Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Gasoline prices: the end of an era.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gasoline prices: the end of an era. - Page 9  

post #121 of 240
Wow, gas is about where it was 30 years ago...
post #122 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeride74
Ohhhh... I see so it only maters if it's our fault. got it thanks for the help
what would you have us do? eradicate every termite and cow on earth. Design some kind of methane scrubber to shove up all their butts? Maybe I'm crazy but perhaps we should focus on fixing the problems that we as humans are causing and leave nature alone for a change.
post #123 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefemeister
what would you have us do? eradicate every termite and cow on earth. Design some kind of methane scrubber to shove up all their butts? Maybe I'm crazy but perhaps we should focus on fixing the problems that we as humans are causing and leave nature alone for a change.
What would you have us do? Eradicate every fuel driven vehicle on earth? Go back to horse and carriage?
We are making progress and as I said continue to make cleaner more efficient vehicles and advance new technologies.
The US has some of the most stringent air quality and emissions standards in the world. If you want to focus on a part of the world that needs help in this area start with Mexico or a another country with near toxic environments.
post #124 of 240
IMO the only way that the price of crude could decline rapidly, if at all, is for consumption to decline dramatically. And, the only way for consumption to decline, is for major improvements in efficiency, especially of cars. Seems that a major national program may be needed to accomplish this; i.e., before both personal and US corporate finances decline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanY
This is just not true any more. No one is thinking in nominal dollars. On Friday the price of crude passed the inflation-adjusted average price of crude in 1981 (the highest it ever was):
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/I...ices_Table.asp

What we haven't reached yet is the peak daily price of crude in 1980 and 1981, but that absolute peak price only lasted for a few months. The price shot up quickly, stayed high for a short time, then went down again relatively quickly. The current situation is different and possibly more serious, because crude has stayed high for longer, and because of the demand situation there is little real prospect of oil prices suddenly starting to decline rapidly, as they did post-1981.
post #125 of 240
As a consequence of their dramatic economic success and growth (which is substantially due to our trade imbalance with them), China's major cities are already flooded with cars. And, this is only the beginning. The car market in China is projected soon to exceed ours. And, of course, there is also India, with it's 1.2 billion people, and its quickly improving economy. With all this competition for oil, I don't think that oil prices are likely to drop. In fact, they will probably increase much more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purk
Wait until the Chinese start to buy more cars, then the price will be even higher. I probably will need to buy a new car next year, and the hybrid vehicles start to be very attractive. At first, I want to buy the Maxima....but the 250 hps engine might really hurt my wallet.
post #126 of 240
One thing I forgot to point out earlier; the Japanese manufacturers are very much pushing mileage. Toyota in particular has been proclaiming how all of their vehicles get better mileage than their competitors, in every class. Mid 30s for most of the sedans, I think.

Buicks, interestingly enough, get extremely good mileage for their size. A friend of mine reported 38mpg on an entirely interstate trip. That's what my 1.9L Escort gets. Reason? GM's 3800 V6 is hands down the best engine in it's class. Powerful (more so when supercharged), reliable, and fuel conserving.

As to the SUV problem, I say diesel is the [temporary] answer. The main problem is the stimga attached with them - smelly, noisy, and dirty. VW's TDI is proof that they don't have to be. And they get much better mileage, not to mention requiring less refining. And if the demand increased, obviously the supply would follow.
post #127 of 240
Seems to me that, while we've strongly emphasized reductions in tail pipe emissions, we haven't emphasized auto effieciency, and consequently the reduction of gasoline consumption. And, it's a reduction of excessive petroleum consumption, rather than atmospheric pollution, that's most urgently needed now. Although, I suspect that these two needs are connected; i.e., use of less gasoline will also reduce atmospheric pollution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeride74
What would you have us do? Eradicate every fuel driven vehicle on earth? Go back to horse and carriage?
We are making progress and as I said continue to make cleaner more efficient vehicles and advance new technologies.
The US has some of the most stringent air quality and emissions standards in the world. If you want to focus on a part of the world that needs help in this area start with Mexico or a another country with near toxic environments.
post #128 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeg
IMO the only way that the price of crude could decline rapidly, if at all, is for consumption to decline dramatically. And, the only way for consumption to decline, is for major improvements in efficiency, especially of cars. Seems that a major national program may be needed to accomplish this; i.e., before both personal and US corporate finances decline.
Not really. Oil is kind of a rogue commodity. Supply and demand really don't apply to the cost of a barrel of oil like it would with other commodities.

Here is my extremely technical explanation of how the cost of oil works:

A bunch of oil tycoons and "princes" get together, smoke a couple cigars, have a few martinis, lament on how they hate western culture. Through the course of these rigorous discussions, they will budget out their operating expenses for the next couple of months. They pencil in items like trips to New York to shop for "yankee clothes", finding blonde hookers, hollywood movies, and how many Mercedes and Bullet-proof Bentleys they want to buy over the next few months. After they have their needs listed out, they total up the cost, and calculate how much profit from oil they need to generate to accomodate these business requirements.

The supply is not produced based on demand, or production costs, but profit projections. Which means the entities responsible for production aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them. I seriously doubt there will be a huge economic fall out. The entities responsible for oil production know that if they squeeze too hard, there will be economy consequences. When there are economy consequences, people don't make money. When they don't make money, they can't afford things. When people can't afford oil, they won't buy oil. When they don't buy oil, the oil tycoons don't make money. When they don't make their money...

The pinch we feel now is nothing new. The price of oil isn't "record-brekaing" like all the fear-mongering media outlets would have us believe. It's just the rubber band effect of inflation.
post #129 of 240
TWIFOSP - IMO, the bottom line is that many can cut their gasoline expenses in half by buying a small car. Yes, I know that many just have to buy a car that's bigger their neighbor's, but them's the breaks. Maybe people can learn to feel better about themselves by buying smaller, and less prestigious, cars than their neighbors. Guess that it's all a matter of public education, advertising, and other such forms of social indoctrination. Heck, look at all the payola that's been paid by major recording companies, to radio station owners, in order to indoctrinate the public into buying these companies' latest promoted forms of music. I'm afraid that lots of what we want, and think, and say, is "choreographed" for us by others, and that this choreography is implemented through the means of our vast electronic and print media. Unfortunately, this is why I think that many buy enormous gas guzzlers that are way beyond what they need, and why lots of junk music is bought, while fine music is neglected. Sorry for my rant.
post #130 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanY
GM and Ford are in even more serious trouble now that gas prices have risen so high. [...] With SUVs inevitably becoming less popular (economic factors will guarantee this), the prospects of GM and Ford returning to profitability any time soon are really slim.
I'm sorry, I haven't read the whole thread but I'd like to respond to this point.

GM and Ford are not profitable because they don't appear to be innovating or have much foresight. GM is a very poorly run company, one of the worst major corporations in the United States. When I took a winter class on business economics some years back it was pointed out that GM doesn't turn a profit no matter how many cars it can move off the lot. It has dozens of conflicting brands and even models within the same brand. And -- guess what? -- they're almost all trucks.

My parents needed to buy a car. They were thinking of getting another Maxima but don't want to pay the Saudis so much money, so they decided on a Toyota Prius. They waited from April until yesterday when they got fed up with the dealer who promised them a Prius in June. They went and bought a Camry.

Shouldn't this send a message to American auto makers who have very rarely been able to keep ahead of the Japanese? Toyota isn't putting out enough Priuses to feed demand for decent and reliable hybrid cars. Hybrid Civics are just sitting on the lots as are these idiotic hybrid SUVs.

Sometimes people assume that many big corporations make bad decisions because they're greedy. If they really only thought about profit, though, they still wouldn't make the decisions they make nowadays. The reality of the matter is that they're just either stupid or leeching off the government. There should be no tax breaks for hybrids or SUVs. Just let the big corporations fend for themselves and let them see that they need to look forward to stay alive. Then they'd start putting out some decent hybrid sedans.
post #131 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeride74
I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I am not totally wrong and if I am I ask you again: why have the censors and computer technology that regulates and controls emissions in all of today's vehicles (not just SUV's but sedans with the same V6 and V8 engines)? Why have smog tests where the level of emissions is measured by the emissions in the exhaust output and must meet governmental and EPA standards?
'Cos CO2 isn't "smog" - smog is a reaction between unburnt hydrocarbons and sunlight: to save you googling it I'll explain that a cat converts Carbon Monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons into CO2 and water. If the EPA legislated against CO2 emissions it would curtail your democratic right to drive a fuel inefficient vehicle as CO2 emissions correspond very closely to fuel consumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeride74
I wont even get into the global warming lie but it's pure BS!
Well, you thought that SUVs had virtually zero emissions so why should I expect you to believe that global warming is happening?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeride74
Look the bottom line is that we are making vehicles run cleaner and cleaner as we progress. I don't like the gas prices either, it costs me $60 to fill up my truck! I can think of a number of solutions but respecting the no politics rule on head-fi I will leave it out. Maybe we just need a Doc Emmit Brown to install Mr. Fusion in every vehicle
This kind of discussion is politics: you have every right to drive what you are legally allowed to.
post #132 of 240
To jefemeister: If you wish to reduce one greenhouse gas why not be concerned with the other? Oh that's right because it's the evil man and greedy US infidel that is behind the destruction of the planet... I forgot, you are right
I'm not stretching anything you just don't get it. If you want to start pushing for mandates that would control such things as MPG specific to each vehicle than it would be the same for amount of wood used to build a home, amount of food for a family of 5, amount of air travel allowed, amount of space given for a single family home, and so on. If you want a socialist utopia move to another country.
I hope you drive a hybrid or use public transportation since your are such an advocate of the environmentally friendly transportation. Oh and I hope you don't use too many plastic or nylon products, travel by air often, or take long showers/go to water parks (i.e. water consumption concern), etc etc etc the list can go on and on. You should live according to your beliefs. If you want to clean up the air start with countries that have far worse standards and higher air and water contamination.

Quote:
Allenf - 'Cos CO2 isn't "smog" - smog is a reaction between unburnt hydrocarbons and sunlight: to save you googling it I'll explain that a cat converts Carbon Monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons into CO2 and water. If the EPA legislated against CO2 emissions it would curtail your democratic right to drive a fuel inefficient vehicle as CO2 emissions correspond very closely to fuel consumption.
That's a very interesting story but today's vehicles do run with almost 0 emissions and you still didn't explain why such things are needed to control the emissions if the output will always equal "massive emissions".
You want me to believe global warming? Show me world wide temp records and averages for the past 800 years.
Let me ask you this: Has progress been made with respect to vehicles burning fuel cleaner in the last 20 years or not? Is oil not used for many things other than American vehicles?? Have you asked how old most airplanes are and how clean they run as a result??? f you are going to complain about such things you'd better make it fair all the way accross the board.
post #133 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeride74
That's a very interesting story but today's vehicles do run with almost 0 emissions and you still didn't explain why such things are needed to control the emissions if the output will always equal "massive emissions".
<Sigh>
I have explained to you how cats work - and yes, modern vehicles are much cleaner as far as CO and unburnt hydrocarbons go - but CO2 emissions are needlessly high.
I have also stated that it is accepted that - despite aircraft being incredibly polluting - that there isn't really an alternative to the jet in the modern world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeride74
You want me to believe global warming? Show me world wide temp records and averages for the past 800 years.
Google it up yourself - and see what you want to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeride74
Is oil not used for many things other than American vehicles??
Before you accuse me of being anti-american, I haven't specifically mentioned American vehicles anywhere in this thread: the only make I have mentioned is Audi
post #134 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeride74
To jefemeister: If you wish to reduce one greenhouse gas why not be concerned with the other? Oh that's right because it's the evil man and greedy US infidel that is behind the destruction of the planet... I forgot, you are right
I'm not stretching anything you just don't get it. If you want to start pushing for mandates that would control such things as MPG specific to each vehicle than it would be the same for amount of wood used to build a home, amount of food for a family of 5, amount of air travel allowed, amount of space given for a single family home, and so on. If you want a socialist utopia move to another country.
I hope you drive a hybrid or use public transportation since your are such an advocate of the environmentally friendly transportation. Oh and I hope you don't use too many plastic or nylon products, travel by air often, or take long showers/go to water parks (i.e. water consumption concern), etc etc etc the list can go on and on. You should live according to your beliefs. If you want to clean up the air start with countries that have far worse standards and higher air and water contamination...
When did I say I wanted to reduce greenhouse gas? I haven't mentioned the environment a single time unless it was in defense of the poor termites you seem so excited to kill off. My reply was focused on reducing US consumtion, therefore demand, and therefore creating lower prices for everyone. Forgive me if you find that to be a socialist statement but it's simple economics. BTW, it wouldn't be hard to hit my proposed 35mpg target even with trucks and SUVs. It simply would have to be forced upon the auto industry for them to make it happen in a timely fashion. Same reason all cars have to have airbags and bumpers. Is that a socialist agenda too? Are they somehow impeding your right to run people over?

And I really am at a complete loss about how you compare the byproducts of mother nature to the byproducts caused by irresponsible human consumption--I'll gladly paypal you $10 if you can find one established person on this board that agrees cutting fuel consumption is in any way related to the methane caused by Termite farts. Do you go so far as to compare Tsunamis to atmoic bombs? They're capable of killing roughly the same amount of people--how can we possiblly try to reduce and properly store warheads when a big old wave may come crashing down on people anyway. Give me a break.
post #135 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeride74
That's a very interesting story but today's vehicles do run with almost 0 emissions and you still didn't explain why such things are needed to control the emissions if the output will always equal "massive emissions".
You want me to believe global warming? Show me world wide temp records and averages for the past 800 years.
Let me ask you this: Has progress been made with respect to vehicles burning fuel cleaner in the last 20 years or not? Is oil not used for many things other than American vehicles?? Have you asked how old most airplanes are and how clean they run as a result??? f you are going to complain about such things you'd better make it fair all the way accross the board.

Uhh, are you serious when you say that today's vehicles run with almost 0 emissions?

What exactly does that mean? The number 100 is almost zero when compared to 1000000.

Lets look at some numbers:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f00013.htm



How do you call one car putting out TONS (literaly) of pollutants in the air "almost zero" emissions?

I think all can agree, that the statement: "today's vehicles do run with almost 0 emissions" is a rather naive and incorrect statement.

And I like how you call out that the lack of 800 years of weather statistics is automatically proof that global warming is NOT occuring. It is true that we don't have enough data points and trends in order to say that global warming is a fact. But that also means the same can be true about the opposite. Either way, given that neither can be proven for sure, there is more evidence to support that global warming CAN be caused by the amount of hydrocarbons we introduce into the atmosphere on a yearly basis, than there is to the contrary. So why ignore that?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Gasoline prices: the end of an era.