Guest

I promise to avoid any stock purchase advice in this post, rather, see things for yourselves....

http://www.smartmoney.com/smt/bn/on/...18-000363-1045

This, my friends, is steadily getting more serious. Any hostilities break out in the middle east this fall/winter, we'll ALL be buying & driving Geo Prizms.

CKNY

iTrader: (1)

You're right Booker. All we need now is a nice Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and bam... $3 a gallon. lol. Maybe not, but in all seriousness I don't see things getting better any time soon, especially concerning winter heating. Damn I wish i lived in Cali! =)

Chris

JJW95SC

If you drive 1,000 miles per month and get 20mpg (hopefully better) then the following is true:

$/Gal----$/Mo.------Diff/Month
$1.75----$ 87.50----Baseline
$2.00----$100.00----$ 12.50 more.
$2.50----$125.00----$ 37.50 more.
$3.00----$150.00----$ 62.50 more.
$4.00----$200.00----$112.50 more.

I don't want to pay even $12.50 more for gas much less $112.50 more but I don't see myself buying a new more economical car either, especially if the value of my car plummets. I'm not trying to downplay Booker's warning which is valid but I am trying to provide some perspective.

Jim

[Edited by JJW95SC on 09-18-2000 at 03:28 PM]

deathwish

I say, Bring it On!

The way I see it, we're going to run out of oil some day and prices are just going to get higher and higher. I'd rather we start coming up with alternatives before we run out of oil, and no one is going to be really motivated to come out with anything else until oil doesn't become as profitable. let's face it, the reason we have gas powered cars is because oil was always cheap and plentiful. If the past 100 years had as much effort put into electric cars as gas cars, we'd have some kickass electric car technology. Now hopefully people are getting fed up which means that automakers are going to start looking elsewhere.

Of course, electric cars have their own problems, what with the pollution given off by coal burning power plants to power the cars would be a very big deal. So who knows what the answer is... More nuclear power would be a start, it's more efficient, cheaper, and has a much lesser impact on the environment than coal and fossil fuels. Then we can power electric vehciles without destroying the atmosphere.

I dunno, but I'm gonna start riding my bike to work

WoodEar

what exactly is the point in all of those???
gas price rising is like sky wants to drop some rain or your mama determined to remarry, you can't really do anything about it. so why not just sit back and relax.

if you can afford it, good. if you can't, drive less or don't drive at all. isn't this what life is all about?!

JJW95SC

Chad, ever hear of nuclear waste? I, for one, would not want to live anywhere near where it has been 'safely disposed of', would you?

The future lies in the home office! I work from home 3 days a week and save over 400 miles per week by doing so. Less polution, wear and tear on the car, and less gasoline consumption.

Jim

Dave B

#1 Gas prices have remained nearly steady for almost 15 years now. We've got to accept the fact that gasoline does become affected by inflation. So what if gas jumped 30-40 cents? It was to be expected. It's a market correction. Maybe it will get some of these damn SUVs off the road and out of yuppies heads.

#2 I work in a industry related to the exploration of fuel and I can tell you guys there is no "shortage" of gas. It all comes down to how far you want to drill for the stuff. The technology to search for this stuff is amazing. Estimated fuel reserves are currently 150-200 years. Not something OPEC wants you to know.

#3 The future is in hybrids and it is gonna happen fast fellas. Electric/gasoline powered cars are the way of the future. Honda already has theirs out and it performs better than an LX 5 speed Civic. To see how far automakers have come with hybrids in such a short period really shows what potential awaits us in 10 years.

#4 Unknown to most, the technology exists to make cars burn much less fuel and burn extremely cleanly. Believe me, F-150s could be getting 28mpg if Ford was forced to do so. Automakers all ways ***** and moan about upcoming fuel legislation, but somehow they meet regulations usually 2-3 years in advance. Think about that.

Gasoline powered cars aren't on the way out and us Americans pretty much dictate the price of gas in the US. We are the largest fuel consumers in the world and OPEC will only push us so far since we are their best customer.


Dave

Guest

...this is an automotive BBS, and this is news which directly affects automobile owners. Its news, for crying out loud. Its simply a topic of interest, that's all. We can't do anything about Bill Clinton lying under oath either, but we talked about it for months. The thread I made on this topic on Friday generated 2 pages of responses, several by you, IIRC. It appeared to me to be a subject of interest to the BBS, so I posted an update. Relax. And, believe it or not, not EVERYTHING can be or needs to be related to dollars and cents and what a person can or cannot afford to do. Though I'm certain you'd disagree. Unfortunately - for you what you can or cannot afford does appear to be what life is all about; Fortunately - for most of the rest of us this is not the case.

Chad, I you're both right & wrong. Your points about the development of non-petroleum fueled vechicles is right on. I read somewhere that at current world-wide consumption rates, there is enough oil left to last approx. another 300 years. Even if that's optomistic - it'll be a while before we run out. I agree though, if enough people get fed up and voice their disapproval (rather than sit back and say, "I can't do anything about it, so why bother"), then viable, alternative fuel vehicles will be developed and made available to the consuming public.

jman965765

iTrader: (1)

In Scotland, the government recently started a program to subsidize people switching their cars to run off of natural gas rather than gasoline. After about a year and a half, its already paid for itself in terms of fuel savings. Of course, performance probably sucks buck that's progress. Also, in Europe gasoline costs $4-5 dollars a gallon in many countries. Now that sucks - Americans have just been spoiled too long with cheap gas prices.

Guest

The current run up in prices is not an inflationary related correction, and I think that's what has a lot of people hot under the collar, Dave. You're correct in your assesment of OPEC's position though. They're no fools & they're going to sell for what they can. Its kind of like food & drink prices inside an amusement park. You hungry? You pay. Rumors (which I personally believe are true). Have been swirling for years that technology abounds that could vastly improve the fuel consumption characteristics of autos & trucks and that big oil and auto have sat on it. Credit an effective lobby for the relatively slow progress we've seen to date. I have no doubt you're right tho, if they wanted to they could make cars which get 50+ mpg easily. And I'm certain that we fat & happy Americans have pee'd the bed we're sleeping in.

deathwish

I don't consider 200-300 years of oil an abundance, in the grand scheme of things that ain't a lot of time. The problem is, most people only look at their lifetime and think as long as they're ok, it's all good. This is why legislation on long term environmental issues never seems to happen, why worry about something 300 years away? It's going to take a long time to bring about a huge change like this... Besides, even if we have a long term supply of fossil fuels, we still have to face the reality that unless we improve our usage of them, we are doing a lot of damage to the planet and atmosphere in using them.

JJW, your attitude is the main reason why we don't accept nuclear power in the US, and it's largely based on fear of what we don't know about. Most people think of nuclear power and think of 3 mile island. Tecnology has evolved since then, about 16% of the worlds power comes from nuclear, not to mention the nuclear subs and aircraft carriers in use, when is the last time you heard about an accident?

The reality is, nuclear power is far superior to coal. Worried about waste? I'm not going to say that nuclear waste isn't bad, but you need to consider the amount generated. Currently there is about 2,000 tons of nuclear waste generated yearly in the world. In contrast, coal burning power plants generate 100,000,000 tons of ash and sludge containing mercury and other toxins that pollute the atmosphere and water supply. Now which of this sounds better for the environment? Now factor in that nuclear power plants do not produce carbon dioxide or any other gasses that damage the atmosphere. Also, nuclear waste deteriorates to a stable form, whereas other industry hazerdous wastes do not and are not as carefully stored as nuclear waste.

Now, add in the fact that nuclear power is much more efficient and cheaper... Did you know coal power plants are around 26% efficient? I don't remember the exact efficiency on nuclear power but it's upwards of 60%. Also, nuclear power is cheaper to produce, and even if we stopped mining uranium today, we'd have at least a 1,000 year supply of power.

The point is, nuclear power is not perfect, but compared to coal burning power plants, it is safe, cheap, and efficient. Coal power plants lead to the slow destruction of our environment. In the event of a major nuclear failure, the impact is significant, but limited to a small area. And due to the safegaurds in place the odds of any lost life or long term environmental damage from a nuclear power disaster are slim.

JJW95SC

Chad, you're right...I just called the Russians and they haven't had any accidents. They wouldn't lie about something like that, would they? BTW, what ever happened to rescue attempt for that disabled Russian sub. It never DID happen, and no one knows why. I'm just saying that even though nuclear technology has advanced, it doesn't mean that every country has access to it and IMO, you can't live too far away from a nuclear disaster.

Fear of nuclear power? Well, maybe but my guess is that the more I knew about it the more afraid I would be. Can you explain to me how it's more safe than other forms of power generation in quantifyable terms? What about hydro-electric?

Maybe I came across as anti-nuclear which is not the case. I'm very glad that we have such an efficient technology available to us. But like you said in your original post, no energy source is perfect in every way. I'm an old guy now and am more concerned about safety than when I was driving my 45mpg Rabbit Diesel or my 50mpg CRX HF. I do believe that unless people make a stink about something, the people & companies responsible for safeguarding the world around us will just let things slide, the examples of this are too numerous to count.

Jim

deathwish

I fail to see what russia has to do with this, a broke government in charge of any technology is going to have problems, be it with power plants, subs, space stations, etc. Do you think the russians could have a major accident and no one would know? Come on, there have been two nuclear accients in over 40 years of usage. Chernobyl killed 31 people and had a severe impact on the localized region. Chrnobyl was also an old design and no attention had been paid to any real safeguards. In contrast, 3 mile island was a much more modern facility and in that accident, not a single person was killed and there was no environmental impact. Out of all the nuclear reactors and all the energy produced by nuclear power, that's a pretty damn good track record.

Safety? Yeah I'm worried about safety. Frankley, the carcinogens and toxins in the waste of coal power plants scares me. It's nasty stuff. Would you rather live next to a coal power plant that pours out hundreds of tons of toxic gasses each year, or a nuclear power plant that doesn't put out anything other than nuclear waste which is well stored and monitored after it is used. Really, I don't see how you can say you think you would be more afraid of nuclear power if you knew more, that just doesn't make sense. Coming from a mechanical engineering background, I have had first hand tours of nuclear and coal plants, as well as several projects designing coal and nuclear plants. From all this, all I can say is that I really wish coal power plants were as well regulated and maintained as nuclear plants.

BTW, did you know you live about 75 miles from a nuclear power plant?

JJW95SC

I guess I have to trust mechanical engineers not to screw things up. Since I have no intention of becoming one just so my opinion will matter regarding energy production. Why shouldn't this make me a little uncomfortable?

I hope that the concerns of people who don't really know what's going on (like me), keep people who are responsible for designing, operating, and regulating power plants of all kinds, from forgetting about the importance of doing their jobs properly.

Jim

deathwish

No, people who don't know what's going on aren't going to influence anyone to do anything. All I'm saying is, there's no point in being afraid of something you don't know anything about. If you're really worried about it, you'll research it and make an informed decision. Otherwise it's not that important to you and you'll just go on with life. Nothing wrong with that, but being afraid of something without going to the trouble of learning about it will not do you or anyone else any good. There's plenty of information out there, and many nuclear plants offer free tours. A good link for an introduction is http://users.owt.com/smsrpm/nksafe/. Lots of good info there.

JJW95SC

Agreed, we've gotta trust those in charge to do right by us. This is true for all professions, not just those who work with nukes.

Perhaps it was all those protesters that prompted such strict regulation of nuclear power plants?

I'm not sure that I'll have time to research every potential threat to make an informed decision. I agree that this would be an ideal approach though. I also agree that fear is useless unless it prompts action, if that's what you were saying.

I will take a look at the link you provided, FWIW. Also, what nuclear power plant is 75 miles from me? I hope Homer Simpson doesn't work there! ;-)

Jim

TimW

iTrader: (6)

chemically speaking, what happens when two electic cars hit head on? Will they just explode or cover you and you occupants with hot battery acid? Or will they just benignly drain into the the sewer system or somebody's back yard?

Sarcasm aside, I've never heard that addressed. Maybe its not a problem. Dunno. I just wouldnt want to be anywhere near it.

00 black max

I look at it like this.... there is problems and there will always be problems no matter how you look at it. Its just the nature of man. Now this is a car realated site so I am not going to get into it. So until it puts me on a street corner or a hospital, I am not gonna worry about it. I will worry however how good of a time I will run in the 1/4.
and thats my input.