# Oil Hits $55/Barrel: Time To Trade In That SUV? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2005, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067 "2005-03-05T09:26:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/21 "2005-03-06T00:25:50Z")
> [@RancidYakButterTeaParty](#): > > from [here](http://www.money.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/03/04/cnopec04.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2005/03/04/ixfrontcity.html) Looks like oil might jump to $80/barrel in the next two years. I guess this translates to about a 10% increase in the price per gallon. So about 20 more cents per gallon is the estimate. I don’t see how this follows. If oil prices jump 45% ($55 -\> $80 /bbl), then wouldn’t gasoline jump the same amount? If so, then the 2.10 I paid yesterday would jump about .90/gallon. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/22 "2005-03-06T01:09:01Z")
This thread feels more like a debate/opinion one, rather than asking for a concise answer to a quesiton. So, off to Great Debates. **samclem** GQ moderator ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/23 "2005-03-06T01:13:30Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > I don’t see how this follows. If oil prices jump 45% ($55 -\> $80 /bbl), then wouldn’t gasoline jump the same amount? If so, then the 2.10 I paid yesterday would jump about .90/gallon. Crude prices are only one component of the cost of gasoline. There’s also the cost of refining and the cost of distributing. Both of those will go up as the crude price goes up, as they both require energy, but they won’t go up to the same degree, and hence neither should the price of gasoline. But I have no idea if the 10% conclusion is right. Seems low to me. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/24 "2005-03-06T01:24:57Z")
Good lord, Balthisar, where in the heck did that rant come from? > [@Balthisar](#): > > Don’t you realize I work for the biggest manufacturer of SUV’s in the world, and my livlihood depends on SUVs No… No I don’t. Since your never mentioned it, there is no way I could know . And frankly, I couldn’t care less. > [@](#): > > Then we’ll dissect your diatribe. my ummm… diatribe? Did you happen to read YOUR post? Wow. You seem to be angry that you work for a company that makes SUV’s. And you are angry at people that buy your product. Just… Wow. My diatribe? This is one for the books. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/25 "2005-03-06T01:38:11Z")
re oil v. gas prices: I managed to google [this](http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2004/fcvt_fotw316.shtml) up, which shows a timeline from 1/98 thru 1/2004 of oil v. gas prices. During that period, oil prices rose 100% while gas prices rose 44%. So if 44% of every dollar rise in oil prices is translated to gasoline prices, then a price rise from $55 to $80 would translate into a ~20% jump in gas prices. So my theoretical $2.10 gallon might cost me $2.50. I’d be interested to know how direct/what proportion of oil prices relate to gas prices. I may start a GQ thread, if this hasn’t been done before. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/26 "2005-03-06T01:40:56Z")
On review: what **Sam** said: the big problem with oil price jumps is that it’s a huge brake on the US and world economy. Everything gets more expensive to make, transport, etc, which translates to lost jobs and lost profits. Not good. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/27 "2005-03-06T02:45:46Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Just… Wow. My diatribe? This is one for the books. I guess irony just doesn’t work with you either. While irony’s not something specific to the English language, it’s fundamental to clear communication and understanding of the language, which as I’ve plainy said (not just suggested!) you have a hard time grasping. That’s not a personal attack; we all have our handicaps. I, for one, wear glasses. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/28 "2005-03-06T04:24:12Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > I’d be interested to know how direct/what proportion of oil prices relate to gas prices. I may start a GQ thread, if this hasn’t been done before. The pump prices don’t track in percentage terms very well with oil prices because the other components of price may not be moving in the same percentage, may not be changing in the same direction or may not be changing at all. For example, federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon whatever the pump price and your state tax is most likely fixed as well. So the percentage of that component to price is changing with price, requiring the remaining component percentages to change. Retailer markup in cents per gallon usually decline as prices rise, as the total profit is sensitive to the number of drivers who stop and buy food/drink items. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/29 "2005-03-06T13:35:58Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > That doesn’t mean there’s a crisis coming, it just means we’ll see an accelerated move to new fuel sources and technologies. Nuclear is about to make a huge comeback, and it’s about damned time. I predict that within five years there will be a big new wave of construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S. - as oil prices increase, the U.S. will start to lose competitive advantages to countries that have cheaper forms of energy, including nuclear. France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear power, for example. China is rapidly building nuclear plants. So expect that to be the wave of the near future. What connection exactly are you making between oil prices and electrical generation in the US? What do you base your nuclear prediction on? Working for a company that builds nuclear power plants, I don’t see it in the US and people have been predicting the revival of nuclear on this Board since 1999. China has had a large percentage increase in nuclear, but the absolute numbers are small. Even that 12GW of capacity they plan to add by about 2015 or so is only 2/3 the size of Three Gorges. > [@chappachula](#): > > a more interesting issue (but more appropriate to GD) is : > Why are Americans so psychotically fixated on gasoline prices? > > In every European country, prices are 4 or 5 times more expensive, and people accept it as a normal part of life. But Americans go beserk at the thought. > Americans don’t complain about paying $150 for a minor visit to the doctor’s office–but if they have to pay an extra $1.50 in gasoline to drive there , it’s the end of the world. First off, IME “Americans” are not “psychotically fixated” on gasoline prices any more than English. Every single time I visit or stay in England with family and friends the subject of petrol prices comes up. Every single time. Perhaps you should Google a bit on the petrol strikes we’ve had in England, and the talk recently of Devon “blockading the roads” in protest over high petrol prices. So, cite about Amercians being “psychotically fixated” and “going beserk”? Definition of “going beserk” over petrol prices, even if it is the tax portion: [BBC News | UK | Action on vital fuel supplies](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/920527.stm) Funny too that my friends in Spain and Portugal complain to me on the phone about how high their prices are. Maybe I just know a lot of whiners, yeah, that’s it. :rolleyes: Second, prices are not “4 or 5 times more expensive”. With US petrol at $2.25 or so a gallon, that equates to about 31-35p per liter depending on the exchange rate. January 2005 Regional petrol prices for 95 octane in the UK are roughly 79.6p per liter, or about 2.5 times more expensive, of which a huge portion is tax. [http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/fuel/](http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/fuel/) Or if we look at Europe in general, seeing about 94.5c per liter, that equates to about $4.73 per gallon. Where’s that 4 to 5 times? I’m sure some countries like Holland and Denmark have much higher prices, but if you’re going to say “in every European country” then you might want to back it up with facts instead of just spouting off rhetoric. [http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/petrolprices/](http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/petrolprices/) You know, these links just aren’t that hard to look up. Third, cite that Americans pay $150 for a minor visit to the doctor’s office and don’t complain about it? Remember, a lot of us have this thing called “health insurance” and remember, there’s no such thing as “free health care” - NHS gets paid for right out of your paycheck. And I hear an earful from friends and family every time I go to England about how high the NHS tax is, as well as how poor the service is… And in America, high medical costs are sort of a main political issue over the last, oh, couple decades or so. Fourth, your post was neither appropriate to GQ or GD. Go to the Pit or to another message board if you want to do the typical shopworn anti-American sniping, but leave GQ (where you started your post, before this thread was moved) to the few people remaining interested in discussing facts and experience. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/30 "2005-03-06T15:02:49Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > I guess irony just doesn’t work with you either. While irony’s not something specific to the English language, it’s fundamental to clear communication and understanding of the language, which as I’ve plainy said (not just suggested!) you have a hard time grasping. That’s not a personal attack; we all have our handicaps. I, for one, wear glasses. Balthisar, Your post, #6 clearly accuses SUV buyers of just trying to be ‘cool’ like everyone else. That’s what I take exception to. And as far as Irony? Well it’s pretty clear that you have a bias against SUV’s, yet your livelyhood depends on SUV’s. Is that the Irony you’re talking about? Well, you never mentioned that your living depended on SUV’s until you exploded in post #20. How am I supposed to know what you do for a living and get your ‘irony’. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/31 "2005-03-06T15:42:13Z")
To some degree the higher oil prices have hurt SUV sales but the benifits of SUV’s are very hard to ignore for the consumer. I personally no longer feel safe in a small car, mainly due to all the large SUV’s running around. There is a market that has been opening up for years of inbetween ‘crossover’ vechials. They give some of the cargo space of the large SUV’s along with outstanding 4/AWD systems which are most likely superior to truck 4WD systems for on road conditions, and they get pretty decent gas miliage for such capabilities, some just topping 30 mpg (one a/t AWD from GM gets 31 or 32 hwy, forgot the model however). > [@](#): > > The biggest problem is is the massive increase in energy requirements in China and India as they become 1st world countries. Also we are in sort of a cold war with China, and it is in our best interest to hinder their tech advancement, one way is to cause the price of world wide energy to rise, making it much harder for them to obtain the energy they need to make a transition to a ‘superpower’ - My humble O. > [@](#): > > The next technology jump in vehicles will be ‘plug-in hybrids’. Take the same hybrid vehicle you have now, put a bigger battery in it, and charge it before you leave for work. Actually I see quite the opposite. A main gas engine would handle most propulsion, but a much smaller then current hybrid electric battery bank would be used for acceleration and recharge on deceleration. This might also be a pneumatic system instead of a electric system. The benefits of such a system is smaller more efficent gas engine with the same power as a larger one, lighter vechical due to less batteries, more space available due to less batteries, possible on-demand AWD capabilities as the ‘non powered’ wheels could be the ones that get the electric/pneumatic motor power. Also perhaps a pneumatic system could be used to drive the pistions of a IC engine directly instead of expanding combustion gasses. Plug in systems OTHO have some inherent drawbacks, one of which is that the power plant (which would increase our demand for electricity, which might require more oil anyway. has ineficencies, as well as the power transmission system, charger efficencies and battery charging efficencies (which are horriable on nearly fully charged lead-acid batts). I don’t see plug in cars an an answer to our energy needs, just a local polution need. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/32 "2005-03-06T16:05:30Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > This might also be a pneumatic system instead of a electric system. Interesting. Perhaps shutting off the flow of fuel to a few cylinders and using the compressed air as a boost? Could you get enough air through a line fast enough to do that? What kind of PSI are we talking about here? Hmmmmm. What is the PSI created in an engine? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/33 "2005-03-06T16:26:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Perhaps shutting off the flow of fuel to a few cylinders and using the compressed air as a boost? > > Could you get enough air through a line fast enough to do that? > > What kind of PSI are we talking about here? Hmmmmm. What is the PSI created in an engine? > Reply With Quote I don’t know if a commercial pneumatic system would work in the engine cylinders as opposed to a seperate pneumatic engine, but it should be possible. I suspect a max tank pressure of 5000 PSI would be obtainable. Scuba uses 3000 as a standard and some can go higher. Firefighters also use higher pressures. I don’t know about the losses on the way to the engine. The PSI of a gasoline engine would not be an accurate comparison as the gas exerts max PSI at (close to) TDC, while a pneumatic engine would have almost constant PSI all through the power stroke, and can actually convert to a 2 stroke action, more then doubling power. This would require instant valve timing ability, perhaps the valves would be electronic actuators instead of mechanically driven. An interesting aside, it should also be possible to use the compressed air of a pneumatic hybrid as a supercharger. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/34 "2005-03-06T16:39:21Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > We’ll survive. The incresed cost will promote more research into other energy options. Now or later. Doesn’t really matter. Well . . . yeah . . . except research does not **always** produce the entire results. Do not confuse technology with magic. Some things are technically impossible, so far as we know – perpetual motion machines, faster-than-light drives, etc. My Dad owns a Toyota Prius gas-electric hybrid. It gets 50 mpg. Which, if everybody bought one, would serve all our transportation needs adequately – until oil hits **$110** a barrel (or inflation-adjusted equivalent) – which it will, sooner or later, the global supply being finite, and consumption demand rising every year as China and India become more modernized. And for all we know, the energy efficiency of the Prius is **as good as it gets.** That is, what we want is some kind of automobile engine that runs at even greater fuel-efficiency than a Prius, or runs on some potentially renewable fuel such as hydrogen, while still yielding the level of performance (in pickup, speed, reliability) we have come to expect of a gasoline-powered vehicle. But it might be the case that such a thing is impossible and 50 years of well-funded research won’t make a bit of difference. E.g., there are a lot of theoretical objections to hydrogen fuel cells as an automobile power source, and it might or might not be possible to overcome them. If it isn’t, we will eventually have to consider the unthinkable: Modifying our lifestyles. Living with less personal transportation mobility, or building mass-transit systems. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/35 "2005-03-06T16:47:50Z")
From _The City in Mind_ by James Howard Kunstler (New York: The Free Press, 2001), – the chapter on Atlanta, pp. 60, 73-75: > [@](#): > > A current popular belief in America is that “alternative fuels” could replace gasoline in the vehicles we use and that the system could merrily roll along without petroleum as if nothing had happened. This a dangerous delusion. The truth is that no known “alternative technology,” including hydrogen, fuel cell, electricity, nuclear, or alcohol from biomass, can take the place of gasoline in the way we have organized our lives, especially where cars and trucks are concerned. None of the touted alternative fuels is as versatile as gasoline, or can be produced for anything close to the cheap price of gas we’ve been accustomed to, or can be stored or transported as easily. The electric car is not going to save Atlanta. > > * * * > > I believe the world is entering a long era of chronic instability in oil markets that no amount of wishing or pretending will hold back. By the time this book is publised – a year from now – I shall be surprised if we are not experiencing the initial effects. The two oil-producing regions that allowed America to postpone this reckoning for twenty-five years, the Alaskan North Slope fields, and the North Sea fields (belonging to Britain and Norway), are scheduled to pass their production peaks this year, and after that, most of the oil in the world will be controlled by people who don’t like us, or contained in regions to chaotic to engage in the complex business of oil extraction. The Middle East regions containing the greatest reserves will be the last to peak, but long before they do, the oil markets will destabilize. In the current American mood of narcotized inattention, the point can’t be emphasized enough that it is not necessary for oil reserves to run out before world oil markets are severely destabilized. And when that occurs, industrial economies will be painfully compromised. > > We Americans cherish a set of delusions to minimize or deflect the seriousness of this. As already touched on, we believe that we can run a drive-in civilization on some fuel other than petroleum. The actual prospects for this are dim, but we base our belief (a wish, really) on the spectacular cavalcade of technological achievements that occurred in the previous century, one astonishing novelty after another: airplanes, movies, radio, TV, antibiotics, Teflon, computers, automobiles themselves. (The lingering “victory disease” from our great triumph in World War Two still stokes our delusions of invincibility.) Alternative energy sources such as natural gas, biomass, coal, nuclear power, solar power, fuel cells, and so forth, will fall far short of compensating for disrupted oil markets. It will be a hard lesson. The world’s fleet of eleven thousand jet airplanes will not run on coal or plutonium. Massive disruptions to transportation and business will occur. The “global economy” as touted in recent years – meaning the long-range transport of enormous quantities of cheap goods virtually everywhere – will join mercantile imperialism in the history books. Food production, which depends heavily on oil-based fertilizers, will be affected by oil market disturbances. The Caesar salad that travels twenty-five hundred miles from California to somebody’s table in Atlanta will become an object of nostalgia. Farming will have to become much more labor-intensive, will have to be practiced on a far smaller scale, and done much closer to market. Half a million other products, from medicine, asphalt, paint and detergent to plastic trash bags, are also derived from oil. As the oil markets destabilize, shortages and fluctuating prices in oil will hinder industry from even addressing the problem of converting societies to other forms of energy. > > The fact is that we are an oil-based economy. A peculiar destiny allowed Americans to rely on seemingly limitless cheap oil for the half century following World War Two. We invested hugely in the infrastructure of an everyday life dedicated to cheap oil. Edge City is the climactic efflorescence of that, and Atlanta is the epitome of Edge City. It is also a prime example of what historian Joseph Tainter called _the overinvestment in complexity with diminishing returns,_ an unfortunate human tendency to repeatedly overshoot the limits of growth. The last thing America needed in the late twentieth century was Edge City, and it may be the last big present we can give ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/36 "2005-03-06T16:52:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Well . . . yeah . . . except research does not always produce the entire results. Given enough time it should at least come up with an alternative that makes the sort result no longer needed. > [@](#): > > Some things are technically impossible,… And for all we know, the energy efficiency of the Prius is as good as it gets. We are not talking about something that violates a law of physics and a Prius is not as good as it gets efficiency wise, far from it. The main problem is the method we use to get power from fuel. We convert it to heat, then use that heat to extract energy. Whenever you convert something to heat you have inefficiencies when you want to convert it to something else. This is a law of physics. But there is no reason to make the conversion to heat at all. Fuel cells convert fuel to electrical energy at much higher efficencies, in theory this can be 100%, while this is impossialbe for heat engine (unless you come up with antigravity monoploes with negative mass in a wormhole). ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/37 "2005-03-06T16:56:50Z")
I can see a lot of good resulting from the end of cheap oil: -We will no longer be able to shipjobs to China; shipping stuff will be so expensive. this means we can make our oWN cars, furniture, clothing, tools, etc., instead of importing them from China. -local farming will come back-Id much rather buy locally-grown product than stuff grown in the Third World (using cslave labor and sewage water) -we can have cleaner air -finally, we need to accelerate the enfd of commuting to work-its much better if you work at home. Maintianing the huge inter-city highway network is becoming a very expensive burden-we can spen our money on making our cities LIVEABLE (instead of warehouses for the poor and drug addicted). ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/38 "2005-03-06T17:23:16Z")
> [@](#): > > I can see a lot of good resulting from the end of cheap oil: I believe one of the reasons for the end of slavery world wide\* was the industral revolution in which a key part was cheap energy, insofar as cheaper then slave energy. The end of cheap energy might be a return to slavery in one form or another. - By the end of slavery world wide I am excluding many countries and lands in this wide world that presently still allow slavery, and to other countries and areas in the wide world that does not activally enforce slavery laws. > [@](#): > > -We will no longer be able to shipjobs to China; shipping stuff will be so expensive. this means we can make our oWN cars, furniture, clothing, tools, etc., instead of importing them from China. I agree that higher energy costs will help shift jobs locally. Combining a return to slavery with this, perhaps China will ship us products in oar powered ships. > [@](#): > > -local farming will come back-Id much rather buy locally-grown product than stuff grown in the Third World (using cslave labor and sewage water) Again we might see a return to slave labor locally. Also much fertilizers are made from oil or nat gas, if the prices are too high we might see a return to using sewer water for crops. > [@](#): > > finally, we need to accelerate the enfd of commuting to work-its much better if you work at home. I’m not sure we would see this. Not all jobs can be done telecommution, and there is far less social interaction. What I see more likley is that the middle classes will be forced to move closer to work, as those areas convert to slums while the rich can buy up all the surburban land and drive to work in their up-armored hummers. > [@](#): > > Maintianing the huge inter-city highway network is becoming a very expensive burden- I agree it is expensive, but it is the mass transit system that the US has adopted. It’s going to be something very hard to change. ---
**Author:** ![Abbie\_Carmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@Abbie\_Carmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abbie_Carmichael)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/39 "2005-03-06T18:41:30Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > (slight hijack) > a more interesting issue (but more appropriate to GD) is : > \*Why are Americans so psychotically fixated on gasoline prices? \* > > In every European country, prices are 4 or 5 times more expensive, and people accept it as a normal part of life. But Americans go beserk at the thought. > Americans don’t complain about paying $150 for a minor visit to the doctor’s office–but if they have to pay an extra $1.50 in gasoline to drive there , it’s the end of the world. It’s because unless you live in a big city, you don’t really have any alternatives BUT to drive. Despite what the TV shows, most of us don’t have access to subways, bus lines that run every 5 minutes, etc. From what I understand of Europe, the land and the cities/towns are laid out such that you can do quite a bit of walking. I’m in the 2nd biggest city in WV and riding the bus to school would take 1 hour. Getting home would take 2 hours, and because of where I live, I’m screwed after 7pm, because that’s when the bus stops making runs here. Cabs? Not unless you want to pay about $25 to get where you’re going; they’re outrageous here because most people never use them. A cab to the mall would cost me about as much as a tank of gas would. And I’m “lucky.” Where I grew up, there _is_ no mass transportation, period. Nada. Everything is so spread out that in most places walking is out of the question. Theoretically, I could walk to Wal-Mart; it’s only about 4 miles away. I’d be walking on the interstate the entire time, and I’d only be able to buy about 5 pounds worth of stuff; and it’d take me quite a while to get home. (And then there’s the whole thing about it sitting on top of a mountain.) Sure, most Americans could walk to a lot of the places they go often (post office, bank, etc). But it would entail quitting their jobs to do it. As far as the doctor thing, I don’t see your comparison. Most people don’t pay out of pocket for the entire visit — if they did, they definitely aren’t going to go to the doctor for a “minor” visit. Also, your average American doesn’t go that often anyway. If you’re generally healthy, you’re gonna go what? Once a year? We fill up our tanks at least once a week, though. Over time, the extra money we’re paying adds up. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/40 "2005-03-06T18:45:55Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > What connection exactly are you making between oil prices and electrical generation in the US? I admit I didn’t state my case very well. What I was trying to say is that as oil costs rise, we’ll see a move to hybrids and especially ‘plug-in’ hybrids (which are already nearing production). But if people start plugging in their cars at night, it’s going to cause a rapid rise in electricity demand. Maybe all that demand will be met by a rapid buildup of coal plants, but it’s just my feeling that nuclear is making a comeback. [Info about Plug-In Hybrids](http://www.hybridcars.com/plugin-hybrids.html) > [@](#): > > What do you base your nuclear prediction on? Working for a company that builds nuclear power plants, I don’t see it in the US and people have been predicting the revival of nuclear on this Board since 1999. Well, thats true, and I certainly would defer to your industry expertise. But it seems to me that the rapid rise in oil prices caught you guys napping as much as the rest of us. If they stay high, it will change the political calculus. But I could be wrong - as you say, some of us have been predicting the imminent revival of nuclear power for half a decade now. > [@](#): > > First off, IME “Americans” are not “psychotically fixated” on gasoline prices any more than English. Every single time I visit or stay in England with family and friends the subject of petrol prices comes up. Every single time. Perhaps you should Google a bit on the petrol strikes we’ve had in England, and the talk recently of Devon “blockading the roads” in protest over high petrol prices. So, cite about Amercians being “psychotically fixated” and “going beserk”? This is a very valid point against those who think that SUVs are going to vanish when prices go up a bit. Here in Canada, we have just as many, if not more SUVs than the U.S. does. And yet, depending on the province we pay anywhere from 78 to 90 cents per liter, which works out to about $US 3.33/gallon. And I don’t even hear people doing a lot of complaining about gas prices. I fill my SUV up once every couple of weeks, and it costs about $40 each time. $80/mo is less than I pay for my parking space. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067.md?page=3)