NationStates Jolt Archive

This is more of a gloating thread than a thread to complain. I now live in a two car family. Where as we used to own an SUV (a very nice Cadillac Escalade), we just bought a second car for the teenagers. It was a Honda Accord. Not only does it get a respectable 27 mpg on the highway, but it drives very well for being a four cylinder. It's got leather seats, XM sattelite radio, power windows, power locks, nice breaks, and doesn't drive bad. Oh, and it cost $20,000. Sounds incredulous, but I just think that the Japanese were always better car builders than anyone else, anyhow. And here I was figuring that I was stuck with a Chevy Cavelier. It costs just the same, but is much shittier. Very bad memories driving one.
Anyhow, the kicker is this: I had to refuel only once every month. I drive it more often, so that makes refueling more often. But even when I do refuel it, the gas bill looks very small.
The reason why I wrote this is to ponder a mystery. Despite rising gas prices, no one is driving less. I haven't notice any less traffic on the road, in fact, maybe more. The global economy is not slowing down, unlike during comparable gas prices in the seventies. I myself thought that gas prices would reach at least $5/gallon in the US for anyone to seriously change driving habits. And yet, here I am. I am changing my habits, even if it is for an unrelated reason. We actually had a choice of buying either the Accord or the Toyota RAV4, with still great mileage. It was the Accord, however, for it got better mileage.
Gas prices are surging. Oil hovers around $65. Wholesale gas is almost at $2. In my area alone, gas reached $2.70 a week ago, and may still get higher. I'm just wondering if anyone else has altered their lifestyles.
Note: I don't want this thread for the rest of the world to chide the US for its low gas prices. If anyone wants to do that, chide the SE Asian countries or Latin America. At least the US taxes gas. There, they actually subsidise it. Venezuela does that, along with being a big producer. Together, it creates prices that are incomprehensibly small.

Venezuela is going to build three new refineries.. we might as well just warm relations with Chavez again. I hate the guy, but whatever.

Get a toyota prius if you want superior gas mileage (45/62MPG).. it sells for around $20,000 I believe. Gas prices will moderate after labor day by the way, when demand falls.

Venezuela is going to build three new refineries.. we might as well just warm relations with Chavez again. I hate the guy, but whatever.

Get a toyota prius if you want superior gas mileage (45/62MPG).. it sells for around $20,000 I believe. Gas prices will moderate after labor day by the way, when demand falls.
A Prius is too small for my needs, and the waiting list is a mile long. Besides, don't forget that I live in Upstate NY. We have a hundred inches of snow every winter. It may not be reliable there. But I did want an Accord with a hybrid motor. It was, alas, deemed too expensive by everyone else. So, my entire family haggled and compromised. It's the most I could do.

I get about 38 MPG with a ten-year old Toyota Tercel, myself...but I have definitely altered MY driving habits. Now I only drive as little as possible, only when necessary. Pleasure trips are out. Because my church is 25 miles away, I often skip weeks now, instead of going every week, like I used to.

And I do not go over to Jersey for the weekends, anymore, like I used to. It sucks. I want to be able to have fun and do things I enjoy, and like doing, but I just can't afford the gas, anymore.

A Prius is too small for my needs, and the waiting list is a mile long. Besides, don't forget that I live in Upstate NY. We have a hundred inches of snow every winter. It may not be reliable there. But I did want an Accord with a hybrid motor. It was, alas, deemed too expensive by everyone else. So, my entire family haggled and compromised. It's the most I could do.

It didn't look too bad to me. Well let me say this, I think people have to start getting used to these prices. Being European, I can hardly say people shouldn't complain. My parents pay something like $6.50/gallon for their BMW 3 (325i 2006) in Italy.

I get about 38 MPG with a ten-year old Toyota Tercel, myself...but I have definitely altered MY driving habits. Now I only drive as little as possible, only when necessary. Pleasure trips are out. Because my church is 25 miles away, I often skip weeks now, instead of going every week, like I used to.

And I do not go over to Jersey for the weekends, anymore, like I used to. It sucks. I want to be able to have fun and do things I enjoy, and like doing, but I just can't afford the gas, anymore.
I'm surprised. I'd think 38 mpg would be grreat, but I guess its useless if the money isn't there. Anyhow, where are you from, exactly?

It didn't look too bad to me. Well let me say this, I think people have to start getting used to these prices. Being European, I can hardly say people shouldn't complain. My parents pay something like $6.90/gallon for their BMW 3 (325i 2006).
It's higher elsewhere. In Barbados, where I just vacationed in, it's $10/gal. Uterly insane.

It's higher elsewhere. In Barbados, where I just vacationed in, it's $10/gal. Uterly insane.

In Barbados? How is that possible when Venezuela is just a door step away?

Venezuela is planning construction of three new refineries. I think Chavez actually wants the US to trade with him.. because hell, he knows all the money is there.

Also keep in mind, I'm projecting further slumping in demand in China as the economy in China starts to slow. China is headed towards a huge array of problems, and fuel shortages is causing more unrest in the country.

In Barbados? How is that possible when Venezuela is just a door step away?
They may tax the hell out of it, but I also know that they never bothered to build a pipeline. It may be cheaper on other parts of the island, but for the most part, I was in Bridgetown.
Venezuela is planning construction of three new refineries. I think Chavez actually wants the US to trade with him.. because hell, he knows all the money is there.
Venezuela actually trails just Canada and Mexico as our biggest suppliers. And we are by far his biggest customer. Politics just doesn't matter with oil like it used to. Probably because the world needs so much of it is why.

They may tax the hell out of it, but I also know that they never bothered to build a pipeline. It may be cheaper on other parts of the island, but for the most part, I was in Bridgetown.

Price Gouging. Like my poor friend who got royally ripped off down in Mexico.. I know it was unbelieveably cheap in Mexico for gas.. but he really got a bad deal.

Venezuela actually trails just Canada and Mexico as our biggest suppliers. And we are by far his biggest customer. Politics just doesn't matter with oil like it used to. Probably because the world needs so much of it is why.

Canada has 2 trillion BTU in proven reserves. Ten times the amount of Saudi Arabia. They have oil sands that are now economical to go into because of improved technology.

Canada has 2 trillion BTU in proven reserves. Ten times the amount of Saudi Arabia. They have oil sands that are now economical to go into because of improved technology.
It has that much, but it's way more expensive to get oil there than just extracting it from the ground. Besides, it needs steam, and steam needs energy, so it's kinda self defeating. But the extraction process will undoubtedly improve as the market demands it.
There's also a future in rock oil. Found mostly in the Rockies, it's produced from heated rock, which excretes a waxy substance that can turn to oill. Again, expensive, but I bet it can happen. There may be trillions of barrels worth of that stuff. Imagine, the US dependent only on oil from Canada and the US West. But I guess that is sorta a pipe dream.
I find, however, that it is best not to speculate on energy's future. I've always been interested in energy policy, and looking at the technology for energy production, the choices are mind boggling. Will we use wind, solar, hydrogen, fossil fuels, or what? Probably a mix of them all, and more. But it boggles my mind just thinking about it.

It has that much, but it's way more expensive to get oil there than just extracting it from the ground. Besides, it needs steam, and steam needs energy, so it's kinda self defeating. But the extraction process will undoubtedly improve as the market demands it.
There's also a future in rock oil. Found mostly in the Rockies, it's produced from heated rock, which excretes a waxy substance that can turn to oill. Again, expensive, but I bet it can happen. There may be trillions of barrels worth of that stuff. Imagine, the US dependent only on oil from Canada and the US West. But I guess that is sorta a pipe dream.
I find, however, that it is best not to speculate on energy's future. I've always been interested in energy policy, and looking at the technology for energy production, the choices are mind boggling. Will we use wind, solar, hydrogen, fossil fuels, or what? Probably a mix of them all, and more. But it boggles my mind just thinking about it.

No. IT is not very expensive anymore. It is very much economical now and that is why various companies have invested billions into the extraction. If I remember information from the article I posted.. something like $15 billion dollars in the extraction technology. They have it. I have tried explaining this before on this forum, but the technology has already been developed and it is now plausible going into these oil sands.

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=041ec50b-3316-43d7-af88-894d14b8c787

"Oilsands production exceeded one million barrels a day this year, but that figure is expected to strike 2.7 million barrels daily by 2015. The United States, meanwhile, consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Cheney's visit is "recognition of the role Fort McMurray and northeast Alberta is going to be playing in the future supply of the United States and Canada," noted longtime oilpatch observer Ian Doig, of Doig's Digest.

A tour by Cheney, who visited Calgary during the World Petroleum Congress in 2000 before he became vice-president, was rumoured for months before Klein made his remarks. Officials in the premier's office would not release further details."

I've been reading about this a lot lately, and here's what I've learned.

Mesatecala--you're right on a lot of it, especially the oil sands bit. It's still a bit too expensive to yank that oil out compared to what the Saudis can pump it for, but it will be handy in the future. Thing is, though, it won't reduce the price of oil, simply because it will never be as efficient or as cheap as it is in Saudi Arabia--they'll basically have to run out first.

As far as Venezuela is concerned--they're not actually building the refineries. Their neighbor is--Uruguay. Washington is concerned about that for two reasons. One--Washington is Venezuela's largest customer because we're the only country who has readily available refineries that can handle the specific demands of Venezuelan oil, and that gives us some leverage--not much, but some.

The second reason Washington is concerned is because Hugo Chavez is regarded, and rightfully so, as a threat to the established relationship between the US and Latin America. Now some feel, as I do, that the relationship between the US and Latin America has been unhealthy for a long time, and so I applaud the fact that Chavez is telling the US to back off. It's been an exploitative relationship for as long as the US has been a nation and before. Chavez is encouraging other Latin American countries to stand up for themselves, and Washington is worried about this, since it would mean that if Uruguay can refine Venezuela's oil, and Uruguay stands up to the US and decides to sell it on the world market, the US could find itself facing even greater shortages.

I've been reading about this a lot lately, and here's what I've learned.

Mesatecala--you're right on a lot of it, especially the oil sands bit. It's still a bit too expensive to yank that oil out compared to what the Saudis can pump it for, but it will be handy in the future. Thing is, though, it won't reduce the price of oil, simply because it will never be as efficient or as cheap as it is in Saudi Arabia--they'll basically have to run out first.

Eh I don't really agree, because I feel the process is already refined enough for it to be cost effective and I do feel the price to decline slowly. That's because we will move away from oil. Our economy isn't as oil dependent as it was twenty or even ten years ago.

As far as Venezuela is concerned--they're not actually building the refineries. Their neighbor is--Uruguay. Washington is concerned about that for two reasons. One--Washington is Venezuela's largest customer because we're the only country who has readily available refineries that can handle the specific demands of Venezuelan oil, and that gives us some leverage--not much, but some.

Uruguay isn't their neighbor. The neighbors to Venezuela are Colombia (which relations are frigid), Brazil (maybe you were thinking about them) and Surinam...

Chavez is encouraging other Latin American countries to stand up for themselves, and Washington is worried about this, since it would mean that if Uruguay can refine Venezuela's oil, and Uruguay stands up to the US and decides to sell it on the world market, the US could find itself facing even greater shortages.

This is rhetoric I feel that is not accurate of the reality. And Uruguay? I'm thinking you mean Brazil. Neither Chavez or Lula or doing so well politically. The US isn't facing any shortages either (it never has as of late, last time it did was in the 1970s).

I'm surprised. I'd think 38 mpg would be grreat, but I guess its useless if the money isn't there. Anyhow, where are you from, exactly?

Foothills of the Pocono Mountains, in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

Try a Mitsubishi Colt, my dad owns one, I've seen it do 50mpg on the open road with my own eyes. It's not even a hybrid or anything.

I'm leaning towards the Honda Civic or the Volkswagen Golf. Both get more than 40mpg highway.

I've seen the price rise from $AU 1.00 per litre to $AU1.20 in a year where I live. Saying that, 50% is tax and the government are making lots of tax $$$ out of it too.

anyway

people need to drive to get to work eh? they cant skip days of work so you see them clogging the highways as usual

they are cutting spending in other areas. when they fill up, they dont get a cup of coffee and a doughnut for the road. they dont buy junk at the mall. they only buy stuff on sale.

so while all businesses costs are going up, other businesses can't raise the price of a CD in order to offset the higher shipping costs, people wont buy. the oil companies make money the rest of the economy pays for it.

Venezuela is going to build three new refineries.. we might as well just warm relations with Chavez again. I hate the guy, but whatever.

Get a toyota prius if you want superior gas mileage (45/62MPG).. it sells for around $20,000 I believe. Gas prices will moderate after labor day by the way, when demand falls.
Which begs the question..."Why can't the US build new refineries?". We could then import cheaper heavy crude and refine it ourselves. I think the answer is that the liberal ecology faction would rather see the economy in the US fail.

And I like to gloat because I own a Mercedes diesel that gets 35 MPG on fossil or biodiesel. All the luxury and all the mileage...

This is more of a gloating thread than a thread to complain. I now live in a two car family. Where as we used to own an SUV (a very nice Cadillac Escalade), we just bought a second car for the teenagers. It was a Honda Accord. Not only does it get a respectable 27 mpg on the highway, but it drives very well for being a four cylinder. It's got leather seats, XM sattelite radio, power windows, power locks, nice breaks, and doesn't drive bad. Oh, and it cost $20,000. Sounds incredulous, but I just think that the Japanese were always better car builders than anyone else, anyhow. And here I was figuring that I was stuck with a Chevy Cavelier. It costs just the same, but is much shittier. Very bad memories driving one.
Anyhow, the kicker is this: I had to refuel only once every month. I drive it more often, so that makes refueling more often. But even when I do refuel it, the gas bill looks very small.
The reason why I wrote this is to ponder a mystery. Despite rising gas prices, no one is driving less. I haven't notice any less traffic on the road, in fact, maybe more. The global economy is not slowing down, unlike during comparable gas prices in the seventies. I myself thought that gas prices would reach at least $5/gallon in the US for anyone to seriously change driving habits. And yet, here I am. I am changing my habits, even if it is for an unrelated reason. We actually had a choice of buying either the Accord or the Toyota RAV4, with still great mileage. It was the Accord, however, for it got better mileage.
Gas prices are surging. Oil hovers around $65. Wholesale gas is almost at $2. In my area alone, gas reached $2.70 a week ago, and may still get higher. I'm just wondering if anyone else has altered their lifestyles.
Note: I don't want this thread for the rest of the world to chide the US for its low gas prices. If anyone wants to do that, chide the SE Asian countries or Latin America. At least the US taxes gas. There, they actually subsidise it. Venezuela does that, along with being a big producer. Together, it creates prices that are incomprehensibly small.

I have a few thoughts on this issue:

a)If we in the United States started riding bikes to work and our kids started riding bikes to school (no school buses. lol), the House of Saud would implode.

b)High demand is the reason we're experiencing this price-gouging -- we drive as much as we always have, but with the onslaught of SUVs -- almost all of which (to my knowledge) get really crappy gas mileage -- the amount of fuel required to do the same amount of driving is greater than ever. If people all traded in their SUVs for Honda Accords and Ford Tauruses and Toyota Camrys (etc.) tomorrow (all of which get decent mid-20s miles-per-gallon gas mileage) , the very next day the price of gas would begin to drop.

c)Assuming the obstinance of SUV owners/drivers and/or the price-gouging bent of the Saudis, we need to either:

1)Start drilling (as safely/cleanly as possible) in Alaska to help keep costs down while we work on the tech for, and get the gas and car companies in line with, clean-burning technology OR

2)Take over Saudi Arabia and her oil

hehe

in the meantime, STOP DRIVING SUVs!!!!

Every time you fill up, you fund terrorism.

I don't know how it can be said more simply. :rolleyes:

I know people have to drive (and accept the resulting casualties), but it makes sense to drive a car which does 40mpg, not 20mpg. If the US was serious about the War on Terror, it would have legislated that.

Which begs the question..."Why can't the US build new refineries?". We could then import cheaper heavy crude and refine it ourselves. I think the answer is that the liberal ecology faction would rather see the economy in the US fail.

And I like to gloat because I own a Mercedes diesel that gets 35 MPG on fossil or biodiesel. All the luxury and all the mileage...
See that bolded part? We already do that. We're Venezuela's biggest market precisely because we do that.

And your remark that follows it about the "liberal ecology faction" is partisan bullshit.

Oh, and here's (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1379) an article about Venezuela's plans to diversify its clientele and their refining capacity, including their planned partnership with Uruguay and their desire to begin supplying oil to China.

I'm leaning towards the Honda Civic or the Volkswagen Golf. Both get more than 40mpg highway.

My dad's 1988 Geo Metro got 62mpg on the highway. Now that's good mileage.

Oh, and here's (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1379) an article about Venezuela's plans to diversify its clientele and their refining capacity, including their planned partnership with Uruguay and their desire to begin supplying oil to China.
Makes excellent sense, suppliers should aim to diversify their clientele just as much as buyers.

Foothills of the Pocono Mountains, in Northeastern Pennsylvania.
I see. You just said the Jersey shore, and I was thinking that you might live in a more dense area. But alas, you live in the boonies.

I have a few thoughts on this issue:

a)If we in the United States started riding bikes to work and our kids started riding bikes to school (no school buses. lol), the House of Saud would implode.

b)High demand is the reason we're experiencing this price-gouging -- we drive as much as we always have, but with the onslaught of SUVs -- almost all of which (to my knowledge) get really crappy gas mileage -- the amount of fuel required to do the same amount of driving is greater than ever. If people all traded in their SUVs for Honda Accords and Ford Tauruses and Toyota Camrys (etc.) tomorrow (all of which get decent mid-20s miles-per-gallon gas mileage) , the very next day the price of gas would begin to drop.

c)Assuming the obstinance of SUV owners/drivers and/or the price-gouging bent of the Saudis, we need to either:

1)Start drilling (as safely/cleanly as possible) in Alaska to help keep costs down while we work on the tech for, and get the gas and car companies in line with, clean-burning technology OR

2)Take over Saudi Arabia and her oil

hehe

in the meantime, STOP DRIVING SUVs!!!!
Most people can still afford to drive SUVs. I'm not a fan of them myself, but it is not my job to tell others what to drive. I'll leave that up to the markets.

We actually had a choice of buying either the Accord or the Toyota RAV4, with still great mileage. It was the Accord, however, for it got better mileage.

I drive a Honda Accord. It was made in 1994, though, so I don’t think I get the same mileage benefits. Still better than a truck or a SUV.

No. IT is not very expensive anymore. It is very much economical now and that is why various companies have invested billions into the extraction. If I remember information from the article I posted.. something like $15 billion dollars in the extraction technology. They have it. I have tried explaining this before on this forum, but the technology has already been developed and it is now plausible going into these oil sands.

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=041ec50b-3316-43d7-af88-894d14b8c787

"Oilsands production exceeded one million barrels a day this year, but that figure is expected to strike 2.7 million barrels daily by 2015. The United States, meanwhile, consumes about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Cheney's visit is "recognition of the role Fort McMurray and northeast Alberta is going to be playing in the future supply of the United States and Canada," noted longtime oilpatch observer Ian Doig, of Doig's Digest.

A tour by Cheney, who visited Calgary during the World Petroleum Congress in 2000 before he became vice-president, was rumoured for months before Klein made his remarks. Officials in the premier's office would not release further details."
Still, if they plan on only 2 million barrels a day in a few years, they are in real trouble. I would think that reserves of that size, far more could be extracted every day. No doubt, it will improve. But if I were an oil exec, I may think I was throwing my money away. $15 billion is not cheap, even for a multinational oil firm.

Try a Mitsubishi Colt, my dad owns one, I've seen it do 50mpg on the open road with my own eyes. It's not even a hybrid or anything.
I'm not sure they sell those in the US. I mean, Mitsubishi just started to sell in Canada. Anyhow, is it a two seater? Because if it is, I can't use it. Gas mileage is nice, but the car must fit my lifestyle.

Anyhow, is it a two seater? Because if it is, I can't use it. Gas mileage is nice, but the car must fit my lifestyle.
Depends on your waistline. :p

Considering the size of most Americans, yeah, two-seater, unless the guys in the back can detach and stow their legs.

I see. You just said the Jersey shore, and I was thinking that you might live in a more dense area. But alas, you live in the boonies.

Very much in the boonies. I live at the end of a dirt road, and don't even have a real address, just a rural route and box number. so public transportation is out. You don't have a car here, and you're screwed. I mentioned the Jersey shore, because I used to GO to the Jersey shore many, many weekends over the spring/summer/early fall months, but not anymore. can't afford the gas for a 120-mile one-way run to the shore.

Sucks to be me, eh?

Gas just went down two cents at the place I usually buy it, now...it's down to $2.47. Disgusting, that I should have to say it is DOWN to $2.47, eh? Hell, three months ago, we were still below 2 bucks a gallon. Our fucking wages don't go up this fast!

Still, if they plan on only 2 million barrels a day in a few years, they are in real trouble. I would think that reserves of that size, far more could be extracted every day. No doubt, it will improve. But if I were an oil exec, I may think I was throwing my money away. $15 billion is not cheap, even for a multinational oil firm.

Keep in mind that is only for the oil sands, and not for all of Canada. Lets face it. The US still produces 40% of its own oil, and they were not throwing their money away. They figured if they invest all this extra cash they have, they can generate even more.

Which begs the question..."Why can't the US build new refineries?". We could then import cheaper heavy crude and refine it ourselves. I think the answer is that the liberal ecology faction would rather see the economy in the US fail.

Why can't we improve our cars so we don't have to build more refineries? I think we should do both. Bush had a plan to convert former military bases in refineries.

And look at it this way, Chavez knows that he has to play nice with us or he'll be totally screwed.

And get used to the prices... in Europe they pay a hell lot more for it then you guys ever had.

I drive a Honda Accord. It was made in 1994, though, so I don’t think I get the same mileage benefits. Still better than a truck or a SUV.

I dunno, my Toyota Tercel was made in 1995, and I get about 38 MPG on it. I know this because I virtually run myself dry, using the trip-odometer to determine how many miles I got out of a tank...and then divide by the number of gallons it takes to fill up again.

It is always right in the neighborhood of ten gallons, and 380 miles, hence my approximation of 38 MPG. Might be a shade to either side of that.

I get better mileage on the car up here than I used to in Texas, which still seems weird, but then, the weather is not as harsh here, so that probably puts less strain on the engine, and less use of air conditioning. Also, I did more highway driving in Texas, here I'm using more State Roads, when I drive between 45-50 MPH (which is the optimal speed for best MPG, incidentally) and the blend of gas up here is different than the blend of gas in Texas, so maybe my car just likes this blend better.

Any number of reasons, couldn't say for sure, really...but I was getting about 34 MPG in Texas.

Although, when I took a trip from Texas to NJ and back once, about three years ago...I actually averaged about 45 MPG for the entire trip. I think that highway driving for A LONG TIME is good for MPG, but highway driving just for commuting, is not as good as driving 45-50 MPH. Don't really know all the science, and the research on this...I just know what I see....still, for a ten year old car, I'm getting damned good mileage, just wish the fucking motion-lotion was cheaper!!

Keep in mind that is only for the oil sands, and not for all of Canada. Lets face it. The US still produces 40% of its own oil, and they were not throwing their money away. They figured if they invest all this extra cash they have, they can generate even more.

The US is the second biggest producer of oil in the world; if we could only expand our refining capacity and drill the gulf, we'd be more than able to handle our oil needs.

Why can't we improve our cars so we don't have to build more refineries? I think we should do both. Bush had a plan to convert former military bases in refineries.

I've heard that increasing the MPG requirements by 1 mpg and including light trucks under the "passenger car" class could save 7 billion barrels of oil. That's a little over a year's worth of oil consumption.


And look at it this way, Chavez knows that he has to play nice with us or he'll be totally screwed.

Chavez is an asshole who's just digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. We might see him ousted fairly soon if he doesn't drop his rhetoric.

And get used to the prices... in Europe they pay a hell lot more for it then you guys ever had.

They pay huge taxes on oil...our prices would fall by at least 30-40 cents per gallon if we got rid of gas taxes. It's worth it.

See that bolded part? We already do that. We're Venezuela's biggest market precisely because we do that.

And your remark that follows it about the "liberal ecology faction" is partisan bullshit.
We are capacity limited in our refining capability. There hasn't been a new refinery built in 30 years and there are only 149 refineries in business, as of 2003. When one of these refineries shuts down for a while, supplies drop and prices spike. There is no point in expanding our oil supplies without increasing our capacity to refine it.

Prices need to continue upward in order to make alternatives attractive. For instance, the biodiesel I buy in Atlanta is about 3.50/gal. I buy on principle and I like it when my car smells like french--fries. But most people need a better incentive to use alternative energy. High gas prices should do the trick.

We are capacity limited in our refining capability. There hasn't been a new refinery built in 30 years and there are only 149 refineries in business, as of 2003. When one of these refineries shuts down for a while, supplies drop and prices spike. There is no point in expanding our oil supplies without increasing our capacity to refine it.

That's the really amazing part. Did you know that supplies of crude oil in the US are at least 15 million barrels above their average levels? We have tons of crude oil lying around, but we don't have the capacity to refine it. New refineries are the only way we can knock down oil prices.

Prices need to continue upward in order to make alternatives attractive. For instance, the biodiesel I buy in Atlanta is about 3.50/gal. I buy on principle and I like it when my car smells like french--fries. But most people need a better incentive to use alternative energy. High gas prices should do the trick.

We don't need high gas prices; just give everyone tax cuts for using alternative energy. It's already taking off with nuclear power, and should work well with personal energy consumption.

The US is the second biggest producer of oil in the world; if we could only expand our refining capacity and drill the gulf, we'd be more than able to handle our oil needs.

Oh believe me, from what I heard we are... including drilling in ANWR, which I have been advocating for years. People don't realize drilling in ANWR only effects 2% of the land that is relatively barren.


I've heard that increasing the MPG requirements by 1 mpg and including light trucks under the "passenger car" class could save 7 billion barrels of oil. That's a little over a year's worth of oil consumption.

7 billion barrels of oil per year? If that is so, I'm definitely for it. I think we should improve MPG requirements by far more then just 1 mpg.


Chavez is an asshole who's just digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. We might see him ousted fairly soon if he doesn't drop his rhetoric.

He's very unpopular in his country and only survived the various coup attempts by a stroke of luck. Sooner or later, he's going to get end up like Mussolini when he drives his people further into misery.

The guy is amazing *sarcasm*.. he single handedly drove his entire country into poverty. Venezuela had a pretty moderate size middle class. That doesn't exist anymore after Chavez got done..



They pay huge taxes on oil...our prices would fall by at least 30-40 cents per gallon if we got rid of gas taxes. It's worth it.

It'll cause gas shortages. Let me explain: Demand would go up and up if we did that, and then there won't be enough gas.

Depends on your waistline. :p

Considering the size of most Americans, yeah, two-seater, unless the guys in the back can detach and stow their legs.
It's not even me. Remember, several people need to use this all at once. Do you know how much kids need carpooling these days? Besides, even though I have a small waste, I'm tall. Unless I want to drive with my knees, I need a car I can fit into.

We don't need high gas prices; just give everyone tax cuts for using alternative energy. It's already taking off with nuclear power, and should work well with personal energy consumption.
We always differ here. I object to using the tax code to promote goals other than running the country. There are already tax incentives on ethanol and biodiesel, but it hasn't been enough of an incentive to make these fuels commonplace. I suspect the problem is that they still command a high price at the pump and the promise of future relief is not enough to overcome that.

Now, if you propose cutting or eliminating taxes on the producers of alternative energy, I would support it whole-heartedly. Businesses don't pay taxes, they just pass them along to the consumer. This might well be a way to reduce the pump price.

And I would like to see every coal and gas fired power plant shut down and replaced by a nuclear plant. I'd like to see the liberal eco-bureaucracy that hinders the building of nukes eliminated, too.

And I would like to see every coal and gas fired power plant shut down and replaced by a nuclear plant. I'd like to see the liberal eco-bureaucracy that hinders the building of nukes eliminated, too.
Ain't gonna happen without regulation. Nuclear power costs too much, and while it's certainly economical in some situations, it's not as economical as fossil fuels. I fear that no new nuke plant can be built without government help. However, Pres. Bush has suggested using abandoned federal property, like military bases, for energy purposes. I have a problem with energy subsidies, but I have no problem if the federal government uses their lands to sell to a particular company at a discount. That's their business.

Ain't gonna happen without regulation. Nuclear power costs too much, and while it's certainly economical in some situations, it's not as economical as fossil fuels. I fear that no new nuke plant can be built without government help. However, Pres. Bush has suggested using abandoned federal property, like military bases, for energy purposes. I have a problem with energy subsidies, but I have no problem if the federal government uses their lands to sell to a particular company at a discount. That's their business.

It costs too much? I think not. The technology is advanced enough. Take France.. I heard 70% of their power is produced by nuclear. I often don't quote France, but we have to build more nuclear power plants. I think we should go on the nuclear path and ditch fossil fuels all together.

It costs too much? I think not. The technology is advanced enough. Take France.. I heard 70% of their power is produced by nuclear. I often don't quote France, but we have to build more nuclear power plants. I think we should go on the nuclear path and ditch fossil fuels all together.
There are two major hurdles that nuclear power faces in the US, and they're related. They're called NIMBY--not in my back yard--and they relate to waste disposal and power generation. Americans are scared of nuclear power, thanks to 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl and two generations of Cold-War rhetoric (which isn't related to nuclear power and isn't the same but you try convincing people who believe in ID and therefore know nothing of science of that).

Personally, I don't think nuclear is a good long term solution, but it could be a good short term solution for the period between fossil fuels and whatever renewable system we eventually hit on. But the big battle you're going to have to win on it is the safety/public relations issue.

There are two major hurdles that nuclear power faces in the US, and they're related. They're called NIMBY--not in my back yard--and they relate to waste disposal and power generation. Americans are scared of nuclear power, thanks to 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl and two generations of Cold-War rhetoric (which isn't related to nuclear power and isn't the same but you try convincing people who believe in ID and therefore know nothing of science of that).

Not anymore. I've seen polls show that support for nuclear power has shift, big time. Here is one from Rasmussenreports:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Energy_Nuclear%20Power_August%2016.htm

55% are in favor of construction of new power plants and 24% are against.

I will look for more polls, but Rasmussenreports is very, very good.

Personally, I don't think nuclear is a good long term solution, but it could be a good short term solution for the period between fossil fuels and whatever renewable system we eventually hit on. But the big battle you're going to have to win on it is the safety/public relations issue.

I think nuclear fission is a good medium term solution and we should go for nuclear fusion in the long term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Nuclear fusion may be the future. There are no commerical power plants that are nuclear fusion. Though the process is being investigated by several leading scientists.

I just wonder how those numbers would shift if the question had the words "in your community" added to them. That's what I'm talking about when I mention the NIMBY effect. 55% of people say "sure I think we ought to build nuclear plants again" but how many of them are thinking "as long they're built far from my house."

And when it comes to nuclear waste, is there a change in attitude. The whole Yucca Mountain controversy almost cost Bush Nevada last year, and if there hadn't been a war on, it might have been enough on its own to swing the state to Kerry. If Kerry had pounded the issue, it might have been enough, but we'll never know for sure. Nevadans hate the fact that their state is being used as the repository for the country's nuclear waste, and who can blame them? Politicians in other states have scored political points by asking for completely unconstitutional laws that say nuclear waste can't be trucked through their state on the way to Nevada.

I'm not saying that it won't happen--the continued rising cost of petroleum will have an effect, as will continued worries about global warming--but that's a substantial hurdle we're going to have to overcome, and while we might be on the way, we still have a hell of a way to go.

It costs too much? I think not. The technology is advanced enough. Take France.. I heard 70% of their power is produced by nuclear. I often don't quote France, but we have to build more nuclear power plants. I think we should go on the nuclear path and ditch fossil fuels all together.
France's nuclear power plants are all state owned and subsidized. The bill hardly shows up for consumers, except for their taxes.
Personally, I feel that nuclear power is great in some situations. Mostly, it is good at powering dense areas as it produces a lot of power for only a little land and pollution. Yet there are lots of costs involved. The staff would be more skilled, I'd imagine, and uranium is not cheap. I suspect a few more will be built in the next decade, but we won't return to the golden age of nuclear power back in the sixties.

I just wonder how those numbers would shift if the question had the words "in your community" added to them. That's what I'm talking about when I mention the NIMBY effect. 55% of people say "sure I think we ought to build nuclear plants again" but how many of them are thinking "as long they're built far from my house."

I think people will want it nonetheless. It is a hell lot better then having a nasty coal power plant in your backyard. I say we build more in places where there aren't people (in industrial areas).

If Kerry had pounded the issue, it might have been enough, but we'll never know for sure. Nevadans hate the fact that their state is being used as the repository for the country's nuclear waste, and who can blame them? Politicians in other states have scored political points by asking for completely unconstitutional laws that say nuclear waste can't be trucked through their state on the way to Nevada.

Love how you politically speculate... even though it is totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about. I suggest looking more at energy politics/economics like I have done a lot in the past year. I've done quite a bit of investigating. There are nuclear fission reactors that produce very little nuclear waste. And where the hell else would they put it? They could convert into glass like what they do in Europe, but there are laws in this country that prevents that from being done.

I'm not saying that it won't happen--the continued rising cost of petroleum will have an effect, as will continued worries about global warming--but that's a substantial hurdle we're going to have to overcome, and while we might be on the way, we still have a hell of a way to go.

I don't think this rise will be continued when demand starts to slump world-wide. That's what I'm predicting. Also I feel global warming fears are overblown.

Lotus Puppy:

Personally, I feel that nuclear power is great in some situations. Mostly, it is good at powering dense areas as it produces a lot of power for only a little land and pollution. Yet there are lots of costs involved. The staff would be more skilled, I'd imagine, and uranium is not cheap. I suspect a few more will be built in the next decade, but we won't return to the golden age of nuclear power back in the sixties.

I don't agree. I think we will go back to it, and nuclear fusion will be upcoming technology. Remember all commerical reactors are nuclear fission, not fusion. Fusion is a lot safer, a lot cleaner and generates far less waste, it is speculated. The process is under scientific investigation.

I don't agree. I think we will go back to it, and nuclear fusion will be upcoming technology. Remember all commerical reactors are nuclear fission, not fusion. Fusion is a lot safer, a lot cleaner and generates far less waste, it is speculated. The process is under scientific investigation.
I bet it is. There's certainly the market for it. If it were ever successful, and it was cheap enough for people to buy, imagine the implications.

I bet it is. There's certainly the market for it. If it were ever successful, and it was cheap enough for people to buy, imagine the implications.

It is already here.

Science of nuclear fusion: http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion1.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fusion.html

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fusion/Fusion1.shtml
"Nuclear energy can also be released by fusion of two light elements (elements with low atomic numbers). The power that fuels the sun and the stars is nuclear fusion. In a hydrogen bomb, two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium are fused to form a nucleus of helium and a neutron. This fusion releases 17.6 MeV of energy. Unlike nuclear fission, there is no limit on the amount of the fusion that can occur."

There is, as we all know, significant investment in "alternatives". I ask myself, however, what is an "alternative"? Yes, I know it is an alternative from fossil fuel. But political implications are abound. The "alternative" is insecurity. My reasoning are the political implications of moving away from oil. Most oil comes from, as we know, the Middle East. It is said that everytime someone buys gas, that someone funds terrorism. The question is that if there was no money in the Middle East, period. Would terrorism there get worse? Would they resent the world even more, for it propped their movements up? More seriously, would it endanger Europe with an influx of radicals and a spillover of insecurity? There's also the Russia question, whose economy is increasingly dependent on oil. What'll happen during a dramatic price collapse?
It is important to realize that the Middle East's fastest growing customers are China and other Asian nations. They will probably use fossil fuels for longer, and will probably be just as interested in Gulf securtiy as the US is today. Yet will their help be enough? I have no idea.
The Middle East's economy is solely dependent on oil, a geological accident, if you ask me. They have barely diversified their economy. If their leaders are far sighted, and they want to keep their power, they have to do many things. One would be to diversify. Iraq, which has no economy to speak of, has what I believe to be the best position of any of them. The oil sector will always be important, but the government must learn fiscal restraint, and keep public funds away from excessive public works. Otherwise, the economy can never learn to function on its own.
This happened back in the sixties and seventies to Iran. Shah Reza Pahlavi launched a "White Revolution" with public funds derived from oil. It even had a Soviet styled five year plan. When the revolution occured a few years later, the oil sector disappeared, and no money was to be found. This is not to happen in the future.

It is already here.

Science of nuclear fusion: http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion1.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fusion.html

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fusion/Fusion1.shtml
"Nuclear energy can also be released by fusion of two light elements (elements with low atomic numbers). The power that fuels the sun and the stars is nuclear fusion. In a hydrogen bomb, two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium are fused to form a nucleus of helium and a neutron. This fusion releases 17.6 MeV of energy. Unlike nuclear fission, there is no limit on the amount of the fusion that can occur."
Yeah. But I'm not a physicist. Unless one is installed near me, I won't believe. However, the results of wind energy are already tangible to me.

Yeah. But I'm not a physicist. Unless one is installed near me, I won't believe. However, the results of wind energy are already tangible to me.

Wind energy is unreliable.

Wind energy is unreliable.
Perhaps. So why are new wind farms going up all the time?

Wind energy is unreliable.

And it can require huge amounts of land area, as well as not functioning in areas of little windspeed.

Wind energy is unreliable.
Not if averaged over a vast area. One turbine will display massive fluctuations. A thousand, a ripple. Tens of thousands...mwahaha!

Not if averaged over a vast area. One turbine will display massive fluctuations. A thousand, a ripple. Tens of thousands...mwahaha!

And that would require...a huge amount of land. :p

Not if averaged over a vast area. One turbine will display massive fluctuations. A thousand, a ripple. Tens of thousands...mwahaha!
So that's why wind turbines are always in farms, and never alone.

And that would require...a huge amount of land. :p
Someone's willing to pay for all that land. Even those that aren't create solutions. Land starved Denmark, for example, has an endless drive for wind. They just put turbines out at sea, and somehow pipe the energy back to the mainland.

Well I had a simular post like this before but I think that prices will go even higher

Well I had a simular post like this before but I think that prices will go even higher
Probably. Now, I have a little question. You live in Poland, right? Do you know gas prices there?

Someone's willing to pay for all that land. Even those that aren't create solutions. Land starved Denmark, for example, has an endless drive for wind. They just put turbines out at sea, and somehow pipe the energy back to the mainland.

I suppose, but that would get unwieldly for large cities and the relatively dispersed population and power demands of the US. We need something else, like nuclear power or hydroelectric to meet our demands. Fission for now, and eventually switchover to fusion when it's fully prepared.

I suppose, but that would get unwieldly for large cities and the relatively dispersed population and power demands of the US. We need something else, like nuclear power or hydroelectric to meet our demands. Fission for now, and eventually switchover to fusion when it's fully prepared.
Let's let the engineers and physicists worry about the specifics. Even though I keep mentioning investors, remember, they don't actually do much. All they are need for is supplying the capital.

Let's let the engineers and physicists worry about the specifics. Even though I keep mentioning investors, remember, they don't actually do much. All they are need for is supplying the capital.

Once the technology is ready, the investors will put up the money. They don't want something that's unreliable or dangerous because of the profit losses that could be incurred and the lawsuits that follow.

Once the technology is ready, the investors will put up the money. They don't want something that's unreliable or dangerous because of the profit losses that could be incurred and the lawsuits that follow.
Tell that one to the oil majors. They are shoving money down oil sands, which I regard as a waste. It probably won't always be a waste, but a waste at the present, nevertheless.

Someone's willing to pay for all that land. Even those that aren't create solutions. Land starved Denmark, for example, has an endless drive for wind. They just put turbines out at sea, and somehow pipe the energy back to the mainland.
HVDC cables 4tw.

Tell that one to the oil majors. They are shoving money down oil sands, which I regard as a waste. It probably won't always be a waste, but a waste at the present, nevertheless.

Oil sands are becoming profitable as the technology catches up and justifies investment. They can extract 300+ billion barrels of oil from the sands, so the upside to producing these fields at even 30 dollars per barrel is considerable.

HVDC cables 4tw.
Thanks. Do you know what they are insulated in?

Actually, offshore wind technology is identical to offshore oil and gas technology, right down to the helicopted decks and need for service companies. The oil majors can make a killing if they get into the technology early, and governments stump up the cash. Which Europe is likely to do more and more. I doubt it's going to happen in the US though, most of the wind resource is well inland, and people there tend to associate such projects with socialism.

Thanks. Do you know what they are insulated in?
XLPE - cross-linked polyethyline, with steel armour and rubber sheath.

Oil sands are becoming profitable as the technology catches up and justifies investment. They can extract 300+ billion barrels of oil from the sands, so the upside to producing these fields at even 30 dollars per barrel is considerable.
Okay. As you may notice, I'm not interested in the "what are we gonnna do to get more energy" part of energy policy. I'm interested in using what we have, and judging its political implications. I have a post a page back that talks about this. I'm very interested on its effect on the Middle East.

XLPE - cross-linked polyethyline, with steel armour and rubber sheath.
You're good. How'd you learn this?

Okay. As you may notice, I'm not interested in the "what are we gonnna do to get more energy" part of energy policy. I'm interested in using what we have, and judging its political implications. I have a post a page back that talks about this. I'm very interested on its effect on the Middle East.

The Middle East nations (and OPEC in general) will do whatever it takes to stop alternative energy from getting on to the market. They will buy, bribe, and even kill to preserve their dominance. If oil is supplanted by domestic production or new technology, their regimes will lose their source of income and collapse economically and politically. The result of this could be good or bad, depending on how the world uses this change.

Actually, offshore wind technology is identical to offshore oil and gas technology, right down to the helicopted decks and need for service companies. The oil majors can make a killing if they get into the technology early, and governments stump up the cash. Which Europe is likely to do more and more. I doubt it's going to happen in the US though, most of the wind resource is well inland, and people there tend to associate such projects with socialism.
Now, the first major railroads were in Europe. It was thirty years later before a big one reached the US. But little, if any, government funding was needed to make the US have the most railroad mileage in the world. It's the same with most of our infrastructure: it came late, but it took off, and with private funding.

You're good. How'd you learn this?
Doing my degree, working for utilities. :p

Starting at ABB permanently next month, at an energy infrastructure office, they install that stuff.

The Middle East nations (and OPEC in general) will do whatever it takes to stop alternative energy from getting on to the market. They will buy, bribe, and even kill to preserve their dominance. If oil is supplanted by domestic production or new technology, their regimes will lose their source of income and collapse economically and politically. The result of this could be good or bad, depending on how the world uses this change.
Did you read my big long post on the page before this? I have other concerns that go beyond bopping a few people to make a few bucks.

For Vetalia:
There is, as we all know, significant investment in "alternatives". I ask myself, however, what is an "alternative"? Yes, I know it is an alternative from fossil fuel. But political implications are abound. The "alternative" is insecurity. My reasoning are the political implications of moving away from oil. Most oil comes from, as we know, the Middle East. It is said that everytime someone buys gas, that someone funds terrorism. The question is that if there was no money in the Middle East, period. Would terrorism there get worse? Would they resent the world even more, for it propped their movements up? More seriously, would it endanger Europe with an influx of radicals and a spillover of insecurity? There's also the Russia question, whose economy is increasingly dependent on oil. What'll happen during a dramatic price collapse?
It is important to realize that the Middle East's fastest growing customers are China and other Asian nations. They will probably use fossil fuels for longer, and will probably be just as interested in Gulf securtiy as the US is today. Yet will their help be enough? I have no idea.
The Middle East's economy is solely dependent on oil, a geological accident, if you ask me. They have barely diversified their economy. If their leaders are far sighted, and they want to keep their power, they have to do many things. One would be to diversify. Iraq, which has no economy to speak of, has what I believe to be the best position of any of them. The oil sector will always be important, but the government must learn fiscal restraint, and keep public funds away from excessive public works. Otherwise, the economy can never learn to function on its own.
This happened back in the sixties and seventies to Iran. Shah Reza Pahlavi launched a "White Revolution" with public funds derived from oil. It even had a Soviet styled five year plan. When the revolution occured a few years later, the oil sector disappeared, and no money was to be found. This is not to happen in the future.

Doing my degree, working for utilities. :p

Starting at ABB permanently next month, at an energy infrastructure office, they install that stuff.
I see. It must be fascinating, especially since utilities are the world's next growth industry.

Personally, I can't see an oil price collapse ever happening, as only three quarters of it is used as transport fuel anyway - the rest is used as chemical feedstock, plastics, all sorts of lubricants etc, where there is no substitute.

I see. It must be fascinating, especially since utilities are the world's next growth industry.
Hell yeah. :D

It's why I went into the energy industry and not electronics, because I just know it's going to be fun times.

Did you read my big long post on the page before this? I have other concerns that go beyond bopping a few people to make a few bucks.

Yes, the terrorist situation could very well worsen if ew move away from oil. This is due to, as you mentioned, the virtual dependence of the ME economies on oil. They have nothing else, and the decline of the oil sector would result in a worsening of the problems that already exist, which are in themselves a motivator for terrorism. Therefore, we will have to diversify the ME economy, or terrorism will only worsen after the oil sector declines.

Russia will be alright, because it will likely be the source for Chinese oil imports(much closer to China than the ME and unable to be diverted by a naval blockade in the event of war). Venezuela will also be safe because it has a local market for its crude, but the OPEC monopoly will dissolve becase of dropping demand.

The US will be hurt possibly as well; we're the second largest producer of oil in the world. However, the demand for alternative energy will likely assume the economic slack with future economic gain for the US.

55% of people say "sure I think we ought to build nuclear plants again" but how many of them are thinking "as long they're built far from my house."

Hell, build them in my back yard. All of our electrical power should be produced from nuclear reactors. It is a very safe way to produce power minus the waste aspect of it, but there is no current process (coal, oil, nat gas) to produce enough power to meet our needs today that does not produce some form of waste.
When we can produce cleaner more efficient power we can shut the nuclear plants down.
At least with more nuclear plants we could be less oil dependant. Could you imagine how much more oil we would need if 20% of our power was not from nuclear?

I do believe solar and wind power should be a large source our our produced power. Unfortunatly they are not efficient enough nor cheap enough yet.

And to answer the original question. I have changed my driving habits. I drive very infrequently (other than work) and when I do I drive a little slower and do not "get on it" any more. It is just too damned expensive to drive anymore.

Yes, the terrorist situation could very well worsen if ew move away from oil. This is due to, as you mentioned, the virtual dependence of the ME economies on oil. They have nothing else, and the decline of the oil sector would result in a worsening of the problems that already exist, which are in themselves a motivator for terrorism. Therefore, we will have to diversify the ME economy, or terrorism will only worsen after the oil sector declines.
I'd start with banking. The ME has a helluvalot of cash, and Lebannon has a historically important banking sector. Perhaps they can do more with it with their new government. I also wouldn't mind if they all moved closer with Israel. It's politically impossible right now, but Israel has a damn good economy, even if it is a dangerous country. Dubai, however, is a shining example of what could be. It's a free trade zone with several multinationals, a bustling tourist industry, and virtually no oil. Not bad for one of the richest kingdoms in the region.
Russia will be alright, because it will likely be the source for Chinese oil imports(much closer to China than the ME and unable to be diverted by a naval blockade in the event of war). Venezuela will also be safe because it has a local market for its crude, but the OPEC monopoly will dissolve becase of dropping demand.

The US will be hurt possibly as well; we're the second largest producer of oil in the world. However, the demand for alternative energy will likely assume the economic slack with future economic gain for the US.[/QUOTE]

Cant we just kill Chavez and put a CIA boy in there??

Cant we just kill Chavez and put a CIA boy in there??
Erm, because it would confirm everyone's suspicions about America at the worst possible time? :rolleyes:

EDIT: Also, globally, Venezuela isn't that significant.

Cant we just kill Chavez and put a CIA boy in there??
No. He's a thorn is the US's side, but he's not dangerous, or at least not yet.

bump