Gas Prices!!!

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by Franko914

A USGS estimate gives 50 years at current consumption for 1 trillion barrels world reserves; extrapolated with projected increases (mainly China, India and growing/emerging third world economies) is closer to 35 - 38 years. These are for "known" reserves with conservative (low) estimated figures. We are still far from exhausting the world's petroleum reserves.

but its not total reserves we're talking about. if we go on total reserves, we've only used about half the worlds oil. its running out of the cheap, easily accesable oil thats a problem. production can only keep up with demand for so long.

Originally Posted by Franko914

The US government, and I don't mean the Administration but rather the Upper and Lower Houses, are going to do squat until the American people say they have to. The availability of cheap oil will not drive the people or the government to seek alternative fuel sources until the people finally stop and refuse to pay "X" dollars for a gallon of gasoline.

thinking the government somehow acts only on the whim of the people is absurdly niave. our government passes all kinds of laws and regulations without consulting the people on whether or not they think anything should be done about it. people arent just going to stop buying gasoline all of a sudden. i remember when people thought 1.50 was expensive. now, 1.90 is cheap. are budgets will just continue to adjust themselves to feed our addiction to oil.

Originally Posted by Franko914

Why risk polluting this beautiful country for hundreds of thousands to millions of years with radioactive waste? Buy and burn the cheap oil from overseas. When that supply is exhausted, buy and burn the cheap coal from overseas. When that supply is exhausted, start burning the local oil and local coal (or their derivatives). Other countries rely heavily on nuclear power because they have no choice, relatively speaking -- the US has choices.

oh man. nuclear energy is so much cleaner than it used to be. cleaner, in fact, than burning oil and coal. and yes, we have choices. but the problem is, those choices are quickly disapearing. we also have another choice. develop alternative sources of energy quickly.

Originally Posted by Franko914

The need to fuel faster, more powerful, cleaner, etc. "better" modes of transportation gave birth to the development of "alternative fuels" (diesel/gasoline) to fuel replacements of wood-fired or coal-fired steam engines. If there are no new needs perceived, there will be no new developments.

new needs are percieved. im telling you of one right now. cheap oil is not going to exist much longer. period. we NEED a new source of power.

Originally Posted by Franko914

It's more the American Way of Life that most people do not want to change. The government's responsibility is to protect that way of life. It's the people's responsibility to define what changes to make to that way of life. The majority of the people do not need or want any f*cking government to think for them, proven by the last presidential elections. It's up to us to make changes to our way of life before any government will follow our wishes -- not the other way around... this is the USA.

despite what you wish to believe the bush government does quite a bit of thinking for the american people...but we're avoiding that right now. the fact is this. the american way of life will change, whether we want it to or not. now, that change can come slow and easy as we integrate alternative fuels into our lives over a long course of time, or it can come fast and harsh, as all of a sudden we're thrust into a situation where we simply cannot afford to continue living like we do. and your right, no government should force people to change, but no responsable government should allow their country to continue on a path of self destruction either.

Originally Posted by Franko914

Freedom of choice, a.k.a. Freedom of Speech from many perspectives. I'll need 10 Priuses strapped together to pull a 6000 lb boat/trailer (although there'll be plenty of room to seat my wife and three kids). Hence, I chose a 4x4 Tahoe with a diesel engine that gives me 22 mpg on the highway. Better than a Prius' fuel consumption? You betcha! (and I can still go off-road and drive through 2 feet of snow).

you made a good choice. deisel engines get ridiculously good gas mileage for what they do. and it sounds like you actually use your SUV for more than a fashion statement. you are a rarity.

Originally Posted by Franko914

It's the American Way of Life and besides: Global warming is part of the Ice Age cycle -- we are still coming out of the last one. The last eruption of Mt. Pinatubo ejected more sulphur and "pollutants" into the atmosphere than the whole industrial revolution to-date. Scientists were mistaken in their theory that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning would radically increase the greenhouse effect -- "Oh, how about that, the ocean absorbed more than half of the carbon that was missing from our estimates... it must have done that before..."

so here we go, one more person clamering about how global warming is a farce, volcanoes pollute, and scientists were wrong about CO2. ive heard this before, its the standard republican party line. *yawn* explain away rainforest depletion, the impact of urban sprawl on natural ecosystems, the role of unnatural high and lower pressure systems on the change of weather patterns...etc.

Originally Posted by Franko914

Not until there's a need for it. I lost 15% of my investment in hydrogen fuel cell technology development a few years back -- pulled out, bought Marvel ("MVL"as in Spiderman) and more than quadrupled it before selling. Yep, paid taxes on them -- that's the American Way of Life.

thats a harsh hit on hydrogen cell research. sorry to hear that, but its good to hear marvel is doing well.

[CountDrac]

Originally Posted by Raz_Kaz

Dude, I was in the Netherlands and everyone biked everywhere. The bikes have their own lights and shit. I agree wth lazysmurff, you don't need a car in Europe seeing as how everywhere is more easily accessible in public transportation.

That's true to an extend. It's a 41 mile drive to work, that costs me about 1 hour, if I take public transport it will take 2,5 hours due to bad connections and such.
If I lived closer to my work the only thing I would need a car for would be transportation of my children and the occasional trip to IKEA (damn those swedes and their ugly furniture!).

[Steel]

Hydrogen is a waste of time, i don't know why people cling to trying to make it practical, because it never will be.

The problem with alternative fuels is that theres still plenty of oil left in the world. So much so that if company Y were to really hunker down on alternative fuels and offer cars powered by (whatever), then all the petroleum companies would just let their prices drop like a rock so that it's the far cheaper option - people will continue to buy oil, and company Y will go bankrupt or ExxonMobil will buy them and all of the rights to their product.

IMO, if people really want to get off of foreign dino oil, the next best thing is BIODIESEL. We all know that diesel engines are great transport (its torque that carts your fat ass around, not horsepower) and stupendously good on fuel. Just look at any of the modern VW diesels. Conservative driving on the highway yeilds ~50-55 MPG. For those people who are trying as hard as they can to get the best gas mileage, i've seen some hit 61-62 MPG. But most people would probably see around 45-50 MPG on the highway, and 35-40 in the city. I don't want to hear any BS about how diesel is dirtier and worse for the envoronment and health (you listening up, Society of Concerned but stupid Scientists?) because its really not with todays technologies (particualte filters, direct injection, biodeisel fuel). As a matter of fact, researchers are just finding out NOW that gasoline engines emit particulates, except they are an order of magnitude smaller than diesel particualtes, which means they're a lot worse for you in the long run. Gee.. who'da thunk.

Nuclear power is great! I think though that we as a world should put a lot more effort into making a practical and productive nuclear FUSION reactor. Thereby, we get lots more power per pound of (whatever) we fuse, and there's hardly any highly radioactive material left over. If we could get one to work, this country would need only a few to power everything electrical needed. The biggest problem would be power loss over long transmission lines.

so uh.. i forgot my original point by now. But yeah.

[Knifeblade]

Solar, hydro, geothermal, wind, tidal, all natural.

Prob. is the tech. to make them $$$$ feasible, to lessen the oil-load on anything outside of internal combust machines.

So, Lazy does have one good point, in that the oil barons would likely drop their prices to stay in biz, if an alternate was feasible.

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by Steel

Hydrogen is a waste of time, i don't know why people cling to trying to make it practical, because it never will be.

Originally Posted by Steel

The problem with alternative fuels is that theres still plenty of oil left in the world. So much so that if company Y were to really hunker down on alternative fuels and offer cars powered by (whatever), then all the petroleum companies would just let their prices drop like a rock so that it's the far cheaper option - people will continue to buy oil, and company Y will go bankrupt or ExxonMobil will buy them and all of the rights to their product.

have you read anything thats been typed, or did you just jump in without bothering to go over what people have already said? yes, we've only used 50% of the worlds oil. the problem is we've used the cheap and easy to get to 50%. we're not running out of oil. we're running out of the stuff thats cheap enough to run a society on. and if a cheap, viable alternative we're to come around, your right, oil companies would have to drop their prices, but they wouldnt be able to by too much. read this next part very carefully there is a limited amount of cheap oil left on this planet. when supply decreases, prices go up. while demand will drop with an alternative being produced...the supply of cheap oil will not all of a sudden go up.

Originally Posted by steel

if people really want to get off of foreign dino oil, the next best thing is BIODIESEL.

biodiesel is pretty badass, but yet again, its another alternative fuel pased in and powered by cheap oil. you people arent paying attention. this problem is alot more pervasive than what powers our cars. it has to do with what powers our society.

Originally Posted by Steel

Nuclear power is great! I think though that we as a world should put a lot more effort into making a practical and productive nuclear FUSION reactor. Thereby, we get lots more power per pound of (whatever) we fuse, and there's hardly any highly radioactive material left over. If we could get one to work, this country would need only a few to power everything electrical needed. The biggest problem would be power loss over long transmission lines.

fission or fusion..it needs to happen. fission is fast becoming cleaner and safer than it ever has been. we need to go ahead and embrace that as our future.

Originally Posted by knifeblade_03

So, Lazy does have one good point, in that the oil barons would likely drop their prices to stay in biz, if an alternate was feasible.

that was steel. not me. and i like to think i have more than one good point.

[T4 Primera]

Just to add to lazysmurf's comments.

1. At some point, it takes more energy to get the oil out of the ground than is worthwhile.

2. Solar cells currently need more energy to manufacture than they will ever produce in their lifespans.

3. During the age of oil, agriculture moved from being human and animal powered and became mechanised. People no longer needed to be employed in agriculture hence the urban migration.

If the supply of cheap energy declines, forget worrying about how you'll get around - you'll be too busy trying to find something to eat.

There is currently one country that has survived this crisis of lost energy supply causing food shortages. That country endured some considerable hardship but they made it.

The Example of Cuba
How we might do that is suggested by perhaps the best recent historical example of a society experiencing a fossil-fuel famine. In the late 1980s, farmers in Cuba were highly reliant on cheap fuels and petrochemicals imported from the Soviet Union, using more agrochemicals per acre than their American counterparts. In 1990, as the Soviet empire collapsed, Cuba lost those imports and faced an agricultural crisis. The population lost 20 pounds on average and malnutrition was nearly universal, especially among young children. The Cuban GDP fell by 85 percent and inhabitants of the island nation experienced a substantial decline in their material standard of living.

Cuban authorities responded by breaking up large state-owned farms, offering land to farming families, and encouraging the formation of small agricultural co-ops. Cuban farmers began employing oxen as a replacement for the tractors they could no longer afford to fuel. Cuban scientists began investigating biological methods of pest control and soil fertility enhancement. The government sponsored widespread education in organic food production, and the Cuban people adopted a mostly vegetarian diet out of necessity. Salaries for agricultural workers were raised, in many cases to above the levels of urban office workers. Urban gardens were encouraged in parking lots and on public lands, and thousands of rooftop gardens appeared. Small food animals such as chickens and rabbits began to be raised on rooftops as well.

As a result of these efforts, Cuba was able to avoid what might otherwise have been a severe famine. Today the nation is changing from an industrial to an agrarian society. While energy use in Cuba is now one-twentieth of that in the US, the economy is growing at a slow but steady rate. Food production has returned to 90 percent of its pre-crisis levels.

source: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre..._stories.shtml

[speeddemonGtV6]

im paying 2.37 here in New Hampshire for gas, the highest ive seen is 3.01

[Knifeblade]

Let Mickey D's waste french-fry oil fuel the ride. Some school buses are using this veggie oil in a mix to run their engines. I don't know all the details, just saw it on CNN. Sort of a bio-diesel formula [at least that seems the term being used to describe it].

Gotta love french fries!!!!

[lazysmurff]

and to think, people willingly ingest that shit. ugh

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

but its not total reserves we're talking about. if we go on total reserves, we've only used about half the worlds oil. its running out of the cheap, easily accesable oil thats a problem. production can only keep up with demand for so long.

If it's in the ground, difficult or not to get at, it's "reserves" and out of the ground volumes are insignificant in comparison anyway.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

thinking the government somehow acts only on the whim of the people is absurdly niave. our government passes all kinds of laws and regulations without consulting the people on whether or not they think anything should be done about it.

It works like this for the ones who can think for themselves: you vote for the politicians who will push for legislation that you believe in and support because you have made it clear to them that their platform is what you want the future to be. After they are voted into office, they can still be contacted for follow up on issues that were promised, agreed upon or implied ("keep going and you'll be reelected" or "pull back or we won't vote for you again"). In rare cases, a recall may be in order.

It works like this for the ones who cannot think for themselves: you vote for the politicians you are told to vote for.

Clearly, the latter are more ignorant, voluntarily or involuntarily, about the processes involved because they cannot or are not allowed to think for themselves. Therefore, "absurdly naive" applies directly to this group.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

<snip>oh man. nuclear energy is so much cleaner than it used to be.

Last time I checked, the half-lives for radioactive material used in nuclear power generation remains unchanged. Nuclear waste disposal technology needs to be further developed -- this is where alternative energy source development should be more focused so that conversion of energy from nuclear power generation for general use can proceed with less reservation and hindrance.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

despite what you wish to believe the bush government does quite a bit of thinking for the american people...but we're avoiding that right now.

We voted for him and he's doing what we want him to do. The only thinking he's doing is for the people who cannot think for themselves.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

the fact is this. the american way of life will change, whether we want it to or not. now, that change can come slow and easy as we integrate alternative fuels into our lives over a long course of time, or it can come fast and harsh, as all of a sudden we're thrust into a situation where we simply cannot afford to continue living like we do.

We will change when we're ready to and we, the people, will have a say in that.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

and your right, no government should force people to change, but no responsable government should allow their country to continue on a path of self destruction either.

If you bunch the Clinton administration into that implication, I would tend to agree with you, but since it reeks more of bi-partisan rhetoric, it is more easily rejected as such.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

you made a good choice. deisel engines get ridiculously good gas mileage for what they do. and it sounds like you actually use your SUV for more than a fashion statement. you are a rarity.

Oh, it IS a fashion statement. And even if I use it differently, it is still MY choice. People are allowed to choose -- it's their right.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

so here we go, one more person clamering about how global warming is a farce, volcanoes pollute, and scientists were wrong about CO2. ive heard this before, its the standard republican party line.

As difficult as it sounds for the "chicken littles" of the world, it is true and no posturing or rhetoric will change the truth: volcanoes are horrible polluters and scientists continue to be wrong about "greenhouse gases." Here's another one they're wrong about: CFCs and the ozone hole. China and India are worse polluters than the US ever was and the hole continues to shrink.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

*yawn* explain away rainforest depletion,

Chainsaws and bulldozers, the bulk of which is occurring in South America. Results of logging and urban sprawl, not burning of fossil fuels, specifically, oil. Perhaps, your yawn is more related to your question...

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

the impact of urban sprawl on natural ecosystems,

Has nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels, specifically, oil. Has more to do with growing populations. *yawn* (my turn)

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

the role of unnatural high and lower pressure systems on the change of weather patterns...etc.

Weather patterns are never identical regardless of whose almanac you're reading. Temperature and rainfall averages are exactly that: averages. We start recording these readings over 150 years and conclude that the sky is falling...

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

thats a harsh hit on hydrogen cell research. sorry to hear that, but its good to hear marvel is doing well.

The public-at-large still perceives sources for alternative fuels as a "no need right now" situation. THAT is the real world for most people today. Almost doubled on SIRI (Siruis Satellite), i.e., alternative source for music.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by Knifeblade_03

Let Mickey D's waste french-fry oil fuel the ride. Some school buses are using this veggie oil in a mix to run their engines. I don't know all the details, just saw it on CNN. Sort of a bio-diesel formula [at least that seems the term being used to describe it].

Gotta love french fries!!!!

Burns MUCH cleaner than petroleum distillate although it has about 10% less energy content.

When a working diesel engine was displayed in the 1900 World's Fair in Paris, it ran on peanut oil.

Diesel fuel, fossil-fuel derived, or as bio-diesel, is a near-term solution for conserving the world's oil reserves.

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by Franko914

If it's in the ground, difficult or not to get at, it's "reserves" and out of the ground volumes are insignificant in comparison anyway.

you have totally missed the point.

Originally Posted by Franko914

It works like this for the ones who can think for themselves: you vote for the politicians who will push for legislation that you believe in and support because you have made it clear to them that their platform is what you want the future to be.

and they say liberals are idealists. geez. you cannot honestly think this is how it truly works. please, for the love of god, tell me you dont. politicians push whatever agenda will keep them in power, and keep the money rolling in. while there are still a few good wo/men in DC, the fact remains that politicians care very little for the people that voted for them, but rather serve the businesses and special interest groups that fund their campaigns.

Originally Posted by Franko914

Last time I checked, the half-lives for radioactive material used in nuclear power generation remains unchanged. Nuclear waste disposal technology needs to be further developed -- this is where alternative energy source development should be more focused so that conversion of energy from nuclear power generation for general use can proceed with less reservation and hindrance.

Originally Posted by Franko914

We voted for him and he's doing what we want him to do. The only thinking he's doing is for the people who cannot think for themselves.

if be "we" you mean barely 51% of the voting population, then yea. for those of us that didnt vote for him, i disagree. his administration is doing things i wholeheartedly disagree with, and trying to create (and creating) public policy that is destroying my freedom of choice. but i said we would avoid this, so we are.

Originally Posted by Franko914

We will change when we're ready to and we, the people, will have a say in that.

we will change either when we are ready to, or are forced to. the fact of the matter is, people are so ignorant of the situation that we will be forced to long before we choose to. we cannot choose when the oil peak will happen, but we can do everything in our power to soften the impact that it has on our society. denying the problem will not make it go away.

Originally Posted by Franko914

If you bunch the Clinton administration into that implication, I would tend to agree with you, but since it reeks more of bi-partisan rhetoric, it is more easily rejected as such.

i bunch every administration since washington in that statement. there no partisan rhetoric here. i hate party politics.

Originally Posted by Franko914

Oh, it IS a fashion statement. And even if I use it differently, it is still MY choice. People are allowed to choose -- it's their right.

people are allowed to choose, but they should make informed decisions. and the fact of he matter is, they arent being informed. "well, we cant afford gas and our society crumbled because we didnt choose to pay attention to oil supply, but at least we still have our damn hummers."

Originally Posted by Franko914

As difficult as it sounds for the "chicken littles" of the world, it is true and no posturing or rhetoric will change the truth: volcanoes are horrible polluters and scientists continue to be wrong about "greenhouse gases." Here's another one they're wrong about: CFCs and the ozone hole. China and India are worse polluters than the US ever was and the hole continues to shrink.

look, im no chicken litte. global warming is a fact of history, not pollution. and your right, volcanoes are bad polluters, but that doesnt mean we should keep helping them. this "someone else does it worse" attitude is absurd and childish. just because someone else does it worse, doesnt mean we cant strive to do better.

Originally Posted by Franko914

Chainsaws and bulldozers, the bulk of which is occurring in South America. Results of logging and urban sprawl, not burning of fossil fuels, specifically, oil. Perhaps, your yawn is more related to your question...

but urban sprawl is related to oil, if you cant see that, your missing the bigger picture here. urban sprawl is a result of a society that has such a cheap energy source as oil to get around, that building "out and not up" doesnt matter. being able to walk somewhere isnt important, cuz you can drive. and no, the yawn was for the typical "naysayers" rhetoric that you spewed about how wrong scientists are, and how volcanoes pollute worse than america. its old hat, time your favorite party to come up with a different line.

Originally Posted by Franko914

Weather patterns are never identical regardless of whose almanac you're reading. Temperature and rainfall averages are exactly that: averages. We start recording these readings over 150 years and conclude that the sky is falling...

you missed the point (its becoming a habit for you, i fear )big cities create artificial high and low pressure areas that artifically affect weather patterns and over the course of time could adversly affect the eco system (well, whats left of it) but we dont know for sure, cuz its only been a problem for a few hundred years.

Originally Posted by Franko914

The public-at-large still perceives sources for alternative fuels as a "no need right now" situation. THAT is the real world for most people today.

we, public perception and the facts of life are two different things. like ive been saying. percieving alternate energy sources as not necessary doesnt make them unneccesary, it makes us stupid and stubborn. a dangerous combination.

Originally Posted by Franko914

Almost doubled on SIRI (Siruis Satellite), i.e., alternative source for music.

lets hope it doesnt become the next cable. pay for it and you still have to listen to commercials. lame.

[-Davo]

Who else finds it convinient that an over-night price hike on the barrels is an over-night price hike at the pump?

Our government are double-taxing our fuel, if they removed even the lower tax that would make Australians happy.

[pnoiSR20]

Update on gas prices for 87 octane: $2.64