# Titanic Dickbags



## noodles (May 21, 2008)

Oil executives go before Congress - May. 21, 2008





> The oil men said they're making business decisions in the best interest of their shareholders. They repeated their often-stated position that the best way to lower prices and bring more oil to market is to open up wide swaths of the U.S. that are currently off-limits to drilling.



 



> "You have to sense what you're doing to us - we're on the precipice here, about to fall into recession," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "Does it trouble any one of you - the costs you're imposing on families, on small businesses, on truckers?"
> 
> The executives said it did, and that they are doing all they can to bring new oil supplies to market, but that the fundamental reasons for the surge in oil prices are largely out of their control.
> 
> "We cannot change the world market," said Robert Malone, chairman and president of BP America Inc. "Today's high prices are linked to the failure both here and abroad to increase supplies, renewables and conservation."



Sure, your record profits have absolutely nothing to do with it.


----------



## Lee (May 21, 2008)

So in their minds the only way to increase supply is drilling in say, protected areas? Give me a break 

I still think we need to make them take those profits and invest them in clean energy. I think that's about the best thing we can hope for.


----------



## ohio_eric (May 21, 2008)

Where's Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Metzenbaum when we need them?


----------



## Randy (May 21, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> Where's Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Metzenbaum when we need them?


----------



## noodles (May 21, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> Where's Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Metzenbaum when we need them?


----------



## philkilla (May 21, 2008)

I was going to make a thread about these assholes...and the title caught my attention...needless to say.

Just to add to it:

Oil execs defend huge profits before Senate - Oil & energy - MSNBC.com


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 21, 2008)

Wait! Wait! Where's the defenders of unbridled capitalism?

I swear, gas could b $20 a gallon, and the opil companies could be making a trillion a year in pure PROFIT, and some motherfuckers would still be saying, "No, it's all ok. They're entitled to their profits!"


From Only One Reason to Grant a Corporate Charter

_*The Private-Benefit Corporation*
The private-benefit corporation is an institution granted a legally protected right&#8212;some would claim obligation&#8212;to pursue a narrow private interest without regard to broader social and environmental consequences. If it were a real person, it would fit the clinical profile of a sociopath.

The basic design of the private-benefit corporation was created in 1600 when the British crown chartered the British East India Company as what is best described as a legalized criminal syndicate to colonize the resources and economies of distant lands to benefit wealthy investors far removed from the social and environmental consequences. That design has ever since proven highly effective in advancing the private interests of the world's wealthiest people at enormous cost to the rest.

The private-benefit corporation uses its economic power to privatize (internalize) gains and socialize (externalize) cost. The resulting concentration of wealth creates an illusion that wealth is being created, when the actual consequence is a net destruction of real wealth It is an institutional form best suited to achieving outcomes exactly the opposite of those we humans must now pursue.

The only legitimate reason for a government to issue a corporate charter giving a group of private investors a legally protected right to aggregate and concentrate virtually unlimited economic power under unified management is to serve a well-defined public purpose under strict rules of public accountability. This defines a public-benefit corporation, which can be chartered as either for-profit or not-for-profit. The private-benefit corporation is an institutional anomaly, a creation of monarchy that properly shares monarchy's historic fate. _


----------



## Durero (May 21, 2008)

^


----------



## Azathoth43 (May 21, 2008)

Maybe they have record profits because there product is in record demand.

And why should they be made to do anything with there money. Hell while were at it hospitals should be made to give us free treatment. Of all the oil company's in the world only 15% are privately held, They don't have the kinda power to manipulate world oil prices.


----------



## Chris (May 21, 2008)

A guy at work had a pretty interesting point the other day.

Here we are, in the twilight of the presidency of the son of a Texas oil tycoon, and the price of oil is the highest it's ever been. Interesting indeed.


----------



## JBroll (May 21, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Wait! Wait! Where's the defenders of unbridled capitalism?



OVAR HEAR, LOOKING FOAR BATTERIEZ.

Let's face it... oil fucking sucks, period.

See, the 'defenders of unbridled capitalism' say 'try something different' about things like this. Instead of expecting the government to do things for us, which is why we're fucked up the ass with inefficient and idiotic corn ethanol and no substantial work done in fields that have real potential, this defender of unbridled capitalism is going to spend some serious time working on converting his car to an electric if gas gets past the point he's willing to pay.

I think they're lying out of their asses about their supply constrictions.

Oh, and usually profits come from high prices, not the other way around.

"By jove, Nigel, we're making far too much money!"
"Well, York, what do you propose we do about it?"

...

"Charge an arm and a leg for it!"
"Brilliant! That'll make us MILLIONS!"

What would unbridled capitalism do? Move on to different resources. 

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> What would unbridled capitalism do? Move on to different resources.
> 
> Jeff


Well, now that Sean Hannity has opined...

I say hardly. Move on? That's never been the model of the Modern Plutocrat. Bleed 'em till they're dry.

"Capitalism," as it stands, is really a euphemism for greedy exploitation by the elites. As always.


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

There's more to capitalism than cigar-puffing suits in gigantic skyscrapers. Consumers are just as much a part of the system as producers are, so you as a consumer are free to just stop consuming oil, so your 'bleed 'em till they're dry' remark has very little to do with what I said. You have a choice to not be 'bled until you're dry'. Do I like the oil companies? No. Do I think they're a bunch of lying, rotten bastards? Yes. Do I think the solution is going to come about by taxing the fuck out of them, and then bringing about higher prices as they pass the shaft onto the consumers? No, I think it lies in being less dependent on their products... 

It's not like you're being shoved into exploitation like you would be if a government program were taking a ton of your money and giving you little in return. You can choose to not use oil.

You can also choose not to toss subsidies - from your own bloody paychecks - at oil companies (can't recall too many market proponents being in favor of that) and start looking at hybrid vehicles that have been around for years now.

Ooh, look at me, I'm being boned up the ass by the elites when I choose to go to the gas station and fill up my tank without any sort of coercion at all. Bullshit.

But if a dissenting opinion is going to be greeted with bullshit like 'Sean Hannity has opined' (and you know as well as I do that something like that is nothing but a personal attack) I'll just wait for an intelligent comment to come up.

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 22, 2008)

Thanks for the lesson in netqiuette, "Jeff." So great to always have you around to edjamacate us lesser lights. The first post was the intelligent post, before you fucked it up with your nonsensical ravings.


Eye-rolly-emoticon here, kthanx.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 22, 2008)

And feel free to shut the fuck up, and not reply, if it offends you so.


----------



## zimbloth (May 22, 2008)

I know no one's holding a gun to our heads to fill our gas tank Jeff, but it's a system that leaves many of us with no choice - whether you choose to believe that or not. Not everyone can walk, afford a new hybrid car, take public transportation, etc. I need my car to get around, I drive an '88 Camry. Perhaps when the solar cars come out and I make more money I'll pick one up. Until then I'm screwed. 

If you have a reasonable solution for me (other than something childish like 'get a better job' or 'move somewhere else'), I'd love to hear it.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 22, 2008)

Please, don't encourage him. Obviously, he stuffed his sense of humor into his copy of Atlas Shrugged when he returned it to the library.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> There's more to capitalism than cigar-puffing suits in gigantic skyscrapers. Consumers are just as much a part of the system as producers are, so you as a consumer are free to just stop consuming oil, so your 'bleed 'em till they're dry' remark has very little to do with what I said. You have a choice to not be 'bled until you're dry'. Do I like the oil companies? No. Do I think they're a bunch of lying, rotten bastards? Yes. Do I think the solution is going to come about by taxing the fuck out of them, and then bringing about higher prices as they pass the shaft onto the consumers? No, I think it lies in being less dependent on their products...
> 
> It's not like you're being shoved into exploitation like you would be if a government program were taking a ton of your money and giving you little in return. You can choose to not use oil.
> 
> ...



So, where are these readily available options? 
Even if i choose not to consume gas somehow, most trucking companies will be using oil products to transport their products. I pay more even i'm not using oil.


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Please, don't encourage him. Obviously, he stuffed his sense of humor into his copy of Atlas Shrugged when he returned it to the library.



Sense of humor? Now this is just getting pissy. You completely avoided what I actually said, referred to me as a FOX blowhard (one that you also know has very little in common with me), and now you're making comments that don't even make sense. 

Note that I disagree with you very little on important things - like the oil companies being titanic dickbags - and I'm only disagreeing by saying that you have alternatives like hybrid cars and supporting alternative fuel. Lesson in netiquette? If you're going to compare me to some commentator, at least don't make it some lunatic fundagelical who'd vote for Reagan's dead corpse if he could. You're accusing me of arrogance, but you won't even respond to what I actually said... right.

(Oh, and I don't like Atlas Shrugged, or anything I've read from Rand, for that matter.)



Metal Ken said:


> So, where are these readily available options?



Hybrids, for one - used hybrids pop up frequently around here, at least, and you can convert them to run only on batteries for shorter commutes. You wind up saving a good chunk of money over the long run even with battery replacement.



Metal Ken said:


> Even if i choose not to consume gas somehow, most trucking companies will be using oil products to transport their products. I pay more even i'm not using oil.



At that point you're dealing with other people's choices to use gas, but for what it's worth a lot of things around here (like the buses) use propane instead of gasoline. Propane, as you probably know (since this came up before, I think), can be harvested from natural gas, and I doubt it'll be long before this starts to become more common.

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (May 22, 2008)

Before hating the oil companies, or capitalism in general, maybe some of you should do their research on oil prices.

First of all, inflation has jacked up the price of everything, including oil, which then further jacked up the price of everything. The inflation, caused by the huge supply of dollars on the market through high deficits, lead to a low dollar. Now, oil like all major commodities is traded in american dollars. So the less the dollar is worth, the more dollars you will have to pay for the same amount of oil. This essentially drives the price of oil up. 

In addition, OPEC has not been boosting the supply of oil on the market, yet the demand is growing, from places like china and india and brazil (which is energy independent, cannot export oil anymore, due to growing domestic demand) that need fuels to support their growing economies, plus the upcoming olympics.

Why hasn't OPEC boosted its production of oil? Well, lets take a look at who exports most crude around: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, Sudan, and maybe russia. Maybe some of those aren't part of opec yet, but they all export huge ammounts of oil. Saudi Arabia? They have no reason to like us, we have destabilized their region and made one of their competitors, Iran stronger by invading Iraq. Iran? we threaten to bomb them too often for them to like us. They also hold historic grudges against us, because we mingled in their internal affairs, and supported their enemy, sadam hussein in the iran-iraq war. Culturally, they are also very paranoid of foreigners messing with them, so no reason for them to help us out. Iraq? we all know this one, don't we, Venezuela, we throw political punches at Chavez every chance we get, and he returns the favor. Bush started with the first punches, he was getting along fine with Clinton. Russia? as strategic competitor has no reason to help us (or the europeans, or the chinese) as its economy thrives of the sky high oil prices.

Moreover, like other commodities, oil is seen as a great potential investment. When the price of oil initially started rising for the various reasons discussed above, it provided investors with an incentive to stock up on oil, which speculatively increased the demand for oil, and thus the price.


And there are choices out there. Maybe not for everyone, but teenagers driving SUVs to school? single mom's driving SUVs that are as big as a tank? If you can afford an SUV, i'm sorry, you can also afford a smaller car that is more efficient even if it is not a hybrid. 

What can government do? Fight inflation after the housing market improves a bit.
Subsidise the production of hybrids, set up a tax cut for banks that provide attractive and not predatory loans to those interested in buying more efficient cars, but can't afford them. It can also follow arnold's lead in investing in hydrogen power. It can put a fucking huge tax on SUVs to deter people from buying them. Suspending the gas tax, nor releasing the petrolleum reserve will not help significantly, and would further stretch out our strategic assets long term. It can also negociate with jet makers to make more efficient jets or jets that use alternate fuels, like solar, nuclear, whatever. It can stop the saber rattling in the world and make more friends than enemies to convince OPEC to increase the supply of oil on the market.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 22, 2008)

Or the US government could confiscate the production technology used in the General Motors EV1 project and start producing them themselves as a publicly owned business (a la most European health and education systems) and a great part of the problem could be solved, but we all know that's not going to happen... 

Because there is no MONEY in it.


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

There are other issues at hand. There's plenty of money in it, thanks to the high gas prices and a large portion of the population wanting something completely different - just look at how far hybrids are going. 

Jeff


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (May 22, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Or the US government could confiscate the production technology used in the General Motors EV1 project and start producing them themselves as a publicly owned business (a la most European health and education systems) and a great part of the problem could be solved, but we all know that's not going to happen...
> 
> Because there is no MONEY in it.




Ah, someone who's watched "who killed the electric car?"

As an engineer, I can safely state that the EV1 fucking sucked in almost every way... it was a rush project with too many poorly implemented ideas. Modern technologies - such as higher-capacity lithium polymer batteries (especially those nanotube electrode ones with 8-10x the capacity of current batteries - these will be on the market in the next 5 years or so), ultracapacitors, high torque in-wheel drive motors (allowing incredible control over handling, stability, braking etc...), and improved power electronics mean that more up-to-date and upcoming electric vehicle designs will plain eclipse stuff like the EV1.

We're less than a decade off from having all-electric vehicles with range and performance sufficient to replace the internal combustion engine. When that happens, things will start changing very quickly. P


----------



## Mr. S (May 22, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Or the US government could confiscate the production technology used in the General Motors EV1 project and start producing them themselves as a publicly owned business (a la most European health and education systems) and a great part of the problem could be solved, but we all know that's not going to happen...
> 
> Because there is no MONEY in it.



Who killed the electric car eh? yeah that film legit made me so pissed off, for starters i want an electric car


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

Mr. S said:


> Who killed the electric car eh? yeah that film legit made me so pissed off, for starters i want an electric car



Hmm, feel like reading the post above you?

Jeff


----------



## Nick (May 22, 2008)

I dare say that the problem with alternatives to oil is that its the oil companies that hold the rights to all of the designs for stuff like solar powered cars and heavy water driven engines etc.

They bought them out long ago to stop them hitting production if im not wrong.


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

Water-fuelled car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SUNN Solar Electric Kit Car Vehicle

Not quite the case. Even if they did hold patents on designs for such things, the information would still be freely available. Further, patents expire.

Jeff


----------



## Nick (May 22, 2008)

ahh well it was a while ago i was reading about it and i dont remember that well but i think the article also said that people trying to put the designs into production were being sent large sums of cash saying thanks for not doing that (cos if you do you'll commit suicide shortly after hint hint)

thats probably a load of rubbish but stranger things have happened.

oh well i pay $2.20 a litre for gas


----------



## Blackrg (May 22, 2008)

Oil business 101

1. The per barrel price is the price the last person actually paid for delivery of some physical oil. Oil is not a stock or share, so when you hear news media talk of 'speculators jacking the price up', take this with a grain of salt...remember that someone has actually bought oil for delivery at that per barrel price. 


2. We know demand is getting higher, and oil supply is staying the same, many analysts believe we are approaching or have hit peak oil production

So high demand + steady supply = the price goes up

3. Oil Majors, Exxon, Shell, etc, don't actually control a lot of Oil production. Most Oil production is in the hands of national governments: Saudi nationalised their industry back in the 60s, Russia has grabbed most of it back from private hands, Venezuela, ditto. 

4. Most of the easy to extract oil has gone, so the cost of extraction is much higher, around $60 - $70 per barrel. 

5. So *some* of what Oil majors they say is true; yes they are making profits, but their costs are increasing too, because they are going after hard to extract oil, e.g Canada Tar sands.. and often in joint ventures with national governments

6. you want the price to go down? reduce the demand


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> It's not like you're being shoved into exploitation like you would be if a government program were taking a ton of your money and giving you little in return. You can choose to not use oil.
> 
> Ooh, look at me, I'm being boned up the ass by the elites when I choose to go to the gas station and fill up my tank without any sort of coercion at all. Bullshit.



What fantasy land do you live in?

Tell me, please, how I, or anyone else, can choose not to heat their house and go to work.


----------



## Blackrg (May 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> What fantasy land do you live in?
> 
> Tell me, please, how I, or anyone else, can choose not to heat their house and go to work.




You're right this is a big big prob we have coming 

Over here in the uk, because of the tax, gas is already at $9 US per gallon

For one thing I think businesses will have to rethink the whole 'being in the office' thing; its completely unecessary for many office workers to need to be on site all the time.


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> What fantasy land do you live in?
> 
> Tell me, please, how I, or anyone else, can choose not to heat their house and go to work.



You heat your house with gasoline? Natural gas, which is (at least from my impression) much more common than gasoline, comes from a lot of places - including about 20 natural gas fields on US land.

As for going to work, that discussion's already going on. Between hybrid, battery-powered, and solar cars (which are still growing quickly) for normal commutes and propane-powered vehicles for trucking there are plenty of options waiting to be jumped on. 

Are they perfect? No, but they can get off the ground a lot better if people start moving to them.

Jeff


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> You heat your house with gasoline? Natural gas, which is (at least from my impression) much more common than gasoline, comes from a lot of places - including about 20 natural gas fields on US land.



No, I heat my house with oil. Do you have any idea what it costs to convert a home to natural gas? How about people who rent, and don't have that option? You do realize that NG isn't exactly cheap either.



> As for going to work, that discussion's already going on. Between hybrid, battery-powered, and solar cars (which are still growing quickly) for normal commutes and propane-powered vehicles for trucking there are plenty of options waiting to be jumped on.



So to save money, I should buy a $30,000 hybrid car. Right.



> Are they perfect? No, but they can get off the ground a lot better if people start moving to them.



So basically you're suggesting to the millions of people living paycheck to paycheck due to the high cost of oil, first spend thousands to convert to natural gas, then drop another pile on a hybrid car. Or.. A Solar car? Please link me some websites where I can zip out on my lunch break and trade in my V6 Acura for a fully solar power car that's safe, practical and reliable.

Your suggestions that seem so obvious to you are basically like telling a homeless person who freezes to death in the winter that they had the option of staying at the Four Seasons.


----------



## Matt Crooks (May 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> What fantasy land do you live in?
> 
> Tell me, please, how I, or anyone else, can choose not to heat their house and go to work.



Well _you_ made the choice to live where you have to drive to work. You made that decision knowing that you would have to drive to work. You could have chosen not to have to drive to work, or not to drive as far.

The problem is that a lot of choices were made when (compared to the rest of the world) US gas prices were very low. Now that the US gas prices are catching up to the rest of the world, some of the choices that people made don't look so good. I moved to a new house a little over a year ago and doubled my commute. Along with a doubling of gas prices, it doesn't seem like the best decision I could have made.

Also - with regards to record oil profits. They are having record sales - even with prices as high as they are, they are still selling more gas than ever before. 

I think every person on this board that has a job and has to support themselves and their family would agree that they would want to be paid as much as possible for their work. Is there anyone here that would turn down a $1,000 gig at a local club and tell them they should only be paid $500? Why should private companies be any different?


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> No, I heat my house with oil. Do you have any idea what it costs to convert a home to natural gas? How about people who rent, and don't have that option? You do realize that NG isn't exactly cheap either.



I have to admit that I know very few people whose gases are still on oil. 

As for renters... yeah, there's a limit on what renters can change, but the property owners can still change those things around if they want to.

NG isn't cheap but it isn't exploding like oil is right now.



Chris said:


> So to save money, I should buy a $30,000 hybrid car. Right.
> 
> So basically you're suggesting to the millions of people living paycheck to paycheck due to the high cost of oil, first spend thousands to convert to natural gas, then drop another pile on a hybrid car. Or.. A Solar car? Please link me some websites where I can zip out on my lunch break and trade in my V6 Acura for a fully solar power car that's safe, practical and reliable.



First, you can get them cheaper (at least around here) because used ones are popping up. Second, the hybrids pay for themselves - especially with aftermarket mods that shift more work to the batteries. I'm seeing Honda Certified 2005 Priuses popping up for $20Kish around here, and given the pain in the ass that is Honda certification they can probably go even lower.

As for the solar cars, there are the kits available and when I have the time and money I might go for one myself, but I'm under the impression that they're not manufactured as much because there's a lot of research still going on with them.

Jeff


----------



## XEN (May 22, 2008)

Ok, the hybrid argument is asinine. I just bought a Nissan Rogue precisely because it got *better gas mileage* than a comparably priced hybrid. It also drove far better than the limited selection of models available at my price range. Also the only electric with enough power and range to be actually considered a car is the Tesla. Yeah, I'm dropping $100k+ on a 2 seater.... 

The solution is that we all move into self-sufficient communes and work from home.
I'm David Koresh, and I approved this message.


----------



## Mr. S (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Hmm, feel like reading the post above you?
> 
> Jeff



yes, i read it, though it wasn't there when i posted my response (i often leave a window open whilst i do something else) 

care to be less of a condescending arse?


----------



## sakeido (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> You heat your house with gasoline? Natural gas, which is (at least from my impression) much more common than gasoline, comes from a lot of places - including about 20 natural gas fields on US land.
> 
> As for going to work, that discussion's already going on. Between hybrid, battery-powered, and solar cars (which are still growing quickly) for normal commutes and propane-powered vehicles for trucking there are plenty of options waiting to be jumped on.
> 
> ...



Wait a minute, what is generating power for this 100% electric car? I was really interested in the new all-electric Saab hatchback, until I realized what it was going to do to my electricity bill. Just because it is battery powered doesn't mean it will operate independently of fossil fuels.
Propane, yeah okay, it does not produce the power you need for these vehicles you recommend it for (trucks) to accomplish what they are made to do (work). There is a reason they use diesel - it produces the massive torque you need to move loads such as the ones trucks carry.
These solutions you recommend aren't perfect - they are stopgaps, temporary bandaids, that will do nothing to alleviate our oil concerns in the short OR the long term. 
Just producing vehicles, paint, etc. all places demand on the world's petroleum supply. The best way to solve oil consumption - change this expectation that everyone should have their own car, to drastically reduce the number of vehicles being produced and driven, and find some way to convince the growing middle classes in China and India they don't need cars.


----------



## giannifive (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I have to admit that I know very few people whose gases are still on oil.



Home heating oil is very common in New England, and as Chris said, converting to natural gas is pricey.



JBroll said:


> As for the solar cars, there are the kits available and when I have the time and money I might go for one myself, but I'm under the impression that they're not manufactured as much because there's a lot of research still going on with them.



As has already been mentioned, the technology is still in development---somewhat mature development---but it will still take time before the products come to market. When they do things will definitely change. The demand for fuel might stay the same or even decrease if we're lucky, which would keep prices steady or cause them to lower.

This whole claim "You chose to live where you knew there was a long commute, so it's your own fault" is based on faulty logic. Many of us chose where to live several years ago when fuel prices weren't skyrocketing and showed no signs of doing so, and were simply making the best economic decision at the time, and---we thought---for the near future. If you had asked anyone in 1998 what gas prices would be in 2008, I'd be surprised if anyone predicted what we're seeing today. In any case, we can move now to minimize costs, but it usually takes a few years before you see people doing this en masse.


----------



## nikt (May 22, 2008)

sakeido said:


> The best way to solve oil consumption - change this expectation that everyone should have their own car, to drastically reduce the number of vehicles being produced and driven, *and find some way to convince the growing middle classes in China and India they don't need cars*.



so best way to to solve a problem is to find it elsewhere not on Your own playground??


----------



## Groff (May 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> So to save money, I should buy a $30,000 hybrid car. Right.




I had a discussion with a co-worker about this. I drive a big car (Mercury Grand Marquis), and I love the room and comfort the car has, because of the interior space. I get 24mpg average, which isn't too bad... But rounding up, I spend $240 a month on gas. Now, let's say I want to get a hybrid car, my payments will be at least $300-$350 a month, which is more than I'm paying for gas. Plus, I STILL have to pay for gas in the hybrid (albiet less frequently).

Money saved? -$150 a month, at least.

If I got a new car, it would be to have a new car.... Not to save money.

Besides, I ride my motorcycle as often as I can. 45mpg ftw!


----------



## Nick (May 22, 2008)

i get 40mpg in my car

but i pay about $9 a gallon


----------



## Groff (May 22, 2008)

Nick said:


> i get 40mpg in my car
> 
> but i pay about $9 a gallon



I feel really bad for you man, really I do... That's more than milk isn't it?  Exxon stock was at $94 a share yesterday, which is interesting because it was at damn near nothing before the war...


----------



## giannifive (May 22, 2008)

Nick said:


> i get 40mpg in my car
> 
> but i pay about $9 a gallon



But your gallon is 153 ounces, right? Ours is 128. Your mileage in US units would be 33 mpg then.


----------



## Nick (May 22, 2008)

TheMissing said:


> I feel really bad for you man, really I do... That's more than milk isn't it?  Exxon stock was at $94 a share yesterday, which is interesting because it was at damn near nothing before the war...



lol yeah im pretty sure its more than Wine let alone milk.

i actually work in a stockbrokers......i wonder if i could offset my losses of paying for gas by speculating on the price of oil companies stock. That would be a pretty interesting calculation to do if anyone has some spare cash they can afford to possibly lose 



giannifive said:


> But your gallon is 153 ounces, right? Ours is 128. Your mileage in US units would be 33 mpg then.




thats even worse for me then because the $9 was for an american gallon!!


----------



## sakeido (May 22, 2008)

nikt said:


> so best way to to solve a problem is to find it elsewhere not on Your own playground??



That's not it at all. We can do all we want to solve the problem over here, but India and China will very rapidly come to consume huge amounts of petroleum products and we will still be far, far worse off than we are right now. This is a global effort, not a local one.

Also, as a Canadian, its not practical not have a car in my fucking "playground" because this country is so huge and everything is all over the entire goddamn countryside. Calgary occupies the same land area as New York City with about 1/20th the population.. biking to work isn't exactly possible in this city.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 22, 2008)

sakeido said:


> Also, as a Canadian, its not practical not have a car in my fucking "playground" because this country is so huge and everything is all over the entire goddamn countryside. Calgary occupies the same land area as New York City with about 1/20th the population.. biking to work isn't exactly possible in this city.





I mean, it only takes me 20 minutes to drive to work in the morning, but that's highway driving into town. A bus drives by my house....2 times a day. That's it. Public transportation here sucks balls. If I lived in Montreal (Or maybe another city, it's just the only real big city I've been to) I would NOT own a car. Not only can I not stand bumper to bumper city traffic, but then I wouldn't need to pay insurance or anything. They have a great subway system, and a bike would be fine for getting around the city.

Also, I don't buy the whole "move closer" thing. I can't afford to buy a house in town, houses in the city are fucking expensive. I can't afford that, and renting is basically tossing your money away. It's cheaper to live outside the city and burn the extra gas. How long that will be true for, who knows?


----------



## DevourTheDamned (May 22, 2008)

im gunna post this in an actual new topic, but you guys should all know that Geo Metro's, that gay ass 90's car that noone liked, book valued at like 1 grand, and going for 7k and up on eBay and craigslist because they get 50 MILES TO THE GALLON.

get one


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2008)

Matt Crooks said:


> Well _you_ made the choice to live where you have to drive to work. You made that decision knowing that you would have to drive to work. You could have chosen not to have to drive to work, or not to drive as far.



I live where I live because I can't afford to live in the city, where I work. I can't "choose" to make my general cost of living twice as much as it is in the interest of saving money. It's a catch 22. Affordable housing for the average person is a decent ride from the city, where most people work.



> Also - with regards to record oil profits. They are having record sales - even with prices as high as they are, they are still selling more gas than ever before.



This is partially incorrect. I heard this on the radio this morning, so I don't have a link. The cost of a barrel of oil is up 39%. Demand is not up 39%, nor are reserves down 39%. 



> I think every person on this board that has a job and has to support themselves and their family would agree that they would want to be paid as much as possible for their work. Is there anyone here that would turn down a $1,000 gig at a local club and tell them they should only be paid $500? Why should private companies be any different?



Because heating your home and being able to drive to work to support your family shouldn't realy on what's considered a luxury item by your line of thinking. I don't NEED a 60" flatscreen TV. I NEED gasoline, because I have to get to work. I have to heat my house in the winter. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I have to admit that I know very few people whose gases are still on oil.



Just about everyone I know up here uses oil heat. 



> As for renters... yeah, there's a limit on what renters can change, but the property owners can still change those things around if they want to. NG isn't cheap but it isn't exploding like oil is right now.



It's still not a money saving alternative to oil. The monthly difference is marginal, and debatable at best.



> First, you can get them cheaper (at least around here) because used ones are popping up. Second, the hybrids pay for themselves - especially with aftermarket mods that shift more work to the batteries. I'm seeing Honda Certified 2005 Priuses popping up for $20Kish around here, and given the pain in the ass that is Honda certification they can probably go even lower.



You are missing the point, again. I can afford to buy a new car right now, no problem. My credit is great and I have no debt. However, the AVERAGE family of four, paycheck-to-paycheck, who is getting hit the hardest by the price of oil CAN NOT afford to go out and drop $20,000, or $15,000 on a hybrid car. That's what you don't understand. Spending money to save money isn't a feasible option for those who are really feeling the pinch from the price of oil right now.

Spending $20,000 that you don't have does not "pay for itself", considering that the average hybrid car really only gets about 10MPG better than my non-hybrid V6. The 2008 hybrid Civic claims ~40MPG. Car and Driver got about 30. I get 28-32. You then mention "aftermarket mods" - guess what, those cost more money.

You're living in fantasy land man. You can't buy a $20,000 car, then get "aftermarket mods" to increase the MPG to save money over a car that you already own that isn't a hybrid. It's the same obnoxious platform that all of the irritating environmentalists stand on that makes absolutely no sense in the real world. 



> As for the solar cars, there are the kits available and when I have the time and money I might go for one myself, but I'm under the impression that they're not manufactured as much because there's a lot of research still going on with them.



So there goes that suggestion.


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2008)

nikt said:


> so best way to to solve a problem is to find it elsewhere not on Your own playground??



If you don't have anything to add that isn't ignorant, please stay out of the conversation Nikt. You are talking out of your ass.


----------



## nikt (May 22, 2008)

if that was ignorant then I will be glad then I can stay out of this

peace


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2008)

nikt said:


> if that was ignorant then I will be glad then I can stay out of this
> 
> peace



Good for you. I really don't care what your opinion on the matter is and I doubt anyone else does.


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2008)

TheMissing said:


> I had a discussion with a co-worker about this. I drive a big car (Mercury Grand Marquis), and I love the room and comfort the car has, because of the interior space. I get 24mpg average, which isn't too bad... But rounding up, I spend $240 a month on gas. Now, let's say I want to get a hybrid car, my payments will be at least $300-$350 a month, which is more than I'm paying for gas. Plus, I STILL have to pay for gas in the hybrid (albiet less frequently).
> 
> Money saved? -$150 a month, at least.
> 
> ...



Exactly. The "Hybrids pay for themselves" argument is nonsense.

I spend about $250/mo on gas. 250/mo x 12 months = 3000/year. I own my car outright. My monthly payment is zero. Now, say I somehow manage to save $100/mo on gas by buying a $20,000 hybrid. 

$20,000, ignoring taxes, divided by 100 = 200. Divided by 12 (months) is 16 years. In 16 years I will break even by spending $20,000 to save $100/mo, again ignoring taxes, the rise in insurance rates, etc. etc.

(I've had no coffee today if that math is flawed.  )


----------



## Matt Crooks (May 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> I live where I live because I can't afford to live in the city, where I work. I can't "choose" to make my general cost of living twice as much as it is in the interest of saving money. It's a catch 22. Affordable housing for the average person is a decent ride from the city, where most people work.



I would suggest that this too is incorrect. You can't afford to live in the city _with the standard of living you want_. I would bet that you could afford to live in the war-zone. If more middle-class people move back into the city, you'll see the standard of living there go up too.



Chris said:


> This is partially incorrect. I heard this on the radio this morning, so I don't have a link. The cost of a barrel of oil is up 39%. Demand is not up 39%, nor are reserves down 39%.



There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  Perhaps US demand is not up 39%, but worldwide demand is growing at an incredible rate.



Chris said:


> Because heating your home and being able to drive to work to support your family shouldn't rely on what's considered a luxury item by your line of thinking. I don't NEED a 60" flatscreen TV. I NEED gasoline, because I have to get to work. I have to heat my house in the winter. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.



Again, I would say you have chosen where you work and where you live. Granted, you made those choices when the cost associated were different. With the new parameters you may need to rethink your decisions.


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

Jesus fucking Christ, Jeff, do you actually read history, science, or government regulations before you just spout off this drivel from the side of your head?

First off, the government built a bunch of roads. They made an active choice to decide how to lay out our country's infrastructure. There is nothing I, or anyone else, can do about the fact that our rail system is basically non-existent.

Second off, where do you think natural gas comes from? If your answer is anything other than "byproduct of oil drilling", then you are wrong. So, how does converting your home to run on a different petroleum product solve the issue?

Third, in my state, and just about every single other fucking state in the entire country, there is such a thing as vehicle licensing. If you don't have a VIN, then you don't have the right to drive your car on the road. Where do you think you get a VIN, Jeff? Should I take the time to explain to you the time and costs involved in government crash testing? It is not possible for an individual to get a vehicle licensed and on the road. IT takes a corporation to do that.

It is impossible for the individual to do anything different, since capitalism (a system of economics) is tied in so closely to our system of government. That is called fascism. So, considering that we're _not_ living in a market economy, then maybe we, the fucking people, should have some say in the matter, and maybe we, the people, should get an opportunity to stick it to the oil companies that have buried our energy choices under a mountain of lobbyist dollars and record profits that have no correlation to supply and demand.


----------



## Matt Crooks (May 22, 2008)

noodles said:


> It is impossible for the individual to do anything different, since capitalism (a system of economics) is tied in so closely to our system of government. That is called fascism. So, considering that we're _not_ living in a market economy, then maybe we, the fucking people, should have some say in the matter, and maybe we, the people, should get an opportunity to stick it to the oil companies that have buried our energy choices under a mountain of lobbyist dollars and record profits that have no correlation to supply and demand.



How on earth could they be making record profits _without_ demand? If no one wanted the product there would be no profit.


----------



## zimbloth (May 22, 2008)

This thread is just completely ridiculous now. Jeff clearly just likes to argue for the pure fun of arguing, because nothing he is saying makes damn sense for the average American. I seriously doubt he even believes the garbage he's spewing. 

We live in a country where a Papa John's offers a 23 cent pizza for one day, and an entire city basically erupts into chaos over it. You really think people, in this economy, where people have riots over getting a free pizza since they live in poor-ass Cleveland are going to be able to convert their homes to natural gas or go out and by a hybrid? Get real.

You're frankly embarrassing yourself, just stop. Even Ron Paul would be rolling his eyes at you now man. This conversation is going nowhere. When people live in a fantasy land (as Chris alluded to), there's absolutely no way to have a sensible conversation.


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

Matt Crooks said:


> I would suggest that this too is incorrect. You can't afford to live in the city _with the standard of living you want_. I would bet that you could afford to live in the war-zone. If more middle-class people move back into the city, you'll see the standard of living there go up too.



People moved out of the cities during the civil rights movement. Sad, but true. Seems that parents didn't like the idea of forced busing dictating that their child go to school halfway across the city, killing community involvement in local schools, leading to whites moving out of the inner cities. Seems you can't force people to like one another.

So, there are two choices left in the cities. The first is wildly out of his price range, being the sole domain of the upper class. The second is the impoverished and crime-ridden areas that no one cares about fixing, since that is where minorities live. I'd rather deal with gas prices than bullets.

In my opinion, it is always an option to give the finger to all those college level economic discussions, realize this is out fucking country, and make the oil companies whine like little bitches while we force them to cave into our demands. Hell, we attacked Iraq for no good reason! Why can't we forbid US oil companies from selling to anyone other than the US in the interest of national security? Why can't we kick BP the hell out of Alaska, claiming that they are not allowed to control US resources? Why do we have to keep doing it the Republican way that doesn't work?


----------



## jaxadam (May 22, 2008)

noodles said:


> Second off, where do you think natural gas comes from?



Coal?


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

Matt Crooks said:


> How on earth could they be making record profits _without_ demand? If no one wanted the product there would be no profit.



Easy. There are no other choices. I wake up in a house powered by oil, to eat food that was harvested, process, and transported to me with oil, get in my car powered by oil, to drive to my job in a building powered by oil. Oil companies get all sorts of tax subsidies for petroleum speculation. Whenever they need a new refinery, we pay for it. This isn't supply and demand, Matt, it is user and pusher.

Honestly, I don't give a flying fuck about the rest of the world. It is not my problem. We should make them play ball our way in our country. What are they gonna do? Take it somewhere else, and bring the US (where most of these guys live) to a screeching halt? Sell it to China instead? Then who is going to buy China's goods when the US has crashed? We go down, we take the rest of the world with us.

Bob was right: we need a Teddy Roosevelt to play that kind of hardball with these assholes.


----------



## Matt Crooks (May 22, 2008)

noodles said:


> So, there are two choices left in the cities. The first is wildly out of his price range, being the sole domain of the upper class. The second is the impoverished and crime-ridden areas that no one cares about fixing, since that is where minorities live. I'd rather deal with gas prices than bullets.



Agreed. But it's still a choice. It's still the choice I would make. However, at some point when the middle-class can't afford to commute to the cities, they'll move back into the cities. Once the middle class moves back the crime will go down.



noodles said:


> In my opinion, it is always an option to give the finger to all those college level economic discussions, realize this is out fucking country, and make the oil companies whine like little bitches while we force them to cave into our demands.



Because those little bitches are you and me. We own the oil companies in the form of stock holdings. Those profits go directly to our IRAs, 401(k)s and investment funds.



noodles said:


> Hell, we attacked Iraq for no good reason!



I agree.



noodles said:


> Why can't we forbid US oil companies from selling to anyone other than the US in the interest of national security?



We can. I don't think the a protectionist policy will benefit us (I should say, adding gas to the list of things that we have protectionist policies for). We may very well disagree on that. Also, what are the down stream impacts? What if OPEC decides that they will no longer sell to the US? 



noodles said:


> Why can't we kick BP the hell out of Alaska, claiming that they are not allowed to control US resources?



Sure, but this is just more of a protectionist policy.



noodles said:


> Why do we have to keep doing it the Republican way that doesn't work?



I'd say that we're doing it the _Capitalist_ way.... at least as much as our f'ed up import/export and tax laws allow us to. The alternative would be to socialize gas production. I have serious doubts that would work. We may very well disagree on that too.


----------



## Matt Crooks (May 22, 2008)

jaxadam said:


> Coal?



Natural gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Matt Crooks (May 22, 2008)

noodles said:


> Easy. There are no other choices. I wake up in a house powered by oil, to eat food that was harvested, process, and transported to me with oil, get in my car powered by oil, to drive to my job in a building powered by oil. Oil companies get all sorts of tax subsidies for petroleum speculation. Whenever they need a new refinery, we pay for it. This isn't supply and demand, Matt, it is user and pusher.



I will agree with most of this. The problem is that there are other choices that we're not exploring. In the short term we're all screwed. If we force oil companies to supply us cheap gas there will be no incentive to get off of our oil dependency. 

Right now solar and wind power is incredibly expensive because there is little investment in it. As oil prices rise it becomes more and more economically sensible to invest in developing affordable alternatives to oil.

I guess my opinion comes down to these things:

1 - We in the US have developed a life style centered around cheap oil. Now that oil isn't cheap we're looking blame any one other than those that made the life style choices.

2 - The best long term solution is to find alternatives to oil. We've never really invested in finding other solutions because oil was so cheap. Those days are over, and we need to move forward.

3 - In the short term we're screwed.


----------



## Randy (May 22, 2008)

Are there any graphs charting the increase in demand vs. price increase? 

I've heard both sides of the argument, but I haven't seen any numbers, etc. to back up either position. It's always been a little too complicated to get my head around, personally.


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

Matt Crooks said:


> Agreed. But it's still a choice. It's still the choice I would make. However, at some point when the middle-class can't afford to commute to the cities, they'll move back into the cities. Once the middle class moves back the crime will go down.



True. I think the more realistic argument, considering population growth, is the middle class will stop moving away from the urban sprawl, and the city will finally come to them. When that happens, the train system will start improving itself in a hurry.



> Because those little bitches are you and me. We own the oil companies in the form of stock holdings. Those profits go directly to our IRAs, 401(k)s and investment funds.



Don't look at me, since I have none of those things. I watched my 401K go down the toilet back in 2001, and now I have no illusions about retirement. I'll just work until I die.



> We can. I don't think the a protectionist policy will benefit us (I should say, adding gas to the list of things that we have protectionist policies for). We may very well disagree on that. Also, what are the down stream impacts? What if OPEC decides that they will no longer sell to the US?



I wish they would just cut us off. I wish we would have learned our lesson the last time they cut us off.


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

Matt Crooks said:


> I will agree with most of this. The problem is that there are other choices that we're not exploring. In the short term we're all screwed. If we force oil companies to supply us cheap gas there will be no incentive to get off of our oil dependency.
> 
> Right now solar and wind power is incredibly expensive because there is little investment in it. As oil prices rise it becomes more and more economically sensible to invest in developing affordable alternatives to oil.
> 
> ...



I really cannot disagree with any of this. I'm not begrudging oil companies profits. I'm begrudging the gouging that comes from record profits.

I want to see us invest in new forms of energy, and solar is our best bet, since it 100% clean and renewable. When the Sun is no longer able to provide us energy, we'll have bigger problems than getting to work. I just don't want to see the oil companies control the direction we go in, like they are doing now with all the idiots who drank the ethanol Kool Aide.

I'll say it again: every new building should be tiled with solar panels. Aluminum siding can go the way of the dodo, and we can start slowly moving away from the concept of centralized power stations, and moving towards the concept of a distributed grid that powers itself. Peer to peer as opposed to client/server, if you will.


----------



## eaeolian (May 22, 2008)

Edit: Never mind, I need to read the whole thread before replying. Noodles and Matt have what I think is the correct conclusion.

The irony, of course, is that 1970s environmentalists get an "I told you so". If we'd continued on the conservation/raise efficiency/develop alternatives path we were trying to start on at the turn of the '80s, this wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it is.


----------



## Matt Crooks (May 22, 2008)

noodles said:


> I'm begrudging the gouging that comes from record profits.



We'll agree to disagree on this point 



noodles said:


> I want to see us invest in new forms of energy, and solar is our best bet, since it 100% clean and renewable. When the Sun is no longer able to provide us energy, we'll have bigger problems than getting to work. I just don't want to see the oil companies control the direction we go in, like they are doing now with all the idiots who drank the ethanol Kool Aide.
> 
> I'll say it again: every new building should be tiled with solar panels. Aluminum siding can go the way of the dodo, and we can start slowly moving away from the concept of centralized power stations, and moving towards the concept of a distributed grid that powers itself. Peer to peer as opposed to client/server, if you will.





When I started to build my house 3 years ago, I seriously looked into solar. To power my house via the sun would have added $100k to the cost. Until oil based energy adds that kind of cost it just doesn't make sense to go solar. As soon as we have cheap(er) solar a lot of our oil problems go away.


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

Agreed. The crisis in the 70s should have pushed us in a new direction, but the me generation was more concerned with themselves in the 80s, and then cheap gas in the 90s led us to think that the good times would last forever, me included. This is a problem we should have dealt with a long time ago, and had the gas crisis stuck around longer, we would have. At the very least, we'd be cruising around in small, fuel efficient hybrids, and at best, electric, hydrogen, or some other kind of car.


----------



## noodles (May 22, 2008)

Matt Crooks said:


> When I started to build my house 3 years ago, I seriously looked into solar. To power my house via the sun would have added $100k to the cost. Until oil based energy adds that kind of cost it just doesn't make sense to go solar. As soon as we have cheap(er) solar a lot of our oil problems go away.



Solar is ridiculously expensive, because we've made next to no progress on it. If everyone wanted solar, someone would have figured out how to make it cheap on an assembly line in China by now. 

How long did it take for someone to figure out that the heat generated on the panel is a recoverable energy source? Sometimes, I have a hard time understanding why progress on what amounts to free energy can be so damn slow.


----------



## eaeolian (May 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> You are missing the point, again. I can afford to buy a new car right now, no problem. My credit is great and I have no debt. However, the AVERAGE family of four, paycheck-to-paycheck, who is getting hit the hardest by the price of oil CAN NOT afford to go out and drop $20,000, or $15,000 on a hybrid car. That's what you don't understand. Spending money to save money isn't a feasible option for those who are really feeling the pinch from the price of oil right now.



 - Although a lot of them could help themselves by dumping the Explorer and buying a Corolla. Hybrids aren't the only high-mileage alternatives out there, but we've had twenty years of bigger and bigger cars.




Chris said:


> Spending $20,000 that you don't have does not "pay for itself", considering that the average hybrid car really only gets about 10MPG better than my non-hybrid V6. The 2008 hybrid Civic claims ~40MPG. Car and Driver got about 30. I get 28-32.



You see the reason I don't own the Civic hybrid - Honda's hybrid is more marketing that substance. The break-even point is in the 5-6 year range for a Prius, slightly shorter if you drive as much as I do (23K+ a year), according to the Consumer Reports analysis I read a couple of years ago. Oil prices don't effect that, obviously, since it's just a ratio calculation.


----------



## thedownside (May 22, 2008)

jaxadam said:


> Coal?



Taco Bell


----------



## Vegetta (May 22, 2008)

There is no public Transportation where i Live - NONE in the whole county... in fact the only thing resembling public transport is a big van that picks up old people and shuttles them to the doctors - 1 bus For the entire county (of 40k people)

The town i work in has decent public transportation but housing prices are 3 to 4 times higher than where I live I couldn't afford to move there if I worked 3 jobs...

I'm pretty much forced to drive. When I worked in the town i lived in I rode my bicycle everywhere and very rarely drove (Even in the winter)

Oil prices are just retarded - And even if all cars got 60+ mpg the oil companys will still just gouge everyone at the pumps. 

I don't think electric cars will be much better - as electric vehicles become more and more popular the electric suppliers will start raping the consumer as well


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

Okay, too much thread and not enough time, so I'll try to just throw a few things out there.

First... yeah, the oil companies suck. It's annoying that I agree with people on the majority of what's going on here (especially alternative fuel sources and whatnot) and still get tripped up on details, but whatever.

Second... Chris, while your math in that example looks right it's missing part of the picture - those hybrids can be made to use practically no gas at all, and I know guys (granted, they were engineering students, but what they did was still not over the heads of what a strong-willed guy could do with a little help from the Internet and a library) who bought a Prius used, fiddled with it a bit, and wound up with something they could plug into a wall and get insane gas mileage - to the extent of some commutes not using any gas at all. And as for 'spending money to save money'... loan doesn't have to be a four-letter word, and a large percentage of the same people we're talking about are taking out loans to pay for the cars they drive now.

Third, to 'propane doesn't generate the torque necessary'... tell that to the San Antonio buses and the propane-fueled trucks I see everyday.

Fourth, for natural gas production... natural gas fields are all over the country, and natural gas doesn't have to come from petroleum refinement. List of natural gas fields - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - there are 20 American fields in that list. I wouldn't be surprised if opening up production more on natural gas would help get the price down. Of course, solar is going to work out better in the long run, but that's a different issue.

Fifth, solar power does, in fact, win. 

Noodles, I agree that the way the government and economy aren't playing well together, but have to disagree on the VIN thing. I know that a lot of states, Texas included, do issue VINs easily for low-speed vehicles like the one I just listed. You don't need to lecture me on VINs or tell me that I haven't read anything on government regulations... because I have; in fact, that was the first thing that I thought was fishy with that SUNN car, but I asked the DMV guys (since there's an office practically in my backyard) and they told me about the licensing stuff for that kind of vehicle. They can be pulled off and used legally, and it's hard to doubt that the ideas will be going quite a bit further.

This kind of field does need consumer support, of course, so hopefully in a short time we can start seeing even more development in these areas thanks to people getting fed up with this stuff.

Pardon the tangents, I'm still getting distracted easily.

Jeff


----------



## sakeido (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Okay, too much thread and not enough time, so I'll try to just throw a few things out there.
> 
> First... yeah, the oil companies suck. It's annoying that I agree with people on the majority of what's going on here (especially alternative fuel sources and whatnot) and still get tripped up on details, but whatever.
> 
> ...



Problems here.. You are advocating we replace one type of fossil fuel use (directly burning gas in our vehicles) with others...
- indirectly burning fossil fuels to charge electric cars - the power plants are still using consumable fuels. Just because YOU aren't buying the gas doesn't mean petrochemicals are not being used at some point. Ie. the goddamn dashboard. Until they make a 100% biodegradable hybrid car, they are not totally green. The amount of oil and gas just used to make the car - which is much higher than conventionally powered vehicles, according to a British survey - is still very significant.
- using propane instead of diesel in large trucks, in spite of the fact a propane power truck will not make it through the Rocky Mountains
- advocating people use loans to buy electric cars. Okay, the people who are driving the most inefficient gas guzzlers are doing so because these cars were very cheap. They most certainly did not borrow money for them because they have no credit or bad credit and had more important things to spend money on. A "large portion" of America is not middle upper class.



> Fifth, solar power does, in fact, win.
> 
> Noodles, I agree that the way the government and economy aren't playing well together, but have to disagree on the VIN thing. I know that a lot of states, Texas included, do issue VINs easily for low-speed vehicles like the one I just listed. You don't need to lecture me on VINs or tell me that I haven't read anything on government regulations... because I have; in fact, that was the first thing that I thought was fishy with that SUNN car, but I asked the DMV guys (since there's an office practically in my backyard) and they told me about the licensing stuff for that kind of vehicle. They can be pulled off and used legally, and it's hard to doubt that the ideas will be going quite a bit further.
> 
> ...



it won't get consumer support until it becomes extremely practical to get a hybrid car. Even then, it does not solve the problem. Oil & gas are used in its manufacture, finishing, transport to the dealer, etc. and these cars are less environmentally friendly than other vehicles because of the batteries that go into it. A different kind of car - any kind of car - is not what we need. 
We need light rail transport in urban centers, high speed rail linking them all, and then power these things with green power - wind, solar, whatever. We need to get people out of their cars. So long as people still drive, people will need roads, and these roads will need heavy equipment to be constructed, maintained and cleaned. The roads themselves need oil to be made, and so on.

The future is mass transit - not a different kind of car.


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

sakeido said:


> Problems here.. You are advocating we replace one type of fossil fuel use (directly burning gas in our vehicles) with others...
> - indirectly burning fossil fuels to charge electric cars - the power plants are still using consumable fuels. Just because YOU aren't buying the gas doesn't mean petrochemicals are not being used at some point. Ie. the goddamn dashboard. Until they make a 100% biodegradable hybrid car, they are not totally green. The amount of oil and gas just used to make the car - which is much higher than conventionally powered vehicles, according to a British survey - is still very significant.
> - using propane instead of diesel in large trucks, in spite of the fact a propane power truck will not make it through the Rocky Mountains
> - advocating people use loans to buy electric cars. Okay, the people who are driving the most inefficient gas guzzlers are doing so because these cars were very cheap. They most certainly did not borrow money for them because they have no credit or bad credit and had more important things to spend money on. A "large portion" of America is not middle upper class.
> ...



The main point I've been going for here is that consumers, with a bit of work, have options. I use public transportation, flawed as it is, and I'm not going to deny for a second that a light rail would be a better way to go. Yes, these are band-aid solutions, but given how quickly we're moving to light rails in most of the country a few band-aids might be helpful to have around. Plus, unless I'm horribly underestimating how much of America will be populated enough to warrant a light-rail in the next few decades, cars will need to be around anyway for a long time to come whenever someone doesn't want to stay in urban areas.

Jeff


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> The main point I've been going for here is that consumers, with a bit of work, have options. I use public transportation, flawed as it is, and I'm not going to deny for a second that a light rail would be a better way to go. Yes, these are band-aid solutions, but given how quickly we're moving to light rails in most of the country a few band-aids might be helpful to have around. Plus, unless I'm horribly underestimating how much of America will be populated enough to warrant a light-rail in the next few decades, cars will need to be around anyway for a long time to come whenever someone doesn't want to stay in urban areas.
> 
> Jeff



Your point, again, is based in fantasy land. Buying a $20,000 car, or a $15,000 car, is not an option for a dual income family of four living paycheck to paycheck. Natural gas is almost as expensive as oil is. 

Consumers, with *a lot of disposable income*, have options. The average blue collar American family, on the other hand, does not.


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Second... Chris, while your math in that example looks right it's missing part of the picture - those hybrids can be made to use practically no gas at all, and I know guys (granted, they were engineering students, but what they did was still not over the heads of what a strong-willed guy could do with a little help from the Internet and a library) who bought a Prius used, fiddled with it a bit, and wound up with something they could plug into a wall and get insane gas mileage - to the extent of some commutes not using any gas at all. And as for 'spending money to save money'... loan doesn't have to be a four-letter word, and a large percentage of the same people we're talking about are taking out loans to pay for the cars they drive now.



You're missing the point, again. People that can't afford a car payment because of the dramatic increase in the cost of living can't afford a new car loan, dirty word or not. That's what you're missing. Spending a big sum up front to save a small sum over a long period of time is something that just isn't realistic for the people getting hit the hardest by the price of things. Again, you're suggesting that someone buy a Prius, "fiddle" with it so that it's good on gas, and then plug it into their house to charge it. This will, I feel obligated to inform you, absolutely annihilate your electric bill, so you're saving money on oil by giving a pile to the electric company.

Recommending someone get in debt to avoid paying for what they can't afford is a terrible, terrible "suggestion".



> Fourth, for natural gas production... natural gas fields are all over the country, and natural gas doesn't have to come from petroleum refinement. List of natural gas fields - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - there are 20 American fields in that list. I wouldn't be surprised if opening up production more on natural gas would help get the price down.



Do you own a house? Or even live in an apartment and pay for your own utilities? You seem to be under the impression that NG is this uber-cheap energy source. It's not.



> Pardon the tangents, I'm still getting distracted easily.



It's probably the fairies, dragons and three headed talking dogs wandering around outside in the place you live. You're missing so many points it's not even funny. EVERY industry is getting fucked by the price of oil right now but the oil industry. Do you read the paper? Have you seen the airline industry? Travel industry? The *trucking and freight industry* The price of food? The cost of hailing a cab in a major city? The housing market?

EVERYTHING is going up, and the national "Standard" cost of living raise in most companies is around 3.5-4%. That doesn't help much when the cost of living goes up 5-10% in a year. If it was as easy as just "Hey, drop 20k on a hybrid, another 15k to convert your house to NG and oh, buy some solar panels" do you really think things would be as bad as they are right now?


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 22, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Sense of humor? Now this is just getting pissy. You completely avoided what I actually said, referred to me as a FOX blowhard (one that you also know has very little in common with me), and now you're making comments that don't even make sense.


Hey douchebag... it's equivalent to you calling me "hippy." It started as a joke.

Now you just look like an asshole with a chip on your shoulder. Thanks for validating my original estimation of your character.


----------



## JBroll (May 22, 2008)

Hippie is one thing, Sean Hannity is just a step too far... that's just way below the belt. Given how often I'm not given the benefit of the doubt, I really don't know what to expect with this stuff, and this is literally the only place on the internet where I come across as an asshole with a chip on my shoulder... oh well.

(Colmes.)

(Erm, hippie.)

Chris, this has blown well past the point I was actually arguing. Yes, I know the whole cost of existence is going up because of this bullshit, and I want to see something else take oil's place as quickly as possible - I'm not contesting that. Whatever. 

Jeff


----------



## sakeido (May 22, 2008)

The whole problem with it is just that. You have completely zeroed in on replacing oil at all costs, even though most of what you are recommending is a terrible stopgap solution that will lead to exactly the same problem all over again down the road. You seem like an asshole with a chip on your shoulder because you aren't arguing with any real logical sense, or really debating anything on a point by point basis. 
You also present yourself like a dick whenever you say your opinion - this thread being a good example, and everything you've ever said on mixing a better one.


----------



## Xaios (May 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> 3.5-4%.


10% annual raise FTMFW! 

I'm with Chris in that I'm also on oil heat. Natural Gas is not available here, and likely never will be. Propane is a dead end here too, because its useless when the hard cold of the northern winter hits, although that doesn't mean its useful in other places. Having been certified in many things propane in the time when I managed a gas station (propane use is nothing in the winter, but huge in the summer, with all the mining camps up our way), I know from plain old experience that it doesn't offer the torque that diesel or even gasoline does. Where it shines is efficiency, especially considering it's still 30 cents per litre cheaper than gasoline here. It's mainly due to the fact that its stored in a liquid state (I'm consistantly amazed out how many people think it's stored as compressed gas in a tank), and its volume expands 270 times when it evaporates, and because the propane-to-air mix ratio required to ignite it is relatively low.


----------



## lordofthesewers (May 23, 2008)

on this whole topic, you guys haven't seriously discussed anything else but how evil oil company fuck us in the ass and how we are stuck with it and cry and cry and disagreeing on minor things. The thing is that oil companies are entitled to that profit, just as you are entitled to your salary or return on your stocks, 401ks, IRAs and whatever. We are scapegoating the oil over and over by having these discussions on how evil they are, and holding meetings in congress scolding their executives. Would that take us anywhere?
NO

Are we crybabies that like to cry in a corner rather than lift themselves up?
Yes

In that case, do we deserve it? 
Absofuckinglutely.

by we, i refer to the nation as a whole.

Instead of making sure that we treat inflation so that oil along with everything else becomes less costly, we go on and ramble about evil oil companies. Instead of taxing suvs to hell and back we talk about evil oil companies. Instead of helping truck drivers with a diesel only gas tax holiday and subsidies to move towards more efficient trucks we complain about evil arabs that hate us.

It is easy to blame oil companies and vent our frustrations on them, when we should really scold our government and bush and ourselves for letting ourselves be tricked into the false security of cheap oil. When oil was 2.5$/gallon, a 1 dollar increase in a year at the pump we kept on driving our suvs when it was cheaper then to buy smaller cars. When the dollar was strong and has some spending power we could have invested in technology... What i'm saying is that we shouldn't take the profits away from oil companies, but make them earn them through fierce competition. And fuck, American oil companies don't control shit on the world petrolleum market


----------



## Zepp88 (May 23, 2008)

Corporations should not be allowed to take advantage of the weakness of the middle class for their own profit, those oil tycoon bastards are rolling in it, and they're pummeling an already weak middle class. 

I do not know who sets the prices, but I'd wager they have something to do with it. Our officials did fuck up the situation and our economy etc. They haven't been as strong as they should have been persuing other alternatives. But that doesn't give corporations the right to grossly overcharge for their product. 

The nature of their product is the reason. No oil and America stops, if they were anyone else, Microsoft for example, it wouldn't matter, but oil is a different matter. 

The American dependance on oil needs to end, and we also need to start up local agriculture again, but that's a different matter.


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2008)

lordofthesewers said:


> on this whole topic, you guys haven't seriously discussed anything else but how evil oil company fuck us in the ass and how we are stuck with it and cry and cry and disagreeing on minor things. The thing is that oil companies are entitled to that profit, just as you are entitled to your salary or return on your stocks, 401ks, IRAs and whatever. We are scapegoating the oil over and over by having these discussions on how evil they are, and holding meetings in congress scolding their executives. Would that take us anywhere?
> NO



Congrats on skipping eight pages of thread, especially the part where it was mentioned more than once that oil is not a luxury item.



> Are we crybabies that like to cry in a corner rather than lift themselves up?
> Yes



Are you 12 years old? 



> In that case, do we deserve it?
> Absofuckinglutely.



I'm willing to bet that you either live with your parents or make more than the average middle class family does. 



> by we, i refer to the nation as a whole.



So the dual income family of four who has to put their kids in daycare over the weekend so that mom and dad can both work two extra jobs just to afford to heat their home, they're "Getting what they deserve"? You sound about as ignorant as Jeff does.



> Instead of making sure that we treat inflation so that oil along with everything else becomes less costly, we go on and ramble about evil oil companies. Instead of taxing suvs to hell and back we talk about evil oil companies. Instead of helping truck drivers with a diesel only gas tax holiday and subsidies to move towards more efficient trucks we complain about evil arabs that hate us.



When those oil companies make record profits while the country teeters on recession, yes, the public is apt to complain.



> It is easy to blame oil companies and vent our frustrations on them, when we should really scold our government and bush and ourselves for letting ourselves be tricked into the false security of cheap oil. When oil was 2.5$/gallon, a 1 dollar increase in a year at the pump we kept on driving our suvs when it was cheaper then to buy smaller cars. When the dollar was strong and has some spending power we could have invested in technology... What i'm saying is that we shouldn't take the profits away from oil companies, but make them earn them through fierce competition. And fuck, American oil companies don't control shit on the world petrolleum market



While this is a good point, this forum isn't for you to "tell us how it is". If you want to remain a member here, make your points in a less offensive fashion.


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Hippie is one thing, Sean Hannity is just a step too far... that's just way below the belt. Given how often I'm not given the benefit of the doubt, I really don't know what to expect with this stuff, and this is literally the only place on the internet where I come across as an asshole with a chip on my shoulder... oh well.



You don't get the benefit of the doubt because you rant from a soapbox made of absurd ideas. You point the finger and say things like "Ah-Ha! You should buy a $20,000 hybrid car, convert your home to NG, and then buy some solar panels!" as though it's something that the average American family hit hardest by the price of oil can actually afford to do. Then you chide them condescendingly because your suggestions aren't based in reality. If you offered up your points as suggestions and alternatives instead of the smug "Duh, just do X assholes." tone that you take, people might start actually listening to you.





> Chris, this has blown well past the point I was actually arguing. Yes, I know the whole cost of existence is going up because of this bullshit, and I want to see something else take oil's place as quickly as possible - I'm not contesting that. Whatever.
> 
> Jeff



Finally we agree on something.


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2008)

Xaios said:


> 10% annual raise FTMFW!
> 
> I'm with Chris in that I'm also on oil heat. Natural Gas is not available here, and likely never will be. Propane is a dead end here too, because its useless when the hard cold of the northern winter hits, although that doesn't mean its useful in other places. Having been certified in many things propane in the time when I managed a gas station (propane use is nothing in the winter, but huge in the summer, with all the mining camps up our way), I know from plain old experience that it doesn't offer the torque that diesel or even gasoline does. Where it shines is efficiency, especially considering it's still 30 cents per litre cheaper than gasoline here. It's mainly due to the fact that its stored in a liquid state (I'm consistantly amazed out how many people think it's stored as compressed gas in a tank), and its volume expands 270 times when it evaporates, and because the propane-to-air mix ratio required to ignite it is relatively low.



To be honest, I don't think I could name a gas station around here that sells propane. :\


----------



## Groff (May 23, 2008)

Chris said:


> To be honest, I don't think I could name a gas station around here that sells propane. :\



I wasn't even aware gas stations sold propane. I usually have to go to a hardware store, campground, or Home Depot to get an LP refill. Unless you pay to have it delivered, like we do where I work. (We have an LP forlift)

Propane isn't that powerful. The forklift is geared REALLY low so it doesn't matter, but the engine doesn't get much power. I don't think i'd want it in my car.


----------



## noodles (May 23, 2008)

Chris said:


> To be honest, I don't think I could name a gas station around here that sells propane. :\



Speaking of gas stations, those are the small business owners that both sides are forgetting. Has anyone talked to any of them? The oil companies are fixing their prices for them, so the skyrocketing price of gasoline has been eating away at their profits, since people are driving less. Any owner who does not have a full service station (repair garage) is sucking wind right now.

A lot of gas stations around here sell propane, but only in the same fashion as Home Depot. Tanks exchanges only.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 23, 2008)

Chris said:


> To be honest, I don't think I could name a gas station around here that sells propane. :\



Odd... I'm working in a petrol station for the summer and that and almost every other station I've ever seen here sells propane tanks. 

Is that just an American thing then? Are there not many people using propane over there?


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2008)

They sell propane tanks for grilling, but not as an automotive fuel.

[action=Chris]clarifies[/action]


----------



## SevenatoR (May 23, 2008)

Compressed natural gas has shown up as an alternative, but is only widely used for fleet vehicles at this point. There have been articles published in the last couple of weeks discussing how it's available in the greater Salt Lake City, Utah area at around $.63 a gallon, but the cost to convert an existing gasoline-only engine runs about $4K to $6K....

Ten years ago, Honda had a Civic model, the "VX" I believe, that got better than 50mpg on the highway, but they stopped making it after a couple of years. It took about 3 hours to get to 60mph, but it still beat the shit out of walking. 

I was thinking of building myself a really big still in the back yard and cooking up some firewater...


----------

