PDA

View Full Version : Patriotic Answer to $4/Gallon Gas?



bamachem
07-15-2008, 08:45 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080715/cm_csm/ydillin

Patriotic answer to $4-a-gallon gas:

Drive less, and slow down

By John Dillin
Tue Jul 15, 4:00 AM ET



Washington - Three decades ago, during an earlier energy crisis, Ronald Reagan strode into an Atlanta hotel for a political meeting. As he approached the auditorium, someone asked:

"Governor Reagan, as a conservative, don't you think the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit imposed by the government to save gas is a violation of our freedom?"

In his amiable manner, Reagan chuckled quietly and, as I recall, he replied something like this:

"Well, that could be. But, speaking just personally, I think it's not a bad thing if we all slow down just a bit and enjoy the scenery a little more."

We could all use that kind of common sense today as gas rises past $4.

Many ideas are being put forth to ameliorate an energy-price crisis that threatens job security and economic growth in the United States.

Famous oilman T. Boone Pickens wants to build huge turbines all over the Midwest to harness wind energy.

Many members of Congress want to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) where – at today's prices – there is probably $1 trillion worth of oil waiting to be pumped.

In California, moves are afoot to make the state the renewable energy capital of the nation.

But – and there always seems to be a "but" – all of those ideas take time. Five years to build substantial wind farms. Ten years to tap Arctic oil.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal has published predictions that a barrel of oil could reach $200 as soon as the end of this year. If that happens, gasoline would hit $6 a gallon.

Woe is us.

Or maybe not.

Instead, the time may be ripe for individual citizen action – like the Minutemen of 1775. After all, isn't that how we got this great country started 233 years ago?

There are two steps we can take right away that could have greater impact than oil from the Arctic. They are so simple and straightforward that they are seldom mentioned. But Americans took these steps during World War II, and they worked.

First, drive slower.

Second, drive less.

The savings of gasoline from these two steps would be phenomenal. (More on that in a moment.)

During World War II, Congress and President Franklin Roosevelt mandated a nationwide 35 m.p.h. speed limit. At that time, 35 m.p.h. was the most efficient speed for autos. Even more important, it helped preserve automobile tires, which was crucial because Japan had cut off American access to natural rubber from Southeast Asia.

Today, 35 m.p.h. is no longer the best speed for autos with their sleek designs and advanced transmissions. Newer vehicles generally get the highest gas mileage somewhere between 45 and 55 m.p.h., says David L. Greene of the National Transportation Research Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Knoxville, Tenn.

The main force reducing mileage is air drag, says Dr. Greene. The faster you go, the greater the drag. Drag forces increase exponentially, so doubling your speed from 40 to 80 increases drag fourfold.

It makes a huge difference, for at 80 m.p.h. your car pushes against wind with the force of a hurricane.

Consumer Reports tested the effect of higher speeds on gas mileage. David Champion, director of auto testing, found that boosting the highway speed of a 2006 Toyota Camry cut gasoline mileage dramatically:

•55 m.p.h. – 40.3 miles per gallon

•65 m.p.h. – 34.9 miles per gallon

•75 m.p.h. – 29.8 miles per gallon

**(sidenote, in an SUV with a higher aerodynamic drag coefficient, you can expect to see even HIGHER percentage gains in MPG/efficiency by just slowing down!)**

On a hypothetical 1,900-mile round trip from New York City to Disney World in Florida, the Camry would use 47 gallons of gas at 55 m.p.h.. But at 75 m.p.h., it would burn nearly 64 gallons – a $70 difference.

Ideally, if we all bought 45 m.p.g. Toyota Prius hybrids, US gasoline use would drop in half, from 9.3 million barrels per day, to under 5 million barrels a day. Of course, that won't happen.

So a practical and immediate response would be not only to drive slower, but also drive less. Government made that happen in World War II by limiting most drivers to four gallons of gas per week.

That's unlikely now. But consider this: If everyone could reduce their driving by just 10 percent, the savings would total nearly 1 million barrels of gasoline every day.

How much is that? Well, it amounts to about half our daily oil imports from Saudi Arabia. It also would be equal to the highest expected production of oil if we drill in ANWR. And we can do it today.

Mr. Pickens notes that America will spend $10 trillion in the next 10 years on imported oil. US wealth is draining fast overseas.

But as individuals, we can turn this around. Today. Don't wait for Barack Obama, or John McCain, or some whiz kid in Silicon Valley to solve this problem. None of them can do it quick enough.

It's up to us. Save gas, and win this fight.

AxleIke
07-15-2008, 09:02 AM
Damn right.

GREAT article.

Only way gas is going down is if we drive it down. Basic economics. Demand drops, so do prices.

ecchamberlin
07-15-2008, 11:01 AM
That is a good article and there is no disputing the mpg gains of slowing down. But.. the economic results are disputable. Our demand has dropped slightly but cost still go up. That is because this is a global oil market and China's boom in automobile ownership is eating up all that we save.

bamachem
07-15-2008, 12:37 PM
for most people, their time is more valuable than the marginal amount that they save for single, long-distance trips.

however, for everyday, short-distance commutes, this would be feasable and should be common practice. after all, for a 30-minute commute, if you slow down by 20% (48MPH vs 60MPH), then your time only increases by 6-minutes, but your fuel consumption can drop by 15-25% depending on the vehicle that you drive.

even if our reduced consumption doesn't really bring the price down all that much, at least you will see a reduction in cost for your own commute, as well as it being the right thing to do since higher efficiencies equals less emissions per mile.

oly884
07-15-2008, 12:43 PM
That is a good article and there is no disputing the mpg gains of slowing down. But.. the economic results are disputable. Our demand has dropped slightly but cost still go up. That is because this is a global oil market and China's boom in automobile ownership is eating up all that we save.


DING DING DING

We (the USA) can use less, which will lower the cost for China, India, etc to consume more.

Bob98SR5
07-15-2008, 01:10 PM
ok im going to try this starting next week. im going to drive 65mph on a 28 mile stretch of freeway i take everyday both ways. then the following week, 75pmh



NOT!

Cheese
07-15-2008, 02:59 PM
Good read.

Are gas prices really determined by supply and demand? I understand economics, and I do not understand all the wrinkles with futures, etc. but it seems to me that this is not true.

Decreasing fuel consumption, good. Is decreasing consumption the right route, I am trying to learn.

AxleIke
07-15-2008, 08:38 PM
Speculation causes prices to be higher than standard supply and demand, but gas has risen so drastically because there are more hands grabbing it up on the world scene.

To an extent, I believe that what is posted here is correct: decreasing our demand only leaves room for other to increase, and prices continue to rise.

I suppose what should be talked about is getting off of oil completely. Things aren't that bad yet.

I suppose for me it will remain: Drive less = less money out of pocket.

ecchamberlin
07-16-2008, 12:13 AM
I think it is a good idea but the title of the thread is the best reason so far, not the cost/ gallon.

The "Patriotic" value of reducing our dependance on the middle east countries is the real deal here.

I personally have no problem spending more for some alt fuels if it means that my money does not go to people that hate us, reguardless of what we do for them.

So I like the subject of this thread very much as it seems the definition of Patriotism is pretty out of wack among Americans lately.

hillbilly
07-16-2008, 07:21 AM
That article makes some great points. The cost of fuel has certainly slowed me down. Hell, I don't even watch my speedo anymore, I keep my eye on the tach. At 2K, I'm running 65mph flat (265/75s). I keep it around 1800rpm on the way to/from of work these days.

On a recent trip to camp (2.5 hour drive), I tried to hold 1900-2000rpm (60-65mph) as opposed to my more typical 75mph (~2500-2600rpm). I saved a smidge over 1/4 tank by doing so. Not trying to pulling some of the mountains at 75mph (and running 3500K in passing gear while doing so) certainly helped.

The other thing I've done (and partially the reason for my absence) is I recently picked up a 'new-to-me' toy, with hopes it will save a few dimes down the road. A slightly used 2008 KLR650 (http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/Detail.aspx?id=221) (Candy Lime Green), which should get around 50-55mpg if driven sensibly. Some say they get as much as 58mpg, but I'm not counting on that much. Its big enough to handle interstate speeds, yet nimble/light enough for some weekend fun.

I had been saving Christmas & B-day $$ for SA1911 for a couple years, but decided to make a dent in the cost of the KLR hoping it'll be a better return on investment. Driving just ~3500 miles a year will save ~$650 per year vs. the 4Runner at $4 gal. Should pay for itself in ~4 years. Quicker if I can get more miles per year or the cost per gallon continues to climb. Insurance is a wash at $75 a year (no collision). I looked at some smaller bikes, but the KLR provides some protection against rain/wind as compared to 400cc/250cc variations and it gets nearly the same MPG as the 400cc. Some of the newest fuel injected 250cc claim to 70mpg* (note the big asterisk), but the additional ~$2500+ of buying a new '09 off-set the fuel savings.

The way I figure it, I'd be giving my money to the oil company by continuing to DD the 4Runner, or I gamble and spend it on a bike with hopes of getting a return in a couple years. Worst case, I sell it if it doesn't work out. Bike prices are likely to increase/hold their value longer as demand increase.

RunnerUp
07-16-2008, 12:51 PM
just throwing this out there, but who in this group has thought that perhaps OPEC is waging an economic war on the US? the more they charge for oil, the richer they get and it causes damage to our economy.

now is the time to start drilling at home (short term) and investing heavily in alternative energy and infastructure for it (long term).

oly884
07-16-2008, 01:01 PM
The solution is far from easy and it does not come down to one thing.

First off, there's no switching in the snap of a finger, yes that means that we need to drill here (and it doesn't take that long to start obtaining oil/natural gas). This will buy us time in the oil market today. There is also coal to gas plants that WORK and we have plenty of coal. In this time, we need to build nuclear, solar, and wind power as much as we can. Utilize wind/solar on a more local level and use nuclear on a larger scale.

As for vehicles, research needs to go into biofuels (cellulosic, not starch based). As well as electric vehicles (already going, I know)

Does this mean the environment might suffer? To some extent, yes. However, what happens when our country goes into the ground and we can't afford to spend ANY money on the environment? Yup, that's right, it will probably get worse.

The simple fact of the matter is that the enviro's need to get along with every one and back off their pedistal that is driving this country into the ground and allow us to ease the economic pressure that is building so we can focus more time and money into CLEAN energy sources.

I think that there's enough people who have received a wake up call and realize that even IF we start drilling, we need to put pressure on getting alternative energy sources going.

Tanto
07-16-2008, 03:26 PM
I could be wrong, but I thought that the U.S. government posted speed limits were designed for the optimum fuel efficiency of the cars on the road (75mph on desert roads contributes to bamachem's discussion on the value of time over money on long-distance trips).

Just an interesting thought about posted speed signs. I know that I have vastly improved my mileage by keeping my RPM's as close to 2000 or below and avoiding abrupt accelerations.

EWAYota
07-17-2008, 05:47 PM
Word!

Public Xportation is your friend.


Exactly! I purchase a pass for my local transportation system for 35.00 a month. That gets me bus rides to work during the day and the night taxi service after work. I've cut down to driving my truck to work only on Sundays, unless my schedule requires me to drive.

Since gas hit 4.00 here (4.23 now), I've only put 20.00 of gas into my truck.

wifesaysimadumbass
08-17-2008, 08:03 PM
well now that we are just starting to see prices drop here on the west coast people are starting to say "wow it's getting cheaper." I personally think the oil companies are ratcheting up the price to see where the breaking point in the economy is. Then they can drop the price a little and we all think were getting a better deal when in fact we are just being trained to do what they want us to do for them which is call congress and bitch. they have us over a barrel so just get used to it and dont expect those dipshits in washington to help you considering they get a ton of money from the oil companies

Bob98SR5
08-18-2008, 12:12 AM
how bad is bad? here's a historic analysis by some economist. take it for what its worth:

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_adjusted_gasoline_price.jpg

The black line represents the AVERAGE price people paid for gas at that particular year across the nation. of course, gas is higher here in CA and HI (for example), and our prices are avg'd with everyone elses.

The red line represents what the black line's avg price would be if we factored in things like inflation. So that is why in 2008, the prices meet as we are comparing in 2008 dollars.

So for example 10 years ago in 1998, the price of gas adjusted in 2008 dollars is about $1.60. In 2008, we are paying $3.08. So comparatively speaking, we are paying $1.48 more than we did 10 years ago.

So some key take aways here:

1) in 1918, people were paying $3.51 per gallon. In 1981, people were paying in 3.17. Today, we are paying $3.08. So when you hear someone say we're paying the highest gas prices in US history, according to this guy, we are not.
2) Spike #1: In the early 30s, gas spiked upwards. Yup, WWII.
3) Spike #2: 1973 OPEC Oil embargo
4) Spike #3: 1979 Iran revolution and Iran/Iraq war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis). Read it, interesting parallel to what is happening today
5) Sharp decline thereafter: read the link above. Summary: overproduction and underconsumption
6) Spike #4 (past 6 yrs): World conflicts, rising demand/consumption from growing powers like China, India, etc., oil speculation, US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. For those of you who want to blame Republicans and Big Oil for the past 5-6 years of increasing gas prices, some reading will help you understand popular finger pointing vs what is actually happening in the world and how it affects gas prices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004_and_2005

And my favorite topic: the bashing of "Big Oil". Sheesh, let's get something straight here, folks..and there's so much written on it, I wish people would read a little more. Here's a link from factcheck.org that I find very well written about a recent Obama ad accusing McCain of taking in $2M (actually $1.3M)...while conveniently leaving out the fact that Obama, the man of great principle and change, took in appromixately $400k. Obama-maniacs, please lobby him to return that money because its tainted Big Oil money!!! http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html

BUT!!! And here's the big butt according to this article:

"It bears repeating, as we've reminded readers before, that oil companies themselves don't make donations. It's illegal under federal law for corporations to donate directly to candidates and has been since 1918. The ad refers to donations from executives and employees of oil companies, given either directly or through company-sponsored political action committees, or PACs."

So its not the corporations like Exxon, BP, etc that are directly donating as many hysterical liberals would want you to believe, but the employees and PAC of these companies. So what's the big difference some will ask? They're donating from their own paychecks. So in comparison, the heavily Democratic school teacher's union *members* overwhelmingly donate to the Democratic party. So does that mean "Big School Teacher's Union" should be (erroneously) targeted for Republican smear ads? Or how about "Big Entertainment!" I'd love to roast those idiot Hollywood stars! Ah, no. It's stupid because its not factually correct.

One thing I will agree on is that for the benefit of commerce and our economy, gas prices will need to come down as a greater percentage of people's post-tax income is spent on gas. I have foregone all but 1 off roading trips this year because of gas prices. But I still need to commute to/from work. So what's the solution in my opinion? World stability. As you've seen, wars create instability. But then again, wars create stability too. If there is a destabilizing world leader out there that threatens world stability (Hitler, The Ayatolla, etc) through sabre rattling, wars, etc, the threat needs to be mitigated or taken out. Sure, the addage that "blood for oil" is somewhat true. As a nation, we rely on foreign oil. If we are cut off, as we did in the early 70s and again in the late 70s, we suffer from inflation, hyperinflation, etc. And then we're really screwed.

And if you haven't seen it, Youtube Paris Hilton's video on Energy Policy. The dumb bitch has got it right: interim domestic drilling and ramping up renewables and nuclear energy for the long term.

Bob

CJM
08-18-2008, 06:02 AM
As I see it the patriotic thing would be to go over there, beat them down and take the oil since they are obnoxious with their prices, but we cant do that.

1. We need to drill here, screw those who oppose it, they can walk.

2. We need to convert and build more cars that can run on diesel/bio diesel.

3. Driving slower is fine, but there should be a minimum limit of no more than 5mph under the posted limit. For some reason when people see 55mph, they drive EVEN SLOWER!

4. Alternative energy needs to be fully done up

5. We need to stop sending the oil we do produce out of country, this is a bad thing but apparently more profitable.

6. I find it funny that a truck made in 1970 with a large V8 and made totally out of metal got about 12mpg, dont you find it funny that today an 02 super duty ford gets the SAME exact thing??? The diesels only get maybe 5mpg better overall. Isnt that odd, that a car made 30+ years ago is just as efficent without all kinds of electronics and emmission control devices??

fustercluck
08-18-2008, 06:26 AM
I want hydrogen vehicles...












































...and some curly fries.

04 Rocko Taco
08-18-2008, 06:29 AM
mmmmmmm hydrogen.... (and curly fries)