Saving fuel? BAH!

[jfre81]

So it leads me to ask, were people just driving places for no reason? I mean, if traffic is reduced because of gas, then some people were probably just on the roads cruising around for no good reason. People that still MUST get somewhere are probably still on the roads.

Well....there are more people taking Metro now....there's car/vanpooling....and yeah, maybe even cutting out an extraneous trip or two. There are lots of reasons why traffic has eased some since gas got to $4.

[houstonmacbro]

Well....there are more people taking Metro now....there's car/vanpooling....and yeah, maybe even cutting out an extraneous trip or two. There are lots of reasons why traffic has eased some since gas got to $4.

I like it!

I am planning to visit mom tomorrow morning about 7a. I will see how traffic is on I45N around that time.

[TheNiche]

He's just the figurehead of the machinery you want to run things!

I can't speak to your perspective, because I honestly don't have a clue where you're coming from, but I vote for people, not for parties. And I do so with solid historical precedent.

Look at the last five Republican presidents we've had, all extremely different. Bush 2, Bush 1, Reagan, Ford, Nixon. Now look at the Democrats: Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman. Nobody ran their administration with the same philosophy as anybody else; all were very distinct individuals with very distinct advantages and disadvantages. And while I concur that Presidents do seem to assume a kind of limited figurehead status in the legislature if their party controls it, that is not really the contingency that defines a presidency. It comes down to the man.

[CDeb]

Hmmm, so $3.00 and $4.00 gasoline DOES have an effect on driving habits.

BTW, as I drove up I-45 tonight, the entire freeway was moving at 60 mph...all 4 lanes! First time I have ever seen that. It sped up a bit by FM 1960.

Good find, Red. I had Tim Lomax for a class at TAMU, he's a sharp dude.

I notice a few more people driving slower on US 290, but there are still a ton of speed demons.

[RedScare]

Good find, Red. I had Tim Lomax for a class at TAMU, he's a sharp dude.

I notice a few more people driving slower on US 290, but there are still a ton of speed demons.

The morning drive into town still has plenty of people in an awfully big hurry (going TO work? WTF?), but the 9 pm drive out of town has slowed up noticeably. However, no one tailgates anymore in either direction, even in Montgomery County.

It's getting rather pleasant out there.

EDIT: Oh, almost forgot. Today's fillup: 520.2 miles/25.938 gallons = 20.06 mpg

Edited June 20, 2008 by RedScare

[CDeb]

The fact that it's summer also helps ease some of the crowding on the freeways too. My drives have been relatively congestion-free the past two weeks. It makes the crush of late August very painful, though. I always call the first day of school "Start Waking Up Even Earlier Day."

Edited June 20, 2008 by CDeb

[BryanS]

Gas prices could fall to $2 if Congress acts, analysts say

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The price of retail gasoline would fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit speculation in energy markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday. Testifying to a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management said the price of crude oil would drop closer to its marginal cost of around $65 to $75 a barrel, about half the current $135. Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co., Edward Krapels of Energy Security Analysis and Roger Diwan of PFC Energy agreed with Masters' assessment at the hearing. Other witnesses say speculators aren't a major factor in oil prices, however.

Link

Hmmm... Is there still a reason not to limit commodity trading to actual producers and consumers? Sure does seem all these paper middle men, who can never and will never take actual receipt of the underlying commodity... have been making out like bandits... while the rest of us pay dearly. Do this in gold and silver all you want. You can't eat those medals, nor can you melt them down and put them in your gas tank, limiting the harm to the general public.

[sarahiki]

Any comments on this Friedman piece?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/...a3e&ei=5124

Here's the beginning:

Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was

[westguy76]

I went to the gas pumps yesterday with a shiny new 22' bay boat. It has a 90 gallon tank. We put in $150. $100 in the truck to haul it to the bay.

We were out 3 hours on the water and the guage didn't hardly move though. It was a beautiful day of consumerism. I waved at all the people blowing money at the Kemah boardwalk as we coasted under the bridge.

Edited June 23, 2008 by westguy76

[CDeb]

I say Amen, Mr. Friedman.

I say "You're all wet," Mr. Friedman.

He completely ignores this paragraph from The President's speach:

In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We've mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We've raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.

Which essentially undercuts the entire premise of Mr. Friedman's article. The President is not saying that we need to get "more addicted to oil." He's saying that attempting to quit it cold turkey is having disastrous affects for people who cannot afford the cost and that we need to ease the transition.

Also, Mr. Friedman, wind and solar are used almost exclusively for our electrical grid, which is powered by relatively little foreign oil (about 7% of US households use oil for heating and only 1.5% of our electrical generation is petroleum based). So, while your take on the President's stewardship of that bill may be accurate, it is nearly irrelevant in regards to "oil addiction." His fetish is to blame failures of these measure on Repulicans, forgetting that they control neither house of Congress.

Edited June 23, 2008 by CDeb

[sarahiki]

I say "You're all wet," Mr. Friedman.

He completely ignores this paragraph from The President's speach:

In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We've mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We've raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.

Which essentially undercuts the entire premise of Mr. Friedman's article. The President is not saying that we need to get "more addicted to oil." He's saying that attempting to quit it cold turkey is having disastrous affects for people who cannot afford the cost and that we need to ease the transition.

Also, Mr. Friedman, wind and solar are used almost exclusively for our electrical grid, which is powered by relatively little foreign oil (about 7% of US households use oil for heating and only 1.5% of our electrical generation is petroleum based). So, while your take on the President's stewardship of that bill may be accurate, it is nearly irrelevant in regards to "oil addiction." His fetish is to blame failures of these measure on Repulicans, forgetting that they control neither house of Congress.

It's not what you say, it's what you do. How ambitious are those fuel efficiency standards, really? And so on.

[RedScare]

I say "You're all wet," Mr. Friedman.

He completely ignores this paragraph from The President's speach:

In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We've mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We've raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.

Which essentially undercuts the entire premise of Mr. Friedman's article. The President is not saying that we need to get "more addicted to oil." He's saying that attempting to quit it cold turkey is having disastrous affects for people who cannot afford the cost and that we need to ease the transition.

Also, Mr. Friedman, wind and solar are used almost exclusively for our electrical grid, which is powered by relatively little foreign oil (about 7% of US households use oil for heating and only 1.5% of our electrical generation is petroleum based). So, while your take on the President's stewardship of that bill may be accurate, it is nearly irrelevant in regards to "oil addiction." His fetish is to blame failures of these measure on Repulicans, forgetting that they control neither house of Congress.

I gotta go with Friedman on this one, CD. Bush's research grants for alternative technologies are a pittance, and his tax credits for wind and solar energy are expiring just as many projects are set to start up. An incentive with an expiration date does no good for large projects that take a while to go through the financing, permitting and construction process. And, if we are serious about renewables, why have an expiration date at all? We need a permanent incentive to adopt oil saving technologies.

I saw a statistic this weekend that every increase in the US automobile fleet average of 1 mpg saves 350,000 barrels of oil per day. Think about that. If we increase US vehicle efficiency by just 3 mpg, we would save the equivalent of the entire ANWR predicted daily oil production. In May, $4 gasoline caused a 40% decline in large SUV sales, simultaneous with a 30% increase in fuel efficient auto sales. This would not occur with $2 gasoline.

Most importantly, for a president who has staked his entire presidency on fighting terror, how does increasing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil jive with US oil consumption as a national security issue?

[memebag]

I just read that McCain wants to offer $300 million to anyone who can develop a battery that costs 30% of current batteries, and have "the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

Is he on crack? Battery technology is big league R&D. This isn't something that's going to come out of some mad inventor's garage, and even if it could, it would make a hell of a lot more than $300 million.

[ricco67]

I just read that McCain wants to offer $300 million to anyone who can develop a battery that costs 30% of current batteries, and have "the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

Is he on crack? Battery technology is big league R&D. This isn't something that's going to come out of some mad inventor's garage, and even if it could, it would make a hell of a lot more than $300 million.

You're right,it might not come from Joe's garage, but it would go a long way to defray the costs of developing a battery, though. THAT would help the bottom line.

[CDeb]

I gotta go with Friedman on this one, CD. Bush's research grants for alternative technologies are a pittance, and his tax credits for wind and solar energy are expiring just as many projects are set to start up. An incentive with an expiration date does no good for large projects that take a while to go through the financing, permitting and construction process. And, if we are serious about renewables, why have an expiration date at all? We need a permanent incentive to adopt oil saving technologies.

I saw a statistic this weekend that every increase in the US automobile fleet average of 1 mpg saves 350,000 barrels of oil per day. Think about that. If we increase US vehicle efficiency by just 3 mpg, we would save the equivalent of the entire ANWR predicted daily oil production. In May, $4 gasoline caused a 40% decline in large SUV sales, simultaneous with a 30% increase in fuel efficient auto sales. This would not occur with $2 gasoline.

Most importantly, for a president who has staked his entire presidency on fighting terror, how does increasing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil jive with US oil consumption as a national security issue?

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here on its face, Red, just your conclusions. Sure, we ought to continue tax credits for wind and solar energy. However, my point is that those will do very, very little to reduce oil dependence since a tiny fraction of US electrical generation is fueled by petroleum. Friedman's point is quite the opposite.

Regarding MPG, the President did sign into law a 40% increase in the CAFE standards a few months ago. Yeah, these will replace ANWR production, but wouldn't it be nice to have both right about now? Critics always said it'll take 8 years for that oil to start being produced, so why bother. Well, we've been debating ANWR since 1999. Sure would be nice to have some of that oil on the market right now. There is absolutely NO good reason to not be drilling there.

While the market effects you have noted would not occur with $2 gasoline, is it worth $4 gasoline to have them occur given the impact on those who can't afford fuel efficient technologies and those that are struggling to deal with the rampant inflation it has caused?

And how does drilling for more of our reserves here increase our dependence on Middle Eastern oil? The President's vision is to greatly reduce our oil consumption in the long run while increasing domestic production in the short term to ease the transition. For all his faults in other areas, I believe he's got the winning strategy in this one.

How ambitious are those fuel efficiency standards, really? And so on.

Ambition is great. But at some point it has to intersect with feasibility. Europe is finding that out the hard way in attempting (spectacularly unsuccessfully) to reduce emissions.

Edited June 24, 2008 by CDeb

[RedScare]

Yeah, these will replace ANWR production, but wouldn't it be nice to have both right about now?

Well, frankly, no. SUV and truck sales did not decline until it hurt. Human nature says that as soon as gas drops back, even to $3.50, those sales, as well as unnecessary gas usage will jump right back up. ANWR production will only go to China and India anyway. If we drop our imports 1 million bpd, the imports will simply go to those countries, causing world oil consumption to rise. We may as well leave the oil in the ground as a savings account for when supplies drop. At that point, the government can allow drilling on the condition that the oil only be used in the US. That may not be a free market approach, but with 80% of the world's oil controlled by governments, oil production is not a free market. We only screw ourselves if we play like it is one.

If you listen to statements made by oil people, including our own Mark Barnes, you'll find that there are not enough rigs and equipment and pipe to drill these areas anyway. Offshore drilling requires prodigious amounts of pipe, pipe that is currently in drastically short supply. All of our rigs are in use, with waiting lists for others to get them. And, much of the restricted offshore sites are not oil producers anyway. It is a political game being played.

I realize that I am proposing a 'tough love' approach to this situation, but history and economics supports me. I lived through the 73-74 gas crisis, the 79-80 gas crisis, and now this one. There is no reasonable argument that Americans will not act the same way again.

[CDeb]

Well, frankly, no. SUV and truck sales did not decline until it hurt. Human nature says that as soon as gas drops back, even to $3.50, those sales, as well as unnecessary gas usage will jump right back up. ANWR production will only go to China and India anyway. If we drop our imports 1 million bpd, the imports will simply go to those countries, causing world oil consumption to rise. We may as well leave the oil in the ground as a savings account for when supplies drop. At that point, the government can allow drilling on the condition that the oil only be used in the US. That may not be a free market approach, but with 80% of the world's oil controlled by governments, oil production is not a free market. We only screw ourselves if we play like it is one.

It's an idea that has merit, but what happens when our alternatives technologies break through (as advocates insist will happen)? That oil becomes nearly worthless. How much money will we have sent to terrorists and how much economic pain will we have endured in the meantime?

If you listen to statements made by oil people, including our own Mark Barnes, you'll find that there are not enough rigs and equipment and pipe to drill these areas anyway. Offshore drilling requires prodigious amounts of pipe, pipe that is currently in drastically short supply. All of our rigs are in use, with waiting lists for others to get them.

I'm sure we didn't have the capacity to produce a whole lot of tanks and warplanes on December 6, 1941, either. Shifting national priorities can change that. And given how much we're moaning in other threads about the economy and people out of work, spooling up the domestic oil industry would be a phenominal job creator.

And, much of the restricted offshore sites are not oil producers anyway.

Lots of them are, and the rest are huge natural gas producers, which you will also notice, is pretty darn costly right now, too. And let's not even start on oil shales.

[musicman]

Shifting national priorities can change that. And given how much we're moaning in other threads about the economy and people out of work, spooling up the domestic oil industry would be a phenominal job creator.

my parents have some property in east texas and were contacted last week about drilling for oil on their property. so it looks hunting for oil domestically is on the rise.

[memebag]

I got a Valero credit card last week, so instead of saving fuel, I'm saving money on fuel. There's really no way to reduce the amount of driving I do. There's no mass transit between work and home, and no way to get my daughter to and from school other than driving. I wonder what it takes to set up a jitney?

I'm excited by an 8 cent discount on gas, which probably signals a new low in my life.

[musicman]

I'm excited by an 8 cent discount on gas, which probably signals a new low in my life.

while you're there you might as well start buying lottery tickets too.

[RedScare]

I'm not sure how ANWR and the two coasts will help when the oil companies won't even drill the leases they already have.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/econo...dex.htm?cnn=yes

Of the 90 million acres leased in the Gulf, 70 million are not being produced. The restricted areas are red herrings.

BTW, this statement made me laugh....

what happens when our alternatives technologies break through (as advocates insist will happen)? That oil becomes nearly worthless.

[CDeb]

Of the 90 million acres leased in the Gulf, 70 million are not being produced. The restricted areas are red herrings.

And it is all in very deep water, which takes years and years to develop. It's not like the oil companies "won't" drill in those areas, it's that it's taking them a very long time to figure out how to do it. The assertions made in that article are misleading.

The resrticted areas are much easier to reach and have the capability to be produced much sooner.

And I'm glad I could make you laugh, Red.

[sevfiv]

House Democrats failed Tuesday to resurrect a bill to punish price gouging at the gas pump, while maneuvering to block Republican attempts to expand offshore drilling, an idea gaining in popularity amid $4-a-gallon gas prices.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=91862637

[sevfiv]

But, if you're in the L.A. area, the Honda FCX Clarity will be available:

First seen at the 2005 Tokyo Motor Show, Honda plans to begin leasing the FCX for $600 a month, and not just to carefully selected corporate fleets, but to everyday consumers. The costly experiment is also a risky one, exposing the Clarity to all the daily challenges faced by your typical motorist, from bad weather to fussy infants.

"The FCX Clarity is a shining symbol of the progress we've made with fuel cell vehicles and of our belief in the promise of this technology," proclaims American Honda president and CEO Tetsuo Iwamura. "Step by step, with continuous effort, commitment and focus, we are working to overcome obstacles to the mass-market potential of zero-emissions hydrogen fuel-cell automobiles."

[...]

Though final details haven't been released, the basics are simple: customers will pay $600 a month, over the course of three-year leases, a figure including both maintenance and insurance.

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/cont...8049_835273.htm

[CDeb]

Just an update to let you guys and gals know just how much of a dork I am...

I've kept track of my fuel mileage and spending since April 30. I've compared the cost of each fill-up to how much it would have cost had I been getting my old gas mileage that I was regularly getting. Since April 30, total savings has been $82.31.

[houstonmacbro]

$143 and stock market failing.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25400811

This is shaping up to be fun. How high can it (oil) go and how low can it (the Dow) fall.

[Subdude]

Holy cats! Vehicle miles driven plunge to levels not seen since 2005!

[houstonmacbro]

And that is a bad thing how?

The only problem is when you have to drive someplace (like to work), but I am kinda glad there are less people on the roads.

[BryanS]

And that is a bad thing how?

The only problem is when you have to drive someplace (like to work), but I am kinda glad there are less people on the roads.

I think the point of the chart was to show that people are still driving... like crazy...

[houstonmacbro]

I think the point of the chart was to show that people are still driving... like crazy...

Gotcha.