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
Strange but true. For much of 2007, a company wanted to put in a 'wind farm' here in Montana. Certain groups of "environmentalists" fought it. The company tried to compromise by reducing the number of windmills by almost half. They were still met with conflict so the fall of 2007, they pulled out and took their project to California. One of the main arguments was that the windmills didn't 'look good' and "wrecked the look of the environment". I guess a coal-fired electric plant looks better.
The same environmentalist speculate there are a lot of bird deaths, but then say that bird death numbers are still being studied. It will be interesting to see if the numbers differ depending on which side backs the studies. It would be nice to know the facts, though. Still, one would think the number of bird strikes would be minimal and, overall, cause less detrimental wildlife impact than building another pollution spewing coal-fired plant.
There are over 100 planned coal-fired electric plants on the drawing board in the United States and if other energy sources are not created, they will be built (actually, they probably will be built anyway because of the energy demands of our country's populous). If people are concerned about pollution from vehicles, they should read into the coal-fired power plants for a real wake-up call on mass-pollution. Without wind farms and other cleaner power-generating solution, the "environmentalists" that block these projects are ensuring a much dirtier form of power generation will be used...which is a shame.
Cutting personal use, whether that is electricity or gas, is the easiest and best solution. However, even if everyone does their part and conserves, that will likely only stop the demand increase and get the country to break even for a while, then it will continue to go up again. I didn't explain that well, but the point being, we need alternative energy sources and blocking their creation, because they are not "perfect", will never get us anywhere. Perhaps some birds die from the windfarms, but how many die when an entire marsh-nesting colony disappears because their habitat dried up due to environmental factors of using coal, etc. rather than wind, solar, etc.? Folks need to consider the big, long-term picture rather than have a knee-jerk reaction to specific details.
Scott
Scott
Benefits:
The potential is HUGE, possibly as big or bigger than S Arabia
The tar sands are relatively easy to get at.
The region of the world is politically stable.
Restrictions:
The site becomes a huge strip mine covering millions of acres.
It is very very energy-intensive to dig up ( huge crawlers ) and carry away ( huge carriers ) and then process to remove the sand ( huge cleaning factilities ).
The source of the cleaning water is the Athabasca River. How much of it can be diverted to clean the oil from the sand without disrupting its flow and everything down stream?
It's very labor intensive and one of the big barriers now is lack of labor.
We got 20 million illegals we can send up. When we were in Victoria BC there were big ads in the local paper looking for people to go work in Alberta. Good pay and benefits to go along with HIGH TAXES.
Escalating costs (steel, natural gas...)
Labor shortages
Tax increases (Alberta Gov.)
Carbon/climate-change laws
Several projects/expansions have been delayed or canceled as companies evaluate the impact of the royalty/tax changes. Alaska also upped its tax rate to 25% from 22.5%. Colorado is also looking at higher oil taxes. Expect more project delays and higher prices down the road.
"The source of the cleaning water is the Athabasca River. How much of it can be diverted to clean the oil from the sand without disrupting its flow and everything down stream? "
I think the consensus is that during low flow conditions in the winter the river will not meet the water needs of all projected projects. Oil companies are looking at process improvements and water recycling to fill the gap.
Scott
I know it worked for me when I went to Alaska in 1970.
I am very pleased to have two relatively fuel efficient 4 cylinder cars: a 2003 Toyota Camry XLE, and a 2005 Subaru Outback Limited.
I cringed at the fuel bill for the guy filling up beside me this morning...a 2-3 year old Ford Expedition.
Doug
Yeah, I imagine that must be pretty painful. Heck, I cringed on Saturday when I watched my '79 New Yorker gulp down about 18.4 gallons of $3.259 premium fuel, for a total fuel bill of around $60.10. $4.40 per gallon would've put me up over eighty bucks! :surprise:
Doug
Scott
nah, I'm not masochistic enough to consider something like that as "fun" :surprise: I'm just thankful I don't have a very long commute, just 3.5 miles from home to work. Still, I managed to put about 70 miles on that car between filling it up on Saturday and today.
Now as a retired grandfather with 6 grandchildren, sanity prevails. But I can still dream!
Doug
:-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
About 3 years ago, I bought that car's little brother, a '76 Grand LeMans with a Pontiac 350-4bbl. It actually gets slightly better economy than my New Yorker...I bet I could break 16 mpg on the highway if I took it easy. :shades: But it's also in really good shape, and about as rust-free as a mid-70's car can be, so I don't want to rag it out. And it pretty much stays off the streets in the wintertime.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As Others See Us
Wallpaper* also said "America's first two major auto shows of 2008 gave off a confused message. Are we still living in the era of the traditional gas-guzzling V8? Or is a new era of hybrid and electric cars poised to take over?"
The public has already begun to make the move toward more fuel efficient vehicles. It's just that the vehicle makers don't want to publicize it for fear of creating a stampede away from their most profitable units. We will never see in any of GM's press releases that 'We have noticed a loss of 600,000 large vehicles in our recent years sales. We expect this trend to accelerate as fuel increases.'
But they aren't dumb. They will reorient and offer newer more efficient vehicles while slowly letting the dinosaurs go to rest in due course.
also - they make it sound like folks are deciding between Hummers and Priuses - biggest change will come from the shift down a size or two, not 10!
People buy them to display conspicuous consumption. They're a perverse status symbol: "Look at me, I can drive an SUV that gets 11 mpg, and I don't care that gas is $3."
This is one reason I hope gas just keeps going up -- get rid of the fools putting around in SUVs and RVs. I think $4 would be a deterrent ..... $5 gas would get rid of 'em all.
.
The same thing happens in the forums. People praise certain cars for getting high mileage and then in their next posts it's all about one car is better than others because it makes 300 hp and another brand only puts out 274 horsepower (although it may have more torque at lower speeds). It is the number that raises the testosterone level. The brands involved aren't important here; it's just that the cars that make 300 horsepower could probably be powered even better by a motor getting several more miles per gallon.
And in the next post someone is talking about bigger and better than another car that they don't like and if we don't want the bigger and better car we're not being competitive enough.
Then we have companies building the pick-em-up trucks. If someone needs a pickup for their job, more power to them. But 99% of the pickups and large SUVs and small SUVs are driven by one person and noone else is in there.
The reviewers in some cases praise the higher horsepower and large vehicles in places such as Edmunds and other magazine sites.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Based on a symposium organized recently by gagrice in San Diego.
I have a self-imposed project to gather and analyze the data from the 6 major sellers in this market that offer BOF vehicles. My cursory appraisal is that the midsized SUV is DOA across the board except for hardcore offroaders. Larger SUVs are being 'replaced' by crossovers or compact commuters. By 'replaced' I mean replaced in the buying cycle. I see a lot of people keeping their SUV, just in case, since it's paid off and has occasional utility in specific circumstances. However the daily driver now is more likely to be a hybrid or compact vehicle. The next purchase is not a replacement SUV it's a more efficient vehicle. This was not true during the 90s through 2005. The replacement purchase was likely to be a 'bigger and better' SUV or Crew Cab truck.
I think those people, by and large, are daydreamers. The Philly auto show is probably about the closest to a Hummer as most of those people will ever get. I imagine that they still have a lot of status in many people's minds, but in a far-off, unreachable sort of way.
Personally, I'd go crazy with something like that, having to deal with both a big monthly payment AND a big fuel bill. I can handle one or the other, which is why the bad fuel economy of my older cars doesn't bother me so much. A $1200 Silverado or $900 5th Ave or even a $3000 LeMans that gets 11 mpg doesn't seem like a big deal to me. But a $50-60K Hummer that gets 11 mpg would drive me crazy!
not only does it lessen the impact of rising gas prices, you have more time not commuting.
That might be a bit harsh. I do wish my SUV got as good mileage as my RV did. It was a Mercedes Sprinter and got great mileage. Most of the time close to 25 MPG. And it weighed in at over 8000 lbs. It was not quick 0-60 MPH. Which was fine with me. I could be happy with a Sequoia sized SUV with a 5 cylinder diesel that should get no less than 30 MPG on the hwy. Our government regulations force us to drive gas guzzling vehicles.
Why even at $5 plus per gallon I will keep an SUV. They are so much easier to get in and out of. They are safer, more comfortable riding and give much better visibility. I hate getting in and out of our Lexus. I went and sat in the CIvic & Accord hybrids. I felt cramped and vulnerable and my head touched the headliner. The only small vehicles I have felt comfortable getting in and out of are the VW New Beetle and Scion xB.
Saving less than $1000 per year on gas is not worth the pain and suffering on my back. At 65 I see no future in living dangerous and uncomfortable. I will leave that to you young folks.
Only if you use it to travel around.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
suv's were a better wagon. my wife swapped her celica for a bronco 2.
since i am a ford guy, the ford analogy would not have worked as well since the mustang never went away.
where i live the kid boom is on the way down, so wagon bodies are seen as less necessary to people who's kids have grown up.
i'm one of those that drives a small commuter and kept the suv for the kids to drive or when we need the passenger/cargo space.
You wish. $5/gal a gas wouldn't keep me from filling up my Suburban or boat and I wouldn't use them any less.
With that logic, Europe wouldn't have boaters or Rvr's and they have both.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
True, but I don't think the guy that has a $100k+ invested in a boat or RV is going to worry to much about $5/gal.
Unfortunately, that will keep middle class families from enjoying from camping and boating etc. It's pretty hard to beat the family entertainment and togetherness that RV/boating provides. No TV, no video games, just spending quality time on the weekends with my two young girls (5 & 9), that won't be at home forever.
My daughter's asked me last weekend when we were going to go camping and boating. I'll gladly give up cable and eating out before I'll give up our weekends camping & boating.
Invested? I think the word is "sunk." :-)
I have a tent and a canoe - the payback period for a good quality tent is about 3 nights in a motel. Or 3 RV fill ups. RVs are great though - otherwise all those campers would be getting further off the freeway and would be finding all my secret little Forest Service road free camping spots.
My sailing buddy is buying into a 30' boat so they can share expenses 50/50. Of course, it's docked ~400 miles away.
I know you are not stuck by a TV. Too many Americans are. Dieselone is doing what should be done by taking the kids away from all the electronic crap. Besides it is hard to ski behind a canoe. There are too many people that would shove us all in an urban apartment with a TV and couch. Force us to ride a stinking bus to work. And claim it is for the betterment of man. I just disagree with that sick notion.
Tent camping at some of the national parks in California in summer is one of the more pleasant ways I have ever spent my time, and my nieces enjoy it a TON when we all go, too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But it doesn't cost $4 a gallon to mess around in a canoe, kayak or Sunfish. Depending on how long your shuttle is anyway.
Geeze, sounds like a good portion of my young life! Well, at least I'd be more accustomed to it than most if I had to go back to it.
Once again, you have shown that your attitudes do not adjust with the times.
That statement MIGHT have been true in 2004-2005, but not today. Not with 15 hybrid models available. I'm far from rich, and my cubemate who has owned 5 hybrids plus leased an EV1 is not rich.
Hybrids are available from $22K. That's $6K less than the average new car price.
Update your thinking my man.
Absolutely true. This is not just true here, but certainly in houses and real estate. And this has been true thru the history of mankind, and is not unique to automobiles or our U.S. society.
And in reality this difference in annual fuel costs is still fairly small. My brother's family has a Suburban and a full-size van and they really don't worry about gasoline, compared to worrying about putting their 5 kids thru college. And gasoline is a relatively small cost compared to buying health insurance or paying your taxes.
Hybrid Study
Notice that 29% of respondents earned less than 100K.
“Our study also captured the front end of the third wave, consumers who are buying a hybrid just because it’s a better financial option,” said Klein. Most of the respondents used longer periods of ownership and higher gas prices than usually used by journalists. As a result, the shoppers found hybrids to be a compelling financial transaction.
And from another study:
Many folks assume that the young, well educated and affluent are the ones willing to pay a premium for a hybrid car.
Autobytel, an automotive Web site, assumed just that and conducted a poll among consumers to prove it.
Oh, how reality differs from assumptions.
For example, most hybrid owners live on the West Coast, right? Californians, after all, are always passing legislation demanding that the air be pure and that smokers be chained to bedposts.
Yet only 16 percent of hybrid owners live on the West Coast versus 21 percent in the Midwest and 31 percent in the Northeast.
So Left Coasters fuss loud and long about clean air, yet East Coasters and Midwesterners put their money on the counter.
You'd also assume youth would be attracted to the gas/electric vehicles because they are easily persuaded to join a cause as early adapters, but more important, because they are going to need to breathe a lot longer than older folks.
Indeed, 43 percent of owners are younger than 45. But that means 57 percent are older than 45. Breathing, it seems, remains an issue at any age.
Autobytel also found that while 24.5 percent of hybrid owners have a college degree, 48.5 percent don't. That shoots down the theory that those most concerned with breathing smooth, not chunky, air are highly educated.
Finally, you'd expect those willing to pay premiums for hybrids would be folks with deep pockets. Yet the majority of hybrid owners/shoppers have a household income of less than $60,000, with 35 percent making less than $40,000.
Among other findings, about the same number of males and females own hybrids, same as with gas-driven cars; and 42 percent are ethnic minorities, with African-Americans at 12 percent, Hispanics at 11 percent and Asian-Americans at 10 percent.
For what it's worth, the poll found more Republicans (40 percent) than Democrats (36 percent) have a hybrid--or soon will.
So the ORIGINAL wave of hybrid buyers were high falluters. But the third generation is a different group of people.