Raped at the pump again - when will it end? What can we do?

[What_Exit]

@Una Persson

I post the numbers/breakdown in one thread or another about every 3-6 months. Coal produces about 50-55% depending on how you measure it and which recent year you examine, and oil is between 2-3%. I don’t even need to look these up, because I keep having to post them.

Thanks:
We actually had this cleared up in post 92 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6512394&postcount=92
and 98 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6512562&postcount=98

@cricetus

It’s just a really, really poor use of words.

I need to second or third the comments of just let it slide, it is a common expression and not really an attempt to equate Rape to High Prices.

@Argent Towers

I’m not going to opine on it one way or the other, but a huge number of people think that the U.S. government’s current administration is oppressive - and it got voted back into office. Something can be oppressive (or be thought to be oppressive) and still get re-elected.

Your correct, a huge number of us do find the current government oppressive, but obviously there was not enough of us and lets face it, couldn’t the Democrats have come up with a better candidate. They found one of the last of the liberals, Dean appealed much more to moderates like me. I voted for Kerry but I really really did not want to.

[tnetennba]

@jrfranchi

I need to second or third the comments of just let it slide, it is a common expression and not really an attempt to equate Rape to High Prices.

So common, I’ve neve heard it in this context. Nope. Never. Robbed, goughed, ripped off, etc. – even screwed, rogered and fucked – but not raped.

[RickJay]

@Evil Captor

Doesn’t matter how you or I feel about them doing it – you approve heartily, I guess – they’ll do it, and that’s the point, like it or not.

Well, no, the point is that it’s stupid to complain the “Middle Eastern oil ticks” are “gouging” you. You’re not being gouged, so stop crying like a little girl. You’re being charged the market price for a commodity that’s still cheaper than 7-Up. And incidentally, the Middle East provides far less than half of the crude oil used by the USA, so you don’t even have your geography correct.

[Fear_Itself]

I hope you all filled your tanks this weekend, because gas is cheaper today that it will be tomorrow , and for the forseeable futere. Crude oil is currently over $70/barrel on the overnight market (nearly $4 more than the market close on Friday), and will prabably go higher tomorrow. We are looking a another 20¢/gallon increase in the price of gas over the next 10 days.

[Sam_Stone]

I’ve always said that the solution to the slow decline of oil would come from the market. Prices will go up, and resources will start to flow to alternatives.

Well, here come the high prices. I’m not sure we’ve seen the last of cheaper oil, but it’ll never be $14/barrel again. Might not ever be $40/barrel again.

And that’s a good thing. If it truly represents the relative supply vs demand for the stuff, then that price is sending us important information. So things will start to change.

We don’t need hydrogen fuel cells to save us. There are a number of technologies that are going to be very soon available. Electric cars, for example. The GM EV1 has been driving around for years, and the owners love them. They have a range of 55-95 miles. But they’re old technology. The newer batteries and electric motors can achieve ranges of hundreds of miles with reasonable power available.

In the meantime, we’ve made great strides with engine technology. New engines have good power and good mileage. My wife’s car has 227 HP and gets 29 mpg on the highway.

These two developments are going to lead to a new type of hybrid - the plug-in hybrid. The big limitation in all-electric was the need to provide a battery large enough to accomodate that 10% of trips where you need to go more than 100 miles. But a plug-in hybrid only needs to have a battery big enough to give it commuting range, maybe 30-50 miles. Much smaller battery, and you can have more horsepower.

Another revolution is in manufacturing of cars. The Lotus Elise uses an advanced hydroformed ‘bathtub’ frame to give it strength with light weight. The car weighs 1800 lbs, and as a result it can perform like a Corvette except with 180HP and get over 30 mpg. Take that same chassis, put a 60 HP engine in it, and you have a fine commuter car that has a hybrid drivetrain that rarely even switches the gas engine on, because he can make it to work and back on a charge. The gas engine might start once in a week or something, and he might average 500 mpg when commuting.

Then throw in flex-fuel capability: gas, gasohol, ethanol, whatever. That’s probably what the car of the future looks like, at least in the next 20 years or so.

And the nice thing is, if we figure out hydrogen fuel cells, the cars can remain almost unchanged, because the car’s drivetrain stays electric. It will be easy to transition to hydrogen from that stage.

There remains the electricity, and where it comes from. And this is where I think we’re going to have to admit that we need to build a whole lot of nuclear plants. A couple of hundred of them, anyway.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@jshore

It kind of gets confusing that you seem to be constantly mixing the concept of what the fuel economy is for cars made by European manufacturers but sold in the U.S. with the idea of what Europeans drive in their own countries. Do you comprehend this rather important distinction?

Demonstrate to me that a Porsche 911 sold in Europe is substantially different from the one sold here. Or that an Opel is susbstantially different from a Chevrolet (hint: it isn’t, since they’re both made by GM). No automaker is going to make a gazillion different versions of a motor for everywhere they sell it, because that’s just not cost effective. In fact, the GM Ecotec is referred to as a “world” engine, and for a 2.2 liter four cylinder engine its gas mileage eats. GM claims over 30 mpg highway. I say that they’re dreaming. Certainly not the one I have.

The cars are all essentially the same, with the exception of a few safety issues here or there.

[What_Exit]

Looks like Katrina may also cause a further increase in Oil prices.

Katrina cuts oil output by a third
As storm gathers strength and heads toward land, there’s plenty to fear in the oil patch.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/28/news/economy/katrina_oil.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

[John_Mace]

@Evil Captor

I doubt if it’s being used for research much. Good question, though.

Some of it is. The DoE’s web site on Hydrogen Fuel Cells has details of the plans and budget. The ~$200M for Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology in 2006 is quite a bit lower than your proposal, but the total “Science” bduget is ~$3.5B. That, of course, does not include private industry investment or the investment being made in other countries.

The point I’d like to make, though, is let’s look at the total expenditures before we rush to impose another tax to spend more. It might be the right thing to do, but let’s not forget the lessons of the past about how government programs often get politicized into pork barrel projects for Congressmen. Remember the Synfuels programs from a few decades ago? They were supposed to save us from petroleum dependancy after the energy crises of the 1970s, but I don’t see many people driving cars today using that technology.

[Gymnopithys]

Analysts say that motorists will not stop using their cars until gas reaches $12 a gallon. You’ve still got a margin… :rolleyes:

[Telemark]

@Airman Doors

The cars are all essentially the same, with the exception of a few safety issues here or there.

I think the point is that while there are some European cars that do guzzle gas (such as the 911, Lambo, RR, Bently) they are sold in very small quantities, both in Europe and the US. The vast, vast majority of European cars that are actually sold in Europe have small efficient engines and get much better gas milage than cars actually sold in the US.

The fact that VW makes the Phaeton (?) doesn’t detract from the fact that they sell a huge number of Polos. (Not sure of the model names, sorry).

So what if the top 10 gas guzzlers are all European makes if they only comprise .0001% of the cars sold.

[jshore]

…What Telemark said…

Here is an article that gives the following fuel economy numbers for 1991…admittedly a bit out-of-date:

U.S…20.1 mpg
Europe…25.0
Japan…21.8 mpg

Although the big story in that article was how much the U.S. had narrowed the gap between them since the early 1970s, my guess would be that, if anything, the gap has widened again with the growing use of SUVs and pickup trucks in the U.S. since 1991.

Oh, and here is a recent article with some selected numbers:

Societies adjust over decades to higher fuel prices," says Jos Dings, head of Transport and Energy, a coalition of European environmental NGOs. “They find many mechanisms.”

Chief among them, say experts, is the habit of driving smaller and more fuel-efficient cars. While the average light duty vehicle on US highways gets 21.6 miles per gallon (m.p.g.), according to a study by the Paris based International Energy Agency (IEA), in Paris, its European counterpart manages 32.1 m.p.g.

“European consumers are very sensitive to fuel economy and sophisticated about engine options,” says Lew Fulton, a transport analyst with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). “European car magazines are full of comparisons of fuel costs over the life of a vehicle.”

…

But efficiency alone does not explain the huge disparity between fuel-use figures on either side of the Atlantic: European per capita consumption of gas and diesel stood at 286 liters a year in 2001, compared to 1,624 in the US, according to IEA figures.

Admittedly, part of the reason why European cars are more efficient is that they have a much higher proportion of diesel cars, which is admittedly an approach that has been avoided in the U.S. at least partly because of the very strict controls on pollutant emissions here.

[Una_Persson]

@jrfranchi

Thanks:
We actually had this cleared up in post 92 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6512394&postcount=92
and 98 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6512562&postcount=98

Yes, and I saw that, and made my post to make a point. Why was there so much guesswork when this information was so easily available by using the Search function here, or the EIA? Not personalizing this, but resepctfully how can any “debate” over this topic exist when the readily-available basic facts are so difficult to put into play?

Speaking energy-wise, the other part of the equation is, a significant portion of that fuel oil is used as startup fuel for coal power plants, and it cannot be easily replaced by anything else. That startup generation is accounted for, and since a coal plant startup time can be quite long, it does add up. In addition, some coal plants use fuel oil as supplemental fuel, when they have a load limitation due to poor coal quality, or due to a maintenance or operations problem. Once again, this fuel oil generation must be reported.

Overall I would be surprised if in a typical year more than 1-1.5% of generation is actually true oil generation. However, this only focuses on the electric utility sector. The industrial heat/process sector, and private generation sector, does use a significant amount of oil. Tracking this is actually quite difficult because much of it is unregulated and does not require reporting to the controlling Federal and State authorities. However, energy audits I have done for States lead me to believe that portion might be as high as 10-15% in some States. On an MBtu basis though, the lion’s share of any power production is going to come from the utilities.

[RickJay]

@Sam Stone

There remains the electricity, and where it comes from. And this is where I think we’re going to have to admit that we need to build a whole lot of nuclear plants. A couple of hundred of them, anyway.

Which will only happen when people accept that they have to pay more for electricity.

Meh, I’d rather pay for juice than oil. At least you don’t have to bother pumping it.

[Apos]

@John Mace

Looks like a great business opportunity for you then. Go into the oil/gas business and undercut the “gougers”. You can make a tidy profit and do a service to mankind at the same time. What’s stopping you, or anyone else like you for that matter?

Heck, the American taxpayer can even be tricked into giving you billions for no reason at all from principled small government conservatives.

Though, to be fair to Boggette, there are probably some extremely high barriers to entry in this market, some of which are capital investment based, but probably others of which are monopolistic and government lobbying placed roadblocks.

[Johnny_L.A]

@asterion

Can it get safely on the interstate (up to 65 in six or seven seconds?) Does it have the power when you need it to make moves? Can you do at least 75 mph (the speed limit on most parts of the interstates out west)? This last one is very important.

My 1963 Triumph Herald (1147cc engine) takes considerably longer than six or seven seconds to get up to 65 mph. ‘Moves’ have to ble planned ahead of time (which you should do anyway, no matter what car you drive). I’ve gotten it up to 80 mph, but it’s not supposed to go that fast. The odometer isn’t working, but I should be getting at least 30 mpg in it.

A stock 1966 MGB (1798cc engine) has a 0-60 time of about 12 seconds. Mine (when I eventually get it) has a new alloy head that gives it a couple more horsepower. It has overdrive, so it should handle modern freeway speeds. Its mileage figures should be in the mid-to-upper-20s.

You are correct that things are spread out in the West. I do consider a 500 mile drive a reasonable one-day trip. (Heck, I’ve made several 1,200 mile trips in a day.) Being a slow car, I would not want to take the Herald on a long drive. But in my old MGB (which didn’t have overdrive) I did take several long trip (longest: Lancaster to Denver).

But I think you overstate the ‘need’ for fast accelleration and high speeds. I can integrate my Herald into traffic quite easily, even though it’s anemic by modern standards. When I was in L.A. (and here in the PNW as well) I saw more people who do not reach freeway speeds before the end of the on-ramp than people who do. Up here prople routinely drive 5 or 10 mph under the speed limit. They tend to stay to the right on multi-lane roads such as freeways, and the people who drive the speed limit or faster use the left lanes. Even in L.A. I could drive 55 mph if I wanted to, since there were four to six lanes on the freeway in my direction.

Yes, the ability to drive fast is very useful on long trips – although at the cost of higher fuel consumption. But in normal driving it’s not so important. Slowing down saves gas.

[clairobscur]

@SentientMeat

Of course, Airman, I said not that Europeans were perfect, but that they largely accepted high fuel prices as a means of dissuading fossil fuel use.].)

Maybe the british did, but the french certainly did not and complain a lot about rising gas price (though being accustomed to them, they didn’t complain (too) loudly about the price of gas being high at the first place).

But indeed, it probably was a smart choice, incitating people to rather buy smaller vehicles with a high milleage, incitating local and governmental authorities to devellop public transportation, and so on… So, we’re probably better prepared to face a possible peak of oil avaibility and possible permanent price rise in the future without needing a complete change of habbits, reorganization of urbanism, built of public transportation systems from scratch, etc…

[Sam_Stone]

@RickJay

Which will only happen when people accept that they have to pay more for electricity.

Meh, I’d rather pay for juice than oil. At least you don’t have to bother pumping it.

When someone gets a utility bill for $700, and is told that if they will allow a nuclear plant to be built in their area the utility bill will drop to $200, then you’ll see opposition to nuclear melt away, in my opinion.

If electric cars become widespread, it’s going to heavily strain the current electricity-generating infrastructure. That will cause prices to skyrocket, and at that point people will be going, “Hmmn. Nuclear’s not so bad…”

In my opinion.

[Evil_Captor]

@Gymnopithys

Analysts say that motorists will not stop using their cars until gas reaches $12 a gallon. You’ve still got a margin… :rolleyes:

Which people are you talking about? $480 a month for gas leaves me dead broke when you factor in rent, food, medicine, utilities. I’ll look HARD for an alternative long before it reaches that point. Maybe there’s lotta rich folks out there can afford it. But I don’t think so.

[clairobscur]

@asterion

Can you do at least 75 mph (the speed limit on most parts of the interstates out west)? This last one is very important…

AFAIK, the speed limit in most european countries is usually higher than in the USA, and people still speed. So this is not an issue. I can’t think of a car that couldn’t do 75 mph. Well…the 2 CV in the 70s probably couldn’t…

[John_Mace]

@jshore

…What Telemark said…

Here is an article that gives the following fuel economy numbers for 1991…admittedly a bit out-of-date:

U.S…20.1 mpg
Europe…25.0
Japan…21.8 mpg

I’m going by memory here, so I could be wrong, but the current numbers were brought up on the news last night. I think it was now 27 for Europe and the US was 17.