Shell surveys driver attitudes towards fuel efficiency

[Chris Logan]

Originally Posted by brucepick

It's true that the economic principles of the free marketplace determine the price of goods.

However in the case of oil (and many other items), the price is artificially lowered. It's lowered by our government and our military spending billions, if not trillions every year, to keep the international scene "safe" for the energy trade. You can add to that the costs of any tax incentives/rebates/credits given to the oil companies.

If those costs were to be charged directly to the oil companies it would have a significant effect on prices and on all economies where oil figures prominently (that is, any economy other than a third world backwater).

In other words, oil in fact is very expensive, and if we had to pay the full cost at the pump we would refuse. Instead, we pay for it via our taxes, and we complain about the taxes instead. Those taxes are there to pay for all the stuff we keep asking our government for. So I say pay the taxes, or live in an unorganized society where it's all out everyone for themselves.

Here's another cost: How about a sign on the pump "My son or daughter died in a desert so you could fill your tank"? That concept is actually not so unrealistic; we just don't want to think about it.

It's just one more case of "conservatives" trying to work both ends of the same lever. They want everyone to be self supporting - including business and government. But if you really attempt to make that happen, things don't necessarily work out smoothly.

OK, end of rant.

Not many "conservatives" are opposed to drilling locally.

Just one more case of "liberals" trying to work both sides of the same lever. They want energy independence, but aren't willing to exercise tried and true methods to achieve that end, even in the short term.

Maybe you can adjust your opinion to "people are foolish" instead of targeting either group.

[Chris Logan]

Here's another brilliant extrapolation: Motorbikes are more efficient means of transportation, without any doubt. And there are precious few viable arguments for why a person would drive a (typically 4 seat!) car daily instead of a motorbike.

Since a bike gets twice the fuel efficiency of your car, wouldn't it be more valid to say;

"My son or daughter died in a desert so that you didn't have to learn to ride a motorcycle" ?

That concept is actually not so unrealistic.

We just don't want to think about the unfortunate reality that there is always someone who can judge you from a higher position on any scale of morality.

[brucepick]

Originally Posted by Chris Logan

Not many "conservatives" are opposed to drilling locally.

Just one more case of "liberals" trying to work both sides of the same lever. They want energy independence, but aren't willing to exercise tried and true methods to achieve that end, even in the short term.

Maybe you can adjust your opinion to "people are foolish" instead of targeting either group.

Well I have to agree, people certainly can be foolish. I don't think I'd say they ARE foolish. Just sometimes.

Also I'd say they see different priorities, and think themselves smart and fair in what they deduce accordingly. What's good for the duck hunter isn't good for the duck, as an extreme case.

[brucepick]

Originally Posted by Kodak

...
Group-think can lead people to make decisions without thinking, and sometimes the majority is wrong.

Agreed. They voted in Hitler... And that's only one of probably many cases where the majority was wrong.

I've come to appreciate the "shared consensus" approach to decision making. It's easier in small groups than larger ones, and can be impossible to do in larger groups . But the benefit is that all involved really feel ownership of the resulting decision. You end up with less people feeling like they want to take their ball and go home.

Eventually we might evolve some kind of internet forum interchange format, where ideas get bounced around until we have enough consensus of opinion to make a unified decision.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Might be a bad time to bring up that I'm seething over last night's successful passing of TWO school levies Thanks for perpetuating breeder welfare, rock star superintendent compensation, taj mahal school facilities, and general dysfunctional school management, idiot voters.

Yes, it is a bad time to bring this up. But your views on school funding are not accurate. In my kid's district, they are practically starving from lack of funding. Sorry to go OT, I won't do it again.

[Arragonis]

I'm not against high petrol / diesel prices - I've lived with them (comparative to the US) all my life so I know they mean more efficient vehicles and usage, but...

Originally Posted by F8L

A government appointed but voter approved agency would be fine if all funding transactions were transparent and subject to watchdog groups.

How appointed ? What criteria ? How transparent ? What "watchdog groups" ?

I don't want to open an "in" for a certain EM person to start a, er, "debate" here, but this idea is like a castle with a drawbridge down and a "please keep off the grass" notice to defend it.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Slightly OT. As part of this campaign (FuelSave) Shell had been claiming their fuels improved FE - however those in charge of policing advertisement claims have stopped them saying it any more.

None of these fuels pay for themselves.

Total Excellium Diesel is even suspected of harming the PSA-Group's DPFs, despite Total being a preferred Partner of PSA.

[user removed]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

"High energy costs destroy the economy" People arrange their lives around cheap energy (long commutes, guzzlers, 67 phantom electrical devices on 24/7, idling, stuff left on, etc.) and businesses do much the same. If they KNOW energy costs are going to be X, they can take steps to build that into their personal budgets and business models. But for the most part, it ain't gonna happen until it HAS TO, and not a second before.

"Cars today could average 50-60 MPG with existing technology" In the early '80s cars were well on their way to doing that. However thanks in large part to a booming economy, all that was forgotten and the next two decades were devoted to a largess pissing contest- who can build the biggest McMansion the farthest from town and use the most ridiculous Hummer-type thing to tear around in? Maybe booming economies- like too much Halloween candy- are bad for us?

I agree with you post completely Frank. My family would be fine with gas at $20 per gallon. We have no debt and most of our income is retirement and investments. I have no children of my own. My 3 brothers have only 3 total children. Govt is absolutely atrocious at funding schools as well as everything else they "manage" (what an atrocious use of a word).

I just see the problem as poor design. Better designed vehicles would mean more miles for the same gallon. Just consider the 13% of total fuel consumed that is wasted idling uselessly. No manufacturer considers it a priority to eliminate engine idling throughout their vehicle lineup.

Craig Vetter's focus is on aerodynamics. My focus is on power train. I know it is completely feasible to improve mileage by 80% through power train design.
Every hypermiler demonstrates this daily. Sadly the public seems to be oblivious to the benefits of reasonable efforts that have dramatic results.

I have been and always will be solution oriented. Fixing stupid just doesn't work. So you fix stupids car to get good mileage even though stupid does not change his-her habits. Pop always told me, "Don't blame the people, blame the system". He was in charge of a group of people who computerized the accounting and payroll systems for the US Air Force for decades. The people at the bases where he went tried everything to stop computerization of their jobs. They tried everything you can imagine to discredit his work, even to the point of hiring hookers to try to entrap and bribe him.

If I build a car that you really can't drive wrong then I have solved the problem. Not a never ending rant against what can't be changed, but a dedication and focus on things that can be changed.

Make the machine inherently more efficient. Forget about the idiot who drives it inefficiently, he-she may get slightly worse mileage than you-me, but we all will use less energy to travel the same distance.

regards
Mech

[user removed]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I'm not against high petrol / diesel prices - I've lived with them (comparative to the US) all my life so I know they mean more efficient vehicles and usage, but...



How appointed ? What criteria ? How transparent ? What "watchdog groups" ?

I don't want to open an "in" for a certain EM person to start a, er, "debate" here, but this idea is like a castle with a drawbridge down and a "please keep off the grass" notice to defend it.

I wish I could buy an Audi A2. What a magnificent vehicle. I wish the European versions were brought to the US, and you are exactly right. The high price of fuel is probably the single most important factor in the cars available to our European ecomodders.

That being said even European cars could be seriously improved upon by focusing on the power train, with capacity storage of deceleration energy and start-stop technology. Better aero would improve it even further.

regards
Mech

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by brucepick

Personally, I don't have a problem with taxes, as long as we don't have "taxation without representation". In this country, we citizens "own" the government. We are responsible for it, and we fund it. I think a lot of us have to get over the idea that anything the govt does that we personally didn't ask for or benefit from is waste. That's just being selfish.

One more comment on this (because I've been doing my homework and kicking the local yocals' arses online): these two levies passed with 19% of the registered voters approval. "Majority"- Ha!