Why C.A.F.E Standards are Dumb

[jtr1962]

Cd is an oft abused term. You should probably use cdA (A = area). For two vehicles with nominally similar cd, this looks good on paper, but if one is a mini-car and the other is AN SUV, the SUV will have much more drag to overcome == more fuel, which mean more power == larger power plant, heavier construction to support larger loads == more weight == larger power plant == more fuel, and so it goes...

Certainly true although frontal area is usually constrained by the vehicle's intended use.

A short list of drag coefficients I found here:

* 2.1 - a smooth brick
* 0.9 - a typical bicycle plus cyclist
* 0.7 to 1.1 - typical values for a Formula 1 car (wing settings change for each circuit)
* at least 0.6 - a typical truck
* 0.57 - Hummer H2, 2003
* 0.51 - Citroën 2CV
* 0.42 - Lamborghini Countach, 1974
* 0.39 - Dodge Durango, 2004
* 0.38 - Volkswagen Beetle
* 0.372 - Ferrari F50, 1996
* 0.36 - Citroën DS, 1955
* 0.36 - Ferrari Testarossa, 1986
* 0.36 - Citroën CX, 1974 (the car was named after the term for drag coefficient)
* 0.35 - Scion xB
* 0.34 - Ford Sierra, 1982
* 0.34 - Ferrari F40, 1987
* 0.33 - Dodge Charger, 2006
* 0.31 - Citroën GSA, 1980
* 0.30 - Saab 92, 1947
* 0.30 - Audi 100, 1983
* 0.30 - Porsche 996, 1997
* 0.29 - Porsche Boxster, 2005
* 0.29 - Honda Accord Hybrid, 2005
* 0.29 - Lotus Elise, 1958
* 0.28 - Porsche 997, 2004
* 0.27 - Infiniti G35, 2002 (0.26 with "aero package")
* 0.26 - Toyota Prius, 2004
* 0.25 - Honda Insight, 1999
* 0.212 - Tatra T77, 1938
* 0.19 - Mercedes-Benz "Bionic Car" Concept, 2005 (based on the boxfish)
* 0.137 - Ford Probe V prototype, 1985


I would kill for a bike with a Cd under 0.1. You can see in this list how awful a cyclist is compared to everything else.

 

[Stereodude]

I would kill for a bike with a Cd under 0.1. You can see in this list how awful a cyclist is compared to everything else.

Just draft a bus or large truck.

 

[jtr1962]

Just draft a bus or large truck.

Yeah, I do that sometimes. Lots of fun actually to be going 45 or 50 mph while not breaking a sweat. The downside is that if a bus is accelerating flat out I'll start to lose them around 30 mph. My power-to-weight just isn't high enough to keep up. But if the bus is in a little traffic and only goes half-throttle up to 50, it's party time. :bravo:

Now with an 0.1 Cd, I'd be able to do stuff like that all the time. Sam Whittingham rode the Varna Diablo III nearly 54 miles in one hour, incidentally just 1 mph short of the 1970s 55 mph limit. The same bike can crack 80 mph when ridden flat out.

The Velomobile As A Model For Sustainable Transportation

 

[mubs]

So, why aren't all the greenies killing themselves off?

Because we'd rather kill polluters like you instead :-D

I posted a link in another thread (in response to Piyono's link about oceans getting polluted; too lazy to look it up) to the problems of nukillear waste. I can't believe how short sighted you guys are. I was a big proponent of nukillear energy (fission) till I learned about the waste problem. Then I thought fusion was great. Till I learned about its problems. Nukillear is not an option - it's toxic for tens of thousands of years. You think global warming & CO2 is a problem? Ain't nuttin compared to nukillear.

 

[ddrueding]

With new technologies, the amount of waste from a nuclear power plant is significantly reduced. More importantly, that waste is easily collected. That proper storage has not always been done does not mean that it cannot be done.

 

[ddrueding]

For my car?

Drag coefficient.....0.320
Frontal Area..........2.22 m2
Cx.......................0.71

Need to do something about that...

 

[Stereodude]

For my car?

Drag coefficient.....0.320
Frontal Area..........2.22 m2
Cx.......................0.71

Need to do something about that...

Can't do much other than lower your car.

 

[fb]

That, and buy spoilers and stuff. And you can always rip off the external rear view mirrors...

 

[ddrueding]

...And you can always rip off the external rear view mirrors...

That is on the list I just need to figure out what parts to use for a video-based solution.

I live close to NASA Ames, a buddy will be starting there soon. They have a few wind tunnels big enough...

 

[fb]

Nice.

You might also try and inflate the tires with nitrogen, it should give you better mileage or speed... (at least in theory.)

 

[udaman]

Because we'd rather kill polluters like you instead

I posted a link in another thread (in response to Piyono's link about oceans getting polluted; too lazy to look it up) to the problems of nukillear waste. I can't believe how short sighted you guys are. I was a big proponent of nukillear energy (fission) till I learned about the waste problem. Then I thought fusion was great. Till I learned about its problems. Nukillear is not an option - it's toxic for tens of thousands of years. You think global warming & CO2 is a problem? Ain't nuttin compared to nukillear.

Show me a link to the pollution problems with fusion power? Though a technological impracticability (*note* M$ Word’s spell checker is so dumb, dumber than me, that it could not find the proper spelling for this word when I originally had it as ‘impractibility’…had to go to a real hard copy dictionary, lol) for another generation or so, whatever miniscule waste generated is exponentially small compared to fission waste.

On another note, more related to OP subject material:

Today Bush signed the fuel efficiency bill today. But as he noted, it is not a comprehensive energy bill. Will have to wait for the Democratic Congress and perhaps a Demo president to address this.
Bush signs bill boosting fuel standards


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_fuel_economy


I don't see why they can't take a more aggressive approach, and reach those goals in 12 years not 22! (they are goals after all, you can't really be sure of anything being set in stone, no matter what laws you pass).

The bill also calls for improved energy efficiency of appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers, and a 70 percent increase in the efficiency of light bulbs. It also calls for energy efficiency improvements in federal buildings and construction of commercial buildings.

How the hell do they think they can increase light bulb efficiencies by 70%!!! (unless they mean banning incandescent and using future 150lm/w LED's as substitutes by 2030...have all those rants jtr has been writing his congressional members paid off ...err correction jtr believes LED's will be at 1Gw/lm efficiency by 2030, lol...I've had a bad cold virus for the past few days, meant to write Firewire soon to reach 3.2Gigabits/sec, not kilobits, lol...and why aren't full optical Fibre Channel I/O implemented on all computers and dSLR's, come on, we need a decent 1GigaByte/s I/O to handle backup/transmission of ever increasing storage media capacities)

In other news more promising is that of batteries for an all electric car, with less waste generated than NiMH, which is a bad technology, despite benefits listed in jtr's thread on banning disposable batteries.
Toshiba intros SCiB ion battery tech for hybrid cars


http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/11/toshiba.scib.battery/

If they can be recharged in 5 minutes, then why do you need to have a hybrid car?

Man, am I ever sick, ears are plugged, coughing, sneezing, blowing my nose, running nose, congested chest/lungs…sudefed, naproxsyn just barely taking the edge of the ‘blah’ factor.

 

[ddrueding]

I read the headline for that piece: "Bush signs bill boosting fuel standards" and thought, "cool!". Then I read it is only to 35mpg and only after 2022 and doesn't include SUVs and Trucks. That practically doesn't matter. If American car companies only aim that high, they will be put out of business before 2022.

 

[Will Rickards]

I'm interested in who is buying those scib batteries from toshiba or funding/spurring the development of the battery. Anybody got any info?

 

[ddrueding]

If the batteries can be charged in 5 minutes, how big is the cable? Sorry to hear about you being sick, I was a few weeks ago, and is sucked.

 

[jtr1962]

I read the headline for that piece: "Bush signs bill boosting fuel standards" and thought, "cool!". Then I read it is only to 35mpg and only after 2022 and doesn't include SUVs and Trucks. That practically doesn't matter. If American car companies only aim that high, they will be put out of business before 2022.

By 2022 we'll probably all be using made in China ultra inexpensive EVs so the new standards will be irrelevant. I agree by then there won't be any American automakers to apply them to.

If the batteries can be charged in 5 minutes, how big is the cable?

First, 5-minute charging can only be done at a service station equipped for it. For home charging, figure overnight. But then again, the only time you'll need to recharge in 5 minutes is when you're on the road, and bump up against your vehicle's range limit. Second, as for cable size, I'm assuming the service station has access to 480VAC. To recharge a 30 kW-hr EV battery in 5 minutes requires 360 kW plus losses-let's call it 400 KW. Since a typical home electrical service is 240VAC, 100 amp (24 kW) I think you can see why these things can't be charged at home in 5 minutes. Three hours might be possible though on a 50A, 240V outlet. Anyway, ~400 kW on a 480 VAC service is less than 100 amps. Look in Home Depot for 100 amp cable. It's about 3/4" of inch. Not horribly big-roughly the thickness of jumper cables.

 

[jtr1962]

BTW, the multiple ~400kW charging stations needed in a service station don't represent a huge engineering challenge. Networks for electric trains regularly supply spikes of a few megawatts every time a train passes by.

 

[jtr1962]

Second, as for cable size, I'm assuming the service station has access to 480VAC. To recharge a 30 kW-hr EV battery in 5 minutes requires 360 kW plus losses-let's call it 400 KW. Since a typical home electrical service is 240VAC, 100 amp (24 kW) I think you can see why these things can't be charged at home in 5 minutes. Three hours might be possible though on a 50A, 240V outlet. Anyway, ~400 kW on a 480 VAC service is less than 100 amps. Look in Home Depot for 100 amp cable. It's about 3/4" of inch. Not horribly big-roughly the thickness of jumper cables.

Brain fart-the results should be closer to 1000 amps at 480VAC, not 100. And that would be one heck of a huge cable. Of course, no reason charger can't step up the voltage so you can use a smaller cable.

 

[ddrueding]

Or use a different mechanism than just a cable. What about a service where they swap out your dead batteries for already charged ones? Of course, there are wear-level issues and the cars/batteries would have to be optimized for it, but with the right design considerations/service plans it could be done.

 

[udaman]

EPA Chief Denies Calif. Limit on Auto Emissions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902012.html?

Will be interesting to see how the court battle plays out, if the Supreme Ct. will side this time with the EPA/auto manufacturers lobbies, or not

prior related story:

California Sues EPA Over Global Warming

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110801123.html

Speaker of the House, Democratic Party controlled Congress, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif).

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/12-19-2007/0004726004

"What is clear is that the Administration's announcement undermines the
ability of the states to protect their citizens from the dangers of global
warming.

Greenhouse gases do not sit at ground level, weather patterns distribute over the entire globe, therefore worldwide measures are required. California can only be a leader, set an example...and try to exert other influences that may impact throughout the world. After all, the USA auto manufactures are just fine with making vehicles for sale in China that only meet less rigorous emission standards of decades gone by, fine example they are setting, yes?.

Damned vicious cold virus is worse today that the prior 3, gone in to new phase- which hopefully means it will be gone soon, please.

 

[Clocker]

I just spent $113 to put 29 gallons of unleaded into the 32-gallon tank in my truck. Since I no longer need to capability of the vehicle I will get something a little more fuel efficient when my lease is up this Fall.

That's just another example of why CAFE standards are a stupid way to increase gas mileage of vehicles. Too bad our government can't just let the market do it's thing and allow manufacturers to just build what the public demands rather than control what we are allowed to buy and/or grow some balls by controlling our consumption with a real tax on gas.

 

[timwhit]

I think the govt would rather institute a tax on "record profits," rather than raising the gas tax. Which makes no sense because it should change the price the consumer pays anyways (all you armchair economists feel free to dispute this). I'm all for increasing the federal gas tax, but I doubt we will ever see that happen. At least they could have made it a percentage rather than a set 18 cents.

 

[Bozo]

We should nationalize the oil companys. Then deport the CEOs and board of directors of said oil companies to Burma or Pakastan. Or air drop them into the heart of the Amazon jungle.

Bozo :joker:

 

[Stereodude]

I think the govt would rather institute a tax on "record profits," rather than raising the gas tax. Which makes no sense because it should change the price the consumer pays anyways (all you armchair economists feel free to dispute this). I'm all for increasing the federal gas tax, but I doubt we will ever see that happen. At least they could have made it a percentage rather than a set 18 cents.

So you want to reduce domestic oil production further, become more dependent on foreign oil, and pay even more at the pump?

 

[Stereodude]

We should nationalize the oil companys. Then deport the CEOs and board of directors of said oil companies to Burma or Pakastan. Or air drop them into the heart of the Amazon jungle.

Bozo :joker:

Uh... that won't work. First of all they're global companies and the US would have no basis to nationalize them. They would just pull out of the US / shut down their US operations, which is more or less exactly what they will do if the gov't tries to nail them with a "windfall profits".

Either way the people in the US will end up paying a lot more or gas than they do now.

We need to increase oil production (supply) in order to lower oil prices, and all these ignorant ideas to punish the oil companies will do nothing to increase supplies, lower demand, or reduce prices. Instead they will have the exact opposite effect. They will decrease supplies and increase prices.

 

[ddrueding]

All the evidence I've seen points to a lack of refining capacity in the US for the high gas prices. Although increasing oil production couldn't hurt, I don't think it would help that much. A 100% tax on gas would probably be the most effective method to encourage intelligent consumption.

 

[Stereodude]

All the evidence I've seen points to a lack of refining capacity in the US for the high gas prices. Although increasing oil production couldn't hurt, I don't think it would help that much.

The costs of refining are basically constant. The price of oil isn't. What makes you think that the high price of gasoline is tied to refining capacity?

I think we do need more refineries in the US, but the high price of gasoline is due primarily to the high cost of oil. The cost of oil would be lower if there was more supply. Ignorant ideas like taxing the oil companies like crazy aren't going to increase supply. It will actually reduce the US production of oil which will cause even more instability in the oil market, drive up prices further, and make the US even more dependent on "foreign oil" (which comes mostly from Canada and Mexico). The US has enough oil to be self sufficient for a very long time, but we just need to have the stomach to go get it and let the tree huggers suck on a rope instead of letting them tie our hands with it.

A 100% tax on gas would probably be the most effective method to encourage intelligent consumption.

And that does what? What good will intelligent consumption do? Why do we want intelligent consumption? What is the benefit of intelligent consumption?

 

[ddrueding]

The costs of refining are basically constant. The price of oil isn't. What makes you think that the high price of gasoline is tied to refining capacity?

The cost of refining isn't at issue. The amount that can be refined is. We are at or very near refining capacity; so even if 200% more oil was dumped at our doorstep, the supply of gas (and therefore, it's price) would not be significantly affected.

I also think that the high global oil prices are due primarily to a dwindling supply and increased demand. Whether we have hit "peak oil" or not is really irrelevant, whether we dig up every unspoiled inch of the earth to get more is irrelevant; there is a fixed amount on the planet and based on current growth numbers I suspect it will mostly be gone in our lifetime.

And that does what? What good will intelligent consumption do? Why do we want intelligent consumption? What is the benefit of intelligent consumption?

This is a question? Do you mean, other than the environmental impact, or the reduction of dependence on foreign nations? It actually makes a fair bit of economic sense as well, preparing the nation for times when oil is more scarce and more expensive. In these times of quarterly earnings statements and dependence on dividends, corporate heads cannot plan for the long-term and keep their jobs. The only way to allow them to make decisions now that won't pay off for years is to make it help the bottom line now. Large taxes on gas and oil will make it financially advantageous to begin using more efficient methods and techniques. Cap-and-trade emissions regulations will make it good business to pollute less.

I really do hate large government, and I hate all the waste of taxpayers money. But I understand that the businesses themselves can't make these moves unless they are made to.

 

[Stereodude]

I also think that the high global oil prices are due primarily to a dwindling supply and increased demand. Whether we have hit "peak oil" or not is really irrelevant, whether we dig up every unspoiled inch of the earth to get more is irrelevant; there is a fixed amount on the planet and based on current growth numbers I suspect it will mostly be gone in our lifetime.

Odd how the more expensive oil gets, the more of it we find.

This is a question? Do you mean, other than the environmental impact, or the reduction of dependence on foreign nations? It actually makes a fair bit of economic sense as well, preparing the nation for times when oil is more scarce and more expensive. In these times of quarterly earnings statements and dependence on dividends, corporate heads cannot plan for the long-term and keep their jobs. The only way to allow them to make decisions now that won't pay off for years is to make it help the bottom line now. Large taxes on gas and oil will make it financially advantageous to begin using more efficient methods and techniques. Cap-and-trade emissions regulations will make it good business to pollute less.

I really do hate large government, and I hate all the waste of taxpayers money. But I understand that the businesses themselves can't make these moves unless they are made to.

Yes it's absolutely a question. You've bought into all these crazy ideas hook line and sinker. I'm all for a clean, renewable, cheap energy source, but lets face it. One doesn't exist yet. The closest one we have is oil! American runs on oil and "cheap" energy. You can't make it vastly more expensive without severely crippling the US economy.

You want to punish businesses and encourage them to leave the US making us more dependent, not less dependent on foreign oil. That will only further drive up the price of energy. What good does that do? If you want to make the US less dependent of oil the US needs to start drilling in it's own reserves. There's a ton of oil off the coast of California and Florida and lots of other places. There is oil all over, but all these additional restrictions you want to put on businesses will just help us end up with more oil wells capped and even less US oil production.

Lets face it the US can't conserve it's way into oil independence. We've been trying to do that for years. That's what C.A.F.E. standards were supposed to do. Has it worked? No... It's just one of many failed gov't policies that actually has had the opposite effect. But you think the answer is more gov't involvement? Maybe if we give them enough at bats they'll hit a home run eventually?

 

[ddrueding]

So, based on your statements above, I'm assuming you believe there is plenty of oil to be had? That we won't need to worry about not having it in the future? I think I have found the difference in our positions.

I know back in the 60s-80s there was a lot of talk about "oil independence". That using "our oil" instead of "their oil" was an important political goal. I don't see that as a worthwhile objective because I see "no oil" as happening on a short time frame.

Coming at it from another direction:

Even if there were massive reserves of oil out there, I believe that burning it all would cause a significant enough change in the climate to negatively impact our economy more than getting off of oil in the first place.

And as a tangent related to "clean, renewable, cheap energy source"...what about nuclear? Is it not better than oil?

 

[Stereodude]

So, based on your statements above, I'm assuming you believe there is plenty of oil to be had? That we won't need to worry about not having it in the future? I think I have found the difference in our positions.

I know back in the 60s-80s there was a lot of talk about "oil independence". That using "our oil" instead of "their oil" was an important political goal. I don't see that as a worthwhile objective because I see "no oil" as happening on a short time frame.

We're not going to run out of oil in our lifetimes. I figure they will find another energy source before the world runs out of oil.

Coming at it from another direction:

Even if there were massive reserves of oil out there, I believe that burning it all would cause a significant enough change in the climate to negatively impact our economy more than getting off of oil in the first place.

I don't. That's crazy talk. All the CO2 in the oil used to be in the atmosphere before. The plants absorbed it and are now the very source of the oil we're drilling.

And as a tangent related to "clean, renewable, cheap energy source"...what about nuclear? Is it not better than oil?

I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't see anyone selling a car with a reactor anytime soon. I keep waiting for my Mr. Fusion.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't see anyone selling a car with a reactor anytime soon. I keep waiting for my Mr. Fusion.

Yeah, a Mr. Fusion would be nice but there is such a thing now. It's called the electric car and electric train. A nuclear power plant generates the energy which charges the car's battery, or in the case of the train powers the catenary from which it draws it's power. And yes, at the current state of battery technology electric cars would be quite viable and cost efficient if mass-produced. Electric trains are obviously a proven technology as we've been running them for over a century. Best of all, the electricity for either doesn't have to come from nuclear. It can come from hydro, solar, wind, tides, geothermal.

Forgetting global warming since you don't believe in it, you're ignoring the other enormous costs of continuing to burn oil for power. Let's start with pollution. That alone costs the country trillions annually in medical and cleanup costs. Now add in economic volatility. Oil prices will fluctuate greatly. You can already see how this is playing havoc with the economy. Next you're sending oil money to regimes which aren't exactly friendly to our interests. Add to that the fact the oil will run out. Long before that happens it will get prohibitively expensive. In fact, that's the main reason for recent price increases. You're entitled to believe it won't run out if you want but you're 100% wrong. Sure, we keep "finding" more oil as the price goes up except that this isn't true. We knew this oil was there 20 years ago. It just wasn't economic to drill for it until the price hit $xx per barrel. There are yet more known reserves we'll touch when oil hits $300 a barrel, and $1000 a barrel, etc. Problem is long before those prices are reached it will be prohibitively expensive to continue to run the country on oil. Even at $4 a gallon, it's hurting us badly. People are spending $10, $15, $20 a day just to get to work. That's fucking ridiculous. Imagine $20 a gallon. Best thing is to just get off the stuff for good. We'll save trillions of dollars better spent on other things. I personally hope gas hits $10 and stays there. The free market solutions to oil will come fast and hard, although sadly mostly from overseas. I'm already predicting electric cars from China will bury what's left of the US auto industry. And I guess we'll be buying high-speed trains from France since we don't make those here, either. We even have to import NYC's subway cars (yes, we assemble them here, but from components built overseas).

You want to know something else? I sick and fucking tired of all the "can'ts" in the US these days starting with the US auto companies. Can't build nuclear power plants, can't build electric cars, can't build high-speed rail, can't get off oil, can't stop pollution, can't do this, can't do that. As far as I'm concerned you can all shove it up your collective asses. We were the first to land on the moon. We were actually at the forefront of rail technology until the 1950s, we won WWII against all odds thanks to ingenuity and hard work. Where has all this gone? It seems all we're left with are a bunch of whiners, starting with those in charge of things, who can't imagine anything but the status quo, which incidentally sucks big time.

 

[ddrueding]

We're not going to run out of oil in our lifetimes. I figure they will find another energy source before the world runs out of oil.

Other (more expensive) energy sources have already been found, but I don't think the short-term mentality of corporations (and most consumers) will allow them to get out of the dependency on oil before they hit the wall.

I don't. That's crazy talk. All the CO2 in the oil used to be in the atmosphere before. The plants absorbed it and are now the very source of the oil we're drilling.

All of the CO2 in the oil used to be in the air at some point, but not all at once. There was a stable system in place, but we are now pulling that CO2 up and releasing it faster than the plants can deal with it, not to mention that we keep cutting down all the plants as well.

I'm all for nuclear power, but I don't see anyone selling a car with a reactor anytime soon. I keep waiting for my Mr. Fusion.

JTR said what needs to be said on this. Energy production is more efficient if done on a larger scale. All we need is a way to store energy in a car (batteries will work fine, hydrogen too).


Stereodude, is the opinion you hold on these issues common with the people in your area? Your co-workers? A radio personality? I'm just curious, as I don't think anyone else I've spoken to holds anywhere near that opinion. In fact, most of the people around here would become very frustrated and quite possibly furious at your "refusal to see the obvious truth".

Me? I do my best not to judge; I'm just curious.

 

[Stereodude]

We were the first to land on the moon. We were actually at the forefront of rail technology until the 1950s, we won WWII against all odds thanks to ingenuity and hard work. Where has all this gone? It seems all we're left with are a bunch of whiners, starting with those in charge of things, who can't imagine anything but the status quo, which incidentally sucks big time.

I blame the me generation who spent too much time smoking dope and protesting the Vietnam war in the 60's.

 

[ddrueding]

I blame the me generation who spent too much time smoking dope and protesting the Vietnam war in the 60's.

Not a bad place to start, actually. But the current generation isn't going to be much better; they'll be buried in MySpace and angst-ridden reality shows.

Impending doom is really required to keep Americans working. Some other countries have a solid work ethic (Germany, Japan) embedded in their culture. I am envious.

 

[Stereodude]

Not a bad place to start, actually. But the current generation isn't going to be much better; they'll be buried in MySpace and angst-ridden reality shows.

Sure, we can spread part of the blame to the offspring of the previously blamed tree-hugging, free loving, woodstock generation hippies too.

 

[ddrueding]

...except that I personally verified that my father is severely allergic to pot

 

[timwhit]

The United States oil production peaked in 1970. However, I'm pretty sure that 38 years later it will be able to beat 1970 production and produce ~20.5 million barrels per day (consumption) even though the US produces ~8.3 million barrels per day. Good luck with that.

Seriously if I were you I would buy the largest vehicle I could. There are some pretty good discounts on SUVs right now. Something like this will be great when prices return to normal after the US can get production numbers up to meet demand. I say 2 years max. 12 million barrels per day is nothing.

 

[Bozo]

Sure, we can spread part of the blame to the offspring of the previously blamed tree-hugging, free loving, woodstock generation hippies too.

Careful what you say. I might have traded in my love beads for a medical bracelet, but I was never a tree-hugger. You can get a nasty, ichy rash from hugging trees. :grin:

Bozo :joker:

 

[Stereodude]

The United States oil production peaked in 1970. However, I'm pretty sure that 38 years later it will be able to beat 1970 production and produce ~20.5 million barrels per day (consumption) even though the US produces ~8.3 million barrels per day. Good luck with that.

If we would stop capping wells and start drilling wells we could easily surpass the oil production peak in the 1970s. But we can't because we might damage the environment.

It's not OK for the US to drill for oil off the coast of Florida, but the Chinese can drill for oil in Cuba's waters right off the coast of Florida. I'm sure they'll be far more environmentally responsible than a company following US regulations would be.

 

[Pradeep]

It will actually reduce the US production of oil which will cause even more instability in the oil market, drive up prices further, and make the US even more dependent on "foreign oil" (which comes mostly from Canada and Mexico). The US has enough oil to be self sufficient for a very long time, but we just need to have the stomach to go get it and let the tree huggers suck on a rope instead of letting them tie our hands with it.
And that does what? What good will intelligent consumption do? Why do we want intelligent consumption? What is the benefit of intelligent consumption?

Even if the US was to extract all this oil that will keep us self sufficient (that requires $150-$200 per barrel pricing to economically extract), you still have to refine the heavy crude into something that works in vehicles. Refining capacity in the USA is very limited and does increase the price of petrol. Look at the shift when they switch from summer blends to winter and vice versa. A single outage at a refinery can have a serious effect.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/colombia/images/map.swf

The US consumes massive amounts of oil. It's staggering when looked at from a world view, however it's not something that someone that lives and consumes in the US would have a second thought over. Even Bush has said that we are addicted to oil. Far more per population than any other country on Earth. However, China and India are just coming online, in terms of automobile ownership (because, hey, everyone wants to be like an American, and Americans have lots of vehicles). The demand for oil will continue to increase in future years. Many of the countries the USA currently gets oil from are signing deals with the Chinese for oil supplies. There's a pipeline in planning in Western Canada that would supply Canadian oil to the West Coast where it can be shipped to China.

The E85 Ethanol fiasco has gone really pear shaped. The cost of corn is now over $6 bucks per bushel, the cost of food is rising sharply. Retarded government subisidies are propping up this sham. Cellulosic ethanol would help but it's all research right now.

Now one country that got it right was Brazil. They are using sugar cane ethanol, with 7 times the energy content of corn ethanol. After the 70s oil embargoes, they mandated that service stations carry it. Now, almost all new cars there have flex fuel, and the end result is that the country is fully self reliant, they don't need oil imports to sustain themselves. Of course the sugar market in the US is probably even more distorted due to the farm subsidies than corn.

There's no easy answers, but hoping that petrol gets to $10 per gallon may not be it. Because the knock-on effect on oil and natural gas means this will increase the cost of heating a home during the Northern winter to unsustainable levels.

I'm just hoping fusion becomes viable before the price of oil get's too high.