1974.. 1984? I think he's talking about vehicles newer than 20-30 years ago. Larger vehicles are not always safer, that is a fallacy you will subscribe to until the day you die.The cars of today may be smaller and built differently, but I'd be willing to bet money that they are in-fact safer than cars of the 50s, 60s, 70s and probably the 80s too.
With all other factors the same, the larger vehicle is ALWAYS safer. Compare a '64 Falcon to a '64 Cadillac. Compare a '74 Pinto to a '74 Imperial. Compare an '84 Duster to an '84 Lincoln.
When American consumers were flocking to econoboxes in '74, they were NOT being ecologically motivated. They were strictly worried about the few dollars saved for fuel. Those econoboxes were NOT safer than the larger cars of that period.
Did you read the link he posted? The link that provides an official study that directly contradicts what you're saying.You are forgetting one major piece of the puzzle: average miles driven daily.
Those same American consumers were NOT driving any farther than they did before the embargo. Believe me, I NEVER forget about that issue, because I HATE commuting. That's a major factor in where I live and work. Actually that's a major consideration in real estate and has been forever... LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!
So much for being ecologically minded. They buy econoboxes so they can save money on their insane commutes, which are the result of wanting a big house without paying the premium of homes in good LOCATIONS! They don't give a damn about the environment, just having a nice big house on a modest budget.
Overnight? It took japanese automobile companies many many years to gain market share and eventually surpass many american companies. Detroit acted like a pompous ass, now they are the ones playing catch upIt was entirely Detroit's fault.
It was entirely the American consumer's fault! Fickle consumers changed their automobile preference overnight. Japan & Europe had been building econoboxes all along. Detroit was slow to react, but I wouldn't have been in a big hurry to retool the whole operation overnight either! Who would have dreamed that people who were raised in living rooms on wheels, would take so quickly to the cramped quarters of a friggin Honda?
consumers changed their automobile preference overnight. Where did I say japanese automobile companies gained market share overnight?Originally posted by: SampSon
1974.. 1984? I think he's talking about vehicles newer than 20-30 years ago.The cars of today may be smaller and built differently, but I'd be willing to bet money that they are in-fact safer than cars of the 50s, 60s, 70s and probably the 80s too.
With all other factors the same, the larger vehicle is ALWAYS safer. Compare a '64 Falcon to a '64 Cadillac. Compare a '74 Pinto to a '74 Imperial. Compare an '84 Duster to an '84 Lincoln.
When American consumers were flocking to econoboxes in '74, they were NOT being ecologically motivated. They were strictly worried about the few dollars saved for fuel. Those econoboxes were NOT safer than the larger cars of that period.
Yes he was, BUT I was NOT! Back when the embargo hit, idiot consumers swapped their larger cars for far less safe ones, strictly to save money on gasoline. They traded their family's safety for a few dollars per month!
You are forgetting one major piece of the puzzle: average miles driven daily.
Those same American consumers were NOT driving any farther than they did before the embargo. Believe me, I NEVER forget about that issue, because I HATE commuting. That's a major factor in where I live and work. Actually that's a major consideration in real estate and has been forever... LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!
So much for being ecologically minded. They buy econoboxes so they can save money on their insane commutes, which are the result of wanting a big house without paying the premium of homes in good LOCATIONS! They don't give a damn about the environment, just having a nice big house on a modest budget.
Were. That's past tense, as in 1974. I can't help it if people keep trying to change the subject. The subject that consumers changed their auto preference to econoboxes strictly to save a few bucks per month in fuel. In 1974 they did NOT drive any farther than they did two years before!
Overnight? It took japanese automobile companies many many years to gain market share...It was entirely Detroit's fault.
It was entirely the American consumer's fault! Fickle consumers changed their automobile preference overnight. Japan & Europe had been building econoboxes all along. Detroit was slow to react, but I wouldn't have been in a big hurry to retool the whole operation overnight either! Who would have dreamed that people who were raised in living rooms on wheels, would take so quickly to the cramped quarters of a friggin Honda?
methinks the weakening dollar has a lot more to do with higher oil prices than a lot of other factors.Also encouraging gains, the dollar -- the currency of global oil trade -- retreated further on Thursday from a five-month high against the yen.
A weaker dollar has encouraged funds to switch money from treasury markets into commodities, as well as insulating fuel consumption in non-dollar economies from the impact of higher crude prices.
Explains some other things, too, but they go beyond the purview of ATOT.Originally posted by: ElFenix
methinks the weakening dollar has a lot more to do with higher oil prices than a lot of other factors.Also encouraging gains, the dollar -- the currency of global oil trade -- retreated further on Thursday from a five-month high against the yen.
A weaker dollar has encouraged funds to switch money from treasury markets into commodities, as well as insulating fuel consumption in non-dollar economies from the impact of higher crude prices.
LOL, do you think? I've only been saying this for at least a year. While a weakening dollar has only led (thus far) to mild inflation domestically, it has led to rampant inflation for the US dollar internationally, and oil is an international commodity is it not?Originally posted by: ElFenix
methinks the weakening dollar has a lot more to do with higher oil prices than a lot of other factors.Also encouraging gains, the dollar -- the currency of global oil trade -- retreated further on Thursday from a five-month high against the yen.
A weaker dollar has encouraged funds to switch money from treasury markets into commodities, as well as insulating fuel consumption in non-dollar economies from the impact of higher crude prices.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Keep going up, baby! I want to disprove all those idiots who think that we'll easily move into alternative energies to coincide nicely with the increased prices in oil...well it's going to be hard, and the sooner we prove that the sooner you chumps get proven wrong!
Really? And where will we get the hydrogen?Originally posted by: dmcowen674
:shocked:Originally posted by: Skoorb
Keep going up, baby! I want to disprove all those idiots who think that we'll easily move into alternative energies to coincide nicely with the increased prices in oil...well it's going to be hard, and the sooner we prove that the sooner you chumps get proven wrong!
Rare to agree with Skoorb
There is no way all the folks in bed with the Oil Industry will move away from the Black Diamond flow.
We would've already have to have Hydrogen flowing at Gas stations now.
I must be blind, I don't see any.
Once people realise it's costing them $200 to fill their SUV, their aversion to nuclear power will wane and then we'll finally see more nuclear plants setup.Originally posted by: Vic
Really? And where will we get the hydrogen?
From the air? From water?Originally posted by: Vic
Really? And where will we get the hydrogen?Originally posted by: dmcowen674
:shocked:Originally posted by: Skoorb
Keep going up, baby! I want to disprove all those idiots who think that we'll easily move into alternative energies to coincide nicely with the increased prices in oil...well it's going to be hard, and the sooner we prove that the sooner you chumps get proven wrong!
Rare to agree with Skoorb
There is no way all the folks in bed with the Oil Industry will move away from the Black Diamond flow.
We would've already have to have Hydrogen flowing at Gas stations now.
I must be blind, I don't see any.
GM plans to build a fleet of 40 hydrogen fuel vehicles and distribute them in California and Michigan as well as in Washington, D.C., and New York City. It plans to spend $44 million in total for their manufacture, transportation and upkeep and the building of hydrogen refueling stations in California and the East Coast corridor from New York City to Washington, D.C.
I hope so. Not counting on it though... too many irrational fears.Originally posted by: Skoorb
Once people realise it's costing them $200 to fill their SUV, their aversion to nuclear power will wane and then we'll finally see more nuclear plants setup.Originally posted by: Vic
Really? And where will we get the hydrogen?
:roll: As soon as Congress repeals the Law of Conservation of Energy, right? :roll:Originally posted by: conjur
From the air? From water?
Originally posted by: Vic
LOL, do you think? I've only been saying this for at least a year. While a weakening dollar has only led (thus far) to mild inflation domestically, it has led to rampant inflation for the US dollar internationally, and oil is an international commodity is it not?Originally posted by: ElFenix
methinks the weakening dollar has a lot more to do with higher oil prices than a lot of other factors.Also encouraging gains, the dollar -- the currency of global oil trade -- retreated further on Thursday from a five-month high against the yen.
A weaker dollar has encouraged funds to switch money from treasury markets into commodities, as well as insulating fuel consumption in non-dollar economies from the impact of higher crude prices.
Sure.Originally posted by: Vic
:roll: As soon as Congress repeals the Law of Conservation of Energy, right? :roll:Originally posted by: conjur
From the air? From water?
About 95% of the hydrogen we use today comes from reforming natural gas. The remainder, high-purity hydrogen from water electrolysis, is produced using electricity mainly generated by burning fossil fuels. Some of the specific technologies used to produce hydrogen include:
-Steam reforming converts methane (and other hydrocarbons in natural gas) into hydrogen and carbon monoxide by reaction with steam over a nickel catalyst
-Electrolysis uses electrical current to split water into hydrogen and oxygen
-Steam electrolysis utilizes high temperature heat to reduce electricity requirements for hydrogen production
-Thermochemical water splitting uses chemicals and heat in multiple steps to split water into its component parts
-Photoelectrochemical systems use semi-conducting materials (like photovoltaics) to split water using only sunlight
-Photobiological systems use microorganisms to split water using sunlight
-Biological systems use microbes to break down a variety of biomass feedstocks into hydrogen
-Thermal water splitting uses a very high temperature (approximately 1000°C) to split water Gasification uses heat to break down biomass or coal into a gas from which pure hydrogen can be generated
Originally posted by: conjur
Sure.Originally posted by: Vic
:roll: As soon as Congress repeals the Law of Conservation of Energy, right? :roll:Originally posted by: conjur
From the air? From water?
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/basics.html
About 95% of the hydrogen we use today comes from reforming natural gas. The remainder, high-purity hydrogen from water electrolysis, is produced using electricity mainly generated by burning fossil fuels. Some of the specific technologies used to produce hydrogen include:
-Steam reforming converts methane (and other hydrocarbons in natural gas) into hydrogen and carbon monoxide by reaction with steam over a nickel catalyst
-Electrolysis uses electrical current to split water into hydrogen and oxygen
-Steam electrolysis utilizes high temperature heat to reduce electricity requirements for hydrogen production
-Thermochemical water splitting uses chemicals and heat in multiple steps to split water into its component parts
-Photoelectrochemical systems use semi-conducting materials (like photovoltaics) to split water using only sunlight
-Photobiological systems use microorganisms to split water using sunlight
-Biological systems use microbes to break down a variety of biomass feedstocks into hydrogen
-Thermal water splitting uses a very high temperature (approximately 1000°C) to split water Gasification uses heat to break down biomass or coal into a gas from which pure hydrogen can be generated
Hey that's not bad at all actually!If I had to guess, in the face of limited oil supply, nuclear power and synthetic fuels will take off. It's possible to convert coal to sort of a synthetic petroleum products, which you can make diesel or gasoline. It's expensive, I read an article once that said DOE pilot programs saw that it was equivalent to $30/barrel oil in 1980, which after inflation is probably $70/barrel today. So I figure maybe ~$4/gallon gas and it's economically viable to run synthetic gas.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Hey that's not bad at all actually!
I still think that at $3 people will whine but not do much about their use of gas. Even at $4 we may end up trying to have smaller vehicles and stuff, but most of us can never bike to work or anything extreme like that.
