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
It's not fair, and it doesn't mean that you're doing anything wrong. But it has been that way ever since common currency came to exist.
In addition, the price of gasoline affects the price of everything else in the economy. Many things require petroleum-based products in manufacturing, and everything has to be transported via gas-burning-vehicle from factories to stores.
The price of food has gone up 7% in the past year. The price of new home construction has gone up 10%. Rising gas prices create widespread inflation.
The folks you cite who are selling their boats and motorhomes certainly represent a change in the economy, but not necessarily damage to it. They're changing the way they spend their money, but they're still spending the same amount of money, just somewhere else on something else. And, yes, gasoline is one of the new expenses.
My point here is that the nation's economic numbers have remained good through the advent of $3/gal. gas -- productivity, durable goods orders, consumer spending and unemployment (still 4.5%). People are dining out less often (as you observed), they're foregoing travel, but their money is still flowing.
We can both agree that it's flowing to the wrong people: OPEC and their friends. I hate 'em, too. So much that I just bought a gas-electric hybrid car.
However, I also realize that OPEC and friends see the good economic numbers, and interpret them to mean "we can keep raising gas prices." As a forum host wrote yesterday, "Let's face it...we are hostages to the oil industry, totally."
We can't stop them, because we spent 60 years building the nation's transportation infrastructure around gas/diesel/jet fuel burning vehicles. It'll take decades more to correct that mistake. Meanwhile, all we can do is change our habits to compensate for the additional expenses heaped on us by the oil cartel.
The convenient term "support" in this case means "distribute $29 billion newly-seized tax dollars to people and companies who gave campaign donations to congressmen."
That money won't fund anything new, it'll just subsidize ethanol and force utilities to buy 15% of their product from expensive solar and wind generators, which will raise everyone's electric bills. Meanwhile, oil companies will pass on that extra $29 billion tax in the form of higher gas prices. That's what the article said.
Just because OPEC is bad doesn't make Congress good. The energy bill is just another money grab.
Four of them are on steep hills so if you are doing 45 or so there is no way you can stop if you are close to the light.
With the steepness of the hill and 45 mph if you are within seven or eight car links of the light you have to keep going. There is no way to stop that soon going down the hill.
It's not fair, and it doesn't mean that you're doing anything wrong. But it has been that way ever since common currency came to exist.
This is why is sucks to be poor and why people strive not to be poor. Do you think George Clooney gives a squirt of rat urine about the price of gas on a personal level? Heck no! Fuel prices make up such a low percentage of his income it does not matter to him and the rest of the uber-rich. I'm not saying it is right or wrong. That is just the way it is. Unless we all start drinking the Karl Marx kool-aid, that is the way it always will be.
On another note, do you people really think the government will allow OPEC to shut off the supply (or jack up the price) enough to throw the country into a depression? I am sure there are plans in place to seize the Saudi/Kuwati oil fields if that becomes necessary. Most sane people realize that if the US economy goes in the tank (or the EU for that matter) the rest of the world will not be too far behind. We all remember how the world got out of the last global depression don't we? I don't think a repeat is a good thing.
Thank you, I'm glad that someone pointed that out. They are saying now that it could be well over a decade (or two) before Iraqi oil fields are back at full production, and that's only if they ever achieve any kind of lasting detente over there, the prospect of which seems pretty remote right now.
All the talk of escalating wars to get more oil for greedy American consumers is not only a bit alarmist, but a bit far-fetched IMO. How many times does the U.S. have to fail at that kind of strategy before its leaders finally learn their lessons (or its citizens call its leaders to account)?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, there's your problem right there...
When you get 30mpg, suddenly paying $1 more for gas isn't such a big deal.
If one steps back far enough, time is definitely running out to solve this problem.
I'm all for alternative energy . . . too much dependence on a single source is never a good thing. Monopoly is not good (government being bad largely because it's a monopoly). That being said, government taxation and subsidy to support alternative energy is not a good idea because it would sidetrack the AE research to that which maximises profit AFTER SUCH TRANSFERS. Quite a few non-energy companies engaged in a "coal laundering" scheme of buying coal and mixing it with water to produce a slush that is not good for anything, for a sole purpose of qualifying for "alternative energy" tax credit and hide profit (by transfering profit to the "coal washing" subsidiary). While I applaud the accounts who came up with the scheme to minimize the taxmen's take, the whole thing just goes to show how convoluted tax codes and "tailored incentives" tend to produce results that are quite different from what the wishful thinkers had in mind when drafting the codes. The higher coal cost because of the "washing" demand makes it more costly for the real AE outfits that consider coal.
While I am considering installing a windmill on the lake for myself, with gasoline price at $3, I'm not entirely convinced that running out of oil worldwide is the eminent problem. The real problem is what if all the tax and redistribution in the US makes the US government, the ruler of the world through the US Dollar system, less and less efficient, and the rest of the world find it not worthwhile to send us all the stuff to get the US Dollar. That's the most likely scenrio in which the gasoline price will skyrocket in dollar terms, IMHO. We get all the stuff shipped to us right now from Japan, Chain, India, and etc., largely because they need the US Dollar to buy oil. When that need is gone, they may not find it worthwhile to ship us anything. Then, not just oil, but everything else, from cars to toys to clothing will all skyrocket in price, in dollar terms . . . because the chips are suddenly worth less.
The only real power America has left is economic, and decisions like expanding oil-dependent infrastructure without any solid plans to develop alternative energy sources and decrease energy importation will cause this economic power to wane considerably in the next 50 years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Physically, yes we are. Other than that, no. We are not all in this together. It is bunk like this that creates such collossal monuments to waste and failure like the UN. How well is the UN doing at containing the genocide in Darfur? How about stepping in when the Kymer Rouge was slaughtering millions? Cooperation is all fine and dandy when you are playing on a playground or on a little-league team, but not in the realm of international politics. Save the platitudes. Most great accomplishments were done by leaders with everyone else following. Not cooperation.
The USA doesn't rule the world and can't control it, try as it may.
Why would the USA want to rule the world? A lot of it is a third-world cesspool. Sorry, you can keep it. The only reason why we care at all about the middle-east is that they have oil. If they did not have oil, they could kill each other in obscurity. Just like sub-saharan Africa. We only try to control areas that have a strategic value.
We cooperate together or perish together is my point of view.
See part about leaders. Should we, as a country, wait until Somalia gets it's act together to do anything about alternative fuel sources? Ummmmm, no. We should do what we have to do because it is in our best interests. I'm sorry, but the rest of the world can go pound sand. They would do the same to us. I'm sure people in Tokyo aren't waiting around for us to do something. They do what they have to do for them, not us.
So the sooner the planet faces up to the need for a totally new energy source, the better.
This is something we all can agree on. Although, it is probably not a new source. We just have to get used to the idea of an electric car and a lot more power plants, preferably nuclear.
Yeah we're all in this together. Nobody else on earth can leave. We'll have to learn and share like in kindergarten. :P
They all know it. The reason why they keep acquiessing to getting the paper money in return for their real goods is because for now at least they can cash the chips in for oil, which they do need.
Corporations run the first world countries - the faster Mexico creates more Carlos Slims, the faster the multinationals can sell more and more stuff to them.
Tesco and Wal-Mart must be chomping at the bit to open stores in East Timor.
Wouldn't this lead to the value of the dollar greatly decreasing and possibly leading to a depression in itself. I don't believe that pumping almost 9 Trillion extra US dollars into the global economy will do anything but make our dollar close to worthless. In that case, the US cannot afford to pay off the debt it is in without the risk of a collapse unless it is over an EXTREMELY long period of time. Right now, i believe the US is in the process of reducing just the interest the debt is accumulating, not even the debt itself.
100 years ago, automobiles represented a new budding industry. Inventors produced working cars that ran on refined oil, steam, and even electricity! Oil was an "alternative" energy then, but the market chose it because it was cheap and so plentiful that it would NEVER run out.
And here we are today.
The market will eventually choose a new form of energy to power cars. However, it won't make a choice based on Congressional meddling. It will go with whatever works best in terms of cost and efficiency.
The gov't can't force consumers to buy and use hydrogen powered cars (mainly because hydrogen explodes -- remember the Hindenburg?). But they're trying. Neither can they force consumers to use E85 (mainly because it offers 20% less power than gasoline and requires heavy taxpayer subsidies to compete on price). But they're trying.
Meanwhile, the market already has demonstrated a willingness to buy gas-electric hybrids, even at a premium price. Hybrids certainly aren't the final answer, just a step in the right direction.
Once engineers improve battery efficiency to the point that one will power automobiles for several hundred miles between charges, people will buy those cars en masse. The U.S. will cut its oil consumption to a fraction of current levels. OPEC will crumble, oil companies will wilt, and the federal government will lose its 18 cent/gallon profit (tax) on every gallon of gas that we no longer buy.
Sounds like a win-win to me!
There are actually several "markets" involved here, but with re to oil...the problem with the current oil market is that the "supply" that governs price in this market is that which has been pumped...not what's in the ground.
Once engineers improve battery efficiency...
This will be a critical step (the battery might be in the form of hydrogen) because then we can supply the source energy from almost any form and convert it to electricity.
...The U.S. will cut its oil consumption to a fraction of current levels.
As long as most electricity is generated from fossil fuels, batteries won't help much. The primary source of the energy has to be addressed.
...and the federal government will lose its 18 cent/gallon profit (tax)...
Taxes and profit are very different economic instruments, confuse them at your peril.
Yes, we would lose that mechanism of funding for common infrastructure. We would have to find another, probably based on miles driven. Not that difficult to do, at least in concept.
I wonder how much fossil fuel is used to build a fuel cell powered car ?
Hydrogen - either have to keep it cold, or under exceedingly high pressures, unless metal hydrides come to pass (not there yet). Because of its small size, hydrogen is very good at leaking, given a chance, and is explosive in air over a much larger range of concentrations than gasoline vapors. Gas is easy to store w/o pressure, etc., but the vapors can be extremely explosive at the right concentration.
Do you believe that all of the current "markets" can actually survive? I think that the market is going to turn towards one over the other, meaning that the hybrid (in whatever form) may beat ethanol or whatever else is in development. I personally don't see E-85 as even a possible alternative solution until we find a more stable solution.
As long as most electricity is generated from fossil fuels, batteries won't help much. The primary source of the energy has to be addressed.
No alternatives can be developed without the help of fossil fuels as it stands right now. I believe that it can be possible to develop an alternative that runs with the help of fossil fuels and eventually it could evolve into a system possible of generating its own energy as well as the energy demands throughout the world. Also, the hybrid batteries could possibly make it to the point where, with the aid of some other system, gain enough energy out of the process of braking to go much further distances. I'm still eager to see how a "feasible and affordable" diesel hybrid performs
Edit: Anyone know anything about Helium-3. I heard something about it being essential for nuclear fusion and the surface of the moon being made up of it (I know, sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie). Anyway, I hear there is an actual push to looking into the moon as the next source of energy. The more you think about it, the more similarities you can spot between a virus and a human; continuing to destroy everything as they try to reproduce and multiply, ultimately contributing nothing but death and despair in their habitat.
That is my proposal earlier in the thread, too. Lots of nuclear power, for everyone. And all electric cars. We will risk a few more TMI and Chernobyls, but avoid more wars for control of oil. Any news on a re-introduction of those RAV4 EV's?
If you're 5 yards from the intersection when the yellow light comes on, you do not slam your brakes on and smoke the tires trying to stop.
And that's the problem with red-light cameras and shortened yellow light times. One can no longer safely stop without endangering the vehicles behind you, as panic-braking becomes the only method of stopping in time.
Frankly, those camera's are everywhere in Columbia, MD. And because of the threat of red-light camera tickets, I'm thinking about simply braking whenever I see a yellow light, regardless. If I have to smoke the tires and stop in the middle of the intersection to stop, well... so be it. That's what the city wants.
Since... if the city wanted the driver's to exercise their judgement, then the red light camera's would not send tickets to those that simply can't stop in time. But they don't. They send tickets to ALL who don't stop. Ergo, the city now has now assumed responsibility for the actions of the driver's in this situation... as they have criminalized all but one option, the braking option.
I hazard that after a few accident lawsuits, the red-light cameras would come down, as the liability costs would exceed the revenue generated.
(D*mn shame that people's lives have to be risked before the city will act responsibly, though)
But consider this. Most alternative fuels are new technologies or more expensive than historical prices of oil. Also, the reason we are looking into them so intently is because they have suddenly become a profitable venture with the price of oil at the current levels.
But... it only costs OPEC $5/barrel to pump the crude out of the ground and into a tanker.
And, historically, the last time we looked seriously into alternative fuels, OPEC squashed the idea by flooding the marketplace with oil, oil that was now much cheaper than any of the alternative fuels.
As a result, those that tested the waters of alternative fuels went bankrupt. Which is why investers and companies are so slow to consider alternative fuels, as they don't want to be holding the bag should OPEC flood the market again.
---
Considering all that, wouldn't it make more sense to institute a price floor for a barrel of oil? $65/barrel perhaps?
If the price of oil goes up beyond it, nothing happens. But if the price of oil suddenly drops, then the difference becomes the tax necessary to boost the cost to $65/barrel.
And when the price of oil is guaranteed to exceed the cost of the alternatives, then companies won't have to worry about the possible risk of an OPEC oil-flood and the resultant bankruptcies.
It'd take away the most powerful weapon OPEC has in the oil industry. IE - the ability to reduce prices to such a level that other players are pushed out of the market.
Just a thought.
I would also like to add that if you are so paranoid to slam on the brakes the instant the light turns yellow any accident is your fault not the city.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So, I guess that's not TOO bad, for a 70's hulk. Oh, and while I was up there I discovered that my car was originally built for California or some high-altitude area, because it had once had a smog pump attached to it. I discovered it when another LeMans owner, who had a '77 with a 301, noticed this funky looking tube on mine. I thought it was part of the air conditioning, but it turns out it was a primitive version of those tubes that inject air into the exhaust manifold, to help out the catastrophic converter. The pump itself was no longer there. But I guess that might explain why this car seems kinda slow, for having a 350...it was originally a California smogger special! :sick:
I've heard that on some cars, if you take the smog pump off, it will do more harm than good. But on something like a '76 LeMans, I'm wondering if the thing was enough of an afterthought/kludge device that removing it really wouldn't hurt anything. Or would I be better off putting a smog pump back on, since it was originally equipped that way?
My '75 Corolla had a smog pump. So they go at least that far back. '75 was the first year of smog standards for California vehicles.
And 15.3? Not so great considering the '85 Silverado would probably have done better, but I guess it's not so bad given the age and original spec of the LeMans, eh?!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, I also have to confess that I wasn't driving the LeMans as gently as I had originally planned.
That time I got 16 mpg out of my truck, I was really babying it. Mainly keeping the speed around 55-65, with occasional bursts to 70, and accelerating as slowly as reasonably safe. Well, the on-ramps to the Pennsylvania highways aren't nearly as generous as those in Maryland. And while the slogans may say "You've got a Friend in Pennsylvania", when you try to merge onto those highways, especially thoughtful merges that bring you in at the LEFT lane, well, those friends are nowhere to be found!
If I had been driving the truck, I imagine I would've sunk its mpg to about 13. 14 at best. Up over 65 mph or so, the 4-bbl tends to kick in, and while I doubt if the LeMans has a lower coefficient of drag, it certainly has less frontal area.
If I had driven my uncle's Corolla, I imagine I would've seen around 33-34 mpg on that trip. But I don't think it would've gone over too well, trying to put it on the show field at an all-GM event! :surprise: Although I guess if my uncle bought a Vibe, I could've gotten away with it.
California required it beginning in (I think) 1966, and everyone else got them after the Clean Air Act. GM called theirs an Air Injection Reactor. Main thing to do when pulling that junk off is to plug the holes, reset the timing, and put in the regular sparkplugs.
Yeah, I think both the Silverado and the Tahoe had that cylinder deactivation, or whatever the marketing term is for it these days. Didn't that lady say that it comes standard on the 5.3 V-8 these days? It was a nice truck, although if I get a new truck, it'll just be a fairly basic model with a regular cab and 8-foot bed. I'm not spending $30-40K for something to haul junk to the dump, get stuck out in the yard when the ground is softer than I think it is, etc.
Just out of curiosity, did you check the fuel economy on your Brougham on that trip? I think the '89 Brougham with the 307 is rated around 17/24, which is actually quite reasonable for something that size, and carbureted to boot. Oh, BTW, you took first place in your class.
Wow! I didn't expect to win anything two years in a row let alone a first place this time!
Lemko, did you fill your tank up when you got back home, or are you just going by the gas gauge? Unless you know that gas gauge to be dead-on accurate, you might want to fill up, and see how much it actually takes to fill up the car, and use that number to divide.
I was at around 227 miles when I filled up Sunday morning. My LeMans's tank holds 21 gallons. It only took about 14.7 fo fill back up, which means I still had about 1/3 of a tank, but the needle was almost down to E. I wonder if 70's cars did that to scare you into filling up more often than you really needed to?
My Intrepid has a 17 gallon tank, and a low-fuel warning light. The warning light usually comes on when there's about 4 gallons left, and by that time the needle is showing about 1/8 of a tank left.
I guess it's a good thing though, that they start warning you well in advance, especially if you're out in some desolate area where service stations are few and far between. I remember going through one stretch of Wyoming back in 1995, where it was about 69 miles between gas stations. And out there, I guess if you're driving through at night, you take the chance that they might not be open 24/7.
Pshaw! Only 69 miles? There is a stretch of I-70 in Utah where it's 107 miles between services. I know, because I just did that drive a couple of weeks ago in a '92 Subaru Legacy.
Averaged about 31-32 MPG for 1100 miles .. 75 MPH for the most part, except where there was either traffic or construction. Highest I paid for gas was in Richfield, UT. $3.36/gal. Found that gas in Nevada and California was about the same price as gas in Colorado.
Never figured that one out :confuse: