 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / April 2005Lets Start a GAS WAR
This was an e-mail I received, I removed the original and subsequent headers to provide privacy to the senders, but there were thousands of folks on it. I think this will work, if we can give it a chance. : FW: How to lower gas prices Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $3.00 a gallon by the summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea: This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them. BUT, whoever thought of this idea has come up with a plan that can really work. Please read it and join with us! By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $2.09 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost! Of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50- $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace....not sellers. With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war. Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do!! Now, don't whimp out on me at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!! I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000)...and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers. If those three million get excited and! Pass this on to ten friends each, and then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!! Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. (If you don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is send this to 10 people.... Well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician. But I am ... so trust me on this one.) How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!! I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you! Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. PLEASE HOLD OUT UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK. Kerry Lyle, Director, Research Coordinator  SignatureBILL P. Just Dog & ME > This was an e-mail I received, I removed the original and subsequent > headers to provide privacy to the senders, but there were thousands of [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. > THIS CAN REALLY WORK. Kerry Lyle, Director, Research Coordinator you realize there is no possible way this will hurt any oil company....... besides the fact that the logic is incorrect, since the big oil companies sell their gas to smaller ones, they still make their profit.... > Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to hit close to $3.00 a > gallon by the summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come > down? We need to take some intelligent, united action. > Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea: This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than > the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all > act together to force a price war. > Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline > from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS > CAN REALLY WORK. Kerry Lyle, Director, Research Coordinator ============================================= $1.30 range?!!! lol, I guess thats what happens when the same crap is copyed and pasted since 2001! I wrote a little on this matter below. but if you dont want to read what I have to say, then go to http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/gasout.htm Yet another feeble effort that will not work. If we all boycott Exxon/Mobil we will still be demanding the same amount of fuel, just not from them. So all the other fuel manufacturers will have an increase on their demand, and be forced to raise their prices while Exxon/Mobil stays unchanged. As all the other fuel prices rise, Exxon/Mobil will start to look more appealing since their price has not gone up! Come on folks. boycotting one supplier when there is a limited supply only hurts yourself. We need to decrease the quantity demanded. In other words just plain buy less gas, from everyone! That's right, You are endorsing these high gas prices when you buy these gas guzzling SUVs and giant trucks that never hauls anything more then your fat butt. Many car companies are offering alternative fuel vehicles, Natural gas cars, electric cars, etc. Dumping the Ever-enlarging SUVs and getting smaller, more fuel efficient, more economical cars that use less fuel will not only cause the gas demand to go down, but most of these fuel efficient cars are much cheaper (to buy AND to own) this way you will then have more money to spend on other things. OR maybe, just maybe you can... -gasp- SAVE some money in the bank! I know, I know. a Honda Civic hybrid, or a Toyota Pirus doesn't exactly that that "Bling" factor that so many weak-minded Californian's have grown dependent on. So next time you fill up. just remember, YOU bought your car. YOU can choose what ever car you want. Gas prices are what they are and if we continue to buy SUVs and trucks that use a lot of gas, then the gas prices will continue to rise. Its simply the price you pay for your status. Swallow some pride and trade in that Hummer H2, or YukonXL and get an Envoy, or Highlander. Still nice SUVs, still just as capable as many larger SUVs. Further more. The Chevy Suburban, one of the most commonly seen SUVs on the road (could just be because of its size) from 5268-6073 pounds, it's a hefty beast too! How about the Silverado 1500? Bet you have seen a few of those on the road! 4225-5834 pounds! Then there is the all coveted H2, tipping the scales at 6400 pounds. Lets take a look at the Ford explorer shall we? Currently weighing in at 4301 pounds. But in 1995, it came in at 3952 pounds. How about the Dodge Ram 2500? Currently, 6207, was just a shade over 5000 just ten years ago. Exactly how much steel is used in these SUVs? Since its currently 11PM, and I am sure this email will surface in another six months (as it has in the past) I will get into the cost of heating steel and aluminum to melt it down to make the cars and trucks. The mere cost of the steel that is used in a 6000 SUV compared to the cost of the steel in a 3000 pound SUV.. You can build twice as many cars with the same about of steel, and the smaller cars get better fuel economy, AND usually carry just as many people in a smaller area! The solution is not to boycott the fuel suppliers. We need to boycott the ever popular trend of growing cars! They just keep getting bigger! I know quite a few people that commute over 60 miles each way for work. That comes out to over 31k miles a year in JUST commuting to work. Its not just the fuel economy though, its the size of the vehicles. One full size consumes just about as much space as two economy cars. If we got rid of the unnecessary big SUVs and trucks, then traffic would not be as bad ether.. and with better traffic comes a higher average speed, approaching closer to a more efficient speed for the engine. Allowing the engine to operate in its more efficient range AND less time is spent sitting in traffic. Less traffic, less stress, less road rage, lower blood pressure and less medication due to stress induced ailments. Beyond the car market, there are other solution to saving gas. Take the bus! Walk, ride a bicycle, or really push yourself and CARPOOL! That's right! share the commute with a coworker! Not only will this cut down on gas consumption, but it will also remove cars from the freeways causing less traffic. with less traffic, the cars will be able to actually move, a car moving at 60 MPH on the freeway in over-drive is more fuel efficient then the same car in second gear doing 20 MPH. Use less gas, AND get to work sooner, and less stressed out from the drive. So you want to pay less for gas? Gas prices are not going to fall. so you will just have buy less gas. A new issue that has been coming up lately is China. They are growing and developing at an amazing rate. They are quickly becoming a major fossil fuel consumer. We need to reduce our fuel consumption more, and faster then their ever growing rate of demand climbs! WE only have so much oil, and the demand will only grow with the global development and modernization. Here is another thought. How much time do you spend sitting in your car in line at the drive through? How much gas is burned in California while they wait for their food to be cooked? Park your car, turn it off, get your lazy butt out of your car and into the restaurant and eat inside. Or better yet, just don't eat out! Most home made food is more healthy then fast food. And is MUCH cheaper. AND you will not be using your precious gas to go get it. Just throw a cooler in the trunk, and your set, fresh food on demand! Just my $.02 do what you will, its your money. Ahh yes, the cost of helping one's ego, even at $10 a gallon, some folks will still need that social crutch to think they are "cool" or "popular" > Come on folks. boycotting one supplier when there is a limited supply > only hurts yourself. We need to decrease the quantity demanded. In > other words just plain buy less gas, from everyone! That's right, > You are endorsing these high gas prices when you buy these gas > guzzling SUVs and giant trucks that never hauls anything more then > your fat butt. You are trying to play the "supply and demand" game with the people that set the supply. It won't work. Refinery production will be balanced with whatever demand the consumer sets. Prices are not high because Mother Earth ran out of oil. I know oil is a limited natural resource, but when are we going to run out? I don't think any time in the immediate future. If we reduce the demand, the refineries (who you want to boycott) will reduce production to balance the demand, then RAISE prices to make up for lost sales volume. If you think they will keep refining just to store the products and create a supply "overstock" you are kidding yourself. > > Come on folks. boycotting one supplier when there is a limited supply > > only hurts yourself. We need to decrease the quantity demanded. In [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > sales volume. If you think they will keep refining just to store the > products and create a supply "overstock" you are kidding yourself. LOL, where do you guy's come up with this crap. The market is what it is and if demand goes down, so will the price. Even now the price of gas is falling fast in many areas because the oil companies see people rapidly moving toward better mileage cars. If they tried to raise prices in response to lower demand it would drive even more people to even smaller better mileage vehicles and reduce demand even further and then the government would have to get involved since that would be price gouging and the last thing the oil companies want is price regulations. BTW, do you happen to work for the oil company? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >>> Come on folks. boycotting one supplier when there is a limited >>> supply only hurts yourself. We need to decrease the quantity [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > would be price gouging and the last thing the oil companies want is > price regulations. BTW, do you happen to work for the oil company? No, I don't work for any of the oil companies. Are you saying that last week there was a mad rush of people buying fuel efficient cars resulting in the gas prices going down? I think not. The price of gas at the pumps is set by the cost of foreign crude oil. You do seem interested in this subject, so I'll pass this along to you. Explore it, analyze it any way you want, then come to your own conclusions. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp > The > price of gas at the pumps is set by the cost of foreign crude oil. Thats partly true. The price of oil goes up 2% and gas prices go up 10%. The news might tell you its the price of oil being passed down to the end user. More to it than that by far. >> The >> price of gas at the pumps is set by the cost of foreign crude oil. > > Thats partly true. The price of oil goes up 2% and gas prices go up > 10%. The news might tell you its the price of oil being passed down > to the end user. More to it than that by far. Yes, there is more to it, but no one thing changes the cost of gas at the pumps more than the cost of crude oil. > Yes, there is more to it, but no one thing changes the cost of gas at the > pumps more than the cost of crude oil. Thats just not true at all. Refining costs are whats driving up prices now. There are numerous refineries out of commission now and the remaining ones can't keep up with demand. The price of oil has gone up $8 a barrel since this time last year. Thats a fraction of whats happened to the price of gas in the past year. Make a graph showing the price of oil over the last 10 years compared with the price of gas. They dont have anywheres near the same slope. Other costs far outweigh the cost of the oil. Thats just what the retailers want you to believe. >> Yes, there is more to it, but no one thing changes the cost of gas >> at the pumps more than the cost of crude oil. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > costs far outweigh the cost of the oil. Thats just what the retailers > want you to believe. Gasoline production is right on par with the trend of the last 10 years. They are keeping up with demand nicely. In fact, we are producing 6,000 barrels a day more than in the same week of 2003. Here is the data up to April 8 2005. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/psw10vwgttp.xls Yes, refining costs have gone up since January, but it still has less of an impact on our gas prices than crude oil. The breakdown of what we pay for in a gallon of gas at American pumps. March 2005 national average. 6% distribution and marketing 19% refining costs 21% taxes 54% crude oil Can you point me to a resource for the price of crude oil over the past 10 years? I'll chart it out and have a look. > Yes, refining costs have gone up since January, but it still has less of an > impact on our gas prices than crude oil. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 21% taxes > 54% crude oil Then please explain why the price of oil has not gone up anywheres near the % that gas has? > Can you point me to a resource for the price of crude oil over the past 10 > years? I'll chart it out and have a look. I'll see if I can dig something up. I do know that April 2004 a barrel of oil was $8 less than it is now. Thats about an 18% increase. Gas here in AZ was $1.65. Now it's $2.35. About a 40% increase. Oil accounts for less than 1/2 the increase. >> Yes, refining costs have gone up since January, but it still has >> less of an impact on our gas prices than crude oil. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Then please explain why the price of oil has not gone up anywheres > near the % that gas has? It has on the national average. It appears Arizonians are taking a beating on gas prices. >> Can you point me to a resource for the price of crude oil over the >> past 10 years? I'll chart it out and have a look. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > increase. Gas here in AZ was $1.65. Now it's $2.35. About a 40% > increase. Oil accounts for less than 1/2 the increase. I haven't found any cost information specifically for Arizona. I do have national averages. 4 April 2005 the national average price per gallon of gas was $2.217. 4 April 2004 the national average price per gallon of gas was $1.793. That's about a 23.5% increase. 2 April 2004 the price per barrel of crude was $36.082. 1 April 2005 the price per barrel of crude was $45.324. That's about a 25.5% increase. > >>> Come on folks. boycotting one supplier when there is a limited > >>> supply only hurts yourself. We need to decrease the quantity [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Are you saying that last week there was a mad rush of people buying fuel > efficient cars resulting in the gas prices going down? I think not. LOL, not hardly. What they look at is what the consumer is buying over time and those reports are not released every day. Despite what you might think, they are restricted by the same sales forces that effect everyone else and they can only sell it for what the market will bare. > The price of gas at the pumps is set by the cost of foreign crude oil. LOL, now you are really dreaming but if this were true, how could they raise the price when we use less. Less demand translates into lower crude prices > You do seem interested in this subject, so I'll pass this along to you. Explore it, > analyze it any way you want, then come to your own conclusions. > > http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >>>>> Come on folks. boycotting one supplier when there is a limited >>>>> supply only hurts yourself. We need to decrease the quantity [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > they raise the price when we use less. Less demand translates into > lower crude prices The US is the largest user of crude oil, but we are not the only users. North America (US, Mexico, and Canada) consumes 30% of the global market. If the entire continent got together and cut our oil use overnight by a staggering 50% the global market would only see a 15% reduction in sales. Operating and materials costs of the oil companies are recovered in the price of the product. When the sales volume goes down, the percentage of those costs recovered in the product goes up. There is less product being sold to recover the portion of overhead that does not change with production levels. A 50% volume loss will have less than a 15% lowering effect on the global market pricing of the crude oil, and crude oil is only 54% of the end product price. That's an 8% operating cost break for a 50% reduction in sales. Volume goes down, price goes up. bs snipped... btw guys...dont know about where you are at, but fuel is dropping like a rock here. Reg unlead was $2.45 a week ago... Now its 1.99-$2.10 > bs snipped... > > btw guys...dont know about where you are at, but fuel is dropping like a > rock here. > Reg unlead was $2.45 a week ago... > Now its 1.99-$2.10 Its still hovering around $2.60 here. >>bs snipped... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Its still hovering around $2.60 here. yep $2.40 here Of course it is. As you know, the price of fuel seems to have little to do with the day's price of oil. It seems that the oil execs are getting scared with the recent rapid shift of Americans to more fuel efficient vehicles (as seen by rapid market share loss of GM and Ford) and are trying to lull us back into being the selfish ignorant people we are so good at being with lower prices (for a while). Fuel price by me is now back to $1.99 form $2.24 a week ago but it will be for a short time. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > bs snipped... > > btw guys...dont know about where you are at, but fuel is dropping like a > rock here. > Reg unlead was $2.45 a week ago... > Now its 1.99-$2.10 > Of course it is. As you know, the price of fuel seems to have little to do > with the day's price of oil. It seems that the oil execs are getting scared [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lower prices (for a while). Fuel price by me is now back to $1.99 form > $2.24 a week ago but it will be for a short time. People are nuts. They are now paying more for a used hybrid than a brand new one because new ones have several months waiting lists. These hybrids are rather costly so no real savings from the better mpg. People are so fixated on the price of gas they will spend a fortune to save a few peanuts in comparison. One good thing is coming out of all this. The high prices are getting people to put pressure on politicians to do more for the short term dependency of foreign oil by allowing domestic oil expansion. Should have started that a decade or more ago. How about an old fashioned gas war that forces the price of "ethyl" from $0.269 to $0.169 per gallon. I'd vote for that war. > How about an old fashioned gas war that forces the price of "ethyl" from > $0.269 to $0.169 per gallon. I'd vote for that war. Decimal points are nasty, dirty little things aren't they? ;^) Mike > > Of course it is. As you know, the price of fuel seems to have little to do > > with the day's price of oil. It seems that the oil execs are getting scared [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > People are nuts. Not really. They are just tired of getting it in the a.s and are making a clear statement. > They are now paying more for a used hybrid than a > brand new one because new ones have several months waiting lists. Probably out of fear of possible gas rationing in the near future. > These hybrids are rather costly so no real savings from the better mpg. LOL, you really need to start thinking long term Miles. While I agree that they will save little to no money NOW, the demand will push for the further development of the vehicles to where they both get getter mileage and cost less. > People are so fixated on the price of gas they will spend a fortune to > save a few peanuts in comparison. As it should be. > One good thing is coming out of all > this. The high prices are getting people to put pressure on politicians > to do more for the short term dependency of foreign oil by allowing > domestic oil expansion. Should have started that a decade or more ago. And it would have done nothing just like now. The problem is our wasteful use of energy as well as our limited refining capability. We have had this discussion before Miles and as usual, you only look at one side of the problem. Fortunately more people are starting to look at the other side of the problem where we can actually do something about it. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >>People are so fixated on the price of gas they will spend a fortune to >>save a few peanuts in comparison. > > As it should be. To you perhaps. Maybe you have tons of extra cash around so you can save the world. I don't. I can't afford a new car. The savings in gas from it won't come close to paying for it. > We have had this > discussion before Miles and as usual, you only look at one side of the > problem. Not so. I see both sides. Short term issues as well as long term issues. You see only the long term and ignore whats happening now. We are dependent on foreign oil NOW and have serious problems NOW. Long term helps the future..great, now what about the short term? Ignore those problems? You have stated before you see nothing wrong with foreign dependency because in the long term when we get off oil entirely in won't be an issue. You gonna deny that? > >>People are so fixated on the price of gas they will spend a fortune to > >>save a few peanuts in comparison. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > save the world. I don't. I can't afford a new car. The savings in gas > from it won't come close to paying for it. Oh come on Miles, we all know that you're the one in here with the big bucks. I all seriousness though, what you are saying sounds more like a justification for not wanting to make any sacrifices or changes in your lifestyle. > > We have had this > > discussion before Miles and as usual, you only look at one side of the > > problem. > > Not so. I see both sides. Short term issues as well as long term > issues. While ou may see them, you still only look to one side for answers. The side that doesn't require you to make any changes. > You see only the long term and ignore whats happening now. Actually, I see both and what people are starting to do effects both the long and short term. The sad thing is Miles, is that conservation is the only real answer for both and the one you simply refuse to look at. Drilling more wells alone does nothing but propagate the problem and will make us ecen more dependent on foreign oil when we run out of ours and the people are still the wasteful pigs that they currently are. > We are dependent on foreign oil NOW and have serious problems NOW. And with our current usage and rate of grown in usage, we always will be. Even if all of alaska and everywhere else were to suddenly be opened up for drilling. it would take years for anything to come of it. Sorry Miles, but drilling is neither a short or long term solution to the problem. Concervation can be started today with results happening TODAY. Sounds pretty short term to me. And then if the demand for more fuel efficient cars continues, the builders will have no choice but to work on improving the technology, perhaps to the point of not really needing oil at all for fuel. That sounds like a solid long term solution to me. > Long term helps the future..great, now what about the short term? Ignore > those problems? The only one ignoring them is you. Our dependence is caused in a big way by our own hand and our continual waste of energy. Everything most Americans that can afford it have is way bigger than they need and if they want to continue this way, it comes at a cost. Just digging more well is truly ignorong the problem and trying to deal with the symptoms. The problem with doing that is the problem just gets worse. > You have stated before you see nothing wrong with > foreign dependency because in the long term when we get off oil entirely > in won't be an issue. You gonna deny that? No, what I said was that it is better to use THEIR oil first so when it becomes critical, WE are the ones that are in control because we still have some) and not the other way around like you would have it. Everyone is so damn sure that there is another technology to jump in when we begin to run out of oil and while I hate to burst your bubble, it simply doesn't exist yet and possibly never will. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Oh come on Miles, we all know that you're the one in here with the big > bucks. I all seriousness though, what you are saying sounds more like a > justification for not wanting to make any sacrifices or changes in your > lifestyle. What??? I should spend $20,000 on a new hybrid so I can save a few $100 a year and feel good about sacrificing? Good grief. > While ou may see them, you still only look to one side for answers. The > side that doesn't require you to make any changes. Nope. I look to solving both short and long term issues. You only look at the long term and ignore whats going on today. > Actually, I see both and what people are starting to do effects both the > long and short term. The sad thing is Miles, is that conservation is the > only real answer for both and the one you simply refuse to look at. Ok, so you look at the short term, but you refuse to look at solutions that can help. Conservation is a long term answer for our society. You can sit there and say everyone should go out and buy a hybrid and the short term problems will be gone. Face reality though TBone. You refuse to look at a realistic solution that will help the short term problems. A solution and not some pipedream that stands no chance. > Drilling more wells alone does nothing but propagate the problem and will > make us ecen more dependent on foreign oil when we run out of ours and the > people are still the wasteful pigs that they currently are. Drilling more wells will get us off the foreign oil for the short term. Using less oil and finding alternatives will help for the long term. >> Long term helps the future..great, now what about the short term? Ignore >>those problems? > The only one ignoring them is you. Our dependence is caused in a big way by > our own hand and our continual waste of energy. Everything most Americans > that can afford it have is way bigger than they need and if they want to > continue this way, it comes at a cost. Just digging more well is truly > ignorong the problem and trying to deal with the symptoms. The problem with > doing that is the problem just gets worse. Great TBone. So lets hear your great solution to the short term issues we face????? All you do is rant about how society wastes. Ya, we agree there. So your solution is to get everyone to do better? Sorry TBone, that means we will continue having a short term problem until long term solutions are found. Which is worse? Using our own oil, or using foreign oil for the short term until long term solutions can be found? > No, what I said was that it is better to use THEIR oil first so when it > becomes critical, WE are the ones that are in control because we still have > some) and not the other way around like you would have it. Everyone is so > damn sure that there is another technology to jump in when we begin to run > out of oil and while I hate to burst your bubble, it simply doesn't exist > yet and possibly never will. So we better at least start finding where our oil is. But you liberals wont even allow exploratory drilling. > > Oh come on Miles, we all know that you're the one in here with the big > > bucks. I all seriousness though, what you are saying sounds more like a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What??? I should spend $20,000 on a new hybrid so I can save a few $100 > a year and feel good about sacrificing? Good grief. On one hand you whine and complain about us being dependant on foreign oil but on the other hand you are unwilling to do anything about it. Make up your mind dude. > > While ou may see them, you still only look to one side for answers. The > > side that doesn't require you to make any changes. > > Nope. I look to solving both short and long term issues. You only look > at the long term and ignore whats going on today. LOL, completely untrue. I am well aware of what is going on today and we had this conversation over a year ago. At that time I was criticizing the American car companies for having their heads up their a.ses as usual as they were building bigger and bigger vehicles and investing nothing in hybrids or fuel efficient vehicles. You OTOH, said they were doing the right thing since there was no need or market for them and that the ones building hybrids were wasting their time and money. Now look at what is happening. Fuel prices are rapidly climbing and the American car companies lost another 20% of the market share to those companies that were as you said wasting their time. I was right then and I'm right now. The only way to get out from under these problems in both the short term and long term is conservation and looking ahead. > > Actually, I see both and what people are starting to do effects both the > > long and short term. The sad thing is Miles, is that conservation is the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > refuse to look at a realistic solution that will help the short term > problems. A solution and not some pipedream that stands no chance. LOL, you said the same thing last year and look what is happening now. 6 month waits for those pipe dream hybrids and the American car companied in big trouble because they doen't have anything. Conservation is a short term solution as well. You just don't want to hear about anything that could impact your lifestyle in any way. I never said that everyone should dump their vehicle for a hybrid but they can take steps to save a little fuel today and make their next purchase more based on what they need rather than pumping up their lillte ego's. > > Drilling more wells alone does nothing but propagate the problem and will > > make us ecen more dependent on foreign oil when we run out of ours and the > > people are still the wasteful pigs that they currently are. > > Drilling more wells will get us off the foreign oil for the short term. > Using less oil and finding alternatives will help for the long term. LOL, what exactly is your definition of "short term"??? It takes years from inception to completion get anything of use from a new well. We could start conserving today and if we could save a gallon of fuel each per week (which is not impossible to do) the impact would be massive within months, not years like your ideas. Get with the program dude. > >> Long term helps the future..great, now what about the short term? Ignore > >>those problems? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that means we will continue having a short term problem until long term > solutions are found. This is the part that you are not getting Miles, our public waste, selfishness, and stupidity IS THE PROBLEM. What you are talking about are the symptoms. And as we have seen in the past, if you mask the symptoms, the existence of the actual problem will be denied and not be dealt with and will simply grow worse. People becoming aware of the problem and doing what they can to conserve what we have and stop outright wasting our resources will both help to solve the problem and eliminate many of the symptoms. The thing is Miles, you need the problem to show itself to motivate most people to do something about it. > Which is worse? Using our own oil, or using foreign oil for the short > term until long term solutions can be found? Using our own oil will be MUCH worse. There really is no benefit to doing that. If you think that it will have any effect on lowering the price, you are just fooling yourself. The price is set by demand, regardless of availability and no oil company is going to produce more just to get less for it. If we introduce more oil into the market, other producers will simply cut back and all that will happen is that we will be wasting our resources. As for the long term solution, that will only be found (if there even is one) by the growing need for it and as long as oil seems plentiful, people like you will simply say that it is not worth the money (like you have already) to do anything about it. > > No, what I said was that it is better to use THEIR oil first so when it > > becomes critical, WE are the ones that are in control because we still have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So we better at least start finding where our oil is. But you liberals > wont even allow exploratory drilling. LOL, that is because there is no such thing. You are either drilling for oil or you're not. There is no middle ground. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > "miles" <nospam@noemail.com> wrote in message >>What??? I should spend $20,000 on a new hybrid so I can save a few $100 >>a year and feel good about sacrificing? Good grief. > > On one hand you whine and complain about us being dependant on foreign oil > but on the other hand you are unwilling to do anything about it. Make up > your mind dude. Oh geez. Your logic is pure absurdity. Ok, how about you send me $20,000 so I can buy a hybrid. You'd benifit from the cleaner air. What? You won't make that sacrifice? Too funny. > LOL, completely untrue. I am well aware of what is going on today and we > had this conversation over a year ago. At that time I was criticizing the > American car companies for having their heads up their a.ses as usual as > they were building bigger and bigger vehicles and investing nothing in > hybrids or fuel efficient vehicles. Development like you state is a long term goal. Not a short term one. A year ago they were investing millions into more fuel efficient vehicles. They have been under development for well over a year. Your short term plan is to bitch about the consumer. Ya, real effective plan for solving short term problems. > You OTOH, said they were doing the > right thing since there was no need or market for them and that the ones > building hybrids were wasting their time and money. Where do you come up with this crap? I never said developing hybrids was a waste of time and money. Good grief you're nuts. > The only way > to get out from under these problems in both the short term and long term is > conservation and looking ahead. Looking ahead is the long term solution. Conservation today sounds great. Will bitching at the consumer solve short term problems? Hell no. You have any other short term solution other than to say consumers are wastefull and need to conserve? Some sort of real solution that is effective? Thought not. Just bitch at consumers. Ya, thats gonna change short term problems. > LOL, you said the same thing last year and look what is happening now. 6 > month waits for those pipe dream hybrids and the American car companied in > big trouble because they doen't have anything. No, they aren't in trouble. The American car companies have invested millions into development that far exceeds whats currently out from foreign companies. You look at whats on the road rather than whats being researched and developed. Besides, these hybrids are not a short term solution. They aren't even a long term one. They're only part of ongoing development into longer term solutions. Small tiny commuter hybrids are not a workable long term solution. They just allow a manufacture to learn and develope something better for the future. > Conservation is a short > term solution as well. You just don't want to hear about anything that > could impact your lifestyle in any way. I never said that everyone should > dump their vehicle for a hybrid but they can take steps to save a little > fuel today and make their next purchase more based on what they need rather > than pumping up their lillte ego's. Thats a long term solution. It will take decades to get more fuel efficient cars on the road. So tell me again what is your short term solution? Do tell. Bitch at consumers some more? > We could start > conserving today and if we could save a gallon of fuel each per week More bitching at the consumer as a short term solution? Bitching at them isn't going to change much. Guess it makes you feel better but I'm looking for a real workable solution. Something you won't do. >>>The only one ignoring them is you. Our dependence is caused in a big > > way by > >>>our own hand and our continual waste of energy. I don't disagree with that. Never have. But simply bitching about it is not a solution. > This is the part that you are not getting Miles, our public waste, > selfishness, and stupidity IS THE PROBLEM. I don't get? I have stated over and over that I agree with you on this. But bitching about it won't change a thing for the short term. Your whining about others is NOT a solution. > Using our own oil will be MUCH worse. There really is no benefit to doing > that. If you think that it will have any effect on lowering the price, you > are just fooling yourself. It's not just about prices. We are at the mercy of foreign governments. This is a good thing to you? > The price is set by demand, regardless of > availability WHAT???? It's a function of both supply and demand. Not just one. As the price of oil goes up, supply has been increased. There are scores of oil reserves untapped in foreign lands and oceans waiting for the day when the price will support expansion. > LOL, that is because there is no such thing. You are either drilling for > oil or you're not. There is no middle ground. That is complete bull. Oil companies have been asking to explore for decades. In some areas they have been allowed and the oil found has not been tapped. Oil companies constantly want sources for FUTURE revenue. That means sitting on stocks and continualy finding new sources. There is middle ground TBone. Learn about the industry before putting your foot in your mouth. > > "miles" <nospam@noemail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > $20,000 so I can buy a hybrid. You'd benifit from the cleaner air. > What? You won't make that sacrifice? Too funny. Absurd, not at all, just against your way of thinking. Tell me Miles, what mileage do your current vehicles get? > > LOL, completely untrue. I am well aware of what is going on today and we > > had this conversation over a year ago. At that time I was criticizing the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Development like you state is a long term goal. Not a short term one. > A year ago they were investing millions into more fuel efficient > vehicles. They have been under development for well over a year. Your > short term plan is to bitch about the consumer. Ya, real effective plan > for solving short term problems. LOL, if they were working on them for over a year, where are they???? Funny how the Japanese manufacturers have them NOW and are gaining market share. Looks like typical conservative short sighted thinking to me. As for bitching about the customer, I am doing no such thing. I am simply stating the real problem whic you claim to agree with me on. > > You OTOH, said they were doing the > > right thing since there was no need or market for them and that the ones > > building hybrids were wasting their time and money. > > Where do you come up with this crap? I never said developing hybrids > was a waste of time and money. Good grief you're nuts. Sure you did, many times. Even now you are saying that buying on is a waste of time because you will never recoup the total cost in savings on your fuel bill. > > The only way > > to get out from under these problems in both the short term and long term is > > conservation and looking ahead. > > Looking ahead is the long term solution. What you said is nothing mre than short sighted idiotic thinking. You need to look toward the future to make decisions today that effect both tomorrow and into the long term future but like most conservatives, you can't see past the end of your dick. IOW, if it doesn't bring you immediate satisfaction, it isn't seen at all. > Conservation today sounds > great. Will bitching at the consumer solve short term problems? Hell > no. You have any other short term solution other than to say consumers > are wastefull and need to conserve? Some sort of real solution that is > effective? Thought not. Just bitch at consumers. Ya, thats gonna > change short term problems. Why is it that any time someone mentions what the problem really is, you call it bitching? Once again I hate to burst your bubble but bitching has nothing to do with it. I am just stating the problem as what it is and the only real way to fix it. You on the other hand just want to hide the symptoms and pretend that the problem isn't there. The problem with that is just like many times in life, if all you do is treat the symptoms and deny the actual problem, the problem continues to grow until it is incurable. > > LOL, you said the same thing last year and look what is happening now. 6 > > month waits for those pipe dream hybrids and the American car companied in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > millions into development that far exceeds whats currently out from > foreign companies. In denial once again I see. Last time I looked, Ford was trading under $10.00, not much for the #2 auto-maker and GM is begging with the union for medical benefit concessions and just closed another plant and then you can add the fact that GM has lost 20% of it's market share. Not exactly the picture of health to me there Miles . > You look at whats on the road rather than whats being researched and developed. Because what is on the road and working is what counts. Like in the stock market, until you sell it, you haven't made a dime. > Besides, these hybrids are not a short > term solution. They aren't even a long term one. They're only part of > ongoing development into longer term solutions. Small tiny commuter > hybrids are not a workable long term solution. They just allow a > manufacture to learn and develope something better for the future. Please explain exactly why they are not a short or long term solution and BTW, they are neither tiny or just commuter hybrids anymore. > > Conservation is a short > > term solution as well. You just don't want to hear about anything that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thats a long term solution. Yes, and a short term one as well. > It will take decades to get more fuel > efficient cars on the road. So tell me again what is your short term > solution? Do tell. Bitch at consumers some more? Hahahahahaha, you really should think about what you are saying. > > We could start > > conserving today and if we could save a gallon of fuel each per week > > More bitching at the consumer as a short term solution? Bitching at > them isn't going to change much. Guess it makes you feel better but I'm > looking for a real workable solution. Something you won't do. How is this bitching? In reality, it is just something that you simply don't want to hear. Your soultion is really no solution at all. At best, it will only make the problem worse by giving people a false sense of security and more bullshit justifications not to spend the time and resources to find a valid solution. Pretty much like you are doing now. > >>>The only one ignoring them is you. Our dependence is caused in a big > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't disagree with that. Never have. But simply bitching about it > is not a solution. Yawn... There is a big difference between bitching about it and defining it. What we need is for fuel to get to $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon and rationing to 20 gallons a week to wake people up to the real problem and with the continuing climb in oil prices and dropping in the reserves of unleaded gas despite the currently high price, that is not too far away. > > This is the part that you are not getting Miles, our public waste, > > selfishness, and stupidity IS THE PROBLEM. > > I don't get? Yes, you don't get!!!! > I have stated over and over that I agree with you on this. You say it but you don't mean it. Why, because any mention of it and what needs to be done is instantly translated by you into nothing more than bitching. > But bitching about it won't change a thing for the short term. Your > whining about others is NOT a solution. See what I mean. But you are right, talking about it does nothing with the average selfish American. The only thing that works is rubbing their faces in it and even then, it only works for a short period of time. The problem is that this oil thing is not a short term thing and it is only going to get worse and we have a choice. We can either voluntarily make some life style choices where we are still in control over some of what happens or they are going to be made for us and not in a good way. > > Using our own oil will be MUCH worse. There really is no benefit to doing > > that. If you think that it will have any effect on lowering the price, you > > are just fooling yourself. > > It's not just about prices. We are at the mercy of foreign governments. > This is a good thing to you? Wake up Miles, we will always be at the mercy of foreign governments and you can thank the "global economy" for that. Drilling more wells will have absolutly no effect there. > > The price is set by demand, regardless of > > availability > > WHAT???? It's a function of both supply and demand. Hahahaha, not when the supply can be controlled like it is now. And since fuel is a requirement.... > As the price of oil goes up, supply has been increased. What does this even mean???? > There are scores of oil reserves untapped in foreign lands and oceans waiting for the day > when the price will support expansion. Back in denial once again I see. > > LOL, that is because there is no such thing. You are either drilling for > > oil or you're not. There is no middle ground. > > That is complete bull. Oil companies have been asking to explore for > decades. In some areas they have been allowed and the oil found has not > been tapped. Get real Miles. There is a big difference between tapping and pumping. There is no way to know if oil exists and if so, what type of oil it is without drilling and tapping. While there are some fields that are not being pumped or fully drilled, they have been drilled and tapped to some level. The problem is that it is the setup for drilling as well as the drilling itself and tapping that is so destructive and poses the potential environmental damage to the area. > Oil companies constantly want sources for FUTURE revenue. > That means sitting on stocks and continualy finding new sources. > There is middle ground TBone. Learn about the industry before putting > your foot in your mouth. This is definitely a matter of PKB here Miles. There is no way to prove these stocks exist and are usable without drilling and tapping and it is the setup, drilling, and tapping that poses the real and possible damage to the environment so there is in fact no real middle ground. Either you drill or you don't... SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Absurd, not at all, just against your way of thinking. Tell me Miles, what > mileage do your current vehicles get? No, your logic is absurd. Society can not afford to go out buying new cars that won't come close to saving enough to make it worthwhile. Make a sacrifice to save the world? Sounds great, do most people have the money to go out and buy a new hybrid? Current hybrids range in MPG HWY from 37 (Honda Accord) to 51 (Toyota Prius). How long to pay for itself to make it worthwhile to give up my truck that I drive 15,000/yr at 18mpg? > LOL, if they were working on them for over a year, where are they???? You don't look very hard to you? Ford has the Escape Hybrid out. Chevy has hybrid versions of the Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups available to commercial customers and expects consumer versions later this year. GM has committed to spending over $1 billion to get hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles ready for production. Spending money on developing fuel cell vehicles makes far more sense than hybrids. > Funny > how the Japanese manufacturers have them NOW and are gaining market share. For cars that don't solve much of a problem. They are expensive to build and cause pollution in forms not currently measured. Look what goes into their construction. Hybrids have a short life because of their batteries (which poses pollution concerns). > Looks like typical conservative short sighted thinking to me. As for > bitching about the customer, I am doing no such thing. I am simply stating > the real problem whic you claim to agree with me on. You state a real problem and yes, I agree. Ok, the consumer wastes. But you have stated your problem as being the solution. Bitch at consumers to conserve. Ya, thats gonna work. > Sure you did, many times. Even now you are saying that buying on is a waste > of time because you will never recoup the total cost in savings on your fuel > bill. I have not said hybrids or other efficient cars or developing other energy sources is a waste. I never said its a waste of time. I said its not economical to do so and not practical for society to do so as a whole. Your solution is not a workable one. Society isnt going to change based on your logic. It has to be affordable. > What you said is nothing mre than short sighted idiotic thinking. You need > to look toward the future to make decisions today that effect both tomorrow > and into the long term future but like most conservatives, you can't see > past the end of your dick. IOW, if it doesn't bring you immediate > satisfaction, it isn't seen at all. See TBone, here is a classic example of you only seeing one side. Looking toward the future is great. We need to. But you assume I'm not doing so and thats where you're flat out wrong. Trouble is, you need to argue so you say I don't just because. I've repeatedly said developing alternative fuels for the future is needed. But I also see problems today that you refuse to address. Ya, tell the consumer to conserve. Great realistic plan ya got there. > Why is it that any time someone mentions what the problem really is, you > call it bitching? Because you try to state the problem as also being the solution. It is not. It's the problem. Now tell me your solution? All you do is bitch, whine and moan about the wastefull consumer. That is not a solution. > Once again I hate to burst your bubble but bitching has > nothing to do with it. I am just stating the problem as what it is and the > only real way to fix it. You have not offered any workable solution to the problem. Telling people to conserve will do nothing. Therefore your solution is ineffective and some other solution needs to be found. > Because what is on the road and working is what counts. Like in the stock > market, until you sell it, you haven't made a dime. But I thought you said the answer is looking to the future. American companies are spending millions on technology such as fuel cells that will easily surpass hybrids and is a far better way to spend research $'s. None the less, contrary to what you seem to know, American companies do have hybrids out. > Please explain exactly why they are not a short or long term solution and > BTW, they are neither tiny or just commuter hybrids anymore. True, the American companies have hybrid trucks and SUV's out. Ones you seem to ignore. Japanese have tiny civic and the prius out. > Hahahahahaha, you really should think about what you are saying. How many years (decades) before fuel efficient cars and trucks dominate the roads? >>>This is the part that you are not getting Miles, our public waste, >>>selfishness, and stupidity IS THE PROBLEM. Yep, but not the solution as you claim. > See what I mean. But you are right, talking about it does nothing with the > average selfish American. Yep, but thats your solution anyways. At least you admitted your solution is not a workable one. > Get real Miles. There is a big difference between tapping and pumping. > There is no way to know if oil exists and if so, what type of oil it is > without drilling and tapping. What do you think exploratory drilling is? Or in your mind it doesn't exist? If it doesn't exist, why do you liberals fight exploratory drilling? Oil companies want to find new sources for future revenues just like any other business. It does not mean its to be pumped out today. We need to find what we have today for future use. > While there are some fields that are not > being pumped or fully drilled, they have been drilled and tapped to some > level. The problem is that it is the setup for drilling as well as the > drilling itself and tapping that is so destructive and poses the potential > environmental damage to the area. Oh ya, the liberals not in my backyard routine. Depend on foreigners instead. > This is definitely a matter of PKB here Miles. There is no way to prove > these stocks exist and are usable without drilling and tapping and it is the > setup, drilling, and tapping that poses the real and possible damage to the > environment so there is in fact no real middle ground. Either you drill or > you don't... How did they know there is oil in Alaska? If they setup that huge infrastructure you refer to then why has there been debate about drilling there? Heck, according to you its already been done. > > Absurd, not at all, just against your way of thinking. Tell me Miles, what > > mileage do your current vehicles get? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a sacrifice to save the world? Sounds great, do most people have the > money to go out and buy a new hybrid? Who said that everyone had to do that??? The point is that although the sales of large SUV's have dropped by about 25%, there are still a hell of a lot of them being bought by people that simply don't need them and all they are doing is adding to the problem. > Current hybrids range in MPG HWY > from 37 (Honda Accord) to 51 (Toyota Prius). How long to pay for itself > to make it worthwhile to give up my truck that I drive 15,000/yr at 18mpg? Back to that lame justification again. Who said that you had to buy a new hybrid. There are plenty of used economy cars out there that you could buy as a third car for a few thousand. My third car is a 240SX and it gets about 10 MPG more than my truck and costs about $600 a year to insure. The money it saves me more than pays for its insurance and I still have my truck when I need it and an extra car if one of the other ones needs to be repaired. To me, that's a win, win, win. > > LOL, if they were working on them for over a year, where are they???? > > You don't look very hard to you? Ford has the Escape Hybrid out. No they do not. they will not even start taking orders for it until the end of May with production not to begin until this summer. And on top of all that, you are buing a prototype untested vehicle. As usual, the American car builders are late to the party. > Chevy has hybrid versions of the Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups available to > commercial customers and expects consumer versions later this year. There is a big difference between expects and delivers. Like I said, until it happens, it means nothing. > GM has committed to spending over $1 billion to get hydrogen fuel-cell > vehicles ready for production. Spending money on developing fuel cell > vehicles makes far more sense than hybrids. And where is the infrastructure for the pure hydrogen that they need. The answer is that it simply doesn't exist. Now you could use a hydrogen rich fuel such as gas but then you need to pass it through a reformer to get the hydrogen and that significantly increases the cost, complexity, and pollution output of the vehicle. And on top of all of that good news, the car will get no better mileage than a conventional vehicle if running on gasoline and reformers are not always 100% efficient. If carbon oxides get into the fuel cell, it will degrade the performance of the cell over time. BTW, these cars also use the same batteries that the current hybrids use so you will have the same problems there. Yea, this sounds MUCH better than the current hybrids. > > Funny > > how the Japanese manufacturers have them NOW and are gaining market share. > > For cars that don't solve much of a problem. Once again, you are wrong. When driven properly, they are capable of significant fuel savings and the fact that they are in demand encourages manufacturers to perfect the technology, come up with newer and better methods, and lower the cost. What you want to do will do nothing more than eliminate any desire to develop newer technology. > They are expensive to build and cause pollution in forms not currently measured. Look what > goes into their construction. Hybrids have a short life because of > their batteries (which poses pollution concerns). With modern battery technology, they are rated for 8 years and 100,000 miles. Not too bad for a fairly new technology. These batteries can also be recycled. > > Looks like typical conservative short sighted thinking to me. As for > > bitching about the customer, I am doing no such thing. I am simply stating [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But you have stated your problem as being the solution. Bitch at > consumers to conserve. Ya, thats gonna work. No, but neither will increasing the supply of oil. In fact, increasing the oil available will simply make the problem worse. > > Sure you did, many times. Even now you are saying that buying on is a waste > > of time because you will never recoup the total cost in savings on your fuel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > its not economical to do so and not practical for society to do so as a > whole. And it will remain that way as long as oil appears to be plentiful and inexpensive. > Your solution is not a workable one. Society isnt going to > change based on your logic. It has to be affordable. No, it simply has to be more affordable than not doing it and increasing the output of oil will have the oppoosit effect. > > What you said is nothing mre than short sighted idiotic thinking. You need > > to look toward the future to make decisions today that effect both tomorrow [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Looking toward the future is great. We need to. But you assume I'm not > doing so and thats where you're flat out wrong. You are not. All you want to do is increase the oil supply which is the root ocause of our problem to begin with. At best it will eliminate the one symptom that motivates people and companies to invest and develope new technologies and at the same time deplete our reserves at an ever increasing rate. Yea, that's the answer we need. > Trouble is, you need to > argue so you say I don't just because. LOL. What is your answer and how will it help the short term problem? > I've repeatedly said developing > alternative fuels for the future is needed. But I also see problems > today that you refuse to address. Ya, tell the consumer to conserve. > Great realistic plan ya got there. Better than yours. You clainm to see the need to develop alternative fuels and then want to do the one thing that will without doubt kill any motivation to get it done. Yea, your plan is much better. > > Why is it that any time someone mentions what the problem really is, you > > call it bitching? > > Because you try to state the problem as also being the solution. That is because it is. > It is not. It's the problem. Now tell me your solution? I did. Let the price of fuel climb to level that motivates both people and companies to search for better resources and methods or as you like to say, make it economically feasible to do it. > > Once again I hate to burst your bubble but bitching has > > nothing to do with it. I am just stating the problem as what it is and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people to conserve will do nothing. Therefore your solution is > ineffective and some other solution needs to be found. And what would that be, hide the symptoms and let the problem fester and grow like you want to do. Then what happens when we really start running out? Conservation is the only answer and if people like you are too stupid or selfish to do it voluntarily, let the market force them to do it economically. > > Because what is on the road and working is what counts. Like in the stock > > market, until you sell it, you haven't made a dime. > > But I thought you said the answer is looking to the future. LOL, I said no such thing. I said that we need to look toward the future while working on the problems of today. Your answer doesn't do that at all. > American companies are spending millions on technology such as fuel cells that > will easily surpass hybrids and is a far better way to spend research > $'s. LOL, Yea, now they are starting to do it but they should have been doing it 5 years ago when the Japanese companies started. By the time they get their sh.t together it will already be too late. Hell, it is too late now. > None the less, contrary to what you seem to know, American > companies do have hybrids out. Which ones for the general public???? GM is commercial only and the Escape doen't exist yet. > > Please explain exactly why they are not a short or long term solution and > > BTW, they are neither tiny or just commuter hybrids anymore. > > True, the American companies have hybrid trucks and SUV's out. Ones you > seem to ignore. Japanese have tiny civic and the prius out. They are not out for the general public yet and are completely unproven. > > Hahahahahaha, you really should think about what you are saying. > > How many years (decades) before fuel efficient cars and trucks dominate > the roads? Gee, how many did it take after the first gas crisis, six to seven years. Much less than even one decade. Now how long do you think that it will take to increase our oil output by around 50% and how much ecologic damage will that cause? > >>>This is the part that you are not getting Miles, our public waste, > >>>selfishness, and stupidity IS THE PROBLEM. > > Yep, but not the solution as you claim. The solution is to either educate the public or force it on them economically. > > See what I mean. But you are right, talking about it does nothing with the > > average selfish American. > > Yep, but thats your solution anyways. At least you admitted your > solution is not a workable one. I never said that the solution was talking to anyone but nice spin though. The solution is to stop such wasteful actions and there are ways to do just that. > > Get real Miles. There is a big difference between tapping and pumping. > > There is no way to know if oil exists and if so, what type of oil it is > > without drilling and tapping. > > What do you think exploratory drilling is? A politically correct terminology for regular drilling. There is no difference between them in reality. One just sounds better. > If it doesn't exist, why do you liberals fight exploratory > drilling? It is fought because it is a lie. Drilling is drilling and all of the damage ands risks apply to either one because they are both the same damn thing and done the same damn way. Well actually, there is one difference. In exploratory drilling they don't know where it is and tend to cause much more damage looking for it. > Oil companies want to find new sources for future revenues > just like any other business. It does not mean its to be pumped out > today. We need to find what we have today for future use. The destruction and risk comes from the drilling and preparation for drilling, not the pumping. After they set up to start, they don't stop until they find what they are looking for or they exhaust all possibilities and the damage caused by this is what is being fought. If the oil companies would take some responsibility for what they do and keep to what they originally promise, there would be no real grounds to fight them but it has been seen over and over again, they refuse to do it. > > While there are some fields that are not > > being pumped or fully drilled, they have been drilled and tapped to some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh ya, the liberals not in my backyard routine. Depend on foreigners > instead. LOL, yep and they brought it on themselves with their refusal to take responsibility for their screwups. > > This is definitely a matter of PKB here Miles. There is no way to prove > > these stocks exist and are usable without drilling and tapping and it is the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How did they know there is oil in Alaska? They don't. > If they setup that huge > infrastructure you refer to then why has there been debate about > drilling there? Heck, according to you its already been done. They don't know and that is where the fear comes from. If it turns out not to be where they hope that it is, they are going to push to continue to drill in other areas and once they start, it is damn near impossible to stop them. The only safe thing to do is to prevent them from starting in the first place and once again, they brought this on themselves as well. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Who said that everyone had to do that??? The point is that although the > sales of large SUV's have dropped by about 25%, there are still a hell of a > lot of them being bought by people that simply don't need them and all they > are doing is adding to the problem. So you want them to go buy a hybrid because YOU feel they don't need an SUV. Name one of your great Japanese hybrids that you tout that can do what an SUV can. > Back to that lame justification again. Who said that you had to buy a new > hybrid. There are plenty of used economy cars out there that you could buy > as a third car for a few thousand. Oh please. A used 3rd car will not save me anywheres near enough when you add up costs including cost of car, insurance etc. Where do I park it? Most homes here don't allow parking a car on the street etc. Oh I know, buy a bigger home with a 3 car garage to save the world. > My third car is a 240SX and it gets > about 10 MPG more than my truck and costs about $600 a year to insure. Then you live in a very cheap neighborhood or your 240sx is worthless. $600 will barely get liability only. > The > money it saves me more than pays for its insurance and I still have my truck > when I need it and an extra car if one of the other ones needs to be > repaired. To me, that's a win, win, win. It doesn't save enough to pay for the car plus insurance. Not unless its a clunker. > No they do not. they will not even start taking orders for it until the end > of May with production not to begin until this summer. And on top of all > that, you are buing a prototype untested vehicle. As usual, the American > car builders are late to the party. The Ford Escape will be the first hybrid SUV. Which Japanese company is producing a hybrid SUV? Prototype? Same as any other new car including the Japanese Hybrids. Compact hybrids serve little purpose. SUV and truck hybrids make far more sense. They replace the very vehicles you say are the problem. > There is a big difference between expects and delivers. Like I said, until > it happens, it means nothing. The Silverado hybrids are being delivered. Besides, whats your point? Your Japanese friends aren't producing hybrid trucks. They are behind the American companies on SUV hybrids. Toyota hopes to have a highlander hybrid out late this year. > And where is the infrastructure for the pure hydrogen that they need. The > answer is that it simply doesn't exist. Thats where the future is. Didn't you tell me we need to be looking towards the future? Now you have a problem with an American company that is spending over a billion $'s towards technology to do just that. Go figure. > Yea, this sounds MUCH better than > the current hybrids. Are you trying to say Hybrids are the technology of the future here today? Good grief are you naive. > Once again, you are wrong. When driven properly, they are capable of > significant fuel savings Not enough to solve any problems. Their cost to the consumer, resources used to build and short life span do not equate to saving the world. > With modern battery technology, they are rated for 8 years and 100,000 > miles. Not too bad for a fairly new technology. These batteries can also > be recycled. How many 8 year old 100,000 mile hybrids are on the road? How many of those GM electrics lasted 100,000 miles on their batteries which were of the same technology. GM had those out long before any Japanese electric BTY. > No, but neither will increasing the supply of oil. In fact, increasing the > oil available will simply make the problem worse. Use of oil in general and foreign dependency on oil are two seperate issues. > You are not. All you want to do is increase the oil supply which is the > root ocause of our problem to begin with. No I don't. I want to use our own oil instead of Foreign. At the same time I want to develop newer energy sources as well as making vehicles more efficient. You only look at one side. I look at both even though you choose to argue about it. > Better than yours. You clainm to see the need to develop alternative fuels > and then want to do the one thing that will without doubt kill any > motivation to get it done. Yea, your plan is much better. Ya, thats why US companies are spending millions on such future development while the Japanese are building hybrids. Thought you said future development is whats needed but you tout only these hybrids which are not the technology of the future. > They don't know and that is where the fear comes from. If it turns out not > to be where they hope that it is, they are going to push to continue to > drill in other areas and once they start, it is damn near impossible to stop > them. Oh too funny Tbone! So you think its just a guess that oil might be in Alaska? Sorry TBone, they did whats called exploratory drilling years ago in that area. True they don't know the full extent but they have some knowledge. Thats what exploratory drilling provides. It does not require a full blown infrastructure. If it did, then it would already be in Alaska and the debate would be moot. Man, you squirmed on that one TBone! lol >> And where is the infrastructure for the pure hydrogen that they need. >> The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that is spending over a billion $'s towards technology to do just that. > Go figure. It's my understanding that the first fuel cell cars will probably get their H2 from...gasoline! Makes sense. The infrastructure is already there, so might as well make use of it. Still some serious problems with fuel cell technology for automotive purposes though. The volume problem seems fairly serious. How do you pack enough H2 in the car to get a reasonable distance? How do you store the H2 safely? Where do you get the H2 from (it's energy intensive to produce)? But I think this technology is going to fly! Maybe 10 years? And not just in cars. Instead of those AA batteries powering all your electronics, you'll have a refillable miniature fuel cell that will do the job. In the meantime, perhaps the prospect of $3/gal gasoline will get America more serious about alternative energy. It's only been 30 years since the first "wake up call" gas crisis! SMH SMH > Still some serious problems with fuel cell technology for automotive > purposes though. The volume problem seems fairly serious. How do you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > America more serious about alternative energy. It's only been 30 > years since the first "wake up call" gas crisis! I think H2 is the next fuel for cars but I agree there are issues to resolve before it becomes mainstream. Hybrids aren't a technology that will last or have much effect. They aren't replacing gas guzzling SUV's on the road. > I think H2 is the next fuel for cars but I agree there are issues to > resolve before it becomes mainstream. Hybrids aren't a technology > that will last or have much effect. They aren't replacing gas > guzzling SUV's on the road. Interesting reading here: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/projects.html > > Still some serious problems with fuel cell technology for automotive > > purposes though. The volume problem seems fairly serious. How do you [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > will last or have much effect. They aren't replacing gas guzzling SUV's > on the road. And neither will fuel cell vehicles, especially since they will be completely dependent on their electric motors and batteries. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > >> And where is the infrastructure for the pure hydrogen that they need. > >> The [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's my understanding that the first fuel cell cars will probably get > their H2 from...gasoline! Yep. the problem is that they will get no better mileage than a conventional vehicle although they will do it with far less polution. > Makes sense. The infrastructure is already there, so might as well make > use of it. It will help to perfect the fuel cell technology and how it applies to vehicles but does little for the problems we have today. > Still some serious problems with fuel cell technology for automotive > purposes though. The volume problem seems fairly serious. How do you > pack enough H2 in the car to get a reasonable distance? How do you > store the H2 safely? Where do you get the H2 from (it's energy intensive > to produce)? They will probably have to liquefy the hydrogen which would require people that actually know what they are doing to fill up the vehicles and that will increase the cost to the consumer. > But I think this technology is going to fly! Maybe 10 years? And not > just in cars. Instead of those AA batteries powering all your electronics, > you'll have a refillable miniature fuel cell that will do the job. I agree but that does little for us now. > In the meantime, perhaps the prospect of $3/gal gasoline will get > America more serious about alternative energy. It's only been 30 > years since the first "wake up call" gas crisis! And yet how quickly it was forgotten. The difference here is that this is not a short term glitch like the gas crisis of the 70's was and it will only get worse from here. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > Who said that everyone had to do that??? The point is that although the > > sales of large SUV's have dropped by about 25%, there are still a hell of a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > SUV. Name one of your great Japanese hybrids that you tout that can do > what an SUV can. Back to spinning what I said again, huh Miles. I said that many people that don't actually need them are buying them for whatever reason. I am not trying to define anothers needs but if you really believe that every one of them out on the road was bought because the owner needed it, you are really an idiot. As for capability, ith the possible exception of towing and offroad, a minivan can outdue a SUV in just about everything, including mileage. The problem is that they are not COOL like a SUV which is the actualy reason most of them are bought. > > Back to that lame justification again. Who said that you had to buy a new > > hybrid. There are plenty of used economy cars out there that you could buy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it? Most homes here don't allow parking a car on the street etc. Oh I > know, buy a bigger home with a 3 car garage to save the world. Are you saying that your house is too small for a third car to fit or that you can't park in your driveway? It sounds like more lame selfish excuses to me. Like I said, you keep whining about or dependency on foreign oil but are completely unwilling to do anything about it. > > My third car is a 240SX and it gets > > about 10 MPG more than my truck and costs about $600 a year to insure. > > Then you live in a very cheap neighborhood or your 240sx is worthless. > $600 will barely get liability only. Actually I was wrong. It is actually $450 and yes, only liability. It is a third car, what more does it need. > > The > > money it saves me more than pays for its insurance and I still have my truck [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It doesn't save enough to pay for the car plus insurance. Not unless > its a clunker. Clunker...no, older vehicle...YEP. And even still, it never breaks down and gets much better mileage than my truck. And on top of that, I can take it to the mall and shopping centers and not have to worry about it. > > No they do not. they will not even start taking orders for it until the end > > of May with production not to begin until this summer. And on top of all > > that, you are buing a prototype untested vehicle. As usual, the American > > car builders are late to the party. > > The Ford Escape will be the first hybrid SUV. I thought that you said they already had it. You really need to get your information straight. > Which Japanese company is producing a hybrid SUV? Well, as you mentionedm Toyota and Lexus. > Prototype? Same as any other new car including > the Japanese Hybrids. But the Japanese hybrids are no longer "new" vehicles and have been on the roads for years now. More than can be said for the American car companies and their short sighted thinking. > Compact hybrids serve little purpose. LOL, are you serious!!! > SUV and truck hybrids make far more sense. Why??? Because they are cool, LOL. A minivan hybrid would serve 100000000000000000000 times the purpose of a hybrid SUV. An SUV is really a completely useless vehicle but they sit high and look cool and would still be for the most part non-existent if it wasn't for the American Auto Manufacturers using them as an end run around the federal requirements for mileage and safety and dolled them up like luxury cars. > They replace the very vehicles you > say are the problem. And they still get sh.t for mileage. Just about any econo-box can kick their a.s for about half the cost. > > There is a big difference between expects and delivers. Like I said, until > > it happens, it means nothing. > > The Silverado hybrids are being delivered. Really, who do you know that has one, especially since they are only offered in limited quantities in a few states. And besides that, it only gets 17 / 19 MPG. My truck gets close to that and you claim yours does better and at around $30,000 for just about nothing, it is no wonder that they are not overly popular. > Besides, whats your point? > Your Japanese friends aren't producing hybrid trucks. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message