Are gas prices killing you?

[cumulusprotagonist]

uch more.

Anyway...On topic:

THe Mad Max scenario could be avoided if people used more self control. In other words in would not entirely be the oil companies fault. Obviously not everyone would use self control but if it is clearly stated that people could, a scenario such as that could possibly be avoided.

Also if oil companies were to sell all the oil as fast as they could through lower prices it would hurt the enviornment even more, regardless if a cleaner power source was utilized afterwords. Although it is not anything too good it is better than having them give in halfway and really screw things up.

Besides people could buy less gas. Unless you live in the middle of nowhere you technically do not have to drive at all. Society has made it seem to be a need. With the distances we are used to traveling in such shorter times it would be nearly impossible to get people to stop driving altogether. But they will not stop selling gas if you do not stop buying it.

[cumulusprotagonist]

Is Figaro a truck driver for EXXON?

If so then the people who have been Sincerely giving him a hard time should be ashamed of themselves. And they need to seriously consider philosphical reasons as to why they should be ashamed. It is just throwing stones at innocent people.

WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING TO HELP THE ENVIORNMENT?!
Then agree to spend 3 dollars a gallon for water...
Does this sound stupid?
Then I guess you would not do ANYTHING.

[vrikasatma]

I was looking at diesels but I wound up getting a 4Runner. The mileage isn't in the Godlike range but we're talking about trailer-pulling power here. 15 - 20 mpg is a fair showing. I test-drove a Sorento at one point; that gets 24 mpg but the tow cap wasn't up to what I needed. At the other end of the scale, a 4x2 F150 with 10,200-pound tow cap but got 9-12 mpg.

Over Memorial Day weekend, I drove my old Navajo down to the Bay Area, about 600 miles, and back. The gas bill kicked my a**, an estimated $360. Tore up my tranny, too...that's why I threw in the towel and started looking for a new ride...

The new one's good. 23-gallon tank that costs about $72 to fill with plus unleaded (regular unleaded gives less mileage, premium's just too goddam much). Fortunately, with my usual driving habits, that $72 tank lasts me about two weeks. Contrast that with the Navajo which costed me $80 in gas, per week.

I'm kind of sorry to be missing out on the biodiesel and E85 capability trend but there are flex-fuel retrofit technologies in the works. We just need one that'll pass EPA tailpipe emissions standards. As soon as we do, I'm taking Cristobel into the shop and getting her converted to run E85.

[Figarou]

Well geez Fig, it's not like the alternative fuel source won't have to be shipped either. The demand for oil might drop, but the demand for energy will be consistent. It's only a disaster if you try to stick with the oil companies instead of transitioning from oil onto the clean energy companies.

There is waaaaay to many things out there thats dependant on oil and gasoline. If we ran out of gasoline now....think of how many cars will be parked. Sure...you can have an electric car. But what about jet airplanes? What alternative fuel source can jets run on? As for trains...bring back the steam locomotive. Thats clean energy there. (sort of)

18 wheelers run on diesel. Not sure if they can find an alternative for that as well.

Nothing against you Fig. You don't push it or sell it after all -- you just deliver it. That's an honest business.

Meh...its a living.

[vrikasatma]

I recently converted my car to flex fuel, which allows me to run E85 fuel. As soon as the shop got done with Cristobel, I took her over to a biofuels station we have in town here, flipped the switch and asked the nice pump attendant to "Fill it with E85, please!"

So now I can drive right past the Chevrons, BPs, 76s with their signs stating that petrol is sitting comfortably above $3 a gallon. The price of ethanol blends are a whole dollar less, which translates to about $20 per tank saved.

Furthermore, E85 is 107 octane which whips the STUFFING out of premium petrol.

My mileage suffered a minor dip of 3 mpg, but that's with the first tank. It'll probably take three tank-ups to get a true reading.

[MattSullivan]

I have to drive 30 miles to my job site, thankfully it's only temporary. I just wish my car was a manual transmission so i go t better mileage on highways.

[Dreamer]

WOuldn't this all be fixed if someone were to create an electric car?

Oh wait, they did.

Go see "Who Killed The Electric Car" to find out why they didn't catch on.

[vrikasatma]

One guy around here bought 24 golf cart batteries and converted his half-ton pickup to electric. They did a story on him in the paper. He has to have a sticker on his car to warn rescuers of the voltage hazard (144 volts) in case he crashes and has to be rescued. There's a switch on the driver's side that cuts the juice in that case.

[MattSullivan]

Electric cars and hybrids have proven to be a worse strain on the environment that regular gas-fueled vehicles. It's the truth.

[Kaebora]

Electric cars and hybrids have proven to be a worse strain on the environment that regular gas-fueled vehicles. It's the truth.

Really? Please explain this theory.

[vrikasatma]

You mean the fact that they use lead and acid? Or if they're energy-negative (cost more, energy-wise, to produce than you get out of them)?

I'm not a great fan of lead-acid batteries, myself, which is why I opted for flex fuel. It costs 37,000 BTUs to produce and you get back 77,000 BTUs per gallon.

[Dreamer]

Actually, on Who Killed the Electric Car, they mentioned that even when counting the fact that the coal produced i npower plants ploutes more thqan gas, it's still less poluting than a regular internal-combustion engine because of the amount of electricity used.

[Scott Gardener]

Here's what I've heard about the present state of alternative technologies:

Hybrid cars: The "rock stars" of ecology, they've also been subjected to criticism for being overhyped. They still use ordinary gas (the Lexus hybrids use Premium), but by pairing with an electric motor, it's possible to make some efficiency tweaks, including, most notably, regenerative braking. That is, the motors can double as generators whenever the car is slowing down, recharging the battery and producing additional power. This is also good for reducing wear-and-tear on the brakes themselves, so it's a win-win technology. There's two kinds of hybrids; partial hybrids like Honda's Insight and Civic use the electric motor to assist the engine, whereas full hybrids like the Prius employ Toyota's Synergy Drive or a licensed derivative of it, allowing the motors to run the wheels directly. Full hybrids can run on gas, electric, or both, and tend to be a bit more fuel-efficient overall, being better particularly at improved city driving mileage. Saturn is about to make the first factory-model plug-in hybrid, though some people have already modified a few Prius models with aftermarket parts. A plug-in hybrid allows one to recharge the battery from the electric grid in addition to gas and regenerative braking. Hybrids also tend to have very low emissions, most being rated as SULEVs (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle) or AT-PZEVs (Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle). Sounds like Anime titles, but it means a lot less greenhouse gas.

Impressions: while it's not the ultimate fix, it's a step in the right direction. Plug-in hybrids could also bridge the gap towards an electric car system, in which "gas stations" sell fast recharges to long distance travellers. If you want to drive green, don't just be wowed by the hybrid label; look at the actual milage and emissions. I have test driven a Toyota Prius, and I would firmly recommend it as a very practical car. Being a bit more luxury minded, I own a Lexus RX400h, the first luxury hybrid vehicle. Spending this much shows that I'm a personal believer in the potential of hybrid technology. Make sure it's a full hybrid, though, not a partial. Hybrids, however, still run on gas and are not the ultimate solution to zero carbon emission.

Clean diesel: Hybrid cars' main challenger is starting to gain attention. Honda's partial hybrids in particular--most notably the Accord--were criticized for not making any real mileage difference. (None-the-less, Toyota's full hybrids seem to be doing great.) Honda has chosen therefore to favor this approach. Starting in 2007, diesel fuel in the United States was reformulated to have a tiny fraction of the impurities it previously had. Newer engines built around this reformulation have substantially lower emissions and are more fuel efficient to boot. Thankfully, the new diesel is backwards-compatable with existing diesel engines.

Impressions: I'm happy to see this change-over, as it's getting me to rethink diesel fuel, which I've tended to dismiss like so many others as reserved for big, noisy engines and giant trucks that have to drive in front of me when I'm trying to find the exit. Still, it's ultimately a fossil fuel and not the ultimate carbon-free solution, either.

E85 / Ethanol: It's weird that the same compound that causes so many accidents when consumed by the driver could help save the Earth when consumed by the car itself. Ethanol is the alcohol in alcoholic beverages. It's gained a lot of attention lately from American automakers like Chevrolet. I recently saw a Mallard Fillmore cartoon criticizing it as "actually more polluting, but at least it will make you feel good about yourself." Looked it up; that used to be true, but as the infrastructure has been laid out to grow and refine it, this is less true now. Any Brazillians out there? You're probably already using the stuff. Brazil is a bit ahead of those of us here in America about implimenting it.

Impressions: Still a hydrocarbon and still emits stuff, but again a step forward. The resource itself is renewable and doesn't come from places like Saudi Arabia, where women are treated like slaves. But, the shift to ethanol fuel here in America seems to be less about being green and more about being energy independent--which, considering what schmucks we've been about the environment and global warming, might be in our best interests anyway, since the rest of you are getting a bit fed up with us, especially those over there where the oil is found.

Biodiesel: the E85 of diesel, it's a pretty doubled niche.

Impression: I know its future is probably not that hot, given that Willie Nelson, bless his heart, is one of its major investors. Willie is a great man, but his business ventures are about as long-lived as Sony's proprietary formats.

Hydrogen and fuel cells: Hydrogen power comes from breaking and reassembling water molecules. You put in energy to get the hydrogen and then get the energy back by emitting water. Fuel cells have a very promising future as a clean technology according to most think tanks; they're basically hydrogen batteries that are really good at holding a charge; imagine iPods and laptops that could play for two days straight. Better yet, at least a few experts think a hydrogen-based infrastructure can be done in five years in the United States, and likely will if gas prices stay where they are.

Impression: There's the obvious "OK, then, how do they get the energy to split water molecules?" But, hydrogen and fuel cells offer a way to seperate the car from the power source, so a bank of solar panels and windmills hundreds of miles away can originate the power in the car. It also allows for a staged move, which eases infrastructure tension. Hydrogen power is a plausible long-term solution for this reason.

True electric cars: Long overlooked as dinky golf carts until the Tesla Roadster rocked the world. Electric cars are basically batteries on wheels, with electronics to control them. Like hybrids, fully electric cars can have regenerative braking. With no gas, plug-in is a given, since solar-powered cars are really more akin to souped-up bicycles. Fully electric cars also simplify internal mechanics--without a starter, alternator, fuel injection system, catalytic converter, and all the other stuff that goes into a gas engine (or, God forbid, a hybrid with both)--reliability should be substantially improved. Electric cars also are great performers; Brazil's electric versions of their Obvio economy cars gets 0-60 stats on par with Porsches, and not the cheap ones.

Impression: Like hydrogen, they're a long-term solution. But, unlike hydrogen, the infrastructure is already all around us. Most of us have one or more power outlets in our garage already. Granted, charging a car that way is slow. But, right now, the Tesla Roadster has earned the title of dream car, and I've parked mine in a dream garage next to my Lexus LS600h-L. Tesla aims to make a $50,000 family sedan, and then from there make cars that normal people can afford. Never mind who supposedly killed it before, the Electric Car is back, it's pissed, and it's taking names.

[Kzinistzerg]

I believe I mentioned motorcycles before. I'd like to point out they despite the lesser safety (or is that-- you just have to be alert?), they are a bridging technology in general, because they use less fuel. Well, maybe not bridging technology per-say, but if they were used more, instead of cars, we'd put out less emissions.

As for ethanol, we just can't do ethanol in the US until we get cellulose-based ethanol. Sugar-based ethanol is NOT PRACTICAL. Not in this environment.

And furthermore, you know where we'd get the biomass for fermentation? Corn. And you know what big-time corn growers are doing to the environment? f*** it over is what.

[vrikasatma]

I personally think sugar-based ethanol from corn is fine. What do we give up? High fructose corn syrup, which is responsible for the obesity epidemic in this country.

Consider: most foods contain it in varying amounts. If it's not a whole food, such as meat, fruit, vegetables, check the ingredients label and HFCS will likely be in there.

It's in junk food, and high amounts of it in candy and soda (the second ingredient after carbonated water), but it's also in foods that you'd otherwise think would be healthy. Yoghurt (Yoplait, Activia), some dried fruits, bread, Wheat Thins, chocolate milk, Smucker's jam, juice cocktails (Langer's, most fruit punches, lemonades, SoBes, Snapple).

Why? Because it's cheaper than any other sweetener. The food companies use it to boost their bottom line and increase profit. Sure, they could use beet and cane sugar; they could use maple syrup and honey; but they don't, because HFCS is cheaper. The vast majority of health professionals consider HFCS to be a curse.

But what if the stream of HFCS were diverted from the food stream and into the production of ethanol? We'd revert to cane and beet sugar, giving that industry a boost. Sure, it'd cost more, but to pay ten cents more for a sweetened item is a lot cheaper than having to pay for medical treatment for obesity and obesity-related conditions out of pocket because you can't get health insurance...or if you have health insurance, you'd save a lot of money by keeping the premiums down. I'd rather see the food industry get the increased revenue than the HMOs, anyway.

The corn lobby wouldn't lose any money if we diverted the HFCS stream into fuel. Sugar and honey producers would have their accounts full meeting the switched-0ver sweetener demand in the absence of HFCS, and maple sugar doesn't necessarily have to come from Vermont and New Hampshire. Sugar maples grow anywhere. Obesity epidemic tapers off, downward trend, and finally plateaus out much lower than it was. Where's the bad news?

[Scott Gardener]

Kzinistzerg is right about motorcycles; I'm surprised they haven't come up. Since we're often travelling individually with either just us or enough stuff to fit in a backpack or small container, a motorcycle is a far more fuel-efficient way of getting from point A to point B than a car. Motorcycles are also cheaper--highest end models can go head-to-head with economy cars, while entry level bikes in great shape can beat out real clunkers of used cars. Motorcycles also have their own aggressive culture to go with it, so while one might feel quite puny in a Kia or Hyundai, one can feel pretty tough and strong riding a machine that weights considerably less and leaves you much more exposed to the open. Perhaps its the intimidation factor--maybe many people feel out-of-place on a motorcycle, with the idea that one has to "earn the right to ride a Harley."

[vrikasatma]

Not everyone is cut out for piloting motorcycles, unfortunately. There's a lot of lazy people, people who can't centre and focus and be present, and you have to admit that riding a motorcycle takes a good deal of skill.

A motorcycle's natural position is laying flat on its side. It wants to be there; you, as the rider, have the job of keeping it from doing that.

It's not like riding a bicycle where if you lose balance, you aren't going a mile a minute and can stop it from falling over flat by catching yourself with a foot on the ground. Try that on a motorcycle and your leg's snapped off at the knee because you'd be trying to stop 900 pounds of metal from laying on its side. It's possible with a bicycle because you're only trying to stop 17 to 30 pounds from laying on its side.

The other point is...yes, motorcycles get fantastic mileage, 60+ mpg. But, they only have 5-gallon tanks, which means a motorcycle can only go 300 miles on one fill-up. That's right at the low end in terms of range: pickup trucks do that. Sure, you save money at the pump — but that's really the only benefit.