AAAMEN!!!

 

While I agree he needs to go, there's more at stake than just getting that clown out of office. It's time to look at overhauling congress as well. Maybe if they had to get a real job like the rest of us, they'd think about figuring out a way to get more work back into this country instead of padding their pocketbook.

 

Technology won't advance unless it is pushed by force. That lags events instead of leading them, so it's utterly useless for preparedness. Consumers don't think beyond "shiny", and the few who do don't spend enough money to matter.

The only thing keeping oil prices reasonable is massive US military expenditures protecting the Gulf oil exporters. That's not a "free market", that's trillions of dollars and many Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Contractor lives over many decades. Not that anyone thinks further than pump prices unless they are reminded.

Anyone here ancient enough to remember the OPEC oil embargo? Persian Gulf oil still has to flow to market, end of story, because no one heeded the warnings...

I like old trucks too, and have a few, but anyone who does can simply overhaul and restore what they already own forever. It's much cheaper than buying new if you plan for it.

I'm fine with tighter economy requirements, and there is NOTHING forcing anyone to be an early adopter. Someone else will buy the new vehicles and to the "beta testing". Since that's a given, no one here need be bothered until the tech is mature.

 

You can bet that I won't forget to vote!

 

Wow...seriously...

Technology is driven by men. Thus, you are claiming that men need to be pushed by force. You should check your premise.

If there is no market, those that will buy a product, initiating force for its production won't yield results. The results are Solyndra today.


Thus, you are claiming that you don't think beyond "shiny"...but do you or don't you spend enough to matter? Explain.

Which Gulf are you speaking about?

Even then, regardless of the gulf protected, a massive expenditure of US taxpayer dollars would have to be in fuels for lots of different products. That would be an increase in demand from the military along with the emergence of markets like India and China. It's a simple issue of competition: much of the industrialized world utilizes the "battery power" of gallons of gasoline and diesel style products for its ease of use and high Btu content per gallon. It works. More military use means higher prices, not the protection of lower prices.

 

I couldn't spend enough money to matter because I don't spend enough to influence the market and couldn't influence it if my lifetime income went only to new vehicles.

The totality of FTE don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars. We don't "matter" to manufacturers.

Consumers are very simple, most (not in this forum) are technically illiterate, and buy what is on offer. End of story. That cannot change and has never been different. It's the same reason computers are almost considered "magic".

The Gulf is the Persian Gulf, which we must protect to keep oil prices low, so we do.
That takes hundreds of billions of dollars, and carrier battle groups aren't cheap to build and deploy. Not a political statement, just a money issue.

The military doesn't use enough to influence global prices, but US expenditure on military protection of oil production is in effect a "global oil subsidy" for everyone including our economic competitors. That's not a political statement, that's a matter of money. We borrow that money....and we both pay interest on it. The economics of US protection for Chinese and EU oil imports (their Navies and Air Forces don't secure free passage of the Strait of Hormuz) are questionable.

Increased fuel economy mandates force technological change to meet them, just as increased safety standards and emissions standards did. There is less pollution and fewer people are injured and killed per mile travelled, reducing the public burden in expensive casualties and health damage.

Fuel conservation is good for our economy, reduces our trade deficit, and leaves more discretionary income for consumers. Like safety and anti-pollution tech, the beloved "market" wouldn't change the rules of engagement because of the way humans externalize risk and cost. The military doesn't use enough to influence global prices, but it DOES influence your tax bill.

Risk perception from a renowned computer security expert (classic article and not political). The thought process is the same regarding cost.

Schneier on Security: Perceived Risk vs. Actual Risk

The bottom line re: objections to fuel economy rules is "we don't care how much fuel we burn and we pretend that the market solves everything even when demonstrated that there are external costs and effects of our choices besides our personal fuel bill".

This is not an endorsement of any incumbent politician.

An issue can exist separate from politics. Dollars don't have eyes and ears.

An Oil Strategy in Case Iran Closes Strait of Hormuz: View - Bloomberg

The way to reduce the individual and national economic impact of oil price spikes is to be able to use less. The market is freely traded (remember that "free market"?) which means reduced Gulf or any other oil production affects the world and the US economy.
Mexican and Canadian oil prices will rise if other oil is blocked. The US "embedded consumption" (folks need to drive to work, shop, etc) can't be reduced below minimums without national economic damage.

Some effects of the first oil crisis. Even if you don't like Wikipedia there is ample info elsewhere on the net for those too young to have lived through it or who were asleep at the time.

I witnessed it and "the market" (all hail that magic phrase, invoking which beats actual thought) was totally unprepared. Psychology means people are RE-active, not pre-emptive. Changing that isn't an option because humans are wired that way. That's why recent price spikes hammered the public again!

1973 oil crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If US consumption is reduced and especially INDIVIDUAL FUEL OVERHEAD is reduced, our people are better equipped to weather oil price spikes and the economy is protected. As incomes shrink, the margin available for fuel decreases, and price spikes do much more damage. We are in for a long, slow economic recovery over many years, with many jobs not coming back because productivity improvements eliminate them. Fuel prices hammer people with low and marginal incomes, including the vanishing Middle Class, many of who drive UN-economical vehicles because they are cheap to buy. Change the vehicle pool over time to reduce the gas hogs and the nation wins.

Everyone who wants to drive gasser big blocks can still get a used one, they will gradually attrit from the vehicle pool over time, and they won't represent as great an economic burden. The dedicated will be free to drive what they want without punishing the economy. If there are enough of them, they can influence aftermarket makers to make what they want as add-ons.

Demand enough economical large trucks and the market will likely deliver them.

The availability of economical vehicles will make having thirsty vehicles as second or third vehicles more affordable because they won't be the default for most driving.

 

I have a customer with a 1500 gm hybrid that gets 16mpg. It has been to the dealer several times for very expensive repairs and the electrical system takes up soo much room under the hood working on it would be very difficult. My f350 6.7 is seeing 21.4mpg unloaded. Hard to see the benifit of a rolling substation.

 

if i could find a electric engine that i could put in my 79 that would go through headlight deep water and burn the tires from a dead stop on the highway like my 351 i might consider it but the technology aint there right now and probably never will be. obama's gotta go! vote him out in 2012.

 

Good to see none of the things I mentioned matter to consumers. I didn't think they did but posts like that are tests. That's why we aren't going to be ready for the next gasoline price spike, or the one after that.

"Rolling substations" BTW would make excellent work trucks for welding and other commercial use, saving thousands over separate gensets. Pacific Gas and Electric is experimenting with a small fleet.

That "GM hybrid" malfunctions because GM built it. Bailing out GM may have been useful for the economy but that's about it. The company needed a bailout because it failed. Failure as a result of deliberate, incompetent choices is inexcusable. Their incompetent job of using technology isn't a fault of the tech itself.

 

It is my personal opinion that we as The People should have never bailed GM or Chrysler out. I realize that there was more at stake than just GM's production of automobiles. But for crying out-loud, Ford saw the writing on the wall three years before it came crashing down. That's the only reason they didn't take the bailout...they were more prepared for it. Instead of giving the money to GM & Chrysler...why not help the vendors that were going to be hurt when those two dinosaurs keeled over? The question I still ask, has GM learned it's lesson? More likely not since they paid their upper management bonuses while moving more production to Mexico.

 

the oil companies own more technology than we will ever see. They buy it up and hide it away so they can keep on making us all pay to survive... Just my opinion

 

I agree. There is a lot that goes on behind our backs that we as taxpayers should know about. I have seen gm close down a plant and leave a thousand people out of work. We need to keep jobs here at all cost buy as local as posible. My point was not a companys incompetence but rather the tech is new and too complicated for for the average working man.When there is more efficiant and a more reliable way for me to do business that is an easy choice. If it was practical in the north I would be running bio.The current administration did not fully create our situation but has stood by and done little to improve on it. Good bye obama and take congress with you.

 

AGREED , BUNCH OF GREEDY ONE'S !

 

obama sucks

 

That "explanation" does not account for other countries which oil companies do not control. Tech takes a LONG time to refine and develop for production. Patents are recorded, so which did the oil companies buy to strangle development?