What are you paying for gas where you are???

It sucks cause I baby my car since it has so much personality, but it just guzzles gas!

I drive a super clean 1990 Cadillac Eldorado, 2 door, Black on Black Leather, limo tint, Rims from a 2001 Deville, 4.5L Northstar V8... When I pull up people think the Mafia has just showed up for a hit!

I got a great deal for this car last Nov for $1200!!! The guy was desperate for some cash so he took a loss on this which was his project car... I am making an average of 11 miles to the gallon and I am quickly approaching the point where I will have spent more on the Gas that I have put in the car than for the car itself.
 
Taylor
IF we were talking about drug addiction...

We wouldn't think it wise to feed the monster
by supplying more heroin to the junkie.
The answer is to clean the junkie up.

Petrol *was* cheap and the technology simple
but that was 100 years ago.
(imo) We should have started transitioning off oil waaaaay back in the 1970's
when OPEC first started telling us "who's wearing the pants".

but that's not happening... what I hear is going on is that
the idea is to use up the worlds supply vs our own *first*
Since many nations don't actually have the ability to make the technological leap
into something else above a internal combustion engine and base an economy upon it.
It's just another way to maintain "global dominance" that our leaders insist upon.

Once you believe that: "If you don't exploit it first ... someone else will",
there really isn't much of a choice in the matter... get everyone to buy a SUV
and encourage the entire population to take long drives to and from work every day.
(too bad about that global warming thing ... right?)
 
Last edited:
$ 4.05 for reg.

If it wasn't for the fact I ride a motorcycle almost exclusively (76,000 miles on a brand new machine over 7 years) I couldn't afford my Herps anymore.

I just read today that the Feds have a major investigation ongoing into whether or not there is some kind of price fixing going on. It was some shady reading but if it turns out some these shady speculators are involved maybe the prices will go back down one day....and then again I might hit the lotto
 
Jeweledchameleons said:
Taylor
IF we were talking about drug addiction...

We wouldn't think it wise to feed the monster
by supplying more heroin to the junkie.
The answer is to clean the junkie up.

Petrol *was* cheap and the technology simple
but that was 100 years ago.
(imo) We should have started transitioning off oil waaaaay back in the 1970's
when OPEC first started telling us "who's wearing the pants".

but that's not happening... what I hear is going on is that
the idea is to use up the worlds supply vs our own *first*
Since many nations don't actually have the ability to make the technological leap
into something else above a internal combustion engine and base an economy upon it.
It's just another way to maintain "global dominance" that our leaders insist upon.

Once you believe that: "If you don't exploit it first ... someone else will",
there really isn't much of a choice in the matter... get everyone to buy a SUV
and encourage the entire population to take long drives to and from work every day.
(too bad about that global warming thing ... right?)
Click to expand...

I agree, we should have started transitioning off of oil back in the 70's (into something like water-based-power, as ethanol will never work long term, and there's already questions into how much emissions it puts out compared to gasoline), but as it sits today, we're going to kill our economy by not attempting to supplement our own oil supply. We can keep telling ourselves "let's carpool, let's ride a bus to work," but you know as well as I do that you're not gonna be the one sitting on the bus for the 2 hour ride before and after work LOL....

Fact of the matter is that high gas prices is using up the population's "extra money" instead of everyone buying that new car or that new TV, and it's not going to get better anytime soon until there's a new flow of oil and/or reduced gas prices to free up that money again that people want to spend. Wanna fix the economy? Lower gas prices, however you have to do it.

I agree it's not a bad idea to use up the other people's oil before we use our own, but that's not the logic that is being argued about drilling in Alaska. They added the polar bear to the protected or endangered list just a few weeks ago; you think they're gonna decide 30-50 (or whatever it is) years from now that since the world is running low on oil (not suggesting that it will, but if they were to decide that), that now it's ok to go drill, since we need it? Doubt that. Remember when we bought Alaska from Russia for like $.02 per acre? Then we danced around bragging about what a steal we got because of all the oil there? I don't think we bought it because of the polar bear population.

Don't get me started on the global warming thing LOL... What a crock.
 
Last edited:
in 10 years, I believe engineers and the introduction of new technology will create the sickest vehicles ever produced.

Our dependancy on oil is scary to be light about it.

every time i go to the pump, I feel like i'm in a zombie movie and there is no gasoline left, I'm paying like 495 a gallon!!

Research of photocells on solar panels, as well as developments in battery storage will allow roofs to be made of a lightweight durable solar panel made of things like abs plastcs

the development will much resemble computers

In the beginning, innefficient technology will have been the only technology available, but as more and more technologies are allowed to be worked with together and computer controlled, progression will come.

You will start to see multi powered vehicles in the next 5 years that run on solar, electric, and gasoline, and who knows what else

the systems will allow an integrated computer to mathematically determine the cars most efficient energy usage for the given circumstance, eg waiting in traffic, cruisin on the freeway, constantly stopping and going.

aerodynamics are going to be taken to places they have never been before, and science will make each previous generation look like the old ipod, I"m very excited for the automobile revolution that has started.

car companies can't even sell cars now, they are cranking 500 horsepower stock muscle, jesus christ!
 
Dankmeleon said:
in 10 years, I believe engineers and the introduction of new technology will create the sickest vehicles ever produced.

Our dependancy on oil is scary to be light about it.

every time i go to the pump, I feel like i'm in a zombie movie and there is no gasoline left, I'm paying like 495 a gallon!!

Research of photocells on solar panels, as well as developments in battery storage will allow roofs to be made of a lightweight durable solar panel made of things like abs plastcs

the development will much resemble computers

In the beginning, innefficient technology will have been the only technology available, but as more and more technologies are allowed to be worked with together and computer controlled, progression will come.

You will start to see multi powered vehicles in the next 5 years that run on solar, electric, and gasoline, and who knows what else

the systems will allow an integrated computer to mathematically determine the cars most efficient energy usage for the given circumstance, eg waiting in traffic, cruisin on the freeway, constantly stopping and going.

aerodynamics are going to be taken to places they have never been before, and science will make each previous generation look like the old ipod, I"m very excited for the automobile revolution that has started.

car companies can't even sell cars now, they are cranking 500 horsepower stock muscle, jesus christ!
Click to expand...

that's a good visual. I think i'll make a painting of it, if you don't mind :)

idk about this alternative power source thing.
I'm all for that, but i bet those oil companies will do something to put a halt to that kind of technology.
 
Hey Lynda!
I knew they sold a "Liter of Cola", never knew you could buy a "liter of Gas".;)

"I don't want a large Farva, I want a liter o' cola!"...LOL... anyone? anyone?
 
LOL... Lets try to stay on topic Meow...Brad might arrest us for Littering and... littering and ... littering and ...littering and... littering and...
 
$4.27 per gallon (over $75 dollars to fill up the tank twice a week)

Tayor I'm not trying to pick on you or anything
I'm just going to give some counterpoints in perspective
that I find many people (other than yourself) also having :)

I agree, we should have started transitioning off of oil back in the 70's (into something like water-based-power, as ethanol will never work long term, and there's already questions into how much emissions it puts out compared to gasoline),
Click to expand...
Yeah, it would have been *smart* to move off of petrol 30 years ago
The world would be a different place if we did but business isn't smart -it's selfserving.
Ethanol is really just a poor substitute as a fuel source.
Although, it's more carbon neutral (plants pull the carbon out of the air in order to create the energy molecules that eventually get converted *down* to ethanol) We're using it because it fits into our entrenched infrastructure.
We can't simply jump to anything else, it's too cost prohibited for one.
Not to mention that the people that could do something about it
derive their power from the stability of the current faulty system.
you can't expect anyone to do the right think when their paycheck is coming from doing the wrong thing.

but as it sits today, we're going to kill our economy by not attempting to supplement our own oil supply.
Click to expand...
This nation is pouring it's cash out into the middle east...
Economics 101 tells me that's dumb as hell for a nation
but it's wonderful if "you're" a multinational corporation.
Seems like our corp-governments "solution" is to invade (take the land)
and profit vs pay other people isn't looking like it's working out so well.

We can keep telling ourselves "let's carpool, let's ride a bus to work," but you know as well as I do that you're not gonna be the one sitting on the bus for the 2 hour ride before and after work LOL....
Click to expand...
Well, most of our cities were designed to depend upon private transportation.
Just look at LA when all those freeways were constructed. The auto companies were making those "Sunday driving is great for the entire family" infomercials way back in the early 50's. Like I said, our society was based upon "required" consumption and hired people to influence and sell the bedroom community concepts to the city planners complete with futurearama displays of the future (GM sponsored rides @ disneyland).
it was all an investment to capture the marketplace... and it worked.

it's not going to get better anytime soon until there's a new flow of oil and/or reduced gas prices to free up that money again that people want to spend. Wanna fix the economy? Lower gas prices, however you have to do it.
Click to expand...

I disagree,
what you're suggesting is just giving the junkie cheaper heroin
so he doesn't have to steal as much or even function day to day.
It's a losing game -eventually the heroin is going to run out .
and we'll be in a worse position than we are in currently.

You're right about the disposable income going to gasoline... but it's more than that
It's dipping into the non-disposable income for many people
as well as higher prices in all sectors of the economy...
and it's increasing the downward spiral of the recession we're in.
(I'm reminded about that video tape where Osama Bin said the goal
is to destroy the american economy right now...)

I agree it's not a bad idea to use up the other people's oil before we use our own, but that's not the logic that is being argued about drilling in Alaska. ~SNIP~ Then we danced around bragging about what a steal we got because of all the oil there? I don't think we bought it because of the polar bear population.
Click to expand...
Re: Stewart's Icebox or Stewart's Folly
History is a bit different than what I get from your statement
This nation purchased the land up there for a number of reasons
polar bears and petrol were not one of them.... (US expansionism was).
The russians sold up that colony of there because they needed the cash to fight the Ottoman war.
At the time, Gasoline was still a waste product from kerosine production
it even dumped into rivers -just to get rid of it.
Finding petrol itself was usually seen as a failed water well and a bad omen
for any land owner that tried to drill for water for our then agro based society.

Only later was there any jumping around over the buy...
and that was because people found gold up there.
People only cared about drilling up there after the 70's oil crunch + pipeline.

regarding the polar bear and global warming.
I'll take the later first,
You can't take trillions of tons of carbon out of the ground
where it's been locked up nice and safe and blow it into the air without *something* happening.
Everyone would basically be on the same page here if I wasn't for Oil companies
spending tens of millions of bucks to write counter arguments.
It's like the whole "we're not sure smoking causes cancer"
thing for the cigarette companies in the late 80's... it's more profitable to argue... that's all.
Polar Bears: I believe that I *may* only have the right to destroy something that I can personally replace.
right now, NOBODY can make a polar bear or ecosystem even a fraction as simple as the snow covered tundra up there. Not only do we as a species have the simple right, but we really may be shooting ourselves in the head in the process buy causing the extinction of 25 species per day..

sorry for such a long post
 
Last edited:
Quick reply

I don't have much time right now, but wanted to shoot out a quickie reply:

Currently, ethanol requires more energy (whether electric, fuel etc) to make a gallon than a gallon is capable of putting out. Sure, that will change eventually if it continues to be pushed. Additionally, it requires massive amounts of corn to produce and always will (I don't remember the number, but it's an enormous amount of corn required to make a single gallon of ethanol). Food prices are skyrocketing in the past few years, and much of this is attributed to the use of corn in ethanol... All the while nobody is even using it yet! I don't assume that they expected it to become a nation run on ethanol; but it was an unstable idea from the get-go.

Not sure I understood the comment about the government "invading for oil," but that's certainly not correct if that's what you were suggesting. I think it would be great if Iraq gave us oil for all the work we've put in over there (not to mention lives), but it's not happening (yet...?). The idea was brought up, but hasn't materialized.

Comparing gasoline reliance to heroin addiction is not a fair comparison. Heroin is a problem that needs to be overcome for simple safety and life. It's different to tell 8 billion people that their #1 source of energy for transportation needs to be cut off. It simply won't happen. Being in Iraq doesn't provide us with oil that we wouldn't be getting anyways. We went in for other reasons and that's just common knowledge (even though outspoken democrats are trying to make it look like we're there for oil somehow, after many of them approved of us going in from the get-go).

I don't believe I suggested that we bought Alaska for the oil reserves (if Russia knew it was there, they likely wouldn't have sold it to us). But after we bought it, we found oil there, and we did dance around about the steal we got. Oil companies estimate that to drill for oil in Alaska (ANWR) would take about the land size of one international airport. The size of an airport in a state that is about 1/3 the size of the continental US. This area is at the North peak of Alaska, agianst the border of Canada (where, by the way, they're drilling for oil that they then mark up and sell to us). All it would take is a 6' fence around this "airport" to keep all wildlife out. It's not like the polar bears and elk are going to be walking along minding their own business and suddenly get sprayed in the face with hot oil.

As long as average global temperatures are falling (like they have been since 1998), it's going to be pretty tough for anyone to convince me that this earth is warming. Do I think the climate changes on earth in cycles? Sure. Do I think that certain areas warm while other areas cool? Sure. Do I think either is man's fault? Heck no LOL... They were warning us of an ice age in the 70's and 80's (which would be much more devastating than a few degrees of additional heat).

Your comments wouldn't be taken as "politically biased" if they weren't all straight out of the democrat talking points memos.

As Ann Coulter once said:
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' "
 
wow... sorry for it being so LONG....

Taylor,

Wow... I can see that we view things differently.

I'll try to keep things quick and to the point
so as not to drag things out with grey text.

Currently, ethanol requires more energy
Click to expand...
But no more than what it took to create the initial petrol deposits
What I mean by this is that oil's low price doesn't reflect the real costs of it's creation, use or effects. We're only counting the costs of petrol/gasoline production per se- not it's creation over millions of years or the costs imposed by it's use.
The conversion of sunlight into ethanol is pitiful in it's efficiency
sunlight > 1-5% plants > 2% yeast > 2% ethanol > car engine 20-30%
what is a better idea is electrical production:
sunlight > solar cell 15% [ > transmission 80%] > electric engine 50-99.99%
But that mean that the power companies would be cut out of the business.
(not like that's a bad idea... people producing their own power)

(Additionally, it requires massive amounts of corn to produce and always will (I don't remember the number, but it's an enormous amount of corn required ~ SNIP~ it was an unstable idea from the get-go.
Click to expand...
I Agree and got some supporting info on that (above).
But while I don't believe it's the correct thing to do
I can see why its politically correct and expedient to use grain for ethanol vs food.
To boil it down it's all about PROFIT and keeping the same old system
running as long as we can vs changing and modernizing

Not sure I understood the comment about the government "invading for oil," but that's certainly not correct if that's what you were suggesting. I think it would be great if Iraq gave us oil for all the work we've put in over there (not to mention lives), but it's not happening (yet...?). The idea was brought up, but hasn't materialized.
Click to expand...
The current Iraq invasion(s) are about oil -always have been.
The Elder Bush (91) war was also about oil as well.

Saddam's land grab for kuwait's oil fields would have allowed him to control 20+% of the worlds oil market. He could have used that to easily influence oil prices. Even then it was seen as as our clear national interests to NOT have that happen. I'm currently reading The commanders by B woodward.
It paints a solid image of the reasoning and personalities of the elder Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and the reasons behind Panama & the 91 war.
I don't view it as slanted or political given the personal interviews and quotes.
While there was a true fear of a 2nd invasion of Saudi Arabia
and what that would have done to us...
kuwait was more than enough to commit our government to a full scale WWII style deployment.
Comparing gasoline reliance to heroin addiction is not a fair comparison.
Heroin is a problem that needs to be overcome for simple safety and life.
Click to expand...
Oh, I believe it is.
The US economy relies upon oil to function... just like heroin addiction.
We'll fight and steal to get enough to feed our habit...
our nation gets sick if it can't get enough and feel great when it's cheap and available.
We got hooked because it was basically "free" and fun but now it's costing all of our cash.
when someone tells us that we're destroying our home/life via neglect
nobody wants to believe it because the thought it getting off the stuff is too frightening.... etc.

It's different to tell 8 billion people that their #1 source of energy for transportation needs to be cut off.
Click to expand...
Make that 3 billion or so... I think that our american society uses the lions share
it's only going to get prohibitally expensive with china and india's reformation. Demand will go sky high in the next decade.

It simply won't happen.
Click to expand...
People won't have a choice... reserves are finite.
reliance upon Petrol use will end... it may be a difficult time doing so, but it will end.
it'll be to our advantage to change now before while we still have the energy to do so
vs when we don't have a choice and our economy has ground to a halt.

Being in Iraq doesn't provide us with oil that we wouldn't be getting anyways. We went in for other reasons and that's just common knowledge
Click to expand...
um, what do you mean? Iraq is producing oil...
I honestly believe the bush guys thought it would have gone smoother ..
like a corporate takeover might.
While we all know the stated motives for the invasion didn't pan out to be true at all.
not because they were honestly mistaken in the whitehouse
but because of intentional deception.

(even though outspoken democrats are trying to make it look like we're there for oil somehow, after many of them approved of us going in from the get-go).
Click to expand...
Taylor, We are there for oil... from the get go.
all the rest is political bs intended to obfuscate the issue.

As long as average global temperatures are falling (like they have been since 1998), it's going to be pretty tough for anyone to convince me that this earth is warming.
Click to expand...
Well that's a very small sample of time
when you're dealing with something as bit as the planet earth.
the general pattern is clear for the last 100 years in accordance with our population explosion.
Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


Do I think the climate changes on earth in cycles? Sure. Do I think that certain areas warm while other areas cool? Sure. Do I think either is man's fault? Heck no LOL... They were warning us of an ice age in the 70's and 80's (which would be much more devastating than a few degrees of additional heat).
Click to expand...
Well I think that any change by something like 10 degrees F would have a serious impact.
I mean on a planetary level our troposphere is really constant and nice
ridding the edge of ice and liquid water. But it's not difficult to see that if we can create chemicals that can burn a hold in the ozone layer in a few decades then we can certainly have an effect on the planet in other ways.
On a planetary level a few degrees is NOTHING -but to us it famine.

Your comments wouldn't be taken as "politically biased" if they weren't all straight out of the democrat talking points memos.
Click to expand...
Hummm... I don't have anything like that in front of me.
I would like to see one, if you got it.
I'm trying to use reason and support it with links that aren't from any political site
to counter your opinions.
true there are things we agree upon...
but I can see that we differ on other things.
I am not copying this off of some brochure.

As Ann Coulter once said:
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' "
Click to expand...
Um I'm not sure what to make of this...
IF I was to take it seriously then I would have to reply that Ann isn't a religious authority
but a inflammatory political pundit for the extreme right.
I would personally like to please keep "God" and religious texts out of this if we could. :)
 
Taylor and Robin,

Regarding ethanol fuel, I have to agree with Tyler. According to Cornell University and UC Berkley studies (two of the most liberal colleges in the country might I add, Tyler), the production of ethanol fuel consumes more energy then the resulting fuel creates. The same goes for biodiesel. If the input is greater then the output, these products are simply continuing to add to the problem. A couple interesting points about ethanol productions (from http://www.gimme-five.com/2007/06/ethanol-is-bad-ethanol-from-corn-is-worse/ and supported by numerous other resources):
" * Ethanol has a negative energy balance. Ethanol from corn, switchgrass, and wood biomass requires 29%, 50%, and 57% more energy, respectively, to create the ethanol than the energy contained within the fuel.
* Because ethanol production requires a significant amount of energy, and most energy in the US is produced from coal, the small reduction in CO2 and other polluting emissions from burning ethanol versus gasoline will be more than offset by the power needed to produce the ethanol.
* Ethanol crops have a notoriously low energy yield per hectare. Thus, it requires a large amount of land to produce a meaningful amount of ethanol. Last year, 20% of the total corn crop was used to produce ethanol, and it offset only 1% of US oil use."


Regarding global warming, I have to agree with Rob. The term global warming is very misleading as it does not accurately account for the overall trend. In reality, it is really global climate change as it is dependent on where you are talking about. Some areas are experiencing warming and other areas are experiencing cooling. Taking a global tend (ex: overall change in ocean temperature) does not account for the complexity of the planet's ecosystem diversity or the changes occurring at local levels. When you look at overall averages across the planet, you miss a lot. For instance, with regard to ocean temperature change, while the overall temperature in the worlds oceans, on an average temperature per volume change, may have decreased over the last few years, the fact is that temperatures in the ocean in the tropics has increased leading to an incredible amount of coral reef damage, while ocean temperatures near the poles, which contains a significantly higher volume of water then the tropics, has dropped due to the rate of glacier melt-off resulting from overall increasing climatic weather changes. Neither of these trends is good yet when you average them and only think in terms of "global warming" it quite incorrectly seems to be an argument against global climate change.

While climate change over evolutionary time is not unnatural and it is absolutely to be expected that we should still be seeing climate change in the future, the rates that have been seen in our recent history far exceed any climate changes known based on historic scientific analysis. The reality is that our fuel use and emissions have drastically changed the natural composition of the environment and atmosphere and these changes have accelerated what very likely might be an otherwise natural cyclical event. While such cycles would naturally cause extinction events, our acceleration of the process is bound to compound the number of extinction events and further destabilize a naturally somewhat chaotic process, much to the demise of many species that would have otherwise been able to adapt without an issue. Add to this that our alterations that have led to this accelerated climate change rate may have profound effects on the extent of climate change at the end of the day and who knows what will happen that may not have occurred otherwise.

The religious notion that humans are entitled to rape the planet's natural resources all night long without care or consideration to how it will change the future health of the planet and it's ecosystems (or our own long term survival) is in my opinion hardly justifiable. I personally see this mentality to be a huge middle finger to whatever God anyone here may believe in. If whatever God anyone here believes in helps those who help themselves, who's going to help humanity who went ahead and f*ed itself upside down and backwards for their own convenience? Who's going to help humanity who went ahead and destroyed that which their God provided because we felt like we were God's only gift to Earth and that none of his other creations mattered? This mentality is an epitome of ignorance and hypocrisy, IMO.

I'm sure I just opened a flood gate with this post. I really have no beef with anyone in this thread and consider many of them very good friends. I simply disagree about some of the points mentioned and the information used to justify them.

Chris
 
Last edited:
hahaha how's "how much are you paying gas per gallon?" turn into this in-depth conversation? :D
no matter though.. it is very interesting to read.
 
Wait, who is Taylor?

I'm not gonna go through the list again and make it clearer, as I apparently don't have as much time to dig up links as others do, but there's just as much evidence and just as many links and bar charts to back up what I'm saying as there is for what you're saying. When we went into Iraq, the majority of the population agreed, republicans agreed, democrats agreed, CIA and intel all agreed (and that's the common knowledge part)... Then when things didn't turn out perfect, everyone starts bad-mouthing the white house and saying we're there for oil. I'm not one for conspiracy theories though, and I didn't bother looking at all your links (because I'm sure that's what I would regard them as, conspiracy theories) based on the left wing talking points being made. For the record, I do think we landed on the moon, we did not intentionally flood New Orleans, and I don't think that we blew up the World Trade Center. Seems like even those things are being argued by the same people saying there's man-made global warming going on.

Protecting Kuwait from Iraq is what this country does, preventing hostile takeovers. Just as if Venezuela invaded Columbia, we'd probably be right there too. Interesting how the Bush family has lost net worth since he was elected, yet he's benefitting from oil? Completely different story with Slick Willie. He came in office with pretty much nothing, and after his presidency he's a multi-millionare? But you said Bush is the one being paid off somehow?

I didn't expect many of you to see things my way in this... We are, afterall, in an online forum filled with animal lovers. That's ok. I just know what I think, and I see so many contradictions in "the other" mindset, so I had to say something. :)
 
SoCaliSon said:
Hey Lynda!
I knew they sold a "Liter of Cola", never knew you could buy a "liter of Gas".;)
Click to expand...
That's how they sell 'gas' (we call it petrol) in the metric world. By the litre...
In fact they sell everything here by the litre. Including handheld misting pumps (your 1 gallon spray is a 5 litre one over here)...

The next government regulated fuel price hike will take place here on Wednesday... will the madness never end?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jojackson
Price of crickets v's value/quantity/quality
Replies
8
Views
1K
jeanjacket812
jeanjacket812
Back
Top Bottom