Hybrid cars no longer desired by US buyers.

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Roger Blake > wrote:
>>On 2009-01-03, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>>> That's not a bad idea in the short term, but what do we do when THOSE
>>> run out?

I have worked in the oil industry for a lot of years. The reports, data,
show that
the "low hanging fruit" is pretty much gone, and that the world demand has
about equaled the ability of the production industry.

Yes, some more fields will certainly be found, but nothing like what we had
in
the golden years of America's economy.

I think we are wise to think about conserving petroleum and looking to more
renewable sources to fuel our transportation needs.

It will be, certainly, argued both ways, as is global warming. (And I
believe in
that too)

Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2009-01-03, Don Stauffer > wrote:
>> I personally would support a Federal gas tax whose proceeds all go to R
>> & D of alternate fuels.
>
> We don't need "alternate fuels." What we need to do is to tap our own
> vast reserves of existing fuels.
>

No, we need to relegate burning gasoline to the 20th century.

I'm no greenie - my winter car is a 10mpg truck and my summer car is a
nitrous sniffing Trans Am, but IMO, we can do better and cleaner than
gasoline.

Ray

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-01-04, HLS > wrote:
>> It will be, certainly, argued both ways, as is global warming. (And I
>> believe in
>> that too)
>
> Some people believe in astrology and flying saucers too. It's your
> right to believe anything you want. Just don't try to force me to
> change *my* lifestyle based on *your* beliefs.
>

I havent said anything about your lifestyle... You can believe in astrology
and flying saucers if you like.

I prefer more defensible data.

Roger Blake wrote:
Just don't try to force me to
> change *my* lifestyle based on *your* beliefs.
>

Why not? If your lifestyle needs to be changed to accommodate a tax on energy
(or a tax on anything else) - that is your tough luck. You apparently already
are well aware of this which is why you are attempting to get others to believe
the things you believe.
I would be curious to know where you think all these 100's of billions of
dollars the Bush administration is handing out to bankers in the last months he
is in office is going to come from. If not taxes that you will pay then where
will it come from?

-jim

On Jan 3, 7:14*am, Roger Blake > wrote:
> On 2009-01-03, Don Stauffer > wrote:
>
> > I personally would support a Federal gas tax whose proceeds all go to R
> > & D of alternate fuels.
>
> We don't need "alternate fuels." What we need to do is to tap our own
> vast reserves of existing fuels.

This is a commonly held belief that is short-sighted and naive.
We will run out of oil. Maybe not in 10 years but it is surely a
finite resource.
We have vast reserves of natural gas, which is cheaper than gasoline
by half. Why dont we run our cars on that until we figure out a way to
power our cars with wind, solar etc. Even a backward country like Iran
is years ahead of us on that, which is both sad and embarrassing.
Should we drill more here? Maybe. But in the grand scheme of things it
will only forestall the inevitable.
Ben
'Flame suit on'

On 2009-01-05, ben91932 > wrote:
> On Jan 3, 7:14*am, Roger Blake > wrote:
>> On 2009-01-03, Don Stauffer > wrote:
>>
>> > I personally would support a Federal gas tax whose proceeds all go to R
>> > & D of alternate fuels.
>>
>> We don't need "alternate fuels." What we need to do is to tap our own
>> vast reserves of existing fuels.

> This is a commonly held belief that is short-sighted and naive.
> We will run out of oil. Maybe not in 10 years but it is surely a
> finite resource.
> We have vast reserves of natural gas, which is cheaper than gasoline
> by half. Why dont we run our cars on that until we figure out a way to
> power our cars with wind, solar etc.

Because it won't be cheaper if cars were run on it. Natural gas has a
storage issue with regards to the tanks required to store it and the
pressures needed to get a sufficent amount in a reasonable amount of
space. This then leads to fueling issues. Yes, it's been done, but it's
not something that is likely to go over well with the moron majority out
there.

There is a reason why gasoline is on top. There simply isn't anything
better out there all things considered, well at least that we have
access to. For all I know the military has a zero point energy device

The easiest way at present to get wind, nuke, and solar to power cars is
to use that energy to produce a liquid fuel. Something like the
processes that turn organic waste into oil or to manufacture ethanol. In
essence a liquid battery.

> Even a backward country like Iran
> is years ahead of us on that, which is both sad and embarrassing.
> Should we drill more here? Maybe. But in the grand scheme of things it
> will only forestall the inevitable.

Iran isn't a backward country by nature, it was turned into one. It's a
country that has been surpressed due to a long history of outside
interference and puppet rulership, interference mainly from the US
federal government.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-01-05, ben91932 > wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 7:14 am, Roger Blake > wrote:

>> We have vast reserves of natural gas, which is cheaper than gasoline
>> by half. Why dont we run our cars on that until we figure out a way to
>> power our cars with wind, solar etc.
>
> Because it won't be cheaper if cars were run on it. Natural gas has a
> storage issue with regards to the tanks required to store it and the
> pressures needed to get a sufficent amount in a reasonable amount of
> space. This then leads to fueling issues. Yes, it's been done, but it's
> not something that is likely to go over well with the moron majority out
> there.

Gasoline has been a traditionally cheap and effective fuel. Natural gas can
be used, certainly, but as you say with storage issues.

The Shell Fischer Tropsch process can take methane from natural gas and
convert it to liquid fuel. How cheap will it be ?? Oil companies never
work
for free, but maybe it will be a reasonable transition fuel until we can
find
something better.

ben91932 wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 7:14 am, Roger Blake > wrote:
> > On 2009-01-03, Don Stauffer > wrote:
> >
> > > I personally would support a Federal gas tax whose proceeds all go to R
> > > & D of alternate fuels.
> >
> > We don't need "alternate fuels." What we need to do is to tap our own
> > vast reserves of existing fuels.
>
> This is a commonly held belief that is short-sighted and naive.
> We will run out of oil. Maybe not in 10 years but it is surely a
> finite resource.

Well it is a certainty that the value of energy stocks in the ground will
increase at a rate that is greater than inflation. That means it is really
stupid to think it is imperative to pump every gallon out of the ground as
soon as possible. The only way to slow the rate that the cost of energy
rises is to conserve it. The fact is the oil companies and the governments
they support have colluded for a long time to ensure that the cost of oil is
as stable and reliable as possible. The cost to taxpayers and consumers to
try to maintain this stability has been enormous. A great deal of effort
has gone into doing things to avoid exactly what happened to energy prices
in the past year. Stable prices delude people into believing it will last
forever. There is nothing like truly free market price fluctuations to help
people understand the true value of commodities.

The tax on energy makes a lot of sense if you are capable of looking into
the future at all. Right now we act as if we are expecting that future
generations will be able to enjoy their "lifestyle" despite the fact that
the wasteful practices of past generations make energy cost much more than
it should be. Plus we are passing on to future generations the taxes we
should be paying now. In addition, in 20 years you will have a much smaller
labor pool to pay for a much larger pool of retirees. All of those facts
combined spell looming disaster. But hey, we wouldn't want to do anything to
disturb the "lifestyle" of the lemmings in their rush for the cliff.

-jim


> We have vast reserves of natural gas, which is cheaper than gasoline
> by half. Why dont we run our cars on that until we figure out a way to
> power our cars with wind, solar etc. Even a backward country like Iran
> is years ahead of us on that, which is both sad and embarrassing.
> Should we drill more here? Maybe. But in the grand scheme of things it
> will only forestall the inevitable.
> Ben
> 'Flame suit on'

HLS wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=250935
>>
>> Even if I wanted a Hybrid car, mainly I don't have the moola to buy
>> one.That's why I like my old wrecks.
>> cuhulin
>
> Of course, people have slowed in buying hybrids since November (as per
> the article).
>
> So many people fear for their jobs, and have lost money on their 401Ks,
> and stock
> portfolios,


.....fantastic deals abound on low-mileage used conventional cars and
manufacturers are deeply discounting new cars too, so the pay-back time
for going hybrid is now measured in decades.


> And, not only that...since the price of gasoline has fallen, the urgency
> to "invest" in
> a more economic vehicle is no longer a priority.
>
> Rest assured, the price of gasoline WILL go back up, sooner or later.

The good news is that there seems to be a rather permanent decrease in
consumption, and even when OPEC cuts production the price still falls
the next day. The spike last summer had some permanent effects: First,
it proved that most of the price run-up was due to futures speculation,
not actual supply/demand and the market crash proved that futures
speculation might not be so smart. Second, the consumer-end price spike
was so high that people have actually changed their habits. I doubt
we'll be seeing $4/gallon gas again for quite a MANY years. The market
just won't support it. I could be wrong, but that's my prediction. I'd
bet on prices hovering in the $2/gallon range during the high demand
months this summer.

HLS wrote:

>
> Yes, some more fields will certainly be found, but nothing like what we
> had in
> the golden years of America's economy.

Agreed
>
> I think we are wise to think about conserving petroleum and looking to more
> renewable sources to fuel our transportation needs.

Agreed.
>
> It will be, certainly, argued both ways, as is global warming. (And I
> believe in
> that too)

I certainly believe there is good evidence that we're increasing the
amount of carbon in the atmosphere. I'm not actually convinced that its
causing global warming, and I'm even less convinced that we should care
about warming per se. The earth has been one hell of a lot warmer in
the past. Its also been much colder, so who's to say if warming is good
or bad or indifferent in the long run. The system is obviously
reasonably stable, so the old 70s sci-fi horror of earth teetering on
some knife-edge between becoming another Venus or becoming another Mars
is just a bunch of bullspit. At least in the "short" run of a few
hundred million years ;-)

I'm more worried about the atmospheric carbon load causing other
effects, such as changing growth rates and patterns of everything from
bacteria to algae to coral polyps to trees and crops, and all the things
that depend on the them.