Why don't we just tax gas like mad?

[quote name='mykevermin']source.[/quote]
It was in my signature for a while, but here. I'm sure you'll question the credibility, but at least one Senator has been behind it too.

As for refineries, that's a question in two parts:
1) Is there a substantial backlog in unrefined oil? If not, adding more refineries is moot.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know. But hearing the media mention all the time that it's refinery capacity that is the real bottleneck makes me think so.

Regardless, we have TONS of oil right here we could be pumping to make it so.

2) Talking financially about refineries suggests that the government is preventing any refineries from being built (assuming we do have a massive bottlenecking of crude oil somewhere), instead of handling the argument from the same vantage point as "why doesn't Nintendo add Wii console manufacturing lines to keep up with demand?").
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know why refineries have not been built in a long time. I only hear lots of complaining that we don't have enough. It doesn't make sense.

I aim to look into it more when I have time.

****
As a side note - Nissan has just announced a fully electric car for 2010. About effing time, i'd say.
 
FUck the refineries, it's our atmosphere and climate change that is preventing us from consuming more oil. None of you ahve addressed this point (including you FOC, whether you say you did or not). If you're talking about "it doesn't mean better alternatives aren't available" then carry this thought through.

No matter how many matches you have, if you can't light them they're useless.

If it is not preventing us form consuming more oil, it ought to be.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']FUck the refineries, it's our atmosphere and climate change that is preventing us from consuming more oil. None of you ahve addressed this point (including you FOC, whether you say you did or not). If you're talking about "it doesn't mean better alternatives aren't available" then carry this thought through.

No matter how many matches you have, if you can't light them they're useless.

If it is not preventing us form consuming more oil, it ought to be.[/QUOTE]

This thread has nothing to do with ecological side effects - we're discussing the impact on the economy.
 
We need more drilling and more refineries. Period. The environmentalist movement is to blame for this problem. If we're producing our own oil and gasoline, we can tell OPEC to go fuck themselves.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']FUck the refineries, it's our atmosphere and climate change that is preventing us from consuming more oil. None of you ahve addressed this point (including you FOC, whether you say you did or not). If you're talking about "it doesn't mean better alternatives aren't available" then carry this thought through. [/quote]

I absolutely love how, new in 2008, Global Warming has become Climate Change. :D Very cute.

Everyone wants oil to die and find cleaner, safer, and especially cheaper replacements. But making sure oil gets expensive to drive it is a stupid solution.

The world is a big place. India and China are now coming on line with their oil demands. (which is the real cause of the gas prices) They are not going to go away over night, even with a miracle alternative discovered tomorrow.

There is not reason why we can't, first, make it a goal to cut dependence on foreign Oil - period. And meanwhile let the free market discover replacements.


[quote name='Heavy Hitter']We need more drilling and more refineries. Period. The environmentalist movement is to blame for this problem. If we're producing our own oil and gasoline, we can tell OPEC to go fuck themselves.[/QUOTE]

Exactly right. And exactly what we need to happen. Now, can someone tell me which candidate will most likely make this happen? Or are all three going to stand around and talk about how evil oil is until we are bankrupt and walking to work?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It was in my signature for a while, but here. I'm sure you'll question the credibility, but at least one Senator has been behind it too.[/QUOTE]

You'll have to forgive my *severe* skepticism of one person, who is not an expert in the matter, but, rather, a Baptist minister who traveled to Alaska as a missionary, has an acute estimate that we have nearly 2 trillion barrels of oil in the area.

Now, perhaps he saw some things we didn't, or has access to sources of information. If so, then we, as a society, have been lied to by geologists, politicians, environmentalists, and virtually every other sources of information, both unbiased and scientific, and those with vested interests in getting at that oil. We have been lied to by everyone except for one Baptist minister and those on the right who have a stake in ensuring the continuation of the great corporate energy behemoth.

At least, if that all is accurate. It may be. I'm not certain. But you'll forgive me if I do not change my mind on account of a minister's armchair geologist impersonation.

[quote name='Heavy Hitter']We need more drilling and more refineries. Period. The environmentalist movement is to blame for this problem. If we're producing our own oil and gasoline, we can tell OPEC to go fuck themselves.[/QUOTE]

IF we produce enough oil and gasoline to be self-sustainable - which is premised on the idea that there are 2 trillion barrels of oil in Alaska, and not a questionable sum. We don't need more drilling and refineries any more than a junkie needs to start shooting a few extra mg in order to get as high as he used to: what we need is to raise CAFE standards. Beyond going back to square one as Bush has, now that he's brought back the standards Clinton imposed towards the end of his administration (that Bush repealed early into his own).

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals here. Conservatives seem content to find another drug dealer as long as it's cheaper, while liberals want to kick the habit.

The Nissan electric car is interesting, but I'll wait to see what production lines look like as well as how much they cost. I'd love to buy one, but they'll be useless if they're $25,000 for the electric equivalent of a Nissan Sentry.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It is estimated that there is TRILLIONS (that's 3x what's estimated to be under Saudi Arabia) of barrels of oil in the Wasatch mountains in the inter mountain western united states. It's shale oil, but it can currently be extracted at $30 a barrel. But there are so much costly and slow paperwork to do just for exploratory drilling and for a permit to try and pump it, most company's won't try.

And why have we not built a refinery in something like 20 years?

And don't even get me started on unobtrusive slant drilling in northern Alaska.

The oil is there, but we have let the environmentalist extremists hijack our means of taking care of ourselves with it. Besides the fact that there was so much more money to be made in the deals that were worked out with the Arabs in the 50's.
We have enough oil estimated to be under one island in Northern Alaska to take care of our country's needs for 200 years. So don't tell me we are about out of oil.

Oh and one more thing. The belief that oil doesn't replenish itself very fast is a myth. Scientists can't even fully agree on the source of oil let alone how fast it replinishes.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals here. Conservatives seem content to find another drug dealer as long as it's cheaper, while liberals want to kick the habit.
[/QUOTE]

Why is it always one or the other, and never anywhere in between?

Unless they make using petroleum illegal, I'll always be using it.
 
Hey, I'm all for alternatives - as long as they're cost effective. How about while we're developing those we go ahead and drill and refine what we've got? Sitting around waiting for these alternative sources to be developed and watching gas prices soar due to environmentalism and happy-tree-huggy-bullshit is nuts.

We don't need to completely replace our OPEC supply to get them off of our nuts. No one suggested that. If we start drilling and refining, we'll break OPEC's stranglehold and the prices will go down.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']We need more drilling and more refineries. Period. The environmentalist movement is to blame for this problem. If we're producing our own oil and gasoline, we can tell OPEC to go fuck themselves.[/QUOTE]

That's fine in the short term. Long-term we have to find viable alternative green options to fuel transportation. Solves the dependency on middle east oil problem as well as environmental issues of drilling in more places and CO2 emmissions.

But of course, realistically that's a long ways off, so I'm fine with more domestic production short term--as long as it's not at the expensive of slowing research and devleopment into alternative fuel/power sources.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's fine in the short term. Long-term we have to find viable alternative green options to fuel transportation. Solves the dependency on middle east oil problem as well as environmental issues of drilling in more places and CO2 emmissions.

But of course, realistically that's a long ways off, so I'm fine with more domestic production short term--as long as it's not at the expensive of slowing research and devleopment into alternative fuel/power sources.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more. If someone can develop a car that runs on tofu and it is economically feasible, I'll be the first in line at the tofu pump. For now, let's get the resources we can and quit beng played for suckers.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You'll have to forgive my *severe* skepticism of one person, who is not an expert in the matter, but, rather, a Baptist minister who traveled to Alaska as a missionary, has an acute estimate that we have nearly 2 trillion barrels of oil in the area.

Now, perhaps he saw some things we didn't, or has access to sources of information. If so, then we, as a society, have been lied to by geologists, politicians, environmentalists, and virtually every other sources of information, both unbiased and scientific, and those with vested interests in getting at that oil. We have been lied to by everyone except for one Baptist minister and those on the right who have a stake in ensuring the continuation of the great corporate energy behemoth.

At least, if that all is accurate. It may be. I'm not certain. But you'll forgive me if I do not change my mind on account of a minister's armchair geologist impersonation.

IF we produce enough oil and gasoline to be self-sustainable - which is premised on the idea that there are 2 trillion barrels of oil in Alaska, and not a questionable sum. [/QUOTE]

It's fine if you don't believe that one dude, even though his story is corroborated by many others. That's just ONE deposit.

Actually the "trillions" of barrels claim had nothing to do with Alaska. There is a massive deposit under Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming that is estimated by many scientific sources to be that high. The smallest estimate is 1.5 trillion barrels, the largest is 3.3 trilliion.

Here, here, and here are your sources you'll undoubtedly ask for. Google can find you many more. And these are openly accepted, scientifically unrefuted.

I have been out to the sparse oil fields in those locations and seen them with my own eyes. I know people that work on them and muse about what a joke it is that the government won't let them "tap" it. But of course, I know what you think of my own personal anecdotes, no need to say it again.

You don't need to believe in the Alaska story to see that we have far more estimated oil here than all of the Middle East.

Oh and one of the biggest excuses in 1995 for not drilling in Anwar was that it would take 15 years to get supply up and running and the American people only like quick fixes.
Couldashouldawoulda.......
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']watching gas prices soar due to environmentalism and happy-tree-huggy-bullshit[/QUOTE]

Tell me more about this hackneyed theory of yours. I didn't know that gluttonous US consumption, OPEC, the oil industry, and expanding markets in China could be collectively called "happy-tree-huggy-bullshit."
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']And what about during California's rolling blackouts? How much more would a fleet of electric vehicles tax that system? And if you can't charge your car during the blackout, you're stuck at home with no power and no ability to go anywhere.[/QUOTE]

I am not trying to derail this thread in any way, but I had read an article that tells of the foolishness of California's energy policies. Unfortunately, what California does impacts policy elsewhere. I wanted to point this out because it shows how misguided energy and "green" policies can waste tons of money and not be "green" in practicality.

Here is a link to the article :

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_californias_environmentalism.html
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's fine in the short term. Long-term we have to find viable alternative green options to fuel transportation. Solves the dependency on middle east oil problem as well as environmental issues of drilling in more places and CO2 emmissions.

But of course, realistically that's a long ways off, so I'm fine with more domestic production short term--as long as it's not at the expensive of slowing research and devleopment into alternative fuel/power sources.[/QUOTE]



No, that is not fine, not for the short term, not for any term. That's a very, very short-sighted answer to a very complex problem. It's a very selfish answer -- and not I refrain from calling it a solution, since it solves nothing.

Food supply, medical conditions, habitable land, forestry, water quality (acidity)... using oil has a lot of hidden costs far beyond what you see at the pump.

I don't even want to know how you think drilling and refining more oil "solves the environmental issues"... seriously, I don't even want to know.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Tell me more about this hackneyed theory of yours. I didn't know that gluttonous US consumption, OPEC, the oil industry, and expanding markets in China could be collectively called "happy-tree-huggy-bullshit."[/QUOTE]

No, I believe he's saying our illogical dependency on foreign sources for all you mention is directly caused by "happy-tree-huggy-bullshit".
 
[quote name='Koggit']I don't even want to know how you think drilling and refining more oil "solves the environmental issues"... seriously, I don't even want to know.[/QUOTE]

That's not what dmaul meant. Read it again.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You'll have to forgive my *severe* skepticism of one person, who is not an expert in the matter, but, rather, a Baptist minister who traveled to Alaska as a missionary, has an acute estimate that we have nearly 2 trillion barrels of oil in the area.

Now, perhaps he saw some things we didn't, or has access to sources of information. If so, then we, as a society, have been lied to by geologists, politicians, environmentalists, and virtually every other sources of information, both unbiased and scientific, and those with vested interests in getting at that oil. We have been lied to by everyone except for one Baptist minister and those on the right who have a stake in ensuring the continuation of the great corporate energy behemoth.

At least, if that all is accurate. It may be. I'm not certain. But you'll forgive me if I do not change my mind on account of a minister's armchair geologist impersonation.[/QUOTE]

He just wants to shill his book, seriously. I watched the first 15 minutes, he raised his book like 5 times in that period, repeating the title over and over. I got sick of his BS and skipped ahead ~20 minutes, where he was holding his book up and saying the title. Ahead 40 minutes, holding his book and saying the title...

My favorite part is how he specifically states you won't see the "facts" he talks about anywhere else because it's a big oil/government conspiracy, but they're totally true, and to prove it he told some other guy the name of a guy who agrees with him! Well, now I'm convinced.

I'm sure I can find some alien conspiracy author willing to gush all about his experiences and "facts", and he too will let you know how his facts will never be supported by scientists and government officials because they don't want you to know the truth...

[quote name='Heavy Hitter']That's not what dmaul meant. Read it again.[/QUOTE]

I'm not here to read what dmaul meant, I'm here to read what dmaul said. Reading it again will not help me read anyone's mind.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
I'm sure I can find some alien conspiracy author willing to gush all about his experiences and "facts", and he too will let you know how his facts will never be supported by scientists and government officials because they don't want you to know the truth...
[/QUOTE]

If you had watched towards the end, he gives very logical reasons why it will never be drilled. Deals made with the Arabs in the 50's, to put it simply.

But call that conspiracy if you want, now lets see you refute the trillions of barrels of oil under Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in shale oil.
 
[quote name='Koggit']No, that is not fine, not for the short term, not for any term. That's a very, very short-sighted answer to a very complex problem. It's a very selfish answer -- and not I refrain from calling it a solution, since it solves nothing.

Food supply, medical conditions, habitable land, forestry, water quality (acidity)... using oil has a lot of hidden costs far beyond what you see at the pump.

I don't even want to know how you think drilling and refining more oil "solves the environmental issues"... seriously, I don't even want to know.[/QUOTE]

OK, how do we finance this?

I know...we'll use the strength of our economy into bullying oil compan...

:whistle2:k

OK, we'll invest in eco-friendly foreign companies on the strength of the doll...

:whistle2:k

We'll elect a president free of all lobbyis....

:whistle2:k

You'll have to accept there needs to be varying short and long term economic and ecological strateiges?
 
I know you mentioned that shale oil is much more expensive to produce, around $30 per barrel.

Which means that it will sell or trade for more than that. When "real oil" went for $60 per barrel, gas was over $3 per gallon (mid-late 2005).

I can't suspect that oil generated from shale would sell/trade for much less than $60 (to start with!) given the cost of production - meaning that tapping into this vast resource would, at best, bring us back to 2005 prices. I'm not satisfied with that, because at that time, gas was still expensive and oil company profits still ridiculous.

Moreover, the difficulty in refining shale carries with it the fact that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of gas from shale than there is energy in that gallon itself. So we're going back 3 years in prices to a still outrageous but slightly less-so price, as well as contributing to overall negative energy production before the product is even used.
 
$30 a barrel is with current announced technology. There are many theoretical extraction methods on paper, that currently are not worth trying due to the high cost of fees, permits, and paperwork bureaucracy. Shale oil refinement tech really hasn't had a lot of R&D effort put into it, because up until recently it was unecessary with sweet crude boating into the gulf of mexico so cheap and quickly.

But now things are different

Even still, producing shale oil on a mass scale would have a much higher level economic effect. Think about how much energy goes into getting oil from the Middle East, or South America to here. Boats, manpower, pipes. Why not just put up refinery's a few miles from where it's being pumped?

Not to mention speeding to the most important long term goal of all: Cutting all dependency from the Middle East (the source of countless problems foreign and domestic).

In other words, we are stupid not to at least give it a shot.
 
on the refinery issue i remember specifically that the oil companies do not want to build anymore refineries and that they prefer to add on or update current ones. Of course bush keeps offering them old army bases but being as they are near no pipeline its pointless.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Which means that it will sell or trade for more than that. When "real oil" went for $60 per barrel, gas was over $3 per gallon (mid-late 2005).
[/QUOTE]

:whistle2:s

Where was this? Gas just topped $3 here early last year.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
I don't even want to know how you think drilling and refining more oil "solves the environmental issues"... seriously, I don't even want to know.[/QUOTE]

I never said it did. That of course harms the environment. Only way to help the environment is to work on alternative, clean fuel/power sources.

But in the mean time we need to do something about gas prices. The vast majority of the country (land wise) has no non-gas using public transportation options for getting to work, to the store etc. And even in metropolitan areas many times public transit isn't cost effective or time effective. I could take the metro to work--but it would cost me a good deal more a month that what I pay in gas (DC metro prices are absurd relative to most other subway systems) and it takes over 3x as long vs just driving the 8 miles due to having to change trains and catch a bus to and from my office and the closest subway.

Alternative fueled cars won't appear overnight and won't be affordable for many for several years after they are invented and mainstream.

So we need to find a way to get fuel costs down in the meantime IMO. That's what I meant. We need a short term economic fix, while working on a long-term economic AND environment fix in the form of viable green powered cars.

[quote name='CocheseUGA']:whistle2:s

Where was this? Gas just topped $3 here early last year.[/QUOTE]

Gas nearly everywhere was well over $3/gallon in late 2005 after Hurricane Katrina. Was in the $3.60-3.80s that late summer/fall in the DC area. Of course now it's more than that with no natural disaster to blame!
 
sigh....Why don't we just tax food like mad. After all, everybody needs it. It would be a good way to siphon money from the people to be diverted to whatever eco-friendly cause is deemed necessary by the reigning party to save the earth.

It would help lower demand, and therefore lower the price, AND make us all lose weight and be healthier. Heck, since we could eat less, we could ship all the excess food that we can't afford overseas and feed the world.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']:whistle2:s

Where was this? Gas just topped $3 here early last year.[/quote]

During Katrina week, gas first hit $3 here in Kentucky.

It has danced around $3 since then for the past 3 months.

Now ... you can't $3.50 without some sort of rebate required.
 
What most people seem to be missing in this thread is the fact that we need a habitable earth to carry on the economy. The entire "helping the environment hurts the economy" argument is ridiculous. Where will you do business when the earth fails us? How will you move your wares when there is no fuel left? Where will your headquarters be if both coasts are constantly racked by cat. 5 hurricanes? How will you go to the bank when you can't breathe the air outside of it?

These are all very extreme scenarios, but so is the situation we're currently in. You may not agree, and that's fine for now, but you won't be able to continue to doubt the need for a drastic and quick change in the way we live.

SO what is the best way to motivate people to change their lifestyles, whether it be how they get to work or what temperature they keep their thermostat at?

One thing and one thing alone motivates most people than any other: MONEY! Dolla dolla bills yall. So when people start to feel the tug of their gluttonous consumption on thier purse strings, they start to think "Hmm..maybe there is something I can do to save money by using less (insert resource here)." This is of course, for those who are not motivated by ensuring a clean environment for their kids and children's children.

So one benefit of high oil prices, is that it spurs R&D into alt. fuel sources faster than any regulation, laws, or ecological morality could. THe higher the price of oil, the faster we work to lessen our dependence on it.

I haven't even addressed the national economic, political and security benefits of reducing dependence on (BOTH) foreign oil and domestic oil: new fuel sources create jobs, take money from Saudi coffers and put it in our own, and add a great deal of stability and reliability since we could be energy independent.

Right now almost every single piece of military equipment runs on oil, so if oil goes bye bye (which it is, surely nobody would argue it isn't) our military might goes bye bye. If however, our cars, our tanks, our planes, our economy, and our people become energy independent, we're much safer and in control of our own destiny.

Additionally, I'd like anyone who hasn't been to ANWAR but thinks we ought to drill there to go and see it with your own eyes. A plane ride there would make an athiest believe in G-d. There is a reason we, as a people, have refused to drill there and it is a damn good one. "Unobtrusive drilling" is an oxymoron, and even if there are "better" ways to harvest it, it would involve moving people, roads, trash, exhaust, noise, buildings, equipment, a pipline and a ton of other shit I can't even think of right now into an area previously untouched by human hands.

Maybe some think the world is our oyster-bed to harvest with wreckless abondaon whenever and however we choose, however I beleive in preservation and conservation. We ought to preserve the remaining wildlife refuges, and conserve natural resources better. Up until the Bush admin, our nation wasn't really doing THAT horribly environmentally speaking; even though we produced WAY more than our fair share of greenhouse gasses. I think in 2000 we produced roughly one third of the world's emissions.

Now China and other nations are in extreme rapid development, and are becomming as fuel hungry as we are. This pace of oil consumption is simply not sustainable. I'm not saying we'll run out next year, or even next decade. What I'm saying is that we ought to try to find another way of life, and high oil prices act as a pretty compelling stimulus to try.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']sigh....Why don't we just tax food like mad. After all, everybody needs it. It would be a good way to siphon money from the people to be diverted to whatever eco-friendly cause is deemed necessary by the reigning party to save the earth.[/QUOTE]

That's an awful analogy. We are using far more gas than is necessary -- there's no need for
 
Pitpizza,

While I agree in theory with most of your last post, two things:

1- Many people care about the environment and conservation that makes sense, but do not buy into the popular current fad that we are on a high speed train to massive global destruction that is man's fault unless something drastic happens, that only man can change. Just keep that in mind when discussing these things with others. It doesn't mean those people are stupid, or ignorant, it just means they are environmental atheists that haven't seen enough reason to accept that "G-D" or Armageddon belief yet.

2- Anwar, and other places, could be drilled even off shore. Or is that still too obtrusive? It's also funny to go back and note the rabid environmental movement during the pipeline building in Alaska in the 70's. It was off the charts. They thought we would make the caribou go extinct, they said we'd wreck all kinds of environmental havoc to countless species. It's funny to read/hear the stories of how heavily regulated the whole project was, how much more money had to be spent just to be careful not to even bother the moss more than necessary. But ultimately, the best lesson to be learned from the 70's is how it is now. How much evidence can you dig up that building that pipeline permanently effected anything there for the negative? I wager you can't. In fact, some scientists believe the Caribou, and other mammals, love the pipeline because it's warm. Unless you want to argue that making animals more comfortable somehow disrupts the environment.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Everyone drives 40+ mpg compacts...[/QUOTE]

Even though compacts are safer these days, you go right ahead and drive one of those form-fitting coffins.
 
[quote name='Koggit']

Europe uses less gas (/diesel) because it costs much more there. Everyone drives 40+ mpg compacts, commute shorter distances and they get by just fine. Why do they drive more efficient vehicles and commute less? Because wasting energy in Europe is expensive. We need to make wasting energy expensive in America.[/QUOTE]

That's silly marxist logic. Again, why do you love the idea of punishing EVERYONE to force change (communism), instead of giving incentives to ANYONE that wants to pursue change (free market)?

Don't delude yourself. European gas is, and always has been, more expensive because they tax the shit out of everything in Europe to maintain the socialism they prefer, not because they care about the environment.

Much like the global warming debate, I'm getting really sick of hearing the "Well who cares if it's true, as long as it gets the results" argument.
 
[quote name='Koggit']That's an awful analogy. We are using far more gas than is necessary -- there's no need for
 
^ x2!


[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Even though compacts are safer these days, you go right ahead and drive one of those form-fitting coffins.[/quote]

While it may not be form fitting, the gas-guzzling CO2 spewing 2-ton SUV is a coffin (to your wallet and to the atmosphere) nonetheless. Morevoer, you're putting a lot more than someone you may hit at risk by driving it.

BigT your post is not grounded in reality. It's as if you have blinders on to the situation we're in. I don't know how people can choose not to beleive something they can see with their own eyes, wait a minute, yes i do (bias, partisanism, and financial gain). Regardless, it's as if you think that commuting to work and buying a home close to work are the only ways to help reduce one's environmental footprint. Additionally, people DO choose to drive big ass SUV's without having any pracitical or utilitarian need for them in the first place. Idiotic, selfish, and downright absurd when a smaller or more fuel efficient mode of transportation is available.
 
Oh, let's just tax the shit out of gas, diesel, trucks, vans, and SUV's. I don't mind paying $12 for a head of lettuce and $20 for a box of cereal. It'll save the earth.

And let's just tax the shit out of electricity and especially videogames. After all, we use far too much of it - certainly more than necessary, and one of those activities IS completely unnecessary. I wouldn't mind paying $150 for a new release game if it makes the earth habitable again.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']^ x2!




While it may not be form fitting, the gas-guzzling CO2 spewing 2-ton SUV is a coffin (to your wallet and to the atmosphere) nonetheless. Morevoer, you're putting a lot more than someone you may hit at risk by driving it.

BigT your post is not grounded in reality. It's as if you have blinders on to the situation we're in. I don't know how people can choose not to beleive something they can see with their own eyes, wait a minute, yes i do (bias, partisanism, and financial gain). Regardless, it's as if you think that commuting to work and buying a home close to work are the only ways to help reduce one's environmental footprint. Additionally, people DO choose to drive big ass SUV's without having any pracitical or utilitarian need for them in the first place. Idiotic, selfish, and downright absurd when a smaller or more fuel efficient mode of transportation is available.[/QUOTE]

Smaller and more fuel-efficient does not equal better. While it's nice to have electric motors in all sorts of applications, torque is an issue. Not for acceleration, but for towing. When they make an electric motor that can not only accelerate like a Porsche while being able to tow 5000lbs, give me a call.

You say that people who actually need SUVs are fine, yet at the same time you condemn them for being so large and polluting the atmosphere. Which is it?

Which would you prefer? Two 40mpg cars on the road, or one 20mpg?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Smaller and more fuel-efficient does not equal better. While it's nice to have electric motors in all sorts of applications, torque is an issue. Not for acceleration, but for towing. When they make an electric motor that can not only accelerate like a Porsche while being able to tow 5000lbs, give me a call.

You say that people who actually need SUVs are fine, yet at the same time you condemn them for being so large and polluting the atmosphere. Which is it?

Which would you prefer? Two 40mpg cars on the road, or one 20mpg?[/quote]

I'd prefer one 40mpg car. We can't really have this discussion if you have no idea what electric cars and hybrids are (and have been for a very long time) capable of. Go watch Who killed the electric car? and then come talk to me about what they're capable of.

Also, who the hell drives a porche that can tow 5,000lbs? Nobody I know, and I know a lot of people. Whats with the unrealistic expectations? The overwhelming majority of people who drive gas-guzzling trucks and SUV's don't actually need them. I have no problem with those who do (be it commercial or otherwise). My issue is with the people driving hummers in the city. It's like "C'mon man, where is your fuckin conscience?"
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Smaller and more fuel-efficient does not equal better. While it's nice to have electric motors in all sorts of applications, torque is an issue. Not for acceleration, but for towing. When they make an electric motor that can not only accelerate like a Porsche while being able to tow 5000lbs, give me a call.

You say that people who actually need SUVs are fine, yet at the same time you condemn them for being so large and polluting the atmosphere. Which is it?

Which would you prefer? Two 40mpg cars on the road, or one 20mpg?[/quote]

If you're waiting for an F350 that accelerates like a Porsche, I think you'll never buy a vehicle again (gas or electric).

Torque is not an issue in electric motors. They have more torque starting at 1RPM than gas engines.

http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/acceleration_and_torque.php
 
A huge part of the alternative fuel movement needs to be making 100% functional cars. They will need to look the same and have the same capabilities as current cars and trucks for them to ever become mainstream.

Hybrids can do it easily, but that's only a bandaid since they still use gas. Electric can do it powerwise, but they're limited by needing charged etc. We need alternatively powered cars that can drive as fast, tow as much etc. and also drive unlimited distances with "refueling times" no longer or less convenient than stopping to gas up.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']A huge part of the alternative fuel movement needs to be making 100% functional cars. They will need to look the same and have the same capabilities as current cars and trucks for them to ever become mainstream.

Hybrids can do it easily, but that's only a bandaid since they still use gas. Electric can do it powerwise, but they're limited by needing charged etc. We need alternatively powered cars that can drive as fast, tow as much etc. and also drive unlimited distances with "refueling times" no longer or less convenient than stopping to gas up.[/quote]

1. How fast do you drive?

2. How often do you tow and how heavy are the items you are towing?

3. How often do you drive unlimited distances without sleeping, eating or taking a shit?

4. How often do you stop for gas?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']1. How fast do you drive?

2. How often do you tow and how heavy are the items you are towing?

3. How often do you drive unlimited distances without sleeping, eating or taking a shit?

4. How often do you stop for gas?[/QUOTE]

You can just ask me, others have different driving patters.

1. I routinely drive 80-85.

2. I don't tow much, but my brother has a big boat, my dad has a big pull behind camper, people need to tow stuff for work etc.

3. Dumb point. People don't mind stopping. People don't want to have to stop more often, or have a car they have to plug into electric for hours to refuel. If you're driving a long way you want to either have the car self sufficient, or at worst to have to stop for 5-10 minutes to refuel as they do currently.

4. I get 300-350 miles a tank in my Mazda 3. Driving locally I gas up about twice a month.


Anyway, my points here are for the cars to catch on they have to do the same things as current cars, not cost any more (and probably cost less in fuel costs) and not have any extra inconveniences. People are selfish, they're not going to hassle themselves for the environment on a broad scale. Some of us well. Most will not. I'm more concious of this stuff than most--recycle everything I can, energy saving lightbulbs in every light fixture etc. But even I have limits on this issue.
 
I see what you're gettin at FOC, it just goes to show you how widespread the misconceptions are about electric cars. Hmm..I wonder if big oil and the big 3 autocompanies (who know they can make a heck of a lot more off of an escalade than a small electric car) have anything to do with that?? Hmmm?
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I see what you're gettin at FOC, it just goes to show you how widespread the misconceptions are about electric cars. Hmm..I wonder if big oil and the big 3 autocompanies (who know they can make a heck of a lot more off of an escalade than a small electric car) have anything to do with that?? Hmmm?[/QUOTE]

That's definitely part of the problem.

If it wasn't for that barrier, we may well already have electric or other powered cars with the same top speeds, towing capacity and ability to drive across the country in fewer or less "refueling" stops than current cars.

But they haven't came out yet. All I'm saying is that's what it will take to catch on in the mainstream, and especially among people who really don't give a shit about environmental issues.
 
They have come out already dmaul. It was called the EV1 and was made by GM. It got between 60-100 mpg (depending on battery) OVER TEN YEARS AGO.

GM cancelled it b/c they couldn't make as much off of it a they could off of a gas-guzzling SUV, nor was there the available profit from service that internal combustion cars need. Eventually, they wouldn't even let people buy the leases back and refused millions of dollars offered for the cars so that they could be destroyed and people would stop seeing them and stop finding out about then.

Just google EV1, and GM and see what you find out about it.
 
They didn't do all I said. From a quick google it would get between 60-100 miles per charge, but charges took up to 8 hours for full charge (80% charge in 2-3 hours).

What I'm saying is alternative power cars will never be viable in the mainstream until they can do everything gas powered cars are. I couldn't run errands sometimes in one charge on that since I"m sometimes bouncing all over the DC/Baltimore area, much less take a longer trip.

Again, cars will have to have unlimited range (with 5-10 minutes recharges/fill ups at easy to find locations like gas stations), look and act the same as current cars to work. Looks like the EV had the latter down, but not the former.

Electric cars will probably never be the answer. It will be some alternative power/fuel source that is cleaner and cheaper than gas that can be distributed at gas stations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top