great test if you live in florida. adding 500 lbs probably has a bigger effect on a 4cyl camry than a suburban. i have a huge roof top cargo box. it maybe changes the gas mileage by half a mile per gallon. the tests are worth doing though.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I ride an ELECTRIC ASSIST bike. It will not assist unless I am pedaling. My legs get sore and I have lost 15 pounds because it is GOOD EXERCISE.
LOL - sorry. I guess I was picturing some electric two-wheeled vehicle that all you have to do is twist a hand grip and sit on it. I did notice that you said you lost 15 lbs so far.
Keep up the good effort.
I mentioned it before but I've had a taste of riding through the Phoenix area heat one July in 1998. It wasn't something I'd want to do again if I didn't have to.
I'm old enough to join AARP and it was 92F degrees here today. We do have showers available at work.
First of all you can't go off of MSRP as many times cars don't go for that, AFAIK Hybrids are going for MSRP and most other cars are going below MSRP so that will add to the so called premium.
Another thing to consider is that tax breaks are dissapearing on many hybrids.
Another thing to consider is the time value of money. Money saved in the future is worth less than money is now. So if the premium on a hybrid is $3K you need to save more than $3K over several years to break even. That being said it would take me over 5 years to break even since the monthly payment on the premium of the Civic hybrid (I and most others would be financing that difference) is more than what my monthly gas savings is.
Now if you really want to be saving money you can by a Smart and for the price difference by about 100K miles worth of gas.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The Civic Hybrid, and likely all future hybrids from Honda will use only the Continuously Variable Transmission.
The CVT is at least 98% as efficient as a manual, so buyers have no economic reason to choose a stick shift. Also, producing only one transmission cuts unit costs greatly, so Honda has a big economic reason to simplify production.
Another reason they'd go with the CVT - it allows tighter automated control, yielding better mileage "we control the vertical, we control the horizontal....."
the other day i put over $91 gas in the explorer. i told my daughter, this is the last time i am putting in gas. you are working and you can put your own in from now on. ok, i'm mr tough guy. then i said, we're going on vacation in less than 3 weeks. i will be paying for that gas. the message was sent. can you milk this tank until then?
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
No I just used a standard $0.50 per gallon increase. I think that may be too conservative because of inflation and because such an amount on an ever-increasing denominator actually results in an ever-reducing percentatge increase which I don't think is likely.
That's why I noted a 10-15% annual percentage increase might be more realistic.
Last year at this time I was at 11.4% Pain Index. Today I sit at 8% I moved 32 miles closer to work each way to potentially save 90-100 gallons a month. Gas went from $2.85 to $4 during the move, which still isn't over. The new house will save me $115 a month more than I planned. But, as a result I've taken on a new mortgage and had to move everything 60 miles. That was and still is painful and I have had nobody seriously look at my previous home since I listed it in January. For me the real estate market is worse than gas prices and has a pain index of about 30% until I sell that house. Some day I will get down to 5%.
I have a 20 mpg vehicle for sale that doesn't fit at the new house. After selling it, that will still leave me with 2 trucks, a van, and 2 cars. Upgrading one of the 5 from low 20's mpg to low 30's mpg will only take my pain index down 0.5%, but It would be another little mortgage on a depreciating vehicle. I'd consider the Fusion or G5 as top choices, realizing that I wouldn't even lower my index 1% if I went with an extreme gas saver like a Prius. I did a search for used G5's yesterday and all the dealers want $13,900 for '07's and '06's whether they have 21k or 47k miles on them. I could have had a new one for that price last summer with the sale prices and the rebates they had. So I guess they stopped depreciating.
"I'm not too sure about the scale avalon set up though."
Feel free to change the scale to whatever you think is appropriate. There was nothing magic about the dividing lines. A lot will depend on how important transportation is in your life. How much is a gallon of gasoline worth to you?
It was interesting that your comfort level stopped at only 2.5%. Mine is about 5%. In the article below they said people in the Mississippi Delta are spending over 13% of their take home pay on gasoline. So I'm thinking 5% isn't too bad when I also consider that my income is probably higher. They also go on to save that the national average is 4%.
In ND we can get 30 and 40 below wind chills starting around December and lasting through March. I'm not going to walk three miles to get my groceries or two miles to work under those conditions. Grizzly Adams I'm not. :shades: Even if gasoline hits 15 dollars a gallon I'm driving my car to the store or work. I would get a subcompact car at some point, but I'm still going to drive.
Tired of paying over $4.00 a gallon for gas? There is an answer: write to your Congressmen and tell them we need to nationalize the oil industry (feel free to cut and paste any part of this rant you like). Think that isn’t the answer? The countries that have nationalized their oil industries have much lower energy costs than we do. Say what you will about Venezuela, but gas there costs 12 cents a gallon. What would you rather pay: $4.50 or 12 cents?
Most of the oil producing countries have nationalized their oil industries: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Russia, of course all the Middle Eastern countries, and more.
A fundamental tenet of government in the United States is that corporate behavior must be regulated when it is necessary to protect the public interest. In an era of oil scarcity we no longer have the luxury of allowing a handful of corporate plutocrats to decide the fate of the global economy. The oil industry chieftains have deliberately closed down refineries to lower production and enhance their profits. Economic analysts have widely talked about the “decoupling” of oil prices from the fundamentals of supply and demand. Fundamental economic analysis repeatedly suggests the price of oil should be $70-$80/barrel – yet it is nearly twice that. Even OPEC officials have recently complained that “the market has lost all logic” and is now “operating by forces untethered to the realities of supply and demand”. When even the OPEC does not like what is happening, it is clear things are terribly wrong.
We all know the truth: the oil companies are intentionally manipulating oil prices to keep them at artificially high levels. They have sluiced boatloads of cash into the political system to ensure that Congress and the Executive carry out their directives and turn a blind eye to, and themselves profit from, this monopolistic price fixing. We should not believe the lies, misinformation, and propaganda being foisted upon us by the oil companies, by those in Congress and the Executive office who collude with them, and their propagandists (be careful – the right-wing propagandists are everywhere, including blogs and forums). We should not believe the misinformation and propaganda being repeatedly fed to us to “explain” oil prices as being due to “demand in China”, “demand in India”, “the falling dollar”, or “market speculators”. We know who the speculators work for and who pulls the strings. The unfortunate truth is that greed and wealth now allocate power in our country, and that power is being used to further increase and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the few – Bush, Cheney, and their oil company cronies. Truth, honor, and integrity used to mean something in this country – now they have vanished from government, replaced with unadulterated selfish greed. Bush, Cheney, and Congress have allowed the return of 19th century robber barons, and as a result, the American people are suffering tremendously.
Both the Legislative Branch and Executive office have pursued their own interests at the expense of the general public welfare. The oil companies have been enthroned and empowered, and the rule of law in the United States has been replaced with the politics of corruption. Where this country was once the model of democracy for the rest of the world to aspire to, we are now the laughing stock and one of the most corrupt nations on Earth. The Bush-Cheney administration has silenced the truth, promoted politics of fear, and massively deceived and manipulated the American people and transferred wealth from the public for their own gain, and colluded to allow concentration of wealth in the oil companies in which they are intimately intertwined.
This is not about people wanting “cheap gas” for their SUV’s. This is more than about maintaining a standard of living or quality of life. This is about life itself. Energy is a fundamental, inalienable resource which affects every aspect of life. Escalating energy costs result in skyrocketing costs of everything in our world – food, heating, electricity, clothing, travel, hotels, airlines, tourism, anything and everything that is either made from oil feedstocks, transported by oil, or dependent on oil. Prices of the basic goods needed to sustain life are escalating, and inflation will soon be rampant. Even basic social services such as “meals on wheels” for senior citizens are being impacted because of the increased cost of getting food to people. Add to this the pork-barrel politics of the food-for-fuel corn-to-ethanol debacle – which is corruption and cronyism at its very worst – and we have famines appearing and food riots the likes of which have not been seen in decades. By allowing the oil companies and our elected leaders to enrich themselves at the expense of the American public, people are suffering, and dying. Hunger is increasing both at home and abroad. Unemployment is increasing, and business failures are escalating. More people are starving, and dying, as a result of the Bush-Cheney’s administrations actions – and Congresses inactions.
Oil is now a fundamental resource required for sustaining life. It is no different from air or water in that regard. These are all natural resources which belong to the people, to all people, not to a select group of self-appointed criminals with no moral compass who hoard these resources with sole intent of blackmailing the American people for their own personal gain.
The free market economy is a cornerstone of democracy – only as long as it is an efficient, fair, system which works to the benefit of all. The free market system for oil worked for decades – until it was perverted for personal gain by Bush and Cheney, and their collusion with the oil companies. The free market is no longer working in oil, and changes must be made immediately. Piracy was not tolerated in the 18th century, and cannot be tolerated today.
We must now nationalize the American oil industry. If we do this we can cut costs significantly and still have tens of billions of dollars per year for alternative energy source research, new technologies and create an economic boom that will benefit every American. This is also a National Security issue and will greatly reduce the rampant corruption in our government.
Nationalizing the oil industry must be supported by every member of Congress. Evidence of the oil industry's involvement in the invasion of Iraq as well as its obvious complicity in corrupting the political system should provide ample proof that the oil giants are a clear and present danger to democracy and need to be put under state control.
If oil were nationalized, it would be a government corporation for the people and by the people. This American corporation would work for the people rather than a select few billionaires in boardrooms. Additionally, any profits that the nationalized firm makes can go toward developing technologies for grea
If oil were nationalized, it would be a government corporation for the people and by the people. This American corporation would work for the people rather than a select few billionaires in boardrooms. Additionally, any profits that the nationalized firm makes can go toward developing technologies for greater American independence, such as coal liquefaction and gasification fuel cells, cellulosic or biotechnologically produced ethanol, solar, fusion, and oil shale.
We are suffering, and we are angry. Bush and Cheney can no longer assume that the typically apathetic and fragmented American people will continue to sit idly by and allow this injustice and rape to continue. The monopolistic extortion and exploitation of the public by the oil industry and the Bush-Cheney administration can serve to unify the population. This can be the lightening rod, the catalyst which can pull together people from all walks of life in a common cause. We need to demand that our elected leaders carry out their obligations, duties, and responsibilities to serve the interests of the American people and insure that the oil industry is nationalized. If necessary, a national referendum would clearly show the will of the people (assuming that an honest election without manipulating the vote could be held in this country).
If Congress lacks the courage and strength to do what is necessary and nationalize the oil industry, another alternative would be to regulate the price of gasoline. Another alternative would be to revive the ‘windfall profits tax’ in a form where a tax would be levied against the oil companies equal to all amounts they receive above a set price for fuel, such as $2.00/gallon, paid to the federal government, who would then distribute the majority of this collected tax as a form of reimbursement to the people (unfortunately, the rampant corruption throughout all sectors of government would result in tremendous graft and waste, similar to what has happened with lost billions in Iraq). In any event, there must be a retroactive windfall profits tax levied against the oil companies since the beginning of 2006, to get back what they, and Bush and Cheney, have stolen from the American people. The oil companies will howl that they cannot make money at these prices, which is complete nonsense. With the cost of extracting a barrel of oil ranging from $5/barrel for inexpensive fields to at most $50/barrel, and with the big three oil companies reporting $36 Billion in first quarter 2008 profits, prices could be halved and the industry would still be wildly profitable.
Not reigning in the oil companies will result in a worldwide recession, long term stagflation, and destroying the very fabric of human society to allow a handful of people to enrich themselves.
The rule of law in the United States is that our elected leaders serve only with the informed consent of the governed. We the governed have been deceived. We the governed should no longer consent to the oil companies and elected officials stealing from us and destroying our very lives. Either they stand up for us and protect us against our enemies, or they should no longer be one of our elected leaders. It is frighteningly obvious that virtually all state power in the United States is being consolidated in the hands of a single strongman and his small group of confederates, and they are exercising that power without the informed consent of us, the governed. They all need to stand behind Representative Maxine Waters, the only member of Congress with the honestly, foresight, integrity, and courage to stand by her responsibilities and acknowledge the need to nationalize the oil industry. All member of Congress must do the same. Failing to do so will acknowledge their being part of the Bush-Cheney scheme to unlawfully extract wealth from the public. Bush and Cheney have committed grave injustices against the American people, and there has been no special prosecutor appointed, no FBI investigation, and Congress has been docile. Each member of Congress must answer if they are party to these reprehensible crimes, or if they will fulfill their constitutional obligations and stand up for the people of this country.
As Bush himself said, “Either you are with us, or you are against us”. Any member of Congress that does not take up this cause in the interests of their constituents will find themselves not being re-elected. We, the people, must speak, and we must continue to pursue this cause – our very lives are at stake. We must demand that our elected leaders stand with us and defend us – not exploit us.
Where to start? Hint #1 - if you can't say it in, say, 2 paragraphs, it's too long. Hint #2 - get your fact right: "Most of the oil producing countries have nationalized their oil industries: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Russia, of course all the Middle Eastern countries, and more." Argentina, nope, Australia, nope, Canada, nope. As for Mexico, their production is plummeting because of they can't get the investment needed to develop the difficult fields they now face. Russia is in the process of nationalization through extortion, and when the companies leave production will drop. Hint #3 - propose something that has merit. Nationalizing your natural resources when they only supply half of your needs will do nothing to reduce costs. If oil costs the equivalent of $3/gallon, and the government gets $0.50/gallon in taxes, where do you think lower prices will come from? Venezuela can do it (with terrible waste and unnecessary pollution) because they are a major exporter.
I have a bunch of old cars too. 87,96,98,98,99, and 01. The miser is the 3.8 L Mustang I bought for my older son. He's using it now for a summer job that has him driving 500-600 miles a week but gets reimbursed for about half of them. He is finally paying his own gas so there's some relief there compared to last year. My 96 was my commuter for the last 4 years of the long commute before I moved, but I lost 4th gear last summer and it dropped from 28 down to 23 mpg as a 3 speed, so I usually take the Sonoma which I bought for my 15 yr old son. I really need to sell about 3 of them and buy a new G5, but selling the 01 for half of what I paid for it after only 20k miles on it would hurt. The sitting around it has done has cost me a battery so far, but I think I saved about $4k in the last 2 months by using it with a 15' enclosed trailer to move myself.
Leave it to the oildrum folks to post a great map from the NYT on how people are doing around the U.S. One flaw, they did not include Alaska or Hawaii.
In ND we can get 30 and 40 below wind chills starting around December and lasting through March.
Do many people leave their vehicles running while they go in to shop at -30 degrees? In places like Fairbanks Alaska half the cars are running in the parking lots. Even in Anchorage most people carry two sets of keys so they can leave the vehicle running and warm while shopping. Anchorage rarely gets much below -15 degrees.
I don't remember many cars idling in Anchorage, except in front of homes of wimps in the morning. Fairbanks is another story.
I was reading about the nationalization of Mexico's oil industry in '38. In '44 Mexico agree to reimburse the oil companies $23 million for the properties they took. Thousands of poor Mexicans lined up to help to the government pay off that debt, donating everything from jewelry to chickens. The nationalization marked the first time Mexico felt truly independent as a nation. (3/31/08 WSJ).
Mexicans are still reluctant to let Pemex deal with big oil since they figure that the ruling powers (think Carlos Slim) will reap all the benefits. So don't count on any relief in the gasoline supplies from our neighbor to the south in the near future.
The rule of law in the United States is that our elected leaders serve only with the informed consent of the governed. We the governed have been deceived.
The only way to clean up Congress is to vote out EVERY incumbent. We now have the best Congress money can buy. You better look into what happens with Nationalized oil companies. Take Norway that the Government (king) gets 96% and the people pay the highest price for gas in the EU.
At first I thought you were kidding. no one that rambles that long is kidding. You are serious and so ill informed. Have you heard any politician that is wanting to add a windfall tax saying they are going to make gas cheaper. It WILL go even higher.
Actually Canada has nationalized its oil or more exactly ''provincialized' its oil-private corporations do not ''own' that resource, the province does and its people, get your facts straight. The province of Alberta nationalized all oil and taxes all oil production and profits for the benefit of its people. Alberta is now the only province in Canada that does not have a provincial tax for this reason and has greatly benefited from the added moneys in government coffers for providing further benefits such as enhanced health care and education as well as luring new investment to that province. This is something none of the Exxon Mobil's of the world want you to know, they don't want you to have any piece of their pie, no altruism, humanitarianism or philanthropy from them, just cold hard greed for their benefit not yours, and oh yes, tough luck for you, they have the monopoly on the resource and can charge you whatever they want. If the government nationalizes it, it takes the power out of their hands and allows the people to benefit from it.
$227 billion to launch a Solar Satellite into space, not including the actual Satellite cost itself, that is quite a lot. I won't ask the question as to how you arrived at that astronomical number, I don't doubt it would cost billions. But according to Wilkopedia ''At some cost point, the high initial costs of an SPS (Solar power satellite) project will become favourable due to the low-cost delivery of power. By some estimates, this has already happened in some locations, as a result of the widely varying costs of electricity which sometimes approach (or even exceed) this point. In addition, continued advances in material science and space transport continue to whittle away at the startup cost of an SPS.'' The SPS essentially consists of three parts:
a solar collector, typically made up of solar cells a microwave antenna on the satellite, aimed at Earth one or more paired, and much larger, antennas (rectennas) on the Earth's surface
According to this source of info., the dept of defense has revisited this project. How to fund it is the problem which I am sure one day it will be feasible considering our energy needs, and the Japanese and European space agencies are now working on one, how they will do it is another story but it is possible given our level of technology and advancements in aeronautics and rocketry. I imagine if we could build an international space station, it would be a simple task these days to build such a satellite in space using things like a space elevator and other ways of lifting the materials up into space where they could be assembled etc. Besides we have a ton of satellites in space already, its not like it has not been done before.
So how much money could an SPS (Solar Power Satellite) be expected to make? For every one gigawatt rating, current SPS designs will generate 8.75 terawatt-hours of electricity per year, or 175 TW•h over a twenty-year lifetime. With current market prices of $0.22 per kW•h (UK, January 2006) and an SPS's ability to send its energy to places of greatest demand (depending on rectenna siting issues), this would equate to $1.93 billion per year or $38.6 billion over its lifetime. The example 4 GW 'economy' SPS above could therefore generate in excess of $154 billion over its lifetime. Assuming facilities are available, it may turn out to be substantially cheaper to recast on-site steel in GEO, than to launch it from Earth. If true, then the initial launch cost could be spread over multiple SPS lifespans. It is costly but there is some return on investment, not a total loss.
It looks to me like Chevron, Shell and Conoco are making MILLIONS off of oil sands in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. Exxon is getting back in on the killing. If it is such a good plan to have the resource Nationalized why not the production. That is where the big bucks are made. Why doesn't the Canadian government give their people a break on their gas? There is more room for corruption when the government is involved. Good luck Canadians will need it. When Alberta gets greedy and tries getting more royalties, the oil producers will just pick up and move to greener pastures developing in Eastern Canada.
And to top it off, those imperial gallons sure get great mpg.
I know, THAT'S how we'll fix everything...we'll just switch to Imperial gallons! Our MPGs will be higher! Do I sound like a Congresscritter or what? :shades:
In surfing around on the web, I found that the median income in the US is about $35K per year. Let's say this median person manages to bring home 75% of their wages. That would knock it down to about $26,250, or about $2200 per month, rounding up just a bit.
Let's also say this person has a vehicle that averages 25 mpg, pays $4.00 per gallon for gas, and drives about 15,000 miles per year. That comes out to $2400 per year, or $200 per month.
Now I dunno how "typical" this "median" person would really be in real life, but the pain index scenario here comes out to about 9.1%.
To get that pain index down to, say, 5%, said person would have to cut their fuel consumption to $110 per month. Or 27.5 gallons. At 25 mpg, that would be 8250 miles per year. At 40 mpg, which is probably way unrealistic for most people, that would be 13,200 miles per year.
Needless to say, I think a lot of people are in pain!
Hope springs eternal. or something like that. With 5 vehicles you may want to turn one of your vehicles into a subcompact. It also sounds like you have too many irons in the fire. Good luck.
Tired about paying $4.00 a gallon? You'll be exhausted at $6.00 a gallon.
The rest of the rant is victim-speak which can be reduced to one simple sentence. "I don't feel that I can control my own choices, I want to be protected by Big Brother."
Response:
Stand up on your own two feet and take responsibility for your own choices and your own destiny. As noted in these several thousand posts many of your fellow citizens have made significant steps to maintain their lifestyles and minimize the effects of higher fuel prices. I would be viewed as your typical NY liberal but I am absolutely against governmental intervention in what is a market-based economic trend.
My solution is is an economic one. Begin by pressuring everyone you know in your city, town or village for alternate sources of fuel to be made available in every tiny municipality across the country. Marginalize the oil industry and the oil producers so that they just don't matter any more. Support new forms of transportation.
Yes. No car payments goes a long way to keeping the overall transportation pain index low.
That's a good point. I'd be curious to find out what the "overall transportation" pain index would be for most people.
I just added up all my vehicle costs so far this year, and figure my pain index is running about 26%. That sounds pretty painful at first, but that's also keeping insurance on 7 cars. Plus, this year I had the funds to do so, so I sunk a bit of money into both of my New Yorkers. My pickup also had to go in for a little work. And I had to get my '67 Catalina re-registered. If I had nothing but my 2000 Intrepid, I'd say my total vehicle cost (gas, insurance, repairs, registration, etc) would only be around 7.4%
So that 26% might sound painful, but it's a voluntary choice. Nobody's holding a gun to my head.
$48,201 * .75 = $36,510 net annual pay $36,510 / 12 = $3012 / month $200 / $3012 = 0.66 or 6.6% pain index
To get their pain index down to 5 % $3012 * .05 = $150
$150 a month / $4 a gallon = 37.65 gallons
at 10 mpg and 37.65 gallons = 376.5 miles at 20 mpg and 37.65 gallons = 753 miles at 25 mpg and 37.65 gallons = 941.25 miles (11,295 per year) at 30 mpg and 37.65 gallons = 1129.5 miles (13,554 per year)
The fuel used would be per household, so having two cars would have an impact.
What does this tell us? Long commutes and/or living in the suburbs will be very difficult for folks at or under the median income. Their only option will be to live closer or get a very fuel efficient vehicle.
AAA is reporting that RUG went up 0.6 cents to $4.066. The pain just keeps increasing. :surprise:
Well, median income and median household income are two different things. I think with median income, they just mean people who are employed at full-time jobs. With median household income, you have a whole range of variables. Some households are going to have two full-time wage earners. Some are going to be a full-time wage earner with a spouse who either stays at home full time or just works part time. Some are going to consist of just a single person. Some will consist of retirees drawing social security and a pension.
What does this tell us? Long commutes and/or living in the suburbs will be very difficult for folks at or under the median income. Their only option will be to live closer or get a very fuel efficient vehicle.
And neither of those options are exactly cheap, either. It costs a lot of money to just pack up and move. If you're renting it's easier. And if you're selling a McMansion in the suburbs and trading for a condo right next to your job, it'll be easy since you're downsizing, too. But if you're below the median income, chances are you don't have a McMansion!
Selling a paid-off, reliable car that's relatively thirsty for a fuel efficient new car rarely saves money in the long run. And wherever the jobs are, housing prices are often still at a premium. So unfortunately, if you're at the lower end of the income spectrum, you're going to be in pain no matter what you do.
Don't confuse the "median income" with the "median household income." The first refers to what a person earns. The second refers to what a husband and wife earn.
The BLS has a breakdown of expenses. If you scroll down you will see a category called Gasoline and motor oil. The average annual gasoline and oil! cost was $2,227. (2006)
"Actually Canada has nationalized its oil or more exactly ''provincialized' its oil-private corporations do not ''own' that resource, the province does and its people, get your facts straight."
Sorry, this is not the definition of "nationalized". In Canada, private companies develop, produce, refine, and sell the oil, and get the profits of doing that. This is unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, where the government oil company, Aramco, does all of those steps. Actually, the US is just about the only country in the world where idividuals (the property leaseholders) own the resources under the property. In all other countries, the national or state/provincial government owns it. So, by your (incorrect) definition, all countries except the US have "nationalized" their oil. Also, private companies (like Exxon) do not have a "monopoly" on oil. 30 years ago they controlled about 70% of the world's output (back when prices were cheap -there goes your "monopoly" rant). Now they control only about 20% of production, so don't look at them as the cause of current high prices. Just some "facts" to consider :surprise:
I would be viewed as your typical NY liberal but I am absolutely against governmental intervention in what is a market-based economic trend.
That is an oxymoron. :shades:
Begin by pressuring everyone you know in your city, town or village for alternate sources of fuel to be made available in every tiny municipality across the country.
I do agree that it should be a grass roots solution to the fuel problem. What we are seeing is many of the proposed bio fuel projects are being scrapped due to high feed stock prices.
Firm abandoning plans for biodiesel plant near Evansville
Associated Press 8:52 AM CDT, June 11, 2008
SUN PRAIRIE, Wis. - North Prairie Productions says it's abandoned plans to build a $42 million biodiesel plant near Evansville due to continuing high soybean oil prices.
Board chairman John Sheehy of Sun Prairie says a letter announcing the decision was sent this week to investors.
Sheehy says the firm investigated every option it could come up with, including merging with others. But he says commodity prices continue to make it impossible to make biodiesel out of soybean oil.
The plant would have produced an estimated 45 million gallons a year of biodiesel, which is a substitute for diesel fuel used by farm tractors and some trucks and cars.
My current bill from SDG&E with all taxes and surcharges is right at $.14 per KWH. When you consider Coal and Nuclear cost in the 2 cent range to produce. That may be a ways off. Though my Hawaii bill is about $.28 KWH. If they could aim that thing at the Big Island and sell them some cheap electricity, I am sure it will be appreciated.
I doubt they will even come close to the mandated ethanol production. What is that going to do to my tortilla price? I can leave the car parked in the garage. I got to have my scrambled eggs & tortillas... :sick:
Ughh you are right that is going to really throw things out of whack.
I think eventually biodiesel will replace a large portion of our diesel/fuel oil supply but that probably won't happen till we can make it out of algae.
I think that depends on your perspective. It may be my imagination or just wishful thinking. It seems that there is less traffic during MY TIME to use the freeways between 10 AM and 2 PM. I could never figure out who all those people were during the middle of the day. They should be at work not clogging up the highways. Twenty years ago I could go out at 10 AM and have Interstates 8, 15 and 805 to myself. The last 10 years it is crowded all day long. Another buck a gallon and it may be clear sailing when I run my errands and go shopping.
Sumitomo Electric has developed what is being called the world’s first automobile powered by a superconducting motor. The electric passenger sedan (a modified Toyota Crown Comfort), which is powered by a 365-kilowatt high-temperature superconducting motor cooled by liquid nitrogen, was unveiled in Osaka on June 12 and will go on display at the Hokkaido Toyako G8 Summit on June 19.
Superconductors — energy-efficient materials that can carry electrical current without resistance — are used in applications ranging from medical devices to linear motors for trains. Until now, however, they have never been used to power an automobile, says Sumitomo.
Superconductor motor used to power car -- Sumitomo’s motor uses high-temperature superconducting wires instead of the copper wire typically used in the coils in electric vehicle motors. When cooled to an extremely low temperature, electrical resistance and current loss are reduced to nearly zero, so the motor can operate with greater energy efficiency and torque — in other words, the motor uses less electricity to do the same amount of work. The company says the prototype vehicle can travel 10% farther than conventional electric vehicles running on the same type of battery.
The development comes as demand for electric vehicles grows, and as manufacturers step up efforts to improve battery and motor performance to increase the distance that vehicles can travel on a single charge.
Sumitomo intends to further improve the motor with the aim of putting a vehicle on the market in the not-too-distant future. The company is looking to develop superconductor motors for buses and trucks as well.
4. Actually, your car does MINUTELY depreciate a little less when you don't drive it, because the miles do not accumulate quite at the same rate. All else equal, a used car with 44,000 miles sells for slightly more than the same car with 48,000 miles. And ask your car insurance people for a cut rate if you are no longer using the car for the daily commute - my company gave me a break when my car stopped being my commute vehicle.
Perhaps health insurance premiums should be increased for those who ride bikes to work to cut down on gasoline/car use. Those bike riders who ride on busy or narrow roads during rush hour are at greater risk of injury then if they had used their car or public transportation. Premium surcharge for bike rider commuters would be in line with cigarette smokers in that risk factors higher. Unless a bike rider used bike paths and/or bike lanes "exclusively" on their way to work, there should be an health insurance surcharge.
Well, for that to work, some data would have to exist to show that bike riders are a greater health risk.
I don't think that data exists. I could not find it last week. In fact, the only thing I found showed that in 24 states, bikers were killed less than vehicle occupants. If that was true, then it's about a wash as far as risk goes.
Comments
the tests are worth doing though.
That's what you get for using the metric system.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
LOL - sorry. I guess I was picturing some electric two-wheeled vehicle that all you have to do is twist a hand grip and sit on it. I did notice that you said you lost 15 lbs so far.
Keep up the good effort.
I mentioned it before but I've had a taste of riding through the Phoenix area heat one July in 1998. It wasn't something I'd want to do again if I didn't have to.
I'm old enough to join AARP and it was 92F degrees here today. We do have showers available at work.
Another thing to consider is that tax breaks are dissapearing on many hybrids.
Another thing to consider is the time value of money. Money saved in the future is worth less than money is now. So if the premium on a hybrid is $3K you need to save more than $3K over several years to break even. That being said it would take me over 5 years to break even since the monthly payment on the premium of the Civic hybrid (I and most others would be financing that difference) is more than what my monthly gas savings is.
Now if you really want to be saving money you can by a Smart and for the price difference by about 100K miles worth of gas.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The CVT is at least 98% as efficient as a manual, so buyers have no economic reason to choose a stick shift. Also, producing only one transmission cuts unit costs greatly, so Honda has a big economic reason to simplify production.
I am just under 4%. One question? Do I get credit for not having any car payments?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
ok, i'm mr tough guy. then i said, we're going on vacation in less than 3 weeks. i will be paying for that gas. the message was sent. can you milk this tank until then?
LOL, you're probably right.
And to top it off, those imperial gallons sure get great mpg.
That's why I noted a 10-15% annual percentage increase might be more realistic.
I moved 32 miles closer to work each way to potentially save 90-100 gallons a month. Gas went from $2.85 to $4 during the move, which still isn't over. The new house will save me $115 a month more than I planned.
But, as a result I've taken on a new mortgage and had to move everything 60 miles. That was and still is painful and I have had nobody seriously look at my previous home since I listed it in January. For me the real estate market is worse than gas prices and has a pain index of about 30% until I sell that house.
Some day I will get down to 5%.
I have a 20 mpg vehicle for sale that doesn't fit at the new house. After selling it, that will still leave me with 2 trucks, a van, and 2 cars. Upgrading one of the 5 from low 20's mpg to low 30's mpg will only take my pain index down 0.5%, but It would be another little mortgage on a depreciating vehicle. I'd consider the Fusion or G5 as top choices, realizing that I wouldn't even lower my index 1% if I went with an extreme gas saver like a Prius. I did a search for used G5's yesterday and all the dealers want $13,900 for '07's and '06's whether they have 21k or 47k miles on them. I could have had a new one for that price last summer with the sale prices and the rebates they had. So I guess they stopped depreciating.
Feel free to change the scale to whatever you think is appropriate. There was nothing magic about the dividing lines. A lot will depend on how important transportation is in your life. How much is a gallon of gasoline worth to you?
It was interesting that your comfort level stopped at only 2.5%. Mine is about 5%. In the article below they said people in the Mississippi Delta are spending over 13% of their take home pay on gasoline. So I'm thinking 5% isn't too bad when I also consider that my income is probably higher. They also go on to save that the national average is 4%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/business/09gas.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rs- s&oref=slogin
In ND we can get 30 and 40 below wind chills starting around December and lasting through March. I'm not going to walk three miles to get my groceries or two miles to work under those conditions. Grizzly Adams I'm not. :shades: Even if gasoline hits 15 dollars a gallon I'm driving my car to the store or work. I would get a subcompact car at some point, but I'm still going to drive.
Yes.
Most of the oil producing countries have nationalized their oil industries: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Russia, of course all the Middle Eastern countries, and more.
A fundamental tenet of government in the United States is that corporate behavior must be regulated when it is necessary to protect the public interest. In an era of oil scarcity we no longer have the luxury of allowing a handful of corporate plutocrats to decide the fate of the global economy. The oil industry chieftains have deliberately closed down refineries to lower production and enhance their profits. Economic analysts have widely talked about the “decoupling” of oil prices from the fundamentals of supply and demand. Fundamental economic analysis repeatedly suggests the price of oil should be $70-$80/barrel – yet it is nearly twice that. Even OPEC officials have recently complained that “the market has lost all logic” and is now “operating by forces untethered to the realities of supply and demand”. When even the OPEC does not like what is happening, it is clear things are terribly wrong.
We all know the truth: the oil companies are intentionally manipulating oil prices to keep them at artificially high levels. They have sluiced boatloads of cash into the political system to ensure that Congress and the Executive carry out their directives and turn a blind eye to, and themselves profit from, this monopolistic price fixing. We should not believe the lies, misinformation, and propaganda being foisted upon us by the oil companies, by those in Congress and the Executive office who collude with them, and their propagandists (be careful – the right-wing propagandists are everywhere, including blogs and forums). We should not believe the misinformation and propaganda being repeatedly fed to us to “explain” oil prices as being due to “demand in China”, “demand in India”, “the falling dollar”, or “market speculators”. We know who the speculators work for and who pulls the strings. The unfortunate truth is that greed and wealth now allocate power in our country, and that power is being used to further increase and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the few – Bush, Cheney, and their oil company cronies. Truth, honor, and integrity used to mean something in this country – now they have vanished from government, replaced with unadulterated selfish greed. Bush, Cheney, and Congress have allowed the return of 19th century robber barons, and as a result, the American people are suffering tremendously.
Both the Legislative Branch and Executive office have pursued their own interests at the expense of the general public welfare. The oil companies have been enthroned and empowered, and the rule of law in the United States has been replaced with the politics of corruption. Where this country was once the model of democracy for the rest of the world to aspire to, we are now the laughing stock and one of the most corrupt nations on Earth. The Bush-Cheney administration has silenced the truth, promoted politics of fear, and massively deceived and manipulated the American people and transferred wealth from the public for their own gain, and colluded to allow concentration of wealth in the oil companies in which they are intimately intertwined.
This is not about people wanting “cheap gas” for their SUV’s. This is more than about maintaining a standard of living or quality of life. This is about life itself. Energy is a fundamental, inalienable resource which affects every aspect of life. Escalating energy costs result in skyrocketing costs of everything in our world – food, heating, electricity, clothing, travel, hotels, airlines, tourism, anything and everything that is either made from oil feedstocks, transported by oil, or dependent on oil. Prices of the basic goods needed to sustain life are escalating, and inflation will soon be rampant. Even basic social services such as “meals on wheels” for senior citizens are being impacted because of the increased cost of getting food to people. Add to this the pork-barrel politics of the food-for-fuel corn-to-ethanol debacle – which is corruption and cronyism at its very worst – and we have famines appearing and food riots the likes of which have not been seen in decades. By allowing the oil companies and our elected leaders to enrich themselves at the expense of the American public, people are suffering, and dying. Hunger is increasing both at home and abroad. Unemployment is increasing, and business failures are escalating. More people are starving, and dying, as a result of the Bush-Cheney’s administrations actions – and Congresses inactions.
Oil is now a fundamental resource required for sustaining life. It is no different from air or water in that regard. These are all natural resources which belong to the people, to all people, not to a select group of self-appointed criminals with no moral compass who hoard these resources with sole intent of blackmailing the American people for their own personal gain.
The free market economy is a cornerstone of democracy – only as long as it is an efficient, fair, system which works to the benefit of all. The free market system for oil worked for decades – until it was perverted for personal gain by Bush and Cheney, and their collusion with the oil companies. The free market is no longer working in oil, and changes must be made immediately. Piracy was not tolerated in the 18th century, and cannot be tolerated today.
We must now nationalize the American oil industry. If we do this we can cut costs significantly and still have tens of billions of dollars per year for alternative energy source research, new technologies and create an economic boom that will benefit every American. This is also a National Security issue and will greatly reduce the rampant corruption in our government.
Nationalizing the oil industry must be supported by every member of Congress. Evidence of the oil industry's involvement in the invasion of Iraq as well as its obvious complicity in corrupting the political system should provide ample proof that the oil giants are a clear and present danger to democracy and need to be put under state control.
If oil were nationalized, it would be a government corporation for the people and by the people. This American corporation would work for the people rather than a select few billionaires in boardrooms. Additionally, any profits that the nationalized firm makes can go toward developing technologies for grea
We are suffering, and we are angry. Bush and Cheney can no longer assume that the typically apathetic and fragmented American people will continue to sit idly by and allow this injustice and rape to continue. The monopolistic extortion and exploitation of the public by the oil industry and the Bush-Cheney administration can serve to unify the population. This can be the lightening rod, the catalyst which can pull together people from all walks of life in a common cause. We need to demand that our elected leaders carry out their obligations, duties, and responsibilities to serve the interests of the American people and insure that the oil industry is nationalized. If necessary, a national referendum would clearly show the will of the people (assuming that an honest election without manipulating the vote could be held in this country).
If Congress lacks the courage and strength to do what is necessary and nationalize the oil industry, another alternative would be to regulate the price of gasoline. Another alternative would be to revive the ‘windfall profits tax’ in a form where a tax would be levied against the oil companies equal to all amounts they receive above a set price for fuel, such as $2.00/gallon, paid to the federal government, who would then distribute the majority of this collected tax as a form of reimbursement to the people (unfortunately, the rampant corruption throughout all sectors of government would result in tremendous graft and waste, similar to what has happened with lost billions in Iraq). In any event, there must be a retroactive windfall profits tax levied against the oil companies since the beginning of 2006, to get back what they, and Bush and Cheney, have stolen from the American people. The oil companies will howl that they cannot make money at these prices, which is complete nonsense. With the cost of extracting a barrel of oil ranging from $5/barrel for inexpensive fields to at most $50/barrel, and with the big three oil companies reporting $36 Billion in first quarter 2008 profits, prices could be halved and the industry would still be wildly profitable.
Not reigning in the oil companies will result in a worldwide recession, long term stagflation, and destroying the very fabric of human society to allow a handful of people to enrich themselves.
The rule of law in the United States is that our elected leaders serve only with the informed consent of the governed. We the governed have been deceived. We the governed should no longer consent to the oil companies and elected officials stealing from us and destroying our very lives. Either they stand up for us and protect us against our enemies, or they should no longer be one of our elected leaders. It is frighteningly obvious that virtually all state power in the United States is being consolidated in the hands of a single strongman and his small group of confederates, and they are exercising that power without the informed consent of us, the governed. They all need to stand behind Representative Maxine Waters, the only member of Congress with the honestly, foresight, integrity, and courage to stand by her responsibilities and acknowledge the need to nationalize the oil industry. All member of Congress must do the same. Failing to do so will acknowledge their being part of the Bush-Cheney scheme to unlawfully extract wealth from the public. Bush and Cheney have committed grave injustices against the American people, and there has been no special prosecutor appointed, no FBI investigation, and Congress has been docile. Each member of Congress must answer if they are party to these reprehensible crimes, or if they will fulfill their constitutional obligations and stand up for the people of this country.
As Bush himself said, “Either you are with us, or you are against us”. Any member of Congress that does not take up this cause in the interests of their constituents will find themselves not being re-elected. We, the people, must speak, and we must continue to pursue this cause – our very lives are at stake. We must demand that our elected leaders stand with us and defend us – not exploit us.
Yep that will get rid of $4/gallon gas. It will give us $7/gallon gas.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Where gasoline prices hit the hardest
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4125#more
Do many people leave their vehicles running while they go in to shop at -30 degrees? In places like Fairbanks Alaska half the cars are running in the parking lots. Even in Anchorage most people carry two sets of keys so they can leave the vehicle running and warm while shopping. Anchorage rarely gets much below -15 degrees.
Only for short dash and grab stops. Folks in North Dakota must be tougher than folks in Alaska. Or better insulated.
I was reading about the nationalization of Mexico's oil industry in '38. In '44 Mexico agree to reimburse the oil companies $23 million for the properties they took. Thousands of poor Mexicans lined up to help to the government pay off that debt, donating everything from jewelry to chickens. The nationalization marked the first time Mexico felt truly independent as a nation. (3/31/08 WSJ).
Mexicans are still reluctant to let Pemex deal with big oil since they figure that the ruling powers (think Carlos Slim) will reap all the benefits. So don't count on any relief in the gasoline supplies from our neighbor to the south in the near future.
The only way to clean up Congress is to vote out EVERY incumbent. We now have the best Congress money can buy. You better look into what happens with Nationalized oil companies. Take Norway that the Government (king) gets 96% and the people pay the highest price for gas in the EU.
At first I thought you were kidding. no one that rambles that long is kidding. You are serious and so ill informed. Have you heard any politician that is wanting to add a windfall tax saying they are going to make gas cheaper. It WILL go even higher.
its oil-private corporations do not ''own' that resource, the province does and its people, get your facts straight. The province of Alberta nationalized all oil and taxes all oil production and profits for the benefit of its people. Alberta is now the only province in Canada that does not have a provincial tax for this reason and has greatly benefited from the added moneys in government coffers for providing further benefits such as enhanced health care and education as well as luring new investment to that province. This is something none of the Exxon Mobil's of the world want you to know, they don't want you to have any piece of their pie, no altruism, humanitarianism or philanthropy from them, just cold hard greed for their benefit not yours, and oh yes, tough luck for you, they have the monopoly on the resource and can charge you whatever they want. If the government nationalizes it, it takes the power out of their hands and allows the people to benefit from it.
But according to Wilkopedia ''At some cost point, the high initial costs of an SPS (Solar power satellite) project will become favourable due to the low-cost delivery of power. By some estimates, this has already happened in some locations, as a result of the widely varying costs of electricity which sometimes approach (or even exceed) this point. In addition, continued advances in material science and space transport continue to whittle away at the startup cost of an SPS.''
The SPS essentially consists of three parts:
a solar collector, typically made up of solar cells
a microwave antenna on the satellite, aimed at Earth
one or more paired, and much larger, antennas (rectennas) on the Earth's surface
According to this source of info., the dept of defense has revisited this project. How to fund it is the problem which I am sure one day it will be feasible considering our energy needs, and the Japanese and European space agencies are now working on one, how they will do it is another story but it is possible given our level of technology and advancements in aeronautics and rocketry. I imagine if we could build an international space station, it would be a simple task these days to build such a satellite in space using things like a space elevator and other ways of lifting the materials up into space where they could be assembled etc. Besides we have a ton of satellites in space already, its not like it has not been done before.
It is costly but there is some return on investment, not a total loss.
I know, THAT'S how we'll fix everything...we'll just switch to Imperial gallons! Our MPGs will be higher! Do I sound like a Congresscritter or what? :shades:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20080613_RETAIL_FILL-UP.html
Let's also say this person has a vehicle that averages 25 mpg, pays $4.00 per gallon for gas, and drives about 15,000 miles per year. That comes out to $2400 per year, or $200 per month.
Now I dunno how "typical" this "median" person would really be in real life, but the pain index scenario here comes out to about 9.1%.
To get that pain index down to, say, 5%, said person would have to cut their fuel consumption to $110 per month. Or 27.5 gallons. At 25 mpg, that would be 8250 miles per year. At 40 mpg, which is probably way unrealistic for most people, that would be 13,200 miles per year.
Needless to say, I think a lot of people are in pain!
Hope springs eternal. or something like that. With 5 vehicles you may want to turn one of your vehicles into a subcompact. It also sounds like you have too many irons in the fire. Good luck.
Tired about paying $4.00 a gallon? You'll be exhausted at $6.00 a gallon.
The rest of the rant is victim-speak which can be reduced to one simple sentence.
"I don't feel that I can control my own choices, I want to be protected by Big Brother."
Response:
Stand up on your own two feet and take responsibility for your own choices and your own destiny. As noted in these several thousand posts many of your fellow citizens have made significant steps to maintain their lifestyles and minimize the effects of higher fuel prices. I would be viewed as your typical NY liberal but I am absolutely against governmental intervention in what is a market-based economic trend.
My solution is is an economic one. Begin by pressuring everyone you know in your city, town or village for alternate sources of fuel to be made available in every tiny municipality across the country. Marginalize the oil industry and the oil producers so that they just don't matter any more. Support new forms of transportation.
Or...
Do nothing and whine.
That's a good point. I'd be curious to find out what the "overall transportation" pain index would be for most people.
I just added up all my vehicle costs so far this year, and figure my pain index is running about 26%. That sounds pretty painful at first, but that's also keeping insurance on 7 cars. Plus, this year I had the funds to do so, so I sunk a bit of money into both of my New Yorkers. My pickup also had to go in for a little work. And I had to get my '67 Catalina re-registered. If I had nothing but my 2000 Intrepid, I'd say my total vehicle cost (gas, insurance, repairs, registration, etc) would only be around 7.4%
So that 26% might sound painful, but it's a voluntary choice. Nobody's holding a gun to my head.
Not sure where you found your info, but the Census folks have the median income a bit higher. "In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00 according to the Census Bureau."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/010583.h- tml
$48,201 * .75 = $36,510 net annual pay
$36,510 / 12 = $3012 / month
$200 / $3012 = 0.66 or 6.6% pain index
To get their pain index down to 5 %
$3012 * .05 = $150
$150 a month / $4 a gallon = 37.65 gallons
at 10 mpg and 37.65 gallons = 376.5 miles
at 20 mpg and 37.65 gallons = 753 miles
at 25 mpg and 37.65 gallons = 941.25 miles (11,295 per year)
at 30 mpg and 37.65 gallons = 1129.5 miles (13,554 per year)
The fuel used would be per household, so having two cars would have an impact.
What does this tell us? Long commutes and/or living in the suburbs will be very difficult for folks at or under the median income. Their only option will be to live closer or get a very fuel efficient vehicle.
AAA is reporting that RUG went up 0.6 cents to $4.066. The pain just keeps increasing. :surprise:
What does this tell us? Long commutes and/or living in the suburbs will be very difficult for folks at or under the median income. Their only option will be to live closer or get a very fuel efficient vehicle.
And neither of those options are exactly cheap, either. It costs a lot of money to just pack up and move. If you're renting it's easier. And if you're selling a McMansion in the suburbs and trading for a condo right next to your job, it'll be easy since you're downsizing, too. But if you're below the median income, chances are you don't have a McMansion!
Selling a paid-off, reliable car that's relatively thirsty for a fuel efficient new car rarely saves money in the long run. And wherever the jobs are, housing prices are often still at a premium. So unfortunately, if you're at the lower end of the income spectrum, you're going to be in pain no matter what you do.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2006/cusize.txt
its oil-private corporations do not ''own' that resource, the province does and its people, get your facts straight."
Sorry, this is not the definition of "nationalized". In Canada, private companies develop, produce, refine, and sell the oil, and get the profits of doing that. This is unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, where the government oil company, Aramco, does all of those steps. Actually, the US is just about the only country in the world where idividuals (the property leaseholders) own the resources under the property. In all other countries, the national or state/provincial government owns it. So, by your (incorrect) definition, all countries except the US have "nationalized" their oil. Also, private companies (like Exxon) do not have a "monopoly" on oil. 30 years ago they controlled about 70% of the world's output (back when prices were cheap -there goes your "monopoly" rant). Now they control only about 20% of production, so don't look at them as the cause of current high prices. Just some "facts" to consider :surprise:
That is an oxymoron. :shades:
Begin by pressuring everyone you know in your city, town or village for alternate sources of fuel to be made available in every tiny municipality across the country.
I do agree that it should be a grass roots solution to the fuel problem. What we are seeing is many of the proposed bio fuel projects are being scrapped due to high feed stock prices.
Firm abandoning plans for biodiesel plant near Evansville
Associated Press
8:52 AM CDT, June 11, 2008
SUN PRAIRIE, Wis. - North Prairie Productions says it's abandoned plans to build a $42 million biodiesel plant near Evansville due to continuing high soybean oil prices.
Board chairman John Sheehy of Sun Prairie says a letter announcing the decision was sent this week to investors.
Sheehy says the firm investigated every option it could come up with, including merging with others. But he says commodity prices continue to make it impossible to make biodiesel out of soybean oil.
The plant would have produced an estimated 45 million gallons a year of biodiesel, which is a substitute for diesel fuel used by farm tractors and some trucks and cars.
Just wait for the impact of this spring's flooding on grain prices - biofuels will take a huge hit.
My current bill from SDG&E with all taxes and surcharges is right at $.14 per KWH. When you consider Coal and Nuclear cost in the 2 cent range to produce. That may be a ways off. Though my Hawaii bill is about $.28 KWH. If they could aim that thing at the Big Island and sell them some cheap electricity, I am sure it will be appreciated.
I think eventually biodiesel will replace a large portion of our diesel/fuel oil supply but that probably won't happen till we can make it out of algae.
I think that depends on your perspective. It may be my imagination or just wishful thinking. It seems that there is less traffic during MY TIME to use the freeways between 10 AM and 2 PM. I could never figure out who all those people were during the middle of the day. They should be at work not clogging up the highways. Twenty years ago I could go out at 10 AM and have Interstates 8, 15 and 805 to myself. The last 10 years it is crowded all day long. Another buck a gallon and it may be clear sailing when I run my errands and go shopping.
EV powered by superconductor !!!
Sumitomo Electric has developed what is being called the world’s first automobile powered by a superconducting motor. The electric passenger sedan (a modified Toyota Crown Comfort), which is powered by a 365-kilowatt high-temperature superconducting motor cooled by liquid nitrogen, was unveiled in Osaka on June 12 and will go on display at the Hokkaido Toyako G8 Summit on June 19.
Superconductors — energy-efficient materials that can carry electrical current without resistance — are used in applications ranging from medical devices to linear motors for trains. Until now, however, they have never been used to power an automobile, says Sumitomo.
Superconductor motor used to power car -- Sumitomo’s motor uses high-temperature superconducting wires instead of the copper wire typically used in the coils in electric vehicle motors. When cooled to an extremely low temperature, electrical resistance and current loss are reduced to nearly zero, so the motor can operate with greater energy efficiency and torque — in other words, the motor uses less electricity to do the same amount of work. The company says the prototype vehicle can travel 10% farther than conventional electric vehicles running on the same type of battery.
The development comes as demand for electric vehicles grows, and as manufacturers step up efforts to improve battery and motor performance to increase the distance that vehicles can travel on a single charge.
Sumitomo intends to further improve the motor with the aim of putting a vehicle on the market in the not-too-distant future. The company is looking to develop superconductor motors for buses and trucks as well.
Perhaps health insurance premiums should be increased for those who ride bikes to work to cut down on gasoline/car use. Those bike riders who ride on busy or narrow roads during rush hour are at greater risk of injury then if they had used their car or public transportation. Premium surcharge for bike rider commuters would be in line with cigarette smokers in that risk factors higher. Unless a bike rider used bike paths and/or bike lanes "exclusively" on their way to work, there should be an health insurance surcharge.
Hate to get those mixed up :P
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef7fe1d/1033
I don't think that data exists. I could not find it last week. In fact, the only thing I found showed that in 24 states, bikers were killed less than vehicle occupants. If that was true, then it's about a wash as far as risk goes.