Gas prices soon to be $3.00 / gallon

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MetalMat

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
9,687
36
91
I need to seriously start biking to work, no matter how much my co-workers make fun of me ;)
 

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.
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.
New cars are designed to take extreme damage from car accidents. Manufacturers 30 years ago didn't have a fraction of the data from accident studies we have today. They just figured that bigger is better, which is the stereotypical ignorant great american pitfall.
Look at one of the newer vehicles that received horrible ratings in crash tests, the Ford F150. That vehicle got such poor ratings because the weight of the vehicle would continue to push it through whatever it hit after contact. What did ford do, they redesigned the frame with a more modern crumple zone type design, and it gets best pick for safety.
Had this been the early 70's Ford would have just made it bigger and heavier, making the initial problem worse.
If you look at the statistics for number of deaths related to each type of car, american cars of all sizes and makes always top that list. Bigger is not better, though I'm not sure you will ever accept or understand that.

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.
Did you read the link he posted? The link that provides an official study that directly contradicts what you're saying.
Now I agree with you about the continuing strain on resources the suburban sprawl is creating. Though if you take a few moments longer than it took you to post this then you would realize that what you are saying is directly contradicting what you said in the same post. If the suburban sprawl is widening, and people have longer commutes, then they are on average driving more miles. So what is it, are they driving the same amount of miles, or more? You are asserting both points...... I'll make it easy for you, they are driving more miles.

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?
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 up
Would would have dreamed that people who were raised on detroit iron would take to quickly to a smaller, cheaper, longer lasting, more efficient vehicle?!!? Thoes crazy consumers, always looking out for themselves! It's their fault they demanded a superior product at a better price!

Ornery your posts about cars are really funny usually, many could easily be mistaken for satire.
 

Attrox

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2004
1,120
0
0
Waynetek, are you an accountant?
You break down the prices in the original post and I remember that you also break down the cost in the ahem.. legendary thread of yours ;)
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Let's go one step at a time, and pay particular attention to text in bold:

Originally posted by: SampSon
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.
1974.. 1984? I think he's talking about vehicles newer than 20-30 years ago.

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!


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?
Overnight? It took japanese automobile companies many many years to gain market share...
consumers changed their automobile preference overnight. Where did I say japanese automobile companies gained market share overnight?

If you haven't already guessed, this is a pretty sore subject!
 

Baked

Lifer
Dec 28, 2004
36,052
17
81
Guess what the prices of my local Shell are?

251
263
273

Man, I can't wait till summer.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
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.
methinks the weakening dollar has a lot more to do with higher oil prices than a lot of other factors.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
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.
methinks the weakening dollar has a lot more to do with higher oil prices than a lot of other factors.
Explains some other things, too, but they go beyond the purview of ATOT. ;)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: ElFenix
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.
methinks the weakening dollar has a lot more to do with higher oil prices than a lot of other factors.
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?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
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!
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
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!

:shocked:

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.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
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!
:shocked:

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.
Really? And where will we get the hydrogen?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? And where will we get the hydrogen?
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.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
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!
:shocked:

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.
Really? And where will we get the hydrogen?
From the air? From water?

BTW,
http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/st...LATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-03-30-18-49-45
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.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Vic
Really? And where will we get the hydrogen?
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.
I hope so. Not counting on it though... too many irrational fears.

Originally posted by: conjur
From the air? From water?
:roll: As soon as Congress repeals the Law of Conservation of Energy, right? :roll:
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: ElFenix
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.
methinks the weakening dollar has a lot more to do with higher oil prices than a lot of other factors.
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?

actually, i believe i posted a thread several months ago asking what % of the increase in the price of a barrel is due to the dollar's weakening.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: conjur
From the air? From water?
:roll: As soon as Congress repeals the Law of Conservation of Energy, right? :roll:
Sure.


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
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: conjur
From the air? From water?
:roll: As soon as Congress repeals the Law of Conservation of Energy, right? :roll:
Sure.


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


That list troubles me. If 95% of all hydrogen comes from natural gas, it's still an indirect fossil fuel. It says it's broken down into hydrogen and carbon monoxide (CO), but that carbon has to go somewhere and if I had to guess it's probably just released into the atmosphere, which then probably reacts with oxygen in the air to become carbon dioxide (CO2). Unless you heavily process it (very expensive energy wise), it almost certainly becomes CO2 down the line. In such a scenario, you might as well just run cars off CNG, since you waste less energy on the additional processing.

Using electrolysis to make hydrogen gas and then calling it an "energy source" is retarded. There's no free lunch in energy and it takes more energy to break apart water than you'll get back by burning it. Using solar panels is still a bad idea because solar cells generally take more energy to manufacture than the cells ever produce in their expected lifetimes. The only way hydrogen is a true energy source is if nuclear fusion reactors become commonplace, which is decades away, if ever.

I'm not too familiar with microbial processing, but it sounds like a potential ecological disaster if those were at all effective and got released into any natural body of water.


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.

There's too much oil infrastructure for us to abandon, so this is probably the easiest and cheapest way to not fall back into the dark ages. :p
 

dragonballgtz

Banned
Mar 9, 2001
2,334
0
0
I would not be surprised if most major cities residence start to ride their bike to work. I know I'm going to once the prices hit $3.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
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.
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.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
OS, now you see why I made that comment to Conjur about Congress repealing the Law of Conservation of Energy? Some fsckin' people just don't get it. A hydrogen fuel cell is not an energy source, it's a battery. Nothing more. Energy cannot be magically created. Oil exists as an energy source because it is the stored power of the sun over millions of years from millions of years ago. You may not like it, but there is currently nothing better, short of developing nuclear or biological alternatives.

As for this whole oil price thing (and to ElFenix and I suppose to Ornery), the idea of a fiat currency is a myth. I can already see the eyes rolling :p , but it's true. Absent an official currency standard, the economy finds one. In our case, it's oil and has been for decades. When the price of oil goes down relative to the dollar, that means our economy is up and our buying power is increased. When the price of oil goes up relative to the dollar, our economy is down and our buying power is decreased. IMO people praying for the price to continue going up or saying it's no big deal have no fsckin clue what they are talking about. Consumption will not miraculously decrease simply because the price goes up. Instead, rampant inflation will devastate the economy. In fact, this happened before, and was called the 70s. Not fun times for most folks.

EVERYTHING in our civilization depends on oil. Without it you'd be hitchin' up your mule right now and we'd all be living in a pre-industrial state. It is impossible to overstate its importance to us. There is nothing that you own, wear, or possess that was not brought to via the miracle of oil. Your food was grown with oil, your clothes were made with oil, your house was built with oil, the chair you sit on was made with oil as was the computer you're reading this from, and it was all delivered to you by oil. Quit knocking it.
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
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.

The estimates I've seen vary alot, I've seen as low as a few dollars more per barrel to 4 times more expensive. The DOE one seemed like a middle of the road number.

EPA paper

That report mentions that synthetic diesel costs only $8/gal more per barrel. It's also supposed to be cleaner burning than conventional.

The technology is usually called the Fischer Tropsch process, Germany used this technology in WW2 to wage war against the world. South Africa also uses this technology to this day for gas.

There are also processes to convert natural gas into synthetic petroleum also. AFAIK, there are viable processes now to convert any hydrocarbon into natural gas or synthetic petroleum. I don't know though how much refining is involved in the various types, and of course less is better.

Tied into this are methane hydrates which are sort of ice/natural gas crystals that are very common on ocean floors and estimated to hold hundreds of years worth of energy. If it proves to be even partially recoverable, you can also make synthetic petroleum from this, or even just run most cars off CNG.

There's alot of material on this on the net, I'm surprised that this technology isn't mentioned more often in the no more oil economic armageddon scenarios. :p
Interesting material either way, and atleast the dark ages aren't coming anytime soon.