Pepsi Max in the recycle bin today...
You're right. I'm only about 90% certain that he doesn't need the utility. And some people might say they need the utility of a full sized truck so that they can tow their 1 mpg power boat to the lake. Then we get into the area of differentiating desire from need and who's desires are more legitimate. I'm not going to get involved in that.
Secondly if someone else doesn't do there part in conservation doesn't mean you shouldn't be doing yours.
I've posted several times that I don't see much long term societal benefit in conserving gasoline. I only see the personal benefit of saving money. But I understand your general point and agree with it. As individuals we shouldn't base our behavior on the lowest common denominator. With that said I don't want the lowest common denominator preaching to me about what I should and shouldn't do. It's called hypocrisy.
if rail terminals are well set-up, many products including perishables can be shipped by train. it needs a complete overhaul of the relation between road and rail, both being more complemental than competitive.
This is the problem with most conservation efforts...most of them in the long run save you money (meaning not costing anything) but there is an up-front price premium that many are unable or unwilling to pay.
RUG $3.645
Mid $3.870
Premium $4.010 - New record???
Diesel $4.251
E85 $3.161
RUG had a solid day. It was up 3 cents.
A quick check of my local Toyota dealer
30 Tundras
12 Sequoia
1 Corolla
1 Yaris
Proof positive that people are NOT reacting to higher gasoline prices. :P
What? You mean they DIDN'T misplace the decimal point??? Oh dear lord the Apocalypse is here! $4 a gallon gas! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!
I made and earlier post on this car and researched a bit further
I am considering such a car for hen I come back to France.
http://www.toyota.fr/cars/new_cars/aygo/index.aspx
It is made in Slovakia (eastern Europe) Fuel consumption figures are as following
Gasoline. 42.7 mpg city 57.37 highway. 51.13 combined
Diesel. 42.7 City, 69.18 Highway. 57.37 combined
All in US Gallons. I understand that European mileage estimates fall between pre 2007 and 2007+ EPA estimates.
it seems it meets its fuel economy promises
http://www.channel4.com/4car/rt/toyota/aygo/417/2
If manufactured in a USD-Zone country, I am sure it could be sold in the US for USD10.000
Every vehicle on the road can be modified to utilize hydrogen as
a carrier of various fuels generated from the carbon content of water utilizing 100+ year old technologies and get 100+ MPG with none or little pollution . You could drive from California to New York on about 25 to 35 gallons of gasoline . The fuel mixture is generated on board and burned immediately so no need for a change in infrastructure or special fuel tanks .
It's all a charade to maintain power and control over the masses . There are solutions !!
I think you hit the nail on the head...this is for me!
ZAP-X is a Crossover Electric Vehicle designed by ZAP Motors and Lotus Engineering derived from the Lotus APX concept platform. The vehicle is estimated to be launched in 2010. The company claims that this car would be powered by a four in-wheel electric motors that generates 644 bhp (480 kW/653 PS) and reaches 350-mile or 560 km with a single charge. It also boasts a top speed of 155 mph or 249 km/h, acceleration of 0–60 mph in 4.8 s and a 10 min recharge time.
Now that'll start reducing gas consumption if this catches on!
Regards,
OW
More evidence that $7 or $10 a gallon gasoline is not possible over the long term. Gasoline can always spike for a few weeks, but people are already making major changes at $3.65 a gallon. People are reacting after only a few months of higher prices.
In America we can defer the pain at the pump with credit cards - make the pain go away for at least 25 days. At some point, however, the pain becomes unbearable.
Countries that have a large population of poor people will be devastated if oil goes any higher. These folks pay with cash. The pain at the pump is immediate..
Alaska Unleaded Average
Regular Mid Premium Diesel
Current Avg. $3.941 $4.171 $4.409 $4.479
Yesterday Avg. $3.935 $4.164 $4.402 $4.461
Month Ago Avg. $3.612 $3.823 $4.042 $4.101
Year Ago Avg. $2.926 $3.096 $3.273 $2.903
Regards,
OW
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The news this morning is showing all these clueless celebrities calling on the ban of the Beijing Olympics. Maybe if we just put a ban on Chinese goods, it would be more effective? Maybe it soon won't be cost-effective to ship all this stuff from China and we'll start producing it locally again.
If any good can come of these high fuel prices, maybe local agriculture will return instead of wasting good farmland covering it with Wal~Marts and McMansions. Maybe the glory days of the railroads will return. Back in the mid 1950s I could've hopped on a Lehigh Valley RR passenger train to visit upstate relatives instead of wasting almost 1/2 tank of gasoline.
Mods, can someone get out the hook please?
The way the oil-market works, and the current demand being high whatever oil is brought to market is used. If andre doesn't use 10 gal., the price will simply drop until someone buys it and does use it.
The way the market is these days if the U.S. uses a million less gal. day, the price will lower and people around the world will use more - now being able to do more recreational driving and such.
Electricity conservation is a little different as that is regional; though one could argue if fuel use is reduced, the fuel cost drops, and how that may drive an increase in fuel use overseas.
Conservation only works on a global commodity if everyone saves. And it is very hard to tell people to conserve when probably they have used very little thru their lives, and very little now. Electricity conservation is a little different
I have a feeling that what really happened is that the fuel nozzle shut off prematurely, and the next time I fill up and calculate my mpg, it's going to look considerably worse.
As for $4.00 per gallon gas? Well, I'm getting close. I put 93 octane in this car, at $3.919 per gallon. It practically pukes up 87 octane, but does seem happy around the 90 mark. So I figure that what I'll do is just alternate between 87 and 93, as long as I don't run it below a half tank. That should keep it around 90 octane. And if I let it run down too low, I'll just put 93 in it.
You are correct that the poor will be the first to cut back or be "cut-out" of the market. But "devastated"? That's a little sensational.
Many people around the world have just moved from non-motorized transport, to scooters and cheap cars. I don't think it would be hard for them to adjust back to their bicycles, horses, mules, or whatever. Their societies are already setup so they can live their lives within a short radius.
The link seems pretty accurate from what's being said here too. However your conclusion in the first line is not so accurate. We don't have control over our own fate in this regard. The price of oil is dependent on the growth of our population ( 1-2% annually ) and the development of China, India and the rest of Asia.
We can't stop our growth. With today's technologies, in 15 yrs we will need 20-30% more oil than we do today simply because our growth will be at least that much....and that growth will be dwarfed by China, India and Asia. All we can do is hope that our innovation and sense of self-preservation will create solutions that will save us 20-30% or more in our fuel consumption.
But in 15 years we will be seeing $7 - $10 fuel prices. Hoping against that is just hiding under the covers and hoping the boogeyman goes away.
Sad part is the dude probably got ripped off and is trying to recoup some of his loss. That is just the way those Ponzi schemes work. When they sell a device at Costco that will double my mileage I will buy one. Not until.
CARB and the EPA first started adopting these emission standards when they realized that in congested cities there were days that it was difficult and unhealthy to breathe. While high mileage may be nice most people would give breathing a higher priority. I think we'll be hearing a lot about the value of clean air this summer during the Bejing Olympics.
The argument that the US government's policies are driven by fuel tax revenue is a little dubious. Fuel taxes account for only around 1% of the federal government's revenue. The government has offered tax credits for buying hybrids. The government is going to raise CAFE by 20%. The federal gas tax hasn't gone up in over 15 years.
That was mostly caused by lead in gas. When they got the lead out it made a whole lot of difference in the air quality. When they got the sulfur out of gas and diesel that was a big improvement. Other than that I don't see much use for the current EPA regulations.
Hybrid tax credits were merely an appeasement to the environmental lobby.
Regular Mid Premium Diesel
Current Avg. $3.941
An old friend of mine drove down to Seward Alaska last Wednesday and RUG there was $4.08.
Seward is a couple of hours south of Anchorage and is very road accessible. And it's ~66 miles from a Tesoro refinery that makes gasoline.
I hear the Anchorage TV station is testing one of the new HHO (ho ho ho?) gizmos so I've been watching for that report. That may be a scam rumor too though - someone just asked about a Palm Beach TV station getting fantastic results with their residual gas in the cylinder device in a news truck over in Edmunds Answers.
I think everyone concerned agrees that oil is a resource of finite supply. There simply is only so much oil available. There is wide disparity in estimates of exactly how much that is, but most agree that it is still rather generously and widely available. It remains a very appealing resource and is still widely used for a variety of products. It also remains a rather appealing source of energy. It is convenient (in spite of challenges of gathering, storing, refining, and transporting it), widely available, holds tons of stored energy, and is economically viable. Very much so, one can make tons of $$ from it, and I do not begrudge anyone who figures out a way to legally make a buck or two or a few billion.
Oil has its dark side, I do not mean to ignore the inherent trade offs associated with it, but it remains our preferred source of energy as well as everything else it provides. There are more or less viable alternatives, and more coming along, but we keep going back to oil.
So, I must admit, I have difficulty buying into resistance to conserving this resource. My guess is that the resistance is mostly an issues of not wanting to change lifestyle. I wince at the pump just like most others, sadly at least for me, my bank account also contains a limited resource. I agree that many of my individual choices are driven by personal economics. I am also cognizant of the fact that my personal choices have effect beyond just me. I drive a little less, a little slower, a little more carefully. I save a buck. The world is cleaner, safer, there is a little more energy available to someone else, and a valuable resource will last a little longer. It is an individual choice, and it just happens to benefit more than the individual. I guess I don't get why that is such a misguided thing.
I understand that these prices look like a bit harsh, so I can tell you at the same time prices will be around $12 a US Gallon in Europe (2 Euro per liter) This is the simple figure I am using as a reference if I consider a car now.
Within a few years, China Car market will have dwarfed the US market. India is playing catchup. We should not forget Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan... which total population added together is already 800 million people, and they want wheels.
Even if concerned citizens trim fuel consumption down by slowing down or cutting a few trips, the problem of fuel addiction is still the same. We still need fuel for planes (more and more in the skies) for ships, for heating, for plastics, for roads, for agriculture...
Even though prices shooted from 80 to 120 USD per barrel, world consumption did not drop. Prices will continue to rise.
180 USD per barrel (5,XX USD /Gallon) seems extremely possible for this coming winter. I am crazy am I not ? Let us watch this thread in 6 months!
if everyone modifies their habits some, we can force the oil companies to stabilize these prices, even as we begin to diversify our own fuel use to include other fuels besides gasoline/oil.
But, as some have chimed in here already, EVERYONE needs to conserve at least some, even the light users (although the heavy users are very important). If you aim for 10% and everyone achieves 5%, that would be an impact to oil companies' profits that they could not ignore. If you aim for 10% and only 25% of people participate, and we only get maybe 1% net reduction in use, the oil companies will be a lot less likely to notice.
From the USA Today article, it seems like 60% of Americans are beginning to conserve. That''s very encouraging for an initial participation rate. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
For 2007, it totaled out to $874. For 2008, $795. I guess that's not too bad, considering how much more fuel costs these days. And with my Intrepid's declining health, I've been more reliant on my older, less efficient cars. And last year I went up to Spring Carlisle, PA in my uncle's 37.4 mpg Corolla. I did it this year in my 18 mpg New Yorker. :sick:
Oh, I guess I should also point out that this includes my car-less roommate's driving. Last year, when his commute was longer, I let him borrow my Intrepid. Nowadays he borrows my truck. I charge the gas on my credit card so I get a discount, and then have him give me the cash.
I'm going to keep tracking the fuel cost, and see how it comes out over the course of a year. I should go back and add up the actual fuel usage from the mileage logs in the cars, and see how much gasoline use I've actually cut out, though. I figure if I've cut the dollar cost by about 9% versus last year, actual gasoline usage was probably cut by 30% or more?
I don't know about that. I thought the main reason they took the lead out of gasoline was to allow for catalytic converters, which wouldn't last long with leaded gas. If it really was the lead that was the primary culprit then why are motorcycles so polluting? Afterall they run on unleaded gas and use considerably less than most vehicles.
Secondly I'm not against conservation. But look at HISTORY. We have done a lot of things to conserve since 1972. Our cars get better mpg, more efficient windows, CFC bulbs ... , and we still use more and more of every type of energy.
Historically conservation has only slowed growth, it has not solved the energy issues. If conservation solved the energy issues, then we wouldn't be here discussing this now then.