the bottom line, people have be forced to conserve.
 

the bottom line, people have to be forced to conserve.

if we modders want to make a big difference, we need to bring the speeds down to 60, it worked before and it will work again. this is quickest way to 'damage control'. this can buy us a little time.

Change has always been a child of necessity. It will happen by itself as people realize they need to do something about it, when they realize they do not have a choice anymore.

Good luck with that.

I agree. Fortunately I think it's getting the point where people are actively making changes to their lifestyle because money talks pretty loud.

Psst: my dad is thinking of trading in his Intrepid for a used Jetta diesel. Shhh don't jinx it!

I haven't researched it, but I have two friends who wish gasoline prices would stay around $3.50. They claim that price level would make alternative fuels cost effective, and stimulate production, development, competition, etc.

My opinion: when oil prices get high enough, other energy sources will come into play, and energy costs will plateau. Then we'll know the real price of energy, as opposed to just pumping it out of the ground and burning it.

Worked in the 70's....

I certainly hope they don't drop the speed limits down to 60mph. That would cramp my style on the downhill coasts where I can be hitting 70 to 80 mph (you can gain speed fast with a low Cd) and where now I can just blend in with the high speed traffic. I'm usually doing 60 to 70mph on the flats and 50 to 60mph on the uphills (depending on traffic).

i thought of you (in a good way) when i said that, but i am not concerned about the low Cd's. just the flying barn doors. you may have to make one of your back axle stubs live and couple an alternator to it to charge your battery and run your accessories, water pump, fans,etc...


"Psst: my dad is thinking of trading in his Intrepid for a used Jetta diesel. Shhh don't jinx it!"
which has the better CdA?


"That's what it will come down to, probably via prices"
the yards here are advertising on the radio, $175/ton for scrape cars, the big boats are going to market.


"My opinion: when oil prices get high enough, other energy sources will come into play, and energy costs will plateau. Then we'll know the real price of energy, as opposed to just pumping it out of the ground and burning it."

Did you know that the distillers grain left after the ethanol is removed is a higher protein animal feed than the orginal corn they started with. so it can still fulfill its original purpose as feed after distillation. the feed is a byproduct. No one talks about that very much.

Both a '99 Intrepid and a '01 Jetta have a Cd of 0.30. I'm not sure which has the better CdA though.

Reminds me of nature, mostly the equilibrium part. When one thing gets low, something that is abundant or can be abundant fills in the emptyness, and it goes back to being equal-ish. In otherwords, when we get to the last oil reserves, more types of energy will fill it's place.

a lot of people you can't change things, because things have been this way and we will always do it this way. It's like nature, you can try and try but... you can't change nature.

But It's good we have people who like change out there and stand up for it. They counter act with.. but... change IS nature.

I think people will pay over $10 a gallon for gas. Obviously there will be many less cars on the road, but $10 gas is still a deal.

If a car gets 30mpg. Then it only costs 33 cents to drive a mile on $10/gallon gas. It would be possible to drive 5 people 3 miles for $1 (a bargain). There is so much energy in a gallon of gas I see people basically paying as much as gas costs until it is a completely unreachable price.

The higher gas prices has also been affecting general aviation. Of late, I've noticed that the small aircraft flying overhead are running their engines at lower RPM's and at lower airspeeds than they used to. They are running closer to their most fuel efficient air speed.

image how far you could go on a gallon if you could convert it to electricity @ 95% efficiency with a 1kw magic box.

you need a few batteries for regen, and storage from the solar cell on top, anyway

I wish we paid closer to a "true cost" of gasoline.

Government subsidies and a lot of other factors effect the cost of price at the pump.

Just image what the price would actually be if we didn't throw wars over oil, broker weird trade deals over it, and have OPEC acting as an oil mafia?

Prices would be very different.

Removing government subsidies seems like it may help a lot of things. Starting with removing the subsidies for corn so other plants are more viable economically for ethanol and removing subsidies from meat so that we have more food, for less money.

True cost of gasoline

This is a year old so it's a little dated. So it even more now.

"Removing government subsidies seems like it may help a lot of things. Starting with removing the subsidies for corn so other plants are more viable economically for ethanol and removing subsidies from meat so that we have more food, for less money"

i'll grow whatever you want, when the topical climate gets to Cincinnati, i'll grow sugar cane.

i hope the corn growers don't start charging for the oxygen they produce or life is going to get more expensive.

it's not us and them, its just us. one rock, lots of people to feed.

i like this forum very diversified.

HELLO any one home... ?

the fuel prices have not risen.. you are paying the same as when gas was a quarter a gallon in 1964, that is, if you paid in silver or gold...

Here is a video to fill you in:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q9aok8Tijtk

The price rise is because of INFLATION or also known as the decrease of the dollars value.. Look it up one ounce of gold will but virtually the same amount of gasoline today as it did in 1964... gas or oil and gold and silver are both commodities.

The problem is that your income doesn't increase as inflation does.. the feds inflation numbers are bogus, they don't include stuff like food and fuel..

Where does the inflation come from , the government and the Federal Reserve (its not any more federal than fedex by the way, its just a bank) printing currency with no commodity to back it up.. its monopoly money.

It's not monopoly money its actually called Fiat money. The gold standard is by no means perfect and if it was a better system we would still be using it. It doesnt matter that you cant buy a gallon of gas for a quarter anymore becuase the minimum wage is not $.50/hour anymore either. Inflation is not bad at all if it kept to a minimum, like 2% a year or so.

Oh and the Federal Reserve is very much controlled by the U.S. federal government, lay of the right wing talk radio.

I'm not debating that the gold standard isnt perfect, or that the Fed isn't controlled by government, the point is that government allows this to happen.. and its effecting people.

The second point was that oil is a commodity and the price for trading commodities has been fairly level while incomes have comparatively fallen, in 1964 for insttance, 2 earner familys were not the norm to make ends mean.. now its almost a given and very rare that it isnt 2 earners in the family.

Point is that people are financially stressed out because of there dollars not going as far for everything from food to fuel and its effecting people's habits now. As another post stated they are spotting more Metros on the roads now, yeah people are fixing up those fuel efficient cars as it makes more sense when they dump $70+ into the tank of there minivans and SUV's on a weekly basis.. It makes total sense.

yeah i know its called fiat money, and were not talking about a little Italian car..

I actually had a 79' Fiat Strada, was a great car that pulled down 40 mpg with a automatic.. till it got T boned by a delta 88..

Of course the value of the dollar is cyclic. And the value of commodities is cyclic. But every once in a while these cycles get in phase. And when they do everyone is caught between a rock and a hard spot. If there is a safe haven, i haven't found it. During the good times people think their investments are making money, because the dollar amount is going up.
What is actually happening?

yeah .. however I think for gas were headed the way of 5+ dollars a gallon .. people will hopefully wake up a bit and conserve on fuel..stop buying 12 mpg cars and turcks.. that for the most part is this syndrome of , have to out doo the neighbors, most people dont have 7 people in the family to justify a suburban or other large suv.. heck most people have no more that 2 people in a car and commute only needs 1 in a car.

However i see a ton more motorcycles scooters and bikes out now thats a good thing

Oil like other commodities in general will retrace down to at least 50% of the peak before going on the next leg up. War takes a lot of oil.

The government is allowing it to happen becuase they are trying to prevent the next great depression and they are right in doing so.

The US$ was over valued for a long time. Case in point, around 2000 a $Cdn bought around 62cents U.S.. As of today it buys around 99cents. Commodities rise and fall and right now oil like all other energy is on the rise, but oil is not $122 a barrel because of speculation, lack of refining capacity, ANWAR closed from drilling or a decline in the US$, plain and simple world demand is outpacing supply. A series of events that individually would not hurt excessively happen to be occuring all at the same time. How is that anybodies fault? I am at a loss at the point you were trying to make with your post that had the video.

So your are saying.
37% decline in the $ vs $CAN
$122*.37=$45 of the per barrel price increase is due to devaluation of the dollar.

What percentage increase from demand?

What percentage increase from monopolies?

What percentage increase from speculation?

What percentage increase from the WAR?

FRom Duffman, A series of events that individually would not hurt excessively happen to be occuring all at the same time.

Add one more thing a nationwide crop failure and you got yourself 'the big one'.

That is very likely but 37% may not be the right number. The US$ moved 37% against the Cdn$ in the last 8 years but that is only one currency. What did it do against the AUS$, Yen, Rouple, Euro, Indian Rupy, Chinese? etc.

The point was that the US$ was over valued for a long time and the U.S. got a discount on international goods that is now gone. That 37% decline is not due to printing money as every western government prints money as well.

Yep. Gas hasn't moved against most commodities at all. If the prices of wheat, eggs, vegetables, etc were posted on 3' glowing numbers 40' off the ground, people would ***** about those too. This is a DOLLAR problem, but if the sheeple rally around Hillary to steal profits from those big bad oil companies, well they deserve the government they get.

The four banger in me says "bring on $5 gas!". Fewer retards in rolling living rooms I have to deal with. On the other hand, the next time I fill up my V8 Porsche, I don't think I'm going to look at the pump display. I'll never be able to enjoy the drive after that.

Which means.... the cost of fuel has risen... Inflation doesn't matter as a metric to compare income to goods. Inflation compares goods to goods as if goods are buying power, which in N. America and most of the developed world is not the case.

My opinion 90% of it.
Supposedly OPEC is very near full production so there is no more supply held back.
Speculation can only swing prices over a short period, if prices hold for 1-2 years, nearly none of it is caused by speculation.
Change in supply or change in consumption?
Good thing about being a big country, this is nearly impossible.

I think oil's real value has slightly risen while American purchasing power has significantly declined. Viewed as a pure barter system, an American now has to pay more stuff (time, effort, goods, etc.) to buy a gallon of gas. Oil's "true" cost seems irrelevant, at least where it matters most.

This thread has made me think: Why is an American's day spent digging ditches worth more than an African's day spent digging ditches?

Like oil, the ability of someone to purchase a commodity seems arbitrary when viewed at the world-scale. Equality seems to be the slippery soap of human society. Any enlightening articles would be appreciated. :)

- LostCause

OK, I will follow you down the rabbit hole a little farther. Take the following as just an explanaition. An Americans day spent digging ditches is worth more becuase the African has nothing of value to the rest of the world. As you said, viewing the world on a pure barter system is pretty accurate. To bring a good or wealth into a country you need to trade something to get it. When was the last time you bought something that was made in Africa, I cant think of anything myself. Some African countries have natural resources but these are also the countries with major civil unrest so nobody can get the goods out to trade.

The idea that we can cut the pie fairly for everyone doesnt apply if there is no pie to cut.

An American and an African both provide the same exact good. Just as oil has an innate "value," so too does human labor.

The problem is that innate "values" are meaningless as far as economies are concerned. While the pie is only so big at any given moment, it's distribution is not equalized. Oil has always been "expensive," but the United States has historically been able to convice the world it deserved a bigger, and thus cheaper share. Labor will always be "expensive," but somehow the world has convinced Africa to maintain a big, cheap labor pool.

The African ditch-digger makes less money because the world views him solely on economic terms. The value of his work is only equal to the value of the goods it can provide. With labor, oil, or any commodity, it is that kind of short-sidedness that drives many contemporary issues. Oil is hurting the American economy (i.e. each citizen's way of life), the environment, and stability because it is viewed solely in economic terms. Since economics disregards the true "value" of any given thing, it's only end is exploitation and destruction.

The problem is not that the African has nothing of worth, it is that the world sees nothing of worth in him.

Revolutions do not come from hurting pocketbooks, but rather hurting souls. Society will not be better off if conservation is stimulated primarily through economics. People can't be forced to live virtuously, they must realize its merits on their own.

- LostCause

That's unlikely. Gas costs $10 in Norway and a similar amount in Germany, but ethanol is still not price competitive without subsidies.

The high gas prices have arguably caused people to drive smaller cars in Europe. Germans drive a lot faster but they still emit less GHGs per mile driven.

Personally I'm not in favor of legislating a slower speed limit. Especially in Germany, once they put speed limits on the Autobahn, then they'll never get rid of them, even if people are driving fuel cell vehicles powered by solar arrays. Honestly, 55 is just way too slow in the US. It would push even more people onto planes, which are much worse with respect to GHGs, since our train system is basically none-existent. I drive a lot of highway miles, and I would go insane driving 55. That turns a 9 hour drive through Montana and North Dakota into a 13+ hour drive. :mad:

Also, no one in America digs ditches, so that's a silly thing to even consider. People in America use digging equipment, and as such produce more ditches for the same input of labor, therefore, their labor is worth more. We could stop all trade with Africa, and their living standard would not increase. If they had higher productivity then they would have more material goods, because they would produce more things to consume and trade.

Personally I think talking about conservation so much is counter productive. The third world wants vaccines, modern medicine, modern conveniences and they will get them regardless of what we tell them they should do. Instead we need to focus on developing technologies which allow us to continue to live lives of similar comfort while vastly reducing our impact (cheap solar panels, nuclear power, fusion power, super capacitors).

Totally agreed on both points, the rolling living rooms will become obsolete, excempt for when there needed, and most large vehicals for many passangers will probably go the route of those dodge mercedias sprinter vans, those things get 30 mpg with there diesel engines.. and can haul 12 people.. I rode in one and was verr very impressed with them..

The other think that will happen is cars wont be able to do 110 miles a haour they will be designed to go 80 mph max, why any one needs a car besides for fun that does 100 mph is sad, even our old 4cylinder cavalier would easly hit the speed limiter and still be pulling like mad to go faster.. totally unneeded.. but "americas" want to drive around in a car the size of a Asian home and have the horse power to get from 0-60 in 4 seconds and top speeds of 150 MPH..

I secretly cant wait till car ads are saying our cars get 50 MPG instead of "320 HP and 3.4 seconds 0-60". Until then Ill make my own 60+ mpg cars and laugh at the "living rooms" rolling down the highway.. I already do that in my veggiemobiles, when I pull up to a gas station for a drink and potty break, been over a month since I've added any petro-fuel to a car, its sad every time i fill up it seems prices go up $.25 minimum.

People wonder why I have such a huge grin on my face when I pull into a gas station , then they start getting hungry of french fries and cant figure out why :D

I totally agree about that. I do think that it makes sense to encourage people to use more efficient vehicles. That can happen for both cultural and economic reasons, by making high impact vehicles both un-cool and expensive.

Telling people to "conserve" in all areas of their life though is I think the wrong thing to do. Like Greenpeace Australia telling people they will all need to start riding bikes, not own cars, and live in much smaller homes. No one is going to do all that crap, and it will just cause them to ignore you (rightfully).

The "conservation" argument also annoys me, because it's used far too often to justify inaction. When the people planning our infrastructure point out that we will need a stable base load of energy, like nuclear power, then the Greenpeace people say "NO! We don't need that nuclear power plant, because we could just conserve that amount of electricity instead." That statement is true by itself, but it's a lie by omission, since it fails to consider that the base load source we will be using instead is coal.

http://www.stopthecoalplant.org/down...sions_data.pdf.

That's just in Texas. And that's just the plants waiting for approval.
Not the ones already being built.
Or the ones for which an application has been drawn up but a plant not yet deployed.

We're currently building more coal power plants right now in the US than any time in our history. (~120 coal fired plants are currently under construction in the US) :eek:

Too bad the numb skulls at Greenpeace don't really protest against those, because they're not scary like nuclear plants

Lost Cause,
It is not so easy. In economic terms labour is just a factor of production or something that can be traded exactly like a commodity for money which is just a store of value. Goods such as gasoline vary in price around the globe, in oil rich counties like Venezuela and Arab nations gas can be bought for 10 cents/Litre while other countries are paying in the ballpark of what you or I pay because we don’t have more oil than we know what to do with. It also follows that different areas of the country have different minimum wages than others because things cost more or less in different areas.

The supply and demand model does a pretty good job of explaining prices for nearly everything and labour is no different. As Hvatum said “Nobody in America digs ditches…. People in America use digging equipment.” Hits the nail squarely on the head. Production requires two things, capital and labour where capital can be anything from buildings, to tools and machinery. When labour is scarce then the returns from production flow largely to labour and not capital, so we have high wages and low dividends for investors. The opposite is true when labour is abundant relative to capital. The best way I can illustrate this example is to think of farming in the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. farmer has an abundance of capital in the form of tractors and combines while the Mexican has none and does everything by hand. The American farmer is obviously as productive as a couple hundred Mexican because of his machinery and will receive a higher wage because of it.

So the African’s labour is worth less because as a region they have an abysmal Capital to Labour ratio and because the region has no wealth there is no trickle down to the poor either. Again this is just an explanation, not that I view Africans as worthless human beings.

Mods: sorry for getting off topic, a question was asked, I answered.

x2
I myself am getting sick of the lies from the extreme left and the extreme right of the political spectrum. It is to bad we dont teach our kids to think for themselves and see through the heaps of BS.

Too bad we can't teach everyone to think for themselves and see through the heaps of BS.

I could imagine a world where peer-reviewed scientific studies with neutral viewpoints were looked at and learned from for their own merit instead of being filtered through politics, politicians, and corporate greed.

Imagine what the world would be like if JP Morgan hadn't asked Tesla "Where can I put the meter?" Its too bad the betterment of society so often suffers for the betterment of individuals' bank accounts. Do people need to be forced to conserve? Yes; in this case its geo-political and market forces. Is the majority of people smart enough to see the writing on the wall and be proactive about it? Nope. I just hope to put myself in a position where energy prices don't impact me as much as the next guy and hopefully spread the word, but then phrases relating to leading horses to water and herding cats begin to apply.

Yeah neither do I.

Luckily it isn't, unlike the crap coal plants put out. Just the fly ash from a Coal power plant contains enough thorium and uranium that if it were coming out of a nuclear plant then it would need to be treated as low-level waste! But it isn't, they just let it blow away in the wind or bury it next to your house.

Waste from nuclear plants is safely stored away in below ground temporary repositories for now. In the future, if we reprocessed the waste (as France does), then we could store it in Yucca mountain and it would be no more radioactive than the original mined uranium in a few thousand years.

Dioxins released by coal burning power plants are a well established cause of cancer, and will be in our environment for hundreds of thousands of years. Also, unlike long lived radioactive isotopes, it actively accumulates in the Biosphere, getting worse as one moves up the food chain. It's a problem that will be even worse for our children. Of course, that problem isn't really scary, and doesn't serve as nice scapegoat that Greenpeace can continue to abuse to scare the public into supporting them.

Coal definitely keeps the lights on here in Ohio.

I don't see any black smoke coming out. There is white vapor coming out, it looks like water vapor from the scrubbers.