Post Peak Oil and Vehicle Choice?
Mean Mr Mustard
the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
to rise. Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive battery
system that will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
Diesel will probably be subjected to rationing to keep the trucking
fleets going, so that rules out an older VW Rabbit. Vehicles like the
Geo Metro and Suzuki swift are still gas hungry at 40mpg.
So that pretty much eliminates the passenger car space, but what about
scooters? Some are clocked at over 200mpg. This seems to be a
reasonable range to keep me going between the inevitable rationing.
Any advice on the best scooter for this kind of scenario?
Anthony Matonak
> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
> the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
> to rise.
> Any advice on the best scooter for this kind of scenario?
Have you considered the limits of scooters? That is, the limited speed,
range and safety?
You could try this car, if they build it. It's supposed to get 150+ mpg.
http://www.loremo.com/index_en.php
Then there is the VW one liter car... more than 200 mpg.
Alas, they will never build it though they had plans for a 100 mpg car.
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-vw-1-liter-car.htm
There are, of course, any number of city cars (glorified golf carts)
and kit builts based on mopeds, motorcycles and the like. Some of
these run on electricity and most get good mpg while keeping the rain
off. Some are high performance vehicles for thrill seakers.
Then there are motorcycles which are like mopeds except they can go
faster than 20 mph, can travel on highways and have a somewhat different
social stigma attached to them.
Lastly there are also bicycles, especially recumbents, which don't
require any gasoline or electricity.
Anthony
Pope Secola IV
Then run over any god dammed fucking 200mpg, 5mph scooter that get in
you way!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.
Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.
Ben
"Mean Mr Mustard" <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144197978.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I'm not in the market for a car but tend to think it best not to make a
final decision until seeing what impact this summer's hurricane season is
going to have.
Stuart Grey
You've pretty much narrowed yourself down to a horse.
Careful for kicks and bites.
Rod Speed
> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
> the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
> to rise. Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive battery
> system that will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
> Diesel will probably be subjected to rationing to keep the trucking
> fleets going, so that rules out an older VW Rabbit.
I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
> Vehicles like the Geo Metro and Suzuki
> swift are still gas hungry at 40mpg.
> So that pretty much eliminates the passenger car space,
No it doesnt.
> but what about scooters?
Good fuel economy, but lousy safety and too primitive for me.
> Some are clocked at over 200mpg. This seems to be a reasonable
> range to keep me going between the inevitable rationing.
Bet we wont see rationing in your lifetime.
Stuart Grey
> Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>>I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
>>the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
>>to rise. Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive battery
>>system that will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
>>Diesel will probably be subjected to rationing to keep the trucking
>>fleets going, so that rules out an older VW Rabbit.
>
>
> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
Of course, those of us who remember rationing during the Arab oil
Embargo, and then there are the very old that remember the rationing
during WW II.
Antipodean Bucket Farmer
<1144197978.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
macu...@yahoo.com says...
> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
> the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
> to rise. Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive battery
> system that will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
> Diesel will probably be subjected to rationing to keep the trucking
> fleets going, so that rules out an older VW Rabbit.
A diesel engine can be run on biodiesel made from vegetable oil.
A few people have also converted vehicles to use straight
vegetable oil, plus some regular diesel fuel at the start and end
of the journey (to get it warmed up, and then to flush out the
fuel injectors to avoid gumming.)
--
Want Freebies?
http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/
Check The Free Stuff List
Rod Speed
>>> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now
>>> that the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices
>>> continue to rise. Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive
>>> battery system that will probably be impossible to replace in a few
>>> years. Diesel will probably be subjected to rationing to keep the
>>> trucking fleets going, so that rules out an older VW Rabbit.
>> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
> Of course, those of us who remember rationing during the Arab oil
> Embargo,
That wasnt rationing and wouldnt affect someone with a Rabbit anyway.
> and then there are the very old that remember the rationing during WW II.
Even you should have noticed that we aint had one of those
for over half a century or more now, and that if we do have
another, the least of your worrys will be diesel rationing.
And you can use biodiesel even if it does happen.
The Real Bev
> Mean Mr Mustard wrote:
>>
>> So that pretty much eliminates the passenger car space, but what about
>> scooters? Some are clocked at over 200mpg. This seems to be a
>> reasonable range to keep me going between the inevitable rationing.
>> Any advice on the best scooter for this kind of scenario?
>
> You've pretty much narrowed yourself down to a horse.
>
> Careful for kicks and bites.
OTOH, you can sell the manure to offset the cost of horse-fuel.
--
Cheers,
Bev
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
This is Usenet. We *are* the trained body for dealing
with psychotics. -- A. Dingley
Dan Bloomquist
Rod Speed wrote:
> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
Another in denial....
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
Dan Bloomquist
Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote:
> A diesel engine can be run on biodiesel made from vegetable oil...
Now all you have to do is find enough to replace the easy stuff...
Dan Bloomquist
Stuart Grey wrote:
> Of course, those of us who remember rationing during the Arab oil
> Embargo, and then there are the very old that remember the rationing
> during WW II.
Yet still, no body seems to get it....
Mean Mr Mustard
> Bet we wont see rationing in your lifetime.
Meh, what do you know. You were 100% wrong on gold as an investment.
the_blogologist
> A diesel engine can be run on biodiesel made from vegetable oil.
I'd like to know whose got that many vegetables?
All the biodiesel stuff I've read on the web has it's feaability
calcuations based on the cost of heavily subsidised grains and heavily
taxed diesel. I seriously doubt you can get enough fuel out of grains to
power the tractor to in turn, replant and harvest it. Pretty much the
grains that big companies convert into alcohol will be the cheapest of
the cheap grains, mostly stuff that would have otherwise gone to waste.
imho the fuel-in vs fuel-out it is a looser, nothing green about it,
it's just converting those farm subsidies dollars into fuel. Lets cut
down some trees to make ribbons.
When it gets so bad you can't get diesel, I think the food will be worth
a lot more. You could probably buy the fuel to run your tractor with
food.
I'm thinking after a nuclear war------ civilian automobiles tconverted
to farm tractors powered by woodgas.
Ben
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49gsbsF...@individual.net...
>>> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
>
>> Of course, those of us who remember rationing during the Arab oil
>> Embargo,
>
> That wasnt rationing and wouldnt affect someone with a Rabbit anyway.
>
>> and then there are the very old that remember the rationing during WW II.
>
> Even you should have noticed that we aint had one of those
> for over half a century or more now, and that if we do have
> another, the least of your worrys will be diesel rationing.
>
During the Arab oil embargo after they unsuccessfully invaded Israel, I
recall waiting in long lines in Georgia. Moved to Florida where they had an
Odd/Even rationing system in force. You could only buy gas on certain days,
depending on whether your car tag had an odd or even number.
Bike guy Joe
happened around here.
Go ride your bike/scoot/motorcycle and have a nice day.
After the shit hit's the fan, we can all wring our hands.
The ones who will be affected most will be the rich who have no idea
how to live without throwing money at their problems and those who are
in the care of them.
I think this is where the meek inherit the earth......
James Annan
Mean Mr Mustard wrote:
> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
> the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
> to rise.
Bicycle. As well as fuel prices, you can forget tax, congestion charge,
trafffic jams, cost of ownership, insurance, obesity, heart surgery,
having to drive your kids everywhere...
James
rick++
How long does it take to plant 200 acres on foot?
eveninghawk
car, that way there's no need to refine your fuel, and you can go off
of anyone who has grease.
The only downside is you'd need to carry backup grease in your trunk,
but you'd have gained far more passenger space than a scooter.
Pope Secola IV
>>Buy a couple of hundred acres and raise rape seed and make Biodiesel.
>
>
> How long does it take to plant 200 acres on foot?
>
You notice he didn't say where he was going to get his tires,
lubrication oil, grease, paint, and other oil based products.
Pope Secola IV
Biodiesel is indeed more expensive than diesel fuel. The reason where
the price of petroleum products are where they are is that if crude were
priced marginally higher then alternate products would become attractive.
Current production rates of oil grains is around a ton a acre. After
pressed the high oil yield grains will yield about 1000 lbs of oil.
This will require about 100 lbs of Alcohol for the conversion of
vegetable oil into Biodiesel. So you are looking at 90 to 100 gallons
per acre of biodiesel. At current prices that would be $200 per acre.
At current production rates of grain it is more profitable to raise
other crops than oil grains and seeds.
hchi...@hotmail.com
>I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
>the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
>to rise.
Bullshit. You are using it as a lead line to troll this first
statement around. You want a fuel efficient car? Drive slower. If
energy prices rise, the more logical course of action when buying a
vehicle is to buy one that will last a long time, have parts
available, and be easy to service. It takes a lot of energy to make a
vehicle. "Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
That is the sum total effect on the average person.
bill
Idiot. Do you think we can keep burning 50 million barrels a day
of oil forever? driving slower really doesn't make that big a
difference in fuel consumption, driving less does.
For fuel economy, I reccomend the cheapest car you can lay hand
to, and a good scooter. Drive the scooter when you don't need the to
take car. That's what I do, and my fuel bils run around $10/week.
that way you have the passenger capacity/roof of a car when you need
it, and an efficient means of transportation for the rest of the time.
som...@somewhere.org
> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
> the world has just passed sustainable peak oil
It has? Please cite.
Will there be no alternative fuels available at 4x the current cost
of gasoline? (Sugar beet alcohol, rape seed diesel, etc.)
> Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive battery system that
> will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
Why is that? Are they made of oil?
hchi...@hotmail.com
>
>hchi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> "Mean Mr Mustard" <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
>> >the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
>> >to rise.
>>
>> Bullshit. You are using it as a lead line to troll this first
>> statement around. You want a fuel efficient car? Drive slower. If
>> energy prices rise, the more logical course of action when buying a
>> vehicle is to buy one that will last a long time, have parts
>> available, and be easy to service. It takes a lot of energy to make a
>> vehicle. "Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
>> are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
>> That is the sum total effect on the average person.
>
> Idiot.
Not likely. You are an idiot though, for prefacing a response like
that. If you want to change a person's mind to your point of view,
why don't you just start out all your posts with:
"You fucking idiotic scum-sucker who doesn't know jack-shit about the
world! I'm not even going to bother to check you out and see if you
have a brain because I'm too big of an egotistical asshole to bother."
It would be more accurate and I'm sure you'll get more responses. :-)
> Do you think we can keep burning 50 million barrels a day
>of oil forever?
I never said that. Did you read that into what I said? How did you
do that trick? I've always wondered how people could read "red" and
come up with "blue." I said that the original post was not really
about any interest in opinions about what type of vehicle to purchase,
but a chance for twits like you to rant on about oil consumption.
Smug Alert!
>driving slower really doesn't make that big a
>difference in fuel consumption, driving less does.
Well, duh! If you think that, maybe you've never been on a bicycle.
It is possible to ride a bike for hours at less than 10 mph. Try to
ride it at 25 mph and see how much harder it is. Rolling resistance
and wind resistance are primary factors. I pointed out that people
are still driving around at 80 mph when driving at 55 or 60 could
increase there milage. Do you have a problem with that? Of course
not driving saves gas. So does not breathing. I haven't met a dead
person yet that can't get more than 80 mpg without even breathing
hard.
> For fuel economy, I reccomend the cheapest car you can lay hand
>to, and a good scooter. Drive the scooter when you don't need the to
>take car. That's what I do, and my fuel bils run around $10/week.
>that way you have the passenger capacity/roof of a car when you need
>it, and an efficient means of transportation for the rest of the time.
Right, scooter. I'll remember to carry a manure shovel to scoop you
off the road after one of those 80 mph speed demons spreads you all
over the interstate on your putt-putt, or when you take the alternate
route to the interstate on your PeeWee Bike through that shooting
gallery we no longer call slums, and get shot off your mount.
Dan Bloomquist
som...@somewhere.org wrote:
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
>>the world has just passed sustainable peak oil
>
> It has? Please cite.
It is very likely we are peaking now.
http://peakoil.org/
> Will there be no alternative fuels available at 4x the current cost
> of gasoline? (Sugar beet alcohol, rape seed diesel, etc.)
You must be new to this.
>>Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive battery system that
>>will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
>
> Why is that? Are they made of oil?
The transportation infrastructure of the world requires oil.
Rod Speed
>> Buy a couple of hundred acres and raise rape seed and make Biodiesel.
> How long does it take to plant 200 acres on foot?
The problem aint the planting, its the harvesting, stupid.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
>>> Of course, those of us who remember rationing during the Arab oil
>>> Embargo,
>> That wasnt rationing and wouldnt affect someone with a Rabbit anyway.
>>> and then there are the very old that remember the rationing during WW
>>> II.
>> Even you should have noticed that we aint had one of those
>> for over half a century or more now, and that if we do have
>> another, the least of your worrys will be diesel rationing.
> During the Arab oil embargo after they unsuccessfully invaded Israel, I
> recall waiting in long lines in Georgia.
Sure, but that aint rationing.
> Moved to Florida where they had an Odd/Even rationing system in force.
> You could only buy gas on certain days, depending on whether your car tag
> had an odd or even number.
No big deal with a car like a Rabbit which gets a decent mileage.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
> Another in denial....
I've been saying the same thing since you mindless
hysterics started hyperventilating back in the 70s.
Aint been wrong yet, and wont be either.
Rod Speed
>> Bet we wont see rationing in your lifetime.
> Meh, what do you know. You were 100% wrong on gold as an investment.
Like hell I was, I never said anything about that.
Rod Speed
> Antipodean Bucket Farmer <usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote
>> A diesel engine can be run on biodiesel made from vegetable oil.
> I'd like to know whose got that many vegetables?
> All the biodiesel stuff I've read on the web has it's feaability
> calcuations based on the cost of heavily subsidised grains and
> heavily taxed diesel. I seriously doubt you can get enough fuel
> out of grains to power the tractor to in turn, replant and harvest it.
More fool you, thats completely trivial.
> Pretty much the grains that big companies convert
> into alcohol will be the cheapest of the cheap grains,
> mostly stuff that would have otherwise gone to waste.
Have fun explaining the Brazillian alcohol fuels.
> imho the fuel-in vs fuel-out it is a looser,
> nothing green about it, it's just converting
> those farm subsidies dollars into fuel.
Have fun explaining Brazil where there are no farm subsidys.
> Lets cut down some trees to make ribbons.
> When it gets so bad you can't get diesel,
Taint gunna happen. Its easy to make it from
coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process.
> I think the food will be worth a lot more.
More fool you.
> You could probably buy the fuel to run your tractor with food.
> I'm thinking after a nuclear war------
Taint gunna happen either.
> civilian automobiles tconverted to farm tractors powered by woodgas.
Furiously living in the past.
bill
> >> >the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
> >> >to rise.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. You are using it as a lead line to troll this first
> >> statement around. You want a fuel efficient car? Drive slower. If
> >> energy prices rise, the more logical course of action when buying a
> >> vehicle is to buy one that will last a long time, have parts
> >> available, and be easy to service. It takes a lot of energy to make a
> >> vehicle. "Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
> >> are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
> >> That is the sum total effect on the average person.
> >
> > Idiot.
>
> Not likely. You are an idiot though, for prefacing a response like
> that. If you want to change a person's mind to your point of view,
> why don't you just start out all your posts with:
>
> "You fucking idiotic scum-sucker who doesn't know jack-shit about the
> world! I'm not even going to bother to check you out and see if you
> have a brain because I'm too big of an egotistical asshole to bother."
>
> It would be more accurate and I'm sure you'll get more responses. :-)
classy :) maybe I will use it some time.
> > Do you think we can keep burning 50 million barrels a day
> >of oil forever?
> I never said that. Did you read that into what I said? How did you
> do that trick? I've always wondered how people could read "red" and
> come up with "blue." I said that the original post was not really
> about any interest in opinions about what type of vehicle to purchase,
> but a chance for twits like you to rant on about oil consumption.
> Smug Alert!
How else is this meant to be read?
"Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
> >driving slower really doesn't make that big a
> >difference in fuel consumption, driving less does.
> Well, duh! If you think that, maybe you've never been on a bicycle.
> It is possible to ride a bike for hours at less than 10 mph. Try to
> ride it at 25 mph and see how much harder it is. Rolling resistance
> and wind resistance are primary factors. I pointed out that people
> are still driving around at 80 mph when driving at 55 or 60 could
> increase there milage. Do you have a problem with that? Of course
> not driving saves gas. So does not breathing. I haven't met a dead
> person yet that can't get more than 80 mpg without even breathing
> hard.
wind friction is by far the primary one, and yes, it does increase
exponentially with speed. however, Modern cars are optimized well
above the 1950's 55 mph mark.
> > For fuel economy, I reccomend the cheapest car you can lay hand
> >to, and a good scooter. Drive the scooter when you don't need the to
> >take car. That's what I do, and my fuel bils run around $10/week.
> >that way you have the passenger capacity/roof of a car when you need
> >it, and an efficient means of transportation for the rest of the time.
>
> Right, scooter. I'll remember to carry a manure shovel to scoop you
> off the road after one of those 80 mph speed demons spreads you all
> over the interstate on your putt-putt, or when you take the alternate
> route to the interstate on your PeeWee Bike through that shooting
> gallery we no longer call slums, and get shot off your mount.
That's one of the advantages of living 3 miles from work in the
country. no bad neigborhoods, no highway.
I of course also have a car, for all the cold days/shopping
trips/family outings.
timeOday
>>> the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
>>> system that will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
>>> fleets going, so that rules out an older VW Rabbit.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> during WW II.
I would be surprised to see rationing again. What would not surprise me
is continuing escalation in the price so that a decreasing percentage of
the population can drive at all, while the wealthy continue to use all
they like, since it's relatively cheap for them.
Pau...@yahoo.com
is commuting. Live close to work and use public transportation if it's
available and practical.
Dan Bloomquist
hchi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
> are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
Actually, peak oil will be the trigger that will bring the economies of
the world down like a house of cards.
Dan Bloomquist
Rod Speed wrote:
>
> Taint gunna happen. Its easy to make it from
> coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process.
5mb/d/year will cost $250billion/year in today's dollars. When do we start?
Rod Speed
>>>> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now
>>>> that the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices
>>>> continue to rise. Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive
>>>> battery system that will probably be impossible to replace in a
>>>> few years. Diesel will probably be subjected to rationing to keep
>>>> the trucking fleets going, so that rules out an older VW Rabbit.
>>> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
>> Of course, those of us who remember rationing during the Arab oil
>> Embargo, and then there are the very old that remember the rationing
>> during WW II.
> I would be surprised to see rationing again.
Yeah, me too.
> What would not surprise me is continuing escalation in the price so that
> a decreasing percentage of the population can drive at all,
Dont believe that will happen either. What may well happen is
that we see a move to more fuel efficient cars and much less
mindless daily travel over long distances commuting to work etc.
It wouldnt require much of an increase in the price of gasoline
to make diesel from coal quite economically viable.
And its perfectly feasible to run cars on
natural gas too, plenty are doing it right now.
> while the wealthy continue to use all they like, since it's relatively
> cheap for them.
You dont see much of that sort of effect in the first world, and gasoline
prices are still well below what they peaked at in the 70s in real terms.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Taint gunna happen. Its easy to make it from
>> coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process.
> 5mb/d/year will cost $250billion/year in today's dollars. When do we
> start?
When its clear that the current price of gasoline
isnt just a glitch like it was in the 70s.
The current price is still not what it was then in real terms
and we havent seen many junking in their gas guzzlers yet.
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
> hchi...@hotmail.com wrote
>> "Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
>> are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
> Actually, peak oil will be the trigger that will bring the economies of
> the world down like a house of cards.
Nope, you watch.
There are plenty of viable alternatives to oil.
Most obviously coal for most industrial inputs and nukes in the ultimate
too.
Rod Speed
> som...@somewhere.org wrote
>> Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
>>> the world has just passed sustainable peak oil
>> It has? Please cite.
> It is very likely we are peaking now.
> http://peakoil.org/
Same claim was made in the 70s. They were wrong.
>> Will there be no alternative fuels available at 4x the current cost
>> of gasoline? (Sugar beet alcohol, rape seed diesel, etc.)
> You must be new to this.
Or you havent got a clue.
>>> Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive battery system that
>>> will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
>> Why is that? Are they made of oil?
> The transportation infrastructure of the world requires oil.
Its just the way its currently done. Just like it
once required coal and changed over to oil.
Perfectly possible to go back to coal again if we need to.
Dan Bloomquist
Rod Speed wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>>hchi...@hotmail.com wrote
>
>>>"Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
>>>are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
>
>>Actually, peak oil will be the trigger that will bring the economies of
>>the world down like a house of cards.
>
> Nope, you watch.
I am watching. We aren't fixing this and at the same time our economy
has become very fragile. What form do you suppose Bernanke's helicopters
will take? When will they come?
> There are plenty of viable alternatives to oil.
Alternatives take time and money. Read the Hirsch report.
Dan Bloomquist
Rod Speed wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>
>>5mb/d/year will cost $250billion/year in today's dollars. When do we
>>start?
>
> When its clear that the current price of gasoline
> isnt just a glitch like it was in the 70s.
Have you read the Hirsch report?
Dan Bloomquist
Rod Speed wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>
>>It is very likely we are peaking now.
>>http://peakoil.org/
>
> Same claim was made in the 70s. They were wrong.
I never heard that claim. So, where will the new production come from?
Fine examples.
Ghawar
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm
Cantrarell
Word on the street is that the decline in production will see it at less
than .5mbd/d in less than three years.
What about Burgan?
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/localnews.asp?dismode=article&artid=37595069
Once this sets in there will be, at the least, a gap of 4mb/d or more
between demand and production. It won't be pretty.
> Or you havent got a clue.
Really!? And you know it all...
>>The transportation infrastructure of the world requires oil.
>
> Its just the way its currently done. Just like it
> once required coal and changed over to oil.
>
> Perfectly possible to go back to coal again if we need to.
When do we start spending $250billion/year on this mitigation? You seem
to think this can easily be fixed after it needs to be fixed.
Rod Speed
>>> 5mb/d/year will cost $250billion/year in today's dollars. When do we
>>> start?
>> When its clear that the current price of gasoline
>> isnt just a glitch like it was in the 70s.
> Have you read the Hirsch report?
Not interested in 'reports'
Saw plenty of those in the 70s like the Club of Rome etc that were just
plain wrong.
Rod Speed
>>>> "Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
>>>> are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
>>> Actually, peak oil will be the trigger that will bring the
>>> economies of the world down like a house of cards.
>> Nope, you watch.
> I am watching. We aren't fixing this
Nothing needs 'fixing' currently.
> and at the same time our economy has become very fragile.
Like hell it has.
> What form do you suppose Bernanke's
> helicopters will take? When will they come?
>> There are plenty of viable alternatives to oil.
> Alternatives take time and money.
Nope. The alternatives have been around for a long time now.
The Fischer-Tropsch process has been around for almost a century now.
Nukes have been very viable for half a century now.
> Read the Hirsch report.
Not interested, its just the latest in a VERY long series of mindless
hyperventilations that have turned out to be steaming turds.
That fool Malthus hyperventilated that we would have starved
ourselves to death by now, a couple of centurys ago. He was
wrong, it didnt work out anything like he was so sure it would.
The Club of Rome fools proclaimed that we'd be out of oil
by now, when they mindlessly hyperventilated in the 70s.
The were just plain wrong.
Erlich made a VERY spectacular fool of himself mindlessly
hyperventilating. Didnt happen anything like he claimed was
absolutely guaranteed to happen.
Hirsch et al are just the latest in a VERY long series of mindless
hyperventilators and they will be proven to be just as wrong too. You
watch.
Rod Speed
>>> It is very likely we are peaking now.
>>> http://peakoil.org/
>> Same claim was made in the 70s. They were wrong.
> I never heard that claim.
Your problem. Look up the Club of Rome and Erlich.
> So, where will the new production come from?
We use other than crude oil. Plenty of coal available.
> Fine examples.
> Ghawar
> http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm
> Cantrarell
> Word on the street
That's a dead giveaway for starters.
> is that the decline in production will see it at less than .5mbd/d in
> less than three years.
We'll see.
> What about Burgan?
> http://www.kuwaittimes.net/localnews.asp?dismode=article&artid=37595069
> Once this sets in there will be, at the least, a gap of 4mb/d or more
> between demand and production. It won't be pretty.
Same mindless claim was made in the 70s too.
>>>> Will there be no alternative fuels available at 4x the current cost
>>>> of gasoline? (Sugar beet alcohol, rape seed diesel, etc.)
>>> You must be new to this.
>> Or you havent got a clue.
> Really!?
Yep, really.
> And you know it all...
Know yet another steaming turd when I see it.
>>> The transportation infrastructure of the world requires oil.
>> Its just the way its currently done. Just like it
>> once required coal and changed over to oil.
>> Perfectly possible to go back to coal again if we need to.
> When do we start spending $250billion/year on this mitigation?
I already told you, when the price of gasoline
doesnt turn out to be a glitch like it was in the 70s.
No rush, we havent even seen many dumping their gas guzzlers yet.
> You seem to think this can easily be fixed after it needs to be fixed.
Corse it can be easily fixed if the price of gasoline
does see a need to do something about that.
The technology has been around for almost a century now with
Fischer-Tropsch process, over half a century now with nukes.
Some countrys have already had enough of a clue to use nukes
for a very substantial part of their power generation capacity
and even china has come to its senses on that.
You north americans cant manage those basics ? Your problem.
Coal is a perfectly viable source of carbon for industrial processes,
its just currently more economic to use crude oil instead.
h...@nospam.com
How many years of coal is there left? There are many problems with
coal, and as with any non renewable resource, it too will eventually
run out. The only long term solution is population control and
lifestyle change.
Hal
>
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Dan Bloomquist
Rod Speed wrote:
>
> The technology has been around for almost a century now with
> Fischer-Tropsch process, over half a century now with nukes.
> Some countrys have already had enough of a clue to use nukes
> for a very substantial part of their power generation capacity
> and even china has come to its senses on that.
You keep saying the same thing. I see you are a believer, to hell with
the numbers. BTW, peak oil is a 'liquid fuel' crisis. Nukes have little
to do with it.
Maximust
>
>
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>> Taint gunna happen. Its easy to make it from
>> coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process.
>
> 5mb/d/year will cost $250billion/year in today's dollars. When do we start?
>
How do we ramp up that much of an increase in coal production?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> The technology has been around for almost a century now with
>> Fischer-Tropsch process, over half a century now with nukes.
>> Some countrys have already had enough of a clue to use nukes
>> for a very substantial part of their power generation capacity
>> and even china has come to its senses on that.
> You keep saying the same thing.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
> I see you are a believer,
Corse you arent anything like that yourself, eh ?
> to hell with the numbers.
Never said that. The numbers that matter are that the price
of gasoline isnt yet high enough to see many get rid of their
gas guzzlers, so you can stop mindlessly hyperventilating.
> BTW, peak oil is a 'liquid fuel' crisis.
Duh.
> Nukes have little to do with it.
Wrong again. Nukes can be used to produce hydrogen if that
becomes an economically viable transport fuel any time soon.
Even if crude oil has PEAKED, that still means that
we still have what follows the peak to use yet, and
it remains to be seen if it actually has peaked too.
No need for headless chicken mode any time soon.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>>> som...@somewhere.org wrote
>>>> Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now
>>>>> that the world has just passed sustainable peak oil
>>>> It has? Please cite.
>>> It is very likely we are peaking now.
>>> http://peakoil.org/
>> Same claim was made in the 70s. They were wrong.
>>>> Will there be no alternative fuels available at 4x the current cost
>>>> of gasoline? (Sugar beet alcohol, rape seed diesel, etc.)
>>> You must be new to this.
>> Or you havent got a clue.
>>>>> Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive battery system
>>>>> that will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
>>>> Why is that? Are they made of oil?
>>> The transportation infrastructure of the world requires oil.
>> Its just the way its currently done. Just like it
>> once required coal and changed over to oil.
>> Perfectly possible to go back to coal again if we need to.
> How many years of coal is there left?
Centurys.
> There are many problems with coal,
Bugger all actually. You just end up with a hole in the ground.
> and as with any non renewable resource, it too will eventually run out.
There's others that wont if they are needed, most obviously breeder nukes.
> The only long term solution is population control
And that is happening pretty decently in the
first world and a few other places like china.
> and lifestyle change.
It will be perfectly viable to not change too radically, just
do a lot more telecommuting etc. Thats got the other
real advantage of minimising the use of transport fuel
and using what can be trivially powered from nukes instead.
The sky aint falling and wont any century soon, you watch.
tgde...@earthlink.net
No, the long term solution is population control. Once you do that,
lifestyle changes will (probably) trend in the direction of less
consumption of resources. But everyone is afraid to take a position on
that, so assume nothing changes.
US consumption (or production of CO2) is often put at 25% of the total.
There are about 300 million in the US. If the world population were 300
million, with a US lifestyle, it might well be the case that CO2 would
not be a problem. In which case, world coal supplies would go a very
long way into the future.
-tg
Dan Bloomquist
Rod Speed wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>
>>and at the same time our economy has become very fragile.
>
> Like hell it has.
Really!? Then answer the following...
>>What form do you suppose Bernanke's
>>helicopters will take? When will they come?
--
Tim May
wrote:
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
> > the world has just passed sustainable peak oil
>
> It has? Please cite.
>
> Will there be no alternative fuels available at 4x the current cost
> of gasoline? (Sugar beet alcohol, rape seed diesel, etc.)
>
> > Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive battery system that
> > will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
>
> Why is that? Are they made of oil?
Replacement batteries are already available, and are for sale at lower
prices than many of us expected.
No, I am not in the market for a hybrid, don't have one, don't plan to
get one. But I had heard early speculations (a couple of years ago)
that Prius batteries might not be easily obtainable and might cost more
than the depreciated value of the car. Apparently not so (I've seen
$3000 figures for a new battery pack reported).
Given that demand for replacements has been low, that Toyota provides a
7-year warranty on the pack, and the prices, getting replacement
batteries is not an issue.
Myself, I drive about 6000 miles per year, so the amortization/payback
on the increased cost of a hybrid is not there.
(Calculating the payback period is a good exercise for any prospective
buyers to do. Remember, of course, that the difference between 25 mpg
on a typical modern small gas car and the 40 mpg figure most are
reporting for the Prius is not all that big a deal. For me, for
example, it would amount to 90 gallons saved. Even at $3/gallon, only
$270. Even if gas were to go up to $4 and I were to double my miles per
year to 12,000, a savings of $675 per year. This would still take a
good number of years to pay off (with appropropriate compounding of the
costs) the differential in price.)
For my most recent new car, I got a Subaru Outback Sport. Good
All-Wheel-Drive performance, lots of cargo capacity with the rear seats
folded down, a very solid roof rack which can haul bicycles, cargo,
etc. And zippy performance, good safety, etc. And several thousand
dollars less than the clunky (to me)-looking Prius. On long highway
trips, it gets about 30 mpg. (And hybrids don't outperform standard
engines very much at highway speeds, as the regenerative breaking is
not a real issue. Some gain because of the way the engine can smoothly
use power, but not very significant.)
Some in this thread have opined about buying scooters. Well, do the
math. If the scooter gets, say, 80 mpg, what are the gas savings? For
driving a realistic amount (on a scooter, which is "around town"), the
differences are minimal.
And safety and insurance are significant issues. I expect the costs of
insurance for the scooter or motorcycle will exceed any plausible gas
savings. Again, do the calculations.
(I used to ride a BMW R1100R. A lot of fun, on country roads. Not so
much fun on crowded freeways. But insurance was pricey and the hazards
were real. I have it retired in my garage right now.)
As for needing to worry about buying a vehicle NOW to "prepare for peak
oil," this is truly a silly concern. Whatever happens with oil, it will
take years and years and years for anything to happen.
(Sure, something could trigger a collapse next month. But planning or
preparing for some major calamity, or economic event, or runaway
inflation, etc., is a different issue altogether from worrying about
being unable to buy gas!)
Even if the peak oil stuff is correct, this peak will apparently be
broad and will only be clear retrospectively. That is, in 2017 or 2025.
or somesuch year, articles will sagely say that "oil production peaked
in 2011 and declined 5% by 2014..."
(And the same articles may also say that, meanwhile, Canadian coal
output rose substantially...Canada has surface coal reserves estimates
to last more than a century even at several times more than the current
digging rate. This according to the CNN special on peak oil, aired a
few weeks ago.)
There are plenty of options for fuel. Nuclear never should have been
trashed the way it was by the "Split wood, not atoms!!" eco-hysterics.
I
--Tim May, skeptical on scooters, skeptical on hybrid vehicles, and
skeptical that the world is on the verge of running out of energy
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Ben wrote:
> "Mean Mr Mustard" <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1144197978.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
> > system that will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
> > Geo Metro and Suzuki swift are still gas hungry at 40mpg.
> >
> > So that pretty much eliminates the passenger car space, but what about
> > scooters? Some are clocked at over 200mpg. This seems to be a
> > reasonable range to keep me going between the inevitable rationing.
> > Any advice on the best scooter for this kind of scenario?
> >
>
> I'm not in the market for a car but tend to think it best not to make a
> final decision until seeing what impact this summer's hurricane season is
> going to have.
Yep, Gulf of Mexico hurricanes might shut down the Motoguzzi plant in
Italy.
Rod Speed
>>> and at the same time our economy has become very fragile.
>> Like hell it has.
> Really!?
Yep, really.
> Then answer the following...
>>> What form do you suppose Bernanke's helicopters will take?
Dont need any.
>>> When will they come?
Irrelevant since there is no need for any.
Rod Speed
> h...@nospam.com wrote
>>>>> It has? Please cite.
That happens automatically in the first world.
> Once you do that, lifestyle changes will (probably) trend
> in the direction of less consumption of resources.
Hasnt happened anywhere in the first world.
> But everyone is afraid to take a position on that,
No they arent. Those with a clue have noticed that population
control has happened automatically in the entire first world.
> so assume nothing changes.
Things change anyway, most obviously with the
entire modern first world not even self replacing
on population now if you take out immigration.
> US consumption (or production of CO2) is often put at 25% of the total.
And much of that can be eliminated by using
nukes instead of fossil fuels for power generation.
> There are about 300 million in the US. If the world population
> were 300 million, with a US lifestyle, it might well be the case
> that CO2 would not be a problem. In which case, world coal
> supplies would go a very long way into the future.
Sure, but that aint gunna happen any time soon
given what the world population already is.
Even full world nuke war wouldnt produce that.
Dan Bloomquist
Maximust wrote:
I don't know. Ask Mr. Speed. He thinks it is easy.
Dan Bloomquist
Rod Speed wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>
>
>>Nukes have little to do with it.
>
> Wrong again. Nukes can be used to produce hydrogen if that
> becomes an economically viable transport fuel any time soon.
I think that says it all...
Dan Bloomquist
Rod Speed wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>
>>>>What form do you suppose Bernanke's helicopters will take?
>
> Dont need any.
What will keep the money supply growing. Be specific.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Rod Speed wrote:
> timeOday <timeOda...@theknack.net> wrote
> > Stuart Grey wrote
> >> Rod Speed wrote
> >>> Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>>> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now
> >>>> that the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices
> >>>> continue to rise. Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive
> >>>> battery system that will probably be impossible to replace in a
> >>>> few years. Diesel will probably be subjected to rationing to keep
> >>>> the trucking fleets going, so that rules out an older VW Rabbit.
>
> >>> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
>
> >> Of course, those of us who remember rationing during the Arab oil
> >> Embargo, and then there are the very old that remember the rationing
> >> during WW II.
>
> > I would be surprised to see rationing again.
>
> Yeah, me too.
Pricing has the same effect.
> > What would not surprise me is continuing escalation in the price so that
> > a decreasing percentage of the population can drive at all,
>
> Dont believe that will happen either. What may well happen is
> that we see a move to more fuel efficient cars and much less
> mindless daily travel over long distances commuting to work etc.
In the USA, we one had a move toward fuel efficient vehicles. Then
Clinton/Gore dropped it. A partial solution to long commutes is
telecommuting. Another is mass transportation but that is unlikely as
we still have too great a distance to travel to make that work.
> much of an increase in the price of gasoline
> to make diesel from coal quite economically viable.
>
> And its perfectly feasible to run cars on
> natural gas too, plenty are doing it right now.
>
> > while the wealthy continue to use all they like, since it's relatively
> > cheap for them.
>
> You dont see much of that sort of effect in the first world, and gasoline
> prices are still well below what they peaked at in the 70s in real terms.
Gore wanted a punitive tax on fuel like they have in Europe, but at
least now the stockholders are getting the windfall instead of the
government. The government would just blow it on something stupid.
Maximust
> In article <1QTYf.22124$C85.10330@dukeread10>, <som...@somewhere.org>
> wrote:
>
>> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
>> > the world has just passed sustainable peak oil
>>
>> It has? Please cite.
>>
>> Will there be no alternative fuels available at 4x the current cost
>> of gasoline? (Sugar beet alcohol, rape seed diesel, etc.)
>>
>> > Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive battery system that
>> > will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
>>
>> Why is that? Are they made of oil?
>
> Replacement batteries are already available, and are for sale at lower
> prices than many of us expected.
>
> No, I am not in the market for a hybrid, don't have one, don't plan to
> get one. But I had heard early speculations (a couple of years ago)
> that Prius batteries might not be easily obtainable and might cost more
> than the depreciated value of the car. Apparently not so (I've seen
> $3000 figures for a new battery pack reported).
>
> Given that demand for replacements has been low, that Toyota provides a
> 7-year warranty on the pack, and the prices, getting replacement
> batteries is not an issue.
>
> Myself, I drive about 6000 miles per year, so the amortization/payback
> on the increased cost of a hybrid is not there.
>
You would be best served by a Kei-class car. Too bad they're illegal to operate
in the US.
http://www.japanoid.com/
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> timeOday <timeOda...@theknack.net> wrote
>>> Stuart Grey wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now
>>>>>> that the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil
>>>>>> prices continue to rise. Hybrids are saddled with an extremely
>>>>>> expensive battery system that will probably be impossible to
>>>>>> replace in a few years. Diesel will probably be subjected to
>>>>>> rationing to keep the trucking fleets going, so that rules out
>>>>>> an older VW Rabbit.
>>>>> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
>>>> Of course, those of us who remember rationing
>>>> during the Arab oil Embargo, and then there are the
>>>> very old that remember the rationing during WW II.
>>> I would be surprised to see rationing again.
>> Yeah, me too.
> Pricing has the same effect.
Nope, a completely different effect.
>>> What would not surprise me is continuing escalation in the price so
>>> that a decreasing percentage of the population can drive at all,
>> Dont believe that will happen either. What may well happen is
>> that we see a move to more fuel efficient cars and much less
>> mindless daily travel over long distances commuting to work etc.
> In the USA, we one had a move toward fuel efficient vehicles.
That was just the usual silly approach by govt.
You havent seen any real effect with what people buy and use car wise.
> Then Clinton/Gore dropped it. A partial solution to long commutes is
> telecommuting. Another is mass transportation but that is unlikely as
> we still have too great a distance to travel to make that work.
Another obvious approach is just more efficient use of the cars that
do make those trips and other very simple approaches like buses.
The short story is that the cost of the gasoline still isnt
high enough to see much of that actually bothered with.
And another obvious approach is to move the work into
areas that have lots of those people commuting from too.
Not a shred of rocket science required at all.
>> much of an increase in the price of gasoline
>> to make diesel from coal quite economically viable.
>> And its perfectly feasible to run cars on
>> natural gas too, plenty are doing it right now.
>>> while the wealthy continue to use all they
>>> like, since it's relatively cheap for them.
>> You dont see much of that sort of effect in the
>> first world, and gasoline prices are still well
>> below what they peaked at in the 70s in real terms.
> Gore wanted a punitive tax on fuel like they have in Europe,
It isnt punative in europe. Just quite a bit higher than in the US
which just happens to have much lower fuel taxes than in virtually
all the rest of the first world and the opec countrys themselves etc.
> but at least now the stockholders are getting the windfall
There is no windfall. The oil companys
have to pay the higher cost of the crude.
> instead of the government. The government
> would just blow it on something stupid.
So do the stockholders.
Rod Speed
>>>>> What form do you suppose Bernanke's helicopters will take?
>> Dont need any.
> What will keep the money supply growing.
The economy, stupid.
> Be specific.
Just did.
Rod Speed
>>> Nukes have little to do with it.
>> Wrong again. Nukes can be used to produce hydrogen if that
>> becomes an economically viable transport fuel any time soon.
> I think that says it all...
Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
Just mindless one liners like that, and other puerile stunts.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
bill wrote:
> hchi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > "Mean Mr Mustard" <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
> > >the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
> > >to rise.
> >
> > statement around. You want a fuel efficient car? Drive slower. If
> > energy prices rise, the more logical course of action when buying a
> > vehicle is to buy one that will last a long time, have parts
> > available, and be easy to service. It takes a lot of energy to make a
> > vehicle. "Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
> > are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
>
> Idiot. Do you think we can keep burning 50 million barrels a day
> of oil forever? driving slower really doesn't make that big a
> difference in fuel consumption,
Yes, it does. Thats why the national speed limit was lowered to 55mph,
then stupidly dropped on the floor by the environmental presidency of
Clinton/Gore. Unbelievable.
> driving less does.
That, too.
> For fuel economy, I reccomend the cheapest car you can lay hand
> to, and a good scooter. Drive the scooter when you don't need the to
> take car. That's what I do, and my fuel bils run around $10/week.
> that way you have the passenger capacity/roof of a car when you need
> it, and an efficient means of transportation for the rest of the time.
Bicycle?
tgde...@earthlink.net
Those proficient in English can parse a sentence to understand what
refers to what.
Everyone agrees that prosperity leads to reduced reproduction. So
reducing population through any means will produce a positive feedback
effect.
I didn't say that population reduction in some locality would have any
effect one way or the other. If you wish to discuss the effect of
population on lifestyle, you have to consider a scenario in which the
system is closed----the first world is hardly that. Consider the
scenario I suggest below. Are you saying that patterns of behavior in
such a situation will be the same as they are now? Hardly, I think.
> > so assume nothing changes.
>
> Things change anyway, most obviously with the
> entire modern first world not even self replacing
> on population now if you take out immigration.
>
> > US consumption (or production of CO2) is often put at 25% of the total.
>
> And much of that can be eliminated by using
> nukes instead of fossil fuels for power generation.
>
Who cares? Are you some kind of socialist that wishes to impose your
will on people?
Why not let reduced poplulation and the market decide what works best?
> > There are about 300 million in the US. If the world population
> > were 300 million, with a US lifestyle, it might well be the case
> > that CO2 would not be a problem. In which case, world coal
> > supplies would go a very long way into the future.
>
> Sure, but that aint gunna happen any time soon
> given what the world population already is.
>
> Even full world nuke war wouldnt produce that.
Birth control at a one-child rate would reduce the population to 3
billion before the end of the century. Using the projected 9 billion
population under current conditions, that would mean that everyone
would be 3 times wealthier than they are now (ATBE). So the first world
effect would operate, and an optimum level could be reached in another
few generations (2-3).
The benefits would begin to show as soon as the growth curve turned
down.
-tg
Dave Head
>
>Rod Speed wrote:
>> timeOday <timeOda...@theknack.net> wrote
>> > Stuart Grey wrote
>> >> Rod Speed wrote
>> >>> Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> >>>> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now
>> >>>> that the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices
>> >>>> continue to rise. Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive
>> >>>> battery system that will probably be impossible to replace in a
>> >>>> few years. Diesel will probably be subjected to rationing to keep
>> >>>> the trucking fleets going, so that rules out an older VW Rabbit.
>>
>> >>> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
>>
>> >> Of course, those of us who remember rationing during the Arab oil
>> >> Embargo, and then there are the very old that remember the rationing
>> >> during WW II.
>>
>> > I would be surprised to see rationing again.
>>
>> Yeah, me too.
>
>Pricing has the same effect.
No, its the difference between night and day.
With pricing controlling consumption, you _can_ drive someplace that is very
important to drive to. You just have to resolve to pay the gasoline bill.
With rationing, it doesn't matter how important your destination is, if your
tank is empty and it isn't your day to buy gas, you aren't going to get there.
>> > What would not surprise me is continuing escalation in the price so that
>> > a decreasing percentage of the population can drive at all,
>>
>> Dont believe that will happen either. What may well happen is
>> that we see a move to more fuel efficient cars and much less
>> mindless daily travel over long distances commuting to work etc.
>
>In the USA, we one had a move toward fuel efficient vehicles. Then
>Clinton/Gore dropped it.
Well... the American people dropped it. Clinton always did listen very
intently to polls, and the populace was seriously disinterested in gas mileage.
>A partial solution to long commutes is
>telecommuting.
Partial, because you can't pour a foundation or run a steel furnace via a high
speed modem.
>Another is mass transportation but that is unlikely as
>we still have too great a distance to travel to make that work.
There's a concept, that admittedly needs a lot of work, that would see railcars
carrying automobiles, run on nuclear power, that would enable any car ever
built to run 100% cleanly and burn no fossil fuels for as much of its journey
as the rails have been layed. That would be a partial solution, too.
Otherwise, most people abhor mass transit, because of waiting for the transit
to arrive, being packed in with a bunch of strangers, not having control over
the temperature, sound, atmosphere, etc. They want to eat, smoke, and listen
to their tunes when they travel, and you can't do that with other people
present unless it's _your_ car and they are there strictly at your pleasure,
such as commuting slugs.
>> much of an increase in the price of gasoline
>> to make diesel from coal quite economically viable.
>>
>> And its perfectly feasible to run cars on
>> natural gas too, plenty are doing it right now.
>>
>> > while the wealthy continue to use all they like, since it's relatively
>> > cheap for them.
>>
>> You dont see much of that sort of effect in the first world, and gasoline
>> prices are still well below what they peaked at in the 70s in real terms.
>
>Gore wanted a punitive tax on fuel like they have in Europe,
For a country this size, it would have put the economy on its knees. We _have_
to travel to get much of anything done, and the building of public transit to
span those distances is near-prohibitive. Gas is gonna have to get a _lot_ more
expensive (without a tax) for this to be considered, and it'll probably hose
the economy anyway.
>but at
>least now the stockholders are getting the windfall instead of the
>government.
That _is_ a good thing...
>The government would just blow it on something stupid.
Yep...
Dave Head
Dan Bloomquist
Rod Speed wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>What form do you suppose Bernanke's helicopters will take?
>
>>>Dont need any.
>
>>What will keep the money supply growing.
>
> The economy, stupid.
Why didn't the 'economy' do it's stuff in the early thirties?
>>Be specific.
>
> Just did.
No you didn't.
som...@somewhere.org
> som...@somewhere.org wrote:
> > In misc.consumers.frugal-living Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
> >>the world has just passed sustainable peak oil
> >
> > It has? Please cite.
> It is very likely we are peaking now.
> http://peakoil.org/
First of all I believe peak oil production is at least a decade away. Secondly
peaking now is different than "just passed sustainable peak". There are a lot
of tar sands out there that can be processed into oil at current prices that
weren't economically viable at $35 barrel.
> > Will there be no alternative fuels available at 4x the current cost
> > of gasoline? (Sugar beet alcohol, rape seed diesel, etc.)
> You must be new to this.
No, I just don't over react. Even if peak oil production happened yesterday,
its not a big deal. Oil production doesn't stop immediately. If we can't
increase production then the price goes up to $10/gallon and people will
want to conserve. At that point people switch to jobs closer to home,
and more people drive 40mpg cars instead of 20mpg cars for commuting.
Car pooling and conserving will become popular.
If we really need the energy then the government will end the corn ethanol
subsidies that give ADM and corn farmers billions of dollars every year
and get serious about MAKING energy. Currently it takes more oil to produce
alcohol/biodiesel from corn than the energy content in the resulting fuel.
That wouldn't be the case if sugar cane, sugar beets, and rape seed were
used instead of (subsidized) corn.
> >>Hybrids are saddled with an extremely expensive battery system that
> >>will probably be impossible to replace in a few years.
> >
> > Why is that? Are they made of oil?
> The transportation infrastructure of the world requires oil.
Yes. But not as much as we are currently using and that will not always be
the case. Peak oil doesn't mean the world is suddenly out of oil. Barges
and trains which are more efficient than trucks will therefore be used in
place of long haul shipping. As production wanes nuclear or CNG powered
ships, coal conversion plants, and biodiesel press plants.
Peak oil simply means that liquid fuel gets more expensive. Fuel does not
go away.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> It has? Please cite.
Pathetic, really.
> Everyone agrees that prosperity leads to reduced
> reproduction. So reducing population through any
> means will produce a positive feedback effect.
Its much more complicated than that. Prosperity
didnt lead to reduced reproduction in the past.
> I didn't say that population reduction in some locality
> would have any effect one way or the other.
I didnt say you did.
> If you wish to discuss the effect of population on lifestyle, you
> have to consider a scenario in which the system is closed
No you dont. All you have to do is observe that virtually all of
the first world isnt even self replacing on population now if you
take out immigration, and quite a bit of the second world too.
> the first world is hardly that.
Irrelevant basically.
> Consider the scenario I suggest below. Are
> you saying that patterns of behavior in such
> a situation will be the same as they are now?
Nope.
> Hardly, I think.
Duh.
>>> so assume nothing changes.
>> Things change anyway, most obviously with the
>> entire modern first world not even self replacing
>> on population now if you take out immigration.
>>> US consumption (or production of CO2)
>>> is often put at 25% of the total.
>> And much of that can be eliminated by using
>> nukes instead of fossil fuels for power generation.
> Who cares?
Those that consider that the production of CO2 is
producing some problems greenhouse effect wise.
> Are you some kind of socialist that wishes to impose your will on people?
Nope. I have always maintained that there isnt anything to
get hysterical about, we've done very well over the last few
centurys and there is no need to impose anything on anyone.
And none of the socialist experiments have worked very well.
What has worked much better is the capitalist system with
some constraints on the worst excesses of capitalism.
> Why not let reduced poplulation and
> the market decide what works best?
Why not indeed.
I never ever suggested otherwise.
>>> There are about 300 million in the US. If the world population
>>> were 300 million, with a US lifestyle, it might well be the case
>>> that CO2 would not be a problem. In which case, world coal
>>> supplies would go a very long way into the future.
>> Sure, but that aint gunna happen any time soon
>> given what the world population already is.
>> Even full world nuke war wouldnt produce that.
> Birth control at a one-child rate would reduce the
> population to 3 billion before the end of the century.
Nothing like your 300M above.
> Using the projected 9 billion population under current conditions,
I dont believe projections are worth the paper they are printed on.
If someone had suggested in the 50s that china would
achieve the most gung ho one child policys that the world
has ever seen, they would have been laughed out of court.
> that would mean that everyone would be
> 3 times wealthier than they are now (ATBE).
No it wouldnt.
> So the first world effect would operate,
Thats arguable. Even wealthy moslems
dont get much of an effect like that.
And that isnt primarily a wealth effect
anyway, its happened for other reasons.
> and an optimum level
No such animal.
> could be reached in another few generations (2-3).
It may not need any specific action, it may happen anyway.
Tho its distinctly arguable that say africa will
ever see the first world effect with population.
They might well be stupid enough to get a similar
outcome with AIDS tho if western medicine doesnt
come up with a cure or vaccination etc for it.
> The benefits would begin to show as soon
> as the growth curve turned down.
The benefits have shown over the last century or more too.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>>>>>>> What form do you suppose Bernanke's helicopters will take?
>>>> Dont need any.
>>> What will keep the money supply growing.
>> The economy, stupid.
> Why didn't the 'economy' do it's stuff in the early thirties?
We hadnt worked out how to fine tune the economy at that time.
Even you should have noticed that we havent had a full depression
since then. There were quite a few in the century before the early thirtys.
>>> Be specific.
>> Just did.
> No you didn't.
Yes I did.
Dave Head
>
>bill wrote:
>> hchi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > "Mean Mr Mustard" <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
>> > >the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
>> > >to rise.
>> >
>> > Bullshit. You are using it as a lead line to troll this first
>> > statement around. You want a fuel efficient car? Drive slower. If
>> > energy prices rise, the more logical course of action when buying a
>> > vehicle is to buy one that will last a long time, have parts
>> > available, and be easy to service. It takes a lot of energy to make a
>> > vehicle. "Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
>> > are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
>> > That is the sum total effect on the average person.
>>
>> Idiot. Do you think we can keep burning 50 million barrels a day
>> of oil forever? driving slower really doesn't make that big a
>> difference in fuel consumption,
>
>Yes, it does.
No, it doesn't.
>Thats why the national speed limit was lowered to 55mph,
Yep, and that didn't work at all. All it did was raise the number of speeding
tickets written, because people pretty much ignored it.
>then stupidly dropped on the floor by the environmental presidency of
>Clinton/Gore. Unbelievable.
There was a _huge_ movement by a wide range of user groups from car enthusiasts
to ordinary commuters that were fed up with getting speeding tickets for not
driving a speed that would cause them to risk going to sleep at the wheel in
broad daylight from the boredom. (Happened to me once when I actually tried to
drive 55 mph when they first passed the law - it was the last time I actually
tried that on any regular basis! <G>)
>> driving less does.
>That, too.
Yeah? How? There are places to go and just 1 way to get there. If it wasn't
for the fact that all my muscles are screaming at me from Monday night's
session with my personal trainer, after not having been able to get the gym for
a couple weeks due to work interference, I'd be driving a 40 mile round-trip to
the gym tonight. Almost certainly will tomorrow night. And the night after
that. And Saturday. Etc. This is pretty important, and there's just no
public transport.
Plus, there's the 34 mile round trip to work, in the exact opposite direction.
I _have_ to do that one, too. If I don't, I _might_ be able to walk about a
mile and _maybe_ get the bus to pick me up at a non-standard stop, and _then_
be stranded at the work building all day. There's no bus to anything
resembling a restaurant where I work. Don't _want_ to "pack a lunch". Do want
to be able to get around...
>> For fuel economy, I reccomend the cheapest car you can lay hand
>> to, and a good scooter. Drive the scooter when you don't need the to
>> take car. That's what I do, and my fuel bils run around $10/week.
>> that way you have the passenger capacity/roof of a car when you need
>> it, and an efficient means of transportation for the rest of the time.
>
>Bicycle?
But not 17 miles from work and 20 from town... And there's a whale of a lot of
people in this situation. The other options were to buy a house _very_ close
to work, then it'd be about 35 miles to town, and I'd still be going about 4 -
5 times a week. Or, buy in the town, and go to work 5 times a week, for sure,
but be able to get around town without a lotta driving. Shoulda done that, but
wanted an acre for the radio antennas, too, and that woulda been really
expensive.
Dave Head
Andy
> I would be surprised to see rationing again. What would not surprise me
> is continuing escalation in the price so that a decreasing percentage of
> the population can drive at all, while the wealthy continue to use all
> they like, since it's relatively cheap for them.
There is so much room to improve efficiency in how we use fossil fuels
that I seriously doubt we will even see a situation where only the
wealthy can afford to drive in our lifetimes. The price of oil will go
up, people will switch to more efficient vehicles, be more organized
about planning their trips, live closer to work, carpool, take the bus,
etc. which will help balance demand to supply, which will help keep oil
prices from skyrocketing up to levels where only the rich can afford
it.
Fuel price increases are a self-limiting system: if oil prices were so
high that only the rich could afford to drive then demand would be so
low (there aren't that many rich people) that the price would collapse.
Andy
Andy
Andy
>
> Otherwise, most people abhor mass transit, because of waiting for the transit
> to arrive, being packed in with a bunch of strangers, not having control over
> the temperature, sound, atmosphere, etc. They want to eat, smoke, and listen
> to their tunes when they travel, and you can't do that with other people
> present unless it's _your_ car and they are there strictly at your pleasure,
> such as commuting slugs.
Back before I started telecommuting full time I rode a 40 minute
express bus to and from work every day. I chatted with my friends among
the regulars and got to read the paper. Some people listened to their
music on headphones. There was a lively group who hung out in the back
of the bus who had a grand time gossiping every morning. In short, it
was a pleasant part of my day, and sure beat the heck out of driving in
stop and go traffic. My only regret about switching to telecommuting
is that I miss my daily bus rides.
I think that a large portion of people who think they will hate mass
transit would actually find it pretty pleasant if they actually tried
it for a while.
Andy
Dan Bloomquist
Rod Speed wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>Rod Speed wrote
>>>>
>>>>>Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>What form do you suppose Bernanke's helicopters will take?
>
>>>>>Dont need any.
>
>>>>What will keep the money supply growing.
>
>>>The economy, stupid.
>
>>Why didn't the 'economy' do it's stuff in the early thirties?
>
> We hadnt worked out how to fine tune the economy at that time.
So we are back to Bernanke. The banking system. The 'fine tuners'. How
do you think they do it?
> Even you should have noticed that we havent had a full depression
> since then.
We haven't had as poor a quality of debt since then either.
There were quite a few in the century before the early thirtys.
They were in farming. Look up the populist farmer. They suffered from
increases in productivity and very expensive loans.
> Yes I did.
No you didn't.
>
>
--
Dave Head
wrote:
>Dave Head wrote:
>>
>> Otherwise, most people abhor mass transit, because of waiting for the transit
>> to arrive, being packed in with a bunch of strangers, not having control over
>> the temperature, sound, atmosphere, etc. They want to eat, smoke, and listen
>> to their tunes when they travel, and you can't do that with other people
>> present unless it's _your_ car and they are there strictly at your pleasure,
>> such as commuting slugs.
>
>Back before I started telecommuting full time I rode a 40 minute
>express bus to and from work every day. I chatted with my friends among
>the regulars and got to read the paper.
Well, I'd like to read the paper all right, but would rather be alone.
>Some people listened to their
>music on headphones.
Headphones suck... from someone who has a 200 watt stereo feeding 95 lbs each
Cerwin Vega CE-3a speakers... (Led Zepplin/Bloodrock/Queen/etc.)
>There was a lively group who hung out in the back
>of the bus who had a grand time gossiping every morning.
I'd hate that, I think... having to listen to it, and definitely wouldn't want
to be part of it. I guess I'd probably be the one to get gossiped about!
> In short, it
>was a pleasant part of my day,
Good for you!
>and sure beat the heck out of driving in
>stop and go traffic.
Oh, yeah, driving like that sucks for sure, too. Most of my drive is 45 - 65
mph, tho.
>My only regret about switching to telecommuting
>is that I miss my daily bus rides.
Really hate buses...
>I think that a large portion of people who think they will hate mass
>transit would actually find it pretty pleasant if they actually tried
>it for a while.
If I could get a chess game or a card game going, then maybe.
Dave Head
>
>Andy
still_th...@hotmail.com
Dave Head wrote:
> >Bicycle?
>
> But not 17 miles from work and 20 from town... And there's a whale of a lot of
> people in this situation.
Actually, there are very few in that situation, and the vast majority
only put themselves in that position based on the premise that they
would have cheap convenient motorised transport indefinitely.
Most commuting journeys in the UK are 7 miles (and an even larger
proportion of trips are shorter if you count things like shopping).
James
Dave Head
>
>Dave Head wrote:
>
>> >Bicycle?
>>
>> But not 17 miles from work and 20 from town... And there's a whale of a lot of
>> people in this situation.
>
>Actually, there are very few in that situation, and the vast majority
>only put themselves in that position based on the premise that they
>would have cheap convenient motorised transport indefinitely.
I'm approx halfway between work, a military place where they blow things up and
therefore must be far from town, and the town. Living in town would have been
70 miles round-trip a day, and living by the base, which would have been 70
miles each time I went into town for any of a number of reasons. Movies - I
see most everything. The gym - often. It would be a wash where I live, any
given place would involve _lots_ of driving.
>
>Most commuting journeys in the UK are 7 miles (and an even larger
>proportion of trips are shorter if you count things like shopping).
If I was back in Indianapolis, where I'd still be if they hadn't closed _that_
military place where I worked, (we _didn't blow things up there - manufactured
the Nordon bombsight a long time ago) I'd have 7 miles to work and 6 miles back
(different routes, both of which were fastest for the particular time of day.)
Would love to still be there. But there's a whale of a lot of people that go
about there business never needing to go to a big city, and rack up their miles
chasing all over to find the goods and services the city people can get just
going down the block.
Dave Head
>James
timeOday
> gasoline
> prices are still well below what they peaked at in the 70s in real terms.
>
>
>
This table shows that average yearly California gas prices peaked at
$2.49 in 1980 and 1981, adjusted for inflation. In 2005 they were
$2.47, practically equaling the historical record. Unless things
change drastically, 2006 seems poised to break the record convincingly.
<http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html>
the_blogologist
> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
>
> >> Taint gunna happen. Its easy to make it from
> >> coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process.
>
> > 5mb/d/year will cost $250billion/year in today's dollars. When do we
> > start?
>
> When its clear that the current price of gasoline
> isnt just a glitch like it was in the 70s.
You saying that Carter causing the fall of Iran and the new government
nationalizing Iranian oil a glitch? That's what doubled the price of oil
in the 70s. The Alaskin pipeline coming through helped, but that was
Nixon who started that. We're still picking up the peices of the mess
that Carter created and Bushs got blamed for.
> The current price is still not what it was then in real terms
> and we havent seen many junking in their gas guzzlers yet.
China's economy growing like crazy is what's driving up demand and the
price of oil. And guess who gave China most favored out-sourcer status?
It wasn't a bush. Mabye if they weren't violating our patient laws they
wouldn't be so profitable at our expense. You're paying for Walmart's
cheap prices at the pump.
the_blogologist
> Have fun explaining the Brazillian alcohol fuels.
> Have fun explaining Brazil where there are no farm subsidys.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time proving your point, or more likely
get sent on a wild goose chase. Nice try.
> > I'm thinking after a nuclear war------
>
> Taint gunna happen either.
But if it does it's Bush's fault, right?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Taint gunna happen. Its easy to make it from
>>>> coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process.
>>> 5mb/d/year will cost $250billion/year
>>> in today's dollars. When do we start?
>> When its clear that the current price of gasoline
>> isnt just a glitch like it was in the 70s.
> You saying that Carter causing the fall of Iran and
> the new government nationalizing Iranian oil a glitch?
Nope, that OPEC deliberately jacked the price up high
enough that it had a big effect on first world economys,
and that had a big effect on demand, and thats why it
was just a glitch price wise and that OPEC learnt its lesson.
> That's what doubled the price of oil in the 70s.
Nope.
> The Alaskin pipeline coming through helped, but that was
> Nixon who started that. We're still picking up the peices of
> the mess that Carter created and Bushs got blamed for.
No US prez is that important.
Even the Vietnam War didnt have that much effect on the price of oil.
>> The current price is still not what it was then in real terms
>> and we havent seen many junking in their gas guzzlers yet.
> China's economy growing like crazy is what's
> driving up demand and the price of oil.
Its much more complicated than that.
> And guess who gave China most favored
> out-sourcer status? It wasn't a bush.
That wasnt anything to do with any US prez either.
The chinese eventually came to their senses and realised
that communism wasnt going to fly and managed to move
away from it a hell of a lot more effectively than russia did.
The non china chinese in HongKong, Taiwan and
Singapore had done that a long time before the
china chinese came to their senses on those basics.
> Mabye if they weren't violating our patient laws
> they wouldn't be so profitable at our expense.
Just another silly little fantasy. The reason they are now
completely dominating manufacturing of low end manufactured
goods is very very basic indeed, very low labor costs, and
the fact that they are training HORDES of engineers etc now.
> You're paying for Walmart's cheap prices at the pump.
Its MUCH more complicated than that.
Rod Speed
>> Have fun explaining the Brazillian alcohol fuels.
>> Have fun explaining Brazil where there are no farm subsidys.
> I'm not going to spend a lot of time proving your point,
> or more likely get sent on a wild goose chase. Nice try.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> I'm thinking after a nuclear war------
>> Taint gunna happen either.
> But if it does it's Bush's fault, right?
Wrong. I've never been that stupid.
He's just another front monkey who did certainly manage
to get the US involved in the terminal stupidity that Iraq has
become, but hasnt had any real effect on anything else much.
Furious George
Really? You would drive 40 miles (one way) to go to a gymnasium. Have
you ever thought of:
(1) You could bicycle to and from the gymnasium and get a good workout.
You would not need to work out there. You could save the fees.
(2) Finding a closer gymnasium. You are spending about $28 and over an
hour of your time per workout in transportation.
>
> Plus, there's the 34 mile round trip to work, in the exact opposite direction.
> I _have_ to do that one, too. If I don't, I _might_ be able to walk about a
> mile and _maybe_ get the bus to pick me up at a non-standard stop, and _then_
> be stranded at the work building all day. There's no bus to anything
> resembling a restaurant where I work. Don't _want_ to "pack a lunch". Do want
> to be able to get around...
Surely you were aware when you chose your work and residence that each
commute would cost about $24.
>
> >> For fuel economy, I reccomend the cheapest car you can lay hand
> >> to, and a good scooter. Drive the scooter when you don't need the to
> >> take car. That's what I do, and my fuel bils run around $10/week.
> >> that way you have the passenger capacity/roof of a car when you need
> >> it, and an efficient means of transportation for the rest of the time.
> >
> >Bicycle?
>
> But not 17 miles from work and 20 from town...
Why not?
> And there's a whale of a lot of
> people in this situation. The other options were to buy a house _very_ close
> to work, then it'd be about 35 miles to town, and I'd still be going about 4 -
> 5 times a week. Or, buy in the town, and go to work 5 times a week, for sure,
> but be able to get around town without a lotta driving. Shoulda done that, but
> wanted an acre for the radio antennas, too, and that woulda been really
> expensive.
You set your priorities. Now you have to pay for them.
>
> Dave Head
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> What form do you suppose Bernanke's helicopters will take?
>>>>>> Dont need any.
>>>>> What will keep the money supply growing.
>>>> The economy, stupid.
>>> Why didn't the 'economy' do it's stuff in the early thirties?
>> We hadnt worked out how to fine tune the economy at that time.
> So we are back to Bernanke.
But not any helicopters.
> The banking system. The 'fine tuners'. How do you think they do it?
By fiddling with interest rates, stupid.
Thats basically all that Greenspan ever
did and it worked quite effectively.
>> Even you should have noticed that we havent had a full depression since
>> then.
> We haven't had as poor a quality of debt since then either.
Bullshit. Forgotten the effect Vietnam had already have you ?
>> There were quite a few in the century before the early thirtys.
> They were in farming.
Wrong again, forgotten the industrial revolution have you ?
> Look up the populist farmer. They suffered from
> increases in productivity and very expensive loans.
They didnt have central bank intervention in the economy
fine tuning it. That only started to happen much after WW2.
>> Yes I did.
> No you didn't.
Yes I did.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Rod Speed wrote:
> hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> timeOday <timeOda...@theknack.net> wrote
> >>> Stuart Grey wrote
> >>>> Rod Speed wrote
> >>>>> Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>>>>> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now
> >>>>>> that the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil
> >>>>>> prices continue to rise. Hybrids are saddled with an extremely
> >>>>>> expensive battery system that will probably be impossible to
> >>>>>> replace in a few years. Diesel will probably be subjected to
> >>>>>> rationing to keep the trucking fleets going, so that rules out
> >>>>>> an older VW Rabbit.
>
> >>>>> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
>
> >>>> Of course, those of us who remember rationing
> >>>> during the Arab oil Embargo, and then there are the
> >>>> very old that remember the rationing during WW II.
>
> >>> I would be surprised to see rationing again.
>
> >> Yeah, me too.
>
> > Pricing has the same effect.
>
> Nope, a completely different effect.
Explain.
> >>> What would not surprise me is continuing escalation in the price so
> >>> that a decreasing percentage of the population can drive at all,
>
> >> Dont believe that will happen either. What may well happen is
> >> that we see a move to more fuel efficient cars and much less
> >> mindless daily travel over long distances commuting to work etc.
>
> > In the USA, we one had a move toward fuel efficient vehicles.
>
> That was just the usual silly approach by govt.
Agreed. Only problem is that it was working.
> You havent seen any real effect with what people buy and use car wise.
Nope. It limited choices. Can't buy what isn't offered for sale.
> > Then Clinton/Gore dropped it. A partial solution to long commutes is
> > telecommuting. Another is mass transportation but that is unlikely as
> > we still have too great a distance to travel to make that work.
>
> Another obvious approach is just more efficient use of the cars that
> do make those trips and other very simple approaches like buses.
That would have to offer efficiencies on the order of a moped to
compete with mass transportation. Are you sitting on some "big-auto"
secrets?
> The short story is that the cost of the gasoline still isnt
> high enough to see much of that actually bothered with.
Soon.
> And another obvious approach is to move the work into
> areas that have lots of those people commuting from too.
That just creates more suburbs.
> Not a shred of rocket science required at all.
Agreed.
> >> much of an increase in the price of gasoline
> >> to make diesel from coal quite economically viable.
>
> >> And its perfectly feasible to run cars on
> >> natural gas too, plenty are doing it right now.
>
> >>> while the wealthy continue to use all they
> >>> like, since it's relatively cheap for them.
>
> >> You dont see much of that sort of effect in the
> >> first world, and gasoline prices are still well
> >> below what they peaked at in the 70s in real terms.
>
> > Gore wanted a punitive tax on fuel like they have in Europe,
>
> It isnt punative in europe. Just quite a bit higher than in the US
> which just happens to have much lower fuel taxes than in virtually
> all the rest of the first world and the opec countrys themselves etc.
So unnecessary taxes are good things?
> > but at least now the stockholders are getting the windfall
>
> There is no windfall. The oil companys
> have to pay the higher cost of the crude.
Then they need to quit reporting record profits. Stockholders are
going to get pissed.
> > instead of the government. The government
> > would just blow it on something stupid.
>
> So do the stockholders.
It's their money.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> >> Dont believe that will happen either. What may well happen is
> >> that we see a move to more fuel efficient cars and much less
> >> mindless daily travel over long distances commuting to work etc.
> >
> >In the USA, we one had a move toward fuel efficient vehicles. Then
> >Clinton/Gore dropped it.
>
> Well... the American people dropped it. Clinton always did listen very
> intently to polls, and the populace was seriously disinterested in gas mileage.
>
> >A partial solution to long commutes is
> >telecommuting.
>
> Partial, because you can't pour a foundation or run a steel furnace via a high
> speed modem.
I'll betcha you can, and the big corps are working on just that very
thing. They want a civil engineer in India to be able to control the
flow of cement or molten steel from anywhere in the world. Their
little way of "sticking it to the guy who thinks his job is secure
because you have to have someone >on-site< to do it." Ha hahahaha.
The American civil engineer becomes the night clerk at the Holiday Inn
Express.
> >Another is mass transportation but that is unlikely as
> >we still have too great a distance to travel to make that work.
>
> There's a concept, that admittedly needs a lot of work, that would see railcars
> carrying automobiles, run on nuclear power, that would enable any car ever
> built to run 100% cleanly and burn no fossil fuels for as much of its journey
> as the rails have been layed. That would be a partial solution, too.
>
> Otherwise, most people abhor mass transit, because of waiting for the transit
> to arrive, being packed in with a bunch of strangers, not having control over
> the temperature, sound, atmosphere, etc. They want to eat, smoke, and listen
> to their tunes when they travel, and you can't do that with other people
> present unless it's _your_ car and they are there strictly at your pleasure,
> such as commuting slugs.
>
> >Gore wanted a punitive tax on fuel like they have in Europe,
>
> For a country this size, it would have put the economy on its knees. We _have_
> to travel to get much of anything done, and the building of public transit to
> span those distances is near-prohibitive. Gas is gonna have to get a _lot_ more
> expensive (without a tax) for this to be considered, and it'll probably hose
> the economy anyway.
If we had kept (or even increased) the Fleet MPG and 55mph speed
limit....
> >but at
> >least now the stockholders are getting the windfall instead of the
> >government.
>
> That _is_ a good thing...
>
> >The government would just blow it on something stupid.
>
> Yep...
>
> Dave Head
bb
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Dave Head wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2006 17:32:30 -0700, "Andy" <inevereverche...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dave Head wrote:
> >>
> >> Otherwise, most people abhor mass transit, because of waiting for the transit
> >> to arrive, being packed in with a bunch of strangers, not having control over
> >> the temperature, sound, atmosphere, etc. They want to eat, smoke, and listen
> >> to their tunes when they travel, and you can't do that with other people
> >> present unless it's _your_ car and they are there strictly at your pleasure,
> >> such as commuting slugs.
> >
> >Back before I started telecommuting full time I rode a 40 minute
> >express bus to and from work every day. I chatted with my friends among
> >the regulars and got to read the paper.
>
> Well, I'd like to read the paper all right, but would rather be alone.
>
> >Some people listened to their
> >music on headphones.
>
> Headphones suck... from someone who has a 200 watt stereo feeding 95 lbs each
> Cerwin Vega CE-3a speakers... (Led Zepplin/Bloodrock/Queen/etc.)
or Mee-Shell Norris on NPR...
Pope Secola IV
> On 5 Apr 2006 16:00:56 -0700, hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>bill wrote:
>>
>>>hchi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mean Mr Mustard" <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
>>>>>the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
>>>>>to rise.
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. You are using it as a lead line to troll this first
>>>>statement around. You want a fuel efficient car? Drive slower. If
>>>>energy prices rise, the more logical course of action when buying a
>>>>vehicle is to buy one that will last a long time, have parts
>>>>available, and be easy to service. It takes a lot of energy to make a
>>>>vehicle. "Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
>>>>are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
>>>>That is the sum total effect on the average person.
>>>
>>> Idiot. Do you think we can keep burning 50 million barrels a day
>>>of oil forever? driving slower really doesn't make that big a
>>>difference in fuel consumption,
>>
>>Yes, it does.
>
>
> No, it doesn't.
yea it does. The effect of the resistance of movement through a fluid
(air is a fluid) goes up exponentially not linearly. It takes 10 times
the energy to overcome the resistance of air if the speed of the object
is doubled.
Perfect example, My aerostar on econ cruse (55% power)burns 32 gal an
hour at 235 knots. At normal curse (75% power) it burns 38 gallons an
hour 247 knots. At full power (580 horse power) it burns 44 gallons an
hour for a speed of 262 knots.
So for 38% increase in fuel burn I increase my speed by about 12%
Or to put it a different way.
At 9000 feet the Aerostar curses at 183 knots. At 28,000 feet at the
same fuel burn I get 247 knots. An increase of 64 knots. Why?
The air density at 9000 feet is 21 inches mercury for an air pressure of
about 10 psi. At 28,000 feet the air density is 8 inches of mercury for
an air pressure about 3.5 psi. So for 60% decrease in air density I
gain 30% more speed at the same fuel burn.
Or the old rule of thumb. All things being equal to double your speed
you have to cube your horsepower and the fuel to feed them.
--
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.
Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Dave Head wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2006 16:00:56 -0700, hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >bill wrote:
> >> hchi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> > "Mean Mr Mustard" <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle now that
> >> > >the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil prices continue
> >> > >to rise.
> >> >
> >> > Bullshit. You are using it as a lead line to troll this first
> >> > statement around. You want a fuel efficient car? Drive slower. If
> >> > energy prices rise, the more logical course of action when buying a
> >> > vehicle is to buy one that will last a long time, have parts
> >> > available, and be easy to service. It takes a lot of energy to make a
> >> > vehicle. "Peak oil" is an enviro-buzzword to make the phrase "prices
> >> > are going up" seem environmentally friendly and a national virtue.
> >> > That is the sum total effect on the average person.
> >>
> >> Idiot. Do you think we can keep burning 50 million barrels a day
> >> of oil forever? driving slower really doesn't make that big a
> >> difference in fuel consumption,
> >
> >Yes, it does.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
> >Thats why the national speed limit was lowered to 55mph,
>
> Yep, and that didn't work at all.
Yes, it did.
> All it did was raise the number of speeding
> tickets written, because people pretty much ignored it.
And now that the speed limit is 65, you have to drive 75 to keep from
impeding traffic.
Overall, with a speed limit of 55, traffic moved much slower than with
a speed limit of 65.
> >then stupidly dropped on the floor by the environmental presidency of
> >Clinton/Gore. Unbelievable.
>
> There was a _huge_ movement by a wide range of user groups from car enthusiasts
> to ordinary commuters that were fed up with getting speeding tickets for not
> driving a speed that would cause them to risk going to sleep at the wheel in
> broad daylight from the boredom. (Happened to me once when I actually tried to
> drive 55 mph when they first passed the law - it was the last time I actually
> tried that on any regular basis! <G>)
>
> >> driving less does.
>
> >That, too.
>
> Yeah? How? There are places to go and just 1 way to get there. If it wasn't
> for the fact that all my muscles are screaming at me from Monday night's
> session with my personal trainer, after not having been able to get the gym for
> a couple weeks due to work interference, I'd be driving a 40 mile round-trip to
> the gym tonight. Almost certainly will tomorrow night. And the night after
> that. And Saturday. Etc. This is pretty important, and there's just no
> public transport.
You're kidding? You drive 280 miles a week to sweat somewhere else?
Ever consider running shoes?
> Plus, there's the 34 mile round trip to work, in the exact opposite direction.
> I _have_ to do that one, too. If I don't, I _might_ be able to walk about a
> mile and _maybe_ get the bus to pick me up at a non-standard stop, and _then_
> be stranded at the work building all day. There's no bus to anything
> resembling a restaurant where I work. Don't _want_ to "pack a lunch". Do want
> to be able to get around...
Like I said, regional planning commissions plan everything around car
commuters and ignore foot traffic and mass transport.
> >> For fuel economy, I reccomend the cheapest car you can lay hand
> >> to, and a good scooter. Drive the scooter when you don't need the to
> >> take car. That's what I do, and my fuel bils run around $10/week.
> >> that way you have the passenger capacity/roof of a car when you need
> >> it, and an efficient means of transportation for the rest of the time.
> >
> >Bicycle?
>
> But not 17 miles from work and 20 from town...
Agreed. I'd guess 5 to 7 miles is about the limit for a bicycle
commute. I could walk 3 miles in 40 or 45 minutes if I wasn't afraid
of some yahoo running over me. Most places are very pedestrian
unfriendly.
> And there's a whale of a lot of
> people in this situation. The other options were to buy a house _very_ close
> to work, then it'd be about 35 miles to town, and I'd still be going about 4 -
> 5 times a week. Or, buy in the town, and go to work 5 times a week, for sure,
> but be able to get around town without a lotta driving. Shoulda done that,
Probably. From a "getting around" point of view, you sure have made a
lot of bad choices.
but
> wanted an acre for the radio antennas, too, and that woulda been really
> expensive.
Most developments are anti-antenna. That has to stop, too.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> timeOday <timeOda...@theknack.net> wrote
>>>>> Stuart Grey wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Mean Mr Mustard <macu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> I am trying to decide on an extremely fuel efficient vehicle
>>>>>>>> now that the world has just passed sustainable peak oil and oil
>>>>>>>> prices continue to rise. Hybrids are saddled with an extremely
>>>>>>>> expensive battery system that will probably be impossible to
>>>>>>>> replace in a few years. Diesel will probably be subjected to
>>>>>>>> rationing to keep the trucking fleets going, so that rules out
>>>>>>>> an older VW Rabbit.
>>>>>>> I doubt we'll see any rationing in your lifetime.
>>>>>> Of course, those of us who remember rationing
>>>>>> during the Arab oil Embargo, and then there are the
>>>>>> very old that remember the rationing during WW II.
>>>>> I would be surprised to see rationing again.
>>>> Yeah, me too.
>>> Pricing has the same effect.
>> Nope, a completely different effect.
> Explain.
Dave did that quite effectively. With pricing you get to decide
which trip is worth the higher price and which trips aint.
With rationing you dont get that choice, if you need to make the
trip on a particular day and dont get enough notice to fill up on
a day when you are legally entitled to fill up, you're stuffed.
And if its possible to plan your trips, rationing doesnt necessarily
have any effect at all on your car use. The price may well have.
>>>>> What would not surprise me is continuing escalation in the price
>>>>> so that a decreasing percentage of the population can drive at all,
>>>> Dont believe that will happen either. What may well happen is
>>>> that we see a move to more fuel efficient cars and much less
>>>> mindless daily travel over long distances commuting to work etc.
>>> In the USA, we one had a move toward fuel efficient vehicles.
>> That was just the usual silly approach by govt.
> Agreed. Only problem is that it was working.
So does the price once its high enough.
>> You havent seen any real effect with
>> what people buy and use car wise.
> Nope. It limited choices. Can't buy what isn't offered for sale.
Decent fuel efficient cars have always been buyable.
And will be in spades once the price increases enough.
There's a reason why the most fuel efficient
cars are seen in europe and not the US.
>>> Then Clinton/Gore dropped it. A partial solution to
>>> long commutes is telecommuting. Another is mass
>>> transportation but that is unlikely as we still have
>>> too great a distance to travel to make that work.
>> Another obvious approach is just more efficient use of the cars that
>> do make those trips and other very simple approaches like buses.
> That would have to offer efficiencies on the order
> of a moped to compete with mass transportation.
Wrong, essentially because mass transport isnt as widely available.
> Are you sitting on some "big-auto" secrets?
Nope, no secret about the fact that car sharing dramatically
cuts the cost of commuting to work. Buses in spades.
The cost of gasoline isnt currently high
enough to see much of it happening.
You do see lots of it in third world countrys
because the cost of gasoline is significantly
higher in terms of living standards and incomes.
>> The short story is that the cost of the gasoline still isnt
>> high enough to see much of that actually bothered with.
> Soon.
I doubt it.
>> And another obvious approach is to move the work into
>> areas that have lots of those people commuting from too.
> That just creates more suburbs.
Nope.
>> Not a shred of rocket science required at all.
> Agreed.
>>>> much of an increase in the price of gasoline
>>>> to make diesel from coal quite economically viable.
>>>> And its perfectly feasible to run cars on
>>>> natural gas too, plenty are doing it right now.
>>>>> while the wealthy continue to use all they
>>>>> like, since it's relatively cheap for them.
>>>> You dont see much of that sort of effect in the
>>>> first world, and gasoline prices are still well
>>>> below what they peaked at in the 70s in real terms.
>>> Gore wanted a punitive tax on fuel like they have in Europe,
>> It isnt punative in europe. Just quite a bit higher than in the US
>> which just happens to have much lower fuel taxes than in virtually
>> all the rest of the first world and the opec countrys themselves etc.
> So unnecessary taxes are good things?
Didnt say that. And those taxes arent unneccessary
in europe, its just one of the ways they pay for the
significantly higher cost of govt there, essentially
because they choose to have their govts do a lot more
than is usually seen in the US, particularly welfare etc.
>>> but at least now the stockholders are getting the windfall
>> There is no windfall. The oil companys
>> have to pay the higher cost of the crude.
> Then they need to quit reporting record profits.
Those arent windfalls.
> Stockholders are going to get pissed.
>>> instead of the government. The government
>>> would just blow it on something stupid.
>> So do the stockholders.
> It's their money.
Duh.
Anthony Matonak
>
> Actually, peak oil will be the trigger that will bring the economies of
> the world down like a house of cards.
You say that like it's a bad thing. :)
Anthony
James Annan
Dave Head wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2006 18:00:35 -0700, still_th...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Dave Head wrote:
> >
> >> >Bicycle?
> >>
> >> But not 17 miles from work and 20 from town... And there's a whale of a lot of
> >> people in this situation.
> >
> >Actually, there are very few in that situation, and the vast majority
> >only put themselves in that position based on the premise that they
> >would have cheap convenient motorised transport indefinitely.
>
> I'm approx halfway between work, a military place where they blow things up and
> therefore must be far from town, and the town. Living in town would have been
> 70 miles round-trip a day, and living by the base, which would have been 70
> miles each time I went into town for any of a number of reasons. Movies - I
> see most everything. The gym - often. It would be a wash where I live, any
> given place would involve _lots_ of driving.
>
I bet you typically go to work and back about 5 times a week, and go to
town and back about twice. If you lived closer to work, your total
mileage would drop considerably. If you cycled it each day, you
wouldn't need to go to the gym! But if your current mileage works out
well for you, then just keep right on with it.
"Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who are now stuck in
traffic on their way to a health club to ride a stationary bicycle." -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)
James
Gunner
wrote:
>I agree about living close to work. The bulk of most people's driving
>is commuting. Live close to work and use public transportation if it's
>available and practical.
Don't live in the western states do you?
Gunner
"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams
Gunner
Actually..I live 142 miles each way from my office.
Gunner
<publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>
>Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Dan Bloomquist <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Nukes have little to do with it.
>>
>> Wrong again. Nukes can be used to produce hydrogen if that
>> becomes an economically viable transport fuel any time soon.
>
>I think that says it all...
Until you try to store it in a fuel tank in a vehicle.
Know what it takes to store hydrogen and not have it become a 4
wheeled Hindenburg?
Gunner
<still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I bet you typically go to work and back about 5 times a week, and go to
>town and back about twice. If you lived closer to work, your total
>mileage would drop considerably. If you cycled it each day, you
>wouldn't need to go to the gym! But if your current mileage works out
>well for you, then just keep right on with it.
If I lived closer to work...my house payments would have gone from
$450 a month to $2200 a month minimum for equivalent acreage and
facilities.