Aren't we supposed to be at war?

[quade 4]

Senate Rejects Auto Fuel Standards
All of the oil producing countries must be laughing their asses off about this one.
Knuckle-head Senate.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[MarkM 0]

Oh yeah, don't touch the "holy" automobile. Hell, most cities were designed around the car.
We could have some pretty impressive mass transit systems by now if it weren't for cars. But then we'd all miss out on those hour plus traffic jams on the way to work.

[skymedic 0]

Quote

Knuckle-head Senate

and who runs the senate now???? hmmm....could it be the fkn liberals.....hmmmmm
marc
BSBD

[jfields 0]

Quote

the fkn liberals

Doesn't matter. Liberals. Conservatives. Basically all national politicians are lying, cheating, self-serving scumbags in some way or the other. They all suck.
Justin

[Sinkster 0]

Personally, I'm glad I can drive what I want and pay almost nothing for gas.
Arguably, natural volcanic eruptions exceed the damage to the atmosphere compared to automobile emissions anyway.
Let's hear it for freedom. :)
Sinkster
BTW, about the other countries laughing thing... The only result of using less fuel would be giving them less money but then they could simply change the supply to raise costs and keep profit similar. It's not like using less would increase our supply any more anyway. It's an on or off thing. I say we keep using more and just let them run out first! Then we'll see who's laughing. ;-)

[rgoper 0]

**Doesn't matter. Liberals. Conservatives. Basically all national politicians are lying, cheating, self-serving scumbags in some way or the other. They all suck.**
yeah, don't it just piss ya off? being's as "we" as the american public elected these individuals with such high standards.
Richard
"The Real Fun Is At Deployment Time"

[billvon 3,116]

>Arguably, natural volcanic eruptions exceed the damage to the atmosphere compared to automobile emissions anyway
You'd have to tell that to the people in the LA basin, who may not believe that volcanoes make more people sick in LA than cars do.
>Let's hear it for freedom. :)
For who? We've just made sure we won't be "free" of the Middle East for a long, long time. We're sort of committed to a major war there about once every five years to keep that cheap gas flowing.
-bill von

[billvon 3,116]

>BTW, about the other countries laughing thing... The only result of using less fuel would be giving them less money
>but then they could simply change the supply to raise costs and keep profit similar.
Uh, no. If we raise fuel efficiency standards so our needs could be met by our own supply and by "friendly" countries (i.e. Venezuela) then they will either keep prices low or go out of business. Capitalism in action.
> It's not like using less would increase our supply any more anyway. It's an on or off thing.
Right, but why hasten the day when we have none? The longer we can hold off that day, the better. There is no replacement for oil when it comes to a plastics and lubricant feedstock. Using it to fuel 18MPG SUV's is an incredible waste of a valuable material.
>I say we keep using more and just let them run out first! Then we'll see who's laughing. ;-)
Better not drill in ANWR then, or we'll run out of it first. I agree that the Middle East will run out one day - but if, on that day, our economy depends on massive quantities of cheap oil, we'll have a depression that makes 1929 look like the dot-com boom.
-bill von

[Sinkster 0]

"Uh, no. If we raise fuel efficiency standards so our needs could be met by our own supply and by "friendly" countries (i.e. Venezuela) then they will either keep prices low or go out of business. Capitalism in action."
Do you really think that after 15 years of growth a mere increase from 27mpg to 36mpg fleet average (which is what the bill specified roughly) is going to make that much of a difference? We would have to do some serious tapping in the gulf and alaska to get even close to that.
Other than that, the rest of your points are valid. However, I still think the government tries to stick its nose into far too many things these days.
Sinkster
"The greatest risk in life is to risk nothing; The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing and is nothing."

[MarkM 0]

I'm curious. Have there been any calculations on when we're likely to run out of fossil fuel supplies?

[skymedic 0]

last i read it was supposed to be in 60 yrs....
marc
BSBD

[rgoper 0]

**Better not drill in ANWR then, or we'll run out of it first. I agree that the Middle East will run out one day - but if, on that day, our economy depends on massive quantities of cheap oil, we'll have a depression that makes 1929 look like the dot-com boom.**
i have the missfortune of being a P.E. i've been drilling oil and gas wells all of my adult life, and i can tell you for fact if the EPA klowns would leave us alone, we wouldn't be dependent on middle eastern oil. i remember researching the nationalazation of the middle eastern fields. we took our geologists, equipment, men, machinery and technology, ten years later they said "Get Out" by the way, were keeping your wells, and equipment for ourselves. "we" created that monster. we have alaska, canada, the off shore areas of california, and florida that are virtually untouched, and yet they contain vast and copious amount of unretrieved hydrocarbons. let the arabs eat there oil, we've got our own. OTOH if we let O.P.E.C. Russia, and Mexico (Russia, And Mexico Not O.P.E.C. members) dictate oil output to control the price of oil and gas, then we can start looking for that 1929 thing, in my mind, it's not a matter of if, but when. for more on this, visit rigzone.com it's where we get our daily news on the energy front.
Richard
"Why Did I Do That?"

[kmcguffee 0]

Last I heard the government decided to push auto manufacturers to produce a fuel cell powered car within the next few years. That is why the fuel efficiency bill did not pass. Instead of trying to eek that last little bit of efficiency out of an old and tired technology they decided to focus the resources and money on new technology. It would be nice to do both but it would also slow down the fuel cell technology drastically. IMHO it is a good plan as long as they follow through with it.

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

My RV gets seven whopping miles to the gallon. This, whether pulling a 2000 pound trailer or not. Odd.
My webpage HERE

[rgoper 0]

**My RV gets seven whopping miles to the gallon. This, whether pulling a 2000 pound trailer or not. Odd.**
at least you've got one! i'm gonna lease one for the elroy arizona trip this year, i bet i'd rather just pay for the fuel!!??!!
Richard
"What In The F**k Was That?"

[n2skdvn 0]

if pro is the opposite of con...
whats the opposite of progress.....
It's not the fall that kills you, it'ssudden deceleration syndrome.

[billvon 3,116]

>Do you really think that after 15 years of growth a mere increase from 27mpg to 36mpg fleet average
>(which is what the bill specified roughly) is going to make that much of a difference?
Yes. Right now we are increasing our oil consumption by 5% a year (US DOE projections.) At best, the ANWR could contribute 5% to our total oil intake. That means that, at our current rate of expansion, we will be _more_ dependent on foreign oil in two years even if we do drill ANWR! (Plus which, of course, ANWR won't even be producing for five years.)
Going from 27 to 36MPG means a 25% reduction in fuel for private transportation, which accounts for a little under 40% of our total oil usage. It's also the primary cause for that 5% increase a year in fuel usage. That means if we implement the 27 to 36MPG reduction within two years we _reduce_ our consumption by 10% instead of increasing it by 5%.
Put it another way, the 27 to 36MPG increase will save more oil in two years than all of ANWR will produce. That way we can save ANWR for when we really need it - when the Middle East starts to run dry. We don't need it now, given that we have the cheapest gas prices on the planet, and the largest cars.
>Other than that, the rest of your points are valid. However, I still think the government tries to
>stick its nose into far too many things these days.
They should be either in our out. If they're in, then set strict CAFE standards, open wildlife refuges to drilling, mandate efficient factories etc. Manage both sides of the equation.
If they're out of the energy business, then no CAFE standards, but also no land giveaways to oil companies, no oil company subsidies, and no wars for oil. You can do it either way, but you can't have it both ways.
-bill von

[billvon 3,116]

>My RV gets seven whopping miles to the gallon. This, whether pulling a 2000 pound trailer or not. Odd.
95% of the power you need to move an RV is to overcome air resistance of that big box. I'd be willing to bet that it's big enough that the trailer is in its burble. The addition of some extra wheel friction from the 2000 pound trailer is negligible.
Now, try to tow that same trailer behind a Corvette, and you'd see a huge difference, even though the engines are a similar size/power.
-bill von

[quade 4]

Quote

95% of the power you need to move an RV is to overcome air resistance of that big box.

As long as he's on level ground.
If there's a change in elevation, then the formula changes drastically. Then it's mostly a function of power to weight ratios. Hey, isn't that the definition of horsepower anyway -- the amount of power required to lift weight over time? Power in this case comes from burning gasoline. More weight, more fuel burned.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[SpeedRacer 1]

I've said it before: we need to give priority to fusion research. One way or another, someday we will become independent of fossil fuels.. the sooner the better. Fossil fuels will run out. They will also pollute the environment & contribute to the greenhouse effect. And they keep us dependent on foreign countries full of people who want to kill us...We should be going after fusion power in the no-holds-barred way we pursued the space race during the '60s. Let's not wait until the shit hits the fan before taking action.
Speed Racer
"Fill your hand, you son-of-a-bitch!"

[MarkM 0]

Nah, no need to get fusion to get off fossils. Seriously, if we can get our cars off gas then we can pretty much get electric from a lot of sources and crack hydrogen. There's lot of sources of energy. The problem is we're hooked so much on gas we don't even explore them.

[SkySurfSnow 0]

It's going to suck not being able to breathe clean air just so a Soccer mom can have her SUV or so we don't all drive around in glorified golf carts. I guess since the big J.C. is coming soon we don't have to take care of our planet. Oh well, at least I'll be dead when the air get intolerable.

[skymedic 0]

amen brother....
marc
BSBD

[rhino 0]

The middle east has a 110 year supply
The US has a 12 year supply at current rates
From someone that worked with my company in Texas from the Oil and Gas industry.. Those are rough numbers.. I wish I had the spreadsheet..
Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!
http://www.aahit.com

[rhino 0]

If Anyone wants the file I can email it to you.. I found it..
Blue Skies and Smooth Rides!!
http://www.aahit.com