10 dollar a gallon gas?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ChromiumSteel
In the last few years a bunch of folks in my neighborhood had to copy each other and get Dodge Rams. All in white or silver. The guy next door is a rebel and got a new Ford. Me? I can't even imagine paying for 13 MPG gas mileage.


I have a hard working neighbor who actually uses his pickup for snow clearing and other jobs. Of course, his kid that is just closing on 20 years old has to have a pickup as well.
The kid is also Ok, works, etc.
However, he is stuck with an expensive truck, about $5K/year insurance and of course big fuel tank that takes a lot of $$$ to fillup.

Here in Canada insurance companies apparantly have to charge many times more insurance to kids under 25 years. So he has a double whammy of stupid high insurance plus fuel.

I don't mind pickups. Heck, I just asked another neighbour to drive my snowblower to the shop for maintenance. However, a 20 year old kid whose father already has a big pickup shouldn't be sucked by marketing [censored] into buying a far too big a machine than what he really needs.
 
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
I took a screwdriver to it last year... It was a 300 cell cat. The precats are 1200 cell so much more restrictive. My conscience is getting to me though. Starting to feel bad about pulling the cats off.


Have you noticed any difference in fuel economy since removing them? I'm thinking of getting a Corksport header-back exhaust for my car after warranty is up (12 more months) which would eliminate the cat. It's only 1/4" bigger diameter tubing so I wouldn't expect to lose any low-end torque. I don't really want to bother just for the extra 10 whp and sound, but if it could also help fuel economy in any significant way I might be able to help justify it with fuel savings. It's legal to remove the cat here - we don't have anywhere near the population density needed to create smog - and it's pretty much standard procedure to replace the cat with a straight pipe when the cat fails. People claim improved mileage and power but most people don't actually track that stuff well enough to provide any real information.

Originally Posted By: bob_ninja
Here in Canada insurance companies apparantly have to charge many times more insurance to kids under 25 years. So he has a double whammy of stupid high insurance plus fuel.


Not in Saskatchewan! Insurance costs here are based on vehicle model/year and driving record only.
 
Solar panels are like ethanol. They take more electricity to manufacture and install than they ever give back during their 20 year lifespan. And the electricity to make then comes from burning coal. People who are early adopters who go solar now are using up solar panels that could be used in places where no other source of power is available.

p.s this doesn't include recycling materials used to make the panels after they have done their job
 
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Solar panels are like ethanol. They take more electricity to manufacture and install than they ever give back during their 20 year lifespan. And the electricity to make then comes from burning coal. People who are early adopters who go solar now are using up solar panels that could be used in places where no other source of power is available.

p.s this doesn't include recycling materials used to make the panels after they have done their job


I honestly didn't know this. The panels we got are supposed to retain 80% of their output at 25 years and 60% at 50 years. How could they cost this much to manufacture?
 
Originally Posted By: bob_ninja
Thanks
I am now using my fireplace a lot more these days.


My parents bought one of those pellet stoves a couple years ago for about 2000 bucks. They swear by it and their heating bills are much lower with it. I had to help them move it and I must say those things are [censored] heavy.
crazy2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Saturn_Fan
Sure enough. I googled the "lifespan of a solar panel" and every site i found said 20 years with substantial loss of output over that time.


I wasn't aware either until we started looking into it. I assumed power output would never fall off. The "base model" panels were $12,000 after the $8,000 in rebates but output fell off much quicker. For $25K cash, these are supposed to be the best out there.

I'm going to be spending a lot of time at the parents' house this summer with the AC at 60 degrees lol.
 
Also solar panels only put out maw power when the sun is just right .Here in Redding Kalifornia that is 6 hours per day. There has been the rumor that there is a new company with a new process that will drop the cost of the panels drastically but It has been years and I haven't seen them yet!!!
 
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Also solar panels only put out maw power when the sun is just right .Here in Redding Kalifornia that is 6 hours per day. There has been the rumor that there is a new company with a new process that will drop the cost of the panels drastically but It has been years and I haven't seen them yet!!!


Since the solar cells will be on the west side of the house, hopefully max power will be during the hottest part of the day. Having an invertor that is compatable with electronics added a lot to the cost.
 
Gas isn't that expensive yet as higher performance cars still seem popular for those who don't a stupid SUV but are willing to put up with the same mileage as one. I see little car pooling or slowing down on the interstates. At $10 a gallon the last thing to worry about will be the cost of filling up a tank as the price will affect everything. I'm guessing that like a trendy things it's a speculative bubble and prices will drop after a few large investors start cashing out and leaving others to play musical chairs.

Use the oil in Iraq ? That was feasible before the invasion, with some planning on how to secure the country, get the infrastructure working, get the people on your side.....
 
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Solar panels are like ethanol. They take more electricity to manufacture and install than they ever give back during their 20 year lifespan.


Neither of those statements are correct anymore, although it once was.

This is the dirty little secret of the anti-nuclear enviromentalists. The CO2 per watt generated from solar cant touch wind, nuclear or hydro, not to mention solar's other problems.
 
Wind power is good stuff, especially if you have room for a biggie. 5 cents per kw-hr is much better than grid power. Solar PV panels still suffer electrical problems after years of daily thermal cycling. For the same money, you can get 3x or more energy from wind power as solar. Why go the more expensive option, unless you're in space? The large heat engine solar things might be cheaper.
 
Agreed,
The only thing I like about solar is it delivers energy during peak summer load periods. Wind is not without it's own challenges but is a better way to go. Really we need a difersified portfolio of sources to mask the weaknesses of each.
 
Originally Posted By: Saturn_Fan
I see your point in the second half of your response. I don't know how those in some European countries get by. Very high taxes, very expensive petro, etc. I think it would be tough to make it in a place like London.


Lower expectations and lower other costs.

Ethanol has been a net gain in energy for a while now.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

When the fearmongers like Hannity claim that it's not, they are counting the energy the sun puts into it while it grows. Can't really count that, can you. Ethanol is just another form of solar power.

And we can't blame ethanol for high corn prices- the Feds are still paying farmers to NOT plant corn. End of story.
 
Adding about $10,000 to the cost of a home to make a Zero Energy Home design will save about 450 gallons a year of heating oil. If the house lasts 50 years, that's 22,500 gallons of oil saved at a cost of $10000. 44 cents a gallon is pretty cheap for oil.

Why bother with ethanol when this is so much cheaper?
 
Originally Posted By: swalve
Originally Posted By: Saturn_Fan
I see your point in the second half of your response. I don't know how those in some European countries get by. Very high taxes, very expensive petro, etc. I think it would be tough to make it in a place like London.


Lower expectations and lower other costs.

Ethanol has been a net gain in energy for a while now.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

When the fearmongers like Hannity claim that it's not, they are counting the energy the sun puts into it while it grows. Can't really count that, can you. Ethanol is just another form of solar power.

And we can't blame ethanol for high corn prices- the Feds are still paying farmers to NOT plant corn. End of story.


swalve, from the link that you posted

Quote:
Nonetheless, a US Department of Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more energy than is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol.


That means that for 134 gallons of petrol equivalent, it took 100 gallons to make it..it's "extended" the fuel by a third, the same as improving consumption by around 25%.

Brazil produce 1,000 from the same 100 gallons.

Grain to ethanol is a boondoggle.

The pro and con ethanol arguments are biased with their own figures, and points of view. I Love Ethanol as a fuel additive (up to 10%) I hate ethanol from grains.

BTW journey to forever is a great site, I really enjoy the hours that I've spent there..
 
Just saw this thread and read the whole thing - thanks Saturn_Fan, for starting this. Great posts.

Yes, I too prepare, stock up on things I use, keep some money safely at home, etc...

We do not need 3 grades of gas. If it goes to $10/Gal, huge cutbacks will be made all over the country, but most importantly, any corporation/gov't using their brain will be going after logical energy in a hurry!!

Preparation is good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom