Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Given that oil company's are likely to have a very good idea of how much oil is left and I can't imagine once that it runs out they will say "that's it" and shut up shop. Can we assume that they already have some sort of alternative?

Big oil companies invest a lot of money into alternative energy sources.

Speaking of alternative energy:

Energy Secretary admits the Administration is ok with high gasoline prices
http://news.yahoo.com/energy-secretary-chu-admits-administration-ok-high-gas-193900713.html

Department of Energy working to wean the US off oil, not lower prices
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73408.html#ixzz1nlwKN38K

Crazy white haired guy says Secretary Chu should resign
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gingrich-gasoline-energy-chu/2012/03/02/id/431178

The Apocalypse gents, learn it, love it, and make it happen. Thatll teach those money whores a life lesson

There is a lot of oil left. They just discovered a shed load near where I live. The problem is "peak oil" coming soon, where we use more per day than we extract. THAT is the problem, because we aren't running out any time soon. Not in my lifetime anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On topic, the oil companies make too much money to invest in alternatives. They killed the guy who made a water powered car in the 1900s (i think it was then), blockaded the guy who invented a way of turning plastic bags into oil again etc etc.

Fuel wise, get a diesel and run cooking oil or bio-diesel. The engine was invented to run on peanut oil anyway, there's loads of alternative fuels.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:There is a lot of oil left. They just discovered a shed load near where I live. The problem is "peak oil" coming soon, where we use more per day than we extract. THAT is the problem, because we aren't running out any time soon. Not in my lifetime anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On topic, the oil companies make too much money to invest in alternatives. They killed the guy who made a water powered car in the 1900s (i think it was then), blockaded the guy who invented a way of turning plastic bags into oil again etc etc.

Fuel wise, get a diesel and run cooking oil or bio-diesel. The engine was invented to run on peanut oil anyway, there's loads of alternative fuels.

Not running out within YOUR lifetime is not good enough. Is there enough oil to last until 2100 or 2200 at the current rates of expansion?

And yes, peak oil is going to be a HUGE issue. If you think gas is expensive now, see what happens when that event happens. Thats when supply and demand will really rear it's ugly head.

About the current adminstration's policies, I am happy he is trying to move us in that direction but I think this is the wrong way to do it. Cause misery to move us forward?

Until gas starts getting really expensive, there will be little-to-no public pressure on automotive industry to make affordable alternate-energy vehicles.

How much is a hybrid compared to a regular car of the same capabilities? And that still uses gas! How much is an all-electic car in comparison?

Oversize SUVs and Trucks are still very popular vehicles. So are not-terribly-efficient sports cars. Station Wagons are pretty much gone. Minivans are limping along. And what do people use those oversize vehicles for the most? Driving themselves back and forth to the office, with no other passengers, sitting in rush-hour traffic while that V-8 guzzles fuel.

Anything that gets communters into more fuel-efficient vehicles is a good thing, in my opinion. Because that makes the auto industry WANT to build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

But are they shrewed enough to have something already in their back pocket? Ok the stuffs not running out yet and the price will go up, but there will be less to sell in the future. So is the plan to run the companys into the ground or do they have something planned for the future. If so, is it available now or are they still working on ideas?

Vulcan wrote:
Anything that gets communters into more fuel-efficient vehicles is a good thing, in my opinion. Because that makes the auto industry WANT to build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Anything?

You do know right, that it doesn't just impact Joe SUV driver but every length of the transportation network for all goods and services including electricity for your vaunted electro cars right?

I think people also forget that a good amount of fuel is consumed not for passenger vehicles, but for freight vehicles (read: trucks) and farm tractors which produce food. Diesel where I am has already passed $4.00/gallon and I'm in a "middle of the road" area as far as pricing goes. In CA where regular unleaded is already over $5.00/gallon in some areas, you have farmers shelling out incredible amounts of money so that they can prepare fields, maintain crops and eventually harvest them.

So it's nice to say "if we make gas expensive it will push people to more fuel efficient vehicles", but doing so also hurts a whole other host of industries that don't have that option available to them. Rising food prices aren't really an issue of scarcity, after all.

Yeah, and higher fuel costs quite literally kill people in the crappier parts of the world, who have need of it to provide heat, and cooked food n' whatnot. Not that I particularly care, but most people seem to.

streamdragon wrote:I think people also forget that a good amount of fuel is consumed not for passenger vehicles, but for freight vehicles (read: trucks) and farm tractors which produce food. Diesel where I am has already passed $4.00/gallon and I'm in a "middle of the road" area as far as pricing goes. In CA where regular unleaded is already over $5.00/gallon in some areas, you have farmers shelling out incredible amounts of money so that they can prepare fields, maintain crops and eventually harvest them.

So it's nice to say "if we make gas expensive it will push people to more fuel efficient vehicles", but doing so also hurts a whole other host of industries that don't have that option available to them. Rising food prices aren't really an issue of scarcity, after all.

ON the plus side, due to new environmental laws adopted by the maritime fleets, all those freighters will be shifting from crappier bunker fuel to cleaner diesel, putting further pressure on diesel prices.

There are centuries of oil left untapped.

Who, having to go to the restroom, looks around and sees that they only have 4 rolls of toilet paper left says it's time to move to an alternative source and uses paper towels, etc. instead?

It's all about an agenda.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:
Who, having to go to the restroom, looks around and sees that they only have 4 rolls of toilet paper left says it's time to move to an alternative source and uses paper towels, etc. instead?

Someone trying to make sure everyone's ass gets wiped when you can't buy any more toilet paper and all your neighbors are coming over as house guests for an indefinitely long "Bean Burrito Fest" the next day.

To be perfectly frank, I don't think running out of fossil fuels is going to be our big problem this century. It's going to be dealing with the ongoing results of using fossil fuels that's going to be our big problem.

This Febuary, in Missouri, we had several separate occasions where the high temperature was well into the 60's, borderline 70's (degrees Fahrernheit). I don't think the Mississippi river has ever had ice on it in the past two decades. 100 years ago, the Mississippi used to ice over so completely that trucks were driven over it.

Now tell me high atmospheric CO2 levels haven't caused global warming again...

Frazzled wrote:

streamdragon wrote:I think people also forget that a good amount of fuel is consumed not for passenger vehicles, but for freight vehicles (read: trucks) and farm tractors which produce food. Diesel where I am has already passed $4.00/gallon and I'm in a "middle of the road" area as far as pricing goes. In CA where regular unleaded is already over $5.00/gallon in some areas, you have farmers shelling out incredible amounts of money so that they can prepare fields, maintain crops and eventually harvest them.

So it's nice to say "if we make gas expensive it will push people to more fuel efficient vehicles", but doing so also hurts a whole other host of industries that don't have that option available to them. Rising food prices aren't really an issue of scarcity, after all.

ON the plus side, due to new environmental laws adopted by the maritime fleets, all those freighters will be shifting from crappier bunker fuel to cleaner diesel, putting further pressure on diesel prices.

Time to sell that 4x4 than. On the plus side the air won't get as poisonous as fast.

? Does the Rav4 not run on unleaded gas like every other SUV that I can think of?

streamdragon wrote:? Does the Rav4 not run on unleaded gas like every other SUV that I can think of?

It has a Diesel version.

Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.

streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.

Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.

ShumaGorath wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.

Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.

Agreed that there are plenty of people driving big inefficient vehicles without the need for them. I suppose it's a matter of anecdotal experience though, as I see far more contractors and construction types with big diesels than I do the "soccer dad". I see more families in minivans or regular SUVs than big diesel trucks. Which probably isn't a whole lot better, mind. A family with 1 kid driving a vehicle designed to sit 7 seems a little strange to me.

streamdragon wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.

Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.

Agreed that there are plenty of people driving big inefficient vehicles without the need for them. I suppose it's a matter of anecdotal experience though, as I see far more contractors and construction types with big diesels than I do the "soccer dad". I see more families in minivans or regular SUVs than big diesel trucks. Which probably isn't a whole lot better, mind. A family with 1 kid driving a vehicle designed to sit 7 seems a little strange to me.

In 08 about a third of consumer vehicles in America were SUVs. That number has probably dropped by now. The majority of people owning SUVs do not use them in their "intended" capacity and haven't in a long time. SUVs have similar fuel economy to trucks and most SUVs have diesel variations.

ShumaGorath wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.

Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.

Agreed that there are plenty of people driving big inefficient vehicles without the need for them. I suppose it's a matter of anecdotal experience though, as I see far more contractors and construction types with big diesels than I do the "soccer dad". I see more families in minivans or regular SUVs than big diesel trucks. Which probably isn't a whole lot better, mind. A family with 1 kid driving a vehicle designed to sit 7 seems a little strange to me.

In 08 about a third of consumer vehicles in America were SUVs. That number has probably dropped by now. The majority of people owning SUVs do not use them in their "intended" capacity and haven't in a long time.

True enough, but the argument could be made that the "intended purpose" has sort of shifted. Jeeps would be the same way; having originally been produced for the military during WWII.

I drive an SUV, a 2 door chevy blazer, but while I also use it to haul animal feed for the farm, move fencing and supplies around and such, my main use is driving from my house to the train station so I can get to work.

streamdragon wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.

Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.

Agreed that there are plenty of people driving big inefficient vehicles without the need for them. I suppose it's a matter of anecdotal experience though, as I see far more contractors and construction types with big diesels than I do the "soccer dad". I see more families in minivans or regular SUVs than big diesel trucks. Which probably isn't a whole lot better, mind. A family with 1 kid driving a vehicle designed to sit 7 seems a little strange to me.

In 08 about a third of consumer vehicles in America were SUVs. That number has probably dropped by now. The majority of people owning SUVs do not use them in their "intended" capacity and haven't in a long time.

True enough, but the argument could be made that the "intended purpose" has sort of shifted. Jeeps would be the same way; having originally been produced for the military during WWII.

I drive an SUV, a 2 door chevy blazer, but while I also use it to haul animal feed for the farm, move fencing and supplies around and such, my main use is driving from my house to the train station so I can get to work.

The fuel mileage standards for SUVs is based on their intended usage. If the majority of people are treating them like big sedans than they need to alter the standards back to what they used to be. Once upon a time they had the standards of vans which was significantly closer to their actual use and much stricter than trucks (as they are considered now). The lobby for loosened fuel economy back then was pretty strong.

Have to say that there really should be much better caps on cars to try to curb the excessive engine sizes and terrible fuel economy.

Hell, even adding a 6th gear to most cars for motorway driving would help dramatically cut fuel use for the vast majority of drivers.

ShumaGorath wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Fair enough! I know some of the big trucks like F-350s and such come in a diesel variety. They're usually (usually) used as work trucks though, which I suppose throws them into the same argument category as farming tractors, combines and such.

Half the people I know with diesel vehicles use them to travel from one house to another without ever carrying a load. It falls pretty well in line with the soccer dad that wants to look tough with his big bad truck.

Agreed that there are plenty of people driving big inefficient vehicles without the need for them. I suppose it's a matter of anecdotal experience though, as I see far more contractors and construction types with big diesels than I do the "soccer dad". I see more families in minivans or regular SUVs than big diesel trucks. Which probably isn't a whole lot better, mind. A family with 1 kid driving a vehicle designed to sit 7 seems a little strange to me.

In 08 about a third of consumer vehicles in America were SUVs. That number has probably dropped by now. The majority of people owning SUVs do not use them in their "intended" capacity and haven't in a long time.

True enough, but the argument could be made that the "intended purpose" has sort of shifted. Jeeps would be the same way; having originally been produced for the military during WWII.

I drive an SUV, a 2 door chevy blazer, but while I also use it to haul animal feed for the farm, move fencing and supplies around and such, my main use is driving from my house to the train station so I can get to work.

The fuel mileage standards for SUVs is based on their intended usage. If the majority of people are treating them like big sedans than they need to alter the standards back to what they used to be. Once upon a time they had the standards of vans which was significantly closer to their actual use and much stricter than trucks (as they are considered now). The lobby for loosened fuel economy back then was pretty strong.

Whats the "intended purpose" of an SUV you're on about?

Frazzled wrote:Whats the "intended purpose" of an SUV you're on about?

Hauling a half-dozen people, moderate amounts of stuff, and potentially a trailer in an off-road environment. Basically a pickup truck that carries more people than stuff. This is an application where a large engine is needed to provide extra power to compensate for the weight and/or lack of traction involved. Steamdragon's use of one to haul animal feed is a perfect example. Sure, his main use may be to get to work, but he DOES use it for what it was intended. And I'd bet it bears the scars from that use with pride.

Contrast that to the spotless, shiny SUV driven by the person to-and-from the office... and that's ALL it does.

WTF would you want to put caps on cars or mandated fuel economy standards on vehicles?

If a consumer decides to buy a 15MPG vehicle, they already (in the US) pay a 'gas guzzler' tax. They also pay more in taxes on fuel as the consume more. The gov't benefits from both those. States and Counties add a tax based on the type/year/make of vehicle as part of the registration costs as well. The consumer makes the choice to buy anyway. Let them.

What good does limiting the consumer's choice more really do? You already have taxes to influence his/her behavior.

If someone wants a muscle car or huge ass SUV, let them have it. They pay for it, and pay taxes for the privilege.

I guess I don't see the sense in limiting freedom and choice even more.

For the record, I have a long bed crew cab F350 4WD diesel that does get used as a work truck. It hauls hay, feed, fencing, the horse trailer, my flat bed trailer and so on. A few weeks ago I carried 60 fifty-pound bags of mulch, 4 sheets of 3/4 inch treated plywood, and 4 12-foot treated 6x6s in the bed in a single load. Last week I got 200 bales of hay (two 100-bale trailer loads). But if I choose to drive it for gaks and giggles, why shouldn't I be allowed? I pay for the diesel. I pay the road taxes.

Fair point, I suppose.

Of course, at some point such frivoulous uses as 'for the giggles' is gonna really start impacting the price of fuel (right now we are somewhat buffered by an excess in production).

If a consumer decides to buy a 15MPG vehicle, they already (in the US) pay a 'gas guzzler' tax. They also pay more in taxes on fuel as the consume more. The gov't benefits from both those. States and Counties add a tax based on the type/year/make of vehicle as part of the registration costs as well. The consumer makes the choice to buy anyway. Let them.

It also harms GDP by reducing what consumers can spend on things that aren't related to gas. Apparently they value the macroeconomy over the profits of individual oil companies. Inneficient vehicles are bad for the economy in the exact same way that high fuel prices are bad for it.

I guess I don't see the sense in limiting freedom and choice even more.

Because vehicle choices effect others. The roads aren't designed for SUVs, they drive up fuel prices, they pollute more than comparable vehicles. They're obnoxious to everyone outside of your easy-to-flip urban tank and they are actively detrimental when used in a suburban setting (as most are).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

For the record, I have a long bed crew cab F350 4WD diesel that does get used as a work truck. It hauls hay, feed, fencing, the horse trailer, my flat bed trailer and so on. A few weeks ago I carried 60 fifty-pound bags of mulch, 4 sheets of 3/4 inch treated plywood, and 4 12-foot treated 6x6s in the bed in a single load. Last week I got 200 bales of hay (two 100-bale trailer loads). But if I choose to drive it for gaks and giggles, why shouldn't I be allowed? I pay for the diesel. I pay the road taxes.

You don't pay more taxes than I do and the old lady with the 4WD Diesel next door to me tears up the road a hell of a lot more than I do. Likely so do you. So no. It's not your "equal share".