"Oil is consumed by some powerplants to generate electricity (the U.S. uses a lot of that)"

Mainly for peaker plants. I've done my part; there's a load-management switch on the side of my AC unit.

Deere - I'm not a hypocrite and sometimes encourage the price of oil skyrocket to $5 p/gallon to eliminate these SUVs and gas guzzlers because unlike yourself - I find it inefficient to drive these huge single passenger vehicles because of Napolean complex or a person chooses not to exercise so they are fat/overweight and can't properly fit into a normal car. However, I find it unfortunate this country choose to sleep in bed with the oil & Big 3 companies and ignored transportation in the major hubs (CA, DC, NY, GA, TX) so they could profit while the environment and cost of living suffered.

Steve - good point - our energy consumption is also increasing because of the explosion of population in the SW and FL - AC running 24/7 in a home built two years ago without solar panels is consuming tons of energy for one person.

As far as government controlling oil prices - it seems to me every time they've tried to control prices (e.g phone rates, cable TV etc.) the prices increase from what they were before!! Government isn't exactly known for it's business savy.

I think a programmable thermostat would be useful in that house with the AC running 24/7 and it costs all of $50.

Brian - that is all too logical.... Almost as logical as telling folks, if they lowered their cooling/heating temperature to 72/68 F - they would be comfortable vs. the maximum setting for either.

Wow, 72F cooling? I'm happy with 78!

I do have to wonder how many people who have programmable thermostats know how to program them...

Here is a site that has real time cost of energy. The prices almost change by the minute. Hope you find it interesting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

I've heard that during peak load events, the cost of electricity goes up quite a bit. The load management switch allows the electric company to shed some load during peak load events, reducing their costs and ultimately my costs (they're a cooperative, so any savings are passed on to the customer).

In addition to that, they'll send someone out (for free) to look at/troubleshoot my AC if it doesn't work.

Well, I am probably going to get yelled at but......

I think the cost of gas sucks. My wife and I have three cars, are you ready for this:
2001 Ford F 150 5.7L V8 (Uses Regular)
2005 Nissan Pathfinder V6 (Uses Regular)
1972 Buick GS Convert. V8 (Uses Super)

We drive gas guzzlers. I am an accountant, my jobsite is an office building. I do a lot of work restoring my old home, and need my truck. I often consider getting a bigger one. My wife "needed" an SUV (used to have a two door cougar) because of our child on the way.

I have no Napolean complex, I am a big guy. I could not fit in the cougar (I am 6'3" and a little chubby), I am not always comfortable in the SUV, but in my truck, I fit perfect.

I just do not think you can go around bashing everyone for the vehicle that they drive. A big vehicle was my choice, and I choose to pay the price of gas becuause I need to drive. That doesn't mean I have ot agree with the cost of gas. When the price creeps up, I do not drive my '72 as much. I made modifications to my truck so that it gets better gas mileage, about 19 city and 25 highway. Truck bed covers reduce how much gas you use by 1/5, cold air intakes can give you 5+ mpg more.

My wife takes the train 1 hour and 45 min each way into NYC and I drive her to the station and pick her up. We carpool.

Point is you CANNOT look at everyone who drives and SUV or a truck and say "what an a-hole, he is the reason I pay more for gas".

OHG:
The '72 sounds nice. The GS is somewhat of low key player of the GM muscle cars taking a back seat to the Chevelles and the GTOs. I like them just as much. 455? Auto or 4-sp?

This particular forum doesn't really care that it costs you an arm and leg tp get some enjoyment out of driving it with the top down. I'm jealous

Also - Thanks for keeping a piece of American history out of the crusher.

" I find it inefficient to drive these huge single
passenger vehicles because of Napolean complex or a person
chooses not to exercise so they are fat/overweight and
can't properly fit into a normal car. "

Roosevelt, you were on a roll til you made this statement.
Not all overweight people fit into the category in which
you've placed them.

Im 6'3'' and far from skinny I weigh about 270.I excersise daily at work.I do not have an office job I do Bull work and eat dirt doing it.The Young guys can not keep up with this fat guy.They have tried most last a day.We have 3 vehicals,

05 Buick Century high 20's hwy low 20's city.Wifes car and Sunday car.

02 Cavalier 34 hwy 28 city This fay guys car and I fit in it fine.

71 Chevy pickup Farm truck used for just that purpose to get me to and from the farms.10 mpg 12 if im lucky soon to be replaced with an S-10 or Ranger when I find a good used one.

How much room does a person need while driving?I have nothing against a person driving an SUV or a pickup if thats what they really want.As long as they are not griping about the gas prices.If they have to drive one for there business.Hauling or getting back to the job sites where a small car can not go.Then they can complain.But the parking lots Any Where USA are filled with Large Suv's and pickup trucks. Factory workers,School teachers,Office workers,Moms with 2 or 3 kids that think they need a huge Suv and use the kids as an excuse.They have no right to gripe about gas prices.I always had a mid size station wagon that would get mid 20's MPG when the 3 kids were home.

I find that what I like about my truck is no center console = more leg room. That is my biggest issue. That is what I do not like about the new F 150's.

Here is a pic of my car. I rebuilt it during college.
1972 Buick GS convert. 350 ram air auto. It has a newer 4 speed tranny.

That's a beauty, thanks for the picture. and with the 4-sp auto you are doing your part to save gas. LOL

What seems insane to me is that there are so many types of gasoline required in different parts of the country by the government. The oil companies have to supply multiple types of gasoline and that costs them money and drives up prices and causes shortages at times in certain parts of the country whenever certain refinery capacity is cut back for whatever reasons (an explosion or fire or whatever). I'm not defending oil companies, because their profits reach record levels each time gas goes higher in price. But, more standardization would help.

If my comments hurt - please disregard them..

I have a good friend who recently purchased a Suburban. The justification was they needed the room for the kids. I asked, why do the kids (who are small people) need that much room?

The response was, they sometimes choose not to sit next to each other. Can you imagine?

Regarding, large folks who justify an SUV. I simply ask the question, did they not drive prior to SUVs because of discomfort? Did they have to custom fit cars or simply purchased cargo vans? Can they ever fit into a taxi/cab or simply walk? And what car type do they rent at rental car agencies when traveling?

My point is, marketing has really made us all justify various purchases and attached some degree of rationale to it. If gas prices hit $5 p/gallon - I doubt 6'3 guy 250 in a Hummer won't find a car to accomodate his frame and empty wallet.

Did somebody here say they had a Suburban because they are a large person? I know 250 lb. plus people who fit just fine in mid size cars, like Taurus, Lumina, etc. that get 30 mpg. The Suburban itself it a lot larger, but how much bigger is the driver's compartment? Most of that extra size and weight is NOT simply to accomodate the driver.

Have you actually heard somebody personally use that excuse for owning a Suburban or did you just make it up to try to make a point. I've sure never heard anybody say that. I can't imagine a person who is so large that they need a lot of extra room even being able to step UP and get into a Suburban without a small step ladder.

Worm - I entirely agree with you as an SUV or low mileage vehicle is a choice not a requirement because of a large frame.

I would further ask drivers of these large vehicles do they always fly first class on an airline or simply withstand the discomfort of coach for x hours?

The people who buy the large vehical SUV's and full size pickups.Can use the because they need the room all they want.But the real reason is because of there huge Ego.Joe Blow has one and I have to get one that is one step better.Just like the fancy houses in the best part of town.They might be beutiful homes and well landscaped with a few Ego vehicals in the drive way.But a large percentage can not afford furniture to put in it or curtains for the windows.They do not worry about what others can not see.However they probably do have a Wide screen TV that set them back several thousands of dollars.So they can have the yearly Ego super bowl party!Does it get any more channels?No but it impresses some and is mandatory.Like a Cell phone.People are funny creatures.Whats $3 or $5 or even $10 per gallon for gas.If your willing to pay $60.00 a month for a cell phone to drive around saying.Can Ya here me now?

re: SUVs

Anybody remember '60s and 70's full size body on frame station wagons? Those two words have been the kiss of death in car sales for long time. A business associate is hanging on to the last of the big Chevy station wagons even with 200K miles on it. His daughter drives a Blazer which has at best half the useful space inside and gets no better mileage. I occasionally drive an SUV (full size - Cayenne S) as a loaner when my car is being maintained and I feel like its 9/8s scale or I'm 7/8s scale. To each his own, just don't complain about those 40 gal fillups. If gas prices continue to be high, a lot of the SUVs will continue to morph into tall car based vehicles that are station wagons in all but name. And although you bring hybrids out first in your early adopters vehicles like Accord and Prius, the real payoff in fuel savings is the big porkers such as the RX440H(?) or bigger yet. 20% improvement in a 15mpg SUV is worth a lot more than 20% in a 35mpg car.
I have arthritis in my hips and knees and most of the cars I'm attracted to are hard to get into. I'd like a smaller car, Acura TSX or AUDI A3 for example, but likely will wind up with a similar priced full size like a 300C or Charger for that reason. (Not that those cars are anything less than fun). Point is it isn't a voluntary choice and I suspect it isn't for a lot of other people either. Getting my 911 has become downright painful and awkward.... although its great once I'm there. And lets not talk fuel economy of that puppy either.

chuckR

If gas prices continue to be high, a lot of the SUVs will continue to morph into tall car based vehicles that are station wagons in all but name.

I think that's already happening. Both GM and Ford have reported declining sales of the super-sized SUVs. And a lot of the vehicles being introduced are either "cute-utes" (like the Hyundia Tucson/Kia Sportage and Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute) or quite station-wagon-like (the Chrysler Magnum, Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix, Mazda 5, etc.). I'm wondering if the interest in wagon-like vehicles signals a sea-change in automotive design, just as years ago cars' headlights were not faired in to fenders. Perhaps in several more years, cars with separate trunks will look distinctly dated.

IMO, it is our government (and ourselves) who are doing the raping.
We though we could go on forever, using the cheap oil and taking advantage of the third wold countries...
This has come to an end...
Twenty years ago we needed a definite and clear cut "energy policy".
A little was done, the unrealistic 27 mpg for cars law - which has been thoroughly skirted by the people due to the law being poorly written...
I'd say the European method is much better, with their high use of Diesels and more practical vehicles...

In fairness, the Europeans put up with more pollution than we did. And the great thirst for petroleum in this country began with the big migration to suburbia in the late 40s. Yes, energy-wise decisions should have been made much earlier, but there was less impetus for the U.S. to do that.

Eventually these things will come about.
When we are forced into it.

We are just now begining to opt for smaller and more
gasoline efficient cars due to the rising costs of fuel.
Change comes at a snail's pace. A shame, but that's the way it is.

Big migration to suburbia is not the problem - the lack of public transportation and the Big 3 continual effort to make the biggest vehicles on the road.

They had huge cars with flares and VW took away sales.
They had the 70s muscle cars and Datson/Toyota/Honda took away sales.
Now, we have huge trucks, SUVs and eventually during the next energy crisis - they will lose major sales to a new comer with diesel or alternative fuel.

We are too reactionary and brainwashed into our current thinking. I reference the Audi A2 accomodate an average human and avergaes 60+ mpg. We feel a Hummer H2 is necessary at 8 mpg for one person.

They had huge cars with flares and VW took away sales.
They had the 70s muscle cars and Datson/Toyota/Honda took away sales.
Now, we have huge trucks, SUVs and eventually during the next energy crisis - they will lose major sales to a new comer with diesel or alternative fuel.

In 1960, Volkswagen accounted for about 6% of the foreign-car market in the U.S. The Japanese weren't importing anything. That still means 90% of car owners were buying those huge cars with flares (?) -- or the upstart Corvair, Falcon/Comet, and Valiant/Dart that the Big 3 were selling. Foreign cars weren't exactly stealing the show.

In the 70s, the first "fuel crisis" fostered the growth of the Japanese brands at a time when the Plymouth Duster, considered a "compact," was about as long as the current Chevy Impala (now considered a "full-size" car). That growth in market share continued through the 80s with Detroit's lack of attention to quality.

The SUV craze is moderating as people realize gasoline isn't going to be $2/gallon anytime soon, that Suburbans and Excursions are expensive and not as safe to drive as previously thought, and as smaller vehicles offer similar levels of room and a better ride and handling.

You are right in that marketing has a lot to do with selling motor vehicles. It's one reason trucks are as popular as they are (nevermind certain legal loopholes which make them more attractive to purchase than cars). It's one reason people bought cars more frequently back when there were annual model changes. Unfortunately for most people (but fortunately for us "buy-and-hold" types, they get suckered into the marketing, which costs them a lot of money.

CAFE is one reason that trucks are popular.

File that one under "unintended consequences". Let's replace a 25 highway-mpg full-size station wagon with a 21 highway-mpg SUV.

Seeing that this thread is still alive and i didn't read
all of them. A barrel of oil is 33 U.S. gals. Can you get
46 gals of gas from it ?

the petroleum industry measures by the barrel, 42 gallons to a barrel. when moving product its in barrels no matter what the product. tonight iam shipping 15000 bbls of low sulfer diesel, later iam shipping 17300 bbls of no lead gasoline. its all bbls. and its all 42gal. to the bbl.

Thing is it is not messured at the well head that way for
pricing. It's 33 gals. Well, it is messuered that way in
Alberta's tar sands and well heads for export. How they package it for distibution after that is up to the refinery. They use the " 45" gal barrel because it is a standardized size for hand trucks and fork lifts.

CORRECTION. to my last post. " Thing is it is messured at
the well head that way for pricing. It's 33 gals a barrel "
Sorry about that.

I always thought it was 55 gal?The 42 gallon is the smaller barrel size.Were being ripped off worse then I thought.

a drum is 55 gal jd, a bbl of petroleum product is 42 gal. 33 gal? must be a canadian thing. but in this country, in the petroleum buisness its 42 gal per bbl. thats it.

So how many gallons of gas come from a 42 gal per bbl of oil?After refining that 42 gal of oil?

on average, j.d. about 19 to 20 gals of gas, the rest going to other distilates, jet fuel,fuel oil, diesel. etc keep in mind petroleum is used for much more than gasoline.but still that aprox half a bbl being used to make gasoline for vehicles. and you have to pay for equipment, and all the hard working guys like me. so at 2.50 a gal. its a bargain.

Are you kidding me? You claim our gas prices are a bargain yet the ones earning the money are the corporate CFO, CEO, COOs at Exxon, BP, etc.?

Don't be brainwash.

they could earn more, by charging 5.00 a gal. if i was a ceo i would.

I would agree with the hard working people like your self and the cost of equipment.Making gas prices a bargain.If the same were true for hard working American farmers and the equipment cost we have.Our markets are painfully low and controlled by the government.So I would be all for the same problem for the oil industry that we as farmers have.Our way of survival is to farm more land and good managment to have higher yields.More bushels per acre and rent the neighbors farm out from under him.So I personally would be all for the oil industry to just pump more barrels more oil fields.Perhaps Alaska would be there ticket to more money from more oil.But since the farmer gets the same market prices for his grain that he did in the 50's.Same should be true for the oil people.The raise comes in the form of farming more or pumping more oil.Whats good for one is good for the other.Our equipment cost are high also.It takes a million in machinery for a modest sized operation.Then about $8000.00 in material cost seed,fertiliser,herbicide,fuel cost per 80 acres of land.Maybe the government should control the oil prices?Perhaps they do but control it in the opposite direction?

Every time the oil industry sees an excuse to raise prices they do.They recently tried to cash in on the hurricanes?Farmers do not see a rise in markets when the weather goes bad.Examples hail,floods,early frosts and right now this year severe drought.Last year was a bumper crop prices are low.Corn made 200 bushel per acre.But is only worth $2.00 high market days.This years crop I dought will make 50 busel per acre.I dought corn will rise much over $2.25.You will see a jump in food prices im sure but we will not recieve it.It does not seem to work like this in the oil industry?Everyone involved gets to line there pockets.

Take the average gasoline company CEO's annual salary, divide it by the number of gallons of gasoline that company sells per year, and that's how much the CEO is costing you.

*Take the average gasoline company CEO's annual salary, divide it by the number of gallons of gasoline that company sells per year, and that's how much the CEO is costing you.*

Bet the company doesn't look at it that way with bill h's wages.

I still have yet to see concrete data that Alaska and other "oil reserves" in North America have as much oil as people are claiming. I would think if it requires simply buying/paying for the land than we would've done it already if profit was available.

Isn't there a side of caution like TX whereas you can spend more money on oil exploration vs. the output of oil? I don't have data to say we don't have an abundance of oil but also don't know anyone who has data to state there is an abundance of oil.

I think the exact opposite of you RooseveltL. You have yet to see concrete data about the oil reserves having as much as they say. I have yet to see concrete data that says we're running out. I remember reading back in the late 70's that oil wells were being drilled and capped for use later. It annoyed me at the time because the price of gas went from 33 cents to over a buck. I was wondering why it wasn't used to keep the price down. The assumption I make from that now is we'll use the oil from else where untill it becomes scarce...if it ever does. Then we'll still have ours to use or sell, whatever works out the best.

Remember the shortage in the 70's.If it was true wouldnt we have had a problem in the 80's 90's.We went back to large vehicals and raised the speed limit?Doesnt that say it was a scam in the 70's?Why should we believe it now?Remember I drive reasonable mpg vehicals.Im just asking not doughting.

it costs more now, due to higher cost to make, more regulation, and prob. some greed. but i dont think theres any shortage of oil, maybe a shortage to some extent of gasoline, due to gov. regulation and lack of refining capability. but if the goverment wanted to slow the use of gasoline, and force people into smaller gas saving vehicles, it would be real easy, just add taxes until it were 6.00 a gal, usage would drop by half overnight. i just dont see the big conspiracy, its just the normal cost increases that come from doing buisness. its like anything else, if it costs to much then dont buy it or dont buy as much. if you say you cant, well i dont believe you. i have cut my driving by over 2 3rds in the last 3 yrs. at this point in my life i use so little gas, i dont really care what it goes to.

*just add taxes until it were 6.00 a gal, usage would drop by half overnight.*

So would the economy. We'd get to see what it was like in the late 1920's again.

Just talked to a guy who spent 3 weeks touring europe. He was stationed in germany years ago. He mentioned people how in this country people talk about like we should do things like they do. He wasn't impressed. He said everyone there has a car just like they do here. Traffic is just as bad or worse. Made even worse than here because a lot of people have scooters. When traffic gets jammed up, people with scooters try to sneek between the cars so that space gets full too. He did say he rented something like a ford taurus that had a diesel engine and a manual transmission. He said it was ok. That will make earthworm happy anyway. He said you could take routes to miss the traffic, but if you wanted to actually see anything you had to go through it. He did say people there seemed to be more tolerent of traffic jams than here. No horns, no anger. Just another part of the day.

Gary - I believe everyone has an opinion of foreign countries as I would challenge the same fellow to spend three weeks touring the US. If you think about it we have open Interstates but outside of the major cities and a few landmarks it is dessert, mountains or farmland. I think the comparison if flawed as most of Europe is heavily populated, lacks the major highways subsystem (as they use trains successfully), and similar to SF or NYC - if you enter the city you are in congested traffic, with bike messengers zipping in and out of traffic.

Where was this guy from a farm or the Mid-West? He may have enjoyed his experience better via train (probably quicker and way cheaper).

Back to the topic at hand - I think the oil companies will eventually raise gas prices to $3 p/gallon as they are getting away with it! As long as the consumer is paying for it - why not keep increasing the price?

Why dont you believe people can not cut there fuel useage in half?Sure if there driving something that gets 15mpg they can get something that gets 30 mpg.But if they already get high milage how can they?Only go to work part time?Stay home and hunt wild animals rather then going to the grocery store?

We all do not have public transportation.Those buses and trains do not run out here.

We are raping ourselves, if anything.

We chase the buck too much rather than participate in politics.
We drive these huge wasteful trucks and SUVs rather than daring to think for ourselves. We have allowed the environmentalists to run amok, thus no Diesel in 6 states with unrealistic regulations.
Why no refineries ?, why have we allowed the Japanese to dominate so much of automobile market ?

A mess is what we have !

**Gary - I believe everyone has an opinion of foreign countries as I would challenge the same fellow to spend three weeks touring the US.**

RooseveltL, The guy is a semi truck driver. He makes his living 'touring the US'. He was also stationed in germany when in the military years ago. He knew where he wanted to go and what he wanted to see, and how to get around. I presume he had something else in mind other than the see 5 countries in 4 days tourist bus special.

He lives in Portland OR, a city of 500k plus. Probably 50% higher population than that if you want to consider the surrounding metro area. It's not LA or New York, but its not Bumphuk North Dakota either.

**I think the comparison if flawed as most of Europe is heavily populated, lacks the major highways subsystem (as they use trains successfully), and similar to SF or NYC - if you enter the city you are in congested traffic, with bike messengers zipping in and out of traffic. **

The heavily populated part of that sounds right. That's why imo comparing europe with here claiming some kind of superiority is not valid. Not sure about the comment about the road system. They had the autobon 30 years before there was the interstate system in the US. I'd be surprised if it were inferior because they use trains.

I don't think either society is superior to the other. They model one way and we model our life a different way. Even though a few US cities have attempted to model after EU cities.

The city centers in Europe are major train hubs and usually highways do not enter directly into the City Center.

In most US cities - highways are the major route and excluding the NE & Chicago (which can offload to public trans) - most US cities are plagued with severe traffic problems as there is no alternative.

Most EU cities - have very old small cars and limited pollution restrictions so they have poor air quality even though they have less cars.

Most EU highways - do NOT have the amount of traffic we do -as the number of cars encountered on the AutoStrade (Italy) or AutoBahn is VERY VERY low in comparison to any interstate in the US (80, 95, etc.)

NY state is probably larger than most EU countries so there is NO comparison - but EU cities are heavily populated (unlike our spread out nation) so Paris with its 2.1 million locally and 10 million in the surrounding far exceeds the most of our metropolitan areas (exclude NYC, DC+surroundings, Houston, CHI, LA).

We agree - there is NO comparison! I think as a nation we can regret that we didn't focus more resources on trains (criss-crossing the nation) instead of highways in the past 5 decades which might have reduced the number of cars on the road.